HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1978-02-27 MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
27 February 1971, Common Council Chambers
PRESENT: Chairperson LeC. Benson, M. Crowley, R. Bordoni, R. Hildreth,
R. Moran
ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, R. Williamson, R. Rhodes, L. Thaler, F. Conner,
M. McRae, R. Mosher, J. Wintermute, N. Wintermute, P. Petrillose,
V. LaRocca, A. van Tienhoven, R. B. Inman, J. -Inman, N. Long,
S. Caleb, M. Cobb, D. Balbirni.e, R. Wanner, A. Boardman, A.
Egner, P. Mutkoski, W. Cox, R. Favaro, J. Colongeli, R. Albanese,
R. Broberg, P. Erdman, J. Bentkowski, J. Volpicelli, S. Munch,
Members .of the ,Press, and others
1.. The Chairperson called the meeting to order.
2. Mr. Moran MOVED that the minutes of the last meeting be approved as written.
Seconded by Mr. Hildreth. CARRIED.
3. Special order of business: None.
4."The Chairman called for a writing of bylaws .for the Planning and Develop-
ment Board with staff assistance. MOVED by Mr. Bordoni, seconded by Mr.
Moran. CARRIED unanimously.
5. Zoning cases.
a. Appeal 1190: Request for use variance and area variances to permit
establishment of dentist's office and dental appliance laboratory
at 212 W. Buffalo, in an R-3a zone. Property is deficient in yard
setbacks, and dental lab is not in list of permitted uses.
Staff noted that the building is on a corner lot with two insufficient
front yards. A dentist's office is a permitted use in an R-3a zone.
The prospective buyer would retain the existing apartment as a rental unit.
Mr. Van Cort expressed concern that the lab might be used to provide ser-
vice to other dentists, but was assured by the appellant that it would
serve only his office. He noted that if the lab serves only the office on
the premises, it is a permitted use. He noted that while the staff would
like to see the property remain in residential use, it could not recommend
against the appeal, if the above-mentioned condition were meta
The attorney for the appellant stated that the dentist specializes in
mouth restorations, and that since each visit lasts an average of an hour
to an hour and a half, the volume of traffic in and out of the office
would be low. He said the proposed lab would be located in the kitchen,
0 •
P & D Minutes 27 February 1978 Page 2
where there was a back door, windows and a vent. There is room on the
premises for eighty_ehicles. The current tenant would be allowed to
remain. The doctor would do his own lab work but would employ a secre-
tary and a dental assistant. The attorney for the estate noted that
the kitchen vents east into the parking area; he felt that because of
this, odor would not be a problem. Ms. Benson asked Mr. Hoard whether a
dental lab is in fact allowed in an R-3a zone; Mr. Hoard replied that
it is if it is part of the practice. Ms. Benson noted that this appeal
then becomes a request for an area variance only, and asked that the
request for a use variance be removed from the agenda. The attorney for
the appellant said that they have a letter from Mr. Backer of the school
board, saying that, as a neighbor of the property, they had no objection
to such a use. Ms. Benson then read the following letter from another
neighbor:
Gentlemen:
With reference to the variance required by Dr. Richard B. Rhodes,
property at 212 W. Buffalo Street. This is a very congested block
and with additional traffic would only make the situation worse.
Even though the property would allow for off street parking obviously
on street parking would be used.
The 100 block of W. Buffalo has a doctor complex, but this has access
to Court Street.
Sincerely,
Doris D. Downing
205 W. Buffalo St.
The appellant felt this would not be a problem since there is room for
eight cars on the premises, and since his practice is low in volume.
Mr.. Moran MOVED that the Board recommend approval to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.. Ms. Crowley seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
b. Appeal 1191: Request for area variance to permit use of property
at 908 N. Tioga,' in an R-2b zone, for a two-family dwelling. Pro-
perty is deficient in yard setbacks, and exceeds lot coverage.
Staff informed the Board that this case was raised in November of 1977 as
Appeal 1182,, At that time both the staff and the Planning and Develop-
ment Board had recommended denial on the basis of excessive coverage. They
felt that the new appeal did not present any new information, and therefore
recommended denial again. The attorney for the appellant said that there
is now a tenant on the first floor, and that there is a second entrance
leading to the second floor. He said the upstairs apartment can accommo-
date only two persons and that there is a two-car garage on the premises.
He said it is a hardship for the people who own the house not to be able
to rent the second apartment.
• •
P & D Minutes 27 February 1978 Page 3
Ms. Patty Mutkoski, a neighbor at 819 N. Tioga St. , said that the house
had a sale sign in front of it for only a week, and that it has never
been a two-family house. She said the second entrance was in fact a
kitchen entrance, not an entrance to the second floor apartment. Nine
houses on that block are owned by elderly persons and will probably be
coming up for sale in the next few years. She said she would hate to
see landlords use this appeal as a precedent to convert these one-family
homes into apartments.
The attorney for the appellant said that they owned 720 North Tioga Street
and 711 North Tioga, and that they take good care of their properties.
He said there was some difficulty in using both parking spaces, because
the driveway was narrow.
Mr. Bordoni said he know that neighbors were opposed to the conversion
of single-family homes to multiple-family dwellings, and that allowing
such a conversion in this case would counter the intent of changes made
in the Zoning Ordinance in 1977. He MOVED that the Board recommend de-
nial. Mr. Hildreth seconded. Mr. Van Cort noted that there was still
excessive lot coverage. CARRIED unanimously.
c. Appeal 1192: Request for use variance to permit establishment of
a restaurant at 102 :Adams, in an R-2b district. Premises is a
designated City Landmark which presently houses several other
legal nonconforming commercial uses under a series of previous
variances; applicants state that required off-street parking will
be provided.
Staff did not have plans for the restaurant or for parking arrangements.
They assumed the restaurant would have a seating capacity of approximately
200, which requires 40 to 50 parking spaces according to the ordinance.
On-site parking is extremely limited. Changes in the building should
be made in cooperation with the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Staff felt the use might be desirable in terms of promoting and enhancing
this landmark building, but the proposed tenants must show that adequate
parking can be assured. Staff did not feel the neighborhood would be
adversely affected by what is proposed to be a family-type restaurant.
If the preceding conditions can be met, the staff recommended in favor
of the appeal.
The attorney for the appellants and the buildng owner said he had delivered
the drawings to Mr. Jones of the Building Department. He said they were
planning for 200 seats, mainly dining area, with a small lounge area, and
that a space of approximately 5300 SF was being considered. They are
planning for a large open space with brick walls and exposed beams. They
have parking for 39 cars, and four additional spaces can be used after
5:00 P.M. , totalling 43 spaces. A garage will have to be torn down and
property landscaped to provide an adequate parking lot. He said this was
a unique development of commercial use in a residential area, and that it
should be treated uniquely.. If necessary, he noted, a parking attendant
would be hired to assure that the parking lot is used. He did not think
the character of the neighborhood would be adversely affected, and said
• s
P & D Minutes 27 February 1978 Page 4
the appellants would be happy to comply with ILPC requirements. A
representative of the building's owner said that the Clock Factory is
still losing money and that the appellants did not Milan to make signi-
ficant changes in the building.
Mr. Bordoni asked where the other tenants would park. The attorney
replied that the restaurant would do most of its business between 6:00
and 10:00 P.M., when the other tenants have finished their day. . If the
restaurateur$-, wish to serve lunch, they do not expect to serve as large
a crowd as their ming crowd. Mr. Bordoni said that the garage to
be torn down is now a buffer for the homes on Short Street against noise.
The attorney said .they could put up either shrubs or a fence;.to act as
a buffer. Mr. Bordoni noted that the schematic shows 80 seats in the
bar. He also noted that the playground is used by children, and that in-
creased traffic during the daytime would be dangerous to them. Dey Street
is a feeder street into Route 13, and in the summer the park is used
until dark by children. He said there is currently a traffic problem
with a restaurant on Lincoln Street which generates early morning traffic.
The Waterfront bar on Willow Street is a nightly police call on account of
its parking arrangement. The attorney objected that the Waterfront is a
bar and that his clients were planning a restaurant. One of the appellants
said that dinner would be served from 5:00 to 10:00 P.M. , or possibly
11:00, and might go until 1:00 on weekends.
Stu Cobb, a neighbor at 115 Franklin Street said that he had always had a
good relationship with the building's owner, but that he had to wake up at
5 A.M. and therefore needed to get to sleep by 10:00. He said residents
on his block were mostly older people and families with small children,
most of whom were asleep by 10:00. He asked whether the'.recfuired parking
Provided parking for the restaurant's help as well. Mr. Van Cort said
that the zoning ordinance figures included parking for help. Mr. Cobb
said that when the library had its annual sale at the building, there is
a severe parking problem, and that a problem exists even when the parking
facilities are not taxed that heavily. Parking is permitted on both sides
of his street, but it is difficult for two cars to pass, and it is sometimes
difficult for him to get out of his driveway. The building owner's repre-
sentative noted that there is no intention of operating a noisy ba; and
stressed the appellant"s desire to operate a quality family restaurant.
Ms. Marie McRae, a neighbor at 210 Dey Street, said she was concerned about
traffic and noise. She said she had moved to Dey Street from Willow Street
because noise at the Waterfront was disturbingly loud from 10:00 to 2:00.
She said plans for the bar seem excessively large, and that 1mrking did not
seem ade resented a
quate. She p petition from the neighbors.- : _
(SEE OFFICIAL MINUTE BOOK) . Mr. Paul Petrillose, a
former owner of the Calendar Clock FactOxy, said that parking is a problem
for the neighbors now, and that he could not envision finding sufficient
parking on the property. He asked whether the appellants planned to have
bands or a juke box, but was told that they had no such plans. He asked
about fire protection and was told that internal fire exists had been
P & D Minutes 27 February 1978 Page 5
planned by the architect. Mr. Petrillose said he was still opposed to
the restaurant's opening:.
The attorney for the appellants asked the Board to consider the hardship
imposed on the building owners if the restaurant is not permitted to open.
He said that at one time the owners considered putting apartments into
the building, but that was not feasible financially. The appellants noted
that the proposed restaurant would be a branch of Dasher Cox's in Homer,
which his father now owns and operates. He said the only people leaving
late would be employees. Mr. Bordoni noted that the restaurant had a
potential capacity for 250 persons, and that the neighborhood could not
accommadat.e-the .:accotz¢panyirig'-trat ic, ..0is'e`arid safety,'>.problems. He MOVED
that the Board recommend denial,Mr. Hildreth seconded.
One of the appellants said that their break-even point for numbers of
customers would be 50-100 dinners on weekdays and 200 dinners on .Fr.idays
and Saturdays, over a period of five hours. They said they would be
willing to put a lot of money into the restaurant and that they were
willing to hire a parking lot attendant, install a buffer, etc. to make
the restaurant acceptable to the neighborhood. Ms. Benson noted that
this was a difficult case, especially since it is a landmark building in
question. The representative of the building owner said that the property
was purchased to be used for storage, but that this was not a financial suc-
cess. This year the owner has painted the building and added two tenants.
The tax assessment went up 200% and insurance went up 30%. He said the
building's deficits are increasing.
Mr. Petrillose asked if there would be a dress code for the restaurant.
The appellants replied that the atmosphere of the restaurant would ex-
clude sloppy dress. Mr. Petrillose expressed concern that the restaur-
ant would draw a student crowd, mainly interested in drinking. In the
vote which followed the motion to recommend denial was CARRIED unanimously.
d. Appeal 1193.. Request for use variance to permit use of a portion
of the premises at 102 Adams, in an R-2b zone for retail sales
of pet foods. Premises currently house several previously approved
commercial activities.
Staff reported they had no information on the size of the operation, but
guessed it was not a high volume business, and would be innocuous. Mr.
Van Cort suggested that the ILPC be consulted concerning signage, and also
expressed concern that there be no loose storage of food. Staff recommended
approval.
A representative of the building owner said the store was 1800 SF, of
which 1400 SF is storage, and that all pet foods were packaged. He
said the business was low volume, and that one parking space had been
alotted for the business, which is located on the north side of the
building. Mr. Bordoni asked why there was no appeal made before the
business opened. He was told that the building owners had hoped to
bring several appeals up at one meeting. Mr. Hildreth asked what size
trucks were being used and was told that the owners used only one truck.
P & D Minutes 27 February 19781- Page 6
He MOVED that the Board recommend approval. Ms. Crowly seconded. CARRIED
unanimously.
e. Sign::.Ordinance Appeal 3-1-78: Request to permit reproduction of
original building 'sign for premises at 102 Adams, in an R-2b zone
Building is a designated City Landmark, currently housing several
legal nonconforming businesses, several of which have individual signs.
Staff noted that the appellant wishes to restore the original Calendar
Clock Factory sign. The sign ordinance permits :5-SF of signage, and the
proposed sign would be 160 SF. This must be cleared with ILPC. The staff
recommended in favor of granting the appeal_
Ms. Crowley MOVED to recommend approval. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED
unanimously.
f. Appeal 1194: Request for area variances to permit conversion of
residence at 208 Stewart, in an R-3a zone, from student use to two-
family owner-occuped dwelling. Property is deficient in front yard
setback and area, and would become deficient in rear yard setback
and have excessive building coverage.
Staff reported that the owner wishes to connect the house to the garage
by constructing a deck, and enlarging and enclosing the back porch The
coverage would be nonconforming, were this done. This is an unusual
case of conversion of s student house to a two-family house. There is
sufficient off-street parking. The staff recommended approval.
The owner of the property said his family would occupy the ground floor
and that they would rent out the upper floor as one apartment.
Mr. Bordoni `MOVED that the Board recommend approval. Ms. Crowley seconded.
CARRIED unanimously.
g. Appeal 1195: Request for use and area variances to permit construc-
tion of fMeten units of housing on premises at 17 through 21 Hudson
Place, in an R-2a district. Proposed use would result in deficiencies
in setbacks and other requirements, and -would be for a use not per-
mitted in the zone. Premises area adjacent to premises currently
in conforming use, and to premises in an R-3b zone (in which multiple
dwellings are permitted) currently in multifamily use and in legal
nonconforming commercial use.
Staff noted that the propa9ed fifteen .-units would be built over three lots,
and that the site would be large enough under R-3 requirements; adequate
parking might be provided. However, staff had not seen site plans for the
building. Staff recommended denial on the basis ofits being a non-permitted
use, promoting excessive density in an R-2 zone, and potential impact of
fifteen cars on adjacent and nearby R-2 uses, as well as endangering a
previous greenspace reservation.
P & D Minutes 27 February 1978 Page 7
The appellant said he had purchased Hudson Heights from his father in
September, and that he had then purchased the three lots in question.
He said there is nothing on the deed affecting the use of the land,
or declaring that this is a green area for Hudson Heights property.
He said that the fuel. company next to the property makes the lotsunde-
sirable for building single family homes. Alan Boardman, a neighbor
at 15 Hudson Place, adjacent to the property in question, said that
in 1965, a zoning variance was requested. The BZA suggested at that
time that the owner provide green space for the use of his tenants.
He said that he had purchased a lot from the appellant's father and
that the area next to his house was graded for tennis courts but never
completed. He feared an additional multiple housing unit might devalue
his property and was concerned about fire safety and the possibility of
a fuel spill from the fuel company. He suggested that there be restric-
tions placed on the fuel company, and said that sometimes propane fumes
were a problem. Mr. Ari Van Tienhoven, a neighbor at 9 Hudson Place, said
that there had been an agreement to keep the proposed lots as green space,
that there was not enough frontage, and that he too was concerned that
.building of the proposed nature would devalue neighborhood property. Joyce
Inman of 106 Grandview Place said she was concerned the proposed building
would be very close to her backyard. She said the green area has been
a play area for neighborhood children, and were it developed, there would
be no other play space. She said there is a noise problem now arising
from existing apartments, and not from the coal company.
The appellant remarked that children seem to prefer to play in his parking
lots rather than on the green space. He further stated that in 1967 the
apartment complex as well as the three lots belonged to George Glover. He
said that problem noise comes from Ithaca College dormitories as well,
and that he can sometimes hear music from Cornell football games because
of the conformation of the land. He said that 40% of his tenants are
students, and 60% working people. Morse Chain and NCR have factories close
to his property, and he would try to provide homes for workers and their
families. He added that the building would provide additional tax revenues
for the city.
Mr. Bordoni MOVED to recommend denial on the basis that such construction
would increase density, increase traffic volume, and that the green space
was necessary for drainage. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
9..a. Subdivision request - UFAIR Realty Corp.
The UFAIR Realty Corp. is requesting permission to subdivide the fairground
site in the Southwest. Plans shown by the Corp. provide for separate par-
cels. The purchasers would have flexibility in terms of drainage so that
each parcel can be drained individually. The Fairgrounds Company, in 1966,
provided for surcharging the portions of the land to be built upon with five
feet of gravel and four feet of overburden. The land reached equilibrium
in 1971. It was rechecked in 1977 and UFAIR reported no significant change
in level. The area has settled two feet.. They would like to provide
for building construction sites on each of five parcels. There is a problem
for the property located on Clinton Street in that the alinement of Clinton
and Meadow creates an acute angle. At the request of Planning and
P & D Minutes 27 February 1978 Page 8
Development, UFAIR has made provision for the following street improve-
ments: UFAIR's plan provides for a better turning angle on Clinton
Street. UFAIR will provide a 13-foot right-of-way on Meadow Street to
allow the City to do widening in the future. Mr. Van Cort said that both
the Planning and Development Department and the Engineering Department
had felt that this was important. He said that realinement of Clinton
Street would be the City's responsibility as well, and that this would be
a public road. The UFAIR people said there would be some exchange of
property for realinement of Clinton Street. Mr. Van Cort noted that in
granting subdivision rights, the Board usually requires. beforehand know-
ledge of proposed building locations. He recommended that the Board
grant initial approval, and then go to final conditional approval after
the requisite public hearing. Final approval would be conditional upon
approval by the Planning and Developiitent Board of site plans showing
building location, landscaping, etc. Representatives of UFAIR said that
the parcels would probably be sold separately, and that each case would
have to be considered individually. They feel that the pre-loaded sites
are the only rational places for buildings, and noted that the land between
the surcharged areas and Meadow Street now holds a foot of gravel, and
is intended to be used to provide parXing space. Mr. Van Cort suggested
that permeable paving be considered to prevent runoff and erosion problems
for surrounding areas. A UFAIR representative said he would recommend an
Additional 12" of gravel and 3 of flexible pavement in addition to
what is already there. Another representative mentioned that they would
like to drain the land into relief channel rather than having excess
water flow into the city's storm drainage system. Ms. Benson asked
whether the city had any constraints which would confine buildings
to the preloaded sites, Mr. Van Cort replied that building on other
than the preload would be much more expensive to construct than those
on the preload.
A UFAIR representative explained that flexible pavement consists of two
levels of asphalt pavement built on .crushed stone. He stated that this
was not as rigid as concrete. He further noted that the proposed turning
movement on Clinton Street is sufficient to accommodate a 50' semi
trailer, They said that at this time it is impossible to provide a master
plan for the sites other than to show drainage plans. They would like
to allow the`.purchasers;to°provide .details;'for 'Ifidivz.dual parcels. Mr.
Van Cort replied that the purchaser must then understand that use of the
land must be approved as a subdivision by the Planning and Development
Board. UFAIR said they would like not to place any controls on traffic
across the property. Mr. Van Cort replied that the city would like to
have only one curb cut for the entire parcel, and would like UFAIR to
develop an internal circulation plan. UFAIR stated its intention to
Apply for permit from the Department of Transportation to allow the
curb cuts. Ms. Benson said she felt this would not make sense in terms
of further complicating and stressing existing traffic patterns. UFAIR
explained that they had allowed the additional 13 feet on Meadow Street
to make the curb cuts feasible. Mr. Van Cort emphasized that the
number of curb cuts to be allowed wi.11'be limited. He said he did not
know when the alinement of Clinton Street would be changed. He did say,
however, that the city will make commitments to have this work done at
some time, Clinton Street ,improvement has been a capital project for
P & D Minutes 27 _Marh 1978 Page 9
several years. He noted that the west end of Clinton Street has been
improved, near Cherry Street, and that similar treatment was proposed for
the eastern portion, but has always been deferred because the street is
in relatively good condition. It would have to be put into the capital
budget process; Mr. Van Cort said that the Department would suggest
it as a capital project this year, but that he did not know if it would
be chosen to be acted upon. UFAIR representatives felt that delays at
this point would cut into construction stages. They felt they should
begin construction this spring and work through the summer. They now
have two potential clients, both of whom will be contributing to the city
tax base. One of these clients is a transplant from suburbia back to
cities. They said they would like to have preliminary approval, and felt
that this would not compromise the city's interests. Mr. Van Cort said
this would be acceptable to him. UFAIR representatives said`.that they
were hoping there would be a mutual crossover for each buyer. Mr. Van
Cort replied that circulation should be able to be worked out on the pro-
perty and not dumped out onto Meadow Street. The property must be sold
with the stipulation that circulation is to be internal.
Mr. Bordoni said he wanted to know more about parking and internal circu-
lation. He felt the City Engineer should review the drainage plans, and
suggested the Board produce a list of terms it would like to have satis-
fied. Ms. Benson explained that it is possible to do this and to give
preliminary approval as well. UFAIR said it would prefer to have parking
on each parcel arranged by the owner of the parcel. Mr. Van Cort said
he was trying to administratively fast=track the project. He said the
city would not require a master plan, but would require that layout and
circulation be planned eventually to the ciy'`.s satisfaction... A UFAIR
representative said they were seeking occupants who could stand on their
own without requiring national chain operations for neighbors. Mr. Van
Cort suggested that when they sell the land, they sell it with a right-
of-way where the internal circulation pattern is to be located. Ms. Benson
said she felt people tend to avoid shopping in places which are difficult
to get in and out of, and suggested this as the rationale for developing
the internal circulation pattern,
Mr. Bordoni MOVED that the Planning and Development Board grant preliminary
approval, conditional upon UFAIR's providing the Board with satisfactory
information concerning, but not limited to, internal circulation, approaches
to the property in general, a system for retaining right-of-ways on the
property to serve all occupants of the property, and a drainage plan. Ms.
Crowley seconded.
UFAIR representatives said they were not fully aware of the city's interest
in limited access, and said that they would like to meet with the planning
staff to sort this out. Concerning drainage, they said that some developers
might want to make alterations in the drainage plans, but they understood
that these changes would have to be approved by the City Engineer. Motion
CARRIED unanimously.
Mr. Van Cort said the department would be advertising for a public hearing
at the next meeting. He said he would like to have the conditions set forth
by the Board written into deed for the property, saying that owners must
• 0
P & D Minutes 27 Mai-eh 1978 Page 10
seek approval from the appropriate city agency. UFAIR representatives
said they might have buyers with them at the public hearing. Mr. Van
Cort said he would like to see their plans in advance, if possible, and
that he would discuss these matters with the City Attorney.
6. Communications: None.
7. Committee reports: None.
8. Old business:
a. Graphics System. Mr. Van Cort reported on the progress of the graphics
system. Ms. Benson asked whether the federal government will allow the
city to install the proposed signs on roads within their purview. Mr.
Van Cort said they would have to be consulted. Ms. Benson asked whether
the proposed signs would be identifiable at high speeds. Mr. Van Cort
said the designers were taking this into account; they have met with.
Mr. Egner and are also working on peripheral streets signage.
b. Downtown facade renovations. Mr. Van Cort reported that the depart-
ment is now working on facade improvements for Aurora Street.
9.b. Work Program. Mr. Van Cort distributed copies of the draft work pro-
gram to the Board members, and also distributed the Board's Policy and
Project Report. He said he hoped to go over these in detail at the next
meeting. Mr. Bordoni suggested that coping with the Fall Creek flooding
problem be added to the work program. Mr. Van Cort added demand-initiated
projects as well.
Mr Bordoni noted that persons are notified who own property within 200
feet of properties requesting variances, and asked whether Councilpersons
could be notified of variance appeals in their wards. Mr. Van Cort
explained that notification requirement is part of an ordinance, and
that notification of Councilmen would require a change in the ordinance,
going through the C & O Committee of Council. He said this could be ini-
tiated by the Planning Board. Mr. Bordoni MOVED the following:
RESOLVED that Council be requested to look into the possibility
of having Council members notified of requests for area
and use variances to properties in their. wards.
Ms. Crowley seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
Ms, Benson requested that the staff work on some innovative uses for
buildings such as the Calendar Clock factory.
At 10:55 Ms. Crowley moved to adjourn., Meeting adjourned.