HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1975-06-24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
City of Ithaca
Regular Meeting June 24, 1975 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chm. Doney; Mrs. Meyer; Messrs. Hildreth, Saggese and Stein.
ALSO: Planning Director Van Cort, Councilwomen Anne Jones and Ethel Nichols,
Councilman J. Dennis; Planning staff Richard Gray and Richard McDougall;
Messrs. Anthony Faltesek, Paul Glover, Peter Levenson, George Mercier,
and John Vasse. Other members of public, and members of the press and
radio.
ABSENT: Mrs. Benson, Mr. Moran.
Mrs. Meyer MOVED to open the public hearing on a proposed Community Development/
Urban Renewal Plan, Mr. Saggese seconded, and the motion CARRIED unanimously. The
hearing opened at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Richard McDougall presented a summary of the proposed plan and the govern-
mental procedures necessary for its approval. He first explained that the City's
application for Community Development block grants has been approved and that the
Community Development Commission of the City of Ithaca intends to use a re-established
local Urban Renewal Agency for community development. To use the Urban Renewal Agency,
it is necessary that the City operate within an urban renewal project area and that it
be guided by a plan. Mr. McDougall noted that the planning process had been initiated
by the Common Council at its June meeting, when it found that the proposed urban
renewal area (see file) was blighted on a scattered, area-wide basis. Copies of the
proposed plan were made available to all present by Mr. McDougall and he explained
that its objectives and scope were basically the same as those of the Community
Renewal Plan of 1972, and that the main projects to be undertaken would be community
facilities and housing rehabilitation. Mr. McDougall said that as yet there was no
provision in the plan for the acquisition of land, since in this stage the plan was
established solely to allow the Urban Renewal Agency to. operate.
Mr. McDougall .explained that the role of the Planning Board would be to certify
that the Urban Renewal Plan complies with the City's General Plan and is consistent
with local objectives, and that the project area is blighted on an area-wide basis.
The Planning Board must also give either 1) unqualified approval of the plan;
2) qualified approval of the plan with recommendations for modification; 3) dis-
approval of the plan, or 4) no action on the plan at all. In, the case -of 1, a simple
majority of Council is required to approve the plan In the case of 2, a majority
of Council is necessary to approve the plan with recommendations, or' 3/4 majority to
approve the plan without recommendations. In the case of 3 or 4, Council may approve
by a 3/4 majority vote. The recommendation of the Planning Board would be submitted
in a report to the Common Council, and the Common Council would hold a public meeting
on the plan no earlier than 4 weeks from the time it received the report.
At this time Mr. Stein called for public comment. Mr. Paul Glover of 306
N. Aurora Street asked what the guidelines would be for the replacement of buildings
that might be demolished. Mr. Van Cort said that any replacements must be in
conformance with the .existing Zoning Ordinance and Housing and Building Codes.
Mr. Glover asked if this hearing was the first time the plan had been brought up.
Mr. Van Cort said the plan had been discussed before at. meetings of the Community
Development Commission but not at an advertised public hearing. He added that there
would be another public hearing at the Common Council meeting, which would take place
in no less than 4 weeks from the time the report is sent from the Planning Board.
Mr. Stein called again for public comment. There being none, Mrs. Meyer MOVED
to close the public meeting, Mr. Hildreth seconded the motion, and it CARRIED
unanimously.
Mrs. Meyer then expressed a wish to read the Community Development proposal
carefully and receive a verbal explanation. She felt it would be good if the whole
Planning Board were involved in studying the proposal further. Mrs. Meyer MOVED and
Mr. Hildreth seconded, that the proposal be sent to the General Plan & Capital
Improvements Committee for review and that the committee make a report at the next
meeting of the Planning Board. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
The Public Hearing was 'declared closed, and the Regular meeting was called to
order at 7:50 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the May 27, 1975 meeting was MOVED by Mr. Saggese and seconded
by Mr. Hildreth. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
ZONING:
It was decided that BZA Appeal 1090 be taken first to accommodate members of
the public who had come to speak to that case.
d. Appeal 1090. Appeal by George Mercier for Area Variance in B-3 District, to
enable the appellant to build a 106-story building on the southwest corner of Cayuga
and State Streets and a 40-story building on the northwest corner of Cayuga and State.
The appellant would need:* 1) a height exception; 2) an exception in off-street loading
requirements; 3) an exception in rear yard requirements. Practical difficulties and
hardships involved were stated by the appellant to be the cost of land acquisition and
the lack of available land for the building capacity he .had envisioned. The appellant
further stated that the building would serve as. a popular attraction., and thus would
serve .the spirit of the ordinance by contributing to the revitalization of Downtown
Ithaca.
Mr. Stein called for comment from the public.
Mr. Pete Levenson of Cornell University asked where the people and industry would
come from to support such a building. Mr. Mercier answered that the people would come
from outside Ithaca, and mentioned Cornell University as an attractor of large numbers
of people. He mentioned the need for a great deal of office space and again asserted
that his concept was to help revitalize the downtown area. Mr. Van Cort said that
there were 500 dwelling units in the building and no parking;. he also noted that the
B-3 zoning ordinance does not require parking. Mrs. Meyer observed that the ordinance
was made without this kind of building in mind.
Mr. Stein asked Mr. Mercier to clarify the nature of his hardship claim. Mr.
Mercier replied that the land was too expensive to make it worthwhile to put up a
-2-
3-story building. Mr. Stein asked if Mr. Mercier owned or had an option on- the
land upon which he intended to build, and Mr. Mercier said that he did not. Mr.
Stein questioned the legality of the appellant seeking a variance on land he did
not own and on which he did not have an option to purchase, adding that orderly
procedures for review might require that the present owner of the land be in support
of the proposed action. Concern was expressed by Mrs. Meyer and Mr. Saggese about
the adeg4acy of area roads and the reactions of the downtown merchants.
Mr. Doney stated that he thought the building would be something for which
Ithaca has no need. He felt the .plan presented was ill-conceived and that-it
offered only tenuous information about details of the building. Mr. Doney MOVED
and Mr. Saggese seconded that the Planning Board recommend that the appeal be denied
on the grounds that the plan for the building does not conform with the long-range
goals of the City of Ithaca. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
a. Appeal 1085. Appeal was made by the Red Cross for a variance in an R-3
District which would enable them to build an addition to their building on the
corner of Clinton and Geneva Streets (201 W. Clinton St. ). Mr. Van Cort stated
that the proposed addition to the front of their present building would produce a
change in neighborhood character, a 13% excess in lot coverage and a shortage in
its amount of off-street parking. Mr. Van Cort said that he thought the addition
would also be unattractive and would be harmful to the appearance of the present
structure. He went on to say that the Red Cross had supported their need for a
variance by asserting that they had an urgent need for space, that because their
building is on a corner lot itis more difficult to comply with the ordinance, and
that the building would observe the spirit of the ordinance because it has been
accepted as a non-conforming use for so long in the neighborhood. The Planning
Board members discussed the possibility of recommending the denial of the appeal•,on
aesthetic grounds, with the added recommendation that the plan be resubmitted with
changes which would better observe the visual character of the neighborhood. Mr.
Stein MOVED and Mrs. Meyer seconded a motion to recommend denial of the variance
for the plan as presented, with the suggestion that it be resubmitted with a design
more in keeping with the architectural character of the neighborhood and building.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
b. Appeal 1088. Appeal was made by Myron Wasilchak of 216 Fall Creek Drive for
a variance to lot area requirements for an addition to a structure located at 110
Hawthorne St. in an R-2 District. This appeal was a revision of an earlier appeal,
1080, which had been denied at the Planning Board's May 27th meeting. Mr. Van Cort
said that the Planning Department staff had .found that there was still a lot coverage
deficiency and that the site plan was undeveloped. and had little regard for the
realities of the site. Mr. Van Cort suggested that the Planning Board recommend
denial with the suggestion that the next application be made with more detail included
about the solution of site problems. Mrs. Meyer felt that .an on-site investigation
made .by a committee of the Planning Board would be in order. Mrs. Meyer MOVED to
send the appeal to the Codes and Ordinances Committee for investigation, Mr. Stein
seconded the motion and it CARRIED unanimously.
c. Appeal 1089. This appeal .was a resubmission of Appeal 1083 heard by the
Board at its May 27th meeting and .subsequently denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
At the May meeting the Board had recommended approval of the variance on the grounds
that the proposed change would act to mitigate rather than exacerbate the effect of
-3-
there being no parking on the site. Board members felt that the reasoning was
still valid; therefore the Board recommended approval of the variance. CARRIED
unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Mr. Van Cort said that there was a need for a zoning change for a property
that had been mistakenly classified as P-1 instead of R-3 in the new zoning ordinance.
The building was located at the S.W. corner of Lake and Lincoln Streets. Mr. Van Cort
explained that the mistake was equivalent to a typographical error. Mrs, Meyer
MOVED and Mr. Hildreth seconded, that the Planning Board recommend to the Common
Council that the change be made from P-1 to R-3. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
b. Mr. Van Cort gave a brief report on the Planning Department's plans to make
improvements in Collegetown in conjunction with the Collegetown Beautification
Council and to request funding for such improvements in its 1976 Capital Budget.
Improvements mentioned included bike racks, kiosks, the planting of trees, lighting
and arrangement for more effective maintenance. Mr. Van Cort passed out a one-page
summary of recommendations for improvements made by the Collegetown Beautification
Council.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
a. Codes & Ordinances:
(1) Zoning cases (See ZONING.)
(2) Zoning change (See COMMUNICATIONS-a. )
b. General Plan & Capital Improvements:
Mr. Van Cort said that there was no .committee report from the General Plan &
Capital Improvements Committee, but instead a list of Capital Projects for 1976 was
distributed for review and action. The Planning Department has also received out-
lines of Capital Project Requests from the City Departments, although it has nothing
in depth as yet. Capital Projects list was referred to. the General Plan & Capital
Improvements Committee.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Van Cort passed out the Environmental Review portion of the Community
Development Plan. Mr. Van Cort stated that the Board needs to take no action if it
agrees with the findings of the Review. ' If it does not, it should send its comments
to the Department in time for incorporation in the report. Mr. Van Cort said that no
action by the Planning Board was needed in this matter.
MISCELLANEOUS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
-4-
H. Matthys Van Cort, Planning Director