Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-04-28DRAFT 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 April 28, 2015 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None. Board Vacancies: One. Staff Attending: 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 201 Pearl Street Naama and Gil Menda, Owners Carey Building Renovations and Addition Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties Lake Street Park Project (at Fall Creek) Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Addisu Gebre, City Bridge Engineer 210 Hancock Street, Redevelopment of Entire Block Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Joe Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) Texas Roadhouse Retail Building/ Restaurant at 719 S. Meadow Street Paula Hubert, GreenbergFarrow; Parker Harrington, Texas Roadhouse DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and Relocated Drive-Through at 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Greg Hartz, President & CEO, Tompkins Trust Company State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site (Sketch Plan) Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Ronnie L. Macejewski, Campus Advantage Cornell Fine Arts Library Rand Hall Addition (Sketch Plan) Gilbert Delgado, University Architect, Cornell University; Kent Kleinman, Dean, College of Architecture, Art, & Planning, Cornell University Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas noted that the Marriott Hotel “Approval of Signage” resolution should be reviewed under the “Site Plan Review” agenda heading. It was also suggested that a discussion of two parcels up for auction along Fall Creek below Ithaca Falls be added under the “Old / New Business” agenda item. There were no objections. 2. Privilege of the Floor Bob Sherman, 401 Willow Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, calling it completely out-of-character with the rest of the neighborhood. He remarked there are very few block-long four-story buildings in Ithaca (and none of the buildings the applicant cited as design inspirations are in fact four-story buildings). He described it as a gigantic low-income housing project. Although he appreciates the façade modifications that were made to create the impression of separate smaller buildings, he said they do not alter the underlying size of the building. He said the project will also destroy the equity that surrounding property owners have built up in their homes. Sherman asked if the applicant’s traffic information has been verified by a third party; he said he cannot imagine that no impact would be anticipated from a decrease in neighborhood. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project and urged the Board to move it forward. Ashley Miller, Natural Areas Commission (NAC) member, spoke regarding the Lake Street DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 Park Project at Ithaca Falls Fall Creek. She noted that directly across the stream from the park are two parcels, the larger of which is steep and would likely not be developed. She said the NAC is concerned, however, that the smaller lot (on which sits a dilapidated house) could be developed under the City’s current plan to auction it to secure back taxes. Miller observed that the recent sustained surge in development in Ithaca should be more than enough to offset any possible revenue from this parcel. She declared that this lot’s highest and best use is as parkland, which she said would itself provide economic benefits to the City. Joe McMahon, Natural Areas Commission (NAC) Chair, also spoke regarding these two parcels on the south north side of Fall Creek currently being considered for sale by the City. He felt there was an incredible opportunity for the City to instead purchase both parcels, thereby improving the setting of Ithaca Falls. There will likely not be another opportunity for the City to acquire comparable property at the same cost, he said, and asked for the Planning Board’s support in communicating to Common Council that the two parcels should be removed from public auction. Blalock responded that the Planning Board just received a copy of an e-mail from Cornell Plantations Director of Natural Areas Todd Bittner regarding these two parcels and will discuss the subject later in the meeting. 3. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, 201 Pearl Street, Tax Parcel #66.-4-5, Gil & Naama Menda. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.298-acre (13,000 SF) parcel into two lots: Lot 57, measuring approximately 0.149 0.151 acres (6,500 SF) (6,600 SF) with 130 feet of street frontage on Worth St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing an existing single-family home; and Lot 58, measuring 0.149 0.147 acres (6,500 SF) (6,400 SF) with 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing a decommissioned swimming pool. The property is in the R-1b Zoning District, which has the following minimum area requirements: 6,000 SF lot size for one-family homes and 7,500 SF for other uses, 50 feet of street frontage for one-family homes and 60’ for other uses, 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. Applicants Naama and Gil Menda presented a brief overview of the proposed subdivision. Gil Menda noted the site used to be a double lot, when a previous owner combined it into one large lot to install a swimming pool (which is no longer functional). Mr. Menda and his wife would now like to build a house on that lot. Blalock disclosed that he owns a house within a block of the applicants’ property and also knows the applicants personally. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling: 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 #66.-4-5, by owners Gil and Naama Menda, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.298-acre (13,000 SF) parcel into two lots: Lot 57, measuring approximately 0.151 acres (6,600 SF) with 130 feet of street frontage on Worth St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing an existing single-family home; and Lot 58, measuring 0.147 acres (6,400 SF) with 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing a decommissioned swimming pool. The property is in the R-1b Zoning District, which has the following minimum area requirements: 6,000 SF lot size for one-family homes and 7,500 SF for other uses; 50 feet of street frontage for one-family homes and 60’ for other uses; 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 #66.-4-5, by owners Gil and Naama Menda. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Public Hearing On a motion by Randall, seconded by Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Nicholas remarked that the survey map needs to be updated with revised lot size information and a revised lot line location, because the first plat did not provide a sufficient setback to accommodate an existing garage on the southern proposed lot. She said the applicants submitted a hand-corrected plat earlier today sketching in the revised lot line. Jones-Rounds observed that the neighbor’s concerns about ground water run-off would be addressed if / when any construction actually takes place proposed house on the new lot is submitted for review. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #66.-4-5, by owners Gil and Naama Menda, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.298-acre (13,000 SF) parcel into two lots: •••:••• Lot 57, measuring approximately 0.151 acres (6,600 SF) with 130 feet of street frontage on Worth St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing an existing single-family home; and Lot 58, measuring approximately 0.147 acres (6,400 SF) with 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing a decommissioned swimming pool. The property is in the R-1b Zoning District, which has the following minimum area requirements: 6,000 SF lot size for one-family homes and 7,500 SF for other uses; 50 feet of street frontage for one-family homes and 60’ for other uses; 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 April 28, 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on April 28, 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, Lands of Gil & Naama Menda, City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, Tax Map No. 66.-4-5,” and hand corrected to include a 5’ setback for the existing garage, dated 10/22/14 and prepared by Regan Land Surveying; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision 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, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #66.-4-5, by owners Gil and Naama Menda, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.298-acre (13,000 SF) parcel into two lots: •••:••• Lot 57, measuring approximately 0.151 acres (6,600 SF) with 130 feet of street frontage on Worth St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing an existing single-family home; and Lot 58, measuring approximately 0.147 acres (6,400 SF) with 50 feet of street frontage on Pearl St. and containing a decommissioned swimming pool. The property is in the R-1b Zoning District, which has the following minimum area requirements: 6,000 SF lot size for one-family homes and 7,500 SF for other uses; 50 feet of street frontage for one-family homes and 60’ for other uses; 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 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 April 28, 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 April 28, 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 April 28, 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 hand-annotated plat entitled “Survey Map, Lands of Gil & Naama Menda, City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, Tax Map No. 66.-4-5,” and hand corrected to include a 5’ setback for the existing garage, dated 10/22/14 and submitted on 4/28/15, and prepared by Regan Land Surveying; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on April 28, 2015 make a Negative Declaration of environmental Significance for the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the R-1b 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 #66.-4-5, by owners, Gil and Naama Menda, 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, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One 4. Site Plan Review A. Carey Building Renovations & Addition, 314-320 E. State State / M.L.K., Jr. Boulevard, Carey Building Associates. Consideration of Project Changes, DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 Conditions, and Recommendation to the BZA. Due to unforeseen code compliance issues, the floor-to-floor height between the third and fourth floors must be increased ― resulting in building height of 82’ instead of originally approved 77’10”. The applicant must return to the BZA to request new variance in order to exceed the CBD-60 Zoning District’s maximum height restriction of 60 feet for the five-story addition. Although the applicant intends the final height not to exceed 82’, he requests an additional 1 foot of building height (83’) to accommodate any potential unforeseen future adjustments. Applicant Frost Travis briefly described the status of the proposed project and the recent changes that were made, as well as the status of the conditions set forth in the Board’s August 2015 25, 2014 approval of the project. The two issues discussed at the recent Project Review Committee meeting (i.e., the railing detail for the third floor balcony and the appearance of the west façade) have also been addressed. Regarding the west façade, Travis said gray stucco on the back portion of the building addition there has been replaced with tan stucco, better harmonizing with the color of the siding on the front portion of the building addition there. Travis explained that the height variance was requested as the result of an unanticipated complication in the construction process. Efforts to minimize the building height compressed the plenum, which would have resulted in not being able to comply with Fire Code. So the applicants created an interstitial space between the third and fourth floors, which (along with façade material changes) necessitated the height variance request. Travis noted the new façade material is superior to the original material ― a 10-inch terra cotta board that will be more sympathetic with the brick and also create strong horizontal lines. Schroeder said that, to prevent it from visually conflicting with the top articulation of the historic Carey Building, the third floor balcony railing should visually recede by being painted dark gray or black; he asked if that is labeled somewhere. Travis replied the rendering probably makes the railing look lighter than it actually would be. Schroeder responded he would like a dark color for this railing documented somewhere on the drawings. Travis agreed to do so. Travis said the applicant is cooperating with NYSEG on a utility easement. The electrical transformer will be below grade, and the intent is to create a loop around the proposed Hilton Canopy hotel to provide a redundant path in the event of a power outage (as well as to serve any future Aurora Street projects). Travis said the intent is to create a harmonious site plan including the Hilton Canopy hotel. Although no materials have yet been specified, both project developers would like to create an appealing entrance along the eastern portion of the site, extending into the north alley. Travis indicated there is one potential complication associated with that plan: If the Hilton Canopy hotel project does not move forward, the Carey Building would need to provide trash handling and storage on its own property. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 Travis said he we will also be cleaning the existing Carey Building’s exterior, and replastering its west and north façades the same color. Regarding the sidewalk during construction, a pedestrian walkway will be extended out into State Street to maintain a safety zone around the safety-netted scaffolds. Schroeder asked if the grey stucco color — now changed to tan stucco on the west façade — would be changing elsewhere on the building. Travis replied that all stucco blocks would be the same color. Schroeder responded that the applicant should submit revised drawings showing these changes from gray to tan stucco on the elevations (an e-mail to the Board would suffice). Travis agreed to do so. Elliott observed that while the east elevation displays a pleasing aesthetic logic, with its clear delineation between the old and new structures using a c. two-foot band, that clear delineation is absent on the west elevation, which still essentially looks “naked.” He suggested it would take little effort to bring the west elevation into concert with the articulation on the east façade. Travis replied he believes that could probably be done (through coloration). Adopted Resolution Approving Project Modifications On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting building height and façade changes for the project, which was approved by the Planning Board on August 25, 2014, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re-opening the review, but are not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review application, and WHEREAS: the changes consist of the following: increase in building height from 77’10” to 82’; changes in cladding materials, arrangement, and colors; change in balcony railing from glass panels to a metal railing system; removal of exterior stairway between the 6th and 7th floors; removal of small balconies on northern façade; potential removal of balcony on southern facade at the 7th floor, if needed, and WHEREAS: the change in height requires an Area Variance. The applicant must return to the Board of Zoning Appeals to request a new variance in order to exceed the CBD-60 Zoning District’s maximum height restriction of 60 feet for the five-story addition. Although the applicant intends the final height not to exceed 82’, he is requesting an additional 1 foot of building height (83’) to accommodate any potential unforeseen future adjustments, and WHEREAS: the Board has on April 28, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate revised drawings entitled: “Final Building Sections Section,” dated 3/19/15; “Final Building DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 Elevations (showing north and south facades),” “Final Building Elevations (showing east and west façades),” “Final East Façade Rendering Lit-Up,” “Final East Façade Rendering,” “Final State St. Façade Rendering,” “Final West Façade Rendering,” all dated 4/13/15 and prepared by John Snyder Architects; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the height and other changes subject to granting of an area variance by the BZA, and subject to the following unsatisfied conditions from the August 25, 2014 Final Site Plan Approval: i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevation showing further refinement of the lower level of the west elevation, and ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but not limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting, and iii. Submission of color copy of the materials board, and submission of building elevations showing revised tan stucco color, and iv. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a final section showing the relationship between the parapet of the existing building and the proposed railing on the third floor balcony, and a detail illustrating the materials and construction of the railing, and v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised drawings showing: (1) some attractive form of separation (e.g., a low wall or low planters) between the east edge of the proposed east walkway and the adjacent parcel; and (2) some means of enhancing the appearance of the walkway and residential entrance area proposed on the north edge of the site (perhaps involving cooperation with adjacent property owner), and vi. All bike racks must be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The following are required mitigations stated in the adopted FEAF, Part 3. (Note: The other required mitigations therein have already been fulfilled.) vii. The exterior walls of the original Carey Building are to be cleaned and repaired as needed, including removal of old electrical conduit on the front facade, and viii. The sidewalk on the north side of E. State Street (in front of the project site) shall remain open to pedestrians during construction, except for any brief periods when closure is temporarily essential; protective scaffolding with overhead protection over this sidewalk is acceptable, provided that pedestrians continue to have free passage under any such protective scaffolding, and ix. The applicant shall work with the City to secure the provision of bicycle parking on the north side of this block of E. State Street; said bicycle parking to be located in such a manner that it serves the entire block and does not constrict existing pedestrian movements. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 x. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One B. Lake Street Park Enhancements, Lake Street at Fall Creek, City of Ithaca. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to undertake enhancements to improve the accessibility and functionality of the park. Proposed work includes adding a concrete walkway and falls overlook, installing metal guardrails behind the existing stone retaining wall, installing a movable gate for controlled access to the Ithaca Falls Natural Area, replacing the existing bike racks, adding an accessible curb ramp, improving the landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District and requires approvals from the Board of Public Works (BPW) and Common Council. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (h)[2] and [3], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA), §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review. Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP and Addisu Gebre, City Bridge Systems Engineer described the current status of the proposed project. Trowbridge noted the applicants have been coordinating their efforts with Cornell Plantations Director of Natural Areas Todd Bittner, who does not foresee the project conflicting with Cornell Plantations. Trowbridge noted the applicants have now chosen bluestone where granite columns were originally proposed; these columns stand where the stainless steel fence changes directions. Trowbridge explained that the Lake Street Bridge project approved last month by the Planning Board had an approach railing at the northwest bridge corner separated from the bridge itself, to improve the design coherence of the bridge as architecture. This provision was subject to State Department of Transportation (DOT) approval of this separation. However, the DOT has now indicated it will not approve this separation, and furthermore will require an approach railing at the southeast bridge corner, as well. After much discussion with the DOT, it was agreed to move this new southeast approach railing further back and parallel to the existing stone retaining wall along the creek, with first a hedge and then this park project’s decorative railing in front of it. The guardrail design would remain the same. Trowbridge reported that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) also had DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 concerns of its own. As a result, no excavated materials will be removed off-site in case anything of archeological value is discovered. Schroeder remarked he believes the altered bridge design — which now includes continuous interstate-style box beams extending continuously from the bridge itself into two approach areas, including at least one box beam bent diagonally into the ground — should be re-submitted to the Project Review Committee. He added that the park’s approval resolution should make it clear the Board is not approving the modified bridge design. Blalock observed the project is a great opportunity for approaching the Tompkins County Tourism Program to emphasize the iconic nature of the new park as a tourist destination, and request funding for on-site signage. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require 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: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for enhancements to the Lake Street Park, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to undertake enhancements to improve the accessibility and functionality of the park. Proposed work includes adding a concrete walkway and falls overlook, installing metal guardrails behind the existing stone retaining wall, installing a movable gate for controlled access to the Ithaca Falls Natural Area, replacing the existing bike racks, adding an accessible curb ramp, improving the landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District and requires approvals from the Board of Public Works (BPW) and Common Council, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (h)[2] and [3], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA), §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works (BPW), and Common Council, all potentially involved agencies, consent 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 13 WHEREAS: the IURA and Common Council both concured concurred by resolution to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and the BPW did not respond within 30 days to the Planning Board’s request for concurrence, 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 Lake Street Park Enhancement project. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Public Hearing On a motion by Randall, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, 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 Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for enhancements to the Lake Street Park, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to undertake enhancements to improve the accessibility and functionality of the park. Proposed work includes adding a concrete walkway and falls overlook, installing metal guardrails behind the existing stone retaining wall, installing a movable gate for controlled access to the Ithaca Falls Natural Area, replacing the existing bike racks, adding an accessible curb ramp, improving the landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District and requires approvals from the Board of Public Works (BPW) and Common Council, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (h)[2] and [3], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA), §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 April 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on April 28, 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; and the following drawings: “Layout Plan (L201)” and “Guardrail and Planning Buffer Section (A4),” both on the same sheet, and dated 4/21/15; “Demo Plan (L101),” “Grading Plan (L301),” and “Planting Plan (L401),” dated 12/13/14; and “Site Details (L501),” dated 4/1/15; and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and 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, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Randall, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for enhancements to the Lake Street Park, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to undertake enhancements to improve the accessibility and functionality of the park. Proposed work includes adding a concrete walkway and falls overlook, installing metal guardrails behind the existing stone retaining wall, installing a movable gate for controlled access to the Ithaca Falls Natural Area, replacing the existing bike racks, adding an accessible curb ramp, improving the landscaping, and other site improvements. The project is in the P-1 Zoning District and requires approvals from the Board of Public Works (BPW) and Common Council, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (h)[2] and [3], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA•••”•••), §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 April 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 comment on the proposed project and all comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on April 28, 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; and the following drawings: “Layout Plan (L201)” and “Guardrail and Planning Buffer Section (A4),” both on the same sheet, and dated 4/21/15; “Demo Plan (L101),” “Grading Plan (L301),” and “Planting Plan (L401),” dated 12/13/14; and “Site Details (L501),” dated 4/1/15; and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on April 28, 2015 determine the proposed project would result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, 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. This approval does not apply to proposed changes, subsequent to Site Plan Approval, pertaining to the Lake Street Bridge project. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One C. Mixed-Use Housing, 210 Hancock Street (former Neighborhood Pride store), Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Declaration of Lead Agency and Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 & 3. 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. The applicant proposes to construct thirteen 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. 70 63 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 Quality Review Act, §617.4 (9), and is subject to environmental review. Joe Bowes of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects, and Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, described the current status of the proposed project. Bowes announced the applicants have made virtually all the changes the Board recommended (e.g., reducing the size of transforming Lake Avenue into a non-vehicular bicycle and pedestrian path with expanded green space, eliminating a portion of Adams Street to accommodate the playground area, and narrowing the center drive aisle while adding treelawn there). Trowbridge said the applicants carefully examined the neighborhood context to the north of the project, which contains a number of eclectic buildings (e.g., daycare center, City water facility, Sciencenter). The applicants are also trying to be as contextually sensitive as possible with the existing residential neighborhood along Willow and Hancock streets. Hugo remarked that the townhomes will feature a variety of colors and materials, reflecting the architectural vernacular of the surrounding residential homes (e.g., porches, pitched roofs). Schroeder stressed there needs to be as much variety and individuality as possible in the design of the townhomes. Hugo replied that is definitely the intent. Hugo mentioned that the large multi-family building will be broken up into four different masses; therefore, the impression for passers-by should be of four separate buildings. These buildings would be clad in different brick colors, he said, adding that the applicants are exploring installing an inset panelized system around the windows to create a sense of verticality. Metal panels would also be used for the entrance areas. He said materials colors have not yet been finalized. Hugo noted the commercial level and storefront portions of the project would incorporate more window space than the rest of the building, and added that there would also be as much screening as possible for the parking area. He pointed out that pedestrians will be able to walk through the large multi-family building and penetrate the entire project all the way to Lake Avenue. Schroeder observed that the internal parking area depicted in one rendering is more visible from the street than it need be. He suggested constructing a low garden wall adorned with a rich assortment of plantings to better screen it. He also suggested that the large building feature more fanciful and expressive elements along its top. Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants would consider pitched roofs for some portions of the large building, or perhaps a green roof. Bowes responded the applicants are considering installing solar panels on the roof, which is one reason it has remained flat; however, they would certainly be happy to explore the green roof suggestion. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 Elliott asked if any mechanicals would be on the roof. Bowes replied there would be small residential-sized air conditioning units, but the parapet wall would conceal them from the street. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling: 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: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a mixed-use housing development to be located at 210 Hancock Street, and WHEREAS: 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. The applicant proposes to construct 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. 63 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 St. and Lake Ave. (both of which are public streets) into a non-vehicular shared use path, 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, and WHEREAS: 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, and WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works (BPW), and Common Council, all potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the IURA and Common Council, both concur by resolution to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and the BPW did not respond within 30 days to the Planning Board’s request for concurrence, DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 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 mixed-use housing project at 210 Hancock Street. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 Schroeder said the issue of the large surface-level parking lot being visible from the sidewalk should be listed as a visual impact. Also, he said, under “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood,” the fact that the project will be providing a playground next to Conley Park should be listed as a major community benefit. Jones-Rounds suggested that mention should also be made that the applicant hosted four public meetings. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 Elliott suggested the applicant consider on-site water harvesting (e.g., water collected on flat roof for various uses). Bowes replied they would explore that. Jones-Rounds suggested the applicant consider a bioswale along Lake Avenue for drainage and water filtration. Trowbridge replied the applicants will be submitting a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), so those kinds of issues could be discussed at that time. Elliott noted the applicants have already designed for the LEED for Homes standard, but he urged them to consider the LEED for Neighborhood Development standard. Bowes replied that is something they are already considering. Blalock observed the applicants submitted a traffic study, which was the subject of one or two earlier public comments. Pyott explained to the members of the public that the traffic study (along with all other Site Plan Review application documents) is electronically accessible via the “Document Center” on the City website, under “Planning & Development,” “Site Plan Review Project Applications,” and in the relevant year / month folder. Schroeder suggested adding language to the Part 3 reflecting the Board’s desire to see a more lively and expressive main building design. Nicholas indicated she needs technical information from the applicant about details like the foundation type, pile-driving, etc. Bowes agreed to provide this. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 Elliott remarked that parking lots are considered brownfield sites, so the applicant will need to address those kinds of mitigations. Trowbridge agreed to do so, noting that most of the mitigation process simply involves the appropriate disposal of asphalt. There is a protocol for that process, he said, which the applicants will document. D. Texas Roadhouse Retail Building / Restaurant, 719-25 S. Meadow Street, Douglas Druen for Texas Roadhouse. Declaration of Lead Agency and Public Hearing, and Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant proposes to construct a 7,163-SF retail building / restaurant on portion of the 3-acre site, which contains three two existing retail buildings (one of which will be removed). Site development includes a concrete ramp to the main entrance, an outdoor waiting area, a rear loading and trash area, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The applicant is proposing to build a 43’-long, 3’-high architectural wall as an alternative to the requirement in the Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 60% of a lot’s street frontage should be occupied by  building mass. In accordance with the guidelines, the Planning Board may allow a portion, not to exceed a third of the required 60% building frontage, to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall. 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. Paula Hubert of GreenbergFarrow and Parker Harrington of Texas Roadhouse recapitulated the salient details of the introduced the Board to the proposed project. Hubert walked through an overhead presentation. Elliott observed the four spotlights projecting onto the flags on the roof will generate too much light pollution. Randall agreed, noting the applicants should ensure all lighting is “dark sky” compliant. Jones-Rounds asked the applicants to explain the rationale for the absence of a public entryway (as opposed to the proposed emergency exit) on Meadow Street. Hubert replied that the building is constrained by a tight footprint, setback requirements, and the need to use the existing parking. Jones-Rounds said she thought the current main entry unnecessarily prioritizes people traveling by car ― whereas Ithaca’s urban planning goals prioritize pedestrian access in that part of the city. She would definitely prefer to see a pedestrian-friendly public entry on Meadow Street. Hubert replied that the applicants could not operationally place the entry in the middle of the dining room. Elliott suggested installing it on the corner. Jones-Rounds suggested the applicants create a larger vestibule that extends further out onto the corner towards Meadow Street. Schroeder noted the ramp could be made to lead directly from the door to the street. Hubert replied that would eliminate the perimeter landscaping. Schroeder noted the landscaping could be situated on the other side of the ramp: the ramp would function the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 same, but it would go right to the door and not be separated from the street sidewalk by the bushes. The bushes would simply be planted a little further from the building. Jones-Rounds observed that if the building had a longer vestibule, it would be more welcoming ― and the ramp could be made interior to the building. Schroeder stated another issue discussed by the Project Review Committee was that portions of the building’s east and south façades lack articulation (e.g., piers, arched windows) required by the Southwest Area Design Guidelines. Also, the ramp that currently extends all the way along the Meadow Street façade could be shortened, thereby allowing more room for plantings. Hubert replied the applicants are examining some of these options. Elliott asked if the applicants could install the emergency exit door at the bump-out on the west side of the building, so it would not be visible from street. Hubert replied she does not believe that would be operationally feasible. Schroeder countered that the restaurant would lose one dining table in one place, but then also gain a dining table elsewhere. Jones-Rounds suggested the applicants add an exterior bench, perhaps as part of an elaboration of the architectural wall. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling: 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 7,163-SF retail / restaurant building to be located at 719-25 S. Meadow St., and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 7,163-SF retail building/restaurant on the 3-acre site, which contains two existing retail buildings. Site development includes a concrete ramp to the main entrance, an outdoor waiting area, a rear loading and trash area, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project is on the SW-2 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to build a 43’-long, 3’-high architectural wall as an alternative to the requirement in the Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 60% of a lot’s street frontage should be occupied by building mass. In accordance with the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 guidelines, the Planning Board may allow a portion, not to exceed a third of the required 60% building frontage, to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall, 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, 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 719-25 S. Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Public Hearing On a motion by Darling, seconded by Randall, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in favor of the proposed project. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Schroeder, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Schroeder observed that the City Transportation Engineer had asked for traffic counts, and entrance location and design is also potentially an environmental issue, so it may make sense to defer consideration of the CEQR resolution until the next meeting. Jones- Rounds agreed. No objections were made to deferring the CEQR resolution until the next meeting. E. Tompkins Financial Downtown Headquarters, 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP for Tompkins Trust Company. Declaration of Lead Agency and CEQR Discussion. The applicant proposes to construct a seven (7) story, 110,000-SF office building as a new corporate headquarters at 118 E. Seneca St., and to relocate the existing drive-through teller to the ground-floor parking area of 119 E. Seneca Street. The new building will have a ground-floor footprint of approximately 6,600 SF (66’ x 100’) and will include retail services, building core, and other amenities related to the building. There will be 20-25 parking spaces accommodated on site to the north of the ground-floor footprint and under the building overhang. Each floor plate above the ground floor will be 16,300 SF. The front of the building will be set back several feet from the street line to align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E. Seneca Street will include a new 985-SF drive-through teller building. Existing parking DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 and drive aisles will be modified to create a teller window drive-up lane, a vacuum- actuated drive-up teller station, and a through-lane for traffic. In addition to the drive lane associated with the teller stations, a new ATM will be added to the site. Both sites are in the CBD-100 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4] and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv), and is subject to environmental review. The project requires Design Review. Applicants Kim Michaels of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects, and Greg Schwartz of Tompkins Financial Corporation recapitulated the salient details updated the Board on the proposed project. Hugo noted the Project Review Committee asked for the building to be set back further from the front property line (to provide the minimum urban-area sidewalk width recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers), which the applicants believe they should probably be able to do. The overall design, he said, is of a street-friendly urban building, with a large public lobby that would serve as the thoroughfare through the building and provide a high degree of transparency from the street. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Randall: 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: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a seven-story office building and drive- through teller building, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a seven (7) story, 110,000-SF office building as a new corporate headquarters at 118 E. Seneca St., and to relocate the existing drive-through teller to the ground-floor parking area of 119 E. Seneca Street. The new building will have a ground-floor footprint of approximately 6,600 SF (66’ x 100’) and will include retail services, building core, and other amenities related to the building. There will be 20-25 parking spaces accommodated on-site to the north of the ground- floor footprint and under the building overhang. Each floor plate above the ground floor will be 16,300 SF. The front of the building will be set back several feet from the street line to align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E. Seneca Street will include a new 985-SF drive-through teller building. Existing parking and drive aisles will be modified to create a teller window drive-up lane, a vacuum-actuated drive-up teller station, and a DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 through-lane for traffic. In addition to the drive lane associated with the teller stations, a new ATM will be added to the site. Both sites are in the CBD-100 Zoning District. The seven-story building requires Design Review, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4] and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv), and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: it has been requested that the NYS DOT and the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (IDA), both potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: both agencies have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board 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 for the seven-story office building and drive-through teller building to be located at 118 and 119 East Seneca St. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Discussion Blalock recommended that the Board defer the discussion until next month, due to time constraints. No objections were raised. F. State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site – Sketch Plan Applicants Scott Whitham and Cathy deAlmeida of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC and Ronnie L. Macejewski of Campus Advantage presented a preliminary overview of the proposed project, making the following points: • Project site is on what has historically been the primary downtown gateway and intersection. • Building would occupy most of site. • Vehicles would enter from Aurora Street, with the possibility of having subterranean parking from the Green Street side. • Commercial spaces would be situated at the corner and along the State Street side. • Building would be 10 stories of primarily residential space. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 24 [J.G.S. Note: Building rendering has been deleted here.] Darling strongly urged the applicants to ensure the building appears as iconic as possible, given its strategic location. Schroeder agreed, noting that every façade of the building will function as a front façade. While he likes much of the design, including the articulation on the sides, he feels the curving front of the building looks too massive and underdeveloped. He said this feature is an opportunity for designing something genuinely fantastic, but currently looks too monolithic. He suggested more delicate detailing, with additional colors, etc. Jones-Rounds suggested having the building mimic the other buildings in the CBD Zone (i.e., a mixture of taller and shorter buildings). Blalock recommended adding some decorative crowning at the building’s top. Schroeder suggested that Louis Sullivan’s Carson Pirie Scott Building in Chicago would be a good source of inspiration, with its prominent curving entryway. Elliott observed the building presents a stark contrast to the north side of the street: it is essentially double the height. He is not sure this is the most architecturally sensitive approach. Once the building design is viewed within the context of the neighboring buildings, it becomes clear it will be a massive wall that will cast a huge shadow over the street. Schroeder said stepping back one or more of the top floors along State Street would be a big improvement, because it would allow substantially more southern sunlight to penetrate into that corridor. Elliott observed that the large pillars at the front of the building imply a single grand entry space, which is not actually proposed. He would love to see a major entry place there. Blalock suggested the applicants preserve some flexibility for the project to serve more than just a student demographic (e.g., senior housing). G. Cornell Fine Arts Library Rand Hall Addition – Sketch Plan Gilbert Delgado, University Architect, Cornell University and Kent Kleinman, Dean, College of Architecture, Art, & Planning, Cornell University presented a preliminary overview of the proposed project, as follows: • Project would improve circulation through and around the buildings. • Rand Hall currently requires significant maintenance work, so the building would DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 25 be entirely renovated. • Design inspiration came from classic vertical reading rooms. • 1960s-era external stair tower (at east end) would be removed. • First floor would remain as it is, with the second floor serving as the main library reading room. • Elevations illustrate the interplay between the new addition and the original building. • Although the building does not lie in an historic district, it does have significant standing as a gateway into the central campus. [J.G.S. Note: Building rendering has been deleted here.] Schroeder noted he is concerned with the addition’s cladding material. Delgado replied it would be a Kynar-finished composite metal panel. Schroeder stressed that it should look virtually like precious metal; it needs to look pristine for the project to work, so the choice of materials will crucial. Jones-Rounds observed that the lantern addition looks almost pixellated in the rendering. She would like to see it softened, with no sharp corners. Schroeder remarked it will be important that the top portion of the new structure not appear too monolithic and uniform. The metal panels have to appear variegated, he said, so they reflect light in subtly different ways (as the rendering suggests). (Elliott departed at 9:59 p.m.) H. Ithaca Marriott Hotel, 120 S. Aurora Street, Urgo Hotels. Review & Approval of Signage. Adopted Resolution Approving Signage On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the Marriott Hotel at 120 S. Aurora Street was approved by the Planning Board on November 13, 2012, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on June 24, 2014 approve façade and materials changes for the project, and WHEREAS: the applicant has submitted a sign package and is now requesting a Sign DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 26 Variance for relief from the number and size of allowed wall signs in the CDB-140 Zone, and WHEREAS: the signs in question consist of two Marriott wall signs at the top of the building; one sign facing S. Aurora Street, and the other facing E. Green Street, and WHEREAS: as originally proposed in January 2015, the signs were to be 208.6 SF and 108.8 SF; however, the applicant reduced the size of the signs to 114.75 SF facing S. Aurora Street and 74.16 SF facing E. Green Street, due to concerns of •••the••• both the Planning Board and the BZA that the size of the signs would potentially have a negative impact on downtown character, and WHEREAS: the Board has reviewed and accepted drawings entitled: “View 1 ― East State Street,” “View 2 ― East Green Street,” and “Nighttime Rendering,” dated 2/24/15 and prepared by Cooper Carry, wherein the second drawing in each pair shows the desired smaller sign, and WHEREAS: the Board also reviewed architectural finishes for the street-level wall signs and has approved a silver metallic finish for the letters/signage, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby approve the signs as proposed in the above-referenced drawings, subject to the applicant receiving the required Sign Variance. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: One (Elliott returned at 10:01 p.m.) 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2978 ― 120 S. Aurora Street (Ithaca Marriott): Sign Variance Appeal of Hotel Ithaca, LLC for Ithaca Properties owners of 120 S. 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. In November of 2014, Hotel Ithaca, LLC received four variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals for business signs, which will be placed on the proposed multi-story Marriott Hotel at 120 South Aurora Street. The applicant now returns, seeking approval for two additional “Marriott” wall signs. The first proposed “Marriott“ sign will be located on the exterior of the 10th floor facing Aurora Street and will be approximately 114.75 SF. The second “Marriott” sign will be located close to the penthouse level and will face Green Street. This sign will be approximately 74.16 SF. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 27 In the commercial zone, where 120 South Aurora Street is located, Sign Ordinance Section 272-6 B. (2) states a business can have only one pole sign, or two wall signs. Furthermore, the Sign Ordinance states in this Section that each sign cannot be larger than 50 SF. The applicant believes that because of the building’s massing, these two additional signs are appropriately sized for advertising the location of the hotel. 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 that 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 Planning Board worked with the applicant over several months to come up with wall signage that would meet Marriott’s needs, while at the same time maintaining the downtown character. The applicant agreed to the current proposal in which the both east and west wall signs are reduced in size and the east sign is positioned toward the upper right corner. The drawings illustrating this change are the second drawings in each pair titled, “View 1― E. State Street” and “View 2 ― E. State Green Street,” all dated 2/24/15. Appeal #2979 ― 314-320 E. State Street (Carey Building): Area Variance Appeal of Jason Henderson for Frost Travis, owner of the Carey Building, located at 314-320 East State Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 9, Height in Feet, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. On August 19, 2014, the applicant was granted a height variance under Appeal #2949 for the property at 314-320 East State Street. In order to construct an additional five stories to the existing two-story building at 314-320 East State Street, the applicant requested a variance to exceed the CBD-60 Zoning District’s height limitation of 60 feet, to a height of 77’, 10”. The proposed addition to this building is designed to include an office use on the third floor and apartments on floors four through seven. After the variance was granted in August of 2014, a Building Permit was issued and construction began several months ago at 314-320 East State Street. However, it was recently discovered that to install mechanical equipment and to address structural issues, the five-story addition would end up taller than previously anticipated. As a result, the applicant has returned to the BZA to request an new variance in order to exceed the CBD-60 Zoning District’s maximum height restriction of 60 feet for the five-story addition and request a variance for the addition to have a maximum height of 83’. The property at 314-20 East State Street is in both the CBD-60 and the CBD-100 Zones, but the existing building footprint is in the more restrictive zone. Though the proposed mixed-use is permitted in both zones, Section 325-39 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a Zoning Variance must be granted before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. The Planning Board recognizes that a code issue, outside of the appellant’s control, is driving the need for more height. Concern about the height of the building ― and its relationship to the Downtown Ithaca Historic Register District ― has been expressed both by the Planning Board and Historic Ithaca. The appellant has also stated that although the final height is not expected to exceed 82’, he is requesting an additional 1 foot (83’) to DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 28 accommodate any potential unforeseen future adjustments. The Board supports granting this appea, appeal, provided that the appellant make all efforts not to exceed 82’. Appeal #2980 ― 406 W. Court Street: Special Permit Appeal of Tracy L. Martineau for a Temporary Special Permit for a home occupation, as required by Section 325-9 C. (1)(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to operate a property management office from a room in the first- floor apartment of the property located at 406 W. Court Street in a two-family home. Due to modern technology, the applicants states most of her work can be done off-site and there will be little need for clients to come to her office. She also states her work will be “low-key” and create little traffic. The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports granting it. Appeal #2981 ― 312 Elmwood Avenue: Area Variance Appeal of Kate Morris for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Column 6, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Column 10, Lot Area, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. On December 13, 2010, a Building Permit was issued to Don Morris, one of the owners of 312 Elmwood Avenue. The rear exit stair at 312 Elmwood Avenue had to be replaced because it had become unsafe. The contractor hired to construct the stairs realized the stairs would need a new supporting structure to level the stairs, due to the sloping terrain in the back yard. Subsequently, Don Morris was issued a Building Permit to construct a 217-SF deck/landing for the rear stairs. The property at 312 Elmwood Avenue is a non-conforming two-family dwelling in an R-1b zone, which only allows single-family homes. Though the work is not considered an “extension” as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, the new permanent landing which now stabilizes the rear stair increased the permissible lot coverage of 25%. With the addition of the deck, the lot coverage is now 25.9%. The property at 312 Elmwood Avenue also has three existing deficiencies. The lot size is 6,915 SF of the required 7,500 SF. The front yard is 11.1’ of the required 25’ and the other side yard is 7’ of the 10 feet required by the ordinance. A variance for these deficiencies should have been obtained in 2010 ― prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. The applicant has sold the property at 312 Elmwood Avenue and will close the sale on June 1, 2015. In order to help finalize the sale the house, the applicant needs a valid Certificate of Compliance stating that the property at 312 Elmwood Avenue is compliant with City of Ithaca Housing regulations. A Certificate of Compliance cannot be issued unless the applicant is first granted variances for the above-listed zoning deficiencies. The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports granting it. 6. Old / New Business DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 29 A. Review of State SEQR Forms Postponed, due to the lateness of the hour. B. Two Fall Creek Parcels Below Ithaca Falls Blalock remarked that he distributed an e-mail from Cornell Plantations Director of Natural Areas Todd Bittner about the land on the south north side of Fall Creek currently being considered for sale by the City. He agreed with the earlier public speakers about preserving the land and asked if the Board could draft a statement to Common Council in favor of the City keeping both parcels. Board members expressed their support, and Nicholas agreed to draft such a memo. The final memo later sent to Common Council reads as follows: To:    Common  Council     From:  Planning  and  Development  Board     Date:  May  8,  2015   Subject:  City  Retention  of  Tax  Parcels  #12.-­‐1.1  &  #12.-­‐1.2  (401  Lake  St.)       The  Planning  Board  understands  Common  Council  is  considering  a  decision  that   would  allow  the  public  auction  of  Tax  Parcel  #12.-­‐1.2  (401  Lake  St.).    The  Board   urges  Common  Council  to  retain  both  adjacent  parcels  under  City  ownership  for  the   purpose  of  expanding  and  protecting  the  Fall  Creek  Gorge  and  Natural  Area.     Members  of  the  Board  feel  that  acquiring  both  parcels  is  a  rare  opportunity  that   would  produce  a  lasting  benefit  to  our  community  ―  far  outweighing  any  possible   cost  off-­‐set  from  selling  401  Lake  Street. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development No report. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Darling noted the following brief items: • A permanent easement was granted to 327 Eddy Street to allow for bay windows on the upper floors of the new building. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 30 • A new community garden was licensed on Floral Avenue. • More city sidewalks will be repaired this year under the Sidewalk Improvement Districts program than ever before. • Part of the retaining wall near the South Cayuga Street bridge collapsed, so there has been some discussion of how to replace it. This presents an opportunity for the Planning Board to communicate to the BPW its preferred appearance for the repaired wall. Schroeder pointed out the beautiful stone-faced retaining wall that had been built at the southwest corner of the Linn Street Bridge. 8. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Blalock, the revised draft February 24, 2015 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: One 9. Adjournment On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.