Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1968-06-03 i 1 BOARD OF ZCNING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK, HELD Civ JUNE 3rd, 1968 PRESENT: RICHARD COMSTOCK, Chairman GEOFFREY WEAVER GEORGE R. PFANN, JR. BEVERLY MARTIN JOHN BENTKOWSKI C. MURRAY VAN NLRTER, Building Commissioner & Secretary Meeting opened by the Chairman, COLONEL RICHARD COMSTOCK THE CHAIR: The first case to consider tonight is No. 793, the Appeal of Paul V. Anderson et al, 310 Winkworth Parkway, Syracuse, New York, for exceptions, - off-street parking, maximum lot coverage, front, side and rear yard dimensions, at 227 Linde Avanue, Ithaca, New York, for multiple residence under Section 79 Columns 5,11,12,13,14,15 in an R-3 District. Who is appearing? PAUL ANDERSON: I am Paul Anderson, representing the appellant, and this gentleman is Dan Leary of 5100 Harris Road, Syracuse, and I would like to file with the Board this summary of the pro- posal for the renovation of the existing structure, covering the major points of the New York State Residence Code, and t present these schematic preliminary plans of the Linden Apartments. Appellant's Exhibit 1, consisting of three sheets, marked for identification. If I might briefly explain, starting with the floor plans, indicating the existing structure and the general proposal for the new use. On the main level, one-half story, we are pro- viding parking spaces and exits and egress for twelve vehicles, plus two one bedroom type apartments, and general utility space. From a public lobby on Linden Avenue we have access to the existing floor and are proposing an additional twelve apartmaits. The unusual thing is that there are two apartme s which are completely interior and we propose to provide natuxal light and ventilation through the use of operable skylights to the roof area. Two accesses to this area would be by means of enclosed stairways to the roof, and as well, this would b a decorative type of area. Generally all of these provision would be in keeping with the provisions of the State Multiple Residence Law. -2- PAUL ANDERSON: Sheet No. 1 indicates our proposal for renovation to the exterior of the building, in which we are proposing to maintain the existing structure as is, other than cuttin some holes for stairways. Basically, the exterior would lend itself to the patching and repairing and the over- coating, and we would be providing a horizontal round of aluminum windows, and on the ground level on the street side we would provide the glassed lobby entrance, and some brick fill-in in between the existing concrete columns and the bulkhead there now. Other than this patching an repairing and the changes indicated, we would not be cahnging substantially any of the existing building, so this would entail only some patch repairing and general re-coating, and starting with the basic structure we would renovate the interior, providing fourteen apartment& as shown in the plan. MR. WEAVER: Is there any significance in the numbers "229"? A. I think it is numbered 227-231. It has no significance. MR. VAN MARTER: This would be conversion. DAN LEARY: 18,000 square feet is the whole gross floor space for fourteen apartments. THE CHAIR: Any other questions by the Board? MR. BENTKOWSKI: What is in it right now? PAUL ANDERSON: It is used now by Southern Linen Supply and Linden Laund ies. They are in the process of moving out and in the process of closing the laundry down; they stopped running any machines about a week ago. In 1952 Atlas Linen purchase it; there have been problems with it, machine noise, truck noise, the dilapidated condition of the building. What we are asking for is an upgrading of the use of the building from its non-conforming use as it stands now, in a residential area. It was built as a stolrage garage In the beginning, I believe. We would like to upgrade it for apartment use. DAN LEARY: It is structurally sound. This appears to be the most economical use and it does exist already. PAUL ANDERSON: I can give you Kiely's appraisal. This is an appraisal of the property of Margaret E. Anderson, owner at 227-29 31 Linden Avenue, by Paul J. Kiely, as follows: His suggested uses are 1) Motel; 2) Warehouse, Storage; 3) Utility or Contractors' Storage and Shop; 4) Wholesale business; 5) Retail outlet; 6) Residential or Bar; and 7) Present usage. l .7- MR. PFANN: How old is the building? PAUL ANDERSON: Forty some years old. I think about 1922. MR. BENTKOWSKI: You are asking for an exception for two units of off- street parking? PAUL ANDERSON: That is correct. THE CHAIR: Is there any one here to speak in favor of this application None. Is there any one here to speak in opposition? EUGENE PAINTER: Yes, my name is Gene Painter, 41-a Hasbrouck Apartments. I own the apartment right next to this building, and I have suffered ever since they have -been in there. If th get a permit I might as well give up; there's nothing legal that's there. The ramp doesn't belong to the place; Carl Crandall said it's an inch over the line on my side; there have been fires there, such noise; I myself per- sonally paid for a glass block to put in the windows so I could keep my tenants. I am not against progress but If they are going to do something there, let's do it and do It right. But they can't do anything when they haven't any land to do it in. They better swing that building a little. I don't see anything on that place that's legal nor any reason for an appeal here. There is absolutely nothing there that is right. Go up and look at the place . The windows are all out, the steel frames have pushed out . The place is a hazard, no question of that. I own the place next door and have tried to keep it up, and it has cost me every single cent to keep my property up. They were supposed to operate from eight to five but they didn 't. Since the Zoning Board is downtown they did as they wanted to do. I am not going to live by anything like that. Let's have a Board of Zoning Appeals. These fourteen apartments sound good, but if you only knew - the biggest part of the building is underground; the whole back wall is underground and the sides are practically underground If they want to build an apartment house there they better swing the outside walls and get where they belong. How will they work on it? We got sold down the river the lait time. We will have a law suit this time. STUART JOHNSTON: 308 Bryant Avenue. My mother's property goes from Bryan through to Linden and right now numerous people are usin It as a thoroughfare. Also, when it comes to parking, where are they going to park their cars when all of Collegetown is so crowded with cars the tax payers can't even park. He says he will use the lower deck for parking but what happens if he turns that into apartments with n windows - how can he do it? i I -4- MRS. JOHN HARDINGs What is the actual lot size? MR. VAN MARTER: 8360 square feet. MRS. JOHN HARDING: Then I would object on the grounds of density. MR. VAN MARTER: Conversion requires 2500 square feet of lot site. HUNNA JOHNS: I do agree with-these gentlemen. I as for it. I have nothing on the block but I would say offhand that a garage and laundry is a nuisance. If it remains commer- cial it can get worse. If these boys here convert this into living quarters it's going to make that block that much more residential. It is up to the Building Com- missioner to see that windows are cut into the building. That's up to the Building Commissioner. If we get enough cars the City may move and create a parking lot. Offhan I would say if these boys have a plan that meets the Building Commissioner's thinking, I think it would be, go d for the area and increase the valuation in the area. I am in favor of any kind of change. We have to remember one thing. In the last couple of months the builders ha,%e turned down about everything. The biggest share of our properties don't have .a valuation of over $15,000. I am for variances because we can tell them what they can do and what they can't do. There are many rooming houses in, that block anyway, and you won't stop Cornell Univer- sity from building. But this doesn't give ua anything on the tax rolls, - if Cornell University builds these apartments. We need houses and we need cars. ROBERT LANGHANS This is going to be a conversion construction which re- quires 2500 square feet per unit. What is the total square footage for building? PAUL ANDERSON: It is about 9,000 square feet. ROBERT LANGHANS: So roughly a little over three units is allowed, and you are asking for fourteen? A. Right. MR. BENTKOWSKI: How high is the back in relation to the roof? A. Approximately fifty percent is below grade. The rear apartments and on the main floor would have light and ventilation through sky lights. -5- THE CHAIR: We will now go to Case No. 794, the Appeal of Humble Oil and Refining Company, Hutchinson River Parkway, Pelham, New York, for variance to demolish and rebuild existing gasoline station at 501-507-513-515 South Meadow° Street, Ithaca, New York, under Section 7, Column 1, in a B-1 district. Who is here appearing for this appeal? HAROLD E. CRANE: Representing Humble Oil & Refining Company, Gentlemen, I an here to request a variance in the OrdinaAoe for a parcel of our land which we presently own at South Meadom Street and Titus Avenue. At present we have a three-bay station there; we have been there for years, but with the re-alignment of Route 13, we find that with motorists travelling north into Ithaca, they face the back of our building. You can see that this does not put our best foot forward, nor does it for the City of Ithaca, although 1 we do keep the rear always clean and free of debris. We also find that with the widening of Route 13, we have lost some of our property and now have our main island within eight feet of the sidewalk and at such an angle that the dealer has been forced to block off the main island, thus limiting our island to one-half its useage. When the road came through it was raised to such a level that we new find ourselves in a position below grade, which creates water problems and traffic hazards in icy weather. All this creates a hardship to us. We propose to alleviate this by demolishing the existing station, turning it around so it faces Route 13, and building a modern brick three- bay ranch type building, which we feel will upgrade the neighborhood and improve the appearance of our station, to the betterment of the City of Ithaca and our own opera- tion. I have here an artist's rendering of our proposed building. Appellant's Exhibit 1 marked for identification. In order to build this new building facing Route 13, we will have, to use a portion of our property that now lies in the southern end of our property, which we would be unable to use because it is zoned. B-1. At present it Is a vacant lot, and we are requesting a variance in the Zoning so that we can use this property, and without it we haven't enough room for this type of building. Appellant's Exhibit 2 marked for identification, being Plot Plan. This, gentlemen, shows the existing building and the proposed plan. FRANK M. BRICKELMAIER, District Engineer, explains proposed plan to Board. -6- MR. BENTKOWSKI: What are the operating hours? EDWARD B. FLOREK: 504 Five Mile Drive. The hours are 7:30 to 12:00 daily, and 8:00 to 10:00 on Sundays. Supporting what he has said, we will demolish the building, use the empty lot If this is granted, and thus increase the tax base. THE CHAIR: Any one in favor? JOHN VASSE: I am quite familiar with this proposed site as I handled work in the Lynch estate and for three years I have tried to sell this gas station and couldn't because it faces north instead of west, and I know exactly what they are up against, and I do feel it would be asset to the to roll and it will clean up the neighborhood. I would like to say again I am in favor. I HUNNA JOHNS: I agree with what these fellows said. JOHN WARE: 114 South Plain Street. I am in favor of it. THE CHAIR: Is there any one in opposition who wishes to speak? None. i -7- THE CHAIR: Our next case is Appeal No. 795, the Appeal of Ansar Husain, 1812 Sharon Avenue, Albany, Georgia, for excep- tion for new construction at 309 Eddy Street, Ithaca, New York, multiple dwelling, under the provision of Section 7, Columns 7, 11, 12 and 13 and 15 in an R-3 district. Mr. Husain? ANSAR HUSAIN: I am here to say something about the plans for a new building at 309 Eddy Street, and the existing building there is fairly old and dilapidated. The general ap- pearance is not good. We would change it to a new buil- ding and we have run into some problems. First is the total square footage under new construction is 1500 square feet per living unit or a total area is 8621, with 16 units on it. This falls short for the total area re- quired, or 24,000 square feet required. This would be just about one-third of the required area. Tha. maximum lot which is covered by the actual building is actually 357., but when we take the area covered by the terrace, then it comes to about 73%. Appellant's Exhibit 1 marked for identification But the actual building will be as it is on the preliminary drawing and this would go to more than 35% of the area. It comes to about 3,000 square feet, which is roughly 357. of 8621 square feet. But the building can be con- structed without the terrace. It just adds to the decora- tion, It is a kind of roof to the parked cars and adds to the appearance of the building. The proposed sixteen apartments could be reduced to eight, but for that amount of area covering each apartment becomes too big. This would mean 1600 square feet, roughly, which is big for a apartment. Appellant's Exhibit 2 marked for identification The grade on the back of the building is very steep with no access from the back, so it makes parking very diffic lt. It has to come from the front and the parking has got to be done in the basement. This throws off the parking for 16 cars for 16 apartments. There are very few houses in the vicinity which can accommodate parking but we were I able to do it. In general I feel the building will be an asset to the City and will add to the cleanliness of the general area and provide better accommodations for people to come and live there. MR. WEAVER: Do you currently own the property? A. Yes. i -8- THE CHAIR: Any other questions by the Board? None. Are there any here to speak in favor? DONALD LUCENTE: 327 Eddy Street. I am in favor. If it doesn't go through - I don't know what the plans are - I would rather see a new building but I am strongly in favor of it. HUNNA JOHNS: If he can do this, he should be given an award. There again this is an improvement to the block. He seems to have a good plan. THE CHAIR: Is there any one in opposition? RONALD NORDHEIMER: 117 Terrace Place. Do I understand that the Planning Board has recommended this previously A. Yes. MR. NORDHEIMER: In speaking with Mr. Kasprzak, he said that at no time did they discuss density of the population. They looked at the plans as they fit on the lot. I would like to diect my remarks to this problem of density. Under the presen Zoning regulations a total of six and one-half units wou d be allowed, whereas in this case they are asking for six teen units, over two but less than three times the amount required. The building has, I understand, sixteen units and each unit is a two-bedroom apartment. This generall breaks down into most of the units being occupied by students. But in no way can we prohibit this. But this does not increase the problem with cars. When a person wants to develop an area in excess of density allowed, he can negotiate, under the A.D.D. provisions. . What density In Zoning is supposed to do is limit population in one spot. Most of the buildings there are already cut up into rooming houses. Density brings traffic and also creates problems with trash removal and storage. Parking problems, fire protection, police protection, should all be reason for limiting density. This is similar to the property o Buffalo and Stewart Avenue, where the City and the neigh boring people have certain rights to the laws, but they can not be enforced by the Board of Zoning Appeals. I • think we must look, not at the condemned building that is on there now. I think we should look to fifty years hence. -9- MRS. JOHN HARDING: 202 Eddy Street. I endorse Mr. Nordheimer, and say that In addition to the A.D.D. there is an option in going to the City Council. We had hoped to see a nice good building there. This is an eye sore. I would suggest that almost tripling the density will set a precedent that we will have to fight all the way up the line. With the car problem, this adds to the other problems, and parking is really tight on that block. When you figure two and possibly four students in each apartment, and most with cars, you know you are going to add to the density. I would suggest it go to the Council for decision on this problem. ROBERT IANGHANS: 106 Cook Street. I would like to say first that I think it is a fine thing, to be thinking of replacing 309 Eddy Street as this has been one of the sore spots of College- town; it has been closed by the City because of its dis- reputable appearance, so we really should not object to replacement of this building. But we are all concerned with the density and the parking of cars. The reduction of apartment size from 1500 down to just about one-half that is quite a bit, and I assume that the 1500 feet was set for a specific purpose. The other point I would like to make is that mention was made of the topography of the area, and again, I think you have all seen the signs painted on the front door. How can they get fifteen cars parked in the basement of this building? Right at the front of that property the level of the cars, the roof level is just atout even with the sidewalk level, which would indicate a goot drop from the sidewalk level down to the street. This would become quite a hazard to pedestrians or even peopl driving along the street or driving in and out of this i place. And this would empty out right in the top of Buffalo Street, which would be another hazard. HUNNA JOHNS: This building is in bad shape and has been condemned; it has plywood on all the windows. I would say offhand that this building could be there for another fifty years, an I think it could be done with less than 1500 feet. It isn't as bad as it appears and could get worse. He says he can get fifteen cars in. Next door we have a parking lot to accommodate about twenty cars. As long as they can park over on the street they are going to park for nothing. This is a commercial block, not residential, up to that particular house. I as very such in favor of it. THE CHAIR: Apparently there is no one else who wishes to speak at this time. i _10- THE CHAIR: We go now to Case No. 797, which is the Appeal of the Ballet Guild of Ithaca, Incorporated, 105 Sheldon Road, Ithaca, New York, for variance for use as a ballet school at 504-506 North Plain Street, Ithaca, New York, under provision of Section 7, Columns 2 and 3 in an R-3 distri t. Who is appearing? JOHN VASSE: John Vasse, realtor. The Ballet Guild and the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church have entered into a pur- chase agreement to dispose of their properties at 504 an 506 North Plain Street. I have been trying for over a year to 'sell these properties. In a year's time, due to its limited functional use, there have been very few offers to purchase. But the Ballet Guild has offered to take this property and to demolish the house at 504 Nort Plain and to utilize the church building at 506. The Church has suffered vandalism. We have certified our mailing for filing today. Here is a photograph of the old house that is to come down. Appellant's Exhibit 1 marked for identification The property at 504 has been examined and he suggests th t it be condemned. We are willing to take this down and utilize the area for parking. It is now unoccupied and has been for over a year. THE CHAIR: Are there any questions of the Board? None. Any one who wishes to speak in favor? LUIGI RUBENS: 510 North Plain Street. I an in favor because as it is the house on the corner and has been a fire hazard. Jus two weeks ago the back door had to be locked because the kids were going in and out. DONALD SLATTERY: 410 West Court Street. First, what are the hours when It is going to be used? ALICE REID: I am the director of the school. Our first class is at 3:30 P.M. and then a 4:30 class, and three evenings, 7:30 to 9:00 P.M. This is mostly classical music as we ` teach only ballet, not tap dancing or jazz dancing or the musical composition dance. We are a non-profit or- ganization, not a promotional. Q. Do they plan on recovating the building? A. I do not know too much yet what we have to do. We will have to have mirrors and bars on the walls, and will probably paint it. i -11- MR. SLATTERY: How about sound-proofing? A. I do not think you will find sound any problem. They never even hear us now. MR. SLATTERY: How many parking spaces have you planned for? A. Most of the children are within walking distance from Central School and Boynton Junior. Q. How many actual spaces will be there? A. I would guess about eight to ten cars. MR. SLATTERY: I have talked to several neighbors and all seem to be in favor of it. REVEREND JOHNSON: I speak in favor because of the benefit to the children as a whole. THE CHAIR: Is there any one here in opposition? HUNNA JOHNS: On some of these variances we approve for one line of business and then they sell. If this is sold to another dance school and it gets noisy what control do you have for it? This could be true of a garage also. I think some of these variances should be limited to that buyer only and that they should come back for another sale, BEN BOYNTON: I want to suggest a possible solution. It would be pos- sible to put a deed restriction in so this is for one party only. ALICE REID: Ballet mistress of the Ballet Guild. We are incorporated as a non-profit organization, which means when we disband, so to speak, we can only give property to another non- profit organization. MR. BENTKOWSKI: This is on the tax roil now? JOHN VASSE: Yes, and it will still be back on the tax roll. MR. SLATTERY: What effect would this variance have on any other property on this block? THE CHAIR: None. This is specific for this. LUIGI RUBENS: Let's assume these people want to sell it out. Could they sell to some one else and set up a beer joint? THE CHAIR: No. Apparently there is no one else who wishes to speak for or in opposition. Thank you. f I EXECUTIVE SESSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA, JUNE 3rd, 1968 THE CHAIR: Case No. 793. MR. BENTKOWSKI: Findings of Fact in Appeal No. 793 are as follows: 1) That the minimum lot size requirement is not met; 2) That the conversion requirement is not met; 3) That the granting of this appeal would increase the parking congestion; 4) That the contemplated design and construction is such that the density of population would be unreasonably Increased in the immediate neighborhood beyond that contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance. We therefore move that the application be denied. COL. COMSTOCK: Second. VOTE: Yes - 3 No - 2 THE CHAIR: Case No. 794. MR. PFANN: Move to grant the appeal because it is merely an exten- sion of an additional 63 feet in width of a present non- conforming use, resulting in improved appearance, a new building, and further permitting full use of the land. MR. WEAVER: Second. VOTE: Yes - 5 No - 0 ' f i 1 THE CHAIR: Case No. 795. MR. BENTKOWSKI: Findings of Fact are as followss 1) That the minimum lot size requirement is not met; 2) That the proposed density is triple that permitted by the Ordinance and is considered an unreasonable and unacceptable degree of exception. We therefore move that the application be denied. BEVERLY MARTINS Second. VOTES Yes - 4 No - 1 THE CHAIR: Case No. 797. MR. PFANN Move to grant the application because this is a use not prohibited in the Ordinance and not dissimilar from the use to which the building has been put over the last several years, and that the proposed use would also be In the best interests of the general improvement of the neighborhood. MR. WEAVER: Second. VOTES Yes - 5 No - 0 . f MR. PFANN: Move the following Resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board direct a letter to Mr. James J. Clynes, Jr., in answer to his letter of May 28, 1968, concerning the individual recording of votes by the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals; That said letter should indicate that the Board of Zoning Appeals, upon the advice of the former City Attorney, Norman D. Freeman, Esq., is not required to show in its minutes the individual vote of each member upon every question; and further That said letter should indicate that Rule No. , duly } : adopted and filed by the Board of Zoning Appeals, does not require the recor- ding of the individual vote of each member of the Board upon each question." ` ,, MR. WEAVER: Second VOTE: Yes - 5 No - 0 Case # 794 Pfann Move to grant the appeal because it is merely an extension of an additional 63 feet in width of a present non-conforming use, resulting in improved appearance, a new building, and further permitting full use of the land. Weaver - second Vote yes-5 no-0 s I Case # 793 Bentkowski: Findings of Fact: 1. That the minimum lot size requirement is not met; 2. That the conversion requirement is not met; 3. That the granting of this appeal would increase the parking congestion; 4. That the contemplated design and construction is such that the density of population would be unreasonably increased in the immediate neighborhood beyond that contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance. We therefore move that the application be denied. yes-3 no-2 F 1 Case # 795 Bentkowski Findings of fact: 1. That the minimum lot size requirement is not met; 2. That the proposed density is triple that permitted by the Ordinance and is considered an unreasonable and unacceptable degree of exception We therefore move that the application be denied. Martin - second Vote: yes-4 no-1 Case #797 Pf ann Move to grant the application because this is a use not prohibited in the Ordinance and not dissimilar from the use to which the building has been put over the last several years, and that the proposed use would also be in the best interests of the general improvement of the neighborhood. Weaver - second Vote yes-5 No-0