HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1976-02-24 I
BOARD OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MINUTES
City of Ithaca
Regular Meeting February 24, 1976 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chm. Benson, Mrs. Meyer, Messrs. Fuller, Hildreth, Moran and Stein.
ALSO: Dir. of Pl. & Dev. H. M. Van Cort; Dep. Bldg. Comm'r E. Jones; J.
Benedict, Planner II; citizens Ed Austin, Don Bilderback, Philip
Campbell, Charles Dubock, George Gesslein, Rev. Thos. Jackson, Bill
Lower, Orson Ledger, Blanche Marshall, Ed Setterberg, Wm. Sullivan, Jr. ,
Jean Welch and members of the media.
ABSENT: Mr. Saggese.
Chairman Benson called the meeting to order at 7:115, apologizing for the
delay. She explained that she and several other board members were coming from
the opening of the newly completed maintenance facility for the Board of Public
Works.
Chairman. Benson asked for comments on the minutes of January 27. She noted
that in recording the Mayor's comments there was no mention in the minutes of the
city graphic system, which the Mayor considered a high priority for -the coming
year. The minutes were approved as corrected.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT:
Chm. Benson informed the Board that she had been appointed to the Southern
Tier East Regional Planning Board, and that she would be making reports to the
Board on items of consequence which were discussed at STERPB. Her report of the
last meeting was as follows:. Tompkins County is in the Appalachia area, and the
President had signed an extension of the Appalachian Regional Law on the 31st of
December of last year. Emphasis in this act has shifted from certain kinds of
capital projects to health, education and public service projects. There was a
slightly different feeling among the local members of STERPB who felt that there
should be additional emphasis on economic development, and especially on job
development.
The 208 Water Quality Program, formerly an urban area program, is now being
extended to the rural areas of the county.
The. Southern Tier East staff is preparing job development profiles for each
county in the region which should be available in the near future.
Funding for housing allocations and land use would be based increasingly on
income levels throughout the region; and this new method of allocation might cause
problems in the future. She further noted that there were zoning cases at the
State level which may have an influence on the zoning actions taken in the city.
-2-
Next, Chm. Benson reported on the County Planning meeting of which she is
also a member. She reported that she expects approval of the East Ithaca
Corridor concept at. the next planning meeting. She further reported on the
proposed Transportation Commission, noting that there may be a problem on those
recommendations regarding the amount of representation that the city would have
on the proposed commission.
She concluded her presentation by informing the Board on the recent develop-
ment in the provision of health care for city residents. She explained that
Cornell has brought forth a proposal for the construction of an infirmary and
primary health care center for its students. Chm. Benson noted that if this
facility served more than just students that it might compete with and weaken
the proposed primary care facility.which is to be located in downtown Ithaca in
cooperation with the Family Medicine Program. She concluded by saying that there
would be additional meetings on this subject in the near future. A brief dis-
cussion of these issues followed.
ZONING:
Appeal 1108 for an area variance to allow establishment of a group home at
109 Utica Street. At the January meeting the appeal was referred to the Codes
and Ordinances Committee. The Committee had met but there was .no recommendation
because of the lack of a. quorum Chm. Benson opened the discussion by reading a
letter from Dennis Winters.
"Re: Granting of Parking Variance to Group Homes, Inc. for residence at 100 block
Utica Street..
Dear Ms. Benson and Mr. Martin:
As you can .see. from the inside .address, my wife, child .and I reside directly
across the street from the present. Tioga Street Group Home. We have owned our
house for almost 2 1/2 years, having moved in exactly one month after the Group
Homes had. , Having an understanding of the situation at the Group Homes based
upon a close relationship. wi. th them, I feel that such a variance should be granted
so that they could move into more suitable habitat.
There are two overriding. issues in this case as we have experienced it. One relates
to the parking situation itself; the other to the concept of the Group homes and
the people living within. I hope that my relating of our experiences on these issues
Will have eased the, concerns of the residents on Utica Street.
Parking: I do not have a driveway on my property so I am forced to park on the
street and, of course, would feel the impact of additional parked cars. There have
been a number of visitors to the Group Homes but perhaps slightly more than to the
average family. Visitors may park on the street for periods of 15 minutes to
perhaps three hours. As I recall, there are no overnight nor lengthly stays. I
have not experienced any inconvenience due .to their parking on the street. Any
parking problems that we have experienced appear to be due to downtown workers who
are looking for free parking somewhat close to their place of employment.
Group Homes: They fill an important need for kids who, through little fault of
their own, have had family or societal problems. Although some may be a bit immature,
they are not unlike kids living with their own families. We have found them to be
both helpful and trustworthy. They have assisted me in my home when I have needed
some strong backs and good hands. We have gone so far as to have some of them
babysit .for our child.
These have been very positive experiences for all of us. I would expect that
the residents on Utica Street will find similar opportunities for members of the
Group Nome to help them; while at the same time affording everyone an opportunity
to understand the needs of everyone else. to fit into a community. .
I doubt if the Group Homes could have found better house parents than those
who have worked there. Pat and Phil Campbell, the present parents, are most
competent, understanding and firm when dealing with the kids. They seem to have
a good handle on the situation,
Summarily, they have all been good neighbors. Based upon my experiences'. I
would favor the granting of the variance.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Winters
Planner, Tompkins County Planning Dept- "
Chm. Benson asked Director Van Cort for an explanation of the request for variance.
Mr. Van Cort explained that a group home is allowed in a R-3 zone as of right.
The reason that the case is before the Board is that there is a shortage of on-site
.parking. He further explained that the house is a duplex which was to -be converted
to a single dwelling unit with 6 bedrooms.
Chm. Benson said that there were representatives of Group Homes and people
from the neighborhood present at the meeting and she asked that the people from
the neighborhood be .heard first. The first to speak was Mr. Ed Setterber.g. He
asked how many people would be living in the building, and he expressed the
opinion that Utica Street. was a very narrow street with a parking problem which
would be aggravated by the establishment of a group home. He noted that the
parking problem in the area was a combination of area residents and an overflow of
shoppers and workers from the downtown area. In response to a question from Mr.
Setterberg, Mr. Van Cort explained.that the .property in question was to be a rental
property owned by Rev. Thomas Jackson; to be leased to Group Homes. Van Cort
further explained that Group Homes was supportedby a combination of State and
Courty .funds through the Social Services Department, and that the building would
meet all relevant State and local codes. Chm. Benson explained that Mr. Meigs has
spoken last month as a neighbor of an existing group home, but also as a member of
the staff of the Department of Planning and Development.
Next to speak was Mrs. Jean Welch of Tioga Street who reiterated that there
was a parking problem in the area. At this point there was a discussion among
board members whether any questions other than the lack of parking in the area were
legitimate areas for questions by the Board. This issue was not resolved at the
time but .some board members expressed the feeling that only parking was at issue.
Next to speak was Bill Sullivan, Jr. of 113 Utica Street. Mr. Sullivan also
-3-
said that there was a very serious parking problem on Utica Street, .and .he stated
that he had`.not .received a notice of this Planning Board meeting. A discussion
ensued with the Bldg. Comm'r explaining how notification was handled in requests
for variance. :Several members of the audience said they had not received notifica-
tion and felt that they should have. They were asked to leave their names with the
Bldg. Comm'r so he could investigate why they hadn't received notice.
Next to speak was Rev. .Thos. Jackson, the owner of the property in question.
Rev. Jackson explained that he had attempted to send out all the required notices.
Rev. Jackson acknowledged that there was a parking problem in the area but he
stated that there was every likelihood that the Group Homes would pose less of a
problem than..almost any other residential use to which the building could be put.
It was noted, for example, that the building could be used for 2 dwelling units
each of which might have as many as 5 cars which would mean 10 additional cars to
be parked on the street instead of the maximum of 3 which would be associated with
the group home. In response to a question by .board member David Fuller, Jackson
explained that Group Homes had sought to buy the property in the fall of 1975 and that
because of a pr.oblem :with financing they had then come to him asking his assistance.
Next to speak was George Gesslein, President of Group Homes, who elaborated on the
problems with .financing... Mr. Gesslein further explained that in all likelihood
there would be no more than 2 cars generated by the group home. He said that there
would be a maximum of 8 children .in the home who would not own cars since they were
underage. He .further explained that Group Homes has been in operation in Tompkins
County for: '4 years and that they have 2 homes in existence now within 2 blocks of
the Utica Street property. Mr. Gesslein explained that the existing Tioga Street
residents had.:outgrown their building and that this group home would be moved to the
Utica Street location if the zoning variance were granted and that after that a new
group wouldmove into the Tioga Street residence.
-In response to a further question from the audience, Van Cort again explained
that the group home needed an area variance only because of the parking problem and
not because of he use. He further explained that the zoning ordinance did not
treat rental properties different from owner-occupied properties. Next to speak
was Phil Campbell who is one of the house parents at the Tioga Street Group Home.
1x1r. Campbellexplained that the children in the Group Home all attended Ithaca
public schools and that they had hours at which they had to be home at night. Most
of them'.had to be, home at 10, two others at 11. The average age of the children in
the building was .a little over 15 years of age, and they didn't own cars. He
further explained that it was very rare to have visitors who came to the house by
car.. In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Campbell stated that none of
the children in the home were adjudicated as delinquents, and that they were
primarily in the home because of family breakups or the inability of parents to
adequately care for them. Someone in the audience suggested that a rural setting
was a better place for a group home, to which Mr. Campbell responded that he felt
that urban settings with all the support facilities readily available were more
appropriate sites.
Mr. Don .Bilderback of 11.2 Utica Street said that he felt after hearing the
discussion that the group home would cause less of parking problem than other
possible residential uses, and that he was in favor of granting the. variance.
Bill Lower, .owner of several rental properties in the city, said that he was quite
sure that renting to college students would cause a great deal more parking problem
than a group home. He informed the Board that .he owned a house within blocks of
the proposed group home and that the 8 students living there own a total of
between 6 and 7 cars
At the conclusion of the remarks by area residents the Board discussed the
issues involved. Mrs. Meyer MOVED that "the Board of Planning and Development
recommend approval of the parking variance." Mr. Moran seconded. The motion
CARRIED unanimously.
Mr. Moran expressed concern that the Board's discussion included issues well
outside of those directly involved in the granting of the variance, i.e. , issues
directly concerned with parking. A lengthy discussion followed on whether the
Board had the right, or even the obligation to examine the questions in a zoning
case on narrow or broad grounds. Some board members felt that the issues should
be very carefully limited to the requirements of the zoning ordinance while others
felt that it was the Board's responsibility to examine zoning cases in terms of
their entire effect on the neighborhood.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Chm. Benson asked whether anyone wished to address the Board. Orson Ledger
of 608 South Albany Street, Ithaca, brought to the attention of the Board a question
involving interpretation of Section 30.25, Col. 6 of the zoning ordinance. Mr.
Ledger asked that the ordinance be interpreted to require 3250 sq. ft. minimum for
a lot in this zone rather than 5000 sq. ft.. and that the additional requirements for
additional units on a lot be added to the lower figure rather than to the higher
figure. Mr. Ledger added that he had requested a previous interpretation of this
section of the ordinance and that on May 7., 1975 the Board of Zoning Appeals had
rendered a decision requiring the more stringent interpretation, i.e. , requiring
5000 plus any additional sq. footage. Director Van Cort noted. that since the issue
had already been to the BZA and that the. BZA had made a ruling which was not in
concurrence with the recommendations of the Planning Board, there didn't seem to be
much purpose in following the same procedure again because the facts in the case
had not changed. Mr. Van Cort said that the other alternatives were for Mr. Ledger
to ask for a variance to that requirement for specific cases or to attempt to have
the ordinance amended. After further discussion, Mrs. Meyer MOVED that "the
question be referred to the Codes & Ordinances Committee of the Board." Mr. Stein
seconded it. Before the motion was voted on Mr. Ledger brought up the question of
the zoning of an area .on Stewart. Ave. near University Ave. Mr. Ledger informed
the Board that this area was previously in an R-3 zone and that it had been changed
to R-2 during the .last amendment of the ordinance. He asked the Board to look into
the zoning of that area as well as the minimum lot size in R-3. As a consequence
the original motion was amended to include the issue of the zoning boundary in the
area mentioned. The motion to. refer CARRIED unanimously.'
COMMUNICATIONS:
Mrs. Benson told the Board that she had already read a letter regarding the
zoning case. Mrs. Benson then asked whether there would be any objection from `
board members if the B-1 Study, item 8-c on the agenda be moved forward so that
they could hear additional comments from members of the public. Hearing no
objection, Mrs. Benson asked if there were any people who wanted to be heard on
this issue. Mrs. Pat Carlson of Aurora Street asked the Board for permission to
-5-
_6_
1
j
speak for herself and other residents in the affected area. She told the Board
that she and other residents were preparing aipetition for eventual presentation
to Council that would express the needs of the residents. She said that they
were not against business per se and that in fact one of the reasons that many
of the residents had moved there was so that they would be near the business area.
What they were worried about basically were changes which businesses brought with
them such as signs, reduction in lot coverage, destruction of landscaping for
parking lots, etc. Mrs. Carlson suggested that if it became necessary to expand
the business area, that another method of doing so should be found which would
protect many of the amenities which were required in residential areas. Chm.
Benson thanked Mrs. Carlson and asked for other comments from the public. Mrs.
Benson told the Board that Wm. Sullivan who is now a resident of the area in
question and is conducting a law practice in his home as a home occupation has
given considerable thought to the alternatives for such an area which would pre-
serve it as a nEighborhood while allowing certain kinds of businesses to move
into the neighborhood. Mrs. Benson said thatihis proposal was quite complex and
that she could not adequately present it to the Board but that she had told Mr.
Sullivan that she would at. least mention it. She also told the Board that Mr.
Sullivan was aware that she would take a different viewpoint than his but that
she was willing to bring it before the Board.'
Chm. Benson then asked Mr. Van Cort to summarize the B-1 Study which had been
presented to board members. Director Van Cort explained that the draft they now
had in their; possession was essentially the same as that which was previously
distributed and that the changes in the final draft were basically editorial
changes in language without a great deal of change in substance. He noted that
the report was a product of a great deal of work by the department and two part-
time planners who had prepared the study outline, done most of the survey work and
prepared the first draft. He further statedlthat the issues examined in the report
were the effect of any change in zoning on the existing neighborhood and, secondly,
the sufficiency of the office market in downtown Ithaca regarding the availability
of office space for lawyers. He said that irk examining these issues a great deal
of work was done in a building-by-building survey in the business district. He
noted that the survey resulted in the preparation of a fairly accurate inventory
of all the different kinds of uses in downtown Ithaca and this information would
be very useful for the department in the future. He noted that the survey un-
covered a considerable amount of vacant office space, much of it at or above the
modal rent. He also 'noted that the city hadhad a policy for some time of
strengthening the central business district and encouraging rehabilitation of
downtown Ithaca. He said that these policies would be best served by keeping
office space in the business district rather than enlarging that district into
the presently residential areas. He also noted that there had been a longstanding
shortage of residential units in the city and that allowing offices to locate in
presently residential buildings:' would worsen] t.hat shortage. Mrs. Benson stated
that she felt this was an excellent report and that it reflected a tremendous
amount' o£ staff work. She asked that the records show an appreciation to Jon Meigs
and to Beth Prentice Frank and Mary Ann Leonard who did the field work and wrote the
first draft of the study. Mrs. Benson said ;further that the information which was
gathered for the report would be very use in making many decisions and recom-
mendations in the future. In response to al,question by a member of the Board,
Director Van Cort noted that most -of the vacant space in downtown was at the modal
rate or above. He also 'stated that the criteria for vacancies described in the
i
report was actually not as stringent as that which was actually used in the study.
Mr. Fuller added that he felt the study was well done and that he had enjoyed
reading it.
Mrs. Benson then read the recommendations of the study which were:
1. To maintain present B-1 zone boundary.
2. To take actions within the power of the City, and consistent with its policies
and objectives to maintain the physical and residential natia,e of the area
considered for rezoning, e.g. , encourage the Board of Zoning Appeals to be
more critical in its approach to variance, and
3. To promote fuller utilization of existing space resources through publicizing
the survey,results, encouraging the private sector to utilize and improve
existing space, and continuing to make necessary public improvements to increase
the attractions of Ithaca's central business district.
Mrs. Meyer then MOVED that "the Board of Planning & Development refer this study
to Council with the above recommendations." Mr. Moran seconded. The motion CARRIED
unanimously,
Mr. Stein MOVED that "a letter be sent to Ms. Frank and Ms. Leonard from the
Board in appreciation for their services. Mrs. Meyer seconded. The motion CARRIED
unanimously'.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
b) Executive & Liaison Committee:
Recommendation on Work Program for 1976. Director Van Cort explained that he
had circulated a revised draft of the Work Program which included the recommenda-
tions that the Executive, Committee had made on the previous Friday. In response
to questions by Board members, Mr. Van Cort noted that 2 environmental system items
had been added to the report, that the introduction included the issues of suburbani-
zation, regionalism, and equity in public services, that the item referring to the
Urban Reinvestment Task Force on page 8 is meant to indicate that the department will
be working with the Task Force in establishment of a neighborhood housing service
in the City but that ,it will not be duplicating the work that the Task Force is doing.
'Mr. Stein pointed out that the Work Program failed to mention that many of the
projects were being undertaken in cooperation with other departments such as the
Department of Public Works. He said that this should be mentioned in the Program.
Van Cort noted that the Work Program was in a different format from previous years
and that this format change dividing the project into planning and development
functions was reflective of the new role of the department and the Board, that is ,
a. responsibility for both planning and development. Chm. Benson pointed out that
the Work Program came to the, Board with the recommendation of the Executive
Committee. After further discussion Mr. Stein MOVED that "the Work Program for the
coming bicentennial year be approved." Mr. Hildreth seconded. The motion CARRIED
unanimously.
-7-
OLD BUSINESS:
a) Colle etown .Improvement Project. - presentation of first phase of improvements.
Judy Benedict presented the final plan for the Collegetown improvement project.
She told board members that it was basically the same that Prof. Keith Grey had
presented at the previous meeting. She said that the plan was reflective of the
needs expressed'by the group of merchants, residents and property owners who had
been involved throughout the design phase and that many things had been eliminated
from the design because they were not possible to achieve in the first phase
either because of budget limitations or becuase of the need for additional work
with the community before they could be undertaken. She pointed out on the drawings
presented the tree plan for Dryden Road, improvements to the small city-owned open
space which is off Dryden Road, minor improvements to the corner of Eddy St. and
Dryden Road, proposed signage, trash receptacles and striping for a pedestrian
crosswalk which had been highly recommended by the architect and the Planning
Department. Discussion followed regarding the correct process in working toward
implementation of 'this -first phase and possible additions to the project. Van Cort
noted that a considerable amount of work had been done by the architects and that
it was therefore not possible to ask them to continue with the design without a plan
for further remuneration. It was suggested that the first phase improvements which
were within the scope of the $18000 budget provided by Council be sent to Council
and the Board of'Public Works for implementation and that after these improvements
had been constructed, that work should go ahead on a second phase. Mrs. Benedict
then explained to the Board the question .of the property line which bisects the
park on which the department has. recommended making improvements. She suggested
to the Board that the City Attorney should be asked to negotiate the use of that
land through a lease with Cornell so that the< improvements could be made. After
further discussion Mr. Moran MOVED that "the Board accepts the plan for the College-
town improvements." Mr. Stein seconded. The motion CARRIED unanimously..
Mrs. Meyer:MOVED that "the Board request Martin Shapiro, the City Attorney to
negotiate the use of the Cornell land so that the improvements can be made on that
portion of land owned by Cornell." Mr. Stein seconded. After discussion the motion
CARRIED unanimously.
b) Progress Report on Waterway Study - Mr. Van Cort told the Board that the 1701'
contract for study of the waterways in the City of Ithaca has been approved by
Albany and that the city had received a signed contract. He explained that there
was a problem with the timing of the study. He said that the study proposal had been
written for a 8-10 1month period and that because of delays in Albany there were now
less than 5 months in which to perform the work in the work program. He said that
the first opportunity to inform Albany of this problem formally would be in the
Management Report due April 1 and that Albany would not respond to that until some
time late in April. or in early May. This would cause a problem since the deadline
date on the contract was July 1,-1976.
Mrs. Benson recommended that this problem be referred to the Executive Committee.
NEW BUSINESS:
a) Position change - recommendation on the abolition of senior stenographer
position and creation of administrative secretary position in the department.
After discussion, Mr. Stein MOVED that "the Board recommend abolition of the
senior stenographer position and creation of an administrative secretary position
for the Department of Planning and Development." Mr. Fuller seconded. The motion
CARRIED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Mrs. Benson brought to the Board a recommendation of the Executive Committee
which grew out of an item on the Work Program. After a discussion of the issue
of public power, Mr. Moran MOVED "whereas the Board of Planning and Development
recognizes and is concerned about the increasingly high price of electric service
to the City, and to all electricity users within the City, and whereas other New
York State cities have dealt with the problem by acquiring the power distribution
system, therefore be it resolved that the Board of Planning and Development
publicly states its concern to Common Council and recommends that Common Council
support an investigation of the alternative methods of supplying electric power
within the City of Ithaca, including the investigation of the establishment of a
municipally-owned power distribution system." Mr. Stein seconded the motion. T}-le
moticn CARRIED unanimously.
Chm. Benson then mentioned another item which had been discussed in the
Executive Committeemeeting which was that there were increasing number of planning
issues which related to planning at either the neighborhood or the regional level.
She stated that she felt that legislation applying to the neighborhood and our
regional level would become increasingly important in the coming years.
Mrs. Meyer brought to the attention of the Board that the League of Women
Voters had taken a strong stand against the proposed Pyramid Shopping Mall. She
also said that there were 2 items which had been brought to her attention by
Councilmen - one on Floral Avenue and the other at 201 Prospect Place. She asked
that these 2 items be investigated by the staff. She then asked whether there was
any news on the progress of Rte. 96., Mr. Van Cort said that he had been .informed
that deficiencies had been found in the Environmental Impact Statement for Rte. 96
which would cause additional delays in the project.
Mr. Hildreth MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at 1_1:30 p.m.
Respe tfully submitted,
L�
H. Matthys Van Cort
Director, Planning & Development
3.18.76
-9-