HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1979-04-24 MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
APRIL 24, I gig:
PRESENT; Stuart Stetn, 'Ray Bordon`, Mary Crowley, Sue Cummings,
Clarence Cleveland, Barbara Davi's
ALSO: H, M, 'Van Cort, Jon Meigs, Ethel Nichols, Tom Hoard, Angela
Brashear, Elva Holman, David & Seymour Turk, Ken Jupiter, Ted
Bronsni'ck, Helen Neferis, Richard Shefield, Ray DiPasquale
1 . The meeting was called to order at 7;40 p.m.
2. Mr. Bordoni MOVED to approve the minutes of the March 27 1979 meeting.
Ms. Crowley seconded. Motion carried.
3. NONE.
4. NONE.
5. ZONING CASES:
APPEAL 5-1-79: To permit erection of a business sign on the east side
wall of 407 W. Seneca, in a B-2 zone, to permit better visibility of sign
by one-way traffic.
Mr. Stein stated that the ordinance permits signage only on street frontage.
Appellant stated that he would like to place the sign on the side of his building
so that it would be more visible to traffic as the street is one-way, There would.
be no sign on the front of the building, Appellants wish to light the sign with
incandesant lighting.
Barbara Davis stated that the staff had related to her committee that the
mitigating circumstance is that Seneca is, a onerway high traffic street and
it is difficult to read signs that are on the street frontage and that maybe
the ordinance should be changed as this particular problem had been brought
to the attention of the Board on numerous occasions,
Ms. Cummings MOVED to recommend approval. Mr. Bordoni seconded. Motion carried.
APPEAL 1252; To permit addition to restaurant space at 319.
Taughannock Blvd,, in an Mr,l zone, Appeal deferred from March
meeting.
.PAGE, 2 APRIL 24, 1979 P & D MEETING
Mr. Stein stated that the Appeal refers to Kelly's Dock Side. Planning staff
met with the committee to discuss the matter and felt that the issue should
be deferred until the May meeting. Mr. Kelly was notified.
Mr. Bordoni MOVED to defer this appeal to the next meeting. Mr. Cleveland
seconded. Motion carried.
APPEAL 1257: For interpretation and area variance to permit construction
of a four to six-story commercial building at 202 E. Buffalo, in a B,l
zone.
The appellant asked that the appeal be postponed.
APPEAL 1258; To permit construction of a one-story commercial structure
at 323-29 College Avenue, in a B-2 zone.
Mr. Stein stated that this appeal had previously been before the Board several
times. This appeal , however, is for a 1 story building.
Mr. Meigs explained that correspondence had been received from Mr. Adams,
attorney for the present owner of the property, raising the question of whether
or not the existing property was legally subdivided. Mr. Meigs went on to say
that he is in agreement with the attorney that the property in question is an
existing subdivision. The property was subdivided before subdivision regulations
were in effect, The attorney asks that the Board support his contention that
there is no subdivision required with respect to this property.
Mr, DiPasquale explained the proposed plans for the site stating that the
buil ding would house three stores, The Turk Brothers would use half of the
building while seeking tenants to lease the other half.
Mr. Bordoni MOVED to recommend approval of the variance. Ms, Crowley seconded,
Ms. Brashear, adjacent property owner, was concerned about the height of the
proposed building. Mr. Stein explained that the proposed building was only
1 story and did not present a problem at this time, In the future, if any
changes were to be made, appellants would have to come back to the Planning
Board for a variance,
Motion carried,
Subdivi'si'on regulations became effective in 1953. The property in this appeal
was subdivided before 1953. Legally, the Planning Board has the authority to
confirm subdivision status by resolution.
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board recognizes the property
at 323,329. College Avenue as being subdivided legally into two
parcels as shown on the tax maps of the City of Ithaca.
Mr, Cleveland MOVED to approve the resolution, Mr. Bordoni seconded. Motion carried.
PAGE� 3 APRIL 24, 1979 P & D MEETING
6. None,
7. Taken up under old business,
8. Old Business,
Extension of DeWitt Park Historic District
Mr. Stein explained that the Planning and Development Board held a public meeting
on April 19, 1979 and has received a great deal of information from the public
concerning this issue. Mr. Stein asked that the Urban Design and Preservation
Committee report its findings to the Board.
Ms. Cummings read the following statement; Recognizing that it is the business
of a planning board to determine the methods and mechanisms for shaping, controlling
and directing the growth and development of a city, in that city's best long-term
interest, the committee on Urban-Design and Preservation recommends firm Board
endorsement of the proposed addition to the City's landmark district. It is the
committees determination that such an extension of the DeWitt Park Historic
District would be in the best interest of the City of Ithaca for three reasons.
First, the majority of the structures in the area under question taken together
produce a significant addition to our City landmark district. Let it be clear
that there may be a difference between buildings designated individually as
landmarks, and buildings included in the landmark district. It is not required
that a building in a district be able to stand alone as an individual landmark,
Taken, however, as a whole, including neutral and buffer structures, they
constitute an irreplaceable unit and, in this case, a harmonious aggregate of
notable architectural variations. The designation of these buildings is
necessary to insure both their protection and the integrity of the entire
DeWitt Park District. Secondly, we recognize that the extension of the DeWitt
Park Historic District is absolutely essential to the protection of the
residential neighborhood north of Court Street. Without landmark control over
the area in question, thi's area will be subject to large scale commercial development,
This development will inevitably move north into the neighboring residential
zones destroying one of our finest downtown neighborhoods. In a stable
neighborhood we must have an extension of the city landmark district, Finally,
we recognize that it is our responsibility as a planning body to maximize the
potential for economic well being in our city, To do so we must be able to
direct the path of growth and commercial development so that it wild occur in
areas most beneficial to the city as a whole. It is in the best long term interest
of the city to have large scale commercial development occur i'n the West State
Street corridor. We can encourage thi's pattern of development by applying
flexible pressures and restrictions to other less desirable, more limited, but
perhaps immediately more appealing areas, To allow extensive commercial expansion
to spread in the 300 block of North Tioga Street would severely limit the
usefulness of the .V;est' State Street_corri'dor as a base for further development,
To prevent wasteful misplacement of our economic resources, we need an extended
landmark district. Thus we recommend adoption of the city landmark district
extension: 1 . to preserve our historical and architectural heritage, 2P. , to'
protect our downtown neighborhood, 3, to promote effective long-term economic
development,
PAGE 4 APRIL 24, 1979 P & D MEETING
Ms. Nichols stated that Common Council will meet Thursday April 26 to take
action on the new zoning involving the "b" districts and the expansion of
the DeWitt Park Historic District.
She stated that the Charter and Ordinance Committee approved, essentially, the
map covering the extension of the historic district, and that the building
housing Acrographics has been omitted with approval of the ILPC. The resolution
approved by Charter and Ordinance was distributed to Board members.
Mr. Sheffield, representing the Methodist Church, stated that the trustees of
th-e church said that it did not matter to them if the church were included in
the district, but they continued to be opposed to inclusion of the church
rectory, 208 E. Court, He stated that this opposition came from the fact that
tf a property is located in the historic district there will be some restrictions
on the property, and the church's position Is that they wish. to be as unencumbered
by layers of governmental regulation as possible, since they feel major renovations
may be needed on the rectory in the near future.
Mr, Stein noted that zoning imposes restrictions on a property just as a historic
district will impose restrictions,
Ms. Cummings MOVED to recommend extension of the historic -district as proposed
by the -IL'PC ,except the buildings at-208 E. Buffalo and 207 and 208E Court
Street, s. Dais seconded,
-A vote was called- 3 for, 3 against.
Ms. Cummings MOVED to accept the extension of the city landmarks district
as proposed by the ILPC and ratified by the Charter and Ordinance Committee
Resolution, Section T with the exception of 208 E. Buffalo. Ms. Davis seconded.
A vote was called: 3 for, 3 against.
A straw vote was called on Section Th of the Charter and Ordinance Committee
resolution. All against.
Another straw vote was taken to change the date in Section II of the Charter
and Ordinance resolution to read the year 2000, 3 for, 3 against.
Ms. Cummings MOVED to change the date to apply for demolition permit in Section
IT of the Charter and Ordinance resolution to the date that the ordinance is
enacted. Ms. Davis seconded. A vote was called; 3 for, 3 against.
A vote was called on Section III of the resolution. 5 for, 1 against.
The result of the Board's action was no clear support of the proposed extension,
either as proposed by the ILPC or as proposed by the Charter and Ordinance
resolution.
Committee Report Codes and Ordinances
Ms. Davis, explained that a request was forwarded to her committee to evaluate
a town of Ithaca subdivision, The committee met with the Town of Ithaca
Engineer and Planning Staff and came to the conclusion that since this is a
PAGE r APRIL 24, 1979 P & D MEETING
proposed town subdivision, technical in nature and not an appeal , the committee
recommends no action and remands the issue to the Planning Department for response
to the Town.
City Graphics
Mr. Van Cort said that stationery had been received from Carreiro Design which
Carreiro was asked to set up, including business cards for city employees.
This item was referred to the Urban Design and Preservation committee.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.