Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-11-25 111NU7 S PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING November 25, 1980 PRESENT: Chairman Moore, S. Cummings , E, Nichols , R. Moran , P. Holmes ,. I . Stewart ALSO: An East Hill Civic Association member, H. M. Van Cort, members of the press 1 . Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m. 2. Approval of October minutes: (1 ) Ms, Cummings expressed concern regarding the writeup on Appeal 1326 (Norton Electric) that a motion which she had made recommending deferral of the appeal for 30 days to accommodate a meeting with interested parties failed to be passed for want of a second. To be inserted in the minutes under APPEAL 1326 section is the following paragraph: "Ms . Cummings moved that the appeal be delayed for 30 days to permit study by the staff in con- cert with the concerned residents. It failed to attract a second, " It should precede the "Mrs. Nichols —substances." paragraph, (2) With regard to the writeup on Sign Appeal 10-4-80 (Jake's Red & White) , Mr. Moore objected to theuse of the word "consensus" because he felt it was an incorrect assessment about the feeling of the board on the appeal . Fur- ther, with regard to the clause in that same sentence, "but there would be no serious objection if the BZA were to act in the absence of an official recommendation from this Board. " he felt this inaccurate also. He asserted that as far as he was concerned it was not O.K, for the BZA to act on the appeal because the issue of safety had not been addressed either pro or con by anybody. Mr. Moore felt the Board should be jealous of its perogative here and not be careless about what it wants to happen in an appeal case. He expressed concern for the Board's reputation and its being careful and complete in its actions , 3. Chairman's Report: NONE 4. Committee Reports: NONE 5. Communications: Chairman Moore introduced the letter he had received which had been written by Talier Doctor-Rivers and Ruth and Michael Yarrow, dated November 21 , 1980, regarding Appeal 1326 (Norton Electric) which the Board had heard October 28. (All Board members had received a copy of this letter. ) Mr. Moore said he would reply to these Northside neighborhood residents indicating. that indeed they have opportunities to effect what happens in their neighborhood. Ms. Cummings commented that the BZA decision on this appeal had taken them a great deal of time to reach. She mentioned that there was much discussion afterward and the decision, she felt, presented neighborhood residents with a number of practical difficulties regarding arranging for rental use of the Great American facility. She expressed concern that cases heard by the P&D Board be presented in the fullest possible manner and that the P&D Board must MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING November 25, 1980 p• 2 ask very close questions , In addition, she felt that the Board may not be aware of differences in use of language in voicing concerns of residents from different parts of the city, for example, perhaps not discussing "quality of life" of Northside and Southside neighborhood residents with the same degree of belief as regarding that of Cornell Heights residents . Mrs. Nichols added that in the Small Cities application submitted to HUD by the Planning & Development Department on December 1 , 1980, there was a slot for a half-time position in the P&D Department for someone to work on zoning matters in neighborhoods downtown, lending support to the point of view expressed in the aforementioned letter. Also, Ms. Cummings added that there were now 130 names on the resident peti- tion submitted to the P&D Board on October 28 regarding the Norton Electric appeal . Staff Presentation Herman Sieverding, Planner, gave a brief staff presentation on the second phase of the American Cities Corporation study, a development program for West State Street which includes looking at that area as a submarket and trying to identify what types of businesses might be located there and how that area serves as an area that provides essential neighborhood services (in middle of Small Cities application target area .(between Northside and Southside) . ACC will identify potential project areas . In addition, there will be an assessment made of the key buildings on each block and ACC will then make design suggestions on how these properties can be rehabilitated. It will also look at acquisition stra- tegies that the city might want to consider in consolidating lots for certain types of development to occur. There was Board discussion regarding potential need for stricter code enforcement and for changes in zoning in the West State Street area. ACC's study will be written up by the end of February 1981 . The third phase of the study will be very specific suggestions on how Community Development can use some of the money that has already been allocated to stimu- late developments Mr.. Sieverding said that in the future a larger portion of staff time will need to be allocated to grants management. Additionally, Mr. Sieverding briefly discussed Cass Para: renovations, then touched very briefly on some projects he has recently been involved with: transportation, Ithaca Transit, TOMTRAN, East Hill School , development of a community center, He stated that most grant programs now concentrate on those activities that have job creation potential . In the future, for projects such as community centers, funds will have to come from private sources , foundations , and monies raised by communities themselves . MTNJTES . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING Novemb-n 25, 1980 P• 3 Draft Resolution Mrs. Nichols introduced a draft resolution from the Planning Department, which she felt the Board should be aware of and which she felt they might want to support. The resolution pertains to a new Bureau of the Census pro- gram entitled Neighborhood Statistics Program. The program is designed to assist jurisdictions that have subareas by providing to local officials and neighborhood representatives basic demographic, social and economic data categorized by neighborhood. The resolution resolves that the Mayor and Common Council direct the Community Development Agency to make application to the Bureau of the Census requesting participation in the Neighborhood Statistics. Program, Mrs. Nichols stated it seemed that the only expendi- ture on the application would be staff time. The resolution will come up before Common Council next Wednesday, Mr. Stewart made the suggestion to accept the resolution as information and that the Board act on it later if it needs to, on advice from Mr. Van Cort, 6, Old Business Ms . Cummings stated that Northside neighborhood residents had been keeping her informed of their efforts to locate retail businesses in their neigh- borhood. Residents had wanted to know if there was a way by which they could keep the Planning Board informed of their efforts since the Board in the future would be seeing the appeals for subsequent leases on the Great American property, >•7s , Cummings asked: Whom should neighborhood residents go to first in City Hall regarding future changes regarding the Great Ameri- can property and what paths are open to residents to get information back and forth on a regular basis? A further question arose: How does a Board committee actually function; is all information brought in by staff or does it utilize other sources? Mr. Ilan Cort said the Board has considered this matter in the past and there have been a number of different suggestions as well as actual meetings by the P&D Board in neighborhoods (in schools) on a regular basis, A staff member could possibly be assigned to every neighborhood and neighborhood group, Mr. Van Cort suggested if the Board were interested in pursuing the matter the P&D Department could investigate what steps could be taken to improve communication, The proper P&D staff person to contact would depend on what the issue is , but as a start the director or office manager could be consulted. Jon Meigs is the person to contact regarding zoning cases. MT UTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING November 25, 1980 P� 4 7, Zoning Cases : APPEAL 1325 (deferred from October) : Appeal of Janet Jonson for an Area Variance under Section 30.25. Columns 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 (lot size, street frontage, lot coverage, front yard, and side yard) and Section 30.49 (en- largement of non-conforming structure) to permit addition of a second story to the house at 934 East Shore Drive in an R-2b district. The property is deficient in lot size, has no frontage on a public right-of-way, maximum lot coverage by buildings is exceeded, front yard and one side yard are deficient. The owner proposes to use the house as a one-family dwelling. This appeal was deferred from October, pending study by staff. Neither appellant nor representative was present. Mr. Stewart moved to table the appeal , for a variety of reasons : (a) lack of adequate information on its status with regard to flood plain . (b) fire safety; the Fire Department gave a mixed report on the safety situation there (c) because of its location within 500 feet of a municipal boundary, appeal must be referred to the county for consideration, and as a matter of courtesy, since it abuts the Town of Ithaca, it should be referred to the town for consideration, Mr. Ilan Cort mentioned that the problem with this particular appeal is: (a) Should the Board ask that appellant conform to the ordinance, in which case there would not be much improvement to the existing structure, or (b) Should it be conceded that while the existing structure does not conform, owners should be allowed to make necessary improvements? Mrs, Nichols seconded the motion, and the vote was 5-0, During the discussion of this case, the question arose: When appellant begins appeal process who guides him? Answer: the Building Commissioner, primary staff for the BZA. Yet the first people the appellant deals with is the Planning & Development Board. Do the appellants have any contact with the Planning & Development Department before they come before the Board? Mr, Van Cort replied, usually not; usually appellants deal with the Building Commissioner who supplies the P&D Board information pertinent to the appeals case, Then the department relays it to the Planning & Development Board, However, if the P&D Dept. thinks the .case is of particular interest, it tries to get additional information from appellant for use by the Board for its use in making recommendations on planning matters ,. Usually, though, the BLilding Commissioner is relied on for information about cases , Ms, Cummings mentioned in addition that she was concerned about the information the appel- lant receives about the appeal process . The P&D Board is not the Building Commissioner' s board , Ni 1717S PLANNING & DEVELOPME dT BOARD MEETING November 25, 1980 P• 5 Further discussion raised the matter of motel signs on Route 13. Mr. Stewart proposed that a brief message be given to the Building Commissioner to the effect that the P&D Board remains concerned that some of the large cases (sign, and other appeals) which have been before the P&D Board appear to be unresolved; the P&D Board is curious about them. Mr. Van Cort acting on behalf of the P&D Board said he would request the Building Commissioner to report to the Board at his earliest convenience on progress on enforce- ment or compliance to his orders and those of the BZA with regard to the above mentioned cases . Ms . Cummings added that she was curious about the enforcement process , how it works , what happens if there is noncompliance with BZA rulings. What court does it go to? APPEAL 1327 (deferred from October) : Appeal of Don Robertson for an Area Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and 13 (front and side yards) and Section 30.49 (enlargement of non-conforming structure) to permit addition of two bedrooms to the building at 605 Cascadilla Street. The property, in an R-3b district, is deficient in required front and one side yards. Neither appellant nor representative was present, Mr. Van Cort said he had not received any additional information from appellant. Ms , Cummings men- tioned that appellant had not sought technical advice from NHS, Mr, Moran, seconded by Mr. Stewart, moved to table appeal . 5-0. Mr. Van Cort said he would write a letter to appellant stating that the Board could not act until he supplied additional information on his proposed addi- tion; including that the ordinance only allows a limited amount of time for appellant to seek_ additional information and that if he does not come forward the Board will be forced to recommend action in the negative, SIGN APPEAL 10-1-80 (deferred from October) : Variance under Section 34.4B (projecting sign) to permit retention of existing sign at .114 W. State St. (Ithaca Diner) in a B-3 district. The sign projects more than eighteen inches from the building. The !LPC requests further deferral of this appeal , in order to permit further search for evidence to support historic status. Mrs , Nichols , seconded by Mr. Stewart, moved to table this appeal since the ILPC still needs more time to search for evidence to support historic status of sign. 5-0. MI!\J7FS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING November 25, 1980 P, 6 APPEAL 1331 : Area Variances to permit continued use of premises at 801 E. State Street (owner Charles Fritschler) in an R-3a zone, as a multiple dwe ing. Structure was converted by previous owner in violation of codes, and previous appeal was denied Mr. Fritschler in August. Appellant now proposes to construct required off-street parking, but other facts of the appeal are not changed: the lot, front and side yards are undersized, and use would be for one four-bedroom and one six-bedroom cooperative unit. Neither appellant nor representative was present. S. Killeen, resident at 111 Orchard Place, spoke against granting variance. S. Cummings wondered how appellants who have been turned down in the past by the BZA on an appeal can be prevented from submitting a new appeal to be acted on but which appeal is only slightly different in wording and intent from a previous appeal turned down but which was then already deficient in compliance. Mr: Stewart, seconded by Mrs. Nichols , moved to deny appeal . 5-0. Although not on the ,Agenda, the Board agreed to hear the following sign appeal . SIGN APPEAL 10-4-80: Variance under Sections 34.4B (projecting signs) and 34. 5B (size regulations in a residential zone) to permit retention of non- conforming signs at 402 lest Court Street (Jake's Red & White) in an R-2b district. The signs exceed in number and area the maximums for a residential zone. Jacob Geldwert, appellant, was present to discuss his appeal and presented some pictures of Jake' s Red & White in years past. Jim Slattery, neighbor to Jake 's , spoke in favor of retaining the signs on the premises as they were now. Mr. Holmes, seconded by Ms . Cummings , moved to accept plan accepted by the Planning Department, that is (a) retain Red & t�fhite sign facing on Court Street (b) retain plastic internally lit sign facing Plain Street (c) deny overhead sign; owner will check to see whether legal to retain overhead light, without sign underneath. A c_iestion to be answered: !s a hi .toric sign considered part of overall signage allotment? The motion passed 4-1 . stir,7 h.' T C S i PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING November 25, 1980 p 7 APPEAL 1332: Area Variance to permit addition to Triangle Steel to enlarge_ their production facility at 725 W. Clinton St. , in an I-1 zone, projecting to within twelve feet of Cherry St. , where a twenty-foot setback is required. Staff recommendation was in favor of approving variance. Mrs , Nichols , seconded by Mr. Stewart, made a motion to" recommend approval of variance. Motion passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM. 409 Hancock St. 407 Hancock St. Ithaca, New York 14850 ranklin K. Moore Nov. 21 , 1980 Ithaca Planning: Board Chairperson 116 Dearborn Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear :Franklin Moore : We would like to share our thoughts about the Planning Board meeting of Oct. 28 , 1980 . We came to that meeting concerned about the future of the old Creat American property and .made the requests listed in Jon Meigs' memorandum on the Board" s actions . Our requests were not aimed at penalizing Norton Electric , a company the neigh- borhood respects for :its handling of its present property. They were aimed at protecting improving the beauty and comfort of this area as a place to live. We learned from that meeting that to protect and improve our neighborhood we need to participate in making the decisions. We learned that this is far easier for some Ithaca citizens than others. Earlier at the meeting some residents of Cornell Heights protested the conversion of a private home to student rental housing. These residents assumed they could be part of the decision, were granted the priviledge without question by the Board, and gained a unanimous vote in their favor. They were described by members of the Board as "law-abiding citizens" concerned about the "continued enjoyment of their homes. " We were not greeted this way. Instead there were comments about broken bottles and the improbability of retail business being successf.°ul in the neighborhood. Our petition with over 30 signatures , and twice as many a week later, was treated with skepticism. The emphasis was on creatine; jobs rather than preserving the neighborhood. Although the majority resolution attached our requests, it ,,eras 3 -- 2 in .favor of a blanket B-4 variance. We do not want to launchiinto a longi; discussion here of the Northside, where literally millions of dollars are being spent with energy and enthusiasm for upkeep and rehabilitation. We do not think retail business in the area should be declared almost hopeless based on the demise of one food store with a clearly higher quality competitor one block away. We do want to point out that just because many of us make .lower salaries , have less experience at pulic meetings and lower expectation that our involvement will influence the powers that be, we are not any less "law--abiding citizens" and we are definitely concerned "about the continued enjoyment of our homes. " We feel the minority resolution woudl have given us more power in making decisions about our neighborhood because it called for joint.planning by !`.porton Electric and the surrounding residents. -2- vie think that any applicant for a variance for such a large property surrounded by residents ought to submit plans in detail for consider- ation by the Board and the affected residents. In short, we observed that some members of your Board are much more receptive to interests of Cornell Heights residents and of downtown businesses that interests of a downtown residential neigh- borhood. 1,1e trust you will become more aware of this as similar issues arise in the future. Sincerely yours LIE C_ t' 'Talier Doctor `' ers Ruth. Yarrdw 'Y,".ichael Yarrow cc : Susan Cummings Peter Holmes Richard Moran Ethel Nich-Ols Martin Sampson -Lan Stewart