HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1978-08-29 MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
August 29, 1978, Common Council Chambers, 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Dave Fuller, Rexford Hildreth, Mary Crowley, Ray Bordoni ,
Stuart Stein .
ALSO: Michael Bottge, Tom Hoard, Connie Miller, Manley Thaler,
John Taylor, Robert Clune, John 'and Sharon Petrillose, Jr. ,
Susan Driscoll-, Larry- Driscoll , Andrew and Virginia Rudd,
Steven Mensch, Mark Haag, Anna and Frank A. Pearson, Tom
Hanna, Reeve Parker, Carol Kaske, Bickley Townsend, George
Sheldon, Walter Wiggins, John Marcham, Mike Pichel , William
Lower
1 . The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Stuart W. Stein, at
7:40 P.M.
2. Rexford Hildreth MOVED to approve the Minutes of the July 25, 1978,
meeting. Ms. Crowley SECONDED. Minutes approved.
3. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None
4. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: None
5. ZONING CASES:
APPEAL 1210: Appeal of the S & M Company for an area
variance under Section 30.25, Column 4 (required off-
street parking) , to permit construction of a two-story
office building at 312-314 North Aurora Street and
315 North Tioga Street in a B-1 (business) use dis-
trict. The proposed property would be deficient in
required off-street parking.
This appeal was before the Board 2 months ago. Denial was recommended.
Appellant chose not to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Revisions
were made on the proposal to comply with codes. The rev .sed: proposal.:was
presented to the Board for their review. Mr. Thaler showed pictures to
the members, showing an example of what the outside of the proposed build-
ing would look like. Mr. John Taylor of the Unitarian Universalist Church
and Chairman of the Commons Advisory Board, stated that he approved of
the proposed building and felt that it would be an asset to the neighbor-
hood. Mr. Clune felt that the Planning Board denied the first proposal
because of the lack of parking and there is still a lack of parking and
the Planning Staff recommendation is to approve. He did not understand
this type of reasoning. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE based on -the
fact that while Zoning Ordinance should permit only customer/client
parking off-site to count against requirement, and should not allow City
garage space as credit for employee parking, it does not so specify yet.
P & D MINUTES August 29, 1978 Page 2.
Mr. Fuller MOVED to approve the variance. Mr. Hildreth SECONDED..
Unanimously CARRIED.
APPEAL 1213: Appeal of David and Louise Minks
for an area variance under Section 30.25, Columns
4, 7, 11 and 12 (off-street parking requirements,
minimum requirements for width at .street line, and
minimum required front and side yards) to permit
conversion of a single-family house house at 207 West
Court Street to a two-family house, in an R-3a
(residential) use district. The property has no
off-street parking, and is deficient in the re-
quired frontage, front yard and side yard.
Appellants did not appear at the BZA Meeting in August The Planning and
Development Board recommended approval of the variance at their last
meeting. Mr. Hoard stated that rather than have the variance get lost in
a lot of red tape to start the process all over again because it was not
acted on at the BZA, he suggested that we just reconfirm the approval of
the variance. Mr. Hildreth MOVED to approve the variance. Ms. Crowley
SECONDED. Unanimously CARRIED.
APPEAL 1217: Use variance to permit property at
128 Dryden Road, in a B-2 Zone, to continue as a
used car lot.
Mr. Petrillose explained that he needed a variance to use his property in
Collegetown as a used car lot. The property 'is zoned B-2 now, but he
would like B-4 zoning re-established to permit commercial use. Staff
recommendation is to DENY the variance based on the fact that planning
efforts are directed towards improving and upgrading the Collegetown area,
and certainly other permitted uses would be more viable and more desirable.
Mr. Petrillose stated that if the variance were granted, he would make
an effort to improve the appearance of the lot aesthetically. Mr. Pichel
and Mr Mensch, who live near the .property, voiced a concern of what
might be used as advertising for the used cars in terms of banners and
lights which they felt would be detrimental to the area. Mr. Petrillose
said that he had not intended to use lights or banners to advertise. He
did intend to paint the building which is on the site, add planters, and
pave the space to be used.
Mr. Hildreth MOVED that the Board recommend approval of the variance in
view of the fact that the business would be owner-occupied which has
proven to be a means of controlling the appearance of real estate. Ms.
Crowley SECONDED. Mr. Stein. stated that the Board should state the
specific aesthetic improvements which were to be conditions of the vari-
ance.
P & D MINUTES August 29, 1978 Page 3.
APPEAL 1218: Area variances to off-street
parking and lot size requirements to permit
continued use of property at 125-7 N. Quarry
Street, in an R-3a Zone, as a six -unit apart-
ment house.
Mr. Hoard gave the background of the building, stating that it had no
.parking spaces, it was non-conforming in its ,present condition; and addi-
tions were made to the building without obtaining a zoning variance.
Connie Miller, lawyer, appeared on behalf of the appellant. She stated
that although the building was deficient in area requirements, the cond-
tion existed before the zoning ordinance-was passed. It was the intent
of the appellant not to increase the occupancy of the building. Mr.
Parker, of 123 North Quarry, stated that there were never enough parking
spaces available for the number of occupants in the area. He further
explained that the building was not taken care of, garbage was left. in
disarray, and snow was not removed from the sidewalks.
Mr. Hanna,of 210 Eddy Street, stated that Mr. Fane had sent a letter to
the neighbors seeking support for his variance on the property, and yet,
when Mr. Hanna called to ask Mr. Fane's help in cleaning up the garbage
which was left askew on the property, he was told by Mr. Fane to "mind
his own business. "
Carol Kaske, of 121 Quarry, voiced her concern over the noise in and about
the building.
Bickley Townsend, formerly of the Planning and Development Department,
explained that in a zoning study which was done not longago, occupancy
of the building was 25. The single greatest complaint received as a
result of the study. related to housing conditions. She further stated
that Collegetown is not only a place where students reside, but there
is also a very stable, permanent owner-occupied community who is look-
ing for an environment in which to live and raise their children.
Stronger code enforcement would help,
Mr. Fuller questioned the extent to which the owner had altered the
building without coming to. the Planning Board for variance. Mr. Hoard
explained that a fire wall was pierced within the building, rooms were
added on the top floor, and a certificate permitting a multiple dwelling
to exist was never applied for. Ms. Miller explained that Mr. Fane was
willing to bring the building up to code, Mr. Parker said that the base-
ment apartments could not meet the building code without lifting the
building because of code requirements. He also mentioned that the back
porch was being enclosed, without a building permit. Mr. Fuller stated
that he is in favor of rejecting the variance. He went on to say that
the neighbors seem to feel quite strongly that :the variance should not
be granted, that planning is directed toward maintaining density_ and
Levels of density and the owner has gone beyond density levels, and gone
.beyond the building code.
Staff recommendation is to DENY the variance based on past disregard
for building code and strong protest by the surrounding neighborhood,
P & D MINUTES August 29, 1978 Page 4.
as well as the unavailability of parking and the creation of a density
beyond reasonable levels. Mr. Fuller MOVED to recommend denial of the
variance. Ms. Crowley SECONDED. Unanimously carried.
APPEAL 1219: Area variance to permit resi-
dence at 419 Hector Street, in an R-2a zone,
to be enlarged into a required side yard.
Staff recommendation was to APPROVE. As the appellant explained that
the purpose of the expansion was for the benefit of the family and not
for use as a rental , Ms. Crowley MOVED to recommend 'approval of the
variance. Mr. Hildreth SECONDED. Unanimously CARRIED.
APPEAL 1220: Area variances to permit additon
of a deck to residence at 314 Columbia Street,
in R-lb zone.
Staff recommendation was to APPROVE. As the proposed deck will replace
the existing porch, there is no reason not to grant the variance as it
will not project further into the side yard. Mr. Fuller MOVED to
recommend approval of the variance. Ms. Crowley SECONDED. Unanimously
CARRIED.
APPEAL 1221 : Interpretation and/or area vari-
ances to permit conversion of property at
900 Stewart Avenue, in an R-U zone, to single-
family residence. Questions relate to which
side of the building are side and rear, and to
where parking can be located.
Because Of the position of the house on the property, there is a question
as to which is the front yard. The Planning Board should decide which
yard is front yard in order to determine if a 'variance is needed. It
was decided that the front yard faces the front door, and that a
variance is therefore needed to create space for off-street parking in
the side yard, which faces the gorge. Mr. Stein informed the appellant
that the curb cut would have to be approved by the Board of Public Works.
Staff recommendation is to APPROVE. Mr. Hi`ldreth MOVED to recommend
approval . Mr. Fuller SECONDED, Unanimously CARRIED.
APPEAL 1222: Use and area variance to
permit use of part of premises at 102 First
Street, in an R-3b zone, as artist's studio.
Staff recommendation is to APPROVE. Mr. Sheldonstatedthat he wishes
to use the attic as an artist's studio with no intention of turning it
into an apartment. Mr. Sheldon further stated that the house would not
be altered in any other way. Mr. Fuller MOVED to recommend approval .
Ms. Crowley SECONDED. Unanimously CARRIED.
P & D MINUTES August 29, 1973 Page 5.
APPEAL 1223: Area variances to permit
continuation of use of premises at
1 Willets Place, in an R-3a zone, as '
a multiple dwelling. Property is defic-
ient in size, street frontage and rear
yard, and has excessive coverage by
buildings (see attached memo) .
Staff recommendation is to APPROVE. Mr. Wiggins, attorney who represents
Ithaca College and Dr. Whalen, stated that his clients were strongly
against the variance. He further stated that there were not enough park-
ing spaces for all the occupants at this time and,in the winter, cars
are parked so as to block snow plows. Mr. Marcham, who lives across
the street from #1 Willets Place, stressed the fact that pulling into
his own driveway is quite a challenge when parking is allowed on both
sides of the street. Mr. Haag informed the Board that by;,grantfn'g the
variance, the density would be lower because the number of bedrooms
would be decreased as a result of the reorganization of the interior.
Mr. Stein felt that there was a problem. existing on Willets Place that
should be looked into by the Planning and Development Department. Mr.
Bordoni MOVED to recommend approval .- Mr. 'Fuller SECONDED contingent upon
appellant meeting with the Planning Director so that the problem can
be settled. Mr. Bordoni agreed. Unanimously CARRIED.
Mr. Fuller MOVED to have the Planning Staff look into the parking
problem at #1 Willets Place. Ms. Crowley SECONDED. Unanimously
CARRIED.
APPEAL 1224: Area variance to permit
conversion of garage at 105 Homestead
Road, in an R-1a zone, into a studio
apartment. Property is deficient in lot
size.
The appellant stated that the proposed conversion was for use by members
of their family and is not intended as a rental . Ms. Pearson presented
2 letters to. the Planning and Development Board from the neighbors who
were in favor of the conversion. Mr. Fuller asked if there were going
to be any outside changes. Ms. Pearson said no. . Staff recommendation
is to APPROVE.
Ms. Crowley MOVED to recommend approval.. Mr. Bordoni. SECONDED.
Unanimously CARRIED.
APPEAL 1225: 'Area variance to permit
property at 222-6 Eddy Street, in an
R-3b zone, to be restored to use
as multiple dwelling, with fewer
units than before. Premises are
deficient in side yards and slightly
exceed maximum lot coverage.
.r
P & D MINUTES August 29, 1978 Page 6.
Mr. Pichel , attorney for appellants, stated that his clients would like
to restore, without change, the structures which were fire-damaged
earlier in the year. Mr. Hoard was under'.the impression that changes
were made and that a variance was needed. Mr. Stein suggested that Mr.
Hoard and Mr. Pichel sort out the discrepancies and return to the Board
with the results of the discussion. Upon returning, Mr. Hoard informed
the Board that a variance was needed because there was an add-ition of
one more bedroom. Mr. Wiggins, attorney for Mr. Lower (adjacent
property owner) , stated that his client would be in favor of the res-
toration of the property provided that the occupancy was not in-
creased. Mr. Hoard informed the Board that the occupancy of the build-
ing before the fire was 14. Mr. Wiggins further stated that his
client felt the parking problem was a matter to consider. Mr. Bordoni
MOVED to recommend approval of the variance contingent upon the
occupancy remaining at 14. Mr. H'ildreth SECONDED. A vote was called:
Aye: Crowley, Hildreth, Bordoni
Nay: Fuller, Stein
6. COMMUNICATIONS: None
7. COMMITTEE REPORTS: None
8. a. UFAIR Subdivision Status.:
Mr. Stein suggested that the item be postponed until the next Planning
and Development Board meeting as there was no one present to inform the
Board of its status. He further stated that Mr. Van Cort is to make a
judgment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project,
but a waiting period of 30 days must be allowed after a DEIS has been
formulated. On September 7, 1978 that waiting period will expire.
During the interim the DEIS will be reviewed by staff and any further
considerations should be directed to the Department.
b. MARION Subdivision Status:
Mr. Marion was informed that the request for final approval is not able to
be considered by the Board as the Environmental Review must be done. He
expressed his concern for the time it has taken to process the proper
paperwork for subdivision approval . Mr.. Bottge explained that an Environ-
mental Review is being prepared by the staff but due to vacations it
has taken longer than expected. Mr. Stein explained that there wasn't
anything legally that the Planning Board could do at this meeting. Mr.
Bordoni suggested that this item be referred to the General Plan and
Capital Improvements Committee for a speedy decision to move the project
along to completion.
7
P & D MINUTES August 29, 1978 Page 7
9. NEW BUSINESS:
a. See 8 a.
b. Hillview Park:
No action was taken at this time. Mr. Bottge stated that information
relating to Hillview Park was available for the Board's perusal in the
Department office.
c. Department Budget for 1979:
Mr. Stein stated that the executive Committee met and revised the proposed
budget so that the increase was only $5,000, an increase of 3.8%, above
the current year. Mr. Hildreth MOVED to approve the 1979 budget. Ms.
Crowley SECONDED. Unanimously CARRIED.
10. MISCELLANEOUS:
a. Mr. Stein introduced Michael Bottge9 a new member of the Planning
and Development Department. He stated that Kathe Evans- had also been
hired as a housing specialist for the Ithaca Urban Renewal/Community
Development Agency.
b. Mr. Fuller expressed his concern for the Ithaca Gun Co. , which
has had financial difficulties and will probably be leaving the Ithaca
area. He suggested that maybe the city- could come forward with alternatives
to possibly keep the business located here, and MOVED to have the
Department look into alternatives which the city could present to Ithaca
Gun as an assistance in order to help convince them to stay in Ithaca.
Mr. Hildreth SECONDED. Unanimously CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.