Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1991-12-19 Amended & Approved 1/28/92 Planning and Development Board MINUTES December 19, 1991 PRESENT: R. Berg, S. Blumenthal (Chair) , T. Cookingham, C. Feuer, J. Schroeder. Staff: Director H. M. Van Cort, J. Meigs, L. Tsang. Also, applicants, media and members of the public. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. 2. Privilege of the Floor: Sean Killeen, 111 Orchard Place spoke before the Board regarding the proposed subdivision at 812 E. State St. He asked the Board to "do the right thing" and honor the Blair St. covenant (deed of Woody Kelly) . He asked that his letters of 9/17, 10/22 and 10/25 be entered into the record. There was an increase of 2, 000 beds in the fourth ward from 1980-1990, according to census figures. He urged that the Board not take action on this subdivision. He said that the Board should not just rubber stamp this project, and that what is legal is not necessarily what is right. 3. Subdivisions A. 812 E. State Street/Ching Po. Chair explained that staff was directed to complete Part III of the LEAF for this subdivision and that Board members had received copies of it prior to this meeting. Schroeder asked that the following information be included in the LEAF: Under Visual Impact: indicate that the historic rhythm in this area is house, empty lot, house, empty lot, etc. Under Quality of Daily Life: mention should be made of the impacts of additional noise, congestion, traffic, litter and other inescapable effects of increased residential activity. Under Growth and Character: add that dramatic changes in ownership patterns have occurred over the past 20 years, and that the proposed subdivision adds another increment in a long series of steps that result in a dramatic change to the character of the neighborhood (number of vehicles has increased dramatically) . Also add that there is opposition from the public especially as it concerns controversy over a deed covenant that restricts development on this lot. Schroeder circulated maps of the neighborhood and described how he arrived at the conclusions he did about the historic rhythm and ownership patterns. The Board reviewed a copy of one of the deeds which states that the land is to be used for residential purposes only, that no unsightly buildings or barns shall be erected thereon, and that any dwelling to be erected thereon shall cost at least $4, 000. Combining the facts that the lots were sola in pairs, that the covenant was written before any development had occurred, and that the deed states "dwelling" in the singular, he believed that Planning and Development Board -2- Minutes of December 19, 1991 it was the intention to have one single family residence built. Van Cort said that after speaking to Pat Kennedy, assistant city attorney, about this matter, it is believed that this is a civil issue, and that the property owners are the only parties who can act to enforce the covenant, not the city. Van Cort also stated that if there had been an intention to exclude further development, the covenant would have said that explicitly; prohibition cannot be implied or suggested. Van Cort urged the Board to act on both the environmental review and the subdivision at this meeting. Schroeder, seconded by Berg, moved that the revisions he proposed be incorporated into the LEAF Part III. The motion passed unanimously. Cookingham, seconded by Blumenthal, moved to accept staff ' s recommendation for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. There was a discussion regarding the criteria for a positive declaration. Meigs quoted from the City ordinance the conditions for determination of positive environmental impact. The motion was carried 5-0. Schroeder noted that he did not oppose the negative declaration because he felt that an environmental impact statement was not appropriate. Cookingham, seconded by Blumenthal, moved for preliminary subdivision approval of the modified plan dated 9/25/91 with substantial conformance to the elevation sketch provided by the architect and contingent on the City Attorney' s opinion regarding enforcement of the deed covenant by the City. Schroeder stated that he will vote against it because he believes that the deed does not allow the proposed type of development. Van Cort reminded the Board that final approval could not be denied if the conditions of the preliminary approval are met. Berg stated that there was a lack of enthusiasm about this project, and brought up an underlying issue--that of Cornell University' s neglect to provide an adequate amount of on-campus affordable housing for students. He felt that negative impacts of this factor are felt in neighborhoods all over the city. Vote 4-1-0 (Schroeder opposed) . A public hearing could be scheduled for the January meeting. 4. Site Development Plan Review Public Hearing A. Fairfield Crossing. A public hearing was continued from last month, no members of the public appeared before the Board to address this matter, and the hearing was adjourned. Planning and Development Board -3- Minutes of December 19, 1991 5. New Business A. Draft site plan review ordinance revision. Tsang described the major changes in the ordinance, one of which being the guidelines for plantings, especially in parking areas with 20 or more parking stalls. The following revisions were suggested: Page 1, Section 39. 1 Intent: 3) mitigating potentially negative impacts on. traffic, parking, drainage, landscape and similar environmental concerns. Page 4, Section 39.3 Applicability: A. Site Plan Review (SPR) is intended to apply to all development projects as defined in Section 39.2.B.4, except as noted in subdivision 39.3.B. Page 4, 39.3.B. Exemptions: 4. Single family and duplex (inadvertently omitted from October draft) . Page 7, Section 39.4.B. Variance or Special Use Permit: The procedure requires further clarification. Page 12, Section 39.6.C. Procedural Sequence 2.b.v. : Type and location of existing trees with 9" diameter breast height and above, Page 13: xii) Proposed utility plan, including the location of all solar and wind energy collection and distribution components and satellite dishes. Also, inadvertently omitted from October draft: viii) Provisions for pedestrian . circulation to and within the site and location of outdoor storage and refuse areas. This draft (dated 12/5/91) will be forwarded to the Planning and Development Committee for their review in January, 1992. The Board will attempt to have a public information meeting at the regular meeting in February, if feasible. 6. Zoning Appeals Report. Draft memorandum revised and approved as follows. Review of subject appeals shows that Nos. 2085 and 2087 involve no issues of long range or area-wide planning concern; they are remanded for action by the Board of Zoning Appeals without comment or recommendation. Appeal 2051, for Area Variances to permit assembly use (health club) of a portion of 318-20 College Avenue, in a B- 2b zone. This appeal, denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, has been remitted following a court appeal, for further deliberation and better articulation of reasons for that Board' s ultimate decision. The October 7 ruling by the Board of Zoning Appeals states in part: "The impact of the proposed size of this business is bound to (a) ffect not only the collegetown area, but the immediate surrounding neighborhood, and that is inconsistent with the character of Planning and Development Board -4- Minutes of December 19, 1991 those neighborhoods. This Board feels that the Finding of Fact by the Board of Zoning Appeals, quoted, might be better substantiated by making specific reference to the dense development and intense use of the Collegetown area and the immediately adjoining multiple residential zone, the relative scarcity of parking to serve these intense uses, and the potential parking demand of capacity occupancy of the space in question. However, this Board notes that the nature of the proposed use, and the proximity of its location to a large concentration of its potential customers, are such that a sizable proportion of customers will probably choose not to drive from their residence, class, etc. The greater need for parking related to the business may be for employees, which might be accommodated in the Dryden Road parking structure. Appeal 2083, for Special Permit to conduct a catering business as a home occupation at 544 Spencer Road, in an R 2a zone, appears to meet the criteria for Special Permit. Appeal 2084, for Special Permit to conduct a business of women' s clothing design and manufacture as a home occupation at 312 Second Street, in an R-2b zone, raises questions about the primary use of the property which should be explored by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This Board questions whether the proposed use of the entire first floor of this two-unit dwelling exclusively for a business whose regular hours of operation are 9 to 5, "in season", and which employs two persons other than the proprietor, though she resides in the second-floor unit, meets the criterion of being 'clearly subordinate' to the permitted residential use of the property. Appeal 2086, for Use and Area Variances to permit use of 420 W. Buffalo Street, in an R-2b zone, as a cooperative household, appears to be tantamount to a request for rezoning, which this Board feels should be dealt with as such. Appeal 2088, for Area Variance to permit additions to and conversion of 303-309 Dryden Road, in an R-3b zone, from five one-bedroom dwelling units to five three-bedroom dwelling units, appears to involve drastic alterations to the appearance and intensity of use of this property in a way that would negatively affect the existing character of the neighborhood, despite the fact that it is a permitted use. The occupancy of the property would increase by 500, and it is reasonable to expect that the noise, trash, congestion and traffic generated by this increase, at this location, would produce a noticeable impact on the Planning and Development Board -5- Minutes of December 19, 1991 surrounding neighborhood. These impacts would be accentuated by the visual effect of the proposed addition, whose materials are inappropriate and incompatible with this residential neighborhood and with the rest of the house. Moved by Berg, seconded by Cookingham, approved unanimously. 7. Reports A. Committees of the Board. No reports. B. Director. Van Cort reported that the Budget and Administration Committee approved funding for the city portion of a computer-based city mapping project in cooperation with NYSEG, Cornell University and Tompkins County. C. Chair. No report. D. Board of Public Works. Berg reported BPW improvements on Hudson Street in terms of signage, restricting commercial traffic, and increased police enforcement. The BPW will be looking at traffic control and safety concerns in Central School/GIAC vicinity. E. Planning and Development Committee. Schroeder reported that establishment of a southwest park land use committee was recommended to determine how alienated land should be used. 8. Approval of Minutes. Approval of August minutes were moved by Schroeder, seconded by Cookingham, and passed unanimously. September minutes were moved by Schroeder, seconded by Cookingham, and passed unanimously. October minutes were amended and unanimously approved, and November minutes were deferred. Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. epj-December.min