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.