Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2001-04-17TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FILE TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2001 DATE , i��Z, ' The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, ApriI17, 2001, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jon Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Town Planner; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner, ALSO PRESENT: Martha Armstrong, 766 Elm Street Extension; Mike Carpenter, 192 Van Dorn Road South; Bill Goodman, Buffalo NY; Tenda Chitewere, 102 Rachel Carson Way, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:33 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:33 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7 :34 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox - Councilwoman Russell sent a letter to Barbara Mink outlining the Town's position on the communication towers issue. Did Rogan's Corners appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Smith - No. They are waiting until they receive approval from the Planning Board, Chairperson Wilcox - Do we have a new board member? Mr. Kanter - Yes. The Town Board appointed Kevin Talty at their last meeting. Mr. Talty had a good interview with the Interview Committee, AGENDA ITEM: Preliminary discussion adequacy for public review and comment the proposed Special Land Use District EcoVillage property, and the proposed regarding determination of completeness and of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for (SLUD) amendment to be applied to the overall development of a Second Neighborhood Group consisting of 30 ± dwelling units and a common house, located off of Mecklenburg Road at Rachel Carson Way (a private drive), on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28. -1 -26.2 and 28.-1- 26.8, consisting of a total of 176 ± acres. EcoVillage at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Rod Lambert, Agent. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 APRIL 17, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MAY 1, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Kathy Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf - We have assisted EcoVillage in the preparation of the GEIS (Generic Environmental Impact Statement). The GEIS describes and analyzes the anticipated impacts of the ultimate master plan. They are proposing to undertake a second neighborhood group. They have also projected what the full project build out would be. The traffic counts were taken today. The analysis will be completed this week and submitted to the Town. Rod Lambert, 122 Rachel Carson Way - Rachel Carson Way is the main artery that supports the neighborhoods. The first neighborhood has been complete. The second neighborhood will be built to the immediate west of the first neighborhood. The property to the east of the first neighborhood is the land that has been given to the Finger Lakes Land Trust. We are farming on a portion of the land. The property was studied carefully over a number of years. The area best for farming is to the east and north of the first neighborhood. We are building future neighborhoods to the south and west. The second neighborhood is being planned in two phases. We will build the first phase, the western half, first. We will then build the second half. It is the style of building called co- housing. We try to build the community before we build the buildings. It is not developer driven. It is membership driven. The houses in the first neighborhood group were 950 square feet to 1650 square feet. The second neighborhood would like smaller footprints, which will be 600 square feet to 1500 square feet. A great deal of effort has been made in the second neighborhood to bring it on-line in a more affordable manner. We have outlined future neighborhoods. We have set aside the area where we would like future neighborhoods. We want to be able to respond to what is ahead. We might go to a different format. The typical number of units would not change. There would be a maximum of 150 units. The proposal is to set aside to the immediate west of the second neighborhood a parcel of land as a natural area. We are not contiguous with the Unique Natural Area, but we are very close to it. The remaining land would remain agricultural. We have improved the circulation of the site within the second neighborhood. It does have an emergency access road through the neighborhood. The intention is to work with stabilized walkways and stabilized roadways. We do not want an everyday access for vehicles. Emergency vehicles and persons with disabilities will be able to drive into the site. The fire department access to a dry hydrant is to south near the pond. The parking lots are placed to the north of the neighborhood. The Common House is in the center of the neighborhood. There is a view gap immediately to the south to provide views. There is more community space placed central. There are a similar number of units in the second neighborhood. The sewer lines would be coming in from the bottom of the site. It would be a gravity fed system. The land is such that a ball would roll from top left to bottom right. The site water is planned to be moved exclusively to the pond. The pond is a fire - fighting tool. It is an important addition. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 APRIL 1i, 2001 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -MAY 11 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann - What is the bio- retention located in the central area between the two roads? Mr. Lambert - It would be a garden area. The area is slated for playgrounds and gardens. The notion is to retain site water so that there is some deposition of material carried in the flows. This prevents silting of the pond. Board Member Hoffmann - Is it compatible with the use of the general area as a play area and community space? David Herrick, TG Miller - The idea of combining a filtering technique for storm water with vegetation is not uncommon. It has not been utilized extensively in our region. It is a practice that has been proven in use in other areas of the country. There are limited impervious surfaces. We would be able to show the function when we come back before the board with advanced drawings. Our concept with the storm water is to protect the quality of the pond. It is used for contact recreation. It has some irrigation potential. We want to keep the quality of water coming in as high as we can. The peak flow mitigation will also be handled to a great extent with those practices. There will be some expectation to modify the existing pond so that the development of SONG (second neighborhood group) will not show higher rates of discharges over the pond embankment. Our second recommendation for the larger picture is to look at smaller ponds instead of large water bodies that require constant inflow. Fluctuation in levels does occur in the pond because the watershed above it is not very extensive. It is only 20 acres. We could use smaller unique constructed wetlands. The sanitary infrastructure is straightforward. There are a couple of routing opportunities to get from the existing eight inch Town line over to SONG. We will be working with Mr. Walker on the sewer lines. The expectation is that the lines would be donated to the Town. I was surprised to learn that the consumption of FROG (first residence group) was less than half of what I had predicted it would be. My estimates of consumption for FROG I thought were low. The historical data shows it is half of what I had predicted. The situation is that our initial design of the pump station and distribution lines and pressure storage will serve SONG without modification or impacts on the Town infrastructure. We will need additional pressure storage tank within some of the buildings. SONG is consistent with the original design. There is a larger issue for subsequent groups regarding water and fire protection. In the GEIS we do discuss what would be required from the technical prospective to provide the customary municipal system. We would be looking at an elevated tank on site or further to the west or a traditional ground based tank. Both scenarios are problematic from a financial standpoint. The development of up to five neighborhood groups would require modifications. Mr. Lambert mentioned that SONG looked at access to the site. We have been working with the Fire Department regarding access. We are using stabilized soils. There are generous widths on the walkways. The 14 foot width of stabilized soil would support the emergency vehicles, but have a much narrower active walkway of about 6 to 8 feet wide. They would also like to develop an PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 APRIL 17, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MAY 11 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED additional dry hydrant on the west side of the pond. There are currently dry hydrants on the east side of the pond. A similar detail would be built on the west side of the pond with the access to it on a pumper vehicle. There would then be a dedicated dry fire water supply line. The SONG site plan is more spacious than FROG. The Fire Department recognized it as a benefit in their ability to localize and protect adjacent structures if one does catch fire. Ms. Wolf - There were five categories identified as part of the scoping document as being areas of potential environmental impacts. The first is traffic and transportation. The second is storm water management. Third are community services. The fourth is community character and the fifth is natural resources. SRF Transportation engineers conducted the traffic and transportation study. They conducted their analysis on traffic assuming full build out of the project in 10 years. They assumed a one - percent increase in traffic per year on Routes 79 and 96. They assumed the full build -out of Linderman Creek Apartments. They then took the traffic that would be generated by the development of the 5 neighborhoods. It was put into the traffic stream and analyzed. There were no significant impacts as a result of it. There were no significant impacts were found. SONG would have less of an impact than that. A review of the Town's Comprehensive Plan was done. The major goals of the plan were analyzed in comparison to EcoVillage. A number of visual simulations were prepared to look at the visual impact of the facility. We tried to identify what we thought were the most visible locations of the project. A plant inventory was completed. The records were reviewed of rare and endangered species. None were found to be located on the site. Chairperson Wilcox - The Town Board is being asked to rezone the property. The Town Board will provide us with comments as lead agency. Mr. Kanter - This is a GEIS and a site specific environmental impact statement for SONG. Process wise it is not different. The SEQR process is the same. The board will need to look at the document for site specific impacts and the more generic aspect of the overall development. Figure 4 incorrectly labels the number of dwelling units. We can go over the small corrections in detail with the applicant. We mentioned in the traffic section that the intersection of Route 79 and Warren Place is missing. The scope asks for an evaluation of traffic impact on adjacent neighborhoods. There are neighborhoods that stem off the intersections that were included. There needs to be a characterization of how the traffic would or would not impact the neighborhoods. There might be some elements that would normally be part of Preliminary Site Plan that we do not see in this document. We normally ask to see a landscape plan at the Preliminary Site Plan stage. The board would need to decide if they would want more detail. We have a basic overview analysis, but there are not many details about SONG. Mr. Walker - The basic concept of storm water management is fine. We will need to see full detail calculations. There is plenty of room on the site to do what needs to be done to not create a problem. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 APRIL 17, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MAY 17 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED There is also plenty of room not to do something that they need to do. not create a storm water problem. I have not seen the details so I am is complete from my prospective regarding storm water manager documents completed for each phase as they are built. The GEIS would expect to see design calculation on the specific design details. The site can be constructed to unable to comment. The GEIS lent. There still needs to be is not adequate for SONG. I Mr. Kanter - The board needs to decide if this document is only a GEIS. The scoping outline intended the document to be both a GEIS for the overall development and a site specific GEIS for SONG. Ms. Wolf - We want to be clear about how we are going to handle issues that we thought would be handled in site plan review. We thought what we were providing was adequate for the GEIS. The board still has to approve the site plan. This is something that we have discussed and thought about. We recognize that there are some missing elements, but thought they were clearly sites plan review issues. We were hoping to get comments from the board this evening if there were concerns about adequacy. Typically the Town requires a landscape plan as part of site plan review. We asked EcoVillage if it was something that they anticipated doing. EcoVillage anticipates handling the landscape differently. Chairperson Wilcox - The board will be asked to make a determination of environmental impact. I do not know if I am comfortable hinging environmental review and a determination of environmental impact on eventually seeing details later. The board will need to make a determination based upon the information that we have. Ms. Wolf - The drainage study has been prepared. It is normally submitted as part of the site plan review package for storm drainage. Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Herrick stated that the water system in place would be at 80% capacity when SONG is built. Mr. Herrick - The water system designed for FROG will serve SONG and still have a reserve. Chairperson Wilcox - We have details about the proposed widths of access. We do not have details on how the access will be constructed. Mr. Kanter - Page 20, states that the second neighborhood group a new pond outlook structure together with a higher embankment of anticipated modifications to maintain the pond peak discharge at pre - development rates. We do not have the information or calculations that indicate what the extra volume capacity will be. It is usually considered an environmental issue. Mr. Herrick - The best we can do with looking at groups 3, 4, and 5 is make assumptions based on historical patterns of the first groups. Mr. Kanter - I am talking about the second group. Chairperson Wilcox - The issue is for each of us to decide if there is enough information to make an environmental determination. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 APRIL 17, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MAY 11 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano - The answer is no because it is not all prepared. It is terrific that based on previous experience is to give the board a heads up and offer criticism and ideas so that we do not get wrapped in the same kinds of difficulties that we had in previous projects. On the other hand, I do not think anyone is expecting the board to make those determinations this evening on this information. It is an opportunity for the applicant to present us with well- constructed ideas and get feedback. I feel there is a new avenue being carved out regarding presentations on these matters. Chairperson Wilcox - My interpretation is that we are starting a formal procedure outlined by the State of New York for an environmental impact statement. We are being asked to determine whether this is an adequate amount of documentation to make an environmental determination. We are not making the determination. The Town Board as an involved agency will also provide comments. Then at the next Planning Board meeting we can decide if there is enough information in order to make a determination. Then at some point, we will need to make a determination if the proposed project would have an environmental impact. The board will then move onto site review. Normally we have detailed site plan drawings when we make an environmental determination. Board Member Howe - Are we confusing two different steps in the process? I was viewing this as a broad document just to make sure that we have identified what the key environmental issues are. Mr. Kanter - No. After the board accepts the document, the board then has to use the document to make the determination. The board will not receive another document. There is one document with two steps. The first step is to determine the adequacy of the content of the EIS. Once the document is accepted, then the next step is a public comment period. Everything is then summed up in a Final EIS. The board then makes findings regarding the environmental issues. Once the board accepts the EIS, this document is complete. The document does not change unless a new issue is identified. Board Member Hoffmann - Once the board accepts the document as complete we cannot ask for more information. Attorney Barney - Is this document intended to cover the site specific site plan for SONG? Is intended to be a GEIS for the rezoning of the entire parcel? Mr. Lambert - It was my impression that the site - specific materials could be left to proceed at its own pace. This is a generic statement that we are making and we would try to fit our site - specific issues inside the document. Attorney Barney - Are you planning to come back with some type of analysis that relate to site specific features that relate to SONG? Mr. Lambert - I had not considered it separately. I assumed that the document would be adequate to proceed with the site - specific design. Attorney Barney - There is a little discomfort with that process. There are pieces of information that would normally be available with site specific projects. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 APRIL 17, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MAY 7, 2001 -APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Lambert - The landscaping is resident driven. The landscaping for FROG was put together. Then because of budget overruns, the landscape was pushed back. The residents took it upon themselves to find money to do their own landscaping. They have done a beautiful job. Mr. Kanter - The overall intent is clearly stated on page 2 of scope outline. We have had past discussions on the board regarding the scope and what the environmental study would entail. It was intended to cover both site specific and generic aspects in a one step process. Board Member Hoffmann - I have not seen any information about the road that comes out of Linderman Creek to Route 79 or about the walkway across Route 79. The practical impact of the traffic coming out of the road onto Route 79 is present. Mr. Kanter - We would need to go back to the adopted scope. It is not one of the areas that were included. It is difficult to re -do the original scoping outline. Board Member Hoffmann - Today there is traffic in this area. There are plans for expansion. The document indicates that the speed limit on Route 79 is 55 mph until the City line. The speed limit has been changed. There are some items that should be updated. Chairperson Wilcox - Is the document that the board has reasonably sufficient for a rezoning action? Mr. Kanter - Yes. The board could decide to treat the document as a GEIS only on the rezoning. Then at a later time, we could ask for supplemental environmental studies. It would mean stretching out the review process. There is the possibility that the board could determine through a more specific environmental assessment for rather than this format document. Process wise it is almost the same. It still means going through a review process. The original intent is a much better intent. It combines everything together into a more expedited review process. Chairperson Wilcox - It requires the applicant to have much more detailed drawings available now so that the board and myself can be comfortable in making the determination. The document could be considered for the purposes of a possible rezoning. It could also serve as supplemental and background material for when the actual site plan for SONG comes before the board. This document would still provide supplemental information for future neighborhoods. Mr. Lambert - We have struggled to accommodate on- coming members to develo� and design a neighborhood that would accommodate their needs. We recently signed on out 12t member. It is important to us to move ahead quickly and build in this season. We want to create a document, as quickly as possible that would suffice for moving the process along as quickly as possible. We would like the board to generate a list of needs that would be the document; we could fulfill it within the next few days. Chairperson Wilcox - I would like to see calculations of drainage and storm water management. Board Member Thayer - Mr. Walker has already indicated that he needs more site - specific information. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 APRIL 17, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MAY 11 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Walker - The report in the GEIS summarizes the drainage and storm water management very well. It does not include design details. Supplemental information with site specific details could be appended to this document in the process of reviewing specific development. Board Member Hoffmann - If this document relies on data from the complete build out of Linderman Creek for one purpose, one should not ignore the intersection of the road with Route 79. The information about the speed zones needs to be accurate to reflect the current situation. There was a mention about a small increase of traffic into Coy Glen as a result of this project. I would like to hear what one could do to diminish the traffic through Coy Glen, Mr. Lambert - It would be foot traffic through Coy Glen. Board Member Hoffmann - Yes. It also mentioned that the land that is in meadows now would be retained as meadows. It does not include information about how they would be maintained as meadows. Ms. Wolf - We could include the management strategy for the meadows. Board Member Hoffmann - not see it mentioned. I d SONG on foot. Mr. Lambert - There would the ravine across from the the neighborhoods. There needs to be some mention of the meadows being maintained. I did D not understand why there is not an easy way to travel from FROG to be a small foot bridge built as a community building project at the head of Common House. There is a lot of concern for social commerce between Board Member Hoffmann - I was concerned about whether or not a bio- retention area was appropriate in the center of this area. It might be more appropriate to be located elsewhere. Chairperson Wilcox - I am surprised that public transportation is not a big concern. Mr. Lambert - The distance we are located from the road is an issue. We hope to push the issue and we have spent some time with TCAT. We do a lot of carpooling. Chairperson Wilcox - The rules and regulations are such that the board cannot continually ask for more and more information to prolong the project. Mr. Lambert - We are concerned that we do not get piled on with requests that we did not consider before and it adds to our bill and time. I would like to contain it within a reasonable level. Mr. Kanter - The main change in the area is more specific to the Linderman Creek entrance. It may in some ways impact safety at the Linderman Creek entrance. It would be the only reason for including it in the traffic study. It would more of a question of the physical conditions. It would be more appropriate to review the intersection during Phase II of the Linderman Creek Apartments. Board Member Thayer - It is Linderman Creek Apartment's responsibility. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 APRIL 17, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MAY 11 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter - I suggest that the intersection not be included. Board Member Hoffmann - I am uneasy about ignoring it when it is there. Board Member Thayer - It is Linderman Creek Apartment's responsibility, not EcoVillage. Board Member Hoffmann - It is also our responsibility because we allowed the road to be built in its location. Board Member Thayer - It is a private road. Attorney Barney - EcoVillage has done a traffic study with other intersections showing the impact of the traffic on Route 79. How would it be any different at the exit to Linderman Creek Apartments than it would an intersection down the road? Mr. Kanter - It is not EcoVillage's responsibility to determine if the roadway works for Linderman Creek. It is something that needs to be reviewed during the Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II. Board Member Hoffmann - I have an uneasy feeling that if someone uses some data about Linderman Creek, then we need to include all data available. Board Member Hoffmann - I do not think it would be necessary to take a traffic count at the intersection. Chairperson Wilcox - We could get a statement of how many people live in EcoVillage turn into Linderman Creek. Board Member Hoffmann - The road has been discussed as being a possible through road. Chairperson Wilcox - It will be Linderman Creek's issue. Mr. Walker - It would also alleviate a lot of the problems in the City. Board Member Hoffmann - I want to be sure the road is not ignored. Mr. Lambert - We could make a mention of it in the document as something to be considered. Ms. Wolf - The traffic engineer could make some general observations about the intersection. Attorney Barney - These are not all the comments from the Town. The Town Board will be making comments on the project. Staff also has comments they would like to make. Mr. Kanter - The applicant will need to come back before the Planning Board for a determination. We will need to circulate the revised documents to the board prior to the meeting in order for them to make their determination. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 APRIL 17, 2001 • APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - MAY 1, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - The next meeting is May 1St, The Town would need the materials by April 23rd. It would be difficult to meet the deadline for the next meeting. Mr. Kanter - The second meeting would be May 15th. The deadline for that meeting would be May 7th Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 13, 2001, March 20, 2001 & April 3, 2001. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -29 - Approval of Minutes - March 6, 2001, March 20, 2001 & April 3, 2001. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the March 6, 2001, March 20, 2001, and April 6, 2001 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NA YS: NONE. ABSTAIN. NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox - There was an ad on Channel 13 for a Town of Ithaca Planner, Mr. Kanter - We have a vacancy. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the April 17, 2001 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Res ectfully sub 'tted: Carrie& itmor , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receive of Taxes