HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1976-06-22 BOARD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MINUTES - CITY OF ITHACA
Regular Meeting, June 22 , 1976
Present: Chairperson LeG. Benson, D. Fuller, R. Hildreth, N. Meyer,
R. Moran, S. Stein
Also: H. M. Van Cort, Dir. of Pl. & Dev. ; E..,Jones, Dep. Bldg.
Commr. ; E. Homan, Councilperson; J. Benedict, Planner;
Citizens F. Finch, J. Corrol, D. Tyler, J. Barney, P.. Carlson,
M. Carlson, S. Cooper, T. Morrissy, P. White, Jr. , M. Haag,
G. Gesslein, J. Brentlinger, I. Flight, A. Pass , 0. Pass,
J. Rider, J. Silvin, J. Orcutt; other citizens and members
.of the press.
Absent: P. Saggese
Chairperson Benson explained that as part of a program to involve city
neighborhoods in Planning and Development Board activities, the June 22
meeting was held in South Hill School. The South Hill Civic Association
was contacted by Mr. Fuller, and invited to the meeting. The Chairperson
called the meeting to order and thanked Mr. Fuller for arranging to hold
the meeting in the South Hill neighborhood. Mr. Hildreth MOVED approval
of the minutes of the May meeting; Mr. Moran seconded. A vote was taken,
and the motion CARRIED.
Director Van Cort explained that the Board would like to discuss Planning
and Development activities affecting South Hill with local residents,
and would like to see them more involved in planning for their neighbor-
hood. He explained that the Board is appointed by the Mayor, and that
some of its responsibilities are designated by state law and local
ordinances. He noted that the Board reviews applications for zoning
variances, passes on applications for subdivisions , plans capital improve-
ments for the City of Ithaca in terms of both a one-year capital budget and
five-year capital improvements program. The Board also works on mobile
home ordinances and sign ordinances . The staff of the Planning and
Development Department serves in staff or advisory capacity to the Commons
Advisory Board, Inlet Park Commission, Shade Tree Committee, Human Services
Coalition, Capital Improvements Review Committee, Community Development
Agency (Urban ' Renewal Agency) , and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Com-
mission. The Board also does special studies and projects such as those
recently done on the Commons , the Southwest, the Flood Ordinance, transpor-
tation and general circulation, public transit, recreation projects, local
parks and recreation facilities, community facilities, economic studies,
housing problems and aid coordination. In South Hill most recent work
has been done on a playground, a study of the need for the local fire
station, and a study dealing with adaptive use of the Columbia Street
School. The Board is aware of many of South Hill 's problems, including
traffic on Aurora Street, in-migration of students to the area, the mix
of industrial and residential uses, and parking problems. He explained
that the reason the . Board was taking its meetings out into the neighbor-
hoods is that planning in the City is becoming a more process-oriented
activity. The Board needs better contact with the people it serves.
Residents sometimes feel that city government is not responsive to their
2 -
needs, and that they do not have a say in what happens. He went on to
state that development issues which affect South Hill include the future
growth of Ithaca College, traffic increase , and plans for major industries.
He said he hoped for neighborhood participation in dealing with these
problems. The Chairperson thanked Mr. Van Cort for his report, and
opened discussion to neighborhood residents.
Mr. Francis Moon of Charles Street said he was concerned about the influx
of students to South Hill. He stated that more than half the units in his
Charles- Street residence have been rented to students, and that as a result
there has been an increase in the amount of noise andtrafficand in the
number of dogs. He asked if fire laws or any other ordinances prohibit
rental to tenants with too many cars. He stated that he felt this was
a fire hazard. Mr. Jones replied that there were no such laws , although
some. could be proposed. Ms. Meyer noted that the best method of dealing
with the problem is by citizen organization and citizen persuasion; she
felt that in this way families could be encouraged to stay in the
neighborhood. Realtors could be requested to encourage families to move
into the neighborhood. She stressed the importance of community organiza-
tion. Ms. Holman asked for a definition of a family as defined by the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Van Cort replied that any group of more than two
persons living together, not related by blood, marriage, adoption or
other legal relationship, is not considered a family, except for
domestic servants. He stated that under the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance, the definition of a family is only relevant in R-1 zones. On
NSouth Hill there are only R-2 and R-3 zones . Ms. Holman requested that
the Planning Department check parking requirements . Ms. Benson replied
that problems such as those mentioned by Mr. Moon were not covered by
the zoning ordinance, but that there was a noise ordinance which would
restrict inconsiderate use of stereos. Ms. Finch complained that when
students take over rental units , enrollment in local schools decreases .
Ms. Benson agreed, adding that schools were then jeopardized, as East
Hill School was, and that the neighborhood would then become even less
attractive to families. She further stated that the economics of the
student rental situation jeopardize family neighborhoods . Mr. Moon
noted that there were ways of attracting families to the neighborhood,
citing the Circle Greenway as one. He felt South, Hill should develop
a mini-park under the Columbia Street Bridge. Mr. Van Cort agreed, and
stated that the Bicentennial Commission had also recommended such a pro-
ject. Ms . Holman said that a design for such a park had been suggested,
and that there would be a series of steps placed adjacent to the Columbia
Street Bridge, leading to the gorge. She said she was soliciting neigh-
borhood support and help. . Mr. Moon suggested encouraging the Board of
Public Works to begin work on this project. Ms. Benson agreed to do this ..
Mr. Thomas Morrissey of 302 Giles Street then complained that his street
is a parking spot for access to Van Natta' s Dam, that the shoulder is
unpaved (which makes for a very dusty environment) , that garbage is dumped
in the area, that visitors are often unruly, and that the area was turning
into a lover 's lane. He said he had spoken to the Mayor, who claimed
that the City was contemplating black-topping the site. He felt that
would do even more damage by increasing traffic. His neighbor,. Mr. Stephen
Cooper, agreed. Ms . Benson replied that certain apsects of this situation
were outside of the purview of the Board, but that environmental impact is
the Board' s province. Mr. Cooper suggested blocking off the parking area
3
so that traffic could not enter, and establishing a parking area at the
entrance to the wild flower area. Ms . Benson asked if there were any
further comments on the neighborhood. There were none.
ZONING:
(a) Appeal 1119: Request for an Area Variance to allow rear yard reduction
in an R-3 zone at 114 Summit Street, where existing structure is conforming.
Mr. Rider would like to add a 12 ' x, 121 two-storey addition consisting of
two living rooms, one on each floor, on the back end of the building.
He needs the variance because there is a 25 ' rear yard set-back requirement
to the back lot line; the building is presently on the set-back line, and
this would cut that space to 14' . The appeal was originally tabled at the
previous Planning and Development Board meeting for lack of a site plan.
Mr. Rider agreed that if allowed to place the addition on the back of
the building, he would forego adding a similar structure to the side of
the building, for which he has already received a building permit. The
Planning and Development Department staff recommended approval of the
request with the stipulation that Mr. Rider not build the side addition
which would make firefighting more difficult'. Mrs. Flight, a neighbor,
said that as a neighbor she objected to the addition. She said there
are presently problems in that neighborhood with parking, burglary and
police surveillance, and that she objected to any addition which would
intensify the population in that area, and hoped the Board of Planning
and Development would look into this consideration when they worked on
long-range planning for the area. Dr. Joe Silvin, a dentistresidingand
practicing in the building next door to Mr. Rider 's 'stated that in his
opinion Mr. Rider has maintained the property well, providing good upkeep
and treating tenants with consideration. Dr. Orcutt, whose offices are
in Dr. Silvin's building, agreed. Mr. Moran MOVED approval of the variance
with the stipulation that 'Mr`. Rider not build the side addition. Ms.
Meyer seconded.
Mr. Stein asked Drs. Silvin and Orcutt why they thought Mr. Rider was such
a good landlord and -they replied that he maintained the building and
grounds well, in contrast to the way other landlords in that neighborhood
maintained their buildings. Mr. Stein noted that lack of good upkeep is
a problem, and that if landlords don 't police themselves they willmeet
with resistance on all such variance appeals. Mrs. Flight asked if the
stipulation on the variance would hold if Mr. Rider sold the building. Mr.
Jones replied that it would.
A vote was taken and the motion CARRIED unanimously.
(b) Appeal 1120: Request for Area Variance to allow possible separate sale
of adjoining properties now in single ownership at 140/208 and 210 Thurston
Avenue, in an R-2 zone. Properties are on separate parcels and would
continue in present permitted use, but both would be deficient in one side
yard, and. one would be deficient in total lot area.
John Barney, attorney for the property owners, stated that the property was
at one time two parcels, which were then joined under one ownership. The
Savings Bank acquired the property by reason of default of the previous
owner. They have tried to sell it as one parcel , but have been unsuccessful.
4
They would like to sell the parcel at 210 Thurston Avenue for continued
use as a group living facility, a permitted use. Both properties were
previously occupied by a fraternity, and 140/208 is intended to be occupied
by a new fraternity, so both would be continued for the same type of use.
Mr. Van Cort noted that there would be a deficiency in the side yards of
both properties, and 210 would have a slight deficiency inthe front yard
(22 feet instead of the required 25) . However, he stated that the
Department of Planning and Development recommended approval of the appeal,
contingent on the provision of adequate parking space, on the grounds that
proposed usage does not affect the area adversely, since it is a continua-
tion of existing usage.
Mr. Moran MOVED acceptance of the staff recommendation. Mr. Hildreth
seconded. A vote was taken and the motion CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Stein
asked if the new owners were planning to go through the subdivision pro-
cess, to which Mr . Barney replied that they were not. The properties have
been assessed separately since 1899 , so there is no need to redivide.
(c) Appeal 1121 : Request for Use Variance to allow office use of premises
at 202 E. Court St. , in an R-3 zone; Area Variance to permit reduction in
required on-site parking for office use.
The building in question is a three-storey double house on the northeast
corner of Tioga and Court Streets, at 202 East Court Street and 403 North
Tioga. The law partnership of O' Connor and McHugh purchased both build-
ings in 1970 . They are now used as a real estate office (under variance)
and as student housing, and the income from their rental is between ten
and twelve thousand dollars per year. The owners ' law offices are
currently located in the Savings and Loan Building and they would like to
relocate to this building because Savings and Loan wants to reclaim their
space. The law firm would like to remain in the Courthouse area for the
convenience of appearing at court, and because they are also in the business
of preparing legal abstracts and frequently use court records to do this
work. They would agree to maintain ,the outside of the house as it is , and
probably improve it. They would use the Court Street entrance for business
purposes. They would like to upgrade and maintain two apartments on the
third floor of the! building (s) , entered also from Court Street.
Parking requirements are somewhat of a problem: There are presently two
driveways and one small garage. Owners propose to remove the garage and
extend the drive around the building, with parking spaces, but there is
insufficient room to develop a large parking lot. They could privately
lease parking space from Dr. Baker who owns a lot across the street.
There is no traffic for the abstract company. They claim that their
neighbor, Mrs. Hanson, enthusiastically supports such use of the building.
Mr. Van Cort noted that the staff recommended denial of this appeal. The
R-3 zoning of all properties north of Court Street has just been reaffirmed
as an R-3 zone by the Board and by Council . There are residential proper-
ties on both sides of the house, and this conversion would intensify non-
residential, non-conforming use. The conversion is not in keeping with
the long-range objectives of planning in that area. As far as parking is
concerned, the building is in technical violation now: There is not enough
space around the building. The proposed usage requires thirteen parking
spots, and renting space is permitted under the ordinance if the parking
- 5 -
requirement can be met by renting space.
Ms. Pat Carlson, a neighbor, said that she lives a block away, and that
she favors a recommendation against the variance. She noted that there is
a great need for housing in the City and that there is other office
space downtown. Also, since other similar requests have recently been
denied, it would be unfair to the previous applicants for similar variances.
Mr. Van Cort noted that if the Planning Department could recommend granting
the variance, they would commend the quality of the proposed 'renovation.
Mr. Fuller MOVED that the staff recommendation of denial be accepted. Mr.
Hildreth seconded., The chairperson called for discussion. Mr. Sovocool
noted he felt it unfortunate that his organization was considered in the
same light as other applicants for variances in that neighborhood. Ms.
Meyer claimed that one of the issues is that there are presently residents
in the building. Mr. Stein noted that this kind of case points up the
problem of the B-1 study.: The southeast and southwest corners of the
intersection are in use similar to that proposed. Granting this variance
would not have much impact on the neighborhood. He felt obligated to
vote against granting the variance, but with reservations . Mr. Fuller
asked if the applicants could estimate the difference of the cost between
this space and general downtown office space. The firm replied that
there was a tax gain in owning their own building, and that the cost of
occupying the building was considerably lower than renting. Mrs. Carlson
stated that she would feelsafer in the neighborhood after dark knowing
that there were residents present at night. Ms . Benson asked how soon
the firm had to be out of the Savings and Loan Building and was informed
that their lease was up in September. They claimed it is difficult to
locate space large enough for their operation downtown. Ms . Benson asked
if they had inquired into using the Y.M.C .A. space. Mr. Sovocool said he
had inquired, but that the Y.M. C.A. does not know when it will be vacating
its space. Mr." Marvin Carlson noted that other recent decisions on
similar cases make this case more of a problem. He informed the Board
that the neighbors on both sides of the building were elderly and were
planning tomoveaway. This would open two more houses to similar usage.
Ms. Benson remarked that long-range planning indicates a need for concern
with the shortage of downtown housing Mr. Stein noted that tabling
this case for further study would keep the law firm from appearing before
the Board of Zoning Appeals until August. Ms. Meyer asked how much traffic
there actually was between the office and the courthouse, to which Mr.
Sovocool replied that it was difficult to estimate.
The vote was called, and the motion CARRIED. The ayes were Messrs. Hildreth,
Stein and Fuller. Ms. Meyer and Mr'. Moran voted nay.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Codes and Ordinances Mr. Van Cort stated that the Codes and Ordinances
Committee had proposed that the following motion be made to Councils
The Board of Planning and Development recommends that Option 2 of the
Elmira Road Improvement Plan Recommendations for Signage be adopted
by the City to promote the closest conformance to the long-range
development concept of the 'Plan to improve the appearance and safety
. of this important area of the city;. and further that Common Council
take appropriate action to amend the Sign Ordinance to incorporate the
recommendations of Option 2 .
6
a,,d
Mr. Moran so MOVED. Mr. Stein seconded. Motion CARRIED unanimously.
Mr. Van Cort noted that the recommendations should be rewritten before
they were referred to Council for action.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Van Cort reported that Route 96 funding had been approved, and that
the designers must now be advised as to the City' s concerns regarding
improvement. He noted that the Department of Transportation has been
reassuring, and feels that they will be responsive to the city, the town
and the county. He then read the following list of the city' s concerns,
which, he noted, were not in rank order :
1. Grade-separated westbound crossing of railroad, for continuous
access to West Hill for emergency vehicles (police, fire, hospital) .
2. Least impact (taking, environmental) on low and moderate-income
housing in the corridor.
3. Minimization of impact on commercial properties in eastern end of
corridor -- area between Taughannock Boulevard, Meadow Street,
Court and Buffalo Streets .
4 . Grade-separated crossing (no interchange) of 'Park Road ' (temporary
Route 89 ) .
5. Minimization of cut-fill scar as corridor climbs West Hill.
6. Serious consideration of esthetic character of elevated portions
of the facility, including State commitment to architectural,
urban design and landscaping aspects through a qualified urban
design consultant, coordinated with City Department of Planning
and Development; a 'decent engineering design is likely to be sub-
optimal in terms of esthetic impact.
7 . State involvement in a study of the impacts of the improvement on
at least the first few blocks of Buffalo and Court Streets east
of Meadow, to which the proposed pair alternative would connect.
8. Minimal taking of §4 (f) lands, particularly along the west edge
of Cass/Inlet Park, and provision of a landscaped 'buffer ' along
this boundary.
9 . Provision, if possible, of a pedestrian/bike lane on the elevated
portion of the facility, promoting such access between city and
park.
10 . Compensation to City for 94 (f) land taken, in accordance with
existing agreement.
Ms. Benson reminded the Board that Ms. Meyer had made a special effort to
impress upon the Department of Transportation the need for esthetic
considerations in their work on Route 96.
Mr. Van Cort then reported on planning for East State Street. He stated
that the study was not yet completed, and said he would probably have a
statement by the next meeting of the Board.
In further business, Ms . Benson reported on the progress of the Southern
Tier Regional Planning Board. She noted that the Baptist Church has had
a request for $20 , 000 approved for historic renovation. The County
Planning Board has written a transportation plan recommendation. The
voting structure would assure the city of appropriate voting power. She
also mentioned that a railroad hearing was being held by Lundine and
McHugh and that the Board would supply them with information.
7
Mr. Van Cort then read the following memorandum from Deputy Building
Commissioner Edison Jones to the Mayor:
TO: Mayor Conley
FROM: Edison Jones
SUBJECT: 1036 W. Seneca Street
DATE: June 21, 1976
It has come to the attention of the building department that the
Tompkins County Social Services is planning on offering this property
for sale by public auction some time in the month of August, 1976.
It is the opinion of the building department that the City of Ithaca
should acquire this property and remove the structure to enhance the
green area being developed on the west side of the flood control
channel , and to prevent its further use as a multiple dwelling as
it surely will become if it is sold at auction.
Superintendent Dingman also believes the City should be interested
in this property, because if and when Floral Avenue is improved,
the improvement would most likely be on the east side of Floral
Avenue and this property would be affected.
It is my recommendation that the City Attorney start some sort of
action to forestall the auction.
Mr. Jones was requesting a reolution of the Board to recommend to Council
that it purchase the property. Mr. Stein so MOVED. Mr. Moran seconded.
The motion CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Stein suggested that an attempt be
made to investigate possible outside funding for purchase of the land.
Ms. Meyer inquired about the status of the bikeways study and Mr. Van Cort
said the staff was currently preparing drawings.
Since there was no further business , Mr. Moran MOVED adjournment of the
meeting at 10 : 20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Matthys Van Cort
Director
Planning and Development Department
23 July 1976