HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1990-05-22 Approved with corrections 8/2/90
MINUTES
Planning and Development Board
May 22, 1990
PRESENT : S . Adams , R. Berg , S . Blumenthal (Chair) , M. Cochran,
J . Schroeder, A. Yale . Staff: Deputy Director Paul Mazzarella,
J. Meigs , P . Weed, B. Carey. Also - Applicants , Other Interested
Parties , Media.
1 . Meeting was called to order at 7 : 40 p .m.
2 . Privilege of the Floor: No requests made.
3 . Preliminary Subdivisions
a) Spencer Road/We.isbu:rd. Meigs informed the board that the
Codes and Administration Committee recommended a Negative
Declaration and Conditional Approval for the subdivision.. Ms .
Darlington from the CAC reviewed the recommendations and concerns
of the CAC report , and asked the board to seek limitations on the
amount of tree-cutting , on the size of the house , and on future
subdivisions of the property. She also raised concerns that site
work appeared to have already commenced. Mr. Weisburd addressed
concerns regarding the grade of the driveway, saying that the
steepest grade is 18% and the average grade is 8%. Regarding
run-off , Weisburd stated that there is no erosion problem due to
the rocky nature of the soil. Darlington and Meigs pointed out
that the concerns of the CAC were not for erosion but for the
additional quantity of run-off water which would be caused by
construction, Darlington noting that drainage appeared to be
naturally quite poor and reiterating her request for limitations
on tree-cutting and house size to limit additional;., run-off..
Weisburd said that the site had been managed for four years,
including removal of some trees for various reasons , but that no
trees had been removed for purposes of constructing the house ,
and that he had no intention of removing trees f-or construction
purposes . Staff informed the Chair that currently no City law
exists which specifically limits the ability of private property
owners to cut trees .
The Enrights , whose house is opposite No. 527 , were
questioned concerning the status of the drainage problem. Mr.
Enright said that he brought his concerns to the BPW and the DPW,
but that no action had been taken to address the problem. Berg
said that he would advise the City Engineer to work on the
problem.
Blumenthal asked for the consensus of the board on the
issues of run-off and tree cutting . Cochran felt that tree-
cutting was not a problem. Yale felt that the only run-off
problems were the responsibility of the City, and moved .a
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - May 22 , 1990
Page 2
Negative Declaration, seconded by Cochran. The Board felt that
they should communicate formally their drainage concerns to the
BPW, requesting that they address the problem, and request a
response. The motion for a Negative Declaration was passed
unanimously.
Blumenthal asked Weisburd whether he was willing to
voluntarily place restrictions on tree-cutting , house and lawn
size , and future subdivisions. Weisburd responded that cutting
trees would be both undesirable and unlikely. Darlington pointed
out that tree cutting would provide the house with a view, and
also noted the large lawn on the adjoining property (527) .
Weisburd refused to agree to restrictions. Schroeder then moved
to grant Preliminary Approval , was seconded by Yale , and the
motion passed unanimously. Meigs requested Weisburd to submit a
draft of deed descriptions of the proposed driveway right-of-way
for the three parcels ( including 523 Spencer Rd) .
4. Preliminary Site Development Plan Review
a) Sheldon Memo.ria.l Weed reported that Cornell had reincluded
the Sheldon Memorial as part of the Central Library Addition Site
Plan Review, obviating the need for a special performance bond on
the Memorial . Schroeder felt that the action by Cornell
satisfied the concerns which led him to propose the performance
bond, and moved to accept the recommended modifications . The
motion wa-s seconded by Cochran, and was passed unanimously.
5 . New Business
a) Maximum Occupancy Code. First Ward Common Council member
Blanchard appeared to inform the Board that a section of the
Maximum Occupancy Code had been referred to the Charter and
Ordinance Committee and the Planning and Development Committee.
Ithaca Housing Authority Executive Director Battisti explained
that Section 27 . 9 , which `is being actively enforced, is
preventing large families from attaining affordable housing . Ms .
Battisti argued that the present regulations did not provide any
discretion to consider special circumstances of large families
with young children, where application of the code does not
permit more than one of a family ' s children to occupy a room
unless it meets the standard for two people. Ms. Blanchard
expressed the hope that a provision could be written into the
Maximum Occupancy Standards in the Code to give the Building
Commissioner more discretion based on the special. needs of large
families. The Board generally felt that it would be desirable
and appropriate for Council to grant the Building Commissioner
more latitude in dealing with such matters.
b) Downtown Parking and Public Transportati.on.. Yale reported
that the Economic Development and Transportation Committee
Planning &, Development Board
Minutes - May 22 , 1990
Page 3
endorsed the Parking Study, and that the Committee felt that ,
given the severity of the parking problem and its likely
exacerbation by imminent development, proceeding with the
development of a new parking garage was desirable. Recognizing
that increasing parking does not discourage using cars, the
Committee also proposed a commitment to traffic reduction
measures , including park and ride and public transportation
studies. Blumenthal said that a public meeting on the parking
facility and public transportation issues would be valuable to
the Council before they meet to decide on approval to proceed
with the parking facility. She stressed that the new parking
facility should be viewed not as a solution in itself but as a
part of a larger solution which takes into account such issues as
public transportation. Adams questioned the way that the
parking issue was handled prior to the construction of the Mental
Health Facility, and Mazzarella explained that the County took
the position that it was exempt from City zoning requirements and
therefore from City parking requirements . He explained his memo
on the study, and some of its background and implications, and
stressed the importance of getting started planning for a new
facility by August.
Adams also raised questions as to funding . Mazzarella said
that there has been much discussion on the issue, and that it was
generally felt that construction of a new parking facility should
be funded jointly by the City and the merchants in the affected
area who would benefit from its construction. Berg raised the
issue of whether parking should be self-supporting by users , or
whether it should be. subsidized by the general public.
Mazzarella said the consultant recommended development of a
system which was totally supported by the users, but that the Ad
Hoc Committee did not favor this recommendation. He said that
there was a fear that making the new system entirely user-
supported would be self-defeating by discouraging consumer use.
He felt that there ought to be a balance between user support of
the system and recognition of the benefits toward the City as a
whole. Berg felt that it would be necessary to resolve this
issue in order to gain public support for the project . Adams
said that tax-payers needed to know in advance what the costs of
the new facility would be for "them, and that it would be
inappropriate to lay the financial burden of the new facility on
the tax-payers. Schroeder thought that the new facility would
aid the re-zoning of West State Street to allow for a denser
concentration of stores than now exists . He suggested that a new
garage be built above a block of commercial establishments, so
that the street level is not an ugly, lifeless , blighting
influence on its surroundings .
Cochran brought into the discussion the issues of park and
ride facilities and integration of public transportation systems .
Mazzarella reported that a master plan was being prepared for
park and ride lots, focusing on long-distance commuters mainly
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - May 22 , 1990
Page 4
going to Cornell . He pointed out that prospective riders often
felt that public transportation did not fit in with their
schedules , as Cochran said.. He felt that one objective should be
to reduce short car tripsthroughthe downtown. Yale asked
whether the park and ride on West Hill could be paid for by the
State as a mitigating measure for not constructing a highway
(referring to the reduced scale of the Rt . 96 project) , and for
reducing traffic during construction. Blumenthal suggested that
a letter be drafted from Common Council to DoT, proposing this.
Berg commented that parking downtown should not be considered in
a vacuum, but that it should be linked to other ways to make
downtown more attractive , and that the merchants should be
encouraged to pursue such measures. Blumenthal raised concerns
regarding communicating changes in the parking rates and
regulations to the public in order t.o minimize confusion and bad
feelings among merchants and consumers. Mazzarella pointed out
that these changes had already been implemented , except for
lowering time limits. Cochran suggested that lowering the time-
limits would discourage meter-feeding . Mazzarella said that
spaces with a half-hour limit would be limited to a few spots
around the Commons.
Mazzarella asked the Board to endorse the report , including
the Board ' s own comments and questions . Berg expressed his.
desire that the process proceed , but hesitated to endorse the
report prior to answering the Board ' s questions and concerns .
Schroeder expressed his support for the broad goals of the study
without supporting the specific recommendations . Adams felt that
integration of parking issues with other aspects of the problem
such as public transportation needs to be more explicit. The
Board generally felt that endorsement of a new parking garage
would be premature without further study. The Chair , seconded by
Cochran, moved to adopt the following resolution, which was
passed unanimously:
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has recognized that parking is an
important element in the success of the Central
Business District ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca authorized a comprehensive study of
parking in the Central Business District and estab-
lished the Ad Hoc Central Business Parking Committee to
oversee the development of that study; and
WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Central Business District Parking Committee
has thoroughly examined and discussed the
recommendations made by Rich and Associates, the City ' s
parking consultants , and has prepared their own report
and recommendations ; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Deve.lopment has reviewed the
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - May 22, 1990
Page 5
Committee ' s report on parking in the Central Business
District ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and
Development does hereby endorse further study of the
recommendations contained in the Ad Hoc Central
Business District Parking Committee ' s report on Central
Business District parking dated March , 1990, toward the
end of achieving consensus on specific recommendations
in accordance with the schedule ; and
BE IT FURTHER RES.OLVE.D that the Board also endorses the
simultaneous pursuit' of measures that will reduce the
growth in demand for off-street parking , including
public transportation, park and ride, bicycling and
similar measures; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that consideration of a new CBD parking
plan be done in conjunction with a thorough evaluation
of possible zoning , urban design and other long-term
land use decisions , in cooperation with downtown
merchants.
Some discussion ensued as to what group would be responsible
for continuing the parking study process . Adams felt that the
efforts should be directed by the Downtown Vision Task Force.
However , considering that this group has yet to be appointed, and
considering the special needs of the parking study, it was
suggested that the Ad. Hoc Parking Committee should continue
working on the parking issue. Blumenthal pointed out that the
magnitude and complexity of the issues involved with the parking
garage study warranted the consideration of a special group
devoted to the issue , and that the Downtown Vision group would
not be able to devote the necessary time to the issue and still
pursue other topics. of importance relating to the Downtown. Yale
felt that the role of the Downtown Vision. Group would be to make
comments and recommendations to Council , but that it should not
have the primary responsibility. Cochran observed that the
Downtown business community was well represented on the Ad Hoc
Parking Gommittee. The Board agreed that the Downtown Vision
Group should not take on the parking study as a major
responsibility.
The Board supported holding a public discussion at the end
of June on such issues as public transit , park and ride, and
parking .
Mazzarella informed the. Board that the State and Federal
Governments have looked favorably on the application of. the City,
the County, and Cornell to build a Joint Maintenance Facility for
Public Transportation, and that all parties have allocated money
for design of the facility. He pointed out the significance of
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - May 22 , 1990
Page 6
this step in moving toward an integrated transit system.
Yale stressed the importance of good public relations on the
parking issues, in order to foster well-informed and supportive
public backing for all the transit and parking issues .
6 . Old Business
a) Neig.hbo:rhood Planning. Chair reported that the Work Program
included an item directing a study of various ways that
neighborhoods could be involved in the planning process.
Mazzarella introduced Trish Norton to the Board. Norton will
work in the Department for the summer on the subject of
Neighborhood Planning . Norton told the Board that she had begun
designing the study, and solicited input from Board members -as to
what issues should be addressed in the study. Berg observed
that, with the exception of two Civic Associations, there has
been a difficulty in maintaining Neighborhood Associations as on-
going entities. Yale pointed out that this problem is
particularly acute in areas such as Collegetown which are
primarily inhabited by renters. Blumenthal asked that study be
done on how to incorporate other agencies such as the DPW into
the issues of neighborhood planning . Norton asked the Board
members to arrange individual meetings with her to express their
concerns.
b) Northside Planning.. Adams reported that the committee
discussed the issue of re-zoning the area west of the Pogo
Parcel . The concepts of the neighborhood park, the Science
Center , and the Senior Center were generally agreed upon. There
was general agreement that the DPW pipe storage area be re-zoned
for mixed development. Additionally, it was felt that the Water
and Sewer office building could possibly be used along the lines
of a day-care facility. There was also discussion concerning
parking requirements for light industrial and commercial uses of
the DPW property. Light industry was favored because it would
generate less traffic than commercial uses. Concern was raised
as well about re-zoning the P&C lot should the P&C be moved.
Mazzarella pointed out certain unresolved issues, including the
DPW ! s current use of certain neighborhood areas, and that the
space needs of the DPW in the neighborhood remained to be
assessed. Another unresolved issue was whether Franklin street
should be through or closed at one end. Mazzarella also
reported that the Planning Committee was intending to apply for .
an EQBA grant for the recently acquired Pogo parcel , although
the Committee was also considering submitting applications for
projects which would be more likely to receive funding .
7 . Zoning Appeals Report
Meigs indicated that appeal 1975 , the proposed Beauty Shop, had
generated some concern, and No. 1976. has generated much concern
about the incursion of commercial activity into residential
Planning & Development Board
Minutes – May 22 , 1990
Page 7
areas. The Codes and Administration Committee recommended that
the latter appeal be given especially close scrutiny by BZA,
since such effort had been given to zoning the area to safeguard
its residential use and character. Committee chair Cookinham had
previously reviewed this appeal , and suggested that it might be
time to reevaluate the areas zoning , including the
appropriateness. of extending the nearby C–SU zone. A letter to
the Board from a neighbor asked that the property not be given
special treatment. Appeals 1978-1980 represent Cornell-' s
contention that the parking space size standards need revision.
Regarding no. 1975 , Blumenthal requested that the
committee 's No Objection to Special Permit be dropped, citing the
Board ' s concerns about possible paving of rear yards for parking ,
asking the BZA to establish a clear demarcation of the
residential and commercial zones , and considering conflicts
between residential and commercial uses. Cochran, seconded by
Adams , moved to approve the memorandum, as modified, and the
motion was passed unanimously.
8 . Reports
a) Committees of the Board
Neighborhoods & Housing : Cochran reported that the Committee met
with Building Commissioner Eric Datz and discussed the history of
building codes ,, the central business district , aspects of the
codes which were obstacles to the redevelopment of upper stories,
and feasibility of access to upper floors via a raised second
story platform along the alley on the north side of the Commons.
The Committee agreed to schedule a meeting with local businessmen
to discuss the economics of Central Business District development
of upper stories.
b) Chair: Chair said that she would invite the new County
Commissioner of Planning to appear before the board.
Chair reported that concern has been expressed by Doria
Higgins about the Board ' s lack of involvement in the alienation
decision, and pointed out that the Board had voluntarily placed
the responsibility for working on the issues in the hands of the
P&D Committee. She was concerned that the Board would be liable
to criticism for not addressing such issues , but that the
desirability for input and comments by the Board needed to be
balanced against the time requirements of being informed and
active on many more issues. Schroeder noted that the CAC and
other entities that might have been involved have been left out ,
and Adams expressed concern that a decision to alienate will be
made without adequate planning.
c) Board of Public Works: Berg reported that the Hudson Street
project was proceeding. The BPW was preparing to present a
parking regulation plan in parts of the third ward, and a public
meeting was scheduled for Thursday.- Schroeder was concerned
Planning & Development Board
Minutes — May 22 , 1990
Page 8
that , by limiting the plan to the third ward , the problem would
be transferred to the fourth ward, and that the new regulations
would encourage the paving of yards for profit parking ,
Mazzarella pointed out that the boundaries had been chosen to
identify and control the areas which were used by commuters ,
without unduly affecting Collegetown residents. It was felt that
the Board needed to address the issue of paving yards to provide
parking , possibly by holding up permits for paving yards in light
.of the potential results of the new parking regulations, pending
the consideration of an ordinance .
d) Planning and Development Committee: Schroeder reported that
the Committee approved surrendering the Hydropower Permit. There
was discussion about extending a conservation area around the
reservoir to protect the water supply, and extending the zone to
include the area of Six Mile Creek that is in the City.
9. Minutes of March 27 , 1990 were unanimously approved with
corrections .
Meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m.
b : pdb . 522