HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1988-11-22 i
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MINUTES
November 22, 1988
Present : Chair Blumenthal , S . Jackson , M. Sampson , S .
Ki 11 een , A . Yale , T . Cooki ngham . Staff: Deputy Director P .
Mazzarella , J . Meigs . Also , applicants , press , other
interested parties .
1 . Call to Order : by S . Blumenthal , Chair , at 7 : 30 p . m.
2 . Privilege of the floor : no requests made from the floor.
3 . Zoning Appeals : T. Cookingham reported that the Codes and .
Adminis ra ion ommittee found no city-wide impact involved with
any of the current appeals , and therefore , passed the appeals on
to the BZA with no comment on any of them. The committee report
and referral action were approved unanimously .
4. Old Business :
A . Ronsvalle Subdivision . J . Meigs advised that he
prepared a memorandum which as been presented to the Board and
circulated . A review of the record of the Ronsvalle Subdivision
application indicates that an Environmental Assessment Form had
been submitted showing all answers to questions to be negative .
It appears that there should have been a positive answer to the
first question about substantial effect on the site and to the
last question about public comment or controversy; and that it is
thus necessary to have a long Environmental Assessment Form
completed , at a minimum in order for the application to be
considered complete. He had requested that the applicant prepare
one and submit it prior to this meeting if possible so that the
Board could consider making an environmental determination . An
LEAF was submitted this morning but later withdrawn by the
applicant , and that is the situation at this point . J . Meigs
stated that he had intended to make a special effort to evaluate
the long EAF and , then , make his recommendation to the Board
concerning environmental determination so the application could
move on through the process .
Mr . David . Dubow , attorney appearing on behalf of the
petitioner , Mr . Ronsvalle , reminded the Board that this
appl i cati on has been on hol d for fourteen months and that thi s
subdivision is a relatively simple request , to divide one single
lot into two on an existing street . Mr . Dubow pointed out to the
Board that there is an outstanding court order directing the
Board to grant the petitioner ' s application . Mr . Dubow read into
record the court order a copy of which is in the application
record . He told the Board that the order , further , directs the
Board to pay costs for legal expenses , directs the Board to grant
the subdivision , and does not allow that the application is to be
referred ,back to the Board or that further forms are to be
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 1. 1 /22/88 -2-
submitted by the applicant to the Board. Dubow further reminded
the Board that the Environmental short form was submitted to the
Board in September 1987 and has , therefore , been before the
Board for almost fourteen months . He further reminded the Board
that the SEAR regulations allow fifteen days from the date an
Environmental Assessment Form for evaluation to be made as to
whether there will be significant environmental effect . If it is
perceived that there will be environmental impact, the applicant
must be advised as to what action is required of him . Thi s
obviously , has not been done . He said that the court order
directs the Board to approve this application so it is useless to
ask for further forms and further process . Mr . Dubow further
stated that there has not been "public controversy about this
application and that further delay is not reasonable , legal or in
the best i nterests of the Board or of the appl i cant . He
requested that the Board fol low the directives of the court and
give the preliminary and conditional approval to which the
application is entitled .
Deputy Director Mazzarella stated that he feels it necessary
to follow the appropriate subdivision approval process while
acting on the Court ' s directives The opinion of city staff
involved in this matter is that it is necessary to pick up where
the process of approving this subdivision left off. The Board is
obligated to follow the process of subdivision review and
approval set forth by regulation , which the order does not say
should be bypassed . It is , therefore , the intention to act on
subdivision approval in accordance with this process , which
provides for both environmental review and a public hearing .
This process is now being resumed .
Mr . Dubow repeated that by his interpretation , the court
order does not direct the Board to resume their procedures but to
approve the application . Chair Blumenthal reported that she had
discussed this matter with the City Attorney , who recommended
that the Board not defer preliminary approval in order to
complete the environmental review . Ms . Blumenthal then moved
that the Board grant conditional approval at this meeting with
review pending by the CAC of the long form and that the
appropriate environmental review be done in the next month.
Chair also requests that Mr . Nash be in attendance at the Board ' s
December meeting for which the required public hearing will be
scheduled . Mr . Dubow agreed that if the Board will move on the
application , he will discuss with his client submission of a long
Environmental Assessment Form as a courtesy to the Board . Motion
was seconded by S . Killeen.
Mr . Dubow agreed to this procedure only under condition that
the Board recognize the court order to grant the application .
Mr . Meigs pointed out that environmental review regulations
Planning an.d Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -3-
provide that if ant any time in the process of review and
approval of an action , conditions change so that a negative
declaration of environmental effect would become , instead , a
positive declaration , the environmental review process must be
recommenced and efforts made to avoid or mitigate any negative
impacts , before action on final approval . This is seen to be a
continuing process oriented toward environmental protection .
The Board wished to note that the normal procedures for
handling an application are being suspended because of the
extraordinary circumstances of this case , and that they do not
wi sh thi s acti on to be seen as establ i shi ng a precedent for
handling future applications . Blumenthal asked if there was a
wish to raise the question of filing an appeal to the court
order ; it was the general notion of the Board that no one wished
to do this . Motion was called and passed , 5-yes , 1 -no ( S .
Jackson) , 0-abstentions .
As the next meeting of the Board would normally be scheduled
Dec . 27, during Christmas holidays , the Chair , after polling the
members present , made the decision to hold the next meeting of
the Board on December 20, 1988. Mr . Dubow was so advised and
staff was asked to request the presence of Mr . Nash at that
meeting .
B . Wells Subdivision : Mr . Wells and his architect were in
attendance . eigs commented that there is question _about the
acceptability of the road proposed into the subdivision : the '
city engineer has determined that the road does not meet
requirements for dedication to the city . In this case the road
would not be a public way , and resultant zoning deficiencies
would need to be cleared through zoning appeal process , for
instance , the amount of frontage on a public way which two of the
proposed new properties would not have at all . There were other
deficiencies in the original plan , one of which relates to
zoning requirements for setbacks from a right of way .
A new plan has been submitted by the applicant and copies of
this plan ( dated November 22 , 1988 ) were distributed to the
Board . Mr . Meigs pointed out that the roadway found deficient in
the previous pl an has been changed and i s now bel i eved to be
acceptable in terms of right of way and degree of curvature ,
though it still is substandard in other respects . It was pointed
out that though the road does not meet public road requirements,
it does meet reasonable needs for this type of street which will
be servicing only those units on the property . Chair advised
that the plan submitted at this time was the result of a meeting
of the subcommittee held in the previous week . The subcommittee
encouraged this approach and advised that there might be support
for the plan since it responds to many of the concerns of the
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -4-
Board and the subcommittee . Further the subcommittee has
previously agreed to send a representative to the BZA and to the
BPW, etc . to indicate the Board ' s support . It was noted that
this plan incorporates more clustering than the previously
submitted proposal , which makes it more acceptable despite its
not meeting all current zoning standards , since it is anticipated
that cluster development provisions will soon be enacted .
Chair noted that variance requested to decrease usual zoning
requirements for a 25 foot setback was reasonable given the
amount of open space created by clustering of the units .
Further , no higher density is envisioned for this property and if
.there ever were such intention it would be necessary to obtain
further zoning and/or subdivision approval and , therefore, give
the Board the opportunity to recommend or approve such
development .
Mr . Jackson raised the following questions about the
proposal at this point: 1 ) does . the city engineer think that
thi s street 1 ayout, si nce it i s proposed to be a city street ,
meets appropriate requirements; 2) this layout indicates lots 2
and 3 have no frontage on a public street so how will this
private road with parking spaces be maintained ; 3 ) who will
provide snow removal ; and 4 ) how will provisions be made for
maintaining this road according to city standards? Response by
applicant ' s architect was to the effect that this property
adjoins the residence of the builder/developer and it is his
intention to provide and oversee continuing maintenance. Mr .
Jackson also raised the question of future sale of the property
and what that transition could mean to the residents; problems
that might arise from residents ' expectations that the city
clean , maintain and remove snow from what is a privately owned
street . T . Cookingham summarized the discussion with the
statement that what he would like to see is a condition on the
deed which states that this is a private road with private
parking and the responsibility, for maintenance , snow removal ,
road repair , etc . runs with the land meaning that whoever owns it
will be responsible for maintenance. This could be done with a
covenant or restriction in the deed that makes this clear for all
future owners . It was suggested that the area of the street that
will be dedicated to the city would need to be large enough for
the snow plows and other large vehicles to turn around . Chair
asked for a summary of where the. Board is in regard to granting
the variances requested. J . Meigs reported that in the last
meeting with the applicant the Board ' s concerns were expressed
and the applicant has subsequently redesigned the plan to meet
those concerns ; the plan before the Board members and hereto
attached represents the efforts of both the applicant and a
subcommittee of the Board . Street variances must be ruled on by
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -5-
BPW and the Council must ultimately accept or reject dedication
of the street as a public way .
Mr. Jackson raised the question of sequencing at this point .
If the Board proceeds on the basis that part of. this street will
be a city street and variances are granted based on that
assumption , then it is possible that BPW or the council will say
that it cannot be a city street . At that point at least the
applicant will have to go back through the process again to get
appropriate variances . If this street is not a public street the
lots do not have frontage on a public street and that is not
permitted without a variance.
Mr . Meigs responded that this project represents a new
concept and is closer than the Board has seen in the past to
being a cluster subdivision . Therefore creativity is needed from
the Board in considering whether standard requirements are
meaningful in this particular case . Chair suggested that it be
pointed out to the BZA that with the cluster subdivision concept
these arrangements are appropriate and they should present a
strong case for support of the current proposal . Further , the
Board might inquire whether this proposal will fall in the rules
currently being developed for cluster projects . Jackson again
pointed out that the Board has acted on the assumption that the
street will be a public street but that this assumption might be
questioned . Chair advised that the cluster subdivision
requirements will be before council in December and will be
subject for public hearing in January but that may be too late
for this applicant . Decision was made to proceed with these
hearings pending, acceptance of the city engineer of the streets
with further decisions about variances to await that decision .
Chair summarized feelings of the members that they would
send a representative of the Board to BZA . Mr . Daley will
represent the Board at _ this meeting Ultima'tely it is
understood that the city engineer , the fire department , the BPW,
the BZA, the city attorney , etc . will have to sign off on the
acceptability of this plan .
Mr . Cookingham reported that it is now planned that the fire
hydrant will be placed appropriately for access to fire trucks
and this might be on private premises,. It was noted that
placement of fire hydrants on private premises is not uncommon .
Mr . Meigs advised the Board that the next step in this process is
a joint responsibility and that there should be at least linked
conversations if not a joint conversation about concerns . Chair
advised applicant to meet with Joe Daley and J . Meigs and perhaps
the city engineer to continue examining concerns .
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -6-
S . Killeen recalled problems experienced on the private road
on which he lives and reminded applicant that planning for
repairs and maintenance including setting aside funds for such
repairs could be necessary in order to avoid future
difficulties , if the road is not accepted by the city.
Chair asked for 9eneral response to the suggestion that a
deed restriction be required stating that private responsibility
will be passed to the owner of the property; general approval
for this requirement was granted without dissention .
Mr . Meigs asked if the Board wished to pass on to the BZA a
statement of support or specific comment on the project ; decision
was made to do this but to do so in December so that any
additional information made available in the next month could be
passed on .
C . Borra Subdivision : J . Meigs summarized action to this
date . It was noted that Mr . Borra, though usually a faithful
attendant , was not present at this meeting . Last week ' s
committee meeting concluded that an environmental determination
was conditional on the applicant ' s compliance with improvements
discussed in a meeting between J . Meigs , the applicant and Mrs .
Darlington. The City Attorney suggested that the condition also
be added that this subdivision must comply with the master plan
of West Hill development as it evolves and is ultimately settled
on . The committee asked how such conditions would be enforced ,
and what the stages of approvals would be for the subdivision for
installation of infrastructure . It was determined that
permission for installation of roads , of utility lines and
ultimately the building permits for each individual property
would be points at which noncompliance with any of the
conditions could result in withdrawal or suspension of the
approval to do whatever was going on at that state . Ultimately,
it would be up to the city to keep tabs on what was going on and
how well the conditions - maintenance of the buffer areas , etc .
- were observed . For instance , if a buffer were removed ,
which had originally been made a condition for approval of an
individual lot, that condition should be brought to the attention
of - the developer, or the owner if the house was already built ;
if the problem were not then remedied there would be an action
instituted by the city to do whatever was necessary to have the
buffer reinstalled .
Ms . Blumenthal , noting that the applicant was not present ,
asked how far the Board wished to proceed since the Board
requires the applicant or his representative to be present when
the Board decides on an application . It was felt that anyone
present who wished to comment on the proposal should be heard .
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -7-
First Ward alderman Schlather , was present in behalf of a
number of neighbors in the project area and noted that he also
lives nearby . He raised a procedural question about part 2 of
the LEAF submitted . The applicant ' s responses to questions
indicate this project is expected to have a potentially large
environmental and community impact ; applicant also indicates that
there are no measures to be to reduce that impact . These
answers, then, require completion of part 3 before this Board is
permitted to make a determination of negative or positive
declaration . Records show that the initial EAF was submitted on
August 11 , 1988 and between then and now there has not been a
part 3 submitted to his knowledge ; he suggested that a part 3
should be completed . Further , Mr . Schlather expressed concerns
over the plan ' s proposal to fill in the northern brook on the
property . Mr . Schlather suggested to the Board that this project
appears to require an environmental impact statement and he would
like to see that requirement made of the applicant .
Mr . Schlather went on to note that several immediate
neighbors have contacted him about their concerns . Because they
do not wish to attend late evening sessions, and since everyone
concerned assumed that an environmental impact statement with its
required hearings would be necessary , these people had n.ot
attended previous Board meetings . They are, however , concerned
and if it is necessary for them to come out , they will do so .
Mr . Schlather said the neighborhood is concerned about several
problems : there are two brooks running through the property ( one
of which was referred to earlier) , there is a grade that is 16%
average grade when the city requests 10% ( maximum for new
streets ) , there is a Lack of ' storm sewers in the area generally,
and there is discussion about building a new road that isn't even
on the master plan . Mr . Schlather noted that these people
assumed legitimately that there would be an environmental impact
statement prepared and that they would be able to respond in
proper course to those issues .
Mr . Schlather then requested again that part 3 of the EAF
be completed and that a report from the city engineer
considering grades , location of storm sewers , or alternatives if
none are to be provided, and such other questions as are related
to this project be submitted for consideration of the neighbors .
Mr . Meigs advised that a part 3 is prepared and had been
distributed to some individuals and Board members at a previous
meeting but that others had not yet received copies . He agreed
that these matters are all of concern to the Board also.
Betsy Darlington , CAC Chair, then informed the Board that
she had talked with City Engineer Bill Gray , and when asked if
the recommendation to fill the creek came from him , he was
Planning and Development Board '_`
Minutes 11 /22/88 -8-
"appalled" . Gray advised Darlington that under no conditions
would it be appropriate to fill in the creek but this interaction
represents the problems apparently occurring between the
applicant and various other advisors .
Deputy Director Mazzarella pointed out that an area outside
the city probably four times larger than the city ' s portion of
West Hill drains into the city. Potentially there will be a lot
of development in this area , so that drai nage will be a
paramount issue in every instance . It will be crucial to keep
drai nage ways open or keep retenti on areas open i n specific
places , so that aspect will be looked at more carefully than has
been done thus far since the area ' s early growth .
The Chair noted that the Board had decided in August not to
call for a draft EIS unless it was determined that revisions to
the pl an , whi ch Mr . Borra was wi 11 i ng to try to make , woul d not
adequately address the concerns cited by the Board and the CAC .
These issues or concerns were , in brief , storm drainage and
runoff , the grade of the cul -de-sac, retention of the maximum
amount of naturally vegetated area, and provision for protection
of the view from the site for each lot . Because of the size of
the subdivision , only eight lots , the Board felt it was not
reasonable to require of the applicant the extra expense of an
EIS if he could willingly and satisfactorily deal with the issues
that. would otherwise be the focus of an EIS . The Board decided
at that time if the applicant would agree to avoid or
satisfactorily mitigate the impacts and resolve these issues , the
Board would not require an EIS and, would proceed with the
application . Up to the present the applicant has been
cooperative and has made progress on those matters , and it has
been the Board ' s decision to continue to work with him .
Mr . Schlather reiterated his concern about the , missing EAF
section . That there are only eight units planned for this
development he feels does not mitigate the impact on the general
environment of the area . He maintains that an EIS does not
require a great expense, it only requires that the individuals
involved address the problems created by development of the area.
Mr . Schlather listed his concerns for this development as :
1 ) grade , especially road grades
2 ) fire truck access
3 ) access for snow plows and salt trucks and buses
4) drainage of the area
5 ) engineering reports
6) EIS report
Schlather requested that this information be compiled and used as
the basis for further considering this application . Mrs .
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -9-
Darlington recalled that at the meeting during which the Board
agreed not to expect an EIS ( August) , Borra agreed to address
specific points which he has not approached since the date of
that meeting . She does not see that the written document
prepared by Mr. Borra on October 20, addresses those problems .
Chair reported that there had been a meeting in September at
which the questions originally raised by Mrs . Darlington were
discussed further with Mr . Borra. Those issues addressed at that
time were the four listed earlier : drainage , driveways and roads ,
buffer zones and view, each of which he has made some effort to
resolve. Given that Mr . Borra is still willing to work through
the process with the Board it seems to be the Board' s general
orientation that the potential environmental problems can be
worked through without need of an EIS .
The question of whether any decisions can be made in the
absence of the applicant was again raised and chair recommended
that contact be made with the applicant to remind him that the
process is still ongoing and that it will be necessary for him to
follow up on the conditions discussed earlier . In the meantime
the Board agreed to circulate part- 3 of the EAF . Mr . Schl ather
commented that he perceives the public to have been kept out of
participation in this decision process and that he thinks
interested parties should be included in further consideration
whether by scoping sessions or public meetings-. He requested
that meetings be held during daylight hours for the convenience
, of his older concerned neighbors .
Chair concluded that no action could be taken on this topic
at this meeting but it would be expected that some action could
occur during the December 20 meeting . Ms . Darlington requested
that the next contact with Mr . Borra request him to: 1 ) develop
processes for assuring buffers to remain in place once they are
built , 2 ) address the problems of drainage and the suggestion
that the creek be filled, 3) relate the Borra subdivision to the
West Hill Master Plan . Schlather suggested that further
consideration be given to some of the applicant ' s assumptions
such as the plan to put a cul de sac in this area and the grades
of the planned roads Mr . Mazzarel1a reminded the meeting that
Mr . Borra has responded to these questions but that those
responses have not been circulated to all . It was agreed that
this should be done .
5 . New Business :
A. our osts Payment - Chair advised the meeting that a
request from City orney as been received for payment of the
costs of the Ronsvalle court case that resulted in a $350 bill .
Discussion revealed it was not known where in the city budget
Planning and. Devel opment Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 _10-
provision is made for paying such expense; it was agreed. that the
bill should be paid and that the budget should include a fund for
legal contingencies . Various suggestions and counter-suggestions
were made as to the appropriate source for payment of this bill :
the city' s general contingency fund , the department budget , or
the City Attorney ' s budget . Chair recommended that Common
Council be asked to pay this bill expeditiously in order to avoid
penalties that will be assessed if it is not paid and , then ,
that there be a budget established for any such potential bills ,
if such does not currently exist . Following further discussion
Chair moved that the Planning Department be asked to pay the bill
in spite of the spending freeze currently imposed and a request
will be made for a budget item for payment of such items in the
future. Motion Seconded .
Discussion : Mr . Meigs stated that since the Planning
Department did not incur this bill , he feels it is not
appropriate for the amount to come out of their budget. Since
the Board is a creation of the Council , it seems appropriate for
the Council to assume this liability . In response to this it was
pointed out that the Planning Department is a function of the
Planning Board and thus might be looked to, if notexpectedto be
responsible , for this type of support . However , there was some
agreement that it is presumptuous in a way of the Board to
determine specifically where the money should come from, and it
is the Board ' s function only to decide whether it should be paid
expeditiously to avoid penalty . Motion on the floor was
removed . Chair agreed to write a letter to the Planning
Department Director enclosing this bill and asking him to see
that it be paid before penalties are imposed . Motion to this
effect was made by Cookingham and seconded by Killeen . Vote : 4-
yes , I -no ( Jackson ) , 1 -abstention ( Blumenthal ) . Motion
carried .
Mr . Cookingham excused himself from the meeting at this
point because of an early meeting the next morning in
Phil adel phi a.
B . 1989 Work Program - draft proposal . Deputy Director
Mazzarella submitted a draTt proposal for the Department ' s 1989
Work Program and asked for comments . The plan has largely been
guided by the list of planning priorities passed by Council in
August 1988. He noted that all those items are on this list and
would take up all of the time available for new projects . He
also pointed out that the proposed work program is based on some
assumptions . First , it has been assumed that site plan review
will be approved and will take effect in January . Because of
this , Council has approved a new position that is reflected in
this proposal , but it is shown as only ten month ' s worth of time
because it will take some time to get that person on Board and
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -11 -
functioning . The other two months are Jon Meigs time which will
be required in training the new person and getting them "on
Board" . Second , Community Development activities are not shown
on here because they are not currently a Planning Department
staff function , although they may become so in the future. The
Urban Renewal Agency has decided that CD is going to function
with a "skeleton" staff composed of Glenn Goldwyn and one or two
other part-time people , to be funded out of program income from
the repayment of loans that the CD program has made over the
years . It is anticipated that they will be doing all the things
that they are obligated to do to continue to run the program .
Even though the grant year has already expired , there are still
many grant activities ongoing , and these will take more than a
year to complete , so the oversight responsibilities remain to be
fulfilled . The major Community Development activity is projected
to be the preparation of a grant application for next year with
the hope of getting back into the cycle of receiving a grant
every year . Time is projected on the planning side for Kathe
Evans in a couple of places , 1 ) working on the housing trust
fund , 2) assisting the rental housing task force and , 3) working
on the Southwest Park Land Use Study . It is the department ' s
plan to request that funds be made available to hire Ms . Evans
for those three tasks .
Mr . Jackson asked where in this program he would find the
developer impact fees project . Mr . Mazzarella replied that it is
not 1 i sted that way . While the intention i s to establish a
housing trust fund , the categories of the work program are not as
precise as they may need to be to specify impact fees as part of
that activity . The impact fee method was initially being
examined as a way of funding the housing trust fund , but in the
process it has become broader than that , and it is possible that
all possibilities for impact fees will continue to be explored
until a determination is made , which could be that the focus will
be narrowed or perhaps impact fees will be dropped altogether .
This is an expensive undertaking, mainly because the method is
still being worked out , and it is possible that a consultant will
need to be hired . Mazzarella referred to the Guilderland case
where a decision has just been rendered against the Town of
Guilderland , though the issue seems to have been how the town
implemented its programa He reported that some council members
feel nothing should be done until the issue of the legality and
applicability of impact fees is resolved by the courts . Chair
requested more information about the case in question and
Mazzarella advised that he is waiting for an expla..n;.ation now
being prepared by a Cornell law professor . The consensus among
the Board members is that it would be best to hold off on impact
fees until further information is available about the case .
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -13-
members for their consideration . It is the C.hair ' s intent to
identify the issues members identified for further discussion
with them .
It has already been suggested to Cornell that a discussion
of transportation planning is needed . Other questions raised at
this time related to : 1 ) the anticipated sale of the Savage Farm
to a private developer , 2 ) movement by Cornell to support a
larger research park in the northeast sector and , 3 ) hotel
development . Such plans may impact heavily on the city . Killeen
asked how the Board can address itself to Cornell ' s plans so the
city is not surprised or distressed by the outcomes of Cornell ' s
decisions . Blumenthal noted that while the Cornell plan
mentions discussions with members of the community , no formal
plan for interaction with either formal or informal structures in
the community is posed ; a more detailed statement of this
process of communication would be desirable . The general opinion
of the Board was that while the plan mentions community
interaction , standards of quality , impact of the University
programs on the overall area and the Ithaca community, there is
no specific plan or proposal made for achieving such objectives .
It was observed that the plan is too broad to be useful and
because of the lack of specificity it is difficult for the Board
to respond to its suggestions . Mr . Sampson pointed out that this
plan resembles other plans that held specific areas sacrosanct
unti 1 such time as someone chose to plant a building in the
middle of that area . The problems currently experienced are
generally seen to exist because of lack of information on
University projects that impact on the community , lack of
coordination with city and town Boards; lack of participation of
individual community members and local planning and decision
making units ; lack of cooperation , coordination and
participation and , internally , lack of leadership . Jackson
noted a tradition of decentralized decision -making at the
University and cited the job of the Board as being in part to
counter that tradition and say to Cornell that to the extent that
it affects the community , this kind of behavior is not
acceptable . Further , he suggests that there are some people in
the University structure who realize that such cooperation is
needed ; the Board should seek to work with those individuals on
issues that affect the community.
Chair expressed a desire to establish effective coordination
between the city and other municipalities and the University on
their actions that affect this community, such as development of
Savage Farm in time for avoidable surprises and problems to be
acted on instead of reacted to . Subjects needing this sort of
attention , cooperation and mutual involvements include
transportation and roads , land use , busses , the southeast
corri dor , and any other 1 arge projects such as Savage Farm.
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -12-
Mr . Yale raised a question about the issue of exactions in
relationship to the subdivision ordinance and whether that is
something that should be written in or whether it is included .
Mazzarella responded that subdivision regulationscurrently say
that park land can be exacted , and that revised regulations
requiring developers to pay for` infrastructure improvements are
currently being drafted . While Public Works can implement the
things that developers can be required to do during the
subdivision process , it is not quite precise . It has been a long
standing practice but the degree to which that practice is to be
altered is not clear . Daley is working with the Charter and
Ordinance Committee to clarify the process but for the moment
this seems to be bogged down . Mazzarella pointed out that it
would be useful to know what Public Works will ultimately require
and they have some degree of autonomy. It was recommended that
this should be thought through with some degree of closure .
Meigs asked if Mazzarel l a was s p e a k i ng of s u b d i vi s on
infrastructure alone , or if other kinds of exactions from other
kinds of developments were included; Mazzarella replied that the
only concern he had thus far considered was that of the need for
park land and open spaces . Killeen noted that , if one
considered the West Hill site , leaving lands in their natural
state would be pleasing to some people; however , Mr . Borra had
previously indicated his intent and preference that the
purchasers of a lot have the same right to change them as the
owner of any other property . This raises a question about what
the Board can have firm control over , those things over which
there cannot be control , those things in a grey area and ,
finally , those areas- that link . Mazzarel l a expressed the
opinion that there is a range of actions that the Board should
exert some degree of control over during the subdivision process .
Chair suggested these questions should be referred to committee ,
to bring findings back to the Board at a later date .
Returning to the overall topic of the 1989 Work Program, it
was decided to call an Executive Committee meeting and invite the
subcommittee chairs to discuss these questions . Yale requested
sufficient Board time to go through the work program proposal
line by line with an expanded description of what some of the
items are . Chair suggested that an additional meeting to focus
on the work program proposal will be called prior to the
December 20 meeting . It was requested that emergency priorities
be highlighted or some indication be provided for critical items .
C . Cornell Campus Planning Guidelines . Chair advised that
a request was made ot Mr . Burness tor a meeting to follow up the
July meeting for discussion of the Campus Planning Guidelines .
The Cornell response was to note that the Board had earlier
agreed to make a written response to the earlier meeting and that
is in process . The Cornell Guidelines were distributed to Board
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -14-
Further it was suggested that this Board should be in
communication with other local planning agencies such as Cayuga
Heights ' Planning Board , especially on issues of common
interest . It was noted in discussion of the communication and
participation patterns existing between Cornell and the
communities surrounding the University that past interaction has
been primarily based on Cornell ' s initiation and that they have
raised only questions on which they wish to include outside,
influences . It was generally felt that the Board needs to
contact other bodies with similar concerns and , then , to
establish a continuing and ongoing interaction between community
decision and planning bodies and the planning activities of the
University. Under those circumstances it would be possible for
this Board to a more effectively inform the public of impactful
University plans .
Chair summarized general responses to the Campus Planning
Guidelines as being focused on a distinct lack of provisions for
improving communication and participation and coordination
between the University, the city and the county on many issues
that impact both the University and its environs . The decision
was made to have Mr . Mazzarella draft a request to Cornell to
enter into communication with this body on selected and specific
items of planning concern relating to the City and to the
University . Suggested topics were : transportation and traffic
control , specifically the Route 79/Route 13 development , land
use , and the impact of various University locational decisions .
The comment was made that while the Campus Planning Guidelines '
proposal for information - sharing and planning coordination is
general , we would like to respond with some important specifics
such as the above concerns . Mazzarella will prepare this letter
for approval of the Board members individually prior to the
Cornell Board meeting in February. It was further decided that
this Board would invite the Town planning Board for a joint
meeting , but no date was set .
Mr . Sampson asked if anyone knew of plans for the Empire
Games to be held in Ithaca during the summer months of 1989 and
there was no definitive awareness of such planning . Though the
state and local agencies and individuals involved in this effort
probably see it as very short- term , with little if any
implication for longer-range action , especially for the Ithaca
area , such a view is likely to overlook the issues , challenges
and opportunities that arise in connection with this type of
event -- it can be relatively more important than the Olympics to
the host city, since the chance of returning is appreciable .
6 . Committee Reports :
A. West i In Mr . Cookingham ' s absence the Chair
requested any new information on West Hill that may not have been
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -15-
related in earlier discussions . Responses included that there
was a meeting Nov . 21 with the consultants , Trowbridge and
Trowbridge , at which the development proposals in the City were
put in the context of a broader set of proposals . It also
focused on study procedures such as development of maps with
various categories of data on transparent overlays so that the
relationships between various combinations of data and proposed
actions can be considered . They are to be available in early
March .
The major concerns expressed in meetings related to West
Hill have been about roads and transportation and the impart
development plans will have on the area. Mr . Mazzarella noted
that it is planned now to have a series of public meetings with
the first one in December ; this would be the first meeting in
which alternatives will be examined. It was agreed that the Town
Planning Board should, also, be invited ; as the Town Board and
Town Planning Board both have new members on them, this would be
a good time to meet and communicate with them.
B . Rt . 96 - Chair requested a discussion of the Route 96
highway progress and the Route 96 DEIS reports to be distributed .
The public hearing dates for the Route 96 concern are December
14 and 15 , 1988 and the assumption is that this Board will
comment in writing . S . Jackson was previously assigned to
develop this response but because the DEIS report has not been
available , it has not been possible for his committee to do so .
Jackson reported that he expected the committee to meet before
December 20, and that a short time should be committed at that
meeting to their recommendations . He also suggested that the
public meeting be reported to the Board at their next meeting so
that all information pertinent to the issue would be before the
Board at that time . Question was raised about how this Board ' s
recommendation would be reported to the Department of
Transportation ; the decision was made to make that decision at
the next meeting . Ki 11 een asked whether thi s Board shoul d
assume more responsibility in acting as a communication channel
about this issue to the public . He also proposed that another
possibility might be to direct this Board ' s focus to the West
Hill planning study with the intention being to make the Board ' s
efforts as constructive as possible .
Jackson responded that he understood the Board ' s
responsibility to be to address the three basic design options ;
after the committee makes its recommendation , it might be that
the Board would identify other actions they would want to take .
It was recognized that if the Board wants to comment , such
written advice needs to be submitted within 30 days after the
hearing' or approximately mid-January . Sampson suggested that
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11/22/88 -16-
the Board should prepare whatever information they wish to pass
. on no later than the December meeting .
C . Planning Board Activities for 1989 . Chair raised. the
question of what he Board wi I I be doi ng T n 1989 i n terms of
goals and suggested that a smaller group gather to discuss the
Board ' s new year ' s plans . Jackson responded that there is a
relatively narrow set of activities on which the Board can spend
time considering that much of its time will be occupied in
dealing with tasks dictated by the Department ' s work program,
etc . The chair recalled that the suggestion has repeatedly been
made that this Board needs to spend time on intermunicipal
planning . Further questions about Cornell and Cornell planning
have been of constant concern as have fiscal matters of the
University as they relate to the City . Chair asked if these
kinds of concerns should be added to the Department ' s work
program or if they coul d be deal t with outsi de the program .
Jackson responded that unless such concerns were included in the
Work Program proposal they just would not get done . Chair
pointed out that the Board ' s concern with the Cornell planning
process is not now in the Work Program proposal , but the Board
continues to be concerned with this issue and has had a few
meetings with Cornell representatives in the past .
It was noted that occasionally "sleepers" occur that require
Board time ; time for these could possibly be anticipated and
incorporated into the Work Program . It was decided to add
consideration of the Work Program proposal in the next Executive
Committee meeting .
7 . Director ' s Report - Deputy Director Mazzarella advised that
the following items Fave been worked on :
1 ) Site Plan Review . The Council has been considering this
as a committee of the whole and he perceives that they are close
to having the final version in shape . The next meeting is
scheduled for December 12, 7 : 00 pm and the hope is that this will
be the final massaging , with the proposal to be presented to the
full Council in January . Killeen pointed out that this issue
wi l l l i kely demand some Board time in 1989 and chair responded
that perhaps the Board would find it necessary to design a way to
do so.
2 ) Cluster Subdivision Ordinance . The Council met last
week and reconciled their previous differences . The summary of
their opinion now is that cluster housing will be allowed in
ways that are consistent with the housing uses now allowed in
each of the zoning districts : in the R1 zone one would be able
to cluster but only have single family detached homes , and in the
R2 zones , two family homes . It is not now the way it started out
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -17-
but this proposal had the most support and it appears to be an
ordinance that wi l l be useful in the future . It wi 11 be
introduced to Council in December and is expected to be approved
at January ' s meeting .
3 ) An RFP has been circulated to have a consultant do a
downtown parking study and there will be a recommendation as to
which of the ten proposals. should be selected . The Council
authorized spending up to $40 , 000 for a consultant and the
Director will recommend Rich and Associates from Michigan , who
were judged to have the best proposal and are less expensive at
$34, 000, so this is expected to be started soon .
Chair called for questions ; none were expressed .
8 . Liaison Report - Alderman Killeen reported that many changes
are occurring in the Council , and in top city administrative
spots . There is a search on for a Building Commissioner but he
doesn ' t expect that position to be filled for at least six months
and it is expected that the first half of 1989 will be very busy .
The City budget had been mostly a "maintenance" budget , so the
degree to which the City will be able to respond to the new
responsibilities that are place on the Planning Board and
Department may be expected to cause some frustration . Killeen
reported that although he was unable to attend the recent meeting
on exactions , and there is some feeling that the research needed
to identify and evaluate options for an exaction program could be
done in-house , several consultants have made proposals to do that
work , and he expects Council to make a decision in the matter
early next year . He stated that another revenue-generating
device is being considered , if exaction is decided against ,
objective being to get some money into the Housing Trust Fund ,
continuing an obligation to keep Community Development going .
There will be ongoing C . D . administrative requirements , and
further the question remains of how we are to keep INHS since the
budget is pretty well final : what other revenue generating
options might exist for that purpose? Killeen said that the sale
of excess city-owned land is one possibility, and that a current
inventory is being prepared to help identify all city-owned
parcels , which are sometimes little slivers of land . He asked
the Board to think about what should be included in a program to
sell off those parcels for which there is no conceivable future
city need , whose sale proceeds could be applied to housing needs ;
the properties would also begin producing tax revenue . Chair
asked -how much land is involved , and Killeen replied that no one
knows but it is not his perception that there is as much as some
people suppose , which is why an inventory is important and is
being made . Mr. Jackson suggested that to get money from these
properties the city might think about 1 ) charges for other uses ,
2) options for utilizing such properties and the possibilities
Planning and Development Board
Minutes 11 /22/88 -18-
that might be generated for maximizing the city ' s income rather
than just selling the . land off . Killeen agreed that such things
as leasing arrangements need to be examined .
There was no further business ; meeting adjourned .