Loading...
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