Loading...
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