Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1973-07-24 PLANNING BOARD'MSNUTES City of Ithaca Regular Meeting -July 24, 1973 7:30 P.M. , PRF-SENT: M. Shaw (Acting Chairman), P11rs.� i3.FnsonT��Dssrs ;Aiasti,n and Schickel. ALSO: ,- ...Director Van Cort, Aldermen Spano and Slattery, Mr. & firs. M. Mirna.no, V_ Giordano. R. .Miller, N. Kendall, and members-of the press and radio. ABSENT: Chm. Doney; Messrs. Clynes and Stein. The meeting was called to order at 7:15 P.M. by Vice Chm. Shaw who presided in the absence of Chairman Doney. It was �30V-ED by Mrs. Benson, seconded 'by Mr. Schickel, "the minutes of the last Regular meeting of the Board, June 26, 1973, be approved. as published." CARRIED. Item 6 of Agenda (Zoning): a) BZA .Anneal 1022--Request by Michael and glary 14ignano for Variance from Sec. 7, Col. 2 of the Zoning* Ordinance at 12.2 Coddington Road, in a R-2 district: Planning Director Van. Cort gave a history of the case. The appeal was heard once previously (see Minutes of Planning Board meeting on D.-lay 15, 1973, Appeal 1015). Mrs. Giordano explained that they had purchased the lot in question when it was a part of the Town of Ithaca, and that they could not now sell it as a home building lot because it was directly adjacent to the Coddington Restaurant and an equipment-storage facility. They had originally bought it to build a home but now were unable to use it for that. purpose. Therefore, paying taxes on the land without being able to develop it was, in their opinion, a hardship. In the previous appeal Mr. Giordano asked for a variance so that he could build a Convenience Foods store at 122 Coddington Rd. At that time the Planning Board recommended approval of the variance, but the case was turned down by the Board of Zoning Appeals on the grounds that Mr. Giordano could not show hardship. They reco- mmended at the time that the appeal be brought by the owners of the property who had a direct stake in the action. Bob Miller, who represented Convenience Foods, explained that their stores are a modern version of the old "maria-papa" stores. he said, in response to a question from Mrs. Benson, that the store would. have major deliveries once a week. Pir. Giordano added that he had renotified all the adjoining property ol-rhers as required by the Ordinance and that he had many favorable phone calls about building the store at that location. Mrs. Benson MOVED and 1r. Austin seconded, that "the Planning Board recommend approval of the variance." CARRIED unanimously. Item 8 of AgF:.,da (New Business): a) Subdivision Re uq, est-441x. Van Cort pre- sented the facts of the case. This request for a subdivision concerns a lot on Westfield Drive which has about 108 ft. frontage, and is just short of 400 ft. wide along its rear boundary. It is roughly 400 ft. deep. The property is presently owned by Mr. John Graves who was represented at the meeting by Norman Kendall 4Tho is interested in buying the property and converting the existing bar:; to a dwelling unit while renting the ,house--to--help pay .his mortgage. Since the property is in.a R-1 zone, he is., presently precluded from having; a second dwelling unit on- a.-single lot. He therefore is -requesting a subdivision so that he can divide the lot into 2 parcels large enough, for a dwelling unit or even for 2 dwelling " units on each as permitted in the ordinance, *fir. Kendall explained that he had met with the planning director, Ei?gineer Schlieder and Commissioner Jones and that they had assured him- that, if he got approval for the subdivision, they would be able to give him the necessary permits to proceed with his plans. He explained that he didn't want to further subdivide the parcel but only to develop the 2 structures as explained above. He presented to the Board a plot plan and a topo at 25 ft. intervals which can be found in the Official Planning Board files. He also presented to the Board a letter from Mr. Graves authorizing him to act as his agent. The Planning Board members e��resscd enthusiasm about his project and said that they would like to help facilitate his building plans. Mr. Austin questioned whether this really was a subdivision. Planning Director Van Cort assured him that it was and that Mr. Kendall would either have to, apply for a subdivision or try to get an exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals which would quite likely take as long. Mr. Austin MOVED and Mrs. Benson seconded, "the Planning Board give preliminary approval to the subdivision request." In the ensuing discussion of the motion, N-1r. Schickel suggested that the Board should give immediate final approval and asked whether Mr. Austin would be willing to change his motion. It was stated that a month's delay might significantly increase_ the cost of the project because of the.higher interest rates which would in all likeli- hood soon be permitted under state law. Mr. Austin therefore amended his motion as follows: MOVED, "that final approval be given to the requested subdivision." Seconded by Mrs. Benson:-__CARRIED unanimously. , Item 5 (Committee Reports): a) Community Facilities & Services Committee-- 1) Mancini Realty Inc.: Director Van Cort read minutes of the committee meeting as follows: "A meeting of the Community Facilities & Services Committee was held at 9:00 a.m. July 5, 1973 to consider the request of Erland Mancini et al. concerning desig- nation of the road known as 'Park Rd./temporary Rt. 89' as a city street, which was referred to the Board by the Board of Public Works. Present were Committee Chm. Schickel and members Benson, Planning Director Van Cort, and Mr. ,Rncini and his attorney, James Clynes, Jr. Mr. Clynes stated that he didn't feel the matter was a legal problem; instead he said that his client was seeking designation of the road as a city street, so that he could get access to his land. The Committee members and Mr. Van Cort felt that there was liable to be sub- stantial legal question involved, and that there was no real reason for Planning to be involved. Mr. Schickel questioned whether the reimbursement received by Mr. Mancini due to the Flood Channel didn't specifically constitute payment for loss of access. Phrs. Benson questioned whether the Rt. 96 corridor designation didn't put restrictions on development within or adjacent to the corridor. Mr. Van Cort indicated that the Planning Department would check up on these questions, and that the Supt. of Public Works and the City Attorney ",*ould.:also be consulted for further advice and information. The Committee decided to recormend that the Board make no recommendation on the matter, but note that it should probably be reviewed from_a.legal standpoint. Messrs. Clynes and ]!Mancini were so informed." 2 Al ber brie -lj scu�s10.1] -Mr.. . Ams't;in NIOVhi) .a nd rgrc Po_a +7 of the Committee Report and the following reply to the Board of Public Works." "The Cormunity Facilities & Services Committee Recommends that the Planning Board take no action on the referral from the Board of Public Works, con- cerning the request of Erland 14ancini et al. regarding designation of the road known as 'Park Rd./temporary Rt. 899 as a city street. The Committee notes that there may be involved legal questions in this matter with respect to the road's present and future use, the Rt. 96 corridor, etc. , which seem to call for review of the question under the auspices of the City Attorney." Item not or Agenda (CRP - Raymond, Parish & Pine Invoice)--Item 7, Old Business, Mr. Van Cort explained that Raymond, Parish & Pine had submitted on July 17 a further bill for professional services rendered. Total amount of this bill was $4,522. There was a brief discussion of the nature of the work for which the Board was being billed and of the billing procedure. Mr. Austin MOVED, and Mr. Schickel seconded, that "the bill be paid." CARRIED unanimously. Vice Chairman Shaw commented that if costs over the original contract amount are submitted the Board should be notified. Item 8 (New Business): b) Discussion of allowance for encroachments in City Ordinance--Director Van Cort explained that this item was before the Board at the request of the Mayor. The recently enacted City Sign Ordinance does not have pro- vision for any encroachments and it was suggested- that this was probably not a good situation. In the ensuing discussion Mr. Austin noted that if any provision for encroachments were made, it should specifically state that encroachments were to be permitted only on city property. Mr. Shaw questioned whether the allowances for encroachments could have been left out of the Code of Ordinances by accident since the whole matter is potentially controversial. Mr. Schickel MOVED and Mrs. Benson seconded, that "a mechanism for granting exceptions in order to allow certain en- croachments should be found." CARRIED unanimously. Item 8 (New Business): c) Capital Improvements Program report--Director Van Cort told the Board that at the request of ATrs. Jones the staff had prepared and distributed a memo on the 197+-79 Capital Improvements Program. He added that there was a shortage of Capital Improvements Program forms this year so that they should , be completed only for new projects. Old projects should be listed with the following information: project name, date begun, estimate of percent complete by Sept. 1, 1973, and final remarks. It was also suggested that the appointments to the Capital Im, provements Review Committee should wait until the full Board meets in August. Item 6 of Agenda (Zoning) : b) BZA 1023--Request by Daniel and "Margaret Liguori for Exception to Sec. 7, Col. 7 c-f the Zoning Ordinance at 110 Stewart Avenue, in a R-3 district: The appellant's property contains 4 dwelling units and they would like to add a 5th dwelling unit. Th.-ir application states that there is ample parking available and that the only proble.. is that the lot size is not adequate in that zone. The appellant states that lot size is 7500 sq. ft. while 10,000 sq. ft. is required. Planning Department staff estimates that the lot size is closer to 6,000 sq. ft. and that 12,500 sq. ft. are required. The appellant stated in his applica- tion that none of the rental properties in the area have more than 3 units and that addition of a 5th unit would be preferable to conversion to a rooming house which would be applicable in the district. There was a brief discussion involving both the problems of parking in the area and particularly the question of increasing densities on East Hill. Mr. Austin MOVED, Mrs. Benson seconded that "the Planning Board recorrmend denial of the appeal." CARRIED unanimously. 3 It was MOVED by Nr: ~Austin and seconded by- Mr. Schickel. that "ttoa meet'-ng b adjourned at 9:30 p.m." CARRIED. . Respectfully submitted, I.T. Matthys Van Cort Planning Director 8.6.73 4