Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1989-10-24 G: f MINUTES Planning and Development Board October 24, 1989 PRESENT: S. Blumenthal (Chair) , M. Cochran, T. Cookingham, J. Daley, D. Gooding, S. Killeen, A. Yale. Staff: Deputy Director P. Mazzarella, J. Meigs, P. Weed. Also, Applicants, Other Interested Parties, Media. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. 2. Privilege of the Floor: No requests made. 3. Subdivision: 210-14 Elmira Road/Novarr. Mr. Hoard represented the applicant for this two-lot subdivision in which one of the parcels is being offered for sale. The applicant requested to reserve the. option to move the west property line 20 feet east if it were desired by a potential buyer; this detail would be resolved before final approval is sought. Environmental review--CAC and staff recommended a determination of no significant impact. It was reported that buried fuel tanks on the property have been excavated, and contaminated soil was removed and property disposed of. DEC has made the comment that if remaining hydrocarbons become an odor problem, an 'engineering solution' should be found; Mr. Hoard said practical means of abatement include building ventilation or removal of more soil. Killeen MOVED, seconded by Cookingham, Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Meigs reported the city engineer's observation that all utilities easements will have to be respected in the new deeds. Cookingham MOVED, seconded by Killeen, to grant preliminary subdivision approval; motion carried unanimously. 4. Zoning Appeals Report. Mr. Cookingham read the report drafted in accordance with committee recommendations. Brief discussion of Appeal 1939 for a use variance to permit a used car operation and office trailer at 409 N. Meadow Street which is being recommended for denial by the Planning Board on various grounds (insufficient support of assertions) . The applicant appeared but was not heard. Appeal 1943 for area variances to allow office use of 612 W. State Street was also recommended for denial. Atty. William Shaw asked to address the Board regarding this petition. He expressed annoyance at the Board's policy of not hearing appeals when BZA procedures and notices seem to imply otherwise. He was disturbed at not being permitted an opportunity to speak to issues raised by the Planning Board before its recommendation goes to the BZA. It was agreed to pass appeal 1943 on to the BZA with only the comment that the Board is concerned because of the potential impacts on parking in the area especially with Route 96 improvements. Planning & Development Board Minutes - Oct. 24, 1989 Page 2 Daley MOVED, seconded by Gooding, to endorse the comments made in the memorandum of October 24 to the Board of Zoning Appeals as amended; and the motion was carried unanimously. It was concurred that the BZA form should be revised to de-emphasize the significance of the Planning Board meeting for input to BZA, and to establish a written policy. 5. Site Development Plan Reviews: A. Center Ithaca Expansion. Because some of the required documentation has been received only recently, giving inadequate time for review to determine whether the submission is now complete, including all items on the technical checklist as well as those in his memo which were made conditions on preliminary approval; or for in-depth final review of the sort needed for projects of this much importance to the City, Peter Weed recommended not acting on final approval at this time. He does not feel that the material submitted to date fully satisfies the condition of preliminary approval. Mr. Look of HOLT then reported on his meetings with the fire chief and police chief; it was determined that provision of adequate lighting would be the best method to address public safety concerns, and the secure entry adjacent to Home Dairy alley was identified as a good feature. It was advised that if security problems do arise, other options should be pursued (e.g. blue light, cameras). There. was a brief discussion about the open steel trellis which will cover the alley between the new building and the present Center; aside from insuring safety by using steel structure, there was interest in making it visually attractive, including possibly the use of plant materials. Ms. Blumenthal stated her strong feeling that the location of the 'arcade' running through the addition from North to South is the issue of major importance that needs resolution: should there be a direct passage extending through the building, on line with the Home Dairy alley? The location of the arcade was analyzed in some detail by architect and client after the last meeting, and the east entrance location was the preferred choice for Center Ithaca Associates because it will tend to draw foot traffic past the Green Street store frontage and through the building. Another alternative studied, an arcade alined with the alley in addition to that preferred by the client, would be 'confusing' and reduce rentable space. Mr. Look agreed with Mr. Weed's suggestion to widen the pedestrian crossing zone on Green Street to align it with the preferred main entry to the arcade, and there was further discussion concerning the pros and cons of the crossing being mid-block because it would be closer to the existing "desire line" and could thus help reduce dangerous jay walking. Center Ithaca Associate Stan Goldberg argued for the crossing nearer the Tioga St. intersection, pointing out that with the new Mental Health Building and a potential new Planning & Development Board Minutes Oct. 24, 1989 Page 3 parking structure flanking the helix, much more foot traffic could originate near this corner. Discussion followed concerning the relationships between the crossing and the two arcade entrances considered. Mr. Look also mentioned that the building material to be used for the project is synthetic stucco; and described the revision of the entry to the arcade from Green St., including removal of the tower that some felt would be an obstruction. Another modification in the plans following previous Planning Board discussion is the angled wall opposite the end of the Home Dairy alley, which responds to concerns about security and the character of the sequence of spaces accessible to the public. Chair Blumenthal then asked for a straw vote on Board members' preference on location of the "arcade"; six stated they were either in favor of, or found acceptable, the location as proposed by ______ _ __ ---- applicant, -. - The. Board expressed satisfaction with the manner in which plans have progressed for this project, and encouraged Center Ithaca Associates to continue dialogue regarding facade treatments and colors, while preparing for review for final approval. B. Stewart Avenue/Edgemoor Lane Neighborhood Parking Lot/Cornell University.. Construction was underway when Cornell applied for a building permit for this project which involves paving, curbing and lighting of an existing gravel parking lot. The building commissioner has ordered Cornell to stop construction as this project requires site development plan review. Daley, seconded by Cookingham, moved to open a public hearing. Mr. Cochran read a letter from John Schroeder in which he objects to Cornell creating parking for student vehicles at the expense of open green space. Public hearing was closed on motion by Cookingham, seconded by Yale. Mr. Daley commented that he would like to see Cornell reconsider its policy of allowing undergraduate car ownership, since from the city's point of view it would be preferable for students not to have cars at school. Discussion followed concerning the use of the parking lot when school is not in session, landscaping treatment and security concerns. The CAC was concerned about polluted runoff from the lot entering Cascadilla Creek; it was determined that a sediment trap (a standard feature with Cornell) would be installed at the drain inlet, which would intercept the heavier materials. Daley MOVED, seconded by Gooding, to declare a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance; and the motion was carried unanimously. There was comment about the parking stall design, which does not comply with City standards and exclusion of a four- foot foliage screen around the perimeter of the parking area which is required under zoning regulations. Phil Cox, representing Cornell, stated that they have developed standards for parking that work quite well, and suggested that the city modify its requirements Planning & Development Board Minutes - Oct. 24, 1989 Page 4 to be more in keeping with contemporary practice and conditions. As to screening, it was thought that existing shrubbery to remain on the site could be adequate. Mr. Mazzarella said that while Cornell may feel its standards are adequate, it still must comply with city guidelines in locations like this, at campus edge. Some Board members felt that there was not adequate time given for staff to review the proposal and did not wish to set a precedent of moving quickly to give final approval when there is a possibility to improve the design and resolve concerns. Some also felt that Cornell is routinely planning projects so that there is only one way to complete them. After some discussion it was concluded that delaying this project would not be productive since the site is in an R-3a zone, subject to all zoning regulations and all City standards. Then Cochran MOVED, seconded by Gooding, to grant Final Approval with conditions, as outlined in Mr. Weed's memo, and the motion PASSED 5-2 (Daley, Yale). Conditions: Sediment trap, proper screening and size of parking spaces resolved to Mr. Weed's satisfaction. 6. Amending Permitted Uses in Industrial Zones. The proposed siting of the County refuse processing facility in the Commercial Avenue industrial district has prompted a proposal amending permitted primary uses in the I-1 zone to exclude such uses as-of-right. The present wording, "Any use not permitted in any other district .. . ," is like an open invitation for undesirable uses. Under the proposal, uses other than those specifically named in Sec. 30.25 would require a Special Permit from the BZA and concurrence by the Common Council, and would have to satisfy the Special Performance Standards for Industrial Districts as specified under Sec. 30.41. The Board's comment and recommendation is sought for the advice of Common Council. A motion to send the proposal forward with no comment or recommendation, because it was seen as a political matter, not one to do with planning, was withdrawn after brief discussion, and Cochran MOVED, seconded by Killeen, to endorse this change; motion carried unanimously. 7. Paolangeli Subdivision -- Update. Mr. Meigs summarized comments received from the City Attorney and Engineering regarding conditions of preliminary approval. It is the Attorney's view that it is the City's responsibility for providing infrastructure on Lake Avenue. Engineer Tom West says that if Franklin St. encroaches on the property, the City will move the road. This information will be conveyed to applicant. There followed discussion about the effect of the proposed R-2c regulations on the subdivision, and how it was determined that more units would be permitted under current regulations. Mr. Yale strongly objected to the lack of Minutes from the previous meeting, to serve as a reference of a previous discussion or action. Planning & Development Board Minutes — Oct. 24, 1989 Page 5 8. Grossman's Site Improvements-- status. Mr. Meigs reported that neither the Building Department nor the Engineering Department have an interest in demanding to have the gate removed. The Board requested comment from Ralph Nash on the Building Commissioner's authority to enforce conformance. 9. Planning Board Calendar 1990. Approval deferred until involved agencies agree to alter their calendars. 10. Reports. a) Committees of the Board. Mr. Yale informed members of a November 15 meeting sponsored by the Board, concerning the state of the central business district area.. There is also one being planned concerning bikeways. Mr. Cochran informed the Board of an upcoming meeting pertaining to affordable housing goals. Mr. Killeen noted, in this regard, that the Planning and Development committee will take up discussion of establishing a Rental. Housing Commission at its meeting tomorrow, which he hoped would lead to Council discussion in November. He urged the Board to lobby for a budget for this and for a position for a staff housing specialist. b) Director. Mr. Mazzarella described the Charter and Ordinance Committee's revised formula for park exaction fees. Board members commented that this version did not do what the Board wanted, and hoped that further massaging would be possible. c) Chair. Ms. Blumenthal reminded Board about the meeting scheduled with Cornell October 30 at 7:30 to discuss housing, transportation and traffic. d) Planning & Development Committee. Mr. Killeen reminded the Board. of the up coming John Nolon presentation on impact fees. e) Board of Public Works. Mr. Daley informed the Board that the proposed city budget did not include money for tipping fees for use of the County landfill. Proposed fee based on number of units or number of bedrooms per unit, or sale of tags or stickers to affix to trash containers are being considered as ways to recoup the expense to the city. Mr. Daley inquired about the schedule for release of the parking study. Meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. EPJ—PDBOARD/Octbr24.min