HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1990-08-28 AMENDED AND APPROVED
9-25-90
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES
August 28, 1990
Present: S. Adams, S. Blumenthal (Chair), M. Cochran, T. Cookingham, J.
Schroeder, A. Yale. Staff: P. Weed. Also: Applicants,
Other interested parties, Media.
1. Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
2. Privilege of the Floor: No requests made.
3. Preliminary Site Development Plan Reviews
a) Phase II - 401 Elmira Rd./Zikakis Shopping Center. Chair
reminded the Board of the introduction of the project and the reasoning
for withholding preliminary approval; all the technical information was
not available and there was not a complete application. However it had
been indicated that the project was fairly sound and not subject to any
major issues.
Weed introduced new site plan drawing #A1 for the Phase II proposal.
He stated that the Applicant and Consultant had taken the Board's
commentary into consideration and had made changes in the building
footprint and circulation around the back of the building. Reasoning for
these changes includes: configuring building to site characteristics,
providing the possibility of future opening up to the view on the South
Hill, clarifying site circulation and usages. He explained that the
Codes and Administration Committee discussed meeting the need for
adequate storm drainage, as raised by the City Engineer. Weed noted that
he reviewed the Environmental Review from Phase I and revised it based on
the Phase II presentation. One item discussed in the environmental
review was concern about an extensive development at that site. Others
were the issue of storm drainage and the location of the second driveway
on Route 13. The turn lane on Route 13 ends within the Phase I portion
of the site and a driveway past this point may cause traffic problems at
this driveway. The Codes and Administration Committee recommended
preliminary approval in concept with modifications as described in the
memorandum to the Board.
Betsy Darlington asked if the City could do something about the
increased traffic on Spencer Rd. which will result from Phase II. Adams
agreed that traffic on Spencer Rd. is a concern but that it has been
identified as a city-wide concern which should be addressed independently
of this project. She pointed out that the road could someday be dead
ended.
The chair expressed that this situation [brought up some localized
concerns] similar to the Tree Tops proposal as far as traffic impact is
concerned. During that time a neighborhood group became involved.
Yale stated that the traffic study indicated that the traffic
increase will not be large relative to what it was when the car
2
dealership was operating at that site. The Chair indicated that the
major problems are the speed of the traffic, visibility problems and the
fact that there are no sidewalks on the road.
Marty Blodgett, a resident of Spencer Rd., informed that since the
light was installed on the corner of Spencer and Elmira Rds., the traffic
increase has been enormous and that the increase of traffic from the
Zikakis Plaza is an increase in a situation that is already at a critical
point. She noted that in this situation she cannot separate the issues
of traffic volume and safety. She stated that the long stretch of road
without stop lights encourages people to speed. Ms. Blodgett reported
that a new Civic Association was just formed and they have had their
first meeting. She indicated that many of the residents of Spencer Rd.
are willing to accept some inconvenience (i.e., [e.g.] dead-ending the
street, [making it one-way, and other methods] ) in order to preserve
safety.
The Chair noted that if residents are willing to have some
inconvenience then there will be more options for solving the problem,
but in the past people have not wanted the inconvenience. She commented
that Ms. Blodgett should go through the Dept. of Public Works with its
process of neighborhood involvement.
Ms. Blodgett said that Spencer Rd. is not a through road and that
there should be no increase in traffic that is not supposed to be there
in the first place.
Adams noted that the project has been underway for over five months
and that since the area is zoned commercially there is no way to stop
development. She recommended that the residents get involved in the
planning process.
Kathy Wolf reminded the Board that Phase I has already been
approved. Weed said that site plan review gives a lot of latitude for
taking into account traffic problems, etc. Ms. Wolf responded that the
reason for getting preliminary approval is to have some sort of guarantee
that they will be allowed to proceed with the project.
Yale stated that it should be possible for the Dept. of Public Works
to work with the neighborhood Civic Association to try to alleviate the
problem.
The Chair said that the Phase I project, as indicated on the site
plan drawing has already been approved with conditions.
Ms. Wolf reported that if storm drainage allows room then further
trees will be planted. Weed said that both adequate tree planting and
adequate storm drainage were conditions and must be addressed as such.
It may be possible to install some additional trees in the city right of
way. Betsy Darlington questioned if, for the island planters, there is
enough ground space to maintain healthy trees. Ms. Wolf assured that the
3
trees were selected with the ability to survive,taking the confined
conditions into account.
Cochran returned to the issue of the driveway on Route 13. He
stated that he believed the traffic problems which would be caused by the
location of the second driveway would be too great. Weed responded that
the Phase I approval does not set the exact location of the driveway and
that the final location must be approved by the Board during Final
Review, somewhere within the stretch shown on the Phase I plan.
Yale moved Preliminary approval in concept with modifications in the
form of conditions as listed by the Planning Department memo dated August
28, 1990. The motion was seconded by Cochran. The motion was carried
unanimously.
4. Final Site Development Plan Review
a) CC Lot Improvements and Expansion/Cornell University.
Weed presented development plan. He stated concerns over
encroaching on existing open space and attempting to be sensitive to its
special character. One suggestion discussed at the last meeting was to
move the expansion slightly to one side so that the parking lanes did not
form a long "tunnel". The shifting of the lot also provided room for
pedestrian circulation, which was needed along the west edge of the lot.
Another suggestion was that some evergreens be planted. He noted that
all these suggestions (which were Condition #2 in the preliminary site
development plan) were carried out. Weed questioned if there was a need
to coordinate with the American Indian Program House project on
pedestrian circulation problems.
The recommendations as outlined in the memorandum to the Board were
amended as follows:
1. That the Final Site Development Plan is approved, subsequent to
review and approval of the following conditions by the Codes and
Administration Committee and the Department of Planning and Development
staff.
2. a. Verify all SDPR technical information.
b. Demonstrated adequate pedestrian circulation from the
proposed American Indian Program House project site.
Schroeder moved to grant final approval with the conditions as
described in the memorandum. Yale seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
5. Site Development Plan Review
a) Downtown Development Project/Wanzer Block - report.
The Chair introduced the project on State St. and Aurora St.
explaining that it is not truly Wanzer Block, but adjacent to it. She
noted that the Applicant has applied for a Site Plan Review, but has not
applied for a building permit. Doug Look, architect, asked for
4
clarification on whether a building permit was required at this time.
Weed reported that although the ordinance says the Building Dept
initiates site plan review after the application for a building permit,
an administrative arrangement has been in use where an accelerated site
plan review is done and information shared with the Building Commissioner
and Engineering and Fire Depts. After discussion it was recommended that
the Applicant apply for a building permit.
Mr. Look presented the proposed project for the Wanzer Block. He
explained that the project has received favorable comments from the
Commons Advisory Board and the Design Review Board. This project
includes the site of the former Leonardo Hotel and the site of the fire-
damaged White Apple Gallery. The proposal is for an L-shaped building
which would retain the facade of the former Leonardo Hotel, but would
actually have a new structure built behind it. He explained some of the
history of the block and described how they would extend the existing
cornice line to unify the transition from the old building to the new
while keeping the individuality of the different architectural styles.
The building is to be a five story mixed used building with retail space
on the ground floor, one floor of office occupancy and three floors of
apartments. He stated that the owners of the building plan to promote the
apartments to adults. If possible they would like to start construction
sometime in the spring of 1991. Renovations to the interior of the
existing Wanzer block are also planned to include two internal means of
egress from the apartments so that external fire escapes may be removed.
6. Old Business
aj Northside Study Land Use Recdations - final report.
Adams informed the Board that the final report was not fully prepared by
the staff and that no set of final plans were available. She stated that
one area which needed discussion is the definition of the park.
Schroeder explained the park definitions as recommended by the Planning
and Development Committee is 1/3 of the Pogo parcel near Cascadilla Creek
and to include two blocks of decommissioned Lake Ave., a small
decommissioned portion of Franklin St. and possibly the waterbed and a
strip of land on both sides of Cascadilla Creek. Doug Foster is to look
into who owns the creek bed, as it is not clear whether the city or state
own it, and also where the right of way on Lake Avenue ends.
Adams introduced the issue of access to the loading dock to the back
of. the P&C building. The solution she suggested was to close of Adams
St. and establish a fifteen to twenty foot wide area across the street
from the P&C dock for loading and turn around purposes. If the P&C does
not wish to utilize this option, the strip of land would revert back to
the park but would not be included in the EQBA grant proposal.
Mr. Petito, who owns the lot on which P&C is built, stated that he
received a letter from P&C indicating that, because of business reasons,
they do not wish for Lake Ave. or Adams St. to be closed. The Chair
stated that these streets appear to remain open in the plan, as concerns
the P&C block.
5
Schroeder explained that- although part of the plan for this parcel
includes a new street, it seems absurd to put a new street in when one
was just decommissioned. Also it may be the best use of the land to have
housing look directly onto the park rather than over a street. He stated
that there are several possibilities for housing including cluster
housing. Adams indicated her hope to approve the basic boundaries of the
park as proposed and shown on the map and outlined in the revised final
land recommendation.
This includes: 1) decommissioning Lake Ave. from Adams St. to Rt. 13, 2)
decommissioning the section of Franklin St. north of new proposed park,
3) the eastern 1/3 of the existing Pogo lot, and 4) to include the
Cascadilla Creek waterway if possible.
Cookingham moved that the definition of the park be approved [in concept]
as described, based upon the actual right of ways and ownership
boundaries. The motion was seconded by Schroeder and passed unanimously.
Adams presented the Northside Study Land Use Recommendations for
discussion. The Board suggested changes in the recommendations as they
were printed on the sheet as follows:
2) Effect the removal of DPW to other side of Route 13 within five
years, or elsewhere in the next 5 years.
3) Strike "[Hancock]" and replace with "Adams."
6) P&C Zoning Change. Investigate developing a new commercial
zoning district appropriate for residential areas with possible
application to this site. Current zone is out of scale with surrounding
areas. (The second half of this recommendation should be a
recommendation standing on its own.)
7) Approach the State about creating a berm or fence on the State
right of way to the north of parcel 1.
8) Strike "Commission a new street... Franklin Street." and replace
it with "The necessity for a new street should be examined in light of
the need for residential development (including possible cluster housing)
and circulation needs of the Science Center.
9) Strike "a neighborhood commercial zone."
The Chair noted that the discussion over these recommendations
should be committee work and that the recommendations are very
incomplete. Cookingham suggested that a vote not be taken on the
recommendations. Yale offered that the Board's suggestion be taken to
the Planning and Development Committee.
Mr. Petito expressed concern over changing the zoning in that
parcel. Even though the P&C would be grandfathered at that site, he
stated that he was worried about the possibility of future problems and
asked why there is a need to change the zoning. Schroeder answered that
if the zoning is not changed, it would be conceivable that a large
building (i.e., seven stories) could be constructed, that would be
completely out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
b) Neighborhood Dmlvmient Study - presentation.
Trish Norton did a study on methods of citizen participation in the
decision making process. She noted that most of the study focused on
6
participation systems in other cities with similar profiles as Ithaca
(Eugene, Oregon; Charlottesville, Virginia; Madison, Wisconsin) . All of
the cities that she spoke with are entitlement cities receiving federal
money on an annual basis which is used to conduct citizen participation
activities. Ithaca is not large enough to achieve entitlement status and
relies on year to year grants. Also all the cities which were studied
reported break downs in their systems.
Ms. Norton explained three different recommendations for
communication. The first involves notification systems by which
neighborhood associations receive a neighborhood referral packet any time
there is a proposed land use change near the association boundaries.
Another common means of comrmunication is by newsletter which is issued
periodically to keep people informed and interested even during lull or
non-crisis periods. A third recommendation for commnication is
representative groups. This involves specific people in formal
neighborhood groups who will be responsible for distributing important
information to everyone in the neighborhood.
Ms. Norton went on to describe factors needed for the success of
neighborhood involvement. The most important is official recognition and
support. Another factor is a person in city hall who acts as an access
point to act as a public information person. A third factor in the
success of the neighborhood group is tying them to the annual budget
process. The last factor is making sure there are well defined
parameters for the organization. For example, soliciting input from the
neighborhood and have the input taken into consideration and yet make it
clear that there are situations in which the city's needs are dominant to
the neighborhood needs. She hopes to have the final report finished and
available in October.
Yale asked if any information was collected in student/tenant
oriented neighborhoods as is common in the Ithaca area. Ms. Norton
replied that neighborhood participation in that type of setting is nearly
non-existent and that the best results in incorporating students in the
participation system is to establish liaisons with student government
bodies. She stated that in order to generate interest the City car..
provide orientation sessions with neighborhood leaders, model by-laws,
guides to city government, etc.
The Chair requested that the staff draft a letter to the Board of
Public Works suggesting that the Board invite the Spencer Rd. Civic
Association to work with them on solving Spencer Rd. traffic problems.
c) Cavi de for Review of Zoning Ordinance
The Chair introduced the question "What role does the planning board
have in recommending or participating in zoning changes?" She stated
that the Planning Committee is chiefly responsible for developing the
concept memos and the first draft of ordinance changes and [that it may
be good to add language allowing] the Planning Board to take a lead role
in a zoning ordinance change. The Board decided to relegate this issue
to a sub-committee of Schroeder, Adams, and Blumenthal.
7
7. New Business
a) Amendment of Section 30.37 - "Off-Street Parking"
Schroeder explained the concern over the zoning law which specifies
a number of required parking spaces per seats. However, establishments
like dance bars don't have many seats and people stand. This causes a
real parking problem in the neighborhood because the is not sufficient
parking provided by the establishment. He noted that the parking
requirement should more accurately reflected the number of people who
would actually be using the establishment. The required 1 parking space
per 5 seats is being changed to 1 parking space per 5 seats or 50 square
feet.
Schroeder moved to recommend passage of this ordinance. The motion
was seconded by Yale. The motion passed unanimously.
b) Referral from Planning and Developwnt Committee - preposal to
reduce minimi required parking space size.
Schroeder explained that the current zoning laws require a minimum
180 square feet per parking space which is based on car sizes much larger
than the average car of today. In order to preserve as much natural
space as possible and reduce the amount of asphalt it is suggested that
the udxdj nn required space be reduced. He stated that Cornell has needed
to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a variance every time they
want to use a smaller area per car. Cornell has been using a figure of
136 square feet in many parking lots with no problems due to the smaller
spaces. Schroeder proposed that a plan will go to the Common Council in
September to approve a public hearing regarding reducing minimum i mt,m required
parking space size. [Others] questioned if the Board should approve a
public hearing before an environmental review has been done.
Weed indicated that, form the standpoint of environmental review,
even though smaller spaces would free up more green space, there would
still be more cars per square foot. Schroeder argued that with a given
number of needed parking spaces, the amount of paving could be reduced.
Weed stated that there are many different types of uses of the parking
spaces and it is important to taking into account the usage (i.e., long-
term vs. short-term parking) . It was pointed out that although Cornell
uses a very small space size, it is not necessarily the best idea for the
City of Ithaca to reduce its parking spaces to the same standards. The
Chair requested that Weed investigate the existing conditions and the
needs of the City of Ithaca in order to determine what the most
appropriate parking space size is. She stated that even in the City
space size should be reduced, but that special and extreme cases such as
Cornell and landmarks should be in a separate category from the rest of
the City. Scott Raynor of Cornell University noted that many
considerations must be considered (i.e, size of lot, type of spaces
(diagonal), type of parking, turning radius, etc. ) .
The Board recommended that Weed develop an investigation on this
matter, advise the Planning and Development Committee and allow them to
make the decision regarding minimum parking space size.
8
8. Zoning Appeals Report
Chair suggested that staff review the zoning appeals as some of them
were repeated from the last meeting.
9. REPORTS
a) Committees of the Board
1. Neighborhoods and Housing Committee--Cochran reported that
this committee has been focusing on the central business district
particularly the use of upper stories which has now been integrated into
the larger Visions Task Force. It replaced this task with the housing
related to the Pogo parcel on Northside. Issues discussed included the
appropriateness of mixed use housing vs. all renter housing, cluster
housing vs. traditional, and the question of whether reasonably priced
housing can be built on the lot. An agreement was made to visit
projects in neighboring cities, Binghamton and Syracuse, where costs have
been kept down to see what the quality of that housing is. The next
committee meeting is scheduled for October 1, 1990 at 3:30 p.m.
b) Planning and Development Committee
Schroeder indicated that the committee discussed the Cornell Master
Plan. Mr. Roscoe, the Director of Campus Planning for Cornell, will give
a presentation at the joint meeting of the Planning Committee and
Planning Board on September 17, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. Northside Park and the
possibility of moving the DPW to Southwest Park was also discussed. The
new industrial park off of Third St. was discussed as well as problems
with the Planning Department Work Program.
10. Approval of Minutes
The Chair indicated that amendments that were to be made in the June
26, 1990 minutes concerning the Ithaca Bakery Site Plan review had not
been done. Schroeder reviewed his notes of that meeting and explained
that the Codes Committee discussion should be included in those minutes.
The Chair stated that the Codes Committee recommended that the Board
would be willing to take up site plan review at the next meeting of the
Board if they provided more information.
On page 7, line 19, the word "Hearing" was replaced with "Record".
Yale moved that the June 26, 1990 minutes be approved with the noted
revisions. Schroeder seconded the motion, and the motion passed
unanimously. Approval of the minutes from the August 2, 1990 meeting was
deferred until the next meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.