Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-11-28 CI_It/ eY/< Approved 12/19/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES November 28, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal;Carolyn Peterson (arrived late);John Schroeder. Staff- H.Matthys Van Cort;L. Tsang;L. Chatterton;K.Ross; Steven Ehrhardt,Board of Public Works;applicants;other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor There were no comments from the floor. 2. Site Plan Review A. Oasis Christian Fellowship-808-814 South Meadow Street This project is a new church building proposed to be constructed with parking for 16 vehicles on the site. Adams stated that the primary concern of the Codes Committee was the drainage issue. She reported that the committee that had looked at this issue said that generally there was a problem in that area,but they did not feel this single project would affect things that much. Issues to consider before final approval would be planting,elevation,color,better division of the parking lot and preservation of one big willow tree. A public hearing was held. Blumenthal moved the following resolutions for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Schroeder seconded the motions. WHEREAS, the site development plan for the construction of a new church building and associated parking at 808-814 South Meadow Street was submitted(9-26-95)for review and approval by this Board,and WHEREAS, the preliminary site development plan was reviewed by the Planning Dept., the Fire Dept.,the Building Dept., and the Engineering Divisions of the Department of Public Works,and WHEREAS, the proposed development is a Type I action according to the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,and the full EAF parts 1,2, and 3 were completed, and WHEREAS, the development proposal was reviewed by the Codes and Administration Committee at its meetings on 10-16-95, and 11-20-95, and Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 2 WHEREAS, the review process has identified,as noted in the EAF parts 2 and 3,potentially large impacts on the land,on water,and on drainage, and WHEREAS, these identified impacts,though potentially large, are not significant, and some mitigating measures are included in the proposed plan,and WHEREAS, this Board,being the Lead Agency for environmental review of all Site Development Plan Review applications,has reviewed all the application materials and additional supporting documents,including comments from the Conservation Advisory Council on the environmental review of the subject proposal, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that this Board determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment,and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed according to the requirements contained in Part 617. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, the site development plan for the construction of a new church building and associated parking at 808-814 South Meadow Street was submitted(9-26-95)for review and approval by this Board, and WHEREAS, the preliminary site development plan was reviewed by the Planning Dept.,the Fire Dept.,the Building Dept.,and the Engineering Divisions of the Department of Public Works,and WHEREAS, this development proposal was reviewed by the Codes and Administration Committee at its meetings on 10-16-95, and 11-20-95, and WHEREAS, the environmental review and public hearing processes have been completed,and WHEREAS, the site development plan seems to be a best response to the exigencies of site conditions, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that Preliminary Site Plan Approval be granted for the purpose of the issuance of a fill permit for pre-construction site preparation. Carried unanimously. Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 3 B. Sage Hall Renovation-Cornell University Adams stated that since August,when the applicant first came before the Board,there have been joint meetings with ILPC and discussions with the architect. She said that ILPC has reviewed Part 3 of the LEAF and made their comments. Chatterton stated that the Commission wanted to make it clear to the Board that this was a close vote and that there were three members that had concern over the loss of historic value. Schroeder stated he had changes to propose to Part III of the EAF, which the Board then went through. Of particular concern was the issue of restoring the steeple to the top of Sage Hall's west tower as a mitigation for the loss of much of the building's historic fabric. A public hearing was opened. Prof.K.C.Parsons,from City and Regional Planning at Cornell, spoke to the issue of the steeple. He said that the project is not a renovation,but a demolition. He stated that 90% of the building would be going to the dump and what would be left is the facade of the building. He said that the issues relating to the historic value are not being dealt with and that the only way to do this would be to require a DEIS to be done. John McEwen,the project engineer for the project,spoke on behalf of the Johnson School stating that there were several people excited about getting this project going,including staff and alumni. Eric Dicke stated that the building needs to be handicapped accessible and that is what will happen. Shirley Egan stated that the purpose of doing an environmental impact statement is to get more information. She said this would gain nothing since Cornell has studied what the alternatives are already. The public hearing was closed. Schroeder moved a resolution to amend Part 3 of the EAF with a number of changes. These changes included a requirement,as a mitigation for the loss of much of Sage Hall's original fabric,that the currently missing steeple be restored to the building's west tower, so that tower and steeple would regain their complete original appearance. Adams seconded Schroeder's motion, and it passed unanimously. Schroeder moved the following resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. Adams seconded the motion. WHEREAS, the site development plan for the renovation of Sage Hall was submitted(8-22-95)for review and approval by this Board,and Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 4 WHEREAS, the proposed development is a Type I action as set forth in the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,and the full Environmental Assessment Form(EAF)parts 1,2,and 3 were completed, and WHEREAS, the architectural design options have been informally reviewed by the City's Planning and Building Department as well as by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC)throughout the project's schematic and design development phases,and WHEREAS, representatives from this Board attended joint meetings with ILPC and the two reviewing agencies communicated their issues and concerns, and WHEREAS, the review process has identified,as noted in the EAF parts 2 and 3, potentially large impacts on the land,on visual and historic resources,and on the character of the community, and WHEREAS, the impact on land,though potentially large because of the anticipated long period of construction,is not significant, and WHEREAS,mitigating measures for the other identified major impacts are included in the proposed plan and are listed in Part 3 of the EAF, and WHEREAS, this Board, as the Lead Agency for this environmental review, has reviewed all the application materials and additional supporting documents,including comments from the ILPC adopted at its 11-27-95 meeting,and comments from the Conservation Advisory Council,now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that this Board determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed according to the requirements contained in Part 617. Carried unanimously. Finally, Schroeder moved and Adams seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS,the environmental review and public hearing processes for the renovation of Sage Hall have been completed, now, therefore be it RESOLVED,that Preliminary Site Plan Approval be granted. Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 5 The following two proposals are to build two separate buildings on a lot that would eventually be subdivided. Tsang suggested that the Board treat these as two separate applications with two resolutions. C. Perfect Screen Printers- Cherry Street Industrial Park This project is a 3,740 sf building proposed to be built on the southernmost undeveloped lot on Cherry Street. It will have shared access from Cherry Street with Moro Design. Adams stated that there was a question about the dead end road. Van Cort is to talk with the City Attorney and Bill Gray regarding this issue. There was also some discussion regarding the drainage plan and planting plan. A public hearing was held. Schroeder moved and Adams seconded the following resolutions for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval with Conditions. WHEREAS,the site development plan for the construction of a 3740s.f. new industrial building for Perfect Screen Printers and associated parking at Cherry Street Industrial Park was submitted(11-3-95)for review and approval by this Board, and WHEREAS,this development proposal has been considered in conjunction with the proposed adjacent development,Moro Design, and WHEREAS,the proposed development is an Unlisted Action according to the City Environmental Quality Review ordinance,and the full EAF parts 1 and 2 were completed, and WHEREAS,this development proposal was reviewed by the Codes and Administration Committee at its meeting on 11-20-95, and WHEREAS,this Board, being the Lead Agency for environmental review of all Site Development Plan Review applications,has reviewed all the application materials and additional supporting documents, including comments from the Conservation Advisory Council on the environmental review of the subject proposal, and WHEREAS, the review process has identified no major impacts on the environment,now, therefore be it RESOLVED,that this Board determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment,and a Negative Declaration be filed. Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 6 Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, the site development plan for the construction of a 3740s.f. new industrial building for Perfect Screen Printers and associated parking at Cherry Street Industrial Park was submitted(11-3-95)for review and approval by this Board, and WHEREAS, this development proposal has been considered in conjunction with the proposed adjacent development,Moro Design, and WHEREAS, the Codes and Administration Committee has determined at its meeting on 11-20-95 that the proposed site development plan,except for insufficient site engineering and construction details and an inadequate development of a planting plan,has satisfied the general criteria of Site Plan Review,and WHEREAS, the environmental review and public hearing processes have been completed, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval be granted with the conditions that the following be further reviewed and approved by the Department of Planning and Development and the Office of the City Engineer: • the planting plan • the drainage plan • other architectural and site construction details (such as paving and curbing materials) • the curb cut design at the end of Cherry Street • possible inexpensive facade enhancement. Carried unanimously. D. Moro Design - Cherry Street Industrial Park This project is a 2,000 sf building proposed to be built on the southernmost undeveloped lot on Cherry Street. It will have shared access from Cherry Street with Perfect Screen Printers. There was also discussion on the issue of the dead end road,the drainage plan and the planting plan. A public hearing was held. Schroeder moved and Adams seconded the following resolutions for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval with Conditions. WHEREAS,the site development plan for the construction of a 2000s.f. new industrial building for Moro Design and associated parking at Cherry • Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 7 Street Industrial Park was submitted(11-3-95)for review and approval by this Board, and WHEREAS,this development proposal has been considered in conjunction with the proposed adjacent development,Perfect Screen Printers, and WHEREAS,the proposed development is an Unlisted Action according to the City Environmental Quality Review ordinance, and the full EAF parts 1, and 2 were completed, and WHEREAS,this development proposal was reviewed by the Codes and Administration Committee at its meeting on 11-20-95,and WHEREAS,this Board,being the Lead Agency for environmental review of all Site Development Plan Review applications,has reviewed all the application materials and additional supporting documents, including comments from the Conservation Advisory Council on the environmental review of the subject proposal,and WHEREAS, the review process has identified no major impacts on the environment,now,therefore be it RESOLVED,that this Board determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration be filed. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, the site development plan for the construction of a 2000s.f. new industrial building for Moro Design and associated parking at Cherry Street Industrial Park was submitted(11-3-95)for review and approval by this Board, and WHEREAS, this development proposal has been considered in conjunction with the proposed adjacent development,Perfect Screen Printers,and WHEREAS, the Codes and Administration Committee has determined at its meeting on 11-20-95 that the proposed site development plan,except for insufficient site construction details and an inadequate development of a planting plan,has satisfied the general criteria of Site Plan Review,and WHEREAS, the environmental review and public hearing processes have been completed,now, therefore be it Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 8 RESOLVED, that Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval be granted with the conditions that the following be further reviewed and approved by the Department of Planning and Development and the Office of the City Engineer • the planting plan • the drainage plan • other architectural and site construction details (including the proposed pergola,paving and curbing materials) • the curb cut design at the end of Cherry Street. Carried unanimously. 3. New Business A. Discussion of Off-Street Parking-Revision of Zoning Ordinance Schroeder stated the Off-Street Parking section of the Zoning Ordinance was being rewritten. He said that one significant change is that it provides new regulations for parking in back yards and side yards, with two ways to be in compliance. There was some discussion about whether this pertained to residential only and that there should be more protection for residential properties which abut commercial zones. B. 1996 Planning Department Work Program There was a general discussion regarding the 1996 Work Program. Van Cort suggested that a description of what needs to be done on each topic be prepared. He stated that the issue of the possible move of County offices downtown is still being negotiated,but should be completed this year. Kay stated that there would be a significant need for training and education of new Planning Board members,especially since there is a possibility of five new members next year. C. Discussion of December meeting date The December 26 meeting date was tentatively rescheduled for Wednesday,December 20,with the Codes Committee meeting on December 18. D. Appoint Committee for Bike Plan Kay stated that a consultant has been approved for the bike plan and that the contract is in the final stages. He stated that a client committee needs Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 9 to be appointed to work with the consultant. Steve Ehrhardt expressed an interest in being on this committee as Traffic Commissioner for the Board of Public Works. A meeting among Van Cort, Kay, Schroeder, Meigs, Dave Nutter and Rick Gray was scheduled for Tuesday,December 5, at 8:00 a.m. to consider the make-up of this committee. E. Discussion of Planning Board Zoning Variance Policy and Procedures Blumenthal briefly summarized her memo on Zoning Variance Policy and Procedures stating that the Board's procedures have not been clarified or formally adopted by the Board. Board members were to review her memo. 4. Zoning Appeals Report Approval of the following report was moved by Blumenthal,seconded by Schroeder and passed unanimously. Subject appeals have been reviewed by this Board. With the exception of the comments or recommendations enumerated below,for the information and consideration of the BZA,none of these appeals was felt to be of particular concern in regard to long-range or area-wide planning issues. They are returned herewith for action as appropriate. Appeal 2282(Use Variance to permit enlargement of one owner-occupied dwelling unit of a three-unit multiple residence,in an R-1 a zone at 320 Elm St.): This Board suggests that consideration be given to attaching one or more conditions to insure that this structure is not enlarged in such a way as to make it easy or attractive to convert the space into additional dwelling units at some future time,to conserve the character of the neighborhood. 5. Reports A. Director Van Cort reported on an upcoming site plan of Cornell Federal Credit Union for a drive-in window branch on Meadow Street between Esty and Court. He stated that the applicant has been asked to provide more space for landscaping. Adams stated that staff should find out what DoT says about curb cuts. B. Chair Kay stated that he had been appointed to serve on the Tompkins County Planning Federation. He stated their mission is to start off with education and training of Planning Board members. He said he will continue to Minutes of November 28, 1995 Meeting 10 represent the Planning Board,but he hoped that someone else would eventually take over for him. C. Board of Public Works No report. D. Planning Committee No report. 6. Approval of Minutes Blumenthal moved to approve the June 27, 1995 Minutes as amended. Schroeder seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. Schroeder moved to approve the July 25, 1995 Minutes as amended. Blumenthal seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. Blumenthal moved to approve the August 22, 1995 Minutes as amended by Schroeder and Blumenthal. Schroeder seconded the motion. Carried unanimously.