Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2010-06-01Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting Special Planning and Development Board Special Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Robert Boothroyd; David Kay; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Snyder Board Members Absent: Jill Tripp Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development Applicants Attending: Collegetown Terrace Apartments Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP; John Novarr, Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLC; Randy Marcus, Counsel Others Attending: Ellen McCollister, Third Ward Alderperson Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Site Plan Review A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments, East State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf LLP, Applicant for Owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments LLP (c/o John Novarr). DEIS - Determination of Adequacy for Public Review & Date for Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to construct rental housing aimed at students, with approximately 1,260 bedrooms (a net gain of about 623 bedrooms), a large majority of which will be singly occupied, in new and existing apartment buildings on a contiguous site of approximately 16.4 acres. The proposed new building design calls for seven new structures, six of which will be 65 feet wide with lengths varying from 147 feet to 675 feet when measured end to end, with three or four stories of apartments and up to two levels of parking at grade or below. Site development will require the demolition of all existing buildings and associated structures, roadways, and some vegetation and landscaping on the project site, with the exception of those buildings within the East Hill Historic District. The project is in the R-3a and P-1 Zoning Districts and a portion of the site is in the East Hill Historic District. This is Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (174-6 (B)(1)(d), (h)[2], [3] & [4] & (k), (n), & (3) ) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (617(b)(5)(iii) ) and is subject to environmental review. A DEIS has been prepared and submitted by the applicant. 1 Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting The Board and the applicant mutually agreed to make a number of changes that would further clarify the DEIS, the most significant of which was to add substantially greater detail to the project description at the beginning of the document. The date for the public hearing was set for June 29, 2010 at 7 p.m. in Common Council Chambers. Adopted Resolution Regarding Completeness and Adequacy of DEIS for Public Review: On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Kay: WHEREAS: Trowbridge and Wolf LLP, applicant for owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments LLP, has requested Site Plan Approval from the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for the proposed Collegetown Terrace Apartments project to be located on East State Street between Quarry Street and Valentine Place in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS: the Collegetown Terrace Apartments project is a proposed new rental apartment development targeted to graduate students. This project anticipates providing approximately 623 net additional bedrooms for a maximum of 1,260 bedrooms in new and existing apartment buildings on contiguous property of approximately 16.4 acres. Almost all of the bedrooms will be singly occupied. The project is located on the south side of Route 79 between South Quarry Street and Valentine Place in the City of Ithaca. The project is in the R-3a and P-1 Zoning Districts and a portion of the site is in the East Hill Historic District. There are currently 33 rental buildings on the property with 637 beds, 4 accessory structures and 467 parking spaces. Of the 33 rental buildings, 24 are former single or 2- family houses, 14 of which are currently vacant, and 9 are apartment buildings (including the Jane A. Delano Home, the former nurses’ dorm at 113-115 Valentine Place). Of the 24 former single or 2-family houses, 13 are multi-family rental units and 11 are rental houses. Of the existing 33 rental buildings, 30 buildings with 475 bedrooms will be removed as well as the four accessory structures. Of the 467 existing parking spaces, 106 will remain and 361 will be removed and replaced. After construction of the project there will be a total of almost 800 parking spaces for a net gain of 333 spaces. There are nine existing curb cuts on the south side of Route 79 between South Quarry Street and Valentine Place. All of these existing curb cuts will be eliminated. The project is designed to include one curb cut on Route 79 between South Quarry Street and Valentine Place to access new parking. The three existing apartment buildings to remain – Quarry Arms, Casa Roma and Boiler Works – include 162 beds and are all located within the East Hill Historic District. No work is proposed to these buildings. The proposed new building design calls for seven new structures, six of which will be 65 feet wide with lengths varying from 147 feet to 675 feet when measured end to end. The proposed new buildings consist of three or four stories of apartments and up to two levels of parking at grade or below. The seven new buildings will consist of a maximum building footprint of 178,710 gross square feet comprising an estimated 667,463 gross 2 Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting square feet of residential space and no more than 250,000 gross square feet of parking. All new parking will be located under the new residential apartment buildings (modeled after the existing Casa Roma) and no new surface parking lots will be developed. Site development includes the demolition of roadways, and some vegetation and landscaping on the project site. Of the 16.4 acre property, approximately 12.1 acres will be disturbed for construction. All construction, except for utility work in two locations, will occur on previously disturbed areas. Within the 12.1 acres to be disturbed, there are 193 trees that are 10-inches or greater in diameter. 142 of these existing 193 trees will be removed and 51 will remain. 24 of the remaining trees will be relocated on-site. The existing vegetated buffer along Six Mile Creek Gorge will remain undisturbed. Construction of the project will remove approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill, soil and rock from portions of the site that are already developed. The project will reduce impervious surfaces on site by 0.21 acres. While the primary focus of the project will be to provide graduate student rental housing, appropriately scaled amenities that serve the resident community will also be included. The current private shuttle service between the site and the Cornell campus will be expanded. Emphasis will be placed on creating a transit and bicycle friendly walkable community that minimizes the need for off-site vehicular trips. The project includes construction of a complete pedestrian and vehicular system that links the site to the surrounding city network. The principal vehicular access points will be at South Quarry Street and Valentine Place. A new wider sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Route 79 along with improved street lighting to enhance pedestrian safety. The current schedule calls for a construction start in fall 2010, with completion in summer of 2012, and WHEREAS: this is Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (174-6 (B) (1) (d), (h) [2], [3] & [4] & (k), (n), & (3) ) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (617 (b) (5) (iii) ), and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on July 28, 2009, directing the applicant to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Collegetown Terrace Apartments project, and WHEREAS: on September 10, 2009, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board held a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Collegetown Terrace Apartments, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, after advertising a public comment period on the proposed scope, also solicited written comments from the public regarding the issues to be analyzed, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board also solicited comments from this project’s involved agencies regarding the issues to be analyzed, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on September 22, 2009, approve a Scoping Document, and 3 Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting WHEREAS: on March 30, 2010 Trowbridge and Wolf LLP submitted a DEIS to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, which examined possible environmental impacts, and WHEREAS: the City and the applicant, did, by mutual agreement, elect to extend the adequacy review period first until May 25, 2010, and subsequently until June 1, 2010, and WHEREAS: on May 25, 2010, the applicant, responding to comments received from Planning Board members and the City’s consultant, EDR, submitted a revised DEIS, identified on its cover by the language “Submitted: March 30, 2010 Revised: May 25, 2010,” and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency for environmental review, has reviewed the dEIS submitted on March 30, 2010 and revised on May 25, 2010 for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and has with the assistance of City staff and the City’s consultant, EDR, found the DEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency, on June 1, 2010, hereby finds that the DEIS for the Collegetown Terrace Apartments submitted on March 30, 2010 and revised on May 25, 2010 is adequate and complete for public review, including the changes agreed upon and recorded in the course of this meeting on June 1, 2010, and be it further RESOLVED: that a public hearing on the DEIS be scheduled by the Planning and Development Board for 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, with written comments due by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 16, 2010, to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the DEIS, and be it further RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby directs the City of Ithaca Planning staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completeness of the DEIS and Notice of SEQRA Hearing as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.10 and 617.21 and distributing the DEIS to all involved agencies and the public, as may be necessary or appropriate to commence public review of the DEIS. In Favor: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder Abstain: Rudan Approved 5-0-1 3. Planning Board Comments on Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan Planning Board members agreed that the draft comments distributed to the Board accurately reflected the ideas and concerns brought forth during the Board’s May 25, 2010 discussion of this plan. Comments on December 2009 Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan: 4 Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Rudan: RESOLVED: That the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board distribute the following comments on the December 2009 Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan to groups involved with that effort: The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board discussed the December 2009 Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan at its June 1, 2010 meeting and unanimously agreed to offer the following comments: 1. The Planning Board lauds the care and effort employed in creating this action plan, which includes many worthy projects that, if undertaken as envisioned, would substantially improve the City’s premier public park. The document is a great exercise in brainstorming and bringing together compelling ideas. 2. The Board appreciates the “Implementation Steps and Timelines” provided throughout the document and the detailed “Implementation Sequence” provided in Chapter 4, which lists the various proposed initiatives under short-term, mid- term and long-term timing categories, but suggests it might be useful to better categorize the various ideas according to their relative overall importance. For example, the Board feels stabilizing Stewart Park’s banks where erosion is occurring should have a very high priority not only in the timeline, but also in any ranking of the various proposals’ relative importance. 3. Concerning “Key Project #1: Cayuga Waterfront Trail – Phase 3”: The Planning Board gave Site Plan Approval to a Cayuga Waterfront Trail route that passes through the lakefront lawn area between the two pavilions (Wharton Pavilion and Large Pavilion) and the lakeshore. However, no Board members were completely happy about this arrangement. Board members accepted this alignment with reluctance only because funding did not then exist for a better alternative in this area. However, the Planning Board did request, as a part of Site Plan Approval, that a conceptual drawing be prepared illustrating such a better design alternative, for potential use in the future when funding allows. This design alternative proposes: — Removal of the existing unused and unattractive lakefront concrete ramp. — Restoration of the landscape and lakeshore after ramp removal. — Relocation of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail to a portion of the area currently occupied by the concrete ramp. The Planning Board feels that this conceptual alternative scheme would be a significant improvement over the approved trail alignment in this area for the following reasons: — Removal of the old concrete ramp would significantly enhance park and lakeshore aesthetics. — Alignment of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail through the area currently 5 Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting occupied by the ramp would allow additional green space, including additional usable lawn space, on the lakefront side of the pavilions, compared to the alignment given Site Plan Approval. — This alternative trail route would allow a trail placement that better respects the formal symmetrical character of this park focal point. For all these reasons, the Board requests that this conceptual alternative plan be added to the “Key Project #1: Cayuga Waterfront Trail – Phase 3” section, and given a high priority in the overall action plan. (Note: Ideally the poorly defined “blob” of asphalt at the northeast corner of the Large Pavilion could be reduced in size and/or better defined at the same time that this alternative plan is constructed, to further the goal of improving aesthetics and increasing usable lawn space near the pavilions.) 4. The Planning Board is grateful that the action plan includes illustrations of the remarkable 1934 Stewart Park master plan (on page 13) and of a 1930s aerial photograph (on page 28) showing that most of that plan’s concepts (except for the large lakefront pier) were actually constructed. Some of these actually- constructed plan elements have disappeared over time, and the Board notes that the loss of these elements has significantly obscured intended visual and aesthetic relationships between other elements of the 1934 plan that still exist in 2010. The unfortunate result has been to weaken some of the power and beauty of the park’s original conception. For example: — The loss of the two parallel paths that once linked the flagpole to the Wharton and Large Pavilions (and the loss of the tower that once rose between these pavilions) has significantly diminished the intended strong axial visual relationship between the flagpole and the pavilions. — The loss of the western diagonal path that once mirrored the still-extant eastern diagonal path (in an arrangement such that both paths converged on, and visually emphasized, the plaza between the pavilions), has further obscured the intended axial arrangement mentioned above. — The perfect circle of lawn (Lagoon Circle) at the southwest corner of the park has lost its intended visual role and aesthetic function as the southwest culmination of the missing western diagonal pedestrian path. The Board asks that language be added to the action plan calling for restoration of the above lost elements of the 1934 Stewart Park master plan as a long-range goal and recommending that no proposed initiatives be designed in any manner that hinders or obstructs the future ability to restore these lost elements. For example, any redesign of the children’s playground (“Key Project #7: All Children’s Playground and Spray Play Area”) or of the carousel (“Key Project #8: Carousel Pavilion”) should easily accommodate (or, if possible, even include) reconstruction of the lost western diagonal pedestrian-only path. The Board recommends that the language of the relevant sections be re-written accordingly. 5. The Board applauds the intention (“Key Project #6: Memorial Flagpole Garden”) to restore the flagpole garden and associated paths. However, the Board is 6 Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting concerned about the elevation of the proposed flagpole renovation depicted on page 29. This elevation omits the existing historic flagpole base, and appears to show a radically altered new three-stepped base. Perhaps this alteration is not actually intended, but — just to be certain — the Planning Board urges that the historic flagpole base (shown in the lower-right photograph on page 28) be retained. 6. The Board also favors improving the plaza between the Wharton Pavilion and Large Pavilion (“Key Project #2: Stewart Park Trailhead for the Waterfront Trail.”) Replacing the existing pavement between the pavilions with permeable pavement in a design that references the “Historic Pavilion Plan” is an excellent idea. However, the new trailhead should not increase paved area by extending in front of the lakefront facades of the two pavilions, as is apparently shown in the upper-right illustration on page 21. The existing lawn on the lakefront side of the pavilions should be preserved wherever possible, and none of it should be paved over to create the trailhead, which is better located in the area between the two pavilions. 7. Additional miscellaneous points for addition to the action plan: — The Board feels that the existing spray play area is located too close to the road system; it should be more distant from roads in any play area redesign. — The Board is concerned that, in a few places, empty spots in the row of willow trees bordering the lake have been filled with other tree species. The Board recommends that, in the future, any gaps in this row be filled with additional willows, to preserve this iconic element of the park. Unanimously Approved The groups to whom these comments were subsequently addressed included the Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan Steering Committee, the Strategic Tourism Planning Board, the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Foundation, the Common Council, the Board of Public Works, the Parks Commission and the Cayuga Waterfront Trail Client Committee. 4. Proposed Creation of New R-3aa Zoning District and Proposed Rezoning of Certain Areas of the City From R-3a and R-3b to R-3aa, R-2b and R-2c: Review and Recommendation The Planning and Development Board discussed the Planning and Economic Development Committee’s latest proposal to create a new R-3aa Zoning District, and to rezone certain areas of the City from R-3a and R-3b to R-3aa, R-2b and R-2c. Areas proposed for rezoning are located in various locations throughout the City, including West Hill, South Hill, East Hill and downtown neighborhoods. Schroeder noted that the proposed R-3aa zone derives directly from the Planning Board’s 2007 proposal that the City create a new zoning district that, at that time, was called R-3c. Schroeder also briefly reviewed the criteria that a subcommittee had used to consider 7 Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting whether areas of the City currently zoned R-3a or R-3b should be rezoned to R-3aa, R-2b or R-2c, and pointed out that the subcommittee had carefully walked the various areas of the City considered for rezoning. Boothroyd noted that the Planning and Economic Development Committee had decided that a corner of the site where the proposed Collegetown Terrace Apartments would be located (on the 900 block of East State / Martin Luther King Street) should be rezoned to R-3aa; this was a change to the overall rezoning proposal that had originally come from the subcommittee. Boothroyd asked whether the City Attorney had been consulted on the legality of changing zoning in the middle of a project. (Cornish replied that City Attorney Hoffman had been consulted, and that he had stated that such rezoning was legal.) Boothroyd went on to say that this would be legislation after the fact. He said he agreed with the rezoning proposal that had come from the subcommittee, but would vote no if the above portion of the 900 block of East State Street were included in the rezoning proposal. Kay said he was in favor of the rezoning concept but expressed concern over deciding on rezoning individual parcels in such a short time frame. He questioned whether the criteria for selecting parcels to rezone were applied consistently and would like to see how each property met the criteria. Kay also stated he would like to complete the environmental review for the Collegetown Terrace Apartments before deciding on the merits of the rezoning for the portion of the 900 block of East State Street below Valentine Place. Marcham agreed that the 900 block merits protection and that the proposed rezoning would better fit the existing zoning on the east side of East State Street. She said she strongly supports the rezoning. Rudan stated that rezoning of the 900 block would match the rhythm on the east side of the street and that homeowners may need this rezoning to buffer them from denser development. She went on to say that the 900 block lends itself to the proposed R-3aa zoning due to the generous set-backs from the street, mature landscaping, and current architecture that is in keeping with the style and scale of the nearby single-family houses. Snyder said he was strongly in favor of the whole rezoning proposal. Schroeder stated that he supported the broad rezoning package that had come from the subcommittee. With regard to East State Street, he said he agreed with the subcommittee’s recommendation that the R-3a area below Mitchell Street should not be rezoned, but noted that the houses in the R-3a area above Mitchell Street were of higher quality, that there was less traffic east of the Mitchell Street intersection, and that this area abutted an R-1 Zoning District across the street. Schroeder stated that, for these reasons, he was willing to respect the Planning and Economic Development Committee’s decision to modify the subcommittee’s proposal by adding a portion of the R-3a area facing East State Street between Mitchell Street and Valentine Place (on the 900 block) to the area proposed to be rezoned to R-3aa. 8 Approved at the July 27, 2010 Planning and Development Board Meeting 9 A vote was taken on whether to recommend approval of the Planning and Economic Development Committee’s current proposal to create a new R-3aa Zoning District, and to rezone certain areas of the City from R-3a and R-3b to R-3aa, R-2b and R-2c. The results were as follows: In Favor: Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder Opposed: Boothroyd Abstain: Kay Approved 4-1-1 5. Adjournment On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Kay, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at around 9:00 p.m.