HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-10-26 MINUTES
Planning & Development Board
Octo.be!r 24; 1982:, '
PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers, Vice-Chair S. Cummings, R. Holdsworth, R. Moran,
M. Sampson.
ALSO: H. Sieverding, C. Chock, Press, Appellants, Appellants ' represent-
atives, Other interested parties.
1. Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm.
2. Approval of minutes: Mr. Moran moved, seconded by Ms. Cummings, that
The August minutes be approved as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Cummings moved, seconded by Mr. Sampson, that the September minutes
be approved as written. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Privilege of the floor: No one appeared.
4. Communications: Mr. Rogers shared copies of coreespondence from Mayor
Shaw to various officials regarding the crosswalk on Green St. , relocation
of fire stations and the Cass Park ball parks.
Mr. Sampson said he felt the Board could help in the matter of fire
station relocation, which he views as a politically charged issue, since
the Board is a less politicized body and is involved with such planning
issues.
Discussion of how to deal with forwarding correspondence copied to Mr.
Rogers to Board members ensued. Mr. Moran suggested passing around the
correspondence before meetings--if Board members want copies they can
then use the copier in the planning office.
5. Chairman's report: Mr. Rogers outlined some of the issues now before the
County Planning Board and passed around the tentative list of area-wide
planning issues for 1982-83 prepared by the County. Mr. Rogers said he
would serve out the year as representative to the County's board, but
he would still like to hear from Board members interested in serving
in this capacity.
6. Committee reports_: Codes & Administration - Collegetown Zoning. Ms.
Cummings met with staff over the zoning strategies report. Although
attracted to the concept of overlay zoning, committee and staff do not
have enough pieces together--particularly the final recommendations from
the Travers Associates ' traffic and parking study--to make a recommendation
at this time. The overall schedule has been relaxed as the City is not
going for a UDAG submission in November 1982.
Mr. Sieverding noted one of the key pieces missing from the current
parking survey was a night-time parking accumulation survey. The
Collegetown business area, surrounding residential areas, and nearby
University parking lots are being factored into the total parking demand
Planning & Development Board
Mintues - October 26, 1982 2.
estimate. Travers Assoc. ' final report is expected in November. The
parking requirements they recommend will be incorporated into the
recommended regulations of the overlay zone.
Design review is an important part of the proposed zoning strategy. Design
review would be stronger than the current processr-review would be tied to a
published Urban Design Plan and guidelines adopted as part of the zoning
envelope. This urban design is being worked on by Stirling/Wilford, who
are hiring a local person to help with their study and to act as a liaison
to the London office. (Grace Kobayashi has since been hired.] This plan
should be forthcoming at the end of December.
The reasons for not applying now for a UDAG are:
1. The UDAG program is no longer targeted to be moved to the states
in 1982, but instead in 1985-86;
2. An application can be made in February 1983, allowing adequate
time to review the package with zoning recommendations in place
'and a financial strategy developed by the conditional preferred
developer, Travis/Travis.
Ms. Cummings asked if there would be public presentations of the Travers
and the Stirling/Wilford recommendations. Mr. Sieverding replied that a
public hearing would most likely be scheduled for the Travers report
involving this board, the Board of Public Works and the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (lead agency in the redevelopment project) , possibly
to be held in November.
The qualifications of the Travis/Travis team were discussed.
Carol Chock announced she was at the meeting to answer any questions about
the zoning strategies report. The report's major finds stand, including
the concept of addressing parking problems and design review through the
new zoning. The specifics of those two requirements are awaiting the
completion of the respective studies.
In response to questions from Mr. Holdsworth and Ms . Cummings , staff.
explained that the basic thrust of design review is to set up guidelines
for developments at a certain threshold of density. There would be definite
flexibility between the parties in coming to a mutually agreeable design.
Mr. Sieverding thought staff's meeting with Ms. Cummings had been very
helpful , and he hoped for a continuing series of meetings with the Codes
& Administration committee in developing the zoning recommendations .
Mr. Holdsworth asked if Cornell has made a commitment to the Performing Arts
Center yet. Mr. Sieverding said such a commitment was necessary for a
successful UDAG application and he had sent a draft to Cornell of. the type
of letter HUD/UDAG `would require.
Ms. Cummings departed for another meeting, stating it was her understanding
that discussion on streamlining Board procedures in zoning appeals hearings
would continue beyond this meeting..
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - October 26, 1982 3.
ARC ratings: STERPDB',s relative ratings for the Rothschilds, Collegetown
and West End projects were announced. Z:hore is probably only enough money
to fund about 3 projects and 20 have applied. Thus, Collegetown and West
End can be effectively ruled out. The Rothschilds application depends on
a commitment by Allied in the next 2 months.
7. ZONING APPEALS REVIEW (see attached)
8. Director's report: In Mr. Van Cort's absence, Mr. Sieverding presented
Mr. Meigs memo on streamlining zoning appeals cases. He stressed the
underlying rationale in the memo was that 'zoning is the legal tool for
implementing land use planning, ' towards which end staff has made a number
of recommendations that should concentrate appeals hearings on planning
issues. Most of the discussion of the recommendations centered on #4--
that. a committee meet to recommend to the Board, and #5--greater reliance
on staff.
Committee_meetings. Reasons presented in favor of this approach were:
1 current meetings on difficult appeals have somewhat streamlined the
Board's work; as have meetings between Mr. Rogers and staff just prior
to Board meetings; 2) all City boards work on a committee basis; 3) as
a screening group the committee could give appellant some sense of how
the Board might react to a particular appeal , helping to focus the
appellant's presentation on issues relevant to the Board's decision.
Reasons against this recommendation were: 1) increases number of meetings
for Board members 2) meetings must take place shortly before the Board
meeting if information is to be current and if all Board members are to
have a chance for committee input; this increases problems with Board
members ' time.
It was proposed that specific questions Board members have on appea-ls
be forwarded to Mr. Meigs before rather than at the Board meeting. No
decision was reached about having committee meetings.
Greater reliance on staff. Mr. Holdsworth was in favor of staff
deciding on routine appeals. Mr. Sieverding believed that this would
put staff in the problematic position of making judgments of public
access to the Board.
Board members were in agreement that staff should be relied upon to a
greater extent. It was suggested that staff recommendations be one of
the first items in hearing each case. If cases are clearcut to staff
then no time should be wasted by the,.Board in coming to a vote (after
allowing proper public input)--this is especially true in cases where
the staff recommends approval (Sampson) . It was further suggested that
appeals be taken in blocks, routine appeals going first, rather than
the current system of order of filing. The appeals under consideration
which staff felt should clearly be 'approved would be announced, and
all present would be asked if they had any objections to these appeals
being passed, (Holdsworth, Sampson) .
Other time-saving devices considered were asking public wishing to speak
to make known i;n writing their comments or that they plan to appear. This
was felt unworkable in two respects: 1) the notification process would
not allow time for any public outside the 200-ft radius notification of
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - October 26, 1982 4.
property owners time to submit written notice of their appearance; and
2) that this excludes comment from the illiterate or those who have
difficulties communicating in writing. An alternative offered was to
canvas all people wishing to speak, on the appeal at the time the appeal
is heard, and set a time limit on their presentations (and appellants
comments) .
Mr. Holdsworth reiterated his belief that the BZA should take up both
parts of the zoning appeals process ; alternately, he felt that cases
being argued on hardship or practical difficulties should skip the Planning
Board hearing. Staff objected that this does not allow for an appropriate
review of planning issues by the Board--nab only in respect to the individual.
cases, but in seeing longrange problems with a neighborhood or a particular
requirement, such as parking, that may have to be addressed in revised
zoning. Planning arises from these individual cases. Mr. Moran pointed
out that an existant problem with absentee. landlords would be exacerbated
if it were not for the Board's ability to have input on variance requests .
He thought removing the appeals process from the Planning Board would have
an adverse effect on town/gown relationships as well .
Mr. Rogers stated that before coming on the Board it was his feeling that
just because public did not show up to comment on a variance, this did not
mean that recommending the variance be granted would not be detrimental to
the neighborhood. However, as the meetings go, he now finds he is more
impressed with neighborhood impact when- there is a strong showing of the public.
Many Board members felt removing zoning appeals-from the--Board would lead
to less public input: `
Mr. Sampson felt that the Board should not dispense with the readings
of letters and petitions as recommended in #3. He felt an exception
might be made if all such comments were in favor of the appeal .
It was ' decided that a number of these recommendations should be tried
at the next and following meetings. Specifically recommendations
#1, #2, and #5. As well , the following would be tried: submitting
questions to Mr. Meigs before the night of the meeting; ruling in a block on
routine appeals that staff recommends approval on; setting time limits ;
asking for staff recommendations earlier in the hearing process on each
individual appeal .
9. Staffresorts: None.
10. Old business: Was covered under committee reports.
11 New business: Subdivision of parcel across from Cascadilla St. from
Purity Ice Cream--preliminary ,approval requested. Staff recommends in
favor. Mr. Holdsworth moved, seconded by Mr. Moran, to grant preliminary
approval . Motion carried unanimously, 4-0. Subdivision will be advertised
for public hearing at the beginning of the next Board meeting, when Board
will -rule on final approval . -
12. Adjournment: Motion was made and meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.
ti
Note: The November meeting of the Board will be held on November 30,
1982 (the 5th Tuesday).
ZONING APPEALS
October 26, 1982
APPEAL 1471:
Appeal of the Estate of J, B. Palmer for Area Variances for deficiencies
in lot size, lot width, front yard, and one side yard, to permit continued
use of an efficiency apartment which was constructed without a building
permit at 969 E. State St. The property is in an R-lb district, in which
use as a two-family dwelling is permitted; however, appellant must obtain
variances for the deficiencies before a Certificate of Compliance can be
issued.
Dirk Galbraith, law partner of Ms. Holmberg, who is executrix of the estate
appeared with Mrs. Alice Rupert, mother of the deceased, on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Same as listed in Sept. minutes.
Appellant comment: Appellant feels deficiencies are minimal . They are presenting
new information consisting of a list of 19 recent variances in the area:
15 of which were approved and 4 denied. Appellant is claiming that this Board
has favored such variances in the past and should therefore recommend
approval of this one. Mr. Galbraith also called attention to the findings
of fact by the BZA in their October decision (Appeal 1468: denied for lack
of 4 affirmative votes, 2-2-1. )
Board comment: Discussion of various points raised last month (see attached) :
number of occupants allowed, parking available, etc. Mr. Sampson felt the
thrust of this appeal is hardship, which is the province of the BZA.
Public comment: ,--Susan Smithson, 971 E. State,St. , adjacent, spoke in opposition.
She realizes tTe property has practical difficulties , however, she does
not find the deficiencies "minimal ". The appellant's house and lot were
constructed as single-family and the existing neighborhood is mainly single-
family. She is worried about possible increased density, and the parking
situation.
Vivian Laube, 108 Water St. , spoke in opposition. She felt the asking price
for the property was unrealistically high. She spoke of the deterioration
of neighborhood standards due to its proximity to Collegetown, and said
that the last zoning change was sought to halt any further such deterioration.
Andrew Ramage, 964 E. State, spoke in opposition. He felt the parking
spaces on the site were inadequate in size. He said the neighborhood was
not designed as 2-family; that "quasi-legal " conversions keep getting
approved and he does not want this trend of creeping conversion to continue.
He cited a problem with absentee landlords in the neighborhood, saying this
leads to a lack of enforcement of regulations and-to poor maintenance,
Jane Cullinn s, 973 E. State St. challenged the new information presented
listing 19 variances. She said the inference that they were related to
this appeal was incorrect. She had studied these appeals: two were
for commercial properties.,; others involved a Jacuzzi structure and carports,
five were for single-family use, etc, She felt only one was similar: a
2-family basement conversion on Dryden Road, which she felt was a rather
different neighborhood.
Mr. Galbraith responded he felt 5 were similar.
Zoning Appeals October 26, 1982 2.
Further board comment: Mr. Rogers thought that even if :a previous pattern in
approving such conversions exists, that is not sufficient reason to approve
this one. The Board has a responsibility to look at the long-range issues
and to address and correct a trend in conversions if needed.
Mr. Holdsworth asked what the rationale was behind various area requirements .
Mr. Sieverding. replied they were primarily related to function, kind of
occupancy and the number occupying. Size of dwelling was less important
than density of occupancy.
Mr. Holdsworth asked what 2-family dwellings are in the neighborhood. There
are none immediately adjacent. The nearest is a multiple residence 3 houses
downhill .
Staff recommendation: Denial , as appeal is essentially same as last September's.
Motion: By Mr.` Sampson to recommend DENIAL, sceonded by Mr. Holdsworth. Motion
carried unanimously, 4-0.
Mr. Holdsworth noted he didn't see any additional evidence presented. Both
he and Mr. Sampson stressed their decision was based on neighborhood impact
and planning issues, not on hardship.
Mr. Rogers directed that for the BZA meeting verfication that there are 2 legal
parking spaces on property,