Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-12-22 Approved as amended. Planning and Development Board C Minutes December 22, 1987 Present: Chair Blumenthal, J. Daley, T. Cookingham, S. Cummings, Director H. M. Van Cort, Dep. Director P. Mazzarella, J. Meigs , Building Commissioner Hoard, Press, Other Interested Parties . 1 . Call to Order: ` 7 : 40 p.m. 2 . Privilege Of The Floor: Jagat Sharma, architect, 320 E. Seneca Street, addressed the Board regarding Zoning Appeal 1815 . This request by B. Avramis is for an area variance to permit the completion of a parking structure for 44 automobiles at 205-17 Linden Avenue. The committee recommended that BZA action on appeal 1815 be deferred one month to permit the Planning Board to obtain and examine more detailed information on the proposed building. Mr. Sharma is asking the Planning Board to hear the appeal at this meeting because he would like a decision before commencing an out-of-country trip; a month's delay would necessitate a postponement in ordering materials and proceeding with plans for the parking structure which is 50% complete. They would like to complete construction by August with the work progressing while the students are on -- vacation. F Ms . Blumenthal informed Mr. Sharma that a decision would be made later in the meeting when the committee's recommendations would be reviewed by the Board. 2 . Special Permit - 103 Homestead Road: J. Meigs explained the request for a special permit for an accessory apartment at 102 Homestead Road; R-la district. According to Building Department records a second unit has historically existed in this structure as a legal non-conforming use. The previous owner had discontinued that use for more than twelve consecutive months thereby terminating the non- conforming original use. Appellants, Joseph and Margaret Petrillose, were present at the request of the Planning Board. Margaret Petrillose explained that they purchased the house in August 1987; it had been advertised as a property with an income apartment. Neighbors, Mr. and Mrs . Gelberg, have objected to use of the apartment because of unsafe conditions (proximity of the apartment entry to the adjacent ravine and the impact of the apartment's use on the Gelberg's residence as well as their liability in the Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -2- use of the driveway) . Mrs . Petrillose stated that they have replaced the deck on the house; she distributed photos showing the deck, entryways, and driveways . She stated that the use of the Gelberg' s driveway when the tenants were moving in was an isolated incident and if the Gelberg' s refused use of the driveway for future tenants (moving in and out) then an alternate route would be taken. This response satisfied the Gelberg's who were concerned about their liability and that use of the driveway might become a permanent arrangement. Motion: J. Daley moved to recommend granting the special use permit for an accessory apartment with the stipulation that a fence be erected in the affected area if, in fact, it would not interfere with fire regulations and that the City Attorney be consulted regarding liability for the next door neighbors . Seconded, S . Blumenthal . Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried. 4 . Zoning Appeals Report: T. Cookingham gave the committee report (see memo of Dec. 17, 1987 attached) . Regarding Appeal 1815, Mr. Sharma further explained his position: he is the sole architect for the project; he is leaving town for an extended trip; he wishes to proceed with construction without delay; delay would cause hardship for his client. He feels the same conditions and concerns will be present one month from now and asks for a recommendation to proceed. The Board felt that because of the sensitive location of this project, they would like to carefully scrutinize the proposed action. Motion: J. Daley moved, seconded by T. Cookingham, to defer recommendation for one month pending further clarification of the project and requesting the owner to appear before the Board at its January meeting. Vote: 4-0- 0 . Carried. Since Mr. Sharma is leaving town, Mr. Meigs suggested that a special meeting of the committee might be called (with notice to the neighborhood) before the BZA meeting and before Mr. Sharma' s departure. 4. H.O.M.E . S . , Inc. . Mr. Meigs explained the H.O.M.E. S. proposal: the organization proposes establishment of a supervised apartment for four adults at 502 W. Court St. They are required by law to request comments (if any) from the municipality involved. The community may approve the site, suggest one or more alternatives, or object - within 40 days of receipt of the notice. The Mayor referred this Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -3- topic to the Planning Board for comment and recommendation. H.O.M.E. S. has another facility directly across the street from 502 W. Court. Investigation further disclosed one other H.O.M.E . S . apartment in the same block. City regulations are not clear in differentiating between a group home and a group care facility; no specificity as to number of residents, or exactly what additional conditions must be met before a permit is approved. One such consideration is the matter of supervision (residential supervisor) . The Ordinance does not specify whether the supervisor must be an occupant of the facility (full time) with their mailing address at that location. After review of the Ordinance, the City Attorney has indicated that it does not appear that a four-person facility without a full-time resident supervisor falls under the Ordinance description of a group care facility. Mr. Hoard has indicated that the number of non-related individuals living in the apartment could be a matter that would require a zoning variance. Janet Smith of the H.O.M.E. S organization was present. She stated that this project is difficult because it is not a clear cut situation (a group care residence versus an apartment) . Because the State is inclined toward smaller types of living situations/options for individuals, the need for group care residences will increase. H.O.M.E . S. currently leases a number of apartments throughout the city which are two and three person apartments, as well as certain group residences . H.O.M.E. S. has endeavored to be sensitive to neighborhood concerns, providing support for the individuals, and acting as a buffer between residents and landlord. They try not to congregate their clients in a particular area; they are hampered, however, by contingencies and State requirements as well as monetary constraints . They endeavor to place their residences not only in the city but throughout the County as well. Ms . Cummings asked about the length of the lease; Ms . Smith said leases are written for five years . When asked about community response, Ms . Smith said that generally their project were met with positive remarks; their seems to be little neighborhood resistance. Mr. Hoard commented that most of the H.O.M.E. S. programs fall under the Mental Hygiene Law and thus all that the city requires is meeting the special conditions in the Zoning Ordinance. The BZA has approved H.O.M.E.S. requests in the past but as more facilities cluster in a given area opposition may develop. i, PlanningDevelopment i & p ent Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -4- Motion: S. Cummings moved, seconded by T. Cookingham, to comment favorably regarding the location of the proposed facility at 502 W. Court Street; the Board sees no problem with H.O.M.E. S. operating a supervised residence at that site. Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried. 6. Valentine Four (tax map parcel 83-2-24 ) Resolution: A draft resolution was presented to the Board in response to their request of December 1 for review and possible action at this meeting. The resolution encompasses the three points discussed at the previous meeting: WHEREAS, in 1987 a building permit was obtained for, and construction begun on, a rental residential apartment on a portion of Tax Map Parcel 83-2-24, which is commonly referred to as 'Valentine 4 ' , and WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development was asked by concerned citizens to consider the issue of whether the project constitutes a subdivision, although the Building Commissioner had made a determination that it did not, prior to his issuing a building permit, and WHEREAS, Planning staff have consulted City and State legal authorities, who independently concur that in light of available; information and applicable- law, the project does not appear to constitute a subdivision, and WHEREAS, two members of the Board's Codes and Administration committee discussed arguments pro and con with staff, and reached consensus that in the light of available information the project did not require subdivision, and WHEREAS, this Board discussed the matter at its regular meeting December 1, 1987; heard further statements from concerned members of the public; heard statements from the City Attorney, Building Commissioner and City Engineer; received input from the Director and Deputy Director; and formally requested the assistance of the City Attorney in further review and monitoring of the matter in order to determine whether subdivision review might be warranted in the future, and WHEREAS, having given due consideration to all facts and information made available to it. at that time, including the views and concerns of the public; input from legal and professional staffs; and applicable existing subdivision regulations, a majority of the Board concurred that while Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued): -5- the Valentine 4 project did not require subdivision review as it stood, sufficient question and potential for change in ownership status of the development remain to warrant continuing oversight of the situation; therefore be it RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and Development of the City of Ithaca, in consideration of the above, recommends that it at some future time action is taken to divide the subject property, Tax Map parcel 83-2-24, into separate parcels, and such action is brought before the Board of Planning and Development for review, that that Board should consider the subdivision a priori, as a proposal to subdivide for the purpose of developing the project known as Valentine 4 which was begun in 1987; and be it further RESOLVED that the deliberations and actions of this Board in this matter shall not prejudice or preclude the making of an application for subdivision approval by any part, or the consideration thereof by the Board at such time and in such terms as said Board may determine appropriate, and be it further RESOLVED that this Resolution be filed with the official property records of the subject property in the offices of the County Clerk and the Building Department of the City of Ithaca for the information of all interested parties. Motion: S. Cummings moved, seconded by J. Daley, to approve the motion as stated. Vote: 4-0-0 . Unanimous . Discussion followed regarding the Novarr lease for Valentine 4 . Reference was made to a letter from Martin A. Shapiro, Esq. , counsel for Mr. Novarr, in response to a request from City Attorney Nash for a copy of the lease. In part, Mr. Shapiro says, "I regret that I cannot comply with your request in that the base terms are proprietary information. " The Board would like clarification of the words "base terms" ; could this be perhaps a typographical error? The Board would like Attorney Nash to continue attempts to review a copy of the lease. Mr. Cookingham stated his reluctance to defer action for another month because as the Ordinance now stands the lease will not affect the final outcome; he stated the resolution which was just passed addresses the procedure should a subdivision be requested in the future. It was moved by J. Daley to request -the City Attorney to continue investigation of the lease in order to determine if there are contingencies relating to a future subdivision and to report further to the Board concerning Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -6- his progress . Seconded, T. Cookingham. Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried. 7 . Site Plan Review: Discussion commenced with the question of disseminating information to other boards/committees for preliminary work on the draft document before presentation to Common Council . T. Cookingham stated that he believed the Planning Board would first obtain a working paper from staff for review and then distribute the information to other groups and interested parties for their input. S. Cummings stressed the importance (when policies were being formulated) of involving as many individuals as possible at an early stage to assist in the decision-making process. She stated that a number of Council members are very interested in this topic and have asked for a status �L� report. S. Blumenthal stated that (in her opinion) it was ' most important to send a complete package to Council after the staff document had been revised/rewritten by the Y Planning Board. She feels improvements are needed in the / yQ�d ✓ process of planning legislation and in the effective use of � staff time. T. Cookingham reported on the committee's review of the draft document. One comment made was that the process may be too unwieldy; requirements are comprehensive; perhaps too much information is being requested. S. Cummings questioned the enforceability of some requirements; also, she felt the draft was quite broad and inclusive; size of projects and definition of "large" need further clarification. It was further stated that under this Ordinance, a building permit would not be granted until conditions were agreed upon and a Certificate of Occupancy would not be .granted until the conditions specified were met and finalized. Commissioner Hoard explained that a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued at the end of construction or for a change in use. T. Cookingham said that some mechanism would be needed to allow ministerial approval of relatively routine requests; anything potentially controversial, however, would not receive ministerial approval . Routine matters should not be required to endure a long and cumbersome process including public hearing and two appearances before the Planning Board. This would be a waste of time and money for all involved. In general, there must be a balance between costs and benefits . Benefits include the city' s aesthetic quality and resolution of environmental issues . Costs include staff time and appellant time; a lengthy process could also increase the cost of development. J. Daley stated that given balances between Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -7- costs and benefits, he feels that a strict Ordinance (which, if circumstances warrant, could be lessened) would be much more beneficial in the long run. He prefers strict adherence to a Site Plan Review Ordinance even if it demands additional staff for implementation. Director Van Cort said that the Ordinance would not make the city perfect, would not be a substitute for a stronger environmental law, nor a substitute for a tighter Zoning ,Ordinance - it is meant to examine how a building permitted by the Zoning Ordinance will be sited and how that site will be treated; it is not a Design Review Ordinance. He is apprehensive that site plan review will be viewed by many as a solution to all the concerns mentioned; site plan review is but a part of a package of ordinances that control land use development. Commissioner Hoard commented on the amount of work which will be generated by site plan review in light of the continuous building projects/improvements throughout the city. Routine project now take several hours of work before a permit is approved. Mr. Van Cort estimated a routine subdivision request (i.e. , lot line adjustment) could take up to 20 hours of staff time. S. Cummings suggested holding a joint meeting with the Planning Board, and other interested members of the Planning and Development Committee. A joint meeting would eliminate repetition of the entire discussion at each committee meeting. (P&D Committee will conduct two meetings each month for a time to facilitate current projects . ) T. Cookingham asked the Board for specific changes to the draft. Deputy Director Mazzarella stated he felt the process was too cumbersome and could be made simpler and less time consuming to achieve the desired results. He suggested a two-stage process : ( 1 ) developer to discuss project with Planning staff; staff to identify potential problems, (2 ) the Ordinance then would outline the required submissions for site plan approval - all requirements would have to be met before the application was considered complete and ready for review by the Planning Board. J. Meigs informed the Board that he has contacted the State regarding model site plan review procedures and they have indicated willingness to conduct a public workshop in Ithaca for information and instruction. The State officials would also be willing to review and critique any Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -8- draft that was presented. Suggested time for such a meeting is the later part of January or February 1988 . T. Cookingham then suggested since the public would be invited to the workshop, he would favor full distribution of the draft document to facilitate additional suggestions and input. J. Daley concurred. S. Cummings moved to direct staff to contact the Department of State to schedule a workshop for site plan review at the earliest possible time. Seconded, T. Cookingham. Vote: 4-0-0 . Unanimous . 8 . Valentine 4 - City Liability: J. Meigs stated that R. Nash would like further direction from the Board regarding their request for a definition of "city liability" in this matter. J. Daley said he would like to know to what extent the city is liable - the dollar amount - should litigation ensue. Can the city afford the costs involved? Attorney Nash is requested to relay his answer to the Planning Board. 9 . 1988 Work Program: Deputy Director Mazzarella discussed : the work program for the coming year. He stated that much time has been delegated to implementation of the projects identified in the Housing and Neighborhoods study. Also, he added that more time has been allocated for Leslie Chatterton (Historic Preservation/Neighborhood Planner) for interaction/assistance to neighborhood groups; updating of neighborhood membership lists; dissemination of information regarding meetings and related issues . Other topics highlighted were: Transportation and Parking (East Hill/Permit System - other solutions to be researched) ; Alternate Side of the Street Parking; Recreation and Open Space (new hockey rink at Cass Park) ; Environmental Management (mapping of critical areas - part of a two-part project - updating zoning map using different scale, investigating procedure and cost and adding to the map critical areas referred to in the city environmental law) ; Economic Development (no new projects - continuations and close outs of existing projects) ; Strategic Economic Development Plan (further investigation in procedure, who will participate, and, if, in fact, plan should be undertaken at all) ; Government Structure and Laws (continue research and development of Site Plan Review Ordinance) . S . Cummings suggested that periodically each staff member should apprise the Board of their work projects throughout the year. S . Blumenthal commented that Leslie Chatterton' s time was heavy in historic preservation as Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued): -9- opposed to neighborhood planner functions . S. Cummings stated that many of Ms . Chatterton's projects overlap because under historic preservation activities there is a component of neighborhood organizations involved with the built environment of the past. S . Cummings suggested that Ms . Chatterton be the first staff member to come before the Board to discuss her work projects for the year. S. Cummings moved adoption of the 1988 Work Program with the understanding that ( 1 ) the Board will meet first with the Historic Preservation/Neighborhood Planner to discuss and clarify that position, and (2) that because this is an extremely full schedule Council members are invited to abbreviate the schedule with the exception of the actions proposed by the Neighborhoods and Housing study. Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried. 10 . Strategic Housing and Neighborhoods Plan: P. Mazzarella distributed the final report. This final version will be distributed to Common Council by Chair Blumenthal at the January 6 Council meeting. 11 . Subdivision Amendments : Jon Meigs commented on his memo dated December 21, 1987 to R. Schlather, Chair, Charter and Ordinance Committee. The memo was a redraft of certain provisions and inclusion of others as requested by C&0. These provisions were reviewed and further modified at the last C&O meeting. There are no substantial changes; the committee agreed to the subdivision sizes and fee structure as mentioned in the 12/21 memorandum. The Board discussed the fee structure and commented on the low cost to the applicant. It was moved by T. Cookingham, seconded by S. Cummings, .to direct staff to reaccess the fee structure and to make changes to more accurately reflect the actual costs involved . (differentiating between building lot creation and building lot line adjustment) . Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried. 12 . Board of Public Works Report: J. Daley reported that the Stewart Park Advisory Group made their final report; a Parks Commission is to be created wedded to the BPW and the Department of Public Works . Park work authorized will be undertaken by the DPW. The Planning and Development Committee will assist in gathering information from other municipalities regarding similar commissions; representatives from various boards/committee/fields of expertise will comprise membership of the proposed commission. 13. Planning and Development Committee: Ms . Cummings said the Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued): -10- latest item discussed by the committee was R-2c zoning which would allow clustering under certain conditions and allow other types of innovative housing solutions . Southwest Park is being discussed for possible housing development (as opposed to commercial use) . It was suggested that Planning staff review and map the area and research disposition of the land for housing purposes . The Board discussed the alienation question: the land to be acquired is being substituted for Southwest Park. Mr. Mazzarella commented that some have criticized the environmental assessment in connection with alienation. As an outcome, a meeting was held with C. Peterson, A. Miller, B. Darlington, and H. Jones to try to reach agreement on what the environmental review should accomplish. It was agreed to investigate the possible uses of the alienated land including residential use in Southwest Park in a broad sense. Policy issues, too, will be reviewed. 14 . Director' s Report: No report this month. 15 . Chairman' s Report: Ms . Blumenthal referred to a memo from Sean Killeen in which he asked the Board to consider establishment of a housing commission to address the issue of affordable housing in the city. Chair Blumenthal will ask Mr. Killeen to address the Board regarding this topic at a future meeting. 16. Minutes 11/24/87 : Reference was made by S. Cummings to page 2, item 5, Farmers ' Market. Regarding license renewal, she wanted to clarify that the Council had requested comments and research from the P&D Committee regarding short term lease negotiations as well as long term use. She believes the long term use topic was not transmitted to staff and Board and, thus, was inadvertently not discussed at the 11/24 meeting. She did not request a change to the minutes since she believed they reflected accurately what transpired. She wanted, however, to have reflected in these minutes that the long range use topic was discussed by the P&D Committee as Council directed. J. Daley moved, seconded by S. Cummings, approval of the 11/24/87 minutes . Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried. Minutes of 12/1/87 : Action deferred with the request by Chair Blumenthal for careful examination of the Ronsvalle subdivision topic on page 5 . Motion made and seconded. Vote: unanimous . 17 . INHS Subdivision/Floral Ave. : Mr. Meigs reported that the Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - 12/22/87 (continued) : -11- survey map for the INHS subdivision on Floral Ave. was in error. The tentative resurvey indicates that the total area being subdivided is just barely enough for two regulation-sized lots . Therefore, accommodating the third portion proposed to be released from the north end (for use by neighbors Mr. and Mrs . Skalwold) would reduce the lot to less square footage than is required. The City Attorney has advised that to correct the error, INHS will have to go through the subdivision process once more; because of the undersized lot they will also have to proceed with a Zoning Appeal. 18. Adjournment: 10 :50 p.m. /mc disk #9 Rp�R11TE0 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Planning and Development From: Codes and Administration Committe Re: Zoning Appeals Date: December 17, 1987 The committee reviewed subject appeals December 16th, and determined that Nos. 1811 through 1814 do not involve matters of long-range or citywide planning; thus those appeals are referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals for action, without. comment or recommendation. The committee recommends that BZA action on Appeal 1815 be deferred for one month, to permit this Board to obtain and examine more complete information on the proposed action than w,as. made available with the initial referral, and to hear from the public concerning this matter, as the first test of recently-instituted controls to mitigate the impacts of development immediately adjoining zone boundaries . The committee :asked that plans and elevation drawings for the ultimate development of appellant's property at 205-17 Linden Av. be made available for this purpose. JM/mc cc: Ralph W. Nash, Esq. City Attorney disk #4/mc "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program- MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board Members From: S. Blumenthal,. Chair Re: Correction to Minutes = meeting ofiDecember 22, 1987 Date: February 18, 1988 The following is offered as a correction, to the above captioned minutes: Page 6 - item #7. Site Plan Review: Delete. last two sentences in the first paragraph - "S. Blumenthal stated that (in her opinion) it was . . . . ." and substitute the following: S. Blumenthal reported that she has been attempting to focus attention on. the process by which site plan review legislation .would be discussed in a systematic way among the Planning Board, the Common Council, and the public. In her opinion it is the Planning Board's responsibility to hold a discussion about the substantive .issues involved before the draft that it initiated gets disseminated to all possible interested parties. i SB/mc cc: H. M. Van Cort