Loading...
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 ' - ` (