HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1985-02-26 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 1985:
PRESENT: Chairman Blumenthal , I. Kramnick, S. Jackson, R. Moran, M. Sampson,
B. Nichols, R. Romanowski
ALSO: Members of the Press, Appellants, Other Interested Parties
1 . Call to Order - 7:35 p.m.
2. Zoning Minutes - see attached.
3. Approval of Minutes:
A) Minutes of January 22, 1985 - S. Jackson requested a correction to
the January 22, 1985 Minutes under the topic of 1985 Work Program
(page 3) ; he believed that the ad hoc committee did not give approval
to the Work Program as stated. The correction was agreed to by the
Board and was so noted in the Minutes.
Motion: Kramnick, seconded by Moran, moved to approve the January
1985 Minutes as corrected. Vote 7-0-0. CARRIED.
B) Minutes of Special Board Meeting of February 13, 1985 - The Minutes
to this meeting were distributed this evening. In order for the
Board to read and review the text, it was decided to defer approval
of the Special Meeting Minutes until the March Board meeting.
4. Economic Development and Transportation Committee:
A Farmers ' Market - S. Jackson reported that the Economic Development
and Transportation Committee has continued to work on the list of
sites for the Farmers ' Market. They have followed established
criteria for evaluation of each site and the work on three of
the sites has been completed. By the next Board meeting, work on
all six sites should be finalized. Mr. Jackson suggested that a
block of time be set aside at the March Board meeting for a full
discussion of the six sites. Mr. Nichols stated that the matter of
traffic congestion and circulation will be taken up at the next
Board of Public Works meeting the last week of February.
B) Route 96 - S. Jackson asked Mr. Van Cort if the City has received
a response from the State regarding the cost breakdowns for the
Route 96 project. Mr. Van Cort stated that no reply has been re-
ceived; that the State is very slow in these matters because of a
complex system of approval at various levels; and that it is im-
possible at this time to determine when the design public hearing
will be held. Revisions must also be made to the E.I .S. and other
preliminary work completed 'before a public hearing is scheduled.
-2-
C) Community Development Application- The Economic Development and
Transportation Committee met with Kathe Evans and Glenn Goldwyn
regarding the process and status of the CD block grant application.
CD staff asked the Planning and Development Board to make recom-
mendations on the process. The main purpose of the Committee's
review was to set some conditions for evaluation of the CD application
proposals. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend two resol-
utions to the Board. They have been guided by a desire to provide
entry-level jobs with the possibility of advancement to more skilled
and higher wage jobs for Ithaca's economic development. They wish
to encourage the planning staff to seek out firms which will pro-
vide this type of employment. They request that such firms provide
evidence of, or a plan for, such advancement policies within their
organizations.
Motion: Jackson, seconded by Nichols, moved to approve the resolution
as presented. Vote: 7-0-0. PASSED.
The second issue wh-ich_ the Committee was asked to consider was
) whether the City should, acquire additional land for another industrial
park since the Cherry Street Industrial Park is. now fully occupied.
The Committee recommendation is that the city should try to bring
th.i.s about. They suggest, however, that although Cherry Street has
been very successful , they believe the terms and conditions of the
new leases should not imitate those in the Cherry Street Industrial
Park. They would like to see subsidies reduced to a minimum level
and would like the city to retain rights and interests in the land
for a longer period of time.
The proposed resolution follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca needs to promote the creation of jobs
which meet the needs of Ithaca's residents for secure jobs at a
decent wage with the possibility of advancement,
WHEREAS, the success in filling the Cherry Streetlndustrial Park
demonstrates the usefulness of a city-owned "industrial park" in
encouraging the development of businesses which meet the City's needs,
and
WHEREAS, the experience with the Cherry Street Park gives us the oppor-
tunity to learn how to promote appropriate economic development in
Ithaca even more effectively,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development
Board recommends the development of another "industrial park" in the
City of Ithaca, and
-3-
BE'_IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board
urges the Mayor, Common Council , and the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency to explore seriously any plausible opportunity to acquire
land for a new "industrial park"; and
BE IT FURTHER_RESOLVED, that the terms and conditions of the
leases in any new "industrial park" should not imitate those of
the present Cherry Street Park; instead, terms for anew park
should reduce the subsidies given to private businesses to the
minimum possible level , and should retain the City's rights
and interest in the land for a longer period of time.
Discussion followed regarding wording in the resolution relating
to minimum subsidies and the difficulty in establishing a balance
between too low a price, which would result in a windfall to tenants,
and charging full market value, which might not attract the types
of industry sought by the city. Van Cort stated that the criteria
for choosing firms might be changed at the discretion of the city.
The manner in which the real estate transactions are structured
might also be reviewed. Upon the suggestion of Mr. Nichol , the
resolution was amended to conclude with "resolved, that the terms
and conditions of the leases in any new industrial park should
not necessarily be the same as those of the present Cherry Street
Park" . Mr. Sampson further asked that the wording be amended in
the first line of the resolution to "the City of Ithaca should
promote" rather than "needs to promote" . Accepted. The Committee
will review the terms and conditions of any new proposed leases.
Motion: Jackson, seconded by Kramnick, moved to approve the
resolution as amended. Vote: 7-0-0. PASSED.
D) Upon Motion by Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Kramnick, the Board
entered into Executive Session for a discussion of_proposed:`
acquisition/sale or lease of real property. Vote: 7-0-0,o CARRIED **
After discussion, a Motion was made in accordance with the recom-
mendation of the Economic Development and Transportation Committee;
Jackson, seconded by Moran, moved to recommend to the IURA and
Common Council that the City enter into negotiations for purchase
of land to provide additional sites for job development in the city.
Vote: 6-0-0 (Mr. Romanowski was not present for the discussion
or vote.) CARRIED.
Upon Motion of Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Kramnick, the Board moved
to return to open session. Vote: 7-0-0. CARRIED.
5. New Business:
A. Landmarks Designation - Andrea J. Lazarski addressed the Board
regarding the A. D. White Memorial Gate. The owner of the Gate,
Cornell University, has not opposed the designation as a land-
mark of the City of Ithaca, either verbally or in writing. The
city has reason to believe that Cornell will not oppose such desig-
nation'. A public hearing was held by the ILPC last week and there
** Minutes for this portion of the meeting will _be retained in the Confidential
Files of the Planning and Development Department.
-4-
was no representation from the University although the proper
authorities were notified of the hearing. The property is zoned
P-1; there are no jurisdictional problems. The Gate was con-
structed in 1896 by William Henry Miller as part of a campus
improvement plan and is indeed worthy of landmarks designation.
The ILPC has designated the gate as a landmark in the City of
Ithaca and Common Council will be asked to give its approval
within 90 days. Ms. Lazarski is requesting the Planning and
Development Board to give their recommendation as well . After
brief discussion, it was decided that Ms. Lazarski would pre-
pare a resolution and a memorandum outlining the planning issues
involved in this designation for the Committee's review. A formal
vote of the Board will be taken at the March meeting.
6. Chairman's Report:
A. Director Van Cort, Susan Blumenthal , and Susan Cummings met to
discuss how to proceed with the task of undertaking a Master Plan.
The Planning and Development Committee is seeking suggestions as
to what elements should be included in the study. Mr. Van Cort
and Deputy Director Paul Mazzarella will meet with Ms. Blumenthal
to start developing alternatives for the project. They hope to
bring suggestions to the Board by the next Board meeting for dis-
cussion at that time.
B. Preliminary Subdivision Approval - Accufab and Pipe Welding Supply -
Ms. Blumenthal stated that preliminary approval for these sub-
divisions was given at the Special Board meeting on February 13,
1985. At that time, questions arose regarding the storage of
hazardous materials in the existing plant of Pipe Welding Supply.
(She noted that_this was not mentioned in the Minutes distributed
at tonight's meeting.) The Planning Board asked Ms. Jones to look
into three items: construction review procedures that the Fire
Department has in place; what is currently being done at the Taber
Street facility of Pipe Welding Supply; review the proposed lease
agreements that would deal with the storage of hazardous wastes
A letter was received from Fire Chief Tuckerman stating the major
problem was lack of storage areas and because of this, material
that should be separated and better- protected from public areas
was combined. It was suggested that the Department work with the
firm in drawing up plans for the new structure using the current
NFPA standards. Discussion was centered on what is happening at
their building now. Ms. Jones has been in contact with Acting
Chief Reeves but information on this matter is not yet complete.
The final report will be postponed for now.
Mr. Romanowski stated that neighbors have contacted him from the
mobile park regarding the quantity of industrial gases to be
stored there and possible hazards to the park homes. The Fire
Code states precise regulations for handling these materials. Some
-5-
materials stored now have been 'grandfathered in' and are not up to
current standards. Planning staff has been assured that the Building
and Fire Departments carefully monitor the handling of these materials.
When full information is received, Ms. Blumenthal will report to the
Board.
C. Committee Memberships - Ms. Blumenthal reported that the committee
memberships will remain the same for this year with Mr. Nichols
replacing Mr. :G-erkiri on the same committees on which Mr. Gerkin
served.
7. Codes and Administration Committee:
A. Evaluation of Zoning Appeals Procedures - Mr. Kramnick reported on
the Committee's discussion of the evaluation procedures for zoning
appeals adopted in July 1984. He referred to a memo prepared by
Jon Meigs summarizing the appeals discussed and the voting results
of the Planning and Development Board and, the Board ;of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Meigs concluded that he considers it beneficial for the Board to
continue to be involved in the review process to some degree. The
Committee voted to recommend to the Board to continue the procedure
with one minor change. At.the beginning of the zoning hearings, the
Chairman should review each case and announce whether the case was
discussible from a planning standpoint. Mr., Romanowski stated he
attended three Board,of Zoning Appeals meetings in recent months and.
heard the recommendation of the Planning .Board mentioned only twice.
Mr. Nichols suggested that a personal representation by a Planning
Board member would be far more effective than written Minutes sent
to the BZA as is done now. He feels that the BZA gives little heed
to the Board's written comments and recommendations. Mr. Jackson
stated that if the Board is to have an impact on the Board of Zoning
Appeals, a proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance is needed so that
the BZA is mandated to look into long-range planning effects. He
also stated that he believed the purpose of the new hearing procedures
was to obtain more information for the planning functions of the
Planning Board by looking at cases that raise planning issues. In .
this way, the Board could use current cases as occasions to take
planning issues seriously and further analyze these specific situ-
ations. Mr. Kramnick stated three alternatives: 1) return to the
old system, 2) eliminate hearing zoning cases entirely, or 3)
continue the present method. Mr. Jackson asked if the Codes and
Administration Committee could list the planning issues involved
regarding each case they deem discussible. Mr. Kramnick agreed
this was a good suggestion. Discussion continued on the mandated
role of the Planning Board in the Zoning Ordinance; the fact that
appellants, their attorneys and other interested parties must attend
two meetings to discuss their cases and the financial burden this
often places on the appellant. Mr. Romanowski suggested that the
Committee continue to work for improvement in the procedures and
suggested the possibility of getting together once again with the
BZA Chairman to discuss the procedures for hearing zoning cases from
their various points of view.
-6-
8. Liaison Committee. Member Reports:
A. Board of Public Works::- Mr. Nichols, liaison with the BPW, reported
on the subject of city-owned lands, the use or possible sale. He
discussed this topic at the BPW meeting last month. It was their
understanding that the Planning Board would address the matter and
report their recommendations to the Mayor. Mr. Van Cort said that
all the lands could not be evaluated this year, but the Chairs of
the four Planning Board Committees were scheduled to meet to discuss
six specific properties which had been referred to the Board for a
recommendation. The Board will be kept up to date on their progress.
B. Planning and Development Committee - Mr. Romanowski said the Plan-
ning Committee of. Council has discussed the recent Cherry Street
Industrial Park lease agreements with Accufab and Pipe Welding Supply;
how to proceed with the Master Plan; the CD application (which was the
same presentation heard this evening) ; Ag College buildings; the
Aurora Street hill ; and the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to Community Gardens. These topics will all be addressed at
the Common Council meeting on March 6, 1985.
9. New Business:
A. Forest Home Drive - Mr. Van Cort briefly discussed a memo written
by Jon Meigs in which he indicated to the BPW that having completed
the environmental assessment, he found abandonment of Forest Home
Drive would have no siginificant effect on the environment. He
recommended that a negative declaration be prepared and filed as
provided in §36.6E of the City regulations. Meetings on this sub-
ject will continue between the Mayor, Town, and County representatives
and Cornell University. Engineering tests will be conducted to bring
more light to the discussions.
10. Adjournment - 11 :00 p.m.
/mc
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
February 26, 1985:
The Codes and Administration Committee of the Planning and
Development Board met on February 21, 1985 to review this month's
zoning cases. As a result of their discussion, they made the follow-
ing recommendation to the Board:
Cases which should be discussed are as follows:
Appeal 1600 - 120 Highland 'P1 .
Appeal 1605 717 W. Court St.
Appeal 1606 - 409-15 Third St.
Appeal 1608 102 Willard Way
Because they present no long-range planning issues, the
following cases need not be discussed:
Appeal 1-1-85 609 W. Clinton St. (Clinton West Shopping Plaza)
Appeal 1604 - 1311 E. State St.
Appeal 1607 - 428 N. Titus Ave.
Appeal 1609 630 W. Buffalo St.
These cases will be passed on to the Board of Zoning Appeals with-
out comment or recommendation.
MOTION: Kramnick, seconded by Sampson, so moved. VOTE: 6-0-0.
CARRIED.
APPEAL 1600 - 120 Highland Pl . : Ken Vineberg, designer, appeared before
the Board. He presented a slide showing the existing building.
The scene, photographed in the summer from the College Avenue
bridge looking west, showed that the proposed addition would
not be visible from the gorge. Visibility from the gorge was
one of the concerns raised by Cornell . The Environmental Assess-
ment for this project was completed by Mr. Vineberg as requested .
by the Board at last month's meeting. Based on the information
and responses in the Assessment, Mr. Meigs recommended the filing
of a Negative Declaration as provided in §36.6E of the City
Environmental Quality. Review Ordinance.
Changes to the Appeal since the last meeting of the Board include
letters from Cornell and the responses given; and a slight change
in the parking plan.
-2-
Discussion followed regarding the conditions Cornell would like
to see imposed as stated in their letter of February 5, 1985:
(1 ) the ecology of the gorge shall not be affected, (2) the
owners should remove the existing porch system, (3) evergreen
trees should be planted in place of the porch system, and (4)
the site should be well maintained and the accumulation of
unslightly stored items, junk or debris should not be allowed.
Mr. Vineberg said conditions 1 and 4 can and will be met.
Conditions 2 and 3 are not possible to comply with. The porches
are necessary for maintenance and repair to the existing structure
and so must remain in place. The porches will be up-graded, the
staircases removed, and an effort made to plant climbing vines
to screen the porch system.
The parking plan has been changed to increase the off-street
parking to 9 spaces and, by making a smaller curb cut, will
allow for three on-street spaces instead of the one space as
indicated in the previous plan.
The retaining wall on the downhill side of the slope will be
made of concrete but faced with stone that blends with the
gorge walls. The Design Review Board has reviewed the plans
and endorsed the project to the Planning and Development Board.
Mr. Jackson asked for clarification of certain items in the
Environmental Assessment. Mr. Vineberg complied by elaborating
on his statements in the Environmental Assessment.
The issue of 'setting a precedent' was mentioned concerning
this type of building along the gorge edge. Mr. Van Cort stated
that this was an unusual and unique project and if there were
others to follow each would be judged on their own merits. Mr.
Sampson statedthatthe changes contemplated in his opinion
were improvements to an existing property.
There was no one from the public to speak to this appeal .
Staff Recommendation: Grant - using stone facing on new retain-
ing walls, as proposed.
MOTION: Romanowski ,. seconded by Sampson, recommended APPROVAL
with the condition of stone facing on the retaining walls.
VOTE: 6-0-1-abstention (Moran) . CARRIED.
APPEAL 1605 - 717-172 W. Court St. : Anne Jones, Chair of the Tompkins
County Housing Task Force, appeared before the Board. The
Taskforce wishes to purchase the property at 717 W. Court to
use as an emergency shelter providing short-term occupancy
for people temporarily without homes. Use as an emergency
-3-
shelter is permitted in this district (B-4) by the Zoning ordinance.
Such use will not change the character of the area. The maximum
occupancy will be nine people, not including the staff. There will
be 24-hour supervision, with a paid staff, every day of the year.
The problems existing are a shared driveway and a lot too narrow
for compliance. with existing regulations. The neighbors have
been contacted and no objection to the use of the property as a
shelter was disclosed. Ms. Jones distributed a written summary
of those contacted .and their responses which indicated favorable
acceptance of the proposed use.
Mr. Sampson asked about the amount of play space for children
housed at the shelter. It was stated there will be sufficient
space; the lot is 198 feet deep. The Taskforce intends to im-
prove the exterior and interior of the properties. Fire regula-
tions were also mentioned and it was stated that the Building
Department has approved the residence for such use. A smoke alarm
system will be installed.
Ann Clavel , Esq. , attorney for the Taskforce, was present and
commented on the deficiencies in the lot and the question of
parking and traffic.
Staff Recommendation: Grant approval .
MOTION: Kramnick, seconded by Nichols, moved to recommend
APPROVAL to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Discussion: Mr. Romanowski stated he questioned the neighbors
and basically found no objections. He did find some concerns
however regarding injuries to children on other's properties;
parking; vehicles backing out of the premises; an above-ground
pool in the vicinity and the liability involved; and transient
traffic and crime (undesirable tenants). He further stated
that despite any possible drawbacks, this was a far better al-
ternative and far less expensive to the city than to house
people in a motel during periods of crises.
VOTE: 7-0-0. MOTION CARRIED.
APPEAL 1606- 409-415 Third St. (Taynton, Inc. ) : Russell J. Mathis, Jr.
appeared to speak to this appeal . Taynton wishes to sell their
property on Third St. Bob Andree, Andree Petroleum 684 Third St. ,
also present, wishes to convert the property to a modern gas
station, car wash, and small convenience market. He stated that
there are no gas stations from the intersection of Rt. 13 and
Buffalo St. with direct access off Rt. 13 until one reaches Dryden.
-4-
He believes it would eliminate some of the traffic congestion in
the State St. and Rt. 13 intersection. Discussion followed re-
garding the location of the property in the B-2b zone in which
neither of the proposed new uses is a permitted use. Mr. Van Cort
stated this is a 'buffer zone' intended to screen a heavy com-
mercial area from a residential zone. Mr. Mathis claimed the
property has been on the market for 1, years and Mr. Andree is
the first prospective buyer. After further comments by the
Board, the consensus was that there were no significant or com-
pelling reasons to. allow an exception to the Zoning Ordinance
in this instance.
Staff Recommendation: Deny.
MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Kramnick, moved to recommend DENIAL
of the appeal.
VOTE: 5-yea, 1-nay (Romanowski)., 1-abstention (Blumenthal) . DENIED.
APPEAL 1608 - 102 Willard Way Patricia Oesterle, Esq. , attorney for the
owners, was present and spoke to the Board. The Everharts wish
to sell this property at 102 Willard Way to a fraternity, sorority,
or group home. The property is in a R-2a district in which such
use is not permitted. Ms. Oesterle stated that the house has
become economically obsolete. It is very large; contains six bed-
rooms and a basement apartment. It is situated across from a large
apartment complex; there is a sorority nearby; and a fraternity
to the rear. The apartment complex was not in existence when the
Everharts purchased the property. During the life of the house,
it has been used as a fraternity during two different periods of
time. The property was put on the market in May 1984 for $250,000
but has been reduced to $159,900. They have not received any offers
consistent with its permitted use. A sorority of 18 members has
now expressed interest in the property. Ms. Oesterle stated there
are only five owner-occupied residences in the neighborhood. She
claimed use of the house by a sorority, fraternity or group home
was the least obtrusive change in use which would yield a reason-
able return to the owners. The exterior would remain the same;
the character of the neighborhood would not change. Mr. Nichols
stated that if this property was sold to a Cornell-related organi-
zation, it would be removed from the tax rolls with ensuing loss
of revenue to the city. Board discussion followed regarding the
purchase price (perhaps excessive) and the fact that the property
has not long been on the market. It would be expected that a
property of this quality and value might conceivably be on the
market for a considerable period of time.
Public'Comment: Prof. Eugene B. Dynkin, 108 Lake St. , was present
and addressed the Board. He is a professor of mathematics at
-5-
Cornell and his property adjoins 102 Willard Way. He does much
of his research at his home office with windows facing the
subject property. He objects to the proposed use since a noisy
group of students nearby would have a negative impact on his
work as well as being a hardship to his family. He stated
that when the apartment complex was buil.t across the street,
Mr. Everhart complained bitterly. Prof. Dynkin also pointed
out that the Everharts bought the property in 1979 for $87,000
and that the assessed market value is now $90,800. He said
he thought claims of financial hardship were not justified.
Other neighbors were present and expressed similar views:
Prof. Z Waknaft, 1.11 Lake St. , a professor of engineering at
Cornell , said this was a strong residential neighborhood. It
has been degraded slightly by multiple housing but not signifi-
cantly. He endorses Prof. Dynkin's views.
Robert Commelly, 220 Willard Way, mentioned the problem of
parking and said the addition of even 2 or 3 more cars on a
daily basis would be a hardship for all residents. When snowfall
is heavy, he cannot use his garage and must park on the street.
Additionally, he mentioned that parking is only allowed on one
side of the street.
Letters in opposition to the appeal were also received from:
Stanley J. and Mary Ann Bowman, 204 Willard Way
Nita C. Kendrick, 225 Willard..Way
Felix-and-Lilly D. Reichmann, 217 Willard Way
Staff Recommendation Deny.
MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Kramnick, moved to recommend DENIAL
-of-th.e-appeal
VOTE: 7-0-0. DENIED.
L.mc