Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-07-29 MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD July 29, 1980 PRESENT: Chairperson Moore, E. Nichols, S. Cummings , I . Stewart, M. Sampson ALSO: Planning Director Van Cort, Building Commissioner Hoard, Edward Monroe, Bill Sullivan, Michael Shay, David Taube, Edyth and Richard Conway, Charles Weaver, Charles Barber, Ann Joseph, Mr. DuBorgel , Mr, Hall , Laura Holmberg, Jim Zifchock Chairperson Moore called the meeting to order and welcomed new member Martin Sampson to the Board. 1 . Staff Presentation: None 2. ZONING CASES: SIGN APPEAL 5-2-80: William T. Pritchard, 304-306 S. Cayuaga Street. This appeal was previously heard and a recommendation made to the BZA. No further action. APPEAL 1306: Charles A. Fritschler, 801 E. State Street. This appeal was previously heard and a recommendation made to the. BZA. No further action. SIGN APPEAL 8-2-80: Appeal of Edward Monroe (d/b/a Empire Building Supplies Retail of Ithaca) for a sign variance to permit retention 3 of 8 signs totalling 410SF in an area at 332 Spencer Rd. Only one five square foot sign is permitted in the R-2a (residential ) use zone in which the property is located. Pictures were passed around showing the property. Mr. Van Cort explained that the business has recently put up a number of large signs on the premises which are in violation of the ordinance. He said the majority of the property which straddles the zone boundary, lies in an R-2a district where only one sign of not more than 5SF is permitted, the Ordinance permits extension of the� less restrictive use only 30 feet into the more restrictive zone, and this building is a full 120' into the more restrictive zone. Attorney Sullivan, representing the applicant, explained that all told there are 8 signs on the building. The business has been in operation since 1948, and has always been construction oriented as far as they know. He explained that the majority of the signs face the Elmira Road area, but people have been coming down Spencer Rd. to visit the business since that time. He said they have received letters of support from people in the neighborhood, especially Police Officer Dockstader. He stressed that because of the length of time the business as been in its present spot, its not going to make or break the neighborhood; there's always been advertising there and the majority of the signs do not face the residential neighborhood. Further discussion followed. Mr. Van Cort said that because the business is in such flagrant violation of the Ordinance in multiple instances, and in particular because they are in a residential zone and.all the signs, except perhaps one, were erected without a permit,, .staff recommends denial , with the exception that they be allowed one sign facing Spencer Rd. and another small sign not exceeding P&D Minutes Page 2 25SF on Elmira Road, On motion by Mr, Stewart, seconded by Ms. Nichols , it was MOVED to endorse the staff recommendation to deny with the exceptions mentioned above. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1312: Appeal of Evaporated Metal Films Corporation for an Area Variance to permit construction of a 1000SF addition at the rear of the building at 701 Spencer Rd. , in a B-5 (Business) district. Property is deficient in required front yard and proposed addition wou-Id result in deficient rear and side yards. Michael Shay, General Manager of Evaporated Metal Films was present to speak for this appeal . Mr. Van Cort said this building was located at the end of Spencer Road abutting Buttermilk Park, and the appellants propose a small addition on the back of the building which would not be visible from the road. A site plan was passed around. He further stated that the proposed addition will be too close to the rear yard and side yard. lines. Mr. Van Cort went on to say that County Planning would have to be notified and reply received from them before the City takes any action because the property is within 500' of a municipal boundary; and that law requires that a referral be made to County Planning. He said staff felt that the addition wouldn't negatively affect the park which is its closest neighbor, and wouldn't be visible from the street; staff recommended approval , Mr. Stewart MOVED to approve contingent upon agree- ment from the County Planning Board; that if that is not forthcoming, this appeal would then comeback before the City Planning Board. Ms . Nichols seconded the motion. Ms. Cummings questioned the parking arrangements, Mr. Shay showed a plot layout showing Spencer Rd. and their parking areas, which would not be . affected by this addition. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1313: Appeal of David Taube for an Area Variance to permit the conversion of the existing building at 319. W. State Street (Boykin Building) to an office building in a B-2a (business) district. Property is deficient in required side yards , maximum permitted lot coverage is exceeded and will be deficient in off-street parking for the proposed use. Mr. Van Cort said appellants claim they lack about 5 parking spaces; the Planning staff feels the deficiency is far greater, somewhere in the area of 30 spaces . He asked Mr. Taube to explain how they arrived at their calculations. Mr. Taube said he had reviewed this with the Building Commissioner and their figures were based upon one space for 250SF; the 7000SF building would thus require 28 spaces. Mr. Taube further noted that the Boykin property is on West State Street which he understood was an area targeted for redevelopment, He went on to say that the Boykin building is currently a body shop and a large span structure; their proposal is to gut the interior, put in office space, and totally rehab the exterior. He said the building comes with property facing Green St. which he computes would hold 23 parking spaces, so they were looking at a 5 space deficiency. He also mentioned some other deficiencies, one of them being the fact that the building is sitting on the property lines both east and ,west, though the setback requirement was 5' on one side and 10' on the other; secondly, maximum lot coverage is 50%, while the building covers about 51 ,5%. He said they felt that the conversion to offices is allowed in the zone, whereas the body shop was nonconforming; in effect they would be bringing the building into a conforming use, and that they don't necessarily believe that the occupancy of-the building would demand the 28 spaces that are required. He went on to say P&D Minutes Page 3 that they are proposing to create a new facade, and showed floor plans of the space. Ms. Cummings questioned the ownership of the property behind the building; access from Green St, is between the fire station and a small yellow house. Mr. Taube explained that Boykin sold the house a year ago and the property lines are shown. He said they would be negotiating the right-of-way across the property which is all parking lot and that they would essentially be improving the area. Mr. Taube said the parking lot would be totally improved with asphalt surface and landscaping. Mr. Taube said they sent approximately 35 mailings in the area and received 2 comments in favor and no comments negative. Staff recommendation was to approve this appeal : Mr. Van Cort said staff felt the area deficiencies are very minor, they are encouraging the re- development of W. State St. , and felt this is an appropriate use. Ms. Cummings MOVED to recommend approval subject to adequate permanent screening and land- scaping of parking, seconded by Ms. Nichols. Motion PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1314 Appeal of Edythe and Richard Conway for an Area Variance to permit the change in use of property at 214 Linn Street from a one- family dwelling to a multiple dwelling. Property is located in an R-3b (residential ) use zone where multiple dwellings are permitted, however property exceeds maximum permitted lot coverage and is deficient in both side yards and rear yard. Mr. Van Cort asked the appellants how many units they propose. Mrs. Conway said they proposed only one unit, a multiple dwelling for 5 unrelated people. She explained that it was a large one family house with 4 bedrooms which they purchased to use as a rental property with 5 students in the house and that they would not be living there. She further explained that they would not be changing the lot size or the existing structure. Mrs. Conway said in 1961 the City issued a building permit for a commercial garage which was attached to the house, so if the house and garage were looked at as one structure, it is deficient in side yards. She further stressed nothing would be changed as far as the house and garage is concerned; only the single-family usage. General discussion followed. Charles Weaver, owner and resident of 221 Linn St. then handed over a petition signed by neighbors and residents of Linn St. in opposition to use of the residence as a multiple dwelling. He said the petition also asked the Planning Board to consider changing the zoning classification from R-3b to R-2b in the one and two hundred blocks of Linn St. Mr. Weaver questioned why the first two blocks of Linn St, were zoned as they are when the rest of Fall Creek is zoned R-2b. He said there were very few. multiple dwellings in the area as a percentage; this particular neighborhood has many small Tots and parking problems; and rezoning should seriously be considered Mr. Weaver then read the petition signed by 31 people, basically owners and occupants of property in the neighborhood. Charles Barber of 206 Linn St. explained that vandalism is very high in the alley behind the properti°es in this block, that parking is a problem, and expressed his opposi- tion to absentee landlords, Ann Joseph of 210 Linn St. , adjacent to the appellant's , expressed concern about the noise which is associated with absentee landlords and students. Mr. DuBorgel of 119 Linn St. then expressed his opposition to absentee landlords sayi.ng they do nothing for the City in terms of upkeep of property, etc. Another neighbor, Mr. Hall of 219 Linn St. said he has been at his present address for 33 years and that the neighborhood is deteriorating due to too much traffic, etc. Mr. Conway said he was sympathetic to his neighbors ' concerns but was stunned. Mrs. Conway said before they purchased the property they had visited with the Building Commissioner to look at the property and advise them as to how to make the house legal for a multiple dwelling, and had invested approximately $7000 in • P&D Minutes Page 4 order to bring the property into compliance. Ms. Nichols mentioned that a real planning matter to consider is how much do they need to permit the expansion of multiple housing at the expense of families; neighborhood schools, etc. ; that family residential areas should be preserved close to downtown. Mr. Van Cort said for many of the same reasons listed above, staff recommended against this variance. Attorney Laura Holmberg questioned the meaning of density: if this property was rented to a family with 5 children, density would be greater than renting it to students; there are a number of ways to get exactly the same density that the Conways are proposing. After further lengthy discussion, Ms. Cummings,seconded by Ms. Nichols , MOVED to recommend denial . Motion PASSED unanimously. Ms. Nichols then made a motion that the Planning Dept. be asked to make a recommendation to Common Council at its earliest convenience regarding rezoning the 100 and 200 blocks of Linn St. from R-3 to R-2. Mr. Moore asked if the intent was to have the department report to the Board, and then the Board recommend to Council . Ms. Nichols replied that it was, Ms. Cummings seconded the motion, and it PASSED unanimously. APPEAL 1315: Appeal of Marguerite Ashford and James M. Cox for a Special Permit for a home occupation at 608 E. Seneca Street. Appellants would reside in the house and use part of the house for a psychotherapy office. Mr. Van Cort stated that in an R-2a zone, home occupations are not permitted as of right, and read the definition of home occupations from the Zoning Ordinance. Laura Holmberg, attorney for appellants, explained that they previously had their psychotherapy office on the commons. She said they had no plans for a group practice, and there would be no more than 2 people coming to the house at any one time and there was ample parking. She said there would be no additions to the building. Ms. Holmberg read a letter in support from one of the neighbors and said some 32 notices were sent out, none of which raised opposition, Mr. Van Cort said staff recommended in favor. Ms. Nichols then MOVED to recommend approval . Mr. Stewart said he was abstaining because he knew the previous owners, and is a neighbor; he added that he would like a stipulation in the motion saying that should the nature of the treatment change to group therapy, the special permit would become void. Ms. Nichols then MOVED that the application be granted as long as the practice is confined to individuals or very small group therapy, of not more than 3 persons. Mr. Sampson seconded the motion. Motion PASSED with Mr. Stewart abstaining. APPEAL 1316: Appeal of Stephen C. and James S. Zifchock for an area variance to permit addition of a small equipment enclosure on the roof of the non-conforming building at 1012 N. Aurora St. (Fall Creek Laundromat) . Mr. Van Cort said the appellants are proposing to construct a solar heating device on the roof of the laundromat. Mr. Zifchock said the proposed construction would include a small room 8' by 8' by 6' high that would hold storage tanks and heating controls; the purpose being to heat water with solar energy. Mr. Van Cort said the staff felt it was so covered with virtue that not only should they get the variance but they should get a commendation for putting in solar heaters. On motion by Ms. Nichols , seconded by Mr, Sampson, it was MOVED to recommend approval . PASSED unanimously. P&D Minutes Page 5 3. Old Business: (a) Radio Towers: Proposed Zoning Amendment: Mr. Van Cort said that staff felt that the draft amendment .should be recommended to Council ; he had thought this matter had gone to committee for review and recommendation. Mr. Stewart said that perhaps the basic text of the proposed zoning amendment should be typed and the new additions highlighted so that it could be read in context. He said he would bring it back next month. Further discussion followed concern- ing guy wires and fencing and the wording used in the draft, It was then decided that this would go back to staff, with the reworked draft to be mailed to Mr. Stewart. (b) Proposed N. Tioga St. B-1 Rezoning: Chairman Moore said there had been committee meetings held dealing with this subject, as well as a DEIS prepared. Mr. Van Cort said that the last time the Board met, Environmental Assessments on 2 alternatives for rezoning a portion of the Tioga St. area were distributed, with the department's recommendation which Council had asked the staff to make. Council subsequently decided that the Board, as well as the Environmental Commi- ssion, should make a recommendation to Council on whether or not to prepare Draft Environmental Impact Statements on the alternatives before proceeding with the question of rezoning itself, Mr. Van Cort said he felt the Board was being asked not to speak to the merits of rezoning but only to whether or not Council should cause a DEIS to be prepared prior to consideration of rezoning. Mr. Van Cort further stated that the Planning Board has every right to make a further recommendation, which the Committee undertook to do at its meeting last week, on the actual issues of the rezoning and that is what this recommendation speaks to, He stated the most radical proposal is to rezone the entire area between Sears and. Aurora Sts. and Court and Cascadilla Avenue. A more limited proposal would be to rezone only the properties abutting Tioga St. between Cascadilla and Court, He said staff has also prepared for the Board's information other alternatives which could be considered should Council want to pursue this further. After further discussion Mr; Stewart informed the Board that the committee actually felt that no changes should be made in the zoning in the area bounded by Sears, Aurora, Court and Cascadilla® Further discussion followed on rewording of the Resolution to be given to Council . After general agreement, on Motion by Mr. Stewart, seconded by Ms. Cummings, it was MOVED to recommend approval of the following Resolution on Proposed B-1 Rezoning, as amended, Motion PASSED unanimously. Resolution The Board of Planning and Development recommends to the Common Council that it enact no zoning change anywhere in the blocks bounded by Sears, Aurora, and Court Sts. and Cascadilla Ave. It does so for a number of reasons. We believe such rezoning will : 1 . Establish an unwise precedent that will encourage proximate neighborhoods to seek similar action and economic benefit. 2. Soften the project commercial marketability of the Ithaca Center and other proposed downtown office developments, especially those to which the City has already made a commitment. This is not in the best interests of the community at this time, P&D Minutes Page 6 3. Have a negative impact on the City's already short housing .supply by diminishing the available number of residential units. 4. Constitute an unnecessary abridgement of the City's long- standing policy of limiting the overall size of the central office zone. This policy has existed not only to prevent unwarranted commercial intrusion into the adjoining residen- tial districts, but also for the important purpose of protect- ing the high value, and stimulating continued revitalization of downtown and West State Street. Thus it is our opinion that the proposed rezoning is not in the best interests of the neighborhood, city government or the public in general , Beyond these specific concerns , we believe that it should not be necessary for public agencies to defend their existing zoning and development policies. We believe that the City's Zoning Ordinance, which reflects the goals expressed in the City's General Plan, should only be changed when there are well thought-out, compelling reasons which are consonant with the planning and development objectives and recommendations con- tained in the plan. The Board is unaware of any evidence that the proposed change would result in any significant public gain, Quite the contrary seems true. Unless and until strong reason for such change is offered, therefore, we urge the Common Council not to change the present zoning in the area under discussion. A brief discussion was held regarding environmental impact; no action was taken concerning Council 's original request for a recommendation on whether to require further environmental review of the alternatives, (c) Assisted Housing Site Selection Criteria: Mr, Van Cort handed out a list of site selection criteria, which was meant to be more responsive to the local situation than the generalized HUD guidelines previously considered. He said he wasn't sure if these criteria were meant to cover housing for the elderly. General discussion followed; Ms, Nichols said that Council would like a recom- mendation from the PlanningBoard. Mr, Van Cort said he would like the elderly housing criteria to go back to staff to be reviewed by Ms, Evans, Community Development Housing Specialist, Ms. Nichols then MOVED that the Board endorse the criteria and send them to Common Council for adoption ,as a policy in planning scattered site housing; seconded by Mr, Sampson. All were in favor with Chairman Moore voting as Ms, Cummings had to leave the meeting. (d) Public Hearing: Mr, Stewart MOVED to open a public hearing on the Ithaca Center Site Subdivision which was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal . Chairman Moore asked if anyone was present to speak on the subdivision; there being none, Mr, Stewart MOVED to close the Public Hearing, Mr. Van Cort said this subdivision would not be harmful to any future development on the site, which now is one parcel ; the city is going to be selling the open part of the site to the current developers, who will then build on that site. He stated that the city would also be selling to the developers the land underneath the parking garage, but will retain strong rights in that parcel in addition to air rights: under certain P&D Minutes Page 7 conditions, the site will revert to the city after a certain amount of time. The reversion, should it be necessary, will be facilitated by a division of the site into two parcels. Mr. Van Cort stated that this parcel is very valuable for future development; if the developers are unable to develop it in a certain amount of time and if the market is still strong for development, then the city could take it back to give someone else the chance to develop it. Mr. Stewart then MOVED to approve the subdivision of the Ithaca Center Site, seconded by Ms. Nichols. PASSED unanimously. 4. New Business: Mr, Stewart said that six or seven months ago the thought was raised of sitting down with Cornell and working with them to insure that the impact (parking, increased traffic, etc. ) of introducing 150 graduate students into Sage Infirmary on East Hill would be as limited as possible. Ms. Nichols said two meetings were held with some aldermen and people from the planning staff resulting in some. opening of communication lines, and that they were invited to a number of meetings. Regarding the Infirmary, Ms. Nichols said they had met twice with University officials,, officers and members of the East Hill Civic Assoc. , immediate neighbors, etc. and that Cornell recognized the importance of involving members of-the neighborhood in this regard. Further discussion followed. It was suggested that the planning staff study this issue further and then discuss their findings with the relevant committee. 5. Chairperson's Report: Mr. Moore said he felt that the Board should be concerned with the YMCA location issue. He said he had talked with Mr. Grennell at length and the Y is quite anxious to make a decision about what they're going to do. General discussion followed as to possible sites, etc. Chairman Moore then appointed new member Martin Sampson to the Neighborhood Development and Housing Committee and to the Urban Design and Historic Preservation Committee, Mr, Moore said there was a request from the County Planning Board that a member of the Urban Design and Historic Preservation Committee be appointed to the County Planning Board. No appointment was announced. 6, There being no motion made for approval of minutes; approval postponed until the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11 :04 p.m.