Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1967-03-06 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY WALL, ITHhCA, NNW YORK MARCH 6th, 1967 APPEALS NOS. 7359 7439 747, and 748; No. 748 being withdrawn by Appellant PRESENTS COL. RICRAN COCK, Chairman RALPH P. BALDINZ JOHN EW3ANNKI GEORGE R. PFAW 9 JR. W. H. EWOOD G1iQFFRE'fC WRAM C. UMMY VAN MARZER, Building Cemeiesioner, secretary THE CHhUs This is a regular meeting, a formol hearing in the Numbers 7359 743, and 747. The members present; ;, or--. Uvator Baldini, Jolie Ewenickt, George Plans, W. H.. Elwood, Geoffrey Weavoto sad our Building Commissioner, Mr. Van -Marten, besidsa myv4W, as, Chaieaon, appearing under the provisions, of the Omwtor and the EoMmg Ordinance. Case No. 748 appefled by Vincent Gi+ssd'ano for a variance, has been witU rowan by they appellant. The Board requests that each individual who speak& Identify himself or herself by name"and addroes, and that he of she confine tbompaives. to the pertinent facts of the case. We will take the cases in numerical order, starting with No. 735, which is the Appeal of Francis J. Psolangeli, 511 Cascadilla Street,, for an exception to minimi lot siss under Section 79 Column 7, to erect a dwelling at the rear of 511 Camadills Street, in an R-3 sorra. Is there any one here appearing in appeal of this case? FRANCIS J. PAOLANGELIs 511 Casoodilla Street; Gentlemen, my problem is that I would like to erect a dwelling at the rear of 511 Coscadilla Street. I have some material here which I wish to show you, a plot plan. (Shows plot plan to Board) MR. WRAVERo This is on a corner? r2r A. Yes, sir, the corner of Casoadilla and Washington. DR. BALDINIm The lot is on Washington Street. MR. PAOIANG8LIt My problem is that I do not met the requirement on minimum lot size. I have searched around and have found a horse which I could erect here. I feel we met all the other requirements. We have a place to park off the street but I just do not cows up to the coverage I used. MR. WSAVBRt The house would be about 980 fest? A, 968. if I were allowed to erect this house I would not be breaking up the harmony of the other neighbors•, other hoses in the area are on lots a bit smaller. MR. WEAVER: The driveway would be on the line? A. It would be approximately 12 feet from the boundary line on the north. (Shows picture of proposed homq with the garage underneath; This is pre-cut, not pre-fab. THE CHAIRS May I see the sketch of the house? Appellant's Exhibit 1 (consisting of two sheets) marked for identification MR. PADLANGBLIt My father has owned this lot since 1942 and this will be my lot. I on going to build the house. I have photographs here. Appellant's Fath i bi to 2, 3 and 4 marked for !dent if fiabdM` These are the pictures. This is No. 2, the rear of the dwelling at 311 Cascadilla Street. This is the lot back here. And here are two other pictures, different shots, referring to the wase. THE CRIIRt Exhibits received. Any air of the Hoard have further questions? Mone Any one appearing in favor of this application? None Any one appearing in opposition to this application? None. THE CHAIRt Thank you, Mr. Paolangeli. -3- THE GH111 s The next case is No. 7439 the Appeal of Alan S. Harris, agent for IRS Realty Corporation, 506 !forth Tioga Street, for new construction at 140-210 Thurston Avenue, excep- tions requried under provision of Section 7, Colum 5, off r street parking, and Section 7, Column 15, percentage of depth of rear yard in an 11.2 sone. Who is appearing? ALAN S, HARRISt 135 Linn Street. Appellant's Exhibit l marked for identification I will pass this around and I first would like. to speak on depth. As stated in the appeal the topography of the land and economic factors of construction create the neces- sities of locating the buildings in the central part of the property. Appellant's Exhibit 29 which is Appendix H, Table of Con- tents, attached to appeal, marked for identification This, gentl*wn, is a plot plan of the final stage, com- pleted buildings. The pictures were taken from various locations on the property, showing different perspectives, and the surroundings. MR. NRAM: This would be up Thurston Avenue sad on your left at the tap of the hill? A. Yee, I believe I have the Appendices have. Appellant's Exhibit 39 same as Exhibit L(b) and Appellant's Exhibit, same as I(a) marked for identification This has foot distances marked from the property lines. In terms of the topography of the land, and in terms of construction, the central cru is really the place where we will brave to construct, in terms of all the re- quirements of the Code. 1R. WRAVERt Is this an exception for the whole thing for five years? MR. VAN NOTERt Yea, the limitation on time is directed only toward variance. MR. WEAYBRt Are they safe in what we do for five years? NR. VAN MARTER: I would say this was valid and would carry over. .h. MR. PARRIS: Everything also is mat, as you can see by the exhibit. This rear lot depth is the rnly'factor on which we are shy. M. PFANN: If some other type of construction were used, there would be a possibility that you could met all the requiremeats? MR. HARRISt It is quite possible with a different arrangement of construction. MR. PFANNt Is there a particular reason for the arranges► .:flat has been made here? A. Yes, because of cost; and second, when you try to build in phases, we would be maintaining the use of this present buildings in close proximity; you will see an old structure here which houses thirteen men at present. Ws have planned to maintain this during construction. DR. BALDINIs What about the demolition of this building? A. Next spring as soon as the first phase is completed. ?bene are the only points i have for the rear lot. Then as to parking, at the bottom of the page on "General Project Description", it outlines the points on parking. Appellants Exhibit 5, being Appendix A, masked gor identification, being chart concerning parking spaces eta. This appendix gives what the residents and corporation fools are the reasons in a specific instance where we would not valWore one parking space per resident. We tried to get actual lists for actual registration and could not get them. Appellant's Exhibit 69 being Exhibit III, marked for identification, and read to Board tRt. VAN MARTERt They would have an alternative but would prefer not to • have to go to it. MR. HARRIS: We believe that in granting these exceptions it muld be beneficial to the University community, especially so to the orgent"tion and would enhance the attractiveness of the neighborhood; the present buildings are quite old; and this in every manner would be in agreement with the general philosophy of the Zoning regulations. TIE CIAIRs Is there any one tare to speak inflavor of this appeal? None. Any one here in opposition to this appeal? None. CLIti'f N ROS91TER: 110 Highland Avenue. I do not know if I am for or against or neutral an this one. I speak here as the only private hone owner who protrudes an this property, rather, one of the only two protruding on it. I have a pleat of r property which some of you are segeainted with,and I doubt in all seriousness' If a piece of property which even with the re-assessment, is assessed at $40,2509 that there are any that come higher in the City of Ithaca. I an not complaining, but I an trying to protect something, not because of its reg-sale value when I do sell, but because I like living there, with the woods and the terrace. Mr. Alan Harris and I stood on any terrace and we looked down on this other piece of property and we tried to imagine what it would look liOs:leter. This is hard to soy. In a way my problems ore really between us* He wants to come up with this building 20 feet, not 42 feet. Twenty feet is v+diey close indeed. There are things involved there that are very important to ars but I could not maks then your problems —such as, where will the Incinerator be sited, whit kind of a surface will this parking area have, what will happen to that 20 feet, will it be in land, lawn, bushes, or somehow landscaped, where will the outdoor areas of the house ba, away from we or toward me? These are the things that really wove as to come forward, but not to speak for or against, but simply as a home owner who is concerned about these things. I hope he will not increase the value of my property; as to the beauty, I will take care of that myself. I would say that these people, the SRS Realty Company, has been extremely kind to me since I first came in. City Hall told we I had to put in a sever. They were very kind. You will notice on the major plan, %hey let us bring a sewer down through there; a turnabout. I have not cone to ask for anything nor against anything, but I would like to put may own sentismnts on the public record, as to how my wife and I hope this thing will go, how it will be planned, and tastefully, and how we hope that we will be consulted at various stages. so that we can keep our very pleasant arrangements. I knew when I bought this property that I was taking something of a gamble. So far it has gone well. and I like living there. And now let me say that I am grateful for your letting ms make this a part of your record. 4- MR. WRAVRR: What is the grade to your lot? MR. ROSSITRRt It is quite steep, not a cliff$ but you could not sloop on it and you can go up and down if you are a mountain goat. (Shown on plans) I was planning on writing Mr. Harris a letter, and such a thing would have no legal force and certainly no binding force on any one taking over this property. As between me and Sigma Alpha Mu, I.would like to think that we could come to an understanding, as for instance, about the incinerator. THE CHAIR: The difference in height between the present buildings and the new buildings? MR. HARRIS: The present building, that would remain from the second story window; you go over or through. The new building is a such lower building; it will be closer to his property Hne but I would expect further away from his home. MR. WRAVRR: Mr. Rosaiter, do you want restrictions? THE CHAIRt Raw you any requestsor recommendations? MR. V" MARTERt Is it true that this/facility would- be pretty such west? MR. HARRIS: Yes. MR. VAN MARTRRt Is it logical to assume that the incinerator would be In close proximity? A. Yes. Q. Would this not place it the furthest away it could be from Mr. Rossiter? A. Yes. MR. VAN MARTRR: The Board can put restrictions on this. MR. ROSSITIRt I want to be honest and will may that I so reluctant to ask you to do so. MR. VAN MARTRR: it would end up in my office. This woulddbe a little difficult. MR. HARRIS: We have two incinerators at present, one of which is close to Mr. Rossiter, and as to this date it has been on fire at least once. -7- THE CHAIR: 1s the new construction where will this be? MR. HARRISs I would assume that the incinerator would barn to be near the kitchen area and that would be at the far point from Mr. Rossiter*s property. MR. VAIs MARTRRs The Board could put the stipulation with the plans and prior to issuance of 'the permit, that the location of the incinerator be placed so that it would disturb his property Isat by dimension and distance I so sure that the finality wo*ld be brought about and it appears by nature that the location of the dining facility will put it as far as practicable. MR. "MIS: The area protruding a►n Mr. Rossiter's property would become a parking area, so the only place we could move the incinerator would', be further away from his home. MR. ROSSITRRs Then there is that 2011feet between the properties. lR . VAN MARTBR: They could stipulate there could be prohibited any accessory buildings. MR. ROSSITRRs They are going to hit !the sewer very quickly when they dig out. They have g$van ms an easement. MR. VAN M TXRs This has to be preserved and maintained and this would be their problem, thiel rawer, as they have given you this in writing. THE CIIAIRs Are there any other questions from the Board? None. Are there any other questions by any one of Mr. Alan Barris? None. w8• r THE CHAIR: The next case is No. 7479 the Appeal of Cooperative Consumers Society, Incorporated, 609 best ClintonStreet, for an exception to sign regulation under Section 79 Column 40 of the Zoning Ordinance in a 8-2 sone. Who is appearing in this appeal? HARRY S. NAMILTONs I am the attorney for the Co-ops gentlemen, and vwy I see the memorandum? Thank you. Do each of you have a copy of the sketch of the sign itself? Appellant's Exhibit 1, being sketch of proposed sign, marked for identification As you know, the Co-op people have new construction at 609 West Clinton Street, just under three acres. Appellant's Exhibit 2, being map, marked for identif4dation I show you this exhibit, number 21, a map, which Carl Crandall brought up to date. This is all the ..pty we own in this particular area. The Slate of New York took the top and of this property for the new Meadow Street property, and the North Titus Avenue property runs down here out to Meadow Street. You gentleman know what a speedway we have there now. A forty mile speed limit begins approximately 80 €tet from abs spot where we wish to have this sign. Meadow Street itself fvot higher than this particular property at the point where this speed limit decreases. It is our feeling that with a 25 foot sign at this spot, where people are watching for the speed Limit, they just are not going to see a 25 foot sign. We wish to put this sign built north and south facing Meadow Street, and you can see it from West Clinton Street. It will be a fixed sign, lighted, with letters on both sides. 104 feet Is our total square footage. Appellant's txhibit. 3 marked for identification MR. HAMILTON: There ,is one on the building, ,dust the usual sign, "CO-OP". The two existing fluorescent signs on these other streets will bs tsken, down anyway. I foci that the practical difficulties and special conditions are applicable in this situation, where you have a new street$ and people Fust are not going to seat these. The localv ;r know where the Co-op is. I feel this - could cause a traffic tie-up. it is an odd` inteirsoo- tion. They do not coatis in at right angles: This sketch show the sign itself 14 feet from the street line and 26 feet from West Clinton Street. There is no building other than our own construction in this block closer than 219 feet. There are some homes on Clinton Street which are maybe 80 feet may. The road is 66 feet and this sign is 26 feet in, so we would be the closest` property of any kind to our sin. Let essay that i was wondering why this was not put in a B-29 which is logical and would provide for a sign. MR. WRAVRRt Now about a front yard? MR. VAN MA RT Well* I have to call it a front yard. The depth is proscribed as from the lot line. Appellant's Exhibit 4 marked for identification MR. HAMILTONs There will be nothing on there 'ccopt as you see on this sketch. In connection with� the square footage, I have some figures here, which I would leave with you to consider, as to .sist of the sign in comparison with the building rise, We 'Intend to remove the two signs, S square feet approximately in each of the small ones, so 100 foot in each sign. Hash letter is a' separate sign hsging together. One is located at, the entrance on West Clinton Street and the other on North Titus entrance; both of these will be removed as part of our plan. THE CHAIRn Apparently there is no one to speak in favor nor any one in opposition. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. RXECVTInE SISSION MARCH 6th, 1967 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA THE CHAIR: Let Ws consider Appeal No. 735. DR. BALDINIt Maw that the MweptIan be granted for the reasonsthat this would not change the character of the neighborhood; further, that, appollant has made a sincere effort to comply with all the other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance except that of minion lot size, even to the point of having less lot coverage than the minimi~ permitted. AIR. WOOD: Second. VOTES Yes - 5 No - 1 THE CHAIR: Appeal No. 743. MR. WEAVER: Move that the exception be granted subject to the con- ditions that the incinerator to be constructed in con- nsction- with this new building be erected not less than 30 feet from the west lot line or the south lot line of the property now owned by Professor Clinton Rossiter, and further subject to the provision that the total rear yard between the new construction and the south lot line of property now owned by Professor Clinton Rossiter con- tain no lot improvement other than landscaping, no paving, no accessory buildings, the intent being that it remain in a state as naturalistic as it now is. MR. RWANICKIt Second. VOTE: Yes - 6 No - 0 THE CHAIRt No. 747. MR. MANICKIs Move that the exception be granted, conditioned upon the r ,of the two existing signs, one located on ry Kest Clinton Street and one located on North Titus Avonua, as described in the ptetentationj that the Ordinance apparently did not contemplate a development of this six*. MR. ELWOOD: Second. volm s Yes - S No - 1