Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1979-03-27 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING March 27, 1979 PRESENT; Stuart Stein, Mary Crowley, Clarence Cleveland, Ray Bordoni; Barbara Davis, Sue Cummings ALSO: Leo Maliski, Russell & Anna Diller, Thys Van Cort, Howard Klinko, Peter Zaharis, Lawrence Kolar, Howard Kelly, Theodore Soo-Hob, William & Joan Tompkins, George Zavaski, William Lower, Ethel Nichols, Teresita Seminario, Jon Meigs, Tom Hoard, David and Seymour Turk, . Stanley Thaler, Nancy Meyer, James Yarnell, .Sarah Hector, Vicky Romanoff, Raymond DiPasquale, Daniel Marvin, Ben Boynton, Robert Williamson . 1. The meeting was called to order at 7.:40' p.m. 2. After noting a few changes in the minutes of the past two meetings the minutes were approved on MOTION of Barbara Davis and. Seconded by Mary Crowley. CHANGES: January 30 Minutes APPEAL 12 +9: Patricia Carlson.spoke a a.inst the proposed area variance. February. 27 Minutes The"minutes were undated: 3. Ms. Crowley stated her concern for the Planning and Development Board's strict 'adherance to the zoning ordinance which Mr. ,Stein suggested should be discussed under new business. 4. Chairperson's report: Mr. Stein said that. a Vice--Chairman of the Board needed to be designated in case of the .chairman's absence.' 5. ZONING CASES: APPEAL 12+0: Appeal of William Lower for a use variance under 'Section 30.25; Column 2:::to ermit const.rud.'t s n ,of :a, 50:.x lOQ:! storage-,l u ld n9 p at-_453 Floral:Avenue Mr. Meigs explained that the appeal was brought'-:to the board in November and referred to the staff, This Board approved the appeal provided an acceptable site plan could be worked out with Mr. Lower, Mr, Meigs presented a drawing demonstrating how existing trees plus additional plantings of trees and shrubs would break up the long line of the proposed structure, so that it would fit better into the residential neighborhood. Staff recommendation is to grant the variance. PAGE 2 March 27, 19-74 Planning and Development Board Mr, Bordoni MOVED to recommend approval. Ms. Cummings seconded. Ms.. Cummings asked if the variance was granted, how 'can compliance with the Board's recommended conditions be assured. Mr. Meigs explained that in essence we rely on appellant's good will though BZA could make landscaping.a necessary condition in granting the variance. If the BZA. makes a requirement a condition of granting the variance, the appellant has an obligation to carry it out. This- has been done from time totime, though even in such cases the results have been spotty. The motion was changed to include a recommendation for landscaping as well as the other suggestions on -siting and design that the planning staff had made to Mr. Lower. Motion carried. APPEAL 1252: Appeal of Albert D. Kelly for an area variance under Section . 30,25, Columns 4, 12 and 13, to permit use .of the second story deck at 319 Taughannock Boulevard for additional restaurant dining space. Mr. Meigs explained that a previous area variance was granted to permit use of the second floor as an apartment. Mr. Zaharis, owner of a nearby business, stated that he was concerned that his parking lot would be used by customers from other establishments if businesses were allowed to grow without the required parking. Mr. Maleski, nearby property owner, said that there is not enough parking on the street for his. customers as well as his employees and sometimes cars block the driveway. The appellant stated that ample parking was available on property across the street from his business .and on the street, as it is a dead end street. He went on to say that the lot he uses for customer parking, which is used seasonally by the Farmer's Market, was graded by him and is taken care of by him, Mr, Zaharis asked who designated that area, which is public property, for private parking. Mr, Van Cort stated that the Board of Public Works would probably have that authority, :though_ since the site was bought with recreation funds that require its use for recreation, it might not be possible to change, Mr. Zaharis felt that since the. property is not privately owned., or privately leased, it should bet available 4to.-=the Mr. Hoard explained that under the requested variance, the front half of the second floor would be used as an apartment and the back half plus a second-story deck, would become additional seating for the restaurant; Mr;. Kelly explained that the addition-.,would expand seating capacity by 14+ which requires 3 more parking spaces; the property has none. Staff recommendation is divided. The lack of parking and the closeness of the adjacent buildings are deterrants; however, it is a good use, and it ie attractive and appropriate to the area: PAGE 3 March 27, 1979 Planning and DeyeloMent Boaxd Ms. Cummings asked how the parking problem c Lld be resolved. Why wasn't the lot opposite being used? Mr. Van Cort explained that the lot is very muddy and wet and unplowed in winter. The land was purchased by the City with partial funding from BOR. BOR land may be used for parking if it is incidental to a recreational use; if parking is primary, there may be a problem. Other questions which would have to be answered are ones of equity. Who would improve the property to make it..usable? : Ms. Cummings asked if parking could be leased by the City to private individuals. Mr. Van Cort said that could be done, but it would have to be through public bid. Mr. Bordoni stated that not having enough parking spaces for restaurant is not unusual if you consider all the diners on State Street. Mr. Stein noted that the setback deficiencies will not change with the alterations, though the parking deficiency is slightly increased. He pointed out that part of the parking problems created in the area are regulatory. Mr. Van Cort felt that there would not be a parking problem if the lot opposite were fully usable, but that the question might take several months, to resolve. Ms. Cummings suggested that the parking lot problem be looked:._into. Mr. Stein suggested that this appeal be referred to the planning staff and defer any action at this meeting. Mr. Bordoni MOVED to defer any action until the problem can be looked into by the planning staff. Ms. Davis seconded. Motion carried and was referred to staff and the Board's Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee. APPEAL 1253: Appeal of Lawrence J. Kolar and Daniel F. Liguori for a use variance under Section 30.49 and Section 30.25, Column 2 to permit an addition to the existing machine shop at 407 Cliff Street. Mr. Meigs presented a set of plans for the proposed addition; adequate parking is available. Mr. Klinko who lives immediately north of the machine shop,:-said'-that he felt Mr. Kolar was trying to change the zoning, and was worried that the proposed addition would encroach on his property. Mr. Van Cort explained that granting a variance was not changing the zoning, and Mr. Kolar assured Mr. Klinko that the addition would be east of the existing building, not north; there would be no filling or building north of the present building. :Mr, Kolar showed a perspective sketch of the earlier addition to explain how the requested addition would be hidden from view, Staff recommendation is to approve. Mr. Cleveland MOVED to .recommend approval. Ms. Crowley seconded, Ms. Cummings informed members that the property behind the new addition was rather bare and that the perspective sketch presented by Mr. Kolar showed a lot of trees. PAGE 4 March 27, 1979 Planning and Development Board She felt that landscaping the area around the new addition would be beneficial. Mr. Stein noted that the variance granted for a previous extension included: a requirement for landscaping the filled area, which appeared not to have been followed. Mr. Kolar said that the land may appear bare at this time of year but during the summer you'll find it a lot greener. Ms. Cummings stated that a requirement that at least a ground cover be put on the exposed ground should be made apart of the motion, since this site is. so visible from downhill.. Mr. Cleveland and Ms. Crowley agreed to accept this recommendation as part of the motion. Motion carried. APPEAR 1254: Appeal of W. L. & J. M. Tompkins for an area vaxiance under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 11 and 13 to permit conversion of a dining room to a bedroom in the rear house at 134 East Spencer Street. Mr. Meigs explained the variance. Conditions present were existing before the present zoning ordinance, Mr, Tompkins stated that he could provide parking on the property but felt that that would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Staff recommendation consists of concern for the loss of a home suited to families in order to provide additional sleeping space in the dining room. Ms. Cummings MOVED to recommend denial. Ms. Davis seconded. Mr., Tompkins stated that a,l.thoughi..the change was small he wanted to abide by the law and decided to present the issue to the Planning Board. A vote was called: 2 for 3 against. Motion failed. Mr. Bordoni MOVED to recommend approval. Mr. Cleveland seconded, A vote was called: 4 for 2 against. Motion carried, APPEAL 1255: Appeal of David and Seymour Turk for an area variance under Section 30,25, Columns 4, 10, 12 and 14 to permit construction of a new two-story building with three retail stores and six .apartments at 323-329 College-Avenue, This appeal was before the Board a couple of months ago and approval was recommended to the BZA, BZA denied the variance. Mr. Meigs explained that the proposed structure would cover nearly 100% of the property wzth. n.o off-street parking available and no off,street loading. . Appellants stated that in view of the recent and positive plans made by the City to change zoning in the .very near future, which would permit construction of the building in this appeal, and because of their desire to start construction as soon as possible to avoid hardship, they are requesting that the appeal be granted now. PAGE 5 March. 27, 19-74 Planning and. Development Staff recomnendation. is .to: delay until the zoning question is settled by Common Council. Alderman Nichols stated that an Environmental Assessment needed to be prepared and reviewed before the .zoning revision could be voted on, and that had not been started. A public hearing will also be necessary before voting on the revision. Mr, Van Cort said that the assessment is being prepared, but that even after it is finished, the "lead agency", namely Common Council, must determine whether there .is or is not a.significant effect on the environment. If- there'--is a ossibilit of a significant effect on the environment.,, an Environmental Im s,ct :Statement_mtist_be;%_formulated. Itis Mr. Van Cort's opinion that the proposed zoning changes will significantly affect the environment. If that conclusion is reached by Council, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared; then it will be another. , month, or two, before Council- can act, because under the provisions of SEQ?A, until the environmental questions have been resolved, no action to approve the ordinance revision may be taken. Mr. Van Cort indicated that the. Environmental Assessment will be available to Common Council at its next meeting. Mr. Turf asked if this action was necessary for his appeal or for the City of Ithaca. Mr. Van Cort informed members that this was necessary for any zoning ordinance revision; it is a State requirement. Mr. Bordoni asked if.the planning staff had worked with Mr. DiPasquale on the design of the building. Mr. Van Cort indicated "that because the variance had not been granted.no discussion took place. However, Mr. DiPasquale indicated that he would be willing to discuss the design .of the building with staff members. Ms. Crowley MOVED to recommend approval. . Mr. Bordoni seconded. Ms. Davis spoke in favor. of the .proposed structure as the Collegetown area is in need of something to improve its appearance, Mr. Meigs stated that he would like to have .a stipulation on the motion requesting that planning staff work with Mr. DiPasquale on the design. of the building. Ms, "Crowley and Mr.. Bordoni agreed. Motion carried. APPEAL 1256; . Appeal of..Cornell Radio .Guild, Inc. , for a use- and area variance under Section 30.25; Columns .2 and 1+':;to permit use of parts of the property at 227-231 Linden Avenue for. 1) customer service office space by. th.e New York Telephone Company and for 2). storage space by Tech Hifi. _.c: c:. .r:; i Mr. Meigs. explained that appellants wish variances for use and off-street ` parking, The BZA requires that. all nonresidential uses of the structure must be individually approved.. Appellant has indicated that the structure is not suited to residential occupancy. The top portion. of the building is being used by PAGE 6 March 27, 1979 Planning and Development WVBR while the entire first floor remains empty. The first floor is almost entirely below grade making the addition of doors and windows virtually impossible which makes the building unattractive to commercial offices which would also generate substantial traffic for business activity. Rental of the building to New York Telephone Company and Tech ,Hi--Fi will finally rent out the entire downstairs, giving owners the finances necessary for mortgage and maintenance. Business traffic would be limited. Parking space required for this property is 7, but appellants feel occupants' needs are adequately served by the 5 available. Mr. Soo-Hoo, a WVBR employee, spoke in favor of the proposed use.. He lives at 224 Linden Avenue. Mr. Marvin, rental agent for WVBR, spoke in favor of the appeal and felt that with -the proposed use of the building, the premises will be kept in good condition. Mr. Boynton, owner of adjacent property, stated that he felt a.::traffic problem would be created with the proposed uses: Trucks on the street now block traffic on a regular basis. Mr. Lower who also owns property in the .area, said he would like to see the building be used so that the structure would be.maintained better, though he feel WVBR has made good efforts at doing so already. Staff recommendation is to approve. Ms. Crowley MOVED to recommend approval. Mr. Cleveland seconded. Motion) carried. PAGE 7 March 27, 1979 Planning and Development 6. NONE 7. NONE 8. Old Business: DeWitt Park Historic District Extension Alderman Nichols stated that the matter before Common Council is the extension of Ithaca's Historic District so that it will be contiguous with the National Historic Landmarks District. The Codes and ordinance Committee tentatively approved the addition but are waiting to hear the action of the Planning and. Development Board before recommending any action to Common Council. .Mr. Stein explained that the proposal is referred to the Board for review before action by Common Council. Ms. Romanoff, Chairman of the ILPC, presented a map of the proposed addition. She indicated that one good reason for being included in the. district is the availability of tax benefits up until 1981, She went on to say that those who are in the district as well as the proposed addition had been sent literature explaining what the local designation means. Mr. Meigs explained that there were state and federal income tax benefits, but no local property tax benefits, Ms. Romanoff stated that a federal grant had been applied for to help inform area residents and owners about the special qualities of a historic district through slide lectures and brochures explaining the different aspects of the district, Community Development Funds have been allocated for a plaque system throughout the city for individual national as well as local landmarks. Ms. Romanoff further explained that the ILPC's role is to help and advise owners and others on preservation and, in some extreme cases, to prevent demolition until the issue can be looked over again. It is not the ILPC's intention to come down with a heavy hand and say no, you can't do this. It is Ms. Romanoff's belief that the ILPC is not rampantly and wildly designating areas and buildings but is trying to preserve an area representative of the past and to keep it unique. Mr. Bordoni asked what historic preservation rules and procedures had to be observed by owners of locally-designated landmark properties. Ms. Romanoff explained that when a building permit is applied for, the ILPC is notified. The ILPC then reviews the proposed plans for renovation or construction with the applicant. It is hoped that any suggested changes in design would be looked at positively by the applicant. Suggestions would deal with the "cosmetics" of the proposed design, since the Commission's objective is to insure that any exterior changes are compatible with the structure's basic style. PAGE 8 March 27, 1979 Planning and Development If a structure is believed to be of great importance to the district by the ILPC, demolition can be held up for a period of 90 days while alternatives to demolition are sought, after which the issue could be settled in court if an agreement cannot be reached. Demolition may be denied if the owner cannot substantiate a need for demolition, and the structure is determined to be of architectural and historic importance. Part of the process of determining the importance of a structure preparation of the blue survey form as a record of the historical and architectural aspects of a structure. Ms. Romanoff further stated that not only the ILPC would be involved in determining the importance of a structure and the acceptability of designs, but the Design Review Board, if established in conjunction with the proposed rezoning of this area, becomes a part of the process. Mr. Marvin asked if the Landmarks Preservation Commission could make a-- -- recommendation for the proposed extension to be designated a historic district with a concurrent recommendation that certain buildings be excluded from any future requirement-to go--beforethe Landmarks Commission for demolition. Mr. Meigs said that legally, he did not think that could be done. Mr. Goldberg indicated that he has just gotten a demolition permit for 312-314 N. Aurora and demolition is expected to begin soon. In view of the proposed action, Mr. Goldberg felt that a stumbling block has been added to halt free enterprise. As an owner of the property at 315 N. Tioga Street .he _stated that whilehe.. agreed that the streetscape_..is :an>.important. factor he feels that this should be accomplished by means of the proposed design review board and not by means of creating a historic district. If both are in effect, two stumbling blocks have been added. The building in question is also a fire hazard. Mr. Bordoni felt that very few people were aware of what the proposed historic designation would entail. Mr. Van Cort explained that there are a number of actions that the city has considered which affect property rights where all that is required is a legal notice, and this has been accomplished. Ms. Romanoff indicated that letters had been sent to the property owners in the proposed addition to the historic district, and the area had been canvassed. There were very few negative comments received. Mr. Meigs read several letters from owners of property in the area that were in favor of the proposed addition. PAGE 9 March 27, 1979- Planning and Development Mr, Bordoni felt that all the property owners in the proposed extension should be notified in writing and given the opportunity to express how they feel about the proposed extension. Mr. Van Cort informed the Board that such notification was not required by law but that the Landmarks Preservation Commission had nonetheless i:nformed,. by_letter, all owners in the proposed district twice and had further held a duly advertised public hearing on the proposed designation. In reply to a question from Mr. Cleveland, Ms. Hector stated that the tax breaks available to owners of property in historic districts under the Tax Act of 1976 cannot be used for new, buildings, as historical importance must be established first Mr.. Meigs said that an existing building under 50 years old could qualify if the Secretary of the Interior determined it contributes to the character of the district; most buildings over 50 years old would probably qualify. Mr. Bordoni MOVED that until a public meeting is held by the Planning and Development Board and notification is given to the property owners, a decision should not be made. Mr. Cleveland seconded. A vote was called: For , 4, Against ^ 2, Mr. Stein said that a public meeting would be held sometime in April, and not at a regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Williamson, of 317 N.Tioga, emphatically stated that he was opposed to the extension of the historic district and in light of the fact that a public meeting will be held he will reserve comment. 9. New Business: Town of Ithaca Subdivision The town of Ithaca has forwarded a request to the City to..evaluate a proposed six-lot subdivision adjacent to the City to determine its compatibility with city subdivision regulations, The Town Planning Board has given it preliminary approval. Mr. Meigsexplainedthe design of the subdivision and pointed out what its shortcomings would be under city regulations. Mr. Van Cort explained that the request for city water hookup had been turned down by BPW, partly because it did not meet city subdivision requirements. The..lack of'v.water isCholding up.:the..subdivision. ._Town. water .is, available, but more expensive and difficult to provide. Staff position is that if the subdivision were considered under city regulations, it would be recommended for approval with minor modifications. Board action is not required, if the Board chooses, Mr. Van Cort will convey the Board's comments to the Town. Mr. Stein suggested that a recommendation be postponed with the item being referred to the Codes & Ordinance Committee (Barbara Davis, Chairman) , and so ordered. PAGE 10 March 27, 1978 Planning and Development 10. Miscellaneous Ms. Crowley expressed her concern for the Board's strict adherance to the zoning ordinance when a life--threatening situation existed, referring to Appeal 1250. Mr. Stein suggested that a zoning change could be the answer and the problem might best be resolved by referring it to committee. Ms. Crowley MOVED to refer the matter to committee for recommendation. Ms. Davis seconded. Motion carried. Mr. Stein asked that a Vice-chairman be selected. Mr. Bordoni nominated Mr. Cleveland. Mr. Cleveland accepted the nomination. Ms. Crowley seconded the nomination and Mr. Cleveland was elected. Mr. Meigs informed the Board that the state Office of Mental Retardation has asked the city to investigate the possibility of locating a residential facility for mentally disabled persons in the city. A facility now being considered is the Oakwood Nursing Home. It was suggested that the matter be referred to the Social and Cultural Development Committee (Mr. Moran, chairman) . Mr. Van Cort informed members of the Board that Teresita Seminario has been hired under the CETA program to help property owners, particularly on and around the Commons, with renovation of their buildings by offering free design services. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.