Boards and Committee Agendas and Minutes
8/3/2017 7:52:33 AM
10/28/2014 4:27:47 PM
PublicURL - TC
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
May 4, 2011 <br /> 6 <br />RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that <br />the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any <br />attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as <br />required by law. <br /> <br />Amending Resolution: <br />By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick <br />RESOLVED, That a new Whereas clause be added to the Resolution as the 4th <br />Whereas clause that would read as follows: <br /> <br />“WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Department has recommended a certain <br />change in the stream setback for the proposed VR-2 district, without which change this <br />amendment requires the vote of a majority plus one, for passage, and” <br /> Carried Unanimously <br /> <br />Alderperson Zumoff asked whether or not this would need a super majority vote in order <br />to pass. City Attorney Hoffman responded that the letter from the Tompkins County <br />Planning Commissioner requires a majority plus one vote (7 votes) for form base <br />districts unless the amendment proposed by the Tompkins County Planning <br />Commissioner regarding the setback from the gorges is incorporated into this <br />resolution. He further noted that a package of protests was received tonight that <br />represents 46 property owners and 95 parcels. He noted that the proposed form based <br />districts includes 262 affected properties, the proposed height incentive zone includes <br />13 properties, and the proposed parking overlay zone/payment in lieu of parking <br />includes 300+ parcels. In order for these ordinances to be adopted, they will require a <br />super majority vote (8 affirmative votes). He further noted that it is unclear at this time <br />as to whether the protest package applies to more than one ordinance. <br /> <br />Alderperson Coles stated that she would vote against all of the ordinances. She stated <br />that she understands that they represent a compromise, but it still leaves gaping <br />questions that need answers. She noted that a re-evaluation has not been completed <br />since the Collegetown Terrace project was approved, and further stated that the <br />information regarding parking and traffic are just assumptions and not based on studies. <br />She further stated that the plan lacks a “what if it doesn’t work” clause, and encouraged <br />Council to postpone voting on it. <br /> <br />Alderperson Dotson stated that she appreciates and respects the opinions of her <br />colleagues, but noted that they don’t agree on everything. She stated that she supports <br />the inclusion of a grocery store in the plan as well as further development on the <br />transportation plans. She noted that parking is at capacity in Collegetown and <br />downtown and needs to be managed better with sufficient control of neighborhood <br />parking and enforcement of rules. She stated that the footprints of the buildings are still <br />too big in her opinion, but she will not propose the amendment she introduced that <br />failed in committee. She noted that this is an overall good package. <br /> <br />Alderperson McCollister stated that the residential parking permit system has worked <br />remarkably well and enforcement is strong. The $10,000 payment in lieu of parking <br />figure in the ordinance is meant to be fluid and subject to change. She further explained <br />that the form based districts ensure the concentration of density in a very logical way, <br />and she stated that she is very comfortable with the ordinance. <br /> <br />Alderperson Myrick noted that payment in lieu of parking is not intended to be a fund to <br />build parking in other areas of the City, and it is not meant to provide an incentive to <br />owning a car or subsidize car ownership by providing parking garages. He noted that <br />there are better alternatives to car use. He further stated that the reason for <br />concentrating density in the core of Collegetown is because people did not want more <br />development in surrounding neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Discussion followed on the floor with City Planner Gilbert regarding Parts I, II, and III of <br />the long environmental assessment forms. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.