Loading...
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