HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1974-12-17 PLX�T.iTING BOARD MIPTUTrS
City of Ithaca
Regular 'Meeting December 17 4.197) 7.30 P:sI.
PRESPINT. Chm. Roney, TIrs. Benson., l essrs. Hildreth, Moran, Saggese and Stein.
ALSO: 4ayor Rdvard J: Conley., Aldervoman Anne Jones, Alderman James Dennis;
Planning Director Van Cort; C. Elmer Schaefer, Industrial Relations_
Manager of National Cash Register TTilliam. Barrett, Attorney for TCR
Fdvard Bear;!, Richard Thaler, Mr. Ream°s Attorney- MY. William P.
Sullivan "�Irs. Carol 13onnichson, co-president of the PTA? .Ari van
Tienhoven., President of the South Bills. Civic Association; and 111r.
Edison Jones, Ithaca Building Commissioner. Also, members of the
press and radion
Chairman Donev called the meeting to order at 7:30 P-JI.
Mr. Moran MOV_+: and Mr. Hildreth seconded, 'approv al of the reinutes of the
Regular Meeting of October 22, 1971+". The motion CARRIED unanirriously.
ZONING CASE'S
a. Appeal x`1062,,a request for a variance by the NCR Corporation. 'Hembers
Benson and Hildreth of the Codes and Ordinances Committee had considered the appeal,
for a .Use Variance to the Zoning Ordinance.,, to allow use of an existing:, recently-
constructed parking lot in a P-1 zone (school property) by a business. it wa.s
noted that this matter is different in several respects from any other which might
seem similar, in that it involves use of publicly-zoned property_:, and construction
for which no permit had been issued or sought, among others. The Committee members
recommended thatthe board recommend denial of the appeal because (1) non-public
use of publiely-owned and zoned Taroperty is-inappropriate and (2) the nature of
such use is. inappropriate in planning, terms, due to its location on elementary
school grounds; adjacent to a heavily-traveled thorofare which is steep and narrow,
and opposite another large business ?harking lot. Nlrso Benson MOVED, and Mr. Stein
seconded, "that the variance be denied`.
Mayor Conley spoke in favor of the variance,` noting that since Ithaca has
made a concerted effort to encourage NCR to expand .and since the parking lot request
is only temporary, the community should help the industry through its current disrup-
tion downtown by granting the variance. He suggested that a definite time for
terminating the variance be recommended. William ,Barrett, Attorney for NCR, also
spore in favor of the variance, noting that the temporary parking lot would not be
a real _encroacbment into a residential neighborhood. He explained thatthere has
been a recent surge of neer employees at z`TrR and that the company plans to move
them to the new plant as soon as it is completed. The parkin; lot in question
;•?ould accommodate these new, emplollrees until they can be moved to the new plant
where there is -adequate parking. Mr. Schaefer of NCR spoke in favor of the
variance. He showed a map of the' location in question and gave a brief history
of the use of the land, pointing out that although the land was owned by the school
the lot had never been a school playground. He noted that the facility would,
}
e
accommodate from 40 to 60 oars and that the of has been used for parking by 7CR
since• May, 1974. Mayor Conley noted that NC offered to replace the lot with neer
grass when the use of the lot was finished. 11•4r. Schaefer mentioned that the lot,
which is not a permanent improvement, is onl gravel which will be replaced, that
there are no buildings close to the lot and that the lot is blocked from view from
the residential area. In response to a clues ion by Mrs. Benson, Mr. Barrett explained
that according to terms of the proposed leas with the school board, 'LCR would use
the parking lot only until -August, 1975, and that the lot would be improved by
September, 1975. In response to a question y Mr. Hildreth about the safety of the
additional parking in an already heavily traficked area, Mr.. Schaefer responded that
there will be traffic no matter where the e_4 loyees park. Responding to `Irs. Benson,
Mr. Schaefer explained that employees leave he lot by 4,30 P.M. and that there is .
virtually no night parking on the lot. In r sponse to Tarr. 'Moran's question, Mr.
Schaefer said there were no problems with th traffic in the parking lot since use
was begun in May., 1971 . that signs marltin- the parking lot are visible going up the
hill and that NCR would comply with any recommendations to improve the safety of the
lot. Replying to Tis. Saggese, Mr. Barrett explained that no appeal had been made for
a variance earlier because NCR had a, gentlemen's agreement with the school board, but
once NCR planned to make improvements on the lot, it had applied for the variance.
n4rs. :Benson questioned the legality of the s hool lending land to NCR.
IVIr. Ari van Tienhoven.; president of the 'South Hills Civic Association; spoke against
the variance. He stated that the lot is an ugly addition to an area that already has
two NCR lots nearby, that the lot causes run-off in heavy rains, and that safety of
children As endangered because of the lot's proximity to the school. He stated that
the Administrative .Officer of the school gave a, permission to NCR that he didn't have
a right to give.. He expressed concern that when the use of the land• twas returned to
the school in August that the school might want to continue using the lot for parking.
In response to Mr. van Tienhoven's question bout article 30.26 of the Zoning Act
Coage 30, 15), 10Ir. Van Cort explained that us s such as the parkin; lot are excluded
unless they have a special permit but that i _terpretation of the zoning ordinance was
up to the Board of Zoning* Appeals. In respo se to questions, Mr. van Tienhoven said
the lot would be dangerous even if only the southern exit were used. He stated that .
NCR could require employees to park at the new plant and shuttle thein to the old plant,
Krs. Bonnichson of the PTA also spoke against the variance expressing her concern
about the safety problem involved in placing a parking lot on such a steep grade,
especially when two parking lots would be facing each other. She noted that the street
is so narrow that a car with a wide turning radius can't turn directly into the down-
hill lane. She expressed worry about the possibility of downhill runaway cars on icy
roads.
Alderwoman Ann Jones interjected that c s in the NCR lots should be fenced so that
they can't roll into the playground area.
In response to a question from Mr. Stei , Alderwoman Jones .said the. general feeling
among South dill neighbors was mixed about he parking lot. Mtr. Stein commented that
two public issues were in conflict in this ituation°; the protection of a neighborhood
and the development of an economic base for the community. He expressed his personal
. opinion that the neighborhood needed protection more than the industry did.
In" a brief discussion., on the safety of the .lot, Mr.-Barrett noted that the parking
lot would not dramatically affect the neighborhood, and that DTCR would enthusiastically
maximize the safety aspects of the lot.: Mr. Van Cort's .suggestion that NCR repay the
neighborhood for putting up frith a temporary nuisance by promising to help construct
a playing field after their need .for a parking lot had ended met with no approval.
The question was called Voting "aye` were Mr. Stein, T re P•-Ioran, 1-1r. Hildreth,
and A'rs, ``Benson. Mr. Saggese abstained. ,Mr. Doney voted ."no". The motion CARRIED.
b. Sign Ordinance Appeal Pl-•12•--74: f1embers Benson and Hildreth had considered
this appeal for post-facto approval of a sign in front of Beam Travel Center which .
projecta more than the permitted 18"' from the building face and which in combination.
with another sign on _the.premises,, exceeds the allowable area Appellant's premises
have 30' frontage in a B2 zone, rhich gives them the right to affix a sign (or two
sip
ns) to that frontage, the total area of which could not exceed 4.5 S.F. (30' x 1.59.
They erected one sign., .flat on. the, facade' .of approximately 44 S.F. and repainted the
existing two -sided 4' x 6' sign, projecting; fron the building face, which added
24 S.F. to the total.
The committee members recommended that the Board recommend denial of the appeal
for the following reasons: (1) The requirements of the city's sign ordinance with
respect to projection and total area allowed, and the procedure for issuance of a permit
prior to erecting a sign, were not met. (2) Although the sign ,is not unattractive:;, it
should have been designed in accordance with existing; regulations. ;
Mr. Iildreth MOVED and Mr. Stein seconded the motion that the variance be denied.
Mr. Richard Thaler, Attorney for :Seam Travel Center, spoke in favor of the variance,'
Ile explained that whenP1'r. ?team bought the Cook-Gauntlet Travel Agency he changed the
exterior signs designing them to be attractive, and although -the sign against the
bi#lding eras Enlarged, he understood.-that this was not a new sign and .thus did not
require an appeal of the sign ordinance. He explained that qtr. Ream ,had tri"ed to help
guild the economic base of the community and tried to add attractiveness to the street
and that he needs to have the logo of his business in public view. Ile was requesting
appeal off' `the sign ordinance on the grounds that removing the sign would create a
hardship ;for -him:
1r. Stein noted that if Mr- Beam. sought an extension of a non-conforming use, the
matter had to be broufrht before.`the Board of Zoning; Appeals. Mr. Thaler explained that
rr. Beam wanted the planning board to- expressits view that the sign is not offensive
to the objectives of planning. There was discussion of precedents in the matter. In
one cases the' Exxon station was"granted a variance,when,. in changing its logo; enlarged .
its sign. In another case, (in Collegetown) a similar appeal was rejected.
rIr. Hildreth and Mr. Doney said that although the sign is attractive, the sign
ordinance rules, should be followed On Mr. Stein's recommendation, 1r. Hildreth
amended his original motion to state that "the variance be denied on the basis of
affirming the sign ordinance, but noting that the sign isnot unattractive.?" The
question was, called. Voting "aye" were Mr. Doney, P,Ir s. Menson, Mr. Hildreth, Mr.
Saggese and Pyr. Stein. Voting "no"' was .Mr. Mforan. The 'motion CARRIED..
c. A?.peal #lo65 (not on the agenda), a equest for a variance allowing office use
in an ti®3 zone. pix, Van Cort explained that Mr. TJilliam P. Sullivan, Jr. wants to
convert .the first floor of an old family ho e into law offices for himself.in January,
1975. Tn that zone, such businesses are al owed only if the house is also a residence
for the person maintaining the business. Mr. Sullivan intends not to live in the
ai')artmeni if the variance is allowed. Conv rsion of the first floor to apartments is
not practical because of the layout of thehouse; conversion to an office, hoi•revera
is possible with little renovation.
"gra Sullivan spoke in his own behalf., e plaining that the second floor of the house
had been. converted to apartments and. •"hat T . Sullivan, Sr. , (for whom Petr. Sullivan,
Jr. has power of attorney) would maintain a residence in the back of the first floor
office although he would seldom occupy it, ince. he is retired he would spend a large
part of his time outside the state. Mr. Sullivan noted thatprofessionaluse of the
house would not violate the character of the neighbonccod since the house is next door
to the Wagner funeral home and near several other professional offices. He assured
the board that he would provide adequate off-street parking for his clients, but that-
there
hatthere would be no steady stream of traffic daused by his law practice.
Mr. Van Cort noted that Tir. Sullivan's ouse is next to Cascadilla Creek which acts
as a natural boundary although not a zoning line and that the predominant land use in
the area, is residential. He told the board it had to decide whether the spread of
business activity further north of the cree "iiras desirable. Mr. Sullivan explained
- that the area is not free from incursion of businesses because under the zoning
ordinances doctors can have offices in the rea that are not also residences. Alder
wozhan Jones noted in response to a question that the variance if granted continues
with use. regardless of who owns the prope . y.
Mr. Iloran r40V£D and r4r. Saggese seconde that "the variance be granted". In
response to a question from Mr. Stein., Buil ing Commissioner Jones said that the
final hearing on the variance would be adve ti sed ten days and again three days before ,
the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and tha all neighbors witrin 200' of the house
would be notified. The motion CARRIED unan'mously;
d. Appeal #1064, a request for an area variance by William Tucker. members
Benson and Hildreth had considered this app al for construction of an additional
apartment" on the third floor of a detached welling presently containing".two apart-
ments, in an R-3 zone. The property consis s of 4,554 S.F. , which the Building;
Commissioner interprets as allowing at most two dwelling units, based on the minimum
lot size being necessary for one unit, plus an additional 1 :500 S.F. of lot area for
any additional unit; rather than that thre- units would be allowed, based on one unit
per 1,500 S.F. of actual lot size, giving total 4,500 S.F. requirement. .All other
requirements of the ordinance are satisfie , including lot coverage and space avail-
able for off-street parking for three cars (each of the existing; units and that,
proposed containing three or fewer bedrooms. )
The Committee members recommended that the Board recommend approval of the appeal
on the following grounds. (1) The increas in density that such conversion will
effect is acceptable, both in regard to th's property and its surroundings, and the
noteaitial of similar conversions seems acc ptable in terms of"" General Plan suggestions
for residential neighborhoods. (2) The pr nosed apartment would not require conversion
of the existing dwellings in the,building, but added to them.. (3) The.required
parking space is available; thus .there should be no impact on the heavily-traveled
Clinton Street.
There iras discussion about the interpretation of the area requirement fora
three-unit building_ . Building; Commissioner Jones said sucha use required 20-0 S.F.
(3200 S F. 'for the first dwelling unit and another 1500 S.F. for each additional
unit added to the house.).-Mx. Van Cort interpreted the building code to. mean that a
three-unit residence requires only 4500 S.F. (1500 S;F. for each unit. )
"ors. Benson IJOVED and 11r. Hildreth seconded ``that the variance be granted." The
motion CARRIED unanimously.
SPECIAL'.ORDER OF BUSINESS: None
C011,4UNICATIONS: None
CO"_1,4ITT*r_-E REPORTS- As above.
OLD BUSINESS:
a. Co_mm_unity Develovment Act. Mr. Van Cort reported that tiro meetings on the .
Community Development Act had: been held and that one more *vas scheduled. The r•sayor
has appointed: an Ad. ::oc Community Development Cor=ittee, a recommending body to
Common Council ?which ?rill in turn make final decisions, The Planning; Department
will depend on this board for recommendations which will be ready by January; 1975°
The Community Development Committee is now working on a three-year plan and a one- .
year -program. Areas of .consideration include a housing plan (required for the
proposal_ to be considered), economic development and downto?•rn renewal., recreation,
health, historic preservation, day care and crime ;prevention. When the Planning
Department has completed the drafts, they will go to the Community Development
Committee for review and action.
b. For information onhl, ^Ir. Van tort said that a draft of the Administration
Code has been distributed and that it ?rill come before the Common' Council. �,4r. money
objected to one aspect of the code, that U*hich stipulates that the planning director
will serve at the pleasure of the mayor. On Mr. Stein's recommendation, no action
was taken on this matter.
5MW BUSINESS
a. 14r. •Van Cort recommended ajoint communications meeting with the Planning
Board and the Common Council to hear a presentation by Frank Lir;ouri, County Planning;
Commissioner, on, t??.e study of the development options for the county.
b, The Planning Board has been asked by Barbara.Holcomb to join with the Town
of Ithaca, Lansing, Cayuga 7eights, Tompkins County and. Cornell University to look
at the intersections of concern to residents. Attention has been called to these
problem areas as an outgrowth of discussions of the proposed circumferential (cross=-
town) road.
i
c. lfr.. Van Cort reported that the first of regular and informal meetings with the
Town and County professional planners has be, n scheduled,
d. Nltr. Van Cort reported on a letter re•eived from Gail T%cColl, in which she
expressed .concern that the Ithaca City Schoo District may dispose of school property
as school enrollments decline. She expresse special concern that a structure on the
East Hill School lot may be razed and that t e lot may be sold. She noted that school
yards provide the only open space accessible to the public. She suggested that the ,
?Manning Board review the place of the neigh orhood school yard in the balance of land
use in older areas and that it provide for tie preservation of public recreational use
where it is desirable.
With the informal approval of the Board, Mr. Van Cort a,reed to write a letter to
the School Board asking them to give the Pla nine; Board information on any consideration
to sell any school land specifically the Easb gill School property.
ADJOUR-Mv-4TE-TIT; Mrs. Benson DROVED and Mr. Steia seconded, "that the meeting be adjourned99.
The motion CAi?RIED unanimously. 10000 P.ri.
Respectfully submitted,
H. �!atthys Van Cort
Planning; Director
IPWC cg
1/3/75