Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2019-11-26Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes November 26, 2019 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Mitch Glass; Matthew Johnston; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair; Jack Elliott Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Alexander Phillips, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Carpenter Circle Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning & Design City Harbor – 101 Pier Road David Herrick, T.G. Miller Kate Chesebrough, Whitham Planning & Design Scott Hemmingway, HBT Architects Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects Mixed Use Student Apartments – 411-415 College Ave Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design Kate Chesebrough, Whitham Planning & Design Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects Kyle Karnes, CEO Student Agencies Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 2 313-317 Taughannock Blvd – Sketch Plan, Stream Collaborative Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Linc Morse, developer 516 Stewart Ave – Student Housing – Sketch Plan Jason Demarest, Jason K. Demarest Architecture Rob Poprowski, owner Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Special Order of Business – Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation, Jennifer Kusznir & Alex Phillips Senior Planner Jennifer Kusznir, and Planner Alexander Phillips appeared in front of the Board to present their recommendations for changes to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations and answer questions from the Board members. Johnston asked if the 35 percent contiguous greenspace could contain any other infrastructure like patios or walkways. Director Cornish said that there’s a definition for contiguous greenspace. Kusznir said that it would not include patios or paved surfaces, and it’s defined as open space uninterrupted by structures. Deputy Director Nicholas said it’s intended to allow for the planting or preservation of canopy trees. Chair Lewis asked how they came to the decision to limit ADUs to 800 SF. Phillips said they had looked at legislation from other communities where local governments had a similar intent to Ithaca where we want to increase the housing options available. He said Portland limits it to 800 SF, and Seattle, to 1,000 SF. He said they based their limit on those model ordinances. He said that the percentage size restrictions are intended to ensure that the ADU remains secondary to the primary structure. Blalock asked what the goal was with the 800 SF limit. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 3 Philips said he thinks the goal is to promote density without filling up the entire lot. Blalock asked why there are different percentages allowed for detached (75 percent) versus attached (33 percent). Kusznir said the 33.3 percent comes from the existing code language for accessory apartments, but for detached they allowed for a larger size, as it’s a free standing structure. Chair Lewis said that an 800 SF size limit would result in (at most) a tight two-bedroom unit. He said the proposed language seems to allow for ADUs, but not for families, and he said he sees a problem in that. He said that this is not the kind of pro-family legislation he would like to see. Johnston asked about average lot size in the City and if that impacts the 800 SF limit. Kusznir said it varies, as does the minimum lot size based on the zoning. She said there’s a big range. Glass asked if they might consider a range of allowable square footage for ADUs. Director Cornish said they had looked early on at allowing an ADU up to a set percentage of the lot size, if the 35 percent greenspace is met. Johnston asked if there is a minimum dwelling unit size requirement. Cornish said there is by code but not by zoning. Petrina asked if there were any limits to number of stories. Kusznir said the number of stories is limited by zoning. Petrina asked if they might consider a maximum footprint, rather than a total square footage requirement, so a two-story building with an 800 SF footprint could have up to1,600 SF inside. Kusznir said they could look into that, but total square footage is the way it is proposed right now. Glass said that he agrees with Lewis in that the Board should be promoting family size units, and 800 SF seems artificially restrictive, given that it’s based on a precedent from another city that doesn’t necessarily apply to Ithaca. Phillips said that one thing to consider is that the 800 SF limit refers to habitable space. Chair Lewis said the Board has to make a recommendation to Common Council, and it seems like the Board members generally support the goals, the formalizing of the ADU legislation, and the removal of the Special Permit requirement. He said though that it seems like there’s less Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 4 consensus on how to limit the size of the units. He asked the Board what they want to recommend to Common Council on that. Blalock asked if the proposal is to allow a standalone ADU to be up to 75 percent of the size of the primary structure, but if it’s within an existing house, it’s allowed to be up to one-third of the existing building. Chair Lewis said, yes, that’s his understanding. Blalock said that if the goal is to minimize impact on the neighborhood, it seems like utilizing space inside of an existing structure would have less impact than building a second structure. Chair Lewis said that it’s his understanding that the 33 percent restriction would be a limit to the size of a potential addition. Staff confirmed. Blalock asked about a scenario in which a homeowner has a two-story home, with the second floor unfinished. He asked if the homeowner wanted to finish the second story and turn it into an apartment if they would be limited to it being one-third of the total square footage of the home. Kusznir said yes, that is how it is written but the language comes from the existing code. She said he makes a good point though that if the accessory apartment doesn’t change the existing structure, maybe it doesn’t matter as much. Director Cornish said that the number of unrelated individuals who could live there would remain the same in either case. Blalock said maybe it should be revised to say that if an addition is built to create an ADU, it be limited to one-third the size of the existing building, but if a homeowner wants to finish out an existing unfinished space in an existing home, they shouldn’t necessarily be restricted to one- third of the existing habitable space. Chair Lewis asked if the rest of the Board agreed with that suggestion and wants to include it in their recommendation to Common Council. Board members concurred. Chair Lewis said he doesn’t have a problem with the detached ADUs being limited to 75 percent of the primary structure, but he thinks the 800 SF limit for ADUs seems super restrictive, and sends the message that you’re only taking certain types of tenants – and definitely not families. Petrina said she thinks that goes against the goal of increasing density, and neighborhood residents get up in arms when ADUs are targeting students exclusively, and that seems to be what this is doing. Johnston suggested they consider a range of SF limits based on lot size. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 5 Chair Lewis asked if other Board members would be comfortable removing the 800 SF limit based on the fact that there’s already another metric in place to constrain the size of a detached ADU. Director Cornish asked if he meant the 35 percent contiguous greenspace and no more than 75 percent of the primary structure. Chair Lewis said yes. He asked if other Board members were comfortable asking that they 800 SF requirement be removed. Other members said yes. Chair Lewis asked if they want to say anything else other than appealing to families about their reasoning behind the recommendation to remove the limit. Director Cornish said they might also mention that some smaller units have clearly been designed specifically to appeal to students, and they might consider making some recommendations regarding the interior design of ADUs. Chair Lewis said that he thinks that would be addressed in Site Plan Review, and they could say something like design is important for the tenant, and that is why it’s important these units go through the site plan review process. Chair Lewis asked if the other members think the no more than one primary structure per parcel requirement is good policy. Petrina asked if his concern is that this would make it harder to develop a pocket neighborhood. Chair Lewis said yes, a ban on multiple primary structures would prohibit the creation of pocket neighborhoods. Director Cornish said that staff has been in talks with several members of Common Council about the issue of pocket neighborhoods, and they were interested in having them develop legislation because pocket neighborhoods are a desirable model for the City. She said there will be a lag for the next four to six months. Chair Lewis asked the Board if they want to include language stating that they understand that this legislation would prohibit the creation of pocket neighborhoods, and urging Council to direct staff to develop legislation allowing for them, as they support their creation. He then asked staff if they had any other issues they wanted to discuss. Phillips said that there had been some discussion within the Planning Committee about including an owner occupancy requirement. He said they also heard a lot of comments from the public on the issue and that staff would welcome the Planning Board’s recommendations on that and also on the 35 percent contiguous greenspace requirement. He asked them to consider if they would like to see a minimum width or other factors to consider when calculating it. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 6 Chair Lewis asked the Board members for their thoughts. Johnston said that it’s his understanding that the intent of the greenspace requirement was to encourage tree growth. Staff said yes, it was. Johnston asked if considerations of things like average canopy size or what types of trees are encouraged factor in to the calculation of contiguous green space, or is it simply land-based, like five feet minimum between the primary and secondary structures. Petrina said she doesn’t think five feet will help support canopy trees. She said she thinks it would need to be greater than five feet to help with that. She said that even 10 feet wouldn’t allow for trees. Johnston asked if both the rear- and side-yard setbacks were proposed to be 10 feet. Phillips said yes. Deputy Director Nicholas asked if the question was if the setbacks count towards the contiguous greenspace. Kuszir said yes, the question is if setbacks should count towards greenspace. They are looking for clarification on what the Board members would like to be used to determine the percentage. She asked if they would like to define a minimum width to qualify. Chair Lewis suggested 15 feet. Petrina said she has noticed that a lot of properties downtown wouldn’t be able to meet the minimums, and many are already non-conforming. She said it seems most of them wouldn’t qualify for an ADU. Chair Lewis asked if that is a desired outcome. Petrina said maybe. Chair Lewis said the 35 percent might be a really high bar for some of the downtown neighborhoods. He said that if they are trying to increase housing supply and get more urban neighborhoods downtown, a greenspace requirement that isn’t urban, hurts. Kusznir said it’s important to remember that the maximum lot coverage restriction would be removed under this proposal. Philips said they could look at increasing the minimum rear-yard and retaining the maximum lot coverage requirement. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 7 Chair Lewis asked if Phillips thought that would be more or less cumbersome. Phillips said he thinks you could go either way, but the intent is to retain the quality of the neighborhoods where you have common greenspace between homes, and if you shift to just requiring the rear yard be a percentage of the lot, he’s not sure that goal is accomplished. Petrina said someone who wanted to put in an ADU but couldn’t meet the 35 percent requirement could apply for a variance. Chair Lewis asked if the Board members were in favor of including language in the recommendation saying that the 35 percent requirement is more burdensome on homeowners in the more urban neighborhoods where they would like to see more ADUs, and they are concerned this legislation might make it impossible to build these units there. Glass then asked about the feedback staff has received on the owner-occupied requirement. Kusznir said it seems like Council is split on the issue, maybe leaning slightly towards not requiring owner-occupancy, but she said public comment was split. Chair Lewis asked the Board members to share their thoughts. Blalock said he tends to be against such a restriction unless there’s a compelling reason for it. He said he doesn’t think it’s needed. Johnston said he can see both sides, but tends to agree with Blalock. Chair Lewis said his concern is grey market housing, where something can start out owner occupied, but if that changes, you can end up with very desirable, rentable housing with a questionable legal status, so he would lean towards no on such a requirement. Glass said he leans towards no as well. He asked if there are monitoring mechanisms in place. Blalock said no, not really. Such rules lend themselves to neighbors sitting out in the bushes with cameras trying to figure out who does and doesn’t live in a certain house. Petrina said she’s leaning towards no as well, and said she’s thinking about landlords who might not live in a particular house but do live in the neighborhood, so she doesn’t think they are absentee landlords, as they are still invested in the town. Johnston said he’s assuming some of the cities used as models (Seattle, Portland, etc.) must address this question on some level. Phillips said yes, Portland has no owner occupancy requirement and states like Washington and California have banned owner occupancy requirements. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 8 Chair Lewis asked if staff thinks they need to address owner occupancy in their recommendation of if the issue is mostly settled. Kusznir said she thinks they would appreciate feedback on that because Council still seems split. Deputy Director Nicholas said it seems like they are recommending against and owner occupancy requirement, and she asked if they wanted to explain why. Chair Lewis said it’s because of the regulatory burden and the creation of grey market housing. Blalock said he gets the idea that owner occupancy is supposed to encourage good behavior, but it’s a proxy. Rather than legislating what they want to accomplish (good behavior in residential neighborhoods), they are legislating something else in its place. He said there may or may not be a correlation, but if they want better behaved residents, they ought to regulate behavior. Johnston said it’s aspirational but not enforceable. Chair Lewis asked if any Board members wanted to add anything. There being no further comments to add to the Board’s recommendation, Chair Lewis thanked planners Kusnir and Phillips for their time and effort. A copy of the memo they sent to the PEDC of Common Council is included below: To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Planning & Development Board Date: December 3, 2019 RE: Planning Board comments on the Establishment of Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) At their November 26 meeting, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the proposal to establish regulations for developing ADUs in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. The Board discussed the proposal and agreed to submit the following comments for your consideration: • The Board strongly supports the goal of the proposed ADU regulation: “to remove or reduce regulatory barriers that limit the number and variety of housing options in single family zoning districts”. • The Board believes many concerns about the impact of ADUs will be effectively addressed when the Board reviews their size, design, and placement for neighborhood compatibility during site plan review. • DADUs in existing buildings should not be limited to a percentage of the primary structure (or its interior) as there is no significant exterior change to the structures and therefore limited impact to the neighborhood. • DADUs should not be limited to 800 SF, provided that size is limited to 75% of the primary dwelling and that some greenspace is maintained. 800 SF is too small for families. • The Board did not reach consensus on contiguous greenspace. Some feel a 35% requirement will prove too burdensome for Ithaca’s more urban neighborhoods. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 9 • The Board leans towards not requiring owner occupancy. o First, it places a regulatory burden on the City that will be impossible to enforce with current staffing levels. o Second, this restriction could encourage gray market renting. • In addition, the Board encourages Council to direct staff to create legislation that allows pocket neighborhoods, especially in the zoning districts impacted by this legislation. 3. Privilege of the Floor Chair Lewis opened Privilege of the Floor. Ann Sullivan of 109 Irving Place spoke in favor of the owner occupancy requirement being considered as part of the draft ADU legislation. She said that the assumption that it is about controlling behavior in tenants is incorrect. She said that she lives in a neighborhood with a mix of renters and homeowners, and many of the homeowners have roommates to help cover costs. She said the justification for the requirement states it is to “provide homeowners, especially those of low to moderate income with a means of obtaining, through rental income, companionship, security, etc.” It also says the intent is to add inexpensive rentals to the housing stock. She said she thinks that is the reason why she and others who have spoken in favor at Planning Committee meetings approve of infill. She said there are apartments in her neighborhood, and that is not the issue. She said the issue is that only 26 percent of the housing in the City is currently owner-occupied. She said the concern is that if this goes through without an owner-occupancy requirement, it will provide property investors with the opportunity to create ADUs more so than it will provide homeowners with the opportunity to do so. She said this will likely have the effect of further raising house prices, making it even more difficult for families to purchase houses in the City. She said an example of this is the approximately 100 units that have been removed from the market by people who have purchased them only for use as short-term rentals. She said there’s no way for people who want to purchase homes in the City can compete with investors who want to buy homes to rent out on AirBnB. She said that she and her husband probably would have been renters forever except that when they moved to Ithaca and found out how expensive rentals are, they decided to buy a home instead. She said that it has allowed them to save money, build equity, and even borrow against it. She urged the Board to consider the issue from the perspective of social justice. Tom Shelley of 118 E. Court Street spoke in favor of the proposed ADU ordinance. He said there are still some details to be worked out with Common Council, but overall, it’s a wonderful thing to do. He said he’s impressed by the 35 percent greenspace requirement, though he understands that there may be instances where it’s not achievable and provisions might have to be made to account for that. He said that he’s a member of the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, which has a subcommittee that is currently looking into greenspace regulations in use in other municipalities in order to develop recommendations for City property owners that go beyond just planting grass, such as green roofs, planters, or green walls. He said they are also working to develop regulations pertaining to trees. He concluded by saying that he is a longtime Collegetown landlord and he thinks Cornell and IC should regulate their students much more than they do. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 10 Sheryl Swink of 321 N. Albany Street spoke about infill development. She said the City has a comprehensive plan with guidelines in it intended to preserve the residential qualities of many of the City’s neighborhoods. She said she is in favor of some infill development, but her concern is that the focus seems to be to keep it downtown where there is already a lot of density, sometimes exceeding what is allowed by zoning because it has been grandfathered in. She said there are also a lot of large lots in the R-1 zones that could accommodate larger accessory dwelling units that might be well suited to families. She said her concern is that they need to consciously think about that. She said she likes the recommendation for a 35 percent greenspace requirement, as opposed to the current lot coverage requirements because many of the lots downtown are covered with a lot of pavement, and the greenspace requirement could incentivize owners to remove some of that if they wanted to add an ADU. She spoke in favor of reducing impervious surface cover throughout the City as a whole. She also spoke in favor of the limit of one primary structure per lot, saying that if a lot is big enough, it can be subdivided into two saleable lots. Dan Hoffman of 415 Elm Street spoke about the proposed ADU regulations. He said he is concerned that the City is moving towards a one-size-fits-all approach, and he thinks conditions are very different in different neighborhoods. He said that some lots are on hills and creating new impermeable surfaces on a yard could result in drainage issues. He said he thinks we don’t know what the consequences of this sweeping change will be and suggested that the City should either move away from a one-size-fits-all approach and retain the right of review for the Planning Board or put the legislation in place as a short term experiment, a trial period, to see how it goes. He said he is not convinced that this will result in an increase in affordable housing, and he asked the Board to consider carefully how this will relate to the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. Hoffman also spoke about the City Harbor project. He said he is a big fan of the Waterfront Trail and is concerned about multiple heavy-use trail crossings on Pier Road. He suggested limiting such crossings and providing a way for pedestrians to get safely across. He said that he was told at a public meeting on-site that they were going to try to save the three willow trees near the golf course, but it looks like in the latest plan they were not retaining them all, because it looked like the furthest parking area was moved slightly, removing at least one of the trees. He said he is in favor of saving them all. David Barken of Fall Creek said that he’s had the opportunity to build two single-family homes downtown under the multiple primary structure model. He said the smaller of the two is an 840 SF two-bedroom house. The other is 960 SF. He said that as a landlord, he has firsthand knowledge of how hard it is to build a house that is utilitarian, appealing, and affordable to the largest number of people. He said the 800 SF maximum size requirement would probably limit DADUs to just one bedroom. He said he think there may be value to that type of space, but the question becomes then what the intent is and if the price point will work. He said that as he is adamantly opposed to the owner occupancy requirement. He said that he tries to add value to his rentals, but as a licensed real estate professional, he would advise a client not to build one of these if it would potentially inhibit the future sale of their property. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed Privilege of the Floor. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 11 4. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston, the September 24, 2019 regular meeting minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications. 5. Site Plan Review A. Carpenter Circle Project, Carpenter Park Road, by Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC. Planning Board Comments on the Proposed PUD. The project seeks to develop the existing 10.8-acre parcel located adjacent to Route 13 and off of Third Street. The parcel currently contains 2.1 acres of community gardens, an access road (Carpenter Circle Road), and one storage building to be removed. The proposal includes Building A, a 64,000 SF medical office building; Buildings B & C, two mixed-use buildings which will include ground-level retail/restaurant/commercial uses of 23,810 SF, interior parking, 166 market-rate apartment units, and 4,652 SF of amenity space; and Building D, a residential building offering +/-42 residential units for residents earning 50-60% AMI. Site amenities will include public spaces for residents and visitors, bike parking, transit access for TCAT, open green space, a playground, and access to the Ithaca Community Gardens. The project includes 187 internal parking spaces within Buildings B and C, 349 surface parking spaces, and an internal road network with sidewalks and street trees. The Project Sponsor is seeking a Break in Access from NYS DOT to install an access road off of Route 13. The property is located in the Market District; however, the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project will require subdivision into four lots to separate each program element, resulting in Lot 1 measuring 2.086 acres and containing Building A, Lot 2 measuring 5.758 acres and containing Buildings B & C, Lot 3 measuring 2.12 acres and containing the community gardens, and Lot 4 measuring .833 acres and containing Building D. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (i), (k), and (B)(6) and (8)(a) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11). Applicants Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC and Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning & Design appeared in front of the Board to provide updates on the proposed project. Deputy Director Nicholas asked what the difference is between the allowed building heights and what they are proposing in the PUD. Fournier said Building B is proposed to be 74 feet 4 inches, and Building C is 74 feet 2 inches, and that is 6 feet above what is allowed under the Waterfront zoning. The Cayuga Medical building is proposed to be 78 feet tall, so that is 10 feet above the zoning. Petrina asked what percentage of greenspace they were going to achieve with the project. She said the site reminds her of the Southwest commercial areas where they do have a percentage of greenspace requirement for parking lots. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 12 Fournier said that never came up because they tried to adhere to the existing Waterfront zoning as closely as possible while developing the PUD. Johnston asked about the likelihood of them securing the funding for the affordable housing component. Bodewes said they have built low-income housing all over upstate New York, and they are familiar with competing for the tax credits and funding, though it’s getting more competitive. He said he thinks the State recognizes the need for affordable housing in Tompkins County. The Board next reviewed the proposed PUDs to make recommendations to Common Council. Director Cornish advised them to look closely at all the proposed permitted primary uses, the heights, the setbacks, and make sure there’s a 5-foot sidewalk and an 8-foot tree lawn provided. Their recommendations are included below: To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Planning & Development Board Date: December 4, 2019 RE: Planning Board comments on the Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Carpenter Circle At their November 26 meeting, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the proposal to establish a PUD on tax parcels 36.-1-3.3 and 36.11-3.5 by Park Grove Realty and Cayuga Medical Center. The Board discussed the proposal and agreed to submit the following comments for your consideration: • The Board supports the project and feels that it is consistent with the goals of the Waterfront Plan. • The project does not deviate significantly from area and use regulation for the Market District. • The Board feels that the proposed building heights are appropriate for several reasons. First, the deviation from allowed height is relatively small- less than one story; second, the additional height is needed to accommodate two parking decks in each of the mixed use buildings, which is preferable to surface parking; and third, the height is appropriate at this location along Route 13. • The Board feels that the deviation from zoning in terms of setbacks is acceptable due to circulation patterns on the site – and the need for the mixed use buildings to face streets or parking areas on all four sides. It is offset by a robust pedestrian circulation network which includes treelawns and sidewalks thought the site. • The Board is very supportive of the permanent greenspace offered by retention of the community gardens. They will continue to work on adding more green areas in the parking lots through site plan review. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 13 B. City Harbor, 101 Pier Road by Jessica Edger-Hillman. Response to Planning Board Comments Regarding Architecture. The 11.09-acre project site consists of 8.33 acres of privately-owned land and 2.76 acres of adjacent City-owned parkland and road. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 8.33-acre project site and make improvements to 2.76 acres of adjacent City land. The project site consists of (3) privately-owned tax parcels. The building program will be a total of 316,280 SF consisting of (1) 60,000 SF medical office building, (2) five-story residential structures with a total of 172,980 GSF and 111 housing units, (1) five-story mixed-use building with 77,800 GFA with 45 housing units, 15,743 SF of ground floor commercial (expected to be a restaurant), and (1) 5,500 SF Community Building to support golf, boating and other recreational activities associated with the adjacent City-owned Newman Golf Course. Improvements on City property in Phase 1 of the plan include the rebuilding of Pier Road to include sidewalks, street trees, a fire engine turnaround, and additional and reorganized parking. After Phase I, the applicant proposes to realign the end of Pier Road, extend it to a new clubhouse and add parking. Site improvements on private property to include a 1,570-foot publically-accessible promenade along Cascadilla Creek, including construction of a new seawall and replacement of existing docks, waterfront parks, a paddle park, internal circulation streets, bus stops, surface parking for 400 cars, and landscaping. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (h)(2), (i), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(6)(iii) and (v). David Herrick of T.G. Miller, Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects, Scott Hemmingway of HBT Architects, and Kate Chesebrough of Whitham Planning and Design appeared in front of the Board to give a project presentation and answer questions. Hugo presented a series of drawings showing a series of options for the building step backs along the waterfront. Applicants also provided an overview of project changes. Board members provided feedback and suggestions to the applicants regarding the elevations and site layout. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 14 C. Mixed-Use Student Apartments, 411-415 College Avenue, by Whitham Planning & Design for Student Agencies. Project Updates & Discussion, and Review of Draft FEAF Part 3. The applicant proposes to construct a six-story building with a 7,038 SF footprint, ground floor retail, and 56 student apartments on floors two through six. The project includes a partially covered outdoor plaza area on land partially owned by Cornell. Project development will require the removal of the existing four-story building known as the Chacona Block, as well as the existing outdoor patio and retaining walls. The parcel is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(h)(4), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(9). Glass explained to the other Board members that the applicants had presented a few options for the fifth floor step back at the Project Review Committee meeting two weeks prior. One was for a 5-foot step back, another was for a 12-foot step back. He said that after some discussion, there seemed to be support for a compromise solution of a 7-foot step back. Scott Whitham and Kate Chesebrough of Whitham Planning & Design, Kyle Karnes, CEO of Student Agencies, and Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. The Board also reviewed the FEAF Part 3. The Board members discussed the various options for the step back. The overall consensus was that a 7-foot step back would probably be sufficient, and that the applicant should invest in high quality materials for the ground floor façade. The Board also reviewed conditions requested by the ILPC and agreed with the request for a HABS level review and documentation process, as well as sending salvaged materials to a local site, such as Significant Elements for resale/ re-use. The requirement for binding peer review of the design was rejected. Applicants agreed. D. 313-317 Taughannock Blvd – Sketch Plan, Stream Collaborative Applicants Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative and developer Linc Morse appeared in front of the Board to present a sketch plan to redevelop two properties along the waterfront on Taughannock Boulevard. They are proposing two mixed-use buildings with ground floor commercial spaces, and residential units above. The two lots bookend either side of Kelly’s Dockside restaurant. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 15 E. 516 Stewart Ave – Student Housing – Sketch Plan, Jason Demarest Architect Jason Demarest and Rob Poprowski, owner, appeared in front of the Board to present a sketch plan for a 40-unit student housing project on Stewart Avenue. It would require a significant zoning variance for parking deficiency (37 spaces required). Director Cornish said that the Planning Board has to complete the environmental review process before it can go to the BZA. Chair Lewis said he doesn’t want to spend a lot of time on a project that may or may not go forward, and he doesn’t want to drag the Board into a disagreement between applicant and staff. He asked the Board members for their opinions on the proposal. Board members generally thought the proposed project sounds good, and would probably recommend the BZA grant the variance. Chair Lewis said that the applicants need to resolve their process questions before they return to the Board with the project. 6. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals • # 3144, Area Variance, 123 Cascadilla Street The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this the following reasons: 1} the lot is an unusual shape, 2} the porch is in keeping with neighborhood 3} the Board received letters from neighbors supporting the appeal, and 4} the proposed project improvement to the property and a welcome investment in a downtown neighborhood. • # #3145, Area Variance, 204 Lake Ave The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports provided there are no unresolved neighborhood concerns. The raised deck is an environmentally alternate to a paved patio and the proposed project is an improvement to the property and investment in a downtown neighborhood. • # 3146, Area Variance, 306 Bryant Ave The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal provided there are no unresolved neighborhood concerns. The Board feels that the project achieves goal of adding beds to the housing stock without altering the size of the building. 7. Old/New Business Chair Lewis said that having the PRC notes circulated is helpful. He also said that the Board’s focus on discussing things amongst themselves is helpful. Deputy Director Nicholas reminded the Board members that the PRC meeting is December 5 and the next Planning Board meeting is December 17. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 31, 2020 16 8. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Chair Lewis had no report, but he said he thinks the projector being broken forced the applicants to streamline their presentations and helped the meeting move along more quickly. B. Board of Public Works Liaison BPW Liaison Blalock said that he was interested to learn that Cornell owns most of the intersection at the corner of Oak and College Avenue. He said Tim Logue is trying to work with Cornell and TCAT to find ways to improve that intersection. C. Director of Planning & Development No report. 9. Adjournment: On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina, the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.