Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1985-07-23 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES JULY 23, 1985: PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal, S. Jackson, B. Nichols, R. Moran Director Van Cort, Andrea Lazarski , City Planner ALSO: Appellants., Appellants ' representatives, the Press, other interested parties 1 . Call to Order: Ms. Blumenthal, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 2. Public Hearing: Moran, seconded by .Jackson, moved to open the public hearing regarding Final Subdivision Approval for 710 W. Court St. , to allow the owner of the property, Dr. L. 0. Nezvesky, to sell a portion of land to Gadabout. Anna Holmberg, Esq. , spoke for the Gadabout Organization. She said they are seeking a permanent home for Gadabout and Dr. Nezvesky is willing to sell them the portion of land they are currently using. Gadabout has eight buses in use and it is difficult to find a desirable city-based parcel . The present proposal meets Gadabout's needs as well as the planning concerns that were expressed at the preliminary hearing last month. Dr. Nezvesky would convey Parcel B as indicated on the drawing presented with their application (4,536 sq. ft. ) ; Parcel A would retain 50 foot frontage on W. Court; title of which would remain with Dr. Nezvesky. Mr. Nichols asked if planning concerns were met. Director Van Cort stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals' approval was given previously to a slightly different version of the plan; Ms. Holmberg said she realized that Gadabout would have to again go before the BZA with this final version. Jackson moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Moran. MOTION; Nichols moved to approve the subdivision subject to approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals; seconded by Moran. VOTE: 4-0-0. Approved. 3. Zoning Appeals: See minutes attached. 4. Preliminary Subdivision: 403 S. Cayuga St. Tamar Sherman, owner of the ,property at 403 S. Cayuga, was present. She stated the owner of the adjacent property at 108 Hillview Pl . wishes to purchase the abandoned garage on 403 S. Cayuga. Because of the topography of the. land, the residents at 403 'S'. Cayuga cannot use the garage and so Ms. Sherman. wishes to sell that structure and the land it occupies to the owner of 108 Hillview Pl . The garage has not been used for many years. P&D BOARD MINUTES (continued) : -2- Mr. Meigs suggested in a memorandum written to the Board that the BZA would have to grant a variance regarding the loss of parking spaces for 403 S. Cayuga. Director Van Cort explained that the Board could grant preliminary subdivision approval conditioned upon a variance approval by the BZA. Jackson, seconded by Moran, MOVED to preliminary approve the sub- division request contingent upon BZA approval for a variance relating to the parking requirement. VOTE: 4-0-0. Carried. 5. East Hill/Bryant Park Rezoning: Andrea Lazarski , Neighborhood Planner, was present to address the Board .and present the concerns of certain residents of the East Hill area. She explained that a proposed amend- ment to the zoning map is being considered. Areas under discussion are Bryant Ave. , Harvard P1 . , Elmwood Ave. , Elmwood Dr. , Fairmount Ave. , Fairmount Dr. (Bryant Park area) . Bickley Townsend, 109 Oxford Pl . , spoke as a member of the East Hill Civic Association. She stated that the residents of the area feel extremely threatened through incursions of multiple dwellings into what is designated to be an R-1 neighborhood. ' Parking is dense and some residents cannot use their own parking areas due to the multitude of vehicles. They feel threatened by the Collegetown development and particularly by the B2b district which allows landlords to build multiple-occupancy housing without providing parking space. More building permits are in the review process and they believe that the neighborhood is at the limit of its carrying capacity. Discussion followed regarding the meaning of the R-1 district; the second unit in a property 'as of right' if owner-occupied; and the fact that there are no single family districts in any part of the city. Ms . Townsend said that it is vital to restore parking requirements in. the B2b district. The proposed ordinance is divided into two parts. Part one suggested that the designated areas should be changed from R-2 to R-1 (these lie on the boundary between the R-1 "and R-2 zones) . Part two changes the R-1 district by no longer allowing a second unit as of right except as an accessory apartment ,by special permit (for owner-occupants only) . Dick Booth, 110 Delaware Ave. , addressed the Board. He stated that part two of the ordinance makes a great deal of sense. He stated that part one (_the proposed changes from R-2 to R-1 ) does not make any real sense; too many conversions have already occurred. He said making the small changes as outlined in part one would remove the Council 's incentive to deal with the whole East Hill area. A more comprehensive plan is needed.. Short-term moves now, deflating public interest and..momentum, is not a wise course of action. He further suggested a moratorium is needed for certain kinds of development in the Collegetown area and this section of the City. He claimed such moratoria in other cities have been declared P&D BOARD MINUTES (continued) ; -3- legal as long as they are reasonably drafted and designated for a reasonable length of time. John Johnson, 914 E. State St. , stated his concern regarding the utilization and enforcement of the zoning laws. He distributed a map showing-;changes in the occupancy of certain houses over a period of four years; their use was greatly increased. He claimed this demonstrates the non-conformance of the Ordinance and the lack of enforcement. He, too, stated an overall plan is desired and a commitment to all neighborhoods is needed from the City. Anton J. Egner, 205 Elmwood Ave. , stated a token measure is un- acceptable as stated in part one of the ordinance. He stated up- wards of 500.apartments are present or proposed for the East Hill area. Seven thousand cars are coming into Cornell daily. Parking of these vehicles has spread into the residential districts to avoid paying parking fees. He said that for many-years he and others have. expressed their concerns to the Mayor and Council members and have been put off with promises that the problem was being reviewed and worked on. Mr. Egner feels there has been a miscarriage of justice in this area. He supports part two of the ordinance and .he supports a limited moratorium covering new development. Director Van Cort explained the reasoning for changing the area in question from R-2 to R-1 . Since 1977 the housing market has changed dramatically. In 1977 the planners and legislators did not antici- pate that the R-2 district would be used for student occupancy and certainly did not anticipate such use in the R-1 district. He stated the R-1 zone should be changed immediately to react to the changing market, He further stated this would freeze the neighborhood in the 'status quo' while working on .the remaining problems. Mr. Nichols discussed the Planning Board's role in directing the department to develop alternatives for the Council 's consideration. He agrees with :those addressing the Board that the situation has gotten completely out of hand in Collegetown (examples having been cited) and that the character of the neighborhood is gravely threatened. Mr. Nichols believes that given these facts a moratorium should be given serious consideration for six months to one year. He would like to have the planners draft such a moratorium as a feasible proposal . Bickley Townsend presented a draft resolution regarding a moratorium as follows: P&D BOARD MINUTES (continued) : -4- BRYANT PARK & EAST HILL HOMEOWNERS REQUEST FOR ACTION In order to preserve neighborhood quality, stability, and family values in the face of increasing parking, traffic, litter, noise, and density, we the Homeowners of Bryant Park and East Hill urge the Common Council and the Mayor of Ithaca to: 1 . Adopt a moratorium for: a. Bryant Park and East Hill residential neighborhoods on further conversions of single-family houses to multiple residences, on increases of rentals within existing multiple-dwelling residences, and on new:construction of multiple-dwellings; and b. Collegetown business zones on residential development of multiple dwellings. 2. Maintain this moratorium`.until such time as the City completes a comprehensive study of the Bryant Park, East Hill , and Collegetown areas that will ensure future development is compatible with the residential neighborhoods of East Hill and Bryant Park and until such time as this plan is implemented through appropriate ordinances. 3. Improve enforcement of the existing zoning ordinance in order to remedy already existing use problems that violate the zoning ordinance. Mr. Van Cort discussed questions posed to Counsel Stumbar regarding the legality of a moratorium, MOTION: Nichols, seconded by Moran, moved to request preparation of a document which would satisfy the proposals and goals as set forth in the Bryant. Park homeowners' request for a moratorium (,items 1 and ,2) , Discussion: Mr. Jackson mentioned the Planning,Department's work program and the increased demand on their time. He suggested pri- ority be placed on the moratorium issue rather than the zoning change. He feels the Collegetown project should be covered in the moratorium as well , even though the project has many positive aspects. Mr. Van Cort informed the Board that Council has directed the Planning Department to draft a zoning change. If .the Board directs otherwise, they will have to clarify the request with. Council . Ms. Lazarski asked Ms. Townsend if the Neighborhood Association membership had voted and passed the moratorium resolution. Her reply was that the Executive Committee (_4,members) of the Association had passed the resolution and it was their belief that the entire member- ship would support the moratorium request. P&D BOARD MINUTES (continued): -5- Mr. Nichols suggested that the Association show support from a majority of its members for the moratorium before the Board acts on a draft resolution. and presentation to Council . . Mr. Jackson expressed his feeling that the zoning change is less important than the moratorium issue and he would be reluctant to direct .the Planning Department to undertake additional work without a full sense of what is involved. VOTE on the original Motion: 4-0-0. Carried. Discussion followed regarding the proposed zoning map change. Ms. Blumenthal stated that all areas of the City be considered in the rezoning proposal (not exclusive to East Hill ) and to recommend to Council approval of both parts of the. proposed ordinance. MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Nichols, moved; to recommend to Council the proposed zoning map change as discussed. VOTE: 4-0-0. Carried: 6. East Hill Plan: Andrea Lazarski explained that she and Paul Mazzarella have put together a study outline for the East Hill area. The out- line was distributed to the Board. Ms. Lazarski asked the Board as well as members of the East Hill area to submit comments, changes or additions to her. Further discussion will continue next month. 7. Approval of Minutes: Nichols, seconded by Moran, moved to approve the June 1985 minutes . VOTE: 3-0--1-abstention (Jackson.) . 8. Department Budget for 1986 The ad hoc committee met and decided to try to tie the department's work program into the 1986 budget requests. A preliminary statement will be ready next month. 9. Master Plan: A memorandum from Paul Mazzarella had been distributed to the Board describing three approaches to Master Plans. He discussed. the concept, planning process and pros and cons of each approach. Before deciding on a particular approach, the committee is requesting comments and suggestions from the community, civic groups, indivi- duals, etc. in order to determine how best to write a Master Plan for Ithaca. 10. Final Subdivision Approval : 1 .5 acres/Cass Park. Mr. Van Cort said that pursuant to the Board'.s request he talked with Andy Mazzella of Finger Lakes Park Commission regarding an easement to be given to the Hangar Theatre to allow patrons to exit and enter their parking lot from the park service road. Mr. Mazzella has indicated that the easement will not present a problem. MOTION: Nichols, seconded by Jackson, moved final subdivision_approval conditioned upon an easement to be given as stated above. VOTE 4-0-0, Carried. 11. Collegetown Update: Director Van Cort s.tated that th-e bids for the rede- velopment project were rejected because they were excessive. The architect was asked to look at other alternatives and to further refine P&D BOARD MINUTES (continued; -6- them. The basic difference between what was proposed last August and what is being proposed now is that the buildings are no longer stacked on top of each other. This design proved to be too costly. Plans proposed now are less expensive for the city and the city would have less liability in the long run. Close cooperation .with Cornell continues; the result should be a plan which meets their needs as well as ours. The meetings have been cordial and very cooperative. He feels a mutually approved plan will develop. Mr. Van Cort explained the scheme that is now being considered. 12. Adjournment; 11 :30 p.m. /mc 8/15/85 ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING JULY 23, 1985: Chair Blumenthal stated that the Codes and Administration Committee met prior to this meeting to review this month's zoning cases. They determined that the following cases contain planning considerations which required discussion by the Planning and Development Board at tonight's meeting: Appeal 1636 - 110 Hawthorne Place Appeal 1639 215-17 Prospect Street Appeal 1643 - 324-26 Dryden Road Appeal 1644 - 618 W. State Street Additionally, the following cases would be passed on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without comment or recommendation: Appeal 1634 - 145 Linn Street Appeal 1.6,37 - 701 Mitchell Street Appeal 1638 - 312-14 N. Geneva Street Appeal 1640 - 103 Spring Lane Appeal 1641 111 Chestnut Street Appeal 1642 - 120 S. Fulton Street APPEAL 1636 - 110 Hawthorne Pl . : Appeal of Wasilchak for Area Variances for .deficient lot size, and deficient setbacks for one front yard and the rear yard, to permit conversion of the existing garage structure to a two-family, owner-occupied building. APPELLANT COMMENT: The appellant was not present. PUBLIC COMMENT: Donald Culligan, 627 Hudson Street who is a County Represen- tative from District 2, spoke regarding this request. He stated that the South Hill area has been deteriorating ever since Ithaca College moved to South Hill in 1965. The subject property has been an eyesore in the neighborhood; grass is uncut and sidewalks are in disrepair. Mr. Culligan read and presented four letters to the Board in opposition to the variance. The letters were written by: Leo M. and Beatrice J. Sweeney, 125 Hawthore P1 . ; Ralph W. and Doris J. Bonnett, 121 Pearsall P1 . ; Nancy C. Yengo, 11.7 Hawthorne Pl . ; and Roger and Susan Eslinger, 22 Hawthorne Circle. Reasons listed for opposing the variance included: increased traffic and on-street parking, change in character of the neighborhood crowding of a large building on an undersized lot, increased noise and density The property only receives minimum upkeep now and it is .surmised that Mr. Wasilchak may continue to be an absentee land- lord in the future. Dr. George J. Visnyei , 631 Hudson Street, also spoke. He and his wife have lived on Hudson Street since 1948, Their property abuts Zoning .Appeals Minutes (continued) : -2- 110 Hawthorne on the west. He stated his objections as (1) deficient lot size even for a single family dwelling, (2) insufficient side yard space by several feet, (3) a right-of-way allows power lines over the building now which he believes would not be allowed if the building was occupied, (4) architectural design of the proposed structure is incompatible with the neighborhood, (5) allowing multi-occupied dwellings in a residential area of single-family homes. The neighbors that he has contacted have all concurred with Dr. Visnyei 's objections. Dr. Visnyei also related that Mr. P. J. Butterfield, 130 Pearsall P1 . , who could not be present tonight, wished to relay to the Board his opposition to the variance, John Alling, 623 Hudson St. , has resided in the area since 1945. He ,and his wife wish to oppose the variance for all the same reasons listed previously. Cindy Neigh, 118 Hawthorne Pl . , was present. She and her husband recently moved to Hawthorne Pl . They wish to raise their children in a neighborhood that is quiet, safe and clean. They oppose the request. Donald Miller, 635 Hudson St. , speaking for his wife and family, stated that the property is indeed an eyesore; the premises are too small for a multi-dwelling house; children residing there would have to play in the street; proposed design is not in keeping with the neighborhood. This is a single family neighborhood and the residents would like to maintain that status. Jane Culligan (Mrs. Donald) concurs with the above. In addition, she wished to state that street numbering of neighboring properties may be misleading when in fact some of the neighbors present have properties abutting 110 Hawthorne and are thus directly affected by this variance request. Susan Cummings, Alderperson from the Second. Ward, .wished to point out one of the planning considerations this case raises. She discussed the RR1 zone and the fact that. the Ordinance does allow a two-family house in an R-1 district. She said that citizens throughout the City are requesting doing away with that provision of the Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Jon Meigs recommends granting approval . He suggests the development could be made more compatible/acceptable by removal of one bay of the existing garage, increasing setback. Mr. Van Cort disagrees; he stated it is a non-conforming use; there are major area deficiencies; the building as designed would be an intrusion in the neighborhood. MOTION: Moran, seconded by Nichols, moved to recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals denial of the request. Discussion followed pertaining to a Use Variance as well as an Area Variance for this appeal . The Board requested that Director Van Cort communicate this item to the Building Commissioner. Zoning Appeals Minutes (continued) : -3- VOTE: 4-0-0. Carried APPEAL 1639 - 215-17 Prospect St. : Appeal of Malison for Area Variance for deficient lot width and setbacks for two side yards to permit con- version of the duplex house to two cooperative units with up to five unrelated tenants in each. The property is in an R3a District in which the proposed use is permitted. APPELLANT COMMENT: Mr. P. J. Malison appeared to speak in defense of his request. he property is in a R3a District which allows multiple dwellings. He wishes to seek an Area Variance to allow him to rent to five people per unit. He has obtained five to eight parking spaces for his tenants If the variance is granted he will be able to eliminate some of the parking problems existing on Prospect St. ; he could maintain house and grounds in keeping with the neighborhood; he will not have to make interior or exterior changes to the house because of the present size of the bedrooms. He does not allow ex- cessive noise and partying by his tenants and he feels his proposed use would not change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Nichols questioned the proposed parking. Mr. Malison said he is purchasing the property directly behind his house and that lot will be used for parking. PUBLIC COMMENT: Susan Cummings, 214 Fayette St. , spoke in opposition to the request. She stated that South Hill has been feeling increased student population since Ithaca College moved to the area. This area which is in worse condition than East Hill has not been getting the press or personal attention that areas of East Hill are receiving. It is a real problem area which deserves the City's scrutiny. Council is. examining zoning changes including parking requirements. If this appeal is granted it would change the character of the neighborhood; the street is in delicate balance presently and cannot take additional density. Mr. Malison's proposal has one driveway serving three houses and Ms. Cummings strongly recommends the Board deny this request. Lawrence and Susan Driscoll , 221 Prospect St', were present. Mr. Driscoll stated that the parking area which is one yard away from his property is a disturbing factor. They use their yard extensively and would not want the added traffic and noise that additional tenants and their friends would generate. Mary Carnell , 223 Prospect St._, spoke against the appeal and submitted two letters to the Board. She has been a resident of the area for 41 years and is a landlady herself renting to two students. She suggested that Mr. Malison knew of the. zoning restrictions before buying the prop- erty and that it is inexcusable now that he claims he needs additional rents to cover his mortgage and upkeep costs. She stated that there Zoning Appeals Minutes (continued) : are water springs in the area; if more lots are paved over it may cause drainage problems for all . She '.stated strongly that shedoes not want to see any more absentee landlords on the block-. She urged the Board to stop the erosion ofourneighborhoods now. Mrs. Michael Dentes, owner of 207, 211, and 213 Prospect St. , spoke of the difference in elevation of the yards which abut (the house and yard owned by Mr. Malison and the adjoining property he is buying). She questioned if the area is black- topped or bulldozed, would it not present a negative visual effect on the neighborhood? Mr. Malison stated he does not intend to bulldoze; he will not make further changes. Mr. and Mrs. Rene A. Sylvester, 128 Hudson St. , spoke in opposition. Mr. Sylvester presented a letter to the Board mentioning the increased density of the student population. They do not want to see the further decrease of family/perma- nent residents in the neighborhood. Buying a property to convert to a parking lot creates aesthetic/visual pollution. Their goals are for a quite, safe neighborhood for their children. Granting this variance would set a precedent which would negatively im- pact their quality of life. Susan Cummings stated that she spoke with a number of residents on Pleasant St. homeowners Peter Walsh, Anna Holmberg, David Gardner, and Pam Mackesey. All are concerned with congestion and additional occupancy and wial be submitting letters to the Board of Zoning Appeals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Jon Meigs recommends approval subject to the pro- vision of required parking. -Mr. Van Cort agrees since the area is zoned R-.3 and the proposed use is permitted by the Ordinance and parking is available on the adjacent lot. Mr. Nichols suggested that a final site plan be required to clarify the parking situation. Ms. Cummings said that in order to obtain a variance not only must the appellant show practical difficulty but must show no change or threat to the character of the neighborhood. This neighborhood is absolutely at the breaking point. The variance should not be permitted. Mr. Jackson commented that this is a mixed neighborhood. He is un- convinced that four more people would endanger the neighborhood. What seems to be the major problem, and one which everyone has mentioned, is the parking situation. He suggested that no recom- mendation be made until there are more specifics regarding parking and the intended use of the Pleasant St. property. He requested a site plan representation. Zoning Appeals Minutes (continued) : -5- MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Nichols, moved to request a 30-day post ponement of this request pending receipt of additional information and site layout as outlined above. Ms. Blumenthal commented that the issue here is the zoning designations - a' variety of different districts in a small area creating a great impact on the neighborhood. VOTE: 4-0--0. Motion. carried - request deferred for 30 days . APPEAL 1643 = 324-26 Dryden Rd. : Appeal of J. R. Orcutt, D.D.S. , for Use Variance and Area Variances for deficient lot size and setbacks for the front yard and one side yard to permit conversion of the building from a 920 sq. ft. dental office and two apartments, to a 1250 sq. ft. dental office and three apartments. The property is in a R1a District in which the proposed uses as °a dental office and multiple dwelling are not permitted uses (the existing dental '.office is 'grandfathered' , but expansion is_not,) APPELLANT COMMENT: Dr. James R. Orcutt appeared with David Taube, architect for the project. Dr. Orcutt explained. the reasons for his request; in particular, he wishes to enlarge his dental facilities so that he can better serve handicapped and wheelchair-bound patients. Dr. Orcutt's office has been 'grandfathered' but any alteration or expansion of the non-conforming use requires a variance. Dr. Orcutt stated that 50% of the elderly population do not avail themselves of dental services because of physical structures which. they cannot surmount or have difficulty in surmounting. His office is such a place; the practice is located in extremely cramped quarters; there are numerous steps to negotiate; hallways and doorways are too narrow and the bathrooms cannot comfortably accommodate wheelchairs. A new two-bedroom apartment would be included above the dental office. The existing building's second floor apartment would remain, while the present first floor apartment would be renovated to include the present dental office for a 2- or 3-bedroom apartment. The majority of the parking would be located to the rear of the property accommo- dating the required eight parking spaces for the apartments and dental office. Two required handicapped parking spaces would ,be provided along Elmwood. David Taube explained the site drawings and the placement of the structure on the lot. He has maintained the 15' front yard require- ment, which as a corner lot is both the east. and south sides. The lot is. about 600 sq. ft. less than the required 12,000 sq. ft. re- quired for the office and apartments. Renovation and expansion of the existing first floor space is impossible due to the hardship both to Dr. Orcutt and his patients during a long-term interruption of Zoning Appeals Minutes (continued) : -6- service to the only dental practice in the immediate Collegetown area. The proposed design reflects the character and harmony of the exist- ing neighborhood while the building height and mass will actually be less than that of the many surrounding structures Mr. Nichols asked about the size of the .dental practice and the number of examining rooms, Dr. Orcutt explained that he is in practice alone but has three hygenists on staff. Mrs. Orcutt reinforced her husband's statements regarding the inacces- sibility of dental offices for the handicapped. PUBLIC COMMENT: James Rider, 114 Summit, spoke in favor of the request. He also stated that as a nearby neighbor he has 60 parking spaces and the Dr. 's patients may use his spaces if necessary. He believes parking is not a problem; nor would additional noise or traffic present problems. William Lower, owner of a number of properties in the area, spoke in favor of the appeal . Dr. Orcutt's property is extremely well-kept and in good condition. He is a good occupant of the property; an excellent neighbor. James Boon, 206 Stewart Ave. , is a concerned single-family property owner. He stated that Dr. Orcutt has given conscientious and unique care to his property; he is in favor of the appeal request. Ms. Blumenthal made reference to a telephone call received by the Planning Department from Donna Duncan, parent of a handicapped child, who stated her. approval of the proposed plan for the dental office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Jon Meigs recommends denial because the proposed project would substantially increase nonconformity of the property; increased-site-related traffic would cause further congestion. Mr. Van Cort disagrees. He feels the need for a dental facility offering handicapped accessibility is needed and .vital. MOTION: Moran, seconded by .Jackson, moved to recommend approval of the request. VOTE: 4-0-0. Carried. APPEAL 1644- 618 W. State St.: Appeal of W&B Supply Corporation for Area Variances for deficient off-street parking, excessive lot coverage, and deficient setback for one sideyard, 'to permit an addition. to the front of the commercial building, in a B2b District in which the existing use is permitted. Zoning Appeals Minutes (continued) : -7- APPELLANT COMMENT: The appellant was not present. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD COMMENT: Ms. Blumenthal stated that this appeal was before the Board previously. It had been rejected by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Jon Meigs states that the current proposal is an im- provement over the earlier proposal in terms of design and visual effect. Two-story massing, adding only to the front of the existing structure, tends to unify old and new and avoids the 'stuck-on/cash register' appearance, upgrading the area while improving business viability. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant. MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Nichols, moved to recommend approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals. VOTE: 4-0-0. Carried. 8/2/84 /mc