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.