Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1990-04-24 Approved as amended 5/22/90. MINUTES .Planning_ and Development Board . ,April 24, 1990 PRESENT: R. Berg, S. Blumenthal . (Chair) , M. Cochran, T. Cookingham, J. Schroeder, A.: Yale. Staff Director H. M. Van Cort, J. Meigs, P. Weed, B. Carey. Also Applicants, Other Interes.ted. Parties, Media. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 p.m. 2 . Privilege of the Floor: No requests made 3. Public Hearing Final .S.ubdivision Approval a) 307 Dey St./Amici. Public hearing opened by Chair. No one appearedto speak. Public hearing closed by Chair. Cochran, seconded by Yale,. moved final subdivision approval, motion passed 5-0. 4. Preliminary Subdivisions a) Spencer Road/Weisburd. Meigs described the proposed subdivision. Environmental information showed no effects on short form however, Meigs recommended that a long . form be prepared since the end result of the subdivisionwould likely be a large physical change. Ms . Darlington of .CAC was concerned also that there may be a change to unique or unusual land forms, would affect. drainage on. nearby property, and that there might be public controversy. Mr. Weisburd felt that building a house on the lot would not have a significant effect in these areas; he took issue with: the validity of environmental impact thresholds that would call for a 'higher level of environmental review for a small action like. this. Ms. Darlington pointed out that the environmental review must take into account potential as well as proposed changes,. and was, concerned that the nature of the project was not adequately specified. Neighbors, the Enrights, expressed" concern about drainage:, although it was felt that .the drainage problem was the city's responsibility, and was not relevant to. the`.su'bdivision. Neighbors were also concerned about possible traffic impacts and safety of children. It was agreed that the action on preliminary approval would have to await the preparaton ,of .a Tong form, Part 1, by applicant b) 361 Floral Avenue/Benson.. Applicant was not present, so consideration was postponed until next months meeting.: Staff and Ms . Darlingtonpointed out areas to focus on in 'environmental. review, the possible, presence of wetlands; proximity to the Inlet Planning & Development Board Minutes - April 24; 1990 Page 2 5. Preliminary Site Development Pian Review and Public Hearing a): West Campus Forest Park Lane Parking & Site Improvements. Weed. presented the plans for the parking lot improvements, and expressed concern. about the deleterious effects of extending the parking lot into the open space stretching from the approach to the University and up Library Slope. Weed suggested that another month's study would be appropriate. He explained that the main problem with. this design is the prominence of the parking because it would be essentially on existing grade; he has developed an alternative that could significantly off-set this by cutting it into the slope, that Cornell should look at. Landscaping to lessen the prominence of the cars was also discussed, although concern was again raised here regarding breaking the larger space. Bill Wendt, Cornell Director for Transportation, explained that the fraternities had control of the present parking lot and. had to agree to the changes; they have been closely consulted in the process of selecting this alternative, and establishing basic criteria for design. Yale stated that discouraging cars should be considered rather than simply providing more parking; Wendt responded that the ratio of parking spaces to beds in this block is probably one of the lowest in the city, and should have that effect. Schroeder commented on the physical and symbolic importance of this area to the community, and was .concerned about continuity of the green space. Applicant felt that the. aesthetic problems of the current parking situation in front of. the fraternities also needed tobe addressed. Weed agreed that the architectural integrity of the buildings must be protected. The Board expressed the desire that fewer spaces be. built in order to pull the parking lot back from the road, and it was determined that there would actually be a reduction of three spaces, to a total of 55. Chair opened a public hearing. Ms . Darlington expressed concern that, although the current situation was not. good,. the. proposed parking facilitieswere excessive and did not discourage bringing .cars to campus, and she suggested cutting. back up to 20 more 'spaces. Applicant felt that the. fraternities would not agree tothis,. and.. reiterated that the fraternities have control over the areas_ in front of their, houses; he expressed.. concern that too severel modifications to ..thisplan by the Board might result in their deciding against any improvement. Applicants agreed to look at modifications to the plans in response to concerns raised by the board and staff. Chair closed the public hearing. The Board made, a decision to encourage the application with directions given to the applicants.: b) Sheldon Memorial. Weed provided an update of the new plans for the. library. addition to deal with the memorial; by shifting the memorial out onto the Arts Quad for two years, and then move. Planning & Development Board Minutes - April 24, 1990 Page 3 it back to the area indicated on .the plans . Weed also. .suggested that approval of the plan by the ILPC might satisfy the condition for a performance bond., as well as getting it done quicker than the five years 'proposed under the bond. Schroeder felt. that the performance bond would .promote the expeditious completion of the. project, and that the cost of the bond would . not be an undue strain. on University resources . The result of the ILPC's consideration of this new proposal will be brought back to the Board next month. 6.. New Business. a) Ordinance amending footnote I to the Parking Space Requirements. The ordinance prohibiting .rent .from being charged for parking spaces in residential areas was intended to promote off-street parking. The amendment recognizes that the current system results in non car owners subsidizing the parking for car owners. Yale moved to endorse the change and was seconded by Schroeder. The motion was passed 5-0. b) Guide for review of (proposed) Zoning Ordinance Amendments The Guide is proposed as. a recommended process . and not a change in the Ordinance. Inconsistencies between procedures I and II, as most recently revised, were pointed out, and it was determined to review and revise the guide .further. Van Cort was directed to bring a revised version..before the board .at the next meeting. . c) Zoning Amendment for Variances & Special Permits. The memo will not be reviewed by the city attorney's office until May. The Director explained that BZA felt that it could not consider aesthetics .in making a determination on a variance, but could. only consider negative neighborhood impact, unique circumstances, and. practical. difficulty or hardship. The ,Planning Board and others have expressed desire to incorporate aesthetics., environmental impact, and handicapped accessibility into the list of criteria that BZA may consider, although it was suggested that "negative .'neighborhood impact" could be interpreted to include such considerations as" aesthetics. and environmental impact. Van Cort has proposed an amendment to the city's Zoning ordinance which would name aesthetics, mitgation ..of .environmental .impacts and improvements in handicapped accessibility as criteria which should be considered by the BZA. in granting zoning variances. The . desire was also expressed to bring the BZA into the discussion. The issue will be reconsidered in June pending a. legal opinion. d) R2-c, R3 Zoning Changes, This item was postponed for a joint meeting with the PO Committee May 21st. e) Development of Impact Mitigation Process. This: item was Planning & Develo.pment Board Minutes April . 24., 1990 Page 4. postponed for a joint meeting with the P&D Committee May 21st. f) Master Planning... This discussion is in response to concern over the lack of a current Master Plan. Yale explained that the decision was made a few years ago to substitute . strategic planning for a master plan, but the money: has not been allocated for . proceeding with. the strategic plans. It was felt that. a. . long-term. .commitment was necessary. Mr. Van Cort explained that. the West Hill plan was being delayed. by repeated technological . complications, and Cochran said that such a situation called for . making the best decision possible and going around .the obstacle, resolving the problem later if possible.. Schroeder felt that .a new Master `Plan. was necessary, : and that the piecemeal approach could :not assure the effective completion of the study; and that a . financial commitment to the project must be made... It was decided .that this should also be the topic of. a joint meeting with the P&D Committee. . g) Planning Staff Position.. Van Cort reported that six or seven interviews have been done with a _ few more remaining in the first round. Interview will then proceed into a second round .with two or three applicants.. The position will be filled by a generalist with a familiarity with : computers . The Board expressed the strong desire that the new employee have skills to work with neighborhood groups, 7... ZoningAppeals, Report: Meigs reported that of the reviewed appeals, only one raised issues .needing .comment., no. 1968, Homes; Inc for area variances: for group .: care residence. Prior approval for variance was granted by. the city, but expired by the time the state approved the building plans . The P&D. Committee urged the BZA to act quickly on. renewing the variance Motion by Cookingham, seconded by Cochran to approve report, passed 5-0. 8 Reports a) Commi ttees of 'the Board Neighborhoods & ' Housing.: met three weeks ago. to hear from Jean Deming concerning housing on upper floors in buildings. on the Commons.. The committee: will meet April .. 30 with the Building Department to pursue this subject. Economic Development and Transportation Committee: met regarding input to BPW on 'issues needing planning input.; Chair Blumenthal will:.. discuss. the ,matter further with. City Engineer Grey:_ A current, topic in county transportation discussions is park and- rd:e lots'. . Bicycle . Committee.;, Bicycle Advisory Commission established, but. not yet apgoir�. ed: Discussed modification to bicycle route map, . di$cussed whether Hudson Street and Elm Street were appropriate locations for Bike Routes-.' Planning & Development Board Minutes - April 24, 1990 Page 5 b) Chair: Chair had discussions with Dan Hoffman concerning parking downtown. Hoffman suggested Having a. public meeting on the issue. A meeting was held with downtown business people who expressed support for the project. The Chair has met_ with the Commons Advisory Board on Planning, Board actions concerning downtown and is. working to , get the Mayor to appoint the Committee on downtown. c) Board of Public Works: Half-price trash tags will be made available since the average weight per container is less than 20 pounds. ' Free parking in the Collegetown ramp will be provided Sunday mornings on atrial` basis through the end of May. Weekly meetings are being field concerning parking in the third and fourth wards.` d). Planning and Development Committee: Committee discussed zoning priorities, between R2c/R3 .changes or. B3 changes . Issues for R2c: should proceed first with R3 areas most prone to development to consider re-zoning them: as R2c. Issues for B3: new parking study, methods for financing the parking garage, eliminating parking requirement on West State Street by extending B3 area two _blocks, concern about height restrictions in extended B3 district. Some confusion was expressed about whether tq proceed with both simultaneously or whether .to proceed first with R2c. Committee also discussed festival lands, confusion about an agreement whereby the city gives the festival lands to the state in exchange for ball fields near Buttermilk, which was never. approved by the Council. A clarifying resolution is to. be presented to Council. 9 Minutes of March 27; 1990 were unanimously approved. Meeting was adjourned at 10:4-0.