HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2015-01-13DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1
W ITH CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS SUGGESTED BY J.G.S.:
Proposed deleted language shown in purple strikethrough type;
proposed new language shown in red type.
(Some minor non-substantive improvements to grammar or wording
with no effect on sentence meaning are not highlighted.)
Special Planning and Development Board Meeting
Minutes
January 13, 2015
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott; C.J. Randall
Board Vacancies: One
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
Applicants Attending: Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
at 620 S. Aurora Street
Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC
James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C.;
David Lubin, Unchained Properties
Others Attending: Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
2. Informal Privilege of the Floor
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2
Although Privilege of the Floor was not on the agenda, Blalock permitted the following
member of the public to address the Board.
Walter Hang, 218 Wait Avenue, spoke about the contamination on the site, stating that the
Draft Final Scoping Document for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement is not
adequate. He said the site should be remediated to Unrestricted Residential use, before any
residential development is allowed.
3. Site Plan Review
A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, 620 S. Aurora Street. Consideration
of Approval of Final Scoping Document (or “Scope”) for Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS)
The Board reviewed the draft Scope page-by-page. It then discussed relevant items in the
Responsiveness Summary and the Lead Agency comments from its December 9, 2014
Special Meeting.
Listed below are some of the comments that were made:
• The term “thoroughfare assemblies” should be changed to something like
“transportation network schematics.”
• Add “window treatments” and “plazas” to the list in Chapter 2 that describes the
focus of the Design Guidelines.
• Schroeder asked if the full environmental review of the site plans for the first phase
of project would be included in the GEIS. Gensel replied, yes. Schroeder responded
that this needs to be explicitly stated in the Scope.
• Schroeder suggested clarifying the language in the last line in Table 2-2 to refer to
the total area, both existing and proposed.
• Language should be added clarifying that Table 2-3 is referring to potential
building designations. If the building designations in Table 2-3 refer to specific
potential future building locations, these respective locations should be identified
on an accompanying map.
• Section 5.3.1 should also refer to past flooding conditions on adjacent properties as
one of the pre-development conditions mentioned in the first paragraph.
• The subdivision has been adequately covered in a separate CEQR review.
Segmentation findings can be made if necessary.
• Public services to the site were discussed.
• Site access (internal and external) was discussed.
• Visual resources should be clarified (i.e., where they are located).
• Clarification is needed for proposed project and build alternatives; staff will do this.
• Clarification is needed that an outline of the site’s Planned Unit Development
(PUD) will be included in the DGEIS.
• Clarification is needed that the Design Standards will be included in the DGEIS.
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3
• Discussion of site contamination: Clarification is needed that the site contamination
meets the legal requirements for scoping. The DGEIS will spell out how to
remediate the site contamination and make the site safe for residential use.
• Language should say environmental issues “will be evaluated,” rather than “may
warrant further evaluation.”
• Discussion of stormwater design ― emphasis on green infrastructure.
• Public health impacts during construction and demolition should be mentioned.
• Historic resources were discussed.
• Pedestrian access to the site should be mentioned (e.g., sidewalks along Route 96-
B).
• Unavoidable impacts ― document should mention magnitude of impacts.
• Discussion of low-income housing, which needs to be analyzed, although it may
not need to be mitigated. The applicant clarified it will not be applying for low-
income housing grants, but it may consider making it part of the project. This will
be clarified in the document.
• Cumulative impacts ― staff will provide list of approved projects.
• Discussion of items deemed to be of no impact.
Resolution to Adopt the Final Scoping Document for the Chain Works District DGEIS
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Schroeder:
WHEREAS: on October 28, 2014 the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,
acting as Lead Agency in environmental review determined that the proposed
Chainworks Chain Works District Project may have a significant environmental impact
and that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared, and
WHEREAS: on November 18, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
held a Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for the proposed Chainworks Chain Works District Project, 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, now
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that after considering both the written scope and the comments made
during the public comment period, the Planning Board for the City of Ithaca does hereby
adopt the scope for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Chainworks
Chain Works District Project, dated January 13, 2015, including all changes made at that
day’s Planning Board meeting.
In Favor: Blalock, Darling, Jones-Rounds, Schroeder
Opposed: None
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4
Absent: Elliott, Randall
Vacancies: One
4. Adjournment
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Darling, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:21 p.m.