Loading...
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.