Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-04-29 MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD April 29, 1980 PRESENT: Chairperson F. Moore, S. Cummings , J. MacInnes, R. Moran, E. Nichols, I. Stewart ALSO: N.M. Van Cort, T. Hoard, M. Pichel , J. Petrillose, C. Foster, W. Pritchard, R. Sovocool , Messrs. Manville, Jr. and Sr . , Mr. Stachi , S. Carroll , P. Ankrum, V. Jensen, B. Holcomb, P. Austerly, L. Gangl , W. Gangl , J. Ryan, M. Herschensohn, R. Cutia Chairperson Moore called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Minutes of the March 25 meeting were distributed; approval deferred until the next meeting. 1 . ZONING CASES: SIGN APPEAL 2-2-80: No action SIGN APPEAL 3-1-80 : Variances under Section 34.46 (projecting signs) and Section 34.9 (sign setbacks) to permit retention of two existing signs at 202-2091Dr,,,,den Road and 206-208 Dryden Road (Johnny's Big Red Grill Tin a B-2b business district) . The first sign had existed since 1949 and had received historic designation from the Landmarks Commission , Michael Pichel , attorney for owner, Mr. John Petrillos stated that, in addition to the sign 's historic value it had, over the years , generated a lot of "goodwill " to the restaurant from the Cornell community. Planning Director Van Cort stated planning staff's recommendation was in favor of retaining the historic sign. Ms. Cummings , seconded by Mr. Stewart, MOVED to recommend approval . Motion PASSED unanimously, The second sign is a pole sign which is set too close to the public right-of-way in vi.olation of the setback requirement. Additionally, it is right on the edge of a commercial./residential boundary. Consequently, staff recommended denial of the variance. Ms. Cummings agree and MOVED to recommend denial . However, no one seconded. Mr. Stewart, in fact, thought that recommending that the sign be set back was "splitting hairs" and therefore made the opposite motion , to recommend approval . Mr. MacInnes seconded. Stewart's motion PASSED 3-1 , with Ms. Cummings dissenting. SIGN APPEALS 3-2-80 and 4-3-80 : Cancelled. SIGN APPEAL 5-1 -80: Variance under Section 34b-A-1 (size of free- standing signs) to permit retention of a free- standing sign at 609 W. Clinton St,in a B-2a business district. Sign exceeds the maximum permitted area for a free-standing sign in that zone Charles Foster, attorney for the Coop Supermarket argued for retaining the sign. He noted that the sign has been there a long time (since 1953 or 54) and has. P & D Minutes - April 29 , 1980 Page 2 been a Clinton St. landmark. He further stated that because of the location of the entire Coop plaza , whether or not the supermarket., itself, would remain , on heavily-travelled Meadow St. a sign of that size was necessary to attract business. Members of the Board expressed discomfort over not having enough facts on which to base a recommendation, in particular, the uncertainty regard- ing 'the future plans of the supermarket. However, Mr. Moore observed that the Board consideration should be only on the merits of the sign itself. Building Commissioner Hoard stated that since the ordinance only allows for a 30-day appeal , there would not be a chance for waiting until the fate of the supermarket was known before issuing a recommendation. Van Cort stated staff's recommendation was for denial of the variance, since economic hardship is not a permissable consideration. Mr. Stewart MOVED to recommend denial of the appeal . Ms . Cummings seconded , but offered an amendment that the recommendation include a request to the BZA to consider economic hardship issues involved. Stewart accepted this as a friendly amendment, The motion , as amended, was PASSED unanimously. SIGN APPEAL 5-2-80: Variance under Section 34.8A (sign setback) and Section 34.48 (projecting signs to permit retention of 2 signs on the face of the building at 304-306 S. Cayuga St. and a large free-standing sign at the same address. There was extensive discussion of this appeal in an attempt to clarify how many signs were being appealed, which signs the owner had already decided to take down and whether the appeal included signs on both sides of the street. The appellants auto dealer William T. Pritchard and Attorney Roger Sovocool explained that the signs in question are all on the same side of the street, and that two are slated for removal . However, since only 2 signs are allowed by the ordinance, the appeal is to be able to have three, including the free-standing one which, in addition, violates the setback requirement. Pritchard and Sovocool argued that since Pritchard 's is the only auto dealership left in that area, most of them having located on the Rte, 13 strip, the signs are necessary to alert people to the existence of the business. Mr. Van Cort recommended that one sign should be removed, preferably the pylon sign since such signs are always less attractive than the locally, hand-painted ones. He also stated that the free-standing sign should be dealt with after an arrangement was made for the signs on the other side of the street. Appellants stated that they were not clear on what they were supposed to do and asked to work with the Planning Dept, and the Building Commissioner. Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Moran, MOVED that a recommendation on the appeal be deferred to allow the applicants 60 days to work with the Planning and Building departments. The motion was approved 4 to 1 , Ms. Cumming dissenting. APPEAL 1297: Deferred. APPEAL 1298: Variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 (permitted uses) to permit rental of space at the Ithaca Calendar Clock building for a rare and out-of-print book business, There was little discussion ; staff recommended in favor of the appeal , and on a motion by Mr. Stewart, seconded by Ms. Cummings , the Board unanimously voted in favor. P & D Minutes April 29 , 1980 Page 3 APPEAL 1299 : Variances under Section 30.25 (permitted primary and secondary uses) , and Section 30.25 , (required off-street parking) , to permit use of property at 105 First Street for plastercraft classes and the sale of plastercraft supplies. Appellants , Messrs . Manville, Senior and Junior, explained that the class would involve 6-10 persons and meet 3 times a week. There was some discussion as to whether this should be considered a "home occupation" or a business. Commissioner Hoard stated that in a similar case recently the BZA had determined it was a business because of the retail sales involved. Neighbor, Mr. Stachi of 101 First Street spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that the parking situation in the neighborhood was. terrible . Steve Carroll of 108 Cascadilla agreed and askec where the additional cars for the class would go. Mr. Van Cort read a communicatit from Ben Boynton , Jr. of Realty World who had written in support of the appeal . Mr. Van Cort then stated that staff considered this appeal "one of the close ones" but that it should be denied because of the parking problem. Ms. Cummings then MOVED to recommend denial .of the appeal . Mr. Stewart seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. APPEAL 1300: Variances under Section 30.25 (permitted use) , and Section 30.25 (rear yard setback) , to permit conversion of the single family house at 401 Thurston Ave. to a multiple dwelling. Applicant Paul Ankrum explained that the house would be known as Wesley House and operated by Wesleyan Methodist students. Nine people can be housed at present (four actually reside there now) and, with alterations , a total of 12 could be housed. Mr. Moran asked if religious stipulations could be made. Mr. Van Cort responded that those would be tough to enforce. Mr. Jensen, the closest residentia neighbor, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that conversion to multiple dwellings would change the character of the neighborhood, and noted that parking was already a problem. Barbara Holcomb, director of a nearby student religious house stated that she would have no objection to the variance for the "Wesley HousE conversion. Mr. Stewart stated that the zoning had been upgraded to R-2a three years ago for the exact purpose of preventing incursions of the sort represented by "Wesley HOUSE and added that recommending against the variance would be consistent with past rulings. Mr.Van Cort stated that staff was recommending denial for those exact reasons , whereupon Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. MacInnes , MOVED to recommend denial . Ms. Nichols announted that she felt compelled to abstain from the vote because of her personal friendship with the Ankrums. Motion PASSED 5-0 with one abstention . APPEAL 1301 : Variance under Section 30.25 (rear yard) , to permit extension of the single family house at 1302 W. State St. and addition of a screened porch to the same house. The house is deficient in rear yard setback. Applicant Pat Austerly explained that the proposed addition was located in a different yard from the deficiency. Staff recommended in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Moran , moved that the Board recommend approval and the motion was unanimously adopted. P & D Minutes April 29, 1980 Page 4 APPEAL 1302: Appeal for Richard T. Cutia for a use and area variance under Section 30.25 to permit continued operation of a produce business at 205'2 Second St. The property is deficient in a number of areas. This particular appeal had come to the Board 's attention because of a complaint brought by Walter Gangl and his father, Attorney Leo Gangl , who owns and rents adjoining property. The dispute between Cutia and Gangl is in the courts. Mr. Gangl elaborated, complete with diagram, photographs and a written desposition, on his personal grievances against the appellant. Among the items he cited were Cutia 's trucks being parked on his tenant ' s property and bulldozing that had been done on the property. Mr. John Ryan , attorney for Mr. Cutia , presented a petition in support of Mr. Cutia 's appeal signed by 23 of the 30 people who live within 200 ft. of the property. The question came up of whether Cutia's wholesale produce business, which he had owned for 18 years , constituted a "pre-existing use The previous owner had apparently used the property in the same way for 5 years prior to Mr. Cutia's purchase. However, this was considered a "legal " question. Based on current neighborhood impact considerations, Mr. Van Cort gave staff's recommendation for denial of the appeal . Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. MacInnes , MOVED to recommend denial of this appeal . Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1303: Variance under Section 30.25 to permit an office of a refrigeration, air conditioning and electrical repair business to locate at 329 S. Geneva St. , in an R-3a residential district. No one appeared to present a case for the appeal . Staff recommended denial and was supported in this by property neighbor Michael Herschensohn. Ms . Nichols, seconded by Mr. Stewart, MOVED to deny. Motion PASSED unanimously. It was noted regretfully that the new method of streamlining the zoning cases by starting right off with them before doing any other item of business had not worked that night. The appeals had taken 3 hours. Ms. Cummings suggested that the agenda be posted on the door so that people who came to speak to a particular case would at least be able to determine in what order (although not the exact time) that it will be discussed. It was agreed to do this. Mr. Moore then declared a 3 minute "intermission. " 2. Special Item of Business: The next item of business was a special presentation by Community Development Housing Specialist Katherine Evans. It has been decided that reports from Planning Department staff on their primary areas of concern will be a regularly-scheduled item on Planning Board agendas. Ms. Evans passed out a sheet entitled "Community Development Administration and Housing" which was distributed to Planning staff last November, describ- ing the function and activities of the CD office. She outlined the steps involved in .earrying out a CD project as follows: P & D Minutes April 29, 1980 Page 5 1 . Obtaining the money from HUD; 2. Providing for citizen input and participation.. The most recent example 'of th:is is the Neighborhood Improvement Projects,, Numbers 1 & 2; 3. Environmental Assessments of projects. ,. First, a short Environmental Asse.s.sment Form (EAF) is completed and then is followed.by a more, detailed'assessment .(if necessary); 4. Develop a contract with a. subgrantee 'for the particular project. The City is-always the grantee. Organizations such as INHS;--EOC and the `Building Department are, for example; subgrantees; 5. Monitor the performance of .the construction °subgrantee in the areas of the Fair Labor Practices and Equal Opportunity. Ms. Evans noted that this had been a function of the DPW until HUD monitors who came last summer had required improvement of supervision in these areas. Ms. Evans stated that this supervision is taking too much of her time- from basic housing work and the IURA has been attempting to get a contract set up between the DPW and IURA to oversee all aspects of construction., 6. Fiscal Management. This is now the primary responsibility of Jasmine Lim, who, as one of her first duties as CD Coordinator, is setting the CD books straight. It was difficult to keep complete records during the long months when CD was understaffed. Additionally, records have been misplaced as a result of turnovers. Ms. Evans stated that there are two types of funds : 1 . Entitlement Grants. These amounted to 1 .7 million in five years. 2. Discretionary Grants. These have totaled 1 .9 million in three years. She stated that there were 29 projects in various phases and that the average monthly "drawdown" was $50,000, almost twice as fast as :a year ago. Mr. Van Cort interjected that these larger drawdowns were a good thing; it meant that the allocated money was being used as intended. He then added that it was valuable for the Board to be hearing this report because the Planning Board in the past has only been periodically involved in CD activities. When Mr. Stewart asked how the Board can be of most assistance to CD, Ms. Evans stated that the Board can help CD meet the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) goals. She passed out copies of the . City's Housing Assistance Plan outlining the City's goal to construct 190 new units of housing for low income families and the elderly before January 1982, and reported briefly on a housing survey done last fall which identified 25 potential housing sites for HUD Section 8 housing. Very few of these sites will accommodate large projects. She asked for assistance in setting site guidelines for assisted housing. It was decided that either the Board as a whole or the Neighborhood Con- servation Subcommittee would meet with Ms. Evans at some as yet unspecified time to discuss such guidelines and criteria for site selection . P ,& D Minutes April 29, 1980 Page 6 3. Approval of minutes. See above. 4 Chairperson 's Report: None 5•. Committee Reports : ` None 6`. Corpm unicaaion"s : None 7. Old Business: None 8.. New Business: a) Fair Housing Ordinance. Copies of the proposed-Fair Housing Code- were distributed. It was. announced.that this proposed code :, would be on the agenda at the May 7 meeting of Council and the Planning and Development Committee's April 30 meeting. Ms. Cummings,: seconded by Mr. Moran, MOVED to support the proposed code. The motion was unanimously adopted. b) Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment, The proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance to extend the downtown B-1 commercial area into the residential area up to Cascadilla Ave./Cascadilla Creek between Sears and N. Aurora Sts. was discussed, Common Council had held a special committee meeting on it the night before (4/28) which Chairperson Moore, Ms Cummings and Ms. Nichols had attended, Ms. Nichols announced that an environmental impact assessment of -the proposed zoning change was being done which would "probably take all summer" Mr. Van Cort asked for a Board resolution stating the seriousness of the problem as perceived by the Board to convey to CommonCouncil and asking for staff time to work on it. Mr. Stewart stated that he thought the Board needed more data before passing a resolution but that a.aense of the meeting expressing agreement with Mr, Van Cort's stated concerns should be noted for the record. Chairperson Moore directed that this be dole.- c) Radio Towers. Alderperson Nichols called the Board's attention to the' fact that the issue of radio towers had been referred to the Planning and Development Board by the Common Council . It was suggested by Ian Stewart that the staff be requested to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would require a special permit for the construction of a radio tower in the city. The staff was directed to draft such an amendment for the next meeting of the Planning and Development Board. d) Off-street Parking. The final item was the off-street parking issue. Ms. Nichols stated that this problem is under continuous study. Mr. Van Cort agreed that nothing should be done on this issue until .it is extensively studied, Chairperson Moore volunteered to listen to specific concerns and present suggestions at the next meeting of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 11 :37 p.m. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - DECISIONS MEETING OF MAY 19, 1980 SIGN APPEAL 3-1-80: Variances to permit retention of two existing signs at 202 -204 Dryden Road and 206--208 Dryden Road (Johnny's Big Red Grill ) . APPROVED 5-�0. - Findings: Sign at 202-204 Dryden Road has received historical classification from the ILPC and thus qualifies as an exemption under Section 34.3 of the sign ordinance, Second sign at 206-208 Dryden Road is non-conforming to the extent that it projects into the public right- of-way, but projection is minimal . SIGN APPEAL 3-2-80: Variance to permit retention of the sign at 402 S. Meadow St, DENIED5-0, Findings: `Sign in question_ is-a billboard, which is a prohibited user;to the extent that there is difficulty in finding the `mobile park, this difficulty should be remedied by better street signs; it would be in the public interest not to create an exception for a billboard which is designated by the Sign Ordinance to be a prohibited use; no indication of financial hardship. SIGN APPEAL 4-3-80: Variance to permit retention of existing pole sign at 701 S. Meadow Street (Kenton Plaza Motel ) . PROVED 5-0. Findings: Undue hardship,given this is a locally owned motel depending heavily on its sign to attract cl.ientele; . though motel is located in a B-2-A district, it is immediately adjacent to and across from a B-5 district which allows a 150 SF sign to exist; sign exceeds the 150 SF maximum by a minimal amount. SIGN APPEAL 5-1-80: Variance to permit retention of the free-standing sign for a period of one year at 609 W. Clinton St. (Co-op) . Motion was made and seconded that the Board grant the variance for a period of one (1 ) year. Findings: Unusual economic circumstances - to wit - closing of the anchor store causing undue hardship, sign is vital for remaining merchants; will not change the character of the neighborhood. BZA Decisions/5-19-80 Page 2 APPEAL 1298: Use variance to permit rental of space at 102 Adams St. (Ithaca Calendar Clock Building) . APPROVED 5-0. Findings : Requested use will be a low traffic operation for storage of books and selling of books by appointment only; use will require a,minimal number of employees; adequate off- street parking. APPEAL 1299: Use variance to permit use of property at 105 First Street for plastercraft classes and sale of plastercraft supplies, DENIED 5-0. Findings: Requested use is not considered a home occupation as retail sales are involved; retail sales are not permitted in a residential district; property is deficient in off-street parking; no financial hardship. APPEAL 1300: Use variance to permit use of a single family house at 401 Thurston Avenue for housing five (5) unrelated persons. APPROVED 4-1 . Findings: Requested use will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood; reasonable financial hardship was demonstrated; rear yard deficiency minimal . APPEAL 1301 , Area variance to permit the extension of the east end of the single family house at 1302 Ee State S t. , .and the addition of' a screened porcK:to the same house. APPOVED 5.90. Findings Additions would not adversely affect the neighborhood; degree of non-conformity is altered minimally; practical diffi culties have been demonstrated.