HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-12-21 MINUTES
Planning &. Development Board
December 21, 1982
PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers, Vice-Chair S. Cummings, R. Holdsworth, R. Moran
ALSO: H, M. Van Cort, Appellants, Appellants' representatives , Press ,
Other interested parties -
1. Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:42 pm.
2. Approval of minutes: Mr. Moran moved and Mr. Holdsworth seconded that
the October 1982. minutes be approved as written. Motion carried unani-
mously, 4-0.
3. Public Hearing - Subdivision: Ms. Cummings moved and Mr. Moran seconded
to reconvene the public hearing on the proposed subdivision of the parcel
at 723 best Cascadilla St. , requested by John Novarr. Motion carried
unanimously, 4-0. No public comment appeared. Mr. Holdsworth moved to
close hearing, seconded by Mr. Moran. Motion carried unanimously.
Final approval : Board reviewed subdivison request given preliminary
on October 26, 1982. Property is between Cascadilla and Eddy Sts .--
it separates frontage on Meadow St. from property behind, creating
two 'conforming parcels on Meadow St. Parcel "A" has already been sold
to I. 0. Booth;' request for subdivision has been made after the fact.
Motion by Mr. Holdsworth to grant FINAL APPROVAL of said subdivision,
seconded by Mr. Moran. Motion carried unanimously, 4=0.
4. Chairman's report: Nothing to report.
5. Committee reports: None scheduled; none appeared,
6. Director's report: Mr. Van Cort distributed copies of the "Economic and
Industrial Development Opportunities in Tompkins County" brochure to the .
Board. Brochure was developed and funded by various County and City agencies
and Cornell . In answer to a question by Ms . Cummings , Mr. Van Cort stated
that staff was in the process of preparing a distribution plan with the Chamber
of Commerce and County Planning. Mr. Van Cort pointed out that Cherry St.
Industrial Park is the first site featured in the brochure. He mentioned that
lease-up efforts continue at Cherry St. , and as interest rates come down,
there should be more companies leasing.
7. New business: a, Preliminary approval of subdivision of Parcel 5 from
U-Fair property at S. Meadow and W. Clinton Streets. Tom Niederkorn
appeared on behalf of the owner, 'U-Fair Realty Corp. (Cornell University) ,
Mr: Niederkorn briefly outlined the proposed subdivision, as presented
to the Board at its last meeting. Parcel #5 is a three acre parcel with
395'' of frontage on Meadow and is 315' deep. Parcel is being sold to
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - December. 21, 1982 2,
Tim McGuire of McGuire Ford. A letter of transmittal and an Environmental
Assessment (short form) has been forwarded to the Planning Dept. Site
plan includes easements for future widening of Meadow St. and for internal
circulation on property (shared by Tops, Garage de France, and future
developers) as required for subdivision of this property (see November
minutes. )
Peter Weiss, Mr. McGuire's architect, presented the site plan, Main building
is a metal structure of 13,000 SF (130' x 100' )located on top of the surcharge
area (which is 75' x 240' ) , 65' behind property line. Structure has 2-ft,
high block walls then slopes steeply, easing to a 3 degree slope for drainage.
(Floor level is 388' ; 500-yr., flood elevation is 387' . ) Surrounding lot
will not be paved yet,_ but laid oil and stone to give. time for the soil to
compact. There is no need for catch basins and storm drains at this time.
Lot perimeter would have a split rail fence.
Site lighting was discussed; planned are mainly dual halide lights on metal
posts. Access will be controlled by chains on posts , with signage, and
held as far away from traffic light on W. Clinton as possible, Mr. Weiss
stressed site plan was conceptual ; they are looking at ways to break up
the building mass.
Mr. Moran asked Mr. Neiderkorn to explain the subdivisions indicated of
the remaining parcels on the property. While parcels might be combined,
it is Cornell `s feeling that this is the most logical division of the
property remaining. The parcel areas are governed by where there is
surcharge. Original ground has poor bearing capacity. Site as it now
exists was loaded for a classic shopping center layout--one large mass
with outlying "satellites" , explained Mr. Van Cort. Surcharge has been
there 15-20 years, 5 years is sufficient, There was discussion of the
paving--rolled oil and stone will look paved but is permeable. A high
water table on site could cause frost damage to early paving. Ms. Cummings
was concerned with drainage flow to nearby houses. Mr. Neiderkorn felt
the bigger danger is that water puddles on the site. He felt that when the
site is paved it would not interfere with underground drainage, because
the land there hasn't any.
Motion by Mr. Holdsworth to grant PRELIMINARY APPROVAL .to subdivision of
Parcel #5 from U-Fair Property, seconded by Mr. Moran. Motion carried
unanimously, 4-0.
b. Inlet Island Development = Walter Wiggins presented to the Board a
plan for a development on the island called "Harborside Village" . He
stated that he had these problems with the urban design plan the City
adopted (prepared by Trowbridge/Trowbridge in consultation with the City) :
i) An 80-room hotel is not economically feasible--that size "went out
with high-button shoes"--at least 150 rooms are needed. There are four
major hotels in the area already, and
2) He does not feel West End should be developed as a commercial area
when downtown is having problems,
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - December 21, 1982 3.
Mr. Wiggins' .proposal is an "interval ownership" (or "time sharing")
concept, which though novel to Ithaca, is widely popular in resort areas ,
The development would consist of a "village" of studio, l and 2-bedroom
apartments owned by the developer and rented to students and possibly
visiting faculty during the school year. During the summer tourist season
these units would be sold for specified periods of time (e.g. a week, a
month) to individuals for use as resort cottages--there is also the option
for long term leases (e.g. 30 years) . The owner of that time period can
sublet, sell or exchange the share in an exchange program of 400 facilities
worldwide. Mr. Wiggins feels this plan addresses the problem of the short
term of Ithaca's tourist season, while a hotel would not
Mr. Wiggins has much experience in the. hotel business, and has also been
associated with the West End area since the Ithaca Festival plans which
resulted in most of the Cass Park development, He would like the Board
to consider his proposal , and if it is approved, he would go ahead
immediately with final drawings; and construction bids, The development
is estimated at this time at $3 million,
Ms. Cummings asked what the incentives are for students to rent that far
from the colleges. Mr, Wiggins replied that the primary incentive is that
they are economically competitive since they will offer a 9-month lease
instead of the usual 12-month, Other reasons are: 1) physical accomodation
of students' needs; 2) bus service to campuses; 3) a student community; and
4) amenities such as jacuzzis , a clubhouse, racquetball , etc, Also, the
lake is a primary recreational area. Ms. Cummings asked .if any of the
design features are uniquely student-oriented. Mr. Wiggins said the units
,are designed as 1- to 2-bedroom apts, , not dormitories, The proposal
presupposes students to be responsible, mature and sophisticated, he said.
Mr, Holdsworth asked whether the proposal was giving up on the retail/
commercial aspects of the City's urban design, plan. Mr, Van Cort felt
it substituted a resort/residential use for the hotel/residential and
commercial portions of the urban design plan on Taughannock Blvd.
Mr. Holdsworth asked if the proposal. takes into account the possibility
of a Rt, 96 bypass; Mr. Wiggins said it does ,
Decision process, Ms Cummings asked what process the Board should use
in considering this proposal and others—what is the Board's role in
relation to other City agencies', and what timetables could be set? Mr.
Van Cort felt that the Harborside Village proposal is a substantial
departure from the urban design plan which had been approved by this
Board and by Council , While the urban design is not cast in stone,
he felt differences should be looked at carefully, rather than making
simple substitutions. He pointed out that the Trowbridge plan does not
follow existing property lines while this one does--which is perhaps not
the best approach,
Mr. Wiggins replied that that plan was prepared by a landscape architect
with no hotel experience; he felt other options had not been presented.
What he is offering is in essence a resort hotel , and it is his suggestion,
based on his experience, that a hotel would not work in that location.
Planning &Development Board.
Minutes December 2.1p 1982 _ 4,
Ms. Cummings responded that she did not consider this an either/or situation.
The Trowbridge plan is an overall concept that the City adopted; .a primary
consideration is the mixed-use approach it suggests, She recommended going
to committee to look at specific plans in term of the overall urban design
plan, and asked for a time-frame for this process.
Mr. Van Cort retraced the history of the urban design plan: The figures
for the development program came out of the American City Corp's market
report, The Planning Board approved the urban design and forwarded it
to Council , who approved it and designated the IURA the lead agency, but
directed that no concrete action be taken by the Planning & Development
Dept, until there was a show of interest by private parties , Mr, Van
Cort said this interest is present, and now the proposals should go to
the IURA for implementation. If Mr. Wiggins ' proposal is found to change
the existing design plan, Mr. Van Cort felt the IURA should return it
to the Planning Board for its recommendation. Concurrently, alienation
of the city land should be undertaken, He felt the City should offer
its land in a process that allows a fair competition. for proposals and
has definite criteria and procedures for judgment of proposals , Ms .
Cummings asked if proposals could come before the Board first if they
substantially deviated from the urban design plan. Mr. Van Cort felt
the Board could initiate a request that the IURA submit such proposals
to the Board's review. He added that a proposal which differs from the plan
might still be attractive--e,g. in the case of Mr, Wiggins ' proposal , the
City is being approached by a developer with a great deal of experience.
Alienation of land. Mr. Van Cort explained that an involved process is
required in order for the City to sell its property here, as it. is owned
for recreational/park purposes. First the City must replace the land with
land of comparable recreational value; this requires action by State
legislature and by the Secretary of the Interior (via the Finger Lakes
Park Commission) , It is not something the City can do unilaterally.
IURA as lead ageng, Mr. Holdsworth felt that the Wiggins proposal should
go to; the Planning & Development Committee of Council for public input.
Mr, Van Cort thought the IURA would be more appropriate as it is the
designated agency, Mr. Holdsworth said the Common Council had adopted
the urban design "blueprint" , and Council should amend the blueprint if
necessary.
Ms. Cummings asked whether there shouldn't be a mechanism for consideration
of all proposals at once with a time limit assigned,
Mr, Van Cort agreed that the City should be fair and not amend its plan
based on one proposal . Ms. Cummings asked if the Board could recommend
to the IURA to set up a review process at their next meeting.
Mr. Holdsworth stressed he thinks the Wiggins proposal has merit, and he
doesn't want the developer to get disinterested during a drawn-out
review process, Mr. Van Cort agreed, but said, there has been expression
of interest in the Cayuga Inlet Island development by others, and all must
be considered.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - December 21, 1982 5.
William Downing, architect for Harborside Village, addressed the Board.
He said this proposal would create a revitalized neighborhood, not
so much commercial places as a place to live. He feels downtown is in
trouble, and that Center Ithaca's problems are due to the studies by
the American City Corp, and that the Rouse Co, is not having success in
its Columbia, MD project, He also asked whether it was not the case that
the Trowbridge plan was presented to the City for the reception of
development proposals?
Mr. Van Cort replied that the Trowbridge plan was not a solicitation for
proposals; it was a planning tool , ACC and Rouse are separate entities,
he said, and Rouse multi'-use centers are succeeding in many places, such
as Harbor Place in Baltimore and Fanueil Market in Boston. Center Ithaca's
problems are not the result of ACC's study•,
Ms. Cummings pointed out that the Trowbridge plan does not call for competing
commercial development in the West End, but development that proceeds from
existing commercial uses--recreational and neighborhood-support oriented,
Mr. Van Cort added that the commercial component is limited, of an infill
nature.
Mr. Wiggins said he understood the hotel proposed was to face the street in
order to rebuild the commercial area, Mr. Van Cort said that wasn't the
reason; the hotel had a streetfront to reinforce Taughannock Blvd, as an
urban design element, rather than to have parking front Taughannock.
RESOLUTION. Mr. Holdsworth moved that the Harborside Village plan be
presented' to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency at their next regular meeting
for review and comment, with the request that such comment be forwarded
to the Planning Board at its next meeting; and further that the IURA
establish a process for reviewing all proposals for Cayuga Inlet Island
development and a' timetable to expedite this process, Ms , Cummings
seconded the motion, Motion CARRIED unananimously, 4-0.
8. Zoning appeals: See attached,
9. Adjournment: Motion by Mr, Holdsworth to adjourn, Meeting adjourned
at 10:52 pm.
Planning & Development Board
ZONING APPEALS
December 21, 1982
APPEAL 1475:
Appeal of Collegetown Motor Lodge for Area Variances to permit con-
struction of a 2000 S.F. one-storey office building on the lodge's
parking lot. The development would result in a slight parking
deficiency, and the building would be deficient in required side yard
for the B2a zone; existing legally nonconforming rear yard deficiencies
for the lodge would not be increased.
Ary Rosten, President of Collegetown Motor Lodge, appeared on behalf of this
appeal .
Planning issues: Land use permitted
Increased property value; additional economic activity and
related tax revenues to city,
Probable minor increase in traffic
Pedestrian scale visually reinforces street line
Appellant comment: Appellant plans to build a 1000 SF building (24'x45' ) ,
Proposal creates an area deficiency, as building is too close to lot
line. Parking is adequate--existing motel requires 41 spaces , this
building requires 4," there are 47 existing according to their inventory.
There was discussion of what the parking inventory was; appellant's descrip-
tion varies with the number on the Building Dept, worksheet, which notes a
deficiency. Building Dept, also notes more square footage in proposal .
Mr. Rogers questioned appellant's parking figures in light of appellant's
previous request for variance. Mr. Rosten said proposed building eliminates
five existing spaces; however, surveying done after they submitted previous
appeal (granted) revealed existence of more parking spaces . Building now
under construction no longer has motel rooms as a second floor, eliminating
requirement for extra parking spaces for it.
Mr. Rogers clarified the sideyard deficiency--8" rather than the required 5 ' .
Board comment: .1, Mr. Moran asked what the new addition was for; Mr. Rosten explained
he has a prospective client for a retail/office building, It will not be
associated with the motel .
Mr. Van Cort said he thought proposal was an addition to the motel ,
Ms. Cummings asked if a one-storey building would affect the flexibility of
redevelopment in the core of Collegetown, Mr. Rosten said the space was only
25' wide, too narrow to add stairs for a second storey,
Staff recommendation: Based on the discrepancy in parking inventory figures , and
on the new information that proposal is for a retail/office building , Mr.
Van Cort recommended deferral for further study by staff.
ZONING APPEALS December 21, 1982 2.
Public comment: None appeared.
Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend APPROVAL, subject to staff study--staff
has option to return appeal to Board if staff does not recommend approval ;
seconded by Mr. Moran. Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
APPEAL 1476:
Appeal of R, and T. .Garrison and J. Jackson for Use Variance to permit use
of the large single-family house at 415 Elm Street in an R2a zone as a
tourist lodge. This is essentially the same appeal as was recommended for
approval by the Board in June, but denied by the BZA for lack of demonstrated
hardship, i .e. , that the property could not be sold for a permitted use.
The property has now been for sale for 9 months with essentially no other
interest, which appellants feel constitutes grounds for rehearing.
Roger and Terry Garrison, appellants, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Land use is not permitted, but could be compatible due to
size and amenity of lot
Increased property value and income; some spinoff to City
Eliminates potential for 1 to 11 additional dwelling units if
house or lot were divided for permitted 2-family dwellings
Minor increase in traffic to and from site at peak season (approx.
12 trips/day) ,on primary residential street ,
Improved maintenance and landscaping likely; small sign and
additional parking main differences from existing
Limited effect on surrounding family residences due to resi-
dential nature of proposed use
Retention . and upgrading of a property of some age & attractiveness
Board comment: _ Mr. Rogers asked if appellants were bringing variance back to prove
hardship to BZA they are.. Ms. Cummings asked what price house is being
offered at; it is listed at $120,000 down from $135,000. Ms. Cummings found
that price steep.
Staff recommendation: Use was recommended for approval unanimously by Board in
previous appeal . Approval .
Motion: No motion--since the Board had previously recommended approval For use,
no formal action was taken.
APPEAL 1477:
Appeal of Block 99 Partnership for Area Variances to permit a 48-room,
8-storey expansion of the Ramada Inn, in a B-4 zone. The existing facility
is deficient in parking, which would be substantially exacerbated by the
addition, though the adjacent City lot may be considered to compensate at
least partially for this deficiency. The height limit for the zone is
4 storeys,
Walter Wiggins , appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
ZONING APPEALS December 21 , 1982 3.
PlanningIssues: Land use permitted.
Added accommodations could be substantial boon to
downtown business, as well as to tax roll , and partially
offset the concentration of major motel facilities at
Triphammer. -
Increase in parking deficiency from 18% to 58,% (22 to 71
spaces) could result in periodic congestion and conflict
in off-site traffic and parking; though currently there
seems to be no problem except during large meetings.
Height would present problems in firefighting: existing
ladders will not reach above 6 storeys for rescue purposes.
Added use could significantly increase pedestrian and other
site-related activity during business and evening hours;
probably little effect on nearby residential areas.
8-storey 'tower' beginning at street line would be radical.
change from existing, though not totally out of character
with nearby development.
Appellant Comment: Mr. Wiggins sketched the history of the development of the
site on the old Ithaca Hotel site) as part of Ithaca's urban renewal
plan City would not provide funds for an initial underground parking
facility, so original hotel plan failed. . A Ramada Inn was finally built
with 120 rooms (at that time the hotel market minimum was 100 rooms. ) Now
the market minimum is 150 rooms Wiggins termed the Ramada "the most
successful hotel in the County," operating at average 80% capacity. 100
days each year they turn people away, which justifies their desire to expand,
providing more rooms and better service at affordable prices.
They explored various possibilities on the site (e.g. SW corner of lot)
but settled on "an exciting architectural concept''--an 8-storey addition
fronting the property. Appellant understands this creates two zoning
concerns: 1 ) Variance in height; 2) Variance for parking deficiency.
Wiggins noted that the zoning in this area is the inheritance of a prior
Gasoline Alley character, and pointed out that the height would be allowed
in the zone just across the street. McGraw House (to the rear) is six
storeys with a small service area on top. Ramada addition would add 33
employment positions to downtown.
Ramada currently uses City parking spaces (especially Woolworth's lot) to
supplement its own. . After 6 PM is the peak for Ramada, which is when down
town demands diminish. Summertime is peak season for Ramada. 'While there
is more daytime parking by their suinmer customers, parking is available,-_=-
since students are. away from-town then Valet parking may be used when
there are conflicts with major evening events downtown.
Dimensions of proposed addition are 481 deep by 50' wide and 77' high with
a possible indoor/outdoor cafe. Cost is estimated at $2 M. Addition is
designed as executive rooms.
ZONING APPEALS December 21 , 1982 4.
Board Comment: Ms: Cummings asked why appellant opted to use a small ground
area and build up, rather than go across entire front. The net loss
of rooms by former is 2, by latter is 12. Mr. Downing stressed the
'excitement' . of the tower concept, "a World Trade Center for Ithaca. "
Ms. Cummings replied she wasn't sure she wants a World Trade Center
here. There was discussion of the requirements for the current zone
(B-4) . Ms. Cummings stated she was not happy with the current zoning
requirements, and was concerned with the intensity of development in a
3-block area (McGraw, Reconstruction Home) , admitting the Ramada addi-
tion is less intense as it faces into the central business district.
She felt the Board had two problems before it: 1 ) A unique case, and
2) a .need to look. at height requirements overall , either to change them,
or to decide on how exactly to apply them.
Mr. Van Cort stated zoning requirements are a compromise between the
ideal and the actual composition of the existing neighborhood.
Public Comment: Ed Arnold, of the Board of McGraw House, and Mrs. Patterson,
manager of McGraw House, spoke. Mr. Arnold's concerns are:
1 Height: obstruction of resident's views from apartments
facing east;
2) Annoyance: Ramada customers at backside of motel sometimes
engage in late-night parties, keeping residents awake--there
needs to be more Ramada management control here;
3) I ncreased noises and fumes from buses warming up early in
the morning.
Mrs. Patterson added that it is more difficult for them to rent on the
east side of the building because of the Ramada. Bottles have been thrown
through windows. She feels an addition would complicate problems. Ramada
has been a good neighbor, but problems exist.
Air conditioning units will be on top of the tower and in-wall ; they
are less noisy than existing units. There will be no rooms facing on the
west. Mr. Wiggins felt most of the problems encounted by McGraw residents
could be handled from a management point-of-view.
Mr. Rogers asked if complaints had been forwarded to the Ramada management
on past occasions; Mrs. Patterson said yes, many times.
John Place, 107 W. Clinton St. , which faces the Ramada, was concerned
first with his view from the upper floors. His major concern is the
continual parking problem at the Ramada. There is parking-on Clinton St.
by Ramada patrons, parking in the gas station, and double-parking.
Enforcement of parking regulations is a low police priority--and al.though
ample city parking may be available, patrons expect to park nearby.
Mrs. Patterson asked what provisions are being made for structural support.
Mr. Downing said essentially the. same soil"conditions are faced as
McGraw' s, and deep pilings are needed.
ZONING APPEALS December 21 , 1982 5.
Ary Rosten, 312 College Ave. , said he was interested in building 20
more rooms in his motel , but doesn't have the required parking. He
questioned what the parking deficiency at the Ramada would become.
Mr. Van Cort replied that Ramada is deficient by 22 spaces now, will
increase to 71 spaces, a 58% deficiency. Mr. Rosten replied it is
tough for him to compete with a motel that has a parking agreement with
the City. Mr. Wiggins responded that if there were ample parking in
Collegetown, it would address Mr. Rosten' s concerns. Mr. Rosten count-
ered that there is municipal parking, but he is required by zoning to
have 20 vacant spots on-site.
Ms. Cummings asked clarification on parking policy in City garages--
can a business such as Ramada or Collegetown Motor Lodge lease municipal
spaces to satisfy parking? Mr. Van Cort said not for required parking.
Mr. Holdsworth asked if there are any instances where commercial spaces
can be leased from the city. Mr. Van Cort said this arrangement is
proposed for Collegetown but does not presently exist;further that College-
town is a different situation, heavy in commuter parking and rental proper-
ties. Mr. Holdsworth asked if this means the City recognizes a difference
in parking policy downtown; Mr. Van Cort said yes.
Mr. Downing pointed out that DeWitt Mall got variance on grounds of parking
within 250' of site (which is municipal ) and pointed to the Tioga Office
Building now under construction. Mr. Van Cort said the Tioga building is in
a zone which has no parking requirements.
Mr. Vin Cort explained that there is excess capacity at night and into the
am hours inthedowntown system; his guess is that at this time there is
enough to fulfill nighttime downtown parking needs amply.
Mr. Holdsworth asked if valet parking would alleviate Mr. Place's concerns.
Mr. Place replied that there is no means to enforce the parking system, and
it seems that the. Ramada gets a "free ride." Mr. Holdsworth pointed out that
the Ramada addition is a very tangible benefit to the city more rooms .and
more shoppers. Ms. Cummings said if Mr. Place's question is "Are you being
equitable in enforcement of parking requirements?" the answer is no, the
Board i`s weighing overall economic concerns of the City.
Mr. Moran asked if when the City came to Mr. Wiggins to ask for the Ramada
Inn, did the City make the suggestion to use City Parking? Mr. Wiggins
said yes, the facilities were there. Ellen Rosten clarified that the
Ramada had met the parking requirement initially and had asked for use of
the Clity lot when it added 20 additional rooms.
Ms. Cummings asked for a method to alleviate the parking problem, as she
was hearing that on the one hand facilities were adequate for needs, while
on the other, there is congestion at this site. Mr. Rogers added it is
obvious that there is congestion, and what are the chances of the City
lot at Woolworth's not bieng available in the future?
Mr. Van Cort replied that the lot is part of City'.,s parking inventory--the
assumption that it will remain so is part of the Tanguage in the Urban
ZONING APPEALS December 21, 1982 6.
Renewal records. To the question is the parking system adequate, he replied
yes , but it needs to be fine-tuned, Much extra parking was built in 1973-74,
but the kind of detailed circulation and parking study just finished in
Collegetown has not been done downtown. Parking downtown has not been priced
to be as effective a too l as it could to promote downtown business , He feels
this addition- ear se will not place significant additional problems on the
system.
Ms, Cummings felt these rooms might add to congested parking times, Ms .
Rosten said she has heard from Ramada staff that there are times the Ramada
does not have enough parking. Mr. Wiggins replied that this is a current
problem due to partial closing of the Woolworth 's lot. Ms. Rosten said
comments were made before that.
Staff comment: Though parking and height variances are substantial on their
face, the most substantial issue here is the broader one of impacts on
similar facilities which could be developed at other locations in the
city: whether this might preempt motels which could make other development
projects viable. Van Cort and Meigs disagree on the question of height;
Van Cort thinks an 8-storey tower is acceptable, though a solar study
should be done. The more serious problem is the parking deficiency, and
more study needs to be done on this. Staff feels strongly that a proposal
of this magnitude with substantial deficiencies should not be approved
without a serious attempt to work out the problem. Specifically, an attempt
should be made to work out an agreement between the appellant and the City
for use of excess capacity in the City parking system,
Recommendation: Deferral , to work out parking agreement between appellant
and staff,
Motion: By Ms, Cummings to recommend DEFERRAL, No second appeared.
Mr, Wiggins said they anticipate spring construction and want to proceed
quickly this addition has only now become economically feasible;
financing must be at current or lower interest rates.
Motion by Mr. Holdsworth to recommend APPROVAL, seconded by Mr. Moran.. Motion
FAILED TO CARRY with Holdsworth and Moran voting in favor, Cummings opposed
and Rogers abstaining,
Discussion ensued. Ms. Cummings stated that she was against motion not only
because of parking, but because of the height variance and its impact on
residences. She stated that appellant would be well-advised to address
parking before the BZA, She recommended that appellant meet with staff
to work out a parking agreement; Board members concurred with this, Mr.
Holdsworth added that Director Van Cort should be responsible for deciding
if the Board's concerns about parking had been adequately addressed.
ZONING APPEALS December 21, 1982 7.
APPEAL 1478:
Appeal of Ithaca College for Use Variance to permit construction of a
central service building at 116 Coddington Road, in an R2a zone. The
property is contiguous to other college land in the Town on which
other facilities are located, as well as two college-owned detached
residences in the City, and to a city water tank. Location of the
facility on the college property line in the Town is constrained by
presence of a power line.
Tom Salm, Vice-President for Business at Ithaca College, and George Hascup,
architect, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Mr. Hascup explained proposed building is on the north
edge of Ithaca College campus, next to an existing service area. It
is necessary to leave a 50-ft. easement for a power line which runs
parallel with the City and Town line. The site is "land-locked" , uses
city water tank and power line as buffers . Appellant wishes to build
on City side of easement so that the truck loading area is shielded from
the residences by proposed building.
Ms. Cummings asked if IC plans to acquire theadjacen-t property. Mr.
Salm replied that if
owns that parcel , the houses will stay,
Mr. Van Cort asked if appellant plans woods or parking on the west side of
parcel . Mr. Salm replied that area would remain scrub. Intention on west
side of building is just service access to the cold storage area--this
would only involve small service trucks at that loading dock. IC is
willing to do landscaping to protect the adjacent private residence from
disturbance; proposed building lies 30-40 feet from that property.
Mr. Van Cort explained that the zoning on the Town side of the site would
permit the proposed use, ,yet turning the proposed site layout around in
that manner would be less desirable to the City.
Public Comment_ : -Diana Drucker, 120 Coddington Road, owner of the adjacent
property, poke. She has already talked with appellant, if they take into
account screening her residence with landscaping, she is reluctantly in
favor.
Architect explained that heavy. trucks would only be coming through on
the average of 1-.2 per day--the building will mainly be a shop facility.
Board comment: Ms. Cummings asked about the screening planned. As the existing
scrub is deciduous, she suggested shrub evergreens so area is screened
year-round from the view, noise and odors. Mr. Salm said he would be
glad to see this done, adding that planned screening would be nearer to the:.
residence than to the service building.
Staff comment: Property is unlikely ever to be desirable for any residential or
related use, due to presence of power line and water tank. Siting as proposed
will be minimally deleterious to a few residential properties , and will help
shield them from service activity and noise. Recommendation: Approval ,
subject to inclusion in the development of substantial plantings along
NE & NW sides of building and parking area to screen view from adjacent
ZONING APPEALS December 21, 1982 8.
residential area.
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend APPROVAL, contingent upon serious land-
scaping to be implemented within the same year as construction of the
building; seconded by Mr. Moran. Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.