HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1972-11-28 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
City of Ithaca
Regular Meeting November 28, 1972 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chm. Doney, Messrs. Austin, Schmidt and Stein.
ALSO: P1. Dir. Meigs, Jr. Planner Williams, B. Friedlander (consultant),Aldermen
Saccucci, Wallace and Nichols; Pl. & Dev. Comm. members Jones, Slattery, and
Spencer; C. Davis, S. Kennedy, N. Reiss, and members of the press and radio.
ABSENT: Messrs. Ewanicki, Burns and Shaw.
Minutes of the last Regular meeting of the Board, September 26, 1972, as well as the
minutes of the unofficial meeting of October 24, 1972, were approved as published.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None.
COMMUNICATIONS: None.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
a) Community Facilities & Services:
1) Northside Recreation Facilities/Conway Park Development/Mini-pool Location.
Chm. Stein reported the committee had met on 21 Nov. to review the subject. After
discussion, the committee members made recommendations to the Board to the effect that:
(1) Existing recreation areas in the Northside should be developed according to the
policies and proposals of the City's Recreation and Open Space Plan, with emphasis
on Conway and Washington Parks.
(2) Consideration should be given to acquiring and developing other sites for recrea-
tion in the Northside, with federal aid if available.
(3) Conway Park should be developed as generally proposed by the Recreation Plan and
the planning staff, and the feasibility of closing Fifth St. at Madison, to further
increase the area and safety of the park, should be investigated by planning and
public works.
(4) The mini-pool should be relocated to Conway Park. (See Committee Report in
official Planning Board files. )
Mr. Stein MOVED, "Adoption of the Committee Report by the Board." Seconded by
Mr. Schmidt.
Chm. Doney read a letter from Peter Wallace, Alderman, Second Ward, expressing
his opposition to locating the mini-pool at Conway Park, and his opinion that moving
it to the GIAC would be better.
Chm. Doney then read a communication from Ethel B. Nichols, Chairman, Human
Services Committee of Ithaca Common Council, expressing that committee's support of
locating the mini-pool at the GIAC to continue its use in Northside programs. (See
Planning Board files for texts of letters. )
Alderman Saccucci reported that residents adjacent to Conway Park are bitterly
opposed to locating the mini-pool as proposed by the Planning Board. He said the
people are already overburdened by disturbances caused by public housing near their
homes, and the commotion around the mini-pool would aggravate their situation further.;
Inasmuch as other sites, including some city-owned land, are available and have been
mentioned as possible locations for the pool, he suggested these be investigated. He;!
also said we should wait, as the buyer of Northside House might also purchase the pool.
Or, possibly the pool could be located within Stewart Park. He said the residents of
the Second Ward had directed him to appear at the meeting to present their views;
speaking as an individual he is the owner of a $100,000 restaurant, the Villa, and he
is opposed to the closing of Madison Street. It would create a hardship to his
business which has already been hurt by the bypassing of Rt. 13. He asked the Board
to reconsider the location of the pool in Conway Park and to consider his objections
as owner of the Villa Restaurant.
Alderman Slattery said that if the pool is located in the tip of Conway Park,
traffic control will have to be provided because of the pedestrians going to and from ,
the pool; also bathrooms will have to be provided. He believes the mini-pool would
be much better located next to the GIAC facility. Currently there is an application
in HUD for funding of that facility. They may not fund an indoor pool which in any
event would not replace an outdoor pool. There are proper bathroom facilities on the
GIAC location, and a chain link fence around it. GIAC expressed interest at their
last meeting in having the pool. He also said that several of the residents are
opposed to having the pool at Conway Park. He urged the Board to recommend to Common
Council placement of the pool on the GIAC site.
He also pointed out that there are sidewalks at Washington Park which, if removed,
will meet with bitter disapproval.
Mr. Meigs said the Youth Bureau Director feels the development of Conway Park in.'.
some manner similar to the sketch shown would be desirable because they would like to'
have a place with capability of developing a well rounded program, and not just open >_
field space, in areas where there will be numbers of people using them. This is
especially true of the area adjacent to Conway Park. Within two and one-half blocks
of public housing there are over 275 children under 18. The director of Ithaca Housing
Authority similarly expressed his feeling that location at this point would be
desirable for the residents of the public housing area. Mr. Meigs explained that
there is also the possibility of having a basketball court in Conway Park, and facili+
ties could be laid out somewhat differently to allow a larger diamond also, if Madison
and Fifth Streets are closed to add space.
k
Mr. Saccucci said that some of the residents near the park are already contempla-
ting selling their properties due to the public housing, and placing the mini-pool in`p
Conway Park would expedite this.
Mr. Austin said that now that we have heard from two councilmen vho represent
taxpayers in the area who seem to be opposed and have also heard recommendations of
other locations with facilities compatible to the mini-pool, he feels the Board should
give consideration to these opinions and consider the other possible locations.
2
Mr. Stein said that when this matter was brought before the committee, considera7
tion was given to sites where the .young people are; also, some opinions expressed by
other agencies such as the Youth Bureau. Discussion indicated that another pool is
proposed for the G.I.A.C. site and the Youth Bureau director could see no sense in
duplication of pools at that site, or moving the mini-pool again. He said it might be
appropriate for the matter to be referred back to committee, if there is new informa-
tion, for further consideration.
Mr. Austin MOVED, "the proposed motion be tabled." Seconded by Mr. Schmidt.
CARRIED.
Mr. Austin then MOVED, "The Committee reconsider the Northside Recreation Facili-
ties/Conway Park Development/mini-pool location and report back at the next meeting of
the Board." Seconded by Mr. Stein. CARRIED.
Mr. Stein said the committee would like to have interested persons attend the
committee meeting for input, and'that the meeting time will be announced.
2) Proposed City purchase of land adjacent to Cass Park. Mr. Stein presented the
report of the committee members. (See full report in official Planning Board files. )
Approximately 2.2 acres have been offered, and the BPW has recommended that the city
negotiate for purchase, which the City Attorney is to do. The land is surrounded by
city and park property on North, East and South, and on the West by NYSE&G right-of-
way and the base of West Hill. It is isolated from vehicular access, though a dirt
road from Rt. 89 crosses the city land to the North. It lies in the corridor of the
proposed Rt. 96 relocation,, and thus will most likely be acquired by the State in a
few ,years, and it would thus be useless as a trade-off for other BOR-purchased lands
which may be taken for Rt. 96.
The committee members felt that due to the limited utility of the site for the
city resulting from these factors, the Board should recommend against its purchase
unless an extremely low asking price is established, or other important considerations
develop.
MOVED by Mr. Stein, seconded by Mr. Schmidt, "that the Planning Board approve the
report and recommendations." CARRIED.
Since the BPW has already set in course negotiations to buy the property, it was
the sense of the Planning Board that negotiations continue to determine if an
exceptionally low purchase price could be established.
OTD BUSINESS:
a) Discussion and consideration of the Summary of the Technical Report (CRP): Mr.
Meigs reported that a public meeting was held at which recommendations excerpted from the
Technical Report were presented. At that time there was discussion as to procedure to
follow to conclude the report and make submission to HUD, i.e. , whether we forward the
report as it has been presented with Planning Board's approval, or whether it would be more
desirable to hold off and add to it to some extent. It was suggested the CRP might be more
use to the city if additions were made to the Technical Report, outlining what the city
could do on its own in the event little or no federal money is available with which to
pursue programs recommended.
Mr. Friedlander said he feels that several points made at the public meeting were well
considered. Based on these points and discussions with city officials, his own feeling
3
about the matter is that the report needs additional material in two ways: 1) strategies
to increase the possibility of federal funding, in a difficult situation where there is the
prospect of lack of federal funds; 2) alternate strategies if federal funding is not
available.
Pyr. Stein said that recognizing existing conditions, taking into account what funding:'
programs are available, and the cutback in federal funds, he would like to see the CRP
encompass what the city can do with or without federal funds. He suggested further con-
sideration to those factors to see if there are some things which can be discussed,
suggested, and then acted on, in addition to CRP recommendations. He would like further
consideration beyond this meeting to discuss these problems, and not necessarily approve
it tonight.
Mr. Friedlander said the consulting firm is preparing a memo to the Planning Board,
essentially dealing with these issues, which it is hoped will get out either by the end of
this week or early next week. When the Board has had a chance to digest that memo, he
would like, preferably at a special meeting, or at the regular meeting in December, to
meet with the Board. He said the only effect of a delay would be that the final payment
from HUD would be delayed. According to Mr. Friedlander, there are three possibilities:
1) limited funding of existing programs, 2) a special revenue-sharing act (Community
Development Act) in addition to general revenue-sharing, limited to certain functions--
renewal, recreation, sewer and water, 3) or, most unfortunate--existing programs may dis-
appear, a special revenue-sharing act may not be passed at all, and we may have to make do
with general revenue-sharing funds only.
Mr. Meigs said that he hoped that feelings about the recommendations contained in the
excerpts from the action report take into account that there are matters there which the
city could handle on its own, and probably would find itself doing a large share of the
work even without the funding uncertainties. Since the immediate aim of the CRP is to
start solving problems as soon as possible after it identifies them, the suggested additions
are obviously appropriate to program objectives.
Concerning revenue-sharing, Mayor Corley said the Mayors' organization and the federal
organization had worked hard to get revenue-sharing in place of federal programs. Now, as!,
the money comes to Ithaca in a lump form, what is done with it depends on the guidelines,
which the government has not yet given, and on what the government might do in addition to
revenue-sharing. The Mayor also asked when the CRP would be ready to come to Common Council,
what type of presentation it will take, and what response would be sought.
Mr. Friedlander said the Common Council 1) could adopt the CRP in essence, and it
becomes a firm plan for renewal action, or 2) could say they find CRP to be in accordance
with the General Plan of the- City and authorize Mayor Conley to submit it to HUD, in which`
case it would become the guidelines for renewal, but would not necessarily have to be
followed action by action. It could be presented in a special meeting devoted strictly to
CRP. Though the contract with HUD expires the end of November, HUD indicates they are
receptive to an administrative extension to allow desired additions, as long as this in-
volves no cost increase. The City-consultant contract runs to Jan. 9, 1973, requires
consultant involvement until a draft of the Technical Report suitable for Council review
is prepared, and that consultant shall be available to answer questions and comments on the
report for six months after its submission to HUD, at no cost to the city.
Mr. Stein MOVED, "the Board postpones any decision about adopting the proposal until
its next meeting." Seconded by Mr. Austin. CARRIED.
Mr. Stein called attention to the priorities in the Southside and Downtown Mall areas?
4
Low priority was given to the Collegetown area; he expressed concern about this, and would
like to have it reviewed and be given a higher priority. Apparently there was a feeling
that if the UDC program came to fruition, it would serve as a spur to other activity in
Collegetown; therefore saying, "let's wait." Collegetown, in terms of doing things purely:
on a city basis, provides certain possibilities other areas might not. The new route might
affect the priority there. Regarding the Legacy of Parks Program, only one site is recom
mended. There are areas in this community where small neighborhood parks are lacking; some
priority might be given to other areas of the city. The money that has been appropriated
is not being distributed for this program.
Mr. Meigs said he would like to hear from members of the Board who have not spoken out
before on consideration of basic priorities (p. 2 thru next 10-12 pp. ). The opinion was
expressed that at least the general priorities were fine--so general, how could one be
opposed?
Mr. Friedlander explained that within the framework of the CRP, as originally designed
by HUD, it was intended that cities make determination as to what federal programs are
applicable to problems defined; thus ,you have to make initial program recommendations and
outline general .priorities; but the CRP doesn't allow for detailed project planning. Once
the city accepts the CRP, it can put in applications for programs for high-priority
projects; when application approval is received from Hud, .you do project planning. In
talking about possibilities of funds not being available., this does not work very well;
,you still have to designate areas where action is possible, but you have to at least begin:
to determine priority and feasibility of city action. Still, ,you can't get into really
detailed planning within the initial CRP preparation.
The Chairman directed Mr. Meigs to request a three-month administrative extension,
with reasons.
b):Traffic Consultant for. Downtown Mall: Mr. Meigs informed the Board that Common
Council are in the process of considering and choosing a consultant to conduct a traffic
study and'have scheduled a special meeting for this purpose. Mayor Conley requested the
Planning Board to make recommendation to Common Council. Mr. Stein said the Planning Board
will approve any study which takes into account the problems arising from the closing of
State Street and would support recommendations to solve them.
NEW BUSINESS:
a) MacLean Subdivision, Westwood Knoll, off Hector St. : Planning Board has approved, '
over the ,years, all but 8 lots (5 thru 12) on Campbell Avenue. Mr. MacLean has requested
final approval of these lots and has given evidence of approval by the Tompkins County
Health Department and certification by the city engineer regarding street improvements.
Approval by the Board will require a public hearing which would normally be conducted .
just prior to a Planning Board meeting. Inasmuch as apparently all conditions have been
met, with the exception of a few minor administrative details which will be taken care of
before the public hearing, Mr. Meigs recommends holding such a hearing at the December
meeting.
Mr. Schmidt MOVED, "Planning Board hold a public hearing on the MacLean subdivision
request for approval at the December meeting of the Board, and the Board approves the
advertising for such hearing." Seconded by Mr. Austin. CARRIED.
b) '701' Program: Common Council, at its November meeting, directed preparation of an
application to the Federal Dept. of Housing & Urban Development through New York State
5
Office of Planning Services for a Comprehensive Planning Program (701), to examine the
regulations and organization for management of development in the city, in conjunction with
a proposal made to completely re-examine, modernize and recodify the city ordinances and
codes. It seemed to be appropriate then to look specifically at the city's ordinances and
regulations in reference to development, as well as look at administrative organization for
applying those regulations. Preliminary contact with OPS indicates the application looks
good, but funding in excess of $10,000 is doubtful. Therefore, in discussing the proposal
with the Controller-Director of Development and others, it has been decided to reduce the
scope to cover basically organization for implementation of development regulations and
improving, evaluating, and bringing local regulations and procedures more into alignment
with State and Federal development regulations, excluding other things not of immediate
interest to us. The preliminary application has to be submitted to OPS by December 1.
This is not a general evaluative program but is aimed at making improvements to codes
in detail, and city organization for code and ordinance administration. The city is going
to;hire a%consultant anyway,. arid this could be simultaneous. The cost of '701' would be:
Federal government 75%, the City and State would split the rest 50-50%. The city portion
could be services in kind, $1250 ± depending on ability of consultant; it might be advisable
to let the consultant do the entire job.
Mr. Schmidt MOVED, "Planning Board concurs with the Common Council request through the
Planning Director to formulate a '701' application." Seconded by Mr. Stein. CARRIED.
MISCELLANEOUS:
a) Zoning Cases:
1) BZA Case 989 - Request. by I. Lewis for a Variance to Sec. 7,, Col. 2 of the
Zoning Ordinance, and Exception to Sec. 6bl of the Sign Ordinance at 303 W. Lincoln St.
in an R-3 district. This appeal is for continued use of the property for commercial
use, but for a business different from that for which the previous variance was
granted. The Board finds no objection to the proposed use as a dealer-supplier of
water softening products. However, inasmuch as the City has recently adopted a sign
ordinance, the Board feels the sign size should conform to the requirements of the new.
ordinance. It is further noted that the appellant did not mention the type of sign
which he proposes to use. Mr. Stein MOVED, "the Board recommends approval of variance
for use but recommends denial of exception for size of sign." Seconded by Mr. Austin.
CARRIED.
2) BZA Case 990 - Request by J. Vasse for Petrillose Cleaners for a variance to
Sec. 7, Col. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance at 102 Adams St. in an R-3 district. This
appeal is for continued use of the property for commercial use, but for a business
different from that for which the previous variance was granted, and was made after
considerable investigation into the prospects of developing the structure for resi-
dential use, cost of which would be economically unfeasible. Mr. Stein MOVED,
"although the long-range plans of the Board call for this property to be utilized as
a park, there is no immediate prospect of public funds being available for acquisition
and development of the property for this purpose. Therefore, the Board finds no
objection to the granting of the requested variance for use as a plumbing supply
warehouse and sales shop." Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. CARRIED.
3) BZA Case 991 - Reguest_by Phebe Moore for a Variance to Sec. 7, Col. 2 of the
Zoning Ordinance at 428-430 N. Cayuga St. in a R-3 district. Mrs. Moore wishes to
operate an antique shop in the structure previously used as a retail paint store.
6
Mr. Austin MOVED, "the Board recommends approval of the request for variance."
Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. CARRIED.
b) Mr. Meigs informed the Board that the Tompkins County Planning Department will have
a presentation on December 6, 1972 concerning commerce and industry in Tompkins County,
which members of the Board may wish to attend.
c) Transfer of funds: Mr. Stein MOVED, "Planning Board recommends approval for the
transfer of T100 from Account A8020-411, Printing, to A8020-310, Office Supplies and Postage,
to Common Council." Seconded by Ivlr. Austin. CARRIED.
d) Chm. Doney informed the Board that Jr. Planner Rosalind Williams has requested by
letter a two-weeks unpaid leave of absence from January 2 to January 12. Mr. Austin MOVED,
"the Board grants the leave of absence as requested by Mrs. Williams." Seconded by Mr.
Schmidt. CARRIED.
e) Because the regularly scheduled December meeting of the Board falls on December 26
the day following Christmas, it was decided to change the date of the December meeting.
Mr. Austin MOVED, "the December regular meeting of the Planning Board will be changed from
December 26 to December 19, 1972." Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. CARRIED.
f) Mrs. Jones , Chairman of the Capital Improvements Review Committee, requested that
the Board be informed of the capital projects which were submitted to Common Council, Mr.
Meigs read the list of projects submitted by the CIRC. One project, that of widening of
S. Cayuga St. in the block where the Ramada Inn is being built, in the amount of $35,000,
was omitted from the list but Mayor Conley requested that this project be included in
anticipation of the opening of the motel for business in 1973. The Board took no action.
g) Mr. Meigs informed the Board that on November 29 from 8 to 10 p.m. on Channel 4
there would be presentation "Population and the American Future," which he felt some
members of the Board might be interested in viewing.
MEETING ADJOURNED at 10:35 p.m.
Respec fully submitted,
10
.Jonathan C. Meigs
12.5.72 Planning Director
7