HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1981-05-26 MINUTES `''
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
May 26, 1981
PRESENT: Chairman F. Moore, M. Sampson, S. Cummings, R. Moran, E. Nichols
ALSO: Appellants, appellants ' representatives, N, Schuler, E. Holman,
H. M. Van Cort, other interested persons, press
1 . Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.
2. Public Hearing on final approval of subdivision of property at 200 Kline Rd.
E. Nichols, seconded by R. Moran, moved to open the public hearing on the
above subdivision. This motion passed. Since there was no discussion on
the matter R. Moran, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to close the public hearing.
This motion also was passed. E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved for
approval of subdivision of the property at 200 Kline Road. Motion passer,,.
It was noted that a Special Permit from the BZA will be required for use
of the property as a cemetery.
3. Approval of April 1981 minutes.
M. Sampson, seconded by R. Moran, moved to approve April minutes. Motion
passed.
4. Chairman's Report. None.
5. Committee Reports. None.
6. Old Business:
a. Action on Kline Rd. subdivision: See (2) above.
b. The discussion of the P&D Board's role in the zoning appeals process follows.
There was consensus that the P&D staff should list the planning issues in
each appeal for the Board's consideration and that if there were no planning
issues the Board could choose to make no recommendation to the BZA on a case.
There was a lengthy discussion about possible criteria on which to judge
whether the P&D Board should take a stand on appeals. It was noted that many
of the appeals involved the issue of increased density in the residential
neighborhoods and that generally speaking increased density and its effects
were important considerations for the Board.
The Board asked Planning & Development Director Van Cort for a report on
progress on Northside rezoning. Mr. Van Cort said that it had been his
intention to conduct a full neighborhood study on which to base a possible
zoning change and that this study was to have been done by a CD employee
who would have been hired with Small Cities funds. In the final review by
the IURA and Common Council this position was cut from the budget. There-
fore it would be necessary to take a less comprehensive approach to the
problem and to investigate the possibility of simply changing to one of the
existing classifications or creating a new zone that more nearly meets the
needs of the neighborhood. The goal in the zoning change would be to pro-
tect the character of the Northside against further conversion to occupancy
by unrelated people.
2
c. Zoning Ordinance interpretation: Mr. Van Cort reported that the City Attorney
advises him that the P&D Board may comment on interpretations of the Zoning
Ordinance but that they are not required to do so by the Ordinance.'
d. Other:
1 . Non-City streets: The discussion of the Attorney's opinion on inter-
pretations led to a discussion of non-City streets which have long been
a problem for residents living on them. Mr. Van Cort explained that
from time to time residents on those streets request. increased snow
removal or garbage pickup and other City services to which, in fact,
they are not entitled since these rights-of-way are treated as drive-
ways instead of mapped City streets. Director Van Cort said it would
be possible to investigate this question but that it would be very time
consuming and might lead to considerable expenditures if these were to
be mapped and made a part of .the City's street system. The consensus
was that for the time being this question should not be actively
investigated.
2. Alderman Nichols explained that Council wanted to have a recommendation
from the P&D Board as to the advisability of turning Fire Station #5
over to the Veteran Volunteer Firefighters Association for a meeting
place and on transfer of the truck in Station #5 to Station #6 which is
located on West State Street near Fulton Street. Furthermore, she
explained that Council seeks the advice of Planning & Development on
possible new locations for fire stations which would serve South Hill 'or
West Hill in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Van Cort said he felt that any
recommendations on closing of fire stations could be highly controversial
and that he would request a clarification from Council by resolution as
to exactly what questions they sought to have answered.
7. ZONING APPEALS (8:30 PM) : See attached sheets.
8. New Business:
a. Request for preliminary approval of subdivision for Tops Market parcel ,
U Fair site.
Staff recommendation: Preliminary approval (Staff will be very careful
to include in the final subdivision rights that run with the- land in
perpetuity subject to approval of City Attorney and Engineer).
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved for preliminary approval of
subdivision. Passed 5-0.
9. Mi.scellaneous.. None
10. Adjournment.
3
ZONING APPEALS CASES (8:30 PM) : .
The order in which the zoning appeals were heard was 1360, SA 6-1-81 , 1366, 1359,
SA 6-2-81 , 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371 ; however, for recording purposes, the agenda
listing will be followed.
APPEAL 1359: Area Variance under Sect. 30.26B (side yard and lot size fora group care
residence) , Sect. 30.25, Col . 10 (lot coverage) and Sect. 30.49 (enlargement of a non-con-
forming structure) to permit addition of an exterior stairway for fire egress at the south
end of the Broome Developmental Services community residence at 618 N. Aurora St. The
property, in an R-2b (residential ) district, is deficient in side yard set backs and mini-
mum lot size for a group care residence, and the permitted lot coverage is exceeded. An
area variance is required for an addition to a non-conforming structure. Appeal held over
by the Planning & Development Board on April 28, pending additional information or an
alteration in the plans .
L. O'Neill (Broome Developmental Services) presented the architect's newest plan
for an exterior stairway (in blue on sketch presented) .
Planning issues: Since last meeting architect has provided appellant with a new plan
for exterior stairway (see sketch) . Compared to previous stairway
proposal , the new alternative (in blue) would offer minimal visual
and psychological encroachment on adjacent structure. In case of
fire, egress would be almost clear of both structures.
Staff recommendation: Approve "blue" alternative or other version of it (see letter) .
M. Sampson, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to recommend approval . Passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1360: Area Variance under Sect. 30.25, Cols. 10 and 11 (lot coverage and required
front yard) to permit addition of a solar collector along the front of the existing one-
family Leonard E. Mankowski dwelling at 58 Woodcrest Ave. , in an R-la (residential ) dis-
trict. The addition would extend into the front yard and maximum lot coverage would be
exceeded. Appeal held over by the Planning & Development Board on April 28.
Planning issues: Visual/architectural impact of structure on immediate neighborhood.
-- Energy conservation is an extremely important community goal . Staff
noted that conflict between architectural integrity of existing
structures and the need for energy efficiency will be an increasingly
important issue in the future. Using presently available technology
most solar conversions or for that matter wind energy conversions
have a tendency to clash with the architecture of existing structures.
Staff recommendation: Staff was divided since both visual impact and energy conservation
are important issues.
S. Cummings, seconded by R. Moran, moved to recommend denial of variance. Passed 5-0.
4_w
4
SIGN r:PPEAL 6-1-81 : Variance under Sect. 34 .6B (sign regulations in a B-5 zone) of the
Sign Ordinance to permit construction of a sign that would cover the entire face of the
building at 358 Elmira Rd. (Tallmadge Tire Service) , considerably exceeding the maximum
permitted for the B-5 (business) district in which the property is located. '
J. Serlin, architect, presented a slide talk relating to sign design, signs as folk
art, advertising art showing signs of various kinds. He raised such questions as :
Where does a sign border end when it is displayed on a building? Shouldn 't displays of
machinery and products (with or without graphical markings) outside of a store be con-
sidered part of an advertising display akin to items which might appear in a sign?
Planning issues: Design quality not a criteria in Sign Ordinance.
Sign does not conform to size limitations nor intent and spirit of
Sign Ordinance.
Staff recommendation: Deny as proposed sign is too large and because Sign Ordinance
does not allow for consideration of aesthetic merit.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial of variance for proposed
signage. Motion passed 5-0.
Chairman Moore commented however that it was desirable to have attractive signage within
the limitations of the Sign Ordinance.
E. Nichols said the City had spent $1 .5 million on the Elmira Road recently and that
some of that effort was directed to reducing the number of flashing lights and amount
of visual interference. S. Cummings raised the matter of precedence setting signage
and in this case the character and scale of the signage. Chairman Moore said that to
judge a sign such as Serlin was proposing would require evaluation by a commercial
art commission, nonexistent in Ithaca at the present time.
SIGN APPEAL 6-2-81 : Appeal of. RHP Incorporated for Variance under Sects. 34.4A, 34.15,
34.13A, and 34.9 (general regulations for billboards, time limitations for non-conforming
signs, requirements for erection of signs, and requirements for a permit) to permit re-
placement or reconstruction of a billboard at 309 Elmira Rd. , in a B-5 (business) district
which was knocked over by persons unknown. The Building Commissioner has denied a permit
for repair or replacement because billboards are specifically prohibited by the ordinance
and because the ordinance contains no provisions for repair or replacement of nonconform-
ing signs.
Attorney R. Williamson presented appellant's appeal and asked for permission to
return to status quo (the billboard re-erected) pending resolution of the matter of
the billboards between the City and RHP Incorporated. RHP representatives were also
there to answer questions.
David Cutting, Cutting Motors, recommended that the billboard be put back up but that
the Planning Board should make a resolution that all billboards be taken down.
5
Planning issues: Quality of visual environment: By most standards, billboards detract
from the natural and man made landscape.
Utilization of land: The land on which the billboard is located is
underutilized and would be of greater benefit to the city if used
for construction of a business providing goods or services as well
as taxes.
Staff recommendation: Deny permission to re-erect billboard as it not within the
spirit, intent or letter of the Sign Ordinance.
S. Cummings, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to deny request to re-erect billboard
and in addition the request that all billboards be removed as expeditiously as
possible. Passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1366: Appeal of Ronald D. Schmitt for Area Variance under Sect. 30.25, Cols. 13 an(
14 (side and rear yard setbacks) to permit conversion of a barn at the rear of 11.8 Sears S1
to a dwelling unit for three persons. The property, in an R-3 (residential ) district, woul
be deficient in rear and side yard setbacks if the barn is converted to a dwelling unit.
R. Schmitt presented his appeal .
Planning issues: Would increase density in an already dense neighborhood .where there
is limited access.
Staff recommendation: Deny variance.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial of variance.
Passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1368: Appeal of Ferdinand Stanchi for Area Variance Variance under Sect. 30.25,
Cols. 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12 (off-street parking, lot size, front yards) and Sect. 30.45 (en-
largement of a non-conforming structure) , to permit an addition to the house at 442 N. GenE
St. The property, in an R-3a (residential ) district, is deficient in off-street parking,
lot area, and (two) front yards, and lot coverage is exceeded. The only deficiency which
will be affected is that lot coverage will be increased slightly.
Mr. Stanchi , appellant, and P. Fialla presented the appeal .
Planning issues: Enlargement of a nonconforming structure.
May have some visual impact on adjacent properties.
Improvement to quality of living accommodations.
May increase density.
Staff recommendation: Approve if no occupancy increase, parking decrease, or negative
visual impact.
S. Cummings, seconded by R. Moran, moved to recommend that action on this appeal be
deferred for 30 days and request appellant to consider alternative, less expensive
approaches to his mechanical problem, and would strongly recommend that appellant
contact INHS for technical assistance. Passed 4-0-1 .
Above motion was rescinded by a motion made by R. Moran, seconded by M. Sampson, and
passed with a 4-1 vote.
After discussion of density problem the appellant agreed not to increase the occupancy
of the building if the variance were approved. Since appellant agreed not to add a
living space, E. Nichols, seconded by R. Moran, moved to recommend approval of variance
with the clear understanding that no living space will be created. Passed 4-1 .
6
APPEAL 1369: Appeal of Harry Taggart, Jr. for Area Variance under Sect. 30.25, Cols. 4, 6,
7, 10, 11 , 12, 13 and 14 (off-street parking, lot size, lot width, lot coverage and front,
side and rear yards) to permit conversion of the garage in the apartment house at 202 S.
Geneva St. to a bedroom. The property, in an R-3a (residential ) district, is deficient in
off-street parking, lot area, lot width, front yard, side and rear yards, and permitted lot
coverage is exceeded.
Planning issues: It would apparently totally eliminate off-street parking for property
while increasing potential parking demand.
Numerous existing deficiencies would be further aggravated.
Staff recommendation: Deny variance.
J. Misera, 125 W. Geneva St. , stated she could rent appellant an off-street parking space.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial . Passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1370: Appeal of Margaret Liquori for Area Variance under Sect. 30.25, Cols. 4 and 1
(off-street parking and front yard setback) , and Sect. 30.49 (extension or enlargement of
a non-conforming structure or use) to permit conversion of property at 113 Stewart Ave. frc
a four apartment (six bedrooms total ) to a three apartment (ten bedrooms total ) building.
The property, in an R-3a (residential ) district, is deficient in off-street parking and
front yard setback.
Number of bedrooms is incorrect in the above listing. At present there are four apartments
(3 with 2 bedrooms each and 1 with 1 bedroom) ,
D. Liguori (on behalf of his wife) and Attorney Dirk Galbraith presented a request for a
variance to covert the four apartments to three apartments (2 with 6 bedrooms each and
1 with 4 bedrooms) . There would be a total of 16 bedrooms.
Planning issues: Parking: A deficiency of 2 spaces would be created (owner says
he can provide 6 spaces, where 8 required).
Continued availability of parking should be guaranteed by owner.
Building is in historic district. ILPC was concerned that chimneys
had been removed from the building without proper notification
and approval .
Staff recommendation: Deny variance because although parking deficiency may be minimal
by zoning ordinance, potential impact is too severe.
E. Nichols said she had received two phone calls from neighborhood residents who were
against the proposed changes in this appeal .
A letter from Pat Baker, owner of property at 117 Stewart Avenue, was read. She
was against the proposed changes also.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to defer this appeal , pending working
out of floor plan with P&D staff help, constructing 3 bedroom apartments (rather than
4 and 6 bedroom apartments) with bedrooms well above minimum size, occupancy of no
more than 12 persons, and suitable binding parking arrangement. Passed 4-1 .
7
APPEAL 1371 : Special Permit under Sect. 30.26, Para . C, to permit use of the front yard at
102 Adams St. for an open air cafe for customers of Clever Hans Bakery. The property is in
an R-2b (residential ) district in which an open air cafe is not a permitted use. An appeal
for a use variance for a cafe was denied by the Board in May; appellant is now requesting
consideration of the use as a special permit.
Planning issues: Increased traffic and parking demand.
Effect on neighborhood character: Although probably pleasant and
attractive, this would constitute a change in the character of the
business and building, making it more commercial in appearance;
control of debris might be a problem.
Landmark status: ILPC has approved proposal .
Staff recommendation: Approval based on no negative planning impact.
Appellant brought in a petition signed by residents living around the factory
building who were in favor of the appeal.
E. Nichols, seconded by R. Moran, moved to endorse the idea of a covered patio at
Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory to serve the clientele who wish to consume pastries
and non-alcoholic beverages. Passed 5-0.
MEMORANDUM
TO: T. Hoard, Building Commissioner
FROM: Planning & Development
SUBJ: P&D BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS ON MAY ZONING APPEALS CASES
DATE: May 29, 1981
APPEAL 1359: Area Variance under Sect. 30. 26E side yard and lot size for .a group care
residence) , Sect. 30.25, Col . 10 (lot coverar;e) and Sect. 30.49 (enlargement of a non-con-
for;,ing structure) L permit addition of an exterior stairway for fire egress at the south
end of the Broome Developmental Services community residence at 618. N. Aurora St. The
property, in an R-2b (residential ) district, is deficient in side yard set backs and mini-
mum lot size for a group care residence, and the permitted lot coverage is exceeded. An
area variance is required for an addition to a non-conforming structure. Appeal held over
by the Planning & Development Board on April 28, pending additional information or an
alteration in the plans .
Planning issues: Since last meeting architect has provided appellant with a new plan
for exterior stairway (see sketch) . Compared to previous stairway
proposal , the new alternative (in blue) would offer minimal visual
and psychological encroachment on adjacent structure. In case of
fire, egress would be almost clear of both structures .
Staff recommendation: Approve "blue" alternative or other version of it (see letter) .
M. Sampson, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to recommend approval . Passed 5-0.
,APPEAL 1360: Area Variance under Sect. 30.25, Cols. lO and 11 (lot coverage and required
front yard) to permit addition of a solar collector along the front of the existing one-
family Leonard E. Mankowski dwelling at 58 Woodcrest Ave. , in an R-la (residential ) dis-
trict. The addition would extend into the front yard and maximum lot coverage would be
exceeded. Appeal held over by the Planning & Development Board on April 28.
Planning issues: Visual/architectural impact of structure on immediate neighborhood.
Energy conservation is an extremely important community goal . Staff
noted that conflict between architectural integrity of existing
structures and the need for energy efficiency will be an increasingly
important issue in the future. Using presently available technology
most solar conversions or for that matter wind energy conversions
have a tendency to clash with the architecture of existing structures.
Staff recommendation: Staff was divided since both visual impact and energy conservation
are important issues.
S. Cummings, seconded by R. Moran, moved to recommend denial of variance. Passed 5-0.
SIGAP PEAL 6-1-81 : Variance under Sect. 34 .6E, (sign regulations in a B-5 zone) of the
Sign Ordinance to permit construction of a sign that would cover the entire face of the
building at 358 Elmira Rd. (Tailmadge Tire Service); considerably exceeding the maximum
permitted for the B-5 business) district in which the property is located.
Planning issues: Design quality not a criteria in Sign Ordinance.
Sign does not conform to size limitations nor intent and spirit of
Sign Ordinance.
Staff recommendation: Deny as proposed sign is too large and because Sign Ordinance
does not allow for consideration of aesthetic merit.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial of variance for proposed
signage. Motion passed 5-0.
Chairman Moore commented however that it was desirable to have attractive signage within
the limitations of the Sign Ordinance.
SIGN APPEAL 6-2-81 : Appeal of RHP Incorporated for Variance under Sects. 34.4A, 34.15,
34 . 13A, and 34.9 (general regulations for billboards, time limitations for non-conforming
signs, requirements for erection of signs, and requirements for a permit) to permit re-
placement or reconstruction of a billboard at 309 Elmira Rd. , in a B-5 (business) district,
which was knocked over by persons unknown. The Building Commissioner has denied a permit
Tor repair or replacement because billboards are specifically prohibited by the ordinance
and because the ordinance contains no provisions for repair or replacement of non conform-
ing signs.
Planning issues: Quality of visual environment: By most standards, billboards detract
from the natural and man made landscape.
Utilization of land: The land on which the billboard is located is
underutilized and would be of greater benefit to the city if used
for construction of a business providing goods or services as well
as taxes.
Staff recommendation: Deny permission to re-erect billboard as it not within the
spirit, intent or letter of the Sign Ordinance.
S. Cummings, seconded by E. Nichols, moved to deny request to re-erect billboard
and in addition the request that all billboards be removed as expeditiously as
possible. Passed 5-0.
APPEAL '366: Appeal of Ronald D. Schmitt for Area Variance under Sect. 30.25, Cols . 13 anc
14 (side and rear yard setbacks) to permit conversion oT a barn at the rear of 11811-Sears Si
to a dwelling unit for three persons. The property, in an R-3 (residential ) district, wool
be deficient in rear and side yard setbacks if the barn is converted to a dwelling unit.
Planning issues: Would increase density in an already dense neighborhood.where there
is limited access.
Staff recommendation: Deny variance.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial of variance.
Passed 5-0.
3
APPEAL 1368: Appeal of Ferdinand Stanchi for Area. Variance variance under Sect. 30.25,
Cols. 4, 6. 10, 11 and 12 (off-street parking, lot size, front yards) and Sect. 30.49 (en-
largement of a non-conforming structure) , to permit an addition to the house at 442 N. Genev
St. The property, In an R-3a (residentla � ) district, l5 deficient In Off-street parking;
lot area, and (two) front yards, and lot coverage is exceeded. The only deficiency which
will be affected is that lot coverage will be increased slightly.
Planing issues: Enlargement of a nonconforming structure.
May have some visual impact on adjacent properties.
Improvement to quality of living accommodations .
May increase density.
Staff recommendation: Approve if no occupancy increase, parking decrease, or negative
visual impact.
S. Cummings, seconded by R. Moran, moved to recommend that action on this appeal be
deferred for 30 days and request appellant to consider alternative, less expensive
approaches to his mechanical problem, and would strongly recommend that appellant
contact INHS for technical assistance. Passed 4-0-1 .
Above motion was rescinded by a motion made by R. Moran, seconded by M. Sampson, and
passed with a 4-1 vote.
After discussion of density problem the appellant agreed not to increase the occupancy
of the building if the variance were approved. Since appellant agreed not to add a
I
iving space, E. Nichols, seconded by R. Moran, moved to recommend approval of variance
with the clear understanding that no living space will be created. Passed 4-1 .
APPEAL 1369: Appeal of Harry Taggart, Jr. for Area Variance under Sect. 30.25, Cols. 4 , 6,
7, 10, 11 , 12, 13 and 14 (of`-street parking, lot size, lot width, lot coverage and front,
side and rearyards) to permit conversion of the garage in the apartment house at 202 S.
Geneva St. to a bedroom. The property, in an R-3a (residential ) district, is deficient in
off-street parking. lot area, lot width, front yard, side and rear yards, and permitted lot
coverage is exceeded.
Planning issues: It would apparently totally eliminate off-street parking for property
while increasing potential parking demand.
Numerous existing deficiencies would be further aggravated.
Staff recommendation: Deny variance.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial . Passed 5-0.
i
4
APPEAL i ,70: Appeal of Margaret Liquori for Area 1`ariance under Sect. 30.25, Cols . 4 and 1
(off-street parking and front yard setback) , and Sect. 30.49 ;extension or enlargement of
a non-conforming structure or use) to permlt conversion of property at 113 Stewart Ave. fro
a four apartment (six bedrooms total ) to a three apartment (ten bedrooms total building.
The property, in an R-3a (residential ) district, is deficient in off-street parking and
I
ront yard setback.
Planning issues: Parking: A deficiency of 2 spaces would be created (owner says
he can provide 6 spaces , where B required) .
Continued availability of parking should be guaranteed by owner.
Building is in historic district. ILPC was concerned that chimneys
had been removed from the building without proper notification
and approval .
Staff recommendation: Deny variance because although parking deficiency may be minimal
by zoning ordinance, potential impact is too severe.
E. Nichols said she had received two phone calls from neighborhood residents who were
against the proposed changes in this appeal .
A letter from Pat Baker, owner of property at 117 Stewart Avenue, was read. She
was against the proposed changes also.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to defer this appeal , pending working
out of floor plan with P&D staff help, constructing 3 bedroom apartments (rather than
4 and 6 bedroom apartments) with bedrooms well above minimum size, occupancy of no
more than 12 persons, and suitable binding parking arrangement. Passed 4-1 .
APPEAL 1371 : Special Permit under Sect. 30, 26, Para. C, to permit use of the front yard at
102 Adams St. for an open air cafe for customers of Clever Hans Bakery. The property is in
an R-2b (residential ) district in which an open air cafe is not a permitted use. An .appeal
fpr a use variance for a cafe was denied by tale Board in May; appellant is now requesting
consideration of the use as a special permit.
Planning issues: Increased traffic and parking demand.
Effect on neighborhood character: Although probably pleasant and
attractive, this would constitute a change in the character of the
business and building, making it more.commercial in appearance;
control of debris might be a problem.
Landmark status: ILP.0 has approved proposal .
Staff recommendation: Approval based on no negative planning impact.
Appellant brought in a petition signed by residents living around the factory
building who were in favor of the appeal .
E. Nichols, seconded by R. Moran, moved to endorse the idea of a covered patio at
Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory to serve the clientele who wish to consume pastries
and non-alcoholic beverages. Passed 5-0.