Loading...
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.