HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2016-08-30Approved by the Planning Board on December 20, 2016
1
Planning & Development Board
Special Meeting
Minutes
August 30, 2016
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Mark Darling, Jack Elliott, Matt Johnson,
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Robert Lewis, John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: None
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning & Economic
Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Division of Planning & Economic
Development
Applicants Attending: Chain Works District Redevelopment Project at 620 S. Aurora Street
James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C.;
David Lubin, Unchained Properties
Carey Building Renovations and Addition
John Snyder, Project Architect
Others Attending: Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Site Plan Review
A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, 620 S Aurora Street, Review Draft Responses to
Comments Made on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) – Today’s Topics
Areas: Site Program, SEQR and Zoning, Review Next Steps and Future Special Meeting
Schedule
Board members had the following comments:
Overall Issues:
All responses should be in the voice of the Lead Agency
Approved by the Planning Board on December 20, 2016
2
The full original text of all the comments on the DGEIS should be provided to the
Planning Board, not just summaries of those comments appearing in the grid being
considered tonight.
In addition to discussing all comments on the DGEIS, we should in the future review in
detail the proposed Planned Unit Development text and the proposed Design Standards
We should hold a future meeting with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to discuss its
concerns before we finalize any responses to its comments
Specific Issues:
Need trail system diagram. need plan showing proposed social and recreational site
amenities; need site circulation map, with the latter showing a clear, direct sidewalk
connection from the CW3 Sub Area (original Chain Works complex and associated new
construction) to the new development proposed in the CW2 Sub Area.
Explain on-site transportation system connectivity.
Willingness to work with other institutions to achieve sustainability goas (LEED, Energy
Road Map, etc) should be noted.
Answer questions about the geographic extent of the housing market this project intends
to serve.
Willingness to explore the possibility of some affordable housing, and should
affordability should be defined.
Request that applicant provide an additional cross section from the site to the
neighborhood to the south
Add embodied energy of existing buildings to the discussion of carbon footprint
Possibility of requiring a mechanism to permanently protect the proposed CW1 natural
area remains an open public question for now.
Analysis should be provided verifying that sufficient parking will exist for all land uses
without requiring long walking distances.
Need explanation /clarification/potential revision of proposal to allow two additional
stories on the downhill side of slopes.
Not-to-exceed height for CW3 seems excessive, this needs more explanation and
potential revision.
Number of permitted stories, maximum story height per story, and not -to exceed height
should be provided for all Sub Areas.
Identify the five tallest existing Chain Works buildings per the City’s maximum building
height definition, and show how the proposed not-to-exceed heights for new construction
compare to these.
Request that applicant provide an additional cross section into the site from the existing
City neighborhood to its south; this cross section should be perpendicular to Hillview
Place.
The buffer zone with lower maximum building height along the Route 96B corridor (as
requested by the Town of Ithaca) should also exist at the southern edge of the project
near existing low-scale off-site development within the City.
Comply with the Town of Ithaca request for architectural Design Standards uniquely
tailored to apply to the above buffer zone. Some additional architectural Design
Standards — such as the use of muted earth tones rather than bright colors to clad new
structures visible off-site — are also appropriate for the project as a whole.
State that details such as the location of site amenities, playgrounds, etc., will be further
developed during Site Plan Review.
Approved by the Planning Board on December 20, 2016
3
Future Gateway Trail: Reference easement terms. Relevant municipal staff members
should supply written confirmation that the applicant has done all it needs to do to allow
construction of this trail
It was agreed that the next Special Meeting would b e held on September 19th at 6 pm to review
all remaining topics except for Public Health and Transportation – which will be scheduled at a
later date.
A. Carey Building Renovations & Addition, 314-320 E State Street, Carey Building Associates,
Review of Site Plan Approval Conditions.
The Board reviewed the following outstanding conditions of the project:
i. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised elevations showing further
refinement of the lower level of the west elevation, and showing more emphasis of the
horizontal elements on the cantilevered portion of the front facade of the addition (per the
depiction in the August 26, 2014 set of four revised perspectives)
The Board determined that this conditions has been sufficiently satisfied
ii. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of project details including, but not limited
to, signage, paving materials, exterior furnishings, and lighting.
The Board agreed that this condition had been satisfied to the extent currently feasible.
The sidewalk paving on the east side of the building and new paving to the buildings north,
will be installed as part of the forthcoming Canopy Hotel project. No signage is proposed
at this time.
vi. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of revised drawings showing: (1) some
attractive form of separation (e.g., a low wall or low planters) between the east edge of the
proposed east walkway and the adjacent parcel, and (2) some means of enhancing the
appearance of the walkway and residential entrance area proposed on the north edge of the
site (perhaps involving cooperation with the adjacent property owner):
The Board feels that this condition has been satisfied to the extent practicable. Again, the
north area paving will be installed at the completion of, and in coordination with, the
Canopy Hilton project, since that area is to be a staging area during the latter’s
construction. The sidewalk paving on the east side of the building will also be installed as
part of the Canopy Hilton project; there is now no room for a wall or planter along this
walkway.
Schroeder then noted that two portions of the Carey Building addition were not constructed as
approved by the Planning Board:
Per the August 26, 2014 minutes, the third-floor terrace railing (immediately above the
original Carey Building) was to consist of “butt-glazed glass” to downplay the new
building and lend more importance to the original Carey Building facade. Any incidental
structural metal was to be dark in color, so that no bright or reflective elements
Approved by the Planning Board on December 20, 2016
4
competed visually with the ornamental elements atop the original building. But this
railing has instead been constructed of bright reflective metal, which does glint in
sunshine and cause the very visual conflict that was to be avoided.
One tall rooftop mechanical has been placed contrary to the original drawings in a
location highly visible from the east end of the Ithaca Commons. Snyder explained that
this was a construction error.
Schroeder suggested solving these issues by painting the thir d-story metal terrace railing matte black,
and by painting the incorrectly placed rooftop mechanical the same brown color as the stucco found
on the west building elevation. Snyder agreed that both of these suggested fixes would be performed.
3. Adjournment
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:35 p.m.