Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1976-04-27 BOARD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT'"MINUTES ;- CITY OF ITHACA Regular Meeting, April 27, 1976, 7: 30p,m.. PRESENT: Chairperson Benson, his. Meyer, Messrs. Fuller and Stein ALSO PRESENT: Dir. of Pl. & Dev. H. M. Van-Cort, Dep. Bldg. Commr. E. Jones, Planner J.` Meigs, Consultant D. Farley, County Planner F. ,Liguori; Associate Planner H. Mis'sarian; .Citizens R. W. Andree,',.H. Hunt Bradley, Jr. , and Lars R.. Kallstrom, Sr. ,Plnr. J. Benedict . ABSENT: Messrs. Moran, Saggese and Hildreth The; Chairperson called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the minutes of the meeting ,of March 23. The minutes were approved as read. CHAIRPERSON°S REPORT Ms. Benson noted. that the Executive Committee had met on West State Street developments Regarding health services, she noted that the Cornell Senate would` like to. have input in current negotiations. She called upon Mr. Liguori to speak on county transportation pro gresso : He stated that there `is presently a plan to consolidate the transportation agencies into a transportation commissionwhich would be composed of representatives from each. municipality The City of Ithaca, would have more weight on the (bmmission than one ' . . vote. State transportation expertise, would,also be requested- The . commission would have authority to appoint a,` planning group to reach professionals, special interest groups, planners. It would make reports to a policy group. The commission would be. given total responsibility for transportation, planning including railroads, waterways, etc. . Pro grams. su as these' see:m :to be fairly well, accepted by government. One drawback , is that it is difficult to determine representation The plan will be presentedto the County's Planning and Public Works Committee and the Board. of Reps. The Chairperson requested that the members of the 'Planning and Development Board think about having meetings in neighborhood' areas, rather than in City Hall, and asked members to think about their . roles.. as liaisons with various neighborhood `associations, - noting that work with the associations could begin ,in the fall. 2 - ZONING Because of the members of the publi waiting to speak, the zoning cases were moved forward on the agenda.. , (a) Appeal 1113 by Robert W. Andree for Area Variance to allow a .building within four feet of front property line in I=l zone instead of required .20-foot setbackl Mr. Andree has a fuel business near the Cornell boathouse, at the foot of Third Street, in Ithaca He would like to build a storage shed to cut down on vandalism. Presently the zoning regulations require a 20-foo setback in I-1 zones. The building proposed by Mr. Andree wou d be very close to the line, approximately three feet. The property is approximately 100 X 600 feet, running parallel to the railroad tracks. The Planning : Department suggested a building set back at least ten feet from the lot line would be more acc ptable. Mr. Andree stated his intention of constructinj an aluminum building with no windows, heat or electricity, to be used solely for the purpose of storage. He noted that ne had already cleared out considerable sumac and brush to imp ove the looks of the property, and that there were no of er dooryards or even mail- boxes on the block. Mr. Van Cort s ggested that a `comprehensive site plan could utilize the space better. Ms. Benson expressed concern about neighboring roads and traffic patterns and the building's effect on them. Mr.. And ee replied that the only traffic consisted of light trucks aid students using the boat- house. Mr. Van Cort asked about po er lines which run near building on that..property and which come clo a to existing tanks. Mr. An- dree replied that he had conferred qith a representative of the Fire Department, who was unconcerne.1 with the proximity of the lines to buildings and tanks. Ms. qeyer noted " that it is important for the City to support economic deLrelopment, and that if this was important to the healthy contin ation of Mr. Andree's busi- ness, ';the City should take that into consideration. Mr. Stein MOVED that. the Planning and Development Board support the variance as proposed, .especially since it does not affect planning matters. Ms. Meyer seconded. Motion CARRIED unanimously. ' (b) Appeal 1114, by Lawrence G. Th yer as Agent of Veda M. Thayer for Area Variance to allow an addi ion, connecting two buildings on one property in a B-2 zone, to le built without the required rear-yard setback of 18 feet. This addition would connect Thayer Appliance with -Carpet Bazaar by a single storey addition. It would mean building completely across the back lot of the property. The plan has been approved by the Fire Chief. The variance is for 60% coverage instead of the 50% allowed, as well as a variance on the setback requirement. The Planning staff recommended approval. 3 - Ms. Meyer MOVED that approval be recommended to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Stein seconded. Motion CARRIED unanimously: (c) Appeal 1115 by H. Hunt Bradley, Jr. , and Lars R.� Kallstrom, Sr. for Area Variance to allow reconversion of space, currently in nonconforming use under variance, from commercial to residential in a B-2 zone. The undersized lot in question was established before the present zoning ordinance, and there is noon site parking, The present owners of the property now have two rental units in the building and would like to construct a third, replacing a ground-floor -: business. They feel that residential use is more suitable than, commercial for that space. Mr. Fuller MOVED that the Planning and Development Board recom ment approval of the appeal. Ms. Meyer seconded. Motion CARRIED unanimously. SPECIAL ORDER. OF BUSINESS: Presentation by Frank Liguori,. Tompkins County Planning Commissioner, of the Selective Communities Plan for the County. Mr. Liguori stated that the Selective Communities Plan described alternative settlement plans for best utilization of environmental resources, community facilities, housing, human resources, land use and the. economy of the county. He stressed the importance of commitment on the part of the involved municipalities The' County has just completed a survey of land use .and its historical implications. They have come up with three alternative settlement patterns. Mr. Liguori feels that there are only a few remaining years until. government is ,no' longer- able to influence growth patterns. The population of the County is expected to grow by 20,000 by the year 2,000. There is currently a population of 83,000 At the county level there should not be any attempt made to increase or decrease growth rate. That is up to individual municipalities. Mr.Liguori then then displayed four maps demonstrating possible settlement patterns. They were color coded to indicate urban ,areas,. less intense urban areas, suburban and rural 'areas, and lands held by municipalities or 'institutions. He noted that a' .sprawl pattern is developing around Ithaca. There is a strip pattern around Route 79 , 96 near the hospital, 96B near Ithaca College. The County expects further sprawl, leapfrogging, and strip development. There is not much that can be done without a definite program to change this. Sprawl threatens agricultural lands. Public trans- portation is not expected to keep up with it. It is possible to confine strip development and sprawl along major corridors. Provision of public waterand sewers can be a problem. Certain 4 T incentives, such as smaller lot sizlI requirements, would encourage growth in particular areas. Disincentives would discourage development in other, more rural ar' as* Towns such as Newfield, Freeville, Dryden, Groton and Trumatisburg could absorb more people. They already possess many of the public services neces- sary for growth. Sixty percent of ew growth could be accommodated in the Ithaca area without seriousl affecting the character egg of the area. Controlled developmen would mean more practical utilization of land. More people could walk to schools, and in cases of good utilization, schools Decome centers of community life. With good planning, it would also be possible to walk to shopping areas. This coupled with Detter commuter bus transporta- tion would lessen dependency on cars. Each local government can choose its pattern of development for itself. Mr. Liguori solicited reaction and endorsement of the Planning and Development Board and said he was hopeful that the Board ould recommend the endorsement of Common Council. He went on to say, in response to a question from the floor, that there are State Agricultural Distri is which the State authorizes farmers to establish. There are fi a in Tompkins County. The local governments are restrained fr m passing any zoning ordinances which would interfere with farming in these districts, e.g. the local governments cannot force water or sewer development on these districts and cannot assess land at higher-than-farm-land value. The farmers cannot subdivide or sell farms for eight years after establishment of these districts without paying a penalty. Mr. Liguori stated that re-allocation of taxable resources will also be considered for the Countyplan. mr. Van Cort asked how the County planned to control growth in the absence of zoning, to which Mr. Liguori replied that the Health Department can control lot sizes with respect to the availability of water and sewerage. Mr. Stein noted that the City facilities are used by the County, and that there was no incentive for other communities to build facilities, such as parks and subsidized housing, for use by others within t!he County. T4s. Benson thanked Mr. Liguori for his presentation, and referred the matter to Executive Committee for its recommendation to Council, and instructed the Committee to make such recommendation at the next Planning and Development Board meeting. Ms. Meyer requested the addition of an item to the agenda. She then MOVED that the Planning and Development Board recommend to the Finance Committee that it back the Drop-in Center, presently located in the YMCA. The Center noeds $1,400 to aay open an extra day. Funds are available from revenue sharing, and some are left over from Open House. Mr. Fuller seconded. It was agreed that 5 - supporting the Drop-in Center was in the interest of planning and development and of the Center City of Ithaca: The motion CARRIED unanimously. (A description of Drop-in Center services and statistics for 1975 are in the Board of Planning and Development files. C014MITTEE REPORTS.: (a) Codes and Ordinances: Recommendation on proposed change to Zoning Ordinance Codes and Ordinance Committee met on minimum lot size requirement in an R-3 zone and recommended the following resolution: RESOLVED that the following changes. be made.- 1. ade:1. To Sec. 30. 25 of the Zoning Ordinance, in the text definitions of District Regulations Chart column headings, add to the definition of Column 6: "The minimum lot size specified in this . column for each use district shall be employed only to determine whether a parcel of land constitutes a usable lot as of right in accord- ance with all other provisions of this Chapter. All other .area requirements specified in this column shall be employed to determine the portion of total lot area, or the minimum lot size, required .for specific uses." 2. To Sec. 30.25, District Regulations Chart, Col. 6, make the following revisions, adding the word (s) underlined. District Col. 6 Revision R-2 add: 3. 5,000 sq. ft. minimum B-3 delete: NONE add: No minimum lot size B-4 add: 3,000 sq. ft. minimum B-5 add: 3.000' sq. ft. minimum I-1 add: 5,000 sq. ft. minimum ' F-1 add: 3 ,000 sq. ft. minimum 12-1 add: 3,000 sq. ft. minimum P-1 add: 3, 000 sq. ft. minimum 14H-1 add: 2. Mobile home lot: 5,000 sq. ft. minimum 6 Mr. Stein. MOVED approval . and refer al to Council for action. Ms. Meyer seconded. The motion wa CARRIED unanimously. Next, Mr. Stein reported on zoningon East State Street from Ithaca Road out to the City linea If zoning regulations are changed to R-1, from R-2, approximitein tely 12 properties would be non-conforming. Many of the propeties do not conform to R-1 lot size' and width requirements. Mr. turned the report over to . Mr. Meigs for further study. (b) Executive and liaison committe : West State Street - a study proposal. , Ms. Benedict then reported on the Manning and Development Depart- ment's West State Street Study. S e stated that West State Street is a good place for providing neigPborhood services. and that some auto-related uses, are- changing or leaving as a result .of diminished traffic caused by construction of he Commons. She said a motion would be appropriate which would c11 on the Department's. staff to undertake a study of the rea. Mr. Stein asked whether this study would take staff time f om the Southwest area.. Mr. Van Cort replied that it would hav some impact on it, but he felt the department could handle b th, given a little more time. The outline on the southwest study, will be distributed . at the next Planning and 'Development Boar meeting. Work on the West State Street area will affect the HS area by renewing problems of business impingement in residential areas. Reference to Task Force and neighborhood groups shou d be worked into the study, so as to make them part of the plana Decision on the West State Street study was put off until the next Planning and Development Board meeting when the Board could see the Southwest Study. OLD BUSINESS: Bikeways development: presentation of proposal for first phase to connect Stewart and Cass Parks. The Bikeways study was referred to committee for recommendations to bring to the Board at its nexteeting. Ms. Benedict explained that Phase I of the bikeways plan was prepared by graduate students in Landscape Architecture. The City is going to apply for BOR funds, but does not yet know how much money is required. The plan stresses recreational, rather than commutational biking. It was suggested that the City apply for State highway .funds. Ms. Meyer MOVED that the Board direct the Planning and Development Departmentto go ahead with the Bikeways work. Mr. Stein Seconded. CARRIED unanimously. 7 - NEW BUSINESS Item 9 (a) was removed from the agenda (Proposal for five-year loan of sculpture to City. The following resolution regarding proposed State legislation for site plan review was considered by the Board. WHEREAS legislation (S.7228/A. 9185) has been proposed to the Legislature of the State of New York which would permit city, town and village legislative bodies to authorize their respective planning boards to review and approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove site plans and to approve the establishment of certain uses (i.e. , special permit uses and conditional permit uses, etc. ) , and WHEREAS the proposed legislation would greatly strengthen the role of local planning boards in reviewing various development proposals, and would give a much-needed option to local government for improve- ment of the quality and efficiency of review of planning matters, and of the resultant development, and, WHEREAS this need has increasingly been felt in the City of Ithaca, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and Development of the City of Ithaca wholeheartedly approves of the intent of the proposed legislation, urges pas- sage of such enabling legislation by the Legislature of the State of New York, and its signing into law by the Governor, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board urges the Common Coun- cil of the City of Ithaca to add its support to such legislation and to make such support known to its sponsors, State Senator Warder and Assemblyman D. W. Cook; to Governor Hugh L. Carey; to State Senator W. T. Smith; to Assemblyman Lee; to chairpersons of the appropriate legislative commit- tees; and to such other State officials as may be concerned. Adoption of the resolution was MOVED by Mr. Fuller and seconded by Ms. Meyer. Motion CARRIED unanimously , 8 - Elmira Road; Proposed changes to s 'gn ordinance. Dick Farley gave part of a report on his work in changes to the sign ordinance in strip and highway commercial areas. The first step, he noted, was to establish different signage zones. The staff is recommending the tighter of two options. He presented the Board with a printed report on signage and asked them to read it carefully and decide whether to send both optionsfl to Council and recommend one, or to send only one. Mr. Stein questioned whether the Board should try to write specifics into legislation or develop a design review process. Mr. Fuller suggested a clearly written rulebook. Mr. Stein felt the Board should consider design review. Mr. Meigs suggested that there might be room for both pOssibilities. Because of time restrictions, Mr. Farley was unable to deliver his complete report and will do so at another meeting. Mr. Fuller moved adjournment, and the meeting ended at 10:40 PLM. f Respectfully submitted, Matthys Van Cort irector, Planning & Development 5. 20.76 i {