Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1986-07-22 Approved - August 26 , 1986 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES July 22, 1986: _ PRESENT: Chair S. Blumenthal , T. Cookingham, S. Cummings, M. Albanese, M. Sampson, S. Jackson. Director H. M. Van Cort. Interested parties, members of the press, ABSENT: R. Moran 1 . Meeting called to order at 7:40 p.m. 2. There was a change in the order of the agenda.. First item discussed was zoning appeals. ZONING APPEALS: 1678, 1709, 1710, 1711 . All appeals concerned conversion of single family homes to duplexes. The committee recommended that the Board not discuss any of the zoning appeals for this month. because they were not of city-wide impact. M. Sampson moved that the appeals be passed on to the BZA without comment or recommendation. M. Albanese seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: S. Cummings commented on the confusion surrounding the new process and criteria used for differentiating city-wide impact appeals from non-city-wide impact appeals. She stated that the new procedures should be more clearly explained so that everyone knows what is going on. There were many people present to discuss appeal #1711 , who were evidently unaware that the appeals were not going to be discussed. She suggested that the Board hear neighborhood comments on the casein question. Jackson thinks that perhaps a more explicit form could be designed. He suggested that the Board listen to the neighbors ' opinions on the appeal . Cookingham thought that the Board could keep the same notice procedures, but if interested citizens attend a meeting, the Board could decide to allow them to speak. Cummings mentioned that anyone present always has the right to address an issue. Sampson withdrew his original motion and Jackson made a motion to hear ten minutes of testimony from the, neighbors . Motion seconded by Albanese. It was then decided, however, to just open the meeting to privilege of the floor. In the future, Privilege of the Floor should be listed as item 2 on the agenda. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: Mrs. Ann Porter of 141 Coddington Road read aloud a petition that she submitted":to the Building Dept. against Appeal #1711 at 139 Coddington Road. The petition was signed by 27 neighbors (_all of the resident owners of Coddington Road and Hudson Place) . Mrs . Sarah Yengo of 145 Coddington Road also submitted a letter and pictures of 147 Coddington Road to the Board expressing sentiments similar to those of Mrs. Porter. Several other neighbors were present and expressed concern about students and absentee owners. Many of these rental properties appear to be over populated and are disruptive and unattractive to the neighborhood. Problems -2- Planning and Development Board Minutes July 22, 1986 include, but are not limited to, loud stereos and an excessive number of cars which obstruct plowing in wintertime. Concern was also expressed . regarding the apparent apathy of the City Police to complaints about these disruptions. S. Cummings said that residents should complain to the police so that there will be a record of complaints from many households. They should follow procedure and swear out an affidavit of complaint to the police. She stated that the Neighborhood Planner is now on staff and will try to pull together a neighborhood meeting to discuss the situation. The Board recommended that the concerned parties attend the BZA meeting on Monday, August 11 . The BZA will make the final decision on the appeal . It was brought up by several neighbors that Mr. Ash is building at the present time. No building permit is posted outside the building and the variance has not been approved. The neighbors were told that they should contact the Building Commissioner regarding the work without a permit at 139 Coddington Road. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: COMMERCIAL AVENUE/ZIKAKIS - FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. The public hearing was opened by motion of Jackson, seconded by Cookingham. There was no one present to speak for or against the proposed subdivision. The public hearing was closed. A memorandum from Jon Meigs was distributed to the Board members. There was some discussion as to the conditions out- lined in this memorandum, in particular, item 5 regarding site drainage. Peter Trowbridge informed the Board that the plans have been reviewed by Peter Novelli and that the P & D Committee has seen Novelli 's recommendation. Trowbridge stated that drainage analysis was based on a scale of development similar to that :of Cherry St. Industrial Park. The environmental assessment form was previously submitted and responses to 7 environmental factors (including municipal capital expenditures) as they relate to the Zikakis and adjoining parcels, were documented in a letter dated July 15, 1986 to Director Van Cort from Mr. Trowbridge. (Board required that only 4 out. of the 7 listed factors be addressed in depth.) Jackson wished to see Novelli 's report before the August meeting and then have the Board make a decision at that time. Mr. Zikakis did not want to have a decision postponed yet another month, however, because his summer project has been rapidly turning into a winter project. Albanese mentioned that a potential problem could arise if the sub-division was approved by the Board but the city was unable to. meet its end of the bargain, i .e. improvements, due to lack of budgeted funds. Director Van Cort stated that he didn't think the Planning and Development Board could obligate legislature to an expenditure. Trowbridge said that the projected figures were based 'on Cherry St. Industrial Park and could be reduced. Therefore, two items need to be further researched; a) To what extent can the P & D Board obligate the council , in general? b) Has the proposed new street already been accepted because it's rough- graded, named, and has a fire hydrant? -3- Planning and Development Board Minutes July 22, 1986 Cummings made a motion for a resolution to grant final subdivision approval subject to the conditions enumerated below and on the reservation that the Board does not have the authority to obligate Council to funding of a capital project_ (1) In keepingwith the purposes and intent of subdivision review, as indicated specifically by §31.27 of the Municipal Code, review of the final application must be performed by the City Engineer, and his comments and recommendations taken into consideration, including provisions for any improvements which he has authority to require; (2) Similarly, the City Attorney must also review and report on matters within his jurisdiction, including in 'particular the provisions for reservation of a right-of-way for future .public vehicular access across subject property, connecting to a similar r.o.w. crossing the adjacent property recently given subdivision approval . , His review may also be required regarding provisions for any improvements which .the City Engineer deems necessary; (3) If applicant wishes this approval to include Lots 4 through 7 as shown on the final plat submitted, review and approval must be given by the Board of Zoning Appeals. These lots do, not have the required frontage on a public ways (4) The surface drainage system recommended by the .consultant project engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, must be implemented. It should be shown graphically on the subdivision, plat for the guidance of subsequent developers and reviewing/approving officials. Motion °was seconded by Cookingham. Vote: 5;, ayes , 1 naye (Jackson) . Motion carried. 4. ZONING APPEALS: Cookingham motioned to pass the appeals on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without recommendation. Jackson seconded the motion. Vote: ayes 5, nayes - 1 (Cummings) . Cummings thinks the appeals are of city-wide impact. Motion carried. Cummings would like to see the accessory apartment= ordinance discussed at the next P&D Board meeting. She thinks that this ordinance should be more widely used; some appeals should go through this ordinance rather than through straight variances. It was requested that this topic be placed on the next agenda. 5. TREETOPS: Reference was made to a memo written to the Board of Planning and Development by S. Blumenthal dated July 18, 1986. A memo from Jon Meigs was distributed to the Board at this time. It was decided that tonight's meeting would act as the discussion between the Board and the developer. Hence, the Board must submit written conclusions of this discussion to the developer within 30 days. This poses a procedural problem because environmental review and subdivision regulations are not consolidated. -4- Planning and Development Board Minutes July 22, 1986 The developer addressed seven issues that were of concern to the Board, public, city and fire chiefT spacing of houses, access , parking, traffic, lot size, surface drainage, and mail and trash, His. responses to these concerns were submitted to Director Van Cort in a letter dated June 27, 1986 and he reitera- ted his answers to the people present at the meeting this date. On the 30th of June, he submitted a letter to Van Cort stating that the amount of earth work to be done for the revised proposal is less than would have to be done for the original proposal ; one reason being because the upper paved area has been deleted from the plan. Mr. Weisburd then addressed the concerns that Mr. Meigs expressed in his memo. a) Topo survey - Accordi.ng to subdivision regulations of the city, an official certified survey and a topographical survey are required, The latter need not be certified.. These items have been submitted. b) _ Expense and property value - According to subdivision regulations the city would be required to put in the water main and pave the road. Major road construction is the responsibility of the developer. Cost of install- ing a water main was estimated to be $20 per 400 feet or $8000 total. The assessed value of .the property currently stands at $15,000. Mr. Weisburd expects that if the land is developed according to his hopes , the assessed value would jump to $l million, thereby bringing the city a large return for its investment. c) Insufficiency of road - Weisburd stated that since the specific insuf- ficiencies were not listed, he could not address them. d) Along the road option - He chose the proposed site rather than along__t_h_e__- roadfor several reasons: i aesthetics, ii '` ' _)_ - - -_ _ )`salability, i_ii ) stabler_- a11_.of soil due to a steeper angle of repose of the bank, and iv) his professional opinion. - Economi.cally, he would have proposed to build 11 or 12 houses rather than 13 along the road. A question was raised about conformance to the 1971 Master Plan. Municipal Code says that subdivision must conform to the Master Plan. The Master Plan indicates where potential new city streets would be built for the next 20 years. The General Plan does not show a proposed road for the site in question, Director Van Cort said that the Master Plan was not meant to be taken literally but was more of a general plan, Other roads have been approved and built that are not in the Master Plan (e.g. Cherry St. Extension) . He stated that in his experience no request for-subdivision has been rejected by the City of Ithaca for that reason. -5- Planning and Development Board Minutes July 22, 1986 . One neighbor spoke to bring attention to the Board that Treetops could cause a devaluation of the property values in the neighborhood if the houses were not owner occupied but were student and absentee rentals, Martha Lyons recommended that if approval was granted to this proposal , a public right-of-way should be reserved between the end of the road and the railroad tracks. This way, when the new state bicycle route is established, the public would not have to trespass on anyone's property to access the route. Van Cort said he felt this was a good suggestion. Other items, including safety and liability, will have to be looked at in the environmental review. Engineeringand studying of the site would have to be done and a topo .submitted before the project could be given final approval . The lead agency would complete the long form. Design submitted to and review of the findings ,by the Engineering Office would insure that all the specifics of the project meet city requirements. The Board has previously submitted to the Engineering Office a request for a study and implementation to be done in 1987 to check out drainage problems of the existing residences on Spencer Road. Engineering has responded to the request by submitting a capital budget request. This study would be useful in evaluating the drainage impact of the proposal on theadjacent residences (including those across the street) . The neighbors requested that if the proposal is approved, they would like a public recreational area to be reserved. Up to 10% of the proposed site can be legally required. The developer is willing to conform and has suggested that the city right-of-way be extended.from Spencer Road up to the Finger Lakes Parks Commission property. Alderman Raymond Schlather.entered the meeting and expressed his concern about conforming to the Master Plan. He also felt that there was no need to approve the proposal without additional environmental information. He recommended that the Board do one of two things: . a) Refuse approval , or b) Require, under §31.23 Subdivision A, that the environmental review, including a draft of final impact statement, be submitted before a decision is made. Because the proposal is now materially different from the initial Treetops proposal , and upon the advice of th.e city attorney that it may therefore be considered as a new subdivision proposal , the Board has decided to consider the proposal as a new application. Cummings, seconded by Jackson, motioned to grant conditional approval of the preliminary plat subject to the enumerated items listed below: -6- Planning and Development Board Minutes July 22, 1986 (1) Completion of all environmental review of the proposal before presenting it .for Final Approval , including review of all issues raised by the Fire Chief, City Engineer, Building .Commissioner, and Board of Planning and Development; (2) Design of proposed street, including parking on one side, and private drive in accordance with standards and requirements provided by the City Engineer, and the Fire Chief for satisfactory Fire Department and emergency service apparatus access; and subject to physical and fiscal review and authorization by the appropriate city agencies, including the Board of Public Works and Common .Council ; (3) Legal provisions satisfactory to assure this Board that the entire property, following development, will be maintained to high standards of appearance and that vehicular access will be maintained to all units under all weather conditions; (4) The Planning and Development Board reserved the right to approve sub division_.into only so many lots (but in no case more than ten) as are determined, through analysis of environmental impacts, not. l.ikely to result in serious unmi.tigable impacts; (5) Discussion of recreational area and access to state bikeway in agreement with the community. Vote: ayes - 6, nayes 0. Motion carried. At this time a short break was taken, after which Board Member Martin Sampson excused himself from the meeting. 6. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM: Cummings informed the Board that on July 21, 1986, The Charter and Ordinance Committee voted unanimously to extend moratorium and that the P&D Committee is expected to vote the same way. This item will be on the agenda for the next council meeting Bryant Park residents requested that the P&D Committee give . immediate attention to certain areas in Collegetown. Since part of the Collegetown Central Business. District is under moratorium and part is not, the residents feel that rapid action is needed. The P&D COmmittee will be discussing this at tomorrow's meeting. They will be discussing imposition of a parking requirement in the B2b zone. , Agenda items for the P&D Committee meeting on July 23, 1986 include: Imposition of Parking Requirement in B2b zone - City taking responsibility for providing parking, with the funding coming from .special assessment districts, Owners will be assessed for parking. - Bring up topic of the possibility of the money collected going into a housing fund for INHS. -7- Planning and Development Board Minutes July 22, 1986 Questions as to what the parking:resident ratio should be and what possible location is there for central unobtrusive parking were raised. Currently, the parking ratio is higher than 1:3. Residents expressed hope that a good deal of thought be given to the infrastructure of the project. It was mentioned that Cornell University is contemplating moving its traffic booth currently located south of Barton Hall , two blocks west which would increase traffic through Collegetown and its residential areas . Details should be researched. Jackson expressed concern that the matter was going to the P&D Committee and Council before the Board has had much discussion on it. Director Van. Cort stated that he didn't think a zoning recommendation would be made this month. Some Board members were worried about the vulnerability of the moratorium and thought that consideration should be given to temporarily rezoning of certain areas. However, zoning is meant to be permanent and not temporary and so .the issue was passed over. 7. 126 CATHERINE STREET: Chris Anagnost of the Christopher George Corporation submitted an application requesting that a strip of land be deleted from the Collegetown Motor Lodge property and be added to the property at 124 Catherine Street. The piece of property in question used to be a driveway for a house at 126 Catherine St. which was torn down when the motel was built. This property serves no use to the motel but is the only access to the house at 124 Catherine St. Since the motel has'more than its required square footage,__________, and the property would be added to a multiple dwelling, it would not allow- for increased density. The application was accepted by the Board. Cookingham moved that the Board grant preliminary approval of the application. Jackson seconded the motion. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nayes, O abstentions. Motion passed. 8. S. Blumenthal brought up the topic of the number of single family dwellings being converted to multiple family units, particularly downtown and South ' Hill . The question raised was whether the moratorium should be extended to other parts of the city so that no more dramatic changes occur before the Master Plan or housing plans are resolved. Opinions of other Board members varied. Jackson was also concerned about the changes that may occur before the Strategic Housing Plan is finished. It seemed to him that preference was being given to Collegetown and he also wondered if the moratorium should be extended to other parts of the city that would be vulnerable to change while the study was in progress. However, Cummings doesn't want to see :building discouraged at a time when many people can afford to build for the first time. She would like to see the substantially empty acreage developed (e.g. West Hill ). Moratorium would cause slack time and zoning on new development is strong anyway. There is , however, no protection against the conversions from single family units to to multiple family units. -8 Planning. and Development Board- Minutes July 22, 1986 Albanese said that the trend of conversions has been happening all along. He feels that a moratorium would be unfair to a great number of areas in the city. He suggested that the Board keep an eye on the situation and if it is critical the Board will act quickly. In Director Van Cort's opinion, it would not be a good idea to extend the moratorium. Moratoriums are extraordinary measures that are used in crisis situations. He said that there is pressure in some areas but that doesn't justify putting the whole city under moratorium. Van Cort explained the schedule for completion of the Strategic Housing Plan. The survey cannot be done until the students return in September. Statistics from the East Hill Study have been compiled, but zoning is not going to be amended until the Strategic Housing Plan is in hand. Cookingham also feels that morator- iums should only be used when health, safety and welfare are threatened. Cummings, set-anded by Cookingham, made a motion to extend the Collegetown moratorium with the understanding that the Board will move things along quickly. Vote: ayes - 3, nayes 1 (Albanese) , abstentions - 1 (Jackson) . Motion carried. Jackson then made a motion that the P&D Committee consider extending a city-wide moratorium. The motion was seconded by Blumenthal . Vote: 2 ayes, 2 nayes (Albanese and Cummings) , 1 abstention (Cookingham) . Motion failed. Albanese then made a motion that the moratorium not be extended to other parts of the city at this time. There was no second and so the motion was defeated. A second public meeting has been tentatively scheduled for August 19, 1986 to discuss the Strategic Housing Plan. The next meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee will be Thursday, August 7, 1986, 9. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:- No report. 10. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: The Chamber of Commerce would like to rent land from the city for a building for office space. Rights to the land would be leased for thrity years. A new building is needed because the Chamber is outgrowing its current location at Court Street and wishes to keep all of its functions consolidated in one building for economic reasons . The proposed site for the new building is located south of the new Youth Bureau Building. An alternative site is being investigated north of the Youth Bureau Building. The Chamber of Commerce would pay fai.r market value for the land and any ancillary costs incurred by the building. Parking may be shared with the City Youth Bureau, but the Chmaber would have. arrangements for overflow parking so that the Youth Bureau would have "first dibs" on parking space. It is hoped by Chamber of Commerce members that this Planning and Development Board Minutes July 22, 1986 site would give increased visibility of their organization to the public. They are willing to hire the same architect that designed the. Youth Bureau, so that the two buildings_ compliment each other. Objections to the site that were raised were: a) location Js too close to the park, b) the original site is on park land, c) if alternative site-is — chosen the maintenance building would have to be moved - although that might not be a bad idea, d) some people would rather see the site left available for possible future expansion of the Youth Bureau, Albanese made a motion that the P&D Board recommend approval of the site for placement of the new Chamber of Commerce building with the conditions that the Board will see drawings, and the prospective impact on the park. There was no second, so-' the motion was defeated. Jackson then made a motion that the Board recommend a denial of approval of the site for placement of the new Chamber of Commerce Building. The motion was seconded by Blumenthal . Vote: aye - 4, naye - 1 (Albanese) . Motion carried. Reasons for denial of approval were: a) expansion for youth bureau b) precedent set by organizations encroaching on Stewart Park c) Chamber of Commerce's broader focus is not in servicing the general community but in servicing its membership. 11. 1987 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUDGET: Director Van Cort distributed handouts to the Board members. There was no discussion at this time. 12. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS: No report. 13. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL: S. Cummings referred to .the Planning and Devel.opment Committee agenda for the next meeting on Wednesday, July 23. Items to be discussed include: INNS Affordable Home Ownership, Brick Reuse Policy, Land and Water Conservation Fund/NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Commons Visitor Information Center, 1987 Planning and Development Department Budget and East Hill Rezoning. 14. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Cummings, seconded by Jackson, made a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nayes . Carried. Planning and Development Board Minutes July 22 ,1986 16. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR ROUTE 96 PROJECT: A one-way pair on Fulton and Meadow Streets is incorporated in every "build alternative" for the Route 96 project. Director Van Cort proposed that the city purchase undeveloped land_ which would be required for construction of the one-way pair. The city would thereby save the state money by acquiring the land before build- ings are constructed, increasing acquisition costs. The Board decided to send the proposal to the Transportation Committee. Meeting was adjourned at 12:02.