Loading...
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