Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-06-23DRAFT 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 June 23, 2015 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott; Robert Aaron Lewis; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None 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: 210 Hancock Street, Redevelopment of Entire Block Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services DiBella’s Restaurant at 222 Elmira Road David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.E.; Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect; Claude T. Chandonnet, Merchants’ National Properties, Inc. Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and Relocated Drive-Through at 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects; Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP Four Multi-Family Dwellings at 215 Spencer Street DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Rob Morache, STREAM Collaborative Cornell University Johnson School of Management Executive Education Program at 209-215 Dryden Road (Sketch Plan) Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 Architects; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; John Novarr, 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC; Phil Proujansky, 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site (Sketch Plan 2) Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Ronnie L. Macejewski, Campus Advantage Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Blalock suggested the Board first consider the Special Order of Business. There were no objections. 2. Special Order of Business ― Public Comment on Draft Comprehensive Plan Kirby Edmonds, Comprehensive Plan Committee Chair, presented the following statement to the Board: At its meeting on June 15, the Comprehensive Plan Committee voted to recommend the draft Plan Ithaca, dated June 15, 2015, to the Planning and Development Board for its review and consideration. The draft plan represents years of work by the Committee and staff and includes input from hundreds of community residents. The Comprehensive Plan Committee currently includes 14 voting members and a non- voting liaison from the Town of Ithaca. The voting members were selected to represent different neighborhoods throughout the city and to reflect a broad range of community interests. As most of you know, the process of preparing the draft plan was longer than anticipated and encountered several challenges. When the Committee was first established by the Planning Board, it was going to select a consultant to prepare the plan and then oversee the consultant’s work. We worked with a consultant team for about a year on some initial background reports and on the first phase of public outreach. Following the completion of these tasks, the City decided to continue the process without the consultant team, and the remaining work on the plan was done in-house by the Committee and Planning staff. Committee members became actively involved in drafting the content of the plan and designing and facilitating public outreach efforts. While this DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 was not the original role of the Committee, we believe this resulted in a stronger plan that reflects the goals and ideas of the community. Public outreach has been a priority for the Committee throughout the planning process, and we made efforts to gather community input at the various stages of the plan’s development. Through public meetings, focus groups, open houses, surveys, and written comments, we gathered input from many residents, business owners, visitors, and surrounding municipalities that informed the plan. These comments have been incorporated into the draft plan that is now before you, and we anticipate that additional input provided to the Planning Board and Common Council will continue to shape the plan. As you review the Plan Ithaca, it is important to understand that the plan has separate chapters but all of the chapters are strongly integrated as a whole document. Chapters often reference topics addressed in another area of the plan, and a change in one chapter may impact other parts of the plan. While the Committee’s work on the draft plan itself is complete, we will continue to work on our recommendations for implementation priorities, including a prioritized list of neighborhood and thematic plans to be completed as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan. We anticipate sending you this list in July or August. [J.G.S. Editing Note: I have moved the following three additional public comments regarding the Comprehensive Plan up from the “Privilege of the Floor” section to this section, where they logically belong.] Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, spoke regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan. She asked that it not be approved until the Ithaca Community Gardens is removed from a designated “Enterprise” area on the Future Land Use Map. She believes there is a conflict between the plan’s sustainability goal and placing the community gardens in the “Enterprise” area as a desirable site for commercial development. She said the City should provide the Ithaca Community Gardens with a permanent home in its current location. Karen Smith, 68 Mary Street and Ithaca Community Gardens board of directors member, spoke regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan and also asked that the community gardens be removed from the “Enterprise” area. She stressed the community gardens provide a benefit to the entire Ithaca community. In a recent survey, it was determined that 90 percent of members are City of Ithaca residents; 45 percent use their plots to feed four or more people; 19 percent earn an annual income of $16,600 or less; and 19 percent identify themselves as people of color. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan, stating he has heard too many negative public comments about the plan. He added there is nothing preventing the Ithaca Community Gardens from relocating. 3. Privilege of the Floor DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 Beth Feldman, 311 Willow Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating she has lived in Fall Creek for a number of years. The draft Comprehensive Plan, she said, appears to designate the project site for medium-density residential development, for which no significant changes to the character of the neighborhood are planned. She objected to the project because she thinks it would be much denser than the Comprehensive Plan appears to recommend. The Northside neighborhood is already fairly dense, she said. Kevin Sutherland, 304 E. Marshall Street, spoke strongly in support of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, noting it would provide safer pedestrian pathways and more green space. The pedestrian path extension will make the whole area safer and more pleasurable, he maintained, adding that the project as a whole is a valuable opportunity to build desperately needed affordable housing in Ithaca. Because of his own family background, Sutherland indicated he feels especially sensitive to the need for affordable housing and the sense of community he said the project would provide to lower-income families. INHS also took considerable effort to host a series of community meetings and to incorporate people’s concerns into the project design, he concluded. Joel Fredell, 208 Lake Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, maintaining that the neighbors’ concerns seem to have been roundly ignored by the developer. Furthermore, he said, it is only by virtue of 1970s-era zoning that INHS is allowed to build such a tall building in the first place. He fears the project would just be the first in a series of projects that would create a Collegetown-like “canyon” of tall buildings, establishing an undesirable precedent for the entire area. Robert Gaylor, 405 Willow Avenue, added his opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, declaring he would like the neighborhood to remain as family-friendly as possible. The added density of the project would produce too much traffic and noise, he said, making the neighborhood unfriendly for families. He sees no reason the project could not be limited to three stories. Janice McCarrick, 313 Willow Avenue, also objected to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating it was not a good fit for the neighborhood. She said she lives within 200 feet of the site, and that when she attended the project’s public open houses, she was told the project had to include a high-rise building. She wondered what the purpose of the public meetings was, if the project design was already a “done deal.” She remarked the draft Comprehensive Plan designates the neighborhood as medium-density, with which the project seems to conflict. She also cited additional traffic, noise, and other disturbances from the construction phase of the project. Her house has a very old foundation, she concluded, and she is not sure if it would even survive the construction process. Dick Feldman, 311 Willow Avenue, added his voice against the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, noting that while he respects the work INHS has done in the community over the years, and while Ithaca certainly needs more affordable housing, the Northside DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 community already has a disproportionate share of it. He announced he has collected over 220 signatures from on a petition opposing the project. The two major concerns, he said, are: (1) the large building would not conform to the character of the neighborhood; and (2) the project would rely too much on on-street neighborhood parking. Matt Ryan, 114 Dey Street, and former Mayor of Binghamton, N.Y., spoke in opposition to the same project, stating it troubles him that the developer justifies the size of the building by arguing it needs to obtain a return on its investment. While he said he supports low-income housing, the draft Comprehensive Plan does indicate the neighborhood should have 10-20 dwelling units per acre, compared to what he described as the project’s “66 dwelling units per acre.” The developer would still make a return on the investment with a three-story building, he maintained. Kathleen Lilley, 111 Lake Street, also criticized the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating she sees no reason for pushing an urban density development model in a place like Ithaca that has already been cited multiple times as one of the best places to live. The project would be too out-of-scale with the rest of the neighborhood. Will Russell, 112 Auburn Street, added comments against the same project, noting he has owned his home for 19 years and loves the neighborhood. He said he understands that change is inevitable, supports low-income housing in the Fall Creek and Northside neighborhoods, and supports such a use on the large currently unused site. However, the project is too large and does not reflect the Fall Creek area, he said. He described the parking plan as unrealistic, and opposes granting the height and parking variances. Robert Sherman, 401 Willow Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating it would be out of character with the neighborhood and would have a direct impact on people’s quality of life. He does not believe the Zoning Variance should be granted for the following reasons. First, the building is larger than anything else INHS has built, is too big for the neighborhood, and should be limited to three stories. Second, there is inadequate parking; since INHS is not planning to provide enough spaces for every renter, people would have to fight for parking spaces at the complex, or park somewhere else in the neighborhood. Third, contrary to what the public was told at every INHS public meeting, construction of the very large building will require the use of a pile-driver on site for at least six weeks, affecting everyone living within a mile of the site; if a pile-driver must be used it should be limited to certain times of day (or days of the week). Fourth, contrary to what was presented at the community meetings, there is asbestos on the site that must be remediated; he respectfully requested more information on how serious the asbestos situation is and how it would be remediated. Finally, he said he would also like the water table testing results to be made publicly available. Peter Martin, 305 Willow Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, noting that current zoning in fact permits four stories on the site and that the requested variance is only for an additional 6 feet. He urged the Board to recommend the approval of the height variance. Regarding the parking variance, he noted it is the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 developer’s experience from its other projects that many of the project’s prospective tenants would neither need, nor use parking. Assuming that is the case, he urged the Board to also recommend approval of the parking variance. Martin stressed it is a unique site that very much invites this kind of development. Roger Dennis, 1075 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca, spoke in opposition to the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, describing Fall Creek as a unique neighborhood and declaring it wrong to alter the neighborhood to such an extent. While a developer himself, he believes maintaining the integrity of a neighborhood is more important than earning a return on an investment. Sarah Hays, 318 Lake Avenue, opposed the same project, citing pile driving as her principal concern. She said the listed pile-driving hours extend too late. While she said she is not a homeowner and generally supports affordable housing and rent-to-own projects, she objects to the four-story building height. On the other hand, she said she believes INHS has been particularly responsive to community concerns. Anna Kelles, 139 Linn Street, spoke regarding the Old Library project and urged the Planning Board to support the West Court Lofts and Wellness Collective proposal, led by Franklin Properties and STREAM Collaborative. This would be a mixed-use project that would re-use the existing library foundation, she said, stating that ninety percent of a building’s embodied energy is in its foundation and frame. This project represents the only adaptive re-use project of all the proposals, she said, and also happens to be the only one that preserves existing green space and provides homeownership opportunities, which she said Ithaca desperately needs. Daniel Keough, 715 N. Aurora Street, submitted written comments in advance of the meeting supporting the proposed 210 Hancock Street project, stating it would convert a vast amount of asphalt (the least desirable use of land in the city) into a project with many desirable features. One of the project’s best features, he wrote, is that it would not include a surplus of parking, thereby providing a good model for more local housing. He added that this would also improve the character of the neighborhood. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke strongly in favor of the proposed 210 Hancock Street project and urged the Board to move forward in approving it. 4. Site Plan Review A. Mixed-Use Housing, 210 Hancock Street (former Neighborhood Pride store), Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Project Update & Recommendation to BZA. 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 12 two-story townhomes and a four-story approximately 65,000-SF mixed-use building with approximately 53 apartments and three two ground-floor commercial spaces, totaling approximately 10,000 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 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 applicant 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 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),for which environmental review was completed on May 26, 2015. Applicants Joe Bowes of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), Steve Hugo and Nathan Brown of HOLT Architects, and Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, described the current status of the proposed project. Bowes indicated the applicants worked hard to improve the building façade and project program over past few months, and noted the following: • There are now only one commercial space, not two commercial spaces, not three. • Green space has been added to the front of the main building at the First and Hancock street corner, where the first-floor footprint has been reduced on the First Street side, and the community room downstairs has been relocated, allowing it to be shared with the HeadStart program. • An additional entry point has been added to the building, so there is now access through the building in three locations. • Negotiations are moving forward with the City Attorney regarding the Lake Avenue right-of-way. • The project team met with the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) about the park-like area and its relationship to Conley Park, to make it feel more fully integrated with the park. Trowbridge and Hugo walked through the following additional project details: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 • The City is seeking a clearer visual definition between the townhouses and the public right-of-way, to ensure it is clear who would be responsible for maintaining which area, and where the edge of the townhouse landscaping is located. • The City Forester asked the project team to review the City’s forestry plan (Ithaca's Trees: Master Plan, Inventory, & Arboricultural Guidelines for Public Trees) to ensure the landscaping conforms. • There is now a clear and accessible path through the interior of the site for occupants, neighbors, visitors, etc. • Green screens have been placed at the parking garage openings. • The landscape plan includes more green space (as described above), making the entrance more welcoming. Schroeder noted that the agenda package had not included some of the presented drawings and asked if they could be provided to the Board. Hugo replied, yes. Elliott asked if the applicants have confirmed the choice of foundation. Bowes replied, yes, it would be placed on piles. Elliott asked if they would be friction piles. Bowes replied the piles would be driven. Elliott suggested it may be worth investigating other potential methods, given some of the neighbors’ concerns. Schroeder agreed: auger drilling is far quieter and less disruptive, he said, and he urged the applicant to consider it. Bowes replied that the applicants would indeed explore the feasibility of auger drilling. Jones-Rounds observed many of the concerns articulated by community members appear to be based on notions that the project would somehow not be family-friendly or safe. She expressed discomfort with framing the project in those particular terms. In her own experience, she said, those terms often spring from an unfortunate underlying classist mindset. Schroeder said the references made by some opponents of the project to the City’s draft Comprehensive Plan ignore the fact that the Future Land Use Map therein was not designed to be so fine-grained. As a member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, he can attest to the fact that there was never any intent to encourage construction of four- story buildings in areas of the Fall Creek and Northside neighborhoods with existing traditional wood-frame houses. This particular block, he said, is a special case, because it has long been commercially-zoned: it is a large vacant block with an abandoned retail store being replaced with good-quality affordable housing and more green space ― a vast improvement over current conditions. Randall agreed, noting she could not imagine a better project, from a wide variety of perspectives (e.g., expansion of green space, accessibility and walkability, access to public transportation, etc.). DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 Blalock agreed with Schroeder that the project would be an enormous improvement to the neighborhood and to the City, including a number of family-friendly amenities. He stressed that the vast majority of other conceivable uses of the site permitted by zoning would be considerably less attractive and provide much less benefit to the community. Lewis agreed. Darling indicated his only major concern with the project is the height of the large building. He is concerned approving the height variance would set a precedent. He imagines it should be possible for the project to be viable with only three stories. Blalock responded that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) considers each appeal on a case-by-case basis, so there is no precedent-setting aspect to approval. Cornish confirmed that is the case. She stressed that the only main reason for the height variance request is due to the building’s location on a floodplain, which requires it to be raised. The variance would also permit parking under the building, which she said is a great benefit. The Board then agreed on a recommendation to the BZA, which is presented in the “5. Zoning Appeals” portion of these minutes. B. DiBella’s Retail Building / Restaurant (Revised Project), 222 Elmira Road (Ithaca Plaza), Marx Realty & Improvement Co., Inc. No Action ― Project Update Only. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story 3,400-SF retail building with 49 parking spaces and associated landscaping, walkways, and other site improvements. The 6.1-acre project site contains an existing retail mall with 258 parking spaces. The project includes relocation of the existing driveway to align with Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning District, which allows a maximum building setback of 34 feet from the curbline. The project requires an Area Variance for the proposed 40’ 70’ setback. The applicant has proposed a 4’-tall architectural wall along a portion of the frontage. 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. Consultant David Herrick and architect Jason Demarest recapitulated the salient details of described the revised proposed project. Herrick explained that the state Department of Transportation (DOT) has seen the project plans, including the plan to use the existing intersection, and it responded with a number of questions. Since the Board last reviewed the project, he said, the applicants have spent that entire time analyzing all the potential intersection impacts and working with the DOT on those kinds of details (e.g., poles, arms, signals, detector loops, intersection geometry). At this stage, the applicants believe they have addressed all DOT concerns. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 Demarest noted the building would be clad in brick, with a painted metal standing-seam roof, canopies, storefront glass and some columnar elements. A pedestrian pathway will cross between two site wall segments. Schroeder suggested the applicants change the pedestrian pathway into a well-delineated concrete sidewalk extending all the way to the building. He asked if the applicants could use concrete for the pathway. Applicant Claude Chandonnet responded he would not object to using concrete there, along with a speed bump. Jones-Rounds suggested better delineation of pedestrian access at the intersection. It is a large intersection, she noted, so anything that can be done to increase people’s awareness of pedestrians should be pursued. Schroeder suggested consolidating the Five Guys Burgers & Fries garbage enclosure currently shown on the site plan between the new DiBella’s and Five Guys with one further back on the site. He noted this would allow a large, attractive outdoor dining space serving both restaurants. He said the public view from Route 13 would be much improved if it consisted of diners rather than a garbage enclosure. Chandonnet responded he would be happy to explore that possibility. C. Tompkins Financial Headquarters, 118 & 119 E. Seneca Street, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP for Tompkins Trust Company. Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, & Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for Phases 1 & 2. The applicant proposes to construct a seven-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 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. Steve Hugo and Nathan Brown of HOLT Architects, Kim Michaels of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, and Greg Wilder of Tompkins Trust Company recapitulated the salient details of updated the Board on the proposed project. Hugo and Michaels highlighted these project details: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 • Project team met with the Design Review Committee to hear its recommendations, which will be considered, although most of those recommendations have not yet been incorporated. • Headquarters building cladding will consist of two major sub-components: black brick and limestone. • Headquarters building will borrow from the lines and features of adjacent buildings. • Ground floor of the headquarters building will convey a monumental scale, and include a public view into a two-story banking hall. Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants could explore adding some signage (alerting drivers to pedestrians) for cars exiting from both teller lanes. Michaels agreed to do so. Darling added that the E. Seneca Street sidewalk should extend through both exit lanes at a continuous elevation. Public Hearing On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Inshik Lee, speaking on behalf of William Downing Associates, 215 N. Cayuga Street, noted the DeWitt Mall building is both residential and commercial. She said William Downing Associates has already spoken with the applicants about some of its concerns, including the possible loss of property value, its desire to maintain an appropriate scale in the downtown area, the loss of views, privacy, shading, etc. Probably its primary concern is noise-related issues during construction. It would also like to receive advance notice of construction, so it can inform its tenants. Ted Papperman, 119 E. Buffalo Street, remarked that when the Hilton Garden Inn was constructed the building at 119 E. Buffalo Street sustained some damage from the pile driving. He would like to know who would be responsible for any damage and what would qualify as evidence of damage. Nicholas responded that is usually worked out with the construction company. Developers ordinarily take responsibility for that process in an effort to protect their own interests. Schroeder noted the former Holiday Inn project was required by the Planning Board to document existing surrounding conditions prior to the beginning of pile driving, which he would also propose doing in this case. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 There being no further public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones- Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Schroeder suggested that bumping the curb out along the E. Seneca Street headquarters building frontage would be highly beneficial and a tremendous addition to the project. The applicant is limited in how far it can push the building north of the street line to provide additional pedestrian space, he said, but the curb bump-out approach would be an alternative solution that would not only add sidewalk width but also room for large street trees. No parking spaces would be lost, he added, because this area is now one long curbcut for the existing drive-through banking facility. A conversation should be held with the DOT about eliminating the four parking spaces at that location. This concept, he added, could extend the sense of spaciousness provided by the existing DeWitt Mall sidewalk and tree plantings further east. Michaels replied that is a wonderful idea, if feasible; she said the applicants will explore the idea with City Parking Director Frank Nagy and the DOT. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 The Board briefly reviewed the Part 2 form. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 The Board agreed to a number of changes proposed by Schroeder, including correcting the Design Review Committee’s recommendations and making the following additions: — Under the “Impact on Land” heading, listing the following mitigations agreed to by applicant: • Before pile driving begins, applicant shall document the condition of buildings in the project’s immediate vicinity. • Applicant shall use the pile-driving vibration monitoring techniques decribed in this section. • Pile-driving will be restricted to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday – Friday. — Under the “Impact on Historic Resources” heading, listing the following mitigations agreed to by applicant: • Applicant shall submit for approval by Lead Agency revised building elevations, site plan, and other materials, showing applicant’s response to the June 8, 2015 recommendations of the Design Review Committee. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 • Applicant shall seek permission from adjacent property owner for planting of tall trees to help screen northwest corner of proposed headquarters building from DeWitt Park. — Under the “Impact on Transportation” heading, listing the following mitigations agreed to by applicant: • Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a Transportation Demand Management Plan, that, at a minimum, provides an inventory of existing employee commuting patterns and modes, location and capacity of current parking facilities, future anticipated needs, as well as strategies to provide incentives for alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle commuting. • All contractor parking will be directed toward the Cayuga Street Garage. • Applicant shall seek approval from the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation to install a curb bump-out (rather than four parallel parking spaces) in front of the headquarters building to provide ample pedestrian space plus room for large street trees. Hugo expressed concern with the 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. time restriction for pile driving. Cornish replied that is unavoidable, since the project is next to a residential building and a hotel. She offered extend the restriction to 5:00 p.m. Nicholas reported the applicants did not find any environmental contaminants from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, which she will document in the Part 3. 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 seven-story office building and drive- through teller building, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a seven-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 14 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 has undergone 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’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: both agencies have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on April 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency in 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 June 23, 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 and revised by the Planning Board; and the following drawings: “Boundary and Topographic Map of No. 109 No. 111 and No. 113-119 & 121 East Seneca Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York” and “Boundary and Topographic Map Showing Lands of Tompkins Trust Company, Located at 118 East Seneca Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York,” both prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. and dated 2/25/15; “Utility Demolition Plan (C101 & C102),” “Utility Plan (C103 & C104),” “South Side Rendering (L001),” “North Side Rendering (L001),” “Demo Plan (L101 & L102),” “Layout Plan (L201 & L202),” “Grading Plan L301 & L302),” “Planting Plan (L401 & L402),” “Site Details (L501),” “Ground Floor Plan (A101),” “2nd-7th Floors (A102),” “Ground Floor Plan (A103),” “Headquarters Elevation South (A201),” “Headquarters Elevation East (A202),” “Headquarters Elevation North (A203),” “Headquarters Elevation West (A204),” “Drive Thru Elevation South (A201),” “Drive Thru Elevation North (A205),” “Drive Thru Elevation East (A206),” “Drive Thru Elevation South (A207),” and “Drive Thru Elevation West (A208),” all dated 5/12/15; and “Street Corner Perspectives,” “Street Elevations,” Headquarters Perspective,” and “Drive Thru Perspective” dated 6/9/15 and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects and 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 DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Site Plan Approval: 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 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 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 has received 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’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: both agencies have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on April 28, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency in the environmental review of the project, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: a Public Hearing for the proposed action was held on June 23, 2015, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Design Review Committee met on June 8, 2015 and recommended the following: • Be more explicit about intention for sustainable building materials, construction practices and building functions. Consider use of photovoltaic glazing. Building should be an example of sustainability in the downtown, and • Add windows to the stair tower on the north façade, and • Wrap band of larger-paned glass vertically down black brick “column” (same as narrower band of glass) on Seneca Street façade, and • Inset ground floor columns if possible, and • Vary the massing: Consider enhancing the change in materials on the Seneca Street façade (between limestone and black brick) with changes to the building volumes ― such that the materials express differing interior spaces, and • Strengthen the horizontal reference to the DeWitt Building roofline, and • Vary patterning / finishes on exterior veneers (e.g., three dimensional profiling of limestone piers), and • Enhance entrance ― pedestrian entrance should be more powerful / prominent than vehicular entrance, and • Consider green roof and possible rooftop balcony or terrace, and • Make the “limestone” versus “black brick” portions of the Seneca Street façade into two internally-consistent architectural systems that are used on all four elevations, and • Coordinate with adjacent property owner to create a space for taller landscaping at north façade ― or incorporate a green screen, and • For drive-through location: Plant a green screen or other landscaping on west wall, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on June 23, 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 and revised by the Planning Board; and the following drawings: “Boundary and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 Topographic Map of No. 109 No. 111 and No. 113-119 & 121 East Seneca Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York” and “Boundary and Topographic Map Showing Lands of Tompkins Trust Company, Located at 118 East Seneca Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York,” both prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. and dated 2/25/15; “Utility Demolition Plan (C101 & C102),” “Utility Plan (C103 & C104),” “South Side Rendering (L001),” “North Side Rendering (L001),” “Demo Plan (L101 & L102),” “Layout Plan (L201 & L202),” “Grading Plan L301 & L302),” “Planting Plan (L401 & L402),” “Site Details (L501),” “Ground Floor Plan (A101),” “2nd-7th Floors (A102),” “Ground Floor Plan (A103),” “Headquarters Elevation South (A201),” “Headquarters Elevation East (A202),” “Headquarters Elevation North (A203),” “Headquarters Elevation West (A204),” “Drive Thru Elevation North (A205),” “Drive Thru Elevation East (A206),” “Drive Thru Elevation South (A207),” and “Drive Thru Elevation West (A208),” all dated May 12, 2015; and “Street Corner Perspectives,” “Street Elevations,” “Headquarters Perspective,” and “Drive Thru Perspective,” dated June 9, 2015 and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects and HOLT Architects; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on June 23, 2015 determine the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and did make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the entire project (both the Headquarters Building and the Drive- Through), subject to the following conditions: i. Written approval from the City of Ithaca Fire Chief that the project meets all fire access needs, and ii. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and iii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised building elevations, site plan, and other materials, showing applicant’s response to the aforementioned June 8, 2015 recommendations of the Design Review Committee, and iv. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of colored elevations with keyed to materials samples board, and building materials, and v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but not limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting, and vi. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of a Transportation Demand Management Plan, that, at a minimum, provides an inventory of existing employee commuting patterns and modes, location and capacity of current parking facilities, future anticipated needs, as well as strategies to provide incentives for alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle commuting, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 vii. Applicant shall seek permission from adjacent property owner for planting of tall trees to help screen northwest corner of proposed headquarters building from DeWitt Park. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None D. Four Multi-Family Dwellings ― “Pocket Neighborhood,” 215-221 Spencer Street, Noah Demarest for PPM Homes. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to build a new multi-family ‘pocket neighborhood’ on a hillside site between W. Spencer St. and W. S. Cayuga St. The project will include four buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units overall). A 12-car parking area is proposed with access off W. S. Cayuga Street. Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces that connect through the site. The project also includes lighting, retaining walls, and landscaping. The project is in the R-3b Zoning District and requires a Parking Variance. 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 Rob Morache recapitulated the salient details described the current status of the proposed project, noting the following points: • Wooden window boxes have now been introduced, as well as some three- dimensional horizontal banding, while maintaining subtle changes in color and a unified, lighter-looking façade. • Windows have been made smaller. • Buildings have now been shortened by 12 inches. • Windows have been incorporated on the north side of Building A as the Planning Board suggested. • A planter wall has been added at the sidewalk level that will be filled with soil and ground cover to soften that whole edge. • The buildings are in greater overall harmony with the existing houses in the neighborhood. Elliott suggested the applicant add some form of street treatment on the edge of the Cayuga Street side to screen the parking. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 On a motion by Darling, seconded by Elliott: 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 four multi-family dwellings to be located at 215- 221 Spencer St., by Noah Demarest for PPM Homes (Ed Cope), and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a new multi-family “pocket neighborhood” on a hillside site between W. Spencer St. and W. S. Cayuga St. The project will include four buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units overall). A 12-car parking area is proposed with access off W. S. Cayuga Street. Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces that connect through the site. The project also includes lighting, retaining walls, and landscaping. The project is in the R-3b Zoning District and requires a variance for parking, 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 215-221 Spencer Street in the City of Ithaca. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None E. Cornell University Johnson School of Management Executive Education Program at 209-215 Dryden Road – Sketch Plan Applicants John Novarr and Phil Proujansky of 209-215 Dryden Associates, LLC, Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, and Alan Chimacoff of ikon.5 Architects, recapitulated the salient details of introduced the Board to the proposed project. Wolf presented this general overview: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 • The project would house Cornell University’s Johnson School of Management Executive Education Program, including classrooms, offices, meeting rooms and an atrium, and would fully conform to the City’s Collegetown Area Form Districts requirements. • It would be a privately financed and managed building, with Cornell University as the tenant (thus generating tax revenue for the City). • The project would also be consistent with the City’s 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, which calls for a diverse mix of uses in central Collegetown spurring year-round activity. • The project is not anticipated to have any significant impact on traffic volume or travel patterns. Schroeder remarked this would be a great opportunity to require NYSEG to install its street-side utility lines here underground (i.e., along the south side of the 200 block of Dryden Road). Proujansky responded that the applicants are currently coordinating with NYSEG and would definitely be interested in doing that. F. State Street Triangle (Trebloc) Mixed-Use Project – Sketch Plan 2 Applicants Scott Whitham and Cathy Almeida of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, and Ronnie L. Macejewski of Campus Advantage, recapitulated the salient details of updated the Board on the proposed project. Whitham said the applicants have submitted a complete application and would like to move forward as quickly as possible. He said the applicants have listened to community concerns about the building housing a single large monoculture of occupants, so they have carefully reviewed and modified the configurations of the living units. Whitham indicated the applicants are interested in meeting LEED standards for the project, and they will also be examining the project within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. He said the applicants are negotiating with the NYS DOT about taking possession of some of the slope along the Green Street side of the project to help improve that section of the street. Whitham added that the applicants have modified the design to create a more modest-looking façade, adding that the building materials would most likely be masonry, stucco and panels. Schroeder indicated he is very concerned with the building height along E. State Street, especially since there is no significant building setback, or step-back of upper floors, to allow at least some light to reach that street. He would like to see visual renderings from a human perspective, from lower elevations. He said there is also too little modulation of the building’s volume: it needs to be broken down into smaller pieces. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 Elliott said that the current design would create a visual canyon-like effect, and that the building’s current massing is simply inappropriate. The applicants should base the height of the building on the width of the street, he concluded. Whitham responded that the applicants are working within the bounds of existing zoning for the site. Cornish replied that does not require the applicants to build the project out to the absolute maximum possible dimensions and use the full envelope of the site. 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #2986 ― 210 Hancock Street: Area & Parking Variances Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) for Area Variances for a proposed redevelopment of 210 Hancock Street. The applicant is requesting variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 5, and 9, Off-Street Parking, Off-Street Loading, and Height in Feet, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. INHS proposes to redevelop the block where the property 210 Hancock Street and 423 First Street are located. 210 Hancock Street is the address of the former Neighborhood Pride grocery store and includes 423 First Street, a small office building. Under INHS’ proposed plan, these two existing buildings will be demolished with the intention of redeveloping the block into a mixed-use and mixed-income housing development. Along First Street, INHS wants to construct a four-story, approximately 65,000 SF, mixed-use building. This building will provide parking and three office spaces on the first floor (one for an Early Head Start facility) and one- and two-bedroom apartments on floors two through four. The Lake Avenue side of the proposed development will be composed of twelve owner-occupied townhouses and their associated off-street parking. The variances requested by the applicant are limited to the mixed-use portion of the project. The mixed-use development requires 84 off-street parking spaces. The applicant proposes providing 64 spaces for the mixed-use building, which will include housing, a daycare center, and offices. An INHS survey shows that persons living in INHS’ low-income housing projects frequently do not own cars. Neighborhood residents have also commented on the proposed project and encouraged INHS to provide greenspace as an alternative to some of the required parking. The applicant also needs a variance from the off-street loading requirement, which requires five loading spaces for the mixed-use development. The applicant also believes that, due to the nature of the proposed development, four loading spaces will be sufficient for the project. Finally, the applicant requires a variance for the height of the proposed mixed-use building. Because much of the proposed development is in the 100-year flood zone, the mixed-use building must be constructed so the first floor is one foot above base flood elevation, determined by FEMA. To meet this requirement, the four-story building will require a height of 46’6”. While a 4-story building is allowed in the Zoning District, the building height is limited to 40 feet. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 The proposed mixed-use development is in a B-2a Zoning district where the proposed uses are allowed. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued. The Board strongly recommends granting the requested variances. The location of the site makes it an interface / transition the between between the primarily residential neighborhoods to the east and south and the more varied development to the north and west approaching the NYS Rte. 13 corridor. The Lead Agency finds that the project sponsor has adequately mitigated these conditions in the following ways: • Establishing residential use on a formerly single-use commercial site. • Locating the larger mixed-use building on the western portion of the site, with the longest façade fronting First St., while locating the smaller scale townhomes on the east of the site fronting Cascadilla Creek. • Breaking up the massing of the mixed use building by changes in façade planes and materials, and by providing pedestrian access through the building at three locations. • Designing the multifamily building and townhomes to reflect, in materials and form, existing historic commercial buildings and houses in the surrounding neighborhood. • Conversion of Lake Ave. and Adams St. into a greenway and playground reinforces the transition to the creek and offsets the overall density of the site. Relative density (32.1/acre = 2.01 acre project site only AND 23.6/acre ― including conversion of 0.77 acres of City ROW) [Rough Comparison: Cascadilla Green: 23/acre, Housing Authority Housing: +/-20/acre]. Concerns have been expressed regarding the height of the mixed-use building and its potential impact on shading. The project sponsor has submitted a drawing titled “210 Hancock St. Redevelopment - Shade Studies,” dated 4-1-15 and prepared by Holt HOLT Architects. The drawing illustrates that shading affects will be minimal, except for morning shading during the winter solstice. The project sponsor has stated the intention to provide the number of parking spaces required by zoning for the townhomes and commercial portions of the project, but believes that parking demand for the multi-family units will be lower than required by zoning. In a letter to Phyllis Radke and the Board of Zoning Appeals from Scott Reynolds, Director for Real Estate for INHS and dated 3/19/15, Reynolds provides the results of a vehicle survey conducted by INHS in 2014 to measure vehicle ownership rates at the agency’s 244 rental housing units. The data collected shows that approximately 41% of residents owned cars (12% or less owning two cars). It also showed that residents of smaller units and those closer to the central core were less likely to own vehicles. Based on these trends, the project sponsor anticipates that total car ownership for the 53 multi-family apartments will be approximately 42% or 22 cars. Accordingly, the approximately 64 proposed parking spaces should suffice to accommodate the project’s parking needs. The project site is in a walkable neighborhood with a full sidewalk network, in close proximity to services, employments employment, schools, parks, shopping, and public DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 transportation. In addition, the project sponsor is making the following improvements intended to facilitate all modes of transportation: • Conversion of Lake Ave. and a portion of Adams St. to a greenway with a bike/pedestrian pathway connecting to Conley Park to the north • Consolidation of curbcuts • Providing a new covered bus shelter • Providing some covered parking   Appeal #2987 ― 105-107 E. York Street: Area Variances Appeal James Semp, owner of 105-107 East York Street, for a Use Variance from Section 325-32 C. (1) and Area Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 10, 11, 12, and 13, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property at 105-107 East York Street is a non-conforming three-family dwelling unit. Apartment 105 occupies half the building and contains portions of both the first and second floors. The other side of the building contains two apartments. Apartment 105 is on the first floor and apartment 107 is on the second floor. To make two of the apartments more attractive to long-term tenants, the applicant wants to enlarge both apartments 105 and 107 by creating habitable space on the third floor of the building. The applicant proposes adding a 250 SF “bonus room” for apartment 107 on the third floor. He also proposes adding a 575 SF “bonus room” on the third floor for apartment 105. Section 325-32 C. (1) prohibits the extension or enlargement of a non-conforming use without a Use Variance. The applicant’s request to extend into the attic space is considered an enlargement. The property at 105-107 East York Street also has several existing area deficiencies. Column 10 limits lot coverage to 35%; the property has 41% lot coverage. Column 11 requires a 10-foot front yard; the property has a 6-foot front yard. Column 12 requires a 10-foot side yard; the property has a 5-foot side yard. Column 13 requires a five- foot other side yard; the property’s other side yard is 4 feet. 105-107 East York Street is in an R-2b Use District, where the multiple dwelling is considered a non-conforming use and Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued. The Planning Board can identify no long-range planning issues with this appeal and supports granting it. 6. Old / New Business A. Special Meeting — June 30, 2015 ― Comprehensive Plan Review DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 24 Cornish noted the Planning Board would review the draft Comprehensive Plan at this special meeting to consider recommending the document, or an amended version of it, for adoption by Common Council. B. Proposal to Amend Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) to Remove 20’ Minimum Spacing Between Primary Structures on Same Parcel ― Discussion This discussion was postponed, due to the lateness of the hour. C. Proposal to Reduce Width of E. Seneca Street in Downtown Core ― Discussion & Potential Resolution to Board of Public Works (BPW) This discussion was also postponed, due to the lateness of the hour. D. Planning Board Recommendation to Tompkins County Legislature Regarding Proposals to Redevelop Old Library Site Schroeder reported that an overwhelmingly large number of people spoke at the County Legislature’s June 16 meeting in support of the Franklin Properties / STREAM Collaborative proposal, rather than the Travis Hyde Properties proposal that the Legislature’s Old Library Committee had recommended. He remarked that the Franklin Properties / STREAM Collaborative project is an excellent proposal, representing exactly the kind of balancing of planning considerations called for in the new draft Comprehensive Plan. Blalock asked the other Board members if anyone had a differing opinion. There were none. Cornish indicated she would draft a resolution recommending that the County Legislature select the Franklin Properties project; this would be considered at the Planning Board’s next meeting. 7. Reports There were no reports, due to the lateness of the hour. 8. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the draft April 28, 2015 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 25 9. Adjournment On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:41 p.m.