Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-03-24 Approved 4/21/87. �RATEO CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES- March 24, 1987 PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, T. Cookingham, J. Daley, S. Cummings. Deputy Director Mazzarella, Planner Katherine Evans. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chair Susan Blumenthal. 2. Privilege of the Floor: Two gentlemen asked to address the Board regarding the subdivision request of Theron Johnson, 204 W. Spencer Street. They had assumed that Final Subdivision approval would be discussed and acted on at tonight's meeting. Deputy Director Mazzarella explained that all the requirements had not yet been met; that Mr. Johnson had been .informed of this; and that if all documents were submitted in a timely manner in April then the legal notification would be published and Final Approval acted on at the Board's April meeting. The Board discussed the possibility of calling a special meeting before the regular April Board meeting for the purpose of discussing Final approval of Mr. Johnson's request for sub- division at 204 W. Spencer. It was determined that if the necessary documents were ready in April, the Board would hold a special meeting to expedite the request and all parties would be so notified (the required legal notification would be published five days prior to the special meeting) . A motion to that effect was presented by S. Jackson, seconded by M. Sampson. Vote: 6-0-0. Motion carried. 3. Preliminary Subdivision: 224-36 Floral Avenue/ Ithaca Neighborhood Services, Inc. Ben Curtis of INHS was present to address this subdivision request. A map of the area was shown to illustrate the proposal. It is proposed to subdivide the referenced property into two building lots, plus a small remnant that is to be combined with an adjoining property to rectify a zoning deficiency. The property lies in the INHS target area and will be developed in accordance with INHS' approved program for provision of low- and moderate- income housing. The two building parcels created will meet requirements for the R-3a zone in which they are located, though topographic conditions restrict vehicular access to at least the southerly one. Deputy Director Mazzarella explained the proposal to the Board: land is currently vacant; applicants -propose`to divide the land for two future building. lots'.and a third small piece would be sold to the ajoining property owner at 222 Floral Avenue to "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Planning and Development Board -2- Minutes - March 24, 1987 correct an encroachment and provide a legal side yard'. The question of off- street parking was discussed (appeal #1753 has been initiated for a variance to this requirement) . Topography.is a major problem; sidewalk is raised 4-5 feet from the road due to the change in grade. This adds to the difficulty of creating off-street parking to serve these lots.. It is proposed by INHS that the parking requirement be satisfied by using the parking areas across Floral Avenue that were developed by the City of Ithaca. There is a shortage of parking spaces in the area; some residents must park a distance from their homes and walk to their residences. Mr. Cookingham stated that the Committee found the subdivision request met all requirements and that the request for a variance was justified. The Codes and Administration Committee recommends approval with the condition of .a variance for the required parking spaces. The issue of .granting a special parking permit was discussed. This is a prime area for such a system in which off-street parking spaces would be as- signed to the residents. Mr. Eric Skalwold, owner of 222 Floral Ave. was present and addressed the Board. He mentioned the area across the street which is used by individuals for parking their cars while they jog in the neighborhood or walk their dogs. Mr. Curtis stated that there are 35 public parking spaces available and 6 private spaces for a total of 41 spaces to serve 16 families. Ms. Cummings suggested that adequate information be sup- plied to the BZA regarding parking (number of spaces, background/history) so that the BZA can make a factual decision. Mr. Skalwold stated he supports INHS' efforts to settle a relocated house on one of the lots, however, he objects to INHS' proposal to place another house between the relocated house and his property. Hepurchasedhis home and is initiating improvements with the idea that he would have some open space adjoining his property. He is concerned that too many two-family homes will be created in this neighborhood adding to congestion and increased parking problems. Mr. Curtis said that INHS has invested funds in this area over the last several years to make the neighborhood desirable for the existing residents and for low- to moderate- income families who.are seeking home ownership. INHS' concern regarding placing houses at 236 and 224 was to share that advantage with two more families; as far as the area becoming primarily rental housing, Mr. Curtis wished to remind all that the houses that are rehabilitated and sold by INHS carry with them a deed restriction that they must remain owner--occupied. residential structures for 20 years. INHS goes beyond the usual to ensure that these areas remain owner-occupied neighborhoods. In the case of 224 Floral-.Avenue there is an opportunity to offer home ownership to a low- or moderate-income family in a way that is not possible in the market as it currently exists. Ms. Cummings questioned the siting of the house,on the lot and if it would be feasible to move the house farther away from Mr. Skalwold's property. Mr.. Curtis stated it would be difficult to reposition the house and still.conform to the setback and area requirements. The ques-- tion of creating one or two buildable lots was raised. Mr. Curtis stated that by creating two buildable parcels INHS would optimize their use (both to the city and to .the people who are being served) by adding to the City's tax base and by allowing INHS to offer home ownership to additional low- and moderate-income individuals Mr. Mazzarella noted that these issues had Planning and Development Board -3- Minutes - March 24, 1987 already been thoroughly discussed by both the Common Council and the IURA when the question of selling this land to INHS was considered. One reason why the City decided to sell the property to INHS was to further the develop- ment of additional housing for low and moderate income families. Ms. Cum- mings moved to recommend Preliminary Subdivision approval with the condition that the Committee, ;:with .the assistance of Mr. Curtis, determine the available square footage for each lot and to have the houses sited so that each will conform to legal lot lines; further research to be completed regarding the parking problems on this street. Motion seconded by Mr. Jackson. Vote: 6-0-0. Motion carried. 4. Subdivision: 405 College Ave. - Travis/Fane. Mr. Mazzarella explained this subdivision request. Mr. Fane wishes to .make improvements to his property, known as Collegetown Court, to construct handicapped accessible bathrooms that will serve the retail stores in his building. In order to do so, Mr. Travis is willingto deed a 10 ft x 66 ft. portion of land at 405 College Avenue to .be combined with the Collegetown Court property which will serve as access to the bathrooms. The Board discussed the memorandum of Jon Meigs dated March 19 in which he listed conditions which should be met for sub- division approval.. The photographs presented depicted difficult access to the bathrooms even though the ramp shown would meet the grade requirements in the code. In this instance, even though the ramp met code requirements the intent of the code has been overlooked. . It `appears that wheelchairs would have difficulty in,approaching the ramp. The Board would like to see logical alternatives developed by the owner to address this problem (perhaps access through the interior of the building could be achieved) . Motion was made by S. Jackson to deny the preliminary subdivision request. After brief discussion this motion was withdrawn and a second motion made to hold over the request pending further information from Mr. Fane. Seconded by J. Daley. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.. 5. Zoning Appeals: Mr. Cookingham gave the report of the Codes and Administration Committee. The Committee reviewed seven appeals; none seem to have any signi- ficant+or generally applicable city-wide impact. Regarding two of the appeals the following comments were made for consideration by the BZA: APPEAL 1753, Area Variance to off-street parking requirements to permit subdivision and development of property at 224-36 Floral Avenue, in an-R-3a zone. Vehicular access to the northerly of the two building lots to be created seems feasible. This will be explored further with- the applicant during subdivision review and approval. . APPEAL 1756, Use and Area Variances to permit enlargement of existing and proposed legally nonconforming structures for the legally nonconforming masonry contractorts business at 123-29 W. Falls St. , in an R-2b zone.. Though indoor storage of the construction and contracting equipment would improve the current situation by reducing the visual im- pacts of this activity on the surrounding residential area, the proposed enlargement of the office building by adding a story would partially off- set this benefit and would permit further intensification of a non-conform Planning and Development Board -4- Minutes - March 24, 1987 ing business area inappropriate to the residential use and character of the neighborhood. Since these impacts would not be city-wide, no recom- mendation is made to the Board, Appeals 41752 through. #1758 are, therefore, passed on to the BZA without recommendation. S. Jackson moved to approve the report and submit same to the BZA;. seconded by. T. Cookingham. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried. 6. Ithaca Farmers' Market: Mr. Jackson reported that three simultaneous actions were .occurring regarding the Franklin Street site: a design contract is being drawn up with Robert Leathers; a traffic analysis is being conducted by Drs. Meyburg and Richardson. of Cornell; and the Committee appointed by the Mayor is working. on financial aspects of :the Market project. The time schedule for reporting to Council is set for mid-May. In relation to the traffic. study, two public meetings with the neighborhood residents are required; the first one to be held after basic data is. collected and reviewed, and the second meeting. will be held with .neighborhood residents to analyze possible solutions to traffic problems. 7. Strategic Housing and Neighborhoods Plan - review and discussion of draft goals: Mr. Mazzarella referred to a memo dated March 20, 1987 which included the revisions made. after the March 3, 1987 public hearing. After discussion by the Board the goals were further revised as follows: (see attached) 8. Zoning Change - B-2b District: Deputy Director Mazzarella explained the propo- sal to change. the existing zoning height in the B-2b district from 75' to 60` and 6 stories. Ms. Cummings stated that the Planning and Development Committee had put forward a step system of 75' in a very limited area and . 60' on the edges (area_comprised. - west side of 400 block of Dryden Rd.) . The' issue became divisive; everyone in the immediate neighborhood was unhappy with this proposal. In the greater interests of the housing study, the change to 60' was ',proposed even though it may not be the best planning solution. T. Cookingham stated that he was a proponent of the step system and still feels it is a valid mechanism to use in this area. Pragmatically, however, and in the interests of fostering a positive and harmonious climate for consideration of the overall housing plan, the Planning and Development Committee agreed to support the change to 60' . The Planning and Development Board at this time wished to acknowledge that the planning benefits of a 75' - 60' step system would be advantages for this district. Motion was made by Mr. Cookingham to report "no recommendation" to Common Council regarding the proposed change to 60' - 6 stories in the B-2b district. Seconded by S. Jackson. Vote: 5-0-0. Carried. 9. Strategic Housing and Neighborhoods Plan —review of affordability actions: Mr. Mazzarella distributed a voting form to the Board regarding the afford- ability actions and asked that each action be graded on a scale of 1 to T. The actions will be prioritized at a later date .to select the most important Planning and Development Board -5- Minutes - March 24, 1987 items for implementation. An explanation of each action was presented by Mr. Mazzerella and Kathe Evans.. Discussion followed; forms were collected and results will be compiled and reported on at the next. Board meeting. 10. Liaison Reports- BPW: Mr. Daley reported from BPW that in negotiations with NYSEG about_re-laying gas: lines in areas where streets are.being repaved he has been trying to find a way to include telephone, electric and cable TV lines. No solution has been found yet; cost. seems prohibitive (approxi-, mately $2,000 to each house for construction of a trench and reconnecting of the lines) . One possibility was to have the City bear the expense and then di6ess property owners each year ($100) spreading repayment over 20 years. BPW _is;researching what"other. communities have done in similar cir- cumstances (i.e., negotiations. with .utility company,.;etc.) . 11. Planning and Development.'Committee Ms. Cummings reviewed the Agenda,_for_the Committee meeting of March 25:_ housing study, Collegetown zon ng, East Hill matters, Conraii" crossing, Stewart Park, and shade trees (inventory, problems, priorities) . 12. Approval of February 1987 Minutes: T. Cookingham moved, seconded by S. Cummings, to approve the February Minutes. Vote: 5-0-0. Carried. /eh PLANNING BOARD GOALS POPULATION: ISSUE 1: Should the City of Ithaca place a limit on the total number of people who reside in the City? GOAL 1: The City of . Ithaca should accept only the number of new residents that can be accommodated while still preserving the positive aspects of neighborhood environments. ISSUE 2: What should be the desired rate of growth for the City's population? GOAL 2: The population of the City of Ithaca should grow only at a rate consistent with an ability to provide services and preserve neighborhood quality. ISSUE 3: Should the City of Ithaca manage the impact of the commuter population that works, shops or visits in the City? GOAL 3: The. City should work actively to manage the location of commuter destinations and the impacts that the commuter population imposes on City residents. LAND USE ISSUE 1: What should be the appropriate proportions of land devoted to residential, commercial, industrial and public use ? GOAL 1: The City of Ithaca should retain its present proportions of residential, commercial, industrial and public land uses. Future changes to this balance should not be precluded, if they are felt to be appropriate on a site-specific basis. " 1 I ISSUE 2: Should the City of Ithaca encourage more of any particular type of land use by increasing the allowed development density? GOAL -2: The City of Ithaca should preserve the existing residential character in its neighborhoods while recognizing that certain sites can be considered for additional housing opportunities. ISSUE 3: What role should the City of Ithaca play in the development of commercial, government and cultural activities in Tompkins County'? GOAL 3: The City of Ithaca -should continue to serve as the focal point for commercial, government and cultural activities in Tompkins County. ISSUE 4: How should the City react to the continual changes in the pattern of land development that Tompkins County is experiencing, and the negative effects that result from it? GOAL 4: The City of Ithaca should work actively to promote intergovernmental and institutional cooperation in planning for regional development, recognizing that efforts will depend upon mutual negotiation and decision making. HOUSING ISSUE 1: Should the City of Ithaca make active efforts to encourage the production of housing? GOAL 1: The City should make an effort to support production of additional housing opportunities through rehabilitation, adaptive use and new construction for all population groups. ISSUE 2: Should the City of Ithaca concentrate on housing any particular groups of people or types of households? GOAL 2: In addition to maintaining its housing commitment for households below the poverty level, the City should concentrate on encouraging development of additional increments and retention of the existing supply of affordable housing for moderate and middle income families and households. These are households whose economic status does not allow them to qualify for various subsidized housing programs. ISSUE 3: Should the City of Ithaca assume an active role in the development of affordable housing? GOAL 3: The City of Ithaca should take an extremely active role in the development of affordable housing. ISSUE 4: Should the City of Ithaca take active steps to preserve housing choices for its present residents, even if this means limiting housing choices for new residents who may want to move to the community? GOAL 4: The City should take active steps to limit the displacement of existing residents by new _or wealthier types of households. NEIGHBORHOODS ISSUE 1: Should the City recognize that different neighborhoods serve different populations, and that each can have its own unique characteristics? GOAL 1: The City of Ithaca should develop land use controls that permit varying types and characteristics of development or redevelopment in different areas to serve different populations. ISSUE 2: Should student housing be concentrated in the areas immediately surrounding Cornell and Ithaca College or dispersed throughout the City and the surrounding communities? GOAL 2: The City of Ithaca should strongly promote the maintenance and development of additional on-campus student housing and develop policies that promote student housing close to Cornell and Ithaca College, while allowing students to exercise their rights to reside wherever they choose in the City subject to the` zoning ordinance. ISSUE 3: Should the City promote the integration of commercial activities into residential areas? GOAL 3: The City should closely monitor and regulate the encroachment or enlargement of commercial activities in residential areas, particularly along the edges of residential neighborhoods.