Loading...
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. ***