Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-2010-09-13CAC Members, Eric R , JoAnn and Lisa Please find CAC minutes for our meeting on September 13, 2010. In addition to notes regarding site proposals, members discussed the following procedural items: 1) Minutes from the CAC meeting were reviewed and approved. Nathan Brenner moved for approval and Anna Stalter seconded. 2) Ithaca College's Students for a Sensible Drug Policy submitted a revised non-binding hemp resolution. Action: CAC chooses not to endorse this resolution on to the next committee. We find its content to be tangential to our committee mission. 3) The Tompkins County Environmental Management Cancel will be hosting a presentation entitled “Unique Natural Areas: Past and Future” at their meeting on Wednesday, September 15 at 7PM. All CAC members are encouraged to attend. 4) Michael invited CAC members to join him for upcoming meeting with Lisa Nicholas. Thomas Shelley will attend the next meeting. Conservation Advisory Council Meeting Minutes – 9/13/10 7:30 PM Attending: Michael Culotta, Nathan Brenner, Meghan Jacquet, Laura Martin, Tom Shelly, Anna Stalter Absent: Paul Salon, Govind Acharya Included in these minutes are review comments on the following project: § 1. Coal Yard Apartments - Phase 2, 143 Maple Avenue Comments submitted previously; with additional comments below § 2. Ithaca College Boathouse, 692 3rd Street Ext. § 3. 24 Unit Apartment Building, 309 Eddy Street Comments submitted previously; CAC has no additional comments § 24 Unit Apartment Building, 602-612 West Seneca Street § Maguire Chrysler, 312-318 Elmira Road MEETING ADJOURNED 9 PM 1. Coal Yard Apartments - Phase 2, 143 Maple Avenue CAC reviewed: - a new LEAF Part I & II, dated Sept 9, 2010 - a new set of Coal Yard Schematics, dated Sept 7, 2010 - an “Approved” site plan, dated Nov 29, 2009 Drainage: - Since this is a modification of an approved site-plan, does LEAF part 2, #6 (Impact on Water) now call for a review of the approved SWPP that the City's Stormwater Management Officer has previously reviewed and approved? - How much excavation will be needed for this drainage plan? How much soil needs to be removed to build this...where will it be put? Pipe diameters and volumes are not included in the sketch plans. Has the SWPP prescribed this information already? It not, we don't know how much piping will be used. - What is the amount of area that is being drained into this storage vault? Is that area being designed according to SWPP guidelines? Landscaping plan (Site-6) - Part 2, Question 9, : Small to moderate impact, on vegetation. CAC notes that most species are known to be invasive; one particularly so. CAC will forward a copy of invasive plant ranking sheet. It includes invasive species that were selected by the developer and suggests native species as replacements. - Reference to LEAF PART II, page 5 section B. Vegetation removal (2 or 3 large trees) not noted. See map SITE-1 Sloping - LEAF Part 1, Page 3, is marked as modest sloping (0 - 10%). However, it appears the grade will be altered at the south and west end of the parking area resulting in perhaps a 3-foot grade differential at the property line and call for a retaining wall. CAC wonders if the excavation and fill from this construction will affect any neighbors property which is NOT shown on the site sketches. - Sketch Plan Map, Site-5, what is the honeycomb marking in the bottom-right of the map? Zoning - What is the lot coverage requirements for R-3B zoning? Retaining wall - What’s on the other side of the retaining wall? - How tall is the wall? Snow storage - Is there snow storage addressed in the SWPP and what is the plan for handling snow Light fixtures - In public hearing , the Developers indicated that they would be using sharp limited landscape lighting so there would not be light spillage. Has this been specified in the site plan? East Hill Rec Way - Any safety/privacy concerns for the Rec Way - Could there be guidelines from the Rec Way for incoming developers? - Are there development guidelines for projects contiguous to the East Hill Rec Way? - Does any of the Rec Way trail get lit like it does at the maplewood project upslope/east? - Has the developer been reviewed and approved for impacts to the Rec Way? - Is the buffer sufficient to maintain the quality of the Rec Way? Are any neighbors concerned about the buffer to the Rec Way? General comments - We would like elevation information to verify the drainage plan. Could we get an elevation plan? Or perhaps a cross-sectional representation of elevations. - Since this has received approval some time ago, we would expect there to be a SWPP included to evaluate the impact of adding these parking spaces. The SWPP would have a lot of the pieces confirmed that we are currently piecing together: Clarification comments - Page 1 of the SPR says construction will run from Oct-Feb., page 5, section B, says construction will run through August - Page 7 of LEAF Part 1, number 3 and 6 SHOULD be answered 2. Ithaca College Boathouse, 692 3rd Street Ext. - Our comments from August still stand, CAC asks if there has been any progress on the buffer areas to the critical water resource of the flood control channel, AND whether guidelines for the management of the flood plain watershed are addressed in the SWPP that is reviewed and approved for this project. SITE PLAN REVIEW (carried over from previous month) 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. 3. 24 Unit Apartment Building, 309 Eddy Street We understand through discussions with reviewers that changes have been made to the site plan which are positive. Could you please confirm: The specification of a pedestrian thoroughfare The vegetated strip along the south property line, The enclosed at-grade bike storage. SITE PLAN REVIEW (carried over from previous month) 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? 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”? 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.