HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-02-24 c�R�RATEa`�
CITY OF ITHACA
10B EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning and Development Board
From: Marie Corina j
Re: Minutes of February 1987
Date: April 29, 1987
Jon Meigs brought to my attention that I inadvertently omitted
a line from the first paragraph of item #7. : Proposed Amendment to Sub-
division Requirement on page 3 of the February 1987 Minutes.
Please substitute the following:
"1. For lot-line adjustments and other actions that do not create
one or more legal building lots, notice shall be given by mail
• at least five (5) days preceding the meeting of the Board of
Planning and Development at which Conditional approval of the
subject proposal is to be considered, and again at least ten
(10) days preceding the meeting at which Final Approval is to
be considered. Such notice shall be given on a form pre-
scribed by the Board, and subdividers shall provide a copy
of the notice, with certification that it has been sent to
the owner andoccupantsof all properties within two hundred
(200) feet of the property to besubdivided , to the Board
prior to the respective meetings."
The underlined phrase Indicates the omission.
"An.Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
ITIi,9 °
® � Agenda Item - 12. Miscellaneous
IIJ
�0�,^...°•° a°��
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Board off-,Planning and Development
From: Jon Meigs
Re: Correction to Minutes of Feb. 24, 1987
Date: April 15, 1/987
The February 24, 1987 Minutes should be corrected as indicated:
Item 4. Subdivision: Johnson/204 W. Spencer St. Please substitute for
the first two sentences . . . "Owner proposes sale of 8' strip, to be
combined with 402 S. Cayuga, in exchange for right-of-way across 402
to rear of his property."
JM/mc
Attachment
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
�C .O�ITO
Approved. 4/24/87
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES - February- 24, 1987:
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal , M. Sampson, T. Cookingham, S. Cummings.
Staff: Deputy Director Mazzarella, Planner K. Evans , Community Development
Administrator G. Goldwyn.
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Ms Blumenthal
2. Zoning Appeals: See Minutes Attached.
3. Subdivision: Rabinor/Highland House Apartments. Mr. Cookingham explained the
subdivision request which was reviewed by the Codes and Administration Committee
previously. This parcel is located at the corner of Thurston and Waite Avenues .
Mr. Rabinor is proposing to divide the lot prior to refinancing the existing
buildings. Two separate parcels will be created and an easement conveyed
(when necessary) to provide access to both areas. The lots will meet existing
requirements. Mr. Rabinor has no 1 mmediate plan for developing the new parcel
(B). The Committee recommends approval since no non-conformity will exist.
S. Cummings moved for preliminary subdivision approval ; seconded by T.
Cookingham. Vote: 4-yes, 0-no. Motion carried.
4. Subdivision: Johnson/204 W. Spencer Street. Owner is proposing to add an 8'
strip to the parcel . A right of way would be conveyed to allow access. Lot
would conform to the present regulations. Ten parking spaces are proposed
in the lot line adjustment. Additional building units will be added after
approval--by'th'e BuildingDepartment. Number--of units has not yet been decided.
T. Cookingham.moved to grant preliminary approval ; seconded by S. Cummings. -
Vote: 4-yes,O-no. Carried.
5. Community Development Appli_ca_tion 1987/88: G,. Goldwyn, _CD Administrator,
presented the 1.987/88 proposed application and explained the projects .
He referred to the budget summary and the ratings as determined by the
CAC. Two items rated eight points (maximum impact on CD needs) : INHS
Loans/Grant/Technical Assistance and INHS Carpenter Program. Six other
items garnered four points (substantial impact on CD needs) : Clever.
Hans, Greentree Nursery, INHS-Mutual/Rental Housing, INHS Affordable
Housing, INHS Sidewalk Grants, and Pedestrian Access Project: All of
the proposals benefit from the citiz-ens' review where comments and
adjustments to their formats are suggested.
Discussion of the Pedestrian Access Project followed: project area is
located on W. Seneca and Buffalo Streets_ between Fulton and the Cayuga Inlet. -
- - It i proposed- to reestablish sidewalks on the north side of the street to
allow access to stores and -facilities along the way. - -In terms- of—public
improvement, the proposal would make the full crossing a more reasonable
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" - - - - - ------- - _--
Planning and Development Board 2
Minutes - Feb. 24, 1987 (continued)
proposition. The proposed sidewalk improvement will benefit a substantial
number of citizens. A survey will be needed to determine the city's right
of way which is unclear. Curbs, drainage and landscaping will be included
in the project. Mr. Goldwyn stated the city needed to have a comprehensive
application which includes a public improvement, a housing portion, and an
economic development portion. It is important that each proposal benefit
the greatest number of people.
S. Cummings questioned the economic development proposals which seemed to
be small projects. Mr. Goldwyn stated that the number- of jobs projected
were four for Greentree Nursery and ten for Clever Hans . The amount of
funds proposed to each in the form of a low interest loan is in keeping
with the average amounts that HUD has awarded on a per-job basis to com-
munities of our size throughout the region. He feels these are solid
proposals which will receive bank support; both applicants are very co-
operative regarding such issues as design recommendations and working with
the architects.
Ms Cummings asked how could we have CD projects ready for inclusion in future.
applications in light of the fact that the city receives such short notification
from Washingron. Mr. Goldwyn explained that marketing of Cherry Street, or
the new Industrial Park would be the best effort the city could make. It
is more of a year-round process than a campaign; city should always be on
the look out for opportunities for job creation; entrepreneurs should be
encouraged to seek the city's assistance.`
S. Cummings, seconded by T. Cookingham, moved endorsement of the 1987/88
Community Development Application as presented. Vote: 4-yes , 0-no. Carried.
6. Special Permit for Educational Uses: Mr. Mazzarella explained that this topic
relates to the Cornell Heights Zoning case where Cornell has attempted to
establish an office facility in Cornell Heights . The Court directed the city
to develop special permit procedures under which Cornell and other educational
institutions could apply for permission to have that kind of use. The city
has developed and approved the procedures. During litigation the Court
directed the City to make needed changes to our special permit procedures.
The Ordinance must, specify that additional information is needed regarding
possible impacts of a proposed use so that the BZA will have more direction
to determine the appropriateness of the application for use.
Reference was made to a memo written by Director Van Cort to City Attorney
Nashexpressing concerns regarding the proposed amendment. In the memo he
states: "It seems to me that out ordinance should make specific reference
to the conditions under which a permit may be denied, referring to the lan-
guage in this case, and that it should set out the types of limitations
which may be imposed on an appellant in order to protect the community,
again referring to the language of Cornell v. Bagnardi . My concern is that
failure to do so would leave the Board of Zoning Appeals without the proper
direction and would in all likelihood allow them to make decisions which
might not conform with the case and, therefore, might not be sustainable
upon appeal .
Planning and Development Board 3
Minutes - Feb. 24, 1987 (_ continued)
S. Cummings moved to pass the recommendations of Mr. Van Cort on to the
Charter and Ordinance Committee for. their consideration. Seconded by
M. Sampson. Vote: 4-yes, 0-no. Motion Carried.
7. Proposed Amendment to subdivision Notice Requirement: Chair Blumenthal pro-
posed that an ordinance provision be drafted to require subdividers to
notify neighbors of proposed subdivisions. Mr. Meigs _suggested in a memo
to the Board that an addition to "General Procedure S31.21" be adopted:
"The subdivider shall be responsible for insuring that the owners and oc
cupants of adjoining ,and nearby properties are notified of the proposed
subdivision and informed of its general nature, as follows:
1. For lot-line adjustments and other actions that do not create one or
more legal building lots, notice shall . be given by mail at least five
(5) days preceding the meeting of the Board of Planning and.Development
at which Conditional Approval of the subject proposal is to be considered.
Such notice shall be given on a form prescribed by the Board, and sub-
dividers shall provide a copy of the notice, with certification that it
has been sent to the owner of' each property adjoining or immediately
across the street from the property to be subdivided, to the Board
prior to the Conditional Approval meeting.,
2. For actions that create one or more legal building lots, notice shall
be given by mail at least five (5) days preceding the meeting of the
Board.of Planning and Development at which Conditional Approval of the
subject proposal is to be considered. Such notice shall be given on a
form prescribed by the Board, and subdividers shall provide a copy of
the notice, with certification that it has been sent to the owner and
occupants of all properties within two hundred (200) feet of the property
to. be subdivided, .to the Board prior to the respective meetings."
This notice would be in addition to that required by State law to be published
advertising the public hearing. The different requirements reflect the
relative importance of the type of subdivision at issue, weighing .both the
value of informing parties at interest and the burdens of providing that
information. The added requirement for notice to occupants of properties
near a proposed new building lot will avoid the potential that exists under
zoning, for parties who may be most directly affected by new construction
not to be informed of its imminence by absentee property owners
Mr. Mazzarella suggested that this method may be too excessive. For a
minor subdivision (i .e. , lot line adjustment) notification should not be
required. In addition, two notifications for major subdivision may be
excessive; perhaps one notice sent early in the process would suffice.
S. Cummings moved to approve this proposal in concept with referral to
Committee for further revision; seconded by T. Cookingham. Vote: 4-yes ,
0-no: Carried
8. NYSCA Grant/IFM Site Chair Blumenthal reported that the city has received
$7000 .from NYSCA for site design studies for the proposed IFM site on
Franklin Street.
Planning and Development Board 4
- Minutes Feb. 24, 1987 (continued)
9. Strategic Housing and Neighborhoods Plan: Ms Blumenthal referred tb the
memorandum from Deputy Director Mazzarella (1/22/87) entitled "Developing
Broad Objectives for Growth and Development in Ithaca". The Board
addressed two of the topics mentioned: housing and neighborhoods. Mr.
Mazzarella stated that the issues listed were a beginning point for dis-
cussion; other topics/issues of concern could be added. The issues ad-
dressed and the Board's conclusions follow: Issue: should the City of
Ithaca make an active effort to accommodate all of the people who desire
to live here by promoting the development of sufficient housing to meet
that demand? Mr. Mazzarella stated that the Board had previously adopted
a goal for populationthat stated while the City should not set a specific
ceiling for the number of people who want to live here, the City should
be fairly open and strive to accommodate those who do want to reside in
Ithaca. Practicable and feasible limitations on population ceilings need
to be applied while retaining the desirable aspects of each neighborhood.
S. Cummings stated that in many discussions the consensus has been that
rezoning carefully selected portions of the city to allow new development/
redevelopment/ higher density should. be encouraged.
Board recommendation: City should make an effort to allow new construction
or redevelopment at higher density in carefully selected areas (with
appropriate controls)
Discussion followed regarding housing for students. Consensus: the city
should take an active role in encouraging Cornell and Ithaca College to
provide more student- housing. The need for elderly housing and low-income
housing was addressed. K. Evans said the Office for the Aging is looking
for ways to keep elders in their own homes or assist elders to join other
elderly households through shared residences. This method is preferred
over "elderly housing ,projects" . 'Ms Evans further stated that there is a
housing need for transitional groups (individuals discharged from hospitals ,
etc.) They need the facilities and services that exist in the city and
they need to be acclimated to life in the urban area.
S. Cummings felt that the low/moderate income group is of the greatest
concern (those just above the subsidized level line) regardless of their
category (elderly, single or family) . The measure should be the household's
economic status; the poor,'who cannot qualify for public assistance need
to be provided for.
Consensus: The City should take an active role in trying to promote
housing for all types of households whose economic status places them
just above the poverty line. A number of other groups (which the city is
not excluding from housing) can better provide for themselves because of
their economic situation. In addition, student encroachment should be
limited in some way and family neighborhoods preserved.
Issue: _Should the City assume an active role in the development of
affordable housing?
Planning and Development Board 5
Minutes - Feb-. 24, 1987 (continued)
Consensus: The City should take an extremely active role in development
of affordable housing.
Issue: Should the City make an active effort to retain housing for its
present residents, to the detriment of future residents?
Consensus: The City should take an active role in limiting the displacement
of existing residents. The Board noted that displacement may be felt in
many ways including displacement by demolition of existing dwellings, con-
version to commercial .uses, and displacement by wealthier types of households.
Issue: Should the City accept the development of the majority of the
region's new housing in the suburban fringe areas and the negative parking,
traffic and other public costs that result from that?
Ms. Cummings felt that it cannot necessarily be said that by taking actions
within the City they would have any effect on the regional nature of things;
it can only be hoped that there might be a causal relationship. The City's
influence may be relatively minor. The Board then discussed how the City
might affect .the land .use decisions of neighboring communities.
Consensus: The City should actively promote cooperation between all
government levels in Tompkins County for planning regional land use
development.
Neighborhoods:
Issue: Should the City recognize that different neighborhoods serve dif-
ferent populations, and that each can have its own unique characteristics?
Consensus: Provide zoning regulations that permit varying types of de-
velopment at varying densities in different neighborhoods.
Issue: Should student housing be concentrated in the areas immediately
surrounding Cornell and Ithaca College or dispersed throughout the City
and surrounding areas?
Discussion followed with agreement ona middle position: the City should
develop policies to promote highresidential densities immediately adjacent
to Cornell and Ithaca College. ' Additional student housing should be dis-
persed throughout other neighborhoods. Both housing options should continue
for students.
Issue: Should commercial activity be integrated in any way into residential
areas?
Discussion followed regarding the types of commercial activities allowed in
residential areas. Downtown neighborhoods bisected by commercial zones or
those neighborhoods pressed hard against commercial zones feel intense pres-
sure. Issue should be changed to address serious commercial encroachment
into residential neighborhoods; goal should be to carefully monitor and con-
trol encroachment of commercial activities into residential: areas.
Planning and Development Board 6
f Minutes �- Feb, 24, 1987 (.continued)
Consensus: The City should actively work to limit the encroachment of
commercial activities into residential areas , with particular attention
paid to the edges of residential areas
10. Planning and Development Committee: Ms Cummings reviewed the topics for the
next Committee meeting including East Hill Zoning (particularly the issue
of building height; 75' or 60' ) ; NYSCA Grant for IFM; site plan review;
demolition ordinance; housing study,
11. Approval of Minutes: Correction to the January' Minutes - page 2, paragraph
4 - "Motion was made to accept the recommendation of 75 feet as the maximum
building height in the B-2b district. Vote: 6-yes, D-no. Motion passed. "
(Corrected words are underlined) . Motion was made and seconded to approve
the January Minutes as amended. Vote: 4-yes , 0-no. Carried.
12. Miscellaneous;
a) Ms Blumenthal asked the Board's opinion regarding including representatives
from Cornell and Ithaca College in Planning Board and BPW meetings. Ms
Cummings said it would be difficult to get someone to speak for the colleges
in an official capacity unless the representative was a high administrator.
In addition, many topics would not be pertinent to the colleges (subdivisions,
certain zoning`appeals, etc. ) Mr. Mazzarella suggested setting up an
informal working group of administrators from the City, Cornell , and Ithaca
College to talk on a regular basis and try to resolve problems in this manner.
TAC has made this suggestion and after they complete their report and recom-
mendations, Ms Blumenthal will discuss this recommendation from the TAC with
Mayor. Gutenberger..
b) Mr. Mazzarella mentioned that a problem exists in communicating Planning
Board recommendations to Common Council (discussions and votes) . There is
no formal way for the Board to communicate to Council . Suggestion was made
to, attach a summary of the Board's actions to the Council Minutes ; a written
report to Council would have greater weight and effect than a verbal report
at the Council meeting. Staff to provide this communication when warranted.
13. Adjournment: 11:00 p.m.
/rlc
��0�1TNq�9
r
a Boa
-A goal log
CITY OF ITHACA
10B EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
Planning and Development Board
Minutes - Zoning Appeals
February 24, 1987:
Present: Chair S. Blumenthal, M. Sampson, T. Cookingham, S. Cummings.
Deputy Director P. Mazzarella, Planner K. Evans, Community
Development Administrator G. Goldwyn.
Mr. Cookingham, Chair, Codes and Administration Committee, gave
the Committee's report after reviewing this month's appeals. .(See memorandum
dated 2/24/87 attached.) Brief discussion followed regarding Appeal 1742
in which the appellant .is seeking an area variance to permit conversion of a
1-family dwelling at 560 Spencer Road. The Committee recommended the possi-
bility of an Accessory Apartment Special Permit be investigated in lieu of a
variance. S. Cummings stated that there should be some .incentive to encourage
homeowners to choose the Accessory Apartment option in preference to seeking
a variance.
Appeal 1746 and Sign Appeal 3-1-87: This appeal from Albert E. Smith,
owner of Shortstop and Bottle Bert's Recycling Center, for use and area
variances to permit extension of legally non-conforming uses and structures
at 200 W. Seneca was discussed by the Board. Reference was made to a memor-
andum from Jon Meigs regarding the situation .in which he stated that the
effects of the appeal could have broader consequences: 1) Intensification of
existing nonconforming uses; 2) potential for further and more diverse non-
conforming uses, as indicated by a schematic drawing accompanying the appeal,
showing multiple tenancy of the enlarged structure; 3) may serve as precedent
for variances and/or rezoning in similar situations elsewhere in the city;
and 4) effects on the integrity of the abutting neighborhood and visual
character of the community as a whole.
Ms. Cummings stated that, though it is not reflected in Mr. Meig's
communication, the appellant met several times with her, with Director Van
Cort, and with staff regarding this entire project. Mr. Mazzarella also men-
tioned that this was discussed at a staff meeting where a diversity of opinion
was expressed (zoning change vs. variance) . Ms. Cummings stated that she felt
the variance approach was preferable and also that it was the consensus that
Common Council would not willingly accept a zoning change to more commercial
character for that neighborhood. The variance route, though imperfect, would
offer some flexibility without solidifying .a change .in the neighborhood.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Zoning Appeals Minutes
P&D Board Meeting 2/24/87 -2-
Mr. Mazzarella stated that though this is in a residential zone, the site is
surrounded by commercial use. Because of the exceptional and unique circum-
stances, he feels the variance is the best alternative to address this issue
now. The overwhelming fact is that even though this is a 'residential zone
it will probably never return to a residential use. Mr. Cookingham stated
he believed the zoning change would make more sense for the area in the long
run so that the property owner could entertain a wider range of commercial
uses for the property.
Mr. Smith was present and addressed the Board'. He stated we would like to
proceed with the variance and begin the improvements this Spring (before
the increase of business brought on by the summer weather) . He wishes to
replace two storage trailers located between the Shortshop and Bottle Bert's
with a 1,000 sq. ft. building enabling the businesses to operate in a cleaner
and more efficient nature. He also stated he; would welcome a change in the
zoning to allow him greater flexibility in leasing. Presently, it is difficult
to enter into a lease because prospective tenants have no assurance that a
variance will be approved and a building will' be built. The same problem exists
when trying to obtain construction financing.'.
Mr. Cookingham reiterated his position that he feels the property should be
rezoned but that for expediency the Board should recommend approval of the
variance at this time but making it incumbent upon the Board to pursue possible
rezoning for this property. Mr. Sampson suggested that ideally it would be
advantageous if Mr. Smith could add a second floor of apartment space to his
construction plans. Mr. Smith said that he considered that but by so doing it
would substantially block out sunlight to the' second floor of the house owned
by Dr. Russo.
Motion was made by T. Cookingham, seconded by S. Cummings, to recommend approval
of the variance to the BZA with the notation that the Planning and Development
Board will look into future rezoning of the property.
Vote: 4-0-0. Motion carried.
/mc