Loading...
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.