HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-10-27 Planning and Development Board
Minutes - October 27, 1987
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, J. Daley, T.
Cookingham, S. Cummings. Planning and Development Director H. M.
Van Cort, Deputy Director P. Mazzarella, Planner J. Meigs .
Media, other interested parties .
1 . Call to Order: 7 : 40 p.m.
2 . Public Hearing: Ecker/Condren, 414-6 Cascadilla St.
Motion was made and seconded to open the public hearing.
No comment from neighbors; public hearing was closed by
motion. Cookingham reviewed the subdivision request.
Applicants wish to pursue the original proposal; request
would straighten property line bringing lots into greater
conformity; Committee recommends approval .
Motion: Jackson, seconded by Daley, recommended Final
Subdivision Approval. Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried.
3 . Privilege of the Floor: No one wished to address the Board
at this time.
4 . Committee Report - Economic Development and Transportation:
a. Ithaca Farmers ' Market. Jackson gave a brief update; the
Market wishes to meet with Inlet Island businessmen to
discuss possible solutions to mutual problems . Jackson will
hold a Committee meeting during November and will have a
recommendation for the Board at the next meeting.
5 . Committee Report - Codes and Administration:
a. Zoning Appeals 1792 - 1802, Sign Appeal 11-1-87 .
Cookingham reported that the Committee met earlier to review
this month' s appeals . Their recommendation is that Appeals
1792 through 1802 should be passed on to the BZA for action
without recommendation since none involved matters of city-
wide or long-term planning concern. The Committee did
comment on Sign Appeal 11-1-87; they wished to bring to BZA's
attention the fact that Wegmans ' request for a 225 sq. ft.
sign is half again the maximum allowed; this magnitude of
difference is excessive. See memo dated 11/5/87 attached.
b. Subdivision Ordinance Amendment. Cookingham attended the
last meeting of the Charter and Ordinance Committee and
reported that C&O wishes to incorporate the environmental
.review process into the proposed subdivision ordinance (to
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 10/27/87 (continued) -2-
address items such as commencement of timing, procedural
requirements, preliminary application form, etc. ) before a
revised ordinance is written. Blumenthal stated her desire
to communicate to C&O the reasons why the Board wishes
procedural changes to be made at this time. Discussion
followed regarding sending the Board's recommendation
directly to Council. It was decided that since there were
only two Committee members (C&0) present at the last meeting,
the matter should be presented again when a full consensus of
the Board could be realized. Chair Blumenthal was directed
to write a letter to C&O explaining the Board's position and
stating the reasons why the work should go forward at this
time.
6. Valentine Place: Chair Blumenthal referred to two appeals
received recently regarding the building permit issued to
John Novarr for 130 Valentine Place (Valentine Four) .
Council met and voted to request a recommendation from the
Planning & Development Board and the Planning & Development
Committee as to whether Council should institute a city-wide
moratorium of ' large-scale' development projects pending
institution of site plan review. Planning staff has been
collecting information on this subject from other
municipalities . Meigs reported that much information has
been received (examples, formats, law, citations) ; these are
being evaluated by staff. A draft site plan review ordinance
should be ready for the Board's review in time for the next
Board meeting (Dec. 1st) . Discussion followed regarding the
advisability of a city-wide moratorium on large scale
development projects . Van Cort explained some aspects:
moratorium cannot be retroactive - would not include projects
already underway; procedure (and timing) for passage would be
similar to that of a zoning change. The moratorium must be
for a specific duration; must have reasonable purpose; a
reasonable use of the property; and must have in place an
appeal mechanism. Daley stated a moratorium would give the
city time to institute a way of dealing with large scale
projects such as is presented here by Valentine Four. The
motion of referral from Council to the P&D Board and P&D
Committee was reviewed. The moratorium is not targeted to
any one project, nor is it a "taking" of property. The
moratorium would affect projects after passage, not those
already in progress .
Motion: Jackson moved to recommend to Council enactment of a
moratorium on city-wide ' large-scale' projects for a specific
period of time to allow implementation of site plan review.
Cookingham seconded. Vote: 6-0-0 . Motion carried.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 10/27/87 (continued) -3-
7 . Valentine Place Subdivision Review: Chair Blumenthal
referred to the appeals received recently from J. Pederson
and F. Denner in opposition to the building plans of Mr.
Novarr. In addition, a statement was also received from B.
Darlington indicating her concern. Van Cort stated that the
City Attorney has indicated that there is no statutory or
case law to support a situation such as this being defined as
a subdivision. Attorney Nash will send a written opinion as
to what constitutes a legal subdivision. Cummings asked if
other interpretations or opinions had been sought.
Discussion followed regarding Ithacare's agreement with
Novarr whereby Novarr leased the land from Ithacare for
construction of Valentine Four. No new parcel is being
created although it was noted that Novarr's project will be
taxed separately. The zoning boundaries were discussed as
well as the projects ' frontage on Quarry Street. (The zoning
map of record indicates 1" = 500 ft. ) Van Cort stated that
an ordinance is needed which clearly defines property lines;
lines not subject to interpretation or judgment. Questions
of interpretation must be construed in favor of the property
owner. Van Cort stated that an entire new mapping of the
city is needed and suggested that this should be a
recommendation from P&D Board to Council for the necessary
funding to undertake this project.
Jane Pederson, 206 Elmwood Ave. , asked that the Board
consider (and ask for an interpretation of) the possibility
that one or more parcels of land were created by this
project. Ithacare is tax exempt but Novarr's rented parcel
will be taxed according to the County Assessor's Office. She
also questioned the status of Woodcock Street; is it a city
street - dedicated but never opened? She believes the long
range question is city-wide control . Jackson asked if part
of a parcel could be taxed. Mazzarella stated, for example,
that Sheldon Court is tax exempt except for the retail stores
which are taxed (parcel is divided according to its use) .
The Board directed Van Cort to pursue the following: status
of the building permit for Valentine four and all other
permits affected by the critical zone; status of Valentine
P1 . as a city street; status of Woodcock St. ; tax exemption
and taxable status of parcel; inquire of BPW question
relating to street dedication and possession; and finally the
circumstances surrounding issuance of a building permit by
the Building Commissioner before he received City Engineer
Wm. Gray's report.
Motion: Cummings, seconded by Cookingham, moved to recommend
to P&D Committee creation of a new zoning map and to request
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 10/27/87 (continued) -4-
Council to authorize appropriate funding. Vote: 6-0-0 .
Carried.
Mr. Rishi Raj , 919 E. State St. , addressed the Board and
stated that the Building Commissioner has ruled in favor of
the developer; what can citizens do to protest? It was
suggested that the appropriate procedure is to appeal to the
BZA, however, the two appeals here having missed the deadline
for the Nov. 9 BZA meeting are scheduled now to be heard in
December. Mr. Raj said that citizens are forced into
litigation to obtain a response. He contends the appeal
process is not working; in certain cases BZA should allow for
contingencies
Jackson suggested that the Board request BZA to add these
appeals to their November agenda because of exceptional
circumstances .
Motion: Daley moved, seconded by Jackson, that if no public
hearing is required for the two above mentioned appeals to be
heard, the Board then requests BZA to hear the appeals at
their Nov. 9 meeting. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
Ronsvalle Subdivision: Chair Blumenthal referred to a
memorandum from the Codes and Administration Committee dated
Oct. 23, 1987 : "This application, which had been withdrawn
by applicant, has been resubmitted. The resubmission
contains no new information or different site design;
however, the Board's previous request, for consideration of
alternate and more functional parking arrangements, has been
reiterated in recent conversation between Ms . Blumenthal and
applicant. The Committee recommends Conditional Approval,
subject to further investigation of such alternate parking
arrangements . "
Appellant Ronsvalle, Attorney David Dubow, and Architect T.
Egner and staff, were present to address the Board. Mr.
Dubow stated he believed all information has been submitted
regarding the site plan proposal in response to the Board's
concerns . Daley asked for clarification of the common
driveway to access the parking plan - primary concern of the
Board. Mr. Parkeystated that access will be gained to both
parking areas other than the 10 foot right-of-way. Mr. Dubow
stated that he believes the review of this subdivision
application has gone well beyond what is construed as a
normal, legal subdivision review. He contends the Board is
now into site plan review which is beyond the Board's legal
scope.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 10/27/87 (continued) -5-
Mr. Daley disagreed saying that plans for the use of the
property should be presented in order to ascertain the
reasons for the subdivision request. Jackson stated that the
Planning Board is obliged to review the "worst case scenario"
(should the applicant exercise all his legal rights within
the Ordinance) . The Board is trying to anticipate what could
or might happen in the course of development. Cummings
stated that the Board must determine the maximum possible
impact. She believes the developer should have discussed the
project with the neighborhood to address their concerns
regarding traffic, density, etc. Mr. Dubow, in reply, stated
that the developer did not intentionally bypass the interests
of the neighborhood; he feels his client has "bent over
backwards" to produce plans and alternatives as best he
could. He further stated that the Planning Board meeting is
the proper forum for neighborhood input. The Board is now
asking Mr. Ronsvalle to work with a group of people who have
no financial investment in this venture and to allow them to
dictate the project design. Cummings said there is a
difference in interpretation between the Board and developer
regarding the subdivision powers of the Board. She feels the
Board has an obligation to look at the broad general impact
of all developments .
Motion was made and seconded (Jackson; Daley) to deny the
subdivision request. Discussion followed regarding last
month' s request regarding the parking scheme as presented at
that time. Mr. Parke said that other alternatives were
explored and that this scheme in his opinion represents the
best arrangement. Mr. Egner said that when Mr. Ronsvalle
bought the parcel and asked for assistance in developing the
site he initially wanted to construct a larger project. Mr.
Egner suggested that Ronsvalle request a subdivision - two
parcels which would meet the regulations . Mr. Egner said he
knew it would be difficult and that the 3, 000 sq. ft.
required was just being met. However, his firm prepared
plans and presented the requested materials for the Board's
review. He stated that they are before the Board now asking
for a subdivision of two parcels in a residential
neighborhood where many residences do not meet the minimum
requirements . When subdivision approval is granted they will
then take the plan to the Building Department for zoning
approval within the scope of the Ordinance. Jackson quoted
from the Municipal Code describing the Board's
responsibilities . Jackson believes allowing the subdivision
would add to parking problems and traffic. He believes the
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 10/27/87 (continued) -6-
,Board should deny the subdivision and allow development to be
accomplished "as of right" within the regulations for the
existing parcel . Daley stated that subdivisions are not
allowed "as of right" , that the Board is a review body in
these matters and it is appropriate for the Planning Board to
take into account such issues as impact on the neighborhood,
parking, traffic, etc.
The Board voted to enter into Executive Session at this
point. When the meeting resumed, Jackson withdrew his
earlier motion to deny. Cummings said that because the
original application was withdrawn, the Board is now at the
beginning of a new application which is identical however to
the previous proposal. She moved to defer action for one
month citing that the Board has authority (Sec . 31 .23) to
take into consideration the general needs of the community
and the best uses of the land to be subdivided as well as the
lot size, shape, and orientation; the Board is also concerned
with visual impacts of front yard and side yard parking. The
Board requests further information to be gathered by the
architects and/or suggestions from the neighborhood for a
parking plan. Motion seconded by Sampson.
Dubow requested that the record show that it was never their
understanding that this matter was being resubmitted as a new
application; he considered it simply a resumption of the
application already submitted. Cummings clarified the
Board's position in requesting additional information which
should include .a visual representation of the parking scheme.
Cummings called the question (to proceed immediately to vote
on the motion to defer for one month) ; seconded by Sampson.
Vote: 3-yes, 3-no (Jackson, Daley, Sampson) . Failed.
After further discussion, it was decided that this request is
a new submission (the original request having been withdrawn
by the applicant) . Vote on Motion to defer: 6-0-0 .
Carried.
9 Northside Rezoning: Chair reported that the Planning
Department has been working on a proposal to rezone the
Northside area from R-3b to R-2b which allows only single
family and duplex residential structures . The Planning and
Development Committee discussed the proposed changes last
month. Ithaca Farmers ' Market has been examining the old
water and sewer site to determine the feasibility of
relocating there. In addition, a developer, Mark
Finkelstein, has obtained an option to purchase the "Watt
parcel" (a 2-acre parcel on First Street behind the P&C
Market) for development. Mazzarella explained the background
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 10/27/87 (continued) -7-
for this request residents had contacted Susan Cummings to
initiate an analysis of the neighborhood. The residents are
concerned about possible higher density projects or
commercial ventures for Northside. - Mazzarella conducted a
survey to determine existing land uses in preparing the
rezoning proposal. Rezoning was contemplated before Mr.
Finkelstein obtained an option on the Watt property (zoned B-
2a) . Mazzarella is suggesting a new zoning district (R-2c) ;
a district that would allow only detached single family
homes, duplex and either attached or detached single falmily
homes. This designation would be used for the block bounded
by First, Franklin, Lake Ave. and Adams St. Mr. Finkelstein
has suggested entering into a moratorium for the development
and rezoning of the Watt site to allow time for discussion
between city, developer; and residents . The legality of such
an agreement is being researched by the City Attorney.
Cummings stated that the city-owned parcel and the developer-
owned parcel was an important opportunity to add to the
city's affordable housing stock.
Van Cort stated that Council still needs to resolve the
Farmers' Market relocation; basic decisions such as this
should be resolved before rezoning; a buffer between the
highway and the residential area is advisable (sound
barrier) .
There were a number of Northside residents in attendance.
Sarah Adams, 112 W. Marshall St. , addressed the Board and
stated that the community had a concern and continued
interest in the Watt property as well as the city-owned
parcel. The neighborhood has been participating in the
Farmers ' Market discussions. She mentioned the desire for a
city park in Northside and the fact that some form of housing
on the Watt site would be desirable and acceptable. Housing
should be compatible with density and scale of the
surroundings. She said there is some confusion over the R-2c
designation and she and others would like further
clarification. Members of the civic association have met
with Mr. Finkelstein and they appreciate his willingness to
discuss his plans with them. Ms . Adams expressed ambivalent
feelings she would like to see the zoning change move
forward but would also like to hear the developers' plans for
the site and allow him to proceed. She believes consensus is
that the rezoning proposal is welcome, however, because of
rapid developments the association has not been able to
muster a representative group for discussion.
Other residents addressed the Board offering similar views,
among these were: INNS involvement has been especially
beneficial for the neighborhood - hope expressed for INNS'
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 10/27/87 (continued) . -8-
continued involvement; housing, is preferred over commercial
use; green space/park area very desirable.
Mark Finkelstein was present. He explained his option to buy
the Watt parcel and gave a brief description of his
background. He is meeting with members of the civic
association to discuss his plans before proceeding to the
design stage. He identified two competing concerns: a
clearly identified affordable housing crisis and the concerns
as expressed by the neighborhood. He thought it paramount to
seek neighborhood involvement and agreement before requesting
a building permit He hopes to create an environment in
which to exchange ideas and views . He offered a moratorium
on this site wherein he would not seek a building permit for
four months (his option expires in March 1988) . After two
months of negotiations the city could change the zoning on
the parcel to whatever was decided; thereby regulating Mr.
Finkelstein's options . It was suggested to rezone the entire
neighborhood R-2c. Ms. Adams said that since the R-2c is not
: clearly designed as yet it would be premature to impose this
on the whole area.
Motion: Jackson moved, seconded by Daley, to recommend to
Common Council the zoning change as presented - R-3b to R-2b
(the boundaries to be further designated) . Vote: 6-0-0 .
Carried.
Motion: Jackson moved, seconded by Cummings, to recommend
that the city enter into a contractual moratorium with Mr.
Finkelstein. Vote: 6-0-0 . Carried.
10 Town of Ithaca Rezoning for Chamber of Commerce: The Codes
and Administration Committee reviewed the request to
designate the Town of Ithaca as ,lead agency in the
environmental review for rezoning the Chamber of Commerce ' '
site. The Committee recommends approval of the Town as lead
agency to prepare the environmental documents preceding the
actual rezoning. The intent of rezoning is to form a special
land use district to allow construction of the Chamber
building.
Motion to approve as stated made by Cookingham, seconded by -
Daley. Vote: 5-0-0. Passed.
11 . Theory Center: The Board discussed the changes made to the
original proposal; the building is now sited 20 feet back
from the gorge. Parking issues have not been adequately
addressed; the EIS is scheduled to be released in Spring
'88. Daley suggested that Chair write again to Cornell
indicating the Board's serious concerns; inadequate parking,
E Plannin & Development Board
Minute 10/2 87 (continued) -9-
design, height, and scale. Also, request again the documents
promised by Cornell which have not been received (engineering
plan, traffic plan, master plan) .
12. Strategic Housing and Neighborhood Plan: This topic
deferred; printing of the final document has not been
completed. The report will be presented to Council in
December. It was suggested that the Chair along with other
members of the Technical Advisory Committee present the study
to Council to underscore the importance of the work. Council
will direct the commencement of specific actions as
identified in the report.
13. Droval of Minute •• Cookingham moved, seconded by Daley, to
app ove th -eob�r1)987 Minutes as written. Carried.
14 . Adjournment. meeting was adjourned at 11 :50 p.m.
/mc
_-------------- - -- - _.. . --
. . ................
Rvoo e9 513 wal(z� IIS--
/
_ .......
-Tt✓_i -- _
vzr� )1�c tom, 3/ 3 b,/L �.v�
���p�RA7E0`00
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/�
Re: Zoning Appeals 1792-1802, Sign Appeal 11-1-87
DateL November 5, 1987
The Codes and Administration Committee of this Board has
reviewed subject Appeals and finds that none involves matters of city-
wide or long-term planning concern. Therefore, all are passed to the
Board of Zoning appeals for action without recommendation. The Committee
wishes to comment as follows .respecting Sign Appeal 11-1-87:
Table 34.6B1 of the Sign Ordinance clearly states that the.
maximum total area of all building signs for a single business of this
type in a B-5 zone is 150 sq. ft. Wegmans' request for 225 sq. ft. is
half again the maximum. This Committee feels this magnitude of difference
is excessive.
JM/mc
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"