HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1986-08-26 v~ 100f ° Approved 9/23/96
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES - August 26, 1986:
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal , S. Jackson, M. Sampson, M. Albanese, T. Cookingham.
Also, Director Van Cort, Deputy Director Mazzarella. Press and
interested parties,
1. Call to Order: Ms. Blumenthal called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Privilege of the Floor: No one requested the floor at this time.
3. Zoning Appeals; see Minutes attached
4. Preliminary Subdivision: 1215/1305 E. State Street. This request by the
owners of the two properties (William and Susan Merrill and Alfred
Schoneman) would adjust lot lines to correct a situation in which a shed.
straddles the common property line, and to provide for a more regular
property layout and relationship between Mr. Schoneman's house and East
State Street. This is essentially a lot line adjustment and Mr. Van Cort
recommended approval by the Board of the preliminary subdivision request.
Mr. Cookingham moved, seconded by Mr. Alabnese to grant preliminary
approval of the subdivision. Vote: 5-0. Carried.
5. Preliminary Subdivision: Westfield Road (Dicke) . Refer to Zoning Appeals
Minutes - Appeal 1713.
6. Notice. of Appeal Regarding Zoning or Sign Ordinance Form: Mr. Cookingham
referred to the confusion which persists regarding the Board's discussion
or non-discussion of certain zoning appeals. He suggested that the Board
review the application procedure. He questioned should the Board continue
to hear zoning cases as required by the Code or should it be amended to
eliminate this advisory role? _ In a meeting of the Codes and Administration
Committee, Jon Meigs suggested certain changes to the Notice form to make
it clearer .to applicants and neighbors the type of cases the Board should
discuss (those involving city-wide impact) . Certain facets ,of the system
were discussed; the time element involved, in the process, i . e. , coordin-
ation between the Building Department and review by the Codes and Adminis-
tration Committee; contacting applicants directly if the Committee decides
to hear the case or if the Committeehas further questions; an additional `
monthay :Pla.nni'ng Board meeting;to deal only with zoning appeals; asking
applicant and/or neighbors to address the Board during Privilege of the
Floor and in connection`with that, setting a time limit for discussion, etc.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Planning and Development Board -2-
Minutes August 26, 1986 (continued)
After a lengthy. discussion motion was made by T. Cookingham, seconded by
S. Jackson, to adopt the revised form as amended by Jon Meigs. Vote:
5-0. Carried.
The Board indicated that the appeals procedure would remain the same: .
Codes. and Administration Committee would review each case and recommend
to the Board those cases having city-wide impact. If neighbors appear
at the.Board meeting regarding ."no discussion" cases then those individuals
will be heard during Privilege of the Floor.'
7. Committee Reports: Farmers ' Market/ARC Application. Helen Jones ' memo of
August 26, 1986 regarding a possible ARC application for funding of the
Farmers ' Market project was discussed. I't was decided not to pursue ARC
funding now for a number.of reasons: 1) The timeframe is too tight. The
application is due by September 2, 1986. and Council will not meet until
September 3 any authorization tosubmit ,would be after the fact. 2)
A project development program has not been prepared. Specific scope of
work to be accomplished at this time is unknown; .costs of the project are
unknown. 3) - The ARC application requires that the City commit funds to
the project. Council does not have enough details at this time to authorize
funds for the project.
The Board asked whether the Department had received adequate notice of
fund availability. It is hoped that the Department will have more contact.
with STERPDB. (the regional Board.) in the future and be prepared to meet
the next fundingdead1'ine. - 'However, it 'should be noted that in this in-
stance . (Farmers' Market project) the project was simply not far enough
advanced for inclusion in the current .ARC funding cycle.
8. Department, Budget and Work Program for 1987: Mr. Jackson asked about the
status of the work program for 1987; Mr. Van Cort said it is being pre
pared. The Board would like to review the work schedule in relation to
the department,budget for '87. It was decided that an ad hoc committee
meeting would be held Tuesday, September 16, 1986 to review, both items
and report back to the full Board at the September meeting.
9. Board of Public Works Liaison Report: Mr. Albanese discussed the role of
the Board of Public Works regarding subdivision approvals. He stated
that `th.e Code does not specify the BPW's role in subdivision matters even
though subdivisions and plat approvals may involve roadways,mains, grading,
etc. The section entitled"Plat Approval " states that the Planning Board
may indicate tentative approval subject to approval of those matters
coming under the jurisdiction of the. Board of Public ,Works This indicates
there should be a process whereby the BPW does become involved. At the
present, the Board of Public Works has not been involved. In the instance
of the recent. Zikakis and Treetops subdivision requests, final approval
could have definite city-wide implications regarding expenditures, work
schedules, and the. like.
Planning and Development Board -3-
Minutes - .August 26, 1986 (continued)
Director Van Cort stated that subdivision approvals are -the responsibility
of the Planning Board as dictated. by.'State law". He suggested a committee
of the Board discuss with °the City Attorney procedures for involving the
Board of :Public Works insubdivision_s where such advice is warranted. Mr.
Van Cort further explained that BPW involvement was sprinkled liberally
throughout.the City Code because that group historically "ran the City".
At present, the .Planning Board refers to the City: Engineer those engineer-
ing.,questions which need:=to be addressed and. refers to, Council those items
which require allocation of. funds.
Director Van .Cort'will contact the City Attorney to discuss this matter and
will send a report to the Board.
10. Strategic Housing Plan: Mr. Mazzarella reported to the Board .regar.ding`the
progress of the Technical Advisory Committee.. The'. TAC, consisting .of 15
members, has been meeting .-fortnightly and. discussing a different topic
each session. .. It has been: a:self-education.process. He now would like to
break the larg.e.group :in. to three or four-sub-committees "and to assign to .
each. a .specific topic. Mr. Mazzarella suggested thatthe Planning Board
members-may,wish: to join these groups. At a later date, the entire Board
would be involved in the complete package of actions. The list of problems
identified some months ago may need to be expanded or.the list of rank.ing.s
may needto .be ,rearranged, .:After that.`is accomplished. di.scussions .will be
necessary°to address possible solutions for the issues raised. The solutions
are actions that should be implemented. by. City. government Cas opposed to.
broad goals and. objectives)
Mr: Jackson called for discussion of: what to evaluate, He would Like to
see all .ideas treated equally. He claimed .that some items were essentially.
dismissedwithout being adequately investigated because they,.Were deemed
by .s.taff .-to be unacceptable for political or ideologic reasons. He would.
like staff. to bring. their evaluations to the Board and to. Council where
at that level it would. be decided if a specific solution should be imple-
mented. . He requested that all work/reports. be labeled as to origin.
After lengthy ;discussion: it was decided that. s.taff would make recommendations
to th.e .Board"regarding which: topics they believed should be pursued and why.
The Board would have the option to revise or reject staff's recommendations
It was decided that critical .problems should be identified first and efforts
made to match: th.em.with solutions. k special meeting of the Board was called
to deal with the list of major housing needs. At that.meeting the Board will
attempt to narrow the list to the primary problems. The .meeting will be
held September 16, 1986, 8.00 p.m:, in Council Chambers.
11. Planning and Development'Committee; Chair Blumenthal re'ad,a`.resolution
regarding city support of the development of additional student housing by.
Cornell
Planning and Development Board -4-
Minutes - August 26, 1986 (continued)
RESOLUTION - Re: Provision of Additional Student Housing by Cornell University
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has for many years experienced a shortage
of affordable, good-quality housing for both students and. families, and
WHEREAS, a significant proportion of Cornell University students live in
off-campus housing throughout the City of Ithaca and compete with families
and other households for the housing available in the City, and
WHEREAS, both the number of students and the number of employees at Cornell
has grown steadily over the last several decades, contributing to the City's
housing shortage,. and
WHEREAS, the renovation of existing residential buildings on the Cornell
campus will result in the loss of some on-campus housing units in the next
several years,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca hereby endorses the goal of Cornell University to provide more on-
campus housing for both undergraduate and graduate students, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Common Council hereby urges the Cornell Univer-
sity Board of Trustees to fully fund and cause to be developed the on-campus
housing projects that are currently proposed.
Motion was made by T. Cookingham to approve the resolution as presented;
seconded by S. Jackson. Vote: 5-0. Carried.
12. Motion was made by M. Sampson to approve the August 1986 Minutes; seconded
by T. Cookingham. Vote: 5-0. Carried.
13. Adjournment: 10:15 P.M.
/mc
`C�p4 IT1fq��
d
p�RA?EO
I
CITY 07 ITHACA
108 EAST BEEN STREET
ITHACA, NE YORK '14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 26, 1986:
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal , S. Jackso , M. Sampson, M. Albanese,
T. Cookingham. Director, H. M. Van Cort.
Mr. Cookingham presented the re ort .of the Codes and Administration
Committee. The Committee reviewed fo r cases: appeal #1678 (705 N. Aurora .St. ) ,
#1712 (317 Linn St. ), #1713 (106 Westfield Dr.) , and #1714 (617 W. Green St.)
After consideration of appeal #1714, he Committee suggested that the Board
not make a recommendation for the Hen y Highland Garnet Lodge and that the
Board should pass this request to the Board of Zoning Appealsfor their
decision.
Appeal #1712: Request of Mr. and Mrs. Arthur for a special permit
for establishment of a center for adu t day_care. This use is not identified
in our ordinance. The Committee felt this appeal warranted discussion be-
cause (1) it would establish a new us not presently allowed in a R-2b zone
(i .e. , not a listed use) and it would therefore have city-wide impact, and
(2) they felt some standards should b applied regarding the number of indi-
viduals using the services in relatioj to the available space; health rules
need clarification; provisions for back-up .medical assistance need to be
established, etc. They felt that standards should be formulated to deal
with future requests of this kind
Mr. and Mrs . Arthur were present to discuss their request. The service
they propose to offer is the first of its kind in Ithaca (private adult day
care) . They have contacted the Day C re Council and the Office for the Aging
and have received encouragement from loth groups - this is a needed service.
Mrs. Arthur has worked with the eldery in their homes for eighteen years.
The Arthurs have sought their attorney is assistance in preparing a form to
be used to obtain the necessary information they will need to care for their
clients . Interviews would be conductd with the respective families to
determine dietary needs, medication sNedules , individual likes and dislikes,
etc. prior to their use of the facili ies . The Arthurs hope to accommodate
"An Equal Opportunity Emplgyer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Zoning Appeals Minutes. — 8/26/86 (con inued) :
-2-
up to seven clients ; parking should not present a problem since the clients
would be dropped off and picked up, the question of licensing was raised.
Mr. Arthur said that unlike Child Day Care no licensing is required by the
State (they have checked this out with the authorities) . Adults can speak
for themselves and can express their wishes whereas young children cannot..
Mr. Cookingham stated that he believed the concept expressed here was
good; there is a growing need for such service and it appears that clients
would receive intensive individual_ attention in such a facility.
Mr. Sampson asked why special permission was needed at all since this
was not mentioned in .the ordinance. Mr. Arthur said they made the request
to insure that they were acting legally.
Mr. Jackson asked if there were health and legal standards for adult
day care facilities. Apparently none exist for this service at the present
time.
A letter of support and approval was read by Mr. Arthur from a neighbor,
Mr. David Berrian., 412 E. Yates Street.
Staff Comment: The city does not currently have standards for this
proposed use. Granting a variance might amount to usurping the legislative
function. There are no known regulations for adult day care. The proposal
seems to have merit in terms of human services, but appears to call for a
legislative determination as to its status under zoning.
Mr. Cookingham moved, seconded by Mr'-' Albanese,, to approve the use
variance requested to allow an adult day care facility in this R-2b zone.
Mr. Jackson opposed the motion. He felt this was a substantially
different use from those allowed and he would not like to allow this use
without formal licensing provisions and standards.. In the absence. of State
regulations, he feels local standards should be formulated.
Mr. Van Cort stated that it might take several years before rules were
established. Perhaps the Board of Zoning Appeals could set a standard which
could be used until State standards are formulated. It could be based on
standards used in day_care and adult residential care facilities to set
reasonable interim limits for the proposed use.
It was suggested that the Arthurs request a letter of support and/or
approval from the Office for the Aging. The Arthurs agreed to contact that
Office and request a letter of support; a copy of which .to .be sent.to the
Planning and Development Board.
Mr. Cookingham"s motion was amended to reflect .approval to the Board
of Zoning Appeals of the adult day care concept but to point out that there
is a void in the ordinance covering such situations and that the Board is
concerned over the lack of standards , The concerns presented in this appeal
should be studied and regulations drafted to cover future requests.
-3-
Zoning Appeals Minutes - 8/26/86 (continued) :
Further Comment by Staff: Recommend that the matter be referred to
Common Council for study by Human Services and Charter and Ordinance
Committees, and to the City Attorney for determination as to need for
legislative action.
Voter 3-yea, 2-nay (Jackson, Blumenthal ) . Motion carried.
Appeal #1713: 106 Westfield Dr. Area variance to permit subdivision
and conversion of a barn to a one-family residence. Result would be one
conforming single-family parcel and one oversize single-family parcel with
minimal frontage. This request is also combined with a request for a sub-
division. The intent is to subdivide the property so that the existing
house property would comply in all ways with the zoning ordinance and the
barn property would comply in all but the front footage requirement. Both
properties would meet the zoning requirements with respect to size, front
yards, side yards, back yards, parking, etc. Each residence would be for
a single family, which. is in keeping with the present character of the. R-1a
district. Mr. and Mrs. Dicke were present for the discussion.
Concern was expressed over development of the back parcel at some
future time, however, the owner is unable, to remedy the situation because
of the placement of the existing buildings.
Staff Comment: Existing property is underutilized. Proposed subdivision
would result in a parcel of adequate area for up to seven or eight additional
dwellings., but lack of access to interior would limit extent and ease of
future development which would provide needed housing and add to tax base.
Motion was made by Mr. Cookingham, seconded by Mr. Sampson, to recommend
to the Board of Zoning Appeals approval of the area variance and to grant
preliminary subdivision approval as well .
Vote: 5-0. Motion carried.
/mc