Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-06-26 Planning & Development Board Minutes 941y 26, 1984 7 :30 p .m. Common Council Chambers : PRESENT: Chairman I. Kramnick, S . Jackson, R. Romanowski, R. Moran, H. Gerkin, M. Sampson ALSO: Appellants , Appellants ' Representatives , Press , Other interested parties . 1. Call to Order : , Chairman Kramnick called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p .m. 2. Preliminary Subdivision: Ufair Parcel 3 , adjacent to Tops - Director Van Cort gave a brief history of. parcel owned by Cornell. Some years ago, they submitted a subdivision plan and it was approved in concept. That approval was based on certain conditions , including that an easement be maintained to permit vehicular access between all the parcels to be created, and that access to Meadow Street be limited to a minimum number of curb cuts . This parcel is located on the flood plain; so flood hazard and ground water problems were addressed in the Ufair EIS . In the 1950' s , the Ufair site was preloaded for development as a shopping center. That is , dirt was stacked in a 'dumb-bell ' configuration to 'dry out ' the soil. where buildings would later go . Development so far has followed that type of configuration. The proposal made now is a departure from the earlier plans . Planning consultant, Thomas Niederkorn, appeared for Cornell University. -Parcel 3 is approximately 9 .5 acres in area and has over 460 ft . of frontage on Meadow Street. No new public roads or utility extensions are required for this subdivision but at least one curb cut on South Meadow Street will be needed. The parcel is to be used for commercial purposes with construc- tion of a supermarket by Weis Markets , Inc . of Pennsylvania. A condition of the earlier subdivision approval, the estab lishment of an interior route for vehicular traffic from one parcel to another, is intended to preserve as much as possible the traffic carrying capacity of South Meadow Street. The developers intend to reflect. this objective in site plan for Parcel 3 , providing the opportunity for a connection between Tops lot and the easement reserved behind Maguire Ford, Joseph S . Yuschok, Director of Real Estate for Weis Markets , addressed the Board. Mr . Yuschok stated Weis Markets operates 118 stores in Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Mary- land. The store proposed in Ithaca is almost identical to Weis ' latest store which opened in Elmira in January 1984. -2- Two site plans were presented; one allowed for parking in front of the building (Weis ' preferred plan) and allows existing drive on the south side to be used as an entrance across and over to opposite driveway. Second plan is similar except that the market is located behind the side drive; distance to the road is substantially greater and is much too deep for effective parking for a supermarket .. An area of grass would take up the space not used for park- ing. It offers a driveway to the north and south, Mr . Yuschok said they are contemplating in the future that service or department type stores would be added to the rear of the market. The property there is narrow and may not accommodate a discount operation. Curb cuts and traffic lights were discussed as well as the entrance to the store from Meadow Street. Director Van Cort recommended referral to a Committee of the Board for study of site plans before granting prelimin- ary approval. MOTION: Gerkin, seconded by Jackson, moved that request for preliminary approval be referred to the Economic Development and Transportation Committee who will work with developer and staff on site plan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0, -3 , Approval of Minutes : Jackson proposed two corrections to Minutes of May 19 4. Regarding the Valentine-Quarry FEIS report, on page 2, line 11, ' 9 ' should be '8 ' single family homes Second paragraph on page 2, line 11 , ', develop- ment area be zoned R-3 ' and not 'R-2 ' as written. Romanowski, seconded by Jackson, moved to approve minutes as corrected. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0, 4. Collegetown Development : Director Van Cort informed the Board of the current status of Collegetown "Development. Mack Travis ' hotel proposal has been abandoned because the developer determined the project to be financially infeasible. He now has returned to his original plan of constructing student housing on the site. He plans an 80-unit development with 200 beds and a small amount of commercial space. This project contemplates the use of a new program called HODAG (a housing UDAG program) . It will basically finance 50% of a project excluding land acquisition and will write down interest rate to as low as 1%. In exchange,. .the developer must provide low-income housing (20%) for which there is a real demand in Ithaca. It provides more housing to help alleviate tight housing supply; it will help bring occupancy rate down, easing market slightly; will tend to act as an incentive to the owners of the worst rental residential properties , who will have to improve them to be competitive; will take pressure off neighborhoods in other parts of city, where low-income families must now complete with students in -3- groups who can pay considerably more rent than a low-income family; will. reduce pressure for illegal conversions in houses where they are not permitted. The problem with. all Collegetown proposals is parking. The city has tried to refrain from paying for parking and has encouraged the developer to find money for .parking in his pro forma. It has been a difficult task to accomplish. Mr. Travis spoke and said Ithaca was one of ninety-four cities that was eligible for this housing development action grant. Program was published in the third week of June in the Federal Register and the deadline is August 14, 1984. He spent four months on the hotel design when he was originally selected developer for the site. This proposal is slanted towards student housing and families who make 50% of median income who would be eligible for low- and moderate-income housing. He proposes studio apartments of 1, 2, and some 3 bedroom units ; it will be a low-rise, non-elevator structure. Mr. Travis related that George Gesslein of Citizens Savings Bank indicated that the bank was not interested in hotel financing .but would support this plan and could work within the time frame, Another group he is working with is Halcyon, the consultants for Ithaca Center improvements , who are advisors to HUD on the UDAG .program. Halcyon also assisted HUD in drafting the regulations for the HODAG program. Regarding the parking issue, Mr. Travis said he cannot afford to build a parking garage, but he can build an at-grade parking area with meters, 150-160 spaces would be available in addition to some 15-2.0 spaces to be built by Cornell --which would be used as .public (city controlled and operated) spaces . Con- cern is for more parking. for retail sector. David Taube, architect, has prepared a pre-schematic design which includes several levels of parking but will be relatively inexpensive to build and will be partially hidden behind the structure. William Wendt, from Cornell University, stated Cornell would like to be a part of the overall parking and transportation solution with the city and the developer. They will agree to park the residents of the Collegetown site in the same manner that they park Sheldon Court and Cascadilla residents . Cornell is proposing to build 209 parking spaces . The lot at Williams Street and Stewart. Avenue, holding 75 cars and never improved, would be made into a 120 car parking lot. 89 spaces will be added behind Hughes Hall; they will expand an existing lot and develop several smaller lots , In actuality, 100 spaces are needed for Sheldon Court and Cascadilla to accommodate students . They hope to work with the city to put together a comprehensive parking plan for the area. Cornell has agreed to make necessary arrangements for the developer to secure the Cornell land that is needed to make the project feasible and to provide any service right-of-way that is needed for the apartment complex off Dryden Road. 18 spaces behind -4- Sheldon Court will be given to the city for metered parking. This plan significantly increases parking spaces . Mr. Taube discussed the cost of the parking proposal . It will be con- siderably less than the hotel garage. He cannot be specific at this time because he has not had time to work out details , but he believes there would be a substantial saving.. Director Van Cort gave some figures which. were 'rule-of-thumb ' for the project to indicate its feasibility. He felt the proposal would be beneficial to the city._ Discussion followed regarding income to the city, amortization_,_. etc. It was pointed out that HODAG is a one-time offering and is not ex- pected to be offered quarterly. Discussion followed regarding Mr. Travis ' next action should this proposal fail; city's exercising power of eminent domain to preserve its rights to develop site and the implications thereof. Mr. Jackson stated he was basically in favor of project but felt it was accelerated. He disliked planning in response to government deadlines . He stated: 1) housing project was appropriate use of space and fitting for Collegetown area, but was not one which deserves to be subsidized by government funds ; 2) retail space provided is also appropriate but again should not be subsidized by government funds ; 3) federal funding would assist the city in parking problem; a major step forward; 4) project is not being paid for by city' s general funds ; developer is paying part of cost; some govern- ment subsidy .is involved but will be covered by direct re- turns from the parking project ; 5) any money obtained for low-income housing is important; -20% is not a serious contri- bution to low-income housing, however,payback from grant will go to provide for low-income housing and this will be an important contribution; 6) Planning and Development Board has been brought in early - an encouraging sign; 7) 200 park- ing spaces will not solve parking problem; the Board should move on increased parking regulations and initiating a resi- dential permit system for Collegetown. Jackson placed before the Board a four-point resolution: 1 . Approve concept as presented and recommend. it to Common Council. 2 , In order to continue Planning and Development Board in- volvement, recommend plan to Economic Development and Transportation Committee and to Neighborhoods , Housing, and Facilities Committee. 3 . Urge Economic Development and Transportation Committee and Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities Committee to move on. residential permit system and bring forth a recommendation. -5- 4. Urge Mayor Gutenberger and Common Council to increase enforcement of. parking meter violation. Discussion followed in which resolution was separated into two groups.. Kramnick suggested items 3 and 4 were not germane to issue, though related. MOTION: Regarding items 1 and 2 proposed by Jackson, seconded by Gerkin. VOTE : PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0.. Chairman Kramnick urged the Board to think about more density in an area where density is expected and appropriate. Also, he 'mentioned his concern regarding the students who , because of their temporary low-income status , would benefit from this plan. MOTION: Regarding items 3 .and 4. VOTE: PASSED UNANIMOUSLY., 6-0. 5 . State and Mitchell Intersection: Alderman Killeen addressed the Board regarding this busy and awkward intersection. In- creased traffic, .i.e. , school buses in early morning hours and late afternoon hours , city buses , Tomtran, Cornell related buses , trucks , . etc. ., student pedestrian traffic all have con- tributed to the traffic problem on State Street. Development of Commonland has added to traffic flow. City traffic engineer has been working on this area and feels situation should be improved, It is a difficult site due to grade of roadway and configuration of streets . Committees have been studying issue but no consensus has been reached. It was suggested that what is needed here is some expertise from engineers . Ques- tion was posed whether this was , indeed, a planning issue, If there are planning alternatives to this type of solution, then the Board should be involved. It might be simply an . intersection problem; one which the Board .of Public Works could deal with. Mr. Moran would like to see some action by the Board because the Board was turned to for advice and direction. Mr. . Gerkin stated that the Department of .Public Works (Parking and Transit Committee) has been asked to look at this situation. Chairman Kramnick said at some point in discussions , when planning implications are disclosed, the Board should be consulted. Therefore, the Board will not make a recommendation .now. 6. Phone 'Company Switch Boxes : Director Van Cort gave brief overview, The Ithaca .Landmarks Preservation Commission has objected to the installation of these at-grade vault boxes in certain .historic locations , The Board of Public Works gave their approval for installations in other locations in the city, and phone company started to make the install- ations . They may have a planning impact on the neighborhoods -6- in which they are placed, and perhaps the matter should be referred to Committee for study. Romanowski said he believed phone company was trying to alleviate situation by placing boxes in a right-of-way and out of sight. Director Van Cort mentioned safety factor in servicing equipment as main reason for grade-level vault installation. Romanowski said it is part of upgrading entire cable system, a new plant will be constructed to meet latest electronic needs . This matter was referred to Human and Cultural Resources Committee for review, 7 . College of Agriculture National Register Nomination: It was decided that nomination of the nine original college buildings be referred also to the Human and Cultural Resources Committee to study and make recommendation to Council regarding city support for Historic Ithaca' s nomination of these structures as a thematic district . 8. Chairman's Report : Chairman Kramnick reminded Board of mid- month meeting, Thursday, July 12, 1984, 7 :00 p .m. at Kramnick's residence. 9. Adjournment — 11 : 30 p .m. 7/12/84 /mc PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 26, 1984: APPEAL #1572 - 611 W. Green St . : Appea of E. Harrell for Area Variances for deficient off-street parking, lot, width, and front and one side yard setbacks to permit conversion of the second dwelling unit of the two-unit house at 611 W. Green St. from an efficiency to a two-bedroom apartment, in an R-3b district where the proposed use is per- mitted. Appellant Comment : Ms . E. Harrell appeared and stated that purpose of appeal is to renovate second floor area; it includes roof repair, addition of two bedrooms , kitchen, and bath. Roof repair is urgent and needs replacing. In order to absorb cost of the repair and for economic reasons , she wishes to add a larger apartment. Public Comment : None. Board Discussion: Mr. Gerkin asked if appellant will con- tinue to reside there. She replied affirmatively. She will have sufficient room for herself after adding larger apartment. Mr. Romanowski and Mr. . Sampson both inspected property and found no objection to appeal request. Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal . No conditions . Motion: Romanowski, seconded by Gerkin, moved to recommend approval . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6-0. APPEAL #1573 740 S . Meadow St . : Appeal of J. Shannon for an Area Variance for deficient sideyard to permit addition to the existing building (Bruce' s Car Wash) for automobile servicing, in a .B-5 district in which the proposed and existing uses are permitted. Appellant Comment : B. Blakeslee appeared for partner, R. Shannon. They are requesting variance to allow present car wash to offer an oil changing service. They need five additional feet to build structure. Entrance would have to be squared off to accommodate conveyor needed for service. Cars would enter north side of building to use car wash and would use same present traffic pattern to exit. Public Comment : J. Dennis , alderman, spoke in favor of variance. -2- Board Discussion: Board members questioned traffic flow and entrance from K-Mart . Mr. Gerkin asked if the changing of oil in the automobiles was the only added service. Blakeslee stated cars would undergo a slight inspection and if other problems were noted, they would refer the owners to other car-servicing businesses. Mr. Gerkin commented that he inspected the expansion area and noted it was un- used and muddy. He felt proposed use was an improvement to appearance and traffic flow. There was no input from neighbors although they were informed of proposed addition. Extensive discussion followed regarding traffic flow. Chair- man stated that Planning Board is required to enforce certain separation of distances between properties and this is asking for exception in a very congested area. Mr. Gerkin suggested that curbing would eliminate problem of traffic flow to K.Mart. area Staff Recommendation: Deny. This would set precedent for other appeals . It would enhance potential for hazardous and unattractive conditions in a prominent, high-traffic location. Motion: Romanowski, seconded by Moran, recommended approval with stipulation that a curb would be added which would pre- vent exiting into K-Mart area. MOTION CARRIED. 5-yea, 1-nay (Kramnick) . APPEAL #1574 308 S. Corn St . : Appeal- of-Baer or Area Variances for deficient front yard and sideyards to permit removal of the rear wing of the two--family dwelling at 308 S. Corn, and construction of a larger addition, in an R-2b district in which the existing use is permitted. Appellant Comment: Ms. Baer, appellant, appeared. Refer- ence was made to her written statement accompanying appeal wherein she stated reasons for enlarging existing room for use as a livingroom. Public Comment : None. Board Discussion: Mr. Van Cort asked if expansion could be made in side yard where there appeared to be sufficient room. She replied that there was a stairway there which would have to be relocated. Mr. Moran asked if stairs were of wooden construction; Ms. Baer replied they were metal. Staff Recommendation: Staff decision was split. J. Meigs recommended denial because approval would establish add- itional precedent for unnecessary variances which create non-conforming conditions. Mr. Van Cort recommended approval -3- since sideyard presents a practical difficulty. Motion: Sampson, seconded by Moran, moved to recommend approval. Vote : 6-0. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEAL #1575 - 118 Wait Ave. : Appeal of G. and J.. Nemethy for Area Variances for deficient front and sideyards to permit construction of an addition to the rear of the single-family house at 118 Wait Ave. , in an R-2a district in which the use is permitted. Appellant Comment : Nemethys did not appear having notified Planning and Development office of a conflict due to a prior commitment. Public Comment : None. Board Discussion: Property was reviewed by Board members , and no objection to request was noted. Staff Recommendation: Grant relief sought. No conditions . Motion: Moran, seconded by Jackson, moved to recommend approval to BZA. Vote : 6-0. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEAL #1576 517 N. Cayuga St Appeal of Zaharis for Area Variances for deficient side and rear yard to permit an addition to the north side of the building at 517 N. Cayuga (formerly Ithaca Foreign Car Service). Appellants plan to use the property for a laundromat, The property is in a B-2a district, in which the proposed use is permitted. Appellant Comment: James M. .Kerrigan, Esq. , appeared rep- resenting P. . and M. Zaharis . Messers, Zaharis were also present, Mr. Kerrigan stated the Zaharises wished to pur- chase property and turn existing garage into a laundromat . From an economic viewpoint, it is necessary to expand build- ing to justify use of plot. Proposed use is permitted. They propose to extend addition towards Marshall St. with a 6-foot setback on Marshall. Curb cut presently on Marshall would be eliminated and replaced with landscaping; only one window from facility would face north in order to lessen light from the Laundromat into the residential zone. Proposal includes entrance from Cayuga St. ; 3 windows facing Cayuga; off-street parking for 5 cars (ordinance requires 4 spaces) . They believe the majority of customers would walk to. facility. Proposed hours of operation are from 6 : 00 a.m, to 10 : 00 or 11 : 00 p .m. They believe it would up-grade present use of a -4- non-conforming lot and provide for an improved buffer with landscaping bordering a residential district . Public Comment: A number of residents appeared. Alyce Anderson, 6-07-N. Cayuga St. , spoke for group . She pre- sented a petition signed by 21 area resident homeowners. which stated their reasons for opposing a laundromat on this site : 111. It will attract strangers to, neighborhood.. 2 . It does not fit in with surrounding neighborhood. 3. It will be unsupervised and be attractive place for kids to hang out . There are a large number of students who pass by this corner on their way to and from school and this laundromat will be an 'attraction for vandalism. 4. There is no evidence of need. 5 . It will increase an unwanted traffic flow in neighborhood. 6. Not in favor of business hours (6 :00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. ) daily . Additionally, the added noise to neighborhood was mentioned (car traffic, doors opening and closing, etc. ) at early morning and late evening hours . Traffic density was cited by Harold Herman, 609 N. Cayuga St. Residents feel they will have to absorb parking overflow. He mentioned the N. Y. S . drivers test area which is located across the street. There is no parking allowed there during certain daytime hours . Safety concerns were cited. Small children who, play and ride tricycles on the sidewalk might be endangered by traffic . Discussion followed regarding use of laundromat by student renters and the issue of their walking to facility rather than driving. Business hours were discussed and question raised why hours could not coincide with hours of nearby Northside Pharmacy. Residents would dike to maintain present quiet evening hours in area. The house on Marshall St., which borders Ithaca Foreign Car Service, was recently purchased and new owners are anxious over proposed addition which affects their light and view.. Question was raised whether laundry was needed in this loca- tion. Zaharis stated it represented a considerable invest- ment; need was apparent and he felt it would be in improve- ment to the facility presently located there (Ithaca Foreign Car Service) . Board Discussion: Mr. Sampson stated one window would be blocked out in the house next .door bordering on Marshall St . -5- and obstructing that property's front porch view to the west. He also questioned the height of addition. Zaharis replied that it would be the same height as present building, perhaps even lower. Chairman Kramnick asked if extension could be placed on lot bordering on Cayuga St. with entrance off Marshall. Zaharis replied that it would reduce available parking space and he felt that residentswould object to all traffic flowing in and out of Marshall St. rather than from Cayuga. Residents were not in favor of this plan as an alternative. Mr. Moran suggested building be redesigned. He expressed compassion for neighborhood in which, for ex- ample, an arcade could be established which could be open 2.4 hours per day, if they so desired. Mr. Jackson commented that the tone expressed here was that renters have no rights to have laundromat near where they live. Also, he was sur- prised to hear that neighbors preferred a car service to a laundromat as a more compatible use to a .residential neigh- borhood. Each arrangement of the property (extension on Marshall or Cayuga) has detrimental effects . All agreed .it was a difficult decision, however, Zaharis ' proposal may be lesser solution with respect to what might be accommodated on the site. Staff Recommendation: Deny. There appears to be no compel- ling reason for creating an area/setback non-conformity where it would have potential undesirable effects on adjacent pro- perty in ;-.a residential zone. Ten-foot setback from Marshall should be maintained, Director Van Cort, however, thought a Laundromat would be more appropriate here than a car service. He recommended building towards Cayuga St.. and reducing number of parking spaces . Motion: Jackson, seconded by Gerkin, recommended denial. He suggested appellant resubmit appeal which would incorporate building towards Cayuga St. and rearrangement of parking spate. Vote: 2-yea, 4-nay (Sampson, .Moran, Kramnick, Romanowski) . MOTION DEFEATED. Motion: Moran, seconded by Sampson, recommended approval. Discussion: Romanowski commented that what is proposed is clearly less damaging than what might go into this site. He wanted to note, however, the strong, vocal objection of resi- dents . Vote : 5-yea, 1-abstension (Jackson) . MOTION CARRIED. me 6/29/84