Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-12-20 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 19`84.1: PRESENT: Chairman I . Kramnick, S. Jackson, S. Blumenthal , R. Romanowski R. Moran, Director Van Cort ALSO: Members of the Press, Appellants, Other Interested Parties 1 . Call to Order 7:30 p.m. 2. Zoning Appeals - see Minutes attached. 3. Privilege of the Floor: `T Susan Cummings, 214 Fayette Street, addressed the Board. The Reconstruction Home on South Albany Street will be building a new 79-bed facility on the site. The Home appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals to present a preliminary design scheme. At this point, it seems the pro- ject will receive no further public review. Fayette Street residents are concerned about the loading docks which preliminary designsindicate will be located directly on the street rather than providing for off-street service, The mechanical equipment room, laundry, and the kitchen will face Fayette Street, Construction is scheduled to begin in July 1985 and will cover a two-year period. This is a major project in the middle of a residential area abutted on several sides by an R-2 zone. If the projectgobsthrough the appeals process- (because of a disputed 5-foot setback) , the Planning and Development Board could review the plans since it will have a major neighborhood impact. However, if the problems are resolved and the project does not need further review by the Planning and Development Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals, how might the project be reviewed so that potential neighborhood impact can be reduced? Van Cort agreed that this facility will have a significant impact since it is so close to the surrounding neighbors. The facility has many negative aspects, e. g. , it contains a laundry, a large kitchen, large deliveries of food and disposal of garbage, emergency vehicle traffic, a high visitor and parking volume, etc. The city should consider requiring greater concessions from projects such as this which have a major impact, Nursing homes are vital and necessary to the community but they, too, should be required to mitigate their impact. Ms, Cummings said that everyone she has talked to supports the concept of a downtown nursing home but the immediate neighbors have concerns which need to be addressed. If no variance is needed, how can the public voice their concerns? Ms. Cummings said the most desirable solution would be to move the Fayette Street wing 5 to 10 feet east pro- viding for noise control and off-street loading. The mechanical and service facilities could be relocated so that they are not facing Fayette Street - the area closest to residential use. Design development -2- is incomplete; state approval of the design must be secured as well . In addition, a sidewalk should be constructed on Fayette Street so that patients can be wheeled around the block without going into the street. Chairman Kramnick suggested that the Neighborhoods, Housing and Facilities Committee could bring the parties together for a discussion of the project. S. Jackson suggested .that an hour of the next Board meeting be set aside for a public hearing. Discussion followed re- garding moving the Board meeting to another location and inviting the public to comment This would focus community attention on the Re- construction Home building plans. The format for the public hearing would_be.worked out between the Board, Chairman Kramn ick, Ms. Cummings, and the Planning staff, 4. Preliminary Subdivision -- 201-11 Center Street: Prospective buyers are interested in combining part of this property with 201 Center Street and selling the rest to the owner of another abutting property, Susan Cummings appeared before the Board regarding the sub- division request. She presented a letter from Attorney Henry Theisen for his client, John C, Anderson, owner of the lot, wherein he gave his consent to the subdivision, Ms. Cummings and J. Morrow are attempting to purchase property at 201 and 203 Center Street. A con- dition of .the purchase is the subdivision of a very long lot behind these parcels, Sandy Whittaker will purchase the other half of the lot as an. addition to her property at 211 Center Street. Marshall Drake (205 and 207 Center St.) has no desire to purchase additional land and does not object to the subdivision, Ms. Cummings said that in the future, if the house at 201 Center Street .should be sold, she would like to ensure that the large house located there would have, the amenity of a rear yard, Moran, seconded by Romanowski , moved to GRANT preliminary approval to the subdivision request, Vote 5-0, unanimous. 5. Approva1 'of "Minutes: Approval of the November 1984 Minutes was deferred to allow Steve Jackson to review his notes of that meeting and compare them with the Minutes as written and distributed. 6, Director's Report: D rectoK Van Cort distributed a preliminary draft of the -1985 Work Program for the department, He briefly explained the contents, and requested that the Board members review- the text prior to a dis- cussion at the next meeting. This will form the basis of the projects -3- for the year; some projects may encompass three years ' work. He answered questions regarding priorities and allocation of time and requested the Board members to itemize their comments, suggestions and recommendations regarding the schedule. It was decided to hold a meeting of the Committee Chairs along with Director Van Cort on January 15, 1985 to discuss the work plan. 7. Landmarks Designations- Agricultural College Buildings at Cornell Univer- sity: Andrea Lazarski addressed the Board and explained that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission met the evening before to hold a public hearing to designate seven of the nine buildings on the State University of New York College campus at Cornell , These have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, The other two buildings are outside the City limits in the Town of Ithaca. Cornell claimed that the State was not notified in a timely manner concerning the first public hearing on November 17, 1984, so a second hearing was held the evening prior to this meeting. She presented a slide presentation of the buildings and gave a brief explan- ation of the architectural style of each and the dates of construction. It is the charge of the Planning Board to "file a report to Council with. respect to the relation of such designation to the master plan, the Zoning laws, projected public improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or the area involved." Ms. Lazarski explained that she has 90 days from the time the Landmarks Commission designates until Common Council must act. Within that time period, the Planning Board must put forth its recommendations to the Planning and Development Committee of Common Council ; then the Planning and Development Committee must present its recommendation to Council . The legal issues involved in the designation were discussed and a memo from Corporate Counsel , L. Richard Stumbar, was distributed. The issue contains two separate elements . First, the City's Landmarks Ordinance states that the Landmarks Commission is em- powered to designate buildings which contain certain criteria (architec- tural and historical ) . . In this instance, the buildings are owned by the State University of New York. In 1962, the State University established its -major campus expansion, programs and put forth a legislative. act that basically exempted all -municipal control from any of 'its projects. They indicated they would not follow any rules or regulations that any munici- pali:ty put forth.. In 1980, New York State established the Historic Preservation Act which broadened the powers of every municipality. It basically said that a municipal body could establish a Landmarks Commission, regulate buildings, and put forth control . It did not exempt State buildings. Within the State, several Landmarks Commissions have designated state--owned buildings but this is an instance of State University of New York-owned buildings. There is no case law adressing a municipality trying to control State University-owned buildings, Therefore, it does not mean it is im possible. The City can designate but control is still in question. The Human and Cultural Resources Committee (and, Ms. Blumenthal ) will meet on January 18,, 1985 to discuss the designation and make a recommendation to the Planning and Development Board, 8. Committee Reports; Steve Jackson reported that the Economic Development and Trans- portation Committee met with the Board of Public Works Parking Committee to pursue the Mayor's mandate to review- downtown parking.. The Board of Public Works Parking Committee was reluctant to do too much with this -4- topic since they are in the process of implementing a new parking permit and meter scheme for downtowns They decided that after the first of the year, the two groups would hold another meeting to discuss and define the downtown parking problems. They would like to bring in Warren and Travers (parking/traffic specialists) to conduct a one-day session regarding what might be done with downtown parking to improve the situation and undertake some studies within the next six to nine months regarding the current situation. In a recent meeting, the. Economic Development and Transportation Committee also discussed two additional topics. First, they discussed the Farmers' Market. Mr Jackson drafted a report regarding the Market and possible sites and distributed the report to the Board members. He asked the members to review the draft in preparation for a discussion at the next Board meeting. Secondly, the Committee received a request from the Tompkins Cortland Joint Labor Coalition to address the issue of plant closings and workforce reduction by employers. Three members of this group were pre- sent to address the Board, They were: Jim Morrison, Chairman of the Labor Coalition; Mike Cohen, Tompkins County Unemployment Council ; and Al Davidoff, of the UAW Labor Union, Mr. Morrison stated that 26 labor unions are represented in the Tompkins County Joint Labor Coalition which represents over 7,000 workers. The Coalition started working six months ago to put together general ideas and proposals for plant closing legislation. Other parts of the country have laws to regulate plant closings; namely, Massachusetts. They feel it is an important way for workers to protect themselves against industries locating and employing numbers of people and then, in time, closing their plant causing a devasting effect on the local economy and the local workforce. Mr. Morrison pre- sented a resolution which outlined the general principles of the lesig-- lation they eventually sought to have passed. The Economic Development.and Transportation Committee presented to the Board the same resolution (with minor changes) which they had passed in their Committee meeting. The Committee wished to clarify that the intent of this wasnotonly to deal with businesses that operate industrial plants, but that it applied to all businesses. The Committee's intention was to endorse the principles of closing legislation and the importance of recognizing workers ' rights, They also realize there are many details to be looked into. (both practical difficulties and legal difficulties) . They would like to start the process of researching the kind of legislation that could be drafted and implemented at the City level to embody these principles. The resolution presented is as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board recognizes the tremendous costs which sudden plant or business closings or work-force reduc- tions impose on affected workers and on our entire community, and WHEREAS, these costs are exacerbated when the closings occur without ad- vance notice to the people who are affected .by them, and -5- WHEREAS these costs include the reduction in the tax base, an increase in unemployment, and a reduction in demand for the goods and services provided by other businesses in the community, and WHEREAS, the costs to individual workers include not only lost salaries, health benefits, and pensions, but also the mental and physical strain associated with being "displaced" , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board calls upon the Common Council of the City of Ithaca to enact legislation which will encourage job creation in our community by investors who understand and accept their responsibilities as members of our community, and x : BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board calls upon the Common Council to include in that legislation provisions to regulate plant-closings and work-force reductions by employers, which ought to embody the following principles: 1 ) No plant closing or work-force reduction ought to be allowed without substantial prior notification of the affected employees , their representative organizations, and city officials, 2) In the event of a proposed closing, the city should do all it can to prevent such a closing, including the facilitation of a worker buy-out of the facility if so desired by the affected workers, 3) In the event of a closing, the company should be responsible for the immediate costs which that closing imposes on the affected workers, including the need for retraining, continuing health care, transitional income, etc. , 4) In the event of a .closing, the company should be responsible for the direct and indirect costs which that closing imposes on the affected community, including lost property and sales. taxes (direct and indirect) , and increased need for social services to assist affected workers, 5) The provisions should be legally enforceable, with penalties sufficient to compel compliance, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board through its Committee on Economic Development and Transportation, will work with the Tompkins Cortland Joint Labor Coalition to develop a specific legislative proposal to be recommended to the Planning and Development Committee and the appropriate,commi'ttees of Common Council „ In this work, the Board will seek the advice and assistance of Planning staff and the Corporate Counsel of the City of Ithaca. -6- Mr. Jackson moved, seconded by Mr. Moran, approval of the above mentioned resolution. Discussion followed regarding the effects of such legis- lation in Massachusetts. Mr. Kramnick suggested that the Economic Develop- ment and Transportation Committee and the Tompkins Cortland Joint Labor Coalition look into comparable legislation elsewhere. Vote: 5-0, unanimous. 9. Zoning Amendment: Mr. Van Cort asked the Board to consider a zoning amendment to allow Community Gardens in any zone with a special permit. He said that the special permit could build in adequate protection for neighborhood. input and could be made a critical component for approval of each request. A special permit would avoid the hardship test (BZA requirement) and as long as the residents did not object, the community gardens could be located around the city. Mr. Romanowski suggested three items: 1) a specified .percentage of residents be required to be in favor of the request, 2) that the properties be kept on the tax rolls, and 3) regulation of hours and times of cleanup. This was referred to the Cbdes& Administration Committee for discussion at their meeting on January 16, .1985 and possible recommendation to the Board at the January Board meeting, 10. Miscellaneous: Mr. Moran spoke about a dangerous intersection at Buffalo Street and Stewart Avenue, the scene of a recent accident. Visibility is a major problem there caused by cars parking on Buffalo Street and a sign so placed as to limit vision of the roadway. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Van Cort would send a memo to the Board of Public Works to apprise them of the Board's concern and suggest possible solutions. Adjournment 10:30 P.M. /mc G PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONING APPEALS MINUTES December 20, 1-984: Sign Ordinance Appeal 1-1-85: Clinton West, Ltd, , 609 W. Clinton Street. The screening committee of the Board (Codes and Administration)` was unable to meet prior to this month's meeting for discussion of the above mentioned sign appeal because the Board meeting date had been changed due to the Christmas Holiday and information regarding the sign appeal was not available prior to this meeting, Three parties were present to discuss the sign appeal request. They were told that since the request had no long--range planning effect, the appeal would be passed on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without comment or recommendation. They were reminded to appear before the BZA on January 7, 1985 where the request would be acted on. Motion: Jackson, seconded by Romanowski , recommended that Sign Ordinance Appeal 1-1-85 be passed on to the Board .of Zoning Appeals without comment or recommendation since there were no long.-range planning effects. Vote: 5--0, unanimous. /mc