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.