Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2012-04-10Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Special Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2012 Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Bob Boothroyd; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan; John Schroeder; Meghan Thoreau Other City Board & Steven Beer, Chair, Board of Zoning Appeals; Council Members Graham Kerslick, Fourth Ward Alderperson; Attending: Ellen McCollister, Third Ward Alderperson; Chris Proulx, Fifth Ward Alderperson Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development; Aaron Lavine, City Attorney; Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner Applicants Attending: Collegetown Crossing Apartments (307 College Avenue) Jagat Sharma, Project Architect; Rob Morache, Project Consultant; Rick Manning, Landscape Architect; Doug Swarts, TCAT; Brandon Kane, GreenStar General Manager; Josh Lower, Owner Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 1. Agenda Review No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Site Plan Review A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments ― Conditions Regarding 901 E. State Street Rehabilitation The Board considered applicant’s fulfillment of condition vii. as listed under the heading “Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review” of the March 22, 2011 final site plan approval resolution for Phase 1 of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments project. This condition reads: 1 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting vii. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of (1) final rehabilitation drawings for the Williams House at 901 East State Street, (2) final drawings for the addition planned to the south of the historic portions of the Williams House and (3) final design of landscape elements and plantings in the vicinity of the Williams House, and Rehabilitation of the Williams House is also a required mitigation per the Findings Statement of the project’s Environmental Impact Statement. The Board discussed the contents of an e-mail in which project architect Alan Chimacoff responded to Board questions concerning the proposed rehabilitation plans and the proposed addition. Adopted Resolution Regarding Satisfaction of Site Plan Approval Condition On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: The Board votes to accept the responses (recorded below) and determines that condition vii. — as listed under the heading “Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review” of the March 22, 2011 final site plan approval resolution for Phase 1 of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments project — has been satisfied. APRIL 4, 2012 901 E. STATE STREET / B 4.4 RESPONSES TO JOHN SCHROEDER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ALL QUESTIONS ARE RESPONDED TO IN UPPERCASE ITALICS (TO DIFFERENTIATE) WITHIN THE BODY OF JOHN SCHROEDERS MESSAGE. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: John Schroeder Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:09 AM To: Kathryn Wolf Cc: Govind Acharya; Bob Boothroyd; Tessa Rudan; Meghan Thoreau; McKenzie; Jones‐Rounds; JoAnn Cornish; Lisa Nicholas; Charles Pyott Subject: questions & comments regarding 901 E. State St. All ― Here are the questions & comments concerning 901 E. State St. and its Building 4.4 addition that I promised to provide the applicant prior to next week's Planning Board meeting: COLOR ELEVATIONS (1) The color north elevation shows two chimneys projecting above the roof ridge line, but the other drawings show only one such chimney. Am I correct in assuming that the second chimney (the one on the right) on the color north elevation will not actually exist? THAT IS CORRECT. THE CHIMNEY IN THAT DRAWING IS “LEFT OVER” FROM EARLIER. 2 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting (2) Also on the color elevations, the stippling indicating stucco is much darker at the lower right of the East Elevation, at the projecting porch on the right of the South Elevation, and at the lower left of the West Elevation (which is incorrectly labeled as the "East Elevation"). Is this darker stippling just an anomaly, or does it indicate an intention to treat these areas differently? YES. THAT IS A GRAPHIC ANOMALY. (3) Only one area of exterior wall on Building 4.4 (the addition to 901) is completely devoid of windows. The area in question is the southernmost portion of the West Elevation (incorrectly labeled as the "East Elevation"), south of Building 4.4's projecting cross wing. Could at least one small window be added here (maybe a round one like on the southernmost portion of the East Elevation) to add a little more visual interest here? YES. TWO ROUND WINDOWS WILL BE ADDED IN CORRESPONDING LOCATION TO THE EAST ELEVATION. (THE INCORRECT LABEL WAS CHANGED FOR PUBLIC PRESENTATION) (4) Did consultant Bero do actual scrapings of the various exterior wall surfaces to determine the original exterior colors? PAINT ANALYSIS WAS DONE BY STEVE JORDAN OF ROCHESTER, N.Y., A SUB- CONSULTANT TO BERO ARCHITECTURE. HERE IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF HIS METHOD OF PAINT ANALYSIS: • REVIEW HISTORICAL DATA OR PHOTOGRAPHS • REMOVE SMALL PAINT CHIP SAMPLES FROM VARIOUS AREAS WHERE DIFFERENT COLORS MIGHT BE USED • VIEW AND COMPARE PAINT CHIPS ON SITE WITH A 10X JEWELER’S LOUPE • VIEW AND COMPARE CHIPS IN MY OFFICE AT 30X AND 100X MAGNIFICATION • IDENTIFY ORIGINAL COLOR SCHEME AND MATCH TO MODERN COLOR CHIPS LANDSCAPE PLAN (5) This looks beautiful. The small grove of tall trees west of 901, adjacent to the Mitchell Street plaza, is very welcome, and will help screen Building 3.4 behind. However, to improve the visibility of 901's octagonal tower as seen from the E. State St. / Mitchell Street intersection (where it serves as a prominent landmark), could the northeastern‐most Freeman Maple (the one just northwest of the octagonal tower) be replaced with a lower‐growing ornamental tree? (Again, the concern is just with this ONE tree.) YES. THIS WILL BE FINE. IAN WILL REPLACE THE FREEMAN MAPLE WITH A REDBUD. BLACK AND WHITE DRAWING SET (6) The notes on drawing A4.44A seem to indicate that ― except for the stained glass windows ― the existing 901 E. State St. windows will be replaced with new windows designed to look like the original windows. However, during the presentation at the March Planning Board meeting, I believe Alan said that the existing 901 E. State St. windows would be refurbished and reused. Please clarify this. 3 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting BLACK AND WHITE DRAWING SET IS CORRECT. 901 WINDOWS WILL BE REPLACED WITH REPLICAS OF THE ORIGINALS, INCLUDING MUNTIN PATTERNS WHERE THEY OCCUR. STAINED GLASS WINDOWS WILL BE REPAIRED AND REUSED. APOLOGY FOR THE MISSTATEMENT AT THE PUBLIC MEETING. (7) What is the proposed flooring material on the restored Level B front porch? FRONT PORCH DECK IS TONGUE AND GROOVE WOOD DECKING — BATTLESHIP GRAY (WHICH IS DARK GRAY AS SHOWN ON COLOR ELEVATION). (8) Just for the record: The exposure (apparent width) of the clapboard on the Building 4.4 addition to 901 will be wider than the exposure of the clapboard on 901, correct? (This would be the desirable condition.) YES. THE EXPOSURE OF THE SIDING ON 4.4 IS 8” AS COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL WHICH IS 4” OR 5.” N.B. 901 SIDING WILL BE REPLACED TO MATCH ORIGINAL. (9) Special praise department: The details of the front stairs restoration — especially the curved stone kneewall cap and the brass railing — are particularly elegant. ALL PRAISE GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED (ESPECIALLY FROM THE S.P.D.). (10) This is just a general interest question, as the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over the interior of 901, but am I correct in understanding that ― to the degree feasible ― the existing woodwork will be retained in the two proposed public rooms on Level B, in the stair hall connecting Level B and Level C, and in the octagonal bedroom on Level D? YES. THAT IS THE INTENTION. ― J.S. COMMENTS IN RESPONSE BY AC In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None B. Collegetown Crossing, 307 College Avenue. Discussion of Environmental Review Materials. Discussion took place on the floor regarding Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). The Board agreed by consensus to amend question #10 under “Impacts on Aesthetic Resources,” “Other Impacts,” to read: “All four elevations will be visible from public rights of way,” and to designate it as a potential large impact that could be reduced by a project change. 4 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting The Board then discussed question #14 under “Impact on Transportation.” Proposed Resolution to Amend Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Jones-Rounds: The Board votes to amend “Other Impacts: See Part 3 of the FEAF” under “Impact on Transportation” from a potential large impact to a small to moderate impact. In Favor: Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds Opposed: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Absent: None The proposed motion failed. The Board then discussed question #18 under “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood.” There was consensus to add the parenthetical phrase “(conflicts with zoning for parking and rear yard setback) after “Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.” Adopted Resolution to Amend Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham: The Board votes to include “Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use” under “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood” as a potential impact. In Favor: Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: Acharya, Jones-Rounds Absent: None Adopted Resolution to Amend Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: The Board votes to characterize “Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use” under “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood” as a small to moderate but positive impact. In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None 5 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2: On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Schroeder: City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 – Project Impacts Project Name: Collegetown Crossing (307 College Avenue), Mixed-Use Project Date Created: February 8, 2012 Date Revised: April 4, 2012 Further Revised by Planning and Development Board: April 10, 2012 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes X No Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes No Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No Construction in a designated floodway. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.) Yes X No Specific land forms: Yes No IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected? (Under article 15 or 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Yes X No Developable area of site contains a protected water body Yes No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Yes No Extension of utility distribution facilities through a Yes No 6 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change? protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes X No A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Construction, alteration, or conversion of a body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake, or the Cayuga Inlet? Yes No Other impacts: Yes No 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes X No Project will require a discharge permit. Yes No Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Yes No Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Yes No Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Yes No Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Yes No Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes X No Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will project affect air quality? Yes X No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period per day. Yes No Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million Yes No 7 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change? BTUs per hour. Other impacts: Yes No IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes X No Reduction of any species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Yes X No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Yes No Proposed action requires the removal or more than 1/2 acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed action affect views, vistas, or the visual character of the neighborhood or community? X Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Yes No Proposed land use or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Yes No Proposed action will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No Other impacts: All four elevations will be visible from public rights of way. X X Yes No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? Yes X No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. Yes No 8 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change? Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Yes X No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes X No Proposed Action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource. Yes No Proposed Action will impact the use, function, or enjoyment of the resource. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? X Yes No Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Yes No Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No Other impacts: See Part 3 of the FEAF. X X Yes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes X No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Yes No Proposed action requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- or two-family residences. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during 9 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change? construction of or after completion of this proposed action? X Yes No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Yes No Other impacts: See Part 3 of the FEAF. X Yes X No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes X No Proposed action will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic low-level discharge or emission. Yes No Proposed action may result in the burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Yes No Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Yes No Proposed action will result in the handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases). Yes No Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or the control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Yes No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? X Yes No The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. Yes No The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this proposed action. Yes No Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals (conflicts with zoning for parking and X X Yes No 10 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change? rear yard setback). Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use (positive impact). X Yes No The proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.). Yes No Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. X X Yes No Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Yes No Other impacts: Will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. X X Yes No 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? X Yes No Unknown In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None The Board then discussed the draft Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). The specific draft used during the following discussion was the staff draft of February 22, 2012, as revised by staff on April 5, 2012, and as further revised on April 8, 2012 by Chair Acharya. There was consensus to add “Impact on Aesthetic Resources” to the list of moderate-to- large impacts under “Description of the Action.” Adopted Resolution to Amend Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: The Board votes to add the following language under “Impact on Aesthetic Resources”: “All four elevations will be very visible from public ways, so the quality and contextuality of all facades should be an important consideration during site plan review.” In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None 11 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting Schroeder remarked that “Impact on Transportation” should include a reference to the increased demand on pedestrian, bike, and transit systems if no tenant parking is provided on site. This might include bike facilities, sidewalks, and transit stops. He said the latter two are especially inadequate in Collegetown (and, in particular, inadequate close to the project site). The Board discussed the survey numbers provided by the applicant in a document titled “Collegetown Crossing — Project Narrative and Supporting Materials for Site Plan Review,” dated January 31, 2012. Per this document, the survey pool consisted of student renters “who came to J&W House offices in search of housing in Collegetown for the 2011-2012 academic year.” It was generally expressed that, since the applicant bases proposed mitigations on these survey numbers, and since the methodology of applicant’s survey is open to question, numbers for the same set of questions posed as part of applicant’s informal survey in the above document should be provided by a professional third-party study. Further discussion took place on the floor regarding the proposed study’s contents and it was agreed the third-party study would be needed to complete Part 3 of the FEAF. At Board of Zoning Appeals Chair Steven Beer’s request, Lavine stated the City Code’s criteria for evaluating zoning variances. Subsequent discussion ensued regarding vehicular loading issues and proposed mitigations. It was agreed Part 3 should, under the “Impact on Transportation” heading, list all proposed mitigations and describe how they would be enforced and how they would be maintained over time (even if ownership of the property should change hands in the future). The applicant was asked to provide a clear list of all proposed mitigations, along with proposed methods of enforcement (which should be done in consultation with the applicant’s attorney), to which the applicant agreed. Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke stressed the Building Department would not be able to enforce any lease provisions. Adopted Resolution Regarding Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Thoreau: The Planning and Development Board votes to require a professional third-party study to provide numbers for the same set of questions asked as part of an informal survey described in the applicant’s “Collegetown Crossing — Project Narrative and Supporting Materials for Site Plan Review” document. In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau 12 Approved at the June 26, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting 13 Opposed: None Abstain: Jones-Rounds Absent: None Responding to a question from Thoreau, City Attorney Aaron Lavine clarified that Board members may only abstain from a vote if they have a conflict of interest. Jones-Rounds indicated she did not have a conflict of interest. Adopted Motion to Rescind Prior Motion On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Thoreau: The Board votes to rescind the previous motion. In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: None Absent: None Adopted Resolution Regarding Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Thoreau: The Planning and Development Board votes to require a professional third-party study to provide numbers for the same set of questions asked as part of an informal survey described in the applicant’s “Collegetown Crossing — Project Narrative and Supporting Materials for Site Plan Review” document. In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau Opposed: Jones-Rounds Absent: None 3. Adjournment On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Boothroyd, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.