HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1985-09-23 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES - September 23, 1985:
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal , S. Jackson, M. Sampson, R. Romanowski ,
B. Nichols , R. Moran, T. Cookingham
Dir. H. M, Van Cort, J. Meigs, P. Mazzarella
ALSO: Other interested parties
I
1 . Review of Zoning Appeals Cases: Chair Blumenthal stated that the
Codes and Ordinance Committee met last week to examine once again
the procedures used for review of zoning cases. Ms. Blumenthal has
felt for some time that the zoning cases are taking an excessive
amount of time from the more substantive matters before the Board
each month. The Committee outlined several options for change:
1) revise criteria, 2) hold a second Planning and Development
Board meeting each month to deal with zoning appeals, 3) form a
neighborhood zoning review board, and 4) direct staff to screen
and select cases to be discussed. The Committee concensus was
that the Board should hear only those cases with city-wide impact.
For all cases, the Committee will make a statement either passing
the request on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without comment or
recommendation, or pointing out planning issues where they arise
in an appeal . Director Van Cort and Jon Meigs will) write up the
planning issues and their findings will be distri buted to the Board
prior to each monthly meeting. A brief discussion ensued ending
with the following motion: The Board will hear only cases with
city-wide impact and the Committee will meet each month to make
recommendations regarding planning issues in cases where warranted.
Motion was made by Jackson and seconded by Romanowski in favor of
the above motion. Vote: 5-0. Carried.
Jon Meigs read this month's appeals. He reviewed the requests and
commented on planning issues where applicable.
2. Ad Hoc Committee on Master Plan: Ms. Blumenthal referred to the July 13,
1985 memo of Paul Mazzarella received by the Board 'outlining various
approaches to master planning. The Committee met. 1ast week and de-
cided to recommend to the Planning and Development Committee (which
then will recommend to Council ) that the city undertake a strategic
planning process and the Planning Board will determine topics to be
studied. A number of issues could be included in the study such as
housing, transportation, economics, utilities , recreation, etc. Two
priorities which should be undertaken initially are housing (including
neighborhood issues) and economic development. Discussion followed
regarding the type of planning procedure to be undertaken and the cost
involved. The Committee is recommending a strategic planning process
Planning & Development Board Minutes (continued) -2-
which is more direct and would utilize a shorter time frame. Mr.. Nichols
asked if only one issue at a time would be undertaken, Mr. Mazzarella
stated that depending on the resources several items could be started
at once. He further explained that by strategic planning the city could
react to situations as they arise. A strategic plan examines the current
situation, identifies problems, prioritizes and endeavors to solve prob-
lems systematically, It is an on-going process which is. more disciplined.
and more systematic than the way the Board now operates. The strategic
process allows for describing policies and programs that the .city could
implement to achieve a desired goal . Mr. Cookingham said that strategic
planning involves a critical examination of the organization. He questioned
how much ability the Board and staff would have in the:comprehensive re-
view of departments relating to staffing, budget, and review of. each
segment. Mr. Mazzarella stated that the Board must receive Common Council
backing and that the Board should-limit .their study of topics to such
issues as zoning, housing, and/or transportation those areas in which
Planning Boards historically have had some impact. Mr. Mazzarella sa.id
that a strategic plan is self-critical and recommendations may or may not
be accepted or implemented by Council Mr, Cookingham stated he endorses
a strategic plan because it is flexible and can be modified as needed.
He recommends .downplaying critical analysis of the organization and en-
courages greater interaction with each department. • Mr. Nichols suggested .
that Common Council involvement should be ip�luded in the timetable with
review in time for inclusion in the 8 d1S�udget. Discussion followed. re
garding the proposed budget amount ($30,000-$50,000) . Mr. Mazzarella
stated that in studying housing and zoning topics assumptions need to be
based on fact. Design of survey instruments and collection and analysis
of data will be time-consuming and labor-intensive Mr. Jackson requested
that proposals be brought to Council in a timely manner for inclusion .in
� 0 � the 4O1&7 budget cycle. Mr. Nichols stated that after objectives are es-
tablished Council approval should be sought thereby involving Council
early in the process. Mr. Cookingham moved, seconded by Jackson, to
recommend preparation of a strategic plan, Vote; 7-0, unanimous.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has been charged with the
responsibility of initiating and updating the General Plan for .
the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has recognized that the City's
current General Plan adopted in 1971 has become outdated in many
respects, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has investigated the various
types and formats of general plans adopted by ;other communities
and has compared the advantages and disadvantages of each type,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board
hereby declares its intention to update the existing General Plan
of the City of Ithaca, and
Planning & Development Board Minutes (:continued) -3-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board hereby
adopts "Strategic Planning" as the process for developing
the updated Plan, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board hereby
selects housing and neighborhoods as the first subject for
the strategic planning process.
Mr. Jackson, seconded by Moran, moved to recommend approval of a budget .
of $52,000 for a housing and neighborhood plan. Lengthy discussion
followed regarding the budget amount. Mr. Nichols suggested amending
the motion to state "sum not to exceed $52,000 for the purpose of a
housing and neighborhoo study." Ms . umenthal stated er concern
over the cost; she felt it could be scaled down. Vote: 6-aye,
1-nay (Blumenthal ) . Carried.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has declared its intention
to update the. General Plan of the City of Ithaca, adopted in
1971 , and
WHEREAS, the Board has 'investigated various types and formats of general
plans and has selected strategic planning as the planning
process that will best suit the needs of the City of Ithaca,
and
WHEREAS, the Board has selected housing and neighborhoods as the issue
that will be addressed first by the strategic planning process,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board
hereby recommends that the Planning and Development Committee
endorse the concept of the strategic planning process, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and,Development Board recommends �r. /-
that the Planning and Development Committee submit_ a request ��.�bf�,e� %4
for a budget appropriation of. $52_,OOOAto be spent on personnel , .-yr'° 1=
computer programming and computer time to support the collection
and analysis of data to be used in the development of a housing
and neighborhood plan.
(Mr._Jackson left-the meeting a-t this point to attend the Charter and
Ordinance Committee meeting__tieing held at Central Fire Station. )
Discussion continued regarding Mr. Jackson's proposal to initiate at the
end of 1986 a study of the economic climate as the second topic of the
strategic plan. He recommended a consultant be hired for creation of an
economic plan including definition and problems for the sum of $5,000.
Mr. Nichols stated that TEDI is studying this topic and he would like
to hear from them before committing any more money to th.e proposed study.
Planning & Development Board Minutes (continued) -4-
Mr. Jackson's intention was that the city initiate hiring a consultant
but that the final strategic economic plan be finalized and funded by
the TCAD and Tompkins County, as well as the city. Motion was made by
Mr. Cookingham., seconded by Mr. Moran, to table this issue until the
Board could hear a report from TEDI regarding their progress in this
area. Mr. Cookingham further suggested continuation of this discussion
pending receipt of additional. information from TEDI and staff.
Vote: 6-0. Carried.
3. Farmers' Market: The Economic Development and Transportation Committee
met on September 20, 1985 with Director Van Cort and Helen Jones of
the Planning staff to review what had been done so far .in finding a
permanent site .and what tasks. still needed completion. Carol Chock,
Planning Consultant, conducted a survey two weeks ago in which 900
responses were received from shoppers. The data is be.ing analyzed
and the results should be available for the next Board meeting. Traffic
counts will be made at the Woolworth lot to help analyze the possibility
of a market at that site, Southwest Park will also be examined to
determine what agricultural development might be realized there. TEDI
will be asked if agricultural possibilities could be developed in South-
west Park or possibly in other parts of the city. The Committee is
finalizi`ng .a comprehensive study for the Board of the 26 ,sites originally
proposed. Work on this project will continue.
4. Preliminary. Subdivision: Iacovelli , Coddington Road: The Board con
timed discussing with Mr. Iacovelli and his attorney, Edward Mazza,
the proposed subdivision at 122-124 Coddington Road. ' They presented
photos of the proposed houses similar to those he has already built in
the Town of Ithaca. The photos showed a common driveway between the
houses entering into a parking lot. A sketch drawing of the structures
was also shown. Mr. Van Cort stated the Planning Department's concerns:
site topography, runoff, building siting and adequacy of parking. He
explained that the regulations require that the developer prepare a
topographical drawing of the proposal . Adequate drainage conditions
need to be defined as well as how the structures will be sited on the
lots. Discussion followed .regarding the rear yard setback and if it
conformed. to the requirements. It was suggested that Mr. . Iacovelli and
Mr. Mazza work with the Building Department to resolve unanswered questions.
Parking spaces were discussed and maintenance of the common driveway. Mr.
Mazza stated they are asking for preliminary approval of the lot con-
figuration conditioned upon adequate drainage so that Mr. Iacovelli can
proceed with this development proposal . Mr. Sampson suggested that
Board action be delayed until next month at which time the concerns
raised here might be resolved between Mr, Iacovelli. and the Building
Department. Motion was made by Cookingham, seconded by.Romanowski , to
delay action until next month when Mr. Iacovelli would present information
regarding topography and resolution of the ten--foot rearyard setback.
Vote: 5-0. Carried
Planning & Development Board Minutes (continued) -5-
5. Approval of Minutes : Mr. Cookingham moved approval of the July and
August 1985 Minutes , seconded by Mr. Moran. Vote: 5-0, unanimous.
6. Planning and Development Committee Report: Mr. Romanowski said that
most of the discussion at their last meeting centered on the College-
town Redevelopment Project and the progress made thus far. Council
voted approval of the conceptual design at the September meeting.
Their vote was 6 ayes, 4 nays .
7. Adjournment: 10:15 p.m.
/mc
.10/16/85
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Planning and Development Board �
Sub: Report on Appeals to be heard Oct. 7, 1985
(Nos. 1648, 1653-60)
Date: September 24, 1985
Review of subject Appeals has determined that the projects or
actions proposed appear to .be in general conformance with currently established
long-range planning objectives. Therefore this Board will not hear any of said
appeals at its September meeting for the purpose of making advisory recom-
mendations. Instead, the following information and comments are provided for
the use of the Board of Zoning Appeals as Appeals are considered.
Appeal 1648: The building sketch on amended page 4, without additional
explanation, suggests that the lower floor of the structure may be
intended to include habitable space. It was previously thought that
only the added floor was intended as dwelling; some clarification
may be in order to shed light on whether the extent of construction
and conversion contemplated is more,;than sufficient for a single
unit on this site.
Appeal 1653: The planning issue in this case is the acceptability of
intensification of permitted use in the particular circumstances.
Appeal 1654: No issues.
Appeal 1655: No issues.
Appeal 1656: The planning issue here is the appropriateness of the
R3 zoning classification, given the longstanding prior legally
nonconforming use and development of the premises. Pending study
of this issue and appropriate legislative action, an interim use
such as exists seems acceptable. The Board suggests that continued .
use of the premises as proposed be conditioned, to the extent legal
and practicable, on the provision of adequate and attractive
screening and enclosure of outside activity and ,storage areas.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
-2-
Appeal 1657: At its August meeting this Board approved the proposed
subdivision of this property into two parcels, one L-shaped with
the minimum required 50' street frontage, and the other deficient
in required area, subject to BZA approval of the deficiency which
would thus be created. The Board recognized that a rear setback
deficiency would also be created, as it would have been under the
subdivision scheme previously approved by BZA, but, on considering
the fact that the earlier scheme would create a lot with no street
frontage, felt .that the present proposal would be preferable from
the standpoint of long-range planning and efficient development.
The Board notes that many properties throughout the city lack
required area, yard setbacks etc. , but that relatively few lack.
any street frontage, and concludes that the hardship or practical
difficulty imposed on one property here in terms of an 11% lot area
deficiency would be less impediment to its economic use than would
be the case of the parcel with no street frontage under the earlier
scheme.
This Board, having given further consideration to the alternatives
for subdivision in this case, now respectfully urges the Board of
Zoning Appeals to take the above facts into account, and submits
that the best interests of the public and of the city would be served
by the approval of the variance as requested.
Applicant originally presented this case as Appeal, 1602, as a zoning
matter only. On being informed by Planning and Development staff
that a subdivision was involved, and approval of a lot without street
frontage might not be forthcoming, an alternative was apparently added
at the time of the BZA hearing. This Board, believing that the scheme
presented for its review would be denied by BZA, chose not to comment
or make recommendation until a subdivision application was received.
Appeal 1658: No issues.
Appeal 1659: No issues. The Board notes, however, that the proposal
entails significant upgrading in the appearance of the property,
which would be a desirable outcome.
Appeal 1660: No Board comment. Staff notes, however, that any subsequent
development of this property for other than a use permitted in the zone,
including intensification of the property's use via subdivision, would
be subject to stringent review.
JM/mc