Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1986-01-28 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES - January 28, 1986: PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal , S. Jackson, M. Sampson, M. Albanese, S. Cummings, R. Moran, T. Cookingham. Deputy Director Mazzarella,- City Planner H. Jones. 1. Call to Order 7:35 p,m. 2. Preliminary Subdivision - 371 Elmira Rd,./Vann Outdoor Power Equipment: Deputy Director Mazzarella explained the request for a subdivision of the parcel at 371 Elmira Rd. to create a larger parcel . As part of the plan to improve this vacant property for commercial use, an unusable portion of the lot will be sold to the adjacent property owner enhancing the utility and value of the property. The proposal makes several pieces of land slightly more rational in shape and, therefore, enhances their use. Reference was made to a memorandum written by Jon Meigs recommending that preliminary approval be granted inasmuch as all out- comes of the proposed subdivision would be positive. Mr. Meigs further suggested that consideration of final subdivision. approval proceed as soon as the applicants prepare and submit a request and documentation as provided by City subdivision regulations. Mr. Cookingham asked if this proposal would make the parcel comply with the minimum lot size for the area. Mr. Mazzarella said the parcel was presently in compliance. Motion: Mr. Cookingham moved to grant preliminary. approval of the sub- division request. Seconded by Mr. Sampson. Vote; 6-0-0. Passed. 3. - Zoning Appeals: See. Minutes attached. 4. Farmers ' Market - Public Meeting: A public meeting was held to discuss a permanent site for the Ithaca Farmers ' Market with particular attention focused on the City's water and sewer site at Franklin Street. Chair Blumenthal gave a brief history of the search and selection process used by the Economic Development and Transportation Committee of the Planning and Development Board. Over one year ago, the Board was charged with finding a permanent site for the Market. Twenty-five or 30.sites were explored and rated according to established criteria. The list of sites was narrowed to five and finally the site which seemed most appropriate was the water and sewer facility on the Northside of the City. It is a relatively large parcel , provides reasonable access, is proximate to a neighborhood and offers adequate parking. Other sites which were con- sidered were Stewart Park, Cass Park, Southwest Park and the existing location on Taughannock Boulevard. Helen Jones, City Planner, gave a description of the water and sewer property. Some of the buildings now present will no longer be needed by the DPW when the new sewer facility is complete. These structures could be renovated for Market use. The Market would have good visibility from Route 13. Placing the Market here creates a fine entryway to the City making a positive statement about Ithaca and Planning and Development Board Minutes -2- Jan. 28, 1986: potential development. There. is access from feeder streets as well - Lake, Hancock, First and Third. There is room to accommodate 100 to 150 vendors and 250 parking spaces would be available. One of .the prominent features concerning this commercial location is that it is in a residential area where the present use has been tolerated for a long time. The City now has the opportunity to make this site into a complementary feature of the neighborhood. Ms. Jones used schematic drawings with overlays to illustrate important aspects of the property: existing structures, streets of accessibility, size of parcels, avail- able parking areas, etc. The schematics were in no way attempting to suggest a design plan for the Market. Design options need to be ex- plored and cost estimates gathered. The City is putting together an application for a New York State Council on the Arts grant to help defray the cost of a design study, This would enable the City to develop a series of options regarding use of the buildings, site layout, cost estimates and alternatives. Marjorie Z. Olds, President of the Northside Civic Association, addressed the Board. Ms. Olds stated that the residents she has spoken to in the area are excited about the possible location of the Ithaca Farmers' Market in the Northside and they welcomethe. Market .there. Their major concern, however, is the increased traffic it will generate. The Civic Association is requesting that the Planning and Development Board ask the Department of Public Works to investigate the feasibility of having the State create another access from Rt. 13 directly to the site enabling customers and vendors to travel directly via Rt. 13 thus keeping traffic on the feeder streets to a minimum. Jim Linton, member of IFM, distributed a list of questions regarding the water and sewer site. The list of questions and their respective replies were: a) Does the site meet the IFM requirements? Mr, Jackson stated that estimates indicate the site contains a little over three acres. The Market has asked for enough space for 150 vendors. The Committee, estimating 300 sq, ft;,, of space per vendor determined that 150 vendors would occupy an acre plus an additional small fraction of land, b) Is the value of the area under consideration, i ,e, for development, worth letting the FM use it for approximately 50. days per year? Ms. Cummings, Council , explained that the City was exploring shared use of the site with other organizations allowing a more intensified use to make it economically feasible. Mr. Jackson stated that the problem of use vs . value will exist regardless which site i.s. chosen. The value of using this land for IFM is that it creates an acceptable buffer between an industrial/commerical area and a residental zone. - Planning and Development Board Minutes -3- Jan. 28, 1986: c) Is there money in the City budget to prepare the area for- IFM use? No. Financial arrangements are being explored to obtain funds for design study. d) Is the odor in the area conducive to a business relying on freshness? Mr. Linton claims that sewer plant odors were present when he toured the site. Itis believed that the new sewer plant will not emit odors. After discussion it was decided that the Committee would investigate similar sewer plants in other cities to determine if odor was, indeed, a problem or nuisance. e) If the City were to let the IFM use the site, what would the cost to .the IFM be to cover the City's expenses, i .e. , electric., sewer, water, gas, insurance, etc.? Buildings now ,o n the site have utilities An place. In negotiating a fair price for the facility, financial arrangements to be formulated would not impose excessive financial strain on the Market. The City is willing to work out a creative financing mechanism which would make the plan workable and manageable for the Market. f) Have plans been made and money budgeted to relocate the departments presently using the site? No plans have been made yet but ideas are being explored. DPW is considering consolidating certain portions of its operations onto one site. This should not entail .a large expenditure of money. Mr. Albanese was asked when the site might be available for IFM use. He informed the. Board that the new sewer plant will be operable in early 1987 and the old plant will be in operation up until the final day before the new plant takes over. The old plant possibly will be used for a longer period of time as a back.-up -to the new.plant. Earliest use of the site by. FM would be the summer of 1988. Southwest Park was again mentioned as a possible site by Mr. Linton, Ms. Blumenthal said that Southwest Park was considered as one of the sites and still may be considered if circumstances rule out the Franklin Street location. The problems existing at Southwest Park and the cost involved to bring the location to an acceptable condition are prime disadvantages to its selection. If the Franklin Street site proves unacceptable, then Southwest Park as well as the other four sites previously mentioned will be reconsidered. The question of proximity to the P&C market was raised. The Committee felt that the IFM and the P&C market would be compatible because increased traffic for the supermarket would enhance their business. Another question broached was: What security would the Market have that the site chosen would be permanent? The lease negotiated between the City Planning and Development Board ,Minutes -4- Jan. 28, 1986: and the Market would assure permanency for a specified number of years. Anna Steinkraus, President of the IFM Board, stated that the IFM Board would not agree to any clause in the lease which was unacceptable or unworkable for the Market. Mr. Jackson wished to reassure the Market members that (1) an acceptable lease would be worked out to assure permanency for the Market and afford security. . (2) In regard to the site being too valuable to allow the Market to remain there, he believes that this site is affordable for the City and for the Market. The cost of renovating the island ' ­- to meet the requirements of the Market would probably be prohibitive for the City and Market. (3) Major consideration of the water and sewer site over the present site is the compatibility of uses placing the Market in a neighborhood where it is welcomed is a great asset. The present site is over- shadowed by the State's Rt. 96 alternatives - a further reason to choose the Franklin. Street site over Taughannock Boulevard, Ms, Cummings stated that the City has a strong commitment to finding a permanent site for the Market. In summary, Ms. Steinkraus stated that the IFM is excited about the possibilities of this location. They would be willing to work with the City on design, finances, leasing, etc. The IFM is still considering their present location and is keeping the other sites in mind also. Ms. Steinkraus, upon asking the IFM members present to indicate their consent to pursue the Franklin St. site as a possible permanent location, received general approval from these members. Mr. Jackson informed the audience that this public meeting would not be the final one to discuss the Farmers ' Market site; others would follow at appropriate times, Ms. Cummings informed the gathering that this topic would be discussed at the regular monthly Council meeting on Wednesday, February 5, 1986 where anyone from the public could address the Council to express. their views and relay their comments to the Mayor and the Council representatives. Neil Schwartzback, 107 Park Pl , and a member of the Farmers ' Market, stated his concern over the present location in relation to the Rt. 96 proposals. It is his feeling that the Market, though aesthetically pleasing at Taughannock Blvd, , is in danger of being displaced sometime in the future. Ms. Blumenthal reported that Daniel Hoffman, Council , has suggested that a City recycling operation might also be accommodated on the Franklin Street site as a shared use with Farmers' Market. Planning and Development Board Minutes -5- Jan. 28, 1986: 5. Economic Development and Transportation Committee Report: aF Mr. Jackson presented a resolution to the Board relative to the Farmers' Market - NYSCA Grant Award, It is as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca .is committed to assisting the Ithaca Farmers ' Market in securing a permanent location, and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that priority be given to examining the feasibility of the site currently occupied by the City's water and sewer facilities at Franklin Street as a future site for the Market, and WHEREAS, the possibility exists to convert the site from an unattractive industrial presence to one that enhances the surrounding residential neighborhood and serves as an attractive city entryway, and WHEREAS, a number of possible options exist for design layout and circulation patterns for the site to suit both the Market's oper- ations' and the neighborhood, and WHEREAS, a site design study is needed to fully explore possible options and determine how best to .utilize the site, and WHEREAS, the feasibility of using the site for the Farmers' Market cannot be determined without such a study, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ,RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board does recommend to Common Council that Department of Planning and Development staff be authorized to apply to the New York State Council on the Arts for grant funds to reduce the cost of said study. Helen Jones explained that this resolution is a requestforauthorization to make application for grant funds that would supplement the cost of the design work. Past experience has shown that NYSCA usually does not award the full amount of the request, In addition, NYSCA requires some amount of matching funds from the City, The awards are granted on a competitive basis, Anna Steinkraus stated that a committee of the IFM Board has suggested allocation of $1 ,000 to be used toward cost of the design study, This allocation would need, of course, approval . by the membership. Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Albanese; moved to approve the resolution as presented. Vote: 6-0-0, Carried. b) NYSEG Leasing Policy: Rather than repeat the leasing policy used in the Cherry Street Industrial Park, the Committee has started' discussion to develop new and revised clauses for the lease agreements to be used in the proposed new industrial park. Economic Development and Transportation Committee has met with the Economic Development Committee of the IURA to explore ideas and guidelines. Some items they are discussing concern: Planning and Development Board Minutes -6- Jan. 28, 1986: (1) minimum and maximum rents to be charged - minimum would be replace- ment rate, maximum would be the market rate; (2) money that the City contributes through subsidies should be treated .as an investment where financing would be arranged to recognize that lower repayment is often advantageous in the early years but that over time the investment should repay itself; (3) various conditions should be attached to the leases such as: local hiring, affirmative action, upper mobility provisions, etc. Lower rents could .be assigned based on compliance with the con- ditions. The Committee will also meet with the P&D Committee of Council regarding .this topic. Mr. Jackson hopes to have a further. report for the Board at the February Board meeting. c) Employment Maintenance Legislation: Mr. Jackson read the following press release issued by Mayor Gutenberger on January. 28, 1986: Mayor Gutenberger announced that he has appointed the following people to an .ad hoc committee regarding local Employment Maintenance Legislation: Raymond UanHoutte - Past President, Tompkins County Area Development Corp. James Morrisette '- Past President, Tompkins-Cortland Joint Labor Coalition William Bennett - Past President, Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Charles French Business Manager, Building Trades Union Donald Chandler - President, Precision Filters, Inc. Richard Sullivan Business Agent, Machinist Union. In addition to these members, Richard Matthews of Morse Automotive Products and Professor Steve Jackson of Cornell University will serve as research and resource persons to the committee. Mayor Gutenberger stated, "I have asked .these community residents. to come together to make recommendations for tong range economic planning that will be beneficial to our community." "At the first meeting of the committee," Mayor Gutenberger continued, "it was agreed that information would be gathered from other cities and states that have passed similar type legislation and the results.. would be analyzed." "The committee will also investigate a broad range of options that could have a positive effect on the economic opportunities of our local employers and employees. " Mayor Gutenberger concluded by saying, "I am. very pleased that these people have agreed to serve their community in this, capacity and I am certain that their cooperation will produce recommendations that will be in the best interests of the entire community," Planning and Development Board Minutes -7- Jan. 28, 1986: 6. Strategic Plan: Deputy Director Mazzarella reported that Katherine Evans has been hired as data coordinator. She has been associated with the City for eight years and her knowledge of the City will be a great: asset in this undertaking. She will be working on the 1987 Community. Development application until March but will then devote her time to her new respon- sibilities, Mr. Mazzarella referred to a three-month schedule of activities that need to be accomplished. The schedule shows who is responsible for the activity and when completion of that activity is expected. The first item has been done - establishing the data coordinator position. The second item, data collection, will be done in large part by the Deputy Director. . Other items listed were Citizen Participation, Identification of Housing and Neighborhood Problems and Issues, Set Goals and Objectives, and finally, a Progress Report. The Committee has already determined that focusing on housing and neighborhood concerns was the first objective for the coming year. The next step .is to identify and clarify exactly the issues and problems relating to neighborhoods. Thiswillaid the direction of the study. He asked that each Board member.contemplate housing and neighborhood issues and for each to compile a list. At the February Board meeting, Mr. Mazzarella hopes to compare and discuss the concerns listed and then commence to prioritize the categories. During March, goals and objectives should be determined, A progress report should be given to Council at the end of March or early April to bring . Council members up- to-date on the progress of this work. Quarterly reports should follow thereafter. Discussion followed regarding citizen participation by means of a technical advisory committee. Th.e committee would consist of 10-12 , people who have concerns about neighborhoods or who have professional connectionswith the housing field, He requested the Board to suggest names of individuals who they believe would contribute ideas and expertise to such a committee, The committee would work closely with. staff as proposals are developed and would make recommendations to the Planning Board who will in turn be responsible for voting on proposals and policies as they develop. At the end of the process, the Planning Board will be making recommendations for actions to be implemented based on input from staff and .the advisory committee. Public hearingsshould be called periodically during the process whereby citizens could participate and be apprised of the progress. Ms. Cummings suggested adding a lender, as well as long-term and short-term renters, to the list of advisors. Mr. Cookingham suggested the number of individuals on the committee should be expanded. Mr. Mazzarella stated that a list of possible members is being prepared with final selection to be done by Mayor Gutenberger, Planning and Development Board Minutes -8- Jan. 28, 1986: Ms. Cummings , seconded by Mr. Cookingham, moved to appprove the schedule as presented. Discussion continued regarding the time allocated for accomplishing the various activities, It was agreed that during February problems would be identified; in March goals and objectives should be finalized. Mr.. Jackson stated that a public hearing to receive public comments should be held before finalizing goals and objectives. During discussion, it;became apparent that since the advisory committee has not yet been selected it would be very difficult to adhere to the timeframe suggested. Mr. Albanese offered the suggestion that the order be reversed which would allow for a public hearing before or during the process of committee selection, His suggestion was received favorably. Vote: 6-0-0, Passed. 7. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Cookingham, seconded by Mr. Moran, moved to approve the December 1985 Minutes, Vote: 5-0-1-abstention (Albanese) . 8. Director's Report: Mr. Mazzarella mentioned the meeting scheduled for February 3, 1986 at Belle Sherman school for a discussion of the residential parking permit system in relation to the neighborhoods surrounding Cornell University. Board members were invited .to attend. 9. Planning and Development Committee Liaison Report; Susan Cummings listed the following topics for discussion at the next Committee meeting: a) Stewart Park Design Study -- $6500 has been awarded by NYSCA to be applied to the cost of a design study for the Park in connection with the recent Stewart Park Master Plan. b) Stewart Avenue - The Committee is encouraging the BPW to repair the patched areas of this street with brick. Cost and time involved will be discussed. c) Municipal Composting - The City is researching the possibility of a municipal composting venture, Advice and suggestions have been received from Robert Young who ran a successful private composting company in Berkeley, Ca. d) Recycling - The Recycling Taskforce will provide an update on exist ing codes and ordinances and their recommendations for a successful recycling program. e) DSS/City Hall Possible relocation of City Hall and the. sale or lease of the City Hall building to the County is being investigated by a negotiating committee comprised of City and,. County representatives. The most cost-effective method i:s, being sought. 10. Board of Public Works Liaison Report: Mr. Albanese reported that the BPW committees are being restructured for 1986. The IFM has been granted a new contract for one year to operate at their existing sites. The pro- posed new Farmers' Market site on Franklin Street has been referred to the Water and Sewer Committee as well as the Streets and Facilities Committee of the BPW. Parking and sidewalk improvements are being under- taken in the City at various locations, 11, Adjournment - .11;15 p.m, /mc ZONING APPEALS MINUTES ' January 28, 1986: Chair Blumenthal referred to a memorandum from Jon Meigs summarizingthismonth's zoning appeals. It was determined that only appeal 1674 warrants particular comment on planning issues . Appeals 1671, 1672, 1673 and 1675 will be passed on the the Board of Zoning Appeals without comment or recommendation. (Copy of memorandum attached. ) Appeal 1674- 109 Elston Place: Area variances for front setback and rear yard depth to permit conversion of a 1-family dwelling at 109 Elston Place (not city street) to two 3-bedroom units , with two third-floor rooms that might be used as bedrooms. The Board was referred to the January 24, 1986 memo from Jon Meigs outlining concerns raised by this request. As a result of appeals made by former owners of this property over the past few years show, the issue of density is of parti- cular concern in this neighborhood, and warrants note by this Board for consideration by the BZA. The proposed conversion would permit a level of occupancy that could have negative impacts on adjoining properties and substantially change the neighborhood's character, Increased parking demands would be created and the added traffic would further reduce the safety and amenity of the street and neighborhood. Other. negative effects include increased noise and decreased maintenance of the premises . Mr. Meigs and the Committee indicated that it may be reasonable to consider making owner-occupancy of the premises a necessary condition for granting the variance, to reduce the potential for rapid changes detrimental to the character and quality of life of the area. Mr. Der-Jiun Lee (co-owner of the property) was present and addressed the Board. He stated this was a unique structure because of. its size. The house already has the necessary facilities for a 2-family dwelling (2 kitchens, 2 bathrooms, 2 livingrooms , 7 bedrooms, 3 off-street parking spaces) . Mr. Lee's in-Laws, Mr. and Mrs. David Chang, intend to use the second floor unit as their residence. Ms. Cummings asked why this request was not made under the Ci.ty's Accessory Apartment Ordinance. Mr. Lee stated that the floor area did not comply with the less than 1/3 square footage requirement of the total area as stated in the Ordinance. Ms. Cummings also asked for a clarification of the second floor rooms since from the drawings it appeared that there was no living space indicated for the second floor unit. Mr. Lee stated that one of the second floor bedrooms is a very large room and could be used as the living room for the second floor unit. Mr. Cookingham said he felt it was difficult to make a recommendation without knowing the square footage of each room and he further suggested that the BZA examine the concerns raised here (density, parking, traffic, owner- occupancy, etc. ) Mr. George Schuler, 110 Ferris Place, a resident of the area addressed the Board. He stated that there is continuing concern over density, parking, and noise. He and his wife are appearing before the Board to urge denial of the request because of the negative impacts which would occur to the neighborhood. In the past, the property was owned by an absentee landlord ZONING APPEALS MINUTES (continued) -2- January 28, 1986: and the structure was not well maintained. They do not wish to see a repeat of this problem. He believes there are too many bedrooms indicated in the drawings; it is more like a dormitory structure. The neighborhood has had many problems relating to excessive noise from the renters of this property. Mr. Harold Cohen, 108 Ferris Place, was also present and spoke in opposition of the requested variance. He supports the comments of Mr. Schuler. He wished to point out that in the configuration presented by Mr. Lee it appears that if the rooms are occupied to the limit then 8 to 16 or more people might reside there. He is also concerned that when the property is sold, the neighborhood may again be faced with an absentee landlord situation. Mr. Jackson stated that this property, located within the East Hill study area, is in a neighborhood which is fighting to make a balance between family ownership and student residences. He urged the Board to make a strong statement to the BZA rather than simply pointing out planning issues. Motion: Mr, Jackson, seconded by Mr. Sampson, movedto recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the variance request, making special note of the following items to be examined by the BZA: 1)_ variance to be requested under the Accessory_ Apartment Ordiance via Special Permit; 2) determine the total number of bedrooms and the size of each; 3) desig- nation of a living room for the second floor unit; and 4) condition var- iance approval upon owner-occupancy. Vote: 6-ayes, 1-nay (Cookingham) . Carried. L ���RpORA?EO X00 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�lanning and Development From: Jon Meigs Sub: Report on Zoning Appeals 1671-75 Date: January� 4, 1986 Due to the inability to schedule a meeting of the Codes and Admin- istration Committee to review the appeals this month, I discussed them with Ms. Blumenthal . In our opinion, only Appeal 1674 warrants particular comment on planning issues. Briefly, the appeals are: 1671: Area Variance for front yard setback of 62 ft, where ten is required, so the 1-family dwelling at 437 N, Tioga (R2b) can be converted to two units, a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom. 1672: Area Variance for rear yard depth of seven feet where 162 is required, to permit continued use of third floor space con- verted to living space by former owner without permit, at 525 S. Albany (R2b) . 1673: Area Variances for parking (a space; 2 required), lot area (1800 s.f. ; 3,000 req. ) setbacks on three sides (house is virtually on lot line in front, rear and one side) , and lot coverage (.47% where 35% is permitted) to permit estab- lishment of home occupation as seamstress, by Special Permit, Owner-occupant is single parent currently renting commercial space, has no employees, and most custom is by appointment. Adequate on-street parking is always available, according to appellant, Location is 405 E. Marshall (R2b); 1674: Area Variances for front setback (10 ft. ; 25 ft. req. ) and rear yard depth (15 ft. ; 16 req. ) to permit conversion of a 1-family dwelling at 109 Elston P1 , (not city street) (R2a) to two 3-bedroom units, with two third-floor rooms that might be used as bedrooms. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" r tr -2- As the results of appeals made by former owners of this property over the past few years show, the issue of density is of particular concern in this neighborhood, and warrants note by this Board for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Though the proposed use is permitted, the property is in most respects adequate, and the nonconformities not critical in relation to use, the proposed conversion would permit a level of occupancy that could have negative impacts on adjoining properties and substantially change the neighborhood's character. Current zoning regulations. would allow each unit's occupancy by three unrelated adults, with a corresponding potential increase in parking demand; such increased parking could be accommodated on the property at the expense of usable yard, but the added traffic would further reduce the safety and amenity of the street and neighborhood. The capacity and safety of the State-Stewart intersection, with its heavy volume and physical shortcomings , could also be affected out of proportion to the number of vehicles belonging to future occupants of this premises since all traffic to and from it must use the single steep lane of Elston, which is effectively a leg of the same intersection. Other potential negative effects of increased occupancy of the premises, which are of particular concern to remaining owner-occupants and families with children in the area, include increased noise and decreased maintenance of the premises. Owner-occupancy of the premised as intended by appellants, could be expected to mitigate the above effects by potentially keeping. the number of occupants and cars at less than the maximum possible for the premises, exercising control over noise, and being directly responsible for property upkeep, Thus, it may be reasonable to consider making owner-occupancy of the premises a necessary condition for granting the variance,to;. reduce the potential for rapid changes detrimental to the character and quality of life of the area. 1675: Area Variance for deficient front setback (21.73 ft. where 25 ft. req'd. ) to permit construction of a two-unit dwelling on an existing foundation at 617 Spencer Rd (R2a) . There are no planning issues. This Board was aware of this condition and owner's intention, when ,it approved subdivision of the property in December 1985. JM/mc Attachment