HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1981-04-28 M 1',U T.ES
PLINING & DEVELOPMEN- BOARD MEETING
Apr"j 1 28, 1981
PRESENT: Chairman F. Moore, M. Sampson, I . Stewart, E. Nichols, R. Moran (until
8:30 PM) , P. Holmes.
ALSO: Appellants, appellants ' representatives, K. Evans, J . Meigs , interested
persons, press.
I . Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
2. Approval of March 1981 minutes.
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved that the March minutes be accepted
as submitted. Motion passed,
3. Staff Presentation.
CD Housing Specialist Kathe Evans reviewed the draft CD/Small CIti.es Housing
Assistance Program for the coming three years, along with the status of the
overall Small Cities application and reprogramming of funds for current acti.y-
ities. In summarizing the overall situation, she mentioned in particular an
aspect of the local housing picture that she felt the Board had special interest
in: that lower-income families with children, and families with single female
heads-of-household are having the most difficulty in finding housing in the
local market. Where possible, within the program, steps will be taken to
improve this situation. The survey performed to obtain current data for the
program. did not reveal. significant need for housing to accommodate the handi-
capped. Mr. Moore observed that from the data presented, it appeared that
only a small percentage of poor residents have housing problems. Ms. Evans
agreed that data showed this, however she explained several limitations of the
data. Ms. Evans recapitulated the most severe problems in housing as
(1 ) the pressures of the large student population on housing supply,
(2) the difficulties of single women, especially those with children, ..
in finding housing,
(3) the housing problems of low-income elderly persons, and.
(4) the problems of young adult workers, particularly those just entering
the job market in low-pay positions, in finding suitable housing.
These interdependent problems are affected by factors of supply, condition and
location. HAP goals are to supply 180 units low and low-moderate income housing
over the next three years. Sites for these units must meet three HUD criteria :
they must be outside areas of the city which already have publicly-assisted
housing, they cannot be concentrated in areas which already have substantial
members of low/low-moderate income residents, and they must be adequately
served by public facilities and services , However, a major problem exists
with regard to meeting these goals: none of the areas presently identified
as containing potentially suitable sites which meet these criteria are zoned
appropriately. This problem is intensified by the facts that there is no
up-to-date study of zoning to address this issue, nor is one planned by the
department; and the Land Use Policies study for the purpose proposed for
funding in the program budget was recommended for elimination by the URA/CDA
in the reprogramming resulting from reduced program funding. One Agency member
felt strongly that such study should be done in house.
2
After brief discussion, Ms. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Moran, moved that the
Board recommend to Common Council that the $5,000 proposed for the Land Use
Policies study be restored to the Small Cities budget; motion passed unani-
mously. Mr. Moore commented that this motion should serve to notify Council
that the Board favors long-range planning, since the study seems critical to
successful completion of the CD/SC program which is a carefully-designed
effort to correct existing problems and lay the groundwork for improvements
that will result in a better community over .a period of years. He remarked
that the Board has a duty to assist in the process which is the Agency's
responsibility to direct and administer through the CD. staff, and that the
Board's failure to keep track of CD and to give appropriate input and support
may result in part from a lack of timely information and input from staff..
He asked that the Department take steps to keep the Board updated on program
developments.
4. Chairman's Report. . None.
5. Committee Reports. None.
6. Old Business:
a. Discussion of March 23 memo on zoning appeal review procedure held
over until May 26 meeting.
7. ZONING CASES (8:30 PM) :
SIGs; APPEAL 5-1-81 : Sigri Variance under Section 34.6A (number and type of
signs permitted in a B-5 zone) to permit addition of a third wall sign on
the bank building at 0875 South Meadow Street (Tompkins County Trust Company) .
The sign would bring the total signs on the building to three, exceeding the
maximum permitted in the B-5 (business) district.
Neither appellant nor representative was present.
Planning issue: Visual quality - proliferation of signage.
Staff recommended denial of variance.
T. Stewart, seconded by P. Holmes, moved to recommend denial of a sign variance.
Potion passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1359: Area Variance under Section 30.26B (side yard and lot size for
a group care residence) , Section, 30.25, Column 10 (lot coverage) and Section
30.49 (enlargement of a non-conforming structure) to permit addition of an
exterior fire stairway on the south side of the Broome Developmental Services
community residence at 618 N. Aurora Street. The property, in an R-2b (resi-
dential) district, is deficient in side yard set backs and lot size for a
group care residence, and the permitted lot coverage is exceeded.
Larry O'Neill was present on behalf of Broome Developmental Services to present
the appeal .
Staff recommended denial of variance as addition of the stairway
would congest the area between buildings , put residents in pos-
sible danger if .they used the exit during a fire in the front
of the residence , and there is no indication that it is :impossible
to build the stairway in back where it would be out of the way
of fire access should it ever be needed, Mr . O 'Neill (Broome
Developmental Services) said adding it to back was not possible
because of the existence of, a handicapped access ramp there ,
Al. Sampson, seconded by I . Stewart , moved to request the BZA
give the appeal a month ' s delay during which time the architect
could re-examine locating the stairway in the rear and the
appellant could report back the findings , Motion passed 5-0 .
I . Stewart pointed out the need for consideration of equity to
property owners in the . area in relation to such a proposed
structure on the side of this building, where it would in a
sense encroach on the adjacent property..
APPEAL 1360: Area Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 10 and 11 (coverage
and required •Front yard) to permit addition of a solar collector along the
front of the existing Leonard E. Mankowski dwelling at 58 Woodcrest Avenue.
The property is located in an R-la (residential ) district, and the addition
would extend into the required front yard and the maximum lot coverage
exceeded.
Leonard Mankowski presented his appeal .
Robert Zahl , 54 Woodcrest, asked if the structure would be interesting, or if,
instead, unappetizing. He wanted to see plans of what would be developed.
E. Nichols asked if this was in conformity with the State ' s
guidelines for solar energy . No one knew.
Planning issues :
(1) Considerable change in visual quality of neighborhood,
i . e. , from a 1-story to a 2-1/2 story facade .
(2) Front facade would be moved closer to street _
(3) Notices sent to neighbors (.required by the BZA) were
sent out late . The Board was concerned that some of
the neighbors may not be aware of the appellant '-s latest
design drafted very recently.
Staff recommended deferral to give neighbors time to familiarize
themselves with the proposal so they can provide input to the
discussion .
I. Stewart , seconded by P. Holmes, moved to request that the
BZA defer action for one month for the purpose of development
of a full front view including lot placement by appellant .
Motion passed 5-0.
It was recommended that more detailed drawings be made available
to the neighbors.
APPEAL 1361 : Appeal of Rex and Helen Whitman for Interpretation of Section
30.25, Columns 7 and 11 (width at street line and front yard set back) to
permit use of-the property at- 110 Westbourne Lane for multiple dwelling. -
The property, in an R-U (residential ) district, does not have frontage on
a public right-of-way as required by District Regul.ations (Westbourne Lane
is a privately-owned street. )
Dirk Galbraith, attorney for the appellant, presented their appeal for inter-
pretation.
Edwin Saipeter, 116 Westbourne Lane, said he wanted more than a yes-no legal
question to be answered. Bryant Robey (Cayuga Heights Civic Association)
recommended that action be. postponed pending resolution of the larger question
(a definition of 'public right-of-way or street' , and how zoning applies to
properties on private ways, in the zoning ordinance itself) .
y
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved that this appeal for
interpretation of whether private streets qualify as streets
for the purpose of applying zoning regulations be referred to
the City Attorney immediately for a determination of whether
this is an issue within the purview of the P&D Board. Motion
passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1362° Area Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 11 , and 13 (lot
size, front and side yard set backs) and an Interpretation of Section 30.37
A-1 (continued availability of off-street parking) , to permit continued use
of property at 801 E. State Street for a multiple dwelling. The property,
deficient in lot size, front and rear yard set backs, had been converted to
a multiple dwelling by a previous owner in violation of zoning, building and
housing codes. Earlier appeals were denied by the Board on August 4, 1980
and February 2, 1981 . Owner Charles Fritschler is submitting a new appeal
claiming that he can provide continued availability of off-street parking
on adjacent property.
M. Pichel , representing Mr. Fritschler, stated Mr. Fritschler
was willing to take down the back porch on the house and the
old garage to the side to help provide off-street parking spaces
required for his property by the zoning: ordinance , He has also
obtained a 1-year lease from Ithacare for his parking needs,
as an alternate .
Mr . Sampson pointed out that the leased parking at Ithacare was
within 500' '.as the crow flies ' but not within 10001 walking
distance as required in the zoning ordinance ,
Mr . S. Kileen (East Hi 11 Civic Association) spoke and said
notices to neighbors regarding appeal were different in wording
from what was presented at tonight ' s meeting.
Staff recommendation was to deny appeal because there was signifi-
cant question as to whether Ithacare parking space was adequate,
available, and long-term; and the appeal is limited to considering
the proposal to provide parking on .adjacent property, not on the
premises as addressed by Mr. Pichel .
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial of
appeal . Motion passed 5-0.
J V
t 3 s
b
APPEAL 1363: Appeal .of Anthony J. Albanese for a Use Variance under Section
30.25, Column 2 (primary use) to permit enlargement of the Clever Hans Bakery
of Ithaca, Inc. in the building at 201 Dey Street, in an R-2b (residential )
district, and to establish an open-air cafe in the Adams Street front yard.
The bakery is operating under an existing Use Variance. The building, the
former Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory, is a local landmark; the cafe proposal
has been favorably reviewed by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Anthony Albanese and John Bernstein presented the appeal and answered questions
regarding the proposed construction.
J. Meigs said the ILPC has reviewed the proposal for the outdoor
cafe and has approved it in spirit . ILPC made no comment on the
. bakery ' s internal expansion. (See ILPC letter enclosed_ ) Chairman
Moore commented that the internal expansion proposed is not incon-
sistent with what has gone on before in the building.
Staff recommended approval of both sections of proposal .
M. Sampson, seconded by I . Stewart , moved to recommend approval .
Motion passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1364: Appeal of James Iacovelli for an Area Variance under Section
30.25, Columns 11 and 12 (front and side yards) to permit conversion of the
existing one-family dwelling at 524 Linn Street to a two-family unit. The
property, in an R-2b (residentialdistrict, is deficient in front and side
yard set backs.
James Iacovelli presented his appeal .
Staff recommended approval of variance ; since building and use
are generally in character with the neighborhood, there are no
planning issues.
I . Stewart, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend approval .
Motion passed 5-0.
fi i
APPEAL 1366: Appeal of Veda E_ Quick for a Use Variance under Section 30.25
Column 2 (primary use) to permit the former "Quick 's Garage" to be used as
an operations base for the Terminal Taxi Co. The property, at 302 Madison
Street, is in an R-3b (residential ' district, where a taxi business is not
a permitted use.
Only the garage is involved in this appeal .
William Sullivan was present on behalf of Mrs. Quick (also present in
audience) and presented her appeal .
There wassome comment from neighborhood residents including Ruth Yarrow.
•Ms. Yarrow said that since there were more homes than businesses in the
neighborhood she was angered by references to its being commercial in
nature. She implored the Planning Board to listen to residents'. ,concerns.
Stuff recommended denial of the variance . A letter from the
CD section of staff supported by the Northside Civic Assoc . ,
recommending that the Planning Board "assist in protecting the
public and private investment in this neighborhood and deny the
variance" was distributed to Board members. It reflects staff
concerns relating to this appeal :
(1) The area is a residential area in most senses .
(2} The area is one of considerable public investment to
improving residential character .
(3) A--considerable number of residential properties have
been improved as a result of this ,
(4) The proposed use for the garage would not enhance the
residential character of the neighborhood.
(5) There is no indication that the property cannot be used
for the purpose permitted in the zoning ordinance . For
another use (also not in conformity) would not comply
with the spirit of the zoning ordinance.
E. Nichols said the planning issue is protecting the neighborhood
and the Board has to support the staff ' s recommendation because
of commitment to the Small Cities program.
I . Stewart , seconded by P. Holmes, moved to recommend denial of
variance. M. Sampson added he felt the motion should say the
denial was made on the basis of planning considerations and
does not consider hardship matters.
E. Nichols proposed a substitute motion, accepted by I . Stewart
and P. Holmes , that it be resolved that the Board of Planning
& Development reaffirm its support for the Small Cities program
efforts that have been expended to improve and rehabilitate the
Northside neighborhood for residential uses. The Board therefore
recommends denial of the variance. Motion passed 5-0, it being
emphasized that the issues of hardship and/or special conditions
which may be present in this case were not addressed by this Board.
8. New Business:
a. Preliminary Subdivision : a small (30 x 45) piece
of a parcel at 200 Kline Road, subdivided in 1950',
is proposed to be transferred to the adjacent
cemetery. Preliminary approval is indicated.
Staff reported no problem with such a subdivision.
M. Sampson, seconded by E. Nichols, moved for approval of a preliminary
subdivision. Motion passed 5-0.
b. Sale of Boardman House : The County would like
preliminary indication from the City as to the
possibility of rezoning the property from P-1
(public/.institutional) to B-lb (office commercial) ,
to facilitate its sale by removing zoning barriers
to its use for private-sector activities compatible
with those in the vicinity. The Board ' s evaluation
of the desirability of rezoning should be conveyed
to Council for its response .
Staff recommendation: Blb -would be the most appropriate and compatible
zone. for such a structure. There exists a legal question as to whether
this runs afoul of spot zoning.
E. Nichols, seconded by I. Stewart, made the resolution that the Planning
Board gives its preliminary approval and support for rezoning of Boardman
House to Blb designation in the event of its sale by the County of
Tompkins. Motion passed 5-0.
9. Miscellaneous:
E. Nichols passed along a 'request from .Alderman Slattery, who would like
the Planning Department to recommend on location or relocation of fire
stations in the central and west side of the city. He suggested that
the City offer #5 station to the volunteer firemen's association and that
the truck be moved to #6 station. Several volunteer fire companies that
don 't have fire stations at the moment, and one of them has been wanting
the City to build a station on West or South Hill . One part of the request
is that the Planning Department recommend on a possible site or sites for
a new fire station that could serve the other side of the railroad tracks
and the West Hill part of the Town of Ithaca . The City and Town are
negotiating renewal of the fire services contract; the Town would like
expanded service, and when (and if) a new fire station is built, that
it be in a good location for them. Mr. Slattery would like input and
recommendations on station locations and sites, and staff should also
address the potential use of #5 as a club house.
E. Nichols, seconded by P. Holmes, moved to support in principle legis-
lation to require deposits on beverage containers in the State of New York.
For Board members ' information J. Meigs mentioned a request from a property
owner on East State Street to purchase a piece of property from the City
for parking. J. Meigs has recommended to the BPW against
its sale as a single parcel for parking as it could be subdivided in such
a way that along with adjacent vacant land a building lot could be assembled.
10. Adjournment at 11 :35 PM. t
i' A Oil m
RAT6�
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Development Board
FROM: Kathe Evans, CD Housing Specialist
SUBJ: Housing Assistance Plan Review, Status of Small Cities Application
DATE: April 23, 1981
Enclosed please find a draft copy of the new three year housing assistance
plan for lower income households within the City. The Housing Assistance
Plan is an integral part of any Small Cities Program; it is an assessment
of the quality and numbers of housing units within the community and the
need for housing -by lower income households (less than $15,000 for a family
of four). Based upon need and the capacity of a community to provide
housing for that group (through Small Cities grants and HUD-assisted
housing) three-year goals are established (Part III) . Potential locations
for HUD-assisted housing are identified in Part IV and finally year-to-year
anticipated performance is outlined in Part V.
The Planning & Development Board has been of assistance in the past in
identifying location criteria for HUD-assisted housing and has broad
knowledge of housing needs and neighborhood problems . We welcome any
input you have on the housing plan.
In addition, we will inform you of the status of the application and
reprogramming at your next meeting.
KE/s
Enclosure
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
6ME,Vo
pro
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 1.NAME OF APPLICANT 4.PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CITY +bF'`ITHACA eROM:, July :1 , 1981 �.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN 2.APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER
SMALL CITIES PROGRAM D ' N 3 6 — 0 7 5
TOt Sept. 30, 1984
0 . '
KEYPUNCH CODEX s, E s ISSION. s.
ORIGINAL CJREVISION ❑AMENOMEI
I. NDITIONS PART 111111.'THREE YEAR HOUSING ASSISTANCE GOAL
OF A B C A a C 0
AVAILABLE HOU WVS OCCUPIED . VACANT TOTALp pi�pp SMALL LARGE TOTA
AR d FAMILY FAMILY
OWNER OWNER
1 STANDARD 2,701•. 4 2,705 15 'TOTAL " ` 15 54 16 85
124 11 135 16 . PERCENTAGE
2 SUBSTANDARD 18 % 63' % 19 % tOa
3 TOTAL,OWNER 2,825 •15 2,840 RENTER
ETION Of
RENTER 17 PUBLIC HOUSING 35 43 17 95
a STANDARD 4,786 63a LCU
4,849 18 OTHER 25* , 20*wwu . .
count -- 4!
5 SUBSTANDARD 845 40 885 19 . TOTAL ' 35 43 17 9!
6 TOTAL,RENTER 5,631 103 5,734 20 PERCENTAGE 37 % 45 % 18 % 10c
7 TOTAL,OWNER+RENTER 8,456 118 8,574 21 TOTAL,OWNER+RENTER 50 97 33 181
Following table required only if applicant proposes goals for rehabilitation 22 Specify the maximum number of Section 8/Low Income Public Housing units
A B C in each housing type that the community will accept.(The number in each ba
SUBSTANDARD UNITS SUITABLE FOR NOT SUITABLE FOR TOTAL may not exceed the number on Une 17,Column Din the goals table above.)
REHABILITATION REHABILITATION
rt B OWNER
115 20 135 SUBSTANTIAL MODERATE
NEW REHABILITATION REHABILITATION EXISTING
9 RENTER 685 200 885
Attach narrative identifying data sources,methods and definitions 10 20 45' 20
PART 11. HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS Attach narrativedescrrbingchoke ofhousingtypegbals�
A B C D e
LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS SMALL LARGE
ELDERLYFAMILY FAMILY TOTAL
10 OWNER` 38 39 28 105 PART IV. GENERAL LOCATIONS
11 PERCENTAGE . 36 % 37 % --27 % 100% Attach map identifying the general loco dons of proposed assis ted h o using,
.' 12 RENTER" 78 182 51 311
13 3CENTAGE 2.5 % 59 % 16. Check-( I if the applicant wishes to review State HFDA Housing propos
within its jurisdiction.
`S .. Tn-rn �wrvGQ aFUTFR 11.R 991 79 416 .
PART I NARRATIVE
1 . Data used for compilation of statistics on Part 1 are from the following
source:
1970 Census. of Housing, Fourth Count, U.S. Dept. of Commerce
Special Cross Tabulations from 1970 Census of Housing,
Fourth Count (1978)
Annual Update from City of:Ithaca Building Depte records
Interviews with ExecutiveDirector, Ithaca Brd. of Realtors
Interview with President, Ithaca Board of Realtors
Quarterly Tabulation of Vacancy Rates in Rental Housing by
Municipality, Tompkins County. Planning Department
Citywide Zoning Survey, Ithaca Department of Planning and
Development, 1977
Building Condition Survey, Ithaca Dept. of Planning and
Development, 1975.
Interview with City of Ithaca Building Commissioner
Attached are methodologies used for 1975 building condition survey (A) , Quarter-
ly Municipal Vacancy Tabulation (B), and Citywide Zoning Survey (C) .
2. Definitions:
A. Substandard Housing .is defined as housing which is deteriorating and
dilapfdated as defined in the 1975 Building Condition Survey. Deteriorat-
ing is defined as housing with problems of more than a minor maintenance
nature, usually requiring outside contractor help." It may involve
some serious structural problems Criterion--not more than one .critical
or three intermediate problems. This class of housing is generally the -
most economically feasible to rehabilitate
1 Exterior items evaluated in the 1975 Building Condition Survey included both
structural and non-structural items. Non-structural items included features such
as gutters, wall and roof sheathing (drip edge) , paint, stairs and porches, doors -
and
oors -and windows, chimneys and other building additions. Faults in the above-mentioned
items were rated as minor or intermediate (not critical). Structural items included
foundations (settling, cracking) ; wall structure (cracking, warping) , roof structure
(warping, unshingled and leaking) electric power (antiquated 30 amp. "2-wire"
service). Faults in the above-mentioned items were rated minor, intermediate or
critical , depending upon the severity.
Dilapidated housing is in a very poor state of repair or has con-
siderable structural problems requiring major contractor assistance.
Criterion--at least five intermediate or two critical faults. The
seriousness of the problems involved requires major expenditures and
the decreased likelihood of suitability for rehabilitation.
In January 1979,. Ithaca reportedthere were 1110 deteriorated units
and 117 dilapidated units in the City based on the 1975 ' Building
Condition Survey, or a total of 1227 housing units that were substand�.
ard. That figure is`updated'to 1020 substandard housing units due to
CDBG/Small Cities funded rehabiliation in the target area and enforce-
ments of the apartment ordinance through Building. Department permits.
Through these programs, 207 substandard units have been returned to
standard condition.
o Suitable for Rehabilitation - All deteriorated units surveyed in the 1975
Housing Survey are defined as suitable for rehabilitation (see defini-
tion of "deteriorated" above) The Building Commissioner has offered,
based upon rigorous enforcement of the new apartment ordinance, that 200
rental units are not suitable for rehabilitation. He reported that only .
with the most extraordinary rehabilitation investments and structural
changes could some rental apartments be brought under the City's Model
Housing Code and Apartment Ordinance. He cited, for example, basement
apartments without adequate ceiling heights and apartments located in
topmost portions of buildings where two means of egress (a fire escape
being one) are prohibitively expensive. The Commissioner also volunteer
ed that outside the target area about 20 owner-occupied units are not
suitable for rehabilitation, this being because extensive public subsidy
is not available to those areas,and rehabilitation is so extensive that
it is beyond the capability of the market to improve the structure.
PART IINARRATIVE
1. Sources of Data
In 1978 HUD provided an estimate of lower income households in Ithaca needing
Housing Assistance. Those needs were used in Table II of the 1979 3-year HAP.
In conversations with John Drake of EMAD, Ithaca CD staff were informed that no up-
dated needs would be provided for inclusion in the 1981 HAP. Therefore, we
have used the 1978 estimate and subtracted out housing assistance provided during
the 3-year period, January 1979--present, to arrive at present housing needs for
lower income households.
We have chosen to reduce our 'Expected to Reside' (ETR) statistic to zero,
an option that Ithaca has, since our % low/moderate income persons exceeds the
NYS average.
2.. Summary of Special Housing Needs
A. The population of the City of Ithaca consists of 7.5% or 1 ,977 minorities,
1332 or 5% of these are black; 444 or 1 .6% are of Asian origin, 10 or
0.3% are Native Americans; and 67 or .2% are other minorities. Minorities
in the City of Ithaca are disproportionately concentrated in areas of poor
housinq, one is the Collegetown area (ED 32,51 ,52,53) where many minority_
students (along with other students) reside and the predominantly
rental housing is old and deteriorating; the second is the CD target
area (ED's 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46) where housing is old and, while
predominantly owner occuped, is also characterized by residents of
low income who have not been able to maintain their property. For the
most part, the housing problems of minorities stem from low income ..
Students, often foreign minority students, can be disenfranchised from
the wider community due to their transient tenancy and lack of consumer
knowledge in an unfamiliar culture.
Housing Assistance Needs of Minorities
Lower Income Households Elderly Small Family L eQ Family TOTAL
owner
percentage
renter__
percentage
total , owner and renter
B. Female Headed Households
According to the 1970 Census 640 or 2.4% of the city's households were
headed by females. It is believed that this number has increased
since 1970. It is well known that the mean income of female headed
households is lower than the mean for all households. This group has
an especially difficult'.time securing and keeping up affordable, standard
housing. They and their children are from time to time victims
of housing discrimination. Housing assistance to female headed
households will include all rehabilitation opportunities shown on
Table III goals funded through the Small Cities Grant, Section 8/low
income public housing units, the Mini Repair. Program, and enforcement
of the city's Fair Housing Ordinance.
C. Since .the City already has a higher proportion of low income individuals
than the New York State average, we have chosen to reduce our ETR to 0.
D. Displacement is not anticipated unless for some reason a major
expansion of the student population occurs without expansion of
university housing. Both Ithaca College and Cornell are not planning
major expansion of their student body and will be adding 500 rehabilitated
new dorm beds to the University housing stock. Every effort possible is
being made by the City to avoid displacement of low/mod individuals and
families. The Small Cities grant will provide for a number of projects
which will prevent displacement.
E. No special housing needs exist for the military or migrant workers The
special housing need which presents problems for low income families is
housing for 'university students. Approximately 7,000 Cornell and Ithaca
College students ,occupy 'housing in the_City of Ithaca. Students are much
more successful in' securing housing than lower income, non-student house-
holds. because each. student makes a contribution to the total rent. Many
landlords are now charging rent by the student, as opposed to a flat_
rent for an apartment. Rents per student are now being reported at
$200-$250 for the 1981-82 rental season (September through September) .
It is clear that few if any lower income families would be able to
compete with a group of students for the same rental unit.
F. Ithaca will institute a rental rehabilitation program with the grant
secured to. lower income tenants by Section 8 Existing and Moderate
Rehabilitation Certificates. Previous low income renters are assisted
to become homeowners through the interaction of many of the CD programs,
i.:e. House Recycling, Homeownership Assistance, Section 8 Certificates
for Duplexes, Energy.Conservation, ,etc.
G. The CD target area contains a significant portion of the City's handi-
capped residents. (25% or 100 of a total of around 415 in the City:
Source: Tompkins County Human Services Coalition, Needs Assessment of
the Handicapped, 1980. ). Small Cities grant projects like housing rehab-
ilitation loans and grants, the rental rehabilitation program, etc. , can
be used to make housing in the target area more accessible. Citywide,
Section 8/Low Income Housing of all types could benefit this group.
r
PART: III NARRATIVE
Eighty-.five units of owner-occupied houising will be provided or will receive
major rehabilitation assistance through programs funded through this Small
Cities Grant. Rehabilitation Loans will be made to lower income households
to bring housing up to code, vacant and condemned properties will be returned
to owner occupancy, and target area renters will be assisted to become home-
owners. In addition to those major efforts to upgrade building conditions,
Code Enforcement and the Mini Repair Program will assist in neighborhood Con-
servation discouraging buildingsin :fair condition falling into deteriorated
or dilapidated condition.
Ninety-five units of rental housing will be provided or will receive major
rehabilitation assistance through both this Small Cities Grant and HUD-
assisted housing allocations. In the Small Cities Grant, funds have been
allocated to a rental rehabilitation program. ' That program will make low-
interest loans available to property owners if ,a tow income tenant is assis-
ted. This program is highly dependent upon HUD allocations of Mod Rehab
Certificates which will assure a relatively long-term commitment to housing
for -lower income households. A-dupl-icated count is-shown--on the.-three year - . -
goals because both. Small Cities funding and `Section_ 8 Mod Rehab Assistance
will be necessary to accomplish our goal of rehabilitating 45 .rental units.
In addition to the Mod Rehab Program, we are requesting 30 new/substantially
rehabilitated housing units and 20 existing units over the next three years.
We have made the request for 30 new/substantially rehabilitated units for the
following reasons:
1 . HUD EMAD has informed this City that we can expect a maximum allocation
of 50-100 units of new/substantial rehab housing to be given to the 3-county
allocation area of which we are a part (Tompkins, Schuyler, Steuben Counties) .
It appears that a request for approximately 1/3 of the maximum number likely
to be given to our 3-county region is a reasonable request for Ithaca.
2. Ithaca desperately needs addition to its housing stock; the vacancy rate
has dropped to a point (less than 2%) where addition to the stock available
to low/mods is the only way that .the most dire housing situations of lower
income families can be alleviated. Our city is well developed,and scattered
sites where duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes can be built is probably our
only feasible type of development. Some adaptive reuse of existing buildings
through substantial rehabilitation is also possible. However, no rehabilita-
tion project would accommodate more than eight to ten housing units for lower
income households.
We request 20 existing Seciton 8 units over the next three years and none are
requested during 1981-82. Our reasons for this also relate to our very low
vacancy rate. It has been extremely difficult for lower income households
to locate standard housing at Fair Market Rents. In fact, of the 95 Existing
Certificates already in the community, only 71 are presently in use. Until
the housing stock is expanded, without a. parallel increase in demand, we will
continue to have difficulty in using Existing Certificates. Several actions.
may free up rental units in the city. They include:
1 . The construction and occupancy of 75 elderly units at the Titus
Towers site.
2.'' The return of vacant, condemned structures to the housing stock
through rehabilitation.
3 The reconstruction of Cornell .buildings to provide 500 net
additional student housing spaces (unfortunately Cornell's student
population grew by 500 students in the past two years) .
4. Some construction of multi-family rental housing outside the
City but' within the area where public transportation to the City
is available.
5. An allocationydevelopment and occupancy of. at least 30 units of
new/substantially rehabilitated housing targeted to lower income
households.
ta.aaa urt C IT T _ O i 1 -
ITHArA
1 K E W T O R K S
36
. . . . . . .
Mt
�.�r,. . . : . . .e. , , 7• i'�' _e a ,� S+� •1:['�..�.ii'.�. -w
r �• •yip':fes'``�1?�3 .j, '�� r �.. �asl t '�Ji f t• t •�.� `..
• ��—��-rr-���•Y mow•
i �p�.ya� �Y�.—. • f
.•. f. .•� r 74,x• asy� .�Ll,:'. - r [ e '•!_'-'_ . .
44 . mss' �-,.,; . ;, — a�2.� . . ;
PART IV
General Locations for Proposed
HUD Assisted Housing
ED
31 41
34 43
38 47
39 54
40
s � beer C 1 Y Y p F ,.
ITHACA
N E W Y O R K S
' r1.® �� Cn• ne....4 eocnc -Iw✓I. 6So _
Vii• _
r 1 py 36 V\� s!•I
34
15
—13
_SLS✓oc _ _— ri. -•`
` 47 X54
43
Location of Publically Assisted Housing Projects
ED Location No. Units
37 a 54 units IHA Garden Apts
b 16 units IHA Turnkey Garden Apts
41 c 235 units UDC West Village Midrise,
- Garden and Apts.
d 10 unit THA Turnkey Garden & Court Apts
46 e 24 units IHA Turnkey Garden Apts
f 165 unit IHA Highrise (elderly)
44 9 105 units McGraw House Midrise (elderly)
6ateae a°u C 1 T y Q
- ITHACA .
�.. N E W T O E K i
V\
34
jA `P Jar -'i f. r, ••�
41
fj
NV 53
44
54
49,
- F -. -.. •'. sem•
143 1 =
e
Location of areas with low-moderate income
Total L/M % Total L/M % L/M Total L/M % Total L/M % L/M
'Persons L/M Families Families Persons L/M Families Families
ED ED
30 2053 .55 52 li 43 96 27 91 31
31 1637 22 234 41 44 364 40 227 48
32 545 44 142 54 45 134 31 114 34
33 112 19 109 30 46 458 45 278 48
34 482 38 366 41 47 260 25 296 31
35 214 23 219 23 48 74 45 26 65
36 396 38 259 39 49 441 35 309 38
37 588 45 319 49 50 32 16 47 19
38 141 31 100 39 51 458 45 178 53
439 0 277 42 169 44 52 212 23 103 37
41 299 31 233 33 53 266 46 124 58
42 359 29 324 27 54 339 19 434 16
0 - 8 0 Target
Area Tot. 2258 39 4761 37
City-Wide w e
Totals 10,296 39 1440 44
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLANs.APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER
Q
SMALL CITIES PROGRAM L2 8 1 D N '� .3 6 . ` _0 0 7 5
KEYPUNCH CODEX 3.DATE OF SUB MISS ON
May 15,_ 198
4.PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY _ b.
FROM July 1 , 1.981 ®t3RIGINAL DREVISION ❑AMENDMENT
To:. September 30, 1984 S.INCREKSENTAL YEAR OF SUBMISSiQN
O1 Oz _Oa
i. INCORPORATION OF HAP,PARTS I-iV, 13Y REFERENCE. Parts I, 11,111 and IV of the HAP appioved
` are incorporated by reference'
and are not dontained in this(second)(third)year submission.(Latest amendment date of the HAP,Parts/e IV,ifany:
PART V. ANNUAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GOAL
HOUSING ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS-List housing activities and projects to be undertaken:during the year.,°Identify: housing program;
tenure of households to be served;number of elderly,small family,or targe family households to be served;problems anticipated Afany);
actions to be taken..
Housing activities to be undertaken during the year include all types of housing .(rehabi l i tated
sub stantial,_rehabilitation and':'new constr'�ctio.n), both: tenure_.types9 rental and owner occupied.,
and all household types, elderly or handicapped, smal.1 and large families
:_The majority. of housng;effiorts will be 'focused on housing programs funded through
the.,Smal 1 Ci ti es.:Qomprehens ivb.:Grant. . -These',programs .fund- the .rehabi l i tati on of 'exi sting
housing units An .the target.-area.by providing low interest loans to homeowners, '. ow interest` .
loans/grants to owners of deteriorated and dilapidated'rental prope sties and. substantial
rehabilitation of: va:cant'properties .with .later sale to a. 1ow income .neighborhood :tenant.
Below is ..1 fisted the`num5er-of units `to be: -assisted by program tyFe 'through :tho grant
Rrogram 8"• # of units -affected
RehabiIitation `Assistance to homeowners 25
Rehabilitation Assistance to renters 12
(through landlord loan/grant and moderate
rehabilitation certificates) � .
Recycled Housing Units .3
In .addition, conservation of. existing housing which might deteriorate' through' negl ect and
lack of resources will be maintained through the Mini .Repair program..
Rehabilitation assistance to homeowners and renters will benefit both elderly. households
as well as family households. It is anticipated that large families can be assisted through
assistance to homeowners while it is unlikely that many large. families will .be assisted through
rental rehabilitation or recycTed units. It has been our experience that small 'families near
the-beginning of the family. Life cycle are most interested and determined to move from renter
status to homeownership through the house recycling process-. In our survey,-of'..deteriorated and
dilapidated rental structures, we found only four large families, most apartments were occupied
by the elderly, handicapped and. small families. Thus, as we undertake`a rental rehabilitation
pro 'ram (with loans and moderate rehabilitation certificates) it is those types of households
HOUSING TYPE--SECTION B/LOW INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING
•Complete only if applicant proposes Section 8/Low Income Public Housing in Annual Goal
A B C
HOUSING TYPE ELDERLY SMALL LARGE
FAMILY FAMILY
NEW 3 2
2 SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION 10 2
3 MODERATE REHABILITATION 5 15
4 EXISTING
_ :'.,',�'J='f^_ '"^+=ti �- -�:.,::��;s �s-.k•�:i-:s.>':!.r:.r a-i�:.-�i'�.+'v":_,�.y':�•^'v•�:'i_ i-�^^�'�.•'r����-".r `.".,r.>�'t`„%4' - .':::�:-.:ire
s.:•_�S::L,-•i-�.-:•�_...y. ..�'.Jt��?"• fie'.,ry: - . -•.a.:�'•.�"r'f „�=" ^�!""•:sem'.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN'
Part V. Annual Housing Assistance Goal (Continued)
that.we will benefit primarily. While it is difficult to predict at this
time which households will present themselves for homeowner loans, which
landlords will participate in the rental rehabilitation program and what
the landlord mix will be, we estimate that of the 40 rehabilitated units
completed in 1981-82, approximately 9 or 23% will serve the elderly and
:handicapped, 26 or 64% will serve small families and 5 or 13% will serve
lar9e families.
Twelve units of substantially rehabilitated rental housing could be immed-'
iately produced by this community if the City were to receive funding from HUD.
The IURA/CDA has been exploring development of a vacant Ithaca College dormitory
.with a private developer. The City would purchase a portion of the larger parcel
- of land bought by the developer, seek HUD site approval , and would hold the
subdivided parcel as a predesignated site. This project would house 10 small
families and 2 large families.
The City needs an addition-to fts housing stock -through new- construction -
..and substantial rehabilitation. While vacant land exists, it exists in small
parcels in established neighborhoods or is inappropriately zoned. Consequently
'we would see new construction for families .being handled as duplexes or triplexes
during this first year of our HAP. It is anticipated that the CD funded project,
development of land use policies which promote opportunities for lower income
households, will assist in opening up sites in future HAP years. For the FY'81
HAP, new construction, if available to Ithaca, would house 3 small families and
2 large families as infill housing in existing neighborhoods shown in locations
on the map, Part IV.
APPENDIX A
1975 Housing Condition Survey
The 1975 survey was a IOGa walked exterior survey of all residential
structures in the city. Two persons were hired in the summer of 1575 and
were given two weeks of in-the-field traininn before the survey was actually
conducted. The attached standards were used in conducting the survey.
Housing units were assumed to have the same conditions as the overall
structure. They were estimated by observation of the number of meters,
mail Coxes, etc. and compared to city directory information. The number of
housing units that were estimated correspond favoaably to estimates in the
1970 census.
The survey is generally considered to represent the overall picture of
Ithaca's housing conditions although individual cases could be argued.
December 19, 1973
Appendix A = page 2
Imo...,.
BUILDING CONDITION SURVEY
I. Exterior Items Evaluated
Non-Structural : Gutters, wall and roof sheathing tdrip
edge) , paint, s1tairs and porches, doors- and windows,
chimneys, building additions. Faults rated Minor or
Intermediate (not Critical) .
J�' Structural: foup_dations--settling, cracking; wall
structure--cracking, warping; roof structure; electric
power--antiquated 30 amp. "two-wire" service. Faults
-rated Minor, Intermediate or. Critical :
IIo Condition Categories
Good: New construction or older housing in excellent
- state of repair.
Deficient : Housing needing primarily minor maintenance,
mostly able to be performed by owner. No serious
�- structural-_ problems. Criterion--riot more than two Inter
mediate butnoCritical faults.
Deteriorating: Housing with problems of more than a minor
maintenance nature, usually requiring outside contractor
help. Mayinvolvesone serious structural problem.
Criterion--not more than one Critical or three Inter-
mediate problems. This class of houses is generally the
most economically feasible to rehabilitate.
Dilapidated: Housing in very poor state of repair. or
-having considerable structural- problems--requiring major _
contractor assistance. Criterion--at least five Inter-
mediate. or two Critical faults. . The seriousness of. the
problems involved requires major expenditures . Therefore,
fewer dwelling units could be rehabilitated for any
given investment here.
Note : Clearly, a certain amount of discretion is built
into any rating system which categorizes mainly by
differences of eegree, not kind. Yet, as the Criteria
indicate , in the *Hain, Intermediate and Critical faults
were decisive in determining the category Minor faults
tended to resolve the fcw otherwise borderline cases ,
such as the seeming gap between three and five inter.-
mediate faults in Deteriorating and Dilapidated categories .
Obvious structural problems tended to be rated Critical
almosC by definition. (Slides illustrating the various
building conditions are on file with the Board. )
-
A
pPendix A` page 3
CITYWIDE HOUSING CONDITION ENUMERATION
Residential STRUCTURES UNITS
Structures Good Def. Det. Dil. Good Def. Det. Dil.
No. t No. ♦ No. i No. \ No. s No. t No. s No. ! No, ! No.i
Fall Creek 921 21 1455 19 315 21 491 23 111 18 4 5 472 17 821 22 158 14 4, 3
Northside 722 17 1040 13 88 6 417 19 189 30 28 34 110 4 637 17 258 23 35 30
Downtown 185 4 436 6 41 3 123 6 20 3 1 1 73 3 320 8 41 4 2 2
Southside 517 12 104213 60 4 260 12 158 25 39 47 353 13 340 9 266 26 63 54
East Hill 906 21 1954 25 408 28 416 19 82 13 • 0 0 662 24 1037 27 255 23 0 0
South Hill 466 11 818 11 163 11 268 12 33 5 2 3 308 11 445 12 61 5 4 3
Southwest 107 2 121 2 58' 4 41 2 7 1 1 1 63 2 49 1 8 1 1 1
West Hill 438 10 747 10 285 19 116 5 29 5 8 20 : ' 578 21 120 3 41 4 8 7
Cornell 84 2 155 2 60 4 23 1 1 0 0 V 106 4 47 1 2 0 0 0
4346 7766 1478 2155 630 83 2725 3816 1110 117
APPENDIX B
LONGITUDINAL STUDY..OF COUNTY MULTIFA14ILY HOUSING VACANCIES: 1975--Qct. 1980
Tompkins County Planning Department
Over a five year.period, the Tompkins County Planning Department has been
collecting data on 3400 apartment units in multifamily rental complexes in
the County. Every six months each manager. of each complex is called, and
information regarding a -number of units for rent is collected. Calls are
made in the Spring and again in the Fall . Results over five years show a
decline in the vacancy rates of the County: from over 4% in Spring 1976
to less th.an .2% in October 1980. The vacancy rate in the City of Ithaca
is the same as the Countywide average--less .than 2%.
The chief researcher. , Harry Mlissirian, reports that the reduction in vacan
cy is partly due to the increase .in twelve month leases, now almost uni-
"'versal among complexes. In 1975,. many apartment units had nine month leases,
and it was difficult for owners to fill apartments over the summer. Now, with
a twelve-month -lease,, the tenant pays the rent throughout the year or finds a
sublessee. In short, some apartments may be vacant over the summer; however,
the unit is not currently on the rental market. Thus, he feels the vacancy
rate may in fact be higher, especially during the. summer months.___
s
CITY OF ITHACA
109 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CITY PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
April. 24; 1981
Mayor
Common Council
Board of Planning and Development
City of Ithaca
Dear Mayor.- Council and Board -Members :
As you may have heard, Tompkins County is seriously considering
selling Boardman House, 120 East Buffalo Street , rather than
keeping it for County use or leasing to another party. They
recognize that if the existing P-1 (public/institutional) zoning
classification remained in effect , private-sector interest in its -
purchase would be inhibited, even if it could reasonably be
assumed that legal nonconforming use would be possible by means
of a variance. Therefore, they would like to determine the poten-
tial for rezoning the property to a classification that would make
private ownership and use attractive.
The attached letter from County Planning Commissioner Liguori , on
behalf of the County Board subcommittee investigating options for
Boardman House, explains their current thinking in this matter,
and asks for some indication from the City as to the possibility
of rezoning the property from P-1 to B-lb (office commercial) ,
which seems to permit uses most compatible with those surrounding.
The City Attorney says that this raises the question of 'spot zon-
ing; ' in turn, this concern should be weighed against the benefits
of resolving the building' s fate.
Accordingly, I have placed this matter on the agenda for discussion
at the April 28 meeting of the Board of Planning and Development ,
and respectfully request that it be put on the agenda for the May
meeting of Common Council ; it would .be appreciated if it could
also be discussed at the meetings of the Charter and Ordinance
and the Planning and Development Committees before the May meeting
of Council The Landmarks Commission is keeping abreast of the
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Mayor
Common Council Page 2.
Board of Planning and Development April 24, 1981
matter, but is more directly concerned with any physical altera-
tions that a .future occupant aright propose than with this question.
Please let me know if you need additional information on this
matter, or if you wish me or a County representative to attend the
Council or Committee meetings.
sp ctfully yours,
J n Meigs
ity Planner
JM:jv
encl.
cc : City Clerk
City Attorney
TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Frank R.Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning
April 15 1981
p s 1.731
Mr. Jonathan Meigs 41!4_!V*0N(4 .00 NEV (OF 1R
City Planning and Development
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Boardman House
Dear Mr. Meigs:
This will confirm our discussion at a recent meeting of a subcommittee of
the Planning and Public Works Committee of the Board of Representatives
assigned to report on the future disposition of the Boardman House. As
you know, one of the possibilities under consideration is the Gale of the
Boardman House to the private sector. This would entail an invitation to
the private sector to submit proposals for the-purchase-of the-Boardman -
House together with other facts including the proposed use.
Presently, the Boardman House is part of a P-1 governmental zone which
includes the other county buildings in the vicinity. If the building
were sold to others through the mechanism of "request for proposals,"
each party would have to approach the City to determine whether or not
their proposed use will be acceptable under the zoning regulations. In
order to avoid this problem, it is desirable that we obtain a preliminary
(informal) ruling from the City on possible future permitted uses so that
we can adequately instruct those who might wish to submit proposals.
The subcommittee is concerned that future uses be compatible with DeWitt
Park, the historicldistrict, and county government activities. The
committee has therefore recommended that any rezoning would most appro-
priately be to the B-lb zone. It is therefore suggested that you submit
a tentative proposal to the Common Council for a possible future rezoning
of the Boardman House and land to a B-lb zone and that we obtain a sense
of the Council in regard to that proposal. This could then pave the way
for us to evaluate proposals based__ partly upon proposed use.
I will appreciate your early attention. If I can assist please let me
know.
Since ely,
rank R. Liguori
Commissioner of Planning
FRL:ys
cc: B. Livesay, G. Freeman, R. Watros, J. Ray
128 East Buffalo Street, Ithaca, New York Telephone (607) 274-5286/274-5287
Y Y � e
_ __
� `
,j,,.1.:. ,.
i :�'
,• ' t � �
Sr y ,r ��
� �, 'L ,{ t i y � ' ��i ��
i � � R�'
.~;
_ .�{9�I
�"
..
_-_. _...:7..t:
-'.
�� ,
j
MEMORANDUM
TO : T. Hoard, Building Commissioner
FROM: Planning & Development
SUBJ : P&D BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS ON APRIL ZONING APPEALS CASES
DATE : May 1 , 1981
SIGN APPEAL 5-1-81 : Sign Variance under Section 34.6A (number and type of
signs permitted in a B-5 zone) to permit addition of a third wall sign on
the bank building at 875 South Meadow Street (Tompkins County Trust Company) .
The sign would bring the total signs on the building to three, exceeding the
maximum permitted in the B-5 (business) district.
Planning issue : Visual quality - proliferation of signage .
Staff recommended denial of variance .
I . Stewart , seconded by P. Holmes , moved to recommend denial of
a sign variance . Motion passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1359: Area Variance under Section 30.266 (side yard and lot size for
a group care residence) , Section 30.25, Column 10 (lot coverage) and Section
30.49 (enlargement of a non-conforming structure) to permit addition of an
exterior fire stairway on the south side of the Broome Developmental Services
community residence at 618 N. Aurora Street. The property, in an R-2b (resi-
dential ) district, is deficient in side yard set backs and lot size for a
group care residence, and the permitted lot coverage is exceeded.
Staff recommended denial of variance as addition of the stairway
would congest the area between buildings, put residents in pos-
sible danger if .they used the exit during a. fire in the front
of the residence, and there is no indication that it is ..impossible
to build the stairway in back where it would be out of the way
of fire access should it ever be needed . Mr . O 'Neill (.Broome
Developmental Services) said adding it to back was not possible
because of the existence of a handicapped access ramp there ,
M. Sampson, seconded by I . Stewart , moved to request the BZA
give the appeal a month ' s delay during which time the architect
could re-examine locating the stairway in the rear and the
appellant could report back the findings , Motion passed 5-0.
I . Stewart pointed out the need for consideration of equity to
property owners in the area in relation to such a proposed
structure on the side of this building, where it would in a
sense encroach on the adjacent property ,
2
APPEAL 1360: Area Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 10 and 11 (coverage
and required front yard) to permit addition of a solar collector along the
front of the existing Leonard E. Mankowski dwelling at 58 Woodcrest Avenue.
The property is located in an R-la (residential ) district, and the addition
would extend into the required front yard and the maximum lot coverage
exceeded.
E. Nichols asked if this was in conformity with the State ' s
guidelines for solar energy . No one knew.
Planning issues :
(1 ) Considerable change in visual quality of neighborhood,
i . e . , from a 1-story to a 2-1/2 story facade .
(2) Front facade would be moved closer to street .
(3) Notices sent to neighbors (required by the BZA) were
sent out late. The Board was concerned that some of
the neighbors may not be aware of the appellant ' s latest
design drafted very recently.
Staff recommended deferral to give neighbors time to familiarize
themselves with the proposal so they can provide input to the
discussion .
I . Stewart , seconded by P. Holmes, moved to request that the
BZA defer action for one month for the purpose of development
of a full front view including lot placement by appellant .
Motion passed 5-0.
It was recommended that more detailed drawings be made available
to the neighbors.
APPEAL 1361 : Appeal of Rex and Helen Whitman for Interpretation of Section
30.25, Columns 7 and 11 (width at street line and front yard set back) to
permit use of -the property at- 110 Westbourne Lane for multiple dwelling. -
The property, in an R-U (residential ) district, does not have frontage on
a public right-of-way as required by District Regulations (Westbourne Lane
is a privately-owned street. )
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson , moved that this appeal for
interpretation of whether private streets qualify as streets
for the purpose of applying zoning regulations be referred to
the City Attorney immediately for a determination of whether
this is an issue within the purview of the P&D Board. Motion
passed 5-0.
J
APPEAL 1362: Area Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 6, 11 , and 13 (lot
size, front and side yard set backs) and an Interpretation of Section 30.37
A-1 (continued availability of off-street parking) , to permit continued use
of property at 801 E. State Street for a multiple dwelling. The property,
deficient in lot size, front and rear yard set backs, had been converted to
a multiple dwelling by a previous owner in violation of zoning, building and
housing codes. Earlier appeals were denied by the Board on August 4, 1980
and February 2, 1981 . Owner Charles Fritschler is submitting a new appeal
claiming that he can provide continued availability of off-street parking
on adjacent property.
M. Pichel , representing Mr . Fritschler, stated Mr . Fritschler
was willing to take down the back porch on the house and the
old garage to the side to help provide off-street parking spaces
required for his property by the zoning ordinance , He has also
obtained a 1-year lease from Ithacare for his parking needs ,
as an alternate.
Mr. Sampson pointed out that the leased parking at Ithacare was
within 500' '.as the crow flies ' but not within 1000 ' walking
distance as required in the zoning ordinance .
Mr. S. Killeen spoke (East Hill Civic Association) and said
notices to neighbors regarding appeal were different in wording
from what was presented at tonight ' s meeting .
Staff recommendation was to deny appeal because there was signifi-
cant question as to whether Ithacare parking space was adequate ,
available, and long-term; the appeal is limited to considering
the proposal to provide parking on adjacent property,
E. Nichols, seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend denial
of appeal . Motion passed 5-0..
APPEAL 1363: Appeal of Anthony J. Albanese for a Use Variance under Section
30.25, Column 2 (primary use) to permit enlargement of the Clever Hans Bakery
of Ithaca, Inc. in the building at 201 Dey Street, in an R-2b (residential )
district, and to establish an open-air cafe in the Adams Street front yard.
The bakery is operating under an existing Use Variance. The building, the
former Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory, is a local landmark; the cafe proposal
has been favorably reviewed by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission.
J. Meigs said the ILPC has reviewed the proposal for the outdoor
cafe and has approved it in spirit . ILPC made no comment on the
bakery ' s internal expansion . (See ILPC letter enclosed; ) Chairman
Moore commented that the internal expansion proposed is not incon-
sistent with what has gone on before in the building .
Staff recommended approval of both sections of proposal .
M. Sampson, seconded by I . Stewart , moved to recommend approval .
Motion passed 5-0.
4
APPEAL 1364: Appeal of James Iacovelli for an Area Variance under Section
30.25, Columns 11 and 12 (front and side yards) to permit conversion of the
existing one-family dwelling at 524 Linn Street to a two-family unit. The
property, in an R-2b (residential district, is deficient in front and side
yard set backs.
Staff recommended approval of variance, since building and use
are generally in character with the neighborhood, there are no
planning issues.
I . Stewart , seconded by M. Sampson, moved to recommend approval .
Motion passed 5-0.
APPEAL 1365: Appeal of Veda E. Quick for a Use Variance under Section 30.25
Column 2 (primary use) to permit the former "Quick 's Garage" to be used as
an operations base for the Terminal Taxi Co. The property, at 302 Madison
Street, is in an R-3b (residential ) district, where a taxi business is not
a permitted use.
Only the garage is involved in this appeal .
Staff recommended denial of the variance . A letter from the
CD section of staff supported by the Northside Civic Association
was distributed to Board members. It reflects staff concerns
relating to this appeal .
(1) The area is a residential area in most senses.
(2) The area is one of considerable public investment to
improving residential character .
(3) A . considerable number of residential properties have
been improved as a result of this ,
(4) The proposed use for the garage would not enhance the
residential character of the neighborhood.
(5) There is no indication that the property cannot be used
for the purpose permitted in the zoning ordinance . For
another use (also not in conformity) would not . comply .
with the spirit of the zoning ordinance .
E. -Nichols said the planning issue is protecting the neighborhood
and the Board has to support the staff ' s recommendation because
of commitment to the Small Cities program.
I . Stewart , seconded by P. Holmes, moved to recommend .denial of
variance . M. Sampson added he felt the motion should say the
denial was made on the basis of planning considerations and
does not consider hardship matters.
E. Nichols proposed a substitute motion , accepted by I . Stewart
and P. Holmes , that it be resolved that the Board of Planning
& Development reaffirm its support for the Small Cities program
efforts that have been expended to improve and rehabilitate the
Northside neighborhood for residential uses. The Board therefore
recommends denial of the variance. Motion passed 5-0, it being
emphasized that the issues of hardship and/or special conditions
which may be present in this case were not addressed by this Board.