Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-09-25 Ulf 3/9-� PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1984: PRESENT: Mayor John C. Gutenberger, I . Kramnick, Chairman S. Blumenthal , R. Moran, M. Sampson, H. Gerkin, R. Romanowski , S. Jackson ALSO: Appellants, Appellants ' Representatives, Members of the Press 1 . Call to Order: Chairman Kramnick called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 2. Zoning Appeals: See Minutes attached. 3. Introduction: Paul D. Mazzarella, Deputy Director of Planning and Develop- ment Department was introduced to the Board by Director Van Cort. Chair- man Kramnick, in turn, introduced the Board members to Mr. Mazzarella and welcomed him to his new position with the City of Ithaca. 4. Address by Mayor: Mayor John C. Gutenberger addressed the Board. He commented that he was pleased to see the Board getting back to the idea of planning for the future and becoming involved in issues that will affect our community for generations. He said that issues have arisen recently which require him to seek advice and counsel from the Board. One such issue is the Farmers ' Market. It is a very important asset to our community. The Market must have a permanent home to ensure its con- tinuation. At present, the Market is experiencing problems with traffic congestion and parking. Because of continued growth, the Market area is becoming crowded. The Planning Board is the appropriate body to investi- gate all possible permanent sites for the Farmers ' Market and to make recommendations to Council. Mayor Gutenberger requested that the Board take on this responsibility. A second issue is the problem of downtown parking. The lack of downtown parking was highlighted .this summer by the closing of the Green Street ramp for repairs. He wonders if we will have enough parking in the future for .expansion of businesses in the central district. It is time to take a Tong-range look at future parking and traffic circulation and the types of activities that we may see in the next 5, 10, or 15 years. Do we have ample parking and, if not, how and where shall it be provided? Finally, the Valentine Place situation emphasized two community goals competing against each other. First, improvement of the housing stock has been a goal in our community (the availability, the afordability, and the overall upgrading of housing). Secondly, the protection and stability of our neighborhoods has been a-community goal as well . In the Valentine Place incident these two goalsconflicted and contradicted each other. It is time for us to investigate how much additional housing is needed in this community, what type it should be, and where it should be located. -2- Again, he requested the Board's assistance in defining these goals leaving the manner in which it is done to the Board's discretion (perhaps a review and update .of the Master Plan) . In conclusion, the Mayor requested the Board to look at the overall work load, of the Planning Department; the focus, scope, and activities that the Department is undertaking on behalf of the City. Chairman Kramnick stated that the issues mentioned by the Mayor would be referred to specific committees. He thanked the Mayor for addressing the Board. Mr. Kramnick assigned the topics mentioned by the Mayor to the following committees: Farmers' Market and downtown parking to the Economic Development and Transportation Committee; and goals (housing) to the Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities Committee. 5. Final Approval of Subdivisions: a 404 E1m. Street - subdivision into two building lots. Jackson, seconded by Sampson, moved to open the public hearing. Vote 7-0 unanimous. No one appeared to speak to the issue . Staff recommends approval . Public hearing was closed by unanimous vote of the Board. Motion: Sampson, seconded by Jackson, moved to APPROVE the sub- division above mentioned. Vote: 7-0 unanimous. CARRIED. b) 515 W. Clinton Street - subdivision into one building lot and a smaller parcel to be combined with an existing adjacent building lot. Romanowski , seconded by Jackson, moved to open the public hearing. Vote 7-0 unanimous. No one appeared to speak to the issue. Staff recommends approval . The public hearing was closed by motion of Romanowski , seconded by Moran. Vote 7-0 unanimous. Motion: Sampson, seconded by Moran, moved to APPROVE the -sub- division as requested. Vote: 7-0 unanimous. CARRIED. 6. Approval of Minutes: Sampson, seconded by Moran, moved to approve the August 1984 minutes. Vote: 7-0 unanimous. CARRIED. 7. Chairman's Report: A report entitled "Valentine Place and the R-3a Parcel" which was prepared by the ad hoc committee (Chairman Kramnick, S. Jackson, and R. Moran) was presented to the Board. The report was read aloud by Mr. Kramnick after copies had been distributed to each Board member. Dis- cussion followed after the reading. Romanowski commented that in January 1984, Common Council received a number of new members who may not have seen the DEIS prepared in 1983. They perhaps had only seen the FEIS regarding Valentine Place. Gerkin suggested that a survey of the property by the BPW would have discovered the R-3a area at an early date. Mr. Van Cort stated that a careful study of the map would have been enough. Jackson suggested that in future cases, where necessary, Common Council could direct the Superintendent of Public Works to prepare a survey of the parcel to be rezoned. Mr. Raj , 919 E. State St. , commented that the Figure 5 zoning map mentioned in the report is not definitive and is coarsely drawn. He said the boundaries -3- are not clearly defined and he and the Valentine Place neighbors are still alarmed by the rapid issuing of a building permit to Mr. Novarr. Mr. Rabinowitz, 912 E. State St. , who was interviewed by the ad hoc com- mittee, also spoke to the Board. He said the DEIS and FEIS were under the purview of the Charter and Ordinance Committee. He took exception to the use of the phrase "the C&O Committee taking over" the rezoning question. He said the Charter and Ordinance Committee was legally charged to review the DEIS and were obliged to look at it. He spoke at length mentioning the two zoning proposals; the R-2b and contract zoning proposal from the Planning and Development Committee and the R-1 rezoning proposal from the Charter and Ordinance Committee. He felt that the Planning Department staff had opportunity to comment and review the proposals from the C&O Committee. He said it would not be expected that the Valentine Place Alliance members (who were non-professionals regarding such matters) would notice the map (Figure 5) in view of the fact that it was also over- looked by so many others. After much discussion, Mr. Kramnick stated that the ad hoc committee did not want to enter into the politics of the situation; their charge was to document the history and steps taken during the two-year period as it unfolded. In the conclusion of the report, two recommendations were made. They are as follows: 1 ) Whenever any proposal for rezoning reaches any committee of Common Council , the Planning Department, or the Planning Board, immediate and definitive notice be made public by the Building Department as to the existing zoning status of the entire area in question. If necessary, the Common Council should cause to be prepared a survey of the relevant area. This should be done before any public debate and not at the definitive drafting stage. In this way, the debate will be informed and negotiations facilitated. 2) Legislative responsibility for rezoning should be straightened out. It is our sense that it best be left with the P&D Committee. If it need go to C&O for the necessary changes in the city ordinance we suggest that C&O have no authority to make substantive changes after P&D has held the required hearings. If C&O is to be left such power in drafting zoning legislation then it should at minimum be required to consult with or have present planning staff. A Motion by Romanowski , seconded by Sampson, to pass on to Council the two recommendations of the ad hoc committee as stated above was CARRIED. Vote: 7-0 unanimous. 8. Committee Reports: Farmers ' Market - S. Jackson referred to the Sept. 11 , 1984 letter of Anna Steinkraus, Chairperson of the Farmers Market Board in which she made three proposals for relieving congestion in and around the Farmers ' Market on Saturday mornings: -4- "l ) Assign a policeman to direct traffic at the corner of Buffalo and Taughannock Blvd. 2) Open the City land between the parking lots at the corner of Buffalo and Taughannock Blvd. to traffic. 3) Establish a bus stop Saturday morning only at the Market itself just north of the Station Restaurant. Use of the thoroughfare mentioned in Para 2 above would facilitate this. The Farmers ' Market is prepared to offer special incentives to bus riders." Gerkin commented on the proposed bus stop and cited the problem of maneuver- ability for the bus. Jackson, seconded by Moran, recommended that the Board (1 ) request and urge Police Chief Herson to assign a patrolman to the Farmers.' Market location at Taughannock and Buffalo on Saturday mornings to direct traffic and to (2) request Transit Supervisor Bernard Carpenter to meet with the Farmers ' Market Board to discuss the possibility of a Saturday morning bus stop at the Market. After some discussion the Board requested Director Van Cort to correspond with Chief Herson and Mr. Carpenter in the Board's name regarding the above mentioned recommendations. Vote: 7-0 unanimous. 9. Alienation Proposal : It was suggested that the alienation topic listed on the Agenda would not be discussed since two other committees of Council were reviewing the issue presently. The land now occupied by Farmers ' Market must be taken out of the parks designation .in order for the Market to continue operation at that site. The Market is not a permitted use under the conditions of the original land acquisition. S. Blumenthal stated that she thought discussion should. continue suggesting that the resolution of the Planning and Development Committee could be amended. Jackson suggested the addition of two amendments to the resolution, as follows: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that nothing in this resolution shall imply that the current Taughannock Boulevard site of the Farmers ' Market will not be its permanent site, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall continue to make available to the Farmers' Market its present site on Taughannock Boulevard on terms similar to those which presently apply until a permanent site (which might be the same site) acceptable to both the City and the Farmers ' Market has been secured. Motion: Jackson, seconded by Moran, moved that the above amendments be included in the alienation resolution. Discussion: The topic of alienation was referred to the Economic Development and Transportation Committee for review with further discussion at the October Planning and Development Board meeting. Vote: 7-0 unanimous. -5- 10. Farmers ' Market Report: S. Jackson spoke to the Board regarding the importance of the Market as a resource to the City. Among the assets are the home-grown produce, local craft items, the creation of jobs, as well as its acceptance as a social institution in the community.. The City should take vigorous steps to provide a permanent location for the Market to enable it to become a stable enterprise. The City should also help in the search for funds and offer technical advice. The City could serve as a banker to the Market; borrowing money at low interest rates and lending capital to the Market. The City could subsidize the Market for a time. They could help to locate possible sites and access their viability. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of County involvement and responsibility. Mr. Sampson noted the majority of vendors reside within the County. Anna Steinkraus, who was present, stated the vendors must be located within a 30-mile radius of Ithaca. She also stated each vendor is responsible for collection and payment of sales tax to the state. S. Jackson asked if the City could do a market study for the Market. Director Van Cort said it was possible but funds would have to be allocated. He estimated between $10,000 and $30,000 would be necessary. The Board could request Common Council to add funds (Budget line) to the Department's 1985 Budget. M. Sampson suggested the City first look for possible sites. He also noted that the Market attracts customers to other nearby businesses thereby contributing to economic growth. Mr. Van Cort listed the following for consideration: 1 ) site selection, 2) market study, 3) cost benefit analysis, and 4) site acquisition and improvement. R. Romanowski noted that available space within the City is limited and he, too, felt the site is the first priority. Ithaca Center and Stewart Park were mentioned as possible alternatives; or retention of the present Taughannock Boulevard site. Motion: Jackson, seconded by Moran, moved that the Board request Council to establish a Capital Budget line in the 1985 Budget in the amount of $20,000 for research and development of the Farmers' Market. Discussion: M. Sampson stated the Market brings additional business to all retailers. Vote: 5-0-2 (abstaining, Romanowski and Gerkin) . PASSED. 11 . Disposition of City-owned Properties: The Economic Development and Transportation Committee met and discussed the memo prepared by Mr. Van Cort dated July 16, 1984. They recommended approval with the following changes: the Planning and Development Board should decide future use and public purpose, while the Board of Public Works shall determine immediate use. This shall be an interim policy; the definition of public purpose shall be refined. -6- Motion: Jackson, seconded by Moran, moved to approve the interim policy for disposition of city-owned properties (as amended) outlined in memo of July 16, 1984. Vote: 7-0 unanimous. 12. Zoning Appeals Memorandum: The notification prepared :.by Jon Meigs to inform zoning appellants of the Board's new hearing procedures was approved. Adjournment - 10:55 p.m. 10/12/84 me ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING September 25, 1984: Reference is made to Sign Appeal 10-1-84- (Ramada Inn) and to Zoning Appeal No. 1585 (K. Collins) and No. 1586 (D. Grover). Chairman Kramnick advised the appellants and other interested parties present that the Planning and Development Board will review and discuss at the Board meeting only those appeals which have a long-range planning and development impact. Pertaining to the appeals above mentioned, Board member S. Jackson and Chairman I. Kramnick met prior to this meeting and reviewed this month's requests. They, in concert with the other Board members, . determined that Sign Appeal 10-1-84, and Zoning Appeals Nos. 1585 and 1586 did not need the Board's discussion.* MOTION: Jackson, 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, 7-0. *The appellants were reminded to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday, October 1, 1984.at which time a decision on their appeal would be made. 9/27/84 me