HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-08-24 MINUTES
Planning & Development Board
August 24, 1982
PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers, Vice-chair S. Cummings, R, Holdsworth, R. Moran,
M. Sampson, E. Stage
ALSO: J, Meigs, H. Sieverding, J. Pierce, H. Jones, P. Trowbridge, Mayor
Shaw, Press, Appellants, Appellants' representatives, Other interested
parties
1. Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
2. 'West End/-Inlet Island Redevelopment: Joey Pierce explained that six months
ago several people approached the Planning Dept, who were interested in
developing in the West End. This interest, combined with the market potential
indicated in a 1981 American Cities Corp. report, suggested the need for a
comprehensive plan for development, rather than have one individual's schemes
; negating another's. A joint project between the City and private developers
was foreseen, one that would create a West End image. With the approval of
Council , the, design team of Trowbridge-Trowbridge was engaged_
The design process set for them and department staff covered eight major
steps:
1, Review of existing conditions
2. Formulation of development objectives
3. Design program
4. Design constraints
5. Land use plan/public review
6, Overall design plan
7. Specific components in the overall design plan
8. Preparation of architectural guidelines for the implementation
of the design plan
The time schedule was geared to completion °_of this process by this fall , .
as interest by developers was high. The process was o m:schedule, and
tonight's presentation would cover items 6 and 7. Mr. Pierce stressed
that the plan was still on paper, revisions could be made, and further
changes made in working with the individual developers, He also asked that
Rt. 96 be thought of as a separate issue--the highway and West End
redevelopment are interconnected, but the design assumes both phases of
Rt. 96 will be built, yet is not contingent on thei-r being built.
Peter Trowbridge then presented the Cayuga Inlet"'Island design plan
with the help of slides. He reviewed the process as presented to the
Board in July':.. a survey of prior West End studies, several case studies
of waterfront development, and a survey of.existing s1te ''coadi,tions which
included structural integrity, appropriateness of building use to area,
circulation & vehicular patterns, the condition of bulkheads on the inlet,
etc. Mr. Trowbridge pointed out that the 10-12 acres under consideration
were unique in the city -the only area with a waterfront edge.
Planning � Development Board
Minutes-- August 24, 1982 2.
Mr. Trowbridge then outlined the land use plan developed in consultation
with the Board's Economic Development Committee and- staff. Land uses
include office/craft, active recreation, mixed-use, housing, marina,
retail and hotel . The design envisions a 2-.Phase project; ;the-first
phase would be Taughannock Blvd. from State St, west, which is about
half the island, and has a large area owned by the City. This phase
has a 1- :to`2-year time frame, and is the heart of the project.
-From south to north, the proposed design breaks down thus:
A. South of Buffalo--narrowness of parcels makes this area less:
developable; development is seen mainly on the Cayuga Inlet edge,
somewhat on Six Mile Creek; mainly office/craft and mixed uses , green space.
B. North of Buffalo St.--much more developable; from south to north:
1. Park -where Buffalo connects with Rts. 89 & 96, creating an
image for a city entrance.
2. Improvement of intersection at Taughannock Blvd. & State St.
(trees, lights, curbs etc. )
3. Mixed-use developments along T,au,g,h.annock Blvd. (Lehigh Valley__
',House is a current example of such development) ___ /
4. Taughannock Boulevard corridor: Improved infrastructure, repaving,
public walkways, etc. creating one of the two faces for buildings
(other is waterfront) ; creation of a pedestrian pattern in shape
of a donut tied into
5. Inlet--Boardwalk and a 2nd-story height pedestrian bridge
6. Hotel--on west side.of Taughannock;' location strengthens
Taughannock as the central corridor; parking in back.
7. Housing--to create an ongoing day-round residential life:
Muse Housing between Taughannock and Flood Channel ; Court
Housing on east' side of Inlet
8. Farmers Market--relocated to green space at area NE of Buffalo
& Flood Channel .
9. Marina development
. 10. Island Park at north tip of island, preserving significant
views
Also, a. linear park would be created from .the State's easement on
the Flood Channel edge.;
Mr. Trowbridge presented a drawn aerial view of what the design would
look like. (See attachments.) . He said the design was just the tip
of the iceberg, a first step i.n the implementation process. Mr.
Rogers added that the design had been,developed not only in consultation
with Planning Board members and staff, but with developers in the area.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes August 24, 1982 3.
Discussion followed. Ms. Cummings asked what consideration had been
given Central Casting theater,faciliti.es;. pointing out it was a major
generator of winter evening traffic. Mr. Pierce replied it had been
discussed; as a public space it was difficult to find funding monies
for it; there was the possibility of some renovation of the space.
Ms. Cummings replied it was a vital activity and had not been indicated
as a possibility in the design plan; Mr. Meigs felt as a land use it
would fit the mixed-use development, but agreed the theater should be
made an explicit part of the urban design.
Ms. Cummings asked about, the'hotel 's 5_story height ° Mr.. Trowbridge explained
that the design recommends stepping the hotel .back (starting at 1-story,
then a 3-story, and furthest in a 5-story structure) to preserve the design
integrity of the Station Restaurant and to remain in scale with the
neighboring structures. He felt the height creates a focal point, and
a viewpoint. The suggested massing is just a design consideration, with
economic considerations on size based on ACC report--it might not fit
engineering/construction needs. Ms. Cummings felt that putting the hotel
frontage on the street was a possible loss to a waterfront feel . Mr.
Trowbridge replied the alternative was a 200 car parking lot defining the
street; Ms. Cummings agreed a lump of parking was unattractive, and
worried about its effect on the waterfront. It was pointed out that
the hotel 's ground floor included small-scale retail , and would help
create business on the street.
Trowbridge-Trowbridge did an existing parking survey; the design takes
that and new parking needs into consideration. An member,--of the public
asked about parking for the Farmer's Market. The design attempts to
begin defining public lots, but parking will be at a premium. Mr. Pierce
said that as Market is a peak parking demand for 4-5 hours on Saturdays
during 3 months of the year, the area would have to be faced with an over-
demand of parking at those times; some attempt to minimize the impact has
been made. Trowbridge pointed out that public space just west of the Station
can serve as an overflow lot.- 'MarkZaharis' commented that the Market brings
people to the West End, but no trade to other businesses. Another businessman
felt it restricts trade on Saturdays, and while vital to the community, should.
be relocated to a better spot, suggesting Cass Park. Mr. Trowbridge replied
its. lack of 'visibility makes it unviable. Ms. Cummings asked if shifting
the Farmers Market within the West End would change the parking layout/needs.
Mr. Meigs said the space allocation looked roughly the same; Mr. Pierce
foresaw hotel parking space conflict. Trowbridge suggested the market
could run more days/week in the space, or change its size,
Mr. Holdsworth asked what the next step would be if the Board agreed to
the urban design plan. Mr. Pierce referred to the resolution he passed
out--the design would be approved as a guide to development in the West
End and Board would recommend its adoption by Common Council and
the initiation of several steps by the City to seek: funds for public
improvements and improve development possibilities.
Ms. Cummings asked what happened to the plan to seek UDAG funding®
Mr. Pierce replied the'deci:sion to seek a UDAG was several months
away; the program has one more year of funding, running out in October
1983. For. ARC funding a pre--appl ;cation has to be in by September 1.
It may be possible to submit a UDAG proposal in February 1983-for May
approval . In the interim devel'oper's plans can be worked out, and
a more comprehensive UDAG request will result.
Planning &Development Board
Minutes -- August 24 1982 `4.
Mr. Rogers asked if the department could proceed on the project within its
present staffing. Mr. Pierce thought yes; there are a large number of things
the department can be doing, it was a question of prioritization and this
project has a lot to offer. Ms. Cummings added that judging by the high
quality of the results thus far, the staff has been able to find the time to
devote to the project.
Mr. Rogers asked what was left for the designers to do. Two things., said
Mr. Pierce: 1) if the Board accepts the design, make a presentation to
Council ; and 2) develop architectural guidelines to assist the City in
implementation of the design. These guidelines would cover: physical
layout (siting and massing of buildings) , appropriate kinds of architecture
so that the buildings would interact with each other, and various
development controls. This would be the last 10 percent of the contract,
tonight's presentation equalled about 90 percent.
A question was made concerning state-owned waterways at the far tip and
along the Flood Channel . Mr. Pierce said they had talked with the State,
suggesting a linear park for the 30-foot easement. The State's reaction
was they Want _a_-c-hance toreviewthe design, but felt it could be done as
long as'their maintenance vehicles could have access along the easement,
It was asked if an 80-room hotel was an optimum size for a profit enterprise.
Mr. Pierce replied the design does not attempt to say what size is best for
the market,.'- The 80-room size is a suggestion from the American City Corp.
market study. As a subsidiary of the Rouse Co. , who have much experience in
hotel development, it seems reasonable. However the private developer would
have to do his own feasibility study. Ms. Cummings added that there was
also the sense that besides rooms, a sizeable conference facility was needed
downtown. Mr. Pierce agreed, especially if the hotel was 'to` prosper i,n. the
winter. season. Mr. Trowbridge explained greater than 50% of the ground floor
is reserved for conference and the atrium.
Ms. Cummings moved, and Mr. Holdsworth seconded that,
WHEREAS, the 1971 General Plan for the City of Ithaca recommends that water- and
tourist-related redevelopment take place in the Cayuga Inlet- Island
area, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of Ithaca created in 1974 the Marine Commercial Zoning
District to encourage the type of development recommended in the
General Plan, and
WHEREAS, a market study performed by the American City Corporation in 1981 confirmed
the feasibility and demand for such development in the west end of the
City, and
WHEREAS, there has been expressed considerable interest by_private developers to
invest in the area, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has hired an urban design team to prepare a land use
and design plan for the Inlet- Isiand area to guide private development ,
and such team has worked closely with the Planning and Development Board
and staff as well as private developers , and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has reviewed the plan submitted by the
design team,
Planning & Development Board
Minutes August 24, 1982 5
NOW, THEREFORE,` BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board finds the
Cayuga Inlet- Island , Redevelopment Project to be in the public interest
with significant public benefits likely in terms of jobs created, property
and sales tax revenues , increased tourism, public amenities, and quality
of life for the City of Ithaca, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the .Planning and Development Board does hereby accept
and approve the urban design plan as submitted, with minor revisions,
as the development pl.an to guide private and public construction in the
Cayuga Inlet-Island area,, and
i
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board does hereby recommend '
to Common Council that it accept and approve said plan, with revisions
as the development guide for the West End; that it authorize the Planning
and Development Department to proceed into the implementation stage of
the redevelopment project; that it initiate steps to alienate City-owned
land along Taughannock Boulevard in accordance with state and federal
Laws and regulations ; that it support. the submission of a grant application :
to the Appalachian Regional Commission to secure funds to assist in the
provision of ,n.eeded public improvements in the area; and that it begin
review of the question of City involvement financially in the provision of
needed public improvements as private development commitments are made.
Motion carried 5-0-1 abstention (Rogers) .
The Board commended Trowbridge-Trowbridge on 'the high quality of their work
and the speedy delivery of results,
Mr. Pierce said the recommendation would now probably go to the Planning &
Development Committee of Council for their action.
3. Collegetown Project Update: Herman Sieverding reported that zoning and
traffic/parking studies were well underway. Recommendations from. the
traffic consultant, especially on parking, would be incorporated into the
final zoning recommendations. A relationship has been established with
Stirling/Wilford, architects for Cornell 's Performing Arts Center, to
create an urban design for the Collegetown Redevelopment Area (Cascadilla
Gorge-College-Dryden-Eddy) , help in-,creating design criteria for the outer
Collegetown area (Stewart-State-Mitchell,'Elmwood.'Cascadilla Gorge) , and
a model of the area.
There will be meetings in early September with Stirling/Wilford, Travers
Associates (the traffic consultants) . Developer selection has started--
3 proposals were received: two local (Travis/Travis and Abbott-McGuire)
and one New York City-based (The George A. Fuller Co. , a construction
company) . There have been two meetings of the Collegetown Developer
Selection Committee; they are hoping to come to a conclusion within
the next two weeks and make a recommendation to Council for designation
of a developer.
An important component of Collegetown redevelopment is zoning. Studies
of the last two years make it clear that a new look is needed at the
area's zoning. Carol Chock is :completing a study of zoning strategies
for Collegetown; Mr. Sieverding asked that the Board set up a committee
Planning & Development Board
Minutes August 24, 1982 6.
to review the study and extend it.
Carol Chock presented a brief summary of her study. She started with
earlier studies (1971 General Plan, UDC proposal , 1978 Dept. study, 2
ACC studies) , and they all agreed on the general problems in the area:
parking, traffic & pedestrian circulation, underutilization in commercial.
area. (Eddy St. etc. ) , poor visual image and housing supply and character.
Housing has been under conversion., pressure, and commercial activity
is spreading along Dryden Road into residential areas. Current and
past land-Use maps are compared and the current zoning examined to see
how it has perpetuated 'or created these and other problems. She
pointed out on a map the current zones: P-1, R=3b and the commercial
zones B-2a and B-2b, (both of which permit the same types of uses , but
have different requirements in parking, off-street loading, etc.)
There is design review, but currently it is advisory, not mandatory, and
only applies to the heavier-use zone, B-2b.
Problem areas here seem to be parking and intensity of use, the existence
of two disunited commercial areas, and conversion pressure on noncommercial
properties. One way to stop the last is to allow greater concentration of
use within the Collegetown Redevelopment area. Visual problems could be
partly addressed by mandatory design review. Flexible parking strategies
could be explored, and more' parking`requ+red in these zones.
These are some of the alternatives explored in the study:
1. Create a special public interest district: Collegetown is a unique .area,
with reasons to be protected. This option could be used a) in
conjunction with the present zoning ordinance, or b) `through the
creation of the district's own, more flexible, zone.
2. Extend B-2b along Dryden
3. Extend B-2b along Dryden but revise its requirements (such as the
current parking waiver, and advisory status of design review) .
4. A new zone patterned after existing zoning
5. Flexible zoning--making special conditions for various types of
development (e.g. making design review mandatory) .
6. Incentive zoning--ordinance: has specific listed ooncessions for
preferred uses (e.g. , height limit raised, tax abatement, etc.)
7. Impact zoning--less specific concessions, negotiated process
8. Overlay zoning--combination of zones, developer applies for one he
wants, at a threshold the proposal would be considered under the
zone with stricter.requirements.
A 30-page report on these strategies will be made available in the next
few weeks.
Planning & Development Board
Minutes.. August 24, 1982 7,
There -was discussion over which committee °should work on the zoning
study, as most of the Board's committeeshave-jurisdictional concerns
in the matter. Mr, Sieverding asked that a committee be designated
soon to begin review, and Mr. Rogers said he would appoint one.
Mr. Meigs pointed out that .tremendous amount of work went into this
study, and the committee will need a lot of time to discuss and refine
it. Mayor Shaw added that although the two ACC reports only contained
a brief paragraph on zoning, they made it clear that private'and public
expenditures in the area could only be effective with a change in zoning.
Mr. Sieverding noted that we have two highly professional expert agencies in
Stirling/Wilford and Travers Associates who could help with designing
new zoning for this area.
- - - - - - --- - - - -
Mr. Rogers notified BZA appellants that zoning appeals would be heard
at 9:00 pm so that the matter of a Rothschilds/Al:lied UDAG application
could be considered.
4. Rothschilds/Allied UDAG: Mayor Shaw presented the plan. to apply for an
Urban Action Development Grant to secure Dey Brothers of the Allied Dept. -
Store chain as tenants for the vacant Rothschilds building, He outlined
the City's involvement over the past several months i`n a search for a
tenant. The City had been advisory ,to the Tompkins County Industrial
Development Agency, who own the building and lot, and the four local and
two non-local banks who helped finance Rothschilds. The Re"Start
Rothschilds committee put together by the Mayor examined to varying
degrees qualifications of various possible tenants. Early on it was
decided to seek a-full-line quality department store to take over the
entire building. Dey Brothers is preferred by the committee and the
banks and TCIDA. They are a Syracuse-based department store which
belongs to a major national chain--Allied Stores (who have Bonwit Taylor,
Garfinkels and others) . It.-is felt that Dey Bros/Allied have the
financial skills and abilities to maintain a full-line store in the
downtown.
Four meetings this week, and a public hearing on August 30th, are
beinj.-asked to review a possible UDAG application to the Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development. A UDAG is a grant to the City which
is loaned to a specific developer at terms negotiated between the
two. Itis paid back to the City. A $500,000 'UDAG is being considered.
Dey Brothers, according to Mayor Shaw, are the leading contender, but
others are not being ruled out.
Mr. Sieverding added that UDAGs require a specific amount of private .
money being committed to a project. One advantage to this quickly
put-together UDAG proposal (since the beginning of August) is that
the new forms are shorter and to the point.
Ms. Cummings clarified that the UDA,G's purpose was primarily structural
changes to the building to create more sales floor space; since a
national chain did not need the amount of office space currently
existing, and the amount of sales space is too low to be economically
feasible.
The UDAG must be postmarked by August 31 to be considered in the, next
fiscal quarter. After submission the City will have 30-60 days to refine
Planning & Development Board
Minutes - August 24, 1982 `8.
the proposal . A decision is expected in November.
Mayor Shaw said the information he could present now would soon be out-of
date as negotiations continue. He applogized for the awkwardness of
coming to the Board at this point it time. Mr. Meigs asked if the Mayor
wanted any support or endorsement expressed by the Board. He replied no,
he was reporting on the UDAG possibility for the Board's information at
this point. He, felt an option was being kept open for a UDAG, but
the City could decide not to submit one at the last minute.
5. Zoning Appeals - see attached
6 A-P,p-ro-va-l--of--tin-ut-es-: -June minutes were approved as written (7-0) .
7. ARC grant proposals: Mr. Pierce explained that Common Council Authorized
the department to prepare and submit ARC pre-applications subject to
the review.and approval of the Planning Board and the Planning & Development
Committee of Council . Staff met the previous week with the Committee
(.3 Board members were also in attendance) and narrowed their list down
to three possibilities, based on their talks with the Southern Tier
East Regional Planning &Development Board, who will prioritize the
ARC pre-applications in this region Originally it was estimated there
would be $600-700 thousand available in this region, now it appears to
be in the $1-1z million range. It is important for the City to rank
its applications; there is an excellent chance that one will be approved,
a good chance that two could be. The Board is being asked to give its
ranking tonight, and the Planning Committee tomorrow night. The
resultant ranking will be forwarded with the pre-applications to STERPDB.
Ms. Cummings asked how the Rothschilds UDAG would affect the ARC application
for the Rothschilds building. Mr. Pierce thought it might help; he also
felt the Rothschilds ARC pre-application was likely to be weaker than
the Cayuga Inlet Island and the Collegetown pre applications.
He stressed that the ranking has an impact .on project consideration
by STERPDB, and the State.
The Rothschilds pre-application is for energy conversion; West
End seeks to pay half the cost of the Phase I public improvements; the
Collegetown is keyed to public improvements as well
A vote by the Board resulted in thi's ranking: 1) Rothschilds, 2)Cayuga
Inlet/Island Redevelopment, 3) Collegetown Redevelopment;
Mr. Rogers took the opportunity to -commend Joey Pierce on behalf of the
Board for all the fine work he has done, and wish him well on his new job.
B. Miscellaneous: Mr. Meigs reported that he had checked for legal
requirements that the Planning Board review Zoning Appeal cases.
He hadn't found any. Staff will continue to look for ways to minimize
the problems encountered in hearing zoning appeals and report back
to .the Board.
g. Adjournment: Motion was made and meeting adjourned at 11:55 pm.
N O T E S.
Rti. rte`+._ I •els// Y ����
P R 0 O R A M I
PHASE ONE
80 Room Hold \ - -- - —
qp,/ice/ � �/•
7500*,@.Retail
Rehab.011ica
30 Condominlums - \ /:. -_' _ r•- _ 11
Rental Housing
3000 sl.Marina Showroom // -- - - �r +° •1 -
i -
4000e1.Mann Sales ._:�+ - - .� •..
Publlc Dock �_\\ 1 l� - � _!•�. •% '� .��-11..1-._....1
Dinar owl SwNta - '• :�'. w �..
Farmers Markel ' /\ \'�: _I.I /
Lints Park -1 1 _ Car was
Public Urban Space
Natural Pak
TTTTTT���� t•
Impraed Tauyhannock 111"
Public Parking
PHASE TWO _/ _ t _- r i / LeNyh N
V nay CC)
5000 al.Retell +V• \
Otho/Celt Industry - •tae Rddt house N
COndorninlunia
flental Housingi �:/ - O•� a — ..--_ Tsuilhannoc - c0
li''�' •. i r Qr
Perlphwa 511e01 Improvement N'
(' 1Qt �ec•/ / _ V � Mlud Uaa Lwn �
A y O r_
A E
I N L E T
U-0 ro
\ i 4,. - o
/ i`.� .•�. `_ •' '' -- Nulls
/ /Mall Bata—'\ • PCS
� talion TCTCr—
• • r I IGAas
• d
• O
Fulton
/--2—_lF —fir 1 --scale r.AO' — t
C AY U G A INLET AND ISLAND 4°•Md;E'r�ba�Eir` DGE Design ehee, }
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Ithaca. Nae Ydrk 607 2770587 Development I S
4
qODER TRANCIK
CITY OF ITHACA. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IYhen DetlO•Cdne907
Ilhw, New York ltu 256 N87
I ' �
log %ww
son
■ r __
AM Hill
a
ills
anu��D�� ����r�`jCltlf�lf}711IfRR'�.@�+ � �•. • --a
�lGi ��ti ��M__ y n - �" r;i3 �t"` at+dii' ��',�, _ a►,rr _ s..� +� _
����� '"�`' ' � ■�'+�r� �i � � � ,*..:� �,�I _ - �. it \
* �.
1
sting conditions
re e
rence map
yl-
A" I �Y,�•�i
�� C u, ^'l,�j � � � --- Yom' (� •—t',.. ,
f.
ttj
t��-_ 11 c I �� �� � 1►.�..i `1 _Q � - %►��. ' ::� � - �" ��r"�'"• � � • .,
_.� f ;�� - I � -�J��/- / � SSV. � �oo[" '�-�-.•' � 11
' may .j
icy `r =� --- •
v
wr
vk
„•. \�Mi 1 /(. G,.. .j_� - r .0 0 _ R OLp.00 - -3 -- f .00� �.
4�.(����� "\� '" • 1 C • i O r, �•I IES
�,-� � -�"\ % .- / 4 T. a —� �.� ' 'i•:— V`Lr,[ ^"� \ , •
�� '! _ =:oe0000Boeac o00� c�—� L� � ICI - {•�_�3�i.. EE1 '7� t� � •,�,
*� �Y ,},5:^ oga onoc fins ��gosc Iran,,. _�•3 .1 •r �.
vs
r
\ti rig' I -
/���-;i--. / � •- _ — _ - 1�"�`'wl�...•r,,..__ :, �,.� _ '�—__�' .`tel, �� Fyp: - ~•� �._ ■1,1�
/ L r �" �y� --- .0?4,lei .ry��L•�U�y^!1n'Yllll'71���,��- ...;.�_ r�---11���i'� .\ ....t b�� �,,, � •
74 wou•I 1937
C AY U G A INLET AND ISLAND ;p•;���� ; Aerial •host
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1Nu•IIOok"96nef View O
IIMc•, Now Yat B07 777 0307
ROGER TRANCIK
CITY Of ITHACA. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT Of PLANNINO AND DEVELOPMENTIMh.n Desw Ca"Latanl
Ilh"a, Now Yak 607 254 4401 ��
I .
'; 3 � Iy,I� L'" � - '.•�;f�"`•,�- i it►� '•a� �l`��1���i� '"l` �
� � ( eft.` ape• � I�. MMb { ' a - ,�w',�. r,c� ,�11 _f.
III I� - _// _� ..(.' '�' Ia�:`3�' _ `` '1�' Y-1fS71I 1 •'% r ��.'''"NY. //��•y��r_bi+�, ,µh. � 1
yYn11 i ..
N. 'COURT HOUSING Y.WPNOVEDY. CAYUOA WLET -- d.CAYUGA INLET -
.CAYUGA INLETTAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD (WEST EDGE EAST EDGE
' ���99911LllrLLIlLLL1y1111 �1[;;.� -__
�1 � YY M•�1� I` ll I ��x�y. Y t/ '��� 1 1 I
-
_
I ll Vii. �•--�, x...r. ', r, �.� '�,�. 6 ,,
4. STATION RESTAURANT 1.IMPROVEDDT g•DINNER BOAT b.LINEAR PARK
{HOTEL TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD DOCK '
A FLOATING DOCK
RY U G A INLET AND ISLAND OWBRIOGE-T OWBRIOGE -j Design
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1�'�Y k 607 0547 111ustiative
ROGER TRANCIK -
CITY Or ITHACA. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Urban MHpn Com.11 l
Ilh°ra. NwY ft* 607 256 4487 �� 24 ,d W2
Planning & Development. Board
ZONING APPEALS
august 24, 1982
The Board began hearing of appeals at 9:00 pm.
APPEAL 1456:
Appeal of Reconstruction Home, Inc. for consideration of Area Variances
to permit construction of an addition to the existing building at
318 S. Albany St. which exceeds the number of stories, height, and lot
coverage permitted, The property is in an R-3a district, in which
the proposed use and existing nursing home use is permitted. A Neighborhood
Improvement and Housing Committee report will be presented.
Planning issues: Land use permitted and compatible, subject to considerations of
design.
Home's economic position could be improved by larger capacity; some
construction and staff jobs will contribute to local economy.
Addition of up to 48 nursing beds, which may make some standard
housing available in the community.
Some increase likely in traffic, due mainly to increased staff/visit(
Loss of visual amenity and addition of activity to neighborhood.
Substantial visual impact, building proposed will occupy currently
open space.
Provision of additional nursing beds likely to benefit community
by permitting elderly to remain -near relatives and friends.
Committee report: Ms. Cummings reported that the Neighborhood Improvement and
Housing Committee had met August 17 with Reconstruction Home representatives
and the architects to answer questions raised at the previous Board meeting.
(See attached memorandum.) The committee had offered the appellants the choice
of 1) waiting to receive approval from the State for a specific number of beds,
then presenting to. the Board a specific design proposal based on this; or
2) a general plan for design alternatives, and indication by the Planning
Board as to which alternatives it would find favorable, if any. Appellants
chose to proceed with the second alternative. Ms. Cummings read the memorandum
to the Board, with the committee recommendation, commenting that they left the
technical matter of the appeal 's official status as such to the BZA. She said
the recommendation reflected their feeling that the best alternative presented
had been the 5-story for 120 beds--if there were to be fewer beds, the
committee would like to see less building height; and that screening from
residential surroundings (especially 'of the--service areas fronting Fayette
St. ) be formally addressed in the design and the appeal . She added that
it was the committee's understanding that this was not a formal' - appeal ,
and the recommendation was the best response committee fblt',it could make
in that case.
Public. comment: Beverly Baker; 320 S. Geneva, a long-term resident at that address,
highly objected to a 5-story building. Although.she was very aware of the need
for health care, she felt the expansion was creating a business area out of
a residential zone. Ms. Cummings replied that the committee had looked at
alternatives, and issues of lot coverage and solar access, and felt the
5-story alternative more desirable. Ms. Baker asked that the neighborhood be
included in discussion of this proposal ; she said no -residents had realized
a 5-story building was being contemplated. She also wanted a specific
proposal to respond to.
ZONING APPEALS Aug , 1982
ust 24 2.
Board comment: Mr. Holdsworth moved to disapprove the 'appeal ' , saying he felt.
it did not merit approval or disapproval as it was not formal ; he strongly
objected to this process, and felt it wasted time for hearing legitimate
appeals. No second appeared.
Ald. Elva Holman asked if a plan was to be presented. Ms. Cummings recommended
that the Board treat this as:a formal appeal for the most intensive design
alternative (5 stories) .
Tony Egner, architect for the Reconstruction Home, replied that he had not
been asked during the course of the meeting tonight to present anything; but
was ready to. Building Commissioner Hoard explained that Mr. Egner had come
to see him months ago with design questions; Mr. Hoard had recommended that
he bring options before the boards concerned to see what is acceptable,
before drawing up expensive plans. Ms. Cummings asked if this proposal was
following the usual appeal process. Mr. Hoard said that the' same process
had been used before--e.g. , on a North Tioga St. proposal--and he felt this
allowed better planning:Mr. Meigs asked Mr. Hoard if he considered this
essentially a test, and that later an official appeal would be prepared`,
advertised, and the neighborhood have opportunity for additional input.
Mr. Hoard replied no; he felt that the Board was being asked to approve a
design alternative now.
Ms. Cummings concluded this was in actuality a formal proposal that will not
again come before the Board, except in the case of appealing changes. She
asked .if the Board felt able to recommend approval or disapproval of the
option that will exceed height requirements; and wanted`the neighbors notified
that they may appear before the BZA on September 13.
Appellant comment: Mr. Egner, architect, explained the design process. While the
most efficient course was to design a 3-story alternative within the zoning
requirements, which might be desirable in terms of neighborhood impact, a
design requiring variances might be more desirable. He felt the 5-story
alternative offered better solar access and its setback allowed for land-
scaping with trees and better visual quality, including some open area
under the nursing floors at ground level. It isnot their intention to
do anything way beyond the zoning ordinance; they wanted approval of a design
option. Tom Reis, architect, and Jerry Lutkenhouse; the Home's administrator,
were here to answer questions.
Egner and Reis then presented the site plan with a brief description of the
process that led to the.:.three alternatives they were proposing. It was
decided to use the newer part of the existing unit for administration, and
only build new for the nursing units. The alternatives are a 3-story
building, a 4-story, and a 5-story. Site plans of these and elevations
that showed height relationships to buildings on surrounding streets were
presented.
In response to Ms. Baker's questions, Ms. Cummings pointed out that as 40
feet of height is permitted in the zone, appellant was asking only for 10
feet additional to that; and that the use is already permitted.
Mr. Egner said the 1919 building was 'being"preserved; until a compatible
use is found. Two others are being demolished; and the 2-story building from
the 1960s is being converted to administration, with a wing converted to
technical facilities. Architect had decided not to build above the one-
story portion, because phasing of construction would result in loss of
ZONING APPEALS August 24, 1982 3.
Home patients, revenue, and longer term disturbance of neighborhood and
patients.
Ald. Holman suggested that the Reconstruction Home Beard hold a public
informational meeting prior to the BZA. hearing.
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend approval of a five-story, 120-bed addition
to the Reconstruction Home, not exceeding fifty feet in height, and otherwise
of dimensions and and location on site similar to Alternative 3' of the
schematic designs presented with Appeal 1456; and
that in the event the Home does not receive approvals from the State of New
York for more than a total of 105 beds, this Board recommends approval of an
addition of no more than four stories with approximately the same site plan
as shown in 'Alternative 3' ; and
that this Board strongly advises that any proposal presented to the BZA for
final consideration in conjunction with an official appeal for variance contain
and show clearly and explicitly measures intended to enhance the finished
project as seen or otherwise experienced from the surrounding family residential
properties. Such measures should include the rentention of existing mature
trees, shrubbing and plantings to help screen and soften the visual impacts
of new structures, parking and service areas; the location and screening of
service, storage and kitchen areas to help minimize the impacts of noise
generated by normal activi°ties in such areas; and baffling, filtering or
dispersing odors resulting from food preparation activities.
Mr. Sampson seconded, with the understanding that the 50 ft. limit in height
does not include the elevator or stairwell .
Discussion followed over the lack of public notification for this meeting.
Mr. Hoard, acting on an opinion from the City Attorney, decided renotification
of property owners was not necessary, sincethe appeal had been properly
notified for:the July meeting, and officially deferred by this Board at
that meeting until the regular August meeting. Mr. Holdsworth was still
concerned about the lack of neighborsat tonight's meeting. The Board
therefore directed appellant to renotify property owners before the BZA
meeting, and to request BZA to give special attention to hearing the
public on the matter of neighborhood impact of this appeal .
Motion carried-, 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Holdsworth) , and 1 abstention (Rogers) ;
it was noted with the motion that decision was made without renotification,
which is however not required.
Ms. Cummings noted that much confusion in handling this appeal could have
been avoided if it had been originally presented as the offical appeal it is.
SIGN APPEAL 9-1-82
Appeal oft, E, Weaver for Variance under Sec. 34,5 (commercial
signs in residential districts) , and Sec, 34,8 A (sign setbacks
in residentialdistricts) of the 'Sign Ordinance to permit erection
of a thirty-two square foot commercial sign within ten feet of the
public right-of-way -at-'490 Floral Ave, (Glenside Monument Company) .
The proposed sign is larger than the five square foot maximum
permitted for a commercial sign in the R-3a district in which
the property is located (though smaller than the existing one) and
would be too close to the public right-of-way,
ZONING APPEALSAugust 24,_1982 4,
L. E. Weaver, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Existing business is grandfathered as land use.
Neighborhood effects: Business is quite, obvious due to outside
display of products (gravestones) and two very large signs, one
of which is an (illegal ) roof sign.
Nature of business is quite apparent and proposed sign would
not substantially improve visual appearance.
Appellant comment: Appellant would like to replace existing sign with a smaller
sign of 4' x 6' , which size he feels is necessary to preserve the yew- bushes
in front.
Ms. Cummings pointed out that the property has two existing signs, well in
excess of the ordinance which requires one sign not to exceed 5 SF coverage.
Appellant said he was willing to remove the second sign, which is located
on the roof.
Public comment: None appeared.
Board comment: Appellant commented company has been in location since 1946, and
was never notified of the sign ordinance. Ms. Cummings responded that there
was a lengthy transition period after the ordinance was passed; the Board has
enforced it rigorously as appeals have come up.
Staff comment: The company has long been in existence, has a display of monuments
on the front lawn there are no surrounding businesses; and even with the
removal of the roof sign, proposed sign is in substantial variation from
standards of Sign Ordinance with wh chthe majority of signs now comply.
Recommendation: Denial .
There.was discussion of preserving existing sign as an historic sign, which would
require refurbishing the painted porcelain. Owner ruled this option out,
as existing sign says company is an authorized "Rock of Ages" dealer, which
it no longer is.
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend denial ; seconded by Mr. Sampson. Ms.
Cummings felt a 1' x 5' sign could sufficiently advertise the business
in this location. Motion carried, 4 in favor, 2 opposed (Holdsworth,
Stage) and 1 abstention (Rogers) .
APPEAL 1,462
Appeal of F, C. Flannery for Area Variances for deficiencies in off-street
parking, lot size, lot coverage and setbacks for two front yards, one side
yard and rear yard, to permit continued use of the two-story residential
building at 329-31 N. Geneva St. as a multiple dwelling. The property is
in an R-3a district, in which the use is permitted; however, since "grandfather
rights" as a preexisting non---conforming multiple dwelling had not been
established at the time of the zoning change, appellant must obtain Area
Variances for the deficiencies before a Certificate of Compliance can be
issued for the property.
ZONING APPEALSL August _24, 1982 5.
F. C. Flannery, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Land use compatible, existing, permitted.
Economic: denial of variance could have negative effects
on property maintenance, as family tenancy might not permit
positive cash flow.
Property lacks off-street parking.
Neighborhood effects: none, other than possible increase in
on-street parking demand.
Would continue the non-family characteristics of occupancy.
Appellant comment Appellant.,acquired building 3 years ago, has been using
as apartments for students; and would like to continue this use. In bringing
building up to code, he discovered building had not been approved as non-
conforming multiple residence and is seeking area variances.
Mr. Rogers clarified that the building has two 5-BR apts. , and 10 tenants.
Public comment: None appeared.
Staff recommendation: In view of circumstances, appeal should be granted with
provision for the required parking; if parking not provided, occupancy
should be limited to six adults.
Board comment: Parking provision was discussed; appellant said tenants currently
had one` car. Ms. Cummings explained that appellant should bring documentation
to the BZA that he could provide up to 4 parking spaces if needed.
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend. approval , with the condition: that`appellant
show ability to provide up to 4 parking spaces within 500 ft, straight-line
1000 ft pedestrian throughway (per §30.37); seconded by Mr. Sampson.
Motion carried, 570-1 abstention (Rogers) ,
APPEAL 1463
Appeal of R. Bordoni for Area Variances for deficiencies in lot coverage,
front yard setback for two front yards, one side yard, and rear yard to
permit construction of an open deck at the rear and side of the one-family
dwelling at--210'Bryant `Ave, The property is in an R>lb district, in which
the existing'use is permitted.
Ray Bordoni , appellant, appeared on' behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Land use permitted.
Improved amenity of housing,
Neighborhood effects: proposed minor side yard deficiency is not
critical because adjacent lot is vacant; ample separation would
exist to the rear,
Visual quality: deck would be elevated, and thus much more
prominent from street and adjacent property ,
Appellant comment: Appellant wishes to enhance his living conditions, He has
improved the property since owning it, and the addition of the deck. would
be attractive and enhance the neighborhood. Mr, Bordoni had received 2
letters and other comments in support of his appeal , and no negative
responses from neighbors,
ZONING APPEALAugust 24, 1982
S 6.
Mr. Rogers clarified that only a deck was under consideration.
Public comment: A letter from John Lychok, 108 Ithaca Road, in favor, and
one from R. James Miller, 213 Bryant, in favor, were read.
Staff recommendation: Approval .
Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend approval ; seconded by Mr. Sampson.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
APPEAL 1464
Appeal of N. Scoones for a Use and Area Variances for deficiencies in lot
width, front yard, and minimum side yard setbacks to permit conversion of
single family residence at 109 Elston P1 . to a multiple dwelling. The
property is in an R-2a district, in which the proposed use is not permitted;
therefore appellant must obtain a Use Variance for the proposed use, as well
as Area Variances for the deficiencies before a permit can be issued for the
proposed conversion.
Jim Kerrigan, 300 N. Tioga, attorney for appellant, appeared on behalf of this
appeal .
Planning issues: Land use not permitted, but probably compatible.
Possible economic hardship on owner would be mitigated by addi-
tional income; city taxes would increase,
Would add two housing units , possibly increasing occupancy to a
total of 10-12 persons.
Would increase traffic at a hazardous intersection, but property
will accommodate required parking.
Neighborhood effects: increased traffic and activity.
Little visual or environmental change likely, if maintained as now is.
Increase in non-family use of area is likely.
Appellant comment: Appellant wishes to convert single-family home in an R-2a zone
to three apartments. Property is located on Elston Place, a Not City Street
terminating at the gorge; property is at the terminus. There is no connecting
street between Elston and Ferris Place. This area was rezoned 5-10 years
ago; Mr. Kerrigan argued that few properties in the zone are owner-occupied
or single-family. On land use maps prepared by himself, and by department
staff, he indicated two 3-apt, one 6-apt. and two single-family dwellings
on the near side of Ferris; he belived the far side was mainly duplexes
with the possible exception of No. 115. He also said that the BZA had
approved the building of an apartment over a garage at the Hartmanis
property. He said a number of houses fronting Elston St. are multiple
residence. Ms. Scoones has a large sideyard which would accommodate
extra parking; Elston Place is characterized by appellant as narrow and
poorly paved. Appellant is prepared to screen property from adjoining
properties. In sum, Mr. Kerrigan asked why the area is zoned R-2a when
it appears to him to better fit R-3a as it is currently used.
Board comment: Mr. Meigs stated that area deficiencies are lack of front yard
setback and (technically) street frontage. Acceptable uses in this zone
are 1- or 2-family; three apartments is not permitted, In most respects
(parking, etc.) property is adequate for proposed use, The zoning
immediately across from appellant on Elston is R-3.
ZONING APPEALS August 24, 1982 7.
Ms. Cummings wanted to know if owner was planning to sell the property,
or occupy one of the apartments. She suggested the possibility of a
2-family conversion. Mr. Meigs said such a conversion would still require
area variances.
Mr. Rogers asked if the property has been listed since July 1980; it has.
Asking price was $82,000, owner had come down to $74,000, and had received
one offer.
Public comment: Mr. Meigs announced that two letters from neighbors requesting
deferral _of the appeal had been received; but that the neighbors were in
attendance this evening.
Mr. Harold Cohen, 108 Ferris Place (adjoining appellant's property to the
rear) , read his letter in opposition to the Board. 'In addition, he noted
that the area should be seen as an enclave of single family houses .
Ginger Cohen, 108 Ferris, read the letter of Wayne & Alice Lynn of 113
Ferris Place, opposing the appeal .
George Schuler, 110 Ferris, adjacent to appellant, read his letter of
August 11 to the Board. He opposed the appeal , emphasizing the existing
family character of the neighborhood. He confirmed that the garage apart-
ment had never been built.
Ald. Nancy Schuler, 110 Ferris, stressed the delicate balance between single-
family and multiple residences in the area, and urged the Roard to hang
onto this mix by recommending denial of the appeal . She asked how many
beds would be in the three apartments.
Nancy Koschmann, 115 Ferris, spoke in opposition. She bought the house
two years ago; her two children live there. She moved in with the under-
standing that the area was zoned to remain single-family. She said all
homes on the. Elston side of Ferris are owner-occupied, including the
multiples; she wanted to know if Scoones proposal was for owner-occupation.
Mr. Cohen asked how appellant could screen out increased noise.
Ms. Cummings stated her understanding that this Board and the BZA had not
approved an R-3a use in an R-2 zone in the past several years. Mr. Meigs
and Mr. Hoard could not verify this, but recalled no such cases .
Staff comme-nt: Proposal is likely to increase the numberof dwelling units in
Ithaca; increase the density of occupancy above the standards for the
zone; and reduce the number of owner-occupied family dwellings in a
single- and two-family zone. Character of proposed use is inappropriate
for zone. - -Recommendation: Denial .
Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend denial ; seconded by Mr. Sampson.
Discussion ensued, Mr. Kerrigan did not realize that dwellings on
Ferris place were so extensively owner-occupied, and could not
forecast whether Ms. Scoones will occupy her premises or sell .
He sees Ferris Place as a separate area from Elston P1 .--only the Schulers
and the Cohens are immediately affected by the Scoones property. Mr.
Cohen agreed the two streets could be Viewed as separate areas, but that in
any case the appellant's property is on the border of both areas.
ZONING APPEALS ugust 24,- 1982 8,
Ms. Cummings explained the rationale of her motion: that the zone had
been upgraded to maintain the delicate mixture between single-family
and multiple residence uses; that there are unique attractive homes on
Elston as well as Ferris; and that the area is best served by promoting
uses which continue a mix of residential , elderly and family occupancy.
Motion carried, 4-0-1 abstention (Rogers)
APPEAL 1465: Appeal of D. Rob-ertson for a Use. Variance to permit
continued use of the first floor of the single family
resident at 606 Cascadilla St.. for a contractor's
shop and storage. The property is in an R-3b district,
in which the existing use as a contractor's shop and
storage is not permitted. This use was previously
approved as a home occupation; however, the operator
of the business no longer lives on the premises, and
a use variance is required to permit the non-conforming
use to continue.. Variances for the existing area
deficiencies were granted on January 8, 1981 but previous
appeal for Use Variance was denied on January 18, 1982.
Bruce Bard, appeallant, appeared on behalf of this appeal .
Planning Issues: Land use not permitted .or compatible.
Economic: Use and condition of property may have some
• negative effect on surrounding property, and probably
lowers market value of 606.
Housing: Shop occupies what might otherwise be a
dwelling unit; owner states that it will be reconverted
to dwelling in ten years at most.
Traffic/circulation: traffic related to this operation
certainly exceeds construction--related traffic normal
to residential areas, and is of different character.
Neighborhood Effects: Use and activity may detract from
use and enjoyment of surrounding residences.
Visual (duality: Physical condition and use-related
changes and activity are not appropriate to a residential
area.
Environmental : May have some negative effects as a
result of noise., fumes and debris.
Social : Probably has negative effects on 2nd-floor apt.
tenants, if any.
Appellant Comment: Appeal represents no structural changes in building since
�i last appeal ($1416 dated 12/16/81 ). Appellant agrees to
- terminate use of property after 10 years; he is not
residing at property; therefore, it is not a home occupa-
tion. The BZA turned down this appeal on Jan. 8; Mr.
Kerrigan felt the issue of economic hardship had not been
addressed.
ZONING APPEALS August 24, 1982 9.
Board Comment: Mr. Meigs read the Board their action last December
on this appeal : "Schlather, seconded by Sampson,
moved to recommend that the variance requested in
Appeal 1416 be granted subject to the following condi-
tions:
"l . That continuation of the present nonconforming
use on the premises be permitted for no more than
five (5) years at the most, and
2. That the use during such period be restricted
to woodworking/cabinetry.
MOTION PASSED 4-0. The Board expressed the hope that
appellant would be able to remove the shop in a
shorter time and return the lst floor to residential use. "
Mr. Meigs noted a five year termination had been
requested, not ten years. Mr.. Kerrigan had not been
-aware of this recommendation.
Staff Recommendation: DENIAL.
MOTION: By Ms. Cummings to recommend approval subject to the conditions
stated in the Board's previous decision onAppeal 1416 in December
1981 (above) . SECONDED by Mr- Sampson. MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1
(.Abstention, Rogers).
APPEAL 1466: Appeal of D. W. Dickinson for Use and Area Variances for deficient
front yard setback to permit use of the existing barn at 311 Hudson
St. for storage of furnishings, furniture, appliances, etc.
associated with a business, and storage of motor vehicles. The
property is in an R-2a district, in which the proposed use is not
permitted; therefore appellant must obtain a. Use Variance for the
proposed use, and also an Area Variance for the deficiency before
an occupancy permit can be issued for the proposed use.
Planning Issues: Land Use: Storage--not permitted or appropriate
Parking--permitted
Economic: Return from rental , etc. would help to make
retention and maintenance of this large
structure a viable proposition
Traffic/ Barn could conceivably house company vehicles
Circula- on one level . Access from Hudson is good
tion: and shouldn 't pose any special problems. How-
ever, access is also possible from Columbia
Street on a right-of-way between two adjacent
residences; more than occasional use of this
access seems undesirable.
ZONING APPEALS August 24, 1982 10,
Neighborhood Traffic of non-residential character
Effects: could downgrade neighborhood.
Visual No effects likely if activities are kept
Quality: in barn, but if they spill over to
outside, could substantially alter property's
present attractive appearance.
Appellant Comment: Appellant has a 4-apt. house with large barn. Property has
been difficult to sell ; he has a prospective buyer in Phil
White, who wishes to use barn as storage for furniture and
supplies. Mr. White would rent the basement of barn for
car storage (4-6 maximum). Mr. Rogers asked about frequency
and volume of traffic. An ella;nt: expects the only heavy
traffic to be during changeover of leases (Mr. White rents
properties) , which occurs annually in August. A small amount
of traffic for supplies such as paint, etc.
Public Comment None appeared. Appellant explained that he sent letters to
28 neighbors, had l telephone call in return, seeking informa-
tion.
Staff Comment: Barn is an importantcontributor to the attractiveness of this
property and adjacent .area, and is prominently visible from
Hudson Street.. Proposal would result in retention of a
significant design element. Addition of business-related
traffic and inactivity is inappropriate for residential neigh-
borhoods; adds off,-street parking.
Board Comment: Appellant replied this would be no good for purchaser; he
wants to maintain the barn, did not feel parking rental
would cover the purchase price of the barn.
Ms. Cummi.ngs clarified that the permitted use is an accessory
one, therefore storage related to the property only.
Mr. Holdsworth asked why the hesitation in granting a business
use. Mr. Meigs cited the addition of a nonresidential activity
related to storage in a residential neighborhood and the
traffic generated, including effects on Columbia, to the rear.
Ms. Cummings noted there is precedent by this Board that
th.i,s is not a de.sirab.le residential neighborhood use., citing
a previous appeal for a carriage house in the 400 block- of,
Aurora Street which. was dented,
Mr. White said items stored would be refrigerators , furniture,
etc, from his, rental properties; and this use would not lead
to an increase. of activity in the area. Mr. Dickinson added
that the. Columbia Street entrance is not used,
ZONING APPEALS August 24, 1982 11.
Mr. Meigs said staff is sympathetic to the problems of
maintaining the barn and still getting an economic
return. He suggested as an alternative that, if the
Board finds the business storage acceptable, such use
be permitted only so long as the barn exists to house
it, and that access for such use be restricted to
Hudson St.
Motion: By Mr. Sampson to recommend approval , with condition
that storage use be limited to inside the barn and to
rental housing items. Mr. Holdsworth seconded, adding
that the use be permitted only so long as the barn exists.
MOTION, as amended, CARRIED 4-1 (Cummings).
APPEAL 1467: Appeal of B. Bard for Use Variance and Area Variances for
deficient front yard setback, to permit use of .the vacant
storage/commercial buildings at 831 Cliff St. for a contractor's
office and warehouse. The property is in an R-3a district, in
which the proposed use is not permitted.
Planning Issues: Land Use: Not permitted or especially appropriate
in this area.
Economic: Increased income for owner
Traffic/ Minimal business-related traffic increase
circula- likely.
tion:
Neighbor- Revival of nonresidential use of property
hood would add an element not especially appropriate
Effects: to the area.
Visual No significant change anticipated, though
Quality: property would' probably be better-maintained;
no signage is currently proposed.
Appellant Comment: Mr. Bard lost a building to the fire on Taughannock Blvd.
and wants to relocate his business to the old Budget Market
property on Cliff Street. Property has been commercial
since the 1920s, although it is in an R-3 zone. He looked
at the possibility of conversion to housing, but the low
(6' - 8' ) ceilings and warehouse type construction of much
of the building make conversion infeasible. Building has
been empty eight years. Mr. Bard has been corresponding
with owner, who is in California. Owner did structural
repairs a year ago to return property to commercial use. Mr.
Bard is willing to renovate further to bring it in line with
City codes.
ZONING APPEALS August 24, 19$2 12.
His business is mainly maintenance/renovation. He
and his workers are out most of the day, and the office
would be used mainly mornings and evenings. There is
plenty of parking space on the site; use proposed would
be much less intense than previous ,retail use.
Public Comment: None appeared. Appellant said he had received no responses
to his letter of notification.
Staff Comment: While similar in some respects to Appeal 1466, the
proposed use might be more acceptable in this case due to
the fact that access is directly from a main route, and
the buildings are well-separated by distance, topographical
features and vegetation , from the nearest houses. It would,
however, add a business use to a residential area.
Board Comment: Mr. Holdsworth asked about the number of employees and whether
vehicles would be parked overnight. Appellant has 4 employees
who use their own trucks,, and appellant's 3 trucks would be
kept on the property but would be in the warehouse. Mr. Bard
said his presence on the property should insure that the
property is kept in good condition.
Staff Recommenda Approval subject to removal of front addition of ten feet or
tion: so, and provision of curb cuts for improved parking area in
order to upgrade property's appearance, eliminate setback
deficiency, and reduce traffic hazards due to unrestricted
access.
Discussion followed over what was meant by curb cuts and
whether they were necessary; what was meant is curbage in
addition to what exists in order to clearly define an ingress
and egress to the lot. Mr. Bard also objected to the removal
of the front addition, pointing out that the second storey
overhangs it; Mr. Meigs thought the addition could be removed
to the line of the overhang.
Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend approval . Second by Mr.
Sampson, with the amendment that curb cuts be provided to
clearly mark ingress and egress from the property. MOTION,
as amended, CARRIED 4-0-1 ; Abstention: Rogers..
MEMORANDdM
TO: Peter Rogers, Chairman,- Board of Planning & Development
FROM: Susan Cummings, Chairwoman, Neighborhood Improvement/
and Housing Committee JA -
RE: Committee Meeting on. Reconstruction Home
BZA Appeal 1456
DATE: August 20, 1982
Martin Sampson and I met August 17th with Jon Meigs, Tom Hoard,
and Reconstruction Home Administrator Jerome Lutkenhouse, Board member
Wally Rogers, and architects Tony Egner and Tom Reis. -
Egner pointed out that the 'Appeal ' , strictly speaking, was not intended
to be final : as indicated by the amended wording on the form, its purpose
was to 'float' an idea to find out how acceptable the desired alternative
might be, before proceeding with design development. This procedure
had been suggested by the Building Commissioner.
They expect a decision on_ how many beds will be° approved' i.n September
or so, and thus won't know until :,then how large a facility to take through
construction drawings, etc. They hope for a total of 120 beds, but may
only get 100 or so Egner said it would be possible to. design-a. facility
that wouldn't require a variance, but it would be harder to make attractive,
considering the program-and the direction that,their preliminary studies
have taken them: for instance, the three-storey alternative which they
have presented would bring the new building to the corners of the area which
is now^opven, whereas the .five-storey configuration would leave more open
area and pull a good part .of the building back from Clinton.
Reis explained the extensive work that had gone into studies which
resulted in the three alternatives presented in the appeal . It was _clear
that many of the questions asked by this committee and the Board had- been
given consideration; the discussion and explanations which he and other
representatives of the Home gave answered many- of.-our-concerns., Their
reasons for the current"set. of alternatives., and preference fore-the
5-storey one, seemed to_derive-logically from the problems of adapting
the existing facility, including considerations of patient comfort and
disruption, coupled with financial factors. One or two of the discarded
schemes had some viability, but a mostly-new facility was clearly
preferable to them. They also investigated_ boilding completely on the
open part of the site, but'.the smaller site and uncertainties of sale
and use of the old facility made that option undesirable.
While this presentation answered most of our questions, the Home's
representatives were unable to indicate what use. might be made of the old
wing (on Center St...) to be vacated..by them, other than that they would prefer
to have it occupied eventually by---a health-related organization; presumably_,`
such use would _require a further appeal ,; since it would require some parking
Reconstruction Home - 2
August 20, 1982
even if the new facility were conforming in all other respects. Regarding
screening of service areas, site landscaping and related matters , no
clear indication or assurance was givenithat such features had been or
would be given the level of design treatment that would mitigate the effects
of such a large structure on the character of an older residential
neighborhood.
Mr. Sampson and I felt that, with the preceding qualifications, the
materials and information presented formed adequate justification for the
project as outlined, and we therefore recommend as follows:
That the Board of Planning and Development indicate to the Board of
Zoning Appeals that a five-storey, 120-bed addition to the Reconstruction
Home, not exceeding fifty feet in height, and otherwise of dimensions
and location on site similar to 'Alternative 3' of the schematic
designs presented with Appeal 1456, would be favorably considered by
this Board if it were to be made the subject of an official appeal for
variance; and
that in the event the Home does not receive approvals from the State
of New York for more than a total of 105 beds , this Board would favor-
ably consider an addition of no more than four storeys with approxi-
mately the same site plan as shown in 'Alternative 3' ; and
that this Board strongly advises that any proposal presented for final
consideration in conjunction with an official appeal for variance contain
and show clearly and explicitly measures intended to enhance the finished
project as seen or otherwise experienced from the surrounding family
residential properties. Such measures should include the retention
of existing mature trees where possible; the installation of new
trees, shrubbing and plantings to help screen and soften the visual
impacts of new structures, parking and service areas; the location
and screening of service, storage and kitchen areas to help minimize
the impacts of noise generated by normal activities in such areas;
and baffling, filtering or dispersing odors resulting from food
preparation activities.
SC;JM;rh