Loading...
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"