Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-2010-08-09CAC Members, Eric R , JoAnn and Lisa Please find CAC minutes for our meeting on August 9, 2010. In addition to notes regarding site proposals, members discussed the following procedural items: 1) The meeting agenda is received electronically usually on Thursday (this month Friday) l prior to the Monday night meeting. Is it possible to e-mail a draft agenda earlier in the week. It’d give us a chance to view maps, plan or conduct site visits and anticipate supporting documentation needs. Of course final edits on the hard copy received from Debbie Grunder could reflect changes, additions, etc. 2) Would it be possible for city staff to include links to relevant maps when agenda is e- mailed out. 3) We discussed the possibility of assigning members to longer-term projects to be completed in addition to site plan review. Conservation Advisory Council Meeting Minutes – 8/9/10 Attending: Michael Culotta, Nathan Brenner, Meghan Jacquet, Laura Martin. Absent: Tom Shelly, Paul Salon, Govind Acharya Excused: Anna Stalter Included in these minutes are review comments on the following projects: §Ithaca College Boathouse, 692 3rd Street Ext. §24 Unit Apartment Building, 309 Eddy Street §24 Unit Apartment Building, 602-612 West Seneca Street Comments submitted previously and included again §Maguire Chrysler, 312-318 Elmira Road §Magnolia House, 308-320 N. Meadow Street 1. Ithaca College Boathouse, 692 3rd Street Ext. FEAF, Section A Question 3: Indicates that .4 acres were already removed. How did this occur prior to site plan submission? FEAF, Section A Question 17: Indicates improvements will be necessary to allow connection to public utilities. What type of improvements? FEAF, Section B Question 7: Indicates the project will begin and end within the same month. Based on construction estimates, the completion date should be June, 2012. FEAF, Section B Question 14: The applicant does not circle any bodies of water despite previous acknowledgements that this is contiguous to Cayuga Inlet. FEAF, Section B Question 21: There is no estimate for anticipated water usage. LEAF, Part 2 Question 4: “Yes” should be checked since a “small to moderate impact” is indicated. Visual EAF addendum, Question 1: Not checked? Is Cayuga Inlet or Rt 89 designated as scenic? Visual EAF addendum, Question 2, 3, and 5: Applicant did not answer. For example, it would seem that the adjacent CU boathouse is visually similar. The proposed project is contiguous to the flood plains. CAC believes this is an opportunity for Ithaca City to provide guidelines for developments that are adjacent to scenic and critical water bodies. Perhaps guidelines suggested by Tompkins County Planning or Water Resources Council could be referenced.. SWPP is not included in the submitted materials. Without quantification of drainage and flows, impacts on the adjacent water bodies cannot be determined. 2. 24 Unit Apartment Building, 309 Eddy Street Site Plan Review 24 unit @ 309 Eddy St. EPN Associates Page 2 of 7 LEAF question # 5 and 6 Surface or groundwater water quality. Projected figures indicate Paved surface will increase by 14%. First, CAC questions these figures. Approximate increase in paved area would seem to exceed 83% (9,425 sq ft.) of the total lot area (? 11,052 sq.ft.?) Please confirm these calculations. SWPP is NOT included with the submitted materials LEAF Part III is not included in the submitted materials based on the assumption that impacts are not large enough. Additional paved area would seem to necessarily increase channeling and water velocity off the site. NB LEAF Part 1 #6: 50% of the project site is 10-15% slope. How is this slope and grade altered by the proposed project? A drainage plan that accounts for the increased speed of runoff should be included in the SWPP. How is this impact quantified in the SWPP? Neighborhood Character: LEAF Part 2 Aesthetic Resource #10. : Impact marked NO? Neighborhood Character. # 18 Marked NO? Part 2 # #14 Transportation. LEAF is Marked yes but not filled in or otherwise described Connections between the building and the street is what will be lost in the new development. Can there be a greater attempt to visually connect the building to the street. Loss of the traditional tiered retaining wall and porch changes the massing of the building as well as the line of grass next to the sidewalk and behind a retaining wall. Again how is the site grade to be altered from its current state? It would appear that several cubic yards of soil behind the retaining will be removed from the site during demolition. With respect to pedestrian access and safety: How is snow and ice removal accomplished on the developer’s adjacent property Collegetown Park Apts #1? Does the drainage plan include a snow storage area? Can there be an advancement in the drainage plan (?included with SWPP?) so that water dams and ponding are better controlled at the base of steps and in alleyways?. Bicycle utilization: Is there inside on-grade bike storage to incentivize bike use? Because there is not commercial space envisioned for this development, perhaps a well- designed plan for inside bike storage could be envisioned here to lighten the vehicle demand. In the vicinity of this building complex is there any area dedicated to common bike storage? 3. 24 Unit Apartment Building, 602-612 West Seneca Street There is no LEAF Part 3 with the submitted material based on the assumption that impacts are not large enough. Based on the artist rendering, it appears there is a courtyard gate that opens to a concrete sidewalk from Meadow Street. Could this be a location for outdoor bike storage? Does runoff water need to get treated before it leaves the property? Is there a snow removal plan or dedicated area for snow storage? Based on the provided site survey, it is unclear how occupants will enter the parking ar How many parking spots are required for this number of units? On page 3 of FEAF, applicant does not indicate the square footage of the project after completion. Parking area ingress & egress and lighting plan is not described. Can lighting for the parking area be specified and isolated from spilling onto adjacent residences?. In the LEAF Part 2, #6, there is indication of proposed alterations to stormwater management. Project will increase impervious pavements. LEAF Part 2, #12, indicates the proposed action will impact the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. Should a description of the “CWT alignment agreement” be included here? LEAF Part 2, #14, indicates an expected increase in traffic flow. Will this impact be “Small to Moderate” or “Potentially Large”? LEAF Part 2, #18, indicates an impact to character of the community. Will this impact be “Small to Moderate” or “Potentially Large”? SITE PLAN REVIEW: Magnolia House (308-320 N. Meadow St) · Site plan references a landscape plan, but none was included with CAC materials. · LEAF #6 says impervious surfaces will increase, however the scale of impact is not identified (small/moderate or large). · Have neighbors been contacted regarding this development and its impacts to the neighborhood? Were there any comments? · Projected energy and water usage are not compared to the existing levels of consumptions so there is no baseline comparison. · There appears to be a significant loss of green space (garden and yard space). · The need for a zoning variance isn’t well understood. There is a setback requirement and height variance. The height variance is confusing because the proposed height is lower than the zoning required. Maguire Chrysler (312-318 Elmira Road) · On the submitted cover page for Site Plan Review (SPR), under Scope of Work, “Demolition” is NOT checked, but the project narrative has the showroom being demolished.