Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1990-05-22 Approved with corrections 8/2/90 MINUTES Planning and Development Board May 22, 1990 PRESENT : S . Adams , R. Berg , S . Blumenthal (Chair) , M. Cochran, J . Schroeder, A. Yale . Staff: Deputy Director Paul Mazzarella, J. Meigs , P . Weed, B. Carey. 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 . Preliminary Subdivisions a) Spencer Road/We.isbu:rd. Meigs informed the board that the Codes and Administration Committee recommended a Negative Declaration and Conditional Approval for the subdivision.. Ms . Darlington from the CAC reviewed the recommendations and concerns of the CAC report , and asked the board to seek limitations on the amount of tree-cutting , on the size of the house , and on future subdivisions of the property. She also raised concerns that site work appeared to have already commenced. Mr. Weisburd addressed concerns regarding the grade of the driveway, saying that the steepest grade is 18% and the average grade is 8%. Regarding run-off , Weisburd stated that there is no erosion problem due to the rocky nature of the soil. Darlington and Meigs pointed out that the concerns of the CAC were not for erosion but for the additional quantity of run-off water which would be caused by construction, Darlington noting that drainage appeared to be naturally quite poor and reiterating her request for limitations on tree-cutting and house size to limit additional;., run-off.. Weisburd said that the site had been managed for four years, including removal of some trees for various reasons , but that no trees had been removed for purposes of constructing the house , and that he had no intention of removing trees f-or construction purposes . Staff informed the Chair that currently no City law exists which specifically limits the ability of private property owners to cut trees . The Enrights , whose house is opposite No. 527 , were questioned concerning the status of the drainage problem. Mr. Enright said that he brought his concerns to the BPW and the DPW, but that no action had been taken to address the problem. Berg said that he would advise the City Engineer to work on the problem. Blumenthal asked for the consensus of the board on the issues of run-off and tree cutting . Cochran felt that tree- cutting was not a problem. Yale felt that the only run-off problems were the responsibility of the City, and moved .a Planning & Development Board Minutes - May 22 , 1990 Page 2 Negative Declaration, seconded by Cochran. The Board felt that they should communicate formally their drainage concerns to the BPW, requesting that they address the problem, and request a response. The motion for a Negative Declaration was passed unanimously. Blumenthal asked Weisburd whether he was willing to voluntarily place restrictions on tree-cutting , house and lawn size , and future subdivisions. Weisburd responded that cutting trees would be both undesirable and unlikely. Darlington pointed out that tree cutting would provide the house with a view, and also noted the large lawn on the adjoining property (527) . Weisburd refused to agree to restrictions. Schroeder then moved to grant Preliminary Approval , was seconded by Yale , and the motion passed unanimously. Meigs requested Weisburd to submit a draft of deed descriptions of the proposed driveway right-of-way for the three parcels ( including 523 Spencer Rd) . 4. Preliminary Site Development Plan Review a) Sheldon Memo.ria.l Weed reported that Cornell had reincluded the Sheldon Memorial as part of the Central Library Addition Site Plan Review, obviating the need for a special performance bond on the Memorial . Schroeder felt that the action by Cornell satisfied the concerns which led him to propose the performance bond, and moved to accept the recommended modifications . The motion wa-s seconded by Cochran, and was passed unanimously. 5 . New Business a) Maximum Occupancy Code. First Ward Common Council member Blanchard appeared to inform the Board that a section of the Maximum Occupancy Code had been referred to the Charter and Ordinance Committee and the Planning and Development Committee. Ithaca Housing Authority Executive Director Battisti explained that Section 27 . 9 , which `is being actively enforced, is preventing large families from attaining affordable housing . Ms . Battisti argued that the present regulations did not provide any discretion to consider special circumstances of large families with young children, where application of the code does not permit more than one of a family ' s children to occupy a room unless it meets the standard for two people. Ms. Blanchard expressed the hope that a provision could be written into the Maximum Occupancy Standards in the Code to give the Building Commissioner more discretion based on the special. needs of large families. The Board generally felt that it would be desirable and appropriate for Council to grant the Building Commissioner more latitude in dealing with such matters. b) Downtown Parking and Public Transportati.on.. Yale reported that the Economic Development and Transportation Committee Planning &, Development Board Minutes - May 22 , 1990 Page 3 endorsed the Parking Study, and that the Committee felt that , given the severity of the parking problem and its likely exacerbation by imminent development, proceeding with the development of a new parking garage was desirable. Recognizing that increasing parking does not discourage using cars, the Committee also proposed a commitment to traffic reduction measures , including park and ride and public transportation studies. Blumenthal said that a public meeting on the parking facility and public transportation issues would be valuable to the Council before they meet to decide on approval to proceed with the parking facility. She stressed that the new parking facility should be viewed not as a solution in itself but as a part of a larger solution which takes into account such issues as public transportation. Adams questioned the way that the parking issue was handled prior to the construction of the Mental Health Facility, and Mazzarella explained that the County took the position that it was exempt from City zoning requirements and therefore from City parking requirements . He explained his memo on the study, and some of its background and implications, and stressed the importance of getting started planning for a new facility by August. Adams also raised questions as to funding . Mazzarella said that there has been much discussion on the issue, and that it was generally felt that construction of a new parking facility should be funded jointly by the City and the merchants in the affected area who would benefit from its construction. Berg raised the issue of whether parking should be self-supporting by users , or whether it should be. subsidized by the general public. Mazzarella said the consultant recommended development of a system which was totally supported by the users, but that the Ad Hoc Committee did not favor this recommendation. He said that there was a fear that making the new system entirely user- supported would be self-defeating by discouraging consumer use. He felt that there ought to be a balance between user support of the system and recognition of the benefits toward the City as a whole. Berg felt that it would be necessary to resolve this issue in order to gain public support for the project . Adams said that tax-payers needed to know in advance what the costs of the new facility would be for "them, and that it would be inappropriate to lay the financial burden of the new facility on the tax-payers. Schroeder thought that the new facility would aid the re-zoning of West State Street to allow for a denser concentration of stores than now exists . He suggested that a new garage be built above a block of commercial establishments, so that the street level is not an ugly, lifeless , blighting influence on its surroundings . Cochran brought into the discussion the issues of park and ride facilities and integration of public transportation systems . Mazzarella reported that a master plan was being prepared for park and ride lots, focusing on long-distance commuters mainly Planning & Development Board Minutes - May 22 , 1990 Page 4 going to Cornell . He pointed out that prospective riders often felt that public transportation did not fit in with their schedules , as Cochran said.. He felt that one objective should be to reduce short car tripsthroughthe downtown. Yale asked whether the park and ride on West Hill could be paid for by the State as a mitigating measure for not constructing a highway (referring to the reduced scale of the Rt . 96 project) , and for reducing traffic during construction. Blumenthal suggested that a letter be drafted from Common Council to DoT, proposing this. Berg commented that parking downtown should not be considered in a vacuum, but that it should be linked to other ways to make downtown more attractive , and that the merchants should be encouraged to pursue such measures. Blumenthal raised concerns regarding communicating changes in the parking rates and regulations to the public in order t.o minimize confusion and bad feelings among merchants and consumers. Mazzarella pointed out that these changes had already been implemented , except for lowering time limits. Cochran suggested that lowering the time- limits would discourage meter-feeding . Mazzarella said that spaces with a half-hour limit would be limited to a few spots around the Commons. Mazzarella asked the Board to endorse the report , including the Board ' s own comments and questions . Berg expressed his. desire that the process proceed , but hesitated to endorse the report prior to answering the Board ' s questions and concerns . Schroeder expressed his support for the broad goals of the study without supporting the specific recommendations . Adams felt that integration of parking issues with other aspects of the problem such as public transportation needs to be more explicit. The Board generally felt that endorsement of a new parking garage would be premature without further study. The Chair , seconded by Cochran, moved to adopt the following resolution, which was passed unanimously: WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has recognized that parking is an important element in the success of the Central Business District ; and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca authorized a comprehensive study of parking in the Central Business District and estab- lished the Ad Hoc Central Business Parking Committee to oversee the development of that study; and WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Central Business District Parking Committee has thoroughly examined and discussed the recommendations made by Rich and Associates, the City ' s parking consultants , and has prepared their own report and recommendations ; and WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Deve.lopment has reviewed the Planning & Development Board Minutes - May 22, 1990 Page 5 Committee ' s report on parking in the Central Business District ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and Development does hereby endorse further study of the recommendations contained in the Ad Hoc Central Business District Parking Committee ' s report on Central Business District parking dated March , 1990, toward the end of achieving consensus on specific recommendations in accordance with the schedule ; and BE IT FURTHER RES.OLVE.D that the Board also endorses the simultaneous pursuit' of measures that will reduce the growth in demand for off-street parking , including public transportation, park and ride, bicycling and similar measures; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that consideration of a new CBD parking plan be done in conjunction with a thorough evaluation of possible zoning , urban design and other long-term land use decisions , in cooperation with downtown merchants. Some discussion ensued as to what group would be responsible for continuing the parking study process . Adams felt that the efforts should be directed by the Downtown Vision Task Force. However , considering that this group has yet to be appointed, and considering the special needs of the parking study, it was suggested that the Ad. Hoc Parking Committee should continue working on the parking issue. Blumenthal pointed out that the magnitude and complexity of the issues involved with the parking garage study warranted the consideration of a special group devoted to the issue , and that the Downtown Vision group would not be able to devote the necessary time to the issue and still pursue other topics. of importance relating to the Downtown. Yale felt that the role of the Downtown Vision. Group would be to make comments and recommendations to Council , but that it should not have the primary responsibility. Cochran observed that the Downtown business community was well represented on the Ad Hoc Parking Gommittee. The Board agreed that the Downtown Vision Group should not take on the parking study as a major responsibility. The Board supported holding a public discussion at the end of June on such issues as public transit , park and ride, and parking . Mazzarella informed the. Board that the State and Federal Governments have looked favorably on the application of. the City, the County, and Cornell to build a Joint Maintenance Facility for Public Transportation, and that all parties have allocated money for design of the facility. He pointed out the significance of Planning & Development Board Minutes - May 22 , 1990 Page 6 this step in moving toward an integrated transit system. Yale stressed the importance of good public relations on the parking issues, in order to foster well-informed and supportive public backing for all the transit and parking issues . 6 . Old Business a) Neig.hbo:rhood Planning. Chair reported that the Work Program included an item directing a study of various ways that neighborhoods could be involved in the planning process. Mazzarella introduced Trish Norton to the Board. Norton will work in the Department for the summer on the subject of Neighborhood Planning . Norton told the Board that she had begun designing the study, and solicited input from Board members -as to what issues should be addressed in the study. Berg observed that, with the exception of two Civic Associations, there has been a difficulty in maintaining Neighborhood Associations as on- going entities. Yale pointed out that this problem is particularly acute in areas such as Collegetown which are primarily inhabited by renters. Blumenthal asked that study be done on how to incorporate other agencies such as the DPW into the issues of neighborhood planning . Norton asked the Board members to arrange individual meetings with her to express their concerns. b) Northside Planning.. Adams reported that the committee discussed the issue of re-zoning the area west of the Pogo Parcel . The concepts of the neighborhood park, the Science Center , and the Senior Center were generally agreed upon. There was general agreement that the DPW pipe storage area be re-zoned for mixed development. Additionally, it was felt that the Water and Sewer office building could possibly be used along the lines of a day-care facility. There was also discussion concerning parking requirements for light industrial and commercial uses of the DPW property. Light industry was favored because it would generate less traffic than commercial uses. Concern was raised as well about re-zoning the P&C lot should the P&C be moved. Mazzarella pointed out certain unresolved issues, including the DPW ! s current use of certain neighborhood areas, and that the space needs of the DPW in the neighborhood remained to be assessed. Another unresolved issue was whether Franklin street should be through or closed at one end. Mazzarella also reported that the Planning Committee was intending to apply for . an EQBA grant for the recently acquired Pogo parcel , although the Committee was also considering submitting applications for projects which would be more likely to receive funding . 7 . Zoning Appeals Report Meigs indicated that appeal 1975 , the proposed Beauty Shop, had generated some concern, and No. 1976. has generated much concern about the incursion of commercial activity into residential Planning & Development Board Minutes – May 22 , 1990 Page 7 areas. The Codes and Administration Committee recommended that the latter appeal be given especially close scrutiny by BZA, since such effort had been given to zoning the area to safeguard its residential use and character. Committee chair Cookinham had previously reviewed this appeal , and suggested that it might be time to reevaluate the areas zoning , including the appropriateness. of extending the nearby C–SU zone. A letter to the Board from a neighbor asked that the property not be given special treatment. Appeals 1978-1980 represent Cornell-' s contention that the parking space size standards need revision. Regarding no. 1975 , Blumenthal requested that the committee 's No Objection to Special Permit be dropped, citing the Board ' s concerns about possible paving of rear yards for parking , asking the BZA to establish a clear demarcation of the residential and commercial zones , and considering conflicts between residential and commercial uses. Cochran, seconded by Adams , moved to approve the memorandum, as modified, and the motion was passed unanimously. 8 . Reports a) Committees of the Board Neighborhoods & Housing : Cochran reported that the Committee met with Building Commissioner Eric Datz and discussed the history of building codes ,, the central business district , aspects of the codes which were obstacles to the redevelopment of upper stories, and feasibility of access to upper floors via a raised second story platform along the alley on the north side of the Commons. The Committee agreed to schedule a meeting with local businessmen to discuss the economics of Central Business District development of upper stories. b) Chair: Chair said that she would invite the new County Commissioner of Planning to appear before the board. Chair reported that concern has been expressed by Doria Higgins about the Board ' s lack of involvement in the alienation decision, and pointed out that the Board had voluntarily placed the responsibility for working on the issues in the hands of the P&D Committee. She was concerned that the Board would be liable to criticism for not addressing such issues , but that the desirability for input and comments by the Board needed to be balanced against the time requirements of being informed and active on many more issues. Schroeder noted that the CAC and other entities that might have been involved have been left out , and Adams expressed concern that a decision to alienate will be made without adequate planning. c) Board of Public Works: Berg reported that the Hudson Street project was proceeding. The BPW was preparing to present a parking regulation plan in parts of the third ward, and a public meeting was scheduled for Thursday.- Schroeder was concerned Planning & Development Board Minutes — May 22 , 1990 Page 8 that , by limiting the plan to the third ward , the problem would be transferred to the fourth ward, and that the new regulations would encourage the paving of yards for profit parking , Mazzarella pointed out that the boundaries had been chosen to identify and control the areas which were used by commuters , without unduly affecting Collegetown residents. It was felt that the Board needed to address the issue of paving yards to provide parking , possibly by holding up permits for paving yards in light .of the potential results of the new parking regulations, pending the consideration of an ordinance . d) Planning and Development Committee: Schroeder reported that the Committee approved surrendering the Hydropower Permit. There was discussion about extending a conservation area around the reservoir to protect the water supply, and extending the zone to include the area of Six Mile Creek that is in the City. 9. Minutes of March 27 , 1990 were unanimously approved with corrections . Meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. b : pdb . 522