Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1979-09-25 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD September 25, 1979 PRESENT: Chairperson Stuart Stein, Mary Crowley, Raymond Bordoni , Sue Cummings, John MacInnes ALSO PRESENT: Tom Hoard, Jon Meigs, Frank Alo, Mel Robinson, Elizabeth Yanof, Mr. and Mrs. James, Harold Emery, James Holman, Elva Holman, Doris Bonnett, Rose Ocello, Virginia Giordano, Larry O'Neill,, Roseanne Beach, Rita Beach, Eugene Lewis, Jeff Bangs, Rita Bangs, David Fernandez, David Taube.,Richard Genest, James Rider, James Orcutt, James. Kerrigan 1 . The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m; by Chairman Stein. 2. Chairman Stein felt the minutes of the September 4th meeting were inaccurate and asked that approval be postponed until the next meeting. 3. Special Order of Business; None 4. Chairperson's Report; None 5. ZONING APPEALS; APPEAL 1273: Use variance to permit use of property at 159,165 Crescent Place for a neighborhood parking lot in an R-2b use district This appeal was deferred at the August meeting in order to permit investigation and consultation between the parties involved. Mr. Meigs informed the Board that it had not been possible to get all parties together and he requested that the matter be postponed one more month -to permit coordination with city agencies, appellants and other interested parties to reach agreement on the best. compromise solution to the issues at hand. Neighborhood residents present expressed approval of postponement, provided the appeal would be ready for BZA action in November, and that the Planning Board make a definite decision at its next meeting, in October. Mr. Bordoni, seconded by Ms. Crowley, MOVED to postpone action for one more month. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1275; Area variance to permit installation ,of:.an inground swimming pool at 719 W. Court St. in an I-1 district. Mr. Meigs noted that the property is not located in an I-1 zone, but in a B-4 business zone, and stated that the appropriate section of the swimming pool ordinance calls for a 15' side yard. He then presented a diagram of the proposed layout with 8' side yards on each side. He stated the pool may be permitted as an accessory structure to a residential building and conforms to the zoning ordinance as to yard requirements in a B4 zone. Mr. Robinson, owner of the property, stated that there were no complaints from adjoining neighbors and that all safety precautions would be followed. Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Bordoni , P & D Board Minutes September 25, 1979 Page 2 MOVED to recommend approval of the in-ground swimming pool , in a B-4 zone, with side yards of approximately 81 each., Hearing no opposition from the public, the motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1276: Area variance to permit use of property at 142 Pearsall Place as a two-family dwelling in an R-1 use district, deficient in lot size. Mr. Meigs stated that 2-family use was permitted under the ordinance which, was revised in 1974 to change both the zone and permitted uses from R-2 to R-1 zones, Elizabeth Yanof, attorney for appellants, stated that the property had been used as a 2�family dwelling prior to 1977 when the lot area requirements were changed, and since it did meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance before the change, it is a legal preexisting use. Harold Emery of 134 Pearsall Place stated that he knew the owners prior to the sale of the property to the James` and that it was then used as a one family dwelling. James Holman of 121 Pearsall Place stated that the James" were informed of the zoning ordinances and that they had been requested that it be put into proper use after the James' moved out; they have since rented to several students. He further stated the parking problems and upkeep of the property have caused severe inconvenience for the rest of the neighborhood, Chairman Stein then read a petition addressed to the City with 34 signatures, as follows: We the undersigned oppose the variance which would permit the dwelling at 142 Pearsall Place to be used as a 2-family dwelling. We oppose the variance for the following reasons: (1 ) the lot is not large enough to permit use by two families; (2) the house lacks sufficient parking; (3) the conversion of the house into two dwellings is detrimental to property values in a neighborhood comprised of one family dwellings; (4) such a conversion to a two. family dwelling does not carry out the spirit of the zoning ordinance, Doris Bonnett of 133 Pearsall Place mentioned the parking congestion. Mrs. Rose Ocello of 145 Pearsall Place mentioned difficulties of getting in and out of her driveway. Mrs. Virginia Giordano of 129 Hawthorne Place (1 block away) mentioned noise, Chairman Stein then read two letters, from Mr, and Mrs. Daniel of 129.- Pearsall Place and Mr, and Mrs, Curtis of 138 Pearsall Place, opposing the variance, Alderman Elva Holman, representing the ward the property is located in, mentioned that she had spoken to the local agent for the property about changes in the zoning ordinance and he said it was irrelevant. Chairman Stein then asked for a recommendation from the Planning Staff, Mr. Meigs recommended that it be approved on condition of provision of off-street parking spaces on the property- in accordance with the terms of Section 30.37A5 of the zoning ordinance. Ms, Cummings, seconded by Mrs, Crowley, MOVED to recommend DENIAL of the area variance. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1277; Area variance to permit group care home at 6187620 N. Aurora St® , in an R-.2b residential use district, deficient in both side yards. Mr. Meigs mentioned that in addition to the side yard deficiency, there was a question of the number of occupants to be accommodated in this group care facility. He further stated that the requirements of the ordinance permit 8 P & D Board Minutes September 25, 1979 Page 3 residents for this zone and lot size, not 10 as requested. Mr. Larry O'Neill of Broome Developmental Services, sponsoring the group home, stated that all submitted information was prepared by architects and indicated his availability to answer any questions. Roseanne and Rita Beach of 603 N. Aurora St. expressed opposition to the proposed use because of neighborhood congestion, and concern for the safety of the facility's residents. The owner of another nearby property stated that she felt the facility would pose no problems, and that she would not mind living near it when she retires. Chairman Stein then read a letter from Ruth Edsall and Edward Hanselman in opposition, Staff recommendation was to approve on the condition that the number of residents be conformed to the number permitted under the ordinance which would be 8. Mr. O'Neill then stated that his agency's survey indicated real need for such services in this community, that the architects have indicated that the home can confortably accommodate that many people, and that extensive improvements would be undertaken to meet stringent State requirements to insure the wellbeing of facility residents, who are physically and/or mentally handicapped, rather than mentally ill . Mr. MacInnes, seconded by Mrs. Crowley, then MOVED to recommend approval provided that no more than 8 residents are accommodated on the premises. PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1278: Area variance to permit construction of addition to present Ridley Printing Structure at 317 Taughannock Blvd. in an M-1 district. Mr. Meigs stated that the addition, already under construction, would not create or increase any nonconformity, since it is on the side of the building away from the yard which is slightly deficient. Ms. Cummings then MOVED to recommend approval , seconded by Mr, MacInnes. There being no public comments or objections, the motion PASSED unanimously, APPEAL 1279: Area variance to permit conversion of a single family dwelling to a two-family dwelling in an R-2b district deficient in parking spaces, exceeds maximum permitted lot coverage; deficient in required front and side yards. Mr. Meigs noted that this dwelling was originally built as a double house and the building is legally nonconforming. He stated the preexisting nonconformities would not be affected by the reconversion from use as a group home, which was discontinued after a fire. Mr, Bordoni then MOVED to recommend approval , seconded by Mr, MacInnes. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1280: Area variance to permit conversion of a two, family dwelling to a three-family dwelling at 208 S. Geneva Street, in an R-3a. district. Mr. Meigs stated that there were many nonconformities in this case: the minimum size lot required for 3 units is 7000 sq.ft. , the property has 3290 sq,ft. ; required width in feet at street line is 50' , has 49.4' ; maximum percentage of lot which may be covered by buildings permitted 35%, existing 52%; required minimum front yard 101 , existing approximately 2' y one side yard is required to be at least 101 , they have a 16'' side yard; other side yard required minimum 5' , there is none; percentage of depth for rear yard - required is 20%, existing is 15%. Eugene Lewis, owner of the property, stated that the house is near the business district but still in a residential zone; he has taken special pride in improving the property to its present state, and is providing off-street parking space on the property for all 3 apartment units. Staff recommendation P & D Board Minutes September 25, 1979 Page 4 in this case is to deny because of the excessive nonconformities and the potential for excessive density in 3 units on this property. Sue Cummings then moved to DENY For lack of a second, the motion failed. Jeff Bangs of 209 S. Albany Street and Rita Bangs of 209 W. Green Street, adjoining property owners, voiced no objections. Mr. Bordoni , seconded by Mrs. Crowley, MOVED to recommend approval. Motion PASSED, 4-.1 , Ms. Cummings voting "No" because of concern about potential negative impact on the neighborhood. APPEAL 1281 : Variance to permit installation of an in-ground swimming pool at 6 Cornell Walk, located in an R-la use district. Mr. Meigs informed the Board that this was a request for a pool which would be approximately five to ten feet from the basement wall of the house where a 15' separation is required. He explained that the lot is of adequate size for R-1 in which it is located and would permit a pool in terms of total lot area. Mr. Meigs went on to say that the Building Commissioner had informed him that he is requiring from the applicant's engineer, a certification of need based on the topographical difficulty, a steep and sloping lot, Mr. Hoard stated that he had actually requested the engineer's assurance that construction of the pool nearer than 15 feet would not affect the structural stability of the house, and had been informed that an 8 foot separation would be adequate. The owner's representative stated that the owner is handicapped, and swimming is the only active recreation available to him. Staff recommendation was to approve with further recommendation that it be placed as far as possible from the foundation of the house, Mr. Stein asked if this had been discussed with nextdoor neighbors and was told there were no objections from them and that they were in receipt of a letter from one neighbor indicating they would allow for draining of the pool onto their property if an emergency should occur. Mr. Bordoni , seconded by Mrs. Crowley, MOVED to recommend approval of the variance. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1282 Use and Area variance to permit construction of an addition to the existing emergency vehicle garage at 209 W. Green Street, in an R-3a use district. Mr. Meigs told the Board that the additional space was needed because the two ambulance services in town had consolidated and existing equipment needed to be accommodated on the property. He stated Bangs Funeral Home was the owner of the adjacent property onto which the addition would extend. The use is non- conforming in the zone, but i`s a grandfathered use, Jeff Bangs of 209 S. Albany St. , onto whose property the garage will be extending, voiced no objections. Staff recommendation was to approve. Mrs, Crowley, seconded by Mr. Bordoni , then MOVED to recommend approval . Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1283: Area variance to permit construction of a new office building at 202 E. Buffalo St. , on the former YMCA site, in a B-1b district. Mr. Meigs stated that this site is located in one of the newly-created zones whch, requires design review of proposed structures; on September 18 the Design Review Board unanimously approved the design, and also recommended that the variances required for its construction be approved, David Taube; the architect, explained that the variances were needed to permit use of the foundations re- maining from the YMCA, in order to make the project economically feasible, and pointed out that the proposed building would therefore have virtually the same bulk as the Y. Ms, Cummings questioned why the Design Review Board had P & D Board Minutes September 25, 1979 Page 5 been concerned with the lobby space for the building; Mr. Taube explained that while the DRB is principally concerned with matters of exterior design, its suggestion that the lobby be made larger, in keeping with the building 's occupancy, was a constructive one which would be acted on if possible. The Board noted that the design provided ample public circulation space along the street fronts, and that service access would be adequate; that no on-site parking is required; and the development would represent a significant addi= tion to the downtown business area, as intended by the recent zoning revision. Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Bordoni , MOVED to recommend approval . Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1284: Area variance to permit conversion of premises from Glad Day Press into a Bakery,Care, at 308 Stewart Avenue, in a B-2 district. Mr. Meigs stated that this was a permitted use in the zone. The proposed seating capacity of approximately 20 would require four off street parking spaces; Richard Genest, the appellant, presented evidence of Cornell 's willing- ness to lease the required spaces on its Udilliams St. Tot, though only on a year-to-year basis, and explained that the neighborhood seemed ideal for this type of venture. He further explained that mostlikely approximately 90% of the business would be students and people who live in surrounding areas who would be walk-in trade. Mrs. Crowley, seconded by Mr. MacInnes, MOVED to recommend approval and the motion PASSED unanimously. Chairman Stein mentioned that he knew the area well and felt that it would be an improvement to the block. SIGN APPEAL 10-1-79: Appeal to permit the retention of existing Hillside Tourist Inn sign .at 518 Stewart Ave. , in an R-3a use district. Mr. Meigs stated that the inn itself was a permitted use in the zone. He then introduced a photograph showing 2 signs and stated that the appeal involves both signs, since each exceeds the 5 sq.ft. permitted in a residential zone. James Rider, owner of the property, stated that it had been a tourist home since 1946 and that the lit, doublerfaced sign had been there since 1947. James, Orcutt of 324 Dryden Rd. , a friend of Mr. Rider's, expressed his feelings that the necessity of having to replace existing signs because of a new sign ordinance was disturbing because the business had been in existence for over 30 years, He stated that the livelihood of the Riders depended on this business, and an adverse decision would cause hardship.. Several neighbors and members of the public spoke in favor of retention of the pole-mounted sign and Mr. Stein then read several letters from neighbors all in support. Staff strongly recommended denial of the appeal because the signs are individually and collec- tively far in excess of the amount and number of signs permitted in a residential zone-under the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Cummings then MOVED to recommend approval of the retention of the freestanding lit sign, conditional on removal of the "Hillside Inn" sign mounted on the building facade, Motion PASSED unanimously, STEN APPEAL 10=.2-79 Sign variance to permit the retention of the existing Holley's sign at 119 E. State St, , in a B-3 use district. Mr, Meigs stated that the Landmarks Preservation Commission, at its September lith meeting, ruled that the sign qualifies as a historic sign under the criteria of age and integral design as a part of the original storefront, as provided in P & D Board Minutes September 25, 1979 Page 6 the recent revision of the sign ordinance, Ms, Cummings then MOVED to recommend approval of retention of the "Holley4sl` sign, seconded by Mr. MacInnes; motion PASSED unanimously. SIGN APPEAL 10-3779; Sign variance to permit placement of signs at corner of-,Fourth and Hancock Streets indicating °�busi"nesse§' at' 3j0' i=ourth St. , in an R-3b zone. Mr. Meigs noted that the same party owns both properties and that they are adjacent which might mitigate the fact that the proposed signs might be inter-_ preted as coming under the defi'ni'tion of billboards, which are no longer permitted. Healsonoted that both proposed signs now conform to the 5rsquare,foot maximum permitted in residential zones; that the height and other design characteristics of the signs would make them relatively unobtrusive, and that, in his opinion, they would not significantly impair driver visibility. Staff recommendation was to approve based on the unique circumstances of the business location, making it difficult for clients to find them in th.is isolated location on a dead-.end, nonr-continuous section of Fourth St. It was assumed that the Board's previous recommendation, to remove the Ithaca Business Systems sign from Ithaca Housing Authority property opposite as a condition of approval , will be complied with, Mr. Bordont then MOVED to recommend approval , seconded by 'Mrs. Crowley; motion PASSED unanimously, 6. Communications; None 7, Committee Reports; None 8. Old Business; Zoning Appeal 1273 status report; Covered under Appeals. 9,W New Busi'ness4 None 10. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10;55.