HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1985-01-22 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 1985:
PRESENT: Chairman Blumenthal , S. Jackson, M. Sampson, R. Moran, B. Nichols,
I . Kramnick, R. Romanowski , Director Van Cort, A. Lazarski .
ALSO: Appellants, Appellants ' Representatives, Members of the Press,
Other interested parties.
1 . The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Zoning Appeals - see Minutes attached.
3. Final Subdivision Approval - 201-11 Center Street.
The public hearing was opened by motion and Ms. Blumenthal asked if
anyone wished to speak to the issue. Ms. Susan Cummings was present
and referred to the survey of the property which she distributed. She
explained. the division. of the parcel . Some neighbors were present and
asked about the subdivision; what uses were premitted; would there .be
a possibility of apartment .additions, etc.? Pauline Snyder, a neighbor,
asked with the acquisition of additional land could a barn on the lot
be converted to multi-occupancy use? Mr. Van Cort said conversion would
not be allowed because of deficiencies in the lot. He further stated
that this was an R-2b zone and the permitted uses are those associated
with residential occupancy only, e.g. , a garage for housing one's own
automobile. Commercial development could not occur, furthermore, any
change in the property would require a variance.
A letter was read from Mr. Marshall Drake, 2052 Center St. , who stated
his opposition to any development of this parcel as a commercial business
enterprise.
Motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. CARRIED.
Motion was made by Kramnick, seconded by Sampson, to GRANT Final Approval
for the subdivision. Vote: 5-yea, 1-abstention (Nichols) . CARRIED.
4. Committee Reports: Economic Development & Transportation Committee -
a) Farmers' Market -
Ms. Blumenthal , speaking for S. Jackson, reported that Mr. Jackson
had drafted a report regarding possible market sites. A copy of
the report was distributed to the Board members. The report could
be used as a focus for community discussion and Mr. Jackson is
asking for the Board's approval .
Anna Steinkraus and George Sheldon of the Farmers' Market Board
were present. A brief discussion followed mentioning certain pros
and cons of Cass Park and Stewart Park as possible sites. Ms.
Steinkraus' also" asked about police supervision and bus service to
the Market. Mr. Nichols will bring this topic to the Board of Public
Works and request that a traffic and transportation plan be implemented
for the coming season.
-2-
Motion: Moran, seconded by Nichols, moved to APPROVE the draft
as a position paper. Vote: 6-0, unanimous. CARRIED.
Motion: Moran, seconded by Kramnick, moved to request a compre-
hensive traffic study be made by the Board of Public Works before
the next Farmers' Market season. Vote: 6-0, unanimous. CARRIED.
b) Plant Closings -
Mr. Jackson met with the Mayor, union representatives and Paul
Bennett, Esq. to discuss legislation pertinent to plant closings.
Mr. Bennett is working on a draft of such legislation. Steve
Jackson will report on the progress of. this work in a month or so.
Human and Cultural Resources Committee -
a) Agriculture College Buildings Landmarks Designation
Human and Cultural Resources Committee met with Andrea Lazarski
regarding the Cornell Agriculture buildings. Mr. Sampson ex-
plained that Cornell is opposed,to designating these buildings
as landmarks and .Cor.nel,l claims that .the Landmarks Commission
is without .authority under State enabling legislation. The
Human and Cultural . Resources Committee felt there were good
reasons for designating the buildings as landmarks. If, in the
future, Cornell requested to raze some of the structures which
had received landmarks designation, it would be more difficult
for Cornell to receive permission for demolition. A resolution
was prepared and presented to the Board for approval and for
forwarding on to Common Council . Ms. Lazarski briefly ex-
plained the 1980 Preservation Act and the legal basis for this
action. Essentially, the 1980 Act broadened the powers of cities,
towns and counties by stating that they can establish landmarks
commissions to control properties, public or private. It does
not exempt State-owned properties. The City of Ithaca has its
own Landmarks Preservation Ordinance which is separate from the
other zoning ordinances. Additionally, an act by the State
University Construction Fund (subsection 375:) exempts munici-
palities from interfering with SUNY plans. Corporate Counsel
believes that_ the City does have the power of designation but
the_issue is unclear. In the case at hand, the City is dealing
with State University of New York-owned buildings (not Cornell
owned) and the State has not acknowledged the City in this effort.
Mr.-Sampson presented a resolution to approve the designation of
Bailey, Comstock, Caldwell , East ,Roberts, Roberts, Stone and
Fernow Halls as local landmarks. Mr. Sampson believed that the
resolution would be submitted as. the Planning and Development
Board's report, as required by the ordinance.
Motion: Kramnick, seconded by Moran, moved to APPROVE the resolution
as presented. Vote: 5-yea, 1-abstention (Nichols) . PASSED.
-3-
Codes and Administration Committee -
a) Special Permits - Community Gardens -
Codes and Administration Committee met with Jon Meigs to discuss
proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding special
permits for community or neighborhood gardens. Discussion
followed relating to paragraph 4. e. of the proposed amendment
which states that the Board must have written response from a
majority of those notified. It was suggested that this places
an unfair burden on the appellant and that notification to
property owners involved should be enough.
Armondo Perez of Project Growing Hope was present and referred
to a memo he wrote to Jon Meigs wherein he gave his comments
and suggestions on the proposed amendment.
Motion: Kramnick, seconded by Nichols, recommended that the
proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow neighbor-
hood gardens by special ; permit. be sent to Common Council .
Vote: 6-0, unanimous. CARRIED.
5. Preliminary Approval of Subdivision - Collegetown Redevelopment Project:
Paul Mazzarella, Deputy Director, was present and spoke to the Board
regarding a subdivision of a parcel of land in Collegetown relating to
the Travis/Cornell development project. Cornell agreed to convey a
piece of land to the City enabling the City to make development of the
site feasible. In other words, Cornell would convey land sufficient
for the City and for Cornell to construct their respective projects
in Collegetown and at the same time meet all zoning and building code
regulations. Cornell has agreed to convey the land to the City and
Mr. Mazzarella is bringing the request for preliminary approval to the
Board in order to expedite the matter. A letter from Cornell request-
ing the subdivision will follow.
Motion: Kramnick, seconded by Sampson, moved to GRANT preliminary
approval as requested. Vote: 6-0, unanimous.
6. Approval of Minutes
Motion was made by Romanowski , seconded by Kramnick, to approve the
November 1984 minutes.. Vote: 4-yea, 2-abstentions (Sampson, Nichols) .
CARRIED.
Motion:was made by Kramnick and seconded by Romanowski to approve the
December 1984 minutes. Vote: 4-yea, 2-abstentions (Sampson, Nichols) .
CARRIED.
7. 1985 Department Work Program:
An ad hoc committee composed of the Committee Chairs met with Director
Van Cort to discuss .a draft work program for 1985 which had been dis-
tributed at the December meeting. After conferring with the Director
and discussing the various categories, the-re-su-1-t wa-s- app=r--oval=by the
a4=-hoc—commi-tee-of the-propos.ed--p_r_.og-ram-for--the comi-ng year_ . Ger-te+n
-4-
items were suggested for inclusion, such as work on a Master Plan;
inventories of businesses, city land, vacant land, non-residential
buildings, park lands, etc. ; Affirmative Action; study of comparable
worth.; worker ownership and management; municipal cable system, etc.
More'staff, of course, would be needed to address all these topics.
Mr. Van Cort.adjusted.time allocations under the Neighborhood Planning .
category.
Motion: Kramnick, seconded by. Moran, moved to APPROVE the work plan
as presented.with the additions mentioned to be considered for future
projects. Vote: 6-0, unanimous. CARRIED.
8. Chairman's Report:
Ms. Blumenthal asked if the Board wished to realign the Committees'
membership lists. It was decided after brief discussion to continue
the memberships as they were in 1984 with Mr. Nichols replacing Mr.
Gerkin on the same Committees on which Mr. Gerkin served.
9. ' Reconstruction Home:
Mr. Van Cort explained that the meeting regarding construction of the
Reconstruction Home addition discussed in December has been delayed
for the short term Ms. Cummings will attempt to meet with the Recon-
struction Home supervisors and at that time address the concerns ex-
pressed at the December 1984 .Board meeting.
10. Community Development Application:
HUD has informed the City that an application for next years ' funding
will be due by May 1 , 1985. Project proposals will be .accepted by the
Community Advisory Committee of the IURA. The first public hearing is
scheduled for January 30, 1985 and Mr. Van Cort encouraged the Board to
take an active role in the process, if they wished, by attending some
of the hearings. - The Board will be expected to make review and comment
toward the conclusion of the process. Mr. Sampson is the Board's
liasion on the Advisory Committee andwill keep the Board. informed.
The City is looking for a stronger economic development component in
this year's application. HUD has a complicated point system of evalu-
ation .and is more willing to award points for the creation of new jobs
rather than .awarding points for retention of existing jobs.
11. Master Plan:
Ms. Blumenthal mentioned that the topic of a Master Plan had been dis-
cussed at a recent Planning and Development Committee meeting. Robert.
Romanowski. stated that the Committee did not come to any concrete con-
clusion. The Committee discussed certain possibilities of a Master
Plan, i .e. , should the Master Plan be a dynamic one, or should a specific
list of projects for the next 20 years be drawn up? The Committee is
requesting suggestions from the Board as to what kind of process should
take place; what elements should be included in the study. Discussion
of this matter will continue at the February 1985 Board meeting.
-5-
12. Miscellaneous:
Ms. Blumenthal recommended that each Board member who is a liasion with
a City committee report monthly to the Planning and Development Board
at the regular meeting to apprise the Board of that Committee's actions.
Adjournment: 10:40 p.m.
/mc
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
January 22, 1985:
The Codes and Administration Committee having met earlier to review
this month's zoning appeals concluded that Appeals #1601 (205-7 Valley Road)
and #1602 (710-12 W. Court Street) did not need discussion since they pre-
sented no long-range planning issues and recommended that they be passed
on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without comment or recommendation.
APPEAL #1603: 701 Spencer Road - Evaporated Metal Films proposes to build
additions to the present building along the south and east sides. Use
and Area Variances are needed for additions to the side and rear.
Appellant Michael Shay appeared before the Board. The firm is located on a
dead-end street with little traffic; they intend to preserve the nature and
character of the neighborhood. The additional space will relieve congestion
withinthe plant and create a better work flow.
Discussion: Mr. Romanowski asked if any neighbors were opposed to the
additions. Mr. Shay said he received no comments from the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation: Defer action pending review of adequacy of parking.
Motion: Kramnick, seconded by Moran, moved to pass the request to the Board
of Zoning Appeals without recommendation.
Vote: 7-0, unanimous.
APPEAL #1598: 327-29 S. Cayuga Street - Use Variance Area Variances and
Special Permit to .allow construction of a 2-storey building containing
a laundromat and an apartment. Lot area is deficient and front and
rear setbacks would be inadequate.
Appellant John Augustine was present. He is proposing to construct a facility
containing a laundromat on the first floor and an apartment on the second. He
is requesting a Variance for a 4' setback to allow the building to align with
the adjacent buildings. The size of the laundromat would be comparable to the
new laundry facility recently opened on N. Cayuga Street (owner, Peter Zaharis) .
The neighbors and landowners in the vacinity have been notified of the proposed
building and use and 90% of them were in favor of the plan. Phyllis Maines,
owner of property at Cayuga and N. Titus, phoned the Planning and Development
Office to state her opposition to the appeal . The design of the building will
blend with the adjacent structures and will be residential in character. The
structure would add another unit to the housing stock. Mr. Augustine believes
there is a need for laundry service in this area; the nearest laundromats are
1/2 mile away from this site.
Mr., Van Cort commented that since this property is adjacent to a
major stream, an Environmental Assessment must be filed with the
Building Department.
Staff Recommendation: Grant request.
Motion: Sampson moved, seconded by Romanowski , to recommend approval
of the appeal . A discussion followed relating to parking, hours of
operation, and signage (there will be no free-standing sign) .
Vote: 7-0, unanimous. PASSED.
APPEAL #1599 - 407 Elmwood Avenue Use and Area Variances to permit
remodeling of the vacant first floor as a 5-bedroom apartment.
Owner/appellant William Lower did not appear.
Mr. Van Cort discussed this property explaining that the first floor
had contained a beauty parlor before it was gutted by fire. The
second floor is legally non-conforming. The proposed use is compatible
with the area and it would increase the housing supply. The questions
of traffic and parking were discussed; there would be adequate on-site
parking. The property is large enough to accommodate increased density.
Mr. Jackson suggested that the owner, explore other commercial uses.
Mr. Van Cort said he believes the ordinance indicates that residences
in this area would be preferable to some other commercial business
enterprise.
Staff Recommendation: Grant request.
Motion: Sampson moved, seconded by Moran, to pass this appeal on to the
BZA without recommendation. Discussion followed regarding density and
limiting the number of bedrooms. The motion was withdrawn.
Motion: Nichols moved, seconded by Sampson, to recommend to the Board of
Zoning Appeals that this request be approved if the number of bedrooms
was limited to three.
Vote: 5-yea, 1-nay (Romanowski) , 1-abstention (Blumenthal) . PASSED.
APPEAL #1600 - 120 Highland Road - Area Variances to permit addition
of three apartments to the 4-unit building. Property has
inadequate area and rear yard.
Ken Vineberg, designer, appeared to speak for the owner, Harold Schultz.
Mr. Vineberg explained that this property is a familiar 'landmark' perched
on the edge of Cascadilla gorge. The Proposed construction would create
a penthouse apartment which would occupy part of the top floor and roof
of the existing building. A proposed wing would contain two 3-bedroom
apartments. The existing building is unique in that every apartment is
accessible from external satirways. There is no interior space used for
stairways. The building was originally a mill which drew its power from
Cascadilla Creek; it was adaptively reused as apartments. Stone walls
provide much of the on-site grading; fieldstone was used in constructing
the stairways leading to the lower apartments. He said the owner wishes
to construct the additions in the same style and character as the exist-
ing structure so that it will be compatible with the original . Every
effort will be made to enhance the charm of the existing building and the
site.
Discussion followed relating to the parking area. There are 9 parking
spaces planned. The question of an Environmental Assessment was also
raised and Mr. Van Cort stated that one would be needed because of the
location next to the gorge and waterway. A letter was distributed from
John E. Majeroni , Manager, Cornell University Real Estate Department,
expressing their concerns regarding the fragile edge of the gorge,
possible removal of trees and construction of retaining walls. He be-
lieves that the proposed construction might cause structural damage
to the gorge rim, increase the instability of the rim and have an un-
sightly unnatural appearance. He stated the property already, detracts
from the beauty of the gorge and that the proposal would further that
harm. Mr. Majeroni concluded his letter as follows: "We hope that the
Planning and Development Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals will have
these concerns properfiy addressed and preserve the unique resource the
Cascadilla Creek gorge offers the entire Ithaca community."
Mr. Kramnick expressed concern with the uncertainity of the change in
appearance of the building since there are no design plans to review.
Mr. Vineberg said the owner wanted to be sure he could obtain a Variance
before commissioning design plans. If he could obtain conditional approval
for the proposal in concept, he would return -to the Board for design
approval .
Staff recommendation: Defer action pending an Environmental Impact Analysis.
Motion: Sampson moved'to recommend to the BZA that they take no action
until an approved Environmental Assessment is received by the BZA and a
visual rendering of the building be provided to give some sense of the
aesthetics of the addition. Seconded by Jackson.
Vote: 2-yea (Sampson, Romanowski) ; 5-nay. DEFEATED.
Motion: Jackson moved that the BZA defer action on this request until the
Planning and Development Board has seen an approved nvironmen al Assess::—
ment Analysis and has receive . some visual representation o , the proposed
addition. econ e y Kramnick.
Vote: 7l-0, unanimous. " PASSED.
/mc