Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-03-22DRAFT 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 March 22, 2016 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott; Robert Aaron Lewis; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Parking for 5 Cars at 424 Dryden Road Daniel R. Hirtler, Flatfield Designs; Angie Chen, Owner Hughes Hall Renovations at Cornell University Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP Cornell Ag. Ag Quad Renovations at Cornell University Davies Orinda, Cornell University; Brad Newhouse, Cornell University Cherry Artspace at 102 Cherry Street Samuel Buggeln, Performance Premises, LLC; Nick Salvato, Performance Premises, LLC Apartments at 201 College Avenue (Sketch Plan) DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Todd Fox, Visum Development Group Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas said under the “Old / New Business” agenda heading the following items should be listed for potential discussion: “Proposed Incentive Zoning for Affordable Housing,” “Proposed Backyard Chickens Ordinance” and “Proposed Waterfowl Ordinance.” She also noted there would be no Ithaca Marriott Hotel signage update as originally scheduled. On behalf of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), Blalock announced the Public Hearings for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnership Program. The first of two Public Hearings is scheduled for March 24, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in Common Council Chambers. 2. Privilege of the Floor No public comments were made. 5.3.Site Plan Review A. Parking for 5 Cars, 424 Dryden Road, Daniel R. Hirtler for William and Angie Chen. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. 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 layout retains an existing mature tree, preserves a portion of the 10- foot vegetative buffer, and has received the required area variances from the BZA. 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 for which the Planning Board made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on February 23, 2016. Architect Daniel R. Hirtler of Flatfield Designs and Angie Chen, owner presented a brief update on the proposed Subdivision project, noting it had received its Zoning Variances. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 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 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 layout retains an existing mature tree, preserves a portion of the 10-foot vegetative buffer, and has received variances as shown in drawings A2 and A5, more fully described below. The project is in 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: 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: 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 February 23, 2016, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on February 23, 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; drawings titled “Site Alterations for Required Off-Street Parking and Required Landscaping – Option B (A2, A3 and A5),” dated 11/6/15, and prepared by Daniel R. Hirtler; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on February 23, 2016 make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, 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: this Board has on March 22, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate new and revised drawings titled “Site Alterations for Required Off-Street Parking and Required Landscaping (A5),” dated 2/29/16, and “Landscape Plan (A1),” dated 3/8/18 3/8/16 and “Wood Fence Detail,” dated 3/2/16, and all prepared by Daniel R. Hirtler, now, therefore, be it DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 WHEREAS: RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the condition that the fence, trellis, and trash enclosure are constructed of wood and not vinyl. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None B. Hughes Hall Renovations, Cornell University Campus, Ram Venkat for Cornell University. Determination of Environmental Significance and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to renovate four levels of Hughes Hall in order to improve academic space use. Exterior and site modifications include: enclosing existing ground-floor loggia; a new entry from the courtyard; a new exterior stair tower on a west façade; and renovations to the gorge-facing dining terrace, including a new entrance and stair. The project includes removal and redesign of the courtyard area to include new paving, seating, lighting, walkway, bike racks, landscaping, and drainage improvements. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review. Consultant Kim Michaels of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP presented a brief update on the proposed project, stating the Board should now have all the information and materials it needs. Michaels noted a scoring pattern was added to the dining terrace to echo the planned paving pattern in the courtyard, and that the applicants have also provided an additional image showing the proposed appearance of the rebuilt terrace. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for renovations to Hughes Hall, located on the Cornell University campus, by Cornell University, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to renovate four levels of Hughes Hall in order to improve academic space use. Exterior and site modifications include: enclosing existing ground-floor loggia; a new entry from the courtyard; a new exterior stair tower on a west façade; and renovations to the gorge-facing dining terrace, including a new entrance and stair. The project includes removal and redesign of the courtyard area to include new paving, seating, lighting, walkway, bike racks, landscaping, and drainage improvements. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (b)(11), 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 2/23/16, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on March 22, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Building Elevations (A301 & A302),” Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Site Details (L501),” all dated 2/25/16; and “Demolition Plan (C101),” “Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan (C102),” “Utility Plan (C103),” and “Details (C201),” dated 2/26/16, and all prepared by KSS Architects; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and 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, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Schroeder noted that while the originally submitted drawings showed Gothic-style exterior light fixtures on each side of the new entry from the courtyard, the updated drawings simply show a non-descript style. He would like to make sure these flanking light fixtures remain the Gothic-style fixtures originally depicted. The new courtyard entry would then be consistent in this regard with the new entries into Myron Taylor Hall constructed in conjunction with the recent underground addition. Michaels replied, that would be fine. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for renovations to Hughes Hall, located on the Cornell University campus, by Cornell University, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to renovate four levels of Hughes Hall in order to improve academic space use. Exterior and site modifications include: enclosing existing ground-floor loggia; a new entry from the courtyard; a new exterior stair tower on a west façade; and renovations to the gorge-facing dining terrace, including a new entrance and stair. The project includes removal and redesign of the courtyard area to include new paving, seating, lighting, walkway, bike racks, landscaping, and drainage improvements. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (b)(11), 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 2/23/16 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 February 23, 2016, 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: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on March 22, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Building Elevations (A301 & A302),” Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),” “Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Site Details (L501),” all dated 2/25/16; and “Demolition Plan (C101),” “Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan (C102),” “Utility Plan (C103),” and “Details (C201),” dated 2/26/16, and all prepared by KSS Architects; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on March 22, 2016 make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 i. Submission of revised elevations showing Gothic-style exterior light fixtures on each side of the new entry from the courtyard, as shown in a previously submitted drawing titled “Building Elevations (A301)” and dated 1/15/16, as well as on the dining terrace, and ii. Submission of a revised detail drawing showing an alteration to the end of the stair railing on the dining terrace, such that either there is no projection past the supporting vertical post or such projection is bent, and•••.••• In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None C. Cornell Ag. Ag Quad Renovations, Cornell University Campus, Davies Orinda for Cornell University. Determination of Environmental Significance and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant proposes to renovate the existing landscape and replace underground utilities in the Agricultural Quad. The project is needed to upgrade existing utilities and enhance accessibility, expand gathering spaces, and provide new lighting and site furnishings. Site work will include removal of all existing hardscape, as well as 14 trees, installation of new pedestrian paths, plazas, stone bench seating, lighting, and blue light phones, as well as new plantings with amended soil conditions. The project also includes a large bioretention area east of Kennedy Hall. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District. This is an Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(9), and is subject to Environmental Review. Applicants Davies Orinda and Brad Newhouse of Cornell University presented a brief project update, noting they had provided the Board with the legible rendered and labeled site plan it had requested. Elliott expressed concern with the fate of the four Cornelian cherry trees now standing immediately west of the Plant Science Building. Orinda replied that he had discussed this issue with Cornell Plant Science Professor Nina Bassuk, who concluded it would be somewhat unlikely the trees could be saved. Elliott asked if the trees could not simply be transplanted, held and replanted. Orinda replied that the applicants considered that approach, but remained persuaded that the likelihood of their survival was poor. He said he applicants, however, would certainly be willing to make the attempt to save the trees. Schroeder noted that the “Ag Quad Landscape Revitalization - Material Selection” sheet omits two of the project’s paver types: (1) the “Plank Stone” Type 2 pavers proposed for the building entrances and (2) the permeable pavers proposed for the two semi-circular east and west plazas. He said the Board should be shown physical samples of each, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 be provided with a revised material selection sheet illustrating the missing two paver types. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for landscape renovations to the Ag Quad, located on the Cornell University campus, by Cornell University, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to renovate the existing landscape and replace underground utilities in the Agricultural Quad. The project is needed to upgrade existing utilities and enhance accessibility, expand gathering spaces, and provide new lighting and site furnishings. Site work will include removal of all existing hardscape, as well as 14 trees, installation of new pedestrian paths, plazas, stone bench seating, lighting, and blue light phones, as well as new plantings with amended soil conditions. The project also includes a large bioretention area east of Kennedy Hall. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is an Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (b)(9), 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 2/23/16 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on March 22, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Schematic Design – Rendered Site Plan (L-9A),” dated 8/1/14; “Overall Site Plan (M-01),” “Utilities Up-grades Site Plan (M-20),” “Planting Plan (L-5),” and “Planting Plan (L-5),” showing existing trees to be removed in red, all dated 05-01-15 or 12/11/15; “Demolition and Removals Plan (L-1),” “Layout Plan (L-2),” “Enlargement Layout and Materials Plan Plans (L-3A & L-3B),” “Grading Plan (L-4),” “Site Details (SD-1 through SD-5),” and “Materials Plan (L-3),” all dated 12/11/15; and “Ag Quad Landscape Revitalization - Materials Material Selection,” date-stamped 3/15/16 with no attribution, and all prepared by MKW Associates, LLC; 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 that a DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 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, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for landscape renovations to the Ag Quad, located on the Cornell University campus, by Cornell University, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to renovate the existing landscape and replace underground utilities in the Agricultural Quad. The project is needed to upgrade existing utilities and enhance accessibility, expand gathering spaces, and provide new lighting and site furnishings. Site work will include removal of all existing hardscape, as well as 14 trees, installation of new pedestrian paths, plazas, stone bench seating, lighting, and blue light phones, as well as new plantings with amended soil conditions. The project also includes a large bioretention area east of Kennedy Hall. The project is in the U-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is an Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(9), 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 2/23/16, 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 February 23, 2016, 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: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on March 22, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Schematic Design – Rendered Site Plan (L-9A),” dated 8/1/14; “Overall Site Plan (M-01),” “Utilities Up-grades Site Plan (M-20),” “Planting Plan (L-5),” and “Planting Plan (L-5),” showing existing trees to be removed in red, all dated 05/01/15 or 12/11/15; “Demolition and Removals Plan (L-1),” “Layout Plan (L-2),” “Enlargement Layout and Materials Plan Plans (L-3A & L-3B),” “Grading Plan (L-4),” “Site Details (SD-1 through SD-5),” and “Materials Plan (L-3),” all dated 12/11/15; and “Ag Quad Landscape Revitalization - Materials Material Selection,” date-stamped 3/15/16 with no attribution, and all prepared by MKW Associates, LLC; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on March 22, 2016 make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Applicant shall attempt to remove, preserve, and replant the four Cornus Mas, or cornelian cherry dogwoods (labeled 7, 8, 9, & 10 on the Planting Plan showing existing trees to be removed in red), and ii. Approval by the Planning Board of a revised “Ag Quad Landscape Revitalization Materials Select - Material Selection” sheet plus physical samples, showing the “Plank Stone” Type 2 pavers proposed for the building entrances and the permeable pavers proposed for the two semi-circular east and west plazas. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None D. The Cherry Artspace, 102 Cherry Street, Performance Premises, LLC / Samuel Buggeln. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, & Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,944-SF building on the 5,402-SF project site. The site contains an existing 1,137-SF building (formerly Renovus Solar). The new building will have a galvanized corrugated-steel exterior finish to harmonize with the existing building, and have a matte mat foundation with perimeter- grade beams. A sidewalk will be provided along the entire parcel width, and 6.5’ tree lawn and street trees in front of the existing building. (Space does not permit a tree lawn in front of the new building.) Parking will be provided on adjacent lot immediately to the south. The applicant is also proposing an exterior patio in the rear of the building, landscaping, and signage. The project site is in an area currently under study for an Area Plan as a part of the Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan. Since this planning effort will likely result in changes in zoning requirements in this area, the City has rezoned the entire area to a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) Zone, until DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 the Area Plan is complete. Therefore, the project sponsor has also applied to Common Council for a (TM)PUD. The project will require a permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for encroachment into the permanent easement along the Flood Control Channel. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B(1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review. Applicants Samuel Buggeln and Nick Salvato of Performance Premises, LLC updated the Board on the proposed project, noting it had changed little since the Sketch Plan. The applicants said they had discussed various options for street trees to plant with City Forester Jeanne Grace and await her response. The sidewalk would extend all the way to the curb to allow enough width for the building to serve its intended use. The applicants said they had requested Department of Environmental Conservation approval for paving within the 25-foot permanent easement area where the land slopes down to the water, but it is possible this request could be denied. Buggeln stressed that the applicants are committed to using the area north of the building only for occasional events (which will be documented in writing). He added that the nearby parking lot has been leased indefinitely to the applicants by the owner. Jones-Rounds suggested making the building as accessible as possible for pedestrians. Buggeln replied he would seek to do that. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Cherry Street Artspace to be located at 102 Cherry St., and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 1,944-SF building on the 5,402-SF project site. The site contains an existing 1,137-SF building (formerly Renovus Solar). The new building will have a galvanized corrugated-steel exterior finish to harmonize with the existing building, and have a matte mat foundation with perimeter-grade beams. A sidewalk will be provided along the entire parcel width, and 6.5’ tree lawn and street trees in front of the existing building. (Space does not permit a tree lawn in front of the new building.) Parking will be provided on adjacent lot immediately to the south. The DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 applicant is also proposing an exterior patio in the rear of the building, landscaping, and signage, and WHEREAS: the project site is in an area currently under study for an Area Plan as a part of the Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan. Since this planning effort will likely result in changes in zoning requirements in this area, the City has rezoned the entire area to a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) Zone, until the Area Plan is complete. Therefore, the project sponsor has also applied to Common Council for a (TM)PUD. The project will require a permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for encroachment into the permanent easement along the Flood Control Channel, and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and the City of Ithaca Common Council, both potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for the action of Site Plan Review for this project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Common Council and the NYS DEC have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for the action of site plan review and (TM)PUD for this project, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review of the proposed project. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Randall, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Nicholas suggested that the Board begin holding Public Hearings open until after the Environmental Review has been completed for every project, from this point forward. No objections were raised. Nicholas said that the Determination of Environmental Significance was not originally scheduled for this meeting, so the Board should ensure it has sufficient time to read through all the associated materials and that it is comfortable moving forward. She added DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 that the Environmental Review will also apply to the project’s Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development application. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Cherry Street Artspace to be located at 102 Cherry St., and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 1,944-SF building on the 5,402-SF project site. The site contains an existing 1,137-SF building (formerly Renovus Solar). The new building will have a galvanized corrugated-steel exterior finish to harmonize with the existing building, and have a matte mat foundation with perimeter-grade beams. A sidewalk will be provided along the entire parcel width, and 6.5’ tree lawn and street trees in front of the existing building. (Space does not permit a tree lawn in front of the new building.) Parking will be provided on adjacent lot immediately to the south. The applicant is also proposing an exterior patio in the rear of the building, landscaping, and signage, and WHEREAS: the project site is in an area currently under study for an Area Plan as a part of the Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan. Since this planning effort will likely result in changes in zoning requirements in this area, the City has rezoned the entire area to a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) Zone, until the Area Plan is complete. Therefore, the project sponsor has also applied to Common Council for a (TM)PUD. The project will require a permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for encroachment into the permanent easement along the Flood Control Channel, and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1)(h)[2], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Common Council and the NYS DEC have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for the action of site plan review and (TM)PUD for this project, and WHEREAS: The Planning Board has, on March 22, 2016, declared itself Lead Agency for the project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on March 22, 2016 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; drawings titled “Site Plan and Zoning Information (L-1)” “1st Floor Plan (A-1)”, “Mezzanine Plan (A-2)” “Elevations (A-3 & A-4)” all dated 1-4-16 and prepared by Claudia Brenner, Architect, and other application materials, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 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, 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 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, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. E. 201 College Avenue – Sketch Plan Applicants Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative and Todd Fox of Visum Development Group introduced the proposed project to the Board and walked through an overhead presentation. Demarest noted most surrounding properties are multi-family housing units populated by students and generally on small lots. The applicants are seeking to design a more contemporary urban form, he said, explaining that the proposed project would replace a deteriorating multi-family house on the existing lot. He said existing sidewalks are 4-5 feet wide, while the proposed sidewalk would be 8 feet wide with tree pits and structural soil; the building itself would be set back 5 feet on both streets. Demarest indicated the applicants do not anticipate needing any Zoning Variances for the project. The building would have entrances on both Bool Street and College Avenue, with the stairway leading up to the main level on Bool Street serving as the primary entrance. Darling suggested the applicants consider dismantling the existing building so that components can be salvaged for reuse, rather than demolishing it outright. Blalock asked about the likelihood of having some of the overhead utilities buried. Demarest replied that the applicants are reaching out to NYSEG to begin that process. Schroeder observed it would be helpful if the City Code required buried utilities in its dense urban districts. Schroeder stated his principal concern is that buildings without a setback above about 65 feet in height on a narrow street like College Avenue would — once constructed all along the MU zone street fronts — severely constrict access to sunlight and views of sky at DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 street level. He suggested the applicants step back the top of the building, or design the front section one story shorter than the rear section. Demarest replied the applicants would need to explore that. Schroeder noted the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines call for the streetscape to have room for street trees all along College Avenue. In addition, Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines call for substantially wider sidewalks in a dense urban area such as this. For both these reasons, he said, it would be desirable for the building to be pushed back on its site away from College Avenue. Jones-Rounds suggested the applicants develop the roofline to mirror the rooflines of some of the surrounding residential buildings and also soften the top edge. Demarest replied that may be possible, although anything that would add perceived height to the building may not be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Jones-Rounds suggested the applicants consider using sloped ceilings, if they cannot step the building back on College Avenue. Schroeder indicated he would strongly advocate for a Zoning Variance to facilitate some of the changes the Board is proposing. Darling said he does not have a problem with the building’s height. He would, however, also like to see the top edge softened a little. Randall stated she would like to see further ground-floor activation at the pedestrian level. Blalock agreed with Schroeder that a Zoning Variance for the project would be a good idea. Elliott suggested the applicants vary the façade by making the gym space more open and transparent to passers-by. 4. Zoning Appeals Appeal #3017 — 416-418 E. State Street: Area Variances Appeal of Ben Rosenblum, owner of 416-418 E. State Street, for Area Variances from Section 325-8 Columns 5, 10, 12, and 13, Loading Space, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property at 416-418 E. State Street is a non-conforming structure in the East Hill Historic District. The applicant purposes to renovate the existing building at 416-418 E. State Street, now partially occupied. One apartment occupies the second floor; and a portion of the first floor is used as office space. In the past, the major portion of the first floor space was used as DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 a printing plant and is now vacant. The applicant purposes to renovate this space and create additional office suites on the first floor. In order to convert the unoccupied space on the first floor to the new permitted uses, the applicant must obtain a variance for the loading space requirement and for several existing deficiencies pertaining to required lot coverage, side yard, and other side yard setbacks. The parking for the applicant’s proposal is met through a shared parking agreement with the adjacent neighbor at 408 E. State Street, but the proposed amount of office space for the building at 416-418 E. State Street requires one loading space on site. The only place to locate the required loading space is in the front yard of 416-418 E. State Street. However, meeting this requirement would conflict with the desires of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) and its previous approval of the proposed site plan, because the loading space would require the removal of front yard plantings and green space. In addition, the property at 416-418 E. State Street has three existing deficiencies that require variances from the BZA. The property exceeds the 50% allowed percentage of lot coverage. The existing building’s lot coverage is 60%. The building also has a deficient side yard and other side yard setback. The side yard to the west of the building is 0.02 feet; required is 10 feet. The other side yard to the east of the building is 0.1 feet; required is 5 feet. The property at 416-418 E. State Street is in a B-4 Zoning District where the proposed office suites, and apartment space are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued. The Board did not identify any planning issues with the appeal as the use is compatible with the neighborhood and previously expressed concerns neighborhood concerns and all the deficiencies are currently existing. Appeal #3018 — 133 Giles Street: Area Variances Appeal of Margaret Mikolay, owner of 133 Giles Street, for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14/15, Parking, Lot Area, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Rear Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to convert the single-family dwelling at 133 Giles Street into a two- family unit by modifying the existing basement space and its separate entrance into a legal dwelling unit. While this proposal will not change the building footprint, the lot at 133 Giles Street has a number of deficiencies. The four-bedroom house requires two parking spaces. The second dwelling unit requires one parking space. The property has one off-street parking space. The lot area is 2,570 SF. The required lot size for one- and two-family dwellings is 5,000 SF. Percentage of lot coverage is 39.8%; allowed percentage of lot coverage is 30%. The front yard encroaches 7.4 feet into Giles Street’s right-of way; the required front yard setback is 25 feet. The side yard is 0.5 feet; required is 5 feet. Finally, the rear yard is 3 feet; required is 20 feet. The property at 133 Giles Street is in an R-2a Zoning District, where two-family dwelling units are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 The Planning Board supports granting this appeal; due to topography, no additional parking is possible on the site. Appeal #3019 — 102 Franklin Street: Area Variances Appeal of Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, architect for Susan and Erich Mueller, owners of 102 Franklin Street for Area Variances from Section 325-8, Columns 10 and 12, Percentage of Lot Coverage and Other Front Yard. The applicant proposes to remove a 36-SF vestibule and build a 90-SF mudroom addition and entrance landing, at the north and west corner of the two-family unit. Access to the mudroom will be from the north front yard, facing Short Street where the applicant proposes new code- compliant landing and stairs. The addition of the mudroom and landing will increase lot coverage from 34% to 36.2%. The maximum allowed lot coverage is 35%. In addition, the north front yard, facing Short Street, has an existing front yard that is 7-feet deep. Required is a 10-foot front yard setback. The proposed new mudroom addition and stair landing will decrease the Short Street front yard setback to 2’11”. The two-family dwelling at 102 Franklin Street is a permitted use; however, Section 325-38 requires that Zoning Variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Planning Board supports granting this appeal. The vestibule improves the appearance of the house. Appeal #3022 — 108-110 Eddy Street (Grey Court Apartments): Area Variance - Parking Appeal of Schickel Architecture for Demos Johnny, LLC, owner of 108-110 Eddy Street, Grey Court Apartments, from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 13, Side Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Grey Court Apartments at 108-110 Eddy Street was constructed in 1909. No stables were available on the lot, so tenants used the carriage barns at 804 E. State Street (formerly 112 Blair Street) to stable their horses and buggies. When cars became the new means of transportation, the carriage barns were no longer needed and over time the property at 804 E. State Street turned into a parking lot. Up until 2011, when the current owner developed a parking area at 108- 110 Eddy Street, Grey Court Apartments met its off-street parking requirement of 9 space at 804 E. State Street. But with only 5 parking spaces available for tenants at 108-110 Eddy Street, Grey Court’s owner must still provide 4 parking spaces at 804 E. State Street. Grey Court’s owner claims, since constructing the on-site parking at 108-110 Eddy Street, that tenant demand for parking spaces at 804 E. State Street has been minimal-to-non-existent over the past five years; and he is seeking a variance to reduce the required off-street parking for 108-110 Eddy Street from 9 parking spaces to 5 spaces. The property at 804 E. State Street is in a CR-2 Zoning District, which permits one- and two- family dwellings as-of-right and does not allow off-site parking. Nevertheless, off-street parking for Grey Court at 804 E. State Street is designated as a legal, non-conforming condition. Grey Court Apartments at 108-110 Eddy Street is in an R-3a Zoning District, where multiple dwellings are a permitted use and where off-street parking for the apartments is required by Zoning District Regulations. The property located at 108-110 Eddy Street has DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 two existing deficiencies. A side yard having 4’6” of the required 5’ and the rear yard having 12’6” of the 20’ required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, Section 325-39 requires that a variance be granted before a Certificate of Compliance can be issued. The Planning Board supports the removal of parking and recommends approval of this appeal. Not all conditions of the Site Plan Approval have been met. The Board wants the applicant to build a retention system (low wall or curb) in front of 806 & 808 E State Street in addition to additional planting there. Rocks and soil fall from the site onto the sidewalk and create a pedestrian hazard. These issues will be handled before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 5. Old / New Business A. Chain Works District Project DGEIS Update Nicholas announced the DGEIS is now available for review on the official project web site. The Public Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 29, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. at Cinemapolis, 120 E. Green St., Ithaca NY. Public comments will be accepted until 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 10, 2016. B. Proposed Incentive Zoning for Affordable Housing Cornish explained that, in an effort to address the need for more affordable housing, the City has proposed an Incentive Zoning Ordinance, similar to what other communities around the nation have done. It would be a voluntary program. If a developer chooses to benefit from some of the incentives (e.g., elimination of minimum parking requirements, exemption from Site Plan Review for projects in any zone for which Design Standards have been published), it would either need to provide affordable housing units or pay into a City Affordable Housing Fund. Schroeder asked if a percentage of affordable housing units has been proposed. Cornish replied it would be 15 percent of the total number of proposed units. Jones-Rounds asked if the additional allowed story would bypass the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Cornish replied, yes. If there were any other deficiencies associated with a given project, however, they would still need to be reviewed by the BZA. Jones-Rounds asked if there would be a maximum allowable height, since a story could conceivably be anything from 8 to 16 feet. Cornish replied, no. That would need to be defined. Blalock said he does not have any objections to the proposal in principle, although it seems it might surprise some property owners. Jones-Rounds indicated she does not like the idea of a project not going through Site Plan Review, even with Design Standards. Elliott agreed. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 Schroeder said his worry is that exemption from Site Plan Review would effectively eliminate the public’s ability to comment about a project in front of a City board that can hear, and potentially respond to, public concerns, as occurs now via Planning Board Public Hearings and Privilege of the Floor. The City would appear to be silencing people, he said, which would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There must be an opportunity for members of the public to express their opinions, he concluded. It was agreed that the Board would send a memo summarizing its thoughts about this proposal to Common Council. The resulting memo, written after the meeting, reads as follows: To:      Common  Council     From:  Planning  and  Development  Board     Date:    March  31,  2016   RE:    Planning  Board  Comments  to  Common  Council  Regarding  the  Proposal   to  Amend  City  of  Ithaca  Zoning  Ordinance  to  Establish  Incentives  to   Encourage  the  Development  of  Affordable  Housing       At  its  March  22,  2016  meeting,  the  Planning  Board  reviewed  the  above-­‐referenced   proposal.  In  general,  Planning  Board  members  support  the  concept  of  incentive   zoning  to  promote  affordable  housing;  however,  the  Board  has  the  following   comments  and  questions  about  this  specific  proposal:     • How  does  the  incentive  translate  into  dollars  per  unit?     • The  additional  story  should  have  a  maximum  floor-­‐to-­‐floor  height.  If  a   maximum  height  is  not  specified,  developers  may  use  this  to  their   advantage.  If  zoning  allows  60  feet,  how  tall  could  an  additional  story  be?       • There  are  major  concerns  about  eliminating  Site  Plan  Review  —  particularly   regarding  silencing  the  public.  Site  Plan  Review  public  hearings,  as  well  as   privilege  of  the  floor  at  the  beginning  of  each  Planning  Board  meeting,   provide  an  opportunity  for  members  of  the  public  to  be  heard.  The  City’s   new  Comprehensive  Plan  advocates  for  more,  not  less,  public   involvement.  Planning  Board  members  would  like  staff  to  explore  other   ways  to  expedite  the  approval  process  for  developers.  The  Board  does  not   support  entirely  bypassing  Site  Plan  Review.         • The  Board  has  similar  concerns  about  bypassing  the  Board  of  Zoning   Appeals.       DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 • Who  would  be  responsible  for  carrying  out  environmental  review  for   projects  that  do  not  require  Site  Plan  Review?  How  would  the  public  be  able   to  review  or  comment  upon  draft  environmental  review  documents?     • How  does  the  proposed  incentive  structure  ensure  that  affordable  units  are   comparable  to  a  project’s  market  rate  units?  There  are  a  lot  of  options  here:   Square  footage  minimums  for  affordable  units,  minimum  affordable  square   footage  percentages,  mandating  unit  mix  to  be  comparable  to  market  rate   units,  comparable  finish  quality  requirements,  etc.   C. Other Proposed Ordinances: Backyard Chickens Ordinance & Waterfowl Ordinance Cornish reported that a proposed Backyard Chickens Ordinance has been circulated for review, proposing a two-year pilot program allowing backyard chickens to be kept at 20 residences within the City. A proposed Waterfowl Ordinance has also been circulated, which would prohibit people from feeding waterfowl; this would be part of a comprehensive waterfowl management plan. 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Cornish reported that the City finally reached an agreement with Emerson Power Transmission on the extension of the South Hill Recreation Way through its property. C. Board of Public Works Liaison Darling reported the BPW held a Public Hearing on a proposal to restripe Tioga Street as part of the City’s Bicycle Boulevard Plan implementation. During that hearing, it soon became clear the Board would not be able to move forward as it originally anticipated. One of the points brought up is that there is currently no handicapped-accessible parking in that vicinity. Darling reported that the Water Treatment Plant Rebuilding Project is on schedule. There is one tank that was intended for rehabilitation, but now that will not be possible. This may result in a cost over-run. Darling reported that the Board denied the request for a bench in front of Ruloff’s Restaurant and Bar. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 Darling reported that DeWitt Park’s lighting will be upgraded. 7. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft January 26, 2016 special meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 8. Adjournment On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.