HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2012-06-06COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. June 6, 2012
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Alderpersons (10) Brock, Dotson, Murtagh, Clairborne, McCollister, Fleming, Rooker,
Kerslick, Proulx, Mohlenhoff
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Lavine
City Controller – Thayer
Community Development Director – Bohn
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Myrick led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4.1 A Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend
Chapter 325 the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning” Regarding Off-
Street Parking Regulations in Order to Make them Easier to Understand and
Enforce
Resolution to Open Public Hearing:
By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff
RESOLVED, That the public hearing to Consider the Adoption of an Ordinance to
Amend Chapter 325 the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning” Regarding Off-
Street Parking Regulations in Order to Make them Easier to Understand and Enforce be
declared open.
Carried Unanimously
No one appeared to address Common Council.
Resolution to Close Public Hearing:
By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
RESOLVED, That the public hearing to Consider the Adoption of an Ordinance to
Amend Chapter 325 the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning” Regarding Off-
Street Parking Regulations in Order to Make them Easier to Understand and Enforce be
declared closed.
Carried Unanimously
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
Update from City of Ithaca Youth Council
Jen Handy provided the following update on the activities of the Youth Council:
• Officers for have been elected for the upcoming year, and this year’s theme will
focus on providing input to Common Council on the most urgent/prevalent issues
for youth in each ward.
• The video entitled “What is a Mayor?” Part I and Part II were shown to the Youth
Council. Children (kindergarten-5th grade) wrote letters to the Mayor, which were
placed in a notebook for him to keep.
• A National “Kick Butts Day” was held with an anti-tobacco assembly that was
organized in conjunction with the Tompkins County Health Department.
• Youth Council members participated in the “Ithaca is Community” Service Day
along with eighteen agencies at seven different sites.
• Youth Council members have been working with the Cornell University Public
Service Center/Public Achievement Program which exposes them to college
coaches, power mapping, and civic engagement and participation programs.
• The Youth Council has a member serving on the City’s Comprehensive Plan
Committee.
June 6, 2012
2
• The Youth Council held a workshop with high/middle school girls, attended the
Sister-to-Sister program, and also held leadership training events.
• The Youth Council developed a legislative process brochure, attended school
board meetings, and worked to build community relationships through Ithaca
Youth Connect.
• The Youth Council would like to see more youth members serving on city boards
and committees.
Conservation Advisory Council:
Michael Culotta, Chair of the Conservation Advisory Council, addressed Common
Council to express concerns regarding the proposed sale and transfer of the Cherry
Street property. He noted that this is a natural habitat parcel of high value with a
wetland on it. He described its recreational value, noting that it is the site of the Black
Diamond Trail, and could be a gateway to the trail and the city. He encouraged
Common Council to carefully consider the value of this site and the potential impacts
development could have on it.
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
The following people addressed Common Council:
Reverend Rich Rose, First Baptist Church, expressed concern over the Bank of
America’s employment of armed security guards who stand outside of the bank on the
Ithaca Commons near the playground. He explained that when questioned what their
role was, a guard responded that they are protecting the bank from potential protesters.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, expressed concerns regarding safety in the community,
stating that the location of the bike lanes on Green Street is not safe. She requested
that the street be re-measured as it appears that the new pavement markings shift
traffic further to the left side of the street.
George McGonigal, City of Ithaca, expressed concerns regarding the proposed
redistricting plans and the potential adoption of a 4 Ward scenario.
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, discussed the following topics: drug testing for city
employees, exterior property maintenance violations and fines, sidewalk snow removal,
and Southwest Park/Inlet Island economic development concerns.
Daniel Keough, City of Ithaca, discussed downtown parking issues, and making the city
more walkable and bikeable. He encouraged Council to remove the minimum parking
requirements for developers.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
Alderperson Proulx responded to comments made regarding parking, the Green Street
bike markings, and the proposed sale of the Cherry Street property.
Alderperson Clairborne thanked all the speakers for their comments, and expressed
support for Rev. Rose’s comments. He reported that the Neighborhood Pride Grocery
store was able to secure financing and will be opening in the late Fall. He further
announced that the GIAC Festival will be held on June 9th and will celebrate GIAC’s 40th
Anniversary! The Juneteenth Festival which will be held on June 23rd, at the Southside
Community Center.
Mayor Myrick responded to comments regarding the Bank of America. He explained
that city approval was not needed, and that the bank is within its legal rights to hire
armed security guards. He stated that it was a national decision for the bank, not a local
one, and encouraged people to reach out to the bank with their thoughts and feelings.
Alderperson Brock thanked the speakers for their comments and Mr. McGonigal for his
data on the number of registered voters in the City of Ithaca.
City Attorney Lavine addressed the legal aspects of some of issues that were raised. He
noted that the exterior property maintenance ordinance is in the process of being
June 6, 2012
3
revised. He further explained that the redistricting law protects the representation of
people not voters.
Alderpersons Dotson and Rooker thanked the speakers for their comments, and
responded to comments made about parking.
Alderperson Kerslick responded to comments made about parking and expressed his
interest in promoting good development without excessive parking spaces.
Alderperson Fleming commented on how much fun she had participating in the Ithaca
Festival Mile Run and encouraged other Council members to join her next year!
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Clerk’s Office:
8.1 Kilpatricks Restaurant - Alcohol Permit Request – Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has received a request to allow Kilpatrick’s restaurant to utilize
certain areas along North Tioga 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
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 Kilpatrick’s 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 2012, Common Council hereby approves a revocable Alcoholic
Beverage Permit for the outdoor sale and consumption of alcohol for Kilpatrick’s 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
8.2 Appointment of Marriage Officer – Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, a request has been received from former Alderperson Michelle Courtney
Berry, who resides in the City of Ithaca to be appointed as a Marriage Officer so that
she would be able to officiate a wedding ceremony for friends at the end of June, 2012;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Michelle Courtney Berry, be appointed as a Marriage Officer in the
City of Ithaca until June 30, 2012.
Carried Unanimously
Consent Items – City Administration Committee:
8.3 Common Council Adoption of 2013 PEG Access Studio Capital Budget -
Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement between Time Warner Entertainment and the City of
Ithaca signed in 2003 authorizes Time Warner Entertainment to collect $0.15 per
subscriber per month to be used for the purchase of equipment for the Public, Educational
and Governmental (PEG) Access Studio; and
June 6, 2012
4
WHEREAS, the total capital budget for the life of the ten-year agreement was estimated to
be $200,000; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement outlines the creation of an Access Oversight
Committee which shall be responsible for approving the timing, use, and amount of PEG
access equipment acquired each year over the term of the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Access Oversight Committee has approved a 2013 capital budget in the
amount of $31,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement states that participating municipalities, including the
City of Ithaca, must adopt the annual PEG Access Studio budget by June 30 of the
preceding year; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council adopts the 2013 PEG Access Studio budget as
approved by the Access Oversight Committee.
Carried Unanimously
8.4 Youth Bureau - Request to Amend 2012 Youth Bureau Budget – Youth
Employment Services - Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau has applied for funding through the Tompkins
County Workforce Investment Board and may be receiving $145,336.99 in new funding
for the Tompkins Summer Youth Employment Program, and
WHEREAS, the goal of this program is to provide short-term subsidized internships for
low-income eligible teens needing assistance in securing employment; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2012 Youth Bureau budget
contingent upon confirmation of funding as follows:
Increase anticipated revenue from Tompkins County Workforce Investment Board as
follows:
A7310-4820-1202 Youth Employment Service $137,001.87
A7310-4820-1400 Administration $8,335.12
Total $145,336.99
Increase expenses:
A7310-5120-1202 Part time/Seasonal $112,844.12
A7310-5125-1202 Overtime 750.00
A7310-5425-1202 Office Supplies 1,450.00
A7310-5445-1202 Travel & Mileage 3,214.00
A7310-5460-1202 Program Supplies 2,702.50
A7310-5120-1400 Part time/Seasonal 1,900.00
A7310-5420-1400 Gas & Oil 1,400.00
A7310-5437-1400 Credit Card Fees 1,399.62
A7310-5415-1401 Clothing 112.50
A7310-5475-1401 Property Maintenance 1,700.00
A7310-5480-1401 Building Maintenance 1,500.00
A7310-9030 FICA 8,690.00
A7310-9040 Workers Compensation 7,674.25
Total $145,336.99
Carried Unanimously
8.5 Request to Amend 2012 Youth Bureau Budget – Recreation Support Services
Program - Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau’s Recreation Support Services Program (RSS)
has received $4,400.00 in new funding from a generous donor, and
June 6, 2012
5
WHEREAS, this funding is intended to cover the additional costs associated with an
increased demand for One-to-One Inclusion Assistants for children with disabilities at
Cass and Stewart Park day camps; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2012 Youth Bureau budget as
follows:
Increase Revenue Account:
A7310-2070-1601 Recreation Support Services $4,400.00
Increase Expenses:
A7310-5120-1601 Part time/Seasonal $3,760.00
A7310-9030 FICA 288.00
A7310-9040 Workers’ Compensation 352.00
Carried Unanimously
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE:
9.1 Update from May 16, 2012 meeting
Chair Mohlenhoff reported on the following items:
• Regular Tri-Chair Committee meetings have been scheduled, and the group will
meet every other month beginning in June.
• A joint Common Council and Senior Staff retreat is being scheduled. The
session will focus on the city’s Strategic Plan. It was suggested that the group
use a 4th Tuesday, (perhaps a half day) as this is the normal time that Senior
Staff meets.
• The Common Council Rules of Procedure were reviewed. It was decided that
work on this topic will be done on the floor of the GPA committee meetings
section by section, and not in a sub-committee. Highlights of the topics that will
be discussed are:
o Council member meeting attendance requirements
o Formal procedures for Council member resignations, expulsions, and
replacements
o Public comment process improvements
o Standing Committee procedures – promoting consistency among
committees
o Use of Robert’s Rules – Council could adopt its own rules instead
• A discussion was held regarding potential workload shifts if the number of council
members is reduced. This issue is also related to potential changes to the
organizational structure of the city’s boards and committees. Work on this topic
is ongoing.
10. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
10.1 DPW - Request to Create a Capital Project to Construct New Sidewalk on
Cornell Street - Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received a recommendation from the
Transportation Engineer to direct sidewalk construction along the west side of Cornell
Street, between East State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street and Eastwood Ave., which
was based on repeated requests from neighbors in the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, this block has the only missing sidewalk segment between East
State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street and the Belle Sherman Elementary School, and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2012, the Board of Public Works held a duly advertised public
hearing in accordance with Section C-73 of the City Charter, and
WHEREAS, costs associated with this project can be apportioned to the abutting three
property owners under the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement Policy in accordance with
Sections C-73 and C-89 of the City Charter, and
June 6, 2012
6
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2012, the Board of Public Works declared itself the Lead Agency
for environmental review under SEQR/CEQR and found that the project would have no
significant negative environmental impact, and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2012, the Board of Public Works directed that sidewalks be
constructed by City forces along the west side of Cornell Street, between East
State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street and Eastwood Ave., in accordance with the Uniform
Sidewalk Improvement Policy of the City Charter, pursuant to plans and specifications
prepared by the Office of the City Engineer, and under the direction of the
Superintendent of Public Works, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works also requested that Common Council establish a
capital project in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to cover the costs of this sidewalk
construction, with the understanding that approximately $20,000 of that total will be
assessed to the adjoining property owners after construction is complete in accordance
with the terms for apportionment and assessment as set forth in the City Charter; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project #779, Cornell
Street Sidewalk Improvements, in the amount of $50,000 in order to construct the new
sidewalk and related appurtenances, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the funding necessary for said project shall be derived from the
combination of sidewalk assessments, the issuance of serial bonds, and General Fund
Advance, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council understands that once the work is complete, city
Engineering staff will prepare a statement of actual costs for the Board of Public Works,
who, after a public hearing, will recommend an apportionment of adjoining property
owners’ costs to Common Council, who will ultimately determine the costs to be
assessed all in accordance with the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement Policy of the City
Charter (currently, staff estimates that the assessable costs will be approximately
$20,000 of the $50,000 project cost).
Mayor Myrick noted that this is the first residential sidewalk that has been installed in
the City in the past 20 years. Alderperson Fleming stated that there is a lot of resident
dissatisfaction regarding the City Code requirement that property owners are
responsible for paying for the installation of sidewalks that benefit the general public. In
this case, residents felt that the sidewalk was badly needed so the property owners
agreed to pay for the improvement. She noted that no one is pleased with the outcome
of this situation, and they would like to see policy changes implemented.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
10.2 DPW - Request to Amend Authorized Personnel Roster for City Forester
Position - Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Brock
WHEREAS, the City Forester is a roster position but is currently unfunded in the City
budget for 2012, and
WHEREAS, the duties of the forester position are essential duties and whose
responsibilities are carried out in order to maintain the health of our urban forest while
minimizing the City’s liabilities that come with this forest, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Forestry Technician has been working out of title for over one
year, taking on the responsibilities of the City Forester when needed, and
WHEREAS, construction and development activities have increased dramatically over
the last year and created a greater demand for a City Forester such that the demand is
now consuming all of the Forestry Technician’s time; now, therefore be it
June 6, 2012
7
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of the Streets & Facilities Division of Public
Works be amended as follows:
Add: one (1) City Forester
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Forestry Technician position, vacated due to a promotion of an
employee to City Forester, shall remain on the Department of Public Works personnel
roster in an unfunded capacity, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the remaining funding of the Forestry Technician position be
transferred to fund the City Forester’s position and that any additional required funding
for said position come from the existing Streets & Facilities budget.
Carried Unanimously
10.3 DPW - Request to Amend Authorized Personnel Roster for Building
Maintenance Mechanics - Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, The Streets & Facilities Division of the Department of Public Works will
have two (2) Working Supervisor vacancies in the Buildings and Grounds section after
May 25, 2012, due to retirements, and
WHEREAS, due to staff reductions over the last several years the need for the positions
of Working Supervisors in this section are no longer essential, and
WHEREAS, the duties of a Building Maintenance Mechanic position require specific
skills in the area of HVAC/heating mechanics, plumbing, electrical, and carpentry, and
WHEREAS, one Maintenance Worker position, not a multi-person crew, will continue to
be shared for tasks performed by the new Building Maintenance Mechanic positions;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of Streets & Facilities Division of Public Works
be amended as follows:
Remove: Two (2) Working Supervisor Positions
Add: Two (2) Building Maintenance Mechanics
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said roster amendment will be derived within the
existing 2012 Department of Public Works authorized budget.
Carried Unanimously
10.4 Finance/Controller’s Office - Request to Authorize the Use of Credit Cards -
Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Brock
WHEREAS, City staff h0as determined that it is necessary to acquire commercial credit
card services for approved governmental purposes, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has contracted with JP Morgan Chase for said
commercial card services, and
WHEREAS, Common Council is required to authorize, by resolution, the use of the
commercial cards by authorized City personnel; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the use of commercial credit
cards by authorized City personnel; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the list of authorized personnel will be maintained by the Controller’s
Office and will be reviewed annually.
Carried Unanimously
June 6, 2012
8
10.5 Safety Committee:
City Controller Thayer reported that Executive Assistant, Kathryn Gehring, provided the
City Administration Committee the following final report from the Safety Committee:
City of Ithaca Safety Committee
FINAL REPORT
May 4, 2012
Representatives of the Safety Committee (Committee) recently met with Mayor Myrick
to brief him on the group’s work and to suggest options for the future. At that meeting,
the decision was made to dissolve the Committee and distribute its responsibilities. The
Committee was charged with the responsibility to make recommendations for how to
distribute its tasks and to document the history and work of the Committee so that any
future Safety Committee could benefit from the lessons of history.
The City of Ithaca Policies and Procedures, Section III, includes the Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP) for the City-wide Safety Committee, with an effective date of March
5, 2008. This states that the objective of the Committee is to “actively improve,
educate, and sustain a safe and healthy work environment for the employees of the City
of Ithaca.” The Committee’s primary duty is to address safety and health issues that are
brought to it, and to report its activities to the City Administration Committee of Common
Council.
Accomplishments
1. The City-wide Safety Committee was re-established in 2006 by Common Council in
order to reduce the number of employee accidents and worker compensation claims.
2. In 2007, the Committee purchased and installed First Aid Kits in City Hall and other
City-owned facilities.
3. Fall 2008, the first CPR classes were held, instructing and certifying 58 employees in
Adult CPR.
4. Fall 2009, two more CPR classes were held. Eight employees attended.
5. In 2011, four more CPR classes were held with 42 employees attending (one class
was for recertification which hold more students).
6. October 2011, the First Aid Kits in a number of City facilities were re-stocked and
replenished.
7. Extensive research over several years was completed about beginning an
Automated External Defibrillator (AED) program within the City, including costs and
requirements. Tompkins County and the American Red Cross have been especially
helpful.
Current Status
1. The Committee was to provide a safe place for employees to report health and
safety concerns that they felt were not being properly addressed by department
supervisors. The reality is that since 2006, there have been very few (0-2)
complaints reported to the Committee for investigation.
2. Interest in attending CPR classes has declined steadily since 2008. Rising costs
and the lack of funding (affecting the City, County and other agencies, like American
Red Cross) have severely limited new training opportunities that the City could offer.
3. For any health or safety concern brought to a departmental supervisor, that
supervisor can personally address it or designate an individual, ad hoc, or standing
departmental committee to respond to the concern.
4. Many City departments already have safety procedures and programs within their
departments for issues unique to the work their employees perform (i.e. Police
Department, Public Works, Fire Department, etc.). Situations that occur in these
individual departments may not be pertinent to any other department, so a city-wide
committee would not be able to help.
5. Attendance and interest at the Committee meetings has declined over the years.
There is little value to the meetings due to the lack of topics for discussion or
complaints for investigation.
June 6, 2012
9
Recommendations
1. The Committee recommends that a modified policy be publicized, stating that City
employees must report any health or safety concerns to the appropriate
departmental supervisor. This can be done anonymously.
2. For concerns regarding workplace violence, employees can choose to bring their
concerns to a departmental supervisor or the City’s Workplace Violence Prevention
Committee.
3. For any health or safety concern brought to a departmental supervisor, that
supervisor can personally address it or designate an individual, ad hoc, or standing
departmental committee to respond to the concern.
4. If an employee feels that the supervisor has not fully addressed their concern in a
timely manner, they can submit the matter to the City’s Employee Health and Safety
Coordinator (EH&SC), the Human Resources Department, and/or the City
Administration Committee of Common Council.
5. The Committee recommends that when departments that require employees to have
CPR and First Aid skills (i.e. Youth Bureau, GIAC) organize training classes for their
employees, if a class has space for additional trainees, the class should be opened
for enrollment to other City employees. The Human Resources Department could
promote the available training opportunities.
6. First Aid Kits should be kept supplied by the department in which they are located.
Many replacement supplies are available from the stockroom at Streets and
Facilities. The Clerk’s office and the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
(IAWWTF) have some extra supplies at this time. (Note: It is recommended that
First Aid Kits NOT include medications or sharp items.)
7. Automated External Defibrillator’s (AED) are currently not required for any City
location that does not already have one. The Committee feels it would be wise to
have more in specific locations that see large numbers of people pass through in a
day. However, setting up an AED program is not simple and there currently is no
funding for this project. Programs require the supervision of a doctor, user training,
and equipment maintenance. The Committee recommends that if the City or any
department wishes to install an AED, the Ithaca Youth Bureau should be consulted
since they recently purchased a defibrillator. It is also recommended that a quote be
requested from the American Red Cross for their AED program, which includes the
machines, training, and doctor affiliation.
8. The Committee recommends that if the City of Ithaca decides to create a new Safety
Committee in the future, it should consider revisions to the Policies and Procedures,
Section III, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the City-wide Safety
Committee to expand its scope and authority (suggestions are noted in the
Committee’s records).
Despite the Committee’s accomplishments over the past six years, the declining interest
from employees in attending CPR classes, Committee members’ disinterest in attending
meetings, and the lack of topics to discuss or investigate has culminated in the
Committee respectfully requesting that the City-wide Safety Committee discontinue,
distributing its responsibilities to departmental supervisors and other working
committees. The Committee has gathered together records of its work and is currently
housing it in the City Clerk’s Office.
Respectfully submitted,
Safety Committee Chair
Active Members:
Andy Olmetti, Employee Health and Safety Coordinator
Jody Andrew, City Attorney’s Office
Mike Armitage, Youth Bureau
Ray Benjamin, Streets & Facilities
Cindie Day, Clerk’s Office
Ed Gottlieb, IAWWTF
Debbie Grunder, Planning Dept.
Scott Kronenbitter, Information Technology
Chris Norman, Controller’s Office
Jerome Norman, Water & Sewer
Debbie Parsons, Chamberlain’s Office
Mike Thomas, GIAC
June 6, 2012
10
City Controller Thayer noted that the Mayor and members of the City Administration
Committee expressed their thanks to the Safety Committee for all their work and to Ms.
Gehring for her leadership.
10.6 City Controller’s Report:
City Controller Thayer reported to Common Council on the following items:
• The Controller’s office will be refinancing debt and capital lease payments. The
refinancing of the capital lease for water meters will save the city $212,000 over
the next few years. Debt refinancing will result in a savings of $507,000 - over the
next several years.
• The refinancing included a re-rating by Moody’s. The City was able to maintain
its Aa2 rating but it was noted that using significant amounts of the fund balance
annually can’t be maintained, and a replenishment of fund balance was
recommended. The fund balance is currently at 15% (approximately $4.2
million). Best practice is to have a fund balance between 10-20% of operational
costs. After 2012, the balance could fall between 11-12% if all costs budgeted
are appropriated. When the balance falls below 10%, operations become very
difficult. There is no State requirement for fund balance levels. $792,000 of fund
balance was budgeted to be used for 2011; however only $500,000 was needed
to meet the deficit.
• The 2011 audit report is due October 1, 2012. It is important that the city remain
up-to-date on its financial reporting because a lot of funding opportunities are tied
to the city’s reporting of HUD Funds, state funds, grant funding, and debt service
activity. Reporting requirements are getting tighter and tighter. The external
auditors are scheduled to be here in July.
• State Audit: The City received the State Audit Report for financial operations
recently. The audit pointed out improvements that can be made to internal
controls related to cash receipts and disbursements. With each recommendation
a cost/ benefit analysis will be conducted to determine if it is cost effective to
make changes.
• Sale of City Owned Property: the city budgeted for sales revenue (approximately
$125,000) in anticipation of the sale of city-owned property. Staff believes the
infusion of revenue can reduce the city’s use of the fund balance.
• The current estimate for 2013 budget gap is approximately $3 million and work
has begun in determining the details for the budget. The Mayor requested that
departments submit a budget proposal with a 10% reduction in personnel lines
and a 1% reduction in non-personnel lines. This would allow the city to balance
the budget without the use of fund balance, which is the goal. The result of this
budget will include service reductions and some layoffs. City staff is looking at
every possible scenario to reduce expenses and increase revenues.
• Structural changes made at the Police Department could save the city
approximately $140,000 in annual overtime costs. These changes involve not
staffing front desk operations on the overnight and weekend shifts. While these
changes reduce service to the community, they also will reduce future spending
gaps. This is an example of the hard choices that need to be made if the city is
going to survive during these difficult economic times.
2012 activity:
• Sales Tax collections are running approximately 2% ($76,000) higher than the
2011 collections.
• Fuel prices are high but may have reached their peak. This may have
operational impacts as the city budgeted for a 9% increase in fuel costs for 2012
and is currently running at an approximate 15% increase. Many contracts that
have transportation elements will see increased fuel surcharges as well. The
City spent $403,000 in fuel in 2011.
• Overtime: The city has expended $263,000 of its $935,000 overtime budget to
date. In 2011, the overtime expenditure was $1,210,000. The Controller’s office
is working with city departments to better control overtime. The Police
Department has expended $132,000 of their $490,000 budget, and contractual
buyouts at year-end often put the costs for overtime over budget.
June 6, 2012
11
• Building Permit revenue: The City has collected $162,000 of the budgeted
$385,000. In 2011, the City only collected $280,000 of the budgeted amount of
$430,000.
• Parking: $587,000 of the city’s $2,005,000 parking revenue budget has been
collected to date. When calculated out, this would put the city under budget by a
small amount, although parking revenues are typically slow this time of year.
Staff continues to examine all aspects of parking operations looking for
improvements to controls, collections and cost effectiveness. The parking
committee will have recommendations regarding parking soon.
• The Seneca Street Parking garage will be closed for construction for 4-6 weeks
so this will have an impact on collections. It is expected that maintenance/
construction on this garage will take place over the next three years in an effort to
operate the garage for another 20 years.
11. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
11.1 Adoption of 2012 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program - Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Proulx
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds
to meet community development needs through the HUD Entitlement program from the
Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) and the Home Investment
Partnerships program (HOME) funding sources, and
WHEREAS, the City submits an Action Plan each year to HUD to access the
Entitlement Program funding allocated to the City, and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community
development activities to be funded from the 2012 HUD Entitlement allocation, and
WHEREAS, the adopted 2012 Action Plan was developed using the allocation level
below:
$703,124 CDBG
$486,909 HOME
$1,190,033 Total
and,
WHEREAS, $142,000 in program income is projected to be received from loan
repayments in program year 2012, which funding is also allocated as part of the 2012
Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, additional funds are available to be allocated through the 2012 Action Plan
which includes $966.30 of unallocated 2011 HOME funds, and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for
development of the 2012 Action Plan in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan,
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby adopts the attached table titled the ‘IURA
Recommended Action Plan’ – dated April 16, 2012, allocating the projected 2012 HUD
Entitlement award along with the additional funds available, as listed above, and be it
further,
RESOLVED, That should the IURA determine that any of the proposed projects in the
Action Plan encounter feasibility issues that would hinder their timely completion or
adversely affect their eligibility prior to the HUD submission deadline, the Common
Council authorizes the IURA, upon approval by the Mayor and the Chair of the Planning
& Economic Development Committee, to make adjustments in the application to resolve
feasibility and eligibility concerns, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby renews its designation
of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as the lead agency to develop and
administer the HUD Entitlement program on behalf of the City of Ithaca, and be it further
June 6, 2012
12
RESOLVED, That the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities
funded in the adopted 2012 Action Plan.
Alderperson Proulx noted that there were many good project proposals submitted that
couldn’t be funded this year. This will be the last payment for the GIAC project.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
11.2 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Zoning” Regarding Amendments to the City’s Off-Street Parking
Regulations in Order to Make them Easier to Understand and Enforce
A. Declaration of Lead Agency – Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an "Unlisted" Action pursuant to the
City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental
review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead
agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the proposed amendments to
the Off Street Parking Ordinance.
Carried Unanimously
B. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapters 325 of the City
Code Regarding the City’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the
preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, this zoning 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 SEAF 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 Short Environmental
Assessment Form, 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
June 6, 2012
13
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
Carried Unanimously
11.2 C. Adoption of Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-___
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-2, entitled “Statutory authority and purpose,” is
hereby amended to read as follows:
325-2. Statutory Authority and Purpose.
This chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority and provisions of the
General City Law to promote public health, safety and welfare and the
most desirable use of land and to conserve the value of buildings and
enhance the value and appearance of land throughout the City. Each
article and section in this chapter is intended to operate and be
interpreted in the context of the chapter as a whole, and in relation
to other applicable articles and sections (including the definitions
in §325-3, the District Regulations Chart, and the special,
overriding limitations that are placed upon non-conforming uses
and structures by Article III), rather than separately or
independently.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-3, entitled “Definitions and Word Usage” is hereby
amended to change the definition of “Structure,” to read as follows:
325-3. Definitions and Word Usage.
STRUCTURE – Anything that is constructed or erected on the ground or
upon another structure or building. [Structure includes constructed
parking spaces, parking areas, and buildings.]
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-8B, entitled “General Notes Pertaining to
Regulations” is hereby amended by adding the following:
(9) For special conditions on development of property in R-3 that directly
abuts R-1, See section 325-9B(1)
(10) See Section 325-8A(15) for applicability of minimum height regulations.
(11) Notwithstanding any provisions contained in this Chart, any non-
conforming use or structure is subject to the special, overriding
limitations placed upon it by Article VI of this ordinance.
Section 4. Chapter 325, sub-section 325-9(c)(1),entitled “Special Permits,” is hereby
amended to add the following sub-subsection and to amend the district regulations
chart to note that a special permit is required for neighborhood parking where
permitted:
(r) Neighborhood Parking in any district where such parking is permitted.
Section 5. Chapter 325, Section 325-20, entitled “Off-Street Parking,” is hereby
amended to add a new subsection (C) that will read as follows, and all subsequent
subsections of §325-20 are hereby re-lettered accordingly:
C. Non-conforming uses. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
this section or in the District Regulations Chart, the amount of off-street
parking permitted on a property containing a non-conforming use shall not
exceed the amount of parking determined to have existed on said property at
the time it became a non-conforming use, and shall not be extended onto or
June 6, 2012
14
relocated to a different part of the lot or parcel in question or elsewhere,
unless a use variance is granted for such additional parking.
Section 6. Chapter 325, Section 325-20, entitled “Off-Street Parking,” is hereby
amended to change the former subsection (C) to subsection (D) that will read as
follows:
D. General requirements.
(1) Required submissions and approvals
(a) Site plans and building permit. In all zoning districts, no parking area or driveway
may be constructed, added to, altered, or resurfaced (except for routine repairs in
kind or other minor alterations of an existing parking area, other than resurfacing,
that do not change the parking area or driveway's size, capacity, configuration, or
drainage characteristics) until a building permit therefore has been issued by the
Building Commissioner. All such building permits shall be in accordance with this
chapter's requirements. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant must
submit two dimensioned plans, drawn to scale, one indicating the existing
conditions, and one that indicates the proposed conditions, including the
locations of all of the green areas, parking areas, associated maneuvering areas
and driveways, any required screening, direction of ground slope, and drainage
provisions, and includes a calculation in square feet of the area of paving and the
area of the yard in which paving already exists or is proposed to be constructed.
(b) Certificate of appropriateness. Any proposed parking development in areas under
the jurisdiction of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission must obtain a
certificate of appropriateness from the Commission before a building permit can
be issued.
(c) Site plan review. The creation or expansion of [certain larger] off-street parking
areas is also subject to site plan review, unless such development falls below
the applicability thresholds set forth in Chapter 276 of this Code. (See
Chapter 276 for the applicability of site plan review which, if required, must be
completed before a building permit can be issued.)
(d) Neighborhood parking area. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this chapter, and in addition to any other generally applicable
requirements, the creation or expansion of a neighborhood parking area
(as defined in 325-3, under “PARKING AREA”) in an R-3 or R-U district shall
require a special permit.
[d](e) Street permits. No curb cut, driveway entrance and/or drainpipe in the street
right-of-way shall be built or installed unless a street permit has first been
obtained from the City Engineer.
[e](f) City tree removal. There shall be no removal of any tree located on City
property unless approval has first been granted by the City Forester.
(2) General standards for all off-street parking areas, driveways and curb cuts.
(a) Parking. All off-street parking must occur in approved parking spaces, parking
areas or parking lots meeting the general standards for all off-street parking
areas in §325-20D(2). Parking is specifically not permitted on lawns, sidewalks,
or other spaces not developed as a parking space.
(b) Clear boundaries. All parking areas, including associated driveways and vehicle
maneuvering areas, shall have clearly defined boundaries. A "clearly defined
boundary" shall mean, at a minimum, the existence of a distinct edge to the
material used to pave the parking area, such that the yard area where parking is
permitted is clearly distinguished from the yard area where parking is not
permitted. Where approved parking areas are contiguous with sidewalks or other
paved areas, there shall be a minimum four-inch-high curb or other equivalent
June 6, 2012
15
continuous permanent barrier separating the parking area from other paving,
except as required to allow for accessibility.
(c) Physical character of parking spaces. Each parking space shall be even-surfaced
and internally unobstructed by structures, walls, landscape elements or other
obstructing features, except that low curbs or wheel stops may be located within
or adjoining a space if they do not impede vehicular access to or egress from the
parking space. The surface of the parking area and that portion of the access
driveway which is not included in Subsection D(2)(e)[1] below shall conform to
standards and specifications available at the office of the City Engineer and shall
at a minimum be a maintainable surface which will support the sustained loads.
Acceptable surface materials include crushed stone, brick, concrete, asphalt,
permeable pavement, or similar materials.
(d) Drainage. All newly constructed or enlarged parking areas, including associated
driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas, shall have adequate provisions to
prevent surface or runoff water from draining to or across adjoining properties,
sidewalks or streets during, at a minimum, a two-year storm event, and shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management and Erosion
and Sediment Control. In the event of inconsistency, the provisions of
Chapter 282 shall prevail. Stormwater runoff shall not be designed to flow across
any public sidewalk as a primary method of delivering the runoff to a stormwater
facility. All drainage systems in existing parking areas shall be maintained in
good working order. For more detailed requirements for parking areas with the
capacity for three or more parking spaces on lots within residential zoning
districts see also Section [E3] F and for parking areas on lots in nonresidential
zoning districts see also Section [F2] G.
(e) Access requirements. All parking spaces shall have access to the street by way
of a driveway.
[1] The portion of access driveways extending from the street to the sidewalk, or to
the property line if no sidewalk exists, must be hard-surfaced with concrete,
brick, asphalt or other approved material, as required by the City Engineer.
[2] Driveways must be at least eight feet in residential zoning districts and at least
10 feet wide in nonresidential zoning districts, and must have clear visibility to
the street. Any required screening must be so designed that it shall not
interfere with sight lines necessary for pedestrian and driver safety.
[a] Maximum driveway grades. Driveways to areas containing parking spaces
for three [four] or more vehicles shall be graded to form a street entry with a
maximum grade of 8% for a distance of 25 feet from the curbline.
[b] Adjacent driveways and combined curb cuts. Driveways on adjacent lots may
be side by side or may be combined.
[3] Driveway aisles. [In residential zoning districts,] Where permitted, one-way
driveway aisles shall have a minimum width of 10 feet[. In nonresidential
zoning districts, one-way driveway aisles shall have a minimum
width]and a maximum width of 12 feet.[In all zoning districts, t] Two-way
driveway aisles shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and a maximum width of
24 feet.
(f) Required maintenance. So long as they remain in use as such, all parking areas
and associated driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas as well as any
required screening, plantings and drainage systems must be maintained to
preserve their intended function and to prevent nuisances or hazards to people,
surrounding properties and public ways. Any planting required by the provisions
of this section (such as planting for the purpose of screening or shading) that
dies or, in the opinion of the City Forester, becomes too unhealthy to serve its
intended function shall be replaced at the earliest occurring suitable planting
season by healthy planting that satisfies the provisions of this section.
June 6, 2012
16
(g) No refuse or litter. All parking areas, including associated driveways, vehicle
maneuvering areas and interior or peripheral planting areas, must be kept free of
refuse or litter.
(3) [Number of off-street parking spaces required.] Maximum number of off street
parking spaces permitted in R1 and R2 districts and number required for all
other districts.
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no
requirements as to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces in the
following zoning districts: WEDZ-1a, CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, B-
1b, and B-2c, WF-1 and WF-2.
(b) Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off-street parking spaces shall be
provided and maintained in accordance with § 325-20D(2) by the property owner
for each use or building which is newly established, erected or enlarged after the
effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), as specified in the [following] chart
below.
(c) Maximum number of parking spaces in R-1 or R-2 districts. For each
building or use (including parking) on a property within an R-1 or R-2
zoning district, which building or use is newly established, erected or
enlarged after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), the
maximum number of off-street parking spaces permitted shall be two. For
buildings that were not newly established, erected or enlarged after March
6, 1996, parking requirements will be determined by review of the property
history by the building department.
Use1 Spaces Required2
Adult day-care home or
group adult day-care
facility
1 for client use, plus 1 per 2
supervisory staff or employees not
residing on the premises
Dormitory 1 per 4 persons housed
Dwelling unit
1 per 3 bedrooms or sleeping rooms,
plus 1 per 2 additional bedrooms or
sleeping rooms, plus 1 per additional
bedroom or sleeping room in excess of
5 such rooms
Fraternity, sorority or
group house 1 per 2 persons housed
Rooming or boarding
house 1 per 3 sleeping rooms
Auditorium or theater 1 per 5 seats
Bar, tavern or restaurant
1 per 50 square feet of net floor area of
the assembly space
Bed-and-breakfast home
or bed-and-breakfast inn 1 per guest room1,3
Bowling alley 2 per bowling lane
Church, funeral home or
mortuary 1 per 10 seating spaces
Fitness center or health
club
1 per 5 persons allowed as determined
by the maximum occupancy load
June 6, 2012
17
Use1 Spaces Required2
Home occupation
requiring special permit 1 space3
Hospital or nursing or
convalescent home 1 per 5 patient beds
Hotel or motel 1 per guest room
Medical or dental office
1 per 250 square feet of net assignable
floor area
Nursery school, child
day-care center or private
elementary or secondary
school
1 per 2 employees plus 1 per 15 pupils
enrolled
Office or bank
1 per 250 square feet of net assignable
floor area
Retail store or
neighborhood
commercial facility
1 per 500 square feet of net assignable
floor area
Wholesale or industry
1 per 2 employees on maximum work
shift
Boat launch 8 per ramp4
Boat storage or repair 1 per 2 employees on maximum shift
Boatel 1 per 2 sleeping rooms
Marina 1 per 4 berths
Yacht club 1 per 4 member families
Human service agencies
and centers 1 per 250 square feet of floor area
NOTES:
1 In the case of mixed use of a building or property, the space
requirements shall be computed for each use, and the total
requirements for all uses shall be provided in accordance with
this section.
2 See also the District Regulations Chart for districts in which off-
street parking is not required. A copy of the District
Regulations Chart is on file in the City offices [deleted
Footnote 19]
3 Unless the Zoning Board of Appeals, upon consideration of all
relevant factors, including but not limited to the easy availability
of on-street parking or the expectation that a lesser parking
requirement will meet the parking needs of the use, determines
during consideration of the special permit that a lesser off-street
parking requirement is appropriate and will not have a negative
impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
June 6, 2012
18
NOTES:
4 Boat-launching ramps shall maintain 75% of their parking
spaces at a size of 10 feet by 40 feet to accommodate boat
trailers. Consult the New York State Parks and Recreation
Department on space requirements for maneuvering.
[c](d) Parking in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone.
[1] Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the CPOZ,
required off-street parking for residential uses in the R-3a and R-3b Zoning
Districts (Residential) and the B-2a and B-2b Zoning Districts (Business) shall
be one space for every two resident occupants in the areas designated CPOZ
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.
[2] The requirements contained in §325-20C(3)(c) shall not apply to buildings
existing within the designated areas, as of October 4, 2000. Parking
requirements for such buildings within these areas shall remain as specified in
the chart 325-20C(3)(b), provided that there is no increase in the number of
resident occupants. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Code, in cases where the number of resident occupants is increased, the
parking requirements of the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone shall be
applied only to the additional resident occupants.
[d](e) Enclosed parking spaces that meet the minimum parking space size
requirements shall be counted toward meeting the required number of parking
spaces.
[e](f) Counting of end-to-end parking spaces. When determining the number of off-
street parking spaces provided to fulfill the number of off-street parking spaces
required for a use, no more than one pair of end-to-end parking spaces shall be
counted, unless all spaces have adequate maneuvering space or direct street
access. This is not to prevent the use of a parking area for more than a single
pair of end-to-end parking spaces if conditions warrant.
[f](g) Shared parking. In a case where two or more establishments on the same lot,
or on lots meeting the distance requirements found in §325-20C(4)(d) of this
section, have substantially different operating times, the Building Commissioner
(or, in the case of a project subject to site development plan review, the Planning
and Development Board) may approve the joint use of parking spaces, provided
that the Building Commissioner or the Board finds that the intent of the
requirements of §325-20 is fulfilled by reason of variation in the probable time of
maximum use by patrons and employees among such establishments.
(4) Location requirements; off-street parking areas. All required parking spaces
provided pursuant to this section shall be on the same lot as the building, use or
activity that they serve, or may be located off site on another lot or parcel other
than the lot or parcel on which the use is located or conducted provided that such
off-site parking meets the distance and use district limitations as established below,
is not located in an R-1 or R-2 zoning district, and receives a special permit
pursuant to Article III.
(a) The lot or parcel containing the off-site parking area must be connected to and
accessible by vehicular traffic from a public street. Off-site parking cannot also be
counted toward compliance with the parking requirement for any other use
except for those uses for which the Building Commissioner has determined that
shared parking is appropriate, as provided for in § 325-20[C]D(3)[f](g).
(b) Use district. An off-site parking area must be located on a lot or parcel located in
the zoning district in which the use which requires the off-street parking is also a
permitted use as a matter of right. Any off-site parking which is required for
compliance with the parking requirement for a use which is permitted by use
June 6, 2012
19
variance from the district regulations must also obtain a use variance for the off-
site parking area; in these instances the notice requirements of this chapter shall
apply to all lots involved. The notice requirements of this chapter shall apply to all
lots if a use variance is required.
(c) Pedestrianway required. A pedestrianway, which in this case may be private or
public, must connect the lots or parcels of both the use and the off-site parking
area. The pedestrianway must meet the standards of a public sidewalk or as
otherwise approved by the Board of Public Works.
(d) Distance from use. The distance from the lot or parcel containing the off-site
parking area and the lot or parcel containing the use which requires the off-site
parking shall be measured from parcel to parcel following and along the
pedestrianway that connects the off-site parking area to the use. Except where
no public sidewalk exists or where no crosswalks or corner-curb aprons exist
within 125 feet of the lot or parcel which requires the off-site parking,
pedestrianways that cross a public street shall be measured in a way that only
crosses such streets at crosswalks or corner-curb aprons. The maximum
distances of the pedestrianway shall vary by use and shall be no longer than as
follows:
[1] For mercantile uses, off-site parking lots or parcels must be within 250 feet of
the lot or parcel on which the use is conducted.
[2] For all other uses, off-site parking lots or parcels must be within 500 feet of the
lot or parcel on which the use is conducted.
(e) All land which is used to provide off-site parking must be restricted to that use
only, for as long as the building is occupied by the use which requires off-street
parking or until substitute parking, approved by the Building Commissioner, is
provided. Evidence of such off-site parking shall be provided in the form of a
recorded covenant, long-term lease or comparable document that is approved by
the Building Commissioner.
(5) Parking space, driveway, and driveway aisle size requirements.
(a) Parking space size requirements for parking areas with 10 or fewer parking
spaces. For such parking areas, a parking space shall have a minimum
dimension of eight feet by 18 feet, exclusive of pedestrianways, maneuvering
space and driveways appurtenant thereto and giving access thereto. The edge of
the parking space pavement may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of
the parking space where unobstructed vehicle overhang is available. All parking
spaces shall have adequate access.
(b) Parking space size requirements for parking areas with 11 or more parking
spaces.
[1] Perpendicular parking. For parking perpendicular to the driveway aisle, parking
spaces shall be eight feet six inches by 18 feet. The edge of the parking space
pavement may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the parking space
where unobstructed vehicle overhang is available
[2] Parallel parking. For parking parallel to the driveway aisle, parking spaces shall
be eight feet six inches by 20 feet.
[3] Angle parking. For angle parking, a standard parking space shall have a
minimum area of 255 square feet, the length of which shall be measured, at
the same angle of parking, from the center of the outermost edge of the
parking space to the center line of the driveway aisle giving access to the
parking space. The edge of the parking space pavement may be up to two feet
inside the outermost line of the parking space where unobstructed vehicle
overhang is available.
June 6, 2012
20
(c) Possible variation from above standards under site plan review. The Planning
and Development Board may, at its discretion, allow parking space sizes that
vary from the above standards in those instances where Chapter 276, Site Plan
Review, applies.
(d) Parking for people with disabilities. For parking for people with disabilities, the
combined width of parking and access aisle shall be in compliance with the New
York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Signage as required by
the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code shall be provided
for all accessible parking spaces and associated access aisles.
Section 7: Chapter 325 Section 325-20, subsection E (formerly “D”) is amended to read
as follows:
[D]E. Parking in front yards.
(1) In all residential districts, all front yard parking within 15 feet of the front property
line is restricted to a motor vehicle orientation that is within 10° of perpendicular to
the street.
(2) In all residential districts, parking in the front yard of lots which have a width at the
street line of 50 feet or less shall be restricted to parking within a driveway that is
perpendicular to the street or that is within 10° of perpendicular to the street. Such
driveway shall not be more than 12 feet wide for the portion that passes through the
front yard.
(3) In all residential districts, parking in the front yard of lots which have a width at the
street line of more than 50 feet shall be restricted to an area not greater than 25%
of the total area of the front yard, including turnaround and other vehicle
maneuvering areas and driveways leading to garages and parking areas. The
setback for any such parking area must meet the minimum front yard setback
dimensions specified in §325-8, District Regulations Chart, for the zoning district in
which the parking area is to be constructed. (A copy of the District Regulations
Chart is on file in the City Clerk’s office) [Footnote No. 18 is removed.]
(4) In all residential districts, on corner lots with more than one front yard as defined in
this Code, front yard parking according to the above provisions shall only be
permitted on one of the front yards.
(5) In all residential districts, where a parking area will use a front yard, the use of the
front yard for parking and associated maneuvering space shall not exceed the
amounts permitted by this section nor the amounts permitted by any other
applicable provisions of this Code, including §325-20(D)(3)(c). Any permitted
front yard parking area shall have a clearly defined boundary as required by §325-
20[C]D(2)(b), and the remainder of the front yard shall be landscaped as a green
area in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
(6) In all districts, when a parking area is established on a lot that does not contain a
building, an area equivalent to the front yard that would be required if a building did
stand on the site shall be kept free of parking (except for an access drive to the
parking area). The area equivalent to the front yard that would be required if a
building did stand on the site shall be landscaped in keeping with the surrounding
neighborhood and shall be separated and protected from the parking area by a
suitable fence or safe barrier. (See the more detailed screening requirements
described below for parking areas within residential zoning districts.)
Section 8: Chapter 325, Section 325-20, subsection “F” (formerly “E”) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
[E]F. Requirements for new or enlarged parking areas with the capacity for three or more
parking spaces on lots within residential zoning districts but only insofar as
otherwise permitted in any given district.
June 6, 2012
21
(1) Required permits. A new or enlarged parking area with the capacity for three
or more parking spaces, on a lot within a residential zoning district requires
site plan approval (see Chapter 276) and a building permit. Plans submitted must
include a site plan drawn to scale with all existing and proposed green areas, parking
areas, associated maneuvering areas and driveways clearly indicated and
dimensioned, must indicate required screening, ground slope and drainage provisions
and must include a calculation in square feet of the area of paving and the area of the
yards in which paving already exists or is proposed to be constructed. No building
permit shall be issued unless the requirements of §325-20[C]D(1) are met.
(2) Screening. The entire parking area, except entrances and exits, shall be screened
from public ways and adjacent properties. Screening devices shall be at least four
feet high, except where they are within 10 feet of the entrance or exit, or within 20
feet of a property lot corner at a street intersection. Screening may consist of hedge
planting, walls, fences, trellises or a compatible combination of these elements.
Screening is not required where the parking area is screened from the view of
adjoining properties by buildings or other accessory structures, or sufficiently dense
vegetation located on the same parcel as the parking area. Similarly, screening is
not required where buildings or accessory structures without windows or other
openings facing the parking area or other such screening devices exist on
neighboring parcels and effectively screen the parking area. However, upon
removal of said building, accessory structure or other such screening device by the
adjoining property owner, the required screening shall be installed within one year.
(a) Planting for the purpose of screening. Planting for the purpose of screening shall
form a year-round dense screen at least four feet high within two years of the
initial planting. Planting areas shall be curbed or otherwise protected from vehicle
damage on the parking area sides, be at least eight [five] feet wide and have a
minimum three-foot-deep excavation prior to planting.
(b) Fences and walls for the purpose of screening. Fences for the purpose of
screening must be sufficiently opaque, whether alone or in combination with
planting or other design elements, to function as an effective visual barrier. Walls
for the purpose of screening must be compatible in scale, texture and color with
surrounding structures.
Section 9: Chapter 325, Section 325-20F (formerly “E”) subsection (5) is hereby
renumbered as subsection (3) and amended to read as follows with the remaining
sections renumbered accordingly( (3) as (4) and (4) as (5) ).
(3) [Compliance Methods.] Maximum Parking Area Coverage. In order to protect
the character of residential areas, plans for parking areas with the capacity of three
or more cars within residential zoning districts that permit three or more cars
must conform to either the setback compliance method or the landscaping
compliance method described respectively in 325-20[E(5)]f(3)(a) and (b) below.
Before applying for a variance from this requirement, an applicant must show
that neither method is feasible. Such plans must also comply with all other
general and specific standards of §325-20 and with the District Regulations
Chart. Where turnarounds, or other maneuvering spaces not required for access to
parking spaces, are provided that meet minimum size for a parking space, they
shall be counted as a parking space for the purpose of this subsection.
(a) Setback compliance method. Parking areas using the setback compliance
method shall conform to the following standards
[1] Setbacks. The parking area shall not be located within the
required [a] minimum side or rear yard setback areas
established for the applicable zoning district by the District
Regulations Chart. [distance of five feet from any side or rear
interior lot line.] These setbacks shall not apply to any driveway up
to 12 feet in width that provides access for vehicles.
June 6, 2012
22
[2] Maximum yard coverage. The parking area, excluding any driveway
up to 12 feet in width that provides vehicle access to a street, but
including all other turnaround and vehicle maneuvering areas
associated with parking, shall not cover more than 50% of any
remaining side or rear yard[.], as such percentage is calculated
after excluding the required minimum side or rear yard
setback areas specified for the applicable zoning district by
the District Regulations Chart. For the purposes of this
calculation, the area of a side or rear yard shall not include the
building area of any building or accessory structure located in the
yard.
(b) Landscaping compliance method.
[1] A plan for a parking area using the landscaping compliance method
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Board for
review. [, unless the proposed site is under the jurisdiction of the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, in which case the
plan shall be submitted instead to the Commission for review. The
Board may designate a member of the Department of Planning and
Development to approve such a parking area on its behalf.]The
required building permit shall not be issued until a plan approved by
[either] the Board or the Board's designee (and a Certificate of
Appropriateness is on file with the Building Department where
applicable - see below) [or the Commission, as appropriate in
each case,]is on file in the Building Department. [The reviewing
body may, at is discretion, approve a parking area that covers more
than 50% of any side or rear yard that lacks the required five-foot
setback from the property lines, if the reviewing body finds that
mitigating factors such, as but not limited to, the following exist:
[2] The Planning and Development Board may, at its discretion,
approve a parking area that covers more than 50% of any side
or rear yard (as calculated after excluding the minimum
setback areas specified for the applicable zoning district, per
the District Regulations Chart), if the Board finds that
mitigating factors such as, but not limited to, the following
exist:
i. Natural land forms or tall vegetation provide significant
shielding of views toward the parking area from the street
and/or adjacent properties.
ii. The configuration of the parking area protects and preserves
existing healthy and mature vegetation, especially trees over
eight-inch DBH (diameter at breast height).
iii. One or more curbed and landscaped planting areas are
provided within the parking area. Any such interior planting
area shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no dimension
being less than eight feet.
iv. The parking area will be substantially shaded by existing
woodland or canopy trees, or the parking area plans call for
the planting of trees of a species that, at maturity, will
provide canopy shading. Trees currently or prospectively
providing such shade may be located around the periphery
of the parking area or in interior planting areas. Any such
interior planting area accommodating such canopy trees
shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no dimension
being less than eight feet. Such interior planting areas shall
be curbed and have a minimum three-foot-deep excavation
prior to planting.
June 6, 2012
23
[3] All property owners using the landscaping compliance method must
notify surrounding property owners by placing a notice at the
project site in a form prescribed by the Planning and Development
Board.[or the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission as
appropriate.]
[4] The Board shall be under no obligation to approve a parking
area using the landscaping compliance method; any such
approval is discretionary.
[5] In the event that the proposed parking area is under the
jurisdiction of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission, the proposed plan shall also be submitted to the
Commission for its review. The role of the Commission shall
be limited to ruling on the appropriateness of the plan in
relation to any adverse impact on the aesthetic, historical or
architectural significance or value of the landmark or site in
question. A building permit shall not be issued for a plan that
has not received a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Commission, where such a Certificate is required.
[3] (4) Drainage. Surface or runoff water must be collected and transmitted or piped to
the nearest storm sewer or, if a storm sewer is not available, then through
underground piping to the street gutter, or provisions shall be made for stormwater
retention or recharge. Stormwater drainage systems, including their connections to
public stormwater facilities, shall be in accordance with this Code and with the
provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment
Control, and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. The applicant must
provide runoff calculations for the parking area for a two-year storm event and must
calculate the appropriate pipe sizes and additional collection devices necessary to
carry the water to the public stormwater system. When conditions warrant, the City
Engineer may require installation of a sump in the last structure in a parking area
runoff collection system prior to the delivery of stormwater to a public stormwater
facility. Installation, maintenance and repair of any pipe delivering stormwater to a
public stormwater facility shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Such
installation, maintenance and repair within a public right-of-way shall only be
performed with the written permission of the City Engineer.
[4](5) Maintenance. The landscaping or other elements used to comply with §325-20F
shall be maintained, replaced or pruned as required to fulfill this section's
standards, including provision of the required screening and compatibility with the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
Section 10. Chapter 325, Section 325-30, entitled “Conditions of Lawful Continuation”,
Subsection C is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Legal nonconforming uses of any building or land shall adhere to the
conditions of this article, [although] even though such uses may not
conform to other provisions of this chapter. The lawful use of any building
or land legally existing at the time of enactment of this chapter may be
continued only subject to the provisions of this article.
Section 11. Chapter 325, Section 325-31, entitled “Construction or use approved prior
to adoption of or amendment to chapter” is hereby deleted in entirety.
Section 12. Chapter 325, Section 325-32, entitled “Repair, changes in use, extension
or enlargement of nonconforming uses or structures”, Subsection C, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
C. Extension or enlargement of nonconforming uses or structures.
(1) A nonconforming use may not be extended or enlarged within or in association
with the structure where it is located, [to other structures]nor may a nonconforming
use be extended or enlarged to all or part of a structure or structures not already
June 6, 2012
24
legally [other portions of structures not] devoted to such use or to other land not
already legally devoted to such use, except by means of a use variance granted by
the Board of Appeals.
(2) A nonconforming structure which is used as permitted, and will continue to be
used as permitted, in the district in which it is located, but does not comply with the
minimum lot size requirement and/or parking requirements applicable in the district, may
not be extended or enlarged except by means of an area variance granted by the Board
of Appeals; however, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged without the necessity
of obtaining such a variance, provided that:
(a) The enlargement does not create a new, greater or additional nonconformity;
(b) The enlargement does not increase the occupancy previously permitted for
the structure unless the structure is, and will continue to be, a one- or a two-family
dwelling; and
(c) The property is, and will continue to be, in compliance with the minimum lot
size and parking requirements (whether minimum or maximum) of the district in which
it is located.
(3) A nonconforming structure which is used as permitted by this Code in the district in
which it is located cannot be extended or enlarged by increasing the numbers of
unrelated individuals residing within such structures or by increasing the number of
dwelling units contained within such structure except by means of an area variance
granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals; however, such a nonconforming structure may
be extended or enlarged without the necessity of obtaining such a variance if the
property, in the enlarged or extended condition, will comply with the parking and the lot
size regulations of this chapter for the particular district in which it is located.
4) In all districts any legal nonconforming use or structure existing at the time of
enactment of this chapter, as amended, or subsequently constructed in compliance with
a variance, shall not be extended or enlarged except in compliance with the regulations
of this chapter, as amended for each particular district.
Section 13. Chapter 325, Section 325-33, entitled “Discontinuation of Use” is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Nonoperation or nonuse [of a nonconforming use] for a period of 12 successive
[calendar] months or more shall terminate the right to operate such
nonconforming use, except that a nonconforming use that ceases to operate
because of national emergency may be resumed within 12 successive calendar
months from the time such emergency terminates and except, further, that when
the nonconforming use is discontinued [due to litigation, it may be resumed within
12 successive calendar months from the time such litigation is ended.] due to
litigation commenced during said 12-month period, or pursuant to a
building permit issued during said period for repairs or modifications
required by the Building Department, it may be resumed after litigation is
ended or such repairs are deemed complete, provided such resumption
occurs within the remainder of the afore-mentioned 12-month period.
Section 14. Chapter 325, Section 325-34, entitled “Restoration after Damage”, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
A nonconforming [building] structure which is entirely devoted to
a conforming use may be rebuilt or reconstructed, in whole or
in part, when it is damaged by fire or other causes, provided
that the floor area, occupancy and exterior dimensions are not
increased in the new building when compared to the old building
as it existed in an undamaged state.
June 6, 2012
25
Section 15. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the impact that this legislation would have on
the R1 and R2 zones specifically as it relates to back yard parking.
A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
11.3 Authorization of Subdivision and Transfer to the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency of a Parcel at the Southerly End of Cherry Street
A. Declaration of Lead Agency - Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Murtagh
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering transfer of a 6 acre
portion of the 8.25 acre parcel located at the southerly end of Cherry Street (tax parcel
#100.-2-1.2) to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to issue an RFP for sale of the
property to a purchaser committing to undertake an economic development project, and
WHEREAS, the proposed transfer of more than 2.5 acres of contiguous land is a Type I
action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), and
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of CEQRO require that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of proposed actions in accordance with
local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review
the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has the primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012, the City of Ithaca Common Council resolved to declare
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of this proposed action, and
WHEREAS, no other agency has jurisdiction to fund, approve or undertake the
proposed action; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the
environmental review of the subdivision and proposed conveyance to the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (IURA) of the above listed real property.
Carried Unanimously
B. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering transfer of a 6 acre
portion of the 8.25 acre parcel located at the southerly end of Cherry Street (tax parcel
#100.-2-1.2) to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to issue an RFP for sale of the
property to a purchaser committing to undertake an economic development project, and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision will result in a 6 acre portion directly accessible to
Cherry Street (Parcel A) to be transferred to the IURA and a remainder parcel of
approximately 2.25 acres (Parcel B) to be retained by the City, as further shown on an
annotated “Survey Map Showing Lands Owned by the City of Ithaca Located at
Southerly End of Cherry Street”, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated March 5, 2012
(Survey Map), and
WHEREAS, the proposed property transfer to the IURA is subject to (1) a 25 foot
wetland buffer and (2) a 15 foot utility easement as shown on the annotated Survey
Map, and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision and transfer of more than 2.5 acres of contiguous
land is a Type I action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(CEQRO), which requires environmental review, and
June 6, 2012
26
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012, the City of Ithaca Common Council declared itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review of this proposed action, and
WHEREAS, the Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), dated March 30, 2012,
and supporting information has been provided to the City of Ithaca Conservation
Advisory Council and the Natural Areas Commission for review of the proposed action
and comments have been received and considered, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, acting as Lead Agency for the
environmental review for the action of subdivision and transfer of land to the IURA, has
reviewed the FEAF and understands that in accordance with State and City
Environmental laws, all known, specifically-formulated phases of a project should be
considered at the same time unless segmented review is no less protective of the
environment, and
WHEREAS, at this time the transferred parcel is designated to be used for “economic
development,” without further specification at this time, and
WHEREAS, approval of the subdivision and transfer of land to the IURA as a separate
action under CEQR does not constitute segmentation in this context, and is in any event
warranted in this situation so that an RFP can be issued for the sale of the property and
subsequent development, which project will be subject to its own environmental review,
and
WHEREAS, the action of subdivision and transfer of land to the IURA is no less
protective of the environment and does not bind the lead agency to any future action;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, acting as Lead Agency for the
environmental review in this matter (of subdivision and transfer of land to the IURA),
hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth in the FEAF,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, as Lead Agency in this matter,
hereby determines that the proposed action of subdivision and transfer of land to the
IURA will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further
environmental review of these actions is unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, That any subsequent action will require its own environmental review and
determination, 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.
Alderperson Dotson stated that she appreciates the comments received from the
Conservation Advisory Council, the Natural Areas Commission that helped to improve
the language of this Resolution.
Alderperson Proulx thanked the City Attorney and the Director of Planning and
Development for their clarifications. Any development on the parcel would require
further environmental review. It is Common Council’s decision whether that review
should be conducted now or at the time of development when more project related
details are available.
Further discussion followed regarding the protection of the wetlands secured during the
sub-division of the property and the continued concerns of the Conservation Advisory
Council and the Natural Areas Commission.
Alderperson Proulx stated that he is in favor of the transfer of the parcel to the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency for economic development purposes; however, as two City
June 6, 2012
27
committees have requested further environmental review, he will oppose this
Resolution.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Brock, Clairborne, Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Rooker, Kerslick,
Mohlenhoff
Nays (2) Dotson, Proulx
Abstentions (0)
Carried
C. Authorization of Transfer - Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Brock
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering transfer of a 6 acre
portion of the 8.25 acre parcel located at the southerly end of Cherry Street (tax parcel
#100.-2-1.2) to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to issue an RFP for sale of the
property to a purchaser committing to undertake an economic development project, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §695 of General Municipal Law, the City may dispose of real
property at the highest marketable price at public auction or by sealed bid, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §507 of General Municipal Law, the City is also authorized to
dispose of real property through the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to a qualified
and eligible sponsor (a.k.a preferred developer) at a negotiated sales price for a specific
end use. A public hearing must be held on any IURA-proposed property sale following
publication of a notice disclosing the terms of the sale and Common Council approval of
the proposed sale is required, and
WHEREAS, the 2012 City budget includes revenues from the sale of City properties, so
purchase price is a consideration in selecting the method of disposition, and
WHEREAS, Common Council has an interest in post-sale use of the property to
enhance the City’s tax base, identify a purchaser committed to undertake an economic
development project, and develop the parcel in a manner sensitive to the surrounding
area, and
WHEREAS, public policy objectives are best achieved for disposition of tax parcel
#100.-2-1.2 through a process that provides prospective buyers with an opportunity to
submit proposals to acquire and develop the property through an open competitive RFP
process; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, subject to advice of the City Attorney, is hereby
authorized to enter into a property transfer agreement for a portion of tax parcel #100.-
2-1.2 located at the southerly end of Cherry Street with the IURA for purposes of the
IURA soliciting competitive proposals for purchase and development of the property
with the following guidance:
Sales price: seek fair market value
Use: economic development
Taxable status: taxable
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, subject to advice of the City Attorney and the terms and
provisions of the property transfer agreement, is authorized to convey quit claim deed
for a portion of tax parcel #100.-2-1.2 to the IURA.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Brock: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker
RESOLVED, That the first and second Resolved clauses be amended to read as
follows:
“RESOLVED, That the Mayor, subject to advice of the City Attorney, is hereby
authorized to enter into a property transfer agreement for the northerly portion of tax
June 6, 2012
28
parcel #100.-2-1.2 located at the southerly end of Cherry Street with the IURA for
purposes of the IURA soliciting competitive proposals for purchase and development of
the property with the following guidance:
Sales price: seek fair market value
Use: economic development
Taxable status: taxable
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, subject to advice of the City Attorney and the terms and
provisions of the property transfer agreement, is authorized to convey quit claim deed
for the northerly portion of tax parcel #100.-2-1.2 to the IURA.”
Ayes (7) Dotson, Brock, Clairborne, Murtagh, Fleming, Rooker, Proulx
Nays (3) McCollister, Kerslick, Mohlenhoff
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Alderperson Dotson stated that she will vote against this Resolution as she is not
comfortable with the development of this parcel within the current industrial zoning
regulations. She further stated that staff will be presenting recommendations for the
sale of additional properties as well.
Main Motion As Amended:
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Brock, Clairborne, Murtagh, McCollister, Kerslick, Rooker,
Mohlenhoff, Proulx
Nays (2) Dotson, Fleming
Abstentions (0)
Carried
MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
15.1 Appointments to Board of Fire Commissioners – Resolution
By Alderperson Rooker: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
RESOLVED, That Thomas Hoard be reappointed to the Board of Fire Commissioners
with a term to expire June 30, 2015, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Harry Ellsworth be reappointed to the Board of Fire Commissioners
with a term to expire June 30, 2015, and be it further
15.2 Appointment to Conservation Advisory Council - Resolution
RESOLVED, That Jesse Hill be appointed to the Conservation Advisory Council to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2012, and be it further
15.3 Appointments to Disability Advisory Council – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Larry Roberts be reappointed to the Disability Advisory Council with
a term to expire June 30, 2015, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Jocelyn Scriber be reappointed to the Disability Advisory Council with
a term to expire June 30, 2015, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Andrew Rappaport be reappointed to the Disability Advisory Council
with a term to expire June 30, 2015, and be it further
15.4 Appointment to Planning and Development Board – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Garrick Blalock be appointed to the Planning and Development
Board to replace Robert Boothroyd with a term to expire December 31, 2013.
Carried Unanimously
REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
Alderperson Mohlenhoff announced that a walking tour of Stewart Park has been
scheduled for Tuesday, June 12, 2012, at 4:00 p.m.
June 6, 2012
29
Alderperson McCollister reported that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
will be forwarding a proposed revision of the Landmarks Ordinance to Common Council
soon.
Alderperson Rooker reported that the Public Art Commission received 45 submissions
from artists to do art work on utility boxes throughout the city.
Alderperson Fleming reported that the Board of Public Works has been hearing from the
public about the need to establish a mobile vending program, in addition to the one on
The Commons.
Alderperson Kerslick reported that the Rental Housing Advisory Commission has
selected Larry Beck and Mitch Payne as Co-Chairs. The Commission is working on
providing resources for tenants and landlords regarding their rights and responsibilities.
Mayor Myrick announced that the community fireworks would be held on Monday, July
2, 2012 at Stewart Park. He suggested that the Common Council meeting scheduled
for that night start at 5:00 p.m. so that everyone can enjoy the fireworks.
REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY:
City Attorney Lavine reported to Common Council on the following items:
Means Restriction – an ordinance is being prepared regarding the steel mesh under the
bridges that would outline procedures to be followed should there be tampering with, or
damage to, the mesh.
The City is involved with an Article 78 proceeding, Avramis vs. the City of Ithaca,
concerning parking created in the rear yard of a property.
A summary judgment has been made in the Miller vs. the City of Ithaca case and a
number of the claims were dismissed.
Motion to Enter Into Executive Session to Discuss Threatened Litigation –
Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker
RESOLVED, That Common Council enter into executive session to discuss threatened
litigation.
Carried Unanimously
Common Council reconvened into regular session with no formal action taken.
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
19.1 Approval of the April 4, 2012 Common Council Meeting Minutes –
Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the April 4, 2012 Common Council meeting be
approved as corrected, and be it further
19.2 Approval of the May 2, 2012 Common Council Meeting Minutes –
Resolution
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the May 2, 2012 Common Council meeting be
approved as corrected.
Carried Unanimously
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Svante L. Myrick
City Clerk Mayor