Loading...
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.