HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1989-01-31 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES
January 31 , 1989
Present : Chair Blumenthal , S . Jackson, M. Sampson, S . Killeen,
A. Yale , T . Cookingham. Staff : Deputy Director P . Mazzarella,
J. Meigs , Director H. M. Van Cort. Also, applicants , press.
1 . Call to Order: by S . Blumenthal , Chair , at 7 :30 p .m.
2 . Privilege of the floor: no requests made from the floor.
3 . Public Hearing : Final Subdivision Approval - 615 Hudson
Street . Motion made by Jackson to open; Yale seconded the
motion. No testimony was offered . Jackson moved and Mr .
Yale seconded that the hearing be closed. Motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Meigs advised that the original survey map submitted
incorrectly indicated that there was an existing legally
nonconforming side yard set back for the house on one
property and that a corrected map has been provided by the
surveyor; everything is and will be in compliance with
regulations . He also advised that the CAC recommendation
has been issued . Chair noted that in the notes from the
board ' s previous meeting on December 20, 1988, bottom of
page 3 , verbal approval was given with a Negative
Declaration. Motion was made by Mr. Jackson, seconded by
Mr. Yule to the effect that this subdivision be approved
conditional that the wedge split off of 619 is combined with
617 as a parcel legally so that it is all described by the
same deed and that notification that this has been
accomplished be provided to the board. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Floral Avenue Proposed Subdivision:
Michael LoPinto presented an artist ' s rendering of the
project he proposes to build on Floral Avenue , "in the
shadow of West Village . " The rendering illustrates a
contemporary version of "Victorian style row housing" with
exterior cedar shingles and eight separate units in each of
two buildings , each unit containing two living arrangements
for a total of 32 dwelling units. The proposed development
is located in an R3 zone and could qualify as multiple
dwelling , but the developer wishes to sell individual units ,
and therefore , needs to be able to subdivide the property.
This requires a cluster housing permit since they do not
wish to go cooperative with the project . This is predicated
on the enactment of cluster housing provisions expected to
occur at tommorrow' s Counti meeting .
Plans are for each unit to contain a three bedroom apartment
and an efficiency apartment in the basement and each of
these duplex units to have a small private backyard.
Because of the three hour fire separations required between
each duplex , the units are truly separate. The architect is
Randy Hatcher . The project fronts on Floral Avenue but the
units are set approximately 60 feet back from the street .
Landscaping will be left in its natural state as much as
possible ; the site is generally brushy. Parking is provided
in the front of the units between Floral Avenue and the
living units . This project is not adjacent to the INNS
project proposed for Floral Avenue . The existing right of
way along the uphill edge of the site will not be
obstructed; it is an exclusive right of way so nothing is
planned for that area. The project is planned to suit the
SONYMA guidelines providing funding for first time buyers
and going up to $110, 000 per duplex .
Builder plans to provide deciduous trees as a visual break
between the buildings and Floral Avenue ; he will provide a
refined landscaping plan later , but has included a schematic
site plan showing the general idea . He asserted that there
is no way to determine the impact of the traffic this
project will impose and how that may be handled until the
Route 96/octopus situation .is resolved. Chair advised that
the environmental review and related forms need to be
started. Mr. LoPinto requested preliminary review and
comments . Mr . Jackson raised the question of surface water
and Mr. LoPinto advised that these concerns have been taken
into consideration in the preliminary planning phase. He
feels his project is in conformity with the West Hill Master
Plan currently being developed; recommendation was made by
board members that Mr. LoPinto might want to attend the
meetings at which this plan is being developed.
Mr. LoPinto noted that the public has not yet been notified
of this project at this point but that he is aware of that
requirement . He stated that there are only four other
owners within a 200 foot radius of the property . It was
noted that the city owns some property in this area but it
is beyond the area of notification for this project . Chair
asked Mr. LoPinto to contact some people in the West Hill
area and asked that he talk with the immediate neighbors and
return for the next monthly meeting for an update .
5 . Preliminary Subdivision - 126-30 Chestnut Street/Jordan:
Mr. Jordan was not present . Since Board policy requires
the petitioner to be present , motion was made and seconded
to dispense with this policy . Vote was split at 3 for , 3
against . Action was deferred.
2
6 . Mr . Meigs advised the board that he had received a hand
delivered request from the Attorney for Mr . Wells indicating
that they wish to "reactivate" the subdivision application:
the site layout preferred by this Board has been turned down
by the BZA. This request was added to the Board ' s agenda
for the February meeting .
7 . Old Business : Cluster Subdivision Development .
Chair notes that the cluster requirements now require 25 '
front yards , which is meaningless when actually applied to a
specific situation like the Wells subdivision ecause of the
setting of the project . This rigidity in such a basic
condition of the regulation is likely to affect the majority
of cluster proposals , severely limiting the degree of
flexibility,. that clustering is intended to allow.
Discussion of the restrictions and requirements of the
currently proposed Cluster Subdivision law yielded the
general opinion that although the current form of the
proposal may not be ideal , it might be better to have a
proposal passed and, then, work toward amending the law to
meet specific needs . Mr. Killeen noted that there is
substantial opposition to even the limited cluster
development that would be possible under the proposal ; he
and Mr. Van Cort urged that the strategy of waiting to amend
be followed. Cookingham urged the board to recommend to
Council certain changes in the law as . soon as possible
providing that it is passed in its current form. Chair
noted that the board is required to comment on the proposed
act •, she has already indicated the areas of her displeasure
personally.
Jackson pointed out that if the cluster regulations are
passed as proposed, it might take months to amend them so
the design preferred by the Board for the Wells subdivision,
for example , would be permissible. However, he noted that
the LoPinto project also is proposed as a cluster
development and that its front yards meet the proposed
standards as written; this project would benefit from
passage of regulations soon, rather than holding them off
for revision that might reduce their chance for adoption.
Chair noted that in regard to the proposed regulations the
board knows that it does not give the board what they
already know will be needed in order to develop cluster
housing . Mr . Yale said that although he felt the board
should put the Council on notice that there are specific
areas about which the board has question, so doing at this
point could cause the process of approval to "come unglued. "
3
Mr . Mazzarella expressed the opinion that the Wells project
could be done under other provisions . Mr. Jackson advised
that if this were done , he would challenge it . Chair
summarized the opinion of the Board as being generally
unhappy about the size of the front yard requirements , and
raised the question about how many houses can be clustered
and meet requirements under the current proposal . Response
was that the proposed regulations offer few advantages over
existing zoning . Mr. Ecookingham] pointed out that the INHS
�A� Cor development on Floral Avenue proposes structures that look
dike large , single family homes but contain three units , and
even these units would still be excluded from R1 or R2 zones
— as existing zoning provides . Chair stated that the
regulations as proposed defeat the purpose of clustering .
Cookingham expressed the opinion that there is an advantage
in getting an act on the books with the intent of going back
and amending the specific areas where changes are desired
Jackson asked whether amendments as needed could be gained
in a required time frame.
General opinion of the board was expressed by Chair that the
Council be advised that the Board supports the legislation
in principle , but has recommendations some of which will be
forwarded later. A second communication should be forwarded
to C&0 outlining amendments the Board can live with. At
that point Council can move a substitute resolution; this
could conceivably be ready and done in March .
Mr. Mazzarella was asked to develop the concepts and wording
for such recommendations , and then meet with the Board ' s
Neighborhood committee for feedback prior to submitting the
recommendation to the C&0 committee and Council . Motion was
made by Mr. Cookingham to inform Council that the Board
approves the Cluster Subdivision ordinance in concept and
that recommendations for amendments will follow; the
process out above should be followed in submitting
those recommendations to the Council . Seconded by Mr. Yale .
Motion carried unanimously. The Director was asked to
convey this motion to Council .
S . Planning and Development Board Membership :
Chair explained that at the last Council meeting one of the
alderman raised the question of approval of the Planning
Board membership, and whether the Mayor should be able to
appoint members or whether Council should be able to vote on
appointees to the Board. That question is going to the C&0.
In conjunction with that issue is the question of who shall
sit on the board and whether the Board should have
4
professional seats with requirements for membership e. g ,
landscape architect, etc. Chair asked for discussion of
this issue . At the last Board meeting it was generally the
opinion that specified seats were not desired.
Discussion
Mr. Mazzarella informed the Board that Mr . Schlather made
this request initially. Mr. Cookingham pointed out that
this Board was originally set outside the political arena in
order to prevent political influence . If one is required to
solicit Council or Mayoral approval in order to get or keep
a seat on this Board it does affect the ability to make
decisions based on information and one ' s own basic beliefs .
Bringing Board membership under the discretion of the
Council or the Mayor affects the freedom to make
uninfluenced decisions . Mr. Van Cort reminded the group
that under state law, planning boards are not supposed to be
political entities . State law says members serve fixed
terms , do not serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, and are
not removable except for cause. Members cannot be summarily
removed . It was also noted that many Board members in
Ithaca have gone on to elective office . Van Cort advised
that the new requirements of the Board should direct
consideration to how the Board can best function. With
responsibility and work load changes , the Board needs to
figure out the best way to fulfill these functions and then
say whatever it is possible to say against political
manipulation and trust to luck. Cookingham noted that this
was one of the reasons for the decision to hire a new Site
Plan Analyst . Further , in the past his experience with
Site Plan Review boards made up of architects only were not
good. Therefore his position is that expertise needs to
come from professional staff and decisions from the lay
boards that can see broader perspectives . Chair added
further that this Board has much more responsibility than
just that of site plan review tasks . It was noted that the
Board of Public works has no requirements other than
individual political affiliation, and that when revision of
the police commissioners was done , a geographic
representation was required on the commission. General
opinion of the Board seems to be that staff professionals
are available for the professional view and the Board
members need to be a more balanced lay board and more
representative of the general public . Mr. Jackson reserved
his approval for this concept in that he would have the
board much more representative , representation selected from
a wider range of interests in the community, and more
politically active in getting the Council to follow what
the Board may advocate , i . e . , promoting social goals .
5
It was generally agreed that the Board members all want to
achieve the best possible decisions for the broader
membership of the community, but that methods for achieving
that objective do differ and the addition of new
responsibilities appears to present an opportunity to
further consider changes in Board membership . Mr . Killeen
suggested that this Board ask the members of the Council ,
three of whom are former Planning Board members , to draw on
their experience and advise the Board how they think Board
membership should be designed. Their recommendations would
then become part of our deliberations. Three out of five of
the C&0 committee members are former members of this Board.
They could talk with us or write their recommendations ,
which ever they prefer. Mr . Killeen further recommended
that it should be part of the Board ' s written policy that
members represent geographic areas. After further
discussion, it was decided that the issue should not be
pushed unless Council pursues it .
9 . Site Plan Review:
Chair requested Board to consider the impending changes in
work load and process related to their responsibilities in
Site Plan Review activities. Director Van Cort advised that
an ad is ready and the Budget Committee has approved the
slot contingent on passage of the regulations , so he expects
that the slot (at an annual salary range of $20,000 to
$25, 000) will be approved Feb . 1 , and that it will take ten
weeks more or less to fill it since Affirmative Action will
be emphasized and the job will be advertised widely. Mr .
Mazzarella advised the Board of basic regulations that will
be .followed in the hiring procedure.
Chair asked if an interim Site Plan Committee should be
established. Mr. Killeen volunteered to be on this interim.
committee and asked that Mr. Yale , also , be in attendance .
Mr. Meigs asked if this committee would meet "on demand. "
It was decided that this process would be handled in
approximately the same way subdivisions are now handled. No
more than Forty-five days after completion of an
application, a site plan review is to be scheduled.
Director Van Cort reminded the Board that , as with
subdivisions , environmental review must be completed before
an application for site plan review can be considered
complete , and the actual review for site plan approval can
begin. The extent of environmental review will depend on
individual project characteristics . It seems likely that
two meetings a month will be required and, further, that
such meetings must be open to the public. Chair requested
Board ' s preference for handling the Site Plan Reviews ,
whether handling some reviews at each meeting , setting up a
second monthly meeting at which only Site Plan Reviews are
6
handled, or developing some other method. Mr. Killeen
suggested that some types of reviews — such as adding bushes
to "a parking lot — could be summarily attended to as long as
the Board has the opportunity to overview such decisions and
not be just a "rubber stamp . " Chair suggested that the Code
Committee should meet twice , once for site plan and once for
usual business because of the timing of Zoning Appeals,
Planning and Development Committee , etc . Chair summarized
this discussion: Board agreed to two meetings a month, one
-D�uisior) will be Site Plan] and the other a regular businessmeeting
with options for variations left open. It was agreed that a -pia-m,iirll
c,,0a S1 _� PERT chart should be done and, in the meantime , that an 1�6ue5
y�?vse interim committee should be established in the event that
requests do come in during this first month . The Codes and
Administration committee , with Mr . Killeen, will serve in
this capacity. It was further noted that subcommittee
meetings at which four members of the board appear and at
which action is recommended to the board requires posting in
advance and that minutes be kept. Chair agreed to ask that
the Department Secretary post such meetings .
Meeting dates were discussed , and the second Thursday of
March (March 9) was set for the Board ' s next regular
meeting ; the regular February 28th date will be for Site
Plan Review.
Chair asked that a motion be proposed for responding to the
Council ' s request for a report from the Board on the
proposed new Site Plan legislation. Motion was made by Mr .
Killeen that the Council be advised of the unanimous support
for creation of a Site Planner slot . Motion seconded by Mr .
Cookingham. Motion passed 5 for , 1 against (Jackson) .
Discussion was recalled about procedure for handling Site
Plan Reviews . Question was raised about holding closed
sessions for an applicant who prefers at that time not going
public with proposed plans . Director Van Cort advised the
Board that it is not legally permissible to hold such
hearings; all hearings must be public .
10. Committee Reports :
Mr, Yale advised that a West Hill Master Plan meeting is
scheduled for Thursday, 3 : 30, February 3 , 1989 , in the
second floor conference room, aimed at developing the
preliminary conceptual plans , the "big picture" .
11 . New Business :
Mr . Yale had two items to discuss . Betsy Darlington and the
CAC had passed on to the Board an article on porous paving ,
and an article on replacement of trees cut down for
development. The CAC recommends that this replacement be
part of the subdivision regulations .
7
Discussion:
Director Van Cort reported that Planning and Development
previously recommended use of porous paving for
environmental reason but had been informed by Engineering
that in this climate these materials tend to allow paving to
rise , break, crack, etc. , and that they do not provide an
adequate response to such problems . Engineering reports
have been negative about use of such materials in this
climate .
The Board agreed that they request the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee to look into possibilities of the above suggested
process of tree replacement in subdivisions.
Chair requested information about the Freilich meeting and ,
was advised that tape of the meeting is or will soon be
available . Mr. Mazzarella summarized this meeting .
Freilich' s opinion is that ample legislation exists in New
York to support Ithaca ' s imposition of impact fees . The
Guilderland case went under the Home Rule authority which
Freilich thinks is unwise because this freedom is tightly
circumscribed by state authority determining what can and
can' t be done. He thinks this case is irrelevant to our
situation and that we have an excellent case for impact
fees . Chair suggested that the question of impact fees
should be put on March 9, meeting , of this Board agenda .
Mr . Killeen advised that he made some notes about the issues
this Board and others have focused on for the last several
months . The articles (copy attached) focused on housing
relate to impact fees as they do to highway development and
other issues . He further thinks the Board should be
discussing these elements of that "Big Picture . " Chair
agreed to make this an agenda item for next planning issues
meetings .
Chair reported that she met with Town of Ithaca Planning
Board member Bob Kenerson, and Town Planner Susan Beeners
and George Frantz for discussion of the direction. urged by
this Board on Route 96 . It did not make sense for the two
planning boards to discuss negotiations about Route 96pn'less
there was some feeling that the people who were going to
make the decisions , the elected officials , had some
investment in this process . That meeting ended with the
understanding that we need to go back to our respective
legislative bodies and find out if they really are
interested in us doing this kind of thing . Subsequent
discussions have not yielded notable direction or strategy,
nor has encouragement been offered informally by members of
the Council or lawmakers on the town side . Mr. Killeen
8
introduced a copy of a letter from George Frantz dated
January 8, 1989, in which considerations on the various
Route 96 alternatives not previously given attention are
focused on. (Copy included. )`
Mr . Yale further commented on the problems maximum
development would create , given just current zoning . Chair
commented that it had been the hope of the Board that there
would be some discussion by the town of measures that would
be agreeable to them, but this has not happened. The
reality is that no matter what is done , we still need
increased road capacity , growth can be expected to continue ,
and road capacity needs cannot realistically be avoided.
Mr. Meigs commented that the town is currently involved in a
comprehensive planning exercise; if this Board can observe
and get some position on which they can comment or which
they can contribute, it might be positive, if only in
indicating their wish to work together with the town.
Mr . Van Cort noted that the town has been most interested
in a West Hill Bypass Road, a connector running through the
Town from the vicinity of the hospital , around the
southwest corner of the City, and hooking in to South Meadow
Street or Elmira Road, and that they have been very
interested in talking about that and cooperating on that
project . On a larger scale , he observed that Freilich
speaks planners ' language and, in addition, knows the
pertinent laws extremely well . Mr . Freilich noted that in
one case, the city of Minneapolis , the first million people
required 180 square miles to accommodate . The second
million took 560 square miles and the third million was
projected to take 1 , 600 square miles reflecting changes in
the way land is used and developed . That is the problem.
This is why the US is the highest. consumer of fuel, why we
are eating up our farm land, why we are losing our wildlife
habitat , why our infrastructure costs are so high; it is why
mass transit doesn' t work because housing isn' t clustered.
Chair called for approval of minutes of the Board meeting of
November 22 , 1988. These minutes were not ready for
approval at the previous meetings . Motion was made and
seconded to accept these minutes . Motion passed
unanimously.
Discussion of minutes of December 20, 1988, meeting revealed
chair ' s dissatisfaction with these minutes ; they did not
reflect the progression or content of the meeting .
Decision was made to delay approval of these minutes until
further consideration and completion of them can be made .
Board members were asked to submit to Mr . Meigs any
additions or revisions they would like. made.
9
Mr . Meigs advised that Mr. Wells ' s lawyer has requested an
approved copy of the minutes as they regard discussion and
decision on the Wells project . Mr. Yale notes that the
Board was referred in the motion to a memo drafted for the
Board dated December 20. Chair advised that this should be
in the minutes and asked if this matter appears to be a
basis for litigation. Mr. Meigs advised that the attorney
convinced Mr. Wells not to go to litigation. Apparently his
major concern is just to go on with his project . Board
discussion included information that the meeting notes are
not complete because one tape of the meeting was lost in
the taping process. Decision was made to give the attorney
representing Mr . Wells a copy of the memo referred to.
Mr. Killeen advised that the Housing Task Force will be
meeting with Cornell and Ithaca College here , to talk about
how Cornell established a housing alliance.
Chair agreed to talk to Cornell representative David Stewart
to see how they are moving along on their transportation
plan, to see about scheduling a meeting. Mr . Killeen noted
that he felt it important to keep up the practice of meeting
with Cornell administration and staff.
Board will meet for a regular meeting on February 28 , 1989 .
These was no further business; meeting adjourned by Chair.
10