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"