Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1986-06-24 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES - June 24, 1986 PRESENT: Chair S. Blumenthal , R. Moran, M. Sampson, M. Albanese! S. "Cummings, T. Cookingham, S. Jackson. Director H. M. Van Cort. Interested parties , members of the press. 1. Meeting called to order at 7:40 p.m. 2. Public Hearing: 740 Cascadilla St. The public hearing was opened by motion of Cookingham, seconded by Albanese. There was no one present to speak for or against the proposed subdivision. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Cookingham reported that the Codes and Administration Committee met and reviewed the request for final approval . Discussion centered on the environmental assessment as well as the matter of the building permit. There appears to be no effects of environmental sig-' rTff,icance and the Committee recommends final approval . Albanese, seconded by Cookingham, moved to grant final subdivision approval . Vote: 6-0. Carried 3. Public Hearing: Assessment Parcel 54-1-9. West Hill . The Public Hearing was opened by motion of Cookingham, seconded by Albanese. There was no public discussion either pro or con regarding the subdivision request. The Public Hearing was closed by motion. Mr. Cookingham reported that when the Committee met to review this subdivision the requested documents were not available. They however recommended that the public hearing be held - as advertised but final decision should be deferred until the required documentation was submitted and reviewed. Mr. Van Cort stated that some additional information was received this date. However the survey and the descriptions of the two easements which the city will hold over the property have not yet been completed. When these are received they will be reviewed by the City Engineer and City Attorney. An environmental review indicates no significance. Attorney George Pfann was present. Mr. Pfann is Mr. Walker's attorney as well as the owner of the abutting parcel. Discussion followed regarding use of the right of way by the contiguous owners. If both owners wished use of the right of way it would be shared equally. Mr. Pfann said at present he has no plans to develop his parcel , but if a road was to be constructed in the future he would be willing to share the cost in accordance with the procedure proposed by the committee. Motion was made by Cookingham to grant final approval contingent upon receipt of (1) survey, (2) legal description of the 50' easement, (3) legal descrip- tion of the 20' easement, (4) legal statement regarding the alternative ways of developing the right of way, (5) receipt of the easement from the County, and (6) filing documents with the County Clerk. Motion seconded by Moran. Vote: 6-0. Passed. -2- Planning and Development Board Minutes June 24, 1986 4. Zoning Appeals: See attached. 5. Preliminary Subdivision - Zikakis/Commercial Ave. : Mr. Cookingham reviewed the facts of this subdivision request. It was decided that the proposed subdivision should be divided into two portions: the first part for which an EAF was prepared involving the proposed car dealership at 370 Elmira Rd. , and a separate proposal for the remainder of the Marion property, including both the section Mr. Zikakis proposes to subdivide further, and the tract retained by Marion, not intended to be subdivided or developed immediately. The Committee felt .the Phase II Environmental Assessment presented was inadequate to cover potential development conditions on these sections, particularly drainage; it did not satisfy the conditions put on Final Approval of the subdivision for 370 Elmira. Rd. , in May. Director Van Cort discussed possible drainage structures which would have to be built in order to handle the "worst case situation", i .e. ; maximum paving with maximum runoff. In discussions with Mr. Trowbridge, Environmental Designer, staff had requested submission of supplementary information regarding parking impacts, traffic, municipal capital expenditures, etc. Mr. Trowbridge then stated that based on his preliminary EAF for the first parcel (for which the Board granted conditional Final Approval in May) he believed the significant impact for the remaining parcel was drainage. Therefore, Trowbridge and Trowbridge prepared additional information addressing this question; his study simulated a possible industrial park on Commercial Ave. to present a worst case scenario. He presented a letter summarizing his understanding of a meeting on June 20, 1986 with staff: as agreed, he would provide the following additional information regarding the Zikakis/Marion subdivision 1) Assessment of potential parking impacts when the subdivision has been developed, 2) Assessment of existing soil conditions and potential topsoil removal , 3) Assessment of impact on air quality resulting from increased vehicular traffic, 4) Assessment of visual impact on surroundings, 5) Assessment of traffic impacts, 6) Assessment of noise levels ,. 7) Assessment. of municipal . capital expenditures. The items mentioned in Mr. Trowbridge's letter were discussed by the Board. Director Van Cort suggested the Board grant Preliminary Approval for the remainder of the properties in the rear (Marion properties to the north and northwest). Mr. Trowbridge has exchanged information with Mr. Novelli , City Engineer, addressing the drainage question and runoff- swales' and culverts have been designed that could be used, in the area. A maximum development option was researched and that is reflected in Mr. Trowbridge's report. Planning and Development Board Minutes -3- June 24, 1986. - Ms. Cummings moved to grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval with the request that the seven items mentioned in Mr. Trowbridge's letter be investigated by Trowbridge and Trowbridge and the Planning and Develop- ment staff, with particular emphasis to be placed on items 4, 5, 6, and 7. Motion seconded by T. Cookingham. Vote: 6-0. Carried. 6. Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities Committee: Strategic Plan. Ms. Blumenthal reported on 'the Public Meeting that was held ,June 17,- 1986 regarding the preparation of a strategic plan. Approximately 50 people attended the meeting. Deputy Director Mazzarella gave a presentation to the public regarding the planning process; comments were received from the audience regarding topics they would like to see addressed; discussion followed about specific housing issues in the city. Since that meeting Kathe Evans has been researching some of the proposals that were suggested. Topics discussed included the. issue of owner occupancy and how to ensure a desired balance; the problem of encroachment (.student pressures, commercial pressures, growth, etc. ) ; parking and traffic. It was deemed that concentrated housing was needed and desirable for the city but no one could agree on a location for such development. The discussion indicated that there was a necessity to first define the specific areas where such development could occur in advance of housing projects. The next Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting is scheduled for July 1, 1986. Finally, the Board discussed a need for a second public hearing which might be scheduled for August or early September 1986. 7. Planning and Development Committee: Ms. Cummings referred to the Planning and Development Committee agenda for the next meeting on June 25. Regard- ing agenda item #2 (Niederkorn Rt. 96 Proposal ) , the P&D Committee will be studying a request for the City to participate in a three-way study of the impact of Rt. 96 relocation (City, Town and County would each finance 1/3 of the cost) . The P&D Committee will consider the proposal and make..a recommendation to Council. Also to be discusse& will be the East Hill Zoning Moratorium; should it be extended? and if so, for how long? There may also be discussion of a possible new HODAG for the Collegetown area. 8. Board of Public Works: Mr. Albanese reported that the Department of Public Works is investigating its own recycling program. A suggestion has been made to make recycling of certain commodities mandatory. The Board of Public Works is looking into other facets of;:recycling: storage, marketing, preliminary budget figures, etc. Ms. Cummings asked if the Planning and Development.Committee could have access to any reports or studies generated by the BPW in its investigation of recycling for use by the P&D Committee. In addition, Mr. Van Cort reported briefly on a visit to Oswego's solid waste disposal plant in which he participated along with representatives from the County and Town. Oswego has a very well maintained and efficient plant serving a County population of 130,000. Two hundred tons of refuse is burned daily. Their scale of operation is much larger than that of Tompkins County but certain aspects could be applied here on a smaller scale. Planning and Development Board Minutes -4- June 24, 1986 9. Economic Development and Transportation Committee: Farmers ' Market. Mr. Jackson reported on a tour to, Owego Waste Treatment Facility by City representatives and members of the Farmers ' Market Board. The Owego plant is the same type of plant that will be built in Ithaca and the purpose of the trip was to determine if odors from such a facility would be -a deterrent to the proposed Farmers' Market site on Franklin Street. The group concluded from the visit that odors would not present a problem. Helen Jones, Anna Steinkraus and Monica Crispin (Cooperative Extension) have joined in a cooperative effort to submit a grant application to the New York State Agriculture and Markets . The grant is being requested to assist in site study and design and to enable the City to hire professional consultants to further this work. Response . to the grant application request is expected around July 17, 1986. Strategic. Economic Plan: Mr. Jackson reported that in order to begin preparation of a Strategic Economic Plan in 1987, we must start now to interview consultants. To this end, a firm from Sommerville, Massachusetts (Mount Auburn. Associates) experienced in preparing strategic economic plans has been invited here for a preliminary discussion. In addition, other consultants will be sought for similar interviews . Mount Auburn Associates have agreed to visit Ithaca on July 17, and 18, 1986 to hold discussions with staff, Council representatives, and committee members. Mr. Jackson pre- sented the following resolution to the board: WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board reiterates its desire to see a strategic economic plan for the city completed in 1987 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board joins with the Mayor's TEDI committee in inviting two consultants to help begin the process of preparing a strategic plan, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board requests the Director of Planning and Development to make all necesarry arrangements to effect these visits. The above resolution was moved by S. Jackson, and seconded by T. Cookingham. Vote: 7-0. Carried. 10. Treetops Subdivision/Weisburd: Mr. and Mrs. Jerold Weisburd were present to put forth modifications to their original proposal . Mr. Weisburd feels that the original plan did not receive the support of the neighborhood or the city and so has put together a compromise subdivision plan which would conform to all existing zoning requirements - no variaces would be needed. The two major changes from the original plan are: 1) construction of a new city street and 2) division of the parcel into ten fully conforming lots . The advantages of this new plan were described in a memo from Mr. Weisburd: "In response to specific issues and concerns raised about the Treetops design, House Craft Builders is submitting a modification that has several advantages over the original plan. Planning and Development Board Minutes -5- June 24, 1986 The modification is a conventional subdivision plat, with conventional lots meeting all zoning requirements . Two major changes from the original pro- posal are: (1) to construct a new city street; (2) to divide the parcel into ten fully conforming lots. No residential construction is involved in this proposal . The advantages over the original plan, addressing specific items raised, are: 1. SPACING OF HOUSES The modification presented proposes building lots only. This allows builders to site their houses as in any conventional subdivision, with side, front, and rear yard dimensions meeting all city zoning requirements . For each lot, an individual building permit would be secured. 2. ACCESSIBILITY The proposed road, built to city specifications, would be maintained by the city, thereby avoiding the problem of maintenance by several different owners of a private shared drive. Maintenance of the private road by separate owners was raised as a significant concern by several Board members and area residents. The alternative of keeping the houses - and therefore road maintenance in one ownership was not favorably received. Fire access , on a .city street with appropriate turn around space, will be simpler than on the original plan. The road grade, although slightly more than the 10% standard, has a 3% to 10% less grade than many existing city streets on East, West, and South hills. 3. PARKING Each builder on each lot would put in the parking spaces required for the particular house being built. In addition, however, parking along one side of the new road would add 20 - 25 parking spaces for general use. 4. TRAFFIC AT 'A' (drawing #8) Traffic at this point would be reduced by 33% - 66% compared to the original plan. Traffic flow through this point was perceived as a potential problem by area residents and Board members . In the original plan, traffic from 12 houses (24 households) would pass through point 'A' . In the modified plan, traffic from only 8 houses (8-16 households , depending on the house built) would pass through that point. 5. LOT SIZE At an average of 13,000 s.f. , each lot would fall into the majority group of existing Spencer Road lots , according to the Spencer Road Survey done by Tillemans. One hundred percent (100%) of the lots would conform to all applicable zoning. 6. DRAINAGE Assuming two parking spaces per potential house, this plan has appro imately 40% less paving and roofing than the original plan. This would result in a corresponding reduction of run-off. 7. MAIL AND TRASH Eight of the ten lots would get mail and trash service off the new road. Only two would get service off Spencer Road. r Planning and Development Board Minutes -6- June 24, 1986. 8. ECONOMICS The larger lot size, lower density, and increased infrastructure cost may well , of necessity, result in construction of more expensive houses than those envisioned in the original plan. Area residents, Planning Board members, and many aldermen expressed a preference for higher priced houses on this parcel ." Mr. Weisburd stated that he may build on the proposed lots himself or he may sell off the lots to other prospective builders . The Board dicussed the changes to the original plan. The question of adequate drainage was again addressed and the question of whether to treat this request as a new project wa. discussed. A resident of the neighborhood, Martha Lyon, 507 Spencer Road, was present as well as other residents of the area. Ms . Lyon was concerned about parking on the new roadway and its access off Spencer Rd. She stated that increased density was still a major concern for residents of the area. Ms . Cummings mentioned several concerns raised by the Board. previously: access, traffic and drainage. These were again discussed as well as the configuration and placement of the lots on the subdivision. Ginger Klines asked if the environmental review had progressed further. Mr. Van Cort stated that the Planning Department had not received any add- itional information form the Weisburds pertaining to environmental review. After further discussion it was decided to pass the modifications to the appropriate committee for review and to include the City .Engineer, the Fire Chief, the Building Commissioner, and the City Attorney in the review of these plans. It. was suggested that the City Attorney determine whether this was to be considered a new subdivision request or a continuation of the original request so that the issue of timing not be jeopardized. Mr. Weisburd stated that as long as. progress is being made with regard to proper review of his proposal , the timing is not crucial to him_ Ms. Blumenthal informed Mr. Weisburd that the Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities Commit- tee would meet to review this proposal and the Planning staff and appropriate department heads would also meet to offer their respective comments and suggestions. 11. Approval of the May 1986 Minutes : ` Ms . Cummings asked for the following correction to be made to the. May Zoning Appeals Minutes: page 1, paragraph 3, line 5 "Ms . Cummings wished that a variance could be granted given the circumstances. . .". And to add to the end of that paragraph: "Special permit for owner-occupied rooming houses was suggested as a possibility." Motion was made by T. Cookingham, seconded by M. Albanese, to approve the Minutes as corrected. Vote: 6-0. Carried. 12. Adjournment 10:30 p.m. M ZONING APPEALS MINUTES Planning & Development Board Meeting June 24, 1986: Appeal 1704 - 411 Hancock St. : Mr Cookingham presented the facts in this appeal to the Planning Board. At present, the house is used as a 2-family dwelling. Appellant wishes to convert one unit to a household for up to five unrelated individuals. This would create a parking shortfall. Discussion followed regarding general rezoning of the Northside area and the problems encountered there such as properties located on deficient lots with inadequate parking. Mr. Albanese moved, seconded by Mr. Sampson, to pass this appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals without recommendation but to bring to the attention of the BZA the Planning Board's concern regarding parking. Ms. Cummings also wished to point out the accessory apartment ordinance which could be used in this case. Vote: 4-ayes, 2-nays (Cummings, Cookingham) . Motion carried. Appeal 1705 - 429 Campbell Ave. : Mr. Cookingham reported that the Codes and Administration Committee recommends approval of Mr. McLean's request for an Accessory Apartment in conjunction with the construction of a dwelling at 429 Campbell Ave. He stated that there were Ino planning issues involved and thus recommends that the Board pass this request to the BZA emphasizing the Planning Board's strong support of the special permit. The appellant, John McLean, was present. Director Van Cort commended Mr. McLean's proper presentation of his request (building plans and special permit) for an accessory apartment to the Building Dept. Motion was made by Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Cookingham to recommend approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Vote: 6-0. Carried. Appeals 1706, 1707, 1708: These appeals presented no planning issues and were passed on the the BZA without comment or recommendation.