Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1975-04-22 PLATEULvG BOARD MIMI n"ES City of Ithaca Regular Meeting April 22, 1975 7:30, P.M. PRESENT: Chm. Doney, Mesdames Benson and Meyer;_14essrs. Hildreth, Meyer, Moran and Stein. ALSO: Planning, Director Van Cort, Alderwomen Anne Jones and Ethel Nichols, ..Attorney William Sullivan;. William. Zikakis, Prof- Joseph Gentili, Land® scape architecture class and members of the press and radio. Chm. Doney called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. 1111r. Me ran MOVED, and I�Ir. Stein seconded, „approval of the. Minutes of the Regular meeting of March 25, 1975." Thee motion CARRIED unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: (taken out-of-order) a. Bikeway presentation: A presentation of an Ithaca Bike;,=ay Master Plan wma 5 made by Joseph Gentili and his first year students in the.Graduate Program of Landscape Architecture at Cornell University. Planning; hoard members asked questions about signage•. the class responded .that complete recormtondations'are in the technical -r.eport, which• wil.1 soon be published. Iri"response to A question, the class' explained that bicycle _registration is intended for theft prevent`:on and regulation of in- spection. :. :. Mrs. Benson MOVED, and 1vir. Doran seconded, that "a vote of thanks be given to the,class and that the bikeway study be sent- to 'the Community Facilities and Services Committee of the Planning Board." . `i'he motion CARRIED unanimously. ZONING CASES: a. Appea_1. 1075: Appeal by William P. Sullivan at 417 N. Aurora-St.. , for an interpretation of a definition in the Zoning Ordinance and a variance in R-3 zone. Director Van Cart explained that the appellant was seeking an interpretation of a definition in the Zoning Ordinance and was requesting a use varimice. The definition in question is that of Home occupation (2 30.3, subsee. 42b) which is its follows: 42. "Home occupation" shall mean any occupation or a profession which . . . b. is carried oil bya member of the farai.ly residing in -the direlling unit, yr The appellant argues that the definition means that he as a member of his father's family; would be allowed to have his lawyer's office in the subject premises because the "residing" would refer to the family (however extensive) rather than to the mamber involved. Mr. Sullivan explained -',hat the zoning require-ment that he use the building for residential purposes Srould work a hardship on him because of the small bungalow, .e:Lso owned by the appellant located at the rear of the subject property. I-ie also ..stated that the hardship created .:is'unique because his -'Location is only one-half 'block from a 'B-1 district boundary.: The Planning Department recommend d that the Board interpret this subsection as requiring that at least one member of he "family" involved in the occupation must himself reside at the location and be ngaged in it, either as principal or employee. This is clearly the intent of this clase, that a family member engaged in the occupation must reside at the location in order for it to qualify as a home occupa- tion. This is supported by Anderson's Zoning Law and Practice in New York State. Secondly, Mr. Sullivan asked that if the interpretation be made not in his favor, a use variance be granted to al ow him to use the ground floor of his property as an attorney's office. Mr. Van Cort stated that the Planning Department found no apparent undue hardship becEM-se it would be difficult to argue that none of the uses permitted in an R-3 zone would yield re sonable return. Further, he stated that the uniqueness of the hardship is illusive ecause the only other non-conforming uses in the area result from grandfather uses. The closeness of the B-1 zone is an argument against the variance rather than for it because conceivably it would be possible for Pair. Sullivan to find another office spa e nearby. Mr. Stein PROVED, and Mrs. Benson s conded, "that the Board interpret this clause of the Zoning Ordinance that M,- . Sullivan's suggestion be denied; in other words, that the member of the family wo king in the building must also live there." or "that the Zoninb Ordinance should be int rpreted that the person who runs the busi- ness must live in the dwelling." Mr. Stein said that the home occupa ion designation is intended for residents who want to work in their homes, perhaps at ,jobs which support other income, but who maintain the residential character of th building. An office where the employees do not live is Contradictory to the inte t. Mrs. Benson said she had been contacted by residents of the neighborhood who wer desirous that workers in such buildings be occupants of them. Mr. Sullivan said that ambiguity in an ordinance must be decided in favor of the person seeking the variance, that the rest of his building would remain residential, and that he is a son working in a building that is his father's residence. He pointed out there are othe businesses in the neighborhood. Mr. Doney said the intent of the law is to have people who live in a home operate a business there. The motion CAR .IED unanimously. Mrs. Benson MOVED, and Mrs. Meyer se onded, "that the Board recommend denial of the variance." Mr. Van Cort noted that a y discussion of changing the zone in the area under consideration should not be to en .into account in this vote. Mr. Stein stated he is in favor of t e variance, not judging the legal aspects, but looking at the planning issues. He sa'd the character of the neighborhood would not be harmed or influenced if the v riance were granted. Mr. Sullivan said that within a three block radius of his building are over 100 Properties used for non-residential purpos s, and questioned how such an area could be termed residential. 2 Mrs. Meyer spoke of the need to maintain residences downtown; Mr. Sullivan replied that his variance would take no existing residential space off the market. Mrs. Benson said there was a need to encourage the trend toward rehabilitating old homes in the downtown area. Mr. Van Cort said the Planning Department had received . letters pro and con to Mr. Sullivan's request. The motion CARRIED four to three. Voting aye were Fibs. Benson, Mrs. Meyer, Mr. Hildreth, and Chm. Doney. Voting no were Messrs.. Moran, Stein and Saggese. b. Appeal 4-1-75: Appeal by Arnold Meyer Sign Corp. at 401 Elmira Rd. to Sec. 6-B-3 of the Sign Ordinance in R-4 zone. Director Van Cort explained that this appeal i n behalf of Zikakis Chevrolet is to allow the erection .of a sign 11`x11' (about 154 S.F. including framework) which exceeds the 50 S.F. allowed for a freestanding sign. Mr. Zikakis wants, however, to remove two existing signs if�he is allowed to put up the new sign. Mr. Van Cort noted that the new total signage may slightly exceed the 250 S.F. total maximum, but that this may not be significant in that F§r. Zikakis is allowed an additional building sign because he is located on a corner. Mr. Van Cort said the Planning Department recommends that the Board approve the appeal, on the, condition that the existing 4nhevytown" and pylon signs be removed as soon as the new sign is erected. Mrs. Meyer asked Mr. Zikakis about his interest in planting additional trees -in the area; he replied that he has added plantings and would be happy to add more. He explained that he is under pressure from the manufacturer to erect a corporate sign; he noted that his is the only local car franchise which does not display a corporate sign. Mr. Stein MOVED, and <7r. Moran seconded, "that the Board. recommend approval." The motion CARRIED unanimously. c. .Appeal 1076: Appeal by Anthony J. Albanese at 102 Adams St. for a variance in R-3 zone. Director Van Cort explained Mr. Albanese's intention to use 2400 S.F. of the old Calendar Clock Factory for various commercial uses such as are permitted in a B-2 zone, and that restricted use of the building for residential purposes would work a hardship on him. The Planning Department commented that the hardship is self-inflicted in that Mr. Albanese knew the zoning of the property when he bought it. , but that he had shown good intentions by studying the feasibility of rehabilita- ting the building for residential Iurposes. Mr. Van Cort noted that the primary- reason to grant the variance would be to preserve a historic building. Although it might be better planning to use the site for residential or park purposes, the former is financially unfeasible and the latter would necessitate the removal of the building. Accordingly, he recommended that the variance be granted with strict controls on signs, provision of maximum on-site parking, invocation of performance standards of such conditions as noise and smoke, and the requirement that the exterior be renovated without changing the essential character of the building. Mrs. Benson noted that granting the variance would interfere with improvement to Auburn Park as planned by the City. Accordingly, she MOVED, and Mr. Hildreth +o the Codes & OOrdir�ances Committee for con- seconded, "that the appeal be referred sideration." The motion CARRIED unani ously. d. Appeal 107$: Appeal by the Building Department for an interpretation of Sec. 30.26, Col. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance (square footage requirements in R-3 zone). 3 i Director Van Cort said that there was a need to formalize the motion already passed recommending interpretation of the minimum lot size in the case of residences that are converted to multi-unit dwellings. I The Board had already stated its interpreta- tion that the minimum lot size for any dwelling in such a district is 3200 S.F. , but that when additional units were added to the building, the total lot size requirement is computed at 1500 S.F. per unit. A copy of a memorandum explaining the Board's interpretation is attached to the official copy of the Planning Board Minutes. Mr. Stein MOVED, and Mrs. Benson seconded, "that the letter to the Building Commissioner formalizing this interpretation be approved." The motion CARRIED unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS: a. Chm. Doney read to the Board a memorandum asking; the Board's opinion on the need for improvements to Cascadilla St. The matter was referred to the General Plan and Capital Improvements Committee. b. Common Council referred to the Board proposed changes in the Cass Perk master plan. The matter was referred to the General Plan and Capital Improvements Committee. COPHITTEE REPORTS: a. The Executive and Liaison Commi tee presented the Annual Report and Proposed Work Program. b. Codes and Ordinances Committee reported on the proposed change to the B_4 zone. Nlrs. Benson MOVED, and .Mr. Moran seconded, "that whereas changes are under consideration by the Planning Departmentand the present plan for the B-5 zone may be incomplete, this Board recommends to �Iouncil, as a -temporary measure, that there be a change in the setback requirements in all areas zoned B-4.`' There was dis- cussion as to the realtive merits of accepting; this proposal as opposed to establishing temporarily a new B-5 distr�ct. Mrs. Nichols noted that a meeting on the proposed new zone was scheduled for May 7. , Pyr. Van Cort explained that he felt the committee's recommendation was s. plir and would maintain stability in the zoning; ordinance. There was a discussio of potential printing costs in revising the zoning ordinance. The motion CARRIE , four to two. Voting ayt� were Mrs. Benson, Messrs. Hildreth, Saggese and Aloran. Voting no were "Zrs. Meyer and 1Ar. Stein. OLD BUSINESS:. b. Request for final approval of rel-suLdivision of parcels in Marshall- Hershfeld Subdivision on Oakwood Lane. 1,1�s. Meyer IMOVED, and Mr. Stein seconded, "that the Board give final approval-to the subdivision." In response to a question by SZr. Moran, Mr. Van Cart explained that the subdivision would not affect future subdivision in the area. c. Civic Arts Committee: The comriltee made the following recommendations _ to the Common Council: 1) That all works of art offered forldonation to the city be accepted' within the following guidelines. a) That the cost of site preparation necessary for placement of the object be the responsibility of the donor, or as stipulated by contract between the donor and the city. b) That the cost of maintenance be the responsibility of the donor, or as stipulated by contract between the donor and the city, and that if any work is allowed to deteriorate from its original condition in a manner not specified by the artist the City may remove and dispose of it as it pleases without penalty, and further that a work should be removed only when in the opinion of the Planning Board its state of deterioration renders it no longer of benefit or potentially harmful to the city. c) That the offered work of art not be potentially dangerous, in the opinion of the Planning Board. 2) That the Planning hoard in consultation with potential donors make recom- mendation to the Board of Public Works on locations for works of art. 3) That the city attorney be requested to prepare documents insuring the City's right to remove and dispose of works as provided above. `,'Note: The Committee is recommending acceptance of all offered works because it feels that choices about art would be the subjective judgments of a selection committee, influenced by the taste of the times. The judggment of even the best committee might cause the city to refuse works which might be considered out of style but of lasting.merit. In response to "Ir. Stein's question, the Board said that there was no need to define a "`work of art" at this time. Nom-' BUSINESS- Stein USINESS:Stein presented the following resolution regarding the De[ditt Park: ''BE IT RESOLVED, That the Ithaca City Planning; Board strongly supports responsible actions aimed at the rehabilitation and reuse of such important structures as Boardman house, the First Baptist Church and the cld Tompkins County Courthouse, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning; Board urges the Common Council to take similar action, endeavoring to work with the County Board of Representatives and all interested parties to insure that these features of our common heritage are conserved and sensitively incorporated into future development. Mr. Stein MOVED, and Mrs. Meyer seconded, "that the resolution be read at the County Board of Representatives' meeting." The motion CARRIED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Stein NIOVED, and Tlrs. Benson seconded, ''that the meeting adjourn." The motion CARRIED unanimously. 10:45 P-IM. Respectfully submitted, I H. AMatthys Vn Cort 5.2.75 5 Planning Director i i i i RESOLUTION ,WHEREAS, the DeWitt Park area is a historic focus of civic, govern- mental and cultural life in Ithaca and Tompkins County, and WHEREAS, there exists in the city and county considerable public interest in enhancement of the park and its surroundings while retaining as much of its historic character as possible, and WHEREAS, through policies and actions the City has demonstrated its legitimate interest and concern in conservation of irreplaceable assets of particular historic, cultural, esthetic or other importance, and WHEREAS, the entire community is benefited when such assets are maintained at the highest levels of physical condition and appearance, and WHEREAS, four years of attempting to resolve the fate of the Boardman House, a county-owned historic structure on the park, have resulted in no progress on this matter while the building. has been left to deteriorate, and WHEREAS, the fates of the First Baptist Church and the Old Tompkins County Courthouse, two other major historic structures on the park's eastern edge in which the County has an interest, have recently come into serious question, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Ithaca City Planning Board strongly supports responsible actions aimed at the rehabilitation and reuse of such_ important structures as Boardman House, the First Baptist Church and the Old Tompkins County Courthouse, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Board urges the Common Council to take similar action, endeavoring to work with the County Board of Representatives and all interested parties to insure that these features of our common heritage are conserved and sensi- tively incorporated into future development. i � � I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i � i i i i � i