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