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.