Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1983-08-30 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AUGUST 30, 1983. 7: 30 P.M. Common Council Chambers . . PRESENT: Vice ..Chair, Susan Cummings ,. Richard Moran, Bob Romanowski , Harold Gerkin, Robert - Holdsworth, Martin Sampson . ALSO: Appelants , appellant 's representatives, other interested .parties, H. M. Van Cort , Press . 1 . Call to Order Cummings called the meeting to order at 7:45 P .M. and noted that Zoning Appeal , cases would be heard at 8:30. 2. Special Order of Business a) Pfaff Subdivision William Sullivan, Attorney, appeared on behalf of Mr. Pfaff . Final approval is sought for division of the lot at 523 North Aurora Street to create -.one lot meeting the A-2b lot size requirements and one smaller lot .adjoining it . Mr. Pfaff would like to convey the smaller parcel to Mr . Turco who owns the adjacent lot . The rMainip parcel will contain approximately 40 .feet more than what is required in this _use district .. Sullivan noted that approval was requested. at the last P&D Board meeting and no changes have been made. Planning Director Van Cort said that . staff recommends approval of the subdivision contingent upon receipt of the. final survey . He added that both subdivision cases were requesting approval prior to proceeding with the surveys in order to keep. down costs. Holdsworth MOVED the,. opening of the Public Hearing. Gerkin SECONDED and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Hearing no comments from the floor, Holdsworth MOVED to close the Public- Hearing, Sampson SECONDED and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Moran MOVED approval of division of the lot at 5.23 North Aurora Street as requested by .Mr. Pfaff contingent upon receipt of the .survey . Romanooski SECONDED. and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, b) ' 'Novarr Subdivisions John Novarr appeared on behalf of his property at 723 Caseadilla Street , He requested approval to divide this property into two, parcels , each exceeding the. current..I-1 lot size requirement , Van Cort sad .staff saw no problem.with this appeal. All parties have been advised that the parcels lie in' the path of the second phase of the Route 96 plan. Staff recommended approval Gerkin MOVED to open the public hearing, Sampson SECONDED and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, H,earing .no comments . from the floor,. Holdsworth. MOVED to chose the Public Hearing, Romanowski SECONDED' and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 30, 1983 page 2 Romanowski MOVED approval of division of the lot at 723 Cascadilla Street as requested by Mr. Novarr contingent upon receipt of the survey. Moran SECONDED and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 . Approval of Minutes Minutes of the July meeting were unavailable die to the illness of the recording secretary . Van Cort said they owuld be sent out as soon as possible . The issue was tabled. 4 . Privilege of the Floor : No comments were issued from the floor . 5 . Communications : None. 6. Chair Report : None. 7. Committees ' Reports : None . Cummings noted that the subject of the Laboratory Facility had been passed on to the BZA. Van Cort said that in cases of interpretation , the BZA is not required to get a recommendation from the Planning Board. Hoard said the BZA felt they had enough information to proceed with an interpre- tation . In matter of interpretation , the P&D Board cannot hold the material thirty days for study . Van Cort said that Planner Jon Meigs has since written to City Attorney Tavelli about this matter but has not yet received a reply . 8 . Directors Report : Van Cort said he would report on the 1984 Budget Request under New Business , 9. Staff Reports : None, 10. New Business Romanowski noted that Jason Fane had begun construction on Dryden Road, Van Cort said that Gus Lambrou had begun constrion also. a. Preliminary` subdiwisibh , '511r13 Spencer Road Phil Lewis said he wanted to buy the propetty at 511-513 Spencer Road and subdivide it to create three parcels , Two of the lots would be sold to family members and the third would possibly be developed in the future, He added that he has no immediate plans ,for development but , given the zoning area, the building of a private house would be permitted, No final survey has been done but he would proceed with the survey without approval . An amiable settlement was achieved with his neighbor' Mr , Fudge over the boun- dary line running through the middle of a creek and culvert , He said that it was under the advisement of his attorney and Mr. Meigs that the request for subdivision of an additional legally developable parcel be done at this .time, Holdsworth asked if there would be difficulty with the shared driveway , Lewis said no but that in the long run he might build another driveway for the other house , Van Cort said staff recommended approval of this subdivision request , Holdsworth MOVED approval of the subdivision of 511-513 Spencer Road as requested by Mr. Lewis . Sampson SECONDED and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ' ! MINUTES. AUGUST 30; 1983 page 3. b) 1984 Departmental Budget 'Request Van Cort summarized the Planning Department 's 1984 budget request . Referring to .a July 29, 1983 memo to Elva Holman, Chair of the B&A Committee, he said that the department 's request is for'. $178,201 . Van Cort pointed. out that between 1977 and 1983, the departmental budget had increased at' approximately ;1% per :year while :the City 's budget has increased at roughly 7% per year over'the same period. He noted, tha:t. the rumours of large .increases in. spending .by the department are unfounded. Romanowski suggested . that the confusion might arise because.-of the grants funds handled by the Planning Department Between .1976 and 1982. the Department has been responsible for securing grants amounto $7,600 ,000 -- much more than ten times the .annual budget of t e department for- each of those years`. Discussion followed. Holdsworth, quest ioned the r°equest for Fees for Professional `.Services. Van. Cort said that $7',000 of that request ($12,000) is contingent upon receipt of.. a .NYSCA grant for two positions for the 1LPC. This amount mustbe included' in the budget to show NYSCA that the City is serious . A :;represen- tative. from NYSCA will be in Ithaca in November to review the City's request for matching funds and Van .Cort added that it is also hoped that State funds will be available in 1.983 to help fund these positions. $3,000 is for summer;, students,: and part time assistants Half of the salaries of .the students under the work-study program are funded by Cornell and Federal funds -with the City picking up the remaining 50%. He added that :some of the young people that have worked in the department have done .very fine work. The remaining $2,000 is for outside assistance, generated mostly by requests from the Common Council - Holdsworth questioned footnote #2 , pertaining to the part-time senior .steno . He said that he,'thought the personnel manual had changed part time .jobs to mean 20 hours per week. Van Cort said. he would- check into this . Van Cort said that the form is a standardized budget form and noted a typo in the 1110.01' line : $61,613 should be moved up a space to "Staff Salaries" . He added that the Office Expenses, line "425 is a combination of what were in the past several lines , including office supplies , . publications and. dues , He also said he should have split Travel and Mileage (line 1144511) to add funds to Staff Development , (line 11440".) , The split would be .about 50/50: In the narrative , this split is mentioned. , Discussion followed on the copying machine., Van Cort said that in the past it seemed more expedient . to pay the entire cost of running themachine but n(V counters have been given to the divi cions on the 2nd floor so that it is easier to account for use. Cummings asked what the process was from this point Van Cora said that the request ,.would now go the Mayor who would then put together his own budget which in turn would. go to -the B&A Committee who .would next make a recommendation to Council . Council would then take this recommendation to use in making up its own budget and return PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 30, 1983 page 4 this to the Mayor . The Mayor , at this point , can approve or veto all or any part of the budget . Cummings asked what was the Planning Board+s role in this process and Van Cort said action was not mandatory but that it would be appropriate if the Board could comment or endorse it or whatever was felt appropriate. Gerkin questioned the effect of the copying machine on the department 's budget . Van Cort said that that though in the past he had taken care of all the costs even though the machine was used by the entire second floor , with the counters the costs can be shared by each division 's use. If Council wants to return to the old system, Van Cort said, he would have to request more funds in this line . He also added that there would be no incentive to copy anywhere else for other departments because copying would be free for them in the P&D, Gerkin said that the new system seemed more advantageous to Planning. Van Cort agreed and thanked Board members for their comments , If any member had additional suggestions , he said, he would appreciate a call or a not to this effect. 10 Zoning Appeals Review Cummfngs noted that Appeal 1521 ,: WTKO Radio/"VVF Cominunicat'ions was postponed. The written materials have been submitted , New notices will be required to be sent out . Van Cort will get in touch with Tom Hoard on this matter . APPEAL 1515 ; Appeal of M. Sidle for Area Variances (deficient front and side yard setbacks) , to permit construction of a deck at the rear of the single family house at 211 Lincoln Street , in an R-.2b district in which the existing use is permitted. Mr . Sidle. appelant , appeared on this appeal's behalf , Planning Issues ; Land use is permitted and appropriate, The deck would increase the amenity of the house. It would not impair visual quality of the property . Appellant Comment ; Mr . Sidle stated that the area deficiency dates back to the 1900 's but the variance, if issued, would be within the guidelines. of the ordinance and would not change the character of the district . The proposed deck will replace the existing porch. Staff Recommendation ; Approval , Hoard Discussion and Comment . Holdsworth noted that any further building on the deck, such as a roof , or walls , would require another variance . If approved, only the deck could be built . Cummings said that any addition requiring a building permit would necessitate another variance. Sampson - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 30, 1983 page.-5 asked what was the definition of a deck. The Zoning Manual does not include this term. Van Cort said that maybe the term is included in the more comprehensive sets of laws used by the Building Department . Any addition , however, to the basic structure , will require review. . Public Comment : Leonard Ferris of 104 Short Street said that though he was the only neighbor to show up, no one objected to the addition of the deck. The present back porch, he said , was insufficient for the Sidle family 's use and no one objected to the plans for the deck. He said he supported the appeal . Van Cort presented a letter from John Listar of 210 West. Lincoln Street stating no objections to replacing the present back porch with the deck. Board Recommendation : Holdsworth MOVED to recommend approval . Moran SECONDED . PASSED 5-0 . APPEAL 1516 : Appeal of B. Yonkin for Area Variance (deficient setback for second front yard) to permit conversion of the single- family dwelling at 402 Hancock Street in a R--3a district in which the proposed use as a two-family dwelling is permitted. Brian Yonkin , appellant , appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning Issues : The land use is permitted and compatible . Will financially improve the ownerts ability to maintain the property . The conversion of this house to two iunits is a permitted use. No significant effect .will be generated to either traffic circulation or parking. There is adequate space for required on-site parking. Effects to the long--range planning objectives of the City will be to add to the housing stock. Appellant Comment : Yonkin intends to live in one unit of the house.. INNS is overseeing the conversion work. Public Comment: Ben Curtis of INNS said that he is monitoring the construction and standards of the work being done by Yonkin . Work must be completed within 18 months according to HUD regulations regarding INHS loans . Staff Recommendation : Approval . PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 30 , 1983 page 6 Board Comments and Recommendation : Cummings expressed concern over the long term effects of conversion of single family homes in this area to two units . Although the immediate purpose is to provide much needed housing increases , what will happen when the homeowner leaves? Would an absentee landlord buy the building? She said that this is the beginning of a trend that the board should keep in consideration . Holdsworth MOVED to recommend approval . Gerkin SECONDED. PASSED 5-0 APPEAL 1517 : Appeal of E. D. Hare for Area Variances (deficient lot size , front , side and rear yard setbacks) to permit addition to the rear of the single-family house at 129 H ers Street in a g Y Y R-2b district where the proposed use is permitted. Edmund D. Hare, appellant , appeared regarding this appeal . Planning Issues : Improves the amenity of existing housing. Addition is visible from adjacent properties . Assessment map indicates 129 Hyers is combined with a lot on South Plain Street and is actually L-shaped , with a total of 3465 SF.--This may also eliminate the rear yard deficiency leaving only front and side deficiencies unchanged . Appellant Comment : The house is too small for the family (7 children) . Mr . Hare will be adding a family room and two extra bedrooms . The existing deficiencies have existed since the house was built . Public Comment : None , Staff Recommendation Approval . Board Recommendation : Holdsworth MOVED to recommend approval . Gerkin SECONDED. PASSED 5-0. Sampson asked why no elevations for the plans were included. Van Cort said that while the Zoning Ordinance calls for this provision of plans and elevations , building permits are given out without elevations because small jobs are often undertaken without elevations . The Board agreed they would be useful because they could approve one thing whichcouldturn out to be. entirely different with regards to height . Cummings said she thought it was a requirement . Holdsworth said that in projects where the owner would be doing most of the work himself and would not be hiring an architect , this might be difficult . Cummings said that a ' PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 30., 1983 page 7 simple sketch would be adequate. APPEAL 1518 : Appeal of M. and N. Pan for a Use Variance to permit construction of a 19-Unit motel at 367 Elmira Road, behind the ex- isting Pan An Restaurant . The portion of the property on which the proposed motel would be built is in an R-2z district in which a motel is not permitted; therefore the appellants must obtain a variance before a permit can be issued for construction of the motel . Architect Bob Boehlecke and Nancy Pan , Appellant , appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning Issues : Use is not permitted but may be compatible with the area. Would substantially increase property value, property and the sales tax returns . Some increase in traffic related to the site but entrances and exits would be from the Elmira Road. There would be some increased demand for utilities and servi&es due to the intensified use but this would not be significant . The motel would not be visible from the Elmira Road and could be well- screened from Spencer Road. The adjacent uses on both sides are commercial so the nature of the activity is unlikely to have .any effect on Spencer Road. A sign will probably be needed on Elmira Road . The surface drainage impacts of this proposed development may affect the adjacent property . Development of this site for residential or other permitted use is feasible . The proposal amounts to seeking a zoning change by variance and is close to spot-zoning . However , because of the the situation of the property to the northeast it might be desirable to consider area zoning changes . If rezoned by variance, it might provide a precedent for de facto rezoning, thus reducing the effectiveness .of zoning as a control and guide . Appellant Comment : Boehlecke said that two thirds of the lot in question is zoned R-2a and has no potential for permitted development because of the steep bank to the property from Spencer Street and also be- cause it is surrounded by commercial use properties . PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 'MINUTES AUGUST 30, 1983 page 8 Boehlecke 's proposed one--story motel would be similar to the surrounding development and could be screened from the Spencer Road residen- t'ial esiden--t.ial area by the steep bank. He said that logically the whole lot should be rezoned to B-5, The rest of the property is in compliance. The smaller parcel is at present a dead weight for the Pans . Public Comment : None . Staff Comment and Recommendation : Van Cort agreed that rezoning was a consideration . He said that there are no buildings across form the lot on Spencer Road but he noted that rezoning is a lengthy process . The possibility of this becoming a precedent for de facto rezoning by variance must also be considered and he said that staff recommendation would be to deny the appeal in order to protect the edges of this zone . Board Comment and Recommendation : Cummings said she was surprised that there was no public comment , Usually Spencer - Road citizens are very concerned about any changes in the neighborhood. This lack. of response is possibly due to the fact that motices went out to the required properties within 200 feet which missed the residential properties further on. Holdsworth noted that rezoning would allow a four-story motel ; a variance was more protection for the neighborhood. He said that if the board approved the appeal , Boehlecke would be tied to the existing drawings. Holdsworth MOVED recommendation td approve the appeal on the condition that there be no access from Spencer Road. Gerkin SECONDED. PASSED 5-0. APPEAL 1519 Appeal of H. A . Fish, Jr , , d/b/a/ Southside FuelCompany for a use variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 (permitted uses) and Section 30.47 (extension or an enlargement of a non-conforming use) to permit construction of an addition to the existing building at 815 South Aurora Street (Southside Fuel Company) for garaging and washing of company vehicles . The property is in an RL-3b district in which the existing use of fuel storage and sales is not permitted; however, the business was in operation on this site prior to annexation of the area by the City and is therefore a legal non- conforming use A non -conforming use can be enlarged only if variance is obtained under Sections 30 .49 and 30, 25 . Previous appeals (#1504 and #1513) were denied by the BZA in July and August . The Appellant is returning with evidence to demonstrate that , with the new construction , the total square footage of these buildings will be within the total, square footage of the buildings that were destroyed by fire in 1980 . . H. A. Fish, appellant, appeared on behalf of .this appeal . PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD `MINUTES .AUGUST 30t 1983 page 9 Planning Issues : This appeal has new information based on the fire damage sustained in April , 1980 . The site is ample to provide separation from the adjacent residential properties. It is a viable , legally non--conforming use . From an abstract viewpoint , the activity 's compa- tibility with other , permitted uses in the vicinity , according to the Zoning Ordinance and City 's' General Plan, is inappropriate . However, in practical perspective, its presence does not appear to have inhibited development of a substantial and well maintained residential neighborhood immediately around it . Physical distance between these different land uses is likely a primary reason for this situation and thus , where there is no expansion of the operation in size over the previous plan , or relocation closer to residential uses , there seems to be no reason to deny the appeal . Appellant Comment : This appeal was originally heard in June and recommended by the P&D Board for approval . However, it was subsequently denied by the BZA who now refuse to hear this new appeal which is based on a new formation . Public Comment : None . Staff Recommendation : Approval. Board Recommendation : Holdsworth MOVED to recommend approval . Sampson SECONDED. PASSED 5-0 . APPEAL 1520 : Request of Project Growing Hope , Inc . for Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance under Section 30 .24 , Column 2 ' (permitted primary uses) to determine whether neighborhood gardens are permitted as a primary use in Residential , Industrial and Public zones . The Building Commissioner has ruled that as a primary or sole use , neighborhood gardens would be permitted as of righ in P-1 and 'I-1 use districts, but not in Residential districts , and recommended that Applicant seek an interpretation . There was no one present to represent this request . Holdsworth stated that the board does not typically give legal opinions on zoning. Cummings said legal interpretation is not strictly being requested. Van Cort said that as it has to do with neighborhood impact , staff thought the board might want to consider the issue . Discussion followed, Holdsworth said that if the properties were going to belong to the City , each site could be considered separately ' u PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 30, 1983 page 10 by Council and the gardeners evicted if need changed or if the site was not kept up . Van Cort said he would check this with Tom Hoard. He added that the BZA might act despite the lack of action of the Planning and Development Board . 13 . Miscellaneous : None 14 . Adjournment : Romanowski MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 50 , Holdsworth SECONDED and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY . Respectfully Submitted , Natalie de Combray •