Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1976-11-23 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES CITY OF ITHACA Regular Meeting, 23 November 1976 , 7 :30 p.m. , Common Council Chambers PRESENT: Chairperson LeG. -Benson, N.Meyer, R. Moran, R. Hildreth, S. Stein ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, Mayor E. J. Conley, Marjorie E. Waldman, Walter Wiggins, JoAnn Jalento, Charlotte Fogel, Sherry Sincerbeaux, David W. Lippitt, A. J. Golder, K. A. Gaffny,. Neil Taylor, David Cornelius , Daniel L. Rhoads, Patricia M. Carlson, Marvin A. Carlson, Thomas Hanna, Katherine Hanna, Rev. Richard J. Thomas , Richard Morrison, Gerald Frand, Robert Williamson, Richard Schechter, Richard Baker, Natalie P. Baker, Thomas Hoard CALL TO ORDER: The Chairperson called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER MINUTES: Mr. Moran MOVED approval of the minutes of the last meeting. Mr. Hildreth seconded. Minutes APPROVED. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: The Chairperson reported on the Multi- County Economic Development District being developed by the Southern Tier Regional Planning Commission. They are hoping to bring more jobs and better financial health to the area. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS : Mr. Moran complimented the staff on the Waterways Report. ZONING: Appeal 1140 : Request for an examption from Section 30.59 , Temporary Moratorium on Certain Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy to allow premises at 412 N. Aurora, in an R-3 zone, to be used as multiple family dwelling. Premises now vacant, but prior to this year had been a nonprofit group house. The property, currently owned by Teen Challenge , was formerly a private home, according to the Building Commissioner' s records . Under present zoning ordinance, two dwelling units are allowable on the property, but the moratorium prevents conversion of the single family home to more than that number of units. A prospective buyer would like to convert the building to three units . There are other apartment buildings in the neighborhood. The Planning and Development staff recommended that a variance be granted for use as a two-family dwelling. - 2 _ The attorney for Teen Challenge introduced the prospective buyer to the Board. He stated that Teen Challenge had eight bedrooms in the building and that he had plans to convert the building to two residential units. In response to a question by Ms. Meyer, the buyer stated that the building would not be owner occupied. Mr. Hildreth noted that the property had been off the tax rolls for awhile, and that the proposed usage would return it to the tax rolls. Ms. Meyer noted that the city was attempting to preserve the family quality of the neighborhood in question. They buyer stated that he had submitted a purchase offer the first week in October, before . the moratorium was enacted. He stated that he planned for a total of eleven bedrooms in the two proposed apartments, eight in one and three in the other. Mr. Van Cort informed him that this would require a minimum of six parking spaces. The buyer stated that there was a garage and three spaces on the property and that he could make room for more spaces on the lot. Dan Rhoads , a member of the Fall Creek Civic Association, noted that residents of Fall Creek worked for the moratorium because so many of the homes in that neighborhood have been converted to apartment houses. He said it was his understanding that houses would not be converted except in extreme cases , and he did not feel any house should be converted at least until the zoning study was completed. Pat Carlson stated that she lives across the street from the property in question, that she did not think it would be a problem to sell the house to a family, and that she did not feel that there was a hardship involved. She noted that when the property was on the market, buyers expressed interest. David Cornelius, President of the Fall Creek Civic Association, stated that the Association�.lhad submitted a 400-name petition to Common Council, requesting R-1 zoning. He noted that parking in the neighborhood was becoming a problem, and that because there were fewer families in the neighborhood, the School District was thinking of closing schools. He expressed his concern over the neighborhood' s changing population profile, and its detrimental effects on the families remaining in the neighborhood. In response to a query, the buyer noted that the contract was signed, but that the closing was not yet effected. He also noted that the house is only a block away from a commercial area. Teen Challenge' s lawyer said that the house has been on the market since lastspring, and that the organization is deeply in debt. It was his opinion that conversion to apartments was not a problem for this part of Fall Creek. He noted again that the transaction was close to completion when the moratorium was passed. A representative of Teen Challenge said that the organization was in serious financial trouble, and that the buyer had given them the only offer which would allow them sufficient funds to satisfy their creditors. They had one other offer, but the interested party failed to come up with the money. Ms. Carlson said that the house was off the market during the summer and asked how long a period had .elapsed after the last offer until the house was put back on the market. The Teen Chal- lenge representative replied that it was off th%� market for two months. Gerald Frand of the Ithaca Board of Realtors said that the building had to bring $40,000 to get the organization out _ 3 _ of its financial bind. He noted that the house had not been repaired or kept up for several 'years, and that an additional $10, 000 would have to be invested to make the house livable. In response to a question from Ms. Benson, Mr'. Frand said the house now had eight bedrooms. Ms. Meyer asked if there is now a unit in the building which is an apartment. Mr. Van Cort replied that there was only one unit in the structure, but that parking was inadequate for the proposed usage, and that there was less parking than the staff originally had thought there was. The buyer noted that he could add another two spots. Ms. Meyer then MOVED to refer the matter to committee for fur- ther study. Mr. Moran seconded. Mr. Stein pointed out that referring the matter to committee would mean that the BZA could not act on this matter at its next meeting. Ms. Meyer then rescinded her motion, Mr. Moran his second. . She, then MOVED that the Board recommend denial to the BZA. Mr. Stein seconded. He noted that the appellants were asking . the city to set aside the moratorium, and that he did not feel this was a good idea. A vote was called with the following results : AYE: S. Stein, R. Hildreth, N. Meyer ABSTAIN: R. Moran Appeal 1141 : Request for Interpretation and Use Variance to permit use of second floor of 412-14 N. Tioga St. , in an R-3 zone, as commercial real estate office. A similar appeal made in August was denied; prior to 1976 the space was _in residential use. Mr. .Van Cort noted that the same case had been brought before the Planning and Development Board in August and that the staff was then split.. The building has had a residence in it for many years. The BZA recommended denial in August because the building is in a residential zone. The appellant' s attorney noted that in 1961 Dr. Baker had purchased two homes, demolished them and built° an office building. His mother resided in an apartment on the second floor of the new building and she had since moved out. The Atlantic Dental Company was also on the second floor, but this too has been relocated. The appellant has requested an interpretation because he maintains that in 1961 when the building permit was issued, the building was constructed so that the entire facility could be used commercially. A real estate office is now on the second floor; there are 75 parking spaces available. Mr. Stein asked. if there was some new reason for re- appealing. Attorney Williamson replied that Dr. Baker was requesting an interpretation of the ordinance based on their earlier appeal in 1961. Under the first variance, he claimed, the entire building was to be used for professional office space. Dr. Baker showed the Board slides of the buildings torn down, and the rehabilitation of a home near the facility now housing the dental and realty offices. The building in question is well maintained. The appellant' s attorney noted that he felt the use request to be compatible with the area, and that the County Assessor' s Office had the building listed as all office space. - 4 Ms. Benson noted that one of the buildings the appellant demolished to build the office building had won a national award for domestic architecture in 1911. Mr. Carlson noted that the word commercial does not appear in the variance. He said that the building has always been considered a professional building, mostly for medical offices, and that the Board should bear in mind that there is a difference between a professional office and a commercial office. He and his neighbors are concerned about erosion of housing stock in the area. The block in question has lost approxi- mately 500 of its housing stock. He said that Dr. Baker had bought four houses, destroyed three and converted one into an office building. He stressed the importance of maintaining the residence in the office building. Dr. Baker replied that he did not destroy three houses -- that there had been a large empty lot used for parking. He claimed the houses he. had bought were not restorable , and that North Tioga Street `had turned to professional usage, and had put $93, 000 on the tax rolls. He claimed that there is a shortage of downtown professional offices, and that his development had encouraged professionals to move downtown. He said the residence in his building was never used for rental purposes. Mr. Van Cort said he was wary of getting involved in legal issues , but that the staff could see little difference between this and the last appeal. The staff thinks the area should remain residential, though the recommendation on this case is split. Mr. ' Moran MOVED approval of the interpretation and use variance. ; Ms. Meyer seconded. Mr. Stein noted that he supported the essence of the motion, but that there was a possible conflict. He said he shared Mr. Carlson' s concern, but the building was built and appears as a commercial building. He said he still supported the zoning rules, but that this seemed an obvious exception. Ms. Meyer agreed and noted that recent legislation was discouraging disintegration of the neighborhood. ' ; A vote was called and the motion CARRIED unanimously. Appeal 1142: Request for exception to the Moratorium and Area Variance to permit a basement apartment at 210 Eddy Street, in an R-3 zone. Owners also 'reside in the house, which is within two feet of one side lot line, requiring Area Variance. The property is nonconforming due to a minor deficiency in the side yard. It has adequate parking facilities . The use would be permitted if it were not for the moratorium. The property is owner-occupied. Staff recommended in favor of the appeal. The appellants produced letters of approvel from their immediate neighbors, and explained that they had begun improving the house before the moratorium went into effect. They explained that they need the extra unit to help pay for the house, and that they had submitted their applica- tion before the moratorium went into effect. They are work- ing on a basement apartment, which would be permitted in an R-1 zone. Ms. 'IMeyer MOVED recommending approval of the area _ 5 _ variance based on the fact that the house is owner-occupied. Mr. Stein added that adding another apartment would not change the character of the neighborhood, and that no change in the size of '; the house was planned. A vote was called; CARRIED uanimously. Appeal 1143 : Request for Area Variance at 229-231 Valley Road, in an R-1 zone, as precondition for subdividing the property into two lots, each containing one house. Owner has applied for approval of subdivision, which would create two nonconforming lots; City Attorney had recommended seeking zoning approval in compliance with Subdivision Regulation require- ment that Planning Board consider the zoning ramifications cif any subdivision, in the course of making a decision on a subdivision proposal. The lots created would be deficient in area, frontage and one side yard. Mr. Van Cort noted that this is the third time this case has come up, and that the staff recommends approval. The appellant' s attorney noted that the appellant was not planning to add any more buildings or increase the number of persons occupying the property. Under 1950 ' s zoning law, the property met all requirements. He said they were asking for subdivision of one lot into two. They have not been able to sell both units at the same time. They would like to have the variance not be conditional on their furnishing parking. The appellant noted that there is one parking space for 229; 231 has three parking spaces. Mr. Moran MOVED approval. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Stein noted that a public meeting on the subdivision would have to be held. The attorney stated that they had to appeal to the BZA first. Mr. Stein MOVED that there be a public hearing, assuming the BZA approved the appeal, to be duly advertised and to be held at the next regular public Planning and Development Board meeting. Mr. .Moran seconded. CARRIED unanimously. Appeal 1144 : Request for Interpretation to permit use of 406 N. Cayuga St. in an R-3 zone by a non-profit health-related social service agency. A previous appeal for this purpose was denied in September. The late resident-owner of the property bequeathed it to a foundationfor use by a community service agency. It was noted that the Planning and Development Board recommended favorably when ,this case was first appealed in August, but that it was turned down by the BZA. The attorney for the Family and Children' s Service introduced Marjorie Waldman, associate director of the Service. She said that the Service was private and non- profit, incorporated in 1956. Its primary programs are designed to meet the emotional and physical problems of persons in the community and help them function. The attorney stated that he hoped to establish that the Service meets medical requirements i i 6 - necessary for occupancy of a house in an R-3 zone; Mr. Stein reminded him that it was not the Board's duty to make any kind of legal judgment, which should be saved for the BZA. Ms. Waldman noted that the Service has four basic functions: (1) counseling - diagnosis and treatment, (2) home health aide service, (3) mental health information and referral, (4) child placement. She noted that the facility is staffed by a clinical psychologist and social workers and that 94% of program referral was done by physicians. The Service operates under the auspices of the Department of Mental Hygiene. She said that the F&CS program which is least health-oriented is adoptions, for which there are only three in-office sessions per ::month. She noted that parking is inadequate in terms of zoning requirements, but that staff parking was available at the United Way offices. She noted that F&CS would use the whole building except for one office for the Tompkins County Foundation, to whom the building was left to be used for charitable purposes, with the stipulation that the Foundation be provided offices in the building. Mr. Moran asked what the neighborhood reaction was when this case was brought before the BZA. The attorney replied that the neighbors who appeared were not generally pleased, but that the appellant did not have enough evidence at the time that the F&CS was a health facility; Mr. Van Cort then read the definition of a medical facility from the Zoning Ordi- nance. Mr. Moran noted that counseling is not covered in the definition. The appellant's attorney said that at the BZA meeting questions revolved around non-legal issues. He then introduced Dr. Neil Taylor, an emergency-room doctor at Tompkins County Hospital, who is a former director of the psychiatric department at Cornell ' s Gannett Clinic. As a psychiatrist he referred many students ' wives to the Family and Children' s Service; he stated that F&CS performs a health function in restoring clients to good mental health. The appellant's attorney then introduced Dr. Kathleen Gaffny, County ,Health Commissioner for Tompkins County, and physician. She noted that 88% of the services provided by F&CS are paid for by the County' s health department, and that other professionals besides physicians were able to provide health services, referring to home health aides who are responsible for providing services to persons ill at home. She said the aides , on physicians' orders, provide professional health care and perform some nursing duties, and that they are trained by the Family and Children' s Service according to guidelines set by the State Health Department. Mr. Moran asked if the City Attorney was Chairman of the F&CS ' Board of Directors. The Mayor replied that he is Mr. Van Cort noted that the staff recommended a favorable interpretation of the meaning of "medical facility. Mr. Hoard noted that there had been substantial resistance from some neighbors who felt there was .a lack of evidence that this was in fact a medical facility. Mr. Stein stated that he did not think medical facilities should be permitted in residential areas at all, but that since the zoning ordinance allows them, and since he felt there to be sufficient evidence that this is a medical facility, he MOVED that the Board recommend approval of the appeal to the ZA. Ms.Meyer seconded. The Mayor noted that the - 7 - property was left to the Foundation for public use, and that this is as good a community use as possible. Ms . Meyer suggested that a facility such as this might also be considered for shared usage with a school . Motion CARRIED by the following vote : AYE : N.Meyer, R. Hildreth, S. Stein ABSTAIN: R. Moran COMMUNICATIONS : None COPMMITTEE REPORTS: None. OLD BUSINESS : - Mr. Van Cort reported on the progress of the Zoning Study currently being done by the Department of Planning and Development. Copies of the survey being used were distributed to Board members . He reported that 400 surveys have been returned so far, and that the surveys were expected to be completed in approximately two weeks. The project is on budget and going very well, providing good information on neighborhood conditions. The staff estimates that interpretation will take one and a half months before work on the ordinance can begin. The staff has also sent a survey to two dozen college communities which probably have problems similar to Ithaca' s. The department has also begun to set up an ad hoc committee , as the Board recommended. The staff is also planning to meet with two Cornell law professors who are zoning experts. The department is converting county tax rolls to a readily acces- sible data bank to get trend data. Mr. Van Cort noted that one page of opinion questions had been added to the survey, as requested by the Board. The staff is working with a 25% sample of the entire city by neighborhood and use type. The survey is being made of households in both residential and commercial zones. Houses are selected by computer. Each interview takes 15-20 minutes, and surveyors are paid a fixed rate per interview. Council had requested a survey of all households in the City. This sample will provide a guide to costs . Mr. Van Cort then reported,`on the District School Reorganization. Roz Williams has been the City's representative of the Mayor' s Task Force, and will attend two weekend workshops being set up by Katherine Eisenberger. The Mayor' s Task Force is also working on a joint occupancy plan which will be drawn up some time next week. The Mayor' s Task Force has found inaccuracies and omissions in the Board of Education' s data book. The Board of Ed. has failed to use 1975 census data. Ms. Williams called deans at Ithaca College and Cornell, and has found that there is no policy against hiring junior faculty. The Board of Ed. still seems set on closing certain neighborhood schools. Ms. Meyer pointed out to the Board that three schools (Ithaca High "School DeWitt and Boynton) have already been moved out of the center of the City. Mr. Stein said that he had a feeling of powerlessness in 'trying to influence the deliberations of the School Board in . this reorganization process. He asked. whether the staff had looked into the possibility of the City forming its own school district separate from the, present centralized Ithaca City School District. He suggested that research into this possibility be undertaken by staff. Meeting adjourned 10 :30 p.m.