Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1990-08-02 AMENDED AND APPROVED 9-25-90 PLAVNING .AND DEVEL )PNE 1T BOARD MINUTES August 2, 1990 Present: S. Adams, R. Berg, S. Blumenthal (Chair) , T. Cookingham, J. Schroeder, A. Yale. Staff: J. Meigs, P. Weed, H. M. Van Cort. 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. Public Hearing-Final Subdivision Approval a) 405/407 College Avenue/Shaw The advertised Public Hearing was opened by the Chair; no one appeared to speak, and Chair closed the hearing. The property of 405/407 College Avenue is to be subdivided, trimming a ten foot strip off the rear, to be sold to the owner of the Collegetown Court. Last year, the Planning and Development Board gave preliminary approval and requested that the Building Department ensure that the ramp complied with handicapped requirements. Mr. Fane, the individual who wishes to acquire this parcel, changed his plans and constructed a handicapped accessible restroom within the building, accessible from another direction. He still wishes to acquire this parcel. The proposal received a zoning variance because of area deficiencies. It has received a Negative Declaration of environmental inpact recommendation from the Conservation Advisory Committee. Staff recommendation is to give approval subject to consolidation of the ten foot strip with Collegetown Court. Applicant's attorney, W. Shaw, was present to discuss his problem of consolidating the two parcels. In his view, such a requirement is unnecessary and meaningless. On being informed that this was a standard requirement where subdivision creates parcels that do not meet currant zoning regulations for legal building lots, so that later complications may be avoided, he requested examples for his guidance. It was decided that the issue would be resolved at a staff level. Meigs offered to consult the City Attorney and work to reach a solution. Yale moved to grant final approval subject to the consolidation of the ten foot strip with either Collegetown Court or the adjacent 'Johnny's' parcel, also owned by Fane. The motion was seconded by Schroeder and passed unanimously. Planning and Development Board Minutes 2 August 2, 1990 4. Site Development Plan Review a) Zikakis Shopping Center, Review for Final Approval of Phase I and Preliminary Approval of Phase II. It was determined that Berg could participate [with discretion] in the discussion but would not vote since, as a tenant of 622 Cascadilla Street, owned by Mr. Zikakis, there is a possible conflict of interest. Peter Weed introduced the revised site plan. At the end of July, plans were submitted to the Department of Planning and Development, showing the intent of the developer to bring forward Phase, II development for some level of approval, since he has determined that his Phase I development is contingent upon the approval of Phase II. The following conditions, placed on the preliminary approval of Phase I, have been met: restoration of on-site wooded areas, transplanting of trees, coordination with the Town of Ithaca, Finger Lakes Parks and Tompkins County, establishment of bus stops, traffic studies to assess the magnitude of the impact on traffic conditions following Phase I and Phase II development. [On Elmira Rd.] it was determined that, during the weekday AM peak, there would be no increase in traffic. However, some traffic would be generated during the weekday PM peak. [For Spencer Rd., an increase of about 15% was anticipated for Saturday afternoons.] In the Spencer Road neighborhood, speed and safety were identified as the most important traffic concerns. The following would remain as conditions on the final approval of Phase I: the generation of necessary technical information, island detail, curb openings/lane control, removal of asphalt pavings in the ROW. [Berg did not participate in this discussion.] Schroeder moved to grant Final Approval with the above listed conditions. The motion was seconded by Cookingham and passed unan-iimusly. Berg abstained. Kathy Wolf introduced Phase II. The parking lot and building would both be extended. The architecture would remain consistent. The covered walkway would be extended and the height of the buildings would be maintained. ' Development (restaurants, small retail shops) would remain the same. The applicant feels that zoning requirements have been net. There is a proposal to build a sidewalk on city property. The concerns of the park, town and county remain the same. Solomon Peterson (architect for the project) intends to keep the architecture between the two buildings harmonious. He was unable to speculate as to the number of tenants. The floor level is stepped and is handicapped accessible, via an entrance ramp in the front of the Planning and Development Board Minutes 3 August 2, 1990 building and several entrance ramps throughout the project (one in front of each storefront) . The materials to be used (metal, glass, concrete block covered with dryvit, synthetic stucco and tile), as well as the color scheme and patterning, would remain consistent between Phase I and Phase II. The Board expressed a general concern over using the dryvit on the first level due to its fragility. The architect stated that repairs are quicker, easier and less expensive than other often used materials, and, therefore, that dryvit is an appropriate material. Peter Weed stated that the use of dryvit is not inappropriate for this type of development and since curbing exists. Site grading, however, is cited as being a possible problem. Mr. Zikakis stated his hesitance to proceed with the project without preliminary approval of Phase II since the development of Phase I would not be financially acceptable without the approval of Phase II. It was the general feeling of the Board that while preliminary approval was not possible now, preliminary approval could be granted at a later date [unless major problem areas could be identified]. Mr. Cutting spoke on behalf of the Elmira Road in a public hearing. He is an Elmira Road merchant, a 20 year competitor of Bill Zikakis. He is strongly in favor of Zikakis' project for the reason that he encourages putting money into business on the Elmira Road. 5. Preliminary Site Development a) Cornell - CC hot Scot Raynor, a landscape architect, introduced the improvements and expansion of Cornell's CC lot. Currently, the lot provides parking for 343 vehicles. Cornell is doing this project to accommodate requirements for additional parking necessary in the building of the American Indian Project House and a sorority. Also, 82 spots were displaced by the building of the American Indian Project House and need to be replaced. Issues of this project include the impact of the parking lot on Phillips House, a cooperative residence. Screening is planned between the lot and the residence. The project includes planting of a lot of vegetation, including approximately 90 trees. Peter Weed stated that Cornell has, generally, worked cooperatively with the board in meeting its conditions. CAC had made a recommendation for a negative declaration. The committee thought that the planting scheme looked better than its current condition, and requested the planting of large trees. Cornell plans to install islands for drainage purposes and to use the islands for interior tree planting. Weed recounted the earlier site plan approvals for the American Indian House and Sorority. These projects were considered to be positive Planning and Development Board Minutes 4 August 2, 1990 additions to the Triphammer Road environs. However, they have the effect of pushing the revised CC parking lot into the open space to the southeast. While there is still open space available in the area, Weed felt that the invaded open space could be somewhat retained, at least in spirit. He suggested that the lower section of the lot be skewed for this reason. This would accentuate the sense of space. He felt positive about recommending a negative declaration of environmental impact, but felt that the full potential of the lot skewing had not yet been discovered. Pedestrian pathways were determined to need further study; handicapped parking is provided for the Indian House and future sorority in the cul-de-sac parking. The lot crosses into Cayuga Heights. The village approved of the project as long as additional trees are provided for screening and, as per a prior agreement, that there would not be an increase in the number of parking spots in this sector of the village. The Village has no particular objections to the developments proposed within the boundaries of the City of Ithaca. It was determined that oil filters are provided. A public hearing was opened and closed; no one came forward to speak. Yale moved for a negative declaration of environmental impact and it was seconded by Schroeder. The motion was passed unanimously. Berg motioned for preliminary approval; the motion was seconded by Cookingham and passed unanimously, on condition that the technical requirements be met (pedestrian circulation, skewing of lower section of the lot to allow for more open space, and that drainage calculations be presented and submitted to the office of the city engineer) . 6. New Business a. SDPR-First Year Summary There was a discussion of the first year of the Site Development Plan Review process. [There has been reported, however, a concern expressed by some property owners] that the requirements and conditions often placed on the developer, by the Board, narrowed the profit margin to an unacceptable level. It was determined that as complete an application as possible is necessary to begin the SDPR process. It was generally felt that there is a need to improve the understanding of the SDPR process. Some suggestions as to how to accomplish that include: sending a letter of explanation to all local architects, holding an informational session and publishing a sample site plan. Fees were also discussed. Currently, the fee is based on the value of the project. It was generally felt that the fee scale is too Planning and Development Board Minutes 5 August 2, 1990 low. The law requires that the fee mist be based on the time taken to administer the process. Projects of less value often take just as long to review as projects of greater value. Some felt that a fee increase would be justified, since the service provided is of great value. Adams reminded the board that the SDPR process also adds costs to projects by requiring the reports of landscape architects, traffic consultants, environmental consultants, etc. SDPR is required for city projects above $500,000 and anything that requires a building permit, with the following exceptions: single family house, duplexes, rooming houses, interior alterations, an expansion of less than 5000 square feet, school districts. [Blumenthal felt that the threshold for review of City projects should be reviewed.] Van Cort suggested that portions of the ordinance need to be clarified. It used to be that if the visiting government is doing a governmental project, they were exempt from land use regulations of host community. If it was a proprietary function, they were subject to the regulations. Now, there is a list of criteria used to determine need of outside government to do what they were doing and the need of inside government to control it. Suggested amendments to the ordinance and to the procedures include: [Proceeding with site plan approval] before the issuance of a building permit (in effect, now being done), [as long as a complete application is on file.] Examining instances of requiring site plan review even when a building permit is not required (i.e. school district). Limiting the amount of time spent on the site plan review process by the board. Further discussion was postponed. Deferred on the agenda were: zoning ordinance amendments and the zoning ordinance process. b. Planning Department Work Program Revisions Skateboard Park, public transportation, Ithaca Industrial Park and Cornell Industrial Park were briefly discussed. C. Northside Study Land Use Recommendations Schroeder summarized the situation. Common Council was asked to give conceptual approval to closing Lake Avenue from Hancock Street to Route 13 and, with 1/3 of the "Pogo" parcel, make it a park. However, there were concerns as to whether or not the P&C Market needed the first block of Lake Avenue for delivery purposes. The Planning Department was directed to prepare an EQBA grant application for the park. A Planning and Development Board Minutes 6 August 2, 1990 subcommittee meeting with the P&C Market has been scheduled to resolve the access situation. Van Cort noted that environmental review of the Northside Master Plan is necessary and said that the Board should request Lead Agency status. 7. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance-Decisions of Board of Zoning Appeal Schroeder summarized the discussion of the C & O Committee on the ambiguities of the language. Discussion by Planning and Development Board was postponed until the final draft is written by Assistant City Attorney Kennedy. 8. Zoning Appeals Report There were no comments or changes. A motion to approve the report was made by Yale, seconded by Adams and passed unanimously. 9. Reports The Chair reported that Common Council has designated the Planning and Development Board as administrator for reviewing plans for development in the recently designated Fall Creek Recreational River Corridor. An application has already been made for a building permit to build a single family house in the Corridor. There was a positive declaration of environmental impact. Applicant is now working with Peter Weed to resolve the environmental issues. The Chair appointed Berg and Cookingham to serve on the Capital Projects Review Committee. A volunteer for the Inlet Island Land Use Committee (perhaps Cochran) is needed. Berg reported that both the Hudson Street and Thurston Avenue Bridge projects are moving along on time. The Board of Public Works is working towards the consolidation of DPW facilities. Schroeder reported that a separate committee is needed to study the parking garage. A second, separate committee was set up to study the mass transit initiative. The committees have the same membership and fall under the auspices of the Downtown Visions Task Force. 10. Approval of Minutes The May 22, 1990 minutes were revised as follows: Under Northside Planning, page 6, line 4: There was general agreement that the DPW pipe storage area be rezoned for mixed development Item D, last page: Schroeder reported that the committee approved surrendering the Hydropower Permit. Planning and Development Board Minutes 7 August 2, 1990 Schroeder moved to approve the minutes of the 5/22/90 meeting as revised and corrected. Adams seconded the motion. Passed. The June 26, 1990 minutes were revised as follows: Under Inlet Island, page 8: 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 the feeling that... Page 9, line 4: ...it is of equal monetary and recreational value. Finger Lakes then proceeds to the legislature... Page 9, first new paragraph: Schroeder said that Parcels 2 and 4 were not being used as parkland. Page 4, 4th full paragraph: 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. Page 5, 2nd full paragraph: Yale, responding to earlier comments by Barbara 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. The approval of the June 26 minutes was deferred to allow for time to review the section on the alterations to the Ithaca Bakery. Chair requested that the actions of the Codes and Administration Committee on this be reflected in the June minutes. 11. Miscellaneous The Dormitory Authority has proposed that it be designated Lead Agency for Environmental Quality Review for all Cornell projects planned for the next five years. A response was requested within 30 days, to express any concerns the Board may have. The Board asked Meigs to confer with the City Attorney on this matter, especially on the time frame. The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. 0-a-PDBd82.Min