HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1973-10-23 PLANNING BOARD 14EETING
City of Ithaca
Regular Meeting October 23, 1-72 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chm. Doney, Mrs. Benson, Messrs. Clynes, Schickel and' Shaw.
ALSO: Mayor Conley, Aldermen Jones,, Slattery and Spano; Carol Bonnichsen, Janet
Cantrell, Elva Holman; Beth Johnson, Marcia Lynch, Christine Magill, Marilyn
Norton, Karen Tully, Joan Williams; and members of the press and radio.
ABSENT: lessrs. Austin and Stein.
ZONING:
BZA Appeal 1028: This was a. request for a variance in a R-3 zone at 411 E. Seneca
Street. The appellant, .Roger B. Sovocool, Attorney for the estate of Edith 0. Daniel,
is requesting a variance in order to establish an architect's office at the subject
property. The appellant s*>ates in his 'request that-the property cannot reasonably be
used for residential purposes for financial reasons, and he states that it will not
cause any particular harm to the neighborhood because of the property's proximity to
the downtown business district. The Board was distinctly divided in its discussion of
the application. Those in favor felt that the proposal was a logical extension of
downtown uses and that the property really was not suitable for residential purposes
because of a number of reasons including the truck noise from State Street. Those
opposed felt that this was just another encroachment into the residential area on East
Hill and that for the viability of that residential area the variance .should be denied.
Shaw MOVED and Schickel seconded to recommend approval. Shaw and Schickel voted
for and Benson and Clynes voted against the motion, with Chm. =Doney breaking the tie by
voting against approval. Due to the closeness of the vote and to the fact that none of.
the Board members had had a chance to examine the property,_ it'was then MOVED by Clynes
and seconded by Benson that the appeal be referred to the Board's Codes & Ordinances
Committee for further study. This was CARRIED unanimously.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Several residents asked to be heard on the demolition of a residential building
on South Hill at the S.E. corner of Aurora and Prospect Streets. Mrs. Elva W. Holman
read a letter to the members of the Board from herself and Leon Zaharis, Secretary and
President, respectively, of the South Hill Civic Association. The letter to Mayor
Conley expressed concern over the demolition of the building and the proposal to con-
struct a parking. lot at that location. The Association felt that this demolition
further undermined. the stable family residential population of the area in addition to
presenting further problems with circulation at an already extremely dangerous inter-
section.
Mrs. Marilyn Norton, Co-President of the South Hill Parent-Teachers' Association,
read a letter from the PTA to Mayor. Conley expressing further concern about the loss
of student population from South Hill School and the serious threat of safety to
children going to and from school because of the high traffic volumes. In addition,
the letter questioned. whether the demolitioa conformed with the "Zoning Ordinance and
with the city's stated goal of retaining thD residential nature of the South Hill
neighborhood." A copy of this letter was hand-delivered to the Planning Board.
Alderwomar_ Jones next spoke to the same question, asking whether the Planning
Board had any control over this hind of demolition. She stated that the demolished
building had some architectural merit an.d,was_ over 100 years old. ..She expressed con--
cern
on-cern that such a structure could be demolished without any public hearing. She then
noted that although no plans for a future u e had been filed, it was her understanding
that it was to be used as a parking lot, and she expressed the opinion that she didn't
think it was legal to have a parking lot fo other than residential purposes.
Board members then discussed the probl m of the demolition and the deterioration
of the residential area, Mr. Schickel then MOVED and Mrs. Benson seconded, "that a
letter be sent to Common Council, the city ttorney, and the building commissioner,
stating that the Board had been notified by letter of the demolition of the structure
on South Hill and that although no plans hail been submitted and no construction permit
granted, the apparent future use of the lot should conform strictly to the relevant
provisions of the Ordinance which are as follows:
In Sec. 2 Definitions, Neighborhood pa king area is defined as follows:
, an area on l or more buildinglots devoted to car parkin for occupants of
parking P
adjoining or nearby dwellings and their guests."
Sec. 9 Supplementary Regulations (H) ,P rk 1, list standards for "neighborhood
parking areas which are primarily commercial in use and which face on a public
street."
It was the Board's feeling that these regulations should be strictly adhered to,
The Board also 14OVED and passed unanimously, "to request that Common Council
enact a change in the Code of Ordinances reju. iring review by the Planning Board of any
request for demolition."
Further discussion by members of the B and and the public ensued. Mrs. Carol
Bonnichsen stated that there had been serious decline in public school attendance on
the South Hill as conversions to student occupancy such as had been occuring in East
Hill spread to South Hill. She further stated that a study by the principal of South
Hill School revealed that most of the Tamil ies had moved out of the city--in fact
there had been a 50-student drop in South Hill School which represents 1/8 of the
student population. It was her impression hat this was due to a great extent to
migration rather than a previous decline in birth rates.
It was noted that the exodus by families of child-rearing age is harmful to the
city, and it was stated that the Zoning Ordnance should be changed so as to prevent
further conversion. A Board member noted t at most older structures in the city were
not built as multiple residences and theref re were not suited for conversion and that
conversion often led to deterioration of vi ble residential neighborhoods. It was
also noted that the often used argument of inancial hardship was somewhat self-
imposed since the neighborhoods had in the past functioned well as family residential
areas. Finally, the staff was requested to continue its work on recommendations for
preservation of the family residential areas and separate accommodations for students.
COMMIUNICATIONS: None.
I
C014MITTEE REPORTS:
General Plan and Capital Improvements:
1. Proposed sale of city-owned land adjacent to Carpenter property on Floral,
Avenue between 441-451. Copies of the Car=ti ee rqo rts,vere.circulated to board
members._ Committee Chairman Shaw reported that the committee had examined the subject
property and at its meeting on October l;0 recommended approval of the sale. Mr. Shaw
then MOVED and Mr. Clynes seconded, "that 'recommended
Board recommends sale of a
parcel of city-owned land containing approximately 18,000 sq. ft. with approximately
180 feet of frontage on Floral Avenue under terms similar to those employed in the
agreement to sell adjacent land to Carpenter,, said.sale to be made at auction or by
sealed bid at an upset price to be set by Common Council. Motion CARRIED unanimously.
2. Proposed sale of city-owned land adjacent to Zikakis Chevrolet on Old Spencer
Road. The parcel is the no longer, traveled portion of.the road dead-ending at the
railroad right-of-way. Mr. Shaw reported that the committee discussed the subject
property and noted that it was not sure that the right-of-way of the street known as
Old Spencer Road is actually city property. It was noted that the city engineer has .
asked the City Attorney to make a determination on the matter. Mr. Shaw further
reported that because of these uncertainties the committee on a motion by Clynes,
seconded by Schickel, and CARRIED, recommended to the Planning Board that the property
not be sold but instead be leased. Consequently, Mr. Clynes MOVED, and Mr. Schickel
seconded, "the Planning Board recommend to Common Council the leasing of subject
property for a period until ownership is determined and that during this period the
question of ultimate disposition and use, assuming city ownership, be the subject of
further examination and coort.ination by and between the planning staff, the Finger
Lakes Parks and Recreation Commission, owner of adjacent property, and other concerned
pasties. CARRIED unanimously.
At this point Planning Director Van Cort brought to the Board's attention that the
Planning Board still was not receiving official communications on-,items -referred to it
by Common Council, Board of Public Works, etc. and that instead the Planning Director
often became aware of these matters by word -of mouth or through reading the relevant
minutes which were often not published until quite some time after referrals were made.
Van Cort noted that either the system of referral memos should be adhered to by all
parties or that it should be dropped entirely, relying only on the various minutes.
He also noted that it seemed to him that the memo system was the best method of
communication if it was adhered to.
3. Request for rezoning of the section of land- on Coddington Road--properties on
the south side from the restaurant west to the city line, including Mi.--nano property.
Planning Director Van Cort explained by way of introduction that David Gersh had asked
for a recommendation in view of the "Comprehensive Plan for the City, neighboring
uses, etc.71 on the advisability of rezoning the Mignano property on Coddington Road
for which the owner had previous requests for zoning variances in order to construct a
convenience food market. Van Cort said that he had referred the request for informa-
tion to the General Plan and Capital Improvements Committee for a ruling. Mr. Shaw
then gave the committee report which stated that there seemed to be good arguments for
having that kind of a use in the area and that the committee recommended again that a
variance be granted. Board members then discussed this committee's recommendation and
after some discussion Mr. Shaw.MOVED, and Mr. Schickel seconded, F9the following
recommendation be made to .ATtorney Gersh regarding the request for rezoning:
3
The Planning Board feels that rezoning the subject property would be inappropriate
for several reasons: First, it is the Board's opinion that it would be spot
zoning. Secondly, rezoning would allow development which would be quite out of
character for that neighborhood. Under B-2 regulations a retail store could be
built 4 stories high and covering half the lot, whereas the original request for
variance on which the Planning Board recommended approval, contained limits on
size, coverage and character. Third, development of the Mignano property as
previously proposed would probably be of some benefit to the neighborhood in
terms of use, and the type of building proposed would fit the character of
existing development better than would be the case if the property could be
developed to the extent allowed under Oommercial zoning. Neither the General
Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance absolute y prohibit commercial housing in resi-
dential neighborhoods; the concept of neighborhood-oriented businesses is accept--
„ able within the framework of residential use, and is subject to closer control
under variance than rezoning. Fourth, the Board hereby directs the staff to
explore the possibility of allowing uses such as neighborhood commercial in resi-
dential zones by special permit. This would obviate the need to prove hardship.
Fifth, the Board also asks that the Charter & Ordinance Committee of Common
Council investigate the possibility ofestablishing such uses by special pcxrait."
CARRIED unanimously.
Capital Improvements Program: Cop es of General Plan and Capital Improvements
Committee recommended projects for 197479 ere given to all Planning Board members.
Mr. Shaw explained that these projects were initiated by the Planning Board over the
last several years and given to the Capital Improvements Review Committee by the
Planning Board representatives. Mr. Schickal asked whether it wouldn't be advisable
to assign some priority to these projects b t it was decided that in the interest of
time this task should be left to the staff and to the Committee's Planning Board rep-
resentatives. Shaw also explained that the staff was in the process of making recom-
mendations on priority based on long-range -planning considerations to all the projects
under consideration by the Capital Lnprovem nts Review Committee. Mrs. Benson MOVED,
and 1'4r. Schickel seconded, "the projects should be approved and recommended as listed."
CARRIED unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
a. CRP Progress Report - Planning Director Van Cort gave copies of the CRP
Summary Report to all Planning Board members. He explained that these had been sent
up by the consultant and that the remainder of the 2,000 copies would be sent within
the next Treek. Several Board members said that they were strongly displeased with
the cover of the report. They noted among otherthings that it gave a rather
jumbled picture of the downtown and that the ink on the cover smeared. Van Cort
explained that the cover had finally been chosen after a long series of correspondence
between the consultant and the department.
Van Cort also told the Board that the consultant had first sent a booklet with
the same cover printed in silver ink and that after the Department had received it he
had gotten a call from Mr. Parish, stating hat he had not seen the book before it
was sent out and that he had found the cover so objectionable that he had had it
reprinted in black ink.
b. Ithaca Mall Progress Re ort - Chm. Doney informed the 'Board that since their
last meeting the Mall Committee had met wit a large group of businessmen and had
I
reviewed further development of the mall plans. Doney concluded that he felt the
project was moving along very well, and he felt it was an appropriate time for the
Board to express its feelings on the mall. Van Cort then gave a brief run--through
describing the mall pans. After a brief discussion, Shaw MOVED, and Schickel seconded,
"the Planning Board accepts the mall plans as presented and recommend that Common
Council approve the mall plans to date and negotiate with architect, Tony Egner, for
the next phase of design." CARRIED unanimously.
C. 701 Application for Funds Progress Report - Van Cort reported to the Board
that in accordance with their last month's instructions, the staff had continued work
on the '701' application. The staff had made contact with the Office of Planning
Services and with Tompkins County Planning Director to discuss the Board's '701'
application. Van Cort told the Board members that although it would be close, he ex-
pected that the application would be complete by the November 1 deadline. The applica-
tion would request money to study ways of using Federal monies that would be available
under the proposed Special Revenue Sharing Act. Sian Cort said that when the applica-
tion was ready he would send copies to all Planning Board members so that they could
act on it at their next meeting. Van Cort informed the Board that at the recommenda-
tion of the Mall Committee, Common Council has allocated $2000 each for economic and
traffic consultants services. The economist has been hired to make recommendations on
financing the Ithaca Mall. The traffic consultant, Raymond, Parish & Pine, has been
asked to do further study into the effect of reducing; traffic "volumes on Cayuga and
Aurora Streets at the end points of the mall.
d. Combined Southside Revenue-Sharing Applications-Progress Report - Van Cort
informed board members that since the last meeting he had had several meetings with
representatives of. the Southside and that the staff was still cooperating closely with
the Southside Center on preparation of amendments to the Revenue Sharing applications.
e. Budget breakdown and preliminary Work Program for 1974 - Status Report -
No report.
- — —- -�
I-SCELLANEOUS;
Board member Clynes brought to the attention of the Board that he had heard that
construction of Rte. 96 on the West end of town was conditional on passage of the
Transportation Bond issue: He asked Planning Director Van Cort whether he had also
heard this rumor. Van Cort said that he had not, and Clynes then requested the
Planning Director to call New York State Department of Transportation to get some
clarification on this question.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 P.P.T.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Matthys Van Cort
11.14.73 Planning Director
5