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.