Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1994-10-25 DRAFT COPY-NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Planning and Development Board MEETING MINUTES October 25, 1994 Present: David Kay, Chair; Sarah Adams, Susan Blumenthal, Anne Clavel, Carolyn Peterson, Denise Rusoff, John Schroeder. Staff.- Herman Sieverding, Linda Tsang, C. Guttman, E. Jacobs. Also, applicants, members of the public & other interested parties, media. 1. Privilege of the Floor(deferred until later in the meeting) 2. Final Site Plan Approval A. 723 Cascadilla St./Countywide Appliance Service/Ellsworth Linda Tsang explained that the applicant had met all nine conditions set forth in the preliminary approval and recommended that final approval be granted. Blumenthal, seconded by Schroeder, moved the following resolution. Whereas, a proposal has been submitted for Site Plan Approval of a redevelopment plan for Countywide Appliance Service at 723 Cascadilla Street, and Whereas, the preliminary site development plan was approved with conditions at the 9-27-94 meeting of the Board, and Whereas, the conditions for approval are satisfied by modifications to the site plan as shown in site plan revisions dated 10-20-94, now, therefore be it Resolved that Final Site Plan Approval be issued for the redevelopment at 723 Cascadilla Street. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Preliminary Site Plan Review/Environmental Review/Public Hearing A. Building Addition/510 Third St./Benjamin Application for site plan review was withdrawn at applicant's request. 4. Wal-Mart Chair Kay permitted a public comment period before Board began its discussion of this item. Seven people expressed their support for the development of the proposed Ithaca store citing the free enterprise system and the increased tax revenues for the city. Steve Hutchinson,vice president of the East Coast Development Company, stated that he wished to present a new site plan in which the proposed store would be downsized (deling tbo), parking area reduced by 24%, would not include a plan for future expansion, and would only be developed in the B-5 zone. DRAFT COPY-NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Discussion of October 21 ECDC letter. DEIS should analyze and consider several alternatives, two-story alternative site plans, alternative placement in alternative location. Explain why these alternatives would not work, not just that it does not fit with the national Wal-Mart plan,but why is not an alternative. The Board wants to see a site plan which shows a Wal-Mart that is going to fit in Ithaca, in that location, near Buttermilk Falls. Minimizing visual impact. Alternative needs to truly present an alternative given the environmental factors and given the economic factors. Show building footprint,parking lot, access and circulation, elevations, visual images; for serious site plans. Describe alternative site designs, visually and narratively, that are viable to the retailer. Look at the goals of this site and of this community, rather than Wal-Mart's "national goal." 1. basic massing (two-story does not fit because...), 2. configuration of parking lot and details, loading dock,particularly automotive section and garden supply, 3. landscaping in the parking area. Different sketch plans elaborating on different points on each one, i.e., e.g. Footprint, show parking access and circulation with various components of massing configuration. Landscaping, design elements. Elevations, section cut through site. Bicycle path and views, show worst case scenario,prospective drawings. Visual impacts, the Board will submit a list of detailed certain spots. Buttermilk Falls map. Describe greenway corridor. Groundwater temperature. Socio-economic, CH to review Herman's memo regarding RKG. FW 1 zone line changed. 5. New Business A. Discussion of Planning Board's future activities 6. Zoning Appeals Blumenthal reported she is drafting a Board policy statement regarding zoning appeal comments. The Planning Board is very concerned about the approval of use variances. Use variances should be given only in extremely rare cases. This Board believes that use variances are essentially spot zoning and that the practice of zoning by variance undermines the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, it urged that the BZA be very strict in the application of the criteria regarding the granting of use variances. After review of subject appeals by this Board, the following comments are transmitted for consideration by the BZA. Appeal 2217, Use and Area Variances to permit changes and reconfiguration of uses in buildings at 207 Fifth St. and 602-4 Hancock St., and construction of commercial parking at 6608 and 616 Hancock St., in an R-2b zone. Factors that should be given particular attention are (1) the suitability of the general types of activity that would be permitted under the variance, in the context of existing uses and development of the surrounding area, with special attention to compatibility with residential use; (2)the potential traffic generation of those activities, and any impact on existing uses in the neighborhood; and(3)the stringent standards for expansion of non-conforming uses, specifically the construction of off-premises parking areas to serve the uses. Section 325-20A(1)(a) appears to make the proposed parking illegal. 2 DRAFT COPY-NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Appeal 2240, Use Variance to permit use of 404 N. Cayuga St., in an R-3a zone, as professional offices: The appeal material reviewed does not seem to present argument or evidence that the necessary element of hardship is present in the case. Appeal 2242, Use and Area Variances to permit use of 5527 N. Aurora St., in an R-2b zone, as a residence and professional offices of the owner-occupant. In this case as well, hardship is the key issue; since applicant does not own the property, there is no basis to claim hardship. Appeal 2243, Use Variance to requirement for owner occupancy of the residential property at 708 Mitchell St., in an R-lb zone. This Board feels strongly that the owner-occupancy requirement should generally not be waived. The Board certainly thinks that an extension of a waiver of this requirement should not be granted. Granting this appeal will set an unfavorable precedent and undermines this provision of the zoning ordinance. 7. Reports Chair. New York Planning Federation, SEQR changes. Planning Committee. Route 96, sans curb width on Meadow St., ownership of section of Route 89 ownership 8. Approval of Minutes 2/22, 4/26, 5/9, 6/28. Adjourned at 11:1Op.m. 3