Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1996-03-26 etc/ C/e :4. - Approved 4/23/96 Planning and Development Board MINUTES March 26, 1996 Present: Clarence Reed, Chair;Steve Ehrhardt,David Kay,Jane Marcham,Ellen McCollister, Carolyn Peterson,Scott Whitham. Staff. Herman Sieverding;Marlette Geldenhuys, City Attorney;K.Ross;applicants;other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor Guy Gerard spoke about comments made at the last Planning Board Meeting regarding the environment. He said that the environment and the welfare of people are one in the same, and the only difference is that economic benefits are the most immediate and environmental benefits are often delayed. Reed responded by stating that the goal of the Board is to find a balance between those citizens that are environmentally sensitive and the other citizens of Ithaca. 2. Subdivision Review A. 120-140 Brindley Street/Novarr(Environmental Review/Preliminary Subdivision Approval) Sieverding explained that John Novarr was subdividing a 1.6-acre site he owns in order to construct a new Millwork building. Sieverding stated that John Novarr will continue to own both parcels. Each parcel will conform to the zoning requirements for the I-1 zone. McCollister moved and Kay seconded the following resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. WHEREAS, application for approval of a subdivision property known as 120-140 Brindley Street has been submitted to this Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an Unlisted Action according to both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and a Long EAF parts 1 and 2, has been completed,and WHEREAS, this Board,the Lead Agency in this environmental review, has reviewed the application materials and supporting documents,including comments from the Conservation Advisory Council,and WHEREAS, the review process has identified, as documented in the LEAF, no potentially large impacts on the environment,be it Minutes of March 26, 1996 Meeting _ 2 RESOLVED, that this Board determine that the proposed subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment,and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed according to the requirements contained in Part 617 hereof. Carried unanimously. Kay moved and Ehrhardt seconded the following resolution for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. WHEREAS, application has been made for approval of subdivision of property at 120-140 Brindley Street into two parcels,and WHEREAS, environmental assessment of the proposed action has been conducted,and a Negative Declaration of environmental impact has been made,and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision has been reviewed by all appropriate agencies,none having commented or objected,be it RESOLVED, that this Board grant Preliminary Approval of the proposed subdivision,with no conditions. Carried unanimously. 3. Site Plan Review A. Ithaca Millwork/Taber Street/Novarr(Public Hearing/Environmental Review/Preliminary Approval) It was reported that the concerns of the Codes Committee were the addition of plantings and runoff calculations. The Fire Department had concerns about a fire lane between the two buildings. Sieverding stated that the fire access lane will be widened at the far end of the street. Reed suggested the applicant take a look at the space along the inlet to see what could be done to make it more environmentally friendly. The Board agreed that additional plantings along the inlet would be welcome. There was some discussion about rainwater on the site,but it was concluded that this was not an issue. There was also some discussion on the two residential houses near the site. Novarr stated that there was a fence and a line of evergreens separating the property. Minutes of March 26, 1996 Meeting - 3 Whitham moved and McCollister seconded the following resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. WHEREAS, a site development plan for a 20,100 sq ft woodworking shop has been submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Board,and WHEREAS, the proposed development is a Type I Action as set forth in the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,and WHEREAS,an environmental assessment of the proposed action has been performed, and a Long Environmental Assessment Form,Parts 1 and 2, prepared,and WHEREAS,the review process has identified, as noted in the LEAF, no potentially large impacts,and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency for this environmental review,has reviewed all the application materials and additional supporting documents,including comments from the Conservation Advisory Council,be it RESOLVED,that this Board determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment,and in accordance with that decision,that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law be filed as provided by Part 617 thereof. Carried unanimously. Kay moved to open a public hearing on the site plan and Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. There were no comments from the public. Whitham moved to close the public hearing and Marcham seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. Ehrhardt moved and Whitham seconded the following resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. WHEREAS, the site development plan for a 20,100 sf woodworking shop has been submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Planning Department,the Office of the City Engineer,the Building Department,and the Fire Department,and Minutes of March 26, 1996 Meeting - 4 WHEREAS, the proposed site plan has been revised according to recommendations from City staff,and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted and environmental review of the proposal was completed,and WHEREAS, the proposed site development plan, as described and shown particularly in the following documents: 1. Site layout dated Mar. 6., 1996,by A. M. Chambliss,Jr.,and related drawings of the same date (Grading,Utilities,Elevations);2. Planting plan dated Mar. 6, 1996,with revisions dated 3/20/96,by A.M. Chambliss,Jr. and Trowbridge&Wolf; and 3. Planting schedule and site drainage information from memorandum dated Mar.20, 1996,from Rick Manning,Trowbridge&Wolf,was found to be satisfactory in terms of site plan approval criteria,be it RESOLVED, that Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval be granted, subject to meeting Fire Dept. requirements for width of the fire lane along the eastern side of the facility. B. Wegmans (Environmental Review-Determination of Significance) Ken O'Neill,Director of Engineering for Wegmans,requested that the Board consider a negative declaration. He stated that the charge of the Board is to identify and resolve environmental issues,which does not necessarily mean you have to go through a full DEIS. He also stated that they have been involved with 29 major projects and they were only asked to do an impact statement on two of those projects. He said that if there are issues the Board needs more information on,the applicant would be more than willing to provide that information. There was some discussion of the possibility of declaring a negative declaration on the environmental review and attaching conditions to the site plan review. Mariette Geldenhuys said that attaching conditions on a negative declaration for a Type I action is not permitted under SEQR. If it is determined that the project may include one adverse environmental impact,she would advise against attaching conditions to a negative declaration of environmental significance. Kay said that the City Code has established lower thresholds for Type I actions and that there is no requirement for an environmental impact statement,but it is the Board's choice. Reed said that the Board has the authority and responsibility to look at negatives and issues that are questionable and move ahead with anything they choose to move ahead with. Minutes of March 26, 1996 Meeting _ 5 It was decided to go through Part 3 of the LEAF a section at a time. The applicant pointed out several items that were of concern to them. The Board concluded that there were three major issues they were concerned with,including traffic,drainage and visual impact. Sieverding stated that a full DEIS would be required analyzing these three issue and defining appropriate mitigating measures. O'Neill stated that Wegmans wanted to do scoping. The Board has two months to complete the scoping process. He said they would probably lose the construction season, and his concern was to get through the issues. Kay stated that it stands to the applicant's detriment to delay, so he made a motion for a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance. Whitham seconded the motion. The vote was 6-1 in favor,with McCollister opposed. O'Neill stated that both parties have a right to ask for a scope, and he wanted it on the record that the applicant was requesting a scope. Sieverding said the applicant would prepare the scope to reflect the three issues stated above,namely traffic,drainage and visual impact. Reed stated that since there are a large number of citizens in Ithaca who are environmentally sensitive,he would suggest the applicant take a look at how the area behind Wegmans could be utilized to benefit wildlife. He also suggested they contact a man by the name of Steve Kress at Cornell for help on this matter. 4. Zoning Appeals Report The following report was prepared to send to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Appeal 2292 concerns Cornell Federal Credit Union's request,based on its determination that it is a neighborhood commercial facility,for a special permit that would allow parking for its facility in a residential zone. The Credit Union owns several parcels which it has combined to develop a new branch bank building. The assembled parcels consists of land zoned B-2a and land zoned R-2b. This development was reviewed by the Planning Board in the Fall of 1995. Site Plan approval was granted in December, 1995. The approved site plan calls for all the commercial development,including parking,to be constructed on the portion of the site zoned B-2a. That same plan calls for the area zoned R-2b to be landscaped. The Planning Board,based on presentations by CFCU during site plan review,concludes that this is a branch bank serving the City of Ithaca, not a Minutes of March 26, 1996 Meeting - 6 neighborhood commercial facility. Therefore,parking in the R-2b portion of the site can only be allowed by a use variance. Furthermore,constructing a parking facility on this portion of the site is a modification of an approved site plan subject to approval by the Planning Board pursuant to the City's Site Development Plan Review Ordinance, Section 276-5 (K). Appeal 2293 is for Area Variances to permit construction of a 2-unit dwelling,and addition to an existing one-unit dwelling,at 106 Cook St.,in an R- 3a zone. The resulting three d.u.s. would accommodate 13 persons. Variances requested/required are for lot area,lot coverage, and front and side yard setbacks. The lot area of 6,600 sf is substantially deficient from the 13,000 sf needed for the project as proposed,though it would be adequate area for construction of a new 1-to-3 unit dwelling if the existing house were demolished. The total combined coverage of the new structure and existing structure with addition would slightly exceed the maximum 35%permitted. The front and side yard deficiencies are existing with the present 1-unit dwelling,and are thus"grandfathered,"but the addition to this structure would also be closer to the side lot line than permitted as of right. Mr.R.Paltz,representing applicant Carole Paltz,described the proposal to the Codes Committee. The proposal is also under review by the Landmarks Commission,as it is located in the East Hill Historic District. David Kay advised Mr.Paltz during the Codes Committee meeting that the Planning Board does not normally comment upon appeals for Area Variances,and that any comment or recommendation would be only advisory,for the Board of Zoning Appeals to take into consideration as it sees fit. In discussion,committee members expressed the following concerns,which are forwarded for consideration to the Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. That the general character of the area,in terms of its appearance,be maintained. 2. That the proposed project will reduce the amount of available off- street lease/rental parking, adding to the demand for on-street space in this dense student residential area. 3. That both new construction and the addition to the existing structure be consistent with the intent of designation of the East Hill Historic District in which the property is located. Minutes of March 26, 1996 Meeting 7 4. That the density of the proposed development appears to exceed the capacity of the site potentially resulting in impacts on surrounding properties. Further,in recognition of the fact that the property is located slightly more than 200 feet from a part of the neighborhood containing single-family owner- occupied housing,and that the residents of that area may have concerns about the proposal such as its effect on parking demand and supply,it is recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals allow a representative of the Orchard Place area to address the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding this Appeal,if requested. Appeal 2294 for a special permit to allow a home occupation is recommended for approval by the Board. Based on a discussion with the applicant,the Planning Board determined that the proposed home occupation appears to meet the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-3. Absent specific information about traffic,the Planning Board encourages the Zoning Board to explore this issue further while making its final determination. 5. Reports A. Director Sieverding proposed that the Board might want to start talking about adopting the Urban Design Plan since the agenda seems to be pretty light. Kay said he was in favor of doing this,but he felt the Board should get a sense of what the other outstanding issues are. Mayor Cohen said that Common Council did adopt a work plan for the Planning Department and the Board would be involved in the long-range economic development plan. Kay said that all that needed to be done to adopt the Urban Design Plan is for the Board to vote on it,but this would involve getting familiar with it. It was decided that Kay and Peterson would make a list of all the outstanding issues the Planning Board needs to deal with. B. Chair Reed presented a draft of a memo to the Mayor and Common Council regarding City Visions. There was some revisions made to the memo, and it was decided to request that the memo be returned by May 1. Reed said that when he received back all the responses he would put together a summary and distribute it to the Board. C. Board of Public Works No report. Minutes of March 26, 1996 Meeting 8 D. Planning and Economic Development Committee Jane Marcham reported that the Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance was returned to the Committee and that several of the suggestions from the Planning Board were used. She said some of the issues the Committee is talking about are a parking lot on Cliff Street;rezoning so that the Senior Citizens Center could use the OB/GYN offices; and she said there was a negative declaration on the subject of conversion of Inlet Island. She also said that Susan Blumenthal has some plans for economic development and she wants the City to go through the process it went through a few years ago to revive downtown. Kay stated he had some resolutions that he thought would be appropriate for the Planning Board to send to Sarah Adams, Anne Clavel,Denise Rusoff,Susan Blumenthal and John Schroeder for their service on the Planning Board. Staff was directed to prepare the resolutions and send them out. 8. Approval of Minutes Reed moved and Ehrhardt seconded a motion to approve the 2/27/96 Minutes.