HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-03-10-special Approved 4/26/88
Planning & Development Board
Minutes of Special Meeting - March 10, 1988
Present: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, J. Daley, M. Sampson, S.
Killeen. Director Van Cort, Planner J. Meigs . Appellants,
Other Interested Parties, Press .
1 . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m.
2 . Public Hearing for Subdivision - 306 Elm St. /Clynes . Mr.
Clynes was present. The public hearing was opened by
unanimous vote; no one spoke for or against the subdivision;
the hearing was closed by unanimous vote. Mr. Meigs stated
that no technical difficulties or impediments to the
subdivision have arisen; there is a determination of no
significant effect on the environment by this action. J.
Daley MOVED final approval of the subdivision as indicated
in the plat. Seconded by M. Sampson. Vote: 5-0-0 .
Carried.
3 . Public Hearing for Subdivision - 356 Elmira Rd. /Continental
Journey's End Motel . Mr. Appel, Landscape Architect,
representing applicant, presented an update to the
subdivision request for the site of a proposed 2-story, 81
unit motel . He formally submitted five additional items
with the intention of mitigating concerns brought up
previously by the Board and other reviewing agencies : 1)
proposal of a secondary access drive on to Commercial Ave. ,
(northeast or southwest corner of the site) including
coordinating with the Fire Chief regarding need and
placement of a fire hydrant; 2 ) planting buffer originally
proposed to the rear ( land-locked corner) moved to a more
visible location along Commercial Ave. ; 3) four parking
spaces near the entrance moved 5 or 10 ft. from the driveway
to allow greater safety and maneuvering space; 4) proposed
4 ft. wide asphalt or concrete pedestrian walk parallel to
Rt. 13 about twelve ft. from the curb allowing safe
pedestrian traffic; 5) location of base installed for
street light as part of 1970 's Elmira Rd. improvements may
or may not be in conflict with proposed main vehicular entry
- this will be checked with the surveyor and, if necessary,
the base and/or entry will be shifted.
The Public Hearing was opened by unanimous vote; no one
spoke for or against the subdivision; the hearing was closed
by unanimous vote. Board discussion: The comments from the
City Engineer were reviewed: need for a secondary vehicular
access, desirability of a sidewalk along Elmira Rd. , the
question of the location of the proposed lighting fixture
which would be one of those that would complete the Elmira
Rd. improvements that had been begun 13 years prior,
indication that existing site drainage is slow because of
the flat nature of the site and his suggestion that the
P&D Board/3-10-88 Minutes (continued) : -2-
proposed elevation of the building might be too low (Mr.
Appel, however, pointed out that the elevation proposed is
actually higher than the elevations on all sides . ) The City
is in the process of working out drainage improvement for
the area as a whole. The Engineer also suggested moving the
four parking spaces on the exit side of the entrance away
from the circulation lane.
Regarding requested comments from Fire Chief Olmstead on
this project, the Fire Chief has stated that he needs four
weeks to respond to requests for review of development
proposals . Timing will have to resolved for the entire
subdivision review process in order to include Fire
Department comments into the procedures .
S. Killeen inquired about last month's discussion indicating
confusion over the lot lines (Zikakis previous subdivision
and incorrect recording of the plat) . Mr. Van Cort reported
that he has been informed that correction is in the' process;
Mr. Dirk Galbraith, Esq. , attorney for former owners of the
property, who addressed the Board on this subject at the
February meeting, has been notified and requested to correct
the situation; it is expected he will do so. The lot lines
the Board is being asked to approve are the actual property
lines as they now exist (internal lines are involved and the
applicant owns the parcels on either side) .
Signage was also discussed. Mr. Appel said the Corporation
will work within the Ordinance for compliance, and will
consult with City staff.
Betsy Darlington, Chair, Conservation Advisory Council,
inquired about the landscaping plans and Mr. Appel explained
in greater detail the landscaping proposals; planting
species were identified; maintenance of the annual and
perennial flowers will be contracted - the Journey's End
Corporation is very concerned with the aesthetics of the
motel properties .
An Environmental Assessment has been completed and a draft
determination of significance resolution presented to the
Board. After discussion it was agreed to amend the last
'Whereas' to indicate there can be a negative declaration
because the developer has agreed to meet certain
requirements as set by the Board to mitigate concerns; the
project as thus revised will have no negative impact.
Adoption of the resolution as amended MOVED by S. Killeen,
seconded by M. Sampson. Vote: 5-0-0 . Carried.
Motion made by S . Jackson, seconded by J,. Daley, to approve
the subdivision as proposed, with certain site plan
modifications and project contingencies, proposed by
P&D Board/3-10-88 Minutes (continued) : -3-
applicant, accepted and required to be implemented by owner
at owner's expense or resolved before issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the completed project,
specifically; 1) construction of a secondary access fronting
Commercial Ave. coordinating driveway with drainage and fire
hydrant placement,
2 ) installation of landscape plantings along Commercial
Ave. ,
3) modifications in parking plan to improve safety at main
vehicular entry,
4) construction of a 4 ft. wide permanent sidewalk,
approximately 12 ft. from curb along Elmira Rd. , and,
5) resolving with the City any conflict that may arise
between the location of light pole base installed previously
as part of Elmira Rd. improvements, and the proposed main
access from Elmira Rd.
Vote: 5-0-0 . Final Subdivision Approval carried.
(Mr. Meigs mentioned a minor contingency: the form of the
final subdivision plat as first submitted did not meet city
standards; this has been revised and will be reviewed by Mr.
Meigs for compliance as soon as time allows . )
4 . Discussion With Cornell Representatives :
Ms . Blumenthal stated the reason for holding tonight's
discussion was to address the issue of Cornell University's
growth and investigate ways to establish a dialogue between
the University and the City to achieve a better planning
process. By such exchange, the City will be made aware of
the University's plans and the University will become aware
of the City's needs and the impact their projects will have
on the adjoining neighborhoods and the City as a whole.
The Cornell representatives present included: Malden
Nesheim, Vice President - Budget and Planning; Lewis Roscoe,
Director - Campus Planning Office; John Burness, Vice
President for University Relations; and David I . Stewart,
Director of Community Relations .
Mr. Nesheim said there are many personnel changes at Cornell
in planning, construction and maintenance. The University
is devising a scheme which will ensure review and
consultation on campus development. The process for campus
facility planning, though involving consultation and
discussion in a variety of arenas, will save time in the
long run. For example, a new capital project (for
instruction space) is initiated by need. The academic
, programs involved are identified as well as the reasons
driving the need - incorporation in long-term needs;
incorporation in anticipated program development:
Discussions of these questions are held within the academic
unit (provost and central administration of the academic
P&D Board/3-10-88 Minutes (continued) : -4-
unit) resulting in a program development. The program is
then reviewed by a Provost' s Planning and Policy Committee
which is comprised of representatives of the various units
affected (e.g. , housing, traffic, circulation, etc. ) The
program then passes to a decision-making group (Capital
Funding and Priorities Committee) which puts together the
programmatic needs and the financial aspects. The next step
is review by the Facilities Review and Advisory Committee -
a consultative committee comprised of the constituencies
involved (housing, dining, parking, campus planning,
architecture, etc. ) The Campus Planning Committee, a
university assembly committee (presidential appointees,
students, certain department chairs, employees '
representatives) is another large group which also becomes .
involved at the early stage of discussion. This group has
two sub-committees : Architectural Review Committee and
General Planning Committee. The Architectural Committee
comments on the actual structures being considered; General
Planning helps with general campus planning issues . The
project then is presented to the Board of Trustees '
Buildings and Properties Committee. This committee has an
Architectural Review Sub-committee which again is largely
made up of professional architects providing architectural
review. Projects are then passed to the Building and
Properties Committee of the Board of Trustees who will
comment and recommend a project to the full Board or to the
Executive Committee. At this point a program concept is
approved with actual design of the building to follow. The
site is usually selected by this time, and its feasibility
can be established. After the program is accepted in
concept, the plan then proceeds to the construction phase
and an architect is selected. When the building has been
designed, it is reviewed again by each committee and
comments and suggestions are gathered. Eventually, an
approved design is brought back to the Board of Trustees for
final approval and construction can then commence.
Mr. Nesheim and Mr. Roscoe have been working closely with
the Campus Planning Committee to develop a written campus
plan. A draft is being prepared at this time. It will
include an introductory section listing some of the
programmatic issues driving the development of the campus,
as well as an inventory of existing components (e.g. , number
of beds, number of parking spaces, etc. ) using maps and
tables for illustration. Guidelines for development of the
campus written in 1972 are being extensively revised. The
draft addresses such items as circulation, parking, density,
architecture, vistas - this also will be part of the campus
plan. Potential development areas will be identified,
construction projects underway listed (starting date,
completion date, square footage, cost) , projects approved
only in the concept stage will be identified, and a five-
P&D Board/3-10-88 Minutes (continued) : -5-
year facilities plan will identify possible projects which
may or may not be consummated. The next step is to
formulate a financial/capital plan for the proposed
facilities. The University hopes to have a draft document
available soon which they would share with the City (perhaps
by the end of the academic year) . Asked if the City will
have an opportunity to comment, Mr. Nesheim said he would
welcome periodic discussions with the City, Town, and County
regarding the campus plan.
Dr. Daley asked if Cornell has considered City, Town, and
County membership representation on their committees. Mr.
Nesheim said decisions regarding membership were difficult
for instance, the Campus Planning Committee is a
constituency of the University Assembly and, therefore, City
representation would not be appropriate. He feels
consultation with the appropriate professionals in the City
would be more effective.
Mr. Daley asked where, on the continuum described, would the
City learn of projects or have an opportunity for input.
Mr. Nesheim suggested setting up routine discussions with
the City - how to accomplish this is open for discussion.'
Mr. Roscoe said the planning process is complicated because
of the variety of tasks involved. The City is notified of
projects, however, since the University needs approval of
the City in at least two ways : for a Building Permit and
for approval of projects by the Fire Chief. Mr. Daley would
like to see more casual and continuous contact rather than a
periodic update. Mr. Roscoe believes a mechanism could be
worked out to accomplish this interaction.
Mr. Jackson asked where within the campus community is the
question of impact on the surrounding communities raised.
Mr. Stewart said he and John Burness address these concerns
and inform the communities involved. Mr. Jackson suggested
dialogue on over-all planning as well as on specific new
projects.
Mr. Nesheim stated that the planning guidelines will be
flexible and will not be as stringent as zoning regulations;
the guidelines will be approved by the Trustees after
extensive review.
Mr. Jackson asked how can the City' s concerns regarding the
overall plan be incorporated in the process? Mr. Jackson
stated the process seems more conflictual than is necessary
and that individuals who could represent the City and
neighborhoods should be included in the process . Mr.
Nesheim stated that the overall plan which suggests possible
developments will not be approved by the Board of Trustees.
P&D Board/3-10-88 Minutes (continued): -6-
He agreed that the important issue here is getting
information to the City at an early stage.
Mr. Burness stated that he envisions the Board of Trustees
approving a broad set of conceptual frameworks; they will
not make specific approvals at this stage. He also would
like to see community involvement and believes it will be an
evolutionary process- beyond internal planning, a movement
is underway to involve communities at a point where
community impact can have an effect on the ultimate
decision.
Mr. Burness mentioned a housing study that Cornell is
preparing to evaluate the housing situation on campus. This
would clarify future aims and projects including the impacts
on the community.
Mr. Daley said, as he understands the situation, it appears
that the City receives information at Cornell's discretion.
If the City had a position/representative through which
information was readily available, the City could come to
its own judgment as to when plans might affect the City
(manner and degree) . Mr. Burness said if there were a
regular opportunity to interact at a staff level many issues
could be addressed at an early stage.
Mr. Sampson asked about the parking figures in Cornell's
report to the Planning Board last summer and if in light of
the Statler expansion these figures were still valid? Mr.
Stewart said the expansion was factored into the published
figures for campus parking.
Discussion followed regarding affordable housing - a genuine
problem for the City. An effective way must be found to
deal with inflated housing costs. Mr. Burness said the
University's housing costs soar because they are
constructing "residence life" facilities providing
counseling programs, specialized rooms, computer wiring,
etc. they are trying to create an academic atmosphere
outside the classroom. Because Cornell's costs are higher,
this does affect of campus rents. Though landlords may in
turn charge higher rents, they are not providing the same
services as offered by Cornell .
Director Van Cort asked when the East Hill Housingproposal
will be available and how the City could be integrated into
the process? Mr. Stewart said the Fire Department has
already been consulted. Mr. Burness said that as an
outsider, it is difficult to know who to talk to in the
City. He, too, is seeking suggestions to remedy this
problem. Mr. Van Cort suggested that liaison appointments
between Boards and Committees appear likely to be the most
P&D Board/3-10-88 Minutes (continued) : -7-
effective for keeping informed. In summary, it seems that
the best means for communication is through a regular
meeting every 6-8 weeks (as well as on-going informal
contacts as needed) . Mr. Van Cort hopes that as a result of
this discussion, Cornell might give serious consideration to
City participation on one or more of the University's
planning committees .
Mr. Killeen mentioned the proposed City Housing Commission
and the hope that it will include a Cornell delegate. Mr.
Burness agreed that housing is one of their major issues and
Cornell assistance on a Housing Commission would be
important and beneficial to both parties.
Betsy Darlington (Chair, Conservation Advisory Council)
asked about the excessive student enrollment that occurs
each fall, resulting in a housing 'crunch' that may not be
relieved for months . Mr. Burness said Cornell is working on
the problem - seven different undergraduate colleges are
involved with admissions - the room for error is great. Ms .
Darlington also asked if Cornell anticipated a fund raising
effort to assist housing development as they have for other
projects? The answer is unknown but because of the income '
involved, housing can be financed and capital generated on a
long-term basis. There is a trend now to live on campus - a
change from the past and this change was not anticipated.
Brief discussion was also held regarding the new gymnasium
with regard to parking, drainage, and runoff.
Ms . Blumenthal asked when the housing study would be
available. Mr. Nesheim said a consultant would be hired to
help with this project and he hopes to have the study
underway in a few months. The study will concentrate
primarily on student needs (as opposed to employees'
needs) . Mr. Van Cort stated that the strong inflationary
pressure on housing forces out low-income individuals.
Therefore, service personnel will be forced to move further
away from their jobs and consequently have to travel longer
distances to their employment. He suggested that Cornell
look at a broader picture of housing needs, if possible,
encompassing staff and faculty as well as students .
Mr. Daley asked when the City might review the housing
report? Mr. Roscoe said a printed document would not be
available initially but a series of drawings, slides, and
some statements could be available by the end of this
semester; a more formal document should be ready by the end
of the year.
Hopes were expressed that it would be possible to hold
additional meetings of this nature between the City Planning
P&D Board/3-10-88 Minutes (continued) : -8-
Board and Cornell University on a regular basis. Thanks
were extended to the Cornell representatives for their
appearance before the Board.
5. Adjournment - 10:30 p.m.
/mc
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
March 10, 1988
RESOLUTION
DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
CONTINENTAL JOURNEY' S END MOTEL SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Continental Journey's End Development Corporation,
purchasers of premises at 356 Elmira Road, request
approval of subdivisions made for the purpose of
redeveloping the former Talk of the Town restaurant
property as an 81-unit motel, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development is the
officially-designated Lead Agency for environmental
review of proposed subdivisions in the City of Ithaca,
and
WHEREAS, this project is a Type I action under City regulations
and an Unlisted Action under SEQR, and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment, Long Form, has been
completed for the project, showing that it may have
limited negative effects which are mitigable or
avoidable by project change, and
WHEREAS, staff review indicates that it is' highly desirable to
require mitigative action of the subdivider/developer
with respect to traffic safety and circulation,
through provision of an additional vehicular access to
the site from Commercial Avenue, and
WHEREAS, applicant' s representative, having considered comments
made by members of this Board, the Conservation
Advisory Council, and department staffs, has stated
that project changes will be made in order to reduce
or eliminate potential negative effects on traffic
safety and circulation, and to respond to suggestions
for site plan modifications to benefit Elmira Road
pedestrian traffic and to provide landscape planting
along Commercial Avenue, which project changes, as
required by this Board, permit a finding that the
project will not have any significant negative
impacts,
(over)
R
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and
Development of the City of Ithaca determine that the
subdivision of property at 356 Elmira Road for the
proposed motel is not an action that will have a
significant effect on the environment, and thus
requires no further environmental review, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination be filed as
required by applicable regulations, and that review of
the action proceed in accordance with the Subdivision
Regulations of the City of Ithaca.
Passed - 5-0-0. Mar. 10, 1988