Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1981-12-22 MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1981 PRESENT: Chair S. Cummings, Vice-Chair M. Sampson, P. Holmes, R. Schlather; (at 9:37) E. Nichols. ALSO: Appellants, appellant's representatives, other interested parties, J. Meigs, J. Pierce, press. 1. S. Cummings called the meeting to order at 7:45 pm. The meeting had been moved to the City Court due to a Special Meeting of Common Council in Council Chamber, 2. Approval of November 1981 minutes: Sampson moved to approve minutes as sent. Second by Schlather. PASSED unanimously. 3. Chairperson's report: Ms. Cummings reported that Mr. Sampson had been checking what measures Cornell could take to improve its off-campus housing counselling. She said Cornell 's current report on off-campus housing was a real improvement over last year's; it includes a section on getting along in a new neighborhood. She noted that Mr. -Schlather was contacting representatives of the county Bar Association to discuss areas of concern. Mr. Schlather interjected there had been a change of guard there, from Dick Thaler to Bob Hines. Ms. Cummings encouraged the meeting be pursued, and suggested that realtors and the public might be brought in as well . 4. Committee reports: None. It was noted that committee memberships would have to be extensively revised after New Year's, due to changes which will be forthcoming in Board membership. 5. New Business: P-1 Properties, conversion to new uses: Joey Pierce presented a staff proposal for dealing with use conversions of properties zoned P-1, by use of the Special Permit process. He explained that staff had begun a review of the process of converting P-1 properties to private use because of the School District's plans to seek a buyer/developer for the old West Hill School (following a procedure somewhat similar to that used for East PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 2 Hill School ) . This could require rezoning of the West Hill property, as. the only uses allowed in its development by :right are P-1 uses: public recreation and education. Living accommodations must conform to the regulations of the adjacent residential district, while any other use except classrooms is permitted only by Special Permit. Mr. Schlather asked about Henry St. John's; R-3a regulations would apply there, unless Special Permit use is sought. Department staff, Mr. Pierce continued, felt the need for more specific regulations to assure that the conversion of P-1 properties is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As the School District is expected to go ahead with their plans in March, it would be best to have a better method on'the books before that time. Therefor.e,`.he introduced a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions for Special Permit uses (attached), with a recommendation that the Board forward it to Council , with Board debate to take place at their January meeting. This arrangement was sought due to a tight timetable, which he outlined: The..School district will accept purchase/development proposals for West Hill through January. During February the District's Re-use Committee reviews those submitted. They forward their recommendations to the School Board for its review; if the School Board and its attorney agree with the recommendation, the proposal goes to the City for zoning review and any action needed, which,will most likely involve the Planning & Development Board. Mr. Pierce said the staff proposal had West Hill and Henry St. John's specifically in mind but-.:was designed to handle any other school building if it became necessary. He then passed out the draft proposal and summarized ,the four alternative processes staff had considered: 1. Rezoning Advantages: a. Requires public hearing. b. New zone would probably be similar to adjacent zones--making the new use compatible. Disadvantages: a. Similarity to adjacent zone regulations may exclude some desirable adaptive uses. b. Decision to rezone is based on theoretical range of uses instead of a specific proposal . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 3 I 2. Special Permits Advantages: a. A familiar process to all involved. b. Allows for public input, which can be required. c. Project-by-project review. I d. -Board of Appeals can attach conditions. e. A future change in use requires issuance of a new permit. Disadvantages: Final decision may- not be responsive to planning and economic development needs. 3. j Use Variance j Advantages: Same as those for a Special Permit I Disadvantages: a. Board of Appeals must take economic hardship into account; hard to prove for a new use. b. Development of innovative proposals could be inhibited by variance requirements, 4. Floating Zone--would involve the establishment of a new zone applying to P-1 properties when they are no longer used for public purposes-- it could be more particular, e.g. referring only to school buildings. I Advantages: a. Extensive public input possible in establishing criteria to be met by developers. b. Board could review various proposals. c. Guidelines and performance criteria for new uses could be established. d, City could be required to approve any change in use. Disadvantages; a. Complicated process involving extensive amendment to the Zoning ordinance. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 4 b. May end up duplicating an existing process that would be less complex and time-consuming. c. Requires indentification of all possible uses before the fact. Mr. Meigs added that the Floating Zone concept is new and locally untried; it would require a lot more education of public and administra- tion to get to a decision point. Also the nebulous nature of floating, zones, hovering over the city, could inhibit its acceptance. Ms. Cummings asked where such zones now function. Mr. Pierce said he was pretty sure NYC used the process, butwasn't what specifics were involved. In answer to a query by Mr. Schlather, he explained the zone would come into use when a specific set of circumstances occurred; the idea is similar to a Special Permit, but requires that all uses' be forecast. It was pointed out that group homes must auto- matically apply for .Special Permits. Mr. Pierce explained that the Special Permit proposal calls for a written response from a majority of all property owners within 200 feet of the boundaries of the property; and that they must be notified by the appellant. Mr. Schlather questioned if. it was plausible that the appellant could accomplish this. : Mr. Meigs pointed to the excellent response gathered for the recent case of Byrne Dairy. Mr. Schlather asked if a petition would satisfy the requirement. Mr. Meigs thought an answer to that should be left to the City Attorney. Mr'.` Schlather wanted to know what the writers of the amendment had in mind. Mr: Pierce said he felt a petition was not sufficient. Mr. Schlather commented he would like "written response" defined in the amendment. Ms. Cummings said she wished a more neutral: party than the appellant would be responsible for gathering the response and suggested that a form might be made available with Special Permit applications, administered by the Building Dept. Mr. Pierce thought it possible, and said it could be included with notification. Mr. Meigs said this would add to the Building Commissioner's administrative burden. Mr.. Schlather expressed skepticism about putting a "purely mathematical " burden on the appellant: either he gets 51% of the property owners to respond, or he doesn't get the permit. Mr. Schlather then questioned limiting the required response to property owners, pointing out that Chestnut Apartments, next to West Hill School , had a number of tenants who would want a say in the neighborhood's development. In the following discussion, Mr. Pierce pointed out that the provision about property owners was from the existing ordinance (§30.58) ; all agreed that the proposal , and perhaps the ordinance, should be looked at with a view to opening up.;the process to non-property owner residents'. Mr, Sampson then focused on the need for the new owner of a P-1 property to reapply each time he changed the use of the building. Ms. Cummings PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 5 thought it proper due to the high intensity of use in P-1 neighborhoods, and Mr. Meigs pointed out that a specific use was all that would be considered the first time; such a requirement is already spelled out in the ordinance. Discussion turned to forwarding the proposal (in its present form) to Common Council . Mr, Schlather and Ms. Cummings preferred that the .Board's concerns on "written response" (Item ','d") be expressed. Staff was concerned that Common Council have a chance to introduce a proposed . ordinance for public hearing at its February 3, 1982 meeting. It was pointed out that the Board could not see and approve a revised draft until January 26th--which would not make the proposal available for the 15 days public notice necessary before February 3. It was decided that the proposal should be forwarded simultaneously to the Codes & Administration Committee of the Board, and the Planning & Development Committee of Council , these committees to work with P&D staff toward a revised draft that would include the Board's suggestions that Item "d" be revised to define "written response", to find a process ,that Would allow neighboring residents a say in the process, and to address the problems of having appellant gather response from a majority of property owners. These committees will forward their recommendations respectively to the Planning Board at its January 26, 1982 meeting, and to Council at its February 3 1982 meeting. 6. Zoning Appeals Cases SIGN APPEAL 1-1-82': State Diner, 428 W. State St: existing non-conforming, freestanding sign exceeds projection and encroachment of right-of-way permitted, but has been determined by Landmarks Commission to substantially meet the criteria for historic sign status, and variance is sought to retain it on that basis. Attorney Jim Buyoucos, representing owner Dean Poulos, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Removal or relocation would probably have a negative effect on the business; though the degree is impossible to know. Serves as an orienting feature in this rather desolate stretch. Allegedly serves to illuminate the area during hours of darkness, increasing pedestrians. sense of security. Is a fairly good example of extravagant roadside signage of the 40's-50's era, and multicolored lights add to the street scene. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 6 Appellant comment: Mr. Buyoucos stated that the sign had been given historic sign status by ILPC; that the sign wouldn't affect planning concerns such as density; that the appellant had been quick to correct the sign so it was less distracting; and that the sign provides gaiety and life to W. State St. He showed a map of the area affected by the sign, pointing out that it was mainly businesses and parking lots, with just two residences, neither of which had complained of the sign. Staff recommendation: Approval . Board discussion Ms. Cummings outlined the Historic Sign Ordinance and and comment: explained that it was pretty much the sense that if ILPC determined historic status, the Board passed it on to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Meigs read the following statement into the record: Statement of ILPC Chair, V. Romanoff December 22, 1981 To: The Board of Planning & Development The State Diner sign, located in front of"428 W.: State Street, is an interesting throwback to the better-built:and."more interestingly designed composite signs of' the 40's and early`30'"s. It is fabricated out of heavy-guage sheet metal, 2- plexiglass inserts-, .incandescent gold-bulbs, and is outlined with a thin tube of red neon. The more t objectionable aspects of these advertising logos have been disconnected: F the rotating top, the flashing neon arrow and the random-sequenced lighting of the bulbs. The cost of such a sign today makes it-s replacement virtually impossible. Rudi,Christopher, owner of the Cayuga Sign Co. , which made the sign, commented, "We don't build them like that any more." Two or three decades ago when our commercial strips and shopping areas 'were inundated with such displays-.of glowing,. flashing, blinking techrLicolor spectacles, we gRrew weary of them and considered them garish and extreme. Today, .stifled by:'the tame and repetitive vacuum-molded plastic advertising & 'splays, these few remaining earlier signs seem to us to sparkle with energy and imagination. We have a very varied°and fascinating array of signs left in Ithaca.- traces of the old Atwaters, Calendar Clockworks and Ithaca. Sign r'.Co. s.i,g:n all 19th- century' advertising painted directly 'on'brick fa cad,es ,:by' skilled. sign- painters. From the 1920's we have the carved and=:paintcdletters of Schmaus' Clothing Store;:-from the 1930's; etched .in carrara`.glass, Schooley's, Fannie Farmer,-and the fern- ornamentation left-,from the J.C. Penney's store. From the post-war years we have the Ghanticleer's multi-colored plumed rooster, the Pine Tavern, Johnny18B g.Red.Bear#_and the rainbow from George's restaurant, all executed in neon tubing. Even though the State Diner sign is a fairly recent creation, it also possesses the design qualities which should make it eligible for ;:preservation. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 7 Mr. Schlather asked how far the sign projected out; exact figures were not available, however, it was stated there was no practical way to correct this. Public comment: None. Board recommendation: Motion by Mr.. Schlather to recommend approval . Second by Mr. Sampson. PASSED 4-0. Appellants not being present for Appeals 1413 & 1414, they were tabled 'for later in the meeting. APPEAL 1415: Area Variances to permit addition of a bathroom for one of two units at 701 N. Aurrora' St. ; in an R-2b zone. Property is deficient in side and rear yards, and off-street parking. Bathroom would encroach on required side yard, but it would not extend beyond line of existing structure. Guy Naylor, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Would increase property value and improve amenity of housing. Visual impact would depend on design; house seems to be in process of being rehabilitated in keeping with its potential . Appellant comment: _ House is long and existing bathroom poorly located; addition would not significantly change Aurora Street front; leaves 1.7 feet between house and property line. Mr. Naylor and Flora Gross discussed their renovations. Public comment: Mr. Naylor presented a letter from M. A. Lounsbery, 703 N. Aurora St. , in favor of the appeal . Staff recommendation: Approval , with condition that it be designed to be compatible with building's stylistic features. Board comment Mr. Schlather was assured it wouldn't affect existing and recommendation: parking. Mr. Schlather moved to recommend approval with condition that addition be designed to be compatible with building's stylistic features. Mr. Holmes seconded. PASSED 4-0. PLANNING -& DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 8 APPEAL 1416: Use Variance to permit continued use of first floor of 606 Cascadilla St. , in a R-3b zone, as workshop and storage area for owner- contractor Don Robertson, A previous appeal was granted to allow improvements to the second-floor apartment; owner seeks a limited-term variance to permit phased improvement of the property so that eventual reconversion of first floor to residential use may become financially feasible. Present use was allowed as a home occupation by previous Building Commissioner since owner resided,: at adjacent address at the time, and both properties were deeded together. Don Robertson, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: As a land use it is not permitted or compatible with this or surrounding uses. It may have negative effect on value of surrounding properties; depresses value of this property. Occupies what might be a dwelling unit, if not too extensively altered in use. Traffic .created exceeds construction-type traffic-normal for residential property; different in character. Use probably detracts from use & enjoyment of surrounding residences. Use does not 'fit' neighborhood visually; related activity 'is nonresidential ; outside storage detracts. Related traffic and activity probably maintain a non- residential element of noise, fumes, dirt.. Use probably has negative effect on occupants of second floor apartment. Appellant comment: Mr'. Robertson outlined the history of his use of the first floor asa shop; he had been there 6-7 years with no complaints. The shop is used for building kitchen units that would be more difficult to do on the job site., He was unable to put a time limit on when the property would be returned to use as a 2-family residence. Public comment: Mr, Robertson presented, and Ms. Cummings read, letters from: D. James Hallam, 605 Cascadilla St.--no objection to use as shop; Tro V. Bu% , 602 Cascadilla St.--no objection; Albert D. Stoddard III, 608 Cascadilla St. ,-- supports application for variance; John & Teresa Sinozko, 610 Cascadil•la--in favor of improvements. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22; 1981 Page 9 Staff recommendation: Denial for following reasons: 1. A use variance would delay, for an indefinite period, removal of an inappropriate use which has undesirable effects on residential amenity. 2. Continued diminution of value of adjacent properties. Board discussion Ms. Cummings explained that the shop had first been and comment: permitted as "Home Occupation" when Mr. Robertson owned the property; the use continued after he sold it. Last October he came before the Board for an area variance to renovate second floor apartment, and appeared a second time with a new set of drawings. Mr. Schlather asked if Mr. Robertson still owned the place, would the use qualify for Home Occupation now; Mr. Meigs doubted it because of the extent of the shop. Mr. Robertson explained to Mr. Schlather that it was a woodworking shop used for remodelling work. He said the only daytime traffic was his own vehicle. He hired other workers just when needed. Mr. Sampson said that though he had no objection to its current use, with intent to return to residential use, he foresaw problems if the shop were to be sold to someone else. He asked if the variance being requested would go to this shop specifically. Mr. Meigs explained a use variance by nature runs with the property and can therefore be continued by the next owner. Mr. Schlather asked Mr. Robertson if he saw the shop as part of a two-step project (renovate upstairs, then as capital comes in, renovate the downstairs) , or as continuing until his retirement. Mr. Robertson said it was a career-based time limit; he wasn't looking around for another shop. Mr. Schlather said he needed a cap on the time the use would be permitted, in order to vote for the appeal. Mr. Meigs outlined staff concerns. He said a driveby inspection revealed a truck parked out back by a sizable pile of dirt, which did not appear appropriate to the neighborhood. He said the operation seemed highly visible and not compatible with residential use. The staff would recommend limits on the term of the use; with hopes that the property would return to a 2-family use within the next few years. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes , December 22, 1981 page 10 Mr. Sch.lather asked i.J th.e shop could be moved to Mr. Robertson's current residence; Mr. Robertson said that was impossible, or at least nearly so--it would neces- sitate building a new shop. Mrs. . Robertson added her whish that his work and home facilities remain separate. Mr. Schlather said. his concern was with encouraging improvement of housing in neighborhoods, and he was reluctant to continue, indefinitely, a noncompatible. use. Mr. Robertson explained it had been a permitted use while he li"ved there; when he moved in in 1975 it was a 2-family residence,. and the first floor was a "mess". He further explained that the dirt outside was from work on the property, and had been only temporary. Mr. Meigs said that equity should permit continued use of the facility for the time being but a definite plan for a .phase-out was needed. He quoted the definition of "home occupation" , adding that this shop is much more extensive than the usual home occupation, and is not essentially compatible with residential use. Board.,recommen:dat on: Mr. 'Schlather, seconded by Mr. Sampson, moved to recommend that the variance requested in Appeal 1416 be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. That continuation of the present nonconforming use on the premises be permitted for no more than five (5) years at the most, and 2. That the use during such period be restricted to woodworking/cabinetry. Motion passed 4-0. The Board expressed the hope th.at appellant would be able to remove the shop in a shorter time and return the first floor to ,residential use. Ms. Cummings then asked that the Board return to Appeal 1413, as she was still awaiting people to appear on appeal 1417. APPEAL 1413: Area Variances to permit construction of a carport for single- family residence at 105 Vinegar Hill , in an R-2a zone. Existing front yard and lot width are deficient; carport would be in front yard, which is not permitted, and would encroach on one required side yard. This lot and the one adjacent have been i=llegally subdivided. No one appeared on behalf of this appeal . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 11 Mr. Meigs introduced two letters: - Domingo D. and Lucy V. Aguilar, 730 Cliff St. , wrote they had no objection to the proposed carport. - Elmer C. and Alice B. Testrut of 109 Vinegar Hill , immediate neighbors , also favored the appeal . Mr. Meigs commented that the lot line between appellant's property and that adjacent at 726 Cliff St. had been changed from an E-W line to a N-S line; this was never brought to the Board for approval , and constitutes an illegal subdivision--instead the property lines were recorded with the County Clerk's office. Mr. Meigs said that many illegal subdivisions have come about this way; once they are recorded, there is little the City can do. Planning issues: Is a permitted land use. Diminution of yard space would add to apparent density of development in neighborhood. It would visually encroach on open front yard commonly present in R-2 zones. Staff comment It appears from the map accompanying the appeal that and discussion: a .solution with less neighborhood and visual impact could be achieved by using the adjacent right-of-way to gain access to the rear yard, where such structures are permitted. Due to the topography involved, this would be a more expensive project, but the proposed carport will significantly alter area character, and seems oversized for one car. In order for the structure to best serve its stated purpose, it would be better to enclose it, and make it a garage; the potential for such an eventuality seems to exist in this case, where the house might be suitable for conversion to a 2-unit dwelling. Staff recommendation: Mr. Meigs said it was split between approval and denial . On the approval side, the practical di.ffi,culty and expense of alternate locations were cited. Reasons given for denial were: 1. Would be at considerable variance with the character of R-2 zones intended by the zoning ordinance. 2. Might encroach on street right-of-way, restricting City's freedom of action in maintaining and improving street. Board comment Mr. Schlather said it appeared from the worksheet that and recommendation: the carport might project into existing right-of-way. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 12 Mr. Meigs said that a rough estimate based on comparison with Planning Department maps indicated it might--and that the Dept. maps showed a different location for the primary structure than the one submitted with the appeal . Mr. Sampson moved to recommend denial of the appeal . Mr. Schlather seconded. PASSED, 4-0. Ms. Nichols arrive at .9:37 pm, from a special Council meeting. APPEAL 1417: Interpretation and/or Use Variance to permit .-first floor of 329 S. Geneva St. , owned by K. and R. Lee, to be used as offices for psychi- atric so:c,ial workers/therapists, interpretation i;s sought to determine whether such use is the equivalent of medical or dental offices which. are permitted in the R-3a zone in which. the property is, 1 ocated. If not variance is sought since the first floor hes been occupied. by a chi°ropractor, and would require reconversion for residential use. A separate apartment occupies the second floor. The property is deficient in one side yard. Attorney Laura-Holmberg,-representing the appellant appeared on behalf of th.is appeal , Ms. Cummings reminded the meeting that the Board could only-- consider the appeal for a Use variance. Interpretation must be sought from the .Board of Zoning Appeals. Planning issues: Generally compatible with land use. Reconversion to residential use, or search for other permitted use, might involve some unanticipated expense for owner. Maintains one dwelli"ng unit "in nonresidential use. Proposed use would probably not- increase level of nonresidential; 'traff-it. to site, but would probably exceed residential use level Little effect on neighborhood other than continued nonresidential traffic, Little effect on visual quality. Appellant comment: Appellants are considering purchase of building, Ms, Holmberg pointed out it has been on the -market si;x months and the real estate broker doesn't believe it can be sold as a resdence, She pointed out the zoning ordinance was problematic over the issue of medical uses, She contended the neighborhood impact would be no different than any other pro- fessional use, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 13 Public comment: Michael Herschensohn, 334 S. Geneva St. , presented a petition opposing the proposed use. He said it had been signed by residents in every house`of the 300 Block of S. Geneva--but then indicated that he hadn't been able to canvas two of the' houses on the block. The neighbors made these points: 1) They wanted to encourage residence by doctors in their place of practice as favorable to residential neighborhoods. 2) As a transitional zone to downtown, they sought protection from overdevelopment. Mr. Herschensohn also corrected the history of the site, saying that a doctor who owned the place previous to the Twentymans (who had leased it to the present practioner, a chiropractor) was responsible for the conversion to office space. He also pointed out that a recent appeal for a refrigerator business on the property had been strongly opposed by the neighborhood. Joseph Frost, 330 S. Geneva St. , was worried about the number of cars coming into the neighborhood. Rose Frost, 330 S. Geneva St. , said there was no parking space, and_.a further problem was cars pulling in and out of driveways. Ms. Cummings pointed out that the school would be closing next year. Mrs. Frost said that the present problem was more with the chiropractor's clients ' parking. Ms. Holmberg said that without seeking appeal a number of uses could be allowed at the property that mould have the same impact as the therapy use sought. She added there was room for parking on the grounds in back. Bill Kiernan, 409 S. Albany, said he had resided there for 28 years, in one of two remaining single-family homes on his block. He complained of the problem of pediatricians working in the area, and would like to find a way to eliminate them from the zone (extreme traffic problems had been caused. ) He pointed out that S. Albany St. had parking on only one side. ' Ms. Cummings said that the S. Albany-Titus-Geneva-Clinton area was an accident-prone area (due to the number of children) ; client-produced traffic tended to create a nuisance, and she would like to see distinctions made in the ordinance in parking requirements for different professional activities. The ordinance was unrealistic in the number of parking spaces needed. Mr. Herschensohn contended that off-street parking at the site still created problems, the parking area on site was small , and there was danger to his 3 children from cars pulling in and out of the drive. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 14 Ms. Holmberg said the site would not generate that much traffic. No group counselling was being planned, and the length of appointments tended to be rather long. Ms. Nichols commented on the lack of equity in the ordinance-- medical pracitioners did not need to own the property; other professionals must reside on the property to use it as an office. Mr. Schlather asked how long the chiropractor had been at the site. It was pointed out that the original use of the site as office was by a chiropractor, Dr. Andrews, who converted it about 9 years ago. Before that it was probably a 2-family house. Dr. Andrews sold it to the Twentymans, who leased the space to the present tenant. Staff comment This is a grey area; social work/therapy, and the and recommendation: facilities used therefore, do not differ substantially from general office requirements, and can conceivably utilize residential space with little effect on physical features of a structure. Amount of activity is likely to be main difference. A similar use was recently permitted on East Hill ; based on this precedent, there seems to be little reason to deny. Staff recommends approval . Board discussion There was discussion over the precedent on East Hill cited and comment: by staff. It was felt the Seneca St. case did not set precedent, as the neighborhood was already high in intensity of use; and differed from the S. Geneva case. Mr. Schlather asked if the off-street parking was sufficient: owner indicated 3 spaces, 6 are required. The plot plan shows a 4-bay garage, with a paved area and driveway--giving 4-5 parking spaces with clear access. Mr. Schlather was worried that granting appeal would contribute to an unhealthy situation of encroach- ment of business on the buffer areas next to downtown. fie also asked that the zoning regulations be looked at for the problem of doctors being able to practice in residences without ownership. Board recommendation: Mr. Schlather moved to recommend denial . Ms. Nichols seconded. Motion passed 3-1 (Holmes) . APPEAL 1414. : Area .V,ati`ances to permit conversion of 2;,.upper flop of .the Valley . House, 801 W. Buf.faJgo °St:I gn,a 8-4 zone, to,ten apartments. Previous,appeal . was denied for lack of off-street 'parking; .existin.g deficiencies in. lot size, ream yard, and excessive l of coverage were a.1 s . cited „Appeal i s' �resubmi t-e with a plan for providing ten parking` paces and landscapin of the parking area. �z; PLANNING &:DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 15 No one appeared on behalf of this appeal , Planning issues: Land use permitted. Would add to economic viability of property, increase market for other businesses in area, and probably lead to economic upturn of the area, Increases number of housing units in city. Minor increase in traffic anticipateddue to added 10 residential units. Would increase activity in neighborhood. Visually: Valley House would be rehabilitated and exterior upgraded; parking area would be substantially improved if landscaped as indicated. Would restore 'life' to area through residential use. Revitalizes a structure of some historic value. Staff comment; The previous appeal (1402) was denied by the BZA due, in part, to lack of on-site parking, and in part to inherent deficiencies of Valley House (it covers most of the site, lack of setbacks, practical difficulties) . Appellant has reopened appeal , Mr. Meigs introduced a schematic site plan from appellant for improving the parking area (across street, at Buffalo and Taughannock) . Staff feels the plan needs some refinement: parking spaces are too shallow, and tree locations do not seem well -studied in relation to Station Restaurant; several are shown on city right-of-way, including §4(f) land, the use and development of which remains in question. Staff recommendation: Approval with the conditions of preparation and implementa- tion of a reasonable plan for parking and landscaping, and resolution of the situation of the 4(f) land. Board discussion Mr. Sampson wanted the parking areas designated, as and comment: had been asked previously. It was thought that the 10 spaces after the 10 nearest the crossing were the most logical . Mr. Schlather expressed concern over the strip of city- owned land which was part of the current parking of the Station, and which was being used further in this proposal , PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 16 Mr, Meigs said Mr. Ciaschi and the City had been trying to solve that problem for some time now. It was bought from the federal government as recreational land; therefore it was necessary, in order to sell the land, to replace it with land of equal monetary and recreational value. Mr. Schlather suggested the possibility of using West Hill school land, He also asked, assuming a trade, what happens with the land. It was explained that the Board of Public Works must declare it surplus, then it is put up for auction. Mr. Schlather said the question needed to be resolved, pointing out that 20 parking spaces were on City land. Ms. Cummings felt the City should take one stance or another: not to ask for the parking improvements, and then create'°problems with this strip of land. Ms. Nichols was worried about the impact'. of the; plan on the Farmers ' Market.. Mr. Schlather thought continued ownership of the land by the City could lead to, adverse possession issues. Mr. Meigs stated that 10 new parking spaces would be created by the plan which would not be on city land. Board recommendation: Mr. Sampson moved to recommend approval , based on the addition of parking spaces, with the condition the parking spaces be designated. Mr. Holmes seconded. Discussion ensued. Mr. Schlather wanted a time table. Ms. Cummings felt the proposal doesn't sound as if it's off the ground yet; the Board was approving something in concept, and could ask that the parking lot improvement proceed simultaneously with the improvements to Valley House.. Mr, Schlather proposed as a friendly amendment that: 1) The parking site improvements and Valley House improvements proceed expeditiously. 2) A resolution of the problem of the City-owned land be sought. The amendment was accepted by Mr. Sampson. The motion as amended PASSED unaminously. 7. Miscellaneous, Ms. Nichols reminded the Board that they had been asked to discuss the West Hill School conversion, and the Boardman House rezoning for recommendations to Council at their February 3, 1982 meeting. Boardman House will be discussed in detail at, January meeting. The County PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Minutes, December 22, 1981 page 17 passed a resolution, November 16, 1981, asking the City to rezone the entire County holding in the block (Buffalo-Tioga-Court-Cayuga) to B1-b (the zone is now P-1) . Mr. Meigs pointed out that the County was seeking the change in the hopes of selling Boardman House, feeling that to try to sell it under existing P-1 zoning, leaving the burden of obtaining a variance up to the buyer, would result in few, if any, purchase offers because of the difficulties which could be experienced in applying for variance. Another alter- suggested by Ms. Nichols, is to amend P-1 zones to add government functions as a permitted use, The adjacent districts are B-lb and B-2b. Mr. Schlather proposed that as an alternative, Buidling C and Boardman House could be rezoned, avoiding too-selective rezoning. Mr. Meigs said this was the alternative that the Landmarks Commission had come up with. It was decided to forward the rezoning issue to the Codes & Administration committee, for their recommendation to the Board at its January meeting. 8. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm, Recommendation for New Special Permit Regulations . r— Add the following paragraphs to §30.26-C-4, "Specific standards applicable to certain uses requiring special permits," immediately following the paragraphs concerning "Neighborhood retail or service commercial facility in R-2 and R-3 districts".- "Conversion istricts":"Conversion of public school buildings to private use a. The applicant must furnish ;information as to the specific use, the specific goods or services offered, and the nature, size and hours of operation of the facility proposed, in sufficient detail to enable the Board of Appeals to de- termine the probable impacts of the proposal . In addition, the applicant must provide an elevation of each side of the building for which exterior changes are proposed detailing said-changes, b. In reviewing any proposal , the Board of Appeals shall consider among other items the following: 1. The reduction in open space, recreational space, and/or community facil- ities as a result of the conversion, and actions or arrangements proposed to mitigate the..reduction in accordance with. community needs; 2. The extent ,to which safety hazards are created or minimized for surrounding residents; 3. The likelihood of significant changes in the composition of the surrounding neighborhood as a result of the conversion; 4. The extent to which the proposed use aids in the solution to neighborhood or City identified problems; and 5. The probable social and financial impacts of the proposal on the City at large. c. The Board of Appeals shall review more favorably a request which- proposes the re-use/rehabilitation of --existing buildings than one which requires demolition. d. Before hearing the appeal., the Board must have written response on the proposal from a majority of those notified by the appellant as required in the procedures set forth in §30.58. This response, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, shall be a principal factor in the Board's decision to grant the special permit."