HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-03-30 l'c fr
Y 6a-s co 1�1
Minutes
Planning and Development Board Meeting
March 30, 1982
Present: M. Sampson, P. Rogers, S. Cummings, R. Holdsworth
Also: Appellants, other interested. parties, H. M. Van Cort, J. Pierce,
H. Sieverding, Mayor W. Shaw, E. Holman, press.
1 . Meeting called to order by P, Rogers at 7:00 p.m.
2 No comments or report from P. Rogers or H. M. Van Cort.
3. Staff Reports:
West End Development. presentation by Joey Pierce, City Planner.
Joey Vierce�fcistributed a memo regarding the West End Development
project outlining the potential redevelopment of the Cayuga Inlet
area. He referred to a map of the area indicating that much of the
' property is city-pwned which will be a great help in developing and
improving the land and water resources. He gave a brief description
of the background of Cayuga Inlet; the construction of the channel by
the Army Corps of Engineers; formation of the Cayuga Inlet island., etc.
In 1974, Marine zoning was established providing for marine, commercial ,
recreational and residential development.. A study that same year by
Cornell University graduate students was compiled. They concluded that
because of the demise of the lake and the railroad as the economic.
structure for the area, the inlet was left without its major structur-
ing elements. What is needed are other forms of leisure time activities
which should combine with the parks to make the waterfront an excellent
leisure system. Facilities needed include eating and drinking places,
motels, specialty shopping, public promenades, and other entertainment
places, In 1976 an Ithaca Waterways Study was undertaken reiterating
the need for residential , commercial , recreational and marine develop-
ment. Landscaping on the west side of the island was needed; the inlet
should be treated like a canal and residential , recreational , and marine
related uses should be encouraged, After reviewing the various studies
a number of- uses for the. area were outlined: _housing, both condominium
and apartment; hotel ; retail (specialty) ; marina (expansion of existing
facilities and/or construction of a sailboat marina) ; office space; a
dinner/tour boat service; parkland and open space,
The 4.5 acre site which the City owns was originally a portion of the
Cass Park land purchase and is currently vacant, The land, which was
purchased with funds from the former Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, has
been designated as official parkland and thus complicates in some way the
use of this land for other purposes. A change in the use must be approved
by the State Legisiature and Federal Department of Interior, A parcel of
land of equal recreational value must be found to substitute for this property.
-2-
The alienation process is a relatively long one but it appears that the City
can accomplish the feat and return the land to the tax rolls.
The City should be the overall coordinator in the entire project since
several different developers and projects will be involved. Department of
Planning should begin formulating a land use plan; the services of an urban
designer will be required, Slight zoning adjustments may be needed. The re-
development has excellent potential for a UDAG project enabling the City to
make loans to the various developers and use a portion of the funds for public
improvements.
In summary, the potential redevelopment of the Cayuga Inlet area offers
very significant gains to the City of Ithaca. Benefits would include sub-
stantial increase in investment and property values, increased property and
sales tax receipts, increased visitation by tourists, increased jobs, im-
proved recreational opportunities, etc. There are problems to be resolved
but the potential for redevelopment is quite good. We should move as quickly
on the project as possible while UDAG funds are still available. The fact that
we will possibly have a UDAG application in process for the Collegetown project
will not jeopardize an application for this project since HUD is more inclined
to grant the requests of cities which have proven they can coordinate the
necessary components for redevelopment. A case in point is the City of
Schenectady which has received a number of UDAG grants.
Collegetown: presentation by Herman Sieverding, City Planner.
Herman Sieverding spoke regarding the current status of the ACC redevelop-
ment program, Past studies and efforts have attemtped to improve the physical
environment in Collegetown as well as the retail and commercial environment in
the area, We have an opportunity to pick up on where some of those plans left
off and try once again to improve that area, The City has been working with
Cornell University .and the ACC in taking another look at Collegetown and what
development opportunities exist there, Cornell and the City jointly retained
the ACC to identify a site for the Performing Arts Center and to do an analysis
of the Collegetown market to try to identify where there was possible expansion
room in areas of retail , housing, and office space. Cornell is now interviewing
architects for the Performing Arts Center for the site chosen by ACC, the area
between Sheldon Court and Cascadilla Hall . ACC identified expansion potentials
in all categories and definitely in the housing market. The development pro-
gram includes 14,000 SF of retail space; 10,000 SF of office space, apprxoimately
60 4-bedroom apartments, and 53 condominium units,
The Performing Arts Center is an important component of the project in its
ability to help attract developers and leverage a UDAG, The University has begun
a national fund-raising drive to finance the development. The scale of Univer-
sity investment in Collegetown is contingent upon the success of its fund raising
effort. A UDAG is essential to the financing program for the project for in
addition to reducing the City's expense for providing the recommended public
improvements, it also provides financial incentive for private development.
Ideally, a UDAG application should be submitted in November 1982 particularly
since after 1983 UDAG will be turned over to the State. -UDAG has been funded
for 1982 and is allocated for additional funding in 1983,
-3-
There are certain areas and issues which the Planning and Development Board
should address with respect to this project. These would include zoning in
Collegetown area, exploring the possibility of creating a special development
zone within the area that ACC has identified and review the zoning in the
surrounding areas to see how it might compliment that. Parking and circulation
questions should be looked into; some options to consider may include a coordin-
ated parking plan for the area which would include some of the public improve-
ments contemplated and also address parking in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Board may also consider design review standards and when considering a project
of this scale we may want to have much stricter design standards tied to an
incentive zone concept and criteria by which these various developments would
be judged.
Common Council will be voting in May whether to continue pursuing the
project. Information from the Board regarding conformance with. the General
Plan, zoning and other planning issues will be useful to Council in making
its decision. The Planning Board will have a good opportunity to alleviate
some of the problems that Board is continually dealing with such as conversion
pressures on residential neighborhoods, parking problems, developers requesting
variances for greater density .in the general Collegetown area. Because the
scope of this project touches upon the focus of the various Board sub--committees
all members may want to attend meetings of the sub-committee which will be work-
ing on this project. In view of the fact that we' are looking for funds for
development of West End, would we be competing against ourselves for federal
and private funds? UDAG program says that every project submitted would only
be in competition with those other projects that were submitted in the same
round and they would be judged by same criteria, The investors who would be
interested in.the West End project would not necessarily be same ones interested
in Collegetown. Also, there are national or regional capital funds available
for investment. It is unlikely that the City will submit UDAG applications
for both the West End and Collegetown during the same quarter. The problem
will not be competition for capital but rather for competition of staff time.
4, Tompkins County Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign A representative from this
organization, Henry Hughes, 110 Heights Court, spoke regarding the crisis re-
location program proposed by the federal government. -The basic plan proposed
calls for relocation of people from high risk areas to low risk areas (host
areas) in the event of the threat of nuclear war. Tompkins County is scheduled
to host 180,000 from New York City which will take approximately one week. If
allgoes as planned, the government predicts that 80% of the country's population
could survive a nuclear war. The Campaign group believes the chances of the
relocation saving many lives is very low and in fact is a more strategic and
symbolic political gesture on the part of the federal government's civil
defense. The are calling on the local governments to closely examine these
plans before approving them
Mr. Hughes stated that a nuclear war would be a surprise attack and, there-
fore, there would be little time to relocate anyone from anywhere. Under Russian
plan, they have targeted any area of over 50,000 people, Therefore, with Tompkins
-4-
County scheduled to receive people from New York City we would be a target area.
If Seneca Army Depot was hit, there would be considerable fallout here; also,
Endicott would be prime target. Survival rate for people in Ithaca and Tompkins
County would probably be very low, It would take 2 weeks for radiation level
to reach acceptable level and by that time there would be no food in the area
safe to consume. For these and other reasons, it seems quite impractical for
plan to work successfully. Action of relocating people could actually
precipitate a nuclear war and accelerate warfare.
A panel discussion of this plan is to take place at Ithaca High School on
April 15 with Chief Tuckerman and Jack Miller, the County crisis coordinator,
to discuss the possibilities for going along with this plan or to try to determine
it's feasibility. Short discussion followed with Board members regarding housing,
food supply, medical supplies, clothing, etc. , which would be needed for this vast
number of people,
It was suggested that the Campaign group draft a resolution which could be
presented to the various committees which they address. This resolution could
be adopted and committees could go on record in support of the groups' efforts.
5. Zoning Appeals (see attached)
6. Subdivision - Boardman House: The County is requesting a preliminary approval
of a subdivision which has to be referred to the ILPC and Board of Zoning
Appeals because it creates a non-conforming lot. County will have to show City
that there will be adequate access to building in the final subdivisions This
will have to be recorded on an Abstract or some legal instrument indicating
access around the building. County says they are going to convey a right of
way with this parcel . Staff recommends preliminary approval at this point,
ILPC approval will be needed because it is in a landmark district. S. Cummings
moved to approve preliminary approval of subdivision, Second by R. Holdsworth.
Unanimous approval .
7. Approval of-Feb,,,;.,; Minutes: No discussion, S. Cummings movedto approve minutes
as written. Second by R'. Holdsworth,
8. R. Holdsworth move to adjourn (10:00 p,m.) Second by M. Sampson..
Zoning Appeals: March 30, 1982
#1422: Newton appeal for a use variance has been heard previously by Board.
There is nothing new to report; no further action needed. Board will
stand by its previous recommendation.
#1424: Teitelbaum appeal for an area variance has been heard previously by
Board. Approval was recommended for an area variance at last meeting
but Mr. Teitelbaum did not appear before the BZA, Board"s previous
recommendation will stand
#1426: Appeal of Mary Boynton to add one storey to garage to provide bedroom/
study at 201. 1/2 Wyckoff Avenue. Land u-se is permitted; it improves
amenity of existing unit; there will be slight increase in height as
part of -existing structure, not visible from the street,
Appellant Comment:
Damon Boynton, husband of Mary, appeared to request the area variance.
House was constructed in 1913 as studio for Louis Fuertes. He did not
live there but since has been used by students. Approximately 8 years
ago, received a building permit to convert 1/2 of the garage to a
study and bath; it is very crowded, Now would like to raise the level
of garage roof to the level of the present studio roof and construct a
bedroom-study and bath at the upstairs level . It would have an inside
staircase, He is a retired professor, and he and Mrs. Boynton would
occupy the dwelling.
Staff Comment:
Structure is on a small lot, virtually invisible from the street. It
is highly unlikely that it will ever be subject to the degree of abuse
that other residential structures are because of its size.
Staff Recommendation:
Improves the amenity of existing residential property, Relief sought
should be granted.
Motion:
Motion to recommend approval made by S. Cummings. Second by M. Sampson.
Carried unanimously.
#1427: Appeal of Robert Wood to permit occupancy of the two-family dwelling at
319 Hillview Place by four unrelated individuals in one unit and two
unrelated individuals in the other. Property is in an R-2a district in
which occupancy of a dwelling unit by more than three unrelated indivi-
duals is not a permitted use,
Appellant Comment:
Mr. Wood appeared. Stated this is an older building on South Hill .
Property has variance for two units, Intent is to have one group
living situation and one smaller unit situation. Property now contains
a two-bedroom unit and a four-bedroom unit, Ten people occupancy is now
allowed, There is adequate parking, Requesting the same number of people
to live in same house; only to have four in one unit and two in another.
Zoning Appeals; March 30, 1982 (continued) -2-
George Chacona, a neighbor spoke in favor of request, He stated Mr. Wood
has made considerable improvements in property and his present request
would not have any great affect on area. Mrs. Chacona also spoke in favor
of request stating that Mr. Wood was very conscientious of neighbor's feel -
ings; he cleaned up the area; turned an eye-sore into an acceptable neigh-
borhood.
Elva Holman, Second Ward Alderwoman, spoke briefly reminding Board that
an important issue was at stake. She urged Board to consider this variance
carefully - the question being four unrelated people living in the unit.
Common Council spent a great deal of time on the issue of defining family
units and after long deliberation the ordinance was written as it is now
stated, It was generally agreed that Mr. Wood has done a good job in
upgrading the property, Granting this variance could be read as permiss-
ion to violate the zoning code. It could open the door for appeals to be
made all over the. City to break the unrelated individual portion of the
zoning code.
Staff Comment:
Owner has improved this and adjacent residential structures considerably.
Due to interior layout, he wishes to rent the larger of two units in 319
to four persons, .and the smaller to two, this .would not exceed permitted
total. Since zoning defines a dwelling unit occupied by four unrelated
persons (as proposed) as a multiple dwelling, the use is not permitted,
though the occupancy would not be greater than. what is allowed. While the
direct effect of this proposal would have no immediate impact, the long-
range potential, as a precedent, is enormous and could have substantially
detrimental effects City-wide, doubling or tripling occupancies in big old
houses,
Staff Recommendation
Would act as a precedent to avoiding the intent of the zoning ordinance
in limiting residential occupancy, with negative effects on quality of
life and neighborhood amenity, Request should be denied.
Motion:
M. Sampson moved to recommend denial of request, Second by S. Cummings.
Vote: two in favor of denial (M. Sampson, S. Cummings), two opposed to
denial (P. Rogers, R, Holdsworth) ,
#1428: Appeal of Alan Cohen for special permit to allow accountant's office as
home occupation at 310 Utica Street. Property is in a R-2b district in
which a home occupation is permitted only if the use meets the require-
ments of Section 30,26 for a special permit and satisfies the definition
of a home occupation,
Appellant Comment:
Mr. Cohen appeared. He is new resident in Fall Creek area. He is an
accountant and professor at Ithaca College. He has an established
accounting practice and would like to continue this in his homer He
has approximately 20% of residence set aside for office use and 1/2 bath;
employs- _ one individual part-time, No other space is rented in property;
Zoning Appeals: March 30, 1982 (continued)_ -3-
house is situated on twin lot with turn-around driveway and enough
parking space for six vehicles (off-street .parking) , -
Mr. Van Cort read regulations regarding home occupations. Regulations
require that it has to be a home occupation according to the definition
and not have a negative impact on the neighborhood, A statement signed
by eight neighbors in opposition to the special permit was presented.
Discussion followed as to whether once granted the special permit could
the property then be sold as a commercial building. This would not be
possible; the special permit does not work that way. Parking was men-
tioned with Mr. Cohen stating that very little traffic is generated; his
office hours are limited anyway (approximately 9:30 to 11 :00 mornings and
2:00 to 4:00 in the afternoons; no evening hours).
Staff Comment:
Land use is permitted. There would be economic benefit to owner; a
minimal effect on traffic and a minimal addition of nonresidential
activity. Aside from sideyard deficiencies, there is no reason to
object to this proposal
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of request should be granted.
Motion-
Robert�Holdsworth moved to recommend approval specifying one employee
as requested by Mr. Cohen. Second by M. Sampson who recommended the
special permit be granted only to this individual .
Vote: three in favor of approval (S. Cummings, R. Holdsworth, M. Sampson)
and one abstention (P. Rogers),
#1429: Appeal of Eric;Skalwold for area variances for existing deficiencies
in lot size, one side yard, and rear yard setback, to permit an add-
ition to the rear of the single family house at 22- Floral Avenue.
Property is in a R-3a district where use is permitted; however, variances
for deficiencies must be obtained before a permit can be considered for
enlargement of this non-conforming structure.
Appellant was not present. Owner is renovating house for own occupancy;
due to derelict condition, and other factors, he wishes to relocate stairs,
rebuilding them as an addition at the rear. Property is seriously deficient
in area (50%) .
Staff Comment:
Land use is all right; it would return a derelict house to residential
use and will probably improve appearance of property and area considerably.
Relocation of stairs will probably add to house's amenity/desirability,
whish is quite limited at presentbecause of visual quality and apparent
condition.
-4-
Zoning Appeals: March 30, 1982 (continued)
Staff Recommendation:
Grant relief sought conditioned upon completion of exterior facelift,
Motion•
Motion to recommend approval made by S Cummings with condition of
completion of exterior facelift, Second by M. Sampson, Carried unanimously.