Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2017-08-22 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 Planning and Development Board Minutes August 22,2017 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott (left 9:15 p.m.);McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: Matthew Johnston; Robert Aaron Lewis Board Vacancies: One Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish,Director, Division of Planning&Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning&Economic Development Bryan MacCracken, Historic Preservation Planner, Division of Planning&Economic Development Applicants Attending: Fingerlakes ReUse Commercial Expansion and Supportive Apartments Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative,Project Architect Diane Cohen,Director, Finger Lakes ReUse Lakeview Health Services Apartments at 709-713 W.Court Street Mark Pandolf,Principal, Plan Architecture Studio Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels James Fruechtl, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels David Elwyn,PE,Elwyn&Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC Joseph Bowes,Director of Real Estate Development,INNS Harry Merryman, CEO, Lakeview Mental Health Duplex at 217 Columbia Street John Snyder, John Snyder Architects; Adam Fishel,Marathon Engineering; Charlie O'Connor, Owner 1 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 Shared Parking Agreement at 412 E State Street Randall Marcus, Counsel; Ben Rosenblum, Owner Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas announced that the zoning appeal for the proposed apartments at 203-209 Elm Street has been removed from the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Steve Rogers, 152 Codington Road,voiced his objection to the 217 Columbia Avenue project. He stated that this type of development,though legal,was not the intention of this zoning district. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South,Town of Newfield,voiced his objection to people who object to development projects. Mary Tomlan, City Historian, spoke in support of the proposed Historic Designations of the Larking Larkin Building and the Chacona Block. She submitted a letter for the record. Ira Brous, Collegetown Bagels, supported historic designation of the Chacona Block. He said that as a not-for-profit organization,building owner Student Agencies should be socially responsible and support the designation. He also mentioned taxes and tax abatements. Ken Young,228 Columbia Street, spoke in support of a development moratorium on South Hill. He argued that a goal of the new Comprehensive Plan is neighborhood stability and that projects such as the one at 217 Columbia Street conflict with that goal. 3. Site Plan Review A. Finger Lakes ReUse Commercial Expansion and Supportive Apartments,214 Elmira Road by Finger Lakes Reuse. Consideration of Preliminary Overall Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I.The applicant proposes to expand the existing office and retail center with a new+/-26,100 SF attached 4-story mixed-use building to include retail, office, and 25 units of transitional housing fronting Elmira Road. An 8,100 SF covered outdoor inventory building and a 600 SF pavilion are also proposed. The new parking and loading layout will reduce the number of curb cuts on Elmira Road from 5 to 2, and provide 70 parking spaces. An improved sidewalk will be constructed to provide a safer link between the existing pedestrian bridge connecting the Titus Tower property to Elmira Road. The building will have landscaped entrances facing Elmira Road and these will be connected to the new building entrances giving residents and patrons arriving on foot direct access to the street. The project site is in the B-5 Zoning District and has received the required area variance. This is a Type I Action under the 2 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance("CEQRO") §176-4(I), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11) for which the Planning Board as Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on June 27,2017. Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative described recent project changes; these included more attractive(non-chainlink)fencing, additional street trees and modifications to the covered inventory building,which will now be fully enclosed. He also went over the proposed phasing, with Phase I to consist of the inventory building and associated stormwater drainage. The Planning Board discussed items it thought should also be included in Phase I(low plantings immediately adjacent to the aforementioned inventory building plus the proposed dumpster enclosure). Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Overall Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for commercial expansion and supportive apartments by Finger Lakes ReUse, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS:the applicant proposes to expand the existing office and retail center with a new+/- 26,100sf attached 4-story mixed-use building to include retail, office, and 25 units of transitional housing fronting Elmira Road. An 8,100 SF covered inventory building and a 600 SF pavilion are also proposed. The new parking and loading layout will reduce the number of curb cuts on Elmira Road from 5 to 2. An improved sidewalk will be constructed to provide a safer link between the existing pedestrian bridge connecting the Titus Towers property to Elmira Road. The building will have landscaped entrances facing Elmira Road and these will be connected to the new building entrances giving residents and patrons arriving on foot direct access to the street. The project site is in the B-5 Zoning District and has received the required area variance, and WHEREAS:this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 (I)and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") §617-4(b)(10), and is subject to Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and/or funding or carrying out the action, did, on March 28,2017, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), &(3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on June 27,2017, and 3 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS:this Board,acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on June 27, 2017,review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF),Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 &3 prepared by Planning staff, drawings titled"Site Layout Plan(L101)", "Grading Plan(L102)", "Planting Plan(L103)","Site Details(L501)", "1St Floor Plan—North(A1)", "1St Floor Plan—West(A2)", "1St Floor Plan—South(A3)","2nd Floor Plan(A4)", "3rd Floor Plan (A5)", "4th Floor Plan(A6)","Roof Plan(A7)", "East and West Elevations(A8)", "North Elevation (A9)", "Southeast Elevation(A10)", "Southwest Elevation(All)","Stocked Inventory-North Elevation (Al2)", "Stocked Inventory-South Elevation(A13)", "Stocked Inventory-West Elevation(A14)"all dated 5-15-17 and the following undated drawings titled"Southeast Perspective"and"Southwest Perspective", "Northeast Perspective and Northwest Perspective", "Pavilion Schematic"and"Pavilion Schematic—Plan"all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and"Existing Condition Plan(C101)", "Demolition Plan(C102)", "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(C103)","Utility Plan(C104)"and "Details(C201)"all dated 2-16-17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative and TG Miller PC and other application materials, and WHEREAS:the Planning Board did on June 27,2017 determine that the proposed project would result in no significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS:the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the required variance on August 10,2017, and WHEREAS:the Planning Board has on August 25, 2017,reviewed and accepted as adequate the following new and revised drawings: "Planting Plan(L103)", "Stocked Inventory—South Elevation (Al2)and"Stocked Inventory—North Elevation(Al 3)"also showing the west elevation,all dated 8-15- 17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative and other application materials, and WHEREAS:the drawing titled"Planting Plan(L103)"dated 8-15-17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative, shows the intended Phase I of the project and notes that all other work is intended to be performed in Phase 2, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Approval to the overall site plan, and Final Approval only to Phase 1 as described above, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to the Planning Board of building materials samples for Phase I of the project, and ii. Phase I shall include the low plantings directly in front of the covered storage building and the proposed dumpster enclosure, and iii. Confirmation that transportation comments have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City Transportation Engineer, and 4 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 iv. Installation of Bike Racks in conformance with City standards (1 per 2,500 SF of net assignable floor area for retail establishments) shall be included in Phase 1 of the project, and v. Written approval from the City Fire Department, and vi. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits,tree permits, street permits, etc. In Favor: Blalock,Elliot Elliott,Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed:None Absent: Johnston,Lewis Vacancies: One B. 709 West Court Street(Housing)326&328 N.Meadow Street and 709-713 W.Court Street,by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP for Lakeview Health Services Inc. Public Hearing and Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with footprint of 10,860 SF and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels(to be consolidated). The building will contain sixty(60) one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared common space (community room, laundry facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices,program spaces, conference room,utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front yard, a south-facing exterior courtyard, and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of the site. Site development will require the removal of five structures and associated site elements. The project is in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance("CEQRO") §176-4(1)(k) and(n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11) and is subject to environmental review. Mark Pandolf of Plan Architecture Studio; Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP; James Fruechtl of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels,LLP; David Elwyn of Elwyn&Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC; Joe Bowes of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services and Harry Merryman of Lakeview Mental Health explained changes made to the project since last month. These include a wider access drive to meet Fire Department requirements, increased glazing on the first floor of the Meadow Street fagade to match that already planned along W. Court Street, and a new projecting horizontal orange accent area on the south side of the building, similar to one such area already planned for the north side. Public Hearin On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliot Elliott, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. 5 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 George McGonigal,First Ward Alderperson, said that the neighborhood was not aware of the project. He stated that the building out of scale,not attractive, and was not in keeping with the neighborhood. Kelly [did not state last name], adjacent business owner,voiced concerns about neighborhood safety due to the new residents of the project. She questioned the success of the program and said she felt that the community will be over-taxed. She said there may be too much activity for that busy corner. Pastor Michael Vincent Crea, affected resident, said that the house he is living in would be demolished for the project. He said he does not like the look of the proposed building and feels it will block light and views to Collegetown. Drainage issues should be considered,he concluded. Cynthia Brock,First Ward Alderperson, stated that many people did not know about the project. She said that the building design is too cold and institutional and does not integrate well into its context. She hopes that the colors can be altered and that the building can be smaller to better fit the neighborhood. Ira Brous, Ithaca Bakery owner,would like to see commercial space on the ground floor of the building,rather than apartments. He said the West End needs more active retail uses. There being no further public comments,on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. The applicant and Board members responded to some of the public comments. The applicant maintained that the ground floor office use would provide activity—with people coming in and out of the building—similar to a retail use. Schroeder stated that the landscape design is exceptional,with two rows of trees to flank the sidewalks along both Meadow and Court streets, and will provide improved pedestrian amenities as well as public and private outdoor seating. Jones-Rounds asked Merryman to respond to safety issues. He stated that data demonstrates that the demographic Lakeview is serving is more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator of a crime, and that 24/7 onsite management and support services are essential for safety. Elliott questioned the scale of the building in comparison to the surrounding neighborhood. Cornish explained the vision for the West End continues to be for a denser,more urban and pedestrian-friendly environment. The applicant stated that the site was chosen and the building designed based on the allowed zoning and that no variance is required for the project. Review of Full Environmental Assessment Form,Part 2 and Part 3 6 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 The Board reviewed these draft documents. Board members requested that the Part 3 state that pile driving will include the same type of monitoring and existing-conditions surveying that was done for the 210 Hancock Street project to which the applicant agreed. Elliott asked for a solar access diagram demonstrating that the project would not block the solar panels on the Ithaca Bakery building. He later did a calculation that demonstrated that it would not. The following items were requested before final approval: • Rendering with landscape from different angles,including from the south along Meadow Street. • Exploration of active retail on first floor. • Building materials. • Keyed and colored elevations of all sides of the building. Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review: On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a housing project at 326&328 N. Meadow St. and 709-713 W. Court St.by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Lakeview Mental Health, and WHEREAS:the applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with footprint of 10,860 SF and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels (to be consolidated). The building will contain sixty(60)one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared common space (community room,laundry facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices,program spaces, conference room,utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front yard, a south-facing exterior courtyard, and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of the site. Site development will require the removal of five structures and associated site elements. The project is in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS:this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 (1) (k) and(n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4(11)and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: it was requested that Tompkins County Planning Commissioner, Tompkins County Department of Health(TCDOH),NYS Homes and Community Renewal (HCR),NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance(OTDA)and NYS Office of Mental Health Services, all potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board's being Lead Agency for this project, and Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 WHEREAS: All above listed agencies provided written consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board's being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and/or funding or carrying out the action,did, on July 25,2017, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS.this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review,has on August 22, 2017, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF),Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 &3 prepared by Planning staff, drawings titled"Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(C101)", "Utility Plan(C102)", "Details(C201)", "Demolition Plan(L101)"and"Grading Plan(L301)"dated 6/30/17; and"First and Upper Building Floor Plans(A1)","Building Roof Plans (A1.2)", "North and East Building Elevations (A2.1)"and"South and West Building Elevations(A2.2) all dated 7/05/17 and"Court and Meadow Street Contextual Perspective from Northeast","Court and Meadow Street Architectural Perspective from Northeast"and"Court and Meadow Street Architectural Perspective from Northwest"dated 7/19/17; and"Layout Plan(1,201)", "Planting Plan(L401)"and "Site Details(L501 &L502)"dated 8/15/17; and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP et al. 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 that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In Favor: Blalock, Elliott,Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed: None Absent: Johnston,Lewis Vacancies: One C. Duplex,217 Columbia Street by Charlie O'Connor for 985 Danby Rd LLC. Public Hearing.The applicant is proposing to install a modular duplex with one 3-bedroom apartment on each floor. The new structure is proposed to be sited directly behind the existing duplex on the property. As the project will increase the off-street parking required from two to four spaces, the applicant is proposing to shift the existing curb cut to the east and install an expanded parking area and drive aisle along the eastern property line. The project also includes removing a 30"dbh oak,moving or replacing one street tree, closing the existing curb cut, and installing a fence, landscaping and walkways. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District. Because this project proposes a parking lot for three or more vehicles, it is an Unlisted Action subject to 8 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 environmental review. (It had originally been incorrectly classified as a Type II Action exempt from environmental review.) John Snyder of John Snyder Architects; Adam Fishel of Marathon Engineering; and owner Charlie O'Connor described changes to the project that had been made since it was shown to the Project Review Committee one week ago. Snyder described the current preferred option which would include redesigned bedrooms, larger kitchen/dining areas on both floors,all fiber cement exterior cladding, and detailing that ties the new house to the existing house. Fishel presented the site plan,which would now include two additional rear-yard canopy trees (oaks of the same species as the unhealthy 30"dbh oak that must be cut down)and exclude a rear parking turnaround area. Elliott remarked that the front door to the lower unit should be visible to the street. The applicant agreed to change the location to under the second floor porch. Public Hearin On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Elliott, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock opened the Public Hearing. Patrick Braga,who said he lived in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the project and more housing designed to attract families. He opposes a South Hill development moratorium. Cynthia Brock,First Ward Alderperson, said she appreciated the applicant's responsiveness to the design issues raised by the neighborhood. She questions,however,the zoning that allows multiple duplexes to be built on a site. She said adding duplexes to the back of lots,behind existing houses, changes the character of the neighborhood because such new rear structures do not relate to the street. The City needs to do more to protect owner-occupied housing, she concluded. Kenn Young,228 Columbia Street, spoke against the project while acknowledging that the applicant has done a good job in responding to neighborhood concerns. The neighborhood is at a tipping point,he declared. He presented two petitions: one against the project and one relating to zoning. George McGonigal,First Ward Alderperson, said there is a shortage of affordable housing for families and that South Hill is ideally located for it due to its proximity to downtown and the elementary school. He said stormwater and drainage are large concerns when new homes are built and density is increased. John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, said that drainage and stormwater are his main concerns. He said that all houses should have gutters that connect to the City stormwater system. 9 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 Verlaine Boyd,215 Pleasant Street, also said that gutters should have gutters that connect to the municipal stormwater system and said there was too much chaotic,unplanned development in the neighborhood. Karen Gellman,207 Columbia Street, said that drainage is a main concern because this property seems to have an underground stream. She said there is a thick layer of ice in the winter making the sidewalk unpassable. She argued that the proposed project would not make the neighborhood more livable, characterizing it as just density for the sake of density without addressing the drainage problem. She stated that she supports infill in general. But here, she said, on-street parking is an issue and a four-space parking lot seems insufficient for the project. She also characterized the project as ugly, and said she has issues with noise. There being no further public comments,on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Jones-Rounds, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing. Schroeder stated that the project is an Unlisted Action(rather than a Type II Action)under environmental law and will require environmental review. Therefore,he said, drainage and other potential environmental impacts will be studied. The applicant agreed to talk with the City Stormwater Management Officer about the drainage. Applicant will also provide a more residentially scaled and designed fence design. O'Connor responded to some of the Public Hearing comments, and stated that he would be making parking available at other nearby properties to help relieve the on-street parking demand here. 4. Zoning Appeals The Board discussed the following Zoning Appeals and agreed to forward the following recommendations to the BZA: Appeal#3080—131 Blair Street: Area Variance Appeal of Christopher Anagnost for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 13, Other Side Yard, Column 14/15,Rear Yard and Section 325-32C (2)Enlargement of a Non-conforming Structure,requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a second floor bathroom addition to the existing dwelling located at 131 Blair Street. The dwelling currently contains eight bedrooms and two bathrooms for the eight unrelated permitted in the dwelling. The applicant has found that two bathrooms do not meet the needs of the eight tenants. The proposed third bathroom will be constructed above a one story portion of the building. The zoning ordinance does not permit enlargements of non-conforming structures which do not meet the requirements for lot area and parking. The property at 131 Blair Street lacks the required parking and therefore,the second floor bathroom cannot be constructed without obtaining an area variance. The 10 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 property has existing deficiencies in off-street parking,other side yard, and rear yard that will not be exacerbated by the proposed addition. The property at 131 Blair Street is located in a CR-3 zoning district where the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal as it is not visible from the street. 5. Old/New Business A. 412 E. State Street—Shared Parking Agreement Cornish presented the information to the Planning Board and asked for some feedback. The Board discussed the proposed event space,which they understood to be an allowed use. Members expressed concern that there would be no mitigations required because the change in use does not require site plan approval. The applicant had previously sought approval for a project with a similar use that included many design features to minimize impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood,but withdrew that project because it required a variance. Schroeder said he thought the planning director could turn down the proposed parking agreement simply because it was so complex and minutely choreographed, and hence likely unworkable. B. Planning Board Report Regarding the Proposed Local Historic Landmark Designation of 403 College Avenue and 411-415 College Avenue Adopted Report Regarding Proposed Local Historic Designation Of 403 College Avenue(the Larkin Building): On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: RESOLVED:that the Planning Board shall file the attached report with respect to the issues stipulated in the Municipal Code. Proposed Local Designation: 403 College Avenue(the Larkin Building) At the regular monthly meeting on July 11,2017 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by unanimous vote recommended designation of the Larkin Building at 403 College Avenue as a local ii Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 landmark. A map showing the location of the building and a summary of its historic and architectural significance are attached to this report. As set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code,Landmarks Preservation, "The Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the comprehensive plan,the zoning laws,projected public improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved." The following report has been prepared to address these considerations. 1. Relation to the Comprehensive Plan The 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines (Collegetown Plan) contains the following recommendations pertaining to historic resources: S.M. Historically significant resources within the entire Collegetown Planning Area which merit designation as local historic landmarks, but which currently have no such protection, should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and designated by Common Council. Ideally, this process would take place concurrently with consideration and adoption of the proposed form-based Collegetown zoning amendments. S.N. Collegetown's cultural, architectural and natural history should be highlighted and interpreted for both residents and visitors through such elements as markers, signs or decorative sidewalk panels, in accordance with a thematically and aesthetically coordinated program. 6.A.As a resource to be used when applying the new design standards, exemplary existing Collegetown buildings, both new and historic, should be identified which can serve as sources of inspiration for designers. Suitable newer buildings might include 401, 407 and 409 College Avenue, and suitable older buildings might include not only those structures selected for historic designation (see item S.M. above), but other non-designated older structures displaying attractive proportions or physical design elements that could spark ideas suitable for inclusion in projects under design. The Collegetown Plan states the following with respect to the east side of the 400 block of College Avenue,which includes the Larking Block Larkin Building: The exemplary row of buildings currently defining the east side of College Avenue between Oak Avenue and Dryden Road is praised in the Collegetown Vision Statement as being "a striking example of excellence in architectural design within an existing urban context,"and this opinion is broadly shared by the Ithaca community. ... The aesthetic harmony of this fagade row is even more striking because two component structures are roughly a century old while the other three were built more recently. Each of these buildings has a well-designed facade in its own right, but here—unlike other areas of Collegetown—the interplay of old and new creates a unified streetscape whose aesthetic power is much greater than the sum of its (already attractive)parts. Numerous design elements visually relate the individual buildings in this row to each other and to the streetscape as a whole: (1)All five buildings present roughly the same height when viewed 12 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 from College Avenue; (2) the four northernmost northernmost buildings are linked by a ground- floor horizontal "base"of consistent height and red-brick color, which is then carried up vertically by the red-brick Ciaschi Building at the Dryden Road corner; (3) the upper-story portion of each of the four northernmost buildings has a harmonious light earthtone color, and is separated from the other three (above the linked ground floor "base') by narrow slots which provide a visual rhythm to the series of facades; (4) the newer buildings, while contemporary in expression, display deliberate design references to the older buildings, so that horizontal elements (though varying in detail) are carried across all five buildings at the same height, basic rhythms of facade organization are found on all five buildings, and even decorative features of the older buildings are echoed by design elements of the newer buildings. The east side of the 400 block of College Avenue is a major urban planning success, notable not only within its Collegetown context, but within the context of the City as a whole, and no incentive (such as substantially increasing the maximum permitted building height)should be enacted that would provide an economic incentive to demolish any of the buildings, old or new, that together create this exceptional urban ensemble. After the adoption of the Collegetown Plan, a Collegetown survey was completed,titled "Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown,Individual Buildings,Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features,"by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder, dated June 14,2009. This study identified structures worthy of further research. The Larkin Building and the Chacona Block were identified as key elements of an architectural ensemble on the east side of the 400 block of College Avenue. Local designation is consistent with the Collegetown Plan and the 2009 Collegetown historic resources survey. 2. Relation to Zoning Laws The property is located in the Mixed Use-2 (MU-2)zoning district,the purpose and intent of which are as follows: The Mixed Use districts accommodate retail, office, service, hotel, and residential uses, and in most cases, multiple uses will be combined within the same building. The purpose is to create a dynamic urban environment in which uses reinforce each other and promote an attractive, walkable neighborhood. Located in central Collegetown, the Mixed Use districts allow the highest density within the Collegetown Area Form Districts. Redevelopment is anticipated and encouraged(with the exception of designated local landmarks), and the intent is to concentrate the majority of additional development within these districts. Local designation will not affect building uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Building height in the district is limited to a maximum of 6 stories and 80' and a minimum of 4 stories and 45'. The existing building is five stories. Local designation may restrict the future addition of a sixth story. Any proposed exterior alterations or additions would be subject to the area 13 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 requirements in the MU-2 Zoning district and would require ILPC review to assess the visual and historic compatibility. 3. Relation to Projected Public Improvements Streetscape improvements are planned for the length of College Avenue, including the 400 block within which this property is located. Improvements, which are currently in the planning process, will likely take place in 2020 and include realignment of the curb line and improvements to pedestrian and bike amenities. Historic designation would not affect this proposed work. 4. Relation to Plans for Renewal of the Site or the Area There are no plans in the City's Community Development Block Grant program or by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency for renewal of this site or the nearby area. Local landmark designation requires that any private proposal for material change of the exterior of the building or site undergo review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission before work commences. In Favor: Blalock,Elliott,Jones-Rounds, Schroeder Opposed:None Absent: Johnston,Lewis Vacancies: One 411-415 College Avenue: The Chacona Block. The Board agreed to delay its report until the September meeting. Christine O'Malley of Historic Ithaca briefly summarized the information in a written statement provided by the Interim Director of Historic Ithaca supporting local historic designation of this structure. Scott Whitham of Whitham Design; Steve Hugo of Holt Architects; and Kyle Karnes of Student Agencies (owner of the building)gave a presentation arguing against such historic designation. C. Development Patterns on South Hill—Discussion This item was tabled until the September meeting. (Elliott departed at 9:15 p.m., ending the meeting's quorum) 6. Reports Due to lack of quorum,there were no reports. 14 Approved by the Planning Board on 9/26/2017 7. Approval of Minutes Due to lack of quorum,no vote was taken on minutes, although revised draft minutes of the previous meeting had been prepared. 8. Adjournment Due to lack of quorum,no adjournment vote was taken. The meeting ended at 9:30 p.m. 15