Loading...
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