Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-08-23 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ' Minutes August 23, 19888 Present: Chair Blumenthal, M. Sampson, T. Cookingha-m, J. Daley, A. Yale, S. Killeen Absent : S. Jackson Also Present: P. Mazzarella The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Chair Blumenthal . ZONING APPEALS The first item was zoning appeals. There were no reports. Chair Blumenthal had discussed the three appeals with Jon Meigs prior to the meeting . They were passed without comment . Joe Daley moved to accept the report of the comic-tittee and endorse it. It was seconded by Tom Cookingham. All were in favor. There was no discussion. SUBDIVISIONS The Zikakis subdivision was addressed. Paul stated that there is a proposed adjustment to lot lines for an already approved subdivision, in order to make the lines more logical . It is a parcel 'being conveyed to the Journey's End Motel . He stated that it is an amendment to an already approved subdivision, so it is not necessary to hold a public hearing or go through the whole procedure of subdivision approval again. Discussion then went to the concern that the Board never hears whether or not conditions to approval were ever met by the petitioning party. Joe Daley moved that the Board approve the change in lot lines as recommended by staff. It was seconded by Thomas Cookingham. 2 Carried unanimously. Chair Blumenthal instructed Mr. Zikakis to contact Jon Meigs if he had any further questions. The second subdivision discussed was Deer Creek. Chair Blumenthal reminded the Board that they had heard the specifics of this issue at the last meeting . The Codes and Administration subcommittee has met to discuss the environmental review and further comments have been provided by the CAC. Torn Cookingham briefed the Board on this meeting of Codes and Administration. He stated that the CAC commented on a number of anamolies in the EAF Part I of II . Concerning Pact I , he felt it was a misconception on the part of the applicant. In Part II, there were some comments that the CAC made regarding the EAF; they stated that the EAF should address the worst scenario, and its possible cumulative effects. The committee felt that it would be beneficial for the CAC and the applicant (developer) to get together to define and discuss some areas of concern. Recommendation is for applicant to meet with the CAC and then come back to the committee after some of the issues have been resolved and then they can proceed on whether or not they can make a draft EIS. Chair Blumenthal commented that the intention was, with the addition of staff and board representation, to look at the specific environmental issues that willl require further .review. The developer of Deer Creek, James Boca, was asked to come A forward to inform the Board of any new information pertinent to the issue. Mr. Bora stated that he did not foresee any problems 3 in working out environmental problems that may arise. Mr. Bora brought up the subdivision regulations concerning his responsibility to pave the road to his subdivision. He commented that doing so would not be economically feasible for him. He would like to provide a plan to the Board at a future date of possible options concerning the types of road he would propose, not deeding the roads back to the City. Paul Mazzarella responded that the Board would probably not be able to approve something of that nature, and that it is not possible to have a "private" road with more than one dwelling on it. It becomes ambiguous whether or not the City is responsible for providing services on that roadway. People that live on those "private" roads expect the City to provide services. If the developer wants the subdivision to be completed so that lots may be sold or built upon, it is the responsibility of the developer to finish the road at his/her expense. Mr. Bora asked what the definition of "finish the road" would be; finished grade; oil ; blacktop? Paul Mazzarella responded that only a blacktopped road would be considered "finished" . Tom Cookinghar_i questioned the timing between the developer 's application and the implementation of the new City law requiring that developers pay for all new construction of roads and utilities. Paul responded that it went back to the Spencer Road subdivision, when there was a dispute over whether the Planning Board could approve a subdivision which obligated the city to finish the road. Joe Daley asked what the difference was between this subdivision and the Coddington 4 Roadsubdivision where it was shaky whether or not they had a City street. Paul responded that the Coddington Road site was not a private road. Concerning the timing of the new policy, Mr. Bora stated that he had asked Jon Meigs if there was going to be such a thing as a grandfather clause, and he was told probably not. Tom Cookingham asked whether or not the City is accepting any subdivisions that have private roads. Paul responded that he felt that the point of the whole process of subdivision approval was to develop public roads that would be accepted by the City. Discussion on this matter was called to a close by Chair Blumenthal . Mr . Bora then asked if the decision that he would have to "finish" the road in order to continue the subdivision was "hard and fast Paul responded that he couldn' t put it in those terms since it is not law, however it is policy. Joe Daley added that he felt Mr. Bora was trying to fit into the tail end of a policy in which the City was, in essence, subsidizing developers by finishing the roadways to their subdivisions. Paul commented that at this point, it would be very hard for them to change their minds on this policy, nor would it be fair to other developers for them to make an exception to the policy. Mr. Bora stated that he was not really seeking an exception, but a deviation in the policy by seeking not to have to blacktop the road, or to avoid requiring the City be obligated to provide services on the roadway by not deeding it back to the City. Joe Daley responded that, as Paul said earlier, that would be not be possible. The City would be accepting taxes on the parcels along 5 that roadway, and it would then be a matter of public policy that the roadway be deeded to the City and the City would be providing services to those taxpayers. Paul commented that it would not be good public policy to have several property owners jointly own a street which is seen by most people as a public way and particularly future property owners will look to the City to maintain it. Paul suggested that Mr. Bora call Jon Meigs the following morning and come in to the office so they could continue to discuss the matter. Joe Daley moved to postpone further discussion and decision to a later date without prejudice. Chair Blumenthal added that Mr. Bora should be thinking about the proposal the Board made about doing an informal site review. If the roadway issue does work itself out, they might be able to avoid the EIS stage. Paul added that if a scoping session is to be done, it should be done by the Planning Board and not the CAC, but that the CAC should be invited to attend and make comments. CORNELL THEORY CENTER Two representatives were present from Cornell University to discuss the Theory Center issue, David Stewart of University Relations and Tim Martin of Architectural Services. The UDC public hearing is Thursday, August 25 at 1 :00 p.m. and all Board members are invited. Chair Blumenthal was informed by David Stewart that two weeks to respond following the public hearing , a change from the past 30 days in which to respond. The Board could either elect to meet again within two weeks to make their 6 decision or they could vote tonight on how to proceed. The revised plans of the building were presented to the board. Chair , Blumenthal commented that she received an environmental impact statement approximately ten days ago. She has not yet had an opportunity to review it. Tom Cookinghain suggested that they meet again to establish a position and give a formal opinion. David Stewart suggested that the Board authorize Chair Blumenthal to appear at the hearing on Thursday and enter into the record that the Board has received the ESS and that the Board will be taking a formal vote at a later date within the specified period of response time. Paul voiced some concern that the UDC published "The Plan" which basically describes the financing and that is what the public hearing was to be about, but that there is a separate process that involves the completion of the environmental impact statement . He asked whether more time would be available to comment on the ESS. David Stewart responded that the EIS was the purpose of this public hearing, and both topics were to be addressed at this public hearing. Paul then pointed out that the legal notice only advertised public hearing for The Plan. He stated that in the SEQR process; it gives much more time after the public hearing for the environmental impact statement than for The Plan. Paul will look into this and report to the Board. Joe Daley then asked if the Board should concentrate on discussion of the plan, and if they do is there anyone who needs more information on The Plan and if not should they get into discussion on how they feel about that plan. Chair 7 Blumenthal responded that since none of them have had a chance to review the EIS, they should establish any questions and then form a Board opinion. David Stewart then outlined 17 parameters under which the design and placement of the Theory Center was modified since the initial meeting in August 187 as a result of input from people in city government, city agencies, neighbors, and other interested parties. The Board agreed that the final design is much more attractive and to their satisfaction than the earlier designs. Joe Daley suggested emphasizing to the UDC how important the cooperation between Cornell and the City was. Chair Blumenthal added that it had, indeed, been a very positive experience. Chair Blumenthal asked the Board how they wanted her to address the Theory Center topic during the public hearing on Thursday, and whether or not the Board wanted to meet again before making a decision on the EIS. The Board decided to meet on September 6 at 7:00 p.m. to formally approve The Plan. The regular meeting will be on September 13 at 7 :30 p.m. Paul clarified to the Board that it was his understanding that the two-week deadline for a decision only applies to the public hearing on The Plan (the financial plan for the Theory Center) and not the EIS. He added that -the. Board may have a longer period of time to comment on the EIS. The Board advised Chair Blumenthal to state that the Planning Board is pleased with the final design plan, as it is a great improvement, but they will not provide formal approval until they have taken comments from the public, but no comments 8 will be made on the EIS until the Board has had a formal opportunity to discuss it. Sean Killeen suggested that Chair Blumenthal report to the public the staff perspective, how they feel, and what they think. Discussion then went to the role the Board should take on the matter; either the leadership role or an advisory role. A resolution was made by Andy Yale for Chair Blumenthal ' s statement at the public hearing on Thursday: As of the Board meeting on the 23rd, the Board is very pleased with the final design. The Board will be meeting on the 6th of September to render a deliberative vote and consider the public comments. The City has been very pleased with the cooperation shown by Cornell in the effort to accommodate the City ' s concerns and requests in preparing this project. The resolution was seconded by Torn Cookingham. The vote to approve the resolution was unanimous. PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET In response to Chair Blumenthal ' s request concerning a strategic transportation plan and what amount should be allocated in the budget, Paul developed a written description of the program. The Board took some time to read through Paul ' s statement. Transportation was the first to be addressed. Sean asked who is contributing funds for the transportation situation. Paul noted that other cooperative transportation planning efforts are now under 'way, involving the City, County, 'Town and Cornell, but that this would not result in a plan, only a study. Paul stated that just recently, Frank Ligouri made a proposal in which the county 9 would receive development applications from all municipalities and one reason for doing that is to keep track of transient impacts because it is their responsibility to develop a county- wide transportation system and they feel pressured to do that. Chair Blumenthal asked if the $60, 000 proposed budget figure was to do the whole study? Paul responded that figure was the amount Thys put in the budget and, since the project is vague at this point, it difficult to nail down how much it is actually going to cost, as they don ' t know exactly what it is they are going to do. Paul feels there will be pressure for other municipalities to contribute funds to the study because it is a regional issue. Joe Daley stated that they may not be able to wait for support from the state and whether they hope to have intermunicipal cooperation or not, problems will be present and they can not wait to find out if they will have their cooperation to decide that they are going to confront some problems. They should plan as they they will confront these transportation problems on their own. Chair Blumenthal voiced her concern that, despite what the Board has said in regard to all of these problems requiring municipality-wide cooperation and that there are still measures that they could take in the City that would improve transporation as a result of this kind of study. Paul responded that yes, there would be things they could do. Joe Daley asked if that meant they were going to go ahead and act without any support from other municipalities. Paul commented that in defending budget requests in the past, he anticipated the question "have 10 you talked the other municipalities and are they willing to participate and contribute some money" . Chair Blumenthal added that if it is an inter-municipal study, then the focus should be on intermunicipal transportation problems . However, if the focus is going to be on specific problems within the city, then they should fund a study that deals with city problems. Andy Yale commented that the study could be looked at as being in preparation for intermunicipal cooperation on transportation issues. It would be a chance for them to decide what are their objectives ; they know they can ' t be just looking out for themselves and that this would have to be an intermunicipal transportation effort. But time is needed to spend on how it impacts each neighborhood in the City individually and how the whole thing would fit together from their perspective before they enter into an interinunicipal planning program dealing with tcansportion. Tom Cookingham commented that there are certainly small transportation oriented problems within the City that should be addressed; for example getting traffic lights synchronized. In addition, he feels that parking, as an inner City problem, should be addressed in this study, regardless of where the traffic comes from. Joe Daley thinks parking and transportation should not be combined, as the situation could easily become overwhelmed by the parking problem. Chair Blumenthal summed up the discussion by stating that the Board agrees that the purpose of this study is to look at specific local traffic issues but also secondarily to become prepared for an intermunicipal study. Paul clarified the discussion in saying that they need to look at their problertis from a regional perspective and be prepared to develop what they 'think are the appropriate regional solutions, and at least they will know what their objectives are,. Tom Cookingham added that during the interim between now and when next year ' s budget goes into effect, they should be focusing more on what 's going on in the City. Joe Daley asked where the Board wants to go with this strategic transportation plan. Do they want to ask Council for $60, 000 with the feeling that whatever intermunicipal cooperation they can get they will try and get but they may have to go it alone initially and justify it on that basis. Chair Blumenthal commented that she does not feel comfortable asking for that amount of money because she sees it as a partial, since it begins in 1989 and in 1990 they move ahead. Paul responded that Council may view this $60, 000 request as giving the Board a "blank check" and one strategy might be to say the Board has agreed that the study is a good idea but they have more work to do to firm it up. The Board would like Common Council to put $60,000 in a restricted contingency account which means that they recognize that the money might be made available for this project, but the Board is not entitled to spend it unless they specifically ask Council to release it. Paul added that, by using other studies he has been involved with, is extremely difficult to say exactly how much money will be needed at the beginning of the project because the process that they have designed for themselves is a 12 process in which they ask a lot of questions of the general public in order to determine ghat the issues are. Until they know those responses about what the issues are, it is hard for them to say this is the problem and this is how that problem should be handled. The next item relative to the budget addressed by the Board was the Geographic Information System (G. I . S. ) . Paul stated that this was discussed during the Capital Projects Committee and it received a "luke warm" reception. Joe Daley asked how often would the City be able to utilize the system' s potential on a master plan basis. Paul responded that the system allows you to look at sub-areas which is done frequently (such as a subdivision which is essentially a master plan for a small area) . Tom Cookingham commented that the question should be how often do you request information that is so cumbersome that you end up not getting because it takes so long to access it. This system is basically like having a digitized encyclopedia. Chair Blumenthal added that until you have this system in place, it is difficult to conceive how useful it would be. Paul feels that this systeri would not immediately make the department ' s jobs much easier. As a matter of fact, the process of getting the data from the source into the computer system is extremely large job. Chair Blumenthal clarified the budget request for this system, $54, 000 plus man power hours to input and operate the system. The Board pointed out aspects of the system that may be monetarily beneficial and situations that the department may be able to take 13 on as a result of having.Lng the system that they would not have been able to handle without it. Paul pointed out that just in creating and updating zoning maps, the system could probably pay for itself in a relatively short time period. The Board voiced concerned that they would not be able to tell whether or not spending the money was a wise decision until the money had been spent and the system was in place and being operated. Paul added that the G. I . S. was being described as a three-phase system under the capital projects budget. The first phase is a complete system, doing everything they want it to do. The subsequent phases are putting other computer terminals in other offices so they can link into the system. Joe Daley added that both the City Engineer and the Superintendant of Public Works are much more enthusiastic about the system because they can see immediate benefits as a result of using the system. Joe Daley commented that the $54, 000 requested by the department for the system should be looked at as an operating expense because if the first phase does not prove to be successful, ti,en the remaining phases could be discontinued. Paul added that the best way to view this system is simply a way of computerized storage of information so it could be displayed graphically (maps, tabular forms, etc. ) , but he considers the real power of the system is its ability to take many types of data and analyze them in any manner you have programmed it for. Paul voiced his reservation that Ithaca is not a big enough area to need this sophisticated system and if they did put the system in place, would they use its analyses to 14 make rationale decisions, or would they be put aside and decisions w3.11 still be made ircationally. Sean added that the system should be incorporated and used on a city-wide basis, and that it should not be solely a planning department tool. Chair Blumenthal commented that in addition to the initial $54, 000, money for additional persons to input and operate the system must be considered. Joe Daley moved that the Board approve $54, 000 in the operating budget for the first phase of this computer project and justify it on the grounds that planning , engineering, and public works can all use it and they don ' t have to go forward with the subsequent phases unless and until phase 1 justifies itself. It was seconded by Andy Yale. A staff person for data entry was approved. Paul added that all the planners would be trained to use the system, therefore the educational aspect of the system is important. Andy Yale suggested making calls to the software sales company to find out what other cities, comparable in size to Ithaca, have purchased and/or use this system. Motion carried unanimously.