HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-07-24 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES
July 24, 1984:
PRESENT: S. Blumenthal , .R. Moran, M. Sampson, H. Gerkin, I . Kramnick
ALSO: Appellants, Appellants' Representatives, Members of the Press
1 . Call to Order: Chairman Kramnick called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Sampson noted error in date of June Minutes.
It should read June 26, and not July 26. Gerkin, seconded by Sampson,
moved to approve June Minutes as corrected. PASSED unanimously, 5-0.
2. Chairman's Report: Mr. Kramnick referred to the mid-month meeting at
which. the new approach in dealing with Zoning Appeals was formulated,
Also discussed were possible to which the Board would now be free
to handle. Primarily, the Board would like to begin the process for
preparation of a new Master Plan for the City with the hope of finish-
ing the project in 1988. Additionally, three or four particular pro-
jects could be chosen for work and study by the Board, Chairman
Kramnick suggested that the Board members discuss at their August
meeting a Fall agenda and present other topics which they would like
to pursue.
Chairman Kramnick reported that he continues to participate in
monthly meetings at Cornell where he represents the Planning and
Development Board. At the last meeting, Cornell indicated their
interest in a Master Plan for Collegetown which also included trans-
portation issues. Mr. Kramnick suggested to the Board that since the
City and Cornell are both contemplating Master Plans, that both
groups should endeavor to cooperate in the effort to achieve some
measure of long-range planning.
3. Old Business - Weis/Ufair Subdivision: Thomas Niederkorn, consultant,
appeared for Cornell University and Joseph S, Yuschok was present for
Weis Markets. Also present was the architect for the proposed building,
Joseph. Blazaitis. Mr. Yuschok distributed and displayed two proposed
plans. He discussed in detail the internal circulation of traffic
pointing out the differences in each plan. Weis Markets prefers plan
#2. In this plan, the building would be 50 to 75 feet closer to Meadow
Street and would allow traffic to pass from one property to the other
without going back on S. Meadow Street. It would relieve some congestion
and points of impact on S. Meadow. Plan #2 eliminates one curb cut and
creates a major ingress/egress entrance in the center. There would be
an 'in-driveway'- from the north, Trio driveways would offer better cir-
culation and afford better usage for a retailing operation such as Weis
Markets. The Planning and Development Board prefers Plan #1 which
would place the building further to the rear of the lot and would allow
greater visibility from one driveway to the other.
-2-
Discussion followed regarding traffic entering and exiting, the type
of turns on and off Meadow Street, and the proposed traffic signs needed
to facilitate circulation. Other items discussed were greenspaces,
snow accumulation and removal and drainage. Mr. Yuschock was asked by
Ms. Blumenthal to discuss Weis Markets' future plans for the site. He
touched briefly on the future plans mentioning a few possibilities (add-
ition of new stores in L-shape configuration, creation of a courtyard) ,
but said nothing wasdefinite at this time. Chairman Kramnick asked if
market studies were done in Ithaca and if such studies indicated a need
for another supermarket. Mr. Yuschok stated studies were done and they
felt that Weis Markets would offer an alternate operation geared to
customer orientation.
Drainage and flooding problems on the site were mentioned. Director
Van Cort noted that the flood relief channel was established to counter
possible flooding from the creeks and/or lake.
Director Van Cort stated that questions remain as to the future plans
of Weis Markets and how the proposed construction would look in terms of
design of the entire subdivision.
Mr. Sampson suggested that an agreement be reached regarding the south
exit into the Tops lot; that is, Tops should agree not to pile snow there
and the question of who will be responsible for snow .removal should be
resolved before final approval for the subdivision is given. Additionally,
Mr. Sampson asked if Weis has checked the City's sign ordinance to be
sure signage is in conformance with City rules,
Discussion followed regarding the advantages and disadvantages of grant-
ing preliminary approval at this time. Director Van Cort cited the pro-
blems which he deemed needed to be solved:
1 ) access to the north and south specifically insuring that the abutter
on the south will forever allow access and will maintain the access
to the light at Wood St. The City should have a legal instrument
allowing the City to be a third party enforcer of those legal rights;-
2) that the same kind of arrangement be made with the two abutters to the
north (one existing and one yet to be named) ;
3) that the City further negotiate with the subdivider regarding improve-
ment of the access, that is, construction of a road between the Weis
site and W. Clinton St.;
4) further refinement of future development of the site; Weis giving the
City the right to approve any future expansion of the existing or
proposed buildings on the parcel ;
5) further discussion with the subdivider regarding future improvements to
S. Meadow St. The legal instruments above mentioned would be subject
to approval by the Corporate Counsel .
-3-
Director Van Cort stated he would write up the contingencies and
forward them to Mr. Neiderkorn in order to begin mobilization of the
legal matters.
Gerkin,' seconded by, Moran, moved to grant preliminary approval to
Plan #1 with the contingencies above listed. Satisfactory answers to
the contingencies and any others which might arise must be obtained
prior to final approval . Vote: . 4-yea, 1-nay (.Blumenthal ). MOTION
CARRIED.
4. Staff Reports: Hydropower -
Helen Jones, of Planning Staff, gave an up-date on the hydropower
recreational plan for Fall Creek. Several detailed sketches of the
area prepared by landscape architect Roger Trancik were displayed.
In 1981 , five separate applications were submitted to FERC proposing
to develop the falls site for hydropower. The City examined each ,
proposal and drew up a list of concerns to be addressed. These in-
cluded among other things : aesthetics, maintaining public access,
and fisheries. This is an historically important site; it contains
a tunnel constructed by Ezra Cornell , an early mill foundation, and
significant artifacts. An archaeological investigation was under-
taken to determine what remained on the site and to try to incorpor-
ate the findings of the study into an interpretive recreation pro-
gram for the park. The archaeological study disclosed a number of
remnant foundation walls. Planning staff prepared an application
to the New York State Council for the Arts for a grant to fund, a
site planning study. Trancik identified various unique areas that
serve different functions or have different ecological character-
istics; the overlook area off Willard Way, upper island area con-
taining an Alpine-like ecology, lower island area, a man-made mound
off Lake St. , street park, raceway, and Falls basin. Ms. Jones ex-
plained the features on each sketch and the park schemes which could
be developed. She pointed out barriers in the landscape, and the
fact that some of the area is property privately owned, while other
parcels are owned by the City or by Cornell . Some debate has gone
on as to what the City should actually develop on the site. Con-
terns have been expressed that the hydro issue is being obscured
by the issue of park development and that the hydro project itself
may not be able to bear the cost of such acquisition. There will
be extensive changes to the site if developed; repairs to the dam
will have to be made, a new intake structure will be needed, and
repairs made to the Ezra Cornell tunnel running under the overlook.
It must be determined if the City should look at the entire area
or only at the basin area. Since this planning study is already
funded, it is felt that we should look at the entire area but in-
dicate one or more sections which .could be separated out and imple-
mented without developing the entire plan. A series of public
meetings have taken place to present the work as it has developed.
The City must decide if it wants to own the hydropower facility
(.because one will be built there by the City or by others) and if
-4-
the City wants to develop the recreational area and to what extent.
Hydropower Commission members are concerned about the costs and if
the hydropower revenues can support the recreational plans mentioned,
The question of whether the City will develop the hydropower plant
will go to a referendum, _preferably at a regularly scheduled election
time. If .Cornell or someone else is awarded the license, then no
referendum is required and few benefits would flow to the City (es-
pecially of it was Cornell-owned) . Construction would have to
commence within 24 months of awarding the license. If the license
is awarded to the. City, the City would hire an engineer, bids would
be requested, and construction would begin. Further public hearings
are scheduled to present the scheme as it is being developed. The
public is informed through radio spots and newspaper ads. Ms. Jones
said shewouldkeep the Board informed of further developments.
Joint City-Town Cooperative Recreational Proposal - Helen Jones ex-
plained that she had wished to meet with the sub-committees-of the_
Board prior to this meeting to go into further detail of the joint
proposal with the Town. That proved to be impossible because of
vacation schedules and because she was waiting for the Town staff
to get a response from their Board. Ms. Jones briefly explained the
proposal which would increase recreational opportunities, add to
the park space in the area, and free up land for development. The
Recreation ,Committee of the Town Board has approved the proposal and
it will go to the full Town Board in September for their approval .
Ms. Jones requested approval from the Planning and Development Board
of the concept of this proposal and requested a recommendation to
Common Council . She would like to forward the proposal to the State
in September. An act of the State Legislature is needed to take the
lands out of recreational use. The Planning Department feels, this
exchange is an important element of economic development and recreational
planning for the City. The following resolution was read:
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is committed to enhancing recreational
and economic opportunities in the area, and
WHEREAS, the West End has been designated for potential redevelopment
by Common Council , and
WHEREAS, the Southwest.Study pointsto Southwest Park as a potential
site, and
WHEREAS, both Southwest Park, and the West End are presently under-
utilized as recreation sites, and
WHEREAS, City, Town and State Parks staff have developed in concept
a proposal to jointly develop and share the costs of a recreation
system including lands in the Southwest as a compensation for making
West End and Southwest Park land available for private development,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development
Board does approve and accept said concept for .joint recreational
development and does recommend that Common Council approve said plan
in concept, and
BE- IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board
-5-
recommend that Common Council authorize City Planning and Development
staff to submit said proposal to the State Legislature for its con-
sideration and action.
Moran, seconded by Blumenthal , moved. to approve the resolution as.
read. PASSED unanimously, 5-0.
5. Director's Report: Collegetown Project HODAG -
Director Van Cort explained the concept of the Collegetown project
proposed by Mack Travis: the City will sell to Mr. Travis the air
rights over part of the parking area owned by the City in College-
town and that Mr. Travis will erect thereon a 60-- to 80-.unit apart-
ment building. Further, the City will apply for a Housing. Development
Action Grant (_HODAG) from the federal government, which proceeds the
City will lend to Mr. Travis at below market rates. In exchange for
this, he will provide 20% of the apartment units to low- and moderate-
income people. In addition, the City will construct a public garage
under the air rights to be owned and operated by the City for 150-200
spaces. Travis' plan also provides for 6,000 sq. ft. of retail space
which is 1/10 of the gross square footage of the project. Common
Council passed the resolution approving the concept by an 8-to-2 vote
at their last meeting. Since that meeting Design Review Board, College--
town Negotiating Committee, and the project architect have met to dis-
cuss the design and the cost analysis figures. Negotiations_ are going
well . Chairman Kramnick asked about the concerns of the Collegetown
merchants. Director Van Cort stated some were strongly in favor of
the project but some were distressed about the tax benefit district;
a petition containing 40 signatures was circulated in opposition to
the tax benefit district. Anothermeetingis scheduled for next
week with the merchants to apprise them of the details of the benefit
assessment district; the taxation will not be oppressive and will be
comparable to that in the downtown Commons district. Taxation will be
as fair and equitable as possible; those who benefit will be taxed.
Director Van Cort requested that the Planning and Development Board
support the concept of .the HODAG application for submission to the
federal government on August 14, 1984. Discussion followed regarding
the marketing of the low-income apartment units. Al Davidoff of the
UAW will be contacted regarding getting the union's assistance in
marketing the project to its low income members. Any further suggestions
regarding a marketing plan would be welcome. It was decided that
Director Van Cort would ask_Mayor Gutenberger to include Susan Blumenthal
in the Collegetown. Negotiating Committee meetings in order to fulfill
past 2 of the 4-part resolution passed by the Planning and Development
Board at their June meeting: "In order to continue Planning and Develop-
ment Board involvement, recommend plan to Economic Development and Trans-
portation Committee and to Neighborhoods,_Housing, and Facilities
Committee,"
After further discussion, Moran moved, seconded by Sampson, the
.following resolution:
RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board hereby recommends to
Common Council that the City of Ithaca apply to USDHUD for a Housing
Development Action Grant to be lent to Travis and Travis for construction
-6-
of a housing project, including 20% low income housing, on the College-
town
ollegetown development site, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the HODAG proceeds be lent to Travis and
Travis at below market rates to offset the expense of providing low
income housing. PASSED unanimously, 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
me
8/23/84
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
July 24 , 1984 :
ZONING APPEALS : Chairman Kramnick informed the appellants
present that it was unnecessary for them to present their
appeal to the Planning and Development Board at this
evening 's meeting . They were reminded , however , that they
would have to appear and present their cases before the
Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday , August 6 1984 .
Kramnick explained to the Board and others that
he had met previously with several board members to dis-
cuss the handling of zoning appeals . They determined that
the BZA gives little heed to the recommendations of the
Planning and Development Board , and , therefore , the Planning
and Development Board recommendations do not influence the
BZA decisions significantly . It was decided that for the
time being , the Planning and Development Board would not
hear zoning appeals unless the proposed action had a long-
term impact . Kramnick cited justification for this action
in Section 30 . 58 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires
that no Board of Appeals action shall be taken until the
City Planning and Development Board has submitted a report
as to conformance with long-range planning objectives .
Kramnick and Blumenthal met and reviewed this
month ' s appeals :
Sign Appeal 8-1 -84 , Sage and Seneca St . (Cornell U . )
Appeal 1577 - 405 S . Albany St . (Downing )
Appeal 1578 - 116 N . Titus Ave . (Smith )
Appeal 1579 - 136 Fayette St . ( Fitzgerald )
Appeal 1580 805-07 N . Cayuga St . (Boothroyd )
Theydetermined that none had any long-range planning and de-
velopment impact. They recommended , therefore , that the appeals
be passed on to the Board of Zoning Appeals with no recommendation .
MOTION : Blumenthal , seconded by Moran , moved that
the above mentioned appeals be passed on to the BZA with no
recommendations since the appeals have no long-range planning
and development impact .
VOTE : PASSED UNANIMOUSLY , 5-0 .