HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-06-29 J
MINUIES
Planning and Development Board Meeting
June 29, 1982
PRESENT: Chair, P. Rogers
Vice-Chair, S. Cummings.
R. Holdsworth
R. Moran
M. Sampson
E. Stage
ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, J. Pierce, Appellants, Appellent's
representatives, Other interested parties
Press
1. Call to Order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.
2. Approval of May Minutes: Mr. Sampson moved to approve minutes with the
inclusion of the corrections noted on the addenda; Mr. Moran seconded.
Carried unanimously, 5-0.
3.. Conm mications: Mr. Van Cort referred to a letter regarding retaining
walls addressed to the Mayor, Public Works and the Planning Board
received last month. Mr. Kinsella has replied to it..
BZA ACTIONS AT JUNE =ING: Ms. Cummings asked if the BZA's reversal
on Appeal #1446 due to a finding of hardship from lack of water service
was unique. Mr. Van Cort replied that almost all properties in the City
have water service.
4. Chairman's Report: Air. Rogers said he is serving as the representative
to the County Planning Board, and that any of this Board's members inter-
ested in replacing him should come forward: Ms. Curr ings served in this
capacity for two years. He said current concerns of the County Board
were to take a more vital role. in planning; specific issues include Glen-
wood School, flooding/water control and State dredging of the inlet.
Ms. Cummings said that it had been the understanding that this Board
appoints its own representative, since we are on theirboard as an
agency. As a municipality the City has its own representative, appointed
by the Mayor. Mr. Rogers said Mayor Shaw had asked him to serve on the
County Board until an appointment could be made. Ms. Cumnings suggested
that he seek the County Board's interpretation as to whether the repre-
sentative should be appointed by the Chair of the P&D Board, elected by
the Board, or appointed by the Myor. Mr. Rogers said he'd look into it.
5. Committee Reports --Economic Development Committee
Mr. Moran reported that the committee met with Joey Pierce and discussed
his memo of June 25 on West End. He said action was needed tonight to
remain on schedule; he asked for questions about the project objectives.
Mr. Holdsworth asked if the project was foreseen as comparable in scope
MINUTES
Planning and Dev. Board Meeting
June 29, 1982
page 2.
to Collegetown. Mr. Pierce said it might equal it in terms of private
investment; although no structure on the order of the Performing Arts
Center was involved. Public investment would be dependent on a UDAG
which would be targeted for a parkway, parking spaces and a public marina.
In any event, the City would be involved in public improvements such as
sidewalks, etc. Ms. Cummings asked if the shape of Taughannock Blvd.
was a given; Mr. Pierce felt it was flexible, but that a change. in shape
would increase the costs of public improvements. Route 96 in Phase I
would only affect the project in terms of a new bridge and extra traffic
on Buffalo. The urban design would leave room for a right-of-way for
Phase II, but not allow it to affect any other choices. Mr. Holdsworth
asked if the two phases are definitely split; they are. He felt if the
design planned for a parking lot and Phase II didn't go through, the City
could lose a beautiful piece of land to parking. Mr. Pierce said Council.
could decide to forego Phase II, which would ease design problems. Mr. Van
Cort didn't see a problem, the 100 ft. r-ow indicated was not excessive;
plans would require parking and it could be done attractively.
The recent fire was discussed.
Mr. Moran presented the proposed resolution which Board discussed. The
Economic Dev. Comm. will be kept informed of the study's progress and
work for a recommended urban design plan by the August meeting..
Mr. Holdsworth asked how much public input there would be to this plan.
Mr. Pierce said there would be a meeting between private interests and
designers for the West End soon. The West End Business Association would
work closely with them throughout the development of the design, also.
There will be several opportunities for public input during the ocurse of
the study. Only one resident on T. Blvd. might be displaced. Mr. Holds-
worth said he generally supported the plan for an urban design, but the
public,for the West in general, had little opportunity for comment. Mr.
Moran asked that the property owners could be approached. Mr. Pierce
expected to meet with them the second week in July. Ms. Cummings sugges-
ted that users and tenants (e.g. Central Casting Theatre) be notified as
well.
Ms. Cwn ngs than moved, Mr. Holdsworth seconded that:
WHEREAS, there have been numerous studies of the West End in recent years,
and
WHEREAS, the IURA has authorized certain funds to be matched by funds from
the Planning and Development Department budget, and
WHEREAS, an urban designer will soon be chosen for the Inlet Island,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board, upon
the recommendation of its Economic Development Committee does
hereby adopt the goals for the project as described in the attached
material.*
*Material attached hereto
MINUTES
Planning and Dev. Board Meeting
June 29, 1982
page 3.
Mr. Moran noted for the record the Committee's appreciation for Mr. Piercers
hard work.
6. Director's Report:
Mr. Van Cort reported that he had asked the City Attorney to advise the
Board on the issue of whether majority of the quorum of the Board was
necessary to conduct its official business. Jon Meigs has been directed
to draft a Rules of Procedure which Mr. Van Cort will present to the Board
when ready; until then he said the Board will have to struggle with Roberts
Rules of Order.
7. Staff Reports/Old Business:
Cherry Street Industrial Park Ms. Cummings asked what sort of attention
was given to Cherry Street Industrial Park in the new industrial development
brochure being designed, and what sort to competitors. Mr. Pierce said the
brochure. broke down into two parts: the first part was basically an over-
view of the Tompkins County area, stressing economic opportunities and the
quality of life here; the second part deals with specific site information.
Cherry Street is one of the sites discussed. Ms. Cummings asked if all six
sites offer the same thing. Mr. Pierce said that they did not. Some of
the factors are the same and some differ. For instance, the Cornell Research
Park is more park-like; Cherry Street is more industrial, and some companies
prefer that. In general, the brochure promotes not one site but the entire
Ithaca.-Tompkins area. The City, Cornell and the Chamber of Commerce will all
work on distributing the brochure.
-`-
Mr. Rogers asked if therevenue schedule worked on the assumption of the existing
tenants' use or the use by future tenants. 'Mr: Pierce answered that he assumes
a construction schedule of one existing tenant in 1982; one in 1983, and one in
1984. Ids. Cummings asked if this was still realistic, and Mr. Pierce said he
thought so; there is local interest in the park, but until the interest rates
come down, there will be little action. He expects immediate action when
rates do go down.
Center Ithaca — In the absence of Mr. Van Cort, Pair. Pierce answered the
Board's questions: In response to a question by Ms. Cm nings, Mr. Pierce
said the sidewalks would be done near Green Street. Ms. Cummings wanted to
know whether we have additional city money left over,' and Mr. Pierce explained
that after the completion of the project of public improvements outside City
Hall, monies remaining in that fund were to. be turned over as a loan to the
developer.
Mr. Sieverding is acting as liaison with the developers through project close-
out.
MINUTES
Planning and Dev. Board Meeting
June 29, 1982
page 4.
BZA Chairman Weaver's Response —Specifically Ms. Cummings wished to
address Mr. Weaver's indication that Kolar Machine had not had time to
finish landscaping; she thought they had six or seven years. More
generally, she said the Board had had specific concerns about the value
of its communications to the BZA. Weaver indicated that there was not
that wide a difference in the areas of their interpretations. Ms.
Cumdngs was still concerned about how the Board could best express
itself technically to the BZA. Mr. Holdsworth ,felt the Planning Board
should spend less time on zoning cases, since its opinions are only
recommendations. If appeals have an overall planning impact, then they
should be considered, but more specific ., appeals might not be. He
felt that the Planning Bd. concerns were rather nebulous, while the BZA
bases its restrictions rather strictly on the zoning ordinance. Mr.
Van Cort had talked with Mr. Weaver--he reported that Mr. Weaver felt
a big difference between their findings and the Planning Board's is the
difference in criteria. Their main criteria is economic hardship. If
such hardship is demonstrated, they might decide in favor of an appeal
that the Planning Board has decided against. Mr. Weaver felt that the
Board's most valuable input was decisions on neighborhood impact. Mr.
Holdsworth asked when was the last time the BZA based their decision on
neighborhood impact. A1r. Van Cort felt that decisions based on parking
were an example of this; Mr. Holdsworth thought that was a zoning issue.
However, Mr. Van Cort did not agree, citing Collegetown as an area where
planning concerns over parking might be stricter than the actual zoning.
Ms. Cummings cited the example of the Harbeck Paper Company's appeal for
an addition in which concerns over the traffic generated and its close-
ness to both a school and a nursing convalescent home were not the sort
addressed by the BZA's guidelines. Air. Holdsworth asked if we could
limit our review to neighborhood impact alone. Mr. Rogers said there are
large grey areas in the interpretation of zoning, and it stands to reason
that the BZA can rule differently than this Board. He asked if there is
a possibility that the zoning appeals not come before the Planning Board.
Mr. Van Cort said he will look into the zoning law and the history of
zoning appeals, and report back to the Board.
Ms. Cunrnings' main concern was that the public have a chance to make
informed input. She felt that if a public hearing were limited to the
BZA's meeting, it would be in appellant's favor. At present, the public
can come before the Planning Board and become informed about the issues,
and therefore make a more informed presentation to the BZA. There is
also the possibility of creating a dialogue between the appellant and
his neighbors. She felt that while we may be seeing an appellant several
times over the years, the neighborhood may be involved in the process
only over this one appeal.
8. Zoning Appeals - see attached.
9. New Business:
a. State Dredging -- Pyr. Rogers reported that the State is now dredging
the Flood Control Channel. He said that if the State finishes in time,
they may go elsewhere. While this is mainly a concern of the Board of
MINUTES
Planning and Dev. Board Meeting
June 29, 1982
page 5.
Public Works, he felt that the Planning Board and its staff should
keep informed and be ready to suggest possible areas of dredging
to the State.
b. Prioritizing Zoning Appeals -- Mr. Holdsworth suggested letting
people with attorneys go first, since they must pay their attorneys
for the entire time they are there, rather than taking appeals in
the order that they are filed. Ms. Cummings asked if he was saying
that those who could afford lawyers would be going first. Mr. Holds-
worth said, "yes." Mr. Van Cort suggested that appeals requiring
an area variance might go first, while 'use' variances would be
scheduled second. Ms. Cummings said she did not feel sorry.-for
people paying fees for lawyers.
c. Change of August Meeting Time -- Mr. Van Cort asked that the August
meeting be scheduled for the 24th rather than the 31st. The Board
agreed to this.
10. Adjournment:
Mr. Sampson moved to adjourn. Seconded'by Mr Holdsworth
---- ------ --
Meeting adjourned at 11:27 p.m.
JM:RH:jv
attachments: Zoning Cases ;
Cayuga Inlet-Island Redevelopment Plan
74W
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
CAYUGA INLET-ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
I . Community Improvement
Goal : To enhance the attractiveness and the quality of life within the
City of Ithaca by redeveloping an area which. has been substantially
affected by various flood relief and traffic construction projects.
1 . To provide a source of identification and pride for the community in
the western portion of the City.
2. To define the western entrance to the City.
3. To preserve and enhance the existing natural amenities in the inlet-
island area through construction of appropriately planned , designed
and sited public and private facilities.
4. To preserve public access to the waterfront along the channel and
the inlet.
11 . Economic Development
Goal : To preserve and enhance the economic health of the Ithaca community
through the redevelopment of an area suffering from substantial dis-
repair and under-utilization.
1 . To assist existing businesses in growth and prosperity.
2. To encourage significant private investment in new development projects
in the area.
3. To develop an attraction which will result in greater tourism trade
for the City of Ithaca.
4. To provide jobs for unemployed or under-employed residents of the City.
5. To reduce the tax burden on local . citizens through expanding the property
tax base and increasing sa-l•es tax revenues .
6. To convert City-owned property into tax-producing privately owned
commercial enterprises.
Attachment to P.D .minutes of 6-29-82
IIi . Land Use
Goal : To modernize the land use pattern in an area shaped historically by
the presence of the railroad and the former highway.
1 . To create an urban environment which is sympathetic to the natural
amenities in the area.
2. To encourage the growth and success of marine and marine-related uses
in the area.
3. To eliminate and prevent inappropriate land uses in the inlet-island
area, uses such as heavy industry, automobile-oriented establishments,
low density residential development , and retail uses which might suc-
ceed better elsewhere.
4. To encourage uses with appeal to local citizens as well as tourists ,
to pedestrians as well as automobiles.
5. To provide appropriate public open and recreational areas as part of
the redevelopment plan.
6. To encourage mixed-use development in the area to maximize appeal and
economic feasibility.
IV. Environmental Improvements
Goal : To protect and enhance both the natural and the built environments in
an area suffering from severe environmental degradation.
1 . To restore the water resources for public use and enjoyment through
appropriate construction, clearing, planting and cleaning.
2. To substantially improve the architectural quality of the area through
demolition of inappropriate and non-contributing buildings, through
rehabilitation and facade improvements to buildings worthy of. preser-
vation, and through construction of new, appropriately scaled and
designed buildings.
3. To enhance the visual quality of the area through landscaping, screening,
and landforms.
V. Transportation
Goal : To facilitate the movement of pedestrians and automobiles. both within
and th.rough the project area.
1 . To define the entrance into the project area.
2. To encourage pedestrian movements within the redeveloped area as well
as to nearby recreational areas.
3. To provide adequate parking for visitors and employees in the area.
4. To separate pedestrian and automobile traffic to the greatest extent possible.
Planning & Development Board
ZONING APPEALS
June 29, 1982
APPEAL 1445:
Appeal of E. Hartmanis for Area Variances for deficient front, side, and
rear yard setbacks, to permit retention of the existing deck and "Jacuzzi "
structure at 408 W. State St. The property is in a B-2a district, in which
the existing business use is permitted; however, appellant must obtain
variances for the deficiencies before a building permit can be issued for
the structure, which was erected without a permit.
Elly Hartmanis, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Permitted land use.
No impact on traffic & circulation.
No likely effect on neighborhood; not visible from street
or neighboring yards.
Appellant comment: Ms. Hartmanis is President of PHD Environments, Inc. The
property houses their showrooms for custom kitchen equipment, whirlpool
spas, etc; structure being appealed is a deck which houses a 7 foot dia-
meter jacuzzi and couldn't be housed inside the regular showrooms; it is
3 feet off the ground; they are applying for a permit after the fact.
Mr. Rogers asked if the "jacuzzi " was meant for use; it isn't used but
appellant does wish to hook it up for demonstration purposes. She
explained that this was an expanding product and the company was the only
franchise in Ithaca marketing and servicing them.
Public comment: None.
Staff comment: While deck is attractive, and doesn't impinge on other proper-
ties, its construction without permit again raises the issue of proper
procedures and control of development for public purposes. Recommendation:
Split. Mr. Van Cort favors approval due to lack of neighborhood impact
Mr. Meigs denial because the request is post facto.
Board comment: Mr. Rogers asked if the structure abutted the fence on the
property line; it does. Appellant stated the yard is quite nice, they
wish to take full advantage of its attractiveness for their display; and
are using the existing fence to maintain this visual attractiveness. Ms.
Cummings asked what the Board can do about structures that have already
been built. Mr. Rogers pointed out this one could be moved. Mr. `
felt the post facto nature of the case was not a big problem; Board by
approving this structure would not be prohibiting itself from denying any
post facto cases in the future. Mr. Rogers said he had been noticing quite
a few storage sheds popping up lately; Mr. Van Cort said these needed
permits as accessory structures. Mr. Holdsworth suggested publicizing
this somehow. Mr. Van Cort said it was hard for the Building Commissioner
to keep track of such structures, his main concern being with the primary,
inhabited, structure.
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 2.
Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend approval ; seconded by Dr. Stage.
Passed unanimously, 6-0.
APPEAL 1447:
Appeal of R. Shannon and R. Carmean for Area Variances for deficient off-
street parking and side yard setback, to permit conversion of one of the
existing four apartments at 103 E. Spencer Street to a cooperative living
unit for four unrelated persons. The property is located in an R-3B dis-
trict, in-which use is permitted; however, appellant must obtain variances
for the deficiencies before a permit can be issued for the conversion.
Richard Carmean, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Land use permitted.
Increased economic return to owner.
Increases unit occupancy by one, and potential of additional
car where little off-street parking exists ; these may reduce
what amenity remains in,an already densely developed area.
Increased residential density here can be hazard to public
safety.
Appellant comment: Wants to put an extra person in a very large bedroom,
adding a divider.
Ms. Cummings was concerned with deficiency in parking: building has two
parking spaces; four are required now, under proposed addition, five would
be leaving it deficient by three spaces. Building is on street with tight
parking problems.. Appellant said building was on corner and tenants could
park on either street; Board members felt this led to greater congestion of
on-street parking. In response to questions by Mr. Holdsworth,appellant
stated three tenants have cars; and he doesn 't live on premises. Ms.
Cummings thought the intersection dangerous there, and heavily travelled.
She said Board has been very rigourous in past on parking conditions ; and
offered the option that appellant secure parking within the legally required
distance (500 feet as the crow flies, 1000 by right of way). Appellant
said if it was a requirement of the variance, he would be glad to look for
it.
Public comment: None.
Staff comment: Severe constraints on further increases of residential density
exist in this area, due to topography and nature of existing development,
making this proposal undesirable; might encourage other owners to attempt
similar changes. Recommendation: Denial .
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 3.
Board comment: Question was raised over the word "cooperative" in the descrip-
tion. Mr. Van Cort explained the word was used by definition because of
the increase to four occupants. Mr. Sampson found a problem in zoning
regulations, which are basically set up for family apartments, and not for
students/unrelated occupants. Ms. Cummings repeated her plea for writing
into the zoning ordinance parking requirements for unrelated occupants.
Mr. Holdsworth thought tenants would take care of parking problem themselves,
and would give up a car if it became too much of a hassle to park.
Motion: By Ms. Cummings for denial ;_ seconded by Mr. Sampson. Motion failed,
2 1-2 (0_pposed: _ Holds-worth_; Abstentions: Staae,- Rogers)_.__
Discussion followed: it was pointed out that BZA can attach condition of
renting a parking space; the appellant did not want to rent a space, unless
incoming students had cars.
Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend approval with the condition that appel-
lant make an additional parking space available for tenants ; seconded by
Mr. Sampson. Motion passed, 3-171 (Opposed: Cummi-ngs, Abstentions : Rogers) .
Ms. Cummings explained to appellant that he could present a written state-
ment to the BZA to the effect that a parking space is available for rent,
and that he is willing to rent it. Mr. Van Cort read to the Board the
relevant portions of the Zoning Ordinance covering multiple dwellings
(Seca 30.3).
APPEAL 1448:
Appeal of D.F. Morgan, Sr. for Area Variance for deficient side yard to
permit addition to the existing one-family dwelling at 113 W. York Street
to enlarge the kitchen. The property is in an R-2b district in which the
existing use is permitted; however, the appellant must obtain a variance
before a permit can be issued.
Dana Morgan, Sr., appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Land use permitted and compatible
Increased amenity in housing
Addition would probably not impinge on neighbor's views
Visual quality of proposal unknown
Appellant comment: Has deficient side yard and would like to build a 6' x 18'
extension to his kitchen. Wants to get washer and dryer out of basement
to protect them from flooding.
Public comment: None. Appellant said he had received no negative responses.
Staff recommendation: Approval .
Motion: By -Mr. Holdsworth to recommend approval ; seconded by Ms. Cummings.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 4.
APPEAL 1449:
Appeal of the Henry Highland Garnet Lodge for Use and Area Variances for
deficient front and side yard setbacks to permit use of the existing vacant
one-family house at 617 W. Green Street as a fraternal and religious lodge.
The property is in a R-3b district, in which the proposed use is not
permitted; appellant must obtain a use variance and area variances before
a building permit of Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the proposed
use.
Robert Hines, 417 N. Cayuga, represented the appellants.
Planning issues: Land use not permitted on this side of W. Green
House has been vacant, but proposed use would preclude its
use as a residence.
Space for off-street parking, but in yard adjacent to
residence whose other side overlooks parking area for fast
food business.
Would increase nonresidential uses in an area in transition
because of Green Street arterial ; reduces amenity of resi-
dence adjacent on west.
Visual quality unknown.
Appellant comment: Last year this group tried unsuccessfully to obtain a house
on Hancock Street for its activities; Bill Hart conveyed his residence at
617 W. Green to the group in his legacy. While zone is R-3b, only one
house between this residence and Kentucky Fried Chicken, across street is
zoned for business as well . Jack Sams, who is proposed contractor, has
advised group to demolish existing structure and construct a new building.
If group stays with existing structure, it will be remodelled with an
addition. Lodge has existed as a corporation for 50 years, as an organi-
zation for over a hundred; they lost their former house to Meadow Street
widening some years ago. Organization has about 20 members; proposed use
would be modest in terms. of activities--meetings weekly with perhaps once
• a year a larger meeting with other lodges.
Group is a Masonic Lodge described as not-for-profit corp. with religious
and social purpose. Mr. Rogers said that some sort of buffer zone has to
be provided in this area to protect residences from commercial encroachment.
Mr. Hines replied that the use was quasi-residential , a meeting hall was
not a commercial use.
The Lodge Master, David Thompson, spoke outlining the group's actual activi-
ties..
ctivities. Mr. Rogers asked if the group's membership was limited in number;
it isn 't, but membership is high selective.
Staff confirmed that the present structure complies with the ordinance; it
is the land use that does not.
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 5.
Ms. Cummings felt the Board was put in a very difficult position without a
firm set of plans. She asked whether the proposal was for rehabilitation
of the existing structure or construction of a new facility. Mr. Hines
replied that the contractor thought a new structure advisable rather than
working to bring the existing one up to code. Ms. Cummings asked if the
set of drawings presented to the Board was an addition to the existing
structure; contractor Sams replied it was, a 40' x 48' addition to the
northside.
Mr. Hines contended that use could be addressed only, separate from the
question of what kind of structure would be constructed; he said if use
was granted the group would build an attractive structure.
Ms. Cummings was concerned not only with what the property faces up front,
but the R-2 zoned neighborhood it abuts in rear; she asked if 48' depth
was being added, what happens to rear yard percentage. Mr. Hines replied
it was a deep lot with much room.
Mr. Rogers felt there would be a problem with fire regulations for a public
meeting place due to the deficient side yard neighboring Perry's Trash &
Treasure, which sits on the property line. Mr. Van Cort said the use would
automatically be forwarded to the fire department.
Mr. Sams explained that the back end of the house would be removed to
construct the addition, so total depth of the structure wasn't that much.
Mr. Hines said he wouldn 't have his clients spend a lot of money on plans
if the use were not permitted. Dr. Stage commented that as a Mason
himself, he believed this organization would be quiet in its activities.
Ms. Cummings and Mr. Sampson said that they both had no problems with the
intended immediate use. Ms. Cummings was concerned, however, with the
long-range use for the property if a variance is approved and it later
sold to a new owner. Of more concern, she said, was the impact of the
structure itself on the neighborhood. Would it be an auxiliary structure
• or not, and what would be the exact provisions for parking?
Public comment: Bill Gaffney, 220 Cleveland Avenue, spoke. He said he shares
66' of rear lot line in common with appellants. He believed in the organi-
zation's integrity, and didn 't question their longevity if they were to
use the property. He questions what a change in use would do to his property;
house on the block and behind appellant are owner-occupied, lodge would
not be. He was concerned with the preservation of backyards on Cleveland
Avenue if there were to be parking behind the lodge. He said people should
not have to run a risk in- buying a house that the residential character
would be gnawed away by a use variance. He felt his property would
depreciate.
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 6.
Dr. Stage asked if Mr. Gaffney had bought a piece of property from the
estate; Mr. Gaffney replied he had had an outstanding purchase offer on a
lot for 3 years; it had been accepted, and he took title 12 weeks ago.
Mr. Holdsworth asked if Mr. Gaffney had received notification of the
appeal before or after taking title; Gaffney said after. Mr. Holdsworth
stated his view that if Mr. Gaffney had received notice before getting
title, he knew the risk he was running.
Mr. Van Cort replied that Mr. Gaffney was a resident of Cleveland Avenue,
and had owned his home there for 6 years. He and Ms. Cummings felt this
issue was irrelevant--Gaffney is a. property owner within two hundred feet.
Mr. Van Cort said that from the City's point of view, Cleveland Avenue was
one of the worst streets just eight years ago, . and it was the work of home-
owners which had greatly improved it. He is in support of residents '
concerns that they can expect neighborhood conditions to be preserved under
law; this is one of the purposes of a zoning ordinance.
Ms. Cummings suggested the Board delay a decasion for thirty days since
appellant was not sure of what sort of structure they wanted to build.
She said appellant could come back with a more specific proposal , including
indications of where there would be green space, and how parking would be
provided for. She pointed out that on the group's previous appeal, the
Planning Board had recommended approval , the BZA had rejected the appeal
citing the lack of parking.
Mr. Hines asked if one elevation and a site plan would be sufficient; Ms.
Cummings and Mr. Van Cort asked for a site plan, landscaping and parking
plans.
Lodge Master Thompson spoke, he said the property is now partially land-
scaped and that would not be eradicated; he said there was sufficient lawn
to the south; he said the Cookes, who are immediately adjacent were aware
of what the lodge proposes and felt the use would elevate the value of the
• Cooke property. He claimed he had had the opportunity of bringing Mr.
Gaffney to court to sue for encroachment; that Gaffney had built before he
had the land. He said there would be no parking problem as members were
within walking distance.
Lenny Gibbs spoke, he said he had drawn some plans for a new. structure-not
a front or side elevation.-however, a new structure would take the appear-
ance of Ivard Johnson's structure which faces across the street though not
quite as large.
Ms. Cummings asked if it would be 2 stories. Mr. Gibbs pointed out that by
their rules a Masonic Lodge must meet on an upper floor.
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 7.
Staff comment: Staff is sympathetic to the lodge's attempts to locate and
believe they would make good neighbors. However, this would reduce amenity
of neighboring residential property by introduction of a nonresidential
use to a residential zone. Recommendation: Denial .
Board comment: Mr. Rogers asked if the property could be rehabilitated and sold,
and the income used to locate elsewhere.
Mr. Rogers asked if the Board was comfortable with a vote on the information
presented; Mr. Holdsworth said yes; Ms. Cummings said no; she felt it was
not clear what kind of structure was proposed and whatits impact would be.
Mr. Holdsworth thought the board could work on the assumption that the
structure would comply and have little impact. It was pointed out that a
site plan and an elevation are required by ordinance to be submitted to this
Board. Mr. Van Cort interpreted Ms. Cummings as saying she would prefer
preservation/rehabilitation of the existing structure to a new structure
which would change the appearance of the block.
Mr. Thompson said that was the original intention: an addition in back and
leaving the front as is, with modernization to bring the building up to
code.
Ozzie Richardson spoke, saying the property had been left by a brother of
the lodge to help them, yet this step forward was becoming two steps back.
Their intentions are good; there is plenty of parking on the .west side.
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to delay consideration for thirty da�/s (until next
meeting), until the recept of further information including a specific site
plan and elevation. No second appeared.
Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend approval of variance for use for reha=
bilatation of the existing structure; seconded by Dr. Stage. Motion carried
3-1-1 - (Opposed: Cummings; Abstention: Rogers).
APPEAL 1450:
Appeal of F. Welch for a Special Permit to permit continued accessory use
of the two-family house at 428 N. Tioga Street for a business office/home
occupation. The property is in an R-2b district, in which use as a business
office is permitted only under Special Permit; owner does not have a permit
for the current use.
Francis Welch, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Land use not permitted except by Special permit as Home
Occupation
Economic: owner would have to relocate office if denied
Continues nonresidential use of property
Minimal effects on traffic.,,,, neighborhood and little change
in visual quality
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 8.
Appellant comment: Mr. Welch says he moved down the block to this property in
May of 1979, uses as a CPA office; has spent money on improving property;
2 people live in the house, the upstairs being rented to a woman in her
80s. First floor includes an office that has two outside full-time
employees, and one part-time. Office does not create a lot of traffic,
for parking he has a 2-car garage, space for two more behind. Appellant
said he has lived in Fall Creek for 30 years, had an office for 25 years;
moved one block in 1979. When he bought the house, he claims there were
around 10 people living there; now only two.
Public comment: Eleanor Jones, 432 N. Tioga spoke. She is a tenant at her
residence. She questioned appellant's claim that building was being
occupied as a multiple dwelling before he bought it; she said it had
been occupied only by a brother and sister, since at least 1976.
Mr. Welch replied that four foreign students had been living upstairs.
Ms. Jones was also concerned to keep the neighborhood residential , she
felt traffic had increased considerably, partly in that the other side of
the creek had a film industry and attorney's office, partly due to Mr.
Welch 's office. She had talked to neighbors,, one said there was signifi-
cant double-parking.
Mr. Welch pointed out that the bridge had been washed out.
Ms. Jones continued that noise has increased; that Mr. Welch had removed
trees,, exposing properties near the rear of the property to the sight of
cars and increased carbon monoxide. She said Cascadilla Creek Road was
already narrow and dangerous and expressed strong opposition to the appeal .
Mr. Welch replied that he had cut down two sumac trees that were causing
rot in the roofs of the house and garage. Ms. York said Mr. Welch had
personally informed her at the time that he was cutting them down because
they made a mess on his cars.
Ashley Miller, 118 Cascadilla Avenue, spoke in opposition. She has strong
feelings about retaining the residential aspect of the neighborhood; and
cited the problems of increased density on the other side of the creek.
She asked Mr. Welch if he was saying he had lived at 428 N. Tioga since.
June of 1979; Mr. Welch replied yes, until this May; this summer he is
living on the lake. Ms. Miller said she was never aware of any residency
on Mr. Welch's part since he moved his business in. She asked in his
improvements what he planned to do with the Victorian carriage house; she
hadn't seen any attempts at renovation. Mr. Welch replied the sumac had
been rotting it; he would not let it fall down.
Ms. Miller also felt traffic had increased due to the office, and took
issue with Mr. Welch 's claim that property was formerly occupied by too
many people. She said that all the time she had known the previous occu-
pants they had had no more than one other tenant.
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 9.
Mr. Rogers said that if Ms. Miller was insinuating the owner did not occupy
his property she should bring proof to the BZA; Mr. Welch should bring
proof that he does occupy.
Staff comment: When Council v ted to move the edge of the commercial zone to the
creek it had been a hotly debated issue. The new edge was to be the creek, this
use moves the commercial edge farther to the north,
If Mr. Welch does not live at the residence, the use is clearly not permitted;
if he does then use as Home Occupation requires that 1) use be clearly
secondary or incidental to use of property as a residence; 2) no more
than two outside people be employed; 3) use shall not create traffic in
greater volume than usual for a residence; 4) provision of off-street
parking; and other requirements as outlined by the ordinance. Recommendation:
Denial .
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend denial ; seconded by Mr. Sampson,
Discussion followed. Mr. Holdsworth asked if Mr. Welch would continue to
live at this property if the use were not approved; Mr, Welch replied he
wouldn't. Mr. Holdsworth felt this indicated that the use as a business
was clearly not incidental . Mr. Rogers was unsure appellant lived at this
property. Ms. Cummings felt it was quite sufficient to deny the appeal on
the grounds that it was not a subordinate use. There was further discussion
about the nature of this Home Occupation request as compared to past requests.
Motion carried, 3-0-2 (abstentions.- Roger & Stage) .
APPEAL 1451:
Appeal of R@ and T. Garrison and J. Jackson for a Use Variance to permit
use of the existing single-family dwelling at 415 Elm St. as an Inn for
overnight (paying) guests. The property is an_ - a district, in which the
proposed use is not permitted; therefore appellants must obtain a use
variance before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.
Judith_Jackson, owner, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Land use is not permitted, but may be compatible.
Slight increase in tax revenues to City.
House would remain year-round residence for one family, but
proposed use precludes conversion to two or more families.
Slight increase in traffic,
Would alter neighborhood character somewhat; but would
retain basic character of property.
Visual quality: little alteration; other than guests ' cars;
probably better maintenance.
Appellant comment: Ms. Jackson wants to sell the house as it is too expensive
and large for her and her two children to maintain. She has had it listed
with eight agencies and only one person has seen it. The house is extremely
large and not suitable for a single family; she has an offer from the
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 10.
-Garrisons. Ms. Cummings said this Board would not be considering the
economic issues; she also thought the house had been listed a short time at
a fairly high price.
Roger and Terry Garrison, the interested purchasers, appeared. They want
to run a Bed & Breakfast guest house. They propose a country inn atmosphere,
only meal being served is breakfast, only 9 guests at any one time (this
number is exempt from State codes for transient housing.) The Garrisons
are not interested in runing a motel operation; they would seek guests by
referral_ No structural changes in the house are required for this proposal .
They-would -use the third floor as their own residence; guests would occupy
rooms on the second floor. Health Dept. says no changes are needed beyond
changing the kitchen floor to a washable surface. Parking (10 spaces
required) is already available.
Ms. Cummings asked if they have plans for the barn; none other than upkeep.
The proposed use is not subject to stringent fire regulations; Garrisons
will provide smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. Ms. Cummings asked if
the State would allow for guests on the third floor; Mr. Garrison said
yes, but they don't plan to have them there. Mrs. Garrison pointed out that
the property was secluded by greens, the only sign intended is one on the
mailbox. Their research has led them to a price of $20 per person per
night; the business is intended as supplementary income.
Ms. Cummings expressed concern that a use variance could allow this to
become a conventional rooming house under a future owner; Mr. Van Cort
thought the variance could be restricted to owner residence and the
specifics of a Bed & Breakfast; any change in use from that other than
uses permitted in zone would require an appeal to the Board again.
Public comment: None. The Garrisons said they had spent time on �the phone
calling neighbors, and had spent an evening with one family that had
initially objected, but now supported their proposal ,
• Staff comment: Staff likes this proposal very much; it's an innovative
and fairly benign way of using an enormous old house; staff is somewhat
awkward about approving this use by means of a variance, but feels°it _woul.d
be acceptable if restricted to year-round residency by the owner and guests,
9 or less guests, breakfasts only. The proposed use would have less impact
than a possible conversion to multiple occupancy. Recommendation: Approval .
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend approval on the conditions that use be
limited to a Bed & Breakfast; the residence must be occupied by the owners
year-round; with no more than 9 guests at any one time; the only meal
to be served is breakfast; there will be no bar; and signage will conform
to ordinance. Mr. Holdsworth seconded. Motion carried unanimously,
5-0.
APPEAL 1452:
Appeal of Triaxon Ithaca, Inc. for Area Variances for deficient front
yard setback for two front yards,. to permit addition to the existing
commercial building at-104 Cherry`St. The property is in an I-1 district.
in which the existing use is permitted; however, appellant must obtain
variances before a permit can be issued for the addition..
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 11 .
John Gillepsie, 624 Cayuga Heights Road, owner, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning Issues : Land use permitted and appropriate
Expanded business, increased economic viability and revenue
to city.
Minimal effect on traffic
Increased activity will give area more daytime activity
Visual quality: addition would duplicate appearance of
existing structure but double its length
Floor will be above 100 year flood elevation
Appellant comment: Has owned business since 1965; proposed addition doubles
size of building.
Staff comment: Addition would not be different in character, no reduction in
setbacks, no increase over existing deficiencies. Recommendation: Approval .
Public comment: None.
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend approval ; seconded by Mr. Holdsworth .
Motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
APPEAL 1453:
Appeal of The Ithaca Housing Authority for Area Variances for deficient
off-street parking, and building height exceeding the maximum permitted,
to permit construction of a six story multiple dwelling which will be
connected to the existing fifteen story multiple dwelling (Titus Towers,)
at 800 S. Plain Street. The property is in an R-3b district, in which the
proposed use is permitted; appellant must obtain variances before a building
permit can be issued.
Margo Clynes, member of Ithaca Housing Authority; Mary Louise Battisti ,
Executive Director of IHA and James Loveall , architect appeared on behalf of
this appeal .
Planning issues: Land use permitted
Housing: increased stock of new units, especially designed
for elderly--will probably free up units in community for
other tenants--proposal has been approved by HUD
Traffic/circulation , some increase of site-related traffic,
but not as much as same number of units of family housing;
will create site entry on Wood Street, which will add traffic
volume on Wood Street.
Utilities,/services-. .adequate capacity of standard utilities/
services exists; special services for elderly also provided
on site.
Neighborhood effects , additional activity due to resident
traffic and service, including emergency traffic
Visual quality; large mid-rise structure will change character
of site and be visible to adjacent private residences, though
set away from them
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 12.
Environmental ; site is in flood plain, and is designed to safe-
guard against flood damage; landscaping will soften some impacts.
Social ;, additional residents in same age group will probably
result in expansion of social activities on premises.
Appellant comment: Mr. Loveall made a brief presentation of the site and the
issues and thinking process that went into the proposal . He started with
shadow and circulation studies of the existing Titus Towers with a second
building in various locations, leading to a conclusion to build the second
structure on a bias to the north. In addition to adding 70 units, HUD
gave permission to make up for the deficiency in communal space in Titus
Towers, allowing development of four spaces in the funding. Material
selection will be basically the same without exposed concrete frames. A
two-story alternative was ruled out because the necessary Slite'` coverage
would lead to excessive construction costs and excessive 'travel distance
for the elderly and the handicapped. Proposal is for a 6-story structure,
with a steel friction pile foundation. Test borings were made, present propo-
sal calls for 95 piles to a depth of 200 feet, estimated at $450 thousand
in foundation work (a 2-story alternative would cost an additional $150
thousand) . The site is recognized by HUD as a problem site and allowances
have been made in the funding for its difficulties; the proposal developed
can work in the budget configuration.
Ms. Battisti said the average age of residents is 83.6 years; proposal would
add 70 residents of approximately the same average age; 10 handicapped
spaces and 60 elderly. During the planning process, neighbors were consul-
ted as well as handicapped groups, their concerns were incorporated in
the final design. The Board of Directors had put much thought into siting,
realizing it would require zoning variances, had decided to stay with the
Titus Towers site; the location would not take additional property off
the tax rolls, and more money could be generated in lieu of taxes by stay-
ing at this site.
Mr. Holdsworth questioned appellant about handicapped accessibility.
10 units (2 per floor of the 5 floors of living units) would be designed
for the mobility-impaired; Mr. Loveall presented a typical unit plan.
All 70 units have. 3 foot wide doors. Attenuation and tactile devices have
been incorporated. Groups consulted included the mobility-impaired, the
hearing-impaired and the visually impaired. A complete fire alarm system,
of the strobe type will be used. Mr. Loveall said the design for accessi-
bility exceeds HUD regulations , which are rather minimal . Mr. Holdsworth
found the proposal well planned for accessibility.
Public comment: None
Staff recommendation: Proposal meets an extremely pressing need for housing for
the elderly, and will also free up possibly under-utilized dwellings in the
city. Proposal is well-sited, and staff finds the additional height to be
a far better solution. Recommendation: Approval .
ZONING APPEALS June 29, 1982 13�
Board comment_: Mr. Holdsworth asked if occupancy was geared to income; it is
by HUD regulations. Mr. Van Cort said a staff environmental assessment
(short form) showed a negative determination. Loveall said an Environ-
mental Impact Statement had been prepared'.
Parking and trees were discussed.
Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend approval ; seconded by Mr. Sampson.
Motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
APPEAL 1454:
Appeal of M. Shen for Area Variances for deficiencies in off-street
loading and rear yard setback, to permit conversion of second floor
commercial space to two apartments in the existing commercial and resi-
dential building( "Simeon 's") at 104 N. Aurora Street/224 E. State Street.
The property is in a B-3 district, in which the proposed use is permitted;
appellant must obtain variances before a permit can be issued for the
conversion.
James Buyoucos representative for the appellants appeared on behalf of this
appeal .
Planning issues: Land use permitted and appropriate
Increases supply of housing by 2 units
Adds to residential activity in neighborhood
Appellant comment: Bottom floor of building house Simeon and McBooks, 2nd floor
has been commercial ; 3rd and 4th residential . Use of the second floor for
commercial purposes is no longer economically feasible; the Shens wish to
convert it to residential use and are willing to spend $8000 to convert
it; one commercial office will be retained and two apartments created.
No changes on the outside of the building; if conversion is not done,
deteriation possible. Building has been there over 100 years; it is
• impossible to comply with the ordinance on this part of State Street.
Mrs. Freedbairn, architect:pres_ented drawings of the proposed conversion.
Staff recommendation: Approval
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend approval ; second by Mr. Sampson..
Motion carried unanimously, 4-0.