Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1990-03-05 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 51 1990 Chairman Tomlan called the March 5, 1990 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals to order at 7:02 P.M. The Board operates under the provisions of the Ithaca City Charter, The Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the Ithaca Sign Ordinance, and the Board's own Rules and Regulations. Members of the Board who are present tonight are: MICHAEL TOMLAN, CHAIR BEATRICE MACLEOD HERMAN SIEVERDING JACK PECK JANIS COCHRAN PETER DIETERICH, ACTING SECRETARY, ZONING OFFICER, AND DEPUTY BUILDING COMMISSIONER CAROL SHIPE, RECORDING SECRETARY Chairman Tomlan read the Rules and Regulations of the City Board of Zoning Appeals. APPEAL NO. 1949 Appeal of Stephen Eth for an area variance for deficient front yard under Section 30.25, Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a second floor addition consisting of two bedrooms and bathroom, plus a two-car garage at 107 Hopper Place. The single family dwelling is located in an R-2B (Residential) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30.49, the appellant must first obtain an area variance from the listed deficiency before a building permit can be issued. Appellant Stephen Eth, 107 Hopper Place, Ithaca. Mr. Eth stated that when his house was built it was 22 feet from the property line, and that the house sits approximately 39 feet from the road. He stated that he is requesting an area variance because it is not possible for him to buy more land in front of his house, and is not practical to move his house. Mr. Eth stated that the addition would not be on the 22 feet; it will be built on land that is available, and will be built upwards and will not take up any more space. The proposed garage will be located on the side of the house where there is adequate room. Mr. Eth, in response to a question concerning the required 25 feet setback, stated that the garage would probably be located more than 50 feet from his property line. Mr. Eth stated that he received comments from his neighbors in support of his project. Chairman Tomlan asked if there was anyone to speak in favor of, or in opposition to this appeal. There was no one. Motion was made by Beatrice MacLeod, and seconded by Jack Peck, to grant the area variance requested in Appeal Number 1949. Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. The front yard deficiency is pre-existing and impractical to correct. 2. The proposed addition will not create any new deficiencies. Page - 1 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 51 1990 3. The location of the garage will not infringe on the setback requirements. Vote: 5 Yes; 0 No Granted APPEAL NO. 1950 Appeal of Ira Kamp for an area variance for deficient off-street parking, percent of lot coverage, front, side, and rear yards; and a use variance for the enlargement of a non- permitted use under Section 30.25, Columns 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the increase of 250 square feet of dental office space into the residential space at 1021-1025 North Tioga Street. The existing dental office and two dwelling units are located in an R-2A (Residential) Use District in which the existing use is grandfathered and the proposed enlargement of use is not permitted. Under Section 30.49, the appellant must first obtain a use and area variance from the listed deficiencies before a building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Appellant, Dr. Ira Kamp, 1021 North Tioga Street. Dr. Kamp stated that he had been at this location for five years, and now has a shortage of space for storage of patient records, waiting room, and staff area. He stated that one more treatment room would allow him to more efficiently treat his patients. He also lacks private space to confer with his patients. He cannot expand because his property line is at the City line, and moving, although an alternative, would be very costly for him. The present location is convenient for his patients. Chairman Tomlan asked if he had any information relative to financial hardship. Dr. Kamp stated that he didn't feel there was a restriction, mostly a space problem. Mr. Sieverding asked that if he did not have the space, would that have any effect on his business or ability to remain in that location. Dr. Kamp stated that it might in the future, but not at the present time. He is running out of space for patient records, and has no space to meet privately with patients, which is an important part of his practice. Presently, he is practicing by himself and has assistants and a hygienist. He stated that he might bring in another dentist in the future, but now he would use the additional treatment room for himself. There are three treatment rooms, one of which is used by the hygienist and he uses the other two. Mr. Peck asked how this is unique relative to other properties in the neighborhood. Dr. Kamp stated that it is expensive to move, and also that he treats Medicaid patients, which other dentists do not. He felt that if he moved, the expense of overhead would prevent him from treating these patients. He also stated that, the uniqueness of it being a dental practice, the overhead - expense of the equipment and to set up - is very expensive. To move the office would require plumbing and back-flow preventers, which is very expensive. He felt that if he needed more space, this was the practical solution. He stated that a different type of practitioner would not have as much expense involved in moving. With regard to the area variance, he stated that he does not have any off-street parking, but has not received any complaints about that. The other businesses in the neighborhood that also do not have off-street parking. Many of his patients either walk or take the bus. He Page - 2 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 cannot expand outward because the property is right on the line. Chairman Tomlan asked what he would do if the variance is denied; how would he meet his needs. Dr. Kamp stated that he would have to stay crowded until he felt he could not stay, and then consider moving. There were no further questions from the Board members. Chairman Tomlan asked if there was anyone to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the appeal. There was no one. The Board deliberated. Mr. Sieverding stated that if the variance was not granted, it would not be an end to the business or a forced move to another location. It seemed to be a request for convenience for additional storage and maybe make the practice more efficient. With an additional exam. room, there is the possibility of an increased practice and more people coming into that area, which has to be considered with respect to the number of deficiencies of the property: lot coverage, front yard - two actually, because he is on a corner, side yard and rear yard, and the fact there is no parking. This is a condition which is generally shared by other properties. There was questionable economic hardship if the variance were to be denied. The appellant did not provide sufficient evidence for hardship related to the property itself. As a point of clarification, Chairman Tomlan asked if the Board was considering a single motion to address both the use variance and the area variance. Mr. Sieverding asked if the use variance is denied, is the area variance automatically null and void? Ms. Cochran asked if the use variance was granted, is there a way the use can be monitored. Chairman Tomlan explained that a use variance permits the use continually, and it would not be monitored as it would be with a special permit, such as an Accessory Apartment, which requires periodically checking the use. Further explanation followed with regard to granting a use variance with conditions. Motion was made by Herman Sieverding, and seconded by Beatrice MacLeod, to deny the use variance. Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. The appellant has not demonstrated hardship in terms of his ability to maintain the present practice at that location without the additional room. 2. There is no hardship created which isn't shared by other properties. 3. Granting the use variance creates an intensity of use at this location which would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and also exceeds the capacity of the lot to adequately handle this increased use. 4. By virtue of denial of the use variance, there is no need for an area variance. 5. Denial of the use variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance, and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Vote: 5 Yes; 0 No Denied Page - 3 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5o 1990 APPEAL NO. 1952 Appeal of Mickey LoPinto of Polygon Associates for an area variance to exceed twenty-five percent of the total area of the front yard for parking under Section 30.35 (5) (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property at 358 Floral Avenue is located in an R-3A (Residential) Use District where the appellant is proposing to construct two buildings containing 6 duplexes in each building, which is a permitted use. An area variance is required for the proposed parking configuration before a building permit can be issued. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Good evening. If you'd begin by identifying yourself and where you live or work so the tape recorder knows. MR. LOPINTO: I'm Michael LoPinto. I live at 531 Elm Street, Ithaca. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You want to say a few words about . . MR. LOPINTO: Yes, I am here asking for an area variance because I believe I have practical difficulties concerned with 358 Floral Avenue, but I don't feel that the modifications of these regulations would change the spirit of the Ordinance. I called the City Planning Department to find out what the "spirit of the Ordinance" was, and this letter dated March 1, 1990 from the Planning Department stated that the front yard parking regulations contained within Section 30.37 of the Ordinance was designed to prohibit front yard from becoming a chaotic, messy parking areas. That's the spirit of the Ordinance. In a letter that is attached with my appeal, I think that I have stated the fundamental problems with this lot in trying to put the parking in the rear yard, and I've got drawings to support that, if you'd like to see them. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We'd love to see your drawings. MR. LOPINTO: It'll just take a second. MR. SIEVERDING: I thought he was going to explain the letter that we got from the Planning Department. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. Forget the letter. Let's see the drawings. MR. LOPINTO: (Appellant hereon refers to the drawings on display) Basically, what we've got is a very steep site. This is the proposed use, I mean proposed configuration, parking up front, cutting into the hill and replacing the cut with a building. This is the reverse, if we were to configure it to satisfy the Ordinance; putting the buildings up front, cutting the earth away only to accommodate parking, building a 16 foot retaining wall at a cost of, this is an estimate I got from Trowbridge Associates, $64,000 only to retain the earth. Consequently, doing it this way, we are sharing the cost of building foundations and retaining the dirt at the same time. And I think it is, aesthetically, much more pleasing to do it this way, because of the narrowness of the lot. MS. MACLEOD: And you plan to (unintelligible) tree there, too. MR. LOPINTO: See, this is the proposed parking up front, which is elevated above 13A. This is bringing the buildings up front. You'd basically have to devastate this whole hill just to accommodate parking, whereas we propose to fill the cut - see the existing grade? - with buildings. (unintelligible) elevate from 13A. I think some of the neighbors are concerned about potentially seeing a lot of cars parked there, but I don't think that's really going to Page - 4 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 be an issue. Especially when you've looked at the site plan, the amount of vegetation we've planned (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Let me take a look at it. MR. SIEVERDING: What is the elevation - sort of topographic differential - between where you're parking and the street? MR. LOPINTO: What's the difference here? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, what's the elevation of the street and what's the elevation of your parking area? MR. LOPINTO: That would be right here. Must be 12 feet, or so. 15. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, it looks like around 5 (unintelligible) MR. LOPINTO: I mean, we are elevated. It's just a lot of difficulties of site - configuration of the site makes it very . . . I just think it wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. I would also like to tell the Board what, in R-3 you could potentially build on this site, just for your knowledge. There's a potential, in R-3, on this site to build a 4 story building, 40 feet tall, 65 feet by 400 feet long, with 95 three-bedroom apartments. I strongly believe that our proposal for this site is very appropriate to the site. That's my case; that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The Trowbridge cost estimate is based on what? MR. LOPINTO: It is based on linear feet of the gabion. The wall it's called face footage of gabion, which is baskets full of stone, and you let it grow on there. Have you ever seen them? They use it around Beebe Lake. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, I understand what you're talking about, but is it necessary to finish that site in that manner. MR. LOPINTO: Well, actually that is one of the cheapest routes to go. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There are other ways. MR. LOPINTO: There are other ways, which would be much more expensive. You could go with reinforced concrete, stone walls. I mean everything that we could potentially use would be more expensive. I wasn't trying to inflate that cost at all. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, on the other hand, I was interested in knowing exactly how the Trowbridge firm came up with the figure. MR. LOPINTO: They basically have square footage and face linear, face footages of certain materials. That's how they the landscape architects would figure out - pre-estimate something like this. . . Of course, there's a certain amount of speculation because I didn't have them take the time to actually design the site that way because I really didn't agree with that design. MR. SIEVERDING: And that's the difference in cost between doing it in the front versus doing it in the back, or is that just the cost of doing it in the back? MR. LOPINTO: That's the cost of doing it in the back because the amount of concrete work that is required to be done with the buildings in the back is done to create the foundations of the buildings, which we would have to do if it was in the . . If the other configuration was done, we'd have to pour the concrete anyway to support the building. So, we're basically doing it twice rather than once. I think it would be It wouldn't be a good idea. It wouldn't look good. We are trying to do something that's going to be very tasteful. It's going to be a really nice. We are trying to create a very neighborhood feeling of families. You've seen the Page - 5 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 elevations, we are trying to do something . . . I just think it is appropriate to the site. I don't really know what else to say. MR. SIEVERDING: How is that parking going to be screened from the road? MR. LOPINTO: The parking will be screened from the road with . . . You guys probably got a really small site plan. MS. MACLEOD: We do. (unintelligible) MR. LOPINTO: Let me just run this by you. (large site plan shown to Board members) . Also, this has already gone through site plan. This already has final site plan approval so the Planning Department is happy with this plan. MS. MACLEOD: Are these trees? MR. LOPINTO: Yes, shrubs and trees. MS. MACLEOD: That's a lot of screening. MR. LOPINTO: Yes. This is all brand new stuff. There's an enormous amount of screening to the tune of a lot of money. MR. SIEVERDING: Do you want that pinned up on the? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Please. (Mr. Sieverding helping pin up site plan) And cast it back a little bit to your right so the audience can see as well. It just saves you the duplication of your explanation. MR. LOPINTO: No, I agree. I just wanted to give you, the Board, an idea of where this thing sits, which is in the shadow of West Village apartments. Here's West Village; here's the site. But, I think it's in the character of the neighborhood in a sense. One of the reasons we had to increase the amount of pavement involved was to accommodate fire engines. We also plan on having City bus stop right here on the property, so that the City bus will not have to stop on Floral Avenue. So these huge sweeps of pavement here, at our expense, are required to gain a minimum 55 foot radius to let a fire engine in. Basically, it's for the fire engines; the buses can go anywhere a fire engine can go. MR. SIEVERDING: Are you suggesting that the City Transit service is going to swing through your parking lot? MR. LOPINTO: Yes, they'd like to. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What about the circulation through the site to the upper portion of the hill? MR. LOPINTO: What do you mean? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: At the present time, don't you go through that site to get further up on the hill? MR. LOPINTO: No, there's a road. There's a private driveway right here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Just outside the boundary. MR. LOPINTO: Just outside my boundary that goes up here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And you're essentially coming right up to that roadway, is that what you're saying.? MR. LOPINTO: No, not really. I'm 60 feet from that roadway. 60 feet from the mouth of this driveway is this driveway. In the West Hill Master Plan, there's a potential that this may become a road, and one of the conditions of my final approval is if it ever does become a road, we'll connect to that road. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You'll connect across the side of your? MR. LOPINTO: Across the side, to consolidate the curb cuts. Right now, this driveway only - I think there's only 3 houses up there - For us to design our whole site around accommodating this one little Page - 6 BZA MINUTES - MARCH So 1990 driveway, whereas we are trying to set up our grades to potentially tie into that drive in the future, rather than do the opposite. We are trying to accommodate what may or may never happen in the future. Because this property can also be connected by Chestnut Street and West Village. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Excuse me a minute; we have to change the tape. To continue. Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: How many parking spaces are you providing relative to what is required? MR. LOPINTO:We are providing 36 spaces, there's only 24 required. My letter, which is attached to the appeal, told the Board that there's a complete absence of off-street parking on Floral Avenue, and if we were to come in here and configure the site with the legal minimum, I think that the tenants would eventually make the parking lot larger by parking on the lawn. We are trying to come across with this project aboveboard and meet logical requirements rather than legal requirements, because there is just no parking out there. We have to put all the parking on the site, rather that let someone else pay for it with a shoulder or. . . You know, normally, in any neighborhood you'd be able to park somewhere on the street, but it's non-existent, because Floral Avenue is only 24 feet wide; it should have been built 28 feet wide. Somebody made a mistake in the past. So, it's not a very well-designed road and anyone who tries to develop anything on Floral Avenue runs into that problem. The Mutual Housing Project, which is right down a ways, is running into a lot of problems accessing. The largest expense to anything on the rim of West Hill is getting on your site. I'm creating a platform for the building. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It seems to me you have a good section of the lot off there to the left, otherwise the southwest, which is unused. That's primarily by virtue of topography? MR. LOPINTO: The unused part of the lot? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. Off to the upper left as you face it. As you see it there. MR. LOPINTO: Well, it's not really topography. It's basically. It is really topography actually. When you starting cutting back into the hill farther, you're . . . We could have made it . . . No, it would be impossible. You couldn't really put the building here to make the front yard larger to accommodate the Ordinance. It just get into an enormous amount of cut plus we're trying to appeal - we've got studio apartments in the basement - we are trying to appeal to elderly people. We don't want them to have to walk up an enormous hill to get to their apartment. It's just a lot of. . . See, we've tried to eliminate as many steps as possible; we've got 2 steps here. One of the main problems we have run into is to make it so that there weren't an enormous amount of steps just getting to the buildings. When you get up into here, you'd actually be in a terrace. It'd be . . . If you've gone to the site at all, you'd see that you'd really have to take a hike to get up there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, my point is more particularly, the Ordinance has been passed for a reason that is to keep the front yard clear of cars. From what I understand of the topo grades at the moment, of your site map, you could shift the second block of 6 units on the Page - 7 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 left hand side further over to the left with no change in cut; no change in grade, whatsoever, and comply better with the Ordinance. MR. LOPINTO: Explain that to me again. I'd have to take this building to the left. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You move that building to the left on the same topo grades over here. You don't have parking in your front yard, which is what you have there. MR. LOPINTO: Oh, you put parking in the side yards, then? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Precisely. I mean, the Ordinance is intended to keep the residential character of the area by not having people park on the front yard. You live on Elmwood Avenue, you notice just up from you - on Delaware, on Elmwood, down in that neck of the woods - you notice just up from you where people are parking on the front yards all the time, in Collegetown. The reason for the Ordinance having been passed is to forbid that from happening. Okay? Basically, the same thing here. If it can look a little bit more residential, it's to everyone's benefit. MR. LOPINTO: Well, it's basically, it's impossible. . . From an economic standpoint, to try to push the buildings up here and put the parking in the side, there'd be all these retaining walls. This thing has been approached by three different landscape architects, and there's really no other way to do it. I don't think . . . This thing has already reached final site plan approval with the Planning Department, and they feel that it's the best configuration of the site. Believe me, there isn't . . . All the Zoning Ordinances, the way it's written, there's always ways to get around them like re- configuring. I don't think that's what I'm trying to do here. I don't feel that I should try to reconfigure the lot just to satisfy the one Ordinance, which is a 25% parking in the front yard. I think what we've tried to do, and I'm really sorry that I didn't have an elevation of exactly what it's going to look like, I think we are trying to screen the parking. And, in fact if you look in the Zoning book, a few pages later when it talks about neighborhood parking areas, there really aren't any true requirements for a neighborhood parking area. If you were to consider this the complete absence of parking on Floral Avenue, I, as a developer, have to create parking for my tenants. It becomes a neighborhood parking area, doesn't it, in a sense? I'm creating parking. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You're creating parking for your development as anyone should. That's perfectly logical. What I'm saying is there may be a way to configure your development, at no more cost, in such a way as to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. That's all. MR. LOPINTO: We investigated. It's in a letter to you from the Planning Department that we did investigate the possibilities of conforming to the Ordinance. Did you get that letter from the City of Ithaca? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We have, to the Board, from the Planning and Development Board comments about 1949, 1950, 1952 and 1953 so that we have comments about 1952, which is your particular instance before us. MR. LOPINTO: No, I have a letter from Paul Mazzarella. Did you get that? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, there's also a letter as well. MR. LOPINTO: It just did talk about the fact that we did try Page - 8 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Did you folks (board members) get a letter? MR. SIEVERDING: We had that letter from the Site Plan Review person CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. MR. SIEVERDING: stating basically that they had gone through preliminary site plan approval and they need to go through final site plan approval. Regardless of what the Planning Department said. In your own words - I guess what Michael was getting at - there's a section of the Ordinance that says if there are practical difficulties or special conditions related to what he's suggesting, which is taking that building on the left and shifting it over, what are they, if any? MS. MACLEOD: But, it would only be half resolved. MR. LOPINTO: Basically, every time we move that building farther to the left, it's going to be coming higher up in elevation. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Not true, by your own topo map. Not true by your own survey map, right here in front of us. (unintelligible) MR. LOPINTO: It's only going to be harder to . . . Look, I'm not an expert. I'm not a landscape architect. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack? MR. PECK: But that's not the point. The point is the lines are there. I mean anybody can read the map. That's the point that Michael's making, each line is the same height, so if you push it around to the left more, it stays at the same height. It doesn't get deeper into the hill. MR. LOPINTO: It's just . . . It's going to require so much more excavation, once we've moved this building. We are trying to . . . MR. PECK: Let us say that we understand your frustration because by the time you get done with the Planning Department, you've gone three ways from Sunday, then you come to us and we try and apply the Zoning Ordinance to you that we have in front of us, and I understand your frustration, so just don't get upset. MR. LOPINTO: We are actually trying to . . We were trying to save a certain amount of green space on the site. I mean, it just . . It just . . MR. PECK: Well, let me ask you a few other questions. What percentage of the front yard are you covering with your parking. Do you know? MR. LOPINTO: What percentage? 40. Well, actually it's gotten down MR. PECK: Did I read 41%? Is that in my mind? Is that . . I can't find it now, but I think I read that somewhere that it was 41%. MR. LOPINTO: Yes, it's actually . . It's more like 38%. MR. PECK: Okay, if you did 24 spaces, does that cover you for . . Does that bring it under 25%. Do you know? MR. LOPINTO: No. We can't get it below 25%. MR. PECK: I can understand you might not know that. Okay, so you can't get it below 25% MR. LOPINTO: Not in this configuration. MR. PECK: Could you put fewer houses on your lot, and therefore, not have the need for so much parking. MR. LOPINTO: It still . . . The major expense to the project is getting onto the project. It's just not economically feasible. We've already reduced the amount There was originally more units. We've already reduced the units. Page - 9 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 MR. PECK: So you think that the units have been reduced to a minimum that makes it economically feasible to build on this lot, for you. MR. LOPINTO: Yes. It is barely economically feasible. MR. PECK: If you moved the houses to the front of the lot, and the parking lot to the back, how . . Is there a difference in the total amount of space that would take up; that is, in order to get the front yard setbacks for your buildings, which are 25 feet. MR. LOPINTO: 10 feet. MR. PECK: 10 feet? MR. LOPINTO: Front yard's 10 feet. MR. PECK: No. SECY. DIETERICH: (Unintelligible) MR. LOPINTO: It's R-3a. SECY. DIETERICH: R-3a (unintelligible) MR. PECK: It's 10 feet is it? Okay. Is that, in other words, if . . You know, I don't remember from what (unintelligible) your first picture that you showed us. Is it essentially the same area that we're looking at whether the parking is in the front or in the back of the building? Let me put it this way; is the front of your parking lot 10 feet from the road? You see what I'm saying? MR. LOPINTO: Yes. Because of the scale. You can see the property line. MR. PECK: Yes. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. I'm still not clear, I guess, on what the impact of shifting the building over to the left is in terms of practical difficulty. MR. LOPINTO: (unintelligible) let me read the map a little bit better. MR. SIEVERDING: I mean, is it something that's feasible. Does it involve more cost because you have to replace retaining wall for building foundation? MR. LOPINTO: It's going to incur a lot more cost. It's going to incur a lot more cost. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Why? MR. LOPINTO: It's just requires . . These buildings will not . . It requires a total re-design of the whole project. We can't . . I don't see how we can go with buildings this long to . . . I mean, it's just . . I'd have to start all over again. It just . MR. PECK: You understand what he's saying, though? That's the important thing. MR. LOPINTO: I don't see what you're gaining by moving this building except fulfilling the Ordinance. That's all you're gaining. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Precisely the name of the game. MR. SIEVERDING: That's our only point of view here. MR. PECK: That's our problem. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There is no unearthly reason, aside from your re- designing, that you can't comply with the Ordinance. If you started off with the Ordinance in front of you, when you started off designing - or whoever started designing - you wouldn't be in this pickle you are. Page - 10 BZA MINUTES - MARCH So 1990 MR. LOPINTO: The Ordinance wasn't in effect when I made the purchase offer, either. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Nevertheless, the Ordinance is in effect now. MR. LOPINTO: But, I really . . From all the landscape architects I've worked on this project with, they said that it was impossible to fulfill the Ordinance without a major expense to me. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I. . All right, fine. I'll let it go at that. You understand I remain totally unconvinced. As a Board member, I'm not speaking for the Board as a whole, I'm just speaking for myself. There, to me, is no reason; having walked the site, having seen that grade. MR. LOPINTO: It just devastates all these trees up here. That was one of the environmental things they didn't want us to. . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You have trees on one part of the lot; you have trees all over the lot. You're going to have to take trees down regardless. Whether you take trees down on one side or the other side makes very little difference. MR. LOPINTO: I still think this part of the site that's approaching this little brook, here, is a lot more valuable to save than to devastate the entire site. By moving the buildings this way we would be basically disturbing the entire site, and that's something we were trying to avoid. MS. MACLEOD: Are you talking about just moving half of the buildings? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes, move half of the buildings to the left. MS. MACLEOD: Well, that's going to be symmetrical. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's perfectly symmetrical; half on one side, half on the other. MR. SIEVERDING: I think what he's talking about (unintelligible - 2 people talking at once) MR. LOPINTO: . . we're going to have to disturb . . MR. SIEVERDING: (unintelligible) CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You don't have to dis . . exactly. Herman has a sketch of it precisely. MR. SIEVERDING: This is basically what Michael was talking about (referring to the sketch) is that you shift over and you put the parking in between. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: And there's no grade change whatsoever. And you comply with the Ordinance. MR. SIEVERDING: Right. MS. MACLEOD: You put the parking in the middle? MR. SIEVERDING: Yes, you run the parking this way. MR. LOPINTO: Well, (unintelligible) be required to disturb the entire site to do that. MR. PECK: Put part of the parking MR. LOPINTO: We'd have to disturb the entire site to do that; we'll have to build a retaining wall here to retain . . . You know, this is a steep . . . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: You've got the foundation, a little barn on the site already or some other building on the side of the hill. You're taking advantage of the cut that is already there, in any event, to do your foundation work. MR. LOPINTO: It's not that simple. There's . . . Professionals have taken a lot of time investigating this site. Page - 11 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: I'm not going to pursue it any further. But, you see obviously the option. Are there any other questions from members of the Board? None. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of granting? If you'd come forward, please. Begin by identifying yourself for the tape recorder, and where you live or work. MR. BENSON: My name is William Benson. I have a residence at 361 Floral Avenue. As a matter of fact, I own 2 acres of property that's directly across the road from where Mr. LoPinto proposes to build his project. I believe that the City Ordinances, the Zoning Ordinances are there for a very good reason. I think Mickey had a good point in stating the spirit of that Zoning Ordinance is to keep people's cars off the front yard. And I live in a student district up on Hudson Street, and I see that all the time. I know that Mickey is very conscious about the environmental capabilities of that site, and the way it looks now, and he knows what I'm going to be looking at when I'm down there on Floral Avenue, and he doesn't want me to be faced with a line of cars. He's got a lot of planting proposals. He says he's checked out the possibility of putting that project elsewhere on the site. He thinks he's come to a (unintelligible) decision here. To simply say that he could move this building over, whatever it takes, I mean . . . I don't know what he would have to go through to do that. I'm not sure that the Zoning Board knows what he would have to go through to do that, although the solution does sound simple. I understand that Mickey wants to make that site as appealing as possible, and I've gone over all the plans with him, and I've seen what he's proposed for planting and I think that it's going to be something that I wouldn't mind, as a neighbor, having to look at day after day. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? None. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak in favor? Please, if you'd come forward. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE: I'm not sure I'm eligible. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: We can't hear you from back there. You have to be on the record one way or the other. GENTLEMAN: That's what I was hoping you'd say. Because I want to be on the record. I'm here representing the City Planning Board. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The City Planning Board. Now, that's interesting. GENTLEMAN: That's right. (unintelligible) in support of this proposal and has worked very hard with the appellant to make it appropriate. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right. That comes under the line of Chairman's discretion, and we'll allow that. If you'd begin by identifying yourself, though. MR. COCHRAN: Yes, my name is Moncrief Cochran; I live at 205 Haller Blvd. on West Hill. I'm on the City Planning Board. I just want to say that we've worked closely with the appellant on this project. He has responded very constructively to all of our requests and proposals. We, in fact, have been concerned about the preservation of the portion of the site that is unused in the present configuration, and so that, in that sense, it probably discouraged him from using that portion of the site. We have looked at this proposal in relation to the West Hill Master Plan, which has been a Planning priority of the Board as you may know, and feel that it is Page - 12 BZA MINUTES - MARCH So 1990 very much in keeping with the new Master Plan's proposals for Floral Avenue. We feel that the commitment to public transportation, which is contained in a Small Cities Proposal Grant to the City, is admirable. Public transportation is something that is needed in the City, and that is appropriate in this instance; that getting the bus up off Floral Avenue is a safety factor and appropriate in this instance. Mr. LoPinto has also made a commitment to affordable housing in this proposal. He has worked with the City to submit a Small Cities Grant, which if approved, would make it possible to subsidize half of the units in this proposal. The Planning Board rarely sees a developer that comes before the Board with a willingness to participate in that sort of an arrangement, so we are very positively disposed as a result. So, I'm simply here to reinforce our support of this proposal. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: You have all gone through the whole Site Plan Review process. MR. COCHRAN: That's correct. MR. SIEVERDING: Does that sort of take into consideration what the zoning requirements are, and then sort of balance what you see in terms of the site plan against what zoning requires? MR. COCHRAN: That's correct. We're aware that the appellant needed to come for a variance. We've worked hard with him around the foliage, the materials MS. MACLEOD: Screening. MR. COCHRAN: the screening in this case. He's been thoroughly responsive in every instance. He, in fact, had to change landscape architects in order to bring somebody in to provide the necessary information around that screening. And so, we have found him extremely cooperative, and feel that it's a good project in balance for the City. It's a difficult site. Other things being equal, we'd like to see the space that's been preserved for recreational purposes there preserved for that purpose. For children, for instance, it's much better to have them back away- from the road than it is down close to the road. That's basically ideal; in fact, that was the appellant's proposal for that area. We recognize that you have a responsibility, but we feel this is a good plan. MR. SIEVERDING: When you evaluated different site plan alternatives, did you look at one that located the parking in between buildings, and away from the (unintelligible) ? MR. COCHRAN: I don't remember an alternative (unintelligible) . No. There was an alternative that had the buildings sited somewhat differently, but there was never parking between the buildings as I remember. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Herman, would you be so good as to share your site plan with him? MR. SIEVERDING: I think what Michael was getting at earlier is that the topography there seems to lend itself to a shift of the building over and locating the parking in between. MR. COCHRAN: How much excavation would be required to push that parking back up against the slope there. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Topo lines show none. If you look at the topo lines given on the map that he's got there in front of you, essentially you follow the same lines right across. Page - 13 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 MR. COCHRAN: So that . . I'm talking about the parking, now, itself. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The parking is essentially . . . MR. SIEVERDING: Well, the parking would be located basically where he presently has buildings. MR. COCHRAN: So, it's no steeper here than it is here, is that what you're saying. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's no steeper where your finger is than to the left 3 inches. MR. COCHRAN: But, in fact, you're proposing that the parking be pushed up in here. I'm asking does excavation have to take place in order to do that? MR. SIEVERDING: Well, that should take place anyway, because he's putting buildings in. MR. PECK: If you move the buildings over to the left, then what you'd (unintelligible - several people talking all at once) MR. COCHRAN: excavation for the parking. Retaining walls in order to make that possible. MR. SIEVERDING: It'd be additional excavation for the buildings. MR. PECK: Either way, you would wind up with (unintelligible) MR. COCHRAN: You'd have additional excavation. MR. PECK: Herman? You agree with that. MR. SIEVERDING: Yes. There'd be some, right. I think what we're looking for is that somebody has thought through all the alternatives, and to the extent there's an alternative that meets the Zoning Ordinance I think somebody has to demonstrate to us why that one wasn't selected, and this one was, in terms of there being practical difficulty with the one that would meet the zoning requirements. MR. COCHRAN: Well, Mr. LoPinto did not come to us with a proposal to push the building over here. It does seem to me that were I him I'd be concerned about additional expense in retaining the earth in order to put parking in between. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: The only question I had was are there other uses in the City where the Planning and Development Board has - the Planning and Development Board is aware of - where private property is used for bus turn-arounds. MR. COCHRAN: Are there other such instances? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Yes. TOPS, Wegmans; that area is private property used for turnarounds. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are there any residential schemes? MR. COCHRAN: I haven't done that research so I really can't speak to that issue. MR. SIEVERDING: West Hill? MR. COCHRAN: Pardon? MR. SIEVERDING: West Hill? MR. COCHRAN: West Village? MR. SIEVERDING: or West Village, I mean. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: West Village. . . MR. PECK: No. There's no turnaround. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: There's no turnaround. MR. SIEVERDING: The bus doesn't pull in to that project? MR. COCHRAN: No. The bus just stops right on . . Page - 14 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 51 1990 MR. PECK: In fact, there's no bus that goes down Floral Avenue right now. MR. COCHRAN: There's no bus down Floral Avenue, and that's one of the issues here. The idea was, on the part of the City, was to try to make that possible. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: What is the nature of the agreement that is proposed between the private landowner and the City, if it involves Ithaca Transit, in any event. MR. COCHRAN: I have the proposal for Small Cities funding here. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: So, it's essentially one to provide funding for the project? MR. COCHRAN: Project will consist of paved area which will be roofed to protect bus users from the elements; convenient regular bus service and a comfortable waiting area will encourage use of public transport over individual car use. MR. PECK: I gather that this would be a new . . an existing bus line, I'm sorry. On an existing bus line. MR. COCHRAN: No, this would be an addition to a bus line. MR. PECK: That's what I mean, part (unintelligible) existing bus line. MR. COCHRAN: Right. Bernie Carpenter, director of the Ithaca Transit, will extend the Transit Line along Floral Avenue as Mutual Housing and Polygon Project are occupied; this is what the City's application says. But I am looking for a statement of exactly how the money would be used . . Budget Information - (unintelligible) Bernie Carpenter has indicated $5,000 would adequately cover cost of construction of the shelter, so this is . . the request is, in fact, for the cost to cover the construction of the shelter. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. MR. PECK: That's part of the grant, though. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Right. Herman? MR. SIEVERDING: What is the whole status of the Site Plan Review. We got a letter from . . . MR. COCHRAN: It's been approved in final with conditions, which means that he has to satisfy conditions that we've imposed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department in order to proceed. But, it doesn't have to come before us again. MR. SIEVERDING: Okay. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? MR. SIEVERDING: The conditions having to do more with not shifting anything relative to the site plan (unintelligible) MR. COCHRAN: I think one of the conditions had to do with the siding, color of the siding. No, it doesn't have anything to do with . . . MR. SIEVERDING: It doesn't have anything to do with the way the buildings are sited, or the parking is arranged, or landscaping (unintelligible) . CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor? MR. LOPINTO FROM THE AUDIENCE: Can I speak again? CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: No. The question, for the record, from the audience was whether the appellant could speak again. The answer in short is no because we haven't, under our procedures, heard from those people who are against. Whenever I begin the proceedings, I outline the Page - 15 BZA MINUTES — MARCH So 1990 procedure; first, we hear from the appellant, then we hear from those who are in favor, then we hear from those who are against. If at the end of the time, those who sit on the Board want additional information, they will request - they have the right to request - additional information being brought in, but we don't, as a matter of course, get back and forth into rebuttals or we could be here all night for all intents and purposes. We'll see how we go at the end of the next round, whether, in fact, there is anybody who wants additional information. Is there anyone who would like to speak against. If you would come forward. Begin with your name and where you live or work. MR. BENNETT: My name is Paul Bennett, and I live at 413 Hook Place. I am here representing William Lower, who lives at 433 Floral Avenue within the 200 foot radius. Mr. Lower is out of the country at the moment and couldn't be here himself. I am also here with a number of other Floral Avenue residents - Henry Lower, Howard Teeter, who lives not on Floral Ave. but above and his wife; and Mr. Lower's son and his wife, who live immediately to the west of this parcel. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Not to interrupt terribly, Paul, but are you essentially representing Bill or are your representing Bill and the rest of the neighbors? MR. BENNETT: Essentially representing Bill. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Thank you. MR. BENNETT: I think you have hit upon the essential points in this kind of area variance. There are a number of considerations to be looked at in determining whether or not there are practical difficulties. That's the standard. One of the most important is whether or not there is another method to obviate the need for a variance. You, yourself, have suggested one. I can't tell whether these are practical and can be done. From what has been said here, I don't believe this Board can, but I believe the burden is on the applicant for a variance to show that there really is no other method of doing this, and I don't believe that's been done here. In addition, one has to look at what the nature of this law is. This law was passed in Council's wisdom less than two years ago for a specific purpose and that was to keep parking from on the front of the sites and to make residential neighborhoods look residential. This is going to be a substantial change in this neighborhood. There's nothing like this project anywhere near this neighborhood. For the most part, all of the housing and buildings along Floral Avenue are single family homes. That change is the factor that you need to look at in doing this, it's a substantial factor. But the last, and I think the most important factor, is the financial factor in determining practical difficulties. They are talking about the increased cost, but what they haven't said is that they can't construct it without getting a variance the right way. They haven't showed us figures to show whether this will make the project unprofitable unless they can get this variance, and that's really part of their burden. In order to change in a law, especially a new law that was passed just so very recently, the burden is on the applicant to show those things, that it can't be done without the variance, and that to change it the need for that variance, the economic need, is one in dollars and cents that you can see. Here's what it would cost to comply and here's what it costs won't; will Page - 16 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 51 1990 this effect the profitability of the land. Not the convenience. Not the aesthetics, but the profitability, and it seems that the real considerations that they have been putting forth to the Board here have been the considerations of aesthetics and convenience. Now, Council has already ruled on aesthetics, and they ruled that not too many cars in the front is the aesthetic consideration that they want this Board to consider. Practical difficulties don't lend themselves well to aesthetics. It has been talked about green space, and there may be other configurations of this that will provide substantially more green space, not the least of which is that is to put a front yard there for kids to play in and to look at. There has been talk about screening this with shrubbery and with trees, and I submit that, having examined this site, that may screen the parking, but at the same time, it may create a very dangerous situation in terms of travel and in terms of entering and exiting because this is on a curve and the vegetation there does cut down the visibility tremendously for people entering on Floral Avenue. Floral Ave. is a disaster for transportation all the way around. It's hard to get onto at the Octopus level and considering morning when you have 20 cars trying to rush through on a very dangerous curve is one where the screening may not be a plus in this situation. But the bottom line is that, and I want to be real brief, is that the demonstration that has to be made here is one of practical difficulties, and there simply hasn't been that demonstration made. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? None. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in opposition? Having sat so patiently thus far, you should know the procedure. It begins with your name and where you live. MS. LOWER: My name is Beatrice Lower, and I live at 427 Floral Avenue. I've lived there all my life, and the traffic and that has become a lot worse since they put the lights over on the Elmira Road so we get a lot more traffic. So, we have a real problem in getting out of our driveways, and so forth. Also, I have a bad feeling that if this is granted, that it may start a new trend; that other people may think well, you know, we can just park cars in the front of the yard and all that. I think that a lot of stuff has been sort of taken for granted. I mean, I've lived around there all my years, and I've never seen a bus go up and down Floral Avenue, no matter how hard we've tried to get things in there. In fact, we haven't even been able to get a sidewalk. So, it makes it really hard. People Buses are coming down through there, and we have a lot of trouble with motorcycles going 90 miles an hour. So, I think there's a lot more traffic on that road than what a lot of people think. You know, just in the last couple of years or so. So, I'm really concerned about a number of things. I just don't want to see a bad thing started because we've had nice homes and nice yards. Fairly safe place. I just feel that there's going to be a lot more accidents and so forth down through that particular stretch of land. Since I've been one of the residents around Floral Avenue a lot longer than these other people have; this one man that spoke, he just built a house by the inlet. He has several lots; his last lot adjoins my father's land, and my father and my mother, and my whole family has been in Lower's Sporting Goods for years and years, up Page - 17 BZA MINUTES - MARCH So 1990 until the time my mother died. So, a lot of this is coming from my heart. I just feel that I don't like someone that's lived in the neighborhood for a couple of times or a couple of years and someone to come in and say now, we're going to change everything. Because I think that's what you make your rules and regulations up for. I feel that you have a reason for setting these rules, and well, if you don't what is the sense of making these? I just kind of have that feeling so, I'd just like to bring those things to light and give you these things to just think about. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Questions from members of the Board? Bea? MS. MACLEOD: Are you saying that you don't want any development in that area of Floral Avenue? MS. LOWER: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying I don't want something contrary to what has been so many years. I don't want somebody going against the zoning and having this parking in front and all of that. MS. MACLEOD: The only zoning question here is the business about where you would park the cars to go with the development, but that is not going to stop the development, necessarily. And if you're having that many new families living on Floral Avenue, it is of course going to increase the traffic. It sounds like you're saying I don't want to see development. MS. LOWER: No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying it seems to me that having all the parking in front is not good, that's what I'm saying. MS. MACLEOD: That's the aesthetics. MS. LOWER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Further questions from members of the Board? None. Thank you Mrs. Lower. Anyone else want to speak against? All right. Members of the Board, do we have any questions, either for the appellant or for anyone else? It doesn't have to be necessarily decided right now, but we have had . . The question came from the floor as to whether, in fact, the appellant would come back and speak. Once again, now. Generally speaking, if that's allowed, the opponents likewise will have a chance to speak as well. So, we're in for a second round; you should understand if you say yes. Okay? If you feel as though you've had enough, for the moment, of the evidence, both pro and against, we continue. MS. MACLEOD: (unintelligible) we have to have a good question to ask LoPinto in order to (unintelligible) I don't have a real question, but I'm sorry that he has something that he wants to say. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Well, the rules of the game, Bea, are essentially that if you have a question, you can ask. MS. MACLEOD: Sorry. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Sorry. Anyone else? Okay. Then we'll proceed, the case being ours, with discussion one would assume, or with a motion as the case may be. MR. SIEVERDING: Discuss. (unintelligible) first. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: All right. It depends upon whether you're being strict about Robert's Rules of Order. Robert's Rules of Order say you are supposed to have a motion on the floor, but we generally allow discussion before we get to the motion. MR. SIEVERDING: I think starting with your question relative to the ability to shift that building over and create some parking in the Page - 18 BZA MINUTES - MARCH So 1990 middle. I guess that brought to light what I see as no exploration of the various alternatives relative to siting these buildings in a way that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Granted, the topography in this area is very difficult, there is no question about it. But, it seems to me, that a starting point in any kind of a site plan process is that you take a look at what zoning requires; you lay out your site relative to the Zoning Ordinance, and if it doesn't work, then you ought to have put together a case demonstrating why it doesn't work, and then move on to other alternatives. I'm a little surprised that the developers evidently haven't done it, but even more surprised that it didn't occur during the course of Site Plan Review. It seems to me that if the Planning Board is going to do site plan review, the starting point for them is that same spot; what does zoning require, what kind of a site plan do you end up with, and the reasons for changing it. They showed one alternative site plan, which was all the buildings out in front, where there is presently parking. MS. MACLEOD: Yes, that is what I'm talking about when I say they did consider that. MR. SIEVERDING: Right, but that's . . . They considered that alternative, but I think it was pretty clear from the discussions while the appellant was here that there are other alternative that they haven't explored that also create a situation that is more consistent with what zoning requires. I think the test is that there are practical difficulties, and you can't sort of expound upon those practical difficulties without first exploring the alternative, and I guess it hasn't happened is what I'm saying. Therefore, I think it is difficult to grant the variance until that does occur and they present us with a case for why this, and for all I know there are others, alternatives don't pass the muster and in fact create practical difficulties and special conditions, which make it impossible to do. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Other side of the table, here? MS. COCHRAN: I agree. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Jack? MR. PECK: Well, this is a very difficult case. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: It's your neck of the woods. MR. PECK: Yes, it's my neck of the woods. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that it's an R-3a zone, and I think that maybe some of the neighbors haven't considered fully, in their opposition to the project, you could probably get, and I don't appreciate I guess. I think a little bit more highly of the work that the Planning Board has done with regard to this to try and keep the impact on the neighborhood at a minimum. All of us on West Hill are relatively concerned that areas that house single family dwellings, of course, exist now amongst - in a zone that's an R-3a zone or R-2 zone - and I, too, have to fight the Octopus every morning and evening as I come home. I don't view that as quite as big a fight as other people do, having come from a big city myself, but there's no question in my mind that the traffic on Floral Avenue has gotten much heavier than it was in the past. I, too, have difficulty imagining a bus going up and down Floral Avenue for any reason. But, the fact nevertheless remains that it's an R-3a zone, and the question is have we got about as best a plan and as good a developer Page - 19 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 51 1990 as we're going to get for a site like this. Now, Herman, I completely agree with what you said, also. So, I'm in a real pickle here. The questions I asked it seemed like; you know, the building to the front, the building to the back, we're not going to get away from the 25% of lot coverage for the parking spaces now matter how few of them there are. I guess I appreciate the fact that they are putting in 12 more than the zoning requires. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: A moment while we change the tape. All right, move along. MR. PECK: So, the point is that I'm in a real quandry here as to what to do. I, of course, will abide by the zoning issues in the case, which is what we're supposed to do on this Board. The other things can be dealt with as they are by other members of the City. I guess I really would have liked to have seen at least some considerations of the other orientations that would have allowed the zoning to pass our muster, in a sense. On the other hand, I can see them saying, look, you're putting this impact on this part of the hill, let's keep as much green space consolidated here as we can instead of breaking it up into housing, because as you can see, it's right below West Village area, which is an extremely high-density housing project on West Hill. It's just a very difficult decision. I'd like some of you to talk some more while I keep thinking. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Janis, do you want to say anything more. MS. COCHRAN: No, I agree with you as well, but on the other hand, as it has been pointed out to me a number of times, that we have to deal with the zoning considerations (unintelligible) and in that sense I think we are kind of stuck. I wish we could take into account other considerations, but I don't think it's within our purview. MS. MACLEOD: It seems to me such a different kind of worry about front yard parking than we have on Delaware Avenue or anyplace in Collegetown. This isn't the same thing at all. This is in a wooded area, and what they have tried to do is find the most sensible, economical way to get that many cars in there without spoiling the aesthetics of the locale, and I think they've done it. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Are we coming closer to a motion? Page - 20 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 51 1990 DECISION Motion was made by Herman Sieverding that the area variance be denied. Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. The appellant has not fully demonstrated an exploration of alternatives that would satisfy the Zoning Ordinance, and why those altneratives might create practical difficulty or special conditions that would cause the Board to grant the variance. 2 . The need for the present configuration of parking may in part be due to the increased number of parking spaces that the developer is providing; the Zoning Ordinance only requires 24 for the proposed number of units, the developer is proposing to construct 36, which may also create the need to put the parking in the front yard. There has been no demonstration why that particular decision creates practical difficulties and special conditions which would cause us to grant the variance. 3 . Denying the variance is consistent with the Ordinance, and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Do I have a second? MR. PECK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Any further discussion? None. Remember, Bea a Yes is to deny. VOTE: 4 YES; 1 NO CHAIRMAN TOMLAN: Appeal 1952 has been denied. Page - 21 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 APPEAL NO. 1953 Appeal of Scot Raynor, Cornell University for an area variance for deficient parking space size under Section 30.37- A-2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a parking lot between Alberding Field House and Kite Hill Tennis Courts. The property is located in a P-1 (Public) Use District in which the proposed use is permitted; however, under Section 30. 37-A-2, the appellant must first obtain an area variance for the proposed 136 square foot parking space size where 180 square feet are required before a building permit can be issued. Appellant Scot Raynor, landscape architect with Cornell University Facilities Engineering, began by pinning up site plans for the Board to see. Also present is Bill Wendt, Director of Cornell University Department of Transportation. Mr. Raynor stated that they were there to support Cornell University's proposal to construct an 82 car parking lot between the Alberding Field House and Kite Hill Tennis Courts. The proposal is to stripe the parking spaces so that they would measure 8.5 x 16' on the two outer bays and 8.5 x 18 feet on the two inner bays; the driving aisle separating the two bays would be 24 feet. This parking area would serve faculty, staff and students seeking parking spaces in this central part of campus. He stated that Cornell University has been building smaller spaces on campus with much success for almost ten years. Beginning in 1980, Cornell realized that cars were becoming more fuel-efficient, thus smaller. He stated that in 1987 Cornell University Facilities Engineering Department compiled a document entitled "Design and Construction Standards"; these standards were the result of many years of trial and error, and research. The University established that parking spaces shall be formally 8.5' x 16' long. He stated that the City has two parking facilities with smaller spaces than the City Ordinance. The parking garage on Dryden Road range from 8 - 8.5' wide x 18' long and a 23 foot aisle between the spaces. The City garage on East Seneca Street has spaces 8.8' centered between the double stripes and they are 16' long; the aisles separating the parking bays is only 221 . When he visited these spaces to gather information, he stated he had no problem maneuvering the Department van, even with cars parked on both sides. The University's experience with 8.5 x 16' parking spaces has been successful given the concerns to preserve open space, reduce new pervious surfaces, and accommodate generally smaller vehicles. He gave a history of the University's reduction of parking space sizes over the years. He located the project on the drawings as being east of the Field House, which is currently a staging area for the Field House and used as contractor parking for the last 4-5 years for the Field House and Biotechnology Building. He stated that the construction of the Field House displaced approximately 320 parking spaces to other parts of the campus, mostly to the Town to the east. Cornell has had plans for many years that this area would be used for parking. The proposed plan is to construct 82 parking spaces, including two handicapped spaces; the handicapped spaces will be smaller, 10' wide by 16' long, however, this standard is larger than the standard recommended by the National Parking Association. He presented information about the National Parking Association, a Page - 22 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 51 1990 nationally-recognized group of operators of parking lots and parking garages around the country, report issued last summer. He presented copies of their research to the Board. Mr. Raynor stated that the parking lot proposed is no different than any other new parking lot built on campus within the last 5-6 years. He further stated that this type of lot allows them to preserve open space, while to comply with the Ordinance, they would lose spaces and have to increase the asphalt pavement area by about 2, 000 square feet. The proposed space size of 134 sq. feet would have to be increased by 46 square feet; this multiplied by 82 results in an increase of over 3,000 square feet. He stated that if the lot were re-striped to widen and lengthen the parking space, four spaces would be lost, which presents the question of where they would put the four spaces? The cost to build one parking space is roughly $3, 000, so the University would have to spend as much money building a 78-car parking lot as an 82-car parking lot, plus they would have the cost of building someplace else to replace the four spaces lost here. Chairman Tomlan explained that he has tried since about 1985 with corrections to the Zoning Ordinance, one of which was parking. There was discussion relative to the necessity for this appeal, and Chairman Tomlan explained that the same procedure would be followed with this appeal as with any other appeal, and if the Board could not find practical difficulties, the variance would not be granted; and if they found practical difficulties, it would be granted. Acting Secretary Dieterich explained that the Ordinance states what the size of the parking space is to be, but not how to arrive there; in other words, it does not state any requirements for aisle dimensions or circulation area. Chairman Tomlan expressed his concern that if the Board established a different level, ad hoc, for the square footage requirements, that would effect every parking lease in the City, which would be catastrophic. Mr. Sieverding asked if the project had been built yet. Mr. Raynor explained that the project had been presented for Site Development Plan Review, and they need to get approval from Peter Weed, City Environmental Plan Review person after he receives a determination from the Building Department that the project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and all Building Codes. Mr. Raynor stated that this is the second project to be presented for Site Plan Review; the first project - one on Stewart Avenue and Edgemore Lane - did not comply with Cornell standard spaces, and they were advised by the Building Department to reconfigure it using a combination of 90 degree and 60 degree spaces and increase the square footage to meet or exceed the 180 square foot requirement. This was done, but this was felt to be inappropriate by Peter Weed and the project was sent back for Site Plan Review. Mr. Raynor stated that there were about three more projects slated for construction. In answer to Chairman Tomlan's question about time frame, Mr. Raynor stated that he would be on the Board's next agenda and the next, and the next. Bill Wendt, Director of Transportation at Cornell University was asked to come forward to speak. He stated that he has been involved for a number of years with these projects and appreciated the Board's willingness to hear them. Mr. Wendt stated that they were not attempting to get around zoning, but was advised that they should put the stripe out 22 feet into the aisle, having a narrow Page - 23 BZA MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1990 aisle, and meet the 180 square feet. He stated that the lot would be used by visitors and staff in a way that would not meet the spirit, and it would be odd - a lot of stripes beyond each car, which is only 16 feet. He felt that marking up asphalt with a lot of lines would tend to confuse, rather than direct, people in a proper way. He stated that he expected this to have gone through the Charter and Ordinance Committee back in 1987, having worked with Kathe Evans of the Planning Department at that time, but never got through the process. He expressed the hope that the Planning Department could be "pushed" to come up with a standard. Further discussion continued about presenting practical difficulties. Chairman Tomlan then asked if it was conceivable for them to survey, using the data available to them by virtue of the kinds of automobiles that they have, the dimensions of an average parking lot. He stated that the Board needs evidence to indicate practical difficulty, and this would provide them with information which they could apply towards a decision. Discussion continued on the subject. Chairman Tomlan asked that the appellants provide information on number, size and models of cars to give them numbers to look at. Chairman Tomlan made the suggestion that the Board defer a decision on this appeal until the next meeting so that the appellants could gather additional information. Motion was made by Beatrice MacLeod, and seconded by Jack Peck, to defer Appeal Number 1953 to get further information on practical difficulty. Vote: 5 Yes; 0 No Deferred until April 9, 1990 For the record, there was no one in the audience to speak for or against. Chairman Tomlan adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Carol Shipe Recording Secretary Page - 24