Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1983-09-27 MINUTES Planning and Development Board September-27, 1983 7:30 PM Council Chambers PRESENT: Cha.irman..P. Rogers, Vice-Chair S. Cwmings, M. Sampson, R. Moran, B. Roma.nowski, B. Gerkin, R. Holdsworth ALSO: H.M. Van Cort, Appellants, Appellants' Representatives, press, Other interested parties. 1. Call to order: Chairmain Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM. 2. Public Hearing for Subdivision: Lewis Subdivision, 511-513 Spencer Road. Ms. Ciunnings, who chaired the last Board meeting, sumiarized the discussion of the Lewis Subdivision, and the Board action. The Subdivision was granted unanimous preliminary approval at last month's meeting. Final approval would be decided at. tonight's" meeting. The.appellant wishes to subdivide a parcel of land purchased with two houses on the land. The Appellant wishes,to create a percel with separate titles for each, so that a'family member could live in the other house.. The parcels created would be fully conforming.. There was some adjustment in the side yards, and Mr. Van Cort noted that the Appellant had sutmitted all .the necessary documentation;. there is-.also a boundary agreement. Planning Staff recommends Final:.Approval. Motion was made by Ms. Ommings, and Seconded.by Mr. Sampson to open the public hearing to consider Final Approval on the Lewis Subdivision. .,;No.members.of the-public appeared.' Mr. R,omanowski moved to close the public hearing, and Mr. Gerkin seconded the motion. Motion.was carried unanimously. Motion was made by Ms. Cummings, and .Seconded by Mr. Sampson to :..grant:-Final.APPIWAL of said subdivision. Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Privil4d of the Floor: -Ms Cmmiings expressed concern that at the last P & D meeting, at which there was a .zoning case regarding Spencer Road and the Pan-An motel, there were no Spencer Road residents were present. Ms. Cummings .noted. that Spencer Road residents generally appear at meetings when-there is proposed action in their.neighborhood. Mr. Welch and Mr. Todi, neighborhood,- residents, said that. they were .not able to attend the meeting at that time, but that 10 Spencer Road residents had examined the area. Mr. Todi felt that in certain areas of 'Spencer Read, people do not observe the City's rules and regulations. One example is that there is a junkyard in the middle of the City, right across; from his house. Mr. Welch felt that the neighborhood has -changed from homeowners and taxpayers, to students, which may be.the cause of apathy developing in the area. ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES Planning and Development Board " September 27, 1983 7:30 PM - Common Council Chambers page 2. Mr. Zbdi and Mr. Welch expressed further their concerns about Spencer Road. Mr. Todi felt that other people should examine the junkyard across from his house. Holdsworth said that the Planning Board should ask the Building Commissioner to look into this situation, and take appropriate actions. There was discussion on the speeding problem on Spencer Road. Mr. Todi and Mr. Welch commented that one day from 3:30 to 5:30, they had counted over 500 cars using the road. Mr. Welch mentioned that no one pays any attention to the speed limit, or the stop signs, Mr. Van .Cort noted that a couple of years ago, the following alternatives were suggested: (1) installation of speed bumps, which the BPW feels are maintenance hazards, (Mr. Todi mentioned that they are also insurance hazards. ) (2) make the road one way into town, (3) and, make the road a dead-end street, which would take everything but local traffic off the road. Mr. Todi felt that there would be such strong protests from the people who use. the road as a shortcut, that the road would be changed back within a week to its prior status. Mr. Todi fears that there might be serious accidents because of speeding on the road. The gentlemen thanked the Board for allowing them to discuss these items. 4. Approval of Minutes: Motion made by Cummings, Seconded by Holdsworth to approve the June 1983 minutes. Notion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Motion by Romanowski, Seconded by Gerkin, to approve the July 1983 minutes. Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The August 1983 minutes were amended as follows: Under Item 10 (a),- Mr. Fudge should be changed to Mr. Fudger. Motion was made by Mr. Gerkin, Seconded by Mr. Moran to approve the August minutes as amended. Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Communications: Mr, Rogers„commented that he received correspondence from James L. Iorocco on the proposed highway bond issue. 6. Chairman's Report:. None 7. Committee Reports: None 8. Director's Report: Planning and Development is starting to process the Third uear Small Cities application, .which is a part of the City's CD Grant Program The Department is completing the second year of a 3 year comprehensive program, and are now `making application for third-year funding. The application is mostly pro forma because the budget and the program cannot change without the City suffering and HUD will re-examine the initial grant. Mr. Van Cort hoped to have 'Couneil action on this at their November meeting; more information will be available at the October Board meeting. Ms. Cummings asked what the current allocating mechanism is, Van Cort said that the Federal government has mandated that the state take over administration of the Small Cities Program,. and that for the last. six months, the State has been trying to mobilize itself in attempting to take over this program. The State, however, has not been successful in staffing up to review applications for next year, and in all likelihood, the program will be given back to MINUTE j Planning and Development Board September 27, 1983 7:30. PM -- Camnon Council..Chambers page 3. HUD for administration for 1984. The Planning Department has a good working relationship with HUD, and Ms. Cummings noted that P&D would more L likely to get funds through the .Federal government faster than with the State. Fall Creek: Mr. Rogers asked about the repairs. being done in the Fall Creek area because of tree stumps, and other damage. Mr. Van Cort said that he could not commenton BPW's street improvement program, but could comment on the Department's program of dropping curbs for the handicapped population. BPW's policy is to drop. the curbs whenever the curbs have deteriorated, rather than when the sidewalks deteriorate. The IURA has made a motion that the BPW reconsider this policy, since the highest concentration of handicapped individuals are found in the flat part of the city. The motion was passed on to the EPW and the Mayor has asked the appropriate committee Of BPW to review this request. P&D had been working with a grant for replacement of substandard sidewalks for income-eligible (low-income) people. This replacement is for owner sidewalks, and not public sidewalks. Mr. Gerkin identified the program as the S604 Sidewalk Repair Program. New Site for County. Jail - At last month's Common Council meeting, it was suggested that P&D give the County some assistance for finding an in-city site for the County Jail. The County, deciding that the present site for the jail was not adequate, set up a Special. Comnittee on Jail location which has been looking for sites that would serve their purpose, including sites near the airport and near the hospital. It was suggested to the Committee that there might be some social advantage to keeping the jail in the city, -and.they, have looked at. several sites. in the city including: the Tin Can.site; the site near the Sewer Plant; the.. site north of Purity Ice Cream, aIsmall part of which is owned by NYSBG; the site behind the new Maguire Ford.building,being;constructed at West Clinton and Meadow Streets; the site behind the.former_Century store in industrially-zoned land, and the "Markles Flats" land: All the above sites have been rejected, except for the Airpark site, the site behind Maguire Eord.and the site behind the Century store. Mr. Holds- worth asked what were the social advantages of the jail being in the city. Mr. Van Cort said.that the social advantages were that families would be better able to visit prisoners if the jail is easily reached; re-integration of inmates to the outside world would be made less difficult; transportation to and from the jail site would be better and an economic benefit would be maintained because there are usually .support systems/people associated with the prisoners Mr. Sampson commented that the jail houses more non-city residents than city residents.. Mr Van Cort noted that P&D did not have such statistics. Ms Cummings. asked'what would happen to the present jail and mentioned other jails that `used their facilities for archival storage, Mr. Van Cort noted that there was very little land in the city available for development and that keeping the jail in the city does not serve as much of a social pur- pose as keeping DSS in the city. Mr, .Rogers noted that in discussion at the County Planning meeting, it was mentioned that the.jaii :building would be one-storey. Van Cort said that MINUTES Planning and Deyelopment. Board y September 27, 1983 page 4. the criteria were a one-storey building on three acres of a centrally located site. Stewart Park Several months ago,. when Jack.Dougherty took over responsibility for upkeep for the city's parks, a major. effort was directed towards Stewart Park and a special -committee was set up to work on preparing a long-range imporve- ment program and design for Stewart Park. That committee, Van Cort said, has solicited proposals from a variety of consultants who do that type of work. The committee is very enthusiastic about six of the proposals and plans to start interviewing the firms very soon in order to recommend one to the BPW and Council. The plan should look at how the park would be used in the next ten years (long-range planning) rather than short-term park repairs and improvements. Van Cort said that the intent is not to design buildings but just to give building locations and other physical changes based on circulation, usage, activities, facilities, etc. He also mentioned the zoo/bird sanctuary and the land around the golf course as concerns to be addressed in the study. 9. ZONING APPEALS : Under Separate Cover 10, OLD BUSINESS: None 11, NEW BUSINESS: None 12. MISCELLANEOUS: None 13. ADJOURMOU: Motion was made and Seconded to adjourn the meeting Notion Carried Unanimously. PLANK NQ AND DE'V'ELOPMENT BOARD Zoning Appeal s September 30; 19.83 SI'GNIIAPPEAL 10,183 : Appeal of McPherson for a Sign Variance to permit' erection o a freestanding sign between the street and the "property line at 730 Willow Ave. (McPherson Sailing Products and Ski Center) . The -aign Ordinance` requires a ten foot setback for freestanding signs in the M.-1 (Marine) zone in which the property is located. PLANNING ISSUES : Area is commercial/industrial in use and character , except for golf course across the street , beyond the site. Proposed sign is attractive, and would probably look better than a taller, permitted sign behind property line . Appellant Mr. Donald McPherson , 615 Warren Place, appeared 4n behalf of this appeal . APPELLANT COMMENT: McPherson stated that he would like to erect a freestanding sign within street right-of-way, instead of at the required 10, setback behind the property line. He would like to have a small sign erected about 16 ' from the edge of Willow Avenue. He would like to erect the sign from within a planter. This would be in keeping with the decor established for the rest of the building . Mr. McPherson would like to have the sign set out far enough so that if the neighbors 'to the south decided to build any construction , his sign would not be hidden. According to the Sign Ordinance Me Pherson would ,be able to .build a taller sign to the right to the edge of the building, but this would not be in keeping with his decor. It was also determined that this area was city-owned land. BOARD 'COMMENT. Board 'members expressed concern that the sign would be built on city property. - Mr. Rogers remarked that if this proposal `is granted, wouldn'-t it be necessary to sign an agreement with the owners of the property? -Mr. Van Cort said that Mr. McPherson would need` a permit from B.P.W. , and Mr. McPherson said that he had already requested permission to build on city property . Mr . McPherson staged that the proposed sign is only 39 . 5 sq. ft . in area, as opposed to the allowable limit of 50 sq. ft and that his sign would be 257o less in area than the allowable. sign, Rogers asked if any work hadbeen started to erect this ' sign and McPherson stated that he only has placed the planter on the land, and that it had not been fixed permanently.' Romanowski asked if anyone had raised objections to the- sign obstructing the view of`drivers , Mr McPherson answered that no neighbors had raised any objections . Notices to the City of Ithaca had been sent out , and to individuals within a200 ft . range of his property, and he had not received any objections . Holdsworth asked that since the City is the owner of the land, can the P&D, Board give permission for McPherson to build on city-owned land, or must this request go before DPW and Common Council? f ZONING APPEALS Sept 32, 1.98.3 2 . Mr. Holdsworth said that it appears that McPherson would need a license. Mr: Van Cort answered that the Council does not have to approve ?it and that McPherson can get the required approval from either a license or, theB.P.W. STAFF ,RECOMMENDATION: Approval . FURTHER BOARD DISCUSSION: Rogers added that in no way was the Planning Board giving -Mr. McPherson permission to build on city-owned land. Mr. Holdsworth felt that McPherson should speak with an attorney . Mr. Sampson felt that the Planning Board should just approve the concept . MOTION was made by Ms. Cumming;,to Recommend Approval The motion was,, ECONDED by Mr. Sampson subject to approval of any necessary permits or licenses. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEAL 1522 : Appeal of Myer for Area Variances (front and ss e se acks) to permit construction of a small addition to the side of the single-family house at 310 .Ithaca Road. The property is inan R-1b district where the use is permitted. PLANNING ISSUES : Land use is permitted, appropriate. Increase property value. Improve amenity of existing. Visible only from adjacent property; would not encroach 'further on deficient side yard.. Appellant Gordon C. Myer, 310 Ithaca Road , ,appeared on behalf of this appeal. APPELLANT COMMENT: Mr. Myer would like to add a 91x 11P. addition to the east side of the houses This addition would be attached to the back of the house and would .serve as .a lavatory. Mr. My6r spoke of the need for a bathroom on the first floor. He also.�mentioned,`that °he was not intending to go any closer to the property Line, after this addition was. built . Mr. .Myer mentioned that he had "received 3 replies that were : in favor of his appeal . Mr. Van Cort mentioned that another reply was also received by him, this proposed addition : BOARD.tbmmENT: Holdsworth asked whether the house was zoned for two" families Mr Meyer said that the house was in a one-family zone, STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Approval ZONING APPEALS A S Sept. : 30, 1983 3 . MOT IONWas made by'Holdsw©rth to Recd rend Appxe3,v 1 Seconded by Ms . Cummings MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY APPEAL 152;3: Appeal of _Ithaea Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for a Use 'Variance to permit two additional bedrooms in the apartment scheme for 301 Geneva St. (formerly Henry 3t . John .School) . Appellant received a variance for conversion-`of '-the school to apartments, offices, and. community use areas (Appear:#1491) ; however, appellant must obtain a variance for the increase in this use as the property is in a P-1 district , in which non-institutional housing is not permitted. PLANNING ISSUES : Land Use is permitted by variance compatible. Could enhance chances of rental by providing more hard-to-find 3-bed- room units . Increased -number of 3-bedroom units could. provide better:housing .,for large families . Would not increase required :parking More Targe units could attract .la.rger more children. families , i Mr.. Doug Dyl1a, Executive Director of INNS, 520 W. Green St appeared on behalf of this appeal . APPELLANT COMMENT: Mr. Dylla said-'-th,at when ,this appeal was first addressed by the Planning Board and the Board of. 'Zon�ing .Appeals , INHS had-used schematic designs for =their; ZONING APPEALS Sept. 30, 1983. 4 . to $450.00 ,' which `includesheat,,_ TNHS has :made provisions for internal subsidies in order. to have _a broad- mix of income levels . Holdsworth also asked : about:.ahe" ramp Mr. Dylla: said that an Olivette elevator would be installed ,at , the rear of the building. One 3-bedroom and 2 l .Wo -uld 'be according to Mr. Dylla. Ms. Cummings :.aske.d if the only reason for"-Dylla;s :appez:rance.:,:before -the Board. is -a change in configura- tion Van 'Cort said�•tha-t this is a :change in anon=conforming structure, and that there was no change, in the parking require- ments. Rogers noted'.that there would be. :an increase from 25 to 27 bedrooms. Mr. Dylla. al'so explained. that the handicapped accessible apartments would have wider bathrooms, and wider door ways. Cummings noted the economic reality, that many individuals because of their : ncome; cannot . afford 'to buy a house and that .a family,:cannot now own a• house for as little as one could rent a house or apartment. ' The increase in demand for :rental .of 3-bed- rooms shows the need larged.fa;milies have. Holdsworth asked "if the selection process. -of tenants was *discrima tory. Mr; Dylla: replied that INNS has a selective policy in terms of applicants, with 'many factors involved; including,'length of residency in' the neighborhood. Ms. ;Cummings said' that- this selec tion process has been legally approved by. ,TNHS counsel. Roman owski added :that_ HUD guidelines would not allow them to use-a non=selective policy; must be geared to income, . length- of"`time in the community, etc, Mrs. - Gerkin �:asked,> about the stability of INHS's finances and : expecta- tions for. longevity of ownership; Mr. Dylla xepl-led •that INNS has, built into -'the .-cash-flow ©f the project 's continuing maintenance, and 7that the Henry St . John building-. would be owned by INHS corpor- ation and be maintained for the foreseeable :'futur.e: , Mr. .Dylla also explained: that the. cash 'flow not only covers certainmainten ance costs.1 but, also-pa'rtially pays the :salary of a 'staff person to, oversee the maintenance.. Mr. Van Cort felt. that the :rental re- ;;program .;was'"one of 'the most successful .among similar, programs throughout the country. Mr: Van Cort noted that research' has shown that '.these types of programs 'fail for two main reasons : 1) sloppy management- 'and 2) a failure to ;--set 'aside an'adequate 'maintenance reserve.. Mr. Van Cort explained,,that.; TNHS has :'built both of these itemsvery carefully, into the cash flow of the project Van Cort also "noted that _' INHS . has -an extremely tight -management setup for the rental .program. - Ms Cummings :added -that private -individuals " do..not 'usually want to invest in•'Targe derelict eyesore, absentee apartments . STAFF `RECOMMENDATION: Oproval , Motion ,was made by .Mr. Gerkin and seconded by Mr. Moran to Recommead Approval MOTION CARRIED UNAN- IMOUSLY. . 9 `• ZONING APPEALS u Sept . 30, 1983 5 APPEAL 1524: . Appeal of Weiss for Area Variance (front and- side yard setbacks) 'to permit addition of a deck to the single- family house -at 60'5 `Huds'on St . The `property is in as R-lb district in which the use is permitted. PLANNING ISSUES: Land Use is permitted and compatible. Increases amenity. Visible only from adj . property; does "not further encroach on deficient side yard. Appellant John H. Weiss, 605 .Hudson St . , appeared on behalf of the , appeal. ' APPELLANT COMMENT Mr. Weiss would like to create a shaded outdoor space for dining and relaxation , and proposed to build a deck-,:"approxi- mately )9',8''; .x i 18 ' 10" , on the northeast side of the house. The' deck would be entered .from the kitchen, where an existing window would be made into a door, For. .,convenience and safety. reasons, the _ floor of the deck would`-be_ at the same level as the kitchen floor. The areas where he plans -to build' the deck are not used. at present for' anything outside of `planting 'bushes . Mr . Weiss indicated that he had 'receiveld replies from neighbors who were favorable to his appeal. 'Mr. Vanr `Cort mentioned another letter from Mr. Gregory Potson, 105 Crescent Place, who "heartily endorses the idea. " A brief Board discussion ensued, which was favorable .to Mr. Weiss,ls appeal . ,STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval . A motion mas made by, ,Mr. -Moran and Seconded by Ms Cummings to Recommend Approval . MO ION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:. APPEAL .1525: Appeal of Ledger -for an Area Variance to ,permit the change in the configuration of apartments in the apart- ment-';building. at 317319 Seneca St , .. 'in a B-2a district . PLANNING ISSUES : Land. Use is permitted and compatible. Increases probable return to owner, and thus to city" Increases number of-.housing units ; will probably upgrade those involved. ,Increased number_ of .bedrooms could result 1n increased actual parking ZONING APPEALS Sept. 30, 1983 6 . demand, but property could - accommodate more than the 4 spaces required by ordinance . Likely to increase number of occupants. APPELLANT COMMENT: Appellant Orson Ledger stated that the apartment in question presently has eight rooms (four bedrooms , according to the Building Dept . ; five bedrooms , according to Ledger) ; that it is very difficult to find a tenant for such a large apartment, and that tenants complain because they have to pay their own utilities , which are high . for such a �large apart- ment : Mr . Ledger would like to convert it to two 3-bedroom apartments . He has applied for funding assistance from the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program, under which the apartments must be brought up to .Section 8 Housing Quality Standards as well as meet local codes; Program standards and regulations apply to assisted proper- ties for fifteen (15) years, and include annual onsite housing inspections to guarantee continued quality standards . Rents will be set based on the actual verified costs of ownership and renova- tion. (.See attached letter . from Better Housing for Tompkins County, I'nc. ) Mr, Ledger believes that there are not 15 Section 8 tenants through the Ithaca Housing Authority in his building. He stated that the building meets all zoning requirements , except for being 2 feet short of yard space on the west side BOARD COMMENT: Mr . Holdsworth asked -for further clarifica- tion of the role of Better Housing for..Tompkins Co. , Inc. ; Ms . Cummings said that. this County. E.O.C.-related organization was responsible for processing' Section . 8 Moderate Rehabilitation certi- ficates, while the Ithaca Housing. Authority is responsible for existing Section 8' Program. Van Cort added that Moderate Income Program certificates were attached to specific dwellings , while the Existing Section 8 Pro- gram granted certificates-:to renters , giving them more freedom to select their housing. Funds granted through the Moderate Income Program help property owners rehabilitate units to standards set for decent , safe , and sanitary housing. Mr . Ledger would spend his money to convert the apartment , and then would be repaid through the program because the building was being subsidized. BOARD DISCUSS'IQN: Holdsworth wanted to know when the renovations would- be finished. Mr. Ledger said that he and Better Housing Director , Rebecca Bilderback, had discussed this, and that renova- tions would be finished within 4 months. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval , Motion was made by Romanowski ; seconded by Sampson, to Recommend Approval . MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.