Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1977-06-28 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ITHACA Regular Meeting, June 28, 1977, Common Council Chamber, 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Chairperson LeGrace Benson, R. Hildreth, D. Fuller, M. Crowley, R. Bordoni ALSO: Mayor E.J. Conley, H. M. Van Cort, T. Hoard, E. Nichols, R. Saccucci, D. Slattery, W. Burbank, P. Carlson, N. Meyer, J. Gutenberger, members of the press and others 1. The Chairperson called the meeting to order. Mr.- Bordoni MOVED that the minutes of the May meeting be accepted as submitted. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED. The Chairperson then requested that the zoning cases be heard immediately, since many citizens had come to hear and comment on them. This being acceptable to members of the Board, the agenda was so altered.. 5. Zoning Cases: a. Appeal 1162: Request for an Area Variance to convert premises at 305 Stewart Avenue from a garage to a bar, in a B-2 use district. Rear yard and one side yard fall short of requirements and on site parking is not available The building in question is a carriage house which is currently being used as a garage. Proposed usage is permitted in a B-2 use district. There is insufficient on-site parking,but there are .spaces in a nearby lot which the business can rent. Staff noted that the deficiency in the back yard was not serious, but that he ' usage might be a problem for the neighborhood. Staff reluctantly recommended in favor of recommending approval. The Appellants noted that they will rent parking spots from Cornell. They said they are planning a quieter_-place than the Chapter House, and that it was necessary for them to appeal to the State to... use the building, since it is a frame structure. They feel they can make the building fire safe by having grade level fire escapes on the second floor, since the building is placed into the side of a hill. Mrs. Bernice Tutton of Osmun Place, which is within 200 feet of the proposed business, appeared before the Board and said she had not received notice of the attempt to obtain a zoning variance, and that she felt that two taverns were too much for'the neighborhood. She felt noise and parking were already a problem, that parking signs have been taken and never replaced, that cars parked on both sides of her street, even though parking is permitted only on one side, that cars parked on residents' lawns, and that fire engines could not get through because of the parking violations. She said that the police ticket cars but do not tow them. Staff explained to her that legal notice was required for BZA meetings only. P & D BOARD MEETING 2 _ 28 June 1977 Mrs. Annie Ripley of 214 .Stewart Avenue said she agreed that two bars were too many. She said that there was insufficient room now for tenant parking, and that the tavern would only exacerbate this problem, as well as increasing noise levels. Bertha Jordan, 113 Stewart Avenue, said that patrons of the existing bar park in driveways so that residents cannot use thein. Cornell parking is already rented, she said, and wondered where the people currently renting those spaces would park. Mrs. Sandford, 113 Osmun Place said she rented a small garage attached to the carriage house and did not want to lose her space there. She said that traffic on Stewart Avenue was at times very heavy, that cars used Osmun Place to avoid the traffic signal at the corner of Buffalo and Stewart, and that further 'traffic would bring additional problems. She said the alleyway between her house and the Chapter House was frequently used as a urinal,that students had vomited on the side of the Chapter House and that it had not been cleaned off, and that students had had a knife fight on her front lawn. The Appellants said, n response, that they had made an attempt to notify neighbors within 200 feet of the building in question. Mr. Van. Cort stated that neighbors are notified of the BZA meeting, not the Planning and Development Board meeting, but that this would be changed in the future. He explained that it had been done this way because the Planning and Development Board is merely a recommending body for zoning cases and does not make policy. The AppelLant noted that law requires a space for every five seatsin-the bar, and these would be rented from Cornell, but he added that most students walk to the Chapter House, and that he expected most would walk to his establishment. He said there would be a fire lane ..on the south side of the property. He further noted.that he had spoken to the aldermen from the district to get feedback cnithat type of bar, that the district was indeed zoned for business, and that he was requesting only a fire lane variance. Mr. Bordoni asked why the staff had recommended approval reluctantly. Mr. Van Cort answered that the staff felt the neighbors would not be pleased to have another bar in the neighborhood, but the use is permitted in such a zone, and that unless the area variance were significant, it should be approved by the Planning and Development Board. In response to questioning by Mr. Fuller, the Appellant stated that there is a 4 to 6 foot backyard deficiency, but that the backyard of the adjoining apartment building adjoins the property in question and therefore there would be room for fire equipment to maneuver behind the building. Ms. Benson asked if fireproofing had been discussed with Chief Weaver; Mr. Hoard re- plied that the Appellants had told him they had discussed this with the Chief. He noted that wood frame structures are not permitted in fire districts. A variance on a fire district cannot be granted locally and must be appealed to the state, which the Appellants are doing. Mr. Fuller MOVED to accept the recommendation of the staff to suggest approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Crowley seconded. The vote was as follows: AYE: Ms. Crowley, Messrs. Hildreth and Fuller NAY: Ms. Benson, Mr. Bordoni CARRIED. P & D BOARD MEETING - 3 - 28 June 1977 b. Appeal 1163: Request for an Area Variance to extend existing porch 7 1/2 feet and enclose to create larger living area on first and second floors of premises at 117-119 Eddy Street, in an .R-3(a) use district. Lot size and one side yard are slightly deficient. Staff pointed out that' the work was begun before a permit was issued. The lot is only 6% deficient, and the side yard has only Ia minor deficiency of three feet (it is two feet instead of the required five). There seems to be adequate parking. The staff recommended in favor of the variance with the condition that the number of sleeping rooms not be .increased. Staff said that it would have to reconsider should sleeping rooms be added. The attorney for the Appellant said that there are now three bedrooms in the first floor apartment and four in the second floor apartment which would be affected by the change. The landlord is planning to increase the size of'the livingrooms only, and in doing so to add a fireplace to each one and thus increase the recital value of these units. The attorney noted that most properties in the area have deficiencies in lot size. There are 14 tenants now in the building, and six apartments. The owner plans to change the layout of the four apartments but there will be no change in the number of bedrooms in the building. In response to a question from Mr. Bordoni, he noted that there are eight parking spaces for six apartments. Mr. Bordoni said that since parking was adequate., and there was no negative expression from neighbors, he MOVED that"the Board recommend approval to . the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously. c. Appeal 116+: Request for a Special Permit. to use a portion of the premises at 527 North Aurora Street,in an R-2(b) zone for a home occupation, specifically a travel consulting firm. Building exceeds permissible lot coverage and is deficient in all yards and parking requirements. i Staff reported that the Appellant would be operating a travel consulting firm and would not be considered a travel agent. He would be giving lectures, slide .presenta- tions, etc. , and would not be booking travel arrangements. The building covers most of the lot. Three parking spots are required, and only one exists. Staff did not, however, feel that parking would be a problem in that neighborhood, and recom- mended approval of t.he :appeal. The attorney for, the Appellant said that a purchase contract has been completed sub- ject to the action of the Planning and Development Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals The premises used to be a grocery store, and were then a community center. The Appellant is a teacher in the Ithaca City !School District and has been a travel consultant for some years. He would like to use the ground floor of the building as an office, classroom and library for travel information, and would not be selling or booking travel. This is not to be operated as a full-time occupation, since the Appellant will continue to teach. Mr. Bordonil asked if the neighbors had been notified of this meeting. The attorney replied that they had not been notified as yet of the Tpeal.. Ms. Benson stated that thelneighbors were not required to be notified of the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Fuller asked if the Appellant was planning to move to the building. The attorney replied in the affirmative. Mr. Fuller MOVED that the Board recommend approval Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously. P & D BOARD MEETING 4 - 28 June 1977 d. Appeal 1165: Request for a Use Variance for Section 30.25, Column 2 to permit occupation of the premises at 212 Delaware Avenue, a two-family dwelling, by up to nine (9) unrelated persons. The property is located in an R-1 (b) use district under Section 20.25. The Appellant seeks a variance so that he may sell the property to other':than a single family. Staff noted that it is presently a two-family house with the equivalent of five bedrooms on one side and four on the other. Mr. Van Cort said it was his understanding that the Appellant would like to sell the house to a family in a manner-Which would allow the future owner to rent the other- 6f'the house to more than a family or two unrelated persons in this four or five-bedroom unit.- A rental unit is now permitted if one unit is owner occupied. Mr. Van Cort noted that he was not involved in the staff recommendation since he thought he might have a conflict of interest. However, the staff recommended that up to four unrelated persons be permitted to live in one unit, if t�:e other unit were owner- occupied. There .is insufficient parking, but since the house is so large,it would be a hardship if the owner were not allowed to rent to more than two unrelatedpersons. The Appellant apologized for being latero_ submitting his appeal. He said the home is completely surrounded by income property. He has four young children,; and feels- the neighborhood is no longer the best place to raise them. In addition, the yards are very small. There are eight bedrooms, possibly nine if a family room is considered a bedroom. He is having difficulty selling the house. He said he could sell to a non-resident landlord who would rent out both'sides, in which case it would be non-owner-occupied. Under current zoning regulations, an apartment cannot exceed half the space of the owner's quarters. The Appellant noted that at most times in the building's existence, it has housed thirteen people comfortably. Because of changes in the nature of the neighborhood, he feels the building would have little appeal to a family with children.. He noted that .there are 32 landowners within 200 feet of the property, which means the area is very densely populated. The building cannot be grandfathered because it has always been rented to families in the past. Ms. Benson asked whether a double house is legally considered one or two houses, Mr. Hoard replied that it is considered a duplex. The Appellant added that one unit can be occupied by a family, but the other side can be occupied by no more than two unrelated people. The realtor who found the Appellant's new home stated that there are in-town landlords interested in'-the property, and that 13 persons have lived in the house at one time. She said the house could accommodate nine persons with no structural changes. Mr. Bordoni asked whether the Board could assume the Appellant would sell the house to a family. The realtor explained that it would be difficult to get a;family to move into that neighborhood. The Appellant added that if the building were owner-occupied, he would like to have a maximum of five rentable bedrooms allowed. If not owner-occupied, he wanted permission to rent to one person per bedroom. Ms. Benson replied that legal points would be discussed by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and-, that the charge of the Planning and Development Board was to deal with planning issues. Mr. Fuller MOVED that the Board recommend approval of the appeal, since.he felt that granting a use variance would not change the nature of the community as it now exists. Ms. Crowley seconded. Ms. Benson noted that the motion on the floor did not necessitate use of either side of the house by a family. CARRIED unani- mously. P & D BOARD MEETING 5 - 28 June 1977 4. Special order of business. Ms. Benson notified speakers that they would be allowed five minutes .each to speak on Route 96. Alderman Saccucci said he was convinced the solution would be found within the :tate corridor which would have the least impact on the commercial and residential sectors, and which would be most favorable to West End and East Hill residents. Alderman Meyer read a letter from the Department of Transportation, regarding the design process and the speed limit of the proposed highway. The DoT says it wants to involve the community in its plans, and would like to have a design committee of no more than five local citizen members. They feel the speed limit should be determined by the City, and say they will initiate a study of the. impact on the City of the proposed solution. Alderman Slattery said that the letter indicated that a study is forth- coming from the state. In that case, it would. seem premature for the Planning and. Development Board to make a recommendation' to Council before the study has been done and all facts are in. Alderman Nichols said that on the previous Sunday she had visited a large n unber of homes and had received more phonecalls than on any other issue. She said not one person was in favor of building a four-lane highway. Mr. Don Enichen of the Alternatives to 96 Committee and Ecology Action said he was dismayed by the choices, which he felt were to do nothing, to take the proposed four-lane highway, or for the City to fund the best solution, a two--lane highway, itself. He said he had been in touch with the Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C. and had been informed that there are no hard and fast rules for sizes of highways to be con- structed, only recommendations. Ms. Benson noted that this had been stated at a previous meeting, but that there had been considerable waffling on the issue. Mr. Slattery noted that there are several possibilities for getting 50-80% funding for a smaller-scaled project. He said that solving the intersection problem seems to be the major local concern, and that the DoT should be able to provide funding based on environmental impact. He felt the Appalachian Regional Commission could be approached for funding. He noted that Route 96 and. Route 13 are in the same project,and that they were meant to improve traffic through Ithaca, and not to improve the Octopus. He stated that 4,000 people had signed a petition in opposition to a four- lane highway, and that the public was opposed to a highway that would make Ithaca look more like Binghamton. Mr. William Dillon added that the new DoT solution would leave 75% of the present traffic remaining on the Octopus, and that traffic on Cliff Street would increase to present proportions by 1995, given the Dot solution. P & D BOARD MEETING - 6 - 28 June 1977 Mayor Conley stated that he had accumulated a large file on Route 96 over the last three years, that the situation is bad,and that predictions are that it will get worse. He felt the City should select a plan before finding out what the impact is east of Meadow Street. DoT wants to know what the City's plans are before they make their study. The Mayor noted that as far back as 1972, the Octopus has beEn.the City's greatest traffic problem. In 1973 the Planning Department accepted the present corridor for a new highway. The Mayor noted that the Octopus is a dangerous intersection, as evidenced by a fatal accident three years ago. A policeman is needed to direct -traffic four hours each day. The Mayor said .it was unfair to assume that Buffalo and Court Streets would receive all Route 96 traffic; he did not feel the traffic load on these streets would change very much. Currently it is impossible to get emergency vehicles through to West Hill, he stated,and added that if the City intended to deal with this problem, it was necessary to use State and Federal funding. Since the State and Federal governments will only fund a four-lane solution, he felt this was what the City must accepts He said he expected that traffic is going to increase, and that itis unfair to ask the county and the town to partici- pate in the construction of .a new highway if the City turns down federal. funds. He said that the proposed two-lame highway, while it would be a feasible solution to the problem, would be impossible to build without federal and state backing, which they are reluctant to grant. The Mayor noted that the intersection has been a problem ever since the flood channel was built. He felt traffic would empty into Meadow Street from the new highway, and move from there into all streets feeding off Meadow. He said Cornell people would continue to use Court and Buffalo, as they have been doing all along. He did not think Route 13 scarred Ithaca, but that it did solve successfully the problem of heavy traffic passing through the city. He stated that the proposed highway would only require relocation of occupants of two homes, and that the only businesses affected would be warehouses,which could be moved. He added that the proposed highway would provide a better entrance to the City. He agreed that a two-lane solution would be best, 'but that it is not possible at present. He urged that the -City deal with the problem now,rather than trying to rework corridor and EIS dif- ferences with the state .and federal governments. He said it has taken fifteen years to get ,as far as we have on a new highway,and added that the Police and Fire Departments are adamant about being able to move .emergency traffic. Mr. Will Burbank of Ecology Action replied that there are in excess of 5,000 people who do not want a four-lane solution. He noted that the petition was drawn up by Mrs. Romanowsky last fall, based on results of the first EIS. Referring to the issue of fire safety on West Hill, he said he would like to see a fire station on West Hill, and that the area should not be depending on getting service from downtown. He also suggested arranging signals so that the trains could be stopped in an emergency. He urged the Planning and Development Board to weigh the situation carefully. Mr. Slattery noted that any recommendations on the highway would be premature without the upcoming DoT impact study. Ms. Benson said it was important to clarify conditions under which the DoT would be willing to do the study, Mr. 'Van Cort stated that he had been to Albany the previous week to discuss the proposed highway,and had informed the DoT that the City P & D BOARD MEETING - 7 - 28 June 1977 was concerned with the impact of added traffic on Court and Buffalo Streets. The EIS which has already been done deals with the impact west of Meadow Street, but not east. Building a four-lane highway in the proposed corridor will have some impact on historic properties, including some National Register properties on Court and Buffalo Streets. At the meeting with DoT,rather than discussing plans for the EIS,they discussed whether there would be such a study. They are unwilling to do a study without a commitment or indication from the City. Mayor Conley added that when Mr. Hennessy was in Ithaca, he too was looking for an indication from the City in order to proceed He mould like to know that there is going to be a project before he authorizes any further studies. Ms. Benson said the City would have to indicate a choice from among alternatives provided by the DoT in order to persuade them to do the study. Mr.Slattery stated that it was ludicrous to ask for an impact statement after the commitment to build has been made. The Mayor answered that if the impact statement showed there would be major harmful effects, the City should be able to back out of the project. It was his feeling that the City should give the DoT the go-ahead by expressing interest in the project. He said that if the City did not want to solve the problem, it should let the DoT know. He felt a four-lane solution was the only way of dealing with the problem at hand. 6. Communications. Mr. Van Cort read the following letter,addressed to Mr. Powers of the DoT, a copy of which was sent to the Planning and Development Board: 20 June 1977 Dear Mr.Powers, We are writing this letter to express our concern over the proposed new Route 96 here in Ithaca. After studying the proposal, we are strongly opposed to the Route 96 "solution" of a four-lane superhighway running through and near Ithaca. The negative effects,)on the community as well as the environment so much outweigh any benefits which the highway might provide, that we ar aanazed that such a plan would even be considered! It is certain that such a highway would decrease rather than increase the quality of life in Tompkins County. We question the need for a four-lane highway, as opposed to a regular two-lane highway as a solution to the Octopus and hospital access problem. We do not feel that a four-lane highway should be forced upon us, as is now being done, by using the funds for a highway as a leverage. We request that a public hearing be held in which the residents of Ithaca can express their views on the Route. 96 question. Yours, Patricia L. Page, 417 Cascadilla St. , Ithaca Dennis D. Wille, 417 Cascadilla St. , Ithaca Peter Hess, 766 Elm St. Ext. , Ithaca Sara Hess, 766 Elm St. Ext. , Ithaca 7 P & D BOARD MEETING - 8 28 June 1977 T. Committee Reports. None. 8. Old Business. a. Route 96. Mr. Bordoni asked whether the City.Trould be able to refuse the highway, should the study indicate that the highway would have unaccept- able impacts. Mayor Conley replied that Common Council could make the final decision as to whether there would be a highway in the City. He said that Council has the power to refuse the highway up to the last minute. Ms.. Meyer noted that Mr. Hennessy has indicated a willingness to work with Council. Mr. Van Cort added that Council could back out up to the begin- ning of construction, but that ;the .longerlthe City waited, the more difficult it would be to work with the DoT. Mr. Van Cort said he would check the State legislation to find out exactly what approval power the City has. Mr. Bordoni then MOVED the following: BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board recommends that Common Council obtain the New York State Department of Transportation's impact statement. dealing with the areas east and west of Meadow Street, and recommend that Common Council proceed in the joint venture With the state and federal governments toward .a solution to the Route 96 problem. Mr. Fuller seconded. In the discussion which followed, Ms. Benson said she would like to recommend that the economic impact of Route '96 on the city be given consideration, including what happens outside of city limits. Mr. Fuller pointed out that there was not a lot to discuss since Board members had been meeting on Routen96 to stay informed. They have heard estimates that the proposed highway would take only 25-40% of the present traffic off the octopus. He also noted that planners are concerned that a larger highway will facilitate an exodus from the center city to suburban areas. Mr.'"'Saccucci said he thought it would be unfair for the state to decline to make the impact study if they knew the city were ready to solve this problem with the best possible solution. He felt it unfair for them to demand a commitment before they did the study. In the vote that followed the resolution was CARRIED unanimously. b. Collegetown beautification. Mr. Van Cort reported that the Planning Department is continuing with Phase I of the project, and is working with Ms. Meyer in planning Phase II. There have been many meetings with merchants and owners. Parking is repeatedly mentioned as a problem, and although expanding parking facilities is being investigated, so far there is no solution.. Ms. Nichols stated that merchants are interested in making Collegetown safer and more convenient.. Council has decided to order ten litter cans. She said she hoped the Planning Department would continue to work on Collegetown, rather than bringing in an architect from outside. P & D BOARD MEETING 9 28 June 1977 9. New Business. a. South Hill Playground.' Mr. Fuller MOVED and Ms. Crowley seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, we have reviewed the proposal for establishment of a neighborhood park as identified in the Application for State-Grant-In-Aid, Part I Initial Submission, and WHEREAS, the plan for the proposed neighborhood park is in general conformity with the existing compre- hensive plan for the overall development of the municipality, and WHEREAS, the proposed neighborhood park is in general conformity with other plans for municipal park development, and WHEREAS, the proposed neighborhood park is located in or convenient to a densely populated area as defined in regulations governing the Neighborhood Park Land Acquisition Program, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works and the Ithaca Youth Bureau have been consulted about the proposed park, and WHEREAS,`the existing zoning- of the site prorosad for neighborhood park development and surrounding environs is adequate, THEREFORE,- BE IT RESOLVED that approval of the proposed neighborhood park as detailed in the Part I submission is recomnended. CARRIED unanimously. b. Municipal. Overburden. Mr. Van Cort explained that Ithaca had 61.4% of its properties off the tax rolls, the highest percentage in the State. He noted that present legislation tries to reimburse too many cities, and so cities with Overly large burdens do not get much relief. He said he would like to see this legislation. narrowed to favor the more over- burdened municipalities. Mr. Bordoni MOBED and Mr. Hildreth seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the state legislature has seen the necessity of providing additional assistance to cities and counties with excessive amounts of tax exempt property to relieve them of tax overburden, and P & D BOARD MEETING - 10 - 28 June 1977 WHEREAS, the cities that have been assisted to date- are large cities with as little as 23% of their taxable property exempted,and WHEREAS, the average tax exemption for cities in the state is 36%,and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has the highest percentage of tax exempt property for any city in the state, 61.4% in 1976, and WHEREAS, the tax burden to Ithacans is greater than that imposed on residents of other cities of comparable size, with approximately $2,500,000 foregone in tax revenues, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and Development urges the City of Ithaca's Common Council to pursue legislative action to relieve the city of its disproportionate tax overburden, through financial assistance tocities with over 50% tax exempted properties. Such aid formulas should reflect-the' de.jzree of overburden-to narrow the discrepancy between cities with and without high percentages of non-taxable -oro-oerties. CARRIED unanimously. c.. Preservation League. . Mr: Van Cort reported that the New York State Preservation League has received a grant from the:;New York •State Council on the Arts to look into adaptive reuse of schools such as the DeWitt Building. d. City Graphics System. Mr. Van Cort described the problems which necessitate a city-wide graphics system. Included in the system would be directions to universities and natural attractions, downtown, parking facilities, as well as a directory for City Hall.. He said the system must be carefully worked out with the DPW,taking present regulatory signs into consideration. He said the staff had spoken with five designers, and had chosen the one it considered best suited to this task. Mr. Hil dreth MOVED and Ms. Crowley seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, there is ,a need to assist the many visitors to our community who conte here to.visit both our man-made and natural points of interest, and , WHEREAS, a graphics system which will orient and direct city visitors has been part of the Board's work program, and P & D BOARD MEETING — 11, 28 June 1977 WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Business Association has requested ',that such a system include graphics for the Central Business District, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board recommends to Common Council that a capital project be established in order - to design and ,implement a city graphics system as soon as possible. Mr. Bordoni asked how much money would be required for this capital project. Mr. Van Cort said staff recommended that $10,000 be appropriated for design services and some of the implementation, including supervision of fabrication of the signs. He noted that the City has a good sign shop in the Department of Public Works, but that he would rather discuss this with Mr. Dingman before making a commitment on cost. The figure given does not include fabrication or installation of signs. He added that the cost would not be known until the schematic phase of the project was about to begin. In the vote following, resolution CARRIED. Mr. Van Cort then read an addition communication from John Bentkowski relating to zoning case#1162. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M.