Loading...
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.