Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1966-06-16 i� r ii w i I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK JUNE 16, 1966 PUBLIC HEARING c PRESENT: GEOFFREY WEAVER, Chairman ii GEORGE R. PFANN, JR. RICHARD COMSTOCK JOHN EWANICKI -i W. H. ELWOOD C. MURRAY VAN MARTER, Building Commissioner, Secretary i! it ;i MR. CHAIRMAN: We are' ready to hear Case No. 703 - Appeal of Michael Davii, Slaterville, New York, to erect a mercantile and multiple i dwelling at 311-313 Eddy Street, Ithaca, New Y§rk. Exception required under Section 7, Column 6, off street i loading, and Column 12, front yard requirement. B-2 Zone. 'i !I RICHARD B. THALER: I am here with you representing the appellant, Michael ,i David. I promise that I will take only about ten minutes f at most, in my presentation because the information I have s is almost superfluous. I feel that this whole project is something which falls within the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance but not maybe to the letter of the law in these two sections. !I ? Mr. David proposes to reconstruct a building where the i former building burned down. It was formerly a building, a house with some i rooms for light housekeeping and several apartments, whcih were substandard and did not qualify under the Cornell University Housing Code, and never did `I J have students living legally in them. What Mr. David proposes to do is put i up a modernistic type of building of masonry, brink, stone and glass on this site. The land use is reflected within the statute; the total area of the lot jas opposed to the area of the building is within the requirements, height, depth. One requirement we have is on the ground floor, where we will have i` two proposed commercial residents. One will be used by Mr. David for barber I! !I I� i -2- if I I{ shop personally, such as he has across the street and up towards the west, ;j known as the Eddy Street Barber Shop. It is proposed to use one site for the s shop and for the other site we have tentatively negotiated with Cornell Uni- versity for an office. Also on the first flbor a one-bedroom efficiency f apartment; on the second floor, two apartments, with two duplex apartments e � with their ground floor on the second floor, and going through to the third floor; and on the top floor the two duplexes, and two apartments. So there are seven units plus two commercial sites, all of which we have gone over with Mr. Van Marter. The architects have done their work well to comply with the ordinance. We have told Mr. Van Marter, and I believe the architects are in i the process of reducing part of the plans to comply totally with multiple residence laws. Mr. David has been law-abiding and wishes to comply, and this is why we are here to ask for a variance before we put spade to ground. I think, gentlemen, that the second section we do not comply with is off street loading. As as far as commercial sites are concerned we are within the spirit of the law on this building. The only type of com- mercial off street loading is going to be done with a very brief bringing of barber shop supplies, maybe once a month, - no large trucks. We sent out the notices to the adjoining land owners, let- ters to over 20 people; we did not receive back one adverse reply; we did re- ceive back several letters, and I would like to read you just one, which is from the attorney for Mrs. Anagnost, who owns four premises surrounding this j property, and Mr. LoPinto says as follows: �t "Mrs. Anagnost, my client, has requested that I reply to your letter to her of June 7, 1966 in the above matter, as fol- lows. She does not object to the relief sought by your client, Mr. David, from the City of Ithaca, relating to a variance from the front yard and off-street loading entrance reuglations. "You are hereby permitted to state to whomever it may con- cern this attitude on the part of my client. �= Yours truly, ii John LoPinto" 1� i I; ii I I i! i i -3- 4— I 3-I believe that in our letter which we sent out that we asked for criticism and we received none. I believe that this building fits within the spirit of the law. In two areas we do not comply. As far as the set-back is concerned, all the adjoining and neighboring buildings are on the sidewalk line. The former building stood there. I have just been handed a report by the City Planning Boar and it is totally unintelligble to me that this, the Zoning Board, would go i along with this recommendation. My reason is this: It is my understanding that Urban Renewal eventually is to attempt, for one thing, to achieve a more !s sightly aspect, one section in continuity with the other. Here the buildings are old, not up to date, not kept in good condition, and here is a project which will be solely financed by an individual out of his life's savings, all up at that particular area. When the Planning Board says that there is a possibility �i of re-aligning this street - does not its physical nature prohibit this. By a I! four foot elevation from the street level to the sidewalk, and if you move this street back, it would be impossible for a car to drive up and open the door. I would also call your attention to the fact that in the `. City's Planning Board report it says that this area is being considered as a "possible urban renewal project area". I say, gentlemen, this building burned 4s down approximately in December. This hole has been these since then, and if this is to reamin until urban renewal comes into the area, it will be over a period of some time. I ask you to consider our request for exception and variance based on the geographic conditions, the location of the building, and that what we are asking for falls withinthe spirit of the law, if not the letter, and to protect adjoining land owners from blight. This is not a blight; it is within the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore we ask your considerat on. MR. VAN MARTER: At the time this appeal was made we referred to the parking E: PP P 8 `s requirements and I ruled that this being available within i; f the prescribed distance, that it would comply. Reading further, it implies that the owner should have control of this. i! MR. THALER: I did not intentionally skip over that part, but for an ?E owner to comply with the parking section of the ordinance, it would be impossible j to put any building at all on the property. The only possible use to which it i> j could be put would be a park because there is a hill in the rear, but the only possible use is a building site. i �j ii -4- MR. CHAIRMAN: The Planning Board refers to seven dwellings. Didn't you say five? I sa MR. THALER: Maybe I can illustrate this: (with plan): On the first G floor there is one living unit. On the second floor there 4! ii are two apartments, and also the ground floor of two du- ,i plexes, which go through to the top floor, and on the top floor there are two apartments. So you have seven units. i� it MR. COMSTOCK: Are the duplexes efficiency apartments? I MR. THALER: No, they start on the second floor and go through to the 'i third floor, and two-bedroom apartments. MR. COMSTOCK: And the others? it ii MR. THALER: There are one and two bedrooms; of course the duplexes are both two-bedroom. I MR. CHAIRMAN: What is to be the occupancy of the second commercial? MR. TRACER: We hope it will be an office. We are negotiating with an' insurance company and the University. ,i MR. CHAIRMAN: You would need one space for the dwelling unit? ;j MR. VAN MARTER: If neither one of them is classified as retail space, which j would require 100 to 200 square feet, and if you consider �I one for a living unit and commercial, and this is in a retail area, if this were for a doctor, say, he would re- quire one plus one for each employee. j MR. CHAIRMAN: This probably is not big enough for a retail store? MR. THALER: We do not anticipate that. The best economical use would be an office. `i MR. PFANN: Mr. Van Marter has the answer. I believe you have inspecte the premises and feel it would be impossible to have any kind of parking on that area? Mi j MR. VAN MARTER: Yes, I could guarantee this. Consider the distance between the lot line or the building and the curb. 'I MR. PFANN: What is your problem about? A minimum dimension? �i i I MR. THALER: Just the set-back and we can not set the building back. This would necessitate our blasting and this would probabj I undermine the building in back. ;i MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the total lot area? t it MR. THALER: I think 4060 square feet and 3000 is minimum. The buildin will occupy less than 75%. This is 2472 as opposed to 4060. +� It is 50 by 86, I believe. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any more questions? MR. COMSTOCK: What is the nearest parking area that can be utilized? i, i�� MR. THALER: There is a City parking area on Dryden Road. I believe it ?' is within the 200 feet - is it not, Murray? MR. VAN MARTER: We can check. This would be measuring from lot line to lot it I line of the parking area. t MR. THALER: This is metered in the day time and open at night and there is an area up there to expand the City parking. I understand that an additional lot could be opened to accommodate 500 I I cars. If you go right straight across it is less than 200 feet from lot line to lot line. (refers to map) i !i MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, are there any more questions? I MR. VAN MARTER: I think this section probably has never been ruled on, whey they state that "off street parking location requirements shall be on the same lot except if there is adequate and available off street parking within 500 feet of the buildin 'i this may be substituted, etc." "Two or more property owners may cooperate in meeting the requirements of this sub-section as long as each participant 'I has adequate spOace as required." "That if a building is used for a purpose which combines `i two or more of the purposes listed, only yhe requirement I ii for the predominent purpose shall be considered". i, MR. THALER: May I enter into the record an affidavit of mailing on the notices that went out, all within a 200 foot radius. We ha N five replies, all affirmative. ;8 i 'I a! i1 -6- I 'i MR. THALER: In the letter we sent out we asked the adjoining land !7 owners if there were any objection to please be here or to inform us before the meeting, and if none, to remain silent. We got five letters, all affirmative. i� 9 Appellant's Exhibit 1, consisting of 4 sheets, being plan, marked for idlentification. !I MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pfann, as to the letters, do we accept these letters when we do not have them all? pi ' MR PFANN: Yes, accept all offered. (2 accepted) II MRS. JOHN HARDING: 202 Eddy Street. Speaking both as a citizen and as secre- tary of the East Hill Civic Association, I hope you will not make an exception on the parking because parking is very tight up there. �i We went over the plans yesterday and checked the number of square feet in all I apartments and arrived at a possible occupancy of 19 people, which would mean 12 cars at least and there could be 19, and this law was available to the owner at the time he purchased it. I really feel that it would be quite a jj dis-service to the general parking in that neighborhood, to permit that much, i even though there are other similar placed in the immediate vicinity. We feal el j this should be limited as it occurs. We haven't any strong feeling about the lot line. It just may be the owner's hard luck. You all know about the traffic i j there. I do not know how you can control the use after it is once sold and built. We would not object to the set back but on the parking I want to register an il objection. I, MR. PFANN: What would you folks like to see done with this particular lot, made into a parking lot? i! A. It would help if there could be some access, if it were ! possible to plan access to the larger size lots. MR. PFANN: In the next two years would you folks rather have that lot left the way it is or would you like business there? f� A. Business is permitted there. i MR. THALER: Unfortunately we, if we plan just one business, do not com- ply as far as parking is concerned because we can not get !I access from this lot. a A. But I thought it was possible to have joint parking. To ge if back, we would have no objection to this kind of building i i i -7- j i if the person who wants to build it provides also for the I parking within the legal distance. MR. PFANN: What about the public parking that has been mentioned as ii far as handling the traffic that might be caused or the parking problem aft that might arise because of 18 folks coming in there? 'i I A. I think that lot is used pretty much of the time, and this f could be checked by the meters. MR. EWANICKI: You are at 202 Eddy Street? ;i A. Right down the hill from this property, on the lower side just at the foot of Cook Street. We have three units. I MR. CHAIRMAN: Is all night parking permitted in the City metered parking i' lot? ii j! MR. VAN MARTER: Yes, the only night is Friday. �i MR. THALER: Up there it isn't Friday. I have never seen that lot full. !i You can park there from 5:00 P.M. to 9:00 A.M. ,i i MR. PFANN: A lot ofthe considerations that come before us are problems of traffic or parking and this seems to be the main consid- eration rather than the actual building being put up in a (, particular place and I am trying to resolve in my mind how gj far the Board goes in taking these things into consideratio l or which go according to the law. A. I do not know what you are permitted to do in parking ex- ceptions but it sounds fairly clear to me. MR. THALER: We are appealing here because we feel that this falls withi j the spirit of the Zoning law. We feel that this building 'i is not only going to be an asset to this whole area, but will i set a toner and help to bring the other buildings up to a p standard. I am asking these gentlemen to grant this because) without that variance that land is absolutely useless. You 11 could do nothing but let it lie. You are landlocked because 'i of the geographic characteristics. We knew this but we also it i had an idea that the people of the City of Ithaca would wan us to use this lot and not let it set there as a hole in the ._.._.. ._....grounder__.._ j I� �t i l� 1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any more questions, gentlemen? t} If not, you people can be excused. i 4t MR. THALER: We appreciate the courtesy of this special meeting, and Mr. David and I too, thank you for hearing us. i i ii i� 3 (t It i� ii 1� i� } 1F SI i} 1 l= ji ti �I i� tf f� I� 1 } ;i t it '7 f{ £ r4 ti i� s� I ii i ij i 3 a 'i s; -8- EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, JUNE 16, 1966 `i i MR. CHAIRMAN: Let us now consider Case No. 703. i is !l MR. PFANN: I would make the motion to grant the exception: first, [R that it appears from the testimony that it would be im- possible to put any parking on this property because of i! the nature of the terrain; second, that it appears that �i it would be impossible to put any building of substantial merit on the premises without the requirement of an ex- ception as to minimum set-back; and third, that the spirit of the ordinance is preserved by the availability of adequate public parking facilities within the required distance of the premises in question. f �j MR. EWANICKI: Second. ,i VOTING: YES - 5 NO - None i ,i i j !i I !i i i. Ij Ij i ii 1 ii 1: I ii :i i