HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-08-26 MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
August 26, 1980
PRESENT: Chairperson Moore, I. Stewart, S. Cummings, P. Holmes ,
M. Sampson, R. Moran, E. Nichols
ALSO:; Planning Director Van Cort, Michael Bottge, David Taube,
Lou Roscoe, W. Wendt, David Banfield, Peter Bushman, Al
Leonardo, Steve Fellows, Edyth and Richard Conway, Laura
Holmberg, Charles Weaver, Bill Kerrigan, Arthur Cicchetti ,
Members of the Press
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 . Meeting called to order at 7:38 by Chairman Moore.
2. Special Order of Business: None
3. Staff Presentation: Mr. Van Cort explained that Mr. Bottge handles most
of the economic development work in the planning office and has a degree in
Economics and a Master's in Planning. He stated that Mr. Bottge's diligent
work night and day for months culminated in the awarding of the Ithaca Center
Urban Development Action Grant.
Mr. Bottge explained that the city had, until a couple of years ago, taken a
very limited, almost nonexistent role in promoting economic development. Rather
than assume an active role in trying either to induce development in areas where
the city would like to see development occur, or to assist businesses in putting
together expansion plans to enable them to remain in the city, the city chose to
assume almost a laissez-faire attitude in dealing with economic development.
The Cherry St. Industrial Park, which was proposed almost 2 years ago, was the
first attempt by the city to invest public monies in a project that would
"leverage in" private investment that otherwise wouldn't be invested in the City.
He stated that Ithaca is faced with the highest percentage of tax-exempt land
in NYS - 60% of the land is exempt from paying taxes. With that as obvious
inducement to increase taxation pressures , the city was also confronted with many
businesses, if not out of NYS from Ithaca, at least into the suburban fringe ,
where land would obviously be cheaper and more plentiful . There is very little
land available in the city for industrial , manufacturing-type expansion. He .
stated it was decided that the City would try to put together a financing package
bringing in federal monies along with local monies to open up about 122 13 acres
of land in the Cherry St. area of the city, behind Ithaca and adjacent to the Ithaco ;
flood control channel . A little over $600,000 was invested in this parcel ;
$170,000 of that by the city, the rest by FmHA and the Appalachia Regional
Commission.
He stated that the first lease agreement is in the process of being finalized
with Precision Filters, a local electronics company, and said that they expect
the project to be fully leased up within five years .
Regarding Ithaca Center, Mr. Bottge gave some history on previous attempts
regarding development of the site, and discussed some of the financing background
involved with the present Center and the UDAG process . Chairman Moore said the
Planning Dept. should be congratulated on the success in obtaining the UDAG in
very stiff competition, and asked Mr. Bottge to what he attributes the success.
MINUTES
Planning &Development
Page 2 2.
Mr. Bottge stated that the project in and of itself is a good project, and that
the Commons location helps because it is literally a nationally known example of
good pedestrian malls. Some general discussion followed concerning future projects
and the YMCA.
Peter Bushman, a member of the audience, expressed concern about the current liquor
ban and its relationship to the Ithaca Center. Mr. Bottge explained that the
type of establishment in Ithaca Center, would be, for example, a restaurant wanting
a wine list. He further stated that the moratorium that the city has in effect is
an advisory mechanism to the ABC Board. Mr. Moore said that this problem is well
recognized and that the moratorium per se may not be the appropriate device to
accomplish what Mr. Bushman is concerned about and still permit certain licensed
tenants in Ithaca Center. Mr. Van Cort said that Council had asked the Dept.
what effect the continuation of the moratorium would have on the lease-up of
the Ithaca Center, since there is space in the Center which has been specifically
designed and programed for restaurants. He said they didn 't want to do anything
that would jeopardize the Commons, but do want to avoid the problems that are
occurring on Aurora St. Chairman Moore then thanked Mr. Bottge for his presentation.
4. Committee Reports: None
5. Old Business: Sage Infirmary and Sheldon Court Conversions - Lew Roscoe of
the Cornell Planning Office, Bill Wendt, Director of Transportation, and David
Taube, architect for both projects came before the Board. Mr. Roscoe explained
that there were 2 projects - one for the conversion of Sage Infirmary to
student housing, and the second to convert Sheldon Court from a vacant building
with some retail shops into student housing and retail shops . He explained that
Cornell has a housing shortage of approximately 1500 beds, causing an impact in
the local area since the students search for housing in 'private'neighborhoods ,
etc. Cornell has been looking for other options, and one is to convert existing
property to student beds. A plan was shown of the Sage Infirmary site showing
the various streets and area where the Cornell property was located. He explained
that the Sage Mansion would remain essentially as it is, and the Infirmary conversion
would require no site changes except a new exterior fire stair in one place and an
entrance ramp for handicapped, etc. Parking would remain the same, about 50 spaces.
Mr. Sampson asked about the property on Seneca St. just above Schuyler House, which
he understood had just been turned into a fraternity, and questioned the number of
people and cars involved, etc. Mr. Roscoe said he was unaware of this; if it was
used as a fraternity it would be part of the Residence Life Program, which it is
not. Mr. Stewart asked if Mr. Roscoe and Mr. Wendt could explain to the Board the
impact of introducing the substantially greater density of students into the neighbor-
hood, particularly if that density manifests itself in automobiles and circulation
and parking problems. Mr. Wendt said there is a ratio of about one parking space
per 4 students. Further discussion followed concerning possible parking problems ,
traffic flow, etc. Mr. Stewart expressed concern about whether the University will
behave responsibly once they perceive any problems. Ms. Cummings asked if any
studies had been done which would show how many additional spaces could be put on
that site. General discussion followed.
Regarding Sheldon Court, Mr. Roscoe showed a drawing of neighboring streets and
buildings , indicating property owned by Cornell , the City and privately. He gave
a brief ,history of Sheldon Court and the adjacent Cascadilla Hall , which houses
MINUTES
Planning & Development
Page 3
3.
150 graduate students., He said they are exploring ways to fix up the buildings
for more efficient housing; they are in very bad condition. He said Cascadilla
Hall is a project coming along later; he.would return at another time to discuss
the Sheldon and Cascadilla conversions further. Mr. Taube explained that the
roof on Sheldon Court would be raised and rebuilt, matching all the architectural
features, patching windows and replacing the ornamentation under the cornice, in
order to gain needed height on the top floor for residential occupancy. The first
floor is going to be retail towards the south of the building; towards the north
would be a dormitory lounge, offices and lobby. The east elevation facing College
Ave. would include new display windows for the retail spaces and access into stores
and development of handicapped access from the parking lot, plus into the front and
basement of the building. The parking area will be repaired, landscaped etc.
Mr. Taube said they plan to meet with the Design Review Board again for further
discussion and they have reviewed the building program with the Building Commissioner
and the City Engineer. Mr. Moore expressed appreciation for their coming to the
meeting and acquainting the Board with their projects. Mr. Van Cort said that one
thing that has become apparent to him as they went through the process of working
with Cornell on these 2 projects, is that the City & Cornell must keep communication
lines open.
Radio Tower Zoning Amendments - A radio towers zoning amendment written by Planner
Jon Meigs was distributed to the Board, defining radio towers and where they can
and cannot be built. Mr. Van Cort explained that all the area within the guy
wires is considered the "area" referred to in the proposal . Further discussion
followed regarding wind power towers and their permitted use; and the requirements
of special permits. After further lengthy discussion, Ian Stewart MOVED to
recommend adoption of the amendment, seconded by Mr. Moran; Motion PASSED
unanimously.
N. Tioga St. Zoning - Mr. Moore said this matter had quite recently been discussed
by the Neighborhood Development and Housing and the Codes and Administration
Committees of the Board, and asked Mr. Stewart to summarize and give any committee
recommendations there may be. Mr. Stewart said Mr. Moore, Ms, Nichols and Ms. Cummings
met with him to discuss the proposed "Alternate C". He said he wasn't sure how
Mrs. Nichols felt about this, but the others felt somewhat strongly that the original
decision that was made that the Board not endorse any zoning or rezoning should stand;
some characterized Alternative C as being even worse than the other alternatives.
Ms. Cummings said they felt that Alternative C was even less acceptable because not
only does it set a precedent for future requests for that sort of rezoning, but it
establishes mechanism for carrying out these requests, and encourages commercial
speculation in residential neighborhoods even more clearly than did Alternatives
A & B. Mr. Moore said he felt quite strongly that Alternative C would mean a very
firne grain zoning that would put Common Council , because they have to legislate
zoning changes, practically in the Board. of Zoning Appeals business. He went on
to say that the whole question as it has been put to the Board is backwards : it's
in the form of an appeal from relief for certain citizens who want zoning changes
and are impatient with the length of time it is taking to obtain the relief sought.
MINUTES
Planning & Development
Page 4 4.
He said the Board should be looking at the Courthouse area and ask what its
future should be -with respect to potential commercial 'or broadly-defined
professional use,, and base opinions on that. Chairman Moore read a position
statement from INNS, opposing commercial rezoning of Tioga St. , a letter in
opposition from Norhtside Civic Association, and another letter from Pat
Carlson with pictures showing various properties owned by Dr. Baker on Sears St.
Mr. Van Cort said there was another alternative, to design another kind of zone
which would be a Special Use District in the area shown on the map; this would
not be a general new zone at all , but a zoning category for that area only, and
no other area in the City; it would not be used ever in any other -area. He said
there would be certain restrictions like design review, which would not be only
advisory, and further restrictions against demolition; in all other respects it
would be like the B-1b zone with perhaps some height restrictions. He said he
hopes to have this alterative drafted in .time for Council consideration. Mr.
Stewart said he felt it was very much the concensus of their meeting that
Alternative C was probably even worse than outright rezoning in terms of the
potential negative impact; they would not want either to happen but if they had
to choose between the two bad alternatives, they would choose outright rezoning
over Alternative C. Mr. Moore asked if there was a shortage of suitable space
for the types of uses contemplated in the proposed special zoning. Mr. Van Cort
said the American Cities study indicates that there is definite market demand
for additional prime office space, but it further indicated that demand would
be absorbed in the Ithaca Center and the other new proposals made for buildings
on the former Y site and for the Thaler/Goldberg property on Aurora; these three
proposals will absorb all the sure demand in the next five years. He further
stated that the staff felt that N. Tioga St. is not the best place for this.
Ms. Cummings MOVED that the Planning Board send a resolution to Council re-
affirming its commitment to its previous statement and adding that the Board
recommends even more strongly against Alternative C because it will establish
an undesirable precedent for commercial rezoning in residential districts ;
Motion was seconded by Mr. Holmes. Further discussion followed. Ms. Nichols
said she guessed Council would ask for a recommendation on Alternate ''C.
Alderman Banfield said that Council has so far considered Alternatives A & B,
to rezone the two blocks `between Sears and Aurora Sts . , and the original request
to rezone only Tioga St. properties to their rear lot lines . After input from
numerous public hearings it was decided that perhaps an agreement could be drawn
up that was acceptable to as many groups as possible; out of that came Council 's
directive to the Planning Dept. to find a way to accomplish it and yet control
the things that people were concerned about: Demolition, changing of facades, etc.
Council also felt that because of the various Boards involved in the changing
of any number of different things, the Zoning Board, Planning Board and Planning
and Development and Charter & Ordinance committees should review Alternate C.
Further discussion followed. Returning to the motion, Ms. Cummings MOVED that
a resolution be sent to Council saying (1 ) The Planning and Development Board
reaffirms its commitment to previous statement; (2) in addition, the Board finds
Alternative C to be even less acceptable as it establishes and encourages an
undesirable precedent for future commercial rezoning of residential neighborhoods.
She stated there should be an introductory sentence or two on that resolution which
would very clearly enumerate areas for perferred development. It would state that
(1) the Board is opposed to any zoning change in that area; and (2) the Board feels
that more intensive commercial development should be concentrated in the following
MINUTES
Planning & Development
Page 5 5.
areas: Ithaca Center, West State St. etc. The motion was again put on the floor
for a vote. Motion PASSED unanimously. Mr. Moore then stated that he and Ms.
Cummings would caucus on specific wording of the above resolution.
6. Zoning Cases:
APPEAL 1317: Appeal of Edythe and Richard Conway for an Area
Variance to permit the change in use of property
at 214 Linn Street from a one-family dwelling to
a multiple dwelling.
This appeal was discussed at length at the July 29th meeting of the Board.
Laura Holmberg, representing the appellants, explained they were only asking for
an area variance and that the proposed use is permitted in the R3b zone. She
said although the Board did deny them at the last meeting, there has been a lot of
research and work done on the problem. She said that by removing a portion of the
breezeway which would then detach the garage from a portion of the house, it would
relieve the objections to the lot coverage and side yard deficiencies. She stated
the Conway's could do that fairly easily if that would solve the problem. Sketches
and charts were shown. Further discussion followed. Mrs ., Conway said she had
spoken to the Building Commissioner and he had said that if the breezeway were
detached and the garage became a separate structure, then there are no restrictions
for how close the garage may be to the lot line; the house would only be deficient
on one side yard by 2 feet. Mr. Van Cort stated that the staff had recommended
against this appeal previously of the basis of neighborhood impact, which had to
do more with the conversion than the side yard and coverage problem. He stated
that the staff felt the same and still recommends denial . A petition in opposition
from residents of the neighborhood was then read and circulated. A neighbor,
Charles Weaver, expressed his opposition and asked for more restrictive zoning in
the 100 - 200 blocks of Linn St. Further discussion followed, whereupon Ms. Cummings ,
seconded by Ms. Nichols, MOVED to recommend DENIAL. Motion PASSED with Mr. Holmes
opposed.
APPEAL 1318: Appeal of John Alexander and Arthur Jaeger for an
Area Variance to permit conversion of residential
property at 110 N. Meadow Street to a. busine��s use
Property is located in a B4 (business) use'distri_ci;
where businesses are permitted, but does not meet
requirements for a minimum side yards and minimum
rear yard. — -- -_:
William Kerrigan, representing the appellants, explained that Seaboard, Inc. ,
which is a computer software firm would be the proposed business which is presently
cramped into space at the Hour Agency, located around the corner from the property
being discussed. He stated theappellants are proposing to buy the property of the
- DeChelis ' located on Meadow St. and explained the lot layout. He stated there are
2 different variances being sought; one relating to parking and one to setback
MINUTES
Planning & Development
Page 6 6.
requirements. Mr. Moore-asked-what--t-he--requirement in that district was for off-
street parking, Mr. Kerrigan replied--that in' terms of"useable office space'
there is approximately 1500SF, which would require 9-10 ,parking spaces; they now
have 6. Ms . Nichols asked if this business would generate many customers. Mr
Kerrigan replied, that presently there is one-client in Tompkins :Co.unty with, others
located in other counties. He explained that their princip.al. .product .is computer
programming that does ordering and menu planning for colleges -and`universities
and generates very little traffic or parking requirements . Mr. Van Cort said
that staff recommended in favor because this is a use that is permitted and would
not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. On motion by Ms. Cummings,
seconded by Mr. Moran, it was MOVED to recommend approval . Motion PASSED
unanimously,
APPEAL 1319: Withdrawn
APPEAL 1320: Appeal of Arthur Cichetti for an Area Variance to
permit construction of a one-story addition at the
rear of the one-family dwelling at 308 Ithaca Road.
Property is deficient in front yard depth and the
depth of one side yard.
,Mr, Cicchetti explained that the house at present is quite small on the inside
making it quite crowded for his family. He said they wanted to add a room on the
rear end of the house to make a family room; there were no objections from any
of his neighbors, Mr. Van Cort said that staff recommended approval . On motion
by Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Holmes, it was MOVED to recommend approval
Motion PASSED unanimously®
7. Chairperson's Report None
8. Communications: None
9. New Business: Handicapped Access to City Hall . Mr. Moore said the staff had
prepared a recommendation and draft resolution for a handicapped access capital
project forthe Board's consideration and vote. Ms. Nichols said that last year's
capital project review process was bypassed because of budget considerations.
This year the Mayor has reappointed a Capital Review Committee, and suggestions
for capital projects are due in the Controller's Office on the first of September.
Then the Controller, Mayor, and Director of Planning and Development will assemble
and review the projects and pass them along to the Capital Review Committee, which
will put the numbers in and recommend a priorty list to Common Council in October.
Ms. Nichols said that this had not been a very high priority item of the Planning
Board in the past, and asked that it should be moved up partly because Federal
Guidelines require it to have been done in June of this year. She said many
people want to get into City Hall to transact their business, not all of which
is going to meetings; they need access to pay bill's, buy licences, etc.
She said it would be extremely helpful to this process if the Planning Board
would adopt the resolution. Mr. Leonardo, a handicapped member of the audience,
said that he and Steve Fellows worked very hard with Mrs. Nichols and her
MINUTES
Planning and Development
Page 7 7'
Council Committee to try to find a cheaper way of making City Hall accessible
and they would like to have the ramp as soon as possible. Mr. Fellows re-
iterated Mr. Leonardo's concerns. Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Moran MOVED
approval of the following RESOLUTION; Motion PASSED unanimously.
WHEREAS, the design of the City Hall entrance presents a barrier
to access by physically handicapped persons to City and
County governmental agencies and
WHEREAS, legislative mandate requires removal of such barriers, and
WHEREAS, City staff and legislators have developed and evaluated many
proposals for the removal of this barrier, be it
RESOLVED, that the Board of Planning and Development of the City of
Ithaca urges Common Council to establish a City Hall
Handicapped Access Capital Project to provide adequate
funding in the City's 1981 Capital Budget to implement a
solution and to take necessary steps to construct such
access as early as possible in 1981 .
10. Approval of Minutes: Ms. Cummings said in the July minutes regarding
Sign Appeal 8-2-80, the name Attorney William Sullivan should be corrected to
read William Seldin. Mr. Moran said that Appeal #1317 came before the Board
in July, not August. On motion by Ms. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Stewart, the
minutes of the June and July meetings were unanimously approved as corrected.
11 . Miscellaneous: Mr. Van Cort said he had a preliminary request for approval
of a subdivision on Taylor Place. He stated that when the property in question
was developed, the deed description referred to a pipe which was found to be
182' in the wrong direction; there was an assumed side property line which was
in fact not the property line. He said the adjacent owner developed his yard to
the presumed property line, -including planting a row of trees demarking it, putting
in a concrete rataining wall and other things which were found to be all on the
property in question. He stated that the two owners have decided that what they
want to do is to move the property line to that assumed location. He said this
does not create any zoning nonconformity and urged its approval . Mr. Sampson
then MOVED to recommend preliminary approval of the subdivision, seconded by
Mr. Stewart. Motion PASSED unanimously.
Mr. Moore stated that Susan Cummings will be appointed as a member of the County
Planning Board as a liason with the City Planning Board.
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 29, 1980
PRESENT: Chairperson Moore, E. Nichols, S. Cummings , I . Stewart, M. Sampson
ALSO: Planning Director Van Cort, Building Commissioner Hoard, Edward
Monroe, Bill Sullivan, Michael Shay, David Taube, Edyth and Richard
Conway, Charles Weaver, Charles Barber, Ann Joseph, Mr. DuBorgel ,
Mr, Hall , Laura Holmberg, Jim Zifchock
Chairperson Moore called the meeting to order and welcomed new member Martin
Sampson to the Board.
1 . Staff Presentation: None
2. ZONING CASES:
SIGN APPEAL 5-2-80: William T. Pritchard, 304-306 S. Cayuaga
Street. This appeal was previously heard and a recommendation
made to the BZA. No further action.
APPEAL 1306: Charles A. Fritschler, 801 E. State Street.
This appeal was previously heard and a recommendation made to
the. BZA. No further action.
SIGN APPEAL 8-2-80: Appeal of Edward Monroe (d/b/a Empire Building
Supplies Retail of Ithaca) for a sign variance to permit retention
3 of 8 signs totalling 410SF in an area at 332 Spencer Rd. Only one
five square foot sign is permitted in the R-2a (residential ) use
zone in which the property is located.
Pictures were passed around showing the property. Mr. Van Cort explained that
the business has recently put up a number of large signs on the premises which
are in violation of the ordinance. He said the majority of the property which
straddles the zone boundary, lies in an R-2a district where only one sign of
not more than 5SF is permitted, the Ordinance permits extension of the� less
restrictive use only 30 feet into the more restrictive zone, and this building
is a full 120' into the more restrictive zone. Attorney Sullivan, representing
the applicant, explained that all told there are 8 signs on the building. The
business has been in operation since 1948, and has always been construction
oriented as far as they know. He explained that the majority of the signs face
the Elmira Road area, but people have been coming down Spencer Rd. to visit the
business since that time. He said they have received letters of support from
people in the neighborhood, especially Police Officer Dockstader. He stressed
that because of the length of time the business as been in its present spot, its
not going to make or break the neighborhood; there's always been advertising
there and the majority of the signs do not face the residential neighborhood.
Further discussion followed. Mr. Van Cort said that because the business is in
such flagrant violation of the Ordinance in multiple instances, and in particular
because they are in a residential zone and.all the signs, except perhaps one,
were erected without a permit,, .staff recommends denial , with the exception that
they be allowed one sign facing Spencer Rd. and another small sign not exceeding