Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1974-02-26 PLANNING BOAR£ MINLYTES City of Ithaca Regular Fleeting February 26, 1974 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Chm. Doney, Mrs. Benson, Messrs Brock, Conway, Moran and Stein. l ALSO: Dir. Van Cort, Mayor Conley, Aldermen Boothroyd and Jones, Bldg. IComm'r. Jones,, R. Burns, S. Hill Civic 'Assoc. , Rep. Mrs. E. Holman, Mr. & Mrs. S. Saltzman, R. Williamson, and members of the press and radio. ABSENT: Mr. Schickel. 'Chm. Doney called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of last Regular meeting, January 22, 1974: It was AOVED by N1r. Conway and seconded by Mr. Moran, "that the minutes be approved as published." CARRIED unanimously. ZO£dING Mayor Conley asked for the privilege of addressing the Board regarding the app--,%l of Roy H. Park, Inc. (BZA Appeal 1038). The Mayor said there had been some misunder- standing about .the role of various city officials and RHP on this case, .and he said that after demolition. of the building had been allowed to proceed the city, found itself in the awkward position of trying to allow RHP to use its lot while' at the same time enforcing the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The Mayor said that a meeting was held on October 24 involving himself, the Bldg; Comm'r. , Planning Director, Asst: Planning Director, City Attorney, and Mr. Burns representing 'RHP to try to find some•reasonable solution to the problem. It was to that end that a letter des- cxibing prerequisites for a building permit was written and signed by Mr. Burns and the Bldg. Comm`r. ' The Mayor stated that as he now interprets the zoning ordinance it would seem that having residential parking lot at that location would be a violation of the zoning ordinance and he would have to insist on enforcement of the ordinance. Again the Mayor stated that the problem began after the demolition of the building and that denying RHP a variance at this point might limit the profitability of their investment in the property. The Mayor stated it was a difficult situation with no clear-cut answer and he hoped that some recommendation could be arrived Gt so that a solution could be found by the Board of Zoning Appeals to the problem. BZA Appeal 1038: Request for a variance to old Sec. 7, Col. 2, new Sec. 30.2525, Col, 2, of the Zoning Ordinance at 201 Prospect St. , in a R-3 district. Mr. . Robert Williamson, attorney for Roy H. Park, Inc. spoke briefly on behalf of his client, stating that RHP had acted in good faith under the assumption that he would be allowed to construct a parking lot at the above location after demolition of the structure on the lot at the time of purchase. He stated further that RHP proceeded with demolition under that assumption and further that they applied for a. building permit 'believing that they were within the rights to construct a parking lot.. He also stated that RHP expected to allow neighborhood residents to use the lot at no 'charge during off-business hours. Board members felt that the case was essentially in- volved with quasi-legal matters which were beyond the responsibilities of the Planning . Board, but they stated that they wanted to reiterate their beliefs about the integrity .of residential neighborhoods in the city. 2 After some discussion Mr. Stein MOVED, and Mrs.. -Benson seconded, "that this Board reaffirm the following: 1) that the integrity of residential neighborhoods are vitally important to the health., welfare and future of this city; 2) that the wording of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to neighborhood parking lots in R-3 or other residential districts is very cle r and explicitly indicates that neighborhood parking lots shall only be permitted to be used for parking for residential purposes and not for coim.ercial or other business purposes; 3) that the problem of this kind is particularly acute in transition areas where businesses and residential uses abut each other.; 4) that special attention should be given in such cases. to protecting the integrity of residential areas, and 5) that this Board reaffirms that the officials and the technical staff of this city interpret the ordinances and make their decisions in regard to this policy as stated. Furthermore, it judges this variance to be essentially a matter of quasi-legal nature beyond the purview of this Planning Board except as otherwise noted in its general policy about residential neighborhoods and parking, and therefore takes no position." VOTE: Ayes - 4 (Stein, Benson, Koran, Brock) Nay - 1 (Conway) CARRIED. Mr. Conway voted nay, not because of opposition to principles stated n the resolution, but because he wanted the Board to make a recommendation on the request for variance. BZA Appeal 1039: Request for a variance to Sec. 7., Cols._ 7_ & 8 of the Zoning Ordinance at 112 Delaware Avenue, in a R-1_district. This is the Appeal of Sidney and Dolores Saltzman for an exception to Sec. 7, Cols. 7 and 8, at 112 Delaware Ave. in a R-1 district. The appellant wishiso to build a three-room apartment in the base- ment of his dwelling for a maximum of occupants. It is his intention to build the unit for the occupancy of either oflI, their parents, or their children who will soon be in college or working in Ithaca. If they cannot so rent the unit, they would rent to responsible tenants whom (they thenselves would select. Board members noted that many residences, as in most of the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the above mentioned property, presentl have more than 1 family living in them. It was argued that granting the variation would cause only a negligible change in the character of the neighborhood. Other board members felt that further transition to multiple occupancy should be resisted. Mrs. Benson MOVED, and Mr. Conway seconded, "the Planning Board recommend approval oP the exception requested.`° VOTE: Ayes - 5 (Moran, Conway, E�-_.,.son, Stein, Brock) Chairman Doney wished to go on record as being opposed to this request. CARRIED. BZA Appeal 1040: Request for ece2LLLn to Sec. 7 Cols. 14 & 16; and Sec._ 9_, Subsec.-f, at 200 Hancock St. in a B-2 district. This is the Appeal of. First &. Adams Inc. for an exception under Sec. 7, Co s. 14 and 16; Sec. 9, Subsec. f, at 200 Hancock St. , in a B-2 district. Director Van ort explained that this was the resubmission of Appeal 1037 which was heard by the Board at their January meeting. He told board members that the appellant is requesti g that the restriction placed on the project by the Board of Zoning Appeals which prohibits deliveries to the proposed grocery store. from Adams Street be. removed. He further stated that it was his understanding that enforcement of that restriction would cause cancellation of the project. Mr. Br::ck MOVED, and Mr. Stein seconded, "the restriction passed-by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the- Adams Street 'deliveries be removed." VOTE: Ayes - 4 (Moran, Conway, Stein, Brock) Nay - Mrs. Benson CARRIED. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None. COW.1UNICATIONS e a) Letter from Atty J. Clvnes re. decision on Mancini request. Director Van Cort read the following letter, and explained for the benefit of the new board members that sometime in the Spring of 1973 Judge Clynes had asked, on behalf of Erland Mancini that the Board, of Public Works. give Mancini access to his property from Temporary Rt. 89/Park Road. The BPW referred the request to the Planning Board for recommendation and after a great deal of deliberation the Planning Board recommended against granting access, ruling that it would not be in the long-range- planning interests of the city to do so. Subsequently the Board of Public Works granted access and asked the city attorney to investigate the legality of doing same. Thereafter Common Council. voteA that no access should be given without a thorough investigation of its legality and directed the attorney, Mr. Dingman and Mr. Van Cort, among others, to follow up on the recommendation. Since giving their recommendation the Planning Board has not been involved in the Mancini case and in fact as far as the Zoning is_ concerned, although-the Planning Board approves a draft ordinance it is Council which enacts the ordinance , "Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This is to formally protest your proposed rezoning of the Mancini property on Park Road to that of residential. As you know, I approached you almost a year ago in good faith seeking access to the Manciniproperty. The City Boards have managed to stall resolution of this.matter for several months," even after the Board of Public Works directed the City Attorney to find a means of granting "said ingress. I think it is time that Mancini had a decision. Very truly yours, James J. Clynes, Jr.„ After some discussion by the Board, Chairman Doney directed Planning Director Van Cort to write to Judge Clynes advising him that the Planning Board had formally taken action on the Mancini request at the meeting of August 28, 1973 and that since that time it had not been asked to make any further recommendation on Mancini's request for access. b) Letter from N.Y.S. Parks & Recreation re. The Station Restaurant. Chairman Doney read a letter from the Division for Historic Preservation of New York State Parks &Recreation as follows: 3 4 "Dear Sir: The Station Restaurant., Ithac a-_Toi,ipkins County has been carefully reviewed for its significance and was recommended as a site worthy of inclusion on the National Register of historic Places by the State Board for Historic Preservation. We shall now prepare the nominatiozi form for submission to the Keeper of the Register in Washington, D.C. You irill be notified by letter when the site is officially entered on the Register If any questions arise, please feel free to contact me at the above address or , call (518) 474-0479. Sincerely, Steven S. Levy Research Assistant Division for Historic Preservation" The above was an informational item, re uiring no action by the Board. C0114ITTEE REPORTS: None. OLD BUSINESS: a) Ithaca IMall Progress Report: D'rector Van Cort gave a brief progress report on the mail. He told the Board the manT different aspects of the work on the mall are beginning to come to completion. Designs are nearly complete. Egner has been in contact with the Board of Public Works, Fire Department and the Police Department, as well as NYSEG and the N.Y. Telephone Company, getting approval for the design from all ,parties. He is now in the process Df writing specifications for the job, The law defining pedestrian malls and setting the bonding period at 20 years has been introduced by the sponsors. in Albany after going through many drafts and the approval of all the necessary state agencies and bond counsel. All involved seem to be satisfied with the legislation, and prognosis for_its passage is good. A tax district has been decided on by the committee and Mr. Daley has the calculations for taxes on each property in the distr ct. All owners and primary tenants in the district have been notified by phone and asked to come to informational meetings on the mall. rIr. Stein asked if .it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to take some action on the mall and after a brief discussion he MOVED and Mrs. Benson seconded, "that the Planning Board expresses its full support for the mall and requests early action by the Common Council to proceed as expeditiously as possible with construction of the nail." CARRIED unanimously. b) Southside Progress Report: Director Van Cort explained that in the summer of 1973 the staff worked on a community i provement program for the Southside using whatever federal money- could be made available. The conclusion of that study was that categorical grant programs could no lolger be relied upon to supply money for these needs and that the uses to which gener1 revenue sharing money could be put were very limited, both at the federal level and by -the State Constitution. The staff investi_ 'gated open space needs in the Southsid and made recommendations on what could be done in the area besides housing and ore of the recommendations that came both from the Planning Board and from the reside is of the Southside was that an open space be provided near the Southside Center. Council since that time has allocated $76,000 out of General Revenue Sharing money for property near the Southside and construction of a playground. The staff are now in the process of working with the Southside Center toward that end. c) Procedure for hiring new ,junior planner and summer eml(:L s: Director Van Cort explained that in December the Planning Board passed a budget that had pro- vision for a new planner. lie asked permission of the Board to advertise for the position. as soon as possible. He said that he is prepared to advertise widely for the position including in the Journal and with the Ness York State Employment Service, Tompkins County Civil Service, Tompkins County Library, as well as Cornell University. The Board felt it should be advertised in ASPO. Mr. Conway MOVED, Mrs. Benson seconded, "the Board directs the Director to proceed with the search for a new junior planner, with dispatch." CARRIED unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: a) Flood_ Control Insurance Progress Report: Director Van Cort explained that there is now a Federal Flood Insurance Program under which HUD will identify areas. Those areas will be obliged to apply for the Flood Insurance Program within a certain time after their designation. Van Cort explained the area affected in the city, referred to a map prepared by staff. He also explained what future role the Board and staff would have in the development and implementation of a flood control program in the city. After some discussion, Conway T<OVED, and Mr. Stein seconded, "that the Planning Board recognizes the need for a Flood Insurance Program in the city and approves the preliminary map as prepared by staff and that Director Van Cort be empowered to complete the application for referral to the Common Council." CARRIED unanimously. b) Site Location Study for DPW Garage: Director Van Cort explained that t".t the request of the Department of Public Works he is recommending that Asst. Planner I4eigs be assigned for roughly a 3--month.- period on a 3-day a week basis to the Department of Public Works to do a study on the proposed DPW garage involving both types of functions and site location. After some discussion of the favorable aspects of this type of interdepartmental study, which seemed to be in the best interests of both departments and the city as a whole, Mr. Stein MOVED, and Mr. Brock seconded, "that the Planning Board approve the loan of Mr. Meigs to the Department of Public Works under circumstances to be determined by the director to provide assistance in thy: . study of the maintenance garage." CARRIED unanimously. MEETING ADJOURNED at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, H. '�' atthys Van Cort Planning; Director 3.21.74 5