Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1971-03-23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES City of Ithaca Regular Meeting March 23, 1971 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Vice Chm. Doney, Messrs. Schmidt, Conley, Shaw and Austin (arrived late). ALSO: Acting Dir. Meigs, Jr. Planner Lawrence, Planning Board Committee of Council mem- bers Mrs. A. Jones and Mr. Slattery, Bldg. Comm. Jones, Alderman Nordheimer, D. Abbott, R. Lucente, Atty W. Sullivan, M. Turback, and members of the press and radio. ABSENT: Chm. Putney, Mr. Burns. MINUTES of the last Regular meeting of the Board, February 23, 1971, were approved as pub- lished. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: , a. Mrs. A. Jones was introduced as the newly appointed chairman of the Planning Board Committee of Council to replace Mr. Spano who resigned from the committee. COMMUNICATIONS: None. COMMITTEE REPORTS: a. Community Facilities & Services Committee--Acting Director Meigs reported that Chm. Burns had been out-of-town and therefore had not called a meeting of the committee to discuss Mr. Downing's request regarding parking in the Central Business District. The matter was discussed with the Board of Public Works Committee on the afternoon of March 23, 1971. Mr. Conley asked if there would be a reduction of the number of parking spaces as a result of modifications in plans for the hotel block. Mr. Abbott informed him that the cost of the parking ramp structure is such that reducing the structure by a level would not change the cost appreciably and he believes it would be better not to have the structure than to reduce its size, considering the current program for the development and the present and possibly increased need for downtown parking. OLD BUSINESS: a. CRP - 1. Reply to HUD re. staffing--Mr. Meigs reported that he had replied to the letter from HUD dated 2/17/71 and informed theca that we now have three full-time planners and a secretary which we feel is adequate to allow us to carry out the CRP program properly; as yet he has received no reply from HUD. He had expected to make a trip to New York to discuss the program with their representatives, but will contact them before making firm plans. 2. Consultant contract negotiations--Mr. Friedlander, representative of the consulting firm of Raymond, Parish and Pine, came to Ithaca on March 10th and submitted to Mr. Meigs an initial estimate of time and cost for the consultant in each pertinent sub-item in the breakdown. The total cost of preliminary estimate was in the neighborhood of $65,000, above the $50,000 figure the Board expected it to be. Mr. Meigs asked Mr. Friedlander to take it back to his central office and review it with the principals of the firm in an attempt to cut it back closer to the $50,000 figure. Mr. Meigs expects to hear from him within a few days. The extra expense would not add to the city's share of program expenses, but would come from the funds the State and Federal governments will supply for the program. The Board decided to hold a Special meeting and invite Mr. Friedlander and possibly Mr. Parish in order to review the contract in detail. If the consulting firm can't come to our figure, as an alternative the Board can seek another consultant, or inasmuch as the whole Board is desirous, if the present consultant will tailor their input to the $50,000 figure, the City Planning staff may be able to take on the additional burden. b. Mr. Meigs reported that he had informed the City Clerk and Common Council that the Board has hired two Junior Planners, bringing us to a total staff of three planners which we feel are necessary for the programs in this office, and that they have been appointed at the minimum salary rate for the grade. c. Results of meeting of County Rej2resentatives, Plannin& Committee et al.--Mr. Meigs reported that members of the City Planning Board, Planning Board Committee of Council, county representatives and County Planner Liguori had met to discuss the desirability and possibili- ty of consolidating with County Planning functions. The county outlined its feelings that its limited staff provides services of a major areawide scope and of a different nature than those performed by the City staff. They would be able to provide our type of service only on request of the City if the City were to give over the function to them. They could not coo this on a full-time basis but on contract on special request. They felt the CRP was of such importance to the City that it should be done by the City staff since the county does not have the staff available to it for projects of this nature. Mr. Liguori pointed out very clearly there are aspects in which both planning bodies are working very closely together now. Even without the CRP program, their staff could not accommodate us. We might consider physical consolidation, however, and we should think about the space involved. Even though , the City may have to pay directly, it might need to retain a City employee to handle, among other things, zoning and subdivision in the city. The door was left open for any kind of future discussion that we might want to have. Communications will continue between Mr. Meigs and Mr. Liguori, and the committee will inform Council that we are still thinking about and investigating consolidation but this is not the time. Mrs. Jones suggested investigating consolidation with Urban Renewal as they phase out the present operation. Mr. Shaw felt that there definitely can be agreement between the county and city although it is not practical to combine at an early date, legally or because of lack of staffing, and expressed disappointment that it is indefinitely postponed. d. Mr. Meigs distributed copies of a report on Inlet Park Agreement to members of the Board and Planning Board Committee of Council which they wish to review before discussing. e. Fall Creek Park desi ro ect--Mr. Meigs reported that the Fall Creek Park Committee of the Youth Council, who presented-before this Board last summer their plans for developing the Fall Creek Park, have returned for help in designing developmental plans and that the Engineering staff are working with the Planning staff to recommend design for possible activities in the park. Mr. Lawrence further explained that the Kiwanis have donated tables and benches, and some people have volunteered their services. Mrs. Jones expressed concern ' about safety of entrances to the street, and was assured that all such questions on details of design and planning the park would be covered to insure a fine facility. NEW BUSINESS: a. AIESEC Rro&ram resentation--The representative who was expected to present the pro- gram did not appear at the meeting. Mr, Meigs explained briefly that it is an exchange student program in which the City, through this department, has participated in the past. 2 Their representative wished to know if the Board would be interested in participating again, and if so, he would like to get arrangements underway. Mr. Meigs was asked to check with the AIESEC representative if he still wishes to make a presentation to the Board. b. Coordination on UDC projects--Mr. Meigs informed the Board there seems to be some conflict between the UDC West Hill and Parking Ramp projects and the height restrictions of the current Zoning Ordinance. The Board or a committee have not made specific mention of the height restriction in zoning of the parking garage though it was discussed in re. West Hill, and Mr. Meigs expressed concern that there might be problems in completion of either project. Mr. Shaw MOVED, "Planning Board re-endorses UDC Plans, with respect to height of garage in the hotel project, as previously approved in the case of the West Hill project." Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Following are the results of a vote: AYES - 4 NAYS - 1 (Mr. Austin) The feeling of the Board was that the height in either case does not violate the spirit of the ordinance, though Mr. Austin expressed his belief that the Board should respect the Zoning Ordinance as it stands. Mr. Meigs then explained that the proposed solution to the need for a service dock for the Rothschild Department Store will require truck drivers to use a portion of the city parking lot next to Rothschilds. He said he has not yet seen the proposal for the ramp but the Planning Board should review and recommend the most desirable solution to these needs. He feels that in some instances UDC have fallen down on getting their projects discussed and understood, and he requested the Board to approve his contacting UDC to get information con- cerning this problem and to ask for closer coordination. He was so directed. c. Clarification of Secretary's time record and compensatory time--Mrs. Hutson relayed the information from Chm. Putney to the Board regarding the error concerning her sick-leave record and Mr. Russell's claim that she had not reported any compensatory time since Sept. 1969. The official files of the Planning Board contain carbon copies of both the time sheets and the compensatory time records for the entire period. Mr. Conley suggested that he work with Mr. Putney and Mr. Meigs to clear up the matter with Mr. Russell and Finance Committee. Mr. Doney asked if any action should be taken by the Board and Mr. Schmidt said he thought Mr. Conley's suggestion should be followed. d. Sale of City Land (Spencer & Clinton Streets)--Mr. Meigs inquired if the Planning Board should be consulted in questions of the sale of city land. Mr. Schmidt answered that a resolution was passed some years ago and is on file in the City Clerk's office, outlining the procedure to be followed before a sale of city property is made. Mr. Austin commented that land is too valuable to be repeatedly bought and sold and he feels the city acted in a short-sighted manner in selling Old No. 9 fire station. Mr. Schmidt asked that the resolu- tion mentioned be looked up and brought to the attention of City Attorney Weinstein. MISCELLANEOUS: a. Zoning - 1. Request for a Variance and an Exception to Sec. 7, cols. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Zoning Ordinance at 311 College Avenue in -i-3 District - B.Z.A. Appeal No. 917-- An appeal for an exception to sign size (to permit up to 25 sq. ft. ) has been made because Mr. Turback claims (incorrectly) that adjacent properties are zoned for B-2 district uses, and a sign not corresponding to others in the vicinity would prejudice utility of this property and all signs must be of sufficient size to be noticed by the public. 3 An appeal for a Variance has been made because the property could not con- ceivably be used for intended use (public firehouse), is not suitable for any pur- pose permitted in R-3 district (he claims permitted uses would prohibit yield of a reasonable income, if any), and the property is located in the midst of a variety of businesses (on the basis that the adjacent properties are zoned B-2 district uses). Mr. Schmidt MOVED, "the appeal be referred to the Codes & Ordinances Committee for review and report back to Board." Seconded by Mr. Shaw. Carried. 2. Request for an Exception to Sec. 7, Col. 7 of Zoning Ordinance at 438 N. Aurora St in R-3 district - B.Z.A. Appeal No. 921.--An appeal for an exception to permit conversion of rooms to apartment which will eliminate roomers and result in three apartments instead of two apartments and individual rooms. The area of the lot is too small to meet requirements for three apartments (2500 sq. ft./dwelling unit), but adequate parking is available. Mr. Tustin MOVED, "Planning Board approves granting of Exception." Seconded by Mr. Conley. Carried. 3. Request for Variance from Sec. 7, Cols. 2 and 3 of Zoning Ordinance at 1021-1025 N. Uoga St. (corner of Lincoln & Tioga Sts. ) in R-3 district - B.Z.A. Appeal No. 922--Because of insufficient information the Board could not make a recommenda- tion. Mr. Schmidt MOVED, "the Appeal be referred to Codes & Ordinances Committee for review." Seconded by Mr. Conley. Carried. 4. Request for a Variance from Sec. 7, Col. 2 of Zoning Ordinance at So. Quarry St. and Valentine P1. in P-1 district - B.Z.A. Appeal No. 923--Because insufficient information was submitted, Mr. Schmidt suggested that Mr. Meigs contact Ithaca College requesting more information. He then MOVED, "the Appeal be referred to Codes & Ordinances Committee for review." Seconded by Mr. Austin. Carried. 5. Request for a Special Permit and Exception to Sec. 7, Col. 4 of District Regula- tions Chart at 716 W. Clinton St. in I-1 district - B.Z.A. Appeal No. 924--An Appeal was made for Exception to sign size for the purpose of identifying the building with the name of the company and the products and services being offered. Mr. Schmidt MOVED, "the Appeal be referred to Codes & Ordinances Committee for review and recommendation to Board of Zoning Appeals." Seconded by Mr._. Conley.. _ Carried. 6. Request for interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and Exception to Sec. 7, Col. 8 of the Zoning Ordinance and map at 326 Spencer Rd. in R-3 district - B.Z.A. Appeal No. 918 (formerly appealed as No. 899). Mr. Schmidt MOVED, "the Appeal be referred to Codes & Ordinances Committee for review and with power to act or make recommendation, after clearing with City Attorney Weinstein, to the Board of Zoning Appeals." Seconded by Mr. Conley. Carried. Mr. Meigs explained that the foregoing cases were only received the preceding Friday, which though well in advance of the time prescribed by the ordinance, did not give time to have a Codes & Ordinances Committee meeting to discuss them prior to this meeting., nor time to obtain fuller information in those several cases which lacked it. He noted that it has been the express desire of this Board, in which he concurs, that whenever possible there be 4 a preliminary meeting of the C&O Committee to discuss the monthly case referrals, and recom- mend if possible, before the regular Board meeting. If the Board doesn't take immediate action in this way, it may lose its chance, as B.Z.A. may make its finding without waiting up to another month for the Planning Board to meet and pass on its recommendation. He then urged that there be a committee and Board meeting before the 5 Apr. B.Z.A. meeting to make recommendations on the current cases. The Building Commissioner/B.Z.A. Secretary was re- quested to insure that more information is provided on each case, as the B.Z.A. must certainly require in order to make a reasonable decision. Mr. Meigs stated that the Planning Board's role in considering appeals for exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance is nearly as important and,. necessary as its role in regard to use variances. Among the reasons for this are that the Board is essentially the only city agency concerned much with the physical form and amenities of the city, which includes among other things matters of building size, location, and signs, which are subject to exceptions. MEETING ADJOURNED at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 74 ZS a. Jonathan C. Meigs 3.31.71 Acting Planning Director tj�