HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-03-25 j
MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
March 25, 1980
PRESENT: Chairperson F. Moore, S. Cummings, P. Holmes, R'..-Moran, E :Ni'chols,
I. Stewart
ALSO: H.M. Van Cort, J, Meigs, T. Hoard, H. Sieverding, R. Boronkay,
F. Wolcott, E, Hartmanis, D, Peer, B. Garrett, C. Southwick,
Mr,; and_ Mrs. D. Greenwood, ,S. Gibian
1 . The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m, by Mr. Moore,
2. On motion by E. Nichols, seconded by I , Stewart, the minutes of the
February 26th meeting were unanimously approved.
3. Chairperson 's Report: None
4, ZONING CASES:
SIGN AP-PEAL 2-2-80: Variance for sign at 602 W. Buffalo Street
(Joe's Restaurant) , Appellant requests
further deferral .
SIGN APPEAL 3-1 -80: Variance to permit retention of Johnny's
Big Red Bear sign at 204-6 Dryden Road.
Appellant requests further deferral .
SIGN APPEAL 4-1 -80; Variance to permit retention of existing George 's
Restaurant sign at 106 E. Green Street. Sign
projects more than 18" , but has been determined
to satisfy the criteria for historic sign status.
Chairperson Moore stated the sign extends more than 6' into the R,O.W, ' Richard
Boronkay, owner of George's Restaurant, showed a drawing of the sign and stated
the Variance was needed for the curved part of the sign which is 5 ' wide and
48" high. Ms. Nichols pointed out that a memo distributed to the members from
the ILPC tells the history of the sign and reporting that the ILPC had determined
the sign to have historic status.
Staff recommendation: Approve on basis of historic status.
Mr. Moran, seconded by Ms. Cummings , MOVED to recommend APPROVAL, Motion PASSED
unanimously,
SIGN APPEAL 4-2-80: Variance to permit replacement of existing
free-standing sign at Zikakis Auto Parts,
301 Elmira Rd. , with 4 free-standing signs.
Car manufacturer requires dealers to have these
signs , totaling over 250SF, Only 2 free-standing
signs are allowed in this zone, with a maximum
combined area of 200SF or 1 ,5SF x building frontage.,
--� whichever is less.
P & D Minutes
Page 2
There being no one present to speak for this appeal , Mr. Moore asked for comments
from the Board He stated the signs are in violation of the B5 zone, which is a
liberal zone. Ms. Nichols mentioned that the zone was created to permit auto-
oriented businesses to have larger signs , and that she found it hard to believe
that any car manufacturer could make any dealer do anything. Ms. Cummings asked
whether the existing sign was. in conformance and Mr. Meigs stated it was reviewed
and erected under the B5 sign regulations.
Staff recommendation was to deny.
Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Holmes , MOVED to recommend DENIAL. Motion PASSED
unanimously,
SIGN APPEAL 4-3-80: Variance to permit retention of existing
Kenton Plaza Motel sign at 701 S. Meadow Street.
The sign is oversize and too close to the R.O.W.
Mr. Moore stated that if only the area of the letters on the sign is counted,
the sign as 156SF; maximum allowed is 50SF in a B2 zone; and that the sign
projects over the street R.O.W, and is in the same zone (B2a) as the Meadow Court
motel , subject of a similar appeal last month. Francis Wolcott, owner and
operator of the Kenton Plaza, mentioned that the difference between Meadow Court
and Kenton Plaza is that Meadow Court's sign is larger and in an area with resi-
dences adjacent; Kenton Plaza's is in a commercial area with no immediately adja
• cent residences; and visibility is essential to their business, since they are an
independent and rely largely on the sign to attract customers. When Mr. Meigs
asked what other means of advertising Mr, Wolcott used, he mentioned trade and
Chamber of Commerce publications and several others, but stressed that he felt
this sign was his primary advertising, though he offered no facts in support of
this. He also questioned the fairness of having different standards on the other
side of the street, permitting larger signs for other businesses. Mr, Hoard showed
a picture of the sign to the Board members. When asked by Mr. Moran if it might be
possible to reduce the sign 's size, appellant replied it would cause financial
hardship and reiterated that the business was surrounded by other businesses, Ms.
Cummings said that regarding Meadow Court, the Board had felt that if the Meadow
Court sign had been somewhere close to requirements of the B5 zone, which it was
not, the Board would have considered giving the Variance, In view of that, and
that the Kenton Plaza is in even more of a commercial district, Ms, Cummings
MOVED to recommend approval ; seconded by Ms. Nichols.
At this point, Mr, Moore brought up the staff recommendation, which was to DENY
and which stated that this was a difficult case but that the ordinance should be
abided by. After further discussion, Beth Garrett, a Cornell City & Regional
Planning student, addressed the Board in favor of the Variance, stressing the
unique circumstances. Mr. Stewart stated that if the Board should deal with this
case differently than the Meadow Court appeal , the basis for different treatment
should be explicit: that the Kenton Plaza neighbors are more commercially-oriented
than the Meadow Court, and that there is a difference in degree of magnitude of
nonconformity. Mr. Moore noted that an alternative to the proposed motion would
be to suggest that the sign be brought into conformance through consultation with
J the Building Commissioner and be guided by other requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Stewart then MOVED the question, All but one were in favor of motion to
recommend APPROVAL of the Variance; Mr. Stewart voting NO, Motion PASSED, 4 - 1 .
P & D Minutes
' Page 3
APPEAL 1296: Area Variances to permit conversion of residence at
408 W. State Street, in a B-2a zone, to use as real
estate offices and apartments, and to permit conversion
of detached carriage house to accommodate one garage
space, a woodworking shop and storage. Side and rear
yards have existing setback deficiences and proposed
use. would be deficient' in off-street parking.
Mr. Meigs spoke of the deficiencies and passed around a plot plan of the property.
Off-street parking is short by 3 spaces - should have 7 and has 4; of the yard
deficiencies, most serious is the rear, which is almost nonexistent. Elly Hartmanis,
appellant, introduced some pictures and stated that the property is currently used
as an annex to Brianwood Antiques across the street, as well as being the residence
of Brianwood ' s owners. David Peer, her associate, discussed plans for use of the
carriage house, and spoke in favor of the proposed use of the two buildings , being
intended to maintain the quality of this property in its neighborhood, and of the
desire to preserve the lovely rear yard, which is the reason for requesting a
variance regarding parking. Mrs. Hartmanis said the building would be converted
to some office space and two apartments. Mr. Southwick, present co-owner of the
property for the last 16 years , spoke in favor of appellant's request and the
desirability of maintaining the attractiveness of the property. Ms. Hartmanis
stated that public parking is not a problem in that area, there is a public lot
only 485 feet away, and that their business would generate very few customer visits
as they would visit by appointment only.
After further discussion , Mr. Moore asked for staff recommendation, Mr. Meigs
said staff was in favor, with slight reservations about the parking deficiencies;
but felt that this was overall a good use of the property.
Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Moran , MOVED to recommend APPROVAL; Motion PASSED
unanimously,
APPEAL 1297: Use Variances to permit sale of premises at 214 Linn St. ,
in an R-3b zone, including residence and auto repair
garage, and continuation of preexisting auto repair
business, operating under year-to-year variance since
1947. Side and rear yard setback deficiencies exist.
Building Commissioner Hoard stated that the auto repair business was apparently
granted a year--to-year variance in 1947 and forgotten. Mr. Stewart pointed out
that it was reportedly granted on basis of personal hardship, not hardship related
to property. Mr. Dudley Greenwood, appellant and operator of the repair shop,
expressed his unique situation in that at the time .he got his variance, he wasn't
notified as to the type of variance requiring annual renewal ; and was surprised
to discover, when he tried to sell his property about one month ago, that he had
a temporary zoning variance. He said the interested purchasers want a permanent
•variance; and that previous potential buyers backed out due to lack of one. Mr.
Meigs explained that R-3b regulations include a number of residential -type uses,
Appellant explained that he operated out of a wooden building until 1961 when he
was granted a permit to build a fireproof building, and that the business was not
detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. After further questioning and
discussion between the Board and appellant as to present and future use, equipment,
etc, , Mr. Moore asked for staff recommendation.
P & D Minutes
Page 4
Mr. Meigs stated that because the neighborhood is older - multiple dwellings,
smallish apartment houses, single-family homes, children, fairly quiet area
and well-kept, that staff felt that the use was inappropriate for the neighbor-
hood in planning terms and that it does not lend to the residential character
of the neighborhood, therefore staff recommends against it.
In the course of further discussion, Mr. Greenwood introduced what he described
as a petition , addressed to the BZA, and signed by many neighbors in support of
his Appeal . Mr. Stewart, seconded by Ms. Cummings, MOVED to DENY this appeal .
Motion CARRIED, with Moran and Nichols voting N0.
5. Communications: None
6. Committee Reports:
(a) Economic Development and Transportation .Committees re: proposed
Fair location
Chairperson Moore reminded the Board that the BPW had in effect granted a
seven month permit to the Tompkins County Exposition to proceed with their
development. Mr. Moran said his Economic Development committee, along with Mr.
Holmes ' Transportation, Recreation& Public Facilities committee, met two days
ago and came up .with some long range planning, legal and economic considerations,
included in the Committee report distributed to the Board (a copy of which is
attached to the file copy of these minutes) . He said that Mr. Barber of the TC
Expo, in his presentation to the Board at the last meeting, suggested that this
piece of property was of little value to the City. Mr. Moran also mentioned
the concerns of safety, security, liability coverage, and environmental impacts.
Mr. Stewart mentioned that it might be wise to have in the Contract/Agreement
some mention as to degree of Expo's responsibility should this endeavor make
improvements, i .e. , grandstands, etc. , and then fail ; that they be required to
Put the site back into a useable state and not leave the debris of their fallen
enterprise on the site. Mr. Moran said that redevelopment of the site is
important, but that public safety and security expense resulting from use of the
site have not been brought out; Mr. Stewart said that they were not reflected in
the permit provisions from the BPW, and suggested that this might be recommended
for BPW consideration. Mr. Meigs said the Superintendent of Public Works is
developing a series of conditions or guidelines for the leasage, Mrs, Nichols
emphasized the importance of the environmental impact statement.
Mr. Moore asked if the report covered the Transportation committee's concerns;
Mr. Holmes said he was at the meeting and had shared his concerns with the
committee.
Ms. Nichols commended the excellent report and said the issues were raised in
a very organized way,
Mr. Moran went on to say that no one on the Committees were anti-Expo - but they
want to be sure that the City maintains control over what happens on this land,
and doesn't prematurely rule out options for other uses that might be more
desirable in the long run, just because of use and improvement by Expo for one
or more seasons. Mr. Stewart mentioned that the social environment, and what it
might lead to, should be thought about. Mrs. Nichols said if this is listed as
the City's legal park land, are they or the BPW at liberty to diminish the supply
of park land. Mr. Van Cort said the question actually is whether this is a
P & D Minutes
Page 5
permitted use in a parkland, and reported that because of potential conflict
of interest on the matter, the City Attorney has referred that question to
Attorney William Lange, who will be researching it for the BPW, and has asked
that any further legal questions on the expo be referred to Mr. Lange.
After further discussion, Mr. Stewart MOVED to adopt the committee report,
along with amendments concerning restoration of the site by Expo if its use is
terminated and concerning site security and public safety; and to convey the
amended report, as the Board's recommendations , to the BPW and Common Council ;
and to direct the staff to continue to work with the DPW and the Codes � Ordinances
Committee of Council to define these concerns, and to prepare and present to the
Board, before Expo's permit expires , a report on the long-term use and development
potential of the site. Mrs, Nichols seconded the motion. PASSED unanimously.
Mr. Moore asked for suggestions for an appropriate way to express disappointment
that the Board wasn 't able to express their concerns before the decision was made.
Mr. Van Cort said this item was referred to committee and the BPW acted before
the committee report was brought back to the Board. Mr. Stewart said he would
like to register the fact that something was referred to his committee and was
acted on by the Common Council before his committee had time to act regarding
a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding rebuilding after a fire.
Mrs, Nichols said this point was brought up at the Council meeting but they
acted anyway.
Mr. Moore suggested he could informally bring this up to the Mayor; that there
is a degree of disappointment that the Board had no opportunity to make even
a brief study, Mr. Moran said he would recommend that Mr® Moore do this informally.
Mr. Van Cort then informed the Board that the report on the fair was Mr. Meigs'
work and was well done.
(.b) Any other
Mr. Moore asked Mr. Van Cort to provide the Board generally with a list of out-
standing items before the Board, and the committees to whom they've been referred,
so as to keep track of them.
7. Old Business, including staff reports; No staff reports.
8, New Business
(a) Transit System Handicapped Accessibility Plan. Mr. Van Cort asked staff
member Herman Sieverding to speak to the Board on this. Mr. 'Jan Cort explained
that about 12 months ago, Transit System foreman Bernie Carpenter asked the
planning staff if they would assist the DPW in working out what's called a
Transition Plan which would treat the question of how Ithaca Transit would
accommodate the handicapped®
Mr, Sieverding explained that in 1979 the DoT began implementing what is called
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which, in essence, says that any transit
system that is receiving federal assistance will make 50% of their fixed-route
system accessible to handicapped persons by July 1982, or by July 1989 in cases
involving extraordinary expense. These plans will explain exactly how systems
will meet those requirements on 4 levels. (1 ) Fixed route system; revenue of
vehicles; (2) Fixed facilities , i .e. bus shelters (are they handicapped accessible?) ;
(3) Services; do routes serve areas where there are concentrations of handicapped
P & D Minutes
Page 6
people; (4) Programs and practices is there an allowance for companions or
aides to handicapped on the bus ; have drivers gone through sensitivity training
so they're aware of particular problems of the handicapped. He explained that
Mr. Carpenter came to the staff for help to prepare the plan and that eventually
the Board will be involved in the sense of endorsements for that plan. Mr.
Sieverding said hopefully the draft could be prepared by the beginning of May,
at which point it would be open for public review and Board endorsement; in the
beginning of June there would be a public hearing where criticisms and comments
received would be evaluated for incorporation into the final plan, Therefore
it could be ready by the end of June with submission to the DoT in July,
General discussion followed. Mrs. Nichols informed members that Council was
having a special meeting March 27th on the question of a bus which needs to be
replaced. She said there is some opposition to spending $133,000 for a lift-
equipped bus not only because of the expense, but because the Supt. of Public
Works said the lift requires the bus driver to leave the bus in order to operate
the lift and they have an inflexible rule that the driver may never leave the bus
because of the hilly terrain in Ithaca. Mr. Van Cort went on to say that the
process of developing this plan involves a number of steps, including many
meetings with the handicapped and members of the community; questions include
whether providing the lifts would be cost effective, and what would be the
preferred system of the handicapped people in the community. He mentioned
that there are strong indications the handicapped themselves don 't want the
type of system which Section 504 seems to promote, but would rather have the
City make a continued commitment to the Gadabout system, which is a demand-
responsive, flexible, separate system. He mentioned the seriousness of the
problem and of the City's commitment to the handicapped,
Mr. Sieverding said there was one possibility for relief from Section 504, in
that there is a waiver possibility on all DoT requirements, but most are denied.
He further stated that he had contacted our Congressman's office to make him
aware of this.
After further discussion, Mr. Van Cort said the staff wanted to make the Board
aware of this problem and asked that when this does come before them, it be
given timely consideration, He thanked the Board for their comments.
(b) Comprehensive Energy Plan, Mr, Sieverding said a prerequisite to
many grant applications is that a community have a comprehensive energy plan
that would indicate to the Dept, of Energy and to HUD what sort of energy manage-
ment techniques are utilized at local levels. Mr. Van Cort said it was his
thought that most of what DoE is going to put out will be contingent upon there
being an in-place energy plan.
When asked by Mr. Moore exactly what an energy plan was, Mr. Sieverding explained
that various sectors of a municipality are studied for energy useage within
each sector, techniques, policies, and regulatory devices in use or which might
be employed to reduce energy consumption, etc. He said technically it will be
a difficult plan to put together, but there were a number of students at Cornell
from both planning and natural resources interested in working on it, Mrs.
Nichols also mentioned the College of Engineering might be of assistance, Mr.
Sieverding said he has talked with people at INHS who are interested in working
on developing an energy grant proposal , He said that the grant proposal must
P & D Minutes
Page 7
indicate that they're in the process of putting this Comprehensive Energy Plan
together, and in a sense are looking for the Board's support and approval for
devoting staff time to it,
Ms. Cummings said she would assume that they are also responding to a request
by INHS's Board of Directors which endorsed INHS involvement in the Energy Grant
proposal and committed staff time to work on it. Steven Gibian, EOC Energy
Coordinator told the Board he was in favor of the plan and his office is committing
time to this effort. If the grant proposal is successful , INHS will benefit by
being funded to implement the energy conservation measures determined to be
appropriate for the community, such as weatherization and insulation of older
homes. Mrs. Nichols said that the Mayor was talking about appointing an Energy
Committee; Mr. Moore suggested that the staff might rough out the problem or
perhaps form a working group to outline facts, etc. Mr. Van Cort said there
should be a committee of the Planning Board, since it is a planning function and
the Board should be sensitive to these issues. He said he would ask Mr. Sieverding
to prepare some written materials to give an idea of the scope of this project,
9. Miscellaneous : Ms, Cummings said that Historic Ithaca is looking for nominations
for their Preservation/Restoration award to be given in May, and thought the Board
might have some suggestions either now or in the next few weeks. She said they
are looking for nominations in the categories of restoration or adaptive reuse,
particularly commercial revitalization - projects which have been substantially
completed within the past year. She went on to say that there was one major
award and several certificates of recognition for other projects ; any project
in Tompkins County is eligible.
On another matter, she said she would like to receive the BZA dispositions of
the zoning cases ; that they weren 't with the minutes of the last meeting. Mr.
Van Cort said they would be sent in summary form with all future mailings of
the minutes.
On still another matter, Mr. Stewart asked why the City historic districts
aren't certified so that owners of properties in them could get benefits of the
1976 Tax Act; he knows that the first step, certification of the City's Landmarks
Ordinance, has been completed. General discussion followed and Mr, Van Cort said
he would have Penny Dolan, Historic Preservation Coordinator, check into this.
Ms. Cummings said along those lines there will be on April 17, from 2:00-4:00,
a session on the Use of the Tax Incentives which is being sponsored by the
Chamber of Commerce, ILPC and Historic Ithaca at the Ramada Inn, Mr, Meigs
said that the owners of properties in the DeWitt Park National Register district
are eligible, and have been informed of that fact.
Ms. Nichols said there have been a number of meetings that- have taken place
concerning plans for converting East Hill School and Sage Infirmary to multiple
residences. She said Council did adopt a resolution saying the City would express
its interest whenever any publicly zoned area came on the market as available for
sale, She said the school district has made itself quite open in dealing with
the City, by waiting to find out what the City was able to arrange with respect
to East Hill . She also said that Cornell has had several meetings where they
showed their designs and sketches for Sage, Cascadilla Hall , and Sheldon Court.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.