HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-02-23 s
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 1982
PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers, S Cummings, R Holdsworth, L, Brown
(excused: R. Moran, M. Sampson)
Also: Appellants, appellant's representatives, other .interested parties,
Mayor William R. Shaw, H. Matthys Van Cort, Andrew McClurg, press,
1 . Meeting called to order by P. Rogers, A 'welcome' was extended to new
Board member, Lucy Brown, the representative from the Board of Public Works.
No comments or report from H, M. Van Cort.
2. Approval of January 1982 Minutes:
S. Cummings moved to accept minutes as written, Second by R. Holdsworth,
Unanimously carried,
3, S. Cummings reported that funding has been received for a joint grant from
NYSCA for the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and Historic Ithaca
which will enable the City to continue their part-time landmarks coordinator
staff position and to hire an architectural conservator with technical ex-
pertise, The grant. amounted to $12,500 which is a large sum for an up--state
community- to receiver The people responsible for the successful funding
were Tania Werbizky and Sue Cummings.
4. Zoning Appeals Study:
A study conducted by Andrew McClurg concerning the zoning appeals process
was discussed, Mr. McClurg spoke and clarified certain aspects of the report,
His work covered a review of all zoning appeals for the past six years. He
compiled the study on the basis of the following questions:
1 ) What were the most frequent types of variances requested?
2) What areas of the City are most often affected?
3) Who were the appellants most likely to be?
4) What areas of the City are variances most frequently approved
or denied?
The survey instrument which he used to gather data was distributed to the Board.
Mr. McClurg felt that the Board was most interested in the relationship between
the Planning Board and the BZA, Ms. Cummings in her letter to Mr, Van Cort had
asked, "Does it make any sense to recommend approval based on contingencies or
are we deceiving ourselves in creating unenforceable conditions? And, has the
BZA incorporated the Planning Board's specific conditions?" Planning Board has
had their recommendations reversed in roughly 20% of the cases as to whether the
appeal should be denied or approved and/or whether a condition should be attach-
ed to approval . The BZA failed to incorporate conditions recommended by the
Board in 64.5% of the cases. The question was raised as to how well conditions
attached to variances were complied with, When the Building Department grants
a building permit (if the permit was not granted specifically for doing work
that was connected with compliance) then the Building Department did not look
for compliance when they conducted final inspection, The system should be
revised to ensure compliance, Some conditions are easy to check while others
are more difficult, Ms. Cummings noted two areas of concern: monitoring
-2-
compliance or having a system to compel compliance with special conditions
and then the enforcement of the conditions. Reading from text of report:
"The Planning Board should put its motion of recommendation -in a form that
will reveal the force of its logic to the BZA, A motion which contains
clearly enumerated grounds and findings will be much less likely to be
ignored. " We need to send to the BZA our recommendation, not a summary
of the debate, Summaries now are of a good length but could be better
directed, BZA uses a very streamlined letter form to the appellant.
Perhaps we could incorporate ideas and convey recommendations to the
BZA in a more direct manner. Landscaping, occupancy and parking can be
verified by exterior inspection, but BZA may be reluctant to enforce
landscaping possibly because it is not an item one requests a building
permit for and not the subject the Building Department is used to dealing
with. Ms. Cummings suggested sending a copy of Mr. McClurg's report to
the members of the BZA, Building Commissioner, and Planning and Develop-
ment Board of Council Mr. Holdsworth asked if report indicates how many
times Board disagreed with Director's recommendation, Mr, McClurg answered
that Planning staff occasionally presents a divided opinion if there is one,
It is unusual that the Planning staff presents a united opinion and then have
it disregarded by the Board, 'Mr. McClurg did not have exact figures but
indicated he would go back and compile the figure and report back on this
topic. Board members were in complete agreement that Mr. McClurg did an
excellent job on the report and .he was commended for his efforts and the
tremendous amount of works
5. Zoning Appeals:
See attached.
6, New Business:
a, The request for preliminary _subdivision approval for 403 Hector
Street was cancelled,
b, Hydropower -Memo from Joey Pierce was read The Planning and
Development. Committee of council will consider• the establishment of a
Hydropower Commission ata meeting "February 24, 1982. A member of the
Planning Board will very, likely be requested to serve such a commission
If anyone is interested .please call Jim Dennis. The Planning and
Development Department has been as-ked by. Council to provide staff support
on th.ts- matter,, Planning Board would be appropriate forum for discussion
of potential neighborhood impact resulting from a 'possible hydropower plant
City currently has at least 2 -months to make a decision as whether to
intervene in the licensing process. Exact time is unknown and cannot be
determined at this point. Joey Pierce is preparing a technical memorandum
.comparing the two applications.submitted thus far which will be available
in two or three weeks and will be distributed to Planning Board members.
The City will probably need to hire an engineering firm to conduct feasibility
studies and prepare licensing applications if the City itself is interested
in developing the siter
-3-
An interested party, John Currey, geustioned the land and water rights
involved in the project, Who owns them and who owns the dam? He quoted
from a memorandum resulting from a meeting of the N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation December 18, 1981 and included in the Cornell
Proposal . Mr. Currey was instructed to contact Planning Department and
Department will attempt to provide answers to his inquiries regarding the
project.
c, Lauren A. Stiles, a member of Historic Ithaca, presented a statement
regarding the brick paving on State Street, The Statement is as follows:
"The State Street brick pavement was installed in 1930 and '31 (and not in
1940/41 as stated in the-Ithaca Journal ) . After 50 years of increasingly
intensive use and almost no regular maintenance, it remains in a remarkably
serviceable condition. A half century of survival is a_ record for any road,
State Street, now, however, needs major work. What form should this work take?
Cities like Geneva and Penn Yan have recognized the historic and aesthetic
value .of stretches of brick pavement in their cities, They have balanced this
against the lower initial installation costs for asphalt, The beauty and
durability of the brick is worth more than the initial savings but higher
and more frequent maintenance costs of asphalt, Endicott is now working to
preserve stretches of its brick pavement, Albany has a street that is nearly
75 years old and needs no significant repair. Ithaca should contact these
cities for concrete details before making its own decision,
It is not fair or accurate to simply compare the initial installation costs
of brick versus asphalt,, The relati-ve -maintenance costs of both should
be compared, The brick, if cared for, should last another 40 to 50 years,
The asphalt will not.
At its February 11 , 1982 meeting, Historic Ithaca voted unanimously to
recommend the retention of the brick pavement on State Street.
If the pavement is removed on State Street, the same arguments will be
used to justify taking,:up the brick on Stewart Avenue which is. flanked
by a historic district, These brick paved streets have served us well
for half a century, It is a fantastic paving material , The skill to lay
the brick can be taught to DPW employees, Before destroying this highly
distinctive part of our cityscape, Ithaca deserves to know how other
neighboring cities saved their pavement.
Historic Ithaca urges the City to contact other cities which have had
comparable experiences to find out the true long-term costs. Historic
Ithaca and, in particular, its Archi.tecturl Conservator are anxious to
work with the City on this question,
STATEMENT
State Street's brick pavement has lasted almost 50 years, That's a record
that's hard to beat, Other New York State cities have decided to save
sections of their brick pavement because of their beautya durability and
low -maintenance costs, Before making a decision, Ithaca owes it to itself
to get solid figures on installation and long-term maintenance costs of
brick versus asphalt,"
-4-
Mr. Rogers thanked Mr. Stiles for his statement and interest in this project..
A copy of his statement will be forwarded to Superintendent Don Kinsella to
be read into the minutes of the next Board of Public Works meeting.
7. No miscellaneous business,
8. Move to adjourn by L. Brown, seconded by S. Cummings.
Adjournment at 11 :30 pm.
ZONING APPEALS: February 23, 1982
#1419: Appeal on owner-occupied rooming house at 410 Stewart Ave. , convert
single apartment to two rooms for rent increasing total rooms to 13 and
occupants to 21 . No exterior change proposed; major deficiency is required
lot size. Use is permitted. No significant economic impact, would increase
number of beds available by 3; no significant circulation or traffic impact;
no visual impact.
Staff Comment: Conversion increased required lot size 50%, increasing
deficiency from 54%'to 66%. Increase of 3 occupants raises parking required
to 7 may be possible to accommodate them on site. Since occupancy is most
likely to be mainly students, and site is adjacent to campus, area deficiency
and parking are likely not to be critical .
Appellant Comment: Harold Robinson, appellant, appeared. He resides
at same address and stated the following: basic reason for development of two
additional rooms is because rental income is inadequate, Increase to 21 occupants
would not change neighborhood since students reside there mostly anyway. Parking
discussion followed; a neighbor has offered Mr. Robinson the rental of two add-
itional parking spaces increasing to seven the available spaces. This agreement would
be on a yearly basis. R. Holdsworth questioned financial hardship. Mr. Robinson
mentioned improvements he has made such as new boiler (he has owned house for one
year).
Staff Recommendation: Approval based on provision of required parking.
Motion: S. Cummings moved to approve with condition of 5-year written
documentation of the two additional parking spaces provided by Hunna Johns (neighbor) .
Second by R. Holdsworth. PASSED - 3 to 1 (Brown) .
#1420 Appeal of John Murra, 515 Dryden Rd. Owner-occupant wishes to convert
basement of apartment in single-family house; front yard is slightly less than
required. Land use is permitted. Improves economic viability of property in
terms of owner's ability to maintain; slight increase in assessed value; adds one
housing unit. No traffic problems and no significant effects on neighborhood.
Appellant Comment: Appellant, John Murra, appeared. He is a professor at
Cornell and will retire this year. Wishes to convert basement to apartment to insure
possible additional income if he requires it in his retirement years There is a
toilet and laundry facilities available there now. Discussion followed regarding
other houses in area which might contain apartments. Mr. Murra said there is multiple
housing across the street.
Public Comment: A neighbor, Theresa Lisco, whose backyard adjoins Mr. Murra 's
property is concerned about possible paving over of backyard area. Mr. Murra says
he would not pave backyard because he uses it for a garden, Ms. Lisco questioned if
owner had to live there and if property was sold to a third party, what guarantee
would she have that backyard would not be paved over. Mr. Van Cort stated variance
goes with land; not with owner, New owner would need additional variance to expand
occupancy and parking. Another neighbor, William Shaw, 314 Ithaca Rd. , spoke in
favor of Mr, Murra's request stating that he has done an excellent job of up-keep
on property. The neighborhood would like to keep Mr. Murra there to maintain the
property. S. Cummings suggested other alternative, that is, not to create another
living unit but to use basement for sleeping purposes and share kitchen and bath
facilities with other possible boarders
Staff Recommendation: Approval , no conditions.
Motion: P,, Holdsworth moved to accept, second by L. Brown. PASSED -
2 to 1 (Cummings),
Appeal #1421 : Appeal of Mary Lou Kieffer for conversion of single family house to
one apartment and medical office. Land use is permitted; minimal economic effect;
minor change in housing; limited increase in traffic to serve small medical office;
minimal change in nature of activity of neighborhood; visual quality is effected
little or none.
Staff Comment: The proposal seems likely to have little or no effect in any
area of concern, save' the gradual change in character of the neighborhood. The
deficiency in lot area is not felt to be critical in this case, .though it technically
increases to 33%.
Appellant Comment: Laura Holmberg, Esq. , appeared for Mary Lou Kieffer.
Mrs. Kieffer also present. Ms. Holmberg stated there will be no change in the
physical layout of the property; no interference with backyard of property to
turn it into a parking area. There is a garage and a 60 ft.-long driveway that
is 8 ft, wide. Unmetered parking is available across the street; and public
parking is nearby (Woolworth parking lot) ; an attorney's office on the west,
Americal Red Cross building on the east, Henry St. John School , and Reconstruction
Home nearby. Should not present interference with an established residential neigh-
borhood. Dr. Kieffer has one employee; upstairs may be turned into an apartment or
rooms may be rented out (3 rooms and bath) . Dr. Kieffer has a family practice
(25% children); he wishes to have an office close to public transportation for easy
access by his patients, S. Cummings commented that attorney's office nearby is an
illegal use of property; it was set up when Leonard Snow lived there Business
development should occur in appropriate places; this is the reason why zoning is set up
the way it Ms, Cummings is concerned with loss of single family units. Ms.
Holmberg mentioned that this is a permissible use in this neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation: Since there are no significant effects, grant relief
sought subject to provision"of required parking on site.
Public Comment: Michael J. Herschensohn, 334 S. Geneva St. , read and presented
letter (attached) , He is a member of Community and Government Relations Committee of
INHS and a resident of South Geneva St He argued for rejection of appeal .
Motion: S, Cummings moved to DENY, Second by L, Brown. (R. Holdsworth
abstains from vote since law partner, Elizabeth Bixler, represents seller of property.)
Appeal DENIED Unanimous..
-2-
11422: Appeal of Tom Newton for a new hearing for use variance to permit use
of 702-04 N. Aurora St, as a 3-unit multiple dwelling, Robert Hines, Esq. appeared
for appellant, Mr, Van Cort inquired whether Board wanted to re-hear the facts,
There has been no change in facts according to Mr. Hines. Original decision was to
DENY Board wishes original decision to stand,
Motion: S. Cummings moved to re-state original motion to recommend DENIAL.
Second by L. Brown. Unanimously approved.
#1423: Appeal of Gus Lambrou to permitpartialreconstruction of 409 Eddy St.
Owner proposes= demolition of substandard 2-storey, 4-apartment upper portion of
structure, and construction of 4-storey, 8-apartment addition on top of existing
ground-floor tavern which will remain, Land use is permitted in the zone; would
increase value of property and will increase population of business district in
Collegetown. It would add 4 housing units to city's stock; with replacement of
4 existing units, for a total of 8 new units on site. The 19-bed capacity pro-
posed would have potential of 19 vehicles for which no parking is required.
Property is near Cornell and many residents might choose not to own cars. Neigh-
borhood density would increase and will increase activity in Collegetown. It
would remove a substandard building. Visual quality would be enhanced by 4-storey
structure of contemporary design distinctly different from surroundings.
Staff Comment: Proposal would be a substantial improvement in housing
quality, and increase housing choices for students; would serve the Collegetown
market. Building would add to the urban character of Collegetown. Parking demand
for this central location is unlikely to pose significant problems,
Appellant Comment: Gus Lambrou, 156 Honness Ln, , appellant, present along
with architect Jagat -P, Sharma, Mr. Lambrou states building would add to City's
tax revenues. Mr, Sharma presented drawings of proposed construction. Would be
compatible with existing structures in neighborhood; facade to indicate this
(window size, panels on exterior, etc,) Existing structure cannot be brought up
to current code regulations because of its' construction which cannot be altered.
First floor walls will be able to take construction of 4 stories on ,top.. In the
overall plan of Collegetown area, something important should be. done on this site.
It would replace a substandard dwelling with a modern facility and would encourage
property owners in the area to make improvements. Dunbar restaurant would remain
as it is on first floor. Discussion followed concerning lot size and need to use
first floor walls for construction above, No parking is required. R. Holdsworth
inquired if there are any single family dwellings in the area. There is none,
Nancy Schuler questioned visibility when traveling down Dryden Road. It will not
be a factor; no change indicated. Occupants of property may well be non-drivers
and bicycle use could be encouraged by providing a storage room and lock-up features.
Sv Cummings asked if there was a master plan to consider with regard to the visual
appearance of building. Discussion followed with regard to review of proposed
building by Design Review Board.
Staff Recommendation: Grant approval because construction would increase
city stock of modern residential units, increase property values, and increase
stock of student-oriented housing in university environs, Staff believes density
is desirable in Collegetown and the ordinance allows this.
- Motion: S. Cummings moved to defer action for 30 days. No second,
Motion: R, Holdsworth moved approval of appeal but send to BZA with
recommenda� tion that Design Review Board shall meet and present their findings after
their discussion, L Brown seconded. Unanimously APPROVED,
-3-
#1424: -Appeal of Robert Teitelbaum for permission to enlarge second floor of
the non-conforming single-family house at 212 Monroe St. for additional space.
Owner-occupant wishes to add second storey bedroom over existing enclosed porch
in order to accommodate family. No additional ground coverage involved. Land
use permitted and conforming; no significant effects economically or on neighbor-
hood; visual quality involves minimal enlargement of house.
Appellant Comment: Appellant Robert Teitelbaum appeared Very brief
discussion regarding expansion to accommodate his family. No public comment,
Staff Recommendation: Area deficiencies are relatively minor. : Would improve
quality of amenity of house`.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with no conditions.
Motion: R. Holdsworth moved to approve. Second by L, Brown. Unanimously
APPROVED.
#1425: Appeal of Cornell Radio Guild, Inc. 227 Linden Ave. Owners faced with
major structural rehabilitation of this former auto dealership/laundry, wish to
add two floors containing eight apartments in order to help amortize the project.
Structure is in almost total nonconformance with zoning and is an anomaly in this
dense residential area. Land use not permitted or compatible, but legally non-
conforming by a series of variances. Proposed addition is permitted in terms of
use, but would not meet many area requirements. Economically proposed addition
would increase property value, tax return, and Collegetown market. Construction
might make property economically viable, It would add 8 units totaling approximately
36 beds.
,Appellant Comment: David Taube, architect, spoke for Cornell Radio Guild.
Presented photographs of existing building and drawings of proposed improvements,
WVBR obtained variance for use of second floor many years ago. Structural problems
existing now amount to approximately $75,000; concrete has deteriorated and must be
repaired. Apartments will offset cost of improvements. Traffic congestion on the
street and available parking spaces were discussed. Mr. Taube indicating parking
was not a problem (there are approximately 12 students working in building) and
there are 9 or 10 spaces available to them. Property is adjacent to Cornell so
that it is possible to walk to campus from Linden Ave. Bicycle storage room will
also be included in plan. Most buildings surrounding WVBR are used for student
housing, Ordinance allows for a four-storey building.
Public Comment Paul Steiger, 936 E. State St. , appeared in opposition to
appeal . He owns property directly south of 227 Linden Ave. He stated street is
narrow and traffic is dense; it is difficult to park there now,, He said WVBR pre-
sently has a fire door opening on to his, property; he has asked them to correct this
and they have refused. His driveway is frequently blocked by cars parking on his
property. If construction is begun they will need to use his driveway depriving
his tenants of their parking spaces. He wants Board to consider the matters of
densi-ty, parking, and proven credibility of applicant.
Lauren A, Stiles, 119 Linden Ave. , appeared in opposition. He read letter
signed by 12 residents of area indicating their opposition, (See attached, )
Dirk Galbraith, Esq, , 308 N. Tioga St, , spoke in opposition on behalf of
William and Patricia Lower who own rental property in area. He claimed there is
no need for additional studenthousing there, Another fire door opens on to their
property for which WVBR has no easement, Linden Ave, has parking on only one side
and traffic is dense. Properties fronting on Bryant Ave. will also be affected
h
and visibility will be decreased.
Staff Recommendation: While this might, be the only way to protect the
value of the property, and would possibly make it economically viable, it may have
outlived its utility. The intensification of use and of physical nonconformities,
which are substantial could have negative effects on the quality of life and neigh-
borhood character, depressing adjacent property values. Though substantially im-
proved, building will be totally differnt from surroundings. Recommend denial
because of degree and nature of nonconformities continued and created, almost totally
at variance with character of surrounding neighborhood.
Motion_ : R. Holdsworth moved to DENY appeal . Second by L. Brown. Unanimously
carried.
-5-