Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1977-07-26 t MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD - CITY OF ITHACA Regular Meeting, July 26 , 1977, Council Chamber, 7:40 p.m. PRESENT R. Bordgni, R. Hildreth, D. Fuller, M. Crowley ALSO: T. Hoard, H. M. Van Cort, H. Hoose, M. Johnson, M. Space, I . Yavits , H. Schechter, S. Zizzi, G. Lensky, D. Goldsmith, J. Chunko, R. Freeman, S Stark , H. Hoose 1. In the absence of Chairperson Benson, Mr. Fuller chaired the meeting; he called the meeting to order at 7:40 . 2. Approval of the minutes of June 28, 1977 meeting. Mr. Bordoni MOVED that the minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED. 3 . Special order of business: NONE . 4. Zoning cases a. Appeal 1155 - Resubmission of appeal to Area Requirements to permit construction of a 2-family dwelling at 119-121 Giles Street, in an R-2 (a) zone . House would have yard deficiencies, and lot size is deficient. Mr. Van Cort explained that this appeal had to be resubmitted because the property owner failed to appear at the BZA hearing in which the case was to be heard. He said that despite area deficiencies, which are exacerbated by the steep slope of the lot, the staff did not feel that the owner was trying to over-use the property. He had provided for sufficient on-site parking to meet requirements, and although area deficiencies are more severe now than they were before the recent zoning changes, the staff recommended approval of the appeal . Some neighbors of the Appellant who identified themselves as Honey and Harry Hoose of 144 Giles Street, Mary Johnson of 142 Giles Street, Joe Yavits of 115-117 Giles Street and Margaret Space of 125 Giles Street came to complain about the way" the property had been maintained up to now, and about the possibility of further limiting parking on Giles Street by making an additional curb cut. Mrs . Space P & D BOARD MEETING - 2 - July 26, 1977 expressed concern that the Appellant's parking pad would directly abut her land. Mr, Van Cort answered that the plans showed the pad to be located five feet from her property . She also complained, as did the other neighbors, that the land has been severely neglected in the past, that care was not taken of lawn, snow was not shoveled, ice not cleared from sidewalk, etc, and feared that a residence would be equally neglected, especially if the landlord did not intend to inhabit the property . Mrs Hoose complained that the curb cut needed for access to the parking pad would remove one parking space, and that parking was a problem in that area Mr. Van Cort explained that the owner had an obligation to provide off-street parking according to the Zoning Ordinance, that he was certainly entitled to access to his own parking pad and that only one curb cut would be needed to provide access to two spaces , Mrs . Johnson asked how many stories above grade the Appellant planned to build. Although drawings submitted did not indicate this, Mr. Hoard said he was under the impression that the Appellant planned only one story above grade . Mr. Hoose complained that a concrete parking pad would be unsightly and said he would rather see a garage there. Several Board members noted that the Appellant is paying taxes on the land, and that the City cannot inflict a hardship on the Appellant by prohibiting him from building, if the proposed building' , seems reasonable. Mr. Bordoni wondered why the Appellant had not appeared at the Planning and Development Board meeting, and asked .if the case could be delayed. Mr. Van Cort replied that the Appellant had appeared before the Board on this case a few months ago, when the Board had recommended approval on his appeal, but noted that .the case could be postponed until the next meeting, so that additional information could be submitted by the Appellant. Mr. Bordoni MOVED that the case be so delayed. Mr. Hildreth seconded. Mr. Bordoni suggested that the neighbors contact the Division of Parking and Traffic of the Board of Public Works to seek relief from some of their parking problems . Motion CARRIED unanimously . b. Appeal 1166 Request for Use Variance to permit subleasing a portion of premises at 227-229 Linden Avenue, in an R-3 (b) zone, to an advertising firm which does 'light ' printing. Staff noted that this is the WVBR building, and that the Appellants are seeking to sublease to a new non-residential tenant. Staff felt that the proposed tenant seemed unlikely to present any problems for the neighborhood, as there was Tittle business-related traffic, on-site parking was provided, P & D BOARD MEETING - 3 - July 26, 1977. and little noise would be produced by the business . Appellants` noted that they planned to rent part of the Midweek Observer space to the new tenants . Mr. Hildreth MOVED that the Board recommend approval. Ms . Crowley seconded. CARRIED unanimously . c. Appeal 1167: Request for Use Variance to permit use of premises at 402 South Cayuga Street, in an R-3 (b) zone, for carryout food service. Staff noted that the lot and building are in conformance with present regulations, and that there would be adequate parking for the business ' delivery vehicles. Staff recommended, due to the nature of the business activity and hours of operation, and the fact that it does attract customer activity at these hours, that the Board recommend denial of the appeal, since this activity is not in keeping with long- range planning objectives, nor inkeeping with the nature of a residential neighborhood. The Appellant's representative replied that the proposed premises is a commercial building and not suitable for other than commercial purposes . He explained that the business used small post office jeeps and that they do not drive any faster than any other vehicles . He said that the business was open until 1: 30 during the week and 2: 00 on weekends . They are trying to locate more centrally, and feel their business keeps people off the streets late at night . They employ 20 to 35 people, and have three trucks in the summer and five in the winter. They are negotiating for electric vehicles which would be completely silent, but do not expect to have them for at least another few months, if negotiations are successful. They have looked at other locations, but parking has been a problem. There is no eating on the premises, and no alcohol. The proposed premises would replace their location on Taughannock Boulevard. The local manager said he had sent out letters to owners of property adjoining the proposed location, but that none had appeared to protest their locating in the area. He noted, however, that approximately half of the property owners he contacted do not live in the area. Mr. Bordoni asked whether the food odor might be objection- able in a residential neighborhood. The Appellants replied that the nearest house is 30 yards away, that they would vent out onto the roof, and that their product was relatively free of grease and other elements which cause unpleasant odors . Mr. Bordoni MOVED denial be recommended because of the nature of the neighborhood. There was no second. Mr. Hildreth said that since none of the neighbors have appeared to protest, and since they were notified, he P & D BOARD MEETING - 4 July 26, 1977 MOVED that the Board recommend approval. Ms . Crowley seconded. The Appellant noted that their business would be an improvement over the present unsightliness of the property. Vote cast as follows: AYE: Ms Crowley, Mr. Hildreth NAY: Mr. Bordoni CARRIED. d. Appeal 1168: Request for Use Variance to permit use of two-family residence at 212 Delaware Avenue, in an R-1 (b) zone, to a total of more than four unrelated indivi- duals . Mr. Van Cort said he had a conflict on this issue, and was, therefore, abstaining from participating. He read the recommendation of the staff. Staff noted that property conforms in most respects to zoning requirements of the area. It is one of the few double houses in the area, although there are many multiple-family dwellings nearby. It does not have adequate off-street parking for the use proposed in that it lacks two spaces, and would probably require even more in actual use . Staff recommended that the Board suggest allowing multiple use of one half only, if the other half of the house is owner-occupied. Other- wise, zoning regulations would require that a maximum of two unrelated persons would be permitted in each half of the house. Mr. Van Cort read the following letter from the Appellant who was unable to appear: Members of the Ithaca City Planning Board I will be unable to appear at tonight's meeting to speak in my own behalf concerning my request for a variance at 212 Delaware Avenue . I am making a second appeal because my first appeal was turned down primarily because the house had not been on the market long enough . The house has now been on the market for another month (2 1/2 months total) . Four Real Estate Agencies have been showing the house but no one is interested in purchasing the house with the current restrictions now placed upon it. I have also shown the house to six people with the same results . I would hope that you would re-affirm your previous decision and recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that the variance be granted. Thank you. P & D BOARD MEETING - 5 - July 26, 1977 Staff also produced a map of the area, showing the number of units in each building in the immediate vicinity and whether they were owner-occupied. Ms . Crowley MOVED that the Board recommend approval. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously. e. Appeal 1169: Resubmission of Appeal for Area Variance to permit addition to living room space of multi-family dwelling at 117-119 Eddy Street, in an R-3 (a) district. Addition would result in excessive lot coverage. Mr. Van Cort noted that the new plans submitted show that the proposed additions do not increase the number of sleeping rooms and would not seem to affect density. Mr. Bordoni MOVED approval. Ms . Crowley seconded. CARRIED unanimously , f. Sign Ordinance Appeal 8-1-77: Appeal to permit erection of a pole sign in excess of 50 square feet for fast food establishment at 209 Elmira Road. Staff reported that the proposed sign is 15 square feet currently permitted in a B-5 zone. A new sign ordinance which is now being considered by Council would permit the proposed .pylon sign, but Council has not yet acted on it. It is in the hands of the Charter and Ordinance Committee and there is always a possibility that the ordinance might be rewritten to disallow a pylon sign of this size. Also, were the new ordinance rejected, Appellants would not be permitted a sign on their building. Staff recommended that the Board not set precedent in anticipation of passage of an ordinance which might fail. They recommended that the Appellant re-submit the request in two to three months, or that permission to erect a temporary sign for up to six months be granted. Mr. Bordoni felt that the Board should not condone additions to the visual clutter on the Elmira Road by permitting placement of oversized signs . He said the City is trying to improve that area and should not be :undermining its own- efforts . Mr. Hildreth stated that the Board should not be moved to act to suit the convenience of the sign- makers Mr. Bordoni MOVED that the Board recommend denial of the appeal. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously. 5 . Communications: a. Mr. Van Cort read the following exerpt from the May 4 minutes of Common Council. Six-Mile Creek-Circle Greenway By Alderman Meyer: Seconded by Alderman Holman P & D BOARD MEETING - 6 July 26, 1977 WHEREAS, the Six-Mile Creek wildlife area is heavily used during the summer months which creates a parking problem, AND WHEREAS, the area for the cars to be parked has not been defined creating both illegal street parking and parking south of the bridge on undeveloped land, AND WHEREAS, the development of the Circle Greenway and increased use of the area, as well as consideration for the elderly and handicapped is important; BE IT SO RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Department, in cooperation with the Department of Public Works, investigate the possibility of a capital project, "the development of a parking area, " in the area of the Six-Mile Creek wildlife area. Mr. Van Cort said the staff would look into this . b. He then read the following resolution, passed by Council at its. July 6 meeting: BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council, That the City Clerk is directed to advertise a public hearing on a proposed zoning change that was requested by a property owner on May 25, 1977, to be held on Wednesday, August 3, 1977, at 7: 30 p .m. in Common Council Chambers, 108 East Green Street, and BE IT RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Planning and Development is requested to make a recommen- dation concerning the proposed zoning map change at their July meeting, He explained that the property in question is located between Buffalo St. and Cascadilla Creek, and that the staff still feels that zoning should remain as recently revised. He said that if a zoning line divides property, the owner is allowed to use the more dense zoning regula- tions up to 30 ' into the less-densely zoned land. Mr. Bordoni asked if this was zoned to protect the bank of the creek.-. Mr. Van Cort replied that the zoning regulations were enacted mainly on the basis of use, and that there are other regulations which protect the creek walls . He stated that the owner does not now have plans to build on the property, and that should he build, he would have access problems . He said that the staff recommended denial of the change. Mr. Bordoni said he could not see any good reason to change the zoning, and MOVED that the Board recommend to Council that the zoning map remain unchanged. P & D BOARD MEETING - 7 - July 26, 1977 Mr. Hildreth` seconded. CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Van Cort then read the following communications from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission: Dear Mayor Conley and Council Members: At its 11 July meeting this Commission, following official notice and Public Hearing, voted 4-0 to designate the 'Columbia Street Annex' (former South Hill School) , 110 Columbia Street, a City Landmark . The Commission feel that the school, built in +9-7.0- f't^-7 in neo-colonial style, represents a part of the city 's heritage which should be protected from the sort of inappropriate alteration to which it could fall prey due to the Board of Education's recent action. Similarly, its demolition for redevelopment under new ownership would be a loss to the neighborhood which it served and to the community in which its attractive design and visibility make it a landmark in the true sense of the word. Expeditious Council ratification of this designation, in accordance with the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, is requested in order to permit notification of present and future owners of the building's status at the earliest possible time, and to forestall undesirable eventualities . Please keep this Commission informed of action taken in this matter. If further information is required, please contact me . Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Meigs Secretary and Deur Mayor Conley and Council Members: At its 11 July meeting, following official notice and Public Hearing, this Commission voted 4-0 to designate the Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory building, 102 Adams Street, a City Landmark . The Commission feel that the Factory, built in 1877, is an important part of the city 's heritage, representing a major local industry of some reknown which played a significant role in the. community 's development. Council ratification of this designation is requested in accordance with provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance. P & D BOARD MEETING - 8 - July 26, 1977 Please keep this Commission informed of the status of this matter. For further information, please contact the Secretary . Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Meigs Secretary Mr. Van Cort then distributed two reports from staff on, studies to be published in September, one on Peripheral Street Facades, and an informational piece on the Commons . He informed the Board that McDonald's had begun construction and that Harold's will also be renovated soon. He commended staff member Preston Maynard for the fine job he had done in working with Commons businesses to improve their building facades, and noted that before Mr. Maynard' s resignation, he had also worked on a publication dealing with renovating buildings in the peripheral streets area. Mr. Van Cort noted that an informational publication on. the Commons was needed, since the City gets many requests for information on various facets of the Commons . He distributed to Board members memos from the staff regarding the publications . As an information point, Mr. Bordoni noted that the Gulf Station on Seneca Street was an eyesore to the neighborhood, and that the Board had had the impression that construction would be designed to blend into the neighborhood. Mr. Hoard said that the Gulf people had described their siding as board and batten, but had not specified the color they planned for it . He brought the plans submitted by Gulf in to the meeting, and it was determined that the color of the structure was left to the Appellants ' discretion. They showed none. Mr. Van Cort noted that, in the future, the Board should consider turning down an appeal if the looks of the structure will be a detriment to the neighborhood. At 9: 32 Ms . Crowley MOVED adjournment. Seconded by Mr. Hildreth . Meeting adjourned.