Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-05-26DRAFT 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 May 26, 2015 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott; C.J. Randall 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 212 Hook Place Jeremy Taylor, Owner Minor Subdivision at Hector Street Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2 Marilyn Ryan, Owner 210 Hancock Street, Redevelopment of Entire Block Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Texas Roadhouse Restaurant at 719 S. Meadow Street Paula Hubert, GreenbergFarrow Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and Relocated Drive-Through at 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and Relocated Drive-Through at 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP Building & Vehicle Display Expansion at 308-318 Elmira Road Tom Schickel, Schickel Architecture Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Emily Nester, 351 Spencer Road, spoke in opposition to expressed concern about construction impacts from the Stone Quarry Apartments project, noting she lives directly across the road from the site and there have been ongoing issues with construction-related noise. The Site Plan Approval resolution limited construction hours from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; however, she said construction has been taking place regularly outside those hours, and that she can document this. She said INHS has assured neighbors multiple times it would take care of this, but it never has. Ms. Nester also said she contacted a Building Division staff member who said there was nothing more the Building Division could do, other than communicate the complaints to the construction company, and that further unresolved complaints should be communicated to the Police Department. Bill Goldsmith, 209 Willow Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, noting he is a Fall Creek resident and also serves on the City’s Board of Public Works. Ithaca definitely needs more affordable housing, he stated, adding that the proposed project would be a great place for young families with children. He also said the project boasts close access to Cascadilla Creek, the Farmers’ Market and other locales, and it features an interesting design that combines both townhouses and low-rise apartments in an environmentally sensitive manner. Luanne Andersson, 1 Woodland Road, Town of Dryden, spoke generally in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, but noted it also seems like a missed opportunity to offer affordable apartments for sale. One of the most important things low-income people need, she emphasized, is the opportunity to build financial equity ― and the City really needs to explore ways it can help its low-income residents achieve that. 3. Subdivision Review DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 A. Minor Subdivision, 212 Hook Place, Tax Parcel #74.-1-1, Jeremy and Mary Taylor. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.668-acre (29,620 SF) parcel into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 0.443 acres (19,280 SF) with 120 feet of street frontage on Hook Place and 176 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and containing an existing single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.237 acres (10,340 SF) with 96 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place. 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. Owner Jeremy Taylor presented a brief overview of the proposal, noting he has a large lot at the corner of Hook Place and Taylor Place with an adjacent lot that he would like to divide into two parcels. He said he would possibly like to build a single-family home on the newly created northern lot. 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 Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #74.-1-1, by owners Jeremy and Mary Taylor, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.668-acre (29,620 SF) parcel into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 0.443 acres (19,280 SF) with 120 feet of street frontage on Hook Place and 176 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and containing an existing single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.237 acres (10,340 SF) with 96 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place. 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 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 is the 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 #74.-1-1, by owners Jeremy and Mary Taylor. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One Public Hearing On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Judy Saul, 201 Cliff Park Road, expressed several concerns with the proposal. She stated the lot does not seem suitable for a home, which would have to sit on a very steep incline, at the bottom of which is a creek. She said it seems the only way to build a single-family home on the site would be to use a large amount of fill, since only a small portion of the lot actually lies at street-level. It is also a heavily wooded lot, she said, which she and her neighbors would like to preserve. Bill Kellner, 110 Taylor Place, asked several questions about the subdivision. While he knows it meets minimum City requirements, he wonders if there are any other considerations that would make it unsuitable for a single-family home. For example, a creek runs almost through the property and he wonders what kinds of protection it would have (e.g., a maximum buildable distance from the creek, restrictions on construction methods). Camille Tischler, 110 Taylor Place, expressed similar concerns, especially regarding the creek. She added there is a very steep slope and she could not imagine where the driveway could be situated, since the frontage from the road is only about 12-15 feet before it drops off. She characterized this as an inappropriate site for a single-family home. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Blalock explained that the Planning Board is merely considering a subdivision at this time ― a process entirely separate from Site Plan Review of any proposed construction project on the new lot. He said any concerns about the proximity of a future house to the creek, or similar concerns, should be expressed if and when an actual proposed building undergoes Site Plan Review. Cornish added that under current law a proposed project that meets City zoning requirements could not be denied. Given the concerns raised this evening, however, she suggested it may be appropriate for the Board itself to take the lead on reviewing any future development project on the property (rather than it going through staff-led Limited Site Plan Review). Taylor indicated he very much respects his neighbors’ concerns. He explained the creek is simply drainage run-off from the road and it only flows in the spring, adding that any potential future building would be sited well away from the creek. Also, he does not believe one would need to use in-fill fill to build a structure on the site, if one places the foundation below, with living spaces at the top of the structure. He stressed it could be a very unobtrusive structure. Jones-Rounds also explained to the concerned neighbors that notice would be sent to them regarding any proposed building project. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Darling, 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 #74.-1-1, by owners Jeremy and Mary Taylor, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.668-acre (29,620 SF) parcel into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 0.443 acres (19,280 SF) with 120 feet of street frontage on Hook Place and 176 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and containing an existing single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.237 acres (10,340 SF) with 96 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place. 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 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 that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action did on May 26, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the subdivision, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council has 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 May 26, 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 “Subdivision Map, No. 212 Hook Place, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York,” dated 1/24/14 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; 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, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One Blalock agreed with Cornish’s suggestion that the Board review any future development project on the property. There were no objections. 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 #74.-1-1, by owners Jeremy and Mary Taylor, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 0.668-acre (29,620 SF) parcel into two lots: Parcel A, measuring 0.443 acres (19,280 SF) with 120 feet of street frontage on Hook Place and 176 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place and containing an existing DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 single-family home and garage; and Parcel B, measuring 0.237 acres (10,340 SF) with 96 feet of street frontage on Taylor Place. 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 that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action did on May 26, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the subdivision, 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 May 26, 2015, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council has 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 May 26, 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 “Subdivision Map, N0. No. 212 Hook Place, City of Ithaca•••,••• Tompkins County, State of New York,” dated 1/24/14 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on May 26, 2015 determine the proposed Subdivision would result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes 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 does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #74.-1-1, by owners Jeremy and Mary Taylor, 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, and be it further DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board requests that the Site Plan Review for any future structure proposed on the new vacant parcel be conducted at the Planning Board level. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One B. Minor Subdivision, Hector Street, Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, Marilyn Ryan & Dorothy Sturtevant. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. The applicants propose to subdivide the 3.86-acre (SF) 3.863-acre (168,272 SF) parcel into two lots: Lot 4-A, measuring 1.89 acres (19,280 SF) 1.889 acres (82,285 SF) with 111 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. and containing three sheds; and Lot 4-B, measuring 1.947 acres (10,340 SF) 1.974 acres (85,987 SF) with 59 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 227 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. 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. Owner Marilyn Ryan presented a brief overview of the proposed subdivision. 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 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 Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, by owners Marilyn Ryan and Dorothy Sturtevant, and WHEREAS: the applicants propose to subdivide the 3.86-acre (SF) 3.863-acre (168,272 SF) parcel into two lots: Lot 4-A, measuring 1.89 acres (82,328.4 SF) 1.889 acres (82,285 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 SF) with 111 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. and containing three sheds; and Lot 4-B, measuring 1.947 acres (85,813.2 SF) 1.974 acres (85,987 SF) with 59 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 227 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. 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 is the 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.-4-7.2, by owners Marilyn Ryan and Dorothy Sturtevant. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One Public Hearing On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, 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 Darling, 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 #19.-4-7.2, by owners Marilyn Ryan and Dorothy Sturtevant, and WHEREAS: the applicants propose to subdivide the 3.86-acre (SF) 3.863-acre (168,272 SF) parcel into two lots: Lot 4-A, measuring 1.89 acres (82,328.4 SF) 1.889 acres (82,285 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 SF) with 111 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. and containing three sheds; and Lot 4-B, measuring 1.947 acres (85,831.2 SF) 1.974 acres (85,987 SF) with 59 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 227 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. 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 May 26, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the project, 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 May 26, 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, Showing Portion of Lands of Dorothy H. Sturtevant & Marilyn Ryan Located on Hector Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 4/8/15 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; 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, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 On a motion by Schroeder, 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 #19.-4-7.2, by owners Marilyn Ryan and Dorothy Sturtevant, and WHEREAS: the applicants propose to subdivide the 3.86-acre (SF) 3.863-acre (168,272 SF) parcel into two lots: Lot 4-A, measuring 1.89 acres (82,328.4 SF) 1.889 acres (82,285 SF) with 111 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 50 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. and containing three sheds; and Lot 4-B, measuring 1.947 acres (85,813.2 SF) 1.974 acres (85,987 SF) with 59 feet of street frontage on Hector St. and 227 feet of street frontage on Campbell Ave. 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 that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action did on May 26, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the subdivision, 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 May 26, 2015, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on May 26, 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, Showing Potion of Lands of Dorothy H. Sturtevant and Marilyn Ryan Located on Hector Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 4/8/15 and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and other application materials, 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 12 WHEREAS: the Tompkins County Planning Department, pursuant to §239 –l, -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, recommends that in order to reduce added curbcuts on Hector Street the City should prohibit the access from Hector Street to Lot 4 and Lot 4-B, which have direct access to Campbell Avenue, and WHEREAS: in response, the Planning Board notes that this access is actually intended to be a future portion of Campbell Avenue, linking the two current separate Campbell Ave Avenue segments to the north and to the south, 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 does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #19.-4-7.2, by owners Marilyn Ryan and Dorothy Sturtevant, 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, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One 4. Site Plan Review A. Mixed-Use Housing, 210 Hancock Street (former Neighborhood Pride store), Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Public Hearing & Determination of Environmental Significance. 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 project sponsor proposes to construct thirteen twelve 2-story townhomes and a 4-story approximately 65,000 SF, mixed-use building with approximately 50 53 apartments and approximately three ground-floor commercial spaces, totaling approximately 10,000 SF. Approximately 70 64 parking spaces will be provided ― approximately one third of which will be on the ground floor of the apartment building. The project sponsor also proposes to convert 0.77 acres of contiguous City-owned right-of-way (ROW) that include 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 a green space with a central non-vehicular bike and pedestrian 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 requires the following approvals: site plan and subdivision approval from the Planning and Development Board (Lead Agency), a Flood Plain Development Permit, variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), approval from the Board of Public Works (BPW) for improvements to property in the public way, funding approval from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 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. Applicants Scott Reynolds of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects, and Jonathan Peet of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, described the current status of the proposed project. Reynolds explained that a few elements of the design have been refined since the last Planning Board meeting. The applicants met, he said, with both the City Attorney and City Engineering Division staff to determine how the non-vehicular stretches of Adams Street and Lake Avenue would function. The City requested that the sidewalk on Adams Street be moved and that there be some more clearer delineation between proposed private and public lands along the west Lake Avenue right-of-way line; Peet explained that this delineation could take the form of a fence or a hedge. A sidewalk segment was also added within the townhouse portion of the site to meet Fire Department requirements. Public Hearing On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Nia Makepeace, 315 Second Street, spoke in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating that rental units in the City are very expensive and that this new housing would help meet demand for more affordable housing. She added that INHS has been wonderful in how it has reached out to the community for input on the project. She also indicated she is offended by some of the remarks made by opponents of the project that she regards as emblematic of persistent racist and classist preconceptions to which some segments of the community seem to cling. Linda Holzbaur, 111 Monroe Street, and member of Northside United neighborhood association, spoke in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, noting that the group’s overriding concern is affordable housing. Its members are proud of the diverse nature of the neighborhood and its people, including public housing residents and members of the refugee community. Northside United, she said, would really like to see more affordable housing in the neighborhood. [At Holzbaur’s request, approximately twelve people from Northside United showed their presence in the audience.] Rev. Ronald Benson, Baptized Church of Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, 412 First Street, right across from the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, spoke in its favor, noting he has seen too many low-income housing neighborhoods and projects get pushed DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 out to the peripheries of the City over the years. He said an affordable housing project like this one is an excellent idea ― as long as remains affordable housing. Laura Lewis, 509 Willow Avenue, INHS Board member, spoke in favor of the same project, noting she is a strong proponent of good quality affordable housing. This project, she said, is an historic opportunity to add significant affordable housing to the City, which Ithaca desperately needs, especially in a central location with access to services, businesses, parks, amenities, etc. Seph Murtagh, 413 N. Cayuga Street and Second Ward Alderperson, spoke in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, noting he would like to echo most of what the other supporters of the project have stated. He added that a recent Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency memorandum to the City Planning and Economic Development Committee, entitled “Incentive / Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing,” contains some interesting facts that illustrate the tremendous challenges low-income people encounter in finding affordable housing in Ithaca. Phoebe Brown, 520 Alice Miller Way, spoke in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating it would provide an invaluable opportunity for people to live in decent, affordable housing that is not on the outskirts of town. She added that gentrification is a genuine problem in Ithaca, so the project would help to address that. Karen Friedeborn, 877 Bostwick Road, Enfield, also spoke in favor of the same project. Friedeborn read a letter to the Board from Nancy Gabriel, 109 Sears Street, also in favor of the project. Bob Sherman, 401 Willow Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating he has personally struggled with home ownership since 1986 and he appreciates the previously expressed concerns. The real problem in Ithaca, he said, is the disjuncture between stagnant wages and the fact that Ithaca is the second most expensive place in the nation per capita in which to live. He said the proposed project would destroy a peaceful community. He also objected to what he sees as special treatment INHS receives from the City. The multi-family building would be over the zoning height limit, and he characterized it as being simply out-of-character with the rest of the neighborhood, far larger than any other building in the area. He claimed that INHS employs false perspective views in its renderings. He maintained that INHS also lied about the need for pile-driving during construction, which it now states will take place over six weeks. He said INHS had also indicated asbestos on the site had already been removed, when in fact it had not. Finally, he urged the Planning Board to address parking and traffic issues associated with the project. John Forester, 216 Lake Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, noting he has always had the sense that INHS has done wonderful work all over town. He suggested the Planning Board could conduct its Public Hearings more DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 productively: they do not need to be so adversarial. It would be better if they could be conducted more collaboratively as a means of determining how to improve the community. Stephanie Nevels, 108 W. Lewis Street, joined those speaking in favor of the same project, noting she serves many clients at the Tompkins County Department of Social Services who struggle desperately to find decent affordable housing in the City. Too many of her clients, she said, are forced to live outside the City because they simply cannot afford Ithaca rents. Trevor MacDonald, 302 Hancock Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating he supports affordable housing, but he lives right across the street from the project site and the four-story building would be immediately across from his house. While he supports the INHS mission, he does not believe it has satisfactorily explained the necessity of placing such a tall building in the neighborhood. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in favor of the aforementioned project. Theresa Grady, 105 Second Street, also spoke in favor of the same project, pointing out that she owns her house thanks to INHS. The proposed project, she said, would provide numerous things the Ithaca community needs. She suggested there should be some kind of oversight over INHS to review how it funds and designs its projects, in order to ensure it benefits low-income people as much as possible. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones- Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Responding to one public comment, Jones-Rounds stressed the Planning Board does not prompt the public to frame its comments as either in support of, or in opposition to, a project. Reynolds responded to some of the public comments as follows: • Regarding the project remaining affordable housing over time, it is INHS’ mission to provide affordable housing. The project was developed in two parts: (1) the for- sale housing will be part of the INHS Community Housing Trust, making those units permanent for-sale affordable housing; and (2) the multi-family rental building includes a 50-year requirement that it remain affordable housing. • INHS conducted an extensive public participation process for the project, seeking a wide variety of input from the community, which INHS sought to balance with the City’s needs and other project limitations. INHS believes it arrived at the right balance. It is virtually impossible to provide affordable housing without some degree of density. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 • INHS never acted in bad faith with any member of the public. It always conveyed what it is believed to be true at the time. With the asbestos issue, for example, INHS purchased the property with a report from the seller that stated asbestos was not a problem. Once the site was fully investigated, however, INHS discovered that there was in fact an asbestos issue. • Seventy percent of the people attending the open houses supported the current project design, which also conforms to the City’s goals, as presented in the latter’s draft Comprehensive Plan. • There is a limit to how low the rents for the project can be brought down. • The reason for most of the requested height variance is that the site sits on a flood plain and therefore needs to be raised from the ground. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 Some minor revisions were made to the Part 2. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 Some minor The Board discussed and revised the Part 3. The project description was updated to reflect the current project proposal, which includes closing a portion of Adams Street to accommodate a playground and making one block of Lake Street a green space with a non-vehicular bike and pedestrian path. A bullet point was added to the mitigations listed on the final page of the “Impact on Growth & Character of Community or Neighborhood” section to read, “Designing the multifamily building and townhomes to reflect, in materials and form, existing historic commercial buildings and houses in the surrounding neighborhood.” Jones-Rounds suggested adding a reference to Tompkins County’s comment about increasing opportunities for using the roofs for renewable energy. Schroeder asked the applicant if the project could be designed to satisfy the County’s concern. Reynolds replied INHS is evaluating this. It would likely be relatively easy to do for the townhomes along Hancock Street; however, the townhomes fronting Lake Avenue would be more of a problem. He added the applicants are also still evaluating the potential for placing solar panels over the entire multifamily building roof. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for a mixed-use housing project 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 project sponsor proposes to construct twelve 2-story townhomes and a 4-story, approximately 65,000-SF, mixed-use building with approximately 53 apartments and approximately three ground-floor commercial spaces, totaling approximately 10,000 SF. Approximately 64 parking spaces will be provided ― approximately one third of which will be on the ground floor of the apartment building. The project sponsor also proposes to convert 0.77 acres of contiguous City-owned right- of-way (ROW) that include portions of Adams St. and Lake Ave. (both of which are public streets); the former would become a playground area with associated walks, and the later would become a green space with a central non-vehicular bike and pedestrian path. The project is in the B-2a Zoning District. The project requires the following approvals: site plan and subdivision approval from the Planning and Development Board (Lead Agency), a Flood Plain Development Permit, variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), approval from the Board of Public Works (BPW) for improvements to property in the public way, funding approval 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: the IURA and Common Council both 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, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board 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 comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on May 26, 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 revised by the Planning Board; and the following drawings: “Boundary and Topographic Map,” dated 10/28/14 and “Preliminary Subdivision Map,” dated 3/25/15, both prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; and “Utility Plan (C101),” “Esc Plan-Demolition and Construction (C102),” “Esc Plan - Stabilization (C103),” “Details (C201),” prepared by HOLT Architects and T.G. Miller P.C.; and “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Site Details (L501 & L502),” prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects and all dated DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 4/1/15; and “Site Plan,” dated 5/19/15; and “Elevations (2 sheets),” dated 5/4/15; and “Aerial View and Precedent,” “Perspective Views (2 sheets),” all dated 4/16/15; and “Site Sections,” “Context Diagram,” “Partial Elevation at Mid Block Walk Through,” and “Shade Studies,” dated 4/1/15 and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects and HOLT Architects; and “Revised Hancock Street Planting,” “Cornice at Red Brick Building,” “Cornice at Brown Brick Building,” “Cornice at White Brick Building,” dated 5/18/15 and prepared by HOLT Architects; 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, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One Schroeder remarked that one of the most extraordinary benefits of the project is that it will effectively extend Conley Park a full block south, by adding a playground and green space on former street rights-of-way; so Cascadilla Creek here will finally begin to be used according to its potential as a major urban amenity. Jones-Rounds said the project satisfies many of the Planning Board’s long-term planning objectives (e.g., infill, walkability, accessibility). All public comments have been listened to carefully, she added, and the Planning Board will consider them seriously. She stressed the project has the potential to serve a much wider community than simply the project’s residents. Blalock emphasized that the four-story height of the multi-family building is permitted by existing zoning, while the variance for building height in feet is necessitated by the need to raise the building out of the flood plain. The zoning appeal associated with the additional height will be considered at the July 7, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, so anyone interested in speaking to that particular issue should communicate his or her concerns at that meeting, he concluded. B. Texas Roadhouse Retail Building / Restaurant, 719-25 S. Meadow Street, Douglas Druen for Texas Roadhouse. Determination of Environmental Significance and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a 7,163-SF retail building / restaurant on a 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 project is in the SW-2 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to build a 43’-long, 3’-high architectural wall DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 as an alternative to the requirement in the Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 60% of a lot’s street frontage 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 recapitulated the salient details of explained the revisions that had been made to the proposed project per the Planning Board’s requests, including (1) removing a section of site wall that had blocked direct views of the main entrance from Meadow Street; (2) reducing the length of ramp parallel to Meadow Street; and (3) adding architectural detail to the east and south elevations. She said the following issues had been discussed at this month’s Project Review Committee meeting: • Site plan revisions are being made to raise the added piers to align with the tops of the lower shed roofs. (The lighting will also be re-situated to reflect the rhythm of the new piers.) • Landscaping improvement suggestions have been addressed (e.g., tree protection). • No problems have been identified with the applicant’s May 21, 2015 trip generation estimate. • A building materials sample board has been provided. • Lighting cut sheets will be provided as soon as they are available. Jones-Rounds expressed appreciation for the re-orientation improved visibility of the main entrance. Hubert replied the applicant is happy with the improvements that were made. She said the combined changes made to the project design have resulted in an improved project. Pyott read the following written comment from absent Board member Jack Elliott: “Still a confusing read from the Elmira Road. The perspective view from the SW looking northeast with the white car on the right clearly shows how the exit ramp meets the street producing a false signal of entry. It is more visible than the real entry point and it occurs on the approximate center of a very symmetrical west facade, increasing its visual importance. It would be better if the ramp continued down the entire west elevation to meet the railing of the main entry. The visual impact of this increased length could be ameliorated behind some planting to give the entire west facade a softer edge while reducing the confusing building semantics.” DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 Hubert responded that the applicant considered Elliott’s comments, but concluded the changes that were already made (e.g., additional landscaping, low wall, sidewalk connecting to the public sidewalk) significantly emphasize the main entry. Schroeder agreed. The landscaping helps make the building look more welcoming. If one were to extend the front ramp where Elliott suggests, it would block virtually the whole building from Meadow Street. There is not enough space for both the ramp and all the new landscaping. Blalock agreed. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 Some minor revisions were made to the Part 2. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds: 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 719-725 S. Meadow Street, 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 in 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 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, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: 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 comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: in a memorandum from Ed Marx, dated April 16, 2015, it was communicated that the County Planning Department has determined the project may have County-wide negative impacts and it recommends the site plan include a 50-foot DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 pervious buffer north of the intermittent stream to help reduce flood risks and improve water quality, and WHEREAS: the Lead Agency finds that it is not feasible to accommodate the proposed development and a 50-foot buffer on the already-developed property, and WHEREAS: the applicant has revised the proposal in response to concerns by the Lead Agency about the visibility of the entrance from the sidewalk, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on May 26, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by planning staff; and the following drawings: “Boundary and Topographic Survey,” prepared by Gallas Surveying Group, and dated 5/16/11; “Demolition Plan (C2.0),” “Grading and Drainage Plan (C4.0),” “Utility Plan (C5.0),” “Erosion Control Plan (C6.0),” “Erosion Control Details (C6.1),” “Construction Details (C7.0, C7.1, C7.2, & C7.3),” all dated 3/12/15; and “Overall Site Plan (C3.1),” and “Exterior Elevations (A2.0 & A2.1),” last dated 4/21/15; “Landscape Plan (L1.0)” and “Landscape Notes and Details (L2.01)” last dated 5/21/15, and undated and untitled photo simulations, and all prepared by Greenberg Farrow; 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, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for a 7,163-SF retail / restaurant building to be located at 719-725 S. Meadow Street, 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 be occupied by building mass. In accordance with the guidelines, the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 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, 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: 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 April 28, 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: in a memorandum from Ed Marx, dated April 16, 2015, it was communicated that the County Planning Department has determined the project may have County-wide negative impacts and it recommends the site plan include a 50-foot pervious buffer north of the intermittent stream to help reduce flood risks and improve water quality, and WHEREAS: the Lead Agency finds that it is not feasible to accommodate the proposed development and a 50-foot buffer on the already-developed property, and WHEREAS: the applicant has revised the proposal in response to concerns by the Lead Agency about the visibility of the entrance from the sidewalk, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on May 26, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by planning staff; and the following drawings: “Boundary and Topographic Survey,” prepared by Gallas Surveying Group, and dated 5/16/11; “Demolition Plan (C2.0),” “Grading and Drainage Plan (C4.0),” “Utility Plan (C5.0),” “Erosion Control Plan (C6.0),” “Erosion Control Details (C6.1),” “Construction Details (C7.0, C7.1, C7.2, & C7.3),” all dated 3/12/15; and “Overall Site Plan (C3.1),” and “Exterior Elevations (A2.0 & A2.1),” last dated 4/21/15; “Landscape Plan (L1.0)” and “Landscape Notes and Details (L2.01)” last dated 5/21/15, and undated and untitled photo simulations, and all prepared by Greenberg Farrow; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on May 26, 2015 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed project, now, therefore, be it DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 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. Submission of project details including, but not limited to, site furnishings, lighting, and building materials, and ii. Submission of drawing and / or a narrative indicating planned route for construction traffic, and iii. Submission of revised building elevations showing architectural piers, on the south and east façades, extending to the top of the adjacent shed roofs, as well as relocation of the wall lights to align with the piers, and iv. Approval in writing from the Ithaca Fire Department that the proposed project meets its requirements for emergency response. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One Blalock remarked that the Planning Board expressed numerous concerns and suggestions to the applicant, and the applicant addressed them all thoroughly and patiently. He believes the Site Plan Review process produced a better project, both for the applicant and the community. Hubert agreed. C. Tompkins Financial Downtown Headquarters, 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP for Tompkins Trust Company. Review of FEAF, Parts 2 & 3. The applicant proposes to construct a seven (7) story, 110,000-SF office building as a new corporate headquarters at 118 E. Seneca Street, 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 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 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 24 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 and Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects updated the Board on the proposed project. Michaels noted, since the last Planning Board meeting, the applicants have provided additional technical documents with additional narrative. She said the applicants met with the State Department of Transportation, which authorized the dual exit lanes for the bank teller building site plan. The applicants also provided drawings to City Fire Chief Tom Parsons, who has not yet identified any problems. City Parking Director Frank Nagy is also comfortable with the project’s parking strategy. The applicants received the May 20, 2015 memorandum from City Historic Preservation Planner Bryan McCracken, titled “Potential Impact of the Tompkins Financial Headquarters and Drive-Through Project on Historic Resources Located Within the DeWitt Park Historic District,” which they are considering. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 Some minor revisions were made to the Part 2. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 Schroeder remarked that the blank stair tower area on the north façade would be much improved if it featured windows or some other architectural interest. He also suggested adding tree plantings to screen that side of the building. He stressed that this north façade has to be considered very carefully, and should be well articulated, given its highly visible stature. Hugo agreed. For environmental review purposes, Schroeder requested photo simulations of what the headquarters building would look like from six different pedestrian points of view, as well as full-block elevations showing this new building in its context along both Seneca and Buffalo Streets. Hugo replied he believes the applicants can supply all these. Schroeder said Historic Preservation Planner McCracken made a good point when he suggested incorporating design features in the headquarters building to ensure its size, scale, and massing are compatible with the surrounding buildings. He said he hopes the applicants will consider McCracken’s ideas in some way, so the height of all four buildings appears to align. Cornish suggested the “Impact on Historic Resources” section be more detailed. Schroeder agreed, noting the aforementioned McCracken memorandum could simply be quoted. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 25 The revised FEAF Parts 2 and 3 will be considered at next month’s Planning Board meeting. D. Building & Vehicle Display Expansion, 308-318 Elmira Road, Schickel Architecture for Maguire Family Enterprises. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,100-SF addition to the east side of the existing building, reconfigure the vehicle display and associated parking layout, including shifting the existing entrance 65 feet to the northeast, add 20 display parking spaces, and install other site improvements including landscaping, lighting, and signage. The applicant is proposing 5% internal landscaping ― 12% is required. The applicant is requesting to build an architectural wall / fence as an alternative to the requirement in the Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 35% 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 35% building frontage, to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall. The project occupies two tax parcels and requires parcel consolidation, as well as an Area Variance for exceeding the maximum 30 34 foot front yard setback in the SW-2 Zoning District. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review. Architect Tom Schickel of Schickel Architecture recapitulated the salient details of introduced the Board to the proposed project, noting the project design was generally well received by the Project Review Committee. Schickel explained one of the biggest changes associated with the project is the relocation of one driveway and the removal of another smaller one, thereby improving circulation and providing room for additional display parking spaces. A nice walkway out of the building will be created, leading to a triangle of green space. He noted an earlier building elevation was modified to include a small addition on the second floor (for a lunchroom). The existing second floor will be renovated, and will be given additional windows. Schickel noted the project will need a zoning variance because the building is set back too far from the curb. The applicant will also need Planning Board approval for an architectural wall / fence as an alternative to the Southwest Area Design Guidelines requirement that a minimum of 35 percent of a lot’s street frontage be occupied by building mass. There will also be two signs on the site (one of which will be relocated from its current location); the applicant has been told this will require a sign variance. Schroeder asked for drawings of the proposed signs. Schickel agreed to provide them. Schroeder asked if the applicant had reviewed the City Forester’s comments. Schickel replied, yes, and said he subsequently provided her with more information and she then indicated she no longer had any objections. He explained only one tree will be removed. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 26 Schroeder observed a primary question the Board needs to ask itself is whether the Board is content with the percentage of green space proposed within the site. While guidelines call for 12 percent, the site plan provides only 5 percent. Schroeder remarked this is acceptable to him, as the site will appear vastly greener than it does now. (In his written comments, Elliott had expressed concern about the green space percentage). Schickel replied the applicants will not be removing much green space will be slightly increasing the amount of green space on the overall site. But the portions of the site the applicants would actually be altering would include approximately 10 percent landscaping, just below the desired 12 percent threshold. 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 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 building addition and expanded parking / vehicle display area, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 1,100-SF addition to the east side of the existing building, reconfigure the vehicle display and associated parking layout, including shifting the existing entrance 65 feet to the northeast, add 20 parking spaces, and install other site improvements including landscaping, lighting, and signage. The applicant is proposing 5% internal landscaping ― 12% is required. The applicant is requesting to build an architectural wall / fence as an alternative to the requirement in the Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage 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 35% building frontage, to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall. The project occupies two tax parcels and requires parcel consolidation, as well as an Area Variance for exceeding the maximum 30 34 foot front yard setback in the SW-2 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore, be it DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 27 RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the proposed project. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2983 ― 228 W. Spencer Street: Area & Parking Variances Appeal of Noah Demarest for PPM Homes, owner of 228 West Spencer Street for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4 and 11, Off Street Parking, and Front Yard Setback, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. On June 3, 2014, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted Area Variance to the owner Theron L. Johnson Trust under Appeal #2944, so that a house with a footprint of 600 SF could be built on the deficient lot at 228 West Spencer. Variances were granted for Lot Area, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, both Side Yards, and Rear Yard. The owner was also granted a variance for the proposed parking garage on the lowest level of this dwelling, which was designed to be 10.6’x16’ instead of the required 8’x18’ feet. These variances were granted with conditions that limit the building size to a footprint of 600 SF, and limit the overall square footage of the building to 1,478 SF. Furthermore, the Board conditioned the granting of the variance based on the building plans submitted by the applicant. The Board specified no deficiencies granted under Appeal #2944 could be exceeded as a result of altering this building design. The property at 228 West Spencer Street has now been sold to PPM Homes and the new applicant has submitted a new house design, which only has a footprint of 494 SF. While the new design means that two deficiencies, Percentage of Lot Coverage and Other Side Yard, previously granted under Appeal #2944 are no longer needed, the new design does not provide off-street parking and increases the front yard deficiency previously granted. Under Appeal #2944, the previous applicant submitted plans showing a garage space in the lowest level of the house. The new applicant’s design does not provide a basement garage to meet the off-street parking requirements and claims there is ample off-site parking on nearby streets. The new applicant is also increasing the deficiency granted for the front yard under the previous appeal. The previous applicant had a front yard deficiency of 2’6”. The proposed front yard under this new design will be 1’6”. The requirement for front yard setback is 10 feet. The parcel at 228 West Spencer Street is in an R-2b Use District, where the proposed use is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports granting it. This is a challenging site with many constraints. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 28 Appeal #2984 ― 108 Ferris Place: Parking Variance Appeal of Noah Demarest for Todd Fox, owner of 108 Ferris Place, for a variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard Setbacks, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property at 108 Ferris Place is a six-bedroom single-family home. The owner proposes to construct a new two-bedroom apartment in the basement. The six-bedroom house requires three off-street parking spaces and the two-bedroom apartment needs one off-street space. There is only one parking space on site. The applicant states that because of the building’s close proximity to downtown and Cornell University, bus service is readily available. There are also two existing deficiencies. The front yard is 10’10”; required is a front yard of 25 feet. The other side yard is 5’6”; required is a side yard of 10 feet. The property at 108 Ferris Place is in an R-2a Use District, where the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports granting it. Appeal #2985 ― 310-318 S. Albany Street: Sign Variance Appeal of Patrick Weir for 318 South Albany Street, LLC, owners of Beechtree Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing, for a variance from Section 272-6 B. (1), Size of Sign, requirements of the Sign Ordinance. The applicant currently has an existing freestanding sign at the corner of Albany and South Clinton Streets. Due to organizational changes, they wish to replace the existing sign with their new business name. The existing sign is 24 SF and they would like to replace it with a new sign having the same area in size. Section 272-6 B. (1) limits Commercial signs in Residential Districts to an area of 12 SF. The property at 310-318 South Albany Street is in an R-3a Residential District where signs are a permitted accessory use. However, Section 272-18 requires that a variance be granted before a Sign Permit can be issued. The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports granting it. 6. Old / New Business A. Review of State SEQR Forms Nicholas explained the City could move forward with adopting the new state SEQR forms, while retaining its existing CEQR ordinance (which would keep thresholds the same). It will be vital to coordinate the transition to the new forms with all other City boards / committees that routinely employ CEQR forms. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 29 Schroeder indicated he would very much prefer the City to craft its own versions of the forms, to meet all its requirements. For example, the transportation section (p. 7) in the state form permits a developer to simply check the initial “No” box, without actually responding to any of the other questions in that section. Schroeder said developers should not be able to avoid providing information on topics like bicycles, public transportation, etc. There are also, he said, some areas of the state forms that do not address City concerns / objectives at all (e.g., the City’s local historic districts and Tompkins County’s Unique Natural Areas). Jones-Rounds agreed. Green building practices would be another example of something not adequately addressed in the state forms. Nicholas responded there is nothing to prevent the Board from requiring applicants to reply to every single question, or provide a set of supplemental questions. If the City alters the state form, however, it would lose the benefits of being a part of the state system. Schroeder suggested adding a supplemental form. Cornish indicated a detailed instruction sheet could also achieve the same purpose. Schroeder noted applicants could simply be directed to “answer all sections to the best of your availability.” He added that an opposite problem with the state forms, though, is that they are very specific about subjects the City virtually never needs to know about. Nicholas indicated she would review the forms and explore how best to proceed. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Cornish reported the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan will be completed shortly and the Planning Board will have the opportunity responsibility to review the full document — and potentially recommend it, or a modified version of it, to Common Council — at its June 30, 2015 special meeting. She said the Comprehensive Plan has received a considerable amount of positive feedback from the public. Cornish indicated the City is beginning to receive significant pushback from people in the community, from a variety of perspectives, regarding the Trebloc Building proposal for 600 students (presented as a Sketch Plan at the last Planning Board meeting). While the project would be allowed by zoning, she said the Planning Board should begin evaluating how the addition of 600 students would impact the downtown area. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 30 Blalock responded he would personally like more detailed guidance on how to proceed with the project. Cornish replied the best approach / platform is probably the CEQR process. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Darling noted there has been much discussion about a proposed protected bike lane on Cayuga Street (two lanes and a barrier between traffic), which has garnered considerable support. He does not personally believe it is the right time and place for it (e.g., there is no money in the budget to do anything but painting). 8. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the draft March 24, 2015 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Elliott, Randall Vacancies: One 9. Adjournment On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.