HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1973-11-27 PLANNING BOARD 1411-TING
City of Ithaca
'Regular 11feetin„ November 275 1973 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Mrs. Benson, Chm. . Doney, I`Iessrs. Schickel, Shaw, and Stein.
ALSO: Mayor Conley; Aldermen Boothroyd; Jones and Pleyer Bldg. Comm'r Jones; BZA
representative Van Master Sharyn Adelstein, Kay Albrecht, Howard Aikens,
Frank Beales„ Carol Bonnichsen; Janet Cantrell, Mathew Charles, Margie
Cousin, John Egan, Fric Elice, Charles Epstein, Judith Good, Clarence
Grinnell, Dan Hoffman, Elva Holman (S. Hill Civic Assoc. ), Carol Hubbell,
Maurice Kelly, Lee ,-xdaw, Victor Matarasso, Patti Nelson, Todd Robinson,
Ray Stark, Nancy Thorn, Glen Vetromile, Karen Zelkind, and members of the
press and radio ,Ssrs}• p�nr,
ABSENT: Mr. Austin
Chm_. Doney called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 23, 1973
T,Ihen Chm. Doney asked for approval of the minutes of October 23, Mrs. Carol
Bonnichsen made the following comments:
l.. She noted that Marilyn Norton was not in attendance at the October 23 meeting
although certain .remarks are attributed to her;
2. Second, she noted that Leon Zah.aris read the letter which the minutes said
that Elva Holman read; and that Mr. Zaharis had .not been noted as being in attendance
at the meeting;
3. Finally, she noted that it was Mrs. Holman and not Mrs. Bonnichsen who had
li
ven the figures on declining student population in South Hill. School.
P!Ir. Doney thanked i9.rs. Bonnichsen for the corrections. Tir. Shaw MOVED and
Mr. Schickel seconded that the minutes be approved as corrected. Passed unanimously.
ZONING:
BZA Appeal 1033 m This was a request for an interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance, Appendix A Section 2 Definitions `'dwellings'` and "neighborhood parking
area" at 201 Prospect Street in a R-3 district. Jon Meigs gave the history of the
case, explaining that an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was sought by the
South Hill Civic Association. He stated that the appeal was sought because it was
the belief of the applicants that permission "to construct a parking lot in a R-3
residential zone for the use of occupants of coimercial.structures in Ia contiguous
B-1 Business zone. . . gallows] a primary business use within a residential area.`"
The appellant stated that parkin; for business creates an inharmonious mixture .of
land use detrimental to property values, and ignores the community objectives of
safer streets, safety and the maintenance of a residential neighborhood."
Chm. Doney read to the Board_a letter from Marilyn Norton and other South Hill
neighborhood leaders=
Dear Mr. Doney
"Please convey to the Planning; Brd our thanks for the careful hearing its
members gave the considerations rlaised by the South Hill School PTA and the
South Hill Civic Association at its meeting of October 30. If the City of.
Ithaca, and especially the South dill, is to remain a desirable place for
residential ,living, we believe serious attention must be,paid toland use.
We urge you..to continue exploratipn of means of preserving; the integrity of
neighborhoods and then to take the necessary steps for implementation."
Yours truly,
TTarilyn Norton
William Norton;, Presidents, South Hill
PTA
Leon Zaharis, .Pres. .South frill Civic
November 7, 1;073 Association
111r. Stein, Chm. of the Codes & Ordinances Committee, opened the discussion, ,
asking for comments from Planning Board members and the public. 14ayor Conley reported
that he had meet with Planning Director Van Cort, Assistant Planner Meigs, Comm'r Jones
and City Attorney Gersh on the question of this parkin; lot. Mir. Meigs then read the
letter from the Building Commissioner to R.H.P, ., Inc. In brief, the letter states that
the building permit for the neighborho d parking area is given on the condition that
the property at all times be used as a neighborhood parking area as defined in the
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with all users being permitted to park on the same terms,
and that the lot be constructed in conformity with plans issued to the Building .
Commissioner's office. (The letter is in official file of the Planning Board. )
Ms. Bonnichsen stated that RHP is not building a neighborhood, parking lot but
instead is building accessory office parking. Mr. Stein asked whether the definition
of neighborhood parking area excludes all vehicles other than for occupants of adjoin-
ing or nearby dwellings and their guests. ?,,Ir. Shaw* asked whether the community would
welcome off-street parking if it were not to be used for any non-residential purposes.
11s. .Bonnichsen responded that they wou d not because additional off-street parking
"would encourage further illegal conversion." Alderwoman Jones added that the lot in
question was a very poor location for a parking lot.
There followed a discussion of the meaning of dwelling as used in the definition
of neighborhood parking area. Commissioner Jones stated that he interpreted dwelling
as a habitable space, not necessarily for living activities. Chm. Doney stated that
he felt the ordinance was not ambiguous and that a dwelling was clearly for living
only. After reference to the definiti n of dwelling unit in the Ithaca Zoning Ordi-
nance, it was generally agreed that a dweiling must be used for living activities.
Mr. Jones stated that the Zoning Ordin nee regulations concerning neighborhood
parking areas could be construed to be discriminatory in that it would not .allow use
of those spaces by workers., ��� �� by residents. After further discussion of these
issues, Stein TMOVED and Cl-ynas n that the Planning Board recommend that the Board of
Zoning Appeals interpret 'dwelling' simply and exactly as it is defined in the Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance.?' CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Stein then MOVED and Ms. Benson seconded,
that the Planning Board recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals interpret the
term "neighborhood parking area'` simplyand exactly as it is defined in the Ithaca
ZoningOrdinance and that such interpretation exclude the use of neighborhood parking;
areas by anyone except residents of nearby units and their guests." CARRIED
unanimously. Mr. Stein then MOVED and Ms. Benson seconded, "that the Planning Board
recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals...interpret the term "neighborhood..parking
area�p simply and exactly as it is defined in the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. and that
such interpretation exclude the use of neighborhood parking areas by anyone except
-residents of nearby units and their guests.`'' CARRIED unanimously. Chm. Doney stated
that.he would like to have the staff examine this area of the ordinance to remove any
possible ambiguity in the.definition of `dwellingand so that the definitions of
dwelling and dwelling unit would coincide. Mrs. Holman made a- final comment that the
appeal had been made in order to prevent similar demolitions and conversions from
occurring in other parts of the city.
BZA Appeal 1029 1`x, Stein reported that his committee had recommended to the
Board that it reaffirm its initial position on the appeal. Stein therefore 1,110UED and
Mrs. Benson seconded, '`that the Planning Board recommend that the Board of Zoning
Appeals deny the appeal on the same grounds as recited -in the Board's recommendation
of August 28, 19T3."
Mr. Meigs read a letter to Planning Board from Attorney Abbott as follows:
Planning Board of City of Ithaca
East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Re: C. L. Wilson request for an exception to
Section 7, Columns 7 and 11 of the City
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
Ladies and Gentlemen
"We just learned from the distorted 'editorial` in The Ithaca Journal that your
Board at its meeting tonight will take up the above matter.
T apoligize for not being able to appear personally, so I felt this note to be
vital.
It is most unfortunate that The Ithaca Journal has to distort circumstances in
an evil effort 'to try a case in the paper before it comes on to be heard before
a proper. tribunal. Instead of reporting, it is the apparent habit .of'this
,yellowrag°' to editorialize. In the instant case, the so-called report
(editorial) was intended to give the impression that 14r. Wilson and 11r. Jones
are at each other's throats which is a total falsehood.
In an effort to bring the facts before you in spite of The Ithaca Journal, let
me state-:
1. Mr. Milson purchased this property from Margaret Baker on or about
February 1; 1969. The property formerly housed a nursing home and also con-
tained at that time an apartment on the top floor and an apartment in the
basement.
2. All Mr. Wilson did was to convert the two middle floors--which formerly
housed the nursing home beds--into two apartments, one on each floor. Each of
said apartment contains five rooms and 1 1/2 baths. After a recent fire, Mr.
Wilson is attempting to remodel and rebuild Lrhat was damaged by the fire.
3
3. It is also to be noted that h:: has removed a carport, garage and laundry
room on the north side ot' the building and has graded and blacktopped .same to
provide a minimum of six off-street parking places.
4. The exception sought is to Section 7, Columns 7 and 11, one of which has
to do with the percentage of land occupied by the building, and the other has to
do with lot size size. As to th se, let me state that the lot was laid out .
years and years before the zoning ordinance was even thought of. Mr. Wilson did
not change the exterior of the building to make it occupy more of the lot but,
instead, he cut dorm part of it s reported in paragraph "3`' above (to provide
off-street parking). There is a out 4407 square feet of land area and the
building has occupied what it al eady has since its construction years ago, so
there really is no change insofa as the appearance of the neighborhood is
concerned. So,. the characterist c of the district is not changed in any way.
5. There is no way for Mr. Wilson to obtain additional land in that area
or neighborhood and it would appar that most, if not all, of the houses in the
immediate vicinity of subject xormises occupy a larger percentage of the land
than the ordinance allows. In t is respect.. the Ithaca City Zoning Ordinance is
unrealistic.
To assist you in ;,etting the pic ure, I enclose herewith a copy of the map of the
property showing the building on the property also, as it always has been since
construction prior, I am sure, to the enactment of any zoning ordinance.
So I urge you to make your reco. ._endation on the facts of the case and not on the
Journal's misstatement of facts. I used to be of the opinion that the news media
distorted the facts only with re•,ard to governmental matters, but I now find
that the media has made of itselr a self--appointed God who is to dictate not ,only
that which happens in public lif but now in private life as well. The media
talks about justice and then tri3s cases in pt;lic before the tribunal hears the
case.
I respectfully submit that your 9,ction result in a recormendation for this
exception.
If you feel I may have exaggerat d my presentation of this cases ask your
Building Commissioner. He trill ell you. "
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward P. Abbott
Encl.
.rs. Grinnell, a ccnnunity reside t who lives next docs to the subject property,
opened the discussion by giving a brief history of the changes that the building had
undergone in the last few years. She said that numerous expansions and additions had
taken place over the years, all of th ti without benefit of building pernit. Next,
another neighbor, Frank Scales, stated that par':iing was definitely inadequate and that
the only way to park cars on the lot was if they were parked two abreast and three
deep. . This, of course, made it imposs'ble for the inside cars to get out and as 'a
result the occupants usually parked on the street instead of in the lot.
4
Chairman Doney commented that Alderman Boothroyd who represents the ward in which
the subject property is located, had to leave earlier, but expressed to him that he was
a ainst allowing the exception because the property was very poorly kept and a sore
spot to the entire neighborhood. Alderman Spano from the same ward stated his
opposition. 'Ir. Grinnell concluded the discussion by stating his support for the
Planning Board's previous recommendation. The motion passed unanimously.
BZA Appeal 1030 - This is a request for an exception to Sec. 7, Cols. 12 °. 13 of
the Zoning Ordinance at 309 r. Tioga Street in a B-1 district. Pvir. Pleigs gave the
background of the case explaining that the appellant wished to expand his offices, in-
cluding the demolition of a building on. N. Tioga Street. Stein asked whether there
were adequate parking spaces on the lot as proposed. 14r. Thaler said that €t' extra
spaces were needed they intended to use the Seneca Street ramp. He explained that
the new building was to be attached to the existing; building because of the need for
communication between the structures in order to allow a single elevator to service
both buildings. lie further stated that the upper floor of their existing building is
empty now because of the lack of elevator service. Mr. Shaw MOVED and Mr. Clynes
seconded, "that the Plannin-- Board recommend that the Board of Zoning appeals approve
the exception to the side yard requirements." filotion passed 3-2 with l abstention.
VOTE: Ayes Shaw, Clynes; Yayes - Benson, Schickel Stein abstained; Chm. Doney
broke the tie by voting 'yes. '
11rs. Benson then MOVED that `'the Planning; Board recommend to the Board of Zoning
Appeals that an interpretation be ?Wade concerning the question of whether the proposed
parking would be in the front yard or the rear yard of the property, and the Planning
Board further recommend that if the Board of Zoning; Appeals' determination is that the
proposed parking would he in the front yard of the property that the request for
exception to the regulations against parking in front ,yards be denied on the grounds
that such development of the site would be aesthetically unattractive and would
represent a deterioration of public environment on Tioga Street." Seconded by 111r.
Schickel. VOTE: Ayes - 4 Na-yes 1 (Clynes)
Appeal 1031 - 'his was a request for an exception to Sec. 7, Cols. 7 a 8 of.
the Zoning Ordinance at 513 W. Buffalo Street in a B-3 district. Mr. Meigs explained
that the appellant had an apparent deficiency of just under 500 sq. ft. out of a
10,000 sq. ft. requirement and that there were no other apparent problems with the
request : The appeal was needed in order to construct additional dwellin1g, units on the
subject property. After a brief discussion, Stein 1',10VED, Schickel seconded, `"the
Pla:?ninn; Board recommend to the Board. of Zoning Appeals that the request for exception
be approved." VOTEAyes d- 4; Clynes abstained.
SPECII .L ORDER OF BUSInIESS. None.
C019,IUNICATIOI S
a. Memo from Common Council on rehiring Raymond, Parish & Pine for Traffic Study:
"Common Council on October 17, 1973 took the following action: Ithaca Mall:
RESOLVED., That this Common Council authorize the Planning Board to hire an
economic consultant for the State Street ",all at a sum not to exceed $2,000."
CARRIED
"RESOLVED, That this Common Council authorize the Planning; Board to continue
with the services of Raymond, Parish & Pine for a traffic consultant at a sum
not to exceed 2,000.
5•
b. I,Iemo from Common Council on t e _.Y_�-ncini property:
"Common Council, at its re?ul r meeting held on October 3., 1973„ took the_._.
following action:
TIANCINI PROPERTY RESOLUTION:
RESOLVED, That Common Council request further investigation of the legality
of any City action affecting state park facilities (specifically related to
the Mancini Property) be carr ed out by City Attorney in conjunction with
Planning Director, Supt. of Public Works, Inlet Park Comm. Chairman and the
llayor.°`
CARRIED
c. "Memo from Common Council on Sto Plan Review, Subdivision Regulations; and
Special Use Zones:
"Re: Council meeting held No ember 7.,, 1973, The following items have been
referred to the Planning Depa tment:
Site Plan Review of Anv, New Construction of Any Sizeable Degree; Minor Sub-
division Regulations Supple ent to Existing Regulation; Special Use Zone
Regulations.
CO:111SITTEE REPORTS: None.
OLD BUSINESS:
a. Mr. . Van Cort noted a reference to the Planning Board .oncerning the designa-
tion of the Station as a proposed city landmark in the November 7 Council Proceedings,
lir. Meigs explained that a Planning Board recommendation on the Station was in order.
Stein asked whether designation of the Station would have any effect on the proposed
Route 96 improvements. Van Cort said that it was his understanding it would not
affect the proposed highway. Stein MOVED, Clynes seconded, ` that Common Council
approve designation of the Station Restaurant as a city landmark." CARRIED unanimously.
b> CRP Final Bill from Consultant m Mr. Van Cort informed the Board that the
Technical report was ready to go to the printer. He also told the Board that he had
discussed the problem of the cover of he brochure with Nat Parish of Raymond, Parish.,
& Pine and that Mw. Parish had agreed to reprint the cover at no cost to the city if
the city would agree to rebind the bro Kure. Van Cort said that the department had
gotten a preliminary estimate for rebi ding the cover at roughly `25 and that cost of
photographing a new cover might be a; much as ',50. He said that the staff was in
the process of trying to find an appro riate cover. Van Cort also reported that
Raymppd, Parish & Pine had submitted their last bill to be rendered before the dead
line `imposed by the Board at their las meeting in the amount of 5,190. Stein MOVED,
Benso `n seconded, that Planning Board approve the consultant's bill." CARRIED
unanimously.
b. Presentation of revised Ithaci Zoning Ordinance.- Mr. Stein explained that
the Charter & Ordinance Committee of Common Council would he ready in a month to
present the Zoning Ordinance to Council for their approval and that Planning Board
recommendation on the proposed ordinange would be necessary. He said that a grE'.;': .
deal of work had been done on the draf , both by the Common Council members and by the
Planning Board staff. Doney said that in the interest of time, all or most of the next
Planning Board meeting should be spent in discussing the draft. Clynes suggested that,
staff look up Planning Boards comment on the previous draft record in the Planning
Board minutes of last January or February.
6'
Final Item. of Ola Business Chm.. Doney again noted the need for recordin-,
secretary and suggested that Van Cort male arrangements for same by the next meeting.
'M STING ADJOURNED at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Y V �(;{
H. 'MatthysV I/n Cort
12.12.73 Planning Director