HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-06-23 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES - June 23 , 1987
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal, S . Jackson, M. Sampson, J. Daley, T.
Cookingham, S . Cummings, Director Van Cort, K. Evans . J. Dennis,
Council . Press . Interested parties .
1. Walker Subdivision: Motion was made, seconded and carried
to open the public hearing. Mr. Walker was present. No one
else was present to speak to the issue. Public hearing was
closed by motion.
Board discussion: Mr. Cookingham explained to the
Board that Mr. Walker wishes to adjust lot lines making 2
parcels slightly smaller; it represents a minor adjustment
to the original plan. Mr. Van Cort reported he reviewed the
easement with the City Attorney as to legal sufficiency and
the location of the sewer line with the City Engineer and
both have given their approval . Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Walker said that the request to change lot lines is
occasioned by a request from the purchaser for a lot depth
of 125 ' (rather than 175 ' ) in exchange for a price
concession. Parcel #2 will contain a 3 bedroom, single
family residence.
Mr. Sampson moved to grant Final Subdivision Approval,
seconded by J. Daley. Mr. Jackson stated that he was wary
about granting approval to the change after the Board put
considerable time and discussion into the original plan
wherein questions were raised about future development,
sewer lines and easement. Mr. Van Cort said that the
questions raised originally were not affected by this; the
easement remains in the same place and future development is
the same. Vote: 3 - Yes, 0 - No, 2 - abstentions (Jackson,
Daley) . Motion not carried.
Mr. Jackson said he would like to go back and review
the entire subdivision request for a double check with
possible approval to be given in a month's time. Mr. Walker
explained that the buyer has purchased the house constructed
by BOCES and the structure has to be moved from the school
area.
Mr. Van Cort then reviewed the basic questions and
concerns raised in the original Subdivision request: future
development of the site raised questions of plating,
reservation of a roadway into the site to allow for future
development (which was ruled unenforceable by the City
Attorney) , and provision for a sewer easement. Mr. Walker
subsequently gave the City a letter indicating that he
acknowledged that he and his heirs and assigns are subject
to the subdivision regulations of the Municipal Code and
that any future subdivisions will require approval by the
Board and that the Board may withhold approval unless a
2
portion of the premises is reserved for a roadway (this
serves as a substitution for an actual right of way) .
Motion: T. Cookingham moved to accept the subdivision
as proposed and grant final approval subject to adherence to
the letter now on file from Mr. Walker. Seconded by S.
Jackson. Vote: 5-0-0 . Carried.
2 . Travis/Fane Subdivision: Motion was made and seconded
to open the public hearing. No one was present from the
public to speak regarding this request. Motion was made to
close the public hearing. Mr. William Shaw, Esq. and Ms .
Sharon Gracen were present to answer questions from the
Board.
The Board reviewed the past discussions relating to the
handicapped access and reviewed Mr. Meigs ' letter to
Attorney Shaw in which he recommended to the Board approval
conditioned on satisfactory resolution of the parking matter
by the City's zoning authorities and inspection of the
handicapped ramp in accordance with the resolution of the
Board passed at the June 2 meeting. A lengthy discussion
followed relating to requiring the seller to provide
additional parking so as to bring the property into
compliance with current zoning. Mr. Jackson stated that
whenever an owner in Collegetown is requesting a variance
the Board should insist on compliance with the parking
requirement; this will help relieve the parking situation in
Collegetown in some measure.
Mr. Cookingham moved final approval contingent upon BZA
approval of the parking matter and inspection of the ramp.
Seconded by Mr. Sampson. Vote: 2 - Yes, 2 - No (Jackson,
Daley) , 1 - abstention (Blumenthal) . Motion defeated.
Mr. Jackson said he felt the Board should not pass this
on the the BZA without a request that some of the parking
requirement be met. Mr. Daley said that denial would
perhaps increase parking by only one space.
Mr. Daley offered a resubmission of the motion to
include a more permanent ramp and conditioned on BZA
approval. Seconded by Mr. Cookingham. Mr. Jackson said he
was reluctant to support this because the permanency of the
ramp was resolved at the June 2 meeting. Vote: 3 - Yes, 2 -
No (Jackson and Blumenthal) . Motion was amended by S.
Jackson to include the above and to make recommendation to
the BZA that they consider the possibility of insisting that
part of the parking requirement be met upon issuance of the
variance. J. Daley seconded. Vote: 5-0-0 . Carried.
Mr. Shaw commented on the Board' s procedural process
for subdivision; the length of time involved, the lack of
coordination among committees, boards and staff; etc. He
3
felt the process, which thus far has taken 6 months in this
case, was very disconcerting. Ms . Blumenthal said
procedures were being revised with the goal of improving
processing of subdivision requests .
3 . Housing Study: Kathe Evans presented the staff
recommendations from the recently completed Housing Study.
Eleven actions which received the highest ranking were
recommended by staff. The staff recommendations are very
close to those of the Planning Board and TAC. The list of
actions is ambitious and may well take 3 years to complete.
Mr. Daley said he felt affordability and availability
are far more important than some of the other categories
with parking and traffic following close behind.
Mr. Cookingham suggested prioritizing the categories
versus the action within each.
Mr. Jackson asked about the issue of rent control . He
felt that if information on this subject had been brought to
the Board earlier they too might have been included in the
list. Ms . Evans said that both Paul and she had already
given information on rent control to the Board and the TAC,
and that she would present additional information should the
Board wish. She commented that the Housing Trust funded by
developer exactions, like Rent Control, is a complex topic,
but has received a relatively high score from the Planning
and Development Board. Ms. Cummings said the issue needs to
be addressed in an objective way - many people have
preconceived ideas - the facts should be presented in a non-
emotional manner.
It was suggested that rent control could be studied
simultaneously with the other listed items . If rent control
was adopted it would have to be preceded by an extensive
educational program. The housing trust fund would also
involve a long period to study and gear up.
Mr. Jackson said that the Board all along has tried to
put together a comprehensive package of major and lesser
issues . The Board may be faced with difficult choices of
what to eliminate if the most important items are to be
completed within the time frame suggested.
James Dennis, Councilman, was present during the
discussion of rent control. He asked for a summary of the
data collected by Ms . Evans .
S. Jackson moved to consider information on rent
control programs before proceeding further on the list of
actions . Seconded by M. Sampson.
4
Discussion: Joe Daley suggested that the issue of rent
control be disassociated from the list. Vote: 3 - Yes, 3 -
No (Cummings, Daley, Cookingham) .
T. Cookingham made a motion to adopt the 11 actions (5
categories) as listed contingent upon further simultaneous
consideration of rent control. S. Cummings seconded. Vote:
2 - Yes, 3 - No (Blumenthal, Daley, Jackson) 1 - abstention
(Jackson) . Defeated.
J. Daley moved to rank and prioritize the 5 categories
of housing emphasizing availability and affordability of
housing and parking and traffic as most important.
Discussion followed regarding the wording contained in
item 2 of Building and Grounds Maintenance - "Develop new
procedures for the enforcement of the performance standards
that are quicker and easier to administer than the present
system. " Finally, it was decided to amend this to read
"Develop new procedures for the quicker enforcement of the
performance standards using the existing system. "
J. Daley moved to amend his original motion to include
new language in item 2 of Building and Grounds Maintenance
and to accept and recommend to Common Council the suggested
list of 11 items . Further, he added that discussion of rent
control should occur at an informational meeting. Seconded
by S. Cummings . Vote: 4 - Yes, 2 - No (Jackson,
Blumenthal) . Carried.
4 . A meeting for the Committee of the Whole to discuss
rent control (especially the Westchester model as requested
by Mr. Jackson) , was set for June 30 at 4: 30 p.m. Motion
was made and seconded. Notification will be sent to Common
Council, Board of Public Works, the Planning Board and
neighborhood groups (for their information) . A facilitator
will chair this informational round table discussion;
additional meetings will be held if needed. Vote: 4 - Yes,
2 - No (Sampson, Jackson) . Carried.
5 . C.U. Center for Supercomputing & Theory: Director Van
Cort explained the proposed building by Cornell of a
computer center at the edge of Cascadilla Gorge, east of the
engineering Quad. It will be built by UDC. The act which
established the UDC gives the Planning Board the right to
review such building plans . Mr. Sampson stated that Cornell
has realized that the proposed structure is too close to the
gorge and would involve removal of many trees. They have
asked the architects to review the situation, make changes
in the plans and revise the proposal. The scheduled public
hearing has been cancelled. Mr. Van Cort explained the
Board' s procedural rights: The Board may make comment to
the Corporation within 30 days after the public hearing
5
(this would allow time for the Board to hold a meeting and
draft a letter of comment) . Upon receipt of the Board's
comments the Corporation can proceed against the
recommendation of the local Board by vote of two thirds of
its members. Written notification by the Board to UDC would
at least set down a written record. The Center would have
an impact on housing as well as parking in the area. If
this were a commercial building it is estimated that the
parking requirement would be about 270 spaces. Since the
site is in a P-1 zone and on the greater Cornell campus
there is no parking required specially for the proposed
building.
Mr. Van Cort stated that this issue speaks to a major
problem which is that Cornell has no physical master plan;
there seems to be no rationality or interconnection to the
many siting decisions they make all the time. This proposed
structure is another manifestation of that lack.
Ms. Cummings asked that staff research the impacts on
housing, parking, traffic, design, visibility, footprint,
etc. so that the Board can draft their comments at the next
meeting. The Board also requested plans of the building for
review. Mr. Van Cort will contact the project manager.
6 . Hughes Hall and Statler expansion: Notification has
been received that additional renovations will be made to
the law school. Statler will be a much larger structure
when completed; no additional parking is planned. This
again presents an opportunity for the Board to comment on
parking and housing.
7 . Zoning Appeals : Mr. Cookingham reported that the
Committee met and reviewed this month's appeals . None were
felt to have potential for significance in terms of city-
wide or area-wide effect, or other implications for
planning. They are passed to the BZA with no planning
comment or recommendation.
8 . Farmers' Market - Mr. Jackson reminded the Board of the
public meeting to be held Sunday, June 28, 7: 30 p.m. at GIAC
at which Bob Leathers will give the first presentation of
preliminary results of the site analysis of the Northside
site. Prof. Richardson will discuss possibilities for
handling traffic in the area. S . Jackson urged all Board
members to attend.
6
9 . Ordinance Change - Educational Institutions . Mr.
Cookingham explained that in response to the recent court
ruling the C & O Committee put forth amendments to the
special use permit section. This would assist the BZA in
making decisions . Mr. Van Cort indicated that the language
should more accurately reflect the verbage used in the
decision itself. The proposed change before the Board
clearly defines areas for the BZA to make decisions and
lessens ambiguities .
S. Cummings moved to accept the ordinance change as
presented. Seconded by S. Jackson. Vote: 6-0-0 . Carried.
10 . Revisions of Subdivision Application Procedures: The
Committee agreed on the following revisions - notification
to all parties of preliminary subdivision discussion as well
as notification of the final decisions; posting of the
property 10 days prior to preliminary approval and the
signage to remain at the site until final approval is
given. The format of the application appears to be
sufficient. The Committee discussed dividing the
subdivision requests in an equitable manner - minor lot line
adjustments which do not create a buildable parcel would
fall into the administrative category for staff review. If
during review staff found the request might have far
reaching effects then the applicant would be notified and
both parties would be involved in further clarification.
The question posed in the application will indicate in
writing the purpose and intent of the subdivision request.
Mr. Jackson suggested that at some point in the review
process the Board should have opportunity to review the
Committee's findings and make recommendation, if necessary.
The new procedures will be written up and will be reviewed
at the July meeting.
11. BPW - Mr. Daley said the BPW has wrestled with the
problems presented regarding 405 S. Cayuga St. Actually the
new building should help to improve the sewage problems in
the area and the curb cut will be placed further away from
the intersection to relieve the traffic problem.
12 . Department Budget - Mr. Van Cort stated that in July he
will present the 1988 Department Budget to the Board. An ad
hoc committee should review the budget before the July Board
meeting. The meeting will be held on July 22, 9 :15 a.m. in
Mr. Van Cort' s office.
13 . Motion was made and seconded to approve the May
Minutes . Vote: 6-0-0 . Carried.
7
14 . Congratulations were extended to the Planning
Department and especially to Glenn Goldwyn for successful
funding of the Community Development grant ( $600, 000) . The
comprehensive application received 237 points out of a
possible 615 and ranked 8th out of 24 applications .
15 . Ms . Blumenthal reported that staff will be working on a
site plan approval system for major renovations or new
construction requests . The Board has the authority to
review parking, access, screening, signs, landscaping,
architectural features, location and dimension of buildings,
impact of proposed use on adjacent land and such other
elements that may relate to health, safety and general
welfare. Staff will investigate model ordinances addressing
this subject.
16 . Adjournment 10 : 35 p.m.
MC:eh