Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1981-02-24 MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 PRESENT: Chairman F. Moore, S. Cummings , E. Nichols , I . Stewart, R. Moran ALSO: Appellants, appellants ' representatives , interested persons , J . Meigs 1 . Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. Announcement: E. Nichols announced there would be a meeting regarding Sage parking lot on Sunday, March 1 , at 2 PM. The meeting would be between Cornell representatives , ILPC, and neighborhood residents . The ILPC which called the meeting has the matter on hold for the moment. Neighborhood residents have asked that a Planning Board member be there. 2. Approval of January minutes . Changes to be made in the minutes are the following: P. 1 , 5(c) , second line from bottom of page: substitute "he" for "the P&D Board"; p. 2, line 7: "Residence" , not "Residents" ; P. 2, line 9: "warned" , not "guarded to the fact" ; p. 3, para. 5: "siting" , not "sighting" ; p. 4, para. 4, line 1 : "E. Nichols" , not "S. Cummings" ; p. 6, para. 4 , line 2: "operatories", not "operatives" . There was discussion regarding Sage parking. I . Stewart said he felt the Board last time indicated first and foremost that it would like to see Cornell limit the number of cars of Sage residents but further endorsed the concept of Cornell providing as much off-street parking as possible. F. Moore stated he felt the resolutions indicated that the Board's primary concern was in restricting the number of cars, at Sage Dorm and secondarily there was concern for limiting the number of parking spaces. He said the Board .seemed to be of two minds on the matter and was not sure the minutes reflected the ambiguity. He said Cornell is taking the minutes to reflect that the Board firmly and clearly stated that it said "give us these spaces" . Mr. Moore felt the minutes should be correct for ILPC purposes. E. Nichols briefly discussed the rezoning of the 100 and 200 blocks of Linn St. I . Stewart, seconded by S. Cummings , moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Vete 4-0. 3. Chairman's -Report. None 4. Committee Reports. None.. 5. Old Business: J. Meigs asked the P&D Board for a recommendation on the rezoning of two blocks of Linn StreQt (snuth Pnd) dist short of Short. StrPPt_ The area is now in an R-3 zone; rezoning would make iz R-2. I. Stewart, seconded by E. Nichols , made the motion that the Board endorsed the upgrading of the zoning. Vote 4 for, 0 against. MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 D. 2 I. Stewart raised the matter of adding items to meeting agendas, at the meetings . He felt that once the agenda is set,that gives notice to the public that those items will be discussed. If other matters are added at the meetings, public input is precluded. He urged the Board to resist additions despite pressure from various bodies. In addition, Mr. Moore indicated that if he gets together with J . Meigs before P&D Board meetings to discuss agenda, then perhaps that would help also. Mr. Shapiro said he felt the Board had- a moral obligation not to carry out discussions in a vacuum. P&D staff was requested to make a presentation on Environmental Review Act pro- visions and whether more environmental quality studies should be asked for. Also the Board wondered about the provisions in the Landmarks Preservation chapter (philosophy, powers, limitations of powers) . F. Moore raised the matter of the Board 's obligations with regard to appeals. The memo by J. Meigs is to be mailed to P&D Board members . It will be discussed at the next meeting. In this vein, a Planning and Advisory Service booklet will be xeroxed and sent to Board members . Discussion followed on how consideration of planning matters in appeals cases could be expedited by the Board members at the meetings but still take into account input from appellants and the public. Mr. Moore felt the P&D staff could be helpful by pointing out the planning considerations of each appeals case before the P&D Board meetings -- like a judge tells a jury what he thinks their considers- tions should center on; however, the judge does not tell the jury what to decide. The jury too can disagree. with the judge. Mr. Meigs thought that such help from the Planning Department was a good approach. S. Cummings raised the matter of notification of property holders who live within 200 feet of an appellant's property. She wondered if all property holders within that radius were notified or not.. Mr. Meigs told her the Building Department assists appellants in this regard by referring them to County assessment rolls. J. Was indicated that the City' s Planning guidelines and objectives are outlined in the General Plan booklet which is now ten years old. 0 NING CASES (8:30 PM): S MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 P• 3 SIGN APPEAL 3-1 -81 : Variance under Sign Ordinance Section 34.46 (projecting signs) to permit an existing sign to remain at 704 West Buffalo St. (Aero Cvclery) in an M-1 (Marine) district. The sign projects more than the maximum permitted in that zone, Acro Cyclery's sign was constructed using old Sound Check sign structure. Aero made a new plastic insert and raised the sign 24" to the top of the rail ties; the manager felt this added to its visibility for cars eastbound and gave them more opportunity to signal if intending to stop. The manager felt the sign covers a minimum of square footage and is an effective sign. Depending on how this appeal goes, he said, Aero Cyclery may or may not erect a sign flush on the building. S. Cummings noted that the pharmacy next door has a sign flush on the front of the building and that Aero Cyclery's sign adds to sign chaos in that area. In the past the P&D Board has been rigorous in enforcing the sign ordinance in that area and it wishes to be consistent in this case too. She said a sign could be put onto the building on the marine waterway side of the building and eastbound drivers could see it there. Staff recommendation was for denial on the basis that signage objectives could be accomplished without this particular sign; rather a flush sign could be erected on the fascia space. Also, the Sound Check sign was erected illegally, without a permit. F. Moore said visibility from the east is a problem but that Aero Cyclery has 18" to play with for a projecting sign. S: Cummings , seconded by E. Nichols , moved to recommend DENIAL. Motion PASSED 3 (Nichols, Moran, Cummings) - 0 - 1 abstention (Stewart) . APPEAL 1344: Appeal of Edward Halloran -for relief from the Building Commissioner's order to .cease occupancy of 510 Turner Place by four unrelated persons . The prop- erty is in an R-lb (residential ) district, in which such use is prohibited, The appellant is requesting a Use Variance under Section 30.25, Column 2, to permit the occupancy to continue unti 1 `May 29, 1981 , The Halloran property is deficient in one side yard by a few feet. Neighbors came to express their disapproval with the existing occupancy. F. Moon, 507 Turner P1 . , read a letter expressing the view of a number of neighbors . He thought Halloran had sought and been denied approval by the city (8/80) to convert house to a group apartment. Since all apartments in this zone are owner occupied dwellings, the neighbors. want the R-lb zoning strictly enforced. Halloran 's house is an absentee landlord situation. Parking is difficult in the area now. B. Jones , 502 Turner P1 . , related that although the Building Commissioner had told Halloran to cease and desist in renting to the occupants in January 1980 that the house was still rented. Jones felt Halloran wanted to drag out the appeal process till the end of the lease on the apartment. He said none of the neighbors got postcards notifying them of the change of occupants in the house. He said the neighbors : were totally opposed to this rental . MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 P. 4 Staff recommendation was for denial as the rental was an inappropriate use for the zone and it is illegal . I . Stewart, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to strongly recommend DENIAL of appeal to allow continuance of present occupancy. Motion PASSED 4-0. S. Cummings raised the following questions: How can we assure that all neighbors in a zoning appeal are notified? How can we assure that they all have time to respond? Perhaps , she said, the cut-off time for appeals could be rescheduled --" i .e. moved back a week in time. F. Moore said he would mention it to T. Hoard. APPEAL 1345: Appeal of Carolyn Fellman for an Area Variance under Section, 30.25, Columns 4, 13 and 14 (off-street parking, rear yard set backs) to permit conver- sion of the donut shop at 423 First Street -to a small theater. The property, in a B-2a (business) districts is deficient in required off-street parking , and rear yard setback. Appellant has a purchase offer on the building and whether she purchases it or not is dependent upon whether or not she can get an area variance. There is 3 ' .on the front side and 3' on the side of the building. Seven to ten cars , she .claimed, could be accommodated behind the building. Twelve more spaces are needed. Proposed use is for a theater for small experimental live productions . At most, 93 people could be accommodated in the audience. The theater would operate after 8 PM and on weekends , so operation would not conflict with peak hours at P&C next door. Regarding parking: Appellant "=s spoken with P&C manager. She said while he was not "tremendously receptive" she felt P&C would let theatergoers park there. She did not feel P&C wanted to put anything in writing regarding the matter. On Adams St. there is parking area. Also in the unpaved area at the back of the P&C store there is space for cars . The proprietor of the former donut shop said P&C never gave him any problems when his cus':omers parked ¢`?ere. There are only houses on one side of the donut shop. Staff recommendation: There is no problem in recommending approval , but they suggest conditional approval on assurance to the appellant of adequate parking spaces on site. This means dealing with P&C for an agreement of some kind for parking "for the life" of the theater and sufficient for BZA needs. E. Nichols mentioned that the owners of the old Great American store, within 500 feet of the proposed theater, might be willing to make an arrangement with appellant. Ms. Nichols, seconded by R. Moran, recommended APPROVAL of appeal , contingent upon presentation of adequate off-street parking promised within 500 feet of premises . F. Moore noted that should parking space "evaporate" , then variance would .also. MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 p. 5 APPEAL 1346: Appeal or 1var Jonson and Jerry Caward, Sr. for a Use Variance under Section 30, 25, Column 2 (permitted uses) to permit erection of an office building at 612-614' West Green Street for building and electrical contractors ' offices, The property is in a B-2a (business) district, which permits office uses, but does not specifically permit storage of contractors ' tools and equip- ment; therefore a Use Variance may -be required. Appellants may or may not be specifically excluded from storage use (B4) in this B2 area. There is some room for interpretation, according to the Building Commis- sioner. Storage uses could imply: large trucks , potential of fire, storage of undefineJ materials , erection of a large structure that will be inappropriate in character in relation to other permitted structures . Appellant purchased building four years ago with the intention of locating his office there in addition to storing some building and other materials. He planned to erect a 50'x8O' one-story building, 30' of which would be used for office and the remainder for storage of what he claims to be nonhazardous , nontoxic, and st!r*)1,!s mat-rials from his construction and electrical contractor Susiness . Building would be block construction, wood siding, and would blend architecturally with neighboring buildings. The building, according to appellant, does not have historic significance. An alternative to his constructing an office building (which would mean tearing down the old building and erecting a new structure) , the appellant would also be interested in remodeling the existing building and making it into four apartment units. In this case, extensive remodeling would be needed. For example, the ceilings would have to be raised: Appellant showed drawings of the proposed buildings . He also presented three letters from neighborhood residents who were in favor of his proposed construction. Two other letters, from INHS on behalf of neighborhood residents , voiced disapproval . Construction of an office facility would mean loss of housing units -, also it repre- sents a more intense use of the property. L_ — Appellant said the building had been condem(ied for three years and he ha been using it for storage. During this time he/had been working with INHS t secure .financing to make it into an apartment house. Up until one year ago he had five applications in at INHS and so far he has not heard from INNS about them, Appellant is anxious to get started on construction here, either for an office building or for an apartment house. He presently-has-an office on N, Plain St. He has workers who he would rather see working rather than collecting unemployment insurance. He has paid taxes on the condemned structure for 3 vears , as well as mortgage and interest payments, and would like to get some use from it. He said he did not wish to wait another four years to do something. MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 S. L- t ngs questioned whether appellant had been seeking INHS' help for 3 years . She g,ii n-g— "aa�t e c i h-o ru 1=d--k-naw—wh-e t h_�i t ha ub a fu►a �- g�avaiiable fo�� reha-b-i1+tat­iFon­-probe-ts . She hopes that appellant can wait that long before he does something. She said if this house comes down there will be a "hole" in the street and more blacktop in the area. Appellant agreed with her 100,. Appellant said he could tear down building at any time, that is , after getting permit for demolition. Staff recommendation: They are concerned about the removal of potential housing units from housing stock of the city, and recommended deferral for one month , with a request to INHS for more specific information on the status of negotiation with appellant. Retaining the old structure would be preferable design-wise over erecting a new structure. S. Cummings mentioned that monies available from possible Small Cities grant were not immediately available in early March. I . Stewart felt the Board should give appellant an answer one way or the other. S. Cummings , seconded by F. Moore. recommended DENIAL of appeal . It is a request for moreintensive business and commercial use in an area borderline with a residential one, so it would not be in the best interests of the neighborhood. While there were 2 votes for passage (Moore, Cummings) , motion did not pass . I . Stewart, seconded by R. Moran, moved for recommending approval . Motion did not pass. E. Nichols commented that everyone would like to see the building improved and appellant agrees with this. VI'arehousing is .undesirable because of fire safety. If the request were only for office space then the Board could more easily recom- mend approval . S. Cummings, seconded by R. Moran, moved to recommend that the BZA table the appeal for another month with recommendation for further discussion between appellant and INHS in the hope of working out funding regarding present structure' s rehabilitation - into apartments. Motion PASSED 4 - 0 - 1 abstention. Appellant said his first choice is to remodel for apartmentss , but he would appreciate getting approval of this variance so that his options would be clear. APPEAL 1347: Appeal of William L. Tompkins -for-an Area Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 4 and 14 (off-street parking and front-yard setback) to perni,it the addition of five bedrooms to the front building at 136-138 East Spencer Street in an R-2b (residential ) district. The property is deficient in off- street parking and front yard setback. MINUTES PLANNING & DLVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 P• 7 There are two buildings on this lot, a large one in front and a smaller one in back. The proposed addition of 5 bedrooms would be to the large structure and would not create any external changes. The two units already contain 5 living units with 15 bedrooms; proposed is an additional 5 bedrooms . Parking is deficient by 2 spaces out of 6 required. Staff recommendation: Denial , as it would enlarge existing nonconforming use on a narrow, one-way street. There are already difficult parking conditions in the neighborhood. The area is already densely populated. The City Court and Police Headquarters have problems with residents parking in their lot. A letter was read from Mr. and Mrs . Barnes , neighbors, about the problems of noise and activity by student residents of the house. They pointed out that there were already too many cars in the.neighborhood. Also they were concerned about degradation of the neighborhood. The owner of the property said in the past he had told Mr, Barnes to call the police if house residents created problems for him. He said he did not wish to downgrade Mr.. Barnes ` property. He also said the small house in back on his property had been a wreck internally and he was able to restore it as . a living unit, . but only after considerable expense. Also, the large house has been .entirely spray painted. The owner mentioned that parking was a problem on the street and it was frequently clogged with cars. The street would have been illegal if constructed today. S. - Cummings, seconded by 1 . Stewart, moved to recommend DENIAL of appeal . Motion PASSED 4-0. APPEAL 13^8: Appeal of Birthright of Ithaca for Use and Area Variances under Section 30.25, Columns 2, 4 , 6, 7, 10, 11 , 12, 13 and 14 (primary uses , off- street parking, lot Size, width, coverage, anri front, Side and rear yard set- backs ) to permit- office use of a portion of the building at 401 north Aurora Street. The property is in an p-3a (residential ,) district in which oificeS are not a permitted use, and is deficient in off-Street parking , lot size, lot width; maximum lot coverage is exceeded; and the property is further deficient in front, side and rear yards , Applicants have submitted that their use is medically related, and therefore a permitted use in the district: Appellant, representing a support and counseling group (Birthright) , is seeking to rent a space in Ithaca . This location consists of two rooms -- a counseling room and a waiting room, No medical services would be provided on premises . Only volunteer workers would be used, but physicians will be working with the organization. Hours would be something like 10-2 during the day; at most 2-3 people at a time, perhaps none all day. The N. Aurora St. location was "homey" inside and on the first floor. However, appellant is also looking at other rental spaces in the city, + y MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 Q. 8 Staff recommendation: Proposed use not medically related, within intent of zoning ordinance. This would be adding an additional nonconforming use to this premises which is already nonconforming in a variety of ways . Itis not appro- priate for use, In the past the Family & Children 's Service had been denied medical status . Neighbors (Mrs . Price and Mrs . Carlson) wrote letters against rental to this group as it meant more intensive use of the building and area . S. Cummings said residents encouraged the P&D Board to maintain existing zoning there. She made a motion, seconded by E. Nichols , to recommend denial . Motion PASSED 4-0. APPEAL 1349: Appeal of J. David Olds , Leon A. Olds , and Eris 0. Kimble for an Area Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 4 , 6, 11 , 13 and 14 (off-street park- ing and front, side and rear yard setbacks) to permit conversion of the one- family dwelling at 207 Fast Court Street to office use. The property, in a B-la (business) district is deficient in lot size, front, side and rear yard setbacks , and will be deficient in off-street parking for the proposed use. Earlier requests (Appeals 1335 and 1340) for this property and use were denied by the BZA in January and February; appellants request a reconsideration based on new information to be submitted .at the hearing. This latest appeal is presented for the purpose of providing additional information about the premises to .help the BZA make a decision about parking requirements. One of the attornies who is interested in locating there said that a broader look at the character of the neighborhood shows that this use would not be an incursion into a residential area. Staff recommendation is for approval . I. Stewart, seconded by E. Nichols , moved to recommend APPROVAL. Motion PASSED APPEAL 1350: Appeal of Steven Eastaugh for a Use Variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 (primary uses) to permit conversion of the one-family home at 215 Dearborn Place to a multiple dwelling. The property is in an R-2a (residential ) disirict, in which multiple dwellings are not a permitted use. Appellant bought the property on the understanding , based on an erroneous letter from the Build- ing Department, that it was located in a zone which permitted multiple dwellings . MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 P. g I. Stewart and others on the P&D Board did not feel the legality of the letter was their concern. The Board's concern should be whether a multiple residence unit should be permitted in this neighborhood. The- owner's representative said the house was large and there was enough area in back and in driveway to accommodate 8 cars. He said the owner was interested in either selling house or making it into a multiple dwelling. Residences on Dearborn Place and nearby were described. He said the owner would suffer a hard- ship if this use variance were not granted. A real estate person who had been consulted said there may be a problem selling it as a single family residence. Ten to eleven people would occupy house if a variance were granted. There are 15 finished and 5 unfinished rooms in the house. All people moving in would be non-car owners, according to the owner. The residence is deficient in one side yard. I . Kramnick, neighbor, reada letter representing the views of many neighbors in the area. Many of these neighbors were present as well at the meeting. They did not feel the owner would suffer hardship. They did not feel the house was unique to deserve granting of such a variance. Also they felt the neighborhood would be harmed if this became a multiple dwelling as it would cause some erosion of the neighborhood as a community. Inadequate parking was .also a concern. E. Grinnells , neighbor, did not feel there was much parking area in the back of the house. He also felt that if the house were sold for an R-2a use the owner could still make a profit. B. Lynch , nearby resident, spoke of traffic congestion, increased density, and noise. J. Ballantyne, nearby resident, talked about neighborhood disintegration. Staff recommendation: Denial , as inappropriate use for single and two family residence zone. i. Stewart felt the Board should be consistent in their recommendations and cited other appeals in the -past for multiple dwelling units .in this area which had been turned down. I . Stewart, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to recommend DENIAL. Motion PASSED 4-0. E. Nichols pointed out that R-2 zoning is a "weak reed" , that there can be two-family houses with extra people residing on the property. . MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING February 24, 1981 P. 10 7. New Business: . a. P&D Department 1981 Work Program was not discussed at this meeting but will be discussed .at the March meeting. S. Miscellaneous. None. 9. Adjournment. O ITh[q� cGMP.... . �RA760 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, iVEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION CODE 607 February 24, 1981 Mr. William Wendt Director of Transportation Services Day Hall - Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Dear Bill : To help conclude the ILPC's review of the Sage parking and landscaping design, I want to summarize- the concerns expressed at the Feb. 18 meeting, for your con- sideration and appropriate action. Three points of particular concern to the Commission are (1 ) the seven spaces on the exit drive, north of Schuyler House; the desir- ability of any parking in this area -is questionable, with general concern that any parking be as far from Seneca Street as possible and screened heavily; (2) treatment of the ground plane around the Sage mansion/Alumni Records Center, to keep as large an unpaved area as possible at the base of the walls for appropriate plantings; (3) design of the present turnaround area east of the. mansion, the character of this space, and the design role .it plays in the relationship between the mansion and the Liberty Hyde Bailey house, are of considerable impor- tance, hence the suggestions to limit parking to spaces flanking the through drive or otherwise maintain as much green space as possible, in order to enhance the integrity of the design relationships between adjoining historic structures. Other points of concern to the ILPC included the desirability of <plantings between the existing parking area and the two houses adjacent on Seneca Street; and the need to have more information on project details, especially paving and curbing materials , type and location of any area lighting, and plant materials It was in this context that questions of budget were raised, since landscaping and the quality of materials are frequently the first casualties in tight construction budgets. "An Fnnal 1'ln nnrh unity Fmn1-with an Affirmative Arlinn Prnaram" Mr. William Wendt February 24, 1981 p. 2 These are legitimate concerns and questions , and the information is necessary for the Commission's final decision, since it bears on the quality of the result. The breadth and detail of discussion at the meeting, as remarked by Mr. Lifton and others, was appropriate in view of the Commission's responsibility. .The Commission will be represented at the March l meeting with East Hill neighbor- hood residents. If itis possible to address our concerns objectively, as they relate to those of the .neighborhood, we may be able to reach a decision quickly and in a spirit of cooperation. To this end, it would be helpful if you and, the project architect couldbeprepared to respond to the items .noted above, in more detail than was possible at our meeting. Further, it would seem desirable for you to have a landscape architect at this meeting to address specific land-scaping issues. Please let me know if I can be of assistance, or if you prefer, contact Vice Chairwoman Tania Werbizky at 256-2344. In any case, please let .us know when the time and location of the meeting is set. Very truly yours, i J n Meigs lanner Planning & Development JM/s cc D. Taube T. Werbizky D. Lifton F. Moon N. Schuler MEMORANDUM TO Planning Board Members FROM: Jon Meigs ; SUBJECT: BZA Actions on January-February Appeals DATE: February 5, 1981 APPEAL 1331 Area variances at 801 E. State Street: DENIED 5-0-1 . F%ndings: Objections previously raised when appeal presented still exist, with possible exception of efforts to provide on-site parking; parking plan presented leaves doubt as to whether it would meet requirements of the ordinance; BZA notes that the area in question is densely populated, with heavy traffic on State Street, and the contemplated increase in building residents would be "a further substantial burden on the neighborhood. " SIGN APPEAL Zikakis ' Imported Auto Signs: DENIED 6-0. Findings: Applicant 1-1-81 indicated need would be met by combining two of the proposed four signs as a single wall sign, needing no variance, so variance is unnecessary. APPEAL 1334 Use Variance at 227 Linden Avenue (bicycle storage) : GRANTED 6-0. Findings: It has been established that the building is unsuitable for residential use; storage of bikes would not be "adverse to the interests of the surrounding residential neighborhood," storage would not add substantial traffic; goods to be stored would not be hazardous to the neighborhood. APPEAL 1338 Use and Area Variances at 204 W. Seneca : GRANTED 4-2. Findings: Neighborhood would not be adversely affected; use is extension of existing business; no neighbors objected. APPEAL 1339 Area variance at 510 Linn Street: GRANTED 6-0. Findings: Setback deficiency is minimal ; there is no indication the change would have significant adverse effect on neighborhood character or density; there is practical difficulty; owner has added two off-street parking spaces on the property. r BZA ACTIONS ON JANUARY and FEBRUARY APPEALS February 5, 1981 Page 2. APPEAL 1340 Area Variances, 207 E. Court: DENIED 2-3-1 . Findings: Though evidence presented indicated on-site parking require- ments may more nearly satisfied, concerns as to lot coverage and setbacks remain and cannot be mitigated; there- fore no compelling reason to depart from zoning requirements was shown. APPEAL 1341 Use and Area Variances at 210 Center St. (Gadabout) DENIED 5-0-1 . Findings: Basis of denial is that no hardship was shown; further, a variance "would not preserve the spirit of the ordinance in this residential zone," and would adversely affect the neighborhood by further increasing traffic in the area. APPEAL 1342 Area .Variance, 111 S. Plain St. : GRANTED 5-1 . Findings: Use is permitted; will not adversely affect neighborhood; practical difficulties exist; present area deficiencies will not be exacerbated. APPEAL 1343: Area Variance, 501 N. Cayuga St. ; GRANTED 6-0. Findings: Practical difficulties exist; area deficiency will not be exacerbated; property condition will be improved. JM:jv cc: chrono subject writer MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Hoard FROM: P & D Dept, SUBJ: FEBRUARYPLANNING DEVELOPMENT BOARD'S ACTIONS ON ZONING APPEALS DATE: March 2, 1981 SIGN APPEAL 3-1-81 Staff recommendation was for denial on the basis that signage objectives could be accomplished without this particular sign; rather a flush sign could be erected on the fascia space. Also, the previous Sound Check sign was erected illegally, without a permit. S. Cummings, seconded by E, Nichols, moved to recommend DENIAL. Motion PASSED 3 (Nichols, Moran, Cummings) - 0 - 1 abstention (Stewart) , APPEAL 1344 Staff recommendation was for denial as the rental was an inappropriate use for the zone and it is illegal . I. Stewart, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to strongly recommend DENIAL of appeal to allow continuance of present occupancy. Motion PASSED 4-0, APPEAL- 1345 Staff recommendation: There is no problem recommending approval , but staff suggests conditional approval on assurance to the appellant of adequate parking spaces on site. This means dealing with P&C for an agreement of some kind for parking "for the life" of the theater and sufficient for BZA needs , Ms. Nichols, seconded by R. Moran, recommended APPROVAL of appeal , contingent upon presentation of adequate off-street parking promised within 500 feet of premises. APPEAL 1346 Staff recommendation: They were concerned about the removal of potential housing units from housing stock of city, and recommended deferral for one month, with a request to INHS for more specific information on the status of negotiation with appellant. Retaining the old structure would be preferable design-wise rather than erecting a new structure, S. Cummings, seconded by R. Moran, moved to recommend that the BZA table the appeal for another month with recommendation for further discussion between the appellant and INHS in the hope of working out funding regarding-_present structure's rehabilitation into apartments. Motion PASSED 4-0-1 abstention. MEMORANDUM, p. 2 Tom Hoard March 2, 1981 APPEAL 1347 Staff recommendation: Denial, as it would enlarge existing nonconforming use on a narrow, one-way street. There arealready difficult parking conditions in the neighborhood. The area is already densely populated. The City Court and Police Headquarters have problems with residents parking in their lot, S. Cummings, seconded by I. Stewart, moved to recommend DENTAL of appeal . Motion PASSED 4-0. APPEAL 1348 Staff recommendation: Proposed use not medically related, within intent of zoning ordinance. This would be adding an additional nonconforming use to this premises which is already nonconforming in a variety of ways . It is not appropriate for such use. S. Cummings, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to recommend DENIAL. Motion PASSED 4-0, APPEAL 1349 Staff recommendation is for approval . I . Stewart, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to recommend APPROVAL. Motion PASSED 4-0. APPEAL 1350 Staff recommendation: Denial, as inappropriate use for single and two family residence zone. I. Stewart, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to recommend DENIAL. Motion PASSED 4-0.