HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1983-10-25 MINUTES
Planning and Development Board
October 25, 1983
7 :30 PM - Council Chambers
PRESENT: Vice-Chairperson S. CLurnings, R. Moran, B. Romanowski, and
B. Gerkin
ALSO: H. M. Van Cort, Glenn Goldwyn, Appellants, Appellant 's
Representatives, Press, Other interested parties.
1. Call to order : The meeting was called to order
CD by Sue Cummings without a quorum, and went
directly to Staff reports .
2.. Staff Reports : Glenn Goldwyn, Administrator of the
Community Development Program, gave a report on the
Small Cities Application, the third and final
application in a three-year comprehensive Grant .
As of now, the DHUD will administer the program for
this last year instead of a NYS take-over of the
program. The majority of the programs included in
this year 's application are continuations of on-
going projects and programs , all of which were
originally identified in 1981 as a part of the
three-year agenda. Although the three-year comprehen-
sive $2.4 million application was approved in 1981,
we are required to get approval each year from HUD.
Common Council will hopefully approve the application
at the November meeting, he Planning Board review
was completed. Sue Commings questioned $14 , 950
allocated to Code Enforcement . Goldwyn stated that
$10, 764 is allocated to funding 500 of the salary of a
building inspector.
Goldwyn said that there are ample Code and related
problems in the Target Area to continue, and the
Building Commissioner usually has more than one in-
spector in the Northside and Southside areas, the
Target Area, as a part of routine inspection .
Romanowski asked how money was transferred to the
Building Department which allocated the salary for
one individual inspector .
Romanowski asked what the default rate was on the
Homeowners Loan and Grant Program. Cummings said that
it was a 99% repayment rate, which is an extraordinarily
low default rate. It is the lowest default rate in
the country.. Gerkin asked what interest was charged
WWI on the loans . It would depend on the nature of improve-
r
MINUPES
Planning and Development Board
7:30 PM -Common Council Chambers
page 2•
ment as to what role INHS was in, and it also depends on
the amount of dollar values. Romanowski said he had seen
a number of projects that have been done through his type of
work, and was impressed with the work.
CD is billed by the City Attorney's office for either the
City Attorney's services or the Deputy's services at a
specified rate through the Comptroller's office.
Mr. Gerkin moved, and R. Moran seconded that,
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing & Urban Development has invited the
City of Ithaca to apply for $800,000 contained in the third fiscal year of the
City's current Small Cities Comprehensive grant, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency/Community Development Agency and
fte Citizens Advisory Committee to the IURA/CDA held a public hearing on the proposed
programs, projects and budget contained in the application, and have recommended Common
Council approval of the application, and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Development Board of the City of Ithaca has reviewed
the proposed activities, program and budget and found .it to be consistent 'with the
priorities and objectives of the City's adopted three year Community Development
program,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Development Board hereby
concurs * with the above Agency and Committee and recommends Common Council adoption
of the proposed FY 1983/1984 Community Development application.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Van Cort reported on the Urban Initiative Program which applies
to non-profit organizations regarding building insulation. INNS
will apply.
r
MINUTES
Planning and Development Board
7:30 PM Common Council Chambers
page 3.
3. Approval of Minutes: September, 1984 minutes approved unanimously.
4. Privilege of the Floor: none
5. Comrrxznications: none.
6. Chairman's report: none.
7. Director's report: The County Board of Representatives
has scheduled Public Hearings on the County Jail sites.
Mr. Van Cort mentioned that there are two preferred sites:
the Airport and the U-Fair site on Clinton Street. Common
Council, according to Van Cort, wants the Jail to remain
in the City of Ithaca.
8. ZONING APPEALS: See attached.
9. Old Business:
a. Freeman Subdivision: Moran roved and Romanoski seconded
that the Board extend the period of validity of prelimin-
ary approval until December 1984. The motion passed
unanimously.
b. Cerrache Subdivision: Preliminary approval was granted.
Final approval is subject to a public hearing. This
motion was moved by R,omanowski, seconded by Cummings, and
approved unanimously.
10. New Business: none.
11. Miscellaneous: none.
12. Adjournment: Motion was made by Mr. Romanowski and seconded
by Gerkin that the meeting be adjourned at 10:35 PM. The
motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Zoning Appeals Cases
October 25, 1983
Appeal 1526: Appeal of G. & K. Daghita for Area Variances to
permit erection of an above-ground pool in the rear yard of
their single-family residence at 407 Utica St . , in an R 2b
zone. The use is permitted; there are existing front and side
setback deficiencies; the pool would put total lot coverage
over the permissible; and the Swimming Pool Ordinance requires
greater separation of the pool from house and side lot lines
than is proposed.
PLANNING I.SSUES : Land Use; permitted
Housing; increase amenity for owner
Visual quality; scarcely visible from street
but highly visible from adjoining properties;
is bulky
Social ; depending on how intensively used, may
generate some problems among neighbors, but
other city codes cover . such matters.
Safety- will be entirely fenced in
The appellant G.Daghita of 407 Utica Street appeared. John Green ,
103 Salem Drive spoke in. his behalf.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No other members of the public appeared.
APPELLANT COMMENT: The variance is requested for exception to
the city ' s ordinance governing private home pools which requires
an 11 foot setback from each side yard. The proposed setbacks
are 9 and 16 feet as measured from the outer edge of the deck
surrounding the pool . The deck is considered part of the
structure. A variance is needed for one side .
Appellant Green said that the reason for the proposed offset is
because of a rise, which used to be a driveway. Additional exca-
vation would be required to move the pool closer to the south-
side, and it also would be offset from the house deck. Appellant
also sayjd that the house deck is proposed to be connected to the
pool deck at a lower level. Mr . Green said that for the lot cover-
age, the pool is considered a structure , and is . computed into the
lot coverage. With the Ilot coverage variance, property owner Dag-
hita would be proposing 40%, with the permitted being 3.5%.'
Appellant said that the pool is a temporary structure, does not
have footings , so that it is not a permanent coverage of the lot .
Van Cort noted that appellant also has a front yard deficiency,
which can not practically be corrected.
Appellants stated that the character of the neighborhood would
not be affected, and would possibly improve , because there will
be additional fencing which would be solid, instead of the open
existing fencing. Appellants also stated that no negative
replies from the neighbors had been received .
Planning and Development Board
fy~ y ZONING APPEALS CASES
October 25, 1983. page 2
BOARD DISCUSSION: Cummings asked if decks were considered as
building, or structures . Van Cort replied that decks are build-
ings, and it doesn 't matter about the footing, but the deck
becomes an additional structure. Cummings was concerned that
owners may build additions to the structures, once P.&D. approv-
ed it initially ! Van Cort said that any modification to a non-
conforming structure would require a variance, so that if the
owner wished to add walls or a roof , he or she would have to
appear before the Planning Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval .
A motion was made by Mr .Moran , and Seconded by Mr . Romanowski to
Recommend APPROVAL. Motion Carried UNANIMOUSLY.
Appeal 1527: .Appeal of S. Tingey for Area Variance to permit
conversion of a 2-unit owner occupied dwelling to 3 units at
335 Cascadilla St . , in an R 3b zone. The house has deficient
front setback.
PLANNING ISSUES : Land Use; permitted and appropriate
Economic ; will improve owner 's ability to
maintain property
Housing; adds 1 unit
Traffic/circulation; (adequate on-site park-
ing exists)
Visual quality; no change
Appellant S. Tingey, 335 Cascadilla appeared on .behalf of
this appeal .
PUBLIC COMMENT: No other members of the public appeared.
APPELLANT COMMENT: Ms . Tingey wants to convert a 2 apt . dwelling
into a 3 apt . dwelling. The. property is deficient in lot width
and one front yard setback. Minimum front yard is 10: feet , hers
is about 5 feet , Ms. Tingey said. Van Cort. stated that the reason
this is a problem, is because she is on the corner. Appellant
did not present plans of her conversion, but she wished to con-
vert the existing downstairs apartment to two units . Owner plans
to live downstairs , because of extra space and high ceilings.
Cummings and Van Cort urged appellant to seek the free technical
advice available from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (I .N.H.S . ) .
Appellant said that she does plan to consult I .N.H.S . because the
conversion would be expensive and that there might be a less
costly way to achieve her goals with less neighborhood impact .
BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms . Cummings was concerned about the loss of
a 2 bedroom apartment which could possibly be used by a family
group. Cummings noted that families are finding it harder to
locate affordable housing units . Board members agreed that the
front yard deficiency was very minor. Van Cort asked Appellant
if she had considered living upstairs, and renting the apartment
space downstairs . Ms . Tingey said that she prefers living down-
stairs because of the high ceilings and the large living room.
• PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ZONING APPEALS CASES
October 25, 1983 Page 3 1
Staff Recommendation : APPROVAL
Motion was made by Gerkin, and Seconded by Romanowski to
Recommend APPROVAL. Motion Carried UNANIMOUSLY.
APPEAL 1528 : Appeal of D.Radin for Area Variances to permit in-
terior addition of living space to owner-occupied single-family
house at 107. W. Fall St . , in an R 2b zone. The property has
existing deficiencies in lot width and one side setback.
PLANNING ISSUES : Land Use; permitted & compatible
Economic; will increase property value
Housing; increased amenity
Visual quality; no visible change
Appellants were not present .
PUBLIC COMMENT: No members of the public appeared.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Romanowski said that the Appellants had
already begun construction, . wanting to convert attic space
into a bedroom and a bath.
Staff Recommendation: Approval .
FURTHER BOARD DISCUSSION: Board discussed problems of appellants,
beginning construction/conversions, etc , before getting a build-
ing permit and securing a variance if necessary. Board discus-
sed whether a provision should be made so that a variance would
be automatically denied until construction was halted. Van Cort
said '� that P. & D. Board could not issue a stop order.
Motion was made by Gerkin, Seconded by Moran , to Recommend
APPROVAL, with extreme displeasure that the project was started
without approval.. Motion Carried UNANIMOUSLY.
APPEAL 1529.; Appeal of Gulf Oil Corp. for Special Permit to estab-
lish a convenience food store .in conjunction with a self-service
gas station in the former Gulf station .at Seneca nand` Albany Sts . ,
in an R 3b zone. The Gulf station was permitted by a Use
Variance which is still valid; neighborhood commercial uses are
permitted in residential zones by Special Permit .
Withdrawn by Appellants .
APPEAL 1530: Appeal of J. & P. Maybee / for Area Variances to
permit construction of a storage shed on the existing deck of
the owner-occupied single family 4ouse at 6 Hawthorne Circle,
in an R lb zone. By thus attaching the shed to the house, the
rear yard setback would be made deficient ; the property is now
legally non-conforming in lot area and front setback.
The appellant's!Patricia and James Maybee, 6 Hawthorne Circle,
appeared regarding this appeal .
e
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Zoning Appeals Cases
October 25, 1983 page 4
PLANNING ISSUES : Land Use; permitted
Visual quality; not visible from street ; adjacent
houses are fairly distant
APPELLANT COMMENT: Appellants are proposing to build a wooden
storage shed, which would be permanent, on an already existing
deck, which is attached to the back of their house. The deck
was built very low to the ground, and was structured to hold
the above mentioned shed, The dimensions of the shed are propos-
ed to be 121L x 101W x 81H. The appeal is needed because they
would be building a permanent structure and attaching it to
their house via the deck, The Maybees feel that because their
house would remain a single family dwelling, this conversion
would not have an effect on the neighborhood,
BOARD COMMENT: Approval .
Staff Recommendation: Approval .
Motion was made by Moran, Seconded by Romanowski , to Recommend
APPROVAL. Motion Carried UNANIMOUSLY.
APPEAL 153.1 : Appeal of M. Peter for Area Variances to permit
office use of 30l W.State St . ,_ in a B 2a zone. The property,
which until recently was occupied by a business office and
two apartments, would be fully occupied by a new office tenant .
The existing rear yard deficiency would not be changed, but the
deficiency in off-street parking would be increased by 11 , from
four to fifteen spaces .
PLANNING ISSUES:Land Use; permitted & compatible
Housing; removes 2 units
Traffic,/circulation;;will increase deficiency
in on-'site parking substantially - current
deficiency. is 4 spaces, will be 15
Neighborhood effects; reduces residential use,
but may increase weekday activity in area
Minor appearance change, but likely to be
positive (removal of rather garish signage)
Will enhance business ' ability to serve
community .
Jeff Coleman, President of the Board, of the Alternatives
Credit Union, appeared for the appellant .
PUBLIC COMMENT: No member of the public appeared.
APPELLANT COMMENT: Mr , Coleman gave a brief review of the acti-
vities of the Credit Union, and noted that their previous loca-
tion was too small , having only 2 rooms for 6 employees. Because
of this overcrowding, a new location was found at the former
Moses Peter building on 301 W. State Street . Appellant said that
u
. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Zoning Appeals Cases
October 25, 1983 page 5
therie are two deficiencies: rear-yard and parking. The existing
situation makes it impossible to meet the rear .yard requirement
without shrinking the building. The contemplated use is the
same as the existing use and is permitted in the zone. The
proposed use of the building.,requires 17 parking spaces . Accord-
ing to Mr . Coleman, this would be impossible to accommodate on
the property without razing the building. The existing property
can accomodate 2 cars . Additional parking is available on the
street and in .the adjacent municipal lot , according to Mr.
Coleman. The intended use of the building is as follows : the
first floor is proposed for all office space, with four employees,
the second floor is office space for two people and computer
facilities . The third floor is proposed to be used by the
Board of Directors, for a meeting room for monthly meetings , Mr .
Coleman saw no increased demand for on site parking because of
the proposed renovations .
BOARD DISCUSSION: Board felt that improvement had already been
made because the sign in front of the building had been removed.
Board members felt that there would be a significant parking
problem, and that the parking deficiency was rather high.
Coleman said that staff had conducted an informal 3 month sur-
vey, and reported that there was not a parking deficiency .
Coleman also noted that most of their customers would continue
to arrive by bus, on foot , or by bicycle, and a bicycle rack will
be installed by the Credit Union.
Cummings said that Appellant should rent 4 additional parking
spaces, since at this time the Credit Union has only 2 legal
parking spaces.
Staff Recommendation : Approval , Recognizes parking deficiency,
and conversion from residential to office space needs more
parking. (Presently there are two apartments in the building. )
FURTHER APPELLANT COMMENT: Mr. Coleman said that he received
2 letters, from Management. Consultants, and the other from a
funeral home, not in opposition to the. variance. Mr. Coleman
also said that the Grapevine plans to .do an article on the
Credit Union, at their new location.
Motion was made by Moran, Seconded by Ms. Cummings, to Recommend
APPROVAL contingenton the Credit Union leasing 4 parking spaces
off site in addition to the 2 on site for a total of six spaces .
(a
-. SUMMARY OF BZA ACTIONS November 7, 1983
APPEAL 1525: Area Variance to permit changes in configuration of,
apartments at 317-19 W. Seneca: Approved 5-0.
Findings: Will not increase existing deficiency;
practical difficulties exist; no exterior
change; will not change character of
neighborhood.
APPEAL 1526: Area Variances to permit installation of above-ground
swimming pool in rear yard of single-family house at
407 Utica: Approved 5-0.
Findings: Practical difficulties exist, and compliance
would likely change neighborhood character,
as well as be less compatible with existing
layout of appellants' property; existing
use and development of adjoining properties
is such that the proposed pool would not
negatively impact them substantially.
APPEAL 1527: Area Variances to permit conversion of 335 Cascadilla St.
from a two-unit to a three-unit owner-occupied dwelling:
Approved 4-1.
Findings: Practical difficulties exist; change would not
appreciably affect neighborhood.
APPEAL 1528: Area Variances to permit interior enlargement of owner-
occupied single-family house at 107 W. Fall: Approved
5-0.
Findings: Practical difficulties exist; would not adverse-.
l y affect neighborhood; existing deficiencies would not
be increased.
APPEAL 1530: Area Variances to permit addition of shed on deck attached
to single-family owner-occupied dwelling at 6 Hawthorne
Circle: Approved 5-0.
Findings: Would not adversely affect neighborhood charac-
ter; relocation/replacement of shed in side yard, to
rear yard, would improve appearance of property.
APPEAL 1531: Area Variances to permit conversion of 301 W. State to
Credit Union Offices: Motion to deny failed for lack of
4 yes votes; 3-2.
Finding: No provision was made for adequate parking.
SUMMARY OF BZA ACTIONS
November 7, 1983
Alternative ration to approve, on condition appellant
provide lease for 5 additional parking spaces within
500' , failed 2-3.
Findings: Would not affect neighborhood character or
unduly impact the neighborhood; provision of additional
parking would show effort by appellant to comply.
JCM:jv