HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1977-08-29 MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD - CITY OF ITHACA
Regular Meeting, August 29, 1977, Council Chamber, 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson LeG. Benson, R. Bordoni, R. Hildreth,
M. Crowley
ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, S. Heinz, I. Stewart, A. Albanese,
G. Wojcik, Members of the Press, Others
1. Chairperson Benson called the meeting to order.
2. Mr. Bordoni MOVED that the nimutes of the July 26 meeting be
approved as submitted. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED.
3. Special order of business. Mr. Gary Wojcik presented a proposal
to install utilitarian sculptures on the bollards at both ends of
the Commons. He said that the Planning and Development Department
had contacted him about making planters to top the bollards, but it
was decided that this was impractical. On his own, Mr. Wojcik
designed the proposed sculpture to be safe, uncomfortable to sit on,
of a minimum height, and which would draw people to the Commons. He
said he wanted to make the sculpture accessible as a conceptual
piece, but also wanted to do something that would be interesting for
him to work on. He explained that the negative spaces around his
wedges spell out "Ithaca." They are constructed of 1/419 steel
plate, and a special locking system bonds the sculpture to a base
plate which is then bolted into the bollards. He said that the
sculptures would be vandal-proof, and would be covered with an epoxy-
base paint. The cost of the sculpture is $3200 installed, and would
require- four weeks from the signing of an. agreement with the city to
complete. Mr. Hildreth asked him if he had considered using Cor-ten
for the sculptures. Mr. Wojcik replied that the Cor-ten bleeds for
ten or twelve years, and that it would stain the concrete of the .
bollards. Mr. Bordoni asked how wide the strip of negative space
topping the T would be. Mr. Wojcik replied that it would be 4" wide.
Mr. Hildreth asked what the disadvantages of the sculpture might be.
Mr. Wojcik said that they might get scratched. He did not feel
there was a safety problem, since all corners of the sculpture would
be rounded and the tops of the wedges would stand 42" .above the
ground which would discourage children from climbing on them. He
reiterated, in response to a question from Mr. Bordoni, who cited
some ambiguity in the last BPW minutes, that the quoted price
includes fabrication and installation of the pieces. Mr. Bordoni
said that some people had expressed to him the opinion that $3,200
is a lot of money to spend on sculpture, and that the police should
• s
P & D BOARD MEETING - 2 - August 29, 1977
keep people from .loitering on the bollards. Ms. Benson replied that
the city already spends a good deal of money on policing public
places, and that it would be a good idea to circulate. some money to
artists in the community. She said the quoted price was certainly
not out of line for this kind of art. Mr. Bordoni said he agreed
with the Mayor that the city would probably not be able to afford
Mr. Wojcik's art in a few years. Mr. Hildreth said he did not
think that the sculpture would replace patrolmen, but that it would
make it easier for people to cross Cayuga Street and get onto the
Commons. He asked where people would go if they were not permitted
to congregate on the bollards. Mr. Bordoni replied that they would
propably go .elsewhere on the Commons, but that they would not consti-
tute a barrier to admittance to the Commons were they to gather at
a location further into the Commons. Ms. Benson stated that the
Board could pass this on to Common Council without comment, with
negative comment, or with approval. Mr.. Bordoni noted that the
proposal would be going to the B&A committee tomorrow and the P & D
committee the following day. Mr. Bordoni MOVED that the Planning
and Development Board recommend to those committees of Council that
the sculptures be purchased. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED
unanimously.
4. Zoning cases.
a. Appeal 1155: Continuation of resubmission of appeal
for Area Variance at 119-121 Giles Street in an R-2a
zone, to build a 2-unit residence which would have
yard and-lot size deficiencies.
Staff noted that the house was designed by its future occupant, as a
one-family house with a rental unit, and remarked that the house could
not be built within the provisions of the zoning ordinance on that
lot because- the rear yard drops off precipitously, and therefore
could not .be adequate to fulfill requirements. Staff felt that as
long as the house is anchored well enough so that it will not slip
off into the creek, the Board of Zoning Appeals should not insist on
meetng .rear yard requirements.. In addition; there is no developable
property behind the rear yard and no way for any fire equipment to
pass behind the house anyway. A shallow backyard, the staff felt,
would not have any adverse effects. Parking would be provided where
none no-v exists. Staff felt that to recommend denial would deprive
the owner of reasonable use of the property. The prospective owner
ofthe house noted that since there was a house on the property at
one time, it would be reasonable .to build again. Mr. Bordoni noted
that neighbors had complained of lack of parking on that street, and
that the proposed two-vehicle carport would require a curb cut which
would take away from existing parking spaces. Mr. Van Cort pointed
out that even with the curb cut, there would still be a net gain of
one space. Mr. Hildreth MOVED to recommend approval. Ms. Crowley
seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
• •
P & D BOARD MEETING - 3 - August 29, 1977
b. Sign Ordinance Appeal 9-2-77: Appeal by Ithaca Real
Food Coop to permit a mural in excess of the permitted
sign area at 213 Fifth Street, in a B-4 zone.
Staff reported that the Real Food Coop had painted a mural on the side
of the building they now occupy, and that they say they had a communi-
cation from the Planning Department indicating that this was allowable.
The building is on a dead-end street. Appellants feel they have
improved the aesthetic quality ofthe building, and that their mural
is in keeping with the spirit of the sign ordinance. Staff reported
that a staff member had given them an opinion based on a hypothetical
case. Strictly construed, the staff felt that this was a sign. The
frontage on Route 13 would be large enough to accommodate a sign this
size, but the front of the building is far too small for so large a
sign. Mr. Van Cort said that he personally would like to see the
variance approved. Ms. Benson pointed out that the work appears to
be both a mural and a sign and that they are separable. She said
that to disallow murals would be depriving the city of some attractive
decorative art. She urged the Board to be open to a diversity of
taste, and suggested that the Board isolate the sign from the mural
in its consideration of the appeal. Mr. Van Cort noted that the
front of the building was 20 feet long, so that 30 square feet of
signage would be allowed. Mr. Bordoni noted that the mural listed
the items sold by the Real Food Coop, and felt that this was a clear-
cut violation of the sign ordinance. Mr. Van Cort noted that the
building was in the midst of an industrial neighborhood and not a
residential area, and should be given consideration as such. Ms.
Benson noted that if the Board were to allow the variance, this
would not then be in violation of the sign ordinance. She also added
that the work was done by local people, and was different from the
Gulf station on Seneca Street, whose alarming color scheme was selected
by an agency outside of. Ithaca. Mr. Bordoni pointed out that there
are homes in the area in question. Ms. Benson stated that the mural
is integral with the wall, and was in this way different from a sign.
She also noted that it was not the Board's charge to make judgments
of taste. Mr. Hildreth felt the mural looked too much like a sign.
Ms. Benson noted that in a recent court case concerning a mural with
wording on it, it was determined to be a mural in spite of the wording
which appeared on it. Mr. Bordoni felt the intent of the mural was
to advertise, and MOVED that the Board recommend denial. Mr. Hildreth
seconded, saying that he too considered the mural a sign. Ms. Crowley
asked whether the mural could be allowed were the words deleted. Mr.
Van Cort replied that if all wording except "Real Food Coop" and
"Grains" was deleted, the sign would fall within the size limits of
the ordinance. Ms. Crowley proposed a friendly amendment to allow
the mural to remain if all words except "Real Food Coop" and "Grains"
were removed, provided these signs did not exceed allowable square
footage for this property. Messrs. Bordoni and Hildreth agreed to
P & D BOARD MEETING - 4 - August 29, 1977
accept the amendment. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Ms. Benson noted
that the Planning and Development Board would send this recommendation
with a letter of explanation to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
7.c Noting the presence of Mr. Albanese, Mr. Bordoni MOVED and
Ms. Crowley seconded considering Item 7.c on the Agenda at this point,
Designation of Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory and Columbia Street School.
Mr. Van Cort indicated that there had been a communication from Common
Council at their August 3, 1977 meeting requesting a recommendation
from the Planning and Development Board on proposed designation of
the Ithaca Calendar. Clock Factory and the former South Hill School
buildings as historic landmarks.
Professor Ian Stewart, Chairperson of the Ithaca Landmarks Preserva-
tion Commission, noted that the Commission had considered requesting
designation of certain properties surrounding the Calendar Clock
Factory as historic landmarks as well, but neighbors objected to such
designation, and so the ILPC decided to recommend on the Factory.
He said that designation has been under consideration for a year.
He noted that the building has many features unique in decorative
arts of the period in which it was built, and it was his opinion and
the Commission's that the architectural integrity of the structure
should be preserved.
He further noted that the Commission is even more interested in pre-
serving the Columbia Street Annex, built in 1907. He said the build-
ing is in excellent condition, and that it is a fine example of its
kind of architecture. Mr. Bordoni asked whether owners of landmarks
buildings were apprised of regulations governing proposed changes
in their buildings. Mr. Stewart. replied that the Landmarks Ordinance
requires that owner's and neighbors be informed of such regulations.
He also noted that one. of Ithaca's distinguishing characteristics
is its interest in preserving its architectural character. Mr. Van
Cort also explained that the Planning and Development Board meeting
is not an official public hearing, and that owners and neighbors
are not required by law to be notified of the meeting.
Mr. Hildreth asked whether the Ithaca City School District is
interested in renovating the Columbia Street Annex. Mr. Stewart
replied that they were more interested in disposing of the property.
He explained that once .the building is designated, the exterior
cannot be appreciably 'changed without permission from the ILPC,
nor can the building- be demolished. However, if designation causes
undue hardship to the owner, there are avenues of appeal. Mr. Van
Cort said that the owner must be able to get a fair return from
his property, or he could appeal. He said the Mayor and staff had
met with. the school district and that the district is interested
in disposing of the property. They are interested in working with
the city. to insure that the property will be reused properly. They
• v .
P & D BOARD MEETING - - August 29, 1977
seem convinced that selling price is not the only criteria. Ms.
Benson thanked Prof. Stewart for his comments, and asked if there
were others who wished to speak on this subject. Mr. Albanese came
forward and said he was having trouble keeping heat in his building
(the clock factory) . He. would like to build a vestibule in front
of the building to cut down on draft, and was wondering whether such
a structure would be in violation of landmarks requirements. He
asked who he should appeal to if he wishes to make alterations to
the exterior of his building. Mr. Van Cort replied that if the
building is designated by Common Council as a landmark, he would have
to go to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission for approval.
Prof. Stewart said the commission would issue a certificate of
appropriateness for the changes, if they approved them. He further
stated that owners of landmark buildings were not expected to use the
building as it was used in the 19th Century. He further noted that
the commission was very impressed with what Mr. Albanese had recently
done to improve his building, and that they would probably be sympathetic
to modest change. Ms. Benson noted that those interested in preserva-
tion are also concerned with keeping historic properties in use. Mr.
Albanese asked how such improvements would affect the tax structure
of his building. He noted that they have rented space to a non-profit
organization at a minimal cost. He asked whether there was any chance
of tax relief on the building. Mr. Stewart replied that the tax
situation was to be decided between Mr. Albanese and the county assessor.
He said that $20,000 in Community Development funds had been set aside
to preserve historic buildings, and suggested Mr. Albanese investigate
possibilities of using some of that money to improve his building.
He also noted that some communities pass ordinances which recognize
the value of renovation and which exempt owners of renovated landmarks
buildings from taxation for five to ten years. Mr. Albanese explained
that he bought the .building when it was unoccupied, and that the
building was assessed at a low rate because it was not in good condi-
tion. He said his insurance went up appreciably when his first tenant
moved in, and that he is afraid his taxes will rise in like manner.
He also asked whether he would be allowed to install a 200 square
foot sign across the building which would read "Ithaca Calendar Clock
Factory" in the style of the original building sign. Mr. Van Cort
replied that he personally liked the idea, but that Mr. Albanese
would have to go through a sign ordinance appeal. Ms. Benson said
she favored looking into legislation to provide tax relief in re-
cycling old buildings. Mr. Hildreth said there was currently tax
relief for new construction. Mr. Bordoni said there was also tax
relief for putting a considerable addition on a building. Mr. Albanese
said that in order for him to rent the second and third floors of
his building he needs to build fireproof exits and stairwells and
to renovate the elevator, and that this would require considerable
expenditure, so that he would appreciate whatever tax or other relief
the city could give him. Ms. Benson said the Board would refer this
• 0
P & D BOARD MEETING - 6 - August 29, 1977
to Common Council by letter, and requested that Mr. Bordoni transmit
the communication.
She then suggested the following resolution:
WHEREAS, residents of the Fall Creek neighborhood have
proposed that the Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory,
built in 1877, be designated a City Landmark; and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, :following
extensive research and an. official Public Hearing,
unanimously designated the structure, and
WHEREAS, this Board has been requested to make a recommendation
as to whether Common Council should ratify the
designation,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board recommends
that Common Council ratify the Ithaca Landmark
Preservation Commission's designation of the Ithaca
Calendar Clock Factory, 102 Adams Street, as a City
Landmark.
Resolution MOVED by Ms. Crowley, seconded by Mr. Hildreth, and CARRIED
unanimously.
Ms. Benson suggested the following resolution concerning landmark
designation of the Columbia Street Annex:
WHEREAS, residents of the South Hill neighborhood have proposed
that the Columbia Street Annex (old South Hill school) ,
built in 1907, be designated a City Landmark, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, following
extensive research and an official Public Hearing,
unanimously designated the structure, and
WHEREAS, this Board has been requested to make a recommendation
as to whether Common Council should ratify the
designation,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board recommends
that Common Council ratify the Ithaca Landmark's
Preservation Commission's designation of the Columbia
Street Annex (old South Hill school), 110 Columbia
Street, as a City Landmark.
Resolution MOVED by Mr. Bordoni, seconded by Ms. Crowley, and. CARRIED
unanimously.
P & D BOARD MEETING _ 7 - August 29, 1977
7.a South Hill Park. Mr. Van Cort reported that there is a lease
between the landowner and the city, and that Council has passed
a resolution of intent for purchase of the land as a city park.
7.b Southwest Study. Mr. Van Cort distributed copies of the study
summary to the Board and the press. He said that Deborah Schoch
had been editing the report and had been doing an outstanding job.
The full report should be published in a .couple of weeks. He
explained the contents .of..the study, .noting that while large scale
development. of the southwest is possible, it will not occur without
planning and implementation by the city. The city should decide
what kindsof uses, and .in what proportions, should be encouraged.
He said the city must undertake a study of the potential of the
site and must confer with the private sector in Ithaca to designate
a Southwest. development committee which would gather opinions on
what direction development should take. The city should also gather
information on how other areas have developed similar parcels. Ms.
Benson asked about flooding dangers and Mr. Van Cort explained that
they had been dininished considerably with construction of the levee
and flood channel. He said there was still some minor flood hazard
which. could be eliminated by various compensatory construction methods
such as building on high foundations. Ms. Benson asked whether there
were restrictions placed by the federal government on building on
flood plains. Mr. Van Cort explained that some of the Southwest is
in a flood hazard area, but that if construction methods took this
into consideration, both light industrial buildings and housing could
be built.. Mr. Bordoni asked, concerning page 14, item 4 of the
study, whether water and sewer rates on Southwest properties had not
yet been brought into line with those in the rest of the city, if not,
whether there was legislation to bring this into parity with the
rest of the city, Mr. Van Cort replied that it.was his understanding
that such. legislation was being considered by the BPW or Common
Council.
Mr. Bordoni asked, .regarding page 15 of the study, how this area .
happened to..have a shortage of blue collar labor if there is so much
unemployment in .Ithaca. Mr,. Van Cort replied that Ithaca imports
much of its blue collar labor, and that .this was. due in part to the
local housing shortage. He said that Ithaca's high unemployment
rate was due to. its excess of educated,- unskilled workers. Ms. Benson
asked that the summary of the Southwest study be conveyed to Council.
8.a Mr. Van Cort distributed copies of the proposed budget for the
Department of Planning and Development, and explained that the city
was working toward developing a program budget system. He noted,
however, that the budget he submitted was not a program budget. He
delivered a. summary of the items listed, and explained that 60% of
the Office Supplies and Postage line went for xerox copying. He
P. & D BOARD MEETING - 8 August 29, 1977
noted that the department is charged 5¢ a copy regardless of volume,
and that this is a comparatively expensive charge, since outside
copying firms charge as little as 2¢ a copy for volume reproduction.
However, the convenience and time saved by having the machine in the
building make it worthwhile to continue to use in-house reproduction.
Mr. Bordoni noted that there is a new machine on the market which
is much less expensive than Xerox, that his organization had one and
that it seemed to work well. He said he would get the name and
transmit it to the staff.
In going over the 400 series in the budget, Mr. Van Cort explained
that it was important to continue funding of these lines at previous
years' levels. He explained that the 422 line made possible the
completion of the zoning study in house. He noted that outside _
firms had requested between $40,000 and $100,000 to do the study,
and that it had been accomplished by the Planning and Development
Department for approximately $6,000. He said, however, that it
could not have been done so easily and inexpensively without the
flexibility provided by the 422 line, which permitted hiring of
door-to-door surveyors, computer consultants, etc.
He said the department was requesting $3,500 more in the printing
line so that it can begin publishing on a routine basis. He stressed
the .importance of being able to disseminate .information on changes
in the city.
Mr. Bordoni asked, concerning the 401 line, when the changeover in
the phone system had occurred. Mr. Van Cort answered that it had
gone into effect early this year and that its purpose was to reduce
costs to the city. Actually, the department's base rate has gone
up, but the number of lines available has increased. In 1977 there
were fewer long distance calls made.by the department, and that
phone expenditures had therefore decreased. Mr. Van Cort said that
the base cost would have increased even more for the increased
service, were the old system still operating.
Ms. Benson then noted that in the absence of further questions, this
budget would be conveyed to the Budget and Administration Committee
of Common Council.
8.b Mr. Van Cort read a communication from Mr. Meigs regarding zoning
ordinance revisions for non-residential uses. Mr. Sordoni MOVED
that the staff study this and then refer it to the Charter and
Ordinance Committeeofthe Planning and Development. Board. Mr.
Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
P & D BOARD MEETING - 9 - August 29, 1977
Mr. Van Cort then read another memorandum from Mr. Meigs concerning
the availability of a film on historic preservation.
At 9:55 Mr. Bordoni MOVED adjournment. Meeting adjourned.