Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1985-03-26 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES MARCH 26, 1985: PRESENT: Chair S. Blumenthal , I. Kramnick, S. Jackson, R. Moran, M. Sampson, B. Nichols, R. Romanowski ALSO: Appellants, Members of the Press, Other Interested Parties 1 . Call to Order - 7:30 p.m. 2. Zoning Appeals - see Minutes attached. 3. Public Hearing Pipe Welding Supply Co. and Accufab, Inc. : Motion: Jackson, seconded by Sampson moved to open the public hearing. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried. Jim Ungarvsky, gas marketing manager for Pipe Welding Supply, addressed the Board. He stated that the company is a family-owned corporation in its 50th year of operation. The company is based in Elmira, New York and is a supplier of commercial , industrial and medical gases. A subdivision of the company deals with bulk carbon dioxide. They own all of their own transport equipment and many storage tanks. They provide service to the local bottlers who provide soft drinks in this region. The Cherry Street location will enable them to move closer to their customers in this market area. Because of the products they provide, Pipe Welding is governed by many agencies: ' DoT Bureau of Explosives; Food and Drug Administration; New York State Board of Pharmacy; NEPA; as well as local, state and federal agencies. Discussion followed regarding the question of safety and the storage of combustible products. Mr. Jackson asked for a description of possible hazards. Mr. Ungarvsky stated that every gas they handle is a possible hazard because the compressed gas is stored in pressur- ized cyclinders. With proper storage and handling, these products are not dangerous. Pipe Welding has an excellent safety record; their employees are trained in the proper procedures of handling and trans- porting these products. Motion to close the public hearing was made by Jackson and seconded by Romanowski . Vote 6-0-0. Carried. Helen Jones of the Planning staff spoke regarding the subdivision request. Subdivision would allow .87 acres for Pipe Welding and .69 acres for Accufab, Inc. The remaining .8 acres would be leased to -2- Precision Filters. Ms. Jones answered questions regarding the current Taber Street facility of Pipe Welding and read a letter received from former Fire Chief Tuckerman sent to Ms. Jones after he had inspected the premises. He said the major problem was lack of storage area and that separation of certain materials and products was needed. There were no specific violations cited. Acting Fire Chief Kenneth Reeves was present and he stated that his inspection indicated the stock at Pipe Welding was crowded but that there were no violations evident. The operation is small and there would be no large assembly of people on the premises at any one time. He said there was a variety of gases on hand. Mr. Reeves offered his opinion that it would be beneficial to relocate Pipe Welding to a new site which could provide greater storage facilities. Mr. Reeves said that the Department attempts to inspect annually all potentially dan- gerous sites. The Department inspects for cleared fire lanes, general housekeeping, proper handling of materials and .observance of fire code regulations. Helen Jones referred to the lease agreementswhich are the same for both firms (with the exception of the rent due to differences in lot size) . Discussion followed relating to the 30-day provision re- garding violations of the lease agreement. Mr. Jackson stated that the burden of policing the agreement with respect to storage of hazardous materials shou.ld be placed on the lessee rather than the city. He believed that penalty for failure to comply should be specified. Further, in the event of a violation, he would like the terms changed governing the right to buy or rent the property after 20 years. Ms. Jones stated the 30-day provision is intended to cover every situation. In the event of a life threatening situation, the Fire Department, the Building Department, the Health Department, or the City. Engineer can intervene at any time as outlined in the Municipal Code, §30.41. Ms. Jones also read from §30.42 which defines penalties levied for violations of a contract. Motion: Mr. Jackson moved to deny the final subdi:v.i'son approval for reasons stated above. Seconded by Nichols. Vote: 1-yea, 4-nay, 1-abstention. Defeated. Motion: Romanowski , seconded by Sampson, moved to approve Final Subdivision for Pipe Welding Supply and Accufab, Inc. Vote: 4-yea 1-nay (Jackson) , 1-abstention (Blumenthal ) . Approved. 4. Preliminary Subdivision Knorr/Sunrise Rd. : Paul N. Tavelli , Esq. appeared for Hovanec Builders who wish to subdivide the property on Sunrise Road to provide 17 building lots. They are currently building homes on 4 lots that were previously approved in 1977. The homes are valued at $100,000 to $150,000. -3, The City Engineer's office has suggested a change in the configuration of Sunrise Road to straighten the roadway slightly. Mr. Tavelli stated that this is one of the last areas in the city where single-family homes can be constructed. Construction there will add a substantial amount of property to the tax rolls. Director Van Cort stated that after discussion with Mr. Meigs he feels that preliminary approval should be given subject to whether the builder intends to subdivide the entire parcel or divide it in half and what their intentions are in handling the corner area. Mr. Romanowski read a letter from Mr. Raymond Schlather listing various concerns: 1) the lot sizes of 14,000 to 16,500 sq. ft. in an area where most homes are situated on a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. ; 2) road design (connection to Warren Rd. ) ; 3) planting of trees and landscaping; 4) allow time for further neighborhood input. Mr. Van Cort said that the city cannot demand more lot size than the stated requirements in the ordinance (10,000 sq. ft for single- family and 15,000 sq. ft. for two-family) . The question of increased traffic was mentioned. Mr. Van Cort said he believed that increased traffic would .be minimal on local streets and would not be noticeable on collector streets, Mr. Tavelli was informed that in order to obtain final approval , the builder would have to present site plans, sketch layouts, and a landscape design to the Board. He was asked to allow adequate time for staff and Board review and for advertisement of the public hearing, Motion: Sampson, seconded by Moran, moved to grant preliminary approval conditional on applicants ' determination as to the portion of the parcel for which final approval will be sought at this time; and on resolution of questions relating to street and utility layout and site design within the subdivision, and to amount and location of land to be conveyed to the city for recreational . use; in accordance with applicable city regulations. Vote: 5-0-1-abstention (Romanowski) . Passed. 5 Preliminary Subdivision-MacLean/Campbell Ave. : Robert J. Hines, Esq. , representing Mr. MacLean, was present. Mr. MacLean is proposing to move lot lines to enlarge lot #4 as shown on the map of his property prepared by Howard Schlieder to enhance its building potential . Mr. Van Cort said that there is a discrepancy in the map - the lot lines do not agree with those as originally approved from a larger, subdivision. Motion: Mr. Romanowski , seconded by Mr. Sampson, moved to grant preliminary approval with the condition that the lot lines be verified. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried. 6. Preliminary Subdivision - Nezvesky/W. Court St. : Frederick Beck, Esq. representing Dr. Nezvesky, addressed the Board. Dr. Nezvesky is requesting a subdivision of h.is property to allow con- veyance of a rectangular parcel (,132'x54' ) to Gadabout. The pro- posed conveyance would retain a right of way 30' in width on West Court Street to allow the owner continued access to the parcel to the -4- north occupied by the Samll Animal Clinic. Discussion followed regarding the width .of the right of way which would pass directly through the parcel . The proposed division is acceptable to the individuals involved presently, however, if the Small Animal Clinic was sold it would mean that the prop- erty would be cut in two and one parcel would have no frontage (landlocked) . Mr. Van Cort stated that the proposed subdivision would be unworkable as a Long-range plan and would not contribute to orderly development of either lot. He suggested that perhaps Gadabout could be given a lease with an option to purchase or a buy back so that at the conclusion of the present owners, the parcel could be reassembled. Mr. Romanowski said that he canvassed the neighborhood and found no objection to the subdivision. Motion: Kramnick, seconded by Sampson, moved to deny preliminary subdivision. Vote: 5-2 (Romanowski , Moran) . Denied. (Attorney Beck. was asked to speak with the Planning Department regarding possible solutions to this problem. Mr. Van Cort believes certain terms could be written into a lease which would allow Gadabout to use the property for their operation.) 7. Farmers` Market: Mr. Jackson distributed a report he had prepared regarding six proposed sites for the Farmers ' Market. The report listed the criteria by which the sites were evaluated. His intention in distributing the status report now was to allow the Board to review the findings and make a recommendation at the next Board meeting. A discussion was held regarding the problems associated with one of the six sites (Court and Fulton Sts. ) . The problems as cited in Jackson's report would render this site unacceptable (configuration along the waterfront, division of the market area by the railroad track, and having to deal with four private owners of land to assemble the parcel ) . A brief discussion was held regarding long-term leasing and defin- ition of terms, i .e. , satellite, permanent structure. If there are ob- jections to anything in the report, it was requested that these items be brought to Mr. Jackson's attention before the next Board meeting. Reference was made to a letter received by the Board from Wanda Pete suggesting a site for the Market (top of Green St. parking ramp) . A reply will be drafted by Mr. Jackson representing the Board and will also be published in the Ithaca Journal as a. public response. Motion: Mr. Jackson, seconded by Moran, moved to reduce the number of proposed sites from six to five. Vote: 7-0-0. Passed. 8. Eddy Gate Landmarks Designation: Mr. Sampson of the Human and Cultural Resources Committee referred -5- to a memorandum distributed to the Board from Andrea Lazarski . Regarding the Board's charge to evaluate this designation in .light of projected improvements and any plans for renewal of the. site or area involved, landmark status for the Gate would not interfere with the site's redevelop- ment but act to enhance an area scheduled to receive major improvements. Cornell University, owner of the Gate, has not voiced any official pro- test; landmark designation for Eddy Gate seems to have general community support. A resolution from the Planning and Development Board recommend- ing to Common Council that the A. D. White Memorial Gate, "Eddy Gate" , be designated a local landmark in the City of Ithaca was presented. WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board believes that the designation of the A. D. :White Memorial Gate, "Eddy Gate" , is in concert with the general plan's objective to "recognize the value of the aspects of the city buildings, circulation, activities, facilities, and land uses - which are in good condition and do whatever possible to enhance, continue and maintain their use", and WHEREAS, the designation of the Eddy Gate is in compliance with the memorial 's existing P-1 zoning, and WHEREAS, the Eddy Gate will greatly contribute to the proposed Collegetown Development Project, providing continuity with the 19th century urban street scape surrounding the project, and WHEREAS, the Eddy Gate acts as a visual landmark, announcing the entrance to the Cornell University Campus and the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the Eddy Gate is a major urban design element of the East Hill neighborhood, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning and Development Board recommends to Common Council than the A. D. White Memorial Gate, "Eddy Gate" be designated a local landmark in the City of Ithaca. Motion: Moran moved to .approve the Resolution. Seconded by Nichols. Vote: 7-0-0. Unanimously passed. 9. Mr. John Johnson was introduced to the Board. He is the city liaison between the City Planning and Development Board and the County Planning Board. He will relay information as needed and desired between the Boards. 10. Community Development Application 1985/86: Kathe Evans apprised the Board of the status of the Community Develop- ment application now being prepared. She mentioned several items: IURA approval of $10,000 for;the Mini-repair program for the elderly and purchase of an industrial site to accommodate as many as six firms plus acreage for -6- community gardens. A discussion was held regarding the NYSEG parcel for the industrial site. Drawings of two possible layouts were presented and the positive and negative aspects of each were outlined. Soil con- ditions at the site were discussed; Ms. Evans said that the Engineers had takentest borings and found the soil to be basically muck plus fill with no toxicity at the site. It is expected that the city will have a signed contract from NYSEG within the next few days. The two other economic development,proposals were also reviewed: Ben and Jerry's (a worker-managed ice cream business) and the P&C renovations (to con- tain a theatre, a restaurant, and a gymnastics center) . In the Public Facilities portion of the application, the Octopus Underpass was noted as having a very favorable response from the community. Also mentioned was the sidewalk repair grant and the Challenge Industries construction of restrooms for the handicapped. Overall , the Community Development staff feels that this year's application is equal to last year's appli- cation with the economic development portion appearing even stronger. Mr. Jackson reminded the Board that at the February Board meeting a resolution was passed stating that one of the criteria for judging results would be entry-level jobs with upward mobility. Firms seeking assistance would be asked to provide plans for accomplishing this. He asked if staff had followed this recommendation regarding the P&C project. Ms. Evans stated that regarding the projectionists entry-level jobs, they would be trained and, in fact, sent to school for further instruction in film projection. Regarding management of the theatre and .planning for shows and films, the owner indicated that employees would gradually assume more and more duties and responsibilities in these areas as their knowl- edge increased. The owner and main investor will also be working in the project himself and has indicated he feels a great commitment to the people in his employ to train and upgrade them in their positions. Motion: Kramni&, seconded by Moran, moved to approve the resolution. Discussion At the Board's suggestion, the wording of the resolution was amended slightly. The resolution as amended reads as follows.: WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board recognizes the need to continue efforts which enhance and preserve residential neighborhoods, promote. job creation/retention, and improves community facilities, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board endorses the proposed Community Development Block Grant Application as adopted by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency/Community Development Agency and endorsed by the Citizens Advisory Committee, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board supports the 1985/86 Community Development Block Grant Small Cities budget as recommended by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency/Community Development Agency recommendations, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board recommends that the Mayor sign the completed applications as described in the IURA/CDA recommendation. Vote: 6-0-1-abstention (_Jackson) . Passed. -7- 11. Approval of Minutes: Minutes of Special Meeting - 2/13/85: Motion: Kramnick, seconded by Moran, moved to approve. Vote: 5-1-nay (dackson) , 1-abstention (Nichols.) Carried. Minutes of February 26, 1985: Motion: Kramnick, seconded by Nichols, moved approval . Vote': 7-0-0. Carried. 12. Master Plan: Common Council requested the Board to investigate how to deal with preparation of a Master Plan. Director Van Cort, Ms. Cummings, Chair Blumenthal , and Paul Mazzarella met recently and discussed a policy plan and other alternatives. Mr. Mazzarella is writing to other cities listed by the American Planning Association who have recently completed Master Plans and he anticipates receiving copies of these documents in the near future. Mr. Van Cort stated a schedule must be adopted regarding this Work. Presently, background information is being gathered with the hope of having funds allocated in the 1986 .budget in order to proceed with this task. Action would have to be taken by .the Board in July because the department budget is submitted on August lst. The Master Plan is being undertaken at the request of. Common Council to investigate options and report on the options for long-ran:cge planning. The Planning and Devel- opment Committee has formally requested the Board to proceed. A time table will- be prepared during the next few weeks. 13. City-Owned Properties: An ad hoc committee of. the Chairs met to respond to the Mayor's request to look into six properties for possible sale and/or disposition by the city. The six properties are: 1 ) McPherson Ski and Sale sign base 2) Taughannock Blvd. parking of automobies .(west side north of Buffalo) 3) Parking for Capt. Joe's Reef 4) Parking for the Station Restaurant 5) Parking by Ithaca Tire Company 6) Mini-golf course on Elmira Road In the Committee's. discussion of these parcels, they formulated some additional policy regulations (refer to memo of 3/20/85) . The Committee made specific recommendations on five of the parcels. They recommended that nothing be done with parcels affected by BOR lands. Mr. Nichols asked if there is any way to give an adjacent land owner right of first refusal . Director Van Cort stated that could be done by a) license or permit given by BPW, b) to sell or lease long-term to a particular owner, must sell first to URA and then have URA solicit pro- posals, c) write bid specifications indicating only a certain type of -8- use. (The third method may not stand up to a legal challenge. ) Discussion followed regarding charging a fee on BOR _lands with the consensus that no fee should be charged on these lands. The Committee could not reach a conclusion regarding parcel #6 the Mini-golf course on the Elmira Road. Mr. Van Cort stated that this parcel is developable and has a considerable amount of frontage on Elmira .Road. Options discussed were (1) outright sale to any bidder, (2) sale with .conditions (certain criteria established by the city, e.g. , affirmative action policy, promotion from within, low-income jobs, community benefit), (3) or no sale at all - city to hold property and lease according to established criteria. Motion: Moran, seconded by Kramnick, moved to approve the recommendations as outlined in Mr. Van Cort's memo of March 20, 1985 regarding the first five parcels. Further discussion and recommendation to be made at the April Board meeting with regard to parcel #6. Vote: 6-0-1-abstention (Nichols). Carried. 14. Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Chair Blumenthal reported on two proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. First, a change to Section 30.32 entitled 'Use Regulations'', is as follows: 'No household, garage, porch or yard items for sale may be stored in the open, or continually displayed, within any district where the same may be construed by proper authority to be a menace. to the public health or safety, or maybe held to have a detrimental influence upon adjacent properties, or upon the neighborhood at large. ' Motion: Romanowski moved to recommend approval of the above change. Seconded by Moran. Vote: 7-0-0. Carried. Secondly, a change to Section 30.25, entitled 'District Regulations Chart' which would eliminate medical or dental offices from the R-3 districts is proposed. Motion: Romanowski moved to recommend approval of the change to section 30.25. Seconded by Kramnick. Vote: 7-0-0. Carried. 15. Reference was made to a copy of a memo dated 3/20/85 from Alderman Schlather to Paul Bennett, Assistant Corporate Counsel , regarding a proposed zoning. super committee to outline those areas of the zoning' ordinance which need improvement. Mr. Schlather is requesting summaries of problem areas for review by the Charter and Ordinance Committee. Thereafter, a special committee will be formed to look into these areas. Ms . Blumenthal felt there was insufficient information contained in the memo to make discussion possible. When more information is received regarding purpose, direction, etc. , the Board will attempt to comply with Mr. Schlather's request. -9- 16. An announcement was made regarding a conference to be held May 3-4, 1985 at the Ramada Inn.and hosted by Mayor Gutenberger. Mayors and. city officials from all New York State communities which contain colleges and universities are invited. The purpose of the gathering is to share information, discuss strategies and problems, etc. Cornell and Ithaca College speakers will participate and the Board is invited to attend as well Further details will be forthcoming. 17. Procedures for ,Hearing Zoning Appeals Cases: Mr. Kramnick said the Committee agreed to add the planning issues involved to any zoning cases they deemed discussible. Mr. Romanowski said that at the last BZA meeting which he attended he noted the BZA did refer to the Planning 'Board's recommendation on a particular case. The present method of procedures for hearing zoning cases will be con- tinued. Mr. Romanowski urged the Board members to attend a BZA meeting from time to time. The Board will discuss this issue further at the April Board meeting. 18. South Aurora Street Zoning: Reference was made to a letter received from Jason Fane inquiring about the zoning on South Aurora Street. -Mr. Kramnick said the contents of the letter were unclear and the Committee will need further details from Mr. Fane in order to respond. 19. Youth Bureau Facility: . Ms. Blumenthal reported that Mr. Van Cort requested the Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities Committee to review the plans for the Youth Bureau facility. First they discussed the program and if the proposed building met those needs. They did not ,extensively discuss the proposed costs. Secondly, they talked about the process of estimating project costs and decided that this was the most pertinent issue to address at this time. They agreed it was inappropriate for the Committee to make a recommendation to the Board about .the cost increase, if it was justified, or if and how items should be cut. They felt that this project pointed to some possible weaknesses_ in the capital budget process. They further stated that the Board should study the process of determining project costs and make rec- ommendations to Council for future projects. They decided this is a pro- cedural issue for the Board's review. Mr. Nichols mentioned the review of capital projects and the discussion now going on to change the process. Ms. Blumenthal stated that the Committee will address this question at their next meeting. 20. Plant Closing Legislation: Mr. Jackson stated that plant closing legislation is still being researched. His Committee now has an advisory opinion from Paul Bennett on general legal issues. Next month the Committee will review a draft piece of legislation and will try to report out of Committee for the next Board meeting. -10- 21. BPW Committee Liaison Report: Mr. Nichols reported that one of the subjects being discussed by the Parking Committee of the BPW is overnight on-street parking. Permit parking is being considered as an option. However, Mr. Nichols feels that permit parking is more of a planning issue than a BPW issue. He believes that unless a strong argument is presented against alter- nate side of the street overnight parking, this arrangement will re- main unchanged. Director Van Cort said this topic is one the staff has been considering, and he would like to discuss this further with the Board. 22. P&D Committee Liaison Report: Mr. Romanowski said that the Planning and Development Committee of Council would have a full presentation of the Youth Bureau facility at their meeting on March 27, 1985. Also to be discussed at that time will be the Community Development application, South Hill Zoning re- quest, the department work plan, a Collegetown update to be given, and discussion of community gardens special permit ordinance. Mr. Romanowski invited the Board to attend the meeting if they desired further infor- mation regarding these topics. Adjournment - 11:40 p.m. /mc 4/11/85 ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PLANNING AND .DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING March 26, 1985 Mr. Kramnick, Chairman of the Codes and Administration Com- mittee, reported that the Committee met prior to this meeting and reviewed the Zoning Appeals cases for March 1985. The Committee determined that the following cases would not be discussed by the Board and the Committee recommends that they be passed on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without comment or recommendation: Appeal 1610 - 904 Giles Street Appeal 1611 - 3.32 S. Cayuga Street Appeal .1612- 327 and 329-31 W. Seneca Street Appeal 1614 - 327 Spencer Road The cases which the Committee determined should or must be discussed were: Appeal 1613 - 121 Cascadilla Street (Planning and Development review mandated) Appeal 1615 326 Elmira Road (Planning issues: potential impact on a planned public improvement; Elmira Road Corridor) MOTION: Kramnick, seconded by Sampson, so moved. VOTE: 6-0-0. CARRIED. APPEAL 1613 - 121 Cascadilla Street: Appeal of J. _Tilitz for an Accessory Apartment Temporary Permit under Section 30.27 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit conversion of the single-family house at 121 Cascadilla to a single-family house with an Accessory Apartment. Peter Costanza, Esq. , appeared for Mr. Tilitz. He stated that. Mr.. Tilitz is requesting permission to create an Accessory Apart- ment in the large house he recently purchased. The proposed apartment will contain 330 sq. ft. ; the remaining living area will be used by the owner; and there is sufficient parking space on the lot. Mr. Tilitz proposes to add one exterior door opening onto a screened front porch. The plans for the exterior change will be brought to the Design Review Board for their review. This request is the first application under the Ordinance adopted in September 1984. No one appeared in opposition to this request. Staff Recommendation: Grant, subject` to review of entry design. by design Review Board, per ordinance. MOTION: Kramnick, seconded by Nichols, moved to recommend approval F the request for an Accessory Apartment as stated. VOTE: 6-0-0. CARRIED. APPEAL 1615 - 326 Elmira Road: Appeal of Wendy's International for an Area Variance to permit construction of an addition to the front of the existing restaurant located in a B-5 district in which the proposed use is permitted. Dave Christianson, Construction Engineer, appeared for Wendy's and presented their proposal to the Board. He stated that the present building is 10 years old and they wish to update the exterior, remodel the interior and construct an addition 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep at the front of the restaurant. The addition will be an attractive glass, steel and masonry structure with a "greehouse" effect. Photographs illustrating the addition were presented. It will . upgrade the dining environ- ment and increase seating capacity. The proposed addition would encroach upon the 10 foot front ,yard requirement for the district. Discussion followedregarding the existing property lines, right- of-way, and concerns over the future public improvement of the Elmira Road. Mr. Nichols stated he was opposed to the construe- tion because if the City wished to make improvements to the Road the proposed addition might restrict the area within which the improvements could be made. Traffic hazard was also mentioned; the addition could cause a reduction in sight distance for cars entering and exiting. Mr. Van Cort noted that the proposed addition would be more than 40 feet from the curb of Elmira Rd. , allowing enough room for good visibility for cars entering and e.zit.ing, from the property. Staff Recommendation: Mr. Meigs recommended denial ; Director Van Cort recommended approval because distance from the proposed addition to the curb is adequate for safety and future road im- provements. MOTION: Nichols, seconded by Jackson, moved to recommend denial. of the request. VOTE: 4-yea, 1-nay (Blumenthal ) , and 2-abstentions (Sampson, Romanowski ). CARRIED - DENIED. /mc 3/28/85