Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1991-08-27 AMENDED & APPROVED 12/19/91 Planning and Development Board MINUTES August 27, 1991 PRESENT: S. Adams, R. Berg, S. Blumenthal (Chair) , T. Cookingham, C. Feuer, J. Schroeder, A. Yale. Staff: Director H. M. Van Cort, L. Tsang. Also, applicants, media and members of the public. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Privilege of the Floor: No one appeared. 3. Elmira Road Sidewalks. Blumenthal explained briefly the history of the proposed project for construction of sidewalks on Elmira Road. The major consideration was for safety of pedestrians and handicapped accessibility along the road. Peter Weed, landscape architect who was hired to design a scheme for the project, presented his proposal and design drawings. The project would extend from Norstar Bank (northeastern side of Elmira Road) to the city-town line. The project has been under consideration by the Board of Public Works since 1988. Mr. Weed noted well-worn trails, and consistent and steady use by pedestrians (approximately 4-6 per hour) along the roadway which he believed to be locally generated by local businesses and restaurants. The proposed four foot wide concrete sidewalks would be constructed with a crushed stone strip between the curb and sidewalk. The average distance of the sidewalk from the road is 3-5 feet from the curb; if sidewalks were further back, drainage swales would have to be reconstructed for storm water drainage and this would be much more expensive. Approximate total project cost is $290,000. Blumenthal opened the floor for public comment. Dick Flaville, Bob Romanowski, Reuben Weiner, Betsy Darlington, Brenda Kuhn, Neil Golder, William Zikakis, Henry Vaughan, Pat Vaughan, Barbara Blanchard, Harlan McEwen, Sim Fryson, and LeMoyne Farrell appeared to speak before the Board. The following comments were received. The vast majority of employees in Elmira Road businesses drive to work. Economically this couldn't be a worse time. Sidewalks would give pedestrians a false sense of safety, especially those handicapped. The cost is tremendous, and need has not been demonstrated. Impractical--too many curb cuts. Maintenance of city-owned property by private property owners. There were arguments that Elmira Road is an automotive destination. It' s not a street, it' s a highway (miracle mile) , with heavy traffic. Alderperson Planning and Development Board -2- Minutes of August 27, 1991 Blanchard spoke of an urban renewal plan in the 1960s whereby downtown automotive-related businesses were to be relocated to a more remote destination. It was argued that it would be dangerous 'to encourage more pedestrian traffic, that Elmira Road traffic accident reports from DoT show rear end collisions and pile ups as the major cause of accidents. Those in favor maintained that if there was a comfortable place to walk, more people would do it. Elmira Road should be viewed as a city street. The Salvation Army, Buttermilk Falls mini-mall and fast food restaurants were identified as businesses that encourage pedestrians. It was noted that the City bus does not solve all peoples problems and needs. There was discussion that a repayment program could be set up whereby property owners would be able to pay over a 10 year period at below market rate interest. Van Cort stated that a capital project could be established for the project and the money for the additional design work and survey could be borrowed. Schroeder felt that it should be the City' s goal to have sidewalks on every city street. It was generally felt by the Board that the idea of installing sidewalks on Elmira Road is a good one that would encourage foot travel in that area. However, some Board members had doubts about the design presented by Peter Weed* . The next phase of the project would entail an aerial survey and map at a cost of $18,500, and design fees of $8, 000 which includes construction drawings with specifications. Feuer suggested amendments to the December, 1990 Planning Board resolution that express the Board' s support of a delay in implementation of the project to construct sidewalks along both sides of the road for a period of one year. After one year the project would be reconsidered and, in the interim, consideration will be given to an expansion of handicapped-accessible public transportation service to Elmira Road as an addition or alternative to the provision of sidewalks. The Board generally agreed public transportation should be underlined as a short-term goal. It was agreed that the resolution be rewritten and considered at the next regular meeting in September. Cookingham, seconded by Adams, moved to table, carried unanimously 7-0. Planning and Development Board -3- Minutes of August 27, 1991 4. Subdivisions A. 227 Wood Street/Hoyt, Dietz A public hearing was held, and no one appeared to speak. Cookingham, seconded by Blumenthal, moved for final subdivision approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a final subdivision plat meeting the standards specified in City Subdivision Regulations, and 2. Submission of documentation of the legal combination of the minor parcel created with the adjoining property, Assessment Parcel 105-5-30. The motion was carried unanimously (7-0) . B. 361 Floral Avenue/Benson Environmental assessment has determined that the property to be subdivided contains wetlands which have been delineated by Ichthyological Associates, Inc. [in accordance with the 1989 Federal Manual. ] Mr. Benson agreed to give adequate assurance that all wetland areas will be protected from development. This would involve the reservation of the two southern-most lots and following applicable regulations with regard to any action that could affect the remaining wetland areas. Regarding the issue of storm drainage from the culvert under Floral Avenue at the center of Mr. Benson' s frontage, it is the City's position that the City is not responsible or liable for any effect that this drainage might have on abutting private property. Staff recommended a negative declaration and preliminary subdivision approval. Mr. Benson mentioned a deed restriction which stipulates that, in accordance with the applicable laws regarding crossing a wetland, a permit must be obtained by potential builders on the lots. Mr. Benson was requested to submit the legal instruments needed to protect the wetlands one week before the next Codes Committee meeting. There was a brief discussion regarding building along the inlet, and in the 100-year floodplain, which requires City SEQR review. Schroeder, seconded by Cookingham, moved the resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. WHEREAS, application has been made for subdivision of property at 361 Floral Avenue, also known as Assessment Parcel 100-1-11 into five (5) parcels for sale and development, and Planning and Development Board -4- Minutes of August 27, 1991 WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SERF) and the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) , and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action is an "unlisted" action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) , including the Part 617 regulations thereunder, and is a "Type I" action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, assessment of the potential environmental impacts of subdivision has determined that portions of the site are wetlands, and these areas have been surveyed and delineated by Ichthyological Associates, Inc. , and WHEREAS, applicant has given verbal indication that restrictions will be placed on the parcels created that will insure that the wetland portions will be protected from development, and that development will be limited to single- family residences on those parcels that do not include significant wetland areas, and WHEREAS, such restrictions provide sufficient assurance that the important environmental characteristics and the character of the neighborhood will be preserved, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Planning and Development hereby does adopt as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form and the Long Environmental Assessment Form dated April 10, 1991, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Planning and Development hereby does determine that the proposed action at issue will have a significant effect on the environment, however, the environmental effects of the proposed subdivision will be mitigated by restrictions set forth in the conditional approval of the subdivision, and that further environmental review is unnecessary under the circumstances, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall constitute notice of this negative declaration and the City Clerk be hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with the attachment, in the City Clerk's office and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Passed unanimously. Planning and Development Board -5- Minutes of August 27, 1991 Schroeder moved, seconded by Cookingham, the following resolution for preliminary subdivision approval. WHEREAS, application has been made for subdivision of property at 361 Floral Avenue, also known as Assessment Parcel 100-1-1, into five (5) parcels, and WHEREAS, assessment of the potential environmental impacts of subdivision determined that portions of the site are wetland, and WHEREAS, applicant has given verbal indication that restrictions will be placed on the parcels created that will insure that the wetland portions will be protected from development, and that development will be limited to single- family residences on those parcels that do not include significant wetland areas, and WHEREAS, such restrictions provide sufficient assurance that the important environmental characteristics and the character of the neighborhood will be preserved, and WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development has given the proposed project a negative declaration subject to written documentation of mitigating measures and development restrictions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that conditional approval of subject subdivision is given, subject to receipt of written documents, satisfactory to the City as to form and content, incorporating such restrictions. Passed unanimously. 5. Site Development Plan Review and Public Hearing A. GIAC Neighborhood Pool and Park. Tsang described the project proposed for the corner of W. Court and N. Albany Sts. The pool does not meet with the City zoning ordinance for setback requirements, which has been a subject for discussion among various City agencies. A public hearing was held and no one appeared. Feuer, seconded by Schroeder, moved for preliminary and final approval. Motion was carried unanimously. 6. Zoninq Appeals. Van Cort entered into the record a petition signed by eight neighbors to 309 E. Lincoln St. opposing appeal 2056 claiming that there has never been a barbershop at that property, nor is there a need for one. There was Planning and Development Board -6- Minutes of August 27, 1991 some discussion concerning this appeal as well as appeals 2059, 2060 and 2061, and the Board revised the memorandum containing the recommendations of the Codes and Administration Committee as follows: Review of subject appeals has determined that Nos. 2054, 2055, 2057, 2058, and 2062 do not involve issues of citywide or long range planning concern, and are forwarded for BZA action. APPEAL 2056, for Special Permit to allow a barber shop at 309 E. Lincoln, in an R-2b zone. The appellant has represented, in his application, that the proposed use is "grandfathered. " The staff has seen no evidence whether this is either true or false. Residents who live nearby the subject property have argued that there was no previous such use at the property. If the use is grandfathered, it would have no significant impact on the surroundings in terms of activity or visibility (other than a business sign, which has already been erected) . APPEAL 2059, Area Variances for deficient front and side yard dimensions and percentage of rear yard depth at 302-306 N. Aurora, in a B-1b zone, to permit an addition of approximately 1,800 square feet to the building. The Planning Board applauds the efforts of the First Unitarian Society of Ithaca in restoring and adding on to their building and remaining downtown. APPEAL 2060, Area Variances and interpretation to permit addition, and conversion of, 303-9 Dryden Rd. , in an R-3b zone, increasing its legal occupancy, brings into question the intent of Sec. 30.37 (A) ( 1) , dealing with "back-to-back" parking spaces. It is our belief that this provision was intended basically to permit the not uncommon practice of using residential driveways for parking one or more cars. This would not be possible for the layout supplied. The lot layout shown does not satisfy the standards of Sec. 30. 37 B-1 for design of lots with street frontage. The Board feels that this proposal is inappropriate and recommends denial. APPEAL 2061, for Area Variance to permit a second duplex residence on the same lot, at 812 E. State, in an R-2b zone, raises questions of intent and interpretation of General Note 1 under the District Regulations. The appeal is based on a reading of Note 1 which appears to legitimize addition of a second duplex on the same property. However, this would make the use of the property multi-family, which would Planning and Development Board -7- Minutes of August 27, 1991 require a Use Variance, and this appeal is only for an Area Variance. If a single large R-2 parcel may be developed with as many duplexes as it will hold, then there was no reason for subdivision of the "Pogo Parcel. " Similarly and more importantly, existing large tracts of land on West Hill would not have to go through the subdivision process in order to be developed. Therefore, this Board feels very strongly that this appeal should be denied and requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals take the preceding concerns into account in determining the appropriate action on this appeal. APPEAL 2062, Area Variances to permit office use at 211-15 Fifth St. , in a B-4 zone, appears to involve a parcel that has been illegally subdivided, which may have aggravated the amount or extent of nonconformity with district regulations. APPEAL 2063, for Special Permit for an Accessory Apartment at 904 E. State, in an R-lb zone, appears to satisfy all requirements for issuance of a permit. Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously. 7. Approval of Minutes. Approval of July Minutes were deferred until the next regular Board meeting. 8. Reports A. Committees of the Board. No reports. B. Director. No report. C. Chair. No report. D. Board of Public Works. Berg announced the promotion and appointment of Rick Ferrell as assistant superintendent for streets & facilities. Approval of installation of stop signs at Monroe and Lake. E. Planning and Development Committee. Schroeder reported on the Committee' s discussions concerning the GIAC pool zoning waiver, and use of water funds to purchase land for protection of the Six Mile Creek watershed. 9. Miscellaneous. Brief discussion of Elmira Road sidewalk resolution. Resignation of Andy Yale from the Planning Board. Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. epj-PDBoard/August.min waM -- --- --- ---------- --- ---- - -- --- - wA ev- Au7-1 dA- o '0000l�, r.. • . C r - i CXRD C,�vi e August 27 , 1991 City Planning Board, Ithaca, N. Y. Re: Sidewalks , Elmira Rd. My mother, in her older years, made her home in Florida. . I went down every year for a visit. Her home was not far from a business area very similar to our' Elmira Road District. Many times I would walk this route. Not many of the owners provided sidewalks; not infrequently_ were areas where you walked thru weeds belt high. This was a well populated, well established area, not in the poorer section of town. The side streets often had inadequate street lighting,and deep open ditches,-no curbing. Our Elmira Road consists of much more than automobile dealerships, -with their courtesy ride into town. nor does having a city bus route solve all peoples problems and needs. I have bemoaned our local situation for years, among my friends. I have thought that a mix of fine stone and clean sand, on a well prepaired base, would be an economical way to do it. Please, let's havesomewalk paths. Respectfully submitted, J 4�_Mmyr, , - - _`�_1� Herbert Hartwig, Jr. 315 S. Albany st. Ithaca