Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-09-27DRAFT 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 27, 2016 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling; Jack Elliott; Robert Aaron Lewis; Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None. Board Vacancies: None. Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: 404 Wood Street Karen Werner, Applicant 1001 N. Aurora Street (Subdivision and Site Plan Review) Daniel Hirtler, Architect; Stavros Stavropoulos, Owner Holiday Inn Express at 371 Elmira Road Doug Williams, Eastern Hospitality Advisors Townhomes & Apartments at 119-121 & 125 College Avenue (Sketch Plan) Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects; Phil Proujansky, Owner; John Novarr, Owner Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2 1. Agenda Review Nicholas explained that the agenda has been revised to include consideration of project changes for the Holiday Inn Express at 371 Elmira Road, only just proposed by the applicant earlier today. 2. Privilege of the Floor Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the City Centre project at 301 E. State Street and the proposed Carpenter Business Park-Maguire Ford Lincoln Nissan Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) proposal. 3. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, 404 Wood Street, Karen Werner on behalf of Charles L. Stanton. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, & Recommendation to BZA. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8,842.68-SF (0.203 acre) lot into two parcels: one containing the existing one-family dwelling and measuring approximately 4,026 SF with approximately 61 feet of frontage on Wood Street; and another lot measuring approximately 4,684 SF with approximately 71 feet of frontage on Wood Street and 66 feet of frontage on Fair Street. The property is in the R-3b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum street width of 30’ for one- or two-family dwellings and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The Subdivision requires a Zoning Variance for an existing rear yard deficiency. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to Environmental Review. Applicant Karen Werner, a friend of the owner, presented a brief overview of the proposed Subdivision, noting it is a family home that the owner would like to sell. The owner’s realtor suggested another residential building could be constructed on the vacant land next to the family home. (The owner will not be building the second house himself.) Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #103.-1-2, located at 404 Wood St. by Charles Stanton, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 3 WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8,842.68-SF (0.203 acre) lot into two parcels: one containing the existing one-family dwelling and measuring approximately 4,026 SF with approximately 61 feet of frontage on Wood Street; and another lot measuring approximately 4,684 SF with approximately 71 feet of frontage on Wood Street and 66 feet of frontage on Fair Street. The property is in the R-3b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum street width of 30’ for one- or two- family dwellings and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The Subdivision requires a Zoning Variance for an existing rear yard deficiency, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local Environmental Review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review for the action of Subdivision approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #103.-1-2, located at 404 Wood St. by Charles Stanton. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4 WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #103.-1-2, located at 404 Wood St. by Charles Stanton, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 8,842.68-SF (0.203 acre) lot into two parcels: one containing the existing one-family dwelling and measuring approximately 4,026 SF with approximately 61 feet of frontage on Wood Street; and another lot measuring approximately 4,684 SF with approximately 71 feet of frontage on Wood Street and 66 feet of frontage on Fair Street. The property is in the R-3b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum street width of 30’ for one- or two- family dwellings and higher requirements for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The Subdivision requires a Zoning Variance for an existing rear yard deficiency, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 27, 2016 declare itself Lead Agency for the action, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on September 27, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a survey titled “Subdivision Map No. 404 Wood Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. and dated 8/19/16; and other application materials, 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, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 Vacancies: None The Board then agreed on a recommendation to the BZA, which is presented in the “5. Zoning Appeals” portion of these minutes. B. Minor Subdivision, 1001 N. Aurora Street (Tax Parcel # 12.-6-13), Daniel Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, & Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. Site development will include removal of existing single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping to include two new street trees. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two-family dwelling on each new lot. 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. Architect Daniel Hirtler and owner Stavros Stavropoulos presented a brief overview of the proposed Subdivision, noting the proposal is to divide the property into two buildable lots, requiring the demolition of the existing house. The end result would be two 2-family homes, one on each lot and both facing Queen Street. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision and two duplexes on of City of Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 Tax Parcel #12.-6-13, located at 1001 N Aurora St N. Aurora St., by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two- DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6 family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping to include including two new street trees, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: the subdivision is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local Environmental Review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review for the action of site plan and subdivision approval for City Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 actions of Subdivision and Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, to be located at 1001 N. Aurora Street by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos in the City of Ithaca. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Lewis, seconded by Schroeder, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Subdivision and two duplexes on City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #12.-6-13, located at 1001 N. Aurora St., by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 7 frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two- family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping to include two new street trees, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 27, 2016 declare itself Lead Agency for the action, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on September 27, 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 and the following drawings: “Plan of Area around 1001 North Aurora Street (A1),” “Proposed Site Plan (A2),” “Elevations (A3),” and “Southwest Elevation Showing Plantings And Colors”; and other application materials, 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, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Nicholas explained that the above two resolutions have been written so that they apply to both the action of Subdivision and the action of Site Plan Review. Hirtler explained he has not yet submitted the final Subdivision plat — which must be in hand before the Planning Board can approve the Subdivision — since that plat cannot be produced until the applicant has demolished the existing structure. Nicholas replied the DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 8 applicant can obtain the Demolition Permit once the Board issues the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. 4. Site Plan Review A. Two Duplexes, 1001 N. Aurora Street (Tax Parcel # 12.-6-13), Daniel Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to construct two 2-family dwellings on the project site. Site development will include removal of existing single-family home, removal of one street tree, new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping to include two new street trees. Applicant intends to subdivide property so each building is on a separate tax parcel. Project is in R-2b 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. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency: The “Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency” resolution in agenda item 3.B. immediately above was worded to apply to both Subdivision approval and Site Plan Review approval, and therefore no second vote on Lead Agency status took place. On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N Aurora St. by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two- family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping to include two new street trees, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 9 WHEREAS: the subdivision is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan and subdivision approval for City Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N Aurora St. by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Public Hearing See agenda item 3.B. above for a record of the Public Hearing that applied to both Subdivision approval and Site Plan Review approval for this project. On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Lewis, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: The “Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review” resolution in agenda item 3.B. above was worded to apply to both Subdivision approval and Site Plan Review approval, and therefore no second vote on the CEQR determination took place. On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N Aurora St. by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 10 approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two- family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping to include two new street trees, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: the subdivision is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of site plan and subdivision approval for City Ithaca tax parcel #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N Aurora St. by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Architect Daniel Hirtler presented a brief overview of the proposed project, and passed around revised elevations incorporating ideas suggested at the Project Review Committee meeting, including using two different cladding materials and two complementary but differing colors on the first and second floors of the duplexes, and also adding a gable end (with a bay window below) facing N. Aurora Street. Hirtler noted that the cladding is now composite wood siding, rather than vinyl siding. Schroeder noted the Project Review Committee had made one additional suggestion for improving the project’s architecture — adding some windows to the N. Aurora Street side of the building, which currently includes a large blank area on its left-hand side. Hirtler replied that he made revisions to the elevation (which he then distributed to the Board). The siding was changed from vinyl to a painted composite wood siding, with red roofing materials. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 11 Schroeder reiterated that his primary concern is to see some additional aesthetic interest incorporated into this blank area, as the Board does not generally permit large blank areas of wall facing public streets. Elliott, Jones-Rounds and Lewis agreed. Hirtler consented to installing clerestory windows on both stories of the wall in this area. Jones-Rounds asked about the structural state of the existing house and whether it would be possible to re-use some of the old building materials. Hirtler replied that the building is seriously deteriorated, and he is therefore skeptical there is anything to salvage. Darling urged the applicant to salvage anything possible. Hirtler agreed to do so. Schroeder inquired into the porch detailing. Hirtler replied that there would be capitals on its columns, and that the original drawings incorporated a bench at the edge of the porch front. However, he said, recent measurements necessitated more effectively protecting the porch; therefore, the bench will remain but a railing will be installed as well. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Lewis: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Board for a Subdivision and two duplexes on City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #12.-6-13 located at 1001 N. Aurora St. by Dan Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7,210-SF (0.1655 acre) lot into two parcels: one measuring approximately 3,535 SF with approximately 50 feet of frontage on Queen Street; and another lot measuring approximately 3,675 SF with approximately 70 feet of frontage on N. Aurora Street and 52’ feet of frontage on Queen Street. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF for a one- or two-family dwelling and 4,000 SF for other uses, and minimum street width of 35’ for one- or two-family dwellings and 40’ for other uses, and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 10’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and to build a two- family dwelling on each new lot. Site development will include removal of existing single-family home, removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb-cut and new landscaping including two new street trees, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on September 27, 2016 declare itself Lead Agency for the action, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 12 WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on September 27, 2016, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on September 27, 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 and the following drawings: “Plan of Area Around 1001 North Aurora Street (A1),” “Proposed Site Plan (A2),” “Elevations (A3),” and “Southwest Elevation Showing Plantings and Colors”; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, did on September 27, 2016 determine the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised dated and labeled elevations showing the revisions shown to the Board at its September 27, 2016 meeting, plus added clerestory windows on both •••on••• the upper and lower floors of the façade facing Aurora Street, and ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of colored building elevations keyed to building materials, and iii. Submission of building materials samples, and iv. Subdivision must be filed before Building Permit is issued, and v. Provision for bike racks and / or storage, and vi. All work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vii. Removal of any City trees requires a Tree Permit, and viii. Bike racks to be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and ix. Written approval by the City Fire Department that all life safety access requirements have been met. In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder, Darling, Elliott Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 13 B. Holiday Inn Express, 371 Elmira Road, Douglas Williams for Ithaca Hotels, LLC. Consideration of Project Changes. The applicant is seeking changes to the site plan, approved by the Planning Board on March 25, 2014, and modified on October 27, 2015. The project site is zoned SW-2 and abuts a residential district on Spencer Road. The approved project included landscape features at the rear of the property along Spencer Road, including a retaining wall, landscaping, stairs leading to Spencer Road, and a sidewalk along the same. The applicant is proposing to remove the stairs, sidewalk and retaining wall and treat the slope with a rip-rap stabilization system. The applicant is also proposing to replace a fence on the southern property edge with Alberta spruce. The project is nearing completion and the applicant wishes to resolve these items to allow issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Applicant Douglas Williams of Eastern Hospitality Advisors, representing the owners, presented a brief overview of the proposed changes, noting the documents he submitted earlier in the day have been revised (e.g., photographs have been added depicting where the applicant proposes to add new vegetation in a new stone-wrapped area proposed in the rear near Spencer Road.) He explained the owners have been working on the project since November 2015. Unfortunately, he said, the soils on the site are far worse for construction purposes than originally anticipated: approximately five feet of non- historical fill was discovered that had been dumped illegally. As a result, he continued, the owners were forced to remove the fill, pay for environmental testing, and return new structural fill to the site, adding approximately $220,000 to the project cost. He said the owners also had to install (1) rigid intrusions under the building foundation, costing $358,000, and (2) a load-transfer pad, footers, and foundation walls, all of which added $475,000 to the project cost. Because of these cost over-runs, he said, the owners considered halting the project altogether. They then explored options for handling the 65- degree slope from Spencer Road that would not require the originally-proposed three- tiers of retaining walls, he said. Additionally, Williams said, along the southwest project boundary, the owners purchased the adjacent property to also decrease another re-grading cost; the owners then removed the fence along the property line there and added a green 5½-foot tall deer-repelling arborvitae barrier instead. Williams stressed that originally-proposed plantings have been retained, with the addition of this arborvitae in lieu of the privacy fence. He said the owners would like to create a permanent easement to protect the barbecue area on that adjacent property to use for hotel guests. They propose planting five vegetative rows (26 plants each), he said. The entire project would have approximately 1,400 plantings, he emphasized. Williams noted that while the nearby Fairfield Inn features a winding pedestrian path through its property, the Holiday Inn Express property has a 70-degree slope that requires installing stairs; however, Holiday Inn Express’s insurance adjuster would not agree to cover these stairs due to liability concerns regarding people cutting across the parking lot. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14 Williams explained the owners are now asking for relief from the Board for the stairs (down from Spencer Road) and sidewalk (along Spencer Road) requirements of the original Site Plan Approval. He said there is insufficient space to install the sidewalk. To mitigate for the loss of an immediate sidewalk, however, he said the owners are willing to enter into a binding agreement requiring them to install the sidewalk once surrounding properties have installed their own sidewalks on Spencer Road. Schroeder responded that the sidewalks along Spencer Road were always a part of the project design, so he does not understand how there could have been enough space for the Spencer Road sidewalk when the project was approved in 2014, but not now. Williams replied the original drawing did not accurately indicate the location of the road shoulder and the actual cliff edge. Jones-Rounds indicated she has not heard anything today that should relieve the owners of the obligation to include the items required as part of Final Site Plan Approval. The sidewalk and stairs will help integrate the hotel and surrounding property into the rest of the community, she explained. Both the Board and City are always seeking ways to increase pedestrian activity and decrease vehicular traffic throughout the City as much as possible. She said she could not support relieving the owners of the obligation to install the sidewalk and the stairs. Schroeder agreed with eliminating the retaining walls below Spencer Road and replacing the privacy fence with arborvitae — however, the current Site Plan Review Ordinance clearly states that the Board shall require sidewalks for the projects it reviews whenever feasible. Part of the project’s benefit to the community as initially approved was that it did not “turn its back” to Spencer Road, he explained, and given the long stretch of properties between Elmira Road and Spencer Road, increasing the permeability between the two thoroughfares (as the proposed stairs would do) is a highly desirable goal. Sidewalks with street trees represent an important amenity for transforming the City, he said, and the City’s Comprehensive Plan explicitly calls for providing sidewalks where none exist now. Williams replied there would be nowhere for the sidewalk to connect to at the current time. Nicholas asked if Williams consulted the City Engineering Division about using the City’s Right-of-Way for the sidewalk. Williams replied, no. Darling observed the lack of sidewalks along Spencer Road is a problem that extends along the entire street. He thinks installing a sidewalk at the Holiday Inn Express site would be placing the cart before the horse, because it would simply sit there unused in the middle of the block and deteriorate, before the City institutes a city-wide sidewalk installation plan for the entire street. He remarked that requiring sidewalks for every Site Plan Review project probably does not make sense in every situation. Williams reiterated the owners would be happy to enter into a formal legal encumbrance on the property, requiring them to install the sidewalk after certain conditions had been DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 15 met. Jones-Rounds responded she cannot envision any mechanism that would effectively achieve that. Schroeder indicated an encumbrance of some kind sounds good to him; he thinks it would be a reasonable compromise, as long as the stairs are installed now. Williams replied the owners could certainly install the stairs, but they would likely become a liability issue for the hotel. Lewis indicated he would definitely like to see both the stairs and the sidewalk installed. Nicholas observed the proposed plantings in lieu of the privacy fence appear to be slow- growing plants, so those may need to be reviewed. Schroeder responded those kinds of details could be worked out with City staff. Darling noted the City has a sidewalk plan with Sidewalk Improvement Districts; this plan is implemented on a district-by-district basis, but the City Engineering Division is grappling with the question of who owns retaining walls. Blalock asked Nicholas how the Board would incorporate the issue in its resolution. Nicholas replied the City simply does not have a mechanism for a developer to pay for future work in advance right now, so she does not know how to answer the question. Darling agreed there seem to be limitations on how the issue could be currently managed. Jones-Rounds suggested the Board vote on that to which it has already agreed, but include a condition in its resolution that Williams consult the Engineering Division about the sidewalk. Williams explained the encumbrance would simply state that if the owners sold the property, the next owner would remain obligated to install the sidewalk according to the terms of the agreement. Jones-Rounds noted she would like to see the actual written language of the agreement. Nicholas noted she did not have the opportunity to prepare a resolution for this agenda item, due to the last-minute nature of the request. Since the Board needs more information before one can be drafted, she suggested that Planning staff prepare a draft resolution for the Board to review at its October 18, 2016 special meeting. Schroeder suggested Planning staff work with the City Attorney’s Office to determine how to proceed. Darling added Planning staff should also ask the City Attorney’s Office to provide a standing legal mechanism that could be used in the future. Schroeder noted the Board will also require a detailed landscape plan from the applicant showing the species and placement of all new proposed plantings. Williams agreed to DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 16 provide one. C. Townhouses & Apartments at 119-121 & 125 College Avenue – Sketch Plan. Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP presented a brief overview of the proposed project, noting it would be in the CR-4 Zoning District and in complete compliance with all zoning regulations. Alan Chimacoff of ikon.5 architects walked through an overhead presentation, noting the project is designed to conform to the row house category of the Collegetown Area Form Districts zoning regulations (i.e., row house being defined as a “residential structure composed of three or more attached modules with shared sidewalls, the facade of each module measuring no more than 25-feet in length and maintaining a uniform setback from the street line”). Chimacoff said this will enable the buildings to be built closer to the street. The project will include two buildings of four units each, with zero setback along the sides. A third building would conform to the remainder of the Collegetown zoning regulations. The buildings would be four-story buildings with habitable basements. There would also be an elaborately landscaped courtyard behind the street- facing buildings, permitting access through to the rear building. The project will also include bike racks. Chimacoff said considerable work will need to be done in front of the façades of the street-facing buildings in terms of designing the landscaping, given the very limited amount of space. Chimacoff stated the façades would include projections, cornices, bay windows, and so on, as well as a roof canopy. The intent, he explained, is to create a modern interpretation of the traditional row house. He said the design team has tried to create modestly-scaled modules giving the visual impression of separate row house structures within each of the two street-facing buildings. He said the ground floors would feature interesting porches with recessed entries, with the main entrance being more accentuated than the individual entrances. A pergola-like canopy would be situated between the two street-facing buildings, he concluded. Lewis urged the applicants to focus their attention on the articulation of the two buildings, stating that the current design looks less like row houses, and more like small- to mid-size buildings. Darling said it seems like a good design. Elliott asked the applicants to ‘jiggle’ the buildings a little. Chimacoff replied they could only do that by pushing the buildings deeper into the site, since the buildings are already right on the setback line. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 Schroeder said he would definitely like to see more variety amongst the row house modules in the elevations. For example, instead of each featuring yellow vertical elements, perhaps they could be clad in two related colors, to add some alternation from one row house module to the next. Chimacoff agreed to explore those kinds of options. Schroeder noted his other major concern is the interface with the street and the public realm / sidewalk. The 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines calls for street trees and wider sidewalks. He personally feels strongly that, in a major urban setting like Collegetown, the existing five-foot sidewalks are inadequate and should widened. He said the Institute of Transportation Engineers standards call for minimum 12-foot wide streetside width, from building face to curb, in such urban contexts. Chimacoff replied there is a very limited amount of space between the property line and the curb, but the applicants will certainly try to maximize that space. Schroeder also exhorted the applicants to investigate the feasibility of installing underground utilities. Novarr replied that the City itself is probably best-positioned to do that, since it has more clout than any single developer. Schroeder remarked that the City commissioned the Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research (2009) study, prepared by Mary Tomlan and himself, in which all three existing buildings on this site are featured. While he is not asking that these buildings be protected, he did ask that their exteriors be documented in photographs. He also said other properties mentioned in that study should have local historic landmark protection. He said the Board should keep this in mind. The applicants agreed to perform this requested photographic documentation. Proujansky explained that the applicants postponed applying for the Demolition Permit for that very reason. They would, however, like to pursue demolition as soon as possible, so it would be helpful if they could establish that the Board has no objections, other than the above request for photographic documentation. No objections were raised. Wolf added that Novarr actually met with City Historian Mary Tomlan and discussed the project. The owners also have engaged the services of Bero Architecture to prepare a documented history of the buildings. Novarr noted Tomlan indicated she would like to see this document describe the use of the buildings and their occupants, in addition to including photographs. Proujansky asked if the applicants could seek the Demolition Permit if they submit the Bero Architecture report at the next Board meeting. Schroeder replied, yes, as long as the report and the photographic documentation is received before demolition begins. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 Elliott asked the applicants to explore options for re-using parts of the existing houses (e.g., chestnut wood). Novarr agreed to do so. 5. Zoning Appeals Appeal #3044 — 170 Pearsall Place: Area Variance Appeal of Jessica Ryan for Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 12, Side Yard, requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. In 2013, the applicant hired a contractor to build a 120-SF deck attached to the front (south side) of her two family home located at 170 Pearsall Place. The deck extends a length of 18 feet from the front stair landing to the southwest corner of the house and is in line with the west side wall. The depth of the deck measures 6’8” from the front corner façade. Last month during a City Housing Inspection, the applicant learned her contractor constructed the deck without a Building Permit and that she needs a Zoning Variance because the deck’s location exacerbates an existing side yard deficiency. The existing side yard setback is 5.5 feet. The required side yard setback is 10 feet. The depth of the deck increases the deficient side yard an additional 6’8”. The property at 170 Pearsall Place is located in an R-1b residential use district where the two-family home is a legal non-conforming use; however, Section 325-38 requires a variance be granted before a retroactive Building Permit may be issued. The Board does not identify any long-term impacts in this appeal and has no objections to its approval. Appeal #3046 — 404 Wood Street: Area Variance Appeal of Karen Werner, on behalf of the owner Charles Stanton, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard Dimension, of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel located at 404 Wood Street into two lots. One lot will contain the existing single-family home and the other lot will be a new buildable lot. In order to subdivide the parcel, the applicant is requesting a variance for an existing rear yard deficiency. The existing dwelling has a rear yard that is 8’6” of the 20’ required by the ordinance. The property at 404 Wood Street is located in an R-3b Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted; however, General Municipal Law Article 3, Section 33, states that a subdivided plat must comply with a Municipality’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, compliance can be achieved provided the BZA grants this variance for the rear yard deficiency. The Board identifies only positive long-term planning impacts in this appeal. The site as is a desirable location for infill within the City. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 19 Appeal #3048 — Appeal of Zoning Determination for 201 College Avenue The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is appealing the zoning determination of Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration which concludes that a proposed apartment project located on 201 College Ave complies with façade length requirements of the MU-1 Collegetown Area Form District Districts (CAFD) as applied to its Bool Street side. Please refer to the Planning Board’s written statement that lays out its argument for appealing the determination. 6. Old / New Business None. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Director of Planning and Economic Development Nicholas reminded the Board of the upcoming Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Special Meeting on October 19, 2016 (later rescheduled for October 17) at which the BZA will review Zoning Appeal #3048, Appeal of Zoning Determination for 201 College Avenue. The Planning Board also has a Special Meeting on October 18, 2016 to review comments on the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project’s Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS). C. Board of Public Works Liaison Darling reported that work on the College Avenue and Dryden Road intersection has been delayed, because of subterranean obstructions to new underground NYSEG utility vaults. The BPW is investigating ways to take ownership of some utilities in the City, he added, noting that the City has installed some underground telecommunications conduits, which it may be able to rent out. He reported the BPW passed a resolution giving Cornell University the right to install a larger canopy at its Cornell Store outlet on the Commons. Darling reported that the Ithaca Skate Park will receive lighting, courtesy of the Park Foundation. DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 20 Schroeder mentioned that he had discovered legal analysis suggesting the City could require public utilities private utility companies to install utilities underground, so long as the City states it is in the public interest to require that (most likely through a formal resolution of Common Council). Schroeder added Blalock said he would like to follow up on the Board’s ongoing discussion about the width of the sidewalk next to the Tompkins Financial Headquarters building currently under construction and the Hilton Garden Inn on Seneca Street (i.e., narrowing the vehicular portion of the 100-block of East Seneca Street there, so street trees, wider sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities can be constructed, making it a “complete street” with priority given to the pedestrian experience and not to vehicles). Schroeder said now, while the headquarters building is being constructed, would be the opportune time to take action on the issue, perhaps by the Board sponsoring a meeting or drafting a memorandum to move this idea forward. (The latter could be a follow-up to its original April 26, 2016 resolution January 26, 2016 memo on this topic to the BPW and Common Council.) Nicholas recalled hearing the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency is renegotiating its lease for the hotel property with the new owner and so it may be able to require widening the sidewalk as part of that process. Darling cautioned that the greatest obstacle would probably be negotiating with the State Department of Transportation. He said he could sponsor a resolution at the next BPW meeting, calling for a study to be conducted on the issue. 8. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling, the revised draft August 23, 2016 meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications. In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 9. Adjournment On a motion by Darling, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.