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.