Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-05-27 MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD May 27 1980 PRESENT: Chairperson F. Moore, S. Cummings, P. Holmes, I . Stewart ALSO: J. Meigs, T. Hoard, W. Pritchard, J. Hockey, Mrs. Johns Chairperson Moore called the meeting to order, 1 , ZONING CASES: SIGN APPEAL 2-2-80: Variance to permit retention of the existing sign at 602 W. Buffalo Street (Joe's Restaurant) in a B-4 (business) district.. Mr. Meigs said the ILPC did not have a recommendation because the appellant gave up on appealing the historic requirement for the neon sign on Meadow St. due to lack of documentation. Mr. Moore showed the Board members pictures of the Buffalo St. and Meadow St. signs. When asked for a staff recommendation, Mr. Meigs said staff recommended denial , On motion by Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr, Stewart, it was MOVED to recommend denial . Motion .PASSED unanimously. SIGN APPEAL 5-2-80: Variance to permit retention of two signs at 304-306 S. Cayuga Street (14illiam T. Pritchard, Inc. ) and a Targe free-standing sign at the same address .in a B-4 (business) district. Chairman Moore said this appeal had been discussed at quite some length in the April meeting, and that a moratorium has been declared for 60 days to allow discussion between staff and appellant in an attempt to identify solutions that would appeal to everyone. The appellant, Mr. Pritchard, stated he and Mr. Meigs had discussed the matter at some length and it was thought that perhaps Mr. Pritchard could incorporate a couple of the smaller signs into the big one, but he found out that the only thing the Chrysler Corp, would allow is what is on the sign now. General discussion followed. Mr. Meigs stated that in discussing this with Mr. Pritchard the question of whether the pole sign could be relocated .was brought up, and Mr. Pritchard stated that it would be expensive to do so. Mr. Meigs noted that aside from the signs visible in the photographs there are two additional , rather large ones in the corner of the 2 buildings. Mr. Ileigs said he suggested to Mr. Pritchard that the signs on the building should be removed. Staff recommendation: Mr. Meigs said he felt it would be reasonable to accept the pole structure where it is although he hadn't discussed this with Mr. Van Cort Further discussion followed. The question of the residential character of the neighborhood was brought up by Chairman Moore, Mr, Meigs stated that it is both zoned residential and in residential use on both sides of the street from about mid-block southward, and that some properties need improvement, though several have been upgraded in recent years. Ms. Cummings mentioned there were major renovations being done on the .second property from the business and property located directly next to the business is for sale. Mr. Pritchard noted that he stores vehi- cles in the back yard of the second property. Mr. Stewart stated that the impact of these signs and of those on Mr, Pritchard's Fiat agency across the street to have a strong and not very desirable impact on the nearby residential area; this should be P&D Minutes May 27, 1980 Page 2 kept in mind when dealing with any appeal on the Fiat signs. Ms. Cummings went on to say that because of the issue of planning concerns only and neighborhood environs, and reducing visual clutter, she would make a motion to recommend denial of the entire Appeal ; seconded by Mr. Holmes, Motion PASSED unanimously. SIGN APPEAL 6-1-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign at 706 Willow Avenue (On the Waterfront nightclub) in an I-1 industrial ) district. Mr. Meigs noted that this property is located just across Route 13 from Cayuga Electric, also subject of a recent sign appeal . He said that roof mounted signs and signs that project above the edge of the roof or surface on which their mounted are not permitted, He said the appellant's are proposing to redo their sign as shown in sketches from #1 to #2 - relocating the name "On the Waterfront" so that it goes across the wheel , not around the upper part of the wheel , but leaving the wheel itself projecting above the roof. There being no one present to represent the Waterfront, Chairman Moore explained that the appellant's theory appeared to be that lowering the sign "On the Waterfront" but leaving the upper part of.the wheel on the building would make it not a sign above the building, .Further discussion followed, Staff recommendation: Mr. Meigs stated that appellant's proposal was not a viable solution, since it doesn't meet the criteria for a sign not projecting above the roof line, and that he felt that the entire wheel constitutes a sign whether or not it has lettering on it, as it relates to the theme of the business; a sign can consist of letter or pictorial material . Appellants were asked for permission to keep the wheel , .but they would change the location of the lettering. Staff felt that that did not remove the violation. Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend denial . Motion PASSED unanimously. SIGN APPEAL 6-2-80: Variance to permit retention of the existing free- standing sign at 540 W. State Street (Mobil Oil ) in a B-4 district. James Hockey, a real estate representative from Mobil Oil Corporation stated they have removed the sign because of their being notified of sign violations and are trying to come into conformance on this and other Mobil stations in the city. He said Mr. Schnock, City sign inspector, was at the station at State and Meadow and with the manager reviewed where they could relocate the sign and came to the con- clusion there would be a real problem for the application for a variance. Mr. Hockey stated they have removed that sign and are not in violation now - but are asking for the variance to put the sign back where it was; only not rotating, but placing it on the same base. He explained that the main traffic flow was northbound on Meadow St. and that the station needs a sign in roughly the location in question so motorists can see it in time to make a safe turn into the station. Mr. Stewart then asked Mr. Hoard how other competition has met these problems; Mr. Hoard stated their signs weren't removed, but all violations had been cited. After further dis- cussion, Mr. Stewart asked whether the ordinance should be revised to differentiate between gas stations and other businesses who might have a legitimate need for signs closer to the R.O.W. than currently allowed. Mr, Hoard commented that the ordinance presently requires that any part of a sign, including its supporting structure, must be set back from the R.O.W,/property line; the distance varies depending on the zone. Further discussion followed. Mr. Holmes MOVED to recommend denial , .seconded by Mr. Stewart with the recommendation that staff work with Mobil to find possible alternatives, PASSED unanimously, P&D Minutes May 27, 1980 Page 3 SIGN APPEAL 6-4-80: Variance to permit retention of an existing sign at 409 W. Seneca Street (Seneca Printing) in a B-2a (business) district, Mrs. Johns, representing Seneca Printing, explained that the property sits back from the street; she said she understood that she could have a larger sign, but in a different location, i .e. closer to the building. If they did place it on the building itself, with the property being back so far from the street, there would be no way of seeing it coming down,W. Seneca St. Further discussion followed. Mr. Meigs stated that a free standing sign might be able to be erected since the build- ing is set back so far; further discussion followed regarding possible alternatives. Staff recommendation was to deny. Ms. Cummings then made a motion to deny based on the possibility of getting a sign that's perhaps even more visible than the present sign, but conforming. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Holmes then suggested that instead of denying, the Board recommend that the business work with the Planning Department to come up with some suitable alternatives in terms of a sign that would be in compliance. Mr. Stewart then MOVED that the motion be tabled for 30 days for consultation with the planning staff; seconded by Mr, Holmes. PASSED unanimous]/y. SIGN APPEAL 6-4-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign at 201 N. Aurora Street (Pine Tavern) . Sign has received historic designation from the Ithaca Landmarks Preser- vation Commission. Mr. s stated that it is an L Meigs -shaped, .neon s;i�n .wh `ch has been refurbished as required by the Ordinance. There was no one present' to speak for the appeal . Because of the historic designation by the ILPC and its conformity with the adjoin- ing buildings color scheme, etc. , it was MOVED by Mr. Stewart, seconded by Ms. Cummings to recommend approval of the appeal . Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1302: Planning Board action was taken at the April meeting. APPEAL 1304: Appeal for interpretation of Section 30.3 (definitions of "Structures" and "Use"), 30.33 (exceptions to height regula- tions) and 30,49 (extension or enlargement of non-conforming uses or structures) concerning the erection of a radio tower at 815 S. Aurora Street (South Side Fuel Company) . After extensive discussion and comment from neighborhood residents on the history of the situation, including their concerns that the taller new tower would decrease their property values and that its guy wires present an attractive nuisance which children might try to climb, Mr. Moore explained that the laws are not just to protect the residents, but to protect everybody, including the businessman. Mr. Hoard then mentioned that he had had to grant a building permit for the tower because it satisfied all building and safety codes, and was specifically exempted from control under the Zoning Ordinance; an amendment is being drafted to rectify this situation. Joyce Inman of 106 Grandview Place felt that because the new tower was located in a different place on the property than the original , it is in part expansion or extension of a nonconforming use. She asked if the amendment, when written, will affect the tower; if the city can make people who have had signs up for 20 years take those down, why wouldn 't this apply to the tower? Mr. Hoard stated that the laws regarding removal of signs after an amortization period are P&D Minutes May 27, 1980 Page 4 are quite different from those relating to buildings and other structures. Mr. Stewart stated he thought this issue should be raised at the Common Council meet- ing when they are considering the amendment, since there has .to be a public hearing before Council can adopt it. He went on to say that the Board was happy to listen to their concerns, but he felt that interpretations are not subject to Planning Board review and that the Zoning Board should be where appellants in this case make their main pitch; he suggested that if they can afford it, they should get legal help in making those arguments. Chairman Moore stated that rather than discussing the proposed zoning amendment, which will be taken up later, it might be better to hear further comments on how they feel the tower impacts the neighborhood and why they think it's bad. Lillian Campbell stated that most of the houses on South Hill are one-family houses; it is mostly a family area, and she felt the tower would harm resale values, She felt that it was not adequately fenced and that children would play on the guy wires. Further discussion followed. No action was taken, since it was the consensus of the Board that appeals for interpretation of the ordinance are not subject to Planning Board review. 2. Staff Presentation by Penny Dolan, ILPC Coordinator, was postponed until June. 3. Approval of Minutes: Ms. Cummings said the minutes of the April meeting, page 3, second paragraph - appeal on Methodist property, should read "Barbara Holcomb, Director of Alpha Phi sorority" rather than "a nearby student religious house". On motion by Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Stewart, the minutes were approved as corrected. 4. Chairman Moore stated that Director of Planning and Development Van Cort, was interested in having a letter from the Planning Board on the Ithaca Center, and that he felt it would be good for the Planning Board to express its general approval of the Ithaca Center, especially the addition of housing in the CBD, from the planning point of view. Mr. Stewart suggested that it be left to the discretion of the Chairman, and that Mr. Van Cort could prepare a draft. There was further discussion expressing concern .that the Planning Board has little power or involve- ment in important matters such as this, i ,e. Ithaca Center. Chairman Moore said Ms. Nichols is bringing up very strongly to the Council and Mayor that the Planning Board should be involved. It was then suggested by Mr. Stewart and Ms. Cummings that aletter should be written to the Mayor, not to make it a major issue at this point,Ibut to make him aware of the Board's strong feelings about being bypassed, and that they are interested and concerned about the project and the welfare of the downtown. Chairman Moore again stated that he.would like the minutes of previous meetings distributed as soon as possible so that they can be aware of items that have been referred, etc. 5. Committee Reports: none 6. Communications: none 7. Old Business: a. Proposed B-1 rezoning: Mr. Meigs stated that the basic survey of the area has been completed and the report is being drafted now; environmental assessments P&D minutes May 27, 1980 Page 5 on two alternatives, (1 ) the entire 2-block area proposed by Council for rezoning, and (2) just the properties fronting on Tioga Street within that 2-block area, are to be prepared and presented to Council , the Environmental Commission, and the Planning Board by the 20th of June. Chairman Moore said he thought the Council wanted the Planning Board's advice on this before they decide which of the alter-, natives to consider, rather than waiting until after they have chosen. The Board's value is greatly diminished, and its purpose undermined, when essential planning decisions are made before it is consulted. b. Off-street Parking: Mr, Stewart said he was waiting for the objective data so his committee would know where to begin. He said he would be out of the country and would miss the next two meetings of the Board. Chairman Moore thought that it might be a good idea to get summer schedules of the Board members, in order to avoid scheduling meetings when a quorum will not be present. c. Ithaca Center Status: Mr, Meigs explained the upcoming meetings with regard to Ithaca Center, Council and the Renewal Agency are hearing a presentation on it tonight, and will act Wednesday on designating developers and approving the basic design. Thursday there will be a public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement; a Final EIS may be required, but will not require a hearing before the decision is made as to whether the project shall be permitted to proceed. The appli- cation for Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) funding assistance will probably be submitted to HUD Friday; after that there may be some opportunity to comment on and effect minor changes in the project's makeup and design, but it is hoped that most major considerations will be well enough resolved to permit a construction start in August or September. d. Radio Towers: Proposed amendment to ordinance. Mr. Meigs explained the pro- posed amendments which were distributed to Board members at the meeting. The matter was referred to the Codes and Administration Committee for their recommen- dation, to be considered at the next meeting. e. Elderly Housing Site Selection criteria: to be further discussed between staff and committees, 8. New Business: a. Preliminary applications for subdivision of Ithaca Center site is anticipated for Board review in June. This requirement arises from a decision that the city will retain title to the portion of the site under the parking structure for an interim period, to determine whether conditions warrant its divelopment for other than parking and access, as currently proposed. Meeting adjourned. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - DECISIONS Meeting of June 2, 1980 SIGN APPEAL 2-2-80: Variance for sign at 602 W. Buffalo Street (Joe's Restaurant) . No present representing appeal . BZA cannot hear appeals if no one is there to present them, Therefore appeal was not heard and not granted. SIGN APPEAL 5-2-80: , Variance to permit retention of 2 signs on face of building at 304-306 S. Cayuga St. and a large free standing sign at the same address (W.T, Pritchards) . No one present. Same as above. SIGN APPEAL 6-1-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign at 706 Willow Avenue (On the Waterfront nightclub) in an I-1 (industrial ) district) . Motion was made and seconded that the Board grant the sign variance. VOTE: Yes 0; No 6. Sign variance DENIED. Findings: Sign extends above the roof line and it appears that it can be lowered below the roof line without undue financial hardship. SIGN APPEAL 6-2-80: Variance to permit retention of existing free standing sign at 540 W. State Street (Mobil Oil ) in a B-4 district, Motion was made and seconded that the Board grant the requested sign variance with respect to the 10 foot setback from each corner but not to grant the variance with respect to the 18" overhang. VOTE: 6 Yes; 0 No. Variance partially granted. , Findings: Variance is granted in that there is a definite hardship in the layout of the property; Building Dept. found no other alternative ways other than the existing way - to replace the sign in another spot; no objections from neighbors; Mobil Oil acted in good faith in that they removed the sign upon receiving first notification ordering the sign down. SIGN APPEAL 6-4-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign at 409 W. Seneca Street (Seneca Printing) in a B-2a (business) district. No one present representing appeal . Not granted. APPEAL 1302: Use Variance to permit conti:nued operation of a produce business at 2062 Second Street in an R-3b district. Motion was made and seconded that the use and area variances requested be denied. VOTE: 4 Yes; 2 No. Variances DENIED. Findings: No figures or financial proof of hardship; hazardous conditions created in neighborhood by large trucks in and out of driveway; comparison of use even five years ago and now shows business has doubled in volume. APPEAL 1304: Appeal for interpretation of Sections 30,3, 30.33 and 30.49 concerning the erection of a radio tower at 815 South Aurora St. (South Side Fuel Company) . A building permit has been issued for the tower; appellants are requesting the interpretation as aggrieved parties under Section 30.58 of the Zoning Ordinance. The interpretation of the Zoning Ord. Page 2 does not disallow construction of the tower at issue in this case. While the Board felt that the Zoning Ordinance should be amended so as to disallow future construction of this sort, it is not, within their power to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Thus having found that the structure was exempt from the Zoning Ordinance, it was determined that the building permit was properly granted in this case. Regarding the second question, namely whether a new business was created by leasing space on the newly constructed tower thereby requiring a variance, interpretation was that a new business had not been created. Within the terms of the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance an additional station will not create additional traffic in the neighborhood nor will it change the character of the neighborhood in any way, VOTE concerning first issue: 5 Yes; O No, 1 Abstention VOTE concerning second issue: 4 Yes; l No, 1 Abstention.