Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-03-27 Planning & Development Board Minutes March 27 , 1984 7 :30 PM Common Council Chambers PRESENT: Acting Chair M. Sampson, B. Romanowski , H. Gerkin, S . Blumenthal, S . Jackson ALSO: Appellants, Appellants ' representatives, Press, Other interested parties 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairman Sampson called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes: S . Jackson requested the addition of the word "meetings" to the minutes of February 28, 1984 on the last page under New Business. S . Blumenthal noted (see page 2) that she had been appointed to the Codes and Administration Committee and minutes were corrected to read-, " . . . removed Romanowski from Codes and Administration to Human Resources, and Blumenthal to Codes and Administration. " ( "Moran to Codes and Administration" was deleted. ) Jackson, seconded by Blumenthal, moved to approve the February 1984 minutes as corrected. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Privilege of the Floor: Sampson stated as a matter of interest that INHS will have an open house on Friday, March 30, 1984 , 202 First Street, 5 : 00 - 7 : OO p.m. Everyone is welcome to attend. Sampson commented on Marcham report which Board is expected to discuss at April meeting. Planning and Development Board now spends most of its time on variance cases and has done this for a number of years, The report suggests cutting down on this task to some extent. Meetings have run far too long in the past. Planning Board should be viewed as a forum where new ideas and functions are considered within City government according to Marcham report. Idea is sensible. Sampson suggests everyone read the report carefully and come up with ideas for future actions. He further suggested that there be some communication between Planning and Development Board and the Zoning Appeals Board; per haps a meeting between the two to determine how much BZA uses the recommendations sent to them by the Planning and Development Board. 4. Committee Report: Economic Development & Transportation Committee report concerning Route 96 relocation given by S . Jackson. Com- mittee was asked to bring to the Board a recommendation regarding the Court Street alternative route, Basically, Committee wants to bring to the Board a two-part recommendation: 1) that the Court Street alternative be dropped in favor of Esty Street, and 2) that they wish to have one more final public hearing in some form; perhaps a future meeting of the Planning Board or one of the Committees of Common Council , or a special hearing set for that purpose. They recognize that this is the first step this -2- year to make what they hope to be a final decision on Route 96 . They want as 'Much public input as possible to be allowed and encouraged. Sampson said that there had been many public meetings on Route, 96 over the years. Gerkin commented that some businesses involved in the relocation have yet to be notified in any manner that relocation is being considered. Director Van Cort stated that it is strange that any business in the path of the roadway would not be aware of the project in view of the past meetings, discussions, newspaper coverage, etc. Gerkin stated he knew of one business which wanted to proceed with renovations but they are awaiting the final decision. Director Van Cort stated there are many businesses involved and .regardless of how many meetings are called, someone will not be informed. Blumenthal questioned if requests to the Building Department for permits could not be "flagged" and at that time the businesses informed of the project and possible problems Jackson reiterated that every effort must be made to inform everyone before final decision and keep discussions open. Sampson stated that many members of the public are present at every meeting. Director Van Cort said Route 96 is a "charged" issue .often generating more "heat than "light Director Van Cort questioned whether this was a good method for reflecting public opinion. Jackson again pressed for public announcement at each step and to schedule another public meeting before final decision. Director Van Cort suggested that any meetings on Route 96 to be held by the Planning and Development Board would be most effective if coordinated with Common Council. Sampson, seconded by Gerkin, moved that Committee ' s two-fold recommendation be approved. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. One further item by Jackson regarding regular meeting time of Economic Development & Transportation Committee has been set for one and one-half weeks before monthly Planning & Development Board meeting, time is yet to be determined. 5. Director's Report: Director. Van Cort commented on the resig- nation of Herman Sieverding, Deputy Director, as of May 4 , 1984 . He has handled complex real estate matters. Advertisements have been placed in the New York Times, Washington Post, local newspapers and professional .journals. Chairman Kramnick has agreed to join in interviewing applicants. Interviews should be conducted in April and a decision made as soon as possible. A brief discussion of the hiring process followed. Applicants will be narrowed down to 10 possibilities and they will be interviewed, asked for a written response to a question posed, and perhaps asked back for a second interview. Applicants must be knowledgeable regarding UDAG, economic development, real estate finance, good communication skills, etc . Jackson volun- teered to help in the screening process. -3- 6. Staff Reports: None. 7 . Old Business : Collegetown Zoning. Some property owners in Collegetown have brought an intervention petition regarding zoning issue. City wants to simply make a small map change on the Collegetown development site. Idea is for Council to defer for a time any overall change in the Collegetown zoning and act only on the development site which needs to be rezoned in order for development to proceed. One stipu- lation in option agreement that City signed stated that it agreed to proceed with a zoning change Conclusion after discussion is that we should move ahead on the smaller change now; not on the larger one. We are awaiting report on the urban design plan which will guide us in larger change. Report has been delayed but is due within next month or two. Council will base new zoning laws on that report. Board discussed again developers putting up large buildings with- out adequate parking facilities . Jackson expressed doubts about- hotel/parking project but would be willing to go along with that if it is paired with restriction on parking. (Dis- cussion was halted at this point in order to hear Board of Zoning Appeals. ) Director. Van Cort gave arguments. why Department was recommending smaller zone. Discussions have shown that larger zone will require an environmental impact statement and the smaller zone will not. Passing larger zone may take a number of months depending on how long the draft and final EIS will take. Changing smaller .zone to a B2b zone will allow less to be done to properties than a P-1 zone (for instance a P-1 has no height limitation) . Council has to make a final decision but Planning recommendation would be to recommend smaller zone change now. Landholders ' petition may delay vote. Zoning has to change before UDAG grant could be approved. Romanowski, seconded by Gerkin, recommended Board vote for smaller portion in order to facilitate grant. PASSED 4-yea, 1-nay (Jackson) . 8. New Business: Preliminary Subdivision •- Family Medicine Associates and City are negotiating for purchase of the City- owned property at 209 W. State Street. The City wishes to retain property on the east side for public metered parking which will require a subdivision. Two steps are necessary; the first step is preliminary approval and the second step is final approval. Director Van Cort will determine along with Tom Hoard, Building Commissioner, if there is enough parking on the other side of building for doctors ' use. This will be determined before next meeting in April when final approval will be sought. Director Van Cort asked that action on pre l.iminary approval be made now in order to stay on schedule. Discussion followed which included the advantages of selling -4- to the doctors: it will put the property back on the tax rolls, it will cause a return of investment to City, it will take the City out of the role of "landlord" in this instance. Disad- vantage was loss of the use control (there will be a 30-year mortgage) . Stipulation in mortgage will include that this is . a family medical facility which will treat Medicaid patients, among others . Issue has been thoroughly discussed in Com- mittee meetings . Gerkin moved, seconded by Blumenthal, that Board recommend preliminary approval. PASSED 4-yea,. 1-abstention (Jackson) . Meeting was adjourned at 11: 40 p.m. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS MARCH 27 , '1984 SIGN APPEAL 4-1 -84 , 356 Elmira Road : Appeal of Manos for deficient sign setback in a ` B-5 district , in which a ten-foot setback is required for signs . Appellant has reduced the area of signage on the property to comply with the Sign Ordinance , however , a setback variance is required to permit the proposed location of the sign three feet, four inches from the property line , as it now exists . APPELLANT COMMENT : Richard Thaler appeared for owners Manos and Nichols . He stated sign which will be decreased to 50 sq . ft . from 150 sq . ft . will be a benefit to the area , and is necessary for identification of the premises . Problem is the set back from the road right of way which has been in existence for over 20 years . There would be no change in pylon footing . It would not decrease neighborhood values . No new structure would be erected . They would use what is already there . Pre- viously building had a much .larger sign and this proposed change would be an improvement because of reduced size . Neighbors were notified of this request . PUBLIC COMMENT : None . BOARD DISCUSSION : Required setback is 10 feet , appellant asking for 3 1 /2 feet utilizing what is already there . Question raised whether sign could be set back . Apparently , this would be difficult on the existing footing because of an awning on the building but some other placement of a sign would be possible on this site . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny . Sign was supposed to have been brought into conformance in 1979 with Sign Ordinance ; essentially this would mean replacement due to setback requirement . A con- forming sign would further enhance the area and property . MOTION : Jackson , seconded by Blumenthal recommended DENY . PASSED UNANIMOUSLY , 5-0 . APPEAL 1553 , 216 Second Street : Appeal of Robert Leathers , Architect , for Use and Area variances for deficient front yard setback , to permit use of the house at 216 Second Street for a day care center plus resi - dential unit , and the vacant lot at 218 Second Street for a parking lot to service patrons and employees of the Ithaca Fitness Center at 119 Third Street . Day care center is permitted in an R-3b district , PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS : 3/2.7/84 Page -2- parking lot is not . (See related Appeal 1558) Related Appeal 1558 is for Use and Area variances for a deficient rear yard to permit addition of a mezzanine floor within existing gymnasium at 119 Third Street . , Property is in a R-3b district in which a gym- nasium is not a `permitted use . APPELLANT COMMENT: Stephen Blais of Leathers architectural. firm presented the case for owner, Robert Martin . Parking area requested is a use issue . It would allow for 15 additional off- street parking spaces . There is much congestion now in the area due to the fact that Fitness Center currently has approximately 2000 members . Area would be landscaped, larger existing trees would .be preserved , a hedgerow would be planted around perimeter in addition to a fence . The Day Care Center would be run by Mr . Martin-!.s daughter , would not add to parking problem because children would be left off and picked up by parents . Daughter would live in house and be sole employee . Center would be open to the public . Mr . Martin held a meeting with neighbors to discuss problem`s and possible solutions , PUBLIC COMMENT : Raymond Schlather expressed concerns he received from approximately 15 people in the neighborhood . A meeting was held at the Fitness Center . He conducted a limited investigation and learned that in 1977. an appeal to enlarge center was requested . At that time 200 children were using the facility and there was no problem with parking at all . Today over 1900 adults are members of the Center creating a great parking problem . Concensus of meeting indicated certain conditions : 1 ) A fenc and landscaping for . visual screening (when shrubbery reachYgaturity fence would be removed) . 2) 15 parking spaces will not solve problem . Could a lease arrange- ment be made with the Hancock Plaza merchants? 3 ) Attractive signs should be placed in immediate area requesting drivers not to block driveways . 4) Traffic monitor to be available during peak times (4 : 00 p .m . to .closing) . 5) Staff to park at Hancock Plaza . 6) Lot to be well lit until closing . 7 ) Neighborhood noise is a concern traffic and people from 6 : 00 a.m . Perhaps insulation to buffer noise could be used . 8) Limitation of membership to 2 ,000 . 9 ) Traffic pattern changed to a one-way flow instead of a two- way flow . Finally , regarding the 1977 Appeal asking to enlarge facility to add the metal .structure , the reason cited was " to enlarge the center because of safety reasons and to allow more children to use the center" . PLANNINT & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS : 3/27/84 Page -3- Mr . James Hardesty of 309 Second ,Street spoke in opposition to request. He stated Mr . Martin conducted a good business and it is a good neighborhood -resource . However , .parking illegally is becoming a serious problem . Driveways are being blocked and cars driving over lawns have caused damage . He presented a petition from 20 neighbors in opposition . It opposes construction of proposed parking lot located at corner of Madison and Second Streets in this residential neighborhood. It further stated propertyvalues would decrease because of increased traffic flow , noise , appearance , and nuisance value. They believe the lot will not alleviate the parking problem since it provides for only a few additional spaces . (Mr . Blais said 15 additional spaces would be added , but this was refuted by Mr . Hardesty who said some ex- isting ; spaces would be lost in the proposed new lot . ) Mr . Hardesty also aread a letter from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (J_NHS ) ddressi+ng t:he prob7-em . ( INNS is the Agency from which Mr . Hardesty purchased his property. )" Mr . Hardesty discussed the meeting which was held with Mr . Martin in which they tried to resolve problems . Mr . Martin has put up signs to discourage illegal parking ; they have been somewhat effective . Mr . Hardesty also stressed the use of Hancock Plaza .for parking use by members of the Fitness Center . Mr . Robert Martin spoke indicating he would do anything he possibly could to correct parking problem and would attempt to work with neighbbrns toward that end . Mr . Martin said addition to mezzanine was for. safety reasons , Expansion would allow for better place- ment of machines used for physical fitness . BOARD DISCUSSION Romanowski asked why there were not three appeals made regarding this property ; parking , day care , and mezzanine addition . Appeals. were so .divided because of ownership of 216 Second Street , the property where day care would be pro- vided . Director Van Cort stated parking _lot could be designed diffe.rently. _ Also , Jon Meigs has called the Planning Advisory =_for,: p a"n'n� i. _ and:: zon.1_ng. standar._ Servll ceds for land uses of this. type because he is convinced parking is a large problem . Jon Meigs proposes a month ' s postponement until information is received from PAS to shed light on this question . STAFF RECOMMENDATION : For Appeal 1553 grant relief sought subject to redesign of parking layout and landscaping for entire Fitness Center . For. Appeal 1558 defer action to permit further Staff/Board study regarding parking supply for silimar uses and for submission of parking plan for 119 Third Street , . 216-219 Second Street . MOTION : Jackson , seconded by Blumenthal , moved to approve the day care center but to defer on parking lot issue pending further study . PASSED UNANIMOUSLY . 5-0 . MO'TION : Romanowski , seconded by Jackson , moved to table Appeal 1558 . PASSED UNANIMOUSLY . 5-0 . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS 3/27/84 Page -4- J APPEAL 155f, 321 College Ave . : Appeal of C . and K. Schaufler for an Area Variance for deficient .l.ot size and rear yard setback , to permit construction of second floor with mezzanine to one story building at 321 College Avenue . Proposed use of second floor fora restaurant is permitted in B-2b district but Area Variance needed for listed deficiencies before building permit can be issued . APPELLANT COMMENT : David Taube , Architect , presented case for Schauflers . Relief requested is for 18 sq . ft . variance , 10 ft , rear yard variance , existing non-conforming use . Building was constructed in 1950 , Schaufler leases space and uses area for 'a liquor store.. He is forced to use outside areas for excess storage and so needs additional; storage space within building . He presently , has 1200 sq . ft . and has to reduce inventory because of crowding . Proposed addition would be _compatible with adjacent properties which are 2 , 3 , or 4 stories . Building would have to be razed and rebuilt to: provide enough ,square footage . New York State Code requirements are so restrictive that they could not be met in this instance . Regarding 10 ft, setback , this building and adjacent properties have no setback. Regarding 18 ft. variance , this building has existed in this fashion for many years . It is a quality structure with quality tenants . PUBLICCOMMENT : None . BOARD DISCUSSION ; Jackson stated change in Collegetown rezoning would alter approval Director Van Cort said .there is inconsis- tency of purpose , developer cannot rely on our intentions There are under-utilized properties in Collegetown . Parking can be solved later . This . is a good utilization of site., Romanowski stated property has proximity to public parking . Gerkin felt parking should be addressed prior. to construction . Director Van Cort stated parking cannot be solved by properties of this size - it is an . overall project. Romanowski wished to recommend approval . Gerkin wished to deny, STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Approve strongly . MOTION : Romanowski , seconded by Jackson , make no recommendation to BZA because of parking problem but added comment that this was a good project. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY . 5-0 . APPEAL 1556 , Ill Jay Street : Appeal of Cecci for Area Variances for deficient off-street parking and setbacks for both front yards to permit enlargement of an exterior stairway landing . Existing use as a 2-family duelling is permitted . APPELLANT COMMENT : Margaret Cecce was present . Upon questioning by RomanovisPi , Ms . Cecce said this appeal had come before Board previously and approved but that BZA had denied request because of a 6 inch excessive width in stairway . Plans now are revised to eliminate .that excess . There is no opposition to plans from„ neighbors . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS : 3/27/84 Page -5- PUBLIC COMMENT:: None . BOARD DISCUSSION : None . STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Approve. MOTION : Jackson, seconded by Blumenthal , to recommend APPROVAL . PASSED_ UNANIMOUSLY . 5-0 . APPEAL 1557 , 415 Elm Street : Appeal of J . Jackson for Use Variance to permit conversion of house to up to 6 apartments . Property is in a R-2a district permitting single-family dwelling with. income apartment . Conversion to multiple dwelling requires Use Variance . APPELLANT COMMENT : Judith Jackson, owner , was present . She has been trying to sell property as . a 1 -family dwelling for over 2 years without success . It is huge containing 6 ,000 sq . ft . There is enough plumbing for 5 kitchens , 4 baths , 2 one-half baths It is situated in the center of 2 1 /2 acres with enough space for 6 to 8 automobiles . It is an unusual house with empty lots on each side . Every effort has been made to sell it as is . Notification was sent to neighbors regarding request for variance . PUBLIC COMMENT : Virginia Hartman , 404 Elm Street , spoke in oppositionclaimingmultiple dwelling would cause congestion , additional_ noise , traffic , and decreased property values . Raymond Schlather' said he has, received two phone calls voicing opposition. It is a tough problem but from a planning perspective it would be a mistake to permit 6 units . Economic hardship can- not be considered here. It is a neighborhood for 1 or 2 family dwellings Another neighbor sopke reciting same comments as Ms . Hartman and mentioned also the "absentee landlord" problem . BOARD DISCUSSION : Jackson questioned if there is a change in neighborhood . West Village is in proximity.. Director Van Cort stated, size of property makes this unique problem for owner and neighbors . Romanowski noted neighborhood sentiment and that hardship cannot be addressed by Planning and Development Board . Board sympathized with Ms . Jackson ' s problem . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval with limitation to no more than 6 units and provide screening for parking area . MOTION : Gerkin , seconded by Jackson , recommended DENIAL . PASSED 4-1 (Blumenthal ) . PLANNINT & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS : 3/27/84 Page -6 - APPEAL 6 -APPEAL 1558 , 119 Third Street See discussion of Appeal 1553 ( page 1 ) . APPEAL 1559 , 323-329 College Avenue : Appeal of D & S . Turk for Area Variance for a deficient rear yard to permit addition of a second floor with 4 or 5 - apartments to merchantile building . Property is in a R-2b district where existing and proposed uses are permitted . APPELLANT COMMENT and BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr.. Turk appeared but informed Board. that he planned to add two stories to structure ; that he had noted incorrect information in the newspaper ; that he had informed Mr . Hoard of this . He wished Board to consider his proposal anyway , verbally explaining what he intended to build ( no plans or drawings were presented ) . Board countered that 'i°t could not proceed given incorrect information and that they would have to defer action . Romanowski said no meaningful comment could be made . A few years ago the Turks requested and received a Variance to build a 2 story building . They sub- sequently built only a 1 story building . At that time Staff recommended approval . Jackson said Board. might still have reservations on parking . PUBLIC COMMENT : None . MOTION : Romanowski , seconded by Jackson , recommended Board pass request on to BZA with no recommendation because of incorrect information . PASSED 471 (Blumenthal ) . APPEAL 1560, 115 Utica Street : Appeal of Kitai for Area Variance for a deficient side yard to permit construction of a second floor addition over a 1 -story portion of a single family dwelling . Property is in a R-2b district where use is permitted . APPELLANT COMMENT : Adrian Kitai described to Board the addition of a partial second floor over the flat roof of the first floor . House needs restructuring . There is insufficient space for the livingroom ; he would eliminate one bedroom downstairs and enlarge livingroom and dining room . He would add ,2 bedrooms on second floor, add roof over back porch , enclose present porch to make a closet . PUBLIC COMMENT : None . BOARD DISCUSSION : Romanowski asked who current occupants are . Mr . Kitai said 3 unrelated individuals are current occupants . Blumenthal questioned the siding and Mr . Kitai replied it would be replaced and upgraded . Concerning parking , it was determined there were 2 spaces perpendicular to the street . Sampson questioned need for 4 bedrooms for only 3 occupants . Mr . Katai said one PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS:: 3/27/84 Page - -- bedroom would be used as a study . Letters were sent to neighbors and a reply received from one neighbor voiced opposition and also claimed the letter contained insufficient postage . Therefore , were all letters received by addressees? STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Approval . MOTION : Blumenthal , seconded by Jackson , recommended APPROVAL . MOTION DEFEATED - 2-yea , 3-nay (Romanowski , Gerkin , Sampson ) . me 3/30/84