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.