Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-09-30 ,.vr-PiG MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Se tember 30, 1980 PRESENT: Chairperson Moore; M, Sampson, S, Cummings, R. Koran, P, Holmes , E, Nichols ALSO: Dr. E, Gasteiger; applicants , representatives and parties inter- ested in zoning appeals , includinq neighborhood residents and neighborhood association members; Sign Inspector G. Schnock; Plan- ning Director Van Cort; J, Meigs; Tnembers of the press . 1 , Chairman called meeting to order at 7:35 pfm. 2, _ Public Hearing - Taylor Place Subdivision, involving the correcting ofa side lot line error between two developed properties . Mr. Meigs explained that the two adjacent properties, both of which have residences on them, are requesting a minor subdivision because the actual surveyed lot line and the agreed lot line between them vary. Both properties would be in conformance with the zoning ordinance, should the appeal be approved. Chairman ?Moore explained that in a previous meeting conditional approval was given and that a public hearing would now be held; the results of which would determine approval or denial ; he then convened the public hearing. Mr. Meigs explained that Dr. Gasteiger is representing both parties in the request, A diagram was passed around showing the two properties and adjoining line, No one asked to speak concerning the subdivision, and Mr, Moore closed the hearing, Mr. Moran MOVED to approve the subdivision, Mr, Sampson SECONDED, and MOTION PASSED unanimously, 3. Special Order of Business: NONE Staff Report: Mr. Meigs explained his role in the department, saying that he has been mainly involved in what might be called the more traditional aspects of planning, including subdivisions, zoning, land use and land use planning, the sign ordinance, environmental reviews, transportation and 'historic preservation (as secretary to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission) , and items of this nature that relate to the use of land and the control that the City has over activities on the land. He stated that he has been involved in the improvement of the central business .area in terms of facade alterations, as member of the Commons Design Advisory Team, and he assists the Director in the Design Review Board which . recently was initiated to advise on architectural design and improvements in a few small areas of the City which were rezoned to permit more intensive business devel- opment. He explained that he got involved in the Commons Design Advisory Team as a staff representative, a special creation of the CAB to assist Commons property owners and merchants in improving their properties as a follow-on to the development of the Commons itself. He has also served on several other committees such as the Circle Greenway Committee and the Devitt Park Improvement Committee. He is frequently involved in drafting of legislation -- zoning etc. -- which finds its way through this board to Common Council and other boards for consideration. For example he has spent some time recently drafting the alternatives dealing with the Tioga Street Rezoning . MINUTBS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p• 2 Mr. Meigs said there were two matters he felt deserved attention in the near future: zoningg, of the small area on Linn Street; and the larger issue, which areas citywide, if any, should permit multiple-family residences? He pointed out that the City has a shrinking supply of areas zoned for multiple residency; should that area be further restricted? should the zoning ordinance be restud- ied and other, more acceptable forms of multiple residential development be Z' should the City actively de-emphasize its residential role, and concen- trate on other sectors of economic development? or should the City not accept any further areas for multiple residency? This had been the subject of a staff discussion that day, as it is of growing concern, and seems likely to require considerable thought by both the Planning Board and Common Council on matters of planning and policy before the answer is found. A major contribution to the problem; of course, is Cornell which has been saying for some years that it intends to limit growth and cap student enrollment but has not done so. Mr. Moore said he felt that Cornell enrollment had not grown significantly, but rather the more extensive use of the automobile by students was responsible for much of the change being discussed here. Mr. Van Cort said that while many of the negative effects of density are associated with the automobile, he felt that the university had grown considerably, and that with the population growth in general , this was the reason for the problem of multiple housing; the current housing vacancy rate of Ithaca, 1 or 2%, is below a reasonable vacancy rate, and creates enormous inflationary pressure. It was mentioned that the problem would largely be solved if Cornell had more dormitory space and better parking facilities , which they are working on now. Mr, Van Cort stated that the short-term result of examining the issue raised in relation to Linn Street, but not limited to that area, would probably not be a sweeping revision, as was done in 1977 because 80% of the City's residential area was zoned for multiple occupancy while only 20% was in multiple occupancy. The post-1977 zoning more accurately reflects the actual situation, and staff is now concerned about those areas which were left zoned for multiple residences , but not now predominantly in multiple occupancy; the question is should those be the places where multiple-residential growth will happen, or are they inap- propriate for such use. The broader question of the importance of housing to the Citv's overall economy will require m ore extensive deliberation by the Board and Council . Chairman Moore said that he thought the problem of absentee landlords was also a serious threat to the City and something should be done about it. his . Cummings asked if the City had been in contact with other communities having similar hous- ing situations . Mr. Van Cort replied that for several years staff had been thinking of holding a University Town conference, but had not done so because of the amount of money, work and other resources required for such an event. The information, he feels, would be invaluable to the community and he still thinks it would be worthwhile doing. Mr. Sampson agreed that it would be a good idea and suggested that it be put in the works as soon as possible, perhaps finding someone at the university interested in organizing something of this nature. He said that in his opinion the problem of multiple housing was a very, serious threat to Ithaca at the present .time, since the change in the type of landlord from owner-occupants to absentees, who arenot so much concerned with the condi- tion and occupancy of property as with the economic return from it, had had a great impact on the community. Ms. Cummings agreed and said that there should be an attempt to re-encourage owner-occupancy of multiple units; Mr. Van Cort MINUTES PLANNING 84 DEVELOPMENT G. 3 commented that this was not one of the department's areas of study at the present time. Chairman Moore then thanked Mr. Meigs for his presentation. 5. Committee Reports: NONE 5. (a) Taylor Place Subdivision: See Item (2) . (b) N, Tioga St. Rezoning: Ms. Cummings pointed out that the latest approach to rezoning the 400 block of North Tioga Street is the creation of a Special Use Zone. She stated that all of the objections which were raised to the last 'com- promise' presented, Alternate C, still apply to this approach. The major objec- tion bjection is that similar to .Alternate C, which would have established a zone which could be applied to other areas around town, the Special Use zone would set a mechanism in place for converting other residential areas to commercial zones. Another objection is that there are no convincing planning reasons for the change. Ms. Cummings then advised the Board that there had been a proposed change in the draft of the Special Use Zone: The boundaries had been changed from the advertised boundaries. The definition of the boundaries originally read "From Tioga Street to rear property lines or .132 feet, whichever is less", the "132 feet or whichever is less" has been deleted. She said that a real concern of groups opposed to the change was the fact that the commercial zone would then extend directly into Sears Street, a residential area. Ms , Cummings then distributed a resolution to the Board from the Codes and Administration Committee and the Neighborhood and Housing Committee, which she requested be read at the meeting of the Common Council , once the Planning Board had approved it, Discussion ensued, following which Ms , Cummings MOVED, and Mr, Holmes SECONDED, approval of the following resolution: WHEREAS, a proposal is now under consideration to establish a Special Use Zone in the 400 block of t4. Tioga St. , and WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development has previously reviewed and recommended-against other proposals to rezone the area in question for non-residential use, it is RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and Development remains strongly opposed to the rezoning of the area to permit non-residential uses, and that we also object to attempts to redraw the boundaries of the proposed zone in such a way as to permit the intrusion of commercial uses into substantial- frontage on Sears St, as well , and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board feels that while Special Use Zoning is an acceptable method of zoning which can be a valuable tool used by the City tc encourage desirable and beneficial uses of land, it is not the appropriate mechanism in this instance, because no such public purpose is served, and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board recommends to the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that the proposed Special Use Zone not be enacted, for reasons stated in this Board 's previous recommendations on. N, Tioga Street rezoning, as follow: (1 ) While the proposed Special Use Zone would not establish an automatic .precedent which could be followed by persons seeking more intensive development in other areas of the City, it nevertheless does present an alternative mechanism which could be followed in such cases-, "iINU T ES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT p. 4 (2) While it might produce a 'less intense immediate impact in the Tioga Street area, it would on the other hand set the stage for longer-term, broader impacts. It would tend to blur the bound- aries between residential and commercial uses , and would in- crease pressures for change in bordering residential areas; L-'-he balance would always be tilted toward commercial use; (3) It would produce a loss of residential units despite the fact that our community suffers from a critical housing shortage;. and (4) It would soften the commercial marketability of other projects already in progress in areas more appropriate for commercial development. MOTION PASSED unanimously. The Chairman announced that there would be a public hearing on the rezoning before Common Council the following evening; Mr. Meigs will submit the resolu- tion to the City Clerk with a request that it be read into the minutes o tthat meeting, if possible at the beginning of the hearing. ZONING APPEALS SIGN APPEAL 102-80: To permit retention of the existing Bern Furniture Stores Inc, sign at 120 W, State Street in a B-3 (business) district. The sign has been calculated to be approximately 92 sq, ft. , about twice as large as it should be (50 SF) under the provisions of the ordinance. The appeal stated that strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship because they would have to completely replace the four story front of the building if the sign is removed, and secondly they were given permission by the City to erect the sign in 1975. Mr, Schnock, City Sign Inspector, stated that a permit was issued in error in 1915 for that particular size sign, based on the plan given to them for a Bern Furniture Store located in Oneonta, which .the then building commissioner may have failed to realize was not the Ithaca store, The area of the sign in question was based upon the size of the larger store in Oneonta. Mr, Michael Moss, Presi- dent of Bern Furniture Stores stated that while there is a plan on file with a request for a sign in Oneonta, under no circumstances was this given to show that the dimensions of one in Ithaca was the same, but was to indicate to the building department the size of the letters and .location on storefront, They were issued a permit and then advised that the other half of the sign, the word "Furniture" , could not be erected. Chairman Moore asked if the sizeandlocation of that par- ticular sign was vital to the survival and continued functioning of the business: Mr. Moss stated that it was, and added that because of the sign only being half erected, the company is now not even known as a furniture store; he felt that to .remove the sign and erect a smaller one would be very damaging to the business, Staff recommendation was for denial , inasmuch as the existing sign is twice as large as it should be in accordance with the ordinance requirements . Ms . Cummings MOVED to recommend DENIAL inasmuch as the Planning Board has been very rigorous in the enforcement of this sign ordinance. Mr. Holmes SECONDED, and MOTION PASSED 3-2= SIGN APPEAL 10-3-80: Variance under Section 34.46 (projecting sign) to permit retention of the existing J. P. Gallagher Co. , Inc. sign at 415 North Tioga Street in an R-3a (residential ) district. Mr. Mleigs explained that the sign ordinance describes this particular variety of sign, freestanding, yet located within 5 feet MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT o. 5 of a building, as a building sign. The ordinance prohibits a sign extending more than 18" from the front of the building on which it is mounted, but this is classi- fied as a Building sign only because of its proximity to the building. Staff recom- mended that the variance be approved as the sign is modest and appropriate for the location and purpose, and recd ��ended further that the language of the ordinance be revised to clarify the situation. Mr. Moran MOVED to APPROVE variance, SECONDED by Mr. Sampson and MOTION PASSED unanimously. SIGN APPEAL 10-5-80: Variance under Section 34.8 (setback) , Section (34.3) (roof sign) , and Section 34.156 (Historic Signs) to permit retention of existing Mobil service station signs at 221 N. Aurora St. in a B-la (business) district. The free-standing sign projects over the sidewalk and within ten (10) feet of the street right-of-way. The "Flying Horse" roof sign would extend more than eighteen (18) inches above the top of the wall below. 11s . Cummings said she thought the appeal concerning the Flying Horse was going to be taken to the Landmarks Commission for determination of historic status before being brought to the Planning Board, Mr, Meigs said that appellant decided not to apply for historic status and Mr. Schnock explained that the owner felt that historic status for that sign could not be obtained. It was explained that the sign is actually not erected at this time and they are waiting approval before erection. The problem with the erection of the sign is that it would project -more than 18" above the cornice which is not permitted by the sign ordinance. The discussion then turned to the Freestanding sign, which as it projects over the sidewalk is permitted only with an encroachment permit. Mr. Schnock said that in his opinion it would be almost infeasible to relocate that sign because located anywhere else the sign would obstruct the access of the traffic to the pumps , and there is really no alternative in this situation. Staff recommendation is that variance for the Flying Horse be denied in order to prevent the projection of the sign above the roof, and that permission to retain the freestanding sign be denied as well , as it encroaches on the right of way and there had been no apparent attempt on the part of appellant to relocate the sign. Mr. Patterson, son of the owner, explained that the station was located about 30' back from the sidewalk and without the sign the business would hardly be visible to passing traffic. Ms , Cummings commented that perhaps the business was mostly local business which would know about the location, but Mr. Patterson explained that a lot of out-of-town traffic came in to Ithaca by way of E. State Street and Aurora, and would not know of the station's existence without the sign to make it apparent from that direction. Mr, ,Moran MOVED to recommend denial of the part of the appeal concerning the "flying horse" attachment, but .that an encroachment permit be granted for the existing freestanding sign; Mr, Meigs pointed out that the Planning and Development Board has no say concerning encroachment permits , which are virtually automatic, and that the motion should be to APPROVE a variance for the pole sign. Mr. Holmes SECONDED. and MOTION PASSED unanimously, SIGN APPEAL 10-6-80: Variance under Section 34.46 (projecting signs) to permit retention of existing free-standing signs at 408 N, Tioga Street in an R-3 district. The signs project more than eighteen (18) inches from the face of the building, raising questions of ordinance interpretation. The Chairman explained that the situation was exactly the same as in the Gallagher case previously discussed and Mr. Moran MOVED to recommend approval , Mr. Sampson SECONDED, and MOTION PASSED unanimously. MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT P, 6 APPEAL 1321 : Appeal of Orson Ledger for an Area Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 10, 12, 13 and 14 (off.-street parking, maximum lot coverage, side yards , and rear yard) to permit the addition of eleven efficiency apartments to the building at 318-322 West State Street, in a B-2a (business) district. The prop- erty now has fifteen apartments, plus commercial space; the proposed new apart- ments would be in place of the commercial uses . The property is deficient in required off-street parking, the maximum permitted lot coverage is exceeded, and is deficient in minimum required side yards and rear yard. The building was identified as the old Goodyear building and it was explained that the building now contains apartments , vacant commercial space and an auto- mobile repair business . Attorney Paul Tavelli , representing Mir, Ledger, stated that the repair business would be going out because the Building Commissioner does not like its existence in a building with residential property. He passed around a diagram of the building and explained that the two story building con- tains six one-bedroom apartments, nine efficiency apartments and two rooms upstairs , which have been there for many years . Goodyear moved out about three years ago; it is impossible to find any automobile type business to occupy such specialized space because of the parking problems and the apparent fact that auto businesses no longer want to be in the downtown area. He said further that Mr. Ledger had been attempting to rent the space for such uses for the past three years and had met with no success . The small auto business in the building now does not occupy the whole first floor area, and since it has been impossible to use the space for retail purposes , Mr. Ledger has decided to convert (part of) the first floor to apartments as well as (.adding units on) the second floor. He would like to put eight efficiency apartments on the first floor and two more upstairs. There is also additional inside space which he would like to use as a garage area for parking of automobiles only, Mr. Meigs noted that this had not been indicated in the appeal . Mr. Ledger, who was present, stressed that he had no desire to use any of the space for the auto-repair center, and would like to have that operation removed. Mr= Tavelli stated that as the apartments would be reasonably inexpensive, efficiency apartments, not all of the tenants would own automobiles, and he felt that the existing parking would suffice. Mr.. Meigs said that thirty spaces would be required but only ten were specifically outlined on the plan presented, and therefore there would be a twenty space deficiency; even if all the garage bays were used for parking the property would still be deficient by approximately half, i .e. fifteen spaces. Ms . Cummings said that the parking was not the only consideration in this appeal and questioned the appropriateness of the building for residential use. In her opinion the building was more suitable for office purposes since conversion to residential use would create a number of small cubicles not really suitable for living in. She stated that she would like to see a facade view of the building in order to ascertain what the building would look like, as from the plans sub- mitted it appeared as if the building would not change at all in its commercial appearance and qualities . Mr. Tavelli then stressed that the need for residen- tial space in this area is far greater than the need for commercial space, as shown by the fact that none has been interested in renting as a commercial property. Ms , Cummings agreed that there was a need for residential space but felt that the need was greater for family residential space as opposed to small units for individuals or students . MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT P 7 The Chairman then called for a staff comment. Mr. Meigs discussed the other two deficiencies in the property, i .e. exceeding maximum lot coverage permitted and deficient in minimum required side yards and rear yard. He stressed that the most important deficiency is the lack of 'off -street parking. He said staff recommends that the appeal be denied on the basis of the location and other specific circum- stances which make the proposed additions inappropriate and against the best interests of the City. Ms . Cummings MOVED to DENY and added that she hoped the building could become a part of the commercial revitalization effort. Mr. Ledger asked in what way the building was unsuited to residential use, The Chairman explained that the Board was of the opinion that the building would not be suited to residential use without really extensive modifications as it would not provide residential amenities . Mr. Ledger explained that the rear of the building would be completely redone. Mr. .Meigs stressed that the lack of some softening features to indicate that this would be a residential structure was an important factor, There would be no greenery, for example, and the surroundings would not be par- ticularly pleasant for living in. Mr. Ledger stressed the fact that some people wanted an inexpensive, convenient place to live and were not so much concerned with the appearance as long as the building met with their immediate requirements for cleanliness , neatness and proximity to the downtown area. Chairman Moore said that what the City wants to see on West State Street is renewal , but of a different type. Mr, Sampson SECONDED the motion to deny and MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mrs , Nichols joined the meeting at this point. APPEAL 1322: Appeal of Cornell University for an Interpretation of a Use Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 2 and 3 (.permitted primary and secondary uses) to permit conversion of the residence at 316 Fall Creek Drive for offices , in an R-2a (residential ) zone in which offices are not permitted. The Appellant claims that state law exempts educational institutional from local zoning law; if the Board of Zoning Appeals does not concur with this interpretation, Appellant will ask for a Use hariance. Chairman Moore explained that as he is a resident of that area it would be inap- propriate for him to chair this discussion and the following case, and asked Vice Chairperson Susan Cummings to assume the chair. Ms, Cummings explained that the Planning Board was not in a position to evaluate the interpretation and would leave that to the Board of Zoning Appeals as it is more appropriately suited to dealing with the legal side of this issue. The Planning and Development Board will deal only with the variance request. Mr. Meigs explained that the concerns raised in this particular case are its effects on the character of the residen- tial neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located, the appropriateness of the proposed use in a residential zone, and the effects on the adjacent residen- tial properties such as traffic, type of occupant (i .e. , non-family, non-resident) , number of occupants, and use cycle of the building. Another factor of concern to the Board was the removal of the house from the residential housing stock and tax rolls, as economic and housing factors are of considerable concern to the City. Shirley Egan, an attorney representing the University, pointed out that the property is a borderline one, between residential and institutional zones . She said that in the general neighborhood there are many pre-existing uses which are not strictly single family residences , i .e, sororities, apartment buildings , dormitories, as well as University offices, and based on this the University is applying for a MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D.8 variance. She said that the members of the University staff accompanying her would be pleased to answer any questions . Mr. Van Cort clarified that the ,property across Fall Creek Drive is currently zoned P-1 , i ,e, Public Recreation; it really is Fall Creek gorge, Mr. Calvin Harding, Director of Publications of the University, explained that the house would provide offices for about 10 members of his staff, editors and designers. It would be used between the hours of 7:30 am and 5:30 pm, normal working hours , The work conducted would involve no special equipment and there would not be many business visitors. The only deliveries to the building would be normal mail deliveries, Ms , Cummings asked what expansion to the department might be expected in the future and lir. Harding said that the d3partment had been roughly the same size for the past five or six years and he did not expect any expansion, Chairperson Cummings then asked .if there was any particular reason for locating in this ?articular building, Mr, Harding said no, other than that their present offices in Sheldon Court are being converted into student dormitories, The house in question is available and their office can function off campus; one of their requirements is that the designers have some private space, and a large open modern office would not be suitable, Sydney Siskin whose responsibility includes programming and coordinating utilization of space for the endowed colleges and administration, explained that the only place suit- able for the relocation of this office was the house in question. It had been empty for some ?months and the decision had been made not to put other units into the house on the grounds that they wou1,d disrupt the surrounding neighborhood because of parking, traffic, etc, This would have no such effect. The space is somewhat smaller than what the office now occupies, but it was determined that the office would function very well in the building, The main reason for choosing this building was simply that it was available Ms , Egan passed around a diagram of the building and parking .available, explaining that although it seemed deficient in available parking., it would not be, according to an unoffi- cial poll taken of the office -members possessing cars, ?fir. Moore asked whether the previous use of the property had not been mainly as an overflow residential property for faculty and staff, and whether the university had plans to deal with this type of situation, Ids , Siski.n stated that she had never investigated university policy on such matters, Nr, Sampson asked what other Droperties were considered for the Publications Office and Nis , Siskin replied that this was the only property she could find available, Mir, Sampson felt the Playining Board should meet with a committee of planning for the University in order to obtain an idea of the University's thoughts with respect to development affecting the city; it would be helpful to both City and University to gain an idea of long- and short-term plans, The Chairman then asked for comments from the floor. !fir, Richard Penner of 216 Wait Avenue, Cornell Heights , read a petition signed by 49 people requesting that the Board recommend denial of the appeal , as they object to commercial use of their residential area, He reiterated the problems that the conversion would create, saying that they would detract from the resi- dential character of the neighborhood, He stressed that there might be a lack of maintenance and loss of the beauty of the area, MINUTES PLANNING .AND DEVELOPMENT a. 9 Mr, Neil Orloff of the Cornell. Heights Civic Association spoke as well in oppo- sition to the proposed changes, explaining that the formation of the association was a direct response to the change in the neighborhood, He agreed with Atty. Egan's statement that there were some other properties in the area being used commercially, and stated that this was becoming threatening to the inhabitants , in that it was encroaching on their .residential area, He would request that the Board recommend denial of the use variance appeal . 1.1r. Harold Reynolds of 121 Kelvin Place said that he felt the existing commercial uses in the area were making a bad enough impression on the beauty of the area and any further commercial uses would make the situation worse, Several other members of the Cornell Heights Civic Association expressed their opposition to the conversion as well , Seventeen members of the association were present to make their feelings known. Ms , Nichols commented that she felt it was a very poor use of precedent to cite the Cornell University Press as an excuse for more houses being used for commercial reason: the building was left to the Cornell University Press and she feels that that does not conflict with the spirit of the zoning ordinance adopted many years later, nobody has given permission for any other commercial enterprises to move into the area since, Mr. Moore asked a hypothetical question to the effect that if Cornell were subject to the City laws, would they request the variance on the merits of the case. Ms . Egan said yes, as she felt that this function was just as important as housing . students. his. Cumminns noted that a member of the public would have to prove that in no way at all would the conversion detract from the existing character, and could not net away with just stating that it is. not all that bad, Ms . Egan stressed that there would be no modifications or alterations to the building, and in no way would things change or detract from its character. Mr. Moore said that he was astonished that the University would make decisions comparable to those made by the City through the Board of Zoning appeals , without having, reviewed the possible effects of the decision at all . He would like to see evidence of a planning function in the University with respect to residential properties, so that a two-way conversation would be possible with respect to res;- dential values,. He said that the neighborhood deserves to understand what decision- making process the University is using. Mr. Penner said that the Association was having a neighborhood meeting on Thursday and that the University had agreed to meet with them to discuss some of its land use goals in that neighborhood. Chairperson Cummings summed up the discussion and asked for a staff recommendation, Mr. Meigs said that the staff recommendation is to deny because there i.s a feeling that the proposed variance is not in the best interests of the community, Mr. Holmes MOVED to recommend denial and Ms, Nichols SECONDED the motion. Mr. Sampson said that he resents being asked to comment and come to a decision when only half of the necessary information has been provided; he feels that the community is entitled to know something about what Cornell 's plans are in order to be able to evaluate such proposals. Ms. Nichols stated here opinion whether or not Cornell is subject to the City's zoning ordinances, it is extremely poor public relations to take the stand that they are not, and she feels that they are making a serious error either in their hope to acquire any more property or in their hope to get any variances from the City, They would be much better advised to obey the laws and find out what they are, They could probably well work within the framework of the laws. MOTION PASSED with one abstention (Mr, Moore) . Mr. Moran excused himself from the meeting at this point, MIH!i T=S PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT p l t= APPEAL 1323: Appeal of Cornell University for a Use Variance under Section 30,25, Columns 2 and 3 (permitted primary and secondary uses) to permit conver- sion of the residence at 319 Wait Avenue for offices , in an R-2a (residential zone in which offices are not permitted, The Appellant claims that state law exempts educational institutional from local zoning law; if the Board of Zoning Appeals does not concur with this interpretation, Appellant will ask for a Use Variance, Ms . Cummings asked for a staff comment or specific information on this appeal , Mr. Meigs said that it should be noted that the location is on the borderline between the actual university campus and the residential quarters of the north campus, and the area of the city zoned R-3. Information presented with the appeal indicates that the reasoning behind the appeal includes factors of no real need for additional parking or extension of current parking, due to prox- imity to campus and university housing, and accessibility via university bus; deliveries to the house would be extremely infrequent; there would be no altera- tion of the exterior appearance of the house; and it would be regularly maintained. Atty, Egan said that she felt that this property was less desirable than the Fall Creek Drive house as a -residence. She added that there would be one small change to the exterior of the building which would be a ramp making it handicapped- accessible. Or.. Anderson, Associate Director of the Indonesia Project, then explained some of the uses to be -made of the house; the office is occupied by two faculty members and a visiting foreign service officer, and about 6 or 7 graduate students in the advanced stages of writing their theses; the space would be reserved for students who need peace and quiet; and there would be occasional seminars and weekly lunches which would not be likely to disruptany neighborhood activities . He stated that the Project fellows were very community-oriented and felt responsibility for being good neighbors, as evidenced by the extensive efforts they had made voluntarily to keep their present facility in reasonable repair despite lack of maintenance by the university. The probable fate of the present structure is that it will be razed, possibly to permit use of the lot for parking. ?'r, Isaac Kramnick of the Cornell Heights Civic Association questioned the necessity OT moving the Indonesia Project to a neighborhood residentialzoney whether that particular house was- suitable, and whether Cornell should be allowed at all to -move to this house He requested that the Board recommend denial of the appeal , He asked, rhetorically, if the university were granted this appeal when it has not been required to explain the necessity of the move, how could any other appeal be denied. he would not like to set that precedent. Mr, dames Cutting of 536 Thurston Avenue spoke in opposition to the appeal , Chairperson Cummings summed up by saying that Cornell had indicated that the struc- ture presently occupied by the Project was in bad condition and they needed to move; the building in question would be satisfactory for their uses, and the neighborhood input questions the appropriateness of the use of the house for this purpose, Staff recommended denial on the same basis as the preceding case; i .e, it would not be in the .best interests of the community to grant a use variance. Ms . Nichols MOVED to deny, Mr. Holmes SECONDED and MOTION PASSED with one abstention (Mr, Moore) . Ms. Cummings then handed back the Chair to Mr. Moore. MINL'T ES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ID 1 . APPEAL 1324: Appeal of Dale R Sherwood and Charles L. Tallman for Use and Area Variances under Section 30,25, Columns 2 and 11 (permitted uses and front yard) LO permit construction of an additional dwelling unit at the rear of the existing multiple dwelling (cooperative) at 122 Linden Avenue, in an P-2b (residential ) district in which multiple dwellings are not permitted, and is deficient in front yard set back, Mr. Meigs explained that the house in question currently contains six unrelated individuals and six bedrooms, and has been grandfathered into its present use which is not permitted by the zone. The proposal is to build a three-bedroom addition for three additional unrelated occupants, The Area variance requested is fora two-foot deficiency in the front yard set back only 8` from the street. The present zoning permits a two-family dwelling each unit of which can be occupied by not more than three unrelated persons , Mr. Meigs then read .a peti- tion dated September 25th signed by nine families strongly objecting to the proposed alteration, Mr. John Ward, attorney representing the appellant, said that his clients were proposing to provide needed housing for students in -an area Which is already providing student housing., He said that they do not pro- Dose to overtax the capacity of the property in any way. There is parking in excess of that required under the present zoning ordinance, The addition will amount to an upgrading of the neighborhood, which is predominantly student housing at present and no character changes would be necessary. Mir, Meigs then pointed out the two nonconform?ties involved: the minor defi- ciency in front-yard setback, and the six unrelated individuals occupying the existing unit as opposed to three permitted by zoning= Mr. Lauren Stiles,, resident of the house opposite the one in question, said that he felt the addition would damage the quality of life in the area, one which is already shaky with. all the student occupants and one which they would not want compounded. Mr. Charles Tallman, one of the owners of the property, said that the district was already inhabited by hundreds of students and consisted of largely multiple units to house then, He felt that the addition would not in any way change the environment, or character- of the street. The tenants would also not present any on-street parking problem. Mr. Joseph Leeming, President of the Bryant Park Civic Association, presented his view in opposition to the variance, Mr, Meigs recommended denial insofar as the property already contains the maximum number of occupants permitted by the zoning ordinance. (Mr. Van Cort abstained from that recommendation on the grounds that he lives in the area, ) Ms, Nichols MOVED denial , Mr. Sampson SECONDED and MOTION PASSED unanimously, 0 MINUTES P!:' NNING AND DF ELOPMEN1 p. 12 8, New Business East H-111 School Rezoning: Chairman Moore read the proposal to rezone the school property from P-1 to R-3 in order to permit its conversion to a multiple dwelling, After brief discussion it was decided that since the surrounding property was all R-3 there would be no problem with the rezoning, Mr. Sampson MOVED to approve, Mir, Holmes SECONDED and MOTION PASSED unanimously, Route 96: Deferred. Mrs. Nichols noted that Common Council would probably ask NYS DoT to make a full presentation of the proposed phasing of the alterna- tives, before Council acted, and thus there should be time for the Planning Board to consider them and make its recommendation. 9. Chairman's Report: None 10, Communications: None 11 , Approval or Minutes: Deferred to next meeting. 12. MISCELLANEOUS: None Meeting adjourned 11 :40 p.m. Summary or BZA Actions in October Appeals SIGN APPEAL 10-2-80-Bern Furniture: Extension of permit for not more than two years granted 4-0, in order to permit same amortization period as given existing signs when ordinance enacted, Findings : sign is almost twice as large as per- mitted=: has valid permit which was erroneously granted; appellant should be afforded some time to amortize non-conforming sign as others received. SIGN APPEAL 10-3-80-Gallagher Real Estate: Granted 4-0, finding that building location and configuration present serious practical difficulties SIGN APPEAL 10-5-80-Patterson 's. Mobil : Retention of free-standing sign approved, erection of horse insignia extending partly above top of wall denied, 4-0. Findings: pole sign couldn 't be relocated without seriously interfering with traffic or visibility; appellant has agreed to mount the insignia in a conforming location. SIGN APPEAL 10-5-807Deferred, (real estate and dentists ' signs at 408 N, Tioga) APPEAL 1321 - Apartments in former Goodyear building: Denied 4-0. Findings: building already out of compliance with applicable codes; would require multiple variances; of which parking is already deficient; apartment access from rear is grossly inadequate; using P-3b standards , it is already deficient in area, without including proposed commercial uses , APPEAL 1322 - Cornell Publications office: interpretation that university is exempt from local zoning, and request for use variance denied 4-0. Findings: a single-family house in a residential zone and neighborhood where occupancy is limited to one- or two-family use is proposed to be used for university administrative functions:. Cornell bought it knowing of the area's residential character and zoning; except for a brief period it has been rented by Cornell to ) acuity families; there is no evidence that property cannot be put to con- forming use, nor of economic hardship if so used; the property is not unique-_, and there is evidence the proposed use would adversely affect neighborhood character by depressing property values, aggravating traffic congestion, and exacerbating an already serious parking problem, APPEAL 1323 - Cornell Indonesia Project: interpretation and variance denied 4-0. Findings similar to appeal 1322, and in addition it was found that the site is at the interface between campus and residential neighborhoods, where an advance of this interface by permitting non-residential uses would undermine the character of the (residential ) neighborhood. APPEAL 1324 three-bedroom addition at 122 Linden Avenue: deferred,. MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk FROM: H.M. Van Cort, Director of Planning & Development SUBJECT: N. Tioga Street Rezoning DATE: October 1 , 1980 The Board of Planning and Development unanimously approved the attached Resolution at its regular meeting September 30th, and requests that it be read into the record of the Public Hearing on the subject which is scheduled to be held this evening. It is further requested that the Resolution be entered into the record at the beginning of the hearing, if appropriate. HMVC:as RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONCERNING PROPOSED SPECIAL-USE ZONE 30 SEPTEMBER, 1980 By MS. CUMMINGS, seconded by MR. HOLMES: WHEREAS, a proposal is now under consideration to establish a Special Use Zone in the 400 block of N. Tioga St. , and WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development has previously reviewed and recommended against other proposals to rezone the area in question for non-residential use, it is RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and Development remains strongly opposed to the rezoning of the area to permit non-residential uses , and that we also object to attempts to redraw the boundaries of the proposed zone in such a way as to permit the intrusion of commercial uses into substantial frontage on Sears St. as well , and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board feels that while Special Use Zoning is an acceptable method of zoning which can be a valuable tool used by the City to encourage desirable and beneficial uses of land, it is not the appropriate mechanism in this instance, because no such public purpose is served, and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board recommends to the Common COUNCIL of the City of Ithaca that the proposed Special Use Zone not be enacted, for reasons stated in this Board's previous recommendations on N. Tioga Street rezoning, as follow: RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 30 SEPTEMBER, 1980 PAGE 2 1 ) While the proposed Special Use Zone would not establish an automatic precedent which could be followed by persons seeking more intensive develop- ment in other areas of the City, it nevertheless does present an alternative mechanism which could be followed in such cases ; 2) While it might produce a less intense immediate impact in the Tioga Street area, it would on the other hand set the stage for longer-term, broader impacts . It would tend to blur the boundaries between residential and commercial uses, and would increase pressures for change in bordering residential areas ; the balance would always be tilted toward commercial use; 3) It would produce a loss of residential units despite the fact that our community suffers from a critical housing shortage; and 4) It would soften the commercial marketability of other projects already in progress in areas more appropriate for commercial development. MOTION PASSED 5-0 copy: Planning Board Members Sept. 25, 1980 �pTtTt jcl� ¢` ' V I11G�F1.�.fi it E1:1:�i, � '°ORATE CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 BUILDING COMMISSIONER CODE 607 September 2 , 1980 :r- James W. Yarnell , Director Cornell University Real Estate 104 Maple Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 Re : 505 East Seneca Street Dear Mr . Yarnell : This Department has received several complaints concerning the use of 505 East Seneca Street. The complaints , llege that a fraternity has taken occupancy of the premises ; ,.id that there eventually may be up to ten (10) residents . In reviewing the file on this property, I find i t the property was "grandfathered" for use by five (5) unrelat i persons , which constitutes a multiple under the definition of .1 multiple in the Zoning Ordinance . The building does not , howev r , meet the Buildin Code requirements for a multiple dwell ' ng (defined as more tan ive unrelated persons sharing the sale building) , and therefore the "grandfathering" of this property includes a ceil- ing of no more than five unrelated occupants . I realize that this letter may cause some confu�-.ion in light of your March 22 , 1979 letter summarizing our understanding of the grandfathered status of several Cornell owned properties , so additional explanation is warranted. In granting grandfather status to properties , we review the history of the property in terms of its use , and then limit the grandfathering to that use. For example , if a building in an R-1 zone (the most restrictive zone , limited to one family dwellings or one family dwelling with a small apartment) had a history of being rented as a multiple dwelling to eight students , it would be grandfathered as a multiple dwelling but for no more than eight unrelated individuals . We would not grandfather it for an unlimited number of unrelated individuals . I hope that the rumors about 505 E . Seneca are unfounded , but in the event that the rumors are accurate we should talk about possible solutions_ . V y tr11 y urs , d) TDH: br Thomas D. Hoard CC : Alderman Schuler Building Commissioner "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" /l SUMMARY OF BZA ACTIONS September 8, 1980 APPEAL 1317--Area Variance for 214 Linn Street (R-36) to permit change from single- to multiple-family dwelling. Granted 4-0 with conditions: (1) maximum occupancy be restricted to 5 persons as suggested by Appellants, and (2) breezeway be removed, reducing area deficiency to only one non-conforming side yard. FINDINGS: _ 1) defi"ciencies reduced to one minimally deficient side yard; 2) Appel- lants have stipulated that occupancy will be limited to no more than 5 unrelated persons, representing a marginal neighborhood density increase; 3)adequate off- street parking is available;; 4) the permitted occupancy will not materially • alter character of a neighborhood zoned for multiple residence with a substantial rental population; 5) while this variance cannot reasonably be denied, BZA is aware of neighborhood concerns, and recommends that Council reevaluate the area's zoning with an eye toward preventing further population increase. APPEAL 1318--Area Variance to permit 110 N. Meadow (B-4) to be converted from residential to business use. Granted 4-0 with conditions: (1 ) that if rear dwelling is converted to commercial use, Appellant will fully comply with off-street parking .regulations then in effect, and (2) Appellant will comply with all applicable NYS Building Codes. FINDINGS: 1) practical difficulties exist; 2) side yard deficiency is not criti- cal because of distance between neighboring buildings; 3) parking is not criti- cal to proposed use, and can be provided if necessary. APPEAL 1320--Area Variance for a one-story addition to a single-family residence at 308 Tthaca Road (R-16) . Granted 4-0. FINDINGS: 1) addition will not increase area deficiencies; 2) neighborhood character will not be altered; 3) practical difficulties exist. copy to Planning Board Members September 25, 1980 JM:jv