Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet - Maplewood II Sketch Plan - 7-2-24 PB mtg1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: June 25, 2024 RE: Cornell University Maplewood II Development – Sketch Plan Review Enclosed please find materials related to a sketch plan proposal for the Maplewood Phase II Project located on Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, and 63.-2-7.3, currently zoned High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves consolidating four tax parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings (containing up to 650 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations) across nine acres. The project is also proposed to include some small retail, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. The Maplewood Phase II Project is scheduled for a sketch plan review at the July 2, 2024, Planning Board meeting. There is no official Planning Board action for this project, as a sketch plan review is intended for the Board to communicate suggestions and/or concerns to the applicant regarding the project. Per Town Code § 270-185 B, “the sole purpose of sketch plan review is to review generally and informally the proposed project, advise the applicant as to whether it is reasonable to anticipate a positive response to a formal application, and to highlight any concerns that may be readily apparent to the Planning Board. No vote of approval or disapproval is taken with respect to a sketch plan.” Information about the property history, site characteristics, process and environmental review elements are noted below. Site characteristics The four parcels are bound on the north by Maple Avenue, with Cornell University-owned agricultural fields and the East Lawn Cemetery along the easternmost boundary, and the Cornell Maplewood Graduate and Professional Student Apartments on the south and westernmost boundary. There is a City of Ithaca-owned parcel that contains a city water tank located between the parcels along Maple Avenue. The project site contains vacant land, Cornell farmland, the remnants of the Maple Hill Apartments (building foundations, paved drive lanes, paved parking areas, etc.), some large trees, and a variety of vegetation in various succession. There are no streams, wetlands, significant slopes, or Unique Natural Areas anywhere on or near the property. There are also no known threatened or endangered plant or animal species that would be affected by the project. However, all of the environmental considerations related to the project will be thoroughly analyzed as part of the environmental review process that is described at the end of this memo. 2 Property history Two of the four parcels once contained single-family residences, and one of the parcels is currently farmed. The fourth and largest parcel previously included the Maple Hill (later known as Ithaca East) Apartment Complex, constructed in 1972 and operated by the Abbott family until October 2019. The complex consisted of 82 units in 11 apartment buildings, a small utility shed, and a garage/maintenance building, along with planters, roads, parking areas, playgrounds, and other residential features. The complex was closed and vacated by all tenants shortly after its closing. Cornell, who once owned the property and had a right of first refusal on it, re-acquired the property and installed security fencing around the complex to alleviate the trespassing, vandalism, and criminal activities that plagued the property after closing. Cornell received preliminary and final site plan approval from the Planning Board on February 18, 2020, to demolish the Maple Hill Apartment complex, along with the two adjacent single family residential properties. The approval allowed Cornell to leave the apartment building foundations, existing paving, retaining walls, and existing vegetation, and to cap utilities in anticipation of redeveloping the site in the future. The Planning Board determined that the demolition was a segmentation of the environmental review process, warranted by findings listed in their SEQR resolution for the project. The attached minutes from the February 18, 2020, Planning Board meeting contain the SEQR resolution and the findings for the segmentation of the environmental review process. Town Board & Planning Board actions The Town of Ithaca’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map envisions a Traditional Neighborhood Development character area designation for these properties. To achieve a neighborhood development style that meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and complements the adjacent Maplewood I project, the applicants have been encouraged to establish a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) for the project. This involves a re-zoning from the High Density Residential and Multiple Residence zoning designations to a PDZ. Rezoning requests typically originate with the Town’s Planning Committee. To this end, the Planning Committee met on June 20, 2024, to begin reviewing the conceptual plan and draft PDZ language for the project as proposed by the Applicant. The Town Board, as the legislative body responsible for granting the rezoning, will review the proposed zoning language once the Planning Committee reviews it. The Town Board will also refer the proposed zoning language to Planning Board for a review and recommendation. The Planning Board will consider site plan approval for the Maplewood II project and should provide initial feedback to the applicant team on July 2nd regarding the sketch site layout and initial project concept. The site layout and characteristics of this proposal will be further defined as the Planning Committee goes through their PDZ review process. Planning staff will provide guidance for the Planning Board related to specific project site improvements, e.g., access, parking, and circulation; transportation demand management; building layout and design; community open spaces utility considerations; drainage and stormwater management, etc. at a future Planning Board meeting. 3 Environmental Review (SEQR) The proposed project is classified as a Type I Action, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law. The project requires the completion of a Full Environmental Assessment Form and a coordinated review between the Town Board and Town Planning Board, along with notification to other involved and interested agencies, such as the NYS DEC, NYS DOT, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Tompkins County Whole Health, etc. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is anticipated to act as the lead agency in the environmental review of this project. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding this proposal by phone at (607) 273- 1747, or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov. Cc: Michele Palmer, Senior Associate, Whitham Planning & Design, PLLC Leslie Schill, University Planner & Director of Campus Planning, Cornell University Jeremy Thomas, Senior Director of Real Estate, Cornell University Scott Whitham, Principal, Whitham Planning & Design, PLLC SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024MAPLEWOOD II MAPLEWOOD II TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION Greystar Maplewood Phase II Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: admin@whithamdesign.com 404 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca NY 14850 1 June 11, 2024 CJ Randall Director of Planning The Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Maplewood Phase II – Sketch Plan Review with Town of Ithaca Planning Board Dear CJ and all, On behalf of the project team, please find informational materials attached for the Maplewood Phase II proposed project. As discussed, the team would like to introduce the project to the Planning Board at the July 2nd Planning Board meeting. The project proposes a redevelopment of the former East Hill Apartments with new construction of apartment units for graduate and professional students at Cornell. This development will be an extension of the existing Maplewood Phase I site, and it is proposed that a new PDZ be created for Phase II to include the project area. Residents will share amenities and open spaces with the existing Maplewood project. Maplewood Phase II proposes approximately 800 new beds, spread among approximately 650 new units between six new residential buildings and a community center. The project is accessible from Maple Avenue and via a new street connection from the existing Maplewood Phase I project. The project team is composed of: •Greystar Development East, LLC – Sponsor/Developer •CBT – Architects •GTS Consulting – Traffic Engineers •T.G. Miler, P.C. – Project Civil Engineers •Whitham Planning & Design – Landscape Architects, Approvals & Project Coordinators This submission is intended to provide an update on the progress of design and planning for this project. The materials included in this submission are as follows: •Project Narrative •Conceptual Renderings and Site Plan •Site Survey/Existing Conditions Plan We look forward to our conversation with the Planning Board and staff. Please let us know if there are any questions. Sincerely, Michele A Palmer RLA, ASLA, LEED GA Senior Associate Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL Build Connectivity PHASE II EAST ITHACA RECREATION WAY EAST HILL PLAZA SHOPPING CAMPUS CENTER 20 MIN. WALK FROM SITE MAPLEWOOD PHASE I COLLEGETOWN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE PLANT PATHOLOGY HERBARIUM (CUP) Bridge a missed connection and create a seamless connetion between Cornell and the surrounding community. 6SITE CONTEXT SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024MAPLEWOOD II PROJECT NARRATIVE Greystar Maplewood Phase II Project Narrative 6.11.2024 Project Description Location The Maplewood Phase II project is located on Maple Avenue in the Town of Ithaca in the East Hill neighborhood, within walking distance of Cornell University, East Hill Plaza, and Collegetown. The project comprises four Cornell-owned parcels that will be consolidated into a single approximately nine-acre parcel. Immediately adjacent parcels include Cornell-owned properties used for agricultural research across Maple Avenue to the north, Maplewood Phase I graduate student housing to the west and south, and the East Lawn Cemetery to the east. The project also wraps around a City of Ithaca water tank located on Maple Avenue. Approach The project is a second phase of the existing Maplewood student housing community and is oriented toward Cornell graduate students, similar to the residents of the current community. Six five-story buildings are proposed that will house approximately 615 units with 800 beds, primarily studios and one-bedroom apartments with a small percentage of two-bedroom. Approximately 150 parking spaces are proposed. Greystar, the operator of Maplewood Phase I, is uniquely positioned to blend Maplewood Phase I and Maplewood Phase II to create a larger Maplewood neighborhood, a vibrant community of approximately 1,672+ primarily graduate students. Using feedback from the current residents, Greystar proposes to optimize the connections between the two Phases, aiming to provide students with high-quality off-campus housing. Density, Affordability, and Sustainability Greystar and Cornell are striving to create a more affordable option for graduate students. Many graduate students attending the Cornell Graduate School are on fixed stipends that must cover their living expenses while completing their degrees. With the project as proposed, the rent per bedroom to students is anticipated to be 10% to 20% below market rate. The efficient design of five-story buildings allows for compact and economical construction. This configuration is more sustainable in terms of construction materials required and future energy consumption. Additionally, fewer buildings leave more of the site as open space, facilitating the preservation of existing vegetation. The capital being utilized to fund the development costs is currently identified within an Environmental, Social, and Governance fund, which analyzes investments through a lens of both traditional finance and social benefits such as increased housing affordability, reduced carbon emissions, and the promotion of sustainable development trends such as walkability. Greystar Maplewood Phase II Sustainable elements the project will incorporate: •Walkability / Transit - the site will connect to multi-modal transit networks (walking paths, biking paths, bus transit). •Redevelopment – as a redevelopment site, the project avoids greenfield development conserving farmland, floodplains, and natural habitats. •Materials Selection & Embodied Carbon - source sustainable materials locally, reclaimed or recycled content and/or easily recyclable materials, third-party certified wood when possible. •Health – the project will use low-VOC materials where possible. •Embodied Carbon - for the largest material purchases, the design team will consider materials with a low carbon footprint from the extraction, manufacturing, and transport of the material to the site. •Energy o Interior Lighting - high-efficiency, LED lighting in tenant, common, and exterior areas and additional lighting efficiency strategies will be implemented. o Daylighting – to promote occupant health and building efficiency the design will include thoughtful daylight design using window placement, solar shading, blinds, etc. o HVAC - all air handling units equipped with economizers where available. Fresh air requirement is supplied locally into each tenant HVAC unit instead of through the common/corridor HVAC system. o Renewable Energy, Electric Vehicles, & Net Zero Carbon o EV Charging – EV charging stations will be provided. o On-Site Solar - the project will include roofs and electrical panels that are solar- ready. On-site solar is being considered. •Water Conservation - plumbing fixtures that meet or exceed EPA WaterSense specifications. •Landscape Design & Biodiversity o Native and Drought Tolerant - landscaping will consist of primarily native plantings adapted to local conditions that do not require irrigation. o Biodiversity- the site design preserves native vegetation where possible and will improve the original biodiversity of the site. o Site Design will provide outdoor amenities such as seating, plantings, walking paths, and communal greenspace to improve resident wellbeing. o Exterior lighting – will consist of energy-efficient, dark sky compliant LED fixtures. •Stormwater – the project will protect the watershed through pollutant control and effective stormwater management. •Waste Management o Waste Diversion - Construction waste diversion measures will be in place. o Site Recycling - easy-to-access recycling stations will be included. Greystar Maplewood Phase II Zoning Planned Development Zone Greystar, in collaboration with Cornell, is requesting to rezone the site as a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) that will function as a higher-density neighborhood, building on the first phase of the Maplewood graduate student housing community. While distinct from the adjacent Maplewood Phase I PDZ (PDZ No. 15), this new PDZ will address the unique constraints/opportunities of the site while embracing the compact, walkable community character embodied in PDZ No. 15. Conformance with Town of Ithaca Planning Initiatives Maplewood Phase II is located at the site of the former Maple Hill apartment complex and is ideally situated for redevelopment as a dense residential student housing neighborhood. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (2014) proposes this site as a development node, and the Future Land Use Plan (2014) identifies it as a TND High-Density area. The development of this site at the proposed density therefore aligns with these initiatives. In the Town of Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan (2014), surveys and comments revealed support for denser development overall. The Plan’s goal of establishing ‘more intensively developed mixed-use neighborhood centers near large employers on East Hill’ aligns directly with the aims of this project, which seeks to increase student housing density on East Hill, close to Cornell. Furthermore, the development proposed by this project would be ‘compatible with the established character and scale of development,’ as stipulated by the Comprehensive Plan. The first phase of the Maplewood project, adjacent to this site, laid the groundwork for the scale and density of student housing here, which this second phase would supplement. The existence of infrastructure and services on this site further recommend it for increased density in accordance with the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, and its proximity to Cornell makes it eminently attractive to the prospective student population. The Tompkins County Housing Strategy report (2017) called for purpose-built student housing such as that proposed for this project. The Housing Strategy report recommended the construction of beds for 25% of the total student population of the County, of which the current housing stock can accommodate less than 10%. The Tompkins County Housing Targets for 2016-2025 include the goal of meeting the existing deficit of purpose-built student beds, further stating that student housing is expected to require more beds than non-students in Tompkins County in the coming years when accounting for the growth of Cornell and Ithaca College. The Housing Strategy further recommends locating student housing within urban centers where students do not require personal vehicles to access their campuses. This site is ideally situated for use as student housing, as it lies on an existing public transit route and is a short walk from the Cornell campus. The Town of Ithaca New Neighborhood Code outlines goals and aesthetic requirements consistent with what is proposed for this project. Maplewood Phase II will be comprised of Greystar Maplewood Phase II attractive, human-scale buildings that use high-quality building materials and exhibit a strong sense of community and place. The site planning, streetscaping, and landscaping will define streets as civic places while creating an interesting and pleasant public realm. This project conforms with Town of Ithaca Planning initiatives in that it contributes to the increased density outlined by the Comprehensive Plan while remaining consistent with the more particular guidelines outlined by the Housing Strategy document and New Neighborhood code. The development of student housing at this location, near Cornell and adjacent to Maplewood Phase I, is consistent with recent Town of Ithaca Planning Initiatives. Outreach The project team will meet with various project stakeholders and interest groups, including current Cornell graduate and professional students, residents of Maplewood Phase I, neighborhood associations (including Belle Sherman neighborhood), elected officials, and construction trades groups. Schedule The project team has coordinated with the Town of Ithaca Planning Dept. to prepare a municipal approvals schedule to accommodate the necessary Site Plan Review, SEQR, and Re-Zoning processes. A detailed project schedule chart is attached for reference. The following scheduled summary is anticipated: •10 months to complete Site Plan Review and SEQR •20 months construction period •Move in August 2027 As with any project of this size, the times, dates, and durations shown here should be considered approximate, and subject to the review process. Site Plan and Environmental Review The project will undergo a standard Site Plan Review process with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. This will include Sketch Plan Review, Preliminary Site Plan Review, and Final Site Plan Review. It is the project team’s understanding that an Environmental Impact Statement may not be required if all necessary supplemental studies suggested as part of the environmental review process are submitted proactively. To that end, submissions for Preliminary Site Plan Review will include: •Full Environmental Assessment Form Greystar Maplewood Phase II •Utility infrastructure – T.G. Miller is the lead engineer for the project and has been working with Town staff to develop utility plans for the project. Water for domestic and fire protection services will be connected to the Maplewood Phase I private system at two locations with mains extended within the project to create a distribution loop. This configuration will allow for the existing master meter and backflow preventer servicing Maplewood Phase I to also be used for Phase II. Ownership currently has an interest in Phase I and will develop an agreement to ensure this relationship survives in perpetuity. Computer-aided hydraulic modeling will be performed to inform the need for any domestic or fire suppression booster pumps. No new connections to the Town’s water system are proposed. Sanitary sewer service will be connected along the western property boundary to the existing Town sewer main which extends through the Maplewood Phase I site from Mitchell Street. To make the connection, a slight alignment modification will be made to the final segment of the Town main. This proposed modification will avoid removing an established tree while supporting alignment and inverting depths needed for the proposed private sewer main extensions. As a result, the Town sewer easement tied to the current main will be modified to reflect this change. At this time, it is anticipated that all new sewer mains constructed within the project will remain private. Referencing the utility analysis performed for Maplewood Phase I, it is expected there is adequate treatment capacity in the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) to serve the project. This will be confirmed with a ‘will serve’ request to be submitted to the IAWWTF. The previous Phase I analysis also established that there is sufficient capacity in the downstream jointly owned interceptor sewer system. Maple Hill Apartments was a Town Sewer customer, so an updated assessment of the capacity impacts will be based on the differential in pre-post bed counts. •Storm Water Management - Considerable hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of watersheds upstream of the Maplewood site, including the former Maple Hill Apartments parcel, was completed for the 2017 Maplewood Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). In addition to fulfilling the traditional stormwater requirements of the Town and NYSDEC, the layout of new storm sewers and sizing of permanent water quality/quantity practices in this project will respect the capacities of the downstream facilities within Maplewood Phase I, which ultimately connect to the Town’s system on Mitchell Street. T.G. Miller will meet with the Town Engineer to revisit the facility designs for Maplewood Phase 1 and confirm the Town’s requirements for this redevelopment project. •Traffic Analysis and Traffic Demand Management – The project location is appealing to students who do not own cars. Many, especially international students, rely on alternative modes of transportation including public transit, biking, and walking. A low parking ratio is proposed due to the walkable nature of the site and the public transportation available. A TCAT bus route is located on Maple Avenue. Many students Greystar Maplewood Phase II who own cars don’t use them daily; therefore, off-site storage parking is being considered. A traffic study to consider the impacts of the project on nearby intersections and streets has been undertaken by GTS Consulting. Traffic counts conducted in April of 2024 show that traffic generated by the first phase of Maplewood is significantly lower than anticipated. In collaboration with Whitham Planning & Design, a TDM is underway. TCAT, Ithaca Carshare, and Ithaca Bikeshare will be consulted regarding their participation in an on-site presence. The project team will meet with Town staff to confirm the expectations for the study have been met. •Visual Impact Assessment – The project team has met with Town staff to discuss selected locations for simulated views and areas of potential sensitivity including designated scenic vistas. Energy - The project will comply with the Ithaca Green Building Policy. Fire Department and Emergency Vehicle Access – An initial meeting was held with the Town Code Enforcement Officer to discuss issues of potential concern, and additional meetings to discuss the site plan-related access for firefighting will be needed. The project site is most readily accessible via the loop located along Maple Avenue with secondary access from Mitchell Street. The height of the buildings and the construction type will require aerial apparatus access. Please see site plan for suggested change to street routing. Site Design Situated just south of Cornell’s campus, with groves of existing native woodland on the site, the landscape at Maplewood Phase II is inspired by the rolling hills and character of the surrounding landscape. The buildings are organized around both the existing woodland and a generously scaled central landscape of rolling meadows and gathering lawns. With the major exterior spaces well-defined, the buildings strive to engage with the landscape. Six five-story buildings will be oriented to maximize distant views across the cemetery to the east, towards Cornell to the north, and hills south and west of the Site. Buildings will open outward towards Phase I and Maple Avenue. The landscape character of Maplewood Phase II will differ from Maplewood Phase I but will be just as robust. The design will be less gardenesque and more pastoral. Where the plantings of Maplewood Phase I are sympathetic to an urban character, Maplewood Phase II is proposed to be more open and expansive. The majority of the site will be devoted to landscape, paths, and Greystar Maplewood Phase II outdoor recreation, with approximately 42% covered by building footprints and parking. The site design proposes large areas of meadow and native trees, with smaller areas of lawn to allow gathering and casual enjoyment of open spaces. The streetscape along Maple Avenue will be extended to the extent of the property and will include a sidewalk and street trees. Prioritizing the pedestrian experience is a core guiding principle for the project. Maplewood II establishes key pedestrian and bicycle connections not only within the confines of the site but to the greater trail networks beyond. Accessible where possible, barrier-free pathways throughout the site ensure that pedestrians of all mobility levels have equitable access to all areas of the community while vehicle parking is deemphasized and located along the less active edges of the property. The site plan maximizes the amount of green space by preserving existing trees and woodland areas, adding bio-diverse meadows, and locating open lawn areas for social interactions. The building positions reinforce the landscape approach by encouraging porosity between the two phases. The most active of these spaces will be the terrace adjacent to the new Community Center, which is intentionally located proximate to the existing Maplewood I Community Center. Combined, the two Community Centers will be the “social heart” of the Maplewood community. All parts of Maplewood are connected by a network of accessible paths where possible and a central accessible multi-use trail connecting to the wider network of hiking and biking trails in the area. Students will be able to relax, study, or gather in the open air close to each building, or walk to the Community Center, where a large outdoor terrace, movable furniture, and attractive lighting will ensure that there is always something going on throughout the day and the year. Stormwater wetlands integrated with the topography will further enhance the sustainability of the project and contribute an extra dimension to habitat diversity. The native plant communities of woodland and meadow will create an ecologically rich and low-maintenance landscape that will attract wildlife and contribute to the environmental value of the project. Shared Open Space The existing Maplewood Phase I apartment complex is separated from the Maplewood Phase II site by a sloped area along its eastern edge that is currently heavily wooded and has minimal landscape improvement. The team identified this area as an opportunity to weave together the two sites and create a seamless neighborhood. Existing topography and mature trees will be preserved to the greatest extent possible while introducing clear, inviting, and accessible pathways through the natural landscape. Multi-Use Trail Network The East Ithaca trail network has an existing spur that ends on the northeast corner of the site at Maple Ave, and a converted rails-to trails pathway that runs along the southwest side of Maplewood Phase I. The design is organized around completing the vital link between these two sections of the existing trail network. An improved crosswalk on Maple Ave is proposed. The team will work with the Town of Ithaca on the configuration of the crossing, which may be raised and/or include flashing beacons. Greystar Maplewood Phase II Architecture Building Concept The seven buildings in Maplewood Phase II are organized around connections to the East Ithaca Trail Network and maximizing interactions between Phase I and Phase II residents. Active and passive open spaces form around these major connections and a campus-like space prioritizes the pedestrian experience. Building entries and study lounges are located in the middle of each building to promote interaction where residents will circulate frequently. The architecture and landscape will seamlessly blend together to reinforce connectivity and community. Community Centers as Social Nucleus The primary community space is located at the southern end of the site directly across from the Phase I Community Center. The new Community Center is nestled into the landscape as close to Phase I as possible to allow for maximum connections between the two community spaces. The programs in the new Community Center will complement and supplement the programs in Phase I. By combining the Community Centers, a social heart for the entire community is established. Graduate students want to be part of a vibrant community, rich with neighborly social interaction and balanced with independent apartment-style living. The team recognizes the generous communal offerings at Maplewood Phase I and offers a complimentary, differentiated amenity package in Phase II. Shared, diversified features offer benefits to both Phase I and Phase II residents, sparking renewed interest and uniting the Maplewood community. The majority of community amenities are planned within a centralized hub to maximize social opportunities. A study lounge will be provided on almost every floor of each building, for a total of approximately 52, to supplement private in-unit workspace. A survey of Maplewood Phase I residents ranked group study spaces as the most imperative and desirable amenity, prioritizing academic success. Providing a variety of seating and room options, such as acoustically controlled office-style pods, open booths, and communal tables allows students to choose spaces that support an array of assignments, work styles, collaboration, and moods. The resident survey also revealed great interest in larger fitness accommodations with a wellness focus, providing specialty equipment and semi-private spaces for personalized and restorative workouts. Coffee and food naturally encourage conversation and exchange. A centralized café commons where students can mingle and gather over a meal or snack enriches the community culture. In combination with an outdoor terrace retreat, the inclusion of comfortable lounge seating, games, and dining tables is welcoming and entertaining for events, indoor/outdoor living, and daily relaxation. To respond to high rates of pet and bike ownership, a pet spa in Phase II complements the popular dog park provided in Phase I, and a bike workshop offers repair, capabilities. Pet and bike-focused amenities identify a micro-community for owners, as well as providing superlative care and convenience. Greystar Maplewood Phase II Material Palette The facade design implements strategies to relate the new buildings with the scale of the Phase I residences, with multiple tones and textures, building offsets, and window groupings. Materials will consist of masonry veneer walls and landscape elements where the buildings meet the ground, rainscreen panels in a variety of colors will add depth and interest to the façade. All residential units will have operable punched windows while study lounges and other amenity spaces will include larger expanses of storefront glass to maximize views, daylight, and connection with the outdoors. Building Envelope The building envelope will be designed to meet current energy code requirements with an emphasis on high thermal performance, airtightness, increased ventilation rates, and energy recovery. Materials will also be chosen to reduce environmental impact during their entire life cycle from extraction to deconstruction/recycling/upcycling, thus reducing the embodied carbon along with the operational carbon impact. All roofs will be flat with the exception of the community center. Roofs will have high levels of insulation and light-colored surfaces to return a large part of the sun's rays to the atmosphere (high albedo). Superstructure The superstructure will be primarily 5 levels of panelized light wood frame construction. Due to the significant topography of the site, some buildings will include a partial basement level and/or split level as the site steps. Substructure The basis of design for the foundation systems is slab-on-grade with footings. Conclusion The Maplewood Phase II project will bring much-needed graduate student housing to a neighborhood targeted by the Town of Ithaca for more dense development. The Greystar team is committed to continuing to provide high-quality, affordable, and sustainable housing to the Cornell and Ithaca communities and looks forward to discussing the project with the Town of Ithaca Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, and the neighboring community. SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024MAPLEWOOD II EXISTING CONDITIONS (SURVEY) SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS #DATE DESCRIPTION 3/29/2024 12:00:00 PMCornell - Maplewood Phase 2 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS #DATE DESCRIPTION C101E24-09AS SHOWN 03/29/2024 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024MAPLEWOOD II APPROACH SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE PLANNING APPROACH 1919 SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE ORGANIZATIONSTRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL Site OrganizationEstablish Connections N BORDERLAND OPPORTUNITYMULTI-US E P A T H East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network 8STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL Site OrganizationEstablish Connections N BORDERLAND OPPORTUNITY MULTI-US E P A T H East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network 8 SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE COMPOSITIONSTRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL Multi-Use Paths Vehicular Landscape Informs Site Compositions Negative Space First N 9STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL Site Organization Establish Connections N BORDERLAND OPPORTUNITYMULTI-US E P A T H East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network 8 SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE COMPOSITION N STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL Visual connections between community spaces EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTER PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER Massing Diagram Building Community 10STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL Site Organization Establish Connections N BORDERLAND OPPORTUNITYMULTI-US E P A T H East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network 8 SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024MAPLEWOOD II CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN BUS STOP EAST ITHACA RECREATIONAL TRAIL NETWORK VEHICULAR CONNECTION BETWEEN PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 EAST LAWN CEMETERY THROUGH-SITE MULTI-USE PATH CONNECTION TO TRAIL NETWORK EAST ITHACA RECREATIONAL TRAIL NETWORK SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 2 4 5 5 5 6 7 7 5 2 1 1. CENTRAL LAWN 2. WOODED BORDERLAND 3. EXISTING WOODLAND GROVES 4. COMMUNITY CENTER 5. ON-STREET PARKING 6. WATER TOWER 7. PLAZA 8. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SW VIEW OF CENTRAL LAWN SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II NE VIEW OF COMMUNITY CENTER PLAZA Greystar Maplewood Phase II Draft Schedule Draft Schedule Rezoning Planning Committee Initial project presentation Meeting 6/20/2024 Planning Committee Draft PDZ Review Meeting Meeting 7/18/2024 Planning Committee 2nd Draft PDZ Review Meeting Meeting 8/15/2024 Town board-Planning Committee review draft PDZ language Meeting 9/19/2024 Planning Committee Finalize the review of PDZ language meeting 10/17/2024 Town Board Begins the review of draft PDZ language Meeting 10/21/2024 Planning Board Begins the review of the draft PDZ Meeting 11/19/2024 Town Board Refers any revised PDZ language back to PC to Meeting 11/25/2024 Planning Committee Recommends approval of the PDZ Returns to town board for consideration Meeting 12/19/24 Town Board Public hearing to consider adoption for PDZ Public hearing Meeting 1/6/25 Town Board Adopts PDZ no submission Meeting 1/27/25 Greystar Maplewood Phase II Draft Schedule Site Plan Review and SEQR Planning Board Sketch Plan Meeting Meeting 7/2/2024 Planning Board Meeting for Preliminary Site plan, declare intent to be Lead Agency SEQR: Classifies action and declares intent to be lead agency Meeting 8/20/2024 Planning Board Meeting time, declare Lead Agency SEQR: begin review Meeting 9/3/2024 Planning Board Continues SEQR review SEQR: continue review Meeting 9/17/2024 Planning Board Make SEQR determination SEQR: Declaration of potential significance Opens public hearing Begin preliminary Site Plan Review Meeting 10/10/2024 Planning Board Continues Preliminary Site Plan Review Meeting 11/5/2024 Planning Board Final site review and approval Public hearing Meeting 12/3/24 Planning Board Final site review and approval Public hearing Meeting 1/21/25 Planning Board Final site review #2 and approval Meeting 2/4/25 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. February 18. 2020 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cayuga Nursing & Rehabilitation Center - Canopy Sign, 1229 Trumansburg Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the proposed modification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center located at 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-46.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification inyoWes installing a 5.11 +/- square foot canopy sign on the main entrance canopy of the building. LNH Operating Company, LLC, Owner/Applicant; June Jamot, ASI Signage, Agent. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex Demolition, 217,221 & 301 Maple Ayenue. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5, 63.-2- 6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project involves the demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent. 5. Persons to be heard 6. Approval of Minutes: January 21, 2020 7. Other Business 8. 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@TOW N.n HACA.NY.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://w\vw.town.ithaca.nv.us/meeting-a£endas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. February 18.2020 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, February 18,2020, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the proposed modification to the Cayuga Nursing and Rehabilitation Center located at 1229 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-46.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed modification inyolyes installing a 5.11 +!- square foot canopy sign on the main entrance canopy of the building. LNH Operating Company, LLC, Owner/Applicant; June Jamot, ASI Signage, Agent. 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Ayenue, Town oflthaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-5,63.-2-6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project inyolyes the demolition and remoyal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent yacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The remoyal of the apartment buildings will inyolye enyironmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Comell Uniyersity, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent. 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. Indiyiduals with yisual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be proyided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, February 10, 2020 Publish: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 5 demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent. Jeremy Thomas, Cornell Real Estate gave an overview and presentation. Mr. Thomas stated that Planning Staff has summarized the request in detail and this presentation is intended to provide a bit of color behind the request tonight. He added that he submitted a letter outlining the reasons for the request along with a letter from CU Police Chief. Mr. Thomas went through a presentation giving the history of the property and showing the location of the structures to be demolished. The property was set to revert to the College in 2028 and the owner was behind in taxes and there is a history of criminal activity at the location. The owner was willing to negotiate with the College to pay the back taxes and take early ownership of the property. Mr. Thomas said it was unexpected to own the property this early and now they have the responsibility of maintaining it and it is in bad shape and is a blight in the area and an attraction to criminal activities. The College immediately fenced the site and hired private security to patrol the property from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. each evening. The property does not meet minimum standards for occupancy and even with the security efforts, it is nearly impossible to secure the site. The College plans to demolish two other single-family properties, one of which is vacant now and the other will become vacant next month, to create a single site to mitigate the impact of the demolition in preparation for a seamless process. The site will remain gated and locked until redevelopment is possible. The College is starting to look at the feasibility of redevelopment but there are no development agreements in place with any developers. The economics will be challenging, and the College does not know at this point if redevelopment will happen. Mr. Thomas said due to these factors, they believe the demolition is an independent action and request approval. Mr. Biehn asked if the Cornell Master Plan for 2028 didn’t identify plans for the lot. Mr. Thomas responded that the site was included in the Maplewood site adjacent to it for potential student housing in the future. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 6 Ms. Fogarty asked how many units were there now. Mr. Thomas responded that there are 11 buildings with 82 units total. Ms. Fogarty said she didn’t have questions about the demolition in particular and didn’t see any reason to keep them there, but she had questions about the single-family houses and would like to see Historic Ithaca go and take a look at the older one and see if it isn’t eligible to be moved by someone interested in doing so. Mr. Thomas said they are proposing to demolish them because it is very difficult to separate them out for mobilization of the equipment. He said moving them would be quite difficult because of the grades of the roads and the site. Mr. Hale added that those buildings, on the interior, have been dramatically changed from their original layout and have asbestos and other hazardous materials and they would have to be gutted before any movement would be practicable. He added that during the inspection of the property in preparation for demolition, we have talked to the State preservation officer because they are over 50 years old and they are not eligible for the historic register and usually they would just ask that good pictures are taken prior to demolition. Ms. Brock asked a number of questions to determine whether moving the house would disturb the asbestos and the applicant stated that in his professional opinion, it would. Ms. Fogarty stated that she still wanted a local opinion because the outside looks well maintained, and it seems silly to tear it down when there might be another use for it. Mr. Wilcox asked about the use of the term “challenging economics” and what makes this site different from the Maplewood site next door. Mr. Thomas responded that this is a smaller site and it is two years later than the Maplewood construction and there has been considerable increase in the costs of construction in Ithaca. Mr. Wilcox asked if lead paint was in the houses, and Mr. Thomas said that is the assumption given the age of the homes. Mr. Wilcox asked what the site would look like after demolition is completed; if there is no slop there, could we play soccer there? What state is it going to be left in? Mr. Hale responded that the existing pavement, walkways, retaining walls and vegetation will remain and the underlying utilities will be capped and remain. The structures themselves that are above grade will be brought down to grade. It will be essentially level with the grade but there are small areas amongst the apartments that contain boiler rooms which are slightly depressed and those will be brought up to a grade that doesn’t exceed a 30” inch drop so if someone does traverse the property there isn’t an excessive drop. The same goes for the single-family homes where there is a basement; those will also be brought to the 30’ inch grade. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 7 Mr. Wilcox said he is getting at the statements in the submission where the possibility is the site will remain vacant so maybe more remediation needs to happen to make it look like a nice lawn and get rid of the asphalt walks and parking lot and the basements to make it look nicer. Mr. Wilcox said it seems you want it both ways; you want to be able to segment the project with demolition now and site plan approval later but you hold out the possibility that development may never occur and so more remediation might be necessary. Mr. Thomas responded that the College hopes to redevelop this site, consistent with the Town’s Planning but part of the unknown feasibility is how it would be redeveloped and we do not want to remove something that may make that feasibility harder. Our principle interest is in making this site safe and in order to do that we need to bring down these structures. Further demolition could occur as a part of the redevelopment process of course, but for now, we want to make it safer while keeping some things there that might be used in the future. Mr. Hale added that not knowing what might be proposed, there is the possibility that some might be needed to meet grades and limit the disturbance of the site. Mr. Wilcox noted that there are a lot of truck trips involved and there are roads that are not in good repair nearby and there is a requirement to review and approve those routes. Mr. Wilcox turned to staging because a number of years ago we had issues with staging with the College in the vacant lot at Pine Tree Rd and we do not want to see that again. Ms. Fogarty said in terms of the disposal of air conditioners and refrigerators on the site, she would like to see them disposed of at a recycling center that does that properly. Mr. Thomas said that was handled by the previous owner and any in the single-family homes would be handled under Cornell’s very strict policy regarding that. Mr. Casper asked if the security would remain. Mr. Thomas said the fencing will remain but not the security since there will not be any structures on the property to break into. Mr. Casper added that implies indefinite fencing? Mr. Thomas responded yes, for the time being. SEQR DETERMINATION Mr. O’Shea requested the addition of the need for a SWPP in Part 1, Q2. Mr. Wilcox asked about the indication that “less than a 1enth of an acre will be physically disturbed” and he found that hard to believe. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 8 Mr. Thomas said the area of operation is going to be largely on the paved surfaces and the removal of the buildings themselves; there is not going to be any new disturbance of the land with the exception of the building footprints of the two garden apartments and the single-family homes. All the rest is not disturbed. Mr. Wilcox didn’t think that took into account contractor staging and moving of large, heavy equipment traversing the site to get to the structures. Mr. Hale responded that there is paving all around these buildings and the machinery will be operating on the pavement. Mr. Wilcox reiterated that it seems too small although he would agree it is less than an acre, a tenth of an acre seems too small. Minor changes made to the SEQR form. PB RESOLUTION 2020 – 010: SEQR - Demolition Preliminary and Final Site Plan Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex 217, 221 & 301 Maple Avenue Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2020 WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project involves the demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent; and 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 Site Plan Approval; and 3. This action is the first phase of an anticipated development project that is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which segmentation from the environmental review of subsequent phases has been recommended; and 4. 6NYCRR, Part 617.3(g) notes specific instances where said segmentation of environmental review is allowed; and PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 9 5. The Planning Board, on February 18, 2020 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, drawings prepared by Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, titled “301 Maple Ave Demolition,” including sheets H100-H104, dated December 20, 2019, and sheet AC100, titled “217, 221, 301 Maple Ave Demolition,” dated January 16, 2020, and other application materials; and 6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That, per the requirements outlined in 6NYCRR Part 617.3(g) of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, the segmentation of the above-referenced action from future phases of development is warranted, given that: 1. Information on future project development phase(s) is too speculative to include in the environmental review for the proposed demolition action; 2. Future phases may not occur, because Cornell has not yet determined the feasibility of re- development; 3. Town of Ithaca Planning Board approval of the proposed demolition does not commit the town to approve any future phases of development associated with the property; 4. The proposed demolition, which would take place before the applicant develops information on future project development phases(s), would alleviate the existing public safety hazards associated with the vacant Maple Hill Apartment Complex; and 5. Segmentation of the environmental review for the demolition phase from the environmental review for any future development phases will not be less protective of the environment because the demolition phase of the project involves different environmental considerations than a future development plan (e.g. asbestos abatement), and the Planning Board conditions of approval for the demolition will ensure that the action has the least negative impact on the environment possible. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 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 actions 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, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Christopher Biehn Seconded: Liebe Meier Swain Vote: ayes – Wilcox, Biehn, Lindquist, Meier Swain, Fogarty, Casper and Kaufman PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 10 PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Meier Swain opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Christine O’Malley, Historic Ithaca spoke and stated that Historic Ithaca is a preservation organization in Tompkins County since 1966. She said they are concerned about the detached homes and would like to raise the question about moving the homes. She said moving straight to demolition is not a very green or sustainable practice since a lot of those materials are moved to the landfill. We were active a few years ago with a property up on Coddington Rd where the owner asked for demolition and we were able to work with the Town and the owner to have the house available free to anyone that wanted to move it. She asked if that would be possible again. It was a success in that instance and could possibly be successful here. Mr. O’Malley said it is important to think about as we are in a housing crisis and those two buildings could be repurposed and provide housing. They would be happy to talk to Cornell and work with them. There was no one else wishing to address the board on this topic and the hearing was closed at 7:48pm. Mr. Lindquist asked what the timeframe was for beginning demolition with an eye toward whether there is time to allow for investigating the moving of the houses? Mr. Thomas said they were looking to begin demolition at the end of February. Mr. Lindquist said there seems to be some concern about the aesthetics of the site post-demolition; the fencing etc. If the site remains undeveloped for say a period of 5-years, could there be a condition that we allow the demo to proceed as requested but put a timeframe on it where if it stayed undeveloped for 3 or 5 years, it would advance to another stage of restoration? So it couldn’t be left in the state described for 25 years. Ms. Brock responded that the Board could do that if they wanted but the Board would have to fully explain what it wanted done at a certain time. Ms. Vannuccni said she would be concerned because that material when demo’ed could be used as sub-base material and it is a lot of trucking if that material could be used later, potentially. Mr. Lindquist said he wouldn’t want the neighbors exposed to that type of environment just waiting for the market to be ripe for development. Mr. Wilcox stated that one thing Cornell has going for them is that this site is not very visible from a public perspective. If you are walking or driving along Maple Ave, except for the single family homes, you are not going to see the apartments back there given the lot configurations. He said although we are concerned about leaving a scar in the neighborhood, but scars are awful when they are seen and not as bad when not visible. He also thought it would not remain PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 11 undeveloped for too long, it is too valuable. He said he likes the idea but he is less concerned because of where the lot is located and can’t be seen from the public thoroughfare. Mr. Wilcox said although he is sensitive to the point, he was also sensitive to the idea of moving earth a second time and the effects of disturbance and then possibly a third time when it is eventually developed. Mr. Lindquist said he understands, but with no future plans and no timeline at all and that uncertainty is troubling. Mr. Thomas said, to build on Mr. Wilcox’s point, there are the front properties that are certainly more visible and we could take some action to make those areas directly fronting Maple Ave. to make sure they are more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Biehn stated that the plans call for the preservation of the trees and that will help and the smoothing of the land in front of the houses would accomplish those purposes. Ms. Fogarty asked about the lot line between the property and the cemetery and maybe some shrubbery could be planted there to mitigate the view from the cemetery. Mr. Wilcox said some bushes could soften the fences, something to hide he asphalt but don’t forget, there is the City’s water tank there which is unsightly so maybe some landscaping to hide the asphalt from the public roadway would be good. The Board looked at the plans to determine the boundary lines and noted that there is a lot of greenery there right now and went on google street view to see the existing conditions. Options and ideas that wouldn’t obstruct emergency access to the site were discussed including large planters and how long after demolition added landscaping would be wanted. After looking in more detail at the plans and trees that will remain, the consensus was that landscaping existed and would be preserved to mitigate the view of the demolished site. Ms. Meier Swain returned to the question about moving houses. Ms. Fogarty said it sounds like Historic Ithaca has interest in getting involved and she would like that to be considered. She suggested that the demolition of those houses could be postponed for 5 months to allow that. Mr. Thomas asked for clarity on what the goal or achievement would be if they were to postpone demolition of those two buildings. Ms. Fogarty said she would like to see another agency evaluate whether they were worth keeping and trying to find someone who would like to move the house. If another agency declares that the houses are not in any shape that anyone would want them, then go ahead with demolition. We just need another opinion; not saying you are wrong, just want another opinion. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 12 Ms. Meier Swain wanted to summarize the request; evaluation of the houses, determination if they can be moved, a posting to see if there is interest at the cost to move them, and then if none of that happens, then Cornell could proceed. Mr. Thomas said he is happy to work with Historic Preservation but it would be best to move on that evaluation quickly and document it and some type of Town Staff review of that so it could be moved on quickly. He added that his other concern is what we have heard from certified engineers about the safety concerns of leaving the houses like this and if we have a certified engineer saying that moving this house or using this house is not safe because of environmental and health reasons, and they have said this, we should be able to move forward. Mr. Wilcox asked which house we are really talking about. Ms. Fogarty said she was particularly concerned about the 1910 house; the 1930’s house didn’t look in great shape, but we should have a second opinion about it. Ms. Meier Swain asked who would shoulder the costs of that evaluation because she could understand how Cornell might not want to do that since technically they already have someone who has given a qualified opinion on that and if we are asking for a different opinion, how does that play out? Historic Ithaca representative said it would be great if they were allowed to go in and give an opinion and at the least salvage materials before demolition. Mr. Hale said they would be happy to work with them on that. Mr. Casper asked if there was an order to the demolition and the representatives said that hasn’t been determined yet but this would be one demolition project. Ms. Brock stated that this is too tentative of a situation to have Historic Ithaca go in and determine whether someone else should then also go in and give a professional opinion. She did not think it was appropriate for the Board to put in a condition for one group, who says they are not experts, come in and then say we are interested so now we need an expert. It is delegating to much to people or groups outside the Board’s control. She went on to say the Coddington Rd house was a very different situation. It was an 1845 house and was eligible for listing and it was significantly gutted before it came to the Planning Board. Ms. Brock said if the Board feels like they don’t have enough information on the houses, then you should vote no if that is a significant enough reason to vote no on the whole. It sounds like Cornell has agreed to work with Historic Ithaca so they can salvage historical elements from the house and we can write that in as a conditions but in terms of this whole prospect of trying to figure out whether the house are even worth moving, and then we still have the engineering and physical aspects, where we have been told by their qualified engineers that the PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 13 houses would probably have to be gutted before they could be moved, and what does that mean, and who pays for it and so on. This isn’t appropriate for conditions for a Planning Board. Ms. Fogarty said she agrees the apartment complex has to come down but there is no reason to glom these two houses to it other than well, we are going to be there. She said she understands it sounds like a lot of conditions…. Ms. Brock said it isn’t the number of conditions, it is that they are not appropriate conditions. We could ask if Cornell is willing to delay the vote on this and come back at the next meeting with more information; but they have a right to have you vote tonight. Ms. Fogarty asked if they could just vote on knocking down the apartment and not the houses. Ms. Brock said that isn’t the proposal that they have made so you need to vote on their proposal. Mr. Wilcox asked if there could be a condition that puts into writing that Cornell will work with Historic Ithaca to allow elements to be salvaged as appropriate? Ms. Brock said yes, if they are willing. She turned to Mr. Mosely to ask about the timing of the permitting process and whether demolition permits were issued per structure. Mr. Mosely said a permit has to be issued for Historic Ithaca to remove structural items. Mr. Wilcox said then Cornell would have to agree to that then and what if they don’t agree? Some back and forth discussion followed and Ms. Brock said she will craft language. Third representative (unnamed) spoke and said we understand the principle and we are willing to work together, but we do have asbestos in these properties and they have started to crumble. For example, we had offered to let the fire department do training, but once we realized there was asbestos, we had to stop that training. He said he is a little worried because if we agree to consult, where would we be if we had an obligation to remove certain pieces of the property that may be contaminated, that may not be safe. He said if we could consult on it without coming to a fixed agreement, that might work. Ms. Balestra turned to the issue of a Road Use Agreement in 2d and the suggested wording by staff and another by the applicant. She had suggested that this be discussed here at the meeting rather than through emails with staff. Staff suggested change is: Submission of a Road Use Agreement for review and approval by the Town Highway Superintendent and the Ithaca Town Board in compliance with Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 230, and full execution of the approved Road Use Agreement. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 14 Mr. Thomas said our understanding of the Code is that that only applies if the project generates more than 500 truck trips of gross weight of 30 or more tons. He said if we didn’t get up to that threshold, they would ask that they would not need to exercise that. Ms. Balestra responded that the Applicant suggested verbiage then would be as stated but including “in the event the project generates” instead of assuming the project was going to generate that number. Ms. Brock asked when they would know the numbers. The applicants said without the contract, they don’t know the size of the trucks the contractor will bring, first of all and secondly we can say with a good deal of confidence that the majority of the trucks are very unlikely to be over 30 tons based on the types of material being demolished. There may be some, if the trucks were large enough, but we believe it is quite unlikely to reach that threshold. Mr. Wilcox asked how you can move 11,000 cubic yards of waste, which is 800-1,000 full standard dump trucks, and somehow, through a loophole, not have a proper road use agreement? That is a tremendous number of trips on a town road or roads and the wear and tear… Mr. Thomas said it could be a 1,000 trips but they may only be 20-ton trucks or 10-ton trucks; we don’t know if they are going to be 30-ton trucks. He said they will meet the terms of the Code but let us see what they are before obligating to that agreement. Mr. O’Shea said if the Road Use Agreement isn’t needed, it will be waived. Once you provide that information, this condition could go away. There is really no change in the language needed. If it is not required once you provide the truck weights and quantity, then it is satisfied. Ms. Brock said that is not what our language says here and verbiage was changed to make it the Highway Superintendent’s determination as stated in the law. She said the project could be bid which will provide the information, and you say yes, there will be 450 truck trips that are at that limit, and the Highway Superintendent looks at that and say ok, yes, but the property is going to be redeveloped and we need to look at the project as a whole, even though for SEQR purposes we have segmented environmental review, should we be segmenting truck trips under the Road Use law, that is a separate issue. Ms. Brock said maybe the answer will become clear after the Superintendent looks at the information you provide, but keep in mind that if it is pretty close, it would be reasonable for the Highway Superintendent to determine that it is needed because we need to look at the trips now, getting the site ready for redevelopment and then the trips that will happen once there is redevelopment. She asked if the applicant’s representative understood and they said yes. She added that it would depend on the timing of redevelopment too. PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 15 PB RESOLUTION 2020 -011: Preliminary and Final Site Plan - Demolition Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex 217, 221 & 301 Maple Avenue Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2020 WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, and 63.-2-7.1, High Density Residential Zone and Multiple Residence Zone. The project involves the demolition and removal of the existing apartment building structures and two adjacent vacant single-family homes, and the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. The removal of the apartment buildings will involve environmental (asbestos) abatement procedures. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael Hale, RLA, CPESC, Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on February 18, 2020, made a negative determination of environmental significance; and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on February 18, 2020, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, drawings prepared by Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers, titled “301 Maple Ave Demolition,” including sheets H100-H104, dated December 20, 2019, and sheet AC100, titled “217, 221, 301 Maple Ave Demolition,” dated January 16, 2020, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Ithaca East2 (formerly Maple Hill) Apartment Complex project located at 217, 221 and 301 Maple Avenue, as described in the drawings noted in Whereas # 3 above, subject to the following conditions, to be satisfied before the issuance of any demolition permits or external plumbing permits: a. Revision of sheet AC100, per sanitary sewer comments #1-3 and sediment and erosion control/SWPPP comment #8 on the Engineering Memorandum written by Justin McNeal, Civil Engineer, dated 2/5/2020; b. Submission of the sediment and erosion control/SWPPP items in comments #1-7 on the Engineering Memorandum noted in “a”; c. Submission of truck routing plan, for review and approval by the Town Engineer and Highway Superintendent; and PB 2020-02-18 (Filed 2/27/20 Approved 2020-03-17) Pg. 16 d. If the Town Highway Superintendent determines a Road Use Agreement is necessary, submission of a Road Use Agreement for review and approval by the Town Highway Superintendent and the Ithaca Town Board, in compliance with Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 230, Article IV (Road Preservation Law), and full execution of said approved Road Use Agreement. (Slight revision after file date) 3. The following condition must be satisfied before the issuance of any demolition permits or external plumbing permits for the two single-family homes: a. Consultation with Historic Ithaca as to architectural elements that Historic Ithaca might remove from the buildings, and submission to the Director of Planning of a report regarding the outcome of such consultation. Moved: Fred Wilcox Seconded: Liebe Meier Swain Vote: Ayes – Wilcox, Biehn, Lindquist, Meier Swain, Casper and Kaufman Nays - Fogarty ITEM 3: Persons to be heard Peter Rogers addressed the board saying that he Lives on Cliff St in Ithaca and he has property at 1221Trumansburg Rd. He said he spoke to Mr. Mosely and got a letter from Ms. Ritter about the expansion of the Nursing Home. (Ms. Ritter noted that he was referring to the agenda sent by her department) Mr. Rogers said they are expanding the parking lot to the east, which is toward the(inaudible). Spoke to Sue R about the agenda received, reg Cayuga expanding the parking lot toward the east. He passed out two drawings showing the common border with the parking lot and his property. He said he has had a good relationship with the nursing home, and it seemed to him that you would check to see if they complied with approved plans. He has asked what the setbacks are for the lot and hasn’t received an answer. He went on to ask Ms. Balestra if she got his pictures. Ms. Balestra stated that she did get an email, but it wasn’t clearly labeled or give any context about what the pictures where off or for. Mr. Peters said the picture shows the snow plowed and he believes the nursing home expanded to the south. He said he checked with Mr. Mosely and the approval did not say anything about expanding the parking lot to the south and he was upset that his nice residential home and property has a huge parking lot within 30’ feet of his property line. He said he talked to the maintenance man here earlier and asked him when the lot was expanded to the south because there used to be 30’ or 40’ feet there and now there is 10’ or less feet and he thought they should have had the lines resurveyed. Ms. Balestra gave a history, saying that the Nursing Home had some improvements that came before the Board in 2017 where they were approved for the expansion of the facility and parking MEMORANDUM To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board - Environmental Review Committee Date:6/28/2024 RE: Cornell Maplewood 2 In reviewing the sketch plans for Cornell’s Maplewood 2 project on Maple Avenue, the Environmental Review Committee appreciated the sustainable elements the project plans to incorporate. Moving beyond the sketch plan approval phase we need to see meaningful design features details that go beyond the project’s current boiler plate pandering to environmentally conscious people. We understand the project will comply with the Ithaca Green Building Policy. We look forward to hearing more specifics on energy efficient heating and cooling units. We anticipate you are committed to heat pumps (air or ground source)? We recommend that in addition to not using fossil fuels on-site for major energy needs, no natural gas is used for any purpose including cooking appliances. We note the current Maplewood development is plagued by overburdened dumpsters. We hope you are aware of this too and are building in design that will make recycling easier and ensure there is adequate capacity for rubbish storage on site. The standard for third party certified wood products we want to see is FSC (not SFI). Making a connection between the two sections of the East Hill Rec Way would be a big plus if it was publicly accessible. Will it be restricted access or public access? The patch of knotweed the project team notes in the existing conditions needs special care to minimize the spread of this invasive plant. It looks like it will be excavated from one of the building foundations, which is ok as long as 1) the equipment doing the work and hauling away is cleaned thoroughly of seeds or other plant parts stuck in soil in tire and other vehicle parts before moving off site and 2) the soil removed through excavation is secures in a landfill so the plant parts in the soil are not spread to a new site. We look forward to observing the results of the project team’s efforts to leave more of the site as open space; preserve current vegetation; enhance site biodiversity primarily with native plantings adapted to local conditions that do not require irrigation; and protect the dark sky. Respectfully submitted Lori Brewer Lindsay Dombroskie Eva Hoffmann Michael Roberts