Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2019-04-16'"FOWN 01=° 11"'HACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Roorn,Town Hall 2,15 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New, York 14850 pgs4� y�A riljf)�2-011= AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SE'QR Determination: Moyer 2-1-ot. Subdivision, 699 Coddington Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 699 Coddington Road, Town of1thaca Tax Parcel No. 48,-1-12. 1, 1 -ow, Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proJect involves subdividing 3.4 +/- acres from 699 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48,-1-1 11), which will beconsolidated with 703 Coddington Road(Parcel No. 48.-1-12.3). AdenMoyer, Owner/Applicant, 7:15 11,M. Discussion of the draft Findings Statement for the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopinern project. The proposed Chain Works District Redeveloptmirt Project seeks to redevelop the 800,000 +/- square foot forrner Morse Chain/Ernerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of' the 95 -acre site within the City and'I'lown of Ithaca. 4. Persons to be he,'ird Approval of minutes: April 2, 2019 Other Business AdJOUrnment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF* ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO A"ITEND, PLEASE' N(.),r[F'Y SANDY POLCE Al' 273-1717 or SPOL4'E0A 0 WN'XFHA(-.,A.N'1'.US. A quorunt of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated prqject materials are accessible eledronically on the Town's website under "PlanMng Board" on tire" Meeting Agendas" page (tit n . i xrrnaiaas;).. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. Tuesday, April 16, 2019 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY _GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, April 16, 2019, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y.,.at the following time and on the following matter: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 699 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The project involves subdividing 3.4 +/- acres'from 699 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1), which will be consolidated with 703 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48.-1-12.3). Aden Moyer, Owner/Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the timeof the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, April 8, 2019 Publish: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tio a Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, Aril IG 2019 commencin at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: April 08, 2019 Date of Publication: April 10, 2019 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 101" day of April 2019. Notr"y Public DEBORAH KELLEY Notary, Public,".State of New York No. 01 KE6025073 Qualified'iii Schuyler County of Commission Expires May 17, 20 �� � 1N � �� J Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street April 16, 2019 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, April 16, 2019 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Jon Bosak, Cindy Kaufinan, Joseph Haefeti, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Jennifer Karius Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter; Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Bosak called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and noted that both the chair and vice chair were absent from the meeting. Mr. Beach moved to appoint Mr. Bosak chair pro tem and Ms. Fogarty seconded. Board members voted in favor of the motion, with the exception of Mr. Bosak, who abstained. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Moyer 2 -Lot Subdivision, 699 Coddington Road Mr. Bosak noted that the public notice is defective: it states that 3.4 acres are being subdivided off the main parcel rather than 1.9 acres. The question is: is it harmful? Is there anybody who's not here who would have been interested in being here had the notice been published correctly? He thinks not because the way it was published, it states a larger acreage. Given that the applicant would have difficulty making a repeat visit, lie's inclined to let it go. Mr. Haefeti asked what would happen if we approved it and, at a later date, someone came forward and said they protest it. Ms. Brock responded that nothing would happen unless we were sued and lost. Someone could allege that it's defective in a way that matters. We would say the defect was immaterial and that people weren't misted into not coming. She thinks that would prevail, but she can't be 100 percent certain. Ms. Fogarty asked whether it sets a precedent. Ms. Brock said no; ZBA notices have had typos and other numerical issues, but many tiles the difference between what was published and the actual number was smaller. Mr. Haefeti said it doesn't materially change the character of what we're approving. Ms. Brock said the notice correctly lists the addresses and that there will be a transfer of land from one parcel to the adjacent parcel and that the adjacent parcel will consolidate the existing with the new. It's literally just the amount of land. Mr. Ritter added that all the meeting materials are on the town's web site, so if someone had been interested and wanted to learn more about the project, they could have found the materials, including the survey map. PB Draft Minutes 04.16.2019 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Moyer said that when lie did his first subdivision, lie didn't fully consider how lie wanted to subdivide the property. After thinking about it further, he'd like to give the same amount of land to each property in case lie wants to sell the property at a later date. Also, part of the other parcel went behind the parcel his house sits on and lie worried about future development. Ms. Karius asked about the conservation zone at the rear of the property. Ms. Balestra said it's no more than 6000 to 8000 square feet. Mr. Bosak asked if they might need variances. Ms. Brock said it's yet to be determined. There are two zones that apply: conservation zone and LDR. Which lot size requirement should we follow? We couldn't find any provision in the code that addresses the situation. It's not uncommon to have a zoning district running through a parcel. So we need to research that. If it's approved, the board can make it subject to the receipt of any necessary variances. Ms. Balestra pointed out that all of the lots along Coddington Road have a little sliver of conservation zone in them. PB Resolution No. 2019.010: SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Moyer 2 -Lot Subdivision, 699/703 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 48.4-12.1 & 48--l-12.3 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 699 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The project involves subdividing 1.9 +/- acres from 699 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1), which will be consolidated with 703 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48.4-12.3). Aden Moyer, Owner/Applicant; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project; 3. The Planning Board on April 16, 2019, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map No. 699 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 10/11/2016, and most recently revised 3/12/2019, and other application materials; and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: PB Draft Minutes 04.16.2019 Page 3 of 8 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Bosak, Kaufman, Haefeti, Beach, Fogarty, Karius AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 699 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The project involves subdividing 1.9 +/- acres from 699 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1), which will be consolidated with 703 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48.4-12.3). Aden Moyer, Owner/Applicant Mr. Bosak opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Hearing no one, lie closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2019.012: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Moyer 2 -Lot Subdivision, 699/703 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 48.4-12.1 & 48.4-12.3 Moved by Joseph Haefeti; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 699 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The project involves subdividing 1.9 +/- acres from 699 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1), which will be consolidated with 703 Coddington Road (Parcel No. 48.4-12.3). Aden Moyer, Owner/Applicant; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, has, on April 16, 2019, made a negative deter- mination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board on April 16, 2019, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map No. 699 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 10/11/2016, and most recently revised 3/12/2019, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: PB Draft Minutes 04.16.2019 Page 4 of 8 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav- ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision and consolidation located at 699 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 48.4-12.1 and 48.4-12.3, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map No. 699 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," subject to the following con- ditions: a. Submission for signing by the Planning Board Chair of an original and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, revised to show the correct tax parcel number along the north western property boundary of 703 Coddington Road, and to show the house located at 703 Coddington Road, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office; and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department; b. Within six months of the date of this approval, consolidation of the 1.9+/- acres from 699 Coddington Road (Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-12.1) with 703 Coddington Road (Tax Parcel No. 48.- 1-12.3); and submission of a copy of the completed Tompkins County Assessment Depart- ment consolidation request form to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department; and c. Receipt of any necessary variances. Vote Ayes: Bosak, Kaufman, Haefeti, Beach, Fogarty, Karius AGENDA ITEM Discussion of the draft Findings Statement for the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project seeks to redevelop the 800,000 +/- square foot former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95 -acre site within the City and Town of Ithaca The board went through the document and these were the main issues: Maps: There was a lot of confusion about the maps. Staff will sort out the numbering of the maps and the references to them. Board members also had difficulty orienting the maps, as printed, with the cardinal directions. Ms. Kaufman suggested that it would be more helpful to have them printed oriented with north at the top, but Ms. Brock pointed out that the FGEIS is already done. Ms. Kaufman requested that north arrows be prominently displayed on every map. Acronyms: The document needs a list of acronyms; hunting for the first occurrence is time consuming. Alternatives: Ms. Brock said that in the end, you're going to say that, on balance, this is the alternative that best minimizes the impacts, but they don't talk about the other alternatives at all in the findings state- PB Draft Minutes 04.16.2019 Page 5 of 8 went. We have to talk about them, at least to show why the option we're choosing is better than the others. They talked about No Action in the environmental remediation section, but they don't talk about the other ones at all. Ms. Balestra said she'll need to go back into the DGEIS and develop language as to why the other alternatives are not the best choice. Traffic: Ms. Fogarty said that after reading the traffic study, she's convinced that there is no way that this is going to be okay. When you look at the numbers, there are places that start out with a D and end up with an F. Route 96B isn't good to start with, particularly in winter. One of their mitigations is that people are going to walk to town, but they're not going to walk to town in the winter. She likes this project, but the traffic is scary. They're saying that after Phase I, they're going to look at the traffic again, but what happens if you can't mitigate the traffic after Phase I? Does the project go down the tubes? The increase in cars after Phase I is significant. Even with traffic lights, the numbers don't look good. Ms. Balestra said two of the intersections go from level of service B and C in the a.m./p.m. to Fs post development. To put in a traffic light might be okay, but they're also thinking about adding a light at one of the other intersections. The only way to mitigate that kind of traffic is to not have cars or to build new roads. Mr. Haefeli said an aerial tramway would actually be doable. Mr. Bosak said in order to make this work, some fundamental changes are going to need to occur with regard to public transportation on Route 96B. The parties and TCAT will need to step up and create some added service. Ms. Ritter pointed out that F doesn't mean it's not working anymore, but that there are longer waits. Another way to look at it is if you're driving alone in your car, not carpooling, not taking mass transit, you're going to be inconvenienced a bit more. We've all gotten so used to be able to drive alone in our cars, each one of us is impacting the traffic. We're part of the problem, so we have to be part of the solution. Mr. Bosak said a couple things incline him to accept that as the price: 1) He cannot think of any other alternative that allows this area to be remediated back to a residential level. The difference between it being remediated to residential versus industrial is big. If you check with people in the neighborhood about which concerns them more - extra traffic or poison seeping into their ground- water - they might have an opinion on that. 2) That factory, during most of the 20th century, employed about 10 percent of the working population of the city. There used to be a lot more traffic and folks not only lived with it, they benefited from that activity. Mr. Beach pointed out that Ithaca College wasn't there until the early 60s. Mr. Bosak said somebody is going to have to deliver on the promises made over the last several years about transportation in that central corridor. Ms. Fogarty explained that the reason she brought the subject up tonight, as opposed to at the next meeting, is that she would appreciate it if other board members read that section carefully and come up with definite suggestions, because the way it's written doesn't include definite solutions. The mitigations don't say who is going to do it. There has to be a person whose dedicated job is to be in PB Draft Minutes 04.16.2019 Page 6 of 8 charge of traffic and transportation all the time for this particular development, not just in Phase I and Phase II, but in perpetuity, who is coordinating all the things in the mitigation. They talk about studies, one in Washington State, but they don't provide evidence that that study showed anything positive. Ms. Balestra asked if it would be beneficial to have the applicant attend the next meeting. Some of the questions staff flagged in yellow are things we can't answer. Who is going to do these things? Who is going to pay for it? She'll forward it to Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers, and ask him to come prepared to help the planning board work through the questions. Mr. Bosak suggested the board come to the next meeting prepared to focus on the traffic issue. Ms. Kaufman had a question about the other roads into the project. Do we look at those to relieve some of the congestion? Ms. Balestra said those were analyzed in the EIS. New board members didn't get the big binder of materials from the EIS, but there is a dedicated web site for the Chain Works project, which should provide all the information. Mr. Bosak said that, although lie hasn't read the transportation section, lie suspects he'll want to propose language that says this is going to require a restructuring of the public transit. Ms. Fogarty said that's addressed. Ms. Brock said the applicant can't control that. Ms. Fogarty said it would be a shame if this project got started, got through the first phase, and was then suspended. It just doesn't work because of traffic. They understand this is a problem and they've suggested a lot of mitigations but nothing that's concrete, nothing that shows they're actually prepared. Mr. Bosak said part of the problem is that TCAT doesn't have the resources to do any more than what they're doing. As a consequence, they will not commit to anything. Ms. Ritter said that as she recalls, DOT is saying they won't go forward until certain things happen. Energy: Ms. Balestra said that with Maplewood and North Campus, we talked a lot about energy, sustainabil- ity, the carbon footprint, energy use, energy generation, using the DEC's guidelines, but with Chain Works, we didn't do that. This is a massive project: it's bigger than the others combined. She recognizes we're not the lead agency and the lead agency obviously didn't see it as a big problem because they've already accepted the EIS and the scoping document without a discussion about energy and sustainability. Ms. Brock said these are the town's findings and they can be different from the city's, but whatever we put in the document, you have to be able to support by what's in the EIS, so you have to go back through and see what it says. Ms. Ritter said they're calling for LEED ND, which is for neighborhood development, and they got a fair amount of money from NYSERDA to implement sustainability measures. So they were thinking about it from that standpoint, but they didn't nix the use of natural gas. Ms. Fogarty suggested that that's another thing we can do between now and the next meeting. PB Draft Minutes 04.16.2019 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Bosak thought that when the subject came up at the time, the answer was that this is a generic plan and when we talk about specific site plans, that's when you ask about the energy. Ms. Brock noted that they looked at district heating and cooling and decided it wasn't viable for this site. Mr. Bosak thought it was because they didn't get the grants. Ms. Karius asked whether it's okay to include updated information in the findings statement or whether we have to refer to the past SEQR review process. Ms. Ritter said the SEQR is done. Now we pull everything together in the findings statement. Ms. Kaufman asked to what extent the board can comment on the energy use or the energy goals. How much influence do we have? Ms. Balestra said a good portion of the conceptual plan includes brand new development in the town and as an involved agency, we can have a big say in that, but it has to tie back into the environmental review. Ms. Kaufman asked whether it's in our realm to require that any home built be, say, LEED certified. Ms. Brock explained that at the end of this statement, they have the certification. You're doing a balancing of social, economic, and other considerations: mitigating "to the maximum extent practica- ble." She doesn't remember what the EIS says about the energy and whether there's enough infor- mation in there that you can say that this must be built to a certain standard. Ms. Kaufman said the whole project is a very sustainable way to develop land, so what are we commenting on? Mr. Bosak said that everything we're doing leads up to the paragraph Ms. Brock just pointed to. The way explained to us in land use classes is that everything has a negative impact; you can't develop anything without a negative impact. Presumably, it has a positive impact also; for example, it's good to build this housing complex because we have a housing shortage. No one makes that decision but us; it's the real power we have. We're saying that all things considered, including the traffic problem, the advantage, for example, of cleaning this up to a higher standard makes it worth doing. Or it doesn't. We've got to balance and figure out which side weighs more. Ms. Fogarty said the only mention they make of energy use is that the buildings will meet LEED ND criteria and that they'll achieve at least a 70 -percent reduction in fossil fuel use in compliance with the 2030 Challenge. Ms. Kaufman said that's significant; being in compliance with the 2030 Challenge is huge, in terms of design. Thresholds: Mr. Bosak pointed out that being a generic EIS, it's at a meta level. You've got this whole apparatus built around thresholds. PB Draft Minutes 04-16-2019 Page 8 of 8 Ms. Balestra agreed, saying there needs to be a lot of conversation around thresholds. The important thing about thresholds is that this is what you're considering to be triggers for when additional environmental review will be needed. Ms. Brock agreed that they were worded in a very confusing way. Ms. Karius asked staff to could go through the thresholds stated in the document and give a brief explanation. Ms. Balestra and Ms. Brock said they didn't understand many of them. Ms. Brock said these are the city's thresholds, so we should ask them to clarify, and if we think it's a good one, we'll put it in words that everybody can understand. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM Minutes Ms. Karius stated that at the April 2nd meeting, she raised her hand to abstain from the North Campus Residential Project vote, but the chair didn't notice and counted her vote as an aye. She wondered whether the vote could be changed. The clerk read from the transcribed audio of the vote: Mr. Wilcox asked, "Are there any abstentions?" Hearing none, he stated, "There are none. The motion passed." That became the official record of the vote. Ms. Brock said we can't change what happened at the meeting, but we can put it in the record that Ms. Karius wanted to abstain and nobody noticed. PB Resolution No. 2019.013: Minutes of April 2, 2019 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of April 2, 2019, as submitted. Vote Ayes: Bosak, Kaufman, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Karius Adjournment Upon a motion, the meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Paulette Rosa Town Clerk for D DeAugistine