Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1986-10-28 ��p�1Tgq�9 :• o `may. Unanimously approved .11/18/86. NONE ORA7E0� CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES — October 28, 1986: PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal , M. Sampson, T. Cookingham, R. Moran, S. 'Jackson. J. Meigs, Planner. Appellants and interested parties. Media. 1. Call to Order: Ms. Blumenthal called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. 2. Public Hearing: 126 Catherine St. - Final Subdivision/C. Anagnost. It was moved and seconded to open the public hearing; all were in favor. No one asked to speak regarding the proposed subdivision. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing; all in favor. Mr. Anagnost stated that the new survey map, drawn to incorporate certain corrections, now shows that this property was part of the motel property, whereas the original application did not. Mr. Cookingham reported that his committee had reviewed the revised plat to insure that it showed a right of way for any utilities serving the motel property, and that this should be in- cluded in the deed; Mr. Anagnost replied that the deed reflects rights- of-way for any utilities which currently exist. Mr. Meigs stated he has reviewed the documents submitted and everything seems to be in order. Mr. Cookingham moved, seconded by Mr. Moran, to grant final subdivision approval with the condition that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve an area variance to allow this subdivision. Vote: 5-0-0. Granted. 3. Public Hearing: 106 Westfield Dr. Final Subdivision/Dicke. It was moved and seconded to open the public hearing; all in favor. No one appeared to speak. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing; all were in favor. Mr. Dicke stated that the purpose of the request was to subdivide the property into two parcels, both to be in complete con- formance with zoning except for the barn property, which would be deficient in front footage. Mr. Dicke received approval from the BZA in September for the area variance to permit the subdivision. Mr. Cookingham stated that his committee had requested a good-faith effort by Mr. Dicke to achieve the best site design possible and .,he believes that that has been done. Mr. Moran moved seconded by Mr. Cookingham, to approve the final subdivision as presented, Vote: 5-0-0 Granted. 4. Zoning Appeals - see Minutes attached. "An EqualOpportunityEmployer with an Affirmative Action Program" Planning and Development Board _ Minutes - Oct. 28, 1986 (continued) -2- 5. Farmers' Market: Mr. Jackson gave an update on the Farmers ' Market site. In the investigation of the First and Franklin water and sewer site with repsect to the concerns and 'questions about its suitability raised earlier, there has been nothing discovered thus far to discourage this location for the Market; in fact, everything disclosed has been encouraging. Next month the Economic Development and Transportation Committee will present a resolution asking the Board to recommend to Council final approval of submission of a NYSCA grant application (which was initiated in February of this year) for funds to design the site. A series of questions posed early, this .year regarding the site have been answered. The questions in- involved environmental issues (existing toxins) , clean..-up operations (destruction of buildings grading, etc.), aesthetics of site, odors from new sewer plant affecting the Market. (if any), site design criteria (acreage .needed for vendors and vehicles) , etc. Some other questions, such as detailed design and the Market's fiscal involvement, remain to be settled in due time. Particular focus has been on the northeast end of the site (greenhouse building) but other portions of the site have not been ruled out; Board of Public Works has indicated that they have no need for that northeast portion.' Presently, the Consultant Selection Committee is interviewing design consultants; one must be selected by the time NYSCA reviews the project; (,January 1987) Additional work needs to be done regarding zoning, land use, traffic and circulation. The consultant will need to address the problem of how to enhance the site with regard to the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the economic impact on the city should be researched; if the Committee does not have professional help regarding this, then certain assumptions will have to be made. Finally, one of the most important questions to be addressed will be what financial arrangements might apply to the Farmers ' Market use of the site. Though the Committee has had some discussion about this, it is not the body to make commitments for the city, and thus will request the Mayor to appoint a negotiation committee of Common Council to work out 'a financial agreement that is reasonable for both the city and the Farmers ' Market (if all other questions can be resolved) . More specific information will be brought to, the Board next month. 6. Strategic Economic Plan: Mr. Jackson stated that a major item in the 1987 department budget was $45,000 for preparation of a strategic economic plan. The Economic Development and Transportation Committee feels that something more specific should be sent to the Mayor regarding this important task, and has drafted a letter in support of this request. The letter was dis- cussed and edited by the Board; the corrected copy will be sent to the Mayor and to members of Council . A copy is also attached to these Minutes for the information of interested parties, Discussion then centered on Planning and Development Board Minutes Oct. 28, 1986 (continued) -3- researching other possible sources of funding the plan; the Committee urges Planning staff to pursue other avenues for funding at the same time that the Mayor is being urged to include the requested funds in the final budget, so that the City's outlay may be reduced or, perhaps, supplemented: he reported that there had been some discussion of undertaking study of this at the county level , which might be more appropriate because it more nearly constitutes a discrete economic unit. Motion was made by Mr. Cookingham, seconded by Mr. Jackson, to submit the letter to the Mayor and Council , and to request Planning staff' to research other funding sources as discussed.above Vote: 5-OT0. Motion carried. 7. Design Review Board: Mr. Meigs reported that the Design Review Board has wrestled with the problem of being an advisory board with relatively little power. They, however, feel they have an important mission with the city insofar_as being charged with review of development proposals with an eye to increasing the amenity of the cityscape in certain areas. The .main problem is that plans or proposals are presented to the Design Review Board as construction plans, preventing the Board from making constructive comments. The Board feels that it would be desirable to have the review process, so that advice is offered to the proposer and . then work' with ,the proposer to the final design stage. The.DRB feels that this suggestion should be incorporated into the Design Review portion of the Zoning Ordinance; a draft to this effect will be pre- sented to the Planning and Development.Board at the next meeting. The proposal will encourage the submission of schematic and conceptual plans for development to the DRB for advisery .review and suggestions in ad- vance of the time when a building permit is requested. Discussion followed regarding the types .of projects and areas of the city falling under the purview of the DRB; Mr. Meigs stated the B-2b zones (including Collegetown, and an area north of th.e CBD, and the Courthouse special use zone) , require DRB review. Mr. Cookingham asked if .there are design guidelines; Mr. Meigs said these are being developed and when available will be distributed by the Building Department to property ,owners and others in the zones affected. It was decided to refer-this- topic to the Codes and Administration Committee for research and recommendation, 8. 1987 Budget and Work Program: Mr. Meigs requested the Board's support of the department's. 1987 budget; he stated that the support last year from the Board was extremely helpful . Mr. Jackson noted that the first paragraph in the letter being sent to the Mayor (_re: strategic economic plan) endorsed the budget: "The Board believes that the budget is as lean as is possible while still allowing the department to perform those functions which the city has determined as a matter of policy are important to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of life of the residents of Ithaca." Board members observed, however, that they would like to see a draft of the work program, revised as suggested when the program was- dis- cussed as- dis-cussed previously, before it is finalized. Planning and Development Board Minutes - Oct. 28, 1986 (continued) -4- 9. Stewart Park: Mr. Sampson reported that the Committee felt the master plan for Stewart Park should be held in abeyance, A memo to the Board from Mr. Van Cort written as a follow up to the committee meeting was distributed. After discussion; the Board made the following recommendations: 1) that the design work presently under way continue as programmed, 2) that in the course of investigating alternatives, the design consultant pay special attention to enhancing recreational opportunities for all ages . . , 3) that the Master Plan be held in abeyance pending completion of the design work and subsequent decision about implementation, 4) that guidelines on maintenance of the park should be established, based where applicable on the design development that may be finally approved, 5) that the Mayor be requested to reactivate the full Stewart Park Advisory Group, filling any vacancies. Motion was made by Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Cookingham, to approve -the recommendations as above stated. Vote: 5-0-0. Motion carried. Mr. Meigs urged Board members to attend the public information meeting on Stewart Park design the following night: design consultantPeter Trowbridge will be presenting sketches of areas as they might be treated if various alternative suggestions were followed. 10. Election of Vice-Chair: A brief discussion was held regarding election of a Vice-Chair to act in Ms Bluemthal 's absence. Mr. Moran moved to appoint Mr. Sampson as Vice--Chair; he declined the appointment stating that he had acted in this capacity previously. After further discussion, Mr. Cookingham agreed to act as Vice-Chair for the Board. Vote: 5-0-0, Carried. 11. Approval of September 1986 Minutes: It was moved and seconded to approve the September 1986 Minutes. Vote: 5--0-0. Carried. 12. Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. HIM R�'�ItATEO CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607 Planning and Development Board Minutes - Zoning Appeals October 28, 1986: Zoning Appeals: Mr. Cookingham, Chair, Codes and .Administration Committee, reported that the Committee met and reviewed this month's zoning appeals. In the Committee's opinion, there was one case that they felt the Board should discuss (Appeal 1724) . Comments were made on the remaining cases as follows: Appeal 1722: No recommendation to BZA; however, the Committee noted that the parking area as proposed, by not protruding any closer toward the street than the adjacent structure, leaves a substantial space for screening plantings (as indicated in applicant's description, but not on their plot plan) as a "buffer". Such treatment, if en- forced as a condition of a variance, could achieve the separation that is the primary object of the blanket 20' setback under the ordinance. Appeal 1723: No recommendation to BZA. Appeal 1724: The Committee felt that the matter of interpretation should be discussed, since it has implications for all B-2 districts city- wide, and a separate report made to BZA following the P&D meeting. The Committee did not, however, feel that the variance questions related to this appeal were of such significance, and thus recommends that those matters be left to the discretion of the BZA. Appeal 1725 No recommendation to BZA. The Committee is concerned, however, that the encroachment of the business use, and particularly business related parking and vehicular use of the property in the R---2b zone, be limited to the number of spaces needed to meet requirements that cannot be satisfied on the Meadow Street property, and that the park- ing area in the rear yard be treated as called for under Section 30.37 B.2, for the benefit of surrounding residential properties. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" P&D Board - Zoning Appeals Minutes Meeting of 10/28/86 -2- Appeal 1726: Though the Committee makes no recommendation to the BZA for action, it should be emphasized that this Board has granted pre- liminary approval of the subdivision proposal which initiated this appeal . This Committee also reviewed applicant's request for Final Subdivision Approval , and will recommend final approval subject to BZA action on this related appeal . Appeals 1727, 1728, 1729: No recommendation to BZA. Appeal 1724 409-15 Third Street. Appeal of L. and G. Knuppenburg for an interpretation of the use regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, and/or for a use variance and an area variance for a deficient side yard to permit the con- struction of a 4-bay car wash on the commercial property at 409-15 Third St. (,Franklin Plaza) , , Mr. Cookingham stated that the Committee upon review did not believe that the car wash use was similar to a fast food drive-through or a bank drive-through which ,is permitted in a B-2a zone and further that the granting of this use would perhaps set a. precedent with implications for all B-2 districts city wide. Mr. Phil Winn, Esq. was present to represent Mr. and Mrs. Knuppenburg (also present) . Mr. Winn questioned the_ intent `of the Ordinance, and the question of whether this use fits into a service-commercial facility or an automobile sales and service facility. Attorney Winn felt that if there is a doubt in the matter that a ruling should be given in favor of the appellant; the ul- timate solution would be to clarify the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that any- thing associated with an automobile goes into a B-4 district but that should not be the case in this location. He feels a car wash would be very compatible in the Franklin Plaza along with the Laundromat already .established there. The Board pondered the question of allowing this use in a .B-2a zone albeit the loca- tion seemed to be` compatible. for a car wash., Mr. .Winn agreed there were logical arguments on both sides. Mr.. Meigs said the term ',service commercial ' is in- tended to refer to personal services rather than services of the mechanical nature related .to vehicles Attorney Winn contended this was a 'service' such a's rug cleaning; that is, a service not of a mechanical nature. Mr. Jackson said that as a planning matter (.not as a legal issue) the car wash is more similar to a gas station/service station and thus by so granting the request it would h.ave implications on other B-2 zones. He believes the variance route for this specific case is a _strong one because of the peculiar B-2 location. He stated that it was important to recognize its orientation to the residential neighborhood from the neighborhood perspective a car.wash was not particularly. attractive. However, a relevant attraction to the site is its orientation to Route 13 which is not a residential area and from that perspective a car wash is more appropriate. , Mr. Jackson reiterated that in this specific case the variance approach is the one to pursue. In the past, the Planning Board has refrained from making recommendations on specific issues of this sort. Mr. Jackson stated that this is a peculiar site in the way in which it is zoned P&D Board - Zoning Appeals Minutes Meeting of 10/28/86 -3- it is a boundary between a high-.use road which is industrial and high-intensity commercial and a residential neighborhood. In terms of interpretation of what is permitted in B-2 zones, it is inappropriate to expand the Ordinance defin- ition to .include a car wash facility. Mr. Jackson moved that as a planning matter the Board objects to an extension of the definition of the B-2 zone to include a car wash facility but would like to note that the variance approach should receive special atten- tion because of the location involved. Motion seconded by Mr. Sampson. Discussion: Mr. Cookingham said that the wording of the motion tacitly allowed. a car wash in this B-2 zone, He believed that by this wording the motion gave the impression to the BZA that the car wash should be allowed and Mr. Cook- ingham did not agree with this recommendation. Mr. Jackson stated that the BZA_ could take into consideration matters that the Planning Board is not authorized to address such as other possible uses. of the site that would be financially viable (which is the role of the BZA) . He reiterated that the intent of his motion was, that as a planning matter a car wash should not be included in a B-2 zone as a permitted use but .in this case there are other factors that make this case unique. Vote: 4-yes, 1-no (Cookingham) , 0-abstentions . Motion carried. /mc