Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-2013-03-11City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council Minutes March 11, 2013 7:30 – 9pm, Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall, 108 East Green Street meeting begun, 7:30 p.m. Members present: Rima Shamieh, Jesse Hill, C.J. Randall, Eva Birk Members absent: Michael Culotta, Yash Gharat, Tom Shelley Others present: Chris Hayes, Dan Hoffman, Scott Whitham 1 Changes to the agenda, R. Shamieh 2 Approve February minutes. Can’t approve; do not have quorum. 3 Chair report, Rima Shamieh ● February Planning Board meeting - submitted comments on 130 Clinton. NAC, EMC, STAC all included comments. All referred to at Planning Board meeting. Steep slope ordinance deemed to be within powers of CAC to draft and circulate. Common Council appointed C.J. Randall to Planning Board. ● Annual Report, due before April 1 to Common Council. R. Shamieh plans to summarize what we did last year and update CC on upcoming strategy. Plans to include: Cherry Street parcel, green building code, parking design and controls, moratorium, steep slope regulations, stream buffers, mature tree protection on private property. ● Comprehensive plan focus groups - R. Shamieh mentioned this may not be the most opportune scheduling for full public participation, since it's during business hours. Shamieh likely not able to attend Climate Change focus group. C. Randall (and possibly others from CAC) attending Energy focus group. 4 New Business ● J. Hill summarized his work on Minimum Tree Requirements for parking lots. Looking at parking design controls. Seeking to avoid impervious surfaces, tree removal, destruction of canopy, heat island effect. Percentage of Lot Area Coverage (building, parking, vegetation). Set Back (buffers). Trees (shade and air filtration). Stream Buffer (water quality). Storm Water & Drainage (erosion and water quality). Surface – Pervious surface requirements. Maximum area of impermeable surface allowed? Require all lot area to be pervious? J. Hill conducted tree survey throughout Ithaca and found the following ratios: 1 tree per 9 spaces (Kmart), 1 tree per 13 spaces (Lowes lot); 1 tree per 16 spaces (Walmart lot); 0 trees per 200+ spaces (Northside Plaza); 1 tree per 7 spaces (Wegmans); 0 trees per full lot (all car dealerships on Rt 13, accent trees only); 0 trees per 45 spaces (Greenstar lot); 1 tree per 19 spaces (municipal lot and adjoining private lot on State St @ CSMA w/ 4 trees at entrances only, 0 trees inside the lot). C. Randall will edit Parking Design Controls and get reference for the 1 tree for up to 5 spaces recommendation. Perhaps parking lots > 30? spaces will have frontage trees required. < 30 parking spots would not require any trees. Plus, trees should be considered on their merits - invasive, appropriate for the situation, etc. Next step: send to STAC. E. Birk will check in with Portland. C. Randall will edit. ● Moratorium on development (re: parking requirements, stream buffers, steep slopes, etc.). R. Shamieh says likely politically infeasible. Comprehensive plan, form-based code. Even plans from 20 years ago are updated; new comprehensive plan recalibrates our long-term view based on current conditions. J. Hill asked what is threshold for CAC involvement in moratorium? Is this something to bring before Common Council? C. Randall offered legal research in reference to zoning, comprehensive plan, steep slopes. ● Dan Hoffman of NAC spoke about steep slopes ordinance. NAC approved concept resolution. Project at 130 E. Clinton ends one block away from Six Mile Creek buffer. NAC sees slope as a feature or extension of the half-gorge. Prominent natural resource in downtown core. The NAC is particularly concerned with the more northerly building going over the top of the hill than the existing building. Concern about the stability of the slope when constructing a new structure. Top of hill is level ground, likely graded long ago; new buildings may be more at risk. Creek is walled on north side, not on south side. Concern about steep slopes, creek, stability, erosion. Resolution passed by NAC is this project, as proposed, would have a dramatic effect on these hillsides, in terms of views from Clinton Street and from the north (including from the Six Mile Creek Creekwalk, in which the City has invested) and as a result of the extensive grading and removal of mature trees and other vegetation that would be required. Asks Planning Board to ask for development to be pushed south toward the rim. To maintain square footage, developer will likely impact Clinton Street with reconfiguration of building siting. PB requested to see the rim at stopping point for development. Tompkins County is recommending protect water quality, recommends that the City require a minimum 100-foot, no-disturbance buffer to Six Mile Creek. This buffer should be measured from the top of the stream bank. The first fifty feet adjacent to the stream should exclude any disturbance or impervious surfaces and be maintained as natural vegetation. First 50 feet is the riparian slope. Site Review, 130 E. Clinton St. Scott Whitham, representative of 130 E. Clinton St., joined the discussion. He’s designed riparian systems; says this isn’t one of them and that this is a serious site to build upon yet says burden is on city to really examine these plans. Says the site is difficult to build upon, not just in engineering but in construction as well. E. Birk asking about potential modifications. Representative says dependent on budgets. R. Shamieh asking what year property was subdivided. Project may be moved toward Clinton Street. When will flora and fauna be counted? Robert Wesley will be conducting that review. Site Review, Purity Ice Cream Confusing as to where the project is actually zoned. We need to clarify this to decipher parking controls. Why are they building so much satellite surface parking? The empty lot should have vegetative screening; there is also frontage requirements. Landscaping requirements not met. Zoning calls for vegetative screening. WEDZ neighboring R-2b. Need landscape plan to properly assess this project, including buffers. Section G and H are not being applied to this plan: setbacks, landscaping, and screening between residential and non-residential. This is not a use variance that will reinforce what was intended in the zoning. Any primary use in B-2a: retail store, commercial facility, restaurant, hotel, etc. On east side of 13, zone WEDZ-1b indicates the desired building is not a parking lot. Parking ordinance section e and h. 51.-1-1: 621 Cascadilla St. 5 Energy & Sustainability Subcommittee report - E. Birk, C. Randall. Cross-reference with the comp plan. Bringing to Comp Plan Energy Focus group labeled ‘draft’ pending CAC vote to circulate in April. meeting adjourned: 9:37 p.m.