HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-08-09 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Minutes
August 9 , 1988
Present : Chair Blumenthal , M. Sampson , T . Cookingham , J . Daley ,
A. Yale , S . Killeen
Absent : S . Jackson
Also Present : P . Mazzarella
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Mark Finkelstein , representing Leadership Tompkins , made a
presentation on site plan review. Leadership Tompkins set
out to study the issue of site plan review in the hope of
assisting the city in its deliberations on a site plan
review ordinance . The major points made by Mark were as
follows :
- most communities who have site plan review are fairly
well satisfied with the results achieved through site
plan review
- the success of site plan review is a product of how
well the ordinance is drafted and administered
- the criteria for review should be specific rather than
general
- the master plan and zoning ordinance of the community
should be satisfactory to the community - site plan
review cannot compensate for inadequacies to these
basic documents
- the elected or appointed officials administering the
site plan review ordinance should have good
qualifications so that they can understand the
technical aspects of plans
- good professional staff support is critical to the
success of the process
the time commitment on the part of both staff and
appointed officials is significant - it should not be
underestimated
expectations about site plan review must be realistic-
it cannot be used to create " superzoning " or
substituted for other regulations
Planning & Development Board Minutes 2
Aug . 9 , 1988
- the local reaction to Ithaca ' s proposed site plan
review ordinance is generally positive, but most people
are not very well informed about what it is or what it
is supposed to do
Finkelstein presented the Board with a report and voluminous
background information , including ordinances from a number
of communities .
Daley asked whether Leadership Tompkins had reached any
conclusions about the appropriate thresholds that trigger
site plan review . Finkelstein said most communities have
low thresholds , similar to what has been proposed in Ithaca .
Blumenthal asked whether Finkelstein thought that it was
necessary for the Board to have people with highly technical
backgrounds . Finkelstein said that they need to be
competent , but not necessary trained professionals .
Killeen noted that the report stresses that the city should
be "actively seeking community participation" in this
process . He asked what was meant by that . Finkelstein
responded that one of the positive benefits of community
involvement in the site plan review process is that it
lowers people ' s anxiety about projects by providing them
with an active role in the decision making process . This
should be encouraged.
Cookingham noted that the report made a point of stating
that master plan and zoning ordinance revisions should be in
place before site plan review is adopted. He felt site plan
review can stand on its own , and will provide benefits
regardless of the deficiencies in the master plan or zoning
ordinance .
Yale mentioned that the specificity mentioned by Finkelstein
seems to be a good thing .
Mazzarella said that part of the reason for having site plan
review is that it allows the community to deal with
situations that cannot be foreseen ahead of time . It also
allows designers to creatively react to design problems .
The imposition of design standards and criteria could result
in a rigid design approach , which would not necessarily be
in the best interests of the city. The Board discussed the
pros and cons of specific design standards , but reserved
judgment on whether to recommend that they be put in. The
Port Chester , N . Y . site plan review ordinance will be
distributed to the Board for their review . It contains good
examples of specific criteria .
Planning & Development Board Minutes 3
Aug . 9 , 1988
The Board. also discussed possible ways of administering the
ordinance . Mazzarella reported that City Attorney Ralph
Nash had concluded that only a Planning Board may be
empowered to conduct site plan reviews in New York State .
Killeen suggested that the Planning Board be increased to
eleven members and that it be divided into two working
groups , one dealing with site plan and subdivision reviews
and the other with long-range planning . Mazzarella was
directed ' to ask Ralph Nash whether the delegation of site
plan review to a committee of the Board was permitted under
the law.
The Board also discussed fees for the reviews . The
consensus Iof the Board was to try to collect sufficient fees
to pay for the administration of the review process , which
was estimated to be about $30 ,000 per year . Mazzarella was
directed to develop a new fee structure .
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1989 BUDGET :
A committee composed of Yale and Jackson previously reviewed
the department ' s budget with Van Cort , and made the
following. suggestions :
1 ) a description of the proposed computer mapping system
(Mapgrafix) should be included;
2 ) there should be a justification for embarking upon the
second phase of the strategic plan.
The Board ' s discussion of the proposed budget resulted in
the following suggestions :
1 ) In addition to explaining how Mapgrafix works , there
should be an analysis of what uses and products are
expected.
2 ) There should be a more detailed description of the
proposed new staff positions and their duties .
Blumenthal raised the issue of whether economic development
should be the next phase of the strategic plan. She felt
that transportation planning is now much more of a problem
and that 'it should constitute the next phase . There was a
general consensus by the Board that a recommendation should
be made to request that $60 ,000 be added to the Planning and
Planning & Development Board Minutes 4
8/9/88
Development Department budget for a strategic
transportation plan. Mazzarella was directed to prepare an
outline of the planning activities .
Respectfully submitted ,
Paul Mazzarella
Deputy Director
0-0&DBd-Minutes .Ag9