Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1966-11-28 -PLANNING BOARD PROCEEDINGS City of Ithaca, N. Y. Regular It!Ieeti.ng November 28, 1966 7:30 p.m. PRESENT. Chairman Stallmar., Messrs. Carpenter, Feldt, Schmidt. ALSO: Planning Dir.ecto.- G. Kasprzak, Planning Consultant T. .Niederkorn, Mrs. A. Jones, representative of South Hill Givic Association, Councilman Hunt, Mr. Richard Daley, Urban Renewal Administrator, YX. David Abbott and members of the preso, (Ithaca Journal, 71TKO, and Cornell Sun) , &SETING Called to Order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES OF the last regular meeting, October 31, 1966,were duly approved. C0181UNICATIONS: none. COMMITTEE REPORTS: 1. Codes mid Ordinances - a. Rezoning of N. Meadow St. -- The Common Council has refered, to the Planning Board, a petition from the residents of the 500 block of the N. Meadow St. request- ing a rezoning of this area from B--1 classification to B-4 classification. The Committee has reviewed this request and recommends that no action by the Planning Board be taken until more pertinent information, .specifically the reason for such a change, is provided by the said residents. b. Chamber of Commerce - The Local Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce met on November 2 , 1966., with the Codes and Ordinances Committee of the Planning Board to discuss and recommend administrative and zoning changes. The Local Affairs Committee put two (2) propositions forward: 1) administratively the issuance of the permits should be centralized, in other words one person should be responsible for accepting requests for such permits and it should be this person's duty to examine and issue or deny such permits. They have based their request on the following reasoning; that too much time is spent by the contractors chasing all the permits required for execution of construction. Further, contractor could deposit and retrieve his permit at the centralized source, which could push the request for permit through all the departments that are responsible for some stage of construction. Lastly, this centralization would facilitate compliance with all code requirements and the permit seeking person could be informed at one source of all non-conforming items he has to meet before a permit would be issued. 2) The second proposition that was put forward was the rezoning of the commercial B-2 classification to B.-3 classification. This request was based on the following reasoning: that the area presently zoned B-3 is too small to accept any further expansion of retail facilities. Further, the displacees from Urban Renewal areas deserve an opportunity for the accommodation of their retail businesses in the downtown area. The discussion at the committee level brought out the following a) ihe.expansion should take place between the existing B--3 area and Meadow St. or part of this way, and middle line of Green and Seneca Sts. as the north and south limits. b) consideration should be given to northerly and southerly expansion of the existing.B-3 classification. e) consideration also, should be given to providing more parking in the vica43ty of the present and future retail areas. d) before any of the above considerations are realized or proposed a determin4- tion should be made as to the amount of retail space required at this `or future time, also the number of parking spaces that will be demaided to serve this retail space. At this point the Codes and Ordinances Committee recommended to the Planning Board, that no action be taken until more information is received from the Chamber of Commerce and closer study by the Committee and the Technical staff: could be performed and more concrete recommendations made. OLD BUSINESS: 1.. Urban Renewal Collegetown AZplication - Mr. T. Niederkorn, Planning Consultant presented 1prormation gathered or an application for Urban Renewal in Collegetown. W. Niederkorn in his preliminary remarks stated thgt this is part one of the two paxts to" be presented to the Planning Board and Later to the Common Council, that it. is not a separate application and that there is no intention to treat the Collegeto* application as that prefered over the GNRP Stage II application. The final decision rests with the Coanmon Council as to which or both applications will be sent to the Urban Renewal authorities at the State and Federal level for their consideration and decision. He then referred to the General Plan of May 1964., -where a designation on thea ix (6) areas scheduled for redevelopment in the City of Ithaca, was made. Collegetown was one of them. It was at that time that the Planning Board made a decision that the Collegetown and Downtown Stage II be presented simultaneously or u closely in time as possible for their and Council's consideration. Mr. Niederkorn then described the area as consisting"of approximately of sixty (60) acres of land of which 22 is designated for clearance and redevelopment and reminder 38 acres for conservation and rehabilitation. Here he stressed that rehabilitation does not imply total clearance, spot clearance may take place. Further, he stated that the area is predominately residential housing mainly transient population, students. The perma- nent population of the area amounts to approximately 357, of which 216 are families and 141 individuals while the transient population is over. 2400 inhabitants. There- fore it is obvious that the character of the area is predominately residential; there is however, some commercial activity whichadds to the uniqueness of this area, in total. He continued with an explanation on how the "redevelopment and other areas were determined. A visual survey by the planning staff was made of all the structures in the Urban Renewal area, then the condition of .the structures was `analysed from the iliformation obtained from the office of the Building Commissioner and 7a stly an opinion from the Fire Chief was' sought to determine fire zones and any structures which mere considered a fire hazard or an area which could be classed as conflagra- tion breeder. All the, above information together with the existing densities pointed to the areas which were designated redevelopment, conservation and rehabilitation. Further, lir, 'Njedetkorn'spoke of the potential. the area has for development as multi- story .rrsi d ntial structures for the sti4ent population with lower floors being 11.28.66 2 assig_ed to commerce, offices and parking facilities. He then explained how the costs .for the acquisition, disposal and surveys will be shared by the Federal, State and local administration. He then concluded that the figures presented are prelimi— nary and are to serve for the initial avocation of the funds by the three partici-- pating governments. A short discussion developed referring to a possible inclusion of a larger area in the project, this seemed impossible as we would not qualify under the Federal regulations. Also a matter of possible developers for this area was discassed., however at this time no offers were made and it seemed a little premature to consider this topic since this is only the first step in the process of Urban Renewal. At this time Mr. Daley, City Urban Renewal Administrator was heard. He apolo— gized for the absence of his Board members and informed the Planning Board that funds for the urban renewal projects were scarce and any applications that were sent in zo the Federal Government would be scrutinized very thoroughly before any decision wis made. However, he further informed the Board Members that it is his understanding, that a priority is given to the residential developments. Mr. Papayanakos, a resident from Colle getown requested that he may speak. He voiced an opinion that Urban Renewal in Collegetown was not welcome and that the residents of the area will strongly oppose this application. Mr. Schmidt then offered an opinion and a motion, since, as he put it, this area is primarily residential in character and the commercial part is a side issue, he MOVED: "that this application be sent to the Housing and Redevelopment Committee ant to the Cesmmon Councilts Urban Renewal Committee forttheir study, consideration and recommendation". Seconded by Er. Feldt. CAR.RI10. NEIN BUSINESS: None. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Consultands Statement -- AW. Kasprzak presented the monthly statement through November 25, 1966, for services rendered by Egner and Niederkorn Associates for the total sum of $578.00. Mr. Carpenter MOVED: "that the City be authorized to pay this. amount". Seconded by Yx. Feldt. CARRIED. At this time Chairman Stallman pointed out that the contract with Egner and Niederkorn for consulting with the city is about to terminate and it may be a proper time to discuss future action on this matter. In the short discussion that follower' Chairman Stallman stated that a renewal of the contract on some terms to be negotiated might be in order. The discussion ended on a point that a conference between Thom&., Niederkorn, Mr. Stallman and Gregory Kasprzak will bring forth some recommendations for the next meeting of the Planning Board. Councilman Hunt requested to be heard. He referred to frequent turnover of the planning staff and the problems it caused to the Planning Board. He then expressed the need to mo rk through the Consultant to fall the gap brought about by the lack of the planning staff. He strongly urged the Planning Board to act and get some plan— ners, he pointed out that if you need more money to hire proper men then go to the Council, state your case and he was sure that the Council would do everything to help and solve this predicament. He thanked Thomas Niederkorn w d Gregory Kasprzak- for asprzakfor doing a good job for the City. 11.28.66 — 5 — Chaim_--. Stallman responded that a plan was ready to reorganize the Planning office whic_z will hopefully resolve the problem of planning staff. 2. Assistan-c Planner -- Planning Director explained that Mr. Rubin, to whom the position oiAssistant Planner ti.as offered, has declined to accept it and that a new candidate was considered. He explained that he has communicated that offer to Mr. Lowery and as yet received no answer. At this point Mr. Peldt MOVID:11that the Nominating Committee be authorized to make an offer and hire Mr. Lowery.+' Seconded by Mr. Carpe iter o CARRIED. 5. Next regular meeting of the Board - since the regular meeting of the Planning Board fal s on the Christmas Holidays the next meeting is scheduled for Decanber 159, 1966. IVE-STING ADJOURNED at 9:25 p.m. i` 1 / Gregory Kasprzak ?fanning Director 11.28.66 - 4 -