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.