Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-01-26DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1 W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.: Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type; proposed new language shown in red type. (Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.) Planning and Development Board Minutes January 26, 2016 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair (left 10:17 p.m.); Mark Darling; Jack Elliott; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Robert Aaron Lewis; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: C. J. Randall 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: Chain Works District Redevelopment Project at 620 S. Aurora Street Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C.; David Lubin, Unchained Properties 101-107 Morris Avenue George Frantz, Tioga Urbanscapes, LLC Cayuga Place Two Apartments (no one appeared on behalf of the project) Canopy Ithaca (Hilton Hotel) at 320-324 E. M.L.K., Jr. / E. State Street Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Catherine DeAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Neil Patel, Ithaca Downtown Associates, LLC / Baywood Hotels Parking for 5 Cars at 424 Dryden Road Daniel R. Hirtler, Flatfield Designs; Angie Chen, Owner E-Hub College Avenue at 409 College Avenue Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Dan Kathan, Student Agencies, Inc.; Kyle Karnes, Student Agencies, Inc.; Madeline Lieber, Student Agencies, Inc. Elmira Savings Bank Relocation at 409 Meadow Street Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects; Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Thomas M. Carr, President & CEO, Elmira Savings Bank Cherry Artspace at 102 Cherry Street Samuel Buggeln, Performance Premises, LLC; Nick Salvato, Performance Premises, LLC Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:48 p.m., following the conclusion of a special joint meeting with the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission. (Chair Blalock preferred not to chair because he had just arrived in Ithaca after travel.) 1. Agenda Review Nicholas announced that the new State Street Triangle Project (Mixed-Use Housing & Retail) at the Trebloc Building Site has been removed from the agenda at the applicant’s request. (This is a different project than the eponymous one considered last year.) She also wished to add discussion of two proposed City Code amendments regarding possible revisions to the Telecommunications Fall Zone Ordinance and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance under the “Old / New Business” agenda item. There were no objections. 2. Privilege of the Floor Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke briefly regarding development on and around Inlet Island, declaring this whole area of the City needs considerable improvement. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 3. Special Order of Business A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, 620 S. Aurora Street, Scott Whitham & Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of UnChained Properties, LLC. Presentation of Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) & Schedule. The proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse Chain / Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings / parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (6), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(3), for which the Lead Agency made a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 28, 2014, and adopted a Scope for the GEIS on January 13, 2015. Nicholas explained that Planning Board members have now received the DGEIS schedule that lays out the timeline and associated benchmarks for the entire process (including some special meetings). The Planning Board’s first task is to determine whether it believes the DGEIS is adequate for public review, which should be done by March 8, 2016. (The Town of Ithaca will also submit its own comments on the adequacy of the DGEIS.) After the adequacy determination, there will be at least one Public Hearing on March 29, 2016 and possibly a second on April 5, 2016, if necessary. Written statements from members of the public can also be submitted at any point during the public review period. Nicholas stressed that all substantive public comments need to be addressed by the applicants, who will be responsible for drafting responses to the public comments (with Planning Board participation, and ultimate approval). Other involved agencies (e.g., NYS Department of Environmental Conservation) will also help formulate responses to public comments. Nicholas indicated it is the combination of (1) the DGEIS and (2) the responses to the public comments that will then constitute the FGEIS, from which the Planning Board will generate its official Findings Statement. The applicants are responsible for producing drafting the final document FGEIS, under the supervision of the Planning Board, which will approve a final version of that document. Nicholas said there will also be a similar, simultaneous timeline associated with reviewing the project’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) application. Applicant Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C., recapitulated summarized the current status of the project, noting that the Scoping Document was DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 adopted last year. Since that time, he said, the applicants have received two New York Cleaner, Greener Communities Program grants. Gensel then walked through an overhead presentation of the project, emphasizing that it includes a “Proposed Conceptual Site Layout Plan” (seen below) that may change as the project evolves. Cornish noted that an Environmental Impact Statement is required to address the entirety of any given project; so this project’s environmental review will be based on the conceptual site plan for the whole project, allowing the Planning Board to evaluate its overall environmental impact. Gensel noted the DGEIS identifies a wide variety of different project details (e.g., size, square footage, anticipated uses, anticipated trip-generation, storm water, etc.). He explained that part of the process involved exploring the following reasonable alternative development scenarios for the project: (1) using the site as it exists currently and employing environmental remediation to allow the site to be used for industrial uses; (2) exploring development in accordance with existing zoning; and (3) examining the maximum potential use of the site. He added that the applicants made minor changes to the original sub-zones described in the Scoping Document. Cornish noted that subject matter expert and lawyer Adam S. Walters, Phillips Lytle, has been assisting the City with various aspects of this process. Gensel remarked that the DGEIS will not be posted to the project website and made DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 available to the public until the Panning Planning Board formally determines it is adequate. Lubin indicated the applicants would like to hold joint meetings with the Planning Board and the Town of Ithaca, whenever possible. 4. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, 101-107 Morris Avenue, George Frantz for Habitat for Humanity. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, & Recommendation to the BZA. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the existing two tax parcels (#44.-5-5 & #44.-5-6). The applicant proposes to subdivide the resulting 6,154-SF (0.141-acre) parcel into two lots: Lot 1, measuring approximately 3,076 2,949 SF with 31 feet of frontage on Third Avenue; and Lot 2, measuring approximately 3,078 3,205 SF with 30 feet of frontage on Third Avenue. The resultant parcels will have Third Street addresses. The applicant intends to construct two semi-detached, affordable owner-occupied for-sale homes. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for one- or two-family homes, minimum street frontage of 35 feet and minimum front, side and rear yards of 25 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet and 25% or 50 feet, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The project requires Area Variances. 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. Applicant George Frantz, Tioga Urbanscapes, LLC, presented a brief overview of the proposed Subdivision, noting that Habitat for Humanity has a purchase contract for the two lots on Morris Avenue. He said the proposal is to consolidate both parcels and reconfigure them at ninety degrees to create two new lots, fronting on Third Street; the applicants would then build a semi-detached dwelling for a two-family, owner-occupied dwelling (or duplex), with a parti- party wall between the two units at the intermediate lot line. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca tax parcels: #44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6 located at 101 & 107 Morris Ave. The parcels will be which will be consolidated first, then subdivided. The application is by George Frantz for Habitat for Humanity, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to consolidate the exiting existing two tax parcels (#44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6). The applicant proposes to subdivide the resultant 6.154 6,154-SF (.141 0.141 acre) parcel into two lots•••;••• •••:••• Lot 1 measuring approximately 2,949 SF with 31 feet of frontage on Third Ave•••.;••• and Lot 2 measuring approximately DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 3,205 SF with 30 feet of frontage on Third Ave. The resultant parcels will have •••a••• Third Street addresses. The applicant intends to construct two semi-detached, affordable, for-sale homes. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District•••,••• which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for one- or two-family homes, minimum street frontage of 35 feet and minimum front, side and rear yards of 25 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet and 25% or 50 feet, but not less than 20 feet, respectively. The project requires Area Variances, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Subdivision approval for City of Ithaca consolidated tax parcels #44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6 by George Frantz for Habitat for Humanity. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and approved unanimously, Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Schroeder closed the Public Hearing. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca tax parcels: #44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6 located at 101 & 107 Morris Ave. The parcels will be which will be consolidated first, then subdivided. The application is by George Frantz for Habitat for Humanity, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to consolidate the exiting existing two tax parcels DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 (#44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6). The applicant proposes to subdivide the resultant 6.154 6,154-SF (.141 0.141 acre) parcel into two lots•••;••• •••:••• Lot 1 measuring approximately 2,949 SF with 31 feet of frontage on Third Ave•••.;••• and Lot 2 measuring approximately 3,205 SF with 30 feet of frontage on Third Ave. The resultant parcels will have •••a••• Third Street addresses. The applicant intends to construct two semi-detached, affordable, for-sale homes. The project is in the R-2b Zoning District•••,••• which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for one- or two-family homes, minimum street frontage of 35 feet and minimum front, side and rear yards of 25 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet and 25% or 50 feet, but not less than 20 feet, respectively. The project requires Area Variances, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on January 26, 2016 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of this action, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on January 26, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a draft subdivision plat entitled “Habitat for Humanity Proposed Re-Subdivision of Tax Parcels #44.-5-5 and #44.-5-6” dated 1/7/16 and prepared by George R. Frantz & Associates; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates that the resultant parcels require area variance Area Variances, because they do not conform to area requirements in the R-2b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: None 5. Site Plan Review A. Cayuga Green II Place Two — Lofts at Six Mile Creek, 217 S. Cayuga Street, DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 Bloomfield / Schon. Request for Project Changes. Applicant is requesting changes to the Site Plan approved on 8/27/13. The applicant is requesting to omit the previously- proposed green screen on the east wall of the Cayuga Street Garage. (The applicant was not present to discuss the request.) Nicholas explained there is currently one green screen already covering raw concrete block on the east side of the garage, but the applicants were required by the Planning Board to install another adjacent green screen to cover an additional stretch of raw block that would be exposed due to previously-approved changes to the Lofts at Six Mile Creek project. The applicant has now asked to be relieved of that requirement. Schroeder noted that the garage was designed under the assumption there would be another adjacent building immediately to its east, so much of the garage’s east façade was left completely unfinished. He explained that the original version of the Lofts project would have covered all of this unfinished wall north of the one existing green screen, but that the revised project now has a smaller footprint that would therefore expose some unfinished garage wall, contrary to the original expectations. Hence, the Planning Board required the applicants to add another green screen panel to attractively cover the latter area. He said if one stands directly in front of that façade it becomes immediately apparent how bare it looks; therefore, he said he would not support approving the request. Jones-Rounds agreed. Adopted Resolution Disapproving Proposed Project Modification On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: on August 27, 2013, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board granted Modified Site Plan Approval for the Lofts at Six Mile Creek (formerly known as Cayuga Green II), and WHEREAS: the applicant requests modifications to the approved site plan consisting of omission of the green screen proposed to be mounted on the north east façade of the green garage Cayuga Street Garage, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board has, on January 26, 2016, reviewed materials submitted by the applicant to JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Zoning & Economic Development, dated December 29, 2015, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning & and Development Board regards the green screen as an important feature that improves the overall site and therefore does not approve the applicant’s request to remove it. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 Vacancies: None B. Hilton Canopy Hotel, 320-324 E. State Street, Scott Whitham for Neil Patel. Project Update, Conditions of Site Plan Approval, & Requested Changes. The project was approved on February 24, 2015. The applicant is requesting changes to the approved site plan, including the following: increase from 123 to 131 guest rooms, increase from 74,475 GFA to 77,884 GFA, minor landscape changes, size and location of windows and doors, and exterior materials and colors. Applicants Scott Whitham and Catherine DeAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC and Neil Patel, Baywood Hotels, Inc., presented a brief project update and an overview of the proposed project changes. Whitham noted the proposed changes are fairly minor, including changes to the building materials and footprint; however, the massing would remain the same. DeAlmeida reported there has been ongoing discussion about installing a through-block sidewalk route connecting Seneca Way to State Street. That discussion continues to move forward. Whitham added there is general agreement by the applicant and adjacent property owners that they would like to see that happen, but the details remain to be developed. DeAlmeida noted another proposed change involves the addition of a basement (~12,000 SF), for which there would be no additional environmental impact, to house mechanical equipment and back-of-house restaurant facilities. Some slight changes to the building footprint have also been proposed. Planning Board members then discussed with the applicants some of the specific proposed project changes, including concerns about some details. The applicants agreed to return to the Board in February with further modifications and clarifications of the changes. Formal Board approval would then be considered at that meeting. C. Parking for 5 Cars, 424 Dryden Road, Daniel R. Hirtler for William and Angie Chen. Declaration of Lead Agency. The property at 424 Dryden Road was subdivided in 2015 to form a new parcel at 319 Oak Avenue. The required off-street parking for 424 Dryden Road was formerly located on the part of the original parcel which was subdivided. The goal of this project is to provide the five required off-street parking spaces for the small site, while providing the best maneuverability and retaining a vegetative buffer at the rear of this parcel. The applicant is proposing two potential layouts. The preferred layout retains an existing mature tree, preserves a portion of the 10-foot vegetative buffer, and requires variances. The alternate plan is to construct a garage that occupies a larger portion of the 10-foot buffer and removes a mature tree, but does not require a variance. Both layouts include a trash enclosure. The project is in the CR-2 Zoning 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. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 Applicants Daniel R. Hirtler, Flatfield Designs and Angie Chen, owner, presented a brief overview of the proposed project, noting the original larger parcel had been subdivided to allow construction of a new two-family residence at 319 Oak Avenue. Part of that project involves configuring the remaining 424 Dryden Road parcel to accommodate the five required off-street parking spaces. Hirtler explained that, unfortunately, a parking proposal that meets zoning regulations would create a very tight parking scheme and destroy a very large mature tree on the site. An alternate proposal, which is preferred but would require two Zoning Variances, would alleviate that problem. Schroeder reported that the Project Review Committee also strongly preferred the proposal requiring the Zoning Variances. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for a 5-car parking area to be located a at 424 Dryden Road by Daniel Hirtler for William and Angie Chen, and WHEREAS: the property at 424 Dryden Road was subdivided in 2015 to form a new parcel at 319 Oak Avenue. The required off-street parking for 424 Dryden Road was formerly located on the part of the original parcel which was subdivided. The applicant proposes to provide the five required off-street parking spaces for the small site, while providing the best maneuverability and retaining a vegetative buffer at the rear of this parcel. The preferred layout retains an existing mature tree, preserves a portion of the 10- foot vegetative buffer, and requires variances. The project is on the CR-2 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed project. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: None DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 D. E-Hub College Avenue, 409 College Avenue, Noah Demarest for Student Agencies Properties, Inc. Planning Board Feedback. Applicant proposes to create open office spaces on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the building, create outdoor rooftop patio off the 2nd floor, and renovate the façade of the building. The façade renovation involves removing brick and individual windows on the second and third floors, and creating a new glass façade featuring a glass corner of fixed-frame window units with metal glass and granite detailing. The project is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District and requires Design Review. The project is under the threshold for full Site Plan Review — however, due to the project’s prominence in central Collegetown, Planning Board review is requested. 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. Applicant Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative presented a brief overview of the proposed project, noting the visually interrelated sequence of buildings on the north side of the 400 block of College Avenue — including this one — was identified in the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines as model of great urbanism. But he said the mid-block location of the façade makes it somewhat “lost in the mix,” so the applicants would like the new version of the building to be visually more dramatic. Demarest said there is a great opportunity here to do something bold with the northwest corner to visually erode it and draw the eye toward the main building entrance. He added that the applicants also want to animate the streetscape by reflecting the dynamic programming inside the building; the proposed removal of brick and punched windows in favor of continuous metal-and-glass curtain walls on the second and third floor levels at the northwest building corner and the proposed brise-soleil would help accomplish this. He said all building materials would be derived from the existing building (e.g., black windows, black / grey granite). He said the applicants had met with the Project Review Committee, which suggested the design be slightly revised to retain a pier of buff brick at the northwest corner and by retaining a horizontal band of buff brick just above the red-brick ground-floor base of the building. Schroeder said he thought these revisions would provide the dynamism and symmetry asymmetry the applicants seek, but in a manner allowing the upper three floors to still “read” as a masonry building within an urban ensemble of masonry structures. He asked the applicants to submit three drawings in different styles, including one that retains the northern-most window bay. Demarest noted the applicants are also trying to harmonize the signage with the building’s architecture, including removing the obtrusive Student Agencies sign currently located just below the third floor on the front facade. Nicholas remarked the applicant should work with Planning Division staff to schedule the Design Review Committee meeting as soon as possible. Demarest agreed to do so. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 Demarest asked if the project will still be considered a Limited Site Plan Review application. Schroeder replied, yes. E. Elmira Savings Bank (602 W. State Street) – Sketch Plan Applicants Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects; Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP; and Thomas M. Carr, Elmira Savings Bank, introduced the proposed project to the Board, noting they would like as much feedback from the Board as possible. Michaels explained that the project — which incorporates lots extending all the way from W. State Street to W. Seneca Street along the west side of Meadow Street — would retain the existing brick structure on State Street and renovate it so the first-floor would serve as the bank’s operations (with an ATM lane), while the second floor would be used by rental office tenants. She said the one-way streets surrounding the property necessitate building a large parking lot with multiple entrances (entrance off Meadow Street, entrance / exit off Seneca Street, exit-only off State Street). She added that the applicants would like to build a seminal piece of architecture at the corner of Seneca Street and Meadow Street, perhaps with an architectural wall, and that the project would include a considerable amount of green space and landscaping. Elmira Savings Bank is not interested in retaining ownership of the other Seneca Street property it owns, she said, but would likely sell it to a developer for a mixed-use project. Schroeder asked why the applicants could not keep the northernmost of the two existing houses along Meadow Street intact, rather than demolishing them both, with the understanding that the Seneca Street and Meadow Street corner now owned by the bank could be the site of a future mixed-use project. He said that destroying habitable housing and replacing it with surface parking is not compatible with the West End Urban Design Plan. Michaels responded that Elmira Savings Bank is not a landlord, and it would still need all the properties to create a drive-through space with adequate parking. Cornish asked if the applicants would consider subdividing the property. Carr responded that the bank would prefer to work with a developer and establish a land lease for those residential lots, which would make more financial sense. Schroeder remarked that the applicants could still subdivide the portions of the property they do not want or have any use for, so the houses would not have to be demolished. Cornish agreed, noting that the worst use of land in Ithaca is surface parking. She asked how many parking spaces the applicants propose. Michaels replied, 32. Elliott suggested the applicants approach the Board, accompanied by a developer, and propose a combined project that conforms to the West End Urban Design Plan. He indicated the applicants should not simply demolish residential buildings, without demonstrating some kind of feasible plan for replacement development. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 F. Cherry Artspace (Samuel Buggeln) – Sketch Plan Applicants Samuel Buggeln and Nick Salvato introduced the project to the Board, saying that they have been searching for some time to find a suitable new performing arts space. They said that contiguous to the site is a large parking lot that they would rent from its owner. They described the project as reasonably challenging, since it would be built on quite a small lot that adjoins a large 25-foot easement owned by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation where development is prohibited. The proposed building, they said, would be a simple rectangular box placed quite tightly on the site, along with a sidewalk and an urban streetwall, with three new street trees and 8-foot median. (Blalock departed at 10:17 p.m.) Schroeder asked if the applicants are aware the Black Diamond Trail is planned to extend by the property. Buggeln replied, yes. Schroeder suggested the applicants consult with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to determine precisely where the new portion of the trail will be going and ensure it is fully protected. (This concern turned out to be unwarranted; the portion of the Black Diamond Trail route planned for the east side of the Flood Control Channel would actually extend south from a new pedestrian / bicycle bridge proposed to span the channel near Cecil A. Malone Drive.) Buggeln stated the proposed building would consist of the same galvanized, corrugated steel siding as the existing nearby building, which has a solar panel-ready roof. There would be two main entrances to the new building featuring awnings, he said, and it would contain two floors with a small mezzanine area. Buggeln noted that Zoning Variances would be required. 6. Zoning Appeals Appeal #3012-A — 101-105 & 107 Morris Avenue: 210 Third Street: Area Variance Appeal of George Frantz for Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins and Cortland County for an Area Variance for 210 Third Street from Section 325-8, Columns 6, 7, and 13, Area in Square Feet, Width in Feet at Street Front, and Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to consolidate two contiguous parcels located at 101 Morris Avenue and 105 &107 Morris Avenue, on the corner of Morris Avenue and Third Street, and then re- subdivide the combined parcels to create two new building lots to be addressed 210 Third Street (Lot 1) and 208 Third Street (Lot 2). An approximately 1,400 SF two-story, one- family, semi-detached building (a building containing two owner-occupied, one-family dwelling units) will be constructed and sited, so that half  the  building  and  one  dwelling  unit   will  be located at 210 Third Street. The other half of the building and the second unit will be constructed on 208 Third Street. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 Both 210 and 208 Third Street are in an R-2b Use District, which allows a semi-detached building, provided the building and lot meet District Regulations requirements. However, the applicant’s proposal to site the building so it straddles both lots requires three Area Variances for the lot at 210 Third Street. The lot is 2,949 SF in area; required is 3,000 feet. The proposed width in feet at street front for 210 Third Street is 30.98 feet; required is 35 feet. In addition, the proposed lot at 210 Third Street does not meet the setback requirement for other side yard. As designed, the building’s other side yard setback is 0 feet; required is 5 feet. While the proposed one-family, semi-detached building at 210 Third Street is a permitted use in the R-2b Zoning District, General Municipal Law, Article 3, Section 33.3, requires Area Variances be granted before Subdivision is approved. The project is desirable urban infill and the Planning Board supports granting the variance. Appeal #3012-B — 101-105 & 107 Morris Avenue: 208 Third Street: Area Variance Appeal of George Frantz for Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins and Cortland County for Area Variances for 208 Third Street from Section 325-8, Columns 7 and 13, Width in Feet at Street Front, and Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to consolidate two contiguous parcels located at 101 Morris Avenue and 105 &107 Morris Avenue, on the corner of Morris Avenue and Third Street, and then re- subdivide the combined parcels to create two new building lots to be addressed 208 Third Street (Lot 2) and 210 Third Street (Lot 1). An approximately 1400-SF two-story, one-family, semi-detached building (a building containing two owner-occupied, one-family dwelling units) will be constructed and sited so that half the building and one dwelling unit will be located at 210 Third Street. The other half of the building and the second unit will be constructed on 208 Third Street. Both 208 and 210 Third Street are in an R-2b Use District, which allows a semi-detached building, provided the building and lot meet District Regulations requirements. However, the applicant’s proposal to site the building, so it straddles both lots, requires two Area Variances for the lot at 208 Third Street. The proposed width in feet at street front for 208 Third Street is 30 feet; required is 35 feet. In addition, the proposed lot at 208 Third Street does not meet the setback requirement for other side yard. As designed, the building’s other side yard setback is 0 feet; required is 5 feet. While the one-family, semi-detached building at 208 Third Street is a permitted use in the R-2b Zoning District, General Municipal Law, Article 3, Section 33.3, requires Area Variances be granted before Subdivision is approved. The project is desirable urban infill and the Planning Board supports granting the variance. 7. Old / New Business A. Planning Board Resolution to Common Council and Board of Public Works: Seneca Street Streetscape. Cornish announced that she had spoken to Director of Engineering Services Tim Logue, who indicated that reconfiguring the Seneca Street streetscape has always been something the Engineering Division wanted to pursue, but simply did not have the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 necessary funds to accomplish. (Also, NYS Department of Transportation approval would currently be necessary for such a project.) Adopted Resolution Regarding Seneca Street Streetscape: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: To:    City  of  Ithaca  Common  Council  &  Board  of  Public  Works   From:  City  of  Ithaca  Planning  and  Development  Board     Date:  January  26,  2016   Re:  Support  for  Improvements  to  Seneca  Street  from  Tioga  Street  to  Cayuga   Street       WHEREAS:    the  100-­‐block  of  East  Seneca  Street  is  home  to  the  Hilton  Garden  Inn,   the  historic  DeWitt  Building,  Moosewood  Restaurant,  the  soon-­‐to-­‐be-­‐built  Tompkins   Financial  Headquarters,  among  others,  and       WHEREAS:    this  block  is  a  critical  and  heavily-­‐used  east  /  west  pedestrian  route   connecting  businesses  between  Cayuga  and  Tioga  Streets  to  major  north  /  south   pedestrian  routes  in  the  heart  of  downtown,  and       WHEREAS:    the  100-­‐block  of  East  Seneca  Street  is  46  feet  wide,  while  the  100-­‐block   of  West  Seneca  Street  narrows  down  to  40  feet,  and     WHEREAS:    there  are  no  street  trees  (with  the  exception  of  trees  on  private   property  near  the  DeWitt  Building’s  southern  entrance)  or  other  pedestrian   amenities  on  either  side  of  the  entire  length  of  the  100-­‐block  of  East  Seneca  Street,   creating  an  unfriendly  pedestrian  environment  and  giving  priority  to  vehicular   traffic,  and     WHEREAS:    any  attempt  to  add  street  trees  in  front  of  lot-­‐line  or  street-­‐wall   buildings  on  this  block,  under  current  conditions,  results  in  inadequate  sidewalk   width,  and       WHEREAS:    members  of  the  Planning  Board  would  like  to  see  the  vehicular  portion   of  the  100-­‐block  of  East  Seneca  Street  narrowed,  so  that  street  trees,  sidewalks,  and   other  pedestrian  amenities  can  be  constructed,  making  it  a  “complete  street,”  with   priority  given  to  the  pedestrian  experience  and  not  to  vehicles,  now,  therefore,  be  it     RESOLVED:    that  the  City  of  Ithaca  Planning  and  Development  Board  recommends   to  Common  Council  and  the  Board  of  Public  Works  that  funding  be  approved  for  the   design  and  implementation  of  a  complete  street  with  wider  street  tree  /  sidewalk   areas  on  the  100-­‐block  of  East  Seneca  Street.       In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: None B. Planning Board Comments to Board of Public Works: Cascadilla Street Railing Options. Planning Board members reviewed a draft memorandum generated by Nicholas to the BPW, which would recommend Alternative 2. This alternative would eliminate box beams and “require a new design for a railing, an analysis of the implications of modifying it, and submission to FHWA for approval.” Darling suggested the Planning Board postpone submitting its comments for the time being. He said the Engineering Division would like to find out if there is a possibility of raising the base wall and placing a railing system on top of that. If so, he said, then BPW could consider a different railing system, similar to what is along the Six Mile Creekwalk downtown. The Planning Board should probably wait for more information, he concluded. There were no objections. C. Discussion: Potential Rezoning of Portion of Lower E. State / M.L.K., Jr. Street Blvd. from B-4 to R-3a. Cornish noted this subject has been brought up already at prior Planning Board meetings. Sparked by a project recently reviewed by the Planning Board, the proposed rezoning would include the two residential properties immediately below Schuyler Place on the north side of E. State Street. These two properties would be rezoned to the R-3a Zoning District. The one property in question is the third property down from Schuyler Place: the 416-418 E. State Street property. Schroeder responded that he believes the aforementioned two houses immediately below Schuyler should definitely not be in the B-4 Zoning District. He said they should be in a residential zone, or other kind of business zone consistent with their current use. He said the 416-418 E. State Street property, which contains both a house and an addition originally built for industrial use, is a more complicated question; perhaps it could be rezoned to one of the business zones that exclude the automotive uses (such as “Gasoline station” and “Motor vehicle sales and service”) allowed in B-4. He said these currently permitted automotive uses are clearly incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Cornish indicated Planning Division staff will prepare a memorandum for the Planning and Economic Development Committee for discussion. D. Proposed City Code Amendments: Potential Telecommunications Fall Zone Ordinance Revisions & Revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Nicholas remarked that she wanted to bring both proposed amendments to the Planning DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 Board’s attention. Comments would be welcome. 8. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development No report. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Darling noted the BPW has examined the Brindley Street Bridge project proposals options. It now appears the bridge will run from Taughannock Boulevard, rather than replacing the current one-lane bridge with a two-lane one, which is what the Planning Board had recommended. (This decision is fully consistent with the Planning Board’s recommendation.) The proposal will be coming before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review next month. Darling reported that the issue of food trucks continues to present some difficulties for the City, primarily in the Collegetown area, and the BPW will continue to explore the situation. The greatest area of contention, he said, is Eddy Street. Darling remarked that progress has been made in collaborating with NYSEG on the installation of underground utilities on Dryden Road. He also announced that the Green Street Garage engineering analysis report should be finalized shortly. 9. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the revised draft November 24, 2015 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Randall Vacancies: None 10. Adjournment On a motion by Darling, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m.