HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1986-02-25 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1986:
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, S. Cummings, R.
Moran, T. Cookingham. Director H.M. Van Cort, P. Mazzarella.
1. l� 1 to Order - 7:40 p.m.
2. Public Hearing: Final Subdivision at Vann Outdoor Power Equipment,
371 Elmira Road. Ms. Blumenthal adjourned the Public Hearing stating
that it will be reopened next month.
3. New Business: A public meeting was held to discuss the proposed
subdivision on Spencer Road. Chair Blumenthal addressed the Board,
the neighborhood residents and the developer. She proposed that there
would first be a presentation of the proposal by the developer, Jerry
Weisburd, then there would be questions from the Board to the
developer, and then they would open the discussion up for
neighborhood questions and comments. Ms. Blumenthal noted that she
would like the request for the rezoning change on the agenda kept
separate. Also she stated that she would like to see the following
issues on the proposed subdivision discussed: the subdivision itself,
the impact of the subdivision, and the process the Board would
establish to deal with any problems pertaining to the proposed
subdivision.
Mr. Weisburd, the developer, then gave a slide presentation
featuring photographs of Spencer Road residences and the proposed
site of the subdivision. He also presented the plans of the
subdivision. After his presentation he took questions from the Board
members. Ms. Cummings asked him about the access road and what
the physical characteristics of the road are, including the slopes and
grades, and the width of the road. She also asked what kind of finish
the developer intended to use on the road and how the maintenance of
the road would be handled. Mr. Weisburd informed the Board that a
prof i le of the road was included in the package. He went on to say
that there would be a 15 foot wide drive going up the hili
that would not be a City sreet: The maintenance system on the road
would be by a contract that is let to maintain the driveways. Ms.
Cummings asked who would see that the contract was carried out.
Mr. Weisburd said that a contract could be set up to which the deeds
would be attached to allow for the maintenance.
Mr. Weisburd stated that there are already many private roads in
Ithaca. Ms. Cummings said that the Planning and Development
Committee is familiar with private roads and that there are many
problems of maintenance with these roads. She went on to ask Mr.
Weisburd how he intended to treat the surface of the road so that
garbage pickup on ice covered roads would be possible. Mr. Weisburd
told the Board that they have not decided whether to have oil and
stone or blacktop on the road, but that those were the choices. He
went on to add that garbage pick-up would probably be handled by a
private contractor because they do not know if the City will pick up
on private roads, and also that it would probably be more convenient.
Ms. Cummings asked how many people would reside in the units, she
also inquired about some of the physical properties of the units. Mr.
Weisburd described the units, he said some of them had two and some
of them three bedroom, there would be approximately 54 or 50
people, the bedrooms would be about 15 X 1 1 feet, and there would be
900 square feet per level. Although there would be no basement or
garage there would be a large amount of closet space. Ms. Cummings
inquired how they intended to market the houses. Mr. Weisburd
stated that there is a lack of affordable housing in Ithaca, he said
that family homes at $40,000 per home is very attractive in this area.
He continued by saying that they are more interested in selling to
families, but the market in this area varies greatly.
Mr. Cookingham brought the Codes and Administration Committee's
review of this proposal to the Board's attention. The first concern of
the committee was the maintenance of the road because unless there
is a contract that people are locked into not everyone is going to
honor the agreement. The second problem the committee reviewed
was the problem of drainage. The third problem the committee
addressed was the problem of getting emergency vehicles up the
slope. The committee determined that although the average grade of
the road is not too bad, there are some parts that are about a 20%
grade. The last problem the committee discussed was the problem of
insulating. The proposed units will be on a raised foundation, the
committee expressed concern as to how Mr. Weisburd intended to
insulate the foundation and keep the heating costs down at the same
time. Mr. Weisburd briefly answered some of these questions. He
stated that in regard to drainage the soil is a Lordstown soil which
is a good source of fill material, and that the drainage patterns would
not be changed. All the water would go into the City trench
along Spencer Road. in regard to the problem of insulation, Mr.
Weisburd said that they would be using a relatively new technique
that would solve the problem. He said he will be submitting the
details to answer the committee's questions.
Ms. Cummings inquired about the impact the development would have
on the surrounding neighbors, the physical appearance of the site, and
the property value. Mrs. Weisburd answered that in regard to the
visual quality of living, the houses being 300 feet back from the road
would really not be seen. She went on to say that the quality of life
in terms of who is going to be living in the houses would not change.
She stated that they are not interested in rentals, they believe that
these units will appeal to families. Mr. Jackson asked about the
possibility of blocking off the road to take away its roll as a short
cut to Route 13. Mr. Weisburd thought that that would be a good idea.
He went on to state that the actual increase of traffic from the
project would be only 1.97.
Ms. Blumenthal announced that the Board would now take questions
and comments from the public.
Chris Wheatley of 528 Spencer Road, began by stating that Spencer
Road is going through a revitalization, in years passed it had been a
run down neighborhood. He went on to say that the majority of homes
are owned by older couples and families with young children all who
really care about their neighborhood. The residents feel that the
proposed project will make it a less attractive area and will spoil
that sense of revitalization. He said that they really do not think
there is room for the project nor do they believe that they will be
owner occupied. The site is relatively close to Ithaca College
and they as a group are concerned about the comings and goings, the
parties, and the noise of the students. He stated that they want to
keep Spencer Road a place where people want to 1 ive.
Danielle Francis of 530 Spencer Road, discussed the sewage and
drainage problems. Sewage and drainage problems are manageable at
this moment. The water that is supposedly going into the culvert does
not, it goes into the yards on the other side of the street. If the
project was completed there would no longer be protection from
flood, and in a few years Spencer road would be like a swamp. She
said that she believed that Spencer Road could not handle the sewage,
drainage, and sanitation from the proposed project.
Dan TiIlemans of 513 Spencer Road, discussed the problem of traffic.
He stated that there are 300 cars an hour driving through Spencer
Road. Although the actual increased traffic from the project would
only be 1.9% there would be the extra cars of visitors and other
vehicles that could cause problems.
Vito Brancato of 548 Spencer Road, brought up the issue that Spencer
Road residents have had to struggle to keep their neighborhood a
residential one.
Ray Schlather, Alderman from the first ward, discussed some of the
documentation for the issues involved in this project. Mr. Schlather
began by pointing out that he believed it was the Boards duty to
review such things as topography of the land, zoning regulations, the
master plan, the general needs of the community, the best uses of the
land, the general suitability of the development, as well as a whole
litany of design standards that are more fully supported in Section
31.31 of the code. He went on to say that the Environmental Review
should be fully conducted by this Board under Section 36.5 of our
municipal code that says any project that has ten or more dwelling
units is presumed to have a significant effect on the environment. He
concluded by saying that before the Board can act it must conduct a
full environmental Review involving a preparation of a draft
Environmental Impact Statement, a period of time for public
comment, and submission of a final Environmental Impact Statement
with time for public comment.
Ms. Blumenthal informed the Board that they have already started the
Environmental Review Process, the Planning Department has
completed a short form assessment and the developer has filled out
what is called a long form in this process, the next step will be to
determine if an Environmental Impact Statement will be done. She
went on to state that they will discuss if this Board would want to be
a Lead Agent in this process.
Mr. Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development, pointed out that
the Board is not prejudging the Environmental Assessment, he said
that it is very important that everyone understand that entering into
the Environmental Review Process, because it is a type 1 action, does
not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement,
only the Lead Agency can make that determination. The Lead Agency
status is determined by Common Council. He went on to say that he
wanted to reassure the neighborhood residents and the developer that
the Board is doing all the things that Mr. Schlather pointed out, and
that the Board is aware of the regulations and is following the
regulations as best as possible and will continue to do so throughout
this process.
The problem of parking was addressed by Chris Wheatley, he stated
that with all the guests and other causes of overflow that Spencer
Road would be used for the excess of cars. Mr. Weisburd explained
that only 24 spaces are required and they would have 36. Mr.
Wheatley did not feel that that was an adequate number.
At this point Mr. Van Cort brought up the process of the Environmental
Impact under the New York State Law and City Law. He said that this
is a two step process, the Environmental Assessment and then the
Environmental Impact Statement. The Assessment starts with a
short form that is basically a check list, if there is an impact the
long form is then completed. After the long form is completed the
Lead Agency makes a determination whether the project may or may
not have an impact on the environment, if it may then the
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. Generally speaking the
developer will prepare both the long form and the Environmental
Impact Statement for review by the City agencies: Planning and
Development, Engineering, Traffic, Eire Protection etc.
The was one final comment and that was from the developer, Mr.
Weisburd. He stated that he thought one of the most prevalent
questions brought up was that of the density. He went on to say that
the zoning permits approximately 9 units per acre, this proposal has
3.5 units per acre. He concluded that it is the obligation of the City
to meet the needs for affordable housing.
Ms. Blumenthal now directed the Board to address the issues. It was
decided that the subdivision request would be referred to a
committee. for further study of the issues raised at this meeting.
Mr. Schlather discussed the time line involved in this process. he
explained that after submission to the Board, the conclusion of the
Planning Board must be discussed with the developer within six
weeks after the original submission. Within thirty days after the
discussion, findings must be submitted in writing to the subdivider.
In those findings the Board must either approve it or disapprove it or
give conditional approval. Then within six months after conditional
approval has been granted or approval has been granted the developer
must within that six month period of time give notice to the Board
and the neighbors must make application for the final plat approval.
The the Board must, after that application has been made, hold a
public hearing and render its final decisions of either approval or
disapproval modification within 45 days after the application for
final approval has been made.
Mr. Cookingham raised the point that it is not accepted as a
submission for preliminary approval until the Environmental
Assessment has been completed. Mr. Van Cort stated that the Board is
seeking the advice of the City Attorney in this matter. Mrs. Weisburd
stated that on the town level the EAF form is considered at the same
time as the preliminary subdivision review.
Ms. Cummings expressed a concern about the answer to questions that
are not in the Environmental Review, in particular, who will buy the
units.
Mr. Cookingham stated that he thought that the Environmental
Process through the long form could pinpoint those areas of concern
that have not been addressed. The form would also clarify what
problems are real and what problems are perceived.
Ms. Blumenthal suggested that these issues be referred to the
Neighborhood and Housing Committee with a request that it
incorporate a number of the neighbors and the developer. Mr. Jackson
moved that this proposal be sent to the Neighborhood and Housing
Committee for further study, and that it would include in that process
both the developer, representatives from the neighborhood and
appropriate staff. Mr. Cookingham seconded. Vote 5-0 ayes.
Ms. Blumenthal directed that the next issue, that of Environmental
Review Process be discussed. It is the Common Council that
determines Lead Agency status. Once the Lead Agency status is
established, the Lead Agent makes the negative or positive
declarations all the way through to the final hearing. The Planning
and Development Board would like to be the Lead Agent.
The next issue that Ms. Blumenthal brought up was the issue of
rezoning the neighborhood from R2 to R I. Mr. Weisburd stated that
this zoning could be a wrong move by the City because it
discriminates against moderate and low income housing. Mr. Jackson
said that he believed that this proposal should not be looked at only in
the context of this project. Ms. Cummings ended the discussion by
stating that the Board should establish a timeline of how all these
things weave in together so that everyone knows and understands the
implications. She continued by saying she thought this should be the
first order of.business. Ms. Blumenthal then closed the discussion.
4. Zonis eals See Minutes attached.
5. dvilege of the Floor: None
6. Committee Rer o� rts: A. Neighborhoods, Housing, and Facilities
Strategic Plan. Deputy Director Mazzarel]a passed out a list of
housing and neighborhood problems which he developed and discussed
with Ms. Cummings, Ms. Blumenthal, and members of the Housing and
Neighborhood Committee. The purpose of this list is to have the
Planning Board try to focus in on what the most serious problems in
the Housing and Neighborhood issue are. In order to prioritize the
issues, it was decided not to rank the issues at this meeting but
rather to mail them back to the Planning Dept. as soon as possible.
Mr. Jackson brought up several issues he thought should be added to
the lists of housing and neighborhood problems:
1. Problems of maintaining and fostering Neighborhood Civic
Associations.
2. Lack of organized representation of renters in a policy
making force.
3. Information available on housing conditions by
neighborhood, computerizing the information would solve
the problem.
4. Who is going to make the policy? Avoid a conflict of
by asking for a full recognition of interest.
5. Impact of cutbacl. in Federal funds on affordable housing.
6. Economic impact of new construction vs. renovation.
It was discussed that the next step was to set a public hearing on
what the Board needs to talk about about the goals and objectives. Mr.
Mazzarella suggested that the Board present some preliminary goals
and objectives at the meeting. It was decided that the Board would
wait until the public hearing. Mr. Van Cort mentioned that there was
a time pressure on the survey. Mr. Mazzarella said that he believed
that just because the survey is under pressure it does not mean that
everything else is under pressure.
B. Economic Development and Transportation: The Farmers' Market.
Mr. Jackson stated that the Common Council acted on two resolutions
from the meeting on February 5, 1986. He read an unofficial copies of
the resolutions.
1. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Common Council finds the site
presently occupied by the Cities' Water and Sewage Facility to
be an attractive and promising location for the Farmers'
Market.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Common Council directed the
Planning and Development Dept. and the Dept. of Public Works to
study the potential site of the Farmers' Market addressing such
issues as parking, traffic flow, site design, cost to the City and
ithaca's Farmers' Market, land use implications, and possible
complementary uses of the site and its structures.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the financial arrangement
governing the site be guided by the following principles:
1. All outside sources of funding including the Ithaca's Farmers'
Market itself be explored and utilized as much as possible.
2. It the City funds are committed to the project the same will be
committed at the lowest possible level consistent with creation and
maintenance of an attractive and commercially viable Ithaca's
Farmers' Market home.
3. Any City contribution to the cost of the project will be treated as
investments in the future of the Ithaca's Farmers' Market with
financial returns to the City to grow with the growth and prosperity
of the Farmers' market.
2. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the department of Planning and
Development staff be hereby authorized to make a preliminary
application to reduce the costs of said design study. Council
approval of final submission is to be contingent upon financial
participation in the study by Ithaca's Farmers' Market and upon
availability of 1987's City funding for site preparation
necessary for any transfer or lease of this parcel, and initial
findings from the investigation of this site's appropriateness
for the Ithaca's Farmers' Market.
7. Com rn i ttee L i a i son Relicts: None
8. Qld Business: None
9. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Cookingham, seconded by Mr. Jackson, moved
to approve the January 1986 Minutes. Vote 4-0-0-ayes.
10. Chairman's ReDort: Andrea Lazarski has resigned. Because there is a
hiring freeze still in effect, her position can not be filled without
approval from the Budget and Administration Committee.
WHEREAS, resignation of Andrea Lazarski has created a vacancy in the
Planning and Development Department
WHEREAS, The historic preservation and neighborhood functions of the
position have been of great value to the city since the position
was established
WHEREAS, the 1986 Planning and Development work program includes
a full year commitment to protects and programs in the
historic preservation and neighborhood service functions, as
well as the design and the technical assistance afforded to
both segments of the position
WHEREAS, if the position vacancy were not filled in as expeditious a
manner as possible these functions could not be performed by
the Department of Planning and Development
WHEREAS, the budget for the Department of Planning and Development,
as approved by Common Council includes adequate funds for a.
full roster in the Planning and Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning and Development
Board strongly recommends Common Council that the Planner II
vacancy created by Andrea Lazarski resignation be filled at the
earliest possible time.
11. Director's Rem: None
12. disf 1 neous: None
13. Adjournment ® Midnight
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
Eabruary 25, 1985:
Mr. Cookingham, Chair of the Board', Codes and Administration Committee ,
Mated that the Committee met prier to tonight's meeting to review this
month's zoning cases 1676-1681. The results of their meeting are
reported in the attached memo dated February 24, 1086. Cases
1676-1679 were found to Have no planning issues. Therefore, the
Committee detemined that Appeal 1580 would be discussed at the Board
meeting. Appeal 1681 was not discussed.
APPEAL-1-U-0-U-0 Request of Elizabeth Layer for a special permit for an
educational insitution in the First Assembly of God Church at 520 !Fest
Seneca St., Ithaca NY 148150 (R3B).
Mr. Cookingham stated that the use of the relatively small site between
two heavily trafficted streets with 50-75 children being loaded and
unloaded, involves some planning concern to circulation and public safety
which should be brought to the Boards attention. Mr. Cookingham
suggested that the Board discuss this issue now, and then communicate its
decision to the BZA.
Mr. Mayer stated that they were requesting a special permit to operate an
elementary -school in the Assembly of God Church. The school is currently
in the West Hill School Building and has 58 students and 6 faculty
members. The school would operate on two fl000rs of the Church, and
there would be adequate paring Spaces alongside the building. The
maximum number of students is 90. The students are met by the teachers
in the morning and discharged directly into a private car or a school bus in
the afternoon.
Ms. Blumenthal inquired how the space around the building was to be used.
Mr. Mayer Stated that this space was to be used as a parking Spot and a
driveway if possibly, but at the present they did not have any plans for
that area. Ms:. Blumenthal brought up the question of unloading the
children, and inquired if perhaps this portion of the Site was to be used for
unloading it co,,ld ease the problems of circulation if there were any. Mrs.
Mayer added that some children arrive before 8:30 and do not leave until
,J:00; Since they do not arrive and leave ft the: same time the traffic of the
children is eased.
Mr. Van Cort suggested that since the play area seemed constricted, that
perhaps they expand the play area and decrease the circulation area. Mr.
Van Cort also expressed concern about the parents leaving their cars. Mr.
Mayer explained that the children wil I be met by the teachers, and that the
parents will net leave their cars unless they park in the visitor's parking.
Mr. Jackson asked if there was to beparking in front of the building. Mr.
Mayer replied that there would be no parking in front the the buildina.
Mr. plan Cort inquired if the school intended to take the children across the
street to Washington park. Mrs. Mayer stated that she did not agree with
the idea of choosing a school spot in order to use a city park as the
playground. Mr. Van Cort went on to inquired about the small amount of
open space at the Church. The Mayers stated that besides taking the
children on field trips, they are setting up a play area within the school
itself. Mr. Van Cort brought up the paint that because the school has
K-8th, there would be older children who would need more area in which
to play and run around in. Mrs. Mayer replied that they will have an all
purpose room set-up and they also will take the children swimming every
morning.
Ms. Blumenthal brought the issue of extra traffic caused by the school to
Mr. Van Cart's attention. Mr. van Cort -explained that cars pulling off and
re-entering the moving lanes will impede flow causing a potential
accident, but went on to state that he believed it was within the capacity
of the street to handle it. He added that extra school zones signs would
help mitigate any potential problems. Overall, Mr. Van Cort thought that
this was the worst problem in this proposal, but that it was not an
unsurmontable one.
Mr. Jackson moved to recommend to the BZA that this proposal be approved.
Motion seconded by Mr. Cookingham. Vote: 5-ayes, 0-nay. Carried.