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