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