HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-12-01 Revised
i
Planning & Development Board rApproved 1/8/88
Minutes December 1 1987 — - -- -
PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, J. Daley,
T. Cookingham, S. J. Cummings . Director .of Planning and
Development H. M. Van Cort, Planner, J. Meigs. Other
interested parties .
1 . Call to Order: 7 : 30 p.m.
2 . Final Subdivision Approval: Anagnost/309 Eddy Street
The public hearing was opened by motion and unanimous
vote. No one from the public was present to address the
issue. The public hearing was closed by motion and vote.
The Board briefly reviewed the details of the subdivision
request. Mr. Anagnost was present and upon inquiry, the
Board was informed that all requirements for the
subdivision were fulfilled.
Motion: Jackson, seconded by Sampson, moved to approve
the subdivision as requested. Vote: 5-0-0 . Carried.
3. Housing Options For Seniors : Irene Stein, Tompkins Co.
Office For The Aging, addressed the Board. She explained
the survey (undertaken earlier this year) in which the
Office for the Aging interviewed residents of households '
containing one or more individuals 60 years of age or
older. The sample size was 486 ( 142 of these were city
residents) ; there was a 72% response rate, with a 95%
level of confidence. The seniors were asked a number of
questions regarding their living status : housing (single
residence; apartment; shared quarters, etc. ) , level of
income, state of health, mobility outside the home, etc.
Some expressed a desire for semi-independent apartment
accommodations coupled with nursing care and it was
estimated that roughly 200 of the seniors living outside
the City would be interested in moving into the City if
suitable living arrangements were available. It was
established that women ( 61% of County seniors) and older
respondents were the most financially burdened, and 22 .5
of those in the City had need to supplement income with
savings to meet costs associated with housing `(housing
costs consume 40% or more of total income of one-in-four
city seniors, but only one-in-six county-wide) . The
survey disclosed that over 300 of those questioned require
assistance with 3 or more activities for daily living.
Other statistics revealed that 4. 9% of those questioned -
indicated that inadequate transportation restricts their
mobility for shopping and social activity, etc. Some may
Planning & Development. Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) -2-
not leave their homes because they are fearful of crime
and of injury through falling. Surprisingly, Ms . Stein
said, by some indices,; seniors living .outside the city are
less isolated than city senior residents . 12 .5
questioned were at or below poverty level
Ms . Stein mentioned Governor Cuomo's Bill #95 regarding
establishment of continuing care retirement communities;
she urged alltolobby their state assemblymen to move
this Bill to the legislative docket this year. The Officer
For The Aging recommends that the County assist efforts of
the Tompkins County Home Sharing Counseling Service (newly
formed) . Also mentioned was the phenomenon of the aging
senior in a house where most or all savings are in the
equity of the property with no additional funds for home
repairs and maintenance and/or insufficient funds for
living expenses . She expressed hope that the State will
work with institutions to develop models of home ,equity
conversion which would provide safeguards to both seniors
and lenders . Office For the Aging further recommends that
the city incorporate in their planning the needs of
seniors who wish to remain in the city. The data
collected will serve as a resource for planners and
developers .
Ms Stein mentioned that the OFA together with Cooperative
Extension has sponsored a program called Housing Options
for Seniors Today. The first part, called HOST I,
presented an overview of various housing options such as
accessory apartments, 'echo' housing, shared living,
etc. , to organizations who thenworked with individuals to
develop an acceptable arrangement. HOST II is a
presentation of innovative zoning approaches to facilitate
the implementation of these alternatives
The Board discussed the city' s Accessory Apartment
Ordinance which could be utilized by seniors who have
extra space in their homes . Mr. Van Cort stated that
. deciding to build an accessory apartment is a tremendous
undertaking especially for senior citizens; technical and
financial advice is needed. An organization such as HOST
or INNS might establish a program to anticipate the
seniors ' needs and help them overcome obstacles which are
inherent in such a project.
Asked, "What was the impetus behind the survey?" , Ms .
Stein replied that OFA receives many inquiries ,regarding
housing needs for seniors . In the past they relied on
census data but felt this was inadequate and, thus, the
survey was undertaken to obtain more accurate and up-to-
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) -3
date information. Copies of the summary and the total
county-wide report have been distributed. Additional
copies are available at the. Office For The Aging. The ,
city data has not been extrapolated from the survey but
this task will be done as time allows .
4. Valentine Four: City Attorney Ralph Nash, Building
Commissioner Thomas Hoard, and City Engineer William Gray
were present to discuss Valentine Four. Chair Blumenthal
referred to a memorandum from Paul Mazzarella dated
December 1, 1987 regarding when the subdivision process
should be invoked. Effect of tax status and the effect of
along-term lease were researched by the Deputy Director.
He found that the County (operating under State
guidelines ) taxes property according to its use rather
than by ownership. If a tax-exempt entity is using
property for an income-producing purpose, the property
will be taxed; the Assessment Department determines the
proportions of use and bills the property owner
accordingly. Property may also be divided into separate
tax parcels for the convenience of the owner; this bears`
no legal relationship to the process of land subdivision.
Subdivisions are governed by local government; taxable
status can neither require nor prevent subdivision of land
from occurring.
A second issue concerns whether a long-term lease of
either all or a portion of a parcel should be considered
the same as a transfer of property, thus possibly
requiring subdivision approval. Mr. Mazzarella asked the
opinion of Mr. Harry Wills of the Department of State
concerning long-term leases in regard to subdivisions .
Mr. Wills noted that the state statute defines a
subdivision as the creation of "lots, blocks, or sites" of
land. He interprets this to mean that a local
government's subdivision lawscanregulate something other
than a fee simple transfer of land, which is what occurs
in the overwhelming majority of cases ,,when land is
subdivided. However, in order to regulate something other
than a fee simple transfer, Mr. Wills ' opinion is that the
'local subdivision regulations would first have to
recognize such other situations and then specifically
define how they are to be regulated. In the absence of
regulations designed to deal with such situations, they
cannot be regulated.
The Board discussed at length the long-term lease question
and some differed on Mr. Wills' interpretation. Mr. Nash
stated that the city may have the legal authority to bring
leases within the subdivision regulations but this must be
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) : - -4-
clearly expressed and defined. Jackson asked why the city
did not have the ability to regulate leases without having
the issue defined in the regulations . Also, was case law
researched on this matter? Nash said there are two
different enabling statutes with procedures for site plan
review and subdivision review; the State regulates site
plan review to development on a parcel and subdivision
review to division of that parcel. Nash saw no
authorization for leases; he believes Mr. Wills ' opinion
is correct; one cannot apply a subdivision regulation to a
long-term lease. Mr. Meigs stated that the enabling
legislation (as he understands it) provides that the city
may take certain powers but the powers must be specified
or such authority is non-existent.
It was stated that Mr. Novarr is acting as agent for the
owner. Blumenthal questioned if a lease exists and, if
so, has it been examined? If the lease contains "an
option to buy clause" it would have a direct bearing on
the future intentions of the developer. The Board
discussed the possible terms of such a lease which may
stipulate sale of the property some time in the future.
If such development is determined to be an allowed legal
use of the land and a sale of this part of the site ensues
in the future, how would the question of subdivision then
be handled? It was mentioned that one does not obtain a
subdivision "as of right" ; subdivisions may be denied if
conditions warrant.
A number of area residents (B. Darlington, S. Kirkpatrick,
J. Pederson, N. Schuler, and others) were present. They
again mentioned their intense frustration over the BZA
process; they feel the laws have been interpreted as
narrowly as possible to protect the developer. They
contend that no one is looking out for the neighborhood;
laws were designed to protect the neighborhoods and when
interpreting the laws, the intent must be remembered.
They consider this project a definite subdivision and
cannot understand. how it can be viewed in any other way.
Density, traffic, and noise were again addressed; they
urged the city to uphold neighborhood integrity.
Mr. Van Cort stated that the Board and Planning staff were
very concerned about all the issues raised and those
comments made by the residents. He said that as an
outgrowth of the Strategic Housing plan, legislation will
be developed which will attempt to address these issues .
He asked for their continued participation and input; he
pledged support and responsiveness to all neighborhood
residents. The Department is striving to make Ithaca a
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) -5-
better place to live and will continue to work toward that
goal. Motion was made by T. Cookingham, seconded by S
Jackson, to request the City Attorney's review of- the
developer'slease agreement with Ithacare since the. terms
contained therein could have a direct bearing on the
validity of the building permit, and would reveal future
intentions regarding the development. Vote: 6-0-0 .
Motion carried.
Mr. Hoard discussed with the Board the status of Woodcock
Street. The deed gives Ithacare the right to open the
right of way from their property to Valentine Place. The
question of the project being in a critical zone was
discussed; the law passed in August this year regarding
critical zones was declared invalid. Mr. Novarr started
this project after the law was withdrawn Mr. Hoard
stated that when Novarr moved the project back from the
gorge, DEC officials indicated the siting was perfectly
acceptable; this is an example of how SEQR review works to
protect critical areas The memo written by City Engineer
Gray regarding Novarr' s original plan was explained by Mr.
Hoard (problems with the original project were
identified) . However, after Novarr modified his plans the
problems mentioned were resolved and the memo then became
irrelevant.
Mr. Van Cort stated that the site plan review ordinance
now in draft will encompass Targe development projects
This will entail discretionary approval and will,
therefore, in most cases trigger SEQR review.
Daley questioned the extent of the city's liability should
the issue be taken to court. He asked Mr. Nash to
determine the city's risk or liability (dollar amount) .
Jackson stated that if the parcel developed is determined
at this time not to be a subdivision then he would like
the following stated for the record: If at a later time
an application for subdivision is made, it should be
reviewed in the "a priori" state (i.e. , the state of the
property before Novarr's development) . Mr. Hoard stated
this request could be added to the Building Department's
property files and also filed with the Tompkins County
Clerk's Office.
A resolution stating the above will be drafted for the
Board's review. Motion made by Jackson, seconded by
Daley, to recommend the above. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) -6-
In summary, the Board is requesting ( 1) further
clarification of the State enabling legislation for
subdivisions and site plan review, and (2 ) an estimate of
the city's liability/risk if this matter is brought to
litigation.
5. Preliminary Subdivision - Ronsvalle/109 S . Titus Ave. :
Mr. Ronsvalle and James Parkes, Architect for the proposed
development, were present. Mr. Ronsvalle stated that this
was his fifth appearance before the Board. He reviewed
the reasons for his request; he is a local contractor who
owns a warehouse , located on the subject property (a
"grandfathered" non-conforming use) . He is proposing to
build two duplex buildings (4 dwelling units) which would
be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Parkes displayed
three alternate parking schemes for the two lots . (At the
September meeting the Board had requested development of
alternate parking plans . ) Features of each scheme were
discussed; constraints were noted including a right of way
across the property. Difficulties in siting the units on
the property to utilize the space in the best possible
manner while incorporating an acceptable parking plan were
related. Mr. Parkes stated that they are endeavoring to
work within the existing zoning rather than requesting a
variance from the BZA.
Mark Schwartz (representing his mother-in-law, who resides
on the property next to Mr. Ronsvalle' s) and Margaret
Wood, neighbor, commented on the increased density which
would result from this development. He feels it will be a
major impact on the area (traffic, noise, and the quality
of life) . Mr. Schwartz said siting two duplex units on
this parcel, meeting the minimum requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance, is not the best use of the land and not
beneficial to the neighborhood. He also felt the loss of
parking that might result from provision of new curb cuts
would exacerbate parking problems on the street.
Margaret Wood, 121 S. Titus Ave. , voiced similar
complaints. She feels the development would cause a
definite visual impact on the street. She questioned the
owner' s intent regarding future sale of one or both
properties. She claimed the neighbors have tried
unsuccessfully to meet with Mr. Ronsvalle for discussion.
Because of the newly constructed apartment building on the
corner of S. Titus and S. Cayuga, the residents are very
concerned about this project. She asked that the Board
consider the narrow street, lack of parking, additional
traffic, visual impact and the motives of the developer.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) : -7-
She asked the Board to deny the subdivision for the
reasons cited.
Mr. Ronsvalle commented that he had tried to deal in a
straight-forward way with the Board attempting to address
their concerns and presenting parking schemes as
directed. He is trying to work within the existing zoning
to build a reasonable project with a reasonable return.
Cummings stated that the timing of this request is
unfortunate following the recent illegal demolition and
subsequent construction of student housing on the corner.
She stated that Mr. Ronsvalle is trying to work within the
legal process - hiring sound architectural services and
designing buildings which could, indeed, be rented to
families . Unfortunately, the previous construction forced
a heavy impact on the neighborhood which has now resulted
in strong opposition to Mr. Ronsvalle's proposal.
Jackson stated his appreciation of the parking
alternatives presented by Mr. Parkes and Mr. Ronsvalle.
However, he feels that four units would result in
excessive density for the neighborhood. Cookingham
observed that the Board on previous occasions indicated
that parking was the paramount issue (e.g. , elimination of
tandem parking would present a viable solution and solve
the parking problem) . At the September meeting and again
at last month's meeting, Mr. Ronsvalle was directed to
devise alternate parking schemes which he has now
presented. However, at this meeting, additional issues
are at the fore: density and the neighboring new
building. Mr. Cookingham feels that Mr. Ronsvalle was not
given the full list of complaints/concerns from the
beginning and that at this time (so far along in the
process) the Board should not interject additional issues.
The Board discussed the merits of Mr. Cookingham' s remarks
along with the Board's alleged ambivalence in this
matter. Cummings noted that at the first meeting on this
subdivision, in August, a number of concerns were listed,
not limited to parking, though it was prominent. Board
members commented that density and visual impact were
always a consideration; the Board attempted an innovative
approach in this instance realizing the legal constraints;
the project, although proposed within legal regulations,
is too large for the area; and, finally, all agreed the
subdivision request presented a difficult decision.
Jackson, seconded by Cummings, moved to deny the
subdivision request.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) -8
Mr. Parkes asked the Board for a clear statement of
reasons for denial, should they uphold the Motion, in case
Mr. Ronsvalle wished to 'pursue it. The following was
added to the Motion: Denial is recommended because of (1)
recent density increases in the neighborhood which, if
expanded, would irrevocably alter the character of the
neighborhood and the quality of life. ; (2 ) the additional
traffic which would be generated; (3) the proposed number
and arrangement of parking spaces which places an
excessive burden on the neighborhood since it is likely
that the actual demand created would be 'greater than must
be provided to satisfy present zoning requirements; (4)
the lots' physical appearance is unacceptable
(insufficient green space and mass of structures); and (5)
the inappropriateness for the neighborhood of that which
the Ordinance allows
Mr. Ronsvalle asked Mr. Meigs, to repeat an earlier
statement regarding a possible condition of a Motion to
approve. Mr. Meigs stated that as a condition to
approval, the Board could make approval subject to
approval by the BZA of a variance to permit development
with a scheme of parking which would be acceptable to the
Planning Board.
Vote on the Motion to deny the subdivision request: 6-0-
0. Carried unanimously.
As approved in Executive Session 8 'January 88, on Motion by
Daley, Seconded by Sampson; Vote 4-0-0 (Daley, Sampson,
Blumenthal; Cookingham by phone hookup due to inability to
reach Ithaca because of road conditions . )
6 . Northside Rezoning:
Ms Cummings related to the Board the results of the
Planning and Development Committee's consensus after
discussing Northside rezoning at their last meeting. The
Planning & Development Board at the time had endorsed the
concept of a new 'R-2c' district designation. A mutually
binding site specific moratorium for the 'Watt lot was
also thought to be feasible.: The Committee split on these
recommendations - two in support of the R-2c concept and
two favoring R-2b designation immediately plus initiating
an interim zoning moratorium while the R-2c was being
drafted. They thought this was a safer mechanism to
protect the site. -
Since the Committee met, it has been determined that a
mutual moratorium mechanism would not be legally binding
on the City. Director Van Cort stated that a unilateral,
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) : -9-
City-declared moratorium is an unusual action on the part
of government and one that can legally only be used when
an emergency exists. Alternatives for the Watt lot then
could be an R-2b designation (which the City Attorney
advised is not a defensible strategy to useas interim
zoning) or trying "an act of faith" and going with R-2c
(site would stay in B zone while Committee devises R-2c
and planned unit development regulations) . Cummings
supported the latter course which allows at least 30 days
protection - bringing the rezoning question to a public
hearing. Neighborhood residents are divided in their
opinion; no unanimous voice of the neighborhood has been
heard.
Reference was made to Mr. Paolangeli's petition in
opposition to rezoning the Watt parcel . City Attorney
Nash stated that the change from B-2 is considered to be a
separate action from the proposed R-2c change; the Watt
parcel represents one block and Mr. Paolangeli is the sole
owner. Therefore, he is within his right to petition
since he owns 1000 of the property in question.
After lengthy discussion of the issues (and development
density in particular) Mr. Van Cort stated that the main
question is will this project have a negative .impact on
its surroundings? This can be determined through an
environmental analysis . Impacts would include excessive
height, inadequate parking and inadequate open space on
the site.
Mr. Daley, seconded by Ms . Cummings, moved that the Board
of Planning and Development recommend to Common ,Council
the approval of Alternative 2 (excluding the 'Watt' site)
for the rezoning of all portions of the Northside
neighborhood of the City of Ithaca to the R-2b
classification as specified and described in the
Alternative 2 resolution before Common Council) Vote: 4-
2 (Jackson, Blumenthal) . Passed.
7 . Work Program 1988
Director Van Cort asked the Board to carefully review the
1988 Work Program; if additions are requested, a similar
deletion of time is requested elsewhere to compensate,
since all workdays are programmed at full capacity.
8. Site Development Plan Review:
Ms. Blumenthal and Mr. Van Cort complimented Mr. Meigs on
the work involved with the site development plan review
regulation draft. Mr. Van Cort commented that in order to
Planning & Development Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) : -10-
implement the procedures as outlined an increase in staff
would be needed; he anticipates many review applications,
and these would generate an enormous amount of work.
Cookingham moved, seconded by Daley, to refer the site
development plan review to committee for further revision;
Board members were requested to comment before the next
Codes and Administration meeting (4 : 00 p.m. , 12/16/87 ) .
Cummings asked that all Common Council members receive a
copy of the draft; the Planning and Development Committee
will discuss this topic at their meeting on December
15th. (No vote on this motion was recorded. )
9 . Board of Public Works Report:
Mr. Daley reported that the BPW defeated a resolution
asking for permission to negotiate another one-year lease
with the Ithaca Farmers ' Market for 1988; Common Council
may override this and direct the BPW to negotiate.
10. Planning and Development Committees
The Planning and Development Committee discussed an
application for continuing the historic resources survey
on South Hill, and another for National Register
nomination for the Cascadilla Boat House (making the
project eligible for assistance under the State's
Environmental Quality Bond Act - 50% matching funds) .
The controversial issue of recreational alienation was
discussed and, in particular, the environmental assessment
process . The environmental assessment forms that had been
prepared are being revised; representatives from staff,
CAC, EMC, etc. are working on revision. Questions raised
include: should an environmental review be completed only
for the acts of alienation and substitution or should an
impact assessment be completed which examines all possible
uses of the land to be alienated (the Island, and
Southwest Park) ?
11 . Department 1988 Budget:
Director Van Cort said that in presenting the budget to
Council's Budget and Administration. Committee, he
requested removal of most of the money allocated for the
economic portion of the strategic study because the
projected 1988 department workload simply would not
, accommodate it. A small portion of this work will be
started in 1988, as shown in the Work Program; any funds
needed for professional fees will be taken from the
department' s professional fees line.
12 . Stewart Park Landmarks Preservation:
Planning & Development . �Board
Minutes 12/1/87 (continued) : -117
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission has withdrawn_
their designation of the entire Park and will reconsider
designation only of the Stewart Park buildings
13 . Theory Center:
Chair Blumenthal noted shereceived information from John
Burness regarding the Engineering Master Plan as requested
from Cornell; she has not received information regarding
the athletic facilities and the campus parking plan. A
special meeting regarding campus planning was proposed
(P&D Board and Cornell officials) . Possible dates will be
discussed.
14 . Approval of Minutes: "
Approval of the October 1987 Minutes was moved, seconded,
and passed unanimously.
15 . Zoning Appeals :
Recommendations of the. Planning Board to the Board of
Zoning Appeals regarding appeals 1803-10 and sign appeal
12-1-87 (memorandum of 11/25/87) were moved and seconded.
Vote: 5-0-0 . Carried.
16. December Meeting: A poll of the members ascertained that
no change in the regular meeting schedule would be needed,
despite the closeness of the holidays .
17 . Meeting Adjourned 11 :45 p.m.