Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1982-09-28 MINUTES Planning & Development Board September 28, 1982 PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers, Vice-Chair S, Cummings, R. Holdsorth, R. Moran, M. Sampson. ALSO: H. M. Van. Cort Press , Appellants , Appellants ' representatives , Other" interested parties. 1. Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. 2. Approval of minutes: Mr. Sampson moved and Ms . Cummings seconded that the July minutes be approved as written. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. August minutes were deferred for approval at the October meeting. 3. Privilege of the floor: No one appeared. 4. Communications: Mr. Rogers introduced a letter from Mr, Kramer of August 26 to Joey Pierce, opposing a hotel in the West End. Mr. Van Cort will reply to it. 5. -- Chairman's report: Mr. Rogers said he had nothing significant to report. He noted the extensive media coverage of the Planning Department in the past weeks. 6. Committee reports: None. It was noted that a committee needed to be assigned to the Collegetown rezoning study. 7. Director's report: Mr. Van Cort reported that staff had had their final meeting on the Collegetown zoning report that morning, with Mr. Rogers in attendance. The report should be ready at the end of next week or the week thereafter, After further study and recommendations by the Board's committee, the zoning recommendations will return to the full Board for action and referral to the Charter & Ordinance Committee of Council . Discussion of legal notice deadlines and general timeline for drafting an ordinance ensued. Staff hopes for January action by Council , which requires that recommendations be reviewed by Council in November, and a draft ordinance reviewed in December. Ms. Cummings asked if this Board will only act on the zoning recommenda- tions this one time; that is true, especially if there is to be a UDAG submission in November. Mr. .Rogers assigned the B d'_s Codes -& Admi_nistration Committee to review the study and report back to the Board. _ , Mr. Van Cort briefly outlined the zoning options studied: a special - interest district, extension of the B-2b zone as is or with changes , Planning & Development Board Minutes September 28, 1982 2, creation of another zone, and various flexible zoning techniques including impact zoning, incentive zoning and overlay zoning. _ Impact zoning is negotiated between the City and the developer; incentive zoning gives concessions to preferred developments which are written into the ordi- nance. Staff is leaning towards an overlay system. A second zone(s) is created over the existing; at a threshold point a development is con sidered under the regulations of the higher zone, which would be tied to stricter design control, The difference between incentive zoning and overlay zoning was discussed,. Ms. Cummings asked about extending the East Hill Historic District. She felt that if a more intensive zone is being created in Collegetown, this Will give owners in the surrounding district incentive to upgrade their properties from their marginal condition. She said it was the sense of local preservationists that the current historic district was "ragged" and should be corrected to extend to Quarry or Eddy St. Such an extension should help encourage upgrading. Mr. Van Cort agreed to have the Preservation Coordinator look into this. Mr. Van Cort explained that Stirling/Wilford, Cornell 's architects , were doing an urban design for the Redevelopment zone, and making specific urban design recommendations for the surrounding area (extending to Catherine/Bool) . An outer zone that includes all of Collegetown is undergoing a traffic/circulation study by Travers .Assoc, Parking estimates forwarded to staff to Stirling/Wilford were for 200-250 spaces--a compromise between the American City Corp. 's estimate of 360 and a minimum need of. 150 at-grade spaces. There was discussion of the height and mass allowances being viewed for the redevelopment zone. Mr. Van Cort felt that the 8-story height of Cornell 's Performing Arts Center .(for the flyloft) was not excessive, especially considering the site's topology. Ms. Cummings questioned whether the height diminishes the visual appearance of the natural landscape of East Hill, 8. Staff .reports: Ms; Cummings asked about the status of the Northside Triangle zoning study. The study will be resumed upon the hiring or a Northside planner under the second year of the CD Small Cities grant. Mr. Van Cort noted that although the fiscal year starts day after tomorrow, the City has received no answer on the release of funds by the federal government, This delay is seriously impairing CD programs, particularly INNS, 9. Old business: Mr. Rogers referred to reports of last May to the Board regarding Cherry St. and Center Ithaca, opining that these projects were not doing well . He asked if"the City is liable if Center Ithaca were to file for reorganization.. Mr. Van Cort replied that, using UDAG funds provided by H,U.D. , the City had lent the developer about $1.5 million, As the second mort- gagee, the City had the right to negotiate with the developers as first mortgagee, or the right to buy out the first mortgagee. The long and 'short is that if the bank were to foreclose at some point, the City could lose all or part of the UDAG second mortgage. The City is not liable beyond the second mortgage. Also, if the Center Planning & Development Board Minutes September 28, 1982 3, were to fail , CD would not benefit from a UDAG payback amounting to $125-160 thousand a year for 30 years. Mr. Rogers asked if the July closeout of the UDAG, anticipated in May, had occurred, There has not been closeout yet, however, the City has finished its commitments for the public improvements, Mr. Van Cort further explained that on the City's request, H.U.D. had hired Halcyon, Ltd. ,- a consulting firm with expertise in managing mixed-use projects. Halcyon will be in Ithaca soon to talk with the developers, banks and the City, Ms. Cummings asked about progress in finding a department store for the Rothschilds building, Mr. Van Cort replied that this was primarily in the hands of the bank; the City is involved through its submission of the ARC and UDAG applications. Mr. Rogers asked whether this Board should review the Strand's recent operating problems. The City's administration of the ARC grant to the Strand is overseen by the IURA. Mr. Holdsworth asked about the status of a review of the Board's function vis-a--vis zoning appeals, a report originally scheduled for August. Suggestions from staff will be forthcoming next month. Discussion followed over suggestions on streamlining the process, BZA action on September appals: It was noted that approval of Reconstruction `Home's appeal was not an official variance. 10. Zoning appeals: See attached, 11. -New business: None. 12, Miscellaneous: Mr. Rogers invited all Board members to the Charter and Ordinance meeting(s) on Collegetown rezoning. 13. Adjournment: _ Mr. Moran moved to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Cummings. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm. ZONING APPEALS September 28, 1982 SIGN APPEAL 10-1-82 Appeal of Hancock Plaza Property for variance to the Sign Ordinance to permit use of an existingstructure, above the building roof line, as support and backdrop for a sign to identify the shopping center. Under Section 34.6 a shopping center sign is permitted, however, the location (above the roof) is not. The property, at 300-317 Third St. , is in a B-2a district and requires variance before a sign permit can be issued. Lewis, `appelIant, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Less expensive than a nearby free-standing sign might be; may help attract business, Little neighborhood effect. Sign legend unobjectionable, but restoring pylon to signboard creates a non-permitted over-the-roof._si.gn and exceeds area permitted for shopping center signs (.50 SF if free-standing; up to 250 SF on building) Appellant comment: Appellant and partners bought former Great American property and have been leasing it and making improvements to it as a shopping center. Owners met with neighborhood residents before starting to explore business needs of theirs, then leased accordingly. Leasing has taken 6 months past the 12 years expected. Property needs sign to identify int as "Hancock Plaza". Victor Bagnardi , their architect, suggested use of the existing pylon with a color scheme (red with tan letters) to tie it in with store facings. Pylon cuts down through building. They don 't intend to light sign. Board comment: Discussion over sign for Sh'ortstop store. Pis. Cummings asked if this sign was permitted. Appellant replied that as part of lease conditions signs must comply with city ordinance, and had therefore been reviewed by Building Commissioner. Questions about how far .a sign is allowed to be from a shopping center building; Ms. Cummings felt while the plaza property had been improved, the Shortstop sign intrudes unnecessarily into a residential area. It was noted that without signage the pylon was legal and would not be taken down. Mr. Van Cort replied that as a sign, pylon would be illegal because it is 1) more than 18" from the building, 2) above the roof line and 3) .as proposed, 20% greaterinarea than allowed. He felt the pylon could be reduced in size. Pylon has been visual element of neighborhood since store was built in 1960s.. Public comment: None appeared. Staff comment: Mr. Van Cort said that if this were an existing sign, owner would be asked to remove it, and it probably would not be. granted a variance. The. character and visibility of premises makes sign as proposed unnecessary.. ZONLNG APPEALS September 28, 1982 2. Granting variance would be an unfair advantage over businesses that are complying with the sign ordinance and would have an excessive impact. Recommendation: Denial . Mr. Sampson clarified that any sign on the .pylon was by definition nonconforming. Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth, seconded by Mr. Moran, to recommend Approval . Motion carried, 4-1 (Cummings) . Ms. Cummings noted that the sense of the motion was that this sign was a unique architectural element; Mr. Holdsworth agreed with that interpretation. APPEAL 1468: Appeal of the Estate of J. B. Palmer for Area Variances for deficiencies in lot size, lot width, front yard, and one side yard, to permit continued use of an efficiency apartment which was constructed without a building permit at 969 E. State St. The property is in an R-lb district, in which use as a two-family dwelling is permitted; however, appellant must obtain variances for the, deficiencies before a Certificate of Compliance can be issued. Laura Holmberg, administrator of the Estate of. Janice B. Palmer, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Land use permitted (_but lot size deficient, etc. ) Inability of buyer to use apartment might depress property value soemwhat, and limit utility- Unit provides housing for. one person Minimal neighborhood and visual effects Appellant comment: A building permit was issued to Ms. Palmer for a' remodelling her basement into a recreation room, which was noted as complete in Housing inspection in July 1976. Since then the basement was converted into an efficiency apartment of 222 square feet. While deficient in frontage, west side of property is enjoined by 9 ft. right-of-way. There is access from both State and Water Sts. There is a garage, parking area and a secluded backyard. Housing-_B_oard of Review has approved a ,ceiling height variance--contingent 'upon approval_ of zoning variances by BZA. -- There is student housing in the area, that is 2-family use or more, and is likewise on lots deficient .in size for use. Price of property was reduced by $10,000 before buyer was found. Board comment: Mr. Van Cort asked if the two parking spaces were in-line; they are--one in garage and one on the apron. Ms. Cummings asked when the Housing Board of ,Review had considered the property (last September) and If this was a normal process, Main house is 3 bedroom, first floor has no bath. Basement includes a utility/furnace area in front in addition to efficiency apartment. 1� ZONING APPEALS September 28, 1982 3. Public comment: Vivan Laube, 108 Water St. , commented that Janice Palmer had meant room to be a rec room, then fell ill and had to convert it to pay bills. Ms. Palmer had been active in preserving the R-1 zoning of the neighborhood. Ms. Laube was worried upper floors might be converted if the variance was granted. She felt there would be an increase in parking problems=-already 965 & 967 E. State have cars on sidewalks, and yards in area are used .for parking. Snowplows often .cannot get up Water St. , she said, and movement of city vehicles to the Water Filtration Plant is hampered by parked cars. Jane Cullings, 973 E. State St. , spoke in opposition. She was concerned with the integrity of the neighborhood._ They had fought hard to keep its residential character, and to see subsequent erosion of this character through absentee landlords,. etc. , has been disconcerting. She was concerned with the future of the property have the current owner leaves. Susan Smithson, 971 E. State St. , spoke in opposition.. She has lived at this address with her family, including two children, for six years. Over that time there has been a large (and undesirable) change in the area's residential character. The yard of appellant is small , the backyard not that secluded, and the access to property not as easy as it seems on paper--the r-o-w lane is narrow--she said. Further Board comment: It was determined that the efficiency apartment could only - legally house one person. iIf one unit were owner-occupied, upstairs could have. up: to 3 unrelated persons, or a family and 1 unrelated. itherwise upstairs could have 2 unrelated persons. Ms. Cummings felt this appeal was a common issue for the Board—an illegal conversion to an efficiency apartment by a neighbor who is well--liked and maintains it well ; however, the problem is that approval of the use continues with the property itself. Ms. Holmberg felt enforcement of housing codes, parking. regulatio.ns , etc. , would answer a number of the problems noted in neighborhood. Ms. Smithson felt a number of properties in area are not conforming. She. noted two on State St. Staff recommendation: Split. Mr. Meigs recommended denial as conversion was illegal , and would encourage further illegal conversions. Mr. Van Cort feels deficiencies are minimal . He commented that if it were to be approved, however, he would tie it to a maximum occupancy.. Motion: By Ms. Cummings to recommend Denial , seconded by Mr. Sampson. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. APPEAL 1469: Appeal of E. Whitted for Area Variances for deficiencies in off-street parking, lot width and one sideyard to permit an addition to the rear of the owner-occupied first floor dwelling unit at 324 Center St. The property is in an R-2b district, in which existing use as a two-family ZONING APPEALS September 28, 1982 4. dwelling is permitted; however, appellant must obtain area variances for the deficiencies before a building permit can be issued. Edward Whitted, appellant, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Permitted and compatible land use Would improve property value Improves housing amenity Minimal effect on neighborhood; visually secluded. Appellant comment: Appellant wishes to build small (8' x 24') addition in back, extra room is needed for a married daughter. Mr. Rogers asked about the layout upstairs ; there is one large bedroom, one small , hall, bath and kitchen. Parking is in rear. Board comment: Ms. Cummings was concerned about houses becoming more of a fire hazard when crowded together, citing the recent fire at 100 W. Plain that spread .to adjacent houses, demolishing two houses. These houses were only 32 feet apart. She asked if there are any:_regulations to make houses more fireproof when built closer, such as required construction materials, etc. Public comment: None appeared. Staff recommendation:. Approval :since no, significant effects. Mr. Van Cort clarified that this was an area variance. Motion: By Mr. Moran, seconded by Mr. Sampson, to recommend Approval . Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. APPEAL 1470: Appeal of I. and J. Jonson for Area Variances for deficiencies in off street parking, lot size, lot coverage, front, side and rear yard setbacks to permit conversion of two--family dwelling at 329-331 W. Seneca St. to a multiple (four family) dwelling. The property is in a B-2a district, in which the proposed use is permitted; however, appellants must obtain variances for thedeficienciesbefore a building permit can be issued for the increase .in number of dwelling units. A previous appeal to permit conversion from a two-family to a six-family dwelling was denied by the BZA in May. No one appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Land use permitted , Increased value of property, some tax increase, increased income facilitating renovation Renovation of structure, with conversion , would. result in improved housing for two families .and housing for two more Likely to increase on-street parking demand; only 2 spaces available on site No significant changes likely to neighborhood, environment or visual appearance, but increased density could result in increases in litter, noise, etc. ZONING APPEALS September 28, 1982 5.. Preservation of a unique older structure Board comment: Lt was noted that this Board recommended denial on a similar appeal for this property (;for conversion to 6 fami:lies) . Appellant at that time had not described site accurately, omitting mention of additional parking difficulties due to adjoining parcel . Ms. Cummings noted that this appeal involved extensive interior changes to the building, changing the living pattern. Mr. Moran said he'd seen the inside of the building. One unit had 8-10 people living in it, more than previously claimed by appellant. One unit is in good condition, other is definitely not. Staff comment: Though site lacks open space amenity for family/tenant use, increasing density by only two units substantially reduces the objections which applied to the previous proposal to convert to 6 units , and should limit the pressures which could have resulted from such crowding. Recommendation: Approval, subject to provision of required off-street parking. Motion: By Mr. Holdsworth to recommend Denial , seconded by Ms . Cummings. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.