HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1973-05-22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
City of Ithaca
Regular Meeting May 22, 1973 7:30 P.:
PRESENT: Mrs. Benson, 14essrs. Austin, Clynes, Schickel, and Stein.
ALSO: Director Van Cort, Aldermen Jones Slattery and Spano; R. Barnard, R. Chase,
M. Kimball, G. Pfann, P. Sarkus and members of the press and radio.
ABSENT: Messrs. Doney (arrived late) and Shaw.
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mr. Austin who was elected
Acting Chairman in the temporary absence of Messrs. Doney and Shaw.
2. The minutes of the last Regular meeting of the Board, April 24 and of the
Special meeting on l•lay 15, were approved as published.
3. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Request for Subdivision approval: 17r. Theron Johnson requested preliminary approval
of a subdivision involving sale of a part of his parcel adjacent to 511 Turner Place
to his neighbor, "sir. Varak, at 307 Hillview Place. Mr. Johnson showed the Board a
copy of the survey of his land with an outline sketch of the land that is proposed
to be sold and he told the Board that the proposed use for the land is to be parking,
and indicated that since the land is relatively flat he didn't feel that such a use
would cause drairge problems.
Pairs. Jones asked whether the proposed subdivision would necessitate considerable
removal of existing trees. Mr. Johnson responded by saying that most of the trees
on the land were not on the parcel to be sold. The Board then discussed the problems
of scheduling a final hearing for this subdivision. It was decided that the prelimi-
nary hearing should be tabled until the Regular June meeting so that the final
hearing could be held within the time limits specified by the ordinance, which would
be at the August meeting. Therefore, Mr. Clynes MOVED and Fir. Stein seconded, "that
the preliminary conditional subdivision request be tabled until the June meeting.``
Unanimously CARRIED.
4. COMMUNICATIONS:
The Planning Director informed the Board that he had cormaunicated to Common
Council the resolutions concerning the proposed zoning map change and zoning text
change acted on at the previous Planning Board meeting.
5. COPM9ITTEE REPORTS:
Mr. Clynes requested a report from the Codes & Ordinances Committee on the two
zoning cases which were referred to them at the April 24 meeting of the Board. The
Chairman of that committee, Mr. Stein, reported that on BZA Appeal 1012 the committee
recommended for approval; however, the BZA denied the request, and that on BZA .-Appeal
1011 the committee recommended for approval as did the BZA.
6 (QLD BUSINFSS:
a) Request for final approval of subdivision at 777 Stewart Avenue--This was a
public hearing for a final approval of subdivision at 777 Stewart Avenue. The appli- ,
cants asked that they be given a. chance to present their proposal before the Board
opened the meeting to public comment. This request was granted and Mr. George Pfann,
Attorney for the seller, gave a presentation of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Pfann began by reiterating that it was his contention that the project in
question was not a subdivision and that whether or not it was a subdivision, the only
question that should be considered by the Board was whether the project was in
essential compliance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the building
code. Mir. Pfann gave the Board a history of the Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity's attempt
to sell the land. When he had concluded, he turned the floor over to Mr. ?Michael
Kimball who presented to the Board a site plan for the proposed development showing
existing topography and existing trees with notation of those that were to be removed.
In addition the site plan showed 'the proposed apartment buildings (44 units) and 88
parking spaces. Mr. Kimball also presented a separate drawing of the proposed
topography, showing proposed storm drains and catch basins. After presenting these
two documents Mr. Kimball again informed the Board of the many provisions in the
contract between the buyer and the seller, including that the buildings would be in
complete compliance with the zoning and building codes as well as certain unusual
.architectural restrictions on the building such as specifications for the shape of
the doors and the windows, exterior siding material, building height restrictions
more stringent than the zoning ordinance and other restrictions as outlined in a
chart submitted to the Board (see official Planning Board file and attachment to
official copy of minutes) .
After the developer had presented the proposal the meeting was open to comments
` from the public. The first to comment was Ralph Barnard who represented Cornell
University. 1v1r. Barnard asked whether there was going to be an architect on the
project, and he expressed the opinion that the ordinance as it appears in the City
Codes of Ordinances specifically requires that the drawings be stemp,, i by a regis-
tered architect or engineer. Mr. Barnard pointed out that there were slight
differences between the mimeographed copy of the subdivision regulations and the
copy to which he referred.
(The developer mentioned `Lle name of the contractor and the engineer and the
architect for the job, but we were not able to verify these by telephone. )
ltr. Kimball stated that the engineering firm had assisted him in preparing the
drainage plan for the property although they had not signed the drawings. He also
stated that Mr. Sarkus had taken landscape architecture at Cornell University for
4 years and that his mother, Mrs. Kimball, and H. Hunt Bradley, Jr. were additional
partners in the undertaking.
Next to speak was Robert Chase who represented the Gamma Chapter House Associa-
tion. TI-Ir. Chase began by stating he was concerned because the Gamma House is domm-
hill of the proposed development and thus a potential victim of any errors in
drainage planning. Mr. Chase expressed reservation about the drainage plan as shown
and stated that in the Town of Ithaca drawings of far greater detail and accuracy
as well as better general quality of draftsmanship are routinely required on
subdivision requests. Finally Mr. Chase asked who would plow the snow on the driveway
which separates the Gamma Chapter House and the proposed development. Mr. Kimball
stated that they would. Further discussion ensued involving the site plan, the
parking, and the drainage plan of the proposed development.
2
When all the members of the public, who wanted to, had spoken, I�1r.. Austin closed
the meeting for deliberation of. the Planning Board. Mr. Stein asked the Planning
Director for his interpretation of the subdivision regulations to determine whether
the applicants had satisfied its requirements. The Planning Director responded by
pointing out that there were numerous provisions of the ordinance which -the applicant
had not satisfied such as that a final plat should be submitted to the Board in
writing at least 10 days prior to the meeting and that the materials should be80in ink
on tracing cloth," and that approval of all sanitary and drainage provisions should
probably be gotten from the City Engineer before final approval can be given. The
Planning Director next noted that there was what he called a "fudge" clause in the
ordinance. Under variances, Sec. 8, the ordinance reads as follows:
`�In cases where the Board finds that strict compliance with these Regulations
would involve unnecessary hardship or not be practicable, it may vary the
regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest
secured,--provided that no variance may be granted which will have the effect
of nullifying the purpose and intent of the General (Master) plan or of these
Regulations."
He then explained that it was the Board's chaxge to secure the public interest while
being sure that justice was done, and that they could in fact allow less than complete
compliance with the regulations if they felt the need to.
In response Mr. Stein said that he wanted to be fair in judging this application,
but that he wanted to be sure that the project would be a credit to the community.
-1r. Kimball then stated that he felt he had done all that he had been asked to do
and that to ask him to provide any further documentation would be unfair hardship,
since each of these documents cost him money to prepare. Mr. Oarkus then described
the partners who were noted above. Mr. Schickel felt that the applicants had. indeed
done all they could, and therefore he MOVED "that the Planning Board waive any further
requirements and give final approval to the project." Further discussion followed
this motion, and it was pointed out that the documents as presented were really not
sufficient to make a fully informed judgment on the application, and that there certain
errors in the documents which needed clarification and correction; for example, a
double bay of parking was shovm to taper from 58 to 48 feet. As a result the motion
was amended to read as follows: MOVED "that the Planning Board grant final approval
for the application with the provision that plans meeting all the requirements of the
subdivision regulations be presented to the Building Commissioner for approval and
subsequent filing with the appropriate governmental agencies." .Mr. Schickel SO MOVED,
and Mr. Clynes seconded the motion. CARRIED.
At this point in the meeting, Mr. Doney assumed chairmanship.
b) Rts. 13 & 96: Current Status. The Planning Director gave a report on a
meeting held on Monday, I?ay 14, with Messrs. Shub, Shad, Jack DeLee, Mr. D-Teetie and
other representatives of the New York State Department of Transportation, in addition
to Mayor Conley, I4r. Dinginan, Mr. Van Cort, Mr. Meigs and alderpersons Stein and
Meyer. The Planning Director reported that the State felt that separating route
designations and asking only for Rt. 96 at this time might have the effect of delay-
ing construction of Rt. 13 even though the State didn't expect construction to begin
in the near future. The State proposed that all land between the most easterly and
westerly corridors for 13 be submitted as a single corridor so that a particular
route could be chosen at a later date after a design hearing. The State representa-
tive assured Mayor Conley that the city would have control over the future location
of Rt. 13, mad that the city need not fear having an undesirable route location forced
on them. In addition, the State representative assured the Mayor that the City had
3
adequately fulfilled its responsibilities for meeting the July 9 deadline for the
corridor designation. The only responsibility the City still had to meet was to
respond. to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement within 30 days after it is re-
ceived. Piir. DeLee also informed the Mayor that the city`s response to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement would be the basis for the State's corridor designation.
The Board found no problem with proceeding in the above described manner.
7. NE14 BUSINESS:
a) Mr. Clynes brought up the request of the Mancii..i Realty Co. for the establish-
ment of the Park Road as a public street which was referred to the Planning Department
by the Board of Public Works. He asked whether the Planning Department had had a
chance to look into this request, and if not he asked that the Planning Director take.
action on this as soon as possible. Planning Director responded that he would.
b) Downtown Mall: Chairman Doney reported on progress toward development of the
State Street Mall. He informed the Board that a committee structured by the Planning
Board Executive Committee and Common Council representatives would soon be appointed
by the Mayor. This committee would have 3 representatives of the Planning Board, 2
representatives of Common Council and 3 representatives of the Downtown Redevelopment
Committee. The representatives would be respectively: H. Doney, M. Shaw and G.
Schickel; A. Jones and S. Stein; S. Lewis, A. Osborn and G. Kasprzak. Alternates
would be appointed at a later date. The Chairman added that this committee was
already in the process of interviewing architects for the mall with an upset design
cost of $24,500 for schematic and preliminary drawings. Mr. Doney noted that
Levatich, Miller and Hoffman was one of the firms under consideration.
8. I,IISCELLANEOUS:
a) Zoning Appeals:
1) BZA 1016 - This was a request by Patsy Cannovino, Jr. for an exception at
106 E. Lincoln Street. The applicant wanted an exception to the minimum lot
,size required by the ordinance in order to construct two new apartments in his
garage. The Planning Department noted that this change would provably also re-
quire a rear yard exception since the rear of the garage was on the rear lot
line. The applicant's total lot size of 5200 sq. ft. is 2800 sq. ft. less than
the 8000 s.f. required for 3 dwelling units. The Planning Director had visited
the property prior to the meeting and informed the Board that in his opinion
an apartment built on the second story of the garage would be cramped, since the
building had a peak roof which would provide little head room for a 2nd story
apartment. Discussion followed. 11r. Clynes MOVED and Mr. Schickel seconded a
motion to recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals" that the request for an
exception be denied.99 Motion CARRIED.
2) BZA 1017 - This was a request by Stewart and Bennett Inc. for an exception_
to the rear yard requirements of the ordinance at 201-207 N. Tioga. Street. This
exception was required for the construction of the Tioga Street parking structure.
Planning Director explained that the applicants were asking only for one
exception, basing their appeal on the B-3 requirements of the ordinance .since the
Board had the week before voted in favor of changing the map at that location
from B-2 to B-3. The ordinance requires a 10 ft. rear yard in this zone, and
the building has only from roughly 8 ft. to roughly 8 inches of rear yard,
depending on where the measurement is taken. It was pointed out, however, that
this rear yard in fact faces Aurora Street so that the normal need for rear yard
4
is not as pressing in this ,:ase. Discussion followed. Hr. Stein �,TOVED and Mr.
Austin seconded a motion to recommend to the Board of Zoning; Appeals" that approval
be granted to the applicant for this exception." Motion CARRIED.
3) BZA 1018 - This was an appeal for an exception to the rear yard requirements
of the zoning ordinance on the 200 block of South Cayuga Street which is in a B-4
zone. The appeal is made by Block 99 Inc. for construction of the Ramada Inn at
that location. Jeff Wetzler, a representative of Tim. Downing Assoc. , the architects
for the Ramada Inn, presented the appeal to the Board. A 20 ft. rear yard is
required in this zone and, he explained, depending on how the measurement is made,
the Ramada Inn has a back yard of only roughly 18 feet since covered walkways pro-
trude beyond the rear wall of the building into the back yard. The applicant
explained that if they were not given that exception they would not be able to
build 22 extra motel units on the complex vrich would result in a tax loss to the
city. Discussion followed. Mr. Schickel MOVED and Mrs. Benson seconded `-`that the
appeal be approved as requested." Motion CARRIED.
ADJOURNIVEiNT• Meeting adjourned 9:40 p.m. by Chr=i. Doney.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Matthys� Van Cort
5.1.73 Planning Director
ADD� 'DU.; TO Iters 6a OLD BUSIi7 SS: Hr. I-imball contacted the Planning Director
after the regular minutes had been typed. He informed him that r-r. Frank Couch of
Syracuse, J.Y. is to be the project architect. He is also a professional engineer.
The builder trill be Sargo Builders of Syracuse and Herl:imer, '".Y.
5