Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-11-01TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. November 1. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed porch addition project located at 333 Rachel Carson Trail, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.85/1, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The proposal involves the addition of an open porch that wraps around the northeast comer of the home. Pat Pingel & TREE LLC, Owners/Applicants; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Discussion and consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment Project Planned Development Zone (PDZ). 3. Persons to be heard 4. Approval of Minutes: October 4,2016 and October 18, 2016 5. Other Business 6. 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@TOWN.n HA( A.N\ .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 (httD://ww\v.town.ithaca.nv.us/meetinu-aaendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. November 1.2016 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, November 1,2016, 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 porch addition project located at 333 Rachel Carson Trail, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.- 1-26.85/1, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The proposal involves the addition of an open porch that wraps around the northeast comer of the home. Pat Pingel & TREE LLC, Owners/Applicants; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, 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. 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 time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, October 24,2016 Publish: Wednesday, October 26,2016 ^ THE ITHACA jOURI^Ar"^ WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26. 2016 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, November 1, 2016 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. November 1. 2016, 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 porch addition project located at 333 Rachel Carson Trail, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 2B.-1-26.85/1, Planned Development Zone No, 8. The proposal involves the addition of an open porch that wraps around the northeast corner of the home. Pat Plngei & TREE LLC. Owners/Applicants; Noah Oemarest, STREAM Collaborative, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections there to. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individu als vvlth visual impairments, hearing Impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessa ry, 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 273-1747Dated: Monday, October 24, 2016 10/26/2016 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street November 1,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Address Kargys .10^ ^arMCnrSnnTrl 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 Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. November L 2016 commencing 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:October 24, 2016 Date of Publication: October 26, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26"^ day of October 2016. Ndtafy Public DEBORAH KELLEY "Notary Piiblrc, State of New York No. 01KE6025073 Qualified in Schuyler County kCj Commission Expires May 17, 20 ' i TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, November 1, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins; Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Tasman, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and accepted the posting and publication of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed porch addition project located at 333 Rachel Carson Trail, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.85/1, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The proposal involves the addition of an open porch that wraps around the northeast corner of the home. Pat Pingel TREE LLC, Owners/Applicants; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Ms. Pingle stated that her house is at the end of the row, close to Rachel Carson Way. It has a beautiful view of the city. She's like to continue the porch that's already on the north side of the house to wrap around about two-thirds of the east side of the house. Mr. Wilcox asked about the property ownership to make sure the board was granting approval to the proper legal entity. Ms. Pingle said that Tree LLC owns the house; she has a long-term lease and owns shares in the cooperative. Ms. Brock said that the approval is for Pat Pingle and TREE LLC. Mr. Wilcox asked whether there was a statement from TREE LLC indicating they agree with the plan. Ms. Balestra said TREE provided an owner certification letter, which is standard, giving Ms. Pingle authorization to come before the planning board. Mr. Haefeli asked about the process for TREE LLC members to vote in favor of a plan like this. Karen Reixach, the secretary of the TREE board responded that it's a fairly extensive approval process, and that if people have objections, their concerns are dealt with. Ms. Pingle added that they have a committee called the Change Guidance Team that reviews plans. Planning Board Minutes 11-01-2016 Page 2 of 8 A student asked about the process and why the plan needed to come before the board. Mr. Wilcox said that the zoning in place for EcoVillage is very specific to EcoVillage. For whatever reason, with the way the zoning was written, if you want to make a change to your house, such as a porch addition, you must come before the board to get permission. The town board approved the PDZ and the planning board approved the site plan. Mr. Bosak added that there is also a threshold in terms of cost. Ms. Balestra said that's in our underlying zoning code; if there is a project that has to go before the board for a site plan, and later a modification is requested (such as a porch) that meets a certain financial threshold, it also needs to come back before the board. This is a very minor example of what the board usually sees. Mr. Tasman said that the review procedures are a bit different for PDZs than for regular zones. Minor projects, like changing the windows on the building, might require planning board approval whereas they would normally require only a building permit. Ms. Ritter added that that PDZ was later modified - the town can modify laws when it makes sense to. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2016-060: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, EcoVillage TREE Neighborhood Porch Addition, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.85 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by Joseph Haefeli WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for the proposed porch addition project located at 333 Rachel Carson Trail, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1- 26.85, Planned Development Zone No. 8. The proposal involves adding an open porch that wraps around the northeast corner of the home. Pat Pingel &. TREE LLC, Owners/Applicants; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, Agent; and 2. This is a Type 11 Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(10) of the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Envi ronmental Quality Review Act, because the Action constitutes the "construction, expansion or placement of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density." Thus, approval of the site plan is not subject to re view under SEQR; and Planning Board Minutes 11-01-2016 Page 3 of 8 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 1, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a set of drawings titled "Pingle House, 333 Rachel Carson Way, Ithaca, NY," dated 9/16/2016, prepared by Stream Collaborative, 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 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 and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed porch addition to the Pingel home, located at 333 Rachel Carson Trail, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.28.-1-26.85, Planned Development Zone No. 8 (EcoVillage), as described in the drawings listed in Whereas Number 3. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Discussion and consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment Project Planned Development Zone (PDZ) Ms. Collins asked where the town board stands as far as process on this project and what they're expecting from the planning board. Ms. Ritter said the PDZ is still in draft and there are still some thresholds that haven't been complet ed. They're waiting for information from the EIS to guide that. It's under review by the planning committee, so any planning board comments from the meeting would be passed on to the planning committee. Mr. Bosak said he doesn't have strong opinions on the details, but he's concerned about some larger aspects. This is a law, and as a member of the public, if he were a developer, he would want a clear and concise statement of what he can and cannot do in each particular area. His initial impression of the document was that it contained a lot of language that isn't related to that. Some of it isn't even noise; it's marketing, and as a person wanting to know what the law is, why would he be interested in that? He also took issue with the use of the word "transect," which is being used to mean "area." A transect is a line on a map; it's one dimensional. You put the line down and it goes through a bunch of different zones, so if you slice the landscape along that line, you get a cross section through a bunch of different zones. To say something is a medium-intensity transect is a complete misuse of the word. They're zones, or subzones within a PDZ. What he wants shown on the map are the different subzones and what you can do in each. Another problem is that everything from Section C onward reads like a generic code for certain types of neighborhoods rather than a specific requirement for a specific PDZ. This approach inflates the language of this particular PDZ and makes it difficult to apply these guidelines to other projects. This is an attempt to lay the groundwork for later develop- Planning Board Minutes 11-01-2016 Page 4 of 8 ment, but that would be easier if all this language was externalized into a set of generic guidelines having to do with this kind of neighborhood. That means that most of the language in the document goes away and gets pointed to by reference. It makes it easier to revise those guidelines later on when you don't have to revise every PDZ. Ms. Collins said her understanding is that this particular PDZ is uniquely different from any other PDZ in the past because it's an attempt to move into the form-based code that is being developed. Mr. Bosak said that's his assumption also, but to do this cleanly, the board should look at categories of neighborhood. Then in the future, to fulfill our new comprehensive plan according to these new transect-oriented areas, we'd have a medium-intensity neighborhood zone and a high-intensity neighborhood zone and a long list of good practices already worked out for those things. The right way to do this is for the town board, in consultation with the planning staff, to flesh out what all these best practices should be, each into its own individual piece of the code, and then something like this becomes almost trivial. When a new PDZ is proposed, the rules that apply to the types of neighborhoods planned will already be specified. Then in the future, if we decide to modify the rules, they just get changed in one document, and the next thing that points to it is already revised. Ms. Collins said her assumption from reading the PDZ draft document is that the attempt being made is exactly that: because we don't yet have the new zoning in place, this is an attempt to bring those elements into this PDZ. Ms. Ritter said we don't have a form-based code yet, and a lot of work still needs to be done. There will be certain transects with certain rules and these different areas will have different amounts of the transects in them. Maplewood was proposed in advance of that, and the town board wanted to move the Maplewood project ahead, so they were willing to go ahead and have a separate planned develop ment zone. Instead of writing it like Ithaca Beer or Belle Sherman Cottages, which is all text - there are no graphics, no tables, no charts, no performance standards - we wanted to get away from that and move into the direction of where we're going. It will give people a sense of where we're going with the rules that have been put into this PDZ. Mr. Bosak said his point is that if we're not going to generalize from this, you can get rid of a third of the language, and just tell him what he can and can't do in each area. When Ms. Ritter said this is moving us in a certain direction, as a person who likes to see laws written cleanly and concisely, he doesn't want a law to move him in a certain direction. Mr. Wilcox agreed that the language is flowery in the beginning, but he argued that laws often start with purpose, and in some sense, this is the purpose section on why we're doing this. There's a good reason to have a purpose section. Mr. Bosak said he's generally prejudiced against putting reasons in. Going back to the original editions of Robert's Rules of Order, General Robert said you should never put in a resolution the reasons for the resolution because a lot of people will vote for the resolution who don't share opinions about what the reasons are. Ms. Brock said if there's ever any litigation over the meaning of the law, the courts look at the purpose section first; and this isn't a resolution, it's a law. It protects the town to have the purposes Planning Board Minutes 11-01-2016 Page 5 of 8 spelled out. If Mr. Bosak thinks the law's purposes are wrong, this is the opportunity to change the language. Mr. Bosak said that's not what he was implying. Ms. Collins said she didn't see the PDZ as something that was being written for the developer. It's a law that embodies what we want to happen there, and whether it works for the developer or not, so be it. It seems like a bumpy, kludgy process because we're in this transition period. If anything, she has concerns because she doesn't want it to be written for EdR or Cornell; she wants it to set out boundaries, to set the stage. If we say there can be 500 units, that doesn't mean there have to be 500 units; there could be 200 units. It's what the town wants for the town. She doesn't see it as a document being put together for any specific developer or for developers in general, but rather as part of what they use to make the decision about whether this project is going to work in this particular area. Mr. Wilcox said that PDZs are generally written in response to a plan that doesn't fit within the zoning, whether it's EcoVillage, LaTourelle, or Maplewood. The town board is reacting to a proposal and is putting their say on what they think should be allowable and what should not be allowable, and leaving it up to the planning board to approve the details. Mr. Bosak said that insofar as his colleagues emphasize the uniqueness of this to the project, to that extent they're strengthening his point that you don't need the rest of the academic language about modern architectural thinking in the law. The more particular it is, the less reason to include that language. Mr. Wilcox pointed to the first page, second paragraph where it says that the "project envisions a variety of housing types and building configurations ..." We just got a concession from the developer that we now have two housing types. They weren't providing a variety before, and public pressure caused them to introduce a second housing type along Mitchell Street. Mr. Tasman pointed out that a variety of housing types would mean single-family, townhouse, apartment building, row house, stacked flats, and so on. Ms. Ritter added that our zoning doesn't allow those types of housing to be in the same neighbor hood, on the same lot. Ms. Collins asked about facade transparency on page 7. She assumed it referred to the amount of glass that would be allowed, and wondered why it wasn't in terms of less than or equal to. If it's greater than or equal to, you might as well say 100 percent. Mr. Tasman said that if it's less than or equal to, you could have a blank wall. Mr. Bosak asked what might be wrong with 100 percent. Mr. Tasman explained that the definition of transparency in the document is "building wall length occupied by functioning doors and/or windows t 5' tall." So we're really looking for a length rather Planning Board Minutes 11-01-2016 Page 6 of 8 than an overall percentage of a wall, and the idea is to prevent blank walls. If you're going to have a neighborhood environment, a big part is having windows. Ms. Collins said that up to this point, we've seen buildings with a considerable amount of facade transparency, which is very institutional, so she didn't know if this way of noting it was appropriate. She just wondered whether we would want to have an upper limit. Mr. Wilcox said that at some point, the planning board will have to make a recommendation to the town board as to their acceptance of the PDZ, so the issue will come up at some point. Ms. Fogarty asked about accessory uses on page 2, where wind energy is highlighted in yellow. She wondered whether we were going to add wind facilities. Ms. Brock said in our zoning has separately added small wind facilities as accessory uses in all the different zones, so this was a placeholder on whether we needed to say that here as well. Clearly, there's never going to be any possibility of wind energy being located on the site. Mr. Tasman's recommendation was to not include it. Mr. Haefeli said it was hard for him to see what makes this PDZ different from the thing it's getting a variance for. Ms. Brock responded that our PDZs never say what's allowed in the underlying zoning. Mr. Wilcox said the zoning allows typical single-family development on streets with quarter or third acre lots. Ms. Brock added that this is giving much more architectural and botanical information and require ments. Mr. Tasman said that generally for PDZs throughout the country, the municipality says that in return for higher density, they'll ask for higher standards for development: better architecture, better landscaping, more amenities, etc. Ms. Fogarty asked about open space requirements on page 3 regarding and why a certain percentage must abut street. Mr. Tasman explained that part of the parkland must front on the public realm so it's accessible. In many communities, there are pocket parks surrounded by back yards with a narrow access in between houses. The problem is that it's not really a park because it's not a public place; it instead becomes an extension of someone's back yard. You're not going go there because you don't want to intrude on someone's space. New standards for parks say that a certain percentage of the perimeter must front on a public street so the parkland feels more accessible and safer. Mr. Tasman said he has one behind his house that is overgrown and abandoned; if a neighbor saw someone wandering around there, they might call the police, even though it's town property. We don't want spaces like that. Planning Board Minutes 11-01-2016 Page 7 of 8 AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard A woman spoke who lives at 305 Walnut Street, which is directly across from the Recreation Way and one of the townhouses. She said that looking at the plan, it appears there's a lot less buffer than currently exists, with a setback as close as ten feet. There is also a minimal number of trees required: one every 20 feet, which means no screening for most of the year. As a landscaping barrier strategy, it's ineffectual. What's being proposed is less than what is there now. Mr. Tasman responded that our landscaping standards in the town zoning code are minimal, and this is a little more stringent. As this is only a starting point, he invited any ideas she might have for screening along the walkway. She suggested making the setback wider and adding shrubs. Ms. Collins said that when we go to site plan on any project, we spend a lot of time talking about landscaping, including what types of trees or shrubs will be used. This law is not meant to be a landscaping plan. There will be a public hearing, and she can make her comments there as well. Ms. Fogarty said that if it's written in the PDZ that trees only have to be every 20 feet, then you can't go back and ask the developer to do something different. Ms. Balestra said the EIS process informs the language of the PDZ, so the PDZ language might change. Mr. Tasman said that if one of the impacts is visual for residents living in the Belle Sherman Cottages and the Belle Sherman neighborhood, we'll look at how to mitigate it. It can be mitigated by boosting landscaping. Ms. Balestra added that that will be included in the findings statement the planning board will use when they consider the site plan for the project. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-061: Minutes of October 4, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of October 4, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach Abstentions: Fogarty, Bosak PB Resolution No. 2016-062: Minutes of October 18, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty Planning Board Minutes 11-01-2016 Page 8 of 8 RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of October 18, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Collins Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J)ebra DeAugistine^©eputy Town t