Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-07-27 MINUTES Planning & Development Board Meeting July 27, 1982. PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers, R. Holdsworth, M. Sampson ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, J. Pierce, P. Trowbridge, Appellants, Appellants' representatives, Other interested parties, Press 1. Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. It was noted that there was not a quorum, and one was not expected until pos- sibly late in the meeting. 2. Approval of June Minutes: Tabled for lack of quorum. 3. Staff reports: a. Small Cities Program - moved to later in agenda so Peter Trowbridge, urban designer for the West End, could make his presentation. b. West End Development - Mr. Van Cort presented Mr. Trowbridge to the Board, and briefly reported on progress on this project. He said it was moving quickly; there had been a meeting with West End property owners over the weekend; the study and recommended design are expected to be completed by the end of the summer for approval at either the August or September Board meeting. If the Board approves it, the plan will be forwarded to Council for their approval and referral to the appropriate agency for implementation. Peter Trowbridge, of Trowbridge-Trowbridge, then handed out his preliminary report on West End. He saw his role as a facilitator thus far: collating previous studies and data, and separating the real data from the imaginary. The study's areas concentrate on: -1) the existing site; 2) 8-10 case studies; and 3) background data. Illustrating with slides, Mr. Trowbridge briefly went over the history of the site--an area from Clinton to the Boathouse and from the west side channel to Fulton; pointed out natural areas that might be preserved; and showed samples of existing architecture (which will undergo a structural use survey) . The report also considered 'edges'--how people get to and from the water--and noted safety and access problems, e.g. eroded bulkheads, and differences in seasonal uses. In sum, the area as it now stands was seen as a mix of historic architecture, older marine- related business, and new businesses with a conscious orientation to .a "West End image". Case studies were picked either for similarity to'.the area (naturally; or in terms of economics) or for specific solutions and concepts they offered for a marine-related urban design. They include: Harbor Place, Canandaigua Lake; Crystal Harbor Village; Geneva-on-the-Lake; Newport; the harborfront, Reston, VA,; Boston (for the city government's upfront involvement in development) ; and Mystic Seaport. Background data included summarization of previous reports on West End and waterways done by the Planning Dept. and others. Planning & Development Board Minutes - July 27, 1982 2. Joey Pierce then handed out a memorandum; noting that at their June meeting, the Board had discussed the overall study process and approved a set of development objectives. Department staff took these and developed more specific uses for Trowbridge to focus .on in his study. Pierce asked for another meeting next week for the Board to approve a set of land use alternatives. It was decided to call an Economic Development Committee meeting and invite the other Board members. Mr. Rogers asked if areas had been tied into these uses yet; Mr. Pierce said this would be the next step after refinement of land uses. Mr. Holds- worth asked why it was necessary to stay on a tight schedule--was a grant application foreseen? Mr. Pierce explained one wasn't, but that several possible developers wish to begin construction by next summer; to make that possible, the City's work should be done by the fall. Mr. Holdsworth said he was not opposed to the project. but questioned "rushing"through a design involving possibly millions of dollars. Mr. Van Cort felt the Board has the time necessary for careful consideration--each new step of the study would immediately come before it. Mr. Pierce pointed out that the Planning Board was not locked into any irrevocable decisions until it approved the final urban design. Mr. Trowbridge said the final plan would not dictate a design, but determine guidelines. It would serve as an implementation strategy: giving the City a tool to facilitate design and development. Mr. Rogers asked if the design would involve rezoning in the area. Mr. Pierce replied that the uses being considered fit the existing zoning quite well; minor modifications, such as in setbacks, might be required. Mr. Van Cort pointed out that the City owns a lot of the land in this area, and could require purchasers of its land to meet specific contractual obligations, thus giving the City more control of development. Jack Harmon, 33 Iradell Road,; said no one would make a private investment in the West End area until the City resolves what it is doing with Route 96. Mr.Pierce explained that the design was taking the conservative approach that both phases of Rt. 96 would be built and would therefore accommodate both the Phase I rerouting of Rts. 89 & 96 directly to Buffalo, and a right-of-way for the possible elevated highway of Phase II; however, the design would work as well, if not better, if Phase II (scheduled for 1995 at the earliest) is not built. Peter Zaharis, 714 W. Buffalo St. , spoke. He indicated the planned routing for Phases I & II on a city map. He said: 1) Phase I isolates West Hill, cutting it off from direct access to Buffalo St. and the Inlet; 2) during construction of Phase I, all traffic will be going through W. State St. , leading to severe congestion; 3) the present loop at the Octopus should not be eliminated; 4) Phase II should be built, and it will not substantially alter the character of Esty St. Chairman Rogers and Mr. Van Cort replied that the highway is not integral to plans for West End development, and that Mr. Zaharis seemed to be protesting the State's plans for the highway, not the City's for West End. Mr. Zaharis contended that Rt. 96 was important to West. End develop- ment; and said West End would not be accessible to. West Hill residents . under Phase I. He would like to see Phase II built now rather than Phase I. 1 Planning & Development Board Minutes - July 27, 1982 3. Mr. Van Cort responded that even with the highway, West End would be . accessible to West Hill; he stressed that Rt. 96 and West End development were separate issues. He addressed himself to Rt. 96, saying there has been passionate public debate about the highway since 1946. After a long process, the reality is that the community is facing a highway. If there is to be a bridge over the flood control channel, it will be built where indicated (at Buffalo St.) under Phase I. The City has brought to the State's attention that Phase I plans break the connection to West Hill; if the State says it cannot design an alternative, then it is up to the City to decide whether it wants Phase I or, not. (A copy of the letter to N.Y.S.D.o.T. on this matter, was sent to Mr. Zaharis, and is available to the public at the Planning Dept.) The City is telling the State that we must have a permitted left turn onto 'Taughanno.ck Boulevard from the new highway (under Phase I) . Mr. Van ,Cort concluded that it is impossible to build a highway that will answer both all the existing options and provide for new ones. Mark Zaharis asked if the various options could be put up for city-wide referendum. Mr. -Van Cort said this had been considered; he did not feel there was a fair way to word a referendum except as a final yes/no choice as to whether the city's residents wanted the highway or not. Mark Zaharis wanted to know how access to the hospital would be solved. Mr. Van Cort said that Phase I would ease the bottleneck onto Cliff St. , and that the City was working with the Disaster Coordinator on stopping trains when emergency vehicles had to pass Conrail's tracks. He added that the State has said in no uncertain terms that it will not build Phase II first.. Mr. Pierce noted that a decision on Phase II was years away, and even Phase I was ,up to six years away (on a State schedule of 18-24 months each for de- sign, start of construction, and completion.) He repeated that the West End urban design allows the possibility of a highway, but does not require it. 1 c. Hydropower - Mr. Pierce reported that the City has hired an engineering consultant, Halliwell Associates, to work on the City's application for license. Halliwell will be in Ithaca Monday to start a site analysis. The City is still talking with the other interested parties about a deal over various joint construction/operation options. 4. Zoning Appeals: see attached. 5. Staff reports, continued: Small Cities Application - Mr. Van Cort explained that the City was in the second year of a comprehensive 3-year Small Cities grant. After federal delay, we have been given the go-ahead by HUD to apply for our second year funds. The grant already prescribes the programs funded--there is little flexibility offered the City in changing them at this point; this application is mainly pro forma for release of funds. The draft application was passed out. Mr. Van Cort explained that the seven 5501 lines, as well as S502 are INHS Programs. Code Enforcement funds a housing inspector, and legal prosecution in the target area, through City Hall. City sidewalk repairs, commercial/ industrial property improvements, the Community Arts Program, Community Gardens and CD Administration round out the second year of the grant. Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes - July 27, 1982 4. Mr. Holdsworth asked if the reduction in Asst. Attorney Nash's hours affects the grant. Mr. Van Cort said reimbursement of legal services performed for CD has been limited to what is specifically outlined in the application, and limited to the target area; CD hasn't expended the total amount, and money would be reprogrammed where possible to other lines. In response to several questions by Mr. Holdsworth, Mr. Van Cort then outlined Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. In brief, INHS is a non-profit corporation involved with the improvement of housing in a low-moderate income area, which is coincidental with the North and Southsides (Cascadilla to Spencer, Cayuga to Meadow) The Board of Directors has a majority of representation by neighborhood residents, remaining membership from bankers and city officials. INHS is heavily funded by IURA/CDA and is the most important part of the agency's housing effort, having a remarkable national record of improving housing. The INHS professional staff is separate from the City. Actual programs include: 1. Home ownership loans--set at a flexible interest rate based on owner's ability to pay; can be recast up to five years for a change in circum- stances. Loans are targeted to owner-occupancy. 2. Technical assistance/home-owner maintenance programs. 3. Grant of materials (in limited instances.) 4. Lending of labor. INHS prefers to help tenants become homeowners. Loan applicants must have been determined not to be bankable and must qualify as low-moderate income by HUD standards. There is a problem with this in that many people are not bankable, but do not qualify as HUD low-moderate income eligibles. INHS has the lowest deliquency rate of any of the 130+ NHS's in the U.S. Theservicehas also initiated a Duplex Program: . a loan is made to help an occupant to become owner of a duplex, owner then rents out the second unit; the rental units created are kept below the market rate. Mr. Sampson added that INHS tried to improve the whole character of the neighborhood, and an incredible pride has developed in these neighborhoods, due in part to INHS's work in'promoting home ownership and maintenance. The bulk of the second year Small Cities monies are for INHS. In earlier grants and in the first year of this grant, capital improvements (such as GIAC, Southside Center, curb cuts) were heavily targeted, while INHS was set up. Now that capital projects are mainly finished., the focus has turned to housing. The Board approved the application for second year funds of the Small Cities grant, as presented. Collegetown Development - Three developers made submissions; the Selection Committee will be meeting intensely over the next three weeks. Concurrently, zoning and parking/traffic circulation studies are being conducted. The latter study (and zoning recommendations keyed to it) will have to wait until October's more typical student patterns before it can make final conclusions. Planning & Development Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 1982 5. 6. Director's report: a. Proposed Planning Department Budget for 1983 - Mr. Van Cort passed out- the proposed budget. The increases requested are nominal-- a percent increase in salaries; the largest increase is in equipment, as the Depamment is asking for a new copying machine. Mr. Van Cort pointed out that between 1977 and 1982 the budget increased from $123,913 to $133,187--an 8% total increase over 6 years, well below the rate of inflation for those years. b. ARC - The Appalachian Regional Commission still exists as a federal program with money. The City has made extensive use of ARC funds in the past including Cass Park Skating Rink, Family Medicine building, Cherry St. Industrial Park, the Strand renovation. On the Mayor's request, staff solicited suggestions for projects to seek funding for, then discussed them with a representative from the Southern Tier East Regional Planning & Development Board (STERPDB) . Possible projects include Collegetown (public improvements) ; West End; an, industrial building in Cherry St. Park;. and partial funding for the Rothschilds building. The last may not be ARC-eligible. The list will go to the Planning & Development Committee of Council .tomorrow, and to the full Council in August. Applications for approved projects will be worked on for a September 1st submission to STERPDB. c. Mr. Rogers asked if Mr. Van Cort had received an answer on problems of quorum, etc. Mr. Van Cort reported that City Attorney Tavelli had determined that the Board could not take an official action without a quorum, and a majority of the full Board voting in favor (i.e. , 4 votes) . Further discussion with Mr. Tavelli determined that if the vote was of an advisory nature, only a majority of those present are required to pass. 7. Adjournment: On a motion by Mr. Holdsworth, seconded by Mr. Sampson, the meeting adjourned at 11:02 pm. :rh Planning & Development Board ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 The Board members present discussed whether to proceed with Zoning Appeals although Board lacked a quorum. As the vote of this Board is advisory to the BZA, and it was felt that the BZA would still want its input on matters of neighborhood impact, it was decided to proceed. The BZA should thus recognize the following recommendations on appeals as a "sense of the Board" meeting without a majority of its members. APPEAL 1455: Appeal of Calvo for Area Variances for deficiencies in front yard setback and minimum setback for one side yard, to permit extension of the screen porch on the one-family house at 110 Cobb St. , in an R-lb district. The existing use is permitted; however, appellants must obtain area variances before a building permit can be issued. Joseph Calvo, 110 Cobb St. , appeared on behalf of this appeal. Planning issues: Land use permitted and appropriate Increases amenity of single-family dwelling No significant visual effect Appellant comment: Appellant wishes to extend their porch from 7' x 14' to 10' x 14' . The new line of the house' would still be more than 10 feet from the property line. Mr. Rogers asked if the proposed extension comes out toward the driveway, breaking the line of the house; it does. He asked why the porch couldn't be extended to the rear. Appellant says that would create an undesirably narrow room of 7' x 17' . Public comment: None appeared, Staff comment: Addition would not reduce sideyard below what is required. Recommendation: Approval . Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend APPROVAL; seconded by Mr. Sampson. Vote: 3-0. APPEAL 1456: Appeal of Reconstruction Home, Inc. for Area Variances to permit construction of a building which exceeds number of stories, height, and lot coverage permitted, which will be an addition to the existing building at 318 S. Albany St. The property is in an R-3a district, in which use as a nursing home is permitted; however, the appellants must obtain area variances before a building permit can be issued. Three alternative schemes have been developed of which appellant's preference is for one with a height of five stories. Though portions of the existing facility would be demolished, each of the alternates would result in total lot coverage exceeding that permitted. ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 2. Anton Egner, architect for appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Committee report: The Neighborhood Improvement & Housing Committee met to review this appeal on July 23. In the absence of Ms. Cummings, Mr. Sampson presented its report to the Board The committee had many questions relating to long-term planning concerns for the .neighborhood, and felt the appellant needed time to adequately respond to these questions. Therefore the committee unanimously recommends that the Board defer action on this appeal until its regular August meeting, and request the Board of Zoning Appeals to defer action for one month, as provided for under Section .30,58c of the Zoning Ordinance. (See memo of July 23, attached.) Appellant comment: Appellant said this was a unique site, and they could not move forward with design and construction until they obtain State approval for 48 beds. They are not making a specific request between their three alternatives at this time; they will come back to this Board with the design for the Board's review when it is ready. He added that there are some. design alternatives that meet the zoning ordinance but which he felt would be less desirable for the neighborhood, Mr. Sampson said the appeal as worded was asking for permission to build a 5-story building. Appellant said they were not asking for a building permit, but seeking a formal way to bring the design process before the boards. concerned with zoning; he said there is no formal ,procedure without the refusal of a building permit. Mr:-".Sampson pointed out that the appeal asks for a variance for' height. Mr. Rogers felt that the committee was the proper forum for discussion of design alternatives toward the development of a -specific proposal . He gave appellant a copy of the committee's memorandum outlining their concerns and questions. Staff will set up a meeting between the committee and representative(s) from the Reconstruction Home. Mr. Sampson said it was his understanding that the Board had been trying to get together with the Home's representatives but had been told there was no rush, as nothing was planned to happen until the fall , Mr Egner contended their had been no contact from, the Board. Mr. Holdsworth said it would be better for the Home to wait for State approval, and then come to the Board with its proposal . Appellant said they wanted to shorten the process to start design by September. Mr. Van Cort said that even with deferral , the BZA would be deciding on this appeal in the first week of September. Board action Appeal deferred until August meeting; for further study and report by Neighborhood :Improvement & Housing committee. ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 - 3, APPEAL 1457: Appeal of Collegetown Motor Lodge, Inc. for Area Variances for defici:enci;es. in side yard, minimum rear yard setbacks to permit addition to the -motel at 312 College Ave. for two additional rooms and a meeting room. The property is in a B-2a district, in which a motel is permitted however, appellants must obtain a use variance, and under Section 30,49 the appellant must also obtain an area variance before a building permit can be issued for the conversion`.,.,_ Arthur Rosten, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal , Planning issues: Land use permitted and compatible Additional facilities could improve competitive position of motel Adds two units of transient housing Additional activity related to meeting room could require additional parking not available on site Such need for parking could increase on—street parking problems in neighborhood Appellant comment, Appellant wants to build a room of less than 700 SF for meeting purposes; and to add 2 motel rooms on the second floor of addition, They would use the existing retaining walls for footing, which are 1 to 2 ft, from the property line, Mr. Rogers asked if the balance of the building sits on property lines. Appellant assumes there are about 2 inches of space between the building on the south and theirs; area was built that way around 30 years ago, The parking space for 3 cars in the area where addition is proposed would not be affected, There are currently 48 total parking spaces for 41 rooms; appellant said they have never had a guest who couldn't find space to park. Public comment; None appeared, Staff comment: Proposal improves the Collegetown area with a needed meeting room, and the increase in parking demand is not serious enough'to argue against the addition. --Recommendation: Approval , Motion By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend APPROVAL; seconded by .Mr. Sampson. Voter 3-0, APPEAL 1458: Appeal of Novarr for Use Variance and Area Variance for deficient front yard setback, to..permit conversion of the Valentine Dormitories at-115w17 Valentine'-Pl . to thirty-six (-36)- apartments. The property is 'i n a`-P i district, iK which the proposed use as apartments is not permitted; therefore appellant must obtain a use variance, and under Section 30,49 must also obtain an area variance before a building permit can be issued for the conversion, ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 4. John Novarr, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Land use not permitted but generally compatible Would return property to city tax rolls and lead to increased economic return due to new residents.. Significant increase in. market housing Reintroduction of residential activity to site after lapse of several years could have most severe effects on residential care facility on adjacent property (`Ithacare) No significant visual change (from previous use as a dorm) Appellant comment: Mr. Novarr stated that he was here as an individual , and not as a representative of Novarr-Mackesey. He read his letter of July 7 (included in filed appeal) . Briefly it states that he plans to build 10 two-bedroom, 11 studio, 13 one-bedroom, 1 four-bedroom, and 1 caretaker's studio apartment;` each apartment furnished, each bedroom with a single bed. Property is presently owned by Ithaca College, who used it as a residential dormitory, has been vacant for some years. Appellant claims property as zoned is not salable or economically feasible. Ithaca College has been unable to find a buyer for public use in over three years. In seeking a use variance appellant states that location is ideal for multiple residential use, parking is available and access to State St. is one block away; he claims minimal impact of neighborhood traffic. Appellant also states that variance for height referred to in letter has since been determined to be unnecessary by Building Commisioner. Mr. Novarr said one of the main concerns expressed by neighbors was maintainance of the property, which is why a caretaker's apartment was added to proposal . Mr. Holdsworth aked if Mr. Novarr had met with Ithacare. He said he had, though only a half dozen residents had shown. They were concerned with traffic. Other neighbors are concerned with traffic on a potential dead end street, if Ithacare closes their road to through traffic. Appellant has heard from Tom Salm, Ithaca College Senior Vice President and a member of the Ithacare Board, that this would not be in Ithacare's best. interest, .but has heard differently from other Ithacare representatives. Mr. Holdsworth asked who owns the road. Valentine Place is a city road. The unimproved road between the building in question and Ithacare is partly owned by Ithaca College and partly by Ithacare. Mr. Holdsworth said he understood that Ithacare doesn't want traffic on that road, and that even assuming Ithacare keeps the road open does not imply that Ithacare will give permission for its use. Appellant replied that he assumed his tenants would use the existing city access if the road through Ithacare were closed. Ruth Ditzell said she had called Mr. Zwerger at Ithacare, and he states it is his intention to close the road to all but foot traffic when Valentine .Dorm is sold. ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 5 Discussion ensued over the traffic generated by the proposal . Mr. Holds- worth felt that 49 new tenants meant a substantial increase in the number of cars on Valentine Place. Although the previous use as a dorm had much student traffic, the problem was alleviated by busing the students to IC. Appellant explained the reason for two parking lots--one on Valentine--was the difference``in ground level of the two buildings , and his concern for easy tenant access. Mr. Holdsworth asked about the size of the apartments; the studios are approx. 12' x 17' including bath and kitchen, the 2-BR apartments are modest in size. Appellant did not know what the maximum occupancy of the building would be, but said bedrooms would conform to city codes; he understood that 80-90% legally must be single person. Mr. Van Cort said the variance could control the number through the Certificate of Occupancy. Public comment:` Carol Steiger, 935 E. State, spoke. She reminded the Board that the property isaadjacent to a`single family zoned area (R-la to the east) as well as multiple dwell.ings. As appellant has presented his plan, she is `in favor. Ithaca College has been a poor neighbor, and the Steigers have maintained this property some to prevent problems to their own. Appellant is likely to construct well and apartments should be well furnished. However, she had these concerns: 1) Will appellant rent as he says he will-- increased occupancy in bedrooms would add to traffic problems on Valentine; 2) Doesn't favor change of parking lot from its existing 72 ft. from her property to within 35 ft., she feels this will detract from their guest house; 3) Can appellant build more buildings there by approval of this variance? (Mr. Van Cort explained he would have to reappear before the Board); and 4) the Steigers would lose value on their home, and would have to increase their liability because of the 200 ft. drop in back of their property--but they are willing to do.;this if Mr. Novarr proceeds with his plan as he now outlines it. Ruth Ditzell , 111 Valentine Pl . , presented the Board with a copy of a Tetter to Alderman James Dennis asking that the`City.consider a through street or extension of Valentine Place, due to the expected traffic problems with cars coming down the street and turning around in proposed apartment parking lot. She was concerned that a bottleneck would be created, and private driveways used by traffic; she feels the existing lot can support 15 cars and not the proposed 23 and has problems with a steep grade. Ithacare's road has been open to the neighbors for emergency purposes and when snow makes Valentine impassable (due to poor City maintenance neighbors say.) That will now be closed. She added that she feels this is the best plan that has been put forward for using the former dorm, but she wants assurance of access to State St. for the neighborhood. Appellant responded that it is his job as developer & contractor-to make the parking lot work; the upper lot does have an odd grade, but would be rehabilitated. He felt' the City could also refuse a Certificate of Occupancy until the parking situation was adequate. He thought it might be possible to cut down the size of the upper lot; all visitors could be required to park in the lower lot. Janet Dean, 112 Valentine P1 . , spoke. She felt that Mr. Novarr's claim that ZONINC' APPEALS `July 27, 1982 6. traffic impact would be minimal was mistaken; she said there was no way an increase of up to 41 cars could not have a major impact. Valentine is 35 ft. wide, she said, and with parking on one side it is not possible for fire engines to gain access. : There. are often cars parked on both sides, and she has often called the polic to have cars cleared from the no parking side. However, she favors the overall plan, with strong reservations about access and the necessity for the tenants to have a well-kept parking lot. Staff comment: The proposal seems an appropriate, reasonable and desirable adaptive. re-use of the facility. Impacts of increased activity on Ithacare should be. controlled. Recommendation: Approval , with the expressed hope that the owner and Ithacare can` work' something out to minimize traffic impact on both Ithacare and Valentine Place. Appellant responded that he was not adverse to working this out; but he suspects that an increase in people using Ithacare's road would not work, due to the number of elderly who walk along it. He added that the property is within walking distance of Cornell , and he expects to attract a number of CU students as tenants. Board comment: Mr. Rogers said he was in favor; better maintenance of Valentine Pl , by the City could alleviate some foreseen traffic problems. But it was his understanding that a proposal to make Valentine a through street or extend it would not be favored by the City since"it would set a precedent, and there are too many such lanes to make such improvements financially feasible. Ms. Ditzall contended that the City should be able to do something, since the property would be back on the tax rolls. Mr. 'Rogers suggested she use this argument and work through her alderman for that and for better maintenance. A member of the public said the tenants would find access to State difficult in the mornings as traffic is often backed up from Mitchell to Water. Motion: By Mr. Sampson to recommend APPROVAL; seconded by Mr. Holdsworth with the amendment that approval be subject to limiting the Certificate of Occupancy to a maximum of 49 occupants. Discussion over the necessity of this provision followed. Mr:. Sampson accepted amendment as friendly. Vote: 3-0. APPEAL 1459: Appeal of Dieterich for Area Variance for deficiency in side yard setback to permit conversion of one efficiency apartment to a one-bedroom apartment in the four'-unit apartment house at-509-11 E. Buffalo St The property is in an R-3a district, in which a multiple" dwelling is permitted; however, appellant must obtain an area variance before a building permit can be issued. ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 7. Jagat Sharma, 110 Maplewood Dr. , architect for appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal , Planning issues: Land use permitted and appropriate, Improved amenity in housing Minimal change in visual quality Appellant comment: Mr. Sharma explained that they were proposing a second floor addition to the back of a 3-story house. Addition would create a bedroom of 8' x 10' which would be a conversion from an efficiency apartment on first floor to an apartment with bedroom loft (with bath moved to 2nd floor as well ) ; this would also create a porch for 3rd floor occupant. The total number of apartments in building would be the new 1-BR apt. , two existing 2-BR apts. , and a third floor studio. Public comment: Russell Osgood, 502 E. Seneca, expressed his concern that the delicate balance of this neighborhood between 50% single-family and 50% multiple be maintained and not tilted in favor of multiple dwellings. He was not necessarily opposed to the plan, not having seen it. He thought the parking in the rear might be inadequate and was poorly maintained. Mr. ,Sharma replied that there were five parking spaces there, and areas was screened by trees from neighbors. Mr. Van Cort said the addition did not require additional parking. It was not known if some of these spaces are rented out. Board comment Mr. Holdsworth asked if the owner was increasing the rent, or if he was building the addition in the expectancy of increased occupancy, Mr. Sharma said the rent would be increased;-- he did not feel it was possible to add any tenants with this addition. Building now has six tenants. Mr. Holdsworth asked Mr. Osgood what he would want done by<. the Board. Mr. Osgood wanted to know how long the property had been a multiple dwelling; he thinks it might be a recent conversion of a 2-family house. It was not known how long the property had been a multiple dwelling, but Mr. Van Cort said the Building Dept. says it is listed as a 4-unit dwelling. Mr. Osgood felt this was a transitional building on the border between single family and multiple residences along Buffalo. Staff recommendation.:_ Approval . Motion: By Mr. Rogers to recommend denial . No second appeared, Mr. Holdsworth then moved to recommend APPROVAL with the condition that the Certificate of ,Occupancy be limited to 6 tenants; Mr. Sampson seconded, Vote: 3-0. APPEAL 1460: Appeal of Cornell University for Use Variance and Area Variances for deficiencies in front yard and side yard setback to permit use of the res" ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 8. also obtain area. variances before a building permit can be issued for the proposed use. An earlier appeal for use of this property for offices for the University Publications Office was denied on October 9, 1980. Robert Hines, appellant's representative, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Land use not permitted or appropriate Increased attractiveness of facility could benefit University economically by promoting its program Probable increase in traffic activity related to site Would introduce a use considerably different in character from the area's original and still dominant residential nature Small visual impact due to associated parking and probable. sign. Legal implications in that allowance of use could damage City's ability to zone and control land uses Appellant comment: Mr. Hines said appellant does not wish to make a statement. Public comment: Russell Osgood, 212 Fall Creek, (in process of moving from Seneca St`. residence , reg`retted that Cornell did not want to make a state- ment. He would like to know why Cornell needs to convert this property from residential use--the street has no room for parking, an office/ seminar/library use is wholly inappropriate for this area. As his house is larger and was purchased at a fairly high price, he does not think Cornell could make a hardship case'on grounds of salability. He added that the Cornell properties on this street are- not properly maintained. Bryant Robey, 209 Wait Ave. , spoke for the Cornell Heights Civic Association. He pointed out that a previous request to use this property for University Publications, and to locate the Modern Indonesia Program on Wait Ave. was turned down by the BZA, and is currently in litigation. Since the Planning Board denied this similar case two years ago, and Cornell will not justify their current appeal , he feels this use variance should be denied. Two years ago a neighborhood petition toll-ected 60 signatures in opposition to Cornell 's request to convert this property. Other variances have been denied for large homes in this area, and they were subsequently purchased by single families: He expressed the continued concern of the neighborhood over any continued conversion. Earl Grinnols�, 121 Kelvin Place, spoke in opposition ,as well . He felt this appeal was exactly the same as the previous appeal ; and added that the City had been upheld in the first court rounds on their decision on that appeal . Board comment: Mr. Sampson explained this residence had belonged to Prof. Hamilton,, and later to his wife, passing on to Cornell 's ownership sometime between her death in 1955 and 1960. Property was lastoccupiedas a residence in 1978. In response to Mr. Holdsworth, Mr. Hines said appellant had not tried to sell the property. Staff comment: Appellant refuses':to address'.the issues of appropriate and responsible use of its properties and facilities vis-a-vis local conditions and public benefits: specifically, why can appropriately zoned property not be used for this purpose? Mr. Van Cort also ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 9. stated that this was a fine old house in a unique location above the gorge; and stressed the implications towards the City's control of land uses through zoning if this use was.'. permitted. Recommendation: Denial . Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend DENIAL; seconded by Mr. Sampson. Vote: 3-0. APPEAL 1461: Appeal of J. V. Junod for Area Variances for deficiencies in off-street parking, lot size, lot width, front yard and side yard setback to permit occupancy of the single-family home. at 207 W. Clinton St. as a. Doctor's Office, plus an apartment. The property is in an R-3a district, in which the proposed use is permitted; however, appellant must obtain an area variance before the proposed occupancy can be permitted. Joseph Junod, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Land use permitted and generally compatible Would increase economic return from property Would retain a housing unit, but reduce its size; residential amenity would be affected by joint non-residential use, but Would be affordable. Slight increase in traffic °could be expected No change in visual quality Medical services to residents of neighborhood could be improved, depending on nature of practice Appellant comment: Mr. Rogers asked appellant what new evidence he wished to present, since this appeal is essentially the same as #1421 of February 1982. Mr. Junod said he had not presented the appeal in February and felt it had been insufficiently expl'a°i"neo.: The property lies between Red Cross and Leonard Snow's law offices; he has been attempting to sell house since last December (he moved in during June 1981) . It has been listed at $63,000. He has had no reasonable offers for it as a single family; the one acceptable offer - is from a general practioner. The concept is to use property for a doctor's office; with doctor living in an upstairs apartment. Appellant pointed out that there is a:lack of MDs in the downtown area. Mr. Rogers said that on the previous appeal a number of neighbors had appeared before the Board who opposed an office use in a residential zone. The appellant contested that characterization of. the area, he feels the immediate area has a number of less residential uses, including McGraw House and Reconstruction Home. Mr. Rogers said there was also concern over increased traffic. Mr, Junod replied that a downtown doctor would probably generate a fair amount of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Rogers said the downtown location of a doctor had been a positive element in the previous discussion. Public comment: Elva Holman, 141 Pearsall Place, alderwoman, asked,-how ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1982 10. many off-street parking spaces were available; there are two on line in the driveway, the property is deficient by 2 spaces. Ms . Holman said that parking there would be difficult. Mr. Junod stressed that Henry St. John's would be closing in the spring, changing the intensity and nature of traffic, Ms. Holman thought this debatable--the school district would want to find an appropriate use for the building, and it might still create similar traffic... Also a variance would be carried with the property. Staff comment: Staff reminded the Board that in February it had voted against the appeal , as had the BZA:. Staff at that time had recommended approval, feeling the deficiency in parking was offset by the greater benefit of locating a doctor in ,the downtown area. The issues remain the same. Recommendation: Approval . Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend APPROVAL. He explained that he felt parking was not a`significant difficulty since there is adequate public parking very close by. Mr. Sampson seconded. Discussion followed over the upcoming proposals by Reconstruction Home. Also, Mr. Sampson said his personal experience was that parking was not a rough problem in the immediate area. Vote: 2-0-1 abstention (Rogers) .