Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-09-22DRAFT 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 September 22, 2015 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: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Megan Wilson, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: State Street Triangle Project at Trebloc Building Site Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Ronnie L. Macejewski, Campus Advantage; Michael J. Peter, Campus Advantage; Jennifer Cassidy, Campus Advantage; Dan Oltersdorf, Campus Advantage; Vicki Taylor Brous, Brous Consulting Four Multi-Family Dwellings at 215 Spencer Street Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; William Joblanski, Empire GeoServices, Inc. Site Improvements at 416-418 E. State Street Cathy deAlmeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect Hotel Ithaca Renovations at 222 S. Cayuga Street, Previously Holiday Inn Expansion David Hart, Hart Hotels, Inc. 87-Unit Housing Project at 815 S. Aurora Street (Sketch Plan) Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Todd Fox, Modern Living Rentals; Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Blalock noted that agenda item F — a sketch plan review of the proposed Old Tompkins County Library project (itself a late addition to the agenda) — has now been removed from the agenda. 2. Special Order of Business ― Priorities for Comprehensive Plan Phase II Senior Planner Megan Wilson explained that Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan will include more detailed neighborhood and thematic plans to build upon the recently completed Plan Ithaca. She said Phase II will be launched in early 2016, when Planning staff will focus on preparing the two plans selected by Common Council, following tonight’s Planning Board recommendation. The Comprehensive Planning Plan Committee, she said, has already identified its “Priority Plans for Phase II.” including a list of the top 20 plans it believes are most important. Additionally, it has listed its “Top 20 Recommendations From Plan Ithaca.” Schroeder observed the housing study and the Southside neighborhood plan (the latter begun but never finished several years ago) were both rated the highest by the Comprehensive Plan Committee, and he agrees with that assessment. There were no objections. Adopted Resolution: Planning and Development Board Recommendation of Priorities for Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan, where Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II will include the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and WHEREAS: in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for preparing and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 recommending a new Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council for adoption, and WHEREAS: Plan Ithaca was adopted as Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan by the Common Council on September 2, 2015, and WHEREAS: work on Phase II will begin in early 2016, and Planning staff will focus on the preparation of two neighborhood and/or thematic plans to begin this second phase, and WHEREAS: the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended three thematic plans (a housing strategy; a city-wide transportation plan; and a floodplain management plan) and three neighborhood plans (Southside; the Waterfront •••,••• and Inlet Island; and West Hill) to be top priorities for completion in Phase II, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s recommendation, the list of needed thematic plans identified by Plan Ithaca, and the list of the City’s existing plans, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board recommends that the Common Council select the Housing Strategy and the Southside neighborhood plan to be the first two plans completed as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 3. Privilege of the Floor Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the Hotel Ithaca Renovations project. Leslie Sandman, 310 Fall Creek Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed State Street Triangle project, stating his primary concern relates to the Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP) application, which would essentially mean taxpayers would be subsidizing the project. Peter Harriott, 139 Ellis Hollow Creek Road, a retired chemical engineer with an interest in the environment, spoke about the Ithaca Falls lead contamination remediation project. He stressed that — unlike lead compounds found in paint which are in fact hazardous to children — the metallic form of lead found at the site is not the critical health concern some community members have portrayed it to be. Fay Gougakis, 171 E. State Street, spoke about recent downtown construction, saying it often appears to start earlier than 7:30 a.m. She urged the City to make every effort to enforce permitted construction hours. She also expressed concern about excessive noise from live music concerts on the Commons and light pollution from its retail stores. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 4. Site Plan Review A. State Street Triangle Project (Mixed-Use Housing & Retail), 301 E. State Street / M.L.K., Jr. Boulevard Street, Michael Orsak for Campus Advantage. Public Hearing, CEQR Discussion, & Design Review Committee Meeting. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with a mixed-use building having 216,434 GFS (reduced from 288,845), with approximately 12,341 SF of new ground-floor retail space, 2,029 SF of which is anticipated to be a restaurant. Upper floors will have a mix of unit types (1-bedroom/1-bath to 5-bedroom/4-bath) for a total of 232 units with approximately 582 bedrooms (reduced from 240 units with 620 bedrooms). Most of the building is 11 stories and 116’ tall; however, portions are stepped down to 95 and 85 feet in height. The targeted market is primarily college students. The ground level includes a loading/delivery area with vehicular access provided from N. Aurora Street and the below-grade level includes a trash area with vehicular access from Green St. Thirty-five parking spaces will be eliminated, with only limited on-site temporary parking proposed. The project is in the CDB-120 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h)[4], (k) and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv) and (11), and is subject to environmental review. Applicants Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC and Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative walked through an overhead presentation, highlighting the following project changes and points-of-interest: • Applicants have discussed ways to improve the pedestrian zone at the corner of E. State and S. Aurora streets with the Board of Public Works and City engineers, as suggested by the Planning Board. • Building height has been broken up, now lowered to 10 stories at the rounded corner and dropping to eight and nine stories for a short stretch in the middle of the E. State Street facade. • Applicants received productive feedback from the Design Review Committee about quality of building materials, detailing, recessing, shadow lines, etc. Applicants examined various architectural precedents and tried to enrich the relationship of the building to other local / nearby buildings. • Activating ground floor / street level is an important part of the project. • Some living units on the E. State Street side were removed. • A shadow study was developed to more closely examine specific times of day to provide a better sense of sun angles, and the building was scaled back to permit more light to reach buildings on the other side of the street. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 • Applicants met with neighbors and community members, including the Community School of Music and Arts. • Project now comprises 232 living units (582 bedrooms). Consultant Vicki Taylor Brous of Brous Consulting reported that the applicants reviewed considerable data and have been collaborating with the Downtown Ithaca Alliance on the Transportation Demand Management Plan, which she said will evolve over time. She noted a Collegetown parking study conducted a few years ago determined that when a property owner provides parking, 27 percent of tenants bring a vehicle; whereas, when no parking is provided, that figure falls to 17 percent. The applicants therefore anticipate providing no parking will reduce the number of people bringing vehicles. The applicants will also work with Ithaca Carshare to provide a designated Carshare parking space near the building, and a bike-share program will also be launched. In addition, she said, a remote parking program is being developed and the applicants have been working with TCAT and have included space in the project design for a new on-site bus stop. She said the applicants examined City garage vacancy rates (especially the Cayuga Street Garage). She said there is enough space to handle the project, according to City Parking Director Frank Nagy’s data, which would be mutually beneficial to the City given the current underutilization of City garages. Brous added that the project is actively seeking commercial tenants for the building (e.g., Collegetown Bagels, or a neighborhood grocery store), and will work to encourage residents’ use of the Rosie grocery delivery service. As a result of all these efforts, Brous stressed, no new traffic is anticipated to flow into the site. Whitham indicated the applicants are also aware of various other concerns (e.g., load-in and load-out, garbage storage and pick-up, quality of building materials, deliveries) that they are working to address. Macejewski noted the garbage pick-up location has been moved from Aurora Street to Green Street, and that the mixture of living units has also changed: 60 percent would now be 1- or 2-bedroom apartments, or efficiencies, in response to the Board’s concerns. Whitham reported that the applicants discussed the project with the Board of Public Works last week, and that the City Transportation Engineer is actively examining the project. Public Hearing On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Robin Tropper-Herbel, Executive Director, Community School of Music and Arts, spoke about her concerns with the proposed project, noting that CSMA’s direct access to DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 sunlight would be affected more than any other building by the project. She added that parking, circulation and traffic also remain significant concerns for the school. Patrick Braga, student of Urban and Regional Studies at Cornell, spoke in support of the proposed project. Christine O’Malley, Preservation Services Coordinator, Historic Ithaca, described the organization’s concerns with the proposed project, noting the majority of the changes made to the project have not altered the overall height, massing and composition of the building, which she said remain very troubling. Historic Ithaca is also concerned, she added, with the solar access and aesthetic issues associated with the current proposal. She urged the City to lower the permitted building height in the Zoning District. Diane Wallace, 119 Ithaca Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, saying it is too large for Ithaca and will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Erika Feldman, 26 Park Avenue, Homer, N.Y., spoke in support of the proposed project, stating she is a former Campus Advantage employee at a facility in Blacksburg, Virginia. At that facility, she said, Campus Advantage had staff available around the clock to address noise complaints, so she does not believe that would be an issue for this project. Roger Freeman, 241 Strawberry Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He urged the Planning Board to form a subcommittee to review the project and ensure it is a genuinely multi-use project that benefits the community (e.g., affordable rental units, integrative medicine, rooftop restaurant). John Semmler, 311 E. Green Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, alleging that the applicants have distorted some of the facts associated with the project — e.g., that the project is being intended for a mixture of students, young professionals and retirees; that it would enrich the pedestrian experience; and that there would be no significant impact to traffic and parking. Brett Bossard, Executive Director, Cinemapolis, spoke in support of the proposed project, stating it represents a singular opportunity for downtown businesses, including the planned retail and dining opportunities in the building itself. Mack Travis, owner of Gateway Center, Gateway Commons and Center Ithaca, spoke in support of the proposed project, noting it would bring nearly 600 new residents to the downtown area. With regards to the tax abatement issue, Travis said when one considers the property is currently assessed at $1.8 million and would contribute approximately $1,169,000 in taxes over the next 12 years, compared to approximately $8,529,000 in taxes, if developed (a $7,360,000 increase), and requiring little financial commitment on the part of the City, it actually makes considerable economic sense for the community. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 Gary Ferguson, Executive Director, Downtown Ithaca Alliance, spoke in support of the proposed project on behalf of the DIA Board of Directors, noting he submitted a resolution from that Board endorsing the project, with some conditions (e.g., the project should address downtown parking concerns and create a parking plan, the project should create a transportation demand management plan). Daniel Hoffman, West Hill resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting the applicants have not addressed all his concerns, like the lack of parking, solar access impacts and his opposition to the tax abatement. Gregar Brous, 2 Knoll Tree Road, Town of Dryden, owner of Collegetown Bagels, Inc., spoke in support of the proposed project, describing it is as a valuable opportunity to make a statement that Ithaca is an urban environment, at a strategic gateway location. He said Ithaca very much needs more density, for which there are not many suitable locations. Fay Gougakis, 171 E. State Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project; she objects to the building’s size and is concerned with noise, traffic and parking issues. She also urged the City to institute a construction moratorium. Heather Lambert, 304 Hudson Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, stating that while it has great potential, it needs to be more mixed-use than it is now. She is also concerned with vehicular circulation and traffic-related issues, as well as the vast scale of the building. She suggested that it incorporate vegetated setbacks and allow more light onto the street. Greg Poe, 27 Chase Lane, Town of Ithaca, added his objection to the same project, pointing to traffic flow at one of the major thoroughfares into town as his greatest concern. George McGonigal, First Ward Alderperson, 518 Hector Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, declaring it simply too large. Anna Kelles, 139 Linn Street, also voiced opposition to the same project, saying that while she appreciates the changes that were made to the project, they are insufficient. She urged the Board to look at the economic impact on surrounding property owners, as well as the impact on parking. She agrees it is unnecessarily large. Adil Griguihi, owner of Casablanca Pizzeria & Mediterranean Cuisine, spoke in support of the proposed project, stating it would bring more students and business to the downtown area, although there definitely need to be better parking and vehicular circulation solutions. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 Julie Schrader, owner of Homespun Boutique, opposed the same project because she said it is too large and will produce more traffic (e.g., buses, cars, deliveries, etc.). Barham Lashley, 710 N. Aurora Street, opposed the same project, describing himself as an avid walker; he said the project would make it too dense in downtown Ithaca for him to walk. Peter Harriott, 139 Ellis Hollow Creek Road, Town of Dryden, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, agreeing it is too large. It would also be a mistake to give the applicants a tax abatement, he maintained. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the proposed project. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Blalock noted the Board now needs to determine how to move forward in light of the lack of clarity about the BPW’s position on allowing the project to expand into the City’s right of way by eliminating the turning lane at the corner of E. State and S. Aurora streets. He said the September 8 Design Review Committee meeting notes should also be reviewed and discussed by the full Board. Nicholas added she would like to review the Downtown Parking Future Capacity Analysis table produced by City Parking Director Frank Nagy, as well as City Transportation Engineer Tim Logue’s notes from the BPW meeting (as outlined in a September 21 e-mail to the applicants). She noted the BPW requested a lot more information before making its decision. At this juncture, she said, the critical question is whether the applicants would like to move forward with a project proposal that includes the turning lane, or one that does not, since it would be a very different project with the removal of the parking and plaza. Schroeder remarked that the inclusion of the plaza and extended sidewalk are extremely important to integrating the project with the Commons. Whitham replied that the applicants would certainly like to work with the BPW and City Transportation Engineer to that end, but in parallel with other possible approaches. Schroeder stressed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends a minimum of 12 feet of street-side width in a central downtown commercial district even in the most constrained conditions (the optimum recommended width is 21.5 feet). For a building of this scale, Schroeder said, a 10-foot street-side width is simply not adequate and would represent a significant environmental impact. If the turning lane is retained and the pedestrian plaza removed, he said, the pedestrian accommodations at that corner would be far too narrow and constricted for vehicles turning onto East State Street). DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 Whitham agreed the removal of the turning lane would be the best option. Nicholas observed there may be other solutions to the problem other than using a part of the City street. Darling explained the BPW needs to consider several different factors, which is why it asked for more information from both the applicants (e.g., impact on traffic operations on E. State / M.L.K., Jr. Street and Aurora Street, and exploration of different curb alignments more favorable to northbound right-turning truck traffic) and the City Transportation Engineer (e.g., impact of project on conversion of the 100 block of N. Aurora Street into a two-way street). Blalock recalled that the City Transportation Engineer once informed the Board that converting the 100 block of N. Aurora Street into a two-way street was not feasible. Darling replied that no final determination has been made on that issue. The BPW periodically discusses the possibility. Whitham indicated the applicants will work with the BPW and City Transportation Engineer to further identify all possible options. Elliott asked the applicants to consider how they would retain the more accessible urban experience in the current design, if the turning lane is not removed. The obvious solution, he said, would seem to be moving the building footprint. Schroeder suggested something along the lines of a first-floor arcade. Blalock recalled that the State Department of Transportation has property on Green Street that may be a possibility. Whitham replied that the applicants discussed that option with the DOT, but the process for purchasing the land outright would have taken as long as a year, far beyond the project schedule. Negotiating an easement, on the other hand, would not take so long, so the applicants will continue exploring that possibility. Blalock indicated the applicants will need a contingency plan in place for the purposes of the environmental review, if the BPW does not end up approving expansion into the City’s right of way. Schroeder said the notion that the building has to be so close to State Street because of a 10-foot rear yard requirement on Green Street — on a site completely surrounded by streets — is absurd. Moreover, he said, the question of where any rear yard is considered to be in such a situation is entirely subjective. If the Green Street side were not the rear yard, the applicants would have 10 feet to move the building closer to Green Street. Blalock noted the Board should now discuss the Design Review Committee meeting, which occurred but was never officially noticed as a public meeting. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 Nicholas indicated the Board could convene another Design Review Committee meeting this evening, if it chooses. On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Design Review Committee meeting. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING BEGINS Some corrections and clarifications of the September 8 Design Review Committee meeting notes were proposed by Schroeder and accepted. Schroeder remarked that in light of the size and complexity of the project, he believes it would be appropriate to have a second Design Review Committee meeting, at a later date, to conduct a further detailed review of the evolving project design. No objections were raised. There being no further discussion, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling, and approved unanimously, the Design Review Committee meeting was adjourned. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING CONCLUDES Blalock stated the Board should now review the Downtown Parking Future Capacity Analysis table produced by City Parking Director Frank Nagy. Nicholas explained the Downtown Parking Future Capacity Analysis table contains raw data for the total capacity of each City garage, as well as numerical projections for the parking demand from new development projects (calculated differently for each project). Parking needs for each development project have generally been divided among different garages. Each yellow-filled box in the table represents the total projected occupancy for each garage, for daytime and evening (not including weekends). Schroeder observed that some summary numbers on the second page of the Future Capacity Analysis document must be wrong, if the corresponding numbers on its first page are correct. Nicholas replied that Planning Division staff will double-check these figures with Parking Director Nagy. She also hopes to provide explanatory text about the figures, as well as language summarizing the City’s optimal goals. Jones-Rounds said she would like to address public concerns about parking and traffic issues. Many of those concerns, she said, appear to be based on more conventional or traditional paradigms of vehicle use; however, policy decisions, like removing minimum parking requirements, are legitimate approaches for improving the pedestrian experience and pursuing other public policy objectives. Blalock suggested it would be helpful to create a more easily and quickly understood summary of the Downtown Parking Future Capacity Analysis for the public. He agreed that the data suggest there would be enough parking to accommodate the project. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 Whitham indicated the applicants understand they need to provide more information for the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3. At this point in the meeting, Blalock asked the Board if it believes the project design is generally moving in the right direction. Darling replied, yes; however, he remains very concerned about some of the potential impacts, which he looks forward to seeing addressed. Jones-Rounds indicated the applicants should seriously reconsider reducing the number of beds, as well as increasing solar access and incorporating affordable rental units into the project. Lewis said he is very pleased with the design’s evolution, although details remain that he does not fully understand. Randall indicated she would like more information in the Transportation Demand Management Plan. Also, while she appreciates the Downtown Parking Future Capacity Analysis, she is concerned with what would happen to parking fees, once parking availability in City garages falls below a certain threshold. She would like to see a more comprehensive TDMP, as well as more information from the applicants about plans for establishing active ground-level uses, an active streetscape and multiple transportation modes. B. Four Multi-Family Dwellings, “Pocket Neighborhood,” 215-221 Spencer Street, Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for PPM Homes. No Action. The applicant proposes to build a new multi-family “pocket neighborhood” on a hillside site between W. Spencer Street and W. Cayuga S. Cayuga Street. The project will include four buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units total). A 12-car parking area is proposed with access off W. Cayuga S. Cayuga Street. Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces connecting through the site. The project also includes lighting, retaining walls, and landscaping. The project is in the R-3b Zoning District and requires a variance for parking. 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. Architect Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative updated the Board on the proposed project, highlighting the following changes in response to the Board’s concerns: • Ornamental fence has been added along S. Cayuga Street, with plantings to help buffer the parking area from public view. • Project will employ pole-mounted transformer, eliminating need for transformer pad. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 • Handicapped parking requirements will be more closely examined. • One parking space will be located where transformer pad would have been, but parking count will remain the same. • Two bike racks were added to base of retaining wall; and there will be bike storage for tenants. • Planting Plan was completed with clearly labeled schedule; Grading Plan has been refined. • Site section has been provided (cutting through Cayuga Street at top and Spencer Street at bottom, illustrating scale of existing homes in context). • Utility Plan has been completed. • Catch basins have been added along stairs to collect as much water as possible; and a bio-retention swale has been added to intercept some stormwater. Consultant William Joblanski of Empire GeoServices, Inc. explained that, as noted in the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), trichloroethylene (TCE) was discovered in groundwater samples collected from two monitoring locations at the site, originating from an inactive off-site source (the Emerson Power Transmission property). Since the TCE in the groundwater could potentially migrate into the air as vapor, he said vapor- mitigation systems will be installed in the new buildings in accordance with NYS Department of Health standards. He said there is no reason to believe there has been any soil contamination, although a Soil Management Plan will still be developed. Randall asked if Joblanski foresees any need to conduct a Phase 2 ESA. Joblanski replied, no; it would not provide any more information than already available. He stressed it is a very low level of contamination. Nicholas asked when the DEC would ordinarily get involved. Joblanski replied that the DEC would become involved if it determines there is a need. Randall asked if the DEC is an Involved Agency. Nicholas replied that the City did not know about the contamination when the application was submitted, so the DEC was not formally notified. Randall indicated she would very much prefer to know the DEC is satisfied with how the contamination and monitoring are being handled, before proceeding further. Joblanski replied that the applicant can certainly confirm that with the DEC. Note: The two original agenda action items (Determination of Environmental Significance and Recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals) were deferred. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 C. Site Improvements, 416 E. State Street, Scott Whitham. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to convert the rear portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations include construction of rear deck and stairs connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, the addition of a curb-cut on State Street and a circular drive, the addition of a 3-car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 40 off-street parking spaces. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416-418 E. State Street, so that 37 parking spaces would be allocated to the applicant under a shared parking agreement. The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review. Schroeder disclosed he is involved in a potential business relationship with two of the owners of the house directly east of the property in question, but this relationship would involve a property in a different section of the City, so he does not have any existing or potential financial interest in a property affected by the 416 E. State Street project and remains confident he can serve as an impartial decision-maker for project review. Applicants Jason Demarest of Jason Demarest Architect and Cathy deAlmeida of Whitham Planning & Design, LLC updated the Board on the proposed project. Schroeder expressed concern there is no curb cut on the far side of E. State Street at the Schuyler Place intersection that would allow access to the proposed off-site parking at Gateway Plaza; this intersection is not structured with a north-south pedestrian crossing. DeAlmeida noted one major issue raised by community members is the potential for noise pollution. To address their concerns, she said the owner has agreed to hire a sound engineer to identify the primary noise-generating spaces and ensure the property complies with the City Noise Ordinance. Schroeder noted the applicants indicated there would be no amplified rock music associated with the project. If that is the intention, then that needs to be formalized in writing and enforceable over the life of the property, regardless of the owner. Blalock replied that he asked Planning staff to consult with the City Attorney’s Office about the binding nature of any noise-restriction agreements. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 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 Site Plan Approval for site improvements, including a 3-car parking lot, to be located at 416 E. State St. / M.L.K., Jr. Blvd., and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to convert the rear portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations include construction of a rear deck and stairs, connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, the addition of a curb-cut on State St. and a circular drive, the addition of a 3-car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 40 off-street parking spaces. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416-418 East State Street, so that 37 parking spaces would be allocated to the applicant under a shared parking agreement. The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review, 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, to be located at 416 E. State St./M.L.K., Jr. Blvd. in the City of Ithaca. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Randall, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Teresa Halpert, 420 E. State Street, spoke in opposition to the project, noting she is DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 skeptical about the legality of the parking plan and the proposal to establish a private smoking membership-only arrangement, according to her understanding of NYS law. If they are not possible, she would be extremely concerned. Matthew Clark, 419 E. Seneca Street, also spoke against the project, noting his yard is on the other side of the Argos Inn ‘amphitheater.’ He said he has heard excessive noise from that location virtually every night during the summer (even past 10:00 p.m.). The proposed new lounge / bar would be open even later, until 1:00 a.m. He emphasized this is a residential neighborhood. He also expressed serious concerns about the parking situation. Eric Rosario, 228 S. Geneva Street, also voiced opposition to the project, noting the applicant’s presentation did not even mention his property, merely five feet away from the site. Creating another bar in the area will have a corrosive effect on the neighborhood, he said, adding that the proposed pedestrian crossing also appears far too dangerous. Neil Schill, 108 Schuyler Place, also expressed disapproval of the proposed project, stating he lives near the rear portion of the Argos Inn site and has experienced considerable vibration and noise from that bar. The neighborhood is a fragile environment, he said, and he is skeptical even a sound engineer would be able to mitigate that kind of vibration. It would not be the kind of environment in which he would like his family to live. David Halpert, 420 E. State Street, added his comments opposing the project, emphasizing that noise is not merely a nuisance, but also has documented negative medical / physiological consequences. In addition, he said, there would be no way of completely mitigating the external noises associated with the project. The real question to him is whether this is an appropriate use of the building. Benjamin Piekut, 417 E. Seneca Street, said he agrees with all the other public speakers opposing this project. His main concern is parking and the treatment of outdoor spaces; for example, he would be very concerned with the prospect of a smoking porch or landing. The proposed project, he concluded, merely ends up relocating the Argos Inn’s own design problems. Kathrin Achenbach, 108 Schuyler Place, added her voice against the project, pointing out that she had tried contacting the applicants, but never received a response. It does not seem there is any dialogue between the applicants and the community, she said, adding that the community does not ultimately have any real assurance regarding the use of the building. Allowing the project to move forward, she concluded, would establish a distinct precedent and alter the character of the neighborhood. There being no further public comments, on a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 Nicholas noted the applicants only just submitted some additional information today. Schroeder remarked he is very concerned with the issue mentioned by the County Planning Department regarding patrons crossing East State Street and the associated safety issues. Jones-Rounds disclosed that Argos Inn owner, Avi Smith, is a close personal friend. D. Hotel Ithaca Renovations, 222 S. Cayuga Street, David Hart. Amended Negative Declaration of Significance. A project on this site was approved on July 24, 2012. The applicant has since redesigned the project and now seeks Site Plan Approval for a new proposal. The new proposal is for construction of a five-story wing with first- and second-floor connections to the existing building. These connections will create a new pre-function area on the north side of the existing ballroom, new break-out rooms, and a new fitness center. Site improvements will include new landscaping, walkways, and site furnishings. Vehicular circulation will remain the same, but parking throughout the site will be reorganized, resulting in a reduction from 106 to 97 spaces. Site Demolition will include removal of the north and west multi-story wings, as well as paving and some landscaping. The project is in the CDB-100 Zoning District and requires Design Review. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B.(1) (h.)(4) and (l) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11). The Lead Agency will amend the Negative Declaration issued on March 27, 2012. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Applicant David Hart of Hart Hotels, Inc. walked through a presentation of the revised proposal. Schroeder remarked that, generally speaking, local exterior insulation finishing systems (EIFS) have aged very poorly (e.g., Tompkins County Public Library). There have been numerous complaints about the Seneca Way project, which used a lot of it. He strongly urged the applicant to employ real stucco, or explore another alternative material, as recommended by the Project Review Committee encouraged the applicant to explore. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: on March 27, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that a proposed project, involving and an expansion and area variance of the former Holiday Inn, located at 222 S. Cayuga St. would 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, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 WHEREAS: the above referenced proposed project included the demolition of the existing north, south, and west guest room wings (110 rooms) and construction of two new additions; One being a one-story 13,845 SF banquet and meeting facility on the north side of the main building; the other being a 100’ tall 10-story (including rooftop complex) tower with a 9,190 SF footprint, featuring 115 new guest rooms, a rooftop entertainment complex, relocation of the existing hotel restaurant to the ground floor, fronting Cayuga Street, and six 2-bedroom units of employee housing. Site development included: two new curbcuts to make a conference center drop-off; reconfiguration of the parking areas, resulting in a decrease of 21 parking spaces; removal of 9 mature trees and much of the existing landscaping along Cayuga Street; new landscaping and sidewalks; lighting; and signage, and WHEREAS: the applicant has since redesigned the project and is now seeking site plan approval for a new proposal, and WHEREAS: the new proposal (now named Hotel Ithaca) is for construction of a five story wing with first and second floor connections to the existing building. This connection will create a new pre-function area on the north side of the existing ballroom, new break out rooms and a new fitness center. Site improvements will include •••a••• new landscaping, walkways and site furnishings. Vehicular circulation will remain the same but parking throughout the site will be reorganized resulting in a reduction from 106 to 97 spaces. Site demolition will include the removal of the north and west multi story wings, as well as paving and some landscaping. The project is in the CDB-100 Zoning District and requires Design Review. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This project does not require an Area Variance, and WHEREAS: This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B.(1) (h.)(4) and (l) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11), and WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e) of SEQRA, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency has determined that changes are proposed for the project and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant adverse impact will occur, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 22, 2015, reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3, prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled: “Existing Site Plan (C-1),” “Proposed Site Plan (C-3),” “Proposed First Floor Plan (A-1),” “Proposed Second Floor Plan (A-2),” “Proposed 3rd-5th Floor Plan (A-3),” “Proposed Elevations (A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7),” dated 8-1-15 and prepared by NH Architects, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as lead Agency has determined that the proposed changes result in a project that is significantly smaller in scale and will therefore have no new impacts that were not previously considered, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby determine that the proposed Ithaca Hotel Modernization Project will result in no significant impact DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 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 E. 815 S. Aurora Street, 87-Unit Housing Project – Sketch Plan Applicants Todd Fox and Charlie O’Connor of Modern Living Rentals and Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative described the proposed project to the Board. Fox indicated the project would house Ithaca College students and represents a great opportunity to build a high-density project, while drawing some Ithaca College students away from South Hill residential neighborhoods. The one obstacle is that it would require a Zoning Variance. The applicants would like to petition the Board of Zoning Appeals for permission to build the project just outside the cell phone tower fall zone. Demarest explained the current regulations prohibit construction within twice the height of the cell tower. At this stage in the process, the applicants would like an indication from the Planning Board regarding what may be possible and whether the Board would likely approve the project. It is a very complicated project, due to the topography and fall zone requirement. Schroeder indicated the applicants should really appeal to Common Council. It is the City’s elected officials who determined that the fall zone should be twice the height of the tower; and he does not believe that kind of decision should be circumvented by a Zoning Variance. Fox responded that most municipalities in the region do not have fall zones defined as twice the height of a cell tower. He believes Common Council’s original decision was influenced by the desire to deter construction of cell towers. He noted he had a discussion with the company that designed the tower. Said company indicated it would be willing to build a monopole tower, if the applicants paid for it, which would eliminate the fall zone issue and be safer than the current tower. Blalock agreed with Schroeder that Common Council should be making the decision on the matter. The applicants are essentially asking the Planning Board and / or the BZA to overturn a decision of Common Council, he said, which seems beyond the Planning Board’s purview. 5. Zoning Appeals DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 Appeal #2999 — 1106 N. Cayuga Street: Area Variances Appeal of Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for Sarah and Craig Cummins, owners of 1106 North Cayuga Street for variances from Section 325-8, Columns 7, 10, 11, and 12, Lot Width, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, and Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to add a 505-SF addition to the existing single-family home at 1101 North Cayuga. This one-story addition will be located in the property’s rear yard. However, before the addition can be constructed, the applicant must remove an existing 355 SF deck. Though the addition will meet zoning setback requirements, it will increase the existing lot coverage deficiency from 36.2% to 40.76%. The allowed lot coverage is 35%. Furthermore, the existing building does not meet several district regulation requirements. The lot width is 32.9 feet; required is 35 feet. The front yard is 3 feet; required is 10 feet. The side yard is 2.2 feet; required is 10 feet. The property at 1106 N. Cayuga Street is in an R-2b Use District, where the single-family home is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board did not identify any long-term planning issues and recommends granting this appeal. Appeal #3003 — 209-215 Dryden Road: Design Variances Appeal of John Novarr for 209-215 Dryden Road Associates for variances from Section 325- 45.2 G. (2.) (12) and 325-45.2 G. (3.) (b), distance between entries and chamfered corner, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to develop a new six-story building at the corner of Dryden Road and Linden Avenue, located in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) Zoning District. This building will be the home for Cornell University’s Johnson School of Management Executive Education program. The proposed building design incorporates classrooms, offices, and meeting spaces on all six stories of the building and includes an open three-story atrium with a stairway visible to pedestrian traffic along Dryden Road. However, to meet the school’s programmatic needs, the applicant is requesting two variances from the MU-2 Zoning District’s design requirements. The applicant requests a variance from Section 325-45.2 G. (2.) (12), the requirements that the distance between functioning street-facing entries be limited to a maximum of 60 feet apart, and that those commercial entries be functional and useable during business hours. The proposed building has two street-facing façades, one on Dryden Road, and one on Linden Avenue. The façade on Dryden Road is 122’ 8” long and has one- two-door entry located between 8 and 14 feet from the façade’s northwest corner; required are two doors along this face of the building. On Linden Avenue, one door is located approximately 16.5 feet to 20 feet south of the northeast corner of the building and 64’ from the building’s southeast east corner; required are two doors on this face of the building. While the entry door on Dryden Road meets the requirement that entries must be functioning and useable during business hours, the door on Linden Avenue serves a stair exit and is not intended for ingress access. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 The applicant also requests a variance from Section 325-45.2 G.(3) (b), requiring a building on a corner lot in the MU-2 Zoning District have a chamfered corner or be setback a minimum of 5 feet from both street frontages. The proposed building is set back 7 feet from Dryden Road, but the Linden Avenue setback varies from 2 to 0 feet. The applicant claims the slight gain in visibility or pedestrian access at the corner would cause a significant loss of useable interior space and a greater construction cost due to increased structural complexity. The proposed building at 209-215 Dryden Road is in the MU-2 Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that Area Variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued. The Board supports granting this appeal for two reasons: (1) regarding the doors, the Board feels that the design of the building meets the intent of the Collegetown Area Form Districts zoning. The extensive glazing on its bottom floors provides an animated street experience, as views are into well-lighted gathering and event areas; and (2) regarding the required chamfered corner on Dryden and Linden, the Board feels the building meets the intent of the ordinance on this corner. This corner transitions from a high-density mixed-use district to a lower-density residential district. There is far less vehicular, pedestrian, and bike traffic at this corner than at the corner of Dryden and College Ave., where a chamfer is also required. The bottom floors of the building are pushed back from the property line an additional 2 feet in excess of the required setback ― which achieves sufficient visibility and openness (as intended by the ordinance) in this location. Appeal #3004 — 705 N. Aurora Street: Area Variance Appeal of Joseph Steuer, owner of 701 N. Aurora Street, for variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4 and 14/15, Parking, and Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has requested a Lot Line Adjustment from the Director of Zoning Administration for two of his contiguous properties located at 701 and 705 N. Aurora Street. The existing property at 705 N. Aurora Street is a two-family dwelling with a non- conforming accessory structure, which is located 2.9 feet from the rear yard property line. This accessory structure was granted a variance on March 10, 1986 (Appeal #1678) to the former property owner for an accessory use as a home office. As the new owner of 705 N. Aurora Street, the applicant wants to convert this structure into a studio apartment making it a second primary use on the lot. However, the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street does not have sufficient lot area for two primary uses. To resolve the lot size issue, the applicant proposes to consolidate a portion of the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street and its accessory use with the adjacent property at 701 N. Aurora Street. This will create an “L”-shaped parcel at 701 N. Aurora Street with sufficient lot area for two primary uses. The Director of Zoning Administration cannot adjust the lot lines of two contiguous lots, if it will create a new buildable lot or create a zoning deficiency in either lot. Both properties in their current configurations have a number of existing area deficiencies, but these deficiencies are not relevant to issuing a Lot Line Adjustment. While the proposed Lot Line Adjustment would cause the lot size at 705 N. Aurora Street to be reduced from 4,080 SF to 3,010 SF, the lot area requirement for the two-family dwelling is only 3,000 SF. Furthermore, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment would create two deficiencies at 705 N. Aurora Street, lot coverage and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 21 depth of rear yard, compliant with respect to zoning regulations. Nevertheless, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment will create new deficiencies for the property at 701 N. Aurora Street. The 4-bedroom single-family home at 701 N. Aurora Street requires two parking spaces. The studio apartment will increase the parking requirement to three off- street spaces. The property at 701 N. Aurora Street has no off-street parking. Furthermore, the Lot Line Adjustment will cause the property to have a deficient rear yard. In its current configuration, 701 N. Aurora Street has a compliant rear yard with a lot depth of 29’6”. Consolidating the rear portion of the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street with the parcel at 701 N. Aurora Street would reduce the rear yard to 2.9 feet. 701 N. Aurora Street is required to provide a rear yard that has a depth of 26 feet. The properties at 701 and 705 N. Aurora Street are in the R-2b Use District where converting the former accessory structure to a one-unit dwelling is permitted. However, Section 290-1, “Lot Line Adjustment,” requires that variances be granted before the Zoning Director issues a Lot Line Adjustment. As there are no physical changes to the neighborhood, the Board did not identify any long- term planning issues and recommends granting this appeal. The Board recognizes the need for new housing and supports the conversion of an existing structure into housing. Appeal #3005 — 123-127, 133, 135-139 E. State Street (Harold’s Square): Area Variances Appeal of Scott Whitham for the owner, L Enterprises, LLC, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Percentage of Lot Coverage, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard Depth, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to develop a 140-foot tall, 11-story, mixed-use building of approximately 162,750 GSF, known as “Harold’s Square.” The building is designed to have commercial business on the ground floor, three stories of upper-story office space, 6 stories devoted to residential use, and an 11th-story penthouse with multi-purpose amenities. The residential portion of the building is in a tower that will be set back 62'8" setback or more from the building’s four-story façade facing the Commons. This tower will reach a height of no more than 140 feet. The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and the other facing the Green Street Alley between the Commons and the Green Street garage. The applicant claims the size of the project necessitates using 100% of the lot for the building. However, District Regulations state that 100% lot coverage is allowed only when the required 10-foot rear yard is provided. As proposed, the project has no rear yard. The proposed project is located in the CBD-60/CBD-140 Use Districts where the uses of the proposed building are permitted. However, Sections 325-38 and 325-39 require Area Variances be granted before a Building Permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. The Board granted Site Plan Approval for this project in August 2013 and granted a two-year extension to the approval in August 2015. The Board supports the project and recommends granting this appeal. 6. Old / New Business DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 22 A. December 2015 Planning Board Schedule Nicholas noted the December Planning Board meeting is ordinarily scheduled a week earlier than usual to accommodate holiday schedules, but it will take place on the regular meeting day this year, December 22, 2015. B. Interim Design Guidelines for Collegetown & Downtown No discussion. C. Recommendation to Board of Public Works Re: Railing Height and Railing Painting on Cascadilla Creek On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling: To:      Board  of  Public  Works     From:  Planning  and  Development  Board     RE:    Improvements  to  Cascadilla  Creekway     Date:    September  23,  2015     The  Planning  Board  has  reviewed  plans  dated  September  15,  2015  for  the  proposed   improvements  to  Cascadilla  Creekway.  As  the  Board  understands  the  project  it  is  to   include  some  wall  repairs,  safety  railings  on  both  sides  of  the  creekway,  possible   intersection  improvements  and  a  pedestrian  bridge  replacement.       Drawings  illustrating  the  proposed  height  of  the  railings  in  relation  to  pedestrians,   cars  and  cyclists,  show  that  the  railings  on  the  south  side  of  the  creek  are  proposed   to  be  approximately  five  feet  high.  The  Planning  Board  understands  that  the  reason   for  this  height  —  which  as  the  drawings  depict,  can  be  taller  than  a  car  —  is  to   comply  with  safety  standards  that  would  allow  the  southern  side  of  the  creekway  to   be  an  official  bicycle  boulevard.  However,  the  Board  also  understands  that  bike   boulevards  can  include  portions  posted  as  dismount  areas.  The  Board  also   understands  that  due  to  cost,  the  only  feasible  railing  design  is  a  standard  steel  box   beam  railing  system.           The  Planning  Board  feels  that  the  tall  height  of  the  railings  on  the  south  creek  side   combined  with  their  standard  highway  design  will  significantly  detract  from  the   experience  of  being  in  this  truly  unique  and  beautiful  part  of  the  City.  Since  the   structure  of  the  railings  cannot  (as  the  Board  understands  it)  be  under  consideration   the  Board  suggests  that  the  railings  be  painted  dark  green,  similar  to  the  railings  on   the  Thurston  Avenue  Bridge.  In  addition,  it  urges  the  Board  of  Public  Works  to  post   this  portion  of  the  bike  boulevard  as  a  dismount  area  so  that  the  railings  on  its  south   side  can  be  lowered  to  the  more  open,  welcoming  and  pedestrian  scaled  3’6’  3’6”   proposed  for  its  north  side.  The  Board  feels  that  the  creekway  will  continue  to   DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 23 function  as  an  important  pedestrian  and  bike  route  with  this  change  and  that  lower   painted  railings  will  significantly  improve  the  aesthetics  and  human  scale  of  this   project,  and  render  it  more  appropriate  for  its  beautiful  creekside  setting.   In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Randall, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Cornish noted she had sent some information to the Board about ex parte communication guidelines. It would be helpful to discuss this subject as a group, at some point during a future Planning Board meeting. C. Board of Public Works Liaison No report. 8. Approval of Minutes No minutes were approved. 9. Adjournment On a motion by Darling, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.