Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-11-24DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1 W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.: Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type; proposed new language shown in red type. (Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.) Planning and Development Board Minutes November 24, 2015 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott; Robert Aaron Lewis; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: McKenzie Jones-Rounds 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 Mike Barnoski, HOLT Architects; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Scott Reynolds, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Four Multi-Family Dwellings at 215 Spencer Street Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative Site Improvements at 416-418 E. State Street Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Seth Waltz, AVL Designs, Inc.; Ben Rosenblum, Owner Herson Wagner Funeral Home Relocation at 327 Elmira Road Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects; DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Gregory L. Myer, Myer Funeral Services Corp. Seth Waltz, AVL Designs, Inc. Simeons on the Commons Rebuilding Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect The Chapter House Rebuilding Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect Hughes Hall Renovations, Cornell University (Sketch Plan) James Fruechtl, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University; Gilbert Delgado, Cornell University DeWitt House, at Old Library Site (Sketch Plan) Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Ann Lewandowski, 417 E. Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed 416-418 E. State Street project, saying that the applicants have not presented satisfactory solutions to active late night parking lot use. The sound engineer even conceded it is not possible to prevent all outside noise, she added. Benjamin Piekut, 417 E. Seneca Street, voiced opposition to the same project, claiming that examining the floor space dimensions of Bar Argos represent a larger assembly area than the number of parking spaces would suggest (1,000 square feet, and not 775). He said the applicants did not account for the bar’s outdoor expansion in calculating the number of required parking spaces, and that the food truck has also removed some parking spaces. Kathrin Achenbach, 108 Schuyler Place, also objected to the 416-418 E. State Street project, stating there would be insufficient parking. She also cannot imagine how the shared parking configuration transitions proposed at 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. would possibly work, as there are too many unknown variables (e.g., how would anyone know which car belongs in which space and who would enforce the whole system). Jonah & Alicia Freedman, 422-424 E. State Street, requested that their comments in DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 opposition to the proposed 416-418 E. State Street project be read into the record: While the planners of the 416-418 East State Street project seem to have the best intentions, we are still concerned that having 2 bars on our small block will have negative effects for the residents and property values of the 400 block of E. State St., Schuyler Place, and the corresponding block of E. Seneca Street. Our main concerns are the safety of people who walk on the sidewalk in front of our house and elsewhere, as well as the increased late-night noise from people parking on Schuyler Place and impact on quality of life of our tenants. Even if this project is done in a way that minimizes negative impact on this historic and highly visible part of our city, the bar could eventually be sold to people with only profit in mind, it could devastate the neighborhood. Please consider this when making this important decision. David Halpert, 420 E. State Street, added his opposition to the proposed 416-418 E. State Street project, calling it too noisy. He said inebriated bar patrons are inherently loud, and he characterized as ineffective any mitigations like signs or policing of parking lots. The proposed bar would disturb neighbors’ sleep and impose negative health impacts on them, he said, adding that historic buildings, like his, have ‘leaky’ windows, in terms of noise. He said the site’s zoning deficiencies were known beforehand by the owner, and that neighbors are in unified opposition to a late-night bar at this site. Neil Schill, 108 Schuler Place, objected to the same project, saying it is entirely unclear how the transition in the shared parking arrangement would work. For example, would people working in the new offices be asked to leave at 4:00 p.m.? Neha Khanna, 420 E. State Street, joined those speaking against the 416-418 E. State Street project, saying that while the applicants have made significant changes to the proposal, the fundamental underlying problems have not been addressed. She called the business activity of the bar and the day-to-day lives of the nearby residents completely incompatible with each other, and she stressed that properties in the neighborhood can be renovated and operated profitably, without negatively impacting residents. Virginia Augusta, 419 E. Seneca Street, spoke against the same project, saying her property abuts the Argos Inn and she hears all the noise pollution associated with it in her bedroom, virtually every night. She said she and her husband bought their house and invested substantially in it over the course of 20 years, and that they deserve some kind of protection for their investment they placed in it. She concluded by stating that the proposed project is not consistent with the neighborhood, would be very disruptive, and would only compound problems already being experienced with the Argos Inn. Rich John, 502 E. Seneca Street, added his opposition to the proposed 416-418 E. State Street project, remarking that while he supports development of the parcel, the proposed new use would simply be too intrusive for neighbors. Barbara Lantz, 411 E. Seneca Street, also objected to the same project, asserting that she DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 does not see how it can realistically contain the noise generated by patrons congregating outside. Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, spoke regarding the DeWitt House (Old Tompkins County Library Site) project, stating she believes parking will be a problem with the project as proposed, since Lifelong clients tend to have mobility problems. She is also concerned that the sheer mass of the building could overwhelm the neighborhood. 3. Site Plan Review A. Mixed-Use Housing, 210 Hancock Street, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Satisfaction of Conditions of Site Plan Approval. This project received Site Plan Approval on August 25, 2015. 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 ground-floor commercial spaces, totaling approximately 10,000 SF. Approximately 64 parking spaces will be provided ― approximately one third of which will be on the ground floor of the apartment building. The project sponsor also proposes to convert 0.77 acres of contiguous City- owned right-of-way (ROW) that include portions of Adams 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 greenspace with a central non-vehicular bike and pedestrian path. The project is in the B-2a Zoning District. The project requires the following approvals: Site Plan and Subdivision Approval from the Planning and Development Board (Lead Agency); a Flood Plain Development Permit; variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), approval from Board of Public Works (BPW) for improvements to property in the public way; funding approval from Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and Common Council approval. The project is in the B-2a Zoning District and received the required variances on 8/11/15. 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 the Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May 26, 2015. The Board of Public Works is currently considering discontinuance of portions of Lake Avenue and Adams Street. Applicants Scott Reynolds of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, and Mike Barnoski of HOLT Architects, updated the Board on the proposed project. Reynolds reported that some minor changes have been made to the project since the last time it was reviewed by the Board. Also, the applicants have sought to satisfy most of the Planning Board’s conditions. Trowbridge noted the playground on Adams Street has been moved slightly to the east, DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 towards the creek, to accommodate the City’s need for snow storage space. Some minor modifications have also been made to the multi-family building and some minor architectural changes have been made to the rental townhouses. On the creek side, there is a better architectural expression of traditional woodframe entries / porches than before. Trowbridge walked through the building details. Schroeder remarked that the appearance of the multi-family building would be improved if the respective mortars used with the red and brown brick colors were colored to harmonize with those colors, rather than using standard mortar. Barnoski replied that could be done. Trowbridge noted the applicants have provided more species diversity in the landscape plan. Regarding the rooftop mechanicals, they He said equipment at ground level will be screened with greenscreen adorned with vines, the same screening as that concealing ground-floor parking lot on Hancock Street ground-level parking areas. Barnoski explained that the roof plan shows the location of all the residential condensing units, which will not be visible from the ground. Trowbridge said the applicants have spoken with City Forester Jeanne Grace about obtaining a City Tree Permit for removal of any City trees. She has reviewed the updated plans. Removal of City trees will be minimized. Regarding the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the applicants have not yet received a letter from City Environmental Engineer Scott Gibson, but expect to hear from him shortly. Schroeder noted that one drawing depicts wooden fencing around the townhouse yard areas extending up to five and six feet high, which does not seem very residential. Trowbridge explained the intent was to create some variation in the fence line, but that the applicants could certainly would reconsider that height and provide alternatives. B. Four Multi-Family Dwellings ― “Pocket Neighborhood,” 215-221 Spencer Street, Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for PPM Homes. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to build a new multi- family “pocket neighborhood” on a hillside site between W. Spencer Street and S. Cayuga Street. 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 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 received a variance for the parking area on November 3, 2015. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, issued a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on October 27, 2015. Architect Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative reported that the project has received its Zoning Variance. He said there was nothing else to report. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 Schroeder asked if the trellises facing S. Cayuga Street would have plants on them. Demarest replied, yes, probably with planter boxes. Schroeder noted these are not illustrated anywhere, and asked if the drawings could be revised accordingly. Demarest replied, yes. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Schroeder: 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 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 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 has received the required Area 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, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on June 23, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on July 28, 2015, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on October 27, 2015 review and accepted accept as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following drawings: “Survey Map, No. 215-221 W Spencer Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” dated 2/15/12, and prepared by T.G. Miller P.C.; “Site Demo Plan and Layout Plan (L101),” “Grading Plan and Planting Plan Plans (L102),” •••‘••• •••“•••Site Section (L501),” and “Site Utility Plan (C102),” all DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 dated 9/17/15; and “Perspectives (L001),” dated 8/6/15; and “Area Plans Buildings A & B (A100),” “Building A Elevations (A201A),” “Building A Elevations (A202A),” “Building B Elevations (A201B),” “Building B Elevations (A202B),” “Area Plans Buildings C & D (A100C),” “Building C&D Elevations (A201C),” and “Building C&D Elevations (A202C),” dated 7/8/15 and an undated color drawing titled “Materials,” all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on October 27, 2015 determine that the proposed project would result in no significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the required variances on November 3, 2015, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant preliminary Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Written approval from the City Stormwater Officer, and ii. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit•••.••• In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Jones-Rounds Vacancies: None C. Site Improvements, 416-418 E. State Street, Scott Whitham. Determination of Environmental Significance & Recommendation to BZA. Discussion. The applicant proposes to convert a portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations include construction of two new building entrances, one of which will have a stair connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, realignment of the curbing to provide better maneuverability in the 2-car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 32 off-street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing shared parking with the adjacent Argos Inn. The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11). Applicants Jason Demarest of Jason Demarest Architect, Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, and owner Ben Rosenblum updated the Board on the proposed project and introduced acoustic consultant Seth Waltz, AVL Designs, Inc. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 Whitham noted the following project changes: • Applicants have moved the bar away from the north end of the building, toward the center, and moved the entry route southwest of the building. • In response to neighbor comments, the applicants have established the aforementioned new entry pathway and will chain off the main building entrance from the driveway to prevent the latter from becoming the main route to the bar. • The smoking area has been located in a highly-protected area, with heavy landscaping, and with signage exhorting patrons to respect the neighbors. Schroeder responded that he understood from the Project Review Committee meeting that there would be a more permanent closure of the driveway means of closing off the bar entrance from the driveway. He said the proposed chain would depend entirely on someone managing it, and therefore asked the applicants to investigate creating a more permanent and effective blocking mechanism. Cornish suggested movable planters. Elliott recommended extending the back of bench to form a gate; this idea was then refined into a gate that could be pulled out from the back of the bench. Rosenblum noted the applicants had provided the Board with a clearer diagram of the shared parking scheme. He remarked that the lot was historically shared by the two properties, when they were all one parcel. Whitham noted the Planning Board has received the final report from the sound engineer. He said the applicants are prepared to answer any questions the Board may have about it. Schroeder asked if the windows would be operable. Waltz replied, one pane in the middle of each window grouping is operable; but he has recommended they be permanently closed, through the installation of Plexiglass. Randall asked Waltz to describe the testing procedure in more detail. Waltz replied he used a very large sound system to simulate 102 decibels of salsa music. He then walked around the building and determined the only place the music could be heard was the parking lot side of the building, next to the windows. All the noise fell within City of Ithaca Noise Ordinance limits. He stressed that with the changes made to the windows, no noise would be heard outside the building. Randall observed that the map of test sites does not include any sites on Seneca Street, adjacent to abutting neighbors’ yards. Waltz replied that due to the land elevations the building would buffer any sound emanating toward those locations; therefore, he explained, no additional sound tests at those locations were justified. In addition, as a matter of practice, he does not usually perform testing in neighboring yards. He emphasized that additional testing in those locations would have made little to no DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 difference, since the parking lot side of the building was the source noise. He said he did test the area above the building roof, which was one of the primary concerns. His greatest concern was sound bouncing off the parking lot, but no sound was heard above the roof at all. The rest of the building is surprisingly effective at sound insulation, he concluded. Elliott asked if the garage door was opened during the sound simulation. Waltz replied, no. Elliott asked if that door was not intended to be operable, to allow people to go in and out. Rosenblum responded that the zones between the garage door and the lounge would be cut off from each other, so the former would not connect with the latter. Elliott asked if the applicants are stating that there is no potential scenario in which the music could escape from the building through the garage door. Rosenblum replied, that is correct. Randall asked if the applicants could describe the testing times. Waltz replied that the audio recordings log the testing times from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. He explained that the sound analyzing software generates a running average of the sound level. If that average does not see exceed a certain threshold, then testing is typically stopped. All the sound recordings are available to the Board for review. Blalock indicated his primary concern is the noise generated outside the building. Darling noted he still has concerns with the parking arrangement. Blalock noted the parking proposal either complies with zoning or it does not, and he would defer to the Director of Zoning Administration to make that determination. Schroeder said there must be a legal mechanism to ensure that the shared parking arrangement would be followed, say, five years from now. Cornish responded the City has asked for more a more binding shared parking agreement from the applicants. Nicholas added that the shared parking arrangement must be incorporated somehow into the deed for the property, and that this would be a condition of Site Plan Approval and for issuance of the Building Permit. Elliott remarked that some of the neighbors argue that the number of required parking spaces for the Argos Inn has been based on a low estimate, from before the Bar Argos expansion. Cornish replied that the number of required parking spaces would be re- analyzed when the Building Permit is issued. Nicholas added that the Director of Zoning Administration did examine the number of required parking spaces, which are calculated in a very specific way. Elliott indicated it would be helpful for the Board to know how those calculations were made. Nicholas replied she could provide that information. Cornish added that the Director of Zoning Administration is confident in her calculations. Schroeder remarked that two potential sources of outdoor noise have still not been DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 evaluated in the FEAF, Part 3: (1) the issue of the food truck potentially being on site at the Argos Inn until 1:00 a.m., and (2) the issue of when the Argos Inn patio would be closed. He said both of these issues involved potential negative noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Cornish asked the applicants if there is in fact a food truck in the Argos Inn parking lot. Whitham replied, yes, a food truck currently operates near the Argos Inn, but it would be required to close at 9:00 p.m. under the current proposal. He stressed that all public facilities at Bar Argos, including the outdoor patio, would close at 9:00 p.m., as well. Schroeder responded that the food truck and patio closing times are newly-voiced commitments that have not yet been written into the project documents. Rosenblum indicated that these closing times would be included in the shared parking agreement. Schroeder remarked that the FEAF, Part 3, needs to be substantially revised to reflect the aforementioned new information, and the Board will need more time to do that. (He added that he did not even know about the food truck until this evening.) Darling agreed. Lewis indicated he would be willing to move forward with the environmental review, but would have no objections to deferring action. Randall and Elliott both agreed it would be better to postpone the environmental review. It was the consensus of the Board, for the reasons stated above, to postpone the original “Determination of Environmental Significance” and “Recommendation to BZA” agenda items until the next Board meeting. Randall remarked that more information (e.g., test dates) should be included in the sound engineer’s report. She also finds it peculiar the test sites do not include any sites near / on neighbors’ properties. She said the complete record for the environmental review should demonstrate that all the neighbors’ concerns have been addressed. Waltz replied that would require conducting the entire battery of tests again, a significant expense for the owners. He stressed that noise concerns above the site are non-existent, since noise levels simply continue to drop off, the further away they are from the building. The focus was therefore on the noise level near the building and in front of the site. Blalock remarked that the crucial concern is the exterior noise of people going to their vehicles and congregating outside. Randall asked if the remainder of the Board believes that independent testing should be conducted, given the risk of bias whenever a project owner hires a consultant. Blalock replied he does not recall there being as much concern from the neighbors about interior noise. Their major concern, he said, related to noise from patrons outside. Randall noted she was concerned to see a reference to Article 78 of the New York Civil DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 Practice Laws and Rules in one of the neighbors’ letters. She asked if Board members would be indemnified, if an Article 78 suit were filed. Cornish replied, yes, as long as the Board follows the City Attorney’s counsel. Blalock agreed with Randall that given the uniformity of the opposition to the project, the Board should make every effort to address all of the neighbors’ concerns. D. Herson Wagner Funeral Home Relocation, 327 Elmira Road, Gregory L. Myer, Myer Funeral Services Corp. Determination of Environmental Significance & Recommendation to BZA. The applicant is proposing to relocate a funeral home business to this location. The L-shaped project site is 1.24 acres and contains two existing buildings. The proposed project is to renovate the existing buildings, add a 46-space parking area, a portion of which will be porous paving, entrance drive and drop-off area, install internal pedestrian walkways, as well as a connection to the public sidewalk, and add landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project site is in two Zoning Districts: the portion of the site contiguous to Elmira Road and containing the larger building is in the SW-2 District, while the larger portion of the site containing the smaller building and proposed parking lot is in the R-2a District. The rear portion of the site is currently used for outdoor storage of goods and construction equipment. The project requires a Use Variance for the proposed parking area in the R-2a District. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review. Applicants Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, Graham Gillespie of HOLT Architects, and Greg Myer of Myer Funeral Services Corp. updated the Board on the proposed project. Gillespie noted the building materials would be consistent with nearby residential buildings. Elliott asked about the building elevations. Cornish responded the project requires a Zoning Variance and would most likely not move forward without one, so the applicants limited the amount of architectural design until the variance request has been determined. She said the Planning Board has enough information to conduct the environmental review, even if it does not have as much detail as it would ordinarily expect. Elliott noted the applicants are proposing a residential architectural style for both buildings; however, Route 13 is more of a commercial street. He asked if the Route 13 front building could be designed to appear more urban. Gillespie replied that the applicants could certainly explore that. Nicholas indicated she has revised the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3, with a few minor changes. These changes expand upon, and clarify, the “Impact on Public Health” section. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for the relocation of Herson Wagner Funeral Home to 327 Elmira Road•••.•••, by Greg Myer of Myer Funeral Services Corp., and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to relocate a funeral home business to this location. The L-shaped project site is 1.24 acres and contains two existing buildings. The proposed project is to renovate the existing buildings, add a 46-space parking area, a portion of which will be porous paving, entrance drive and drop-off area, install internal pedestrian walkways, as well as a connection to the public sidewalk, and add landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project site is in two Zoning Districts: the portion of the site contiguous to Elmira Road and containing the larger building is in the SW-2 District, while the larger portion of the site containing the smaller building and proposed parking lot is in the R-2a District. The rear portion of the site is currently used for outdoor storage of goods and construction equipment. The project requires a Use Variance for the proposed parking area in the R-2a District and an Area Variance, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on October 27, 2015 declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council•••,••• has 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 October 27, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following drawings: “Boundary and Topographic Map Showing Lands of JJJ Holdings, Inc. Located on Elmira Road – NYS Route 13, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County NY,” dated 9/10/15, and “Site Utility Plan (C101),” dated 10/2/15, both prepared by T.G. Miller P.C.; and “Illustrated Site Plan (L001),” “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Site Details (L501 & L502),” all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels and dated 8/2/15; and “Building Elevations (AP101),” prepared by HOLT Architects and dated 10/2/15; 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 13 accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Jones-Rounds Vacancies: None E. Simeon’s on the Commons Rebuilding. Presentation & Design Review Committee Meeting. Architect Jason Demarest updated the Board on the proposed project, which will rebuild the destroyed front section of the Simeon’s Building, known historically as the Griffin Block. Nicholas explained that the project does not require environmental review, since it is a replacement in kind, and it qualifies for Limited Site Plan Review. Since the site is on the Ithaca Commons, however, it requires Design Review. While the Design Review Committee does not ordinarily generate formal resolutions, Schroeder has asked that it do so in this particular case, since the Griffin Building Block is such an important community resource. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING BEGINS Schroeder reported that the applicant had provided a detailed description of the project at last week’s Project Review Committee meeting. In Schroeder’s view, this is a beautifully designed and appropriate reconstruction of a treasured Ithaca landmark, with only minor changes from the original design. On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott: Adopted Resolution for Design Review Committee Approval: WHEREAS: the Planning Division has one Limited Site Plan Review application submitted by Jason Demarest, for owners Lang & Yong Shen, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the front portion of the building in the same size, materials, and style as previously existed. The most significant change to the storefront is the relocation of the entry door to the left side of the three-bay, south side of the storefront. The project is in the CDB-60 Zoning District and requires Design Review, and WHEREAS: this is a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to environmental review, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 WHEREAS: the Design Review Committee has on November 24, 2015 reviewed drawings entitled “Griffin Building Perspectives” and “Griffin Building Façade Reconstruction Materials,” both dated 11/19/15 and prepared by Jason Demarest, Architect; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Design Review Committee approves this building project as submitted. In Favor: Elliott, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING CONCLUDES F. The Chapter House Rebuilding. Opportunity for Comment. (This is a Limited Site Plan Review project, but an opportunity for Planning Board comment is being provided, due to the importance of this project to the community.) Architect Jason Demarest introduced the project to the Board, stating he would like as much feedback as possible. He said the intention is to recreate the original building that burned down last April, but with a mansard roof. Having received comments from several parties, and in consultation with the client, he has adopted brown, rather than white, brick for the façades, which is more in keeping with the appearance of the building when it became the Chapter House. At the Project Review Committee meeting, it was suggested that the slate awning roof atop the first story continue around the southeast corner, thereby capping all the new Chapter House windows. Schroeder said he thinks it is crucial for the mansard roof to extend all the way around the north end of the building. Elliott agreed. Schroeder remarked he very much likes the idea of bringing the slate awning roof not only around the southeast corner, but all the way around the south and west sides of the building, as well. He also suggested using textured brown brick, and agreed there should be more detailing on the north wall facing the adjacent house (e.g., a recessed panel). G. Hughes Hall Renovations – Sketch Plan Gilbert Delgado and Ramnath Venkat of Cornell University and James Fruechtl of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP introduced the project to the Board. Delgado explained the project would improve overall circulation within the Cornell University Law School. The design, he added, would show deference to both dominant DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 architectural palettes of the school’s buildings: Collegiate Gothic and the more contemporary appearance of the recent lecture hall addition. Delgado said it was the University’s intent to use only these two palettes in future Law School projects. He said this project would include enclosing the Hughes Hall loggia, adding west stairs, and repairing the dining terrace, all serving to more effectively connect Hughes Hall to the rest of the school. Elliott observed that the view west down the new hallway loggia appears a little too compressed at the end. Schroeder agreed, remarking it would be good to have a more unobstructed western view through the new stair tower glazing. He suggested reconsidering the configuration of the stairs to open up this view. Blalock disclosed he is a Cornell University employee and a personal friend of the dean of the Law School. H. DeWitt House (Old Library Site) – Sketch Plan Applicants Graham Gillespie of HOLT Architects, Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, and Frost Travis of Travis Hyde introduced the project to the Board. Gillespie reported that the applicants have met with different community groups about the design, and that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) will also be reviewing the project. He described the project as follows: the existing building would be demolished, down to its foundation, and the new building would extend into the adjacent Lifelong site. The design would include a considerable amount of new green space, as part of a more accessible public-private space. The existing house at 121 West Court Street would not be demolished, as originally planned, due to community concerns. The new building would house a range of rental housing units, targeted to a mixture of ages and income levels. Some covered parking is now planned for the ground floor, in response to community concerns, but this will reduce the amount of Lifelong programming and community space. Elliott remarked that introducing a new small park across the street from DeWitt Park will detract from what he believes should be the principal urban street edge. Trowbridge responded there was considerable concern about not disrupting the street trees on that side of the site, so it made sense to situate the new park there. Schroeder said a fundamental problem with the proposed design is that the DeWitt Park Historic District consists primarily of buildings separated from the sidewalk by at least some green space, and this project does not reflect that typology. He said he does not understand the rationale for the new park. He would much prefer to see the gardens and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 green space running consistently between the building and the sidewalks, thereby helping to mitigate the building’s visual impact to the residents across the street. Schroeder suggested the Planning Board hold a joint meeting with the ILPC to ensure both bodies can arrive at some kind of agreement regarding the desired design. 4. Zoning Appeals Appeal #3000 — 327 Elmira Road: Use & Area Variances Appeal of Barton Myer, LLC, as authorized representative for the owner JJJ Holdings, LLC for a variance from Section 325-­‐8 Column 2, permitted uses, and Section 325-­‐8, column 7 and 11, lot width and front yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to purchase the property at 327 Elmira Road and relocate the business, Herson Wagner Funeral home, to this location. This business is an allowed use in the SW-­‐2 zoning district, but only the western portion of the property at 327 Elmira Road is located in this zone, the eastern portion of the property consisting of two contiguous parcel’s is in an R-­‐2a residential zoning district where commercial and business uses are prohibited. The property at 327 Elmira Road consists of two adjoining parcels, Tax Parcel 124.-­‐1-­‐2 and 124.-­‐1-­‐18 and has an “L” shaped configuration. Tax Parcel 124.-­‐1-­‐2 has 90 lineal feet of frontage on Elmira Road and is approximately 320 feet in length. A portion of this parcel closest to Elmira Road is in the SW-­‐2 zone, however the R-­‐2a zoning transition line bisects the parcel at approximately 160 feet East of Elmira Road. There are two commercial buildings on this tax parcel. The first building is approximately 94 feet from the Elmira Road’s street curb and entirely in the SW-­‐2 Zone. The second building is approximately 270 feet from the Elmira Road street curb and is entirely in the R-­‐2a residential district. The abutting Tax Parcel 124.-­‐1-­‐18 is a land locked parcel that begins approximately 160 feet East of Elmira Road and lies completely in the R-­‐2a use district. Originally both lots were developed by Nichol Block and Brick Corporation in the 1950’s despite the fact that much of this development was also in a residential use district. The business also included the rear yard of two residential homes fronting on Spencer Road. In the 1990’s, Nichol Block and Brick wanted to sell the business. However, the property could not be sold unless the residential uses facing Spencer Road were subdivided from the commercial property between Elmira Road and Spencer Street and further, only if the owner was granted a use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the developed commercial property located in the residential district. Nichol Block appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), on August 10, 1995 for a use variance claiming their business at 327 Elmira Road could not be utilized and sold without a use variance for a portion of Tax Parcel 124-­‐1-­‐2 and all of the abutting parcels, now known as Tax Parcel 124.-­‐1-­‐18, which was used for the Business’s parking and storage of vehicles. The BZA granted the requested variance under Appeal # 2274, based on a preliminary subdivision map showing Tax Parcel 124.-­‐1-­‐18 being consolidated with Tax Parcel 124.-­‐1-­‐2. Furthermore, the BZA stipulated that any new business/commercial use at 327 Elmira Road be one with a business operation similar to the Nichol Block’s business. Subsequently, 327 Elmira Road was sold to J.C. Smith Construction Equipment, a use that met the Board’s DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 imposed use restriction for the property. Barton Myer, the applicant proposes to renovate the existing building closest to Elmira Road for use as an assembly space for receptions, services, and other gatherings. While a permitted use in the SW-­‐2 zone, this building does not meet the zoning district’s required front yard requirements. This building is approximately 94 feet from the Elmira Road Street curb, the front yard requirement that the 35% of the building’s frontage be set back from the street curb between 15 and 34 feet. The building at the rear of the property will be used for customary funeral home services and will include office space. The applicant will develop Tax Parcel 124.-­‐1-­‐18 as a landscaped parking area which will provide 46 parking spaces for both uses located on the property. The portion of the property at 327 Elmira Road consisting of Parcel 124.-­‐1.2 and 124.-­‐1-­‐18 where the proposed covered parking area, the funeral home service building, and the associated off-­‐street parking for both buildings will be located is in an R-­‐2a use district where such uses are not permitted. Finally, Section 325-­‐38 requires that both the requested use variance and the area variance from the SW-­‐2 Zone’s front yard setback requirements be granted before a Building permit is issued. The Planning Board supports granting this appeal. It finds that the proposed project greatly improves the existing interface between the residential and commercial uses. The proposed use is more compatible with residential than the existing use; and the project provides a substantial and attractive visual buffer for the adjacent residents. Appeal #3007 — 314 Park Place: Area Variance Appeal of Kurt Martin, owner of 314 Park Place, for Area Variances from Section 325-­‐8, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14/15, Parking, Lot Size, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard, Other Side Yard, and Rear Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to convert an existing one-­‐family dwelling at 314 Park Place to a two-­‐family dwelling, having two bedrooms in each unit. This property has a number of existing area deficiencies, but only the deficiency for off-­‐street parking will increase. The property does not meet the requirements of Section 325-­‐8, Column 4 (Off-­‐Street Parking). As a single-­‐family home, the required off-­‐street parking for the existing three bedroom house is one space, but the property has no off-­‐street parking spaces. The proposed two-­‐family dwelling needs two parking spaces. The property at 314 Park Place also has a number of existing deficiencies that will not be increased by the applicant’s proposal. The property does not meet the requirements of: • Column 6, Lot Area Lot size is 1,864 SF; required is 3,000 SF. • Column 10, Lot Coverage Maximum percentage of lot coverage is 35%; lot coverage is 65.8%. • Column 11, Front Yard Front yard is 4’2”; required is 10’. • Column 12, Side Yard Side yard is 3’8”; required is 10’. • Column 13, Other Side Yard Other side yard is 3’5”; required is 5’. • Column 14/15, Rear Yard Rear yard is minus 0.3’; required is 20’. The property at 314 Park Place is in an R-­‐2b Zoning District, where the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-­‐38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 The Planning Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with the appeal and supports granting it. Neighbors have indicated that they support the project and the Board recognizes the importance of opportunities for more housing within the City. 5. Old / New Business A. December 2015 Planning Board Training – Update Nicholas announced that the “Facilitating Effective Participation in the Heated Public Meeting” training will be on December 10, 2015, satisfying the Board’s mandatory annual training requirement. B. Planning Board Memorandum to Board of Public Works (BPW) – Proposal for Discontinuance of Portions of Lake Avenue & Adams Street The Board discussed and approved the following text of a memorandum to the BPW: To:    Board  of  Public  Works     From:  Planning  and  Development  Board     Date:  November  25,  2015   Re:  Planning  Board  Comments  on  Discontinuance  of  Portions  of  Lake  Ave.   and  Adams  St.       The  Planning  Board  conducted  its  review  of  the  proposed  development  at  210   Hancock  Street  between  March  and  August  2015,  and  granted  Final  Site  Plan  Review   on  August  25,  2015.  During  that  time,  the  Board  strongly  advocated  for  the   proposed  conversion  of  portions  of  Lake  Ave.  and  Adams  St.  into  a  bike  and   pedestrian  way,  play  area,  and  green  space  that  would  be  closed  to  public  vehicular   traffic.     The  Board  fully  supports  this  conversion  which  requires  legal  discontinuance.  As   stated  in  Part  3  of  the  Full  Environmental  Assessment  Form  (FEAF),  the  Board   identified  the  following  major  benefit  of  the  conversion:     “The  path  would  provide  a  connection  to  the  existing  path  at  Conley  Park   directly  to  the  north  and  ultimately  to  the  Cayuga  Waterfront  Trail  (CWT)  via   the  improved  NYS  Rte.  13  and  Dey  Street  crossings  currently  under   construction.  The  installation  of  green  space  and  a  playground  extension  on   Adams  functionally  expands  Conley  Park.       The  effect  of  this  conversion  will  be  a  continuous  two-­‐block  park  along   Cascadilla  Creek  that  will  protect  water  quality  in  the  creek  and  greatly   enhance  the  beauty,  value,  and  accessibility  of  this  natural  feature  in  the   neighborhood.  The  structured  play  area  will  provide  an  amenity  that  the   neighborhood  currently  lacks.  Thus  it  is  anticipated  that  the  proposed   DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 project  will  improve  open  space  and  recreational  opportunities  in  the   vicinity  of  the  project  site.”   6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Cornish announced a committee has been formed to review responses to a Request for Qualifications for a professional consultant to work on the forthcoming Collegetown and downtown design standards project. Four firms have submitted responses. Cornish reported that City staff participated in a FEMA community assistance visit, in anticipation of the City’s becoming part of the National Flood Insurance Program. The City is also working with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct new mapping for floodplains and flood zones. Planning staff members continue to meet with the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project team to produce the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dGEIS). C. Board of Public Works Liaison Darling noted the BPW has received more negative feedback about food trucks in Collegetown. He said BPW has issued licenses for food trucks in locations that were not anticipated to generate any conflict; the only area in which there appears to be any such conflict is Collegetown. Internet service provider Fiberspark is expanding its high-speed residential broadband service to the Belle Sherman area, Darling said. It has already launched in Collegetown. Darling reported that residents of the 500 block of West Clinton Street have submitted a petition for a new streetlight, and there are other places in the City that could probably also benefit from new streetlights. He said the City may be able to identify new ways of addressing this type of problem (e.g., creating lighting districts). 7. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft June 30, 2015 special meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 Absent: Jones-Rounds Vacancies: None 8. Adjournment On a motion by Darling, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.