Loading...
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