Loading...
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