HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-09-22 10/27/87-Approved as amended - see
attached memo dated 10/23/87.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
MINUTES 9/22/1987
Present: Chair Blumenthal, M. Sampson, S. Jackson, J. Daley, S .
Cummings; Deputy Director Mazzarella; Preservation/Neighborhood
Planner L. Chatterton; Appellants, press, other interested
parties .
1 . Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7 : 37 p.m.
2 . _Final Subdivision Approval: Merrill/ Schoneman, 1305 E.
State Street. Motion was made (Jackson) , seconded (Daley) , and
carried to open the Public Hearing. Appellant was present. No
one requested to speak during the Public Hearing. Public Hearing
was closed by motion. S . Jackson moved to grant final approval;
seconded by J. Daley. Vote: 5-0-0 . Carried. Appellant
mentioned Mr. Meigs of the Planning and Development Department
had been most helpful in assisting her with her application. She
also suggested a change in the procedure for subdivisions so that
a minor subdivision did not have to go through the full approval
process . Chair Blumenthal stated that revision of such
subdivision procedures is presently underway.
3 . Privilege of the Floor
4 . Zoning Appeals 1790 : 226 S . Fulton Street. Mr. Robert
Brown, owner of Technical Broadcast Systems, Appellant, explained
the proposal and answered members ' questions . The appellant is
requesting a Special Permit for installation of two 10 foot
diameter black mesh satellite dishes to be mounted on the roof of
the building which houses Gallagher TV. Sketches of the proposal
were available for members . Mr. Brown explained the need for
having 2 dishes - one to remain in a fixed position and one
movable from satellite to satellite. Location on the building is
important because of necessary angle positions . Chair Blumenthal
questioned whether it was possible to screen the dishes and the
response was it would not be possible without construction of a
superstructure because of overhang from the edge of the
building. Mazzarella asked whether the antenna would extend over
Agway's property. Brown answered that a Right-of-Way over the
Agway property exists . Recommendation was to refer legal
question of right of way to Board of Zoning Appeals, since
Agway's legal rights might be infringed upon. It was MOVED
(Cummings) , seconded (Daley) , and carried to recommend denial on
the issue as presented based on Planning considerations of the
past. Chair Blumenthal advised Mr. Brown to attend the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA) , as the BZA has different criteria on which
to base their decisions . It was further suggested that Mr. Brown
meet with Mr. Mazzarella of the Planning and Development
Department for guidance in pursuing his request. Vote: 5-0-0 .
Planning and Development Board Minutes -2-
September 22 , 1987
Sign Appeal 10-1-87 : Sign appeal for Wegmans store 600 S. Meadow
Street. Russell Porter, representing Wegmans, 1500 Brooks Ave. ,
Rochester, NY 14692 . Wegmans requested an area variance to Sec.
34 . 6B and Table 34. 6B1 of the Sign Ordinance which states
shopping centers be allowed 1 .5 sq. ft. of building sign per
linear foot of building, or 150 sq. ft. total . Mr. Porter
produced a rendering of the proposed Wegmans sign. The sign
would include the words Wecgmans, Food, Pharmacy. Wegmans is
further requesting a free standing sign in the median stating
"Open 24 hours Because the building sits well back from the
street, Mr. Porter felt it more aesthetically pleasing to have
the mounted sign on the building rather than the allowed 150 sq.
ft. near the road. He also stated that because the building is
so large, a larger sign would be consistent with the intent of
the Ordinance. Ms . Cummings was uncomfortable with granting a
variance because of strict adhearance to regulations for
neighboring businesses . Mr. Porter was asked if Wegmans would
waive the right to have the 1501 free standing sign if the board
approved the signage affixed to the building. He stated if
approval hinged on giving up the free standing sign at the
street, Wegmans would agree to that requirement. It was MOVED
(Jackson) , seconded (Daley) , and carried to recommend approval
with ,\above (stipulation.( Vote: 5-0-0 . (�
Gl l_� Yv � +^ \ S�'ac :Vt),S C ,�j v > — 1 acJ:� a)� �e�`� k SS �S'�e C-\g2c� e),�vvys
5 " Preliminary Subdivision: 109 S. Titus Ave. , Appellant Ron
�
`Ronsvalle was present along with Jim Parks, architect, Egner
Associates . Proposed plans were presented to the board. Chair
Blumenthal stated that following the presentation, the board
would be allowed to ask questions followed by comments from
members of the public . Mr. Parks, during his presentation,
stated that the board had the subdivision proposal on the agenda
last month, but because appellant was not present to answer
questions at that time, all action on the application was
deferred. The lot referred to is approximately 6, 200 sq. ft. in
size and the proposal is to raze the existing barn, divide the
lot into two separate parcels and erect 2 two-family houses. Each
unit would be built of wood construction with concrete block
basement, and would consist of 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, living room,
dining room and kitchen for each unit. The design of the
proposed houses is in keeping with the neighboring houses . A
question put to the architect by Ms . Cummings pertained to room
sizes throughout the apartments . Mr. Parks said the question was
one aired before so he had prepared and presented to the board a
plan with all room sizes outlined in the drawings . The plans
showed that each three-bedroom unit contained one bedroom
suitable for two occupants and two bedrooms suitable for one
occupant each.
Sue Dennis of 111 S. Titus Ave. , the nearest neighbor to the
- proposed new housing, asked what thought had been given to
parking for the apartments . Mr. Parks noted that each unit would
have one off-street parking space, and that they would be sited
in an end-to-end configuration, with two spaces on each lot.
Planning and Development Board Minutes -3-
September 22, 1987
Several board members felt that end to end parking was less than
a satisfactory parking provision. Ms . Dennis noted that because
of the recently built apartment complex on the corner of S. Titus
and S. Cayuga Street, the number of bedrooms on the block has
increased from 12 bedrooms to 42 bedrooms, and if the proposed
plans are approved, there would be an increase of another 12
bedrooms. This has severely strained the already difficult
parking situation. Mr. Ronsvalle said he hoped what happened on
the corner lot would not be held against him. Since parking is
already a big problem on the street, board members were concerned
that additional needs would adversely impact the neighborhood.
Negative public comments about the proposed subdivision were also
heard from Margaret Woodin and Susan Kirkpatrick of S. Titus Ave.
both of whom objected to the increased traffic and parking demand
that would be created. Ms . Kirkpatrick was also concerned about
losing what parking space they have to more curb cuts . Mr. Parks
noted that no new cuts would be required. Only 1 family actually
has off street parking on the block and neighbors are wary of
making a bad situation worse. Mr. Ronsvalle stated he spent a
lot of time and effort in having the buildings designed in
accordance with all zoning regulations and all laws . Ms .
Cummings asked what impacts other than parking and traffic should
be considered. Deputy Director Mazzarella said in this case,
most other impacts are not relevant since this is an infill
development project. After long deliberation, the Board
concensus was that they did not find the parking adequate. Mr.
Parks said he did not wish to request a variance and was loathe
to begin a second set of plans without guidance from the board as
to what would constitute adequate parking. Mr. Mazzarella said
he felt the proposed plan simply did not fit on the property due
to the end to end parking arrangement. Ms . Cummings explained
that the apartment complex on the corner went up without approval
of the board and the board sympathized with Mr. Ronsvalle since
he was trying to gain his subdivision through proper channels,
but it would only increase the poor parking and traffic
conditions in the area if it were approved. It was MOVED
(Cummings) , seconded (Daley) , and carried that the proposed
subdivision be deferred until October when Mr. Ronsvalle would be
asked to return with an improved parking configuration on the
proposed plan. Vote 5-0-0 . Chair Blumenthal suggested the
subcommittee of Codes and Administration Committee would meet
with neighbors and Mr. Ronsvalle to work out problems before the
next Planning and Development Board meeting. Plans for this were
to take place outside of Chambers .
Subdivision - Chestnut Street: Cal Warren, affiliated with Remax
Associates, represented Obinsteel Assocs . , owner of property on
Chestnut Street in the northeast corner of Obinsteel°s original
11.2 ar-re parcel;., Proposal is that this
parcel be divided into 4 separate parcels : 1 parcel will include
the driveway that is presently encroaching, the balance of 3 1/4
acres will be divided to create±iWr-- lots within requirements of
the code. The parcel containing the encroaching drive will be
bought by the neighbor; the other prospective
a p
e� ✓uta r vregtn2. $rs��t�t �� 2.✓ ��z�ti �2 AC, -) i S2�O!� (�.FDlJJdrm"�fia
Planning and Development Board Minutes -4-
September 22, 1987
buyer, Mr. Wetzel, intends to put up 1 structure and sell off the
balance of the two parcels . Lot sizes are generous, being 100 '
on Chestnut Street with 375 ' depth maximum. No variances are
being asked for.
Driveway access for the three lots to be bought by Wetzel
was discussed by board members . Ownership and maintenance of the
driveway was questioned. Mr. Warren stated that it is purely a
legal issue that must be stipulated within the deeds of property;
an attachment to the deed is all that is necessary. Mr.
Mazzarella questioned the shared driveway since it is, in effect,
a private road that would serve three lots . Mr. Mazzarella felt
that the subdivision should not be rejected out of hand, but at
the minimum the Board should investigate the design of the
driveway with regard to fire protection, assuring access for
emergency vehicles to all the dwellings, as well as the legal
agreements among the owners regarding maintenance and use. Mr.
Mazzarella said the board needs more information about width of
driveway, driveway grades, material used, etc. It was MOVED
(Daley) , seconded (Sampson) , and carried that a preliminary
approval be granted conditional on submission of formal survey,
including topography, that is to be submitted to the Planning
Department. Vote: 5-0-0 . Mr. Jackson stated that necessary
information and requirements for the shared driveway can be
obtained from the City Engineer and Fire Chief .
6 . Farmers Market: The Farmers Market is seeking permission to
obtain a permit to remain at the Taughannock Boulevard site.
Anna Steinkraus and George She]cton represented the Farmers Market
Board. Ms . Steinkraus said a major drawback of the proposed
Northside site was odor and that the problem could remain for
years. Surveys conducted by the Farmers ' Market also showed that
many customers are against a change of locations . Ms . Steinkraus
said problems are present with Taughannock Blvd. but that the
problems are clear and Farmers Market members are trying to
address those issues . She mentioned that Farmers Market members
were surprised when West End merchants spoke against having the
market in their area at both the Board of Public Works and Common
Council meetings in September. The Market has made efforts to
address the problems raised by the West End Merchants .
Improvements made at Taughannock Blvd. site are: signs for
parking, parking attendants, police paid by Farmers Market,
talking with merchants, gravel on parking area, port-a-john, and
dumpster provided. Ms . Steinkraus read a sign that has been
posted asking customers not to use the merchants parking spaces
and to respect area merchants property. Mr. Jackson opened the
floor to merchants for questions to be addressed to Farmers
Market board members . West End merchants speaking against the
Taughannock Blvd. site included Mr. Ciaschi and Messrs . Pete and
Mark Zaharis . Some questions addressed were whether the Farmers
Market had outgrown the site, whether the 1 year permit was the
issue or a longer term commitment was at hand, whether the site
could be legally used for a market and traffic jams . Mr. Ciaschi
questioned whether board members were doing their jobs in this
Planning and Development Board Minutes -5-
September 22, 1987
situation. Also, the question of fairness to taxpayers was
voiced.
Mr. Jackson said the board has to consider the following 2
issues : 1) the advisibility of issuing a one year or a longer
permit to use the Taughannock Blvd. site and 2 ) the
appropriateness for the board to look at what other uses could be
placed on the property in the future.
Issuance of a 1 year permit usually takes place in January.
Farmers Market members are expecting to attend the BPW meeting on
Wednesday, September 30 to begin the process of requesting
renewal of their permit for the Taughannock Blvd. site.
Several Farmers ' Market members spoke on behalf of the
market and stressed that improvements are being made. Mr. James
Cummins, Mr. Brian Hemlock, and Mr. Max Hawkins, vendors at the
Market, voiced positive comments . An invitation from Mr. Shelton
to West End Merchants to meet and try to work out differences was
accepted. Mr. Pete Zaharis said they would certainly be happy to
discuss problems, but he said no guarantee should be expected.
Ms . Cummings requested a summary of issues from each side be
presented to the Board. It was further suggested the Board meet
and decide what recommendations it should direct to the BPW.
7 Old Business - Stewart Park: A 15 minute slide
presentation on Stewart Park given by John Bacon of Historic
Ithaca was shown to the Board for their consideration of whether
or not to recommend approval of Local Landmarks designation to
Common Council. The Landmarks Ordinance provides for designation
of "structures, memorials or sites which have a special
character, and/or special historical and aesthetic interest and
value as part of the development heritage and cultural
characteristics of the City of Ithaca including sites of natural
or cultural interest. " Following the presentation, Chair
Blumenthal thanked Mr. Bacon for his time and the presentation.
Barbara Ebert, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, spoke in
favor of designating Stewart Park a Local Landmark because it
fits within the criteria established by the Ordinance. Other
cities which have designated municipal parks include: Buffalo,
Rochester, Boston, NYC, Syracuse, and Albany. A letter from
Circle Greenway to the Board (written by Elizabeth Mulholland)
favored designation of buildings but not the land itself . The
letter was read for the record by Chair Blumenthal . The Board is
required to recommend to Common Council whether the park should
or should not receive such designation or whether the nomination
should be returned to ILPC for modification. Ms . Cummings asked
for a statement from ILPC identifying elements of the park they
( ILPC) would be regulating. Questions about the criteria for
reviewing landscape proposals, were asked of Leslie Chatterton,
Secretary to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. It was
stated that in general, ILPC would review proposals in terms of
visual compatibility.
Planning and Development Board Minutes -6--
September 22, 1987
Cayuga Bird Club member LeMoyne Farrell spoke about the
ecological standpoint of the park being very important. A
lengthy discussion followed. Concerns about which department
would be responsible for different areas within the park were
addressed. Ms . Chatterton read a letter of support written by
Betsey Darlington for designation of all of Stewart Park, not
just the buildings . Review of Stewart Park changes would first
be in the hands of ILPC. Ms . Doria Higgins made the following 2
points: 1) parks need protection, and 2 ) buildings and grounds
should be treated as one. Board discussion followed. Mr.
Sampson suggested the board have 2 motions; 1) to approve or
disapprove the buildings and 2 ) to approve or disapprove the
grounds . Mr. Jackson was troubled by whether the members of the
ILPC had the expertise to make sound judgements about landscape
issues . It was MOVED (Jackson) , seconded (Daley) , and carried
that the entire buildings and grounds proposal be returned to
ILPC for further clarification of what elements are historically
significant and how proposals for changes in the park would be
reviewed. Vote: 5-0-0 . There is a 60 day limit with regard to
possible designation. Ms . Higgins asked that Stewart Park be
discussed first at next meeting. Further questions were asked to
be discussed after the meeting.
8 . Referral from Town of Ithaca: The Town of Ithaca would like
to have a special land use district for the Chamber of Commerce
on Fast Shore: Drive. A letter was attached to the request and
Chair Blumenthal suggested it be returned with a letter from the
Director of Planning and Development or the Mayor stating too
little time on the Town' s part had been allowed for this
request. It was MOVED (Blumenthal) , seconded (Daley) , and
carried that the above action of returning the request be
approved. Vote 4-0-0 . (Mr. Sampson had left the meeting at this
point, due to the lateness of the hour. )
9 . Housing Report: Deputy Director Mazzarella said the draft
of the Housing Report was distributed to all board members . If
significant changes are requested, Mr. Mazzarella said he would
be willing to get together with members to discuss suggestions .
At issue was whom should receive the report and what the purpose
of the report is . Eleven recommendations in the report are a
result of years of work. Mr. Jackson stated he felt the report
should go to Council . Some minor changes were suggested before
the report is finalized; namely: prioritizing items, heading
changes, some structure changes, table of contents, a listing of
TAC board members and a distinction between short term and long
term processes . Ms . Cummings said a letter can be presented to
Council and the report made available for the November meeting.
Comments on the report should go to Mr. Mazzarella within the
next- two weeks . Vote on the issue was postponed until the
October board meeting.
10 . Approval of Minutes : It was moved (Jackson) seconded
(Daley) , and carried that minutes of August 25, 1987 be approved
following a minor change reading: Eric Dicke of Architectural
Planning and Development Board Minutes -7-
September 22, 1987
Services which appears under the heading: Theory Center. Vote 4-
0-0 .
11. Highland House: Deputy Director Mazzarella said a lot of
regrading is taking place at Highland House, the location of a
recently approved subdivision. The Planning and Development
Department wants the Board to be aware that something might be
happening that might be inconsistent with the approved
subdivision. Also, Jason Fane has proposed the development of a
150 unit in Collegetown, but the building permit has not yet been
issued due to insufficient parking. The question is whether the
Board should write to the Charter and Ordinance Committee about
zoning requesting prompt action by the C & 0 Committee before the
new construction season commences . It was moved (Daley) ,
seconded (Blumenthal) , and carried that a letter to C & 0
requesting close attention to the fact that all requirements be
met before issuance of building permits is strictly adhered to.
12 . Meeting adjourned at 12 : 12 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ev Hogben
Recording Secretary
......T.....
y.oBiel SO .�
.... ...
oRA7�0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Zoning Appeals
FROM: Board of Planning and Development
RE: Report on Appeals
DATE: September 25, 1987
At its September 22, 1987 meeting, this Board heard the
following appeals, and reports as follows:
APPEAL 1790 226 S. Fulton Street. Mr. Robert. Brown,
owner of Technical Broadcast Systems, explained his request for
approval for installing 2 satellite dishes .on the roof of the
building housing Gallager TV. Sketches of proposal were
available. Due to a question of legal right of way that might
infringe on Agway' s legal rights, the Board recommended the
appellant seek approval from the BZA. It was moved (Cummings) ,
seconded (Daley) , and carried to recommend denial on the issue as
presented based on the Board's concern, - as previously stated in
the case of Appeal 1782 for screening these dishes, and Mr.
Brown's statement that it would not be possible without
additional superstructure. Vote: 5-0-0 .
APPEAL 10-1-87 Sign appeal for Wegmans . Russell Porter,
representing Wegmans requested a variance to Section 34 . 6B and
Table 34. 6B1 of the sign ordinance which states shopping centers
are allowed 1.5 sq. ft. of building sign per linear foot of
building, or 150 sq. ft. total. A rendering of proposed signage
was shown to board members . Following discussion, the board
recommended approval with the stipulation that Wegmans have only
the signage affixed to the building and forego the usually
allowed free standing 150 sq. ft. sign at the street. Mr. Porter
affirmed that Wegmans would adhere to that condition since the
Board's recommendation for approval of the request hinged on
commitment. Vote 5-0-0 .
The Board's report on other appeals on the BZA agenda for
October is contained in a separate Memo, dated September 21, copy
attached.
JM:eh
attachment a/s
"An Equal Opportunity.Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
��OF ITIS
v
c���RATf 0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Planning and Development
FROM: Codes &Administration Committe
DATE: September 21, 198.7
RE: Zoning Appeals 1786-91, Sign Appeal 10-1-87 & 1.0-2-87
Ms. Blumenthal and Mr. Sampson met September 17 to
review referenced appeals, and report as follows :
Appeals 1781, 1788, 1789 and 1791, and Sign Appeal,
10-2-87 do not appear to involve considerations of citywide or
long-range planning concern and are passed to the . Board of Zoning
Appeals for action. However, they wish to comment on numbers
1787 and 1788 as follows:
1787 Although appellant states that ample on-site parking
exists to satisfy statutory requirements, it is
conceivable that actual demand could substantially
exceed available on-site space at times, for example .if
each of the 30 .karate students drives to class, and/or
the karate studio sponsors competitions or
exhibitions. Depending on the frequency of such worst-
case occurrences, considerable disruption of parking.
and traffic could result, with effects on Linden and
nearby streets serving a densely-populated residential
area. The committee recommends that the BZA take this
information into account, expecially considering that
the subject property has not had a history of intense
use.
1788 The proposed addition appears to reduce available
on-site parking space which, though not required in the
3-lb zone, is an amenity for clients . It is suggested
l that appellant reserve adequate client parking space in
the area remaining, to limit client use of nearby on-
street and public parking.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
• d
a
(� The commitee finds that Appeals 1790 and 10-1-87 require .
consideration of the full Board of Planning and Development at
its September 22 meeting, for -the following reasons:
1790 This application for Special Permit to erect two
satellite TV reception dishes at 225 S. Fulton Street
involves a statutory requirement for Board review and
report, as specified by the Zoning Ordinance. The
committee has no recommendation.
10-1-87 Appellants' request for more than double the total
maximum allowance for signage represents a precedent
that has citywide implications for sign control; in and
of itself, the proposed signage would have substantial
visual. impact. The committee recommends DENIAL of this
appeal.
This Board's report on the latter two appeals should be
forwarded to the BZA promptly, following the September 22
meeting.
JM/ls
cc: Building Commission
IT
ye� a oil
all gas d�
DRATE�
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Chair, B d of Planning and Development
From: Jon Meig
Re: Amendment to Sept. Minutes
Date: October 23, 1987
In accordance with the consensus of the Codes and
Administration Committee, I would propose that the following be
added to the record of the minutes of the Sept. 22, 1987
meeting of the Board:
"Conditional Subdivision Approval - Anagnost, 309
Eddy St. Owner Christopher Anagnost explained to the Board
that he wished to insure that his property at 303 Eddy has
adequate separation from possible development on 309, which he
is contemplating selling. After brief discussion, it was MOVED
( } and seconded ( ) to grant Conditional Approval
of the subdivision as proposed Motion PASSED, "
I also propose that the Chestnut St. subdivision
item, p. 3, be amended as follows, for clarification of the
record:
Revise the first sentence to read, in part,
. .Obinsteel 's original 11 .2-acre parcel; owner
wishes to subdivide the remaining 3 .72 acres for sale and
development. "
Also revise the second sentence to read, in part,
" . . .the balance of 3 1/4 acres will be divided to
create three lots . . . "
JM/mc
(disk #6/mc)
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"