Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-NAC-2014-03-04city of Ithaca,, NatuxaG Areas Go"tRt"1yt0w Meeting Minutes March 4, 2014 NOTE: THESE MINUTES WERE REVIEWED AND MODIFIED BY MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE SUBSEQUENT NAC MEETING ON MAY 6, 2014, BUT THEY WERE NOT APPROVED per se AS THERE WAS NO QUORUM. Members attending: Jon M., Ashley Miller (new member), Joe McMahon, Dan Hoffman, Anna Stalter Members absent: Robert Wesley, Todd Bittner Others in attendance: Roxy Johnston, Watershed Coordinator; Jeanne Grace, City Forester. 3 high school students: Justice, Eric, Tenzin 1. Note taker - A. Stalter 2. Reports, Announcements Roxy: New solids handling building may be operational by end of Mar. Drinking Water Celebration will be held on May 4. Not clear when the site work will be done. There is concern that the work might affect the fox den close to the site. Joe delivered a NAC report to Common Council on Feb. 19. He asked the CC about the creek stabilization work that seems to be on hold. (Jeanne reported that work will not be completed any time soon, because money to do so is gone. It is still on the radar, but not on top of priority list. The concrete blocks remain, in part because it seems inefficient to remove them only to have to bring them back when the work can be completed, and there is also some sense that they are helping hold back erosion. Mike Thorne is the new supt. of Public Works.) Joe also reported to the CC that the bad behavior at Six Mile Creek was lessened considerably by last season's participation by IPD and that the rangers had been treated more respectfully due in part to the new uniforms and equipment. Joe also mentioned the clean up of Ithaca Gun Cynthia Brock, Ellen McCollister asked about deer management in the natural areas. Also asked if off -leash dogs were a problem. Both Cynthia and Ellen asked about Hemlock Woolly Adelgid. Joe explained that the combined effects of deer browsing, and the impending hemlock mortality would result in little to no regeneration of woody species in the Natural Area. The City Attorney has informed Joe that the liability issue with regards to volunteers in the Natural Areas has been resolved and he will let Joe know how and when to proceed. Roxy suggested that Mike Thorne, the new Superintendent of Public Works, be invited to an upcoming NAC meeting. There were no updates on either the proposed development on Five Mile Drive or the work on the South Hill recway. 3. HWA Report About a dozen volunteers conducted a survey of Hemlock Wooly Adelgid at select portions of the Natural Area on February 22. HWA was detected on several trees in the Wildflower Preserve, woods adjacent to the connector trail between the solids handling building and the South Hill Recway, and along a gorge south of the second reservoir. Jeanne circulated a map (appended) showing the areas surveyed and the infestation level of trees at each. The most heavily infested tress were those in the gorge leading down to the reservoir. Another survey is scheduled for March 29 at 10 am, beginning at the Burns Road end of the Recway, for easier access to reservoir. We should be sure to let people know that access is usually restricted. Jeanne will contact Mark for his feedback on the survey methods and results. 4. At Joe's urging, EYW walks will be scheduled once again for 2014. Anna will contact past walk leaders who will focus on the following: Geology Watershed Walk Trees Wildflowers Birds 5. Signs We had a brief discussion on signs, trying to be more positive with the message, but still including the most important prohibitions. Sign should include: Welcome to the Natural Area For your safety and to protect the natural area: Stay on trails No alcohol No swimming No bikes No camping or campfires No hunting Dogs on leash Jeanne will work with the sign shop to finalize the design. 6. Collegetown Terrace Variance The developer was granted a height variance to allow for underground parking. Developer says tenants are not using the parking spaces as planned and wants to eliminate spaces and add more rental units. He is requesting a variance allowing 50 fewer spaces than are required. Dan drafted and circulated a proposal (appended) stating the NAC position that any parking variance granted should decrease the height of building 7. Anna, Joe, Dan, Ashley voted in favor of the proposal. Jon abstains. [Robert (absent) also in favor.] Joe will read the proposal at the BZA meeting tonight. It was also noted that catchment ponds that will go on creek side of building 7, have not been built yet. Although the construction silt fence is in place, Joe has observed water flowing in the stream where it was minimal before. Roxy suggested that Joe make a report to Scott Gibson. It was asked if there was a storm water management or maintenance plan? Roxy remarked that stormwater management oversight is generally complaint driven. UIUM0111111104i9 Collegetown Terrace Discussion: - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Joe McMahon Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 11:29 am Subject: Tuesday Agenda Addition Hi, I'd like to add a discussion about College Town Terrace to our agenda. They have asked for a variance to their variance. They got a variance to the height limits so they could build higher than was permitted on that zone because they needed to do this to provide the required parking beneath the buildings. So far the tenants have fewer cars than is expected, more on that later, and they want to eliminate parking under Building 7 and instead add more apartments. I can not find the details anywhere on the city website but from the discussion at yesterday's South Hill meeting it would mean about 50 parking spaces fewer than required and add 81 beds to the occupancy. The original plan had more parking than necessary which makes the numbers even more confusing. Here is a link to the variance. To refresh your memories, Building 7 is going to be the one closest to the gorge, the long blue building at the bottom of the picture below. Depending on which drawings you look at, I can find none more recent then 2012, there will be six two eight catchment ponds between the building and the edge of the woods. Because of the slope of the property B7 will be slightly lower than the two buildings uphill from it. At this time if you are down in the gorge by the stream those nearly complete buildings take up a significant portion of the sky, about a third of it by my estimate. The reason I want to address the BZA on behalf of the Natural Areas Commission is not exactly related to this appeal, but another opportunity to address the crucial issues concerning the natural area adjacent to the project. I've commented in the past and had conversations with people Involved with the project calling for a fence at the tree line as a demarcation to lessen the impact of over a 1000 people perched above the natural area. I think it's essential to contraceptive a "trail" from being created down that cliff to the creek wooden thunderstorms with heavy use of the area. I'd also like to be sure the catchment ponds are still part of the plan and are not replaced with surface parking. Ponds would have been a real benefit while the construction has been underway as a little gully that comes from the property now flows with heavy sediment every time it rains where it rarely flowed at all in the past except in the hardest rains. But that's silty water under the bridge. The way comments from the NAC would be relevant to this appeal would be two ask that if the parking is not needed, then the building should not retain the height variance. This would lessen the impact of the view from below and to a lesser extent reduce the number of people living so close to the gorge. I do not expect that suggestion to go anywhere, but I'd like to make it. When they were applying for the height variance they took pictures from Giles St. while the trees were fully leafed out, of course there was no impact on the view. I submitted photos from down in the creek and just above Giles St. and the previous, lower buildings were clearly visible even with leaves on the trees. Speaking of trees, the ones on the lower right of the bottom photo marketed as "existing - to remain" have been removed. Sorry this is getting so long, but I want to shed some light on the parking issue too. Regardless of your stand on whether parking should be used as a tool for controlling density the argument for the variance in this case is pretty cloudy. At this point Novar says the tenants occupying the finished buildings have fewer cars than expected and so it's no problem to reduce the parking under the final building. That may be true due to the demographics of who is renting the apartments so far, there is a building on our side of the creek with an empty parking lot right now because it's occupied by foreign students who do not have cars. Is that the case with his first tenants? Will that continue with the larger buildings as well or will we see more "local" tenants who bring their cars to Ithaca? I do not know if those questions can even be answered by Novar. In Addition, he is charging for parking under the buildings while the city provides free curbside parking on several streets in the vicinity. We see construction guys pull up every morning and walk over the bridge to work instead of using the vacant spots under the building next to where they work. Another unanswerable question is how many students are renting from him and doing the same thing while bike lanes are out of the equation because of the demand for parking? The BZA meeting is immediately after us so I plan to walk out the door of one and into another. Hope you can make it to our meeting on Tuesday. Joe Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:01:38 -0500 Dear NAC members, I appreciate and agree with Joe's observations and proposals, regarding the request for new variances for the Collegetown Terrace (CT) development, adjacent to the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. The representations by CT (as accepted by the Planning Board, as lead agency of the project as originally proposed) about the visual impact of the project (e.g., "not visible from the Six Mile Creek gorge" or barely visible from South Hill) have turned out to be untrue, and the aesthetics of the natural area and views from South Hill have been significantly and permanently degraded, contrary to the developer's and the City's assurances. Furthermore, trees that might have offered some shielding of the new buildings and that were to be preserved, according to plans approved by the City, have in fact been removed, according to Joe. Now, despite this, the developer is back, asking for another dispensation from the City, that would allow him to derive even more profit from his massive project, while being given a "pass" from City rules. Mr. Novarr's latest variance request concerns Phase 3, and Building 7 of his project - the one that will be closest to the Six Mile Creek gorge I endorse Joe's suggestion that any new variance waiving the parking requirement for Building 7 be accompanied by a condition that the height of CT Building 7 be restricted to its pre- variance level. This is not necessarily germane to NAC concerns, but I find it quite ironic that, exactly a year ago, when Josh Lower sought a variance that would waive the parking requirement (for 50 parking spots) for his far more modest proposed project in central Collegetown, one of the only people to speak in opposition to it was John Novarr, who insisted that all Collegetown developers should be subject to the same rules, and that Lower's requested variance was "too big." The BZA agreed with Mr. Novarr, rejecting the appeal and saying that it was up to Common Council (and not the BZA) to change the rules about parking requirements. Now, it looks like the Council will in fact remove the residential parking requirements for central Collegetown, at its meeting on March 5th - but not for the area where Collegetown Terrace is located. Yet, Mr. Novarr now says he should not have to follow the same rules as everyone else, that he should get the same variance he said was "too big" for Mr. Lower's project. Here is the proposal I intend to make at the NAC meeting: PROPOSED, that the City of Ithaca's Natural Areas Commission takes the following position regarding variance appeal #2928 (for Collegetown Terrace), and authorizes its Chair to present that position to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on its behalf: - In seeking and receiving height and other variances from the BZA, in 2011, for the Collegetown Terrace project, the appellant did not accurately represent the visual impact of the proposed project on the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, or on the South Hill neighborhood across the gorge. InYgranting[ihe% eight Nrariances3heMZAMisregarded0 evidenceC submitted[) y[ ihe[ NAC[ lhat3 howedl blk nnore lbccurate[impactlbf3heNfiew[? from [the3ixMAile[Ereek[Natural0 Areal bnd 3outhMiill.[Jan[Negative®mpact2 hat® s[ turrently2) eing[ kxperienceddromM )othliocations[Muegollhe0 height lbf2heCk!xisting[buildingslbndC will [)eMxacerbated[)y[BuildingOF[ being [buiit3ollheq)roposed[height. - Furthermore, the appellant failed to preserve trees designated to be saved, between project buildings and the Six Mile Creek gorge. - Any new variance from parking requirements granted for "Building 7" - the building that would be closest to the gorge - should be conditioned upon restricting the height of that building to the level that would be allowed without a height variance, in order to reduce its visual impact on the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, and upon the construction of a fence between the new Collegetown Terrace buildings and the gorge, to discourage casual entry into the Natural Area via steep gorge slopes by the 1200+ residents of Collegetown Terrace. - The City has improperly classified the variance request as a Type 2 action exempt from environmental review. No variance should be considered by the BZA until the action is correctly classified as unlisted or Type 1, and adequate environmental review has been conducted. Regards, Dan APPENDIX2:0 MAP OF HWA SAMPLING SITES, FEB 22, 2014. (next page) INFESTATION CODES NOTED ARE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: A — ABSENT L— LOW M — MODERATE H -HIGH CODES ARE COMBINED (e.g., "A, L" ) FOR SURVEYED STANDS THAT INCLUDED TREES WITH MORE THAN ONE LEVEL OF INFESTATION. Hemlock Woody Adelgid Sampling Results ��` �y�,r?i ° ,'�'�ws, �'f' +•� tart, �a .�'y�.' Legend._ =t HWAdelgid�" Infestation Level No information sz* • _�•.i A ~* M A F „ . L` H, L, A e ' x _71 X. N 0 A a`; " ^• 2,000 Feet c - •� , r C�i NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 Datum Map Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991 -2013 Data Source: City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, 2013 I i I I I �< Map Prepared by: GIS Program, City of Ithaca, NY, February, 2014