Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-06-02 Approved 6/23/87. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES - June 2, 1987, 4:00 P.M. � ; e r: PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal, T. Cookingham, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, S. Cummings, J. Daley 1. Zoning Appeals: Mr. Cookingham reported that the Committee met prior to this Board meeting to review this month's zoning appeals. "The Commitee, meeting May 20th, determined that of the above-referenced appeals, only Appeal 1764 involved matters of potential citywide significance in planning; thus all but Appeal 1764 are referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals without recommendation or comment." No action was required by the Board since the Committee was authorized to make a determination of these appeals in the Board's name. 2. Preliminary Subdivision: 209-13 N. Aurora Street - Lounsberry. Mr. Cookingham reported to the Board that this appeal concerned a property that is rented to two individuals; the owner of the property is requesting the division of the property into 2 parcels in order to sell to the existing tenants. Motion was made by Mr. Cookingham to grant preliminary approval to the subdivision requested. Seconded by M. Sampson. No further discussion by the Board. Vote - 4-0-0. Carried. 3. Preliminary Subdivision: Willow Ave. - Johnson/Cleveland. Mr. Cookingham stated that this request is basically a trans- ferrence of property. The owner of the boatyard is trans- ferring a portion of his land to the existing nearby tavern for additional parking; the tavern owner then will give a more centrally located similar parcel to the boatyard. Mr. Cookingham said he sees no problem with this request. Mr. Daley asked if either party involved expressed an interest in developing the site further. Mr. Cookingham said the question had been posed at the Committee meeting. Mr. Avramis was not present at the Committee meeting; a representative of the boatyard owner was present at the Committee meeting and said that perhaps in the future some structure related to the boatyard may be erected. At present, there are no plans for development. The Board juxtaposed this request with that of Mr. Johnson's of 204 W. Spencer St. and the unfortunate circumstance resulting from that subdivision. Regarding the question of development, Mr. Meigs stated that it appears that the parcel to be transferred would be a legal building parcel, but that the Building Commissioner would make a final determination on that issue. 2 Motion: T. Cookingham moved to grant preliminary approval with the provision that Mr. Avramis appear before the Board to state his intentions regarding the transferred parcel before Final Approval is granted. Seconded by M. Sampson. Vote: 5-0- 1 abstention (Jackson). 4. Proposed Subdivision Ordinance Amendments: Reference was made to the memo from Jon Meigs dated June 2, 1987. The recommendations listed to improve the process of review of proposed subdivisions include: public notice, preliminary application information and applicant notice. Under the heading of public notice it was mentioned that notification to property owners within 200' in no way guarantees that renters of these properties are notified (unless the landlord passes on the notification). Therefore, public posting on the parcel of the proposed subdivision would serve as notification to adjacent residents. Mr. Daley suggested that if 2 property owners are involved in the subdivision, then the procedures should apply to both. Mr. Jackson stated that there are some subdivision requests (such as lot line adjustments) which are very minor. It may be unnecessary to follow extensive procedures in these cases. These minor changes could perhaps be decided administratively; a tier system might be developed after definition of a °major, or °minor, subdivision request is established. Mr. Jackson stated that particular attention must be given when a lot line adjustment creates a conforming building lot and allows development as of right. Ms. Cummings felt a distinction in the subdivision process is needed; something linked to building permits or project plans to prevent future mishaps. It was agreed that more information is needed and could be garnered through a form developed to supply vital information to the Board before conditional approval can be scheduled for consideration. The proposed application form would identify the property, applicants, intent, and other relevant facts by which staff and Board members would have information beforehand on which to base a decision. By making this information a matter of record, it would help avoid mistakes. Additionally, applicants should be asked if there are any permits anticipated or pending. Mr. Jackson stated that reliance soley on written responses to questions posed might be deceptive. He felt an analysis done by staff to determine the worst possible consequence if the subdivision is granted would be beneficial. Applicant notice would inform applicants of the time and date of Board meetings at which their proposal is to be considered. Also, a copy of the meeting agenda would be mailed to them. In addition, applicants or their representatives must be present when the Board makes a formal decision. Ms. Cumnings suggested that information regarding the proposed 3 changes to the subdivision procedures should be given simul- taneously to the Charter and Ordinance Committee. They will need to be involved in the public notice procedure and can be contemplating the needed ordinance change. At the same time, the application form can be developed by staff. The Board agreed to the above proposals in concept. This item is referred back to Committee for furtherance. 5. Subdivision re: 402 S. Cavuoa. Ms. Cummings spoke for the neighborhood group concerned about development of a 5-bedroom structure at 402 S. Cayuga Street. She explained the zoning in this area and informed the neighbors that Mr. Hoard was going to address their concerns in writing. Ms. Cummings said that the Board revoked the Johnson subdivision contingent upon the City attorney's approval/recommendation of that action. How- ever, a building permit was subsequently issued because Mr. Hoard felt there was insufficient grounds for denial. (Brief discussion was held regarding retention of the cassette tapes of the Board meetings; seeking a recommendation from the City Attorney whether a verbatim transcript of subdivision discussions should be required; approval by the City Attorney of the application to be developed, etc. ) . The neighbors held a meeting to which Mr. Hovanec, the builder, was invited. Because of short notification of the meeting, the builder was not able to attend. The neighors are addressing questions to the city regarding parking, curb cuts and sanitary sewer for the project. The proposed building requires 18 parking spaces; 15 are proposed for on-site and 3 for off-site locations. Proof of the 3 off-site parking spaces must be given before a Certificate of Occupancy is .granted. (However, the building can legally be erected before off-site parking requirements need to be met. ) The Board indicated that this aspect of the code should be researched further and changed, if feasible. The neighbors are asking for a public review of this project to determine the impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Johnston, 111 S. Titus Ave., asked if the project was considered a luxury apartment or a dormitory, her contention being that a luxury apartment required green space whereas a 5- bedroom apartment appeared to be a dormitory for unrelated individuals. Mr. Mazzarella explained that the ordinance requires certain set back footage but does not specify that this area be "green space". Dorothy Sholeen, 206 S. Titus Ave., stated that the area has problem residents now; I.C. housing across the street presents constant noise/nuisance/traffic problems for the neighborhood. Other concerns addressed included trash storage and screening of dumpsters. Ms. Sholeen stated that this project presents many problems for which solutions should have been found or at least researched before a Building Permit was granted. 5a E �� Another neighbor questiofed the 81 strip subdivided from _,__ Mr. Johnson's property which provide- a right-of-way to the rear' parcel. It is now rumored that a parking area may be developed at the rear further reducing the neighborhoodgreen space. ,t Ms. Blumenthal said that in the future the Board may insist on a site plan review; legislation is needed to initiate such supervision/review. Other items mentioned were fines imposed on landlords for excessive noise by tenants (when police are asked to intervene); screening of parking lots; landscaping requirements; full disclosure of names of property owners/landlords/developers. The Board voted unanimously to request that the building commissioner enforce the zoning ordinance regulations in relation to the screening of parking lots. Ms. Cummings stated that BPW should request a survey of the area by the City Engineer regarding the sanitary sewer problem. The proposed curb cuts and increased traffic in the area should be researched. The Board recommended that a change be initiated regarding when curb cuts must be requested by the developer. In addition, a letter should be sent to Mr. Hoard requesting landscaping and plantings for any proposed parking area (interim fencing and adequate shrubbery). Ms. Cummings spoke briefly about R-3 zones and suggested that the R-3 zones be lowered in height and density and another category be created to allow the height and density now allowed under R-3. This proposed action would protect Spencer Street as it now exists. John Oakley, 503 S. Cayuga St., stated that enforcement of the noise ordinance is very difficult and he urges the Planning Board to give some attention to this problem. Ms. Cummings said that the Police would be endeavoring to determine how to better enforce ordinances and parking regulations. Ms. Cummings also stated that the Planning and Development Committee is discussing limiting the number of bedrooms in new developments to disallow undesirable types of housing. Mr. Mazzarella in response to the previous discussion regarding noise and traffic problems stated that the TAC has been working for the past year on ways to address these problems; they will ask Council to adopt actions that directly address these issues. The problems are difficult but he feels there are solutions at hand. 5 6. Preliminary Subdivision - 405 College Ave. , Travis/Fane. Attorney Shaw and Sharon Gracen were present to represent Mr. Fane. Ms. Gracen referred to a site plan of the block involved in the subdivision request. She identified the buildings and explained their relationship to the handicapped lane. She also reviewed with the Board the interior layout of 208 Dryden Rd., and explained the difficulty in providing handicapped acces- sibility through the interior of the building. The Board discussed the materials used in paving the handicapped ramp. Ms. Gracen said this material was approved by the Building Department. The handicapped accessibility is required for use by handicapped employees who may be employed by certain businesses in the building. Mr. Shaw stated that earlier he thought such access was required for customers; this, however, he learned was erroneous and the access is for employees. Thus, this may affect only 1 or 2 employees over a span of 10 or 12 years. Ms. Cummings suggested that the material used for paving should be subject to frequent winter inspections to insure that the ramp remains useable at all times. Motion was made by S. Cummings to approve the subdivision request contingent on satisfactory winter inspection by the Building Department to ensure that the materials used in the ramp were durable and provided safe access. Seconded by T. Cookingham. Vote: 4 yes-2 no. Carried. 7. Strategic Housing Plan - Mr. Mazzarella distributed a summary of the actions voted on by the Board, Planning Staff, and the TAC. A memo dated 3/24/87 from Kathe Evans explained the weighting factor as applied to the 5 designations for consideration of each action: effectiveness, efficiency, implementation, cost and environmental/historic preservation actions. Planning staff has listed 11 actions and Mr. Mazzarella asked if the Board would either ratify this list or add other actions as they see fit. Ms. Blumenthal felt that the importance of this issue warranted study and review and that no decision should be sought at this meeting. The Board discussed briefly a few of the actions such as development design and density alternatives for vacant or redevelopment sites, cluster housing, zero lot lines, etc. Ms. Evans stated that the 11 actions presented a very ambitious workload; Mr. Daley said he thought the 2 actions listed under Buildings & Grounds presented problems with regard to the method of enforcement; using an enforcing individual who is not a regular member of the Building Department would be injurious. He felt working within the existing codes and regulations would be more effective. 6 Ms. Blumenthal stated that program review could be built into any new system for monitoring building and grounds maintenance. Ms. Cummings suggested that an alternative list of actions be ready for implementation should any of these eleven be eliminated. The Neighborhood, Housing & Facilities Committee will continue discussion of the Strategic Housing plan at a meeting next week; further discussion by the full Board will continue at the July meeting. 8. Zoning Appeal Procedures: Mr. C. reported an on-going concern regarding public input for the zoning cases referred to the Board. The C & A Committee decided to continue with the same process that has been followed in past months. Two changes are contemplated: (1) When the Committee makes a recommendation there will not be the opportunity to open the recommendation to a public hearing and (2) a list of the zoning appeals coming before the Committee will be sent to all Board members. By this action the Committee will be able to receive comments before the Board meeting from members who wish to relate their concerns to the Committee. Motion was made and seconded to approve the above procedures. Vote: 5-0-0. Carried. 9. Clinton Hall, National Rea. of Historic Places: Ms. Blumenthal stated that no discussion was necessary because Clinton Hall. has already been nominated to the National Register. Ms. Evans related a point of interest: originally Mr. Ciaschi did not want historic designation for Clinton Hall and federal monies were used in the restoration. Now, if the building is found to be eligible for Historic designation it will present a problem because of the CD money involved without prior approval of the plans by the State. 10. BPW: Mr. Daley spoke briefly about Board of Public Works projects. Parking is a strong issue with numerous plans being presented. 11. PlanLn!W and Development Committee: Mr. Cummings related the resolutions going to Council from the Planning and Development Committee: increased fines for violations of the building code; increasing maximum fine for unlawful demolitions; impact on the City of proposed landfill site; residential parking permit system; Technical Advisory Committee report. 12. Approval of Minutes: Motion was made and seconded to approve amendments to the February minutes as stated in memos dated 4/15/87 and 4/29/87, and approval of the April 1987 Minutes. Vote: 5-0-0. Carried. 7 13. Mr. Mazzarella stated the last and final report entitled Supply, Demand and Affordability of Housing has been printed and will be distributed. 14. Adjournment 7:02 p.m. c� ye�gaaaa� d� ...................• .... RAtEO 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 of Zoning Appeals From: Board of Planning and Development C�r Re: Zoning Appeal 1760, 401 College Ave. Date: May 4, 1987 In a special meeting, May 4, 1987, the Board of Planning and Development examined the appeal with regard to what the Board felt to be the city-wide issues involved. The Board determined that the only issue in terms of city-wide planning impact is the impact on the property immediately to the north of the proposed structure. Since the proposed building would block windows in the adjoining structure it would cause the potential loss of some of the space now devoted to residential use. While the Board determined that the proposal would reduce the number of bedrooms in the adjacent building, .it would not eliminate an entire unit of housing. Given the new units to be built at 401 College Ave. , the net impact would be to increase the supply of housing available city-wide. The Board, therefore, recommended approval of the project with respect to its net positive benefit on the city's housing supply, but made no recommendation with regard to other considerations which are the basis of the appeal, and therefore passes those matters to the BZA for action. On vote, the recommendations were adopted, 5-0. HMVC/mc I "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"