Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1985-10-22 J� PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES - October 22, 1985: PRESENT: Chair Blumenthal , S. Jackson, M. Sampson, R. Romanowski , B. Nichols, R. Moran, T. Cookingham DirectorVanCort, Deputy Director Mazzarella, Community Development Administrator Goldwyn, I . Stein TEDI Member. ALSO: Other interested parties, press. 1 Call to Order: Ms. Blumenthal called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 2. Zoning Appeals: See Minutes attached. 3. TEDI - Report by Irene Stein, Volunteer Coordinator: Ms . Stein of the Mayor's Taskforce for Economic Development in Ithaca addressed the Board. She gave a brief history of the group's activities and also described their current projects. The TEDI group is composed of various constituencies; members from business, banking, commerce, as well as investors in economic development in the area. The Mayor believed that this diversity would create a great deal of dialogue and creative ideas. There is also representation from the Planning Department, Planning and Development Committee, Union groups , Ithaca College, Cornell , the Unemployed Council and the Day Care Council . TEDI is an advisory group to the Mayor; it has no staff but receives some secretarial help from the Mayor's office. The first task undertaken was the day care issue because they viewed it as related to economic development in that questions of satisfaction with work, questions of absenteeism, questions of employability all relate to the availability of day care. It was their hope that the city would serve as a model and facilitator for day . care needs. A needs assessment was done in the downtown area which proved that there wasconsiderable need in the business area. Based on the assessment, the .Day Care Council came up with a proposal to apply for revenue sharing funds to investigate an employer-supported day care facility. TEDI has met with the Day Care Council and the two groups are attempting to put together a common project. In addition, TEDI has a committee on local economic initiative. That committee has done a number of things: first, a graduate student was requested to conduct a survey .of the local availability of printing services in the community. This resulted in the Chamber of Commerce convening a large meeting of interested businessmen where information concerning printing services and products available in this community was disseminated. Another pro- ject was an informal publicity campaign to urge construction contractors to hire locally. Interest has been stimulated in local venture capital . Another study was completed regarding the rising number of working-poor in Ithaca. This problem has been talked about by TEDI members and it is their hope to make more and more people aware of this growing concern. Another topic being addressed is the number of middle-level skilled jobs being filled by individuals from outside the area (i .e. , from communities as far away as Elmira, Binghamton, and the like) . BOCES -2- classes which educate for this type of employment are only half- filled. A study has now been initiated to look into that situation systematically. This is an example of the kind of useful information that TEDI will gather in relation to economic development. Finally, the potential for a local foods project/business will be studied. Perhaps the placement of the Farmers ' Market could be combined with the function of the Market. If the Market was to expand, it seems that this would be a logical focal point of development. The study will indicate if such development is feasible. A discussion followed regarding Mr. Jackson's motion of last month to request funds to hire a consultant for creation of a stra- tegic economic plan. Mr. Jackson suggested that the Board move ahead with this idea since TEDI is not specifically taking a compre- hensive look at economic development. Although the Mayor has suggested $35,000 in the 1986 Budget for master/strategic planning this must be passed by Council . Mr. Jackson asked if it was possible to use a portion of the allocated funds to begin research. Mr. Van Cort said that it was probable that some funds could be used for this. He felt that some thought should be given about when to undertake the work and what staff allocation would be required. Mr. Jackson said that the sense of the Committee was that by the time next year's budget cycle was established there would be a fully developed plan with cost estimates included and full knowledge of what we would be getting for the money expended. Discussion of this topic will continue at later meetings. 4. Approval of Minutes: September 1985 Minutes were corrected as follows: page 2, li9es 24 and 30 - 1987 budget should read .1986 budget; page 3, Mr.%Na that his comment to amend the resolution (line 10) 'sum not to exceed $52,000 for the purpose of a housing and neighbor- hood study' be included in the resolution that follows, Mr. Romanowski , seconded by Mr. Cookingham,_moved to approve the September 1.985 Minutes as corrected. Vote: 7-0. Carried. 5. Director's Report: Mr. Van Cort reported briefly on the meeting held at Cornell University for local legislators and residents with Com- missioner Henry Williams, Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, The Commissioner said that for the first, time the state is taking an active and very aggressive role in the management of solid waste. Re- cycling will be a top priority for the future. The state has developed a plan for closing land fills on Long Island, the Adirondacks, and the Catskills. This should be accomplished by 1990. They are aggressively attacking the unclean water problem; N. Y. State has the largest list of controlled substances of any of the states. This is encouraging news for our state. 6. NYSEG Land Purchase: Mr. Goldwyn, Community Development Administrator, gave an update to the Board regarding purchase negotiations of the NYSEG parcel for economic development and for use by community gardens. Originally, -3- Council authorized the City Attorney to draft a purchase offer for the land contingent upon the city's receipt of ARC funds. NYSEG requested that the city drop that contingency because they had other individuals interested in the parcel and because if the ARC funds fell through, the city will have tied up NYSEG's .land for a year or more. Giving NYSEG a purchase offer without funding contingencies would give the city several newadvantagesand add little risk. STERPDB has indicated that city ownership of the land would help the ARC application because it showed that the city intended to follow through and had control of the land. Ironies would be able to continue developing .architectural plans feeling more secure if the city had_a firm commitment to owning the land. If the ARC funds fell through, the city would be $35,000 short of the asking price. This amount would be the extent of the city's commitment in order to realize the development's objectives._ A resolution, was pre- sented to the Board as follows: WHEREAS, the Common Council has authorized the purchase of certain land owned by the NewYorkState Electric and Gas Corporation con- tingent upon the City of Ithaca's receipt of-partial project funding through the Appalachian Regional Commission, and WHEREAS, the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation has requested that the City of Ithaca remove the above stated contingency, and WHEREAS, the removal of the contingency reflects the City of Ithaca's intentions concerning the property, while enhancing the city's Appalachian Regional Commission application and development plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board recommends to the Common Council that it authorize" a revised purchase offer to the New_York State Electric and Gas Corporation with no contingency with regard to funding. A discussion followed regarding possible private developers for the parcel . Mr. Goldwyn stated that NYSEG has not revealed the names of the developers who have indicated interest in the land. NYSEG was asked if the plan that Ironies is formulating could be blended with the plans of the private developer(s). The answer was 'no' . One developer who seems genuinely interested has visited the site a number of times. He is looking for a site to construct a warehouse. By preserving the option for Ironies , the city would be insuring a more job-intensive business to prevail over a warehouse on the site. In addition, there might also be future Ironies expansion beyond what is shown in the application as well as four other parcels within the site which would allow for additional job production in the same manner as Cherry Street. Finally, another reason the city is able to purchase the site is due to the availability of the gardners ' funds -4- (Community Development revenue) and thus complete that part of the Council's adopted plan. Motion: Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Sampson, moved to approve the above resolution authorizing a revised purchase offer with no funding. contingencies: Vote: 6-ayes, 1-abstention (Romanowski ) . Passed. Mr. Jackson also stated that the Economic Development and Trans- portation Committee was beginning discussion and study of a leasing policy for the site and will continue to work on that task. 7. Farmers' Market: The Committee has received an oral report on the survey which was done regarding Farmers ' Market and has received a written report on the downtown parking survey. This will help clarify what the parking situation is in the Woolworth 's lot and in the Green Street parking ramp. The Committee hopes to have a formal resolution to present to the Board next month regarding recommendations for two . or three of the proposed sites. 8. Plant Closing Legislation: Mr. Jackson reported that plant closing legislation has been withdrawn from the Common Council agenda. The Mayor will work with representatives. from business and labor to pursue. this issue. It is Mr. Jackson's recommendation that the Board continue to monitor the progress being made regarding possible legislation and if there is a time when additional recommendations should be made, the Committee will again bring the subject before the Board. Mr. Sampson mentioned that a state proposal for such legislation is being considered which is similar but much broader than that proposed here. 9. Master/Strategic Plan: Paul Mazzarella, Deputy Director, reported that after the Planning and Development Board recommended that a strategic .plan be undertaken and that. it be included in next year's budget, the. recommendation was taken to the Planning and Development Committee. The Committee endorsed the idea but requested more refinement of the proposal . Questions were raised about the allocation of monies and how they would be spent. . They also questioned the strategic planning approach. The Mayor included in his proposed budget $35,000 for strategic planning. The task before us now is to educate the citizenry as to what in involved in strategic planning and what we propose to do. Also, our proposal must be refined to indicate h o w $35,000 can accomplish what we need to have done. Discussion followed regarding a new zoning map. Director Van Cort stated that zoning generally is based on a comprehensive plan, however, the city is constantly amending the zoning ordinance and printing new maps. If a comprehensive housing study is done and thereafter the city compre- hensively amendsthe housing portions , the legal requirements will be met. -5- Mr. Van Cort suggested that Board members talk about the strategic plan, explain the process and stress that there are limited resources to conductthis work. 10. Zoning Amendment - Educational- Facilities Chair Blumenthal referred to a memorandum from Jon Meigs regarding a proposal to establish. reasonabl_e and legally acceptable guidelines for a degree of control over use of property in residential zones for educational facilities. The proposed amendment is from the Charter. and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Van Cort. explained that the basis for this zoning amendment is litigation involv- ing Cornell 's attempt to convert property on Fall Creek Drive from residential to academic use. The Court ruled that the city needed a special permit provision in the ordinance under which the city could examine proposals for such .changes. We are attempting to amend the ordinance now to allow for consideration of such requests under the Special Permit provision rather that under the variance provision. The following resolution was presented to the Board: WHEREAS, the use of property owned by educational institutions in residential areas of the City of Ithaca is of general public interest, and is also of occasional concern which has led to the adoption of specific but limited land use regulations, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that existing regulations for this purpose require improvement in order to establish firm legal basis, and WHEREAS, improvements to the Zoning Ordinance for that purpose, proposed ,by the Charter and Ordinance Committee of CommonCouncil , have been reviewed by this Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and Development of the City of Ithaca endorse the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance set forth as "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 30.25, 30.3, and 30.26 OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED 'ZONING' OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE." Motion: Romanowski , seconded by Cookingham, moved to approve the resolution as presented. Vote: 7-0. Unanimous. 11. Subdivision- Nezvesky/Gadabout, 710-12 West Court Street:. Paul Mazzarella, member of the Gadabout Board, explained the use of the lot by Gadabout and. gave a summary of the two proposed subdivision plans previously reviewed by the Board, Dr. Nezvesky is selling his business. The two new owners of the property in question are requesting reconsideration of the,subdivi- sonrin its original form. The original plan would better suit Gadabout's needs for parking and it is believed that the new owner of the veterinarian -6- clinic does not object to this arrangement. The Board decided that if the new buyer is willing to purchase under the original plan, then the Board will not ,object to the subdivision. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of Gadabout.buying the entire parcel and leasing a portion to the veterinarian doctor. Mr. Mazzarella stated that although this would be the most logical solution, Gadabout simply did not have the'resources to meet the cost of such a transaction. The Board is not required to give approval tonight. Preliminary Approval will be sought next month .and the following month (December) a public hearing will be held with Final Approval to be given then, if feasible. 12. Liaison Reports: Planning and Development Committee - Mr. Romanowski stated that. the Planning and Development Committee will be discussing the NYSEG purchase, master/strategic planning and the cable television topics at their next meeting. With regard to cable television, Mr. Van Cort will be writing a request for proposals to be sent to certain cable TV consultants. Board members will receive a. copy of the RFP for their reference when complete. Board of Public Works - Mr. Nichols presented a map from the BPW con- cerning the city-owned properties along the Elmira Road which were dis- cussed by the Board earlier this year. The rights-of-way have now been confirmed. Colored portions on the map indicate land the city already . owns in front of the various properties along the roadway. No action on the part of the Board of Public Works has been taken on this beyond the technical work completed by Mr. Barber. It was mentioned that with. State Legislative approval, it is .possible for the city to sell land to. abutting property owners. It would seem that this is the direction in which to proceed, however, he will turn the topic, over to the appropriate Planning Board Committee. (Ad Hoc of Committee Chairs) for their consider- ation. 13. Meeting adjourned - 9:40 p.m. /mc 1.1/12/85 ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING October 22, 1985: Chair Blumenthal stated that the Codes and Administration .Committee met prior to this meeting to review this month's zoning appeals. They agreed that none of the cases contained significant planning issues and that no discussion was warranted at the Planning and_Development Board - - -- meeting. - - A brief discussion did develop, -how eve r,_ regarding appeal 1665 for a Special Permit -- _- - to construct an accessory apartment at 3 Cliff Park Circle (converting the basement to a one-bedroom apartment) The property is in a R-la zone where such use is permitted. The Boar&.concluded that if all con- ditions of the ordinance were met they would have no objection to the request. Motion: Mr. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Cookingham, recommended that this month's appeals be sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals without recommen- dation. Vote: 7-0. Passed unanimously. (Please refer to attached memorandum.) /mc 10/23/85 ROME 01tA7fcV CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: Board of Zoning Appeals From: Board of Planning and Development Sub: Report on Appeals to be heard November 4, 1985 Date: October 23, 1985 This Board has reviewed subject Appeals, and makes the follow- ing recommendations and comments for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Appeal 1656: 200 W. Seneca St. .- Previously reviewed and reported; no change in comments or recommendations. Appeal 1657:_ 710-12 W. Court St. - To be subject of separate action by this Board. Appeal 1661: 602 S. Albany St. - Planning Issues: Establishment of precedent for conversion of home occupations to non-resident-owned and -operated businesses. No recommendation. Appeal 1662: 413 N. Tioga St. - No significant planning issues, no recommendations. Appeal 1663: 309 E. Buffalo St, Planning Issues Intensity of use possible under present regulations; the potential for increased vehicular traffic and parking demand associated with commercial use, especially retail , and the possible magnitude of negative effects on this already congested location; and the elimination of housing units, No recommendation. Appeal 1664: 615 W, Buffalo St. - No significant planning issues; no. recommendation. Appeal 1665: 3 Cliff Park Circle - No significant planning issues; no recommendation. JM/mc "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"