Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1978-10-02 'I ;f i l TABLE OF CONTENTS l MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA, �j NEW YORK - OCTOBER 2 , 1978 Page i APPEAL NO. 1226 Nancy E. Falconer 1 316 S. Aurora Street f j APPEAL NO. 1226 Executive Session 11 it I APPEAL NO. 1227 Mary E. Watt 12 406 N. Cayuga Street I! i; APPEAL NO. 1227 Executive Session 14 It i APPEAL NO. 1228 Fred A. Martin & Dieters-Hagen, 15 Schaufler & Company f 329-331 North Geneva Street , l APPEAL NO. 1228 Executive Session 23 i APPEAL NO. 1229 S &- M Company 24 i; 312-314 N. Aurora Street $ i 315 N. Tioga Street lI I ( APPEAL NO. 1229 Executive Session 46 I E is i CERTIFICATION OF RECORDING SECRETARY 49 �i If 'l �i IM l i i i I ii �i i I is �l l %I ii '! I �I j BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK j COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I ; OCTOBER 2 , 1978 I( f ;! Chairman Martin called the October 2 , 1978 meeting of the Ithaca ' Board of Zoning Appeals . The Board operates under the provisions a `of the Ithaca City Charter, the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and several bother Ordinances that give the Board some power . Our proceedings ; are not governed by strict rules of evidence but we are, by law, jlimited to making determinations on the basis of what we hear in �jpublic hearing and what we know as members of the Community. Our ;'procedures take the following order : we hear the cases in the I ;order in which the applications have been filed; we ask the appel- ?!lent to present the case, respond to any questions the Board may ! have; we then ask anyone else present who would like to be heard E tion a case, first those who are in favor of the requested action ;land then any opposed, to speak. All who speak should come to the 'I jfront of the room and clearly identify themself by name and address ;before, then speaking on the issues that are in front of the Board, �; we ask that all who speak limit their remarks to the issues that i the Board has to decide. After we have heard all of the testimony I on all of the cases we then go into executive session to deliberates I L `on what we have heard and we reconvene in public session then to ;announce our conclusions and the findings based on the hearing that jsupport those conclusions . Present this evening are all but one (member of the Board. PRESENT: Dr. Martin Greenberg i` Mrs . Judith Maxwell Mr. Gregory Kasprzak Mr. William Wilcox j I Chairman Peter Martin 1 jk Thomas D. Hoard, Secy to the Board and i! Building Commissioner Barbara Ruane, Recording Secretary B A SENT: Joseph Gainey, Jr. lMr. Hoard what is our first case? MR. HOARD announced the first case to be heard: ! APPEAL N0. 1226 Appeal of Nancy E. Falconer for an area I� variance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 4 , l 6 , 10 , 11 , 13 and 14 to permit continued ii use and occupancy of the property at 316 I �i i i - 2 - �I '? South Aurora Street as a two-family dwell- ing. The property which is located in an R-3b (residential) use district, has been j altered, increasing the total number of I bedrooms from six to eight, and the prop- erty is deficient in required off-street it parking, the maximum permitted lot cover- !I age is exceeded and the front , side and rear yards are deficient . i JMS. MILLER: My name is Connie Miller. I am appearing for Nancy Falconer on this appeal . I • just got involved in this this evening 1, so I want to tell the Board that I really do not know that much ; about it except what Nancy Falconer has told me . But from what I dunderstand, this - these changes were made four years ago and what f jshe did was eliminate bedroom space on the top floor of the buildin nand she built what was then supposed to be a rec room in the lower i ; level of the building. She occupied it with her family at that i 11time. After the rooms were put in - she had a building permit to 1 I 1put in a rec room. After the rooms were put in she desired to use Ithem as sleeping space; she contacted the building department, Mr. - who was it? i; ISMS. FALCONER: Elmer . . . s jMR. HOARD: Stickler. ISMS . FALCONER: Originally, the reason I got the rec room permit was ;that they didn' t think I could use them as bedrooms . When Elmer ca e I � jup to check it . . . !ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Ms . Falconer could you come up front so that we 'have you - when you have things you want to say and we also have yo Ifor any questions . . . ii MS. MILLER: At any rate Mr. Stickler, Elmer Stickler, was contactd, ! of the Building Department , he came down, he looked at the rooms , ,i `the inquiry that she was making was could she use this as bedroom 'space? He measured the rooms several times , measured the windows Viand at that time told her, verbally, yes they could be used as bed- ilroom space. But there was never a building permit issued to build 'I +bedrooms because the rooms had already been built at the time that ;the okayed it for use of - for bedroom space. (CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We are talking about two rooms downstairs or one i rec room? 1 i tf l - 3 - �j t! MS. FALCONER: Two rooms . I! l MS. MILLER: Two rooms. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Two rooms. They were originally intended - both !I sof them - to be recreational space? �I 'IMS. FALCONER: I was originally told that because - they weren' t i� ; sure about how much below grade I was - whether it was basement or I (, cellar and they didn' t think it was okay to use them as anything but I ;;rec rooms , so I said alright, if that ' s the case, that ' s what I ' ll .i lido. But my kids were in there, then when Elmer came to check it an 1 !`measured everything out, he said to us , no they are perfectly legal las bedrooms , at which point the boys jumped up and down with glee ii !land we began using them as bedrooms and they have been ever since . I I (, But I did have a building permit and I got it according to what the �I ` told me I would have to get it for. HMS. MILLER: At any rate, question the reason that an area vari- Hance is required here is because the house is somewhat deficient in Mot and side requirements and there is a parking deficiency. And ;lin terms of the parking, these rooms downstairs replace rooms that ;would ordinarily be on the higher floor that were on a higher floor i ;;before, so there is really - there is no change in density as a re-' 1S jsult of the use of these rooms. li !! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Could you give us a sense, Ms . Falconer, of what i ;, it was - how many bedrooms there were before these two rec rooms we e I created on the lower level? I) i IMS. FALCONER: Well it depends on how you use the house. I shifted I, i! lithe use of the house - the use of some rooms on the top floor. i' `' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: On the top floor into something else? IMS. FALCONER: Right - to a living room. t ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: To a living room. i, MS. FALCONER: The largest room in the house. So that basically ,i :;what I 've got is a shift in the division like to half way and a uni '`upstairs which I can put four in and was asking that I be able to I,I,put four in the bottom unit. 1CHAIRMAN' MARTIN: What were the two rooms that became rec rooms and, i'Ithen bedrooms downstairs - before this all started? l i ,I t - 4 - SMS. FALCONER: It was unfinished basement space that was . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Unfinished space? !SMS. FALCONER: Yes. ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So you added habitable space? i jMS. FALCONER: Yes. With a building permit . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: With. a building permit for a rec room. Okay. I ( think I understand. IMS. FALCONER: Well the confusion came because originally they did i jnot think that it was going to be legal space to use as bedrooms i ' and then when Elmer checked it out, he very reluctantly told me yes �I ewe could use them as sleeping space. They were legal bedrooms . But II would have started that way had they said yes we think you could do it that way. i IICHAIRMAN MARTIN: You think you could do it then as you replay it, ; you would have asked - I mean at that point you would have bumped up against the then Zoning Ordinance and you would have then asked ! �I i ; for the variance rather than now? � MS. FALCONER: Yes. ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. 1 MS. MILLER: And at that time, too, Nancy Falconer occupied that ; side of the building, her and her family. Since then I believe you �j (now occupy the other side of the premise? !``CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. S. FALCONER: Yes and gradually my family is growing up and leavin . I! MS . MILLER: At this point she would like to sell the property and 11we are looking for a variance in terms of being able to meet the I�terms and conditions of the purchase agreement which calls for a !!Certificate of Occupancy. I! ;;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, I think you will have to speak up a little �j it more. R. HOARD: There may be some confusion here. This is a duplex and !We are just talking about one half of the duplex when you referred I I� f ijto living in the other side. You were talking about living in the Mother side of the fire wall which is not a part of this . . . IICHAIRMAN MARTEN: Okay, so this variance concerns only one side of ;the duplex? j f - j JMS. MILLER: Right. Which was formerly owner/occupied but then 'I the owner moved to the other side of the duplex. This side was 11rented. Now she is in a position where she is trying to sell it. IjCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. it �IMS. MILLER: Are there any other questions? MS. FALCONER: I think the . . . !CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Questions from members of the Board? JDR. GREENBERG: I think that, although it may be stated here, I 'd ;like to have it clarified. How much parking is necessary, how much) i1 ; parking is available, is: this a problem? i I MS. FALCONER: It hasn' t been a problem in that particular house, II 1lunderstand that you may think it ' s a problem, but there are three j spaces . . . DR. GREENBERG: According to the code . !;CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes, there are three spaces .. I ,IMS. FALCONER: According to the code there would be a problem. There ;fare three spaces that come in from the other side of the street on ;!the other property and come in to the side of that property also . II think there are a couple of things, one is that I did check with j� 'Mr. Burns , who manages the property which has the parking lot across I !1the street, which I understand, was turned down because the neigh- (�bors said that they needed parking. There is parking available there, flit is available to be rented should they need it. Most of my tenants �E 4rent from me because they live on the bus line and they don't have I 'Icars, a few do but most of them don't . 'IDR. GREENBERG: I don't know whether I 've had the question answered) �or not. IMS. MILLER: The answer is there are three spaces required and she ; '!has no parking on her own property. There is a vacant lot on the I ; street and people have been parking and renting spaces . I think perhaps , in view of the circumstances here and the fact that at one I' 'Itime this was approved for exactly the use that which she now seeks a variance that perhaps this is a case that calls for a decision or Ilan interpretation that it ' s a non-conforming use rather than a re- I ;quest for a variance and if that is the case then we would - I �3 i it i 6 - Ilwould ask that you consider this an application for that also . I� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Part of your argument for the variance is that there has simply been a shifting around of sort of common living oareas, a replacement of what were bedrooms upstairs with what are Inow bedrooms downstairs . Could you give me sort of an inventory of what is on that side of the house right now, I mean how many I1bedrooms and how many other spaces? i� DIMS. FALCONER: There are eight bedrooms , two kitchens , two bathroom Ijand two studies . There are two seven-room units . 1ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Two seven-room units . ii ;IMS. FALCONER: Complete. i' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. jMS . FALCONER: Legally and conforming as far as the other rooms go.� i, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. And had the alteration upstairs not occurred ii glthat reduced bedrooms upstairs , what would you have had? Or was Ithat part of the conversion to that other separate unit upstairs? 1 IlWhat was it before things got started in 173? Was it a single family unit on that side? Bedrooms upstairs and living room, dining ;I room, kitchen downstairs . Is that what it was .? ii �iMS. FALCONER: It was . . . yes . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So that that conversion turned it into two units . �iMS. FALCONER: Well, part of the confusion of this house is that I both sides were built as four units . Originally it wasn' t necessa y to have separate bathrooms for different units. They were built with H four kitchens, the two sides together. So that side was built with 11two kitchens . Kitchen and a bath. ; CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It had two kitchens? IIMS. FALCONER: Yes but it could share a bath apparently and that I� was legal at some point. But it was built that way - to be two 11units . Now there has been another bathroom added and - so that it ; does have a bathroom for each of the units. ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay so that the projects for which you got the !Ibuilding permit in 173 . . . l� MS. FALCONER: Was simply adding the two rooms to the bottom unit and ii lidividing it - instead of on the top level - in the middle, shifting I? i !i li i 7 - 'I the space out of the top and dividing it in the cent er. 'ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Which turned some upstairs bedrooms . . . i. f MS. FALCONER: Into a living room. j� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Into a living room. Okay. Any further questions? i ! MR. KASPRZAK: I 'm still trying to figure out what it is all about .1 1MS. FALCONER: Well it has a long history. MS. MILLER: I think that the division is what she is talking about here. ,CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How many is there - three stories? four stories? ';`we are talking about? SIMS. FALCONER: There are four stories . ;(CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We are talking about upper and lower levels - i there are four stories , the bottom one which you were worried about !if too much of it was below grade, is the one in which these two . ,IMS. FALCONER: I wasn' t worried about, they were. ICHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright , the two bedrooms in question are on thatf if level? dMS. FALCONER: Yes . IMS. MILLER: It appears that, I guess originally from what you are If 1saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that originally there were tw� it I I(units on each side. The side that we are talking about had a first i1floor, second floor unit and then the top floor which was the third i jIfloor then which was another four bedroom unit . You shifted the I 1division between the two - the top unit and the bottom unit down tof 1� f ,1the second floor and made use of the below grade space plus the ; first floor space for one unit and the second and third floor for t e ;second unit . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Now as you probably know, the Planning Boa d 'has recommended that we deny. I take it the basis of that recommen, jdation is in a sense of judgement that if things were starting from I1scratch today we shouldn' t approve a variance to do what was done I1 iback in 173 with the change then the subsequent change of a rec ,room into two bedrooms . Can you sort of perhaps just summarize aga'n j 11what grounds you had for believing that what you did in first turni g lit into a rec room and then those rec rooms into bedrooms created .1 l ;1 8 _ ii !I no zoning problem. You got a building permit for the rec rooms I 1 so that you were not Alerted to any zoning problem with that. And then when you had a building inspector look at the rec rooms it he said they were alright for bedrooms , not alerting you to the I (; zoning problem that that might risk? MS. FALCONER: No he didn' t say anything about it . if CHAIRMAN MARTIN: He didn' t say anything about zoning? MS. FALCONER: No. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. ({ MS. MILLER: I think also we should note that Nancy Falconer was 1f not present at the Planning Board meeting, she was not able to attend that meeting and - so they may not have understood - they 'I ii didn' t have the benefit of this explanation of what happened. i !i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. 'i MS. FALCONER: I noticed they did say that I didn' t have permissio to do that, which was not true. They were built without a permit i or something, which was not the picture of what happened at the f j time . �j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Any other questions? Anything you need to add? MS. FALCONER: I think that the only thing that I would like to I point out is that if my children were still young and we could live there, there wouldn't be a problem, we could still occupy that side of the house and I guess that would pretty much take care of any questions: about it . My kids are grown and I am working out of tow# i at this time and I find it is just going to be necessary to sell I. it if I possibly can. I have had this house listed with a couple j i i of people. I have not put it on the open market, I have tried to 1 sell and to rent to families on S. Aurora Street. Now I haven' t j� been able to get people to come in as families . .I think that con- stitutes a large part of the problem too. I don' t know what I can do to keep it as a family plus some tenant use. I don' t see I I ( (++F that it ' s possible under present circumstances. I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If those two downstairs rooms are rec rooms and j not bedrooms, howmanybedrooms are there in the lower unit? i,II I i �I 9 - i i' r MS. FALCONER: Two. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So you've got - then you would have a two-bedrooTi unit downstairs? i MS. FALCONER: A huge two-bedroom unit downstairs . i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: A huge two-bedroom unit - lots of recreation i space. !i MS. FALCONER: Yes . I have had potential buyers say that they would 'I I really like that cleared before they would . . . !� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. No further questions? Thank you. MS. FALCONER: Thank you. 'i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on this case? First, anyone who would like to speak in favor of r the requested area variance? Anyone who would like to speak in I� opposition? We will move on to the next case. MR. HOARD: You have two letters here - or a letter and a phone call . j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Oh, I should - I 'm told that we have some corresl pondence. I will read the letter and notethe fact of a phone call ji for the record of this hearing . The letter is from Mrs . Elsie Haynes , 312 S. Aurora St. : "To the Board of Zoning Appeals i Dear Sirs : i jI "As a next door neighbor I am writing concerning a letter I receive requesting area variance in order to clarify the use of two rooms at 316 South Aurora Street. ii ! "In the past few years more and more homes have been sold in this area and converted to rooming houses . This has created an over- 11 populated neighborhood and added to the already extreme lack. of I parking space. ' "Two large dogs next door, as well as several others , wander unat- tended in the neighborhood. Also I have been awakened numerous times with- very loud music at 3 : 00 and 4 : 00 A.M. p+ "As an individual homeowner and one who tries to keep my home in good repair I consider the invasion of so man yy students, without i� proper owner supervision has caused the neighborhood to deteriorate severely. i"'Th_e house at 316 at onetime was a two familyhome with a small apartment on the third floor of each side. Beause of the lack of and area, as well as the above stated reasons I am strongly against # ny variance for use of extra bedrooms that have been added to this roperty. ours truly, s/ Mrs . Elsie Haynes" !i - 10 - �i 11 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: There was also a phone call from a Mrs . Vlahos I� who wishes to be registered as against the area variance. I i CI i i i i �I i i i i! �I i I j I I ;I I i� it I� 1 i I. I I I i is I I� i .I I! I �i i' I� i I� II I i �I - i Ij BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS i CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1 OCTOBER 2 , 1978 EXECUTIVE SESSION i' APPEAL NO. 1226 11 I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the area variance requested i !. in appeal # 1226 be denied. I MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) If the conversion were being proposed and ,I ,I it had not already been done, the Board would deny the variance because of the in-, sufficiency of off-street parking in an !' area in which density and lack of off-street I I ii parking is already a problem. !� 2) The fact that the conversion has already y ji occurred does not change that result, since the Board is not persuaded from the �I testimony in the public hearing and the k, material in the public records of the i Building Department, that the appellant I� was misled about the zoning requirements I j� of the City. !� VOTE: 5 Yes ; U No ; 1 Absent I� I� Area variance denied. I� i i I i I 1 �1 �I i it l II 1� II Ij II i ii I� it ; �i I i� 12 - i� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 2 , 1978 MR. HOARD announced the next case to be heard. APPEAL NO. 1227 Appeal of Mary E. Watt for an area vari- ance under Section 30. 25 , Columns 13 and 14 to permit conversion of the carriage i' house at 406 N. Cayuga Street to a two- bedroom apartment for family use. The (( property is located in an R-3a use dist- I! rict , and the carriage house is built against the rear lot line and one side i lot line . MR. WATT: My name is Joe Watt, I am appearing for my wife who is I quite ill . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Watt, could you just summarize for us the .i grounds of the request and outline what is proposed? iR MR. WATT: Yes , there is a very large carriage house on the f; property and I have a sister in New Jersey who is retired from her business and would like to live closer to the family. She is all 1 alone and I 'd like to convert that carriage house into an apart- ; l ment for my sister. That' s all I have to say about it. CHAIRMAN MARTIN : Could you indicate how the carriage house is �I ! fi presently being used? 6 !I MR. WATT: Just as a garage . I j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Garage and storage space? it MR. WATT: Storage space, yes. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How many bedrooms , what kind of arrangements i� Ij inside will it have after . . . ? MR. WATT: Two bedrooms . wCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Two bedrooms? How large a structure is it? j j� MR. WATT: It ' s quite large - 2 ,000 square feet. f i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The diagram suggests, and the Planning hearing f i I says that there is plenty of parking off-street? �i MR. WATT: Yes. ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The carriage house itself is right up against th i lot line. What kind of separation is there between it - beyond i� your property and the next structure? fMR. WATT: Beyond is a vacant lot beyond it. Next door there l ,'s ` - 13 - ( are yards actually, just open fields , so to speak, or yards . I I? I guess you would call them. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So there is a fair amount of open space around it even though it is right up against the property line? MR. WATT: Yes . ,I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So for the moment it would be occupied simply i it by your sister? MR. WATT: Yes . i I CHAIRMAN MARTIN : Any questions? j !► MR. KASPRZAK: I don't know whether you spoke about it or not - 'i are you going to convert thecentire building or . . . . ? ii MR. WATT: Just the second floor. it MR. KASPRZAK: Just the second floor. I MR. WATT: Yes. ( MR. WILCOX: Parking here , this area (pointing to plans) ? MR. WATT: Yes . There is a large parking area. More than we' ll �i Ineed. She doesn' t drive. j� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any other questions? Do you intend any alteration of the exterior? 11 MR. WATT: No we didn' t think we would touch that. Perhaps that window in the front - just add a window. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions? Anything you want to ad 7 I) Mr. Watt? I� MR. WATT: No, that ' s all . Thank you. l CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like] to be heard on this. case? Anyone either for or against the re- j quested area variance? We ' ll move on to the next. j� ji I' I i II I I( i I' II ff I i, if III I' _- _' - 14 - I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11 OCTOBER 2 , 1978 j EXECUTIVE SESSION i i APPEAL NO. 1227 : CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the area variance requested i in 1227 be granted. MRS. MAXWELL: I second the motion. i' FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) According to the testimony presented there �j is adequate off-street parking and although �4 the structure in question was built against the rear and one side lot line there is I� ,j adequate separation between it and other nearby buildings. Compliance with the i side and rear yard requirements of the ;I Ordinance is impractical . 2) The proposed conversion to a two-bedroom apartment does not represent any apparent Eadverse impact for the neighborhood. `t �I VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent Area variance granted. ,i i ii i i �E I 'I I �I i! j I �E 'i - 15 - i BOARD OF 'ZONING APPEALS !� CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 2 , 1978 i ,i Mr. Hoard announced the next case to be heard. i, APPEAL NO. 1228 : Appeal of Fred A. Martin and Dieters-HageO, Schaufler and Company for a use and area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Columns 2 , 4 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 and 14 to permit use of the property at 329-331 North Geneva Stree. j as a business and professional office. The property is located in an R-3a use district, in which a business and profes- 'i sional office is not a permitted use ; and .I the property is deficient in required off- street parking, minimum lot size, maximum p lot coverage is exceeded, and the front , j� side and rear yards are deficient. MR. HOARD: Who will be representing this case? j ii MR. MARTIN : I 'm Fred Martin of 106 E. Court Street . i f� MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: I 'm John Dieters-Hagen also of 106 E. Court St . MR. MARTIN: We have a diagram of where the property is and I 'd like to point out first of all that there is only three properties jin this whole block that aren' t zoned commercial now and - or four li excuse me, the building and the next three . What the building looks like , it ' s a duplex - we have the house on one side - it ' s a !j old house and it was built in 1000 . It ' s in rather bad condition i I !; we have had Giordano Construction, we have had Rainbow and we have j had McPherson look into it. They have all stated that the bricks j in the back of the building are in dire need of repair . The roof i i � `i must be rebuilt. Estimates on outside brick work and roof alone i f! are in the neighborhood of between 11 ,000 and 15 ,000 dollars . We ii propose - I am in the Food Service business - I will have myself (� plus two secretaries plus I have several area supervisors that do ; (' come in once or twice a week to pick up payroll and to drop off , i bookkeeping. I would use one side of the building and I ' ll let Jolin i tell what his business is and what he ' ll do on the other side. MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: My office is a Certified Public Accountants . j We have four permanent employees on a rotating scale - one indivi- i dual would most probably be out of the office at any particular point in time so on the average there would always be three people in the building. Currently the building is a nine-bedroom residen e for students and Fred has pointed out the problems with the back I� j - 16 - iiof the property. We 've come up with some figures based on what the current landlord is collecting in rent and we have projected out what the picture would look like if the landlord had to go '! through the expense of making the necessary repairs . Currently th building is rented on a ten month a year basis for a total rental income of $73,000. Assuming that $10 ,000 would have to be the i it minimum amount put in under any circumstance to repair the brick i work and the roof we 've got total cash flow expenditures of $8 ,900 i indicating a $1 ,900 negative cash flow for a rental - residential i rental operation. Under the office situation, as a partnership , j� we would be charging the two companies $20 ,800 a year in rent whic would cover a $25 ,000 commercial improvement loan, not only to i repair the roof and the brick structures which are deteriorating, I. j! but also to bring the exterior of the building back to its origina lisituation as it was in 1900. We do have a book here which is exam !i ples of the work of Paul Ruben from Rainbow Associates which indi- cates some of the work they've done in a chemical brick cleaning j� process . The first picture there would be the changeover of the i I House of Shalimar. So, in general , we have estimates from the architects O'Brien and Taube who drew up the plans that we would run through about $25, 000 to bring the structure back to its ori- fi; { ginal position and to repair all the deficiencies in the framework Ij itself. j I� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Total figure again is how much? MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: Pardon? ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: To bring the building back is how much? j MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: $25,000 . I; +j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: $25, 000 . MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: Alright, and as the statement shows that under Iithe mortgage with the increase in the real estate taxes and the i i increase to maintenance we ' ll have total expenditures of $17 ,000 , giving us a positive cash flow of $3,600 as opposed to a residenti 1 �j real estate figure of negative $1 ,900. Now also I might point out that behind the building there are four - there is room for 'I j four additional parking spaces which are not there currently. Cur If it I� - 17 - i! !� rently the situation provides nine bedrooms which, under - I guess , the worst possible conditions would mean ;nine on-street parking spaces for the students . We would be using four off-street parkin Iy spaces and my permanent operation would normally have three people I( I� in the office . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: There is no off-street parking now? iMR. DIETERS-HAGEN: There is no off-street parking now. And Fred explained his operation as being himself and two secretaries and supervisors rolling in for the pick up and drop off of materials . !� I might say that my business is not one where we have very many appointments in the office as opposed to a doctor -. or a dentist creating parking situations of - from 9 to S . I would also . . . MR. MARTIN: Nor is m business . We do a food operation such as Y p in Morse Chain. We go there to do our business , they don' t come j to us . i MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: The parking space situation would be signifi- cantly alleviated we feel because first of all the offices would only be used on a 9 to 5 basis and the offices would be generally j i closed on weekends . So the entire parking situation in the neigh- borhood should significantly improve if those bedrooms were not there. j! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, the building was originally designed as, a residence? j� MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: Yes , a two-story duplex. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right. And is there anything that makes it in- appropriate for residence today other than its extreme disrepair I �j I ) which requires a substantial investment to bring it back to j i soundness? �f MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: The only thing that provides a difficulty there r, is that the cash flow from an investor's standpoint would not i justify the expenditure for the building . jCHAIRMAN MARTIN: To bring it back? i+ MR. i DIETERS-HAGEN: Well not just to bring it back to bring it back to its original condition of nice brick work and bringing they !' wood back on all the wood framework in the front and so on and so e !j forth, is excess work. The minimum work that is required to keep �i t 18 - 's it the building in good maintenance . . . �{ E CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Just structurally sound . . . f jMR. DIETERS-HAGEN: Just structurally sound work would cost $10 ,00 iI based on McPherson's estimates and Giordano ' s estimates . i 'j MR. MARTIN: We have those estimates with us if you are interested j; in looking at them. !i !I CHAIRMAN MARTIN : Okay. Now, I 'm going to put this somewhat provo - catively but it helps focus the issue I think. If the expense of I putting a building back into structural soundness is what you say represents the grounds for the variance, if that' s a sufficient I ground, isn't this a - doesn' t this represent a principal that the way to get a variance - the way to get an office building , say in a residential neighborhood, is to let your building run down. To I I draw rents out and let the building run down to the point where you v no longer can bring it back out of your cash flow from rent and i; then a variance is available . That strikes me as a very unattrac- tive principal if that ' s what this reduces to. j MR. MARTIN: I don' t know, he ' s had it on the market for quite some time and there hasn' t been any buyers other than us . I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But the building is in pretty bad situation i! right now? i` MR. MARTIN: No question about it. The roof leaks , you can walk ! through and see the floors heaving up, it' s in real bad shape. i !i ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. That, as I understand it, is your princip 1 l jargument for the variance? MR. MARTIN: That ' s one of them. We also . . . I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That the building is in bad shape, the only way II II it can even be put back into sort of a minimum structurally sound ;1 situation is at the expenditure of more money than the current ren levels generate? i i �! MR. MARTIN: That ' s one of them. The other one is that it is one �f jl jfour structures in that whole block - remembering that the library !� is there, Chamber of Commerce is right across the street, our pres nt offices are right down the street- are all commercial properties . 'i MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: The entire square block from Court Street over ' j ii E - 19 - i to Buffalo Street from Geneva Street up to Cayuga Street is all B-1 except for the corner of Court and Geneva and the two or three buildings running along side so 900 of the square area of the bloc { is shown on the zoning map is B-1 area which might indicate that li there was a problem in the past perhaps - I , as a personal opinion, f don' t see why the entire block shouldn' t have been zoned B-1 as op i� posed as just leaving 10% as an R-3 residential zone but . . . be that as it may. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well then that would have shifted the load right li across the street, I mean the line is drawn somewhere . . . right i j at the line - that always seems a little bit arbitrary. You know , !� the Planning Board recommended denial of this case? MR. MARTIN: We are aware of that. MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: Right. f CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do you have anything you want to address to that I) ji, They are reflecting concern over the impact of . . . �IMR. MARTIN: They stated all of the violations - they all exist i presently outside of the zone. f1MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: The area variances are - well the side lot is i ii jdeficient and the front yard is deficient but that situation wouldn't whether offices moved in there or new leases were negotiate ; with the residents so really we are just basically asking formally f' for the use variance, aesthetically the neighborhood should improv ;; si nificantl . We 've talked with several of the residents Mrs . Jg y Greenberg, Mrs. Sanburg, and George Avery from across the street , 'las well as Dr. Hall and there might be some of those folks here , tonight - they've all expressed their interest in the project and they did express that they hoped that the Zoning Board would approve i1, of the project. 11CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions? SDR. GREENBERG: I might have a comment . I don' t know how Mr. Flan- .,, pinery got away from maintaining his building that long. He obviously '' has been abusing the building. When it changed - when Mrs . Stutz ' died, Fred Stutz ' s mother died and it was always the Stutz house - Ethe building is run down and it ' s been more than an eye sore, it 's 'f ii I� I. j - 20 ,i Ij been a place where students have done a little bit of running wild - because it was without control . We 've lost some good neighbors - he didn' t care to be neighbors of this particular property. But I think that this - you know - this has to be accounted for by him, '! why he went into this venture, he isn' t - I understand he owns 'i other real estate and he obviously saw that the best way to expand) ii his profits is to keep the upkeep to a minimum. It ' s an unfortunate �s I situation that the building stands as it is . it i MR. MARTIN: We have nothing to do with Mr. Flannery . . . f { DR. GREENBERG : No, but he is the present owner. Obviously he is in violation in many ways , with the building code and I don' t thin that - I think that the question of the way the building stands no Ij is immaterial . . Ij I j MR. MARTIN: We 've been told by some of the builders that looked j, j! at it that because it being a brick structure and because of the i! I! layout and - it doesn' t lend itself too, economically, to a rental i! !j property. If it were a wood structure that could be easily re- paired, somewhat easily maintained and heated, etc. it might have been a more profitable piece of property. Now Mr. Flannery never SII told me this but my understanding is that he does have some proper i ties that he does make money off of and this happens to be one that he apparently doesn't think he can make money off of - as a rental property. d MR. KASPRZAK: Are you buying the property in partnership or are ;.( you buying - one is buying . . . I ; MR. MARTIN: We are going to buy it as a partnership . We will leaie ' lit to the Companies that we are principles in. MR. KASPRZAK: And these figures that you are putting together '' here - are these the figures - the rental figures from the apartment I for residential use, after the repairs or as it stands right now? I ! MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: This is the current rental that we have based I (i I '! his figures on. MR. KASPRZAK: And your offices , as fixed? ,I MR. DIETERS-HAGEN: We've projected that ' s what the rental will be ,I i '! In fact that would be the rent necessary to amortize the additiona i r 'i it f - 21 - t ;' capital , real estate taxes and the repairs and maintenance on the building. !! J I MR. MARTIN: Which is a reasonable rent for that much square feet . ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions? Anything you want to add? li�(i ! Thank you. Are you able to leave this as part of the record or dol ; you need it back? MR. MARTIN: Yes . I Is ` , CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to be i ( heard in favor of this requested use variance? i il! DR. FOGEL: I 'm Dr. Fogel and I represent adjoining neighbors . We jwere pleased to receive notice of the proposed move of Versatile dFoods, et. al . to our immediate neighborhood. I believe they would` ';make good neighbors, and support their appeal to the Zoning Board. I I feel such a concern would offer positive advantages and mainten- Dance of the property without disturbing the essentially quiet natur ;sof the neighborhood. This is for the 114 W. Buffalo Corporation. l We own the property between 119 W. Court and 114 W. Buffalo. ! ;(CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. Are there any questions for Dr . Fogel . Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in favor ii of this requested use variance? Anyone who wishes to speak in dopposition to it? (IMS. CARLSON: Yes , I 'm Pat Carlson of 407 N. Aurora Street . I be- � ! jlieve that the Board has already made my major point which is that (there is nothing especially unique about this building. Any build- ming in any zone will have a much better balance sheet if it is usedl iI !for business rather than residents and I feel that if this is the j I ?;only basis of the requested change, that it should definitely not ,be granted. As far as it being one of the few residential uses lef !in what appears to be a lot of commercial uses, this is something (which I believe should be dealt with in other ways in terms of the ( '!zoning change or something like that. The line does have to be som „where, somebody has to be the first resident on the block after ;i i lsome business and I feel that there is no particular reason that {makes this property uniquely unfit for residents which would mean Board ;!that it should have the variance granted. So I hope that the } i� 'I - 22 - I I Twill rule against this particular variance. !, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions for Ms . Carlson? Thank you. Is inhere anyone else who would like to be heard on this case? We ' ll jjmove on then to the next. i! i j, l i! i+ i! i i! i i I I' 1 I� Ii ii j I i I li f f i� •1 i� ii ii I 'I i i 23 - `i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS C I•TTY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS r OCTOBER 2 , 1978 i k4 ii j EXECUTIVE SESSION j APPEAL NO. 1228 : ;i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the area and use variances i �j requested in 1228 be denied. DR. GREENBERG: I second the motion. i 11FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The principal argument advanced by the i appellants for granting the use varian e i ii is that current residential rentals ca - ! not support the very substantial costs it i needed to bring the building back into I Li good shape. That situation has been per- mitted r-mitted to develop by a lack of proper maintenance over the years . It is not if a sufficient basis for a variance. It i' if is a form of self-created hardship. if 2) The area is zoned for residences , the property in question has serious de- !� ficiences including inadequate off- street parking. i ?� 3) The Board cannot find that the propose �i jnon-residential use would have minimal li impact on the neighborhood. '! VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent i Area & Use variances denied. I� ,i I� �I li 'I I� ii fi i' j3 j - 47 - ii MRS. MAXWELL: I second the motion. VOTE : 3 Yes • 1 No • 1 Abstention• 1 Abse t. I FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) That plan provides nine off-street I� parking spaces and furthermore is the �+ scheme preferred by the largest numbe of Planning Board members. Motion on "Scheme Bl" • MRS. MAXWELL: I move that we approve the B1 scheme. E j MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. it I VOTE: 3 Yes ; 2 No ; 1 Absent. FINDING OF FACT: 1) The B1 scheme retains the green house j on N. Tioga Street and allows off-str et parking for two cars . N Ruling of the Chairman: The Chair rules that in view of the failure of any of the proposals I to gather the four votes for a variance, the requested area vari- I ances in case 1229 are denied. ;i Final Motion: f ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that my interpretation of what l f has transpired be accepted by the Boa d. iI i DR. GREENBERG : I second the motion. i i1 VOTE : Show of hands vote - 5 - carried. I� j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The Board has discussed all four pro ii posals and discovered that while ther i1 are four members who would favor at I jj least one of those proposals , there i4 R� !� no one of those proposals for which four i members of the Board are willing to vote . The Board is concerned about the gene al impact of the off-street parking re- quirements in the B-,1 zone on the fabric of this and other nearby blocks and i also persuaded that it may make sense to adjust those requirements in the I light of available public parking space '.I I I I - 48 - 'I �i downtown. It urges that these genera questions be considered by the Planning Board and the Common Council . The di s "{ ficulti.es which the Board has had with i� j this case illustrates the difficulties of trying to deal with such general i questions on a "piece meal" basis . ii MRS. MAXWELL: I second the motion. iI j VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Abstention; 1 Absent j i �i l i; i i, ; I I I. i �i i i' i i i, v i ; i, I I ` i` ii 'I i i f 1 i i; i f! i+ I: 49 - ii it 'i I , Barbara Ruane, Do Certify that I took the minutes of the Board t of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, in thematters of Appeals i numbered 1226 , 1227 , 1228 , and 1229 on October 2 , 1978 at City i Hall, City of Ithaca, New York; that I have transcribed same , and i r. the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof 'i to the best of my ability. i i i i !•� Barbara C. Ruane Recording Secretary i( r I� 'j Sworn to before me this i j 'i day of ��'� ,�, 1978 . l 11Q _ Notary Public RUTIIANN BROtiC�\ Notary YL'�'ic, St€te of -New Yoi No. -164,--23 ,i Qual'ficd in 1(-txipti.ns Cu'acty . is Term Expires Mafcn I 7 j ii 4� ii ;I pi i; i i I I 4 li if i i I - 24 - I� !I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS jl CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK i COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 2 , 1978 i i MR. HOARD announced the last case to be heard. (i APPEAL NO. 1229 Appeal of S $ M Company for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 of the Zo - ing Ordinance. The appellants are j� submitting four proposals for consider- ation: Four of these proposals will j require variances from Col . 4 (off- street parking requirements) ; two of j j which will require variances from Coll 10 (Maximum lot coverage permitted) inj' addition to the parking variance , and one will also require an interpretation or use variance of Col . 14 (required rear yard depth) . The variances are j necessary to permit construction of a� j two-story office building at 312-314 j N. Aurora Street and 315 N. Tioga Street in a B-1 (business) use distric . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let me, as the appellant comes forward, say a I few words of explanation. It is somewhat unprecedented to have j ii four proposals and since I am responsible I think I owe a word of I � explanation to my collegues . I was called after the last meeting 11 at our last meeting the Board denied a requested area variance for, ii a particular plan on these properties. I was called by the appel- lant after the meeting and asked in what way it could be explored f whether some modification of that plan the Board had turned down, would change the results . And I said I didn' t know. The appellan further indicated that there were somewhat conflicting grounds for `I the Board' s denial. One was the tearing down of the building and it ' s affect on a block and the other was a desire or concern over the amount of off-street parking, and that if one responded to the one that cut against the other. And how would one play these thin s it off? It is also pointed out that the particular plan with which II the Board was confronted at last month' s hearing was one that was i reached after a fair amount of give and take with the Planning staff and had the endorsement of the Planning Board and that some !f of the options that might have appealed to the Zoning Board were ones that had been knocked down in that process . All of that led me to suggest that we have a range of the alternatives , some re- sponding to concern with parking and others concerned with the i i i. 25 - i knocking down of the building, so that we could probe to see j1 whether, indeed, there were any of them or one of them that the jBoard might accept. We are here, in effect, as a request for a i ii reconsideration of that earlier decision which means that that j hearing a month ago is fresh in our recollection, we don't have tol i go back over old ground. What we are interested in is what is newi j; MR. GOLDBERG : Would anyone in the audience like a set of these ii prints to follow? It gets reasonably complicated. My name is !i Stan Goldberg, I reside at 110 W. Upland Road and I 'm here to repr - �! sent S & M. Company. I 'm one of the principals of that company an we are the developers of the proposed office building at 312-314 j N. Aurora. Since I was obviously not privy to the exact results o I! the last Board of Zoning Appeals meeting I would like to generally ) i ! respond to the criticism or comments from the audience as well as I �i I� the comments from the media. First I 'd like to generally reiterate 11what Mr. Martin just said. We are going to - I 'm going to presents i four separate programs, all of which essentially boil down to two 11programs - each one is with a building left in and the other is � I 1with a building left out . But first I 'd like to talk about the . . �j j� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: They all require variances? ; MR. GOLDBERG: They all require variances and I ' ll - as we go by ; each one I ' ll point it out to you and request the appropriate var- iances in each situation. First I just want to talk in general terms about the land. We have here a block which is clearly zoned �II ffor office buildings. In my mind it is absolutely the proper use i ifor this block. There is no other logical use for the block. It if is not presently zoned for residential although there are some vers inice residences on the block. It is not zoned for retail , it is I ` positively zoned at this time for offices and so , in my mind, we positively have the correct land use for the real estate. So now ,11et' s get down to the very specifics - why do we need to request a iivariance? Why am I up here? I have two separate and distinct f i i 1problems . The first on is in fact , we have a tenant . This tenant his a government office. It, frankly, belongs in downtown Ithaca. ii This tenant requires 6 ,000 square feet, and they require it on the ) i j - � 26 - i ffirst floor. They want only a free standing building, they do not want to go into any other office project, they do not want to go I! upstairs , they do not want to go into a standard office situation. They wish a free standing building. They, in fact, require minima 'I parking and would be satisfied with one or two parking spots for I their VIP' s or , none if necessary. So that ' s step one. We know that we have this tenant for 6 , 000 square feet. Alright, now let ' take the other side of the coin. We , in fact, now need to put the in a downtown area, we need to put them into a block that is de- I4 signed for office use, which we feel this is, but we also need to i! provide parking per the zoning ordinance. Now let ' s take a step I Ibackwards and let' s take a look at th e economic feasibility of ,i �) providing offices with parking spaces. We have an area which is ii exactly one block away from - we have an area that 's within 300 j feet of the following things : the banks , the public parking faci lities, the Court House, the - several attorney' s offices and thi i land is not low priced by any sense of the imagination. There hav� been several transactions in the last several weeks that bear thati j i ji out. Your next logical comment is well why should we as a Zoning i! Board get stuck with your inability to buy the land at the right II price. If you paid too much for the land why should we have to suffer and give you a zoning variance. But let' s look at it in ,I ireality. We have us having just purchased the Family $ Children' s I !� Center for over $75 ,000 . and we have two houses which we bought to I i years ago in the range of $50 ,000 . for the two houses , not each. i There have been two other properties that have just changed hands on that real estate , within the last month, one was the highly pub licized sale of the YMCA and the other is the sale of the Reinhard I ; real estate which is now being sold to Weatherby - which I think I will remain as an interior decoration shop - that' s not for . . . - ' believe that. So what I am essentially saying is we have here a v ry I� high cost factor for land and if we were to comply with the Zoning j ?j Ordinance we would, in fact, have to buy five , six or seven houses depending on the exact interpretation or the exact size of each jhouse . Number one - it ' s not economically feasible, number two - ij i' i 27 - I 'm not sure that it is desirable to create a whole series of sea �I of parking spaces around a few buildings and I 'm going to review the block mentally with you and I have pictures here and I would i like to carry that comment a little further. The next thing I wa t to say is would, in fact , this office building have an adverse effect on the block? It is my contention that it positively would �! not. Further the problem in my mind that we are addressing tonight, that I 'm addressing here, is a very desirable problem, it' s not a undesirable problem. I 've dealt in other areas and the situation i! is simply that we don' t have a decadent downtown - the value of the real estate has not decreased and that ' s an extremely good kind o problem to be facing. But at any rate, I didn' t mean to digress - let ' s go into the demographics of this real estate and let ' s jus - I have a series of pictures which I ' ll pass around for people to see just to review your memory as we discuss it . One of the comments that was made earlier in one of the meetings was why not put a ij building on stilts so that, in fact, we could have parking on the under side of the building? Number one, the proposed office wants ground floor space for various reasons , one of which I assume is dealing with the handicapped, number two is , I really don' t think j that a building sitting on stilts, as I'm going to describe this block, is going to be attractive, or would be attractive . In add' - tion to which, it further adds to the economic unstability of this thing whether we want to admit it or not, any thing here must make economic sense or it ' s not a fact. We have some adjacent to the property we have some really very nicely kept buildings . Now on Aurora Street across from 312 and 314 , we 've got the WTKO buildin i which is very well kept and very good looking. We have the Liver- more building - that is certainly good looking, we have Mrs . Os- I� born' s home, that is certainly very good looking and that whole side of the street is really quite attractive. On the same side of the street we are talking about we have an old landmark, in an absolutely gorgeous structure, in the Unitarian Church. The next building is the prudential building. The next building after that i are the two old houses that we have owned for many years . We have i i +i i it 28 - I ! I it simply put a coat of paint on these houses in various years and i� !� they were painted last year. They really are not very desirable -� IR they are not structurally sound. They, frankly, are fire traps . The next house - next to it - is the Clines house and that ' s a ver nice home and very well kept. And then from there you have several i offices and so forth. Now let' s move over to Tioga Street. There 6� we have an absolutely mixed bag, if you think about it. We have i I! the Court house, we have an empty lot, unpaved and unkept unfor- tunately, then we 've got the Wiggins Building which is obviously entirely different architecture , then we have an empty lot - a �i parking lot , then we have the First Federal - former Ithaca Saving Bank lot. Coming across the street, and I 'm trying to refresh you memory so that each one of you knows what I'm talking about - we have the former YMCA which, I assume at some point will have a I building on it, we have the Reinhardt building which is certainly I very attractive, we have the Thaler building which is new construc - tion and a parking lot. Then we have the Wiggins , Tsapis estate i building which is recently been renovated and certainly very attra - tive, we have the then Family & Children's Center which comes into play tonight and I ' ll get into that in a second. And then we have i the Larkin building which is a very attractive insurance building ! �. and then LoFinto ' s office on the corner. So that, in fact , rounds �I out that whole street. So in my mind, we need to address the problem as to what happens in the parking situation? Do we , in !� fact, tear down a building for progress as it were and build an ; office building and allow- parking or do we , in fact, keep this bui d- li ingand have minimal or no parking, or do we in fact build at all My contention is very simply that the while the Wiggins Tsapis I Estate building that presently houses a Travel Agency, and this building were a matched pair, they are no longer a matched pair. 11 When I came to Ithaca as a student they were, in fact, it was , in E 'i fact, renovated at that point into a construction office and if you look at the pictures that I gave you, I maintain that the - that particular building has little or no historic value. It is furthe jmy contention, that it is not feasible to try to renovate that ! ;I E 29 i �i that building back to its initial state. From the pictures that j r you see that I have shown you, someone has put a false facade on the building, someone has put glass bricks in the building, someone has altered the lines of the building - it really is not , in my i� mind a matched pair and really could not be. Now let ' s address iithe problem that the designation of this entire block is a histori- cal area and there is no question that it is designated as a his- area - that block and that is a national historical area l j( as opposed to a local situation. That indicates some economic ad- vantages too - for people to leave the buildings and restore them. jj But it does not mandate that the buildings can' t be torn down. Fo me - this is not said in any imagination as a threat - I 'm just trying to create facts and go from there - but for me to get a building permit tomorrow morning to tear that down is a matter of going into Mr. Hoard' s office and paying the fee and getting a i' demolition permit. I need no special permits from anyone. I 'm not suggesting that I would do that because that is not my style. What I am suggesting is that I am going to comply with the wishes ii of the Board, but it is my impression that we will get a much bett r I n looking office building with parking where that house is . And now I 'd like to spend a few minutes going into the various alternative3 . I I want to comment in general that there is appreciable amount of parking in the area. We have the parking ramps , both well within walking distance of this proposed structure and well within the 500 feet limit and in my mind there has been a great deal of pre- cedent set that other buildings had been allowed to be built - other office buildings have been allowed to be built within the j framework of this fact that the parking ramps exist. If I might , there is a distinct reason for every one of these prints and I ' ll 11 describe them as four prints - developing. Let ' s talk about - if il everyone would turn to scheme B2 - in the upper right hand corner !i they are marked - scheme B2 is being presented tonight because , it in fact, complies with every possible zoning request except parking. '! We are offering only six cars . Mind you, to comply we would need X, jjapproximately thirty-eight cars . Now we comply with the front yar is 30 line which is on N. Aurora Street, we comply with the side yard line, both north and south, which is 10 feet on one side and five I { on the south side, ten on the north - we further comply with the rear yard request which is that the area that shows the little walk j way through there and we show an entrance through on North Aurora !j Street driving through the driveway north of the proposed building allowing six cars and then driving out on the common property line which it clearly shows on the south side of that. Are there any questions on that situation at all? Alright , now let ' s take a loo i at that exact same building - well , no, that ' s not true - let' s take ' a look at scheme B1. Now scheme B1 is essentially the same building j; but let me point out the differences . Here we have a 10 foot var- iance line on the south of the building and five on the north. i. Because if the Family .$ Children's Center - if the green house doe I I in fact remain then there is no reason to have a driveway, so we II felt that the entrance was more - it was more desirable to have the I� it ten feet on that side. But the size of the building is essential) the same and the reason, so there is no misunderstandings for the tail on these buildings as it were - for the configuration to the rear - is to approximately comply with the 5 ,700 to 6 ,000 square r feet of space that is needed to meet our leasing requirement. Let ' s now - any questions on that? Now in that building we have !� essentially the same building but we have left the Family $ Child- ren' s Center as an existing structure. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That one has zero parking, right? ii MR. GOLDBERG: That one has space -- it says for two cars but really - it ' s a difficult problem. You could enter from the common driveway { between the green house and the yellow building and you could park back there but in my mind it is more aptly said as zero parking. Now let' s take a look backwards at the scheme A2 . We presented A2 , �i because, in my mind, A2 gives us the appropriate number of square !� footage, it gives the right set back north - ten foot setback to j the north and a five foot setback to the south. It gives us suf- ficient setback which I might add, that setback - that on the ;f street is not exactly figured. What it will be is it will be j I; I� I - 31 - �I exactly the same setback as the Prudential building so that the lines look the same - so that they both have the same setback. I Where does it not comply? It obviously does not comply with park- ing, nor does it comply with this rear yard request which is in the back left corner of the building or southwest corner. You se , E: now that there - you are no longer in compliance with the rear I i !i yard set back but you are in fact in compliance with all other set backs and you obviously offer nine spaces as opposed to six or non as previously offered. Now let' s take that same exactly the same drawing and place it exactly the same but leave the green house - leave the Family & Children' s Center. Now that has room for appro - j imately three or four cars which is awkward, unfortunately, but it they could enter from Aurora Street, back around and come back out I i� on Aurora Street but that also complies with my requirement of nee - l ing that specific amount of square footage and having a few parkin �i spots and leaving the green house intact. The broader question, I1 think, to be decided, and I 'm not suggesting that this broader que - tion is a permanent answer, is does the downtown fill itself with I! +� buildings and then parking - periphery parking around those specif c i� I; buildings , or do they rely more heavily on the ramps? The profes- sional planning staff, as you know, is somewhat mixed in their owni feelings . However I have very strong feelings that 1 would like it it to put - what in my mind, is the best looking structure on this real estate and, in my mind - if my preference were asked, and I I 1 realize it ' s not being, is A2 because it seems to fit the land bes . i' I It complies with the needs , it allows some parking but not a huge I ,, amount of parking, it seems that the traffic flow from Aurora Strut entering at Aurora Street and exiting at Tioga Street fills the bi�l . I it It allows a very nice office building, in my mind, to be built on that block.. Next I 'd like to have you address the side elevations j if you would, which, unfortunately - scheme A. All the buildings essentially have the same structure. We are going to the east wal� is the one that you see on your top right section. That faces Aurora Street. It ' ll have a fair amount of windows. The area to he left is to be out of a shattered block material . It ' ll have a sky; j j{ I' !! - 32 - I� light and windows where the stairwell are. One of the pictures th t we have shown you and I ' ll be glad to leave here if you like, is i this - this is an actual picture of the material that we plan to use which is a shattered block material with a stucco facade to highlight i !� some of that. On the west wall , that ' s the part facing Tioga Street we will have certainly the same kind of situation - a fair 'I it amount of windows , some very definite lines with mortared stucco , J d ii some very definite lines with the shattered block. On the south i! wall which is the wall closest to Seneca Street, I think it ' s rea- sonably self expalnatory. You' ll have an entrance - there will be an elevator - the building will be sprinkled, obviously heated, j' lighted and air conditioned. There will be attractive windows . I s Amy mind a lot of effort and a lot of planning has gone into this . I personally have spent a great deal of effort with the professional I planners , with the Planning Board and with the - and addressing the j� various problems that have been raised. It is my opinion in genertl , i� jlthat, allowed to build this building, it ' ll definitely be an asset to the downtown of Ithaca. Further, for those of you who don' t know � me, I happen - one of my personal idiosyncrasies in life - is that i I spend a great deal of time in my business and I firmly take a l.� Hgreat deal of pride in it and I' really believe that the best looki g i lbuilding could be done with A2 and I certainly would make every of e 4� fort to do that . However, I have said very strongly - this is nota said in the set of a threat - that whatever the Planning Board andl I! the Zoning Board decide , we will comply with. I further would lik i i to talk about the downtown in broad generalities for one second. ;` This particular building with its tenant belongs in downtown Ithao:4. personally h I er i �i p s y ave a very deep seated financial interest in downt+ jIthaca. I would like to see it happen. I have very strong feelings I� that it should and will. I also, frankly, have very strong feelings I also have very strong financial interests in the Lansing area i ;hand I don' t feel that this building belongs in the Lansing area. $t i belongs in the downtown area but if, in fact, we can' t build it, then I have no alternative to look to that as the solution and tha ' s not - T want everybody to understand - that' s not said in the way I� i 33 - ; I � ! of a threat. It ' s said in the way of fact . That here you have a i office building that belongs in downtown Ithaca, that it is not ti economically feasible to try to comply with the parking, I 'm not !i +f even sure it ' s desirable to try to comply with the parking and I I have very strong feelings that we should be allowed to build this ii building. s, i! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The base line from which all the several schemes arises is a determination that it ' s not economically feasible , or , I physically feasible even, to meet the needs of this tenant to buil a reasonably scaled office building and comply with the off-street I get even close to the off-street parking requirements of the ordi-I y !� nance. These are expensive pieces of property and it would not , + your judgement, which you testified, be feasible to knock down { I, ! enough buildings at the price you'd have to pay to produce the thirty-eight or so off-street parking spaces? ,I MR. GOLDBERG: Exactly. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now I wonder I can understand how much of what �i you said bears on the wisdom of having that zoned in a way that re� quires this. amount of off-street parking. The body that does that I� P g• Y 1, is Common Council and not us . I see - you've noted that some of Ithese properties have changed hands . I notice the purchaser of on i i f of them in the audience. What distinguishes your property from 11 th-e others up and down the street in terms of these considerations . ii Or are your arguments really leading to a conclusion that we ought it to grant similar variances for anyone up and down the block who waits fI � to put up an office building? i i MR. GOLDBERG : My feeling is that you should grant similar variances i to anyone wanting to put up an office building in that area. It, f it factually, is the office building area of Ithaca - if this were a ;! metropolitan area we would say this is the office building section CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes but the Ordinance has an office building i! �i section B3 in which - which relies on the public parking. . . �IMR. GOLDBERG : Right . � i, I� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And then in this one the Common Council, in its wisdom decided that each property ought to stand on its own feet I� II 1 �j 34 - �I in terms of off-street parking. fMR. GOLDBERG: Well if there are to be office buildings . . . !!! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Maybe that ought to be changed but you know ii changing11 . . . ,f MR. GOLDBERG : Okay. I understand that . . . jt CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Redoing that isn' t our business . MR. GOLDBERG: Okay but if you were to logically look at the down- town segment and say where do office buildings belong, where are i there free standing . . . where do free standing office buildings !' belong in downtown Ithaca? I don' t think you could find a block s j more aptly suited than this one. I really believe that it belongs i there. Unfortunately to change a Zoning Ordinance takes a great i, deal of time , a great deal of effort and takes - and is not rea- sonably feasible from the amount of time required because I doubt f that you could ask any legislative body to spot zone a given block. I I � I� They would look. over the entire zoning of the entire area, which its a study in time and effor t and money and time and time is extremely �I important factor in this. !� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay - now getting past that base line , that is - i i) we were to grant a variance as defined that there were adequate grounds here for waiving a substantial amount of off-street parkin Ig i� required by the ordinance . MR. GOLDBERG: Right. i j) CHAIRMAN MARTEN: That gets us then with pushing around a modest number of parking spaces versus keeping up the green building ver-{ i sus various set backs . I' j� MR. GOLDBERG : Right. t � CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And as you balance them out and as the Planning i t Board balances them out, there is a preference for A2 which gives '- i which knocks down the green building, gives nine off-street parking spaces and involves some minor setbacks . I I it MR. GOLDBERG: One rear set back which does not comply with the ') Planning Board had the feeling i g - given the choice between losing the rear set back, which didn' t seem very important, to the tail o 11 the building as it were - that we prefer to lose the rear set bac I I� I I 35 - il I because it ' s really not a very important architectural feature of the building at all and it certainly - there is an existing house j there that was just renovated and does have a fine economic use. j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes . Focusing on the green house , your argument l ! is that in terms of impact - total impact on it, that knocking it i! down gives more off-street parking which is a concern - that the f green building itself is not the historic building that it may one have been . . . i, MR. GOLDBERG: Right. And further the green building is - I was i jl it today, it ' s presently being temporarily renovated for the Meadow House and I was in it today and I can say that I was not very pleased !i with it. It is really not terribly architecturally sound. I 'm not suggesting that it is going to fall down because it is not. ,I But . . . I MR. KASPRZAK: Structurallysound you are saying but it' s not I iiarchitecturally pleasing? j MR. GOLDBERG: That' s it exactly and I really was kind of disap- pointed with what I saw on the inside, lots of little rooms and just !i ! not, in my mind, a very desirable kind of thing. But further if j you listen to me from economics I 'd say allow me to build a building i and put the leave the green house up but I 'm really not saying that because I feel that the office building will be much more attractive i I� and have much- more accessibility with: a drive on the north side oA !I I Ii the real estate, a reasonably small amount of parking and a very ] ii I nice walk way to the entrance. But from an economic point of view �i I say - you know, you say well why not leave the green building? �! I And I say, you are right - why not leave the green building, it ' s i sj got to be rentable to somebody, somewhere , someday, under some ci�- cumstances . And if you ask me why I bought the green building, bel- cause I certainly - that was a new structure, it is purchased, th re i, Ij is no con- it is ours, there is no contingencies , etc. , I bought ! it because I thought it would made the office building more attradI I ti.ve and that' s a fair amount of dollars to spend for nine parkin i �I spaces to make an office more attractive. I i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions? I i - 36 - Ii sl i� MR. KASPRZAK: Just a couple of questions , both of them - or at least one of them somewhat philosophical I suppose . Do you have I iany opinion on what kind of a development might be going on to the !� north of your proposed building? a MR. GOLDBERG: Okay - to the north of our proposed building on II Aurora Street is Mr. Clines ' home - he is not in the audience , he i was here last time, he has a very nice , attractive home and it 's !� well maintained and it ' s small and it has been their family home !j for a good number of years and he has asked me thousands of times 11 if it is at all possible to get rid of those two junky old houses i� and I said in time, and that has been going on for five or eight j !i years . Going on north on Tioga Street I would say that there would ,I be no new development. Directly north on Tioga Street is the Mazza, i Clune, Williamson building, they have been in those law offices for I Ii a good number of years - they own the real estate and it would be my guess that it would maintain itself as well maintained with no i appreciable new construction. The house after that is the Larkin i li Insurance Agency. It is certainly a well maintained, nice looking i� place, and the house after that is a former Ithaca College dormitory which. is now LoPinto' s office and it certainly has potential to be nicely maintained - nice architectural design. If MR. KASPRZAK: My follow up question is - we 've been battling and i j probably will be battling many, many moons to come, on where to I j! "establish the downtown expansion line with efforts to the residen i ;I tial buildings north" etc . i � MR. GOLDBERG: Right. I) MR. KASPRZAK: Since you have alluded to certain interests in thati ; kind of thing, where would you suggest the line be drawn? j li I II MR. GOLDBERG : Court Street seems to be the logical area, frankly. 11 I Ithink anything between Court and State should be business, this is my personal opinion and certainly I 'm not a Planner and I 'm not ` Y P an architect but I 've answered' a question as to what m reference i would be . �I i MR. KASPRZAK: Thank. you. i ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other questions from members of th !� Board? '' 1 i( j - 37 - il !i MR. GOLDBERG: Any Albany by the way. Are there any other questio s F I can answer for anyone else? j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Goldberg. Is there anyone else Ihere who would like to speak in favor of the requested variance an address perhaps the range of alternative schemes? Yes . REVEREND TAYLOR: My name is John A. Taylor, I live at 207 Winston Drive. I am the minister of the First Unitarian Church. I was here last week- or last time you met, and discussed the idea that the it Unitarians have been there a long time, and had no objection to this building that was being considered. As one who parks in the I area every day, I have never found it necessary to go within two ( blocks beyond my church and to find a place to park. I park in 9 the ramp often - there is ample parking places there . But my pur- pose for coming down again tonight is almost in answer to what !� happened the other night when I was followed by Historic Ithaca. !i Now if we are going to talk about the historisity of that particular �i block I have a pretty good venture there, since the Unitarian Church is all of that which is sacred in architecture in Ithaca with the i; '( William Henry Miller building a great pile of stone . We made a y commitment a decade ago to stay in downtown Ithaca. It was at that time and remains to be a costly commitment. In my denomination ' there has not been a single church which stayed downtown that has prospered by that move. There has not been a single church that f, has moved to the suburbs which has not prospered by such a move. s But we stayed downtown because we believed that we could help the �j downtown. It is essential for historic buildings to stay there an I j' we stayed there somewhat with the hope that the downtown would be- e come attractive creative ' ii place where people would enjoy coming. I think the work on the Ithaca Commons , and the other downtown are' s 1i have proved this to be true. On our particular block we have a I great eyesore in the two buildings that are now being considered t be town down. I would be less than honest if I did not say that w �I iilook eagerly towards their being torn down and without a great ren - j vation of the property that used to be the Family F Children' s Center we would like to see that one torn down also . We believe �I i 38 - �� r that we have a historic area; we believe that there is a responsi-� ;I I i� bility on the part of the Board of Zoning Appeals and on the part ' I� of the City of Ithaca not only to maintain historic structures but i, it to assist those who have historic structures and have done a great I i� deal about - and spent a great deal of money - to keep such stru !4 - 1 tures going. As you can well imagine the Unitarian Church is an Ii energy catastrophy. It may be a lovely old building but I have f, 1 three people on my staff who make less money than we spend for heat- ing e t-ing that place every year. This will continue to grow. I told m I congregation, somewhat to their chagrin, yesterday, that if the H heating costs continue at the present rate over the next twenty year: ii that they have over the last five years , we will spend $100 ,000 . :i `I to heat that building by the year 2000 . They did not take that with Ii a great deal of joy but, whatever, we are there and we intend to '! stay there. We would appreciate it if the City of Ithaca would do jeverything in its power to make that as attractive a block as possi- ble. As Chairman of the Commons Advisory Board, and I think the Board itself, considers it an obligation not only to - in its I, wisdom develop the kind of programs and policies for the Commons Ci that make the Commons an attractive place for the citizens of I Ithaca but also to do whatever we can to make it profitable for th r it merchants to stay upon the Commons . I feel that it is the job of f� Ithaca, the City, to make it as attractive as possible for those o if us who have made a historical commitment to Ithaca to stay there i also. That ' s all I have to say. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Can you help us choose between Al , A2 , B1 , and i II B2, if we get to choosing between those four - or among those four? I! MR. TAYLOR: Will you guarantee me that I can walk out? No, I am j not - I don' t think. I want to stick my head in that noose. f CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Well, alright, a basic choice is between some I! parking spaces at the cost of the rebuilding the former Family i. & Children' s Services - or keeping that building up with less park ! ing. MR. TAYLOR: I do not think that some parking spaces , a half dozen .i parking spaces, nine parking spaces - is going to make any differ- ence in the parking problem, if there is one in that area. It see s i1 i 39 - ii to me that the green building - I know that building inside and out - I' I have been in it many times . I know it on the outside by walking jlpast it many times and looking at it. It might have been a wonde - Ijful building at one time. With the expenditure of enormous amount !I i� 'j of funds it might be a wonderful building again but at the moment ) ;I I think that I would go for tearing down all three of those build'ngs and erecting as attractive as possible, financially possible , an i I' office building at that area and moving ahead with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like !I to speak in favor of the requested variance? Anyone who would li e � I to speak in opposition? 'i MR. LYNCH: My name is Robert Lynch, I reside at 175 Gray Road, f Ithaca. I ' d like to make it part of the record that I am an empldyee of WTKO Radio - operations manager of the station, I am not, how ,I ,I ever, representing the ownership or management of this station, I I am representing myself. I feel that the variance should be denie for reasons which., perhaps , have not been discussed to any great ii extent so far this evening or in the past sessions . I think that it while most of the attention is focused upon the Family $ Children' s Service building, I think there is also a need to consider the tw i; so called brown houses on North Aurora Street which I think, whil not particularly architecturally unique perhaps , are nontheless ;i more desirable than a new block and brick or whatever, crushed i; i; concrete office structure . I have no reservations and no objecti n to the use of those buildings as business property since there ar a number of business uses in that block, including the station wh re i' I work. I CHALRMAN MARTIN: And its zoned for business . MR. LYNCH: It ' s zoned for business and that ' s not an issue. I have no objection to use of those houses for business purposes if it they were remodeled or whatever. However, I think that their de- molition might be a detriment to the character of that block. I i admit the houses are in a delapidated condition. They really are in need of some severe renovation or improvement. I really can' t judge whether they are structurally sound but I would suggest tha I� i - 40 - perhaps an attempt has not been made to renovate them to make the I { attractive, make them sound and in fitting with the community. I think it is also important to point out that I 'm not opposed to having this office structure, this government client or whatever, locate in the downtown area. I just suggest that perhaps there is !i a better place to put it than on the 300 block of North Aurora i j� Street. There is another point to consider and that is that this j block has become, in recent years , a buffer if you want to call it j that, between the downtown business district and the residential i! area to the blocks to the north. Common Council and this Board have been on record in the past of opposing any extension of office structure such as legal offices or any other sort of office beyond; the 300 block. T have been opposed to putting legal offices say in the 400 block of N. Aurora or N. Tioga. I think that by demoli - !� king these houses - the three of them I am referring to - the two I� brown houses and the Family $ Children' s Service. You are somewha� �Idestroying this buffer - you are making it a more abrupt change fr m � a commercial area to a residential area and I think that this Ilbuffer is something that helps ease that transition. I 'd hate to y� see that 300 block of N. Aurora become appendage of downtown or Hwhatever you want to call it. For these reasons I am suggesting �I ii that the variances for all four suggestions - as far as I am con- cerned - be denied. I£ I had to pick and choose I would pick and i choose the ones which preserve the Family & Children' s Service 3, 1� building. Thank you. ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions for Mr . Lynch? Thank you. Is 11there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? j IMS. CARLSON: I 'm Fat Carlson and I live in the 400 block of North, lAurora Street - 407 . Again, some of the points I was going to mak �1have been made already. ,For example, the serving of this B-1 area las a buffer between the residential area and the downtown and I f 9 think. that in terms of the parking requirements that the zoning code ilhas very wisely decided to require the B-1 area to furnish its own ! parking. It does not ask this of the central business core so that ; you can have a much more tightly developed area which. can depend on 0 i' ,I II 1 { - 41 - i� I the parking ramps and the residential area north of Court Street, I as this Board is well aware is subject to a lot of business re- ' II lated parking. I feel that these parking requirements should not be waived just for every passing whim. I don't think that parking I� ,t is the only thing that should be considered, however, I agree with Mr. Goldberg that it may not be the best use of this high priced i 11 land to put a multitude of parking lots in and I think that if the e jis a good reason that the parking requirements might be waived - �� for example if someone is rehabilitating an older house - this will often have built in difficulties and, in this case, I think it would be justifiable to say that the value to the neighborhood and to th downtown in general of keeping an older property would probably i ii outweight whatever disadvantage there might be to losing a few parking spaces . And I think that - well , again I would like to ii agree with the Reverend Taylor and with Mr. Goldberg in their appy - i ciation of downtown and its general health. I would like to point 1 out that this Board can take part of the credit for, in fact, bein I i I, very strict in its interpretation of certain things for example, allowing business uses in residential neighborhoods and so forth. jIt has been part of the city' s overall approach to keeping a healt y I� downtown area and I think that Mr. Goldberg and the business area �i f will benefit from this and I , in the residential area, also benefi jlfrom this and we end up with a very healthy city. I would like to IIcome back to an issue which I believe I raised on the earlier ones and that is that I don' t see any reason that, once buildings are jremoved from the property that there should be any particular diff - �Iculty in providing adequate parking space . The only difficulty 11here seems to be in the 6, 000 square feet which are required, appa - eptly, by this tenant and I 'm very much in favor of office use of this particular block, I think that is a reasonable use, however I !; don' t think, that it is necessarily true that you need 6 , 000 square I I� feet on that particular set of lots . I would like to submit to th '} Board a page from today' s Ithaca Journal . You will notice that 1there is an ad here advertising over 6 ,00.0 square feet of carpeted ;, ground floor offices overlooking the Ithaca Commons . This is merely ii I � I 42 - to indicate that this tenant would have other possibilities than I �! this particular building if there is a desire to come to downtown ji Ithaca. This is not the only answer for that tenant and it may, i :i !I fact, be very damaging. I would like to see all three buildings f� 11 saved if possible. I agree with Mr. Lynch that the Court Street �I streetscape is much better with the existing building facades then i it would be with another modern looking one - and I believe that with perhaps less than complete restoration that the building that is in the national historic district could be restored to a much I� more attractive use - just a coat of paint did wonders for the !I Gulliver ' s World building and I feel that with something less than , a complete restoration that the building next to it could also be S� very attractive. So I think that I would basically like to recom- mend denial of all of these - if I had to choose among them - as 'i you are asking, I would obviously prefer to keep the one with the old Family $ Children' s Service there . However, as Mr. Goldberg i has pointed out this would in no way keep him from tearing it down in the future and if such a plan is adopted, I would suggest that i� the Board have as a condition some sort of good faith demonstration i i1 on the part of the developers that this would not happen. For i, �1. example, they could give the city an easement on the facade of tha i; , building or something like that. So that it would be clear that this would, in fact, be the case and that you would not be granti g Ij a variance for one of the plans without tearing the building down I F only to find that it is disappeared in the spring anyway. So I i j, think that this - that sums up my idea - I would not like to see a y i '( of these things happen but the more buildings you can save , the 'I !i better. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions from members of the Board fo 'i Ms. Carlson? Okay. MS. CARLSON : I would like to add that in its present state the bl ck i both on Tioga and on Aurora make a very nice transition from the i - i Itensive uses downtown to the residential uses which begin on the �f i; other side of Court Street and I feel that the more commercial that i! ; those blocks look the less attractive our area will be as a residence . i i� li i - 43 - CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on this case? Mr. Goldberg you have something you . . . I MR. GOLDBERG: Do I get an opportunity to respond or do you think i it is necessary . . . ? i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The Board' s procedure is sufficiently flexible to allow that. i' MR. GOLDBERG: I might just take several minutes more of your time i I to respond to both. Mr. Lynch and the young lady' s requests and comments . The first comment which both of them made very clearly was that we really should save 312 and 314 North Aurora. 312 and 314 North Aurora, unfortunately, are beyond saving. They are not aI structurally - neither are structurally sound. Mr. Hoard' s group has , several times within the last several weeks I believe , re- quested to go into them, and we 've asked them to please sit tight I� for a week to let us decide what is going to happen to the real estate because there is no way that those can be renovated short i! of totally tearing them down. The floors are eighteen inches out of square. You realize how much eighteen inches is? The struc-, tural capabilities of those houses are almost non-existent . And i '# I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I own them because they really ar i that bad and I just do not believe that it is wise , economically i feasible, even intelligent to consider saving those buildings in ` the structural state they are in. I 'm not now talking about wirin Ill and plumbing and all of that kind of thing, I'm just talking about ?� the structural state of those buildings and I just don' t think tha �J they are possible to save. The only other comment that - just in E !� general terms that both parties made, was the reluctance to tea f down anything for a new office. Again I think I stand on what I said earlier, if there were an office building to be built in Itha a, i 'I it belongs in that block. Further , I believe Mr. Lynch made the ' general comment that there was a reluctance among the governing ' bodies to allow offices in that block in former years and if you I I further analyze it, almost every office that has been built in tha immediate area. IjDR. GREENBERG: Stan, do you want to answer the question about tha ad that . . . ? j i! i! �i 44 I 'i i' MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, I think I was very clear when I said that this ittenant needs 6, 000 square feet of ground floor space. There is a if you don' t mind maybe I ' ll digress a second. Let ' s take a look I at the office space available to the Ithaca Community. Alright - I 11 that essentially boils down to Citizens Savings Bank building, which has totally redone their offices - they have done a very nic I job but in doing so has taken a lot of the floors for their own us ,- . 111 And the next building is First National Bank building which they have redone floor by floor of which I would offer a unknowledgable iO guess that somewhere between 40 ­50% of the building has been re novated. But there is , in fact, no office- and then there is lot !� of office above the retail stores on the Commons, there is a huge amount - I happen to have 4, 000 square feet of it which I 'd like t Irent - third floor, flat, walk-up, nothing nice about it - not ;! posh - no way to make it into really nice desirable office space . i The Ithaca Center will, in fact, offer some of that, I believe , bu 3 they will not offer office space on the first floor because office I� space is not as economically profitable as retail space and, as a ljresult they will not be able to do it . So I think - I have given is I you an honest answer in that and if you think about it what I 've i said is reasonably factual . There just is there is no nice office I� i space in downtown Ithaca on the first floor and that ' s what this ! tenant positively requests - needs . t! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Am I right that you've owned the two Aurora Stre t properties for ten years? 111MR. GOLDBERG: Yes , approximately. s Ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And you mention their present very bad situation ki Has the explanation why it now doesn' t make sense. How were they 1 f! ten years ago? I's MR. GOLDBERG: Equally as bad. We have very simply done a minimal ) j " amount. We have rewired it to comply with the electrical codes - d we have done a minimal amount of plumbing to comply with the plum - ling codes and that 's really what Mr. Hoard' s office is concerned ! !; with. But they were structurally bad ten years ago. There was a ', dip in the floor ten years ago. They just are not - and they've ji 45 - i gotten worse . We 've not done anything to make them better. We ! never anticipated buying those pieces for anything other than 1 tearing down and they were sold to us in those days - they were - when I was in college it was Snyder' s Tourist Homes and after that I I they were leased out for various things but they have outlived j their purpose many, many times over. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Further questions? Thank you. I think we 've ii heard from everyone. Is there anyone that has something that they i haven' t had a chance to say? I believe that concludes the public part of this meeting . We will now go into executive session to j deliberate. We will reconvene in public session at the end to i EI announce the results . i! f +I+ I! I� I !I !! II I) II �E t I! I! jf ,I 1 !1 I I I� I i i! i it l I !t ! I� ++1 fl E` i! I� ii ii I� 46 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 2 , 1978 i !' EXECUTIVE SESSION ii I� H APPEAL N0. 1229 : Initial motion: MR. KASPRZAK: I move that an area variance be grant d in case 1229 to permit the constructio it ff of an office building as proposed by t e !i appellant without , at this point , sing i� ling out a particular one of the four �I proposed schemes . i MRS. MAXWELL: I second the motion. it VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Abstention; 1 Absent 'i; FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The magnitude of the requirement is �) such that it would not permit a reason 'I able structure to be built on the prop�rt) and still provide for the required nu - si ber of parking spaces . it 2) The transition from the commercial to ii i� the residential part of the City would be served better if there were not lar e parking areas interspersed between ►1 i buildings. 3) The proximity of public off-street pa k- ing means that the variance from the 44i ifoff-street requirements of the Ordinance j for this, particular lot will not have r serious adverse consequences on the neighborhood. i 4 Motion on 'Scheme A211: �I i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I will move that the scheme designated ) i; by the appellant as A2 be approved and i ii that the area variances required by it i i be granted. i i i, 47 - i II MRS. MAXWELL: I second the motion. VOTE : 3 Yes ; 1 No ; 1 Abstention; 1 Absent FINDING OF FACT : 1) That plan provides nine off-street �iparking spaces and furthermore is the scheme preferred by the largest number i i• of Planning Board members . i� Motion on "Scheme B111 : I MRS. MAXWELL: I move that we approve the B1 scheme . t j MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion. it 11 VOTE : 3 Yes ; 2 No; 1 Absent I� FINDING OF FACT: 1) The B1 scheme retains the green house I f on N. Tioga Street and allows off-stre t parking for two cars. i Ruling of Chairman: ' The Chair rules that in view of the failure of any of the proposal I� to gather the four votes for a variance, the requested area vari- ances in case 1229 are denied. �! Final Motion: ii I� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that my interpretation of what j4 has transpired be accepted by the Boar.. i DR. GREENBERG: I second the motion. 11VOTE : Show of hands vote, 5 - carried. j i I j' The Board has discussed all four proposals and discovered that E1while there are four members who would favor at least one of those ' Eproposals , there is no one of those proposals for which four membefs i 1of the Board are willing to vote . The Board is concerned about th 1� general impact of the off-street parking requirements in the B-1 i hone on the fabric of this and other nearby blocks and is also per jisuaded that it may make sense to adjust those requirements in the I flight of available public parking space downtown. It urges that i 11these general questions be considered by the Planning Board and th jjwhich the Board has had with this case illustrates the difficultie Common Council . The difficulties/of trying to deal with such {, general questions on a "piece meal" basis . j VOTE: 4 Yes ; 0 No ; 1 Abstention; 1 Absent I � i l