Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1974-04-23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES City of Ithaca Regular Meeting April.23, 1974 7.30 P.M. PRESENT. Chm. Doney, Mrs. Benson, Messrs. Brock, Conway, Schickel and Stein. ALSO: Asst. Planner Meigs, Alderpersons Boothroyd, Jones, Meyer, Nichol, Schmidt and Slattery; Bldg. .Comm'r Jones; Tom Laetz; and members of the press and -radio. ABSENT: R. Moran: Mr. Conway MOVED and Mr. Schickel seconded, approval of the minutes of the meeting of March 26, 1974. CARRIED. ZONING: a. BZA Appeal 1044 - Request for exception to Sec._J, Col. 5 of Zoning Ordinance, at 704-706 Stewart Avenue, in R-3 district. Appellant rson Ledger, of-209 First St. , requested an exception in order to allow him to provide less parking spaces for an apartment building than are required. Mr. Meigs described the site as being located at 704'-706 Stewart Avenue, between University Avenue and Willard Way. He explained` that ,Mr. Ledger proposes to build a structure of 2,600 sq. ft. coverage on a property which has over 7,600 sq. ft. The structure would contain four 4-bedroom and four 3-bedroom apartment units. The plot plan allows for nine parking spaces, instead of the required twelve - one space to be provided for each unit containing one to three . bedrooms, and two spaces for each unit containing four or five bedrooms. Mr. Meigs ; added that he had gone to look at the site'and found that one other condition had been overlooked, in that the lot size is undersize; the 'reason for this is that the appeal was prepared under the pre-existing zoning .ordinance, requiring 1,500 sq. ft of lot" > per unit, and should be handled under that ordinance according to the city attorney. Under the new ordinance, the lot size requ red is only 1,000 sq. ft. per unit, making him only slightly short of required lot area, but this fact should not affect the decision. The structure is a four-story building with basement. Mr. Conway MOVED that the request be denied until it can meet the requirements for parking. Mr. Schickel seconded. Mr. Conway abstained. The motion CARRIED. ' b. BZA Appeal _lo46Reguest for exception to Sec. 7, Cols 7-8 of the old. M1 Zoning Ordinances at 302_Worth_ St- , in R-1 district.. Appellant Dorothy Garner wishe's to build a. one-family dwelling on an undersize lot and does not have adequate frontage, The lot is undersize by 3,500 sq. ft. and has inadequate frontage by 10 ft.--should haste 75 sq. ft. and has only 65 sq. ft. It is a corner lot on the northeast corner of Worth and Cobb Streets. Mr. Schickel 14OVED that the Board recommend the exception, Mr. Conway seconded. The motion CARRIED. c. BZA Appeal 1047-- Request for Use Variance on property' at 303 W. Lincoln _St. , in R-3 district. Appellant Stuart Lewis wishes to rent the building to Dean Madison, for non-retail business. He explained how the building had originally been intended for.his firm's own use but had been rent d out to BOCES as a machine shop. The firm made other provisions for their own need , and the building has since been granted; variances for a succession of other commercial tenants; whose businesses at that location have not proven viable. Due to the location and the type of structure, ]-Ir. Lewis.feels that the property is usable only to a commercial tenant-, they are much opposed to heavy-traffic retail, due to the adjacent residential uses. He explained that Dean Madison has requested the use f the building for office and drafting work. It would be less commercial, having less traffic. Mr. Schickel MOVED that the Board r commend granting the variance, Mrs. Benson seconded. Mr. Doney recommended that th name of the occupant and the specific use be indicated in the motion. Mr. Schicke agreed to the amendment. The revised motion CARRIED. Mr. Stein then suggested that the matter of the area's zoning be reviewed by the Codes & Ordinances Committee and the Staff, as requested by Mr. Legis, and that the. .Committee report back at the May Board meeting. NEW BUSINESS (Item b): By common consent of the members, discussion of this part of the agenda was advanced to accommodate spectators interested in the proposed amend-. ments. . .Agenda Item Ba, Request for Preliminary Approval of Resubdivision on West Hall, was not discussed due to applicant's request to hold off. b) Proposed Amendments to Sections 0.418 30.25, 30.52, and map of new zoning ' Ordinance. Alderwoman Meyer introduced .the following proposed revisions to the new ordinance, which were discussed by the Charter& Ordinance Committee of Council and- presented`as committee recommendations at the April meeting of Council. She stated that these 'are intended to 'tie up some to se ends' which have been noted in the new ofdinance. ."` 1. Section 30.41B: Alderwoman Meyer suggested that Sec. 30.41B be amended .to read; "All production or processing of materials or substances shall be enclosed,by a_ fence or other safe barriers for the public safety and visual screening.?e She then explained that the basis for such proposed change was that there are bus - . nesses in which it is economically infeasible to completely enclose all the materials and machinery, so this is a more reasonable requirement in that regard. Mr. Stein MOVED that approval be recommended, Mr. Brock seconded. The motion CARRIED. 2. Section 30.25: Refers to requiremen s of the new zoning chart; front yard red- ' quirement in Col. 11 for B-4 zone and B-2 zone. Alderwoman Meyer explained that under the new ordinance the B-4 zone regiires no front yard,, and that the same is true of the B-2 zone. In both cases there was a 10-ft. requirement in the previous ordinance. The recommendation is to change them back to a 10-ft. front yard require- ment for each zone. There was much controversy over this issue among the Board members, it being noted that though front yards can be attractive, they can also be unsightly, and there are several areas within present B-2 and B-4 zones which contain buildings built to the street line, whic might pose some hardship on adjacent new development required to have front yards; extensive deliberation ensued. There was a general feeling that such a change wou d not be beneficial and would unnecessarily restrict the flexibility of property owners' planning. Mr. Stein MOVED that it be 2 recommended to Common Council that this amendment not be approved. Mr. Schickel seconded. Mr. Brock abstained. The motion CARRIED. Mr. STein then noted that there did appear to be areas within the zones that merit further study in this regard, and suggested that the staff and Board should look into them. 3. Section 30.52: This is a proposal to amend such section which presently reads: "wrecking yard. or junk yard in existence in any residential or business . . . etc." by also adding: "but this shall not apply- to completely enclosed transfer stations for re- cyclable materials in B-4 zones." In addition, it was proposed to add-a definition to the Definitions, SEc. 30.3* 84.A. Transfer Station for. Recyclable Materials: Completely enclosed facility for sorting and/or packaging of glass and paper. Further processing of these materials is not allowed in said station. Alderwoman Meyer explained that this would allow an ecologically desirable activity to take place in a business zone, with safeguards against the environmental negative aspects of junkyards. Mr. Brock MOVED that the Board recommend the amendment to Council for adoption, Mr. Stein seconded. Mrs. Benson opposed. Mr. Conway abstained. The motion CARRIED. . 4. Map of new Zoning Ordinance: Alderwoman Meyer explained that this consisted of a Proposed change to the zoning map on East Hill on the western corner of the inter- section of Lake and University Avenues from a P-zone to an R-3 zone. Each member ; was provided with a map for examination. She briefly explained how the group revising the map had been unaware that this property was in the, category of property on which Cornell paid taxes. qAt-that-t-ine -the- C-ommitt.ee_thought.-..it.-,was--reasonable-to-eon=s�:der ,;-a-11—Cornell-owned-propertywas--in--the -cattegor=y_-of=property- on wwhic-h Cor_e.11,p"a -d--�axeG At that time the Committee thought it was reasonable to consider all Cornell-owned' property adjacent to the campus or to other public land part of the P zone. While adoption of the zoning ordinance was in process, Cornell decided to sell the property.; according to University Real Estate Manager John Bentkowski, who was present, the property has been sold. It was then realized that the property should be one which belonged in .an R-3 zone. Mrs. Moyer emphasized the importance of .resolving this issue as soon as possible since the map will shortly be going out for publication. Mrs; Benson MOVED.it be returned to an R-3 zone, Mr. Schickel seconded. At this time, 114rs. Nichols, a :representative of the university neighborhood, spoke on this matter. She explained that two years, ago she had been appointed to a committee of neighborhood residents who had shown much concern over this particular site. They had demonstrated much interest in the possibility of it being made into a "city park. There had been strong .objection to it being used to accommodate any use which would bring about more vehicular traffic. She requested that the opportunity be given to the people in the neighborhood to use'this site to develop `a neighborhood park. . It was suggested that it be recommended that the property in question, on the corner of University and Lake Avenues, remain an open space in an R-1 zone for this purpose. After brief further discussion, the motion-was voted on and CARRIED. 3 SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None. COMMUNICATIONS: None. COMMITTEE REPORTS: General Plan and Capital Improvements: Committee Chairman Stein spoke on the- matter of the Cayuga Inlet Study which was presented to the Board at its March meeting and referred to the Committee for review and recommendation. The Committee met to. , review the study, and recommended in essence that the city's General Plan be amended to include the proposed land uses as sho on Jap of the study, a copy of which is. ,. filed with the official minutes of this meeting. Mr. Stein read the recommendation of the Committee that the plan be acceptEd as a general guide to development in the . Inlet-West End area. Mr. Stein pointed cut .that. while the Committee generally approved the presentation concerning the highway corridor," it still felt it necessary for the Board to have a specific part in the design planning for the highway. Mr. Stein 140VED that the report be accepted, Mr. Brock seconded. The motion CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: a) Ithaca mall Progress Report: Mr. Doney stated that the mall is now out to ,bid --all bids expected to be returned by May 15. He further stated that the bill changing the Local Finance Law to facilitate funding malls is on the Governor's desk, and that he proposed to write to the Gov rnor urging him tosigm it promptly.. Every- one agreed that this should be done. Mr. Stein then mentioned that he had spoken to Mr. Dingman who had indicated that seven bidders had picked up. documents. Mrs. Jones noted that as the Assembly might finish ession Friday, requiring signature by then . to make the bill official, the communica ion might better be a telegram; Mr. Doney. and Mr. Meigs. indicated. they were aware f this, and that a telegram would precede '.'` the letter. b) Southside Community Center: Tom Laetz, a landscape architect who has been ' working on this project, presented the preliminary drawings. Mr. Doney explained` that the Board was to recommend to Common Council that it accept this plan as the proposed plan for revenue sharing funds in the South Side. Mr. Laetz explained how his initial steps had included a survey of the area and conversations with many residents, the outcome of which had indicated a need for space to cater to the follow- ing groups: pre-school children, two-to-five age group, five-to-twelve age group, and a general gathering area, with certain equipment which could also be used by adult residents. He then pointed out on the pl n the different areas provided for each- of these groups. He went on to say that he had met the previous night with the Southside Board and had found that in general, the people with whom he had spoken approved of this pre- liminary design of the park and felt very strongly about having a say in its planni-. g and development. He .then described briefly the function of each area catering to the, different groups. He added that he had a model of this plan and also models of the equipment which would be used in the park. Mr. Conway MOVED that the Board acce t the preliminary plans and recommend to Council that they proceed with the acquisition of the land. Mr. Schickel seconded. Mr. Stein emphasized the importance of the people in the neighborhood fully approving the plan and that the recommendation show d. be made with the approval of the Southside residents as a whole. Messrs. Conway and Schickel accepted the amended motion. The motion CARRIED. The Board thanked Mr. .La tz for the presentation. C) 49701 Study' Progress Report: Mr. Meigs explained that consideration of this matter was now in the hands of Common Council to determine whether, if the city wishes to make use of this planning tool to improve the housing stock, it should make ayplication for a functional study aimed at developing and implementing the best housing program for the city, or simply one of organization to better implement the housing-related programs and resources currently in use in the city. There had been some thought of doing a study in conjunction with OPS, which idea has since been abandoned. d) Conway Park: Mr. Meigs said that $15,000 had been allocated in this year's budget for the development of Conway Park. The plans on hand have been revised to take these figures into account, and in accordance with the program developed in 1973 with neighborhood assistance. The park will be mainly for the use of children of above tot ages since the tot-lot, situation seemed to be well in handl the housing authority is planning to develop tot lots in the apartment area to the North so that this plan would cater to the next older age group, providing a basketball court, and a field game area. He pointed out on the plan which sections would serve what purposes, i.e. , field game area, basketball court, table games, etc. He stated that the estimated cost was well within the ','15,000 allocated, allowing a generous cushion for any cost escalations or contingency costs which may occur before com- pletion. He stated that recommendation to BPW to proceed should be made after favorable discussion with the neighborhood residents had taken place. Mrs. Benson T40VED that this recommendation to BPW be made once favorable agreement from neighborhood residents had been received. Mr. Schickel seconded. The motion CARRIED. MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Meigs announced that the Landmarks Commission would hold a hearing Thursday, April 2.5 at 4:00 P.M. to consider the feasibility of designating the properties on Fountain Place as an Historic Landmark District in the city. ADJOUREMENT: 10:20 P.M. Respectfully, submitted, H. Matthys Val Cort Planning Dire..tor 5.16.7+ 5