Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-11-15TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. November 15. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Hancock / Drake 2-Lot Subdivision, 1463 Mecklenburg Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1463 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-3.72 and 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 3.756 +!- acres from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.72, containing the existing bam and sheds, which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.9. Jane Hancock & Robert A. Drake, Owners/Applicants; Emily Doyle, Realty USA, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-14, and 63.- 2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood Apartments housing complex and redeveloping the +/- 17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets, parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, storm water facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. 4. Persons to be heard 5. Approval of Minutes: November 1, 2016 6. Other Business 7. 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 SP()LC E@TO\VN.lTHAC A.NV.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 (hltn://www.t()wn.ithaca.iiv.u.s/nieetina-a2eiidas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. November 15.2016 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 15, 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 Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1463 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-3.72 and 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 3.756 +/- acres from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.72, containing the existing bam and sheds, which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.9. Jane Hancock & Robert A. Drake, Owners/Applicants; Emily Doyle, Realty USA, 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, November 7,2016 Publish: Wednesday, November 9,2016 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 bv the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. November 15, 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: November 7, 2016 Date of Publication: November 9, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9'^ day of November 2016 -I^ot^y^Public n n DEBORW+KELLEY Notary Public, State ot New York>10. 01KE60250^3 Qualified in Schuyler County Commission Expires May 17, 20—- THE ITHACA JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, November 15, 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 15, 2016, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca. N.Y., at the following time and on the following 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivi- I sion Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1463 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Itha- j ca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-3.72 and 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural n Zone. The proposal Involves subdividing 3.756 -»■/- acres(from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.72. containing the existingi barn and sheds, which will be consolidated with Tax Par cel No. 28.-1-3.9. Jane Hancock & Robert A. Drake,Owners/Applicants; Emily Doyle, Realty USA, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hearall persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individu als with visual impairments, hearing impairments or otherspecial needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must makesuch a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, November 7. 2016 11/3/2016 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street November 15,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, November 15, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 FINAL 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; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and accepted the posting and publication of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Hancock / Drake 2-Lot Subdivision, 1463 Mecklenburg Road Mr. Bates noted for the record that he rents an apartment from the applicant, but that he is in no way affected by the outcome of this decision nor does he have a vote in it. Ms. Doyle said the subdivision involves three contiguous tax parcels. The 1463 Mecklenburg Road parcel has a house on it. Ms. Hancock wants to sell the 109-acre parcel, which has several out buildings on it. In order for the sale to happen, the out buildings would have to be removed, but instead of tearing them down, she's proposing to subdivide off the portion of that property with the buildings on it and then to consolidate the resulting parcel with 1463 Mecklenburg Road. PB Resolution No. 20164363: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Hancock / Drake 2-Lot Subdivision, 1463 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No.*s 28.'1'3.72 &. 28.-1-3,9 Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Jon Bosak WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1463 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-3.72 and 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 3.756 +/- acres from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.72, containing the existing barn and sheds, which will be consolidat ed with Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.9. Jane Hancock &. Robert A. Drake, Owners/Applicants; Emily Doyle, Realty USA, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoor dinated environmental review with respect to the project; and 3. The Planning Board on November 15, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Map of Survey Lot to be Conveyed from the Estate of Robert A. Drake Sr.", prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., dated October 5, 2016, and other application materials; and Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 2 of 15 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT 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 action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1463 Mecklenburg Road (NTS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.- 1-3.72 and 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 3.756 +/- acres from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.72, containing the existing barn and sheds, which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.9. Jane Hancock & Robert A. Drake, Owners/Applicants; Emily Doyle, Realty USA, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. To a question from Mr. Bosak, Mr. Smith stated that there is no statement from county planning regarding the action. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2016-064: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Hancock / Drake 2- Lot Subdivision, 1463 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No.*s 28.-1-3.72 & 28.-1-3.9 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Joseph Haefeli WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1463 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1-3.72 and 28.-1-3.9, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 3.756 +/' acres from Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.72, containing the existing barn and sheds, which will be consolidat ed with Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.9. Jane Hancock & Robert A. Drake, Owners/Applicants; Emily Doyle, Realty USA, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordi nated environmental review with respect to the project, has on November 15, 2016, made a nega- Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 3 of 15 tive determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board on November 15, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Map of Survey Lot to be Conveyed from the Estate of Robert A. Drake Sr.", prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., dated October 5, 2016, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That since the applicant has requested a larger lot (maximum of 2 acres allowed, 3.756 +/- acres proposed) and fewer dwellings than would be normally permitted pursuant to Town Code Section 270-35, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby determines, according to Section 270-34.A (1) (b) of the Town Code, that with the restriction below on the maximum number of lots, the amount of land dedicated to having a larger lot does not exceed the amount of land that would have been dedicated to residential purposes bad the number of dwellings and sizes of lots been in full compli ance with Section 270-35; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 1463 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28.-1- 3.72 and 28.-1-3.9, as shown on the survey map entitled "Map of Survey Lot to be Conveyed from the Estate of Robert A. Drake Sr.", subject to the following conditions: a. granting of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, and b. submission of a revised subdivision map with a note stating that "pursuant to the Planning Board's November 15, 2016 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the Hancock/ Drake 2-Lot Subdivision (PB Resolution No. 2016- ), no more than twelve (12) additional lots may be subdivided off of Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.72 (labeled as Remaining Lands of the Robert A. Drake Sr. Estate), which together with the 3.756 +/- acre parcel and the remainder of Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-3.72 will result in a maximum of fourteen (14) lots", prior to signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, and c. submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the final revised subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins Coun ty Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning De partment, and Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 4 of 15 d. submission of a letter signed by the property owners containing the same language as that in the subdivision map note described in paragraph h above, with the letter's language subject to review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, to he filed concurrently with the signed subdivision plat in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of the letter's filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Consideration of acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-14, and 63.-2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood Apartments housing complex and redeveloping the +/-17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets, parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, storm water facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning fit Design, LLC, Agent Mr. Wilcox stated that the board has the public comments and the applicant team's responses to those comments, and that it's the board's task now to decide whether to accept the comments and consider that the FEIS is complete. He noted that he thought the quality of the document by the applicant is much better than in the past: he said he likes the way it's organized, that it's written in a way that is much more understandable, and that it's lacking errors of haste. Ms. Fogarty and Ms. Collins asked for clarification regarding the board's role that night and what the rest of the EIS process looks like. Ms. Brock said the board has received written and oral comments through the public hearings on the DEIS, and the applicant has prepared a draft FEIS that should respond to all the substantive comments that were received. The board should make sure that all the substantive comments are addressed and that you're content with the responses provided; if not, you should provide alternate language or explain what you need from the applicant to finish the response. Once you're comforta ble with the document and you think all the substantive comments have been adequately addressed, you can vote to adopt the document. Then there's a 10-day waiting period in SEQR before you can adopt findings statements. Once you do that, you can consider approval or disapproval of the project. Once you adopt the findings statement, that concludes the SEQR process. Ms. Collins asked Ms. Brock to explain what findings statements are. Reading from the SEQR Handbook, Ms. Brock said, "Findings must: (1) consider the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the final EIS; (2) weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations; (3) provide a rationale for the agency's decision; (4) certify that the requirements of this Part [of the SEQR regulations! have been met; and (5) certify that consistent with social, economic and other essential Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 5 of 15 considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorpo rating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable." Ms. Brock said that in your findings, you'll specify what mitigation measures you think will be necessary to be applied to any approval that might come after the findings are made. Mr. Bosak asked when the clock runs out. Ms. Balestra responded that it will run out within 45 days after the close of the public hearing for the DEIS, which is December Z""*. The findings statement has to be complete within 30 days of the filing of the final EIS. If the board approves the FEIS tonight and changes need to be made to it, we can't file it until after the changes are made. Mr. Wilcox said that he was surprised at how quickly the architecture of the two buildings fronting along the trail was altered to match the architecture of the structures along Mitchell Street. We have more specifics with regard to the energy that will be used for the site. As for the contribution of $20,000 for traffic calming, he didn't know whether that was that a good number or not. He didn't know if by offering $20,000 the applicant was saying. You solve it and we'll give you $20,000. Maybe we want the applicant to solve it. He said he parked near French Lavender and observed the traffic on Mitchell Street during lunch hour. He observed that traffic coming down the hill is more inclined to slow down for the recreation trail and the marked crosswalk from the north sidewalk to the south sidewalk. He thinks it's because of the speed limit reduction and the signage. Traffic going up the hill is different: they speed up when they see the 35-mph sign. Mr. Beach agreed that the westbound traffic has a tendency to slow down earlier because there's a knoll, plus the speed limit is lowered, but coming up the hill, drivers see the increased speed limit sign and that the road visually opens up. Mr. Wilcox added that the signage is better heading west. The signage isn't as good heading east, indicating that there's a crosswalk to get from one sidewalk to another and then the recreation trail 100 yards beyond that, heading up the hill. There used to be a stop sign at Vine Street; putting it back would be another potential traffic calming measure. In an area where there's snow, he's not a big believer in speed bumps, because he worries about the snow plows damaging them. Ms. Ritter commented that we have raised pedestrian walkways and speed bumps in Forest Home now, so they're not impossible to have. She talked to the county because Mitchell Street is a county road, and they were not opposed to them, as long as any raised walkways or speed bumps were maintained by the town. She's not sure the $20,000 would cover speed bumps. The idea is that you want to slow the traffic down and may want visual cues. The access management of the rec way by French Lavender is terrible: you don't know whether you're in a driveway or crossing the rec way. She thinks a raised crosswalk at the rec way should be considered, as well as something that will psycho logically contribute to people slowing down. From the Belle Sherman Cottages, there's a horizontal crossing that could use a raised walkway as well, and a painted crosswalk at Clover Lane would help. Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 6 of 15 Mr. Wilcox said that because the Burns Road intersection at Coddington Road is blind, the county put striping on the sides of the road next to the shoulders, which visually makes people think the road is narrowing and they slow down. He asked when we would know what reasonable mitigation measures might cost. Ms. Ritter said we could ask the applicant team to talk to SRF Consultants, who might have a good handle on numbers. That could be included in the findings statement. Mr. Beach said there are three issues to deal with and regulate within a very short space: traffic coming out of the side streets, speed, and pedestrian crossings. It really is a mess in that area. Ms. Fogarty asked whether these measures would also help with site distances at the intersections. Ms. Ritter responded that they talked about having signage to warn people there's an intersection coming. The county said the town could apply to them for a speed limit reduction; they would then apply to the state. With this big development, she thinks the state might look at it more at seriously. Mr. Wilcox said, other than the questions about traffic, he's very happy with the rest of the docu ment. No document is perfect. Have they responded to the substantive comments? Yes. Do we have the basis for forming a findings statement that can guide us when we consider preliminary site plan approval? Yes, he thinks we have the information we need. Mr. Beach said another concern is if the majority of the construction traffic is going to make a left turn out of the project onto Mitchell Street, with the other traffic issues we talked about, he would hope there would be some type of traffic control, such as flag people during all construction hours, to help moderate and control traffic on Mitchell Street coming out of the project. The turn from Pine Tree Road onto Route 79 is also a suspect turn because of the lack of visibility. Mr. Haefeli said he doesn't want to see the trucks on Pine Tree Road. Ms. Fogarty asked whether the water tank issue was resolved. Ms. Ritter responded that there are a lot of meetings going on with Cornell to make this work. She believes there's a commitment on Cornell's part to try to find a location for a new water tank, and on the part of the town to get the paperwork for the public interest order to the state comptroller. In terms of who will pay for the tank, Cornell may give the land to the town, and there was already a need for a water tank. Once Maplewood is built, Cornell will be paying quite a bit into the utility, so it's questionable whether there will be additional monies asked of them. Much of the water tank issue will be dealt with at the town board level. Ms. Fogarty said there is still language in the document that's up in the air - for example, on page 65, talking about potential mitigations - so it's not clear whether they really are mitigations. She noted that there was no map showing where contractor parking would be. Ms. Balestra said that if parking isn't covered in this document, the board will need to include it in the findings. The FEIS says only that Cornell is committed to working with LeChase to identify^ offsite parking, but we need the locations to be identified. Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 7 of 15 Mr. Beach said it needs to be spelled out that we don't want the personal vehicles of construction workers parked throughout the Belle Sherman neighborhood. He wants to be sure there's sufficient offsite parking for all the construction workers, and that there's a way to get them back and forth to the work site. Mr. Whitham said LeChase has identified the old Courtside as a possible site: it's close to the construction site. Mr. Wilcox said he might not find that acceptable. When that site was purchased by Cornell and the building demolished, we were concerned about what they might do with the lot and we put re strictions on it. When they upgraded the heating plant, they used it for construction staging. He suggested some other sites that could be used, such as the old polo arena on Route 366. Mr. Whitham said the benefit to the Courtside location is that it would allow workers to walk to the construction site. Ms. Ritter said it would require site plan approval. Ms. Fogarty wondered about ongoing monitoring of the energy systems after construction. It's stated that it's not planned. If the systems aren't working correctly, they won't be saving energy. Mr. Vogel said it's true, but the Energy Star certification requires annual verification that the utility bills are still meeting the certification. By going with the Energy Star certification, the energy usage is checked year by year. Ms. Fogarty responded that verifying how much energy is being used doesn't mean that they're monitoring the equipment. Will they go in every year and do a tune up on the equipment to make sure it's working properly? If they just note that their energy use is going up, it's of no consequence to anyone except them because they're paying more money for it. This board has been very interested in lowering energy use, so it does need to get spelled out. Mr. Whitham suggested that they provide a greater clarification of the Energy Star system. Mr. Wilcox said that we can't include common sense in this document, and it's common sense that, as an owner of a building, they make sure the systems are maintained and functioning properly. He can't believe that they'll install millions of dollars of heating and cooling equipment and just let it deteriorate over time. He agreed that they should elaborate on the Energy Star requirements in terms of maintaining the certification. Ms. Fogarty said the other loose end was the commitment to a five- or six-day work week. Ms. Balestra said the board can specify the hours and days of construction in the findings. There have been other projects where the board has approved construction on Saturdays, but not on Sundays or holidays. Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 8 of 15 Ms. Brock said their treatment of that issue needs to be stated consistently throughout the FEIS. As it reads now, they say in one place that they can't commit and in another that they might need to work a few long days and weekends to make up for weather delays. Mr. Fogarty commented that the statement that vegetation will be "maintained to the extent practica ble to assure maximum visibility" needs to be clarified. Mr. Wilcox said the question is: At this point in the process, is it possible to know exactly which vegetation can be maintained and which can't be? Mr. Whitham pointed out that if they were to maintain the vegetation to the maximum extent possible, there would be none; the maximum extent is eradication. They want to make sure vegetation can remain, but that the visibility is clear. Mr. Bosak suggested getting rid of "to the extent practicable." Board members agreed. Ms. Collins said she has felt and believed all along that something would be built on that property. She believes that three outstanding and important issues have not been addressed. The first is a definition of the need for this project. She thinks the team has done a very good job outlining Cornell's overall need for housing graduate students, but they haven't said why there's a need for a project this size on this property at this time. The second issue is affordability of the units. In trying to justify the need for a project this large, they've used affordability. She would like the developer to project the basic information one needs to determine affordability: how much income the people have and what costs are involved. She commented on the table they provided on page 16. They are insuring that rents will not exceed 33 percent of students' income, but graduate students have said their stipends are between $25,000 and $28,000. Their assurance of 33 percent may not be borne out by these numbers. Mr. Resetco responded that they're not saying that all the apartments will be affordable at the same level, but they know that all the incomes aren't the same. Many grad students have additional jobs or partners with jobs, so they don't know exactly how much everyone makes. Their goal is to make a significant number of the units affordable. They believe that the two-, three-, and four-bedroom units are affordable and that there are a significant number of those within the property. If you want to live on your own in a studio apartment, you'll pay a different rent than if you share an apartment with someone else. If you're a family with children, you'll pay a different rent from someone who's sharing. Ms. Collins said it's confusing to use a figure of $800 per bed. They provided a resolution from the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly in support of the project; she pointed out that it's clear that the grad students are vitally concerned about affordability. They urged the developer to strive to keep rents affordable at levels based on the minimum stipend levels set for the graduate school, which EdR has not done. Ms. Balestra said that if you look at the net effective rents, they are all at that level. Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 9 of 15 Mr. Bosak said it seems their case is that the rents are affordable by comparison with what else is available. Mr. Wilcox added that they are also affordable on their own. Regarding a family living in a two- bedroom unit with only one person receiving a stipend, he stated that it is not Cornell's responsibility to make sure that a mom and dad and two kids receive enough money from Cornell and have housing sufficient so they can pay for it. Mr. Bosak said he thinks part of the problem is the implicit marketing that went into the document that was trying to convince us that one poor grad student with three kids and a spouse could afford to live here. Ms. Collins said that's her point. Her third concern is the issue of reduced scale and alternative layout development scenarios. Reading from page 92, comment 74C, which quotes from the DEIS: "Many versions of the site plan were investigated ... including versions with fewer units and fewer beds. These versions of the plan did not meet the documented needs of the University to house its graduate and professional student population [or] the requirements of the applicant...." The commenter asked that they share with the board at least two or three of these "many versions of the site plan" and to share with the board why these versions do not meet the "documented needs" of the university or applicant. Ms. Collins found the response wholly inadequate. She said that if this were the last 17 acres of land the university owned within Tompkins County, she might feel differently. While she likes the changes that were made on Mitchell Street and she likes the mews, this necessitated cutting units out of those more visually appealing buildings, and they simply increased the size of the other buildings that still look like office buildings. The bottom line to her is that a decision was made on day one that this development was going to be the size that it is and that it was not going to change no matter what; they have not been responsive to share with us what they looked at and how they came to the conclusion that it couldn't be any different. Mr. Resetco said once they reduced the project down to the size they presented originally, they did a number of mathematical studies to calculate how many beds they could lose and still maintain the rents and payment to Cornell and maintain their return. Those are the three factors that went into their investigation. Their agreement with Cornell was that the rents were to be based on the existing Maplewood. The graduate students, as they wrote in their resolution and told him in person, can afford the rents at Maplewood, so those are the rents EdR used. Maplewood is full, it's been full, and the graduate students have said they can afford it. As to the ground rent payment to Cornell, the trustees have decided there's a certain value to their land, and in order for EdR to do a project, there's a certain investment threshold; otherwise, their investors wouldn't support their organization. Those are the three metrics they use. They started off with a project that was slightly larger than this because Cornell said they had a demand that was in excess of this. They did mathematical scenarios to test, for example, losing a floor off a building or removing a townhouse. They didn't do a number of site plan studies where they would take out portions of the site. He apologized if it was construed as though they did a number of different site plan studies. It's been their goal all along to provide housing that's needed in Ithaca. Mr. Wilcox said we chastised the project sponsor for the lack of substantive alternatives before we accepted the draft for public comment. He wasn't happy when an alternative showed up the night of the public hearing when people were able to comment. But they have steadfastly been consistent in Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 10 of 15 Stating the number of beds tbey need to make the project work for all parties. He's not entirely bappy that we're dealing with Cornell through a private entity that has to make a profit. It's unusual and the economics are different. Ms. Brock pointed out that the project will bring in tax money. Mr. Bosak said the question is whether the lack of alternatives renders the document legally question able. There was a mandate under SEQR that they present meaningful alternatives. They didn't present any. Is this a legal requirement? Mr. Wilcox said we accepted the draft as adequate for public comment. Mr. Bosak pointed out that Mr. Wilcox said at the time that the questions didn't need to be resolved at that point, and that the board was accepting the draft only to get public comment. Ms. Collins said if you draw a line all the way back to the EAF, the changes that have been made on Mitchell Street and the mews area are not enough, in her opinion, to fulfill the requirement. The terminology is "the project," and Mitchell Street alone is not the project. All the impacts from traffic would be smaller if the project were smaller. The board has never had the opportunity to see a project that is fundamentally smaller, that could be more visually appealing and have less of an impact on the existing community. Like everything in a complex world, things are all interconnected. Cornell has a need, but does that need have to be satisfied on this 17 acres at this moment in time? Ms. Balestra read from the SEQR Handbook regarding how the lead agency should determine which alternatives should be discussed in the EIS. "The goal of the alternatives discussion in an EIS is to investigate means to avoid or reduce one or more identified potentially adverse environmental impacts." Part 16 "further requires that the alternatives discussion include a range of reasonable alternatives which are feasible considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." The project sponsor has presented an alternative considering their objective and their capabilities. Mr. Bosak said we have to understand that the objective of the applicant is to stack as many grad students as possible onto land already available and close to shopping. Given the objective, anything less than the maximum is not going to be in support of their objective. Ms. Brock countered that that's not true. In the beginning of the EIS process, they stated a certain number of units and beds and they've already decreased that. While Mr. Bosak said the site is close to shopping, she thinks the whole point is to get them close to Cornell. You're ignoring the entire point of the location. Mr. Bosak agreed that it's the best location, they already own it, and the objective is to get as many beds as they think they can get us to approve. Ms. Ritter said they could have come in with a proposal for 700 units, knowing that it would be an issue, and then offered to bring it down. They didn't play that game. Mr. Wilcox said we might not agree with their objective, but that's their objective. The other problem we're dealing with is affordability. Affordability for whom? Affordability for some number of grad Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 11 of 15 students. How do you maintain affordability? You don't make them all look like Belle Sherman Cottages and still expect to come up with a rent that might be affordable to some graduate students earning $28,000, but that might not be affordable for a mom, dad, and two kids on a grad student stipend. There's a reason the architecture was originally as it was, and they have made changes in areas where the buildings will be seen and noticed. We and the public have gotten concessions. Mr. Bosak pointed out that they also didn't provide a no-action scenario. That doesn't mean that nobody will live there; it means that those buildings would have to be maintained to keep them from falling down. Mr. Bosak then proceeded to go through his comments page by page. He agreed with the city's comment that large chunks of the language is meaningless marketing. He asked whether harmless puffery might hurt anything legally, and was assured that it wouldn't. He raised an issue regarding traffic counts under different scenarios, saying that some of the numbers don't make sense; for example, they show the Ithaca Road Northbound AM intersection improving after full develop ment. Something is wrong with their modeling. Mr. Wilcox agreed. Just because an intersection like Mitchell Street and Ithaca Road are difficult to model doesn't justify' numbers that don't make any sense. Ms. Brock agreed that the whole section needs to be clarified. Mr. Bosak pointed to page 61, regarding the developer purchasing a minimum of 50 percent solar energy produced off site. He said the statement is meaningless. When you tell the energy company to make sure 50 percent is coming from solar, that doesn't help anything because all you're doing is denying solar energy to someone else who would have bought it. What new solar energy are you going to cause to be constructed to mitigate the energy use of the development? The developer goes on to say they want to purchase a local source of energy, specifically solar PV generated in Tompkins County. He can't tell whether they're simply saying that they believe a commitment to purchasing 50 percent solar energy from somewhere solves this problem or whether they're actually edging up to make a commitment to causing new solar energy to be created. He noted that the town's environmen tal review committee recommends the project not be approved until the offsite location of the installation of the solar PV has been identified. He agreed. Mr. Wilcox asked why he should care where the solar PV system is or whether they purchase it or build one. Mr. Bosak said he should care because simply telling NYSEG that you want half of your energy to come from someone's solar array doesn't create new solar energy that would mitigate the energy used by this project; instead, it takes out of the market solar energy that somebody else would have bought. It's not his point; the point has been made over and over by experts on the subject. It matters where it's located only so we actually know they built it. Mr. Wilcox said he's happy that 50 percent of their energy is going to be solar based. He would have been happy if they had used natural gas, so the fact that they're going to use solar generated by an existing facility is not a concern to him. Mr. Bosak said he's going on the assumption that a project of this size is going to use an enormous amount of energy; it's going to release an enormous amount of greenhouse gases. That is exactly what Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 12 of 15 SEQR wants us to be concerned with on that point: how do we mitigate that? The answer is you mitigate your energy use by generating that energy. They have managed to dismiss the points he made about the definition of a zero-energy building, which is a building that gets its energy on site. Mr. Wilcox said that if it comes from somewhere else on the grid, he assumes that will force addition al solar generation panels to be put on the grid, because it increases demand, and supply will come along. Mr. Bosak said that's saying that increasing demand is a way to address greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Wilcox said that increasing demand will cause more solar electric generating facilities to be created. Mr. Resetco stated that they would like to purchase the energy locally, and have not yet made a commitment to doing that. He explained that they have a contract from a company that is offering to produce the energy in Tompkins County with a new solar array. The problem is that the solar array is not funded. They have the contract and it meets their requirements, but that project doesn't have any funding and might not get built. So they were in a situation where they couldn't tell us they were going to do something and not have it happen. They do have the ability to purchase solar energy; they've done it on other projects and are committed to doing so. The point Mr. Bosak makes about that taking the energy out of the hands of someone else who would like to purchase it isn't the case. The facility that they're hoping will be built locally won't serve solely them either, but their commit ment will allow the company to build additional facilities. That's no different from their purchasing the energy from somewhere else. Mr. Bosak makes a difference between purchasing and creating, but that's exactly what the purchase does: it invests in the creation of solar PV. Mr. Resetco also pointed out that they are not getting the energy through NYSEG; it's a separate agreement with a company just like the one they were going to support in Tompkins County. If the facility comes into existence in Tompkins County, they can change the agreement because it renews on a regular basis. The point of investing in the energy and taking it out of someone else's pocket is a longer discussion. Any time someone purchases energy from a solar PV array, that money helps other solar PVs get created. To Mr. Wilcox's point about creating demand: there is not a waiting list to purchase solar energy. If you want to purchase it, you find a company that produces it and you can buy it. The more people who buy it, the more PV arrays can be built. So they are, in essence, facilitating it, although not yet facilitating it here in Tompkins County. Ms. Fogarty said she is still interested in solar on site, not to meet all their needs, but to meet some of their needs. She suggested that solar could be put on some of the townhouses and also on some the flat roofs. She understands there's money to do that in New York, and that solar panels can even be rented. This way, they'd be using solar produced right there on the site. Mr. Resetco said that because they're putting their HVAC equipment on the roofs instead of on the site, a large amount of the roof area will be taken up by condensing units. Even if there is room on the roofs, it's not efficient if you have a little piece of roof here and there. The air conditioning systems are efficient if the runs are as short as possible from the point where the condenser is to the apartment unit. For them to move everything to one location in order to create more area for an array would be counterproductive to the efficiencies of the HVAC units. The townhouses are a little Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 13 of 15 different, although part of the challenge is the cost. He said that they wanted to do solar energy on a larger scale. Ms. Balestra said they made a statement in their responses that they would have to change the site plan orientation for onsite solar. Mr. Bosak added that they also said the cost to install PV on site is significantly more than the cost to purchase it off site. He pointed out that there was nothing in the DEIS regarding the HVAC on the roofs, and he would like to see that given as a reason in the document. Ms. Fogarty asked whether there is any available space on the townhomes to produce their own energy. She added that the PDZ mentioned the idea of having covering over some of the parking that could be used for solar. Mr. Resetco said that the only covered parking are garages within the townhomes. Mr. Wilcox said one of the things that strikes him is that we'd like them to do this, and we'd like them to do that, but we'd also like them to be affordable at the same time. Ms. Fogarty said there's no additional cost to leasing solar panels. It's owned by somebody else and your electricity is frozen when the panels are installed, so the cost doesn't go up. Mr. Wilcox questioned that there wouldn't be additional costs: no cost to design, no cost to construc tion of the building to support the additional weight on the roof, etc.? Mr. Vogel said there's a possibility that rooftop solar could happen, but agreed there would be additional cost. Mr. Bosak said he's fine with that, but reiterated that the explanations given at the meeting need to be in the document. Otherwise, we have to find that they have mitigated this to the greatest extent practicable. If they can't come up with reasons regarding the practicability of solar rooftop units, we can't certify it. He congratulated them on firmly committing to implement Table 5-2: FCM inputs for Zero Energy Building (ZEB) ready [DEIS Chapter 5], but said it raised questions about Passive House. Were the Passive House figures they provided in comparison with the code or with ZEB ready? In the DEIS, it says the comparison is with ZEB. Mr. Vogel confirmed that the comparison is with ZEB. Mr. Bosak also asked them to explain what they meant by statements they made in a couple of places that with the Energy Star certification, they would come closer to the Passive House requirements than had been projected. He said he interpreted the statements as meaning that the difference they thought there was between Passive House and ZEB is less than they thought. Mr. Vogel said he was suggesting that because construction oversight is so important as far as the actual energy usage of the building that it gets closer to that when somebody is looking over some body's shoulder. For instance, at EcoVillage, it made a huge difference to have a contractor who was really paying attention to how things were installed. That's why he recommended the Energy Star Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 14 of 15 certification: because it includes a verification that LEED does not. He said it is important that the Passive House requirements are determined hy a certain Passive House planning package that uses a different modeling software than what they're using, which is the common LEED software. They couldn't use the Passive House planning package to do a LEED calculation, and what he's seen with Passive House is huge: it's not uncommon, as a result of using the Passive House planning package, to come up with requiring 8 inches of Styrofoam under a floor that does not have radiant heat in it. That's a big impact on the construction of a development. At EcoVillage, the walls are 12 inches thick. There are very significant additions required to take construction to the Passive House standard. Mr. Vogel said you could build a 5-foot wall, hut the last 4 feet aren't going to get you that much, so you can always do more than what they're doing, hut he feels like the ECMs in Table 5-2 are pretty darned good mitigations. Mr. Haefeli weighed in on the energy use discussion. He understands that if you have to pay up front and have to build facilities, it impacts your business model in different ways than if you buy energy on an ongoing basis and spread out the financial impacts. He had a couple of concerns: When we push energy generation off site, it's simply less efficient to transport it from another state. His larger concern is that having an increasingly direct connection with your power source makes it verifiable and makes the user connected to it. Aside from the verifiable issue, saying you'll buy 50 percent of your energy from somewhere feels like you're buying your way out of something: you don't build a very efficient building and then you just get a pass by buying energy somewhere else. Ms. Brock asked if he really thought the buildings wouldn't be energy efficient. Mr. Haefeli answered that they might be, but the most efficient thing we can do is to not use the energy. Period. His only other comment about the document is when he sees statements such as: The developer would like to do something, but it depends on the cost, or to the maximum extent practicable. That concerns him because it's saying if it's convenient and if it works out. Those sorts of terms appear throughout the document. Mr. Bosak said a statement that appears in several places in the document claims that 50 percent of the solar energy is being purchased off site, and the project is able to achieve this goal because buildings will be constructed incorporating the ECMs listed in Table 5-2. There is absolutely no connection between the first and second part of the sentence. You could purchase solar energy no matter how the building is constructed. There is nothing about how the buildings are constructed that enables you to purchase 50 percent solar energy. Ms. Brock said they just need to clarify that connection. It probably goes to the rents they charge: by using energy conservation measures, they don't need as much electricity, so it makes it possible to buy solar even if it costs more. Ms. Brock went through her comments on the document. She stated that under the regulations, the developer has to respond to all the substantive comments, and that there are a number of places in the document where they say that the comment has been acknowledged. When a comment has already been dealt with in another response, all they have to do is reference the other response that contains the answer. Ms. Brock pointed out each instance in the document where a reference to a previously answered comment needs to be inserted. She also verbally went through her list of other edits to the document. The board accepted all of Ms. Brock's recommendations. Planning Board Minutes 11-15-2016 Page 15 of 15 Ms. Balestra suggested that the most efficient way for the updated document to be presented to the board would be to provide either a redlined version or a highlighted version showing the changes. On a motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Fogarty, the planning board voted to hold a special meeting on November 22nd at 7 p.m. to continue the discussion of acceptance of the environmental impact statement for the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project. The motion passed with Ms. Collins voting against. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'LJu.JsjhcU a. DMjra'DeAugistineVDeputy Towi