Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-04-19TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hal! 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. April 19. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Ahir Hotels Corp. three-story hotel project located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35.-1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structures to allow for the construction of a three-story, 36,000 +/- square foot hotel. The hotel will include 67 rooms, an indoor swimming pool, a 300 +/- square foot outdoor covered patio, 70 parking spaces, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Thomas McGuire, Owner; Pratik K. Ahir, Ahir Hotels Corp., Applicant; Adam M. Fishel, PE, CPESC, Marathon Engineering, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Discussion of comments concerning the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project seeks to redevelop the 800,000 +/- square foot former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95-acre site within the City and Town of Ithaca. 3. Persons to be heard 4. Approval of Minutes: April 5, 2016 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SPOLCE@TO\VN.I I HACA.NY.llS. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (httD://wwvv.town.ithaca.nv.us/nieeting-a2endas)» Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street April 19,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address fi)il A\\' ^ /({Ia FINALTOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING n n n - ii- Tuesday, April 19, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, ItKaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak, Katherine Herleman Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Ahir Hotels Corp. three-story hotel project located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35.-1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structures to allow for the construction of a three-story, 36,000 +/- square foot hotel. The hotel will include 67 rooms, an indoor swimming pool, a 300 V' square foot outdoor covered patio, 70 parking spaces, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Thomas McGuire, Owner; Pratik K. Aliir, Ahir Hotels Corp., Applicant; Adam M. Fishel, PE, CPESC, Marathon Engineering, Agent. Mr. Fishel introduced the project. He noted that the three uncontrolled access points that serve the current property will be demolished to facilitate the construction of a single full-access driveway. They've given the plan to NYS DOT, who has agreed on a conceptual level to the driveway alignment as well as the closure of the three existing driveways. They'll do a full SWPPP because they'll exceed the one acre of disturbance. Stormwater quality provisions will probably consist of bioretention areas as well as some infiltration and detention practices. They will demolish all existing structures, driveways, walkways, and parking areas associated with the existing property to allow for the construc tion of the hotel. They will be requesting a number of variances. They'll request a building height variance from 36 to 54 feet. The front building setback required is 50 feet, and they're proposing 42 feet to accommodate the covered area where patrons will pull up to unload luggage. The code allows a maximum building size of 10,000 square feet and they're proposing 36,000. The gazebo is a use variance because they're not allowed in commercial zones. They'll also ask for approvals from the planning board for reductions in the front parking setback (50 feet is required), the side parking setback (30 feet is required and they're at 16.4), and parking space size (from 180 to 162 square feet). They'll need a special permit approval for the hotel use. Mr. Bosak said he had no problem with the general concept of putting a hotel in that location; anything will be an improvement over what's there right now. This is turning into hotel/motel row, which is okay, to keep them grouped, and it's consistent with the comp plan. He might be concerned when we get to site plan since nothing else around there is that height. He agrees with staffs note that they should consider elements such as natural materials. This will be a big increase in impervious surfaces, and he'd like them to explore using pervious surfaces. Planning Board Minutes 04-19-2016 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Thaete said porous pavement is interesting, but public works staff have some concerns. In this region, it's difficult because we use a lot of salt and sand, which tend to clog up the porous nature of the pavement if it's not maintained properly. So maintenance is a huge key. In a parking lot use, there's an issue with car fluids dripping, and turning movements on porous pavement are tough because porous pavement doesn't stand up as well as normal pavement. Porous pavement is seen more often further down south where they don't have the freeze-thaw cycles. The Warren Road walkway was an experiment, and they're seeing that it freezes up quicker than a normal sidewalk. The reason is that there's a drainage layer beneath it that insulates it from the ground temperature. It's not that it shouldn't be looked at, but if it is done, it needs to be maintained to function properly. Mr. Bosak said that at some point, he'd like to learn more about packed gravel. When he visited the site, he was relying on GPS to find the site and he overshot the location. He had to get off and on the highway several times at 5:15 p.m. to get to it, and he was impressed by how dangerous it is to exit onto that highway. He sees how hard it is at that location on that road. He would like to see it addressed. Staff says that the comp plan does not envision this area as pedestrian friendly or walkable, and although that may be true, his response is that this layout is ugly. There may be no requirement to have parking in back, but there's only a two foot setback in front for the landscaping that staff suggested between the road and the parking lot. Mr. Fishel noted that the two-foot setback is only in one small corner and that DOT acquisitions over the years have reduced the east-west width of the lot. Mr. Bosak suggested that maybe the parking is too deep in front and that some could be moved out back to provide more space for landscaping in front. Ms. Meier Swain wondered how buses will enter and exit. Ms. Fishel responded that they have modeled and set up the driveway so a coach bus can enter and exit the property. They can pull in and drop off under the porte-cochere, then back out of the porte- cochere and pull out onto Route 13. Ms. Collins had the same concerns as Mr. Bosak about parking. She pointed to page 2 of the staff memo, which states that this corridor is the Inlet Valley Gateway. She has no problem with a hotel in the mix of uses, but thinks that with some imagination, the parking could be designed more appro priately for a gateway district and that it should have something other than the standard suburban hotel-motel look to it. Ms. Fogarty stated that on the way back from Saratoga, they passed a nice-looking hotel that she took photos of. It's not the standard big long building with parking around it. She passed copies around to the board and applicant. Regarding the photos, Mr. Wilcox said he liked the architectural details that made it more residential looking. He used Evan Monkemeyer's original plan as an example of a building with a nice architec tural feel; it wasn't a big monolithic wall. Ms. Fogarty said that the parking in the photos is in between the buildings, so it wouldn't be seen by everyone on the road. She thought a three-story building might work if they played with the roof Planning Board Minutes 04-19-2016 Page 3 of 8 design. She said she visited the site at 4 p.m. and could not turn left onto the highway. Getting in and out of the parking lot will be a challenge. Mr. Beach liked the idea of putting the driveway for this project directly across from the driveway for the Ithaca Veteran Firemen's Association. During rush hours, there's a high volume of traffic in that strip and it's moving very fast. Pulling out of the Firemen's Association property and making a left is difficult, and he'll often take a right, instead, and turn onto Seven Mile Drive. He thinks taking a left out of this property will be just as difficult. Mr. Thaete commented that being so far from the traffic light, you don't have the gap in traffic a signal would provide. Ms. Herleman echoed concerns about the traffic in that area, and pointed out that the same will be true for any applicant on that stretch of road going forward. Ms. Ritter pointed out that the town's economic committee has been looking at this corridor; they wrote a letter to DOT asking for a stop light at Seven Mile Drive. DOT assessed the situation and declined the request. It seems there needs to be more accidents or more development for them to reconsider. Ms. Herleman suggested they look at curb design and length and line-of-sight of vegetation, since there's nothing to be done about the roadway for the applicant's timeline to make it safer. Mr. Wilcox said he's surprised they're willing to keep the gazebo and the need for a use variance. He suggested the franchise the hotel has aligned with must expect a gazebo. Parking is tough. He said the Hampton Inn is a monolith because it's right up against Elmira Road with the parking in the back. It's created a tunnel vision. He might prefer moving the building back and putting some parking in front. We've approved smaller parking spaces in the past. For some people who have big vehicles, those spaces that are nine feet wide are not wide enough. He asked why we would limit a hotel to 10,000 square feet; that's more like a big bed and breakfast. He doesn't have a problem with the size, but does with the height; there are no other three-story buildings in the area. He suggested that if they pursue a height variance, they use architectural details or rooflines that lessen the height. Ms. Ritter said the 10,000-square-foot limitation is because it's a neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Wilcox asked about the fill on the property. Mr. Fishel said it's a mix of sand and gravel extending quite a ways down. It seems to be fairly decent material that might be able to be reused. They're looking at additional testing to rule out the need for driven piles along the back side, specifically near the slope. Mr. Wilcox said there's lots of concrete sticking out at the edges of the property, indications that more than just dirt was dumped there when the fill was put in. He said site lines are fine in either direction, but turning left onto Elmira Road, especially during rush hour, would be difficult. Ms. Fogarty has concerns about the soil. There's a lot of garbage and the slope that goes down to the stream doesn't look stable. Planning Board Minutes 04-19-2016 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Bates said he has not visited the site. The town has a property maintenance law, but code enforcement handles property maintenance issues only on a complaint basis. Mr. Wilcox suggested Mr. Bates visit the site and look at the eastern slope that leads down onto state land: it's a junkyard. There are discarded canisters down there, but on state land. He would ask that staff take a look and talk to the owner. He will write out a complaint as a citizen. Mr. Thaete touched on utilities. The current property is served by a two-inch water service and the water main is on the opposite side of the road. In order to put in a sprinkler system, they might have to bore. The sanitary sewer is on the other side of the road, and they have no record of what size it is, so that's yet to be determined. The applicants show a stormwater management basin at the rear of the site that is awfully close to the steep embankment. If that basin is going to be that close to the embankment, he thinks they will need to build a berm as opposed to using the existing fill as a berm. Mr. Fishel said the sketch was done under a timeline to get the process started and without looking too closely at the topography. Now that they've looked at the topography and the grading, it will probably be problematic to put a basin on that site. They have other options. Ms. Meier Swain wondered whether there's enough cell phone signal in that area and whether there might be a potential need down the road for an antenna. Ms. Fogarty said for energy needs, they should consider solar and heat pumps. Mr. Wilcox invited the public to speak. Joel Harlan spoke in favor of the project. A gentleman from the audience said getting in and out of the Roadway Motel is a challenge, especially with a standard transmission. They've had a lot of tenants since it was McGuire Gardens and a lot of uses, so the trash could be from the tenants; the landlord inherits what the tenants leave behind. PB Resolution No. 2016-022: Lead Agency - Declaration of Intent, Ahir Hotels Corp. Proposed Hotel, Tax Parcel No. 35.-1-21, 635 Elmira Road Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on April 19, 2016, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Ahir Hotels Corp. three-story hotel project located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35.-1-21, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves demol ishing the existing structures to allow for the construction of a three-story, 36,000 +/- square foot hotel. The hotel will include 67 rooms, an indoor swimming pool, a 300 +/' square foot outdoor covered patio/gazebo, 70 parking spaces, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Thomas McGuire, Owner; Pratik K. Ahir, Ahir Hotels Corp., Applicant; Adam M. Fishel, PE, CPESC, Marathon Engineering, Agent, and Planning Board Minutes 04-19-2016 Page 5 of 8 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the Planning Board and variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type I action pursuant to Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because it involves the construction of a nonresidential facility with more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area (§ 148-5.C(4); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification to the involved agencies. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman AGENDA ITEM Discussion of comments concerning the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project seeks to redevelop the 800,000 +/' square foot former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95-acre site within the City and Town of Ithaca Ms. Herleman said she restricted her comments to the general organization and sections of Chapter 5. She thinks that to be accessible, both the dGEIS and appendices need to be organized in a way that's more informative. Because of the lack of navigational tools, she found the document to be less informative. She suggested electronic bookmarks and internal links be added. As an example, she quoted from Chapter 5, Section 5, subsection 1.8, Sediments and Seeps, on page 5-49: "A resampling of that seep performed by Emerson was non-detect for all the constituents mentioned ..." Seeing that there was a sample that was non-detect, she went back to the appendix to follow the reference all the way back to the sampling and found that what was classified as resampling of this site was actually two samples of the same seep, which were taken ten minutes apart. She would not characterize that as a resampling in a scientific sense and therefore thinks that there are some vague things that need to be clarified. Her point was that if we're going to see scientific summaries in the dGEIS, there needs to be more continuity so she can go back and find the original sampling reports. Further, while she thinks great sampling protocols were followed, the value is undermined when she sees vague things like that in the dGEIS. Members of the public have expressed concerns about their perceptions of the current and future public health risks and ecological risks associated with the site development. She pointed out that the project phasing outlined in Chapter 2 is dependent on two factors: the DEC must agree to further amend the 2009 ROD amendment, which set forth the proposed remediation based on future industrial uses only, and not the mixed-use development of the site proposed in the dGEIS, and the project sponsor and its consultants must be able to then perform those hypothetical addi tional remediation actions in order to meet the hypothetical goals for remediation, which would satisfy the DEC's requirements for office/commercial and residential uses. Something important she Planning Board Minutes 04-19-2016 Page 6 of 8 wanted to point out to the board and members of the public is that the perceived health and ecological risks currently on the site are eliminated if this site goes through completion for mixed use: it gets remediated to a more stringent level. She feels like people aren't appreciating that point. This saddens her because there's this general fear of the site, and being able to use the economic benefit of the site to do a more stringent cleanup benefits the environment, public health, and the surrounding residences. Regarding certain public comment, she said she disagrees with a scientist using the word "mind-boggling" because, as a fellow scientist, it doesn't describe public health or ecological risks. The word "massive" is a relative term. If you are a scientist or an engineer who reviews these things day in and day out, this is not mind-boggling. In fact, she found everything she read so far in Chapter 5 to be organized and up to standard as compared to other environmental remediation projects she's been involved with. She found that this site is not technically complex in the sense that there are uncer tainties that would prevent a regulator from eventually saying that we can proceed and make this site safe. She thinks the public are terrified of the terms "complexity" and "uncertainty" and don't realize that those terms are used professionally. Mr. Wilcox said he thinks the public is afraid the DEC will approve remediation measures sufficient to allow residential usage and that those measures will be insufficient. For example, putting a concrete dome or soil dome over certain areas to prevent vapors from coming up: members of the public will say that's not getting rid of the problem, but simply covering it up. Who's to say it won't reappear a decade down the road? Ms. Herleman said it comes down to whether the public trusts the scientific basis and the accounta bility to the process itself. She pointed out that we have 27 sites in Tompkins County that are in the environmental remediation database, and a number of those are either in the completed stage or in a Class 4 stage, where they're being actively managed and brought into compliance; for example, the former Axhiohm facility is now the South Hill Business Campus. The City of Ithaca training school at 310 W Green Street had significant contamination and has been successfully remediated. Mr. Bosak said that while he doesn't share his colleagues' complete faith in science and engineering to get everything exactly right, he doesn't get the impression from what he reads in the press that the public understands what the choices are: you don't develop it and it gets remediated to an industrial standard or you do develop it and it gets remediated to a higher standard. Ms. Herleman asked how to get her comments to the applicant: as a member of the public or as a member of the board with the endorsement of the board? Mr. Gensel, Pagan Engineers, said that all comments need to be addressed. Ms. Balestra said that an advanced SEQR session she attended at the Planning Federation meeting discussed the role of the involved agency. If the involved agency feels strongly about certain elements in the scoping document, the dGEIS, etc, they need to be consistent with their comments, and she feels it might be a stronger message if the planning board were to mention it as a board in a clear and consistent way throughout the whole process. It was unclear whether an involved agency's comments carriy more weight, but it was stressed that the involved agency has a responsibility to make their comments consistently and clearly. Planning Board Minutes 04-19-2016 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Brock said one way to deal with the comments procedurally is to have a cover letter saying the comments are reflected in the minutes and stating that the board members as a whole endorse the comments made by individual board members. Mr. Bosak said his concern with that approach is that it would require him to understand and endorse the comments at a level that might restrict Katherine's ability to say exactly what she wants to say. For him to honestly say he agrees with all her comments might mean taking out some stuff he doesn't understand or completely endorse, which might weaken her comments. Ms. Herleman said that rather than trying to capture all her comments in the minutes, she thought it would be more useful to thematically organize them. She also needs more time to review the docu ment. What might make sense is for her to submit a draft document to Ms. Ritter. Ms. Ritter said the comments could then be discussed at the May meeting as a board. If anyone else has comments, they should send them to her and she will distribute them to the rest of the board. Mr. Wilcox agreed that that way, comments would be officially received and properly distributed to the whole board. Ms. Brock had a couple questions. The first is in the alternatives examinations. In the maximum development scenario, they're using parameters that are different than in the scoping document: 2.65 million square feet in the scoping as opposed to 2.125 million. The floor area ratio is also less: 1.5 in scoping vs. 1.25 in the EIS. Her second question had to do with alternative energy: the city of Ithaca got money from the state to look at the Chain Works District as one of two areas in the city where there could be a lot of alternative energy generation for use not only on site, but in surrounding areas as well. Solar, wind, geothermal. It's frustratingly vague as to what's being looked at in terms of alternative energy. There's nothing about the scope and timing of the city study, just tantalizing glimpses. She'd like the final to be much more specific as to what that study is doing and the timing and when the applicant will be able to make commitments as to what it is they'll be doing. Ms. Herleman agreed with Ms. Brock on timing and sequencing, and added that she's very concerned about the applicant's ability to secure grants and to get estimates from contractors before they have a hypothetically amended record of decision, which would allow them to proceed with the mixed-use development. One thing we can't know until we know the components in the ROD - the remedia tion goals and remediation acts associated with those goals - is how long it will take the applicant to act upon the ROD amendments. Mr. Bosak said he was in on an initial conversation that led up to proposing the microgrid grant, mainly because Chain Works has its own NYSEG substation, which makes it an absolutely perfect spot to channel stuff in to a local microgrid. He has no idea what the progress is once the grant has been made. He said that everything having to do with LEED certification, with power generation, etc, are over in the pan of the scale that outweighs that environmental arm, and he wants to know what's over in that pan. The more explicit they can be, the more reasons he'll have to like it. Ms. Ritter pointed out that the draft GEIS stays a draft; you don't get a final document, just answers to all the comments. The town board has already requested an extension; she offered to send an email to city planning staff saying the planning board would like one as well. Planning Board Minutes 04-19-2016 Page 8 of 8 Planning board members were in agreement. Mr. Gensel addressed Ms. Brock's comments. They couldn't build 2.61 million square feet once they started testing the site, so they reduced it to 2.1 million; that's why the maximum development alternative had to be reduced. The constraints were site grades and the amount of surface that could be developed with parking and building. Based on LEED MD, you can't build any new parking areas. They have $2.1 million in grants already; $1.75 million are from NYSERDA grants for green energy ($250,000 for planning and $1.5 million for implementation). They would also like to know when the city's study will be done; however, they've learned that the city is starting to lean away from Chain Works for the microgrid. Ms. Brock noted for the record that the other area for the microgrid study is the lAWWTP; she's their lawyer. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-023: Minutes of April 5, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of April 5, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Herleman, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, eputy Towi/ClCTkebra DeAugisti