Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1996-06-25 CbAk Approved 7/23/96 Planning and Development Board MINUTES June 25, 1996 Present: Clarence Reed, Chair;Steve Ehrhardt;David Kay;Jane Marcham;Carolyn Peterson (arrived late);Scott Whitham. Staff:: H.Matthys Van Cort;H. Sieverding;K. Ross;applicants;media;other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor There were no comments from the floor. 2. Site Plan Review A. Evaporated Metal Films Corporation-Parking Lot Development Sieverding stated that this was an application for a 100-space parking lot in the Cherry Street Industrial Park. He said that the Evaporated Metal Films building covers 50% of the original lot leased to EMF. There is not enough area on this lot to satisfy the parking demand. The City therefore leased EMF the adjoining one-acre parcel as part of its plan to consolidate its operation on this site. There was a question as to why the parking lot needed to be paved since it was already crushed stone and gravel. Barry Kasonic,EMF's contractor, stated that the operation carried on within the building requires a clean environment and one of their concerns is all the dust and dirt. They also want it paved for snow removal and ease of parking. There was some discussion about ponding in the street and storm water runoff. Van Cort said that this would be relatively minimal and getting the water into the creek right away would not be a bad idea. Whitham said that the concerns of the Codes Committee included the size of the planter that is 8 feet instead of 10 feet and the landscaping in front and alongside the building. It was stated they should be careful about the extent of berming next to the locust trees is the landscaping strip along Cherry Street. Marcham made a motion to open the public hearing and Ehrhardt seconded it. No one commented on the project. The public hearing was closed. Kay moved and Ehrhardt seconded the following resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 2 WHEREAS,a site development plan and related environmental review documents for the construction of an approximately 100 space parking lot have been submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed development is a unlisted action pursuant to SEQR regulations and a Type I action pursuant to CEQR regulations and LEAF Parts 1,2 and 3 have been completed, and WHEREAS,this Board, having reviewed the LEAF,adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in the LEAF,now therefore be it RESOLVED,that the Planning and Development Board, as lead agency, hereby determine that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment and that this resolution shall constitute notice of this negative declaration. Carried unanimously. Whitham moved and Marcham seconded the following resolution for Preliminary and Conditional Final Site Plan Approval. WHEREAS, a site development plan and related environmental review documents for the construction of an approximately 100 space parking lot have been submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS,the Codes and Administration Committee has concluded the project will have no negative environmental effects but that there are aspects of the project that need further refinement and therefore recommends a limited approval,and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purposes of considering approval of the proposed site development plan has been concluded,now therefore be it RESOLVED,that Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval be granted for that portion on the attached site plan,dated 5-31-96, so delineated subject to the 8 foot planting strip closest to the building be increased to 10 feet and the area in front of the parking lot and adjacent to Cherry Street be bermed to more effectively screen the parking area and be it further Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 3 RESOLVED, that the applicant submit a modified site plan for the areas around the building that increase the areas devoted to landscaping particularly along the west(front)and south sides of the building. Carried unanimously. B. Tompkins County-New Human Service Building Sieverding stated the County,pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with the City,is the lead agency in this application. He said that the MOU also calls for the Planning Board to conduct an advisory site plan review of the proposed project. Jim Kazda,the Tompkins County representative,described the project and presented some plans. He said the County had originally investigated the possibility of keeping the Biggs A Building but decided it would be better to move into the City to be closer to the people they serve. The 300 block of West State Street was chosen as the site for the new building and a through-block option was chosen because of reduced neighborhood impact. He said the proposed building would be a four-story structure with a total of 64,000-65,000 square feet and three stories on West Seneca Street. He also said they were considering developing parking on Block 14 which would create approximately 65 parking spaces; they also have 61 off-street parking spaces adjacent to the building. Whitham stated that the items talked about in the Codes meeting were: (1) more effective screening of the mechanical equipment on the roof of the building; (2)integrate the screening for the mechanical equipment more effectively into the overall composition of the building's elevations; (3) consider an alternative shape and color for the canopy over the front entrance of the building; and(4)work with the Salvation Army on a landscaping plan that more effectively screens the parking lot on West Seneca Street. Sieverding said that in addition to these issues,it was important to point out that there are some very positive aspects about the building, such as the careful attention to detail on the West State Street and Seneca Street elevations. Reed asked what kinds of considerations were made for safety and Kazda stated there were both interior and exterior plans. He said that the only place where clients will be seen is on the first floor of the building,and there is only one entrance through which clients could come. He also said there are monitors and cameras throughout the building for security purposes. He said the employees' entrance is off from the service court, and the parking areas will be very well lit but not overly lit so as to affect the neighborhood. Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 4 Reed asked if the lower story on the back of the building would be able to be built up if, at some point,it was decided more office space was needed. Sieverding stated this was not possible because the current zoning regulations would not permit that. Marcham said she was concerned about the east facade. She felt that it looked a little factory-like. Van Cort stated that this building would be bigger than its neighbors, and it will look like an office rather than a residential building. Ehrhardt agreed with Marcham stating that this will be different than what has been in the neighborhood in the past,but he welcomes the change. There were some concerns about the landscaping. Kazda said there will be no impact on the trees on Seneca Street and they are trying to avoid removing the ones on State Street. The Board suggested the trees in the plaza be shade rather than ornamental and reach a mature height of approximately 80 feet. They also suggested continuing to develop a complex level of visual detail as regards massing,facades,fenestration and color. Ehrhardt made a motion to open the public hearing and Marcham seconded it. Aaron Kazda stated he supported his father. The public hearing was closed. Ehrhardt moved and Kay seconded the following motion for Advisory Site Plan Review. WHEREAS,pursuant to the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County,executed in December, 1995, a site development plan for the construction of an approximately 65,000 square foot office building has been submitted for review and advisory approval by the Planning and Development Board,and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the proposed office building have been evaluated and reviewed by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives, the lead agency for this project, and the Board of Representatives has issued a negative declaration, and WHEREAS,the Codes and Administration Committee has reviewed the plans for the proposed building and has concluded that while the overall design is one that will add to the visual quality of the area, there are elements of the design that need further refinement, and Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 5 WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purposes of considering approval of the proposed site development plan has been concluded, now therefore be it RESOLVED,that the Planning and Development Board concurs with the Committee conclusion that the overall design of the proposed Human Services Building will significantly improve the visual character of the West State Street corridor, and be it further RESOLVED, that the County Design and Construction Committee consider the following elements of the design that,in the Planning Board's opinion,need further refinement: 1. more effective screening of the mechanical equipment on the roof of the building. 2. work what screening is suggested in the elevations for the mechanical equipment more effectively into the overall composition of the building's elevations. 3. consider an alternative shape and color for the canopy over the front entrance of the building. 4. work with the Salvation Army on a landscaping plan that more effectively screens the parking lot on West Seneca Street. 5. continue developing a complex level of visual detail as regards massing,facades,fenestration and color. 6. trees in the plaza should be shade rather than ornamental reaching a mature height of approximately 80 feet. Carried unanimously. 3. Old Business -Downtown Design Plan Van Cort said that Codes had decided the insert should not be included in the Downtown Design Plan but that some of the information should be incorporated into the resolution. Kay suggested the Board appoint a committee to revisit some of these issues. Van Cort stated that the Plan could be used as a guide to conduct site plan reviews, and he hoped people would accept it so that it could be referred to for guidelines and direction. Sieverding said it contained a lot of information dealing with public space. Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 6 Ehrhardt moved and Whitham seconded the following resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. WHEREAS,the Common Council directed that a design plan be prepared for Downtown Ithaca, and WHEREAS,then Mayor Benjamin Nichols appointed the Urban Design Study Client Group consisting of members of the Planning and Development Board,the Common Council and downtown business persons and property owners to advise in the preparation of the plan, and WHEREAS,the Downtown Design Plan was completed in September of 1992, and WHEREAS,the action necessary to adopt the Downtown Design Plan is a Type I action under the City's Environmental Quality Review Act,and WHEREAS,a full environmental review has been conducted including the completion of Parts I,II and III of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, and WHEREAS, it appears that the adoption of the Downtown Design Plan will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and the plan itself overall is beneficial to the environment and the safety and welfare of the area,and WHEREAS,the environmental review for the Downtown Design Plan has been referred to the Conservation Advisory Council for review and comment, and WHEREAS,specific recommendations for implementation of the plan will be analyzed under the City and State Environmental Review Laws as required, NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Board of Planning and Development fords that the adoption of the Downtown Design Plan as proposed will not have a significant negative impact on the environment,and be it further RESOLVED,that the Planning and Development Board as lead agency in this matter does adopt as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Long Environmental Assessment Form dated January 6, 1994, and be it further RESOLVED,that the Planning and Development Board as lead agency hereby does determine that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and that further environmental review is unnecessary under the circumstances, and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution shall constitute notice of this Negative Declaration and that the City Clerk be and is hereby directed to file a copy of Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 7 same,together with the attachment,in the City Clerk's Office and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Carried unanimously. Whitham moved and Ehrhardt seconded the following resolution to approve and adopt the Downtown Design Plan. WHEREAS,the Common Council directed that a design plan for Downtown Ithaca be prepared,and WHEREAS,the Planning and Development Department at the direction of the Common Council applied to and received funding from the Architecture,Planning and Design Program of the New York State Council on the Arts and for further funding assistance for the printing of the publication from the Planning and Preservation Fund of the Open Space Institute with support of the J.M. Kaplan Fund,and WHEREAS,then Mayor Benjamin Nichols appointed an Urban Design Study Client Group to advise in preparation of the report,and WHEREAS,the Downtown Design Plan was completed in September of 1992, and WHEREAS,in summary the plan recommends the construction of certain infill buildings with the provision of parking;proposes a series of interior block pedestrian walkways; and recommends a number of urban beautification measures, and WHEREAS,the plan's recommendations are based on the analysis of the City's current built form as it exists within the natural setting, and WHEREAS,the Board recognizes that not all elements of the plan will be implemented and some may be extensively modified as specific development projects are designed and specific environmental reviews are conducted,and WHEREAS, an environmental review of the plan has been completed and has resulted in a finding of no significant negative impact, NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Planning and Development Board does hereby approve and adopt the Downtown Design Plan as published in September 1992 as an amendment to the 1970 General Plan and as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan,and be it further • Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 8 RESOLVED, that the Downtown Design Plan be submitted to the Common Council for approval and acceptance. Carried unanimously. 4. New Business - Home Occupations (Discussion) Van Cort stated that the City doesn't adequately accommodate people who work in the home on computers. He said these people should be acknowledged and encouraged,and this should be made an as of right use. He said the"Home Occupations" section allows people to do this with a permit. He recommended that it not cover over 25% of the area of the house and that all employees live in the house. He suggested adding"telecommuter"to the list of businesses permitted under this section. Ehrhardt said he asked that this item be put on the agenda because he believes residential areas need to be protected. He suggested the Planning Board send a message to the Building Department and the Board of Zoning Appeals to reiterate this because he did not feel it was always being done. Reed said that as downsizing occurs one of the things that is growing is home businesses. He said they need to be regulated but did not want to limit business growth. He suggested that two employees not living in the house could be employed before the business had to move to a commercial site. Kay stated that the Planning Board has the option of reviewing special permits. He said that having more people doing this would strengthen neighborhoods. After further discussion, it was decided that Van Cort would draft up some language for the Board to review. Van Cort said he had been discussing the possibility of changing the zoning on the Wilcox Press site with Sieverding. Finally,he said that electrical assembly is not permitted in the B-2 zone; they must be in the B-4 zone or industrial parks. He suggested a small adjustment be made in the ordinance which would help businesses locate in downtown. 5. Zoning Appeals Report After a discussion on policies and procedures of zoning cases,it was decided to schedule a Codes meeting to discuss this. Approval of the following report was recommended. Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 9 Review of these appeals does not indicate any matters of significant planning concern. They are referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals for action, with comment as follows. Appeal 2302, Special Permit for Home Occupation at 130 E. Court St., in an R-2b zone. The proposed use is likely to generate minimal activity and seems to satisfy requirements for Special Permits. Appeal 2303,"Temporary"extension of grandfather"rights"to permit continued use of 417 Hudson St.,in an R-1 b zone, as a two-unit dwelling. No comment. Appeal 2304,Special Permit for enlargement of fraternity at 525 Stewart Ave., in a P-1 zone. Although the ordinance requires that"In such P-1 Districts, living accommodations within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts shall conform to the use and area regulations applying to the strictest of such adjoining residential districts,"in this case R-2a,which does not permit such use,the use has occupied the site for over 30 years and is appropriate and in character with the surrounding area,including existing uses in the R-2 zone. 6. Reports A. Director No report. B. Chair Reed asked if any of the City Visions memos had come back yet. Marcham said she would mention it to members of Common Council again. C. Board of Public Works Ehrhardt said he had given Van Cort a map of some sites in which to try traffic calming. He said when he received a response from the Planning Department and the drawings that Dan Cole is preparing,he would put together a proposal. He also reported on the issue of outdoor dining. He said they are trying to get the amount per square foot reduced because there is no justification in charging$7.00 per square foot per season. The Planning Board supported this idea. D. Planning and Economic Development Committee Marcham reported as follows: • The Planning and Development Committee was discussing the complication of permit procedures. Minutes of June 25, 1996 Meeting 10 • The Committee discussed the BID and how much the City should contribute. She said the County Board of Assessment agreed that the parking ramps should be assessed at about half as much as they were. • The Committee discussed West End parking. She said the concern was whether there was enough on-street parking for residents. She said they hoped that on-street parking could be restored on one side of the street on both Green and Seneca Streets. • The Committee also discussed the proposed Human Services Building and an overview of the bicycle routes. 8. Approval of Minutes The Minutes of May 7, 1996 were delayed to the next meeting in order for Kay to get his revisions to Board members for review. Ehrhardt moved approval of the May 28, 1996 Minutes and Whitham seconded the motion. Carried unanimously.