HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-13 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting Agenda PEDC Meeting
— �
Planning and Economic Development Committee DATE: December 11, 2013
U ' �ny Ithaca Common Council TIME: 6pm
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) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing—RU rezoning(Cornell Heights) Yes 6:05
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee
Members No 6:15
4) Announcements, Updates,and Reports
a) Fair Market Rents in Ithaca No 6:50
5) Action items—voting to send on to Council
a) RU rezoning (Cornell Heights) Yes Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff 7:00
6) Action items—approval to circulate
a) Extension of Waterfront Zoning Yes Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff 7:30
7) Review and Approval of Minutes Yes 8:00
a) November 2013
8) Adjournment Yes 8:05
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, December 10, 2013.
Fair Market Rents (FMR)
Ithaca, NY MSA (includes all of Tompkins County)
Unit 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5-Year Change
Size $ ; annual% $ ; annual% $ ; annual% $ ; annual% $ ; annual% $ I %
Zero-Bedroom 795:1 4% 78911 -1% 802:1 2% 68211 -15% 769 i 13% -261 -3%
One-Bedroom 818; 4% 811; -1% 825; 2% 836; 1% 943; 13% 125; 15%
Two-Bedroom 958: 4% 950; -1% 966; 2% 1,001; 4% 1,130; 13% 172; 18%
Three-Bedroom 1,159: 4% 1,150: -1% 1,169: 2% 1,387: 19% 1,565: 13% 406: 35%
Four-Bedroom 1,2021 4% 1,192'i -1% 1,212: 2% 1,392 15% 1,571 13% 369: 31%
FMRs include utilities
FMRs estimate the 40th percentile rent levels of the market for existing rental units (more than 2 years old)
Notes:
1. FMRs are effective beginning October 1st of the preceding year. For instance 2014 FMRs are effective 10/1/13.
2. Larger unit FMRs:add 15%for each additional bedroom beyond four-bedrooms
3. Single Room Occupancy units(SROs): FMR= 75%of Zero-Bedroom unit(efficiency)
4. Single Room Occupancy(SRO) unit:a dwelling unit intended for occupancy by a single individual that is located within a residential property
that includes multiple single room dwelling units.The unit need not, but may,contain food preparation or sanitary facitlities,or both.
5. Manufactured Home Spaces: FMR=40%of two-bedroom FMR
6. Manufactured Home Spaces FMR is for pad rental including utilities(excludes manufactured home)
7. 5-year Consumer Price Index 2009-2013=9.2% (all urban consumers, northeast region 6/31/09-6/31/13), U.S. Dept.of Labor Statistics
8. MSA= Metropolitan Statistical Area
Source: U.S.Department of Housing&Urban Development: http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr.html
Prepared by: N. Bohn,Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
Summary Allowance for Tenant-Furnished Utilities and Other Services
Locality: Ithaca Housing Authority NYSEG I EffectiveDate: 10/01/2013
7182 AHDD Monthly Dollar Allowances
Unit Type 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mobile/Manufactured Home
a. Natural Gas 38 46 60 77 96
b. Electric 43 52 67 86 108
c. Bottle Gas 99 119 154 198 248
d. Oil 146 176 227 292 365
e. Air Conditioner 8 10 14 17 20
High-Rise w/ Elevator
a. Natural Gas 39 45 53 64 73 91 105
b. Electric 39 48 58 72 89 104 120
e. Air Conditioner 5 6 8 11 13 14
Row/Town House/Garden
a. Natural Gas 38 51 69 86 104 121 139
b. Electric 43 57 77 96 117 136 156
c. Bottle Gas 98 131 178 222 269 312 359
d. Oil 145 193 262 327 395 460 529
e. Air Conditioner 5 7 9 12 14 15
Two-Three Family/Duplex
a. Natural Gas 46 60 79 98 115 130 150
b. Electric 52 67 88 110 129 146 168
c. Bottle Gas 119 154 203 252 296 336 387
d. Oil 175 226 299 371 435 495 569
e. Air Conditioner 6 7 9 12 14 15
Older Multi-Family(Low Rise)
a. Natural Gas 41 54 72 89 107 123 142
b. Electric 46 61 81 100 120 138 159
c. Bottle Gas 107 140 186 230 277 318 366
d. Oil 157 206 274 339 408 468 539
e. Air Conditioner 5 6 8 11 13 14
Single Family Detached
a. Natural Gas 50 68 82 103 116 135 156
b. Electric 56 76 92 115 131 152 175
c. Bottle Gas 130 176 211 266 300 349 402
d. Oil 191 259 310 391 442 514 591
e. Air Conditioner 9 12 16 20 24 26
All Unit Types- Cooking
a. Natural Gas 6 7 10 12 15 16 19
b. Electric 6 8 11 13 16 18 20
c. Bottle Gas 15 19 26 32 39 42 49
All Unit Types- Water Heat
a. Natural Gas 7 9 12 15 19 20 23
b. Electric 10 13 18 22 28 30 34
c. Bottle Gas 18 23 31 39 48 52 60
d. Oil 25 32 42 53 65 70 81
All Unit Types - Electricity 22 29 38 48 59 64 73
Water 19 19 19 19 25 36 45
Sewer 22 22 22 22 29 41 52
Trash 4 6 8 10 13 15 17
Range (Tenant Owned) 4 4 5 5 6 6 6
Refrigerator(Tenant Owned) 5 5 5 5 5 6 6
UNIT ADDRESS:
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: December 4, 2013
RE: Proposal to Amend R-U, R-3a, & R-3aa Zoning Districts
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to rezone properties
located in the R-u zoning district to R-3a and R-3aa, as shown on the attached map. This
proposal was previously discussed at the October Planning and Economic Development
Committee meeting.
At the request of the committee an environmental review for this action has been drafted and was
circulated to the Planning Board, the Conservation Advisory Council, various City staff and
departments, and the Tompkins County Planning Department. At this time the City has not
received any comments regarding this proposal. The draft environmental review and ordinance
are enclosed. Also enclosed for your consideration is a resolution establishing lead agency for
this action and a resolution for environmental significance.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me
at 274-6410.
Draft Resolution
12/3/13
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning, " in order to rezone properties
located in the R-U zoning district to R-3a and R-3aa -
Declaration of Lead Agency
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 a "Type I" Action
pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does
hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of
the proposed amendments to the R-3a, R-3aa, and R-u zoning
districts .
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\12 december\5 -
2013-r-3aaresolutionlead agency.12-09.doc
Draft Resolution
12/3/13
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of
Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning, " in order to rezone
properties located in the R-U zoning district to R-3a and
R-3aa - Declaration of Environmental Significance
1 . WHEREAS, The Common Council is considering a proposal
to amend the R-3a and R-3aa zoning district
boundaries, in order to include properties currently
located within the R-U zoning district, and
2 . WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been
conducted, including the preparation of a Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) , dated November
22, 2013, and
3 . WHEREAS, the proposed action is an "unlisted" Action
under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
and
4 . WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,
acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared
by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
1 . RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in
this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and
conclusions more fully set forth on the Full
Environmental Assessment Form, dated November 22,
2013, and be it further
2 . 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
3 . 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:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\12
december\6-2013-r-3aaresolutionnegdec.12-09.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . Chapter 325, Section 325-8 District Regulations, is
amended to add a new section 325-8E, entitled "Additional
restrictions in the R-3aa district, " to read as follows :
"No new construction of a primary structure in the R-3aa zone
shall contain a footprint that is larger than 1200 of the
average footprint of the existing buildings along the entire
block front in which the building is located. If one or more
such surrounding buildings have been demolished, then the
calculation for maximum building footprint shall use the
footprint of the primary structure that most recently stood on
any lot where a demolition had occurred. In locally designated
historic districts, any non-contributing buildings will be
excluded from this calculation. "
Section 2 . Chapter 325, Section 325-5, of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the zoning
designation from R-U to the R-3aa designation for the following
tax parcels : 10 . -1-5, 10 . -2-1, ll . -1-1, ll . -1-2, ll . -2-1, ll . -2-
2, ll . -2-3, 7 . -2-1, 7 . -2-2, 7 . -2-3, 7 . -2-4 . 2, 7 . -3-5, 7 . -3-6,
7 . -3-7, 7 . -4-1, 7 . -4-10, 7 . -4-12, 7 . -4-4, 7 . -4-5, 7 . -4-6, 7 . -4-
7, 7 . -4-9, 8 . -6-5 . 1, 8 . -6-5 . 2, 8 . -1-1, 8 . -1-10, 8 . -1-11, 8 . -1-
12, 8 . -1-13, 8 . -1-14, 8 . -1-2, 8 . -1-3, 8 . -1-4, 8 . -1-5, 8 . -1-6,
8 . -1-7, 8 . -1-8, 8 . -1-9, 8 . -2-1, 8 . -3-1, 8 . -4-1, 8 . -4-6, 8 . -4-7,
8 . -4-8, and 9 . -1-1 . The boundaries of this amendment are shown
on the map entitled "Proposed Amendment to R-3a & R-3aa
Boundaries - October 21, 2013, " a copy of which shall be on file
in the City Clerk' s office.
Section 3 . The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is
hereby amended to change the designation from R-U to R-3a for
the following tax parcels : ll . -3-2 . 2, ll . -3-3 .2, ll . -3-4, ll . -3-
5, 29 . -3-1, 29 . -3-10, 29 . -3-11, 29 . -3-12 . 1, 29 . -3-12 . 2, 29 . -3-2,
29 . -3-3, 29 . -3-4, 29 . -3-5, 29 . -3-6, 29 . -3-7, 29 . -3-8, 29 . -3-9,
29 . -4-1, 29 . -4-2, 29 . -4-3, 29 . -4-4, 29 . -4-5, and 29 . -4-6 . The
boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled
"Proposed Amendment to R-3a & R-3aa Boundaries - October 21,
2013, " a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk' s
office .
11/22/2013
Section 4 . Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 5 . Effective date . This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
11/22/2013
CITY OF ITHACA
iy'�PORIITE�e��
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
Purpose: The 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 that 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 that 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: Provide 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: Focus 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: ®Part 1 N Part 2 N 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:
®A. The Proposed Action will not result in any large and important impact(s)an is one that will not have a significant impact
on the environment;therefore,A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
❑ B. 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. X
❑ C. 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: Rezoning Parcels in R-U Zoning District to R-3a& R-3aa
Name of Lead Agency: City of Ithaca
Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Mayor Svante Myrick
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency:
Signature of Preparer:
Date: 11/22/13
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION
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 as 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 Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) will be dependent 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.
�ame of Action: Rezoning Portions of R-U Zoning District to R-3a & R-3aa
Location of Action: City of Ithaca
rame of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca
Address: 108 E. Green St.
City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: NY ZIP: 14850
Business Phone: 607-274-6550
rame of Owner(if different):
Address:
City/Town/Village: State: ZIP:
Business Phone:
Description of Action:
Re-zoning from R-U to R-3aa designation for the following tax parcels: 10.4-5, 10.-2-1, 11.4-1, 11.-
1-2, I L-2-1, I L-2-2, I L-2-3, 7.-2-19 7.-2-29 7.-2-39 7.-2-4.29 7.-3-59 7.-3-69 7.-3-79 7.4-19 7.4-109 7.4-
129 7.4-49 7.4-59 7.4-69 7.4-79 7.4-99 8.-6-5.19 8.-6-5.29 8.4-19 8.4-109 8.4-119 8.4-129 8.4-139 8.4-
149 8.4-29 8.4-39 8.4-49 8.4-59 8.4-69 8.4-79 8.4-89 8.4-99 8.-2-19 8.-3-19 8.4-19 8.4-69 8.4-79 8.4-89
and 9.4-1 The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled "Proposed
Amendment to R-3a and R-3aa Boundaries - October 21, 2013," a copy of which shall be on file in
the City Clerk's office.
Re-zoning from R-U to R-3a for the following tax parcels: 11.-3-2.2, I L-3-3.2, 11.-3-49 I L-3-5, 29.-
3-19 29.-3-109 29.-3-119 29.-3-12.19 29.-3-12.29 29.-3-29 29.-3-39 29.-3-49 29.-3-59 29.-3-69 29.-3-79 29.-3-
89 29.-3-99 29.4-19 29.4-29 29.4-39 29.4-49 29.4-5, and 29.4-6. The boundaries of this amendment
are shown on the map entitled "Proposed Amendment to R-3a and R-3aa Boundaries- October 21,
2013," a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk's office.
2
Please complete each question— indicate N/A, if not applicable:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use: ® Urban ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Public ❑ Forest
❑ Agricultural ❑ Other:
F2. Total area of project area: 61 acres (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 36 36
2c. Agricultural IF
2d. Wetland [as per Articles 24 of Environmental Conservation Law(ECL)]
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public F F
2g. Water Surface Area ....
2h. Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill)
!F-
2i. Roads, buildings, and other paved surfaces IF 25 IF 25
2j. Other(indicate type) 7771r 117
3a. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc.): Urban .
3b. Soil Drainage N/A ❑Well-Drained % of Site
❑Moderately Well-Drained % of Site
❑Poorly Drained % of Site
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A
4b. What is depth of bedrock?N/A(feet)
4c. What is depth to the water table?N/A(feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site ® 0-10% 50% ® 10-15% 25%
with slopes: ® 15% or greater 25%
6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it ® Yes ❑No ❑N/A
contain a building, site or district, listed on or Cornell Heights Historic District
eligible for the National or State Register of
Historic Places?
6b. Or designated a local landmark or in a local ® Yes ❑No ❑N/A
landmark district? Cornell Heights Historic District
7. Do.hunting or fishing opportunities presently
❑ yes ®No ElN/A If yes, identify each species
exist in the project area? :
3
A. SITE DESCRIPTION (cunt.)
8. Does project site contain any species of plant or
animal life that is identified as threatened or � Yes ®No ❑N/A
According to:
endangered?
Identify each Species:
9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on the ❑Yes ®No ❑N/A
project site? (i.e., cliffs, other geological Describe:
formations)
10. Is the project site presently used by the
community or neighborhood as an open space or El Yes ®No ❑N/A
recreation area? If yes, explain:
11. Does the present site offer or include scenic views ®yes ❑No ❑N/A
known to be important to the community?
Describe: Views across Fall Creek gorge from Fall
Creek Drive are of significant importance to the
neighborhood.
12. Is project within or contiguous to a site
El Yes ®No ❑N/A
designated a Unique Natural Area(UNA) or
Describe:
critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
r
Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Names of stream or name of river to which it is a
tributary: Fall Creek
14. Lakes,ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous rb
Name:
to project area: N/A Size (in acres):
15. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid ❑Yes ®No ❑N/A
or hazardous wastes? Describe:
16. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A
a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow
connection? ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A
b. If Yes, will improvements be necessary to ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A
allow connection?
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
rt-. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate)
Ia. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor in acres: 61 acres
lb.Project acreage developed: 25 acres initially 25 acres ultimately
lc. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: N/A
Id.Length of project in miles: (if appropriate)N/A or feet: N/A
le. If project is an expansion, indicate percent of change proposed: N/A
If. Number of off-street parking spaces existing: N/A proposed: N/A
1g.Maximum vehicular trips generated(upon completion of project)per day: N/A and per hour: N/A
4
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (cunt.)
7h.Height of tallest proposed structure: feet. N/A
1 j. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy?N/A
2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e.,rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site:
N/A or added to the site: N/A
3. Specify what type of vegetation(trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from the site:
acres: N/A type of vegetation: N/A
4. Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project?N/A
5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction?N/A
6. If single phase project, anticipated period of construction N/A months (including demolition)
7. If multi-phased project, anticipated period of construction N/A months (including demolition)
7a. Total number of phases anticipated: N/A
7b.Anticipated date of commencement for first phase N/A month year(including demolition)
7c. Approximate completion date of final phase N/A month year.
7d.Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? ❑ Yes ❑No ® N/A
8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑ Yes ❑No ®N/A; if yes, explain:
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 0 after project is completed 0
r
0.Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 Explain:
11.Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?❑ Yes ® No ❑N/A; if yes, explain:
12a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved?❑Yes ®No ❑N/A; if yes, explain:
12b. If#12a is yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc): N/A
12c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? N/A
13.Will surface area of existing lakes,ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased
by proposal?❑ Yes ®No ❑N/A; if yes, explain:
r14a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year flood
plain? ❑ Yes ❑No ®N/A
14b. 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, Silver Creek? (Circle all that apply)
14c. 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 ®No ❑N/A
14d. If#14a, b or c is yes, explain: N/A
15a. Does project involve disposal or solid waste?❑ Yes ®No ❑N/A
F15b. If#15a is yes,will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A
15c. If#15b is yes, give name of disposal facility: N/A and its location:
F
5
15. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (cont.)
15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
❑Yes ❑No Z N/A; if yes, explain:
15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? ❑ Yes ❑No Z N/A; if yes, explain:
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑ Yes ❑No Z N/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? Z Yes ❑No ❑N/A; if yes, explain: The area
to be rezoned is partially located within the Cornell Heights Historic District; however, the
rezoning should be more protective of the historic characteristic of the area.
18. Will project produce odors? ❑Yes ❑No Z N/A; if yes, explain:
19. Will project product operating noise exceed the local ambient noise level during construction?
❑ Yes ❑No ❑N/A; After construction? ❑ Yes ❑No Z N/A
20. Will project result in an increase of energy use? ❑ Yes ❑No Z N/A; if yes, indicate type(s) N/A
1. Total anticipated water usage per day: gals/day N/A Source of water
C. ZONING & PLANNING INFORMATION
1. Does the proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Z Yes ❑No ❑N/A; if yes, indicate
the decision required:
Z Zoning Amendment ❑Zoning Variance ❑New/revision of master plan ❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan ❑ Special Use Permit ❑Resource Management Plan ❑ Other:
2. What is the current zoning classification of site?R-U
3. If the site is developed as permitted by the present zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
Under current R-U zoning,maximum building size would be 40-feet in height.
4. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? ❑Yes Z No ❑N/A
5. If#4 is no, indicate desired zoning: R-3aa & R-3a
6. If the site is developed by the proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site?
The proposed rezonings from R-U to R-3aa will reduce the maximum building height from 40' to
359. In addition, R-3aa has a maximum building footprint that no new building shall be
constructed to have a building footprint larger than 120% of the average footprint of the existing
buildings along the entire block front in which the building is located.
For the properties that are being rezoned to R-3a, the maximum building height will remain the
same; however, the minimum lot size is reduced, the maximum lot coverage is increased, and the
setbacks are reduced.
7. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land-use plans?
Z Yes ❑No ❑N/A; If no, explain:
8. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4-mile radius of the project?
e. R-1 a or R-1 b)B-2a I-1 P-1 R-2a R-2b R-3a R-3b R-U and U-1
i
6
i
i
I
C. ZONING & PLANNING INFORMATION (cont.)
9. Is the proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? ® Yes ❑No ❑N/A Explain:
i
10a. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land,how many lots are proposed? N/A
10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community-provided services? (recreation, education,
police, fire protection;etc.)? ❑ Yes ®No ❑N/A Explain:
If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ❑ Yes ❑No ®N/A
Explain: N/A
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
❑ Yes ®No ❑N/A If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic?
[:] Yes ®No ❑N/A Explain:
A APPROVALS
c
1. Approvals: Common Council Adoption
2a. Is any Federal permit required? ❑Yes ®No ❑N/A; Specify:
gb. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? ❑Yes ®No ❑N/A; If Yes, Specify:
2c. Local and Regional approvals:
Type of Submittal Approval
Agency Yes or No Approval Required Date Date
Common Council Yes Adoption
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) No
Planning& Development Board No '
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation No
Commission(ILPC)
Board of Public Works (BPW) No
Fire Department No
Police Department No
Building Commissioner No
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency No
(IURA)
k
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.
i
Y. VERIFICATION
I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name: City of Ithaca
Signature:
Title: Ec is Development Planner
i
E
I
f
I
i
I
4
i
K
i
8
City of IthacaFull Environmental Assessment For (FEAF)
PART 2 PROJECT IMPACTS & THEIR MAGNITUDES
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project Small to Potential Can Impact be
site? ❑Yes ®No Moderate Large Reduced by
Impact Impact Project Change?
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slope in the project exceeds ❑Yes ❑No
10%.
F3
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑Yes El No
feet.
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. ❑Yes El No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑Yes ❑No
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 I
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil)per year.
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. ❑Yes ❑No
Construction in a designated floodway. ❑Yes ❑No
Other impacts: existing development is in the 500 year flood plain El Yes ❑No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the site? Small to Potential Can Impact be
(i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.) ❑ Moderate Large Reduced byYes ®No Impact Impact Project Change?
Ei
S pecific land forms: IE:0 Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON WATER
Small to Potential Can Impact be
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Moderate Large Reduced by
article 15 or 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law,E.C.L.)❑ Yes ®No
Impact Impact Project Change?
Developable area of site contains a protected water body ❑Yes ❑No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑Yes ❑No
protected stream.
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water ❑Yes ❑No
i
body.
•'•"""avf�affi.ry aeuua. I
Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. IF J70 Yes ❑No
Other impacts: El Yes El No
I
9
IMPACT ON WATER(cont.)
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of Small to potential Can Impact be
water? ❑Yes ®No Moderate Large Impact Reduced by
Impact Project Change?
A 10%increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of ❑ Yes ❑No
water or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area.
Construction, alteration, or conversion of a 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 the Cayuga Inlet?
Other impacts: ❑ Yes [:]No
Small to potential Can Impact be
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? ❑Yes ®No Moderate Large Impact Reduced by
Impact Project Change?
Project will require a discharge permit. ❑ Yes ❑No
Project requires use of a source of water that does not have ❑ Yes ❑No
approval to serve proposed project.
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public ❑Yes ❑No
water supply system.
Project will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ Yes El No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which ❑ Yes ❑No
presently do not exist or 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 obvious ❑ Yes ❑No
visual contrast to natural conditions.
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ Yes ❑No
products greater than 1,100 gallons.
Other impacts: ❑Yes ❑No�
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns or surface Small to potential Can Impact be
water runoff? Moderate Reduced by
El Yes ®No Impact Large Impact project Change?
Project would impede floodwater flows. - - I FEI Yes ❑No i
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. ❑Yes ❑No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. IF 1F ❑ Yes ❑No
Other impacts: ❑ Yes ❑No❑
MPACT ON AIR
Smallg
to Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be
7. Will project affect air quality? ❑Yes ❑No Impact Impact Reduced by
Project Change?
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8- F-7: ❑FEi Yes ❑No
MPACT ON AIR
hour period per day.
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 ❑Yes El No
tons of 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 ❑ Yes ❑No
million BTUs per hour.
Other impacts: 1E_ iF_
FE Yes ElNo
MPACTS ON PLANTS &ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered Small to Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be
species? ❑Yes ®No Impact Impact Reduced by
Project Change?
Reduction of any species listed on the New York or El Yes ❑No
Federal list,using the site, found over, on, or near site.
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant ❑ Yes ❑No
wildlife habitat.
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a ❑ Yes ❑No
year other than for agricultural purposes.
Other impacts: ❑ Yes ❑No
9. Will action substantially affect non- Small to Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be
proposed threatened or non-endangered species? El Yes by Yes ®No Impact Impact project Change?
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any ❑ Yes ❑No
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.
Proposed action requires the removal or more than 1/2
acre of mature woods or other locally important ❑Yes ❑No
vegetation.
Other impacts: ❑ Yes ❑No
MPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will the proposed action affect views, vistas or the Small to potential Large Can Impact be
visual character of the neighborhood or community? Moderate Impact Reduced by Project
❑ Yes ®No Impact Change?
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 use, or proposed action components
visible to users of aesthetic resources which will ❑Yes ❑No
eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of
aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Proposed action will result in the elimination or major
screening of scenic views known to be important to the ❑Yes ❑No
area.
11
MPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Other impacts: ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC &ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of Small to Can Impact be
historic,prehistoric or paleontological importance? Moderate Potential Large Impact Reduced by
®Yes ❑No Impact Project Change?
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within o
contiguous to any facility or site listed on or eligible ❑Yes ❑No
for the National or State Register of Historic Places.
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed
located within the project site. ❑Yes El No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or
contiguous to any site designated as a local landmark ® ❑ Yes ❑No
or in a landmark district.
Other impacts: IF =F ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or Small to Can Impact be
quality of existing or future open spaces or Moderate Potential Large Impact Reduced by
recreational opportunities? ❑Yes ®No Impact Project Change?
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational ❑Yes ❑No
opportunity.
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. El Yes ❑No
Other impacts: ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS & CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will the 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 a reduction in the quality of the resource ❑ Yes ❑No
Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource ❑ Yes ❑No
Other impacts: ❑ Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Small to Can Impact be
14. Will there be an effect to existing Moderate Potential Large Impact Reduced by Project
transportation systems? El Yes ®No Impact Change?
Alteration of present patterns of movement of
people and/or goods. ❑Yes ❑No
Proposed action will result in major traffic
❑Yes ❑No
problems.
Other impacts: L ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
12
15. Will action affect the community's Small to Can Impact be
proposed Moderate Potential Large Impact Reduced by
sources of fuel or energy supply? El Yes ®No Impact Project Change?
Proposed action causing greater than 5%
increase in any form of energy used in ❑Yes ❑No
municipality.
Proposed action requiring the creation or
extension of an energy transmission or supply
El Yes ❑No
system to serve more than 50 single or two
family residences.
Other impacts: ❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors,noise, Small to
glare, vibration or electrical disturbance during Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced
construction of or after completion of this Impact Impact by Project Change?
proposed action? ❑Yes ®No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school,
or other sensitive facility? ❑Yes ❑No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour
per day) El Yes El No
13
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS (cont.)
Proposed action will produce operating noise
exceeding the local ambient noise levels for ❑Yes ❑No
noise outside of structure.
Proposed action will remove natural barriers
that would act as a noise screen. ❑Yes El No
Other impacts: J=E1 Yes [:]No
❑
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Small to potential Can Impact be Reduced by
Moderate❑ Yes ❑No Impact Large Impact Project Change?
Proposed action will cause a risk of explosion or release
of hazardous substances (i.e., oil,pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset ❑Yes ❑No
conditions, or there will be a chronic low-level discharge
or emission.
Proposed action may result in the burial of"hazardous
wastes" in any form(i.e.,toxic,poisonous, highly ❑Yes ❑No
reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the ❑ Yes ❑No
disposal of solid or hazardous wastes.
Proposed action will result in the 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.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid ❑Yes ❑No
fuel.
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization or.the
control of vegetation, insects or animal life on the ❑ Yes ❑No
premises of any residential, commercial or industrial
property in excess of 30,000 square feet.
Other impacts: ❑ Yes ❑No ❑
IMPACT GROWTH& CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character Small to Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced by
of the existing community? ❑Yes ®No Moderate Impact Impact Project Change?
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.
k
i
i
14
IMPACT GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
The municipal budgets for capital
expenditures or operating services will
increase by more than 5%per year as a El Yes ❑No
result of this proposed action.
Proposed action will conflict with officially ❑Yes ❑No
adopted plans or goals:
Proposed action will cause a change in the
II
density of land use. ❑Yes ❑No
The proposed action will replace or
eliminate existing facilities, structures, or ❑ Yes ❑No
areas of historic importance to the
community.
Development will create a demand for
additional community services (e.g. schools, ❑Yes ❑No
police, and fire, etc.
Proposed action will set an important
precedent for future actions. El Yes ❑No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more
employees in one or more businesses. ❑Yes El No
:1
Other impacts: ❑Yes ❑No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the Small to potential Large Can Impact be Reduced by
proposed action? ®Yes ❑ Moderate No Impact Impact Project Change?
Either government or citizens of adjacent
communities have expressed opposition or
rejected the proposed action or have not ❑ Yes El No
been contacted. IL IL
Objections to the proposed action from ® ❑ Yes ❑No
within the community.
—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. —
I
r
15
City of Ithaca
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)—Part III
Proposed Rezoning of Portions of R-U Zoning District to R-3a & R-3aa
November 22,2013
PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the rezoning of properties located in the R-u Zoning District to Re-3a and R-3aa. The
attached map shows the location of the proposed zoning changes.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impact on Historic Resources—Small to Moderate Impact
The proposed area to be rezoned is located partially within the nationally and locally designated Cornell
Heights Historic District; however, there are no contributing structures located within the area to be rezoned.
Re-zoning to R-3aa within the Historic District will offer some additional protection to the historic character
of this area by limiting the building footprint size to be in-scale with the surrounding buildings.
16
Proposed Amendment to R-3a & R-3aa Boundaries - October 21 , 2013
n
IS PL
eDG
o E:�j
a � �
o F
� o
Legend
= Buildings
d cs ( n � Historic Districts
U. Q ] I Proposed R-3aa
JLu1J - Proposed R-3a
o RE AVE > —•�
Q I••—•� City Boundary
O Waterways
❑ Parks
�f�� o • o
N 0 375 750 1,500 Feet o4iH9c NY State Plane,Central GRS 80 Datum
A i i i za Map Source:Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2012
k Data Source:City of Ithaca GIS Program,2012
1:7,215 Map Prepared by:Department of Planning,City of Ithaca, NY,October,2013
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690
gTq DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
o may Division of Planning&Economic Development
E*s JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
[�`: . °•'4 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: December 4, 2013
RE: Proposal to Amend Waterfront Zoning District
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to expand the
waterfront zoning district.
In 2011, the Common Council adopted two revised waterfront zoning districts, the WF-1
and WF-2 districts, and established their boundaries on the official City zoning map.
Since that time staff has been re-evaluating the adopted boundaries of the district to
determine whether they are effectively placed in order to encourage the desired
development in this area of the City. When the boundaries were adopted, a decision
was made to only focus on the properties nearest to the waterfront. However, a large
portion of land that is currently zoned industrial is located adjacent to the waterfront
zone. In order to encourage waterfront mixed use residential development it is necessary
to also consider the adjacent development potential and make sure that the allowable uses
would support waterfront development. The I-1 zoning district allows for heavy
industrial uses, which are not appropriate to be located adjacent to mixed use residential
uses. However, lighter manufacturing uses could locate in this district without
negatively impacting potential residential uses.
The City Comprehensive Plan Committee is currently evaluating future land uses along
the waterfront and has discussed the potential rezoning of this area. In their meeting on
November 18, 2013, the committee was supportive of extending the waterfront zoning
district boundaries to include this area, however, they expressed concern over reducing
the overall industrial space in the City.
Staff recommends establishing a new zoning district that would have the same allowable
uses, area and height restrictions of the WF-2 zoning district, but would retain some light
manufacturing uses. This proposed WF-3 zoning district would have a minimum of 2
stories and a maximum of 5 stories in height and would allow mixed commercial and
residential uses. The attached map shows the boundaries for the proposed WF-3 zoning
district.
If the committee is in agreement, staff will draft an ordinance for circulation and return
next month with any comments that are received. If you have any questions, feel free to
contact me at 274-6410
%%
:::::::::::::::::U' ®®
{L::::ti:::ti'L:`L::::::1 ®�
�]. %%%%::::;.::===:::•.;
:::ti:::::::'L:''.::::::: ®I
::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::t:t:%%%%%
ti%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%,%I {lY$}::;:$::};:} BA
:::tiS:::::::;:' SSA''
L:::::::%%N —..�II���,..
::::::::'t: > .......1.........::: :5'
tititi .�%.%.%%% _ Parcel
.ti:::t::ti.:;
I� \ 1
Area Currently zoned 1-1 Proposed WF-3
\ V:%%%%%%%%%
,
- 0 1
a 1
Y
W
�►
— I
1 - —
1
- I
I
.:::::::t f
i
I
o
1 ,
,
I o
,
1 t ,
\ �
I I
.:::'L:: g
I 1
I
®®�
1
I r g�
�Cnca
I
�B
. � %%%%%.+tititi' Y1 •r'r' • � ® � ease
IL• -- .TT'Y'TTT"fTTT-fTTT' r��
..ti11titi'I ,� ��yl1Ll � titititititi
............ g ttititititi'
:a%tititi \fill lr 1r� ^ifti�ir`i"ir1�`i'F �� ■e ms ®� �i� �titititi�'
I }tititi}} lN,'r rYM�r~Y'tiM�!�1Yti ® �titi•:ti:•.:ti:ti'
.tititititi - 1 IM1�1MI���M��Y�1 Ilael IBBP Lti'rti'tiV ®t:::t:;:'L:'
:tititi•
.: NY State Plane,Central GIRS :0 Datum
Map Source:Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2012
ice, 'ICity of • .•
.• Prepared by: Planning,City of - • 2013.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, November 13, 2013 — 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Alderpersons Joseph (Seph) Murtagh,
Chair; Jennifer Dotson, Vice Chair; Graham
Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, and Stephen
Smith
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderpersons Cynthia Brock, Deb
Mohlenhoff, and J.R. Clairborne
Staff Attending: Megan Wilson, Planner; Lynn Truame,
Historic Preservation Planner; and Nels
Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal
Others Attending: None
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Agenda Review
2) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing —Amendment to 2013 City of Ithaca Action Plan to Award $52,7776
to the Learning Web's Supported Employment Program
Motion to open the public hearing, moved by Alderperson Smith, seconded by
Alderperson Dotson. Carried unanimously.
No one from the public present to speak.
Motion to close public hearing moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Aldeperson
Dotson. Carried unanimously.
b) Public Hearing-- Revisions to Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance
Motion to open public hearing: moved by Alderperson Smith, seconded by Alderperson
Dotson. Carried unanimously.
No one from the public present to speak.
Motion to close public hearing: moved by Alderperson Smith, seconded by Alderperson
Dotson. Carried unanimously.
c) Presentation: Planned Development Zones
Sue Ritter, Planning Director for the Town of Ithaca, described the Town's use of Planned
Development Zones (PDZs.) The Town's first use of a PDZ was applied to the La
Tourelle Inn project in 1984. Since then, they have used PDZs for Ecovillage, the
expansion of the Ithaca Beer Company, the South Hill Business Campus, the Rt 366
Apple Orchard area, and the Belle Sherman cottages project at the Town/City line.
PDZs are floating zones that supersede the zoning on the books. Parcels must be a
minimum of two acres. When approved for a PDZ, a project does not have to seek
variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The approval process calls for the Town
Board to forward a PDZ proposal to the Town Planning Board. PDZs have worked well
for the Town, but Ritter cautioned that occasionally the language has been too restrictive
and they've had to change it. The Town is moving towards more mixed-use projects. The
use of PDZs may not be as necessary in the future, although it is expected to be applied
to the Emerson site.
Alderperson Kerslick asked if the Town has experienced pushback from neighbors, i.e.,
when they expected the zoning to be "x" and now they're being told it's "y" under a PDZ.
Ritter replied that when a PDZ comes before the Planning Board, there are sometimes
controversies; but they still have to go through a thorough SEQR process before the
Town Board will approve them.
Alderperson Dotson noted that a PDZ is in response to a particular project that doesn't fit
the zoning on the books. She wondered if, after numerous project requests, at what point
does the Town decide that it's easier to rezone.
Chair Murtagh opined that the City isn't yet ready to circulate a proposal for PDZs in the
City. He asked Planning Department staff member Jennifer Kusznir to get some
additional information and then bring it back to committee next month. Alderperson
Kerslick also asked Kusznir for background on the City's previous attempt to implement a
PUD (Planned Unit Development) and why it failed. By consensus, the committee
agreed that the City should use the same terminology as the Town: PDZ rather than
PUD.
d) Presentation: Ithaca Motion Picture Project
Diana Riesman, director and co-founder of the Ithaca Motion Picture Project (IMMP),
described the history of the Wharton film Studio in the historic building in Stewart Park and
the desire to adaptively reuse that building for a new Wharton Studio Museum. The IMMP
is collaborating with the History Center to jointly occupy the building for exhibit space.
The IMPP has received supportive resolutions from Common Council and from the Board
of Public Works to proceed with their vision. It's also part of the County's 2020 plan and is
expected to be a boost for local tourism and economic development. The waterfront areas
have tremendous potential. The Sciencenter, Stewart Park, the Visitors Bureau, the
Farmer's Market, and IMPP are all connected by the Waterfront Trail.
The building currently serves as a storage facility for the Department of Public Works and
the Ithaca Youth Bureau. The DPW and IYB would have to find alternative storage space.
IMMP needs a license from the City to the building in order to move forward with their
capital campaign. New York State has granted them a provisional charter. IMMP will
transition to the new name Wharton Studio Museum in January.
City Attorney Lavine led the discussion on the legalities of how best to grant a license. It
was agreed that the best course would be to have a smaller group of stakeholders
convene to discuss the storage needs of IYB and the DPW and to figure out the best way
to move forward in granting a license.
3) Public Comment and Response by Committee Members
Cynthia Yahn, Building Links, spoke about her concern that Carpenter Business Park (CPB)
was on the agenda but that she and her partners had not been informed, nor was there any
back up material. Chairman Murtagh apologized for the lack of back-up material but noted
that CPB was included on the agenda for only very general discussion, to get the committee
thinking about future zoning possibilities.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Collegetown Zoning
Alderperson McCollister reported that a draft of the Collegetown Form-Based Districts was
updated on November 4, reflecting Code Studio's suggestions and with new diagrams and
drawings. Work is on the home stretch. If the most recent revisions can be incorporated in
time, then the document will be ready for an information session for Council and the public,
tentatively scheduled for December. Alderperson McCollister also noted that in response to
Alderperson Dotson's concerns about the 20 ft or 20% setback proposed for the CR 4
zones, she had asked planning staff member Megan Wilson to double-check industry
housing standards and to consult with Code Studio on this issue during a conference call.
Because of best-practice standards regarding light, air, greenery, and fire walls and fire
separation, the recommendation from the groups is to retain the original language.
Alderperson Dotson expressed her extreme frustration and disappointment about the
Collegetown rezoning, and the "appallingly slow" pace of the process, which has been going
on since 2007. She urged the City to be more nimble in future efforts.
Alderperson McCollister agreed, but reminded Committee members that a previous
Collegetown Plan had been adopted. However, due to a legal challenge by a few property
owners, the ordinance package had to be repealed and the process had to be started over.
In this iteration, the Collegetown Working Group concluded that it was better to err on the
side of caution, thoroughness, and consensus-building, even while scaling back the Plan.
b) RU Zoning
The possibility of rezoning the RU areas to R3aa in Cornell Heights is not ready to move
forward, in part because of concerns raised by the Planning Board. It will come back to
committee.
c) Noise Consultant Visit
Chairman Murtagh gave a quick update on noise consultant Eric Zwerling's visit to Ithaca
last month. Zwerling's ideas will help guide revisions to Ithaca's noise ordinance.
5. Action Items
d) Mural Proposals, was moved up so that staff member Megan Wilson could leave early.
Motion to approve both murals and send them on the Council: moved by Alderperson
Dotson, seconded by Alderperson McCollister, and carried 5-0.
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation within
West Stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage
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, including the
walls of the Seneca Street Parking Garage,by resolution on May 19,2010,and
WHEREAS, local artist Jim Garmhausen submitted his proposal for a mural depicting a vertical
group of people as part of the PAC's Mural and Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS,the PAC discussed Mr. Garmhausen's mural proposal at its meeting on September 25,2013 and,upon
review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of Public Works, agreed that the west stairwell of the
Seneca Street Parking Garage would be an appropriate location for the proposed mural,and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended location at its meeting on
October 23,2013 to gather input on the proposed installation,and
WHEREAS,PAC members have also sought input from adjacent property owners and City staff, and the responses
to the proposal have been mostly positive, and
WHEREAS,the artist will provide funding for the mural, and the proposed installation will be budget-neutral to the
City,and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23,2013,the Public Art Commission unanimously voted to recommend that
the Common Council select the mural proposal submitted by Jim Garmhausen to be installed within the west
stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage;now,therefore,be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Jim Garmhausen's mural featuring a vertical
group of people to be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage and to be added to the
City of Ithaca's public art collection;and be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of his mural upon the execution of an
agreement with the City(as reviewed by the City Attorney).
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mosaic Mural Installation at the
Department of Public Works Facility on First Street
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, including the
Department of Public Works facilities across from the Sciencenter,by resolution on May 19,2010,and
WHEREAS, local artists Margaret Corbit, Wes Blauvelt, Annemarie Zwack, Carla Stetson,
Leslie Carrere, and Caitlin Chan submitted their proposal for the 1st Street Mosaic Project, a
community mosaic mural featuring a "plants as food" theme, as part of the PAC's Mural and
Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS,the PAC discussed the 1st Street Mosaic Project at its meeting on October 10,2012 and,upon review of
the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of Public Works,recommended the Department of Public Works
facility on First Street as an appropriate location for the proposed installation, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended location at its meeting on
October 23,2013 to gather input on the proposed installation,and
WHEREAS, the PAC has also sought input from adjacent property owners and business owners as well as City
staff,and the responses to the proposal have been overwhelmingly positive,and
WHEREAS,the installation will be funded through donations and will be budget-neutral to the City,and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23,2013,the Public Art Commission unanimously voted to recommend that
the Common Council select 1st Street Mosaic Project to be installed at the Department of Public Works facility on
First Street;now,therefore,be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the 1st Street Mosaic Project to be installed at the
Department of Public Works facility on First Street and to be added to the City of Ithaca's public art collection; and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their mural upon the execution of an
agreement with the City(as reviewed by the City Attorney).
a) Revisions to Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner, reminded that there was a major and
much-needed revision to the Landmarks Ordinance that was adopted in 2012. The
version before the committee tonight contains a few "clean-ups" from the 2012 version.
The committee, Truame, and City Attorney Lavine spent most of the time discussing the
proposed language for section 228-13, "Exceptions for Public Safety." The ILPC and the
State Historic Preservation Office favored one paragraph. The City Attorney advised
using the language that included the phrase "when practicable." After considerable
discussion, the committee agreed that staff should internally come to some agreement
about the language, since everyone agreed that moving the overall ordinance forward
was desirable.
An ordinance to Amend Chapter 73 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
"Landmarks Preservation Commission" and Chapter 228 "Landmarks
Preservation" - Declaration of Lead Agency:
Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Carried 5-0.
Determination of Environmental Significance: Negative Declaration.
Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Carried 5-0.
Motion to move the ordinance on to Council with the Language Recommended by
the City Attorney:
Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried 3-2.
Kerslick, McCollister opposed.
Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca
§228-1.Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "City of
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. "
§228-2. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through
the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of buildings, structures, landscape
features, archeological sites, and districts of historic and cultural significance.
B. Safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as reflected in such
buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and districts.
C. Protect the value of historic properties and their owners' investment in them, and
stabilize historic neighborhoods.
D. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past.
E. Protect and enhance the city's attractiveness to tourists and visitors and the support and
stimulus to the economy thereby provided.
F. Strengthen the economy of the city.
G. Promote the use of buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and
districts of historic and cultural significance as sites for the education, pleasure and
welfare of the people of the city.
H. Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the city.
§228-3. Designation of Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts.
A. As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is responsible for
recommending to Common Council the designation of identified structures or
resources as individual landmarks and historic districts within the city.
B.The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend such designation of an
individual property as an individual landmark if it:
1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of
the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state,
or nation; or
2. Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age; or
5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by
virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
C.The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend such designation of a
group of properties as an historic district if the group:
1. Contains primarily properties which meet one or more of the criteria for
designation as an individual landmark; and
2. Constitutes a distinct section of the city by reason of possessing those qualities
that would satisfy such criteria.
D. Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent to the owner or owners of the property
or properties proposed for designation, describing the property proposed, or if in a
district,the proposed district boundary, and announcing a public hearing by the
Commission to consider the designation. Where the proposed designation involves so
many owners that the Commission deems individual notice to be infeasible, notice
may instead be published at least once in the City's official newspaper at least 15 days
prior to the date of the public hearing.
E. Once the Commission has issued official notice of a proposed designation, no building
permits or demolition permits shall be issued by the Director of Code Enforcement
until said proposed designation has been acted upon by Common Council, but in any
event no longer than 90 days after completion of the public hearing required by§ 228-
3 F, unless:
1. The permit is for work that is of an emergency nature, as determined by the
Director of Code Enforcement or the Fire Chief, or
2. The property owner voluntarily complies with the Certificate of
Appropriateness review process.
F.The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to designation of any individual
landmark or historic district. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least
once in the City's official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the date of the public
hearing.The notice shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a brief
description of the proposed designation, and the location where the proposal may be
reviewed prior the hearing.The Commission, property owners, and any interested
parties may present testimony or documentary evidence at the hearing which will
become part of a record regarding the historic, architectural, or cultural importance of
the proposed individual landmark or historic district.The record may also contain staff
reports, public comments, expert testimony, or other evidence offered outside of the
hearing.
G. Within seven days after it has recommended designation of an individual landmark or
historic district,the Commission shall file a copy of such recommended designation
with the Planning and Development Board and with Common Council.
H. Within 60 days of the Commission recommending designation,the Planning and
Development Board shall file a report with Common council with respect to the
relation of such proposed designation to the Comprehensive Plan,the zoning laws,
projected public improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area
involved.The Council shall, within 90 days of said recommendation of designation,
approve, disapprove, or refer the proposed designation back to the Commission for
modification.
I. Any designation approved by the Council shall be in effect on and after the date of
approval by Council.The Commission shall forward notice of each property designated
as an individual landmark and the boundaries of each designated historic district to
the Director of Code Enforcement and the City Clerk for recordation.
§228-4.Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration, Demolition, or New Construction
Affecting Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts.
As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is responsible for
the approval or disapproval of proposals for exterior changes to a designated historic
property. No person shall carry out any exterior alteration, restoration, reconstruction,
demolition, new construction, or moving of an individual landmark or property within
an historic district, nor shall any person make any change in the exterior appearance
of such property, its site, its light fixtures, signs, sidewalks,fences, steps, paving, or
other exterior elements, without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness or
Finding of Economic Hardship from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, or
obtaining approval by the Commission's Secretary pursuant to §228-7C, or upon order
of the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief
pursuant to §228-13.Any exterior alteration made in the absence of such required
approvals must be reviewed retroactively by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission, applying the criteria for approval set forth in §228-6 and §228-10 as
though the work had not yet been completed. All changes to City-owned property
affecting an individual landmark or within an historic district shall be subject to the
provisions of this ordinance.
§228-5 Temporary Improvements.
No Certificate of Appropriateness is required for temporary improvements.
Temporary improvements are those that will be in place for no more than 180
consecutive days and result in no permanent physical alteration of the structure or
site.
§228-6. Criteria for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
A.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 value of either the individual
landmark, or if the proposed work is within an historic district, of the neighboring
properties in such district.
B. In making this determination,the Commission will be guided by the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and by the following principles:
1.The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little as
possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic
character of the landmark.
2.The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the
significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
3. New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with
the historic character of the district within which it is located.
C. In applying the principle of compatibility set forth above,the Commission shall consider
the following factors:
1.the general design and character of the proposed alteration or new
construction relative to existing features of the property;
2.the scale and visual compatibility of the proposed alteration or new
construction in relation to the property itself, surrounding properties, and the
neighborhood;
3.texture, materials, and color, and their relation to similar features of the
property and other properties in the neighborhood;
4.visual compatibility with surrounding properties, including the proportions of
the property's fagade; proportions and arrangement of windows, doors, and
other openings; roof shape; and rhythm of spacing of properties along the
street, including set-backs; and
5.the importance of historic, physical, and visual features to the significance of
the property.
D. In passing upon an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,the Landmarks
Preservation Commission shall not consider changes to interior spaces or to exterior
paint colors.
E. In cases of a retroactive review of completed work,the Commission may approve any portion of the
completed project that is found to meet the criteria for approval enumerated in this §228 while
referring to the Office of the City Attorney for potential prosecution any portion of the project that does
not meet such criteria for approval.
§228-7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application Procedure.
A. Prior to the commencement of any work requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness,the
owner shall file an application for a building permit with the Building Division and an
application for such Certificate with the Commission. The application, available on
the City's website and through the Department of Planning& Development, shall
contain:
1. Building permit application number, as assigned by the Building Division
2. Name, mailing address,email address, and telephone number of the
applicant;
3. Location and photographs of the property;
4. Elevation drawings of proposed changes, if available;
5. Perspective drawings, including relationship to adjacent properties, if
available;
6. Samples of building materials to be used, including their proposed color;
7. Where the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing showing the
type of lettering to be used, all dimensions and colors, a description of
materials to be used, method of illumination, and a plan showing the sign's
location on the property; and
8.Any other information that the Commission may deem necessary in order to
visualize the proposed work.
B. No building permit shall be issued for the proposed work until a Certificate of
Appropriateness has first been issued by the Commission.The Certificate of
Appropriateness required by this chapter shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any
building or other permit that may be required by any other ordinance of the City of
Ithaca.
C.The Commission may delegate to the Commission's Secretary the authority to:
1. Determine whether proposed work constitutes ordinary maintenance and
repair for which a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required;
2.Approve work that is considered replacement-in-kind;
3.Approve work that is of any other type that has been previously determined
by the Commission to be appropriate for delegation to staff, as reflected in
the City of Ithaca Landmark and Historic District Design Guidelines.
On at least a quarterly basis, the Commission shall review the Certificates of
Appropriateness, if any, issued by the Commission's Secretary,to determine whether
or not the delegated review responsibilities should continue or their scope be
modified.
D. Upon application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, a public notice of the proposal
shall be posted by the owner or owner's representative on the property for a
minimum of 10 days.This notice must remain in place until a decision to approve or
deny the Certificate of Appropriateness has been made.The notice shall specify the
proposed work,the time and place of the public hearing, and to whom and by when
any public comments are to be communicated.The notice must be placed at or near
the property line in the front yard so that it will be plainly visible from the street, and,
in cases where a property has frontage on more than one street, an additional sign
must be placed at or near the property line on any additional street frontage so that
the sign will be plainly visible from the street on which it has such additional frontage.
E.The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to rendering a decision on any
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Notice of the public hearing shall be
published at least once in the City's official newspaper at least 5 days prior to the
public hearing.The notice shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a brief
description of the proposal, and the location where the proposal may be reviewed
prior to the hearing.The property owner and any interested party may present
testimony or documentary evidence regarding the proposal at the hearing, which will
become a part of the record.The record may also contain staff reports, public
comments, and other evidence offered outside of the hearing.
F.The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions or modifications the
Certificate of Appropriateness within 45 days from the completion of the public
hearing, except as noted below.The failure of the Commission to act within 45 days
from the completion of the public hearing, unless an extension is mutually agreed
upon in writing by the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to constitute
approval.
1. In the event, however, that the Commission shall make a finding of fact that
the circumstances of a particular application require further time for
additional study and information than can be obtained within the aforesaid
45-day period,then the Commission shall have a period of up to 90 days
within which to act upon such an application.
2. In the event, however, that environmental review of an application is
required,the Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions
or modifications the Certificate of Appropriateness within 65 days from the
completion of environmental review.The failure of the Commission to act
within 65 days from the completion of the environmental review, unless an
extension is mutually agreed upon in writing by the applicant and the
Commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval.
G. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing.A copy shall be sent to the applicant
by mail, and a copy filed with the Director of Code Enforcement and City Clerk for
public inspection,within 10 days of the date of the decision.The Commission's
decisions shall state the reasons for denying or modifying any application.
§228-8. Expiration of Approval; Extension of Approval
If the construction of a project approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness has not
commenced within twenty-four (24) months of the date of the approval, such approval
shall expire, unless an extension has been granted by the Landmarks Preservation
Commission following a written request by the applicant. An application for an extension
of Certificate of Appropriateness approval shall not be considered a new Certificate of
Appropriateness application.
§228-9. Early Design Guidance.
A. Large projects that could potentially have a significant impact on an individual
landmark or historic district are required to participate in the Early Design Guidance
process.The purpose of this process is to provide input from the Commission on the
design of the project as it relates to criteria for the approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness at a time when such input may readily be incorporated into the
design without adversely affecting design costs or the project schedule.
B. For the purposes of this chapter, large projects are defined as:
1. New construction in an historic district of any primary structure, or
2. New construction of any accessory structure with a gross square footage of
800 square feet or more in an historic district, or new construction of any
accessory structure with a gross square footage of 800 square feet or
more on the same tax parcel as an individual landmark when that tax
parcel is less than five acres in size, or new construction of any accessory
structure with a gross square footage of 800 square feet or more on the
same tax parcel as an individual landmark when that tax parcel is more
than five acres in size and when the proposed accessory structure will be
located within 150 feet of the individual landmark, or
3. New additions that will increase the existing footprint of an individual
landmark or a structure located within an historic district by 50%or more,
or
4. Any renovation or reconstruction (excluding projects that involve only the
replacement of roof coverings)that will affect 50%or more of the exterior
envelope of an individual landmarks or a structure located within an
historic district.
C. Applicants subject to Early Design Guidance shall submit materials for review by the
Commission as soon as the design has reached a stage of development that would
allow the Commission to understand the basic proposal and its significant details.
D. Based on the limited information provided, the Commission will provide general
feedback and non-binding recommendations and comments that might help the
applicant further refine the project prior to submitting an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
§228-10.Criteria for a Finding of Economic Hardship.
A. An applicant whose Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed alteration has been
denied may apply for relief on the ground of economic hardship. In order to prove
the existence of economic hardship related to a proposed alteration,the applicant
shall establish that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the
owner from earning a reasonable return on investment, regardless of whether that
return represents the most profitable return possible. In the case of non-profit
ownership, the applicant shall establish that the denial of a Certificate of
Appropriateness will seriously interfere with, or prevent,the owner from carrying
out its chartered purpose. In either case the applicant shall establish that the
alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or inactions of any
person having an ownership or management interest in the property after the
effective date of local designation.
B. Demolition of an individual landmark, or of a structure located within, and
contributing to the significance of, an historic district, shall be allowed only in cases
of economic hardship, except as provided for in §228-14. In order to prove the
existence of economic hardship sufficient to justify demolition,the applicant shall
establish to the satisfaction of the Commission that:
1.The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the owner from
earning a reasonable return on investment, regardless of whether that
return represents the most profitable return possible; and
2.The property cannot be adapted for any other use,whether by the current
owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable return on
investment;
3. Diligent efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring the property and
preserving it have failed; and
4.The alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or
inactions of any person having an ownership or management interest in
the property after the effective date of local designation.
Or, in the case of non-profit ownership that:
1.The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness will either physically or
financially prevent, or seriously interfere with,the non-profit owner
carrying out its chartered purpose;
2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use that would result in the
non-profit owner being able to carry out its chartered purpose; and
3.The alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or
inactions of any person having an ownership or management interest in
the property after the effective date of local designation.
§228-11. Finding of Economic Hardship Application Procedure.
A. After the Landmarks Preservation Commission has denied a Certificate of
Appropriateness, an applicant may commence the economic hardship process.
Consideration of an application for a Finding of Economic Hardship may occur at
the same meeting as consideration of an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness. No building permit or demolition permit shall be issued unless
the Commission determines that an economic hardship exists and issues a Finding
of Economic Hardship, except in cases where the Building Division, upon due
deliberation, has made an express finding that the structure presents an imminent
threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
B.The Commission may hold a public hearing on the hardship application at which an
opportunity will be provided for proponents and opponents of the application to
present their views.
C.The applicant shall consult in good faith with the Commission, local preservation
groups, and interested parties in a diligent effort to seek an alternative that will
result in appropriate preservation of the property.
D.All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for
granting or denying the requested Finding of Economic Hardship.A copy shall be
sent to the applicant by mail and a copy filed with the Director of Code
Enforcement and City Clerk for public inspection within 10 days of the date of the
decision.
E. If a Finding of Economic Hardship is issued,the Commission shall approve only such
work as is necessary to alleviate the hardship.
§228-12 City-owned Improvements
A. All changes to City-owned property affecting an individual landmark or within an
historic district shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance, with the
exception of§228-10 and §228-11.
B. If the cost of an action required by the Commission would exceed by 20%or more
the cost of the action if not regulated by the Commission, the Common Council
reserves the right to determine whether compliance with the Commission's
requirements for that action are prudent and feasible in light of potentially
competing public interests. Should Common Council determine, upon due
deliberation,that such compliance would not be prudent and feasible,the action
may proceed as though it were not regulated by the Commission.
§228-13 Exceptions for Reasons of Public Safety
A. When in the judgment of the Director of Code
Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire
Chief there exists an emergency condition that poses an
imminent threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare, the Director of Code Enforcement,
Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief may order
the property owner to immediately undertake temporary
work to correct the defect while a permanent
solution is sought that will satisfy the requirements
of Section 228-6.
B. Such temporary work shall remain in place no longer
than 180 days . Such 180 day period may only be
extended by, and in the sole discretion of, the
Director of Planning, Building, & Economic Development,
or designee. During that time, the owner shall
diligently work to identify and propose to the ILPC,
Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public
Works, and Fire Chief a permanent solution to
adequately address the public safety concern while
satisfying the requirements of Section 228-6 .
Potential solutions identified during this period will
be subject to the provisions of Section 228-10 and 228-
11 .
C. If, at the end of the 180 day period, or authorized
extension of this period, the Director of Planning,
Building, & Economic Development, or designee, has
determined that no reasonable solution exists that will
achieve the public safety goal and the ILPC has
determined that no reasonable solution exists that will
satisfy either the criteria of Section 228-6 or Section
228-11, the Director of Planning, Building, & Economic
Development, or designee, may order permanent work to be
undertaken by the owner that will protect the public
health, safety, or welfare without the issuance of
either a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Finding of
Economic Hardship.
D. When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public
Works, there exists on City property, on City-possessed
easements, or in the City Right of Way, a substantial
hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare, the
Superintendent of Public Works may take all reasonable
action to mitigate or eliminate the hazard through
pursuit of those remedies, improvements, or
infrastructures that he or she deems appropriate.
Consultation with the Director of Planning and
Development, or his or her designee, is required before
the Superintendent of Public Works implements permanent
remedies not falling within the scope of the previous
sentence. Any remedies, improvements, or
infrastructures undertaken on order or authorization of
the Superintendent of Public Works under this paragraph
shall not be subject to §228-6, §228-7, or §228-10 .
§228-14. Maintenance and Repair Required.
A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance
and repair of any exterior architectural feature of an individual landmark or
property within a historic district that does not involve a change in design, building
materials, color, or outward appearance; however,the Commission's Secretary
shall determine whether proposed work constitutes ordinary maintenance and
repair or requires a Certificate of Appropriateness.
B. No owner or person with an interest in real property designated as an individual
landmark or included within an historic district shall permit the property to fall into
a serious state of disrepair. Maintenance shall be required, consistent with the
provisions of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State and all other
applicable regulations.
§228-15. Enforcement and Violations
A. All work performed pursuant to a Certificate of Appropriateness issued under this
chapter shall conform to the requirements included therein. It shall be the duty of
the Director of Code Enforcement to inspect periodically any such work to assure
compliance. In the event work is found that is not being performed in accordance
with the Certificate of Appropriateness the Director of Code Enforcement shall
issue a stop work order and all work shall immediately cease. No further work shall
be undertaken on the project as long as a stop work order is in effect.
B. Any owner or person in charge of a property who demolishes or alters a property in
the absence of a Certificate of Appropriateness, a Finding of Economic Hardship,
approval by the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to §228-7C of the City
Municipal Code, or upon order of the Director of Code Enforcement,
Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief pursuant to §228-13 may be required
to restore the property and its site to its appearance prior to the violation. In the
event distinctive historic features have been removed or otherwise irreversibly
altered, such removal or alteration shall constitute a separate violation under this
ordinance.
C. If, in the judgment of the Commission, a violation of§228-14 exists that will result
in a detrimental effect upon the life and character of a designated historic property
or on the character of a historic district as a whole, the Commission shall notify the
Director of Code Enforcement. If, upon investigation,the Director of Code
Enforcement finds non-compliance with the requirements of the Property
Maintenance Code of New York State, or any other applicable regulation,the
Director of Code Enforcement shall order such remedies as are necessary and
consistent with this Chapter and shall provide written notice thereof to the
Secretary of the Commission.
D. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed an offense and shall
be punishable as provided in Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code, General Provisions,
Article I, Penalties. Each day's continued breach shall constitute a separate
additional violation. In addition,the City shall have such other remedies as are
provided by law to enforce the provision of this chapter.
§228-16.Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by any decision by the Commission may
apply to the Supreme Court in the State of New York for
review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
within 30 days of publication of the decision.
b) Local Law Concerning Foreclosure of Unsafe Properties.
This local law would prohibit the owners of unsafe properties from paying back taxes on
an installment plan.
Motion to forward to Council. Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson
Smith, and carried 5-0.
Local Law No. -2013
A local law entitled the "City of Ithaca Local Law Concerning Foreclosure of Unsafe Structures."
WHEREAS the City has established a goal of returning unsafe structures within the City of Ithaca
back to productive use in a timely manner, and
WHEREAS ineffective control of unsafe buildings runs counter to the City's exercise of its power
to maintain the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of its citizens granted by New York
General City Law§20(13), and
WHEREAS the City has the ability, granted by Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184, to both
agree to and refuse to enter into installment agreements for unpaid taxes owed on property, and
WHEREAS in an effort to return unsafe structures to productive use in a timely manner, the City
hereby establishes that a property owner of an unsafe structure in tax foreclosure proceedings may
not enter into an installment agreement for payment of back taxes without first bringing the unsafe
structure into compliance with the orders of the City of Ithaca Building Division.
BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Findings, Intent, and Purpose.
Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184, the City of Ithaca is authorized to adopt a
local law authorizing the installment payment of delinquent taxes. Under the City's current laws,
owners of unsafe properties may enter into installment payment plans. Where the costs of repairs
are greater than installment payments or there is otherwise little incentive for property owners to
bring unsafe structures into compliance with Building Division orders, this policy allows properties to
fall into greater disrepair. The Common Council desires to return these unsafe structures to safe
and productive use, and finds that exempting unsafe structures from installment plans is the most
efficient and effective way to achieve this goal.
Section 2. Charter Amendments.
Section C-44(B) of the Ithaca City Charter is hereby amended as follows:
(1) The City of Ithaca hereby authorizes the City Chamberlain to enter into installment agreements with
property owners of eligible properties providing for the payment of eligible delinquent taxes in
installments according to the provisions of Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of
New York, as amended. Within forty-five (45) days of the return of unpaid taxes, the City
Chamberlain, by first-class mail, shall notify all owners of eligible properties with delinquent taxes
that they are eligible to pay their delinquent taxes in installments according to the provisions of
Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended. The City shall add
one dollar($1.00) to the amount of the tax lien to pay for such postage. The owner of such parcel
must accept the installment offer after thirty(30) days of the mailing of such notice by signing an
installment payment agreement with the City Chamberlain. The City Chamberlain shall not include
parcels accepting the offer and making timely payments pursuant to the installment plan on the
filing of the list of properties for foreclosure proceedings with the court. Any property within the
City shall be an eligible property so long as: (a) that property is a property as to which Real
Property Tax Law§ 1184 authorizes and empowers the City to make available to the owner
thereof an installment agreement, and (b) no primary building or structure located on the
property is found to be unsafe pursuant to City Code § 146-9 unless abated by repair or
demolition in satisfaction of Chapter 146 of the City Code or otherwise addressed in full
compliance with said Chapter.
Section 3. Severability Clause.
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 portions of this Local Law.
Section 4. Effective and Operative Date.
This Local Law shall become operative immediately and shall take effect upon its filing in the office
of the Secretary of State.
c) Amendment to the 2013 City of Ithaca Action Plan to Award $52,776 to the
Learning Web's Supported Employment Program.
Motion to forward to Council. Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson
Smith, and carried unanimously.
Project Funding for the Learning Web's Supported Employment Program (new 2013
Project#22)
Whereas, The Learning Web has requested funding for a supported employment program, and
Whereas, if funded, the Program will use CDBG funds to employ a program coordinator who will
support young people with limited employment experience in jobs at Cayuga Medical Center, and
elsewhere, in order to increase their chances of successfully maintaining permanent,
unsubsidized employment, and
Whereas, the 2013 Action Plan identifies unallocated CDBG funds in the amount of$96,458.00,
and
Whereas, the Learning Web has requested $52,776, and
Whereas, this project is classified as an eligible public service activity consistent with the goals of
the City's Consolidated Plan by providing job placement for under-employed and un-employed
young people who have limited job skills or successful past work experience, and
Whereas, this project can be fully funded at the level requested without exceeding the 15% public
services spending cap, and
Whereas, this proposed activity is listed as Exempt from environmental review by the National
Environmental Protection Act(NEPA) and is not subject to the City Environmental Quality
Review regulations, and
Whereas, a funding allocation of more than $25,000 occurring during the program year
constitutes a substantial program amendment to the adopted Action Plan requiring a public
hearing and an action of the Common Council for approval, and
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency reviewed this proposal on October 24, 2013 and
recommend the following contingent on Common Council approval, and
Whereas, a public hearing regarding this proposed substantial amendment to the 2013 Action
Plan was held at the November 13, 2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee
meeting, now, therefore be it
Resolved, that Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of$52,776.00 be
awarded to The Learning Web for the Supported Employment Program as 2013 Project#22, and
be it further
Resolved, that these funds be derived from the 2013 Entitlement Grant, and be it further
Resolved, that the IURA Chairperson, upon advice of the IURA Attorney, is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary and appropriate documents to implement this resolution.
6) Discussion.
a) Carpenter Business Park
Chairman Murtagh asked a general question about what are we hoping to do with our
waterfront areas, and what kind of zoning would get us there. He handed out a zoning
map from August 2011 of the WF-1 and WF-2 zones.
Murtagh noted that there seems to be support for changing the zoning. Regarding our
waterfront areas that are zoned light industrial, Alderperson Kerslick opined that we
may not want to cut off all I-zone possibilities. The use of PDZs was also discussed.
But the majority opinion of committee members, as well as non-committee members
Alderpersons Brock and Clairborne, was that we should be coordinating and
communicating with the Comprehensive Plan committee and Planning staff before
making any further recommendations.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) August 2013.
Motion to approve by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously.
8) Adjournment
Motion to adjourn 9:05 p.m.