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