Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-06-07TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. June 7. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. 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-I4, 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. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. 2. Persons to be heard 3. Approval of Minutes: May 24, 2016 4. Other Business 5. 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 SPOIX E^TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US. (A quorum of Tour (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 (IUti);//www.t<)wn.ithaca.nv.us/meftin2-agendas). Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street June 7,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name ^Ayj^Uvc) dn (K ci i-e^ Address A-Zu-^ kJ cf j n /g'7 flAr/^ 1 K> ft- M /la?d^ "7"!^ A^frD/"i^ 0 -LlWIki. /^/y~pi2.^00 A")' L^hPO^ ^Ur'U<;a,n TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, June 7, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, John Beach, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak, Katherine Herleman (Alternate) Town Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Thaete, Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugis- tine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 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. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning &. Design, LLC, Agent. Mr. Bosak asked why the property has to be rezoned for this project. Ms. Balestra responded that the property is zoned high-density residential, and what they're proposing is multiple residential units and a mix of types of units and activities, which is not typically allowed in the HDR zone. It isn't just a change in density. Ms. Collins asked Ms. Balestra to comment on the Comprehensive Plan and the vision for this area and how that might impact a change in the new code. Ms. Balestra said we're just updating our code to meet the goals of the comp plan. This particular area is slated for higher density and mixed-use housing because it's close to employTnent centers and East Hill Plaza and has sidewalks, access to transit, and good connectivity. Ms. Meier Swain asked whether it mattered for the PDZ that there's only a small section of retail; it's predominantly residential housing. Ms. Balestra said the PDZ will also allow some other types of design controls on the project, whereas if it's just an HDR zone, we have no control - it allows single- and two-family homes on a lot of up to 9000 square feet and not much else. She explained for the public that a PDZ, or planned develop ment zone, is a floating zone that can be created for a project that might have a mix of uses or an Planning Board Minutes 0607-2016 Page 2 of 6 increased density or a different design or if there's a desire for a different type of development in an area that wouldn't normally be allowed in the underlying zoning district. Mr. Wilcox said zoning is the purview of the town board, and if and when they adopt a PDZ for this property, it will control what we can and cannot do with the site as a planning board. Ms. Collins asked whether it's fair to say the town board is looking at form-based code and trying to make the PDZ a traditional neighborhood design (TND). Ms. Balestra said there are some higher density areas in the town where they're looking at form-based zoning and the TND: East Hill is one. TNDs tend to take more of an urban form. Mr. Haefeli asked about city zoning adjacent to the project. Ms. Balestra didn't know, but Mr. Wilcox pointed out that right next to it on the Maple Avenue side, there are the Coal Yard Apartments, which are three to four stories tall, the apartments at the five corners, which are maybe seven stories tall, a small diner. West of Vine Street, there are single-family homes, possibly with accessory apartments. The board went through the Scoping Document page by page, with Ms. Balestra recording the requested changes. Significant discussions relating to the reasoning behind some of the requested changes are recorded below. Page 5 Mr. Bosak suggested adding greenhouse gas emissions to the list of potential environmental impacts. Ms. Brock said that this section lists a number of impacts that the EAF found as having no potential for significant environmental impacts. The EIS shouldn't look at anything that wasn't deemed to be significant; for example, water resources and vegetation. The purpose of scoping is to focus the EIS on the items where there might be a potential significant impact. Mr. Bosak responded that when we were considering the EAF, it was his impression that it was a dress rehearsal for the EIS and that we weren't going to freeze into concrete the things in the EAF. We found so many things wrong with it that he didn't think we came up with a finished EAF. Ms. Brock suggested going through each impact in the scoping, and discussing concerns about any particular area that board members felt the EAF didn't fairly represent. Mr. Wilcox said the planning board adopted the EAF. We made a determination on what might be a potential moderate to large environmental impact. If we need to go back and look at it again, we will, but it's his understanding that we carefully went through it and identified potential impacts. Ms. Collins pointed out that greenhouse gas was not called out in the EAF and asked how the board could add something that was not in the EAF. Planning Board Minutes 06-07-2016 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Balestra said there's an Other Impacts category for all of the items in Part 2 of the EAF. Ms. Brock said as far as this specific concern about greenhouse gases, Part 3 talks about the need to look at alternative sources of energy, so you could look at that in the EIS. But some things were checked No in the EAF as having no impact at all in certain areas and yet the scoping says they're still going to be covered. What's going to be covered if there's no impact? Mr. Bosak said he didn't understand how the board could study this project without knowing about the geology, soils, and topography. He didn't understand how we can come to any determination on this project without knowing about water resources, transportation, or utilities. Ms. Balestra said we may not need to look at historic resources because we received two letters and an email from SHPO saying there are no impacts. Ms. Brock suggested going through the document. Some of the items are broken out into more specific areas; for example, for water resources, some aspects like stormwater, need to be looked at, but other aspects, like surface water, shouldn't be looked at because there aren't any surface water streams on the property. Mr. Bosak said he will want to know how much the additional water resources will cost the town. He said we keep coming back around to the question of what the SEQR process is. People have this idea that the SEQR process consists of an applicant coming to us, and saying. Yes, these things have a big environmental impact; here are all the mitigations. The board talks about it until we've mitigated away everything we possibly can, and then we say, Okay, having mitigated everything down to its lowest level of environmental impact, you're good to go. That is not the end of the SEQR process. After we've mitigated the devil out of everything, we stand back and ask: Is the residual environmen tal damage counterbalanced and outweighed by the benefit to the community? The experts say that this is the correct interpretation of SEQR. When he comes to judge the benefit to the community and asks whether it outweighs the unmitigateable damage that's left, how much it's going to cost the town to upgrade the water tank is one of the things he wants to take into consideration as part of the SEQR process. Ms. Brock said it's fair to look at our drinking water infrastructure and the upgrades needed. That's completely appropriate. Ms. Balestra said it's addressed under the Utilities section or another part of the scoping. Mr. Bosak said he just wanted to point out that the generic list, with the exception of historic resources, should stand the way it is, with the addition of greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Brock suggested, since the list is generic, going through subsequent sections where it gets into more detail regarding things we're going to look at, then going back to see whether the generic list needs to be adjusted. If there isn't a resource, we shouldn't have them look at it. If there's no impact on a resource, like flora and fauna, should they be devoting a whole chapter to it? We want them to focus their energy on the things we really care about, where there will actually be impacts. Planning Board Minutes 06^7-2016 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Thaete pointed out that water resources is a generic term that covers stormwater, municipal water. It's definitely covered in the Utilities section. We always review stormwater. Pages 14 & 15 There was discussion about what might be typical peak hours for graduate students. Mr. Witham said their traffic engineers consider demographics when making their determination. Ms. Meier Swain requested that they extend the afternoon peak to be from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. to take into account graduate and professional students with families and children at Belle Sherman School. Mr. Thaete pointed out that they'll establish a baseline by putting traffic counters in place to determine what the peak hours are and then they'll add in the developments proposed in the area to those base models. So, if we guestimate when the peak hours are, we might miss them. He suggested not being so specific about the timeframes. There are graduate students living there right now, so they will get relevant data. The board agreed that instead of using only the standard peak hours, they establish other peak hours empirically through the traffic study. Page 18 Mr. Thaete said we already know the tank will be undersized, and in recent testing, we've determined that some of the mains feeding from the tank to the potential site may be undersized as well. Ms. Brock said the issues will have to be identified and analyzed in the EIS, so the Scoping Document should have more specific language. Mr. Thaete added that when we do our water analysis, we look at the densities proposed in the Comprehensive Plan and use that to model our future. Cornell has a master plan, but we don't know whether it fits with our Comprehensive Plan. They'll have to come to us for approvals to do what they potentially want to do. Ms. Brock said she had the same comment about sewer that she had about water. There are questions about the joint interceptors and whether they'll be large enough to accommodate the additional capacity. To the extent that we know more specifically what the issues are, they should be spelled out in the scoping rather than have the generic language. She suggested adding to the existing language that, among other things, the DEIS will examine the capacity of joint interceptors owned by the city and the town. Mr. Thaete said the city has indicated that one of their main interceptors going down State Street will have to be upgraded for this project, and the town has to share that cost, so there's definitely an impact to the town. Page 19 Mr. Bosak wanted to include options and alternatives to natural gas as the energy source under Mitigation Measures. Planning Board Minutes 06-07-2016 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Wilcox and Mr, Thaete both said they heard that NYSEG is denying natural gas hookups because they don't have the capacity. They didn't know if this area was impacted. Ms. Brock agreed that if there is not enough natural gas capacity for this area of the town, other sources of energy will be needed. Page 23 Regarding specifying construction days, Mr. Wilcox said that if construction on Saturdays mitigates the delay of having the structures built and occupied, which gets people housed, it's something that can be considered. Page 24 Mr. Bosak said he wants to see estimates of total greenhouse gas emissions due to construction activity and the manufacture of materials used in the construction. He believes there are general industry estimates for this kind of construction. These are first-order estimates: how many truck trips, how much concrete produces how much C02? This is to help us determine whether or not the applicant is in compliance with our Comprehensive Plan and with Cornell's and the county's stated objectives. If we want to decrease C02 by x tons by 2050, and the applicant is increasing it by y tons by 2050, he wants to be able to make that calculation. Mr. Resetco said they will explain in general terms the amount of energy used during construction versus the amount of energy used in the buildings themselves over the 75-year life of the project. Mr. Bosak provided proposed language to add to Chapter 5 regarding analyzing the impact of the project in relation to the goals for energy consumption and greenhouse gas reduction set forth in the 2014 Comprehensive Plan and the ways in which this project will advance those goals. Page 25 Ms. Collins took issue with there being a maximum development scenario. We really want to look at a reduced-scale development scenario. If a PDZ is put in place, it sets ceilings for what can go on. Ms. Brock agreed, saying the PDZ is already allowing them more density than zoning allows, so it makes no sense to look at some hypothetical higher-density development. A lot of the neighbors on Mitchell Street didn't like the big building right on the street; an alternative would be moving that building somewhere else or reducing its size. There are many different options, so we just have to specify^, at a minimum, the ones we want them to look at for alternatives, such as changes in project layout and orientation, changes in the scale of the project, changes in energy sources. Ms. Collins said that gets back to the housing analysis: what are Cornell's housing needs and could something smaller than this in the PDZ still meet Cornell's needs? AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-030: Minutes of May 24, 2016 Planning Board Minutes 06-07-2016 Page 6 of 6 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Joseph Haefeli RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of May 24, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak, Herleman AGENDA ITEM Other Business Ms. Herleman commented that the analysis Mr. Bosak referred to is called a carbon lifecycle analysis; it discusses the embedded carbon dioxide in all the construction materials. They are very difficult, depending on the type of material used and the number of vendors and whether they're sourced nationally or internationally. She stated that bad data are worse than no data. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Herleman, the meeting adjourned at xxxx p.m. Respectfully submitted.