HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-13 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting Agenda
MEETING NOTICE
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday March 13, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
A. Agenda Review
B. Special Order of Business
1. Collegetown Area Form Districts – Presentation
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members (6:30 pm)
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports (6:50 pm)
1. Intermunicipal Planning Coordination
2. 2013 Project Overview
3. Noise Ordinance Development
E. Action Items
1. R1 and R2 Parking Ordinance Changes (7:00 pm)
(Concept memo, chart)
2. Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements (7:15 pm)
(Concept memo, draft ordinance revision)
3. Collegetown Area Form Districts (7:45 pm)
(Form districts document – will be distributed under separate cover)
4. Downtown Zoning Changes (8:15)
(Concept memo and map – will be distributed under separate cover)
F. Discussion Items – None
G. Approval of Minutes – May 2012, June 2012 and August 2012
H. Adjournment (8:45 pm)
Direct questions about the agenda to Jennifer Dotson, Chairperson, (jdotson@cityofithaca.org or 351-5458) or the
appropriate staff person at the Department of Planning & Development (274-6550). Back-up material is available in
the office of the Department of Planning & Development. The agenda order is tentative and subject to change.
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, March 12, 2013.
Item # E1 a
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558
Memorandum
Date: February 27, 2013
From: Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration
To: Planning & Economic Development Committee Members
Re: Proposed Changes to R‐1 & R‐2 Zoning District Parking Requirements Adopted on June 6, 2012
Changes to Section 325‐20 D. (3), Including Parts (a), (b), & (c)
At the January Planning & Economic Development Committee (“Planning Committee”) meeting, it was
decided I would edit the current zoning legislation, as it pertains to parking requirements in the R‐1
and R‐2 Zoning Districts. I was specifically directed to rewrite the current parking requirements, so
that properties in the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts that were “newly established, erected, or enlarged
by June 5, 2012” would not become non‐conforming with respect to the new parking legislation,
enacted on June 6, 2012. The legislation adopted by Council on June 6, 2012 included a parking
maximum of 2 cars in the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts. These regulations are found under 325‐20 D.
(3), including parts (a), (b), and (c), of the Zoning Ordinance.
Subsequently, I was also directed by Planning Committee Chair Jennifer Dotson to eliminate the
requirements for parking maximums in the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts. As I understand it, the Chair
believes that, because one of the Mayor’s primary goals in 2013 is to eliminate parking requirements
city‐wide, a controversy over parking maximums should be avoided. Parking maximums present a
distraction from this higher mission of simply eliminating parking requirements throughout the City
and the philosophy that the market will drive how much parking any property owner feels compelled
to create. Along with eliminating the parking maximum requirement in the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning
Districts, my new directive from the Chair was to make the June 6, 2012 legislation adopted by Council
an enforceable provision of the parking ordinance.
I have included further below proposed draft changes to the R‐1 and R‐2 parking requirements found
under Zoning Ordinance section 325‐20 D. (3), including parts (a), (b), and (c), that meet Chair Dotson’s
latest directive; however, in this memorandum I will also discuss these drafted changes and the
justifications for these changes to the parking requirements for the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts that
were adopted on June 6, 2012, as well as why the current legislation is not enforceable.
1
The necessary changes to 325‐20 D. (3), including parts (a), (b), and (c), ― meant to eliminate
minimum parking requirements in the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts and make this section both more
understandable to the reader and enforceable by the Building Division ― are listed further below.
Proposed Changes:
Please note that proposed changes are in red where words are to be deleted and in blue where words
are proposed to be added. Before listing the current changes, I have copied the current legislation
under 325‐20 D. (3), including parts (a), (b), and (c), that are in effect today, immediately below:
Current Language
325‐20 D. (3) Maximum number of off‐street parking spaces permitted in R‐1 and R‐2 zoning
districts and number required for all other districts.
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as to the
minimum number of off‐street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WEDZ‐1a, CBD‐60,
CBD‐85, CBD‐100, CBD‐120, B‐1b, and B‐2c, WF‐1 and WF‐2.
(b) Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off‐street parking spaces shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with § 325‐20D(2) by the property owner for each use or building which
is newly established, erected, or enlarged after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), as
specified in the chart below.
(c) Maximum number of parking spaces in R‐1 or R‐2 districts. For each building or use (including
parking) on a property within an R‐1 or R‐2 zoning district, which building or use is newly
established, erected, or enlarged after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), the
maximum number of off‐street parking spaces permitted shall be two. For buildings that were not
newly established, erected, or enlarged after March 6, 1996, parking requirements will be
determined by review of the property history by the Building Department.
The parking chart currently follows part (c).
Changes to 325‐20 D. (3)
The parking requirements for the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts are currently listed under 325‐20 D. (3).
Prior to the adoption of parking maximums in the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts, 325‐20 D. (3) basically
stated something similar to: “Number of parking spaces required in all zoning districts,” meaning this is
where one finds the parking requirements for all zoning districts in the City. This section heading was
changed on June 6, 2012 to read: “Maximum number of off‐street parking spaces permitted in the R‐1
and R‐2 districts and number required for all other districts.” There are 2 reasons I propose to change
325‐20 D. (3):
1) The R‐1 and R‐2 zones will no longer have a parking maximum; required minimum parking will be
eliminated instead, so the heading cannot state: “Maximum number of off‐street parking in the R‐1
and R‐2 districts […].” Also, the current title does not work, because there are several zones that
do not have any minimum parking requirements and the title suggests that parking spaces are
required in all zoning districts.
2
2) While it was initially logical to heavily emphasize the new changes to the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning
Districts in this section heading, because it alerts the reader to parking changes in the R‐1 and R‐2
Zoning Districts, it would now be more logical to have this section heading state simply that this is
where parking requirements in all zoning districts can be found. I therefore propose the following
editing changes to 325‐20. D. (3): “Maximum number of off‐street parking spaces permitted in R‐
1 and R‐2 districts and number required for all other districts.” (Delete in its entirety.) And
change it to: “Parking requirements in all zoning districts.”
Changes to 325‐20 D. (3) (a)
Currently, in 325‐20 D. (3) (a), all zoning districts that do not have parking minimums are listed. This
part currently reads: “(a) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no
requirements as to the minimum number of off‐street parking spaces in the following zoning districts:
WEDZ‐1a, CBD‐60, CBD‐85, CBD‐100, CBD‐120, B‐1b, and B‐2c, WF‐1 and WF‐2.” As you can see, the R‐
1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts were not added to 325‐20 D. (3) (a), therefore, I propose changing this part
to read: “(a) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements
as to the minimum number of off‐street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WEDZ‐1a,
CBD‐60, CBD‐ 85, CBD‐100, CBD‐120, B‐1b and B‐2c, WF‐1, and WF‐2 and, effective, April 3, 2013, the
R‐1 and R‐2 zoning districts.” (Add.)
Changes to 325‐20 D. (3) (b)
Currently in 325‐20 D. (3) (b), the ordinance states that parking in all other districts must comply with
the requirements of the chart that follows it. It states: “Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off‐
street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in accordance with § 325‐20D(2) by the
property owner for each use or building which is newly established, erected or enlarged after the
effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), as specified in the chart below.”
I have one small editing change for this part (b). The date, March 6, 1996, has caused a lot of confusion
in the current ordinance because this date is also used in 325‐20 D. (3) (c) as the effective date when
parking maximums in R‐1 and R‐2 are to be applied. The date, March 6, 1996, is the date when the
parking chart was adopted by Common Council; therefore, I propose rewriting the last portion of part
(b) as follows, so that future editors of the Zoning Ordinance will understand that the date March 6,
1996 was when Council revised this parking chart:
“Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off‐street parking spaces shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with § 325‐20 D. (2) by the property owner for each use or building which
is newly established, erected, or enlarged, after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), as
specified in the chart below.” (Delete.) And add: “[…] as specified in the chart below and beginning
on March 6, 1996, when this chart was adopted by Common Council.”
3
Changes to 325‐20 D.3 (c)
The current 325‐20 D. (3) (c) is no longer needed, because it is entirely dedicated to stating how
parking maximums will be applied in the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts. Because we had no other part
that referenced a parking maximum and a parking maximum was a new concept to the Zoning
Ordinance, there needed to be a part dedicated to the new requirements. But parking maximums are
to be removed from the R‐1 and R‐2 parking requirements and, like many other zones, they will no
longer have minimum parking requirements. Zones that do not have any parking minimums are
referenced in 325‐20 (3) (a) and, since I am proposing the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts be added to this
part, I propose eliminating part (c). As a result, the parking chart referenced in part (b) will directly
follow part (b), if the proposals above are accepted.
“(c) Maximum number of parking spaces in R‐1 or R‐2 districts. For each building or use (including
parking) on a property within an R‐1 or R‐2 zoning district, which building or use is newly
established, erected, or enlarged after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), the
maximum number of off‐street parking spaces permitted shall be two. For buildings that were not
newly established, erected, or enlarged after March 6, 1996, parking requirements will be
determined by review of the property history by the Building Department.” (Delete in its entirety.)
Some Current Problems with Enforcement
Unfortunately, the date March 6, 1996 in the current 325‐20 D. (3) (c) is inaccurate. What should have
been published is the June 6, 2012 enactment date of the ordinance change. Using March 6, 1996 as
the enactment date for the R‐1 and R‐2 maximum parking requirements makes the parking
requirements in the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning Districts retroactive ― rendering the current legislation
unenforceable, because, when new legislation goes into effect, existing uses become legally non‐
conforming and are not expected to comply with the new law.
Furthermore, as currently written, anyone who has “newly established, erected, or enlarged” a
building after March 6, 1996 can only have a maximum of 2 parking spaces. This puts a multitude of
properties out of compliance with our current zoning legislation. Because section 325‐30 of the Zoning
Ordinance makes clear that when a new ordinance is adopted properties have the right to become
legally non‐conforming, the Building Division cannot enforce the parking provisions currently in effect
for the R‐1 and R‐2 Zoning District, since doing so would strip property owners of their right to
becoming legally non‐conforming, when the legislation was passed on June 6, 2012.
While some Council members might be reluctant to change the current provisions in 325‐20 D.(3),
including parts (a), (b), and (c), until parking elimination in all zoning districts is ratified, the Building
Division is stuck with trying to use a parking ordinance for the R‐1 and R‐2 zones that cannot be legally
enforced. Therefore, either the provisions adopted on June 6, 2012 need to be rescinded OR the new
changes, or changes similar to those I have proposed, need to be adopted by Council in the immediate
future.
4
PROPOSED CHANGES
325‐20 D. (3)
Current ordinance reads:
“Maximum number of off‐street parking spaces permitted in R‐1 and R‐2 districts and number required
for all other districts.”
Editing change #1:
“Maximum number of off‐street parking spaces permitted in R‐1 and R‐2 districts and number
required for all other districts.” (Delete in entirety.) And change to: “Parking Requirements in all
zoning districts.”
Proposed ordinance shall read:
“Parking Requirements in all zoning districts.”
325‐20 D. (3) (a)
Current ordinance reads:
“(a) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as to the
minimum number of off‐street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WEDZ‐1a, CBD‐60, CBD‐
85, CBD‐100, CBD‐120, B‐1b, and B‐2c, WF‐1 and WF‐2.”
Editing change #2:
“(a) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as to the
minimum number of off‐street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WEDZ‐1a, CBD‐60, CBD‐
85, CBD‐100, CBD‐120, B‐1b and B‐2c, WF‐1 and WF‐2 and, effective April 3, 2013, the R‐1 and R‐2
zoning districts.” (Add.)
Proposed ordinance shall read:
“Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as to the
minimum number of off‐street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WEDZ‐1a, CBD‐60, CBD‐
85, CBD‐100, CBD‐120, B‐1b and B‐2c, WF‐1, and WF‐2 and, effective April 3, 2013, the R‐1 and R‐2
zoning districts.”
325‐20 D. (3) (b)
Current ordinance reads:
“(b) Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off‐street parking spaces shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with § 325‐20D (2) by the property owner for each use or building which is
newly established, erected, or enlarged after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), as
specified in the chart below.”
Editing change #3:
“Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off‐street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained
in accordance with § 325‐20D(2) by the property owner for each use or building which is newly
established, erected, or enlarged, after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), as specified
in the chart below.” (Delete.) And add: “[…] as specified in the chart below and beginning on March
6, 1996, when this chart was adopted by Common Council.”
5
Proposed ordinance shall read:
“Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off‐street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained
in accordance with § 325‐20D(2) by the property owner for each use or building which is newly
established, erected, or enlarged, as specified in the chart below and beginning on March 6, 1996,
when this chart was adopted by Common Council.”
325‐20 D. (3) (c)
Current ordinance reads:
“(c) Maximum number of parking spaces in R‐1 or R‐2 districts. For each building or use (including
parking) on a property within an R‐1 or R‐2 zoning district, which building or use is newly established,
erected, or enlarged after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), the maximum number of
off‐street parking spaces permitted shall be two. For buildings that were not newly established,
erected or enlarged after March 6, 1996, parking requirements will be determined by review of the
property history by the Building Department.”
Editing change #4:
DELETE this part (c) in its entirety.
ENTIRE REVISED ORDINANCE 325‐20 D. (3), INCLUDING PARTS (A) & (B)
“(3) Parking requirements in all zoning districts.
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as to the
minimum number of off‐street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WEDZ‐1a, CBD‐60, CBD‐
85, CBD‐100, CBD‐120, B‐1b and B‐2c, WF‐1, and WF‐2 and, effective April 3, 2013, the R‐1 and R‐2
zoning districts.
(b) Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off‐street parking spaces shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with § 325‐20 D. (2) by the property owner for each use or building which is
newly established, erected, or enlarged, as specified in the chart below and beginning on March 6,
1996, when this chart was adopted by Common Council.”
6
Item # E1 b
Item # E 2a
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850‐6590
COMMON COUNCIL
Telephone: 607/274‐6570
Fax: 607/272‐7348
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Dotson, Chair
Seph Murtagh, Vice‐Chair
Date: March 5, 2013
Re: Proposal to Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to eliminate minimum parking
requirements from the City of Ithaca’s zoning code. This issue was discussed at the June 13, 2012,
January 9th, 2013, and February 13th 2013 meetings of the Planning and Economic Development
committee of Common Council. A working group, including staff, committee members, and others, has
met several times since June 2012 to discuss the proposal.
Over the course of the past year, there has been a growing interest among city staff and elected officials
in improving the city’s management and regulation of parking. These discussions have led to the
creation of a new Director of Parking position, which is funded in the 2013 budget. Also growing out of
these discussions is a proposal to eliminate parking requirements in the City of Ithaca’s zoning code,
with a goal of adding green space, alleviating environmental impacts, encouraging alternative forms of
transportation, introducing a more market‐based approach to parking, and increasing housing
affordability. As it currently stands, there are no minimum parking requirements in several zones
around the city (neither the central business district nor the Waterfront zones have them, for instance),
and this proposal would eliminate them throughout the rest of the city, with the single exception of the
U‐1 zone that includes Cornell University. (Cornell University, through a special arrangement with the
City of Ithaca, has established a highly successful system of transportation demand management, and
further study is required before parking requirements could be eliminated in this area).
Minimum parking requirements refer to municipal codes that require developers to build a set number
of parking spaces in new construction, whether commercial or residential. They were originally
established in city zoning codes in the middle of the last century as a way of answering the demands of a
car‐oriented culture. By requiring developers to include parking in new construction, municipalities and
local governments hoped to create a steady supply of off‐street parking that would in turn alleviate
problems related to traffic congestion. On the surface, this idea appeared to be a good one: the creation
of more off‐street parking would seem to mean that fewer cars would be clogging up the existing spaces
on city streets.
However, the assumptions behind the creation of minimum parking requirements look increasingly
outdated when viewed in the context of evolving transportation behaviors, and a consensus has been
growing in the professional and academic planning communities that minimum parking requirements
make for bad urban policy. In recognition of these facts, many cities across the United States have taken
the step of eliminating or scaling them back, including Portland, San Francisco, Boston, and Washington
D.C. To critics, minimum parking requirements interfere with market choices and create an artificial
subsidy in favor of driving. One of the most notable of these critics is Donald Shoup, Professor of
Planning at UCLA, who writes that minimum parking requirements “distort transportation choices
toward cars, and thus increase traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption. They reduce
land values and tax revenues. They damage the economy and degrade the environment. They debase
architecture and urban design. They burden enterprise and prevent the reuse of older buildings. And
they increase the prices for everything except parking.”
In recent months, the debate over minimum parking requirements has come to Ithaca. Mayor Myrick
announced it as a priority in his State of the City address, and several local boards and committees have
voted in favor of their removal. Proponents of this change argue that extending the elimination of
minimum parking requirements from a few solely commercial zones to the entire City of Ithaca supports
good land use and transportation planning. They argue that requiring developers to build a certain
amount of parking carries many negative consequences for site design, housing affordability, travel
behavior, and the local and global environment. Furthermore, they point out that a citywide elimination
of the minimum parking requirements does not mean that developers will no longer construct parking.
On the contrary, they argue that developers will still provide parking because they see it as a value for
their customers – the only difference being that parking construction will be determined by the market
and not an arbitrarily calculated number of spaces.
However, the proposal has not been without its concerns. Some city residents have wondered what the
impact will be if renters continue to bring cars and park those cars on neighborhood streets that are
already congested by student drivers and commuters from out of town. Others are worried that lifting
the minimum parking requirements will kick off a wave of student rental housing development that
could lead to an undesirable pattern of density and the destabilization of owner‐occupied
neighborhoods. Finally, the concern has been expressed that the elimination of parking requirements
should not be treated as a stand‐alone item, but must be pursued in tandem with other measures, such
as the hiring of our new Parking Director and the implementation of a form‐based code in Collegetown
that would elevate the standards for building quality and create a better segue to the adjacent owner‐
occupied neighborhoods at the fragile edges.
Given these concerns, the proposal that follows should be considered in the context of two other
measures that will be pursued concurrently (but separately) with the elimination of minimum parking
requirements:
1) The hiring of a Director of Parking (coming in 2013) – Currently, parking management in the
City of Ithaca is spread out over several departments, and parking policy has suffered from a
lack of centralization. A Parking Director will be able to monitor and make recommendations
in the framework of other City policies and fiscal realities, tracking changes, fielding requests
and complaints, overseeing installation and management of on‐street pay stations (for
which there is already over $200,000 available in capital funding), recommending
modifications to pricing structures that respond to changing parking dynamics both on‐
street and in the garages, recommending formation of Parking Benefits Districts, among
other tasks.
2) The Introduction of a Form‐Based Code in Collegetown (to be circulated at March PEDC
meeting) – A form‐based code for Collegetown should be pursued alongside the elimination
of minimum parking requirements. It would create a consistent standard for all developers,
who could use the savings from not having to provide parking to build better‐sited, higher‐
quality buildings with a better relationship to the public realm. Furthermore, it would
incentivize student housing where it belongs: in the core of Collegetown.
Lastly, staff from the Building Department have alerted the Planning Committee that removing the
minimum parking requirements could increase occupancy rates in areas of the city where parking
requirements have been used to control building occupancy and where high demand for housing as led
to substandard conditions and exorbitant rents. It is critical that we don’t underestimate the importance
of this issue, since it has the potential to impact the safety of city residents. Possible solutions have been
discussed, such as regulating occupancy through a sprinkler code or only having the removal of
minimum parking requirements apply to new construction, but more discussion is needed in this area,
separate from the reform of parking management and the implementation of a form‐based code.
If the Committee is in agreement, staff will circulate the proposal for comment and return next month
for further discussion. It bears repeating that this proposal is still in its early stages and that circulation
doesn’t necessarily entail endorsement. Circulating the proposal to city staff and interested parties is an
important step in soliciting feedback that will guide Planning Committee members in their deliberation.
This is a work in progress, and as such, it is subject to revision and improvement.
If you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to contact Jennifer Dotson, Seph Murtagh, or
JoAnn Cornish.
A summary of specific changes to this lengthy code chapter follows.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHANGES:
This draft removes minimum parking requirements citywide, but does not add any maximum limits on
allowable parking. Following is an overview of specific changes in the draft legislation, listed in bullet
form and organized thematically.
Removing minimum parking requirements:
• No change is necessary to remove minimum parking requirements in zones R‐1, R‐2, WEDZ‐1a,
CBD zones, B‐1b, B‐2c, and WF zones, since none exist currently.
• Wording in various places is changed to reflect switch from minimums to no requirement, while
retaining requirements that spaces provided be constructed and maintained to a certain
standard. (325‐20D3)
• Option for minimum parking requirements to be fulfilled through provision of parking on
another parcel within 200, 250 or 500 feet walking distance (the “off‐site parking method”) is
removed completely. (325‐20D4 removed)
• Purpose and intent of off‐street parking section is adjusted to reflect change in approach. (325‐
20A)
• Approach to counting end‐to‐end parking spaces is flagged for possible adjustment during final
review by working group. (325‐20D3e)
• Size calculations are modified to control for too‐large as well as too‐small spaces. (325‐20D5)
• Requirement to conform with minimum parking requirements is removed from the definition of
nonconforming building, structure or lot, language is made simpler. Similar changes are made
regarding repair or changes to nonconforming uses or structures. (325‐3, 325‐32)
Other:
• “Building Commissioner” is changed to “Director of Zoning Administration” as per recent staffing
structure changes. (325‐9B, 325‐20D1a, 325‐20D3f, 325‐20J)
Unchanged:
• Layout, site plan, access, screening, lot coverage, drainage, maintenance and other
requirements unrelated to counting of spaces. Stricter site plan and other requirement for
parking areas with capacity for three or more parking spaces in residential zones. (325‐20D5)
• Front yard parking controls. (325‐20E)
• Controls for separation of sidewalks and parking areas, and setbacks, in the WEDZ and SW
zones. (325‐20H)
• All requirements for the U‐1 zone (including reporting and calculations of required number of
parking spaces). (325‐20J)
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
ELIMINATION OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
DRAFT PROPOSED LEGISLATION
March 8, 2013 Jennifer Dotson
§ 210-62. Parking spaces .[regarding mobile home developments]
§ 325-3. Definitions and word usage.
B. Specific terms or words. For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms or words herein, unless
the context or subject matter otherwise requires, shall be interpreted or defined as follows. These
definitions apply to this chapter; and, in order to retain conformity, they are applied also to the
Housing Code and Building Code of the City.
NONCONFORMING BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR LOT
A building, structure or lot of record legally existing at the time of enactment of this
chapter, or any subsequent amendment, which does not conform to the parking or
dimension requirements for the district in which it is located.
§ 325-8. District regulations.
A. The District Regulations Chart is hereby made a part of this chapter. Editor's Note: The
District Regulations Chart is located at the end of this chapter. Column heads on the District
Regulations Chart are defined as follows:
[Column removed, subsequent columns renumbered.]
§ 325-20. Off-street parking.
A. Purpose and intent. The intent of this section is to regulate uniformly the development and
maintenance of off-street parking for both public and private uses. The following regulations
are designed to minimize any detrimental effects to adjacent properties, to surrounding
neighborhoods and to the environment.
B. Applicability. Except as specified in § 325-8, the District Regulations Chart, which is
available in the City Clerk's office, § 325-20 shall, after the effective date, govern the creation,
alteration or expansion of all off-street parking areas. Section 325-20 shall also govern the
maintenance of all off-street parking areas.
C. Nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this section or in
the District Regulations Chart, the amount of off-street parking permitted on a property
containing a nonconforming use shall not exceed the amount of parking determined to have
existed on said property at the time it became a nonconforming use, and shall not be extended
Formatted: Left: 72 pt, Right: 72
pt
Deleted: February 7, 2013
Deleted: Two paved parking spaces
shall be provided for each mobile home
lot off the street. Each parking space shall
have a minimum of 153 square feet.
Deleted: minimum
Deleted: (4) Column 4: Off-Street
Parking Requirement. The off-street
parking spaces listed in this column shall
be provided for each building hereafter
erected or altered. In addition, see Article
IV and §325-20. ¶
Deleted: provide adequate parking and
safe vehicle movements while
Deleted: ing
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
onto or relocated to a different part of the lot or parcel in question or elsewhere, unless a use
variance is granted for such additional parking.
D. General requirements.
(1) Required submissions and approvals.
(a) Site plans and building permit. In all zoning districts, no parking area or driveway may
be constructed, added to, altered, or resurfaced (except for routine repairs in kind or
other minor alterations of an existing parking area, other than resurfacing, that do not
change the parking area or driveway's size, capacity, configuration, or drainage
characteristics) until a building permit has been issued. All such building permits shall
be in accordance with this chapter's requirements. Prior to obtaining a building permit,
the applicant must submit two dimensioned plans, drawn to scale, one indicating the
existing conditions, and one that indicates the proposed conditions, including the
locations of all of the green areas, parking areas, associated maneuvering areas and
driveways, any required screening, direction of ground slope, and drainage provisions,
and includes a calculation in square feet of the area of paving and the area of the yard in
which paving already exists or is proposed to be constructed.
(b) Certificate of appropriateness. Any proposed parking development in areas under the
jurisdiction of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission must obtain a certificate
of appropriateness from the Commission before a building permit can be issued.
(c) Site plan review. The creation or expansion of off-street parking areas is also subject to
site plan review, unless such development falls below the applicability thresholds set
forth in Chapter 276 of this Code. (See Chapter 276 for the applicability of site plan
review which, if required, must be completed before a building permit can be issued.)
(d) Neighborhood parking area. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
chapter, and in addition to any other generally applicable requirements, the creation or
expansion of a neighborhood parking area (as defined in § 325-3, under "parking area")
in an R-3 or R-U district shall require a special permit.
(e) Street permits. No curb cut, driveway entrance and/or drain pipe in the street right-of-
way shall be built or installed unless a street permit has first been obtained from the City
Engineer.
(f) City tree removal. There shall be no removal of any tree located on City property unless
approval has first been granted by the City Forester.
(2) General standards for all off-street parking areas, driveways and curb cuts.
(a) Parking. All off-street parking must occur in approved parking spaces, parking areas or
parking lots meeting the general standards for all off-street parking areas in § 325-
20D(2). Parking is specifically not permitted on lawns, sidewalks, or other spaces not
developed as a parking space.
(b) Clear boundaries. All parking areas, including associated driveways and vehicle
maneuvering areas, shall have clearly defined boundaries. A "clearly defined boundary"
shall mean, at a minimum, the existence of a distinct edge to the material used to pave
the parking area, such that the yard area where parking is permitted is clearly
distinguished from the yard area where parking is not permitted. Where approved
parking areas are contiguous with sidewalks or other paved areas, there shall be a
minimum four-inch-high curb or other equivalent continuous permanent barrier
separating the parking area from other paving, except as required to allow for
accessibility.
Deleted: therefor
Deleted: by the Building
Commissioner.
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
(c) Physical character of parking spaces. Each parking space shall be even-surfaced and
internally unobstructed by structures, walls, landscape elements or other obstructing
features, except that low curbs or wheel stops may be located within or adjoining a space
if they do not impede vehicular access to or egress from the parking space. The surface
of the parking area and that portion of the access driveway which is not included in
Subsection D(2)(e)[1] below shall conform to standards and specifications available at
the office of the City Engineer and shall at a minimum be a maintainable surface which
will support the sustained loads. Acceptable surface materials include crushed stone,
brick, concrete, asphalt, permeable pavement, or similar materials.
(d) Drainage. All newly constructed or enlarged parking areas, including associated
driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas, shall have adequate provisions to prevent
surface or runoff water from draining to or across adjoining properties, sidewalks or
streets during, at a minimum, a two-year storm event, and shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control.
In the event of inconsistency, the provisions of Chapter 282 shall prevail. Stormwater
runoff shall not be designed to flow across any public sidewalk as a primary method of
delivering the runoff to a stormwater facility. All drainage systems in existing parking
areas shall be maintained in good working order. For more detailed requirements for
parking areas with the capacity for three or more parking spaces on lots within
residential zoning districts, see also Subsection F, and for parking areas on lots in
nonresidential zoning districts, see also Subsection G.
(e) Access requirements. All parking spaces shall have access to the street by way of a
driveway.
[1] The portion of access driveways extending from the street to the sidewalk, or to the
property line if no sidewalk exists, must be hard-surfaced with concrete, brick,
asphalt or other approved material, as required by the City Engineer.
[2] Driveways must be at least eight feet wide in residential zoning districts and at least
10 feet wide in nonresidential zoning districts, and must have clear visibility to the
street. Any required screening must be so designed that it shall not interfere with sight
lines necessary for pedestrian and driver safety.
[a] Maximum driveway grades. Driveways to areas containing parking spaces for
three or more vehicles shall be graded to form a street entry with a maximum grade
of 8% for a distance of 25 feet from the curbline.
[b] Adjacent driveways and combined curb cuts. Driveways on adjacent lots may be
side by side or may be combined.
[3] Driveway aisles. Where permitted, one-way driveway aisles shall have a minimum
width of 10 feet and a maximum width of 12 feet. Two-way driveway aisles shall
have a minimum width of 20 feet and a maximum width of 24 feet.
(f) Required maintenance. So long as they remain in use as such, all parking areas and
associated driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas as well as any required screening,
plantings and drainage systems must be maintained to preserve their intended function
and to prevent nuisances or hazards to people, surrounding properties and public ways.
Any planting required by the provisions of this section (such as planting for the purpose
of screening or shading) that dies or, in the opinion of the City Forester, becomes too
unhealthy to serve its intended function shall be replaced at the earliest occurring
suitable planting season by healthy planting that satisfies the provisions of this section.
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
(g) No refuse or litter. All parking areas, including associated driveways, vehicle
maneuvering areas and interior or peripheral planting areas, must be kept free of refuse
or litter.
(3) Maximum number of off-street parking spaces permitted in R-1 and R-2 districts; none
required for other districts, except for U-1.
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as
to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces in anyzoning district except the U-1
district in accordance with § 325-20J.
(b) Parking spaces for specific uses. Off-street parking spaces may be provided and shall be
maintained in accordance with § 325-20D(2) by the property owner for each use or
building which is newly established, erected or enlarged after the effective date of this
section (June 6, 2012).
(c) Maximum number of parking spaces in R-1 or R-2 districts. For each building or use
(including parking) on a property within an R-1 or R-2 zoning district, which building or
use is newly established, erected or enlarged after the effective date of this section (June
6, 2012), the maximum number of off-street parking spaces permitted shall be two.
Deleted: and number …all
Deleted: the following …s: WEDZ-1a,
CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120,
B-1b, and B-2c, WF-1 and WF-2
Deleted: and within the Collegetown
Parking Overlay Zone, temporarily, in
accordance with § 325-20D(3)(d)
Deleted: required …shall
Deleted: , as specified in the chart
below
Deleted: Use1
Deleted: Adult day-care home or group
adult day-care facility
Deleted: Dormitory
Deleted: Dwelling unit
Deleted: Fraternity, sorority or group
house
Deleted: Rooming or boarding house
Deleted: Auditorium or theater
Deleted: Bar, tavern or restaurant
Deleted: Bed-and-breakfast home or
bed-and-breakfast inn
Deleted: Bowling alley
Deleted: Church, funeral home or
mortuary
Deleted: Fitness center or health club
Deleted: Home occupation requiring
special permit
Deleted: Hospital or nursing or
convalescent home
Deleted: Hotel or motel
Deleted: Medical or dental office
Deleted: Nursery school, child day-care
Deleted: Office or bank
Deleted: Retail store or neighborhood
Deleted: Wholesale or industry
Deleted: Boat launch
Deleted: Boat storage or repair
Deleted: Boatel
Deleted: Marina
Deleted: Yacht club
Deleted: Human service agencies and
Deleted: NOTES:
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 3
... [11]
... [3]
... [5]
... [12]
... [6]
... [13]
... [7]
... [14]
... [8]
... [1]
... [9]
... [2]
... [10]
... [4]
... [24]
... [18]
... [25]
... [19]
... [26]
... [20]
... [27]
... [21]
... [28]
... [22]
... [29]
... [23]
... [15]
... [30]
... [16]
... [31]
... [17]
... [32]
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
.
(4) Parking space, driveway, and driveway aisle size requirements. For purposes of computing
number, spaces shall not vary more than 15% above or below the dimensions outlined.
(a) Parking space size requirements for parking areas with 10 or fewer parking spaces. For
such parking areas, a parking space shall have a dimension of eight feet by 18 feet,
exclusive of pedestrianways, maneuvering space and driveways appurtenant thereto and
giving access thereto. The edge of the parking space pavement may be up to two feet
inside the outermost line of the parking space where unobstructed vehicle overhang is
available. All parking spaces shall have adequate access.
(b) Parking space size requirements for parking areas with 11 or more parking spaces.
[1] Perpendicular parking. For parking perpendicular to the driveway aisle, parking
spaces shall be eight feet six inches by 18 feet. The edge of the parking space
pavement may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the parking space where
unobstructed vehicle overhang is available.
[2] Parallel parking. For parking parallel to the driveway aisle, parking spaces shall be
eight feet six inches by 20 feet.
[3] Angle parking. For angle parking, a standard parking space shall have an area of 255
square feet, the length of which shall be measured, at the same angle of parking, from
the center of the outermost edge of the parking space to the center line of the
driveway aisle giving access to the parking space. The edge of the parking space
pavement may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the parking space where
unobstructed vehicle overhang is available.
(c) Possible variation from above standards under site plan review. The Planning and
Development Board may, at its discretion, allow parking space sizes that vary from the
above standards in those instances where Chapter 276, Site Plan Review, applies.
(d) Parking for people with disabilities. For parking for people with disabilities, the
combined width of parking and access aisle shall be in compliance with the New York
State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Signage as required by the New
York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code shall be provided for all
accessible parking spaces and associated access aisles.
E. Parking in front yards.
(1) In all residential districts, all front yard parking within 15 feet of the front property line is
restricted to a motor vehicle orientation that is within 10° of perpendicular to the street.
(2) In all residential districts, parking in the front yard of lots which have a width at the street
line of 50 feet or less shall be restricted to parking within a driveway that is perpendicular
to the street or that is within 10° of perpendicular to the street. Such driveway shall not be
more than 12 feet wide for the portion that passes through the front yard.
(3) In all residential districts, parking in the front yard of lots which have a width at the street
line of more than 50 feet shall be restricted to an area not greater than 25% of the total area
of the front yard, including turnaround and other vehicle maneuvering areas and driveways
leading to garages and parking areas. The setback for any such parking area must meet the
minimum front yard setback dimensions specified in § 325-8, District Regulations Chart,
Editor's Note: A copy of the District Regulations Chart is on file in the City Clerk's office.
for the zoning district in which the parking area is to be constructed.
Deleted: 4
Deleted: Boat-launching ramps shall
maintain 75% of their parking spaces at a
size of 10 feet by 40 feet to accommodate
boat trailers. Consult the New York State
Parks and Recreation Department on
space requirements for maneuvering.
Deleted: (d) Parking spaces required in
the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone,
temporarily. ¶
[1] Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, in the CPOZ,
required off-street parking for residential
uses in the R-3a and R-3b Zoning
Districts (Residential) and the B-2a and
B-2b Zoning Districts (Business) shall be
one space for every two resident
occupants in the areas designated CPOZ
on the map entitled "Collegetown Parking
Overlay Zone," dated June 2000, a copy
of which is on file in the Ithaca City
Clerk's office, until six months after the
removal of other minimum parking
requirements (other than in the U-1 zone)
become effective. ¶
Deleted: [2] The requirements
contained in § 325-20D(3)(c) shall not
apply to buildings existing within the
designated areas, as of October 4, 2000.
Parking requirements for such buildings
within these areas shall remain as
specified in the chart in § 325-20D(3)(b),
provided that there is no increase in the
number of resident occupants.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this Code, in cases where the
number of resident occupants is
increased, the parking requirements of the
Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone shall
be applied only to the additional resident
occupants. ¶
Deleted: (e) Enclosed parking spaces
that meet the minimum parking space
size requirements shall be counted toward
meeting the required allowed number of
parking spaces. ¶
(f) Counting of end-to-end parking
spaces. When determining the number of
off-street parking spaces provided to
fulfill the number of off-street parking
spaces required for a use, no more than
one pair of end-to-end parking spaces
shall be counted, unless all spaces have
adequate maneuvering space or direct
Deleted: (4) Location requirements;
off-street parking areas. All required
parking spaces provided pursuant to this
section shall be on the same lot as the
building, use or activity that they serve,
or may be located off site on another lot
Deleted: 5
Deleted: minimum
Deleted: minimum
... [34]
... [33]
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
(4) In all residential districts, on corner lots with more than one front yard as defined in this
Code, front yard parking according to the above provisions shall only be permitted on one
of the front yards.
(5) In all residential districts, where a parking area will use a front yard, the use of the front
yard for parking and associated maneuvering space shall not exceed the amounts permitted
by this section nor the amounts permitted by any other applicable provisions of this Code,
including § 325-20D(3)(c). Any permitted front yard parking area shall have a clearly
defined boundary as required by § 325-20D(2)(b), and the remainder of the front yard shall
be landscaped as a green area in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
(6) In all districts, when a parking area is established on a lot that does not contain a building,
an area equivalent to the front yard that would be required if a building did stand on the site
shall be kept free of parking (except for an access drive to the parking area). The area
equivalent to the front yard that would be required if a building did stand on the site shall
be landscaped in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and shall be separated and
protected from the parking area by a suitable fence or safe barrier. (See the more detailed
screening requirements described below for parking areas within residential zoning
districts.)
F. Requirements for new or enlarged parking areas with the capacity for three or more parking
spaces on lots within residential zoning districts but only insofar as otherwise permitted in any
given district.
(1) Required permits. A new or enlarged parking area, with the capacity for three or more
parking spaces, on a lot within a residential zoning district requires site plan approval (see
Chapter 276) and a building permit. Plans submitted must include a site plan drawn to scale
with all existing and proposed green areas, parking areas, associated maneuvering areas
and driveways clearly indicated and dimensioned, must indicate required screening, ground
slope and drainage provisions and must include a calculation in square feet of the area of
paving and the area of the yards in which paving already exists or is proposed to be
constructed. No building permit shall be issued unless the requirements of § 325-20D(1)
are met.
(2) Screening. The entire parking area, except entrances and exits, shall be screened from
public ways and adjacent properties. Screening devices shall be at least four feet high,
except where they are within 10 feet of the entrance or exit, or within 20 feet of a property
lot corner at a street intersection. Screening may consist of hedge planting, walls, fences,
trellises or a compatible combination of these elements. Screening is not required where the
parking area is screened from the view of adjoining properties by buildings or other
accessory structures, or sufficiently dense vegetation located on the same parcel as the
parking area. Similarly, screening is not required where buildings or accessory structures
without windows or other openings facing the parking area or other such screening devices
exist on neighboring parcels and effectively screen the parking area. However, upon
removal of said building, accessory structure or other such screening device by the
adjoining property owner, the required screening shall be installed within one year.
(a) Planting for the purpose of screening. Planting for the purpose of screening shall form a
year-round dense screen at least four feet high within two years of the initial planting.
Planting areas shall be curbed or otherwise protected from vehicle damage on the
parking area sides, be at least eight feet wide and have a minimum three-foot-deep
excavation prior to planting.
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
(b) Fences and walls for the purpose of screening. Fences for the purpose of screening must
be sufficiently opaque, whether alone or in combination with planting or other design
elements, to function as an effective visual barrier. Walls for the purpose of screening
must be compatible in scale, texture and color with surrounding structures.
(3) Maximum parking area coverage. In order to protect the character of residential areas,
plans for parking areas with the capacity of three or more cars within residential zoning
districts that permit three or more cars must conform to either the setback compliance
method or the landscaping compliance method described respectively in § 325-20F(3)(a)
and (b) below. Before applying for a variance from this requirement, an applicant must
show that neither method is feasible. Such plans must also comply with all other general
and specific standards of § 325-20 and with the District Regulations Chart. Editor's Note: A
copy of the District Regulations Chart is on file in the City Clerk's office. Where
turnarounds or other maneuvering spaces not required for access to parking spaces are
provided that meet minimum size for a parking space, they shall be counted as a parking
space for the purpose of this Subsection F(3).
(a) Setback compliance method. Parking areas using the setback compliance method shall
conform to the following standards:
[1] Setbacks. The parking area shall not be located within the required minimum side or
rear yard setback areas established for the applicable zoning district by the District
Regulations Chart. These setbacks shall not apply to any driveway up to 12 feet in
width that provides access for vehicles.
[2] Maximum yard coverage. The parking area, excluding any driveway up to 12 feet in
width that provides vehicle access to a street, but including all other turnaround and
vehicle maneuvering areas associated with parking, shall not cover more than 50% of
any remaining side or rear yard, as such percentage is calculated after excluding the
required minimum side or rear yard setback areas specified for the applicable zoning
district by the District Regulations Chart. For the purposes of this calculation, the area
of a side or rear yard shall not include the building area of any building or accessory
structure located in the yard.
(b) Landscaping compliance method.
[1] A plan for a parking area using the landscaping compliance method shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Board for review. The required building
permit shall not be issued until a plan approved by the Board or the Board's designee
(and a certificate of appropriateness is on file with the Building Department where
applicable; see below) is on file in the Building Department.
[2] The Planning and Development Board may, at its discretion, approve a parking area
that covers more than 50% of any side or rear yard (as calculated after excluding the
minimum setback areas specified for the applicable zoning district, per the District
Regulations Chart), if the Board finds that mitigating factors such as, but not limited
to, the following exist:
[a] Natural land forms or tall vegetation provide significant shielding of views toward
the parking area from the street and/or adjacent properties.
[b] The configuration of the parking area protects and preserves existing healthy and
mature vegetation, especially trees over eight-inch DBH (diameter at breast
height).
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
[c] One or more curbed and landscaped planting areas are provided within the parking
area. Any such interior planting area shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no
dimension being less than eight feet.
[d] The parking area will be substantially shaded by existing woodland or canopy
trees, or the parking area plans call for the planting of trees of a species that, at
maturity, will provide canopy shading. Trees currently or prospectively providing
such shade may be located around the periphery of the parking area or in interior
planting areas. Any such interior planting area accommodating such canopy trees
shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no dimension being less than eight feet.
Such interior planting areas shall be curbed and have a minimum three-foot-deep
excavation prior to planting.
[3] All property owners using the landscaping compliance method must notify
surrounding property owners by placing a notice at the project site in a form
prescribed by the Planning and Development Board.
[4] The Board shall be under no obligation to approve a parking area using the
landscaping compliance method; any such approval is discretionary.
[5] In the event that the proposed parking area is under the jurisdiction of the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission, the proposed plan shall also be submitted to
the Commission for its review. The role of the Commission shall be limited to ruling
on the appropriateness of the plan in relation to any adverse impact on the aesthetic,
historical or architectural significance or value of the landmark or site in question. A
building permit shall not be issued for a plan that has not received a certificate of
appropriateness by the Commission, where such a certificate is required.
(4) Drainage. Surface or runoff water must be collected and transmitted or piped to the nearest
storm sewer or, if a storm sewer is not available, then through underground piping to the
street gutter, or provisions shall be made for stormwater retention or recharge. Stormwater
drainage systems, including their connections to public stormwater facilities, shall be in
accordance with this Code and with the provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater
Management and Erosion and Sediment Control, and shall be subject to approval by the
City Engineer. The applicant must provide runoff calculations for the parking area for a
two-year storm event and must calculate the appropriate pipe sizes and additional
collection devices necessary to carry the water to the public stormwater system. When
conditions warrant, the City Engineer may require installation of a sump in the last
structure in a parking area runoff collection system prior to the delivery of stormwater to a
public stormwater facility. Installation, maintenance and repair of any pipe delivering
stormwater to a public stormwater facility shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
Such installation, maintenance and repair within a public right-of-way shall only be
performed with the written permission of the City Engineer.
(5) Maintenance. The landscaping or other elements used to comply with § 325-20F shall be
maintained, replaced or pruned as required to fulfill this section's standards, including
provision of the required screening and compatibility with the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
G. Parking areas on lots in nonresidential zoning districts. Plans complying with the
requirements of this section shall be submitted for any employee, customer and/or public
parking area on a lot in a nonresidential zoning district, or for a residential parking area with
the capacity for three or more cars on a lot in a nonresidential zoning district, for the required
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
building permit. Plans submitted must include a site plan drawn to scale with all existing and
proposed parking areas, associated maneuvering areas and driveways clearly indicated and
dimensioned, and must indicate required screening, ground slope and drainage provisions.
The plans shall conform to the following regulations and standards, in addition to all other
applicable portions of § 325-20:
(1) Access. The portion of access drives extending from the street to the sidewalk, or to the
property line, if no sidewalk exists, must be hard-surfaced with concrete, brick, asphalt or
other approved material as required by the City Engineer. Drives must be at least 10 feet
wide and have clear visibility to the street. Edges of access drives shall be readily visible,
and divisions between lanes on multilane access drives shall be marked.
(2) Drainage. Surface or runoff water must be collected and transmitted or piped to the nearest
storm sewer or, if a storm sewer is not available, then through underground piping to the
street gutter, or provisions shall be made for stormwater retention or recharge. Stormwater
drainage systems, including their connections to public stormwater facilities, shall be in
accordance with this Code and with the provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater
Management and Erosion and Sediment Control, and shall be subject to approval by the
City Engineer. The applicant must provide runoff calculations for the parking area for a
two-year storm event and must calculate the appropriate pipe sizes and additional
collection devices necessary to carry the water to the public stormwater system. When
conditions warrant, the City Engineer may require installation of a sump in the last
structure in a parking area runoff collection system prior to the delivery of stormwater to a
public stormwater facility. Installation, maintenance and repair of any pipe delivering
stormwater to a public stormwater facility shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
Such installation, maintenance and repair within a public right-of-way shall only be
performed with the written permission of the City Engineer.
(3) Parking areas on nonresidential zoning district lots when such lots are contiguous to
residential zoning district lots. A parking area on a nonresidential zoning district lot when
such lot is contiguous to a residential zoning district lot shall be screened from the
residential zoning district lot by a solid fence or wall at least six feet high, except within 10
feet of the parking area's entrance or exit. Such fence or wall shall be protected by wheel
stops that prevent cars from damaging the fence or wall. Such screening is not required
where the parking area is screened from the view of the adjoining residential property by a
building or other accessory structure located on the same parcel as the parking area.
Similarly, such screening is not required where a building or accessory structure without
windows or other openings facing the parking area or other such screening device exist on
adjoining residential parcels and effectively screen the parking area. However, upon
removal of said building, accessory structure or other such screening device by the
adjoining property owner, the required screening shall be installed within one year.
H. Parking in WEDZ-1 District. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary,
where off-street parking abuts the sidewalk in the WEDZ-1a or WEDZ-1b District, the two
areas must be separated by a low wall, with or without plantings, or a planted hedge. The
setback of the wall or hedge must meet the fifteen-foot minimum, twenty-foot maximum
setback requirement for new buildings. The area of the setback shall include a minimum
eight-foot-wide tree lawn, a minimum five-foot-wide sidewalk and an additional two-foot
distance between the sidewalk and the wall or hedge. Where a fifteen-foot setback is not
feasible, the Planning and Development Board may approve a minimum eleven-foot-wide
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
sidewalk between the curb and the building facade. If parking and sidewalk are separated by a
low wall, the wall must be no less than three feet and no greater than four feet high. A hedge
planting may be substituted if the planting area is at least four feet wide. The hedge shall be
no less than three feet and no greater than four feet high.
I. Parking in the Southwest Area. Parking areas are not permitted in the first 100 feet measured
from the nearest curb of a public street, unless the minimum setback requirements for the
Southwest Area Zoning District have been met in accordance with § 325-29.2B(1) through
(3).
J. Parking for the U-1 Zoning District.
(1) For the purpose of this section, "main campus" shall be defined as the area outlined on the
map entitled "Main Campus Parking Inventory, Cornell University Planning Office, March
2006," or on any updated map as provided for in § 325-20J(7) below, a copy of which map
is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's office.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the overall required parking
spaces for the U-1 Zoning District shall be the difference between the basic required
number of parking spaces and the number of credited spaces for participation in the Cornell
University Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
(a) The basic required number of parking spaces shall be calculated using the following
ratios derived from the Travers Associates' Ithaca/Cornell Parking Study of February
1998:
[1] One parking space for each seven undergraduate students; and
[2] One parking space for each two graduate students; and
[3] Three parking spaces for each four employees; and
[4] One additional parking space for each 25 undergraduate students, graduate students
and employees combined.
(b) The number of credited parking spaces for participation in the TDM Program shall be
calculated using the same ratios derived from the Travers Associates' Study of February
1998, to wit:
[1] One credited parking space for each seven participating undergraduate students; and
[2] One credited parking space for each two participating graduate students; and
[3] Three credited parking spaces for each four participating employees; and
[4] One additional credited parking space for each 25 participating undergraduate
students, graduate students and employees combined.
(3) Only full-time undergraduate and graduate students, full-time employees and the full-time
equivalents of each who are assigned to or have their primary place of study or work on the
main campus shall be included in the above calculations. For the purpose of this section,
"full-time undergraduate and graduate students" are defined as students enrolled in 12
credits or more per semester; "full-time employees" are defined as employees who are
employed at least 35 hours per week; and "full-time equivalents" are defined as the number
of part-time students or employees whose combined credit enrollment equals 12 credits per
semester or whose combined hours of employment totals 35 hours per week.
(4) It is the purpose of the requirement in Subsection J(2)(a)[4] and (b)[4] above to account
for parking required for visitors, vehicles with handicapped permits, service vehicles, off-
street loading, occasional parkers, and other miscellaneous parking demands.
(5) Parking spaces need not be specifically designated or used as set forth in Subsection J(2)
above so long as the total number of spaces is available.
Deleted: I
Deleted: I
Deleted: I
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
(6) Parking spaces required above may be provided at any place or places located on the main
campus or any other locations within Tompkins County which are owned, rented or
otherwise utilized for parking purposes by the institution or its affiliated institutions,
without regard to municipal boundary. To be so counted, any parking spaces located
outside the main campus must be utilized for parking by persons who are going to the main
campus and must be connected by bus service to, or be within a reasonable walking
distance of, the main campus. Any spaces located outside the main campus shall not be
considered to satisfy the parking requirements established herein if they are being counted
to satisfy the parking requirements of any other section of this chapter, or the parking
requirements of any zoning ordinance of any other municipality, for uses other than those
located on the main campus.
(7) Parking spaces on the main campus shall be identified on the map, "Main Campus Parking
Inventory, Cornell University Planning Office, March 2006." The map shall provide the
names of prominent buildings and roads for the sake of geographical reference, and shall
provide inventory control numbers for parking areas along with the number of parking
spaces in each of the control areas. The Main Campus Parking Inventory map shall be
updated every five years following its original date in 2006 and shall be submitted to
Director of Zoning Administration by April 15 of the year that an update is required.
(8) The parking areas identified on the Main Campus Parking Inventory map shall also be
listed on a parking inventory spreadsheet, which shall give the inventory control number
and the number of spaces in each control area and shall also provide the total number of
parking spaces on the main campus. The spreadsheet shall be updated every year and shall
be submitted to Director of Zoning Administration by April 15 of each year.
Accompanying the spreadsheet shall be a summary of the parking changes that occurred in
the preceding year.
(9) If the parking spaces in any given control area are not delineated by striping, then the total
number of spaces shall be determined by using the parking space requirements outlined
under § 325-20D(4) of the City of Ithaca Parking Ordinance.
(10) Every year, by no later than April 15, Cornell University shall submit to Director of
Zoning Administration a parking report that shall include:
(a) The annual parking inventory spreadsheet and summary;
(b) A count of full-time undergraduate and graduate students, full-time employees and the
full-time equivalents of each who are enrolled or working at Cornell; and
(c) A count of full-time undergraduate and graduate students, full-time employees and the
full-time equivalents of each who are enrolled or working at Cornell and who are
enrolled in the TDM Program.
(11) Whenever 25 or more parking spaces on the main campus have been permanently deleted
after the last report to Director of Zoning Administration, Cornell shall provide Director of
Zoning Administration with a report stating where the spaces were removed as well as
provide a statement indicating the total number of parking spaces remaining on the main
campus.
(12) Upon receipt of this parking report, Director of Zoning Administration shall make a
determination of compliance with regard to the requirements of this Subsection I, and shall
submit the University's report and her/his determination to the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for discussion and comment. Copies of the report and Director of
Deleted: the Building Commissioner
Deleted: the Building Commissioner
Deleted: C(5)
Deleted: the Building Commissioner
Deleted: the Building Commissioner
Deleted: the Building Commissioner
Deleted: the Building Commissioner
Deleted: the Building Commissioner
Item # E2 b
Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold
Zoning Administration's determination shall also be provided to the Director of Planning,
Town of Ithaca, and the Zoning Officer, Village of Cayuga Heights, for their information.
§ 325-32. Repair, changes in use, extension or enlargement of nonconforming uses or
structures.
A. Repair of nonconforming uses or structures. Necessary or desired repair of any
nonconforming structure, or of any structure housing a nonconforming use, declared unsafe
by proper authority shall be accomplished in accordance with all applicable regulations.
B. Changes in nonconforming use. A nonconforming use may be changed only to a use
permitted in the district in which it is located. Once changed to a conforming use, no building
or land shall be permitted to revert to a nonconforming use.
C. Extension or enlargement of nonconforming uses or structures.
(1) A nonconforming use may not be extended or enlarged within or in association with the
structure where it is located, nor may a nonconforming use be extended or enlarged to all or
part of a structure or structures not already legally devoted to such use or to other land not
already legally devoted to such use, except by means of a use variance granted by the
Board of Appeals.
(2) A nonconforming structure which is used as permitted, and will continue to be used as
permitted, in the district in which it is located, but does not comply with the lot size
requirement and/or parking requirements applicable in the district, may not be extended or
enlarged except by means of an area variance granted by the Board of Appeals; however, a
nonconforming structure may be enlarged without the necessity of obtaining such a
variance, provided that:
(a) The enlargement does not create a new, greater or additional nonconformity;
(b) The enlargement does not increase the occupancy previously permitted for the structure
unless the structure is, and will continue to be, a one- or a two-family dwelling; and
(c) The property is, and will continue to be, in compliance with the lot size and parking
requirements of the district in which it is located.
(3) A nonconforming structure which is used as permitted by this Code in the district in which
it is located cannot be extended or enlarged by increasing the numbers of unrelated
individuals residing within such structures or by increasing the number of dwelling units
contained within such structure except by means of an area variance granted by the Board
of Zoning Appeals; however, such a nonconforming structure may be extended or enlarged
without the necessity of obtaining such a variance if the property, in the enlarged or
extended condition, will comply with the parking and the lot size regulations of this chapter
for the particular district in which it is located.
(4) In all districts any legal nonconforming use or structure existing at the time of enactment
of this chapter, as amended, or subsequently constructed in compliance with a variance,
shall not be extended or enlarged except in compliance with the regulations of this chapter,
as amended for each particular district.
Deleted: minimum
Deleted: minimum
Page 4: [1] Deleted Jennifer 2/8/2013 12:21:00 AM
and number
Page 4: [1] Deleted Jennifer 2/8/2013 12:21:00 AM
all
Page 4: [2] Deleted Jennifer 2/8/2013 12:22:00 AM
the following
Page 4: [2] Deleted Jennifer 2/8/2013 12:22:00 AM
s: WEDZ-1a, CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, B-1b, and B-2c, WF-1 and
WF-2
Page 4: [3] Deleted Jennifer 12/23/2012 3:42:00 PM
required
Page 4: [3] Deleted Jennifer 12/23/2012 3:49:00 PM
shall
Page 4: [4] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Use1
Page 4: [4] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Spaces Required2
Page 4: [5] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Adult day-care home or group adult day-care facility
Page 4: [5] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 for client use, plus 1 per 2 supervisory staff or employees not residing on the premises
Page 4: [6] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Dormitory
Page 4: [6] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 4 persons housed
Page 4: [7] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Dwelling unit
Page 4: [7] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 3 bedrooms or sleeping rooms, plus 1 per 2 additional bedrooms or sleeping rooms,
plus 1 per additional bedroom or sleeping room in excess of 5 such rooms
Page 4: [8] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Fraternity, sorority or group house
Page 4: [8] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 2 persons housed
Page 4: [9] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Rooming or boarding house
Page 4: [9] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 3 sleeping rooms
Page 4: [10] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Auditorium or theater
Page 4: [10] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 5 seats
Page 4: [11] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Bar, tavern or restaurant
Page 4: [11] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 50 square feet of net floor area of the assembly space
Page 4: [12] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn
Page 4: [12] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per guest room1,3
Page 4: [13] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Bowling alley
Page 4: [13] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
2 per bowling lane
Page 4: [14] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Church, funeral home or mortuary
Page 4: [14] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 10 seating spaces
Page 4: [15] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Fitness center or health club
Page 4: [15] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 5 persons allowed as determined by the maximum occupancy load
Page 4: [16] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Home occupation requiring special permit
Page 4: [16] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 space3
Page 4: [17] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Hospital or nursing or convalescent home
Page 4: [17] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 5 patient beds
Page 4: [18] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Hotel or motel
Page 4: [18] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per guest room
Page 4: [19] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Medical or dental office
Page 4: [19] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 250 square feet of net assignable floor area
Page 4: [20] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Nursery school, child day-care center or private elementary or secondary school
Page 4: [20] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 2 employees plus 1 per 15 pupils enrolled
Page 4: [21] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Office or bank
Page 4: [21] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 250 square feet of net assignable floor area
Page 4: [22] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Retail store or neighborhood commercial facility
Page 4: [22] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 500 square feet of net assignable floor area
Page 4: [23] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Wholesale or industry
Page 4: [23] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 2 employees on maximum work shift
Page 4: [24] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Boat launch
Page 4: [24] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
8 per ramp4
Page 4: [25] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Boat storage or repair
Page 4: [25] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 2 employees on maximum shift
Page 4: [26] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Boatel
Page 4: [26] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 2 sleeping rooms
Page 4: [27] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Marina
Page 4: [27] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 4 berths
Page 4: [28] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Yacht club
Page 4: [28] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 4 member families
Page 4: [29] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Human service agencies and centers
Page 4: [29] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1 per 250 square feet of floor area
Page 4: [30] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
1
Page 4: [30] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
In the case of mixed use of a building or property, the space requirements shall be
computed for each use, and the total requirements for all uses shall be provided in
accordance with this section.
Page 4: [31] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
2
Page 4: [31] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
See also the District Regulations Chart Editor's Note: A copy of the District Regulations
Chart is on file in the City Clerk's office. for districts in which off-street parking is not
required.
Page 4: [32] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
3
Page 4: [32] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:29:00 PM
Unless the Zoning Board of Appeals, upon consideration of all relevant factors, including
but not limited to the easy availability of on-street parking or the expectation that a lesser
parking requirement will meet the parking needs of the use, determines during
consideration of the special permit that a lesser off-street parking requirement is
appropriate and will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Page 5: [33] Deleted Jennifer Dotson 2/7/2013 6:30:00 PM
(e) Enclosed parking spaces that meet the minimum parking space size
requirements shall be counted toward meeting the required allowed number of
parking spaces.
(f) Counting of end-to-end parking spaces. When determining the number of off-
street parking spaces provided to fulfill the number of off-street parking spaces
required for a use, no more than one pair of end-to-end parking spaces shall be
counted, unless all spaces have adequate maneuvering space or direct street
access. This is not to prevent the use of a parking area for more than a single pair
of end-to-end parking spaces if conditions warrant.
(g) Shared parking. In a case where two or more establishments on the same lot, or
on lots meeting the distance requirements found in § 325-20D(4)(d) of this
section, have substantially different operating times, the Building Commissioner
Director of Zoning Administration(or, in the case of a project subject to site
development plan review, the Planning and Development Board) may
approveshall, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Works,
reasonably estimate the joint use of parking spaces, provided that the Building
CommissionerDirector of Zoning Administration or the Board finds that the
intent of the requirements of § 325-20 is fulfilled by reason of lack of variation
in the probable time of maximum use by patrons and employees among such
establishments
Page 5: [34] Deleted Jennifer 12/23/2012 4:05:00 PM
(4) Location requirements; off-street parking areas. All required parking spaces
provided pursuant to this section shall be on the same lot as the building, use or
activity that they serve, or may be located off site on another lot or parcel other than
the lot or parcel on which the use is located or conducted, provided that such off-
site parking meets the distance and use district limitations as established below, is
not located in an R-1 or R-2 zoning district, and receives a special permit pursuant
to Article III.
(a) The lot or parcel containing the off-site parking area must be connected to and
accessible by vehicular traffic from a public street. Off-site parking cannot also
be counted toward compliance with the parking requirement for any other use
except for those uses for which the Building Commissioner has determined that
shared parking is appropriate, as provided for in § 325-20D(3)(g).
(b) Use district. An off-site parking area must be located on a lot or parcel located
in the zoning district in which the use which requires the off-street parking is
also a permitted use as a matter of right. Any off-site parking which is required
for compliance with the parking requirement for a use which is permitted by use
variance from the district regulations must also obtain a use variance for the off-
site parking area; in these instances the notice requirements of this chapter shall
apply to all lots involved. The notice requirements of this chapter shall apply to
all lots if a use variance is required.
(c) Pedestrianway required. A pedestrianway, which in this case may be private or
public, must connect the lots or parcels of both the use and the off-site parking
area. The pedestrianway must meet the standards of a public sidewalk or as
otherwise approved by the Board of Public Works.
(d) Distance from use. The distance from the lot or parcel containing the off-site
parking area and the lot or parcel containing the use which requires the off-site
parking shall be measured from parcel to parcel following and along the
pedestrianway that connects the off-site parking area to the use. Except where no
public sidewalk exists or where no crosswalks or corner-curb aprons exist within
125 feet of the lot or parcel which requires the off-site parking, pedestrianways
that cross a public street shall be measured in a way that only crosses such streets
at crosswalks or corner-curb aprons. The maximum distances of the
pedestrianway shall vary by use and shall be no longer than as follows:
[1] For mercantile uses, off-site parking lots or parcels must be within 250 feet of
the lot or parcel on which the use is conducted.
[2] For all other uses, off-site parking lots or parcels must be within 500 feet of
the lot or parcel on which the use is conducted.
(e) All land which is used to provide off-site parking must be restricted to that use
only, for as long as the building is occupied by the use which requires off-street
parking or until substitute parking, approved by the Building Commissioner, is
provided. Evidence of such off-site parking shall be provided in the form of a
recorded covenant, long-term lease or comparable document that is approved by
the Building Commissioner.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
FOR ELIMINATION OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Adopted at February 26, 2013 Planning and Development Board Meeting
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board (“Planning Board”) is empowered by § 4-23
B. (1) (c) of the City Code to advise “the Common Council regarding the preparation and revision
of the city ordinances related to planning, zoning, site plan review, signs, mobile home parks,
subdivisions, historic landmarks and/or districts, land use and related subjects properly within its
jurisdiction,” and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has discussed the issue and consequences of
minimum parking requirements on the built environment, and
WHEREAS, the August 22, 2012 Comprehensive Plan Planning Issues Report states that, in the
future, residents would like to see continued efforts and policies that focus on increasing the
variety of transportation options, so that Ithaca continues to become a less car-centric community,
and
WHEREAS, the literature of both the professional and academic planning community has
demonstrated strong evidence of the negative environmental impacts of requiring developers to
build either surface or covered parking. The impacts include an increase in single-occupancy
automobile use, increased traffic and congestion, and spillover into surrounding communities, and
WHEREAS, the negative impacts of mandated parking are self-evident across the entire city, in
all zones and districts, and
WHEREAS, developers continue to determine and provide, due to market forces and of their own
volition, parking in areas of the city with no minimum parking requirements, and
WHEREAS, minimum parking requirements encourage developers to build less housing and
increase the cost of each unit of housing, therefore causing housing to be less affordable than it
otherwise might be, and
WHEREAS, minimum parking requirements encourage developers to construct larger and
potentially monolithic buildings out of character with existing neighborhoods, due to the
economy of scale needed to finance the building and subsidize the large cost of parking, and
WHEREAS, parking requirements are not the only zoning or building code requirement used to
limit the type, scale, and character of development, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has the duty to conduct design review and
may place conditions on the aesthetic characteristics of development, regardless of whether or not
a property conforms to all zoning requirements and without any variances being sought, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Building Codes determine the type of occupancy and maximum
number of occupants in any building, in a way that protects the life safety of all occupants and
property, as well as the adjacent property. Any alteration, addition, or change of occupancy to a
building requires a building to meet the requirements of the New York State Building Codes; and
2
WHEREAS, minimum parking requirements reduce the likelihood that smaller non-conforming
buildings will be upgraded and improved, causing a significant hazard to the life safety of the
occupants of substandard buildings and limiting the potential for economic development, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca will be hiring a parking manager in 2013, who will be responsible
for maximizing the revenue from on-street parking by ensuring the current oversupply of parking
is utilized to the fullest extent possible. The revenue from on-street and public garage parking
may be used toward improvements to public infrastructure, and
WHEREAS, eliminating parking requirements will neither reduce the current supply of parking,
nor force people to change their current behavior, but it will encourage more transit options for
those people who do not drive, by choice or economic necessity; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board strongly recommends the Common
Council take immediate action to fully eliminate and disassociate any requirements to build
parking from the approval process for all private developments in all zones and districts within
city boundaries; and be it further
RESOLVED, that other measures to regulate private development shall be thoroughly discussed
with new regulations set forth as quickly as possible. These measures should be considered
within the context of a now virtually completed proposed Collegetown zoning amendment, and
future form-based code in Collegetown, as well as citywide, and should not rely on the
construction of, payment in lieu of the construction of, or any other subsidy to the construction of
parking and the incentivization of the single-occupancy automobile and/or consequently the
direct disincentivization of other modes of transit; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board strongly recommends that the Common
Council put in place as soon as practicable a system to charge the proper market-driven price for
public on-street and garage parking, and enact a system whereby such revenue directly benefits
specific areas from which these revenues are derived.
Moved by: Demarest
Seconded by: Blalock
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Elliott, Schroeder
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: Jones-Rounds, Rudan
Vacancies: 0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner Item # E 3a
DATE: March 12, 2013
RE: Proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts, dated March 12, 2013
In late spring 2012, a Collegetown working group was established to refocus on the implementation of
the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines. The working group, including Govind
Acharya, JoAnn Cornish, Graham Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, Mike Niechwiadowicz, Phyllis Radke, and
Megan Wilson, decided to concentrate on the preparation of a form-based code. Like the previous
proposal, the new Collegetown Area Form Districts, dated March 12, 2013, is a hybrid code; it combines
elements of form-based zoning with regulations of use and density. The proposed Collegetown Area
Form Districts are intended to:
• Encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction;
• Regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between higher-density and
lower-density zoning districts;
• Concentrate additional development in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character
of the established residential neighborhoods;
• Preserve and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic component
of the urban environment; and
• Promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of alternate modes of
transportation.
A key issue in the creation of the new Collegetown Area Form Districts was the overall simplification
and clarification of the previous proposal. To that end, the following changes were made:
• Reduction of number of proposed zones → Similar districts were combined to decrease the
number of proposed zones from ten to six.
• Elimination of new terminology and measurements where determined to be unnecessary →
Existing city-wide zoning definitions and methodology will be used whenever possible.
• General clarification of language to make the requirements easier to understand.
Additionally, a few form requirements were removed from the proposed code and will be addressed
through design review. The intention has always been that the proposed code will work with design
guidelines prepared for the Collegetown area. There is an approved capital project to prepare the design
guidelines, and with the completion of the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts, the next step will
be to begin work on these design guidelines.
1
Other major changes between the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts and the previous version
include:
• Removal of the parcel at the corner of Stewart Avenue and Williams Street from the form
districts → When reviewing the map of the form districts, the working group noted that this
parcel was the only area west of Eddy Street to be included in the proposed re-zoning. It was
originally included to ensure that new development would be compatible with the surrounding
historic properties. However, other protections including the site plan review process, the Gorge
Protection Zone, and the U-1 height limitations for properties adjacent to residential zones are in
place for this site. After considering these protections, the working group decided not to include
the property in the 2013 form districts proposal.
• Addition of a minimum green space requirement → Green space is essential for a healthy and
thriving community. While the City’s existing zoning and the previously proposed code for
Collegetown include requirements for maximum lot coverage by buildings, the proposed zoning
would require that a percentage of the lot be reserved for green space. This area cannot be used
for parking or paved to avoid yard maintenance.
• Increase in the maximum building height in feet within the proposed Mixed Use districts → As
noted above, one of the primary objectives of the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts is
to encourage exception urban design and high-quality construction. Building Division staff have
frequently reported that the City’s existing maximum building heights lead to crushed ductwork
and insufficient space for mechanicals. To address this concern, the previously proposed code
increased the maximum building height in feet while maintaining the maximum allowed number
of stories. However, upon closer study, the previous proposal still did not allow sufficient height
to construct a building with the required floor-to-floor heights and adequate space for
mechanicals. The current proposal still allows a maximum of five stories in MU-1 and six stories
in MU-2 but the maximum building heights in feet have been increased to 70 feet and 80 feet,
respectively. A building cannot exceed either requirement. While it may be feasible to design a
building with a greater number of stories within the maximum allowed height in feet, the
intention of the proposed code is to meet both required.
• Elimination of the minimum parking requirements in the proposed Mixed Use districts → The
proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts would eliminate minimum off-street parking
requirements in the two Mixed Use districts. These two districts include properties located in or
near the center of Collegetown. The area is well-served by multiple TCAT bus routes and is the
most heavily pedestrian-traveled in the city. Property owners would still be permitted to
construct off-street parking if they would like to do so. The proposed zoning would not
eliminate minimum parking requirements in the Collegetown Residential 3 and 4 districts;
however, the working group recognizes that a separate proposal is under consideration to
eliminate minimum parking requirements city-wide.
Attached is the current version of the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts, dated March 12, 2013.
As you review the document, you will notice that the diagrams need to be updated in accordance with
the proposed text. Once most revisions of the proposed code are complete, new diagrams will be
prepared, and the whole document will be reorganized into a format that is more user-friendly and easier
to understand. However, the maps and text included in this document are updated and have been
provided to begin the discussion on the proposed zoning.
Staff will attend the Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting on March 13th to present
the proposed zoning and answer questions. If you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting,
please contact Megan Wilson at mwilson@cityofithaca.org or 274-6560.
2
E
B D
C
A
F
§325-45 COLLEGETOWN AREA FORM DISTRICTS
ITHACA, NEW YORK
MARCH 12, 2013
DRAFT
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
E
L
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL
S
T
CR-1
CR-1 CR-1CR-1
CR-1
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2 CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3CR-3
CR-3
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
MU-1
MU-1
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
Item # E 3b
Collegetown Area Form Districts
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
H OLLIST
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL
S
T
CR-1
CR-1 CR-1CR-1
CR-1
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2 CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3CR-3
CR-3
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
MU-1
MU-1
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
Item # E 3b
SECTION 325-45 COLLEGETOWN AREA FORM DISTRICTS
CONTENTS
325-45.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ......................................................................1
A. Short Title..................................................................................................1
B. Intent .........................................................................................................1
C. Applicability .............................................................................................1
D Review and Approval Required ..................................................................1
E. Other Applicable Provisions .......................................................................1
325-45.2 DISTRICT STANDARDS ......................................................................3
A. Establishment of Districts ..........................................................................3
B. Definitions and Related Standards .............................................................3
C. District Map .............................................................................................6
D. Height Map ..............................................................................................7
E. Collegetown Residential (CR-1, CR-2, CR-3) ...........................................9
F. Collegetown Residential (CR-4) ..............................................................17
G. Mixed Use (MU-1, MU-2) .....................................................................21
325-45.3 USE TABLE ..........................................................................................29
Item # E 3b
This page left intentionally blank
Item # E 3b
1Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
325-45.1 General Provisions
A. Short Title
This section shall be known as the “Collegetown Area Form Districts.”
B. Intent
The intent of this section is to implement the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, endorsed by the
Common Council on August 5, 2009. This section establishes the zoning regulations necessary to guide implementation of the City-
endorsed vision for the redevelopment of property within the Collegetown area. Specifically, the Collegetown Area Form Districts are
intended to:
(1) Encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction;
(2) Regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between higher-density and lower-density zoning
districts;
(3) Concentrate additional development in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character of the established
residential neighborhoods;
(4) Preserve and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic component of the urban environment;
and
(5) Promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of alternate modes of transportation.
C. Applicability
(1) No building or land within any district of the Collegetown Area Form Districts shall hereafter be used or occupied and no
building or part thereof shall be erected, moved, or altered on its exterior unless in conformity with the regulations herein
specified for the district in which it is located.
(2) In the event that provisions of the Collegetown Area Form Districts conflict with other sections of the City Code, the
Collegetown Area Form Districts shall prevail.
(3) In cases of nonconforming uses, buildings, and lots, refer to Chapter 325 Zoning, Article VI.
D. Design Review and Approval Required
(1) All new construction (including parking lot construction or expansion) is subject to the design review process set forth in
Chapter 160, Design Review, of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.
(2) No building permit shall be issued or structure or building shall be erected, and no exterior of an existing building or
structure shall be altered, remodeled, enlarged or extended until the project or development has design review approval.
E. Other Applicable Sections
The following sections of Chapter 325 shall apply in the CR and MU districts. Those sections of Chapter 325 not listed below do not
apply within the CR and MU districts.
(1) § 325-2. Statutory authority, and purpose.
(2) § 325-3. Definitions, and word usage, except as modified in § 325-45.2 (B), Definitions and Related Standards.
(3) § 325-4. Establishment of districts.
(4) § 325-5. Zoning Map.
(5) § 325-6. Interpretation of boundaries.
(6) § 325-7. Application of regulations.
(7) § 325-8. District regulations.
(8) § 325-9. Standards. (Special Permits)
Item # E 3b
2 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12, 2013DRAFT
(9) § 325-10. Accessory Apartments.
(10) § 325-14. Application.
(11) § 325-15. Use regulations.
(12) § 325-16. Height regulations, except as expressly modified in this section.
(13) § 325-17. Area regulations.
(14) § 325-18. Yard regulations.
(15) § 325-20. Off-street parking.
(16) § 325-23. General standards applying to all land uses.
(17) § 325-25. Location of accessory structures.
(18) § 325-26. New structures along streams or inlets.
(19) § 325-29. Landmarks.
(20) § 325-29.1. Adult uses.
(21) § 325-29.3. Dumpsters.
(22) ARTICLE VA. Telecommunications Facilities, and Services.
(23) ARTICLE VI. Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Lots.
(24) ARTICLE VII. Administration and Enforcement.
(25) ARTICLE IX. Amendments.
(26) ARTICLE X. Penalties.
Item # E 3b
3Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
325-45.2 District Standards
A. Establishment of Districts
Six zoning districts are established for the Collegetown area. Districts are as follows:
Abbreviation District
CR-1 Collegetown Residential 1
CR-2 Collegetown Residential 2
CR-3 Collegetown Residential 3
CR-4 Collegetown Residential 4
MU-1 Mixed Use 1
MU-2 Mixed Use 2
B. Definitions and Related Standards
The definitions of §325-3 shall control, except where a definition is provided below.
(1) Building Height
(a) The existing definition of building height shall apply (refer to § 325-3 - “Height of Building”).
(b) Building heights in the CR and MU districts are regulated using feet and stories.
(c) The only parts of the building which may exceed the maximum building height are bulkheads, housing for mechanical
equipment, towers and similar constructions not intended for human occupancy, provided that the requirements of
§325-45.2B(11) are met.
(2) Top Story Limitation
(a) A third story with habitable space in CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 districts must be contained within a pitched roof. The
sloping portion of the roof shall terminate at a maximum one foot high exterior knee wall. The exterior knee wall height
does not apply to gable ends. Projecting eaves and dormers are permitted. The aggregate width of the dormers cannot
exceed 50% of the width of the roof on the side where the dormer(s) are located, except as may be allowed by design
review.
(b) Knee Wall
(1) Definition: A partial height wall, the height of which is measured from the top of the ceiling framing of the level
below the wall to the top plate of the wall.
(3) Required Vegetative Buffer
(a) A minimum 10’ vegetative buffer from the rear property line is required for all properties within CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3
districts.
(b) Accessory structures can be located within the vegetative buffer but must conform to required rear and side yard setbacks.
(c) Required landscaping must be permanently maintained in a healthy growing condition at all times.
(4) Parking Setback Line
(a) Definition: A line which extends vertically and parallel to the street, in front of which parking on the site is not allowed.
(b) The parking setback line is measured from the front property line.
(c) Surface parking areas shall be located behind the parking setback line.
(d) The parking setback line does not apply to on-street parking.
Item # E 3b
4 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12, 2013DRAFT
(5) Front Porches
(a) A front porch must be a minimum of 6 feet deep, not including steps.
(b) A front porch must cover at least 33% of the street-level story facade width of the building.
(c) A front porch must be roofed and edged by balustrades (railings) or low walls, and posts that extend up to the roof. The
entire front porch must be of open air construction with all exterior faces being at least 50% open.
(6) Front Stoops
(a) A front stoop shall be a maximum of five feet deep, not including steps, and a maximum of six feet wide.
(b) A front stoop may be roofed but not enclosed.
5’
max
(7) Utilities and Mechanical Equipment
All utilities and mechanical equipment must be screened from public view.
(a) Incorporation of mechanicals into stories with occupiable space is encouraged; if this is done, mechanicals will be
calculated as part of building height.
(b) Alternatively, mechanicals will not be measured as part of building height, provided that:
(1) The mechanical equipment is not incorporated into stories with occupiable space; and
(2) The mechanical equipment is architecturally integrated into the building per design standards; and
(3) The mechanical equipment is less than one-third of the building footprint and does not exceed 12’ in height above
the roof.
(8) Building Projections
No part of any building shall encroach into any setback or beyond any build-to line or area, except as described below:
(a) Overhanging eaves and bay windows may project up to two feet into any required setback.
(b) In CR districts, awnings and balconies may extend up to 5 feet from a lot line between adjoining parcels.
(9) Sample Footprint
In diagrams used to illustrate district standards, a sample footprint shows one possibility of building configuration. It is not
meant to regulate buildable area, but rather to show a possible placement of structures on the lot.
6’
min
Item # E 3b
5Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank
Item # E 3b
6 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12, 2013DRAFT
C. Collegetown Area Form Districts
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL
S
T
CR-1
CR-1 CR-1CR-1
CR-1
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2 CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3CR-3
CR-3
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
MU-1
MU-1
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
Item # E 3b
7Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
D. Maximum Height (in stories) Map
(1) Building heights in the CR and MU districts are regulated using feet and stories. A table illustrating the range of height
appears below:
MAX. & MIN. HEIGHT IN STORIES & FEET
District Max.
Stories
Min.
Stories Max. Feet Min. Feet
CR-1 3*2 35’19’
CR-2 3*2 35’19’
CR-3 3*2 35’19’
CR-4 4 2 45’19’
MU-1 5 3 70’30’
MU-2 6 4 80’45’
* Top Story Limitation - A third story with habitable space in CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 districts must be contained within a
pitched roof. The sloping portion of the roof shall terminate at a maximum one foot high exterior knee wall. The exterior
knee wall height does not apply to gable ends. Projecting eaves and dormers are permitted. The aggregate width of the
dormers cannot exceed 50% of the width of the roof on the side where the dormer(s) are located, except as may be allowed by
design review.
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
E
L
M
W
OO
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
WO RTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLI STER D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL S
T
3
3 3
3
3
33
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
33
3
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
Item # E 3b
8 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12, 2013DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank
Item # E 3b
9Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
E. Collegetown Residential 1-3 (CR-1, CR-2, CR-3)
PURPOSE & INTENT
The Collegetown Residential 1-3 (CR-1, CR-
2, CR-3) districts contain predominantly
residential structures occupied as single-family
homes, as duplexes, or as multiple residences
often rented by university students. The
intent is to maintain the existing housing
stock. Significant redevelopment within these
districts is neither anticipated nor encouraged.
Any new construction shall be similar in
form and scale, and the zoning requirements
of these districts are intended to protect the
character of the established residential
neighborhoods. Mandatory architectural
elements, such as front
porches and pitched roofs, ensure that new
construction is in keeping with the existing built
environment. All three districts have a maximum
building height of three stories, provided that the
third story is completely contained within the
required pitched roof. In addition,
buildings cannot exceed 35’ in height.
The Collegetown Residential 1-3 districts
accommodate single-family, two-family,
and multi-family uses, depending on the
district. More uses are permitted in those a
reas closer to central Collegetown, and more
protections are provided in those areas
approaching primarily owner-occupied
neighborhoods.
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL S
T
CR-1
CR-1 CR-1CR-1
CR-1
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2 CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3CR-3
CR-3
Item # E 3b
10 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Garage door setback Sample footprint
(1) Collegetown Residential 1 (CR-1)
SETBACKS
Front setback, min 10’
Garage door setback, from front facade, min 20’
I Surface parking area setback at front
facade
J Side setback, min 5’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
L Accessory structure, rear setback, min 6’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 30%
Green space, min 35%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family detached dwelling 6,000
2. Other uses 7,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 45
2. Other uses 50
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 3*
Height, max feet 35’
B Height, min stories 2
Height, min feet 19’
*A habitable third story must be contained within
a pitched roof. See §325-45.2B(2)
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd story floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
E
B D F
A
C
D
B C E
A
L
G
H
J
J
K
F
F
H
I
G
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
11Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
ELEMENTS USE
Collegetown Residential 1 (CR-1)
PERMITTED USES
Q Principal structure Residential
R Accessory structure Parking, Residential (by
Special Permit)
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
None
ROOF
Pitched roof required
Shed roof not allowed as primary roof
Pitch of principal gable, min/max 6:12/12:12
Height of exterior knee wall, max 1’
STREET FACADE
N Length of blank wall, max 12’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
O Functioning entry on the street-facing
facade, min
1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is
required on a street-facing facade
PORCH
P Front porch required
N
O
P
M
Q
R
M
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
12 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Garage door setback Sample footprint
(2) Collegetown Residential 2 (CR-2)
SETBACK
Front setback, min 10’
Garage door setback, from front facade, min 20’
I Surface parking area setback at front
facade
J Side setback, min 5’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
L Accessory structure, rear setback, min 3’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 35%
Green space, min 35%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 5,000
2. Other uses 6,000
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 45
2. Other uses 50
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 3*
Height, max feet 35’
B Height, min stories 2
Height, min feet 19’
*A habitable third story must be contained within
a pitched roof. See §325-45.2B(2)
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd story floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
D
B C E
A
L
G
H
J
J
K
F
H
I
F
G
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
13Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
ELEMENTS USE
Collegetown Residential 2 (CR-2)
PERMITTED USES
Q Principal structure Residential
R Accessory structure Residential, Parking
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
None
ROOF
Pitched roof required
Shed roof not allowed as primary roof
Pitch of principal gable, min/max 6:12/12:12
Height of exterior knee wall, max 1’
STREET FACADE
N Length of blank wall, max 12’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
O Functioning entry on the street-facing
facade, min
1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is
required on a street-facing facade
PORCH
P Front porch required
N
O
R
S
P Q
R
M
M
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
14 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Garage door setback Sample footprint
(3) Collegetown Residential 3 (CR-3)
SETBACK
Front setback, min 10’
Garage door setback, from front facade, min 20’
I Surface parking area setback at front
facade
J Side setback, min 5’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
L Accessory structure, rear setback, min 3’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 40%
Green space, min 30%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 3,000
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses:3,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 30
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses 40
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 3*
Height, max feet 35’
B Height, min stories 2
Height, min feet 19’
*A habitable third story must be contained within
a pitched roof. See §325-45.2B(2)
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd story floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
D
B C E
A
L
G
H
J
J
K
F
I
F
H
G
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
15Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
ELEMENTS USE
Collegetown Residential 3 (CR-3)
PERMITTED USES
R Principal structure Residential
S Accessory structure Residential, Parking
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS^
1. Residential: 1 space for every 2 resident occupants
2. Home occupation: 1 space
3. Neighborhood commercial facility: 1 space per 500
gross SF of floor area.
4. Other Uses: See §325-20.
^Minimum off-street parking requirements currently
under consideration.
ROOF
Pitched roof required
Shed roof not allowed as primary roof
Pitch of principal gable, min/max 6:12/12:12
Height of exterior knee wall, max 1’
STREET FACADE
N Facade length, max 45’
O Length of blank wall, max 12’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
P Functioning entry on the street-facing
facade, min
1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is
required on a street-facing facade
PORCH
Q Front porch required
P
O
R
S
Q R
S
M
M
N
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
16 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12,2013DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank
Item # E 3b
17Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
F. Collegetown Residential 4 (CR-4)
PURPOSE & INTENT
The Collegetown Residential 4 district primarily contains
multi-family dwelling units, and while single-family and two-
family residential uses are permitted, it is expected that multi-
family residential will remain the predominant use. The
intent is this will be a medium-density residential district,
consistent with the vision outlined in the 2009 Collegetown
Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines to concentrate
additional development in the central areas of Collegetown.
This district serves as an essential bridge, both in density and built
form, between the Collegetown Residential 1-3 and Mixed Use
districts. Redevelopment is encouraged, but it is essential that new
construction meet the district requirements to ensure a consistent
transition between the higher-density and lower-density zoning
districts. District regulations permit buildings of up to 4
stories and 45’ in height; a building must meet both requirements.
Maximum lot coverage by buildings is greater than in the
Collegetown Residential Districts 1-3 but not as high as allowed in the
Mixed Use Districts. In terms of form, the district requirements provide
property owners with choices between architectural features intended
to create buildings compatible with those in adjacent zoning districts.
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVIN G PL
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIA MS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL S
T
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
Item # E 3b
18 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT
SETBACK
G Front setback, min 10’
H Garage door setback, from front facade, min 20’
I Surface parking area setback at front
facade
J Side setback, min 5’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
L Accessory structure, rear setback, min 3’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 50%
Green space, min 25%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 3,000
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses:3,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 30
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses 40
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 4
Height, max feet 45’
B Height, min stories 2
Height, min feet 19’
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd-4th story floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Parking setback Sample footprint
(1) Collegetown Residential 4 (CR-4)
A
D
B
C E
K
J
J
LF
D
D
F
G
I
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
H
Item # E 3b
19Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
PERMITTED USES
Q Principal structure
Residential, Residential with
Internal or Underground
Parking*
R Accessory structure Residential, Parking
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS^
1. Residential: 1 space for every 2 resident occupants
2. Home occupation: 1 space
3. Neighborhood commercial facility: 1 space per 500
gross SF of floor area.
4. Other Uses: See §325-20.
*Internal or underground parking must be wrapped by
residential uses on street-facing facades (except for neces-
sary entries/exits) and may not be visible from a public
street. Other form requirements shall not interfere with
the location of necessary entries/exits to the internal or
underground parking.
^Minimum off-street parking requirements currently
under consideration.
ROOF
Pitched or flat roof allowed
STREET FACADE
M Facade length, max 45’
N Length of blank wall, max 15’
FRONT DOORS AND ENTRIES
O Functioning entry on the street-facing
facade, min
1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is
required on a street-facing facade
FRONT PORCH, FRONT STOOP, OR RECESSED ENTRY
P Required for each functional entry.
ELEMENTS USE
Collegetown Residential 4 (CR-4)
Q
R
M
N
PP
OO
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
20 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12,2013DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank
Item # E 3b
21Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
G. Mixed Use (MU-1, MU-2)
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRV ING PL
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL
S
T
MU-1
MU-1
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
PURPOSE & INTENT
The Mixed Use districts accommodate retail, office, service,
hotel, and residential uses, and in most cases, multiple uses
will be combined within the same building. The purpose is to
create a dynamic urban environment in which uses reinforce
each other and promote an attractive, walkable neighborhood.
Located in central Collegetown, the Mixed Use districts allow
the highest density within the Collegetown Area Form Districts.
Redevelopment is anticipated and encouraged, and the intent is to
concentrate the majority of additional development within these
districts.
The Mixed Use district regulations have been designed to
encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality
construction. The Mixed Use 1 district permits buildings of up
to 5 stories and 70’ in height while the Mixed Use 2 district allows
buildings of up to 6 stories and 80’ in height. A building cannot exceed
either requirement. While it may be feasible to design a
building with a greater number of stories within the maximum allowed
height in feet, the intent of the district regulations is to meet both
requirements. The additional building height in feet has
been allowed for the purpose of providing adequate space for
mechanicals and accommodating high-quality design features and
finishes.
An objective of both Mixed Use districts is to create an urban
form that gives priority to pedestrians and encourages year-round
commercial activity at the street level. Required form elements,
such as a maximum distance between entries and a maximum
length of blank wall, activate the street-level of buildings to
engage pedestrians through this highly-traveled section of
Collegetown. In addition, front setback requirements have been
incorporated to ensure adequate space to provide wider sidewalks,
and a safer pedestrian environment. A required 10’ chamfer or
additional setback at corner lots within the Mixed Use 2 district
will allow greater visibility and natural light at busy intersections.
Item # E 3b
22 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT
SETBACK
G Front setback, min 10’
H Surface parking area setback at front
facade
I Side setback, min 5’
J Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
K Accessory structure, rear setback, min 0’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 75%
Green space, min 10%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 3,000
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses:3,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 30
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses 40
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 5
Height, max feet 70’
B Height, min stories 3
Height, min feet 30’
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd-5th story floor to floor, min/max 9’/12’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Parking setback Sample footprint
(1) Mixed Use 1 (MU-1)
A
D
B
C E
D
D
D
J
I
I
KF
H
G
F
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
23Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
PERMITTED USES
P Principal structure Retail, Services, Office,
Residential, or Hotel
Q Accessory structure Residential, Parking
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
None
*Internal or underground parking must be wrapped by
one or more permitted use on street-facing facades (except
for necessary entries/exits) and may not be visible from a
public street. Other form requirements shall not interfere
with the location of necessary entries/exits to the internal
or underground parking.
ROOF
Pitched or flat roof allowed
STREET FACADE
L Facade length, max 75’
M Length of blank wall, max 15’
FRONT DOORS AND ENTRIES
N Distances between functioning entries, max 35’
Commercial entries must be functioning and
usable during business hours.
FRONT PORCH, FRONT STOOP, OR RECESSED ENTRY
O Required for each functional entry.
ELEMENTS USE
Mixed Use 1 (MU-1)
P
Q
L
M
O O
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
N
Item # E 3b
24 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT
SETBACK
G Front setback, min/max 0/2’
I Surface parking area setback, from front facade,
min 30’
J Side setback, min 0’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 10’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 100%
Green space, min 0%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. All uses 2,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. All uses 25
* See §325-45.2G(2) Siting Exceptions
(2) Mixed Use 2 (MU-2)
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 6
Height, max feet 80’
B Height, min stories 4
Height, min feet 45’
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min/max 12’/20’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D Floor to floor, min 10’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
SITING*
C
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Parking setback Sample footprint
A
D
B
I J
J
K
GD
D
D
DDIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
25Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
Mixed Use 2 (MU-2)
ROOF
Flat roof required.
STREET FACADE
Glazing, street-level story facade, min 65%
L Length of blank wall, max 15’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
M Distance between functioning entries, max 60’
Commercial entries must be functioning and
usable during business hours.
ELEMENTS USE
PERMITTED USES
N Street-level story
Retail, Services,
Hotel; Internal or
Underground Parking*
O Upper Stories Retail, Services, Office,
Residential, Hotel
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
None
*Internal or underground parking must be wrapped by
one or more permitted use on street-facing facades (except
for necessary entries/exits) and may not be visible from a
public street. Other form requirements shall not interfere
with the location of necessary entries/exits to the internal
or underground parking.
L
M
N
O
O
O
O
ODIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # E 3b
26 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12, 2013DRAFT
(3) Siting Exceptions
(a) The siting requirements for the MU-2 district are subject to the following exceptions:
(1) In order to accommodate wider sidewalks and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment, a setback of a
minimum of 5’ and a maximum of 7’ from the property line that abuts Dryden Road is required for all properties
on the south side of the 100- and 200-blocks of Dryden Road as designated on the map below.
(2) Buildings at all corner lots within the MU-2 district shall be chamfered at least 10’ from the corner or setback a
minimum of 5’ from both street frontages. If chamferred, the chamfer shall extend from the ground to the top of
the building, except for any stories that are stepped back beyond that dimension.
(3) All street-facing facades on corner lots shall be considered front facades.
(4) Street-Level Active Uses Required
(a) Active uses shall be defined as:
(1) Retail store or service commercial facility
(2) Restaurant, fast food establishment, tavern
(3) Theater, bowling alley, auditorium or other similar places of public assembly
(4) Hotel
(b) Active street-level uses are one of the keys to vitality of the Collegetown core area. Within the MU-2 district, active uses
are required on the street-level of all buildings fronting on those portions of College Avenue, Dryden Road, and Eddy
Street designated on the map below.
Street-level active uses required in areas shown in solid red.
ED
D
Y
S
T
DRYDEN RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
OAK AVE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
COOK ST
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLISTER DR
CASCADI
L
L
A
P
L
HARVARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
BL
A
I
R
S
T
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
OA
K
A
V
E
DRYD
E
N
R
D
ED
D
Y
S
T
IT
H
A
C
A
R
D
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
VE
HOY RD
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
ST
E
W
A
R
T
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
VE
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
N
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
E SENECA ST
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
E BUFFALO ST
COOK ST
RIDGEDALE RD
IRVING
P
L
F
E
R
R
I
S
P
L
G
I
L
E
S
S
T
WILLIAMS ST
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
WORTH ST
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
OXFORD PL
EDGEMOOR LA
HARVARD
P
L
OSMUN PL
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
EL
S
T
O
N
P
L
FROSH ALLEY
W
O
O
D
C
O
C
K
S
T
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
P
L
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCAD
I
L
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
P
L
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
STATE ROUTE 366
MAPLE AVE
MA
P
L
E
G
R
O
V
E
P
L
MITCHELL S
T
Item # E 3b
27Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
(5) Infill Development
(a) More than one principal structure is permitted on a parcel in the MU-2 district provided that:
(1) The first principal structure meets all requirements of §325-45, and
(2) Any additional structures meet all requirements of §325-45 except:
a. Front setback
b. Distance between functioning entries
c. Street-level active uses required
Item # E 3b
28 Collegetown Area Form Districts March 12, 2013DRAFT
325-45.3 Use Table
District Permitted Primary Use Permitted Accessory Use
CR-1 1. One-family detached dwelling occupied by:
a. An individual or family or functional family
(see §325-3) plus not more than one unrelated
occupant, or
b. If dwelling is owner occupied, an individual or
family plus not more than two unrelated occupants
2. Church and related buildings
3. Public park or playground
4. Library or fire station
By Special Permit of Board of Zoning Appeals (§325-9):
5. Cemetery and related buildings
6. Public utility structure except office
7. All school and related buildings
1. Private garage for not more than 3 cars
2. Structures for construction purposes, not to remain
over two years
3. Sign in connection with permitted use (see Sign
Ordinance, Ch. 272 City of Ithaca Municipal
Code)
4. By Special Permit: Towers or structures for receipt
or transmission of electronic signals for commercial
purposes or for generation of electricity to be used
on the premises where generated in any district
(see §325-9). Except for personal wireless services
facilities.
5. By Special Permit: An accessory apartment (see
§325-10). Permit required in all use districts.
6. Adult Day Care Home
7. Home Occupations: Special Permits required in
certain situations (see §325-9C{i}).
CR-2 1. One-family detached or semi-detached dwelling
occupied by an individual or family or functional
family plus not more than two unrelated occupants
2. Two-family dwelling, each unit of which may be
occupied by an individual or family plus not more
than two unrelated occupants.
3. Uses 2-4 under CR-1
By Special Permit of Board of Zoning Appeals:
4. Uses 5-7 under CR-1
5. Nursery school, child day care center, group adult
day care facility
6. Neighborhood commercial facility (see §325-3)
7. Bed and Breakfast Homes
1. Accessory uses as permitted in CR-1
CR-3 1. One-family detached, semi-detached, or attached
dwelling or two-family dwelling
2. Any use permitted in CR-1 and CR-2
3. Multiple dwelling (see §325-3)
4. Rooming or boarding house
5. Cooperative household (see §325-3)
6. Townhouse or garden apartment housing
7. Nursery school, child day care center, group adult
day care
8. Nursing, convalescent or rest home
By Special Permit of Board of Zoning Appeals:
9. Any use permitted by Special Permit in CR-1 and
CR-2
10. Hospital or Sanatorium
11. Inns
1. Any accessory uses as permitted in CR-2
2. Required off-street parking^
3. Private garage for 4 or more cars
4. Neighborhood parking area subject to regulations
of §325-20(B)
CR-4 1. Any use as permitted in CR-3 1. Any accessory use as permitted in CR-3
^ Minimum off-street parking requirements currently under consideration.
Item # E 3b
29Collegetown Area Form DistrictsMarch 12, 2013DRAFT
District Permitted Primary Use Permitted Accessory Use
MU-1
1. Any use as permitted in CR-3
2. Funeral home or mortuary
3. Business or professional office
4. Bank or monetary institution
5. Office of government
6. Public, private, or parochial school
7. Retail store or service commercial facility
8. Restaurant, fast food establishment, tavern
9. Club, lodge, or private social center
10. Confectionery, millinery, dressmaking and other
activities involving light hand fabrication as well
as sales
11. Theater, bowling alley, auditorium or other similar
places of public assembly
12. Hotel
1. Any accessory use as permitted in CR-3
MU-2
1. Any use as permitted in MU-1.
2. Parking garage
1. Any accessory use as permitted in CR-3
2. Employee, customer, or public parking areas (see
§325-20)
3. Signs as permitted by Sign Ordinance
4. Home Occupation
Item # E 3b
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLUTION CALLING FOR
ENACTMENT OF A COLLEGETOWN AREA FORM DISTRICTS
PROPOSAL SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE ELIMINATION
OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Adopted at February 26, 2013 Planning and Development Board Meeting
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board (“Planning Board”) is empowered by § 4-23
B. (1) (c) of the City Code to advise “the Common Council regarding the preparation and revision
of the city ordinances related to planning, zoning, site plan review, signs, mobile home parks,
subdivisions, historic landmarks and/or districts, land use and related subjects properly within its
jurisdiction,” and
WHEREAS, existing Collegetown zoning has serious deficiencies, identified at length in the
2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines (and by the extensive public
comment that preceded and formed the basis for that document), which can encourage building
proposals with wholly inappropriate and non-contextual massing, form and materials and poor
urban form throughout Collegetown, and
WHEREAS, the latest iteration of the Collegetown Area Form Districts — a comprehensive
rezoning proposal for the Collegetown area intended to address these serious deficiencies and
substantially improve the urban form, contextuality and appearance of new Collegetown
development — is very near completion, and will likely be presented to Common Council for
consideration and adoption this spring, and
WHEREAS, it is highly desirable, from both community and planning perspectives, that new
Collegetown development proposals that are potentially spurred by the removal of minimum
parking requirements be designed and submitted under the above new zoning regulations, rather
than under the seriously-problematic current zoning regulations, and
WHEREAS, current infrastructure for alternative modes of travel in Collegetown — especially
for pedestrians — ranges from inadequate to seriously deficient, and
WHEREAS, removal of minimum parking requirements in Collegetown would eliminate any
possibility of enacting a fee-in-lieu-of-parking system, which — in the 2009 Collegetown Urban
Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines — was intended to provide a dedicated source of revenue
to help fund the badly-needed transportation improvements (especially intended to benefit
pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users) identified in this plan; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board strongly recommends that, simultaneously with the action
of removing minimum parking requirements as recommended in the resolution entitled “Planning
and Development Board Resolution of Support for Elimination of Minimum Parking
Requirements” dated February 26, 2013, and for the reasons stated above, the Common Council
enact a Collegetown Area Form Districts proposal for the Collegetown area; and be it further
2
RESOLVED, that other measures to regulate private development, particularly outside
Collegetown, shall be thoroughly discussed with new regulations set forth as quickly as possible.
These measures should be considered within the context of a future form-based code for the City,
and should not rely on the construction of, payment in lieu of the construction of, or any subsidy
to the construction of parking and the incentivization of the single-occupancy automobile and/or
consequently the direct disincentivization of other modes of transit; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board strongly recommends that the Common
Council put in place as soon as practicable a system to charge the proper market-driven price for
public on-street and garage parking, and enact a system whereby such revenue directly benefits
specific areas from which these revenues are derived; in the case of Collegetown, this would
provide a substitute for the dedicated stream of revenue (intended to fund pedestrian, bicycle and
transit improvements) that had been identified in the Collegetown plan.
Moved by: Schroeder
Seconded by: Demarest
In Favor: Acharya, Blalock, Demarest, Elliott, Schroeder
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: Jones-Rounds, Rudan
Vacancies: 0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Planning and Development Committee Item # E 4a
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: February 26, 2013
RE: Proposal to Amend the Downtown Zoning Districts
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to rezone portions of the Central
Business District (CBD). This was last discussed by the Planning Committee at their January 2013meeting and
has since been revised in response to comments that were received. Enclosed for your consideration is a map
showing the proposed boundaries for the revisions to the CBD zoning districts.
Over the past few months a working group consisting of the Mayor, two Common Council members, a member
of the Planning Board, The Executive Director of the DIA, and members of the Planning Staff have been
evaluating the existing downtown zoning designations in order to match them to the goals established by the
Downtown Ithaca Alliance’s Downtown Ithaca 2020 Strategic Plan, which was endorsed by the Common
Council.
When this proposal was first brought before the Planning Committee, concerns were raised over the impacts on
some of the downtown buildings containing historical significance. In response to these concerns, former alder
person Mary Tomlan, prepared an inventory of downtown properties that are not historically designated, but do
possess note worthy historic qualities that should be acknowledged while planning the zoning. These properties
are noted with a red star on the enclosed map. The impacts to these properties were carefully considered.
In order to preserve the pedestrian streetscape and to ensure that any new construction is developed in a way
that respects the existing structures, especially those that are historically noteworthy, the revised ordinance
contains the following:
• For properties within the proposed CBD-85 zoning district along Green Street the proposed
zoning calls for an increase in allowable height to 85 feet, but requires that the front façade of
any newly-constructed structure must contain a stepback of between 8-12’ after the first 2-4
stories, before the structure can build up to the maximum allowable height of this district.
• For the block 100 interior block bordered by North Aurora, East MLK JR/State Street, and
Seneca Way, the proposal calls for an increase in allowable height to 100’. However, the
increase in allowable height along Aurora Street has been pulled back 30 feet away from the
Street, and 60 feet along East MLK Jr/State Street in order to encourage retention of the current
streetscape.
• The proposed zoning for the West MLK Jr/State Street corridor is CBD-60. This represents only
a modest increase in the allowable height from 50’ to 60’. However, the CBD district removes
the parking requirement and allows for 100% lot coverage. The Committee feels that the modest
increase in allowable height will still respect the existing noteworthy historic structures along
this street, but will allow for any new construction to more fully utilize the developable area.
• Any new construction in the CBD-50 zoning district is subject to ILPC review.
If the Committee is in agreement, then staff will draft the environmental review of this action and circulate it
along with the draft ordinance and map and return next month with any comments that are received. If you
have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
3/13/2013
Item # E 4b
mittee\03 March\E 4b 2013 oridinance downtown rezoning
031213.doc
Page 1 of 7
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Econ Dev Committee\2013 Planning and Economic Development Com
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Establish the CBD-50 Zoning
District
WHEREAS, the Common Council is committed to dense urban
development in the core of downtown, as is expressed in the
Downtown Ithaca Alliance’s Downtown Ithaca 2020 Strategic Plan,
which was endorsed by the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is also committed to promoting
development that preserves an active pedestrian experience along
the street frontage and that respects structures that are
historically significant, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca recognizes the importance of
maintaining a human scale along the street, especially in
transitional areas where commercial zones are located nearby
residential districts, and
WHEREAS, a subcommittee consisting of city planning staff,
Common Council members, Planning Board members, the Mayor, and
the Executive Director of the Downtown Ithaca Alliance, has
evaluated the existing downtown zoning and walked the district
and has determined that many areas of the central business
district are not adequately zoned for the desired development
potential in the core areas of the City, therefore
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
f Ithaca as follows: o
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-4 (“Establishment
of Districts”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is
hereby amended to establish and add the “CBD-50” central
business district thereto, and the District Regulations Chart,
which is made a part of Chapter 325 by Section 325-8, is hereby
amended by adding the following:
3/13/2013
Item # E 4b
downtown rezoning
Page 2 of 7
lumn 1: Use District – add “CBD-50”.
Colum
See §160,Design Review. See also 325-8D Additional
Restrictions in the CBD districts.
Colum
mitted in the B-2 District.
See §160,Design Review.
lumn 4: Off-Street Parking Requirements (for CBD-50) – None.
Column 5: Off-Street Loading Requirements (for CBD-50) –
Same as B-2a.
lumn 6: Minimum Lot Size (for CBD-50) – No Minimum Lot Size.
Size, Width in Feet at Street Line
or CBD-50) – 10.
: Maximum Building Height, Number of Stories (CBD-50) -
ne.
ximum Height of Building, Height in Feet (for CBD-
) – 50.
ings (for
D-50) – 100%,
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Econ Dev Committee\2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee\03 March\E 4b 2013 oridinance
031213.doc
Co
n 2: Permitted Primary Uses (for CBD-50)–
1. Any primary use permitted in the B-2 District.
n 3: Permitted Accessory Uses (for CBD-50)–
1. Any accessory use per
Co
Co
Column 7: Minimum Lot
(f
Column 8
No
Column 9: Ma
50
Column 10: Maximum Percent of Lot Coverage by Build
CB Except as required for rear yard.
Yard Dimensions, Front, Required Minimum (for CBD-50)
– None.
: Yard Dimensions, Side, One Side at Least (for CBD-50)
None.
Column 13: Yard Dimensions, Side, Other at Least (for CBD-50) –
None.
Columns 14/15: Yard Dimensions, Rear (for CBD-50) –
10 feet minimum.
Column 16: Minimum Height of Building, Height in Feet (CBD-50) –
nimum height: 25 feet and a minimum of 2 stories.
Column 11:
Column 12
–
Mi
3/13/2013
Item # E 4b
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Econ Dev Committee\2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee\03 March\E 4b 2013 oridinance downtown rezoning
031213.doc
Page 3 of 7
ction 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-8 “District Regulations” is
hereby amended to add a subsection 325-8D Additional
Restrictio
D. Additio
(1)
to review and
Se
ns in the CBD District, to read as follows:
nal Restrictions in the CBD District.
The CBD-50 zone is located within the DeWitt Park
Historic District. New construction in any zone
that is located within a designated local
historic district is subject
approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission for compliance with Sections 228-5 (B)
and (C) of the Municipal Code.”
In the portion of the CBD-85 district directly
fronting the 100 block of West Green Street, the
front façade of any newly-constructed structure
must conta
(2)
in a stepback of between 8-12’ after
the first 2-4 stories, before the structure can
build up to the maximum allowable height of this
ce is held to be
r unconstitutional by a court of competent
Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
mediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
tices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
district.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
lause, phrase or portion of this ordinanc
invalid o
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
ction 4.Se
im
no
3/13/2013
Item # E 4b
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Econ Dev Committee\2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee\03 March\E 4b 2013 oridinance downtown rezoning
031213.doc
Page 4 of 7
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325-19, Entitled “Transition Regulations,” is hereby
amended as follows:
WHEREAS, the current City code allows for properties that are
located within two zoning districts to carry the less
restrictive regulations into the more restrictive district for
up to 30 feet, and
WHEREAS, the boundaries of the City’s zoning districts have been
carefully planned to limit impacts from large development areas
on adjacent zones, and transitional areas have been incorporated
into the established boundary lines, and
WHEREAS, staff has found that the transitional zoning language
does not comply with the intent of the established zoning
boundaries, therefore
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
thaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows: I
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-19 “Transition Regulations”
is hereby amended to delete §325-19A. in its entirety, , and all
subsequent subsections of §325-19 are hereby re-lettered
accordingly.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
3/13/2013
Item # E 4b
ROUPS\Planning and Econ Dev Committee\2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee\03 March\E 4b 2013 oridinance downtown rezoning
031213.doc
Page 5 of 7
J:\G
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from B-2c to CBD-60:
71.-1-11, 71.-1-12, 71.-1-13, 71.-1-14, 71.-1-15, 71.-1-16, 71.-
1-17, 71.-1-18, 71.-1-19.1, 71.-1-19.2, 71.-1-19.2, 71.-1-22,
71.-1-3, 71.-1-4, 71.-1-5, 71.-1-7, 71.-1-8, 71.-1-9, 71.-2-12,
71.-2-14, 71.-2-15, 71.-2-18, 71.-2-19, 71.-2-2.1, 71.-2-20,
71.-2-3, 71.-2-4, 71.-2-5, 71.-3-3, 71.-3-4, 71.-3-5, 71.-3-6,
71.-3-7, 71.-4-1.1, 71.-4-1.2, 71.-4-10, 71.-4-11, 71.-4-6, 71.-
5-1, 71.-5-10, 71.-5-11, 71.-5-12, 71.-5-13, 71.-5-17.2, 71.-5-
18, 71.-5-19, 71.-5-2, 71.-5-20, 71.-5-23, 71.-5-24, 71.-5-4,
71.-5-5, 71.-5-7, 71.-5-8, 71.-5-9, 71.-6-1, 71.-6-10, 71.-6-11,
71.-6-12, 71.-6-13, 71.-6-14, 71.-6-17, 71.-6-18, 71.-6-19, 71.-
6-20, 71.-6-21, 71.-6-22, 71.-6-23, 71.-6-24, 71.-6-26, 71.-6-5,
71.-6-6, 71.-6-7, 71.-6-8, 71.-6-9, 71.-6-9, 72.-3-10, 72.-3-12,
72.-3-14, 72.-3-15, 72.-3-16, 72.-3-17, 72.-3-18.1, 72.-3-18.2,
72.-3-19, 72.-3-2, 72.-3-20, 72.-3-23.2, 72.-3-24, 72.-3-26,
72.-3-3, 72.-3-6, 72.-3-7, 72.-3-8, 72.-4-10, 72.-4-13, 72.-4-
14, 72.-4-3, 72.-4-4, 72.-4-5, and 72.-4-9.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning – March 2013”, from CBD-60 to CBD-
85: 70.-6-1.1, 70.-6-14, 70.-6-15, 70.-6-17, 70.-6-18, 70.-6-19,
nd 70.-6-20, 70.-6-21. a
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from CBD-60 to CBD-
140: 69.-4-1, 70.-5-3, 70.-5-4, 70.-5-5, 70.-5-7, 70.-5-8, 70.-5-
9, 70.-4-4.1, 70.-4-4.2, 70.-4-4.3, 70.-4-4.4, 70.-4-5.1, 70.-4-
5.2, and 70.-5-10.
3/13/2013
Item # E 4b
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Econ Dev Committee\2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee\03 March\E 4b 2013 oridinance downtown rezoning
031213.doc
Page 6 of 7
Section 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from CBD-60 to CBD-
100: 69.-1-1, 69.-1-11, 69.-1-14, 69.-1-3, 69.-1-4, 69.-1-6.2,
d 69.-1-8. 69.-1-7, an
Section 5. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from CBD-85 to CBD-
5. 60: 70.-3-1
Section 6. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from B-1b, B-1a, and
P-1 to CBD-50: 61.-2-10.2, 61.-2-6, 61.-2-8, 61.-1-16, 61.-1-3,
d 61.-1-4.
an
3/13/2013
Item # E 4b
J:\GROUPS\Planning and Econ Dev Committee\2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee\03 March\E 4b 2013 oridinance downtown rezoning
031213.doc
Page 7 of 7
Section 7. The City Planning and Development Board, the City
Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the zoning map and
the district regulations chart in accordance with the amendments
made herewith.
Section 8. Severability. Severability is intended throughout
and within the provisions of this local law. If any section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local
law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion.
Section 9. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
EAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MARPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TTERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACE
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CTHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETSENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREET
SEAR S ST REETSEARS ST REETSEARS ST REETSEARS ST REETSEARS ST REETSEARS ST REETSEARS ST REETSEARS ST REETSEARS ST REET
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
T U R N E R P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C E
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
CASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADIL
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
S O U T H C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
F A Y E T T E S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
S O U T H A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E T
S O U T H G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E T
S O U T H P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E T
NO R T H G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E T
N O R T H P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E T
P A R K P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C E
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E T
W A S H I N G T O N S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S O U T H C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E T
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
T
A
T
E
R
T
E
7
9
(
S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
9
6
)W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
fe
e
t
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
CB
D
-
6
0
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
CB
D
-
8
5
Pro
p
o
se
d
CBD
-1
4
0
Proposed CBD-140
CB
D
-
6
0
Proposed CBD-100
Propos
ed
CBD-6
0
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
CB
D
-
5
0
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
CB
D
-
5
0
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
R-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1a R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2b R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
B-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
R-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1a P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1 R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
P-1
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
3
NY
S
t
a
t
e
P
l
a
n
e
,
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
G
R
S
8
0
D
a
t
u
m
Ma
p
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
I
t
h
a
c
a
Z
o
n
i
n
g
2
0
0
9
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Ma
p
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
:
G
I
S
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
I
t
h
a
c
a
,
N
Y
,
8 March 2013.
R-
3
b
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
U
R-
2
b
R-
1
a
R-
1
b
R-
2
a
R-
2
c
B-
2
d
B-
4
B-
5
CB
D
-
6
0
MH
-
1
B-
2
b
B-
2
c
B-
2
a
B-
1
a
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
B-
1
b
I-
1
C-
S
U
P-
1
WE
D
Z
-
1
a
U-
1
SW
-
1
SW
-
2
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
SW
-
3
WF
-
1
GP
-
A
GP
-
B
GP
-
C
WF
-
2
Historic District CPOZ Adult Uses Proposed Downtown RezoningBuilding of Historical Significance
DR
A
F
T
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, May 9, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Jennifer Dotson, Chair; Seph Murtagh, Ellen
McCollister, and Eddie Rooker
Committee Members Absent: Graham Kerslick
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick (arrived at 6:00 p.m.)
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning and Development; Sue Kittel, Deputy
Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; Nels
Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency;
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner, Department
of Planning and Development; Megan Wilson,
Planner, Department of Planning and
Development; Debbie Grunder, Executive
Assistant, Department of Planning and
Development
Others Attending: Krin Flaherty, City Attorney’s Office
Chair Jennifer Dotson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
A.Agenda Review
B.Special Order of Business (6:05 pm)
1.Presentation and Public Hearing – 2012 Action Plan Development – HUD
Entitlement Program
Alderperson McCollister moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Rooker. Passed 4-0.
No one was present to speak on this topic.
Alderperson McCollister moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Rooker. Passed 4-0.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
a.Adoption of 2012 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program – Resolution
Moved by Alderperson Murtagh; Seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Passed 4-0.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds to meet community
development needs through the HUD Entitlement program from the Community Development Block Grant program
(CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnerships program (HOME) funding sources, and
WHEREAS, the City submits an Action Plan each year to HUD to access the Entitlement Program funding allocated
to the City, and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community development activities to be funded
from the 2012 HUD Entitlement allocation, and
WHEREAS, the adopted 2012 Action Plan was developed using the allocation level below:
$703,124 CDBG
$486,909 HOME
$1,190,033 Total, and
WHEREAS, $142,000 in program income is projected to be received from loan repayments in program year 2012,
which funding is also allocated as part of the 2012 Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, additional funds are available to be allocated through the 2012 Action Plan which includes $966.30 of
unallocated 2011 HOME funds, and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for development of the 2012 Action
Plan in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts the attached table titled the ‘IURA Recommended Action Plan’
– dated April 16, 2012, allocating the projected 2012 HUD Entitlement award along with the additional funds
available, as listed above, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that should the IURA determine that any of the proposed projects in the Action Plan encounter feasibility
issues that would hinder their timely completion or adversely affect their eligibility prior to the HUD submission deadline,
the Common Council authorizes the IURA, upon approval by the Mayor and the Chair of the Planning & Economic
Development Committee, to make adjustments in the application to resolve feasibility and eligibility concerns, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby renews its designation of the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (IURA) as the lead agency to develop and administer the HUD Entitlement program on behalf of the
City of Ithaca, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities funded in the adopted 2012 Action Plan.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
2.Commons Redesign Update
Jennifer Kusznir provided an overview of the Commons Redesign Project. The
initial phase began in the Summer 2009. Three concept alternatives were
recommended in October 2009 with the preliminary concept approved by
Common Council in 2010.
The Commons Client Committee has been meeting weekly. The areas of
concerns include trees, pavilions, and a water feature.
An independent arborist was selected for recommendations. Their
recommendation includes retaining and transplanting twelve of the existing trees,
which the client committee supports. Eleven (11) existing trees will remain in place.
The recommended design allows for four (4) trees.
The Bernie Milton Pavilion will be moved to Bank Alley and will be the one
permanent pavilion. The new Bernie Milton Pavilion will be of very high-end quality.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
C.Public Comment and Response from Committee Members (6:35 pm)
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, spoke in favor of the job Dennise Belmaker did
on the Energy Action Plan. He was original member of the energy plan. He
questioned why the Seneca Street Garage was the only garage that was mentioned
in the report regarding the overall use of lighting.
Ellen McCollister asked if any one knew the answer. Joann Cornish stated she
emailed Dennise with this very question, but hadn’t heard back from her.
D.Announcements, Updates and Reports (6:40 pm)
a.Comprehensive Plan Update (joint City/Town meeting)
April 25th city and town meet. Top issues were to create an ongoing coordination
between the two groups. The two committees brainstormed what they would like
to see.
To both:
To the city:
A second meeting is tentatively scheduled for august.
b.Intermunicipal Planning Coordination
Megan pretty much covered this topic in the prior item.
c.Emerson Update
The mayor, JoAnn, Philly, Cynthia Brock (City and Town) and some other elective
officials. JoAnn Cornish described it as cavernous and very well protected with
security clearance, etc.
Went on a tour. There is a developer very interested in the property.
d.Collegetown Update
A new working group has been formed for the design ordinance. The group
consists of Alderpersons Graham Kerslick and Ellen McCollister, Planning Chair
Govind Acharya, and staff Megan Wilson, JoAnn Cornish, Phyllis Radke, and
Mike Niechwiadowicz.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
e.Energy Action Plan Update-- Debbie, do we need to add anything here? I
don’t know what we discussed.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
E. Action Items
1.Amendments to Off-Street Parking Ordinance (7:00 pm) (memo)
a.Lead Agency
Draft Resolution
Proposed Revisions to Chapters 325 of the City of Ithaca Code Regarding the City’s Off-Street
Parking Ordinance -- Declaration of Lead Agency for the Environmental Review
Moved by Alderperson Murtagh; seconded by Alderperson Rooker. Passed 4-0.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be
that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an "Unlisted" Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality
Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the
environmental review of the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Off Street Parking Ordinance.
b.Determination of Environmental Significance (SEAF Parts I and II)
Draft Resolution
Proposed Revisions to Chapters 325 of the City of Ithaca Code Regarding the City’s Off-Street
Parking Ordinance -- Determination of Environmental Significance
Moved Alderperson Rooker; seconded by Alderperson Murtagh. Passed 4-0.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapters 325 of the City Code Regarding the City’s
Off-Street Parking Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to
§239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county
or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also
been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by
planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and
conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action
at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary,
and be it further
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
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.
c.Ordinance -- Moved by Alderperson Murtagh; seconded by
Alderperson Rooker. Passed 4-0.
Jennifer Kusznir explained the changes that were made to the ordinance.
Jennifer distributed a new copy of the ordinance, as the attorney’s office
hadn’t had a chance to review it before it was included in the packet.
These areas are highlighted in yellow.
The reason for the proposed changes to the ordinance is an attempt to
make it much clearer.
Krin explained the changes the attorney’s office did make.
2.Cherry Street Property (7:10 pm) (memo)
a.Lead Agency
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
May 9, 2012
Moved by Alderperson Rooker; seconded by Alderperson Murtagh. Passed
4-0.
Authorize Subdivision and Transfer to IURA of a Parcel at the Southerly
End of Cherry Street – Declaration of Lead Agency - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering transfer of a 6 acre portion of the
8.25 acre parcel located at the southerly end of Cherry Street (tax parcel #100.-2-1.2) to the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to issue an RFP for sale of the property to a purchaser committing
to undertake an economic development project, and
WHEREAS, the proposed transfer of more than 2.5 acres of contiguous land is a Type I action
under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEDRO), and
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of CEDRO require that a Lead Agency be established for
conducting environmental review of proposed actions in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead
Agency shall be that local agency which has the primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2012, the City of Ithaca Common Council resolved to declare itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review of this proposed action, and
WHEREAS, no other agency has jurisdiction to fund, approve or undertake the proposed action;
now, therefore, be it
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental
review of the proposed conveyance to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) of the above
listed real property.
Jennifer Dotson forwarded a letter from the Natural Areas Commission. Tom
West and JoAnn Cornish will meet with NAC.
b.Determination of Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Rooker; seconded by Alderperson Murtagh. Passed 4-0.
Authorize Subdivision and Transfer to IURA of a Parcel at the Southerly
End of Cherry Street – Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering transfer of a 6 acre portion of the
8.25 acre parcel located at the southerly end of Cherry Street (tax parcel #100.-2-1.2) to the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to issue an RFP for sale of the property to a purchaser committing
to undertake an economic development project, and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision will result in a 6 acre portion directly accessible to Cherry
Street (Parcel A) to be transferred to the IURA and a remainder parcel of approximately 2.25
acres (Parcel B) to be retained by the City, as further shown on a “Survey Map Showing Lands
Owned by the City of Ithaca Located at Southerly End of Cherry Street”, prepared by T.G. Miller
P.C., dated March 5, 2012 (Survey Map), and
WHEREAS, the proposed property transfer to the IURA is subject to (1) a 25 foot wetland buffer
and (2) a 15 foot utility easement as shown on the Survey Map, and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision and transfer of more than 2.5 acres of contiguous land is a
Type I action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), which requires
environmental review, and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012, the City of Ithaca Common Council declared itself Lead Agency for
the environmental review of this proposed action, and
WHEREAS, the Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), dated March 30, 2012, and
supporting information has been provided to the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council
for review of the proposed action and no comments have been received to date, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the FEAF;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council, acting as Lead Agency for the
environmental review in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions
more fully set forth on the FEAF, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council, as Lead Agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City
Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City
Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law.
j:\staff\nels\nels1\miscellaneous\iura\property disposition\cherry ii (100-2-1)\reso p&ed cherry st exten - neg dec
5-9-12.doc
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
Tom West explained that there are two delineated wetlands on the property.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
d.Transfer of Property to Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
Chair Dotson asked if there was anyone interested in this property. Nels
Bohn stated there was a developer who showed interest, but that was six
months ago, but thinks this developer is still interested.
Alderperson Murtagh stated he would like to see us support this. Steve
Thayer’s email re: the City’s bond rating and Lisa Nicholas’ memo from the
planning board perspective.
Alderpersons Rooker and McCollister both support this action. They feel
it’s sufficiently protected.
Dotson supports this however does not want to see another manufacturer
business with a big building and large parking lots surrounding it. She
would like us to look at our industrial zone regulations or
recommendations. Her concerns are more related to zoning.
Authorize Transfer to IURA of a Parcel at the Southerly End of Cherry Street
Moved by Alderperson Murtagh; seconded by Alderperson Rooker. Passed 3-1.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering transfer of a parcel at the southerly
end of Cherry Street, Ithaca, NY (tax parcel #100.-2-1.2) to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA) for disposition to a qualified sponsor for economic development, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §695 of General Municipal Law, the City may dispose of real property at
the highest marketable price at public auction or by sealed bid, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §507 of General Municipal Law, the City is also authorized to dispose of
real property through the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to a qualified and eligible
sponsor (aka preferred developer) at a negotiated sales price for a specific end use. A public
hearing must be held on any IURA-proposed property sale following publication of a notice
disclosing the terms of the sale and Common Council approval of the proposed sale is required,
and
WHEREAS, the 2012 City budget includes revenues from the sale of City properties, so purchase
price is a consideration in selecting the method of disposition, and
WHEREAS, Common Council has an interest in post-sale use of the property to enhance the
City’s tax base, identify a purchaser committed to undertake an economic development project,
and develop the parcel in a manner sensitive to the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, public policy objectives are best achieved for disposition of tax parcel #100.-2-1.2
through a process that provides prospective buyers with an opportunity to submit proposals to
acquire and development the property through an open competitive RFP process; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Mayor, subject to advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to enter
into a property transfer agreement for a portion of tax parcel #100.-2-1.2 located at the
southerly end of Cherry Street with the IURA for purposes of the IURA soliciting competitive
proposals for purchase and development of the property with the following guidance:
•Sales price: seek fair market value
•Use: economic development
•Taxable status: taxable, and be it further
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
RESOLVED, that the Mayor, subject to advice of the City Attorney and the terms and provisions
of the property transfer agreement, is authorized to convey quit claim deed for a portion of tax
parcel #100.-2-1.2 to the IURA.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
F. Discussion Items (direction for development of possible future action
items)
1.Changes to the Community Investment Incentive Program (7:40 pm)
(proposed new CIIP criteria/application, historical analysis of current program,
potential approval for staff to circulate)
Common Council approved the original CIIP in 2000. Refer to Jen Kusznir’s
memo in the packet.
After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that the committee would forward their
concerns to the IDA (Industrial Development Agency) for their input and
recommendations.
We will try to bring this item back at the June meeting.
2.Further Changes to Off-Street Parking Requirements in Zoning (8:00 pm)
Jennifer Dotson would like to see maximum off-street parking requirements put
into place.
Ellen McCollister stated it is important to look at all aspects including the
incentives we just discussed.
Rooker stated he wrestles with the idea of the maximum off-street parking and
the increase in better public transportation.
Murtagh hasn’t given this much thought and would have to look at this further
before making a judgment call.
Mayor Myrick understands the need for minimum parking requirements as it
relates to the number of people, beds, and/or apartments, but parking maximum
would be more difficult, but should be looked at.
McCollister said this item came up without accompanying written rationale
and said we needed more information about what is being proposed and its
possible unintended consequences.
The current minimum number for a ten-apartment building, the minimum number
of parking spaces would be five. Determining parking maximums and where
in the City they should apply would be a huge undertaking and is not on
the Staff work plan for 2012.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
Dotson would like to see fewer parking lots in the City and would like to see more
people use other means of getting where they need to get to other than using a
car. If you were close enough to walk, she would like to see people walk.
McCollister stated she understands Dotson’s thinking, but parking policies
aren’t a one fit fits all. She compared Ithaca to NYC that doesn’t have any
minimum or maximum parking requirements. It is what it is. where people then
make their own decisions about their mode of transportation.
JoAnn Cornish further stated that the big box stores require parking lot space,
which often isn’t what we would want, but the big box stores provide a huge tax
base for the City.
3.Agenda Planning (8:20 pm)
Now that the times are included on the agenda, this may result in people coming
into the meeting after the public comment has been done, but we should be able
to allow them to speak regardless when they join the group.
G.Approval of Minutes (8:35 pm) – February and March 2012 None.
H.Adjournment (8:40 pm)
Rooker moved to adjourn; Murtagh seconded the motion. The meeting was
adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Item # G a
DR
A
F
T
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 – 7:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Jennifer Dotson, Chair; Seph Murtagh, Graham
Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, and Eddie Rooker
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson Chris Proulx, Mayor Svante Myrick
(arrived at 7:10 p.m.)
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning and Development; Debbie Grunder,
Executive Assistant, Department of Planning
and Development
Others Attending: Aaron Levine, City Attorney’s Office
Chair Jennifer Dotson called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
A.Agenda Review
There is one item that the City Attorney will be interested in so Item # 3a will be the
first discussion item.
B.Special Order of Business
C.Public Comment and Response from Committee Members (7:00 pm)
Clinton Street Bridge / Pyramid Studio
Rich DePaulo spoke on the current situation with Pyramid Sound. Dialog needs to
occur. He encourages everyone to slow down the process.
Nicholas Walker, 206 Dewitt Place, spoke in favor of Pyramid Sound and
challenges facing the owner, Prof. Alex Perialis, due to the construction work
on the Clinton Street bridge and the subsequent condemnation of his property.
Brian Dozoretz, 308 Lake Avenue, IC Graduate and teacher. now teaches there.
Alex Perialis has run and operated Pyramid Sound Studio for 30+ years. It would be
a shame to see this studio go.
Jeff Claus, 632 Bostwick Road, Assoc. Professor at Ithaca College and is a local
musician. He has recorded numerous records. Numerous gold and platinum
awards have been recorded at this studio. The exterior might not look like anything,
but the interior in state of the art. The timeline is now an issue of the proposed
Clinton Street Bridge. Every day that the studio has to remained closed makes
it more likely that the owner will go out of business.
Item # G b
DR
A
F
T
Mayor Myrick acknowledged the comments made by those in favor of the Pyramid
Studio. He noted that If the Building Commissioner wants to condemns the building
because since it is deemed unsafe, it is rare that a public official can override a
recommendation by an expert in the field. The structural condition of the building is
under question regardless of the interior of the building being in great shape.
He further explained the steps the building department must take when a building is
deemed unsafe. What has been decided is to let the building department come
inside the building in order to reassess the conditions. The owner has a received a
financial commitment from the City in order to shore up the garage portion of the
property. An engineering report is being done by a firm hired by the studio and will
be shared with the City. The Mayor cautions the Council as to whether to question
the building department’s recommendations.
Mayor Myrick left the meeting to continue the conversation with those who spoke on
the Pyramid Studio.
Alderperson Murtagh Seph thanked all who came out to voice their concerns
regarding the Pyramid Studio. As a council member, it is th The role of the council to
do the best for the City but also he also respects the studio’s success at the current
location.
Attorney Levine stated the that any financial commitment made is required by a
vote of council.
Chair Dotson further commented that is not the intention of the City of Ithaca to ruin
a studio or shut it down, but the intention is to replace a bridge.
Rental Housing Amendments
Larry Beck, 138 Linn Street, Rental Housing Advisory Council, is very happy that the
changes to the rental housing policy are moving forward.
Monica Moll, 44 Dort Drive, member of the Rental Housing Advisory Council. Any changes
to the Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance (EPMO) should be reviewed by the
RHAC and work along with the City to agree on changes.
Russell Maines, 221 Prospect Street, spoke on amendments.
Changes to CIPP Community Incentive Investment Program
Gary Ferguson, 171 The Commons, spoke in favor of the CIIP changes being suggested.
They have been needed for a long time, and is a much needed implementation. This is a
great opportunity to simplify the process of this program to increase the development in the
City.
Mack Travis, 323 N. Tioga Street, spoke in favor of the CIIP. His Gateway Plaza was the
first to receive tax abatements through this program. It wouldn’t have happened in the City
had it not been for the CIIP. It would have ended up in Lansing. The current process is
lengthy and excruciating. By making the changes in this program, continued growth and
development will be seen.
Tanya Vanasse, 311 East Green Street, spoke in favor of the changes to the CIIP. A faster
more productive process will bring about much needed new development.
Off-Street Parking Ordinance – Removing Minimum Requirement
Michael Manville, 219 N. Willard Way, spoke in favor of the parking requirements being
presented by the City.
Item # G b
DR
A
F
T
Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Avenue, spoke on off-street parking ordinance. She agree
objected to the with the “shock and awe” approach of Item # F4, not so much the content.
Jesse Hill, 514 South Aurora, spoke in favor of eliminating on the parking
requirements.changes.
Ben Furnas, 231 Wood Street, spoke in favor of eliminating the minimum parking
requirements.
David West, 225 Cleveland Avenue, thanked the City for the job they’re doing on the topic of
parking requirements.
Todd Saddler, 302 Cascadilla Street, spoke in favor of removing the minimum-parking
requirement. It needs to happen and encourages it.
Daniel Keough, 715 N. Aurora Street, spoke in favor of the removal of the minimum parking
requirement.
Alderperson McCollister responded to several speakers’ comments, noting that
particularly in the City’s R-3 multi-resident zones, building sizes can vary from
consisting of a few unrelated individuals to several hundred people, as in the
Collegetown Terrace project where tax parcels were consolidated. She cautioned against
eliminating all parking requirements in all zones without understanding what would
replace them. Changes should be made within the context of a larger land use plan.
Alderperson Murtagh thanked all who spoke on the minimum-parking requirement. He is
curious how this will fall into place with the Collegetown and Comprehensive Plans. He
thinks it’s the right path, but there is a lot of things to figure out.
Alderperson Kerslick agreed with Murtagh that we are on the right path and we must be
cautious when making these changes.
D.AnnounceMENTS, Updates and Reports (7:10 pm)
a.Comprehensive Plan
JoAnn Cornish sated that a the comp plan will meet tomorrow.
b.Intermunicipal Planning Coordination
c.Emerson
d.Collegetown
Changes being worked on will be brought to committee in July.
e.Energy Action Plan
An intern in the Mayor’s office is working on this and finalizing it. This will come back to the
committee in July.
Item # G b
DR
A
F
T
An Additional Update
PAC - an electrical box mural project is currently underway. The selected winners will come back
to the committee in July.
Item # G b
DR
A
F
T
E. Action Items
1.Amendments to Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (7:20 pm)
***refer to materials in January 2012 committee packet***
a.Memo
b.Short Environmental Assessment Form (Parts I and II) – updated
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
June 13, 2012
Moved by Alderperson McCollister; seconded by Murtagh. Passed 5-0.
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca to Repeal and Replace Chapter 73,
“Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Repeal and Replace Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation” –
Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review
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 amendment of Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and the proposed
repeal and replacement of Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation”, is an “Unlisted” Action pursuant to the City
Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the
environmental review of the repeal and replacement of Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and the
repeal and replacement of Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation”.
Item # G b
DR
A
F
T
Proposed Resolution
Planning Committee
June 13, 2012
Moved by Alderperson McCollister; seconded by Alderperson Rooker. Passed 5-0.
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca to Repeal and Replace Chapter 73,
“Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Repeal and Replace Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation” –
Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to the Municipal Code in order to repeal and replace
Chapter 73 “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and to repeal and replace Chapter 228, “Landmarks
Preservation,” and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated May 1, 2012, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to
§239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county
or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also
been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by
planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and
conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, dated May 1, 2012, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action
at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary,
and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same
to any other parties as required by law.
c.Ordinance amending Chapter 73
Alderperson Kerslick moved; seconded by Alderperson Rooker. Passed 5-0.
d.Ordinance amending Chapter 228
Alderperson Kerslick moved; seconded by Alderperson Rooker. Passed 5-0.
Item # G b
DR
A
F
T
F. Discussion Items (direction for development of possible future action items)
1.Changes to the Community Investment Incentive Program (7:30 pm)
***refer to materials in May 2012 committee packet***
This item was removed from the agenda since it was scheduled to go to the IDA for
their input and will come back to this committee in the future.
2.Changes to Site Plan Review Ordinance (7:45 pm)
a.Concept Memo
b.Current Site Plan Review Ordinance
c.Proposed New Site Plan Review Ordinance (clean and changes tracked)
Lisa Nicholas stated she is very happy to be bringing this to the committee, as it’s been a
long process. She asks for the committee’s approval to circulate for comment.
The fee structure has been changed.
Posting requirements have been changed to match the subdivision to 20 days.
Changes to evaluation criteria are now stated in the ordinance even though this criterion
is already being followed.
Limited site plan review is not required to post property unless there is a public interest to
post it.
3.Changes to Exterior Property Maintenance Ticketing System (8:00 pm)
a.Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 178 - Exterior Maintenance
One of the major changes to this is there will be no warning tickets issued, but the initial
ticket will be reduced to $25 from $50.
b.Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 258 - Rental Housing
The change to this ordinance is to protect the tenant when the landlord
accumulates tickets that are actually violations made by the tenant. The
tenant needs to be made aware of these tickets so the fees don’t continue
to grow. The relationship of the tickets is between the owner and the City
of Ithaca. It is unfair that the landlord accumulates these tickets that are
actually a violation by the tenant.
Cornish asked whether this committee is the appropriate committee to
handle such a change in the ordinance since it’s might belong to the City
Administration due to the financial portion of it.
Building Commissioner Radke stated the in the past all building related
issues have always come to the planning committee because of the policy
component to it.
Cornish asked whether this committee should not circulate this until the
Ithaca Housing Commission had a chance to review it.
Item # G b
DR
A
F
T
It was decided that the change in ordinance will be circulated to all normal
recipients as well as the Ithaca Housing Commission and will come back
to this committee after comments have been received and reviewed.
4.Removing Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements (8:15 pm)
a.Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 325-20 - Off-Street Parking
Dotson asked whether the group is interested in pursuing this and if so,
what group should handle this and what should be the focus.
JoAnn commented that there is an ad hoc parking committee.
5.Agenda Planning - potential upcoming items (8:35 pm)
Mayor Myrick left the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Debbie- this time can’t be
right if our meeting adjourned at 8:55.
a.Amending Industrial Districts to Allow Housing
If any council member is interested in this topic, it is encouraged that they
connect with staff.
b.Review of Nuisance Ordinances
Wood smoke may fall under this. How should we handle this? Who
should try to regulate this – the town or the city?
The enforcement under the sanitation law is very complex.
Is this ordinance the right place to enforce this?
Mayor Myrick returned to the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Murtagh suggests we include decibels again to differentiate different noise
– i.e., air conditioners as opposed to people noise.
G.Approval of Minutes (8:50 pm) – February and March 2012
Chair Dotson was not ready to forward them on to committee for their approval.
H.Adjournment (8:55 pm)
McCollister moved to adjourn; Rooker seconded. The meeting was adjourned at
10:05 p.m.
Item # G b
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Jennifer Dotson, Chair; Seph Murtagh, Graham
Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, and Eddie Rooker
Committee Members Absent: Mayor Svante Myrick
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson Cynthia Brock
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning and Development; Megan Wilson,
Planner, Department of Planning and
Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Development;
Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant,
Department of Planning and Development
Others Attending: William Gray, Superintendent of Public Works
Chair Jennifer Dotson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
Item E4 will not be discussed tonight.
B. Special Order of Business
1. Pubic Hearing – Proposed Site Plan Review Ordinance
Alderperson Kerslick motioned to open public hearing; Alderperson
McCollister seconded it. Passed 5-0.
No one spoke on this topic.
Alderperson McCollister motioned to close public hearing; Alderperson
Kerslick seconded it. Passed 5-0.
2. Public Hearing – Proposed Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance
Alderperson Kerslick motioned to open public hearing; Alderperson Murtagh
seconded it. Passed 5-0.
Larry Beck, co-chair of local Rental Housing Commission spoke on the fines
associated with this ordinance.
Alderperson Murtagh motioned to close the public hearing; Alderperson
Rooker seconded. Passed 5-0.
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
There was no public comment, and no comments from committee members.
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports
1. Intermunicipal Planning Coordination
Cornish reported that they are hoping to have a joint meeting in late
September on both the Town and the City’s processes.
2. Dredging / Hydrilla
Dredging - Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, reported that New York State has
awarded $13m to the City to address the issue of dredging in the Flood
Control Channel and local waterways. It was decided that sediment
distribution should be worked on first and the project manager from the City
should be assigned to the project in addition to the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). The DEC is in the process of hiring a
consultant firm tasked with creating a plan for dredging in six months. There
will be a meeting at the end of August with DEC, City of Ithaca, and elected
officials.
Hydrilla – Nicholas reported that a task force is working diligently – checking
boats for Hydrilla as they leave the water. The governor has passed a bill to
control invasive species. Two treatments for Hydrilla eradication have been
done to date.
3. Emerson
There was no new news to report on Emerson.
4. Collegetown
Megan Wilson reported that the Collegetown Working Group is revising the
previously proposed form based code, which will be presented in the near
future. In the fall, CIPA students will be updating the Collegetown Parking
Study. Cornell Professors and city staff will work with the students. The study
will focus on off-street parking in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone
(CPOZ) and will be completed by December 2012.
The consultant firm, Rich Associates, collected data of on street parking in the
CPOZ. They have recorded the number of parking spaces being used, the
time of usage, and when spaces are vacant. Aerial views were used to help
with the data collection.
5. Commons
Cornish stated the City has been awarded a $4.5m federal transportation
grant that will help with the Commons rebuild. There is a funding gap as
$11M was requested.
6. Energy Action Plan
There was no news to report on the Energy Action Plan.
E. Action Items
1. Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (NIIF)
a. Family Sites Tenant Council National Night Out – Resolution
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds from the
Family Sites Tenant Council for National Night Out, August 2012
Alderperson Murtagh moved; seconded by Alderperson Rooker. Resolution
passed 5-0.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood
Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city
residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community
improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a
general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals
or a select few residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are
not limited to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public
places, and organizing neighborhood events like neighborhood block
parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application
specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated
costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the
immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve
applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a
reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or
invoices for approved activities, and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, the Family Sites Tenant Council has submitted a completed application for
reimbursement funds to off-set expenses that in past years have generally
ranged from $400 – $650 for the annual National Night Out event, held
this year on Tuesday, August 7, 2012, and
WHEREAS, while this annual event is sponsored by the Family Sites Tenant Council at
Conway Park, notice is circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the
event provides an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of
Northside residents; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the
request from the Family Sites Tenant Council in an amount up to $300.00
for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
Titus Towers Tenant Council National Night Out – Resolution
Alderperson Murtagh moved; seconded by Alderperson Rooker. Resolution
passed 5-0.
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds from the
Titus Towers Tenant Council for National Night Out, August 2012
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood
Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city
residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community
improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a
general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals
or a select few residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are
not limited to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public
places, and organizing neighborhood events like neighborhood block
parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application
specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated
costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the
immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve
applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a
reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or
invoices for approved activities, and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, the Titus Towers Tenant Council has submitted a completed application
for reimbursement funds to off-set expenses that in past years have
generally ranged from $400 – $650 for the annual National Night Out
event, held this year on Tuesday, August 7, 2012, and
WHEREAS, while this annual event is sponsored by the Titus Towers Tenants Council,
notice is circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the event provides
an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of South of the Creek
residents, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the
request from the Titus Towers Tenant Council in an amount up to $300.00
for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
2. Comprehensive Plan
Megan Wilson stated that the comprehensive plan would be done in house since the
hired consultant has been dismissed.
Proposed Resolution
Planning Committee
August 8, 2012
Resolution of Support for the Comprehensive Planning Process
Alderperson Kerslick moved; seconded by Alderperson Murtagh. Passed 5-0.
Kerslick commented that there was general consensus with the Comp Plan Committee
that they move forward as proposed.
Alderperson McCollister asked about the timeline now that the direction has changed.
Wilson stated that she thinks it will move forward quicker than it has and that the data
collection for the inventory phase of the plan has been completed.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca’s existing comprehensive plan was completed in 1971
and has since been amended fourteen times by various targeted neighborhood and
strategic plans, and
WHEREAS, while some objectives of the 1971 plan are still applicable, many are not,
and both local conditions and broader national and world-wide trends that affect Ithaca
have changed dramatically since then, resulting in a need to update the comprehensive
plan to address present-day issues and anticipate future ones, and
WHEREAS, the City has decided to pursue a two-phased approach to its new
Comprehensive Plan where Phase I will entail the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that
sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and
where Phase II will include the preparation of specific neighborhood plans and other
distinct thematically-based plans, and
WHEREAS, in February 2008, the Common Council approved a capital project in the
amount of $200,000 to prepare a comprehensive plan, and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Qualifications for firms interested in assisting
with the preparation of Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan, and in early 2011, the
Comprehensive Plan Committee interviewed three consultant teams, and
WHEREAS, based on the unanimous recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan
Committee, the Planning and Development Board, the Common Council, and the Mayor
selected Clarion Associates as the project consultant for Phase I of the new
Comprehensive Plan in May 2011, and
WHEREAS, Clarion Associates began working on the project in September 2011 and
undertook a review of existing plans and studies and an analysis of existing conditions
and trends, and
WHEREAS, an extensive public input process was kicked-off by a Clarion-led
community workshop in November 2011, and that workshop was followed up with over
20 neighborhood meetings and focus groups as well as individual surveys, and
WHEREAS, using all of this information, the consultant team has completed two
reports and initiated a third report, and these documents will inform the preparation of
the new Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, while the City appreciates the work completed by Clarion Associates, it
has decided to move forward without the Clarion team, and
WHEREAS, the project funding will now be spent locally as City staff and the
Comprehensive Plan Committee will prepare the new plan with input from the
community and the assistance from local consultants as needed, and
WHEREAS, the City remains committed to incorporating community input into the new
Comprehensive Plan, and the planning process will continue to include extensive public
outreach; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council appreciates the work completed by Clarion
Associates and fully supports the new direction for the preparation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Site Plan Review Ordinance
Nicholas briefly explained the changes being proposed in order to clean up the
ordinance and assess the fees.
Proposed Resolution
Planning Committee
August 8, 2012
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca to Repeal and
Replace Chapter 276, “Site Plan Review” – Declaration of Lead Agency for
Environmental Review
Moved by Alderperson Rooker; seconded by Alderperson Murtagh. Passed 5-0.
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 repeal and replacement of Chapter 276, “Site Plan Review”,
is an “Unlisted” Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review the proposed repeal and replacement of
Chapter 276, “Site Plan Review”.
Proposed Resolution
Planning Committee
August 8, 2012
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca Repeal and
Replace Chapter 276 “Site Plan Review” – Determination of Environmental
Significance
Moved by Alderperson Murtagh; seconded by Alderperson Rooker. Passed 5-0
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to the Municipal Code in
order to repeal and replace Chapter 276, “Site Plan Review,” and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the
preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated July 23, 2012,
and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County
Planning Department pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal
Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including
county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has
also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has
reviewed and accepted the SEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
Proposed Resolution
Planning Committee
August 8, 2012
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca to Repeal and
Replace Chapter 276, Entitled “Site Plan Review”
Moved by Alderperson Rooker; seconded by Alderperson Murtagh. Passes 5-0.
WHEREAS, Chapter 276 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Site Plan Review,
was first enacted in 1989 and was repealed and replaced in 1999, and
WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 276 have been proposed, the purpose of which
are to correct and clarify language, resolve inconsistencies, and make substantive
changes regarding applicability thresholds, evaluation criteria, public notification
requirements and the rate and payment of fees, and
WHEREAS, given the extent of the changes proposed it would be impractical to
accomplish such revisions by amendment, now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as
follows:
§ 276-1. Intent.
The intent of this chapter is to provide for the review of site plans for certain land uses in
the City of Ithaca for the purpose of:
A. Preserving and enhancing neighborhood character.
B. Achieving compatibility with adjacent development and uses.
C. Mitigating potentially negative impacts on traffic, parking, drainage, the landscape
and similar environmental concerns.
D. Improving the design, function, aesthetics and safety of development projects and
the overall visual and aesthetic quality of the city.
E. Promoting environmental sustainability in new development, redevelopment and
long term planning.
§ 276-2. Definitions.
A. Definitions of specific terms or words as used in this chapter shall conform to the
definitions of the same terms in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 325, § 325-3.
B. In addition to the definitions in Chapter 325, the following terms shall be used in this
chapter as they are defined in this section:
AFFECTED SITE AREA -- Any area (including new and modified gross floor space)
that is physically changed as a result of the proposed development. Such changes
do not have to be permanent or irreversible for the area to be considered affected.
For example, a construction staging area will be considered an affected area if tree
damage or significant soil compaction is likely to result.
BOARD -- The Planning and Development Board, unless otherwise specified.
COMMISSIONER -- The Building Commissioner for the City of Ithaca, New York.
DEVELOPMENT -- Any land use activity or project which requires a permit from the
Building Department and will result in changes to the physical condition, appearance
or type of use, or intensity of use, of property.
(1) Development projects include but are not limited to:
(a) New construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of existing
structures or site improvements.
(b) Landfilling, excavation, grading, parking lot construction or any other
disturbances to the natural or existing topography or vegetation of the site.
(c) Demolition of structures or site improvements.
(2) A project shall not be considered a development if it is one or a combination of
the following:
(a) Replacement in kind only; or
(b) Interior construction only; or
(c) Infrastructure maintenance only.
DIRECTOR -- The Director of Planning and Development for the City of Ithaca, New
York or his/her designee.
EXPANSION -- An enlargement of, or addition to, an existing structure or a paved
area, including driveways, parking areas and sidewalks.
MODIFICATION -- Rearrangement of site layout or an exterior alteration to an
existing structure (including any changes to a building facade, except replacement in
kind).
PERFORMANCE GUARANTY -- Any security that may be accepted by the city as a
guarantee that the improvements required, as part of site plan approval will be
satisfactorily completed.
RECONSTRUCTION -- Construction of buildings or site plan improvements
following total demolition of a previous development.
REPLACEMENT IN KIND -- Replacement of materials (for maintenance purposes),
which does not have an effect on the appearance of the existing building and site.
SITE IMPROVEMENT -- Features including but not limited to planting, paving,
retaining walls, drainage culverts and swales, fences and gates, lighting, site
furniture, fountains, pools, bridges, dams, decks, boardwalks, pergolas, signs and
any other accessory structures, devices or landscape materials on the site.
SITE PLAN -- The development plan showing the existing and proposed conditions,
including but not limited to topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, marshes
and waterways; open spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, utility
services, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting and screening devices;
submitted along with building plans, elevations and building materials; and any other
information that may be reasonably required to allow an informed decision to be
made by the Board or the Director.
STORM WATER POLLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) – A plan to identify
and mitigate stormwater impacts as defined in Chapter 282.
§ 276-3. Applicability; exceptions.
A. General applicability.
(1) Site plan review (SPR) applies to all new construction and reconstruction of both
residential and non residential development (except that excluded by §276-
3C),including parking areas of three or more spaces in residential zoning
districts.
(2) Site plan review (SPR) applies to construction of landscape and infrastructure
improvements which do not normally require a building permit, but nervertheless
have an extensive public use, prominent visibility, or a potentially large
environmental impact, such as construction of trails or trailheads, development
of, or improvements to, existing parks; construction or reconstruction of bridges;
and rebuilding of public or private streets that involve streetscape improvements.
B. Projects of limited scope.
(1) The Director shall have the authority to review and act on a development
proposal if the proposed project meets the description in § 276-3A but is below
the thresholds described below. For such projects of limited scope, reviewed by
the Director, a public hearing is not required. The Planning and Development
Department shall be the lead agency in the environmental review of such
projects. There shall be no requisite review of the environmental assessment
forms (EAF) by the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) in these cases. See §
276-5C for situations when projects of limited scope will be referred to the Board
for a full review. The upper thresholds for projects of limited scope are:
(a) All new construction and reconstruction of single-lot residential development
of a single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a two-family
dwelling.
(b) Modification and expansion of residential development involving 4,000
square feet (sf) or more of total affected site area.
(c) New construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of nonresidential
development in residential zones involving 3,000 sf of total affected site
area.
(d) Modification and expansion of nonresidential development in nonresidential
zones, involving 10,000 sf of total affected site area.
(e) Construction of landscape and infrastructure improvements as described in §
276-3A(2).
(2) When an application is received for site plan review under the provisions for
projects of limited scope as noted above, the Director shall, within 10 working
days of the date of the submission of the application, notify the Council
members in whose ward the project is to be located.
C. Exemption:
(1) Existing uses and developments which in their present configuration and use
are legally authorized as of the date of this legislation shall not be subject to
SPR.
(2) Exterior modifications to an existing single-lot residential development of a
single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a two-family dwelling,
including additions, porches, façade changes, landscaping and site
improvements, excluding the development of parking areas for 3 or more cars as
required under §325-20.
D. City and other government projects. For city and other government projects, the
threshold of applicability, the review procedure and the review criteria shall be the
same as for all SPR applicants unless the Common Council decides that any
particular government project shall be reviewed on an advisory basis only.
However, even if a project is subject to advisory review only, no construction shall
begin until the Board or the Director has completed the review, including the
issuance of any findings and recommendations that the Board or the Director
determines to be appropriate. Projects subject to advisory SPR only shall be
presented to the Board for review beginning as early as possible, and in any case
no later than when the environmental review is started. The Board may or may not
be the Lead Agency of the environmental review of projects subject to advisory SPR
only.
§ 276-4. Other permits and approvals.
An approved site plan shall be binding on all further permits and approvals needed for
the project. The Board or the Director's decision to approve a site plan does not excuse
an applicant from complying with all other permits and approvals that may be needed,
including but not limited to street and sidewalk permits, utility permits and tree permits.
A. Permits from Building Department. For projects subject to SPR, a permit from the
Building Department shall be issued only after SPR approval has been granted. In a
case where a conditional SPR approval has been given, no certificate of occupancy
or completion shall be issued until final SPR approval has been given and all
conditions of such final approval have been met. See also § 276-9.
B. Variances.
(1) Any required variance must be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals
before the Planning Board will issue preliminary or final site plan approval.
(2) For projects that require both a variance and site plan approval, the Planning
Board will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review for both actions.
The BZA cannot grant a variance until the the Planning Board has completed
the environmental review.
C. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). All Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans must be approved by the Stormwater Management Officer (SMO)
in accordance with §282 before final site plan approval is granted.
§ 276-5. Authorization to review site plans.
A. The Planning and Development Board is authorized to conduct SPR according to
the procedures described in § 276-6.
B. The Director is authorized to conduct SPR of projects of limited scope as defined in
§ 276-3B.
C. In projects of limited scope the Board shall conduct SPR according to the
procedures described below in § 276-6, when the following conditions arise:
(1) There is public controversy concerning the proposed development, as
determined by the Board or the Director.
(2) The application is referred to the Board by the Director.
(3) The applicant appeals to the Board after decision by the Director is made.
§ 276-6. Site plan review (SPR) procedures.
A. Process initiation.
(1) The Building Commissioner shall determine whether SPR is required when an
application for a building permit, a demolition permit, or a fill permit is filed.
Such determinations may be appealed to the Planning and Development Board
within 30 days of the written notification that SPR is required.
(2) Projects which do not require a building permit, as described in §276-3A (2)
shall be submitted to the Planning Director for sketch plan. The Director shall. in
accordance with 276-5 C, determine if the project requires review by the Board.
B. The following procedures are required for both full site plan review and projects of
limited scope:
(1) Sketch plan conference with planning staff, or when appropriate, with the Board
as a whole. This step may occur before the application for a building permit if it
can be reasonably assumed that SPR would be required, in order to inform the
applicant of the SPR process and to explain the standards for approval, before
substantial time and effort are invested in the preparation of plans. The Director
should determine at this stage whether the proposal is a project of limited scope
as defined in § 276-3B.
(2) Submission of application materials.
(a) Appicants must submit a complete site plan review application, including all
applicable materials as described in the Site Plan Review Checklist, which
may be obtained from the Department of Plannign and Development.
(b) Additional application materials may be required by the Board. Depending
on the scope and complexity of the project, the Board has the discretion to
require applicants to engage the services of licensed design professionals
and other experts such as architects, landscape architects, engineers,
ecologists or surveyors.
(c) For all new construction and reconstruction of single-lot residential
development of a single-family detached or semidetached or a two-family
dwelling, applicants must complete the Residential Infill Neighborhood
Compatibility Review Application, which may be obtained from the
Department of Planning and Development
(3) Environmental review. An environmental review of the proposed development
shall be conducted prior to SPR approval in accordance with § 176 of the City
Code.
C. The following procedures are required for full Site Plan Review and not required for
projects of limited scope:
(1) Public notice
(a) By mail. At least 20 days before the first meeting at which the
Planning and Development Board considers either a determination
of environmental significance or preliminary site plan approval, the
applicant shall notify the record owners by mail of all properties
within 200 feet of the project site. Such notice shall be in the form
approved by the Board, briefly state essential facts about the
proposal, include the proposed site plan, and inform recipients of the
date, time and place of the meeting and the place where further
information about the proposal and the review process may be
obtained. Applicant shall provide the Board with certification of
compliance for notice procedures.
(b) By posting. At least 20 days before the first meeting at which the
Planning and Development Board considers either a determination
of environmental significance or preliminary site plan approval, the
applicant shall post a sign at the center of each property line of the
project site which fronts on a public or private roadway or public
right-of-way. Such signs shall be continuously maintained and
displayed facing the roadway until final action has been taken by the
Board to approve or deny the site plan. The required signs shall be
obtained from the Department of Planning and Development, and a
nonrefundable fee shall be paid for each sign or replacement
obtained. At the time such signs are obtained, the applicant or the
applicant's representative shall indicate, in writing, the date on which
the signs are to be erected.
(c) By newspaper. The hearing on the preliminary site plan shall be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least
five days before the hearing.
(2) Coordination and consultation. SPR projects requiring the review and
approval of the Board may also be reviewed by the Building Department,
the Engineering Office, the Fire Department, the City Forester and any
other city officials or non-city consultants deemed appropriate by the
Planning Board or the Director. Any comments from these reviewers
shall be summarized and forwarded to the Board to aid its decision on the
proposal.
(3) Planning and Development Board meeting. Following timely receipt of a
complete application for site plan approval, the Board shall schedule
consideration of the application at its earliest possible scheduled meeting.
The Board may establish its procedures and requirements, within the
framework provided by this chapter, for conducting site plan review.
(4) Public hearing. Prior to rendering any decision on a SPR application, the
Board shall first hold a public hearing on the proposed development.
This may begin concurrently with any required public hearing for the
purpose of environmental review of the same project and may continue
after any such environmental review public hearing is closed. Public
hearings are not required for projects of limited scope as defined in §
276-3B, unless the project is referred to the Board for SPR
(5) Action on application for site plan approval.
(a) Within 65 days after completion of environmental review on a
complete SPR application, the Board (or the Director if it is a project of
limited scope as defined in § 276-3B) shall render one of the following
decisions:
[1] Preliminary approval only.
[2] Preliminary approval with conditions.
[3] Preliminary and final approval.
[4] Preliminary and final approval with conditions.
[5] Disapproval of the site plan.
(b) In the case where a Board's action is required and where preliminary
approval only is granted, final approval shall be considered at the
earliest scheduled Board meeting subsequent to the applicant's
submittal of an adequately revised site plan, whereupon the Board
shall render one of the following decisions:
[1] Final approval.
[2] Final approval with conditions.
[3] Disapproval of the site plan.
(6) Communication of decision. The Building Commissioner and the
applicant shall be notified, in writing, of a site plan review decision no
later than 10 working days after the date of decision. When a site plan is
approved, a stamped copy of the approved site plan, including any
conditions of approval, shall accompany the notification to the Building
Commissioner.
D. Changes to approved site plan. Proposed changes (whether before or after
construction) to approved site plans must be submitted to the Commissioner for
review to determine whether the effect of the proposed changes warrants
reconsideration of the project's approval status. The Commissioner in consultation
with the Director shall make one of the following determinations:
(1) That the proposed changes do not affect the approval status of the site plan.
(2) That the changes are significant and shall require a reopening of the review.
(3) That the proposed changes are likely to have such an extensive or significant
effect on the project that a new SPR application is required.
E. Extension of deadlines. All deadlines for decisions on an SPR application may be
extended upon mutual agreement by the Board and the applicant.
§ 276-7. Project review criteria.
A. General criteria:
(1) Avoidance or mitigation of any negative impacts. The following shall be
emphasized in particular:
(a) Erosion, sedimentation and siltation control in accordance with §282 of the
City Code.
(b) Protection of significant natural features and areas, including but not limited
to trees, views, watercourses or bodies of water and land forms, on or near
the site. The protection of existing mature vegetation, especially trees over
eight inches DBH (diameter-breast-height) may be required unless a
justification for their removal can be made by the applicant.
(c) Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of
importance to the community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks,
neighborhoods, commercial areas, and historic districts.
(2) Compliance with all other regulations applicable to the development. These
include, but are not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Ordinance,
Subdivision Regulations, Storm Water Regulations Ordinance, Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance and
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance of the City of Ithaca,i EN and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.ii [Amended 6-13-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-8]
(3) Improvement of the visual quality of the site and its vicinity through:
(a) The presence of a perceivable form and order in the basic layout of the
major architectural and landscape elements.
(b) The proper and effective use of landscape architectural elements such as
plantings, land forms, water features, paving and lighting, including the
location and appearance of proposed signage. [Amended 3-5-2003 by Ord.
No. 2003-8]
(c) An appropriate arrangement, form, scale, proportion, color, pattern and
texture of buildings and other site improvements.
(d) An appropriate relationship between the proposed development and the
nearby streetscape, landscape, and the built environment.
(e) The integration of works of art on the site where appropriate and possible.
[Added 3-5-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-8]
(f) The appropriate arrangement of landscape and architectural elements to
preserve existing views both to, from and through the site.
(4) Adequate wastewater and sewage disposal facilities. Calculations of the existing
and estimated increased loads on the system may be required.
(5) Adequacy of fire lanes and fire and emergency access and the availability of fire
hydrants.
(6) Safe arrangement of vehicular access, circulation, intersections and traffic
controls. Analysis of the project's impact on parking and traffic may be required,
including sight lines at curb cuts.
(7) Handicap accessibility of buildings, pathways and parking in accordance with
ADA standards.
(8) Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including
provision of sidewalks along public streets, unless applicant demonstrates that a
sidewalk is not feasible due to site constraints.
(9) Open space for play areas and informal recreation in the case of a residential
development.
(10)Provisions for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and green design as
determined by the Board
(11)Conformance to any endorsed or adopted urban design plan or comprehensive
plan relevant to the proposed site.
(12)For new construction of multiple dwellings, commercial buildings and office
buildings, adequate and appropriately located facilities for the storage and
collection of solid waste and recyclable materials shall be required. Developers of
new commercial and mixed-occupancy buildings must design a waste
management system that can support the needs of any allowable use in the
building, including those uses that could result in maximum garbage generation.
Screening of these facilities, as well as other actions relating to the appearance
of the facilities, may be required in accordance with the Exterior Property
Maintenance Ordinance, Chapter 178 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.
[Amended 6-13-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-8; 3-5-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-8]
(13) Shielding or reduction of noise from mechanical equipment and other sources to
the extent reasonably practicable.
(14) Screening or architectural integration of a building’s or structure’s exterior
mechanical equipment.
(15) The scope and definition of the proposed development shall include all previous
development on the property occurring within the past two years within 200 feet
of the proposed development which, when considered together, may have a
substantial aggregate effect on the surrounding properties. (See definitions of
"development" and "affected site area" in § 276-2B.)
B. Criteria for plant materials and maintenance. All projects shall provide for adequate
types and arrangements of landscaping, both to enhance the site and to
complement the architectural components of the development and to screen or
buffer adjacent uses in public ways. Use of invasive species should be avoided.
Where possible and reasonable, trees shall be planted in an 8’ tree lawn adjacent to
the road. The City Forester shall, when appropriate, be consulted regarding
specifications governing tree species, size, spacing and method and location of
planting. Appropriate guaranties for tree health may be required. Where possible
and reasonable, any trees greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast height of
desirable species and in good health and sound structure, as determined by the City
Forester, should be retained on the site and protected during development per the
requirements of § 306-7B of Chapter 306, Trees and Shrubs.
(1) Deciduous trees shall have a caliper of at least 2 1/2 inches at the time of
planting. Size of evergreen trees and shrubs may vary depending on location
and species.
(2) All plant materials shall be installed to the following standards:
(a.) All planting beds to be excavated to a minimum depth of two feet.
(b.) Tree pits in lawn to be excavated to depth of root ball plus 6” and shall be
3X the width of the root ball.
(c.) All trees in lawn areas to receive 5’ diameter mulch rings.
(d.) Only nursery-grown plant materials shall be acceptable. All trees, shrubs
and ground cover shall comply with applicable requirements of ANSI
Z60.1 “American Standard for Nursery Stock”.
(e.) No plants or trees shall be located beneath building overhangs.
(f.) Depending on site design and soil conditions, structural soil may be
required under sidewalks and in planting beds contiguous to paved areas.
The City Forester and/or the Director shall work with the applicant to
determine the need for structural soil and the extent of its use.
(3) Dead, dying and/or seriously damaged plant materials of the approved site plan
shall be replaced, by the owner, within a reasonable time period during the
current (or immediate next) planting season. Any other damaged or missing
elements, including but not limited to fences, bollards, signs, shrubs, street
furniture, etc., of the approved plan must be similarly replaced by the owner.
This will assure that landscaping remains in compliance with the final site plan as
approved by the Planning and Development Board.
(4) For projects on City property, the City Forester and the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee shall be consulted in plant species selection and planting soil
specification.
(5) Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter or any other City ordinance or
regulation to the contrary, an approved site plan may not be modified without
express written approval of the Planning and Development Board except as
approved by the Building Commissioner upon consultation with the Director as
specified herein above.
C. Criteria for automobile parking areas. All parking areas shall be designed in
conformance with §325.20 of the City Ordinance. The Board may make such
additional reasonable stipulations as it deems appropriate to carry out the intention
of this chapter. (
(1) Parking areas in Residential Zoning Districts. In order to protect the
character of residential areas, plans for parking areas with the capacity of
three or more cars within residential zoning districts must conform to either
the setback compliance method or, at the discretion of the Planning
Board, the landscaping compliance method described respectively in
§ 325-20E(5)(a) and (b). Such plans must also comply with all other
general and specific standards of § 325-20. Where turnarounds, or other
maneuvering spaces not required for access to parking spaces, are
provided that meet minimum size for a parking space, they shall be
counted as a parking space for the purposes of this subsection.
(2) Applicants are encouraged to design parking areas with pervious paving
when feasible.
D. Criteria for Bicycle parking facilities. Bicycle parking shall be required for all uses
requiring site plan review as per Sec. 276-3(A)(2) except as may be determined by
the Board or the Transportation Engineer. Covered bicycle parking is strongly
recommended.
§ 276-8. Fees.
A. Application fees. The application fees shall be based on the total construction,
site work, and landscaping cost and shall be charged in accordance with the
following schedule.
Type of Approval Project Cost Application
Fee
Less and
$10,000
$75
$10,000 to
$50,000
$150
$50,000 to
$100,000
$300
Full Site Plan Review
Over $100,000 $1.50 per
$1,000
Less than
$50,000
$150 *Modified Site Plan
Review
$50,000 or more $250
Limited Site Plan
Review
Any Amount $50
*The Fee Schedule for Modified Site Plan Review applies only to modifications
to the approved site plan that do not trigger reconsideration of the
determination of environmental significance. Modifications that require
additional environmental review shall follow the fee schedule for Full Site Plan
Review .
B. Payment of Fees. For site plan review projects that require a use or area
variance from the BZA, 50% of the fee is due at the time of application and 50%
is due after the Planning Board completes environmental review. For all other
projects, the full fee is due at the time of application.
§ 276-9. Performance guaranty.
No certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion shall be issued until all
improvements required by site plan approval are installed, and including any conditions
placed on such approval are fulfilled, or until a sufficient guaranty, in the form of a
performance bond, letter of credit or other security, is in place. The Building
Commissioner shall be responsible for the overall inspection of site improvements.
§ 276-10. Expiration of approval; extension of approval. [Amended 12-12-2001 by
Ord. No. 2001-12]
If the construction of a development has not commenced within two years of the date of
the site plan approval, such approval shall expire, unless an extension has been
granted by the Board following a written request by the applicant. An application for an
extension of SPR approval shall not be considered a new SPR application.
§ 276-11. Enforcement; inspections; penalties for offenses.
Development projects may be periodically inspected for conformance to the approved
site plan, including the maintenance of the viability of the planting required as part of the
site plan approval. If there is nonconformance, or if any conditions of SPR approval are
not fulfilled, no certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion shall be issued.
Where a development reverts to nonconformance after the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or certificate of completion, current owners of the development shall be
notified, in writing, and given the opportunity to correct the situation. If the Director
determines that the corrective measures are inadequate, the city shall implement any
necessary changes to the site to bring it into conformance, the cost of which shall be
charged to the property owner. In addition, a fine of $50/day may be imposed for any
violations of the provisions of this chapter or of any conditions imposed by a permit
issued pursuant to site plan approval. Development projects shall be inspected at least
once two years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of
completion.
§ 276-12. Appeals.
A. The determination (by the Building Commissioner) of whether a development
proposal is subject to SPR may be appealed to the Board within 30 days of the
written notification that SPR is required.
B. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director may appeal to the Board.
C. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board, or any officer or agency of the
city, regarding SPR, may apply to the Supreme Court for review by a proceeding
under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
§ 276-13. Severability.
If any section, paragraph or provision of this chapter shall be determined to be invalid,
such invalidity shall apply only to the section, paragraph or provision adjudged invalid,
and the rest of this chapter shall remain valid and effective.
4. Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance
This item was not discussed at the meeting.
F. Discussion Items
1. Planned Unit Development (PUD)
This is not ready for circulation.
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 325-3(B) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is
hereby amended to add the following definition of a Planned Unit Development:
Planned Unit Development - One or more lots, tracts, or parcels of land to be developed
as a single entity, the plan for which may propose density or intensity transfers, density
or intensity increase, mixing of land uses, or any combination thereof, and which may
not correspond in lot size, bulk, or type of dwelling or building, use, density, intensity, lot
coverage, parking, required common open space, or other standards to zoning use
district requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located.
Section 2. Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled
“Establishment of Districts” is hereby amended to insert the new PUD zoning district as
follows:
PUD Planned Unit Development
Section 3. A new section 325-27 is inserted as follows:
Ҥ325-27. Planned Unit Development.
A. Declaration of Legislative Authority and Purpose. This ordinance is enacted pursuant
to the authority and provisions of the New York State General City Law to promote
public health, safety and welfare and the most desirable use of land, to conserve the
value of buildings, and to enhance the value and appearance of land throughout the
city. This ordinance is also enacted pursuant to the authority and provisions of New
York State General City Law §81-f, Planned Unit Development Zoning Districts,
which was enacted by the State Legislature on July 29, 2003. The Common Council
intends that this Ordinance:
1. Will permit flexibility in the application of land development regulations that
will encourage innovative development and redevelopment for residential and
nonresidential purposes so that a growing demand for housing and other
development and land use may be met by variety in type, design, and layout
of dwellings and other buildings and structures, including traditional
neighborhood development and appropriate mixed-use.
2. Will permit flexibility in architectural design, placement, and clustering of
buildings, provision of open space and circulation facilities, including
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and parking, and related site and design
considerations.
3. Will encourage the conservation of natural features, preservation of open
space and critical and sensitive areas, and protection from natural hazards.
4. Will provide for efficient use of public facilities.
5. Will encourage and preserve opportunities for energy-efficient development
and redevelopment.
6. Will promote attractive and functional environments for residential and
nonresidential areas that are compatible with surrounding land use.
B. The application of the Planned Unit Development ordinance to a proposed
development:
1. Shall be sought by the owner of the property or properties, or shall be sought
with the approval of the owner or owners of the property or properties, as
demonstrated by submission to the City of Ithaca of a signed “Owner’s
Authorization” by the applicant;
2. Shall be limited to sites that are:
a) Equal to or greater in land area than 60,000 square feet for sites without
structures or
b) Equal to or greater in land area than 20,000 square feet for sites with
existing structures or for vacant sites that were previously developed.
3. Shall be consistent with and work towards the implementation of the City of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time.
C. Application procedure; review by City staff and the Planning and Development
Board.
Whenever any Planned Unit Development is proposed, before any permit for the
erection of a permanent building in such Planned Unit Development shall be granted,
the developer or the developer’s authorized agent shall apply for and secure approval of
such Planned Unit Development in accordance with the following procedures:
1. Application for sketch plan approval.
a) A pre-submission conference between the applicant and staff of the
Department of Planning and Development may be held to discuss the
proposal, outline the review procedure and required submissions and
inform the applicant of minimum standards and potential city concerns of
the conceptual project.
b) The developer shall submit a sketch plan of the proposal to the Planning
and Development Board. The sketch plan shall be approximately to scale,
though it need not be to the precision of a finished engineering drawing,
and it shall clearly show the following information:
i) The boundaries and included tax parcels in the proposed Planned Unit
Development.
ii) The location of the various uses and their areas in square feet.
iii) The general outlines of the interior roadway system, including parking
and service/delivery areas, and all existing rights-of-way and
easements, whether public or private.
iv) Delineation of the various residential areas indicating for each such
area its general extent, size and composition in terms of total number
of dwelling units, approximate percentage allocation by dwelling unit
type (e.g., single-family detached, duplex, townhouse, garden
apartments, etc.); and general description of the intended market
structure (e.g. luxury, middle income, low and moderate income,
elderly, family, student, etc.) plus a calculation of the residential density
in dwelling units per gross acre (total area including roadways) for
each such area.
v) The interior open space system.
vi) The overall drainage system.
vii) If grades exceed 3% or portions of the site have a moderate to high
susceptibility to erosion, flooding and/or ponding, a topographic map
showing contour intervals of not more than five feet of elevation, or as
may be reasonably required by the Planning & Development Board,
along with an overlay outlining the above susceptible soil areas, if any.
viii)Principal ties to the community at large with respect to transportation,
water supply and sewage disposal.
ix) General description of the provision of fire protection services.
x) A map showing general location within the City of Ithaca (e.g., a City-
wide map or a USGS quadrangle map highlighting the proposed
development site would be acceptable).
xi) A context map showing building footprints, uses and ownership of all
properties within 200 feet of the boundaries of the proposed PUD site.
2. In addition, the following documentation shall accompany the sketch plan at
the request of the Planning and Development Board:
a) Evidence that the proposal is compatible with the goals of the City
Comprehensive plan, as amended from time to time.
b) A general statement as to how common open space is to be owned and
maintained.
c) If the development is to be staged, a general indication of how the staging
is to proceed. Whether or not the development is to be staged, the sketch
plan shall show the intended total project.
d) Other plans, drawings or specifications as may be required for an
understanding of the proposed development.
3. The Planning and Development Board shall hold a public hearing on the
proposal within thirty-five (35) days of receipt of an application for sketch plan
approval. Notice of the hearing shall be served by the city to the public at
least ten (10) days before the date of such hearing, by means of a legal
notice in the official newspaper of the City of Ithaca, and by the applicant to
each owner of real estate within a distance of two hundred (200) feet from the
exterior boundaries of the proposed PUD district by means of a letter
addressed to the owner of record of such real estate delivered by first class
mail. The applicant shall also post a public notice of the PUD proposal at the
project site for a minimum of 10 days before the public hearing. This notice
must remain in place at least until the Planning and Development Board has
rendered its report on the application or until the 65 day period of review has
expired (see #5 below). The notice shall specify the type and size of the
development project; 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. The costs of notification,
including but not limited to publishing, posting and mailing costs, shall be paid
by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit.
4. The Planning and Development Board shall review the sketch plan and its
related documents and shall render either a favorable report to the Common
Council or an unfavorable report to the applicant.
a) A favorable report shall be based on the following findings which shall be
included as part of the report:
i) the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, as amended from
time to time, and
ii) the proposal meets the intent and objectives of a Planned Unit
Development as expressed in Section 3(A) above and is a desirable
way to regulate the development of the site, and
iii) the proposal is conceptually sound in that it conforms to accepted
design principles in the proposed functional roadway and pedestrian
system, land use configurations, neighborhood context, open space
system, drainage system and scale of the elements both absolutely
and in relation to one another, and
iv) there are adequate services and utilities available or proposed to be
made available for the development.
b) An unfavorable report shall state clearly the reasons therefore and, if
appropriate, point out to the applicant what might be accomplished in
order to receive a favorable report. The applicant may, within 10 days after
receiving an unfavorable report, file an application for PUD districting (an
appeal) with the City Clerk, who shall notify the Mayor to bring the matter
to the next Common Council meeting.
5. The Planning and Development Board shall submit its report within sixty-five
(65) days of a submittal of a sketch plan application to the Department of
Planning and Development. If no report has been rendered after sixty-five
(65) days, the applicant may proceed as if a favorable report were given to
Common Council.
D. Application procedure; PUD zoning approval
1. Common Council shall receive a PUD report from the Planning and
Development Board or an applicant’s appeal at a duly convened Common
Council meeting. Upon receipt of a favorable report from the Planning and
Development Board, or upon an appeal from an unfavorable report, Common
Council shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of considering PUD
districting for the applicant’s plan, said public hearing to be held within 35
days of the receipt of a favorable report or an appeal from an unfavorable
report. Notice of this hearing shall be served by the city to the public at least
fifteen (15) days before the date of such hearing, by means of a legal notice
in the official newspaper of the City of Ithaca. The public hearing shall be held
by the Common Council in accordance with its own rules and General City
Law §83.
2. Common Council shall refer the application to the Tompkins County Planning
Department for its analysis and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of
§239-l and §239-m of the General Municipal Law, if applicable. Common
Council shall give the Tompkins County Planning Department 30 days to
render its report.
3. In considering an application for a Planned Unit Development district,
Common Council shall comply with the provisions of the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance.
4. In considering an application for a Planned Unit Development district,
particularly as regards the intensity of land use, Common Council shall
consider the following questions:
a) What are the proposed land uses in the proposed location?
b) Is the PUD a desirable way to regulate the development of the proposed
site?
c) What are the heights of buildings? How do building masses and locations
compare to each other and to other structures in the vicinity?
d) Are there available and adequate transportation systems within the PUD
for pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles, including transit? What is
the impact on the external transportation network?
e) What is the character of the neighborhood in which the PUD is being
proposed? Are there safeguards provided to minimize possible detrimental
effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and the neighborhood
in general?
f) How do the proposed open space and recreational systems function within
the PUD and in relation to the City’s overall open space and recreational
systems?
g) What is the general ability of the land to support the development,
including such factors as slope, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and
soil type?
h) What potential impacts are there on environmental, historical, and
architectural resources? Does the proposed PUD serve to protect these
resources?
i) What potential impacts are there on local government services?
j) Is there available and adequate water service?
k) Is there available and adequate sewer service?
l) Other questions as may be deemed appropriate by the Common Council.
5. Within 45 days of the public hearing, Common Council shall render its
decision on the application. Common Council shall state at this time its
findings with respect to the questions listed in Section D (4) above and the
land use intensity and/or dwelling unit density. Common Council may, if it
feels it necessary in order to fully protect the public health, safety and welfare
of the community, attach to its zoning resolution any additional conditions or
requirements for the applicant to meet. Such requirements may include, but
are not limited to:
a) visual and acoustical screening
b) land use combinations
c) sequence of construction and/or occupancy
d) circulation systems (vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian), including parking
and service/delivery areas
e) the amount, location, and proposed use of common open space;
f) the location and physical characteristics of the proposed Planned Unit
Development;
g) the location, design, type, height, and use of structures proposed;
h) traditional neighborhood development provisions intended to ensure:
i) The creation of compact neighborhoods oriented toward pedestrian
activity and including an identifiable neighborhood center, commons or
square;
ii) a variety of housing types, jobs, shopping, services, and public
facilities;
iii) residences, shops, workplaces, and public buildings interwoven within
the neighborhood, all within close proximity;
iv) a pattern of interconnecting streets and blocks that encourages
multiple routes from origins and destinations;
v) a coordinated transportation system with appropriately designed
facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and automotive
vehicles;
vi) preservation, restoration, and maintenance of historic buildings that
physically express the history of the City of Ithaca unless it is shown
that the building’s condition prohibits preservation, restoration,
renovation, or reuse;
vii) natural features and undisturbed areas are incorporated into the open
space of the neighborhood;
viii)well-configured squares, greens, landscaped streets, and parks are
woven into the pattern of the neighborhood;
ix) public buildings, open spaces, and other visual features act as
landmarks, symbols, and focal points for community identity;
x) compatibility of buildings and other improvements as determined by
their arrangement, bulk, form, character, and landscaping to establish
a livable, harmonious, and diverse environment; and
xi) public and private buildings that form a consistent, distinct edge, are
oriented towards streets, and define the border between the public
street space and the private block interior.
E. Zoning for Planned Unit Development. If Common Council grants the PUD
districting, by an ordinance duly adopted, the Zoning Map shall designate the
proposed area as “Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Number___.” The
Common Council ordinance shall stand as the zoning requirements for the PUD
district.
F. Site Plan Review. Site plan approval for all Planned Unit Developments shall be
obtained in accordance with Chapter 276 of the City Code, Site Plan Review.
G. Regulation after PUD or Site Plan Approval. For the purposes of regulating
development and use of property after PUD or Site Plan Approval, the approved final
site plan shall serve in lieu of other provisions of this chapter as the use, space and
bulk, yard, parking and other land use regulations applicable to the Planned Unit
Development district. Any changes, other than use changes (see below), shall be
processed as a change to an approved site plan, in accordance with §276-6 (C). In
addition to the three possible determinations listed in §276-6, the Building
Commissioner, in consultation with the Director of Planning and Development, may
determine that the proposed changes are substantially different from the Planned
Unit Development district approved by Common Council and that a new PUD
application is required. Use changes shall also be in the form of a change to an
approved site plan except that the Planning and Development Board shall have the
opportunity to make a recommendation to Common Council and that Common
Council approval shall be required. It shall be noted, however, that properties lying in
Planned Unit Development districts are unique and shall be so considered by the
Planning and Development Board or Common Council when evaluating these
requests; maintenance of the intent and function of the planned unit shall be of
primary importance.
H. Expiration of permit. All permits shall become null and void, and the Zoning Map
amendment revoked and restored to the zoning designation to which the district had
been prior to the PUD application, if construction has not started within three (3)
years of the date of final site plan approval. However, the applicant may petition the
Planning and Development Board before the expiration date for an extension of no
more than two (2) years. If the applicant can demonstrate substantial investment or
reasonable progress towards construction to the Planning and Development Board,
the extension shall not be unreasonably denied. Additional extensions may also be
granted by the Planning & Development Board.”
Section 4. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the
provisions of the ordinance. 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 in accordance with law
upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Section 3. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change
the designation from R-3a to R-2c for the following tax parcels: 57.-3-1, 57.-3-2.2, 57.-3-
3, 57.-3-4, 74.-3-1, 74.-3-2, 74.-3-3, 74.-3-4, 74.-3-5, 74.-3-6, 74.-3-7, 74.-3-8, 74.-3-9,
74.-3-11, 74.-3-10, 74.-3-12, 74.-3-13,74.-3-14, 74.-3-15, and 77.-2-3.
The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed R-3aa, R-
2c, R-2b Zoning Amendment-July 2010,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City
Clerk’s office.
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.
Publish Date: September 17, 2010
2. Zoning to establish sites for Community Gardens
3. Agenda Planning – potential upcoming items
In development or circulation, expected back in September are
Changes to the Community Investment Incentive Program (CIIP), Possible
Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements (possibly October), and
Allowing Housing in Industrial Districts
CIIP will go to the IDA for an initial review of the changes.
G. Approval of Minutes – October 2010, Feb. 2012, March 2012
No minutes were approved.
H. Adjournment
Alderperson Rooker motioned to adjourn; Alderperson Murtagh seconded
the motion. Passed 5-0. The Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.