Loading...
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