Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2019-02-26 Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes February 26, 2019 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Mitch Glass, Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Megan Wilson, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anne Redmond, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan -- Review of Town PDZ, Review of Draft Findings & FGEIS Notice of Completion James Gensel for David Lubin, Unchained Properties CJ Randall, Randall + West NCRE Cornell University – Presentation & Public Hearing Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 Architects Arvind Tikku, ikon.5 Architects Harold’s Square – Review of Project Changes Eric Ekman, McGuire Development Scott Selin, CJS Architects City Centre – Review of Proposed Signage Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design Gaelin Walsh, Whitham Planning and Design Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 2 Jeff Smetana, Newman Development Group, LLC Pat Boni, Saxton Signs Falls Park Apartments (74 Units) 121-125 Lake Street by IFR Development LLC – Review of New Material Kimberley Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Frost Travis, IFR Development 815-817 N. Aurora Street – Two New Two-Family Dwellings – Determination of Environmental Significance & Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Daniel Hirtler, Daniel Hirtler Architecture Stavros Stavropoulos, Property Owner 130 Cherry Street – Arthaus Declaration of Lead Agency & Project Overview Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design James Gensel, Fagan Engineering Rebecca Cudney, Vecino Group 402 S. Cayuga Street Cayuga Street Townhomes Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects 402 Wood Street Wood Street – Perdita Flats Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Others Attending: Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Deputy Director Nicholas noted the addition of the sign variance application for 301 E. State Street (City Centre) under Planning Board Recommendations to the BZA. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 3 2. Privilege of the Floor Chair Lewis then opened Privilege of the Floor. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed privilege of the floor. 3. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, the October 30, 2018 minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications. On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Petrina, the December 18, 2018 and January 22, 2019 minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications. 4. Site Plan Review A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (FGEIS), 620 S. Aurora St. by Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Review of Town PDZ, Review of Draft Findings & FGEIS Notice of Completion. The proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000 SF former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing. The site’s redevelopment would bridge South Hill and Downtown Ithaca, the Town and the City of Ithaca, by providing multiple intermodal access routes including a highly-desired trail connection. The project will be completed in multiple phases over a period of several years with the initial phases involving the redevelopment of the existing structures. Current redevelopment of this property will focus on retrofitting existing buildings and infrastructure for new uses. Using the existing structures, residential, commercial, studio workspaces, and office development are proposed to be predominantly within the City of Ithaca, while manufacturing will be within both the Town and City of Ithaca. Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineers and CJ Randall of Randall + West appeared on behalf of applicant David Lubin (Unchained Properties) to present the Findings Statement and completed FGEIS. Board Counsel Walters said the Board has in front of them a resolution to adopt the FGEIS. He said this document has been in production since the end of the DGEIS public comment period on May 25, 2016. He said that with few minor exceptions, the Board has seen every piece of this document, some of them several times. He said the only thing they haven’t seen is the changes to the FGEIS that came out of their drafting of the Findings Statement, collected in the errata summary sheet. Several of these items relate to aspects of the project that have changed or moved forward, necessitating updates to the language in the FGEIS. He said that you can’t have anything in the Findings Statement that isn’t in the FGEIS. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 4 Gensel then reviewed all the proposed changes to the FGEIS outlined in the errata summary sheet. Walters then explained next steps, saying that if they adopt the Notice of Completion of the FGEIS tonight they can consider the Findings at their next meeting. He said there needs to be a minimum of 10 days between the issuance of the FGEIS and the adoption of the Findings Statement. He said they did a very thorough review of all materials and made sure everything related to impacts or mitigation in the FGEIS was captured in the draft Findings Statement. He said that because this is a Generic EIS, the Planning Board, when reviewing future phases of the project, will have to look at what’s before them and determine if it’s included in the GEIS, both in terms of impact analysis and in terms of whether the proposed mitigation has been complied with. The Findings Statement provides a comprehensive media by media summary of project impacts and mitigations. It will be up to the applicant when they come back to demonstrate that what they are doing falls within the impact review done for the EIS. Walters also referred them to a checklist provided to help the Board determine if additional environmental impact analysis is necessary. Walters said that the mitigations absolutely require that the site be remediated before it is put back into use. He said that that a central concern raised during the public comment period on the DGEIS was how the Board would ensure that all required remediation has taken place. He said that step one is for the Board to impose it as mitigation and that remediation must be completed before site plan approvals are granted. The applicant, as they return with projects, will have to go through each of the environmental mitigations to demonstrate compliance and explain to the Board how they have met the criteria. He said the Board will be reviewing documents from the DEC, as the DEC is responsible for the Record of Decision as the site is remediated. Gensel said that the remediation work has already begun and the documents have been updated to reflect that. The Board reviewed the Health and Safety and Traffic sections of the Findings Statement. After some additional discussion, the Board considered the Notice of Completion. Adopted Resolution for Notice of FGEIS Completion: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca has received applications to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board (City Planning Board) for Site Plan Approval and to the City of Ithaca Common Council (Common Council) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Chain Works District (CWD) Project (Project) to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street, by James Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties (Project Sponsor), and WHEREAS: the Project is a proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the 95-acre former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility (Site) that traverses the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The Site is located along the New York State Route 96B corridor and where Turner Street and South Cayuga Street meet the northern edge of South Hill. The Project involves the redevelopment and rehabilitation of the existing Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 5 architecture and landscape into a 1.7 million square foot (SF) mixed-use “live, work, play” district. The Project consists of removing approximately 92,320 SF of the existing 821,200 SF buildings, constructing 86,600 SF of vertical additions, and constructing 890,700 SF of new buildings. The Project is estimated to be completed over a seven- to ten-year period. The first phase (Phase I) will consist of redeveloping four existing buildings generally located at the northern and southern most ends of the Site. These first four buildings are approximately 331,450 SF and will contain a mix of office, residential, and industrial uses. Subsequent phases of development will be determined as the Project proceeds and will include new structures to complete a full buildout of 1,706,150 SF consisting of approximately 915 residential dwelling units, 184,350 SF of commercial space and 260,900 SF of industrial use, and WHEREAS: infrastructure work related to the full development of the Project will include the following: (1) removing select buildings to create public courtyard areas and a network of open spaces and roads; (2) creating pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections throughout the Site from South Hill to Downtown Ithaca; (3) improving the existing roads within the Site while creating new access points into the Site; (4) mitigating existing environmental impacts from historic uses; (5) fostering the development of a link, the Gateway Trail, to the Black Diamond Trail network; and (6) installing stormwater management facilities, lighting, public water and utilities, landscaping and other Site amenities, and WHEREAS: development of the Site is fostered by a proposed rezoning of the City portion of the Site into a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the Town portion into a Planned Development Zone (PDZ). Design Guidelines are set forth in the proposed PUD/PDZ Zoning Code, and WHEREAS: the Project Sponsor has also applied for Site Plan Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and PDZ approval from the Town Board, and WHEREAS: the Site is listed on the New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Registry as a “Class 2 Site” which indicates the property contains contamination that constitutes a significant threat to public healt h or the environment. Implementation of the proposed Project will require remediation of contaminated portions of the Site to an acceptable standard for the intended use, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR), §176-4 B. (1) (d), (i), (j), (k) and (n), and (2), (3) and (6), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (collectively, SEQR), §617.4 (b) (2), (3), (5)(iii) and (6)(ii) & (iv) and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Project requires approval from the City of Ithaca Common Council, the City Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Common Council, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, all consented to the City Planning Board being Lead Agency for this Project, and WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 2, 2014, directing the applicant to prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Project, in accordance with SEQR, and WHEREAS: on October 18, 2014, the City Planning Board held a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the DGEIS, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 6 WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, after advertising a public comment period on the proposed scope, also solicited written comments from involved and interested agencies and the public regarding the issues to be analyzed, and WHEREAS: the City Planning Board did, on January 13, 2015, approve a Final Scoping Document, and WHEREAS: on January 26, 2016 the Project Sponsor submitted a DGEIS to the City Planning Board, which examined possible environmental impacts, and WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, did on March 8, 2016, review the DGEIS for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and did, with the assistance of City staff and the City’s special counsel, Phillips Lytle LLP, find the DGEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, and WHEREAS: a Notice of Completion of the DGEIS and Notice of Public Hearing appeared in The It haca Journal on March 18, 2016 and the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) on March 23, 2016, and WHEREAS: on March 29, 2016, the City Planning Board held a public hearing to receive comments from the public regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the DGEIS, and WHEREAS: due to extensive public interest in the Project and several requests made during the DGEIS public hearing, the public comment period, originally scheduled to expire on May 10, 2016, was extended until May 25, 2016, and WHEREAS: the City Planning Board has responded in the FGEIS to all substantive public comments received on the DGEIS, and does on February 26, 2019 approve in substance the proposed responses to comments received on the DGEIS, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the City Planning Board hereby issues the FGEIS for the Project, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR 617 (the SEQRA regulations) and Ordinance No. 90-13 of CEQR, and be it further RESOLVED, that the City Planning Board hereby directs the City of Ithaca Planning Staff to file a Notice of Completeness of the FGEIS and issue the FGEIS as required under SEQR (6 NYCRR Parts 617.10 and 617.21 and CEQR Part 36-10), and to distribute the FGEIS to all involved and interested agencies and the public. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Johnston In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston; Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 7 B. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campus by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Presentation & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for sophomores and the other for freshmen) on two sites on North Campus. The sophomore site will have four residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 59,700 SF, 1,200-seat, dining facility. The sophomore site is mainly in the City of Ithaca with a small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights; however, all buildings are in the City. The freshman site will have three new residential buildings (each spanning the City and Town line) with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space – 223,400 of which is in the City, and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The buildings will be between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The project is in three zoning districts: the U- I zoning district in the City in which the proposed five stories and 55 feet are allowed; the Low Density Residential District (LDR) in the Town which allows for the proposed two-story residence halls (with a special permit); and the Multiple Housing District within Cayuga Heights in which no buildings are proposed. This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii), for which the Lead Agency issued a Negative Declaration on December 18, 2018. Adam Walters explained he had drafted a letter responding to comments from attorney Claudia Braymer regarding the NCRE and asked if any Board members had any questions. There being no questions for him from the Board, Walters then left the meeting. Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects and Alan Chimacoff of ikon.5 Architects then appeared in front of the board to present project updates. Wolf discussed changes to site circulation and access as a result of the project, and Chimacoff discussed the programmatic access and interplay between indoor and outdoor spaces and shared some elevations with the Board. Public Hearing On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones. Jones asked the applicants if they had received a copy of the letter from the Cornell Heights Neighborhood Association. Applicants said they had. Jones asked if they wanted to address the question of late night noise. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 8 Wolf said they would be scheduling a meeting with the Cornell Heights Neighborhood Association to speak with them about their concerns. Michaels said they had already met with them once and that they would have further meetings to address their concerns. She said she thinks that part of the intent of the project is to develop a stronger community on campus and to keep students close to their living locations. She said there would also be adult residence hall directors and programming designed to build a sense of community, including the greater community. Wolf said that all the programs that Cornell has in place for managing their resident halls, including Campus Police, will be in place here as well. Director Cornish said it feels as if the service areas are really far apart, and the buildings are big. She asked how they will get all the trash to the service areas. Chimacoff said there are a series of trash chutes, and maintenance people would collect it and move it to collection areas. He said it will all be done inside the buildings so the workers won’t have to go outside to move it in inclement weather, etc. Cornish said another concern is along Triphammer Road. She asked if the back-of-house operations would be visible from the sororities there. Wolf said they met with representatives from the sororities and the American Indian program house in the previous week and that both were satisfied with the proposed fencing and landscaping there. Wolf said that the grade of the loading dock had been lowered from previous submittals, and the sunken dock will make it much easier to screen. Petrina said that she likes the buildings, but they will result in very long interior hallways. She asked if there is any way, any technology in place to help protect students from a gunman. She asked if someone were to get in if they would have access to the entire quarter-mile-long floor, or if there is technology in place to shut down parts of the buildings. Chimacoff said they had not considered it. He said that the logistics of making environments that are sociable at this scale has been their focus. Petrina said it’s come to her mind because of the anniversary of the Parkland shooting. She asked if the public will have access to the cafes or just students. Chimacoff said the buildings will have electronic access control throughout, and to what extent those are turned on or off is an administrative decision. He said in the dining areas, access will be controlled for economic reasons because students pay for food plans. Arvind Tikku said that all the entrances to the dorms are access controlled, so if you were a member of the public coming into a lower level, you wouldn’t be able to rise up to the dorm levels. Further, all the bedrooms are access controlled, not just with a card, but by a numerical code, so there are layers of control in place. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 9 Johnston asked about a light that seemed to be missing from one version of the plan to the most current. Wolf said that seems to be an oversight, and the final lighting plan is still being developed. Elliott said that he likes the buildings overall, but he said he thinks they can all agree that buildings do communicate ideas. He said that when it comes to the North side, his first reaction is: “Where’s the moat?” He said he is not sure if the building designs have already gone out to tender, how fluid the designs are at this stage, but he wonders if there is an opportunity to break the scale down, maybe step down to three stories towards the street so there is the same expression you see on the East side. He said right now it’s monolithic, and he would not describe the architecture as humane. Chimacoff said he thinks it’s a good question, but he’s not sure if anything can be done at this point. He said the subdivisions of the building, and the introductions of the glass study lounges were meant to address that. Elliott said he’s talking about walls, not just articulation. Chimacoff said that there are some aspects have been committed. He said each piece of terra cotta has to be pre-ordered and prefabricated. Chair Lewis said that if the design is already predetermined, they should not spend any more time talking about it. He said that he agrees with Elliott’s point and that the North façade is by far the least successful. It is institutional. Elliott said if it’s already committed, he understands, but he asked, “If so, what’s the point of this exchange?” After some additional discussion, Chair Lewis asked from input from other Board members. Jones said she shares Elliott’s concerns and would like to explore ways to make the North façade more humane, but she isn’t sure what can be done, as it seems like the design is set. Lewis asked how the rest of the Board feels about this façade, the design overall, and their role in the process. Johnston said he supports the design overall, but he supports the opinions of the architects on the Board. Petrina agreed she supports the project overall, but shares Elliott’s concerns about the North façade. She said it feels frustrating if nothing can be done. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 10 Glass said he feels the project schedule is precluding the Board from having real input on the project. He said that while he agrees with Elliott’s concerns about the monolithic quality of the façade, the question of the Board’s input is perhaps the more important one. Jones agreed that the schedule moving so quickly that they Board doesn’t get to have much input on site plan review after SEQR feels frustrating. She said she is wondering how much input they will have, although generally she is supportive of the project. Blalock said that while he generally supports the project, and agrees with some of Elliott’s concerns, that when it comes to how this project interfaces with the comprehensive plan and so on, he would be more concerned if a row of houses were facing the North façade, but it’s his understanding that all the property in that view shed is Cornell’s. He said that where he comes down is that if that’s what Cornell wants and it’s not affecting other neighbors, it’s what they want. Blalock then asked for an inventory/ program list for the amenities in each building. Applicants agreed to provide annotated drawings. After some additional discussion, applicants agreed to bring material samples and discuss lighting and landscape plan, signage, outdoor seating, and an updated view from the Historic District to the next meeting. Michaels said they were hoping to break ground in the spring and inquired about the possibility of getting preliminary approval at the next meeting so they could begin earthwork and foundation work. Elliott said his concerns aren’t related to materiality, and he would feel better about the project if there were architectural moves, formal moves made to bring down the scale. Glass and Petrina agreed. Johnston asked if this issue is similar (in terms of precedent) to other cases where they have been asked to consider preliminary approval before other details of the project have been determined. Director Cornish said that it comes down to what they are comfortable with, and for preliminary approval, it means that the footprints are not going to change, that walkways won’t change, and that what you see in the plans is set. Jones asked about a reasonable timeframe between preliminary and final approvals (when buildings would be going up). Applicants said four to six months seems reasonable. Petrina said that she thinks they need to do a really in-depth look at the hardscape and layouts before granting preliminary approval. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 11 C. Harold’s Square, 123-127, 133, 135, and 137-139 E. State Street, The Commons, by McGuire Development and CJS Architects. Project Changes. The applicant is requesting building façade changes for the proposed Harold’s Square Mixed-Use Project. The project was originally approved by the Board on August 27, 2013 and was subsequently granted a two-year extension of Site Plan Approval until August 27, 2017. The Board later approved building façade and materials changes on August 23, 2016, and again on May 24, 2017. The applicant is now requesting additional façade changes, primarily affecting the Commons façade. Scott Selin of CJS Architects, and Eric Ekman of McGuire Development Group appeared to present project revisions. After discussion, applicants agreed to include a green screen and green roof elements on the roof of the shorter, Commons-facing buildings. Applicants also agreed to revert to the Commons-facing façade color patterning depicted in the elevations dated October 24, 2018. Board members expressed appreciation of the addition of balconies on the corners of the taller buildings. Applicants also agreed to submit additional elevations showing the interior elevations of the Commons-facing courtyard. Adopted Resolution for Approval of Project Changes On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting materials and building façade changes for the proposed Harold’s Square Mixed-Use Project. The project was originally approved by the Board on August 27, 2013, and for which the Board subsequently granted a two-year extension of Site Plan Approval until August 27, 2017. The Board later approved building façade and materials changes on August 23, 2016, and on May 23, 2017, 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 not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review Application, and WHEREAS: The applicant is now requesting the following changes: replacement of precast concrete elements on the first floor north and west facades with Terra Cotta, as previously approved for the 2nd to 5th floors; replacement of precast concrete copings on the 5th story roof at the north and west facades with aluminum composite panel copings; the addition of residential balconies to the NW, SE and SW corners of the building; elimination of two windows per floor on the south façade of the building to comply with the percent openings allowed by the 2015 International Building Code as adopted by New York State; redistribution of the windows on the five-story portion of the west façade, retaining the same number of windows; removal of 30 micro-units from the 2nd to 5th floors to accommodate 10,000 SF of commercial space; increasing the Terra Cotta cladding on the east elevation of the 2nd to 5th floors to cover the entire façade facing the courtyard (replacing insulated metal panel on this portion of the façade); and introducing Terra Cotta cladding on the 1st floor of the Sage Building west elevation facing the courtyard, and other façade changes, and other façade changes, and WHEREAS: the Board has on February 26, 2019, reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised plans entitled “Proposed Building Materials, North Elevation,” “Proposed North Elevation,” “Comparative Partial North Elevation,” and “Comparative North Elevation Perspectives,” dated February 15, 2019, and all prepared by CJS Architects, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 12 WHEREAS: the Board has, on February 26, 2019, determined that the proposed changes are consistent with the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance filed on June 25, 2013, therefore, no further Environmental Review is required, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board approves the changes proposed by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: Unmet Agreed Upon Mitigations as Per FEAF, Part 3, Adopted on June 25, 2013 i. Noise‐producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., and ii. Rehabilitation of the Sage Block will include the following: a. Maintaining the existing terra cotta cornice at the north and northwest corner of the building, and b. Cleaning, repointing, and repairing the existing exterior masonry walls, and c. Repair and/or replacement of the existing roof, and d. New fenestration at existing masonry openings on the north and west sides of the building. When practical, existing windows will be repaired, but if they are deteriorated to the point of requiring replacement, they will be replaced to match design, color, texture, and perhaps material construction, and e. Replacement window design will reflect a characteristic William H. Miller divided‐light pattern at the upper window areas, similar to what currently exists on the Sage Block building, and f. The incorporation of the west fenestration into the new project atrium space, and g. The existing interior character will be restored and maintained wherever possible, with additional modifications developed per the needs and requirements of potential tenants, and iii. Plans for the exterior renovation of the Sage Block will require review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), using the same standards it uses to evaluate proposed work on locally‐designated buildings. Of particular interest are (1) the preservation of the entire cornice; (2) evaluation of the existing fenestration by a qualified professional with significant experience in restoring wood windows; (3) proper techniques for cleaning, repointing and repairing the existing exterior masonry; and (4) reconstruction of the northwest corner where brickwork is interlocked with the brickwork of 135 E. State Street, and iv. The carved limestone detailing and green roof tiles of 123‐127 E. State Street shall be salvaged and donated to an architectural elements reuse firm or agency — or, if feasible, the salvaged carved limestone detailing could be used in the interior of the Harold’s Square project, if the applicant so desires, and Additional Unmet Conditions Identified in Site Plan Review: v. Submission to Planning Board of site details, including, but not limited to, lighting, signage, site furnishings and paving materials, and vi. Submission to the Project Review Committee of the final 4th floor roof plan (now 5th floor); this plan shall incorporate a light-colored roofing material and, if feasible, some areas of green roof, and vii. Tower roof shall also be of light-colored roofing material, and viii. Bicycle storage for retail, office and residential tenants shall be provided within the building, and ix. Approval from the Planning Board of the proposed bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 13 x. Bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage requires approval from the Board of Public Works, and xi. Applicant must obtain an encroachment agreement for any portion of the project, including door swings, that impacts City property, and xii. Any changes to the design of the building that affects the exterior appearance, including rooftop mechanicals, must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, and xiii. Approval in writing from the Fire Department confirming the project complies with all life safety needs, and xiv. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer. New Conditions Related to the Approved Changes i. Submission to Planning Board of a site plan and elevations for the courtyard entry area, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised fifth floor rooftop plan and relevant elevations, showing partial screening of the rooftop mechanicals to include a potential a green screen, and iii. Applicant will revise the Commons façade elevation of the building section with the fifth floor terrace to remove horizontal banding - consistent with proposed elevations dated October 24, 2018. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Johnston In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancy: None D. City Centre Signage, 301 E. State/MLK St. Gaelin Walsh of Whitham Planning and Design on behalf of Jeff Smetana for Newman Development Group, LLC. Review of Proposed Signage. The project was approved by the Planning Board on May 27, 2017. The applicant is now seeking approval of the proposed signage, as conditioned in its original site plan approval. The project has received approval for one sign. The proposed additional signage requires variances as it exceeds regulations for the CBD Zoning Districts. New signage is subject to Design Review. Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design; Gaelin Walsh, Whitham Planning and Design; Jeff Smetana, Newman Development Group, LLC; and Pat Boni, Saxton Signs, appeared to present an updated signage package. Jones asked how the large City Centre sign would not disturb residents Walsh said they are using a lower lumen LED and that it is located in front of the elevator shaft. Elliott said that there are new LEDs out now that include purple, creating a true full-spectrum LED and said he would send them information on those so they could look into using them. Applicants agreed to explore putting signage on a timer to shut off at midnight. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 14 Adopted Resolution for Approval of Signage On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board granted final site plan approval for the project on January 24, 2017, subject to submission for approval by Planning Board of project details, including signage, and WHEREAS: in accordance with sign regulations, the applicant is requesting variances to exceed the allowed square footage of 50 SF per sign, as permitted in the CBD-120 zoning district, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §160 Design Review – Applicability of the City Code, all signage in the Central Business District (CBD) is subject to mandatory non-binding design review and the Downtown Design Guidelines, adopted March 2018, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on February 26, 2019, reviewed and accepted as adequate the following undated and unattributed drawings pertaining to signage: “Sign Locator Map,” “Sign #1 Detail & Elevation,” “Rendering Looking East on E. State Street,” “Rendering Looking West on E. State Street,” “Sign #2 Details” (four sheets), and “Sign #3 Details,” illustrating a City Centre projection sign measuring 200 SF vertically oriented on the building façade, a Chase logo sign measuring 20.7 SF mounted on the radial canopy at the corner of E. State Street and S. Aurora Street, and an Ithaca Ale House sign measuring 21 SF to be secured to an aluminum raceway on the radial canopy at the corner of E. State Street and S. Aurora Street, and WHEREAS: the Board has, on February 26, 2019, conducted design review, and now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby approve building signage for the City Centre project to be located at 301 E. State Street subject to the following conditions: i. Any future signage other than that approved in this resolution, is subject to Design Review and Site Plan approval by the Planning Board, and ii. The applicant will explore the possibility of connecting the blade sign to a timer that would dim or turn off its illumination during late night/early morning hours, and iii. Granting of the required variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Moved by: Johnston Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 15 E. Falls Park Apartments (74 Units), 121-125 Lake Street by IFR Development LLC. Review of New Materials. The applicant proposes to build a 133,000 GSF, four-story apartment building and associated site improvements on the former Gun Hill Factory site. The 74-unit, age-restricted apartment building will be a mix of one- and two- bedroom units and will include 7,440 SF of amenity space and 85 parking spaces (20 surface spaces and 65 covered spaces under the building). Site improvements include an eight-foot wide public walkway located within the dedicated open space on adjacent City Property (as required per agreements established between the City and the property owner in 2007) and is to be constructed by the project sponsor. The project site is currently in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). Before site development can occur, the applicant is required to remediate the site based on soil cleanup objectives for restricted residential use. A remedial investigation (RI) was recently completed at the site and was submitted to NYSDEC in August 2018. The project is in the R-3a Zoning District and requires multiple variances. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (h)[2], (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11). Applicants Kimberley Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects and Frost Travis, IFR Development, appeared in front of the Board to clarify what next steps would need to be taken before the Board can complete the environmental review. Nicholas said that they will need to get approval of the re-development agreement from Common Council, and materials recently revised will have to be incorporated into the Part III of the EAF before SEQR can be completed. Applicants agreed to return once the re-development agreement is revised and approved by Common Council. F. New Two-Family Dwellings, 815-817 N Aurora by Daniel Hirtler for Stavros Stavropoulos. Determination of Environmental Significance & Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-family residential structure and construct two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590 SF lot. The existing residential building is a legally non-conforming building with a side setback deficiency (2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The proposed redevelopment will include four parking spaces for four three-bedroom apartments. The applicant is requesting the Board’s approval to use the landscaping compliance method for parking arrangement. The project site is located in the R-2b Zoning District and meets all applicable zoning lot and setback requirements. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). Daniel Hirtler, Daniel Hirtler Architecture, and Stavros Stavropoulos, property owner, appeared in front of the Board. Hirtler submitted a revised planting plan. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 16 The Board reviewed Part III of the EAF. Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for two new two-family residences at 815-817 N Aurora, by Daniel Hirtler on behalf of the owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-family residential structure and construct two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590 SF lot. The existing residential building is a legally non-conforming building with a side setback deficiency (2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The project site is located in the R-2b Zoning District and meets all applicable zoning lot and setback requirements. The proposed redevelopment will include four parking spaces, including two exterior parking spaces and two parking spaces in a detached garage for the four three-bedroom apartments, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on November 27, 2018 declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on February 26, 2019 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 Planning Board; and a site plan review application including the following drawings: “Context Map” and “Survey Map” (Figure A0, 1 of 9) revised February 5, 2019; “General Site Plan” (Figure A1a, 2 of 9); “Utility and Drainage Plan” (Figure A1b, 3 of 9); “Landscaping Plan” (Figure A1c, 4 of 9); elevation drawings (Figure A2, 5 of 9) all revised February 5, 2019; floor plans (Figure A3, 6 of 9) revised and dated January 15, 2019; “Site Plan showing Context,” “Site Plan Showing built area, pavement and green space,” “Demolition Plan,” and “Construction Fencing and Tree Protection Plan” (Figure A4, 7 of 9) revised and dated February 5, 2019; construction details (Figure A5, 8 of 9) revised and dated January 5, 2019; “Typical Tree Planting in Site Soil” and “Typical Shrub Planting in Site Soil” (Figure A6, 9 of 9); and a completed Residential Infill Neighborhood Compatibility Worksheet and associated materials, dated December 13, 2018, all prepared by Daniel R. Hirtler, Architect, on behalf of the owner, and WHEREAS: the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability, and any interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly explained in Part 3, that the applicant has mitigated any potential negative impacts of the project to the maximum extent Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 17 practicable, and any future changes to the site plan may require further environmental review, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Moved by: Johnston Seconded by: Petrina In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Approval On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones: WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for two new two-family dwellings located at 815-817 North Aurora Street by Daniel Hirtler, on behalf of the owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-family residential structure and construct two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590 SF lot. The existing residential building is a legally non-conforming building with a side setback deficiency (2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The project site is located in the R-2b Zoning District and meets all applicable zoning lot and setback requirements. The proposed redevelopment will include four parking spaces for four three-bedroom apartments, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on November 27, 2018, declare itself the 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 December 18, 2018, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 18 WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on February 26, 2019 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 Planning Board; and a site plan review application including the following drawings: “Context Map” and “Survey Map” (Figure A0) revised February 5, 2019; “General Site Plan” (Figure A1a); “Utility and Drainage Plan” (Figure A1b); “Landscaping Plan” (Figure A1c); elevation drawings (Figure A2) all revised February 5, 2019; floor plans (Figure A3) revised and dated January 15, 2019; “Site Plan showing Context,” “Site Plan Showing built area, pavement and green space,” “Demolition Plan,” and “Construction Fencing and Tree Protection Plan” (Figure A4) revised and dated February 5, 2019; construction details (Figure A5) revised and dated January 5, 2019; “Typical Tree Planting in Site Soil” and “Typical Shrub Planting in Site Soil” (Figure A6) dated February 25, 2019; colored elevations and materials key (Figure SK-1) dated January 22, 2019; and a completed Residential Infill Neighborhood Compatibility Worksheet and associated materials, dated December 13, 2018, all prepared by Daniel R. Hirtler, Architect, on behalf of the owner, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on February 26, 2019 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed project, and now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details, including but not limited to lighting, signage, exterior furnishings, bike racks, residential style canopies etc., and ii. Applicant will work with City staff to further develop the landscape plan to include more plantings, and iii. Tree protection for street trees to be in conformance with recommendations of the City Forester before issuance of a street permit, as communicated in a February 13, 2019 correspondence, and iv. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and v. 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: Petrina Seconded by: Jones In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 19 G. Arthaus, 130 Cherry Street by Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning & Design Declaration of Lead Agency & Project Overview. The applicant proposes a five- story building approximately 63 feet in height with gallery, office and affordable residential space at 130 Cherry Street, on the east side of the Cayuga Inlet. The site is currently the location of AJ Foreign Auto. The program includes ground floor covered parking for approximately 52 vehicles, plus 7,000 SF of potential retail/office and amenity space geared towards artists’ needs. Building levels two through five will house approximately 120 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom residential units. The total building square footage is 97,500 SF. All residential rental units will be restricted to renters earning 50 to 80 percent of the Area Median Income. The building will be set back from Cherry Street approximately 23 feet to create a linear parklet. The north edge of the property will include a publicly accessible path leading to an inlet overlook. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance § 176-4B(1)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4(b)(11). Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design; James Gensel, Fagan Engineering; and Rebecca Cudney, Vecino Group; appeared to present project changes resulting from an artists’ charrette, and meetings with City engineering staff and the Fire Chief Tom Parsons, which occurred since the last Board meeting. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency On a motion by Glass, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a mixed-use development located at 130 Cherry Street, by Whitham Planning & Design, applicant for owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes an as-of-right five-story building approximately 63 feet in height with gallery, office and affordable residential space at 130 Cherry Street, on the east side of the Cayuga Inlet. The program includes ground floor covered parking for approximately 52 vehicles, plus 7,000 SF of potential retail/office and amenity space geared towards artists’ needs. Building levels two through five will house approximately 120 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom residential units. The total building square footage is 97,500 SF. The building will be set back from Cherry Street approximately 23 feet to create a linear parklet. The north edge of the property will include a publicly accessible path leading to an inlet overlook, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 20 WHEREAS: This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance § 176-4B(1)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4(b)(11), both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability Tompkins County Department of Health, Tomkins County Industrial Development Agency, NYS Homes and Community Renewal, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, have all been identified as potentially Involved Agencies in Environmental Review, and WHEREAS:, the Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, Tompkins County Department of Health, Tomkins County Industrial Development Agency, NYS Homes and Community Renewal, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, have all consented to the City Planning Board being Lead Agency for this Project, now therefore be it, RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Glass Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None After the presentation, Elliott cautioned against using Corten near the waterfront due to its tendency to shed oxides. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 21 H. Cayuga Street Townhomes, 402 S. Cayuga Street by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. Public Hearing & Recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant proposes to construct four (4) for-sale townhomes that will target moderate-income, first-time home buyers. The application and site plan was previously submitted and reviewed by the Planning and Development Board and approved on March 24, 2015; however, after two years passed, the approvals lapsed, necessitating resubmission of the application, as required by §276-10 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. The applicant proposes the buildings to be two stories with parking below to take advantage of the sloped site. Architectural features include front porches, rear decks, shifting roof planes, and a varied color palette. Site development includes a common asphalt driveway in the rear, walkways connecting each unit to the existing sidewalk on Cayuga Street, and landscaping. The project site is in the R-3b Zoning District and requires an Area Variance for a front yard setback. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (11). The Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has determined that the project is consistent with the Negative Declaration of environmental significance issued on January 27, 2015, and therefore, no additional review is required. Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services; and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects, appeared to present project updates. Public Hearing On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina, Chair Lewis opened the public hearing. Judy Wood of 119 S. Titus Avenue spoke about the project. She said it’s nice to see progress on this corner. She said she remembered when there was an apartment house there and after it burned, it was an eyesore. She said that the porches seem very close to the road. She said that there used to be two trees on the corner, but after an accident there several years ago, one had to be removed, and that is a consideration. She said that the decks in the back are wide open, and that seems like it won’t provide a lot of privacy for the residents. She said that the houses seem very boxy overall as well, and that the neighborhood is full of stucco houses with interesting details like bay windows and a lot of character, and that these seem to be somewhat lacking in that. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the public hearing on a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott. Chair Lewis asked the applicants if they had any response. Truame said that she agreed that they are boxy. She said that the project was previously planned as stick built and included bay windows on the end. The project was previously stalled out due to cost. The project now is planned as modular, which limits them some. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 22 Trowbridge said that regarding the front porches, they are set back 20-plus feet from the sidewalk, which is greater than some other houses along Cayuga Street. However, he acknowledged that it is a tight site (which is why they need a variance for the project). Some additional discussion followed, and applicants agreed to look into ways to make the upper windows more centered on the front façade. Staff asked they ensure the windows have sills. I. Wood Street – Perdita Flats, 402 Wood Street by Stream Collaborative, Noah Demarest. Declaration of Lead Agency & Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to construct a three-story residential building on a vacant lot in the Southside Neighborhood of Ithaca. The building will include four rental units priced at market rate: (1) three-bedroom unit, (2) one-bedroom units, and (1) two-bedroom unit. The first-floor unit will meet ADA requirements for accessibility. The parcel is located in the R-3b Zoning District and will require variances for off-street parking requirements and rear yard setback. This has been determined to be an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), both of which require environmental review. Noah Demarest and Matt Cooper from Stream Collaborative, and owners Umit Sirt and Courtney Royal appeared to present the project to the Board. Board expressed support for removing the driveway and moving the house farther to the south to avoid crowding and shading the smaller house to the north. Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for construction of a three-story residential building located at 402 Wood Street, by Noah Demarest, applicant for owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a three-story residential building on a vacant lot in the Southside Neighborhood of Ithaca. The building will include four rental units priced at market rate: (1) three-bedroom unit, (2) one-bedroom units, and (1) two-bedroom unit. The first-floor unit will meet ADA Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 23 requirements for accessibility. The parcel is located in the R-3b Zoning District and will require variances for off-street parking requirements and rear yard setback, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), both of which require environmental review, now therefore be it, RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Public Hearing On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis opened the public hearing. Tom Smith of 404 Wood Street introduced himself as a neighbor to the immediate west. He expressed concerns that the rest of the block drains to his lot and the one where the applicants are proposing to build. He cautioned them that flooding is a problem. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the public hearing on a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott. J. Immaculate Conception Site-Sketch Plan Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative and Lynn Truame presented a sketch plan for redevelopment of the site. 5. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals  # 3118, Area Variance, 504 Meadow Street The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The applicant has included many design features that enhance pedestrian accessibility.  # 3119, Area Variance, 402 S. Cayuga Street The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The Board supports appropriate new housing in the City. This project is on a prominent vacant corner and aligns with neighborhood goals for new housing. The applicant has incorporated design features, such as Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 26, 2019 24 porches and a varied roof line that make it compatible with other residential development in the neighborhood.  # 3121, Sign Package, 301 E. State Street The Planning Board considers this sign package appropriate in scale and design in the downtown core. The Board does not anticipate any negative impacts and supports this appeal.  # 3121,Special Permit, 1101 E. State Street The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The project does not alter the appearance to the house and the Board welcomes new housing units in the city. 6. Old/New Business Blalock had sent out a memo in regards to the need for a covered bus shelter for intracity busses. Board members expressed support. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Chair Lewis said he would welcome suggestions for limiting presentations to the Board at the start of each presentation to keep the meetings moving along. Board members expressed support. B. Board of Public Works Liaison Blalock said water main breaks are at record highs. The City is trying to hire new crews but is having trouble filling the vacancies. The traffic light at Floral Ave. and Route 79 inbound is now operational. The Town has received funding to connect the pedestrian bridge over Route 13 near Home Depot to the trail network there. The Brindley Street Bridge project is moving forward and replacement of the Cecil A. Malone Bridge has been funded. C. Director of Planning & Development Deputy Director Nicholas said that members whose terms are expiring will be reappointed in March. 8. Adjournment: On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Petrina, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.