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.