Loading...
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.