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