HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-04-21 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
April 21, 1987
Present: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, J. Daley, S.
Cummings, T. Cookingham. Paul Mazzarella, Kathe Evans.
1. Call to Order - 7:30 p.m.
2. (a) Final Subdivision Approval: Johnson/204 W. Spencer Street.
The Public Hearing was opened by unanimous vote. No one
addressed. No one addressed the Board. Public Hearing was
closed. S. Cummings asked if the required items had been
received; T. Cookingham reported all requirements had been
met.
Motion was made 'by S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson to
approve the subdivision request. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
(b) Final Subdivision Approval: Rabinor/Highland House Apts. The
Public Hearing was opened by unanimous vote. No one was
present to speak; the Public Hearing was closed. No
discussion by the Board. Motion made and seconded to approve
the subdivision request. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
(c) Final Subdivision Approval: INHS/224-36 Floral Avenue. The
Public Hearing was opened by unanimous vote; no one was
present to speak to this request. Public Hearing closed. Mr.
Cookingham reported that the Board had instructed the
Committee to research whether the proposal could be modified
to include additional property for an adjacent property
owner. In addition, the City Engineer has recommended that a
variance not be granted from the off-street parking
requirement and stated that the off-street parking
requirements should be upheld. The Board discussed
possibilities for on site parking; number of spaces, location,
grading needed to develop spaces. T. Cookingham stated that
providing housing wherever possible is most important and that
other regulations should be relaxed to allow additions to the
housing stock. Jon Meigs recommended that the proposed lot
be approved on condition that on-site parking be provided for
the north lot only; parking should not be a condition of
approval; alternative methods to improve parking for this area
should be investigated (including curbside parking on the west
side of the road). Mr. Sampson urged the development of
parking on the east side of the road as well. Mr. Jackson
discussed granting additional land to the Skalwolds to
allow a bit more side yard for their parcel. (The committee
recommends reserving this space for parking if the variance is
denied.) Jackson asked if it was possible to even out the
property lines. Mr. Curtis stated tht evening the lines would
present limitations in siting the houses on each lot.
Redrawing the lines would also involve renegotiating a
purchase price and revising the mortgage documents. Ms.
Cummings said she felt a very fair and equitable arrangement
-2-
was arrived at in the division of the available land; she felt
confident in the decision making capacity of NHS to come forth
with the best possible line demarcation.
Motion was made by T. Cookingham, seconded by J. Daley to
approve the final subdivision conditioned upon approval of the
parking variance request or provision of adequate parking for
both properties being met on-site. Vote: 6-0-0. Abstention
(Jackson).
3. Zoning Appeals: see attached.
4. IFM - S. Jackson reported that the NYSCA monies have been
received. The contract with Bob Leathers for site design is being
finalized and signed. The traffic study is proceeding and
negotiations regarding financial arrangements are progressing.
5. Capital Improvements - 1988. Mr. Mazzarella explained the Capital
Improvements - 1988 program and schedule which was stated in a memo
from Director Van Cort dated 4/6/87. The process is commencing now
for 1988. Mr. Mazzarella asked for suggestions for projects from
the Board for consideration. Suggestions should be forwarded to
Director Van Cort. When all requests have been received the
package will be submitted to the CIRC (committee appointed by the
Mayor which includes representation from the Planning and
Development Board). If anyone is interested in serving on the
CIRC, they are urged to contact the Mayor. By September 1 all
recommendations will be submitted to Common Council.
6. TAC Final Report - Deputy Director Mazzarella distributed the final
TAC report - a culmination of the TAC's work of the last year
(involving approximately 20 meetings). First, the TAC reviewed a
series of housing problems and issues from the perspective of
various people who either served on the TAC or were asked to
address the TAC. (Some topics of discussion were: demographics,
developers' perspective, financing of housing, tax reform act,
etc.). Secondly, the TAC looked at the problems of housing and
neighborhoods, listed problems, and tried to prioritize them.
Thirdly, they examined and analyzed a series of actions that could
be used to address those problems, evaluated each action, and made
recommendations as to priority. The report also includes a short
self analysis of the process.
Three TAC members were present: Judith Rossiter, Lani Peck, and
Jane Pederson. Ms. Rossiter addressed the Board and made comments
regarding the work of TAC. She represented residents of the South
Hill and especially the home owners. She felt there was good
representation from Cornell; members who attended regularly, made
good suggestions and reported on Cornell's progress as well as
their shortcomings regarding student housing. The problem
encountered with students living in residential areas was also
addressed. She wished that Ithaca College had been similarily
represented; there was no one on TAC from Ithaca College to speak
-3-
in an official manner. Ms. Rossiter stated there are real problems
between the short-term residents and the long-term residents on
South Hill. The Board discussed at length the problems of student
housing and the colleges' attempts at addressing these needs.
Lani Peck also spoke briefly and praised the committee on the
tremendous amount of work performed. She said there is much more
to be done but this is a start. She urged implementing some of the
actions immediately to ameliorate the many problems that exist.
Ms. Pederson commented that the issue of rent control (which had
been discussed in TAC) was not mentioned in the report. She
believes this important issue should be addressed publicly to send
a message to landlords in this market. She also felt Cornell's
participation should not be over-stated; that paid Cornell staff
was represented on TAC; that tensions continue between Cornell and
the City. Ms. Pederson claimed there are severe problems regarding
housing (availability, affordability, maintenance, etc.). She
commented on the voting by TAC members and the fact that at some
meetings representation was too low for a meaningful vote on the
issues. She would like the report to reflect which responses came
from members attending the meetings and which responses came in by
mail. She asked that certain statistical realities be acknowledged
in the responses/report.
Ms. Cummings stated that the synopsis gave an accurate assessment
of the workings of the Committee and she appreciated the self-
critique section. Mr. Mazzarella commented that at times he
doubted the whole value of the process, but after compiling the
report he felt the problems and actions became much clearer; he
felt that the process as very successful; that the Committee
accomplished what it had set out to do, and that they did it well.
Mr. Daley moved, seconded by S. Cummings to commend and thank the
TAC for their role in preparing this report. Mr. Cookingham
suggested a written communication be sent from Ms. Blumenthal
to each TAC member. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried. Mr. Daley asked if the
report stands alone or is it to be dove-tailed into another study?
Mr. Mazzarella stated the intent of TAC was to make recommendations
to the Planning and Development Board which could be used in
developing actions that the Board would then pass on to Common
Council for implementation.
Mr. Jackson suggested that the process of TAC be more fully
described in the report. He also questioned the attendance at some
of the final meetings and suggested that the voting was not
representative. It was brought out that many professional members
of TAC did not attend the final meeting and the remaining
members were generally neighborhoods' representatives and/or
individuals from INHS.
Kathe Evans stated that the report was endorsed by all of the
current members of the Committee. Additional discussion followed
-4-
regarding the make-up of the Committee and the participation of the
technical members. Mr. Jackson would like to have the number of
responses received for each action noted in the report (if the TAC
felt this should be included in the report). He also felt that, in
any event, this would be useful information for the Board.
Mr. Daley agreed that the number of responses would be helpful but
the attendance numbers for each meeting was unnecessary. It was
suggested that those interested in attendance figures could review
the Minutes of each meeting.
T. Cookingham moved, seconded by S. Cummings, to accept the report
as presented with attention directed to the recommendations as
mentioned above. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
7. Subdivision - Travis/Fane, 405 College Avenue.
Mr. Cookingham stated that the Codes and Administration Committee
was concerned about the intent/spirit of this proposal and of
the method involved in meeting the code requirements. The
Committee felt some additional information was needed. It was
decided that the applicant or his representative should be asked to
address the Board and discuss the Board's concerns. Mr. Cookingham
stated that the subdivision as presented meets the subdivision
regulations and as such there is no reason for denial.
Attorney William Shaw was present representing Mr. Fane. He was
instructed, however, to speak for the subdivision though the land
in question is owned by Mack Travis. He explained that the
subdivision request was an effort to correct a deficiency for
handicapped access. Mr. Daley referred to the photographs which
show difficult access to the bathrooms even though the ramp would
meet the grade requirements. The pavers on the site were also
questioned; Mr. Shaw stated that the pavers were temporary and
would be removed and/or improved when Mr. Fane owned fee title to
the property. The Board asked if access through the building was
possible and questioned the conditions that exist which prevent the
construction of handicapped access to the bathrooms through
the interior of the building. The Board discussed the issue at
length. The general feeling was that the proposed exterior
handicapped access was a poor solution to the problem even though
it meets the code requirements. The Board specifically asked to
review the interior plans of the building. Additionally, they
would like to know what prevents construction through the
interior of the building; and what the ramp will look like in
the final design. Attorney Shaw will provide additional infor-
mation to the above concerns. Questions concerning the Code and
certain requirements will be directed to Tom Hoard. Mr. Cookingham
moved to recommend preliminary subdivision approval based
upon receipt of the requested information in order to arrive at
a final determination in May; seconded by S. Cummings.
S. Jackson stated that voting on the preliminary approval should
not be interpreted as pre-judging the issue; preliminary approval
-5-
is being given now solely to expedite the process. Final
approval will be granted if and when the Board is fuly convinced
that the exterior approach is the best or only solution to the
problem. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
8. It was decided to defer until May discussion of proposed changes to
the subdivision regulations.
9. After discussion the Board decided to hold a separate meeting to
discuss the Strategic Housing and Neighborhood Plan; meeting to be
held May 19 at 7:30 p.m., 4th floor Conference Room.
10. Wegmans Subdivision: Ms. Blumenthal said there are 2 changes to
the site: location of the building further back (approximately
30') and a temporary connection to Clinton Street. Mr. Cookingham
mentioned a concern about the access across Garage de France,
Tops, etc. Wegmans is proposing a temporary modification to the
existing access in order to preload the area to allow future
construction. After brief discussion (landscaping, drainage,
circulation) the Board asked if the proposed changes violate any
conditions of the initial subdivision approval. Staff will
research this query. Mr. Cookingham also stated that because
Wegmans needs additional road improvements (a right hand turning
lane and an acceleration lane exiting) they have contacted Tops
and Garage de France to coordinate an improvement district so as to
provide sidewalks, landscaping, etc.
Ms. Cummings noted that there is a longstanding need for sidewalks
on both Meadow Street and Elmira Road. Mr. Daley was asked whether
the BPW had any plans to develop sidewalks there; he said he would
check. The Board noted that this was an appropriate time to
consider such improvements since the property owners and the City
could share in the cost of the improvement. The Board directed the
Planning Department to prepare a request for a capital project that
will be submitted as part of the 1988 requests.
11. The Board requested a report on the status of the treetops
subdivision. They are worried that "the clock" might still be
running, and that if they don't take some action by a certain date,
the subdivision will be approved by default. They also raised the
possibility of writing the Weisburds' a letter which states, for
example, that they have not complied with all of the Board's
application requirements. Therefore their application was
never really accepted and it cannot be considered. Some letter in
this vein might be desirable to stop formal consideration of the
Treetops application.
12. Adult Day Care Zoning: Ms. Blumenthal reported that the proposed
ordinance dealing with adult day care will be voted on by Council
at the May meeting. This topic was inadvertently omitted from
tonight's agenda. The Planning Board is required to make a
recommendation to Council and Ms. Blumenthal felt a responsibility
-6-
to comment since the topic originated from a zoning request to the
Board some months ago. The proposed ordinance is the result of
that appeal.
Ms. Cummings stated the need for improved communication between the
various Boards and committees as the proposed changes are being
discussed. After discussion it was decided not to delay the public
hearing for the adult day care ordinance. In the interim the
Planning Board will review the ordinance and send comments to
Council at a later date.
13. Planning and Development Committee: Ms. Cummings reviewed the
Planning and Development Committee Agenda for the 4/22 meeting:
(a) Youth Bureau side plan/landscaping (financing for this project
may pose a problem);
(b) Environmental Bond Act (money for projects such as the GIAC
pool; pedestrian access to Stewart Park over Route 13, bikeway
acquisition, linear Park along Cayuga Inlet, etc.).
(c) request from Joe Ciaschi (Clinton Hall) to reuse city brick
for repaving.
(d) landfill siting broader statement on issues which affect the
City such as transportation, public safety, neighborhood
preservation, city water shed, recycling, etc.
(e) Collegetown Improvement benefit assessment (establishing a
tax benefit district to help finance cost of garage
operation).
14. Motion made and seconded to approve March 1987 Minutes. Vote:
5-0-0. Carried.
15 Department Head Evaluation: Reference was made to the memo from
Director Van Cort to the Mayor dated 3/30/87 regarding Mr. Van
Cort's suggestions for criteria by which the Director's performance
would be judged in 1987. Mr. Mazzarella said that in addition to
all the standard criteria for evaluation there may also be a need
to recognize differences in the responsibilities of each Depart-
ment Head.
Mr. Jackson commented on the Mayor's response (dated 4/16/87)
wherein additional items were added to the Director's duties. With
the exception of cable refranchising, the other topics are not
listed in the Department work program.
Ms. Cummings thought that item #5 (specific activities of the
Director) should be amplified and broadened; it should identify
what (as a professional) the Director of Planning and Development
actually does.
-7-
Mr. Jackson thought the suggestion in Mr. Van Cort's memo presented
qualities which an ideal director should possess. He took
exception to item #3 - he feels the director should not be a buffer
for elected officials and does not think it should be part of
the criteria. He suggested the following: Director should:
1) ensure the timely preparation and presentation of the work
plan,
2) see that the budget is adhered to,
3) see that the work plan is fulfilled,
4) be responsible for hiring and evaluation of staff,
5) serve as an advisor to the Mayor, Common Council, IURA.
6) respond to and implement directives from Mayor, Common
Council, Planning Board,
7) Director should represent City position on issues rather than
his person position, it should be so stated).
S) personally undertake primary responsibility for certain
projects as designated by the Mayor, Common Council and
Planning Board which may occur during the year (which are not
included in current work plan).
Mr. Cookingham stated that the greatest problem in such an
evaluation is how much interaction the director has with those
performing the evaluation regardless of criteria. When the Mayor
specifically designates certain projects to the director, it makes
the evaluation easier.
Ms. Blumenthal proposed continuing further discussion of the
Director's evaluation at a committee meeting of the Board; the
committee to be appointed by the Chair.
16. Adjournment at 12:15 a.m.
•� i int L
RATEO
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW—YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
Planning and Development Board
April 21, 1987:
Mr. Cookingham reported that the Codes and Administration Committee
met and discussed this month's four appeals. Only one was discussed briefly .
(1759) ; 407 Cliff Street for a Use Variance for Kolar machine shop addition.
Ms. Blumenthal mentioned that this was in the area of one of the proposed
Rt. 96 alternatives. Mr. Cookingham stated that he felt there would be
no benefit in discussion other than that the improvement would increase
the value of the property, and thus, would add to the cost of the Rt. 96
project should the machine shop be included in the chosen alternative. He
felt the improvement should .not be denied .on the basis of its being in the
path of a Rt. 96 alternative; as the City awaits a resolution to the Rt. 96
problem, there is bound to be some improvements to the properties involved
unless the City places a moratorium on the whole area. He suggested that
the Board mention to the Board of Zoning Appeals that the shop is in the
area of discussion for Rt. 96 improvement. Mr. Daley felt that the owner's
spirit should be applauded; he is willing to take the risk in spite of the
fact that his business might be ;interrupted at some future time. The Board
then agreed to pass appeal 1759 to the BZA without further comment or
recommendation.
APPEAL 1760 - 407 College Ave. Though it was originally intended
not to discuss this appeal, upon further review, the Board entered into a
lengthy discussion of this request. (Motion made by S. Cummings to discuss
appeal 1760; seconded by J. Daley. Vote: 5-yes, 1-abstention (Jackson) .
Carried.)
Mr. Ciaschi is requesting an Area Variance for deficient off-street
parking and deficient lot size to permit the construction of a 4-story building
with retail uses in the basement and first floor, and 3 floors of apartments
above. The Board discussed the code requirements for light, air and ventilation.
The proposal would deny natural light and air to the adjacent property. The
required parking was also discussed (the ordinance requires 8 parking spaces
for this project with the proposed building) . Ms. , Cummings asked to be kept
posted regarding this appeal; any written material from the city attorney or
Building Department on this issue should be referred back to the appropriate
committee. Motion was made by S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, to request
the Board of Zoning Appeals to defer action on. this request for 30 days pending
additional information (construction plans, legal interpretation) . Vote:
6-0-0. Carried.
The Board voted to accept the recommendations of the Codes and
Administration Committee as outlined in the.. memorandum dated April 16, 1987
(as modified above) regarding appeals 1759-62. See copy attached.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
ai
rf
Agenda Item - 4.
,.'� _
c►° .,�`4
CITY OF ITHACA
1 oe EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of .Planning and Development
From: Codes and Administration Committee
Re: Zoning Appeals 1759-62
Date: April 16, 1987
The Committee met April 15th to review these appeals. None
appear to be of citywide significance in regard to planning or related
considerations, and the Committee recommends that the Board refer them
to the BZA without comment or recommendation.
Appeal 1759 is for a Use Variance to enlarge the legal noncon-
forming Kolar Machine shop at 407 Cliff St. in an R-3a .zone. Applicant states
that employee parking is presently adequate and the proposed 60x70 addition
will not appreciably change that condition.
Appeal 1760 .is for Area Variances (lot area, parking) to permit
construction of a 4-storey building at 401 College Av. , in a B-2b zone. Base-
ment and ground floor would be retail; the upper 3 floors apartments with
space for 24 beds total. The practically irremediable lot area deficiency
aside, the parking deficiency would be 8 spaces (193 residents) ; with the
recently changed parking requirements, the housing component cancels the
requirement for parking for the retail space in this zone.
Appeal 1761 is for Area Variances to permit rebuilding a garage
apartment at 410 W. Seneca, in an R-3b zone. The deficiencies are preexisting
nonconforming setbacks on 2 sides.
Appeal 1762 is for Area Variance to permit an addition to a single-
family home at 413 Hook Pl. , in an R-1a zone. The deficiency is a preexisting
nonconforming front yard setback.
JM/mc
- "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" -