Loading...
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