Loading...
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.