Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.22.2016 Planning Board Minutes.pdf1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #65 Monday, August 22, 2016 Village Hall – 7:00 pm Draft Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Leijonhufvud, R. Segelken, and Alternate E. Quaroni Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski, Attorney R. Marcus, Trustee J. Marshall K. Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects (TWLA) S. Ferranti, SRF Associates T. Covell, HOLT Architects T. Votaw, Cayuga Medical Associates D. Herrick, T.G. Miller Engineers T. Ciaschi, Corners Community Shopping Center Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:08 pm. • Chair F. Cowett appointed Alternate E. Quaroni as a voting member for the meeting in M. McMurry’s absence. Item 2 – July 25, 2016 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the July 25, 2016 meeting. Motion: R. Segelken Second: G. Gillespie RESOLUTION No. 195 APPROVING MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2016 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the July 25, 2016 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Leijonhufvud, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed- None 2 Item 3 – Public Comment • No members of the public wished to comment. Item 4 – Preliminary Site Plan Review – Corners Community Shopping Center Medical Office Building Project (CCMOB) • G. Gillespie recused himself from review of the project as he is an employee of HOLT Architects. • Chair F. Cowett informed the members of the public in attendance that, due to the Village’s failure to give sufficient advance notice of the public hearing scheduled for this meeting in the Ithaca Journal, coupled with the Board’s understanding that many Village residents are on vacation and unable to attend this meeting, it is the Board’s intention to adjourn the public hearing until the Board’s September 26, 2016 meeting after all members of the public in attendance wishing to speak tonight have done so. • Chair F. Cowett asked the members of the public as to whether anyone present for the public hearing wished to speak prior to a presentation by SRF Associates about the traffic study, or whether they would be prepared to wait until after the presentation; the Board had thought at its July meeting that it might be preferable for the traffic study presentation to be made prior to the public hearing, but the Board does not want to inconvenience any members of the public expecting the public hearing to commence at 7:10 pm as stated on the meeting agenda. • The members of the public agreed that the presentation by SRF Associates should be made prior to the public hearing. • Y. Szekely, 104 Klinewoods Road, asked Chair F. Cowett about the schedule for site plan review of the Medical Office Building project. • Chair F. Cowett replied that, following tonight’s public hearing, the Board would ask questions of the traffic consultant, then commence a SEQRA review of the project; if the Board were to make a SEQRA finding at this meeting, the project would then be submitted to the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration at its September meeting of the two area variances required for the project; if the Zoning Board of Appeals were to approve the variances, the project would then return to the Planning Board for additional review and consideration of site plan approval; however, this is a tentative schedule and subject to change. • K. Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, introduced the project design team to the members of the public and informed the Board that, in response to Board comments about pedestrian circulation, a sidewalk leading from Pleasant Grove Road to the shopping center had been added to the project site plan design. • S. Ferranti, SRF Associates, introduced himself to the Board and the members of the public; his firm specializes in traffic engineering and planning; he has many years of experience in this field and has worked extensively in Ithaca though not in Cayuga 3 Heights; the firm’s engineer for this project is on vacation and so he is filling in; members of the public may ask questions during his presentation. • S. Ferranti stated that traffic analysis looks at specific types of land use, such as a medical office building; it is based on data obtained from multiple medical office buildings over time; traffic analysis also accounts for other factors including traffic on adjacent roadways at commuter times and creates a worst case traffic condition; the traffic report is built on a snapshot of conditions when the data were collected; this includes videotaping intersections and stationing spotters at intersections; videotapes are informative; they show queueing times at intersections as well as the speeds at which motorists drive through intersections; traffic analysis is no longer just about moving cars; it has changed over time towards prioritizing pedestrian and bicyclist safety, as witnessed by New York State’s Complete Streets legislation; when there is an increase in traffic, such as with this project, moving cars must be balanced with such factors as pedestrian safety, aesthetics and community character, a community’s comprehensive plan, etc.; he has not read the Village’s comprehensive plan, but every community is different; for this project, the predominant player is commuter traffic, not project traffic; development is a player, but not the dominant player. • S. Ferranti further explained that the traffic analysis conducted by his firm for the CCMOB project depends on algorithms developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to plot anticipated traffic for medical office buildings; these algorithms are specific to medical office buildings and are differentiated from other types of office buildings; New York State’s Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires traffic impact assessment; it establishes thresholds for a substantial traffic increase, which is not equivalent to a significant traffic impact; SEQRA states that a project generating fewer than 100 peak hour vehicle trips per hour will not constitute a substantial increase in traffic; NYSDOT also advises that adding less than 100 vehicles per hour to an intersection approach will have minimal traffic impacts; traffic analysis asks how full is the glass at a particular point in time and addresses cumulative effects; its context is the roadways being investigated, not the broader context of the Village; however, it does consider travel patterns, local employment data, the street network, and adjacent highways; traffic analysis is not an exact science, but seeks to generate the best estimates possible. • S. Ferranti further explained that traffic analysis assumes a growth rate in ambient traffic, including the historic traffic trend in many communities; recent traffic volume trends are generally flat or slightly downward, attributable to the Great Recession and changes in work practices such as flex time and telecommuting; in traffic analysis, every project needs to be treated on its own merits for that locale; there is a distinct pattern to traffic moving through adjacent streets; the Corners Community shopping center is currently generating 8% during the peak AM hour and 8.2% during the peak PM hour of all traffic moving through the streets adjacent to it; with development, the percentage for the peak AM hour would increase to 12% and for the peak PM 4 hour it would increase to 13.6%; for many intersection approaches, this increase is indiscernible due to the small numbers of vehicles involved and variability in traffic volume. • J. Leijonhufvud stated that the project eliminates non-emergency vehicular access between Carriage House Apartments and the shopping center and also curtails access to Pleasant Grove Road near the Village fire house; she asked if these changes in vehicular movement are reflected in traffic study numbers. • S. Ferranti replied that the traffic study does not account for every traffic movement within the shopping center; in a mixed use shopping center such as this one, a traffic study cannot explain every internal movement; for the Pleasant Grove Road access, current traffic numbers are small, but he will take another look to verify that the change in access is reflected accurately in the study report. • A videotape was then shown illustrating traffic movements at the intersection of Pleasant Grove and Hanshaw Roads. • S. Ferranti explained that his firm videotaped this intersection and the one at Triphammer, Hanshaw, and East Upland Roads from approximately 7 am to 9 pm; videotapes provide information that traffic modeling cannot, such as vehicle speed and driver behavior; for example, the videotape at the Pleasant Grove/Hanshaw intersection shows traffic moving at a safe, reasonable speed and drivers being generally courteous. • J. Leijonhufvud noted that there is a sidewalk currently running along Pleasant Grove Road and that the project design contains a sidewalk leading from Pleasant Grove into the shopping center; she asked whether any change should be made to the access road to promote pedestrian safety. • S. Ferranti suggested that a stop bar should be painted across the access road. • A member of the public stated that, while the Pleasant Grove/Hanshaw intersection has traffic issues, the Triphammer/Hanshaw/East Upland intersection performs more poorly and has more potential conflicts. • S. Ferranti agreed that the Triphammer/Hanshaw/East Upland intersection has problems and should be looked at. • A member of the public stated a lack of confidence in algorithms and modeling versus observed data, questioned the accuracy of the AM and PM peak hour site generated trip estimates for the project, and suggested they could be exceeded. • Chair F. Cowett asked T. Votaw, Cayuga Medical Associates, to respond to the above statement. • T. Votaw stated that the CCMOB anticipates serving 300 patients per day; these patients would be fairly evenly distributed over a nine hour day, or 33 patients per hour, although not all medical practices will begin or end at the same time of day which will lead to some staggering of patients and staff; additionally, some patients will arrive by Gadabout and husbands and wives frequently schedule their visits together which would further reduce vehicle trips. 5 • S. Ferranti stated that traffic would also be mitigated by the availability of mass transit. • A member of the public living on Spruce Lane stated that the traffic study addresses the Community Corners area intersections, but does not consider traffic impacts to the north along North Triphammer Road; residents living on Spruce Lane have North Triphammer Road as their only outlet and traffic conditions are already difficult at some times of the day. • S. Ferranti stated that Figure 3 in the traffic study does show a lot of traffic currently moving through the Triphammer/Hanshaw/East Upland intersection and along North Triphammer Road; however, AM and PM peak hour site generated vehicle trips along North Triphammer Road would be a small percentage of the total traffic and less than the expected variation in traffic volume. • A member of the public asked for an explanation of Level of Service (LOS) capacity. • S. Ferranti explained that intersection approaches are graded based on driver waiting time; grades from A to F reflect increases in waiting time with F being a failing grade for unsignalized intersections; the traffic study found some increases in waiting time due to the project, but these are slight delays and do not comprise a significant adverse impact. • S. Ferranti addressed parking needs associated with the project; a modeling methodology developed by the Urban Land Institute was used to assess parking needs because ULI is expert in this field; findings are found in Table III of the traffic study report; figures for existing average monthly parking demand and existing peak hour parking demand for December were modeled, not observed; the report found that the project would increase parking demand such that average monthly parking utilization would be 87% of capacity and peak hour parking demand for December would be 93% of capacity; parking capacity above 90% is not desirable, but this can be expected to happen for only two weekday hours per day during December. • The public hearing commenced at 8:38 pm. • R. Bors, 121 Texas Lane, asked the traffic consultant to answer four questions: (1) What is the total number of vehicles entering and exiting the shopping center post- development? (2) What is the total number of vehicles entering and exiting the shopping center currently? (3) What is the total number of vehicles per weekday that currently pass by the shopping center on Hanshaw, East Upland, and Pleasant Grove Roads? (4) How was the distribution of additional post-development traffic on adjacent roads estimated? • S. Ferranti replied that traffic analysis typically collects traffic data only for AM and PM peak hours; therefore, the answers to questions 1 to 3 typically depend on local municipal data and he does not believe that such data exist, but he will check to see if he can find any data to answer these three questions; with respect to question 4, distribution percentages are modeled on such things as US Census data and highway 6 locations for individual communities as well as the observed predominant traffic patterns which are indicative of where people live. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross informed R. Bors that he has just received some data on existing local traffic conditions that might be helpful in answering some of his questions. • C. Schiffman, 112 Oak Hill Road, expressed concern about the increase in traffic, especially as it relates to shopping center parking; she is worried that during peak hours and months, there will not be enough parking where she wants to park and she will be forced to exit one part of the shopping center onto adjacent streets to access another part of the shopping center which will further increase congestion; the parking spaces in front of the small offices off Pleasant Grove Road will no longer be connected internally to the larger parking lot under the proposed plan and so these spaces should not be included in the total tally of parking spaces considered available for the rest of the site. • T. Ciaschi stated that he plans to have dedicated parking for businesses within the shopping center. • Y. Szekely, 104 Klinewoods Rd, stated that he does not trust SRF’s modeling and doesn’t consider 93% of parking capacity to be an accurate worst case scenario; the shopping center can be very busy between 11 am and 3:30 pm and there have been days when he has been unable to find a space at that time; he does not want to live like this; the parking issue alone will result in a fundamental change for the worse in the Village’s quality of life. • B. Szekely, 104 Klinewoods Rd, read the following statement: “Thank you, members of the Planning Board, for your meticulous review to date of the medical office building proposed at the Corners Community Center. Thanks as well for making available to the public electronically prior to tonight’s hearing the documents relating to the project including the SRF traffic and parking study. “I am a long-time resident of the village and served as a trustee from 2008 to 2013 including three years as deputy mayor. Since then I have been the appointed village historian. May I express my strongest possible opposition to the project? “The medical building proposed is way too large for the space; it is out of scale with the rest of the buildings in the Corners Community Center. The second design is only marginally more in character with the commercial buildings that have been there since the late 1940s. “Citing an article titled “Community Corners – Looking Back to Move Forward,” which village historic preservationist Carole Schiffman and I wrote two years ago for the village newsletter, the initial developers intended to provide shopping close to home for “the use and convenience” of residents in Cayuga Heights. Sixty years later 7 that intent is wholly in keeping with the overarching goal, objectives and recommendations of the Village’s comprehensive plan adopted in 2014 to maintain the residential character of Cayuga Heights. A previous village board under the leadership of Fred Marcham, mayor from 1956 to 1988, defeated a proposal to develop something akin to Triphammer Mall here. Mayor Marcham affirmed the identity of the village as ‘a quiet community, a place of neighbors.’ “The SRF study regarding traffic and parking reads--it must be said--like the boilerplate for a study undertaken for the development of a suburban commercial center anywhere. As the speaker from the firm admitted in his presentation prior to the hearing, it was completed without any attempt to reference the Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Cayuga Heights. Little or no consideration seems to have been given to the goal of maintaining our residential character. The project poses a particular threat to the quality of life in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the Corners. The numbers SRF used, as the speaker agreed, are as suitable for a parking and traffic study for a Staples store downtown in Ithaca as in the village. Many people have been asking why not add the proposed office space to the medical campuses off North Triphammer and Warren roads? Roads there are laid out at right angles and are flat, which is far more conducive to more vehicles entering and exiting traffic than the five winding and hilly roads converging at Community Corners in Cayuga Heights.” • W. Crepet, 507 Highland Rd, stated his opposition to the project which is contrary to the Village’s Olmstedian design; it does not take a great deal of change to change the character of the Village; plopping this building into the Village is an affront to the aesthetics and appeal of the Village; aesthetics and quality are important; this is an unnecessary project. • R. Bors asked why December was selected as the peak month for parking capacity. • S. Ferranti replied that December is selected due to holiday shopping. • R. Bors stated that Cornell is not in session for much of December. • S. Ferranti replied, if that is the case, then the number of December days where parking demand would exceed 90% of capacity would be reduced. • Chair F. Cowett read into the record a letter received from G. Frantz who served as the Planning Board’s consultant in drafting the Village’s comprehensive plan. 8 9 • B. Szekely asked whether G. Frantz is a resident of the Village. • Chair F. Cowett replied that G. Frantz is not a Village resident. • Chair F. Cowett read into the record an email received from C. Scheele, 117 Randolph Road. Motion: R. Segelken Second: J. Leijonhufvud RESOLUTION No. 196 TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the site plan review for the proposed Medical Office Building project at Corners Community Shopping Center be adjourned until September 26, 2016 at 7:10 p.m. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed- None • The public hearing was adjourned at 9:14 pm. • Planning Board members proceeded to ask questions of the project team. • R. Segelken asked about post-development shopping center parking capacity and the current problem with unauthorized park and ride usage. • T. Votaw replied that CMA, acting as a tenant, would police the parking area south of the proposed new building. • T. Ciaschi replied that signage would be added to discourage unauthorized park and ride usage. • R. Segelken asked about responsibility for sidewalk maintenance external and internal to the shopping center. 10 • B. Cross replied that sidewalks external to the shopping center will be maintained by the Village. • T. Ciaschi replied that the shopping center will maintain any internal sidewalks. • Chair F. Cowett stated that at a previous Board meeting he had asked about SEQRA Part 1 Question 8a which concerns substantial traffic associated with development; he then emailed with NYS DEC and received an explanation about substantial traffic thresholds which are consistent with statements made earlier by S. Ferranti; he now understands how Part 1 Question 8a can be answered “NO” based on traffic study estimates for AM and PM peak hour site generated traffic; however, the NYS DEC also advised that a “NO” answer for a substantial traffic increase does not necessarily imply the lack of a significant adverse traffic impact which can be caused by the lack of capacity of adjoining roads to handle a traffic increase; for example, the Board has heard prior to this meeting’s public hearing about traffic difficulties experienced by Village residents living along North Triphammer Road; he is concerned about the impact of any traffic increase associated with this project on those Village residents. • Chair F. Cowett asked about the declines in some full development LOS waiting times from existing conditions shown in Table II of the traffic study report. • S. Ferranti explained that some intersections have approach lanes in which vehicles make multi-directional movements; waiting times for each independent movement undergo weighted averaging to arrive at a single waiting time and this weighted averaging accounts for the declines cited in LOS waiting times. • Chair F. Cowett asked about assumptions made in post-development parking utilization estimates; tables contained in the traffic study appendices assume a 5% mode adjustment reduction accounting for shopping center patrons who will walk, bicycle, or take mass transit such as TCAT rather than drive to the shopping center; an additional 5% reduction is assumed as a noncaptive ratio accounting for shopping center patrons who will visit more than one establishment while at the shopping center; he questioned use of these reductions, in part because Cayuga Heights typically receives a low community walkability score and also because, based on his reading of ULI literature, the model for using a noncaptive ratio is a shopping center with a cinema, restaurants, frozen yogurt store, etc., which does not seem analogous to this shopping center; he is concerned that, if both 5% reductions are found not to be applicable to Corners Community Center, parking demand will have been underestimated and may exceed parking availability and there is no available land within the shopping center where parking can be added. • S. Ferranti replied that he cannot speak to the availability of land to increase parking capacity, but he is confident that both 5% reductions are applicable in this case; he is very confident of the 5% mode adjustment because of the Ithaca area’s commitment to mass transit and bicycling and participation in Way2Go and Carshare. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that TCAT routes adjacent to the shopping center have the highest ridership in the TCAT system; he also stated that a high 11 parking turnover rate contributes to greater parking space demand and that a medical office building is likely to have a lower parking turnover rate compared to other land use types; he further believes that, when some Village residents state they are unable to find any parking spaces at the shopping center under existing conditions, they are actually stating that they are unable to find spaces close to where they want to park; there is also the possibility that project development will result in too much parking rather than too little. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the project increases shopping center parking capacity by 13 spaces while the medical office building will accommodate 52 providers and staff and 300 patients were day; therefore, in his opinion, it is possible, but very unlikely that the project will result in too much parking. • T. Ciaschi stated that he would expect his tenants to complain if they had worries about future parking capacity, but he has not received any such complaints; he also stated that the shopping center has tried to be a good neighbor to the Village; for example, it allowed fire house parking to be built on its land behind the fire house. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross confirmed that the shopping center had allowed not only fire house parking to be built on shopping center land, but also a storm water detention basin associated with the fire house; he stated that in addition the shopping center donated land to the Village to facilitate reconstruction of the sidewalk curve at the Hanshaw/Pleasant Grove intersection near the Chemung Canal Trust bank. • Chair F. Cowett acknowledged the shopping center’s good deeds, but stated it is not unreasonable for shopping center patrons to want to park close to their destinations and to not want to drive around looking for a parking space; he asked what is to prevent medical office building patrons driving into the shopping center from Hanshaw Road from parking in spaces between Island Fitness and the medical office building instead of driving further to the lot south of the medical office building where they are meant to park; he asked whether signage would be posted to instruct medical office building patrons where to park. • K. Michaels replied that such signage would not be posted and that patrons would become accustomed to parking in the medical office building lot as they become more familiar with the facility. • Chair F. Cowett suggested to T. Votaw that CMA should think about ways in which it can encourage reductions in patient and employee vehicle usage associated with the medical office building. • J. Leijonhufvud expressed concerns about shopping center sidewalks connecting to the proposed new sidewalk to Pleasant Grove Road; a photo was displayed showing a shopping center sidewalk with several steps; she stated that this sidewalk is not ADA compliant and that the sidewalk connection with Pleasant Grove Road should be made ADA accessible. 12 • J. Leijonhufvud additionally expressed concerns about the poor condition of some shopping center sidewalks tying into the proposed sidewalk connection with Pleasant Grove Road; a photo was displayed showing one such sidewalk. • K. Michaels questioned whether the sidewalk in the photo would exist following project development. • T. Ciaschi confirmed that the sidewalk in the photo would still exist following project development; he further stated that he is aware that some sidewalks need to be fixed and will do so. • Chair F. Cowett noted the concern expressed by R. Segelken at a previous meeting about the lack of a sidewalk connection from Island Fitness to East Upland Road and asked why this has not been addressed. • K. Michaels stated that pedestrians wishing to use a sidewalk to access Island Fitness can enter the shopping center near the Heights Café & Grille and then walk south. • Chair F. Cowett replied that pedestrians walking north on East Upland Road towards the shopping center are not going to walk north towards the Heights Café and then walk back south to Island Fitness; the project will increase vehicular traffic and pedestrian use in the shopping center; the Board has a responsibility to ensure pedestrian safety and the right to impose reasonable conditions, such as a sidewalk connection from East Upland Road to Island Fitness, as a condition of site plan approval. • K. Michaels stated she is aware that the Board can impose such conditions. • T. Ciaschi stated his support for adding a sidewalk connection from East Upland Road to Island Fitness. • K. Michaels stated that the project site plan will be revised to show the inclusion of a sidewalk from East Upland Road to Island Fitness. • T. Covell, HOLT Architects, asked the Board, in addition to above site plan revision, to summarize for the design team any additional changes or information it was seeking prior to the Board’s September meeting. • E. Quaroni stated she would like to see a revision to the parking input table in Appendix 2 of the traffic study report which shows the change in building parking demand from a three story building to a two story building; going back and forth between multiple input tables is confusing. • Chair F. Cowett stated that he would summarize any additional changes or information the Board was seeking and forward this to the design team. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross asked whether a change from using the SEQRA short form to using the SEQRA long form would be desirable. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that DEC strongly recommends using the short form EAF whenever possible, and he would advise the Board to use the long form EAF only if the Board was considering making a conditional negative declaration in its SEQRA review of the project; given that this is unlikely, there is no need to change from using the SEQRA short form to using the SEQRA long form. 13 • Chair F. Cowett stated that, although the Board had intended to conduct a SEQRA review at this meeting, he has been advised by Attorney R. Marcus that, because the public hearing was adjourned but not closed at this meeting, the Board is unable to complete SEQRA at this meeting and the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals will not consider the project’s request for two area variances at its September meeting; SEQRA review of this project is therefore postponed until the Planning Board’s September 26 meeting; the Board apologizes for this delay. • Chair F. Cowett requested K. Michaels to correct the project’s square footage in the applicant’s SEQRA Part 1 Short EAF, amend the form’s date to September 26, and sign the form for resubmittal to the Board at its September meeting. • K. Michaels stated she would do so. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated to the Board he had assumed the shopping center was within 500 feet of the Town of Ithaca and that the project would therefore trigger a Section 239-m NYS General Municipal Law Review; however, upon further investigation, the shopping center is not within 500 feet of the Town of Ithaca and a Section 239-m GML Review is not needed unless the Board requests one, but he believes the Board has never requested a Section 239-m GML Review unless required to do so. • Attorney R. Marcus confirmed to the Board that there is no statutory requirement for the Board to submit a project for Section 239-m GML Review unless the project is within 500 feet of a boundary with another municipality. • The Board decided not to submit the project to Tompkins County for a Section 239-m GML Review. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated to the Board that, irrespective of this project, the capacity of the Village’s road network is a concern; he has discussed with the Board of Trustees whether the Village should conduct its own traffic study; if it wishes, the Planning Board has the right to engage an independent traffic consultant to review the traffic study conducted for this project. • Chair F. Cowett asked if any Board members wanted to hire an independent traffic consultant to review the traffic study conducted for this project. • The Board decided not to hire an independent traffic consultant at this time. Item 5- Other Business • The Board’s next meeting is scheduled for September 26, 2016. Item 6 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 10:44 pm. 14 15