Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-10-23 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1984: PRESENT: I . Kramnick, Chairman, S. Blumenthal , R. Moran, M. Sampson, H. Gerkin, R. Romanowski , S. Jackson ALSO: Appellants, Members of the Press 1 . Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. 2. Zoning Appeals: See Minutes attached. 3. Approval of Minutes: Jackson, seconded by Romanowski , moved to approve the September 1984 Minutes as presented. Passed - unanimously. 4. Chairman's Report: Chairman Kramnick notified the Board that on November 14, 1984, the Planning and Development Committee has invited all the neighborhood associations in Ithaca to make presentations to the Planning and Development Committee regarding problems confronting their neighborhoods and any issues they would like the City to address. He suggested that as many Board members as possible should attend that meeting. 5. Committee Reports: Economic Development and Transportation Committee Chairman, S. Jackson, reported that his Committee met and discussed three topics. First, the question of downtown parking was addressed by the Committee and it was decided that they would hold a joint meet- ing with the Transit, Traffic and Parking Committee of the Board of Public Works to discuss this issue. A meeting has been scheduled for November 29, 1984, 4.00 p.m. Secondly, Farmers ' Market was discussed. Mr. Jackson referred to a draft prepared by the Mayor's TEDI Committee where food and food systems were identified as a basis for a major economic development program in the City of Ithaca over the next 5-10 years. This has an impact on the Farmers' Market in general as well as the site for the Farmers ' Market. He presented this draft to the Farmers ' Market Board to apprise them of the work being done and thereby attempt to coordinate efforts. Jackson suggested that the Board consider sponsor- ing a public hearing at the next monthly Board meeting for a discussion of possible sites for the Market. Advantages and disadvantages of prospective sites could be explored. It was decided that the hearing would be the first item on the agenda and that two hours would be allowed for discussion. A display ad will be published in the Ithaca Journal . There was unanimous agreement that the next Board meeting will be advertised as a public meeting and that specific effort will be made to contact businesses in the area and to apprise as many as possible of the public hearing regarding a future site for the Farmers' Market. -2- Thirdly, the South West Park and Cayuga Inlet alienation proposal was discussed by the Committee. The Committee passed a resolution to the effect that the Planning and Development Board recommend to Common Council that alienation proceed subject to two reservations: 1 ) that the Planning and Development Board wish to consider comments from the Conservation Advisory. Council , and 2) that the Board recommend proceeding with alienation subject to the understanding that no design specifics for the use of the newly designated recrea- tion area will be finalized without the full participation of the Planning and Development .Board. This would allay fears that specifics might be put into place for land use that the Board would not approve of and to make clear that by voting for alienation now, the Board was not voting for any specific uses or layout of that land. They wanted to make sure that the Planning and Development Board would participate in that process. Director Van Cort stated that he hoped the Board would move ahead with the recommendation to alienate since there is sufficient time to discuss how the lands will be used (both lands acquired and lands substituted) . There will be enough time to obtain Conservation Advisory Council input on the possible uses and their concern about destruction of natural systems. Their concernsseem unclear; perhaps they prefer 'fields' rather than 'ball fields ' . To delay the whole alienation process until specific use of the land is stated would • unnecessarily slow the entire project. Mr. Romanowski questioned why there is so much opposition now to alienation regarding the use of the land. He views alienation as an opportunity to open land for legal purposes over what it is being used for at present. Motion: Jackson, seconded by Moran, recommended that the Planning and Development Board urge Common. Council to move forward with alienation but that no determination for use of parcels acquired or disposed of be made without full consultation with the Planning and Development Board. Vote: 7-0 - unanimous. 6Director's Report: Director Van Cort announced that the Housing Develop- ment Action Grant for Collegetown (Travis project) has: been awarded. The City can now move ahead on the tax benefit district and, if Council agrees, the City can.proceed with a resident parking zone, analysis of the open space next to the project, rezoning for Collegetown, prepar- ation of an Environmental Impact Statement, and public improvements generally. Mr. Kramnick suggested a working committee to discuss future details and design. Paul Mazzarella, Deputy Director, is the staff coordinator in charge of this project. After a brief discussion, it was decided that Susan Blumenthal and Steven Jackson would be the Planning and Development Board's liasions in this matter. a) Hydropower Site "Plan/Fall Creek: Mr. Van Cort asked to have the hydropower site plan for Fall. Creek referred to a Board Committee so that the Committee could report on this topic at the November meeting iand thereby enable the Board to take action. The Committee will need to look at the overall recreation plan and the ecological recognizance of the area. The Board discussed briefly the City's involvement in the -3- hydropower plan v. Cornell or some other private developer. It will probably be November 1985 before the question goes to a referendum. After the license is awarded, the developer has 18 months to commence construction. The City has a 12-month environmental study in progress now. The process of education before the referendum is vital . A number of publically advertised meetings have been held already to discuss the project. Director Van Cort stated that any help in getting the infor- mation disseminated to the public would be very valuable. Van Cort further noted that the referendum would decide whether the hydropower facility would be built by the City or by Cornell or by Synergics, since it was a virtual certainty that one of the three would get a license and would construct a plant. Construction and ownership by the City would allow greatest public control of any possible negative externalities and would assure greatest benefit for the public. The Committee chaired by Susan Blumenthal (Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities) will meet before the next Board meeting to discuss the site plan and make recommendations at the November Board meeting. It was decided that this would be the second item;on the agenda, starting at approximately 9:30 p.m. 7. Subdivision - Cherry Street Industrial Park: The IURA has approved two new tenants for the Industrial Park. The lease has been agreed to for one of them (:Cayuga Press) and the IURA has called for a public hearing on the matter in accordance with the amended land disposition procedure. It is not essential that subdivision approval be sought now; but be- cause the lease contains a purchase option it would clarify the trans- action if the subdivision was granted now. Cayuga Press is a locally- owned print ship; they would occupy 4.2 acres of land in the Industrial Park site. The cost of the building is over $600,000. Preliminary approval is being requested at this time. Susan. Blumenthal raised the question of possible air pollution from the plant and if it would be a situation similar to that which the City faces with Wilcox Press. The Board suggested that pollution controls be incorporated into the building while construction was under way because it would be much easier to build in the controls now rather than revise the building later on. Motion: Sampson, seconded by Gerkin, moved to grant preliminary approval but stated that final approval will be contingent upon pre- sentation of. plans to ensure air quality control . Vote: 7-0, passed unanimously. 8. Route 96 update: A group of City, County, and Town officials travelled to Syracuse recently to discuss with DOT the latest plans for Route 96. Mr. Van Cort had written to DOT asking for a cost-breakdown for various components of the plan, e.g. , one-way pair, the bridges, road to the hospital , a new bridge, etc. , to get a greater sense of what these items would cost locally. He had also asked them to consider incorporating bikeways into the project. Presently, there seems to exist a greater flexibility on the part of the State to accommodate the City on some of the issues that have been of great concern. Specifically, the con- cern that the City will maintain some control over the construction of i -4- the second phase in the second phase was eased. The State has indicated that the City will not have to vote on the second phase when it votes on the first phase (i .e. , the project will not have to be accepted in . total when initially voted on) . The next public hearing is scheduled for late 1985. The State must bring the environmental impact state- ment up to date which will be prepared for the entire project. At the public hearing, the State will present three alternatives for the City portion : (1 ) the null alternative (to do nothing) , (2) an elevated solution, and (3) an at-grade alternative. The major .problem with the at-grade solution is passage over the railroad tracks and the problem of trains blocking access to the hospital would remain. The greatest decision will be whether to build at grade level or to elevate the highway. Discussion followed regarding acquiring property now for use in the proposed new roadway. The State cannot take lands until they are actually at the point of construction; they are not allowed to acquire the properties before a decision to build has been made. The Board members .suggested various parcels along Route 13 which might be available now due to close of businesses or properties which are now vacant tracts. Mr. Van Cort will keep the Board up to date on the Route 96 project as it unfolds. Adjournment 10:10 p.m. • Pic ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 23, 1984: Zoning Appeals: Director Kramnick and Martin Sampson met prior to the Board meeting and reviewed zoning appeals Nos . 1587 through 1591 and determined that there were no planning issues involved. They recommended passing these on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without comment. Briefly discussed however was Appeal 15$1 - Valentine Place -=which is an appeal by the Valentine Place Neighborhood Alliance to overturn the Building Permit issued to John Novarr by the Building Commissioner. Director Kramnick said he believed the appeal did not raise any planning issues. He and Mr. Sampson, however, did not want to make assumptions for the Board that the appeal might contain planning issues which the Board would choose to discuss. Mr. Gerkin thought it did raise a planning consideration in view of the fact that there is so little city land avail- able to develop. Mr. Kramnick stated that the larger issue to which this speaks certainly deals with planning. He said, however, that the par- ticular appeal here does not raise planning issues but rather questions a ministerial decision by a city official and the propriety of that decision. The appeal deals with legal matters rather than planning issues. Chris Zinder of the Valentine Place Neighborhood Alliance was present. She was asked if she would like to speak to the Board not to the legal issues involved in the appeal but to any planning issue in general . She said that she believed the Board has heard all that the Neighborhood Alliance had to say regarding the housing issue. She had nothing new to add but she thanked the Board for extending the invitation for her to speak. Jackson, seconded by Moran, moved to send to the Board of Zoning Appeals the five appeals reviewed without comment since they raise no long-range planning implications. - Discussion: R. Romanowski mentioned the limited amount of land space in the city. The Board should address. the question of usage for the re- maining land and determine criteria for establishing what type of housing should be allowed. Mr. Sampson said that it was extremely unfortunate that events and circumstances seemingly beyond anyone's control have lead to construction on a part of the Valentine Associates' site which was least appropriate for development. He stated that this was particularly regretable in light of the fact that the developer had hired a nationally known landscape architecture consultant who had recommended that the building be located on another part of the site. The landscape architect hired by the city to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement for the site had concurred in the recommendation on siting. Mr. Sampson feels that this problem should be addressed for future situations. Mr. Romanowski read a letter from the Valentine Neighborhood Alliance addressed to Alderperson Cummings as follows: October 22, 1984 Dear Alderperson Cummings: The Valentine Place Neighborhood Alliance* unanimously supports the proposal drafted and endorsed in concept by the Planning and Develop- ment Committee on September 26, 1984. That proposal recommends the following: R-lb for E. State St. from #9014933 R-la for Valentine Place and the land owned by Valentine Associates P-1 for Ithacare, including the present R-3 parcel Our one reservation about this proposal concerns the "downzoning" of Ithacare's R-3 parcel to P-1. We would want to be assured that such a change is allowable and appropriate, given that Ithacare is nota public institution. If the committee has any doubt about the propriety of this aspect of the proposal , we would ask that this part of the proposal be dropped. This reservation aside, we urge the committee to give its unanimous support to this proposal , as it did on September 26, and to pass this proposal on as a formal resolution for consideration at the November. 7 Common Council meeting. Sincerely, Chris Zinder for the Valentine Place Neighborhood Alliance * The Valentine Place Neighborhood Alliance consists of the owners of 29 family homes and the owners of 2 .rental properties on Valentine Place, Dunmore Place, Brandon Place and E. State St. cc: Common Council Members Vote: 7-0, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 11/2/84 me