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.