HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1979-11-01 MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
November 1 , 1.979
PRESENT: Chairperson Stuart Stein, Rich Moran, Sue Cummings,
John MacInnes
ALSO
PRESENT: Thys Van Cort, Jean Mauboussin, William Sullivan, Jr. , Charles
Singer, David Halpern, Stuart Slosbee, Ralph Barnard, Sarah
Hector, members of the press
Note: The regular October meeting of the Planning and Development Board
was postponed to November 1 , 1979 due to lack of quorum for the
October 30th meeting.
1 . The meeting was called to order at 8,08 p.m, by Chairman Stein.
2. Chairman Stein requested approval of the September 4th minutes be postponed
until the next meeting in order to give the Board members a chance to
review the corrections. On motion by Mr, MacInnes, seconded by Ms. Cummings,
the minutes of the September 25th meeting were unanimously approved.
2. Special Order of Business: None
4. Chairperson's Report: None
5. ZONING APPEALS:
APPEAL 1273: Use variance, and area variance to permit use of
property at '159-165 Crescent Place for a neighborhood
parking lot in an R`-2b use district.
This appeal was deferred at the August and September meetings in order to permit
investigation and consultation between the parties involved. Chairman Stein
then stated that it was his understanding that the appellants had withdrawn the
appeal and this was verified by Mr. Van Cort.
APPEAL 1285: Area variance to permit construction of a carport in
the front yard of property at 574 Spencer Road, in
an R-2a use district; deficient in required front yard.
Jean Mauboussin, owner of 574 Spencer Rd. , stated that he was requesting approval
of the carport in front of their home to enable his handicapped wife easier access
to and from the car to their home. Mr. Van Cort showed members of the Board a
diagram showing the house and lot. He went on to say that zoning required 25 feet
of front yard which would be reduced to 12 feet by the proposed carport. However,
he then stated that staff recommended approval because the carport would not
seriously affect neighborhood character. Mr. Moran, seconded by Mr. MacInnes,
MOVED to recommend approval , Motion PASSED unanimously.
P & D Board Minutes
November 1 , 1979 Page 2
APPEAL 1286: Request for Special Permit to permit operation of
a small shop for purpose of selling games and miniature
figurines as a home occupation at 113 Utica Street in
an R-2b district.
William Sullivan, Jr, of 113 Utica Street, owner and appellant, told members of
the Board that he and his wife wanted to run this business more or less as a
hobby; that they would use one room of their house as a small stockroom and that
they, would be selling these figurines primarily to highschool students, Mr. Van
Cort stated that the planning staff recommends against this appeal because it
didn't appear to meet the definition of a home occupation; and the proposed re-
tail activity that would occur in a residential district, Mr, Van Cort said that
he received a phone call from a neighbor who expressed concern that this retail
activity would lead to more retailing in the neighborhood, However, he said that
since this business would be directed at young people, there would be no parking
problems, which lessens the negative impact. Mr. Sullivan stated there would
not be manufacturing, only sel-ling of miniature figurines that aren't handled
by stores; promotion would be by word of mouth, Mr. Stein asked if he would be
willing to accept restrictions such as one room and no signs, to which Mr.
Sullivan agreed, Ms. Cummings then MOVED to recommend approval of the appeal
with the stipulation that the activity be limited to one room and no external
signs'; Mr, Maclnnes seconded the motion. PASSED unanimously.
RECONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 1269: Appeal for use variance to permit
use of property at 102371025 N, Tioga
-Street for professional offices and
residential use, in an R-2b zone.
Chairman Stein stated that this appeal had come before the Board before; the
property, is located across from Farrell 's Washer Dryer business, Appellants
were not present at the meeting. Chairman Stein stated that this property had
been partly converted from a residence into an office and the hardship essentially
°s that they've tried to rent it to residents and can't; now they have a chance
to rent it as offices to an accountant whose present office is nearby. Appellants
stated that strict application of the ordinance would produce hardship on the
owners. In 1970 they commenced major remodelling, including two apartments in
the section in question, known as the store or offices. They were advised at that
time that the office section could not be converted to a third residence without
violating zoning ordinance density requirements, so they wanted to use it as an
office or store. Since 1930 the building had been used for a variety of businesses.
Mr. 'Macinnes noted that the neighborhood constitutes a little commercial center,
and felt appellants were requesting a minimal change in the neighborhood, Staff
recommendation was divided, with Mr. Meigs feeling it ought to be-converted to
a residence and Mr. Van Cort feeling that business use would not be detrimental
to the neighborhood. Mr. MacInnes, seconded by Mr. Moran, MOVED to recommend
approval . Motion PASSED, 3-1 , Ms. Cummings voting no.
SIGN APPEAL 11-179.; Variance to sign ordinance to permit retention
of the existing Victory Liquor Store sign at
303 Taughannock Blvd, in an M-1 use district.
The sign has been approved. by the Landmarks Pre-
servation Commission as an historic sign.
Mr, Van Cort explained that the existing sign protrudes more than 18" and there-
fore requires a variance, it has been designated as a historic sign by the ILPC
but it is still the BZA which approves upon ILPC recommendation. Ms. Cummings
P & D Board Minutes
November 1 , 1979 Page 3
asked whether there was any kind of requirement that landmark signs be restored
and whether people were aware of that when they got their variances. Mr. Van
Cort stated that if the signs were not repaired, they would have to be taken
down. Ms, Cummings asked if appellant, who was not present at the meeting,
intended to repair her sign, Mr. Van Cort stated that she would repair it after
the sign had been designated, Staff recommended approval . Ms. Cummings, seconded
by Mr. Moran, MOVED to recommend approval . Motion PASSED unanimously.
SIGN APPEAL 11,2-79: Appeal of three fraternities: Phi Kappa Sigma,
5 Ridgewood Road; Phi Delta Theta, 2 Ridgewood
` Road; and Alpha Epsilon Pi , 140 Thurston Ave.
Tor a sign variance (signs in a' residential
district) to Sign Ordinance to permit retention
of existing signs. Properties are located in an
R-U district in which such signs are not permitted.
Chairman Stein told the Board that these were three separate sign appeals which
the Building Commissioner had lumped together and that it was not necessary that
they be taken up as all one appeal ; that differentialresponsescan be given
because they came in as 'separate appeals, Charles Singer, president of Phi
Kappa Sigma, stated that the signs had been in existence for some time and were
larger than the 5 SF limitation, but not large enough to destroy the character
of the neighborhood.
David Halpern, president, of Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity, delivered messages to
neighbors around them that this meeting was in progress; most of them expressed
approval of the signs and had no objections. He stated that AEPi "s signs are
painted on the inside of the window, approximately 4 feet by 6 feet; Mr. Stein
stated that all sign appeals must have specific information, especially photo-
graphs, He stated that he knows photographs did exist; that the three signs
are all different , sizes, character and qualities. Mr. Stein then went on to
suggest that these appeals be postponed, and BZX:asked to postpone them. He
asked the Board if they would like to act on this .at this time, or to postpone
ft. Ms. Cummings mentioned that she had seen the signs; as had other members of
the Board. Mr. Moran mentioned that he felt the signs were symbolic of the houses
as they exist., and that it's imperative that they have some recognition. Ms.
Cummings expressed concern about the T4urston Ave. (AEPi house) having very..lar.ge
letters in the three glass panes over the main entrance way: not a standard
fraternity signage system; and it is on a more heavily-travelled street. Mr.
Stein noted that the other two houses! signs fit with the houses and the neighbor-
hood, but that the AEPi sign did not. Ms. Cummings then noted that this was the
first fraternity signage appeal ; there will probably be many more. Stuart Slosbee
then spoke up mentioning that he was the AEPi House Manager last year and that
the sign was done more or less on his go-ahead, as the pledge project at the time;
that they are a modern contemporary house, and had just come back to campus a
couple of years ago after having some internal problems; he mentioned that outside
signs are frequently stolen or defaced.
Mr, MacInnes asked whether the removal of the sign would be detrimental to the
identity of the fraternities. Ms. Cummings stated that if this sign were allowed
to remain, it would become an invitation to other fraternities to do the same.
Several other questions were then raised, but not resolved: Mr. Stein asked
whether the character of this residential area should be' the same as other resi-
dential districts, and secondly, whether this is part of a situation which affects
P & D Board Meeting
November 1 , 1979 Page 4
other houses, with respect to the nature of the precedent and totality .of the
problem; whether there is a difference between what is being asked of them and
of the others. Mr, Moran asked what other fraternities do elsewhere, There
was further question over who had jurisdiction over the signs the City or
Cornell . Ms; Cummings then MOVED to table any action until the next meeting,
seconded by Mr. MacI'nnes. PASSED unanimously.
6. Communications - None
7. Committee Reports:
a. Urban Design and Preservation; Ms. Cummings reported that the Historic
Ithaca Board had met and considered the issues regarding landmark status
for the Cornell Ag Quad and then read their endorsement to the Board,
as follows: "This is to inform you that the Board of Directors of
Historic Ithaca, Inc. voted at a regular meeting on September 13th to
endorse the recommendation of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
on .September 11 , 197 D which proposes the designation of a portion of the
Cornell Ag Quad as a local historic district, We know that this proposal
will come before your body for consideration," She stated that she had
been instructed by the Board to communicate its action to the Planning
Board, Ms. Cummings then read the Committee"s recommendation to the
Board, which statement is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes,
It was the committee's unanimous recommendation that the Board endorse the
ILPC's designation. Chairman Stein then asked for a resolution of the
Board endorsing designation of a City Historic District on the Campus of
the NY` State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell Univer-
sityp
By Ms, Cummings, seconded by Mr. MacInnes:
"MOVED that the City of Ithaca Board of Planning and Development
endorse the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 's recommendation
for landmark district designation on the Cornell Ag Quad, based upon
the planning considerations noted in the (Urban Design and Preservation
Committee) report and specified in. Section 32.6 of the City Code of
Ordinances."
Ralph Barnard of the Cornell Legal Counsel 's office stated that some of:: .
the procedures and ordinances were relatively new to everyone, and
read a paragraph (Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Ordinance) on Filing
of Designation. He stated that there was a request to the City Attorney
to look into argument by Cornell on the City's legislative power in this
particular area. He questions how this report relates to the mandate to
the Planning Board. 'Mr. Stein said that it fits in terms of ways the
Board, as it sees its responsibility, had developed its role of planning
and development, as implied by its name. Issues discussed here; tourism, .
development of jobs, the economy, certainly responsibilities of the
Planning Board. Mr. Barnard then asked if there would be any additional
statements from the Board on these points. Mr. Stein stated that as with
zoning cases, this is an advisory opinion, only providing an input to the
decision of Common Council,
P & D Board Minutes
November 1 , 1979 Paye 5
Mr. Stein then informed Mr, Barnard that designation as a local land-
mark will not stop Cornell from tearing a. building" down. Designation
implies that the City recognizes that there is some historic merit to
this group of buildings, and points that out for those who may wish to
take some action, The only effect of that action is to require that if
designated buildings are proposed to be torn down, there may be-.a delay
of a certain period of time, which he believes is 60 or 90 days*; in
fact that is all that is required. Mr. Stein asked whether Mr. Barnard's
statements, implying that designation was anti-Cornell , and that the
intent was to prevent the provision of adequate modern teaching facilities,
wasn't overstating the case. Mr. Barnard replied that given the difficulty
of undertaking the project, that would be the practical result.
Mr. Stein asked whether the resolution should be adjusted to mention
zoning and master plans; it was his interpretation that the points
addressed in the committee report are pertinent and relevant planning
issues and are comprehended within the General Plan. Ms, Cummings stated
that it was the understanding that this resolution was offered in accordance
with the ordinance; she and Mr. MacInnes accepted the friendly amendment
to reword the motion to more clearly indicate the planning bases for the
Board's endorsement (motion stated above as amended) . In reply to a
question, Mr, Stein stated that the Board is acting on this issue today
because there is a time consideration involved; this has to appear before
the Common Council ; almost 60 days into the 90-day period provided for
Council action on designations; and the Council will need to review this
and take it up with committee and still have time in a regular meeting to
act before expiration of the 90 days. He then called for a vote: ` the
amended motion, as stated above, PASSED unanimously. This will be passed
to th.e Common Council .
b. Codes and Ordinances: Chairman Stein asked Mr, MacInnes, chairman of this
committee, to briefly explain their present activities, Mr. MacInnes said
that the committee is studying a way to notify neighbors of what they can
say and do in connection with appeals. They are trying to develop a format
that will be readable to anyone and will explain in as much detail as
possible the actions that they can take in response to a request for a
variance. As of yet, the committee is not satisfied with the wording and
they will bring it up at the next meeting.
8. Old Business
a. Route 13: Mr. Van Cort stated that improvement of Route 13 from Ithaca to
Cortland has been under discussion for years and is coming to a point where
it may be appropriate for the Board to take a public position on it. He
stated there were two alternatives which were both being strongly advocated
by various groups. Chairman Stein stated that he was member of the Tompkins
County Transportation Commission representing the City of Ithaca, and
would appreciate the Board's guidance on what position to take; without
* Section 32.6E of the Landmarks Ordinance provides that, even if an owner
substantiates economic hardship, thus exempting his property from the general
ban on demolition, the TLPC may delay demolition up to 90 days during which
other alternatives are explored,
P & D Board Minutes
November 1 , 1979 Page 6
guidance from the Board or Common Council he would feel uncertain
whether a position he took would reflect an official City position.
Feeling that it would be appropriate for the Board to express its
opinion soon, before the final County position is decided, he referred
the matter to the Neighborhood Development and Housing Committee
(Chairperson Crowley) for report at the next meeting.
b. Route 96: Mr, Van Cort reviewed the status of the Route 96 improvement
project, NYSDoT is currently evaluating the implications of increased
project costs due mostly to the City's insistence that a one-way pair
on Fulton and Meadow Streets be included in the project; evaluation of
the environmental impacts of each of the five alternatives on the area
east of 'Meadow is also of concern, While they agree that the one-way
pair would improve the project"s functional viability, projected costs
may require a decision as to whether to modify the project scope or,
perhaps, drop it altogether. DoT will notify us of the results of this
evaluation, and we'll proceed from there.
c. West Hill Emergency Access/Preemptive Signals: Mr, Van Cort informed
the Board that DoT and Conrail are developing a project to improve the
railroad grade crossings in the West End, including signals to stop
traffic before trains can proceed through the crossings. Jon Meigs has
found that it should be possible to include provisions to signal the
trains to stop for emergency traffic, as well , to be activated by a local
official such as the County Fire and Emergency Coordinator-. DoT will
probably authorize the City DPW to design and install the improvements,
in conjunction with Conrail , but it remains to be determined whether the
City can legally be reimbursed by the State if it wishes to let the job
on contract, rather than doing it on force account. DoT has scheduled '
the work for 1980.
d. Landmark Commission Staff position The position has been advertised,
and the selection committee hopes to make a selection by November 30th.
Staff i's preparing a work program for this person which is intended to
to be taken to the ILPC November meeting for their comment, and finally
to Common Council for action at their December meeting , as directed.
9, New Business:
a. Spencer Road: Mr. 'Van Cort reported that at its October meeting, Council
had asked the Department to make a recommendation on closing Spencer Rd. ,
in response to resident's complaints about the problems of through
commuter traffic using the street to avoid the lights on Elmira Rd,
Because Council wishes a recommendation for their November meeting, we
are limited by available staff time to a rather undetailed response. The
requirement arose as a result of a meeting attended by residents and city
officials, including Mr. Van Cort, at which the primary issue was the pro-
posed relocation of utility lines from Elmira Road to the rear property
lines between Elmira and Spencer Roads, in conjunction with the Elmira Rd,
Improvement Plan. Residents requested Council assistance with this prob-
lem, which they felt was related to their concerns on the utility lines,
specifically as both affect neighborhood character and amenity.
P & D Board Minutes
November 1 , 1979 Page 7
The staff recommendation will be that a temporary dead---end be installed
about half way between S. Meadow and Zikakis, in order to permit evalua-
tion of effects on the area, including bus rerouting and emergency access
as well as convenience for residents; and that public meetings be held
both before installation of the temporary barrier and prior to deciding
whether either action is supported by the neighborhood. Further, we
intend to indicate that we feel it is impossible to determine in one
month whether this is the best of several alternative ways to handle the
problem, since there are several obvious drawbacks to dead-ending a
street which is nearly a mile long. Further study would be mandatory
before making it permanent, No Board action is necessary at this time.
10, Adjournment; There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:35 p.m.
PRESERVATION AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE:
RECOMMENDATION ON THE CORNELL AG. QUAD DESIGNATION, OCTOBER 30, 1979
The I.L.P.C. has recommended landmark district designation for a
portion of the Cornell University Ag. Quad, to include Roberts, East Roberts,
Stone, Comstock, Caldwell , and Bailey Halls. The New York State Committee on
the National Register of Historic Places has unanimously recommended the district
be placed on the National Register. The Preservation and -Urban Design Committee
of the Planning Board, accepts these determinations of the historical and archi-
tectural significance of the Cornell Ag, Quad. It is, in turn, the business of
our committee to review the planning implications of such landmark designation.
We believe, for the following reasons, that the Planning Board should firmly
endorse the ILPC's recommendation for landmark district designation of the Cornell
Ag. Quad.
First, we must recognize that these six buildings taken together form a
harmonious unit which contributes significantly to the quality of design in
Ithaca. The loss of any one, or several , of these structures would destroy the
architectural integrity of the entire unit, thus detracting from one of the more
precisely planned and formally shaped areas of our city.
Secondly, designation would insure a beneficial cultural continuity.
While this original Cornell Ag. Quad is, of course, extremely important for
returning alumni , we must remember that it is also the focus for an even wider
community. This college serves the entire agricultural sector of New York State.
These Ag buildings, this physical unit, is an integral part of the continuing
experience of a broad spectrum of our population. Alumni , Ag Day participants,
all return year after year in large part because of a sense of familiarity with
the existing Ag. Quad, The City of Ithaca can ill afford to lose the economic
benefit of these returning visitors. Assuring cultural continuity, supporting
architectural rehabilitation, unquestionably stimulates tourism,
-2
Finally, retention of these buildings would represent a major conser-
vation effort which would make economic sense in several ways. In 1978, the
Department of the Interior commissioned an extensive study by the economist,
Thomas Bever. This report, The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation,
concluded the following:
1 . Architectural rehabilitation conserves valuable materials. This
should concern us all as we have become increasingly sensitive to
the finite nature of our natural resource supplies.
2. Rehab consumes 23% less energy than new construction. 65,000 BTU's/
sq.ft. are required for new construction, as compared to only 49,000
BTU's/sq.ft. for rehab.
3. Rehab is significantly more labor intensive than new construction.
New construction is only 50% labor intensive, while rehab is up to
75% labor intensive. Rehabilitating Roberts, East Roberts, Stone,
Comstock, and Caldwell would bring 50% more jobs to our local
economy than would their demolition and the subsequent construction
of a replacement building..
Thus, landmark designation of the Ag. Quad would be responsible for saving
resources and energy, while at the same time it would strengthen our local
economy by creating a significant number of additional jobs.
We believe that it would be in the best long term interests of the City
of Ithaca to do all in its power to encourage the rehabilitation and enhancement
of areas within our city limits and more especially so when these areas already
have national recognition, Ithaca Landmark District designation of the Cornell
Ag Quad would assuredly promote good urban design, cultural continuity and
tourism, and materials and energy conservation combined with more local jobs.
Susan J. Cummings
Chairman, Urban Design & Preservation Committee
10/30/79