HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1976-01-27 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES
City of Ithaca
Regular Meeting January 27, 1976 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Benson, Mrs. Meyer, Messrs. Fuller, Hildreth, Moran, Saggese
and Stein.
ALSO: P1. & Deva Dir. Van Cort; Mayor Edward Conley; Dep. Bldg..: Lomm_'.r Jones;
P1. & Dev. Dept. staff members Rosalind Williams, Preston Maynard, Rick
McDougall, Judith Benedict, Emanuel Carter and Jonathan Meigs; Council-
woman Elva Holman; Prof,. Keith Grey; Drop-in Center staff members Charles
Kruh and Margaret Pexton; citizens Joe Petucci, Ed Sineburger, Don Dader-
back, Bertha Crysler, Mrs. Huddle, Mary Bower, Carrie Sullivan, Jon
Bernstein, Bill Walt; and members of the media.
A public hearing by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (Community Development
Agency) on the 1976-77 Application and Amendment was held prior to the Regular
meeting. Rosalind Williams spoke for the Planning & Development Department in
describing this year's Application and recommended the adoption of the Community
Development Budget. Mr. Moran MOVED that "the meeting be opened up to public
comment.." Mrs. Meyer seconded. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Charles Kruh, board member of the YMCA Drop-in Center, questioned why no
Community Development funds were allocated for his agency. Ms. Williams explained
that a drop-in center was not eligible because it served a city-wide clientele
rather than that of one specific neighborhood, and because it did not meet the
requirements of supporting other activities in the Community Development Program.
Stuart Stein, speaking as a member of the Urban Renewal Agency, stated that it is
the general policy of that body to use Community Development funds to support social
services only. through the provision of physical space to house them. Services have
traditionally been funded through the county, because Community Development monies,
guaranteed only for a five-year period, may not be available to fund projects
annually. He stated that the drop-in center was a worthwhile project but that it
did not meet the criteria for Community Development funds.
In response to a question by Mrs. Meyer as to why the downtown area, where the
drop-in center is located, is not considered a neighborhood, Mr. Van Cort explained
that the center is available to all Ithaca citizens. He made the analogy that
neighborhood health centers are eligible for Community Development funds, while
hospitals are not. Margaret Pexton, coordinator of the drop-in center, spoke in
defense of funding the center, because it helps the economic development of the
downtown area. Ms. Williams and Mr. Stein reiterated the Urban Renewal Agency
position, and Mr. Stein suggested that the Planning & Development Board could have
a role in finding funds from other sources for the drop-in center.
In response to a question by Elva Holman, Ms. Williams explained that purchase
of a vehicle for housing rehabilitation had been removed from the Community Develop-
ment budget. There was no further discussion on the Community Development Budget.
Mr. Saggese MOVED that "the formal public hearing of the Urban Renewal
Agency be closed." Mr. Moran seconded. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Chm. Benson called the meeting of the Planning & Development Board to order
at 8:20 P.M. The minutes of the Regular meeting of December 16, 1975 were
approved as published. The agenda of the meeting was revised to accommodate
citizens attending the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mrs. Meyer MOVED that. "the Planning & Development Board recommend that the
Community Development Application be approved and sent to the Common Council."
Mr. Moran seconded.
Mrs. Meyer questioned whether any consideration was given to the request for
funds for East Hill. Rick McDougall explained that the emphasis of Community
Development funds is directed to two target neighborhoods, the northside and the
southside. Mr. Stein explained that East Hill was not precluded from Community
Development benefits but was not specifically identified as a recipient. Mr.
McDougall noted that historic preservation funds were available to East Hill.
Mr. Fuller asked if the categories of "need" (i.e. , adults, open space), in
the recreation section of the application were too broad. Ms. .Williams explained
that the statement of needs can be generic but that funds had to be allocated for
specific programs. The motion CARRIED unanimously..
Chm. Benson introduced to the Planning & Development .Board its new member,
Mr. David Fuller.
The Mayor gave his opening remarks, and specified his objectives and
priorities for his. next term of office. He specified the Collegetown project,
the peripheral streets, the Elmira Road and South West development as areas of .
prime consideration. He stated that he hoped for greater in-house efforts to
work on these projects.
ZONING:
(a) Appeal 1108 for area variance to allow establishment of a group home at
109 Utica Street, in an R-3 zone. Thomas Jackson, who owns the property and wants
to lease the house to Group Homes of Tompkins County, has appealed the zoning
ordinance requirement for four parking spaces, on the grounds that only one car
will be connected with the group home. It was noted that the use of the building
as a group home is permissable; only the requirement for off-street parking was
in question. Joe Petucci stated that the street is already overcrowded with cars
and questioned where visitors to the group home would park. Mr. Meigs explained
that the zoning ordinance established parking requirements only for the residents.
Mary Bower of 107 Utica Street, expressed concern over the size of the house's
yard as a play area for children. Mr. Meigs explained that the group home's activi-
ties don't necessarily extend beyond the house.
-2-
Ed Sineburger of 118 Utica Street expressed concern that resident children
might have their own cars and that there is minimal space for the children to
play outside. Mr. Sineburger questioned the compatibility of the- use of the
house as a group home. It was explained by the Board that children in group
homes are not allowed to have their own cars.
Don Daderback of 112 Utica Street questioned the number of people living
in the house. Mr. Kruh, from the floor, explained that only one set of house-
parents would live with the children. Bertha Crysler of 116 Utica Street asked
why a group home, which could be disruptive, was allowed on a quiet street.
Mrs. Harry Huddle of 110 Utica Street noted that the parking problem was excessive.
Mr. Daderback asked what would happen if the variance were denied. In
Mr:.-,.Van Cort said that denial by the Board of Zoning Appeals could be appealed to
the courts but usually was not. In response to a question by Mr. Petucci, Deputy
Bldg. Comm'r Jones stated that the building code requires one toilet for each
15 persons in a house.
Mr. Sineburger questioned Mr. Van Cort's statement that parking was a problem
on Utica Street primarily at night.-during alternate side hours.
Mr. Meigs who lives next door to a group home in another part of the city
spoke in defense of having the homes in residential neighborhoods. Mrs. Bower
stated that there was a very short distance between the proposed Jackson group
home and the house next door on Utica Street. Carrie Sullivan of 113 Utica Street
asked Mr. Meigs about the effect on his children of living next door to a group
home. Mr. Meigs responded that the. effects were good.
Mr. Stein MOVED that "the matter be referred to the Codes & Ordinances Committee
for further study." Mrs. Meyer seconded. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
(b) Appeal 1105. Mr. Meigs gave a status report on the appeal for a sign
variance by Ithaca Savings and Loan. The matter has been referred to the Codes &
Ordinances Committee, who, with representatives of both the Planning & Development
Department and the Bank are working out a resolution to the problem.
OLD BUSINESS:
(.a`).:_Callegetbwn,�Beaiitification'Project: . Architect/Urban Designer Keith Grey
presented. his College.town development proposal, which represents the ideas of the
Department of Planning & Development, Mr. Grey's design team, merchants and inter-
ested citizens. Mr. Grey showed that, within the limitationsofthe allocated
$18,000 of the city budget, the greatest impact would come from the selective
planting of 18 trees, at a cost of $9,000. Mr. Van Cort explained that the proposal
must be approved in concept now if the trees are to be planted this season, although
the actual location of the trees would be determined later. In response to a
question from Mr. Stein, Judy Benedict:.said that the proposal specifies the variety
and size of trees. Mr. Stein MOVED that "the Planning & Development Board recommend
that the trees be planted in this spring planting season and be ordered according
to the specifications of the Planning & Development Department." Mrs Saggese
seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Bernstein, from the floor,
-3-
questioned a cost of $9,000 for 18 trees; Mr. Van Cort responded that the expense
reflected the cost of larger trees, which would be needed to have visual impact
in the area.
(b) Elmira Road Report: Pudge Carter of the Planning & Development Department
presented, and requested the Board to approve in concept, his recommendations for
the development of the Elmira Road, including land use, circulation and design con-
siderations. The highlights of the plan include widening the road to five lanes
to facilitate both shopping and through traffic, restricting the number of curb
cuts, and building a southwest loop road to reduce the traffic burden and provide
access to developable land.
Mayor Conley expressed the need for early development of the project by engi-
neers so that construction could begin in 1977. Mr.. Van Cort stated that specific
recommendations on sign recommendations and the •a institution of a B-5 zone for the
Elmira Road will be presented soon. Mr. Stein asked if the five-lane proposal is
supported by the community; .Mr. Carter responded tha*he merchants had agreed to
that idea in principal, although when they were consulted, the city had in mind
an interim three-lane highway, which would have been expanded to five lanes at a
later time. The three-lane interim proposal has since been abandoned because of.
policing and cost problems. Mr. Van Cort spoke for a need for a unified city
position on the number of lanes to be built. Mr. Stein stated that an engineer
could be hired to begin work, while the Planning and Public Works departments
continue to work on the plan.
Bill Walt, from the floor, questioned the need for a five-lane Elmira Road
if the Octopus were improved. Mr. Van Cort said that no less than five lanes
would ease the problem on Elmira Road because most traffic there was local. Mr.
Van Cort explained that the center turning lane on the Elmira Road was designed
to regulate the traffic flow.
Mr. Fuller MOVED that "the Planning & Development Board approves the proposal
in concept and directs the Planning & Development Department to proceed with the
preparation of the- Elmira Road report. Further, the Board recommends referral of
the matter for continuous action to the General Plan and Capital Improvements
Committee, which should report to the Board at the next meeting. Further, it
recommends that the question about sign regulations and the institution of the
B-5 zone be directed to the Codes & Ordinances Committee." Mr. Hildreth seconded
the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
(c) Application for Appalachian Region Commission funds: Mr. Meigs reported
that the ARC will accept the city' s application for .funds to construct both a
loop road northwest of the Elmira Road and a .southwest freeway and bridge to West
Hill, but that there is little hope that the funds will actually become available.
Mayor Conley stated that the application should stress the job development and new
industrial development that would occur with this construction. Mr. Saggese MOVED
that "the Planning & Development Board instruct the Planning & Development Dept.
to continue with its application to the ARC." Mr. Hildreth seconded the motion.
The motion CARRIED unanimously.
(d) Auburn Park Project: Ms. Benedict of the Planning & Development Dept.
presented the preliminary design for the park, for which $20,000 has been allocated
-4-
in the city budget. She explained that ,while the plan originally called for the
closing of Adams Street to provide more and safer play space, such a closing would
restrict access to one of the commercial tenants in the Old Calendar Clock Factory,
which is adjacent to the park. Chm. Benson spoke in behalf of protecting. the
children. in the park by closing off the street to through traffic. John Bernstein,
from: the floor, as a neighbor, spoke in favor of protecting the rights of the
commercial property owner by not closing off the street; he expressed the desire
of residents to reach a compromise with the commercial interest in an effort to
support development of the northside community.
Ms. Benedict said that Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funds may be available
for this project, but that it would take from four to six months to get a BOR
commitment for such funding. Mr. Stein recommended building the park this year
even if BOR funds are not forthcoming. This proposal was supported by Mayor Conley.
Mr. Stein MOVED that "the Planning & Development Board approves in concept the
design for Auburn Park .and recommends that the Dept. proceed with its BOR application,
but commits itself to build the park this year regardless of forthcoming outside
funds. Further, the Board requests the Board of Public Works to develop construction
drawings and specifications for Auburn Park and at an appropriate time to hold a
public hearing on the question of closing Adams Street as a public thoroughfare."
Mr. Saggese seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONS:
(a) Mr. Van Cort read a letter from Supt. of Public Works Dingman, stating
(that there is no city nursery.
(b) Another letter from Mr. Dingman was read, stating that traffic controls
at the intersection of Buffalo Street and Stewart Avenue are being installed.
(c) A letter from Carol Sisler, Chairman of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission was read, expressing the opinion of residents of North Aurora Street
that that area not be rezoned from R-3 to B-1. The ILPC is concerned about the
additional parking facilities which would mar the residential area. Ms. Sisler's
letter was sent to the Codes & Ordinances Committee. Mr. Van Cort stated that a
report on the proposed rezoning would be presented at the next meeting.
(d) The Common Council., at its January 7,. 1976 meeting, referred the question
of access to West Hill to .the Planning & Development Board. The Board referred
this matter to the General Plan & Capital Improvements Committee.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Ms. Benson noted that the Committee had already met with the county regarding
a plan for the Octopus.
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
Chm. Benson announced the new committee assignments for 1976, which are as
follows:
-u,
-5-
.xeco .re & Liaison Committee: Benson, Stein, Meyer, Hildreth, Fuller
Housing & Redevelopment Committee: Fuller, Stein, HIldreth, Moran
General Plan & Capital Improvements Committee: Stein, Fuller, Benson, Saggese
Codes & Ordinances Committee: Hildreth, Meyer, Saggese, Moran
Community Facilities & Services Committee: Meyer, Saggese, Moran
NEW BUSINESS:
(a) The question of assisting the YMCA Drop-in Center to seek funds was
referred to the Community Facilities & Services Committee.
(b) Mrs. Meyer stated that on Sunday, the East Hill Civic Association will
meet to discuss landmarks on East Hill.
(c) In response to a question about the status of the bikeways project, Mr.
Van Cort said the Planning & Development Dept. is working on it.
(d) Mrs. Meyer recommended that display facilities for the Council Chambers
be designed. This matter was referred to the. Executive & Liaison Committee.
(e) The monthly projects report was deferred, because of the late hour, to
ara meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS: Mrs. Benson read a letter of appreciation from the Board to former
Chairman. Henry Doney. The letter was unanimously approved.
Mr. Stein MOVED that "the Planning and Development Department be congratulated
on its presentations at the night's meeting." Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion. The
motion CARRIED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Res ctfu ly subm'tted,
H. M. Van Cort
Director, Planning &
Development
2.19.76
-6-