Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-14 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting Agenda ITAI PEDC Meeting Planning and Economic Development Committee DATE: November 12, 2014 Ithaca Common Council TIME: 6pm � E LOCATION: 3rd floor City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA ITEMS Item Voting Presenter(s) Time Item? Start 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review No Chair, Seph Murtagh 6:00 2) Public comment and Response from Committee No 6:05 Members 3) Special Order of Business a) Presentation—Ithaca Form Based Code No Project Organizers 6:20 Initiative 4) Announcements, Updates, Reports No JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director 6:50 a) Comprehensive Plan b) CIITAP review 5) Action Items—Voting to Send on to Council a) PAC Mural—Dryden Road Garage Yes Megan Wilson, Planning Staff 7:00 b) Amendment to Mural Approval Process Yes Megan Wilson, Planning Staff 7:05 c) Brindley Street Bridge Replacement Yes Addisu Gebre, Bridge System Engineer 7:15 d) Noise Ordinance Reform Yes Ari Lavine, City Attorney 7:45 e) Disposition of City-Owned Land at 617 Five Yes Nels Bohn, IURA 8:15 Mile Drive 6) Action Items—Approval to Circulate a) Cornell Heights Rezoning Yes Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff 8:30 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) September 2014 Yes 9:00 b) October 2014 (sent under separate cover) Yes 8) Adjournment Yes 9:05 If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, November 11,2014. I•rH9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING,ZONING &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �o 000�ooa "ox 04% Division of Planning & Economic Development JOANN CORNISH,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT c�gPORATE�� PHYLLISA A.DeSARNO,DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning&Development-607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA-607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 TO: Planning &Economic Development Committee FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner Frank Nagy, Director of Parking DATE: October 29, 2014 RE: Dryden Road Parking Garage Mural Project Earlier this summer, Parking Director Frank Nagy requested that the Public Art Commission (PAC) seek murals for the Dryden Road Parking Garage. The proposed murals would create a brighter, more welcoming space for those parking within the garage. In addition, Parking Division staff have spent a considerable amount of time and resources repainting the walls within the garage and are concerned that the recently painted walls will quickly become locations for graffiti again. As a result of this discussion, the PAC has proposed the Dryden Road Parking Garage Mural Project, which would feature multiple murals on the various levels of the garage. Because the proposed murals are expected to significantly reduce ongoing maintenance and graffiti removal costs, the Parking Division will provide $5,875 to fund the project. The Board of Public Works approved the Dryden Road Parking Garage as a location for murals on July 14, 2014. In August 2014, the PAC issued a Call for Proposals and received 18 submissions. After reviewing all of the submissions, the PAC voted to recommend that Common Council select the artwork submitted by Dan Burgevin, Kellie Cox-Brady, Aindriais Dolan, the Junior Youth Group, Steav Kim, Eric Lindstrom, Kurt Piller, Margaret Reed, and Nate Waterman, as shown in "Dryden Road Parking Garage-Recommended Mural Proposals," to be installed within the Dryden Road Parking Garage. Photos of the parking garage as well as images of the recommended proposals are attached for your review. Staff will attend the November 12th Planning & Economic Development Committee to discuss the project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (607) 274- 6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org. Planning &Economic Development Committee Proposed Resolution November 12, 2014 Resolution to Select Artwork for the Dryden Road Parking Garage Mural Project WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC)has been established to, among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in the City's public spaces, and WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art by resolution on May 19, 2010, and the City's Dryden Road Parking Garage was added to this list of approved locations by the Board on July 14, 2014, and WHEREAS, the City's Parking Division has requested that the PAC seek multiple murals for the Dryden Road Parking Garage to enliven dark areas within the garage while also deterring graffiti and reducing ongoing maintenance costs, and WHEREAS, the PAC issued a Call for Proposals in August 2014 and received 18 submissions for the project, and WHEREAS, the PAC reviewed all of the submissions at its meetings on September 24, 2014 and October 22, 2014 and voted to recommend that the Common Council select the artwork submitted by nine artists, as shown in "Dryden Road Parking Garage—Recommended Mural Proposals,"to be installed on walls within the Dryden Road Parking Garage, and WHEREAS, the murals will be visible primarily to those within the parking garage, but the selected proposals have been distributed for public comment, and WHEREAS, the project will include nine murals and will be funded through the Parking Division's existing 2014 budget, in a total amount not to exceed$5,875; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED,that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the submissions of the following artists for the Dryden Road Parking Garage Mural Project, as recommended by the Public Art Commission: Dan Burgevin, Kellie Cox-Brady, Aindriais Dolan, the Junior Youth Group, Steav Kim,Eric Lindstrom, Kurt Piller, Margaret Reed, and Nate Waterman; and be it further RESOLVED, that the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their murals at their assigned locations within the Dryden Road Parking Garage upon the execution of an agreement with the City(as reviewed by the City Attorney). Dryden Road Parking Garage - Recommended Mural Proposals October 2014 t � t u w r u .,� PS a �, < z • t "Jewels Humans/Diatoms" by Dan Burgevin 1 I A� } � f "Magnolia grandiflora - Southern Magnolia"by Kellie Cox-Brady �� �� *, I• fir• �1 I• ��� *: � ::::. �[ �tik ../ • �� -'�•� •'.�' ; I T.• + lam: - ,`�'I ,. � I � '♦' • i» 'o Aindriais Dolan r- Do We Still Have Time?" by Junior Youth Group r a kind otsynoptic overview of mutKs history as a painter:her roots as a botanic! str ^r Itha�c nf: And although the wor ere is all u •� _ 1 past couple of years,t1Yb collecti esFn y hAN SMHLLs vkr>rNl7 L n^ , - } nrure cohesive. khexh M: _.,aLyae iaaama� - is estb i6it idne of day! } alit a :.gle wall �_ _ _ .: i q;. Mr a a fundamental y rom ie ,'r'"Pe of her m ncf c ,�\ t I�r. 1 chc it using t_he� car:,f ng A //• :�.__.�. a.!.:� cCtaFle�.zesher lecan!wlnwl Twr artist and he feces, bstract or not are rwk( of sketchy but inc y—landscapes and abstract tonalislx" s1lIItllArt]fit l f qjv 444 NOW any work myself until inde__�_ �y/!, "Shutterfish"by Steav Kim "Out to Dry" by Eric Lindstrom , y IN "Severe Tiger Damage" by Kurt Piller i r y - "I Would Like You" by Margaret Reed ti � f l \. f Y r 1 Dryden Road Garage Photos AwL _ r Dryden Road Garage Photos (con't) �1 CITY OF ITHACA Off° T `�Cti 108 East Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 � 1'ppRIa�� Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 TO: Planning&Economic Development Committee FROM: Megan Wilson,Planner DATE: October 30, 2014 RE: Request to Amend the Mural Approval Process In 2010, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work. To facilitate the program, the PAC approached the Board of Public Works for approval to use City-owned property as sites for mural installations, and the Board approved several potential sites for inclusion in the PAC's Mural and Street Art Program. The Mural and Street Art Program has led to the creation of many impressive murals throughout the city. As public art has become more visible, the PAC has received an increasing number of proposals. With a structured program in place and a highly motivated membership, the PAC is able to work with artists to turn these proposals into works of public art. The PAC is charged with reviewing and advising the Common Council on all proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in the City's public spaces, in public buildings, and on public facilities and infrastructure. It is also responsible for advising the Common Council on the selection of acquisitions and donations of public art. The Common Council is ultimately responsible for the selection of public art. The PAC would like the Common Council to consider amending the selection process to allow final approval of murals to occur at the committee level. Prior to Common Council's selection, the PAC thoroughly reviews each proposal that it receives. Potential locations are carefully evaluated, and proposed designs are matched with the most appropriate site to ensure a successful installation for the artist, the City, and the public. The PAC also holds public comment on each proposal before final selections are passed on as recommendations to the Common Council. The PAC believes that allowing the Planning & Economic Development Committee to issue final approval of murals would streamline the selection process while still ensuring adequate review. Staff will attend the November 12`t' Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting to discus the idea of amending the mural approval process. If you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting,please contact me at 274-6560 or mwilson o,cityofithaca.org. Planning & Economic Development Committee Proposed Resolution November 12, 2014 Resolution to Amend the Approval Process for Murals on City Property WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in the City's public spaces, and WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the PAC's Mural and Street Art Program has been very successful and has resulted in the creation of more than 50 murals, including two phases of the 21 Boxes project, and WHEREAS, the PAC is an advisory commission to the Common Council and among other responsibilities, recommends pieces of public art for final approval by the Common Council, and WHEREAS, prior to making a recommendation to the Common Council, the PAC carefully evaluates each mural proposal and seeks public comment to inform its decision, and WHEREAS, in an effort to streamline the process, the PAC has requested that Common Council consider amending the approval process for murals to allow final approval to occur at the committee level; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED,that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby amends the approval process for murals on City-owned property to allow the Planning & Economic Development Committee to grant final approval of murals, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Public Art Commission will continue to follow its established review process of mural proposals prior to making a recommendation to the Planning & Economic Development Committee. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca,New York 14850-6590 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning&Economic Development Committee(P&E ) FROM: Addisu Gebre-Bridge System Engineer DATE: October 28, 2014 RE: Brindley Street Bridge Replacement Project: CP#764 This memo is intended to provide information regarding a proposal to reconstruct the Brindley Street Bridge. The existing Brindley Street Bridge is a single span, single lane multiple steel girder bridge carrying Brindley Street over the Cayuga Inlet. The bridge has been posted for a 20 ton weight limit since January of 1965 and has a condition rating of 3.938 out of 7. And the most current bridge inspection notes the bridge as being scour critical and the bridge's foundations have been determined to be unstable. What are the Objectives of the Project? The main objectives of this project are to: 1. Replace the existing single lane structure on Brindley Street with two lane structure with accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians. 2. Restore the crossing to a condition which provides a minimum 75 year service life,using cost effective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair. 3. Address geometric deficiencies and improve safety at the intersections of Brindley Street/West State Street and West State Street/West Seneca Street. Bridge alternatives considered for the project. Bridge Alternative 1 —Brindley Street Bridge replacement on existing horizontal alignment This alternative will replace the existing single lane structure on Brindley Street with a two lane structure with a span length of approximately 88' in the same location, shifting the alignment of Brindley Street slightly to better fit within the existing right-of-way and avoid unnecessary impacts. A final determination on span length will be made as design progresses and a detailed hydraulic study and soil investigation is completed. See Dwg. Plan-01. Bridge Alternative 2—New roadway and bridge construction on relocated horizontal alignment This alternative will involve the relocation of Brindley Street by connecting Taber Street with the West State Street/Taughannock Boulevard intersection where a City of Ithaca parking lot currently exists. This lot,which is located adjacent to Trombley Tire and Auto, will be removed to accommodate construction of the new roadway. Intersection and traffic signal modifications at the West State Street/Taughannock Boulevard intersection will be necessary to accommodate the relocation. A new bridge will be constructed on the proposed roadway to carry traffic over the Cayuga Inlet. The span of the bridge will be approximately 128', assuming the soils adjacent to the Cayuga Inlet are suitable for the approach embankment. The existing Brindley Street roadway and structure will remain(with appropriate improvements) and be utilized for pedestrian traffic. See Dwg. Plan-02. If you have any questions,please contact me at (607)274-6530 or agebre(a,cityofithaca.org Brindley Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project Desion Alternative Decision— Resolution By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins WHEREAS, currently, the City of Ithaca and project consultant (Delta Engineers, Architects, and Land Surveyors, P.C.) are working on the Brindley Street Bridge Replacement Project over Cayuga Inlet ("the Project"), and WHEREAS, the project involves the replacement of the Brindley Street Bridge with a two lane structure with additional accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians including necessary approach and intersection improvements, and WHEREAS, THE City of Ithaca established Capital Project#764 in the amount of$205,000 to cover scoping and development phases of the project, and WHEREAS, Brindley Street Bridge replacement on existing horizontal alignment (Bridge Alternative 1) and new roadway and bridge construction on relocated horizontal alignment (Bridge Alternative 2) are alternatives being considered for this project including the "Null Alternative", and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works preferred new roadway and bridge construction on relocated horizontal alignment (Bridge Alternative 2), and WHEREAS, the preferred design alternative will involve the relocation of Brindley Street by connecting Taber Street with West Martin Luther King, Jr./State Street/Taughannock Boulevard intersection together with the necessary intersection improvements, and WHEREAS, Taughannock Boulevard Extension Project was included in the "Six Point Traffic Plan" (City of Ithaca 2001) and recommended as an alternative which has the greatest potential for helping to mitigate traffic impacts on neighborhoods south of the creek; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby recommends the design of a new roadway and bridge construction on relocated horizontal alignment together with the necessary intersection improvements contingent upon funding by Common Council. Carried Unanimously STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS: CITY OF ITHACA I, Sarah L. Myers, Acting City Clerk of the City of Ithaca, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and exact copy of a resolution dul adopted by the Board of Public Works of said City of Ithaca at a regular meeting held on the 6t day of October, 2014, and that the same is a complete copy of the whole of such resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Corporate Seal of the City of Ithaca, this 29th day of October, 2014. All Sarah L. Myers Acting City Clerk City of Ithaca, New York I•rH� CITY OF ITHACA O•�°" """ eC� 108 East Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING,ZONING&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT V Division of Planning&Economic Development �,y.,•• i��b JOANN CORNISH,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT PoR PHYLLISA A.DeSARNO,DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning&Development-607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA-607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 To: Common Council From: Planning Board Date: October 1, 2014 Re: Planning Board Comments on the Brindley St Bridge Rehabilitation Project At its September 23, 2014 meeting,the Board reviewed materials, provided by Addisu Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer, presenting three alternatives for the proposed Brindley Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project. The Board recommends alternatives 2 and 3 that relocate the bridge in alignment with Taughannock Boulevard. These alternatives improve a problematic intersection and retain a unique one-lane bridge for pedestrian and bike use. The Board submits the following recommendations for design development: • Assuming that the Airplane factory can use an alternative ingress/egress-eliminate the driveway to the Airplane Factory and extend the greenspace and bike/pedestrian route the full length of Brindley to Taber Street • Include traffic calming and an enhanced crosswalk across Taber at the intersection with Brindley Street. The Board believes that the area is a heavily used pedestrian route between West Hill and the Southwest commercial district • To minimize potential environmental and aesthetic impacts limit the width of the bridge to the greatest extent possible. Consider not having a design d bike lane. | I r $ § $ - B§@b2 / }dd\\§ � � � k■ 9¥ � s §§ 1 � ■a § « ) 2 � ) § § � § � §� §■ �\ §� § §■ ■§�� k �, ° � , © : § ) � § } § _ 2 - § \§ z§ ��co 2§ . _ � ¥ § a . - �§ k� «UG ] K §�1: ■ �. \ 2 \ < \ 4i . � 9\ \ §/ —. . r__ � d i Z Lu ELLI � tz N � vWi o - Lu Lu CL Y —j m � V �.4f �1 4i�� 1 1�F`, ■! ryu us Ma tp Q Wuj a! a Yn r h w S 130 S Mb in .4648w■nw ridww d*3 +dw+s"�r"w+arwwrw" i� Planning and Economic Development Committee November 12, 2014 Bindley Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project Design Alternative Decision-Resolution WHEREAS, the existing Brindley Street Bridge ("the Bridge " ) is a single span, single lane multiple steel girder bridge carrying Brindley Street over the Cayuga Inlet, and WHEREAS, the Bridge has been posted for a 20 ton weight limit and has a condition rating of 3.9 out of 7,and WHEREAS, currently, the City of Ithaca and project consultant (Delta Engineers, Architects, & Land Surveyors, P.C.) are working on Brindley Street Bridge Replacement Project ("the Project") ,and WHEREAS, the project involves the replacement of the Brindley Street Bridge with two lane structure with additional accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians including necessary approach and intersection improvement, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca established Capital Project#764 in the amount of$205,000 to cover scoping and development phases of the project, and WHEREAS, two possible alternatives for the replacement of this bridge are being considered: Bridge Alternative 1,which includes replacement of the bridge in its existing alignment and Bridge Alternative 2,which would include the construction of new roadway and bridge on a relocated horizontal alignment that would connect Taber Street with the West State Street/Taughnnock Boulevard intersection, and WHEREAS, the alternatives for reconstruction of the Bridnley Street Bridge were presented to the City Planning Board on September 23, 2014, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board prepared a memo in support of Bridge Alternative 2, which would realign the bridge with Taughannock Boulevard, stating that this would improve a problematic intersection, and WHEREAS, the alternatives for reconstruction of the Bridnley Street Bridge were presented to the City Board of Public Works on September 22, 2014, and WHEREAS, on October 6,2014, the Board of Public Works voted on a resolution in support of Bridge Alternative 2, which would realign the bridge with Taughannock Boulevard, and WHEREAS, Taughannock Boulevard Extension Project was included in"Six Point Traffic Plan" (City of Ithaca,2001) and recommended as an alternative which has the greatest potential for helping to mitigate traffic impacts on neighborhoods south of the creek, and therefore be it further RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby accepts the recommendation of both the Board of Public Works and Planning Board to proceed with developing a design for Brindley Bridge Alternative 2, which includes the construction of a new roadway and a new bridge on a relocated horizontal alignment, , and be it further RESOLVED, that the Common Council here by authorizes the Superintendent of Public Works to proceed with the design of Brindley Street Bridge replacement on relocated horizontal and new roadway construction(Bridge Alternative 2). ��Ysm CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590 a z ' °91 COMMON COUNCIL C�� °"r�`►�'� Joseph "Seph" Murtagh, Second Ward Alderperson Al Email:jmurtagh@cityofithaca.org To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Seph Murtagh, Chair Re: Noise Ordinance Reform Date: November 5th, 2014 The purpose of this memo is to provide background information regarding a proposal to amend City of Ithaca Code §240, City of Ithaca Noise Ordinance. In 2013, the City hired consultant Eric M. Zwerling, M.S. from the Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center (Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers — The State University of New Jersey) to assist the City in revising its noise ordinance. This effort was initiated in response to noise disputes that had been arising around the city (especially between commercial and residential uses), as well as complaints about the vagueness of the City's current ordinance. Mr. Zwerling visited Ithaca, gathered public input, met with interested parties, and conducted sound tests at various sites around the city. His main task was to produce a draft of a new noise ordinance. To summarize the major changes, the new ordinance would: *add some new definitions to the code (e.g., "multiuse property," "commercial use property") *create new standards for the primary Commons and City parks *establish city-wide permissible noise levels *establish special provisions for commercial establishments serving food and alcohol *add new regulations for unamplified human voice and motor vehicles Please find enclosed the draft ordinance. If the committee is willing, we will pass this along to Common Council for possible adoption at our December Council meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 585-703-2582. Sincerely, Seph Murtagh An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 240, Entitled "Noise," in Order to Incorporate Decibel Standards ORDINANCE -2014 WHEREAS, the City's noise ordinance has long contained a useful, subjective standard for identifying unreasonable noise; and WHEREAS, that subjective standard continues to be applicable to many of the noise determinations made by the City; and WHEREAS, certain other noise determinations have posed difficult determinations for the City that could be better resolved under an objective decibel-based standard for identifying unreasonable noise; and WHEREAS, the City retained an outside consultant to assist in the drafting of a noise ordinance which, as presented herein, retains the subjective standard and supplements it with an objective standard; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Common Council that the subjective standard herein be more commonly applied by the City, and in particular its police officers, in the first instance, but that said officers may select to employ the objective standard herein in the first or subsequent instance, as in their judgment appropriate to a particular situation; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that, despite the continuing utility of the City's subjective standard for identifying unreasonable noise, certain noise determinations, and particularly those situations of an ongoing or repetitive nature, may be better resolved under an objective decibel-based standard for identifying unreasonable noise. Section 2. Amendment. Chapter 240 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca shall be amended in its entirety so as to read as follows: § 240-1 Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "City of Ithaca Noise Ordinance." § 240-2Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the public health, peace, welfare and good order by suppressing the making, creation or maintenance of excessive, unnecessary, unnatural or unusually loud noises which are prolonged, unusual and unnatural in their time, place and use and which are detrimental to the environment. It is also the purpose of this chapter to allow all residents of the City to coexist harmoniously in a manner which is mutually respectful of the interests, rights and obligations of all persons. § 240-3Definitions. [Amended 9-1-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-14] Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows: ANSI The American National Standards Institute or its successor bodies. A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A- weighted network. The level so read is designated "dBA". All references to "decibel" shall be presumed to mean "dBA" unless otherwise specified. COMMERCIAL USE PROPERTY Any premises containing businesses where sales, offices, professional services, or other commercial use is legally permitted. CONTINUOUS SOUND Any sound that is not impulse sound. DAYTIME HOURS The hours between 7:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., local time, on any day. dBA The A-weighted sound level in decibels. DECIBEL A unit for measuring the volume of a sound, equal to the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure of the sound to the sound pressure of a standard sound (0.0002 microbar); abbreviated "dB." EMERGENCY WORK Work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity or work necessary to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger. IMPULSIVE SOUND A sound of short duration, usually less than one second, and of high intensity, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. INDUSTRIAL USE PROPERTY Any premises engaged in the manufacturing, processing, production, or shipping, of equipment or materials, including storage yards, shall be considered industrial use, where legally permitted. MOTOR VEHICLES Includes but is not limited to automobiles, trucks, buses, mopeds, minibikes and any other vehicles as defined by the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York, as it may be amended from time to time. MULTI-USE PROPERTY Any distinct parcel of land that is used for more than one category of activity (e.g., commercial and residential). NIGHTTIME HOURS The hours between 10:00 p.m., local time, on any day and 7:30 a.m. on the following day. PERSON Includes the singular and plural and also any individual; any property owner and/or lessee; any firm; a corporation; a political subdivision; a government agency, including any agency of the City of Ithaca; an association or an organization, including but not limited to officers, directors, employees, agents and/or independent contractors thereof; or any legal entity whatsoever. REAL PROPERTY LINE Means either (a) the vertical boundary that separates one parcel of property (i.e., lot and block) from another residential or commercial property; (b) the vertical and horizontal boundaries of a dwelling unit that is part of a multi-dwelling unit building; or (c) on a multi-use property as defined herein, the vertical or horizontal boundaries between the two portions of the properties on which different categories of activity are being performed. RESIDENTIAL USE PROPERTY Any property used for human habitation, unless habitation is a condition of employment, including, but not limited to: 1. Private property used for human habitation; 2. Commercial living accommodations and commercial property used for human habitation; 3. Recreational and entertainment property used for human habitation; 4. Community service property used for human habitation. SOUND-AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT Any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, instrumental music or any other sound. As used in this chapter, "sound-amplifying equipment" shall not include warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles or horns or other warning devices on any vehicle used only for traffic safety purposes or authorized fire horns or other authorized emergency alarms. SOUND-LEVEL METER An instrument that conforms to ANSI S1.4-1983 or its successors. SOUND SOURCE Any person or thing from which sound is created. UNREASONABLE NOISE A level of sound that is injurious or annoying or disturbing to be heard. § 240-4Unreasonable noise prohibited. [Amended 8-4-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-12] A. No person shall cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly create a risk thereof by making unreasonable noise or by causing unreasonable noise to be made. B. For the purpose of implementing and enforcing the standard set forth in Subsection A of this section, "unreasonable noise" shall mean any sound created or caused to be created by any person which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of the public or which causes injury to animal life or damages to property or business. Factors to be considered in determining whether unreasonable noise exists in a given situation include but are not limited to any or all of the following: (1) The intensity or volume of the noise. (2) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual. (3) Whether the origin of the noise is associated with nature or human-made activity. (4) The intensity of the background noise, if any. (5) The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities. (6) The nature and the zoning district of the area within which the noise emanates and of the area within 500 feet of the source of the sound. (7) The time of the day or night the noise occurs. (8) The time duration of the noise. (9) Whether the sound source is temporary. (10) The existence of complaints concerning the noise from persons living or working in different places or premises who are affected by the noise. C. This section shall not be interpreted to prevent the issuance of permits pursuant to § 240-14 that will authorize particular sound sources. D. "Person" defined. For the purposes of this section: (1) For an offense that occurs on any public property where permission was obtained to use that public property, a "person" shall include the person or persons who obtained permission to utilize that property for that event. (2) For an offense that occurs on private property, a "person" shall include any adult person or persons who live in or on the property that is involved in the offense. (3) For an offense that occurs after granting of a permit pursuant to Article III of this chapter, a "person" shall include the person or persons who are listed on the permit. § 240-5Purpose of article. The provisions of this Article II complement and supplement the other provisions of this chapter and shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with and in addition to and not in lieu of those other provisions. The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted to prevent the issuance of permits pursuant to § 240-14 that will authorize particular sound sources. § 240-6Radies, television sots and similar sound amplifying deV!GeS. Devices for sound amplification, production and reproduction. A. It shall be unlawful for any person anywhere in the City to use or to operate any radio or receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set, any other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound or any other sound-amplifying equipment in a loud, annoying or offensive manner such that noise from the device interferes with the comfort, repose, health or safety or members of the public or recklessly creates a risk thereof, within any building or, outside of a building, at a distance of 25 feet or more from the source of such sound or interferes with the conversation of members of the public who are 25 feet or more from the source of such sound. [Amended 9-1-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-13] B. "Person" defined. For the purposes of this section: [Added 8-4-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-12] (1) For an offense that occurs on any public property where permission was obtained to use that public property, a "person" shall include the person or persons who obtained permission to utilize that property for that event. (2) For an offense that occurs on private property, a "person" shall include any adult person or persons who live in or on the property that is involved in the offense. (3) For an offense that occurs after granting of a permit pursuant to Article III of this chapter, a "person" shall include the person or persons who are listed on the permit. § 240-7 Parties and other social events. A. It shall be unlawful for any person in charge of a party or other social event that occurs on any private or public property to allow that party or event to produce noise in a loud, annoying or offensive manner such that noise from the party interferes with the comfort, repose, health or safety of members of the public within any building or, outside of a building, or recklessly creates the risk thereof, at a distance of 25 feet or more from the source of such sound. [Amended 9-1-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-13] B. For the purposes of this section, a "person in charge of a party or other social event": [Amended 9-1-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-13] (1) That occurs on any public property shall include the person or persons who obtained permission to utilize that property for that event. (2) That occurs on private property shall include the person who owns the premises involved and any adult person who lives in or on the premises involved in such party or social event. (3) Shall include the person who is listed on a permit granted pursuant to Article III of this chapter with respect to such event. C. For any violation of this section where beer is being served from a keg on the premises, the person to whom the keg is registered shall be presumed to be responsible for the violation, in addition to any person designated in Subsection A or B above. § 240-8 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels. In addition to prohibitions set forth elsewhere in this chapter, the following general prohibitions regarding sound levels shall apply in determining unreasonable noise: A. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound from any use occupancy in such a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth in the receiving use occupancy category in Table I, when measured at or within the real property line of the receiving property. (1) Continuous Sound The limit in Table I may not be exceeded by any sound source during any three or more sampling intervals the duration of which shall be no less than one half minute, within any one hour period. If the total duration of the sound under investigation is less than one and one half minute, the requirement for a minimum of three measurements shall be waived. TABLE I MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVEL LIMITS BY RECEIVING LAND USE dBA Residential' Residentia12 All Residential Commercial Industrial 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. —7:00 a.m. 24 hours 24 hours p.m. 10:00 P.M. OUTDOORS 60 65 50 65 75 INDOORS3 50 55 40 55 65 1. Residential receptor not within a commercial or industrial zone, or within 200 feet of such a zone. 2. Residential receptor within a commercial or industrial zone, or within 200 feet of such a zone, including but not limited to those zones designated CBD, Waterfront, B, WDEZ, and Industrial. 3. The indoor permissible sound level limits only apply if the sound source is on or within the same property as the receiving property, as in the case of a multi-dwelling unit building or a multi-use property (e.g., sound generated within a commercial unit of a multi-use property building and received within a residential unit of the same building). In addition, indoor measurements shall be taken if the property line between the receiving property and the source property is a common wall, floor or ceiling (2) Impulsive Sound: No person shall make, cause, allow or permit the operation of any impulsive source of sound within any and all property in the city which has a maximum sound pressure level in excess of eighty (80) dBA, when measured at or within the real property line of the receiver. If an impulsive sound is the result of the normal operation of an industrial or commercial facility and occurs more frequently than four (4) times in any hour the levels set forth in Table_I shall apply. B. Sources of Sound on Ithaca Primary Commons or Any City Park In addition to those specific prohibition set forth in Table I of this Section, no person shall make, cause, allow, or permit any source of sound on the Ithaca Primary Commons or any city park that exceeds 70 dBA during daytime hours and 60 dBA during nighttime hours when measured at a distance of 25 feet or more from the source. C. Commercial establishments serving alcohol or food, or presenting live or recorded musical performances In addition to those specific prohibitions set forth in Table I of this Section, commercial establishments such as bars, restaurants, cabarets, or performance venues shall conform to the following standards: (1) There shall be no sound production device on the exterior of the establishment or inside the establishment at a distance of less than ten feet to an open door or window towards which it is oriented, without a permit. (2) There shall be no outdoor gaming devices. § 240-9 Other Prohibited Acts A. Unamplified human voice. (1) No person shall make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, any unreasonable noise by use of the unamplified human voice. The unamplified human voice engaged at conversational levels shall be exempt from this provision if such sound is not plainly audible beyond 100 feet or does not infringe on the legitimate rights of others. Raised vocal effort, such as shouting, yelling or screaming, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly causing a risk thereof or that serves no legitimate purpose, when audible at distances greater than 100 feet, is prima facie evidence of a violation of this provision. This shall not apply to spontaneous utterances such as laughter, exclamations of warning, or sporting events. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise, promote or sell anything by outcry within any area of the City zoned for residential uses, including all R and CR zones. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses and other similar licensed public entertainment events. § 240 9 B. Machinery. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or repair any machinery, motor vehicle, construction equipment or other equipment, pump, fan, air-conditioning apparatus or similar mechanical device or to engage in any commercial or industrial activity in any manner so as to create unreasonable noise as defined in § 240-4 of this chapter. In making such determination with respect to the matters governed by this section, additional factors to be considered shall include: A. I) The necessity of the work being done. (2)- The ability of the creator of the noise to minimize or reduce the amount of noise created or to otherwise minimize its adverse effects. § 240-10 C. Construction during nighttime hours. A. (1) Except for the purposes specified in Subsection B hereunder, during nighttime hours it shall be unlawful for any person within a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential zone to operate construction equipment (including but not limited to any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick or steam or electric hoist) or perform any outside construction or repair work so as to create noise. Any designated official of the City of Ithaca shall give a verbal warning that the violation exists and of the penalties that may result if the violation continues. B. (2) This section shall not be deemed to prohibit: 0+ a. Work of an emergency nature. {24 b. Work of a domestic nature on buildings, structures or projects being undertaken by a person(s) residing in such premises; provided that, if any domestic power tool, including but not limited to mechanically powered saws, sanders, grinders and lawn and garden tools used outdoors, is operated during the nighttime hours, no person shall operate such machinery so as to cause noise within a residential building or across a residential real property boundary where such noise interferes with the comfort, repose, health or safety of members of the public within any building or, outside of a building, at 25 feet or more from the source of the sound. § 240-10. Motor Vehicles A. No person shall remove or render inoperative, or cause to be removed or rendered inoperative or less effective than originally equipped, other than for the purposes of maintenance, repair, or replacement, of any device or element of design incorporated in any motor vehicle for the purpose of noise control. No person shall operate a motor vehicle or motorcycle which has been so modified. A vehicle not meeting these requirements shall be deemed in violation of this provision if it is operated stationary or in motion in any public space or public right-of-way. B. No motorcycle shall be operated stationary or in motion unless it has a muffler that complies with and is labeled in accordance with the Federal Noise Regulations under 40 CFR Part 205. C No person shall operate any motor vehicle with an engine braking device engaged which does not have a muffler in good working order. D. Personal or commercial vehicular music amplification or reproduction equipment shall not be operated in such a manner that it is plainly audible at distance of 25 feet in any direction from the vehicle between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. E. Personal or commercial vehicular music amplification or reproduction equipment shall not be operated in such a manner that is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet in any direction from the operator between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. § 240-11 Applicability of section. Section 240-6, 240-7, 240-8 and 240-9 shall be applied in addition to § 240-4. § 240-12 Severability If any provision of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of the ordinance shall not be invalidated. § 240 Q Gentinuinn noise it shall be URlawful for any person to make er GentiRue eF Gayse to be made er GeRtinued any louid, unneGessaFy er URusual noose or sound whiGh shall eXGeed the permitted ne.se levels speGified on this Ghapter. Any designated OffiGial of the Gity of IthaGa may issue a verbal warniRg that the violation evicts and of the penalties that may ensi e § 240-13uerns and alarms. Exceptions This Delire Department and operated in anrord with that ai etherization The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to: A. Sound and vibration emitted for the purpose of alerting people in an emergency or in the performance of the response to an emergency. B. Sounds connected with any authorized carnival, fair, exhibition, parade or community celebration or from any municipally sponsored celebration, event, activity or individually sponsored event where a permit or other relevant permission has been obtained from the City. C. The operation or use of any bell, chimes, or other instrument from any church, synagogue, temple, mosque or school licensed or chartered by the State of New York, provided such operation or use does not occur during nighttime hours. D. Sounds created by any government agency by the use of public warning devices. E. Noise from domestic power tools, lawn mowers, leaf blowers and agricultural equipment when operated with a muffler between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekends and legal holidays, provided they produce less than 75 dBA at or within any real property line of a receiving residential property. F. Noise from snow blowers, snow throwers, and snow plows when operated with a muffler for the purpose of snow removal. G. Noise from an exterior burglar alarm of any building or motor vehicle provided such burglar alarm shall terminate its operation within five (5) minutes after it has been activated. H. Sounds created by any governmental agency or railroad agency by the use of public warning devices or created by public utilities in carrying out the normal operations of their franchises. § 240-14 Permit procedures for certain activities. [Amended 9-1-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-14; 5-4-2005 by Ord. No. 2005-06] Except as provided for in § 157-8 of the City Code regarding the Ithaca Commons: A. Where a sound source exists, is planned, installed or intended to be installed or modified by any person in a manner that such source will create or is likely to create unreasonable noise or otherwise fail to comply with the provisions of this chapter, such person must secure a permit pursuant to Subsection D of this section. B. Where any person uses or plans to use any sound-amplifying equipment in such a way that such equipment is or will be heard outside of any building or vehicle between 10:00 p.m. of any day and 7:30 a.m. of the next day, such person must secure a permit pursuant to Subsection D of this section. C. Where any person uses or plans to use a public-address system that will make sound outside of a building, such person must secure a permit pursuant to Subsection D of this section. D. Applications shall be submitted at least 72 hours in advance of an event. The application for the permit shall provide the following information: (1) The reasons for such usage, including a demonstration why it is desirable or necessary that the sound source involved be authorized by a permit pursuant to this section. (2) Plans and specifications of the use. (3) Noise-abatement and -control methods to be used with respect to the sound source involved. (4) The period of time during which the permit shall apply. (5) The name of the person(s) who is responsible for ensuring that the activity complies with any permit issued for it pursuant to this section. (6) If required by the party issuing the permit, proof that notification of the application for the permit has been given to each person reasonably expected to be affected by the noise, the content of such notification and the manner in which such notification has been given, if the event is not a community-wide or public event. The notification shall state that any person objecting to the granting of such permit may contact the appropriate city department to which the application is being made to express his/her opposition to the granting of the permit. E. The application shall be made to the Superintendent of Public Works, or his/her designee, in connection with construction work on public rights-of-way or in parks; to the Director of Planning and Development, or his/her designee, for all other construction projects; and for others to the Mayor or his/her designee. The issuance of permits shall be discretionary, and a permit shall be issued only where the responsible official determines that such permit is reasonable and necessary and will allow an activity that is consistent with the general purposes of this chapter, as stated in § 240-2. When determining if a permit should be issued, factors the official shall consider shall include but are not limited to the volume of the noise, the proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities, the time of the day or night the noise occurs, the time duration of the noise, and the impact of the noise on persons living or working in different places or premises who are affected by the noise. Any permit granted shall state that the permit only applies to this chapter, and that § 240.20, Subdivision 2, of the Penal Law of the State of New York, Disorderly Conduct, provides that "a person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof: . . . he makes unreasonable noise." [Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15i'l] [1]: Editor's Note: This ordinance provided for an effective date of 1-1-2014. F. In order to further the purposes of this chapter and to facilitate its implementation and enforcement, the Superintendent of Public Works, the Director of Planning and Development and the Mayor, or their designees, shall have authority to impose such conditions as they determine are reasonable and necessary on permits they issue pursuant to this section. Such conditions may govern factors which include but are not limited to the time and location the involved sound source may be utilized. [Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15J211 [21: Editor's Note: This ordinance provided for an effective date of 1-1-2014. G. The Superintendent of Public Works, the Director of Planning and Development and the Mayor or their designees shall provide the Chief of Police with a copy of any permit issued pursuant to this section. [Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15131] [3] Editor's Note: This ordinance provided for an effective date of 1-1-2014. § 240-15 Variances The Mayor or his/her designee may grant for a sustained duration an individual variance from the limitations prescribed in this article whenever it is found, after a noticed public hearing before the Mayor, or his/her designee and upon presentation of adequate proof, that compliance with any part of this article will impose an undue economic burden upon any lawful business, occupation or activity, and that the granting of the variance will not result in a condition injurious to health or safety. A. Any variance, or renewal thereof, shall be granted within the requirements of division (A) of this section and for time periods and under conditions consistent with the reasons therefore, and within the following limitations: 1. If the variance is granted on the grounds that compliance with the particular requirement or requirements will necessitate the taking of measures which, because of their extent or cost, must be spread over a considerable period of time, it shall be for a period not to exceed such reasonable time as, in the view of the Mayor or his/her designee, is requisite for taking of the necessary measures. A variance granted on the ground specified in this division shall contain a timetable for taking of action in an expeditious manner and shall be conditioned on adherence to the timetable; or 2. If the variance is granted on the ground that it is justified to relieve or prevent hardship of a kind other than that provided for in division (1) of this division (B), it shall be for not more than one year. B. Any person seeking a variance shall file a petition for variance and a $50 filing fee with the Mayor or his/her designee. The Mayor or his/her designee shall thereafter conduct a noticed public hearing in accordance with this section, accept documentary and testimonial evidence in accordance with accepted administrative hearing procedures, and make a final decision regarding the granting of the variance. C. Written notice of the public hearing, the time and place of which shall be set by the Mayor or his/her designee, shall be mailed by the petitioner at least 10 days prior to the hearing, with proof of mailing provided to the Mayor at least 8 days prior to the hearing, to: 1. the owners as shown by the records of the County Assessor of lots comprising the site of the variance and lots within 100 feet, excluding public right-of-way, of the site of the variance; 2. any neighborhood association if the site of the variance is within the neighborhood association's boundaries or within 100 feet of the neighborhood association's boundaries, excluding public right-of way. 3. any other person or entity that has filed with the Mayor a request to receive a notice of the variance proceeding. D. The notice of hearing shall set forth the name and address of the petitioner, the location of the site of the variance, that the petitioner has requested a variance from this ordinance, the nature of the requested variance, and that part of the ordinance that would be-waived if approved. E. Following the hearing, the Mayor or his/her designee shall render a written final decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Mayor or his/her designee shall mail the decision to all parties of record. § 240-16 Penalties for offenses; presumptions. A. Any person who shall violate any provision of this chapter shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment of not more than 15 days, or not more than 100 hours of community service or any combination of such fine and imprisonment and not less than $100 or 25 hours of community service; provided, however, that a person who shall violate any provision of this chapter after having been convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter within the preceding three years shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $750 or by imprisonment of not more than 15 days, or not more than 125 hours of community service or, any combination of such fine and imprisonment and not less than $200 or 40 hours of community service; and further provided that any person who shall violate any provision of this chapter after having been convicted two or more times of a violation of any provision of this chapter within the preceding three years shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 15 days, or not more than 125 hours of community service, or any combination of such fine and imprisonment, and not less than $300 or 50 hours of community service. For any penalties of community service, the court may accept community service from people other than the defendant whom the court deems appropriate, such as other residents of the premises or others who choose to accept responsibility for the violation. In assessment of the above penalties, aggravating factors shall include but not be limited to the presence of the following factors: (1) A common source of alcohol such as a keg; (2) A live band or disc jockey or other live entertainment; (3) Amplified sound emanating from speakers placed or directed outside of the building; (4) A charge to gain entrance into the premises or to consume alcohol; (5) A violation of§ 250.8 (public urination) of this Code on the premises; (6) The offense takes place after midnight on weekdays and 1:00 a.m. on weekends and before the following 6:00 a.m.; (7) More than 25 guests on the premises, "guests" being defined for the purposes of this section as any people who do not reside at the premises; (8) Any underage person or persons possessing or consuming alcohol on the premises, each underage person constituting a separate aggravating circumstance; (9) More than one complaint made to the police about the noise, each complaint after the first being a separate aggravating circumstance. B. For purposes of this chapter, for any offense that takes place on private property, if the person or persons directly responsible for the activity that violates any provision of this chapter cannot be determined, then all residents of the property on which the activity takes place shall be presumed to be responsible for the violation. 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 June 1, 2015, and in accordance with law after publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee November 12, 2014 Disposition of City-Owned Land at 617 Five Mile Drive— Declaration of Lead Agency WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering sale of an approximately 3-acre, unimproved sub-parcel of land located at 617 Five Mile Drive in the Town of Ithaca, NY (part of tax parcel #31.-2-6) through a competitive sealed bid process to New Earth Living, LLC, and WHEREAS, the proposed sale of more than 2.5 acres of contiguous land is a Type 1 Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), and WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of CEQRO require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of proposed actions in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, no other agency than the City of Ithaca Common Council has jurisdiction to approve or undertake the proposed action; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED,that the City of Ithaca Common Council does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed sale of an approximately 3-acre, unimproved sub- parcel of land located at 617 Five Mile Drive in the Town of Ithaca, NY (part of tax parcel #31.-2- 6) to New Earth Living, LLC. j:\community development\dispositions\617 five mile drive\reso p&ed 617 five mile dr subparcel disposition-lead agency.doc Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee November 12, 2014 Disposition of City-Owned Land at 617 Five Mile Drive to New Earth Living LLC— Environmental Determination WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering sale of an approximately 3- acre, unimproved sub-parcel of land located at 617 Five Mile Drive in the Town of Ithaca, NY (part of tax parcel #31.-2-6) through a competitive sealed bid process to New Earth Living, LLC, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council declared itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of this proposed action, and WHEREAS, such proposed action for the transfer or sale of more than 2.5 contiguous acres of land is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQR") and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQR"), both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS, a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and supporting information has been provided to the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and Natural Areas Commission for review of the proposed action and no comments have been received to date, and WHEREAS, the Common Council for the city of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by IURA and City planning staff; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, as Lead Agency in this matter, adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth in the FEAF, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Lead Agency 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. j:\community development\dispositions\617 five mile drive\reso p&ed 617 five mile dr-neg dec 11-12-14.doc Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee November 12, 2014 Disposition of City-Owned Land at 617 Five Mile Drive to New Earth Living LLC-Authorization WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering sale of an approximately 3-acre, unimproved sub-parcel of land located at 617 Five Mile Drive in the Town of Ithaca, NY (part of tax parcel #31.-2-6) to New Earth Living LLC, and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2013 the Common Council authorized a competitive sealed bid process to offer for sale a 3-acre sub-parcel (City Property), subject to the following terms: Minimum Price: Fair Market Value to be determined by appraisal to be conducted after receipt of bids. Compliance with Purchaser must identify how conveyance of the 3-acre sub- Subdivision &Zoning parcel will comply with Town of Ithaca subdivision and zoning Regulations: regulations. As the sub-parcel lacks street frontage, it appears that consolidation with an existing adjoining parcel will be required. Future Use: Open space, agricultural and/or residential use. Easement: Sale will be subject to retention of a public easement across the sub-parcel for access by vehicles and pedestrians to the City-owned Southwest Natural Area located east of the railroad tracks. Additional Purchaser Appraisal and lot consolidation expenses. Expenses: Disclaimer: City reserves the right to reject any and all bids. WHEREAS, the Common Council further stipulated that the bid award is subject to completion of environmental review, including advice of the Natural Areas Commission, and approval by the Common Council, and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2014 the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) issued and publicly advertised an Invitation For Bids for the City Property, and WHEREAS, one bid at $10,000 was received from New Earth Living LLC to purchase the City Property, and WHEREAS, an appraisal was conducted at the expense of the prospective purchaser that concluded the fair market value of the City Property is $16,875, so the initial bid was rejected, and WHEREAS, a revised sealed bid offering that established the minimum acceptable bid at $16,875 was issued on July 30, 2014, and WHEREAS, one bid at $16,875 was received from New Earth Living LLC to purchase the City Property, and WHEREAS, New Earth Living LLC developed the Aurora Street pocket neighborhood project at the 500 block of Aurora Street, and WHEREAS, New Earth Living LLC proposes to consolidate the City Property with an adjacent parcel located at 619 Five Mile Drive for development of an approximately 30-unit clustered residential subdivision known as Amabel, and WHEREAS, the City Property is proposed to be used as a natural area for storm water management and a dog park for residents, though final plans for the project may evolve as the project proceeds through the Town's approval process, and WHEREAS, environmental review for sale of this land has been completed, and WHEREAS, the City Charter requires approval by 3/4s of the Common Council to authorize sale of real property; now, therefore, be it, RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby authorizes disposition of an approximately 3-acre, unimproved, sub-parcel of land located at 617 Five Mile Drive in the Town of Ithaca NY (part of tax parcel 31.-2-6) to New Earth Living LLC at a sales price of $16,875, subject to the following conditions: 1. Subdivision and consolidation of the sub-parcel with an adjacent parcel in conformance with Town of Ithaca land use regulations; 2. Retention of a public easement across the sub-parcel for access by vehicles and pedestrians to the City-owned Southwest Natural Area located east of the railroad tracks bounding the sub-parcel; and 3. Purchaser shall be responsible for the following costs in addition to the bid purchase price: • Lot subdivision and consolidation • Sellers closing cost expenses, including legal, title and boundary survey as applicable. RESOLVED, that the Mayor, subject to advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute agreements to implement this resolution, including but not limited to a purchase and sale agreement and conveyance of deed, and be it further RESOLVED, that expenses of the IURA directly associated with marketing and sale of the property shall be reimbursed from sale proceeds. j:\community development\dispositions\617 five mile drive\reso p&ed 617 five mile dr subparcel disposition-action.doc g STX p;:• 9t+ :x ....:;::� CffV OF ITHACA FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF) Purpose: This Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF)is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner,whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a proposed action that are subjective or immeasurable. It is also understood those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The FEAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured the determination process has been orderly,comprehensive in nature,yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. FEAF Components: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given action and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists in a review of the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA IS FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—TYPE I AND UNLISTED ACTIONS Identify the portions of FEAF completed for this action: LKpart 1 Part 2 ❑Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this FEAF(Parts,2,and 3,if appropriate),and any other supporting information,and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact,it is reasonably determined by the Lead Agency that: NA. The Proposed Action will not result in any large and important impact(s)and will not have a significant impact on the environment;therefore,A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. FIB. Although the proposed action could have a significant impact on the environment,there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action,because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required;therefore,A CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. QC. The proposed action may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment;therefore,A POSITIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions. Name of Action: Disposition of City-Owned Land at 617 Five Mile Drive Name of Lead Agency: City of Ithaca Common Council Name and Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: N e I s Bohn, 1 U RA Director of CD Signature of Responsible Of er in Lea' Agency: Signature of Preparer: Date: November 3, 201 FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT F (FEAF) PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (prepared by project sponsor/applicant) NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the FEAF will depend on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research, or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action: Disposition of City-Owned Land at 617 Five Mile Drive Location of Action: 707 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca Address: 108 E. Green Street [:City/TownNillage: Ithaca State: NY ZIP: 14850 Business Phone: (607) 274-6550 Name of Owner (if different): Same Address: City/Town/Village: State: ZIP: Business Phone: Description of Action: Disposition of an approximately 3-acre, unimproved sub-parcel of land located at 617 Five Mile Drive in the Town of Ithaca (part of tax parcel #31.-2-6)through a competitive sealed bid process to New Earth Living LLC. City will retain a public easement across the sub-parcel for access by pedestrians and vehicles to access the City-owned Southwest Natural Area Park. . 2 Please complete each question (indicate N/A, if not applicable). A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. I Present Land Use: 0 Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Public LEI Forest ❑Agricultural ❑Other: F. Total area of project area: 3 acres square feet(Chosen units apply to following section also.) Approximate Area (Units in Question 2 apply to this section.) Currently After Completion 2a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural) 2b.Forested 3 2c. Agricultural 2d.Wetland [as per Article 24 of Environmental Conservation Law(ECL)] 2e. Water Surface Area 2f. Public 2g. Water Surface Area 2h.Unvegetated (rock, earth, or fill) a. .,.- 2i. Roads, buildings, and other paved surfaces ffi 2j. Other(indicate type) 11 1F r3a. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g.,HdB, silty loam, etc.): Genesee Silt loam 3b. Soil Drainage: ® Well-Drained 100 % of Site ❑ Moderately Well-Drained % of Site Poorly Drained % of Site 14a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ][QY::es [KNo ❑N/A Fg�p. What is depth of bedrock? 8+ (feet) 14c. What is depth to the water table? 3+ (feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site 0-10% 100 % 10-15 with slopes: ❑ 15%or greater % 6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it Yes )C o /A contain a building, site or district, listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places? 6b. ...Or a designated local landmark or located in a Yes ❑No []N/A local landmark district? 7. Do hunting and/or fishing opportunities currently ❑Yes ONo []N/A If yes, identify each species: exist in the project area? 3 c® c u e 8. Does project site contain any species of plant []Yes [KNo []N/A and/or animal life identified as threatened or endangered? According to: Identify each species: 9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on the []Yes No []N/A project site (i.e., cliffs, other geological Lformations)? Describe: 10. Is project site currently used by the community or ❑Yes [X]No FIN/A neighborhood as an open space or recreation If yes, explain: area? 11. Does present site offer or include scenic views []Yes [X]No []N/A known to be important to the community? Describe: 12. Is project within or contiguous to a site ❑yes �No []N/A a Unique Natural Area(UNA) or critical environmental area by a local or state Describe: Project site is near the Negundo Woods agency? UNA(UNA-153), which is located across a 120-feet wide, cleared railroad and electrical utility corridor that separates the site from the UNA. IL 13. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Names of stream(s) or name(s) of river(s)to which it is a tributary: NA 14. Lakes, ponds, or wetland areas within or a. Name(s): NA contiguous to project area: b. Size(s) (in acres): 15. Has site been used for land disposal of solid []Yes [X]No FIN/A and/or hazardous wastes? Describe: 16. Is the site served by existing public utilities? []Yes F XI No QN/A a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? []Yes ONo QN/A b. If Yes, will improvements be necessary to ❑yes �No QN/A allow connection? 4 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate): 3 acres Ia. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor in acres: 3 or square feet: lb.Project acreage developed: 0 Acres initially: 0 Acres ultimately: 0 lc. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 3 acres ld.Length of project in miles (if appropriate): NA or feet: F—le.--If project is an expansion, indicate percent of change proposed: NA lf. Number of off-street parking spaces existing: 0 proposed: 0 lg. Maximum vehicular trips generated (upon completion of project)per day: 0 and per hour: lh.Height of tallest proposed structure in feet. 0 1 j. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy? 0 2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site: 0 or added to the site: 0 3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from the site: acres: 0 type of vegetation: 14. Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed for this project? No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace vegetation removed during construction? No 6. If single-phase project, anticipated period of construction: NA months (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased project, anticipated period of construction: months (including demolition) 7a. Total number of phases anticipated: 1 7b.Anticipated date of commencement for first phase: Jan month 2015 year(including demolition) 7c. Approximate completion date of final phase: Jan month 2015 year. I-7d.Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? OYes nNo X /A 8. Will blasting occur during construction? [Yes [No[ /A If yes, explain: 9. Number of jobs generated during construction: 0 After project is completed: 0 10.Number of jobs eliminated by this project: 0 Explain: 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?❑YesL��] o M/A If yes, explain: 12a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved?❑Yes �Xo M/A; if yes, explain: 12b. If#12a is yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc): [1-2c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? 13. Will surface area of existing lakes,ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? ®Yes o /A If yes, explain: 14a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100-year flood plain? ❑Yes E[X]INo[N/A Site is located in the 500-year flood plain 5 r.MOJECT DESCRIPTION(concluded) 1b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to: Cayuga Inlet Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Cayuga Lake, Six Mile Creek, or Silver Creek? (Circle all that apply.) 1c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as described in Article 24 of the ECL? ®Yes �o ON/A; 1d. If#14a., b., or c. is yes, explain: 15a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? ❑Yes [E]No ON/A 15b. If#15a. is yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? ❑Yes [3No ON/A 15c. If#15b. is yes, give name of disposal facility: and its location: 15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? []Yes �Xo M/A If yes, explain: 15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? ❑Yes MNo ON/A If yes, explain: 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑Yes �o rJN/A If yes, specify: 17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places or a local landmark or in a landmark district? OYes ONO QN/A; if yes, explain: 118. Will project produce odors? ®Yes X o ON/A If yes, explain: 19. Will project product operating noise exceed the local ambient noise level during construction? ❑Yes [ )C---]No ON/A After construction?❑Yes X o ON/A 20. Will project result in an increase of energy use?❑Yes �o M/A If yes, indicate type(s): 1. Total anticipated water usage per day in gals./day: 0 Source of water: 6 C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION 1. Does the proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Yes �o /A If yes, indicate the decision required: ®Zoning Amendment ®Zoning Variance ❑New/Revision of Master Plan ❑ Subdivision C3 Site Plan ❑ Special Use Permit ❑Resource Management Plan ❑Other: 2. What is the current zoning classification of site? Low Density Residential 3. If the site is developed as permitted by the present zoning, what is the maximum potential development? Unbuildable lot—lacks street frontage 4. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? WYes ONo ON/A 5. If#4 is no, indicate desired zoning: 6. If the site is developed by the proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site? NA 7. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land-use plans? ■Yes MNo WN/A If no, explain: 8. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project? (e.g., R-la or R-lb) Low-Density Residential (in Town of Ithaca) and P-1 in City of Ithaca 9. Is the proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? ❑Yes ONo EQN/A Explain: Proposed action is sale of land, not a physical change to the project site. 10a. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? NA 10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? NA 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community-provided services? (e.g., recreation, education, police, fire protection, etc.)? ❑Yes �o ON/A Explain: If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ❑Yes ❑No ON/A Explain: 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ®Yes a o M/A If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle additional traffic? ❑Yes ❑ o [3N/A Explain: 7 A APPROVALS to Approvals: Common Council approval requires for disposition of City-owned property 2a. Is any Federal permit required? ❑Yes �o /A Specify: bo Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing?❑Yes o /A If Yes, Specify: c. Local and Regional approvals: Type of Submittal Approval Agency Yes or No Approval Required Date Date Common Council Yes Authorize sale 12/13 11/14 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) No Planning& Development Board No Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Board of Public Works (BPW) No Fire Department No Police Department No Building Commissioner No Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency No (IURA) 8 E. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. F. VERIFICATION I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor a e: 41s B hn Signature: Al'-, �A� Title: IURA Directo of CommunitV Development 7CXXK?�C?CKKXxXYXXKYK END OF PART 1XXXX''�''"'�''t''�x''"'"'"'"'"'` 9 N E ofY N N c O c — io T z o W E h N VJ N O P m N fn v 3 N Z Q — a (O U W O p 2 x O O a a` d d r a M 0 3 C a m o U m m >. LO av« macnaiL /nUaFx 'A "may E dL s, ElT Z H a t---------------�_. _._._� N > i � W an•1 O � /.may� �=} ( � �'" Q LL C4 fA Ln e•li i{ N Z to co a a ca6 f i L lf1 ON ei m N m W fn Co i = h:_ y ^W � li ry `f N 40 4: the m v IN� � , 1Ii CO .4 fV N to O E M UkD o Co N N , N 0 e-1 fp m �l M r i Via. N • to m N 00 14 J N N `.Z N lc m in a O 'i cf d. � '�r• m ai ID ;' a• C*' n o f i1 m v m 3 LO a w co coo � {' �c ry -4 co 70 4I fo o m Iv v L - O 0 Ln cl C lb NI o t o UI •�• N X E2 N j C� N rn} E E Ty Na c0 y N � O C N m m o o � E - (1J Ncn N (n U7 y ul N O a m y_. U y O y N — tl N t U.{ Y n 0 3 C a m o cLi (am >. � CI Q (0 n. li (n U d H S N y .6 E N ^z,�EAf LLI Ab cn It _ i` 'F'`• v.'±< a a - ' U y y i ye 4516 - f.. ' .. } - f �� •,�4 Llama ,r � O ko s o .14 y +�j r � k � �♦ 2.i,: N s � t Q a 00 �: N �` 1 (.�• - 1... 7 co }1`+ c.° ' CNL ci a tll �� City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form ( ) Part Project Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-Owned roerty at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/3/14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? ❑Yes ®No Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater(1 5-footrise per 100 feet of length)or where general slope in the project ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No exceeds 10%. Construction on land where depth to the water table is less ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No than 3 feet. Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No more than one phase or stage. Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Construction in designated floodway. ❑ Yes ❑ No Other impacts(if any): ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)? ❑Yes ® No Specific land forms (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 1 of 11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form ( F) Part 2Project Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-Owned Property at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/3/14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental Conservation Law, .C.L.)? ❑ Yes ® No Developable area of site contains protected water body. ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel ❑ Yes ❑ No of protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No water body. Construction in designated freshwater wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Other impacts(if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ❑ Yes ® No A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No exceeds 10,000 sq.ft. of surface area. Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, ❑ Yes ❑ No Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 2of11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment For (F ) PartProject Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-Owned roperty at 617 Five Mile Drive ®ate Created: 11/ /14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER(coot.) 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? ❑Yes ❑ No Project will require discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Project requires use of source of water that does not have ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No approval to serve proposed project. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No public water supply system. Project will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which ❑Yes ❑ No do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No products greater than 1,100 gallons. Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 3of11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form ( F) PartProject Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-Owned roerty at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/ /14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER(cont.) 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? ❑Yes ® No Project would impede floodwater flows. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AIR 7.Will project affect air quality? ❑Yes ® No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No period per day. Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of ❑ ❑ [:]Yes ❑ No refuse per 24-hour day. Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No BTUs per hour. Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 4of11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form ( ) Part 2® Project Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-OwnedProperty at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/ /1 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS S. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? ❑Yes ® No Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list, ❑ Yes ❑ No using the site, found over, on, or near site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? ❑Yes ® No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any ❑ ❑ [:]Yes ❑ No resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Proposed action requires removal or more than %acre of ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Other impacts (if any): ❑Yes ❑ No 5of11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (F F) Part Project Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-OwnedProperty at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/3/14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community? ❑Yes [—] No Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No surrounding land use patterns,whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening ❑ ❑ [:]Yes ❑ No of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts (if any): Land proposed for disposition currently provides a publicly-owned natural buffer to the Southwest Natural Area Park,though the site is separated from the Park by a 120-foot ® ❑ ❑Yes No wide,cleared corridor containing high-voltage electric power lines and Norfolk Southern railroad tracks. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? ❑ Yes ® No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No National or State Register of Historic Places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No within the project site. Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No landmark district. Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 6of11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (F AF) Part 2® Project Impacts Project amen Disposition of City-Owned roert at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/ /14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or recreational opportunities? ❑Yes ❑ No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No community. Other impacts(if any): Land proposed for disposition currently provides a publicly-owned natural buffer to the Southwest Natural Area Park,though the site is separated from the Park by a 120-foot ® ❑ Yes No wide,cleared corridor containing high-voltage electric power lines and Norfolk Southern railroad tracks. IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL'ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? [—]Yes ® No Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No resource. Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No resource. Other impacts(if any): Land proposed for disposition currently provides a publicly-owned natural buffer to the Southwest Natural Area Park,though the site is separated from the Park by a 120-foot ® ❑ ❑Yes ® NO wide,cleared corridor containing high-voltage electric power lines and Norfolk Southern railroad tracks. 7of11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form ( ) Part Project Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-Owned roprty at 617 Five Mile Drive ®ateCreated: 11/ /14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 1 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ❑ Yes ® No Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No goods. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ❑ Yes ❑ No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No form of energy used in municipality. Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- ❑ ❑ [:]Yes ❑ No or two-family residences. Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 8of11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (F F) Part Project Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-Owned roer at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/3/14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? ❑Yes ❑ No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other ❑ ❑ R Yes ❑ No sensitive facility? Odors will occur routinely(more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ [:]Yes ❑ No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No noise screen. Other impacts(if any): ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? ❑Yes ® No Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in burial of"hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No irritating, infectious, etc.) Proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No solid or hazardous wastes. Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases). 9of11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (F AF) PartProject Impacts ProjectName: Disposition of City-OwnedProperty at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/3/1 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. ❑ ❑ [--]Yes ❑ No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? ❑Yes ® No The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5%of resident human ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No this proposed action. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No goals. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No use. Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, ❑ Yes ❑ No structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create demand for additional community ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Proposed action will set an important precedent for future ❑ Yes ❑ No actions. Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No more businesses. 10 of 11 11/3/2014 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (F F) PartProject Impacts Project Name: Disposition of City-Owned ro erty at 617 Five Mile Drive Date Created: 11/ /14 Small-to- Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD(cont.) Other impacts (if any): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown —If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3— 11 of 11 11/3/2014 CITY OF ITHACA O ITx`�C 108 East Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 va ® ® DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING,ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT b JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT �c�gA0RA1E�l� PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO,DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner Date: November 4, 2014 Re: Proposal to Amend R-U Zoning District The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to amend the RU zoning district. This proposal was previously discussed by this Committee at their meeting on October 8th. At that meeting staff was directed to circulate a concept memo for comments. Enclosed are comments that were received from Historic Ithaca. In addition to circulating the memo, staff and Common Council members met with some of the residents of the neighborhood to discuss the proposed zoning amendments. Several of the residents expressed a desire to move forward with the proposed changes, but were concerned that the proposed ordinance would not offer protection for the portions of the historic district that were not located within the RU zoning district. Enclosed for your consideration is a draft ordinance. The proposed changes to the RU zoning district are intended to allow for future development that will preserve the open space, park-like character, and historic quality of the neighborhood. In addition, staff has agreed to evaluate the entire historic district to see if there are options to protect the remaining portion of the historic neighborhood that is not located in the RU zoning district. If the Committee is in agreement, staff will draft the environmental review of this action and circulate it along with the draft ordinance and return next month with any comments that are received. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6410. Historic Ithaca 212 Center Street Ithaca,NY 14850 To: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner Date: November 6, 2014 Re: Proposal to Amend R-U Zoning District Please find comments from Historic Ithaca below for the proposed amendments to the R-U Zoning District. These comments can be entered into the record. 1. The circulated proposal only addressed changes to the District Regulations Chart. Is the intent to make changes as well to the text of the Zoning Ordinance itself(Chapter 325 of the City Code) - e.g., to define or explain new terms)? 2. Under the first section "Permitted Uses 3-8 are restricted to 1 every 500"' This phrasing seems vague. Is it "1 every 500"' beginning at the property line? Is it measured from the road curb? From another point? It seems that it needs more specific wording to avoid any legal confusion. The proposed rule is not sufficiently protective of existing character and the goal of"low-density." It could encourage the development of larger or consolidated multiple dwellings designed to maximize size and lot coverage. A more protective approach would be to allow multiple dwellings (of any sort) only by special permit. 3. Maximum Building Height: Height in Feet is stated as 40. Where does this measurement begin and end? Is it from the lowest visible portion of the building to the topmost portion of the roof? Again, some specific wording seems desirable. 4. Maximum Percent Lot Coverage by Buildings "50% of the developable lot area, after the required setbacks have been calculated, must be retained as green space." Again, how will this be defined? Green space as interpreted to mean a lawn grass, treed area,planted area that is strictly unavailable for any vehicle parking? 5. Yard Dimensions - this section does not specify width or length and needs to be expressed more clearly. 6. In the first page Summary of General Intent: Is the aim of the R-U zone still to provide a walkable location for student housing development as part of maintaining the open space, park-like character, and historic quality of the existing neighborhood? 7. Maximum Lot Coverage: Suggest a "sliding scale" where maximum allowable coverage % decreases as lot size increases (to limit the possibility of massive projects). "Developable lot area" needs to be defined. What counts as "developable," what doesn't? General comment: If the City's intent truly is for Cornell Heights to be a "low density neighborhood," as proposed in the new Comprehensive Plan, allowing new multiple dwellings, as of right, would appear to be inconsistent with this goal. Density can be gauged not just by the proximity of buildings,but also by population and intensity of use. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. Sincerely, Christine O'Malley Preservation Services Coordinator Historic Ithaca 11/7/2014 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows : 1 . WHEREAS, in 2013, the City received a development proposal for a residential project located in the Cornell Heights historic district, and 2 . WHERAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, in their review of the project, found that the allowable development by the existing zoning largely conflicted with what the Commission would permit in order to protect the historic character of the district, and 3 . WHEREAS, the Cornell Heights Historic District, unlike Ithaca' s other Historic Districts, was developed as a planned "residence park, " with significant amounts of green space and informal landscaping in the Romantic tradition intentionally retained around its expansive homes to create a unique neighborhood identity, and 4 . WHEREAS, this neighborhood is also designated as a low- density neighborhood in the City of Ithaca' s forthcoming Comprehensive Plan, and 5 . WHEREAS, in order to explore alternate zoning options that would better reflect the desired development for this area, a working group consisting of staff from the planning, zoning, and building departments and members of the Common Council, and 6 . WHEREAS, prior to developing a zoning proposal, a walking tour of the neighborhood was held and the working group also had meetings with the residents of the area, and 7 . WHEREAS, the working group has identified amendments to the use and area requirements in the RU zoning district that would allow for responsibly developing this area, while preserving the original intent for the district and protecting the important qualities of this neighborhood, and 8 . WHEREAS, in addition to the amendments that have been proposed to the RU zoning district, residents have requested that the Common Council also explore options for Page 1 of 3 11/7/2014 offering additional protections to the entire historic district, therefore BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows : Section 1 . Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled District Regulations, is hereby amended to add the following underlined language : Section 325-8 : District Regulations Chart, R-U Use District Permitted Primary Uses 1 . One-family detached, semi-detached, or attached dwelling. 2 . Any use permitted in R-1 and R-2 . Permitted Uses 3-8 are restricted to 1 every 5001 , measured from the edge of the property line 3 . Multiple dwelling. 4 . Rooming or boardinghouse . 5 . Cooperative household. 6 . Fraternity, sorority or group house . 7 . Dormitory. 8 . Townhouse or garden apartment housing. By Special Permit of Board of Appeals : 9 . Uses 5-7 under R-1* 10 . Nursery school, child day care center . 11 . Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns . * Cemetery and Related Building, Public Utility Structures, except offices, All School and Related Buildings Minimum Lot Size (Area in Square Feet) 1 . One-family detached dwelling: 10, 000 2 . One-family semi-detached or two-family dwelling: 15, 000 . 3 . One-family attached dwelling: 16, 500 for first 1-3 units plus 1, 500 for each additional unit . 4 . Multiple dwelling: 16, 500 for first 1-3 units +1, 500 for each additional unit . 5 . Fraternity, sorority, or group house: 30 ,000 (was 25,000) . 6. Other uses : 30 ,000 (was 10 , 000) . Width in Feet at Street Line 1 . One-family detached dwelling: 75 . 2 . One-family semi-detached or two-family dwelling: 100 . Page 2 of 3 11/7/2014 3 . One-family attached dwelling: 125 . 4 . Multiple dwelling: 125 . 5 . Fraternity, sorority or group house : 125 . 6. Other uses : 125 (was 75) . Maximum Building Height Number of Stories : 3 (was 4) . Height in Feet - 40 . Maximum Percent Lot Coverage by Buildings Lot Coverage: 25% (was 30%) . 50% of the developable lot area, after the required setbacks have been calculated, must be retained as green space. Yard Dimensions Front Required Minimum - 25' Side Minimum - 10' Other Side Minimum - 10' Rear Minimum - 50' or at least 25% , but not less than 30' Section 2 . The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the district regulations chart in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 3 . Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. Section 4 . Effective date . This ordinance shall take affect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Page 3 of 3 City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, September 10, 2014 — 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick, Cynthia Brock, and Josephine Martell Committee Members Absent: Ellen McCollister Other Elected Officials Attending: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic Development; Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant, Department of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic Development, and Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA); Ari Lavine, City Attorney Others Attending: Jay Franklin, Tompkins County Assessment Office Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:OOp.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2) Special Order of Business a) Public Hearing — Lot Coverage Amendment, Decks Alderperson Kerslick moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed Unanimously. Sheryl Swink, 321 North Albany Street, spoke on the lot coverage amendments. She thinks it's something that has been able to do, and it is taking away. What is the purpose? Alderperson Kerslick moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed unanimously. b) Special Presentation — Assessments Jay Franklin, Director of Assessment, Tompkins County Department of Assessment, provided the Committee with a presentation on the subject of County assessments. A copy of this report is attached to these minutes. c) Special Presentation — Conservation Easements in City Watershed City Attorney Ari Lavine explained what a small group of employees have been working on. He anticipates a new budget line added for this new program. A Conservation Easement is a set of legal restrictions on a piece of property. There are certain things that are allowed and not allowed. A $30M water plant is currently being built. This group was inspired by a past Alderperson Chris Proulx and currently includes Alderperson Donna Fleming; Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer, Erik Whitney; the President of the Land Trust; and Ari Lavine, Ithaca City Attorney. We are looking at undeveloped land that feeds our water supply. Current landowners can voluntary give up a portion of their land for this use. The land trust will help the City identify the owners who will donate this land. This will give them a tax break as well as maintain their land as they choose to even though they've donated the property. This process will not create any additional workload to City employees as the Land Trust will be responsible for it all. Process wise, the committee is proposing an annual budget line to support this project. Departments such as Planning and Development and the Department of Public Works may have an important part in this. Alderperson Brock asked for clarification of what budget dollars will be used. Attorney Lavine responded that this program will be funded by the Water and Sewer budget which is not the general fund. It will be funded by the revenue Water and Sewer brings in based on their water and sewer rates collected by Ithaca City residents. Alderperson Kerslick asked whether a map of the water shed would be made available when reviewing each easement. He would like reassurance that the Water Plant and Water and Sewer employees are definitely on board. Attorney Lavine stated that Erik Whitney is in full support of this process. It will be reviewed during the annual budget process and budgeted in the Water and Sewer budget of the general fund. The Cayuga Lake Watershed has a huge collection of watershed maps. JoAnn Cornish stated that some of the property that have road frontage may also be more valuable entering into these easements. Cornish also asked whether a transfer of development rights would be available to these landowners with other municipalities. Cornish further stated that a few years back there was a capital project regarding this very topic or similar topic. It was also clarified that this would be eligible for rate funding. Lavine encouraged that if Council is interested in agreeing to this and to fund it, it would be important to pass a resolution outlining the process' steps. Alderperson Brock stated it would be an important that the Department of Public Works be included in the approval process. JoAnn stated she would be interested to know whether the Land Trust already has current easements in the Watershed. 3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members Michael Culotta, 701 North Tioga Street, spoke in favor of conversation easements. He stated that these easements will remain on the tax rolls and these municipalities should be made aware of this since these easements will be most often in areas outside of the City limits. Alderperson Brock thanked Sheryl Swink for coming out and speaking on the lot coverage amendments. She stated the amendments are being made for a better clarification of definitions. 4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports JoAnn Cornish stated that there will be a meeting set regarding Cornell Heights for later this month. JoAnn Cornish informed the group that she and Sue Ritter have been in touch and have had multiple conversations, and it was suggested that the Planning Committee attend the Town Planning Board on September, 25, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. The members present stated they were in agreement and would check their schedules. There will be a public information session on September 18, 2014 in the Borg Warner Room, Tompkins County Public Library, at 5:00 p.m. to discuss a CIITAP application for a new housing project on Clinton Street. Brindley Street Bridge will be presented on September 22, 2014 at 3:45 p.m. in the Second Floor Conference. Addisu Gebre, Bridge System Engineer, will lead this meeting. A public hearing will be held on the amendments to the City noise ordinance in October. City Attorney Ari Lavine will be attending. 5) Action Items — Voting to Send onto Council a) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive (NIIF) Application Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed unanimously. RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for the Fall Creek Neighborhood Block Party, August 2014 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few residents, and WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited to neighborhood clean-ups, plantings in public places, and neighborhood events like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Common Council has delegated authority to approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities, and WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and WHEREAS, on behalf of neighborhood residents, Maria Costanzo and Sara Schaffzin have submitted an application for reimbursement funds to off-set $189.73 in expenses from the Fall Creek neighborhood's annual block party, and WHEREAS, notice of the block party was circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the event provided an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of residents; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request from Maria Costanzo and Sara Schaffzin in the amount of$189.73 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts. b) Non-substantive Changes to Planned Unit Development Ordinance An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning, " Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to Make Minor Non Substantive Changes Regarding the Common Council Approval Process for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) City Attorney Ari Lavine informed the group what the amendments to this resolution are: Section 1 should include changes to [8], [9], [11], and [12] as stated in the resolution being acting on tonight. Alderperson Brock moved the amendments; Kerslick seconded it. Passed Unanimously Alderperson Kerslick moved to approve as amended; seconded by Alderperson Brock seconded it. Passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2014- WHEREAS, on July 2, 2014, the Common Council adopted legislation allowing for the City to establish Planned Unit Development districts on any property in the City currently zoned for industrial uses, and WHEREAS, the adopted Planned Unit Development Ordinance contained language that would require the Planning Board to serve as lead agency on the associated environmental review and require a project to receive a negative declaration of environmental significance in order to be considered eligible for a Planned Unit development, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board may not serve as lead agency in all instances, because, for example, Common Council could choose to serve as lead agency, and a proposed project may complete its environmental review even if it receives a positive declaration of environmental significance as long as it is able to mitigate the impacts of the environmental impacts, and WHEREAS, in order to allow for these projects to be eligible for planned unit developments, the language of the ordinance must be amended to allow for projects that have adequately completed environmental review, so that the project can progress through construction, to be considered by the Common Council for PUD approval; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Article IV, Section 325-12 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended as follows : Section 1 Chapter §325-12 .G. [8] , [9] , [11] , and [12] shall be deleted in their entirety and replaced, respectively, with: [1 . ] Site Plan Review Application - Applicant submits a site plan review application. The Planning Board commences the environmental review process in compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRA) and conducts the normal site plan review process . To the extent that the Planning Board declares its intent to be the lead agency for the environmental review of the project and the PUD, the Planning Board notifies all other involved agencies including the Common Council . [2 . ] RESERVED. [11 . ] RESERVED. [12 . ] Common Council Consideration of the PUD - When and if the Planning Board has completed its environmental review of the project to the extent required under SEQRA and CEQRA and has issued a contingent site plan approval, the project will return to the Common Council for final consideration of the adoption of the PUD. Final Council approval, if any, shall be granted via ordinance . [13. ] 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 in the Ithaca City Charter. c) Lot Coverage Amendment, decks JoAnn Cornish stated that in practice this is already in place, but has not been adequately stated in the Code. This is an effort to reduce the amount of structure on the lots. She further stated that in the Fall Creek area where the lots are much smaller than other areas in the City, if the proposed deck being built will often require a variance. Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review for— An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning" To correct inconsistencies so that the area of deck(s), balconies projecting more than two feet from the face of a building, ramps, and landings, in addition to buildings and accessory structures, is included in determining the maximum percentage of lot coverage, a District Regulation requirement. Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed unanimously. WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an "Unlisted" Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance to amend the Municipal Zoning Code in order to correct inconsistencies pertaining to maximum percentage of lot coverage. Determination of Environmental Significance for— An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning" To correct inconsistencies so that the area of deck(s), balconies projecting more than two feet from the face of a building, ramps, and landings, in addition to buildings and accessory structures, is included in determining the maximum percentage of lot coverage, a District Regulation requirement. Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed unanimously. WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal Zoning Code in order to correct inconsistencies pertaining to maximum percentage of lot coverage, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-1—m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an "Unlisted" Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and be it further RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk's Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. ORDINANCE NO. Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed unanimously. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled Zoning, be amended as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325 ("Zoning"), Section 325-3, entitled, "Definitions and word usage" is hereby amended to add additional clarifying language to the definitions of"Building", "Building area", and "Structure" to read as follows: "Building" -Any structure wholly or partially enclosed within exterior walls or within external and/or party walls and a roof, affording shelter to persons, animals or property, including porches, (See "structures".) "Building Area" — The total area (taken on a horizontal plane at the main grade level) of the principal building and all accessory buildings, including porches, attached or free standing decks, balconies projecting more than two feet from a building or structures, ramps, and/or landings. The total building area shall be used for determining required yards and maximum percentage of allowed lot coverage but shall not include parking areas and parking spaces. Pergolas, and terraces and patios shall be exempt from total lot coverage requirements. However, neither pergolas or terraces and patios above grade shall be located in a required yard. "Structure" — Anything constructed or erected on the ground or is attached to another structure or building. Structures shall not include patios or terraces. Section 2. Chapter 325 ("Zoning"), Section 325-3, entitled, "Definitions and word usage" is hereby amended to add the following new definitions for "Deck", "Pergola", "Porch", and Terrace or Patio": "Deck"- a "structure" freestanding or attached to a building or an above ground swimming pool, consisting of one or more planes constructed of wood, metal, and/or other materials including a support system of footings and foundation walls and/or, piers, pilasters, columns, and posts, joists, beams, stringers, floor boards, and/or similar structural members, and including, any open enclosure, ramps, and/or landings with the ground and/or an adjourning structure and, if required by building code, balusters and railings. "Pergola" — an arbor or passageway for climbing plants with an overhead frame supporting open lattice work. "Porch" — a structure projecting from the wall or walls of a building, with a roof, that may be open to weather or wholly or partially enclosed with walls. A porch shall be deemed part of the building. "Terrace or patio" — a level plane or surfaced patio that is less than 18 inches above grade, without a roof, and not supported by any permanent structure. Terraces and patios above grade shall not encroach into required yards. Section 3. Chapter 325 ("Zoning"), Section 325-8A.(10) "Column (10): Maximum Percentage of Lot Coverage by Building", be amended to read as follows: On a lot hereafter used, no greater percentage of total lot area may be covered by principal and accessory buildings above ground. For this purpose, the area covered by principal and accessory buildings shall include all porches, attached or freestanding decks, balconies projecting more than two feet from a building or structure, ramps, and/or landings. This sum, divided by the total lot area, shall not exceed the maximum allowed percentage of lot coverage specified in this column. Section 4. Chapter 325 ("Zoning"), Section 325-18, entitled "Yard regulations" is hereby amended to add clarifying language to section 325-18A., entitled "Porches", to read as follows: Section 325-18A. Porches and structures. All porches, attached or freestanding decks, balconies projecting more than two feet from a building or structure, ramps, and/or landings shall be considered a part of the building in both the determination of required yards and lot coverage. d) Amendment to Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP) Nels Bohn, IURA Director, explained the changes made to this resolution after the packet was distributed. It was to clarify that applicants if owning other properties in the City, it can be checked whether that property is in good standing. CIITAP - Municipal Compliance Amendment Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed unanimously. Whereas, the Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP) provides financial incentives through the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (IDA) to encourage appropriate real estate and business investment in the core areas of the City and redevelopment of environmentally contaminated sites, and Whereas, the CIITAP program requires a two-step application process whereby applications must first satisfy minimum City of Ithaca eligibility requirements to advance for consideration by the IDA, and Whereas, there are currently three eligibility criteria for a CIITAP application to be approved by the City for IDA consideration: 1. Project size — project will increase the assessed value of property by at least $500,000; 2. Project density— project will contain a minimum of 3 stories or constitute a major restoration of an existing building; and 3. Project location — project is located within the Density District or includes a DEC-listed inactive hazardous waste site, and Whereas, a CIITAP applicant who is delinquent on taxes, assessments, fees or penalties due to the City or owns one or more properties with one or more violations of local laws or regulations should not be eligible for special assistance through the CIITAP program until the applicant and all properties owned by the applicant come into compliance, and Whereas, requiring a CIITAP applicant to remedy existing violations or delinquencies as a condition of eligibility may bring-eliminate violations and bring properties into voluntary compliance without expending enforcement resources; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby amends its Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program policy to include the following fourth eligibility criteria: 4. Municipal compliance —atl-each property in the City of Ithaca owned by the art Applicant must be in full compliance with all applicable local laws and regulations, consent agreements, and orders of the Director of Code Enforcement and current on all leGal taxes, assessments, fees and penalties due to the City, and be it further RESOLVED, for the purposes of the CIITAP municipal compliance requirement, a-R-the Applicant shall be deemed to include the following, whether they are natural persons, business entities, or other forms of organization: • For a sole proprietorship, the sole proprietor; • For a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), all members owning 20% or more of the EeMpaRyen ity; • For a partnership, all general partners and all limited partners owning 20% or more of the equity of the firm; and • For a corporation, all owners of 20% or more of the corporation and each officer and director and be it further RESOLVED, for the purposes of the CIITAP municipal compliance requirement, properties owned by the Applicant in the City of Ithaca shall include any property for which an Applicant has an ownership interest of 20% or more. Alderperson Brock recommended the last Resolved be added to the application. 6) Review and Approval of Minutes a) August 2014 — Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell as amended with Alderperson Brock's recommendations. Passed unanimously. A brief conversation took place about the number of projects currently in the "hoper". JoAnn agreed to send the group the list of projects. 7) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Murtagh; seconded by Alderperson. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. i 9/10/2014 i i I i ------------ Tompkins `t DepartmentCity of i I - Nanning and Economic v l i ` --------------------- 1 September �: I 1 , 2014 Jay Franklin, IAO, CCD -�" Director of Assessment �3 C i Tompkins county Only true countywide assessing unit in NYS. I Formed by county charter vote in 1968. 1, Cost savings of $470,000 as compared to other assessing i options. Onlyassessing unit to receive the Excellence in Assessing g g Award from 1999 to 2013. ' I One assessor for the county Jay Franklin, IAO,CCD 10 Total Employees Al Fiorille - Commercial Valuation Specialist Michael Xayarath - Valuation Specialist I 4 r. 1 9/10/2014 j Real Property i l Taxation '1 1 1 1 The assessor is not involved in the levy, extension, collection or enforcement of local real property taxes. The Job of the Assessor ti 01. Maintain assessment at a uniform percentage of market value each year. 01. Inspect new construction and improvements to existing property. ' Administer authorized real property tax exemptions. Review/verify real property sales. Provide valuable information to the general public. .' All policy/procedures are established either by the NYS Real Property ; ...:.......................... .ivy::FFtii: Tax Law, NYS Office of Real Property Tax Services or the Appraisal , P Y PP .........................:::::: ,. ::..:....:.:...:.....:....:..:.........::....-.........:..:...:.....::....:..Institute (and other national appraisal organizations). ............. ................... : :::::::::::.........................._.....:...:::::...:..:.....:. . . ........::.:..:..... .........: ....:.............:.....:.....:.....:.....:....:......:...;..:... .:.:.....:.. :... . :: .......... .. . . ......... 11 Real Property Taxation 1 � f Section 305 of the Real Property Tax Law f All properties must be annually assessed at a uniform percentage of market value. �x Tompkins County has been at 100% from 1999 to 2014 (with the exception of the failed triennial cycle in 2006-2007) Fractional Assessments? In order to be at 75% of market value, 100% of market = j value must be determined and then reduced to 75% of f' value. I -- r r 2 i 9/10/2014 Rea[ Property Taxation Ad valorem - Latin - according to value. 01. Market value - "The most probable sale price of a property in j terms of money in a competitive and open market, assuming that the buyer and seller are acting prudently and knowledgeable, allowing sufficient time for the sale, and 1 assuming that the transaction is not affected by undue i pressure." Current Use vs Highest and Best Use Three approaches to value 00. Cost Market , c Income I E l i Cost Approach i 01- No one will a more than what the can replace a pay Y P � property for. !� RCNLD (replacement cost new less depreciation) Used in: Specialty types of property (utilities etc) ` l New properties (hard to estimate amount of depreciation) •�,:E..:: .:: i ............:.....�FiSie:c:iil:r`: I /f ................ _:.::.::.:.:.:.::. .: .:. ..........i?.:.i.:i.c:.:.:eiiiiii i ::::v:v:•:•r::::v::::�:::::::: .... . i•i•ii•'r�:•4:•i•:e•?i......................' iiiiiii / ::::•::::•::::•::•::•::•::•:::•:...... . .........................................:.. / ...................... ..... .. / .::.::.::.::................................................... .....................................................•.................................. ................................................................... •.:•.::••.::.::.::.:::.:.:•.::........... / ::::::.::::::::::•.::::::::i:::::::.......................................... 3 i 9/10/2014 I Market i i r , .... i 0. similar h he can buy a l No one will a more than what they Y Y property for. P Y t Used in: Residential i Vacant Land Commercial Properties where there are active sales P � ) I qqq ( C I I I l 1 Market Approach l subject Property comparable Prop.4p 1 Comparable Prop.#2 comparable prop.#a (See Full?-ope.,ty ottnils) (sea Fall Pmpe m,Details) (See Full r'rove� Details) ("ed Full ptaptrty aekails)_ r Municipality city of � Ithaca Municipality City of Ithaca municipality city of Ithaca Municipality city of Ithaca Tax 27:5-20 Tax 46,-3-3 Tax ID 46.-7-21 Tax ID 14.-2-22 j Owner Traverso, Owner Demos,lames A owner 2ayas,Vivian Owner Arif,Muhammed Vincenzo St.Address 815 Cayuga St N St,Address 307 Marshall St 5 St,Address 110 Cascadilla Ave St.Address 1105 Cayuga$t N site Prop. 210 Site Prop. 210 site Prop.210 Site Prop. 210 Class class class class Living Area 1,610 sq.ft, Living Area 1,766 sq.ft, Living Area 1,746 sq.ft. Living Area 1,420 sq.ft, Size 40 x 112 Size 45 x 50 Size 33 x 86.S Size 49.5 X 105 !Year Built 1870 Year Built 1900 Year Built 1900 Year Built 1910 ;school Dist.1 Ithaca School Dist.Ithaca school Dist;Ithaca School Dist.Ithaca r Bldg style Old style Bldg style old style Bldg style Old style Bldg style old style j s: Bathrooms 1 Bathrooms 2 Bathrooms 2 Bathrooms 1 I Half Baths 0 Half Baths 0 Half Baths 0 Half Baths 1 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3 ('Fireplaces 0 Fireplaces 0 Fireplaces 0 Fireplaces 0 ••••••-••• j Basement Partial Basement jFvlj Basement Puil Basement Pull ' :::--•:: 2014-S220,000 2014-S215,000 2014-$210,000 2014-5225,000 "fatal Assmt Total Assmt Total Assmt Total Assm 2013-5165,000 2013•s14n,o�31) 2013-$185,000 2013,s2ls,000 ' Sale Price $222,500.00 Sale Price 3215,000.00 Sale Price $212,650.00 Sala Price $229,000.00 I Sale Date 06?12/201i Sale Date 0-1/0212013 Sale Date 07/23/2013 sale Date 08/09/2013 i i i I 4 i 9/10/2014 i Income Approach How much will an investor pay for an income stream ;} , based upon the risk of the investment. Rent minus Expenses divided by a Capitalization Rate 't 1 Used i n: : oo- Income producing properties oo-(The Rent and not the pizzas produced) i ........................ }y..� ::::: :i:: TY / :.:.:::.:.)y. ....... '•i•'r?t i:i"::e.e'iiiiti p.................................. ................ .: .................. ..................................}...................... i. /- ........... i.:::.::::::::�::::: :: .::::.::.::.::.::.::.::. ! .::t:•:•:•� ::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::: ....................................... I ; of Unit units Income A � units Description Rent Month Annual 2 2 Bedroom $ 1,800 12 $43,200 4 3 Bedroom $ 2,400 12 $115,200 1 2 1 Bedrooms $ 1,100 12 $26,400 Total Complex ' Rental: $184,800 Direct Capitalization Mtf� -Assumed a standard lee: s Vacancy Et Collection Loss: 3% $5,544 Effective Gross Complex Income: $179,256 Discounted Cash Flow Aral : l - Used when income fluct6at�� �.� Miscellaneous Et Interest Income: EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME ESTIMATE: $179,256 Value Increases when... EXPENSES Estimate of EGI @ 35% - Income increases Estimated Expense Expenses ' ............Total= $62,740 - decreasetoij Net Income Before Reserve for - Risk decreases Replacements: $116,516 Reserve for Replacements: Value Decreases when... @ 5%PGI $9,240 - Income decreases NET INCOME BEFORE Expenses increase (taxed tos : REAL ESTATE TAXES $107,276 - Risk increases Cap Rate 0.115 . I r Value $894 000 :•::•::-:::::•:•::-:-::•::•:........ 5 f i i 9/10/2014 1 PropertyReal i 0. Total Property Tax Collections - Tompkins County (including special districts) 2007 - $182 million I 2008 - $192 - 5.13 2009 - $197 - 2.54% 2010 $203 - 3.48% t ol- 2011 - $208 - 2.37% 2012 - $214 - 2.88% 2013 = $222 - 3.85% ; , u .. t E 4 f f t i I Ik f E I i 6 City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, October 8, 2014 — 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick, Cynthia Brock, Josephine Martell and Ellen McCollister Committee Members Absent: None Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderpersons Donna Fleming and George McGonigal; Mayor Svante Myrick Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Economic Development Planner; and Ari Lavine, City Attorney Others Attending: Bruce Stoff, Director, Tompkins County Convention & Visitors Bureau Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:OOp.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2) Special Order of Business a) Public Hearing — Revisions to Noise Ordinance Alderperson Kerslick moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Passed unanimously. Simon Wheeler, of Ithaca, New York spoke on the revisions to the Noise Ordinance. He noted a number of concerns which were received via email and were read into the public record by Chair Murtagh and are attached here as part of the minutes. Rajit Manohar, East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York spoke on the revisions to the Noise Ordinance. His comments, which noted a number of his concerns, were received via email and read into the public record by Chair Murtagh and are attached here as part of the minutes. Barbara Lantz, 411 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York spoke on the revisions to the Noise Ordinance. Her concerns were received via email and read into the public record by Chair Murtagh and are attached here as part of the minutes. Benjamin Piekut and Ann Lewandowski, 417 East Seneca Street, spoke in opposition of the revisions to the Noise Ordinance. Their comments were received via email and read into the public record by Chair Murtagh and are attached here as part of the minutes. Matthew Clark, 419 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York spoke in opposition of the revisions to the Noise Ordinance. His comments were received via email and read into the public record by Chair Murtagh and are attached here as part of the minutes. Julie Newhouse, 204 Ridgedale Road, Ithaca, New York spoke in opposition of the revisions to the Noise Ordinance. Alderperson Kerslick moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed unanimously. b) Special Presentation — Local Hotel Market Bruce Stoff, Tompkins County Visitors Bureau, provided the Committee with a presentation on the subject of the local hotel market. A copy of this report is attached to these minutes. 3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members Walter Hang, 218 Waite Avenue, spoke in opposition to the Cornell Heights Rezoning. He read from his written comments which are also attached to these minutes. Bill Demo, 121 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the Cornell Heights Rezoning. Michael Decatur, 125 Heights Court, spoke in opposition of the Cornell Heights Rezoning. Catherine Penner, 121 Kelvin Place, spoke in opposition of the Cornell Heights Rezoning. 4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports a) Noise Ordinance Reform b) CIITAP Review 5) Action Items — Approval to Circulate a) Cornell Heights Rezoning Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed unanimously. CITY OF ITHACA p .IHt, 108 East Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 '� DPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT F ®� Z JOANN CORNISH,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT 'acoanuRniE�ti�e� PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 ........................................... To: Planning and Economic Develo went Committee " From: Jennifer Kusmir,Economic Development Planner --- Date: September 30,2014 — At'-Re: Proposal to Amend R-U Zoning District The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to make amendments to the RU Zoning District. For several months a working group of Common Council, Planning, and Building Staff members has been meeting to discuss the RU Zoning District. Recent development proposals have highlighted the fact that the allowable build out according to the existing zoning is in conflict with the desire to maintain the historic qualities and existing character of this neighborhood. This particular district, unlike Ithaca's other historic districts, was developed as a planned "residence park," with significant amounts of informal landscaping and green space in the Romantic tradition,intentionally included around its substantial homes to create a unique neighborhood identity and is zoned as a low density neighborhood in the new comprehensive plan. The working group has begun to identify use and area requirements for responsibly developing the area that will uphold these intents and preserve these important qualities. The following amendments in red are the proposed amendments to the RU Zoning District: General Intent The intent of the amendments to the RU Zoning District are to allow for future development that will preserve the open space,park like character and historic quality of the existing neighborhood and will create a natural transition to the adjacent R-2b Zoning District. Permitted Primary Uses 1. One-family detached,semi-detached or attached dwelling. 2.Any use permitted in R-1 and R-2. Permitted Uses 3-8 are restricted to 1 every 500' 3.Multiple dwelling. 4.Rooming or boardinghouse. 5. Cooperative household. 6.Fraternity,sorority or group house. 7.Dormitory. 8.Townhouse or garden apartment housing. By Special Permit of Board of Appeals: 9.Uses 5-7 under R-1 * 10.Nursery school,child day care center. 11.Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns. * Cemetery and Related Building,Public Utility Structures,except offices,All School and Related Buildin s Minimum Lot Size Area in Square Feet gggg 4 1. One-family detached dwelling: 10,000 2. One-family semi-detached or two-family dwelling: 15,000. 3. One-family attached dwelling: 16,500 for first 1-3 units plus 1,500 for each additional unit. 4.Multiple dwelling: 16,500 for first 1-3 units+1,500 for each additional unit. 5.Fraternity,sorority or group house: 30,000(was 25,000). 6.Other uses: 30,000(was 10,000). Width in Feet at Street Line 1. One-family detached dwelling: 75. 2. One-family semi-detached or two-family dwelling: 100. 3.One-family attached dwelling: 125. 4.Multiple dwelling: 125. �� ������������' 5.Fraternity,sorority or group house: 125. 6.Other uses: 125 was 75 . Il4 ���'��'� Maximum Building Height Number of Stories-3(was 4). Height in Feet—40. Maximum Percent Lot Coverage by Buildings Lot Coverage 25% (was 30%). 50%of the developable lot area,after the required setbacks have been calculated must be retained as green space. Yard Dimensions Front Required Minimum -25' Side Minimum—10' Other Side Minimum— 10' Rear Minimum—50' or at least 25%,but not less than 30' If the Committee is in agreement with this concept, staff will circulate a concept memo and will return next month with any comments that are received. If you have any questions,feel free to contact meat 274-6410. 6) Discussion a) Housing and Development in Ithaca Alderperson Kerslick mentioned he would like the City to look at owner-occupied housing losing out to rentals because it is so lucrative. Change zoning in the R1 and R2 to owner-occupied only with an allowance for accessory apartments. This will enable healthy mix of renters and owner occupied. JoAnn Cornish stated there are a number of other areas or topics in the works. To name a few: Collegetown construction is on the increase, we are looking at a parking system for all of Bell Sherman and Collegetown. Maintaining communication between the Board of Public Works (BPW), TCAT, and Collegetown business owners is crucial. Permanent pedestrian routes are also being discussed. 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) September 2014 The September 2014 will not available for review. They will be voted on at the next meeting. 8) Adjournment 10.!7/2014 Noise Ordinance Response Noise Ordinance Response Simon Wheeler [simon.d.wheeler@gmaii.com] Sent.,Saturday,October 04, 2014 10:51 PM To: Joseph Murtagh Hi Seph, I'm really sorry I can't come to the public comment session in Oct. I have unchangeable plans. I will come to Common Council in November, A brief primer on my situation. The back of my house is about 100 feet from the outdoor patio area at the back of the Northstar pub, That patio has a solid concrete floor and is bounded on the two sides facing my house by the tall concrete walls of the former movie theater building. This results in all the sound from events on the patio being directed at the back of my home. I have lived here since ".2.000, The patio leas only been there two seasons. In the first year the bar hosted amplified outdoor bands on the patio on Sunday afternoons, I could hear every beat of the drums and bass in every room in my house will all the doors and windows shut. There is nothing solid in betiveen my house and the patio to attenuate the sound level S. Comments. There feels like there is a bias towards granting permits, I find it odd that many of the list of items that constitute a worsening of the offense in the penalty section are exactly what I have to put up with when there, are what.are essentially public parties held for profit 100 feet from the back of my house. Most of my other concerns center on nature the permit process. 2240-14B States that permits are required for soundaniplification outside a building between the hours of 10pm and 7:30 any. Does this mean that permits are not required outside that time or that permits will not be issued outside that time? Or is this superseded by the general requirement in 240-14A that any non- complying sound source needs a permit? 240-14C says permits for public address systems outside buildings need permits. Does this apply to I I I -niblic address amplified music? I'm not sure if music amplification equipment is the same thing as a I system, 240-14 D6 makes it seem optional that the party requesting the permit or the city notify those expected to be affected. I feel there should be mandatory notice to neighbors of intent to apply for a permit 49 hours prior to the requesting of the permit so those affected have time to submit their thoughts. I would not want C- s a bar claiming that them posting on Facebook inviting the public to come and spend their money at a concert/party for profit is a public event that I should have known about and could have thought to object to, I don't go to or look For those sorts of events. I don't want to be notified after the permit has been issued that I'm going to be affected, I want to be notified to I can have an opportunity to submit my- concerns and so my objection to the permit can be taken into account before the permit is considered for issue. It is unclear if permits can be requested for multiple dates. I think it might be fair to allow permits for multiple consecutive dates for events such as Apple Harvest Festival or Ithaca Festival, I do not think it reasonable that permits could be requested for a series,of events on non-consecutive or non-specific dates. If dates are not specified then there is no record of how much the neighborhood is putting LIP with, https:,I/iiiaii.citNlofitliaca.oi-g/ow V'?ae=ltem&t=-,IP'-N4.Note&i(l=--fZgAAAACIKLN4iiqbtliRVS7ltTXI)-.\,Yji\,IC-fFBw('-'FI'NV-IlwKOP,IQ-,LeAl-b'�JB'LvT.k!\AAzi?rSAACTTWII... tit 101171'2014 NkAse Ordinance Respowe It would seem that it should be required that the permit be posted and to contain contact information for the permit holder to give neighbors a chance to ncuotiate xith the penult holder. I feel there should be noise limits at distances eN,on when permits have been issued. The intent of the ordinance seems to be that there should only be limited spill over of noise from commercial areas to residential areas when there is no permit so why should there not be a limit on noise spillover when a permit is issued?As it stands now a noise permit is an unlimited license to inake noise. Given that I call hear bands from Northstar through every room in my house even with all the windows and doors tightly shut j don't think this is out of keeping with the purpose expressed in'-140-2). It seems odd that the notification range for a valiance is only 100 feet when the earlier sections apply a stricter limit for noise out to.200 feet. thanks for taking these concerns into account Wf 1,rAAAAzvrSAACTT� J... 2/2 Re: noise ordinance coniments hilps://tii,,W,cityofitl-i�ica.org/owa/')ae=lten-l&t==IPM.Note&id=RgA.. Re.- noise ordinance comments Graham Kerslick Sent:Wednesday,October 08,2014 10:37 AM Tw Rajit Manohar[rajit.inanoti-ar@gmall.com) Cc: Deirdre Nevvberry[deii'dre,newbei-ry@giiiaii.com];Joseph Murtagh;Stephen Smith;Josephine Martell;Ellen McCollister;Cynthia Brock Dear Rajit, Thanks for your message,We will ensure that your comments are inClUded in the meeting and in the record. Graharn Graham Kerslick 4th Ward Alderperson,City of Ithaca 607-273-4620 From. o�rc:> Date:Wednesday,October 8,2014 at 9:40 AM To.Graham K e rs I i c k<,,, i Oir P" > c Stephen Smith c: Joseph Murtaigh Subject.noise ordinance comments Dear Graham: We are unfortunately unable to come to the public hearing tonight regarding the noise ordinance,since we have a visitor from overseas who is in Ithaca for only one day.IVs a work-related commitment that we cannot change.The following is our statement. Thank you for reading it into the public record, and thank you again for all of the time you have spent discussing the noise ordinance with us. ---------------------------------------------------------------- It is the vibrancy of downtown that drew us to our neighborhood on East Seneca Street. However,the latest draft of the noise ordinance,rather than balancing the needs of businesses and residents,unfairly penalizes downtown residents in favor of businesses that have established themselves along residential borders. We have four major concerns that we ask the Committee to address: First,we request that Indoor noise limits be reincorporated into the ordinance,as having quiet bedrooms for sleeping is important to all residents. We understand that there is an attenuation argument in favor of only having outdoor limits. However,we do not believe that benchmarks for noise attenuation from outdoor-,to indoors are applicable for Our historic home,which is 175 years old,nor for the homes around us in our historic district. We ask that the ordinance specifically address the potential for excessive indoor noise via the addition of a"plainly audible"nighttime limit for residents of single family homes,protecting our bedrooms. Second,the WHO and EPA both recommend 55 dBA Outdoor daytime limits in residential areas,levels that are significantly lower than what is being proposed in this ordinance. Ithaca has a chance to define what the atmosphere will be as downtown becomes more dense. That atmosphere should not be detrimental to the mental or physical health of residents. We ask that the limits for Residential zones be set to these benchmarks. The currently proposed level of 65 dBA which applies to Our neighborhood is perceived as twice as loud as the benchmark-unacceptable for a livable downtown. Third,Commercial zone sound levels should not extend 200 feet into Residential zones. We question why the city would subvert its own zoning to encourage the development of noisy businesses along residential borders. We ask thatthe maximum permissible sound levels be consistent with Current zoning. At a minimum,the definition of the Residential 2 zone,or the extension of Commercial Sound levels,should be minimized to extend 200 feet outwards from omy the CBD. Lastly,the variance process should be formalized and better balance the interests of residents and businesses,as does the New York City variance process which was inevitably its inspiration. Irresponsible business ownership,the establishment of noisy businesses along residential borders,and non-compliance with the noise ordinance are all encouraged by the loosely defined variance process described in this draft. We question why the city would consider a variance for any business that neglected to consider the impact on its neighbors andlor neglected to make an effort to abate noise. We don't consider any financial hardship argument to be valid for a newly established business. And,we question the impartiality of any hearing officer appointed by an individual. A variance,as defined in New York City,requires a business to hire a certified noise consultant and modify its operations to the best of its ability before the commencement of the variance process. It is also one-tirrie,limited in duration,restricted to the current size and activities of the business,contains its own dBA limit,and is not transferrable to a new owner. The process defined in this ordinance should require more of business owners,and should be heard by an existing city entity(for example,the Board of Zoning Appeals,or Planning and Economic Development Committee),or be eliminated altogether. Thank you. 1 of 1 10/8/2014 12:21 PM i i fi fIf: I I I I I i f i i i I i r f E f E 1 I '` I i I Barbara Lantz, PhD, LCS - 11 East Seneca Street I am writing in lieu of attending this week's Common Council Planning and Economic Development committee meeting because I work through the time that is allotted for public comments. I request that you read these remarks into the record for you and your fellow committee members' consideration. 4 I reside, work, and pay taxes at 411 E Seneca in the City of Ithaca. I very much appreciate the time and attention you all devote to making Ithaca a liveable community. I also appreciate that Ithaca will, by virtue of being the home to large institutions of higher education, always pulsate with the energy of its young people and that businesses that appeal to those folks,to tourists, and to people who enjoy bars and large parties will look to create venues to capitalize on those entertainment tastes. It has become a growing trend for these businesses to,offer outdoor bars, restaurants, parties, and entertainment, where neighbors are more directly affected than ever before. In light of these aspects of our community, I am concerned that this noise ordinance could potentially make or break Ithaca as a desireable place to live, work, and raise a I family. In particular, the daytime decibel levels and distances delineated in the new noise ordinance strike me as favoring the interests of those businesses that establish themselves in the commercial zones bordering residential neighborhoods over the quality of life for their residential neighbors. Table 1 allows for decible levels considerably higher in those borderline zones than in zones more strictly residential. (Please keep in mind that a five decibel increase is substantial and not well represented by the numerical difference of 5.) This creates a fiction out of the City of Ithaca, where in fact residential neighborhoods abutt commercial zones throughout the city and where residents and businesses exist side by side, often in very close proximity, such that a distance of 200 feet, which is the distance within which noise is allowed to reach those higher decible levels, ends up protecting relatively few residents. j d f Likewise,the decibel levels proposed during daylight hours are excessive. At those levels, it is not possible to carry on a conversation at normal levels and be heard within the proposed E permitted 200-foot distance from the source. I can attest to this fact because on June 15 The Argos Inn hosted a 7-hour wedding celebration that at times made it impossible for the small party I was entertaining for a backyard barbecue to hold quiet conversation while grilling 4 and trying to enjoy our meal. In addition, the noise ordinance as newly drafted invites businesses to request permits to violate it by appealing to the mayor who then, in his or her sole discretion, can waive the rules with no apparent recourse for neighbors negatively affected by the noise. There is no clear procedure for the variety of interests to be weighed nor any appeal besides taking legal action, an extreme and burdensome avenue for remedy. Would it not better serve a wider array of interests for there to be a more public petition process that is then decided upon by a group,just as we have a Board r of Zoning Appeals and a Landmarks Preservation Commission? Otherwise, it smacks of favoritism and politics rather than interests of the community at large. i i r i i i I I i i 1 Lastly, surely businesses that establish themselves in zones bordering residential neighborhoods should have some responsibility for abating the noise they make before making appeals for noise permits. I encourage you to rethink these distances, decibel levels, and appeal procedures,keeping in mind that so few of Ithaca's entertainment venues are in fact 200 feet or more from residences. i i I E i I i 4 {f f t i E i I f I I i i C 'a i h �i i- i; Benjamin Pielcut Ann Lewan owsld 17 East Seneca Street Ithaca NY 14850 C i i Dear Alderpersons Kerslick and Smith, We own our home at 417 East Seneca Street, and are writing to express our disappointment with j the new proposed noise ordinance to be discussed this evening-please mare an official note of our disapproval. In particular, the allowance for a 200-foot zone of higher decibel limits adjacent to Residential Zone 2 defeats the purpose of having "residential zones," if businesses next door are allowed to project amplified(or unamplified) sound into our backyards or living rooms. A limit of 65 db inside this special zone is entirely too high-the WHO and EPA both recommend r 55db, and that is what Ithaca's limit should be, too. We also protest the provision in the proposed ordinance that allows the mayor to grant noise permits as he sees fit. i Yours sincerely, Benjamin Pielcut Ann Lewandowski 417 East Seneca Street Ithaca NY 14850 i I i f t I i C I i i i i i C i t i f i F i r i y I i i i (� I i F i 1 t G i I I i i Yt 4 ti i I L II C i Matthew Clark& family 419 E. Seneca St., Ithaca, ICY 14850 Y I am unfortunately compelled to write to you declaring that I oppose the proposed City of Ithaca noise ordinance as stated. Please make sure this letter goes into the public record and is received C by members of the City of Ithaca Planning Committee. I am unable to attend the meeting tonight (10/8/2014) due to parenting obligations. After living on Seneca Street with my family for almost twenty years,this past summer has been the least enjoyable. The Argos Inn created an outdoor"amphitheatre" immediately next to my back yard where they hold events, their customers imbibe, conversations are loud, and occasionally have amplified music and voices. t I have complained to Argos and the police department, only to learn that the mayor's office has issued multiple noise permits that allow this nuisance. Fathers Day had five hours of amplified music and crowd noises, only to be followed a few weeks later in June by seven continuous hours of amplified party sounds. Other occasions have also been loud and protected by noise I permits. i Just as discouraging is the unamplified sounds of crowds on the other evenings. Basically every warm evening has conversations that are heard from within my house, creating a nuisance well past my children's bedtime. From within my house it sounds like the conversation is on my back deck, and is frankly intolerable. The conversations are "plainly audible" from my house to use the phrase in the new sound ordinance, so I will expect the city to enforce this new rule if the ordinance passes. r I met with the Argos last summer(and the two of you attended also), and am still awaiting relief. A letter to the mayor's office asking that they stop issuing noise permits for private events at the Argos that do not benefit the public went unanswered; the law states that neighbors affected by noise permits must be notified including a statement saying that objections to the permits may be made to the city government; this law is not being enforced. And even if this notification was enforced, the fact remains that Argos has preferential treatment from the city. The new noise ordinance states that the mayor is allowed to grant permits in cases of economic difficulties. This is unacceptable given the mayor's past record to date. Imagine how my neighbors and I feel knowing that the Argos has received loans from the local urban renewal agency and is now in arrears; the city has thus helped create this residential nuisance. The Argos pleaded limited resources when I suggested that they construct a noise barrier during our face-to-face meeting. So the new ordinance will limit the ability of me, my family, and my neighbors to complain since there is a 200' zone in the proposed law with higher allowed decibel limits. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO CONSTANT HIGH-DECIBEL NOISE FOR MULTIPLE HOURS? I have on several occasions in my own backyard and from within my own home. j i I I I I i I a d i i i 9 Our Seneca Street historic district has pressures that are driving out homeowners such as myself and my family. Indeed we have umpteen tenants occupying houses on three sides of us now, and now Argos on the fourth side. The proposed noise ordinance just adds to the stresses of living in j this area. i There are now fewer complaints recently,but that is explained by the cooler weather and fewer patrons drinking outside. The noise issue will undoubtedly get worse in the spring when the drinking resumes in the Argos amphitheater. To be constructive, what can be done? I believe that businesses should be good neighbors, j especially those that border residential neighborhoods. I regret having to write this letter, but this noise nuisance issue has persisted and escalation is required. I am disappointed that the new j proposed noise ordinance is biased towards businesses that negatively affect families such as mine that live in a historic residential district. i Thank you for trying to mediate this issue, and please strike the 200' exclusion from the proposed ordinance and set the daytime allowed noise limit to 55 decibels as recommended by the WHO and EPA. Sincerely, i Matthew Clark& family 419 E. Seneca St., Ithaca,NY 14850 ti i i � I i t 1 4 i 4 Z I I i i i i I Statement of Walter L. T. Hang Owner and Resident of 218 Wait Avenue Before the City of Ithaca Planning and Economic Development Committee In Opposition to Proposed RU Zoning Amendments Applicable to the Cornell Heights Historic District L October 8, 2014. ! Greetings. My name is Walter Hang. I own and live at 218 Wait Avenue in Cornell Heights. Thank you for the opportunity to voice strong opposition to adoption of the proposed RU zoning amendments that your committee is considering. I According to a 9/30/14 memo from Jennifer Kusznir: i "The intent of the amendments to the RU Zoning District are (stet) to allow for future development (emphasis added) that will preserve the open space, park like character and historic quality of the existing neighborhood and will create a c natural transition to the adjacent R-2b Zoning District." G I t With all respect, I believe that the proposed amendments must be rejected because their stated intent is to permit future development, but they fail to provide meaningful safeguards to "preserve" the "historic quality of the existing neighborhood." I am concerned that the proposed amendments would permit new development that further endangers Cornell Heights' unique character. While I appreciate that this proposal aims to address development concerns voiced by local residents, the amendments are insufficient to safeguard the Cornell Heights historic district from further degradation. I respectfully request that they be rejected because they do not go nearly far enough to resolve all of the historic preservation concerns that have recently been documented. Proposed Use Restriction is Fundamentally Inadequate, Vague and Fails to Address Other Inappropriate Uses Permitted Under RU Zoning The amendments propose "Permitted uses 3-8 are restricted to 1 every 500' i 3. Multiple dwelling. 4. Rooming or boardinghouse. I 5. Cooperative household. 6. Fraternity, sorority or group house. 7. Dormitory. 8. Townhouse or garden apartment housing." First, the proposed distance restriction is vague and does not specify in any way how it would be enforced. For example, would the 500 feet be measured from 1 I- I i structure to structure, structure centroid to structure centroid, property boundary to property boundary or lot centroid to lot centroid? Does the proposed restriction apply to accessory buildings? Is the restriction 500 square feet? That would only involve an area of 22.5' x 22.5 . Several large undeveloped lots might qualify for development despite the proposed restrictions depending on how the 500' is measured. See attached j map of RU zoned properties in Cornell Heights. t E Second, how would the "1" be determined? One obvious problem with this r "property use" zoning approach is that property use can change over time. A "fraternity, sorority or group house" today could become a multiple dwelling, a single family residence, a school or a church in years to come. The City should identify the current use of each RU lot in Cornell Heights in order to permit a detailed analysis of the proposed amendments. i Third, the proposed distance restriction would NOT apply to a wide variety of other permitted uses that warrant concern: "By Special Permit of Board of Appeals: 9. Uses 5-7 under R-1* I E 10. Nursery School, child day care center. 11. Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns. * Cemetery and Related Buildings, Public Utility Structures (emphasis added) except offices, All School (emphasis added) and Related Buildings." Please note that the proposed amendments allow "Any use permitted in R-1 and R-2." This could include "Permitted Accessory Uses:" k 5. By Special Permit: Towers or structures for receipt or transmission of electronic signals for commercial purposes or for generation of electricity to be used on the premises (emphasis added) where generated in any district (see § 325-9)." 7. Adult Day Care Home (emphasis added)." r Other proposed amendments would change requirements regarding: a) minimal c lot size, b) width in feet at street line, c) maximum building height, d) maximum percent lot coverage by buildings and e) yard dimensions. These have little to do with preservation of Cornell Heights' historic quality. Those amendments are merely intended to mitigate impermissible development impacts. Please allow me to underscore that New York State agencies enjoy broad immunity from zoning requirements. As a result, the proposed amendments 2 { i I i would not necessarily prevent establishment of a wide range of government facilities that the community might find highly objectionable. i Cornell i hts RU-Zoned Tax Parcels f and Their I nUses s, , 6 p ;IEiGNTS t.YY }, m pA r 1YC i I Taj_._ � 0 fr R•U Zoning Description " pl 1 FamPy its ni R03ERt` 2 Faml4y Rs 1 t CR � Apartment f Inniladge Paddng lot Res vac land ry Vacant mmm C Tax Parwlg W Water a nao rt us s i I E Conclusion I The most important factor to consider in this matter is that Cornell Heights is included in the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed zoning amendments must be rejected because they cannot achieve their stated purpose to "preserve" the "historic quality" of Cornell Heights. i I On the contrary, they would permit additional development that undermines the requirement that the "residence park" be "preserved." The definition of "preserve" is to "keep in unaltered condition" or "maintain unchanged." f The City of Ithaca has repeatedly proposed zoning changes to foster increased development in Cornell Heights. This was true of its proposed R-3aa zoning change as well as the current proposed RU zoning amendments. 3 I i C The historic preservation problems posed by recently approved and proposed inappropriate large-scale developments at 312 Thurston and 1/7 Ridgewood Road are essentially unrelated to zoning. Instead, the problems are due, with all respect, to the failure of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to enforce its own guidelines as well as the key applicable City ordinance, notably: I. "As mentioned earlier, zoning may allow a larger footprint than would be visually appropriate in the context of the historic environment. Not only the width of the new building along the street front, but its depth and total lot coverage, must be considered in evaluating compatibility with existing historic resources. The range of existing footprint sizes in the immediate vicinity should inform the new design: new construction project that has either a significantly larger or significantly smaller footprint than is common in the area would be considered inappropriate (emphasis added)." i "The Commission shall approve the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness only if it determines that the-proposed work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and j value of either the individual landmark, or if the proposed work is within an historic district, of the neighboring properties in such district." I In conclusion, Cornell Heights does not need zoning amendments to "allow for future development..." We need ILPC's guidelines and the applicable City I ordinance to be codified as a zoning overlay that would only apply to Ithaca' s historic districts. By adopting strict numerical standards instead of relying on I vague guidelines, the City could assure that no further harm occurs to Cornell Heights' historic character. I would like to note that it is inappropriate for the City of Ithaca to continue to propose major zoning changes and permit massive development prior to the completion of a city-wide comprehensive plan as well as a specific plan for Cornell Heights. That obviously defeats the purpose of planning. Hundreds of local Cornell Heights residents requested in writing that the City of f Ithaca adopt a moratorium on large-scale multi-family development in Cornell Heights until those comprehensive plans have been completed. I respectfully reiterate that request. Given all these grave concerns, I request that you table or kill the proposed RU amendments. This is especially important because the members of the Planning j and Economic Development Committee promised residents of Cornell Heights that we would have an opportunity to help develop historic preservation solutions that address our concerns. I look forward to participating in such an effort. I i i Thank you for your consideration. 4 i Ithaca/Tompkins Hospitality Market Snapshot October 2014 ( Since 2000, room supply growth has averaged 3% per year, roughly 60 rooms per year. There's no new inventory coming to market•for the next 2 years. • We're looking at 6%demand growth YTD and it could go higher by year end.The supply/demand equation is turning very profitable. • i At the end of 2014, we'll be reporting 10-12%revenue growth VS 9%for the nation. Our revenue growth will be about 20% higher than US. • Developers will notice. Record Summer We had a record July and August. Here are the August numbers for the county. Downtown performed even better than this; one downtown property reported 90+%occupancy with an ADR over$200! Tompkins August USA August OCC Rate 80.2% +6.8% 71.6% +3.8% Ave Daily Rate $175 10.2% $118 5.4% i RevPAR $140 17.7% $85 9.4% j I Supply 0.1% 1.0% Demand 6.8% 4.8% Revenue $5.8 mil 17.7% 10.4% { I I Tompkins YTD USA YTD k YTD Revenue $29.8 mil +10.6% +8.9% YTD Ave Daily Rate $150 4.3% $115 4.4% t YTD OCC Rate 61.3% 0.0% 66.0% 3.4% YTD Demand 6.0% 4.3% C 2015 is going to be bigger, it's likely to be our biggest tourism year ever. Major events include: CU 150t",Three Swim Championships, NYS Wrestling Champs, Intl Food Security Conference and the usual slate of high demand weekends. Developers will see these stats too: The rooms are coming. It's an economic certainty. i Ithaca/Tompkins Convention& Visitors Bureau (800)284-8422, (607)272-1313 Bruce L@ Visit1th c ca.com i I i i I Tompkins County Lodging Industry - 1 I I i I i C I E u W u. s I i For the 2015 County Budget,the CVB was asked for a 10-year market analysis. So that's where these projections come from. First a little recap of the past 15 years. Sometimes numbers tell a great story. I I E 4 i I r i t ( ; 1 i i i i I i i I Tompkins County 2000-Present 600,000 581,572 500,000 - 400,000 _ W_ 08,436 300 000 _ 200,000 - ---r---T- r_ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20U 2012 2013 Room Supply We'll start with growth. This is the total room supply in county reported to STR (Smith Travel Research) Here, it's an annual number measured in "Room-Nights" Hotel rooms are perishable commodities, they expire every night, sold or unsold. 1500 hotel rooms x 365 nights,that's where we get these numbers in the 100,000s. Key takeaway: our lodging inventory has grown 42% in 13 years. That's huge, almost twice the national average. National growth averaged 2% per year. Economics Lesson: Scarcity& Plenty. What happens to price when you flood the market with supply? Price collapses, right?... I 2 Tompkins County 2000-Present 5144.00 408,436 Total Lodging Revenue The multiplication )simpressive, increased room inventory X increased rate = Che Ching{ Revenues grew from $23.5 million to $49.5 million Increase of11OY6--Revenue more than doubled! 4 | ' Tompkins County 2000-Present 581,572 40 Room Occu pa ncy Rate One more line...Room Occupancy Rate...it's }nred 42 percent more rooms to sell and occupancy rate only declined slightly Occupancy was 6l.4Y6 after 8/1l and now it's 5B.2%� not too bad. 5 i I i i i Tompkins County 2000-Present ff 600,000 -- - - -581,572 500,000 400,000 408,436 j r 344,119 i 300,000 _ 269,999 l 200,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Rooms: Supply vs Sales LM So let's simplify....supply and demand Room Supply top in blue And room sales at the bottom in red. Can anyone spot the problem here? The gap in the middle is spreading wider. Supply grew at 42%. Sales grew 27%. —JoAnn,this is when Rick Adie from STPB visited. Until 2014, record year, sales growth of 6.8%for the year, will puts sales up to about 367,000 rooms. 36% sales growth. j the system back near balance i i i i i i i i r I I, l 6 I I r I Historic and Forecast SLIpPly&Demand 2000 201 2CO2 2CO3 2CC4 2CO5 2CO6 2CO7 2COS 2GC9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 7CG,CCO i E 650,CCO 6CO,CGO i 550,C00 5G0,CC'O j , 450,CC0 i 400,CCO 350,000 i 300,CC0 '�50,GCD j --- Room Suppy Room Demand Linear(Roam Suppl) ..Linear(Room Demand) km I I Can see that here k Room supply blue top I Demand in red on bottom Trend lines better Historically see room growth never been more than 30,000 nights off the trendline i If no shovels in the ground by December we'll be almost 50,000 rooms below the trendline in 2017 t i i i i i i i 7 i Historic and Forecast Supply&Demand 2000 2CO1 2CO2 2CC3 2C0-4 2005 2006 2CO7 2COS 2CO9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 +Holiday Inn Express 7CO,CCO +Marriott Downtown � j 650,CCO I 6CO,CCO 550,CC0 a _, 5CO,CGO ..:...... 450,0130 40,CC0 .e.•. 350,CC0 f . . 30,000 ! 250,00 I Room SupPf Room Demand Linear(Room Suppy) Linear(Room Demand) LM f I Can see that here, by end of 2017 (without construction) market will be really out of whack 15,000 nights increased demand with no increased capacity. Good time to be a hotelier, or run an AirBnB. This is why hotel rooms are coming. It's not a question of why or want or need, they're coming. Here's how the proposed hotels fit in Hampton 123 rooms adds 23,000 nights Marriott 160 rooms adds 58,000 Holiday Inn Exress 76 rooms adds 27,000 nights I So can handle 1 hotel without a hiccup Any two can be absorbed with a couple years All three and an older outlying property will likely close—it's how a market evolves & stays healthy j i i i i E i I i f I 8 I i i