HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1981-11-24 MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 1981
PRESENT: Chairman S. Cummings, Vice-Chairman M, Sampson, E. Nichols,
R. Schlather
ALSO: Appellants, appellants ` representatives, other interested
parties, H. M. Van Cort, press.
1. S. Cummings called the meeting to order at 7:50 pm.
2. Public hearings:
A. 105 Dryden Court
MOTION to open public hearing by Nichols. Second by Schlather. PASSED
4-0 S. Cummings appealed then for public comment on proposed
subdivision. No comment made. MOTION by Sampson to close public
hearing. Second by Schlather. PASSED 4-0.
P&D Board discussion:
S. Cummings then explained that the subdivision had been reviewed favor-
ably previously, contigent upon a survey being taken to resolve lot
line placement.
Mark Haag explained that the placement of rear fire escape required
actual escape onto' neighboring property but would not affect the use
of that property.
Schlather explained that the question as to whether the fire escape
encroaches upon the neighboring property is a legal question and not
properly before the Planning Board.
P&D Board Recommendation:
MOTION by Schlather to approve subdivision and pass the following
resolution. Second by Sampson. PASSED 4-0.
WHEREAS, Mark W. Haag, owner of property at 113 and 117 Oak Ave. ,
City of Ithaca, has by agreement with William Lower improved a
portion of property owned by Lower at 105 Dryden Court (Tax Map.
Parcel 64-2.-24) , said portion being used for off-street parking, and
WHEREAS, Haag wishes to buy the improved portion -from Lower, and
i M1
2
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning 'Appeals of the City of Ithaca has given
approval for a variance to the City's current zoning ordinance for
the purpose of subdividing 105 Dryden Ct. as desired by Haag and
Lower, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning &- Development of the City of Ithaca
has given preliminary approval to subdivision of 105 Dryden Ct. ,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning & Development give Final
approval to subdivision of property at 105 Dryden Court (Tax Map
Parcel 64-2-24) as shown on a plot entitled 'Survey for Mark Haag'
by George Schlecht, licensed professional engineer and land surveyor,
dated 11/19/81; such approval ,to be effective when required documenta-
tion shall be submitted to the Director of Planning & Development
and found complete and acceptable by him.
B. 503 S. Titus Avenue
MOTION by Sampson to open public hearing, Second by Schlather. PASSED
4-0. Cummings then asked for public comment on proposed subdivision,
No comment made MOTION by Sampson to close public hearing, Second
by Schlather. PASSED 4-0.
P&D Board Discussion:
Van Cort explained that the two parcels involved were originally
separate parcels, then combined a number of years ago. Proposal
now is to separate parcels again in order to sell the house. Van Cort
then passed out a surveyor's drawing showing the proposed lot line,
which is the original parcel line,
Jack Dougherty spoke on behalf of the appellant, saying Van Cort's
assessment was accurate,
S. Cummings raised the question as to whether the Board could approve a
subdivision with a lot deficient in side yard footage, where there is
4 feet rather than the required 5 feet,
J. Dougherty explained that the north side yard lot line is the original
lot line, not being changed by this proposal ,
Schlather questioned whether the other zoning requirements were met by
the lot and was told that they were,
P&D Board Recommendation:
MOTION by Schlather to approve the following resolution, Second by
Nichols. PASSED 4-0,
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning & Development of the City of Ithaca
has given preliminary approval to subdivision of property known as 503
S. Titus Avenue from the premises of the Meadow Court Motel , Tax Map
Parcel 94-1-22, as requested by John A, Dougherty, and
3
WHEREAS, County assessment records indicate that 505 S. Titus
currently exists as a separate parcel-, 94-1-6.2, and
WHEREAS, documentation has not been submitted in support of the
subdivision request which might resolve the discrepancy, and
WHEREAS, the effect of the subdivision of the property requested would
be essentially the same in either instance, although it could result
in creation of a separate parcel of less area than required for a
building lot, with no street frontage,
BE IT RESOLVED that Final Approval be granted for a subdivision of
' ' property owned by South Meadow Street Properties, Inc. to create a
separate parcel as shoran on a plat titled 'Survey of 503 So.iTitus
Avenue, City of Ithaca, N.Y. ' dated October 31, 1981,- by John A.
Dougherty, licensed land surveyor, such approval to become effective
when suitable and acceptable documentation of property ownership, legal
description and existing land division, as required by the Subdivision
Ordinance, is received by the Director of Planning & Development
and determined by him to satisfy all outstanding questions.
3, Approval of'October 1981 min-utes
MOTION by Sampson toapprove minutes as sent. Second by Schlather.
PASSED 47.0.
4. Chairperson's.i repo-rt;
S. `Cbmmi,ngs reported that the BZA acted in the following ways:
A. Isle of You sign: denied; based on the fact that the right-of-way beside
the building was not a public street. Also referred to Common Council
the question as to what is a "sign".
B. Valley House: Denied because of inadequacy of parking.
C. East Hill School : Approved,
Cummings asked for follow-up on the mini-mart case also.
Cummings then reported that $2500 was restored by Common Council to the
Planning & Development budget as the City's share of two architectural
historians positions. The total project is to be funded by a number of
organizations and by a grant received from the New York State Council of
the Arts.
Van Cort explained that the departmental budget is still too low in the 400
series if a major project is undertaken this next year,
i
4
5. New business:
Van Cort reported that the County has approached the City about rezoning the
Boardman House and other surrounding County property. However, because no
official request for recommendation has been made yet by Common Council ,
the Board will not consider it at this meeting. Consideration is likely
to take place in December.
6. ZONING APPEALS CASES
APPEAL 1406: Area Variance to permit construction of a"gable roof on
the Fall Creek Laundromat, 1012 N. Aurora St. , in an R-2b zone The' ex.%st-
ing buidlin,g. is. nonconforming in use and in having a sinal ler rear yard
setbac>k .th,an requ i red.y none. of these nonconformi ti es will be increased
Stephen Zifchock, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Request for permission to put on a pitched roof on an
existing flat roof by the granting of an-area variance.
Property is currently non-conforming; the nonconformities
will not be increased=.
Surrounding buildings have mostly pitched roofs.
P&D Board Recommendation: MOTION by Schlather to grant area variance. Second
by Sampson. PASSED 4-0.
APPEAL 1407: Area Variance to permit renovation of existing two-family
house at 309 Second Ste by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. . Since
. Building Dept. records indicated the house. was in single-family use, this
;-is.-�technical-1,y a use change and variance for a leg611y nonconforming
l side yard is requested- two-family use is permitted in the RQ3b zone:in
A : 't is locatedo
Van Cort explained that INHS desires to renovate the building for 2-family use.
Planning issues: Renovation will improve the structure and the neighborhood
Expands housing stock and quality.
Assists low/moderate income ownerships of houses.
Public comment: Irene and Israel Richards, 517 S. Meadow St. , spoke in
favor of the proposal . Said that house had been con-
verted to a 2-family residence about 4 years ago. Also
said the house sits 1 foot from the property line while
the chimney extends 6 inches into their property, How-
ever, there is -more distance between the actual buildings.
Asked that a fence or type of division be a part of the
renovation project.
5
P&D Board discussion: Schlather asked the nature of surrounding buildings and
was told that most were multi-family residences.
Staff recommendation: Approval ,
P&D Board recommendation:__MOTION- by Nichols to -grant area -variance. Second by
Sampson, PASSED 4-0.
[ APPEAL 1.408: Special Permit for cemetery use of property behind 208 Kline
Rd. , in a,n R-2a zone. The property was recently subdivided from 208 for this
purpose, since it is adjacent to Lakeview..Cemetery ;and. across a- deep ravine
from the portion of 208 which is in'residential use: Cemetery use.;is per
mitted in the zone by Special ,Permita
Ralph Marvin, Secretary of the Lakeview Cemetery Company appeared on behalf of
the case.
Planning issues: Permitted by Special Permit.
Appropriate use because of topographic separation from
residential uses.
Subdivision was granted previously for this purpose.
Appellant comment: R. Marvin indicated that there would be no additional traffic
impact on the neighborhood because the only access would
be by existing cemetery roads. The parcel is separated from
the neighborhoodby a large ravine. This area would add
approximately 20 additional plots to the cemetery,
Staff recommendation: Approval ,
P&D Board recommendati-in: MOTION by Nichols to grant Special Permit. Second by
Sampson, PASSED 4-0.
APPEAL 1409: Area Variance to permit expansion of Zorba"s Restaurant,
526 W. State St. , in a B-2a Zone. Appellants state that they will provide
for parking necessitated by expansion of seating capacity from 50 to 80,
lack of which contributed "to denial of this appeal by BZA..-at,-its last
meeting. No change .is.a:proposed in the ,plan as presented in Appeal 1400.
Gregory Katsoulis, 610 Darren Place, and his attorney appeared on behalf of this case.
The request had been previously recommended favorably by the P&D Board. The BZA
referred the case again on the grounds of inadequate parking.
Planning issues: All planning issues reviewed previously,
BZA felt there was insufficient off-street parking-to
accommodate expansion,
! a _
6
Appellant comment: Mr. Katsoulis's attorney presented 1-year leases with
surrounding landowners to provide 16 parking spaces for
all day and 16 additional parking spaces after 5:00 pm.
Daytime spaces are with Cornell Laundry and Sunoco
Service Station. Nighttime spaces are with Cerrache
Television.
P&D Board discussion Schlather indicated he felt that the parking problem was not
And recommendation: an issue because the restaurant attracts many pedestrians
and there is adequate parking after 5:00 pm.
Cummings asked ifdirectionalsigns would be provided, and
suggested they be.
MOTION by Schlather to approve area variance. Second by
Sampson.,_ PASSED 4-0.
APPEAL 1410: Use and Area Variance -to `permit expansion of legal nonconform-
ing use(s) of the Chamber of Commerce at 122 W. Court St. , in an R-3a zone.
Variances are needed for office use, front yard setback, and parking to
permit the 'Chamber to convert two ex s-ttr g apartments for -its- own and
rental office space,:,and ;to provide new conference space in the attic.
Armon Adams, Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, and David Taube, architect,
appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Planning issues: Current use is permitted only by variance; the presence
of the dwelling units aids in establishing compatibility
with surrounding area.
Proposal will eliminate two dwelling units, thus reducing
residential character of the street which is already in
transition.
Would add additional parking in the area, but still would be
deficient.
Appellant comment: A. Adams indicated that the Chamber secured a variance in
1972 foruse of the building prior to purchase of the
building, He feels that the variance is.,still in effect
and governs this proposal . Nevertheless, he presented a
financial feasibilty study conducted by O'Brien-Taube Assoc.
saying that substantial repair to the building is necessary
for continued Chamber use. Because of the financial char-
acter of the Chamber, it is necessary to recover some of
the costs of renovation by renting out office space. Thus
the proposal to co-nvert one of the living units to office
space for Chamber use on the first floor, the conversion
of the attic to a conference room, the construction of
an exterior stair in the rear of the building, and the
7
eventual conversion of the second living unit to
commercial office space, The Chamber currently has a
shortace of 2 feet in required front yard and in off-
street parking; neither of these nonconformities wila lbe ,
worsened,
David Taube discussed the feasibility study performed, the
alternatives analyzed, and the conclusion reached. Total
renovation proposed has a cost of $93,000.
.P&D Board discussion S. Cummings asked whether the Landmarks Commission should
and comment: review the proposal since the building is in an hTstori:c
district, Van Cort said he would check the jurisdiction
of the Commission to determine whether it should review
the case.
R. Schlather asked about the conversion of the apartments
to office use and the feasibility of mixed use. Van Cort
stated that he favors mixed use in the building while the
building commissioner favors single use, primarily for
safety purposes. The Board has gone on record previously
stating its desire to maintain housing on the north side of
Court Street.
R. Schlather asked about the parking situation, Ilan Cort
explained that there are currently B spaces, while 14 are re-
quired. Under the proposed changes, there would be 10 spaces,
while 16 would be required. There is also metered parking in
front of the building, D, Taube added that the Chamber had
received no feedback from any of its neighbors concerning
a parking problem,
R, Schlather questioned .the value of removing the apartments
from the building from a planning position. Many of the
neighboring buildings have residential units in them while
some are strictly residential , There' is a need to maintain
the north side of Court Street as a residential buffer area.
Also involved is continued commercial encroachment on the
downtown neighborhood and the dark-house effect on residential
areas.
Staff recommendations Approval`, with encouragement to maintain the dwelling unit.
PH Board recoromendat-ton MOTION by Sampson to recommend approval of the area and
the use variance as requested. Second by Nichols. Vote:
Sampson-Yes; Nichols-Yes; Schlather-No; Cummings-No,
Schlather and Cummings stated that their "no" votes did not
reflect an opinion that the Chamber should not be allowed to
continue and expand there, but indicated their preference that
at least one apartment remain in the building,
8
APPEAL 1411: Use Variance to' permit' cons-t UQtion of. a rental bulk storage
facility on property located on the-•'east side of Nm Meadow-St. between
Cascadilla and Hancock, in a b-2a zone. The building commissioner considers
I the proposed use to be 'bulk storage; wFi�rch,is notpermi tte.d i n the zone;
appel l ants contend that .i i s` a retai l use -ainrd tfi�us t-shoul d be :permitted.
Neil Wallace of Wallace Steel appeared on behalf of the appellant.
The request was handled as if it constituted "bulk storage" and required a
use variance.
Planning issues: Increase in property value, taxes paid.
Slight increase in existing traffic volumes.
Low intensity use on a site where a high intensity
commercial use is desired,
Could affect surrounding property values, particularly
residential properties.
Would not provide an attractive northerly entrance into City.
Appellant comment: N, Wallace stated that he felt that indeed the use was an
allowed use under the zoning ordinance as it was a retail
commercial use. The building itself could be constructed
on the site, so only the use was in question. The proposed
use would have less impact on the residential neighborhood
than other uses allowed under the ordinance, The building
would look very much like the storage building on West
Clinton Street. It would allow only cold storage; no
electrical heating units would be allowed. It was not
known for certain whether electricity would be installed.
Landscaping is planned all around the site.
Public comment: Albert Stoddard, 608 Cascadilla Street, said he was in favor
of the use but not in this area. He said he felt the
facility constituted warehousing, an industrial use. He
said the houses on Cascadilla Street are being revitalized
and a warehousing facility would detract from the progress.
A neighborhood commercial facility, on the other hand, could
further improve the area. Also, a warehouse on the site
would add nothing of beauty or merit to the northerly
entrance to the City. Neighborhood residents of 610
and 614 Cascadilla Street stated they supported Mr.
Stoddard's comments.
P&D Board discussion R. Schlather asked about security and maintenance of the
and comment: building. Locks will be provided for each unit; space in
the building will be rented through Wallace Steel , so no
on-site office will be provided, The building will be
fumigated twice monthly.
S, Cummings asked for details about landscaping, None were
available at that time,
9
Cummings also asked if another use could be made of the
proposed building at a later time. Because of the type of
construction and design, the building might be suitable for
office use.
Schlather asked about the rationale for locating warehousing
in an industrial area, Van Cort said the major reasons were
trucking, scale and size of the building, aesthetic impact
on surrounding sites, noise, etc. All of these may not
apply in this case, however,
Staff recommendation: Denial , primarily because the use is an inappropriate use
for a highly active parcel , the building is visually dead,
and the use does not encourage neighborhood development.
P&D Board recommendation: MOTION by Schlather to recommend denial of the request
for a use variance because the use would constitute an
encroachment on the Cascadilla Street neighborhood. Second
by Sampson. PASSED 4-0,
APPEAL 1412: Area Variances to permit addition to the rear of the Tioga Building,
412-14 N. Tioga St. , in the Courthouse Special Use District (C-SU) . Front .,,�
and -side yard setbacks are deficient for this legal nonconforming building
Natalie Baker appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Planning issues: Proposed changes will reduce the potential for loss due
to flooding.
No increased commercial activity to result from the changes.
Addition is not likely to make a major intrusion into view
of adjacent properties, although treatment of corridor is
somewhat unsympathetic to adjacent house.
Appellant comment: N. Baker described the changes to be made on the property in
an effort to reduce loss due to flooding, The exterior change
to be made are that a corner will be added to current garage,
which will be used as an X-ray room and storage area, and
that an enclosed walkway will be added to the side of the
main building, It is necessary to enclose the walkway to
protect patients.
Van Cort pointed out that the walkway constitutes a noncon-
forming structure. The current and required side yard is
5 feet; under the proposal , the side yard will be reduced
to 2 foot, Dr. Baker also owns the adjoining lot,
P&D Board discussion: R, Schlather asked, if there was a true need to enclose the
walkway, and if so, if there was another location for the
S 1
' 1
10
corridor, for example, on the other side of the house.
Mrs. Baker was not sure whether other designs had been
reviewed.
Van Cort suggested that the interior traffic . pattern and
the arrangement of off-site parking might preclude another
location of the corridor.
Staff recommendation: Approval , subject to review by the Design Review Board
and to examination of the possibility of locating the
corridor on another side of the building.
P&D Board recommendation: MOTION by Nichols to approve the addition contigent
upon review by the Design Review Board prior to the BZA
meeting and to consideration of an alternative location
for the corridor. Second by Sampson. PASSED, 4-0.
SIGN APPEAL 12-1-81: Permission to erect a sign larger than _5 S ,F'. o`;the building
owned by Iry Lewis Inc. at 303 W. Lincoln St. , in ari R-2b, zome. -
Michael Kleinhans of Eastern Copy Products appeared before the Board on this case.
Planning issues: Ordinance allows a 5 SF sign in the R-2b zone; proposal is
for a 45 SF sign.
Proposal is out of character with neighborhood character.
Appellant comment: M, Kleinhans stated that his company had signed a lease .
with fir. Lewis to use his building on West Lincoln Street.
A use variance has been secured, and he was told by Mr.
Lewis that he had to comply with sign requirements of the
City's ordinance for a commercial sign. The company has
put over $16,000 in the building since signing the lease,
Now he has discovered that the sign requirements which apply
are those for a residential area. The building does not
face the residences, so the sign will not be visible from
the neighborhood, only from Rt. 13.
P&D Board discussion: Van Cort pointed out that a sign permit was granted to
Cayuga Electric Co. (immediately adjacent) for an approx-
i-mately 22 SF sign, one which is discreet in design.
R. Schlather indicated that he had measured the Cayuga
Electric sign at about 222 SF and would be willing to
allow a similar' sign for Eastern Copy. The sign should
be discreet, wooden, attached to the building.
Staff recommendation: Approval of a sign similar in size to Cayuga Electric Co.
11
P&D Board recommendation: MOTION by Schlather to recommend approval of a variance
for a sign not to exceed 22 SF, Second by Sampson.
PASSED 4-0.
7. Next meetina:
The next meeting of the Planning & Development Board will be held on
December 22, 1981,
8. Adjournment,
M