Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-10-25Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 1 Planning & Development Board Minutes October 25, 2016 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling (Board of Public Works Liaison); Jack Elliott; Robert Aaron Lewis; Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None. Board Vacancies: None. Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning & Economic Development; Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning & Economic Development Applicants Attending: Minor Subdivision at 404 Wood Street Karen Werner, Applicant Minor Subdivision at 123 & 125 Eddy Street Jagat Sharma, Applicant Minor Subdivision at 1001 N. Aurora Street Daniel Hirtler, Applicant; Stavros Stavropoulos, Owner City Centre at Trebloc Building Site Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; Jeffrey Smetana, Newman Development Group; John Nicolich, Newman Development Group; Sean Bell, Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. Amici House at 661-711 Spencer Road Thomas Schickel, Schickel Architecture; Lee Dillon, Tompkins Community Action; Joseph Bowes, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 2 Four Duplexes at 607 S. Aurora Street Jagat Sharma, Applicant; Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals Holiday Inn Express at 371 Elmira Road Douglas Williams, Eastern Hospitality Advisors Two Duplexes at 312-314 W. Spencer Street Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative College Townhouse Project at 119, 121, & 125 College Avenue Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP; Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects; Phil Proujansky, Owner; John Novarr, Owner Maplewood Apartments at Veteran’s Place Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, PLLC Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas explained the applicant for agenda item “3. C. Minor Subdivision, 1001 N. Aurora St.” could not produce the final Subdivision plat drawing, due to the timing of the demolition of the existing house. NOTE: Some agenda items were reviewed in a different sequence from that listed on the meeting agenda, depending on the availability of applicants. These minutes, however, present the projects in their original agenda order. 2. Privilege of the Floor Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the proposed College Townhouse project at 119, 121, and 125 College Avenue. He is curious if it elicits the same degree of public opposition as the 201 College Avenue project. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 3 3. Subdivision Review A. Minor Subdivision, 404 Wood St., Karen Werner on behalf of Charles L. Stanton. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. 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 received the required Area Variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on 10/4/16. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on September 27, 2016. Applicant Karen Werner, a friend of the owner, presented a brief summary of the proposed Subdivision, noting it received its Zoning Variance. She said the owner intends to sell the newly subdivide empty lot. Adopted Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Resolution: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Lewis: 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 received 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 Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 4 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 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; 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, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on September 27, 2016 determine the proposed Subdivision would result in no significant impact on the environment, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels have received the required Area Variance for relief from the area requirements in the R-3b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Subdivision of Tax Parcel #103.-1- 2, located at 404 Wood Street, subject to submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor. In favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 5 B. Minor Subdivision, 123 & 125 Eddy St., Nick Lambrou. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval. Applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,180-SF lot into two parcels: Lot 125, measuring 7,350 SF with 52.5 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and on which a new 2-family home is proposed; and Lot 123, measuring 5,830 SF with 47 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single- family dwelling. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’ for 2-family dwellings, and 4,000 SF and 50’ feet for other uses; and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 25’, 10’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The project received Zoning Variances for deficient off -street parking on both proposed lots on October 4, 2016, This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to Environmental Review for which the Board acting as Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on August 23, 2016. The project is in the East Hill Historic District and the proposed new duplex will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, as well as Site Plan Approval. Applicant Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architects, noted the Subdivision received its Zoning Variance and he submitted final Subdivision plats to Planning Division staff. Sharma indicated the owner met with the neighbors to address their concerns, which will be taken into consideration as Site Plan drawings are developed. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval: On a motion by Johnston, 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 #68.-1- 13, located at 123-125 Eddy Street, by Nick Lambrou, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,182-SF lot into two parcels: Parcel A measuring 7,072 SF with 52.50 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single-family dwelling, and Parcel B, measuring 6,110 SF with 47.17 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and on which a new 2-family home is proposed. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District, which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’ for 2-family dwellings, and 4,000 SF and 50’ feet for other uses; and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 25’, 10’/5’ and 25% or 50’, b ut no less than 20 feet, respectively. The resultant parcels received Zoning Variances for deficient off-street parking. The project is in the East Hill Historic District and the proposed new duplex will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, as well as Site Plan Approval, 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 construction of a two-family home is a Type 2 Action and is exempt from Environmental Review, and a Minor Subdivision within a Historic District is an Unlisted Action Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 6 under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which requires Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on August 23, 2016 declared itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review, 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 WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on August 23, 2016, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on August 23, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a preliminary Subdivision plat titled “Proposed Subdivision, 123-125 Eddy St., Ithaca NY,” dated 6/7/16; and a drawing titled “Proposed 2-Family Dwelling, 123 Eddy St., Ithaca, NY,” dated 8/16/16 and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, architect; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels have received the required Area Variances for relief from off-street parking requirements of the R-2b Zoning District, WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on August 23, 2016 determine the proposed Subdivision would result in no significant impact on the environment, and now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Subdivision of Tax Parcel #68.-1- 13, located at 123-125 Eddy Street, subject to submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor. In favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None C. Minor Subdivision, 1001 N. Aurora St. (Tax Parcel #12.-6-13), Daniel Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos. Consideration of Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval. Consideration of Site Plan review Condition. Applicant proposes 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 t he R-2b Zoning Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 7 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 intends to remove the existing house and to build a two -family dwelling on each new lot. Site Development will include removal of one street tree, a new 19.5’ curb cut and new landscaping to include two new trees. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on September 27, 2016. Architect Daniel Hirtler and owner Stavros Stavropoulos presented a brief overview of the proposed Site Plan, noting they sought to satisfy a Board condition for the Site Plan Approval: installation of additional windows in a blank area on the Aurora Street side of the corner building. Schroeder asked about the notation on the most recent elevation that states the owner reserves “the right to delete” some windows. Hirtler clarified that he had added new windows to all four long facades, even though the Board condition only applied to the Aurora Street facade; the “right to delete” would only apply to the three internal long facades and not to the Aurora Street long facade. He said this would give the owner flexibility in the case of a budget overrun. Schroeder sai d that was reasonable. Nicholas noted the applicants have now met all Site Plan Approval conditions, so they can proceed with applying for the Demolition Permit. Although the applicants did not submit the final Subdivision plat, she pointed out that such future submission is already a condition of Site Plan Approval, so the Board can approve the Subdivision today. Adopted Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Resolution: On a motion by Elliott, 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 of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #12.-6-13, located at 1001 N. Aurora St., by Daniel 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 Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 8 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 Sep tember 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 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 City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on September 27, 2016 determine the proposed Subdivision would result in no significant impact on the environment, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to area requirements in the R-3b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Subdivision of Tax Parcel #12.-6- 13, located at 1001 N. Aurora Street, subject to submission of three (3) paper copies of the final approved plat, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor. In favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 9 4. Site Plan Review A. City Centre — Mixed Use Project (Housing & Retail), 301 E. State/M.L.K., Jr. St ., Jeff Smetana for Newman Development Group, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency & Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with an 8-story, 106’-tall, 187,536-GSF mixed-use building, with approximately 10,800 SF of new ground-floor retail space and 10,700 SF of building amenity and support space on the ground level. Upper floors will have a mix of unit types (studio, 1 -, and 2-BR) for a total of 193 units. The ground level also includes a loading/delivery/trash area with vehicular access provided from N. Aurora Street to a circular drop-off area. The main vehicular access to the site is off E. Green Street to a below-grade parking deck with 72 parking spaces and bicycle storage. The project is in the CBD-120 Zoning District, and requires Design Review and a Zoning Variance for rear yard setback. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h) [4], (i), (k), and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (6.)(iv), and (11), and requires Environmental Review. Applicants Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, developers Jeffrey Smetana and John Nicolich, Newman Development Group, and architect Sean Bell, Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P., presented an update on the proposed project. Whitham explained the design team attempted to respond to all the Board’s concerns expressed at its last meeting (e.g., the parking access slip lane along Green Street has now been removed). He noted the project meets all zoning requirements except that it requires a Zoning Variance since the footprint would extend 7 feet beyond the existing 10-foot rear yard set-back. He said the project also requires a Sign Variance. Smetana walked through an overhead presentation, noting the building capacity has been reduced from 255 to 193 dwelling units, which necessitated some changes to the mixture of units (e.g., halving the number of studio units). The building’s foundation remains unchanged, with access to 72 parking spaces from Green Street. Smetana noted the building would have approximately 10,000 square feet of retail space, for as many as 3 tenants. The building will continue to have a set of ground-floor common areas (e.g., fitness center, event space). The seventh floor has been pulled back a little, at the Tuning Fork Corner, and the top (eighth) floor’s northwest corner would feature a roof terrace for residents, while the units facing. State Street on that floor would include balconies with corresponding units being stepped back from the edge of the building. Bell noted the principal concern expressed by the Board at its last meeting was the form and massing, especially along State Street (e.g., too flat, lack of modulation or step-backs), so significant modulation has now been incorporated into the building. Schroeder remarked it is the first rendering he has seen that appears to have appropriate massing and is also well-situated on the street. The step-backs on the State Street side are crucial to making the building appear more interesting, although the ones on the rendering appear much deeper than those depicted on the floor plans. Bell explained that the renderings accurately depict the intended design. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 10 Bell indicated the street-level design of the building has not been entirely determined, but there would be three feet of plantings between the building and the sidewalk. Schroeder suggested something of special interest be added to the street level. Bell noted the upper terrace would include green-wall elements and transom windows, which would be lit. Schroeder replied it would be nice for pedestrians to see some of that upper terrace green space from the street. Whitham replied that should be possible. Bell noted the renderings should provide the Board with a good understanding of the lighting at the site; and a considerable amount of effort was invested in making the sidewalk as alive and active as possible. Jones-Rounds noted she would like to see a rendering of both elevations on the Green Street side, because of the sidewalk connection and the stairs coming up from Green Street. That part of the building could become a much more attractive and fully functional location. Whitham replied those would be provided to the Board. Bell noted the solar elevation shows how the amount of sunlight reaching the street has increased, compared to earlier iterations of the project. In terms of building materials, the applicants are leaning towards using fiber-cement panels and brick. Schroeder indicated he is pleased with the beige-like color, although the top level of the flat panel siding appears too bland (e.g., on the image of the main entrance). It should be brighter and more welcoming in appearance. The towers also appear a little too flat. He suggested adding clear story windows on the sides and front, as well as possibly a cornice. Bell agreed. Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Qualit y Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require 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 an eight-story mixed-use building by Jeffrey Smetana for Newman Development Group, LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with an 8-story, 106’-tall, 187,536-GSF mixed-use building, with approximately 10,800 SF of new ground-floor retail space and 10,700 SF of building amenity and support space on the ground level. Upper floors will have a mixture of unit types (studio, 1-, and 2-BR) for a total of 193 units. The ground level Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 11 also includes a loading/delivery/trash area with vehicular access provided from N. Aurora Street to a circular drop-off area. The main vehicular access to the site is off E. Green Street to a below-grade parking deck with 72 parking spaces and bicycle storage. The project is in the CBD-120 Zoning District, and requires DESIGN REVIEW and a Zoning Variance for rear yard setback, and WHEREAS: 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, and WHEREAS: it has been requested the NYSDOT, the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (IDA), and the Tompkins County Department of Health (TCDOH), all potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: NYSDOT and TCDOH provided written consent and the IDA did, by not responding to the request within 30 days, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby decl are itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review of the proposed project. In favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Elliott asked if the applicants received the October 17, 2016 letter submitted by Historic Ithaca, regarding the project. Whitham replies, yes. Bell remarked that one of Historic Ithaca’s concerns was the inaccuracy of the rendering (e.g. width of S Aurora Street) but he believes it is generally accurate. Jones-Rounds noted she would like to see covered bicycle parking near both entries, for both guests and residents. Elliott asked what degree of sustainability the building would have. Bell replied that remains something the applicants need to address. Elliott urged the applicants to start planning for sustainable design elements (e.g., building infrastructure, building envelope, water and energy management) as early in the process as possible. Reviewed of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2 The Board reviewed this document. Elliott asked if any blasting would be involved. Nicholas replied, no. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 12 Elliott noted that, since the project will include some open greenspace facing south, the applicants may want to consider rainwater harvesting or greywater recovery. The local community just experienced a significant drought, so instituting long-term water conservation solutions has become a priority. Nicholas noted City Transportation Engineer Eric Hathaway will need more information from the applicants. Blalock suggested the applicants spend time designing the loading and unloading areas of the project, as well as the movement of guests coming and going. Schroeder noted the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment indicates there used to be a gas station on the site; however, the issue of whether more open pits should be excavated to test for soil contamination seems to have been left open, as well as the issue lead and asbestos- containing materials in the existing building to be demolished. Whitham replied the applicants will submit all of that information to the Board. Johnston suggested the applicants consider a building electric utility package for a development this large. Whitham replied they could certainly explore that. Nicholas asked the applicants for a construction staging diagram, including contractor parking information. Whitham replied the applicants would provide that. Nicholas observed the project will required Design Review. Blalock urged the applicants to organize an open house or similar type of meeting with neighbors and community members to listen to any concerns people may have. Whitham replied the applicants would do that. B. Amici House & Childcare Center, 661-701 Spencer Rd., Tom Schickel for Tompkins Community Action (“TCAction”). No Action — Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 & 3. The applicant is proposing to construct two new buildings on the site to provide supportive housing for young homeless people and their children, as well as childcare. A 5-story, 20,785-SF building with a footprint of 4,215 SF will be built to adjoin the existing TCAction office building. On the first floor, it will contain a children's playroom, meeting/training room with an adjoining kitchen, a case conferencing room, public restrooms, and mechanical support spaces; and the upper floors will contain 23 efficiency apartments. The 1-story, 7,010-SF Child Care Center will provide 5 classrooms for Head Start and Early Head Start. This building is designed with an open courtyard facing the rear of the site with a fence on the southeast side. The project also includes new landscaping, a sidewalk on Spencer Road, and expanded parking from 44 to 65 spaces. Site development will include demolition of two existing houses currently used for TCAction programming. The project site is in both the SW-2 and the R-2a Zoning Districts and requires Area Variances and a Special Permit. The project site is contiguous to Buttermilk Falls State Park. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CE QRO”), §176-4 B. (1.) (k.) & (h.) (3.), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (b.) (11.), and is subject to Environmental Review. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 13 Applicant Tom Schickel, Schickel Architecture, and Lee Dillon, Tompkins Community Action, presented an overview of the project, noting it would include 23 living units of supportive subsidized housing for 18-25 year old homeless women, as well as five Early Head Start classrooms. Schickel noted the applicants originally hoped to receive the Board’s recommendation regarding the two Zoning Appeals associated with the project, at this time; but consideration of the Zoning Appeals has been delayed a month. TCAction needs the Zoning Variances by December 7, 2016 to receive the funding sought for the project. Jones-Rounds asked about any plans for bicycle parking. Schickel replied there would be at least one bicycle rack. Jones-Rounds observed there appears to be none in the rear. Schickel replied the applicants could investigate placing a bicycle rack in the rear. Elliott noted he examined the engineering report and could not determine if any water had been extracted. Schickel replied, no. It is a well-drained site. Borings were made, hitting bedrock at approximately 47 feet. The quality of the soil was determined to be fairly good, so the geotechnical analysis recommended a spread-footing foundation. Elliott expressed concern with leachates flowing down to the site from further uphill. Schickel replied that should not be a problem and there is also an adjacent railroad bed which serves as a diversion ditch. Elliott asked about creosote leaching down to the site from the rails. Schickel responded that the only tests that were conducted were for percolation. Elliott suggested it may be worth performing a water test, since boring holes have already been dug. Cornish suggested some parking spaces in the rear could be converted to planting islands to soften that particular façade. In addition, one parking space appears to go right up to the building, which the applicants may want to re-examine. Schroeder expressed concern about where the future Gateway Trail will be aligned in relation to the rear parking lot unless some effective separation is provided between the two. Cornish noted the applicants should consider placing large boulders in between the trail and the project site, as has been done on other trails. Schroeder noted he had asked Nicholas to obtain the Town of Ithaca’s opinion on the details of the trail siting. Nicholas replied the Town of Ithaca had no objections. Schroeder noted that the project includes some substantial retaining walls. Assuming they will be composed of concrete, he would like to see them covered in vines. He also suggested the street trees should be placed in between the sidewalk and the road. Schickel replied that the applicants actually sought to do that, but since vehicles will be coming in and out of the site, they sought to maintain some separation between the sidewalk and the drop-off area. Reviewed of Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 2 and 3 The Board reviewed these documents. Nicholas remarked that since the applicants need the Environmental Review completed by next month, she would like as much guidance as possible from the Board on the contents of the Part 3. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 14 Blalock noted Elliott raised the public health issue of the potential water contamination. Nicholas asked if the applicants could provide more information on that particular issue. Schickel replied there would be vertical drainage to prevent water contamination. He indicated the applicants will submit both a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment to the Board. Cornish noted it will also be important to understand the project’s potential aesthetic impact on the Buttermilk Falls State Park (e.g., there should be no light pollution anywhere near the park). Schroeder noted it would be helpful to see color elevations of all sides of the proposed building to gain a real sense of what they would look like. Jones-Rounds indicated the parking lot lights in the rear should not contribute to light pollution. Schickel replied they would probably be directional lights. Elliott asked if the parking material would be asphalt. Schickel replied, yes. Nicholas asked if the applicants are absolutely certain they do not need Site Plan Approval to qualify for the grant they are seeking. Schickel replied, yes. Bowes added that the applicants only need to be zoning-compliant to qualify for the grant, although it would also be helpful to have a formal written recommendation from the Planning Board. C. Four Duplexes, 607 S. Aurora St., Charles O’Connor. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, & Review of FEAF, Part 2. The applicant proposes to construct four duplexes and retain the existing house on the 32,240-SF L-shaped lot. The project includes a new curbcut for a 20’-wide paved access road and drive, parking for 15 cars, a turnaround for fire acce ss, retaining walls dumpster, bike racks, a new sidewalk, and associated site improvements. Site development will require demolition of a carport at the rear of the existing house, removal of approximately 13,000 SF of vegetation, including one tree. The proposed buildings are two-story structures with two-color vinyl siding, porched entries, gable ends, and shingle roofing. The project is in the R -2a 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. Applicant Jagat Sharma, Jagat Sharma Architect, and owner Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals, presented an update on the project and submitted new drawings to the Board. Sharma explained he incorporated the Board’s Sketch Plan comments into the project design and also responded to further comments discussed at the Project Review Committee (PRC) meeting (e.g., creating alternate site plans). The project remains zoning-compliant. Sharma then presented several potential site plan schemes: A, B and C. Schroeder explained the PRC expressed concerns with having two duplexes at the front of the property in a manner that blocked street views of the existing house as well as the internal sidewalks not being continuous. Sharma then presented three new potential site plan schemes: A, B and C. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 15 After extensive discussion, the Board selected a slight modification of site plan Scheme A, as the preferred scheme. It incorporates a single 20-foot-wide entrance from Aurora Street, which then breaks into an oval (with 12-foot-wide lane) centered around the existing house. Twelve parking spaces would be concentrated in a single location, south of the existing house, with two additional parking spaces located north of Building A, which is located to avoid blocking views if the existing house from S. Aurora St. O’Connor agreed to pursue Scheme A. Schroeder urged the applicants to give special attention to the design (e.g. high quality materials and detailing) of the Aurora Street-facing side of Building A. Sharma agreed to do so. Adopted Declaration of Lead Agency Resolution: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Darling: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require a Lead Agency be established for conducting Environmental Review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for four duplexes by Charlie O’Connor, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct four duplexes and retain the existing house o n the 32,240-SF L-shaped lot. The project includes a new curbcut for a 20’-wide paved access road and drive, parking for 15 cars, a turnaround for fire access, retaining walls dumpster, bike racks, a new sidewalk, and associated site improvements. Site development will require demolition of a carport at the rear of the existing house, removal of approximately 13,000 SF of vegetation, including one tree. The proposed buildings are two -story structures with two-color vinyl siding, porched entries, gable ends, and shingle roofing. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District, and WHEREAS: 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, 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 of the proposed project. In favor: Blalock, Darling, Elliott, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: None Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 16 Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and unanimously approved, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, on a motion by Lewis, seconded by Johnston, and unanimously approved, the Public Hearing was closed. D. Holiday Inn Express, 371 Elmira Rd., 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 now seeking some modification of these elements. Applicant Douglas Williams, Eastern Hospitality Advisors, representing the owners, presented a brief overview of the proposed changes and submitted revised meeting materials to the Board. Nicholas explained she did not have enough information from the applicant in advance of the meeting to draft a resolution for the Board. Schroeder remarked he is confused about the situation with the proposed sidewalk along Spencer Road. Nicholas replied that City Sidewalk Program Manager John Licitra examined the site and – contrary to what Williams said last month- concluded there was enough space for a sidewalk. Williams indicated he exchanged correspondence with both Licitra and City Director of Engineering Services Tim Logue. He said that the new Spencer Road street trees had not been planted when City staff examined the site, but they will visit the site again once that is done. Williams indicated he has a team ready to install the sidewalk. Cornish remarked that the rip-rap stabilization system is not something originally agreed to by the Planning Board. Schroeder said if the applicant has images depicting how the rip-rap stabilization system appears in other locations after planting have been installed upon I, and if it is clear that one cannot see the rip- rap underneath, then it may be acceptable. Elliott noted the issue is now whether the sidewalk can be installed, without the original retaining wall. Cornish replied that the applicant agreed to install the sidewalk. He will be responsible for maintaining it and ensuring it conforms to the approved site plan. Schroeder remarked that any Planning Board resolution should state the rip-rap stabilization system solution is only acceptable to the Board as long as it is completely covered in foliage within three years. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 17 Cornish indicated to the applicant that the Planning Board and staff would be watching the results of the project very closely, and that that rip-rap stabilization systems are not always successful. Nicholas observed there is no effective mechanism to enforce changes to the project site, if in the future the rip-rap stabilization system does not work and the plantings do not take. Cornish noted the applicants are seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, which lasts for six months. She would not approve a full Certificate of Occupancy, if the Planning Board does not see satisfactory resolution of the issue with the sidewalk and plantings. Schroeder agreed with that approach. He also observed that Licitra recommended a granite curb for the sidewalk. Williams replied, that could be done. Schroeder summarized the Spencer Road situation: the applicant will install the sidewalk and trees with granite curb; and the Board will revisit that portion of the project at some point in the future. He said the combination of granite curb, trees, and sidewalk should make that stretch of Spencer Road appear like a neighborhood street. Nicholas noted that there remain some outstanding conditions from the original Site Plan Approval (e.g., submission of information on the design of the stairs and railings). Williams replied that information would be provided. E. 312-314 W. Spencer St. — Satisfaction of Conditions: Building Materials Applicant Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, and owner Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals, presented an update on the project. Demarest submitted new color elevations showing a different color scheme for each of the two houses. He said the Board should ignore any earlier submissions regarding materials. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 18 Schroeder inquired about window sills. Demarest replied that no sills are planned. Schroeder responded that window sills would significantly enrich the design. Demarest agreed, but the budget does not permit it. Cornish expressed concern the Board is beginning to see more and more vinyl siding projects, with little to no detailing. O’Connor suggested adding window sills only on the long façade, facing Old Elmira Road. Schroeder urged the applicant to install them on the front of both houses. O’Connor agreed to do so. It was the consensus of the Board that the applicant had now satisfied the condition regarding building materials. It was also agreed that the Board needed to have a future discussion on whether it wished to adopt a policy either limiting, or not allowing, the use of vinyl siding in future projects. F. 119, 121, & 125 College Ave. (College Townhouse Project) — Update Applicant Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, owners John Novarr and Phil Proujansky, and architect Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects, presented a brief update on the project. Wolf explained that this meeting was intended to be a continuation of the Sketch Plan. The applicants have developed some concepts in response to the Planning Board’s initial comments. Bero Architecture, PLLC has also completed the promised “Property Documentation and History Report.” Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 19 Chimacoff walked through a presentation of the proposed site plan that included two separate versions of the streetscape, since that was one of the Board’s major concerns. Streetscape Option A:  Building walls set back 18 feet, including 8 feet from curb to property line and 10 feet from property line to façade.  5 feet of dedicated sidewalk at the curb.  4 feet of a planted zone interior to the sidewalk.  No tree grades grates.  4-foot zone of hedges.  This streetscape would terminate at a basement light well edge with fence. Streetscape Option B:  Building walls set back 18 feet sidewalk, including 8 feet from curb to property line and 10 feet from property line to façade.  4-foot street tree grate zone adjacent to the curb.  5-feet of dedicated sidewalk separated from curb by tree grate zone.  More hardscape.  Trees would be planted according to the frequency of the street parking, to avoid vehicle doors swinging and hitting trees.  Dedicated sidewalk and expanded sidewalk.  Sidewalk (including tree grate zone) would be a total of 9 feet wide.  This streetscape would also terminate at a basement light well edge with fence. Chimacoff indicated the applicants are strongly in favor of Option A, although it is still in the early stages of development. Elliott noted he actually thinks Option B is the more pedestrian-friendly of the two. Schroeder stressed that in urban areas like this the Institute of Transportation Engineers standards call for a minimum 12-foot-wide streetside width, including a 4 foot tree well width, a 6 foot sidewalk throughway and a 2 foot shy distance from buildings / upright obstacles. He said Option B comes closest to this standard. He said the trouble with Option A is that a sidewalk right at the curb has its functionality obstructed by signs, light poles, plowed winter snow and car door swings. Johnston indicated he prefers Option B. He said this would allow a fuller growth area for street tree canopies Lewis noted he finds Option A more interesting, but he certainly does not oppose Option B. He has no strong feelings one way or the other. Jones-Rounds indicated she is leaning towards Option B, although both options seem acceptable. Darling said the Department of Public Works would probably prefer Option A, if only because it would facilitate snow removal; however, he would be satisfied with either option. Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 20 G. Maplewood Redevelopment Project — Planning Board Comments on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, appeared before the Board. Nicholas said she sent the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) documents to the Board. Since the Board is an involved agency, its comments are certainly welcome. She reviewed most of the document and drafted some preliminary comments. The Board took some time to read those. Schroeder said it sounds as though there are problems with the proposed pedestrian network. He said the project should include prominent and attractive sidewalks linking continuously and seamlessly with future City sidewalks along Worth Street. He said the visual, as well as functional, connections here should make the project and its adjacent City neighborhoods read as a single coherent urban environment. Nicholas said she will distribute draft proposed comments on the DGEIS and Planning Board members can submit any proposed revisions by e-mail. 5. Zoning Appeals Zoning Appeal #3047 — 123 Heights Court: Area Variance Appeal of Susan Hess, owner of 123 Heights Court, for variances from Section 325-8, Column 10, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Column 12, Side Yard, and Section 325-25, Location of Accessory Structures, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The owner was granted several variances from the BZA under Zoning Appeal #2352 in March 2002. At that time, the owner requested variances to build decks to access the front and rear entries of her single-family home at 123 Heights Court. Variances were granted for the property’s deficient lot area, lot width, side yard, rear yard, and for exceeding allowed lot coverage. After the variances were granted, the owner constructed both decks. Unfortunately, while the front deck constructed under Zoning Appeal #2352 is functional, it did not eliminate the need to go both up and down stairs to access the dwelling’s first floor. As a result, the owner now proposes replacing the southernmost 8’4” of the entry deck with a new 32 -SF interior entry vestibule; the balance of the deck would be rebuilt in the same location, but at an elevation one riser higher (approximately 7”), necessitating an additional tread to reach the front yard (thus extending the stairs 1’ to the north). This will allow direct access from the entry to the first -floor level of the house. Though the combined new deck and vestibule of 80.8 SF is slightly smaller than the existing front deck, recent field measurements show the property’s building area to be more than originally calculated in the 1996 property survey submitted for the 2002 appeal. Under Zoning Appeal #2352, a variance was granted allowing lot coverage of 32%. The owner request s an Area Variance for lot coverage of 34.8%; allowed lot coverage is 30%. Furthermore, Zoning Appeal #2352 granted a variance allowing the front deck to encroach within 6” of the side yard lot line. Moved and reconfigured, the proposed deck will also be within 6” of the side yard lot line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 10’ side yard. In addition, the owner seeks variances for the existing garage on the property. The garage’s location is 1’4” from the side yard lot line and 1’10” from the Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 21 rear yard lot line. The garage is required to be 3’0” from both the side and rear lot lines. The new proposal will not affect the variances granted under Zoning Appeal #2352 for lot size, lot width, and rear yard. The property at 123 Heights Court is in an R-2a Zoning District, where the single-family home is a permitted use; however Section 325-38 requires variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued. The Board does not identify any long-term impacts in this appeal and has no objections to its approval. The design and materials of the new proposed deck should be compatible with the existing building. 6. Old/New Business None. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair (verbal) None. B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal) Cornish reported that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) reviewed the latest iteration of the proposed DeWitt House project on the Old Tompkins County Public Library site (310-314 N. Cayuga St.) at its October 20, 2016 meeting. The Commission expressed many of the same long-standing concerns it has communicated before. The new proposal includes a 10-space parking area, immediately next to the DeWitt Park Inn on Cayuga Street, which was the subject of considerable controversy at the Public Hearing, since it requires the demolition of the inn’s wall and garden. The applicant and Commission agreed to table further consideration of the proposal, until a revised version could be presented to the Commission in either December 2016 or January 2017. It was generally agreed that a joint meeting of the Commission and the Board should be called to discuss that future revised version when it is ready for review. C. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison (verbal) Darling reported that public comments were heard regarding the Belle Sherman/Bryant Park Traffic Safety Working Group. The Mayor’s 2017 budget includes funding for traffic calming, which the City needs to determine how to prioritize. 8. Approval of Minutes: September 27, 2016 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis, the revised draft September 27, 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 Approved by the Planning Board November 22, 2016 22 9. Adjournment On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Darling, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m.