Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2015-08-04TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. August 4. 2015 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: College Crossings Development, Danby Road and East King Road intersection. This project involves the College Crossing development, located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.23, Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone. The proposal includes increasing the floor area of the previously-approved building to 32,000+/- square feet (from 19,000+/- square feet) to accommodate residential units on two upper floors and increasing the height of the building to 54+/- feet tall (from 40+/- feet tall) to accommodate a third story. The proposal will also include changes to previously- approved stormwater management facilities, new parking layout, change in the number of parking spaces, new landscaping and other site modifications. Due to the increase in the size and residential component of the project, the project will require use and area variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and site plan and special permit approval from the Planning Board. College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Evan N. Monkemeyer, Agent. 2. Persons to be heard 3. Approval of Minutes: July 21,2015 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SPOLCE@ rOVVN.rmACA.m .US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (http://www.town.ithaca.nv.us/meellng-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday,August 4, 2015 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli,John Beach, Liebe Meier Swain,Yvonne Fogarty,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: College Crossings Development, Danby Road and East King Road intersec- tion. This project involves the College Crossing development, located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1- 3.23, Neighborhood Commercial(NC) Zone. The proposal includes increasing the floor area of the previously-approved building to 32,000+/-square feet(from 19,000+/-square feet) to accommodate residential units on two upper floors and increasing the height of the building to 54+/-feet tall (from 40+/-feet tall) to accommodate a third story. The proposal will also include changes to previously- approved stormwater management facilities, new parking layout, change in the number of parking spaces, new landscaping and other site modifications. Due to the increase in the size and residential component of the project, the project will require use and area variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and site plan and special permit approval from the Planning Board. College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Evan N. Monkemeyer, Agent. Mr. Monkemeyer explained that this is the evolution of College Crossings, which started in 2005 when he came before the planning board for approval of a retail-only shopping center with office space above. That was approved in 2007, and then came the crash of 2008 when they were shut off from funding by the banks.Then in 2012, the board granted approval of a plan to convert the second-floor offices to residential. In 2013, they asked for a drive-thru for one of their tenants, but were en route to being denied a variance, so they backed off. In this plan, they're asking the board to approve an economically feasible project. The problem with retail-only is that the banks today want 65 percent of all the first-floor retail space preleased before they approve any loans. They were never able to reach that, so he and his son discussed the concept of what the banks will lend on, and that is residential. By putting a larger residential component on the second floor and adding a third floor, they were able to generate enough income to make the project feasible. The rents from the residential would essentially carry the entire building and the first-floor tenants would cover the additional income for the expenses and for profits. With the new project, they have increased the square footage, but the footprint is about the same. Edward Keplinger, landscape architect, discussed the significant changes to the project, which he outlined in a memo to staff in June. The building was lowered four feet, so they shifted the storm- Planning Board Minutes 08-04.2015 Page 2 of 10 water facility that was located under the parking lot to the north and brought the driveway up the hill to the drive lane that was closest to the building. He thinks that improves the traffic flow out to 96B. By lowering the building four feet, they eliminated the driveway that connected the King Road East intersection down to the driveway at the south end of the building,which was a very steep slope. Now there's a gentle driveway that comes down the east side of the property and ties into the parking lot. They dropped the elevation of the building four feet, but this did not change the location of the building. Mr. Monkemeyer explained that by lowering the building, they now don't have to look for four feet of fill for the site. Also, he has a property just to the north, and they built a fence as a buffer between it and the planned project. With the fill, you would have been able to look over the fence.With the redesign, the building slab itself will be no more than six inches higher than the existing grade. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that the difference between the approved plan from 2012 and the new plan is only a three-foot drop in elevation, not four. Mr. Bosak noted that Mr. Keplinger's memo didn't mention the addition of a third story; he suggested that adding a third story is a significant modification. Mr. Monkemeyer pointed out that, architecturally, the plan looks very similar to the 2012 building. By breaking up the roofs instead of having a continuous roofline all the way across, there are some elevation changes and it's still a handsome-looking building. Mr. Wilcox summarized the board's thinking when the project was first approved. The zoning wants smaller, individual buildings, but architecturally, they were pleased with the building and the way it looked. It had architectural features that mitigated the fact that it was one larger structure.The drive- thru for fast food was denied, but the drive-thru for the bank is allowed. Ms. Fogarty asked if they have potential commercial tenants. Mr. Monkemeyer responded that Dunkin Donuts has an interest, but wants to see the building started. They had a bank tenant who pulled out. Mr. Monkemeyer said that he owns the Springwood apartments on King Road. Ms. Fogarty asked why this project has to have a commercial element. Recently there was a charrette that showed potential layouts for this area in terms of communities. Ms. Balestra said the current zoning of this property is neighborhood commercial, which allows a variety of commercial uses and also allows mixed use, with commercial and residential, but the residential is supposed to be accessory to the commercial. The town is looking for commercial development in this area. Ms. Fogarty said she was referring to the layout of the design, which is one big building as opposed to something with a more neighborhood feel. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that the ZBA has already given a variance for the prior project. Planning Board Minutes 08-04.2015 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Brock said this should be treated as a new project. Mr. Monkemeyer said that by having one building instead of multiple buildings, there's a greater efficiency in cost and in land - three buildings with setbacks for side yards, rear yards, etc.,would scatter the project on the site.Adjoining them as one structure made more sense than breaking them up. Ms. Erb asked how many bedrooms were intended in the two-story project that got ZBA approval versus this new project. Mr. Monkemeyer responded that there were nine previously and now there are 36. Ithaca College students would certainly be one market. Mr. Erb asked whether there were any issues with residents being permitted to exit this project to access the bike and pedestrian pathway to the Circle Apartments. Mr. Monkemeyer said that when the Coverts owned the property, they agreed to allow access to make the improvements through their property up the College Circle road, but the college has purchased the property. He and his attorney have made attempts to contact the college, but they haven't returned the calls. Ms. Balestra pointed out that one of the conditions of approval from the 2007 and 2012 projects was that the applicant get the permission from IC to have the walkway. Mr. Beach assumed from prior discussion on this project that there would be a connection to TCAT. If the owner of that property doesn't give the applicant the right to use that property, it raises the concern of access to public transportation - people walking or riding their bikes along Danby Road - when the board has assumed that there would be that connection. He realizes it's beyond Mr. Monkemeyer's control. Mr. Monkemeyer responded that he is one hundred percent in agreement. He will do it on his property, but if he doesn't have the right to go onto Ithaca College's property, it's beyond his control. Mr. Bosak stated that Mr. Monkemeyer's good intentions aren't the point. If approval of the project hinges on a certain traffic pattern that is impossible, for whatever reason, then it's not a true thing that it will happen. Mr. Wilcox said the board is also concerned about traffic generated from the Country Inn and Suites hotel to this location. Ms. Ritter said the town is doing a study on 96B, looking at sidewalks, and that this intersection is being looked at. She's certain that the consultants will come back with a recommendation for sidewalks on both sides. The town will then be looking for funding to implement the plan. Ms. Brock said that if the applicant thinks it's probable that Ithaca College will give its permission for this connection to be made, the planning board can make their determination based on that information. If, in fact, events occur and it becomes impossible for that connection to be made Planning Board Minutes 08-04.2015 Page 4 of 10 because Ithaca College refuses to give it, then if this comes back to the board for site plan and special permit, they would need to determine whether the SEQR determination is still appropriate or whether it needs to be reopened in light of the changed conditions. If the board is making assump- tions about traffic generation and pedestrian safety and movement based on one set of facts, and the applicant comes back and says that set of facts cannot be realized, the board would then decide if they need to reopen the SEQR determination to see whether the original determination was still appropri- ate. She wondered whether IC's approvals for the Circle Apartments required the connection. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that the board didn't allow Country Inn and Suites to have three stories. The reason given was character of the neighborhood. That building is 36 feet. Mr. Monkemeyer is now asking for 54 feet. Ms. Erb pointed out that there's a new comp plan in play. Ms. Balestra said the new comp plan envisions the area with a form-based style of development that might increase building height, might include buildings that are closer to the street with parking hidden on the inside,will be more pedestrian scale at the first level. We haven't established how tall we want to see the buildings. Planning staff is working with Form Ithaca to talk about what we might want to see for the density in that area.Around that intersection is slated to be a denser commercial, mixed-use type of area with building heights that may be up to three or four stories. Ms. Meier Swain quoted from the comp plan: "existing vehicle-oriented strip commercial develop- ment should be redeveloped or retrofitted to a more pedestrian friendly form over time." Ms. Balestra said that the design we're looking towards for that area is different from 2007 when it came to the board the first time. But the current zoning is still in place. Mr. Wilcox said that we're in a period of time where an applicant can come in and say, I'm doing it this way because that's what the zoning says, but I'm doing this this way because that's what you want in the future.And you pick and choose which things you want because it lowers your cost, increases your revenue, etc. It's a transition phase. Looking at the EIS, Mr. Bosak agreed with staff's opinion that the "proposed bulk and height" of the building, "coupled with the sparse landscaping, will be out of character with the predominant architecture in the area." He disagreed that being out of character with the area is a small-in- magnitude impact. Ms. Brock reminded the board that the standard is a "significant" adverse impact, so you could find there's an adverse impact, but if it's not significant,you wouldn't have to pos dec it. Mr. Bosak's point of view is that if something is in direct conflict with part of our newly passed comp plan, it is a significant impact. Ms. Erb said that the new comp plan envisions something more dense in this neighborhood, and she thought that adding a third story in the middle - which is what you see from some angles, but from other angles,you see two stories, and then three stories - is better than just a big massive line. Planning Board Minutes 08-04.2015 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Bosak said you need to keep in mind that our tendency is to look back at previous iterations of the project and say that this is yet another modification, but it is not. It's a new project being judged against a new comprehensive plan. And he doesn't disagree that it is out of character with the predominant architectural scale in the area. He thinks this thing is huge in a way that without the third story it wasn't. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that the question remains of whether it is a significant environmental impact. Ms. Collins agreed that the past is the past and that this is a new project. Her feeling is that we should be leaning, during this transition, toward the new comp plan because that's our future, and that the current zoning is part of the past. So she feels that this is more inconsistent with the new plan. The height might be okay, but the rest doesn't fit with the comp plan. Mr. Haefeli isn't opposed to three stories, but as designed, it's really massive; he thinks that through architectural changes, it might be acceptable. The 2012 design had a nicer feel. Mr. Monkemeyer said if we were to cut the sloped roofs off and put a flat roof on, it would be a substantially smaller building, but architecturally less appealing.A sloped roof gives a residential feel; he's mimicking Community Corners, but on a larger scale. When you put a sloped roof on that larger span (70 to 80 feet) to get the 6:12 pitch to go up, it has to climb a story and a half in this case. It's more of an architectural feel, but if the board doesn't like it and wants a flat roof, it can change. Mr. Keplinger pointed out that the building has a lot of interest when compared to the hotel across the street. The front of the building is not a flat relief- there are projections in the facade. Ms. Fogarty said the building is nice looking, but when she looks at the design, she sees parking lot. The format we're moving to is looking at limiting that view of parking lot. It's not what we want our neighborhoods to look like.This a beautiful piece of land, and she can't say enough about how this land should be used so it's beautiful. Mr. Wilcox said that if this gets developed consistent with either today's or tomorrow's zoning,which is commercial, and it has a sit-down restaurant and a bank and maybe professional offices and residences upstairs, it's going to need parking. The issue is parking in the back, which the comp plan talks about, and this goes back to choosing current zoning versus future comp plan.We are guided today by the current zoning. If the zoning says something is allowed,we can't simply say that we don't like it. If the zoning says you have to have 111 parking spaces, you've got to put them in, and it's our job to mitigate the impact of that parking. Mr. Keplinger said that they're willing to add landscaping, maybe a low hedgerow three or four feet high, to shield the parking from the street. They might be able to put some tree islands in the parking lot. Ms. Erb is taken by the fact that we already have fewer parking spaces than they could have asked for and some can be mitigated with good landscaping to break it up a bit. Mr. Bosak pointed out the things that are not an issue for him. He has no problem with there being commercial or residential development here. He is always strongly in favor of mixing the two because Planning Board Minutes 08-04.2015 Page 6 of 10 that's what makes nice cities nice - having retail on the ground and residential above it. He's willing to stipulate that the design is better than the design of the Country Inn and Suites across the road. The real issue boils down to what Ms. Fogarty was saying: not the use, not the square footage, but that it's ugly because of the parking in front and because it's one large mass. Ms. Collins said that this strikes her visually as a suburban commercial development that happens to have residential on top, but nobody would know that from looking at it. Given the new comp plan, she would like to see something that has more of a neighborhood feel, such as multiple buildings, lower scale, parking is interspersed. She agrees that there should be commercial development, but would like it to be visually and functionally different. Mr. Wilcox said that the board liked the 18,000 square foot building from before, but now that it is 50 percent greater, we're getting to that edge where people are starting to think that the building is getting too big. That could be mitigated with more architectural elements. Going back to the discussion about the pathway connection, Ms. Ritter found a College Circle Apartments drawing that shows on the plans that the future walkway is to be constructed by the adjacent development. The intent was for it to be built when the adjacent property is developed. Ms. Brock added that she is sure we'll be able to show that the pathway was integral to Ithaca College's approval. Mr. Monkemeyer pointed out that they have it designed so the residents will access the parking to the east side of the building and the front or west side would be more reserved for the retail section. Mr. Beach asked whether it was appropriate to take into account an eight-year-old traffic study when considering the impacts of this project. Ms. Balestra said that the study took into account the Holly Creek townhomes, the Westview subdivision, the monastery, and the hotel, and there have been no large developments anticipated since then. Mr. Thaete talked about stormwater. He stated that the applicant's original intent was to do an above- ground basin. He changed the design and the town approved an underground basin two years ago, and a big component of that was infiltration. Basically, he has a half arch, and the water comes into it and is allowed to percolate down through the base of the system and back into the aquifer. In talking with his engineer that day, Mr. Thaete learned that the engineer changed it from an infiltration to a non-infiltration scenario. The reason he did that is because he dropped the site three feet, and now that basin is close to bedrock.When you're close to bedrock, if you don't set the system up right,you almost have a direct injection of silt, oils, and greases into the system. This can clog the system and it can get into the water source from the surface. The DEC stipulates that if you're doing an infiltration facility, you have to have four feet from the bottom of your storm infiltration facility to bedrock. The town is allowed to deviate from that and reduce this to a two-foot separation, which we did in the original scenario. The original underground basin that was approved was in the center of the parking lot. To the layman, it simply looks like it was shifted to one side, but it was also dropped lower to bedrock, and in doing so, the engineer took the water quality devices that would filter out the oils and sediments that were pre-basin and put them after the basin. The DEC doesn't state that you can't do Planning Board Minutes 08-04.2015 Page 7 of 10 that, but it does state that water quality should be before the basin. So, we've made the requirement that he has to put a liner in under the basin.As of that morning, he had complied. Mr. Thaete hasn't had time to go through the numbers or review the sizing to see if it's all legitimate. In concept,what he's showing will work and is in conformance with the regulations. Now everything is going into isolator rows, which help promote sediment dropping out, and it's an easy way to maintain and clean the basin.That helps. Mr. Thaete just hasn't had time to review the numbers and the flows to make sure it's all working properly. To a question from Ms. Meier Swain, Mr. Monkemeyer explained that the site was dropped three feet because the amount of fill needed to make the eight-foot change in elevation was not on the site, so he would have had to dig a hole somewhere else or truck the fill in. The site being lowered allowed them to lower the impact for the existing buildings to the north.Another thing it helps for is the access point on the Route 96B side. He moved the stormwater out of the front and got rid of the huge former hole in the ground that would have had to have been demoed with dynamite. He asked why he would want to build a hole that's going to collect trash and that he's going to have to put a fence around so people don't fall in it. He thinks that putting it under the parking lot is a fabulous concept and it makes everything better for land use and provides more open spaces for landscaping and parking. Mr. Thaete said that in his professional experience, the second you take your stormwater device and bury it, it becomes a maintenance issue. It's hard for the town to understand if there's a problem with the basin. Mr. Monkemeyer said that there's a good quality control in the construction and supervision if the town wants to monitor it closely. Mr. Thaete responded that he would like to think that Mr. Monkemeyer's contractor would do that. The town is here to observe, not to inspect. In his experience, if it's buried, it's forgotten. Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Thaete to address any problems the town has had with Mr. Monkemeyer's SWPPP. Mr. Thaete said that Mr. Monkemeyer is one of the biggest violators in the town, and it took over a year of letter writing and emails to get him to do something. What happens is that we meet on site several times and he promises the world, and gives us about a quarter of what he promises. It happens every time. Mr. Monkemeyer said he never had a plan that Mr. Thaete wanted him to build. Mr. Thaete responded that it is not his job to come up with a plan; it's Mr. Monkemeyer's engineer's job. Ms. Erb said that she read in the staff's memo that engineering had serious issues with the stormwater and what she heard Mr. Thaete say is that this can work. She has never seen the board go ahead with something like this without having a stormwater plan to the approval of the engineers. She heard Mr. Thaete say that it can work. She asked whether it is a site plan issue to say it will work or whether it's a SEQR issue. Planning Board Minutes 08-04.2015 Page 8 of 10 Ms. Fogarty heard Mr. Thaete say he had a mediocre plan on which he hasn't run the numbers yet. She's not comfortable going ahead without numbers. Mr.Wilcox asked whether it is sufficient to say it can work, but that Mr. Thaete hasn't run through the numbers. Mr. Bosak said there's a difference between an expert opinion that it can work and an opinion that it will work. Ms. Erb wondered whether we've always had the SWPPP numbers fully completed at the SEQR point as opposed to having a good impression that it could work. Ms. Collins said that it was her recollection that we always have had a memo from engineering, but it never says the current plan does NOT meet the standards and does NOT protect the groundwater. Until Mr. Thaete has had the chance to look at the information and can say that the statement is no longer true, she doesn't feel that we have the information we need. Mr. Thaete said his hesitation stems from his history with the applicant's engineer balking at a lot of issues we bring up. He tends to come at the situation saying the regulations don't say you can't do it. Mr. Beach said he would rather have the engineer's input before he can support the SEQR. Mr. Haefeli would rather that the engineer be more comfortable. He asked how often engineering goes back into an installed system to review its functionality, and whether this system, as designed, would make supervising the functionality difficult. Mr. Thaete responded that most applicants that have a full SWPPP are required to do a yearly report, which is done by an independent engineering firm. Based on those reports, we enforce the issue at hand. Most frequently, they find too much growth or sediment or trash in the basin because they're not cleaning it out. Mr. Monkemeyer mentioned an open hole that collects trash; now we'll have an underground basin that collects trash.You just don't see it. The underground basin will have inspection reports.You can put rods down to figure out how much silt you have. Mr. Wilcox asked how you get access to the underground system if there's too much silt. Mr. Thaete said that the isolator rows connect into the storm structure, so you can climb down the storm structure and look and shovel stuff out.You can't necessarily shimmy down the rows. They do make a proprietary jet blaster device that you push down the rows, like a pressure washer, to flush it out. It's not as easy to maintain as an above-ground basin. Mr. Bosak stated that Mr. Thaete's recitation of the history with the applicant and his engineer is highly relevant to the discussion, and makes him even more nervous than he would have been. He would like a lot more assurance that this will work. He thinks flooding is the environmental issue for this area going forward and that all the measures we're taking aren't nearly what's going to be needed, anyway, so he wants to hear we have high confidence in light of our current regulations. Planning Board Minutes 08-04.2015 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Thaete added that he tried for a couple of weeks to set up a meeting with the engineer and was denied, hence the letter writing back and forth, and here we are. He tried. Board members also pointed to all the places in the SEQR form that were left unanswered. Mr. Wilcox characterized it as "sloppy or rushed." Ms. Brock read the criteria for determination of a significant adverse impact. Mr. Wilcox stated that he thinks there's an adverse impact, but not a significant one when it comes to the current design of the building. He thinks it's too high, given the other structures near that intersection, but it doesn't reach the significant threshold for him. The comp plan says we want to go higher, raise the density and height of the structure; on the other hand, we want the buildings in the front and near the roads with the parking in back, but that's not consistent with the zoning. If you're the applicant coming before the planning board,what do you do? Mr. Bosak said that building height has to be taken into the context of the other buildings around it that are almost that high, not standing alone in a field. Ms. Erb countered that something has to be first. To her mind, some of the issue of putting the parking in the back is visual impact from sidewalks and roadways. Here, the major road is below the parking lot, and to some extent,with better landscaping, the visual impact can be mitigated. The designs are calling for parking in the back because the streets are at the same level. Even though the comp plan calls for parking in the back, the elevation difference, along with landscaping, will help make it hidden. Ms. Collins said that this was a piece of property that was intently worked on during that charrette, and some interesting designs were suggested. She thinks there could be something better in this location. Ms. Brock pointed out that the people who did the charrette don't own the property, and that that's not the board's standard, which is. is there potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. Don't consider whether you think you or somebody else could design this better. Look at what they're proposing and the legal criteria. Ms. Erb said if she were staying, she would have asked for substantially more shade islands to get rid of the heat and to make sure that the visual impacts were diminished. On a motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by John Beach, the SEQR determination was adjourned until the meeting of August 18, 2015, provided the necessary materials are received. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. Other Business Mr. Wilcox presented Ms. Erb with a plaque of appreciation, signed by all seven members of the town board. Planning Board Minutes 08-04-2015 Page 10 of 10 AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Erb, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, cbra DcAugistin57^)eputy T