HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1992-03-24 APPROVED 5/26/92
Planning and Development Board
MINUTES
March 24, 1992
PRESENT: S. Adams, S. Blumenthal (Chair), C. Feuer, G. Hagood, D. Kay,
J. Schroeder. staff: Director H. M. Van Cort, J. Meigs,
P. Norton. Also, applicants, and otherinterested parties.
1. Meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
2. Privilege of the Floor: No one appeared.
3. Public Hearing and Final Subdivision Approval
A. 812 E. State St./Ching Po
A public hearing was opened by chair. No one appeared to speak, and the
hearing was closed. Adams, seconded by Feuer, moved for final
subdivision approval conditional on submission of the final plat. vote:
5-1-0 (Schroeder opposed) . carried.
4. Subdivisions for Preliminary Approval
A. 152 Highland Ave./55 Ridgewood/Pi Kappa Phi
David Tyler, attorney for the fraternity, explained the request for
subdivision as an adjustment of internal property lines between the two
parcels as part of a sale agreement. It was noted by staff that the
resulting parcels would be more developable. Some neighbors asked
questions and voiced concern regarding the possible future development
of the site. Meigs explained allowable development in the RU zone.
Schroeder, seconded by Feuer, moved a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance, and the motion passed unanimously.
Schroeder moved preliminary subdivision approval. The motion was
seconded by Kay and unanimously carried 4-0.
B. 326/334 Elmira Road/Weiner
This subdivision is requested after the fact in order to comply with
regulations as stipulated in general provisions of the City Code. Mr.
Weiner had sold this property to Wendy's Restaurant in 1977, but
neglected to file for legal subdivision. An up-to-date survey has been
filed, and the property conforms with zoning. Feuer, seconded by Kay,
moved a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and the
motion passed 4-0-1 (Hagood abstained) . Preliminary subdivision
approval was moved by Schroeder, and seconded by Feuer. The motion
carried 4-0-1 (Hagood abstained) .
C. West Inlet Housing Proposal/Weisburd
Jerold Weisburd, of House Craft Builders, presented his cluster
subdivision proposal to build 27 single-family detached homes that would
range in price from $65,000 to $84,000. He said that the project will
add to the quantity of affordable housing in the City. He has applied
for partial funding through the City's comprehensive Development Block
Grant (CDBG) application, and Ithaca Neighborhood Housing services will
assist qualified low-middle income families in purchasing some of the
CDBG-subsidized homes. Mr. Weisburd believes that the project design is
environmentally sensitive, with careful consideration of slopes. He
feels that drainage is not a significant problem, and is confident that
engineering methods will provide a solution that will actually improve
the drainage on Floral Avenue. Mr. Weisburd claimed that the impact on
hackberry trees will be minimal because most trees on the site are
located in the "set aside area," along the northern border of project.
Also, only about a dozen would be cut for the road, and others will be
protected by deed restrictions..
van Cort explained the thorough environmental review process that this
project underwent including site .visits and opinions from a USDA soil
conservationist and Cornell botanist, and numerous site visits with CAC,
Planning and Development Board -2
-
Minutes of March 24, 1992
staff and Board members. Two codes and administration committee
meetings were held to discuss environmental concerns. Staff has
recommended a negative declaration based on mitigating measures which
have been incorporated by the developers and are summarized below.
Impact on land: Avoid steepest slopes on site, less clear cutting, set
aside areas will remain as they are, paved areas kept to a minimum.
Impact on non-threatened species: Cluster arrangement allows
preservation of hackberry trees located in set aside areas. These areas
are to be demarcated by stone borders and further protected by deed
restrictions. Drainage: When ongoing studies have been completed, the
developer will follow any necessary measures to insure that impact from
storm runoff will not be unacceptable. (Staff recommended that final
approval be withheld until the Board of Public works has approved the
drainage plan.) Impact on traffic: It is estimated that 150-270 daily
trips generated from the project will increase traffic on Floral Ave a
maximum of 4%, and on the octopus a maximum of to (minimal impact) .
Public controversy and density: Density is below half of what is
allowed in the R-2 zone. R-2 density is proposed in the newly-adopted
West Hill Master Plan. The area is now zoned R-3 which allows more than
four times the density proposed by this project.
Betsy Darlington expressed concern about not knowing what the drainage
calculations for the channel behind the site are and believes that there
would be very wet lots. This, she thought, combined with lack of a play
area for children, would leave homeowners very unhappy. Ms. Darlington
also believes that the question about ownership and maintenance of set
aside areas must be determined before a negative declaration is issued
and said that a stone barrier is insufficient protection for the
hackberry trees.
Mayor Nichols expressed strong support for the project and said that it
is very important to the well-being of the City. He felt that a very
good job had been done in attempting to meet the affordable housing
goals of the City while answering the environmental concerns raised.
Dirk Galbraith, attorney for Glenside Neighborhood Association,
requested that environmental review and preliminary subdivision approval
be postponed until the next regular monthly meeting of the Planning
Board. He argued that the March 16 certified description survey, which
was not submitted at least 10 days prior to this meeting as is required
by the municipal code, does not conform with the lot boundaries
described in the preliminary plat. Assistant city attorney Pat Kennedy
responded that the issue was really one of notice and that a 1954 survey
had been submitted well in advance of the application. She said that
the earlier survey deviates only slightly from the current certified
survey. She advised the Board that it is within its authority to rule
this type of discrepancy as negligible. Schroeder felt that the
variation, which is comparable to 1/10th of an acre, was not significant
and that discussion should proceed. Kay, seconded by Feuer, moved to
not adjourn this agenda item, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Galbraith then opened discussion concerning the City's Environmental
Quality Review ordinance which states that Type I actions will, in
almost every case, require an Environmental Impact Statement. Van Cort
explained that the City's thresholds for Type I actions are much lower
than the State's under which this project would be "unlisted.,, He said
that, generally ,speaking, a dEIS on a Type I action may be required, but
that it has rarely been the case because the LEAF process has been
Planning and Development Board -3-
Minutes of March 24, 1992
extremely effective. van Cort cited the Farmer's Market and the Joint
Transit Facility as examples of Type I actions where a dEIS was not
required.
Paul Bennett, attorney for the Lower family, expressed concern about the
drainage that will be funnelled across the Lower's land. He claimed
that there was insufficient public information, and argued that the
drainage plan cannot be reviewed if it is not submitted. It was noted
by Ms. .Kennedy that provision has to be made for the water on the site,
and the amount of specificity needed to adopt a negative declaration is
determined by the Board. She added, however, that it is not necessary
to know the exact drainage plan, and staff was confident that the plan
will also address erosion and system capacity for storm runoff.
Barbara Blanchard spoke in favor of the design concept. She said that
environmental review has been used, by opponents of proposed actions, as
a way to subvert the intent of the SEQR laws. She noted that public
debate and commentary on this proposal has been extensive, and the
developers have responded to all environmental concerns raised. Ms.
Blanchard further stated that an advanced level of review is not
appropriate for the scale of this project.
Paul Mazzarella, executive director of INHS, said that the project
developers have been extremely cooperative in meeting objections and
providing solutions to problems raised. He said that INNS will help
finance the purchase of some of the homes for low-moderate income
families. Mr. Mazzarella added that INNS has had an ongoing interest in
that neighborhood and has spent considerable time and resources in
refurbishing existing homes on Floral Ave.
Bill Lower, 428 Floral Avenue, expressed concern about the additional
amount of water that will go across his property, which is directly
across the street from the project site, and the amount of erosion that
has already occurred.
Beatrice Lower talked about her apprehension over the dangerous existing
traffic conditions and the effect a large increase in traffic on Floral
Avenue would have on safety. She also mentioned that the adjacent
Towerview apartments does not have a play area for children, so the
children, play in the creek. She believed that the same thing would
happen at this site.
Bernie carpenter discussed drainage concerns as well as his belief that
the project would not enhance the feeling of neighborhood and community.
He also said that he thought the hillside was an inappropriate site for
cluster development.
Heinz Riederer believed that the project was not being given equal
treatment, but was being driven by the city and staff. He asked that
the Board act as representatives of the people that live in the
neighborhood_
The Board discussed the placement of construction fencing to insure that
it be placed as close to the houses as possible to protect hackberry
trees on the site. There was a discussion of details as outlined in the
list of mitigating measures attached to the proposed resolution for a
negative declaration. It was suggested that in addition to deed
restrictions, the proposed stone borders be placed five feet out from
Planning and Development Board -4-
Minutes of March 24, 1992
the base of the hackberry trees to protect the leaf litter area. Mr.
Weisburd agreed to the additional measures requested.
Schroeder then moved the following resolution.
Whereas, application has been made for approval of a cluster subdivision
development of twenty-seven (27) lots for single-family detached housing
at 452 Floral Avenue, and
whereas, this action is a Type 1 action under City Environmental Quality
Review regulations, and an Unlisted action under state EQR, and
whereas, the Board of Planning and Development of the City of Ithaca,
the Lead Agency for environmental review of all subdivisions proposed
within the City, has conducted such environmental review, including a
full Long EAF, and
Whereas, it appears that the action will not have a significant negative
effect on the, environment, as concluded under the LEAF and supporting
documents outlining or specifying steps to be taken to mitigate or avoid
impacts identified as potentially significant, be it
Resolved that this Board, as Lead Agency in this matter, adopt as its
own the findings and conclusions set forth in the Long Environmental
Assessment Form dated February 28, 1992 with revisions, and be it
Further resolved that this Board hereby does determine that the proposed
action will have no significant effect on the environment, and that
further environmental review is therefore unnecessary, and that the
environmental review requirement for subdivision application is
satisfied, and the review of the subdivision application may proceed,
and be it
Further resolved that this resolution shall constitute notice of a
negative declaration of environmental effect and the City Clerk be, and
hereby is, directed to file a copy of the same, together with the
attachments stating the reasons supporting this determination, in the
office of the City Clerk and by mail with any other parties required by
law.
The resolution was seconded by Feuer, and passed unanimously (5-0) .
The following three pages have been included in and attached to the
resolution for a negative declaration.
Planning and Development Board -5-
Minutes of. March 24, 1992
The reasons which support a Finding of No Significant Impact are
described .as follows, and listed in more specific detail in the
list of Mitigating Measures attached hereto.
1. Impact on Land. The general slope of the site is 10% or
greater. The use of smaller lots, set-aside of areas of steepest
slope, and minimization of paved areas through clustering limit
the area which will be disturbed. Adequate provisions before and
after construction will minimize soil erosion.
2. Effect on Non-threatened/endangered species. The hackberry
trees on the site, which may support populations of locally rare
butterflies, will be protected. Many of the trees are located in
the gullies which are part of the open space set aside.
Hackberry trees located in private lots will be protected by
covenants in individual homeowner deeds prohibiting the cutting
down of hackberry trees unless they are dead, diseased, or pose a
threat to residents. A low stone border will be constructed
around hackberry trees located in private lots to deter
encroachment of lawns or lawnmowers. Residents will be educated
about the importance of preserving the hackberry and its habitat.
3. Drainage. Before final subdivision approval, the developer
will submit an analysis of the current and proposed drainage into
City culverts or surface runoff onto adjacent property for the
City Engineer' s approval. All drainage provisions for the
project are subject to submittal, review, and acceptance by the
City Engineer. If the analysis indicates problems with using
existing culverts and gullies, mitigating measures will be
required,.
4. Traffic. The additional traffic generated by 27 single
family homes will have a minimal impact on Floral Avenue and
"Octopus" bridge traffic. Conventional traffic planning
standards indicate that from 150-270 trips may be generated
daily. This will have a very small overall impact on the
estimated 28,000 cars which presently go through the Octopus
daily.
5. Public Controversy. Nearby residents have expressed concern
about the density of the project. The project is fully
compatible with the site's existing R-3a zoning. zoning for the
area requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 s.f. for detached
single or two-family dwellings. The total area of the site is
213,700 s.f. , or approximately 7,925 s.f. per dwelling unit.
Furthermore, R-3a zoning permits multiple dwellings;
approximately 200 units would be permitted on the site. The
City' s R-2b and R-3b zoning categories require only 3,000 s.f.
per single family house or duplex.
Planning and Development Board -6-
Minutes of March 24, 1992
MITIGATING MEASURES - WEST INLET PROJECT
INTRINSIC AND ADDITIONAL
3-24-92
TREES
Intrinsic
lower density
cluster plan
open space set aside (many hackberry trees located in gullies)
careful infrastructure layout
smaller houses
20 ft. minimum buffer on perimeter
Additional
deed restriction
stone border (stop encroachment lawns & mowers)
education of residents
construction fencing next to hackberries on south and west.
borders during construction, construction fencing should be
located as close to the houses as possible
EROSION
Intrinsic
lower density
smaller house
cluster plan
open space set aside
minimizing tree cutting
improvement of natural drainage patterns
phased development
unexcavated crawl spaces
Additional
erosion damming
siltation screening (e.g. hay bales or siltation fences)
temporary reseeding
gravel in roadbed during construction
DRAINAGE/RUNOFF
Intrinsic
lower density
cluster plan
open space set aside
tree protection
improvement of drainage patterns
unexcavated crawl space beneath houses
professional eng. calculations of increased runoff
i
Planning and Development Board -7-
Minutes of March 24, 1992
professional eng. calculations of existing drainage ways
City eng. review and analysis of runoff and drainage design '
BPW review, analysis and approval of engineering staff
determinations
Additional
as required by Department and Board of Public Works
SLOPE
Intrinsic
cluster plan
open space set aside
road design
individual housing siting and design
no house construction on steepest slopes
150 ft. set back from Floral Avenue
stick built homes require less site disturbance
smaller houses
BUTTERFLIES (independent of tree protection)
Intrinsic
lower density
open space set aside, principal butterfly habitat in protected
gullies
displacement of deer over-population on site
no pesticide use during construction with possible exception of
Round-Up for Poison Ivy
Additional
education of residents
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
Intrinsic
single-family, detached homes
density compatible with West Hill Master Plan
professionally designed
stick built, non-modular
owner occupied
wooded lots
ENERGY USE
Intrinsic
on bus line
super insulated, air-tight construction
smaller houses
in City
Planning and Development Board -8-
. Minutes of March 24, 1992
The following resolution was then considered for approval:
Whereas, application has been made for approval of a subdivision of land
at 452 Floral Avenue, being Assessment Parcel 99-1-6, under the cluster
subdivision provisions of the Municipal Code, to provide sites for
twenty-seven single-family detached residences, and
Whereas, the required environmental review of the proposal has resulted
in a Declaration of No Significant Impact on the environment, and
Whereas, review in accordance with Sections 239 '1' and Im' of General
Municipal Law has determined that the proposal will have no significant
effect on intermunicipal, county or state interests, and
Whereas, issues identified in the initial review of the project as being
of concern, and for which project modifications, provisions, and
mitigations have been or are intended to be made, are:
i) Avoidance or mitigation of potential negative environmental
impacts, as discussed in detail in the environmental assessment
and the resolution for Declaration of No Significant Environmental
Effect
2) Acceptability by the City of lots smaller than the minimum called
for by conventional zoning, which is contemplated and permitted
under the cluster provisions
3) Acceptability by the City of subdivision streets and other
infrastructure that vary somewhat from the standards of
conventional subdivision, but which satisfy requirements for
access, services, and public safety
4) Acceptability to the City of provisions for the conservation of
space left undeveloped as a result of clustering, be it
Resolved that this Board conditionally Approve the proposed West Inlet
cluster subdivision, the conditions being
1) Provision by applicant of a Subdivision Plat drawn accurately to
scale and showing or accompanied by the detailed information
called for in sec. 31.24 of the City Code, as applicable, such
plat to be substantially in agreement with the certified survey
and other preliminary information already submitted;
2) Acceptance by appropriate city agencies and officials of the
proposed designs for streets and other public infrastructure to be
provided by the developer;
3) Agreement between City and applicant as to the mechanisms to be
used to set aside and regulate common areas and conservation
areas.
Moved by Feuer, seconded by Hagood, carried unanimously.
5. Old Business'
A. site Plan Review ordinance revisions - Deferred
B. Subdivision amendments - Brief discussion, ` tabled. ,
6. New Business
A. Amending Chapter 30, Section 30.21 of the Municipal Code entitled
"Zoning" CBD Central Business District. The proposed zoning
amendments would create a new zoning district to be known as CBD Central
Business District and would change certain zoning designations in the
West State Street corridor. This proposal has been discussed by the
Board at previous meetings. Adoption of the amendments by Common
Planning and Development Board -9-
Minutes of March 24, 1992
Council was moved by Blumenthal, seconded by Schroeder, and unanimously
carried 5-0.
B. 1992 Community Development Block Grant - Deferred
C. Report of inlet island Land Use Committee Deferred
7. Zoning Appeals Report
Blumenthal revised and moved the memorandum of the codes and
administration committee recommendations as follows:
Review of subject appeals does not indicate that any involve matters of
long-range or citywide concern. They are remanded for action with
comments as follows:
Appeal 2106, Special Permit and Area Variances to permit conversion of
bottle/can recycling facility into neighborhood commercial facility at
200 West Seneca St., in an R-3a zone. This proposal would substantially
improve the appearance of the property through compatible design with
the neighboring houses and remove a use which is a relative nuisance in
the neighborhood. It might, however, in conjunction with the adjoining
convenience store under the same ownership, result in a development of a
size, orientation and type (multiple commercial uses in one complex)
that is more of a community-wide general commercial nature than what is
implied by "neighborhood commercial facility."
Appeal 2107, Use Variance for commercial parking lot at 608-10 Hancock
St., in an R-2b zone. Since it is not certain that the Greenstar
market, which the proposed parking is intended to serve, will occupy the
adjoining premises, it might be desirable to condition approval on
confirmation of that occupancy, which will require zoning approval.
This will give the neighborhood opportunity to comment on the
acceptability of the use as a whole, where unconditional approval of the
parking lot could provide some basis for a use other than Greenstar.
Appeal 2108, Use Variance for conversion of 168 Chestnut St., in an R-la
zone, to a two-family dwelling. This appeal appears to be completely
contrary to the intent of the regulations and conditions for Accessory
Apartments, which specifically provide that non-owner-occupancy voids
the Special Permit for Accessory Apartments and does not allow occupancy
of the apartment. This provision, which Accessory Apartment permit
holders are required to acknowledge, is intended to help insure the
maintenance of neighborhood character, while helping owner-occupants to
meet the expenses of property ownership that might otherwise lead to
lower standards of property maintenance or premature relocation of a
long-term resident, with resultant negative effects on neighborhood
appearance and stability.
Appeal 2111, Use and Area Variances to permit operation of 120 Third
St., in an R-2b zone, as a restaurant. Proposed site improvements may
require Site Plan Review.
Appeal 2112, Special Permit for installation of a satellite dish at 119
S. Cayuga St., in a B-3 zone, appears to meet the conditions necessary
for issuance of a permit.
Motion was seconded by Hagood and carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Board -10-
Minutes of March 24, 1992
8. Reports
No reports this month..
9. Approval of Minutes
Approval of January and February minutes was deferred.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
epj-24Mar92.min-4/27/92
rlAi
I, /4V�h CvZlLlGYS J7" :% dLliJr v`�7
i
slol
�.
Z?�,Xm
b1 L okpCc��
I 1 dLLJ.g-
H � e .
�i.
i.