Loading...
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.