Loading...
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-