HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1986-05-27 .~ r
Approved. 6/24/86
-
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES
May 27, 1986
l. Call to Order: 7:45 p. m.
2. Liaison Report - Board of Public Works: M. Albanese
Mr. Albanese referred to the Spencer Road rezoning request
and the resolution regarding traffic in the area which was
passed by the Planning and Development Board last month and
referred to the BPW. This resolution was referred to the
Parking and Traffic Committee and Mr. Albanese hopes to have
a decision by next month' s Board meeting. The resolution
regarding drainage was referred to the Streets and Facilities
Committee. The City Engineer is working on this problem
covering the entire area. Funds for this project will not be
included in the 1987 budget, however, work is expected to be
continued in a timely manner. Ms. Cummings mentioned '
previous studies that the City Engineer had completed for
that location (prior drainage proposals) and suggested that
these be researched and included in the current information
` which should be made available to the Planning Board and
Planning staff. Mr. Albanese stated that he would propose to
have any and all studies made regarding drainage added to the
present study.
3. Liaison Report - Planning and Development Committee: S.
Cummings. Ms. Cummings stated that the Committee is
considering the proposal by Robert Young regarding recycling
and solid waste disposal (composting) . The Recycling
Taskforce along with staff members of the Department of
Public Works visited the community of Hamburg, New York which
has an active recycling program. A report of this visit will
be given at the P&D Committee meeting on May 28, 1986.
Council will decide whether such a composting/recycling plan
would be feasible for Ithaca.
4. Treetops Subdivision: Ms. Blumenthal reported that the
negotiating committee has passed proposals through Judy Saul
of the Community Dispute Resolution Center. Ms. Saul feeIs
that there is some positive movement towards an agreement but
that the rezoning question is affecting the timing. The
Planning Department is awaiting additional information from
the Weisburds regarding the environmental review. Upon
receipt of that material, the Planning staff will complete
Part II of the EAF. Council will hold a public hearing at
their June meeting to address the rezoning request.
5. Public Hearing — Final Subdivision Approval : 370 Elmira
Rd. The public hearing was opened by motion (R. Moran,
seconded by M. Sampson) for discussion of the proposed
subdivision by Mr. Zikakis. No one from the public was
present for discussion; the public hearing was closed by
'
.. �
2
�
motion (T. Cookingham, seconded by S. Cummings) . Dirk
Galbraith, Esq. representing Mr. Zikakis spoke to the Board.
He informed the Board that Mr. Zikakis has met a number of
times with Planning staff regarding his proposal. Peter
Trowbridge, ASLA, has done the environmental review regarding
drainage and has presented his findings in a letter dated May
22, 1986. Mr. Cookingham referred to a memo by Jon Meigs
regarding the environmental assessment. Mr. Meigs
recommended that a negative determination be filed based on
evidence supplied regarding mitigation measures with the EAF
and other project documentation. However, this determination
should be restrictedto the proposed development of 370
Elmira Rd. including only that portion of the proposed
Commercial Avenue subdivision required for the construction
of the automobile dealership in conformance with applicable
zoning regulations. Additional time is necessary to perform
adequate review of information, including environmental
study, concerning the remainder of the proposed subdivision
of the Commercial Avenue parcel, Mr. Meigs recommended final
approval be granted for that portion of the proposed
subdivision necessary for development of the automobile
dealership, contingent upon provision by applicant of
assurance adequate for the Board that legally sufficient
provision has been made for a possible future road across the
easterly edge of the Zikakis development. Mr. Cookingham
pointed out two areas of concern: first, run-off from the
area is not being handled by the existing culvert causing a
back-up of water; with development of the area this problem
will worsen. Secondly, the potential future development of
the area was a concern for the Committee. Mr. Trowbridge
presented his findings based on his study of the area
regarding drainage, cutting of vegetation, depth of top soil
and the existing water table. He concluded that the .
substandard culvert mentioned above was inadequate for the
surface run-off and recommended its replacement by the City.
Cost of on-site drainage would be borne by the respective
land owners.
MOTION: T. Cookingham, seconded by R. Moran, moved to accept
thestaff recommendation to make a negative determination on
Phase I of the project. Vote: 6-0. Carried.
MOTION: T. Cookingham, seconded by R. Moran, moved to
recommend final subdivision approval conditioned upon
submission of a Phase II EAF which discusses the impact of
future development on the remainder of the parcel (not
discussed under the EAF Phase I ) as well as the Marion
property to the north and northwest of the Zikakis
subdivision. Vote: 6-0. Carried. _
6. Public Hearing - Final Subdivision Approval : 309 Eddy
St. /111 Dryden Rd. The public hearing was opened by motion
(R. Moran, seconded by T. Cookingham) . There was no one from
the public to address the subdivision request. The public
hearing was closed by motion (R. Moran, seconded by T.
Cookingham) . Mr. Mazzarella reported that Mr. Meigs had two
'
^ �
`
3
-
recommendations: ( 1) that the r. o. w. across the west end of
111 Dryden Rd. be reduced to 10 feet so the bay window on the
property does not encroach on the r. o. w. and stand as much
chance of being torn off; (2) that reconstruction of the
parking area for 309 Eddy St. include new stairs that stay on
the property both to improve user safety and to avoid
potential problebs with them in the event of a change of
ownership at 303 or 309 Eddy. In a memo written by Mr. Meigs
to the Planning and Development Board dated May 23, 1986 he
forwarded responses to questions raised at the April
meeting. A short EAF was prepared indicating a negative
determination - the subdivision is not a Type I action - it
would permit only 9 more units on the site than what is
currently allowed. It would permit a moderate increase in
site density over what is currently allowed. Mr. Meigs
recommended final approval. Mr. Amagnost stated that the
proposal was basically the same as he presented to the Board
last month. The Board discussed briefly the question of
density and also the 10 feet r. o. w. across the west end of
111Dryden Rd. in regard to fire safety. Mr. Anagnost stated
the 10 feet r. o. w. would be no problem as far as he was
concerned and the stairway would be changed as suggested when
the � parking area is reconstructed in the fall.
MOTION: T. Cookingham, seconded by S. Cummings, moved to
recommend final approval of the subdivision conditioned upon
staff' s recommendation (10 feet r. o. w. and stairway
replacement and repositioningL Vote: 5-0. Passed.
i
7. Preliminary Subdivision - Parcel 54-1-9 (West Hill ) /K.
Walker. Mr. Cookingbam discussed this proposal which had
been addressed at the April melting. It concerns a 50 foot
wide highway r. o. w. between Taylor Pl. and Chestnut St. Mr.
Walker wishes to purchase about a third of this 10-acre
property including the County-owned r. o. w. ; he would build
his-own residence on it, and subdivide off two lots for
sale. His request to the County, for release of the r.o. w.
encumbrance on his preferred building site, was conveyed to
the Department to determine whether the City had any comment
or interest in the matter. Mr. Van Cort corresponded with
Scott Heyman, County Administrator, indicating that the
City' s best interests would be served by acquiring the entire
r. o. w. from the County, and asking that the County consider
transferring it to the City. The County has not yet replied
to thisrequest but conversations with the County
Administrator indicate the County' s willingness to cooperate
with the City request. Thereafter the City could relinquish
the highway rights over a portion, as discussed with Mr.
Walker, retaining a narrower r. o. w. for utilities such as a
storm sewer to drain a cul-de-sac entering from Taylor Pl.,
The Committee discussed with Mr. Walker various concerns, one
of which was access to the interior of this large block for `
possible future development ; this r. o. w. offers a logical
place for such access. Mr. Walker proposes to run '��his
house sewer line to Chestnut St. ; this could be done in a
\ �
4
� narrower strip of r. o. w. than needed for a road, and could
also accommodate a future storm sewer. Discussion with Mr.
Walker led to a suggestion that the City would release the
eastern 175 feet of the highway r. o. w. to Mr. Walker,
allowing creation of two lots fronting on Chestnut, and then
retain the remainder for future access as mentioned above.
Discussion continued regarding the division of the r. o. w. in
case of deyeIopment on the large parcel adjoining this one.
i
MOTION: R. Moran, seconded by T. Cookingham, moved to grant
conditional approval of the preliminary plat conditioned upon
the County' s releasing the r. o. w. to the City. Vote: 5-0.
Carried.
8. Preliminary Subdivision - 740 CascadiIla St. /Giordano.
Mr. Cookingham explained that an addition is being
constructed to this property without having first obtained a
Building permit. Mr. Meigs wrote to the New York State
Department of Transportation explaining that the existing
building is indicated on their plans as being partially
within the Route 96 project r. o. w. /taking boundary and thus
the City is concerned that the value added by this addition
will be reflected in higher taking costs. Mr. Meigs
requested their official response, if possible, to the
question of the cost increment. In a letter to Mr. Van Cort
dated May 22, 1986, Mr. Simberg, Regional Director of
Transportation, stated that he is unable to provide the
specific data requested ; DoT policy does not allow
preparation of detailed specific cost information for
individual properties prior to the selection and approval of
a specific highway alternative and negotiations with the
property owners. In addition to property costs, relocation
^ assistance costs are also provided if necessary. The Board
discussed the implications of Mr. Giordano' s building without
a Building permit ; Mr. Mazzarella said the Building
Department was dealing with that issue. The question of
environmental review was raised, and whether staff had
completed an environmental review. After discussion, the
Board determined there was no legal Justification for denying
the subdivision request. This is basically a request for a
shifting of lot lines since Mr. Giordano owns all of the
parcels involved.
MOTION: T. Cookingham moved conditional approval of the
preliminary plat subject to staff review of the necessary
environmental documents. Seconded by R. Moran. ` Vote: 4-0.
Carried.
9. i East Hill Zoning: Ms. Blumenthal referred to a memo
written by Paul Mazzarella to the Planning and Development
Committee dated May 22, 1986. In the memo h` suggested
proposed zoning changes as a result of the East Hill Study.
The proposed changes are intended to accomplish : ( 1 )
' consolidation of the existing B-2a and B-2b districts into a
new zoning district (Collegetown Commercial ) which would have '
'
`
^ � ~
` .
`
5
_
uniform requirements; (2) permit a relatively dense level of
development by allowing buildings that are up to 70 feet
high, that cover 100% of the lot, and that have no front or
side yards (these bulk and density requirements are the same
that now exist for the B-2b zone) ; and (3) regulations for
the Collegetown Commercial district would require that off-
street parking be provided for residential uses. There would
not be an off-street parking requirement for retail or office
uses, although there would be a limit on the amount of office
development that would be permitted without providing off- ^
street parking. Mr. Mazzarella stated that there has been a
great deal of disagreement over the definition of "family" as
itpertains to the "McMinn" decision concerning a New York
case recently heard by the Supreme Court. It will take much
discussion and compromise to devise a definition acceptable
to most. The Board discussed the suggestion that residential
projects with 10 units or more be subject to a special
approval process and with whom the responsibility for review
and approval of such project would lie. Comments from the
Board addressed the issues of the legality of using age as
one factor in determining "family" and the problems involved
in enforcement ; possible change in the even-odd system of
overnight parking ; the possibility of granting tax
incentives; increased density in Collegetown, etc. Regarding
the suggestion of combining the B-2a and B-2b districts and
creating a new district, Mr. Mazzarella has proposed a
parking requirement for residential uses but no requirement
for retail and office uses (the parking garage would
accommodate those users) . Mr. Mazzarella said that some have
objected to this idea; that the City should be encouraging
residential uses rather than commercial. Ms. Blumenthal
suggested that square footage of commercial properties be
tak� n into account when determining number of parking spaces
rather than the suggested method of no parking required for-
ground
orground floor; "x" number required for second story; and so
forth. Mr. Mazzarella will keep the Board informed as this
issue is discussed in future meetings.
to. Approval of Minutes: M. Albanese, seconded by R. Moran,
moved to approve the April 1986 Minutes. Passed.
'
11. TAC: Mr. Mazzarella announced that the next meeting of
the Technical Advisory Committee will be June 5, 1986, 4:00
p. m. , Central Fire Station. Three developers have been asked
to present their views on problems they encounter in their
projects; to what extent the zoning ordinance affects the
production of housing in the City; to what extent does the
environmental review process interfere with a smooth
development process; etc. He extended an invitation to Board
members to attend this meeting which should be most
interesting. `
12. Adjournment : 10:30 p. m.
^ ' ^ �
^ ~
Approved 5/24/85 - as corrected.
-
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
May 27, 1986
Mr. Cookingham, Chairman of the Codes and Administration
Committee, reported that the committee reviewed the zoning
appeals cases prior to tonight' s meeting. They determined that
Appeal 1701, 126 College Ave. , should be discussed by the Board
since this property is in the moratorium district. Appeals
1698, 532 Spencer Rd. , and 1699, 717 W. Court St. , were
designated for possible discussion. The remaining appeals (5-1-
86 sign appeal - 335 Elmira Rd. , Appeal 1700 - 111 N. Plain St. ,
and Appeal 1702 - 120 Third St. ) did not present city-wide
planning considerations and would be passed on to the Board of
Zoning Appeals without comment or recommendation.
APPEAL 1698: 532 Spencer Rd. Appeal for a use variance
and an area variance for deficient setbacks for the front yard
and one side yard to permit the continued use of the property
for occupancy by up to four unrelated individuals. The
appellant was not present. Mr. Cookingham stated that this
appeal was selected for possible discussion because of the
request from Mr. Weisburd for the Treetops subdivision and
because of the recent staff studies relating to the requested
rezoning of this area.
Ms. Cummings said that this request represents a use that
the city should encourage - an owner-occupied roominghouse
situation. The Board discussed possible delay of this request
until after the June Council meeting when a decision will be
forthcoming regarding ,rezoning. Ms. Cummingv'���t that a
variance be granted given the circumstances; Mr.
Cookingham commented that a use variance when granted would run
with the property and once approved would be virtually ` spot
zoning' ; a practice the Board should try to avoid. The Board
felt there should be some other mechanism to address this
boardinghouse-type of request ; perhaps this could be remedied by
a future ordinance revision. Special permit for owner-occupied rooming
houses was suggested as-a possibility.
MOTION: M. Albanese moved, seconded by T. Cookingham, to
pass this request on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without
recommendation. VOTE: 4 yeas, l nay (Cummings) . Carried.
APPEAL 1699: 717 W. Court St.' Request for an area
variance for deficient lot width and deficient setback for one
side yard to permit the conversion of the structure to a 5-
bedroom unit. The Planning and Development Board heard this
case previously in 1985; it was denied at that time by the Board
of Zoning Appeals. This case does not represent a city-wide
impact.
. .
2 ^
There was no one present to speak to the appeal. Mr.
Cookingham explained that the Red Cross organization wishes to
convert an existing garage into apartments to provide temporary
shelter for homeless people. It does not appear that the
request has changed significantly from the prior appeal
MOTION: S. Blumenthal moved to pass this appeal on to the
BZA without comment or recommendation. Seconded by T.
Cookingham. VOTE: 4 yeas, 1 nay (Albanese) . Carried,
APPEAL 1701 : 126 College Ave. Appeal for an exemption
from the Temporary Moratorium to permit a second front yard
parking space/driveway and to permit conversion of the single-
family house to a cooperative dwelling for six or more unrelated
individuals. Conversion of this property from a single-family
home would result in increased density in the neighborhood.
Since this property is in the moratorium zone, the Committee
felt the Board should review and discuss the request.
Mark Mecenas, owner of 122 College Ave. , appeared for the
appellant who resides out of town. The owner of 126 Codlege
Ave. , Carol Lin, has been attempting to sell the property but
purchase offers received
thus far have been contingent upon
obtaining a variance for conversion to a cooperative dwelling
and increased parking space. The house contains 6 bedrooms,
full kitchen, large 1ivingroom and a number of bathrooms. Mr.
Meceras stated that there are only a few single-family homes in
the immediate area. Discussion followed regarding the present
parking spaces and the proposed addition of one or two more
spaces and their placement on the lot. Ms. Cummings stated that
this represents a request for greater density which is precisely
what the moratorium wished to prevent. It was noted that the
moratorium would end in a few months time. Mr. Mecenas stated
this was a hardship situation; the property has been on the
market since November 1985. He was apprised of the fact that
` the Planning Board does not consider hardship in their
deliberations but that hardship is taken into account by the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
MOTION: M. Albanese moved to pass this appeal on to the
BZA without comment or recommendation because this issue has
been addressed by the moratorium. Seconded by R. Moran.
Discussion: T. Cookingham stated that "no recommendation" to
the BZA could be construed as an non-caring attitude by the
Planning and Development Board and he would not support the
motion. S. Cummings also agreed that the Board should make a
statement or it may give the impression of indifference or an
undermining of the principles of the moratorium. VOTE: 2 yeas,
3 nays (Cummings, Cookingham, Blumenthal ) . Motion defeated.
)
3
' ~ MOTION: T. Cookingham moved to recommend denial of the
request to the Board of Zoning Appeals based on the fact that
approval of this request would violate the principles of the
temporary moratorium. Seconded by M. Albanese. VOTE: 6-0.
Carried.
/mc
'
-
` (