Loading...
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 An LEAF was submitted this morning but later withdrawn by the applicant , and that is the situation at this point .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 .