Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-06-24 MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD - June 24, 1980 PRESENT: Chairperson Moore, S. Cummings, E. Nichols, R. Moran ALSO: Planning Director Van Cort, Building Commissioner Hoard, Penny Dolan, Kathe Evans, Mrs. Johns, Mr. Tanner, Robert Cook, Bill Lydel , Norman Mainville, ,Bud Wymer, Mr. and Mrs. 0. Huddle, Sean Killeen, Chris Anagnost, Mary Yeno, John Novarr, Ellen Baer, Martin Luster, Abe Lee, Ethell Harrell , Ralph Perry, Jim Kerrigan, Edward Austin, E. Norton, M. Kesisoglou 1 . Staff Presentation: Penny Dolan, Coordinator of the Ithaca Landmarks Preser- vation Commission, addressed the Board and explained her activities to date. Her position was created only 5 months ago with funding from the NYS Council on the Arts and from the City and Community Development. She is concentrating on public education, increasing public awareness of our built environment and historic architecture, and also on providing technical assistance and information to people interested .in rehabbing and conserving buildings. She has helped the ILPC develop a 3 year General Plan which outlines major projects for the Commission for the coming years. So far this year she has made presentations to numerous community groups including the Board of Realtors, City Club, Rotary, Chamber of Commerce and civic associations; also an informational session on the 1976 Tax Act, which provides certain kinds of tax benefits for rehabilitation of historic properties within the historic districts. One exciting result of these presentations is interest in the potential of restoration of Clinton Hall , next to the Clinton House. She mentioned the Hidden Architecture Contest, in which a wide range of people guessed which buildings around DeWitt Park the photos showed details from. Ms. Dolan stated she would be involved in the Built Environment program this coming year; a program with Stu Stein in the School of Architecture bringing ideas of. understanding the built environment to the children. She said she has given all the addresses within the historic districts to the Board of Realtors; and is very involved in the Facade Restoration program within the DeWitt Park Historic District. She said she is one of two positions in the State and felt sure that they will watch the merits of what has happened within the City and Planning Dept. and proceed from there. 2. , Old Business: a. Radio Towers-Zoning Amendment: Mr. Van Cort said the committee report on the draft amendment presented in May is anticipated in July, as the committee chairman is presently out of town. Chairman Moore stated that in recognition of the way the notices went out, the Board should proceed with the zoning cases. SIGN APPEAL 6-3-,80: Variance to permit retention of .existing sign at 409 W. Seneca Street (Seneca Printing),' n a B=2a busine&s district. Sign projects more than 18 inches from the building face, the maximum -- - ---- -- permitted. - . P&D Minutes Page 2 Appellant, `Mrs. ,Johns, explained that Mr. 'Meigs had been to- their business last week and went over a plan to rearrange their sign. She went on to say that Mr. Meigs suggested they could take the sign which '-is protruding from the building and move it next to the. bulding, turning the sign lengthwise. Mr-.. Van Cort read Mr.-. :Meigs " notes on this case_ to the Board. In essence, Mr. Meigs stated that he had met with the Johns'.'- and reached what he considered a reasonable compromise which is to hang; the existinig sign structure vertically flush against the wall so that it projects only 2' , rather than 8' -,, it would be fully visible to traffic,_ only exceed the limit on projection by 6" and not project beyond the cornice overhang. Staff recommendation was- in favor. On motion by Ms.-Cummings, seconded by Ms. Nichols, it was MOVED to recommend approval . PASSED unanimously. SIGN APPEAL 7-1-80: Variance to permit directional signs at. 614. S.Meadow Street (Tops Market), exceeding the permitted size and height for directional signs in the B5 zone in which the property is located. Mr. Tanner, general contractor on the site and owner of the property, explained the variance requested was not for advertising, only for traffic direction,. and showed pictures of the signs. He said they were also applying for a State traffic light at the intersection to help take care of the volume of traffic on Meadow St. He explained that they wanted the directional signs high enough so that they would be visible over vehicles on the street and because of the speed;,people travel on Meadow. He also said that 3' of snow would cover the permitted Tow entrance and exit signs. Mr. Van Cort explained that the request was to erect a 9SF sign 7' above grade level , as opposed to 4SF signs 3' above grade level , which .is permitted. Further discussion followed. When asked for staff recommendation, Mr. Van Cort said that these standards were meant to be the same for everyone and staff recommended against this appeal , although now that he understood that these signs were not going to be used for advertising, he wasn't as strongly against it, but still recommended denial . On motion by Ms. Cummings, seconded by Ms. Nichols, it was MOVED to recommend denial . PASSED unanimously. SIGN APPEAL 7-2-80: Variance to permit retention of .ex.isting sign at 505 Third Street (Grossman's Lumber). Robert Cook of Evans Products Co./Grossman's Construction Dept. showed photographs of the existing location off Rte. 13 from both directions, showing how the sign` sites on the site; and a site plan showing location of the buildings and the pole. sign. He stated the area of the present sign is 211SF; they're proposed, as an equitable compromise, to remove the copyboard saying "Everything to Build With which would reduce the square footage to 125SF and still ,identify their operation; they have no other signage on the building. Further discussion followed. Mr. Cook explained that Grossman's is changing its logo and that while Ithaca isn't on the schedule for change soon, the eventual new sign would be of the same area but of a different shape, and that they hope to be putting it up within the next year. Mr. .Moran asked for more information on the proposed new sign. Mr. Cook stated the new sign would be the same square footage as the. �present sign with the copyboard removed, and would be in the same location. Ms. Nichols then moved that Grossman's be permitted to retain the existing sign with the modifications suggested; eliminating the extra copyboard underneath, and that no other signs be permitted. Mr. Moran seconded; Motion PASSED unanimously. P&D Minutes Page 3 SIGN APPEAL 7-3-80:, Variance to permit retention of sign at 127 W. State Street (Interlakes Finance.) There was no one present to represent the appellant; however, Mr. Lydel , president. of Eagles #1253 (the neighboring -building) addressed the Bdard. He said he wanted to speak positively for the'sign° for,_a number of reasons: since Cayuga St. has been made one way south and Green St. is one way east,. and because the Eagles' lodge has many visitors coming from other lodges throughout the state, the Inter- lakes sign serves as a landmark in giving directions to out of town visitors. Mr. Van Cort explained that the signboard or billboard is 36SF; the total sign including the billboard is 144SF; 3 times the maximum permitted size (50SF) and projects over a public sidewalk to just 22' from the curb. He said the appellant argues that there will be great financial hardship of the sign is removed; that it would cost $10,000 to remove it and $22,000 for a marquee on the building; advertising loss to the business would be $24,000, etc. The sign has been there for 22 years. Staff recommended '.against the variance. After further discussion, T1s. Cummings, seconded by Mr. . Moran, MOVED to recommend denial . PASSED 3-1 , with Ms. Nichols abstaining. APPEAL 1305: Use variance to permit operation of a plastercraft business at 309 E. Lincoln St. Appellant, Norman Mainville, explained that he and his wife would like to open a small plastercraft shop which is something like ceramics. Mr. Moran asked of the appellant had discussed this with the Planning Dept., to see about finding a proper -location for his business; because of the previous background of this property, it might be worthwhile. Mr. Van Cort said he would be glad to advise them as to where this use is permitted and where it's not. Bud Whymer, landlord of the property, said that that space has been used over the past 10 years as beauty shop, barber shop, restaurant and leather shop which have gone before the BZA and been approved the last business was an insurance office. Ms. Cummings questioned parking facilities, of which there are none. Mr. and Mrs.Oliver Huddle of 302 E.Lincoln St. , practically across the street from the proposed location, said that parking was presenting much of a problem to them and other neighboring properties. The Board examined a map of the properties in the area of the proposed plastercraft shop, and Chairman Moore read a petition signed by homeowners and residents of the Fall Creek neighborhood, in opposition to the business. Mr. Van Cort said staff recommended against the variance because of the parking problem; but were sympathetic with Mr. Mainville's attempt to locate his business somewhere. On motion by Mr. Moran, seconded by Ms. Nichols, it was MOVED to recommend - denial PASSED unanimously. - - - b. Site Selection Criteria for Low Income & Elderly Housing: Status and discussion. The zoning cases were interrupted for presentation of the above by Katherine Evans, Community Development Housing Specialist. She explained she wanted to report on the progress toward development of a set of criteria to be used to evaluate potential sites for subsidized housing in the City: ' She stated that - __ the- Subcommittee on, Neighborhood Conservation had met and prepared _a rough draft " P&D Minutes Page 4 of criteria that could be used in evaluating sites for developments that would serve lower-income families; the draft was passed out to the Board. She explained that the criteria had been derived from various primary and secondary planning sources, including some of the criteria that HUD itself looks at in terms of location, etc.. Ms. Evans explained that since the list was first drafted, (i ) Other special factors/unique physical features; (j) Proximity to places of employment; and (k) Neighborhoods with similar residential uses, ,wore added at a subsequent joint meeting of the Charter & Ordinance and Planning Committees of Council . She felt Access to the Public Transportation System was a very important criteria within the City of Ithaca, but that there was some question on the part of some Council members on that particular issue. The committee would also like some guidance from the Planning Board or its subcommittee on certain items. Further discussion followed. Ms. Evans said that criteria for elderly housing should also be developed, using this list, in its final approved form, as a guide. Chairman Moore then referred this item to the Neighborhood Development subcommittee; - he said that because of Mr. MacInnes' resignation, he would serve on that committee until a replacement was found and named Peter Holmes as chairman. Ms. Evans said she would speak to Mr. Holmes about setting up another meeting and would contact the other committee members when they will meet. After Ms. Evans' presentation, the zoning cases were continued. - APPEAL 1306: Area Variance to permit continued use of 801 E. State St. as a multiple dwelling. Mr. Van. Cort explained that appellants want to have two cooperatives in the building, one of 4 bedrooms and the other of 6 bedrooms. There is no parking; though there were two parking spaces previously, they have since become unusable. Required minimum lot size is 7000SF, and this lot has only 5750SF; in addition there is a front yard deficiency in that 10' is required and they have 9' . Appellant was not present. Sean Killeen of 111 Orchard Place addressed the Board -and while he wasn't clear as to what is being done, he said in principal he would object to the variance; parking in all adjacent areas is very tight. Mlr VWn 'tort said staff recommend denial for the same reasons. On motion by E. Nichols, seconded by R. Moran, it was MOVED to recommend denial . Chris Anagnost also appeared in opposition, as well as Mary Yeno of 903 E. State. Chairman Moore then called for a vote; Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1307: Area Variance to permit use of the property at 118 Eddy St. as a multiple dwelling; to permit up to '4 unrelated individuals to occupy the main unit. Pictures were shown. John Novarr, appellant, explained that the basic house is a 4 bedroom house, with a partially finished attic. Appellants are asked permission for four unrelated occupants, one per bedroom in the house, rather than being restricted to 3, the maximum permitted by zoning. They aren't adding bedrooms or splitting the house up, but want to rent to 4 individuals on the upper 2 floors. He said there are presently 2 parking spaces with the building which would be offered to the people that live there. He said they lack one parking space, and the lot area requirement leaves them lacking about 100 feet. Mr. Novarr said the - house is in complete code compliance at the moment; what will take it out of P&D Minutes Page 5 compliance is if more than 3 or less than 5 unrelated people91y ed together on the first ,and second floor. Further discussion followed. Staff recommendation was in favor on. the condition that the occupancy be limited to the' numbers as specified .+ n the appeal , and because it's a relatively minor variation ,from what , is permitted.: After more discussion, on motion by Mr. Moran, seconded by Ms. Nichols, it was MOVED to approve the variance. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1308: Area Variance to permit construction of a one-story addition to the northwest corner of a two family house at 306-308 S. Corn St. for an additional bedroom. Mr. Moore asked if the front yard was deficient before the addition. Mr.. Van Cort said the addition does not worsen the existing non-conformity at all ; there is enough room on the property in the side yard to build the addition. Mr. Van Cort said the front yard setback should have 10' and has 6' , and on the side yard it should have 5' and has 32' , but the deficiencies are not affected by the addition. Photographs were shown. Appellant Eileen Baur, said she had purchased the property recently and would like to build a 12' x 12' addition on the side of the house. ` Staff recommended in favor with the suggestion that the appellant go to INHS and avail herself of some of the design advice she could get there. Ms. Cummings expressed concern that the appellant be able to fully avail herself of the services of INHS so that there will be somebody carrying through with the design implementation. Mr. Moran moved to recommend approval . Ms. Cummings added a friendly amendment, that approval be granted contingent upon working with Neighborhodd Housing on the design implementation, and seconded the motion. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1309: Use and Area Variance to permit continued operation of a produce business and an addition to the existing structure at 2062 Second St. Mr. Van Cort said that this was a re-appeal by Mr. Cutia which was heard at the last meeting. He said that the staff didn't know whether thea had any -- - - -new information other than based on hardship. Appellant was not present at the meeting. Martin Luster, representing Walter Gangl , the adjoining owner, was present to speak in opposition. Further discussion followed. There being no new information, Chairman Moore said that previously the Board had heard the case and recommended disapproval of the variance; there being no new information submitted, there was no reason to discuss the case any further. No action taken. APPEAL 1310: Area Variance to permit conversion of a one family house at 611 W. Green St. to a two-family dwelling. Abe Lee of INHS and Ethell Harrell , the appellant, were present. Pictures were shown. Mr. Van Cort said the property has no parking and 2 spaces are required and that the front yard should be 10' and is 8' , one side yard should be 10' and is 2' . The reason there is no parking is that the property has no side yard; and it would be impossible to put parking on the property. He further explained that this is an INHS property and is being converted so that Mrs. Harrell can live in the main unit and an efficiency unit is being added. Mr. Lee said this was originally' a one family house and is about 100 years old, once owned by Simeon DeWitt. He said there was a large attic and they intended to use half of it for an additional bedroom- and the other half for storage. Mr. Lee introduced a petition that was signed by owners within the area which Chairman Moore read to the Board, in support of revitalizing_ the house. Ms. .Nichols asked the appellant PFFD Minutes Page 6 how many cars she and her family owned. Mrs. Harrell replied that she owned one, as did her daughter. Mr. Lee said he spoke with the assistant manager of Kentucky Fried Chicken who sa.id ;he was willing to allow use of the rear of his parking lot if necessary. Staff recommended in favor. On motion by, Mr. Moran, seconded by Ms. Nichols, it was MOVED to recommend in favor of the appeal . Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1311 : Use and Area Variance to permit construction of a 6875SF electrical supply building at 316 Third St Mri Van Cd-rt said this was a proposal for an industrial use in a residential zone; also that there are questions of the size of the property and yard dimensions. He said the Building Commissioner's appeal analysis uses the yard dimensions for the industrial zone rather than those in the residential zone, since the appeal concerns an. industrial use. Mr. Van Cort said there is an existing vacant house on the property; appellants propose to build an addition to the house, and use both for storage. He showed a plot plan and said the site is surrounded on 3 sides by housing and on one side by a NYSEG substation. Jim Kerrigan, representing the appellants and owners of Norton Electric, and also appearing on behalf of Cora Sepos, owners of the property, said the house has been vacant for approximately 5 years and is beginning to deteriorate badly. Mr. Kerrigan then listed the major commercial properties adjoining the present Norton property. He said with the exception of the residences in back of the building, it is primarily a commercial district. He said the proposal of Norton Electric is to renovate the existing deteriorating and vacant house into office space for use by Norton Electric; to add in back of that a structure similar to the present Norton structure for wholesale distribution of electrical products and components, and storage of their own electrical products and supplies. The present owners has been trying to sell the property for 5-6 years without any success. Mr. Kerrigan stated that Norton Electric is an electrical contracting company_ and does not sell whole sale or retail . He said in regard to the area variance, the front*,y6rr.d , quires 10' , there is presently a porch that is 6'6" from the property line;`=rear yard . requirement by ordinance is 25' ; the proposal is for 20' . He mentioned that as a planning concern, insofar as this would be a warehouse to some degree, the less outside space there is the better; it is landscaped now with a hedge and fence and would stay that way. Mike Keshisoglou of 315 Fourth St. expressed concern over truck traffic and additional noise. Further discussion followed. Ms. Cummings commented that the house had been for sale for many years with a very large sign on the front porch saying "For Sale - Commercially Zoned", which she felt was faulty advertising in that it discourages home buyers. She said it apparently is not commercially zoned, but residential , and felt that the Board should be concerned about this sort of eroding of the residential neighborhoods. Ms;-, Cummings further expressed her concern for the border areas where residential and non- residential zones abut, and expressed concern about the characterization of .this area as primarily industrial and commercial . She stated that Ithaca Housing Authority apartments seemed to be overlooked, and mentioned the effects of visual .pollution on the people that live around this property. Chm. Moore asked Mr. Van Cort what the future of that area might be, i.e, whether it would become commercially zoned. Mr. Van Cort said it is zoned residential , as City Council wants it to be; _ _ it is clearly a border property, but it is also clearly residentially zoned. Ms. P&D Minutes Page 7 Nichols mentioned that eventual` y the whole site where the sewage disposal plant is will be completely ,different, and Mr, Van Cort agreed that some land will change i•n .use when the new sewer plant is built. Pisa Cummings said the Board should be dealing with whether or not this particular appeal presents unique reasons why this intrusion in this neighborhood will not be harmful ;.the the .Boa.rd should be concerned with the impact on adjacent residential area. After. further discussion, Mr, Van Cort said that staff recommended denial in that this is an attempt to, or is equivalent to, rezoning by variance, and is not the right way to go about it. Ms. Cumm-ings then MOVED to recommend denial . After further discussion, the motion was seconded by Ms. Nichols. Motion PASSED with Mr, Moran abstaining.; Ms..". Nichols asked that the minutes show that serious concerns and reservations were expressed concerning changing the boundary between residential and commercial neighborhoods, the future direction of the property along Route 13, and the impact of development in the neighborhood. Chairman Moore then reiterated that the Planning,Board was recommending denial of the variance on the grounds that it was' felt that the Board should not recommend the change of zoning of this particular area through variance. 3. New Business: a. Subdivision of Ithaca Center Site - Preliminary: Mr. Van Cort explained the "proposal to divide the Ithaca Center site into two parcels, and asked the Board to-study the preliminary site plan and to approve it: : .He said that sub- division approval is the one thing the Planning Board can do without anybody else's review or approval , though other agencies such as the City Engineer are usually consulted. He explained that the city will transfer both parcels to the developers , but would hold rights to the southern part, perhaps holding a deed in escrow so if the city wanted, it could easily be re-acquired. He said it would be easier to subdivide it now in order to have a legal right to get the property back if necessary. The McRobb/Goldberg proposal is to build only on the north portion with the understanding that if the market is ripe in 5 years, they will build a second phase on the south part; if they do not build and it can be proved that it is financially feasible to do so, then the city can take it back. He explained that they ,are asking for only preliminary approval now, not final approval . General discussion followed. Ms.. Nichols then MOVED that it be Resolved that the Manning Board has seen the proposed subdivision of the Ithaca Center Site and grants preliminary approval , seconded by Mr.Moran; motion PASSED unanimously. b. B-1 Rezoning - Environmental Assessment: Mr. Van Cort said that Council requested that the Planning & Development Dept. prepare an environmental assess- ment under the provisions of the city's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance to .assess the potential environmental impact of two alternatives for rezoning the area around Tioga St. between Cascadilla Creek and Court Street: (1 ) only the properties fronting on both sides of Tioga St. , and (2) the entire two blocks between Sears and Aurora. The assessments find that there may be "some potential serious environmental impact in either, of these courses of action. The staff recommendation to Council with respect to the rezoning is that because of the potential impacts of either alternative, preparation of .draft environmental impact_ statements would be appropriate. It,was also"recommended that consideration be given-to other_a.lternatives that are not rezon',ng to B-1a or B-1b He emphasized P & D Minutes Page 8 that Common Council is the Lead Agency in this; the department's recommendations are not "binding on Council . He said since the Board is involved in zoning changes and is required to be given an opportunity to make a recommendation, the Board may want to submit. this to a committee of the Board for consideration or further recommendation. :The matter was referred to the Codes & Administration Committee to report back.:,to the Board next month with a recommendation. . 4. Chairperson's Report:. None- 5. Committee Reports: None 6. Correspondence: Chairman Moore read a proposed resolution recommending that the duties of the Executive Directorof the IURA be added to those of the Director of Planning and Development, a copy of which was given to the Board members. On motion by Ms. Nichols, seconded by Ms. Cummings, it was MOVED to recommend the Board's approval . PASSED unanimously. 7. Communications: Mr. Van Cort said that a question was put to the City Attorney by Jon Meigs on the matter of whether the Planning Board should get involved in zoning interpretations. A letter was read in answer from Mr. Shapiro saying, in essence, that while requests for interpretation should be referred to the Board, no response is mandated from the Board; however, if the Board has something to say in interpretations it may do so, but it would not be binding in any way. Chairman Moore asked if the Board would like to take a position with respect to neighborhood school closings. General discussion followed regarding East Hill , and other closings outside the city. No action. The subject of zoning cases was brought up by the Chairman and he asked if anyone had any suggestions on how to streamline them. Ms. Nicholss mentioned a "consent agenda"; i .e. if the Charter & Ordinance Committee or some special committee on the Board could meet and screen the cases ahead of time, there would be a pre-agreed list of what they had decided; if one case was controver- sial , it could be removed from the agenda for discussion. She also said that the name of the appellant on each of the cases, and what the person is planning - to do, would help with the agenda. General discussion followed. Mr. Moore said he thought the agenda this time was very good and said that Mr. Meigs should be commended. 8. Approval of Minutes: On motion by Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Moran, the minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed. Meeting adjourned at 11 :36 p.m. r� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - DECISIONS Meeting of July 1 , 1980 SIGN APPEAL 2-2-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign at 602 W. Buffalo St. (Joe's Restaurant) ,in a B-4 (business district. Motion was made and seconded that the Board grant the variance for the projecting sign on Meadow St. with the condition that the two signs saying "Joe's Parking" be changed to conform with the Sign Ordinance. Vote: 5 Yes; 0 No. Variance GRANTED with condition. Findings: Neon sign on Meadow St. has been in place for over 35 years and is historic in nature. SIGN APPEAL 6-3-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign in a B-2a use district.at 409 W. Seneca St. (Seneca Printing). Motion was made and seconded to grant the variance. Vote: 5 Yes; 0 No. Variance GRANTED. Findings: Appellants agreed to meet the Planning Board's recommendations; projection of the sign has been signifi- cantly reduced and is in substantial compliance with the Ordinance. SIGN APPEAL 6-4-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign at 201 N. Aurora St. in a B-2b use districtn (Pine Tavern). Motion made and seconded to grant variance. Vote: 5 Yes; 0 No. GRANTED. Findings: Sign has received historical classification from ILPC and qualifies as an exception. SIGN APPEAL 7-1-80: Variance to permit construction of directional signs at 614 S. Meadow St. (Tops Market). in a B-5 zone. Motion made and seconded to deny the variance. VOTE 5 Yes; 0 No. DENIED. Findings: No other signs of this type located in the area; adjacent plazas have been requested to remove similar non- conforming signs. SIGN APPEAL 7-2-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign in an I-1 use district at 505 Third St. (Grossman's). Motion made and seconded to permit retention of existing sign with modification that all other signs be removed and that there be no further signs on the property. Vote: 4 Yes; 1 No. GRANTED with modifications. Findings: does not harm character of the neighborhood; would be less square footage of sign than the firm would otherwise be entitled to. BZA Decisions Page 2 SIGN APPEAL 7-3-80: Variance to permit retention of existing sign at 127 W. State St. (Interlaken Finance): in a B-3 district. Motion made and seconded to deny the variance. Vote: 4 Yes; 0 No; 1 Abstention. DENIED. Findings: sign violates Sign Ordinance in large number of respects; Planning Board recommended denial and BZA concurs. APPEAL 1305: Use Variance to permit operation of a plastercraft business at 309 E. Lincoln St. in an R-2b use district. Motion made and seconded to deny the variance. Vote: 4 Yes; 0 No; 1 Abstention. DENIED. Findings: Would increase traffic and parking problems; is not grandfathered on the basis that the previous business was not a retail trade while this one would be; because of present impact of businesses in the neighborhood, residential character is threatened. APPEAL 1307: Area Variance to permit use of property at 118 Eddy St. as a multiple dwelling; to permit up to 4 unrelated individuals to occupy the main unit. Motion made and seconded to grant the variance. 5 Yes; 0 No. GRANTED Findings: Does not change character of the neighborhood; practical difficulties have been shown; parking not a major problem. APPEAL 1308: Area Variance to permit construction of a one-story addition to a two-family house for an additional bedroom,at 306-8 S. Corn St. Motion made and seconded to grant the variance. Vote 5 Yes; 0 No. GRANTED. Findings: proposed addition would not effect the minimum front yard setback deficiency; practical difficulties shown; proposed addition would improve the property and not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. APPEAL 1309: Use and Area Variance to permit continued operation of a produce business at 2062 Second St. in an R-3b use district. Motion made and seconded to grant the variance. In light of new evidence having been presented, the BZA determined to reconsider this appeal . Vote: 5 Yes; 1 No. GRANTED. Findings: Appellant has shown undue hardship; business has been carried on for over 25 years; character of the neighborhood not substantially changed; no substantial complaints of truck traffic; petition in support from large number of neighbors; special circum- stances and unique conditions,.applying to the building. APPEAL 1310: Area Variance to permit conversion of a one-family house at 611 W. Green St. to a two-family dwelling. Motion made and seconded to grant the variance. Vote: 5 Yes; 0 No. GRANTED. Findings: Proposed renovations will not exacerbate present non- conforming aspects of the building; adequate parking to accommodate one additional car which proposed renovations would generate; parking will be allowed in rear of Kentucky Fried Chicken lot located in the neighborhood. BZA Decisions Page 3 APPEAL 1311: Use and Area Variance to permit construction of a 6875 sq.ft. electrical supply building at 316 Third St. adjacent to an existing building in an R-3b district. Motion made and seconded to deny the variances. Voter 4 Yes; 1 No. DENIED. Findings: Property is zoned residential and change of zoning should be done by Common Council , not the BZA; question of sal-, ability of real estate difficult to judge in that they were lead to believe the asking price was based on commercial value rather than residential; large residential population in area would be adversely affected by addition of another industrial type business even if undue hardship were shown the requested variance would necessitate a major change in zoning from a residential to an industrial area.