HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1989-09-26 S
Planning and Development Board
September 26, 1989
PRESENT: S. Blumenthal (Chair), M. Cochran, T. Cookingham,
J. Daley, S. Killeen, A. Yale. Staff: Deputy Director
P. Mazzarella, J. Meigs, P. Weed. Also, Applicants, Other
Interested Parties, Media.
1. Meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Privilege of the Floor: No requests made.
3. Subdivisions:
a. First and Franklin Streets/Paolangeli. J. Meigs read responses
from building commissioner and city engineer regarding Mr.
Paolangeli's engineer's letter concerning the flood hazard issue
raised at the September 5 meeting. Mr. Paolangeli's attorney,
Nelson Roth, agreed that the properties will need flood insurance.
Prospective first buyers will be informed that property is in flood
plain and financing institutions will inform subsequent buyers.
Cookingham, seconded by Cochran, MOVED preparation of Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance on Pogo subdivision,
including all variations reviewed to date, including the cluster
plans: the significant environmental considerations are basically
the same on each plan, and noting that any major deviation would
entail the reactivation of the environmental review process to the
appropriate level. The motion was CARRIED unanimously.
The Board then turned its attention to the revised cluster plan
submitted this date. Mr. Mazzarella surm-arized the development of
this version: out of discussion at the Sept. 20 Codes/Admin.
Committee meeting, and a Sept. 22 work session with Department
staff, came the revisions to the plan submitted Sept. 1: Open space
split between a 12 foot strip as a buffer zone along Lake Ave. and a
smaller green space fronting Adams; lots fronting Lake and First
would be zero lot-line. This scheme seemed to staff to be the best
that could be done with a layout of this type, and respond to
neighborhood concerns as expressed by Northside residents who
attended the Sept. 20 committee meeting. The two chief issues
discussed at that time were density no greater than R-2 allows, and
use of green space to help form a green corridor along the creek.
Discussion followed concerning the open space set aside with regard
to possible use of the right-of-way of Lake Ave.; the question of
density with regard to what would be possible under R-2c as
proposed, which actually works out to less units than R-2b, causing
Mr. Paolangeli to indicate that he would not be interested in such
an option; ownership and maintenance of open spaces, and the need
for Mr. Paolangeli to provide specifics on how he would propose
these matters would be handled for open space not transferred to the
city; and responsibility for installation of utilities in Lake Ave.,
which Mr. Paolangeli feels the city should do. In response to a
question from Cochran, Mazzarella stated that although there is an
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
Page 2
effort underway to prepare a coordinated plan for this part of
Northside, due to the amount of property now or shortly available
for development, he feels the city is obligated to proceed with
timely review of the present proposal; applicant has consistently
sought to develop the property as permitted by zoning, and passed up
the opportunity to get a permit to build multiple dwellings when the
block was zoned B-2. Mr. Daley commented that this subdivision
bears little resemblance to the type of project the city might want,
if the site remained unencumbered and were incorporated into the
planning now being done. In particular, he felt the new layout
failed to make good use of the green space required. Mazzarella
said staff had spent several hours exploring possible schemes with
applicant, and felt that this was as good a scheme as is possible
under the conditions. Mr. Yale commented that this scheme, and
particularly the open space component, is better than the original
one. Nelson Roth, attorney for Mr. Paolangeli, noted that this
scheme was the result of the two meetings last week with Board and
staff members, one of which was also attended by two neighborhood
residents, at which alternatives were extensively discussed. He
stated that his client would be willing to work with any zoning
applicable at the time. Cookingham, seconded by Daley, then MOVED
to give preliminary approval to the scheme received this date.
After further discussion, the motion was amended to add the
following conditions: (1) resolution of the matter of responsibility
for providing water and sewer mains in Lake Ave. , which will be
researched by city staff; (2) resolution of the apparent discrepancy
in street location at the corner of First and Franklin; and (3)
resolution of details of the open space to be set aside, including
amounts, locations, ownership, improvements, maintenance and any
access or use restrictions proposed for open space not offered to
the city. On a vote, the motion as amended PASSED unanimously.
b. 307-309 Dey Street/Amici. Postponed.
4. Board of Zoning Appeals Review Procedures. The City Attorney
advises that the Planning Board is not bound by the same quasi-
judicial rules of procedure as the BZA, and hence may comment or
recommend on appeals as it deems appropriate--it is not necessary
to give applicants or interested parties the opportunity to speak
before the Planning Board acts on its report. Board members present
tacitly agreed that this is the desirable way to provide planning
input for the BZA to use; they will be informed that henceforth
Planning Board review procedure will follow this tack.
S. Zoning Appeals. Chair Blumenthal reviewed the draft report
recommending denial of Appeal 1937 which requests what is
essentially a blanket variance with regard to existing nonconforming
building on property to allow subsequent (unspecified) development
in accordance with zoning. The committee felt that this would be
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
Page 3
too broad in view of the area's need for a plan to guide its
redevelopment, which is felt to be impending. Tom Hoard, speaking
for owner/developer John Novarr, asserted that a master plan for the
area need not hold this or any other existing development as
immutable; if there is a basis for change, it will happen. He also
asserted that site plan review would exert much more stringent
control over specific development than zoning appeal review can.
Mazzarella suggested that blanket variance on existing, non-
conforming building might be conditioned to reflect the Board's
concerns: (1) Additional development on property must comply with
applicable zoning, and (2) No further exacerbation of existing
deficiencies. Mr. Cookingham, chair of the Codes/Admin. committee,
accepted the suggestion and agreed to revise the report to include,
at Mr. Killeen's insistence, the concerns which are grounds for the
suggested conditions. Vote: 5-yes, 1-no (Daley) .
6. Site Development Plan Review Procedures. P. Weed presented revised
procedural guides. Additional wording changes were suggested. It
was suggested that a survey should be made at the end of the year,
to obtain input from applicants and others to help iron out wrinkles
in the process and get it to operate as smoothly as possible.
7. Grossman's -- Report. No change in status; staff will follow up.
8. Central Processing Facility -- Discussion. Discussion as to how the
Planning Board should participate with regard to this project.
Daley commented on the loss of such a large chunk of the city's
dwindling supply of undeveloped land--one of its most valuable
resources--and the impacts of removing it from productive use.
Killeen suggested that the size of the facility has become such a
problem because it has been expanded to accommodate all processes
that have been identified as desirable in handling the waste in
preparation for landfilling, and is no longer a simple baling
station. He felt that this unexpected outcome of the process that
began as the search for a relatively small parcel for a baling
station could prefigure other, perhaps more radical changes in waste
handling in the near future, that could affect the viability of the'
facility as proposed. He urged that this potential be guarded
against by building a facility that is designed to have a shorter
"lifespan." This would seem more prudent than to overbuild and be
faced with a plant that is made obsolescent by rapid changes in
technology and other conditions: who can predict what materials we
will determine require safe disposition in 20 years? Mr. Cookingham
commented that the most appropriate focus of review from a planning
standpoint is to address the technical sufficiency of the dEIS. The
draft EIS report will be divided and reviewed by Daley, Cochran,
Blumenthal and Cookingham. Blumenthal will take comments to Council
meeting on October 4, 1989.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
Page 4
9. Cornell Proposed East Hill Parking Lot -- Discussion. The
University proposes a 600-space park and ride facility behind East
Hill Plaza for student, staff and public use. Should be reviewed by
Mr. Yale's Transportation/Economic Development Committee. Issues
include impact of traffic on Belle Sherman/Bryant Park area; right
idea/wrong place; environmental impacts not sufficiently addressed;
traffic flow; other locations. Ms. Blumenthal noted that she is
working with County rep. Stein on formation of a county-wide group
to study ride sharing, park and ride, etc. Mr. Mazzarella has had
considerable involvement with Cornell and its attempts to deal with
traffic, and feels that the University's approach is motivated by
more than enlightened self-interest. This is not just an isolated
project, but part of a coordinated plan that acknowledges that in
addressing its own needs, Cornell can and should consider its place
and responsibilities in the whole Ithaca community. (For example,
Cornell will give parking permits to Bell Sherman teachers, who
could take the bus shuttle to school rather than compete for on-
street space near the school.) The Chair announced a meeting set
with Cornell for October 30 to address issues specifically relating
to City-Cornell traffic matters.
10. Planning Board Calendar - 1990. Calendar should be set up
establishing exact dates of each meeting so that deadlines can be
defined. Daley will bring this to the next meeting. In order to
help the Board set its own work program for next year, a public
meeting will be held October 19 to receive input from groups such as
neighborhood associations regarding planning-related needs and
issues. Invitations will be sent to known groups, and a display ad
placed in the paper, invited broad participation in identifying
planning issues for the 1990s.
11. Committee Reports. Yale - The Transportation/Economic Development
Comnittee has developed a list of issues and problems facing the CBD
for consideration by the Board -- transportation and economic
developments, inability of businesses to deal with city, parking,
rents, vacancies, etc. This is extremely important because of
downtown's importance to the city and area in not only economic, but
cultural and other ways. The Board needs to address this as a
priority.
12. Liaison Reports.
a. Board of Public Works. Daley asked for review of sign
ordinance on agenda for November, citing the need to deal with
window signs, mobile signs, and others.
b. Planning and Development Committee. No Report.
Meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
EPJ-PDBOARD/Septbr26.min