Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1978-12-19 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1978 PRESENT: Stuart Stein, Rexford, Hildreth, Ray Bordoni Richard Moran, Dave Fuller, Mary Crowley ' ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, Carol Sisler, William 'and Steve Carroll , Ceymore and David Turk, Raymond Di Pasquale, Raymond Schlather, Frank Moon, Mack Travis, Rick Lazarus, Newton Williams, John Ward, Ernestine Varak, Celia Bowers, Elva Holman, Reeve Parker, Nancy Meyer, Jason Fane, Mike. Pichel , George Chacona. 1 . The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Moran MOVED to approve the minutes of the November 28, 1,978 meeting. Ms. Crowley seconded.: Motion carried. 3. NONE 4. Chairperson's report: NONE 5. ZONING CASES: APPEAL 1242: Ms. Carol Sisler, owner of the property on Lincoln Street, presented drawings of the proposed structure along with a description of the property. The proposed structure is to be similar in color to the building now on the property. Ms. Sisler stated that she knows of no opposition in the neighborhood to the proposed structure, Ms. Sisler further explained that by investing within the city of Ithaca, money will be added to the tax base. Parking will be available on the site for several cars. Staff recommendation: Mr. Van Cort explained that the site plan has been revised to provide for the required setback and parking. No subdivision is required for':the-,structure according to the City Attorney. The use is not permitted. The site is large and coverage will not exceed coverage requirement. Mr. Meigs recommends approval on the following conditions: 1. No half timbering be applied to the building. 2, That a lighter color paint be used on the exterior. 3. Owner undertake to follow through on`: andscaping. Mr. Van Cort further.explained_ that since the property has three front yards, it is hard to comply with area requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Van Cort stated that hardship would be the only justification for allowing more than a two-unit structure on the property and the BZA would have to make a decision on that basis.. PAGE 2 Planning and Development Board December 19, 1978 Ms. Crowley MOVED to recommend denial , Mr. Bordoni seconded. Motion carried. APPEAL 1243: Mack Travis:, President of Ithaca Rentals and Renovations, Inc. , explained that he had received a variance which stated that he would restore the building to its: original appearance. During the reconstructon, : he decided that the effect of the original design did not appeal aesthetically, the cost of reconstructing the roof to the original design was not practical , and with winter approaching he instructed his: workers to finish the roof in a mansard design. He further explained that he needed a certificate of occupancy in order to rent the property but because he had not complied with the variance which was granted to him he is back asking for a variance to the terms of the original variance. Staff recommendation is to deny based on Mr. Travis's agreement to restore the building to its original design as stated in the variance previously granted, Mr. Stein stated that the appellant choose to say that he would restore the building to its original; design and based on that assumption the Board made its decision to grant the variance, Mr, Travis stated that he did contact the Building Commissioner a couple of days after changing the plans for the roof asking for approval . Mr. Hoard informed the appellant that he would have to come back to the Planning Board for approval , Mr. Fuller stated that in granting this variance the Board would be setting a precedent for any number of complications. He further explained that others who have come before the Planning Board have found it appropriate to come back before the board to make changes rather than making them on their own initiative. Mr. Bordoni MOVED to send the appeal on the Board of Zoning Appeals with no recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Moran seconded. Motion carried. APPEAL 1244: Steve Carroll , President of Carroll ' s Sales and Service, stated that he has rented the Dey Street property since 1957 for storage of tires and other merchandise. He was informed by the Building Commissioner that the use is illegal, that its intended use is for vehicles. Mr. Williams, adjacent property owner, who has lived in the area for 12 years stated that he has no objection to the continued use of the garage for storage and that he would support the variance. Mr. Van Cort said that staff is split on their recommendation. Approval is recommended on the following conditions: 1 . No expansion of use permitted which includes redevelopment. 2. Building and land should be maintained. PAGE 3 Planning and Development Board December 19, 1978 3. No exterior use of signs or storage. Mr. Van Cort explained the negative aspect brought up by the staff and that is it is a potential fire hazard for the neighborhood. Mr. Bordoni mentioned that neighbors in the area stated their concern for cleaning the property up a bit; Mr. Bordoni MOVED to recommend approval of the variance with the stipulation there be no expansion of the building, no exterior display of signs, no change in use and that the property be cleaned up and maintained. Mr. Moran seconded. Motion carried. APPEAL 1245: Mr. Raymond DiPasquale, representing the Turk Brothers who have an option on the property, said he was asked to do a feasibility study for the property. He went on to say that to make the project viable, almost complete coverage of the lot was necessary. The option on the property restson the granting of the variance. The Collegetown area is congested, but there is need for improvement. Parking on the site and in Collegetown generally is a problem; however, most trade for the proposed shops would be walk-in. Since the apartments above the proposed commercial establishments are within walking distance of Cornell , the need for a car and parking is reduced. He further stated that improvements need to be made in `order to get the ball rolling. Staff recommendation, expressed by Mr. Van Cort is favorable based on the need to improve Collegetown. However, parking is going to continue to be a problem. Previous proposals for development in the area were for more intense use than for this proposal which seems more appropriate to the nature of Collegetown. Mr. Van Cort also stated his concern for the final facade design. Mr. DiPasquale said that the plans were not final . As this is the case, Mr. Van Cort would like the opportunity to work with Mr. DiPasquale in drawing final plans for the facade. Mr. Moran MOVED to recommend approval of the redevelopment of the premises at 323-29 College Avenue with the cooperation of Mr. DiPasquale in working with Mr. Van Cort on facade design. Ms. Crowley seconded. Motion carried. .APPEAL 1246: Mr. Van Cort stated that the appeal was to legalize a presently illegally added apartment unit and permit required parking more than 500" from the subject property. Mr. Reeve Parker, adjacent property owner, explained that he was not opposed to college students living next door, but objected to the number of students and the number of cars located at 125-7 N. (quarry Street which made it impossible for him to find a parking place. PAGE 4 Planning and Development Board December 19, 1978 Mr. Fane directed his comments towards the variances which were required. No change in use or occupancy is requested. The lot is deficient in size by 6%. Parking is available on a regular basis outside the required 500' (according to measurement, it is 1355' ) He further explained that if the residents in the home were all related he would be allowed an occupancy of 45. Mr. Fane checked into parking in the immediate area (within 500' of the building) and found many spaces were available at a cost of $3 per month. Anyone who wishes a parking space has it available to them. Staff recommendation is to recommend denial of the variance because it is felt that parking spaces beyond 500' would not be used by the tenants. The lot deficiency is self-imposed as the apartment was added without prior approval . Mr. Fane said that the fifth unit was added with Building Department approval . Mr. Hoard stated that the fifth unit was permitted provided parking was dedicated officiallly to satisfy the parking requirement. This was never accomplished. Therefore, the fifth unit became illegal. The sixth unit was never legal . After some discussion about what was actually being asked for, Mr. Stein clarified the issue.. In granting the lot deficiency, the fifth and sixth apartment would become legal .. In granting the variance for parking spaces outside the 500' requirement, the parking requirement would be met for the number of apartments located on the premises. Mr.. Bordoni MOVED to recommend denial of the variance. Ms. Crowley seconded. Motfbr carried. APPEAL 1247: Mr, Schlather, representing appellant, stated that the home occupation is a distributorship which involves no retail sales from the premises. Thereare two full-time employees. The property next to 321-321z Hillview Place is being purchased for the residence of Mr. McKiton, one of the full-time employees. A third employee has been hired to fill in for Mr. McKiton who is away several months of the year.. There are no signs on the premises. A UPS delivery van makes deliveries two or three times a week. Mr. Ward, attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Varak, neighboring property owners, stated that Hillview is a narrow street with parking permitted on one side. The strongest complaint is the fact that deliveries are not made in a van, as stated, but a tractor trailer which is parked in such a position that children going to school must detour around the vehicle by going into the street. A residential area is not a place for a growing business. Frank Moon, 507 Turner Place, stated his concern for maintaining the character of the neighborhood. The driveway has been widened and shrubbery has been removed and the parking of a tractor trailer on the premises is dangerous. PAGE 5 Planning and Development Board December 19, 1978 The changes that are being made are not in keeping with the neighborhood character. Elva Holman, 2nd Ward Alderman, spoke against the use of the property. She urged the board members to consider the term "home occupation" and what it actually means. As this occupation is being asked for in a R2 zone, a special permit is required, provided the Board feels this occupation can be classified as a home occupation. There is also some question as to whether the ordinance contains adequate guidelines for approving such permits. Mr. Van Cort read the ordinance covering the term "home occupation" and stated that staff recommendation is to deny because the business cannot be classified as a home occupation. Mr. Fuller MOVED to recommend denial of the permit. Mr. Hildreth seconded. Motion carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: None 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS: None 8. OLD BUSINESS: a. Legal interpretation of Appeal 1242 Reviewed under Appeal 1242 9. NEW BUSINESS: a. To be discussed at next meeting.. b.. To be discussed at next meeting. c. Capital Projects in the City Budget. Mr. Van Cort made a brief presentation of the proposed Cherry Street Industrial Park to the Board, and asked that support be given for the project if the Board felt this would be appropriate. When the project was first proposed for the City Budget approximately $200,000 was asked for. The City share has increased to $245,000. The problem facing the City now is the fact that the entire amount of $800,000 has to be supplied by the city to be 80% reimbursed by the Federal Government. Mr. Van Cort went on to explain the importance of the project in. terms of job creation and job retention, sales tax revenues, and the multiplier effect jobs like these have on the local economy bringing in dollars from the outside area. Subsidy appears to be necessary for a project like this because of the high cost of infrastructure. 7, r:--an-�Cort expressed his concern for starting the project now. If the Board members pass a resolution recommending to Common Council that. the Cherry Street Industrial Park be included in the Capital Budget for 1979, this 011 be a way of demonstrating to Common Council the importance that the PAGE 6 Planning and Development Board December 19, 1978 Planning and Development Board places on the project. Mr. Moran MOVED to forward a resolution on to Common Council in support of Cherry Street. Ms, Crowley seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, there are indications that industry and jobs are leaving the Ithaca area and the region and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board of the City of Ithaca feels that Ithaca must invest in its infrastructure in order to remain competitive in attracting and retaining jobs in the City and to help assure the continuing economic strength of the City and, WHEREAS, the City's pre-application to the Farmers Home Administration and the Appalachia Regional Commission for federal assistance for the Cherry Street Industrial Park has received the highest rating in the Southern Tier East Region and represents a unique opportunity for the City and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board recognizes the fiscal problems of the City, now THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board of the City of Ithaca does strongly recommend to the Common Council that the Cherry Street Tndustrial Parkbefunded as a capital project in the City"s 1979 Capital Budget Motion Carried. 10. Miscellaneous a, Industrial Development Covered in Item 9. 11 . Adjournment at 10:30 p.m.