Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-11-22TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. November 22. 2016 (Additional Meeting) AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Continuation of consideration of acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed 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 Apartments 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, storm water facilities, and a community center. Comell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. 2. Persons to be heard 3. Approval of Minutes: November 1, 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 SPOLC Eg^TOWN.n HAC A.NY.US. (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 (hltp://www.t(>wn.i(liaca.nv.ii.s/meetinii-;u'endas). Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street November 22,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You ^ Name Address dQ i I fj n CA/a I TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, November 22, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. "Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Continuation of consideration of acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed 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 Apart ments 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, storm water facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott "Wlritham, Whitham Planning »Sl Design, LLC, Agent Mr. Wilcox stated that the goal for the meeting was for planning board members to decide on any further changes to the FEIS they believe are necessary for the document to be accepted and adopted that evening. He asked Ms. Ritter to address updates on traffic mitigation. Ms. Ritter stated that staff isn't sure whether the $30,000 offered by the applicant will be sufficient to cover traffic mitigations off site, so we're asking the project sponsor to design and install them. She said that if the board is comfortable with that, it will replace the language in the current FEIS. Mr. Wilcox explained that the $30,000 is to replace the $20,000 originally offered, but since the town is not sure whether that figure is sufficient, they're asking the applicant to work with the town and/or city to have proper offsite traffic mitigation measures installed in addition to the traffic mitigation measures they've already said they'll do on site, which they value at $70,000. Mr. Resetco said that's correct. They've done an analysis of the measures adjacent to the site, primarily at the rec way on Maple and Mitchell, including the crossing at Cornell's high-voltage lab property. Those measures are already included in the project, and the developer plans to pay for those. The $30,000 is intended to do improvements elsewhere off site, on Mitchell and Maple, as the town needs them to happen, which might be in conjunction with other town projects. We agree that there's some sharing of those responsibilities, but we don't plan to actually do them. If you were to pick an intersection along Maple or Mitchell and say you want to do a raised sidewalk, for example, in conjunction with someone else's project or adjacent to someone else's parcel, we don't want our team doing that work because it's difficult to coordinate and it's hard to monitor, but we want those projects to happen, so we're willing to contribute toward the expense. Planning Board Minutes 11-22-2016 Page 2 of 7 Ms. Ritter responded that she understood that the developer would be responsible for the work because the town is not sure if $30,000 will cover the cost of the commitment, which is a raised crosswalk at the intersection of Maple and the rec way, a raised crosswalk at Mitchell and the rec way, and a speed bump in the 600 or 700 block of Mitchell; it's a fairly limited list. Mr. Resetco agreed that it is limited; the problem is that when we start doing work blocks away from the job site, it raises a lot of challenges for our team. We're now working on our property and on the road. So, our proposal was to do any of the work adjacent to our property, but to contribute the $30,000 for work you want done off site. We've done some calculations to show what that would pay for. Ms. Ritter said her understanding was that the developer would do the work; city staff said that's what they do with their projects. Mr. Thaete said that he shares Mr. Resetco's concern: the minute we start working with the city and the county, it gets complicated, and it takes up a lot of staff time to do those modifications. So, besides the $30,000 they're contributing, it would take a lot of money on our end to make it all work. Mr. Resetco said the challenge is that they don't know what the town wants done; if we knew, it would be a starting point for discussion. Mr. Thaete asked if the $30,000 is in addition to the raised crosswalks and speed bump. Mr. Resetco confirmed that that's correct. Ms. Balestra said it doesn't read that way on page 46 of the DEIS: it says that the $30,000 is being contributed for those projects plus another speed hump and signage. A discussion led to the understanding that the two raised crosswalks and the speed hump at the 600 block of Mitchell Street are projects the developer plans to do as part of the $70,000; the $30,000 is to cover the speed hump in the 700 block of Mitchell Street near Cobb Street because it's not immediately adjacent to the project site. The money would also go toward any other speed hump or traffic mitigations the town might want in the future, up to the $30,000. Mr. Thaete thought the $30,000 was fair. Ms. Fogarty pointed out that this area was having traffic problems before this project, and the town or the city was going to have to do something to mitigate the traffic even before this development came. Ms. Ritter agreed. People have signs in their yards now telling drivers to slow down. She pointed out that the developer also plans to install curbing along the project site and to do some additional landscaping on the other side of the street to psychologically narrow the road, with the hope of getting people to slow down. Mr. Thaete was concerned about the $70,000-worth of improvements they'll make on site. He asked what will happen if those improvements cost more. Planning Board Minutes 11-22-2016 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Wilcox responded that they're valuing the cost of their on-site improvements at $70,000. We don't care whether it costs $50,000 or $100,000; we're simply concerned that the site plan shows that the work is to be done. Mr. Bosak said his impression is that we care about two things: 1) a list of specific actions the developer is committed to undertake, which they estimate at a certain value; and 2) up to $30,000 for other improvements off site. The bit about the $100,000 is advertising. Mr. Resetco agreed. Mr. Thaete went over his list of changes and additions to the applicant's responses in the FEIS. He said there's been a back and forth with the applicant regarding the number of 30-ton gross-vehicle- weight trucks that will be traveling to and from the site. This will include demolition, soils being delivered to or taken from the site, the delivery of large equipment to and from the site. There's the potential for a large amount of remediation on site, which could equate to a large amount of truck traffic. Also, there are a lot of underground basins and material that has to be brought to the site that isn't accounted for, like supplies. We're asking for more data, including their analysis. We've been talking to TG Miller, and they're in agreement that we will move forward with a road use agreement with the applicant, and moving forward with that, we'll start surveying the road. Five hundred 30-ton truck trips is the cutoff for falling under the law. If that number is exceeded and a road use agreement hasn't been executed, construction might come to a halt, which could be costly to the applicant. So we're suggesting that they fill out the road use agreement up front. Mr. Resecto agreed that they will enter into a road use agreement and will do the proper assessments and work with the town in any remediation measures based on the traffic. He doesn't think they'll exceed the limits, but want to be proactive. He requested the town's cooperation in getting the agreement prepared and executed because they'd like to start construction as soon as possible. Mr. Wilcox asked who counts truck trips. Mr. Thaete responded that that's exactly what we don't want to do, but we've had much smaller projects trip that number. He said they've met with the applicant, Cornell, and town staff to set agreed-upon milestones the applicant needs to meet; the infrastructure has to be in place at significant milestones to continue with the construction phases of the project. Regarding the water tank, there have also been discussions about Cornell donating land and fees that the developer will contribute to upgrade the infrastructure. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that these are fees that anyone owning a house or structure hooked up to water would pay. Ms. Brock noted that Andy Schiarabba of TC Miller shared an email from Erik Whitney of the city water and sewer division confirming that there's a safe margin of excess capacity on the State Street distribution system. Planning Board Minutes 11-22-2016 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Bosak had a list of minor items regarding cross referencing responses that have been made elsewhere in the document. He took issue with the applicant's lack of commitment to any limitations on the days and hours of construction, the implication being that they could be building on Sundays. Ms. Brock checked the noise law, which says that during night time hours (9:01 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.), certain types of noisy construction is unlawful within a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential zone, except to perform emergency work. There are no restrictions on days of work. Ms. Balestra said the issue can be covered in the findings statement; for example, a finding could be that they didn't mitigate the impacts of noise to the neighborhood adequately in the FEIS, and therefore, they can't work on Sundays. Mr. Beach said when we're finished with this process, he thinks we need to say that construction can take place during these days between these hours. It was agreed that the language will be changed from "the developer cannot commit" to "the develop er has not committed" to a five-day work week. Similar statements will be changed elsewhere in the document. To a question by Mr. Bosak regarding energy sourcing, Mr. Resetco responded that there's been a recent development related to the purchase of offsite renewables. The developer will purchase 100 percent renewable energy produced off site, but they're not committing to solar, the rationale being that their initial goal was to try to obtain solar energy produced in Tompkins County, which they were unable to do, but they don't want to restrict that from happening. They're not going to purchase energy through NYSEG: they have an agreement with NYSEG allowing them to purchase their energy directly from the provider and to pay a surcharge to NYSEG for delivery. They would like the flexibility to change providers as they see fit in order to purchase power that's less expensive; for example, if a solar array becomes available in Tompkins County, not only will it be local, it could save the project, and therefore the residents, money. The board agreed to limit the meaning of a renewable source to be defined as "a source that is not depleted when used, such as wind, solar, and hydro power." All instances in the document that reference 50% power from solar will be replaced with the new language. Mr. Haefeli, who lives on Pine Tree Road, asked about getting Pine Tree Road off the truck route. Mr. Wilcox noted that Mr. Haefeli lives on Pine Tree Road. He stated that it is our goal to get trucks off town roads onto county roads and to state highways as quickly as possible. Our goal from this site is to get them to Route 366, heading away from the city, or to Route 79, heading east away from the city. Mr. Haefeli said part of the goal is to keep trucks out of residential neighborhoods. He cautioned that getting onto Route 79 from Pine Tree is treacherous. Mr. Beach said that in a previous iteration of the document, the truck route was to take Maple Avenue out to Pine Tree, then make a left onto Pine Tree and a right onto Route 366. That would keep all the traffic out of residential neighborhoods. At that time, he raised the issue of the left-hand Planning Board Minutes 11-22-2016 Page 5 of 7 turn and inquired about the possibility of a temporary light at that location, as is sometimes done on bridge construction in the towns and villages. The signal would help the flow and safety of traffic. Mr. Wilcox said that a temporary signal isn't going to happen, Mr. Beach pointed out that in the current plan, most of the construction traffic will exit left onto Mitchell Street and continue up Ellis Hollow Road to Game Farm and then onto Route 366. If the destination is the Waterloo landfill, there would be no reason to go out Pine Tree to Route 79. Ms. Balestra added that if trucks headed for Route 79 can't use Pine Tree Road, they'll have to travel a very roundabout way to Route 79, which would increase fossil fuel use and therefore reduce energy efficiency; it would also bring more traffic to other streets that wouldn't normally see traffic. The roads aren't substantial enough for large trucks. The application team's traffic engineer stated that there's the potential for deliveries coming in from the Binghamton area to use Pine Tree Road, but he doesn't anticipate trucks carrying demolition to use Route 79. Mr. Haefeli said that Ms. Balestra's point about increasing fossil fuel use was valid, but that the neighborhoods in that direction are much less dense. Ms. Balestra responded that the roads aren't robust enough to handle truck traffic. If they have to take a roundabout road through Dryden to get to Route 79, those country roads are less substantial than Pine Tree Road. Mr. Resetco said that according to some of their calculations, the demolition and concrete will total over 50 percent of the total truck traffic. Between demolition and concrete, they are estimating that 700 of the approximately 1200 trucks will not come from Route 79. PB Resolution No. 2016-065: SEQR - Acceptance of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Maplewood Redevelopment Project, Tax Parcel No's: 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-3, 63.-2-10.2, and 63.-2-14, Between Maple Avenue &. Mitchell Street Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Jon Bosak WHEREAS: 1. This is the consideration of Acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FFIS) for the proposed Cornell University Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project, located be tween Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-3, 63.-2-10.2, and 63.-2-14, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeveloping the +/-17 acre site with up to 500 resi dential 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. Planning Board Minutes 11-22-2016 Page 6 of 7 Cornell University, Owner/ Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Plan ning & Design, LLC, Agent; and 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environ mental review for the proposed Maplewood Redevelopment project and issued a positive deter mination of environmental significance at its meeting May 24, 2016, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (also known as the New York State Environmental Qual ity Review Act) for the above-referenced action as proposed, and confirmed that a Draft Envi ronmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would be prepared; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on June 21, 2016 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the DEIS, and on July 19, 2016, accepted the revised Final Scoping Document as being ade quate to define the scope and content of the DEIS for the Maplewood Redevelopment Project, after amending the document at its meetings on July 5, 2016, July 12, 2016 and July 19, 2016; and 4. The applicants prepared the DEIS, dated August 2, 2016, and submitted said DEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed said DEIS on September 6, 2016 and adopted a resolution that found the DEIS was not satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and ade quacy for the purpose of commencing public review because of the deficiencies and corrections listed in Resolution No. 2016-047; and 6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the DEIS on September 20, 2016 as complete and adequate for the purpose of commencing public review, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9, find ing that the DEIS still contained deficiencies listed in Resolution No. 2016-053; and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 18, 2016 to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed Maple wood Redevelopment Project as evaluated in the DEIS, and accepted written comments from the public regarding the DEIS until October 31, 2016; and 8. The applicants have prepared and submitted a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated November 8, 2016, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 9. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed said FEIS and revised FEIS at its meetings on November 15, 2016 and November 22, 2016; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the FEIS for the Cornell University Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project, dated November 8, 2016 and revised on No vember 15, 2016 and November 22, 2016, as complete, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and Planning Board Minutes 11-22-2016 Page 7 of 7 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to file a Notice of Completion of the FEIS, as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12, and to distribute the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public. Vote Aye: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDAITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDAITEM Minutes PB Resolution No. 2016-066: Minutes of November 1, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of November 1, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Meier Swain Adjournment Upon a motion by Yvonne Fogarty, the meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Debra DeAugb^e, DeputyTd^ Clerk