Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-04-24 Planning & Development Board Minutes. April 24, 1984 7:30 p.m. - Common Council Chambers PRESENT: Chairman I. Kramnick, M. Sampson, S. Blumenthal, H. Gerkin, S. Jackson, R. Romanowski ALSO: Appellants, Appellants' Representatives, Press, Other interested parties 1. Call to Order: Chairman Kramnick called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. (Romanowski arrived after session was under way because of a conflict with Human Services meeting and, therefore, the vote on the zoning appeals re- flect 5 opinions while voting on the later issues reflect 6 opinions.) 2. Special Order of Business: Public Hearing for Final Approval of Sub- division (209 W. State St.) On a motion by Sampson, seconded by Gerkin, the Board moved unanimously to open the Public Hearing. Since there was no one present from the public to address the issue, Sampson moved and Blumenthal seconded a motion to close the Public Hearing. PASSED UNANI- MOUSLY. The matter of final approval was delayed until further in the meeting. Zoning appeals cases where then presented. 3. Zoning Appeals: See attached. 4. Approval of Minutes: Sampson, seconded by Gerkin, approved March Minutes. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Chairman's Reports: a) Cornell-City Relations. Chairman Kramnick said that a small group would be meeting monthly (Kramnick, Cummings, Van Cort, Mayor Gutenberger, Vice Presidents Herbster, Gurowitz and Matyas) . They have met twice; decided at first meeting to meet monthly. Second meeting was very fruit- ful and useful discussion ensued regarding housing in Ithaca. A detailed presentation by Kathe Evans of the Planning staff was given on the housing situation.. Next meeting will be in June. He believes the group is learning a great deal from each other. b) Operating Procedures. Kramnick, CLrami:ngs, and Sampson have now met twice to screen zoning appeals before the monthly meeting. There was only one appeal they decided did not need discussion. That may have been atypical perhaps due to Collegetown issue since many appeals were from that area. If Board accepts responsibility for playing larger role for development of ideas and program for future '(per suggestions in Marcham report) , it is clear to all that Board cannot do everything in the way they are attempting to do it now. Four areas are currently covered in monthly meetings: zoning appeals (taking up most amount of time) , 'crisis of the moment' , subdivisions, and long-range planning and development. Some solutions need to be worked out. -2- One possible solution is, to give up zoning appeals and abdicate from making recommendations to the BZA except in rare cases where Board may want to make a recommendation. Members could attempt to speed up appeal procedures; everyone tires in prolonged meetings. Perhaps a time limit should be set. Another solution might be a second meeting per month, that is, divide functions into two meetings per month. This would allow more time for long-range planning. This then raises issue of intensify- ing the burden which is already so great on the staff. Everyone has many obligations to attend meetings. Sampson suggested a semi-monthly meeting to discuss long-term planning only. Gerkin feels zoning appeals are very important; long-range planning needs to be addressed also. Chairman Kramnick mentioned enhanced Committee functions where some of these matters are worked out but this also raises the issue of staff time. Addressing question of staff time, Director Van Cort said Committee approach would be less burdensome than extra meeting per month. A Committee meet- ing would be more efficient. Jackson endorsed use of committees as much as possible. Blumenthal questioned where do short-range items fit into schedule? Kramnick suggested a core item for each meeting with the add- ition of secondary items as time allows. Committee meetings would be publicized and Committee would make report to Board for action. Director Van Cort said committees should check with Board before an item is dis- cussed. An up-dated Master Plan is needed; it will take a great deal of staff time and funding. Jackson stated Advisory Boards could work on major projects. Director Van Cort questioned whether citizens' groups can produce plans, suggesting that production of reports almost always falls back to staff for completion. After lengthy discussion it was decided to have an extra meeting to discuss Board's future. Blumenthal, seconded by Jackson, recommended an additional meeting to discuss Board's future in respect to Marcham report. Finally, date for this meeting was set for June 12, 1984, 7:00 p.m. , at Chairman Kramnick's residence (125 Kelvin Place) . Also, it was suggested that members hold open the date of July 10, 1984 for the next possible special meeting date. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Kramnick said he was asked by Susan CLmraings to fix Planning and Development Board meeting night as the 4th Tuesday of each month, not the last Tuesday. Problem arises when there are five Tuesdays in the month as it does in May 1984. Therefore, fourth Tuesday for Planning and Develop- ment Board meetings was decided on. 6. Committee Reports: a) Stewart Park. Blumenthal presented report on the proposed improvements to the Park. She distributed a map and indicated four areas of park desig- nated for improvements: lake shore itself which we commonly think of as the Park; bird sanctuary; golf course; and biological field station owned by Cornell. An advisory group of about 15 people have been meeting monthly. Plans now include enhancement and improvement of picnic area; realignment of parking and road system; trail development; restoration of buildings; and improved water access with the possible addition of swimming. A petting -3- zoo was also mentioned as a replacement for the present zoo in the Park. A public meeting was underway at Ithaca High School at the same time the Planning Board was meeting. At that gathering a questionnaire was dis- tributed to canvass public opinion as to priorities, use of .park facilities, etc. b) Economic and Development Committee. A report frau Jackson indicated that Committee recently discussed two topics: 1) request frau Mayor that Planning and Development Board consider making recommendation on the sale of six City-owned parcels. City has no policy for covering which parcels to sell or which to retain. Corporate Counsel and others will formulate a draft policy which they hope to have within one month and then determine how all City parcels would fit into that policy. 2) Also discussed was the role of the Planning and Development Board in relation to Mayor's T.E.D.I. Committee. This could be an item for discussion at special June meeting. 7. Old Business: Family Medicine Subdivision. Subdivision has been advertised. Director Van Cort and Jackson met to discuss issue. As a condition of 'sale, the doctors are willing to consider a provision in the mortgage which would require them to continue a successor to Medicaid program on the same basis as their present Medicaid participation. Formal purchase offer from doctors is forthcoming. To effectuate sale, land must be subdivided_ from City-owned parking lot which is part of same parcel. There is no zoning problem. Final approval will be based on contingency that a survey will be made. There will be 15 parking spaces; adequate parking for the doctors' practice (based on sq. ft. of building) . Jackson would like to see final details of sale before granting final approval. Jackson made motion to table this matter. Director Van Cort said City wants to keep public park- ing -and has imposed that as condition of sale. No. second. Romanowski, seconded by Gerkin, moved to approve subdivision. PASSED - 4 yea, l nay (Jackson) , 1 abstension (Blumenthal) . Valentine--Quarry. Issue will be discussed at May meeting. Codes and Admin- istration Committee and Neighborhood, Housing and Facilities Committee will meet between now and May 22 to discuss the FEIS. Meeting date was set for May 16, 1984, 3:30 p.m. 8. New Business: Sears St. Rezoning: Chairman Kramnick stated Board has been requested to make a recommendation to Common Council .regarding rezoning of Sears St. frau R-3 to R-2 zone. Francie Viggiani appeared and spoke for Cascadilla Creek Neighborhood Association. A petition was signed by over 60 individuals in support of rezoning. Ms. Viggiani indicated boundaries of area and said residents there are concerned about demolition of properties and the deter- iorating conditions there. Group met this spring because they heard that two houses .owned by same property owner might be demolished as well as other houses owned by same individual. Tom Shelley of 118 E. Court St. also appeared; stated he was concerned with crime, vandalism, lack of services, and deter- ioration. Major concern of people opposed to creation of Court House special w A -4- use zone in 1980 was the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Esther Spielman, 123 Cascadilla St. , appeared and spoke in support of Cascadilla Creek Neighborhood Association; said she, too, has seen neighborhood change from residential area containing family units to student housing. She is concerned with many automobiles in neighborhood, roudiness, crime, break-ins, and disappearing neighborhood. Director Van Cort pointed out a slight technical error in the des- cription of the area to be rezoned. Parcels #49-2-11 and #49-2-12 were inadvertently omitted from part of notification which describes area. Corporate Attorney said that because we do have a map and a description of area to be rezoned that it should not be a problem. Planning and Development Board can act on recommendation at this meeting. A letter from Attorney Norman Freeman, 124 E. Court St. , was referred to. He requested that three properties be allowed to retain their R-3 zoning since they have not been 1 or 2 family residences for over 20 years. They would be an R-3 buffer between East Court St. and the re- zoned balance of. Sears St. Andrea Lazarski offered comments regarding area. It is a mix of residential, multiple use, and offices. An R-3 zone allows medical and dental offices. An R-2 zone would mean no additional offices could be added. After some discussion by Board members, Jackson, seconded by Blumenthal, recommended to Common. Council rezoning of Sears Street from R-3 to R-2. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Tops/Ufair Subdivision. Request from owners of Tops Plaza to divide property into three parcels for their own economic reasons. Original subdivision approval had been conditioned on requirements for land- scaping, limitation of access to/from Meadow Street to one point, and___ certain internal circulation requirements to be met. Some requirements-_have been met, some have not. Discussion followed whether it is feasible to grant preliminary approval now before all requirements have been satisfied. Sampson moved to grant. preliminary approval but after discussion regarding Board's right to enforce terms of subdivision, he withdrew the motion. Romanowski, seconded by Gerkin, movEd to table this issue for further study and discussion by staff. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. PLANNING , & DEVELOPMENT BOARD — ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April: 24 ,: 1984 : APPEAL 1553 , 217 Second St. : This appeal for Use and Area variances for deficient front yard setback, to permit use of house as a day care center plus residential unit, and the vacant lot at 218 Second St. for a parking lot was discussed at March meeting. The day care center use was approved and parking lot issue deferred pending fur- ther study. APPELLANT COMMENT: Stephen Blaise of Leathers architectural firm spoke for Mr. Martin. He presented a new parking proposal which would add 20 spaces (5 more spaces than previous plan) ; one curb cut; preserve an existing tree to add attractiveness to area; a fenced-in play area; and landscaping to screen park- ing area from houses on Second St. He spoke regarding Appeal 1558 as, well. The addition of 1500 sq. ft. of space to gym would allow exercise equipment to be added and make facility more commodius for safe operation of machinery. In no way would character of neighborhood be affected by mezzanine add- ition since it is contained within the building. A letter was read from neighbor, Patricia Morris, 213 Second St., indicating her support of construction of a 'tasteful parking lot to ease the parking problem' . Some neighbors signed a petition opposing the parking lot. They indicated that five additional spaces was only a dent in the problem. PUBLIC COMMENT: James Hardesty spoke in opposition to parking lot and urged Mr. Martin to work with. neighbors to resolve problem. He supports the Center as a neighborhood resource, , supports the mezzanine proposal but would like to use some better arrangement for parking; i .e. , an agreement with Hancock Plaza, etc. Raymond Schlather, First Ward Alderman, again raised questions about new parking proposal. He indicated that neighbors were not informed of new plan. He referred to nine points he raised regarding Center at March meeting. Membership should be held at 2, 000; amenity must be preserved. He suggested tabling motion once again. Frank Smithson, Esq. , spoke in favor of parking proposal. He urged that motion not be tabled. He agreed that five additional spaces, though not a large number, was a step in the right direction. Mr. Robert Martin agreed to hold membership to 2,000 members and to continue to work with neighbors on parking problems. zoning Appeals Minutes of 4/24/84 -2- (continued) 2-(continued) BOARD COMMENT: Director Van Cort summarized appeals 1553 and 1558 . Appellant wishes to extend parking around building at 119 Third St. and is requesting permit to add to existing gym. The Planning Dept. requested statistics of APA regarding park- ing and a summary of that information was given .to Board by Director Van Cort. Discussion followed regarding the play area in the new plan for the day care center, the green space, and the landscaping in an effort to preserve amenity. Mr. Martin agrees to limit membership; everything that neighbors view will be landscaped. He suggested the possibility of parking on one side of the street only (the Center side) and .leaving the opposite side (the residence side) free of vehicles . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Analysis is same as last month's; grant relief sought. MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Sampson, recommended approval . of 1553 with three conditions: that Mr. Martin meet once again with neighbors (pro and con) to work on solution to parking problems; to hold membership to 2., 000; and to have Planning Board continue to work with Mr. Martin regarding parking problems. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MOTION: #1558 (mezzanine addition within gym) . Jackson, seconded by Gerkin, recommended approval. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. APPEAL 1559, 323-329 College Ave. : Appeal of Turk to permit addition of 2 floors of 4 apartments. each to the 1-story building was also discussed at March meeting. It was deferred because of incorrect information. to Board. Director. Van Cort indicated strong approval of 2-story addition by staff. APPELLANT COMMENT Mr. Turk presented case and distributed sketches of proposed addition. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Sampson questioned number of occupants and size of bedrooms. Mr. Turk said there would be 9 bedrooms per floor each containing 2 beds. Jackson commented this would again add to parking problem in Collegetown. Director Van Cort said Collegetown parking will never be solved by onsite parking spaces. It must be solved in some other way. Blumenthal com- mented on facade and windows. Architect Boechlecke spoke re- garding his preliminary sketches; he is working with Raymond DiPasquale on design; plans will go to Design Review Board upon completion. Jackson, again concerned with parking, said he does not want to allow more development until parking issue is settled. Zoning Appeals Minutes of 4/24/84 (continued) -3^ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Same analysis as last month' s; grant relief sought. MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Gerkin, moved to make no recommendation to BZA but to state this was a good project and was good use of space. Director Van Cort indicated that BZA does not like Planning Board to pass appeals on to them without a decision. Motion DEFEATED 2 yea, 3 nay (Blumenthal, Sampson,. Kramnick) MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Gerkin, recommended denial. .OVERTURNED - 2 yea, 3 nay (Blumenthal, Sampson, Kramnick) MOTION: Kramnick, seconded by Sampson, recommended approval. Motion PASSED by majority of members present. 3 yea, 2 nay (Jackson, Gerkin) * APPEAL 1561, 119 Irving Place: Appeal of Wallace to permit addition of a patio with grape arbor in one of three front yards at 119 Irving Pl. APPELLANT COMMENT: Appellant Wallace appeared. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. MOTION: Sampson, seconded by Jackson, moved to grant appeal. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. APPEAL 1562, 301 S. Geneva St. : Appeal of INHS to permit moving a building from 114 W. Clinton St. to 301 S . Geneva St. (former Henry St. John building) . Twelve apartments to be constructed in the residence. APPELLANT COMMENT: Andrea Lazarski appeared for INNS House Recycling Program. Referring to map, she explained procedure for moving house and placement on 301 S. Geneva St. lot. It would preserve an existing structure and provide 12 units after renovation for rental. Ms. Lazarski said neighbors had been apprised of proposal by mailings and phone contacts. * It was noted that while a 3-2 vote does not constitute a Board action because it fails to have 4 affirmative votes, the above count of 3 to 2 would nonetheless be relayed to BZA as a sense of the Board. Zoning Appeals Minutes of 4/24/84 -4- (continued) BOARD DISCUSSION: Sampson questioned .if there would be income restrictions on new tenants and/or target area restriction. He further questioned if present tenants would be allowed to stay in property. Ms. Lazarski responded that present tenants could continue to live in property and INNS rental rehab pro-- gram rules of tenancy would apply to new residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, orienting house to face street, MOTION: Sampson, seconded by Gerkin., moved to approve. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. APPEAL 1563 , 618 W. State St. : Appeal of B & W Supply Company to permit 1-story addition to front and east sides of building. APPELLANT COMMENT: Hoyt Benjamin, owner of B , & W Supply Company appeared. He cited reason for addition was lack of showroom space for business. He presented architect' s drawing of pro- posed addition. A 50% increase in showroom space would justify expense of addition. His business is not very. visible at present. Cullen (an adjacent business) will grant life-time right-of-way to entrance for off-street loading and parking to lot in rear. Plan would add one more parking place at curb since curb cut would be eliminated. Construction would be fire proof . Plan allows for an alley for maintenance/access. He presented six letters from neighborning businesses in support of his proposed addition. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mark Metzgar, owner of AM-PM Convenience Store, spoke in favor of proposal. BOARD DISCUSSION: Blumenthal questioned the appearance of addition, specifically windows and facade. Gerkin asked about reason for blocking off walkway. Hoyt' s response was because of theft of merchandise from premises experienced in the past. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff was split on their recommendation; Mr. Meigs recommended denial because of parking shortfall and increased reliance on on-street space for customers. Director Van Cort recommended approval of the addition. MOTION: Sampson, seconded by Jackson, recommended approval. PASSED 4 yea, 1 nay (Blumenthal) APPEAL 1564 , 321 College Ave. ; Appeal of Schaufler to permit addition of second floor with mezzanine. A similar proposal (,Appeal 1555) dis- cussed in March, was passed to BZA without recommendation, due to parking concerns, and subsequently denied, Zoning Appeals Minutes of 4/24/84 -5- (continued) APPELLANT COMMENT: David Taube appeared for Schaufler and cited numerous properties in proximity that are about the same size and height. He addressed the parking problem and the fact that various City Committees were discussing this issue. Planning is encouraging the development of under- utilized parcels in Collegetown in order to help prevent sprawl. It will be an attractive addition to community and will not substantially impact on community. PUBLIC COMMENT: Edward Mazza, Esq. , appeared in favor of appeal. He stated that Dunbar's .in Collegetown was given variance in similar situation for 5-story structure. A letter from Jason Fane was presented also favoring proposal. BOARD DISCUSSION: Jackson stated his objection again that it is a good project but parking problem still exists and Board should not encourage more development until parking issue is resolved. Director Van Cort stated this project has gone to Design Review Board and they were most favorable toward it STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve.. MOTION: Kramnick, seconded by Blumenthal, moved to approve. PASSED by majority of members present - 3 yea, 2 nay (Jackson, Gerkin)