Loading...
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.