The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-PDB-1982-11-25 MINUTES Planning & Development Board November 25, 1982 PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers , M, Sampson, R. Moran (at 8:15) ALSO: H, M. Van Cort, Appellants , Appellants ' representatives, Press , Other interested parties 1. Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:43 pm, noting that there was no quorum, nore any expected, 2. Public hearing on subdivision: Property of John Novar.r at 723 Cascadilla St. Mr. Sampson moved to open -the hearing, No one appeared. Mr. Sampson moved to close hearing. There was some discussion of the subdivision, which Board had given prelim- inary approval to in October. Final approval was deferred for a quorum. 3. Approval of minutes: Deferred for quorum. 4. Privilege of floor: Ken Boyers spoke, saying he was in favor of the new development occuring along Route 13--Novarr's subdivision, and the proposed U-Fair subdivision which would relocate McGuire's car dealership. Tom Niederkorn appeared on behalf of Cornell to notify the Board of an impending request for subdivision of the old U-Fair property, Tim McGuire and Peter Weiss were also on hand to answer questions. Mr, Van Cort outlined previous history of this parcel , noting two subdivisions had been made so far--one for Tops, the other for Garage de France. The original subdivision of this Cornell-owned property had required an Environmental Impact Statement, due in part to the location of some low parts in the 100-year flood plain. The parcel now under consideration (in the N.E, corner) will require the usual preliminary and final approvals by the Board, as well as an Environmental Assessment, which could be based on the existing EIS with some minimal research for updating, Mr. Niederkorn showed the proposed subdivision, and indicated where provisions would be.made for internal circulation, A surcharge already exists on the parcel , alleviating flood and foundation problems, and making the parcel economically feasible for development. Provisions for easements for internal circulation and dedication of 13 ft. frontage for eventualwidening of Meadow St. are part of the deed, Mr. Niederkorn will bring this. subdivision for approval at a future Board meeting, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Van Cort expressed their support in the interim. 5. Communications: Mr. Van Cort announced that the Chamber of Commerce has a new county map available, Planning & Development Board Minutes - November 25, 1982 2. Mr. Rogers referred to a letter from Bob Augenstern of STERPDB about the ARC ratings for the Cayuga Inlet Island Redevelopment Project. Mr, Van Cort reviewed the relative rankings of the projects by group numbers. Collegetown is now our highest ranked project, since Allied decided not to commit to the Rothschilds building. Collegetown is not likely to receive funds at this time, however, and the other two projects can be essentially written off for funding. 6. Chairman's report Mr. Rogers asked for a volunteer from the Board to sit on the Henry St. John's Re-Use Committee at the Mayor's request. After discussion, Mr. Rogers agreed to get back to Board members with a schedule of meeting times. 7. Committee reports: None scheduled-,, none appeared. 8. Director's report: Mr. Moran asked Mr. Van Cort what was the status of the West End project`, Mr, Van Cort replied that the City is not further along towards implementation, Mr. Sampson asked if any plans for hotels have come forward, Mr. Van Cort reported that Levanthol and Horwath had been in town to initiate a market study last week. They are the leading firm nationally in hotel development. Mr. Moran added that their rep, Mike French, was a former player of his. 9. - Staff report.sa: None scheduled; none appeared. 10. Zoning appeals review: See attached. 11. Old business: None, 12. New business: The December 28th date for the next meeting was discussed. It was felt that due to the holidays, Board should meet the week previous (Dec. 21). Mr. Moran can attend then; Mr. Sampson will be out of town both weeks. Meeting will be 21st if okay with Board members not present, 13, Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned on motion by Mr. Moran at 9:00 pm. ZONING APPEALS Planning & Development Board November 30, 1982 Chairman Rogers opened the zoning appeals hearing, noting that the Board did not have a quorum. He offered appellants the option of coming back to the December meeting, or stating their case before the three Board members present. He noted this Board acts in an advisory capacity to the BZA. SIGN'APPEAL 12-1-82: Appeal of Byrne Dairy, Inc, for a variance from Section 34.5 of the Sign Ordinance to permit erection of a free-standing sign of sixty square feet at 213 Meadow St. , in a B-2a district, where such signs are limited to a maximum of fifty square feet. Robert Hines, attorney for the appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Better visibility of property identification for motorists. Slightly improved property appearance through standardized signage, Appellant comment: Byrne Dairy needs a free-standing sign. Proposed sign is their logo throughout central New York state, The mold is made by the company, the cost of making a new mold for an individual Ithaca sign would be prohibitive, Proposed sign is 60 SF, exceeding by 10 SF the maximum area allowed by ordinance. Mr. Van Cort passed around a sketch of the proposed sign. Mr. Sampson asked if the plastic could be cut down after the sign is molded. Mr. Hines thought not, the sign is apparently enclosed. Staff comment: Sign exceeds allowance significantly (20%) . Other merchants have been able to comply whose companies are geared to produce stock signs. Granting the variance would be unfair to merchants who have complied with the ordinance, and might encourage other to press for variances on nonconforming signs, Recommendation: Denial , Board comment:' Mr. Sampson suggested having a local signmaker paint a sign based on the Byrne logo. Mr. Hines said the sign was lighted from within, a painted sign would not be visible during evening hours of business. A suggestion was made for a painted sign lit by floodlights. There was some discussion of nonconforming signage in this area. Board members felt such signage-,_ even signage .that has been granted vari- ance-; does not create precedent "for allowing nonconforming signage. ---- The -possible encroachment of a larger sign on the surrounding residential neighborhood was also raised. Recommendation: Mr. Sampson, citing the need to rigorously enforce the sign ordinance, moved to recommend denial ; seconded by Mr. Moran. Vote was 3-0 in favor'of the motion, (No quorum. ) ** Public comment: None appeared, ZONING APPEALS November 30, 1982 2. r APPEAL 1472: Appeal of D. L. Krein ck_and S. Blumenthal for Area Variances under Sec, 30,25, Col . 12 (setback for sideyard) and Sec. 30.49 (extension or enlargement of a non-conforming structure) to permit a small addition to the rear of the single-family house at. 117 Pearsall Pl . , in an R-lb district, because the addition will be partially within the required sideyard, and the existing structure is also partially within the sideyard. David Kreinick, and Susan Blumenthal , appellants, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Would increase property value, Would increase amenity of housing, Would extend the visual encroachment on neighboring property Appellant states visual quality would be in keeping with existing building, Staff comment: Appellant is proposing to build a solar addition in back consisting of one room, They have started building the foundation under a valid building permit, House is 52 ft, from property line; ordinance requires 10 ft, sideyards. There is 30 ft. distance between the house and the neighboring building. Recommendation: Staff was split, Mr. Van Cort recommends approvaTas a standard area variance, which this Board routinely recommends granting. Mr. Meigs recommends denial on grounds that it sets a precedent for encroaching on sideyards. Appellant comment: Ms. Blumenthal said the appearance from the front of the house will not be affected. In response to a suggestion to turn the addition in another direction she replied this was unfeasible because: 1) Does not allow enough solar exposure to work , effectively; 2) Would affect the roots of an existing tree they want to preserve; 3) While conforming, the resultant design would be aesthetically unpleasing--the integrity of the house would be compromised by a strange corner, Public comment: None appeared, Appellant stated they had discussed addition with neighbors before beginning the foundation, no one was opposed. Board comment: Mr. Moran felt solar building is a sensitive issue, wondered how the Board would respond if many people began coming in asking for similar additions. Mr. Van Cort stated that each case would be judged on its merits, the Board .has heard many cases on additions without setting an overall precedent. Mr. Rogers concurred. Mr. Van Cort felt that the necessity of building the addition for solar exposure was a clear case of practical. difficulty, which is sufficient for an area variance. Recommendation: Mr. Moran moved to recommend approval , seconded by Mr, Sampson, Vote was 3-0 in. favor of the motion. (No quorum) ,