Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1996-04-23 Cdy Approved 5/28/96 Planning and Development Board MINUTES April 23,1996 Present:, Clarence Reed, Chair;Steve Ehrhardt;David Kay;Jane Marcham;Ellen McCollister;Carolyn Peterson. Staff: H.Matthys Van Cort;Herman Sieverding;K. Ross;applicants;other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor There were no comments from the floor. 2. Subdivision Review A. 309 Eddy St. Van Cort stated that staff reviewed this application and believes it to be a reasonable and prudent thing to do. He stated that 309 Eddy St.is an older wooden building and 303 Eddy St.needs additional side yard if it is ever sold. Staff recommended a negative declaration and the Codes Committee concurred. There was a question about whether it would change the future development of the land in any way. It was stated that the change would reduce the amount of development permitted on the parcel with the older building. The applicant,Chris Anagnost,presented some photos of the buildings. Kay moved for a negative declaration of environmental significance and Marcham seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. Kay moved for preliminary subdivision approval and Peterson seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. B. 120-140 Brindley Street- Novarr Van Cort reported that this was given preliminary subdivision approval last month so all that needed to be done would be a public hearing and final subdivision approval. A public hearing was held. Minutes of April 23, 1996 Meeting _ 2 Kay made a motion for final subdivision approval and Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. 3. Site Plan Review A. Wegman's-Adoption of Draft Scope for DEIS Sieverding distributed a cover memo and a revised draft scope. He said that on March 29 we received the proposed scope from Wegman's which was then sent out to Planning Board members and all interested and involved agencies. Shortly thereafter,an ad was run in the Ithaca Journal stating that the written scope was available in the Planning Department and that we would receive written comments up through April 19, 1996. Comments were received from five individuals including Tom West,Dan Cole,Bill Gray,Jim Hanson and the Codes Committee,and Sieverding said that the revised scope incorporates the comments from those individuals. Additional comments were received from DoT and DEC. Neither agency requested revisions to the Scope. Finally,a letter was received from the United Food&Commercial Workers requesting an economic impact assessment. This was not included in the Scope since competitive economic considerations go beyond the purview of SEQRA. Sieverding stated that the first major change was in II-B. He added more detail in terms of the intersection analysis. Specific intersections along Meadow Street are described in the Scope. In addition,intersections along South Titus Ave. are included in order to assess the impact of the proposed expansion on the Southside residential neighborhood. The drainage analysis was modified based on recommendations from the City Engineer's Office. The visual impact section was also revised to include an analysis of views from different locations around the project site. Finally,the alternatives section was revised to include a discussion of the no action alternative,expand on the existing site and alternative locations for the new building on the site. Frank Sciremmamano had some concern about the format of the document. He stated that the first three pages of the scope Wegman's prepared is what is required by the SEQRA regulations as well as an identification of potential mitigation measures. He asked that a description of the project be added to the beginning of the document. Sieverding said he had no problem with modifying the document and incorporating the changes, except that he would like to discuss the potential mitigating measures with the Board before it is finalized and distributed. Minutes of April 23, 1996 Meeting - 3 After discussion on the format of the document there was some discussion on the content,mainly the traffic issue. Wegman's representatives did not believe all the intersections listed needed to be analyzed and also asked the Board what the mitigating measures would be if the traffic did increase. After much discussion,Sieverding stated that he would modify the scope and get it out to the Board(without incorporating the mitigating measures). The Board decided to set a special meeting for Tuesday,May 7,at 12:00 to go over the changes to the scope and to discuss the initial mitigating measures to be incorporated. The final scope may be adopted at the May 7 meeting. O'Neill requested that a copy of the fmal draft be sent to him prior to the meeting. 4. Canopy request- 101 N. Aurora St. This item was deleted from the agenda because the Planning Board was not required to comment or approve the request. 5. Zoning Appeals Report(No report) 6. Reports A. Director Van Cort stated that he would like to see the Board adopt the Downtown Design Plan which was never adopted because the Board became emersed in other work. He said the first step would be an environmental review of the study and then adoption of it. Van Cort explained that the study was completed about three years ago. The study was partially funded by a grant from NYSCA. A consultant, Roger Trancik,was hired and a committee was appointed to work with him. He said he worked closely with Trancik on the study. Van Cort stated the plan was a modest attempt to make recommendations regarding the future development of downtown. He said the plan looks at existing buildings and makes recommendations for in fill buildings. He said the study area goes from Meadow Street to Aurora Street, to Court Street and Clinton Street and along State Street. This area is broken down into subareas which are studied separately. Some recommendations that Trancik made were for public spaces,which included new public plazas and new streetscape additions. Kay stated that that there is a history of comments that go along with this plan. Van Cort said that staff would mail out the environmental review to the Board so that it could be discussed at the next Codes Committee meeting. Minutes of April 23, 1996 Meeting _ 4 B. Chair The Chair reported that all were invited to a reception on May 2 at the Country Club to celebrate the Ithaca Journal going from an evening newspaper to a morning newspaper. C. Board of Public Works Ehrhardt reported that the BPW has been asked to cooperate with plans to provide a parking lot on W.Buffalo St. He said that the Board is divided on the issue. Those who are opposed say that it is not the business of the City to build parking lots, and those who are in support agree,but say that there are special circumstances in this case. Ehrhardt asked the Board how it felt about the rates being charged for outdoor dining on the Commons. He said that last year the BPW doubled the rate for restaurants, and he is pushing for it to be lowered this year. It was the consensus of the Board to favor lowering the rates because this would help promote more downtown activity. D. Planning and Economic Development Committee Jane Marcham reported the Planning and Economic Development Committee will oversee the preparation of an Economic Development plan. The Committee hopes to complete the economic development plan process by the end of the year and want to include as many people as possible. She said they were discussing new parking lots on W. Buffalo St. and Cliff St.,and they hoped the CDBG grant money would come through to pay for the W.Buffalo parking lot. She said since there has long been a problem on Cliff Street,now is the time to build a parking lot when they have the opportunity to do so. They have also been discussing revisions to the City EQR law in light of major modification to the State Environmental Quality Review Law. They believe the best thing for the City to do would be to repeal the City law temporarily and go with the State law. Sieverding stated that it could be on the Council agenda for May 1 to repeal the City EQR. He said that the CEQR must be compared to SEQR in order to determine where and what extent revisions to CEQR are required. A student may be hired to do this over the summer. Marcham stated that the Farmers' Market is going to add a pier and parking area. i Minutes of April 23, 1996 Meeting 5 She also said they were talking about a zoning change that has to do with expanding allowable uses in the B-1 zone,which will have to come before the Planning Board. 8. Approval of Minutes Peterson made a motion to approve the 3/26 Minutes as amended,and Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. 9. Miscellaneous Kay suggested that the Board may want to think about getting involved in some other projects since the agendas have been pretty light lately. He mentioned the Southwest Area Land Use Study. Sieverding was to check with Van Cort to see if a delineation report had been done. Kay also mentioned the Bicycle Plan and the Fulton/Meadow Design Study. Sieverding stated that the intent of the Fulton/Meadow Study is to look at the issue of whether or not zoning should be revised in this area and define ways for new development to occur. He said that this report would be coming to them soon. There was some discussion about the Pete's site plan and the fact that he was adding gas pumps to his site. Sieverding stated that the City owns the balance of the site in front of where the gas pumps will be located and suggested taking a look at putting in a row of trees in that area to screen the pumps from view of the major approach into the City from the west. Reed stated that there needed to be a comprehensive plan for the City as a whole. Kay said he strongly agreed, and Sieverding said they were always faced with zoning issues and piecemeal revisions so it would be a good idea.