Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-07-25 e/e,K Approved 11/28/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES July 25, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Anne Clavel, Carolyn Peterson,Denise Rusoff,John Schroeder. Staff: H.Matthys Van Cort,L.Tsang,D.Foster,K.Ross. Applicants:Jeff Utoila,Al Nelson;Jim Napoleon, Transportation Consultant;Jagat Sharma,Architect; other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor There were no comments from the floor. 2. Site Plan Review/Public Hearing A. Commercial Plaza-701-725 South Meadow Street The applicant,Jeff Utoila,the architect,Jagat Sharma, and a transportation consultant,Jim Napoleon,were present. The applicant summarized what happened at the Codes Committee meeting,which was basically five requests from the Committee. The first was for a new sidewalk between the buildings and street tree planting strip,and the second was for more landscaping and a better buffer between the project and the Wood Street Park. The third was a reexamination of proposed tree species,the fourth was compatibility in form and materials between project elements,and the fifth was possible mitigation of traffic impact on Elmira Road. Sharma pointed to changes to the site plan in response to the Committee's recommendations. He said he hoped that the Board would grant a foundation permit for Phase 1 in accordance with the Codes Committee's recommendation. The applicant stated the proposed project is 50,000 square feet in two phases. Phase 1 is to include 18,000 square feet,which consists of a 6,000 square foot building for Blockbuster Video and a 12,000 square foot building to house Empire Vision Center plus other businesses. Phase 2 is proposed for 32,000 square feet. There will be two entries and a third entry for a service driveway for deliveries. The applicant stated that the revised drawings have a handicapped ramp and increased entrances. Van Cort reported that DoT does not favor having three curb cuts, but they are still looking into it. There was some discussion regarding what should be done with the old sidewalk. Schroeder suggested taking out the old sidewalk and pulling back the new one. Minutes of July 25, 1995 Meeting 2 Van Cort stated that there had been extensive discussions about the traffic, especially during rush hour. The primary concern was that there might be significant delays for southbound traffic. He stated there were two alternatives,one being the installation of a traffic signal and the other construction of a fifth lane on Meadow Street. The developer did not believe a traffic signal was warranted,and the Traffic Engineer agrees,but there is a consensus that a fifth lane would not hurt. After further discussion on this issue,Van Cort stated one alternative that was discussed would be for the developer to put some money in escrow to help pay for the traffic signal,if needed. He recommended that the Board wait another month to grant preliminary site plan approval since the DoT had not made a final decision. Clavel suggested giving the foundation permit if the developer were willing to agree that the Board might only give approval on Phase 1, and also that the developer put money in escrow. Peterson had some concern that the summary that was written up did not contain these contingencies, and Kay stated that there was significant concern about the traffic issues. Schroeder suggested delaying approval until next month since more information was needed and that the applicant should provide the new site plan with berming,tree species and material and facade issues. Van Cort stated that the revised drawing should show the dimensions of the street. Kay had some concern about the issue of money in escrow and asked what the applicant's position on this was. The applicant did not believe there was a traffic problem at all and stated it would be an enormous expense if he had to widen the road in front of the property. He said the net cost of a 12-foot wide lane 100 feet long is approximately$70,000 (for the pavement only). The applicant showed a video of the site at 4:00 p.m. which recorded the left turn during the peak hour. Van Cort stated that the biggest problem would be southbound traffic because it would take one of the two lanes. He also stated that traffic gets into clumps and that is why there were blanks in the traffic,as seen on the video. The applicant stated that the development did not warrant a need for a center lane on Meadow Street. Van Cort suggested a traffic analysis be done between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. as part of an application for approval of the second phase. Rusoff suggested the applicant get national data from Blockbuster Video relating to when most people are in and out of the store, etc. There was concern about the number of cars turning into Blockbuster Video and exiting the city southbound. The applicant stated that their analysis was Minutes of July 25, 1995 Meeting 3 done on the whole project(50,000 square feet),not just the 6,000 square feet of Blockbuster Video. Kay stated the Board needed to think seriously about setting up an escrow account and whether or not another lane was feasible. Van Cort said that the fifth lane idea has been talked about previously and that it did not just come up because of this development. Schroeder stated if the answer from DoT came through,the Board could give preliminary and final approval for the first phase next month. Kay stated he would prefer a more complete set of drawings and make a decision next month. There were some objections by Clavel and Peterson about putting off preliminary approval until next month,but the final consensus was to wait until the next meeting. 3. Subdivision Public Hearing/Final Approval A. 532 Spencer Road-INIIS Van Cort stated that all the documentation is in order and staff recommends final approval. Schroeder moved and Clavel seconded a motion for final approval. Carried unanimously. 4. Old Business A. Colin Forth's Summer Work Program Forth provided the Board with a copy of what he had been working on and discussed what he was proposing. He stated that a cluster subdivision is an attempt to allow clustering of units and save open space and better fit topography of sites. He said he was trying to give the Planning Board more discretion in moving buildings around the site to position them better, more discretion on what type of buildings would be allowed and was placing more emphasis on what type of open space is desired. He suggested ending the restriction on the number of attached units in cluster subdivisions. Kay asked Forth to talk about the process and how he came to his conclusions. Forth stated he read the Code and talked to people,e.g. Jerry Weisberg about the process he went through and Paul Mazzarella about the MHA development. Minutes of July 25, 1995 Meeting 4 Kay stated that all of these recommendations are moving toward making a more flexible Code. Clavel stated that Forth had included the possibility of a density bonus, so you may be able to reduce a lot of infrastructure cost. Kay asked why the ordinance was not being used now and if the proposal was in place, would there be more requests to use it. He stated that sometimes developers like to have clear-cut rules on what they can and cannot do. Schroeder stated he thought we could have more parkland if we had a more flexible cluster zoning ordinance,and one of his concerns was when a cluster takes place, some green space be usable space. Clavel stated that the ordinance is too rigid and you can't move things around very much. A meeting was scheduled to include Van Cort,Schroeder and Forth. Forth's next topic of discussion was the R-2c zone. He stated this district was supposed to be a transition between the R-2 and the R-3 zone,and that his proposed revision included zero-lot-line and row-house housing. The biggest problem he finds is the minimum lot size requirements; they increase as you increase the number of occupants. He feels that a base minimum lot size, a transition between the R-2 and R-3 zones,would be better. He thinks that coming up with a base minimum lot size for zoning would reduce the cost of housing. Another change Forth is proposing for this zone is that the rear yard requirements be reduced. B. Revision of Site Plan Review Ordinance Schroeder had some revisions to the draft of the Site Plan Review Ordinance which a subcommittee had prepared. He stated that the chart should be part of the ordinance and that the Board should think about a moderate increase in fees. It was decided that the Site Plan Review Committee should get together again to go over these changes and prepare a final draft copy. C. Discussion of Neighborhood Statistics Doug Foster was present to report on the work he had done and was planning to do. He stated that since he started work with the City five years ago he has been trying to build an information system based on geography. Foster stated there is a wealth of census and assessment information available. He stated that 1994 assessment information is on the computer attached to the map on a parcel level(both residential and commercial data). He stated he wants to build a database in which you could type in an address and it would show the parcel and tell you all kinds of information about it,i.e. what it's worth, when it was sold,zoning Minutes of July 25, 1995 Meeting 5 information,building permit information,etc. He stated that all the 1980 census information would have to be put in the computer manually. Rusoff asked whether he had gotten into any analysis of trends. Schroeder stated that part of the work program was to do a trend analysis in neighborhoods. Van Cort stated he had some concerns about doing trend data because it is so much more work. Clavel requested that the Board receive copies of the 1980 and 1990 census information, so that it could be compared. Van Cort stated we could get a paper copy of the 1980 information to the Board. Kay asked whether assessment rolls could be maintained. Foster said that the Assessment Department does not keep old data. Van Cort stated that as we receive new data,we will archive it and hold onto it. Clavel suggested that the County may have the 1980 census information in digital form and Foster was to check with the County. Foster stated that the problem with old data is that things have changed over time,i.e. area boundaries,families,definitions,etc. Schroeder requested that Van Cort, Foster and he get together to talk about the work program item concerning a statistical analysis of neighborhood trends. Foster stated he hoped that the 1995 assessment information would have everything,i.e. sales information,improvements, sales trends,etc.,and everyone on the network will have access to it. Clavel asked whether building department data would be a piece of assessment data and also parcel-linked. Foster stated his mission was to try to show the power of the map and the power of the concept to share information within all departments. He stated that each department has all sorts of information and that it should all be in one place. Van Cort stated the goal was to get all departments to work together. Paul Stevenson,the Community Development Administrator,introduced himself to the Board and gave a report on the types of things he was involved with. He stated some of the projects that are underway now are preparations for the Mutual Housing Association construction(phase 2)and building of the day care center. Also, there is the C.E.O. Program which has about 15 participants doing classwork through TC3. He is working with Southside Community Center on some projects--RIBS and a program called the Family Resource Center to work with people in the neighborhood to help them deal with whatever they need in terms of job referrals, agency referrals,etc. They also have done$250,000 worth of improvements to the Southside Community Center itself. They are in the process of working with Common Council to set up a local development corporation and are working on implementing a revolving loan fund which will enable them to work with businesses in Ithaca. Minutes of July 25, 1995 Meeting 6 Schroeder said he believes the MHA project never got final subdivision approval. Stevenson stated MHA phase two was still being held up by final release from the State deposit trust. Schroeder stated that with respect to the park, things are being held up by the City Attorneys' office. Van Cort said he would write a memo to the City Attorney. Van Cort suggested scheduling a presentation by an individual staff member (perhaps every other month) to keep the Board up to date. Stevenson also stated that there is$650,000 in Community Development Block Grant money to reprogram,$300,000 of which has to be used very soon. He stated that they went out to developers,businesses,etc. looking for projects. Two or three projects will be coming out of this,and at least one proposal is likely to come before the Board--something that will require subdivision or site plan review. 5. Zoning Appeals Report Approval of the following report was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson and passed unanimously. Appeal No. 7-1-95 No comment. Appeal No. 2267 While the Planning Board leaves to the Board of Zoning Appeals the review of the specific facts in this case,the Board is strongly opposed to the further conversion of residential structures which will lead to a decrease in the number of single- family houses in the City of Ithaca and therefore opposes this request. Appeal No. 2268 No comment. Appeal No. 2269 Previously decided by the BZA. No comment. Appeal No. 2270 The Board recommends that this appeal not be granted since it would allow the legalization of an increase in occupancy which was previously illegally constructed. The Committee feels that it would be inappropriate to provide a post facto Minutes of July 25, 1995 Meeting 7 legitimization of this violation of the City's Codes and Ordinances. Any approval should be conditioned on the occupancy not increasing. Appeal No. 2271 While the Planning Board leaves to the Board of Zoning Appeals the review of the specific facts in this case,the Board is strongly opposed to the further conversion of residential structures which will lead to the diminution of single-family housing in the City of Ithaca and therefore opposes this request. Any approval should be conditioned on the occupancy not increasing. Appeal No. 2272 The Committee recommends that the applicant be required to increase the density of the screening between Route 13 and the lumberyard. In addition,more plantings should be located outside of the fence. When Grossman's originally came for a variance,the Board stipulated that their outside storage should be screened from the highway. The present fence leaves a lot to be desired. Appeal 2273 The Board of Planning and Development recommends that the BZA not waive the requirement that 610-612 Mitchell Street be owner-occupied. Permanent conversion to other than owner-occupancy would represent a further conversion of the neighborhood from owner-occupancy to rental. Appeal 2274 While the Board does not have comments on the specific aspects of this case,it recommends that the BZA evaluate the potential impact on the residential zone be of primary concern in evaluating this request. Appeal 2275 No comment. Appeal 2276 No comment. 6. Reports There were no reports from the Director, the Chair,the Board of Public Works or the Planning Committee. Minutes of July 25, 1995 Meeting 8 7. Approval of Minutes Schroeder moved and Rusoff seconded approval of the March 21, 1995 Minutes as corrected. Schroeder moved and Peterson seconded approval of the April 4, 1995 Minutes as corrected.