Loading...
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