Loading...
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"