HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1981-03-24 i� V`�:u.
MINUTES -
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
March 24, 1981
PRESENT: Chairman F. Moore, P. Holmes, S. Cummings, M. Sampson, E. Nichols.
ALSO: Appellants, appellants ' representatives, H: M. Van Cort, J. Meigs
(in audience) , interested persons, press.
1 . Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.
2. Approval of February minutes.
p. 5, para. 7, line 2: insert "claimed he" between he and had.
It line 3: insert "asserted he" between he and had.
p. 6, para. 1 , line 2: Insert sentence: She suggested that the
appellant had confused INHS with the City's 312 loan program to
which he had in fact applied.
P. Holmes, seconded by E. Nichols, moved that the February minutes be
approved with the above changes made. Motion passed 4-0.
3. Public Hearing on Subdivision of property at 503-7 N. Meadow St. into
two parcels.
E. Nichols, seconded by S. Cummings, moved that the public hearing
on the above proposed subdivision be opened. Motion passed 4-0. There
was no comment forthcoming from the public. E. Nichols, seconded by
S. Cummings, moved that the public hearing be closed. Motion passed
4-0. Discussion followed. 'There was no planning issue involved in
the subdivision. S. Cummings, seconded by P. Holmes, moved to approve
subdivision. Before a vote was taken Chairman Moore asked that J . Meigs
appear after zoning appeals cases to talk about it. Therefore the
motion to approve was tabled for the moment.
4. Chairman's Report. None.
5. Committee Reports. None.
6. Old Business:
a. Discussion of the 1981 P&D Department Work Program
Before presenting the 1981 Department Work Program, H, M. Van Cort
gave a short history of the P&D Department and discussed briefly
currentprojects -- downtown revitalization, Cherry Street Industrial
Park, Northside and Southside revitalization. He mentioned the Small
Cities preapplication which has been a proved by HUD (,Ithaca has the
second highest rated CD program in NYS and said we got almost as much
money as we asked for saying he felt this was an indication of how
effective the department is in setting out to do things. He thanked
the INHS which he said is held up as a model in the U.S. INNS has
been the cornerstone in Ithaca 's neighborhood revitalization and
housing rehabilitation effort and the CD section of P&D works with
them on a daily basis.
2
Mr. Van Cort said that since 1975 the City has received $6,667,000 in
grants which were directly applied for by the P&D Department." (This
does not include grants such as what the Youth Bureau receives or the
sewer grant. ) There is another-$3 million pending (Small Cities grant)
and since this figure we can add $800,000 to the $6.667 million.
P&D
Also Mr. Van Cort said the/core staff is no larger than it was in 1974.
While there are additional staff members they are funded through CDBG,
` NYS Council on the Arts and other State and Federal funding sources..
He presented some charts which he used to show comparisons between
amount of grants received by the P&D Department, total City budget,
P&D Department expenditures. He said P&D staff salaries compared to
monies brought in by the P&D staff were in the ratio of 16:1 .
Mr. Van Cort presented the tentative 1981 Work Program for the P&D
Department. (See chart) . Also a Memorandum to the B&A Committee
(with a copy sent to F. Moore)_ was discussed by him. At the April
meeting other P&D Department projects will be discussed. Mr. Moore
asked Mr. Van Cort how the P&D Board might be of assistance in
any of this work. Mr. Moore praised the P&D Department for its work.
b. Discussion of zoning appeal review procedures. `
This will be discussed at the April meeting.
3
ZONING APPEALS CASES (8:30 PM) :
SIGN APPEAL 4-1-81 : Appeal of Dr. Robert Baker for permission to retain
existing freestanding doctor 's sign at .408 N. Tiooa St. , in the C-SU zone.
Sign projects more than 18" from building. -
Neither appellant nor representative was present. No planning issues are
involved in this appeal .
Staff recommended approval .
E. Nichols, seconded by P. Holmes, moved that because no planning issues are
involved, the proposed variance would have no adverse effects on permitted
uses. Motion passed 4-0.
SIGN APPEAL 4-2-81 : Appeal for interpretation and/or variance to permit
erection of a freestanding exterior display case for the Art & Frame House
at 109 E. Seneca St. , in a B-3 zone. The case will display or otherwise
advertise artworks and frames sold on premises . If it is interpreted to
be a sign, the number and total area of signs now on or proposed for the
premises will exceed what is permitted.
Mr. C. Nyberg, appellant and owner of the Art and Frame House, presented his
appeal . He said his proposed display case will not "say" anything, only
exhibit art works. He will be putting a sign onto the building.
Mr. D. Schulman, neighbor (Village Real Estate) , spoke objecting to the
display case .saying it would decrease the visibility of his building and
sign. In addition he wanted -to maintain aesthetic quality of the area.
Planning issues: Visual quality - proliferation of signage.
Is display case a sign?
Staff recommended against permitting this display case as it is considered a
sign.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial . Motion passed
4-0.
APPEAL 1351 : Area Variance to permit L . and H. Binger to convert a base-
ment room in their residence at 170 Pearsall Place. in an R-lb zone, to an
efficiency apartment. One side yard is deficient by four feet. .
Mr. Binger, appellant, was present.
No planning issues are involved.
Staff recommended approval .
4
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend that this case be
transmitted to BZA with the statement from the P&D Board that no planning
issues are involved, and the proposed variance would have no adverse effects
on permitted uses
APPEAL 1352: Use and Area Variances to permit Robert Shapiro to conduct
a tofu-manufacturinc and wholesaling business in the former alternate
junior hioh building at 316 W. Court St. , in a P-1 zone. Such uses are
not permitted in the zone, and the building, which is a City Landmark ,
• is deficient in front yard setbacks .
Planning issues: Adaptive .re-use of a local landmark.
Neighborhood impact (noise, sanitation, odor) : minimal , none.
Visual impact: none.
Traffic and parking: minimal impact on neighborhood.
While not a permitted use in zone, it seems acceptable in
this particular instance due to nature of building, owner-
ship, lack of immediate residences adjacent.
Staff recommended approval ; the matter should be referred to the ILPC to determine
impact on building.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend approval on the basis
that there seems to be no neighborhood impact in terms of odor, noise, vehicle
parking across sidewalks, etc. It should be referred to the ILPC for impact
on the building. Motion passed, 4-0.
E. Nichols said the Markles Flats Building should be referred to the County
Assessor'sOffice for a reassessment of its status.
APPEAL 1353: Use Variance to permit Br'vne Dairy, .Inc. to build a dairy
and convenience food outlet store on prmises at =)27 t.'. Buffalo and 211-17
N. Meadow Street. 527 is in an 'R-2b zone, and the others. in a E.-la zone
The proposed use is not permiti:ed in R-2 zones.
Byrne Dairy president, Mr. Vincent Byrne, was present. Also present on Byrne
Dairy's behalf was Mr. R. Hines, attorney, and Mr. C. Rounds, architect.
In presenting Byrne Dairy's appeal Mr. Hines referred to it as a commercial
business which would anchor and service the neighborhood. He said other
Byrne Dairy stores in New York State have had a good effect on surrounding
houses in neighborhoods. He mentioned there could be other businesses
established there that would not be neighborhood oriented. Architect Rounds
also spoke about changes that would occur if a Byrne Dairy store were erected,
Mr. Byrne presented a slide show about Byrne Dairy and its stores and showed
actual samples of milk products sold: -
Mr. J. 'Porterfield, owner of 527 W. Buffalo across the street, presented his
objections to the store.
5
Planning issues: Reduction in housing stock.
Creates more vehicular traffic near a heavily used corner
on a heavily used street.
Some increase in tax rateables .
Possible negative effect on properties on Buffalo Street
increased traffic.
Building extends into R-2 zone.
Will take. land permanently out of residential use for life
of building.
Effects of not granting it lowers rateables in B zone;
Meadow Street not very desirable location for resi-
dential use until Rt. 96 built.
Staff recommends denial due to possible significant negative effects on
adjacent residential uses, character of residential zone, traffic, housing
stock.
H. M. Van Cort said the department would be willing to work with Byrne
Dairy to minimize the effect of the store's proposed monolithic facade.
He also suggested very dense plantings to screen adjacent residential
area from. the store.
A motion to recommend denial by S. Cummings, seconded by P. Holmes,
failed to pass by a 2 to 3 vote.
E. Nichols , seconded by M. Sampson, moved that the Board recommends
against granting a variance but is interested in encouraging proposed
development on Meadow Street by appellant. Motion passed. Vote 3 for ,
(Moore, .Nichols, Sampson) , 2 against (Cummings, Holmes) . Byrne Dairy
is encouraged to work with the P&D Department in developing its property,
without demolition of house at 527 W. Buffalo Street.
Mr. Van Cort said Byrne Dairy would have to redesign and seek area variances
necessary to do this.
APPEAL 1354: Use and Area Variances and Interpretation to permit con-
tinued use of 702-4 N. Aurora St. , in an R-2b zone, as a 3-unit dwelling.
The structure, owned by Tom Newton, is nonconforming in lot size, coverage,
I ront and side setbacks ; interpretation as to whether the present use is
nonconforming is also at issue.
Mr. W. Seldin, attorney, presented the appeal on behalf of Mr. T. Newton, owner
(also present). Mr. Seldin said this case had been discussed at length among
Mr. Newton, M. Shapiro, T. Hoard, and Mr. Seldin.
Neighbor M. Lounsbery (102 Oakwood) submitted a letter read at the meeting.
Also, Mr. F. Hargrave -(306 Yates) aired his concerns.
6
Planning concerns are related to extent of increased density and parking
considerations. At issue is whether or not there should be a multiple ;
dwelling there.
Staff recommended against variance.
E. Nichols , seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend that the Building
Commissioner should be encouraged to support zoning lawP- this and other
cases and deny Certificates of Occupancy where nonconforming use is
suggested. Motion passed. 4-0.
APPEAL 1355: Use Variance, Interpretation and Special Permit to permit
Taffy Spaulding to operate a catering service as a home occupation at
319 Center Street, in an R-2b zone. The business will involve delivery
of the foods prepared on premises , which brings into question the quali-
fication of the activity as a home occupation.
Ms. T. Spaulding, appellant, presented her appeal . She stated she had
permission from the landlord to operate a catering service out of her home.
Her business would employ a driver and an assistant and at a maximum Ms.
Spaulding would prepare food for 30 people at a time.
Planning issue: Whether catering is considered a home occupation.
Staff recommends approval as long as use kept very small scale and
kept within house
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend approval . Motion
passed, 4-0.
Ms. Nichols said she would support Special Use Permit in this case.
APPEAL 1356` Use Variance to permit conversionof space in residence
Of H. and C. Huttunen at 302 Mitchell St. , in an R-2b zone, so that the
present two-unit building would contain three units .
Mr. Huttunen, appellant, presented his appeal . Mr. J. Kirshner (106 Delaware)
asked what the consequences might be if the Huttunens were granted a variance
and then moved later on.
Planning issues: Extent of parking and neighborhood impact, increase in
density.
Staff recommended denial of use variance because when appellant 's
daughter moves or they sell the house, it will be nonconforming,
M. Sampson, seconded by P. Holmes, moved to recommend denial . Motion
passed, 4-0.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7
APPEAL 1357: Area Variance to permit Joel Podkaminen to rebuild and
enlarge existing burned-out nonconforming residence at 358 Spencer Road,
in a B-5 zone. The proposed two-unit structure would be deficient in
side yard setback.
Appellant and prospective buyer, J. Podkamien, presented his appeal .
No planning issues are involved. It would add to the housing stock.
Staff recommended in favor of approval .
S. Cummings , seconded by P. Holmes , moved to recommend approval of area
variance. Motion passed, 4-0. _
Mr. Podkamien also proposed an "express lane" for appeals such as his.
APPEAL 1358: Area Variances to permit an apartment to be added on the
roof of the B. T. Glass Co. at 201 E. Tompkins St. , in an R-2b zone.
Existing building is nonconforming in coverage, front, side and rear
setbacks .
Mr. F. Pizilly, appellant, presented his appeal ; Mr. K. Vineberg, architect,
also showed and discussed the proposed addition.
Arthur Kekkonen (previous owner, whose son lives across the street) spoke in
favor of the addition; P. Rogers (806 N. Tioga) , neighbor, raised some of his
concerns. Other letters presented were written by the Chatfields , 716 N. Tioga,
and Mr. and Mrs. Jennings, 712 N. Tioga St. , and Mr. W. Merrill (718 N. Tioga
St. ) .
Planning issues: Additional housing units would be provided, some increased
density.
Proposed use in keeping with residential zone.
Owner has improved property significantly.
J. Meigs added that the property will probably never revert to permitted
use, given the building's condition and improvement, and the proposal
for adding permitted uses to it seems to be reasonable.
Staff recommended in favor of granting variance.
E. Nichols, seconded by S. Cummings, moved to support issuance of
building permit for the purpose of adding two residential units to
the building. Motion passed, 4-0.
8
3 (Public hearing on subdivision of property at 503-7 N. Meadow St.) - continued.
Mr. Van Cort commented that this was a simple subdivision into two parcels
and he recommended in favor of approval .
E. Nichols, seconded by P. Holmes, moved to approve subdivision of the
property as requested. Motion passed 4-0.
8. New Business: None.
9. Miscellaneous. None.
10. Adjournment.
MEMORANDUM
TO: T. Hoard, Building Commissioner
FROM: Planning & Development
SUBJ: P&D Board Recommendations on March Zoning Appeals Cases
DATE: April 2, 1981
SIGN APPEAL 4-1-81 : Appeal of Dr. Robert Barer for permission to retain
existing freestanding doctor 's sign at 408 N. Tioga St. , in the C-SU zone.
Sign projects more than 18" from building.
Staff recommended approval . No planning issues involved.
E. Nichols, seconded by P. Holmes , moved that because no planning
issues are involved, the proposed variance would have no adverse
effects on permitted uses.. Motion passed, 4-D.
GN APPEAL 4-2-81 : Appeal for interpretation and/or variance to per,!it
erection of a freestanding Exterior display Case for the .Art & game House
at 109 E. Seneca St. , in a B-0 zone The case will display or otherwise
advertise artworks and frames sold on premises . if ,t is interpreted to
be a sign, the number and total area of signs now on or proposed for the
premises will exceed what V
�
is permitted.
Planning issues: Visual quality - proliferation of signage._
Is display case a sign?
Staff recommended against permitting this display case as it is con-
sidered a sign.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial . Motion
passed, 4-0.
APPAL 1351 : Area Variance to permit W. and X. Ei nper to convert a base-
ment room in their residence at 170 Pearsall lace , in an P- .b zone, to an
efficiency r -
apart ent. One side yard is deficient by four feet.
Staff recommended approval . No planning issues involved.
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend that this case be
transmitted. to BY with the statement from the P&D Board that no planning
issues are involved, and the proposed variance would have no adverse
effects on permitted uses.
T. Hoard
Memorandum, April 2, 1981
P• 2
APPEAL 1362: Use and Area Variances tc permit Robert Shapiro to conduct
a -ooTu-F.--,anUf acturi ne and wholesaling bus' ne$$ in the former alternate
junior hioh building at 316 W. Cour`L St. , in a P'-1 zone. Such uses are
no L !"miLL. In the ZQ;ic, and the building , which is a City Landmark ,
is Geficien-L in -Front yard $etl
!riacl;s .
Planning issues: Adaptive re-use of a local landmark.
Neighborhood impact (noise, sanitation, odor) : minimal , .none
Visual impact: none
Traffic and parking: minimal impact on neighborhood
While not a permitted use in .zone, it seems acceptable in
this particular instance due to nature of building, owner-
ship, lack of immediate residences adjacent.
Staff recommended approval ; the matter should be referred to the ILPC
to determine impact on building.
S. Cummings, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend approval on the
basis that there is no neighborhood impact in terms of odor, noise, vehicle
parking across sidewalks, etc. It should be referred to the ILPC for impact
on the building. Motion passed, 4-0.
APPEAL 1363: U$� Variance to permit B!"vne Dais"y, Inc. Lo built a lair"v
. and convenience food outlet $tore on prmi$e$ at 62; W. Buffalo and 21i-1?
N. Pr: adar Street. 627 is in an R-2b zone and the others in a B-la zone.
The proposed use is not permitted in -% 'ones .
Planning issues: Reduction in housing stock.
Creates more vehicular traffic near a heavily used corner
on a heavily used street.
Some increase in tax rateables .
Possible negative effect on properties on Buffalo Street -
increased traffic.
Building extends into R-2 zone.
Will take land permanently out of residential use for life
of building.
Effects of not granting it lowers rateables in B zone;
Meadow Street not very desirable location for resi-
dential- use until Rt. 96 built.
Staff recommends denial due to possible significant negative effects on
adjacent residential uses, character of residential zone, traffic, housing
stock.
H. M. Van Cort said the department would be willing to work with Byrne
Dairy to minimize the effect of the store 's proposed monolithic facade.
He also suggested very dense plantings to screen adjacent residential
area from the store.
A motion to recommend denial by S. Cummings , seconded by P. Holmes,
failed to pass by a 2 to 3 vote.
T. Hoard
Memorandum, April 2, 1981
P•
E. Nichols , seconded by M. Sampson, moved that the Board recommends
against granting a variance but is interested in encouraging proposed
development on Meadow Street by appellant. Motion passed. Vote 3 for.
(Moore, Nichols , Sampson) , 2 against (Cummings , Holmes) . Byrne Dairy
is encouraged to work with the P&D Department in developing its property,
without demolition of house at 527 W. Buffalo Street.
Mr. Van Cort said Byrne Dairy would have to redesign and seek area variances
necessary to do -this.
APPEAL 1354 : Use and Area Variances and interpretation to permit con-
tinued use of 702-4 N. Aurora St. , in an R-2b zone, as a 3-unit dwelling.
The structure, ov,ned by Tom Ne 'on, is nonconforming in lot size, coverage,
front and side setbacks ; interpretation as to whether the present use is
nonconforming is also at issue.
Planning concerns are related to extent of increased density and parking
considerations. At issue is whether or not there should be a multiple
dwelling there.
Staff recommended against variance_.
E. Nichols , seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend that the Building
Commissioner should be encouraged to support zoning law of this and other
cases and •deny Certificates of Occupancy where nonconforming use is
suggested. Motion passed, 4-0.
Se va anC _ iter; to On and �"cCia i CrTi, tC permi �
4f- Spauj ling t0 rale a Cc z. 'r;ft4 s2rVlC0 asJa Oi! ' OCCuuatiCn c
11Cente r treet, i n an :-2u 2Orie. Y!e b uS i?des: W i ! i ':nv0 !\ e de I l Very
of the foods prepared on pry,:i�.es r 7 i �: i t u e -;
tir. is br nY to c � s �n `h_ quali-
fiCa1ion of the activity as a homy occu o ion.
Planning issue: Whether catering is considered a home occupation.
Staff recommends approval as long as use kept very small scale and
kept within house,
E. Nichols , seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend approval . Motion
passed, 4-0.
Ms. Nichols said she would support Special Use Permit in this case.
T. Hoard
Memorandum, April 2, 1981
P• 4
APPEAL 1356: Use Variance to permit conversion of space in residence
of H. and C. Huttunen at 302 Mitchell St. , in an R-2b zone, so that the
present two-unit building would contain three units.
Planning issues: Extent of parking and neighborhood impact, increase in
density.
Staff recommended denial of use variance because when appellant 's
daughter moves or they sell the house, it will be nonconforming.
M. Sampson, seconded by P. Holmes , moved to recommend denial . Motion
passed, 4-0.
APPEAL 1357: Area Variance to permit Joel Podkaminen to rebuild and
enlarge existing burned-out nonconforming residence at 358 Spencer Road,
in a E-5 zone. The proposed two-unit structure would be deficient in
side yard setback.
No planning issues are involved. It would add to the housing stock.
Staff recommended in favor of approval .
S. Cummings , seconded by P. Holmes , moved to recommend approval of area
variance. Motion passed, 4-0. _
�trP`A 135L: A;-ea 'va?"id(iC?S ZC; ❑e i;i ci auzr fent tG ue aCue� Ci; 'he
ro0? v Lice B. 1 . ( ;ass Co. a 20 �. DIFT)Dkins St. in an 'R-2b zone.
-xi. inc ,,uiIdinc? is nonconfol"ti!1t-1 'i COVET"aCe, , Von ;0� and Year
setbacks .
Planning issues: Additional housing units would be provided, some increased
density.
Proposed use in keeping with residential zone.
Owner has improved property significantly.
J. Meigs added that the property will probably never revert to permitted
use, given the building 's condition and improvement, and the proposal
for adding permitted uses to it seems to be reasonable.
Staff recommended in favor of granting variance.
E. Nichols, seconded by S. Cummings, moved to support issuance of
building permit for the purpose of adding two residential units to
the building. Motion passed, 4-0. __
MEMORANDUM
To: P & D Boar tubers
From: Jon Meigs,
Sub: P & D Board Action on Zoning Appeals
Date: 23 MarchL91
The attached represents some initial thoughts and background relating to
how this board deals with appeals, to aid in discussion on streamlining
and simplifying the review process . r. I know we all - board and staff -
are dissatisfied with the enormous amount of time spent on appeals (3z hours
at the February meeting! ) , and probably would agree that even if there were
no more important matters on the agenda, our own time could frequently
be put to more satisfying use.
Perhaps at the March meeting (appeals load permitting) there will be time
to consider this matter further. As suggested at the February meeting,
staff will try to help provide this opportunity by outlining the planning
iss.ues involved in each appeal when each case is presented, focusing
discussion on any matters of substantive importance to planning , and hope-
fully reducing the time spent on appeals.
cc: T. Hoard
Planning Board Action on Zoning Appeals
The city's zoning ordinance, since at least 1964, has required that this Board
be given opportunity to review zoning appeals and to submit to the BZA "a report
as to conformance with long-range planning objectives" .of the proposed use or
action (Sec. 3,58C6, 1977 Ordinance) , Over the years , the Board has grappled
with the meaning of this phrase and with what the substance of such 'reports '
should be,
Traditionally, the Planning Board has found it difficult to refrain from
including in its 'reports ' some very specific recommendations as to how the
BZA should act on a particular appeal , (In fact, the ordinance provision for
the Board 's report has been amended to include recommendations as well
(Sec, 30,58C6) , ) Past attempts to objectively address broader 'planning-
related ' issues have been short-lived, in part because the BZA's rulings
appeared to disregard Planning Board communications couched in planning terms ,
This defensive posture now seems to be unnecessary: In recent years the BZA
has shown that it recognizes that the combined effect-of individual but
similar cases can not only change an area 's character, but may have unforeseen
and sometimes costly effects on services and physical infrastructure,
Now may be an appropriate time to step back from the detailed and somewhat
subjective approach which has characterized this Board's review of individual
appeals , and to attempt to evaluate them in a more comprehensive planning
framework, in which zoning plays a part. While the BZA appears to have been
generally receptive to specific recommendations (which could be seen as outside
our charge, though they could also be viewed as reflecting planning values and
objectives) , recent BZA decisions have shown such 'planning' types of concerns ,
and in some instances the, BZA has more or less explicitly requested planning
guidance or action,
The attached excerpts from the 1964 and 1977 (current) zoning ordinances show
how the planning aspect of zoning has, probably unintentionally, been deempha-
sized, In fact, as the 1964 statement of purposes indicates., planning (where
present in a community) is the basis for zoning: "Such (zoning) regulations
shall be designed— ,in accord with a well -considered plan, " In this context
Planning Board reports as to conformance with long-range planning objectives
make sense, In the sense that specific recommendations reflect such objectives,
they -may also be appropriate., but inasmuch as this assumes that the Board is
sufficiently familiar with planning and zoning and their interrelationships,
both in general and as practiced in Ithaca, this notion warrants scrutiny,
It may be that with the diverse background and volunteer nature of the
Board, and the limited time which the professional staff can devote to zoning
appeal review, the current practice provides as much 'planning ' input as can
be expected. However, the fact remains that beyond the almost intuitive
nature of this input, the planning basis for recommendations is more often
implied than expressed in Board recommendations. Further, there has been little
attempt to assess the cumulative effects of appeal decisions in planning terms ,
or to estimate their long-range implications . Given the BZA 's increasingly
frequent references to planning issues which they see underlying or contrib-
uting to certain appeals (eegg. Avramis, Kerrigan, Goldberg, Baker, Greenwood/
Conway, Norton) , and in at least one instance their direct suggestion that the
zoning of an adjacent area (Linn St. ) be reviewed, it may now be opportune to
give some thought to the purposes and functions of Planning Board review of
appeals , and to the form and content of recommendations or reports .
2
Further contributing to the emergence of a definable issue are the numerous
recent rezonings of small areas for rather special purposes, and the Board's
long-standing dissatisfaction with the amount of meeting time spent on appeal
review versus the .effectiveness and importance of that effort. Preliminary
examination of these related matters indicates that the following points
are among those which the Board and staff may wish to ,consider in further
attempting to define its role and to establish internal procedures for zoning -
appeal review, within a broader and more planning-oriented context:
1 . Whether the Zoning Ordinance adequately expresses the city's overall
planning objectives , as contained in the 1971 General Plan and later
program documents which serve collectively to guide growth and devel-
opment,
2. Whether the Board's recommendations are made with these documents,
and their general proposals or specific activities, in mind; i .e.
whether the planning basis for recommendations is present, if unex-
pressed,
3, Whether reports, based in -more general terms of an appeal 's effects
on long"range planning objectives, can be at least as effective as
Specific reccomendations.
4, What form such reports should take,
5. How much staff input can be expected, and what form it should take,
One reference includes a rather lengthy staff report which in some
respects parallels the one-page comparison now prepared by the
Building Commissioner, and then observes that specific staff recom-
mendations "frequently were ignored",
6. How the Board should deal with appeals: individually, as at present,
though with the results of review couched in broader terms; in terms
of trends., which may reveal .:areas deserving study for possible
changes in an area's zoning, or for planning action to address an
emergent issue, or in some other fashion which may become apparent as
the discussion evolves,
This brief sketch of the issue, admittedly incomplete and inconclusive, may
serve as a springboard to further discussion and to the resolution of some
of the questions raised, thus improving the effectiveness of both planning
and zoning in the city.
23 Mar 81t
l`� cam,j �,,,�-`�._t � �t- c-v-•��-��
Section 1. Purposes. The General City Law, Chapter 21 of the laws of the
State of New York, Article 2.A, Section 20, grants specific powers to cities
To '
i#
' regulate and limit the height and bulk of buildings hereafter.
erected, to regulate and determine the areas of yards, courts and other open
spaces, and to regulate the den
ity of population in any given area, and for _
said purposes to divide` e city into districts.
Such regulations shall be designed to secure safety from fire and other
dangers and to promote the public health and welfare . . . =,
" . . . and shall be made with reasonable regard to the character of
5
bum ildinYs erected .in each district, and value of land and the use to which
dt may be put, to the end that such regulations may promote public health,
safety and welfare. and the most desirable use for which the land of. each
district may be adapted and -may tend to conserve the value of buildings and
enhance the value of buildings throughout the city.
.Further, -Co regulate and restrict the location of trades and
-industries and the location of buildings designed for specified uses.
Such regulations shall be designed to promote the public health, > �
safety, and. general welfare and shall be made with reasonable consider-
ation, among other things, to the character of the district, its pecu-
liar suitability for particular uses , the conservation o property valuesi
and the direction of building development , in accord with a well considered
plan. --..------ =0
Purposes of the zoning ordinance applicable to the -City of Ithaca are:
.The zoning ordinance maintains property value and increases utilization ,I
of land and encourages land development.
..The zoning ordinance provides protection to property owners against '
inharmonious mixtures of land use.
The zoning ordinance encourages sound community growth by providing
districts for land use and buildings which fulfill the social and economic
needs of the community. j
ai
�1 s
The zoning ordinance is a means of accomplishing community objectives V
7
of orderliness, efficiency, economy, safety, and enhancement of the City of
Ithaca. z
§ 30 . 2 Purpose
F Y
¢ This Chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority and provisions
of the General City Law to promote public health, safety, welfare
and the most desirable use of land and to conserve the value of build-
ings and enhance the value and ayearance of land throughout the City .
30. 3 Definitions
A. Ge ral rules of interpretation .
Words in the pr nt tense shall imply also the future tense .
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Gutenberger
Chairman, Budget & Administration Committee
FROM: H. M. Van Cort ��/6�? '`�� CWZ
Director, Planning & Development
SUBJ: FINAL BUDGET REQUEST - 1981
DATE: February 27 , 1981
Below is the Final Budget Request for the Department of Planning & Development,
Account No. A-8020, for the Year 1981 . It amends the tentative submission
dated September 3, 1980, and is based on additional information developed since
that time, including the actual departmental expenditures for 1980,
As stated in the tentative request, the estimates for actual expenditures for
1980 and the requests for 1981 were extremely conservative. However, in most
cases , the estimated 1980 expenditures proved fairly accurate for each budget
series , and therefore the tentative requests for 1981 were fairly close to
the minimum expenditures needed to accomplish the projects set before us for
this year. Unfortunately the tentative allocations fell far below the request
and in my opinion will not provide adequate funds to do an acceptable job on
first-priority and mandated activities, much less accommodate the important
tasks that always crop up, but which can never be accurately budgeted for.
Below you will see an analysis of the department 's expenditures over the last
five years , projections of those expenses through 1981 , and an explanation of
. the requested allocations for the department,
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUDGET 1976-1981
As Chart I indicates , the Planning and Development Department budget has increased
. roughly $25,784 from 1976 to the 1981 request, which represents a 22.8% increase
over that period. Over the same period, the City's overall budget increased by
$3,566,273, a 37.7% increase. It is clear that these increases represent a burden
to the taxpayers of the City. However, it is also clear that the rate of inflation
of the U.S. economy has increased far faster than the City's budget or that of
the Planning and Development Department. In fact, the department's budget has
increased at a 14.9% slower rate than the City budget over the similar period.
The average annual increase in the department 's budget from 1977 to the 1981
request is approximately 2% per year, during a period when the average annual
City increase is 10.3; per year.
. In addition, it should be noted that, while the department's budget increases
were relatively modest, its duties increased markedly. In 1975 the department
was given responsibility for both economic development and grants administration.
These duties have placed enormous new demands on the department's personnel and
its various budget line items .
Chart I . CITY OF ITHACA and PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUDGETS COMPARED 1976-1981
City of Ithaca* Planning and Development Department
% Change Over % Change Over Actual % Change Over
Yea Y, Budget Previous Year Budget Previous Year Expenses Previous Year
1976 9,463,811 113 ,213 112,171
1977 9 ,233 ,472 -2.45 124,420 9.9 123 ,913 10.5
1978 10,488,217 13 .59 124,307 -0.09 117 ,456 -5. 5
1979 11 ,006,002 4 ,94 129 ,129 3 .9 104,981 -11 .9
1980 11 ,504,235 4, 58 133 ,520 3 ,4 123 ,910 18.0
1981 1.3 ,030,084** 13 ,21 138,997*** 4,1
Average Annual 713 ,255 , 7 .5 5 ,157 4.6 2 ,935 2.6
Increase-
Net Increase 3 ,566 ,273 37 .7 25,784 22.8 11 ,739 10.5
(1976-1980)
-o
u]
ro
Includes General Fund, Water, and Sewer. N
** Tentative Budget 1981 .
*** Final Request 1981 .
2/26/81
MEMORANDUM
John Gutenberger
February 27, 1981 Page 3
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUDGET - 1981
Chart II shows the tentative request, the tentative budget, and the final
request for 1981 . As indicated, the tentative request was for $139,752
while the tentative budget provided only $123,439. Our final request is for
$138,997. A breakdown of this request is as follows:
101 Salaries
The final request is for $98,147. The change is mandated by negotia-
ted increases over which this department has no control .
202 Office Equipment
Tentative budget does not allow for the purchase of any new office
equipment in 1981 . While there are• a. number of items which would
make our operation more efficient, the department will forego any
requests for new funding in this line for 1981 . Therefore our request
is $0.
310 Office Supplies
In September 1980 we estimated that we would spend roughly $5,500 for
Office Supplies. The actual , expenditures were $5,686, while the tenta-
tive budget allowed $5,500. We are requesting that this be increased
to $5,900, which represents roughly a 3.8% increase over the actual 1980
expenditure.
400 Series - Other Expenses
As the department has often stated, the 400 series contains those
lines which allow for expenditures enabling the department to perform
the economic development and grantsmanship functions. If the 400 series
is cut, it will be impossible to communicate with the sources of outside
funds which have proved to be so beneficial to Ithaca.
There seems to be no question that the expenses in this series represent
investments which yield handsome returns for the City, returns which
are well in excess of the amount invested. In 1980 certain of our
lines were cut but the overall 400 series had sufficient surpluses
so that those items could be funded by transferring within the series.
This is not the case with the tentative budget allocations. If in
1980 the department had been held to $1600 for travel and $4600 for
telephones, we would not have been able to communicate adequately with
American City Corporation and the various federal agencies in Washing-
ton which were essential to the success of the Ithaca Center project.
A savings of $3,175 in travel would have cost us $8 million in new con-
struction and a $1 .7 million UDAG. Provision of the full amount
Chart II . PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT NO. A-8020
1981 BUDGET
Tentative Tentative Final
Request Budget Request
Account Series 1981 1981 1981
100 's 97 ,589 90,089 98,147*
200 's 923 0 0
300 ' s 5,900 5,500 5,900
400 ' s 35,340 27 ,850 34,950
TOTAL 139,752 123 ,439 138,997
*Change in this line represents negotiated increases .
7j
-A
2/25/81
MEMORANDUM
John Gutenberger
February 27, 1981 Page 5
requested in this . series for 1981 will enable the department to make
a similar effort to obtain a favorable "return on investment" this year.
I urge you to carefully examine Chart III , which describes the expenses
in the 400 series from 1977 to 1981 and shows the relationship among the
estimated expenditures, tentative request, tentative budget, actual ex-
penditures , and final request for the 400 series . If a major project
such as Collegetown is to be undertaken, it will be impossible for the
department to pursue grant sources and to communicate with the agencies
involved in a major project without an adequately-funded 400 series .
I am therefore requesting that the 400 series be increased to a total
of $34,950 with the allocations among the various lines shown on Chart
III . I would like to emphasize again that without Travel , Telephone,
and Publications , we are not able to keep in touch with federal and
state sources of funding which are so essential to our work.
There are two other lines in the 400 series, namely 407 - Contractual
Services, and 422 - Fees for Professional Services, which provide the
flexibility that allows us to react quickly to constantly changing
situations in the economic development field . In 1981 we are obligated
to spend $13,500 in the 422 line for historic preservation. As you know,
$9,000 will be refunded through the New York State Council on the Arts
and another $2,250 will come from the Community Development Block Grant.
$13,500 represents a $1 ,000 increase over last year's allocation for
this purpose. We are requesting $2,700 less in the combined 407-422
lines than the $21 ,200 budgeted in 1980. However, continued funding
of these lines over the amount allocated in the tentative budget is
essential in order for the department to be able to avail itself of the
various consultants and specialized services necessary for economic
development .and grantsmanship in 1981 .
It should be noted that there are a number of mandated increases in this
series over which we have very little control. For example, the department
now rents and operates a Xerox machine which serves the entire second floor,
and which seems to have improved the efficiency of all departments served.
However, the expenses for that improvement in productivity and efficiency
now rest solely with the Department of Planning and Development.
The department's tentative request for the 400 series was $35,340. The
tentative budget allows for only $27,850. The actual expenditures in
1980 were $31 ,255. We are requesting that the line be increased to $34,950
for 1981 . We feel that this is a conservative request but one with which
we can live. Any cuts below that would severely interfere with our ability
to carry out the tasks outlined for us by the Mayor and Common Council .
t.
Chart III . PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUDGET
400 Account -- 1977-1981
1980 1981 1981 1980 1981
1977 1978 1979 1980 Estimated Tentative Tentative Actual Final
Account Number Actual Actual Actual Bud et Expend. Budget Ex end. Request
401 Telephone 2,856 3 ,808 7,642 . 4,600 4,950 5,300 5,300 6,032 6 ,500
407 Contractual Services 11 ,782 200 500 16,700 5,580 . 6,000 3,500 3,733 5 ,000
411 Printing 3,790 1 ,984 4,414 3,500 3,500 3 ,500 2,000 2,158 2,000
413 Rent of Equipment 0 0 0 11000 400 500 500 820 1 ,000
418 Equipment Maintenance 113 151 302 400 250 300 300 339 400
422 Fees for Prof. Services 17 ,374 8,523 6,163 4,500 12,500 14,000 12,500 11 ,950 13 ,500
433 Travel & Mileage 2,138 2,476 2,954 1 ,600 3,600 3 ,840 2,000 4,775 5,000
435 Advertising 347 528 555 500 350 400 250 232 300
436 Dues , Membership & Publ . 955 1 ,492 986 650 1 ,500 1 ,500 1 ,500 1 ,216 1 ,250
TOTAL 39,355 19,162 23,516 33 ,450 32,630 35,340 27 ,850 31 ,255 34,950
a
o,
2/26/81
r '
MEMORANDUM
John Gutenberger
February 27 1981 Page 7
CONCLUSION
My initial approach, in preparing the Planning and Development. Department's
Tentative Budget Request for 1981 , was to make it as tight as possible given
the economic data and factors known at the time. My staff and I fully appre-
ciate the fiscal constraints. operating in all areas of local government, and
understand that these realities must be observed. However, it is equally
urgent that progress made, and commitments undertaken to maintain and improve
the City 's economic health not be undermined by budget cuts which exceed some
absolutely safe limits. In this final request I have, through an exhaustive
process involving the entire staff, pared the department's 1981 budget to that
limit. I feel strongly that any further reduction would result in significant
impairment of our ability to insure the success of vital projects , and a loss
in the momentum of progress beneficial to the City and its residents .
As indicated above, the cuts outlined in the tentative budget for 1981 will
seriously interfere with our ability to carry out the tasks the Mayor and
Common Council expect from the Department of Planning and Development. Chart
IU summarizes the department's final request for 1981 . I am of course avail-
able to discuss the request with you at your convenience. I urge you to to
examine the attached figures closely, and I hope that you will be able to
give the department's request favorable consideration.
cc: Mayor Bordoni
Franklin Moore, Chairman, P&D Board
Joseph Spano, Controller
1
q
Chart IV. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FINAL BUDGET REQUEST
1981 : - A-8020
Account Number Amount Requested
101 $98,147
202 0
310 5,900
401 6,500
407 5,000
411 2,000
413 1 ,000
418 400
422 13 ,500
433 5,000
435 300
436 1,H0
TOTAL $138,997
O�
2/26/81
east hill civic assnclation l�
-I d'- - - - ..._�..,.-..... .
1-larch 2, 1981
210 eddy st
i t h a c a n y 148 -0 REPORT ON THE MARCH 1, 1981 MEETING
OF THE EAST HILL CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND
REPRESENTATIVES OF
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
THE ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
AND THE
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
TOPIC:
CORNELL'S -PLAP? FOI.
ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AND PLANTINGS
AT THE SAGE INFIRMARY DORMITORY PROJECT
BACKGROUND: The meeting was suggested by Cornell's Bill Paleen (Director of
Residence Life) and Bill Wendt (Director of Transportation Services). The
other groups were invited for informational purposes follwing a second
tabling of the issue by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission in late
February.
REPORT: Civic Association President Tom Hanna called the meeting to order
at 2: 10 pm. Following general announcements, he summarized the City's
official actions on the plan. The Planning Board had passed two motions in
response to the plan presented by Cornell. One, passed in response to a
petition letter from 30 East Hill neighbors of the Sage project, called on
Cornell to take steps to limit the number of students residing in the Sage
Infirmary Dormitory who own or use cars. The other approved the Cornell
pian for an additional 24 parking places on the property "in concept" while
calling on the Preservation Commission to review the plan in terms .of its
appropriateness under its charge. Hanna then read the neighborhood petition
letter, and a letter from the Ithaca City Planning Department. The sense of
the neighborhood letter was a call to Cornell to (1) limit the number of
students. who own or use cars in selecting residents of.. the new dormitory,
and (2) refrain from adding parking spaces to the property. The Planning
Department letter enumerated Preservation Commission, concerns about the
historical and asthetic impacts of the plan in its details, both in terms of
the immediate site and the historic district within which the site resides.
The individuals at the. meeting then introduced themselves.
Marta Erhardt of Cornell's Office of Residence Life then gave an update
on, construction of the dormitory, and invited all present, to an Open House
that will be held Thursday and Friday, March 5 and 6, between 3:30 and _6 pm.
Bill Paleen then discussed his decision to refrain from limiting
residency in the .building on the basis of ownership or non-ownership of a
car. He expressed the importance of making residential units desirable to
students, stating that putting limits on car ownership would make .the units
less desirable. . He stated his belief, that the proposed parking improvements
would be-adequate to meet any student and staff parning needs.
Discussion followed.
007 272 - 3')_/72
.� '.1arch 1 Meeting
Bill Wendt then presented the Cornell elan.
Discussion followed. During discuss Bill Paleen indi.cate,d that the
by neighbors suggested tl.;-t there were conflicting views
range of remarks
being expressed as to whether more parking gas wanted or not.
Tom Hanna called for a show-of-hands vote by the neighbors present on
the combined issues of limiting the number of students owning or using cars
,. and of refraining frog providing additional parking on the site. Those
neighbors present voted unanimously in favor.
Landmarks representative Don Lifton called on the meeting to give
further input on n^ighborhooci concerns. 1- responr;e, Tom Bo. nna outlined n.
possible alternative to the Cornell plan tial would add 13 .spaces instead of_
24. Discussion followed.
Landmarks representatives asked if the meeting was willing to give a
shoe of hands on the alternative plan. Arguments against such a vote were
expressed by neighborhood members. There i-.as no objection to a suggestion
that the vote not be taken.
Respectfully ,submitted,
Tom Hanna,
East Hill Civic Association
enc. : Explanatory letter
prSCUSSION NOTES ON THE SENSE OF THE MARC-il IMELTING
In behalf of the East Hill Civic Association and all the neighbors who
have contributed their thoughts to this ain:; other meetings, I want to
express thanks to Cornell's representatives for their participation and
willingness to hear what the East Hill con unity has to say. We are also
grateful to the ILPC, the Ithaca Planning Board and the City's Planning
Department in facilitating the flow of info:'-iation on this topic.
There has been no change in the positions taken by the neighborhood or
by Cornell, but some issues have come into clearer perspective as a result
of the meeting. I would like to connient on some points and issues brought
up in the general discussion by neighbors
(1) Two actions emerged from the Ithaca Planning Board relative to
Cornell's proposed plan to increase parking and improve plantings in the
parking area. The first called on the University to give preference to'
students who do not own or use cars in selecting residentsa of the new Sage
Infirmary Dormitory. The second approved in concept the plan to add 24
parking spaces. Obviously these resolutions have contributed to the air of
confusion felt both by Cornell and the neighborhood.
In our March 1, 1981 discussions, the point was made by some neighbors
that the decision about parking at this site has two important precedent
setting qualities. The first is a precede,st on what the quality of life
will be in the immediate Seneca Street—Sclr_ ler Place—Sage Place
neighborhood once the new dormitory is up =nd running. It is my sense that
we have to find an. mechan-i_sm of reconciling Cornell administrative needs,
the needs of the neighborhood and the needs of the student residents of the
dormitory. Neighbors are looking for a sign that, Cornell will be a good
landlord and that the students will be good neighbors. Our failure to come
to agreement on the issues before the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Conmission was a discouraging first step in what will certainly be a long
term relationship.
The second precedent relates to the ---Lich more ambitious plans that
Cornell has for East Hill's Collegetown entrance to campus -- how the new
dormitory at Sage Infirmary combines with the Sheldon Court and Cascadilla_
Hall dormitories. Here is the same concern. for lon's term relationships, but
now the context is all of East Hill, not Just one square block on Seneca
Street.
(2) The neighbors recognize that the present plan was a good faith one
drawn up by Cornell on guidance from the Planning Board. It was clear from
discussions however, that things might ha-:e gone riuch smoother had the
University given the concerned neighbors a chance to provide input to
Cornell before the plan e.as drawn up. Events show that. City officials are
indeed concerned about neighborhood views in such circumstances. We hope
that a way can be found in the future that will allow Cornell to approach
the appropriate City offices and committees after consulting with the
neighborhood Civic Association and before committing final plans to paper.
f (3) Tile discussion also brought out the sense that working with Cornell
is sometimes like touching
the elephant. Sane questions raised seeped to
indicate that key Cornell representatives had not participated in the
planning and were not present at the meeti_} s with the City or the.
neighborhood. We learned, for instance, - that the Campus Beautification
Committee would have to respond. to concerns raised by Landmark's and by
ne,in-hbors. The Cornell Planning officials did not participate.. No
landscape architect was available to comment on plantings. Mien discussion .
turned to the possibility of finding additional parking on adjacent Cornell
property, we learned that no plans could be drawn because that .property was
the responsibility of still another University office, the Real Estate
Department.
From these aspects of the discussion, -he sentiment of some present was
that it would be good ii Getter two—way co--7:171Ullication Lxisted b'etwee
Cornell and the neighborhood, and if Cornell could have one person who could
help the neighbors better understand the University structure and University
goals in Collegetown and in the East Hill neighborhood.
(4) Key to the discussion of the proposed parking plan is the impact it
has on the Historic District. This after all is what most affects the
decision of the ILPC to. approve or disapprove issuance of a building permit
for the work. It is the consensus of the neighborhood that:
(a) The Division of Residence Life should use the Sage Infirmary
Dormitory as a model of "neighborhood living", helping the City limit
traffic and parking congestion in the Historic District. This is consistent
with the Planning Board resolution that Cornell should, in selecting
occupants for this building, give preference to those who do not own or use
cars. Limits on parking and traffic would be a good first step in making
for. "neighborly living"..
(b) The University should give some priority to a project to
improve the plantings and greenspaces around Sage Infirmary, particularly in
the parallelogram formed between the Sage : ansion and the Liberty Hyde
Ba:iln.;- Mouse. A model for such an improvement already exists in the
roadway—pathway—greenspace design that enhanced the space bordered by Sage
Chapel, Day Hall, the Campus Store and Olin Library.
(c) Priority should be given to landscaping and paving
improvements in the existing parking at the. Sage Infirmary site, especially
at the Presbeterian Manse and the dirt—gra-rel driveway and parking area that
runs directly east of Sage Place and north of the Liberty Hyde Bailey
gardens.
(d) The East Hill Civic Associn_ion and the City should give
priority to exploring mutual steps that can be taken to improve the Historic
District and maximize its historic value for the neighborhood and the City.
Piot all problems in the District can be so1-ced by Cornell.
(e) The East Bill Civic Association cannot give approval to the
current Cornell plans for expanding parking at the Sage Infirmary site.
This does not exclude the possibility that another plan might be quite
satisfatory. The Association stands ready to cooperate with the ILPC and
Cornell in seeking such a plan.
Tori) Hanna, for the East Bill Civic Association
^1�STEP, SHEET (Page 1 of 2)
TENTATIVE 1981 WORK PROGRAM
Department of Planning & Development
* First Priority & Mandated Projects
** Second Priority Projects
*** Third Priority Projects
Projects Total P&D Hist. CD
A. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOODS Person Days Staff Pres , Staff
1 . Linn Street Zoning 15 15
2. Northside Zoning 40 20 2OTT-
3.
_
School C osings/Recycling 20 5 15*
4. East Hill Schoo-T19 19
5. Hillview Park 12 12*
6. Va entine P ace 42 2 40*
7. On-Street Parking 25 25
8, Cornell Heights Zoning 15 15
9. Sage 5 5
0. Neighborhood Improvements 23 23*
1 . INHS Loans & Grants 9 9*
2. Homeownership ss t, s 8*
13. Emergency Grants 4 4*
4. Junk Removal 5 5*
15. Code Enforcement 3 3*
6. Mini -Repair Program 4 4*
17. Closeout of Projects 10 10*
18. Senior Center Housing 6 6**
19. GIC Purchase & Improvement 43 43*
20. 12 Program 5 5**
21 . Youth Employment - New 22 22*
22. INHS Loans & Grants - New 25 25*
23, Section 8 22 22*
24. Sidewalk epair - New 15 15*
25. House Recycling - New 20 20*
6, Mini-Repair - New 15 15*
27, Carpenter Program - New 15 15*
8, Code Enforcement - New 20 20*
29, Shelter for Battered Women - New 20 20*
0. Paralegal 20 20*
Commercial/Industrial Facade 25 25*
B, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1 . Cherry Street Industrial Park
a. Precision Filters 10 10*
b. Full Lease Up Efforts 70 70**
2. Ithaca Center 115 115*
3. UDAG Payback
a. Development of Alternatives 15 14* 1*
b. Beqin Plan 32 30** 2**
c. Complete Plan 46 44*** 2***
4. West State Street 109 105* 4*
5. Collegetown
a. Pre-Implementation 50 50*
b. Implementation 100 100**
6. Southwest Development Plan 50 50
7. Southwest Park Land Swap 35 35
8. Commercial Avenue 15 15
9. Strand Theatre so 60* 20*
10, Clinton Hall 40 40*
11 . Farmers ' Market Relocation 5 5
12. Comprehensive Economic Development Plan 50 50
13. Inlet Development 100 100
14. CBD Parking 24 24
15 Tourism 20 20
16. Green Street Parking 10 0*
C. PUBLIC HEALTH & WELFARE
1 Family Medicine Clinic 25 25
2. City Emergency Plan 5 5
3 . New Fire Station 15 15
9/1R/R1
Projects Total P&D Hist. CD
D. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS Verson Days Staff Pres . Staff
1 . Noise Ordinance 2 2
2. Glass Recycling 3 3
3. EQRO Revision 2 2
4. Environmental Assessments 20 10* 10*
5. Recycling Task Force 25 25
6. Energy Plan 40 40***
7. Energy Commission 20 20*
8. Energy Conservation Coordinator 12 12**
E. TRANSPORTATION
1 . Route 96 25 25*
2. Aurora Street 2 2
3. Route 79 - Trucks 10 10
4. W. C inton Mea ow St. Light 5 5
5. 504 Transition Plan 38 38**
6, Section 18 IT Assist, (ULTA) - "
a. Phase I 10 - 10*
b. Phase II 25 25***
F. HISTORIC PRESERVATION
1 . Boardman House 5 5
2. St. James AME Zion Church 40 10 10* 20*
3. Facade Restoration Program 15 10* 5*
4. Education Program 60 60*
5. Preservation Primer 60 60*
6. Restoration Directory 30 30
7. Historic District 10 10
8. Postcards 10 10
9. AOA Landmark Designation 10 10
first black fraternity in US
G. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
1 . Cass Park 22 22***
2. YMCA/Youth Bureau 65 65*
3, Girls ' Softball Fields 15 15
4. Bikeways 15 15
5. Community Gardens 25 25**
H. ARTS & CULTURE
1 . Community Arts Program 25 25*
2. Design Review 5 5
3. Hangar Winterization 5 5
I. PERMITS & APPEALS
1 . Zoning & Sign Cases 40 40*
J. GOVERNMENTAL & ADMINISTRATION
1 . Common Council Meetings
2. Common Council Committee Meetings 66 60* 2 4*
3. Planning & Development Board Meetings
4. Public Hearings
5. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 18 6* 12A-
6.
2*6. IURA/CDA Meetings 46 = 10* 36*
7. CAC Meetings 10 10*
8. Rezone Public Areas/Schools 12 12
9. W. State Street Zoning 20 20
10. Innovative Zoning for Development 40 40
11. Subdivision Ordinance 20 20
12. Site Planning Ordinance 5 5 _
13. Collegetown Zoning 20 20
4. Treva venue 2 2
K. COMMUNITY CONTACT/INFORMATION 55 40* 5 10*
L. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 160 140* 5 15*
M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION 225 30* 195*
N. MISCELLANEOUS DEMAND INITIATED 50 10* 10 30**
TOTAL 2,998 1 ,807 339 852
TOTAL - First Priority Projects 770 252 750
TOTAL - First & Second Priority Projects 1 ,008 87 102
0iin101
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - 1981
First Priority and Mandated Projects Person Days
B1 Cherry Street (Precision Filters) 10
B2 Ithaca Center 115
B3 UDAG Payback (Development of Alternatives) 14
B4 West State Street 105
B5 Collegetown (Pre-Implementation) 50
B16 Green Street Parking 10
D4 Environmental Assessments 10
D7 Energy Commission 20
El Route 96 25
E6 Section 18 (Phase I ) 10
G2 YMCA/Youth Bureau 65
I1 Zoning and Sign Cases 40
Jl Common Council Meetings
J2 Common Council Committee Meetings 60
J3 Planning and Development Board Meetings
J4 Public Hearings
J5 Ithaca Landmarks Pres. Commission ( ILPC) 6
J6 IURA/CDA Meetings 10
K Community Contact/Information 40
L General Administration 140
M Community Development Administration 30
N Miscellaneous Demand Initiated (Reduced) 10
770
(Professional Staff)
(260 Gross Person Days Per Year)
Director (265)
Planner II (235) Net Person Days
Planner II (230)
Intern (40)
(770)
Second Priority Projects
Bl Cherry Street (Full Lease-Up Efforts) 70
B3 UDAG Payback (Begin Plan) 30
B5 Collegetown ( Implementation) 100
E5 504 Transition Plan 38
238
Replacement - Planner II ( 238)
Third Priority Projects (to replace Collegetown , if project not implemented)
B3 UDAG Payback (Complete Plan) 44
D6 Energy Plan 10
F6 Section 18 (Phase II ) 25
GI Cass Park 22
101
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - 1981
First Priority Projects Person Days
A3 School Closings/Recycling 15
A5 Hillview Park 12
A6 Valentine Place 40
A10 Neighborhood Improvement 23
All INHS Loans/Grants 9
Al2 Homeownership Ass 't. 8
A13 Emergency Grants 4
A14 Junk Removal 5
A15 Code Enforcement 3
A16 Mini-Repair Program 4
A17 Closeout of Projects 10
A19 GIAC Purchase and Improvement 43
A21 Youth Employment 22
A22 INHS Loans & Grants 25
A23 Section 8 22
A24 Sidewalk Repair 15
A25 House Recycling 20
A26 Mini-Repair 15
A27 Carpenter Program 15
A28 Code Enforcement 20
A29 Shelter for Battered Women 20
A30 Paralegal 20
A31 Commercial/Industrial Facade 25
B3 UDAG Payback 1
B4 West State Street 4
B9 Strand Theatre 20
D4 Environmental Assessments 10
F2 St. James AME Xion Church 20
F3 Facade Restoration 5
H1 Community Arts Program 25
Jl Common Council Meetings
J2 Common Council Committee Meetings 4
J3 Planning and Development Board Meetings
J4 Public Hearings
J6 IURA/CDA Meetings 36
J7 CAC Meetinqs 10
K Community Contact/Information 10
L General Administration 15
M Community Development Administration 195
757
CD Coordinator (237)
CD Specialist (235) Net Person Days
CD Specialist (new) (180)
Intern (75)
(7127
Second & Third Priority Projects
A2 Land Use Policies 20
A18 Senior Center/Housing 6
A20 312 Proaram 5
B3 UDAG Payback 4
D8 Energy Conservation Coordinator 12
G5 Community Gardens 25
N Miscellaneous Demand Initiated 30
102
HIS T n^IC PRESERVr=,. JN - 19fl i
First Priority Projects Person Days
B9 Strand Theatre 60
B10 Clinton Hall 40
F2 St. James AME Zion Church 10
F3 Facade Restoration Program 10
F4 Education Program 60
F5 Preservation Primer 60
J5 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 12
252