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.