Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-2002 Conservation Advisory Council Meeting, Feb 11,2002 -MEETING MINUTES - Attending: Dan Hoffman, Greg Thomas, Michael Culotta(chair), Absent: Judy Jones, Paul Salon Guests: Bill Sprengnether(City Planning Dept.), Dan Cogan(Common Council) Important Dates: BZA -March 5 Common Council—March 6 CAC-March 11 Planning& Econ Development- March 21 1. BZA APPEAL: Cell tower @ 520 Esty Street Parts 1,2,3 for LEAF still not complete Meeting with developer scheduled for the week of Feb 18. Possible public comment scheduled for next BZA mtg(3-5) CAC recommendation: Positive declaration based on visual impact and the need to consider alternative methods to accomplish signal coverage in this area. Options for dealing with unwanted cell towers were discussed. In some cases, municipalities have considered a temporary moratorium on cell towers. Is there a scoping process that can evaluate existing signal coverage and consider the use of existing structures (e.g. Holiday Inn). Other Concerns: Harm to migrating birds Visual pollution from tower lighting Impact on community character Setting a precedent for community/neighborhood. CAC would recommend a review of City's regulatory tools with respect to cell phone towers to see if they are adequate. Question: Did public notice go out to a sufficient number of people? Law says within a 200 feet. Since the visual impacts well exceeds this buffer,perhaps this requirement for public notice for a tower use should be expanded 2. #2531 BZA variance,Washington Park Housing assistance offices. CAC Recommendation-NEG DECLARATION Comments: In light of the fact that there is no off-street parking for this use, a variance might consider language that includes a"use restriction"that would allow only low vehicle traffic uses in keeping with existing pedestrian-favored use. 3. Gateway Plaza Site Plan Revised site plan is generally Good news, nice additions to the site plan. e.g. 1. Including the oval drive with benches. 2. Ensuring &providing a separation of vehicle drives from the proposed pedestrian paths along the Creek. Comments: CAC would prefer that the site plan consider improving pedestrian access from State Street. Along the western edge of the parcel,the strip of land along Green St., is a good place for some urban landscape design. It is a prominent, "Gateway"area with high visibility plus high volumes of both foot and vehicle traffic. Re: Pedestrian trail along Six-mile Creek: City should coordinate getting the trail into a safe&useable state simultaneous with the development. For example, constructing attractive railings along the Creek wall. Some commitment to the space should take place. Is there a way for the developer to partner with City in seeing that the trail is established simultaneous with development. This could important amenity to the new residential construction. 4. Boatyard Grill, Parking Expansion CAC Recommendation: Neg Dec. ADJOURN Respectfully submitted by Michael Culotta, chair Michael Culotta, 10:49 PM 2/20/02 -0500,CAC Feb. 11 meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 X-Sender: mculotta©mail.alternatives.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:49:09 -0500 X-PH: V4.1 @cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) To: Dan@Isss-law.com, "Judy Jones" <jwj2@cornell.edu>, "Dan Cogan" <dcogan@cityofithaca.org>, "Michael Culotta" <michael©alternatives.org>, "Paul Salon" <psalon©yahoo.com>, "Dan Hoffman" <dan@Isss-law.com>, "Barbara Ebert" <beel @cornell.edu>, "Greg Thomas" <gthomas©psdconsulting.com> From: Michael Culotta <mculotta@alternatives.org> Subject: CAC Feb. 11 meeting Minutes Cc: "Bill Sprengnether" <bills@cityofithaca.org>,joannc@cityofithaca.org Dear CAC members and other attendees, Draft meeting minutes from our last meeting are attached and pasted below. Pls add/edit comments as necessary. twill fwd final draft to the City next week. NB. Next meeting date is MARCH 11 at 7:30. We have two new members on our committee (Michael Bronstein and James Walker) to hopefully introduce at that meeting. I have also invited Steve Nicholson to attend. Draft March Agenda items are listed below Remember to think hard and conserve wisely.... regards michael MARCH 11 Agenda Early Draft 7:30pm, 3rd FLoor Conference oom 1. Report from recent ICLEI conference attendee, S. Nicholson 2. Rezoning of DeWitt Place & Stewart Ave. parcel 3. Local Waterfront Revitalization Project (LWRP) presentation. A three-volume Trowbridge & Wolfe study commissioned by the County covering land use along the lakefront and inclduing Six mile Creek. Very large scope. 4. City surplus property disposition, review of maps and parcels. 9:30 ADJOURN ** ** ********************** Conservation Advisory Council Meeting, Feb 11, 2002 - DRAFT MEETING MINUTES - Attending: Dan Hoffman, Greg Thomas, Michael Culotta (chair), Absent: Judy Jones, Paul Salon Michael Culotta, 10:49 PM 2/20/02 -0500, CAC Feb. 11 meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 Guests: Bill Sprengnether (City Planning Dept.), Dan Cogan (Common Council) 1. BZA APPEAL: Cell tower @ 520 Esty Street Parts 1,2,3 for LEAF still not complete Meeting with developer scheduled for the week of Feb 18. Possible public comment scheduled for next BZA mtg (3-5) CAC recommendation: Positive declaration based on visual impact and the need to consider alternative methods to accomplish signal coverage in this area. Options for dealing with unwanted cell towers were discussed. In some cases, municipalities have considered a temporary moratorium on cell towers. Is there a scoping process that can evaluate existing signal coverage and consider the use of existing structures (e.g. Holiday Inn). Other Concerns: Harm to migrating birds Visual pollution from tower lighting Impact on community character Setting a precedent for community/neighborhood. CAC would recommend a review of City's regulatory tools with respect to cell phone towers to see if they are adequate. Question: Did public notice go out to a sufficient number of people? Law says within a 200 feet. Since the visual impacts well exceeds this buffer, perhaps this requirement for public notice for a tower use should be expanded 2. #2531 BZA variance, Washington Park Housing assistance offices. CAC Recommendation -NEG DECLARATION Comments: In light of the fact that there is no off-street parking for this use, a variance might consider language that includes a "use restriction" that would allow only low vehicle traffic uses in keeping with existing pedestrian-favored use. 3. Gateway Plaza Site Plan Revised site plan is generally Good news, nice additions to the site plan. e.g. 1. Including the oval drive with benches. 2. Ensuring & providing a separation of vehicle drives from the proposed pedestrian paths along the Creek. Comments: Michael Culotta, 10:49 PM 2/20/02 -0500, CAC Feb. 11 meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 CAC would prefer that the site plan consider improving pedestrian access from State Street. Along the western edge of the parcel, the strip of land along Green St., is a good place for some urban landscape design. It is a prominent, "Gateway" area with high visibility plus high volumes of both foot and vehicle traffic. Re: Pedestrian trail along Six-mile Creek: City should coordinate getting the trail into a safe & useable state simultaneous with the development. For example, constructing attractive railings along the Creek wall. Some commitment to the space should take place. Is there a way for the developer to partner with City in seeing that the trail is established simultaneous with development . This could important amenity to the new residential construction. 4. Boatyard Grill, Parking Expansion CAC Recommendation: Neg Dec. ADJOURN Respectfully submitted by Michael Culotta, chair Michael Culotta, Business Loan Officer Alternatives Federal Credit Union 301 West State Street, Ithaca, NY 14850-5431 (607) 273-3582 ext 824 fax (607) 277-6391 www.alternatives.org cac-min.febl 1-02.doc - -- - -- -- Michael Culotta, 09:57 PM 3/18/02 -0500, Re: CAC Feb. 11 meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 X-Sender: mculotta©mail.alternatives.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:57:06 -0500 X-PH: V4.1 @cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) To: Dan@isss-law.com, "Judy Jones" <jwj2@cornell.edu>, "Michael Culotta" <michael@alternatives.org>, "Paul Salon" <psalon@yahoo.com>, "Dan Hoffman" <dan@lsss-law.com>, "Barbara Ebert" <beel @cornell.edu>, "Greg Thomas" <gthomas©psdconsulting.com> From: Michael Culotta <mculotta@alternatives.org> Subject: Re: CAC Feb. 11 meeting Minutes Cc: jrg©twmlaw.com, jre15@cornell.edu (John Jack R. Elliott) Michael Culotta wrote: Dear CAC members and other attendees, Draft meeting minutes from our last meeting are attached and pasted below. Pls REPLY!!! - add/edit comments as necessary. I will fwd final draft to the City very soon. We have four new members on our committee (Michael Bronstein, James Walker, Jack Elliott and Joanna Garrard) to hopefully introduce at that meeting. Plus the Easter Bunny may make a surprise visit. NB. Next meeting date is Early.... April 8 on the 3rd flr @ 7:30. Happy Easter michael Conservation Advisory Council DRAFT Meeting Minutes Monday March 11, 2002 Attending: Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Jack Elliot, Michael Culotta (chair) Guests: Linda Buttel, Natural Areas Council, JoAnn Cornish, Peter Trowbridge, consultant, Richard Franco (Benderson Development Cos.) Vital Communities Initiative: CAC believes it's important for the Common Council to endorse the principles. Let's look at the regional picture. County as a governing body with no real land use authority has charged its Planning Dept with the task of developing a framework that can be shared across municipal boundaries that both promotes development and envision preservation with a series of principles. • Michael Culotta, 09:57 PM 3/18/02 -0500, Re: CAC Feb, 11 meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 Thus far these principles have produced a series number of carefully crafted principles that are the first thoughtful steps toward finding common ground on land use concerns between municipal governments. The results were obtained through a public process, which has included individuals with expertise and vested interest in the future growth of Tompkins County. CAC believes it's important for the City to get behind this initiative to secure its position as the urban center of Tompkins County. EAF REVIEWS: 1. Plain St Bridge: CAC recommends a Positive Declaration: But more than a just a positive declaration, CAC restates its opinion that 6 pt traffic plan included in the SW Park GEIS did not analyze any effects or alternatives stemming from the implementation of the Six Point Plan. As a whole, this traffic plan clearly impacts of quality of daily life, transportation & community character should be considered. At the time of approval of the Six Point Plan, late last year, an environmental review had not been completed. Council voted to adopt the plan with a Neg Dec. they promised that when it came time evaluate the segmented components they would complete the necessary environmental review. In order to comply with the spirit of SEQR laws, CAC sees the Six Point Plan as a project that should be considered as a whole and not b oken down into separate respective pieces. d.q. ppt/ittfiel 2. Competitive Vehicle storage: recommend Special Permit Variance or specia[p rmit.requested. CAC recommends that a special use permit that's written to include strict adherence to the restricting conditions be granted subject to neighborhood input. Those restrictions would not then carry with the property. Restrictions are designed to preserve residential character with a potentially conflicting commercial use (storage and maintenance of race cars). 3. Ruby Tuesday : POS DEC Part II of the LEAF is missing from the material. CAC recommends Pos Dec with further information required for evaluation (Part II & Part III of LEAF) The impacts on character of community and neighborhood is covered in Part 11. CAC believes there is adequate parking available within the commercially-zoned sub- parcel -therefore no hardship to the landowner exists. Without info to the contrary, and a complete submission, CAC opposes this site plan approval. BTW, there is nice-looking plan for tree-plantings along the Highway (Rt 13) between sidewalk& road. CAC discourages use of autumn purple ash trees along the northern boundary of the site. - Michael Culotta, 09:57 PM 3/18/02 -0500, Re: CAC Feb. 11 meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 4. Meadow Court building demolition and redevelopment; NEG DEC BUT READ OUR RECOMMENDATIONS Sidewalk improvements appear to exist only in the redeveloped part of the parcel. CAC recommends a consistent alignment of the sidewalk with landscaping and road-buffer plantings (see Ruby Tuesday plans) CAC has some concern that the South serpentine wall (5.5 feet high) doesn't fit in with existing residential streetscape. How about a louvered directional barrier that isn't as imposing as a 5.5 ncree serpentine structure? I.e. something that blocks headlight spillage without as ch , eta ma sing. CAC recommend addition t uffer along the eastern boundary line. There appears to be no buffering @ back and the south of the parcel for residential neighbors to the east & south. Design guidelines may require a fence, but it isn't shown. The swale designed for runoff looks good. Does it have the capacity to drain runoff for the building or just the new parking area? Landscape plan: No species indicated. Recommend native species be considered. ?? There's no lighting plan. CAC recommends that applicant or consultant check www.iesna.org for a summary of lighting for exterior environments to mitigate light spillage to adjacent properties. Conservation Advisory Council Agenda Monday March 11 , 2002 7:30 PM, 3rd floor conference room 7:30 Approval of 2-11 Meeting Minutes. 7:35 Introductions 7:40 Presentation by Benderson & City Dept of Planning on SW Park development. (R. Franco & J.Cornish). Question &Answer 8:15 Plain Street Bridge Reconstruction (EAF; BPW to make pos or neg dec) 8:40 EAF Reviews Michael Culotta, 09:57 PM 3/18/02 -0500, Re: CAC Feb. 11 meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 1) Meadow Court Inn Expansion (EAF) 2) Ruby Tuesday Restaurant (EAF; also requires subdivision & use variance) 3) Variance: Competitive Vehicle Storage at 123 W. Falls St. (EAF) 9:05 Other business: • Vital Communities Initiative (incl. Discussion of Development Principles) ■ City program to upgrade housing stock with owner-occupancy rehab incentives. • Trowbridge& Wolfe-Waterfront Revitalization Plan • Report on Cayuga Inlet Trail Master Plan 9:30 ADJOURN Important Dates: April 8: CAC next meeting March : Planning Board Meeting Michael Culotta, Business Loan Officer Alternatives Federal Credit Union 301 West State Street, Ithaca, NY 14850-5431 (607) 273-3582 ext 824 fax (607) 277-6391 www.alternatives.orq cac-min.march 11-02.doc Conservation Advisory Council Meeting Minutes Oct 21,2002 Attending: Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones,Paul Salon,Michael Culotta(sect'y) Absent: Johanna Garrard, Greg Thomas,Jack Elliott. 1. EImira Road Office Building: Neg Dec 2. Titus Towers Connector and Parking Lot improvment: The project proposes to cut down a tremendous grove of mature trees. CAC disagrees with the SEAF assumption that the project does result in a significant change to the project site. The development of this parking area development significantly changes the character of the site. CAC finds that a LEAF should be completed with a Part III that explains and considers fully the visual and even climatic impacts to the site. Including information about the existing parking lot and its capacity and a discussion of future needs. It is remarkable to note that the tops of many of the trees that are slated for removal are as high as the Titus Towers themselves. The crowns of these mature trees are in fact visible from the uppermost floors by the residents. One CAC member notes that there are often concerns about the heat in the building during the summer months. CAC believes that the shade and cooling effect of this significant grove of trees on the building's southern exposure will certainly be reversed if this grove is replaced with asphalt. At the very least,CAC suggests that a reduction in the size of the parking area as well as moving of its location westward,toward Office Max should be evaluated. Is the project area correctly delineated? It would appear that regrading of the berm will be necessary and could result in the unacknowledged removal of additional vegetation south of the project area. It is the CAC's understanding that removal of trees from public property requires additional procedures and we question whether these procedures have been followed. Wireless Communication Zoning Ordinance CAC recommends the Ordinance as a good draft. CAC recommends Neg Dec. and requests a copy of the final draft zoning amendment. Recreational Trails Grant Application: When the Cass Park Trail Project was proposed it was done to create momentum for a project and produce quick results. And it has succeeded,the completed trail serves an existing park with enhanced pedestrian access. Now that the second phase of this important project is being launched,CAC would like to see a prioritization of efforts in continuing the construction of this trail. Is Stewart Park the place to begin Phase Two? We think not. But with grant application before us,we have the following comments. • • CAC has particular concern about the proposed extra loop around the Pond (former swan pond). CAC is concerned that the path is too narrow for a 10 ft wide paved trail. Such a trail would require major destruction of the entire environment to construct. 2nd Such a trail is not necessary to the project goals. 3rd and minor in my book it would interfere with Boat Club launchings. One CAC member has "birded"there for years. The beach and shelter around the pond have been a haven for migrating warblers. Cayuga Lake is a flyway for migrating birds. Birds rest stop at the south end of the lake on their way north in spring and south in the fall. Often,there are a diverse collection of unusual ducks hiding out in the pond. There are plenty of lakefront views available from the main loop.. Any destruction of this critical respite is a major environmental degradation. CAC find the plans for trail construction between the Cascadilla Boathouse south to the pedestrian suspension bridge will bring the path too close to the water and needlessly widen an area that is already very narrow. Why is a constructed trail necessary at this point? Intermodal Transit Center @ Cayuga Green BZA#2559 CAC requests a review the EIS before submitting comments about the proposed variance. CAC recommends that no approval be granted prior to completion and review of the EIS. Submitted by : Michael J. Culotta c � Conservation Advisory Council Meeting Minutes -Dec. 9, 2002 CAC Members Attending: Dan Hoffman, Greg Thomas, Paul Salon, Michael Culotta (sect'y), Dan Cogan(Common Council liaison) CAC Members Absent: Joanna Garrard, Jack Elliott, Judy Jones, James Walker Others Present: Katherine Wolf, John Kiefer, Kate Mance 1. 11-14-02 minutes shared and comments taken. 2. EAF Reviews: None 3. BZA Appeals: None 1. West Campus Residential Initiative: Timeline thus far: Thursday Dec 5: FEIS deemed complete. Friday Dec 6: FEIS (1 copy) released to CAC Dec 17: Planning Board to discuss preliminary findings statement Jan. 6: 30-day"waiting"period, during which comments on FEIS can be received by Planning Board, expires Jan. 14: Planning Board to consider adopting findings and will receive the preliminary site plan(but will not take action on it) Jan. 28: Planning Board may grant final site plan approval February: Utility work would begin(if approval is granted) Update on project presented by Katherine Wolf(architect) and John Kiefer(for Cornell). New parking lot proposed for the "Red Bud Woods"is CAC's primary area of concern. Proposed lot is now reduced from 195 to 141 spaces. In addition, an area at the northwest corner is being reserved for possible construction of City water tank. In the meantime, it would be cleared and graded,but not paved, for contractor parking. Including this area, total number of spaces is 175. The elevation of the westerly portion of the lot has been raised and the setback from University Avenue increased. The part of the setback next to the parking area will be maintained as a lawn(for safety reasons). Q: Was construction of headlight-blocking device (eg., guardrail) considered for westerly-facing vehicles, to reduce impact on residents on west side of University Ave? A: It was considered,but not included. There will be screening as a result of higher lot height,wider setback from Univ. Ave, &dense vegetation(evergreens to be planted). Q: What is the intended use of the lot? A: Lot will serve primarily as replacement parking for lot now located at University& Stewart Avenues. It is primarily for student residents of the dorms,plus some staff, on a 1st come, 1st served basis. It is expected to reach its "peak use"in 2005. Q: How is DRAINAGE from the lot to be handled? A: CU will assist in the upgrading of the City's storm water sewer system along University Ave. down to Cascadilla Creek. CU has offered a$120,000 contribution toward improving the system's capacity, in light of the impact of the new lot. The amount of impervious cover on the West Campus itself will actually decrease following construction(because of greater open space and"green"roofs). Q: What alternatives were considered in the DEIS for the parking lot location? A: Construction of deck at Williams and Stewart (site of existing ground-level parking lot), underground behind Law School (South Ave.) and numerous others. CU finds each of these alternatives to be much more costly and less optimal. CAC COMMENTS: Generally, the CAC finds the proposed site plan for the residential units of the West Campus Initiative to be commendable. However, CAC does NOT support the proposed parking lot in the Redbud Woods location and urges the Planning Board not to approve it. The CAC does not agree with the University that all the alternatives investigated are less desirable and/or were rejected (by the University) on valid grounds. It appears that a number of alternatives were rejected purely because the short-term(out-of-pocket) financial costs were greater. The CAC believes that there are other costs, not as easily quantified and not necessarily short- term,which will be associated with construction of the parking lot in the Redbud Woods location, and that those costs must be weighed as well, when evaluating the alternatives. In particular, the CAC urges further exploration of an alternative site for parking at the Williams Street& Stewart Avenue location, for the following reasons. 1. It would not involve the permanent destruction of existing green space (which green spaces are increasingly rare in urbanized areas). 2. It does not represent the intrusion of a new(and unwelcome) conflicting use into a residential neighborhood. 3. It represents more intensive use of already-developed urban land and the possibility of more mixed use (eg.,parking, with small-scale commercial along Stewart Avenue) in an area that already has some mix of uses,both of which are very desirable outcomes from a planning and environmental standpoint. The CAC does not agree that the possibility of a joint City-Cornell project to construct more parking in Collegetown should preclude the use of the Williams/Stewart site as an alternative for providing the parking which the University says is needed for the WCRI project. n As for the revised design of the parking area proposed for the Red Bud Woods: • The CAC notes that the design has improved from its first draft. • CAC notes an inconsistency in the renderings,where a 17-foot-wide "greenbelt" is incorrectly scaled as larger than an adjacent 20-foot-wide greenbelt. • Because the construction of the proposed parking lot will tax an already inadequate storm water drainage system, the CAC strongly recommends that if it is approved,the University contribute financially to the solution, namely, the upgrading of a larger share of the drainage area served by the University Avenue system, and that this contribution be substantially greater than the $120,000 now proposed. By its own calculations, Cornell would be saving over two million dollars (based on an estimated savings of$15,000 per parking space) by building a surface lot in Redbud Woods, rather than a parking garage. 2. LAND SWAP ON INLET ISLAND CAC expresses concern that there are inconsistencies between the Inlet Island Master Plan and the proposed"land swap"between the City and a private developer. In the version of the Plan(dated 3/20/02)which the CAC reviewed(previously), two pedestrian corridors are shown from Hwy 89 to the Inlet Promenade. These are desirable design features that accomplish the Promenade's design goal of connecting pedestrians to the Inlet. The envisioned land swap has no provision for retaining rights-of-way for these pedestrian corridors. CAC does not believe that relying on the site plan review process to require these pedestrian corridors is prudent. Courts have ruled that this is considered a taking from the landowner(eg., the suit brought by Widewaters against the Ithaca Planning Board). These rights-of-way should be delineated by the City before any swap occurs and retained. CAC recommends that the City reserve the right to build two pedestrian corridors to the Promenade, as shown in the 3/20/02 Inlet Island Master Plan, across the land that is proposed to be conveyed to Ciaschi. Also CAC notes that a piece of land also part of the proposed swap abuts the old Train Station. If the City conveys this piece away, then the area could be built with something that could obstruct this significant landmark. CAC recommends that the City protect these landmarks from future obstruction by again retaining appropriate rights in the parcel proposed to be conveyed. Paul will convey this recommendation to the City at the meeting scheduled for Wed (?). f F 3. Discussion about the Downtown Development Project (Cayuga Green) CAC has received one copy of the DEIS. Members split it up to review sections and comment by Dec 20. Some Facts: Cayuga Garage = 700 spaces Green Garage=450 spaces up to 1150 spaces Timeline: Nov 12 DEIS accepted with Planning Board as lead agency Nov 20 Comment period begins Dec 20 Comment deadline. Dec 5 Public Hearing Client Committee findings summary: • Phase 1 of the project would cost—$750K • Includes a creek walk • Housing/retail is part of the mix • New developer to be selected(DiMarco) is planning to include a housing and retail component alongside the parking Dan Cogan offered to brief members on the project, at the next CAC meeting(Jan 13). ADJOURN Draft Minutes Submitted by Michael Culotta(chair) With revisions by Dan Hoffman