Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-04-25 (iii C/erK , Approved 6/27/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES April 25, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal;Anne Clavel; Carolyn Peterson; John Schroeder. Staff.• H.Matthys Van Cort,Herman Sieverding;K.Ross;other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor Joe Whitmore stated that he went through the list of written comments on the Wal-Mart proposal given to the Board and discovered his comment was not included. Schroeder stated there were three other comments that had not been included in the binders that are supposed to contain all written comments. 2. Zoning Appeals Report A. Baker and S.T. Olin Laboratories. The Board stated that it does not have all the information that the Board of Zoning Appeals does. The Board stated Cornell needs to provide more information on student parking,transportation,etc. In addition,the proposal raises some environmental concerns. Clavel submitted a memo on parking problems she said were caused by the University which stated that Cornell should provide more parking because students park in neighborhoods to get on campus. Guttman stated that the applicant needs to supply more information since it is seeking a discretionary permit, and the Board has the right to request additional time(30 days)to comment,if necessary. Guttman stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant,deny or grant with conditions. After further discussion,Schroeder moved and Clavel seconded the following resolution: Cornell parking is a relevant city-wide issue which affects several neighborhoods in the city,and the University has not provided enough information for the Board of Zoning Appeals to make an informed decision on the requested variance. Schroeder suggested attaching Anne Clavel's memo dated April 25, 1995. Carried unanimously. Blumenthal commented that the University has received several awards for their management system. r Minutes of April 25, 1995 Meeting 2 B. 815 South Aurora Street. Adams suggested the applicant consider one of the other locations recommended; otherwise there should probably be some further environmental review. Robert Burgdorf,the attorney representing the applicant, stated that their proposal would avoid a second tower in the area; that there was no water or sewer necessary; that there were no traffic concerns; and that there was no diminution in value. Enlarging the tower would do nothing but provide cellular service to an area not now served. The Board requested the attorney explain in what way the larger tower was mandatory. The attorney said that they had received a license from the FCC which required that they build a larger tower or several smaller ones. If they were prevented from doing this, the FCC would eventually award the license to another company which would also need to erect a tower. Comments from the neighbors on this issue included Allan Boardman,residing at 15 Hudson Place,who stated that when the tower was put up, it was on the condition that it would come down when its previous owner ceased operations, and now instead they want to add height to it. His argument was that the City will not allow satellite discs,but they can put a tower in the backyards of residents. Nick Pappatonis stated the Board should approve this because Cellular One should have some competition and that these phones are very helpful in the case of emergencies. Jim Rogan,of Rogan's Corner, stated he had no complaints,that Mr. Fish took very good care of his property and that he was happy to have Mr.Fish as a commercial neighbor. Adams stated that the CAC raised some important issues. Burgdorf countered that the CAC comments were unfounded,hostile and conclusory,that the CAC acted hostile, and that the applicant would be willing to go through the SEQR process if there were specific issues to be investigated. However,in his opinion,all issues had been adequately dealt with in the environmental assessment. Van Cort told the Board it could ask the BZA to delay this action for 30 days if they felt they needed more information. After some discussion regarding the views,Burgdorf agreed that the tower could be seen from many parts of the City,but that the visual impact of its expansion would be minimal. He stated that as the demand increases,there will be smaller towers and that this tower would be used for emergency services such as ambulance use and use by police agencies to receive calls for help and also to dispatch. Schroeder stated that the Board may submit a report but that they were not required to do so. Adams stated she thought the Board should comment on the visual impact and moved as follows, seconded by Schroeder: Review of subject appeals indicates that Appeal 2257 may have certain potential impacts of significance to an area larger than the neighborhood immediately around the site. For this reason, this Board comments and recommends as follows,for the Board of Zoning C:Kelly\hys\Planbrd\4-25mtg.doc Minutes of April 25, 1995 Meeting 3 Appeals to consider in acting on the request for Special Permit to enlarge the communication tower at 815 S. Aurora St.,in an R-3b zone. The existing tower is relatively prominent,and easily visible from many parts of the City and the surrounding Town of Ithaca. The proposed addition of half again its present height, with added antennae,would increase its prominence and visibility noticeably. Although the surrounding area does include some uses and zones of a non-residential nature,the dominant use and character of the vicinity is low-rise residential,in which the tower is an anomaly. Its visibility is not limited to its immediate surroundings,as is the case for most other non-residential uses in the vicinity. Previous appeals and special permit applications for the existing tower and its predecessors on the site have generated controversy and concern,at least in part due to issues of visibility and appropriateness to its surroundings. This Board has not reviewed the LEAF and therefore cannot comment on the CAC's recommendations. However,the above comment should be considered in the BZA's recommendations. The vote was 6-1, with Clavel opposed. 3. Discussion of Draft Outline for FEIS Regarding Wal-Mart The Board decided to continue its review of the draft outline for the FEIS. Sear Brown has the technical scope and is assumed to be currently working on the technical issues. Kay stated that he hoped that the Army Corps of Engineers' report would be done in a few days. The Board confirmed the date for the site visit which is Saturday,April 29,at 11:30, and it was decided that members would meet at the site. Sieverding stated that staff would meet at the site on Thursday with the Sear Brown survey crew to stake the building and parking lot. Schroeder suggested that a subcommittee of the Board work on the FEIS outline's economic issues. After further discussion regarding documents which were not in the binders that are supposed to include all written comments, Sieverding stated that all documents given to staff have been included. Adams brought up the item of revisions to the Site Plan Ordinance which Guttman was supposed to be working on. Guttman stated that there was no possibility of him having the time to do this. Schroeder stated that this item had already been discussed by what was then called the Planning and Development Committee of Common Council. 4. Recommendations on Fulton/Meadow Street Rezoning Van Cort stated that a charrette was put together to make preliminary recommendations regarding this issue. The charrette approach was taken by staff at the direction of the Planning Committee of Common Council. Both the Mayor and the Committee wanted recommendations on urban design issues. Van Cort said that he had summarized the charrette's recommendations in a memorandum which had been previously distributed to C:Kelly\lhys\Planbrd\4-25mtg.doc Minutes of April 25, 1995 Meeting 4 the Board. Included among the recommendations were preservation of the residential neighborhood east of Meadow Street and improving the appearance and functionality of the commercial uses on Meadow and Fulton Streets. Van Cort suggested that if the Board found the memorandum to be a reasonable approach, the next step should be the convening of a client committee to work with the City on a detailed plan for the area. Board members raised several issues not mentioned in the memo or Van Cort's report which were as follows: the possibility of consolidating parking in the blocks between Fulton and Meadow, and the need to investigate regulation of temporary and transient business. Several Board members had questions regarding the appropriateness of some areas of commercial zoning between Fulton and Meadow. One member felt that the area zoning industrial should not be rezoned to commercial. Another thought it might be appropriate to consider residential zoning on some blocks between Fulton and Meadow. There was a consensus among Board members that the community should be involved in reviewing and refining the recommendations. The Board directed staff to begin working with the community to develop a plan for the area using the charrette as a starting point. It was also suggested that the staff and community committee should consider some of issues raised by Board members. 5. Reports A. Director No report. B. Chair Kay presented a notice he received from Southern Tier West for training opportunities. The Board decided Kay would read the information and report on it. C. Board of Public Works No report. D. Planning Committee Schroeder stated that the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance will be on the agenda for the next Planning Committee meeting. Clavel had some concerns which included the following: She was of the opinion that allowing a bed and breakfast in a residential zone would undermine the character of the neighborhood and might open a loophole for students to move into family neighborhoods. She also said that a 21-day stay is too long, that there should be one parking space per bed and that the owner must be residing and present when guest is there. She does not think they should be allowed in an R-1 zone. Schroeder stated that there were many old houses that could be reused as Bed and Breakfasts. Blumenthal stated that there was a danger of abuse and that the Building Department has trouble enforcing this now. Van Cort stated that many communities are doing this. C:Kelly\Thys\Planbrd'425mtg.doc Minutes of April 25, 1995 Meeting 5 Adams suggested restricting B&Bs to an area or limiting to an R-3 zone,but not opening to R-1 and R-2 zones. Schroeder stated that the Committee approved the home rule request for alienation of Inlet Island. 6. Approval of Minutes The February 15, 1995 Minutes were approved with changes. The March 28, 1995 Minutes were approved with changes. The April 11, 1995 Minutes were postponed until the next meeting. C:Ke11y\Thys\Planbr M-25mtg.doc