HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1973-03-14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
City of Ithaca
Special Meeting March 14, 1973 3:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chm. Doney, Messrs. Shaw, Clynes, Schickel and Stein, Mrs. Benson.
ALSO: Director Meigs, Mayor Conley, CRP Consultant Friedlander, Jr. Planner Williams.
The meeting was called to consider the CRP Technical Report, of which Chapters 2 thru
9 had been distributed to Board members and Common Council on March 6 for review.
The Mayor stated that in the event the Board accepted and approved the Technical
Report, he would call a Special Meeting of Council to consider official city acceptance,
along with other items of business of a pressing nature.
Mr. Shaw opened the business by MOVING, "the Ithaca Planning Board approves the
Community Renewal Program, find its recommendations for renewal action and for the
priorities and scheduling of such renewal action to be in conformance with the General Plan
of the City of Ithaca, and recommend that the Mayor and Council take appropriate action to
submit the Community Renewal Program officially to the U.S. Department of Housing ° Urban
Development." Seconded by Mr. Clynes.
Mr. Doney opened discussion by asking if all members were in agreement on the
priorities for community renewal listed in the report, to which there was no negative
reaction.
Mr. Schickel felt that, as a new member of the Board this year, he did not have
sufficient familiarity with the program, especially as he had not received the summary of
actions and recommendations distributed on November 14, 1972, but if the Board would bear
with him, answers to some detailed questions would help. Mr. Doney urged him to continue,
since that was the purpose of the meeting. Mr. Schickel then raised the following points:
1. He felt the actions discussed in the Action Program showed a certain disregard for the
rights of property owners. Mr. Friedlander explained that the sections referred to
were not proposals, but descriptions of the types of things that had been done else-
where to meet the need for better code enforcement that showed up in the analysis of
the community; these types of things would have to be critically evaluated by the city
before they were ever initiated. Mr. Schickel then suggested that this point should be
emphasized in the text.
2. It should be made clear whether any redevelopment would be undertaken as a public
activity, as appeared to be indicated in the Action Proposal for the Southside.
3. He questioned the accuracy of the figures quoted for median rent (Table 4-2) and other
figures. The source of these figures, and the methodology of the data collection and
analysis for the CRP were explained; specifically referring to the rent figures, these
were U.S. Census figures, and included everything defined by the Census as rental
housing units, from the cheapest 'efficiency apartment' to houses.
Mrs. Benson also had specific questions concerning neighborhood d.,,elopment areas:
how were areas for clearance identified, and how would rpl_ogation housing be provided. The
methodology of the building and dwelling condition survey Wa.s explained, and it was
emphasized that before specific plans could be drawn up ror n,,y �.,,sz d,-velopment, a much
more complete and detailed inspection would have to be made, using this sample survey as a
base. The design proposals illustrated in the Report are only preliminary, and will have
to be extensively revised with neighborhood input and more detailed financing data. Relo-
cation housing for those dwellings which are ultimately determined to be in need of replace-
ment can come from several sources: remodeling of existing houses, the proposed Turnkey
housing in the Southside, the proposed mobile home park, new apartment development and so
on. After the initial clearance and redevelopment of any limited area, new housing built
in that area would be available. The detailed survey which would be made prior to developing
definite plans would be concerned with the needs and desires of families affected: type of
housing, size, location, cost, etc. Mrs. Benson expressed concern that this redevelopment
process be well-considered and designed and carried out to attain the most positive and
desirable results, and the least negative effects for those directly affected and the
community in general; she felt that a well-conceived relocation plan would be most important
to the success of any neighborhood development.
Mr. Stein then turned discussion to the Summary report. He noted that some items were
not covered, or were insufficiently covered, in the Surninary, and suggested that the Summary
right be essentially the Action Program section of the Technical Report, with appropriate
illustrations and short excerpts from other sections. Mr. Shaw felt that the Summary should
not deal with the detailed specifics which appear in the Technical Report, lest they be
misinterpreted as definite proposals for redevelopment, financing and so on. He felt that
the Sunmary should give a clear but non-specific overview of the CRP study so that the lay
public could get the overall intent of the CRP while understanding that the detailed actions
which might result would be the subject of extensive planning when policy and staging
questions, including methods of financing, had been settled.
Mr. Stein, however, felt that the Summary should contain enough substance that con-
cerned citizens and officials would be made aware of the CRP's serious intent, and that
they have something solid on which to base their thoughts and actions concerning real
conditions and issues. He was concerned that the effort put into the CRP thus far not be
dissipated in generalities, but form a substantive basis for further discussion leading to
action and implementation of improvements in areas of the community which need it. This is
the intent and meaning of the work 'program' in Community Renewal Program. Therefore he
suggested that the consultant include, in the revision of the Summary, mention of the
Board's January recom.iendation to Council that $125,000 of the revenue sharing funds
received. by the city be earmarked for neighborhood development.
Mr. Stein also suggested that Summary discussion of the Southwest Planning Area
should not be so definitely stated as a proposal, since some substantive changes have
recently been made in the area - for example, the mobile home park. Considerable revision
of the schematic plan for the area would have to be made, so the recommendation should
stress planning rather than implementation.
Mr. Stein then suggested that the area to be covered under East Hill Planning should
be extended to encompass the lower part of East Hill in Area 4. This is desirable since
for planning purposes the area should be broadly defined. There was general agreement on
this suggestion among the Board.
Mr. Shaw then MOVED the question. The original motion was read and CARRIED
unanimously with the understanding that the minor revisions discussed above would be made
prior to the forwarding of the Technical Report to HLTD. Mr. Clynes, who had had to leave
2
for a Board of Public Works meeting prior to the vote, had indicated that his seconding
motion still stood without„ -gla.alification, and that he remained in favor. of.x_�as.s.age of the
motion.
Mr. Meigs was directed to convey the Board's motion and drafts of the proposed..Council
resolution to Mrs. Jones and Mr. Stein prior to the March 21st Council meeting, and also
to have Chapter 1, the Introduction, to Council as soon as possible before that time.
espectfully submitted,
J nathan C. Meigs
Planning Director
3.20.73
3