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.