Loading...
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