HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-03-22 Approved 4/26/88
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Present: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, J. Daley, A. Yale,
S. Killeen. Director Van Cort, J. Meigs, H. Jones, L. Chatterton.
Appellants, Press, other interested parties.
1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Zoning Appeals - The Codes & Administration Committee met
March 16; they recommended that appeals 1830 and 1831 be
discussed. Appeal 1820 held over from last month should have
limited discussion. The Committee commented on Appeals 1826
and 1827 (see memo attached dated 3/22/88) . Appeals 1828,
1829, 1832-36 involve no matters of citywide concern and are
passed to the BZA without comment or recommendation.
Appeal 1820: Appeal of D. Lucenti for a Special Permit for an
accessory apartment to permit addition of an apartment in the
single family house now under construction at 1001 Giles
Street. Mr. Lucenti was present. The Board considered the
question of allowing an accessory apartment in new construction
as compared to adding an apartment to an existing owner-
occupied dwelling, in accordance with therTinance's intent.
Mr. Daley felt that if the home-owner is aware of the
restrictions of an accessory apartment and is willing to abide
by them, he sees no problem with the request. Brief discussion
followed regarding policy and the text of the Ordinance: it was
argued that the primary intent of this legislation was to
better utilize existing residential space, for example occupied
by older persons who wished to remain in their home, but need
less space than a growing family or supplementary income to
help with expenses. Director Van Cort stated that better
utilization of an existing building by creating a second
apartment in it is only a part of the intent of the law. In
addition, the accessory apartment provisions were generally
intended to stimulate creation of small living units that could
be supervised by the owner-occupant of the principal dwelling,
which should help avoid some of the problems associated with
absentee-owned property.
S. Jackson moved to recommend to the BZA approval of a Special
Permit for an accessory apartment at 1001 Giles Street.
Seconded by S. Killeen. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
Appeals 1830 and 1831 : Appeals of J. Crowley for a Special
Permit for an accessory apartment at 96 Ithaca Road, and for
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Page 2
Area Variance for excessive lot coverage by buildings and
deficient setbacks. Present to address this request were J.
Crowley, appellant, and Albert Fortner, building designer. Mr.
Crowley explained that he is proposing an addition to the north
end of the existing structure; to have a two-car garage on the
first floor and an accessory apartment above; "Dutch Colonial "
style architecture will be used to compliment the existing
structure.
Lengthy discussion followed, regarding conformance with the
intent of the Accessory Apartment Ordinance. This request
differs from the Giles Street request (Appeal 1820) - albeit
they both involve new construction - in that this request
exacerbates the existing deficient setback and excessive lot
coverage. Design of the proposed addition was questioned; the
Ordinance is specific in stating conditions that are to be
maintained when constructing accessory apartments. Mr. Meigs
read from the Ordinance for clarification: "If an accessory
apartment is located in the main building, the entry of the
building and its design shall be such that the appearance of
the building shall remain as a single-family residence. New or
additional front entrances or windows are discouraged but in
any event must be in keeping with the architectural style of
the rest of the structure, . . ." . Exterior changes may be
referred by the BZA to the Design Review Board. New or
additional front entrances must have the approval of the DRB.
Van Cort stated that it was his understanding the above
provisions were enacted at least in part to prevent
inappropriate alterations to existing structures. Mr. Crowley
answered questions regarding the appearance which will be
presented to the neighborhood. Mr. Jackson said the question
is whether the excessive lot coverage justifies the proposed
apartment for this area.
Peter Brown, 326 Mitchell Street, and Peggy Robinson, 324
Mitchell Street, expressed their concern regarding the
excessive lot coverage and apparent change to the character of
the building. They felt the addition would be massive and
overwhelming to the next-door property.
J. Meigs stated that regarding zoning regulation, the Accessory
Apartment permit regulations state that the terms of the
Zoning Ordinance shall be liberally construed in favor of
granting a permit unless the BZA finds that such granting would
have a negative impact on the surrounding area. This proposal
had been reviewed by the DRB which found it acceptable in
design terms; it could be somewhat improved by more attention
to details which would unite the addition with the existing
building. The design treatment of the space above the existing
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Page 3
garage has not been totally decided on but as a concept the DRB
felt this proposal was acceptable.
Mr. Crowley commented on the suggestion of the DRB to place a
portico over the door facing the house across the street.
Also, he wishes to orient the house more toward Ithaca Rd. by
landscaping and planting trees to isolate the view.
J. Daley moved to recommend to the BZA approval of the permit
for an accessory apartment at 96 Ithaca Rd. Seconded by A.
Yale. Vote: 3-yes, 1-no (Blumenthal ) , 2-abstentions (Jackson,
Sampson) . Regarding Appeal 1831 the Board has no comment.
Motion made by J. Daley, seconded by S. Jackson to accept the
Codes & Administration report (memo dated 3/22/88) as
supplemented by the preceding discussion and recommendations.
Approved unanimously.
3. Subdivision Proposal - Coddington Road/Wells: Appellant L.
Wells and Architect J. Loveall were present. Mr. Wells is
requesting subdivision of property at 140 Coddington Road (1 .5
acres) into 6 parcels. Mr. Loveall stated all parcels will
conform to existing zoning regulation. The plan proposes a cul
de sac on the property which will be constructed by the
developer and then ownership relinguished to the City (if the
City so desires) .
Discussion followed regarding construction and maintenance of a
water main and sewer line. The City Engineer has been informed
of the proposal and his comments are being sought. Mr. Daley
said many questions regarding infrastructure are addressed in
the Ordinance. Questions concerning the maximum number of
units allowed (12, as proposed) and off-street parking (23
spaces proposed) were addressed. CAC comments were reviewed -
issues raised concerned meeting city specifications for the cul
de sac, square footage of paved surfaces and ground cover
(discrepancy in computation) , views and vistas involved
(negative answer by developer) , location of off-street parking,
landscaping proposed, solid waste disposal , and necessary
governmental approvals.
Residents of the area were present: L. Bonanni , 148 Coddington
Rd. , Paul Porter, 141 Coddington Rd., T. Yengo, 145 Coddington
Rd. Mr. Porter questioned parking (on-site parking will be
provided) . Mr. Bonanni stated if the development conforms to
all regulations he has no objection.
Discussion of the environmental assessment followed; the City
portion is not complete and environmental questions raised need
to be addressed before the Board can proceed. Mr. Meigs said
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Page 4
that initial review of this development indicates a potential
large impact on the neighborhood. Preliminary approval cannot
be granted until the environmental assessment is complete.
J. Daley moved to refer this request to a subcommittee for
further recommendation. Seconded by S. Jackson. Vote: 6-0-0.
(Clarification: At April Board meeting determination should be
made of "no significant impact" or conversely to request a full
DEIS for the proposal . )
4. Subdivision Proposal - West Hill/Garcia: Appellant S. Garcia
and T. G. Miller, consulting engineer, were present. Mr.
Garcia explained the changes to the initial proposal : cul de
sac grade has been reduced to 10%; local EAF form has been
completed. The CAC report was reviewed by Chair, Betsy
Darlington. She stated the CAC has several broad concerns
including removal of vegetation and wild life, soil erosion,
the slope, and the stream running inside the south border.
They feel an EIS should be done. A subcommittee met to discuss
the EAF in greater detail . They concluded that if substantial
modifications were made an EIS might not be necessary.
A meeting with neighborhood residents disclosed a possible
traffic problem when wintry conditions exist; Taylor Place is
often too slippery for travel under certain weather conditions.
R. Schlather addressed the question of the legality of the cul
de sac since it is not included in the Master Plan (1971) . Van
Cort asked Alderman Schlather whether he felt that Council
approval was needed for acceptance by the P & D Board of a cul-
de-sac if it were not designated as a City street. This
question will be researched further by the City Attorney. The
neighborhood group is requesting a DEIS.
The developer and consulting engineer requested a "scoping
session" to determine definite questions for their response.
Mr. Van Cort suggested including the CAC, Planning Board, and
interested neighbors. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
March 29, 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
S. Jackson moved that the development as proposed will or may
have a significant impact on the environment thus requiring
preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Reasons
for requesting a DEIS included questions raised regarding storm
water runoff, distraction of wildlife habitat, street grades,
fire access/safety and soil erosion. Seconded by S. Killeen.
Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
5. Preliminary Subdivision - Precision Filters, CSIP: H. Jones
explained the requested subdivision - Precision Filters agreed
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Page 5
to relinquish the parcel facing the Inlet upon which they were
negotiating a lease for another parcel in the Park (parcels A &
B, 2 acres - as shown on map) . The terms of the lease
agreement are basically the same. S. Jackson asked why the
employment maintenance language recently adopted by Council
was not in the new lease. The Common Council felt that the
above mentioned language should not be required since Precision
Filters is not a new tenant. Council suggested that Precision
Filters might voluntarily include the language in the lease.
Discussion followed regarding the lease terms, cost per acre,
job creation, new lease versus old lease, generic environmental
assessment. S. Killeen moved to recommend preliminary/
conditional approval of the subdivision. Vote: 5-0-1
(abstention, Jackson) . Carried.
6. East Hill Local Historic Designation: L. Chatterton referred
to the EAF prepared for this matter. As of tonight, the CAC
had not received a copy and therefore their comments are
unknown. Ms. Chatterton defined the district boundaries and
explained the color-coded map designation for each property.
It is the hope of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee to
expand the City's local districts so that they meet the
boundaries of the National Register District. Positive impacts
of local designation include protection of historically and
architechturally significant residential buildings, protection
of the positive visual qualities unique to the neighborhood,
neighborhood stabilization and increased value of single family
homes, and support/encouragement of rehabilitation of the
City's older building stock.
S. Jackson felt that the Board should not make a recommendation
without CAC commentary. This matter was discussed bringing
forth the following: the neighborhood supports designation;
time is of the essence (protection of the neighborhood) ; B.
Darlington suggested the ILPC is better qualified than CAC to
review the environmental issues of this project; A. Yale felt
Darlington's comment overrides Jackson's concerns; S.
Blumenthal stated though Jackson is procedurally correct,
nothing is gained by delaying for one month the Board's
recommendation.
S. Killeen moved, seconded by S. Jackson, to recommend approval
of the Resolution - East Hill Local Historic Designation -
Determination of Non-Significance to Council . Vote: 6-0-0.
Carried.
7. Site Plan Review: S. Blumenthal referred to the second draft
of the Site Plan Review document. Director Van Cort stated
that a series of meetings were held with Planning staff and the
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Page 6
Building Commissioner to review the document and incorporate
revisions into the 2nd draft. The 2nd draft is now being
edited and a 3rd version will follow. Mr. Van Cort suggested
to the Board possible actions at this time: refer 2nd draft to
Council now; refer to Council now reserving the right to make
further recommendations; refer the 3rd draft to a sub-committee
and make a recommendation next month. The ensuing discussion
addressed the applicability clause and the exceptions to the
site plan ordinance. S. Jackson felt that use of a property
should not be listed as an exception. Director Van Cort
stated that in the Ordinance a balance must be reached between
benefits derived from regulation and costs to the appellant and
City. J. Daley stated that the Board could make a discretion-
ary ruling of exception if circumstances so warranted. The
Environmental Review paragraph needs revision - each project
will require an EAF. Mr. Jackson stated that it seems Site
Plan Review is just another layer of bureaucracy without
authority. He believes (from a recent court decision) that the
Board is not allowed to deny certain requests. Director Van
Cort stated that the Board can set pertinent and reasonable
conditions as are proper and necessary. Mr. Meigs said that
Zoning regulations and site plan review are two separate
enabling legislation methods. Subdivision is aimed at the
orderly development of the City; Site Plan Review is aimed at
appropriate compatibility as well as (to some extent) the
resulting physical impact. S. Killeen believes site plan
review should be used as a guide, a negotiating tool . S.
Jackson inquired if the questions asked by Site Plan Review
could not be included in environmental assessment. It was
deemed it would not be the proper format. Director Van Cort
stated that a site plan ordinance can only address the
arrangement and configuration of sites; Site Plan Review does
not supersede zoning regulations. The amount of staff time
which Site Plan Review will require was again mentioned. A.
Yale asked if an estimate of the time involved could be
determined and projected through Building Department
records. Site Plan Review is referred back to Committee for
work on a 3rd draft; S. Killeen and B. Darlington to join in
further discussion.
8. Community Development 1988/1989: Mr. Van Cort referred to the
revised schedule for the Community Development application.
Submissions are needed by April 19; Council action by May 4;
application deadline is May 16. The City is seeking small
businesses in need of expansion and needing some help
(approximately $5,000 per job created) for inclusion in the
application.
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Page 7
9. Front Yard Parking Ordinance: The version before the Board for
recommendation is the result of many meetings and changes. S.
Killeen moved, seconded by A. Yale, to recommend approval to
Common Council . Vote: 5-1-0 (No, Daley) . Carried.
10. Committee Reports: Housing, Neighborhoods, and Facilities: A.
Yale reported on 2 topics - the role of the neighborhood
planner and the proposed Housing Commission. Regarding the
neighborhood planner position, four steps were mentioned to
further the interaction between the neighborhoods and the
Planning Department: (1 ) A monthly newsletter, (2) An
information sheet explaining the role of neighborhood planner
to be sent to Civic Associations, (3) A semi-annual forum, and
(4) Use of the Cable 13 bulletin board to publicize non-regular
meetings which concern neighborhoods. The question of the
monthly newsletter and the semi-annual forum were sent back to
Committee for further review; the remaining 2 items were
endorsed. Regarding the Housing Commission, it needs to be
determined if this is to be a housing commission or a rental
housing commission. P. Mazzarella is to provide information
regarding rental housing for the committee's review.
11 . Motion made by S. Jackson to nominate J. Daley as liaison to
the Ithaca Farmers' Market. Seconded by Killeen. Vote:
Unanimously in favor.
12. Director's Report: Director Van Cort reported on comment by
Ralph Nash regarding a Valentine Four resolution which the
Board wished to have filed in the County Clerk 's Office.
Attorney Nash does not believe the Board has the authority to
file the Resolution with the Deed since there was no
subdivision. Further, it would complicate transfer of title.
Because of the questionable legality of this filing with the
County Clerk, he recommends against the recording. The Board
discussed the possibility of filing the document with the
Building Department property records. However, current Board
procedures have no provisions for checking the property records
when a subdivision request is presented to the Planning Board.
Director Van Cort will pursue this topic further with the City
Attorney.
Reference was made to the City Attorney's memo regarding Board
members' liability in the matter of legal damages. As
individuals who act as municipal officers, the Board members
might be held liable when monetary awards are given. The City,
however, is insured against such claims.
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Page 8
13. Chair Report: S. Blumenthal distributed to the Board a letter
to Vice President Burness, Cornell University, thanking him and
the other Cornell officials for their participation in the
March 10 discussion with the Planning Board. Suggested minor
revisions will be made and the letter transmitted.
14. Ice Hockey Rink (Cass Park) : Chair Blumenthal distributed a
copy of an article and drawing of the proposed new ice rink at
Cass Park which appeared in The Ithaca Journal . Her concern
is the design of the proposed addition and its incompatibility
to the existing rink building. She believes that since this is
located on City land and will be a highly visible structure,
the City should have some input regarding the design features.
J. Daley reported that the BPW accepted in concept the Hockey
Association's proposal but were not presented with a design of
the building. S. Killeen believes the article and sketch were
published for fund raising purposes; he thinks Board comment
now would be premature - he would not like to see the effort
clouded or dampened; there will be sufficient time for review.
In addition, this topic is on the Planning and Development
Committee Agenda for March 23 and he will pass the Board's
design concerns on for consideration. Van Cort suggested that
the proposed design could be referred to the Design Review
Board for comment. Further discussion next month.
15. Liaison Reports:
Board of Public Works - J. Daley. No report.
Planning and Development Committee - S. Killeen. Planning and
Development Committee will likely approve Public Works interim
parks' commission. - This is an attempt to deal with Stewart
Park issues but there are broader implications. He feels the
City should meet with other planning boards to be aware of
events happening which may affect the City and vice versa.
Other topics on the P & D Committee Agenda were mentioned:
Land Use for City-owned Property (old water and sewer site) ,
Residential Parking Permit System - Resubmission to the State.
16. Approval of Minutes: Minutes of February 22, 1988 approved
unanimously.
17. Ronsvalle Decision: Reference was made to the decision by
Honorable William Ellison in the Ronsvalle subdivision
matter. Some members of the Board stated that they wish to
appeal the decision and to hire specialized Counsel . Mr. Daley
believes to accept the decision would be detrimental to the
Minutes
March 22, 1988
Page 9
long-term interests of the City. S. Jackson feels that the
Judge's decision was very adverse and took an extremely narrow
viewpoint of the Board's authority; it is important to
challenge the ruling. He also suggested hiring an attorney
with expertise on appeals. The time limit regarding a Notice
of Intent to Appeal was questioned and if the City is to
appeal , the Notice must be timely filed to reserve the right to
appeal . Chair Blumenthal will research the timing matter.
Discussion of this matter to continue.
18. Adjournment - 11 :45 p.m.
0-hd-Minutes.Ev
IT �q
cO. ......
�°ORAtED
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 Zoning Appeals ,
From: Board of Planning and Development
_
Re: Appeals 1826-36 N
Date: March 22, 1988
This Board's Codes and Administration committee
reviewed subject appeals March 16th, and recommends as follows :
That appeals 1830 and 31 be discussed at this Board' s
meeting March 22nd, and the report thereon transmitted to the
Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration at its April 4th
meeting, together with a report on appeal 1820, which was
deferred to the March 22nd meeting.
That appeal 1826, for Use Variance to permit
relocation of Evaporated Metal Films, Inc . from 701 Spencer Rd.
to 214 Elmira Rd. , within a B-5 zone, be passed to BZA for
action with no specific recommendation, but with the comment
that there are much more appropriate locations, such as in the
Cherry Street Industrial Park, for this type of use.
That appeal 1827 , for extension of nonconforming use
at 120 Third Street, in an R-2b zone, be passed to the BZA for
action without specific recommendation, but with the comment
that this appeal seems to be more properly a matter of a Use
Variance, since the proposed use would be a separate, new use
of the premises; and would require the more rigorous
examination and proofs for initiation of a new nonconforming
use.
That appeals 1828, 1829 , 1832-36 involve no matters
of citywide or long-range planning concern, and should be
passed to BZA for action without comment or recommendation.
JM/mc
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"