HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-05-25 MINUTES
Planning& Development Board Meeting
May 25, 1982
PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers, Vice-Chair S. Cummings, M. Sampson, E. Stage
ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, R, Haarstad, Appellants , Appellants ' representa-
tives, Other interested parties , Press
1. Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:43 pm.
A motion to "open the meeting was made by Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr.
Sampson.
Mr, Rogers introduced Ross Haarstad, the new secretary for the Planning Dept.
2. Approval of April Minutes: Mr. Van Cort said that the staff recommendation
on Appeal 1413 would have been communicated as a split recommendation, but
signals got crossed.
There was discussion over the issue of how many votes are needed to pass
a motion; the question had arisen over Appeal 1436 at the April meeting.
Mr. Holdsworth had felt that unless a majority of the Board (4 persons)
vote in favor of a motion, it fails, Ms. Cummings said this is not
the way it has been done in the past. The question, had been referred to
staff. Mr. Van Cort felt that if the issue was one on which the Board
had the final say, t a subdivision, a majority of the full Board should
be required, but in cases that are recommendations to another board or
council (such as Zoning Appeals recommendations to the Board of Zoning
Appeals) , only a majority of those present was needed to communicate "
"the sense of the Board", He felt the numerical vote should always be
recorded. Mr. Sampson asked if the BZA paid much attention to the vote;
Mr, Van Cort replied that the chair, Mr. Weaver, said that they do.
It was decided that Mr, Van Cort would refer the matter to the City Attorney,
with specific attention to the Board establishing its own rules of
procedure, and the validity of a vote of the majority present as an
action by the Board.
Mr, Sampson moved to approve the April 27, 1982 minutes as written,
seconded by Ms. Cummings, Carried unanimously, 4-0,
3. Communications: Mr. Rogers referred to Charles Weaver's reply to Mr.
Rogers' letter to him regarding the relationship of the Planning Board
and the BZA. He asked Board members to look it over and reserved time
for it at the next meeting; meanwhile he will meet with Mr. Weaver.
Ms, Cummings wanted to know the mechanics of the BZA, whether Planning
Board recommendations were received in writing or orally, and at what
point in the meeting. The recommendations are distributed prior to
BZA's meeting, usually on Friday; they receive the same text as
published in the minutes under "Zoning Appeals", It was not known
if they are referred to during the deliberation in executive session.
P&D Board, May 25, 1982
2,
Mr. Rogers felt it would be convenient if at some point a Planning
Board member or representative was there to state this Board's position.
Two letters were received from Community Gardens patrons, Mr. Rogers
had also received several calls. Mr. Sampson commented as a member of
the Citizens Advisory Committee that had worked on the Community Develop-
ment budget. He said that all the evidence they had .been given was
that the owner of•the property could receive a lot more money for it,
but was willing to sacrifice it at $40,000 to the City so the community
could continue to have a garden there. He thought there had been
a clear understanding this was to be done, and at this price. He
had no disagreements with the owners themselves,
Ms. Cummings said that Diane Rutherford had brought forth the original
proposal to buy the land. She added that the money was a portion of
the Small Cities three year grant package, Part of the purpose of the
gardens proposal was to widen the puppose of the grant, as a single-purpose
, grant would be restricted to one year and less funds. She was concerned
with the effect not buying the land would have on our program rating with .
HUD and stressed the importance of the City having a broad range of programs.
Mr, Sampson thought it had been an unusual request of .HUD. Mr. Van Cort
replied that it was a proposal with low-income benefits, which HUD favors.
He outl°ined the process that was to lead to the purchase: the money for
the purchase of the gardens was part of the three year Small Cities
grant and was recommended for the fiscal year starting last June,
The City, through the IURA, would purchase the gardens for $40,000.
That was the understood amount with the owners.
Mr. Rogers asked if the purchase was to have been outright; he thought
there had been problems with a request for the reversion of the
gardens in case the City changed its use.
Mr. Van Cort said that the money had been granted by HUD for the
Community Gardens; and the City had begun to work out the details
for acquisition. These included; 1) a provision for a right of
re-,entry, reversion of the property, or extra monetary compensation
to the owners if the City did not continue to use the land as a
garden; 2) administrative steps necessary prior to the acquisition
of property by the Community Development Agency, At this point
the owners' attorney began to slow down the process, In January
1982 the possibility of another purchaser for the land came to the
City's attention; a valid sale contract was madeiwith that purchaser
and closed on in April , Mr. Van .Cort thought it was not the role of
the Board to go back over this ground; he felt the City had dealt
in good faith--the City had believed it was buying the land, and was
moving expeditiously to do so.
Some of the gardens' advocates had asked for a public review of the change
in proposed use of the land, There are only three ways this would be
possible, Mr. Van Cort stated: 1) subdivision of the property; 2) a
request for a zoning variance; and 3) through an Environmental Impact
Statement, Community Development staff are actively looking for other
sites with the gardens people, and hope to come up with something soon.
P&D Board, May 25, 1982 3.
It is also his understanding that the new owner might be willing to
sell a portion of the land to 'the City,
Some had expressed the opinion that the City had approved the use of
the land as a community garden to exclude any other uses ; however, this
was never expressed or implied by the City. The property is zoned for
commercial use.
Ms. Cummings said it was a shame to lose prime fertile soil on an existing
parcel . She wondered if the money was still in the grant to purchase the
land, and if a deadline exists for using it. Mr. Van Cort said the
money is there;there is no date by which it is lost to use. However, it
clearly in the City's interest to move as quickly as possible to
implement the grant. Ms. Cummings pointed out there was very little
open land in the CD Target Area., Mr. Van Cort agreed that it was not
a good situation, but they would work with what there is.
All letters have been responded to, .and a formal citizen complaint
process exists, with complaints logged and forwarded to HUD. Complaints
can be addressed to the IURA as the agency directly responsible for
the funds. Mr. Van Cort added that people are understandably terribly
disappointed by the loss of the land.
4. Chairman's Report: Mr. Rogers reported that the BZA had followed the
Planning Board's recommendations in all its action on May 3. ; ; He
hoped the situation could continue
5.-Reports from Director and -Staff: Mr, Van Cort had nothing to report.
Mr. Rogers asked if there were any questions on reports by staff handed
out at the start of the meeting. Ms, Cummings had some on the ,Northside
Zoning Study. It was explained that no presentation was being made
because from the data gathered, the findings are still inconclusive, and
further study is planned. None of the data has directed staff to the
conclusion that the R-3 designation encourages conversions to multiple
occupancy; although this had been held as a reasonable hypothesis.. The
next step is to disaggregate the years and see if there was a marked in-
crease in the rate of conversion after the 1977 zoning changes Ms. Cummings
asked if the next set of .studies would lead to conclusions. Mr.. Van
Cort thought so; Marcia Osterhout is doing a house-to-house survey through
INNS. He continued that if there had been wholesale conversion, however,
the data would have shown this. It does show approximately as many
conversions to multiple occupancy in R-2 as in R"3 zones studied. Since
the BZA. hadn't granted any variances- for multiple occupancy in R-2 zones
studied, either these are illegal conversions, or the data (drawn chiefly
from Manning's City Directory) is:;in error,
Mr. Rogers asked the Board .to take home the Cherry 5t, and Center Ithaca
reports and bring back their thoughts on them. He asked that the West
End report be referred to the end of the meeting.
6. Committee'Reports: There was no report appearing from the Codes and
Administration Committee on P-1 zoning.
P&D Board May 25, 1982 4
7, Zoning Appeals: see attached
8. Old Business P Reconstruction Home; Discussion centered on getting a
committee together to look at development of the property before it was
designed and half built. There was sentiment to perserve the beech
tree. The Board would like to have whatever input on the early stages
it could legitimately have.
9. New Business; Mr. Rogers said there seems not to be enough time for
the Board to do what it should be doing, Variances are a primary
responsiblity, and he felt the Board does them well , even though ;it Aoes_-
not have the last say on them. He felt insufficient discussion had been
given to issues of development in Collegetown_and the West End, for
example, Ms. Cummings responded that four chairs had struggled with
the problem of doing all the work for which the Board seems responsible.
She felt committees would be a useful place to discuss issues; but that
committees need deadlines and incentives, She felt the Board usually
ends up reviewing issues at the last minute because action is required
by other bodies such as the IURA or Common Council , She also suggested
that meetings start at 7;30 sharp to make better use of the hour before
appeals are heard, and that that hour include active committee input.
Mr, Van Cort agreed to try,to have memos on issues targeted on the agenda
for discussion mailed out with the agenda, Ms. Cummings also pointed
out that the Board was fortunate in that the current members took the time
to look. at the sites of zoning appeals, which _saves time.
Discussion followed on how to set priorities. Ms, Cummings felt that
the practical cases the Board deals with often indicate long-range issues
that need to be dealt with through planning, She used the mini-storage
appeal as an example, asking .where the Board should say the City had
enough. of a new type of development, This led to a brief philosophical
discussion between Ms. Cummings and Mr. Van Cort, who felt that the.
marketplace should make such decisions, outside of a..Aevelopment of
enormous impact Such as the Pyramid Mall ,
"West End; Mr, Rogers expressed his agreement with the Mayor that the
City was entering too many development projects at once, Ms, Cummings,
allowing for differences in philosophy, said she had no problem with
entering two projects at once: these areas (_West End and Collegetown)
are highly attractive areas, if the City moves now there is still a chance
to create a comprehensive approach to development, and an opportunity
to do exciting things.,
Mr. Rogers asked why the department felt it necessary to go outside to
hire an urban designer for the West End, Ms, Cummings responded that
one of the most intelligent things people can do is say that "I can't
do that best'; she believed money is _ultimately saved in freeing up
staff time to work in areas that need their attention and pointed to
the amount of.money in grants, etc, that the staff has brought into the
city,
P&D Board, May 25, 1982 5.
Mr. Van Cort replied to Mr. Rogers' question, saying that there is no
urban designer on staff, and ideally land use and urban design should be
an interactive process. He thought the City should proceed now because:
1) There has been a great deal of master planning of the area over
the last ten years Each study concluded---and the rezoning of
the area to an M-1 zone expressed that it is an area which has
changed in use from transshipment and manufacturing to water-
oriented recreation; and the City should pursue that direction.
2) The City is fortunate in that it has a number of developers who
want to go in that direction now,
However, the City cannot just say to these developers go ahead and do
it for such reasons as;
1) Individual developments won't optimize the overall possibilities.
2) As a major landowner, the City has to be involved and has to
integrate its holdings with those of other owners,
3) Optimization of development possibilities optimizes the tax returns.
4) These developers have their own timetables , and the City needs to
be reactive to them if it is to be a partner,
5) A UDAG may not exist in 12 years,
Mr. Van Cort pointed out that the Center Ithaca will bring in $125 to
$163 thousand a year to the City in UDAG repayment, "n addition to
property and sales taxes, beginning in its third year.
The major questions an urban designer needs to answer are;
1) What relationship will land use have to the water, as in access
to the water?
2) How do you integrate circulation areas water, vehicular and
pedestrian)?
3) The area is a major gateway to the city, What buildings will one
see--when coming in on Route 96? This is an opportunity to create
a very attractive gateway to the city,
4) What should the relationship be between open spaces and buildings?
51 Where can buildings be bigger; what natural views should be preserved?
Dr. Stage asked if Route 96 would be .a concern of .the designer's, Mr.
Van Cort replied it would be one of the major elements to be dealt with.
The first phase of Rt. 96 won't have much effect on planning/design except
to preserve a right-Of-access. The second phase will have much greater
impact, b-ut is way'in the future- 1995 or later,
P&D Board, May 25, 1982 6.
The West End project will be discussed by the Economic Development
Committee before the Board's meeting in June.
10. Adjournment: Mr. Rogers asked for a motion to adjourn. Dr. Stage so
moved, seconded by Mr. Sampson, Meeting adjourned at 10:52 pm.
Planning & Development Board
ZONING APPEALS
May 25 1982
APPEAL 1437:
Appeal of M, Skibinski for Area Variances for deficiencies in off-street
parking, lot coverage, front yard and sideyard setback to permit
addition of a second floor bedroom for the owner's unit of the two-
family dwelling at--205-.207 E. Yates- St. The property is in an R-2b
district, in which the use as a two-family dwelling is permitted;
however, appellant must obtain Area Variances for the listed
deficiencies before a building permit can be issued,
Michael Skibinski , appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal ,
Planning issues: Permitted land use
Improved amenity of housing; some increased capacity of unit.
Minimal effect on neighborhood:
Will not obtrude visually ,
Appellant -comment: House is a duplex; wants to add a bedroom to his half
of house', it will be flush with the back of the 'house and extend its width.
Appellant shares driveway with neighboring house; has two parking spaces.
It was noted that this was a,deficiency in parking, Ms . Cummings worried
that the size of the room could create a 3 person-room if rented out by a
future owner. Van Cort noted that such a rental would require a
variance for multiple occupancy.
- Public comment: -None.
Staff comment: Addition will not increase existing area deficiencies. Will
be virtually invisible from street, Recommendation: Approval .
Motion; Mr, Sampson moved to recommend approval ; seconded by Dr. Stage,
-Carri-edTunanimously��(4
-ZQNI.NG APPEALSMay 25 :1982 2.
� 1ppe7lant commentt; `House fronts Hawthorn Place, carport will come out on
Crescent Place, next to basement entrance, and requires excavation of
about 5 feet for an 18' long structure. Neighborhood has lack of
offstreet parking, Mr, Devereux would like to get the car off the
street, especially when he and his wife are travelling in the winter.
Mr. Sampson asked if appellant had received any negative responses i.n
neighborhood; responses had been favorable, one suggestion that 11'
curb cut -planned might be too narrow for maneuvering onto street.
Public comment; None.
Staff comment: Would provide an offstreet space where none exists . Similar
conditions exist on neighboring properties. Recommendation: Approval .
Board comment: Mr. Rogers noted that the property was well taken care of.
Mr. Devereux said the carport would only be visible directly across the
street,
Motion: Mr. Sampson moved to recommend approval ; seconded by Dr. Stage.
Motion carried 3-0 with 1 abstention (Rogers) ,
APPEAL 1439;
Aapeal_of D. Tot- -----,
_-----
size, width,_ 1 of coverage_,-_and--..s.etbacks _for- hot_h,-si dQ a-nds_5 +^ c.,r i t
addition-_o_f_a_ garage__ to--30-3-Hi-11-vi_ew_P-1_a-ce_._- The-pro-peri.s.yi-n--an- - - ---
R-1 b_di strict, i n__whi eh_the--proposed_-use--as a -two-far fly d-we-1-1 i-ng-a-s ----_--
permi tted; however, a_ppel-1_ant_-must- oh-taiArea-Var-i ances -for- the
listen deficiencies before- a_ buiId_ing permit can be issued.
David Lorenzini , appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Permitted land use
Adjacent property at higher elevation; little effect
on neighborhood
Minimal visual impact
Appellant comment: Sideyard deficiency less serious because property line
is on a nearly vertical embankment, which is wooded, leaving the, garage
visually secluded,,
.Ms. Cummings asked if this appeal was being made after the fact, appellant
said it was. The finished material will be stucco. Appellant continued
that the house was purchased as a 3-family residence, garage was part
of a renovation to a 2--family residence;
`Public comme'n.ts Craig Black, 407 Turner Place (A neighbor) , spoke in
favor, He' was pleased to see the condition of the front yard now as
compared to former owners., He said zoning was a problem in the neigh.----
borhood; nothing could be done without applying for a variance. .
ZONING APPEALS May 25, 1982 3,
Staff comment; Though work being appealed would technically increase the
.._..._...
property's nonconformity with R-I regulations , the difference in
elevation between it and adjacent property mitigates effect of the
encroachment into side yard, -Recommendation: Approval , with suggestion
that dark-colored roofing material be used,`
Mr. Lorenzini replied that the intended roofing material is black.
Board comment: Ms, Cummings noted that the garage was a quality job,
She fe1t residents should not feel unduly put upon by the need to
seek variances: the neighborhood is very dense. She also stated
that the Board would be .a lot less happy with approving a variance
after the fact if the work hadn't been well done.
Motion; Dr. Stage moved to recommend approval ; Mr. Sampson seconded.
Carried unanimously (4-0) ,
APPEAL 1440:
Appeal of G, R, Banfield for Area Variances for deficiencies in
front yard and rearyard setbacks to permit a 2,000 square foot
addition to the light industrial building at-803--805 Cascadilla-St,
The property is in, an IY1 district, in which'Tight industry is ,
permitted; however, appellant must obtain Area Variances for the
listed deficiencies before a building, permit can be issued.
Geoffrey Banfield, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal ,
Planning issues; Would increase firm's viability by increasing production
capacity, with possible addition of 30 employees "
Land use permitted
Appears to be capacity for on-site parking
No significant visual impact; properties in vincinity
have similar deficiencies; this one is well landscaped
and maintained
'Appellant comt7bnt The building has been on the lot for 75 years? .the
proposed extension would be 14' from property line instead of required
20 feet; the company is expanding and would like to remain in that area.
The building serves as an orthodonic laboratory, a small section is
used by a typewriter supply company, The site is on a dead--end street,
no increase in traffic is foreseen,,
Mr` Rogers asked if the birch tree would be killed; Mr, Banfield said
landscaping would be moved to: the front 14 feet. Mr, . Van Cort asked
if the new building lined up with Townsend, the property lines are the
same but Townsend is built on the line? resulting in a 14' setback
from Townsend.
Public comment, None,
- ZONING APPEALS May 25, 1982 4.
Staff comment_: Staff was split on recommendation. Mr. Meigs felt that the
addition"could be re--oriented, creating a 24=foot setback. Mr, Van
Cort found the 14-foot setback acceptable,
Mr, Van Cort added that the Townsend building was the only other part of
the visual cluster in that neighborhood; appellant would still be 14
feet back of it, Also he agreed with Mr, Banfield that a re-orientation
of the building would result in losing parkings spaces , which would be
a practical difficulty.
Motion; Ms, Cummings moved to recommend approval Mr. Sampson seconded.
Carried unanimously (4-0) ,
APPEAL 1442;
, Appeal of K. Loehr-Ba-lada for Area Variance for lot size, to permit
additon of a garage at-:303 Richard Pl , The property is in an R-1a
district, in which usae` as two-family- dwelling is permitted; however,
appellant must obtain Area Variance for the listed deficiency before a
building permit can be issued,
Kathleen Loehr-Balada, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
- Planning issues; Permitted land use
Improved amenity of residential properties
Minimal effect on neighborhood and visual quality
,Appellant comment; Appellant and husband bought house in 1979; they've changed
the siding and now want to build a garage, They wish to build the garage
directly on the unusually large driveway.
Property is deficient in minimum lot size for a two-family house. Appellant
said they began renting a one-bedroom apartment in Jan, 1980; had applied
for and been granted a Building Permit, .deficiency had been overlooked;
she also said the house was a small one.
Ms. Cummings asked if the Board was actually considering a double appeal ,
Mr. Van Cort pointed out that the required lot size of 2-family use in an
R-la zone is 15,000 SF- if the property were in an R-lb zone, the
requirement would be 7,500 SF and the lot size would be fully conforming.
Ms, Cummings noted that though the request was for a variance to construct
a garage, a variance never had been granted to allow 2-family use. She
wondered if the Board should proceed with two motions, Mr Van Cort' thought
one motion was sufficient, that a variance for the appeal would apply to
what was on the property, not tto the garage alone, It was felt
technicalities could be dealt with by the Board of Zoning Appeals ,
Public comment: None.
ZONING APPEALS May 25, 1982 5.
Staff comment_ : Nonconformity at issue is that lot is 30% undersize for
2-family use, Garage will not increase occupancy. Recommendation:
Approval ,
Motion: Ms. Cummings moved to recommend approval , with the recognition that
the current use as a 2--family house was nonconforming, Mr. Sampson
seconded. Carried unanimously (4-0) ,
APPEAL 1442:
Appeal of J. Fane for Area Variances for deficiencies in off-street
parking, off-street loading, lot coverage, setbacks for both sideyards ,
and rearyard setback, to permit construction of a one-story retail
building at 119-121 Dryden Rd, The property is in a B-2a district,
in which retail use is permitted, however, appellant must obtain
Area Variances for the listed deficiencies before a building permit
can be issued.
Jason Fane of 133 N, Quarry St. , appellant, and his architect, Jagat Sharma,
110 Maplewood Dr, , appeared on behalf of the appeal ,
Planning issues: Some contribution to local economy from development of an
underutilized parcel .
Increase in traffic, parking and loading would exacerbate
existing problems in area..
Increased activity related to site could be positive asset to
immediate vincinity, depending on specific uses ; could be
objectionable to nearby residential uses.
Proposed structure, though possibly attractive on own terms ,
visually out of place with neighborhood as it now looks ,
Encourages attempts to achieve rezoning by improper means.
Hinders current attempt to provide an effective plan for
area's coordinated development & general benefit.
Appellant comment; Mr. Fane pointed out there was no vacancy in retail in
Collegetown, the proposed building could attract new tenants to the area.
Mr. Sharma said the proposal does not comply with the ordinance for
1) economic reasons and 2) design aspects of the proposal . He presented
drafted versions of alternatives to demonstrate that to comply with require-
ments for side and rearyard setbacks, parking and maximum percent of lot
coverage (50%) would reduce the building area to 42.8% of lot coverage.
This building would not bring sufficient economic returns in the present
market, there is no incentive to build with the present zoning in
Collegetown, he feels it is obsolete. The required setbacks are more
sensible for a property in transition from a residential area. Mr.
Sharma said the Planning Dept, agrees the zoning is inadequate. He
said appellant's proposal was "part and parcel " of the sort of develop.-.
ment envisioned in the ACC Collegetown Development Report.
ZONING APPEALS May 25, 1982 6,
Mr. Sharma then listed these options for appellants
1. Wait for future studies by the Planning Department,
2, Construct a building that meets presentrequirements; and have to
tear it apart to expand when zoning changes and development in
area proceeds,
3. Construct a building that is larger than the zoning currently allows,
They are proposing the last; a building covering 90% of the lot with a
6' rearyard and no parking,
Mr. Fane said it was a comparatively small project, the building would
be divided into 5-6 stores that would serve the existing population in
the area. Mr. Sharma said the requirements for sideyard setbacks had
no purpose in a commercial zone--they would only create dark blind,.
alleys that encourage mugging, etc. He added that the rearyard could be
used for emergency egress by leaving through the sideyard of the adjoining
property,. He said the _proposed building meets the ACC's goals of retail
.use in area and presented a front view of the proposed building, saying
it was designed in view of future development in the area.
Mr, Rogers clarified that the Board was considering the proposal for
93% lot coverage, that the building extended to the property lines on
both sides and had a 6-,foot rearyard. Mr, Fane informed him that he
purchased the property this spring and owns the land to the east,
The previous and current use is as a parking lot, Mr. Fane now rents
3 spaces. on`it, he says he cannot collect enough rent to make the
property feasible
'Public comment; None.
Board comment; Mr, Rogers saw a significant problem for the adjoining properties
because a e proposed building extended to the property lines, In response
to a question by Ms. Cummings , Mr. Fane said his choice of retail uses would
include a computer store, and other types not presently in Collegetown,
perhaps a different restaurant; but that the choice would be up to the market.
Ms, Cummings pointed out that there was no provision for off-street loading,
Mr. Sampson asked about garbage` storage, tenants would keep it inside their
stores, There would not be a basement area, except possibly for a small
mechanical area.
Mr. Sharma proposed that the stores could receive loading in the front.
Mr, Van Cort replied that the area was a major traffic area and loading
in front would be very dangerous,
Mr, Van 'Cort continued that he had a lot to say for the.proposal the
(appellants had spent much time discussing it with the staff, and the
proposed building was a. nice design. However, staff is concerened
that it would be axde-`facto rezoning of the property_ at a time the
Department is in the process of studying zoning in the entire area,
A recommendation for zoning ordinance changes might or might not
coincide with the building, An existing building would create problems
for other urban design conclusions. Mr. Van Cort thinks appellants
would have a clear idea of their choices in the next 2-6 -months as
ZONING APPEALS May 25, 1982 7,
Cornell will then have a schematic for the Performing Arts Center, the
City will have schematics for their activities , and recommendations for
zoning changes will have been made.
Ms, Cummings agreed with these points , but was concerned they gave the
impression that proposal would become "just what we want She was
not ready to say that, especially in view of the serious problems with
off-street loading, Mr.. Van Cort agreed with this,
Mr. Van Cort strongly recommended that the proposal not be approved at
this time, Staff could work with Mr. Fane and others in planning
development for Collegetown in the next months.
Mr, Sharma said that if they went ahead with a complying building,
the Board would not like that choice; he felt technical problems could
be solved, and construction should proceed now. Mr, Van Cort reiterated
there would be recommendations for zoning changes in Collegetown in the
near future,
Mr. Sampson asked who had title to the road to the west, Tharon Johnson .
does, others have easements on its
Mr. Sharma asked if Mr. Van Cort was in agreement that the present
zoning doesn't work for Collegetown, Mr, Van Cort replied that he
didn't think he said that
. Mr. Sampson felt some of the appellant's arguments were hardship
arguments which are only appropriate to the Board of Zoning Appeals,
Ms, Cummings stated that the Planning Board works with existing zoning,
that the zoning works for the present shape of Collegetown; and that
the proposal would be a new element in Collegetown.
Mr. Sampson was concerned there was no way to get to the back of the building,
Mr, Van Cort and Ms. Cummings both noted that the presentation was
helpful , especially the drafted versions of alternatives. Ms. Cummings
added that all property owners tonight had made useful presentations.
Mr. Fane asked if the thrust of the Board's discussion was that access
is the problem and if it were addressed the Board would favor recommending
approval . Ms. Cummings thought this an "over-generous" interpretation--
there are problems still with percent of lot covered, parking and sideyard
setbacks., Mr. Sampson seconded these concerns ,
Mr, Van Cort stated that the property was now in a definite zone which is
the legal manisfestation of a comprehensive plan, the plan should be
changed before any ,zoning ,is,
`'Staff comment,, This appeal , if granted, would effectively amount to rezoning
by variante, and would be subject to challenge, Further, it would hamper
present efforts to plan effectively for the revitalization/redevelopment
of Collegetown as a whole, by limiting options_ in ways that could act
to the appellant's and the area's detriment. Recommendation: Denial ,
ZONING APPEALS May 25, 1982 ,
Motion Mr. Sampson moved to recommend denial ; Dr, Stage seconded.
Carried unanimously (4-0) .
APPEAL 1444:
Appeal of K, and A, Bangerter for Area Variances for deficiencies in
frontyard and sideyard setbacks, to permit addition of a deck to the
two-family house at 120 Columbia St. The property is in an R-2a
district, in which the use is permitted; however, appellant must
obtain Area Variances for the listed deficiencies before a building
permit can be issued.
Kenneth Bangerter, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal ,
Planning issues: Land use permitted
Increased value and amenity of housing
Visual effect: would not project beyond side wall line
of house, nor be very vi si ble from street,
Appellant comment; Appellant wishes to build a 16' x 20' sundeck that would
extend back from the house 6 feet and be elevated.
Ms. Cummings asked if 20 feet was the north-south dimension, and 16 feet
the east-west, that was correct.
Public comment: None.
-Staffrecommendation: Approval ,
Motion: Mr, Sampson moved to recommend approval ; pr. Stage seconded,
Carried unanimously (4=.0-) .
APPEAL 1446;
Appeal of V. and R, Zikakis for Use variance to permit construction
of mini-storage buildings for public rental at-`416 Elmira Rd The
property is in a B--5. district, in which the proposed use is not permitted.
Chris Zikakis, appellant, and his attorney, Dirk Galbraith, appeared on
behalf of this appeal
Planning issues: Land use not permitted, but compatible generally
Improved economic viability of underutilized zone
Minor potential for safety/circulation problems,, due to
proximity of access to city line/speed zone change, and
to old railroad underpass _
Appellant argues lack of water and sewer restricts B-5 uses
Minimal effects on neighborhood
Reduction in quality of urban design
Introduces a visually incongruous element in a major commercial
streetscape,, near city entrance and state park entry
ZONING APPEALS May 25, 1982 9.
Appellant comment; Mr,. Galbraith said the property is adjacent to the former
Delaware and-Lackawanna Railroad bed, Ashland Oil is to the rear, property
to the north is vacant, Proposed use is a mini-warehouse, not permitted
in B-5 zone; he suggested it was closer to a B-4 or B-5 use than to an
I-1 use where it currently permitted, The concept of this proposal is
rental of approx, 80 individual storage units, The office would not be on
premises, but across the street at,')B. Zikakis, Inc, Appellant estimates
half dozen vehicles a day at most, cars and light trucks, The property now
borders on an I-1 zone,
Appellant had contacted adjacent land-owners, including the Park
Commission, and there was no opposition; Ashland was definitely in
favor. Appellant is willing to work on landscaping and aesthetics with
the Planning Dept;
. Mr.. Zikakis then explained the concept of mini-warehouses , which had
begun on the West Coast and were now springing up on the East.. He
described it as a-long garage with several doors for the purpose of
temporary storage �e j student summer storage. It's a low-traffic
use, -A cinder=block building is planned with a facing more like brick,
Elevations and drawings were presented,
`Public comment; None,
Board comment: Mr. Van Cort said this proposal was better designed than a
similar proposal for a storage facility that the Board had previously
considered, Ms. Cummings was concerned that the Board maintain some
consistency in its decisions, they had recommended against the recent
facility, which was to be located at the other end of Meadow St.
Mr, Van Cort said the proposal could create a ''dead" building in a lively
zone. Mr. Galbraith. pointed out the lack of sewer and water resources
for development.
Mr. Sampson asked if the City had plans to get rid of the railroad right-
of-way; he felt it was very dangerous there with the visual obstruction
to traffic caused by th.e high embankment: Mr. Van Cort said he was not
aware of any such plans,
Ms. Cummings asked what kind of landscaping was envisioned, shrubs and
such are, She asked about considering fast-growing trees, she
emphasized that the Board is sensitive to landscaping specifics,
Mr. Van Cort said it seemed like under-Utilization of the property, though.
an owner had that right, Ms Cummings wondered how the Board could decide
if there were enough of a new development like mini-warehouses; Mr, Van
Cort thought the inarket should make that decision, From the City"s
standpoint, the proposed use doesn"t. generate as,much .money for the
City as could be generated. The City is so land poor, that the staff
would like to see this parcel developed to the maximum,
ZONING APPEALS May 25, 1982 10.
Staff comment: Similar previous appeal , for N. Meadow property, was rejected
due to BZA finding that use was appropriate only for Industrial zones.
Design characteristics, as well as use., support that determination.
Proposed use would be an underutilization of major road frontage. Two
similar facilities exist nearby: they were permitted before the BZA
ruling that such uses are industrial/warehousing in nature.
Recommendation: Denial .
Motion: Ms. Cummings moved to recommend denial ; Dr. Stage seconded.
Motion carried, 3-0 with 1 abstention (Sampson) .