Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-12-19 Cruz/ Cl erK Approved 2/27/96 Planning and Development Board MINUTES December 19, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal;Steve Ehrhardt; Carolyn Peterson;John Schroeder. Staff: H.Matthys Van Cort,Herman Sieverding,Pat Kennedy;from Cornell University: Eric Dicke,John Gutenberger,John McKeown and Shirley Egan; representing the Cornell Federal Credit Union: Mary Oberhaus,Joel Zumoff,Liz Rudan and Ed Crossmore. 1. Executive Session-Discussion of litigation At 6:30 p.m. the Planning Board went into Executive Session with Herman Sieverding,H.Matthys Van Cort and Pat Kennedy to discuss pending litigation. At 7:30 p.m. the Executive Session was adjourned and the Board went into open session. 2. Privilege of the Floor There were no comments from the floor. 3. Site Plan Review A. Cornell Federal Credit Union-401-415 Meadow Street Van Cort said that the department had just received comments from the New York State Department of Transportation and the County Planning Department. The New York State Department of Transportation is involved because the curb cuts for the proposed Cornell Federal Credit Union are either on the State arterial or within 100 feet of it. Thus, all require a permit from New York State Department of Transportation. The County review is under Section 239 L&M of the General Municipal Law. The comments by the New York State Department of Transportation have a significant impact on the proposed site plan. DoT requires that curb cuts be two standard curb cut widths of 16 feet each plus 15 feet from the edges of the arterial right-of-way for a total of 47 feet. Thus,the nearest curb on the side street must be at least 47 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. This would require some redesign of the site plan. Some of the Board members felt that the DoT recommendation could be detrimental to the neighborhood,particularly if it necessitated placing the parking on the west side of the site,nearer to Meadow Street. One of the Board members suggested that sound barriers should be erected between the proposed building and the residential neighborhood. It was asked Minutes of December 19, 1995 Meeting 2 whether DoT has a variance procedure for their standards. It was the consensus of the Board that they should not act at this meeting,but that the applicant should be given an opportunity to respond to the DoT and County comments and submit further materials to the Planning Board. A special meeting was called for Wednesday,December 27, at 5:30 in the Planning and Development Department. B. Sage Hall Renovation- Cornell University Eric Dicke presented a palette of colors and materials to be used in the Sage Hall renovation. It was pointed out that there were a number of questions still remaining in the landscaping, both in the plant materials and the"hardscape"for the project. After some further discussion, Schroeder moved and Blumenthal seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the site development plan for the renovation of Sage Hall was submitted(8-22-95)for review and approval by the Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the architectural design has been formally and informally reviewed by the City's Planning and Building Departments as well as by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC)throughout the project's schematic and design development phases,and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board and ILPC communicated to each other their issues and concerns regarding Sage Hall renovation, and WHEREAS, comments from the ILPC(as an involved agency)were considered before the completion of the environmental review,and WHEREAS, Preliminary Site Plan Approval was granted by the Planning and Development Board at its 11-28-95 meeting,following a Negative Declaration of environmental significance of the proposed development, and WHEREAS, a Certificate of Appropriateness was granted by the ILPC on 12-05-95, and WHEREAS, additional drawings and information,including those contained in a letter dated 12-19-95 with attachments,were submitted to the Planning and Development Board for its consideration of Final Site Plan Approval, and Minutes of December 19, 1995 Meeting 3 WHEREAS, with the exception of some details in the planting plan (dwg L2.1) and the hardscape plan (dwg L1.1), other details of further design development were found to be satisfactory in terms of criteria of site plan review,now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that Final Site Plan Approval be granted with the condition that the planting plan and the hardscape plan be further reviewed by Planning staff and,if necessary,be modified accordingly. Ehrhardt said he would vote against the proposal because he believed it would gut Sage Hall and constituted architectural taxidermy. He said that it was bad policy to permit the owners of the City's historic buildings to gut them. Adams said she shared some of Ehrhardt's concerns but said that she will vote for it because the University has gone far beyond what they had to do in order to renovate the building. Schroeder agreed with Adams' statement and added that he believed the new and old could be mixed to good effect. The vote on the matter was 5-1,with Ehrhardt opposed. 4. Old Business A. Client Committee for Bike Plan-Discussion Chairperson Kay said that he has been making phone calls to potential members of the bike planning client committee. Once these calls have been made,a list will be referred to the Mayor for appointment B. Planning Board Zoning Variance Policy and Procedures Blumenthal moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution regarding the Planning Board Zoning Variance Policy and Procedures. Passed unanimously. WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board may provide a report to the Board of Zoning Appeals on applications for both zoning variances and special permits,and WHEREAS, the planning board has, over the years, attempted to be responsive, fair, and of assistance to the Board of Zoning Appeals,to zoning variance applicants,and to adjoining neighborhood residents, and WHEREAS, the planning board has tried different procedures over the years in this attempt,which have included: 1)fully hearing neighbors and applicants and making recommendations to the Zoning Board,and 2)establishing various Minutes of December 19, 1995 Meeting 4 criteria for hearing applicants and neighbors for certain selected zoning variances,and WHEREAS, the planning board has deliberated about the proper procedures of the board in relation to zoning variances and special permits and in light of the planning board's needs and responsibilities for other planning activities in the city, and WHEREAS, the planning board cannot always be fully informed of the numerous facts of an application for a zoning variance and special permit, and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals may have different criteria than the planning board for making a decision relative to a zoning variance and special permit,and WHEREAS,the planning board determines that there are two primary categories of zoning variances and special permits,those which have impact on local,neighborhood areas and those which have a city-wide impact,and WHEREAS,the planning board determines that the Board has two options with regard to zoning variances and special permits,either of which can constitute a "report" to the Zoning Board. These options are either to "comment" or to provide a"recommendation,"now,therefore be it RESOLVED,that the Planning and Development Board establishes the following policy with respect to zoning variances and special permits: a) The Planning and Development Board will comment only on those cases for which input will be of assistance and on zoning variances and special permit applications which have localized,neighborhood impact,and b) The Planning and Development Board will make a recommendation concerning a zoning variance and special permits which will have significant city-wide impact. The Board directed that staff transmit copies of this resolution and the memorandum to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Blumenthal further suggested that the Board should,in the future, adopt a policy on use variances. Commenting on the notice of decision,the Board directed that staff add language to the notice of decision which wishes the applicant well in completing the project. Minutes of December 19, 1995 Meeting 5 C. 19% Planning and Development Department Work Program The Work Program was removed from the agenda since it had already been acted on. 5. Zoning Appeals Report In its review of the zoning appeals,the Planning and Development Board determined that three of the appeals involve matters of long-range or area-wide planning concern. The Board has made recommendations on those appeals. On the other appeals they have chosen to make comments in some and no comments in others. In accordance with the variance policy approved above,the Board expressed its intention in the future to make recommendations only on variances which involve matters of long-range or area-wide planning concern. On other matters they may or may not make comments. Appeal 2283, Special Permit for Home Occupation to permit a practice of acupuncture and massage therapy in the single-family owner-occupied residence at 107 Wood St.,in an R2b zone. Comment: The appeal appears to satisfy the criteria for such activities; however,there is some question about the frequency of customer visits to the business being consistent with the intent of the ordinance to limit traffic to a level that could be considered appropriate to a residential area. The BZA is urged to take this into consideration along with any comments from neighbors. Appeal 2284,Area Variances to permit continuation of front-yard parking at 210 College Ave.,in an Rib zone. Recommendation: It is noted that front- yard parking is a matter of considerable concern for its potential deleterious effects on the quality of life and the character of residential areas. This Board feels that it is appropriate for the BZA to reject this application because it may set a precedent for other similar applications and because of its serious impact on the neighborhood. Appeal 2285,for an extension of the period permitted for non-owner- occupancy of a house with a rental unit at 1013 E. State St.,in an Rlb zone. Recommendation: We are concerned that the requested variance could constitute a significant precedent; and we question whether,if the BZA approved the request allowing this use for a specified time period,it would then be possible to force termination of the use at the end of the period. There was considerable concern that after the variance had been granted it would no longer be possible to force the owner to revert to the permitted use under zoning. Minutes of December 19, 1995 Meeting 6 Appeal 2286. Comment: The appeal materials presented for this Board's review were incomplete. It is requested that the BZA defer consideration until this Board has had adequate opportunity to review a complete application. Appeal 2287,for Use Variance to permit rental of extra bedroom to unrelated persons at 120-22 Delaware Ave.,in an Rlb zone. Recommendation: Again, the Board recommends denial of this appeal since the relief being requested exactly negates the intent of the ordinance provision. Appeal 2288,Area Variance to permit construction of a single-family house at 315 Haller Blvd.in an Rla zone on a lot that is 4% under the minimum lot area required. Comment: This request seems reasonable. Appeal 2289,Use Variance to permit continued occupation of premises at 207 Fifth St.,in an R2b zone by a taxicab business. Comment: This request raises questions of zoning by variance. This Board feels that it would be more appropriate to address this matter on a long-term solution basis. Appeal 1-1-96,for an extra,larger-than-permitted sign for the business at 430 N. Cayuga St.,in an R2b zone. No comment. 6. Reports A. Director Van Cort reported briefly on the recent round of ISTEA Enhancement Project Applications. David Nutter asked to see copies of the application. Van Cort said they were available. B. Chair No report. C. Board of Public Works Ehrhardt reported that the BPW has not hung some of the signs in the Central Business District because the poles could not support the additional strain. Blumenthal asked why the parking directional signs had not been installed. Ehrhardt asked the Board whether it was interested in taking a position on whether dogs should be allowed on the Commons. The Board took no position. Minutes of December 19, 1995 Meeting 7 7. Approval of Minutes The Minutes of the following dates were approved with corrections and passed unanimously: 9/13, 9/26, 10/11, 10/19, 10/26 and 11/28. The Minutes of 10/24 were carried over to the December 27 agenda for approval.