Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-05-29 Planning & Development Board Minutes May 29, 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 :35 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes: Jackson requested two corrections to April 1984 Minutes. In item 5-b) , the name of 'Blumenthal ' should replace the name 'Cummings ' . He also wished to have the preliminary vote under item 7 - Family Medicine Sub- division added to the Minutes. This raised a procedural question as to whether only final votes should be recorded. It was decided that the final vote as recorded was correct. Romanowski, seconded by Sampson, MOVED to approve Minutes. Vote: 5-yea, 1-nay (Jackson) - CARRIED. 3 . Committee Reports: Valentine-Quarry FEIS Codes and Administration/Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities Committees report regarding Valentine Place-Quarry FEIS was presented by Blumenthal. She reported that she and Chairman Kramnick met with Director Van Cort and two members of the neighborhood. Residents presented arguments for retaining , ' R-3 zoning on Valentine Place and State Street if the Valentine Associates parcel was rezoned R-3 . After discussion, the committee representatives agreed to recommend to Council the limiting of development on the parcel to 30 occupants. The Committee recommended that the development would be most desirable in a cluster configuration because of reduced environ- mental impact; They endeavored to take into account the feelings of the neighborhood residents. This would allow development to occur in one or two structures, or row housing, but to restrict occupancy to 30 people. Also, they recommended that the rest of the parcel be rezoned R-lb as other committees have recommended. Sampson asked if Ithacare was included in rezoning. He said Ithacare has decided to add a health care facility to the property which is permitted under R-3 but not permitted under R-1, R-2 or P-1. Director Van Cort said Ithacare is not in- cluded. Jackson said Valentine Place raises four issues: 1) preserving neighborhood (a fragile mix) ; 2) prospect of building more housing; 3) prospect of economic development and jobs in the construction industry; 4) preserving environment of creek area. -2- Question of how much new housing is needed remains to be studied and proven. New Jobs in construction could be created by improving existing stock instead of new building. Preservation of creek area is very important and he would be inclined to re- ject any new construction. Neighborhood which is a mix of .students and single family owners could sustain some additional single family houses and density but not an overwhelming amount. He would be in favor of an R-3 contract zoning approach in which a 'no-build' area would be designated; group or concentrate the housing, and alloW no more than 24 beds in the housing develop- ment based on theYA single family homes that could be put in under the FEIS in an R-1 zoning. Jackson would like to amend Committee ' s proposal to strike the number of 30 and replace it with 24 (occupants) . Blumenthal moved, seconded by Kramnick, that the .Committees ' recommendation be approved. After discussion, Jackson moved to amend recommendation to indicate 24 occupants instead of 30. Seconded by Gerkin. Discussion followed regarding the reasons for lowering number. Reasons listed were the feeling of the neighborhood regarding density and the limit as mentioned in the FEIS (8 single family homes with 3 members each) . This seemed to be the maximum number that would keep neighborhood unchanged as to the character and quality. Motion as amended would read: Valentine Place neighborhood would be rezoned to R-lb and that the development area be zoned R�''with a contract restriction ` 4 to no more than 24 inhabitant Vote: 3-yea, 3-nay (Blumenthal, Sampson, Kramnick) . Original recommendation was then voted on: Valentine Place rezoned to R-lb, development area rezoned to R-3 , contract restriction to 30 inhabitants. 3-yea, 3-nay (.Jackson, Romanowski, Gerkin) . Alternative motion was made by Gerkin to rezone entire area R-lb. No second. As result of split decision, NO RECOMMENDATION was made to Common Council. 4 . Staff Reports: a) Helen Jones reported that City and Town staff have been talk- ing about possible cooperative development of recreational areas. Town is working on a comprehensive recreation and open-space plan. In the plan, a number of sites have been designated within the Town, e.g. , West Hill site, Coy Glen area, Lick Brook area, Inlet Valley area. Town has firmed up plans for the Inlet Valley area. It is a special natural site which lends itself very well to development for recreational use. It contains about 25 acres. Proposal will be taken to the Town Board for approval. They intend to make application to the New York State Parks for funding. At the same time, the City has been looking at the parcel of land on the west side of Cayuga Inlet Island which the city bought with federal recreation funds, as part of the land pur- chased for Cass Park. No recreational use was proposed at the time, nor does a need appear to exist now. Conversely, studies done for the city indicate that the property would be more valuable -3- to the city in revenue-producing uses. This means taking that land out of recreational use designation and making it available for private development. City is also discussing the possibility of taking Southwest Park, which was purchased with State restor- ation funds, and making it available for private development. This land is designated for recreation, but it is stony and grass cultivation is difficult making it unusable at present. West End property is very much underutilized; only partly used by Farmers Market. It should be noted that Farmers Market is a valuable asset to the city. However, such limited use of this parcel by . the Market (i.e. , for a few hours each week and for a few months - - - each year) would suggest that this �,may not be the highest and best use of the land. - In order to alienate those parcels, whose use is presently restricted to recreation, due to the sources of funds used in their acquisition, the city would have to provide substitute land of equal recreational value. They have had limited success in look- ing for substitute land. The floodway property of 30 acres or so has been considered; there is a slight risk of flooding but area is not appropriate for most types. of development. It _would be good for ball fields. To alienate Southwest Park and the West End, between 57-60 acres would be needed. The Town parcel and the floodway parcel together would come to almost. 60 acres to meet the need. A joint effort has several advantages - by combining the effort, we would have a much stronger application _to State Parks; it would increase our ability to acquire property and also develop it. If city can purchase the land and have town develop the site, that would be viewed favorably by State Parks. Helen Jones said members of staff from city and town and representatives of State Parks will meet to review this plan. She believes it will be more strongly received because of the joint nature of the application. Gerkin asked how accessible this land would be for recreational use. Helen said it would be accessible from Route 13 along planned bikeway and should be easily accessible. Chairman Kramnick suggested that two Committees of Board be designated to consider this plan; namely, Economic Development and Transportation and Human and Cul- tural Resources. They will meet with Helen Jones and report back to Board concerning a recommendation to Council. b) CD Application: Glenn Goldwyn, Community Development Adminis- trator, addressed the Board. The CD application is on a very accelerated schedule because HUD informed City in mid-April that application is due in July. Two or three meetings per week have been held since then with a succession of Committees to discuss application and requests from various agencies, etc . Glenn said city has received CD funds since 1975; this year is different from others in that application is for a single fiscal year rather than a 3-year cycle. $750, 000 in funding is requested this year. A significant change this year is the proposed expansion of target area; that portion of the city which includes the highest per- centage of low-to-moderate income families, highest percentage of deteriorated housing and highest percentage of identified CD needs. Expanded target area was determined through staff 4- analysis of census information.- Process included extensive in- volvement with Citizens Advisory Committee. On May 8 , 1984 CAC held its first public hearing for this application and received proposals in the amount of $1. 7 million dollars. Committee ranks proposals without specifying a dollar amount; they serve as rep- resentatives of a wide variety of constituencies in the city. Their role is to analYze CD needs of the city and frame recommenda- tions to the IURA. They were asked to rank requests as having maximum, moderate o low impact of Ithaca' s CD needs. Six out lems s of first seven/ nvo ve housing programs administered by INHS . Glenn outlined other proposals as listed in handout sheet ex- plaining briefly their requests and implication for city ' s needs. IURA reviewed requests and adopted a proposed budget. Board members asked questions about various items such as the category of code enforcement; Challenge Industries handicapped accessibility; GIAC day care room expansion; and Southside Center. Jackson asked how needs were identified. Mr. Goldwyn said through proposal application and through advisory committee themselves. Board discussed the reasons for accelerated application deadline and when next round would be held. If there is another round, it will be sometime in 1985, providing funds are still available. Jackson asked if dollar amounts were staff decision. Goldwyn said amounts were negotiated through discussions, putting goals together, and balancing housing needs administered through INHS and other community needs. Romanowski, seconded by Sampson, moved to recommend approval to Common Council. A proposed resolution was distributed. Chairman Kramnick stated that he somewhat resented having to vote on motion when he received no prior information relating to this topic. Jackson said he would abstain from voting on those grounds. Sampson said there were open, advertised meetings which anyone could .have attended to apprise themselves of details . Romanowski noted that he had contacted CD staff for additional information. Board, other than Sampson and Romanowski, was not aware of their role in process. Vote: 5-yea, 1-abstension (Jackson) . 5. Accessory Apartments Ordinance: Blumenthal reported that the Codes and Administration Committee and Carol Chock met to discuss proposed ordinance. Carol gave brief presentation at that meeting. Committee decided proposed ordinance was sound; they had 5 or 6 recommendations for additions to improve ordinance. Carol Chock stated the idea of the ordinance is to enable the moderate income home-owner; to be able to convert his or her home. to contain a small apartment (small in compar- ison to the rest of the house) . It would provide additional income, security, and would encourage owner-occupancy of properties which would counter the trend towards speculation and absentee landlords. Ordinance would be strict in keying -5- permission to owner-occupancy. Ordinance is an attempt to retain control over increasing number of illegal conversions. Owner would request a temporary permit, issued for a three- year period. Information regarding proposed ordinance was distributed to Board prior to this meeting. Objections raised were: property values - adding value to homes and raising tax assessment slightly; increased density in neighborhood; slight increase in traffic; changing character of neighbor- hood with increased density (countered by owner-occupancy) ; possible long-term speculation that might be difficult to control regarding re-sale. Penalties for violation of ordin- ance were discussed. City presently has relatively low penalty for violations; this should be raised to make :it more effective. This item should not have an effect on proposed ordinance be- fore the Board. It was decided to address this under New Business. Carol added that she would work on an information sheet to be given to home-owners inquiring about possible apartment addition to their homes. A mechanism to review long- term effects should be devised, possibly every five years, to determine effects on neighborhoods. Gerkin asked if conversions could be limited. Carol said she did not believe there would be an overwhelming demand in any one neighborhood. Blumenthal , seconded by Sampson moved to recommend to Common Council approval of Accessory Apartment Ordinance as compiled thus far. Vote 5-yea, 1-abstension (Gerkin) . MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: Jackson, seconded by Blumenthal, endorsed the increase of fines for violation of apartment ordinance. Vote: 6-0 . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Old Business: Tops Subdivision. M. John Sherman, Esq. appeased on behalf of' Tops Corporation regarding the pending conditional approval for subdivision. He listed the concerns according to letter written by Jon Meigs to O'Connor, Sovocool, et al . as; 1) access to present store complex from S . Meadow will remain as is. (Mr. Sherman said this is agreed to; will. not present a problem. ) 2) Assurance that signage will remain the same; a single free- standing sign .for the whole and appropriate building signs for individual tenants. (Mr. Sherman also agreed to signage requirement.) 3) Assurance that provision for vehicular circulation across proposed property lines will be retained. (Mr. Sherman said this was already taken care of and will be made a part of the Deeds.) 4) Assurance that vehicular access between Tops and Garage de France will be provided and kept unobstructed. (Mr. Sherman -6- said Garage de France has erected a barrier which is completely out of Tops control. He requested assistance of City and whoever , has enforcement power to enforce stipulation.) 5) Action to improve appearance of property through land- scaping. (Mr. Sherman stated they have tried repeatedly. to plant area will little success due to damp conditions. He requested help from Planning Department to suggest plantings that will survive in the environment found at the site. ) Director Van Cort stated staff recommended approval originally for the subdivision and stands by that recommendation now. Final approval can be conditioned on improvements. Romanowski, seconded by Sampson, moved to recommend conditional approval. Vote 6-0 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Administrative Matters : Committee Memberships. Clarification of Committee membership was discussed. It was finally agreed on the following: Codes & Administration Kramnick, Blumenthal, Sampson Neighborhoods, Housing & Facilities Blumenthal, Romanowski, Kramnick Economic Development . & Transportation Jackson, Gerkin, Blumenthal Human & Cultural Resources Sampson, Jackson, Moran Adjournment at 11:50 p.m. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 29, 1984 : APPEAL #1566 - 226-30 Dyrden Rd. : Appeal of Cascadilla School for deficient setbacks for one side yard and the rear yard to permit conversion of the existing structure at 226-30 Dryden Rd. to a dormitory and school . Property is in a R-3,a district where proposed used is permitted. Appellant Comment: The school was represented by George Patte, Esq. as well as John Kendall, President of the Board of Trustees for Cascadilla School. This high school has been in the community for 100 years according to Mr. Kendall . He has been involved with it since 1946 . He now wishes to convert adjacent property for a dormitory facility and also allow him to open a pre-school facility in part of structure that was added on in 1967. The pre-school would be operated by his wife, a reading specialist. Dormitory usage is allowed; he estimates that 6 to 10 individuals will be housed there Parking issue was mentioned. Cascadilla school has 20 to 24 parking spaces within 500 feet (there are two other pro- perties in vicinity owned by school) . One end of house could be converted for a lecture room and auditorium with the en- trance off Summit St. Public Comment: Chris Anagnost, realtor, appeared on behalf of Paul Anderson owner of property at 315 Dryden Rd. Mr. Anderson owns 7-unit apartment house with low density occu- pancy. He feels it would be a benefit to the neighborhood to have Cascadilla School own and operate property with this type of supervised, monitored dormitory as well as operating a day care center in keeping with the type of students he wishes to rent to. He requested Board to grant variance. Board Discussion: Romanowski asked if neighbor, Mr. Rider, was informed of proposed useage of property. Mr. Kendall said Mr. Rider had no objection. Staff Recommendation: Grant relief sought. Motion: Jackson, seconded by Sampson, moved to recommend approval. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEAL #1567 328 W. Seneca St. : Appeal of E. Glascow for Area Variance for deficient off-street parking to permit use of 1 unit in the 2-unit house for a home occupation (hair cutting studio). Property is in a R-3a district where proposed use is allowed. -2- Appellant Comment: Appellant did not appear. Public Comment: None, Staff Recommendation: Grant variance subject to: a) no signage; and b) operation of use by applicant only, Board Discussion: Brief discussion followed regarding parking. It was determined this would not be a problem; many customers would be neighborhood residents. The Board then discussed topic of "home occupations" as outlined in Ordinance. Romanowski read definition from Ordinance. Home occupation variance is granted for one type of activity and would be restricted to that activity if property was sold to another party. Variance would be granted in. this instance to a home occupation of "hair cutting studio" only. Motion: Jackson, seconded by Gerkin, moved to recommend granting appeal, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY with restriction as to signage. APPEAL #1568 - 343 Elmira Rd. : Appeal .of Ithaca Moving and Storage for a Use Variance to permit extension of the business use into the rear yard to permit an addition to the rear of the building at 343 Elmira Rd. The addition and extended use would extend into the R-2a district between the Elmira Rd. B-5 district and Spencer Rd. The use is permitted in B-5 and may extend 30 feet into the R-2a use district, but not in the remainder of the R-2a zoned property. Appellant Comment: Clair Coolbaugh appeared for U-haul business. The rental company wishes to expand to include rental of tools and storage facilities to supplement in- come. The proposed addition will extend back into resi- dential section. Use of the property would remain the same. A roof would extend at the back of the building where approx- imately six trucks are parked now; mechanics would be moved to back portion of the building to service vehicles. Rental office space is presently approximately 12 ' x 30 ' and more space is desired; a new front would be constructed. Public Comment: Liz Smith, 516 Spencer Rd. , spoke regarding her concerns relating to increased traffic. A driveway at rear of U-haul is used for parking trucks. She questioned how far building would extend, whether there would be rear access, foot traffic, van traffic, garage doors , etc. Mr. Coolbaugh said front of property is in commercial zone. -3- Nine 3-Nine foot right-of-way in rear is presently used for parking but could be used for access if they desired; it is legally possible. Mr. Mauboussin, a resident of the area was also present. Raymond Schlather, 1st Ward Alderman, spoke stating the key issue here is preserving neighborhood. It is fragile, has been neglected, if not abused. Nine foot driveway is useable; trucks parked there make it unsightly. Mr. Mauboussin's property to the north has been planted with bushes and fencing has been added to shield his pro- perty from U-haul. U-haul 's addition would encroach into neighborhood adding one more step towards destruction of neighborhood. Why couldn't expansion be made in front; it would seem there is sufficient room there. Mr. Coolbaugh responded that corporation believes it is better to build in the rear of the building. still leaving 50 feet to pro- perty_line. It would be structurally difficult to add addition to front. Smith questioned what guaranty does neighborhood have that property will not be a storage area. Mr. Coolbaugh stated some outside storage of rental items is permissible. Mrs. Pluck, 577 Spencer Rd. , spoke regarding variance. She asked if increased business would mean more traffic from Spencer Rd. Director Van Cort stated that as condition of variance Board could indicate that right of way to Spencer Rd. not be allowed. Board Discussion: Jackson asked about appearance of structure. Mr. Coolbaugh said it would be block metal structure and would resemble the Century building on the Elmira Rd. Jackson asked if trees would be effected. Coolbaugh said they would not. Concerns regarding right of way were listed as ingress, egress, as well as storage on the strip. Mr. Mauboussin also mentioned fumes from vehicles and gasoline were a problem. At times he had to cease his garden work to escape odors. Gerkin stated other businesses with similar problems would request variances if this variance for encroachment was approved. Director Van Cort said any encroachment leads to further requests for encroachment. Staff Recommendation: Deny. Motion: Gerkin, seconded by Jackson, recommended denial. Romanowski said although he sympathizes with business ' s need to expand, encroachment into neighborhood is a problem x , -4- now and he feels it will increase. Because of effects on neighborhood, he will vote to deny. Request denied - CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEAL #1569 - 409 E. Lincoln St. : Appeal of G. Norkus for Area Variance for deficient lot size, width, and setbacks for front and side yards to permit a second-story addition over portion of house. Property is in a R-2b district where use is permitted. Appellant Comment: G. Norkus appeared and stated existing one story at back of house would be framed in on second. story to increase living space in residence. Public Comment: Donald Grover, 411 E. Lincoln St. , filed a letter with Board indicating he had reviewed plans of addition to Mr. Norkus ' house and would not object in any way. He recommended that Board grant approval for addi- tion. The communication was signed by Mr. and Mrs. Grover. Board Discussion: Blumenthal questioned exterior appearance. Norkus said it would be same as it is now with hopes of improving siding in a few years. Staff Recommendation: Grant variance. Motion: Jackson, seconded by Sampson, moved to grant appeal. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEAL #1570 .- 981 Cliff St. : Appeal of E. and. D. Austin for Area Variance for deficient lot size and front yard setback to permit addition of small apartment within one-family home. R-la district permits accessory apartment. Appellant Comment: Ed Austin, owner, appeared. He proposes to add 400 sq, ft. , 3-room apartment, separate entrance, but no exterior changes to property. It is an owner-occupied residence Public Comment: None. Board Discussion: Parking space was questioned by Romanowski. Mr. Austin. stated there are three exterior parking spaces plus garage. Director Van Cort mentioned the accessory apartment ordinance which City is considering now. It would permit such an apartment contingent upon owner-occupancy of main structure. Would Mr. Austin be opposed to this con- tingency? Mr. Austin stated he would not be opposed in any way. He is putting in apartment for protection; he and his Wife vacation each year in Florida and they are reluctant to leave the house unoccupied. -5- Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation was split. Director Van Cort was in favor of approval, contingent on owner occupancy. Meigs recommended that though property may be legally of adequate area, due to owner- ship of land in street right of way, effective area is only slightly greater than required in zone for one- family dwelling. Motion: Romanowski, seconded by Gerkin, moved to grant appeal with the condition that it be an owner-occupied residence. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.