HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1991-10-22 Planning and Development Board ' °
MINUTES
October 22, 1991
PRESENT: S. Adams, R. Berg, S. Blumenthal (Chair) , J. Schroeder.
Staff: Director H. M. Van Cort, L. Tsang. Also,
applicants, members of the public and others.
1. Meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Privilege of the Floor: No response. Chair explained to
the assembly that all projects being considered at this
meeting would require a unanimous vote of the full quorum
for approval.
3. Public Hearing and Final Subdivision Approval
A. 211-215 Fifth Street/Branca. Chair opened a public
hearing. A memo from Jon Meigs regarding a neighboring
property owner who had not received notice of subdivision
from the applicant was noted into the record. After a brief
explanation of circumstances, it was reported that the
property owner waived her right to adequate notice. The
public hearing was closed. Schroeder, seconded by Adams,
moved for final subdivision approval. Carried 4-0.
9AQ &�B. � /aZBenson. A report from Adams
(Codes and Administration) noted that two versions of legal
language for the subdivision plat were considered for
protecting the wetlands on lots 4 and 5 (the two most
southerly parcels) . The Board felt that the language
proposed by Mr. Benson' s attorney would not protect the
wetlands from development, and did not reflect the intent of
the preliminary subdivision approval given in August.
Mr. Benson addressed the Board and explained the nature of
the wetland on his property which was delineated by
Icythyological Associates which he believes to be a
judgement call. He wanted to clarify for the Board that the
wetland is considered to be manmade rather than natural.
Benson described that his "wetland" property is created by
water running off from West Hill, collected in a culvert
pipe, and being diverted onto his property. Mr. Benson felt
that the legal language proposed by the Board would prohibit
him from developing the land if the proposed changes in
federal guidelines defining wetlands be instituted or if
physical changes occur.
An option discussed was to redraw the lot lines, which
Schroeder was in favor of, to allow one additional buildable
lot (total of 3) ; however this would require going back for
preliminary approval. It was suggested to amend the
Planning and Development Board -2-
Minutes of October 22, 1991
language in the resolutions that were unanimously passed at
the August, 1990 Planning Board meeting.
For the Negative Declaration, replace the fourth and fifth
WHEREAS as follows:
WHEREAS, assessment of the potential environmental impacts
of subdivision has determined that portions of the site are
wetlands under existing regulations 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 parcels #4 and #5 that will
insure that the wetland portions will be protected from
development, except as may be permitted under then current
regulations, and that development will be limited to one
single-family residence per lot with accessory apartments on
those parcels that do not include significant wetland areas,
parcels #1, #2 and #3.
For the Preliminary Subdivision Approval, replace the second
and third WHEREAS as follows:
WHEREAS, it has been determined that portions of the site
are wetland under existing regulations ( 1989 Federal Manual
for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands) ,
and
WHEREAS, applicant has given verbal indication that
restrictions will be placed on parcels #4 and #5 that will
insure that the wetland portions will be protected from
development, except as may be permitted under then current
regulations, and that development will be limited to one
single-family residence per lot with accessory apartments on
those parcels that do not include significant wetland areas,
parcels #1, #2 and #3.
Add to fifth WHEREAS:
The approval of this subdivision is specifically conditioned
on and subject to the restrictions that:
1. No construction will occur on lots 4 or 5 without the
express approval of the Planning and Development Board of
the City of Ithaca, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. The applicant may, in the future, request that
the Planning and Development Board reconsider the wetland
issue and request permission from the Planning and
Development Board to build on lots 4 and 5 if changes to
Planning and Development Board -3-
Minutes of October 22, 1991
physical conditions on the site, or changes in regulations
governing wetlands, warrant such reconsideration;
2. Development will be limited to one single-family
residence with accessory apartment per lot; and
3. Development on any parcel containing wetland will be
undertaken in accordance with any regulations respecting
protection of wetland in effect at the time of such
development.
There was some discussion about the proposed new federal
guidelines governing definition of wetlands. Betsy
Darlington, Chair of the Conservation Advisory Council,
believed that the proposal was an irrational one based on
politics, not science, and would eliminate 500 of what is
now considered wetlands. She remarked that the wetland on
Benson' s property, even though manmade, is serving an
important drainage function (trapping pollutants and
sediments) .
Mr. Benson requested an adjournment of the public hearing.
The Board agreed to rewrite the language for the subdivision
plat, and to continue public hearing next month (unanimous) .
4. Preliminary Subdivisions
A. 812 E. State Street/Ching Po. Van Cort presented site
plans for the proposed subdivision for a duplex containing 2
three-bedroom units on this property at the corner of
Mitchell and Blair Sts. He described the Ronsvalle
subdivision which came before the Board in August, 1987
which had many similarities to the proposed project. In the
Ronsvalle case, the Board denied the subdivision, and a
legal suit was brought against the City. The court
overturned the Board' s decision which was appealed by the
Board and upheld in the Supreme Court.
Chair requested comments from the public. Representatives
from a neighborhood association and others gave their
comments on the project. Criticisms consisted of
anticipated increase in traffic congestion and on-street
parking, effects on vegetation, and on-site trash which will
have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Neighbors from
nearby Orchard Place remarked that there are many single-
family homes with children in the neighborhood and feel that
additional student housing would have an adverse effect on
the character of the neighborhood.
Planning and Development Board -4-
Minutes of October 22, 1991
Someone questioned why public comment is invited if there
are no alternatives to the plan. They urged the Board to
deny approval and let;°;the applicants bring suit. Van Cort
commented what the applicant is proposing is allowable under
zoning. Berg suggested to the neighbors that when there is
a trash problem, their recourse is to inform the
Superintendent of Streets & Facilities who will fine the
owner and clean up the site--at the owner' s expense--within
24 hours. Schroeder commented that student rooming houses
are incrementally eroding the neighborhood. A positive
declaration of environmental significance was considered
which would require a dEIS. The applicant' s representative,
Mr. Demjanec requested adjournment of the matter. Schroeder
requested that Mr. Demjanec address these concerns to
establish possible mitigating measures.
Mr. Demjanec addressed the group on the issue of trash,
which he described as construction debris. He noted that
the neighborhood is predominantly students and said that
Ithaca is a college town; so the proposed housing units are
compatible with character of the neighborhood. He said that
it is what the zoning will permit, and suggested that Common
Council would be the forum to address zoning changes. Mr.
Demjanec reported that vehicle volume counts from City
traffic engineering reveal that the State-Mitchell-Blair
intersection is at 90% of its maximum 2000 cars per hour
. capacity and stated that vehicles generated by this project
will not exceed that capacity. He also claimed that most
students walk and that trips generated by student vehicles
create less traffic than their residential counterparts
because of carpooling and infrequent trips. Schroeder,
seconded by Berg, moved to continue discussion of
environmental assessment next month. Carried unanimously.
B. 209-211 Cliff Street/Klinko. Subdivision was requested
to enable the sale of one of two houses currently on the
property. Variances for area nonconformities to zoning
regulations are being sought through appeal #2074. Berg,
seconded by Schroeder, moved for Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance, carried unanimously. Schroeder
moved for preliminary subdivision approval. The motion was
seconded by Berg, and unanimously carried.
5. Fairfield Crossing/Cowles--Extension of deadline for filing.
Adams, seconded by Schroeder, moved that the deadline for
filing the final subdivision plat be extended for one month
from the date of this meeting, retroactively extending the
statutory deadline which expired September 25, 1989.
Carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Board -5-
Minutes of October 22, 1991
6. Site Development Plan Review and Public Hearing
A. Hess Gas Station/366 Elmira Road. Tsang presented site
plans for renovation of the existing gas station, replacing
the storage tanks and adding a convenience store. Public
hearing held; no one appeared. Schroeder, seconded by Berg,
moved for Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance, carried unanimously. Schroeder, seconded by
Berg moved for preliminary site development plan approval,
considered final, with conditions. Carried unanimously.
Conditions:
1. The final site plan will include a revised planting
plan to be approved by the Planning Department and the City
Forester.
2. The final site plan will include a revised handicap
ramp and handicap parking according to the specifications of
the current building and zoning requirements.
3. Submission of: a) an engineering report on the
capacity of the existing Elmira Road storm sewer relative to
the proposed drainage flow; b) a tank closure report will be
on file with the Planning Department when the existing gas
storage tanks are removed; c) a statement of clarification
on the questions and comments raised in the October 8, 1991
CAC memo.
4. The final site plan will include a 5 ' concrete sidewalk
to be provided along the entire front of the property (200 ' )
including both driveways and concrete aprons and flares.
5. The final site plan will show standard white stop bars
to be provided at 10-12 ' behind the curbline across exit
portions of driveways.
B. Cleary Oil Change/334 Elmira Road. Public hearing
held, no one appeared. Schroeder, seconded by Adams, moved
for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance.
Schroeder, seconded by Adams, moved for preliminary site
development plan approval, considered final, with
conditions. Carried unanimously.
Conditions:
1. The applicant will consult with the office of the City
Engineer in the design development of sidewalks, entrance/
exit drives and curb cuts on Elmira Road, and the drainage
plan.
2. A detailed planting plan and schedule will be included
in the final site plan.
Planning and Development Board -6-
Minutes of October 22, 1991
C. Fairfield Crossing/324 Spencer Road. The proposal is a
joint housing project between Community Development, Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) and a private developer
(Rick Cowles) for 14 two-bedroom affordable housing units
for low income families. Technical deficiencies were cited
by Tsang who advised the Board to either consider the
application incomplete or reject it.
Chair opened a public hearing. Mr and Mrs Stuntner of 333
Spencer Rd. (? ) raised concerns about conditions which can be
hazardous to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Comments were made about drainage from South Hill which can
precipitate flash flooding, and otherwise wet and icy road
conditions. They also described a wooded area adjacent to
their property that is attractive to children and were
concerned about children crossing the street, especially if
there is not an adequate play area on the proposed site.
They also expressed concern about landscaping and trash
(screening) .
Board members felt that although they generally supported
the project, it would be premature to adopt a negative
declaration given that the application was incomplete and
environmental concerns have not been addressed.
Van Cort requested that the Board consider environmental
review at this meeting, as it would delay construction and
cause financial difficulty if a negative declaration was not
adopted. Schroeder argued that since this was an incomplete
submission, the environmental review could not be executed.
Adams felt that the Board was being pressured to quickly
approve this project as though they were responsible for
delaying the process.
Paul Mazzarella said that he and Chad Hoover have been
meeting and going over the plans for this project, both with
the developers and independently, and have attempted to come
up with alternative designs for the facades of the buildings
and the landscaping. He reported good progress, but
admitted that no final decisions on how the project will
ultimately appear have been made. He said he was confident
that by next month' s Board meeting they could present a site
development plan that would be much more acceptable than
what has been presented to the Board for review.
Planning and Development Board -7-
Minutes of October 22, 1991
Mr. Cowles requested adjournment of the public hearing,
which was granted unanimously. Board agreed to meet on
November 7 at 4:00 p.m. for an environmental review of the
project if the applicant has a complete application
including mitigating measures of environmental impacts.
Schroeder stated that he was going take environmental review
of this project as seriously as he did on the subdivision at
812 E. State St. and, as is his practice, with every project
that the Board considers.
D. City Court Facility. Deferred
7. Old Business - Elmira Road Sidewalks (resolution) - Deferred
8. New Business
A. Amendments to Subdivision Regulations. Deferred
B. Ordinance amending 30.25 - "District Regulations" -
P-1 uses. This amendment is intended to put in print what
has been the practice and intent of the P-1 classification--
to include municipal facilities and uses. Schroeder,
seconded by Adams, moved that the Board recommend approval
by Common Council. Carried unanimously.
9. Zoning Appeals Report. Memorandum moved, seconded and
approved unanimously.
10. Reports
A. Committees of the Board. None.
B. Director. None.
C. Chair. None.
D. Board of Public Works. None.
E. Planning and Development Committee. 1992 Work Program.
11. Approval of Minutes. Approval of August and September
Minutes was deferred.
Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.