Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-01-31Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 27, 2018 1 Special Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes January 31, 2018 Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Jack Elliott; Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Robert Aaron Lewis; John Schroeder Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: One Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development; Megan Wilson, Senior Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Chain Works District Redevelopment Project at 620 S. Aurora Street James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C.; C. J. Randall, Randall+West, Project Consultant; David Lubin, Unchained Properties Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Planning Board Recommendation on the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan Senior Planner Megan Wilson updated the Board on the Plan adoption schedule. She reported that a ten-minute walk map would be added to the document. She also stated that she would seek guidance from Common Council on how to incorporate the Planning Board’s comments. On January 29, Schroeder had distributed a proposed revised draft resolution regarding the Plan, fleshing out an earlier staff draft. Schroeder said his revision added supporting detail intended to make the Planning Board’s concerns easier to understand, and also incorporated some additional concerns that time constraints prevented being discussed at the Board’s December 19 meeting. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 27, 2018 2 Adopted Planning and Development Board Recommendation to Common Council Regarding the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan: On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds: WHEREAS: the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan, where Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and WHEREAS: the City adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of its comprehensive plan in 2015, and Plan Ithaca recommends the preparation of a plan for the City’s park system as part of Phase II, and WHEREAS: the Common Council funded a Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of the City’s 2016 budget, and the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County funded various aspects of the proposed plan, and WHEREAS: PROS Consulting was selected as the project consultant and began work on the draft plan in the fall of 2016, and WHEREAS: the public was involved throughout the planning process through stakeholder interviews, focus groups, surveys, and community events, and WHEREAS: the consultant team gathered information through data collection, site assessments, community input, staff observations and local and national trends and used this information to prepare the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and WHEREAS: the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, dated November 2017, was presented in early November and was then circulated for further public comment, and WHEREAS: in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for recommending a comprehensive plan to the Common Council for adoption, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, having reviewed the draft Plan at its December 19, 2017 and January 30, 2018 meetings, and having received and considered multiple public comments concerning it, is now recommending several modifications to the November 2017 draft; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby recommends a modified Parks and Recreation Master Plan for review and adoption by the Common Council as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, with this modified version incorporating the following revisions: Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 27, 2018 3 The Planning and Development Board recommends that the November 2017 Draft of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan be revised as follows prior to its review and adoption by Common Council: A. The ecological value of parkland to the community and the environment should be prominently discussed and analyzed in the revised Plan. As one Planning Board member wrote: This master plan is for a part of the city’s infrastructure: its green infrastructure. It is not just about grassy areas with a few benches. I see a lot of effort has been put into the human demographics but there is no mention of the biophysical conditions of the various sites. Nothing on steep sites, geo/biological qualities unique to Ithaca. It seems to me to be too technical; too managerial. There is no vision statement. Ithaca’s parks could be part of a strategy to maximize the ecological services such as reducing heat island effects, lessening stormwater surges and improving the flow of wildlife through the city through interconnected corridors. Using native plantings and some creative design, 21st century open space planning can integrate the demands of parking, water management, and energy demands within pedestrian-oriented development by responding to our innate biophyllic predilections for green space […] Urban wilding initiatives are springing up everywhere, such as Toronto, Oslo, Melbourne, cities widely regarded as being the most desirable places to live. This master plan should be part of a livable cities initiative, to introduce nature into the places where most of the people live. Not only do these types of spaces improve the urban condition, if properly designed, they are less expensive to maintain while improving urban resiliency, in the face of the challenges of climate change. How is the city planning to respond to drought, to storm events, to invasive species? I believe this report is thorough within the boundaries it has set for itself but I find the boundaries too restrictive. Ithaca can do better than this. In my opinion, it has to. B. The section regarding declassification (i.e., removal from park status) of certain City parks should be substantially revised by providing: (1) A specific justification (for each such park) setting forth that park’s challenges, and stating why that park should be considered for declassification. (2) A listing of the further studies that would be necessary before any park is declassified, including — for example — analyses of each such park’s ecological value, historical significance, urban planning attributes, current usage, proposed future non-park use, etc. (This also affects “Strategy 4.6” in the chart on Page 79). (3) An explanation as to why four neighborhood parks in the eastern third of the City are being suggested for declassification, when “Figure 28 - Neighborhood Parks Equity Map” on Page 47 shows low equity for neighborhood parks in this very same area of Ithaca (the only substantial such park there being Strawberry Fields). As the Plan itself states, “In terms of park land, the neighborhood parks have a gap in the eastern side of the Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 27, 2018 4 City limits…” (“Equity Mapping ‘Gaps’ and Conclusions” section, Page 46). (4) A statement that specific appropriate substitute parkland should be identified before a final decision is made to declassify a park. (5) A summary of the exact process required to remove park status and to find substitute parkland, including opportunities for public input. C. The inconsistency in the recommendation for Strawberry Fields — between the text of the plan and the action plan at the end of the document — should be resolved. (1) The text discusses this park becoming a “school park” or a Cornell “teaching preserve” (Page 66), while the action plan includes the possibility of it being “sold / swapped for different parkland” (“Strategy 4.3,” Page 79). (2) Again, if Strawberry Fields is declassified without adding nearby substitute neighborhood park land, the already-existing inequity in neighborhood parks in the eastern third of the City would be greatly exacerbated. Additionally, as Page 44 states, “Although the City of Ithaca meets the standards for total park acres, there is a deficit for neighborhood park acreage.” (3) Note that, according to the “Chapter Three – Community Needs Assessment,” “small neighborhood parks” are ranked very high (#8 out of 28) in the “Facility Priority Rankings” (Figure 13, Page 18), while “Sell or lease small under-utilized parks” has only 14 percent support as a source of parks revenue in Figure 14 on Page 19. D. Some inappropriate criteria in the “Land Acquisition Strategies” section on Pages 66-67 should be revised as follows: (1) One listed criterion for parkland acquisition — “Major Arterial Access” — is not appropriate for Ithaca. More appropriate would be “Excellent Pedestrian and Bicycle Access.” (2) The criterion “Population (5, 10, 15 minute drive time)” should be revised to the more appropriate “Population (5, 10, 15 minute walk time)” [emphasis added]. Plan Ithaca emphasizes that pedestrians should come first in the City’s hierarchy of transportation modes. E. One conclusion of the equity mapping section (bottom of Page 46) is that, though Ithaca has many paved trails, “connectivity throughout the system that connects the entire system is lacking.” Somewhere the Plan should mention the idea of reviving the Circle Greenway, a former continuous walking loop around the City’s periphery that — if reestablished — would link multiple otherwise unconnected current paved trails. F. Add language stating that three of the many “Funding and Revenue Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 27, 2018 5 Strategies” options — specifically, “License Back,” “Corporate Naming Rights” and “Advertising Sales” — could be problematic if not used within reasonable limits and with great care. (See also “Strategy 2.2,” Page 77). (1) “License Back” is described on Page 72 as: … a source of capital funding in which a private sector entity such as a development company buys the park land site or licenses the park land and develops a facility such as a park, recreation attraction, recreation center, pool, or sports complex; and leases the facility back to the municipality to pay off the capital costs over a 20 to 30-year period. While there may be limited instances where some form of this may be a valid approach, it is nevertheless a technique that, in other cities, has been used as a thinly-disguised method of privatizing public resources for private gain. Hence, this approach should only be employed with caution. (2) The need to avoid inappropriate use of “Corporate Naming Rights” and “Advertising Sales” strategies should be obvious, but nevertheless should be stated in the Plan. To mention an extreme example, the notion of renaming “Stewart Park” as “Google Park” in order to secure a big check from the latter corporation would likely not sit well with the vast majority of Ithacans. G. Provide a geographic analysis of park access and income as part of the level of service mapping. H. Include a description of the City’s existing Adopt-a-Park program and information on how neighborhood residents can apply to adopt a park. Note that the program could be a good way to involve residents in park maintenance and upkeep before considering declassification of a park. I. Clarify how the Parks and Recreation Master Plan relates to the City’s designated natural areas: (1) The list of “Parks and Park Facilities” extending from Page 5 to Page 7, for example, includes the “Ithaca Falls Natural Area” and the “Southwest Natural Area / Negundo Woods.” Additionally, the Plan shows “Greenspace & natural area” at #3 out of 28 in the “Facility Priority Rankings” chart on Page 18. (2) But the Plan then rarely refers to these or other natural areas again. Do the recommendations in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan apply to these natural areas, or not? If not, are they to receive their own separate master plan at some point in the future? All this should be clarified within the Plan itself. (3) Not all parks are intended for active uses; some are intended for preservation or quiet contemplation. For such parks, or portions of parks, usage figures are beside the point. The Plan should acknowledge this. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 27, 2018 6 In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Jones-Rounds, Johnston, Lewis, Schroeder Against: None Absent: None Vacancies: One 3. Site Plan Review A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, 620 S. Aurora Street. Review of Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Design Guidelines. Review Next Steps & Future Special Meeting Schedule. Members of the Board asked about the Town of Ithaca Planned Development Zone (PDZ) and Design Guidelines and stated that these documents should be reviewed by the Board as part of the Environmental Review. Randall agreed to provide the documents with a summary of the differences. Nicholas will also send the City’s PUD and Design Guidelines to the Town of Ithaca for review. The Board reviewed the PUD and Design Guidelines documents page by page and agreed to the comments below. Schroeder agreed to provide identified typos and minor suggested wording improvements to staff after the meeting. Planning Board comments on the draft Planned Unit Development document: 1. Section B.: Using This Code, last paragraph – Remove the work ‘prescriptive’ from the first line and use stronger language regarding Design Guidelines compliance. Replace ‘suggested’ with ‘expected, unless the Board determines that there are clear and compelling reasons for non-compliance.’ 2. Section D.: Sub Area and Character Intent, paragraph 2), last sentence – Last sentence to read: ‘Development in the CW3B Sub Area is limited to 6 stories with an allowance for an additional 1-2 stories below the grade plane on the downhill side.’ This also needs a diagram for clarification. 3. Section E.: Permitted Uses – Within the table: a. Park – Use list differs from description of CW1; should it be the same? Add the word ‘outdoor’ before ‘community pavilions,’ to clarify that this item does not include enclosed facilities. b. Solar panels / farm – change CW1 category from ‘P’ to ‘S’ (Allowed by Special Permit.) c. Off street parking – Replace the word ‘above’ with ‘in its sub area only.’ Also, change CW1 category from ‘P’ to ‘S’ (Allowed by Special Permit.) Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 27, 2018 7 4. Section F.: Required Buffer Areas – Remove the provision for covered parking (of unspecified size) within the buffer area. Buffer area should be described as follows: “A 30-foot-wide buffer area without primary structures is required wherever the Chain Works District directly abuts R-1, R-2 or R-3 Zoning Districts, except at the Rt. 96B street line. See attached diagram. 5. Section L.: Appeals – Insert ‘Planning and Development’ before the word ‘Board’ (three instances). Planning Board comments on the draft Design Guidelines document: 1. Section B.: Sub Area Enumeration and Intended Character – Last sentence to read: ‘Development in the CW3B Sub Area is limited to 6 stories with an allowance for an additional 1-2 stories below the grade plane on the downhill side.’ This also needs a diagram for clarification. 2. Section C.: Design Review Process – Second paragraph to read as follows: “In addition to design review, a project must be reviewed by the full Planning and Development Board to verify that it complies with the base zoning standards in the City of Ithaca Municipal Code for the Chainworks PUD [Insert Number], the provisions of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, and the adopted Findings Statement of the Chainworks FGEIS. All locally designated historic properties are exempt from design review because they undergo a special approval process conducted by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). 3. Section D.: Precedent Images. a. Page 6, bottom image – Add a note clarifying that the foreground building (not the background reflective glass tower) is the precedent. b. Page 9 – Find better examples to illustrate these characteristics. 4. Section E.: Building Guidelines. a. Architecture, b. – Add language about building mechanicals from CAFD. b. Architecture, f. – Remove the words ‘where practical’ 5. Section F.: Landscaping and General Site Guidelines. a. Under Street and Yard Landscaping, a. – Revise first indented sentence to read: “Street trees should be planted below the grade of the sidewalk and the street in structural cells with sufficient root space, or in a tree lawn. Approved by the Planning and Development Board March 27, 2018 8 b. Under Street and Yard Landscaping, e. – after ‘ground cover,’ insert words ‘and other plantings.’ c. Under Site Selection for Tree Planting, a. – To read: “Tree lawns should be at least 8’ wide wherever possible.” d. Under Site Selection for Tree Planting, e. – To read: “No tree is to be planted directly under or in competition with an existing large tree. e. Under Site Selection for Tree Planting, f. – Add sentence: “It is preferred that utility wires be placed underground.” f. Under Site Selection for Tree Planting, h. – Remove ‘When possible’ from beginning of sentence. g. Under Tree Planting, a. – Insert the word ‘already’ before the word ‘shaded.’ h. Under Tree Planting, c. – Add sentence: “It is preferred that utility wires be placed underground.” 6. G.: Thoroughfare Assembly – Graphic street sections showing preferred moving lane widths, parking lane widths, curbs, tree lawns, sidewalks, etc., should be provided. Maximum speed limit should be stated. 7. General topics that are now missing (or largely missing) from the Design Guidelines and that should be added: a. Site Planning. b. Street Design Sections. c. Plaza Design. d. Lighting. e. Signage. f. Standards for Renovation and Re-Use of Buildings. The Board then discussed next steps, and the future special meeting schedule for this project. Nicholas reported that staff was doing an internal review of the latest version of the draft FGEIS. She said it should come back to the Board for review in March or April. 4. Adjournment On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.