HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-07-28 Approved 8/25/87.
Planning and Development Board Minutes
Tuesday, July 28 , 1987
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, J. Daley, T.
Cookingham, S. Cummings, Director Van Cort, Deputy Director
Mazzarella, Press . Interested parties .
1 . Meeting called to order by Chair Blumenthal at 7 :40 p.m.
2 . Public hearing on final approval for subdivision of
Cleveland property, 700 block of Willow Avenue. Avramis
Subdivision: Motion was made, seconded and carried to open
public hearing. Mr. Avramis was present. No one was present to
speak to the issue. ----- moved to accept subdivision and grant
final approval. Seconded by ---- Vote 5-0-0 . Carried.
3 . Zoning Appeals . Mr. Sampson reported on the Zoning
Appeals meeting. None of the zoning appeals had any city-wide
planning implications, so they will be passed on to the BZA
without recommendations. However, he did comment on the Homes,
Inc. variance request. He stated that they should be required to
provide handicapped access to the building especially considering
the people they service. Daley, who is a member of the Homes,
Inc. Board, returned comment that accessibility for handicapped
persons will be part of the plans for the building, as required
by the Building Code. Mr. Daley added that he liked receiving
zoning appeals information in the mail prior to the meeting.
Vote to approve the Committee recommendations on zoning
appeals. Moved and seconded. 5-0-0. Passed.
Committee Reports
A. Codes and Administration Committee Report
Discussed application form that Jon designed for
subdivisions. Mr. Sampson suggested that subdivision due to
selling property be included in the choices describing why
subdivision is needed. Board wants language concerning new
construction and/or additions to be clarified. Mr. Jackson
stated that 06 on the application, potential for development,
should be filled out by a city official. Mr. Cookingham thought
#6 and #8 should be condensed into one question. Mr. Jackson
opposed this idea and explained the two separate questions from
different perspectives. Then he suggested dropping #6
completely. Board agreed that question #4 concerning size should
be more specific. They need to know the size of both parcels
after proposed subdivision. Board also wants the application to
read properties (plural), in all cases, rather than property.
The Board then proceeded to read Jon Meigs' memorandum
to them concerning Subdivision Ordinance Amendments . Mr.
Cookingham questioned the wording in the third paragraph (last 2
lines) . He stated that the word "disapproval" should be
removed. Chair Blumenthal agreed. Mr. Cookingham then made a
2
motion to make modifications to the subdivision application and
ordinance, as discussed, and then send to Charter and Ordinance
Committee. 5-0-0 . Carried.
B. Neighborhood Housing and Facilities Commission
Chair Blumenthal reported on the three meetings that had
been held to investigate rent stabilization or rent control
mechanisms . The Board voiced hesitation about using the term
"Rent Control" any more. They decided it should be a more
motivating title like "Citizens Rent Commission" . Board then
discussed the presentation made by Paul and Kathe concerning this
topic (other cities utilizing a rent control arrangement) . They
discussed Westchester's rent control program the most, because
the other cities are outside of New York State and have different
governing laws . Apparently, the rent control program in
Westchester has limited huge rent increases (e.g. if landlord
sells building, new landlord can't make huge rent increases) .
However, this rent control seems to have limited development in
the areas where it is enforced. Questions were raised on this
lack of development due to rent control : 1) Why--because the
rent control doesn't include properties built after 1974 . During
research, Paul communicated with the County Planning Director and
Kathe to the housing administrator in Westchester County. Mr.
Jackson questioned the validity of rent control being the reason
for a lack of new housing development. Mazzarella pointed out
that the Board had gone through an extensive process of selecting
actions to be implemented. Rent control rated very low on the
list of priorities for both the TAC and Planning & Development
Board. Mazzarella said that staff was being put in an awkward
position by continuing to investigate an action that was not one
of the Board' s priorities because a few members continued to
favor it. He said that if the Board wanted to make rent control
a high priority, staff would pursue it fully. Mr. Sampson
suggested, instead of "Rent Control" , that a system be inititated
where people can find out rent information. Blumenthal then
suggested getting some of this information through the
Certificate of Occupancy process done by landlords (how many
people are renting; how much rent they pay, etc. ) . The Board
decided to form an Ad Hoc Committee to look into a rental
registry, rent mediation, advice on rental increases, and/or a
tenant's association. Mr. Jackson felt that a commission would
not be able to accomplish much. He felt that the Board should
recommend that the Planning Department should work on this
problem. Mr. Daley responded that to spend staff time on
something without great interest is not the responsibility of the
Planning Staff. Mr. Cookingham responded that rent control
should be addressed on the Ad Hoc level rather than involve the
Planning Staff again. He feels that the Board is being "bogged
down" on things such as this . However, he does agree that the
Board should become involved on an Ad Hoc level. Chair
Blumenthal then asked the Board if they should add rent control
to the list of 11 priorities . Mr. Sampson reminded the Board not
to refer to the commission as "Rent Control" as it involves an
3
idea of "too much control" . He felt the problem should be
addressed by the Planning Staff . Sue Cummings responded that it
should not be placed on the list of 11 priorities but address it
on an Ad Hoc basis . Mr. Jackson voiced his concern about the
credibility of the Ad Hoc process . He doesn't feel it has led to
any realistic solutions in the past. He feels that lay people
can not, or do not have the resources, to do a complete job. He
thinks it should be incorporated into the list of 11 or have it
be a separate priority. Sue Cummings agreed that this topic is
very important. The only problem the Board must face is whether
or not to devote P&D Staff time to it. Director Van Cort
suggested that the Board not put Rent Control on the list of 11
because of the long process that was involved in determining that
list. Mr. Daley made a motion to vote on whether the P&D Board
wants to recommend continuing or increasing staff time to look
into various rent stabilization programs . Mr. Cookingham noted
that the other items on the priority list of 11 should be
completed first. He then made a motion to have Ad Hoc committee
set up to make recommendation to Board and then Board will decide
whether or not to allocate staff time. Vote 4-2 . Passed. Mr.
Jackson voiced concern about what would actually go to Council .
OLD BUSINESS
Cornell Supercomputer Theory Center
Presentation was then made by David Stewart and Eric
Dicke, of Cornell University, about the Theory Center. Mr.
Stewart presented a site plan showing the location of the
proposed building as an addition to the Engineering College. The
plan showed the proposed location in relation to the gorge, the
foothpath, and parking areas . The plan showed the building
location after it had been moved 10 ' further away from the gorge
than originally proposed. The proposed building would be eight
(8) stories high, 160' high at the most exposed point. Because
of the needs for computer cable and HVAC ducts, each floor will
have an unusually large floor to floor height, about 14 ' feet.
The building is intended to serve all related departments and
provide needed space for existing people and equipment in the
School of Engineering. It will be built on an area that is
presently a parking lot. Eric Dicke then presented facts about
the physical aspects of the facility; what each floor would
contain, height of floor, use of basement and enclosed roof
area. The proposed building would be connected to Grumman Hall.
It has been designed using brick similar in color to that of
Barton Hall .
Discussion then went to parking concerns and whether or
not supply met demand. Susan Blumenthal suggested reviewing
Cornell's transporation master plan before next month' s meeting.
Questions arose from interested parties such as : "How tall will
the building be in comparison to others?" "What will be done
about increased parking problems in residential neighborhoods?"
"What will happen to fill resulting from construction? " (Will it
4
go into the creek? ) "Will the construction contract include.
clean-up?" Would it be possible to site the building so that it
runs along the angle of the road?" How many on-grade parking
spaces will be left?" "Could it be built on Hoy Field? "How
many alternative sites were investigated?"
Chair Blumenthal, in response to the inability of
Cornell 's representatives to answer many of these questions,
asked if the architects who designed the building would be
available to answer questions at the public hearing. Mr. Stewart
responded that they would be. Chair Blumenthal then closed
dicusssion. Paul explained P&D's role in the Theory Center
.approval process . Since UDC is partially funding the building,
by state law UDC must review the - P&D Board's comments on the UDC
will receive P&D's comments on the Theory Center. If the Board
rejects or suggests substantial modifications to the project, the
UDC Board must approve it by a two-thirds vote in order to move
forward with it. The deadline for P&D's comments to go to UDC is
5 p.m. , September 15, thus leaving enough time for another
meeting, discussion, and research. Daley suggested studying the
supply and demand of parking area as related to the Theory
Center. Sue Cummings responded that she would like to have
available the growth projections for on-campus employment and the
off-campus spin-off of that growth. She would like to know why
the architects chose that particular site, and what exactly the
architects will be doing at the public hearing. Mr. Stewart
suggested to the Board that they draft a list of questions and
send them to the architects so they can be prepared. UDC will
also be present at the public hearing to answer questions . Paul
stated that UDC's involvement is limited, therefore, they may
only be able to answer questions concerning their area of
involvement. Mrs . Farrell ( ? ) would like this list of questions
posted in a central place as well as giving some to the Clerk for
the public. Mr. Cookingham suggested Chair Blumenthal make a
statement at the public hearing on August 17 : "We (the Board)
strongly object to the existing site, however, we do accept the
concept of the Theory Center in the community" . Mr. Daley voiced
concern that it seemed to him they (the Board) were being trapped
into making a decision about something without really knowing
enough about it. Mr. Daley moved on conditional acceptance of a
Theory Center but in another location. Mr. Cookingham seconded.
4-0-1 (Sampson abstained) . Carried.
A committee of the whole will meet soon to prepare list
for the architects . Mr. Stewart said that they will get back to
the Board with answers to questions they were unable to answer at
the meeting.
Carolyn Vitale, Director of Urban Planning for Bergmann
Associates, introduced herself to the Board, described her
credentials and background. She stated that she was preparing an
environmental assessment for this project, as required by SEQR.
Then she explained what the firm's assessment would include.
Chair Blumenthal asked Ms . Vitale what schedule she was on. Ms .
5 _
Vitale responded that she will have collected all of the data and
will have research done by the public hearing.
Preliminary Subdivision--202-04 Sunrise Road
Adjustment of property line; adjustment will create a
slightly larger building lot. Buyer and seller were present.
Thys voiced support of the Planning Staff for this subdivision.
Sue Cummings moved to conditionally approve the subdivision. Joe
Daley seconded it. 4-0-0 . Carried.
#7B Director Van Cort proceeded to go over the proposed
1988 departmental budget with the Board. He discussed the need
for a dedicated word processor to replace Ev's selectric
typewriter. He explained the reason for extra ,office supplies
expenses--due to one-time expenses for copying and advertisements
for projects in which the department provides administrative
service and contract coordination, such as Stewart Park design,
Niederkorn/Route 96 and ACC reports . Mr. Cookingham brought up -
the fact that he feels ACC costs should be absorbed as City costs
(take to Council) . Sue Cummings will relay this message to the
Common Council . Cookingham moved that budget be approved. Daley
seconded it. 5-0-0 . Approved.
Approval of June Minutes Page 4 contained 3 names in parentheses
that were "yes" votes . They should be the names of the "no
votes (Blumenthal, Jackson, Sampson) . Motion to approve minutes
as amended.
***Committee of the whole meeting on Thurs . Aug. 6 @ 3: 30 p.m. ***