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) .