Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1990-06-26 Approved as amended - 8/28/90 Amended 9/25/90 MINUTES Planning and Development Board June 26, 1990 PRESENT: S. Adams, R. Berg, S. Blumenthal (Chair) , T. Cookingham, J. Schroeder, A. Yale. Staff: J. Meigs, P. Weed, D. Foster, B. Carey. Also - Applicants, Other Interested Parties, Media, City Attorney C. Guttman, BZA Chair M. Tomlan. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. 2. Privilege of the Floor: No requests made. 3. Public Hearing - Final Subdivision Approval a) Spencer Road/Weisburd. Chair opened the Public Hearing. No one appeared to speak. Chair closed the Public Hearing. Meigs reported that the applicant had submitted a description of the driveway easement, which was requested at the last meeting. Meigs had discussed with the applicant an enhancement of the easement to cover the off-street parking area at the foot of the drive. He expressed the view that the subdivision does not comply with the zoning ordinance requirement for the grade of driveway; the Building Commissioner interpreted the grade requirement to cover individual properties with facilities for four or more cars, which is not the case with this application. The Fire Department has not completed their review. Weisburd expressed the hope that any negative comments be referenced to specific code requirements. The Board was somewhat concerned about taking action without comment from the Fire Department. Chair suggested that the Board give Final Approval contingent on the approval of the Fire Department. Berg questioned why the Fire Department was so slow to review the application, and asked that the Board communicate their dissatisfaction to the Fire Department. Yale moved to grant Final Subdivision Approval contingent on the approval of the Fire Department within five days. The motion was seconded by Schroeder. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Development Plan Review a) Preliminary review of West Campus Forest Park Lane Improvements, Cornell University, SDPR 90-05. Yale asked how handicapped parking was being considered in the plans. Weed reported that one handicapped spot was planned in front of Psi Upsilon, but that no spots were planned for Sigma Phi. Applicant said that, when necessary, a spot would be designated and appropriately marked, but that it was not a requirement for a private residence. Yale said that he would appreciate the applicant designating a handicapped spot in front of Sigma Phi. Weed indicated a change in the plan, involving the installation of a patio in front of Sigma Phi. Schroeder Planning and Development Board -2- Minutes - June 26, 1990 commented approvingly on the redesign of many aspects of the plan. Weed reported that Applicant intended to place new 15' lights around the parking lot; they will be one of the standard decorative styles used on campus. Regarding pedestrian access, Blumenthal pointed out that a path ended in a parking space, and asked if the space could be widened accordingly. Applicant said that they were trying to get as many spaces as possible in a limited area, and that the space could not be widened. Blumenthal felt that the new plan was greatly improved. Ms. Darlington reported that the CAC was happy with the new plan as well . Schroeder, seconded by Cookingham, moved Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and the motion was passed unanimously. Weed offered conditions on the Board's approval: Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Department a single site plan set consolidating all information shown by the plan set received 3/13/90, the plan set received 6/4/90, and the plan received 6/25/90 and demonstrating that all required SDPR Technical Information is adequately described; the approved site plan shall show only very minor adjustments to the plan received 6/25/90, and shall maintain the open space between Campus Road and the southernmost parking edge, as shown by that plan. Ms. Darlington asked if the curb height could be such as to discourage driving onto the lawn. Applicant responded that standard curb height was six inches. Cookingham, seconded by Schroeder, moved to grant Preliminary Approval , Considered Final, subject to the aforementioned conditions. Yale offered an amendment that a handicapped parking place be designated by Sigma Phi. Schroeder felt that, considering the private nature of the building, and the ease of identifying potential handicapped users, designation of the spot when needed would be appropriate. Cookingham said that, since parking was limited, it would be wasteful to leave a space unoccupied. Applicant said that it was not an uncommon practice for Cornell to designate handicapped parking on an as- needed basis around student residences. Weed suggested that Applicant show on the plan their intentions regarding handicapped parking by Sigma Phi. The Board voted down Yale's amendment, Yale, Adams and Berg voting for and Schroeder, Cookingham and Blumenthal voting against. The Board agreed to two more conditions, that the Applicant indicate on the plans their method for providing handicapped spaces on a temporary basis (on motion by Yale, seconded by Adams, passed 5-1) , and that the curb height be 7 inches (at direction of the Chair) . The Board unanimously approved the amended motion. Applicant expressed his gratitude to the Board for their attention and suggestions which resulted in a plan with which all concerned were satisfied. b) Resubmittal of Stewart-Edgemoor Neighborhood Parking Lot, Cornell University, SDPR 89-10 - report. This project was Planning and Development Board -3- Minutes - June 26, 1990 originally approved in October of 1989, with conditions. The applicant then submitted two plans with different parking arrangements. The Board considered this a modification of the original approved plan, and required resubmission of the plan for further binding review. The applicant subsequently returned to their original plan, and have satisfied all of the original conditions. Weed recommended that the Board grant the Applicant the Approved Site Plan notice. Schroeder said that he concurred with Weed that approval should be given, since the plan had already passed the Board, although he felt that the plans did not evince enough concern for maintaining open green space around residences. Applicant explained that the parking lot was proposed in part to regain the parking that was lost by the construction of the Performing Arts Center and the Law School extension. 5. Preliminary Site Development Plan Review and Public Hearings a) Zikakis Shopping Center, 381 and 401 Elmira Road, SDPR 90-06. Weed described the project, involving the rehabilitation of the former car dealership sites and their conversion to a shopping center, with provision for a second phase of expansion at each address. He stated that the sites had previously been poorly planned, with regard to siting of buildings and run-off onto Elmira Road. Weed said that much effort has been put into addressing these problems within the developer's budget and without redoing the entire sites: he described proposed green strips which would alleviate drainage and better integrate the structures on the site. He stated that although the CAC recommends a Positive Declaration, he recommended a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, indicating that increased traffic was possibly an issue. He said that the current peak volume on Elmira Road from the City line to Clinton Street was 2, 000 cars per hour, with a level of service rating B or C. Based on an analysis by Trowbridge, parking for the mall would increase traffic flow by 128 vehicles per hour. Cookingham interjected that the service rating was a qualitative rather than a quantitative rating, which considers driving conditions, not merely traffic volume. Berg asked if there would be sidewalks on the street. Applicant responded that the developer intended to install sidewalks, if they prove feasible financially. Applicant indicated that they had contacted both Tomtran and Ithaca Transit regarding bus service, and both had suggested locations for stops on Elmira Road and Spencer Road, respectively. Applicant indicated that no tenants had as yet been identified, that they had hoped to put in a bank drive-thru, but that the bank option was not likely, although the developer was considering other drive-thru businesses. Blumenthal asked why two different stops for different services were indicated, rather than one for both. Applicant responded that this was the recommendation of the Planning and Development Board -4- Minutes - June 26, 1990 County Transportation Planner. Schroeder expressed the desire that transportation services be consolidated into one stop. Weed indicated that the applicant voluntarily produced information and studies of petroleum spillage on the site, and has agreed with DEC on a program for the removal and continued monitoring of that material. Asbestos-laden material has already been properly removed and disposed of. With regard to the traffic issue, Weed pointed out that the projected increase is over the traffic generated by the vacant lot, rather than compared to the traffic generated by the prior use, and that 128 vehicles per hour is hardly enough to begin to affect level of service. Weed indicated also that the traffic on Spencer Road should be considered, and that, given the proximity to Buttermilk and the City Line, the Town, County and State Park should be consulted. The Board asked about the building materials, and Weed explained that the existing roofing of 381 Elmira Rd. would be removed, and new metal roofing will be installed. The brick facing would be removed and replaced with Dryvit and concrete block, with some ceramic facing, and white aluminum fenestration. Materials used on 401 will be similar, if not the same; and will be similar colors so as to link the sites visually. Chair opened the Public Hearing. Barbara Blanchard, First Ward Alderperson, expressed her support for the project. She pointed out the economic impact of increased sales tax which would go to the City, as opposed to the previous automobile sales tax, which went to the buyer's community. With regard to traffic, Blanchard felt that this project would lead to a re- timing of the traffic light on Elmira Road which could help alleviate some traffic problems on Spencer Road. She also expressed her disappointment with the CAC's recommendation for a Positive Declaration of environmental impact and indicated that the environmental review process often unnecessarily obstructs projects. No one else appeared to speak. Chair closed the Public Hearing. Ms. Darlington then reported that the CAC was supportive of the rehabilitative efforts on the site. They were concerned, however, that the traffic impact had not been adequately studied. She felt that the site plans looked promising, although she encouraged more use of larger shade trees. Adams suggested that, by serving consumers coming from the South, the project might keep traffic from proceeding through the City. Applicant said that the project was conceived in part to keep traffic from coming all the way into the City by providing convenience and service oriented stores on the edge of the City: their targeted customers would be residents of the south side of Town. He also indicated that, when there was a car dealership there, the peak traffic hours were between 4: 00 and 6:00, including people picking up their serviced cars after work. Applicant also indicated that they were hesitant to reduce visibility by placing Planning and Development Board -5- Minutes - June 26, 1990 additional large trees in front of the buildings, but they had included some large trees and were not planning on removing any existing trees, except a few trees internal to the site. Yale felt that the traffic impact on Elmira Road would not be significant, but expressed concern about the impact on Spencer Road. Schroeder also felt that the traffic conditions would not be unreasonable, and that there might even be some improvements over the conditions which existed under the car dealership. Yale moved Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, seconded by Schroeder. Berg, whose business rents from Zikakis, removed himself from the deliberations due to the possible appearance of a conflict of interest. Yale, responding to earlier comments by Alderperson Blanchard, said that environmental review must be recognized as a very important process which has made valuable contributions to the betterment of projects around town. Weed then reviewed his recommendations for Preliminary Approval in Concept and for conditions on the Board's approval, as follows: 1. The foregoing site plan approval applies to each distinct property parcel, as separate approvals for each distinct site plan. 2. For 381 Elmira Road (and subsequently for 401 Elmira Rd. ) a. In consideration of the Phase I project only, that the Preliminary Site Development Plan is approved in concept, with modifications in the form of conditions, and that the applicant must submit to the Board a Final Site Development Plan which incorporates information that will address the conditions specified. 3. Conditions: a. Clarify all technical information as required by SDPR. b. Show proposed restoration for on-site wooded areas, as may be disturbed, and describe other corrective maintenance for existing wooded areas, as may be necessary. C. Show, where feasible, any plans to save and transplant existing plant materials. d. Finalize the planting plan, demonstrating adequate consideration for the need to integrate this parcel with the environs and maximizing the use of large shade trees in the planting plan, as is consistent with the development program. e. Show as a note on the plans, the proposed responsibilities of a professional landscape architect through the construction phase, in recognition of the need to react to unforeseen conditions during the site rehabilitation. f. Coordinate with the Town of Ithaca, the Finger Lakes State Parks , and the Tompkins County Planning Department, as to the proposed development and the Planning and Development Board -6- Minutes - June 26, 1990 projected increases in traffic volume. g. Estimate the traffic impacts on Spencer Road which will be a result of this project and proposed mitigating measures for the impacts that are identified. h. Refine the proposed detail for the "Typical Island Section" and other landscape catchments to optimize provisions for storm water interdiction and infiltration and in consideration of healthy growing conditions for the proposed plantings. i. Refine and finalize the design for proposed curb openings in consideration of smooth access and egress for vehicles. j . Coordinate and show the completed planning for the proposed future sidewalks in the right-of-way. k. Concurrently, coordinate and show the completed planning for the proposed bus stops at Elmira Road and at Spencer Road, to include considerations for a bus turn-in and considerations for a single bus stop only. 1. Insure that all asphalt pavements that are currently within the city right-of-way will be removed and that the areas disturbed will be adequately sodded. The Board then voted for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, 4-0-2, with Berg and Adams abstaining. Chair asked Applicant if she had reviewed the above conditions, and Applicant expressed confidence that all the conditions could be worked out. Applicant requested that the Board consider granting Final Approval with conditions so that the developer could proceed with obtaining lease agreements. Weed observed that, although many of the conditions could be worked out by the Department, granting of Final Approval would not allow the Board to consider the comments of the other concerned agencies. Schroeder concurred that he would not want to grant Final Approval without hearing the comments of the other agencies. Chair moved to grant Preliminary Approval considered Final with the above outlined conditions. No one seconded the motion. Schroeder moved to grant Preliminary Approval in Concept, with the above outlined conditions, and was seconded by Yale. The motion was passed 4-1-1 by the Board, with Blumenthal voting against and Berg abstaining. b) Alterations to Ithaca Bakery, 408 North Meadow Street, SDPR 90-07. Chair opened the Public Hearing. No one appeared to speak, and Chair closed the Public Hearing. Weed explained that the Applicant made site improvements in November without submitting to Site Plan Review or obtaining a Building Permit. Subsequently the Applicant applied for a Building Permit for interior and exterior improvements, and was referred for Site Plan Review. Following a Site Plan Conference and an early review of the application materials, the Applicant forwarded some j} Planning and Development Board G�,�i/`" C -7- Minutes - June 26, 1990 additional information to the !Department. Staff=�v4-� of this information indicated that the 'information was not fully complete and that site plan issues were unresolved. The Codes and Administration Committee of ;the Board reviewed the project and suggested to the Applicant and�,the Owner that the Board would be willing to consider Preliminary? Review at its next meeting if the outstanding site plan issues - ould be resolved with the Planning staff. Two days before the monthly Board meeting, the Applicant informed the Department that`the project was not subject to Site Plan Review and that they were withdrawing from the process and would not be attending the June meeting of the Board. Weed responded with a letter saying that the project had been referred to the Department by the Building Department, but that the Planning Department could not proceed without the cooperation of the Applicant. Weed indicated that the Building Department had granted the Applicant a permit for interior work, but that no permit for exterior work would be granted without review by the Planning and Development Board, nor would a Certificate of Occupancy be issued. Weed gave his opinion that the Applicant intended to proceed without a permit. The Board felt strongly that the actions of the Applicant compromised the authority of the Board and the integrity of Site Plan Review, and that the City should be prepared to immediately issue a Cease and Desist Order if the Applicant begins with modifications. Chair stated that the discussion relative to the Bakery should be considered fully a part of the public record and the Board members concurred. Action on this matter will await further developments. 6. New Business a) Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding variances and special permits. Chair referred to Assistant City Attorney Kennedy's memo concerning proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance which would add to the number of factors that the Board of Zoning Appeals may consider when considering appeals. City Attorney Chuck Guttman observed that case law did not clearly delineate the factors which the BZA should consider in granting area variances. The proposed amendment would give the BZA as much discretion as possible while giving them a set of standards by which to evaluate cases. Guttman reviewed the criteria in the proposed amendment, stressing that the criteria would not be requirements, but guidelines to be applied at the BZA's discretion. Berg asked BZA Chair Michael Tomlan to comment on the proposed amendment. Tomlan responded that the members of the BZA had not yet reviewed the proposal, but that his initial reaction was favorable. Berg said that his first impression was also positive, and that it would seem to provide the proper context for reaching reasonable decision. Blumenthal asked Guttman what legal protection the amendment would provide the Planning and Development Board -8- Minutes - June 26, 1990 City. Guttman replied that there was no legal consensus on whether such guidelines could be legislated. He felt, however, that he could legally defend the articulation of zoning standards. Tomlan commented that the proposed standards were in keeping with factors normally considered by the BZA, with the exception of the "specifically identified community aesthetic, " which he felt could not be adequately defined. Cookingham agreed that this was not a good term to include, but that otherwise the proposal was positive. Schroeder felt that the Board ought to have some time to consider the proposal before discussing changes in the wording. Blumenthal suggested that the proposed Guide to Zoning Ordinance Amendments be followed in considering the proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions. Tomlan asked that a copy of the Guide be provided to the BZA along with the proposed version. b) Inlet Island Alienation regarding Parcels l - 4. Chair introduced new staff Planner Doug Foster to the Board. Foster explained that alienation is the term used for any change to non- park use of land in state, city, or private parks. Alienation has to be approved by the State legislature. Alienation of land in parks where federal funding has been involved is called a conversion, and must be approved at the federal level. Foster continued explaining that a 6(f) conversion is one initiated by the municipality, and applies to Parcels 2, 4 and 5, which aren't involved in the Route 96 project. A 4(f) conversion is one initiated by the State DoT for highway projects, here involving Parcels 1 and 3, and can proceed without the State legislative approval, which is required ' for a 6F conversion. Schroeder explained that the Planning and Development Committee unanimously recommended alienation of all four parcels (this occurred before. Parcel 5 was separated from Parcel 3) , since .parcels 2 and 4 were not being used as parkland for the City, and because of a feeling that there was a place for some well-planned waterfront development. At the May Common Council meeting, there was discussion about separating alienation action for the highway parcels from action on the others, although the Council did then vote to alienate all 4 parcels without separating them. The Interim Parks Commission and Conservation Advisory Commission then complained that they were not consulted, and the Council in June rescinded its action and submitted the issue to the IIPC, CAC and Planning and Development Board. Berg asked what process would be used to determine future use of the alienated parcels. Guttman responded that the alienation and conversion process concerned removing the requirement that the parcels be used as parkland, and acquiring substitute parkland; determining future use of the land would be a separate process wherein Council would decide what to do with the land. Adams, who had attended the joint meeting of the CAC and IIPC, felt that people were concerned mainly that the Planning and Development Board -9- Minutes - June 26, 1990 substitute land be identified, and the acquisition process be defined, prior to alienation, and that they were not so concerned with the specific use of the alienated land within a considered development plan for the area. Guttman further explained the. steps in the 6 (f) process: the City decides that it is interested in alienation and conversion, then informally selects (in consultation with Finger Lakes State Parks) what substitute land it thinks would be appropriate, then Finger Lakes meets informally with the Department of Interior to see whether Interior would consider the land a potentially appropriate substitute of equal recreational and monetary value, the land is then professionally surveyed and appraised, after which Finger Lakes determines whether it is of equal monetary and recreational value. Finger Lakes then proceeds to the legislature for their approval, and then returns to the Department of Interior for their final approval. Guttman indicated that the substitute land being considered by Parks and Recreation is the Finger Lakes Trail bikeway from Inlet Island to the south end of the City. The nature of the bikeway is such that it is difficult to survey and appraise. Another complication concerns the fact the City owns part of this land and leases it to industrial park users. Guttman believes that the appraisals will be paid for by DoT. He said that he expects that the value of Parcels 1 and 3 will be such that only part of the bikeway will be used as substitute land for these parcels, and the hope is therefore that the rest can be used as part of the substitute land for Parcels 2 and 4. Guttman gave his opinion that, since the City has leased its ownership rights to the land with an option for the lessee to buy at a small price, that it could be considered as potential substitute land. Cookingham commented on the clarity of the City Attorney's summary, and requested that Guttman write down the alienation process and distribute it to the Board. Schroeder said that Parcels 2 and 4 were not being used as parkland, and that with the conditions that there be an approved master plan, environmental review, and identification of substitute lands, he would vote to begin the process of alienation. Guttman was asked whether the City needed to act on Parcels 1 and 3, and he responded that the DoT had indicated that they would not proceed without the City supporting the alienation of Parcels 1 and 3. Yale said that, based on the information from Guttman, he felt that the Board should recommend that the City proceed with the alienation process. Schroeder agreed, with the provisions that, prior to the City disposing of Parcels 2 and 4, a master plan be in place, an environmental review be done, and substitute lands be identified. The motion was seconded by Adams, and passed unanimously by the Board. 7. Old Business Planning and Development Board -10- Minutes - June 26, 1990 a) Guide for Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Chair reported that the Planning and Development Committee had approved the Guide. She observed that it was unclear whether the Board could direct the Department staff to develop a memorandum explaining the concept. The Chair and other Board members felt that they had not had sufficient time to review the current version of the Guide; it was suggested that a flow chart be prepared to graphically represent the proposed process. It was then agreed that the action on the issue be postponed, and that the Zoning Amendment Revisions regarding variances and special permits be used as a test case and put through the process. Yale pointed out the difficulties caused by the Board meeting after the Planning and Development Committee, therefore not being able to comment on decisions until they had already been made. Chair stated that it was the position of the Department that, given the inter-related nature of the various Boards and Committees, it would be difficult at this time to change the date of the Planning and Development Board meeting. Yale offered to meet with the Director to attempt to rectify the scheduling problem. 8. Zoning Appeals Report Meigs reported that all of the appeals but one dealt with decks, and that the Committee recommended passage with no comment. Yale, seconded by Berg, so moved, and the motion was passed unanimously by the Board. 9. Reports a) Committees of the Board Transportation and Economic Development Yale reported that the Committee met with Bernie Carpenter on June 14, and developed three preliminary recommendations: more money should be allocated to marketing the transit system; the City should consider adopting a transit incentive program similar to Cornell's; and the City should encourage and work with other major employers in the area to pursue public transit incentive programs. b) Chair: Chair reported that Recreational River Designation for Ithaca Falls and Stewart Park had been passed by the Assembly and the Senate. The question remains as to who should review permits for this area, and the responsibility may fall to the Planning and Development Board; no member expressed serious objection. Chair directed the Board's attention to the fact that Site Development Plan Review of the Joint Transit Maintenance Facility is deferred. She noted that the Deputy Director position is opening, and urged the Codes and Administration committee to review and update the job description as appropriate. Cookingham suggested that the Board draft a resolution of appreciation for Mr. Mazzarella's service, to be presented at the July meeting. Planning and Development Board -11- Minutes - June 26, 1990 This prompted discussion of the July meeting date and members' vacations: at least four will have to be present, in addition to Berg, who intends to abstain, to vote on final approval for the Zikakis project; and only four, including Berg, plan to be in town the regular meeting date. A determination will be made on the date or dates later, when the Chair has had time to consider options. Chair asked the Board whether they wanted to proceed with their intended review of the Site Plan Review Process. Weed had previously given her a summary of the cases on which he has worked. Some discussion ensued as to what criteria would be used to evaluate the process, including the following: to what degree does the process pay for itself; savings in maintenance and drainage due to better-planned projects; comments and reactions from applicants. Chair asked Weed to distribute his summary to the Board, and asked the Board to consider questions to ask of participants in the process. c) Board of Public Works: Berg reported that the Board of Public Works approved a new market on Saturdays in DeWitt Park. The BPW is continuing to have 24 hour paid parking at the Dryden Road Parking Garage, with the exception of 9:00 a.m. - 1: 00 p.m. Sunday mornings. The County Recycling Center is now open only on Saturdays, until the City and County agree on staffing and funding. d) Planning and Development Committee: Schroeder reported that Dick Booth has suggested drafting a proposal to control conversion of yards into parking lots, which is becoming an increasing problem. The Committee discussed at length the parking study. Schroeder and First Ward Alderperson Blanchard, after inspecting conditions on the Commons, are sponsoring a Capital Improvement project request for major repairs. 10. Schroeder moved to amend the discussion of parking in the May minutes as follows: on p. 2, add Center Ithaca and the Mental Health Building to the list of traffic generators, and in the resolution concerning CBD parking to remove the words "strongly" and "final" from the fifth paragraph, and to add the words "in cooperation with downtown merchants" to the seventh paragraph. He was seconded by Berg, and the motion passed unanimously. Approval of the Minutes from the May 22 meeting was postponed, however, due to question about wording of the zoning appeals discussion. Meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. b:pdb.626