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