Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-05-22Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes May 22, 2018 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Jack Elliott; Mitch Glass, Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Lauren Jones; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: One Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: 508-512 Edgewood Place – Minor Subdivision Christopher Anagnost, Christopher George Real Estate 101 Pier Road – Minor Subdivision Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.C. Linc Morse, Project Sponsor Hilton Canopy Hotel – Consideration of Conditions and Project Changes Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning and Design 744 S. Meadow Street – Retail Expansion Matt Oates, Benderson Development Corp. 207-209 First Street – Duplex David Barken for Barken Family Realty, LLC Andy Sciarabba, T.G. Miller, P.C. 750-770 Cascadilla St. – GreenStar Co-Op Expansion Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 2 232-236 Dryden Rd. – Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative North Campus Residential Initiative – Sketch Plan Kim Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Ryan Lombardi, Vice President for Student and Campus Life, Cornell Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Nicholas noted one minor change to the South Meadow Square project, removing the resolution for a Negative Declaration because applicant submitted additional materials proving further review of environmental impacts is not required. 2. Privilege of the Floor Regina Teasley of 201 Cliff Park Road spoke about the proposed North Campus residential expansion project and expressed concerns about the planned use of natural gas for heating. She referenced the Paris climate accords and said that she uses heat pumps in her home, and added that they are efficient and don’t produce emissions. She said that the proposal to use natural gas heating seems to go against the fossil fuel reduction goals put forth by both the City and the County. She said that climate change is a concern, that it’s affecting us now and will continue to affect us in the future, and that we should act now to address it. Catherine Wagner of 1665 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Dryden, also expressed concerns about the use of natural gas for heating in the proposed North Campus residential expansion. She said that the University, the City, the Town, and the County have all committed to dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades, beginning right now. She said she cannot understand why Cornell is even considering the use of natural gas for the new project. She said that the natural gas is likely to be produced by fracking, and that methane is often released from leaks at the drill site. And she observed that methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is when considered over a 20-year period. She said we should be reducing – not increasing – methane emissions, and this project will result in a substantial increase. She said that the Cornell EDR Maplewood project is using air source heat pumps and no natural gas, demonstrating that it is both possible and economically viable to build a major project that does not use natural gas. She added that the deep earth heat system Cornell has proposed is at least 10 years away, and it’s not clear that this experiment will work, though she hopes they are successful. She concluded by asking the Planning Board to require Cornell to make no use of natural gas for heating in the new project. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 3 Carol Chock of 39 Woodcrest Avenue said she supports both Maplewood and the North Campus residential expansion project. She said that the North Campus residential expansion will reduce housing pressure, but said that the plans she saw recently said new beds would first be filled by students displaced from other dormitories as those undergo renovations. She asked the Planning Board to encourage Cornell to find ways to create a net gain in beds. She also expressed support for Cornell exploring the possibility of deep earth geothermal, but said she heard that the timeframe would be not 10 but 16 years – in the best case. She said that current science indicates that climate change is happening more rapidly than previously anticipated and added that the Town recognizes this with its gas emissions standards for large projects, and that the city doesn’t need to wait to require energy analysis. She concluded by saying that if Cornell can achieve zero emissions in New York City on Roosevelt Island, there’s no reason why they can’t do it here. Inshik Lee, property manager for the Dewitt Mall, spoke about the Tompkins Financial signage proposal, saying that she is not so much concerned with the size of the signs but is a little worried about the cumulative effect of allowing variances for lights. She asked that they try to ensure that the lights are kept on a schedule or controlled in some way, as many of the tenants in the Dewitt Mall have had to purchase blackout shades. There being no further comments, Chair Lewis closed Privilege of the Floor. 3. Subdivision Review A. 508-512 Edgewood Pl Tax Parcel # 62.-2-4, by Christopher Anagnost for Randolph C & Melanie L Murphy. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the .718 acre (31,276 SF) property into two tax parcels: Parcel A measuring .326 acres (14,205 SF) with a width of 83.42 feet on Edgewood Place and containing an existing garage and driveway and Parcel B measuring .279 acres (12,136 SF) with a width of 61.30 feet on Edgewood Place and containing an existing single family home. The parcel is in the R-3a Zoning District which requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 SF, width at-street of 50 feet, front yard setback of 10’ and side yard setbacks of 10 and 5 feet, and a rear yard setback of 20%, or 50 feet. The site is in the East Hill Historic District; therefore, any future structure would be subject to approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, as well as site plan review. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review. Deputy Director Nicholas alerted board members to a new parcel map showing the proposed subdivision more clearly and a replacement resolution with slightly modified language correcting the description of the proposed subdivision (both provided). Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston: Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 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 #62.-2-4, by Christopher Anagnost for owners Randolph C and Melanie L Murphy, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the .718 acre (31,276 SF) property into two tax parcels: Parcel A measuring .326 acres (14,205 SF) and containing an existing garage and driveway, and Parcel B measuring .382 acres (16,622.68 SF) with a containing an existing single family home and a shared in common asphalt driveway. The parcel is in the R-3a Zoning District which requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 SF, width at-street of 50 feet, front yard setback of 10 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 and 5 feet, and a rear yard setback of 20%, or 50 feet. The applicant has submitted documentation demonstrating that, consistent with the decision of a 1981 Article 78 Civil Case, the parcels are not subject to frontage requirements. The site is in the East Hill Historic District; therefore, any future structure would be subject to approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission as well as site plan review, 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 Ci ty of Ithaca Tax Parcel #62.-2-4, by Christopher Anagnost for owners Randolph C and Melanie L Murphy. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Applicant Christopher Anagnost explained that the property to be subdivided was previously two lots, and that at some point after the house at 508 was destroyed, the lots had been combined. He was asked by the current owner to take a look at the property to identify ways of making it more attractive to potential buyers, and he suggested the subdivision to open up the possibility of someone building a new house on the 508 parcel. He noted that this is within the East Hill Historic District, so any new construction on the site would require approval by the ILPC. B. 101 Pier Road Tax Parcel # 17.-1-1.2 by Linc Morse for Organic Waterfront, LLC. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7.816 acre property into two tax parcels: Parcel A measuring 3.846 acres with 388.3 feet of frontage on Willow Ave and 182.3 feet of frontage on Pier Road, and containing four existing buildings; and Parcel B measuring 3.970 acres with approximately 450 feet of frontage Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 5 on Pier Road and containing one existing building. The property is in the Newman District which has a minimum side yard setbacks of 5 feet excluding town homes, and a rear yard setback of 20 feet from top of bank for properties located along the waterfront, and no minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, or front yard. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (h), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review. The property is slated for future mixed-use development; however, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property at this time to sell a portion of the property. These circumstances warrant a segmented environmental review for the subdivision, as a full environmental review will be conducted during the site plan approval process for the entire future development project comprising both parcels. Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston: 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 #17.-1-1.2, by Organic Waterfront LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7.816 acre property into two tax parcels: Parcel A measuring 3.846 acres with 388.3 feet of frontage on Willow Ave and 182.3 feet of frontage on Pier Road, and containing four existing buildings; and Parcel B measuring 3.970 acres with approximately 450 feet of frontage on Pier Road and containing one existing building. The property is in the Newman District which has a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet excluding town homes, and a rear yard setback of 20 feet fr om top of bank for properties located along the waterfront, and no minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage or front yard. The applicant is also seeking the release of an historic railroad easement from the City, 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 property is slated for future mixed use development; however, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property at this time to sell a portion of the property. These circumstances warrant a segmented environmental review for the subdivision, as a full environmental review will be conducted during the site plan approval process for the entire future development project comprising both parcels, 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 fu nding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 6 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 Par cel #17.-1-1.2, by Organic Waterfront LLC. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: One Applicant Noah Demarest referred the Board members to the map of the proposed subdivision (provided). He said it is a somewhat unusual boundary but that it follows the plans laid out in past sketch plan presentations. He explained that their intent was to separate out Guthrie’s parcel from the proposed City Harbor project. The draft plan was prepared by T.G. Miller. The idea being to free up the property so the GreenStar project (proposed to be built on the land Guthrie currently owns) can move forward. Linc Morse said that they hoped to facilitate the transfer of the property to Guthrie by mid-July. He also said that to meet the zoning requirements, they are demolishing an empty storage building currently on the property. Jones said she hopes the strange shape of the lot would not have negative impacts on future transfers of the property. Demarest said the shape of the lot is to capture both stormwater facilities and parking within the lot. Jones asked about utilities crossing the lot. David Herrick said that yes, utilities will have to cross the lot, and some, like water and sewer, will be granted to the city. He said that all easement locations will be indicated on the final site plans. Glass asked about how the dimension between the south property line and the bulkhead was determined. Demarest said they took the width of the proposed walkway and added a foot to give a little bit of a buffer. He added that improvements along the public walkway would be handled by City Harbor. Glass asked how wide it is. Demarest said 8 feet plus a foot, so 9 feet total. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 7 Herrick said it actually varies a little bit because the walls along the creek are irregular, but that they have included between 9 and 11 feet to accommodate the new retaining wall and pedestrian walkway. Nicholas asked applicants to provide a blown up drawing of the walkway with measurements. Morse said that they had finished up with meetings with the Army Corps and the DEC in the past week, and one of the things they discussed was how to define the water’s edge. Johnston asked about who would be responsible for constructing the sea wall. Morse said that they will be meeting with Elwyn & Palmer and T.G. Miller to look into sea wall options and determine what will work best based on the information they received from the Army Corps and the soil study results that just became available. He said they would present their findings during the Site Plan Review. 4. Site Plan Review C. Retail Expansion at 744 S. Meadow Street, by Matt Oates of Benderson Development Corp. Determination of Environmental Significance, and Consideration of Preliminary & Final Approval. The applicant is proposing to build a 3,200 SF addition to the western end of the existing 17,546 retail space. The project will require the removal of an existing dumpster enclosure – which will be relocated to an expanded dumpster area behind the building to the south. The project includes the additions of two parking spaces to the existing lot. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires environmental review. Nicholas referred the Board to a traffic analysis (hard copies distributed to them that evening) and said the document explains trip generation and how it fits into the environmental impact statement that was done for the Southwest, and that the applicants are under the threshold. She also said that it has been reviewed by the City’s transportation engineer. She further explained that as a result, they don’t have to do the CEQR resolution. Matt Oates presented updates to the Board and said that in addition to the trip generation study results they had provided a sight distance evaluation letter from a consultant indicating that they should include a “Driveway Ahead” sign, a recommendation that was based on the existing conditions, not on the proposed new construction. Oates said that they were also asked to modify the brick façade on the rear and side of the expansion, and presented additional elevations showing changes to the masonry color, and addition of some columns and piers. Cornish asked if the sidewalks on Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway extend all the way to the sidewalks on Elmira Road. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 8 Applicant said yes. Glass asked if they would be removing the three trees along the Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway. Applicant said yes, but they would be adding additional landscaping, including some trees out front and some shrubs. Johnston asked if the new masonry would match the existing. Applicant answered that the goal would be to match them as closely as they can. Jones asked if they will need to see materials. Petrina said she thinks no, if they are in the same palette as the building. Jones asked if any of the materials proposed are not already in use elsewhere in the building. Applicant said yes, the corrugated metal panels are a new addition. Chair Lewis asked if Board members wanted to see that material. Jones said she thought it would be good to see it if it’s not in use anywhere else. Applicant agreed to submit a cut sheet and sample as a condition of approval. Glass said that there are three existing trees where the plans are showing three new trees (across the driveway). Applicant said that must have been a mistake. Glass suggested that they place them on the corner, which is currently open. Applicant agreed. Elliott asked about the masonry detail proposed on the north elevation (rear). He asked to see a drawing showing the north elevation in its entirety. After some additional comments, Chair Lewis asked what the Board wants to do: Write in the elevation request as a condition, vote on preliminary, but not final, or something else? Director Cornish asked the applicant about his construction schedule. Applicant said that they are not ready to start building immediately, so returning the following month would not be a problem. He agreed to return with a material sample, a material cut sheet, a revised planting plan, and a full north elevation. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 9 D. Hilton Canopy Hotel at 115 Seneca Way, by Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning and Design on behalf of Baywood Hotels. Consideration of Conditions and Project Changes. This project, the construction of a seven-story hotel with 131 guest rooms, was approved on February 23, 2016. The applicant has submitted materials to satisfy conditions and is also requesting minor project changes. Applicant Yamila Fournier from Whitham Design appeared with Frank Russo from Bergmann Associates reviewed numerous project changes and conditions for approval. After discussion regarding the signage (which, as proposed, will require a variance), staff suggested that they move on to discuss the remaining topics, landscape, etc. Applicants will have to return with a complete signage package when they seek a variance. Adopted Project Changes: On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting minor site changes for the proposed Hilton Canopy Hotel at 320-24 M.L.K., Jr./E. State Street, which was originally approved by the Planning Board on February 24, 2015 with revisions approved on February 23, 2016, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re - opening the review, but are not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review application, and WHEREAS: the changes consist of minor site layout changes including a sidewalk extending from Seneca Way to E State/MKK Jr St, revisions to the planning area at E State/MLK St and Seneca Way Entrances, the additions of curb ramp at the Seneca Way entrance , and other changes, and WHEREAS: the Board, has on May 22, 2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised and updated plans entitled “Site Layout Plan”, “Site Details”, four color elevations (pages 3, 4, 5 & 6), “Signage Plan (pages 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12 13 & 14), “Site Lighting”, “Site Roof Plan”, “Roof Mechanical Screening Details”, “Planting Plan” (pages 18, 19 20 & 21) all dated May 2018 and prepared by Bergmann Architects Engineers and Planner, et.al; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Board, has on May 22, 2018, determined the proposed changes are consistent with the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance filed on January 27, 2015, and therefore no further Environmental Review is required, and WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on 2-23-16 approve the revised project subject to the following conditions: Conditions unique to revised proposal: i. The Planning Board strongly prefers the “proposed Site Plan – Option 2” showing a continuous pedestrian walkway between Seneca Way and M.L.K., Jr./E. State Street, and ii. Per verbal clarification at the February 23, 2016 meeting: 1) the approved fiber board cladding material has recessed horizontal and vertical edges that will provide corresponding shadow lines, and 2) façade windows will be recessed to provide clear surrounding reveals, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 10 iii. Applicant shall investigate adding small areas of fire-rated glass block (perhaps in horizontal stripes) to enliven the north end of the west façade, and Applicable Unsatisfied Conditions from the 2-24-15 Site Plan Approval: iv. Written approval from the City of Ithaca Fire Chief that the project meets all fire access needs, and v. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but not limited to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting (including any exterior ornamental lighting plan), and vi. Submission to the Planning Board of visual documentation that the penthouse enclosure walls are at the lowest height that will still provide effective screening for the mechanicals within, and vii. Submission to the Planning Board of a Landscape Plan keyed to a species list, and viii. Applicant to explore: (1) potential incorporation of decorative terra cotta salvaged during the demolition of the Strand Theater (which once stood on this site) into the low wall facing E. State Street or elsewhere on the site, and (2) potential re-creation, at some appropriate location on the building, of the prominent Strand stage-house mural (by artist David Finn) which formerly faced E. Seneca Street, and ix. Noise-producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and x. Bike racks shall be installed prior to granting of Certificate of Occupancy, and xi. Applicant shall work with the Community School of Music and Arts (CSMA) and appropriate City staff members to seek mutually-acceptable solutions that would improve loading and pedestrian access to CSMA (for example, via potential mutual cross-easements or a potential land swap between applicant and CSMA), and The following provisions discussed in the adopted FEAF, Part 3: xii. If drilled and / or driven steel piles are used in the foundation, then: (1) noise-producing installation work thereon shall be limited to the hours between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and (2) ongoing seismic testing shall be conducted to make certain the pile driving or drilling operations do not in any way have a negative impact on any adjacent or nearby structure, and xiii. Applicant shall, as appropriate, employ the dust-control measures listed in the “Impact on Air” section of the FEAF, Part 3 during the project’s construction, and xiv. All restaurant and hotel kitchen exhaust will be vented through the roof, and hotel laundry venting will be at ground-floor level, behind the existing concrete wall on the adjacent property, in an area not accessible to hotel guests or other pedestrians; any future exterior venting, not located in a screened location on the roof, that may cause noise, odor or street-level air flow shall be reviewed by Planning Division staff or the Planning Board, and xv. Exterior signage shall be of equal scale and quantity as the signage illustrated on the project renderings and elevations dated January 13, 2015, and xvi. Applicant shall actively pursue implementation of the mitigations (including proposed valet routes to and from the hotel) recommended in the Traffic Impact Study prepared by SRF and dated January 2015, though it is understood that providing a two-space loading area on Seneca Way and making signal-timing changes to two intersections will require the cooperation of governmental agencies, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 11 xvii. Applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner on the east (CSMA) to potentially provide a cross-block pedestrian passage extending through applicant’s and the adjacent owner’s parcels, and WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has determined that conditions i, ii, iv, vi, vii, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi an xvii have been satisfied; that condition v. has been partially satisfied and applicant will come back with a complete sign package, that conditions ix and x will be satisfied before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and conditions iii and viii have been waived as a result of information provided by the applicant, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby gra nt approval to the proposed changes. Moved by: Elliott Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: One E. 207-209 First Street Duplex, by David Barken for Barken Family Realty LLC. Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Recommendation to BZA. The applicant is proposing to build a duplex and install associated site improvements on the 12,609 SF (.3 acre) project site which comprises two tax parcels each containing one duplex. The project contains communal outdoor spaces including raised garden beds, exterior trash enclosures and walkways. Site development requires the removal of three mature trees. The current large parking area at the rear of 207 First will be converted to greenspace. The project requires two area variances: one for an existing side yard setback deficiency and the other to reduce parking by one space. This has been determined to be a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). However, because this action has been determined to have potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, it is being reviewed as an Unlisted Action. Due to a conflict of interest, Chair Lewis recused himself from consideration of the 207-209 First Street Duplex project. Jones served as acting chair in his stead. Applicant David Barken appeared to provide the Board with updates to the proposed project. Accompanying him was Andy Sciarabba from T.G. Miller, P.C. Barken reviewed changes made to the project to date, and addressed some of the concerns previously voiced by the neighbors. Public Hearing: On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston, Acting Chair Jones opened the public hearing. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 12 Joel Fredell of 208 Lake Avenue (sharing a back property line with the proposed project location) said that the plan as proposed presents a big problem for him and his wife. He said that the new building located 10 feet from the rear property line, would “loom over” their back yard, blocking out the sunlight, and that it would create noise and result in a loss of privacy. He said that their back yard is already hemmed in on the south property line by a two-story house in the rear of 206 Lake Avenue, adding that that property has two houses on it – one in front and one in the rear – that are owned and rented out by an absentee landlord. He said that the addition of the proposed duplex to the west would wall in his back yard, making the space much less desirable, if not unusable. He said their yard is a part of their home, and they don’t want to lose it. He said the proposed 10-foot setback is an unnecessary and unreasonable area variance, and noted that zoning requires a 33.5-foot setback from their property line. He said that this is not a question of “cheating” a few feet, but instead, a large variance. He said that for them, 33.5 feet would be a huge improvement to the proposed project. He said it’s only reasonable that the plan follows city zoning requirements to lessen impacts on his neighbors. He said that 20 years ago, they purchased their home, an 1882 duplex, which was at that time a rundown rental. He said that they have lived there, raised a family there, poured money into the building, and rented the other side for a modest rent. He said that given the already dense rental neighborhood around them, new density would almost certainly force them to move, creating another absentee landlord property in the house they have lived in for 25 years. He concluded that if owner occupied housing is to be maintained at all within the city, zoning rules and regulations must be enforced fairly. Fred Muratori of 214 Lake Avenue, the back yard of which borders the project, said that he thinks the proposed 10-foot setback is too small given the height of the proposed duplex. He said that his back yard is already bordered by several tall buildings, and that with the addition of the proposed duplex, his yard would be effectively surrounded on three sides, blocking out views and light, compromising privacy, and amplifying noise. He said that he thinks the existing 33- foot setback requirement was not arbitrarily set, but was intended to balance green space in an already dense neighborhood where houses are close to the street and separated by only a driveway’s width. He added that while the city is understandably eager to increase housing stock, the addition of a single duplex in an area that requires zoning variances and negatively impacting neighboring properties seems of dubious value relative to the major developments recently completed, planned, or underway. Ken Jaffe of 218 Lake Avenue said that the project is far enough from the home he shares with his wife that it should have no impact on them. He said that the Hancock Street project was much bigger and he supported it, but he opposes the request for the variance at 207-209 First Street. He said that he doesn’t understand granting the variance in light of the minimal value the project will have to the community in terms of additional housing units when compared to the negative impacts it will have on the neighbors, their quality of life and home values. He said that he supported the Hancock Street project because he sees Ithaca is a growing community that will require increased housing density coupled with thoughtful planning. He said that granting the variance is effectively an endorsement of what he termed “plop development” (plopping two- family homes behind existing houses in Ithaca by granting variances). He continued by saying that if the city supports this type of development as a wider plan for increasing density, he feels Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 13 strongly that it should be discussed publicly, and of changing zoning setback regulations, and of the impacts on owner-occupied housing which helps anchor neighborhoods. Armin Heurich of 115 Monroe Street (also owns 112 Monroe Street, a rental duplex) said he’s lived next door to 207-209 First Street for many years, witnessing it as dilapidated housing that should not have been rented being rented out. He said he was impressed to see the quick turnaround of conditions there once David Barken bought the properties. He said it’s been on balance very good for the neighborhood. He said that the Hancock Street development was very important to the neighborhood for improving low- to moderate income housing opportunities in the neighborhood, and he hasn’t seen any negative impacts, such as increased traffic. He said it also seems like they have provided ample parking because their lot never looks full. He said he likes the idea of pocket neighborhoods in general, and he supports this project because it would add taxable property within the city. He said he is not concerned with the addition of new housing immediately adjacent to his house, and he is in favor of the project because it will bring affordable housing to the neighborhood without a big increase in traffic. Anna Wilson of 206 Lake Avenue spoke in favor of the proposed pocket community. She said the style of development would build a sense of community and belonging without requiring the residents own a home. She said it will add much needed supply to the affordable rental market. She said Mr. Barken has been especially thoughtful concerning the impacts this new development would have on his neighbors, saying that he presented at the Northside United meeting in May, that he has kept them informed via email, and that he has been attentive, listening to concerns and answering questions. There being no further public comments, Acting Chair Jones closed the public hearing on a motion from Petrina, seconded by Elliott. Jones asked the applicant if he wanted to respond to any of the comments. D. Barken said he understands why some of his neighbors have concerns with respect to the variance he’s requesting for the rear yard setback. He said that a fatigue can set in with so much construction going on, and people are wary of infill housing. He said that he doesn’t think it should be a question of renter versus owner when it comes to who gets to enjoy a space and feel grounded in a neighborhood, who has access to garden space as well as a bit of breathing room from a growing city. He said that people want to live in this area because it’s within walking or biking distance from the city core. He said that they have come up with a plan for the site that took the Board’s suggestions to heart, and took neighbors’ considerations and environmental considerations into account as well. He continued, saying that they would be bringing four new beds to the market, and that change, however small, is their contribution to lowering the housing costs in the city, and added that he is investing his own labor and resources into the project because as a lifelong resident, he thinks it’s important. He concluded by saying that he had been in contact with both Northside United and with individual neighbors, and he planned to remain active in Northside United and to keep open the dialogue with individual neighbors as well. Elliott said they received a letter drawing a parallel between this project and what happened on South Hill. He asked the applicant to address that concern. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 14 Barken said that South Hill, due to its proximity to Ithaca College, has long been seen as a place where students want to reside. He said that that is not much of an issue in our Northside neighborhood, noting that some graduate students might trickle down there from up the hill, but not in huge numbers because it’s not generally seen as a neighborhood where students reside. Then he noted that some people come to the area as students and then decide to stay, and he said he thinks those people should be encouraged to stay and help grow the city. He said that not all people can afford to buy, and noted that rents in the city are disproportionately high, and added that it is his intent to provide people who want to rent with a good place to live with access to garden space and proximity to other amenities afforded by its proximity to the downtown. Johnston asked if they intended to use natural gas in the project. Barken said at this time they were intending to use electric. Johnston asked him to also look into alternative technologies, such as heat pumps. The Board next reviewed the FEAF Part 2. Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance: 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 duplex to be located at 207-209 First Street by David Barken, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to build a duplex and install associated site improvements on the 12,609 SF (.3 acre) project site which comprises two tax parcels each containing one duplex (tax parcels to be consolidated). The project contains communal outdoor spaces including raised garden beds, exterior trash enclosures, and walkways. Site development requires the removal of 3 mature trees. The current large parking area at the rear of 207 First St. will be converted to greenspace. The project is in the R2-b Zoning District and requires two area variances: one for an existing side yard setback deficiency and the other to reduce parking by one space, and WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). However, because this action has been determined to have potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, it is being reviewed as an Unlisted Action and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on April 24, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency for the project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on May 22, 2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Utility Plan (C101)” dated 5-8-18 and prepared by TG Miller PC, “Elevations (A-1)”showing floor plans” and “Elevations (A-1)” showing elevations dated 3-26-18 and “Site Plan (A-3)” dated 5-4-18 prepared by Hamel Architects PLLC and other application materials, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 15 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission; Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability; 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. Moved by: Elliott Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Petrina Against: None Abstain: Lewis Absent: None Vacancies: One The Board next discussed their recommendation(s) to the BZA regarding the rear yard setback of 10 feet and the elimination of one required parking space. Elliott asked the applicant if he had considered offering including the purchase of a bus pass with the rental to reduce the parking demand. Barken said no, but that the project will include bike racks and will encourage density in the urban core, which should limit a prospective tenant’s need for a vehicle. Glass said that zoning setbacks exist for a reason, but that he likes the project and wants to see it happen. He asked if applicant would be amenable to making changes to make the project more amenable to the neighbors. He asked what he has done to consider moving it (to the west). He also said he’d like to see a shadow study. Finally, he asked why no trees are proposed to be planted between the back of the building and the rear property line. Applicant explained that the original plan had the rear of the building along the side yard near the neighbor at 213 First St (so the building was oriented 90 degrees from the current layout). He also said that they arrived at the current orientation and placement of the building after multiple changes to the plan made at the request of the Board and the neighbor(s), and in an effort to preserve trees. He said that he did not think it was feasible to move the building much more to the west without encroaching on the back porch of 207. He said that with respect to the shadow study, he said his architect sent something over, but he was not sure if it would qualify. He concluded by saying that he was open to the idea of putting a tree behind the new building if there’s sufficient room for them. Elliott said he should try to ensure that any tree planted there isn’t taller than the house, as one of the concerns is shading the neighbor’s yard, noting that many trees mature at 20 feet, and there would probably be room for one of that height because the root ball wouldn’t be as big. The goal, he said, would be to provide visual screening for the neighbors. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 16 Petrina said she appreciated the many changes the applicants have made and the efforts made to preserve as many mature trees as possible. She also said she appreciates that the building is a lower height than originally proposed, noting that that is a good point to raise in light of some of the concerns raised by the neighbors regarding shading their yards. She said she thinks he should not consider the east façade as the rear of the building because there’s so much concern from the neighbors. She suggested that he rather consider it one of the primary façades when selecting materials, windows, etc. Johnston thanked the applicant for being receptive to making changes per the Board’s requests and for his efforts to reach out to the neighbors. He said that he thinks the pocket neighborhood would fit the character of what is there now, and is in line with what made the neighborhood attractive historically (density and proximity to downtown). Jones said she appreciates the proposed project. She also said that some of the comments they received related to concerns about the previously bad condition of the properties and problem behaviors from former tenants, but she feels like he will be a responsible landlord. She asked if he would be living onsite. Barken answered that he had been living at 207 for the past year while renovating a house two blocks away, where he recently moved. So, while he is not onsite, he is living nearby. Jones also said that she thinks his recent renovations seem to indicate that he will take care of the property, which should be some consolation to the neighbors. Jones next asked the other Board members if they would be more comfortable making a recommendation of approval to the BZA if there were screen trees along the rear property line, and/or maybe increasing the rear yard setback by 5 feet. Elliott noted that if the setback goes from 10 to 15 feet, the space becomes more usable for the residents. He said that the raised beds might be locking the applicant into the current layout. Jones said the Board supports this project in general, but she urged the applicant to explore the possibility of moving the house forward and away from the rear property line some by several feet. She also suggested he look into planting some screening vegetation and asked him to have a shadow study done and submit it to the Board. Deputy Director Nicholas suggested that applicant do a shadow study to share with the BZA, perhaps one showing the currently proposed 10-foot setback and another showing the 15-foot setback. Sciarabba asked if existing trees should be taken into account. Director Cornish said yes, if possible. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 17 Jones suggested they provide photos documenting what current conditions are now given the existing trees, and that they also model how the building would contribute to adding shadows or not. After a few additional comments and suggestions from the Board, discussion ended and Jones called a five-minute recess. F. 750-770 Cascadilla Street, GreenStar Cooperative Market. Noah Demarest for the Guthrie Clinic. Public Hearing, and Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant proposes to relocate GreenStar Cooperative Market from its current location at 701 West Buffalo Street to an existing 29,978 SF building on a 2.8 acre project site comprising two tax parcels at 750 & 770 Cascadilla Street. The site is currently occupied by two one-story concrete block structures, covering 37,615 SF and 29,978 SF. There is 17,543 SF of greenspace, and the remainder of the site is paved. The larger of the two buildings will be demolished to make way for a 160+/- car parking area, which will feature new landscaping and stormwater treatment systems. New greenspaces, entry and an outdoor café will be developed around the perimeter of the building. The building will be connected to Cascadilla Street by a new sidewalk along the east edge of the lot, and new sidewalks will be installed along the Cascadilla Street frontage to connect the site with the City sidewalk network. A timber structure along the street edge will incorporate signage and parking lot screening and create a defined street edge. The project is in the waterfront Market District (MD). This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(d) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) and requires environmental review. Chair Lewis rejoined the Board and called the meeting to order. Noah Demarest from Stream Collaborative briefly reviewed the project proposal in advance of the public hearing, highlighting a few changes made since the last meeting, including widening the pedestrian walkway, changes to some of the species of trees to be planted, modifying the parking lot so that the curb cut closest to Fulton Street is one way (entrance only), removal of striping (17 spaces) in an area owned by Carpenter Business Park pending the finalization of an agreement with them, removal from the plans of proposed improvements to the property bordered by Mirabito (pending agreement made with that property owner), and the inclusion of an emergency exit on the rear of the building and addition of a sidewalk to connect it, and a sketch of the sidewalk connection to the crosswalk on Fulton Street. Public Hearing: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Glass, Chair Lewis opened the public hearing. Sheryl Swink, of 321 N. Albany Street, said that she sees the project as a very welcome improvement to that area of Cascadilla Street. She expressed support of the design, and of the location because it will keep GreenStar accessible to people who walk and bike. She said she is Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 18 very happy to see that it will be easy for Northside residents to access by foot or bicycle, while also remaining accessible to people on the West End. There being no further public comments, Chair Lewis closed the public hearing on a motion from Elliott, seconded by Johnston. The Board next reviewed the FEAF Part 3. Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance: On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a building remodel and site improvements for GreenStar Cooperative Market, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to relocate GreenStar Cooperative Market from its current location at 701 West Buffalo Street to an existing 29,978 SF building on a 2.8 acre project site comprising two tax parcels at 750 & 770 Cascadilla Street. The site is currently occupied by two one-story concrete block structures, covering 37,615 SF and 29,978 SF. There is 17,543 SF of greenspace, and the remainder of the site is paved. The larger of the two buildings will be demolished to make way for a 150+/- car parking area, which will feature new landscaping and stormwater treatment systems. New greenspaces, entry and an outdoor café will be developed around the perimeter of the building. The building will be connected to Cascadilla Street by a new sidewalk along the east edge of the lot, and new sidewalks will be installed along the Cascadilla Street frontage to connect the site with the City sidewalk network. A timber structure along the street edge will incorporate signage and parking lot screening and create a defined st reet edge. The project in the waterfront Market District (MD), and WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(d) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) and requires environmental review. WHEREAS: the Ithaca Industrial Development Agency (IDA), a potentially involved agency, has consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on April 24, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency for the project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on May 22, 2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Board; drawings titled “Existing Conditions (C101)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C102)”, “Grading and Drainage Plan (C103)”, “Utility Plan (C104)”, “Details (C201)”, “Demo Plan (L100)”, “Layout Plan (L101)” showing the existing easements, “Perspective Views (L002)” and “Site Elevations (L201 & L202)”, all dated 3/23/18, “Proposed Easements (L003)” dated 5/1/18 and “Layout Plan (L101)”, “Planting Plan (L103)” “Site Structures (L502)” and “Site Details (L501)” dated 5/15/18 and prepared by Stream Collaborative and other application materials, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 19 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission; Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability; 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. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: One G. 232-236 Dryden Road Apartments (60 Units). Stream Collaborative for Visum Development Group. Consideration of project changes. Deputy Director Nicholas explained that the Board would not be considering revisions to the TDMP tonight because the applicant had yet to submit documentation of those changes. Applicant Noah Demarest agreed to submit documentation and return to the Board at a later date for approval of those changes. Demarest reviewed the changes to the mechanical screening plan, to enclose the mechanicals in boxes and mount metal screening to the boxes, which eliminates the need to create additional intrusions into the roofing material. Adopted Project Changes: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting a change for the apartment building at 232 -236 Dryden Road, which was originally approved by the Planning Board on 6-27-17 with staff approved revisions on 10-30-17, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re - opening the review, but are not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review application, and WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting to arrange the rooftop mechanicals in groups with integrated decorative metal screens, rather than the previously approved plan to group all the mechanicals together behind a wooden screen, and WHEREAS: the Board, has on May 22, 2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised and updated plans entitled “Rooftop Plan Mechanical (ASI-36.0) and Mechanical Screen- Elevation (ASI-36.1) dated May 14, 2018, and prepared by Stream Collaborative and other application materials, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 20 WHEREAS: the Board, has on May 22, 2018, determined the proposed changes are consistent with the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance filed on June 26, 2017, and, therefore, no further Environmental Review is required, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant approval to the proposed change subject to the following unsatisfied conditions from the May 27, 2017, Site Plan Approval: i. Submission of floor plans, and ii. Submission of a revised planting plan with complete planting schedule, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of details for proposed interpretive signage, and iv. Submission to Planning Board of all project details, including but not limited to building materials, site furnishings, lighting, signage, paving, fencing, and railings, and v. Balcony doors on the façade facing Dryden Road shall be of the same ‘earthen jug’ color as all the other project doors, and balcony soffits shall be clad in wood of the same ‘Redwood’ color as the balcony shingles, and vi. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and viii. 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. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: One H. North Campus Residential Initiative – Sketch Plan Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects; Ryan Lombardi, Vice President for Student and Campus Life, Cornell; and Kim Michaels of Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels presented the proposed plans for the North Campus Residential Initiative. Wolf explained that the site straddles the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, and Village of Cayuga Heights (but predominately in the City), will be situated on ground that was previously disturbed (parking lots or recreational fields), and will create 2,000 new beds for the University. Lombardi said he’s been in his position for about three years now, and it was apparent from very early on that in order to improve on the student experience he would need to prioritize residential housing. He did a study and developed a master plan to examine challenges and how to address them. He explained that they have an inadequate stock of housing to meet demand and a lot of deferred maintenance within the existing housing supply. He said that their hope is that this new project will allow them to get 100% of first and second year students into on-campus housing, and in the right kind of housing (double rooms, community focused, etc.), as well as allow them to do much needed maintenance and renovations to existing dorms. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 21 Wolf said that the project would comply with all existing zoning and land use regulations. Heights would range from 2 to 5 stories, based on the requirements of the municipality in which a given building is located. The buildings would be designed to a silver LEED standard. She presented details of the proposed site plans and then invited comments and questions from the Board. Elliott suggested they perform an acoustic analysis to ensure ambient noise will not preclude the enjoyment of the outdoor spaces. He also said that they won’t be able to tie the new buildings to the Lake Source Cooling system because it is already at capacity. He said he is surprised they are only targeting the buildings to the LEED silver standard, instead of gold or platinum, noting that one way to get around the challenges of heating and cooling is to improve energy efficiency. Michaels responded by saying that it is her understanding that Lake Source Cooling is not tapped out, but that for some number of hours annually, the system sometimes reaches peak load and they have to run chillers, but the majority of the time, there is capacity – and the University has planned for this development. She said they would provide more documentation, but she wanted to make that correction. Elliott said that it is, however, a system with finite capacity, and as Cornell builds more buildings, it’s tapping into that. He said the University’s plans go well beyond this one project, so they need to consider how to address it before they reach capacity. Jones said the City recently developed a Green Building Policy, and they will want to see how their plans align with that. Wolf said that that would be part of their energy study. After a few more comments, Chair Lewis thanked the applicants for their time and concluded the discussion. 5. Zoning Appeals  #3094, 318-320 W Seneca St, Area Variance The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal. There is no exterior physical change to the property. The Board understands that occupancy may be limited to three unrelated individuals, however given the shortage of house this seems a simple way to add an additional bedroom.  #3095, 417 E. Lincoln St., Area Variance The Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal but feels that more information is needed to determine if this is the only or the best solution as it is awkward for stairs to meet the sidewalk edge.  #3096, 207-209 First St, Area Variance The Board does not identify any long term planning impacts. The Board supports the increased density done in a manner that is sensitive to its context and appreciates the design changes the Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 26, 2018 22 appellant has made to make this pocket neighborhood fit better into the overall residential neighborhood. They also feel that there are additional changes that could be made to address neighbors’ concerns without compromising the project. First, the appellant could increase the proposed rear yard setback from 10-15’ without negatively affecting the site layout. Additionally the Board intends to require vegetative screening and an attractive rear façade during site plan review.  #3097, 202 E Tompkins St, Area Variance Members of the Board do not support granting this variance as the project is designed and prefer to see a design that is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 6. Old/New Business A. Chainworks District FGEIS – Special Meeting on May 29 B. Committee of the Whole Meeting Chainworks May 30 Deputy Director Nicholas reminded Board members of upcoming special meeting(s) related to Chainworks, and reviewed the addition of the City Centre leasing office to the agenda of the upcoming special meeting of the PDB. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair (verbal) No report. B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal) No report. 8. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina, the April 24, 2018 minutes were unanimously approved with no modifications. 5. Adjournment: On a motion by Glass, seconded by Johnston, the meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m.