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