Loading...
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"