HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-09-27 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 27, 1988
Present : Chairperson S . B1 umenthal , J . Daley , S . Jackson , M.
Sampson , A. Yale , S . Killeen , T . Cookingham; J . Meigs ;
Subdivision applicants .
Absent : None
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 p.m.
No member of the public was present to exercise Privilege of
the Floor.
Zoning Appeals - Appeal 1870 : various Area Variances relating to
e Wells Subdivision . Jon Meigs recommended that the Board
discuss this matter , as it relates to the broader issue of the
subdivision and it represents a slight divergence from the
subdivision plan that was previously reviewed ( and given
preliminary approval ) by the Board . Whether or not the Board
wishes to comment on the zoning appeals issues is to be decided .
Jon noted that the site plan does not define where the proposed
access road or public street right of way would end, which makes a
difference in determining setback requirements , etc . He thought
it would be helpful to the BZA to speak to that point . Jon had
informed Mr . Wells and his architect about the city engineer ' s
comment that, as presented in the last subdivision scheme , this
access road does not satisfy the criteria for being a city
street . The length of the road and the right of way required
( 50 ' ) are the most pertinent aspects to the zoning issue .
The Board then discussed the potential effects of the appeal ;
whether it was appropriate to consider variances before the
subdivision design is finalized, and whether it was proper for the
Board to consider a site plan that requires more variances than
the original , even if this situation is in part due to earlier
Board comments and suggestions intended to promote improvements in
the project for the benefit of residents , neighbors and the
community . The Board has granted preliminary approval on this
subdivision, as a "concept" whose details are still unresolved .
If variances are approved , they will define the limits within
which any further change may be made . Scott Duell , then addressed
the Board, saying that the original plan met most of the zoning
and subdivision criteria. The problem was that viewers would see
a great deal of asphalt when looking at the subdivision from
Coddington Road, and the road would be steeper than wanted . To
change that , they curved the road to make the buildings more
visible and not the driveway; this also reduces the grade. As a
result of discussion with the Building Commissioner, the large
garage shown in the site plan of July 20 was changed to two 3-bay
Planning Board Minutes 2
Sept. 27, 1988
garages to avoid one variance procedure. Now, the biggest issue
seems to be the frontage requirement and whether or not the
roadway meets the standards for city streets . Mr . Duell added
that if the Board determines it is not a driveway, Mr . Wells would
be willing to donate it to the City .
The point was raised by Mr . Cookingham that if it is a
driveway , there is no subdivision at all because of almost total
lack of street frontage . If it is a City street , where will it
go ? Is there adequate frontage and setbacks in any case?
Clearly, the question to be answered at this point is the status
of the roadway ; a driveway or a City street. Mr. Meigs commented
that one reason for these questions is to determine whether the
road might be extended to serve other development. Mr . Wells came
forward to clarify the site plan , showing that Ithaca College owns
the surrounding property on the west and south sides of the parcel
and said it would thus be possible to extend a street into College
land.
The Board decided they would address whether or not to
approve the general scheme and not the variances . For this
purpose , they will look at it as a City street and a subdivision .
There was some feeling that if the developer can meet the city ' s
requirements for a cul de sac , the zoning deficiencies are
justified because the Board feels that the overall project would
be better than the one proposed originally, with no variances .
Mr . Daley , seconded by Mr . Cookingham , then made a motion to
approve the proposal if the developer meets the requirements for a
City street and turn around area since the Board prefers this plan
which contains improvements based partly on Board comments and
suggestions regarding earlier schemes .
Steve Jackson commented that the front of the units are not
accessible to a City street . Public safety must be the first and
foremost concern in achieving an acceptable site design.
Tom Cookingham suggested a certain relocation so that the
variances requested would be rear-yard variances and not frontage
variances .
Mr . Duell was concerned that , in maintaining the curved
access road, a substantial additional amount of asphalt will be
needed to produce the turn around area, and that they may have to
consider going back to the straight road as a result of this .
Mr . Jackson said that it might be worth having a bit more paving
if the basic scheme could be kept, and suggested they check into
how much more asphalt it would require and try to retain the
curved road but meet the requirements for a public street coming
in front of the units .
Planning Board Minutes 3
Sept. 27, 1988
As a result of the number of different ideas discussed, Mr .
Daley withdrew his motion, and the Board suggested that Mr. Duell
and Mr. Wells discuss the matter further and come back to be heard
again at the next meeting ; one may be held in mid-October. In the
meantime , the Board will send a representative to the BZA meeting
concerning this proceeding . Mr . Jackson moved to request that the
BZA hold this matter over for 30 days . It was seconded by Mr.
Yale and carried unanimously. A special Codes & Administration
meeting will be scheduled to discuss this matter, also, as soon as
any new material is received from the developer .
Zoning Appeal 1873 : S . Killeen asked for discussion of
appeal or a Use ariance to permit non-owner occupancy of a
2-unit dwelling in an R-la zone; the property has been legally
non - conforming as a grandfathered owner-occupied house with
apartment . Killeen sees potential for erosion of the character of
single-family neighborhoods through unconditional /unrestricted
removal of owner-occupancy requirements , since the analog
"functional family unit" can permit occupancy by something quite
different from a standard family, with generally non-family-like
activities, lifestyles, and way of relating to the neighborhood at
the social and physical levels . Blumenthal suggested that the
Board merely discuss the matter and avoid making a decision for
recommendation at this point, since that would require deferral .
Jon Meigs added that his understanding of the appeal was that it
was for a period of one year , though there have been assertions
that the owners may not intend to return after (their) sabbatic .
The reason for appeal states and "owners had not anticipated a
zoning problem_ with renting , and would find it an extreme
financial hardship to have the property vacant for one year. The
owners will be returning to their home in one year and are
interested in finding -a responsible family to rent the premises" .
Cookingham and Jackson pointed out the need to accommodate
legitimate temporary absences like sabbatics . After further
discussion, consensus was reached that the Planning Board comment
to the Board of Zoning Appeals that they consider this a dangerous
precedent in the R-1 zone. They will call their attention to the
implications of an unrestricted one-year rental in an R-1 zone ,
and that setting a precedent of this nature would undermine the
purpose of R-1 zoning districts .
Motion was made by S . Jackson to approve the report from the
Codes and Administration Committee with the comments about zoning
appeal # 1873 included and seconded by S . Killeen . Carried
unanimously.
Deer Creek Subdivision Status : Jon Meigs reported that he,
Planning Board Minutes 4
Sept. 27, 1988
Betsy Darlington and Mr . Borra did meet concerning environmental
assessment material . The major points discussed were storm
drainage ( suggestions were made to modify the cul -de-sac grade to
reduce the velocity of run-off and also make it easier to travel
in inclement weather) , guidelines to preserve views of the valley,
and retention of as much existing vegetation on the site as
possible . Soil tests are to be done so that better judgments can
be made as to potential problems with run-off and storm drainage .
One major concern of the Board was the steep incline of the cul -
de- sac , and not the direction . However , if it is deemed
environmentally satisfactory, the Board will accept it. Meigs
said that no action is called for at this juncture; when Mr . Borra
replies in writing to the points discussed at the meeting with Ms .
Darlington , it will be put on the agenda for environmental
determination , and go from there either to EIS or preliminary
review of the subdivision per se.
Mr . Borra stated that he felt the environmental issues would
be satisfactorily resolved - that was his intent . On his part, he
wanted to be assured that he was going in the right direction on
such matters as provision of infrastructure : what standards ,
etc . should he follow, and who will review and approve design and
construction, since he understands the city ' s stated intent to
require this work to be done by subdividers . Mr . Daley wanted to
insure that Mr . Borra understood that not only is the thinking
that the developer would do the work , but that the city also might
not accept cession of improvements even though they met standards ,
and that in any case the city is unlikely to reimburse or share
the costs of any necessary infrastructure with
subdividers/developers . Ms . Blumenthal stated that engineering
and other technical aspects of subdivision design would be
reviewed by the appropriate city agency - Engineering , . Fire ,
etc . , which would report/recommend to both BPW and P&D Boards
concerning formal approvals .
Mr . Borra was asked whether he had considered cluster
development, which could mitigate some environmental effects of
his original layout . He had discussed this with Darlington and
Meigs , and he explained again that he didn ' t feel the result would
meet his concept ; he was urged to give it further thought .
Lead Time For Subdivision Review : After brief discussion , in
which it was noted a only the CAC had responded to the proposal
contained in Mr . Meigs ' memo of July 29 , it was decided that
applications would be accepted effective as of the date of each
monthly meeting of the Board , and the submitting party will be
informed that the application has been received and forwarded to
all review agencies , and will be reviewed at the next Board
meeting . P&D staff will accept applications and inforn�e Board
Planning Board Minutes 5
Sept . 27, 1988
of thea at the meeting ; there will be no discussion at that time.
Mr . Killeen asked Mr. Meigs to contact all other city agencies
which had not responded to the memo to determine their reaction to
it.
The Board would 1 i ke to define a "minor change" ( one that
would permit no greater intensity of use than that currently
legally in existence on the properties involved ) so that P&D staff
can address minor changes directly and these applicants do not
have to wait. This proposal will be taken to the P&D Committee.
A motion was made by Sean Killeen to adopt this policy. It was
seconded by Steve Jackson and passed unanimously.
Subdivision Infrastructure Responsibility: The Board was informed
that this topic was on their agenda because Alderman Booth wanted
to know if the Board fully supported the concept of developers
bearing all subdivision infrastructure costs . Motion was made by
J . Daley and seconded by A . Yale that the Board request the
Charter and Ordinance Committee and Council to change existing
regulations and/or ordinances regarding subdivision infrastructure
responsibility to require developers to pay for all the costs
associated with development of the infrastructure services in such
a way as to satisfy City Codes . Carried unanimously.
Committee Reports : Andy Yale gave a report on the Neighborhoods ,
Housing , and Facilities Committee meeting of September 26, 1988.
Paul Mazzarella reported to the Committee that the B&A committee
voted to allocate $25 ,000 to help fund hiring a consultant to
develop the West Hill Master Plan . This will go to Council in
October for approval . On another matter, there seemed to be some
question as to how the numerous current zoning issues should be
handled . It seems redundant to have zoning issues discussed
extensively by both the Board and the Committee. Chair Blumenthal
and Planning and Development Committee Chair Susan Cummings will
meet to decide who will deal with the zoning issues so that they
can be dealt with efficiently . Blumenthal commented that R-3
revisions may be handled by the Committee . Another topic
discussed was density allowed in various zoning areas ; everyone at
the Committee meeting seemed to agree that it would be good to
move toward considering density rather than number of units as
being the way that zones are made up . It was felt that by using
density as the guide , smaller and more numerous dwellings would be
encouraged . Mazzarella is researching data on density and density
controls for use in further considering this matter.
Chairperson ' s Report : Chair Blumenthal gave a brief report of the
Committee iscussion on cluster housing . The draft ordinance
was revised so that there would be no attached housing permitted
Planning Board Minutes 6
Sept . 27, 1988
in the R-1 zones . There was a question about how much of the
land attached to R-1 parcels should be regarded as not usable in
calculating number of units permitted : could a property with
unbuildable slopes or wetlands be developed as intensely as the
same size parcel with no such limitations? In R-1 zones, only
single family, detached structures will be permitted, but attached
structures will be allowed in other R zones .
Council Liaison Report : Killeen noted that there was to be a
joi nt mee ing of the P1 anning and Development Committee and the
Charter and Ordinance committees on Site Plan Review on Sept. 29
at 8 : 00 p . m. He also asked for suggestions for possible members
for the Rental Housing Task Force .
Approval of Minutes : The minutes of August 23 , 1988 were
approve unanimous y on motion by Killeen, seconded by Yale .
The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 55 p .m.