Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-05-03TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hail 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. May 3. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell Uniyersity Kite Hill Slope Repair, South of Campus Road along the municipal boundary with the City of Ithaca. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyai and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell Uniyersity Kite Hill Slope Repair project located to the south of Campus Road along the municipal boundary with the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67.-1- 13.2 and 63.-1-8.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The project inyoWes the repair of a deteriorated earth slope, stabilization of an exposed electrical duct bank, rehabilitation of an adjacent storm drainage system, new walkways along Campus Road, and new landscaping. Cornell Uniyersity, Owner/Applicant; Jim Palumbo, RLA, ASLA, Klepper, Hahn & Hyatt, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consider designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as Lead Agency, determination of a Positiye Declaration of Enyironmental Significance, and discussion of the draft scoping document for the Enyironmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Cornell Uniyersity Maplewood Apartments Redeyelopment project located between Maple Ayenue 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 inyoWes demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeyeloping 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, stormwater facilities, and a community center. The Planning Board may also consider scheduling a public scoping session to hear public comments on the draft scoping document for the Maplewood Apartments EIS. Cornell Uniyersity, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Discuss comments concerning the Draft Generic Enyironmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the proposed Chain Works District Redeyelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redeyelopment Project seeks to redeyelop 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. 5. Persons to be heard 6. Approyai of Minutes: April 19, 2016 7. Other Business 8. 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.lTHAC A.NY.t'S. (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.ithaca.nv.u.s/meetiiit;-aaenda.s). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. May 3.2016 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, May 3, 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 Approyal and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell Uniyersity Kite Hill Slope Repair project located to the south of Campus Road along the municipal boundary with the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67.-1-13.2 and 63.-1-8.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The project inyoWes the repair of a deteriorated earth slope, stabilization of an exposed electrical duct bank, rehabilitation of an adjacent storm drainage system, new walkways along Campus Road, and new landscaping. Cornell Uniyersity, Owner/Applicant; Jim Palumbo, RLA, ASLA, Klepper, Hahn & Hyatt, 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. Indiyiduals with yisual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be proyided 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, April 25,2016 Publish: Wednesday, April 27,2016 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTDvIG AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held bv the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hail. 215 North Tiosa Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. May 5. 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: April 25, 2016 Date of Publication: April 27, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27'*' day of April 2016 Notary Public n DEBORAH KELLEY - Nbtary Public, of New York - Mcr-01k.&o(i25073 '-HDuaiifie^fln Scfioyler County o "^-GorjwnissiorT-Expires^May 17, 20 _i— THE ITHACA JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, APRIL27, 2016 TOWN OF riKACA PUU^NING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARINGS Tuesday. May 3.2016 By drecton of the Oiaiiper- son of the Planning Board. NOTICE IS HEREBY Gl\^ that a Public Hearing wiU be held by the Planning Board of the Tovm of Ithaca on Tues day, May 3. 2016, at 215 North Tioga Street, lihace, N.V., at the following time and on the following matter: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary end Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cor nell University Kite Nil Slope R^ir project located to the south of Campus Road along the municipal boundary with the Gty of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s67.-1- 13.2 and 63.-1-8.1. Low Den sity Residential Zone. The project involves the repair of a deteriorated earth elope. Mabfoahon of an expo^ ^ectrical duct bank. rehabS- tatkn an ec^acent storni ikainege ^stem, new walk- wgys along Campus Road. M new landscaping. Cor- UnNet^. Owner/ Affjt- cajit Jap FaKmbo, RLA Weppef. - Hahn & Hyatt Agent SM Planning Board will at dme and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or ot^ions there to. Paeons may appear by agent or kt person. incSvidu- ^ with visual impainnenls. fleaifng impairments or other special needs, will be provid ed vrith assistance as necee- nary, upon request. Perepna desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 46 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. §uean Ritler Dliectorofnannlrkg 273-1747 4/27/2016 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street May 3,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Aa/H Address 7"A tA'ill^Tr. 1^1 Cn-fAld ^ D'i J/ yji'lcLM TOWN OF ITFIACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, May 3, 2016 215 N, Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 FINAL Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, John Beach, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak, Katherine Herleman (Alternate) 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. and accepted the posting and publication of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Cornell University Kite Hill Slope Repair, South of Campus Road along the municipal boundary with the City of Ithaca Mr. Wilcox said that the city determined that SEQR was not required, but our attorney determined that the project is subject to environmental review. Ms. Brock said that different pieces of the project might be subject to different Type II criteria, but for the actual reconstruction of the slope itself, she didn't see anything in the Type II list that applied. Whether or not this example from the SEQR Handbook applies is ambiguous: "maintenance or repair involving no substantial changes in an existing structure or facility." A slope is not a structure or facility, but if it's maintenance or repair, it doesn't say the changes have to be to the facility. Is this only intended to apply where you have a structure or facility? There's no case law on it. The DEC SEQR handbook just talks about repairs to structures or facilities. She spoke with an attorney at the DEC, and he agreed that this does not apply; it is not type II, and therefore it's an unlisted action requiring SEQR. Jim Palumbo of Klepper, Hahn Hyatt presented the proposed site improvements to repair the failed slope on the Cornell campus. Back in March of 2011, in a season of snow melt, there was a slide of soil down an existing steep slope at the base of a roadway. Along the edge of that road is an electrical duct bank, which was taken offline immediately. It's critical to repair and stabilize the slope for the sake of protecting that duct bank in order to re-energize it. A duct bank is a large concrete conduit, 2 feet thick by 3 to 4 feet wide, with conduits cast into it through which the electric lines are pulled. The duct houses and safeguards the wiring. It's been there for over 20 years. One of the reasons for the slope failure is that fill was placed there in an uncontrolled manner. What contributed to the sudden failure was that snow along the former Campus Road was plowed over the slope, and a severe melt after a severe winter saturated the slope. The weight of the soil being saturated over the uncontrolled fill caused the soil to slide down the hill about 150 feet, like icing on a cake. The soil did not make its way to the creek. The Army Corps worked with the university on measures that had to be taken immediately. The road was abandoned and relocated and barriers were put up. Now it's time to get it back up running and secure the slope from eroding further. They're looking to remove Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 2 of 14 the pavement of the former road to minimize the runoff. Two catchments at the ends catch some of the stormwater. They want to restore the slope with a lawn that will absorb as much water as possible and put in some shallow swales to channel the water to a structure in a controlled manner. There's an existing storm system to the west of the failed slope that was a potential contributor to the failure because that system was inundated as well. With this project, they want to do some storm improve- ments because the engineers have concluded that if they don't, there's a chance of further failure to the slope after the work has been done. They have a permit with the Army Corps. They have a base plan and alternate plans, which are broken out for financial reasons. They would like approval for both. The base plan covers what is needed to protect the duct bank and secure the slope infrastruc ture. The plan is to restore the slope with a meadow mix of native plant material that will cover and stabilize the slope. At the top, they're looking to put in a mass of shrubs; the root system will help with erosion control and give a defined edge to the slope. The shallow lawn swale will go along the top of the slope to a catchment that will run down to the existing structure, which will be replaced. The control structure at the base of the slope will outlet and run it overland to the creek. They're doing everything they can to avoid impacts to the wetlands, but they have to disturb the wetland in order to better secure the slope. The curbing will be removed from the former road and the grading will be raised in such a manner to blend and make it one big continuous lawn area. They'll remove the old pavement and put in stone to reduce the impervious pavement. Two earth berms will be placed at the bottom of the slope and will also be covered with the vegetative meadow mix. The berms are engineering features will that serve two purposes: they will act as an anchor at the base of the slope to prevent further sliding and they're also a habitat element. The alternate plan has a walkway on the lawn area, which reestablishes a former pedestrian route. It will inevitably become a cow path if they don't put a walkway in. They also want to fit a bike lane along the road next to the sidewalk. The alternates are broken out for financial reasons. The second alternate is to put in lighting at the crosswalks for safety purposes. The third alternate is to put in street trees to discourage snowplowing. The project has two SWPPPs, the city-town line falls right down the middle. Mr. Wilcox asked how the 6000 cubic yards of fill are deposited on the site. Mr. Palumbo said there are several ways. The contractor will use the most practical approach based on their abilities. They won't just dump it and let it slide down the hill - that would be an uncontrolled fill, which is where we are today. They will most likely work from the bottom up the slope and do a continuous engineered key, which uses engineered fill and fabrics that will keep that slope all together and prevent it from sliding. They'll traverse back and forth up the slope benching it; they'll cut into the hill and remove all the spoil and key in the new material. The university is trying to minimize haul-off - that's what puts mud on the roads. Material can come in from the bottom or the top, but they'll probably haul off from the bottom. Ms. Herleman asked about the fill they're choosing. This region, over the next 30 to 50 years, is projected to have climate change impacts that will result in increases, both in rain and in the frequency of extreme weather events; for example, the winter that caused this failure could become the norm. She asked whether their design took into account the changes they would expect in the design lifetime. Mr. Palumbo responded that they were challenged with a 75-year life span. The engineered fill is secure; it's not going anywhere. The cap that they're putting on top will protect it from further erosion. They're looking to reclaim the heavy vegetation there, and the seepage they chose is specifi- Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 3 of 14 cally for slopes of this severity with a deep-rooted mix. The seeds are resilient within moderate temperatures. There are 20 to 30 types of vegetation in the mix and in the long term, the roots will get down to the point of the engineered fill. The temporary erosion control measure they're using to secure the slope has a two-year life span. It's a coconut straw mulch with netting over it that's photo degradable. It will eventually be taken over by the vegetation. Mr. Bosak asked whether the hazelnuts are the American variety that's immune to the Filbert Blight and whether the slope will be mown. Mr. Palumbo said they're using 15 American hazelnuts. He has experience with it and it's a wonderful plant. You won't get nuts because the squirrels will get there first. Also there are three varieties of shrubs just in case one doesn't take well; this way, you don't lose the whole thing. They have no intention to mow the slope; it's a meadow mix. They do not want trees on the slope because they could have contributed to the failure (acting as a lever when the melt occurred). If trees crop up, the university will maintain them so no large trees grow. They'll let nature reclaim the slope. Mr. Thaete said they have satisfied the engineering comments. The only question that remains is where the fill is coming from, but that won't be determined until the contract is awarded. Once that happens, the road preservation law might be called into play. Our engineers like the design; its number one component for stabilizing the embankment is the geogrid, which is basically like building a retaining wall without the wall. A retaining wall is just a face; the geogrid is truly what supports the soil. Most slope failures occur at the base, so they're tackling that issue. It's a legitimate design. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that 6000 yards of fill is around 600 truckloads. Clearly, we want them on state highways rather than county roads. Mr. Palumbo stated that the contract documents will make the contractor aware that the county and town will have requirements for hauling on their roads. Mr. Bosak asked what geogrid is made of and how long it lasts. Mr. Palumbo said it's a grid made of different synthetics that has great tensile strength. Since it's a grid, things like rocks can get through. It's laid down flat and holds the whole slope together. Mr. Thaete added that different types of holes create different types of locking mechanisms. It's a plastic material, so as long as sunlight doesn't hit it, it doesn't rot; it's there for a lifetime. PB Resolution No. 2016-024: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval &. Special Permit, Cornell University Kite Hill Slope Repair, South of Campus Road, Cornell University, Tax Parcel No.'s 67.-1-13.2 and 63.-1-8.1 Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Kite Hill Slope Repair project located to the south of Campus Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 4 of 14 Road along the municipal boundary with the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67.- 1-13.2 and 63.-1-8.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the repair of a deterio rated earth slope, stabilization of an exposed electrical duct bank, rehabilitation of an adjacent storm drainage system, new walkways along Campus Road, and new landscaping. Cornell Uni versity, Owner/Applicant; Jim Palumbo, RLA, ASIA, Klepper, Hahn Hyatt, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review, with respect to site plan approval and special permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on May 3, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ mental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, plans entitled "Kite Hill Slope Repair," including drawing num bers ECl.l, EC1.2, Cl.O, Cl.l, C2.1, C2.2 (dated March 14, 2016 and revised April 18, 2016) and C1.2 (dated April 18, 2016), all prepared by Klepper, Hahn & Hyatt, 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, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Kite Hill Slope Repair project located to the south of Campus Road along the municipal boundary with the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67.-1-13.2 and 63.-1-8.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the repair of a deteriorated earth slope, stabilization of an exposed electrical duct bank, rehabilitation of an adjacent storm drainage system, new walkways along Campus Road, and new landscaping. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Jim Palumbo, RLA, ASLA, Klepper, Hahn &. Hyatt, Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. To a question by Mr. Haefeli regarding the duct bank, Mr. Palumbo explained that they took it out of service immediately after the failure and used a redundant duct bank to maintain service. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 5 of 14 Ms. Brock noted that there's a very sensitive particle separator under the ground in that location; she wondered how it might be affected by vibrations from the excavation and tamping down of 6000 cubic yards of dirt right above it. Mr. Palumbo responded that one of the reasons they decided on the geogrid system was because of the particle separator. Also, they've been provided a window of opportunity for this work because the synchrotron will be experiencing a down period this season. Mr. Wilcox asked about the debris at the bottom of the hill. Mr. Palumbo said that a lot of the trees are lying down dead. They will not be taken away. That's one of the things the Army Corps looks at positively as an erosion control measure. It's also a habitat. PB Resolution No. 2016-025: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Cornell University Kite Hill Slope Repair, South of Campus Road, Cornell University, Tax Parcel No.'s 67.-1-13.2 and 63.-1-8.1 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by Katherine Herleman WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Kite Hill Slope Repair project located to the south of Campus Road along the municipal boundary with the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67.- 1-13.2 and 63.-1-8.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the repair of a deterio rated earth slope, stabilization of an exposed electrical duct bank, rehabilitation of an adjacent storm drainage system, new walkways along Campus Road, and new landscaping. Cornell Uni versity, Owner/Applicant; Jim Palumbo, RLA, ASIA, Klepper, Hahn & Hyatt, Agent, and 2. This is a Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to site plan approval and special permit has, on May 3, 2016, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 3, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Kite Hill Slope Repair," including drawing numbers ECl.l, EC1.2, Cl.O, Cl.l, C2.1, C2.2 (dated March 14, 2016 and revised April 18, 2016) and C1.2 (dated April 18, 2016), and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca 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: Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 6 of 14 a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning are being promoted, because the purpose of the slope repair, stabilization and restoration is to ensure the safety of the slope itself and Cascadilla Creek, b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, since the proposed use is the same as the existing use, and such use will fill a neighborhood or community need, for the reasons noted above, c. the proposed use and the location and design is consistent with the character of the district in which it is located, as the proposed use, location and design of the hillside are not changing, with the exception of a stronger, stabilized slope and a new pedestrian walkway and light pole which is in character with the rest of the Cornell campus walkways and light poles, d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring in habitants, for the reasons noted above, e. the presumed benefit of such use is not outweighed by the objectionable impacts of such use on nearby properties, for the reasons noted above, f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to protective services, roadways, garbage collection, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, g. the proposed use, design, and site layout comply with all the provisions of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning and, to the extent 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's Comprehensive Plan, h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, for the reasons noted above, 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 and access are sufficient for the proposed use (no parking or loading facilities are proposed), k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local laws and ordinances, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, for the reasons noted above, 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; Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 7 of 14 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Kite Hill Slope Repair project, located to the south of Campus Road along the municipal boundary with the City of Ithaca, as described on the drawings listed above, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission to the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department of a revised erosion and sedi mentation control plan (Simple SWPPP), for review and approval, that includes: i. Revised drawings that show the correct total area of wetland disturbance (correlating with the approved Army Corps Nationwide Permit), along with proper erosion con trols and silt fencing along the top of wetlands B, C and D, ii. Plans for temporary protection of the embankment as the slope restoration and geo- synthetic layers are being placed, and iii. Details on the type of material being placed and location from which these materials will be obtained. Based upon routing of materials to the site, the Town of Ithaca Road Preservation Law may apply. b. To reduce any potential adverse effects on the Federally-threatened Northern long-eared bat, trees (woody stems greater than or equal to 3 inches Diameter at Breast Height) must not be cut between April 1 and September 30 of any year AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the applicant shall build the base plan as shown and any or all or the alternatives presented to this Board. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman AGENDA ITEM Consider designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as Lead Agency, determination of a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance, and discussion of the draft scoping document for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Cornell University 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 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, stormwater facilities, and a community center. The Planning Board may also consider scheduling a public scoping session to hear public comments on the draft scoping document for the Maplewood Apartments EIS. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning &. Design, LLC, Agent Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 8 of 14 Ms. Herleman recused herself from the discussion and sat with the audience. Mr. Antoine, Torti Gallas, gave a brief presentation of the updates on the plan. With the April version of the plan, the apartment buildings have migrated further to the east on the Mitchell Street side of the complex and the location of the north-south connector road has been switched so the apartments are now on the eastern side. The new mix is 500 townhouse and apartment units with around 900 beds. There has been a lot of discussion in these meetings and in the public engagement sessions on the scale of buildings, so they've used devices to try to break up the scale of the buildings, such as an attic story and a series of bays proportioned to pick up the fabric of the townhouses. Mr. Wilcox said that normally when the planning board is asked to act as lead agency and make a positive declaration, we have a plan with engineered drawings, not sketches. He didn't think we have the information necessary to make that determination now and begin the scoping process. Mr. Bosak said that a project that calls for 900 beds will have the potential for an environmental impact, and that's all we need to find for a positive declaration: we don't need a plan to tell us that. Even if it were 800 beds, it may have the potential for a significant environmental impact. Mr. Wilcox asked what plan has the potential? Mr. Bosak said that he would feel comfortable making that determination without any visual aids whatsoever. Anything that demolishes current housing and builds 500 new units has the potential. Mr. Wilcox asked Ms. Brock whether SEQR clocks would begin ticking if the board made that determination. Ms. Brock affirmed that the board would have 60 days to complete the scoping document. They have not submitted a SWPPP, which our law requires for the planning board to consider an application. We don't know where any of the facilities will be located or what is being proposed. Mr. Hebdon said that right now, he has a preliminary concept plan as you would for a sketch plan. Mr. Bosak said that contrary to what he said about a pos dec, he was not nearly as confident that we know enough to do a complete scoping document within 60 days. Mr. Whitham said that when we began discussions a few months back, they made the assumption that they would have to put an EIS together, so they initiated that immediately. They contracted with a traffic engineer and with Labella to do a Phase I environmental and move immediately into a Phase II investigation. They also contracted with TG Miller to look at all the issues of potential environmen tal significance a project of this scale would require. During the last couple months of working on the scoping document with town staff, they're looking at every avenue as they develop the site plan and the thresholds for this project. They feel it's a complete document after this research. If there are pieces that would help the planning board feel more comfortable about moving ahead with a positive declaration to help them put a scope together that is more complete, they would like to hear what those pieces might be. Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 9 of 14 Mr. Bosak said he thought the public would play a large role in forming the scoping document. So for him, the process starts with that. He's not sure the public has enough information at this point, not just the board. He asked whether the planning board normally sees a draft PDZ at this point. The board agreed that 60 days was a concern. Ms. Ritter said that the town doesn't usually have environmental impact statements with PDZs. A draft PDZ went to the planning committee several weeks ago and the planning board was copied on that email. The town board is very favorable to this housing project. They're pleased that we're using form-based code as a model for this type of zoning. The planning committee has one or two more meetings before it goes to the town board again, after which time it comes to the planning board. Mr. Wilcox said his concern is that we get one shot at the scoping document, and the purpose of the scoping document is to determine the potential environmental impacts before starting the environ mental review. It's to prevent potential environmental impacts from being added to the scope on an ongoing basis, so there's one shot to look at all impacts and so they can be adequately studied. He doesn't think we have enough specific information to start the scoping-process clock ticking. His concern is that we might miss something because all we have are vignettes and sketches. Ms. Brock said we have lots of to-be-determined items. Ms. Ritter said staff made sure that any to-be-determined items that are in the EAF are addressed in the scope. That's how staff handled what was missing. The EIS is a discovery process and the preliminary site plan is a long way off from being approved. If the planning board feels there's missing information, we can require that it be in the EIS. The EIS is going to address these things that then would be considered when you approve the project. Mr. Bosak said he's concerned that the public have a clear enough concept of what exactly is being proposed. For example, it wasn't until this third plan came out that we got a letter from residents of 925 Mitchell Street saying that now that the buildings have been moved, they have comments. His reaction to that is to want that view added to the list of views we want to see in the scope. Here's a concrete example of needing to have a specific plan in order to make the scoping comment. Ms. Ritter said we need to be guiding the applicant on what the board thinks is the additional information the public will need to understand. For instance, do we need to know how many stories each building will be and how many units are in it? She asked what the board, involved agencies, and the public need to know. Ms. Meier Swain said that, for example, on page 1 of the EAF, there's no information of the duration of the project. What's the timeframe for the phasing? Mr. Witham said that they've held a series of public meetings and have also heard from the public outside the meetings. He read off all the impacts they have foreseen and the related mitigation. They feel it's a very holistic approach to the review that the project will receive. He requested that if the board thinks anything is missing, they share that information. Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Bosak said that since we don't have a completely filled out FEAF, it would seem that we're being asked to develop a scoping document for an HIS that's not ready to be prepared yet. Mr. Wilcox said this seems more like a GEIS. This is a specific project that will have specific buildings in definite locations of certain heights with certain architectures. Ms. Collins likened the project to an onion skin: every time there's a new layer; for example, when we got these drawings, she thought we were dealing with two-, three-, and four-story buildings, but she sees no two-story buildings. Now she sees two-story townhouses in terms of living space, but they have parking underneath, which requires steps on the front of the buildings because they're actually three stories tall. There's so much we really don't know about. Mr. Hebdon said that the last big housing project we did was Holochuck. He thinks they were more specific on exactly what was going in. They were well beyond sketch plan in what they gave us; they were halfway between sketch and preliminary. Ms. Balestra said that they gave us engineered drawings and specifics. Mr. Bosak said he agreed; it still feels like we're still dealing with sketch plan. Mr. Wilcox said these are sketches showing revisions based on public comments, but do we want to make a determination that starts the 60-day clock? You get 60 days to complete the scoping document from the pos dec. Regarding making lead agency determination, Mr. Wilcox said all involved agencies concur with the town of Ithaca planning board acting as lead agency. Ms. Brock read that the "lead agency must determine the significance of the action within 20 calendar days of its establishment as lead agency, or within 20 calendar days of its receipt of all information that they reasonably need to make the determination of significance, whichever occurs later..." So if you declare yourself lead agency, you have 20 days to make your pos dec. Mr. Wilcox said he wants an engineered drawing that shows the locations of the buildings, roads, and stormwater management practices, more details on how stormwater will be dealt with, and, for each structure, how tall it will be and how many beds it has. Where are the parking spaces, how many are there, how big will they be? Mr. Witham said that the site plan the board is looking at represents all that information. They will break that down building by building on a scaled drawing, with each building described in its height and its units, the parking lots, etc. He can have that to staff in just a few days. Being a public process, he's sure this project will change with time, and as they do the exploration, it will affect the project. A full SWPPP is usually later on in the process. He asked what Mr. Hebdon would like. Mr. Hebdon said they'll need to know where stormwater practices will be so they can tell if it's big enough. They'll want to see where water comes in, how and where it's stored, where the outlets are, and where the stormwater will end up. Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 11 of 14 Ms. Meier Swain wanted them to expand the timeframe of their traffic study to include the afternoon pickup at the Belle Sherman School. Mr. Beach pointed out that they left out the intersection of Mitchell and Pine Tree. Mr. Wilcox asked them to include the height of the lab building. Mr. Wilcox spoke to the members of the public who were in attendance regarding comments to the board, saying that it's important to not engage planning board members individually - board members need to hear or read comments at the same time. He requested that members of the public make their comments to board members in public, and not to call them at home or talk to them individually. Call staff at the office. But as appointed planning board members, it's important that we hear the same information at the same time. The board decided to adjourn the discussion to the next meeting and requested engineered dawings. AGENDA ITEM Discuss 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 hoped to have a draft letter by Friday to staff and that her thematically organized comments will be in the packet. Ms. Balestra said that planning and engineering staff have been looking at the Chain Works EIS and have some comments in process. Whatever is done will be in the mailout for the May 17th meeting. All comments have to be in by May 25th. Ms. Herleman asked if there were any significant technical issues. Ms. Balestra said they found some inconsistencies in the numbers and there are some questions in the transportation section about modeling. In terms of the contamination: planning staff are not qualified to analyze that data. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard Joe Wilson, 75 Hunt Hill Road in the town of Dryden, said he's a retired lawyer and that he served as the Delaware state director of planning and coordination. He's a member of multiple sustainability advocacy groups. He provided a handout, an excerpt of which he read at the meeting. The handout is available at Town Hall from planning staff. He had three points to make and spoke to only two, given the lateness of the hour. "I have reviewed the contents of tonight's agenda packet as it pertains to the EdR/Cornell Maple- wood redevelopment project. I offer the following comments: The Maplewood renovation is part of a much larger project. This must be taken into account in "scoping" the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality. Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 12 of 14 According to press accounts which include statements attributed to knowledgeable sources and University plans, the Maplewood renovation is the first of a phased residential-mixed use develop ment project on parcels of Cornell land clustered in and around the East Hill Plaza. Other phases appear to include (2) 380 Pine Tree Road, (3) Tthaca East/Maple Hill," and (4) "East Hill Plaza/East Hill Village." The significance of this is that under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) the Planning Board is required to consider the foreseeable environmental impacts of an entire project rather than divide it into constituent parts and thereby narrow the description and analysis of its impacts. This "whole project" approach has already been recommended by your Planning Department Staff regarding water and sewer in "Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3" which is part of this agenda packet. In EAF Part 2, Planning Department staff has already determined that with regard to the Maplewood redevelopment project alone, there may be a "moderate to large impact" on energy use including "the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system." Should EdR persist in its projected use of natural gas (i.e. methane) the implications for increased energy use, increased generation of greenhouse gases, their attendant impacts on air pollution, and the impact on public health of the pollution are all potentially significant as that term is applied under SEQRA. These effects will be magnified when the Planning Board puts them into the context of the additional phases of the entire Maplewood/East Hill Village build out. In its scoping of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) then, the Planning Board should require that all phases of the Maplewood/East Hill Village build out be addressed in terms of their potential for having significant negative impacts on the environment. Greenhouse Gas Emissions must be identified, quantified, and mitigation of these impacts described in the DEIS. In his February 2015 letter to the Town Board, Scott Witham indicated that EdR is anticipating using natural gas (i.e. methane) in the project. As noted by Planning Department staff, there is no specific commitment to the use of renewable-sourced energy. Moreover, it is expected that "The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy or transmission system ..." As described in Mr. Witham's letter, the Maplewood redevelopment by itself will increase the units now served by gas/methane by 3.5 times (from 170 to as many as 600) and the beds served by as many as 2.6 times (372 to as many as 975). As noted by Planning Staff, this by itself is a potentially signifi cant increase in energy/gas use. When this increase is added to that resulting from the gas to be used in one or more of the additional phases of the overall project, the increase in energy/gas use will be dramatic and undoubtedly "significant" under SEQRA. When increased energy use and/or greenhouse gas emissions (hereafter GHG) will result from a proposal, SEQRA requires that local governments identify the related, potentially significant environmental impacts and include them in either its public scoping document or its positive declaration. It is important to note that SEQRA requires the resulting EIS to include the following descriptions: (1) a qualitative discussion of the GHG's resulting from the construction phase, (2) a quantitative description of post-construction direct emissions from the project ("typically resultfing] from combus tion of fossil fuels for heat, hot water,..."), (3) a quantitative description of post-construction indirect Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 13 of 14 emissions including "off-site production of electricity, heating, or cooling which will be used on-site ... purchased through a utility," and (4) indirect emissions from mobile sources including "trips generat ed by vehicles that are associated with the proposed project but not owned and operated by the project proponent" such as commuting residents." Although the Part 3of this EAF includes a demand that the DEIS include such items as "a thorough analysis of the expected energy usage, an analysis of design elements that promote energy efficiency, and an investigation of strategies to reduce energy consumption," the lack of any reference to GHG's in either the draft scoping document or the EAF's, must be corrected by requiring the descriptions and analyses listed above. Because GHG's are major contributors to air pollution and negatively affect public health, they too become "significant" in SEQRA terms and must be addressed in the scoping document and EAF, Part 3. This becomes even more true when the project is viewed through the lens of the full build involving all of the Maple wood/East Hill Village-area properties owned by Cornell." The last point, which he did not speak to, is that if the plans are to use gas, in particular, in any of the phases of the Maplewood/East Hill Village project, that flies in the face of the town's own comp plan as well as the finalized energy roadmap of the county legislature." Mr. Bosak said that the most important point he was going to raise when we got to scoping is that Chapter 5 in the draft is absurdly underspecified. He thanked the gentleman for pointing that out. He was not aware that there was a larger plan. If there is, doesn't this raise segmentation issues. Ms. Brock said we'll need to know more about the connections between the plans. Lewis Balera, 925 Mitchell Street, thought he knew what this was going to look like, but when he saw the plans yesterday, he was shocked because it struck him as a 100-year-old photo of the Lower East Side of Manhattan, minus the fire escapes and clotheslines. To put this along Mitchell, which has no apartments until its beginning at East State Street, is going to change the character of the neighbor hood. At the Belle Sherman meeting, they discussed that they wanted to have integration with the existing community, and the plan is not integrated. As far as the plan's impact on Mitchell, there's a simple fix: the apartment buildings on Mitchell Street wind like a train around the parking lot; he suggests they take the train and drive it up the east side and connect it to the train at the top, and that it border the east side, and get it off Mitchell Street. There will still be 500 units and 900 beds, but neighbors won't have to look at it. Mr. Bosak said that the gentleman's experience was exactly what he was pointing to: he didn't know that he was going to need something addressed in the scope until yesterday. Susan Brown, Cornell Street, expressed frustration with the fact that the neighborhood this project is going into isn't in the city of Ithaca, but the people who live next door to this project live in the city of Ithaca, so they have no voice. She agreed with Mr. Balera that three and four stories on Mitchell Street is completely out of scale with the neighborhood. The houses directly across the street are one story. In the next block, the houses are one and two stories. This behemoth is totally out of propor tion. If as a city resident, she does have a voice, she's delighted to hear it, but she doesn't think most of the people in her neighborhood understand that. Planning Board Minutes 05-03-2016 Page 14 of 14 Mr. Ritter said that the city is an involved agency and they do have site plan approval, so there will be meetings at the city planning and development board also. Mr. Wilcox said he has been on the planning board for many years, and the comment that nobody is listening to the public is often a case where we're listening, but we don't agree. We hear you and we encourage the public to speak. If we disagree with you, it doesn't mean we're not listening. Mr. Bosak said that the mistaken impression of Ms. Brown's neighbors could be fostered by the illegal stance taken by some boards in our area that you can't speak in front of the board unless you're a resident of that municipality. That is illegal in the state of New York. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that city residents helped shape the Belle Sherman Cottages project. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-026: Minutes of April 19, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Linda Collins RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of April 19, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman Abstentions: Haefeli AGENDA ITEM Other Business Mr. Wilcox said he talked to code enforcement about filing a complaint regarding the trash on the property at 635 Elmira Road where the proposed hotel will be built. Our property maintenance law is only effective if you can see the problem from the road or right-of-way, so there's nothing the town can do because the garbage is at the bottom of a slope leading onto state land. His next step is to contact DEC to let them know what's on the state property. On a motion by Mr. Wilcox and seconded by Ms. Herleman, the meeting of May 17th was postponed until May 24th. The board approved the motion unanimously. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ebra DeAugi ; Deputy TbwiYClerk