Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-04-26 Approved as amended (5/24/88) . Planning and Development Board Minutes - April 26, 1988 Present: Chair Blumenthal, M. Sampson, S. Jackson, A. Yale, S. Killeen, T. Cookingham. Deputy Director P. Mazzarella, City Planner J. Meigs, Community Development Administrator G. Goldwyn. Appellants, interested parties . 1 . Call to Order: 7 : 30 p.m. 2 . Privilege of the Floor: no comments received from the public . 3 . Public Hearing: Precision Filters Final Subdivision Approval/Cherry Street Industrial Park. It was moved and seconded to open the public hearing to receive public comment regarding the final subdivision approval. There was no public comment expressed. The public hearing was closed by unanimous vote. Board discussion of this topic to be taken up under Old Business . 4 . Zoning Appeals : The Codes and Administration Committee met on April 20 to review this month's appeals; they recommended that appeals 1837, 1839 , 1840 and 1842 be passed to the Board of Zoning Appeals without recommendation or comment since none involve matters of city-wide or long range planning significance. The exceptions noted were appeals 1838 (storage shed for Grossman' s Lumber) and 1841, which relates to a subdivision application and will be considered as part of that action. Regarding appeal 1838, concern was expressed regarding the effect of Grossman' s standard design and aesthetics at this major city entrance. The Board discussed recommending some landscaping and requiring Planning Board approval of the design as a condition of the variance. J. Daley moved, seconded by S. Killeen, to recommend to the BZA that in granting the variance for appeal 1838 a requirement be added: Planning Board approval of the exterior appearance of the proposed structure will be required as a condition of the variance. Vote: 7-0-0 . Carried. Moved by T. Cookingham, seconded by S. Killeen, to adopt the Committee's recommendations as amended and forward same to the BZA (see memo of 4/22/88 attached) . Vote: 7-0-0 . Carried. 5 . Preliminary Subdivision: 109 S. Titus Ave./Ronsvalle. P&D Board Minutes 2 April 26, 1988 Mr. Mazzarella reviewed the process in continuing this subdivision request in light of the Court decision. Preliminary Approval is still under consideration and it is at this point at which the Board will begin discussion. Mr. Ronsvalle, Anton Egner, and David Dubow, Esq. were present-69 Attorney Dubow stated that the proposal is the same as originally presented several months ago. S. Jackson moved, seconded by A. Yale, to enter into closed Executive Session for the purpose of discussing a possible appeal to the Court Order. Vote: Carried unanimously. The Board retired to the Conference Room for Executive Session. Following the Executive Session, T. Cookingham moved to reconvene the meeting, seconded by S . Jackson; carried. S. Killeen reported that the Board wished to consult with the City Attorney. After receiving his advice and acting within their legal rights, the Board may proceed with an appeal to Judge Ellison's Order. Discussion: Board members would meet as soon as possible with Attorney Nash to discuss the appeal procedures and react to his advice (i.e. , continue with the appeal or discontinue) . The above was so moved (Killeen) and seconded (Cookingham) . Vote: 7-0-0 . Passed. T. Cookingham moved to table the Ronsvalle subdivision until the issue of appeal is resolved; seconded by S. Jackson. Mr. Dubow commented that by law, the Planning Board is required to proceed pursuant to the Judge' s direction; the only way the Board could not take action would be if a "stay" was issued by the Court (not the case here) . It is Attorney Dubow's and Mr. Ronsvalle's position that the Board must act on the subdivision application this evening as directed by the Court Order. Deputy Director Mazzarella said that the City Attorney has advised that the Board has 30 days from the Order's rendering date to decide whether or not to appeal the Decision. If an appeal is decided upon, the Board need take no further action on the subdivision application. Mr. Dubow took exception to Attorney Nash's advice; he reiterated that a "stay" of the Court was required to delay the application. Mr. Jackson stated that normally the Board would table an application in order to obtain more information; such procedure is not inconsistent with the Board's subdivision process; the spirit is being maintained: attempting to respond to the Court Order but reserving the right to a legal appeal. Vote to table the subdivision application: 7-0-0 . Carried unanimously. 6. Preliminary Subdivision: 217 & 221 Columbia St./Bergman. Mrs . Bergman was present and explained the subdivision request; she wishes to add a driveway to their property to provide on-site parking; a 12 ft. strip will be purchased P&D Board Minutes 3 April 26, 1988 provide on-site parking; a 12 ft. strip will be purchased from the adjacent neighbor and the Bergman lot line extended by 12 ft. Conservation Advisory Council comment: No significant impact. The Board determined that this application warrants a negative environmental declaration. J. Daley moved, seconded by T. Cookingham, to issue a Determination of No Significant Effect on the Environment. Vote: unanimously carried. J. Daley moved, T . Cookingham seconded, Preliminary Approval of the requested subdivision. Vote: 7-0-0 . Carried. 7 . Preliminary Subdivision: 256 Floral Ave. /Mogil. Mr. Mogil was present; he is requesting expansion of the lot by approximately 20 sq. ft. to permit enlarging his single-family residence by 14 sq. ft. The Conservation Advisory Council determined there would be no significant impact. Mr. Cookingham, seconded by Mr. Jackson, moved issuance of a negative environmental declaration for the subdivision; motion carried. S. Jackson moved Preliminary Subdivision Approval, seconded by J. Daley. Vote: 7-0-0. Passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary Subdivision: 140 Coddington Rd. /Wells . Mr. Wells and James Loveall were present. Mr. Meigs reported that in preparing Part II of the EAF, some potential large impacts on the visual resources in the area and in the physical change to the site were noted. He brought these concerns to the subcommittee and suggested a tentative recommendation for a finding of significant impact. The committee had ambivalent feelings regarding the significance of the impact - substantial from some viewpoints but also representing development which is permitted by the zoning regulations; appearance would differ from the surroundings . A conference with the applicant was held to discuss in greater detail the specifics of the proposal . Revised drawings were distributed to the Board; Mr. Loveall explained that the subdivision plan has been revised to incorporate the Board's suggestions; 5 original parcels have been reduced to 4 to provide additional space for vehicular parking requirements and to help maintain the residential nature of the area. Mr. Meigs stated that mitigation of the visual impact and the overall density of the proposed development would conclude in a negative declaration in this instance. He believes the layout (positioning of the structures) , clustering and smaller lots tend to give the appearance of a residential development rather than an apartment development. J. Daley commended the "good faith" effort of the developer, Mr. Wells . T. Cookingham moved, seconded by P&D Board Minutes 4 April 26, 1988 J. Daley, to issue a negative environmental declaration. Vote: unanimously carried. Motion to grand Preliminary Subdivision Approval moved by Jackson, seconded by Daley. Brief discussion followed regarding landscaping; Mr. Loveall stated that the cost of landscaping has been included in their budget and shrubs, plants, and trees will be provided as appropriate. Also, he will continue discussions with the city on parking requirements including review with the Fire Chief of the safety codes . Mr. Mazzarella questioned whether plantings in the island shown in the cul-de-sac would be acceptable; this should be checked with DPW and the Fire Department. Vote: 7-0-0 . Passed. 9 . Preliminary Subdivision: Sunrise Terrace/Ciaschi et al. Scot Raynor, Dan McClure, Terry Ciaschi were present. Mr. Raynor explained the proposal; an 8 . 91 acre parcel situated between Warren P1. and Taylor Pl. is proposed to be divided into 19 building lots including an extension of Sunrise Rd. and a cul-de-sac roadway (with a future extension to the north) . Each lot will contain a single-family residence- approximately 2,000 sq. ft. , and a 2-car garage; the architectural style would be in keeping with the existing neighborhood. Mr. McClure commented that they would be completing a roadway which would improve traffic flow in the neighborhood . The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area (single-family homes, same price range, extensive landscaping) . This would be a 2- or ' 3-phase development covering a 3-year period. B. Darlington, Chair, CAC, gave the committee report listing their major areas of concern: drainage, erosion, impact on Silver Creek, impact on natural environment, loss of open space, foreclosure of possible future use as a neighborhood park, obstruction of views, cumulative impact of this and other nearby proposed subdivisions . Mitigating measures and comments on specific items are related in the memo of 4/22/88 from B. Darlington. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed subdivision and commented that the examination of this request should be done jointly with the other subdivisions in the area on which there are applications pending approval. A new up-dated master plan for the West Hill area is necessary and decisions must be made regarding designation of major streets . Sunrise Road as proposed barely complies with the regulations for a minor street (r . o .w. 50 ft. ) ; easements and setbacks will invade existing properties (intersection of Warren and Taylor) . The City Engineer is concerned with adequacy of the street layout and its coordination with existing and proposed West Hill streets. Mr. Meigs feels this is a major concern and adds that this is a Type I action under the city's environmental review ordinance (streets, adjacency of the P&D Board Minutes 5 April 26, 1988 stream, development of more than 10 units and potential for significant change in the neighborhood) . The controversy issue was addressed; Mr. Meigs has had a number of inquiries ; much interest generated; not necessarily negative. Mr. Meigs stated that extreme care should be taken in relation to the utilities and streets to be undertaken in light of the numerous subdivision requests for this area; coordination and study are needed. J. Meigs also reported on correspondence received from Alderperson R. Schlather, expressing his concern of the proposal and the importance of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Neighbors in the audience included: Patricia Dougherty, 405 Warren Pl. ; Anthony and Ann Marsella, 401 Warren Pl. ; E. M. Lynch, 222 Cliff Park Rd. ; Jas . Lawrence, 325 Warren Pl. ; G. Sullivan, 321 Warren P1 . ; A. Pivirotto, 422 Taylor P1 . ; V. O. Kostroun, 410 Taylor Pl . ; W. A. Sinclair, 420 Taylor P1 . They listed a number of concerns including: blocking of views (could buildings be kept to 1-story structures? ) , water pressure (presently pressure is insufficient - 19 additional households would exacerbate the problem) , mass of residences, set backs, width of street (some areas very narrow) , grade of street (winter often produces slippery conditions ) , bonding of improvements , blasting for excavations, etc. Mr. McClure commented on drainage - he claims drainage would not be increased; would be the same or less because runoff would be interrupted above the development and collected along the roadside (as required by the city) . Blasting for excavations (which is heavily regulated) would be kept to a minimum and would be used only if heavy equipment could not perform the task because of excessive rock formations . S. Killeen wished to underscore the need for public safety regarding new streets; the need for a coherent overall plan for West Hill; the capital improvement costs to the city. T. Cookingham moved for the issuance of a positive environmental declaration and the need for a scoping session to address the environmental questions . Seconded by S. Jackson. Vote: 7-0-0 . Carried. Mr. Meigs and Mr. Mazzarella stressed the need to review concurrently all the pending subdivision applications for West Hill and to place them on hold if necessary until a new street plan is adopted. It was estimated that work on this project could be completed in approximately two months by city staff. 10 . Community Development Application 1988/89 : Glenn Goldwyn, - P&D Board Minutes 6 April 26, 1988 Community Development Administrator, presented a summary of the proposals for the 1988/89 application. The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency met and reviewed the Citizens Advisory Council's recommendations and adopted a budget for the application. Mr. Goldwyn reviewed each proposal and the approved budget amounts. These included: Homes, Inc . - life safety and code items for development of 507 W. Green St. for use as an Adult Residence - $45,000 . Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services , Inc. - Mutual Housing Association infrastructure costs and some construction costs of the first phase of development of 14 units on West Hill -$375,800 . Excel, Inc. - addition to building, creation of 20 new positions (10 entry level) - $50, 000 . Accufab, Inc. - expansion of building (3 entry level positions) - $15, 000 . Community Development Administration - $114,200. Mr. Goldwyn explained that the application is required to include representation in three areas : housing, public facility and economic development. INHS had requested funding in two areas - (a) Mutual Housing Association project on Floral Ave. and (b) operational support for rehabilitation activities in the amount of $60, 000 (which had been funded in previous applications) . The difficulty in funding the $60, 000 for operational assistance involved in the rehab activities is that it comes on top of additional operating assistance requested in the MHA and at this state it would not be attached directly to the production of rehabilitated units (which HUD might view as an excess of operational funding within the application) . INHS wishes to seek funding for the rehab activities through other city sources (endorsed by Mr. Goldwyn) Ms. Amy Simrell, Project Planner for Homes, Inc. , was present and answered the Board's questions regarding the Adult Residence at 507 W. Green St. Douglas Dylla, INHS Director, spoke regarding the Mutual Housing Association proposal. The Board briefly discussed each application including the amount allocated for CD administration. S. Killeen moved, seconded by T. Cookingham, approval of the Community Development application as proposed. Vote: 7-0- 0. Carried. J. Daley moved, seconded by S . Jackson, that the Planning Board recommend to Common Council that the technical assistance loans/grants for INHS rehabilitation activities which were previously paid for by CD grants be funded through other city allocations. Voter 6-yes, 1-abstention (Killeen) . Passed. P&D Board Minutes 7 April 26, 1988 11 . Precision Filters - Final Subdivision Approval: Deputy Director Mazzarella explained the subdivision request. Precision Filters wishes to expand their building and use a parcel across the road for customer and employee parking. The IURA and Common Council have approved a new lease; provisions include construction of a 15, 000 sq. ft. building and the addition of 20 jobs within three years . J. Daley moved, seconded by T. Cookingham, to grant Final Subdivision Approval as presented. Vote: 6-yes, 1-no (Jackson) . Carried. 12 . Site Plan Review: Jon Meigs reported on the major issues identified at the subcommittee meeting for site plan review: determination of number of steps in the process and determination as to staff' s approval/screening role in identifying minor projects . An hour long discussion ensued, beginning with the original three-stage process (sketch plan review) conducted by staff, where developer's initial questions would be answered and where staff would determine if the application was complete and all pertinent questions answered by the developer (an optional but recommended step) . Subsequently the application would be presented to the Board for their comment as to the readiness of the application for final approval (the need for a public hearing would also be determined at this time) . It was suggested that this process was long and tedious for many of the smaller projects . Discussion followed regarding size of projects and the thresholds which need to be set. Questions raised included: who has final authority for approval?; at what stage is the public invited to comment?; are there statistics to estimate the number of cases which would require review per year? It was again mentioned that site plan review will involve considerable staff time- initially it would entail explaining the process to the developer (what information is needed, when meetings must be scheduled) . In addition the public must be informed (written notice mailed, ads written and published) , etc. It is anticipated that there will be more site plans to review than subdivisions in the near future - many will be controversial. When the site plan review is presented to Council an estimate of the time involved and the cost of hiring additional staff to handle the work loan should be included. Council will need to determine if they want staff and Board time devoted to site plan review or to planning issues - are they willing to hire more staff? It was suggested that the Chair brief Council on the Board's site plan review progress and inform them that a final draft should be ready by the June Council meeting. In the interim P&D Board Minutes 8 April 26, 1988 the Board will hold a special meeting to continue discussion of the third draft. 13 . Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities Committee: A. Yale reported on the proposal for a Rental Housing Commission. A draft resolution was distributed. Discussion followed concerning a Rental Housing Commission as opposed to a Housing Commission. Since 2/3 of housing in Ithaca is rental housing it seems appropriate and urgent to address rental issues . The Board concurred and felt this was good strategy. Discussion centered on the membership of the committee. S. Jackson felt that there was no guarantee that renters would be part of the membership as it was now proposed; renters could be included by designating "at large" seats or by requiring that among the seats held by others, some reasonable number must be held by renters . Mr. Yale asked the Board to add their comments to the draft resolution and forward same to Mr . Mazzarella for incorporation into the final version. 14 . Economic Development and Transportation Committee: J. Daley answered questions regarding the Ithaca Farmers ' Market and their temporary location on the Watt lot. This northside site may be used for the remainder of the season; gravel must be placed on the site to reduce dust and mud. 15 . Director's Report: Deputy Director Mazzarella spoke about Six Mile Creek watershed. An ad hoc group has met to discuss actions the city might take to help preserve the watershed; preservation of the integrity of the watershed/supply and preservation of natural land which might be used for other purposes (recreational) . The group will study options for preservation: buying land/easements, creating conservation overlay zones, etc . This is a multi- jurisdictional venture involving the city, the Towns of Ithaca, Danby and Caroline, and the County. The first step is to identify what might be realistically accomplished, costs involved, timing, and effectiveness . Thereafter implementation would begin. S . Killeen asked if the Planning Board would be represented. J. Daley volunteered to represent the Planning and Development Board. 16 . Chairman's Report: Chair Blumenthal stated that the Conservation Advisory Council Chair, Betsy Darlington, discussed conservation overlay zones to protect the creeks, gorges , and watersheds . This is in an early development/tentative stage and will be administered by the CAC. 17 . Liaison Reports : J. Daley reported that the Town of Ithaca P&D Board Minutes 9 April 26, 1988 is applying for a federal grant to establish a bike path from Buttermilk Falls to Burns Road. S. Killeen reported that the Cable Franchise and is being reviewed; public involvement is desired; Common Council should vote on the franchise in June. Mr . Killeen distributed a Cornell newspaper article regarding the University' s building plans; the article may be helpful in the Board' s discussion with the Cornell officials . Mr. Killeen also discussed cost sharing with the Town for fire protection. The Town agreed to $900, 000 for a new station and this is not a workable figure; the amount needs to be raised in order to construct a proper facility. He also mentioned that the New York State Empire Games will be held in Ithaca in 1989 . J. Daley spoke briefly regarding the proposed County baling station. The County is considering two possible city sites - waterfront land near the new water/sewer treatment plant or a parcel in Cherry Street Industrial Park. They have asked for a decision from the city within two weeks . 18 . Approval of Minutes : Moved, seconded and approved, minutes of March 10, and March 22 , 1988 . 19 . Journey' s End Motel : J. Meigs reported that the development of the motel is proceeding in compliance with the Board's requests as specified in the Final Subdivision approval. 20 . Linden Av. Parking Structure: Mr. Meigs reported that the Shade Tree Advisory Committee had reviewed the landscaping for the project, as requested by the Board. A communication reporting STAC' s recommendations on this topic, and on issues of procedure and responsibility in future referrals, was distributed. 21 . Meeting adjourned - 12 :20 a.m. /mc P&D Bd.disk/Minutes .Apr ......IT _ Nr War— Anil sea a� p.......... RAE� CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 148SO DEPARTMENT OF = TELEPHONE:-272 1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CO FIT,DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: Board of Planning and Development l From: Codes and Administration Committee Re: Appeals 1837-42 Date: April 22, 1988 This committee reviewed subject appeals on April 20th, and has determined that none involve matters of citywide or long- range planning concern; and thus recommends that, with exception of #1841, which will be discussed in the context of its companion subdivision application, recommends that they be passed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for action, with the following comment: The committee is concerned about the appearance of the northern section of the Rt. 13 corridor, and the effect of unsightly development in this stretch on people's perception of the city. It is hoped that the proposed storage shed for Grossman's Lumber (appeal 1838) will reflect a more mature and sensitive corporate design approach than has been characteristic of the firm's past, and that the use of alternating orange and white stripes on the building's wall can be eschewed. JM/mc "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"