HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2014-04-22DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
April 22, 2014
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; C.J. Randall; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Isabel Fernández
Board Vacancies: None.
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning &
Economic Development;
Megan Wilson, Planner, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant, Division of Planning &
Economic Development
Other Staff Attending: Michael Kuo, Commons Project Manager;
Tom West, Director of Engineering
Applicants Attending: 7 Ridgewood Rd. ― Student Housing
Steve Bus, CA Ventures, LLC;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Nathaniel Finley, Shepley Bulfinch Architects;
Eric Haggstrom, Shepley Bulfinch Architects;
Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP;
Rebecca Hoffman, Phillips Lytle, LLP;
David Herrick, T.G. Miller, P.E
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
1
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2. Special Order of Business ― Commons Repair & Upgrade Project Update
Commons Project Manager Michael Kuo and Director of Engineering Tom West briefly
reported on the status of the Commons Repair and Upgrade Project.
Kuo explained that since the City only received one construction bid for the project and it
was significantly more than projected, the project team appealed to Common Council for
more funding, which was approved. The project team identified $2M in deduct alternate
items and ultimately selected all but 2-3 of them. The Bernie Milton Pavilion is being
retained, but without the granite pavers. By the end of the process, it became clear the
project team had to choose between the water feature and all the other deduct alternates. The
utility services connections for the water feature, however, will be retained, in case it could
be completed in the future. Kuo briefly walked through the substitutions that would be
made.
(Blalock arrived at 6:06 p.m.)
Schroeder remarked it would be important to retain the utility services connections, in case
the water feature could be installed later. He asked if the essential design of the water feature
would remain the same. Kuo replied, yes.
Jones-Rounds agreed with Schroeder that retaining the utility services connections will be
important. She asked for an update on possible additional fundraising for the project. Kuo
replied that towntown Ithaca Alliance (DIA) is handling that aspect of the project and he
believes there has been some interest.
Acharya asked if there had been any delay associated with the cost over-run. Kuo replied, no.
Elliott asked if the gateway designs would be the same. Kuo replied, yes.
Schroeder remarked there were a few pieces of information the Board asked Sasaki
Associates to provide, but they have not yet been received. Cornish replied that Planning
staff would obtain that information.
Jones-Rounds asked what, if anything, would take the place of the water feature. Kuo
replied that the paving would simply carry through that entire space, making it more of an
open plaza (which would actually provide more potential event space).
2
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3. Privilege of the Floor
Bill Demo, 121 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed Ridgewood Road
Apartments project. He asked the City to re-examine student housing density in the city and
its impact on historic neighborhoods. He would prefer to see a moratorium placed on further
development in Cornell Heights. He referred the Board to the 2012 St. Paul Student Housing
Zoning Study that addresses high-density transient student housing and provides a series of
recommendations.
Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Newfield, spoke in support of Ridgewood Road
Apartments project, noting that more housing will clearly be needed near Cornell University.
4. Site Plan Review
A. Student Housing, 7 Ridgewood Rd., Steve Bus for CA Ventures, LLC. Review of
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2. The applicant proposes to
construct three 3-story residential buildings with a total of 45 units and 114 beds on the 2.43-
acre parcel. A total of 57 parking spaces is proposed, of which 44 will be under the buildings
and 13 will be surface parking screened with a pergola. Bicycle parking and trash
receptacles will also be underground. Building design is based on a prairie architectural style
and will feature green roofs. Site development includes construction of an access road,
retaining walls, raised walkways, exterior common spaces, landscaping, lighting, signage,
and other site amenities. Vehicle access is proposed via a driveway on Ridgewood Road and
pedestrian access via walkways to both Ridgewood Rd. and Highland Ave. The site is
largely undeveloped woodland, with an abandoned pool and small adjacent outbuilding.
Construction will require removal of 95 trees and 1.4 acres of associated vegetation. The
eastern side of the parcel, along with a neighboring parcel at 150 Highland Avenue, will be
maintained in an undeveloped state. The project is located the R-U Zoning District and the
Cornell Heights Historic District, and will require Certificate of Compliance from the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). The applicant may seek a Parking Variance
and Area Variances. This is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(h){4}, (k) & (n), and B.(2) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review.
Peter Trowbridge recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. Nathaniel Finley
and Adam Walters then walked through an overhead slide presentation, highlighting the
following project changes and point-of-interest:
• The arbor/trellis was removed.
• Building 3 was moved further south, which will screen any parking from public view.
• The current parking scheme is the former alternate parking scheme.
• Building 1 was modified to sit behind the set-back.
3
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• Elevators in Buildings 1 and 2 have been removed.
• Roof areas have been significantly reconfigured.
• Two stairs have been added, leading up to the roof (as required by the City Building
Division).
• The roofs will feature expanded deck levels.
• Rooftop condensers have been removed and the project will now be using PTAC
(packaged terminal air conditioners) units, in each living unit.
• Turf grass will be used on parts of the roof decks.
• Sidewalks have been adjusted to be 5 feet-wide along the Ridgegwood Avenue side.
• Planters will be situated on rooftops.
• More bike parking was added outside the buildings.
• The radon issue was discussed with the project’s geotechnical consultant. No evidence
of radon has yet been discovered, although it can be difficult to make a definitive
determination on the basis of soil tests alone. The garage will have numerous openings,
louvers, and vented spaces, so the mechanical engineers are confident the site will have
sufficient capacity to mitigate any potential radon contamination.
• The applicant is drafting a protective covenant to preserve existing slopes as no-build
areas.
• Two or three of the largest trees will be used for bench construction on the site.
Schroeder inquired about the turf grass. Bus replied it would be artificial grass, which would
be highly durable and authentic-looking. (He displayed some samples.)
Trowbridge remarked the Board has expressed concern with the site’s slope stability. To
address this, the prior approach (limestone retaining walls) will be de-emphasized, especially
along the northern edge of the site. Gabion baskets will be used instead (filled with rocks,
topsoil, and plantings) in order to control erosion and re-establish some vegetation.
Schroeder asked if real stone would be used for the project. Finley replied the applicant
actually has several choices of materials for the Board to examine.
Walters reported that the applicant held a community meeting on 4/15/14 to discuss the
current proposal.
Schroeder remarked he would like to see more green-roof space, preferably on Buildings 1
and 2. He added that the patio areas seem too large (which would seem to encourage large
parties). Bus responded that the roof doors are secured afterhours and there are also security
cameras.
4
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Acharya asked why a hardy variety of real grass could not be employed in lieu of the turf
grass. Bus replied real grass is a maintenance nightmare. He stressed that modern turf grass
varieties are of good quality.
Schroeder asked if the green roof corner could extend further along the edges. Bus replied
they could erect a vertical trellis, or something comparable, extending north of the stair core.
Finley added the green roof could probably be extended just a little more along the edges.
Trowbridge noted that more planters will also be used on the roofs.
Elliott expressed concern with the flammability of the artificial grass ― many artificial
grasses produce toxic gases. He suggested the applicant closely examine any product it
would consider using.
Nicholas suggested it would also be helpful to have sectional diagrams for certain portions of
the project. Finley agreed to provide some.
Finley displayed some proposed building materials to the Board. He explained the applicant
has been exploring many options for the stone (both natural and cultured).
Elliott asked if the applicant ever considered LEED certification. Finley replied, no,
although the project would approach LEED Silver eligibility.
Schroeder observed that the bluestone sample appears vastly more like local stone, so that
would be his preference. It would be far more compatible with the Historic District than the
cultured stone.
Elliott remarked he does not like the tinted artificial materials that have been presented.
Wood would be preferable.
Nicholas announced that the FEAF forms are intended to represent the full record of the
environmental review process for the project (i.e., they will address every issue, even if the
applicant has already proposed satisfactory mitigations).
The Board reviewed and discussed the FEAF, Part 2.
Acharya indicated that the Part 2 form would be reviewed once again next month, along with
the Part 3 form.
5
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5. Comprehensive Plan: Draft Land Use Chapter Presentation
Lisa Nicholas and Megan Wilson walked through a draft presentation for the 4/29/14 Land
Use Public Workshop, summarizing the draft Land Use Chapter.
Nicholas noted one of the main questions that will be asked of the public is what it thinks
about the goals of attracting a larger population to Ithaca and creating opportunities for growth
in desired areas, while preserving and enhancing the character of existing neighborhoods.
Jones-Rounds remarked there are numerous missed opportunities for neighborhood mixed-use
development in the city, but the Future Land Use Map does not appear to reflect that. She
suggested making the Neighborhood Mixed-Use category an overlay on the map. Schroeder
replied that while the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s intent is to encourage neighborhood
mixed-use, it does not believe it is appropriate to specifically identify which areas should be
neighborhood mixed-use, at this stage in the process.
Acharya noted it would be good for developers in neighborhood mixed-use areas to be able to
get a special permit, for example, rather than having to obtain a use variance. That would be a
less restrictive way of encouraging neighborhood mixed-use.
Nicholas explained that individual neighborhood plans would be developed in the next phase
of the comprehensive planning process. They would be more focused on identifying areas for
neighborhood mixed-use.
Acharya expressed concern that the word “future” in the Future Land Use Map title may be
confusing. Wilson stressed that there is a difference between the Future Land Use Map and the
Zoning Map.
Blalock noted that the statistic of 2,600 people living and working in the city on the “Place of
Work & Place of Residence” slide seems low. Nicholas replied questions keep arising about
that number, but it is in fact correct.
Blalock remarked that another question to explore is whether people living on the city’s
periphery are essentially ‘freeriding’ on the city’s services and infrastructure. He added that
the “Place of Work & Place of Residence” diagram should also contain numbers for the Town
of Ithaca. This would provide a more accurate picture of what is happening.
Elliott observed that cities that successfully control their development begin by drawing their
mapping boundaries very large.
6
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Randall suggested employing alternative zoning tools, growth boundaries, transfer-of-
development rights, etc., to encourage growth. She also suggested obtaining data from TCAT
for the most-used bus stops/routes and help give the Future Land Use Map more of a
pedestrian-oriented scale.
Jones-Rounds suggested better defining the “Guiding Principle” that states, “Create equity by
providing new and more diverse housing options.”
Acharya suggested creating a definition for “neighborhood character.”
Elliott noted the consequences of increased density should be more rigrously assessed. He
suggested only permitting low-impact development to mitigate for any higher density.
Schroeder remarked that “higher density” should not be construed to mean that the
Comprehensive Plan Committee believes the city needs 12-story buildings. Numerous studies
have indicated the City can take advantage of existing opportunities for growth (e.g., reducing
surface parking, in-fill development, etc.) and still preserve the existing character, height, and
scale of city neighborhoods. He added that no specific population target has been agreed to for
attracting a larger population. The City would simply like to ‘turn the boat around’ in terms of
reclaiming its share of the County’s population growth.
Randall suggested inclusionary zoning as something that would also help.
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Acharya announced he will be resigning from the Board and the June 2014 meeting will be
his last (unless a replacement is found for him sooner).
B. Board of Public Works (BPW) Liaison
Acharya reported that BPW approved the City’s proposed purchase of 967 E. State Street for
use as a construction office, while the new Water Treatment Plant is being built. There was
considerable concern that the house would ultimately be torn down and a driveway installed
in its place to serve as a driveway entrance for the Plant. Cornish remarked that if that were
the case the project would be required to return to the Planning Board, which would re-open
the environmental review process for the Water Plant.
C. Planning Director
Cornish reported there has been some recent discussion about the Ithaca Children’s Garden
and its interest in building a pavilion. A comprehensive look at the proposal will need to be
taken. The Children’s Garden Executive Director will be update the Board on the proposal at
some point.
7
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Cornish announced a proposal has been made to establish a community garden between
Floral Avenue and the Flood Control Channel. Comprising 21 plots, it would be designated
for income-eligible residents.
Cornish reported that the Cayuga Place II project (Cayuga Place Residences) will finally
begin construction next month, after many years of various delays.
Cornish noted that City staff has met with the Ithaca Marriott Hotel project team and
received a series of updates on the project’s status. The project appears to be moving
forward.
7. Approval of Minutes: March 25, 2014
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the draft March 25, 2014 meeting
minutes were approved.
In favor: Acharya, Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder
Opposed: None
Absent: Fernández
Vacancies: None
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Blalock, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
8