HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-01-26 Approved 2/23/88.
Planning and Development Board Meeting
January 26, 1988 - Minutes
Present: Chair Blumenthal,. S. Jackson, M. Sampson, J. Daley, T.
Cookingham, A. Yale, S. Killeen. Deputy Director P. Mazzarella,
City Planner J. Meigs, Neighborhood/Historic Preservation
Planner L. Chatterton. Press, other interested parties .
1 . Call to Order - 7 : 35 p.m. New members of the Board were
introduced: Sean Killeen (Council Liaison) and Andrew
Yale.
2 . Privilege of the Floor - No one present wished to address
the Board at this time.
3 . Zoning Appeals - T. Cookingham gave the report of the Codes
and Administration Committee (see memorandum. of 1/21/88
attached. )
Appeal 1815: This appeal by Avramis to permit the
completion of a parking structure for 44 automobiles at 205-
17 Linden Avenue was deferred from last month' s meeting to
permit the Board to obtain more complete information and to
hear public comment. Concerns of the Board were
identified. These included facade of the parking structure
(color and texture of the fronting panels) should be
compatible with the apartment building, 'Phase 1 ' of the .
development of this site. The first, apartment building was
completed and work commenced on the parking structure when
problems arose which halted further work. In the interim
the 'Collegetown moratorium' was put in place, and later
the zoning for the area- changed. Renewal of the original
permit to begin construction of the second apartment was
denied; litigation ensued; the Court has not yet ruled in
the matter but appellant has chosen to take a different
route in pursuing completion of the parking structure.
P. Mazzarella expressed reservations : original
project contained three components - new zoning now limits
the height and bulk of buildings in R-3 zones abutting R-1
zones, lowering intensity of development. He questioned if
completion of the parking garage will even meet the present
lot coverage requirements and also questioned what the
future plans might be for the second apartment building.
Will the developer comply with the new regulations or will
he pursue litigation to allow construction under the prior
regulations? He suggested that the Planning Board
recommendation to the BZA should state that future
development on this site which will require a variance must
be reviewed by the Board; present building is not in
compliance with current zoning regulations . In addition,
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 1/26/88 (continued) : -2-
current rules require screening of parking lots containing
more than 4 cars when constructed in residential
neighborhoods . As a condition of approval, the Board
should require: screening to lessen the impact of the
parking structure on the neighborhood; dense screening at
the rear (where it abuts property lines of the houses on
Delaware Ave. ) ; vegetation in the front and side yard
areas .
The Board wished to make clear that their decision at
this time would have no bearing on the proposed third
structure; the possible action by the Board to recommend
approval of the variance for completion of the garage would
not indicate any intent to vest the owner with a right to
construct the third building as originally proposed, nor
should it be taken as an endorsement for the construction
of that building by the Planning Board.
Jagat Sharma, architect for the project, was present
and reviewed the history of the project. The site was
purchased in 1983 and the original building permit was
granted for all three structures . In August 1985 two
levels of the parking structure were completed; the
foundation/
supporting structure is in place to complete the remaining
two levels . Appellant desires to finalize the garage to
allay structural problems which are developing due to
temporary measures; interest rates at this time are also
favorable. Appellant will provide landscaping as directed
by the Ordinance and compatible with the surrounding area
and will provide screening though the rear screening will
be difficult because of limited green space.
Interested parties in the audience addressed the
Board: Ann Stanton, Delaware Ave. , an R-1 property owner,
claimed there was an illegal demolition initially on the
site (refuted by Mr. Sharma) and trees on her property were
cut down in the course of development. She believes
completion of the garage (which is very close to her
property) would add harmful fumes to the environment and
downgrade the neighborhood. Her attempts to discuss
problems/concerns with Mr. Avramis have been ignored.
Though screening is required, she said there is no room to
allow for plantings . Mr. Sharma stated that if the
property owner is willing they could add screening on her
property.
Susan Brown, asked who would park in the additional
24 spaces created by the garage? Mr. Sharma replied that
Mr. Avramis owns other properties in the area and is always
in need of parking spaces - he now has to rent space from
other property owners to comply with regulations .
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 1/26/88 (continued) : -3-
John Johnson, Alderperson, stated that a
comprehensive plan is needed for this area; neighborhood is
vulnerable to the possibility of construction of another
large structure; sentiment of the neighborhood is to
discourage the variance.
Bickley Townsend, 109 Oxford Pl . , commented on
conditions which allowed this development . She mentioned
three topics to which she felt the Planning Department
should give the highest priority and a determination of
target dates : demolition ordinance, site plan review of
. large projects, and an analysis of the long-term parking
needs of Collegetown. Overall long-range planning is
needed.
S. Jackson asked if Avramis ' case on the second
apartment were upheld, would the parking structure also be
able to be built as-of-right? Deputy Director Mazzarella
stated that the case involves whether appellant has a
vested right because the city granted the initial permit
for three structures . Subsequently construction was
delayed; time allowed under the building permit lapsed; the
moratorium was initiated; the zoning was then changed. Mr.
Sharma stated as a point of contention that the foundation
for 'Phase 3 ' (the parking structure) is in place and the
appellant holds that construction (of the project as a
whole) did commence in a timely manner.
J. Daley stated that if completion of the parking
structure is allowed it should be made clear that it
fulfills additional existing parking needs as opposed to
the needs of some future project.
S . Jackson stated that ultimately, depending on the
outcome of litigation, the neighborhood may best be served
by allowing completion of the garage at this time:
S. Killeen stated that given the current zoning in
greater Collegetown parking space is very critical and an
invaluable asset; flexibility is needed in situations such
as this .
Motion : T. Cookingham moved to recommend approval of
the variance to the BZA with the following conditions :
a) a plan of landscaping and screening (especially
relating to a green buffer area in the rear) to be
presented to the Planning Board and approval of the plan by
the Planning Board prior to issuance of a building permit;
b) this recommendation of approval is not extended to the
possible vested construction of the third structure (second
apartment building) ;
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 1/26/88 (continued) : -4-
c) color and texture of facade panels on the garage to be
matching/compatible with the apartment building;
d) no additional levels to be built to the parking
structure (4 levels maximum) ;
e) parking spaces shall be designated for the existing
building and/or a possible proposed second apartment
building on the site, or to existing dwelling units in the
neighborhood, but may not be used to satisfy the parking
requirement of future new construction or substantial
rehabilitation that may occur in the neighborhood.
Seconded by J. Daley. Discussion: A. Yale feels it would
be prudent to examine prospects of the litigation to the
extent possible before recommending approval for the reason
that leverage would be gained; he is concerned about
appellant's past relationship with neighbors and the
outstanding need for a comprehensive neighborhood plan. It
was noted that the Planning Board had already delayed the
BZA's consideration of this case by 30 days; no additional
delay could now be requested. Vote: 6-yes, 1-no (Yale) .
Motion carried.
J. Pederson requested the Planning Board to ask the
Board of Zoning Appeals to allow input from other
interested parties (outside of the legal notice area for an
appeal) to allow ward representatives to be heard when
issues such as this are heard by the BZA.
Motion : T. Cookingham moved, seconded by S. Jackson,
to direct the Chair to write a memo to the Chair of the BZA
requesting their indulgence in instituting greater
flexibility in their public hearing procedures .
Discussion: S. Jackson stated that the Board might
consider initiating a change in the rules to allow
alderpersons and civic association representatives a voice
in the BZA hearings . This might be accomplished either by
BZA agreement or by direction of Council (i.e. , by zoning
ordinance provision) . Vote: 4-yes, 3-no (Sampson, Daley,
Killeen) . Carried.
Motion : Approval of the memorandum of Jan. 21, 1988
by J. Meigs to the Planning and Development Board
containing the Codes and Administration Committee
recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals (appeals
1815-19 ) was moved and seconded. Vote: 7-0-0 . Carried.
4 . Preliminary Subdivision: 356 Elmira Rd. /Continental
Journey' s End Development Corporation) .
This subdivision request at the location of the
former Talk Of The Town restaurant (now being demolished)
is for construction of a motel on the site. The proposed
site includes parts of adjacent properties . Initially it
appeared that the
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 1/26/88 (continued) : =5- :
usual subdivision review process would be followed.
However, further information discloses this is a matter of
accepting a post facto subdivision; pieces of the adjoining
properties have already been deeded together and sold. The
question posed is should this be accepted as it now exists
or should some other action be taken?
Representatives of the Corporation included: Alan
Persons, Esq. , counsel for Journey' s End Motel; Bruce
Appel, site engineer; Gary McSweeney, design architect;
Dave Numer, liaison representative. Attorney Persons
stated that a total 1 . 9 acres were purchased in three
different parcels : the Talk Of The Town site, a strip of
the gas station to the north to expand frontage, and a
parcel to the rear (referred to as parcel A) fronting on
Commercial Ave. Parcel A is part of a subdivision which
was approved a year ago (boundaries are in question) . J
Meigs explained that the 15 ' strip transferred from the
adjoining property constitutes a subdivision in and of
itself; parcel A was approved in a different configuration
than that which has been transferred.
Discussion followed regarding compliance of adjoining
lots from which portions have been sold; compliance will be
researched and determined.
Motion: T. Cookingham moved Preliminary Approval
conditioned on completion of the environmental assessment
plus necessary documentation; clarification of the removal `
of a portion of the Zikakis subdivision; status of the 15 '
parcel deeded from Sunoco. Seconded by J. Daley. Vote: 6-
0-0. Passed.
Request of J. Meigs for action on the environmental
assessment was denied. The Planning Board desires more
time for review and consideration of the assessment forma
5 . Preliminary Subdivision: Haller Blvd. - Elm St.
Request for subdivision at 306 Elm into two parcels
for the purpose of sale; single family ownership and use at
present. The appellant, though invited to attend, was not
present at the Board meeting. The Board, therefore, did
not wish to continue discussion and directed postponement
for one month to give the appellant the opportunity to
address the Board.
Motion: T. Cookingham moved to defer discussion for
one month to allow appellant to appear at the February
Board meeting. Seconded by M. Sampson. Vote: 5-yes, 2-no
(Daley, Killeen) . Motion carried.
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes — 1/26/88 (continued) : -6-
(Codes and Administration Committee to address the proposed
requirement that subdivision applicants must be present at
the Board's discussion of subdivision requests, which has
been watered down in the proposal to be acted on by Council
at its February meeting. )
6. HOST Presentation: Richard Kinner, a realtor and
volunteer with the Senior Citizens Council, addressed the .
Board. His slide presentation identified a variety of
housing options for seniors . An advisory committee has
been formed to begin a home sharing and counseling service
in Ithaca; grant money is being sought. Further
information may be received from Cooperative Extension or
the Office for the Aging.
7 . Cornell Heights : L. Chatterton stated that the historic
district nomination was submitted in August, for a hearing
in September 1987; Cornell then asked for a postponement to
allow them time to review the nomination. Cornell' s
remarks were due November 4, 1987; their report, however,
was received just one day in advance of the postponed
hearing. Subsequently the city requested a postponement in
order to have sufficient time to study Cornell' s reports;
the next hearing is scheduled for March 25, 1988 . Ms.
Chatterton drafted a letter for the Board to Commissioner''
Orin Lehman, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation, focusing on points raised by Cornell
regarding master planning, zoning and building codes and
resupporting the nomination.
Discussion of the letter followed with explanations
of points raised. It was suggested that the Sage residence
in the East Hill district (owned by Cornell) should be
cited in the text of the letter as an example of
restoration of a historic building by the University:
Other groups will be drafting letters of support also: the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and the Planning
and Development Committee of Council. Historic Ithaca is
preparing a point-by-point rebuttal of Cornell's study.
Motion : J. Daley moved to authorize Chair Blumenthal
to accept the final version of the Lehman letter with
inclusion of the Sage house example. Seconded by S.
Jackson. Vote: 7-0-0 . Carried.
8. Chamber of Commerce: A public . hearing will be held by the
Town of Ithaca on February 8, 1988 regarding a proposed
zoning change for this project. Comments are being
solicited for the change in land use. J. Meigs reviewed
the topic: The Town had previously asked the city if they
had any objection to the Town's designation as Lead Agency
for environmental review. The city had no objection and .
the Town proceeded with the environmental assessment.
Council has been asked if proposed use of a portion of the
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 1/26/88 (continued) : -7-
grounds occupied by the Youth Bureau as a parking and
driveway access to the Town' s adjacent parcel would be
acceptable. Council, concurring with the Board of Public
Works, has indicated acceptance in concept and has approved
the project based on BPW' s approval of the site plan. The
Chamber of Commerce wishes a more prominent location for
its entire operation; the proposed structure initially
would be for visitors ' information and the Chamber's
tourism function. Ultimately, the Chamber may locate their
entire operation on this site.
After discussion the Board directed Chair Blumenthal
to draft a letter expressing the concerns raised:
Chamber's move from the city, public accountability (for ,
funds raised by the room tax and for funds allocated to the
Chamber by the city) , proximity to Stewart Park, to the
effects of expansion outside the city limits .
S. Killeen stated that he views the role of the
Chamber of Commerce somewhat differently from public
facilities such as the jail, DSS, and the Post Office;
perhaps the Chamber need not be located in the County seat.
Motion : Moved by J. Daley, seconded by S. Jackson,
to send a letter as indicated to the Town of Ithaca.
Vote: 6-yes, 0-no, 1-abstention (Killeen) .
9 . Planning Position: . Dep. Director Mazzarella gave a brief
history of the Historic Preservation/Neighborhood Planner
position: Ms . Chatterton' s job created in 1986 is
designated as one-half time historic planner and one-half
time neighborhood planner. Prior to 1986 historic
preservation projects were funded entirely by grants which
were sought each year generally through the New York State
Council On The Arts to undertake historic preservation
activities and organization of the city' s historic
preservation tasks . Under such funding the ILPC was
organized and staffed; work was undertaken with Historic
Ithaca and with other individuals and consultants . The
conscience of city officials and of the neighborhoods was
raised regarding historic preservation. Funding for this
work was diminishing in 1986 and precipitated the request
for Council to establish a new planner position. Council
was receptive but the need for a neighborhood planner was
also raised; thus, a dual position was created. The
neighborhood planner portion of the job is still being
formulated and is not as clearly defined as the historic
preservation aspect of the position.
Ms . Chatterton distributed a memorandum reflecting
the project/activities of the neighborhood planner in 1987
and explained her tasks . The Board discussed the memo
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 1/26/88 (continued) : -8-
briefly but consensus was for additional time to review and
digest the contents . In addition, the Board asked for
clarification of the historic preservation activities
undertaken in 1987 and future prospects for this portion of .
Ms . Chatterton's duties . Discussion will continue next
month.
10 . Housing Commission: S. Killeen referred to memo dated
JI
November 16, 1987 in which he requested consideration of
establishing a Housing Commission to sustain a focus on
affordable housing. The Commission would serve to maintain
the impetus of the strategic plan and the objectives as
outlined by the Technical Advisory Council. The Commission
would provide oversight to the Building Department. The
Board discussed briefly the formation of such a commission
and believed it was good in concept. Among other things
the Commission might clarify and set standards for building
permits . Mr. Mazzarella stated that groups who deal with
issues but have no real authority tend to become
frustrated; such groups have a charge but are unable to
implement the charge; they need to be close to the decision
makers so that something can actually be accomplished. Mr.
Killeen stated that a Housing Commission would be a way to
involve neighborhoods providing for greater local input and
representation. Discussion will continue in Committee
reporting thereafter to the full Board.
11. Liaison Reports :
Planning and Development Committee
S . Killeen reviewed the Planning and Development
Committee agenda for the meeting of January 27th. Most
items are a continuation for the previous meeting of
January 13, 1988 .
Board of Public Works
No report from Mr. Daley.
12 . Chairman' s Report: Chair Blumenthal announced-
a) Meeting on February 2, 1988 for site plan review with
State representatives; 7 : 30 p.m. in Council Chambers,
b) Committee assignments as published are subject to
change
c) Meeting with Cornell officials to discuss campus
planning; possible dates were discussed and topics to be
addressed,
d) Cornell will host a symposium on parks on February 11-
13, 1988; further information can be received from Stuart
Stein,
e) Alienation information was distributed by Helen Jones
with this month's mailing; discussion scheduled for
February meeting; please remember to bring this information
to the February meeting,
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Minutes - 1/26/88 (continued) : -9-
f) 1988 Planning Board Goals : implementation of housing
actions; sites identified for future housing development;
neighborhood communication; zoning; length of Board
meetings and ways to shorten (suggested by J. Daley) .
13 . Chair Blumenthal asked that approval of the December 23,
1987 minutes be deferred pending revisions of her comments
regarding site plan review.
14 . Meeting adjourned - 11 : 50 p.m.
/mc
(disk #9 )
ve so Doeago UK i
c�Rp�RATfmO
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 'Planning and Development
From: J. Meigs/T'`
Re: Zoning Appeals 1815-19; Proposed Subdivisions
Date: January 's , 1988
The Codes and Administration Committee, meeting the
20th, reviewed subject appeals and reports and recommends as
follows:
1815 (held over from previous meeting) : Area
Variances to permit completion of parking structure to serve
partially-completed apartment project at 205-17 Linden-Av. , in
an R-3b zone. Applicant's architect provided drawings and
photos in response to Board' s request for information to aid in
Board discussion and recommendation to BZA, and was present to
explain the project. The Committee requested supplementary
information, to illustrate more fully the potential visual
impacts, and to investigate possibilities for using materials
that could moderate those impacts; and requested that staff
determine the current situation regarding applicant' s effort to
be allowed to build the second apartment structure as proposed.
Recommendation : that the appeal and supplemental information
be discussed by the full Board, in consideration of the
importance of this appeal as a major test of the recent zoning
amendment designed to mitigate the impacts of development
permitted in R-3 zones bordering R-1 zones .
1816 : Area Variance to permit outdoor
storage/display of products at 233 Cherry St. , in a I-1 zone.
Though the committee was concerned about the potential
precedent this appeal represents, it was not felt to have
citywide or long-term planning implications . Recommendation :
Pass to BZA for action, with comment that the unique nature of
the 'products ' involved would suggest that they would be far
more appropriately displayed in a public setting where the
public could enjoy them as intended, even on an interim basis,
rather than their being relegated to a remote industrial
setting.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
-2-
1817 : Area Variance to permit code-mandated
improvements to owner-occupied single-family residence at 108
Bridge St. , in a R-lb zone. Recommendation : Pass to BZA for
action without comment.
1818: Use and Area Variances to permit use of
residential structure in current use as a dwelling at 619 W.
Court St. , in an R-2b zone, for commercial uses .
Recommendation : Pass to BZA for action, with comment that the
proposed variance amountgto rezoning of the premises, which is
a legislative function and should be handled as such.
1819 : Area Variances to permit kitchen expansion and
addition of covered walkway to Ramada Inn at 222 S. Cayuga St. ,
in a B-3 zone. Recommendation : Pass to BZA without comment.
The committee also reviewed preliminary subdivisions
for a one-lot subdivision of property fronting on Elm St. and
Haller Blvd. , in an R-1 zone; and minor subdivisions needed for
construction of a proposed motel on Elmira Rd. , in a B-5 zone.
In both instances the committee felt that the proposals
appeared acceptable in concept, and directed that applicants be
notified that Board action on Conditional Approval would be
dependent on presentation of all information required under
applicable Subdivision Regulations .
JM/mc
i SUN
c�Ap�RATEO��0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Board of Planning and Developmen
Re: Appeal 1815
Date: February 4, 1988
This Board discussed subject appeal at its January
26, 1988 meeting, and took action as follows :
Mr. Cookingham, seconded by Mr. Daley, Moved that the
Board recommend granting of the Area Variances requested to
permit completion of a parking structure on the premises at 205-
17 Linden Av. , subject to the following conditions :
1) That a site plan showing landscaping and
screening for the structure, as required by ordinance
and discussed between this Board and architect Jagat
Sharma, be presented to and approved by this Board
prior to issuance of a building permit; special
emphasis in such a plan should be given to providing
for a substantial buffer planting along the rear of
the site.
2 ) That the facade panels or kneewalls of the
structure be designed to match or be compatible in
color, texture, etc. with the walls of the apartment
structure immediately adjoining it on the site.
3) That the maximum number of ' levels ' permitted in
the structure be limited to four.
4) That the parking spaces in the completed
structure be designated for the requirements of
dwelling units currently existing or to be built on
the subject premises, or for other presently existing
dwelling units in the neighborhood, but not to serve
any units later created by conversion or other new
construction.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
-2-
5)
^-5) That this recommendation is totally separate
from, and is not in any way intended to imply
approval or disapproval of, the second apartment
building proposed for the site.
On a vote, the motion PASSED, 6-1 .
JM/mc