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"