Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-12-06TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. December 6.2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition, 101 Harris B Dales Dr. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition located at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. The proposal involves a 6,000 sf second floor addition, which will be built entirely atop the first floor of the north wing. The project also includes a 12,350 +/- sf renovation of the existing behavioral health unit. The addition and renovation will include treatment areas, patient rooms and support space. Cayuga Medical Center of Ithaca, Owner/Applicant; Paul A. Levesque II, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment Project Planned Development Zone (PDZ). The Board will also discuss the draft Findings Statement and the Preliminary Site Plan 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 -t-/- 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. No actions on the Findings Statement or Preliminary Site Plan will be taken at this meeting. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. 4. Persons to be heard 5. Approval of Minutes: November 15, 2016 and November 22, 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 SPOLCE@TO\VN.l I'HACA.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 (http://www.t()wn.ithacs».nv.us/meeline-agcnda.s). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. December 6.2016 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, December 6,2016, 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 and Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition located at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. The proposal involves a 6,000 +/- sf second floor addition, which will be built entirely atop the first floor of the north wing. The project also includes a 12,350 +/- sf renovation of the existing behavioral health unit. The addition and renovation will include treatment areas, patient rooms and support space. Cayuga Medical Center of Ithaca, Owner/Applicant; Paul A. Levesque II, HOLT Architects, P.C., 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 28,2016 Publish: Wednesday, November 30,2016 the ITHACA JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2016 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, December 6, 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, December 6. 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 and Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition iocated at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3- 2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. The proposal involves a 6,000 +/- sf second floor addition, which will be built en tirely atop the first floor of the north wing. The project also includes a 12,350 •♦■/- sf renovation of the existing be havioral health unit. The addition and renovation will include treatment areas, patient rooms and support space.Cayuga Medical Center of Ithaca, Owner/Applicant; PaulA. Levesque II, HOLT Architects, P.C., 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 ofthe public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747■Dated: Monday, November 28, 2016 11/30/2016 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street December 6,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address /d/ J);6ti/€L /n4.^c4 /J^ /(d^Ay/ \j Cl^ /d/ Pr/lre r^lL^t^oe (^(.Q wteis|- ^-feCHxr) bjl.. Hnlaoy Col^ {A)e%j Sock fHccr) '^ocOS' /^(^Ldcojy 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. December 6. 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 28, 2016 Date of Publication: November 30, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30'^ day of November 2016. Notary Public ^ t: - EjHBORAH KELLEY \ '>Notary^biic, State of New York hro. 01KE6025073 -Qualified in Schuyler County^ Commission Expires May 17,20 ZJL- TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, December 6, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Tasman, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and accepted the posting and publication of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition, 101 Harris B Dates Dr. Mr. Levesque said the project is in response to the medical center's need to meet the increased demand for behavioral health services in the area. They're focusing on the continuum of care of the behavioral health patients. The goals of the proposed renovation and expansion are to improve the patient outcomes, minimize re-admissions, reduce the length of stay, and minimize transfers of patients out of the area. Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) has been operating a 20-bed adult and 6-bed adolescent program. This project is not to increase the number of patients, but rather to increase the space they have for programs. Right now they're limited to 20 adults and 6 adolescents, and if they design this properly, they'll be able to either increase the adolescents or increase the adults being treated, depending on the patient needs, without increasing the overall patient census. They're currently very limited on program space so they aren't able to provide all the services they'd like to. The outcomes of this project will be improved patient privacy, dignity, and safety, as well as an improved environment for the staff. Kelly Maher, HOLT Architects, said the existing unit resides on the second floor of the north wing of the hospital. The addition will be entirely on top of the first floor, extending only to the east. They will need to relocate the helipad temporarily to the existing parking lot. Construction parking will be in the parking lot of the Biggs building. They will tie into existing utilities within the building, so there will be no expansion of existing utilities. For the building design, they matched the existing context and neighborhood character using the existing materials and existing proportions of the original building. They'll use precast concrete for the exterior envelope and an aluminum storefront system to match the newer additions on the first floor below, keeping similar proportion to the existing building for most of the window heights, with the exception of the northeast corner, where they'll increase the window height. The interior of that space is the patient activity area, so this will allow them to have wide open views of the lake and surrounding environment during daytime activities. Although it's still significantly lower than the majority of the hospital, the addition will exceed the zoning for height, so they will seek a variance. Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 2 of 15 Mr. Levesque said the helipad will be relocated during construction. The last time the helipad was dealt with, part of the issue was getting light poles out of the way. During construction, they'll shut off the lights at the existing helipad, and the helicopter will use their own lights as they come in. Mr. Thaete said the staging area will be on the impervious surface, so they won't be disturbing any soils and therefore will not need a SWPPP. Mr. Bates said they that if they had requested a height variance for the entire structure up to a certain height, they probably would not have had to seek height variances for each site plan they come in with. But without the blanket variance, every time they come in with a site plan for a specific area of the hospital, they need to seek a variance limited to that specific plan. Ms. Collins disclosed that she used to work at CMC, but that it would in no way affect her decision. Ms. Meier Swain said she was also previously employed at CMC and while still working there was on the planning committee for the project. Ms. Brock said that she didn't know whether Ms. Meier Swain had a conflict of interest as stated under the town code, but since she was involved in planning the project, she might consider recusing herself to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, even if there isn't one. Ms. Meier Swain recused herself. Ms. Brock stated for the record that her sister is employed at CMC as a pharmacist. PB Resolution No. 2016067: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition, Tax Parcel No, 24.'3-2,l, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition located at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. The proposal involves a 6,000 +/- sf second floor addition, which will be built entirely atop the first floor of the north wing. The project also includes a 12,350 +/- sf renovation of the exist ing behavioral health unit. The addition and renovation will include treatment areas, patient rooms and support space. Cayuga Medical Center of Ithaca, Owner/Applicant; Paul A. Levesque II, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoor dinated review with respect to site plan approval and special permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on December 6, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant. Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 3 of 15 Town Planning staff, a project narrative, drawings titled "Second Floor Plan" (A-100) dated 11/3/16, "Second Floor Plan - Overall" (A-101) dated 10/17/16, "North Elevation" (A-102) dated 11/2/16, "South Elevation" (A-103) dated 11/2/16, "East Elevation" (A-104) dated 11/2/16, "Exterior Renderings" (A-201) dated 9/26/16, all prepared by HOLT Architects P.O. and "Staging and Temporary Parking" (L102) dated 11/4/16 prepared by HOLT Architects and TWLA Landscape Architects and other application materials, and 4- The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi cance with respect to the proposed site plan approval and special permit: 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 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. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Meier Swain AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition located at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. The proposal involves a 6,000 +/- sf second floor addition, which will be built entirely atop the first floor of the north wing. The project also includes a 12,350 +/- sf renovation of the existing behavioral health unit. The addition and renovation will include treatment areas, patient rooms and support space. Cayuga Medical Center of Ithaca, Owner/Applicant; Paul A. Levesque II, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Joel Harlan spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Mr. Haefeli said he likes the way it steps the building down. He asked where the generator is. A CMC representative responded that there are three 500 kW generators in the basement; each has a 50-gallon diesel tank in the basement, and there's an 800-gallon diesel tank outside. They exhaust outside and are tested every month. Mr. Haefeli appreciates all the glass, which is important for patients who need this kind of care. He asked about the "porch" shown on the plan. Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 4 of 15 Ms. Maher said it's an interior space that feels like an outdoor space; they used outdoor furniture and opening up the corner with the larger windows gives them as much view onto the lake as possible. But to manage their safety, it was best to keep it an interior space. PB Resolution No. 2016-068: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition, Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.1, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive Moved by Joseph Haefeli; seconded by Fred Wilcox WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addition located at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. The proposal involves a 6,000 +/- sf second floor addition, which will be built entirely atop the first floor of the north wing. The project also includes a 12,350 +/' sf renovation of the exist ing behavioral health unit. The addition and renovation will include treatment areas, patient rooms and support space. Cayuga Medical Center of Ithaca, Owner/Applicant; Paul A. Levesque II, HOLT Architects, P.C., 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 Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Addi tion proposal, on December 6, 2016 made a negative determination of environmental signifi cance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 6, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a project narrative, drawings titled "Second Floor Plan" (A-lOO) dated 11/3/16, "Second Floor Plan - Overall" (A-101) dated 10/17/16, "North Elevation" (A-102) dated 11/2/16, "South Elevation" (A-103) dated 11/2/16, "East Elevation" (A-104) dated 11/2/16, "Exterior Renderings" (A-201) dated 9/26/16, all prepared by HOLT Architects P.O. and "Stag ing and Temporary Parking" (L102) dated 11/4/16 prepared by HOLT Architects and TWLA Landscape Architects and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270- 200, Subsections A - L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning, will be promoted, given that such use will fill a community need by expanding and upgrading the hospital's behavioral health unit services, serving all of Tompkins County, and will accomplish this with renovations and expansion of the second floor north wing of the hospital, b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use because the use already exists and the new addition will be built entirely atop the first floor of the north wing. Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 5 of 15 c. the proposed use and the location and design of the second story addition are consistent with the character of the district in which it is located, as the use of the addition will be for expand ing Cayuga Medical Center's (CMC) behavioral health services program; the site will not change as the addition will be built entirely atop the first floor of the north wing, and the new second story will be designed to match the existing building, d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants, as the hospital use and facilities will remain unchanged, having ex isted in the same location for many decades, with the new addition located in the center back (east side) portion of the CMC campus, more than 1000 feet from the nearest residential neighbor and +/- 850 feet from the Museum of the Earth, e. the presumed benefit of such a use is not outweighed by the objectionable impacts of such use on nearby properties, for the reasons stated above, f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to protective services, road ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of ad equate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, g. if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants an area variance for height, the proposed use, building design and site layout will comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the ex tent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site lay out provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, i. the presumed benefit of such use is not outweighed by the detrimental effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, for reasons noted above, j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and ac cess, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and 1. the proposed use and structure comply with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning; AND BE IT FURTHER 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 Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 6 of 15 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Behavioral Health Unit located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.1, as described on the drawings listed above, subject to the following conditions: a. Before applying for a building permit, receipt of any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals; b. Before applying for a building permit, submission of one corrected set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, indicating the address as 101 Harris B. Dates Drive (not 101 Dates Drive), and signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Meier Swain AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment Project Planned Development Zone (PDZ). The Board will also discuss the draft Findings Statement and the Preliminary Site Plan 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 Apart ments 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. No actions on the Findings Statement or Preliminary Site Plan will be taken at this meeting. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. Discussion of PDZ Mr. Wilcox said the proposed local law has been referred to the planning board for recommendation. The town board is meeting on Monday to consider it. Mr. Bosak had a comment regarding Section 271-16.4 A. Dwelling units, on page 3. There is an upper total of 475 dwelling units, but the subzone limits could prevent that number from being built. Since they're given a range of 100 to 175 units in the PD-15-M subzone, they might decide to build 150. In that case, the total number they're allowed to build is 450 instead of 475. He asked if it was intended that if they choose a number in the range they're given, they throw units over the side. Mr. Tasman said it's what you see in form-based codes. There were a lot of changes to those numbers through the various rewrites and the environmental review. Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 7 of 15 Mr. Bosak said that the board might want to resolve that, if the intention is to allow flexibility, which is what's strongly suggested by the ranges of allowed units. As it's written, if they choose to be flexible and decide on a number for one of the subzones that is not the upper limit, it's not really flexible. Mr. Bosak asked what a lineal space is (from the top of page 4); the term is a contradiction since a line has one dimension and a space has two. Mr. Tasman responded that it's a park that might be a long park, a corridor shape rather than a square. It's not meant to be taken literally. It is a term of art for planners. Mr. Wilcox added that it might be a path or a trail. Mr. Tasman said that in law, there's a principle to give the plain and ordinary meaning to terms. Mr. Bosak asked whether the 50% boundary edge under Green and Plaza means the perimeter. If so, how can a perimeter of an area be 50%. Visualize a straight street: what would the area adjacent to that for a plaza look like, such that 50% of its total perimeter fronts the street? It would be a straight line with no dimension. One greater than 50% could not exist. Mr. Tasman explained that a square surrounded on all sides by four streets would have a boundary edge of 100%. If there's a street only on one side with back yards backing up to it on the other three sides, the boundary edge is 25%. We're expecting plazas to have street frontage on more than one side to avoid having parks that are isolated behind back yards that aren't part of the public realm. They're part of the street scape and accessible and safe. When you have parkland that's tucked away in back yards, people who live there tend to think of that park as an extension of their back yard; they think of it as private space, not public space. Mr. Bosak said he's not trying to rewrite the law, but to point out areas where he ran into trouble with it. On pages 5 and 6, there's a detailed set of drawings, which, as the user, he's supposed to take as part of the law. He understood the very careful distances shown for the walk, parking lane, etc, as what he had to do on this kind of street, but the description is quite a bit different. Instead of a walk being 5-feet wide, it can be from 5- to 10-feet wide; instead of a tree strip being 7-feet wide, it can be 6- to 10-feet wide. It would help if these parameters lined up. Mr. Tasman pointed out that the drawing says "illustrative examples"; you can't show every possible configuration for every possible variation. Mr. Bosak responded that as the person who is trying to follow the law, he needs a clear example of what he's supposed to be doing. He suggested the examples be labeled with the range of figures given in the table. Under Thoroughfare layout on page 6, Mr. Bosak pointed out that in the current design, the mews does not align with the axis, as is suggested in that section. He included this in his comments to the EIS. If you make that a requirement, they're going to have to redesign it. Mr. Tasman responded that the key word is "should." Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 8 of 15 Mr. Bosak said he doesn't want should in a law; he wants to know what he has to do and what he can't do. Mr. Tasman said you'll see that in many laws. They'll have must, should, and strong recommenda tions. Ms. Brock added that she has made the same comment in the past, but Mr. Tasman has pointed out to her that it's actually how form-based codes are constructed. Mr. Tasman said it's a strong recommendation to do something. Let's say they can line up something along an access, and the law says they should. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but the reviewing agency could put more pressure on the applicant to do that. It allows for flexibility in cases where they can't do that. Lots of cities have design guidelines that aren't laws, but they're strongly recommended and almost treated like laws in their application because you're not going to get approved unless you follow the guidelines. Mr. Wilcox added that if the developer doesn't do it, they need to show why they can't or why what they're doing is better. This will become important as our zoning changes and starts looking more like this. Mr. Bosak noted that on page 9, Required parking spaces says that "The cumulative total... is as follows" even though these are not cumulative totals, they're by the unit. The problem word is "cumulative" and the sentence could be rephrased as: "The parking spaces required are as follows." He also took issue with there being only 1 or more secure or short-term bicycle spaces for 2.5 units. He thought the whole idea was to cut down on parking spaces, with the thought that most of these folks were going to walk or bicycle. He also said that the last two bullets under that table are straight forward definitions and should be put in the definitions section. Mr. Bosak said the tree section really distressed him. The law has what look like definitions for street tree, canopy tree, and short tree, and they are not definitions. They say nothing about what kinds of trees they are; it's about where they're used. On page 11, you'll find that a street tree in an M zone is identical to a canopy tree. The solution is to put the terms street tree, canopy tree, and short tree in the definitions and say what they are - something to tell him the difference between a street tree and a canopy tree. The tree classes are: a street tree is used alongside a street; a canopy tree is used for making canopies; a short tree is shorter than those two. That doesn't tell him what type of trees to plant. Mr. Tasman said we didn't provide a list of recommended species. The tree categories refer to functionality, height, and placement. Mr. Bosak said there's no difference between a street tree in an M subzone and a canopy tree except where they're located. That's not defining street tree and canopy tree. There's nothing preventing him from using a canopy tree along a street. Mr. Tasman said a street tree is along a street and the other two terms refer to different classes or height classes of trees that are elsewhere. Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 9 of 15 Mr. Wilcox said the question remains that if a project comes before us for approval, how do we apply this law? Ms. Brock asked Mr. Bosak what can't he tell is required. Mr. Bosak responded that he doesn't know what kinds of trees out of a catalogue would qualify as street trees, canopy trees, and short trees. Ms. Brock said we know that they have to be native, that they can't be invasive, the mature height of a canopy tree, and the diameter at breast height when it's planted. If they propose a tree that meets all those qualifications, it's a canopy tree. If it's being placed in the locations where canopy trees are to be placed, then it's considered a canopy tree. Mr. Bosak argued that if all we're saying is that if I put this tree on the street, it's a street tree, and if I put it over there, it's a canopy tree, I don't need the word street or canopy: it's a tree. Any idiot can see that if it's on a street, it must be a street tree. What he cannot tell is why we have a section that purports to define these three different terms. It tells him everything he needs to know about nativity and all these other aspects and parameters of trees. Ms. Brock asked whether there's any ambiguity as to what they can place somewhere. Mr. Bosak said there's probably not. His objection doesn't have to do with that; it has to do with thinking that these are important categories, and they're not. These are not classes of trees. Mr. Wilcox asked why it matters. Mr. Bosak responded that it only matters if you have a philosophy about how laws should be written, which is concisely and with as few words as possible and as clearly as possible. Mr. Thaete said he's not a landscape architect and he gets what Mr. Bosak is saying. Can you take a pine tree and call it a canopy tree because you put it in the canopy area? Mr. Bosak said he gets the feeling that some kind of distinction was intended, and that Mr. Thaete just pointed to it. Some trees couldn't be canopy trees, but there's nothing to tell him what kind are and what kind aren't. Ms. Ritter said a canopy will give you coverage from the heat and the sun. Mr. Thaete said that should be included in the definitions. Mr. Whitham said you would choose certain canopy trees for street trees, but not others. For example, you wouldn't choose a pin oak because you wouldn't want to park near it or you wouldn't want it near a sidewalk. You wouldn't want a sweet gum because of what it drops. It's up to a professional architect to design. Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 10 of 15 Mr. Bosak said part of the problem he was having was that he thought, from the way this was presented, that this is all the definition he needed. If these are terms of art, that's a completely different situation, and he shouldn't be looking at something that's telling him by implication that he doesn't need to know any more. If these were cleanly pulled out and defined as he suggested, you could define a canopy tree, along the lines of what Mr. Whitham was suggesting. To a question from Ms. Fogarty about the requirements for trees in parking lots, Mr. Wilcox said there has been an issue regarding how many bump outs to include and how many trees to plant in a parking lot because it's a constant battle between the ability to efficiently plow and the board's desire to have landscaping and trees. We try to push to get as much as we can and the developer fights back. This takes it out of our hands; the developer has to meet a standard. Ms. Tasman said it removes those aspects of design from negotiation, so there's no back and forth with the applicant. They either need to conform to the standards or get a variance. Mr. Bosak requested that the term "wall pack" on page 12 be included in the definitions. He took issue with the way "artisan" is used on page 12, saying that the term refers to a person, and not an establishment. The definition of "park" on page 13 says "Prominent (>50%) landscape ..." Greater or equal to 50% of what? Mr. Tasman said it means greater than or equal to 50% of the park area. Ms. Meier Swain said it's defining prominent and suggested it be changed to "greater than 50% of the landscaping includes..." Mr. Bosak said that "Pavement, fixed" includes pervious and Pavement, porous doesn't. He didn't realize there was a distinction, so he needs to know the dividing line between pervious and porous. PB Resolution No. 2016- 069: Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide a Planned Development Zone for the Maplewood Graduate and Professional Student Housing Redevelopment Project Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: at the February 8, 2016 Town of Ithaca Town Board meeting, EdR Trust, a develop er/owner/manager of collegiate housing, along with their consulting team, presented a proposal to redevelop the Maplewood Apartments into a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartments buildings on the +/-17 acre site that would continue to be owned by Cornell University, 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), and WHEREAS: the Maplewood Graduate and Professional Student Housing Redevelopment Project was determined to be consistent with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, which included the Maplewood site in the "TND High Density" category, intending the area for a mix of higher density housing types, "built to create an intentional neighborhood with linkages and proximity to services, employment, public transit, and recreational areas", and Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 11 of 15 WHEREAS: Town of Ithaca planning staff drafted language for a Mapiewood Planned Development Zone (PDZ) that would utilize a form-based code approach to guide and regulate the form of the development, and WHEREAS: the Planning Committee of the Ithaca Town Board reviewed the draft Mapiewood PDZ language at their meetings on April 21, 2016 and May 19, 2016 and voted to refer the draft language to the Town Board for referral to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, and WHEREAS: the Town Board at their meeting on June 13, 2016 referred the draft PDZ to the Planning Board for review and a recommendation, and on November 1, 2016 the Planning Board discussed and considered the draft language, and WHEREAS: the Planning Committee revised the draft law at their meeting on November 17, 2016, addressing the remaining thresholds and language issues subsequent to the Planning Board's discussion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on November 15th, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board reviewed and discussed the Mapiewood PDZ local law at their meeting on December 6, 2016, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Ithaca Town Board adopt the proposed local law creating a Planned Development Zone for the Mapiewood Graduate and Professional Student Housing Redevelopment Project. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak Nays: Collins Discussion of Findings Statement The board decided that instead of going through the document and pointing out all the grammatical and typographical errors, they would provide these non-substantive comments to staff. Discussions regarding substantive issues are shown below. Mr. Bosak requested that all "would" and "may" statements be changed to "will" statements. Pointing to page 6, he asked how landscaping and street trees along the project frontage and high- voltage lab will mitigate speeding. He requested that the reason be stated. Mr. Beach said it narrows the field of vision. Mr. Bosak said under the No-Action Alternative (page 13), "the existing development would continue to degrade." He argued that it would not because Mr. Bates would stop it. He does not believe that Cornell would allow the buildings to literally continue to degrade indefinitely. Ms. Balestra suggested it be changed to "the existing development would continue to create negative aesthetic impacts on the surrounding community." Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 12 of 15 Ms. Brock asked whether there was anything in the EIS saying that the current development is creating negative aesthetic impacts, because we're limited to what's in the EIS. Mr. Bosak said that it's implied. It couldn't "continue to degrade" if it wasn't already degrading, and if it was already degrading, it's safe to say that the existing development would continue to create negative aesthetic impacts. But he doesn't think that would be allowed to happen. Ms. Brock asked if they're not inhabited, what's the authority? Mr. Bosak said that under the No-Action Alternative, they continue to be inhabited. Ms. Brock said that's not how it was interpreted. Mr. Resetco said Mr. Bosak was correct in that they assumed it would continue to be occupied, but that there are varying levels of degrade. The roof falling in is the extreme, which no one would allow to happen. There are degrading conditions on the site now; Site 1, for example, has a lot of holes in the bottom of the wood siding next to the foundation, where critters and rodents can get in. That's somewhat preventable, but the more the building degrades, the more those things exist, and nobody wants that. Ms. Collins said she was not comfortable with the statement on page 14 that "the revised plan blends in architecturally and is in scale with the residential character of the Mitchell Street neighborhood and the residences located adjacent to the East Ithaca Recreation Way, thereby fully mitigating any negative impacts to those areas." She agreed with Ms. Balestra's suggestion to delete the words "fully" and "any" and with Ms. Brock's suggestion to say "more in scale." Ms. Collins stated that she continues to be uncomfortable with the density of the project, although she has no problem with the concept of higher density, including the density on this particular piece of land. She feels, however, that it's important to go back to when we put the scoping document together and then had to determine whether the document was adequate. According to a document created by staff dated August 30th, we agreed that "the evaluation of the fewer units alternative is insufficient. The evaluation must examine a scenario showing fewer units and evaluate the adverse and beneficial impacts that would result from a lower density development... In addition, this section states that a reduction in the number of units would prevent the Project Sponsor from reaching its targeted return on investment, unless rental rates are correspondingly raised. Please add details to support this conclusion." She said the response to this didn't change: they said they were not going to present a scenario with a reduced number of units. The draft findings say that "the original 474-unit, 887-bed plan was reduced to 443 units and 873 beds, amounting to a 6% reduction of units." She added that it is a 1.5% reduction in beds and a reduction of two units per acre and one bed per acre. She contended that we never received a true alternative plan. She doesn't feel that she has had the opportunity to make a determination of whether this project fulfills the mitigation "to the greatest extent possible" because she hasn't had the chance to see a truly smaller project, which we've asked for. She was also concerned that not all the units will be affordable. The justification for why they couldn't even give us something to look at was because of Cornell's value of the land and their need to get a certain return from that land and EdR's need to get an investment threshold that will satisfy their investors in order for the project to be feasible. That's the justification we've been given and yet Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 13 of 15 we haven't seen any data or mathematical studies supporting that. She doesn't feel that she, as a planning board member, has been given the data she needs to make an informed decision on this project. Mr. Wilcox asked whether she was proposing any changes to the draft findings statement. Ms. Collins responded that she was not prepared to make any. Mr. Bosak said that he wasn't satisfied with either the No-Action or the Reduced-Scale alternative. The applicant should have arbitrarily picked a number half of what they wanted and sketched out the numbers to show us why financially it wouldn't work. Ms. Collins was correct in that we didn't receive that analysis. But he's satisfied that had they done the right thing, he would agree that the analysis was correct and that a smaller-scale project would not have been feasible. At this point, the only choice is to approve or disapprove, and he's willing to make a leap of faith. Ms. Meier Swain asked what makes something an adequate reduction. Since they gave us less than the original, it's a reduction. She thinks this is an important conversation that informs future projects. She asked whether there was a legal definition of reduced or anything we can hold the applicant to that sways one way or the other. Mr. Wilcox said this is a settled issue. It's an area we've already been through. We've expressed our frustration at the lack of a meaningful alternative; we've moved ahead; we've accepted the final EIS. We're wasting time discussing it now and that's why he asked whether Ms. Collins had any changes to the draft findings statement; if not, the discussion is not productive. Ms. Collins said everything can't be boiled down to a checklist. In her opinion, it is not a reduction. She wanted to see the information she needed as a member of this board to analyze the alternative. She felt like we kept kicking the can down the road. SEQR is a complex, multi-stage process, and she asked many times at what point we would move on and not be able to revisit the issue. She's frustrat ed that something she thinks is critical is off the table. Ms. Fogarty asked Ms. Collins what she thinks she would have gotten by seeing their analysis. Ms. Collins responded that she didn't know: possibly information she would have looked at and analyzed and understood why it wouldn't work. Ms. Brock wanted to provide some context. She said that at the September 20th meeting, when the planning board accepted the DEIS and stated that it was adequate for public review, there was a long discussion about this issue and one of the things the board finally decided was whether they would to make the applicant look at an alternative that won't meet their needs. They have x-number of graduate students and this project, even as they've conceived of it now, will only end up housing around 10 percent of them. That's when the board made the decision that it was adequate for public review. The board had a list of deficiencies, which were things that they previously asked for and felt still weren't addressed, but at that point, it was a way to move it forward. The list of deficiencies did not include lack of an adequate alternative that shows significantly fewer units. There may have been several drafts between the staff memo Ms. Collins cited and the vote on September 20th. It could be that Ms. Collins feels like the issue is unresolved because she wasn't at that meeting. Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 14 of 15 Mr. Bosak said he raised the issue at least twice and his sense is that the board didn't think it was important enough to pursue. Ms. Brock said she had emailed her comments to Ms. Balestra; she then went through those changes with the board. Ms. Balestra handed out a list of changes the applicant provided her before the meeting. She thought there were a couple comments the planning board should weigh in on; the comments on the Energy section, for example. It was our impression that they would be constructing the buildings to zero energy building standards, which are listed in Table 5-2. She didn't know why they might ask to change to Energy Star certification. Mr. Bosak guessed that it's because that table doesn't include everything in the zero energy building standard. What he failed to ask is: What's the difference? What's in Zero Energy Building Ready that's not in what they're committing to? Ms. Brock pointed out that the EIS says in multiple places that there will be an increase in impervious surface of 1.3 acres, and now they're saying in preliminary site plan that the increase is shown as 2.08 acres. She said we can't put that in our findings because it's not in the EIS. Regarding the water tank, Ms. Brock noted that the EIS states that Cornell will donate and transfer the land for the water tank, but they don't want the findings to use the word donate, and are introducing the concept that transfer can either be conveying ownership or just leasing the land to the town or giving the town a license to use it. Ms. Brock has talked to the superintendent of public works, and the concern is that these tanks can last a really long time and the whole system is inter connected. Once the lease expires, if they don't want to give a new lease in that spot, it will have a huge impact on the water system. You can't just pull a tank out. Mr. Weber would find it completely unacceptable for anything less than a conveyance of land, and she agrees. The FEIS says donate and transfer, so that's what the findings say. If Cornell doesn't believe it can convey title to the land, we need to know that now because they won't be able to get their certificate of occupancy without adequate water. Randall Marcus, Cornell attorney, said it was his understanding that this phrase came from a memo from the town's engineering department. Mr. Wilcox said Cornell might not be happy with it, but it's the language that's in the FEIS. Mr. Resetco said he thinks the issue is that the agreement hasn't been finalized and there's a negotia tion about the conveyance of the land for use with the water tank. No one disagrees that the land will be designated for the water tank. Until the negotiation is finished, perhaps there is something else in the agreement other than that the land would be free, which the word donate is defined as. There might not be a fee, but there might be another term that could be attached during the negotiation process. Ms. Ritter said that the issue needs to come to a conclusion very quickly because of the timing. Planning Board Minutes 12-06-2016 Page 15 of 15 Mr. Bosak requested that for the next meeting, the applicant team be ready to explain the difference between zero energy building standards, Table 5-2, and Energy Star certification To a question from Ms. Meier Swain regarding the next meeting, Mr. Wilcox said that his expectation is that we will have a revised, redlined findings statement, we will have a few questions answered, and after making some minor changes, we will adopt the findings statement, bringing the SEQR process to an end. Ms. Balestra added that the board might possibly consider preliminary site plan approval. Mr. Whitham gave a brief presentation of the highlights of the site plan. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM Minutes PB Resolution No. 2016-070: Minutes of November 15, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of November 15, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted,