Loading...
MN-CC-2011-05-04COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. May 4, 2011 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Alderpersons (10) Coles, Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, McCollister, Zumoff, Rooker, Myrick, Cogan, Mohlenhoff OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk – Conley Holcomb City Attorney – Hoffman City Controller – Thayer Planning & Development Director – Cornish Community Development Director – Bohn Superintendent of Public Works – Gray Information Technology Director – Twardokus Senior Network Integration Specialist – Kronenbitter City Planner – Gilbert Youth Program Coordinator - Friedeborn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 4.1 Launching of New City of Ithaca Website City Clerk Holcomb made a brief presentation of the City’s new website. She highlighted the new features and functionality of the site such as improved navigational bars, calendar function, on-line documents section, and the “Action Line”, a citizen response tool. City Clerk Holcomb expressed her thanks and appreciation to Information Technology Director Duane Twardokus, Senior Network Integration Specialist Scott Kronenbitter and the dedicated members of the Web Committee for all of the thought and hard work they put into the new website. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL: 5.1 Board of Fire Commissioners: Commissioner Thomas Hoard distributed a packet of information from the Ithaca Fire Department that included Ithaca Fire Department calls for service categorized by incident type for the period of January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011. This information was broken down by town/city, district/ward, and street address. Discussion followed on the floor regarding this information. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: The following people addressed Common Council regarding the proposed re-zoning in Collegetown to encourage the City to ensure that a grocery store is part of the development plan: Morgan Michel-Schottman, City of Ithaca Hanna LaBove, City of Ithaca Graham Kerslick, City of Ithaca Jennifer Wilkins, City of Ithaca Courtney Stevenson, City of Ithaca The following people addressed Council to express their opposition to the proposed re- zoning plans in Collegetown: Todd Saddler, City of Ithaca Stuart Stein, City of Ithaca Ann Clavel, City of Ithaca Todd Saddler, on behalf and for Neil Golder who is a City resident Michael Fraker, City of Ithaca May 4, 2011 2 Pam Mackesey, City of Ithaca Kathy Yoselson, on behalf and for Pauline Morin, City of Ithaca Kathy Yoselson, City of Ithaca James LaVeck, City of Ithaca Khin Htwe, Town of Ithaca Aldegloma Ezigoiel Shriko, City of Ithaca George Avramis, City of Ithaca Josh Lower, City of Ithaca Wendy Wallitt, City of Ithaca Letters were also submitted from John Hill and Harold Schultz Trevor DeSane, New York, New York, representing affected property owners in Collegetown delivered a formal protest letter to the City Clerk. Susan Titus, Town of Ithaca, addressed Common Council regarding the May 6, 2011 Gallery Night on The Commons. She also submitted a petition with 2,000 signatures to support the preservation of all the trees on The Commons. She is opposed to their being cut down as part of the Commons repair and renovation project. Kristen Spitaletta, City of Ithaca, announced that the annual “Into the Streets” event organized by Cornell University will take place on October 28, 2011. This year will be the 20th anniversary of the event and they plan to have 1,300 students and 60 agencies participate. Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, addressed Council regarding the Collegetown Development proposals. Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, encouraged Council to vote “no” on the re-zoning proposals for Collegetown. She also discussed two recent State bills regarding banning hydrofracking, and noise generated at night by the downtown bar district. Jeremy Flynn and Ilana Gilovich, City of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding an upcoming “Aida – Benefit Concert” to help support positive social change. The proceeds will go towards building a school in Uganda and associated educational fees. The following people addressed Council to speak in opposition to Cornell’s decision to move the Africana Studies and Research Center into the College of Arts and Sciences and to ask for Common Council’s support for the faculty of color who support the Center: Robert Harris, Town of Ithaca Courtney Knapp, City of Ithaca Joanne Oport, Town of Ithaca Candace Katungi, City of Ithaca Carrie Freshorx, Town of Ithaca Kirtrina Baxter, City of Ithaca Max Ajl, City of Ithaca Dr. Carole Boyce Davies, Town of Ithaca Jeff Furman, City of Ithaca, addressed Council to extend his thanks to Alderperson Maria Coles for her incredible work on behalf of the 1st Ward and the City of Ithaca. He further expressed his opposition to the move of the Africana Studies and Research Center into the College of Arts and Sciences, and encouraged Council to delay a decision on the proposed re-zoning plans for Collegetown. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR: Alderperson Coles responded to comments made regarding the move of the Africana Studies and Research Center into the College of Arts and Sciences. She further noted that she believes that Alderperson Clairborne is working on a resolution in support of the comments that were made. May 4, 2011 3 Alderperson Myrick responded to comments made about the “Into the Streets” event. He encouraged the utilization of the students for community projects and applauded their efforts to support their community. He also encouraged everyone to attend the May 9th Aida Concert. Alderperson Myrick noted that he feels there are misunderstandings about the proposed zoning changes in Collegetown and what the current zoning rules are, and explained various components of the proposal. Alderperson Clairborne responded to comments made regarding the move of the Africana Studies and Research Center into the College of Arts and Sciences. He noted that the City cannot tell Cornell University what to do, but it can inform them of the impacts that their decisions have on the community. Alderperson Rosario thanked Alderperson Myrick for his summary of the proposed zoning changes in Collegetown. He also thanked the speakers for their comments on the move of the Africana Studies and Research Center into the College of Arts and Sciences. Alderperson Rosario responded to comments made about bar district noise downtown, and noted that the Ithaca Police Department is doing everything they can to respond to the noise complaints. Alderperson Dotson disclosed that she works for a non-profit mentioned in the Collegetown Plan, Ithaca Carshare; however, there are no financial conflicts of interest, so she will be participating in the discussion and vote on the items. Alderperson Rooker responded to comments made about the move of the Africana Studies and Research Center into the College of Arts and Sciences. He noted the process was flawed and he is looking forward to seeing what Common Council can do in support of the faculty and staff. He further stated that he feels the Collegetown Plan is a compromise, and he will introduce an amendment to the height incentive zone legislation. Mayor Peterson thanked all the speakers for their comments. She noted that she was out of town so could not sign the letter regarding the move of the Africana Studies and Research Center into the College of Arts and Sciences; however, she wrote her own letter and will be meeting with President Skorton and the Provost on this issue. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: 9.1 Selection of a Consultant for the Preparation of Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Plan - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca’s existing comprehensive plan was completed in 1971 and has since been amended fourteen times by various targeted neighborhood and strategic plans, and WHEREAS, while some objectives of the 1971 plan are still applicable, many are not, and both local conditions and broader national and world-wide trends that affect Ithaca have changed dramatically since then, resulting in a need to update the comprehensive plan to address present-day issues and anticipate future ones, and WHEREAS, the preparation of a comprehensive plan at this time provides a valuable opportunity to coordinate with the Town of Ithaca as it updates its comprehensive plan as well as with Tompkins County, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Ithaca- Tompkins County Transportation Council, and local employer planning initiatives, either under way or recently completed, and WHEREAS, the undertaking of a comprehensive plan at this time comes at the Mayor’s initiative, first expressed in the 2004 “State of the City” address and later with the appointment of a “pre-planning” committee in February 2007, consisting of the Mayor, four Common Council members, Department of Planning and Development staff members, and, as of January 2008, two members of the Planning and Development Board, and May 4, 2011 4 WHEREAS, the “pre-planning” committee, convened by the Mayor to discuss issues related to the preparation of a new comprehensive plan, discussed a two-phase planning process, where phase 1 would entail the preparation of a city-wide vision statement that would set forth broad principles to guide future planning and development throughout the city and its neighborhoods, and where phase 2 would include the preparation of specific neighborhood plans and other distinct thematically- based plans, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on February 6, 2008, the Common Council approved a capital project in the amount of $200,000 ($125,000 the first year and $75,000 the second year) to prepare a comprehensive plan, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the N.Y.S. General City Law §28-a and the City of Ithaca Municipal Code §4-23, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is responsible for the preparation and recommendation of a new comprehensive plan to the Common Council, which has the exclusive power to formally adopt the plan for the City, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board established the Comprehensive Plan Committee at its meeting on July 22, 2008 and appointed a group of twenty-three members which includes representation from the Common Council, the Planning and Development Board, and the Town of Ithaca, along with representation from established City advisory boards and from other stakeholder groups intended to reflect a broad and diverse range of community and neighborhood interests, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee, which is to work under the supervision of the Planning and Development Board (which will provide broad oversight for the whole comprehensive planning process), was charged by the Planning Board with several responsibilities regarding the preparation of a new comprehensive plan, and these overall responsibilities include: (1) preparing and approving a request for qualifications (“RFQ”) for a consultant team to assist with phase 1 of the development of the proposed, new City of Ithaca comprehensive plan; and (2) reviewing the responses to the RFQ, conducting interviews of consultant teams, and making a recommendation of a consultant team to the Planning and Development Board, Mayor, and Common Council for their respective approvals, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee prepared and approved a RFQ in the spring of 2009, and the City received responses from 20 consultant firms, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee reviewed the responses and interviewed four firms in October 2009, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended the Parsons Brinckerhoff Team to be the consultant to prepare Phase I of the new comprehensive plan and the Planning and Development Board, Common Council, and the Mayor selected that firm in November and December 2009, and WHEREAS, there was a staffing change within the Parsons Brinckerhoff Team and after further discussion, there was mutual agreement not to proceed with a contract between the City and the firm, and WHEREAS, the consultant selection process was reopened to three top firms identified by the Comprehensive Plan Committee during the 2009 selection process, and WHEREAS, a seven-member subcommittee of the Comprehensive Plan Committee conducted the consultant interviews on March 2-3, 2011 and met again March 31, 2011, at which time the subcommittee unanimously recommended the Clarion Associates Team for consideration by the larger committee, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on April 14, 2011, the Comprehensive Plan Committee reviewed the subcommittee’s recommendation and, based on the reasons identified in the “Comprehensive Plan Committee’s Consultant Recommendation to the Planning May 4, 2011 5 and Development Board, Mayor, and Common Council,” dated April 14, 2011, voted unanimously to recommend that the Clarion Associates Team be selected as the consultant to prepare phase 1 of the proposed, new comprehensive plan; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council approves the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s recommendation of the Clarion Associates Team and authorizes the Mayor to enter into a contract with Clarion Associates for the preparation of phase 1 of the proposed, new comprehensive plan in an amount not to exceed $200,000. Alderperson Zumoff stated that he opposes this type of detailed comprehensive planning. He noted that he feels $200,000 is too much money to spend, and questioned how much Phase II of the project would cost. He stated that he will vote “no” on this resolution. Alderperson McCollister questioned what Phase II involves. Planning and Development Director Cornish noted that Phase II would include the area plans. Alderperson Mohlenhoff voiced her excitement about the consultant due to their approach to public feedback and participation. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (9) Coles, Dotson, Clairborne, Rosario, McCollister, Rooker, Myrick, Mohlenhoff, Cogan Nays (1) Zumoff Carried (9-1) 9.2 Establishment of Collegetown Area Form Districts: A. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code in order to (1) establish the Collegetown Area Form Districts and (2) rezone portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, B-2b, and U-1 districts to Traditional Residential (TR), Village Residential (VR), and Mixed Use (MU), and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated April 14, 2011 and as revised at the Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting on April 20, 2011, and WHEREAS, these zoning amendments have been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and have also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “Type I” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated April 14, 2011 and as revised at the Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting on April 20, 2011, and be it further RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further May 4, 2011 6 RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Amending Resolution: By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick RESOLVED, That a new Whereas clause be added to the Resolution as the 4th Whereas clause that would read as follows: “WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Department has recommended a certain change in the stream setback for the proposed VR-2 district, without which change this amendment requires the vote of a majority plus one, for passage, and” Carried Unanimously Alderperson Zumoff asked whether or not this would need a super majority vote in order to pass. City Attorney Hoffman responded that the letter from the Tompkins County Planning Commissioner requires a majority plus one vote (7 votes) for form base districts unless the amendment proposed by the Tompkins County Planning Commissioner regarding the setback from the gorges is incorporated into this resolution. He further noted that a package of protests was received tonight that represents 46 property owners and 95 parcels. He noted that the proposed form based districts includes 262 affected properties, the proposed height incentive zone includes 13 properties, and the proposed parking overlay zone/payment in lieu of parking includes 300+ parcels. In order for these ordinances to be adopted, they will require a super majority vote (8 affirmative votes). He further noted that it is unclear at this time as to whether the protest package applies to more than one ordinance. Alderperson Coles stated that she would vote against all of the ordinances. She stated that she understands that they represent a compromise, but it still leaves gaping questions that need answers. She noted that a re-evaluation has not been completed since the Collegetown Terrace project was approved, and further stated that the information regarding parking and traffic are just assumptions and not based on studies. She further stated that the plan lacks a “what if it doesn’t work” clause, and encouraged Council to postpone voting on it. Alderperson Dotson stated that she appreciates and respects the opinions of her colleagues, but noted that they don’t agree on everything. She stated that she supports the inclusion of a grocery store in the plan as well as further development on the transportation plans. She noted that parking is at capacity in Collegetown and downtown and needs to be managed better with sufficient control of neighborhood parking and enforcement of rules. She stated that the footprints of the buildings are still too big in her opinion, but she will not propose the amendment she introduced that failed in committee. She noted that this is an overall good package. Alderperson McCollister stated that the residential parking permit system has worked remarkably well and enforcement is strong. The $10,000 payment in lieu of parking figure in the ordinance is meant to be fluid and subject to change. She further explained that the form based districts ensure the concentration of density in a very logical way, and she stated that she is very comfortable with the ordinance. Alderperson Myrick noted that payment in lieu of parking is not intended to be a fund to build parking in other areas of the City, and it is not meant to provide an incentive to owning a car or subsidize car ownership by providing parking garages. He noted that there are better alternatives to car use. He further stated that the reason for concentrating density in the core of Collegetown is because people did not want more development in surrounding neighborhoods. Discussion followed on the floor with City Planner Gilbert regarding Parts I, II, and III of the long environmental assessment forms. May 4, 2011 7 Alderperson Clairborne stated that he is conflicted regarding the increase of potential development. This is confusing to understand individually as opposed to comprehensively. He noted that Council heard from 25 people tonight who do not understand the proposal, so he feels that the vote should be delayed until everyone is able to understand it. Alderperson McCollister stated that the City and Common Council did due diligence on every aspect of this plan. She further stated that while the plan may not be perfect, it was thoroughly thought out Alderperson Coles stated that there have been traffic and transportation problems for decades, and noted that the City cannot prevent cars from going into Collegetown. Alderperson Rooker stated that students in Collegetown are at a crossroads where most of them no longer bring cars to school and utilize public transportation systems instead. This plan will enhance the availability of public transportation to students and may bring a decrease in the number of cars staying with students through the school year. Main Motion As Amended: A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (8) Dotson, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Myrick, Rooker, Cogan, Mohlenhoff Nays (2) Coles, Clairborne Abstentions (0) Carried (8-2) Motion to Extend the Meeting: By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff RESOLVED, That the Common Council meeting be extended to midnight in order to complete the items on the agenda. Carried Unanimously B. An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” to Establish the Collegetown Area Form Districts and Rezoning of Portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, B-2b, and U-1 Districts to Traditional Residential (TR), Village Residential (VR), and Mixed Use (MU) By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” was endorsed by the Common Council on August 5, 2009, and the plan recommended the adoption of a form-based code, a binding design review process, a height incentive zone, and several essential transportation measures, and WHEREAS, from the beginning of the Collegetown planning process the adoption of a form-based code has been considered to be an important implementation measure, and WHEREAS, a capital project was approved in January 2008 to hire a consultant to assist with the preparation of the proposed code, and WHEREAS, the City, with a dollar-for-dollar match from Cornell University, hired Code Studio of Austin, Texas to begin preparation of the form-based code during the Collegetown planning process, and WHEREAS, Lee Einsweiler of Code Studio recommended that the City pursue a hybrid code rather than a true form-based code because (1) the hybrid code includes regulations of density and use that are not included in true form-based codes and density continues to be a critical issue in the Collegetown area and (2) this type of zoning is new to the city and the hybrid code would ease the transition from traditional zoning, and May 4, 2011 8 WHEREAS, the Collegetown Zoning Working Group was formed in February 2009 to focus on the proposed Collegetown zoning changes, and this group included Common Council representatives, members of the Planning and Development Board, neighborhood residents, a Collegetown landlord, the editor/publisher of New Urban News, and staff from the City’s Building and Planning Departments, and WHEREAS, the Collegetown Zoning Working Group has worked to revise the draft Collegetown Area Form Districts prepared by Code Studio to better reflect the goals of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,” and WHEREAS, the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts were presented at the Collegetown Neighborhood Council and the Bryant Park Civic Association, and input from these meetings as well as comments submitted by members of the public have been incorporated into the proposed zoning, and WHEREAS, public hearings on the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts were held on March 16, 2011 and April 20, 2011, and appropriate environmental review of the proposed zoning has been completed; now, therefore, ORDINANCE NO. 2011- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1: Section 41 entitled “Design Review” within Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning” is hereby repealed. Section 2: Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” identifies several goals for future development in Collegetown. These goals include: • To encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction • To regulate elements of building form to ensure a compatible transition between higher-density and lower-density zoning districts • To concentrate additional density and growth in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character of the established residential neighborhoods • To promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of non-motorized modes of transportation The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” recommends the adoption of a form-based code to regulate elements of building form that are not addressed under traditional zoning. The Collegetown Area Form Districts is a hybrid code that combines regulations of physical form with regulations of use and density. The Common Council finds that the establishment of the Collegetown Area Form Districts will advance the City’s goals for future development in Collegetown as specified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.” Section 3: Chapter 325, Section 325-4 entitled “Establishment of Districts” and 325-5 entitled “Zoning Map” of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca are hereby amended to add the Collegetown Area Form District which include the following zoning districts: Traditional Residential 1 (TR-1), Traditional Residential 2 (TR-2), Traditional Residential 3 (TR-3), Traditional Residential 4 (TR-4), Village Residential 1 (VR-1), Village Residential 2 (VR-2), Village Residential 3 (VR-3), Village Residential 4 (VR-4), Village Residential 5 (VR-5), and Mixed Use (MU). Section 4: Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a new Article to be inserted as Article VIII entitled “Collegetown Zoning”, and all subsequent articles and sections shall be hereby renumbered accordingly. A new Section 325-41 entitled “Collegetown Area Form Districts” shall be inserted in its entirety into said Article VIII (see Collegetown Area Form Districts document dated April 20, 2011) May 4, 2011 9 Section 5: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-1b, R-2b, and R-3a to TR-1 for the following tax parcels: 64.-6-1; 64.-6-2.2; 64.-6-3; 64.-7-1; 64.-7-2; 64.-7-3; 64.-7-4; 64.-7-5; 64.-7-6; 65.-2-1; 65.-2-2; 65.-2-3; 65.2-4; 65.-2-5; 67.-2-8; 67.-2-9; 67.-2-10; 67.-2-11; 67.-3-18; 67.-3-19; 67.-3- 20; 67.-3-21; 67.-3-22; 68.-7-9; 68.-7-10; 68.-8-2; 68.-8-3; 68.-8-4; 83.-6-2; and 84.-1-1; and a portion of 67.-2-5. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 6: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-2a, R-2b, and R-3a to TR-2 for the following tax parcels: 64.-1- 1; 64.-1-2; 64.-1-4; 64.-3-2; 64.-3-3; 64.-3-4; 64.-3-5; 64.-3-6; 64.-4-1; 64.-4-2; 64.-4-3; 64.-4-4; 64.-4-5; 64.-5-1; 64.-5-2; 64.-5-3; 64.-5-4; 64.-8-1; 64.-8-2; 64.-8-3; 64.-8-4; 64.- 8-5; 64.-8-6; 64.-8-7; 64.-8-8; 64.-8-9; 64.-8-10; 64.-8-11; 65.-1-1; 65.-1-2; 65.-1-3; 65.- 1-4; 65.-1-5; 68.-6-12; 68.-6-13; 68.-6-14; 68.-6-15; 68.-7-2; 68.-7-3; 68.-7-3; 68.-7-4; 68.-7-5; 68.-7-6; 68.-7-7; 68.-7-8; 68.-8-6; 68.-8-9; 83.-3-2; 83.-3-3; 83.-3-4; 83.-3-5; 83.- 3-6.1; 83.-3-6.2; 83.-3-7; 83.-3-8; 83.-3-9; 83.-4-1; 83.-4-3; 83.-4-4; 83.-4-5; 83.-4-6; 83.- 6-1; and 83.-6-3. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 7: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, and R-3b to TR-3 for the following tax parcels: 64.-2-7; 64.-2-8; 64.-2-9; 64.-2-11; 64.-2-13; 64.-2-15; 64.-3-1; 64.-3-7; 64.-3-8; 64.-9-2; 64.-9-3; 64.-9-4; 64.-9-5; 64.-9-7; 64.-9-8; 64.-9-9; 67.-2-3; 67.-2-4; 67.-3-2; 67.-3-3; 67.- 3-23; 67.-3-24; 67.-3-25; 67.-3-26; 68.-5-14; 68.-5-15; 68.-5-16; 68.-5-17; 68.-5-18; 68.- 5-19; 68.-6-1; 68.-6-16; 68.-6-17; 68.-6-18; and 68.-6-19; and portions of 64.-2-33; and 67.-2-5. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 8: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-3a to TR-4 for the following tax parcels: 64.-2-2; 64.-2-4; 64.-2-5; and 64.-2-6. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 9: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-3a to VR-1 for the following tax parcels: 64.-2-14; 64.-2-17; and 64.-2-19; and a portion of 64.-2-33. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 10: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from U-1 to VR-2 for the following tax parcel: 63.-2-7. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 11: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-3a and R-3b to VR-3 for the following tax parcels: 64.-2-18; 64.- 2-20; 64.-2-22; 64.-9-1; 64.-9-6; 64.-9-10; 67.-1-7; 67.-1-8; 67.-2-1; 67.-2-2; 67.-2-12; May 4, 2011 10 67.-2-13; 67.-2-14; 67.-2-15; 67.-2-16; 67.-2-17; 67.-2-18; 67.-3-1; 67.-3-29; 67.-3-30; 67.-3-31; 68.-4-9; 68.-4-11; 68.-4-12; 68.-4-13; 68.-4-14; 68.-4-15; 68.-5-2; 68.-5-3; 68.- 5-4; 68.-5-5; 68.-5-6; 68.-5-7; 68.-5-8; 68.-5-9; 68.-6-2; 68.-6-3; 68.-6-4; 68.-6-5; 68.-6-6; 68.-6-7; 68.-6-8; 68.-6-9; 68.-6-10; 68.-6-11; and 83.-4-2; and portions of 63.-6-17; 68.- 4-10; and 68.-4-3. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 12: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-3b to VR-4 for the following tax parcels: 64.-10-7; 64.-10-8; 64.- 10-9; 64.-10-10; 64.-10-11; 67.-1-4; 67.-1-5; and 67.-1-6; and portions of 64.-10-13; 64.- 10-15; 67.-1-1; 67.-1-3; and 67.-1-12. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 13: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-3b and B-2b to VR-5 for the following tax parcels: 67.-1-9; 67.-1- 10; 67.-1-11; 68.-4-8; 68.-5-10; 68.-5-11; 68.-5-12; and 68.-5-13; and portions of 67.-1- 3; and 67.-1-12. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 14: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from B-2b, R-3a, and U-1 to MU for the following tax parcels: 63.-5-2; 63.-5-3; 63.-5-5; 63.-5-7; 63.-5-8; 63.-5-9; 63.-6-1; 63.-6-2; 63.-6-3; 63.-6-4; 63.-6-5; 63.- 6-8; 63.-6-14; 63.-6-19; 63.-6-20; 63.-6-21; 63.-6-23; 63.-6-24; 63.-6-25; 63.-6-26; 64.-2- 1; 64.-2-23; 64.-2-24; 64.-2-26; 64.-2-27; 64.-2-28; 64.-2-29; 64.-2-30; 64.-2-31; 64.-2- 32; 64.-10-1; 64.-10-2; 64.-10-3; 64.-10-4; 64.-10-5; 64.-10-6; 64.-10-17.2; 64.-10-18; 64.-10-19; 64.-10-20; 64.-10-21; 68.-4-6; and 68.-4-7; and portions of 63.-6-17; 64.-10- 13; 64.-10-15; 67.-1-1; 68.-4-3; and 68.-4-10. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts-March 2011,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 15: All applicable sections within the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca shall be updated in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 16: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 17: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Alderperson Clairborne expressed his concern that the ordinance is not ready yet. He inquired as to what the process would be for property to be transferred to Cornell University and thereby become tax exempt. City Attorney Hoffman responded that a voluntary agreement would be the only way to deal with the concerns regarding private property owners transferring ownership of their properties to Cornell University. In response to public comment, Mayor Peterson stated that she appointed Herman Sieverding to the Collegetown Vision Committee as she was looking for mixed interests, and there was nothing secret about it. He raised concerns about conflicts of interests that were vetted through her and his company. May 4, 2011 11 Mayor Peterson asked for clarification on building lengths. Alderperson Dotson reviewed facade lengths in the following zones: VR2 = 300, VR3 = 150, VR4 = 150, VR5 = 150, TR1 = no limit, TR2 = no limit, TR3 = no limit, TR4 = no limit, MU – no facade length. City Attorney Hoffman questioned what controls were in place for consolidation of lots. Planner Gilbert responded that consolidation is still allowed but the uses would be controlled depending on which district the properties were located within. Alderperson Zumoff stated that he is not a fan of zoning, and that these new zoning proposals are too complicated. He noted that he would not support this legislation. Discussion followed on the floor regarding what current zoning allows versus what the new zoning would allow. Mayor Peterson noted that she is not able to vote, but was moved by the speakers and wished that there was more time to consider these proposals. A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows: Ayes (7) Dotson, Rosario, McCollister, Myrick, Rooker, Cogan, Mohlenhoff Nays (3) Coles, Clairborne, Zumoff Abstentions (0) Carried* (7-3) (* 8 affirmative votes may be required based on the protest filed) 9.3 Establishment of Collegetown Overlay Height Incentive District: A. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code in order to (1) establish the Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) and (2) zone portions of the proposed Mixed Use district (proposed under a separate action) to be included in the COZ-HI District, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated March 9, 2011, and WHEREAS, these zoning amendments have been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and have also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the County Planning Department has recommended a certain change in the stream setback for the proposed VR-2 district, without which change this amendment requires the vote of a majority plus one, for passage, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “Type I” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated March 9, 2011, and be it further May 4, 2011 12 RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Ayes (8) Dotson, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Myrick, Rooker, Cogan, Mohlenhoff Nays (2) Coles, Clairborne Abstentions (0) Carried (8-2) B. An Ordinance to Amend The City Of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Establish the Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker WHEREAS, the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” was endorsed by the Common Council on August 5, 2009, and the plan recommended the adoption of a form-based code, a binding design review process, a height incentive zone, and several essential transportation measures, and WHEREAS, the Collegetown Zoning Working Group was formed in February 2009 to focus on the proposed Collegetown zoning changes, and this group included Common Council representatives, members of the Planning and Development Board, neighborhood residents, a Collegetown landlord, the editor/publisher of New Urban News, and staff from the City’s Building and Planning Departments, and WHEREAS, the proposed Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) area, the 300-block of College Avenue in Collegetown’s commercial core, was identified in the Collegetown plan as a prime location for redevelopment and increased density, and WHEREAS, the Collegetown plan identified several possible community benefits, and the Collegetown Zoning Working Group refined this list to focus on (1) the provision of uses that will bring people into Collegetown throughout the calendar year and (2) the provision of a high-quality transit facility within the new building’s footprint, and WHEREAS, the proposed COZ-HI was presented at the Collegetown Neighborhood Council and the Bryant Park Civic Association, and input from these meetings as well as comments submitted by members of the public have been incorporated into the proposed zoning, and WHEREAS, public hearings on the proposed COZ-HI were held on March 16, 2011 and April 20, 2011, and appropriate environmental review of the proposed zoning has been completed; now, therefore, ORDINANCE 2011- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1: Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose: May 4, 2011 13 With the endorsement of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,” the Common Council identified several goals to create an “outstanding urban environment” in Collegetown. Several aspects of the envisioned environment already exist; others will be more difficult to realize without incentive. The City’s goals for Collegetown include: • To further diversify the Collegetown population to include a greater number of employees and residents whose presence is not dependent on the academic calendar • To sustain a thriving, year-round Collegetown business district • To encourage strong residential areas to the east and west of the Mixed Use (MU) District with a mix of owner-occupants and students • To promote a convenient public transportation system, thus reducing traffic congestion and parking demand The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” recommends the adoption of an incentive zone to address these desirable but difficult-to-achieve goals. Pursuant to §81-d of the New York State General City Law, the Common Council is authorized to “provide for the granting of incentives, or bonuses” for the purpose of advancing “the city’s specific physical, cultural and social policies in accordance with the city’s comprehensive plan and in coordination with other community planning mechanisms or land use techniques.” The Common Council finds that the establishment of the COZ-HI Ordinance will advance the City’s physical, cultural, and social policies for Collegetown as specified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.” Section 2: Chapter 325, Sections 325-4 entitled “Establishment of Districts” and 325-5 entitled “Zoning Maps” of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca are hereby amended to create an overlay zone in areas located in the proposed MU district to be entitled Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District, the boundaries of which are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI).” Section 3: Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a new Section 325-42 to be inserted in its entirety to Article VIII entitled “Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District” to read as follows: §325-42 Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) §325-42.1 Purpose and Intent. In accordance with §81-d of the General City Law of the State of New York, this article authorizes the Planning and Development Board, during the process of Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 276, Site Plan Review, of the Code, to make allowances for buildings to exceed the maximum allowable height of the MU district in exchange for the provision of an approved community benefit, subject to the limitations contained in this section. COZ-HI height incentives may be approved in order to promote the following purposes: A. To encourage development that would increase year-round activity in the MU district. B. To encourage the use of public transit through the provision of enhanced transit facilities. §325-42.2 Authorization and Minimum Requirements. A. The Planning and Development Board is authorized, upon petition by an applicant for Site Plan Review approval, to approve construction of buildings that exceed the maximum allowable height of the MU district up to a maximum of 84' or 7 stories, for buildings located within the May 4, 2011 14 boundaries of the COZ-HI, in accordance with §325-42.2B and C below. B. For all building facades that front College Avenue and Dryden Road and for all building facades that directly abut a VR-3 district, the seventh story shall be stepped back a minimum of 12’ from the façade of the sixth story. C. An applicant must submit a written proposal to the Planning and Development Board which delineates the benefit(s) that the project will provide to the community in exchange for the additional height. In order to be considered for approval of additional height, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning and Development Board that at least one of the following approved community benefits will be provided: 1. The development provides a use for a period of 20 years that will bring people into Collegetown throughout the calendar year. Acceptable uses include: • A Hotel • At least one story of Class A office space (Class A office space is assumed to be high quality office space with high quality finishes, state-of- the-art systems, and exceptional accessibility). • At least one story of non-tax-exempt research and development space • Other uses that will bring people into Collegetown throughout the calendar year as determined by the Planning and Development Board 2. The development incorporates a high-quality public bus shelter or facilities within its building footprint at a location acceptable to the necessary decision- making bodies. These may include: the Planning and Development Board, the Board of Public Works, and Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit. §325-42.3 Approval Process; Modification of Benefits In order to be granted approval for the additional permitted height associated with properties located within the boundaries of the COZ-HI, an applicant must submit a written proposal to the Planning and Development Board, as described in §325-42.2 above, as a part of the Site Plan Review process. Approval of the COZ-HI height incentives shall be conditioned on any necessary approvals associated with the proposed benefit(s) of the project. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted prior to the completion of the proposed community benefits. No building permit or Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted if modifications to the proposed benefits are proposed, are undertaken, or occur without the approval of the Planning and Development Board. The Planning and Development Board shall notify the Building Commissioner of any action taken in regard to COZ-HI height incentives. Section 4: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New York is hereby amended as follows: The zoning district designation for portions of certain tracts of land shall now include the Collegetown Overlay Zone-Height Incentive District (COZ-HI), which will include the following tax parcels: 63.-6-14; 68.-4-6; 64.-10-17.2; 64.-10-18; 64.-10-19; 64.-10-20; May 4, 2011 15 64.-10-21; 64.-10-1; 64.-10-2; 64.-10-3; and portions of parcels 63.-6-8, 68.-4-3, and 64.-10-15, as indicated on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District(COZ-HI),” dated October 2010. Section 5: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Rooker: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick RESOLVED, That Section 325-42.2 items B, C, and C(1) be amended to read as follows: “B. For all building facades that front on College Avenue or Dryden Road and for all building facades that directly abut a VR-3 district, the seventh story shall be stepped back a minimum of 12’ from the façade of the sixth story. C. An applicant must submit a written proposal to the Planning and Development Board which delineates the benefit(s) that the project will provide to the community in exchange for the additional height. This proposal must include demonstration of the financial feasibility of the proposed benefit, as well as a commitment from an identifiable tenant, to occupy the space for the designated purpose. In order to be considered for approval of additional height, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning and Development Board that at least one of the following approved community benefits will be provided: 1. The development provides a use for a period of at least 20 years that will bring people into Collegetown throughout the calendar year. Acceptable uses include: …” Carried Unanimously Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Rooker: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson RESOLVED, That section 325-42.2 C (1) be amended to add another bullet that would read as follows: • A full service grocery store – a retail food establishment stocked primarily with healthy, wholesome foods, that must carry fresh, high quality vegetables and fruits, and that may carry other high quality, healthy, minimally processed perishable foods (such as dairy, fresh meats, poultry, fish), frozen and canned foods, a variety of grains and cereal products, dried beans and peas, and ready to eat dishes prepared on site. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the definition of a grocery store. A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously Alderperson Clairborne noted that he doesn’t agree with the additional height requirements therefore, he can’t support the Ordinance. May 4, 2011 16 Main Motion As Amended: A vote on the Main Motion As Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (8) Dotson, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Myrick, Rooker, Cogan, Mohlenhoff Nays (2) Coles, Clairborne Abstentions (0) Carried (8-2) 9.4 Establishment of the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone: A. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code in order to amend the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone to (1) establish a payment in lieu of parking system; (2) eliminate the option of providing off- site parking areas within the CPOZ; and (3) reduce the residential parking requirements for certain zoning districts within the CPOZ, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated March 1, 2011, and WHEREAS, these zoning amendments have been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department, pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and have also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated March 1, 2011, and be it further RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Ayes (7) Dotson, Rosario, McCollister, Myrick, Rooker, Cogan, Mohlenhoff Nays (2) Clairborne, Coles Abstentions (0) Carried (7-2) (Alderperson Zumoff absent from vote) B. An Ordinance to Amend The City Of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Establish the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ) By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” was endorsed by the Common Council on August 5, 2009, and the plan recommended the adoption of a form-based code, a binding design review process, a height incentive zone, and several essential transportation measures, and May 4, 2011 17 WHEREAS, essential transportation measures identified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” for implementation include (1) establishment of an in-lieu-of parking fee system; (2) designation of northbound and southbound transit stop locations along the College Avenue corridor; (3) development of a schematic design plan that prioritizes pedestrians for the public right-of-way (streetscape) in the 300 and 400 blocks of College Avenue and the 100 and 200 blocks of Dryden Road, in relation to expected pedestrian volumes and current and potential development build-out in the Collegetown Planning Area; (4) implementation of a remote parking system; and (5) development of a set of alternatives for managing on- street and other public parking in the core of Collegetown, and WHEREAS, transportation measures included in the amendment to the Collegetown Parking overlay Zone include the following: a) establishment of a payment in lieu of parking system, b) elimination of the option to provide off-site parking areas within the CPOZ, c) reduction of the residential parking requirement for the proposed VR-4, VR-5, and MU districts, and WHEREAS, the Collegetown Transportation Working Group was formed to focus on the proposed Collegetown transportation improvements, and this group included Common Council representatives, members of the Planning and Development Board, a representative of the Board of Public Works, and staff from the City’s Engineering and Planning Departments, and WHEREAS, the Collegetown Transportation Working Group and the Collegetown Zoning Working Group worked collaboratively to address the goals of “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” through the proposed amendments to the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ), and WHEREAS, the (CPOZ) was originally adopted in 2000 to more adequately address the parking demand of residents and business employees as identified in the Collegetown Parking Study completed in the summer of 2000, and WHEREAS, the CPOZ was intended to anticipate future parking needs, and, in combination with other remedies, do so in a manner that would allow development to continue and that would protect and improve the visual character of surrounding neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the adoption of the CPOZ has alleviated some of the impact of spillover parking on surrounding neighborhoods, but the more stringent off-street parking requirements of the CPOZ have resulted in several negative consequences including additional curb cuts, large areas of surface parking, and a disincentive to rehabilitate existing “grandfathered” properties, and WHEREAS, the proposed payment in-lieu-of parking system would offer an alternative to providing required off-street parking, but participation in the system would not be a requirement and a property owner may choose to provide required parking on-site, and WHEREAS, providing this alternative to constructing on-site parking may promote development on constrained sites and may also reduce the number of requests for zoning variances, and WHEREAS, a reduction in the residential parking requirement in the proposed VR-4, VR-5, and MU districts would also encourage redevelopment in zones targeted for increased density, and WHEREAS, the existing provision that on-site parking requirements may be met with off-site parking within a specified distance of a proposed development is difficult to track and enforce, and under the proposed ordinance would be eliminated and replaced with the payment in lieu of parking option, and May 4, 2011 18 WHEREAS, all revenues collected from the payment in-lieu-of parking system will be dedicated to transportation improvements in Collegetown with preference given to the other transportation measures identified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,” and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the CPOZ were presented at the Collegetown Neighborhood Council and the Bryant Park Civic Association, and input from these meetings as well as comments submitted by members of the public have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the CPOZ was held on March 16, 2011, and appropriate environmental review of the proposed zoning has been completed; now, therefore, ORDINANCE 2011- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1: §325.20(C)(3)(c), Parking in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone is hereby deleted and all subsequent subsections are re-lettered accordingly. Section 2: Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Section 325-43 entitled “Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone” to be included in its entirety in Article VIII, as follows: §325-43. Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone A. Parking Requirements. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the CPOZ, as designated on the map entitled "Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone," dated June 2000, a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's Office, required off-street parking for residential uses in the R-3a, R-3b, TR-3, TR-4, VR-1, VR-3, and B-2d Zoning Districts shall be one space for every two resident occupants. In the CPOZ, required off-street parking for residential uses in the VR-4, VR-5, and MU Zoning Districts shall be one space for every three resident occupants. These requirements shall apply to any new structures or any modifications to existing structures that result in an increase in occupancy. (2) All required parking spaces in the CPOZ must be provided on the same parcel as the building, use, or activity that they serve or the parking requirement may be fulfilled through the payment in lieu of parking fee option pursuant to §325-43B. B. Payment in Lieu of Parking Fee Option (1) Purpose and Intent- In accordance with §81-d of the General City Law of the State of New York, this article authorizes the City to accept a payment in lieu of all or part of a development’s required off-street parking. Consistent with the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,” the purpose and intent of the payment in lieu of parking is to: May 4, 2011 19 • Provide funding for multi-modal transportation improvements that directly benefit the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ) • Promote development on constrained sites • Reduce the need for zoning variances • Support historic preservation and rehabilitation of existing structures by enabling redevelopment of buildings without requiring the addition of new parking • Reduce the negative impacts of parking areas (2) Requirements- In lieu of providing all or a portion of the required number of parking spaces for residential and non-residential uses within the boundaries of the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ), a Payment in Lieu of Parking Fee may be paid, the amount of which shall be established pursuant to §325-43B(3) below. The Building Commissioner shall verify the number of parking spaces required by zoning for the property. (3) Establishment of Fees- The payment in lieu fee shall be a fixed, one-time payment per space in an amount that balances the objectives of creating an incentive for property owners to opt in with providing sufficient revenue to fund transportation improvements within the CPOZ. The fee shall be less than the cost of providing structured parking (including land acquisition, construction, operation, and management). Based on the approach explained in the footnote below, the payment in lieu fee shall be $10,000 per parking space.1 (4) Time of payment. Payments made pursuant to this section shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for any portion or phase of a development project for which required parking spaces are not provided. (5) Use of Fee. The City shall establish a separate interest- bearing trust fund exclusively for the deposit of payment in lieu of parking fees. Funds deposited into said account and any interest earned shall be used by the City for the exclusive purpose of funding transportation-related improvements that will directly benefit the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ). Priority shall be given to transportation improvements identified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.” (a) Prior to the expenditure of said funds, the Common Council must approve projects to be funded by the payment in lieu fee revenues. 1 The payment in lieu fee is to be approximately 50 percent of the cost of providing structured parking, with the figure for the cost of providing structured parking being derived from a widely-recognized formula such as that established by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, or similar respected institution. May 4, 2011 20 Section 3: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Ayes (7) Dotson, Rosario, McCollister, Myrick, Rooker, Cogan Mohlenhoff Nays (3) Clairborne, Coles, Zumoff Abstentions (0) Carried* (7-3) (*8 affirmative votes may be required for adoption depending on the protest filed 9.5 Establishment of the Design Review Ordinance: A. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to the Municipal Code in order to add Chapter 160, “Design Review,” and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated March 1, 2011, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated March 1, 2011, and be it further RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Ayes (9) Coles, Dotson, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Myrick, Rooker, Cogan, Mohlenhoff Nays (1) Clairborne Abstentions (0) Carried (9-1) May 4, 2011 21 B. An Ordinance to Amend the City Of Ithaca Municipal Code to Add Chapter 160, Entitled “Design Review” By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan WHEREAS, the ‘2009” Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” was endorsed by the Common Council on August 5, 2009 and the plan recommended the adoption of a form-based code, a binding design review process, a height incentive zone, and several essential transportation measures, and WHEREAS, the City’s current Design Review legislation is limited to an advisory, non- binding, review process, and WHEREAS, the City seeks to establish a binding design review process for areas included in the Collegetown Area Form Districts and to continue the non-binding design review process in areas already subject to design review, and WHEREAS, the proposed Design Review Ordinance was presented at the Collegetown Neighborhood Council, and input from this meeting as well as comments submitted by members of the public have been incorporated into the proposed zoning, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Design Review Ordinance was held on March 16, 2011, and appropriate environmental review of the proposed zoning has been completed; now, therefore, ORDINANCE 2011- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1: A new chapter (Chapter 160) entitled “Design Review”, is hereby added to the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, to read as follows: § 160-1. Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “City of Ithaca Design Review Ordinance.” § 160-2. Purpose and Intent. A. This section is intended to promote the general public welfare by: 1. Promoting desirable urban growth and development; 2. Promoting excellence of architectural and urban design; 3. Preserving and enhancing community resources such as historic architecture and neighborhood character; 4. Achieving compatibility with adjacent properties. B. The intent of this chapter is to provide for the review of plans for construction, exterior alterations, additions, or demolition of structures in certain zones of the City or under certain conditions, which zones and conditions are hereby deemed special in nature in terms of architectural character, intensity of existing use and development, sensitivity to the effect of change in use, or other reason. § 160-3. Applicability. Proposals subject to either binding or non-binding design review, depending on the type of proposal and the property’s zoning district, are as follows: A. Binding Design Review May 4, 2011 22 1. For any parcel or any portion of any parcel within the Collegetown Area Form Districts (as defined in Chapter 325, Article IV), all design review recommendations shall be binding. Binding design review shall apply to all proposals for: a. New construction, exterior alterations, or additions to any structure. b. Addition or removal of exterior signs. c. Changes to the site, such as the addition of new or alterations to existing hardscape elements, including but not limited to paving, retaining walls, or fences. d. Demolition of any structure or of any portion thereof. B. Non-Binding Design Review 1. In all other areas of the city in which design review is required, design review recommendations shall not be binding, unless such recommendation shall also be incorporated into a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals or as a condition of site plan approval by the Planning and Development Board. Non-binding design review shall apply to all proposals for: a. New construction, exterior alterations, or additions to any structure within the zones designated B-1b; B-2b; B-2c; B-2d; all CBD zones, including CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, and CBD-120; and C-SU. b. New construction, exterior alterations, or additions to any structure 60 feet in height or greater in any zone. c. Demolition of any primary structure within any zone, and demolition of any portion of any structures within the zones designated B-1b; B-2b; B-2c; B-2d; all CBD zones, including CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, and CBD-120; and C-SU. c. New construction of a primary structure on a parcel within any zone within two years following a demolition of a primary structure on that parcel. § 160-4. Exemptions. Any action pertaining to any structure locally designated as a landmark or within a locally designated historic district shall be reviewed by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, and is therefore exempt from the requirement for design review. § 160-5. Limited Binding and Non-Binding Design Review Procedure. A. The Building Commissioner or his or her designee shall determine whether binding or non-binding design review is required when an application for a building permit or demolition permit is submitted. If the determination is made that binding or non-binding design review is required, the Building Commissioner shall transmit the application to the Director of Planning and Development. B. Upon receipt of the application, the Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall May 4, 2011 23 determine whether the proposal shall be subject to a limited or full design review. C. For proposals for exterior alterations that require binding design review, the Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall determine whether the proposal can have a limited review by staff or requires full review by the Planning and Development Board. The Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall have the authority to review and approve minor exterior alterations such as in-kind replacements; limited landscape work; small changes to doors, light fixtures, paving, steps, or fences; or other similar minor modifications. D. For all proposals that require non-binding design review, the Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall have the authority to conduct a limited review of proposals that meet the following thresholds: 1. For modification and expansion of residential development, an upper threshold of 4,000 square feet (sf) of total affected site area. 2. For new construction, modification or expansion of nonresidential development in residential zones, an upper threshold of 3,000 sf of total affected site area. 3. For modification and expansion of nonresidential development in nonresidential zones, an upper threshold of 10,000 sf of total affected site area. 4. All proposals for demolition E. If a proposal may cause public controversy, the Director of Planning and Development may refer the proposal to the Planning and Development Board for full review. § 160-6. Full Binding Design Review Procedure. A. The Building Commissioner or his or her designee shall determine whether binding or non-binding design review is required when an application for a building permit or demolition permit is submitted. If the determination is made that binding or non-binding design review is required, the Building Commissioner shall transmit the application to the Director of Planning and Development. B. Upon receipt of the application, the Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall determine whether the proposal shall be subject to a limited or full design review. C. When the proposal is determined to be subject to full design review, the individual or group making the proposal shall submit an application to the Department of Planning and Development with the following information (as appropriate): 1. Name and contact information of the applicant; 2. Location and photographs of the property; 3. Architectural plans, site plans and drawings of building facades; 4. Lists and/or samples of materials to be used; 5. Where the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing showing the type of lettering to be used, dimensions, colors, method of illumination, and a plan showing the sign’s location on the property; May 4, 2011 24 6. Any other information necessary to visualize the proposed work. D. Upon application for full design review, a public notice of the proposal shall be posted for a minimum of 10 days and must remain in place until the design review has been completed. The notice shall specify the proposed work, the time and place of the public hearing, and to whom and by when any public comments are to be communicated. The notice must E. be placed at or near the property line in the front yard so that it will be plainly visible from the street, and, in cases where a property has frontage on more than one street, so that the sign will be plainly visible from the street on which it has such additional frontage. F. The Planning and Development Board shall hold a public hearing prior to reviewing any proposal. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 5 days prior to the public hearing. The notice shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a brief description of the proposal, and the location where the proposal may be reviewed prior to the hearing. The public hearing may be combined with any other public hearing(s) required for the project. G. The Planning and Development Board shall reference the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” as a resource during design review. The Board shall approve, deny, or approve the design with modifications within 65 days from the completion of environmental review. The failure of the Planning and Development Board to act within 65 days of the filing of an application, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Board, shall be deemed to constitute approval. H. All design review recommendations shall be communicated in writing no later than 10 working days after the meeting at which the recommendations are made. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail and a copy filed with the Building Commissioner. § 160-7. Full Non-Binding Design Review Procedure A. The Building Commissioner or his or her designee shall determine whether binding or non-binding design review is required when an application for a building permit or demolition permit is submitted. If the determination is made that binding or non-binding design review is required, the Building Commissioner shall transmit the application to the Director of Planning and Development. B. Upon receipt of the application, the Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall determine whether the proposal shall be subject to a limited or full design review. C. Any individual or group proposing new construction or development anywhere within the City of Ithaca may request an informal design review and advisory recommendation. D. When the proposal is determined to be subject to full design review, the individual or group making the proposal shall submit an application to the Department of Planning and Development with the following information (as appropriate): May 4, 2011 25 1. Name and contact information of the applicant; 2. Location and photographs of the property; 3. Architectural plans, site plans and drawings of building facades; 4. Lists and/or samples of materials to be used; 5. Where the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing showing the type of lettering to be used, dimensions, colors, method of illumination, and a plan showing the sign’s location on the property; 6. Any other information necessary to visualize the proposed work. E. The Planning and Development Board shall review the proposal and make any recommendations within 45 days from receipt of the completed application. The failure of the Planning and Development Board to act within 45 days of the filing of an application, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Board, shall be deemed to constitute approval. F. All design review recommendations shall be communicated in writing no later than 10 working days after the meeting at which the recommendations are made. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail and a copy filed with the Building Commissioner. § 160-8. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any decision made pursuant to this chapter may apply to the Supreme Court in the State of New York for review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Section 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided by the Ithaca City Charter. Alderperson Zumoff stated that he would vote against the proposed ordinance as he is opposed to “binding” design review, and feels it is not appropriate. Discussion followed on the floor regarding “binding” review. City Historic Planner Chatterton explained that design standards for Collegetown are in place and this review will not be arbitrary as portrayed. Ayes (7) Coles, Rosario, McCollister, Rooker, Myrick, Cogan, Mohlenhoff Nays (2) Clairborne, Zumoff Abstentions (0) Carried (7-2) (Alderperson Dotson absent from vote) C An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 272 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Signs” to amend Section 6 entitled “Signs Permitted in All Districts” By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario ORDINANCE 2011- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: May 4, 2011 26 Section 1: Section 272-6 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, entitled “Signs Permitted in All Districts”, is hereby amended to read as follows (strikethrough indicates deletion, underline and bold indicates new language): § 272-6(A) Signs Permitted in All Districts. The following signs are permitted in any use district without a permit as noted: (6) Murals. b. Upon receipt of a proposal for a mural for any property subject to the provisions of Chapter 325, Zoning, § 325-42, Design review, or Article VIII, Courthouse Special Use Zone, or Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of this Code or facing such property, the Building Commissioner shall notify the Design Review Board, the Public Art Commission and/or the Landmarks Commission, as applicable, for their information and any appropriate action and shall so inform the applicant. (6) Murals. (b) Upon receipt of a proposal for a mural for any property subject to the provisions of Chapter 160, Design Review, or Chapter 325, Zoning, Article VIII Courthouse Special Use Zone, or Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of this Code or facing such property, the Building Commissioner shall notify the Planning and Development Board, the Public Art Commission, and/or the Landmarks Commission, as applicable, for their information and any appropriate action and shall so inform the applicant. Section 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided by the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously D An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 entitled “Zoning” Section 10 entitled “Accessory Apartments”, and Section 325-46 entitled “Review of Construction, Demolition, and Alteration” By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick ORDINANCE 2011- BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1: Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning”, Section 10D(6), entitled “Accessory Apartments - Requirements”, is hereby amended to read as follows (strikethrough indicates deletion, underline and bold indicates new language): § 325-10 – Accessory Apartments. In order to be granted a temporary permit, the following criteria and requirements must be met: (6) Exterior appearance. If an accessory apartment is located in the main building, the entry to the building and its design shall be such that the appearance of the building shall remain as a single-family residence. New or additional front entrances or windows are discouraged but in any event must be in keeping with the architectural style of the rest of the structure. Exterior stairways may only be constructed in the rear, except where an alternate location would be less publicly visible. Any exterior design May 4, 2011 27 changes may be referred by the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Design Review Board for its technical advice. New or additional front entrances must have the approval of the Design Review Board. (6) Exterior appearance. If an accessory apartment is located in the main building, the entry to the building and its design shall be such that the appearance of the building shall remain as a single- family residence. New or additional front entrances or windows are discouraged but in any event must be in keeping with the architectural style of the rest of the structure. Exterior stairways may only be constructed in the rear, except where an alternate location would be less publicly visible. Any exterior design changes may be referred by the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Planning and Development Board for its technical advice. Section 2: Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning”, Article IX, entitled “Courthouse Special Use Zone”, Section 46(A)(B) entitled “Review of Construction, Demolition, and Alteration” is hereby amended to read as follows (strikethrough indicates deletion, underline and bold indicates new language): § 325-46. Review of Construction, Demolition, and Alteration. A. Demolition, exterior alterations or additions to existing structures and parking areas and construction of new buildings or parking areas within the C-SU Zone shall be subject to strict review and approval by the Design Review Board and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission within their respective areas of responsibility. (See Subsection B below and § 325-41, Design review.) Proposals for demolition of structures within the C-SU Zone but outside designated City landmark districts shall nonetheless be referred to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which shall make its recommendation to the Design Review Board before the latter takes final action. B. Demolition, exterior alteration or enlargement of structures or parking areas or construction of new buildings or parking areas in C-SU Zones shall be subject to design review as provided in § 325-41 of this chapter. In performing such review and recommending any modifications to proposed exterior work, the Design Review Board shall pay particular attention to the visual effect of such work on the character of the area and adjacent residential zones. In no case shall the Design Review Board take final action on a proposal for demolition within any part of the C-SU Zone which is not within a locally designated landmark district before receiving the recommendation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission on such proposal. Approval of proposed demolitions, alterations or new construction within the C-SU Zone by the Design Review Board or the Landmarks Preservation Commission, as applicable, shall be a prerequisite of approval of such proposals by the Building Commissioner and the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. A. Demolition, exterior alterations or additions to existing structures and parking areas and construction of new buildings or parking areas within the C-SU Zone shall be subject to strict review and approval by the Planning and Development Board and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission within their respective areas of responsibility. (See Subsection B below and Chapter 160, Design Review.) Proposals for demolition of structures within the C-SU Zone but outside designated City landmark districts shall nonetheless be referred to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which shall make its recommendation to the Planning and Development Board before the latter takes final action. B. Demolition, exterior alteration or enlargement of structures or parking areas or construction of new buildings or parking areas in C-SU Zones shall be subject to design review as provided in Chapter 160. In performing such review and recommending any modifications to proposed exterior May 4, 2011 28 work, the Planning and Development Board shall pay particular attention to the visual effect of such work on the character of the area and adjacent residential zones. In no case shall the Planning and Development Board take final action on a proposal for demolition within any part of the C-SU Zone which is not within a locally designated landmark district before receiving the recommendation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission on such proposal. Approval of proposed demolitions, alterations or new construction within the C-SU Zone by the Planning and Development Board or the Landmarks Preservation Commission, as applicable, shall be a prerequisite of approval of such proposals by the Building Commissioner and the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Section 3: The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend § 325-8, District Regulations Chart, in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 4: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5: Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Alderperson Clairborne questioned why the Design Review Board was being dismantled and the duties of design review were being shifted to the Planning and Development Board. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the process of design review and the role of the Planning Board. A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 9.6 Committing Priority Setting for Transportation Measures to be Funded by the Payment in Lieu of Parking Revenue - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario WHEREAS, the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” was endorsed by the Common Council on August 5, 2009, and the plan recommended the adoption of a form-based code, a binding design review process, a height incentive zone, and several essential transportation measures, and WHEREAS, essential transportation measures identified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” for implementation include (1) establishment of an in-lieu-of parking fee system; (2) designation of northbound and southbound transit stop locations along the College Avenue corridor; (3) development of a schematic design plan that prioritizes pedestrians for the public right-of-way (streetscape) in the 300 and 400 blocks of College Avenue and the 100 and 200 blocks of Dryden Road, in relation to expected pedestrian volumes and current and potential development build-out in the Collegetown Planning Area; (4) implementation of a remote parking system; and (5) development of a set of alternatives for managing on- street and other public parking in the core of Collegetown, and WHEREAS, transportation measures included in the amendment to the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone include the following: a) establishment of a payment in lieu of parking system, b( elimination of the option to provide off-site parking areas within the CPOZ, c) reduction of the residential parking requirement for the proposed VR-4, VR-5, and MU districts, and WHEREAS, the Collegetown Transportation Working Group was formed to focus on the proposed Collegetown transportation improvements, and this group included Common Council representatives, members of the Planning and Development Board, a representative of the Board of Public Works, and staff from the City’s Engineering and Planning Departments, and May 4, 2011 29 WHEREAS, the Collegetown Transportation Working Group and the Collegetown Zoning Working Group worked collaboratively to address the goals of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines” through the proposed amendments to the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ), and WHEREAS, the (CPOZ) was originally adopted in 2000 to more adequately address the parking demand of residents and business employees as identified in the Collegetown Parking Study completed in the summer of 2000, and WHEREAS, the CPOZ was intended to anticipate future parking needs, and , in combination with other remedies, do so in a manner that would allow development to continue and that would protect and improve the visual character of surrounding neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the adoption of the CPOZ has alleviated some of the impact of spillover parking on surrounding neighborhoods, but the more stringent off-street parking requirements of the CPOZ have resulted in several negative consequences including additional curb cuts, large areas of surface parking, and a disincentive to rehabilitate existing “grandfathered” properties, and WHEREAS, the proposed payment in-lieu-of parking system would offer an alternative to providing required off-street parking, but participation in the system would not be a requirement and a property owner may choose to provide required parking on-site, and WHEREAS, providing this alternative to constructing on-site parking may promote development on constrained sites and may also reduce the number of requests for zoning variances, and WHEREAS, a reduction in the residential parking requirement in the proposed VR-4, VR-5, and MU districts would also encourage redevelopment in zones targeted for increased density, and WHEREAS, the existing provision that on-site parking requirements may be met with off-site parking within a specified distance of a proposed development is difficult to tract and enforce, and under the proposed ordinance would be eliminated and replaced with the payment in lieu of parking option, and WHEREAS, All revenues collected from the payment in-lieu-of parking system will be dedicated to transportation improvements in Collegetown with preference given to the other transportation measures identified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,” and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the CPOZ were presented at the Collegetown Neighborhood Council and the Bryant Park Civic Association, and input from these meetings as well as comments submitted by members of the public have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the CPOZ was held on March 16, 20111, and appropriate environmental review of the proposed zoning has been completed, and WHEREAS, there are several transportation measures identified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines,” which are not prioritized in that document, and are currently in various stages of planning, progress and completion, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council commits to setting priorities as soon as possible for implementing transportation improvement measures funded by any payment in lieu of parking revenues collected, considering their desirability, cost, and feasibility, the likely amount of funding to be available, and the possible effects of additional residents in the core of Collegetown without additional parking in this core area. May 4, 2011 30 Amending Resolution: By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario RESOLVED, That the last Resolved clause be amended to read as follows: “RESOLVED, That Common Council commits to setting priorities as soon as possible for implementing transportation improvement measures funded by any payment in lieu of parking revenues collected, considering together their desirability, cost, and feasibility, the likely amount of funding to be available, and the urgency associated with the possible effects of additional residents in the core of Collegetown without additional parking in this core area.” Carried Unanimously Alderperson Zumoff noted that he was opposed to this resolution because he feels it is not needed and he is unsure how it will be implemented. Main Motion As Amended: A vote on the Main Motion As Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (8) Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, McCollister, Myrick, Rooker, Cogan, Mohlenhoff Nays (2) Coles, Zumoff Abstentions (0) Carried (8-2) Alderpersons Dotson and Myrick expressed their thanks and appreciation to Director of Planning and Development JoAnn Cornish, Historic Planner, Leslie Chatterton, and Planner Megan Gilbert for all of their hard work, and for their attendance at all of the late night meetings that were required to pull this initiative together. 10. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: 10.1 Youth Bureau – Request to Amend 2011 Youth Bureau Budget and Roster - Resolution By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne WHEREAS, the Youth Program Assistant position was created in 2005 as a training position to allow promising job recruits an opportunity to grow into a Youth Program Leader Position, and WHEREAS, a Youth Bureau employee has done an exemplary job as a Youth Program Assistant and is qualified to become a Youth Program Leader, and WHEREAS it is fiscally prudent for the City to ensure that all employees are working to their maximum capacity, and WHEREAS, there is a need for the said employee to carry out the duties of the Youth Program Leader position, WHEREAS, the employee is already in a full-time roster position and therefore no significant increase in fringe benefits will be incurred; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2011 Youth Bureau budget as follows: Increase Appropriation Accounts: A7310-5110-01201 Salary $5,506 A7310-9010 Retirement $870 A7310-9030 Fica/Medicare $422 A7310-9040 Workers’ Comp $248 Decrease Appropriations Accounts: A7310-5120-01240 Part-time Hourly $3,323 A1990-5000 Unrestricted Contingency $3,323 and be it further May 4, 2011 31 RESOLVED, That the 2011 Authorized Personnel Roster of the Youth Bureau be amended as follows: Add: Youth Program Leader (35 hour per week) – Grade 12 and be it further RESOLVED, That the position of Youth Program Leader shall be filled by promotion and that the position of the Youth Program Assistant vacated by the promotion shall be retained in a vacant, unfunded capacity as long as the Youth Program Leader is filled. Carried 8-0 (Alderpersons Dotson and Myrick absent from vote) 10.2 Department of Public Works – Request to Increase Budget Authorization for the Ithaca City Court Renovation - Resolution By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff WHEREAS, Capital Projects 747 and 748 were established in 2009 in the amounts of $460,000 and $285,000 respectively for the preparation of plans and specifications and construction of renovations to heating, ventilation, air conditioning and the window wall for the Ithaca City Court building, and WHEREAS, bids were opened on March 29, 2011, and WHEREAS, the total project budget is projected to exceed the authorized budget by $102,853, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the amendments for Capital Project 747 City Court Window Repair for an amount not to exceed $63,769 for a total project authorization of $523,769 and Capital Project 748 City Court HVAC Improvements for an amount not to exceed $39,084 for a total project authorized of $324,084, and be it further RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said amendments will be derived from the issuance of Bonds with up to a 25% reimbursement of cost through the New York State Office of Court Administration. Carried Unanimously 10.3 City Controller’s Report City Controller Thayer reported to Common Council on the following items: • There has been no recent news on the proposal of a property tax cap • Sales tax collection - the recent payments have been 7.6% lower, which translates to a 1.2% decrease from 2010 collections. • Mortgage Tax collections have been shrinking in recent years due to the weak economy; however, our first payment of two for 2011 was $186,000 up 46% from 2010. Our 2011 mortgage tax revenue budget for 2011 is $312,340. • Parking revenues are slow; projections for collections show possible shortfalls • Overtime is on pace to exceed the budgeted amount • Fuel costs are 30% higher than last year even with State contract prices. This is also related to increased delivery costs. 12. NEW BUSINESS: 12.1 Wild Fire Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Delilah’s On Cayuga - Alcohol Permit Request – Resolution By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson WHEREAS, the City Clerk has received a request to allow Delilah’s on Cayuga restaurant to utilize certain areas along Cayuga Street for outdoor dining, and WHEREAS, this use of public property has been deemed proper and successful, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca wishes to promote diverse uses of the Primary and Secondary Commons, including outdoor dining, and May 4, 2011 32 WHEREAS, it is Common Council's responsibility to determine whether or not to allow the serving and consumption of alcohol on the Primary and Secondary Commons, and WHEREAS, Common Council has determined that the use of this public property for outdoor dining at Delilah’s on Cayuga restaurant, including the responsible sale and consumption of alcohol, is desirable, and WHEREAS, Common Council has determined that any use of this or similar public property involving the same and consumption of alcohol should be covered by a minimum of $1,000,000 insurance under the Dram Shop Act; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, For the year 2011, Common Council hereby approves a revocable Alcoholic Beverage Permit for the outdoor sale and consumption of alcohol for Delilah’s on Cayuga restaurant that includes the sale of alcohol in accord with the terms and conditions set forth in application therefore, including minimum Dram Shop coverage in the amount of $1,000,000 and the approval of an outdoor dining permit. Carried Unanimously MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS: 14.1 Board of Public Works – Resolution By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne RESOLVED, That Robert F. Morache be appointed to the Board of Public Works to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2012, and be it further 14.2 Community Police Board – Resolution RESOLVED, That Fred Madeo be appointed to the Community Police Board to replace LaBerta McGruder with a term to expire December 31, 2011, and be it further 14.3 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Board – Resolution RESOLVED, That Ayana Richardson be appointed to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Board to fill a vacancy with an indefinite term. Carried Unanimously REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY: City Attorney Hoffman reported that a new action has been filed regarding a Human Rights complaint by a resident who requested an American Sign Language Interpreter during a rental unit housing inspection by the Building Department. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 18.1 Approval of the April 6, 2011 Common Council Meeting Minutes – Resolution By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker RESOLVED, That the minutes of the April 6, 2011 Common Council meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. ______________________________ _______________________________ Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson, City Clerk Mayor