Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-12-22 Fr1tiJJ kq - r irT ` �1 ANS,j NG 9 DE`s Ei n r,.i7 SOARS° Py December 22, 1980 PRESENT . Chairman Moore, S. Culmmings , P, Holmes, I . Stewart ALSO: Appellants . appellants ' representatives , J. Meigs, Hoard (during zoning appeals cases') , interested persons , press l Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 8 PM. 2. Approval of November minutes, Mr. Stewart, seconded by Ms . Cummings, MOVED to APPROVE November minutes as submitted, Motion passed 3-0. 3. Chairman's Report. None. 4. Committee Reports. None 5, Communications. J. Meigs submitted a request for approval of a prepiminary subdivision pro- posal received from B. Mazza . attorney representing the owners of a property at the corner of Meadow and Este Streets. Owners wish to subdivide rroperty for their own purposes; property includes a pizzeria and dry cleaners . Mr. Meigs showed Board members a sketch of the property. He said the proposed subdivision would meet with all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. S. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of a pre- liminary subdivision as submit-ed. Motion passed 3-0, o, Old Business Ms , Cummings asked what progress had been made regarding a. report on violations of. the sign ordinance, Mr, Moore informed her that this matter As being worked on by Mir. Van Cort and Mr. Hoard and that at an early .oppor, tunny the Building Commissioner would communicate with the P&D Board about progress toward compliance. Mr, Moore said he would ask the Building Commissioner to give a verbal rather than a written report to the Board. Discussion followed regarding the need for attendance of representatives from the Planning & Development and Building Departments at each P&D Board meeting, Mr._ Moore said he had received assurance from the P&D Department that in the future it would send a representative: Prior to this meeting Board members had received copies of the zoning appeals applications and for this Mr, Stewart expressed appreciation and -thanks, However, even with these applications Mr. Moore felt the Board still did not always have ade- quate M formation to make recommendations and fent the Board's decisions might be legally challengeable without ingot from the Building Commissioner, When Mr. Hoard arrived for the zoning appeals cases, Mr, Moore conveyed the Board's feelings to him about attendance at P&D Board meetings and mentioned that the Board was in the process of drafting a motion requesting his presence at future P&D Board meetings, M NO,TEE S PLANNIfVu. & DEVEL OPM�Nl; BOARD ME-i Nu December 22, 1980 p, 2 7, ZONING CASES (8:40 PM) Appeal 1327 (deferred from, October and November) : Appeal for Area Varicnce under Section 30.25, Columns 11 and, 13 (front and side yards) and Section 3�.49 (enlargement of non-conforming structure; to permit addition of two bedrooms :to the building at 506 Cascadilla Street. The property, in an R-3b district, is deficient in ream red front and one side yards , Mr. Robertson, owner, submitted sketches of his proposed alterations . The P&D Department recommendation was that it would be an improvement to the property, and that there would be further improvement it the fronL entrance could be enclosed if other work were being done. Mir. Stewart, seconded by Mr.' Holmes, MOVED to recommend approval of the proposed building plan submitted by Mr. Robertson, Motion passed 3-l . SIGN APPEAL 10-1-80 (deferred from October and November awaiting finding by ILPC) , variance under Section 34,4B (projecting sign) to permit reten- tion of existing sign at 114 W. State St. (Ithaca Diner) in a B-3 district, The sign projects more than eighteen inches from the building, Neither appellant nor representative was present, There was discuss-ion about the sign including topics such as aesthetics, age, signage area, consistency, The ILPC pias determined that the sign is not historic; however its basic design character is such that it merits consideration for variance on the basis of design. Staff concurred with the ILPC recommendation, Mr, Stewart, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend DENIAL of this sign appeal , but that the owner be notified of his right to retain sign as an interior sign, Motion passed 3-1 : SIGN APPEAL 1 -1 -8111 : Request. Tor perriissioJ; to erect three new signs on premises of 74 kakis auto imports . 381 Elmira Road., in a B-B zone where only two signs are Dei Lied . Subaru Corp. threatens to withdraw franchise i , not permitted; other reasons unchanged from previous appeal. Neither appellant nor representative was present. A previous appeal sub- milted in March 1980 had been recommended denial by the P&D Board and denied by BZA. Since. there was no effective change in the latest appeal , Ms Cummin s, seconded by Mr. Stewart, MOVED to recommend , DENIAL. Motion passed 4-0, -.- pf f'l 1.NU E PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING December 22, 1980 p, 3 it. APPEAL 1331 : Area `variances to permit continued use of premises at.:.801 APPEAL E. State Street (owner Charles Eritschler) in an R-3a zone, as... a multiple dwelling. Structure was converted by previous owner in violation of codes , and previous appeal was denied Mr. Fritschler in August. Appellant now oroposes to construct required off-street parking, but other facts of the appeal are not changed: the lot, front and side yards are undersized, and use would be for one four-bedroom and one six.-bedroom cooperative unit. Due to some confusion in the record of this case, appellant has been requested to reappear, and .has obtained design assistance for the proposed work. Neither appellant nor representative was present, The message was relayed to the P&D Board that appellant's attorney had said his client did not yet have architect`s drawings for the proposed work and therefore requested a month's delay on hearing of his client's appeal, Since a similar appeal had been submitted by appellant in August 1980 and subsequently denied by BZA, Ms . Cummings, seconded by Mr. Stewart, MOVED a. resolution stating that the Board wants no further deliberation at this time on this case, "inasmuch as this appeal has been heard before and this Board recommended DENIAL at a previous meeting, " Motion passed 4-0. APPEAL 1333: Area Variance to permit use of house at 316 Third St. , in an R 3 zone, as a two-family residence. House is 'too close to front property dine, but otherwise conforms. Neither appellant nor representative was present, The P&D staff recom- mended approval .of area variance, Mr. Stewart, seconded by Ms . Cummings, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of an Area Variance, 4-0, APPEAL 1334: Use and Area Variances to permit use of small portion of premises owned by Cornell Radio Guild at 227-31 Linden Ave. , in an R-3b zone, as retail goods storage. The structure and its current uses are legally nonconforming, but each new use is required to be considered for a separate variance. Neither appellant nor representative was present, In the past BZA -gave WVBR a general variance but wants WVBR to come back before the BLA to .insure that each new proposed use will be acceptable on its own merits. Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr, Holmes, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of use and area variances on condition that the use is for dead storage only and that no mechanical or shop work be conducted on the premises in connection with the storage operation, Motion passed 4-0, M 1 N U E S �R R r' �� r P! NNTNG 0 JLVLL �YIC�t1 BOAIRD MLL12``�� December 22, 1980 n. APPEAL 1335: Area Variances to permit use of the house at 207 L. Court St. , in a B-lG zone, as legal Offices. The site is undersized, lacks required off- street parking, and the house is too close to lot lines . E, Yano-�f, attorney, presented the appeal on behalf of appellant. R, Meller, realtor, was also present to discuss square footage of structure and parking. .Mr, Meigs Telt that while he property's Configuration works against efficient utilization of the space available for parking, the shortfall would not be serious enough to deny an area variance. Mr, Stewart, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of area variances as per request submitted, feeling that it would be in character with the neighborhood. Motion passed 4-0, Ms . Cummings mentioned that it would be helpful to get a clear assessment of what parking needs are in this part of the city, Where does the P&D. Board get a reasonable assessment of parking needs of e,g. Court Street; what is the Board's ability to minister needs throughout the city? Mr, Meigs said the P&D Department had not examined in detail the parking needs of that area.b.eyond what had been done for the two recent rezonings , APP=AL !3536: Area Variances tr perm,' t occupancy of house at 201 `' . Aurora St. , , in an R-3b zone, by f;ve unrelated persons. The property lacks off-street parking and is deficient in front and rear yard deaths, due partly to its corner location. C, Anagnost, .realtor, was present,, on -behalf of the prospective buyers, the Garbetts, He mentioned that the prospective buyer was willing to secure throut,h rental whatever parking spaces were necessary, Rz Burns.., agent; for Roy Park, owner of a rental parking lot at 301 S. Aurora St. , had said he would rent .parking space on an annual basis , to the prospective residents . The zoning ordinance does not require on-site parking if there is adequate off- street reserved parking available within 500 feet of a property; in this case there is parking available at the city's kGreen St,. ` lot which is within 500 ft. The P&D staff recommended denial of the area variances as it is uncomfor- table with the use of this type house for multiple occupancy. But, Mr, Stewart pointed out, such use is permitted in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Cummings was concerned about appearance of the' are* rea inasmuch as group homes cannot always provide adequate parking facilities-on premises . Mr, ?Moore was concerned about safety. Mr, Anagnost said the prospective buyers would like. permission to house five unrelated persons but they would be happy if permission were granted for four. Mr; ileus raised the issue of planning considerations; increased density and parking requirements in relation to. neighborhood quality. Board members commented that perhaps the area should be rezoned: Mr, Holmes, seconded by Ms, Cummings, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of area variances, but permitting occupancy by only four unrelated persons, not five as per request, Variances are to run with property as long as parking required under the zoning ordinance is provided. Motinn PASSFn a_n, k. y MINU i G PLANNING & DEV-LOPKIN% BOARD MrB?_T� i December 22, 1980 r: pt 5 APPEAL 1387: Special Permit for computer timesharing business as home occupa- tion at 507, Willow 6 ►ow Ave. , in an R-2b Zone. No exterior indication of the busi- ness is proposed. Mr, Baum, appellant, was presen . i� was n erml.ied that the ^ome business here conformed to the definition rf home occupation. P&1L.. staff recommended approval of appeal . Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of special permit for computer timesharing business on premises as Home occupation, Motion passed 4-G. Added to the agenda at this point was a presentation on compliance with the sign ordinance. Mr. Hoard introduced G, Schnock, Sign Inspector (whose job would terminate at the end of 1980) , .Mira Schnock said that since the ordinance had been adopted in 1972 no systematic action had byen taken on nonconforming signs until he took on his job (in 1978) , He reported on a compilation ofthose- sign appeals case's which had been presented LO the P&D Board for purposes of recommendation to the BZA. Of those, appellants whose cases had been denied but who still had signs up numbered only 9; at the outset of enforcement of the sign ordinance 32 .. of the city's businesses had sign violations;currently it .is 5c". Ali these case files are now before the new City Prosecutor. In addition tothese cases there are still some owners of signs who have never responded in any way to his letters; they are not included among the files before the City Prosecutor, nor have billboards been included in the IL a11y of sign violations , In addition, none of the billbgard cases has come before the Planning Board even though repeated letters have. been sent to owners of the 16 billboards inventoried. Oniy one billboard owner has responded but no billboards have been taken down,. Mr. Schnook said he thought compliance on sign violations would come when action was taken on billboards; if they come down, then signs not in compliance would probably come down too.. He felt there was much public support for bili board removal .. ►o speed the City Prosecutor's handling of sign violation cases, the City Attorney has asked for additional aid to prepare cases for the City Prosecutor. MiNUI LS, yy'� PLANNING � DEVELOPMENT BOARD r`'!`LTi NG December 22, 198D p, n Mr. Stewart suggested that a brief note be drafted to City Prosecutor under- scoring the Board's continuing interest and concern in this matter and that while the Board recognizes that he is concerned with larger issues, the Board wants him to know compliance with the sign ordinance is of concern to them and they would lik_ to urge him to proceed with all due. sp4ed in one or two areas. Mr. Hoard suggested that something be sent to the B&A Committee or to Council and to the Mayor asking him to support the two attornies depending on how violators are prosecuted and that help be given to the attornies to prepare the cases because that. is where the real tie-up is; Mr, Schnock suggested he would support inclusion of biilboard compliance in such a proposal . Mr. Schnock said those signs in violation in the greatest number of ways were Empire Building Supply, Meadow Court, and Joe's Restaurant. Again, he said he felt that if the billboards come down then continued sign violators would also probably comply. Mr. Schnock will submit a list of billboards (location, owners, etc, ) to the Planning Board which list can be used for reference. J. Meigs will follow up on this . 8. New Business, None, 9, Adjournment at it PN. COMMON COUNCIL !,'FT RESOLUTION DECEMBER 3, 1980 WHEREAS, the Bureau of the Census has recently developed a new program entitled the Neighborhood Statistics Program; and WHEREAS, this Program is designed to assi-st jurisdictions that have subareas by providing to local officials and neighborhood representatives basic demographic, social and economic data by neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Agency realizek the need in determining socio- economic characteristics of the population residing in each area, to gauge the possible qualification of an area for participation in Federal programs (eg. CDBG) , and to formulate programs needed by neighborhood residents; "OW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Common Council realize the need for statistical information organized by neighborhood, and officially recognize the neighborhoods in the Municipality for program development; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Common Council direct the Community Development Agency to develop an application. to the Bureau of the Census re- questing participation in the Neighborhood Statistics Program. MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Hoard FROM: Jon Mei g i SUBJ: NOVEMBER PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS ON ZONING APPEALS DATE: December 8, 1980 1325 This appeal was deferred from October, pending study by staff. Mr. Stewart moved to table the appeal , for a variety of reasons: (a) lack of adequate information on its status with regard to flood plain; (b) fire safety; the Fire Department gave a mixed report on the safety situation there; one official said they would have to take a very careful look at it; (c) because of its location within 500 feet of a municipal boundary, appeal must be referred to the county for consideration, and as a matter of courtesy, since it abuts the Town of Ithaca, it should be referred to them for consideration. Mr. Van Cort mentioned that the problem with this particular appeal is : (a) Should the board ask that appellant conform to the ordinance, in which case there would not be much improvement to the existing structure? or ("b) Should it be conceded that while the existing structure does not conform, owners should be allowed to make necessary improvements? Mrs . Nichols seconded motion. Motion PASSED 5-0. 1327 This appeal was deferred from October, pending receipt of additional information from appellant. Mr. Van Cort said he had not received any additional information from appellant and according to Ms . Cummings appellant had not sought technical advice from INHS. Mr. Moran, seconded by Mr. Stewart, moved to table appeal . Motion PASSED 5-0. Mr. Van .Cort said he would write a letter to appellant stating that the board ' could not act until appellant had supplied additional information on his ,proposed addition. In addition he would inform appellant that the ordinance only allows a limited length of time to appellant to seek such information and if, appellant does not come forward with it the board will be forced to act in the negative. Sign Appeal 10-1-80 This appeal was deferred from October pending investigation by ILPC on historic sign status. Since the ILPC needs more time to search for evidence to support such status , Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Stewart, moved to table this appeal . Motion PASSED 5-0. MEMORANDUM, p. 2 Tom Hoard December 8, 1980 1331 After some discussion as to whether the facts of the appeal had changed suffi- ciently to warrant reconsideration, Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mrs . Nichols , moved to DENY appeal . Motion PASSED 5-0. 1332 Staff recommendation was in favor of approving variance. Mrs . Nichols , seconded by Mr. Stewart, moved to approve variance. Motion PASSED 5-0. Sign Appeal 10-4-80 Mr. Holmes, seconded by Ms . Cummings, moved to accept plan accepted by the Planning Department, that is (a) retain Red & White sign facing on Court Street (b) retain plastic internally lit sign facing Plain Street (c) deny overhead sign; owner will check to see whether legal to retain overhead light, without sign underneath. A question to be answered: Is a historic sign considered part of overall signage allotment? Motion PASSED 4-1 . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Development Board Members FROM: J, Meigs SUBJ: ZONING & SIGN APPEAL INFORMATION DATE: December 17, 1980 Thys, Tom Hoard and I have discussed the problems of providing sufficient infor- mation on appeals to enable this Board to make knowledgeable recommendations to the BZA, and have decided that we will provide each of you with a copy of the materials received from the Building Commissioner as we receive them. This should include a copy of a sort of checklist/summary sheet Tom prepares, which indicates in some detail the areas in which the property concerned is or would be nonconforming. Any additional information we obtain before the meeting will be brought out in our discussion of the case, as appropriate. This information should help you when you look at the sites before the meeting. Please let Thys or me know if this is satisfactory, too much to handle, etc. , or if you have other comments or suggestions. Tom informed us that he automatically provides the County, Town and NYSDoT with notice of all appeals , satisfying the requirement that any variances etc. within 500 feet of a corporation line or extra-municipal public facility be referred to the County for review. He also coordinates with the City Engineer regarding appeals affecting properties in the Flood Hazard Area, and with the Fire Depart- ment on all building permits, which should alleviate the Board's concerns in these matters, A3 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Hoard FROM: Jon Meids SUBJ: DECEMBER PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS ON ZONING APPEALS DATE- December 2.6, 1980 1327 This appeal was deferred from October and November pending receipt of sketches of proposed alterations, At December meeting owner presented his sketches. Mr, Stewart, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of Area Variance; motion PASSED 3-1 . SIGN APPEAL 10,1-80 This appeal had been deferred from October and November pending investigation by the ILPC to determine sign's historic status. The ILPC, along with the P&D staff has determined that the sign is not historic, however its basic design character is such that it merits retention on that basis, Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr, Holmes, MOVED to recommend DENIAL of this sign appeal but before a vote was taken an amendment was added to the motion stating that the owner be notified of his right to retain sign as an interior sign, Motion PASSED 3-1 . SIGN APPEAL 1-1-81 A previous appeal submitted .in March 1980 had been recommended denial by the P&D Board and denied„by BZA, Since there was ,no effective change in the latest appeal , Ms,, Cummings, seconded by Mr. Stewart, MOVED to recommend DENIAL, Motion PASSED 4-0, 1331 The -message was relayed to the -P&D Board that appellant's attorney had said his client did not yet have architect's drawings for the proposed work and therefore requested a month 's delay on hearing of his client's appeal , Since a similar previous aDDeal had been submitted by appellant in August 1980 and subsequently denied by BZA, Ms, Cummings., seconded by Mr, Stewart, MOVED that a resG-lution be passed stating that the Board wants no further deliberation at this time on this case, along with the added clause "inasmuch as this appeal has been heard before and this Board recommended DENIAL at a previous meeting. ” Motion PASSED 4-0, 1333 Mr. Stewart, seconded by Ms . Cummings , MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of an Area Variance; motion PASSED 4-0, Tom Hoard December PFFD Board Actions on Zoning Appeals P: 2 1334 Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of Use and Area Variances on condition that the use is fo,r'dead storage only and that no mechanical or shop work be conducted on the pr.Om `ses in connection with the storage operation. Motion PASSED 4-0. , 1335 Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of Area Variance as per -request submitted, feeling that it would be in character with the neighborhood, Motion PASSED 4-0, 1336.' Mr. Holmes, seconded by Pis. Cummings, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of Area Variance, but permitting occupancy by only four unrelated persons , not five as per request. Variance is to run with the property as long as parking required under the zoning ordinance is provided. Motion PASSED 4-0. 1337 Ms . Cummings, seconded by Mr. Holmes, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of Special Permit for computer timesharing business on premises as Home occupation. Motion PASSED 4-0.