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