Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-06-30DRAFT 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.) Special Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes June 30, 2015 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Robert Aaron Lewis (arrived 6:18 p.m.); C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: Mark Darling Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Megan Wilson, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, spoke about removing the Ithaca Community Gardens site from the designated “Enterprise” area on the draft Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map. She said none of the Future Land Use Map categories accommodates the community gardens, which she characterized as a valuable community feature. She suggested adding a category for “Urban Agriculture.” She sees a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan’s goals of sustainability and equity, on the one hand, and including the community gardens in an area designated for future development, on the other. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Dick Feldman, 311 Willow Avenue, remarked he finds an inconsistency between the draft Comprehensive Plan and the proposed 210 Hancock Street project. The Future Land Use Map designates the project site as medium-density residential, to which he said the aforementioned project does not conform. He stressed he does not unilaterally oppose higher- density projects, as long as they are designed in a thoughtful manner. 3. Special Order of Business ― Review of Draft Comprehensive Plan & Consideration of Recommendation to Common Council Wilson recapitulated the salient details provided an overview of the draft Comprehensive Plan. While the plan is divided into different chapters, she said, it is important to note these are interconnected (e.g., Housing and Land Use). At various points in the document, she added, the reader will see icons referring them to another section of the plan regarding a related topic. Wilson noted much of the plan relates to the Land Use chapter, and said the Comprehensive Plan Commmittee Committee spent a considerable amount of time on that particular chapter. She noted the City strived to offer numerous public outreach opportunities, including surveys, public meetings and open houses. As a result, she said, there was a robust amount of public involvement in the plan’s development, including thousands of comments from hundreds of people on a variety of subjects. A significant amount of the She said the original draft document was significantly changed as a result of public comments. Jones-Rounds asked if the Planning Board would have another opportunity to review the document, if / when alterations are made by Common Council. Cornish replied, yes; however, once the Planning Board formally recommends adoption to Common Council, that recommendation would essentially be final and Common Council would then be responsible for hearing comments, organizing discussion and editing the document. Elliott said that everything in the Comprehensive Plan is predicated on the notion of growth; however, growth in and of itself, he said, is not always desirable or beneficial. He said people’s quality of life is not necessarily diminished merely because of a lack of growth. He characterized “development,” on the other hand, as good, as distinguished from “growth.” He suggested tempering the use of the term “growth” and using the word “development.” Elliott also noted there is a whole section in the Comprehensive Plan about infrastructure and how those kinds of hidden services need to be updated, since the City is behind in that area. However, no mention is made about the fact that increased density will place more strain on City infrastructure. (Robert Aaron Lewis arrived at 6:18 p.m.) Cornish noted that one section of the Comprehensive Plan does address the strain on infrastructure from new development, so Elliott’s concerns should probably be addressed there in some way. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 Randall strongly agreed with Elliott, saying this is also something the Planning Board has discussed in the context of the City’s environmental review process. She said simply accounting for a marginal increase in existing infrastructure is shortsighted. Jones-Rounds noted that under “Energy Recommendations” in Chapter 8, there is a reference to implementing City design standards to accommodate new energy technologies. She would be curious if that could not be taken a step further to specify where and how that would happen (e.g., “the Site Plan Review process will incorporate specific requirements for ‘x’ percentage of renewable energy.”). She worries there may be missed opportunities for improvement if the language in the Comprehensive Plan is left too vague. Schroeder noted he has advocated for some time that the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1 be more specific about green building technologies and practices, pedestrian access and amenities, green space, etc. He supports adding more specific language under “Energy Recommendations.” Elliott remarked the City also needs to actively incentivize developers to include green building technologies and practices in their projects. Blalock agreed incentives should be pursued, stating that the greatest incentive the City can probably provide developers would be, for example, to permit them to build another story for a building, or build closer to the sidewalk. These are examples of concessions the City could make that would not necessarily require sacrificing tax revenue, he said. He added that it would also be helpful if Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) requirements could be harmonized. Cornish responded the BZA has very specific criteria which it needs to evaluate for must apply to Zoning Appeals, but the Planning Board has a very different set of powers and duties. Schroeder questioned the assumption that the City necessarily needs to give anything to developers, in the first place. For example, he noted, the City does not incentivize the construction of sidewalks along street frontages during Site Plan Review; rather, such construction is simply a requirement. He said many cities across the country have progressive green building standards, so he would suggest exploring possible measures Common Council could pass include as a formal part of the Site Plan Review process. Elliott observed that the sustainability section of the Comprehensive Plan only refers to energy; however, the City should really consider all sustainable building technologies and practices. Some important issues are not energy-related, but more broadly ecologically- oriented. Blalock asked where the stronger language about green building technologies and practices should be inserted. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 Wilson responded that the issue sounds like it would fit well into the Land Use chapter, since that chapter covers all the issues that have been raised at this meeting. Jones-Rounds and Elliott both agreed. Elliott remarked that while he really enjoyed the historic preamble, it seemed rather Eurocentric. People lived in the Ithaca area before Europeans ever arrived. Cornish replied that staff would incorporate some of that earlier history into the document. Jones-Rounds suggested that the Housing section’s goals and recommendations should be more strongly worded than to merely “encourage” affordable housing. She believes it is something the City should start requiring, since this would help prevent the complications associated with siting affordable housing projects in certain neighborhoods. She said all new projects above a certain size should be required to have a defined percentage of affordable housing; otherwise, the City risks encouraging segregated neighborhoods. Elliott agreed. Schroeder responded he totally supports that goal, but he wonders if it would be legal. Randall indicated a policy like that could be configured in multiple ways to conform to legal requirements. Schroeder recalled there being some obstacle to requiring affordable housing in private development projects under New York state law. Cornish replied, at this point we are only dealing with a recommendation, so it can simply say something along the lines of “develop policies.” A legal mechanism for such a requirement could be identified later. Wilson remarked that one of the plan’s recommendations is to develop a more detailed housing policy as part of Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Plan development process. Randall asked how the range of dwelling units (DUs) in the Future Land Use Categories section was developed. Wilson replied that the Committee examined the map of the City in the context of various neighborhoods and then identified the neighborhoods where maintaining the existing character was appropriate. Planning staff then performed a variety of DU-per-acre counts in a variety of areas, Wilson said, to identify generally representative blocks. Wilson stressed the average DU designation for each area should by no means suggest some blocks or areas could not exceed that threshold. Schroeder remarked he does not believe the proposed 210 Hancock Street project conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan (as has been suggested by some community members). He said the plan calls for maintaining the existing character of this neighborhood, and that the 210 Hancock Street site has been zoned commercial for many decades. It is a long-standing commercially-zoned block. Furthermore, he added, the 210 Hancock Street project design is far below what this zoning would allow. Jones-Rounds suggested it would still make sense to include some outlier, non-representative blocks. It would help people to visualize what higher-density blocks actually look like in various neighborhoods. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 Elliott asked what the typical DU-per-acre is for the R-2 Zoning Districts (e.g., R-2c). Wilson replied that has not yet been measured, but it would vary considerably. Some such zones have single-family homes, she explained, while others may have two duplexes on the same site parcel. Elliott said that the Comprehensive Plan may be citing numeric density goals that could risk radically changing the quality of a given neighborhood (especially for infill sites). Schroeder emphasized that the areas intended for densification are areas like the Urban Mized-Use category. The yellow-shaded areas, on the other hand, are intended to be preserved ― taken as a whole ― with “no significant changes.” Schroeder added that current 210 Hancock Street site conditions (with a large abandoned commercial structure and parking lot) are anomalous; and that the proposed project (with occupied residences) would actually make it more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood than its current state. Cornish observed there is also a strong distinction between land use plans and zoning. Land use plans constitute guiding principles, while zoning is an established legal framework. Wilson indicated the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan process will be to generate the neighborhood plans, which will drill down into those kinds of details, by establishing goals and then defining the required zoning regulations for achieving those goals. Jones-Rounds said the Comprehensive Plan could benefit from a further definition of “character” and the preservation of character. Elliott remarked he would also like “small-city character” defined. Jones-Rounds suggested adding language explaining / emphasizing that there is a balancing process for increasing the density of a given area, while preserving its overall character. Schroeder responded the Comprehensive Plan probably simply needs clarify needs language clarifying that a figure like 10-20 DUs per acre represents an average of current conditions. Elliott observed that the city of Freiburg, Germany restricts the use of surface sealing to protect its aquifers, which is something the City should also consider, at least insofar as aquifer protection is an explicit goal or principle. Wilson said all a number of the Planning Board’s suggestions could be integrated into the Land Use chapter. Jones-Rounds indicated she would be interested in creating an “urban agriculture” land use category, as suggested by the Ithaca Community Gardens. Preserving or using land for local food security is important. Cornish responded that the food systems section already includes DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 many recommendations that relate to community gardens. Jones-Rounds suggested it would also be good to address this in some way in the Future Land Use Map categories. Wilson explained that the Committee did not want to limit community gardens to a certain land use category. Jones-Rounds responded that not giving urban agriculture its own category represents a lesser level of commitment. Schroeder remarked he agrees with the goal of promoting and preserving urban agriculture, but he said unilaterally concluding it belongs in a distinct mapped area of the City could actually limit it. He suggested the Comprehensive Plan could simply mention that urban agriculture is an appropriate use in multiple land use areas. Wilson suggested that under the Future Land Use Categories “Residential” heading, a sub- heading for community gardens and / or urban agriculture could be added. Jones-Rounds suggested including a note that as part of Phase 2 of the process the City will identify some metrics for determining how much acreage it would like to preserve for community gardens and urban agriculture. Blalock remarked that since the City would like to discourage empty storefronts, perhaps it would make sense to identify a mechanism for doing that (e.g., a vacancy tax). Cornish recalled that when this issue was discussed in the 1990s it was concluded there was no legal way of doing that. Elliott suggested including something about exploring whether the two major local educational institutions could incentivize their employees to live in the City. Wilson said she would revise the Comprehensive Plan with the agreed-upon changes and the revised document would be sent to the Planning and Economic Development Committee. These agreed-upon changes were documented after the meeting in the version of “Plan Ithaca: A Vision for Our Future” labeled “DRAFT / City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan / June 30, 2015.” On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DRAFT PLAN ITHACA TO COMMON COUNCIL Adopted at June 30, 3015 2015 Planning and Development Board Meeting DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca’s existing comprehensive plan was completed in 1971 and has since been amended fourteen times by various targeted neighborhood and strategic plans, and WHEREAS, while some objectives of the 1971 plan and its amendments are still applicable, many are not, and both local conditions and broader national and world-wide trends that affect Ithaca have changed dramatically since then, resulting in a need for an updated comprehensive plan that addresses present-day issues and anticipates future ones, and WHEREAS, the City decided to pursue a two-phased approach to its new Comprehensive Plan, where Phase I entails the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II will include the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for preparing and recommending a new Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council for adoption, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board established the Comprehensive Plan Committee (“the Committee”) by resolution in July 2008 and charged the Committee with the following responsibilities regarding the preparation of a proposed, new comprehensive plan: a) Preparing and approving a request for qualifications (“RFQ”) for a consultant team to assist with Phase I of the development of the proposed, new City of Ithaca comprehensive plan; b) Reviewing the responses to the RFQ, conducting interviews of consultant teams, and making a recommendation of a consultant team to the Planning Board, Mayor, and Common Council for their respective approvals; c) Overseeing the preparation of a draft of Phase I of the proposed, new comprehensive plan, by coordinating the work of staff and the selected consultant team, ensuring the level of public outreach and engagement necessary to reflect community goals, and making progress reports to the Planning Board and Common Council (periodically and as requested); and d) Approving a draft of Phase I of the proposed, new comprehensive plan for review and acceptance (with possible modification) by the Planning Board, recommendation by the Planning Board to Common Council, review and approval (with possible modification) by Common Council’s Planning and Economic Development Committee, and adoption by Common Council, and WHEREAS, public input has been a priority for the Committee throughout the planning process, and the Committee has made efforts to gather community input at various stages of the plan’s development, and WHEREAS, the Committee worked with a consultant on the initial phase of public outreach and on the preparation of two background reports that would inform the preparation of the new plan, but following the completion of these tasks, the City decided to move forward without the consultant team; the remaining work on the draft plan was completed by the Committee and staff, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 WHEREAS, using comments from the initial public outreach, as well as data on existing conditions and trends, subcommittees of the Committee (known as “chapter groups”) and staff created an overall vision for the City and goals for the sections of each chapter, and WHEREAS, a series of focus group meetings were held to get comments on the goals for each section of the plan, as well as ideas for implementation, and the chapter groups and staff used this feedback to draft each of the plan’s chapters, and WHEREAS, at the same time, the full Committee prepared the plan’s land use chapter and held public workshops in April 2014, and WHEREAS, the complete draft Phase I plan, Plan Ithaca, was made available for public review in April 2015, and the Committee held eight open houses to get public comments on the draft plan, and WHEREAS, following its review of the comments, the Committee revised the draft Plan Ithaca to incorporate new public input, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on June 15, 2015, the Comprehensive Plan Committee voted to recommend the draft Plan Ithaca, dated June 15, 2015 for review and consideration by the Planning and Development Board•••s••• as Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board held a public comment hearing on the draft Plan Ithaca at its meeting on June 23, 2015 and reviewed the draft plan at a special meeting on June 30, 2015; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board recommends the revised draft Plan Ithaca, dated June 30, 2015, as further revised by the Planning and Development Board on that date, for review and adoption by the Common Council as Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan, and be it further RESOLVED, that pending a recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan Committee, the Planning and Development Board will recommend implementation priorities, including a prioritized list of neighborhood and thematic plans to be completed as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan. In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Darling Vacancies: None 4. Old / New Business A. Proposal to Amend Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) to Remove 20’ Minimum Spacing Between Primary Structures on Same Parcel ― Discussion DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 Schroeder said he thought certain provisions of the new Collegetown zoning were creating unnecessary difficulties in site planning for projects located in block interiors. As an example, he cited the existing CAFD requirement in CR zones for 20-foot minimum spacing between primary structures on the same parcel. He said this requirement makes sense for projects along a street frontage, but for projects interior to a block (and hence not visible from the street), it only diminishes flexibility for producing an attractive design. Schroeder pointed to the 2012 107 Cook Street project, where two duplexes were successfully backed up against each other on a long narrow lot extending into the block; this elegant solution would now be prevented by the 20-foot rule. Wilson responded that the 20-foot spacing requirement only applies to the CR-1 and CR- 2 Zones. She said the original Collegetown Area Form Districts Working Group did not want additional buildings on the same parcel to appear and feel as though they were too close to each other. Randall said the principal factor that restricts a property’s site plan design is the minimum parking requirements. Schroeder said another obstacle to good site design on block interiors is the requirement to place parking behind the building; this makes sense on a street frontage, he said, but not interior to a block. Wilson replied that is an interesting point, and may be worth considering. Cornish noted the Planning Board could certainly recommend to Common Council that it eliminate minimum parking requirements. Schroeder suggested that: (1) the minimum parking restriction requirement be reconsidered in CR zones; (2) the requirement that parking be placed behind buildings be eliminated for block interiors; and (3) the Planning Board be given flexibility to reduce the 20-foot spacing requirement to 10 feet for block interiors. Cornish indicated that Planning staff would work to address Schroeder’s recommendations. B. Proposal to Reduce Width of E. Seneca Street in Downtown Core ― Discussion & Potential Resolution to Board of Public Works (BPW) Schroeder observed that if one stands in front of Breckenridge Apartments and looks east, one sees that the sidewalk on E. Seneca Street (east of Cayuga Street) is significantly wider than W. Seneca Street. Also, there are street trees on Seneca west of Cayuga Street, but virtually none east of it. He suggested it would be wonderful if the City could use this extra width on E. Seneca Street to widen its sidewalks and establish continuous rows of street trees. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 Cornish replied she could draft a resolution for the Board of Public Works for the Planning Board to review. C. Planning Board Recommendation to Tompkins County Legislature Regarding Proposals to Redevelop Old Library Site On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis: WHEREAS: Members of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board recognize the importance of choosing an appropriate development for the Tompkins County owned site located at 310-314 N. Cayuga Street in the City of Ithaca, home to the former Tompkins County Public Library, and WHEREAS: the site occupies a prominent corner in the DeWitt Park Historic District and is in a transition zone from commercial to residential, and WHEREAS: the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission identified the Franklin Properties / STREAM Collaborative Proposal as the clear preference to maintain the physical and cultural integrity of the neighborhood, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has reviewed the proposals for the site and feels the Franklin Properties / STREAM Collaborative Proposal, from an urban planning and design perspective, is the most appropriate for the site, WHEREAS: whereas the other projects as presented would likely require substantial design changes, and WHEREAS: the Franklin Properties / STREAM Collaborative Proposal is the only current proposal to combine highly desirable condominiums, community space, a café fronting the street, and healthcare facilities, and WHEREAS: avoiding demolition of the existing structure in its entirety and avoiding disposal of thousands of tons of debris is the most sustainable option, and WHEREAS: the Franklin Properties / STREAM Collaborative Proposal would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent in accordance with Architect 2030 guidelines, and WHEREAS: reuse of the existing building will be the least disruptive to the surrounding neighbors, because it has the shortest timeline for demolition and construction and avoids any disruptive pile driving that could also damage historic structures in the surrounding DeWitt Park Historic District, and WHEREAS: renovating the existing building pays homage to, and improves upon, the original architecture, a part of Ithaca’s history, and WHEREAS: the Franklin Properties / STREAM Collaborative Proposal preserves existing green space, maintains wide sidewalks and pedestrian amenities fronting the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 building, and features carefully considered architectural detailing, all in a manner appropriate to its setting across from DeWitt Park and within the historic district, and WHEREAS: this proposal, compared to the others, best balances multiple provisions of the City of Ithaca’s draft Comprehensive Plan, by increasing downtown residential density and restoring downtown medical services in a manner that best respects the City’s historic resources and best reflects its sustainability goals, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board recommends to the Tompkins County Legislature that the Franklin Properties / STREAM Collaborative Proposal be chosen for 310-314 N. Cayuga Street in the City of Ithaca. In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Darling Vacancies: None Blalock recalled there had been some discussion at an earlier Planning Board meeting about including language in the Site Plan Review application requiring or strongly encouraging applicants to actively engage with community members and neighbors about proposed projects. Cornish replied that Planning staff could draft something to address that. 5. Adjournment On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m.