Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1980-10-28 ---MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING October 28, 1980 PRESENT: Chairman Moore, M. Sampson, S. Cummings, R. Moran, E, Nichols ALSO: Zoning and signage appellants, Northside neighborhood residents Cornell Heights Civic Association members, other interested per- sons, members of the press 1 .` Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 2. Special Order of Business: Staff presentation. Kathe Evans, Community Development Housing Specialist for the city, pre- sented a progress report on the City's comprehensive 3-year Small Cities application currently being prepared by Planning & Community Development staff (see handouts - CD Block Grant Program packet, Goals & Activities fi CAC, Meetings - Small Cities Application) . Evans mentioned that Ithaca in 1978 was recipient of. a $1 .9 million Small Cities 3-year grant. During this preapplication cycle HUD will choose the 5 or 6 neediest communities (according to HUD guidelines) in the HUD-Buffalo region, Since Ithaca's application for a grant in 1978, HUD's guidelines have not changed much, according to Evans, and eligible activities remain essentially the same, She explained that income eligibility requires 75% or more of the benefi- y clari es of the program to be of low-moderate income, with $13,600 the HUD- set upper limit fora family of four, and explained HUD's point rating system and design criteria for program evaluation. Areas targeted for aid are Southside and Northside, primarily, but Fall 'Creek may also receive some attention. Targeted activities include housing and associated neigh- borhood and community facilities. Evans said th-at on November 24 the Small Cities application will be submitted to Common Council for approval . After that, Planning and CD consultants will review the application for completeness and polish, and on December-1 the application will be hand- delivered to the HUD office in Buffalo. 3. Approval of August and September minutes: One change was made to the September minutes. on p. 9, paragraph 2, line 4, "a member of the public" should read"the appellant". _ Thereafter the minutes were approved as corrected. 4. Chairman's Report: NONE 5, : Committee Reports: NONE 6, Communications: Ms. Cummings read a proposed Common Council resolution approving the designa- tion of the' West side of the 100-block of North Cayuga Street as the Clinton Block Historic District, as requested by the ILPC (resolution attached) , Discussion followed. MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING, 10/28/80 p. 2 Cummings r-10VED to support the findings of the ILPC and to recommend that Common Council approve the designation. Mrs. Nichols SECONDED, and the motion PASSED, 4-0. 7. Old Business: a. Route 96: Mr. Holmes ' committee has met to discuss the current DoT proposals with staff. On October 30 at 3 p.m, an informational meeting for Common Council , also open to the public, will be held with DoT representatives to discuss the plans. Chairman Moore felt there was no basis for the Board to make any recom- mendation at this time. 8. Zoning Cases : Mr. Moore explained that the Planning & Development Board makes recommenda- tions on planning aspects to the Board of Zoning Appeals; the P&D Board does not make final decisions on the appeals, Appeal 1328 was heard first, due to meeting .conflicts of persons involved. APPEAL 1328 Appeal of Elizabeth and C. Selvarajah for a Use Variance under Section 30.25, Column 2 (permitted uses) to permit conversion of the single-family dwelling at 101 Edgecliff Street to a multiple dwelling. The property is in an R-2a district in which multiple dwellings are not permitted. Robert Hines, appellant's attorney, mentioned that the request for use var- iance was consistent with uses in the neighborhood and with reasonable plan- ning; a more intense or denser use of this house would not significantly alter the character of the. neighborhood, Discussion followed. The house is in an R-2a district that would not nor- mally permit this conversion, which would permit rental of rooms to 7-8 stu- dents; no significant physical changes would be made to the house. In an R-3 district (where multiple dwellings are permitted) one parking space per three persons is considered appropriate; the Selvarajah house has space to_ accommodate four to five cars. David Banfield, Alderman-5th Ward, read a letter (see attached) from Mrs, R. Pettengill (112 Edgecliff Place) in which she objected to granting of a use variance, Banfield said he felt conversion would significantly affect the area, e.g, through increase of traffic; also he felt Cornell Heights residents were concerned about encroachment of multiple-family dwellings in the area, He said he felt there was a market for one-family homes in the area. . David Clark (105 Needham Place) read a letter written by him and his wife (see attached), They felt conversion would diminish the value of property in the area and the neighborhood character would be changed. MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 10/28/80 P. 3 Mrs. R Pettengill (112 Edgecliff Pl .) and Ethel Riceman (916 Stewart Ave!. ) each presented their views. I Dick Penner 1(216 Wait Avenue) , in the absence of Bryant Robey (president, Cornell Heights Civic Association) , said he expressed the concern of many residents in Cornell Heights who wished. to maintain the present balance of single-family and student residences. He recommended the Board deny - request for a use variance. P&D staff recommendation: Deny appeal , Mrs Nichols felt that this was a case where zoning law is under attack and it is imperative that the Board take a stand to protect residentsenjoyment of their homes. She then moved to recommend denial ; this was SECONDED by Mr. Sampson, and motion PASSED 4-0. SIGN APPEAL 10-1-80 Variance under Section 34.4B (projecting sign) to permit retention of existing sign at 114 W. State Street (Ithaca Diner) in a B-3 district, The sign pro- jects more than eighteen inches from the building, The 'Board informed owner Stephen Kotsides that his sign may be considered for historic status by the ILPC; if not accorded historic status, then the exist- ing sign would be in violation of the sign ordinance. P&D staff recommendation was to approve, said the sign is modest in size and' reflects the area's earlier character, Mr. Moore recommended that the appeal be deferred pending receipt of a deter- mination of the sign's historic status by the ILPC, since this is the express basis of the appeal , SIGN APPEAL 10-4-80 (Jake's Red & White, 402 W. Court St, ) Neither the appellant nor his representative was present. The Board noted that the Landmarks Commission had .determined the oblong Red & White sign facing Court Street to meet- the criteria for historic status, but that the projecting Sealtest sign did not. Due to the absence of appellant or his representative, the Board did not have sufficient information on which to base a recommendation for the other signs, to resolve questions on need for identification, safety and illumination which might be relevant to a deci- sion. The conffensus was that it would be desirable to defer the matter so that appellant and staff could further flesh out the details, but there P would be no serious objection if the BZA were to act in the absence of an official recommendation from this Board. P&D staff recommendation was to approve retention of the historic wall sign facing Court St. and the plastic-faced, internally-lit wall sign facing Plain St. , both of which would be permissible under the ordinance, but that all other signs, including the numerous product signs on the windows, be removed to reduce visual clutter and improve the appearance of the area. MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING, 10/28/80 P- 4 SIGN APPEAL 11-1-80 (Ithaca Cayuga Optical Co. , 134 E. State St. ) Owner Roger Bellehumeur explained the reasons for the appeal , P&D staff recommended denial ; since other businesses on the Commons had complied with the sign ordinance and had been involved in substantial signage change, it was equitable that Ithaca Cayuga Optical conform, which would help improve the appearance of the Commons; staff felt that signage on this store was significantly in excess of what was needed or appropriate. Ms. Cummings, SECONDED by Mr. Moran, moved to recommend that the primary sign and guild emblem above the doorway and show window be granted neces- sary variance(s) , but that other signage beside the window and door be removed, since the number, total area and visual effect of the signs on this premises are not in keeping with the intent or letter of the sign ordinance, or with the objectives of the Commons improvements , Motion PASSED 4-0. APPEAL 1325 (Area Variancesto permit second story on house at 934 E.Shore Dr. ) Owner Janet Jonson explained her reasons for the request and presented house plans to the Board, Ms. Esther O'Neill , neighbor at 932-940 E. Shore Drive, provided extensive comment on the history and situation concerning properties in the immediate area, and mentioned that the proposed structure would block her lake view, She felt the City should investigate the area in detail regarding housing, safety, parking, etc. P&D staff recommended'.denial due to access problems, fire safety, and the back of residential amenity in this area. Ms. Cummings, SECONDED by Ms, Nichols, MOVED to DEFER action on this appeal , permitting owner and. staff to examine and discuss the proposal in detail in order to make a more comprehensive presentation at the November Planning Board meeting. Motion PASSED, 4-0 Among other questions to be answered: Why was permit issued for deck by the Building Department? What is the difference between a porch and a deck? APPEAL 1326 (Use Variance to permit wholesale/storage use of 301-315 Third St. ) Clifford Northrup and Edward Austen of Norton Electric and attorney Robert Hines explained their interest in purchase of the property, They would use part of the building for their wholesale warehouse operation, part for a wholesale/retail electrical supply operation (E.C. Electric Supply) , and the remainder would be leased. The parking lot could possibly be utilized for a farmers ' market or for civic affairs. The property abuts a residential area. S. Knowlton (Dunco Realty, owner of the property) said the erosion of retail property value in the area occurred when Route 13 was constructed; it is difficult to attract retail business to the area. MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING, 10/28/80 p. 5 A letter from N. Minturn, a neighbor at 414 Adams St: was read, in which she said she had no objection to granting this request .for variance. , R. Yarrow (407 Hancock St.) , neighborhood resident, read a petition (attached) signed by 30 neighborhood residents expressing their concerns regarding blanket permission for Norton Electric to use the property for warehousing and con- tracting operations. Norton Electric responded to these concerns and Mr.,. Hines mentioned that -they were well taken and that Norton Electric wanted to be good neighbors and to maintain an attractive facility. Pat Roberts, neighborhood resident, said Norton Electric could only improve the area; Mike Yarrow (407 Hancock St.) expressed his concern; and another neighborhood resident, of 409 Hancock St. , stated opposition to this request, P&D staff recommended denial because of the `potential negative effects of an � 'inappropriate use on nearby residential areas, Ms. Nichols , SECONDED by Mr. Sampson, MOVED to recommend APPROVAL subject to conditions which would respond to the concerns of neighborhood residents as expressed in the October 22 petition addressed to the Planning and Zoning Boards, specifically (1 ) that the Use* Variance be limited specifically to Norton Electric` and E.C. electric supply .sales and warehousing operations; (2) that any other proposed nonconforming uses of the property be considered for variance on a case-by-case basis; (3) that the owners of. the property make every effort to utilize space not occupied by Norton and E.C. for retail or other conform- ing uses; and (4) that the entire premises be maintained and improved to standards compatible with the primarily residential area abutting the property,- including roperty,including (a) cleanup and repair of unsightly and deteriorated'portions of the building and parking area, (b) suitable landscaping in accordance with plans approved by the Planning staff, (c) prohibition of outside storage and of flammable, polluting or offensive substances. Motion PASSED, 3-2. .MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT .BOARD MEETING, 10/28/80 p• 6 The members opposed to the motion indicated that they do not object to the proposed uses so long as suitable and sufficient controls are placed on the variance to insure that the general concerns expressed in the petition are acted upon; their opposition is based on the lack of planning input at this stage, leaving the Board and staff essentially as bystanders on an issue which could have significant and extensive effects on the viability and desirability of the surrounding residential area. They felt that appellants plans for the use, maintenance and development of the building and property should have been spelled out in considerably more detail , preferably in consultation with staff, before action. by this Board; and they hope the Board of Zoning Appeals will take this concern for the broader picture into account APPEAL 1327---(Area Variances- to j�ermit addition :to nonconforming structure at 605 Cas cadilla St-. Mr. Robertson, owner, said he was a builder and wanted to improve the property's appearance. As he did not have any architectural drawings or sketches to indicate what the final structure would look like, the Board felt it had insufficient basis for granting the request. It was mentioned that INHS could help him, at no charge, with specs and plans. P&D staff recommended denial because itviolated the zoning ordinance, and the effects of intensification of an existing permitted use in a noncon- forming structure should be taken into account: in this case the noncon- formity impacts a neighborhood even though it would not be increased. Mr. Sampson, SECONDED by Mr. Moran , MOVED to DEFER action until the November Planning Board meeting in order to give appeliant time to provide.. sufficient information, in particular more detailed and accurate plans and elevations of the proposed addition, as required by §30.58 C2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion PASSED, 3-a0-2. APPEAL 1329 (Area Variances to permit change of use at 402 N. Cayuga St. ) Dr. Hersh said that the house (located in a historic district) was on the National Register of Historic Places; he intends to use it for medical offices only. A letter from neighbor Mary Watt (406 N. Cayuga St. ) favoring the proposed renovation and use, was read. A letter from Dr. Salerno (404 N. Cayuga St. ) was read; he stated parking was not a problem in the immediate area. A letter from N. Carey, 118 W. Court St. , was read; she approved of the proposed renovation. Allison Bishop (106 E. Court St.) spoke in favor of retaining the historic nature of the residence. P&D staff recommendation: Approval . Ms. Nichols, SECONDED by Mr. Moran, moved to recommend APPROVAL of Area Varinnrnc- mni-inn PAggpn a-n a MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING, 10/28/80 p. 7 APPEAL 1330 (Area Variance to permit expansion of facility at 705 Willow Ave.!) Arthur Shull , Lansing Research Corp. , explained the structural addition was needed in order to accommodate a saw; such an addition would not impact on the front yard requirement. P&D staff recommendation: Approval . Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Sampson, moved to recommend APPROVAL of Area Variances; motion PASSED 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 11 :45 p.m. d y Approval of October minutes : &I- WjV— If8-o Pet? (1 ) Ms, Cummings expressed concern regarding the writeup- on Appeal 1326 (Norton Electric) that a motion which she had made recommending deferral of the appeal for 30 days to accommodate a meeting with interested parties failed to be passed for want of a second. To be inserted in the minutes under ,APPEAL 1326 section is the following paragraph: "Ms . Cummings moved that the appeal be delayed for 30 days to permit study by the staff in con- cert with the concerned residents . It failed to attract a second, " It should precede the "Mrs. Nichols . . .substances, " paragraph, (2) With regard to the writeup on Sign Appeal 10-4-80 (Jake's Red & White) , Mr. Moore objected to theuse of the word "consensus" because he felt it was an incorrect assessment about the feeling of the board on the appeal . Fur- ther, with regard to the clause in that same sentence, "but there would be no serious objection if the BZA were to act in the absence of an official recommendation from this Board. " he felt this inaccurate also. He asserted that as far as he was concerned it was not O.K, for the BZA to act on the appeal because the issue of safety had not been addressed either pro or con by anybody. Mr. Moore felt the Board should be jealous of its perogative here and not be careless about what it wants to happen in an appeal case. He expressed concern for the Board 's reputation and its being careful and t' complete in its act-ions , SMALL CITIES APPLICATION DATES, TIMES AND LOCATIONS OF UPCOMING MEETINGS: Monday, September 29, 1980 CAC. Orientation Salvation Army Building for New Members Green Room - 7:00 P.M. 150 North Albany Street Thursday, October 2, 1980 CAC - All Members Salvation Army Building Progress Report Gym - 7:00 P.M. Initial Goal Setting 150 No-th Albany Street Wednesday, October 8, 1980 CAC Public Hearing GIAC Gymnasium 318 North Albany Street 7:00 P.M. Wednesday, October 15,- 1980 CAC Meeting Salvation Army Building Review Goals/ Green Room - 7:00 P.M. Needs with 150 North Albany Street Community Input Monday, October 27, 1980 CAC/IURA Meeting Salvation Army Building Sharing results of Green Room - 7: 30 P.M. hearing, dicussions 150 North Albany Street Tuesday, October 28, 1980 Planning & Devel Common Council Chambers opment Meeting/ City Hall - 7:30 P.M. Report to P&D Board 108 East Green Street November 10, 1980 IURA/Public Hearing Salvation Army Building Review Draft with Gymnasium - 7:30 P.M. Public 150 North Albany Street November 17, 1980 IURA Meeting Salvation Army Building Follow up on Green Room - 7: 30 P.M. Public Hearing 150 North Albany Street November 24, 1980 Common Council/ Central Fire Station IURA/ 7:30 Public Hearing 310 West Green Street Final Draft Approval nr��ron / c Sl �.,.. - ��� -(-,tS=P�rT,.1 s�1Y f-y{ --�r-_(jp�. i Il_`` - 1' Tif- ,t SJ�' �1Lr. �v.i 71� InL1 r�'' 11rt - mini-repair for elderly' - better a til i La tion .and retainage of open sDace/green -space - increase- Code enforcement in target areas through intensive lnsDecticns and prosecution of owners o' derci1C-L:. bui1dinas -2E ';r' is i U7 boilslrf^ LG Dr;Ver: G cCel�:cn ;)Via -i r,a.,Cla1 ani tech , ,ca : a_ lstariC �G siTcs`.I DU_ln_S_ w`:i ch provi de essen L1 a f nei ghborhood services exband housing suDDIV throu0h renaLl : itatior, ..+� _ �:v: �-y�rr � �r e.-� -L� 11n r.,f tt.'� _ u_.: �l f;'- h. t;'-t,'- C � ,� i.ri� Cv:''1,7:�a_ S; i<sJ��-,.._ IfK Of,, ,__ZEi' n_1 GHBORHOODS intervene in same oT housing to prevent' disD agement v.eatheri7e housing/educate homeowners on cherry conservation - mini-reDair or the eeder ly 7 XPAN11 HOUSING SUPPLY -- -xDand hoes i nc, suDD to bene"i t 1 ov4 mod 1;l7erveht i on buy i ng d elnlcrceTer n- RAC OL, R=i IICyfu_SSES �_ D*0 c t`.. ` :.' ' rii; u_ �,ih r.C•1' ) �SSLi i Drovi de -]':i nanc i a l and t.echn i ca i ass i stance to smiia .i bus nesse- which provide essential neighborhood services -increase code enTorcement and prosecution of owners of derelict structures -intervene in sale of housing -imDrove open space -cc7,^lete neighborhood Tacit ' _ es project _i -ir`-7_ - n�c,nc, nS=Pv� ;- .0 0 ' , IO,. w 2.theri Z ti on =Da Ir s;ua l D u s i ne« assi s i,ance Conserve enerQV in nelQhborh.ood -facilities { 0—Lj l i'?l)P.:Jt,'_ C �. f"t1Vi1 .+_L__�ie /:4 lS :'�•.�til. I. _1a_..i �'•.1:� - '-ini-repair for elderly - ut i ati 0n drC r e Lai naCe of open SDa� e,/Qreefl SilaCe ";Crease cod- enforcement in tar et areas tnrou`hi r�ers i r e rs Dns and D1"DSeCu l 0!. D- 01�1ner5 C`- del"e t C; b'.i i i c i nQ 47.. sv c- nousinc �o - , iv c:_._i.. r D`.'i GC T , f^idnC.1 i dna i,eifill l C a5 i 5-an'L- mac s7-,, ; Dias: n.e se_ i cr' u1-CO i D,c oc,c, n i c nc :OnC•D'"�IODD �? 1' nc Ex Lia n houS i nc suDp J V ..h rD lid ! rehab 1 a7 /✓rt, -;'t i` i (`,,.fir.,1 ,'1,'-- �� —r^,ir '�t.a;1S'!t,''T... - ^-trn— 't:. . L_L'_. 1':_.i ."';1 �'4' ! .._ v:t_ _T:••i 1 Z E D NE1uHIB JRHOt` D-S - intervene in sale of: housing to prevent dispiacement - weatherize housing/educate norneowners on ener�y conservation - rani-repair nor the elderly - expana nousinc! supply LD bene`i. ;ov,,/mod - intervention. buying cod- en-D CE- P-n n—r^r,`"— ''•. DE n.,.Tc�_ __ .•, Pv11T. V:'. �._:1 'JV✓1' i��l _� �14V ....J�:_ _i._ L'rOvide i ricnCidi and teCnnlC?' assiSLance t0 sTRa1 DLIS Messes w ich provide essential neighborhood ser'-ices i iiCi"`•? C c r ` r At^ t-1 Pr.., `1a e r- 1 -tures 5� DCle en orcen ri L and p: os cut i•D c ou n c D" r r I i L s 4rJ�tu i I tervenC' i r1 s '.e- D T nous i n�' r -H—nD. rove Omen SD.aCe "� ,cLe n iCC?OUYb00n i"c .' i F. rc-Vn s ress_s r t _. 4 t n i I - weatheriZa[.ion - i;ii r: sinal i D*US cess a,ssistEincc - conserve enei-cy i r ne-i gnbarhood facid i ti es. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Entitlement ies Discretionary (no competition) (competitive) jI Large Cities Phase Out ! Comprehensive ° . Single Purpose over 50,000 Ithaca not (Ithaca received (Ithaca received funds eligible; funds from 1975-1979 from 1979-1981 ) r but no longer eligible -grants for 1-3 years -4rants for 18-24-months (no competition after 1st year) program must address one of these problem proposed program must areas: housing; public address_�substantiat` facilities; economic portion of identified conditions. community development needs within a concen- -can include more than --- trated area; involve one project. 2 or more related activities; have several applications can beneficial impact be submitted in a single within reasonable year. period of time (3-9 yrs); and be based on an assess- : must be able to ment of community complete proposed development, housing and projects with funds economic needs, requested. application requirements -application requirements include a pre-application include a pre-application and application for the and a final application. comprehensive program and continuing applica- i tions in the 2nd & 3rd yrs. f maximum grant amount is - maximum grant amount $1 million per year for is $2 million for up to 3 years. 1 time only. - this year estimated - This year estimated $5.9 million available $4.5 million avai:lablE to fund 5-10 of 40-50 possible applications SUMMARY OF RATING SYSTEM FOR SMALL CITIES COMPREHENSIVE POINTS I. Number of persons under poverty level in Ithaca (From 75 1970 Census) II. / Of persons under poverty level in Ithaca (From 1970 75 Census) III Extent to which Ithaca's proposed program benefits low 200 and moderate income people. IV. Ithaca's previous performance in increasing housing 100 opportunities for low and moderate income persons (through documentation that: subsidized housing has been provided in areas outside of neighborhoods which have minority and low income concentrations; subsidized housing has been provided in a neighborhood which is being revitalized and low income persons are being forced out; that the City's public housing and Section 8 housing is racially integrated; that Ithaca actively enforces a fair housing ordinance; that Ithaca is meeting the housing needs of large, lower income families and that Ithaca is meeting its previous goals for providing subsidized housing) V. Ithaca's previous performance in utilizing local minority 50 employees and firms. VI. The extent to which Ithaca's proposed program promotes 20 energy conservation or supports energy production. VII. The extent to which Ithaca`s proposed program is consistent 25 with state growth or resource coordination strategy or improves Ithaca's position as a regional center of economic development. VIII . The extent to which Ithaca's program meets 4 of the follow- 400 ing goals (we get to choose which 4) : 1 . Support comprehensive neighborhood conservation, neigh- borhood stabilization and/or neighborhood revitalization. 2. Provide housing choice throughout the region. 3. Provide housing choices within Ithaca but outside of low income, minority neighborhoods or .enable lower income persons to continue to live in a neighborhood which has been revitalized. 4. Provide additional housing units. 5. Address a serious deficiency in Ithaca's community ` facilities. 6. Expand or retain job opportunities. VIII. 7. Attract or retain businesses which provide essential services 8. Remove slums or blighted conditions. 9. Resolve serious threats to health and safety. 10. Support other federal. programs or mitigate negative impacts of federal programs. 11 . Support energy production or conservation. Ithaca's application would be scored and rated along with applications from other cities in upstate N.Y. Only 10 applications (out of 22) were successful in 1980. This year an estimated $5.9 million is available for all of upstate N.Y. Only 5-10 applications out of 40-50+ will be funded. Single Purpose - First 7 criteria are the same as under comprehensive. Criteria VIIT includes only 3 problem areas (we would select 1 ) - Housing; deficiencies in public facilities affecting public health and safety; and econo�i�i s coed i t i o��s. - One additional criteria is whether the proposed program supports other federal programs or mitigates negative impacts of federal programs (25 points). In 1980, 220 single purpose applications were submitted by cities in upstate New York. 69 were housing applications and 151 were for public facilities. Approximately 10 applications were funded. This year an estimated $4.5 million is available for all of upstate N.Y. ELIGIBLE SMALL CITIES PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS A. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY 1 ) Must primarily benefit low and moderate income people, eliminate or prevent slums and blight, or meet an urgent need. 2) Must primarily benefit residents of the designated target area (s ) 3) Must be specifically listed as "eligible" in the regulations 4) Some projects/programs eligible only under special circumstances . B . BASIC ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES 1 ) Acquisition of real property through lease or purchase . 2) Disposition of real property . 3) Construction or rehabilitation of public facilities : a . Senior Caters --b . Parks , playgrounds and other recreational facilities . c. Centers for the handicapped . d. Neighborhood facilities for health social recreational or similar community services . e . Solid waste disposal facilities . f. Neighborhood fire protection facilities and equipment. g Neighborhood parking facilities . - h . Public utilities i . Street and sidewalk improvements . j Water and sewer facilities . k . Foun'dati ons and platforms for air rights sites 1 . Pedestrian malls and walkways . m . Flood and drainage facilities ( unavailable under other federal laws or programs) 4) Clearance and demolition activities . 5) Public services in target areas only . 6) Interim assistance to alleviate harmful conditions . 7) Payment of matching share . 8) Urban renewal completion . B . BASIC ELIGIBLE 'ACTIVITIES ( CONT' D) Relocation. 1.0 } Lo.ss.. of rental income. 11 ) : Removal of arch barriers C . ELIGIBLE ECONOMIC._ DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ( FOR THE CREATION_ .. . OR MAINTENANCE OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PERSONS ) 1 ": .Acquisition for econ , dev. purposes 2) Public facilities not otherwise eligible .' 3) Commercial:.and industrial facilities . , .D. ELIGIBLE REHABILITATION AND PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES 1.) Rehabi 1 i tati on of public residential structures . *. 2`), Public housing modernization 3) .Rehabilitation of privately owned residential structures: =a Acquisition ' for the purpose of rehabilitation . b Rehabilitation financing. 4) . 'RehabiIitation . materials 5) Rehabilitation financing 6) Code enforcement in target areas . 7) Historic preservation . E. ELIGIBLE REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES BY PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ENTITIES .1) Facilities not publicly owned but otherwise eligible `. under. C . D. 2) Assistance. to small businesses a . Wo.rki ng . capi tial• or operational funds . b . Capital for .land, structures., property . im.provements 3) Capitalization of a SBIC or local dev. corp . Rerformance bonding minority contractors . 5) Other activities for communi, ty :or neigh . economic development or revitalization . r INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES - LIST OF EXAMPLES A. Public works facilities and sites` or other improvements 1 . Buildings and facilities for the general conduct of government a. city halls b. courthouse - c. police stations 2 Facilities used for exhibitions , spectator events and cultural purposes a. stadiums b. sports arenas c . auditoriums d. concert halls e, cultural and art centers f. convention centers I g,. museums - h. central libraries 3. Schools and educational facilities 4. Airports , subways , trolley lines , bits or other , transit terminals 5 . Hospitals , nursing homes and other medical facilities 6 Treatment works for sewage or industrial waste of a liquid nature B. Purchase of equipment 1. Consstruction equipment 2.----Furnishir_gs and personal property C. Operating and maintenance expenses 1. 'Maintenance and repair of a. streets b. parks c. playgrounds - d. neighborhood facilities e. senior centers, etc. 2. Payment of salaries for staff utility costs and similar expenses necessary for the operation of public works and facilities 3 Expenses associated with provision of public service . which is not eligible for assistance D. Political activities' E. New housing construction F. Income payments G. Payments of assessments H. Industrial park development unless city can demonstrate firm commitments from public or private entities for the use of such industrial park development. f� CITY OF ITHACA 108EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 1.4850 OFFICE of TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CITY ATTORNEY CODE 607 MEMO TO: Hon. Donald Slattery FROM: Mr. Martin A. Shapiro , DATE : November 14 , 1980 SUBJECT: Historic Designation of Clinton Block SNCL: a) Proposed Common Council Resolution Enclosure a) is a draft of a resolution approving the historic designation of Clinton Block, per your request. MAS:r ENC. CC: H. M. VanCort Jon Meigs Penny. Dolan DESIGNATION OF WEST SIDE OF 100-BLOCK OF NORTH CAYUGA STREET AS CLINTON BLOCK HISTORIC DISTRICT, REQUESTED BY THE ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMI4ISSION. WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission has formally voted to designate the buildings at 102-106 West State Street , 106-114 North Cayuga Street , and 116 North Cayuga Street as the Clinton Block Historic District of the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the designation was made after a duly advertised public hearing in compliance with the procedure established in Chapter 32 entitled "Landmarks Preservation" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code , and WHEREAS , the owners of the properties involved are eager for the historic designation to be completed, and WHEREAS , the Board of Planning and Development unanimously approved the designation of the proposed Clinton Block Historic District at its meeting of October 28 , 1980 , and WHEREAS, the Charter and Ordinance Committee has considered such designation and has recommended the approval of such designation to the Common Council , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council does hereby approve the designation of the proposed Clinton Block Historic District as a historic district as defined by the City of Ithaca Code Section 32 . 3, subdivision 3. I P1.� i�es �� h - J yS•� _..01 d q p� '}95G iR:Ti i+'a• S CITY OF ITHACA I OB EAST CREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14SSO TELEPHONE. 272-1713 CODE 607 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 20, 1980 Mayor and Common Council Board of Planning & Development City of Ithaca Dear Mayor, Council and Board Members: Acting on requests from the owners of the structures involved, and following a public hearing at its October 14, 1980 meeting, this Commission formally voted to designate the buildings at 102-104 W. State St, , 106-114 N. Cayuga St. , and 116 N. Cayuga St. as the Clinton Block Historic District of the City of Ithaca. This action is referred to the Planning Board and Common Council , respectively, for recommendation and approval as provided by the Landmarks Ordinance. The structures within the district, known respectively as the Hibbard Block, Clinton Hall and Clinton House, form the last remaining unified group of buildings in the Greek Revival Commercial style, the second oldest period of architectural design represented in Ithaca, They are especially noteworthy because of the coordination embodied in their planning: Clinton Hall and the Hibbard Block are set back from Cayuga. Street the same distance as the front of Clinton House, pro- viding a pleasant, extra-wide pedestrian walkway which served the double purpose of setting off the Clinton House's elegant facade, and giving its guests a clear view of the street and the stagecoach stop at State and Cayuga Streets, This early example of enlightened development could well be copied by present-day entrepreneurs, The Commission feels that this designation will be a credit to the City, partly because it recognizes important historic structures, but also because it is expected to generate increased interest and economic activity in local preservation and rehabilitation projects. In this regard, we note that the owners of Clinton Hall and the Hibbard Block hope to take advantage of federal income tax credits for historic preservation, If it is possible for Council to act to approve this designation before the end of the year, the tax advantage that may adhere to work already underway may enhance the project financing, and increase the viability and quality of results, iaVOr and Co ?mon Council Board o- Planning &' Development C i t t.y of' I t h a c a October 20. 1980 2 The attached material , prepared by Preservation Coordinator Penne Dolan, gives farther background and iustification for this important designation. Please do. not hesitate to call- on us for additional information or assistance during your consideration o; this matter, Very truly you s � Jm Meigs ,_Zecretary JM/s Enclosure cc: T, ?^Jerbizky, Vice Chairperson., ILPC T, Hoard, Building Commissioner D. Lucentl M. Pi chef P, Prig-more P. Dolan CLINTON BLOCK HISTORIC DISTRICT The newly designated Clinton Block Historic District is composed of three buildings . They are: Clinton House, 116 North Cayuga Street; Clinton Hall , 106-114 North Cayuga Street: and the Hibbard Block, 102-106 West State Street. The three buildings are prominently linked to each other and to the early development and growth of the Ithaca community, The hotel , Clinton House, was built between 1828 and 1830 by Jeremiah Beebe, Henry Ackley and Henry Hibbard, At that time Ithaca had fewer than four thousand inhabi- tants , The construction of such a large and elegant hotel was as much symbolic in nature as it was functional . Its construction was intended to convey the message that Ithaca was a thriving commercial and cultural center within the state. Jeremiah Beebe, one of the Clinton House developers , was a mill owner and built his residence at 308 North Cayuga Street, The house is known today as the Beebe-Halsey House and is located within the Dewitt Park Historic District, He was also a direc- tor of several banks including the Bank of Newburgh. This building is now located at 106 East Court Street, Dewitt Park Historic District, The other Clinton House developers, Ackley and Hibbard, were hatters and their business was located on the corner of Buffalo and Aurora Streets. Ackley built a home on the site where the Women's Community Building is now located, There is structural evidence to indicate that Clinton House was designed and built by Ira Tillotson. He also built houses within the community, including, in 1828, the Humphrey-Judd House at 102 East Court Street, Dewitt Park Historic District; Clinton House is a fine example of Federal -Greek Revival Transitional architecture, The portico is supported by six Ionic columns, In 1872 a two story mansard roof and a twenty-foot high cupola were added, A palladian window that replaced an oval window in the pediment was designed by William Henry Miller at the beginning of his highly successful architectural career in Ithaca, When a fire destroyed the mansard roof in 1901 , it was replaced by a Colonial Revival roof and balustrade. During much of its 150 year history, Clinton House has been a center .of business , political , cultural and social activities within the community, An early founder of Ithaca, Simeon Dewitt, lived in the hotel during the latter part of his life, At least four United States presidents were guests there, The hotel was Ithaca's first professional building and housed the offices of doctors , dentists and lawyers, In 1972 Clinton House was placed on the National Register of Historic Places , Clinton House, Inc, was also formed that year and the building was slowly restored and rehabilitated by a group of community residents , Today the building continues to serve a vital function within the community,. It houses Historic Ithaca, Dewitt Historical Society and a large number of offices and buildings . Its success as a preservation project has received considerable state and national recognition and interest. In 1847 Henry Ackley built Clinton Hall , and Henry Hibbard built the Hibbard Block as commercial buildings, in part to support the activities of Clinton House, Clinton Hall is one of the few Greek Revival Commercial buildings remaining in downtown Ithaca, It is of brick construction and the ground floor has early cast iron store fronts. There is a series of five frieze windows with an anthemion decorative motif under the simple and restrained cornice, Stepped gables are at the :north and south ends of the building, Originally, there was a highly decorative cast iron balcony with support brackets that was located above the first floor store fronts , It was removed in 1901 . As a commercial block, Clinton Hall has contained a wide variety of businesses. The basement and first floor served as retail and office space, including an Express office and a ticket office. The second floor contained office space andthe third floor served as a public hall for meetings and traveling stage shows ,. The hall featured a stage with a painted stage curtain depicting allegorical scenes and the room had a dome in the center of the ceiling that was sixteen feet in diameter. In 1910, the hall housed a movie and vaudeville theater called the Manhattan Theater and Picture Show, The building had a fire -five years ago and has been boarded up since that time, The Hibbard Block, 102-104 blest State Street, is a three-story brick. Greek Revival building with stone lintels and simple cornice, 106 Test State Street, also a part of the block, was built after 1860 and features large triple windows, It is internally connected to 102-104 blest State Street, The third floor of the Hibbard Block served as the meeting room for the City Club during the 1920s and 1930s, The new owners of Clinton Hall and the Hibbard Block are in the beginning stages of restoring and rehabilitating these two buildings, Many community organizations have applauded their efforts, As has been indicated, the buildings within the designated Clinton Block Historic District are a vital link to the early history, important early architecture and the ongoing development of downtown Ithaca, The owners of these buildings have requested local historic designation and find it desirable because: * Designation will insure that these important historical and architectural links in our community's heritage will be preserved for future generations, and * Historic properties within certified historic districts can qualify for income tax benefits for rehabilitation/restoration of depreciable properties under the Federal income Tax Reform Act of 1976, The designated historic district is also a strong visual and economic link between Dewitt Mall ,, a highly successful adaptive use project, and the Commons, a revitali- zation effort that is the economic and social hub of the community, The responsibility of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) is to carry out the intent and purpose of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. In part, the Ordinance states that the purpose is to: "safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage by preserving landmarks and districts of historical and cultural significance; foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past; and strengthen the economy of the city, " It is the unanimous opinion of the members of the ILPC that the designation of Clinton Block Historic District fulfills that purpose and continues Ithaca's outstanding record of recycling its useful architecture and conserving its local heritage.