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.