HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-07-26 { =
Planning and Development Board
Minutes - July 26 , 1988
Present : Chair Blumenthal , T. Cookingham, S. Jackson, A. Yale ,
M. Sampson , J. Daley , S . Killeen. Director H. M. Van
Cort, J . Meigs . Appellants , press , other interested
parties.
1 . Call to Order - 7 :30 p.m.
2 . Final Subdivisions :
a . 125-27 Cherry St . /Wallace . The Public Hearing was
opened by unanimous vote. No one was present to address the
issue . Public Hearing was closed . Staff recommends
approval subject to condition that evidence is subsequently
provided to insure that the piece acquired by Triangle Steel
has been combined with their other property , so that it will
be legally usable under zoning . MOTION made by T .
Cookingham , seconded by M . Sampson to grant final
subdivision approval contingent on consolidation of the
portion to be sold with other property owned by Triangle .
Vote : 7-0-0. Carried.
b . 256 Floral Ave. /Mogil. Public Hearing opened and closed
by unanimous vote. No one was present to address the issue.
Staff corresponded with the applicant regarding the final
plat ; applicant reported that the surveyor will complete
the plat after the deed has been executed. MOTION made by
T . Cookingham , seconded by M. Sampson , to grant final
subdivision approval contingent upon receipt of a final
plat and evidence of consolidation of the parcel acquired
with Mogil ' s property. Vote: 7-0-0. Carried.
C. 217 & 221 Columbia St . /Bergman. Public Hearing opened
and closed by unanimous vote. No public comment. J. Daley
MOVED, seconded by M. Sampson to grant final subdivision
approval contingent on receipt of evidence that the parcel
acquired by the Bergman ' s is merged with their residential
parcel . Votes 7-0-0. Carried.
3 . Wells Subdivision/Coddington Rd. - Revised Proposal . Chair
Blumenthal turned meeting over to Vice-Chair T. Cookingham
for the initial discussion of this item. Jon Meigs pointed
out the changes to the original subdivision request
( revision of site plan - one less lot , curved road , addition
of enclosed garages ) . Mr . Cookingham stated that since
there are significant changes to the original plan the
Committed recommends that this proposal should be
considered as a new application . Discussion followed
regarding procedural matters . MOTION made by J. Daley ,
seconded by M . Sampson , to consider the plan before the
Board as a new subdivision request . Vote: 6-yes , 0-no , 1-
abstention (Jackson) . Scott Duell , Project Manager , Fred H.
Thomas Associates , was present for the applicant . He
Planning & Development Board Minutes -2-
July 26 , 1988
explained the reasons for changes to the original plan:
visual impression from Coddington improved ; curved road
softens visual impact and permits more of valuable existing
greenery to be retained ; treatment of the site is more
sympathetic ; addition of rental garages for extra income
(they are aware that variance will be needed) . Discussion
followed regarding questions of road frontage and the
acceptability of the street - analysis by the Fire Dept . and
Engineering Dept . needed. MOTION made by J. Daley , seconded
by T. Cookingham , a negative declaration (no significant
effect on the environment) for this proposal which improves
on the environmental performance of the original , which
also received a negative declaration . Vote : 7-0-0 .
Passed.
J . Daley MOVED , seconded by T . Cookingham, to grant.
preliminary approval with the following conditions :
adequate review by the Engineering and Fire Departments ;
clarification of street boundaries and lot line conformance
with city regulations ; determination of variance for the
rental garages ; and clarification of whether street in
question will be a public street .
Discussion : S . Jackson suggested granting preliminary
approval ' except for the garage (which should be discussed
separately) and asking applicant to request a use variance
for the garages from the BZA . Mr . Daley said the Board
should encourage off street parking by any means possible .
Mr . Meigs believes there are many serious substantive
unanswered questions in this proposal and he would therefore
not recommend preliminary approval at this time , as that
would suggest some basic acceptance of the plan . Mr .
Jackson questioned whether the Board wished to indicate , if
the motion is passed, that the garages are an acceptable
use . Mrs . Porter , a neighborhood resident , stated her
feeling that the garage , which provides off-street parking
space in excess of what the subdivision requires by zoning ,
is a desirable use. Vote: 4-yes , 3-no (Jackson , Killeen ,
Blumenthal) . Preliminary Approval granted.
4. Privilege of the Floor: Doria Higgins, member of Citizens
to Save Our Parks , addressed the Board regarding "Inlet
Island Park" . The organization supports the Board ' s request
that the environmental reviews for "Inlet Island Park" and
Southwest Park alienations be handled separately. They
believe that the Cayuga Inlet Island "plan" represents
overdevelopment and they believe it reasonable that the
environmental review be conducted as if the full 1982 "plan"
was in effect. They take exception, however , to the Board ' s
"compliance" regarding the alienation of Inlet Island Park
Planning & Development Board Minutes -3-
July 26 , 1988
because "inner city" park lands are becoming exceedingly
precious as the " explosion of development " in the
surrounding areas continues. The Six Mile Creek land ( the
44-acre Coddington Rd . parcel being bought by the City)
should be acquired to protect the watershed but it should
not be tied into alienation of an "inner city" " park" . The
7 . 5 acres of Inlet Island land should be enhanced as park
land and not developed commercially ( good commercial
development already exists in this parcel) . She said it is
outrageous that the city would sell this "park land" and
that the Board would support Common Council in doing so.
The organization asks the Board to reconsider "compliance"
with "bad" decisions made by Common Council rather than
shooting them down as the deserve to be shot down . They
suggest that a second appraisal of "Inlet Island Park" be
made as acommercial and industrial area (conversation she
had with Mr. Peatfield, appraiser , indicated that appraising
the parcel for commercial use would result in a much greater
value than that which was placed on the land for
recreational use in July 1985) . She requested the Board to
ask Common Council to reconsider giving the Festival Lands
to the State , because there are some indications that the
capacity of this end of the lake is being exceeded.
5 . Deer Creek Subdivision/Borra: Mr. Borra was present and
explained, his plan. He intends to leave as many trees and
as much vegetation as possible to retain a "woodland"
atmosphere ; lot size would be kept at about twice the
minimum required by the zoning ordinance . Upon further
investigation of the area it appears that the 10% grade
indicated for the cul-de-sac on the preliminary plat will
have to be revised to an average of 14%. Mr. Daley asked
about the stream on the northern side of the parcel ; Mr.
Borra said culverts would be added for driveways as needed.
Relocation of the road to the north , to bring this
drainageway within the r . o . w . to possibly carry road
drainage as well was questioned; Mr . Borra said this may be
possible but he feels the original location of the road
should not be a problem , and he prefers to leave it as
shown. Mr. Meigs said that the City Engineer has reviewed
the project and submitted comments ; no response has been
received from other city agencies . Part III of the
environmental review has not yet been completed , so no
action can be taken at this time . Discussion followed
regarding water pressure and runoff; storm drains must be
considered bearing in mind future development for this
area. Mr . Daley stated that he felt serious consideration
should be: given to requiring that a portion of this property
be dedicated for park use , when the proposal reaches the
table for formal consideration for plat approval . Alderman
Planning & Development Board Minutes —4—
July 26 , 1988
SchIathe r has also requested an environmental impact
statement because of the two small brooks on the site , slope
grade , and drainage . Mr. Jackson wished to postpone further
discussion until CAC comments have been received. Mr. Borra
will be in contact with Mr . Meigs to move the proposal
along .
6 . City Wide Moratorium on Large Scale Development : Mr. Yale
presented a draft resolution entitled "Establishment of New
Planning Priorities and Temporary Moratorium on Large
Projects" dated 7/26/88.
Interested parties addressed the Board. Among them:
Johanna Datz , realtor , sympathized with the city ' s plan to
get more work done but said she opposed the moratorium as a
resident , taxpayer and realtor. She agreed that there is
need for a good overall planning approach to current
concerns but moratorium would limit revenues and have
negative economic effect on banks , builders , contractors ,
business owners , etc . — it would seriously affect many
people ' s livelihood. Thomas Corey , representing the Chamber
of Commerce , agreed there is need for stricter and better
measures , to improve the quality of development , but spoke
against a moratorium and said he believes such action would
be legally challenged. He stated that a moratorium would
alienate many of those in the community who would otherwise
be interested in helping improve the City ' s land use
controls . A similar statement from the Ithaca Building and
Construction Trades Council President , Arthur S. Baker , was
presented in opposition to a moratorium ( see attached) .
Alderman Hoffman stated that a list of planning objectives
is the primary goal with a renewed commitment to move
forward ; planning tools are needed; too many land use and
development control issues have remained unresolved for too
long , while development has increased.. He said a moratorium
offers additional protection to our neighborhoods and to
residents concerned about density and the change in the
quality of life. He believes this is a relatively small
price to pay in order to implement the planning tools that
are needed to control development . Mark Finkelstein ,
developer , believes a positive effect from the discussion of
a moratorium has been a focus on the issues . He believes a
new tack has been taken regarding development issues in this
city — more consensual , positive and constructive. Adoption
of a moratorium would counteract the good will generated and
the opportunity to eliminate the confrontational atmosphere
which is now growing over these issues. Pat Casler , 107
Christopher Circle , a director of the Ithaca Board of
Realtors , read a statement indicating opposition to a
moratorium pointing out that not everything would stop , and
Planning & Development Board Minutes -5-
July 26 , 1988
that while the surrounding towns might benefit in the short
term, from development activity diverted from the city (and
thus representing a doss to the city) , even they might
suffer in the long term from the augmentation of the
community 's anti-growth reputation. Similar sentiments were
expressed by Steve Garcia , developer . He stated his
opposition to a moratorium of any term and is totally in
favor of a reassessment of planning tools to obtain a better
grasp on development in the city and the effects on
neighborhoods and residents . Control of growth is an
improvement but placing a term of six months would not serve
the purpose . A letter from Betsy Darlington , CAC Chair , was
received in favor of a moratorium.
S . Jiackson stated his reasons for supporting a
moratorium: a six month term - running from September to
March - during Ithaca ' s slowest construction season - would
have. relatively little impact on building trades and the
city in general and secondly, there are many building jobs
which would not be affected at all by a short moratorium.
He stressed the importance of a six month moratorium only ,
as a breathing space for neighborhoods and the city, with no
extensions of the term. Regarding the work items called for
under the ,priority list in the resolution, he felt that some
completion times were unlikely or impossible .
S. Killeen stated that in order fo.r the moratorium to
be effective and objectives achieved , the following is
needed: purchasing outside professional help , freeing up
present P&D staff time because of the moratorium , and
freeing up staff because of revisions in 1988 work plan .
Mr. Daley ; noted the need for council to decide whether the
entailed additional costs will be provided.
Mr. Van Cort stated that given a six month moratorium
it would be very difficult to amend the zoning ordinance to
the extent desired - rewriting the ordinance is a major
undertaking . A . Yale suggested undertaking the zoning
revisions now and have the work extend past the moratorium
term (which he agreed should be held to no longer than 6
months) until the task is complete.
Further discussion centered on completion of zoning
changes within 6 month period; making priorities fit time
schedule ; legal consideration if goals are not met
( liability to developers - is "good faith" effort to enact
legislation , complete plans , etc . , sufficient ? ) ; if
moratorium is not enacted for several months would the time
schedule as outlined in the list of priorities still hold?
Ms . Blumenthal requested that another emergency priority
Planning & Development Board Minutes -6-
July 26 , 1988
item be added , and it was agreed that draft items 2c and 2f
would be placed on the primary priority list , and that
revision of R-2 district regulations to make bedrooms the
measure of allowable density be made emergency priority item
2c . S . Jackson stated that the list of priorities and
completion dates , including calling for revision of the work
program and support for additional staff , stand alone from
the moratorium. He also proposed raising the scope of the
moratorium to include only large projects in R zones , or
within 200 feet of the R zones. After further discussion
the draft resolution , as revised and divided into two
resolutions , was voted on as follows: ( 1) "Establishment of
New Planning Priorities" - Yale MOVED , Daley seconded , and
passed unanimously; and ( 2) "Temporary Moratorium on Large
Projects" '- Yale MOVED, Jackson seconded , and passed by vote
of 4-yes , 1-no(Daley) , 2-abstentions (Killeen , Sampson) -
see resolutions attached.
7 . Developer Exaction Fees : MOVED by S. Jackson, seconded by
T . Cookingham , to request that Common Council hire a
consultant as recommended by the Housing Study to explore
developer exaction fees to determine the possibilities and
the likely revenues that could be generated. Vote: 7-0-0.
Carried.
8 Ithaca Farmers ' Market - Anna Steinkraus gave an update on
the Farmers ' Market . Steve Gibian, architect , presented a
design regarding the market ' s long-term plan. Discussion
followed regarding enclosing portions of the structure for
winter use ; traffic patterns ; parking ; utilities; extending
use of the site ; negotiating long-term lease (beginning in
September ) . In general , the Market is extremely pleased
with the new site and is looking forward to a negotiating a
long-term lease .
9 . Cluster Subdivision Approval : MOVED and seconded to
request Common Council to authorize the Board to consider
cluster subdivision projects subject to the limitations as
outlined in the memorandum of P. Mazzarella dated 7/14/88 .
Vote: 6-0.-0. Carried.
10. Plan Review Position: S. Killeen referred to his memorandum
of 7 / 14 /,88 regarding the need for an auxiliary
appropriation to buy external professional services . The
money earmarked for a Plan Review position ( $25 ,000 in the
Building Dept . ) is unspent and the position unfilled; the
Building Commissioner has been unsuccessful in recruiting a
person for, this position but believes an additional $10 ,000
(bringing the salary to $35 ,000) would attract candidates .
Discussion followed regarding possible salaries for an
Planning & Development Board Minutes -7-
July 26 , 1988
Environmental/Landscape Planner and a Planner II position;
it was remarked that tentative starting salaries for these
professional positions are even less than what was
proposed for the technical specialist positions . A . Yale
asked for documentation regarding the status of the Plan
Review job offering , i . e . , advertising of the position ,
replies received , qualified responses , and/or interviews
conducted . Director Van Cort said a comparison of
comparable salaries to determine if the city scale is
current needs to be done.
11 . Zoning Appeals - #1860-66 : MOTION made by T. Cookingham,
seconded by M . Sampson , to accept the Codes and
Administration Committee report and pass these appeals to
the BZA without further comment or recommendation (see memo
of 7/22/8'8 attached) . Vote: 4-0-0 . Carried.
12 . Zoning Ordinance Revisions : MOTION was made by S .
Blumenthal , seconded by T . Cookingham , to recommend that
Common Council accept the environmental review of the
proposed zoning ordinance revisions and file a Negative
Declaration. Vote: 5-0-0. Carried.
13 . Director' s Report : 1989 Department Budget - Mr. Van Cort
commented on the 1989 budget which he has discussed with S .
Jackson and A. Yale. They have offered comments and these
are being researched. Discussion centered on the $54 , 000
request for a computer system , $60 , 000 for a strategic
economic plan , and $60 ,000 for moratorium-related items .
Additions to staff include : Site Plan Review position, and
two Planner II positions ( if these are approved , a deduction
to the contract line would be feasible) . Board discussion
of this topic will continue.
14. Mr . Yale , on behalf of S. Jackson, who had left earlier ,
requested an analysis to determine if the planning staff is
being used efficiently - in terms of number of staff and
output as compared to other planning departments (research
number of staff per similar jurisdictions which involve a
highly charged public participatory process as exists here) .
Comparables will be difficult . Discussion to continue.
15 . Chair Blumenthal ruled that the remaining agenda items
should be carried over to the next meeting .
16 . Adjournment : 12 : 00 midnight .
/mc
0-P&DBd-Minutes.Jul
EEOIAAiIp _
ITHACA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
wAMF` 11 a IN AFFILIATION WITH
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT
�F/ND�SJRMEO�6 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR—CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
701 W. STATE STREET, ITHACA, N. Y. 14550
On behalf of the Ithaca Building Trades we would like to go on the
record as totally opposed to any type of building moratorium.
We are not opposed, nor would we ever be opposed to intelligent city
planning. We feel that a moratorium on construction would not be a justifiable
tool, it would hurt the working people in Ithaca and not really attend to
the problem at hand, namely the intelligent control of gros+rth and development
in the city.
We would strongly support the enlargement of the planning department,
stricter enforcement of housing codes, updated versions of environmental
impact statements, and developmental user fee's. We feel that much more
time should be focused on these issues, with more staff if needed, more
funding if necessary, and would strongly support the use of the expertise
which is available in the private sector of our community.
We do not feel this is strictly a labor issue. The economic ripple
effect would be felt throughout the whole community. All businesses,
either big or small would fee the crunch in their pocketbooks sooner or
later.
1
JUL 12 6
Planning and Development Board
Meeting 7/26/88
RESOLUTION
Establishment of New Planning Priorities
WHEREAS , the scale and rate of new development now occurring in
the City of Ithaca could cause irreparable negative impacts
on the City 's neighborhoods , on natural areas , on traffic
and parking conditions , and on the City ' s capacity to
provide necessary services at reasonable costs , unless such
development is adequately regulated through appropriate
zoning , master planning , environmental review , site plan
review , and a system of impact fees
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development
Board finds that a planning emergency now exists in the City
of Ithaca , requiring prompt implementation of additional
regulatory measures , and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following be declared Emergency
Planning Priorities , requiring immediate attention , and
having the following projected implementation schedules :
1 . Resolve the issue of a Site Plan Review Ordinance and
process - Dec.. 88
2. Zoning Ordinance changes :
a. Revise R-3 districts - Mar. 89
b . Revise R-2 districts to use bedrooms as measure
of density - Mar. 89
C . Revise regulations where residential zones abut
commercial or industrial zones - Mar. 89
d. Create R-2c zone - Dec. 88
e. Revise residential parking requirements - Dec. 88
3 . Revision of Environmental Review Ordinance and process
Mar. 89
4. Revision of Subdivision Regulations - Oct . 88
5. Creation of West Hill Master Plan - Mar. 89 , and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following be declared Primary
Planning Priorities , upon which work should begin as soon as
possible , for implementation in 1989 :
1 . Establishment of Developer Impact Fees
P&D Board - 7/26/88 2
Resolution: Est . Priorities
2 . Mapping of Critical Environmental Areas
3 . Explore legal aspects of Demolition Ordinance
4. Land-use planning for Southwest area and former sewer
site
5 . Develop alternative public zones
6 . Create conservation overlay zones for environmental
sensitive areas, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1988 Work Plan of the Planning
and Development Department be modified as needed to meet the
above timetable , and that the proposed 1989 Work Plan
reflect the above priorities which continue into that year ,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Council is requested to
increase the 1988 budget for the Planning and Development
Department , to provide necessary staff/consultant support
for the above-mentioned priorities , to the degree that they
are not already incorporated into the 1988 Work Plan, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board
commit itself to meeting at least twice each month , whenever
possible , over the course of the following nine months , in
order to facilitate implementation of the above-mentioned
measures , and that the Planning and Development Committee ,
the Charter and Ordinance Committee , and the Common Council
are urged to do likewise .
The above Resolution moved by A . Yale , seconded by J. Daley.
Vote : 7-0-0. Carried.
P&DBd. -Priority.Res
Planning and Development Board
Meeting — 7/26/88
RESOLUTION
Temporary Moratorium on Large Projects
RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board urges the Common
Council to adopt a temporary moratorium on large—scale
development projects which would last no longer than six (6)
months , in residentially zoned neighborhoods and contiguous
areas within two hundred feet (2001 ) , as described below , in
order to provide protection to city neighborhoods and
environment while the city attempts to implement the
Emergency Planning Priorities :
This proposal would add the following amendment to Chapter
30 "Zoning" :
Section 30 . 01 Temporary Moratorium on Certain Building
Permits and Subdivisions
( 1) Rationale
The Common Council has committed itself to the
creation of certain planning tools and land use
regulations , in order to protect city neighborhoods
from inappropriate development , to enhance the
availability of affordable housing , to protect
environmentally sensitive areas , and to recover from
developers some of the additional costs large projects
will impose upon the city.
Having documented the pressing need for such
measures , it is now necessary for the city to set a
strict timetable for their enactment . In the meantime ,
it is not appropriate to allow large scale projects to
impose potentially large negative impacts upon
neighborhoods and the environment , in the absence of
the following regulatory measures.
( 2) Objectives
During the course of the moratorium , the City
Planning staff , Planning and Development Board , and
Common Council will aim to accomplish all of the
objectives outlined under Emergency Planning
Priorities as outlined in the Resolution entitled
"Establishment of New Planning Priorities".
(3) Application
Large projects as defined below would be affected
throughout the city
P&D Board - 7/26/88 2
Resolution: Moratorium
(4) Term
Moratorium would last no longer than six ( 6 )
months from the time of enactment hinging on Common
Council commitment.
(5) Projects to be Affected
Building Commissioner to issue no new building
permits for projects exceeding the following
thresholds located in residential neighborhoods or
within 200 feet of residential neighborhoods. (These
thresholds are based upon the city ' s existing
thresholds for Type I projects - those that require
environmental review. )
Construction , expansion , or conversion equal to or
greater than the following :
1 . Residential : a residential development or
subdivision of 10 or more dwelling units (as that term
is defined in Section 30. 3( 22) of the zoning law) ; or
any other type of residential or lodging facility ,
dormitory , fraternity , sorority , rooming or boarding
house , tourist home , motel , hotel or boatel (as those
terms are defined in the zoning ordinance) of 15 or
more sleeping units .
2 . Commercial or Industrial : commercial or
industrial buildings of 10 ,000 gross square feet , or
larger.
3 . Institutional or educational buildings of 5 ,000
gross square feet or larger , when such buildings are to
be located within or 100 feet from a residential zone.
4. Parking lots or structures for 50 or more
vehicles .
5. Any facility that would generate an average or 500
or more vehicle-trips per 8-hour day , over the course
of any 5 consecutive days .
Planning Board to issue no new subdivision
approvals for residential subdivisions that would lead
to development of 10 or more dwelling units .
(6) Exceptions
In keeping with the city ' s policy of encouraging
the increased availability or affordable housing , and
P&D Board — 7/26/88 3
Resolution: Moratorium
responsible manufacturing facilities , the following
projects are specifically exempted from this
moratorium:
a Construction or expansion within city industrial
parks
b . Construction or expansion of governmentally—
endorsed and reviewed housing for low— and
moderate—income residents .
(7 ) Appeals Procedure
The Board of Zoning Appeals , upon recommendation
of the Planning Board , may exempt a project from this
moratorium , if the applicant can demonstrate hardship
as a result of this moratorium, and that the project
will not cause a significant negative impact on the
environment .
The above Resolution moved by A. Yale , seconded by S . Jackson.
Vote : 4—yes , 1—no (Daley) , 2—abstentions ( Killeen , Sampson) .
Carried.
P&DBd. —morator. res
ye0118eao
^ 0
`'.% u
RAt�O`®
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: Code and Administration Committee)
RE: Zoning Appeals 1860-66
DATE: July 22, 1988
The committee reviewed subject appeals June 20th and reports as
follows:
Appeals 1860-63, 1865 and 1866 do not involve matters of long-
range or citywide planning concern, and are passed to the Board of
Zoning Appeals for action with no comment or recommendation.
Appeal 1864, for a Special Permit for a child day care center
at 832 N. Aurora Street, in an R-2b zone, was not submitted with a plan
for the propsoed development of the site, as required by § 30.26 C 2
(i ) . The committee recommends that the Board of Planning and
Development request deferral of this appeal pending submission of the
necessary information.
JM:eh
0-hd-zoning.JM
Motion made by T. Cookingham, seconded by M. Sampson, to accept committee
report and pass to BZA without further comment or recommendation.
Vote: 4-0-0. Carried.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"