Loading...
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-