HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-06-28 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES - June 28, 1988
Present: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, M. Sampson, T.Cookingham,
S. Killeen, A. Yale. Staff: Director H. M. Van Cort, Deputy
Director P. Mazzarella
Also, appellants, press, other interested parties.
1. Call to Order by S. Blumenthal, Chair, at 7:30 p.m.
2. Public Hearing: Final Subdivision Approval - 428 Elm
Street/LoPinto. It was moved and seconded to open the public
hearing; no one was present to speak for or against the
proposed subdivision. The public hearing was closed by
motion/unanimous vote. Mr. LoPinto was present and stated
there was no new information to present. The survey of the
parcel has been reviewed by staff and no problems have
surfaced. T. Cookingham moved to grant Final Subdivision
Approval, seconded by M. Sampson. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
Mr. LoPinto was instructed to ask for final instructions
from Mr. Meigs regarding filing the subdivision with the County
Clerk.
3. Zoning Appeals: #1852 - 102 Homestead Rd'./Special Permit for
an Accessory Apartment/D. Streater. Ms. Blumenthal recalled
that the original accessory apartment request for this property
was heard by the Board in October 1987. Since then, the
property has been sold and the new owner (Streater) is
requesting a renewal of the permit. The Committee recommends
that the Board recommend approval, subject to the same
stipulations as were proposed for the earlier appeal - a fence
for separation from the adjoining property and assurance that
the neighbor concerned would not be subject to undue liability
resulting from acts of the apartment occupants.
The applicant was present and stated that he wished the
permit under the same conditions and for the same use as that
granted to the previous owner. The apartment is currently
occupied. Neighbors from the adjoining property, Mr. and Mrs.
Gelbert, 100 Homestead Rd. , were also present. They had no
additional comments but wished to reiterate their concern
regarding liability because of the proximity of the apartment
entrance to their property. T. Cookingham moved, seconded by
S. Jackson, to recommend approval of the special use permit
with the conditions above mentioned. Vote: 6-0-0. Motion
carried.
Motion was made by S. Jackson, seconded by M. Sampson, to
approve the recommendations of the Codes and Administration
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - 6/28/88 2
Committee regarding Appeals 1852-59 as stated in a memorandum
dated June 24, 1988 (copy attached) . Vote: 6-0-0. Motion
carried.
4. Preliminary Subdivision: Cherry Street/Wallace. Neil T.
Wallace, appellant, was present with his attorney, Dirk
Galbraith. Mr. Galbraith addressed the Board and explained
the reason for the proposed subdivision. The subdivision will
permit Triangle Steel, Inc. access to the rear of its present
building from Cherry Street. It involves a single family
residence between Triangle Steel and Wallace Steel. Mr.
Wallace has obtained a demolition permit for the structure; it
is unlikely the building would ever be used as a single family
residence in this industrial area. Mr. Wallace had tried
unsuccessfully to donate the building to INHS; INHS was unable
to accept the gift because of storage limitations. The Fire
Department will destroy the building as a training exercise for
the fire fighters; an EAF has been completed and a notice of
determination of non-significance (negative declaration) has
been issued. Motion was made and seconded to accept the
Negative Declaration. Vote: 6-0-0 Carried. Motion was made
by T. Cookingham, seconded by M. Sampson, to grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval. Vote: 6-0-0. Motion Carried.
5. City-wide Moratorium on Large Scale-Development: Ms.
Blumenthal referred to the proposal for a moratorium as
presented by Councilman D. Hoffman in a memorandum dated
6/17/88. In summary, the proposal suggests an 18 month
moratorium in which no new building permits would be issued
with certain exceptions: (1) repairs or renovations where
there is no change in use; (2) additions to existing
structures - (residential) expansion that does not increase
the number of dwelling units by more than one and
(commercial/industrial/institutional) expansion that does not
exceed 25% of existing square footage; (3) new construction -
(residential) construction of a single-family or a two-family
dwelling and (commercial/industrial/
institutional) construction of buildings with a footprint of
4,000 square feet or smaller; (4) development of accessory
apartments; (5) construction or expansion of governmentally
endorsed housing for low-income residents; (6) construction or
expansion within the city-owned industrial parks; (7)
construction or expansion for educational purposes; (8)
construction or expansion for governmental uses if approved by
Council; (8) demolition of non-residential structures. In
addition no permit to be issued for expansion or new
construction that is within 100 feet of the rim of a gorge or
within 50 feet of a waterway; the Planning Board to issue no
new subdivision approvals that create developable parcels.
There were a number of individuals in the audience who
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - 6/28/88 3
expressed opinions during the discussion. B. Nichols,
Council, stated that there is a need for quick action to keep
up with all that is presently happening or proposed in the
city; development of site plan review and the zoning ordinance
have not kept pace with current development proposals. Mr.
Nichols supports only portions of Mr. Hoffman's proposal.
Concern was expressed over the length of the moratorium and the
fact that it would result in layoffs and hardship in the
building trades. Mr. Jackson identified a series of problems
including rapid changes in certain neighborhoods and the
shortage of affordable housing. He believes that progress is
being made but it is slow; major problems that need urgent
attention include revision of the zoning ordinance and zoning
map; study of parking policies; enactment of site plan review;
enactment of developer impact fees; enactment of a demolition
ordinance; and completion of SEQR reviews. Can these tasks be
accomplished without a moratorium? Mr. Jackson suggested an
emergency revision of the Department work program and the
hiring of additional temporary staff to accelerate the work
ahead. He also proposed that certain committees and Common
Council meet twice each month until the tasks are complete.
A. Yale stated that generally the Board and Planning staff are
reacting to proposals instead of planning for the future. He
further suggested a "time line" while the moratorium is in
effect as a guide for completion of tasks. He further
suggested that a moratorium of 6-to-9 months should be
sufficient. S. Killeen stated that the implications of a
moratorium are unknown and that legal challenges would be
inevitable; he suggested an economic impact study for the
proposal - to determine cost of a moratorium and/or cost of
lack of a moratorium. There was general consensus that an 18
month moratorium period was too lengthy. Could the Planning
Director indicate what might be accomplished in a 6-month
period toward completion of the tasks outlined? (A meeting to
discuss revision to the Department work program was scheduled
for July 15.) Director Van Cort stated that the Department is
already discussing a West Hill Master Plan which may be added
to the work program (if no other items are removed from the
work plan, additional staff will be needed); finalizing site
plan review and the amendments which will be needed; working on
amendments to the SEQR Ordinance; the timing for these topics
cannot be defined by the Department since the work involved is
contingent upon action by other committees or municipal bodies.
Ms. Blumenthal feels that procedures must be developed to
monitor the moratorium process. It was also suggested that
geographically specific areas be identified for a moratorium
rather than a moratorium for the entire city.
Members of the audience addressed the issue: B.
Darlington, CAC Chair, 204 Fairmount, felt there would be many
Planning & Development Board
Minutes — 6/28/88 4
serious impacts without a moratorium to give the city time to
plan for the future. M. LoPinto, 531 Elm St. , asked how the
Planning Department might be aided in their work without
resorting to a moratorium. He believes additional staff,
computerization, etc. would be a better means to this end. D.
Streater, 102 Homestead, stated a moratorium "buys time" to
institute changes and for that reason a moratorium could be
useful. Mr. Cochran, 205 Haller Blvd. , West Hill Civic Assn.
Board Member, stated that the civic association has formed a
planning sub—committee and is interested in working with the
city to update the master plan as it relates to West Hill; they
feel it will take at least six months to accomplish this and
they are looking forward to that process. B. Strauss, 108 King
St. , spoke in favor of a moratorium to plan development (as
opposed town—planned development); he believes time is needed
to accomplish this and that a moratorium would be beneficial.
B. Long, Tarreyton Dr. , stated that the Planning Department
works well but that committees spend too much time in
discussion; also, it is very costly to ask workers to stand
idly by; past moratoriums have not accomplished that much;
business is stifled by moratoriums. M. Finkelstein, 304 E.
State St. spoke against a moratorium — a limited number of
people would be asked to bear a very heavy burden (tradesmen
and developers) . As a developer he has talked for nearly a
year to neighbors regarding development of the. Watt lot —
endeavoring to communicate with all; now if the city employees
a moratorium he must either drop his option or he could
purchase the land and begin payments hoping that when the
moratorium concludes he could proceed with development. He
believes these are unfair alternatives.
Mr. Nichols stated that whatever happens regarding a
moratorium, certain tasks need acceleration: identify those
things that need to be done, identify what staff time is
required, identify a time frame, and if necessary ask for
additional staff to accomplish this.
J. Johnson, 946 E. State St. , Council member, stated he
believes that it is crucial to have a period of time set up for
task oriented items and that a time line is vital to set
limitations for completion of those tasks.
Mr. Finkelstein said that if a moratorium is enacted it
would dissipate pressure to accomplish those things that need
to be done.
Chair Blumenthal stated that the Board would endeavor to
clarify the alternatives and the consequences (moratorium v. no
moratorium); the consequences of a 6 month moratorium as
opposed to a longer term; and to access the impacts (as best
Planning & Development Board
Minutes — 6/28/88 5
they could) without entering into a complete economic
analysis.
C. Peterson, 110 Dey St. , Council member, stated she
would like to see smaller geographic areas in the city
identified for a moratorium rather than a city wide
moratorium.
Director Van Cort said that undoubtedly with more
Planning staff additional tasks could be accomplished. He
also commented on a analysis of the economic impact of a
moratorium (which, by the way, would be subject to SEQR — a
moratorium would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance) and
Common Council would be the lead agency in this matter.
Discussion to continue in committee.
6. West Hill Master Plan: Deputy Director P. Mazzarella outlined
the need to develop a plan for West Hill in light of the five
current subdivision applications. Under present laws the city
must proceed to process these requests in a timely manner. The
existing street plan (1950) needs updating. A system of
streets must be developed which creates a hierarchy of local
streets, collector streets, and arterial streets to keep
through traffic out of residential neighborhoods. Along with
street design, a utility system (water, sanitary sewer,
drainage) which is integral to the street system must be
developed. That part of West Hill which lies outside the city
limits is also very important and relates to both the streets
and utilities. Close cooperation with the Town of Ithaca is
necessary to obtain firm agreements as to what type of
development they envision in the Town, what development they
will permit, and how that development relates to the city.
Recreation and open space also needs to be addressed and a plan
developed. The pending subdivision requests give the city an
opportunity to request developers to provide the city with
areas for recreation. The city might also purchase property
to augment open space areas. Mr. Mazzarella described
"exaction" as it relates to this topic — an exaction is the
requirement that the developer provide/give to the city a
certain amount of land as a condition for the approval of a
subdivision. A brief discussion followed in which payment in
lieu of land was discussed and/or the enactment of zoning
changes for development (i.e. , cluster housing) whereby the
developer as a condition of the subdivision would donate land
to the city dedicated for recreational purposes.- Director Van
Cort stated that creation of a master plan (which is an action
under SEQR) will necessitate an environmental review and time
must be allowed for that study. Ms. Blumenthal said that input
from the neighborhood regarding their thoughts on clustering
Planning & Development Board
Minutes — 6/28/88 6
and their comments regarding a master plan was necessary. The
West Hill Civic Association will hold a meeting on these topics
on July 14.
7. Alienation: S. Jackson explained that some months ago the
city received approval from the State to alienate southwest
park pending an environmental review of the process. The
Economic Development and Transportation Committee met and
discussed the issues with Helen Jones. Three sets of issues
were identified: (1) a re—statement of the purpose of
alienation, (2) a description of how environmental review
should be undertaken, and (3) a focus on a triangular parcel
of land adjacent to the State Marina (Festival lands) which
was identified as part of the swap. A second meeting was held
with B. Darlington, CAC Chair, to review environmental
concerns. A proposal to drop the Festival lands as part of
the swap has been suggested using instead lands the city is
acquiring in the Six Mile Creek watershed. In order to
accomplish this, approval would be needed from the State. In
order for action on this matter to occur this year, Council
would have to act on this in July while the State legislature
is still in session. Mr. Jackson said the Festival land posed
two issues: (1) if the Festival land is already parkland it
could not be a part of the swap and (2) if the city transfers
this land to the Marina (State) would this parcel be kept as
public parkland for the City .of Ithaca? The Committee
recommends that the city should proceed with alienation using
the Festival lands as part of the swap. However, if those
lands were then subsequently transferred to the State then the
city would designate some other lands as designated local
parkland, recognizing that the transfer to the State was indeed
taking it out of the category where all Ithacans could use the
land all of the time.
Mr. Mazzella stated that the city and State entered into a
contract seven years ago whereby State Parks improved lands at
Buttermilk Falls State Park for city use (at considerable
expense) in consideration of the fact that the city would then
transfer the Festival land to the State for marina expansion
and development. Mr. Jackson referred to a resolution
regarding the alienation process dated June 27, 1988. A
lengthy discussion followed with Mr. Mazzella; he stated that
about 1/3 of the marina slips are rented by city residents;
1/2 of the slips are rented by residents of Tompkins County;
the remaining boat owners come mainly from the southern tier.
Mr. Mazzella said that the legislation approved by the State
allows the city flexibility — it does not mandate that the
Festival land be used as a substitute parcel. The city has the
right to withdraw this as a substitute parcel without
Legislative approval as long as there is legislative approval
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - 6/28/88 7
for the second substitute - Six Mile Creek lands. The State
has a time constraint - construction must begin at the Marina
in the winter and the transfer process might not be completed
until it is too late for construction this year.
As a result of the above discussion five resolutions were
moved, seconded, and adopted unanimously. (See attached. )
8. Cluster Housing Proposal: P. Mazzarella addressed the
question of cluster housing as discussed in committee. He has
been working on amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that would
allow cluster housing to be developed in the R-1 and R-2 zones
in conjunction with the city's subdivision regulations. The
general description, purpose, use and dimensional regulations,
and additional regulations were distributed to the Board in a
memorandum dated January 13., 1987 from Mr. Mazzarella to the
Planning & Development Committee. The question of the Board's
discretion in approving or disapproving cluster development was
addressed. Mr. Van Cort suggested special criteria be
instituted and approval given by Special Permit. He believes
allowing_maximum flexibility would be beneficial and provide
the greatest amount of open space for each proposal. Mr.
Jackson believes this approach would open developer's
creativity to a great degree and may present plans that would
not be acceptable. Therefore, it would be difficult to write
regulations in advance. S. Killeen suggested that the
neighborhoods be encouraged to develop standards that the Board
would heed in making discretionary determinations. Ms.
Blumenthal identified two areas of concern - increased density
and a considerable amount of attached housing. The inevitable
increase of traffic was also mentioned. This topic will be
discussed further in neighborhood meetings and in committee.
9. Rental Housing Commission: A. Yale referred to a resolution
regarding establishment of the Ithaca Rental Housing
Commission. The resolution as amended is as follows:
WHEREAS, two-thirds of Ithaca's housing is rental housing, and
WHEREAS, issues relating to the condition, affordability and
availability of rental housing have been a major concern in the
City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, these issues have been extensively examined in the
City's 1987 study, and
WHEREAS, currently there is no forum that is available to
exclusively discuss rental housing issues and generate
pertinent action recommendations,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Common Council, acting
upon the recommendation of the Board of Planning and
Development, does hereby establish the City of Ithaca Rental
Housing Commission, and
Planning & Development Board
Minutes — 6/28/88 8
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Ithaca Rental Housing
Commission with staff support provided by the Building
Commissioner shall be charged with performing the following
tasks:
1) To provide a regular forum for the discussion of rental
housing issues by all parties with an interest in those issues.
2) To investigate current local conditions and trends with
regard to the cost, availability and condition of rental
housing,
3) To investigate issues relating to landlord/tenant
relations, fair housing practices and rental housing occupancy
requirements,
4) To investigate possible actions that might be undertaken by
either private organizations and/or public agencies, to improve
rental housing conditions in the City of Ithaca,
5) To make recommendations to the Common Council through the
Planning and Development Committee concerning the
implementation of actions that are designed to address rental
housing concerns,
6) To review and make recommendations about any other rental
housing concerns that the Commission determines is important,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Commission, meeting at least
monthly, shall consist of representatives from each of the
following interest groups and shall have at least eleven voting
members; of whom a majority shall be renters:
1) Tenants, or representatives of, tenants' organizations (if
any) (1)
2) Tenants or tenant advocates of subsidized housing (IHA,
EOC, INNS, DSS, Mental Health, Red Cross, Homeless) (3)
3) Office of the Aging (1)
4) Off—campus student housing representatives from Cornell and
Ithaca College (2)
5) Rental housing property owner or property manager (1)
6) Board of Realtors representative or mortgage officer from
the banking community (1)
7) Planning and Development Board (1)
8) Planning and Development Committee (1)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members including the Chair and
Vice—Chair of the Rental Housing Commission shall be appointed
with staggered three—year terms by the Mayor with the approval
of Common Council, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Ithaca Rental Housing
Commission shall report on its activities and progress to the
Common Council and Board of Planning and Development at least
on a quarterly basis.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes — 6/28/88 9
Motion to approve the resolution was made by A. Yale,
seconded by S. Killeen. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
10. Grossman's Landscaping Report: Ms. Blumenthal reported that
Grossman's received permission from the Building Department to
proceed with construction. A photograph was received from
Grossman's showing the fencing material to be used as well as
a diagram of their proposal. The State has indicated that
plantings would be allowed in the right of way.
11. Director's Report: Director Van Cort reported that Mr.
Finkelstein has offered to give to the city the vacant land
that lies south of the project he is developing at the Ithaca
Gun site; it is a woodland area and would be preserved as an
unbuilt/undeveloped/open wild area. The advantage to the city
would be control of the area by the city forever; the
disadvantage is the liability incurred.
12. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes of the May 24, 1988 meeting
were moved for approval by M. Sampson, seconded by S. Jackson.
Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
13. Planning and Development Committee: S. Killeen requested from
the Planning Department a map of the city which shows city
owned land and which also indicates other governmentally owned
parcels. Discussion ensued regarding the difficulties involved
in providing such information. As an alternative it was
suggested that a list of city owned parcels be obtained from
the County Assessor's Office (by parcel number and address) .
Ms. Blumenthal moved, seconded by M. Sampson, to request
the above information from the County Assessor's Office. Vote:
6-0-0. Carried.
14. Chairman's Report: Chair Blumenthal reported that the next
meeting with Cornell University officials will be held on July
18; more details to follow.
Ms. Blumenthal commented on the problem of timing between
the Planning Board and the Conservation Advisory Council with
regard to EAF review. Timing is vitally important in order to
review requests and make proper decisions. Each group which
has discretion must be aware of the CAC meeting schedule. The
Engineering Department and the Fire Chief need time (x number
of days) for their review. Further clarification of this topic
is needed.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - 6/28/88 10
15. Executive Session: M. Sampson moved, seconded by T.
Cookingham, to enter into Executive Session for discussion of
the Ronsvalle litigation. Vote: unanimous.
16. Adjournment: 12:15 a.m.
b:Board-Minutes.Jun
Gs rC
`�
��Ap�RATEO`�0
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: Planning and Development Board
FROM: Codes and Administration Committee
RE: Appeals 1852-59
DATE: June 24, 1988
I
The Committee reviewed referenced appeals on June 22, and
reports as follows:
Appeal 1852, for transfer/renewal of an Accessory Apartment
Temporary Permit for an accessory apartment at 102 Homestead Road,
concerns the unit that was the subject of Appeal 1807. The Committee
recommends that the Board recommend approval , subject to the same
stipulations as were proposed for the earlier appeal : a fence for
separation from the adjoining property, and assurance that the neighbor
concerned would not be subject to undue liability resulting from acts
of the apartment occupants.
Appeals 1853-59 do not involve matters of long-range or
citywide planning, and are passed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for
action with comment as follows:
Appeal 1857: Interpretation to determine whether 109 Harvard
Place in an R-lb zone should be considered to have 'grandfather
rights' as a pre-existing nonconforming use, as a multiple dwelling.
Because neighborhood stability is a major concern, the Board of Zoning
Appeals is urged to verify the facts alleged by appellant and by
neighbors opposing the requested interpretation; in particular,
appellant should be required to present clear documentation of
multifamily use throughout the time period in question.
Appeal 1858: Area Variances to permit expansion of 321 College
Avenue, in a B2b zone: needs Design Review.
JM:eh
0-hd-Appeals.JM
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" -
RESOLUTION #1 .
Planning and Development Board
June 28, 1988
WHEREAS, the process of alienating the city-owned lands on Inlet
Island and Southwest Park of their recreational
designation have generated substantial public
discussion in the past year, and
WHEREAS, substantial confusion exists as to the reason and
rationale for alienating the two parcels, and
WHEREAS, the process of environmental review for the alienation
proceedings has raised a series of difficulties even
before the review is undertaken,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of. Ithaca Planning
and Development Board reiterates the importance of the
successful completion of the alienation process, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board
finds that environmental review should be done for the
two parcels separately even though their alienation
remains linked.
RESOLUTION #2
Planning and Development Board
June 28, 1988
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board finds it
desirable to allow the sensitive and sensible water-oriented
commercial, residential, and recreational development of
Inlet Island which would increase the effective access of
all Ithacans to the City' s waterfront, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board
views the Cavuaa Inlet and Island Project report prepared
for the City of Ithaca in 1982 as an overdevelopment of the
Inlet Island site, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board
urges that environmental review for the Inlet Island
alienation commence as if the full 1982 plan would follow
once alienation were completed, and in consideration of the
likely unacceptable consequences which would be manifest,
that Part III of the EAF be used to outline the restrictions
on development which would be most appropriate for the Inlet
Island site.
RESOLUTION #3
Planning and Development Board
June 28, 1988
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board finds it
desirable to allow the development for industrial,
commercial, and/or residential purposes substantial portions
of Southwest Park, which might help our city meet its need
for new industrial or residential sites, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board
urges that environmental review of potential uses of
Southwest Park evaluate the possibility of either industrial
or residential development, contemplating the possibility of
local designation for much, if not all, of the wooded areas
of the park as local park.
RESOLUTION #4
Planning and Development Board
June 28, 1988
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board urges that
a request be made to the State of New York to allow the
replacement of the Festival lands by some or all of the
Maylin-Brahm Six Mile Creek lands as the substitute land
required for alienation.
RESOLUTION #5
Planning and Development Board
June 28, 1988
WHEREAS, Chapter 757 of the Laws of New York State, 1985
authorized the City of Ithaca to discontinue from park
use certain lands known as southwest Park and Cayuga
Inlet Island, and
WHEREAS, authorization to convert said lands was conditioned
upon the city's providing certain lands described in
the legislation, including the so-called Festival
parcel, as substitute parkland, and
WHEREAS, it appears appropriate at this time to remove the
Festival parcel from the list of substitute lands, and
WHEREAS, other parcels near Six Mile Creek have been identified
as being well suited to replace the Festival parcel as
substitute lands,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New York State
Legislature be requested to pass an act amending
Chapter 757 of the Laws of 1985 to permit such
replacement of the Festival parcel.
b:Misc-ResAlien.Bd.