Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2017-08-01 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, August 1, 2017 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Linda Collins, John Beach, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak, and Melissa Hill Town Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Marty Mosely, Code Enforcement Officer; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; David O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Torn; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr.Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Maplewood Redevelopment Project Modifications, between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street. The Planning Board will consider if a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will be required for the proposed modifications Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, and Art Thompson and Tim Frost, LeChase Con- struction, were present. Mr.Whitham said the project is going well and is heading toward a July 2018 completion, although they've run into some challenges and are looking to extend construction hours one hour on either end of the day. Mr. Thompson, project manager, said that out of 27 buildings, the foundations are in for two of the five apartment buildings and for five or six townhomes, the new water service is in on the site, and a lot of the site improvements have been made. He explained that they have struggled with a wet spring, so they're looking for an additional work hour at the beginning and end of each day; this would give one extra workday every week. It would also allow them to take advantage of the daytime hours right now for safety. Mr. Frost said they're also running into a problem retaining workforce.A workday of 8 to 6 is unusual for the construction industry. They're used to 7 to 3:30, and if they have to recapture time, it would be 7 to 5:30. If the workers have the opportunity, they could go to another job site nearby with more typical working hours. Mr. Thompson said another impact is that one of their deliverables is to use local resources, and they're getting pushback from local contractors, who want a 7 to 3:30 work day. Ms. Collins asked what they would be doing during those extra two hours that would not exceed 85 decibels (dB). Mr. Thompson responded that they have safety talks first thing in the morning and a tremendous amount of layout work and deliveries, which would all be within 85 dB. He noted that the 85 dB is measured at the property line. Evening hours would be the same: at the end of the day, they have a Planning Board Minutes 08.01.2017 Page 2 of 9 stand down, where they get their teams together and discuss what will be done the next day. He would call it a soft start from 7 to 8. Mr. Frost noted that as buildings come to a finish stage, crews will be moving inside, which is quieter. Mr. Beach asked who monitors the decibel level. Mr. Thaete said that public works staff empower the contractors to do the right thing. We're out there by 7 sometimes,but have several job sites to monitor and also don't have anything with which to measure noise. Mr.Wilcox said he's not comfortable with empowering the contractor. Mr.Whitham said that's typically how it works; it's the nature of a normal construction site. Mr. Thompson said he received a complaint from the building department about vehicles parked in the French Lavender parking lot.The owner asked the workers to move their vehicles, and they weren't very nice. It ended up being a couple of local utility workers. He talked to the owner of French Lavender afterwards and has since been over periodically, and she's been pleased. Mr.Wilcox said we can't have staff standing around with meters, and it's not the neighbors' job to call in and report a problem if they hear something. Ms. Collins said if they don't have a meter, it might sound loud, but there would be no way of knowing if it was over the decibel level. If nobody is going to monitor the noise level, the meter is a moot point. She drove through the Belle Sherman Cottages late in the morning and experienced a number of problems. She specifically went to listen and stopped every 20 to 30 feet; she could hear a variety of loud sounds, like the backup sound of vehicles, and could feel the ground vibrating. That was a time of day during which they were allowed to go over the 85 dB. Mr. Bosak asked how this project is different from any other project that's operated under the same boilerplate requirements.We never have anyone available to monitor noise levels. Mr.Wilcox responded that it has to do with the proximity of the Belle Sherman Cottages.The other issue is that for many residential developments, there isn't this line-in-the-sand timeframe by which the dwellings must be completed. If they're not available for the students coming in, the disruption would be considerable. They were granted approval to work on Saturdays during the summer by Mr. Bates in consultation with the town board. He asked if the board really wanted to prevent this project from being finished.At the same time, he's sympathetic to the neighbors for the noise and the dust and trying to contain that within a reasonable set of hours, so he'd like assurance about the noise level. Can we set up meters around the perimeter of the project site? How do we measure? Can we record with decibel meters so it's not a he-said/she-said situation? If it goes above the 85 dB and if it happens a couple times, we'll know and we could rescind the privilege. It's not up to the neighbors or staff to know the decibel level. Planning Board Minutes 08.01.2017 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Thaete said he imagines the applicant has an idea of what 85 dB sounds like. From his layman's perspective, the operation of a track machine with a beeping noise is 85 dB or above, so what they're saying is that they're not operating heavy equipment. Mr. Thompson said the problem is if it's a continuous 85 dB over a period of time. Mr. Thaete agreed, but pointed out that a short shotgun blast is over 85 dB, so in that case, it's not being exceeded continuously. Staff is asking how to enforce it. He thinks the operation of heavy equipment would exceed it. Mr. Frost said it's difficult to quantify. It's an 18-acre site; if the equipment is in the middle of the site, it's going to be quieter that if it's right next to Mitchell Street, so if the reading is taken from right at Mitchell Street, it's going to be quieter. Mr. Thompson said 85 dB is having a drill motor within a foot or two of your location, but not from 20 to 30 feet.A concrete truck idling or a bull dozer operating won't hit 85 dB outside your immedi- ate area.Air guns on the roof that echo would be a problem, and such activities won't be allowed. Mr. Thaete said we could buy a decibel meter, but he has five or six sites to monitor on a daily basis. How far out of our way do we go to cater to developers? Ms. Balestra pointed out that before we changed the noise ordinance to take out the decibels, we used to have a decibel meter, and a code staff member would go on site to measure the levels. She also pointed out that we have approved many projects without any noise restrictions, other than what's in the noise ordinance. The Holochuck project is allowed to have noise between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Mr. Mosely stated that Mr. Bates is not in favor of having a decibel meter, specifically because of the enforceability from our department. Mr.Wilcox said vehicle backup beeping is annoying to people because it's continuous. Mr. Bosak suggested that the board has two possibilities with regard to decibels: either we say it can't exceed 85 dB and trust applicant to conform or we don't trust applicant. If we don't trust the applicant,we either have to put this back on staff or require the applicant to rent a piece of equip- ment that records decibels and have staff check it every week. Personally, he doesn't see any reason to call this project out, except possibly because of the size. He'd be happy to set the decibel limit to 85 and trust the applicant.The other alternative is to specify a list of activities they can't engage in at night, and we have a list of activities in our current ordinance. Mr. Mosely agreed that it's easier to enforce by specifying activities, but that the law sets time limits from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., while the time limits are different in the EIS. Mr.Wilcox said we could have EdR purchase a couple meters and place them strategically around the site and then have Mr. Mosely check the recordings once or twice a week. He asked whether board members thought a supplemental EIS might be necessary. Mr. Bosak said no: this does not affect the mitigation terms of the EIS at all. Planning Board Minutes 08.01.2017 Page 4 of 9 PB Resolution No. 2017-050: SEQR Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project, Between Maple Avenue &Mitchell Street Moved by John Beach; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This project is the Consideration of Modifications to the February 28, 2017 Site Plan Ap- proval for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63.-2-10.2, Planned Development Zone. The proposal involves modifying condition 3.a. in the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 that limits noise-related construction activities to between 8am and bpm Mon- day through Friday. The applicant is requesting to be able to work from lam to 7pm Monday through Friday, provided that no noise louder than 85dB will occur between lam and 8am and bpm and 7pm. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC,Agent; and 2. The Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project went through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, including Draft and Final EIS's, which concluded with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopting the Findings Statement on December 20, 2016; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project on February 28, 2017; and 4. The current Maplewood application involves a request to modify a condition of project ap- proval by expanding the allowed daily timeframe for noise-related construction activities; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has examined the current application, comparing the application with the Maplewood EIS and Findings Statement in conjunction with the re- quirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 (a) (7); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the proposal to modify condition 3.a. of the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of changes proposed for the project, based on the information and reasons set forth in a memo written by the applicant, dated July 24, 2017, and because the proposed modification is consistent with the noise mitigation requirements in the Findings Statement. Therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement does not need to be prepared for the project. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of modifications to the February 28, 2017 Site Plan Approval for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Planning Board Minutes 08.01.2017 Page 5 of 9 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63.-2-10.2, Planned Development Zone. The proposal involves modifying condition 3.a. in the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 that limits noise-related construction activities to between 8am and bpm Monday through Friday.The appli- cant is requesting to be able to work from lam to 7pm Monday through Friday, provided that no noise louder than 85dB will occur between lam and 8am and bpm and 7pm. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust,Applicant; Scott Whitham,Whitham Planning & Design, LLC,Agent Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Joel Harlan, Newfield, said he was all for the modification. A gentleman who lives directly across the street from the project said he is not looking forward to the next year.A good part of the noise on Mitchell Street is from the trucks, which are loaded both going out and going in. The temporary traffic light has a stop line right in the middle of his driveway, so it's almost impossible for him to pull out and turn left. His problem mainly is that the trucks are using Mitchell Street. He requested a year ago that trucks be routed through Maple Avenue.Yesterday, right after he pulled in his driveway, a fully loaded truck trying to beat the traffic light came barreling down the left side of Mitchell Street, and he saw it go by in his rearview mirror. He asked a worker who was installing the light how long they would have the road down to one lane. He said four weeks, and it's now four weeks. The reason it's down to one lane seems to be because the buildings are so close to the street; the easternmost building is almost on the street. If you put a sidewalk in front, it will be at the curb. For people who try to work from home, it's awful; the noise is constant. The 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.won't be that much worse because it's awful as it stands. His request is to reroute the trucks down Maple.When he raised the issue for the first time, he was told that we were trying to get the trucks out of the town as quickly as possible. He suggested that they take a little longer and bother fewer people. Mr.Wilcox said people should be concerned because there's a time deadline; the deadline is not the neighbors' problem. There are always delays.Are Sundays and holidays next? If EdR stands to lose money, it's not his problem and it shouldn't be the board's.After they demolished the buildings, precious little went on, so there's not been a lot of progress. Mr.Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Beach asked how the satellite parking lot is working. Mr. Thompson said he's been up there many times. They agreed to accommodate the farmers' market on Wednesdays, and he has not had any complaints. Some of the contractors are using a van to ferry people to the job site, some are carpooling, some are walking.To a question from Mr.Wilcox, he said there is no contractor parking area off Maple Avenue.There was a paid parking lot that Cornell called the north lot, which has been shut down as of today because a building will be going up. Mr. Beach said he continues to be concerned about the amount of dust in the air and dirt and mud on Mitchell Street. He thought there would be a conscious effort to keep dust down and clear dirt off the road on a regular basis. Mr. Thompson said he thought they were doing a good job, especially with the rain and runoff. They have a contract with a local sweeper, who comes down every night. He's spoken with people at the Planning Board Minutes 08.01.2017 Page 6 of 9 flower shop and neighbors and has addressed dust complaints. They have a water truck on site to keep dust down. It does get dusty, but they try to prevent that as much as they can. Mr. Beach agrees with the issue of using Maple Avenue for heavy truck traffic. Mr. Thaete said that he's working with them about erosion control. The silt fence is not up because it's convenient for them to park there. If they use the parking lot more, silt fences might stay in place. The site seems to be stuck between stage 1 and stage 2 erosion control. They have onsite contractor parking with no stone access roads; they're hauling dirt onto the road constantly and fighting a losing battle with mud and dust. In stage 2, there will be stone access roads around the buildings, which will get them out of the mud phase. If they stop letting the buildings drive their erosion control and focus on getting to phase 2, he guarantees the site will be cleaned up naturally. Regarding truck traffic, he said that Maple Avenue is a town road; Mitchell is a county road. The threshold for trucks on a town road is 500 30-ton trucks or more; on a county road, it's 1000. The county's enforcement, as far as patching the road and overseeing truck use, is minimal. He understands the public's concerns,but the use of Mitchell Street is a county issue, and public works staff is sending complaints to the county. Ms. Ritter said another factor is that there's a stop light at the intersection of Mitchell and Pine Tree, but not at Maple and Pine Tree. She always feels like she has to gun it onto Pine Tree from Maple because you can't see around the curve very well. Also, some of the traffic might move once they're not doing as much work on the Mitchell Street side of the site. Ms. Collins asked how long Mitchell Street will be down to one lane. Mr. Thompson responded that their commitment is get Mitchell Street back open to two lanes before students get back,which is August 18. Ms. Collins said the findings statement lists a number of ways to control "fugitive dust." Every time she visits the site, if she has her windows down or even if she's waiting for the light, she can smell dust in her vehicle. How frustrating it must be for people living in those cottages.You can see dust in the air as you approach from East Hill Plaza. She asked what they're doing to keep it down. Mr. Thompson said it's a hard thing to control on a project because at one end of the spectrum you've got dust, and at the other end, there's mud. It's a balance. They have the water truck on site all the time and if they notice it getting dusty, they ask the driver to make a pass. They've committed to put stone through the main road on Saturday and to start putting more stone around the buildings. This will make it better, but not perfect. The quicker they get the foundations in, the quicker they're out of the dust phase. Mr.Wilcox asked about the truck traffic. Mr. Thaete said truck traffic is bringing material in and out, demolition, material deliveries. Mr. Thompson said they have specific primary and secondary truck routes they follow closely. Right now, the majority of the traffic consists of delivery of clean structural fill. Onsite, there are cuts and fills, in which they take material from one part of the site and place it at another. Planning Board Minutes 08.01.2017 Page 7 of 9 Mr. Mosely said he is not aware of a truck route enforcement issue; Mr. Thaete agreed. Mr.Wilcox asked for guidance on the best way to proceed on the noise issue. Mr. Bosak said the simplest way would be to say that the same activities prohibited at night would also be prohibited during the two extra hours. Mr. Thompson said it's still a construction site and the reason they want to extend the hours is because there are not enough hours in the day to get the concrete slabs finished. If they start at 8, they can run until 8 or 9 at night. That's why it's crucial to start at 7 and not go into the evening hours. Sometimes it goes well, and sometimes it doesn't; it depends on the weather. Mr. Mosely said it might behoove the board to understand what goes into pouring concrete, to help them understand the noise levels associated with that activity. Mr. Thompson said concrete pours are not that noisy.You have the truck backing up,but the beeping is OSHA-required for safety.The day before, they do a mini-excavation,which is not loud. Then there's back filling and compaction and third-party testing, which are also not loud. In the morning, there would be truck deliveries.A concrete truck and pump truck come in to pump the concrete. The 50-60,000 square foot buildings are problematic, and he would much rather get a 7 a.m. start than run into 8 or 9 at night. Ms. Collins asked what happened to soft starts with meetings, etc. Now the real reason is to do pours. Mr. Thompson is also saying they might need to stay until 8 or 9 at night. Mr. Thompson said the night activity is worst-case scenario: sometimes concrete doesn't cure. He agrees that the backup alarm is loud, but that's OSHA-required.When the truck is idling and pouring, it's not loud. Those activities are quieter than a roller vibrating and shaking the ground, people on the roofs with air guns, framing the walls, etc. The layout and safety talks will also happen in the morning. He also pointed out that they will not be pouring concrete every day, and that once they're done with concrete and framing work, they'll be moving inside. Mr. Thaete said he's willing to purchase a decibel meter (there's an app for smart phones) and he will hold LeChase to 85 dB. He guarantees a concrete truck will exceed that: they'll mix the concrete at a high rev for a couple of minutes before starting, and use a high rev again when they clean up. Ms. Brock said the decibel meter on the phone records maximum and minimum values over time, so you'll get an instantaneous readout, but it will also hold other values.The EIS says that work hours are 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., but that the 85 dB would not be exceeded from 8 to 6. Using the decibels is what the EIS said and what the findings said, and it was the mitigation required by the findings. If we start to go off and look at operations,we're not being faithful to the findings. Mr. Thaete said that if it gets approved, he will get the meter and work with the contractor to figure out what they can and can't do. Ms. Collins said she doesn't feel comfortable with the extra burden on the neighborhood, and that's why she was going to vote no. On the other hand, she had asked several times during the project run Planning Board Minutes 08.01.2017 Page 8 of 9 up what they would do if they couldn't put grad students in the units. She's concerned that they'd put undergrads in the development. Mr.Wilcox said his issue is whether this is a self-induced hardship because they were so stubborn about changing the architecture along Mitchell Street. If there weren't delays in the approval process, we would have gotten to an approval much quicker and therefore construction would have started sooner and maybe we wouldn't have been in this position. On the other hand, maybe we're in this position because of climate change: last summer was dry and this summer has been rainy. Mr. Bosak agreed that the applicant's timing problems could have been ameliorated by coming to the conclusion a year earlier. He doesn't have sympathy in that regard, but he does have sympathy for people in the neighborhood. He would like to see this completed as soon as possible; that's the best way out of it. He's also sympathetic to the problems with the ground and the weather because he's had his own. Mr. Beach agreed with Mr. Bosak as far as getting this done so the neighbors can get some peace and quiet. If the applicant team comes back for Sundays and holidays, however, he will vote no. PB Resolution No. 2017-051: Maplewood Redevelopment Project, Between Maple Avenue & Mitchell Street Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This project is the Consideration of Modifications to the February 28, 2017 Site Plan Ap- proval for the Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment Project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63.-2-10.2, Planned Development Zone. The proposal involves modifying condition 3.a. in the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 that limits noise-related construction activities to between 8am and bpm Mon- day through Friday. The applicant is requesting to be able to work from lam to 7pm Monday through Friday, provided that no noise louder than 85dB will occur between lam and 8am and bpm and 7pm. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC,Agent; and 2. The Maplewood Redevelopment Project went through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, including Draft and Final EIS's,which concluded with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopting the Findings Statement on December 20, 2016; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Site Plan Approval for the Maplewood Redevelopment Project on February 28, 2017; and 4. The current Maplewood application involves a request to modify a condition of project ap- proval by expanding the allowed daily timeframe for noise-related construction activities; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board examined the current application, comparing the applica- tion with the Maplewood EIS and Findings Statement in conjunction with the requirements Planning Board Minutes 08-01-2017 Page 9 of 9 of 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 GO (7), and found that the proposal to modify condition 3.a. of the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 will not result in significant adverse en- vironmental impacts as a result of changes proposed for the project, and, therefore, a Supple- mental Environmental Impact Statement does not need to be prepared for the project; and 6. The Planning Board, at their meeting on August 1, 2017, has accepted as adequate a memo prepared by the applicant, explaining the justification for the proposed modification; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby modifies condition 3.a. of the Maplewood Final Site Plan Resolution No. 2017-017 so that it reads as follows: Noise-related construction activities shall be limited to lam to 7pm Monday through Friday. There shall be no construction-related noise exceeding 8.5 decibels at the property boundaries between the hours of lam and Sam and bpm and 7pm. Work shall not be routinely scheduled for Saturdays, but will be permitted if required by extenuating circumstances, such as severe weather, subject to approval by the Director of Code Enforcement. Construction shall be prohibited all day on Sundays and federal holidays, except emergency repairs (such as to stormwater facilities)will be allowed on any day, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That all other conditions in Resolution No. 2017-017 remain unchanged. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. The gentleman who spoke earlier said that he's worked at Cornell for 50 years and in graduate admissions several times over the years. If Cornell knows well in enough in advance that the housing isn't ready, they won't admit the students because the people coming in next August to occupy the units have not even applied yet. These units are being built to build the graduate population. Adjournment Upon a motion by Liebe Meier Swain, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAugi4qe,Deputy Town , lerk