Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1973-11-20 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 20 , 1973 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board was held on Tuesday , November 20 , 1973 , in the Town Offices , 108 East Green Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairwoman Barbara Holcomb , Jack Lowe , Robert Scannell , Maurice Harris , Sam Slack , Peter Francese ( Planning Consultant ) , Kenneth Kroohs ( Planning Engineer ) , David Cowan ( Zoning Officer) , Reynolds Metz (Assistant Zoning Officer) . ABSENT : Daniel Baker , Robert Christianson , Arnold Albrecht . ALSO PRESENT : Mr . Evan Monkemeyer , Mr . David Gersh , Mr . Jeff Wetzler , members of the press and radio , and four interested citizens . The meeting was brought to order at 7 : 30 p . m . by the Chairwoman /TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN ORDINANCE , Mrs . Holcomb wished to discuss five points which are problem areas with the new Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance , 1 . What do we do about signs for legal nonconforming uses • in residential areas , i . e . , Guidi ' s building on Slaterville Road now owned by Powers ? Mr . Scannell felt that if the legal non- conforming use is a commercial use , the same sign should be allowed as if it were a legal use . Mr . Cowan felt that the Planning Board should continue to have control over signs . Mr . Lowe agreed with Mr . Scannell that a person should be able to have a sign if he has a legal non- conforming use . Mrs . Holcomb stated that the problem is that we do not mention signs in non- conforming uses . Mr . Kroohs suggested that a paragraph should be added through an amendment to include signs for legal non � conform � a ing uses . 2.. Mr . Schickel has pointed out in connection with his con struction sign that the Planning Board has not allowed enough different wording on such signs . The ordinance states that on a construction sign you can have : Name of Development Architect Contractor Owner or Developer Mr . Schickel stated that the banks would really like to be mentioned also . Mr . Scannell thought that landscape architects should be named too . It was decided to rewrite that section to be less restrictive but not allow advertising . 3 . An interpretation question , again brought up by Mr . Schickel , was discussed . The ordinance says two signs may be erected . Mr . Schickel was unsure if this meant two separate signs or one single Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 2 � November 20 , 1973 sign printed on two sides . Mr . Scannell felt that the Planning Board was interested in restricting the number of sign structures and did not care if there was wording on both sides . There was general agreement with this approach . 4 . There seems to be a problem with development designation signs , such oas " Beacon Hills ` ? , " Springwood" . What constitutes only a designation that a development exists and what constitutes advertising? It was agreed that the Sign Ordinance should be amended to allow a sign to designate a development but not take on a form of advertising . 5 . Mrs . Holcomb had a question about a sign that is x number of cubic feet . The ordinance refers to square feet only. Mr . Scannell proposed that it should be made clear that any written materials should not be on more than two sides no matter what form the sign takes . PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE IN RE TWO� FAMILY DWELLINGS , Mrs . Holcomb stated that she has been talking to the Town Board about the increasing number of two family dwellings that seem to be coming along . She further stated that it had been thought that the 20 , 000 ft . requirement for a duplex would take care of the matter , however , Mr . Schwan pointed out that a developer could . come in with a large tract of land and ask to develop the whole thing as duplexes on 20 , 000 sq . ft . lots . This would mean a density of much more than what the Planning Board will be allowing in cluster . ( See further on in these Minutes ) . ZONING OFFICER ' S SUGGESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION IN NEW ZONING ORDINANCE ° See list attached to the Official Minutes of this Meeting . Each item was discussed . Mr . Kroohs will pass the ideas on to Mr . Francese , CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR MONKEMEYER MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ON EAST KING ROAD , Mrs . Holcomb announced that the Town Board passed a resolution on November b , 1973 , calling for a Public Hearing on the 10th of December , 1973 , for the purpose of considering final site plan approval . Mr . Scannell commented on the landscape plan . He stated that some of the trees are very close to the structures . They are only 10 ' from the buildings . These trees spread out over 40 ' or 50 ' . Also the pin oak that are being used are very hard to . transplant in this area . Red Oak is very easy . Pin Oak has a taproot and Red Oak has a spread out root system , He also noted that the type of vine designated is very pretty but is extremely hard to start and keep growing in this area . The Planning Board now went over the list of conditions that had been drawn up at the Planning Board meeting on November 6 , 1973 « Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 3 - November 20 , 1973 ' 1 . Landscape plan and bridge crossing - Yes . 2 . Volume of water - Mr . Calhoun of the Soil Conservation Office reports that he is concerned with the stream . He mentioned that the developer should have an engineer on the sewer and water lines and he thinks the developer should have the engineer also calculate the volume in the stream at the same time . There should be a calculation of what is likely to happen in that stream during a 25 - year storm including drainage from above Mr . Monkemeyer ' s site . Mr . Kroohs suggested calculating the capacity all the way to the Route 96B culvert . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he was not sure of his respon- sibility in connectionwith the stream and how far it goes into other people ' s property . Mrs . Holcomb stated that if the calculations of the water that is coming down that stream show that it is necessary to have a deepening in Mr . Whitlock ' s property , Mr . Monkemeyer should do this . Mr . Whitlock has said he would allow the stream to be deepened and cleaned. If , at the time of actually doing the digging , he refuses permission to deepen the stream to the required depth , then this would change Mr . Monkemeyer ' s responsibilities . Mr . Monkemeyer asked if after it is done once would he be expec - ted to do it again . Mr . Kroohs said No , except perhaps in a disaster situation . 3 . There are no existing utility easements . The only existing ones are along King Road and they are on the plan . 4 . Catch basins are on the plan that went to Jim Calhoun . Culvert sizes are shown .. 5 . Drainage plan Mr . Kroohs stated that an engineer ' s stamp has to be on any water and sewer plan before it goes to the Health Department for approval . Mr . Gersh stated that William Downing ' s staff has the qualifications to stamp plans . Mr . Kroohs pointed out that the City of Ithaca also requires that a licensed professional engineer stamp plans and Mr . Downings stamp probably would not qualify . 6 . Sign awaiting amendment of ordinance . 7 . Proceedings are under way for rezoning extra parcel to multiple . 3 . Hydrants - - three on King Road and one inside the western cluster . 9 . Location of Phase l outlined - yes . • 10 . Buffer planting . There followed considerable discussion on this matter . Mr . Gersh . pointed out that there are about 400 ' to 500 ' between this Phase 1 and the Staz property . He urged that it be allowed that the boundary be completed at the time that the whole project is completed . He wanted to make it clear that the time ele - ment is the matter of contention , not the fact of having a buffer . Mr . Francese stated that a reasonable time can be set upon completion of Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 4� November 20 , 1973 ' the first phase . Mr . Gersh hoped that it was clear that saplings are acceptable . It was . Mr . Gersh read from the Planning Board Minutes of December 21 , 1971 , describing the buffer zone in detail . There now followed a discussion of proposed conditions to approval of the site plan here presented . Mr . Monkegeyer wished to point out that the County Health Dept . has lost their engineer ( Mr . Steve Herman) and they are therefore having difficulty giving approvals . They might have to send plans to Syracuse . This would delay matters considerably . He asked if he could get approval from the City . Mr . Kroohs said No but suggested that he get City approval anyway and then take the City approved plan up to Syracuse personally . Mrs . Holcomb wanted to mention two items that Mr . Jim Calhoun had spoken of . One was a suggestion that the developer build a diversion ditch along the eastern boundary of his property . The other was to grant a 25 easement for a future drainage line along the west boun- dary if it becomes necessary then . Mr . Kroohs did not feel that this was necessary at all . Mr . Monkemeyer pointed out that there is a natural drainage system on the west boundary . Mr . Gersh stated that they will take Mr . Calhoun ® s recommenda- tions under advisement but that he did not think they were relevant to this approval . MOTION by Barbara Holcomb , seconded by Maurice Harris : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca approves and recommends to the Town Board acceptance of Site Plan # 73 - 461 , dated 23 October 1973 , last revision 16 November 1973 , by William Downing Associates , for " Springwood" to be developed by Evan Monkemeyer on East King Road , with the following conditions : 1 . The buffer zone around the Staz property as spelled out in the Planning Board Minutes of December 21 , 1971 , shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of construction for Phase 1 , or prior to site plan approval for Phase 2 . 2 . The completion of required work on the stream for deepening and widening both on and off site shall take place within six ( 6 ) months of the date of the issuance of the first building permit . 3 . The receipt of calculations from a licenses professional engineer of the total flow during a 25 ® year storm through the creek to the West boundary of the development , and , the capacity of the . creek from the West boundary to Route 96B . 4 . The approval by the Tompkins County Health Department of the • water and sewer plan . S 5 . The rezoning of Tax Parcel No . 4324 to multiple residence . 6 . The existing ditch on the West boundary will be shown on the Site Plan , and Town of Ithaca Planning Board m5 ® November 20 , 1973 FURTHER , it is to be understood that final approval of the Site Plan shall be given to Phase 1 only and that future phases must be approved by the Planning Board and the Town Board prior to the issuance of any building permit for said future phases . There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote . Ayes - Holcomb , Lowe , Scannell , Harris , Slack . Nays - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE IN RE TWO�FAMILY DWELLINGS . MOTION by Maurice Harris , seconded by Robert Scannell : WHEREAS , it has been determined by the Zoning Officer of the TownofIthaca that Article III , Section 4 , paragraph 29 Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 29 and Article V . Section 18 , paragraph 2 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance are unclear and therefore impossible- to mpossibleto interpret , and WHEREAS , the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has determined • that a revision of these Articles is necessary to carry out the intent of the Zoning Ordinance , and WHEREAS , control of density is necessary to preserve the environmental quality of the Town and to prevent overburdening of water , sewer and road facilities , and WHEREAS , a two- family dwelling requires more on- site parking area than a onemfamily dwelling , therefore BE IT RESOLVED , that the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca be amended as follows : Article III , Section paragraph 2 : To be deleted in its entirety , Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 2 : Amended to read : "A two- family dwelling provided that the minimum lot size for such use shall be 20 000 sq . ft . , and further provided , that in ali subdivisions proposed after the effective date of this amendment that in no case shall the density in each subdivision exceed 3 . 5 units per gross acre . " • Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 2 : Amended to read : "A two- family dwelling . " The remainder of the paragraph to be deleted . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Town of Ithaca Planning Board M6 � November 20 , 1973 ' Ayes - Holcomb , Lowe , Scannell , Harris , Slack . Nays o None . The Motion was carried unanimously . ROBERT SCANNELL EXPIRATION OF TERM AS MEM6EP. OF PLANNING BOARD . MOTION by Maurice Harris , seconded by Sam Slack : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca request the Town Board to appoint Robert Scannell a member of the Planning Board for a seven- year term of office beginning January 1 , 1974 . There was no further discussion and the Chair called for a vote . Ayes e Holcomb , Lowe , Scannell , Harris , Slack. Nays - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . FUTURE MEETINGS . It was decided that the next regular meeting of the Planning • Board would be held December 4 , 1973 . There will be a special meeting for discussion of the proposed zoning ordinance at 7 : 30 p . m . on Tuesday , November 27 , 1973 . Mrs . Holcomb promised to bring loose leaf binder notebooks for each member of the Board for the zoning ordinance . LICENSING FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS , Mr . Scannell stated that the State is requiring that Landscape Architects be licensed . He pointed out that we have not been requir® ing landscape architects on the job for developments . Mr . Kroohs asked if an architect is responsible to anybody for mistakes . Mr . Scannell stated that an architect is liable to the developer . Mr . Scannell felt that if the Planning Board requires a landscape plan , then the Planning Board must require that it be done and stamped by a licensed landscape architect . ADJOURNMENT . The Meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 10 : 15 p . m . The Planning Board retired into Executive Session until 10 : 35 p . m . • Respectfully submitted , Nancy M. Fuller , Secretary . Town of Ithaca Planning Board ® 7 - November 20 , 1973 EXECUTIVE SESSION - NATIONAL CASH REGISTER . Mrs . Holcomb announced that Mr . Cowan has had two meetings with National Cash who are now the Regional Headquarters for their plant operations . They are proposing a major expansion of their office space on the Danby Road site . The first problem is that they have requested to move in a 20 ' by 60 ' trailer to use for temporary offices . Both Mr . Kroohs and Mrs . Holcomb have gone over the present zoning ordinance and they can find no prohibition of this . Mr . Scannell thought that we could ask them for a date as to when they think the building would be constructed . Mr . Francese said there would be no problem in giving them permission to do this because it is not a trailer , it is a prefabricated build® ing . The second problem is that the present zoning ordinance defines light industrial but not heavy industrial . National Cash wants to attach this new building to the cafeteria as close as 25 ' from the road right of way perhaps . The present zoning ordinance is unclear as to any set backs or side yards . Mrs . Holcomb wondered what a reasonable approach to set backs from the highway would be in a case like this . Mr . Scannell felt that the Planning Board should see a plan of their proposal even if it is very sketchy . Mr . Kroohs suggested that the Planning Board could propose to them a minimum of 50 ' from the edge of the road but somehow indicate that they are flexible too . • I David W. Cowan -- Zoning Officer, Town of Ithaca 11/20/73 Additional Notes for Consideration -- New Zoning Ordinance 1. R-15 and R-30 regulations on Horses: R-15 says 2 acres for l Horse - max. 3 horses of 4 acres. R-30 says nothing - no limit on Horses - How many acres? What is a "Domestic" animal - horses, cows, "fur-bearing" animals? /'-^' +, t :'111.1 eJ ., 2. Clarify regulations on fences, walls, fill for parking areas. Also, carports and garages forward of front wall of house? 3. Specific "Swimming Pool" ordinance? 4. Trailer Ordinance - How about "replacement" of existing, • old, non-conforming trailers? 5. Agricultural Districts - permits for all buildings. What is an accessory building - Barn? 6. Junk Cars vs. Junk Yard - other storage of miscellaneous trash or materials? 7. Section 68 - More than 1 building on a lot - not permitted anywhere - so how come this section? 8. Better coverage of details to follow in Industrial Districts. Regulations are not clear: : • •; t I fah-„�';, , j, r . _ I o • '- t t TOWN NMYM mss. c ' •. F .- s _ # ' r. November 21 , 1973 Mr . Vincent R : Franciamone 108 Ridgecrest Road Ithaca , :•New York 14850 . Dear. Mr .. Franc i aurone : Your request for re- zoning of , your property at 108 Ridgecrest Road from R- 30 to R- 15 was taken up at ,the November 81 1973 meeting of the -. Town Board . The Board declined to entertain your request because . it was of- the opinion - that to do so would not be in the public E interest and general welfare of the community . . Among the many considerations were the following : 1 . The existing building on the premises is not in com- pliance with the zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca . . . 2 . Re - zoning in accordance with the proposal you submit . would' . create two under sized lots . The requirements for lot size :` in ' R- 15 are 15000 square feet . Your proposed lots would be - less than •that . The . situation is aggravated by . the requirement that the back _lot , would have to have driveway access across the front lot , so the . actual usable space is reduced even more . : .In • this .' ' , - connection .you might . note that a " lot area " shall not ` include _ .any '- portion of a ' public highway right -of -way . . Thus , the computations , " � ' > I � which you make on your proposal , which take into account the. lot, ' r4' line to the center line of Ridgecrest Road , are erroneous . . : ' '-- 30 rroneous . . : ' '3 . The plans that you have shown for the use of the property are not in accordance with theintent of the zoning ordinance , whether R- 30 or - R- 15 . The area on Ridgecrest . . Road is predominantly residential with fair sized lots surrounding . - the houses . The intensity of the development which you propose : materially alters the character of the area . Based on these and many other considerations , the Board . believes that re - zoning is inappropriate . I might add. that , as you know , your previous history with the Town leaves something to be desired . It was necessary for the Town to bring an action against you to enforce compliance with the zoning ordinance with reference to the first building erected at 108 Ridgecrest Road , . which resulted in a judgment favorable to the Town . Notwithstand ing the entry of this judgment , you ignored it , resulting in the • i COW Vincent •R . Franciamone - 2 - November 21 , 1973 Town ' s having to hire attorneys and obtain a contempt citation against you which was - ultimately rendered . Again , there was a substantial period of time prior to your compliance with the contempt : order . This history , while not a basis for denying the request for re- zoning , certainly does not weight in your favor . Very tru y our , Walter J Sc wan Town Su rvisor WJS/elb SC f - r s a i ti