HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1978-10-31 MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
OCTOBER .0V 1978
PRESENT: Stuart Stein, Ray Bordoni , Dave Fuller, Clarence Cleveland
Mary Crowley
ALSO: H. Matthys Van Cort, Jon Meigs, Peter Levatich, Bill Avramis
Dirk Galbraith, Join Bentkowski , Tom Hoard., Joe Longo,
John Gibson, Robert !lines, Robert Petrillose Sr. , Robert
Petrillose, Jr. , Karl Hitzelberger, Sophie Hitzelberger,
Beulah (Miller, Robert Miller, Dave Norman, Members of the
Press
The meeting Ws called to order by Chairman Stein at 7:40 PM. He
explained that as part of the legal process of approving subdivisions
for development, a public hearing was necessary before the Board could
act. Two special orders of business on the agenda were public hearings
on two subdivision proposals. He further explained that no action
would be taken during the public hearing as the purpose of the hearing
was to hear comments.
Mr. Bordoni MOVED to open the QFAIR public hearing. Mr. Cleveland
SECONDED.
Chairman Stein asked for comments from the audience on the UFA.IR Sub-
division.
As there waslno comment from the public, the UFAIR public hearing was
closed.
Chairman Stein asked for comments from the audience on the HILLVIEW/GARDNER
Subdivision. !
As there was h° comment from the public, the HILLVTEW/GARDNER public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Fuller MOVED to close the public hearings. Mr. Bordoni SECONDED.
CARRIED unanimously.
Chairman Stein suggested that, with Board approval , action should be
taken on Item #8b of the Agenda dealing with the final approval of
the subdivision plans. Chairman Stein asked if any further information
was given to the Planning and Development Department relating to the
subdivisions.
Mr. ,Meigs stated that a site plan had been received for the Garage de
France parcel (Parcel 1 of UFAIQ and reviewed by both the Planning
Department anld the City Engineer. Some minor changes were suggested
for the site plan. Mr. Meigs informed the members that a list of
conditions wags presented to Cornell stating that final approval of the
UrAIR subdivision would be given contingent upon the conditions being
met. Mr. Vanl Cort said that it was appropriate that the conditions
should ap�5ly to this parcel also.
2.
Mr.. Ful;le� MOVED to approve the subdivision plan contingent upon the
conditions set by the staff being met. Mr. Cleveland SECONDED.
Unanimously CARRIED.
Mr. Meigsl. informed the Board that plans had been received for the
HILLVIEW/GARDNER subdivision. An Environmental Assessment has been
prepared determining that no significant effects on the environment
will result. The remaining property in the subdivision will come up for
review asAppeal 1233 so that the Board can review the zoning require-
ments.
Chairman Stein explained that if the subdivision is approved, the Planning
Board wills recommend approval of the related appeal . However, the Board
cannot gie final approval to a subdivision which creates an illegality.
Therefore the subdivision cannot be implemented until the BZA grants
approval to Appeal 1233.
Mr. Bordon!,i MOVED to approve the HILLVIEW/GARDNER subdivision, conditional
on BZA applroval of the zoning appeal . Mr. Fuller SECONDED. Unanimously,
CARRIED.
APPEAL NO. 11230: Appeal of Bill and Maria Avramis for an area variance under Sectio;
30.25, Columns 6, t0, 12 , 13 and 14 (minimum requiired off-street parking, minicr:urr
required lo�l size, maximum permitted lot coverage, minimum required side yards , and
minimum required rear yard) and Section 30.37 , Subsection A. Paragraph 4, (off-street
parking localiion requirements) to construct a . two or three story building to
house a theater, a disco (night club) and stores at 406-410 College Avenue in a S--2
(business) use district. The appellants are also requesting an interpretation of
Section 30. 511 which permits reconstruction of non-conforming buildings in who Ie Or-
in part when damaged by fire. The project as proposed would be- on a lot that- does
not meet the! minimus lot size, would exceed the maximum, permitted lot coverage, and
would have no side or rear yards. The property a.ould have no off-street parking on
the premises
An interpretation is requested to determine whether reconstruction of
this property in excess of previous nonconformity is intended by the
zoning ordinance. If not, a variance should be asked for under Section
30.49c. The proposed development will continue or increase area
deficiencies' in lot size, coverage, side and rear setbacks, parking;
and loading. It is the opinion of the staff that the intent of the zoning
ordinance is not to permit any increase by reconstruction after a fire.
The proposed! uses are appropriate, but the increased intensity would
cause increased problems. Mr. Van Cort stated that double parking on
College Ave.', was a problem and a service area in the back of the building
should be required.
There was considerable discussion over service access. Appellant stated
he has a right-of-way over property adjacent to the south; however, it
appears that expansion on that property has eliminated such access , and
Cornell UnivlPrsity, owner of property abutting on the west, has not
granted right-of-way access over its property.
i
3.
It is staffs recommendation to DENY the variance due to increased intensity
and nonconformity, which would have too severe an impact on the area, which
currently has significant problems that resist city solution. Staff also
recommends khat the appellant submit plans with a lower-intensity proposal .
i
Mr. BordonP stated that the area in question needs improvement. Although
the parking problem does exist in the area ,the proposed use of the building
would dress up the Collegetown area.
Board Action: Mr. Bordoni MOVED to recommend approval of the variance as
long as .the requirement is met for adequate service access and area in
the back.
Mr. Fuller SECONDED. llnanimousl'y CARRIED.
APPEAL No. 11231 ° Appeal of Newton Williams for a use variance under Section 30.25,
Columns 2 and 3 (permitted primary and accessory uses) to permit use of the property
at 310 Dey_Sit_ree_t for a driveway and parking area for- a business , and for future ex_.
pansion ofti-!e business. The property is located in an R-2b (residential ) use
district, in, :hich business uses are not permitted.
The existing 'residence on the proposed parking site would 'nave to be
demolished. Mr. Longo, adjacent property owner, presented a petition from
the people io the neighborhood who are against the proposed plan. Mr.
Bordoni stated that he is familiar with the neighborhood and feels that the
intended plan would be a detriment to the neighborhood.
It is staff's recommendation to DENY the use variance because of a detrimental
effect to the neighborhood and a reduction to the existing housing stock.
Mr. Bordoni MOVED to deny the variance. Ms. Crowley SECONDED. Unanimously
CARPI ED.
APPEAL -[,Io. 12;2: Request of William Lower for an interpretation of Section 30.251
Column 3 (permitter accessory uses) and Section 30.3, Subsection B, Paragraph 2
(definition ofd accessory use) , to permit construction of a large (50' x 100' ) garage
to house pers^inal autornobil^s at 1;53 Plora.l !-�ven,:e. On July 31 , 1978., the Board
denied a use vox i ante for const ruct i o;', of a wa._eh3us; at this same address , which, is
located in an P,-3a (residential ) use distr:rt, in which warehouses are not a per-
mitted use.
When the appeal was before the board several months ago, Mr. Lower asked that
a warehouse 6e permitted on the property in question. The appeal was approved
by the Board but was denied by the BZA. Mr. Lower is now asking permission
to build a large garage as an accessory structure. Chairman Stein explained
that this isjthe same building being presented for approval as an accessory
building. Code defines accessory building as customarily incidental to the
primary use of the main building. The main building in this case is an
unoccupied an'd dilapidated residence. It is staff's recommendation to DENY
4.
the interpretation as accessory use as the garage would be primary and there-
fore inappropriate and detrimental to character of area if developed in a per-
mitted primary use. It is also undesirable in terms of long-range utility of
property for residential development, in accordance with planning objectives
as stated in the General Plan.
Mr. Bordoni OVED to deny the interpretation. Ms. Crowley SECONDED. Unani-
mously CARRIED.
APPEAL td0. 123;. Appeal of James E. Gardner for an interpretation of Section
(non-conforming uses) , or, if necessary, an area variance under Section 30.25,
Columns 2 and 11 , (permitted uses and minimum required front yard) to permit sub-
division of the property at. 514 South Aurora Street so that the western portion can
be sold to the City of Ithaca for a park %,rithout impairing the continued use of the
remainder of t' e nope;ty for a legal non-conforming use. The eastern portion of the
property contains -multiple dwellings , a non-conform,n9 use in the R-2a (res?dential ,
one and two-far. ily !-comes) use district in which t_he property is located, The
property also contains strUctures that are within the requi r'ed front yarri.
The portion of the property to be retained by Mr, Gardner needs an interpreta-
tl-on-of• the-o dinance to d.etemine if there is a- 'n-ed -'or a variance to hermit
. .the subdivisi n. The buildings in question are preexisting and nonconforming
in use and fr nt yard setback. No new zoning deficiencies will result. The
ftoposed park is a permitted use in the area. Staff recommendation is that
since no new Dr increased deficiencies will result, recommend that BZA inter-
pret ZO as not requiring variance. If the BZA feels there is' a variance needed,
then staff recommends APPROVAL. of the area and use variances. Mr. Fuller
MOVED to approve the variance if required by the BZA. Mr. Bordoni SECONDED.
Unanimously C5 RIED.
Hr'PEHL, ADpea l of John W. Gibson foi- an area variance under Section 30_25,
Column 12 !min= in required side Ji , to permit renovation of the structure• at
501-505 tdorth .c.tr(Fe.t For use ae a dental or; icc. :rle property is located in
a B-2 business U;e &ist riot and has one deficient side yard..
Correll is th . owner of the property. Mr. Gibson was represented by Mr. Hines
who presented plans of the proposed use and conversion of the building to a.
dentist's office. Mr. Gibson, as the contract buyer, needs approval of the
area variance Otherwise the contract is invalid. Mr. Meigs stated that
concerns abou the proposal are whether it would fit in with the neighborhood
character in ierms of design and use. Pictures were shown to the board of
the structureas it now stands with sketches of the proposed renovations.
Mr. Meigs staloning.
ed that the aroposed use of the building is innovative and is
permitted by Staff recommendation is to approve. Ms. Crowley MOVED
to recommend pproval of the variance. Mr. Cleveland SECONDED. Unanimously
CARRIED.
APPEAL NO. 1235:. Appeal of John Petrillose, Sr. for a use variance under Section
30.25, Column 2 (permitted uses) , to permit use of the property at 128 Dryden Road
for a used car 1 t. The property is located in a B-2 (business) use district , in
which a used car lot is not a permitted use. A similar appeal was denied by the
Board on Septemb r 11 , 1978.
5.
There is no difference in this appeal from when it was previously presented.
Although use of the area around the existing illegal use is similar, the present
use of the property is not permitted by zoning. Resumption of nonconforming
use is permitted only if it occurs within a year, and then only if it is the
same type of use, in this case as a service station; however, the year has
elapsed in this case.
The existing use is illegal ; variance has been denied by BZA.
Mr. Petrillose presented 2 letters in support of the existing use from First
National Bank and Mr. Fane.
Staff recommendation is to DENY the use and area variance as inappropriate,
detrimental to the character of the area and not in conformance with long-
range plans. It is also the feeling of the staff that such properties can
be put to permitted uses, as shown by previous cases. This existing illegal
use would be very detrimental to efforts to improve the Collegetown area.
Mr. Cleveland MOVED to approve the variance. Mr. Bordoni SECONDED. Unani-
mously CARRIED.
APPEAL NO. 1236; Appeal of Karl and Sophie Hitze1berger for an area variance under
Section: 30.25, Colurns 6, 10; 11 and 12 (minimum required lot size, maximum per-
mitted lot coverage., minimu:;i required front yard, and minir"um required side ya;-d) to
.permit construction of a oarUge in the front yard of the property at 126 i-ar Str.:F>t
in an R-2b (residential ) use district. The property is deficient in minimum lot size,
and if the garage is constructed, the property will also be deficient in required
front yard and side yard depth, and the maximum permitted lot coverage will be
exceedcd.
Staff recommendation is split between denying the area variance based on
property being deficient in size, one side yard, and coverage, and approv-
ing it if neighbors are in favor. The proposed structure would increase
coverage, and make front yard nonconforming as well as the side yard. Mr.
Bordoni said that he knew the applicant and was well aware of how well the
appellant takes care of his property: Letters were sent to the neighbors
notifying them of the proposed plans. Mr. Fuller MOVED to approve the
variance,* Ms. Crowley SECONDED. Unanimously CARRIED.
*provided a plan of the proposed structure is submitted for approval .
It v,as noted that a plan of proposed construction should be submitted in
all cases.
APPEAL NO. 1237: -Appeal of David L. McCreary et al , for a use variance under
Section 30.25, . Column 2 (permitted uses) to permit use of the single family house
at 137 Crescent Place as a residence for three unrelated persons. The property is
located in an R-1b (residential ) use district, in which a dwelling unit may be
occupied by no more than tyro unrelated persons.
6.
Staff recommendation is to approve the use variance for a period not to extend
past June 1 , 1979, based on the fact that the real estate agent for the owner
erred in allowing 3 unrela-to; individuals to sign a lease for a year due to
lack of knowledge of the code. Owner had the property for sale for some time,
and finally had to rent it out for the season. The lease ends June 1 , 1979
or sooner if the house is sold sooner.
Mr. Norman, a neighbor, spoke against the variance. Mr. Fuller stated that
lots of .renters have been in the neighborhood in the last few years, and he
would not like to see the neighborhood change from a nice family residential
area.
Mr. Fuller MOVED to deny the variance. Mr. Cleveland SECONDED.
A vote was called: Yes Bordoni , Fuller, Cleveland No Crowley, Stein
MOTION CARRIED.
COMMUNICATIONS The Building Commissioner sent a letter to the Planning
Director concerning zoning on Tioga Street. The general question of off-street
parking in a B--1 Zone should be reconsider^ed when it snakes sense to adjust
those requirements in light of available parking space downtown. The BZA
has requested that this matter be referred to the Planning and Development
Department with recommendations sent to the Charter and Ordinance Committee
of Common Council if it appears that changes in the zoning ordinance are
warranted. The potential development of the YMCA site is also affected
by the question and an early resolution is appropriate.
Mr. Bordoni MOVED to revi&oa the zoning in the area. lir. Fuller, seconded.
Unanimously carried.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
a. Cherry Street Industrial Park
Mr. Van Cort explained that application has been made to the Farmer' s
Home Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission for a grant
towards an industrial park in the Southwest area. If successful , everything
could be offered to prospects except building the building. Further details
will be presented at a later date.
b. Subdivisions:
1 . UFAIR
2. GARDNER/HILLVIEW
Action taken earlier in the meeting.
c. City Graphics System
Chairman Stein suggested that this be reviewed at the next Planning
and Development Board meeting as the zoning cases have taken up a lot of
7.
time and he felt that in order to present the City Graphics System and
have enough time to consider the proposal that the issue be taken up at
a later date.
NEW BUSINESS: None
MISCELLANEOUS:
Mr. Van Cort explained to the members that Michael Bottge was removed
from provisional status area has been appointed according to Civil Service
Regulations on a provisional basis.
• The meeting adjourned at 10030 p.m.