HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1975-07-22 a
r
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
City of Ithaca
Regular Meeting July 22, 1975 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Acting Chairwoman Benson, Mrs. Meyer; Messrs. Hildreth and Saggese.
ALSO: Planning Director Van Cort, Councilwoman Ethel Nichols; Mr. and Mrs.
Caesar R. George, Mr. and Mrs. John Wooster, Messrs. W. Ewald, V.
Hannan and Vernon Logan; Members of the press and radio.
ABSENT: Messrs. Doney, Moran and Stein.
Mrs. Benson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular meeting of June 24 was MOVED by Mr. Saggese
and seconded by Mr. Hildreth. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
ZONING:
a. Appeal 1088 was a continuation of a previous request for an area
variance made by Myron Wasilchak in an R-2 district at 110 Hawthorne Place.
The variance would allow the appellant to build a two-family dwelling on the
site. At the June 24th meeting, this appeal had been referred to committee
for further study and a site inspection. After inspection and consideration,
the Codes and Ordinances Committee had felt that the information given was in-
sufficient, and had voted to wait for further clarification of the appellant's
plan. Mr. Van Cort asked if the appellant or his representative were present
to provide further information. There was no response. Further delay was dis-
cussed. Mr. Saggese said he believed the matter should not be put off for
another month because people in the area were getting upset about the appearance
of the building; Mr. Van Cort commented that the 30-day delay for insufficient
information would seem to preclude an additional waiting period before action
on the appeal.
Mr. Saggese MOVED, and Mrs. Meyer seconded a motion to recommend denial.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
b. Appeal 1091 was a request for an exception to setback requirements made
by Caesar R. George at 415 Campbell Avenue in an R-1 district. The exception
would enable the appellant to continue to build a carport on the front of his
house.
Mr. Van Cort reported that the Codes and Ordinances Committee thought that.
the drawing submitted provided insufficient information, and that recommendation
should be made for rejection of the appeal. Mrs. Meyer MOVED that recommendation
be made for denial.
S
y
At this point, opinions on the ma ter were expressed by area residents.
Mr. John Wooster of 255 Westwood Knoll and Mr. W. Ewald of 555 N. Taylor St.
said that they were against this vari ce because all the other neighborhood
residents had complied with the setbac regulations, and thus this clear
violation of those regulations disturbed the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Vernon Logan. of 604 N. Taylor Place asked who was responsible for check-
ing on building permits. Mr. Van Cort nswered that it was the Building
Department's responsibility. The impre sion was then generally expressed by
the area residents and the Planning Boa d that the carport was under construc-
tion without a building permit.
Mrs. Elizabeth George of 415 Campb 11 Avenue produced a building permit,
however, which she stated had been issu d for the carport on May 21, 1975 by
Building.Commissioner Edison Jones. Mr . George further stated that the car-
port is 25' from the road, and that the George family had parked cars there
for two years and that they thought the were improving property by building
the carport.
Mrs. Lillian Wooster of 255 Westwoo Knoll stated that the builder of the
carport, Mr. McLean, must know the regul tions in the district since he is
presently building a development nearby. She further expressed the fear that
the granting of this variance would lead to more variances which might prove
harmful to the character of the neighbor ood.
Mrs. Meyer here withdrew her previo s motion to recommend denial; Mr.
Saggese seconded.
Mr. Caesar George then summarized t e events leading to his appeal as
follows:
In April of this year, he (Mr. Geor e) asked his builder to build a carport
in order to hide his woodpile and to improve the appearance of the neighborhood.
He wanted the carport close to the road, ut found out that there was a 25' set-
back requirement. He asked the Building ommissioner about the setback, and said
that Commissioner Jones said that he woul take a median distance, i.e. , 24'6"
from one corner, 25`6" from the other. A building permit was issued and construc-
tion began. Two months later, the Buildi g Inspector issued a desist order, and
Mr. George stopped construction. He asse ted that the delay is causing him added
expense.
Mrs. Meyer MOVED that a special meet ng of the Codes and Ordinances Committee
be held to investigate the matter further and to recommend action to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Mr. Saggese seconded the motion.
Mr. George further asserted that the violation took place because someone
was "derelict in his duty" and that this caused hardship to him because: the
structure would have to be turned; the bac of the lot would have to be terraced,
reinforced and filled, and a driveway 35-4 feet long would have to be constructed.
The motion to send the matter to the odes and Ordinances .Committee CARRIED
unanimously.
-2
c. Appeal 1092 was a second appeal by the Ithaca Bike and Hobby Shop to
allow the repair of motor bikes and mopeds on its premises in a B-2 zone. The
appellant asserted that the use would not cause a change in the character of
the area and pointed out that it was near a B-4 district in which the proposed
use is allowed.
Mr. Van Cort noted that although the shop would be within one property of
a B-4 zone, it would be across the street from an R-3, and that residents were
worried about noise and a change of area character.
Mrs. Meyer MOVED and Mr. Saggese seconded a motion .to recommend denial.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
d. Appeal 8-1-75 was an appeal for a variance which would enable Arthur
Treacher's Fish & Chips to erect a sign bigger than that permitted by the
ordinance at their restaurant on the Elmira Road.
Mr. Van Cort said that the Planning Department staff recommended that this
matter go to committee, and that since the Planning Department is presently
studying the Elmira Road, Mr. Van Cort hoped that the recommendations could be
made through discussion and compromise with the owner.
Mr. Hildreth MOVED, and Mr. Saggese seconded a motion to send the matter to
the Codes and Ordinances Committee for further study. The motion CARRIED unani-
mously.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Mrs. Benson asked for public comment on subjects "pertinent to planning."
There were no comments.
COMMUNICATIONS: None
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
a. Codes & Ordinances: (See Item 3 Zoning)
b. General Plan & Capital Improvements:
1. Mrs. Benson read the Resolution on the 1976-81 Capital Improve-
ments Projects for the City of Ithaca:
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the 1976-81 Capital
Improvement projects for the City of Ithaca and has found them
to .be compatible with the general plan for the City, and has
assigned priorities to the attached list of projects,
THEREFORE, BE IT 'RESOLVED, that the Planning Board shall refer
the 1976-81 Capital Improvement projects to the Capital Improve-
ments Review Committee of Council. The Board recommendations do
not, however, assign priorities to some capital projects for
which project forms were not submitted, as there was insufficient
information to make a well-informed judgment.
-3-
'A
Adoption of the resolution was MOVED by Mrs. Meyer and seconded by
Mr. Hildreth.
Mrs. Meyer brought up the question of the lagoon and duck pond. Mr.
Van Cort said that this project was teing resubmitted as. a project proposal.
Mrs. Meyer MOVED that the dredging o the lagoon be added by amendment to the
list of proposed projects. Mr. Hilal eth seconded the motion and it CARRIED
unanimously.
Mrs. Benson asked how the priorities were set for the capital budget.
Mr. Van Cort said that they were set py staff recommendation and by committee
amendment, and explained that where there was a lack of information, no priority
was assigned. The Board then voted of the motion to send the resolution on the
Capital Improvements Projects to the Common Council. The motion CARRIED unani-
mously.
2. The following resolutio was read by Chairwoman Benson:
WHEREAS, The proposed Commun'ty Development/Urban Renewal Plan
has been referred to the Pla�,ning Board for a public hearing
and appropriate comments, and
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held at the July 1975 meeting of
the Planning Board,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, at the Planning Board certifies
that the Plan is in conformace with the comprehensive plan
for the development of the co unity as a.whole and meets the
requirement of Section 502-7 � f Article 15 of the New York
State General Municipal Law, and
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Board certifies
that the Plan is in conformance with Section 504 of Article 15
of the New York General Municipal Law and the area. designated
for urban renewal is blighted in an area-wide basis and appro-
priate for urban renewal, and
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Board gives its
qualified approval of the Comm nity Development/Urban Renewal
Plan with the following recomm nded modification:
1) In Chapter V, Section C entitled "Procedures for
Review of Development Plans", the following sentence
shall be added:
"Prior to Agency approv 1, all plans shall be
submitted to the Planni g Board for its review
and comment."
Mr. Van Cort explained that the General Plan and Capital Improvements
Committee recommended approval of the CD/VR plan with the amendment included in
the test of the resolution. Mr. Saggese MOVED, and Mr. Hildreth seconded the
motion to adopt the resolution; the motto CARRIED unanimously.
-4-
OLD BUSINESS:
a. Recommendation on design for improvements in Collegetown. Mr. Van
Cort discussed the Collegetown Proposal, explaining that the proposals of the
Collegetown Beautification Council had been divided into those which would be
possible immediately and those which would require design work (see file) .
Mrs. Nichols mentioned that six shade trees had been committed to Collegetown.
Mrs. Meyer and Mrs. Benson were concerned that there would not be adequate
input from members of the Collegetown community. Mrs. Meyer wanted work in
Collegetown to address the social needs of the East Hill area;. Mrs. Benson said
that she thought students should have input and that any plans should be made
with the special needs of Collegetown residents in mind.
Mr. Van Cort agreed that community input was desirable, but thought that
for this phase of the plan it would be possible to make a beginning using input
from the Collegetown Beautification Council and thus save time and resources in
the initial stages.
Mr. Hildreth MOVED, and Mr. Saggese seconded a motion that the plan should
be accepted and the improvements made. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
b. UMTA - Progress Report. Mr. Van Cort announced that the Funds for the
UMTA Grant had been released by the Federal government and that the City could
begin implementation.
NEW BUSINESS:
a. Recommendation on location of proposed- civic sculpture. Mrs. Meyer
MOVED, and Mr. Hildreth seconded, that the decision on location of a piece of
sculpture by Larry Green be sent for study to a Committee of the Whole. The
motion CARRIED unanimously.
b. Recommendation for promotion of Junior Planner. Mr. Saggese MOVED, and
Mrs. Meyer seconded a resolution that Junior Planner Judith Benedict be promoted
to Assistant Planner as of September 1, 1975. Mrs. Meyer suggested that an amend-
ment be added commending Ms. Benedict for her superior work for the Department.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS:
a. Mrs. Meyer MOVED, and Mr. Saggese seconded, a motion to recommend removal
of the barberry shrubs in Conway Park because of the danger caused by their thorns,
and further to recommend that a revised planting plan be prepared for the park and
implemented this year. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
b. Mrs. Meyer expressed concern about the harm State plans for Route 13 might
cause the visual quality of the area. Mrs. Meyer was especially concerned with the
aesthetics of the bridge to be built over the inlet, and that the manual by which
structures are designed contains no provisions for aesthetic concerns. Mrs. Meyer
said that she had received a letter from the State Road Commissioner assuring her
that aesthetics would be taken into consideration in building the bridge.
-5
c. Mrs. Nichols reported that Ithe Fire Chief was concerned about the fire
hazard of large stockpiles of wood iii hardware stores, and suggested that any
hardware store stocking more than 10 000 board feet of wood for sale be confined
to areas permitting lumberyards, i.e. , in I-1 zones. Mrs. Nichols further stated
that the matter was being studied by her committee.
d. Mrs. Benson mentioned that a rote on signage had been sent to Edison Jones
about the rulings implemented by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:2 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
IW VII��el .
H. Matthys Van Cort
Planning Director
7.29.75
-6-