HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-13 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: August 14, 2013
TIME: 6pm
LOCATION:3rd floor
City Hall Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s) Time
Start
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
2) Special Order of Business
a) Presentation on Design Guidelines for Historic
Districts
b) Public Hearing – Revisions to Minimum Floor‐
to‐Floor Height Requirements in all CBD
Zoning Districts
c) Public Hearing – Disposition of Property, 402
South Cayuga Street
d) Public Hearing – Disposition of Property, 203
Third Street
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee
Members
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
5) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) Environmental Review for the Allocation of
Funds for the 2013 IURA Action Plan
b) Approval of Property Disposition, 402 South
Cayuga Street and 203 Third Street
c) Approval to Change Previously Approved
Terms of Disposition for 213‐215 West
Spencer Street and 710 Cliff Street
d) Revisions to Minimum Height Requirements in
all CBD zoning districts
6) Discussion
a) Community Incentive Investment Tax
Abatement Program (CIITAP)
b) Neighborhood Incentive Improvement Fund
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) January, April, May, and July 2013
8) Adjournment
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Chair, Seph Murtagh
Lynn Truame, Planning Staff
JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director
Sue Kittel, IURA Staff
Nels Bohn, IURA Staff
Nels Bohn, IURA Staff
Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff
All
All
6:00
6:05
6:30
6:50
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:30
8:50
9:00
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order tofully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274‐
6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, August 13, 2013.
Proposed Resolution
IURA
July 25, 2013
Property Disposition, 402 South Cayuga and 203 Third Street – Authorize disposition to Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency has acquired parcels at 402 South Cayuga Street
(tax parcel # 93.‐6‐7) and at 203 Third Street (tax parcel # 35.‐5‐16) and has undertaken a
process to return these vacant parcels to residential use, and
Whereas, there were two responses to the request for proposals issued for each of these
parcels, and
Whereas, the Neighborhood Investment Committee of the IURA reviewed the responses and
evaluated them according to a scoring system developed for the purpose, and
Whereas, the proposals from INHS were scored highest for both properties, and
Whereas, INHS proposes to develop four new owner occupied town homes at 402 South
Cayuga Street which will be affordable to low‐income homebuyers, , and
Whereas, INHS proposes to construct a single family home which will be affordable to a low‐
income homebuyer at 203 Third Street, and
Whereas, the project site is located within the Urban Renewal Project Boundary area, and
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) is only authorized to dispose of property to
a specific buyer if such buyer is designated as an eligible and qualified sponsor (Sponsor) per
section 508 of General Municipal Law and the sale is approved by Common Council, and
Whereas, a proposed Sponsor is evaluated in accordance with adopted IURA land disposition
procedures that seek to determine if the proposed Sponsor is qualified and capable of fulfilling
the objectives of the project for property disposition, and
Whereas, IURA evaluation criteria for Sponsors include:
• Financial status and stability
• Legal qualification to operate in the State of New York and to enter into contracts with
regard to the disposition, use, and development of land in questions
• Previous experience in the financing, use, development and operation of projects of a
similar nature
• Reputation and proof of fair, reputable and ethical business practices and a record
devoid of convictions
Whereas, one objective of the Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) is improvement of the residential
environment through redevelopment, rehabilitation, conservation, and new construction to
1
assure every family in Ithaca a decent home within its economic means improve the economic,
social and physical characteristics of the project neighborhood, and
Whereas, redevelopment of these vacant parcels advances this Urban Renewal Plan goal, and
Whereas, INHS’s successful record of developing affordable housing in Ithaca spans over 36
years and includes nearly 200 projects demonstrating that they possess the skills, resources and
capacity to complete the proposed projects, and
Whereas, the terms of sale for the property are as follows:
402 South Cayuga Street
• Sale price: $ 29,000.00
• Outcome: 4 new owner‐occupied residences affordable to a household earning
up to 80% of area median income adjusted for household size
• Conformance with the proposal received by the IURA from INHS dated April 25,
2013
• transfer of property contingent upon site plan approval and issuance of a building
permit
203 Third Street
• Sale Price; $17,000.00
• Outcome: one new affordable owner‐occupied single family home (affordable to
a household earning up to 80% of area median income adjusted for household
size)
• Conformance with the proposal received by the IURA from INHS dated April 25,
2013
• transfer of property contingent upon site plan approval and issuance of a building
permit, and
Whereas, the IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee considered this matter at their May
10, 2013 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby determines that Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.
has satisfactorily demonstrated its qualifications and capacity to successfully undertake a
project to develop owner‐occupied housing at 402 South Cayuga Street and 203 Third Street
and therefore designates INHS as a “qualified and eligible sponsor” eligible to acquire tax
parcels # 93.‐6‐7and # 35.‐5‐16, and be it further
RESOLVED, the IURA approves purchase and sale agreements with Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services subject to the following conditions:
402 South Cayuga Street
• Sale price: $ 29,000.00
• Outcome: 4 new owner‐occupied residences affordable to a household earning
up to 80% of area median income adjusted for household size
2
• Conformance with the proposal received by the IURA from INHS dated April 25,
2013
• transfer of property contingent upon site plan approval and issuance of a
building permit
• Common Council approval of the proposed disposition
203 Third Street
• Sale Price; $17,000.00
• Outcome: one new affordable owner‐occupied single family home (affordable to
a household earning up to 80% of area median income adjusted for household
size)
• Conformance with the proposal received by the IURA from INHS dated April 25,
2013
• transfer of property contingent upon site plan approval and issuance of a
building permit, and be it further
• Common Council approval of the proposed disposition
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby recommends that the Common Council approve sale of the
parcels at 402 South Cayuga Street and 203 Third Street to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services, Inc., subject to the conditions listed above.
3
Proposed Resolution
IURA
July 25, 2013
Property Disposition 213‐215 West Spencer Street and 701 Cliff Street
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency has signed purchase and sale agreements with the
City of Ithaca for parcels at 213‐215 West Spencer Road and 701 Cliff Streets and has
undertaken a process to return these vacant parcels to residential use, and
Whereas, there were no responses to the request for proposals issued for either of these
parcels, and
Whereas, the Common Council stipulated that 213‐215 West Spencer Street incorporate fully
taxable housing in the form of an architecturally compatible multi‐unit residential
development, including affordable housing if feasible, and
Whereas, the Common Council stipulated that 701 Cliff Street be redeveloped as multi‐unit
residential development (which includes a duplex) which is fully taxable, and
Whereas, with these stipulations the properties are not seen as feasible redevelopment sites,
and
Whereas, the IURA Neighborhood Investment Committee considered this matter at their May
10, 2013 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby recommends that the City of Ithaca Common Council remove
these development stipulations for the properties at 213‐215 West Spencer Street and 701 Cliff
Street and allow the IURA property to sell these two properties through a realtor with no
stipulations as to final use.
j:\community development\dispositions\property disposition\return cliff and spencer to council.doc
1
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning and Economic 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: Svante Myrick, Mayor Ray Benjamin, Acting Superintendent of Public Works
Common Council Conservation Advisory Council (CAC)
Julie Holcomb, City Clerk Planning & Development Board
Aaron Lavine, City Attorney Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Acting Building Commissioner
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Building, & Economic Development
Edward Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: August 7, 2013
RE: Proposal to Amend Downtown Zoning Districts
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to amend the downtown zoning
districts in order to add language that was inadvertently left out of the recently adopted revisions to the CBD
zoning districts. This proposal was last discussed by this committee at their July meeting. The proposal has
since been circulated for comments. Enclosed are the comments that have been received from the
Tompkins County Planning Department, which states that they do not anticipate that there will be any
negative inter municipal impacts as a result of this action. No additional comments have been received
Enclosed for your consideration are draft resolutions for lead agency and environmental significance, as
well as the draft ordinance and draft environmental review form. If you have any concerns or questions
regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\08 august\2013-
cbd min story height resolution lead agency 08-07 jc.doc
y Of Ithaca,
8/7/13
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The Cit
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” in order to establish Minimum
Floor to Floor Heights the CBD zoning district Declaration of
Lead Agency
e require
vironmental
and state
cal agency
unding or
ed” Action
ew (CEQR)
therefore,
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does
hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of
the proposed amendments to the CBD zoning districts in order to
establish minimum floor to floor heights.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Cod
that a lead agency be established for conducting en
review of projects in accordance with local
environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local
environmental review, the lead agency shall be that lo
which has primary responsibility for approving and f
carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an “Unlist
pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Revi
Ordinance, which requires environmental review; now,
be it
Draft Resolution
ty Of
8/7/13
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The Ci
Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” in order to
establish Minimum Floor to Floor Heights in all CBD zoning
districts Declaration of Environmental Significance
ering a proposal
rder to
a Short
July 19,
” Action
dinance,
Ithaca,
repared
ings and
Short
9, 2013,
gency in
proposed
ffect on
l review
3. RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of
this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is
hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together
with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and
forward the same to any other parties as required by
law.
1. WHEREAS, the Common Council is consid
to amend the CBD zoning districts in o
establish minimum floor to floor heights, and
2. WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been
conducted, including the preparation of
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated
2013, and
3. WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted
under the City Environmental Quality Review Or
and
4. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of
acting as lead agency, has reviewed the SEAF p
by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
1. RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in
this matter, hereby adopts as its own the find
conclusions more fully set forth on the
Environmental Assessment Form, dated July 1
and be it further
2. RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead a
this matter, hereby determines that the
action at issue will not have a significant e
the environment, and that further environmenta
is unnecessary, and be it further
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\08
august\2013-cbd min story height resolution-negdeccbd jc.doc
8/9/2013
Page 1 of 2
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Amend the CBD Zoning
Districts in order to Establish Minimum Floor to Floor Heights
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 325-16 (“Height
Regulations”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is
hereby amended to add a new subsection 325-16H, that will
establish minimum floor to floor heights for all new
construction in the CBD zoning districts. Section 325-16H,
shall read as follows:
H. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
herein, in all CBD zoning districts, all new construction
of primary use buildings shall contain a minimum of 12 feet
floor to floor height on the first story and all additional
stories above the ground floor must be a minimum of 10 feet
floor to floor height.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-8D “Additional Restrictions
in the CBD Districts" is hereby amended to add a new subsection
325-8D(3), to read as follows:
325-8D.
(3) In all CBD zoning districts, all new construction
of primary use buildings shall contain a minimum
of 12 feet floor to floor height on the first
story and all additional stories above the ground
floor must be a minimum of 10feet floor to floor
height.
Section 3. The City Planning and Development Board, the City
Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the district
regulations chart to add minimum floor to floor heights for all
CBD districts to column 16, in accordance with the amendments
made by this ordinance.
Deleted: I
Deleted: D
Deleted: ’
Deleted: CBD
Deleted: D
Deleted: ’
8/9/2013
Page 2 of 2
Section 4. 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 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor.
1. Applicant/Sponsor:
City of Ithaca
2. Project Name: Proposal to Amend
the CBD Zoning Districts in order to
establish a minimum floor to floor
height
3. Project Location: All parcels located in any CBD zoning district
4. Is Proposed Action:
ο New ο Expansion
ο Modification/Alteration
5. Describe project briefly: Proposal is to amend the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca in order to establish minimum floor to floor heights for all new construction in
the CBD districts.
6. Precise Location (Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc. or provide map)
All properties located in CBD-50, CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, and
CBD-140 districts.
7. Amount of Land Affected:
Initially _35___ Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately ___35_____ Acres or Sq.
Ft.
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use
restrictions?
ο Yes X No If No, describe briefly: The action being evaluated is an
amendment to the zoning ordinance
9. What is present land use in vicinity of project:
Residential ο Industrial ο Agricultural ο Parkland/Open Space
X Commercial ο Other _________________
Describe:
10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from
governmental agency (Federal, State or Local):X Yes ο No
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Common Council
Approval
11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval?
ο Yes X No
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type:
12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification?
ο Yes X No
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: ______________________________ DATE: 7/19/13
PREPARER'S TITLE: ___Economic Development Planner______________________
REPRESENTING: _____City of Ithaca__________________________________
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\08 august\2013-
cbdminstory-seaf form.07-19.doc
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM –Part II
In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use
currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action.
Name of Project: Proposal to Amend the CBD Zoning Districts in order to establish
minimum floor to floor height restrictions
Yes No
1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than
one acre of land?
□
9
2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any site
designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state agency?
□
9
3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? □ 9
4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? □ 9
5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? □ 9
6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? □ 9
7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? □ 9
8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas
known to be important to the community:
□ 9
9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic, or
paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district?
□
9
10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? □ 9
11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation
systems?
□ 9
12. Will the project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a
result of the project's operation during construction or after completion?
□
9
13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? □ 9
14. Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent
populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period OR have a negative effect on the
character of the community or neighborhood?
□
9
15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? □ 9
If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is
necessary.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: ____________________________________ DATE: _________
PREPARER'S TITLE: _Economic Development Planner________________________________
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\08 august\2013-
cbdminstory-seaf form.07-19.doc
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\08 august\2013-
cbdminstory-seaf form.07-19.doc
REPRESENTING: ____UCity of IthacaU______________________
Email sent Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Seph,
I want to thank you for making time in the August P&ED Committee
meeting agenda to discuss the CIITAP (Community Investment
ncentive Tax Abatement Program) policy and the process described I
therein.
I requested this discussion following the ARGO Hotel/Marriott Hotel
process which was approved by TCAD in March 2013. To date,
ARGO/Marriott is the first and only project to utilize the CIITAP, after its
adoption by Council in October 2012. I am grateful that Council will
have this opportunity to review and comment on our impressions and
P experience with the CIITAP process prior to the Holiday Inn CIITA
application which, as I understand, is coming forward shortly.
For myself, I feel there are several shortcomings with the existing
CIITAPro pcess – namely:
1) the lack of opportunity to receive feedback from the
de he
velopers to questions and concerns brought forward in t
public hearing,
the 2)the lack of information made available to Council on
project application
3) without developer feedback, and without access to
information contained in the developer’s CIITAP application
prior to the public hearing or approval by the City, there is a
lack of opportunity to provide productive input of community
interests and expectations at the initial stages of the
negotiation process between TCAD and the developer. In the
case of URGO/Marriott, I feel this resulted in community
outcry, and feeling of frustration with the loss of transparency,
accountability and oversight into public processes.
While the CIITAP program is designed to incentivize development in the
urban core, residents, community members and elected officials have
questioned the CIITAP and how it does little to ensure that every day
residents and workers of the city and county will see any benefit from
the over $4.6 million in tax abatements received by URGO/Marriott
Hotels, in terms of quality jobs, equitable employment opportunities, or
nvironmental commitment, while conversely guaranteeing the project e
developers a 20% return on investment.
With the URGO/Marriott project, it should be noted that the County
experienced a tax abatement from this project valued at $728,000
(property and mortgage recording tax), the City at $1,300,859, the
school district at $1,686,084, and sales tax abatements of $892,000 over
ten years. It is also estimated that as a result of this project,
unicipalities will receive $3,412,460 in new taxes ($630,056 County; m
$1,211,779 City: and $1,570,625 school) over ten years.
k you again for your support in bringing this discussion to the
Than
agenda.
Best,
Cynthia
Cynthia Brock
First Ward Alderperson, City of Ithaca
cbrock@cityofithaca.org
el: (607) 398-0883 T
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
DATE: August 7, 2013
RE: Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund Discussion
Staff recently received an application for the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (NIIF)
for an event that is considered a special event under the City's special events criteria. This particular
event has received NIIF funds in the past but has grown since it was first held and now requires a
Special Event Permit. The NIIF is intended for neighborhood-scale events such as cleanups,
plantings in public spaces, block parties and neighborhood meetings. It seems that events that
require a Special Event Permit would not meet the criteria of the fund. In the case of the recent
application, staff explained this to the applicant and helped identify another source of funding for
the event. However, it will be helpful for the Planning & Economic Development Committee to
discuss the eligibility of specials events for the NIIF so that staff has clear guidance from the
Committee if similar applications are submitted. Staff will attend the August 14th meeting to discuss
this issue. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at
mwilson@cityofithaca.org or 274-6560.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, 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: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
CITY OF ITHACA
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT INCENTIVE FUND
The Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund has been established by the City of Ithaca to encourage
those who are concerned about the physical and social quality of our neighborhoods to think creatively
and practically about improvement projects. The fund was created to support a wide range of projects,
including but not limited to neighborhood cleanups, plantings in public spaces, neighborhood events
such as area-wide reuse events or block parties, and neighborhood meetings. The fund is not meant to
substitute for neighborhood fund raising or capital improvements to neighborhoods; instead, it is
intended to hasten completion of small projects and to stimulate, or “seed,” larger projects.
Requests for payment for event organizers or for hours spent making physical improvements are not
eligible under this program ― the aim is to encourage, not to replace, volunteerism. Funds will be
distributed in increments not to exceed $300 per year to any one group. Preference will be given to
neighborhoods not recently granted money from the fund. Political or partisan activities (e.g., a meet-
the-candidates night) will not be eligible unless all the candidates for the office are invited. Applications
will be reviewed by the Planning & Economic Development Committee of Common Council, which is
authorized to approve expenditures for projects that fall within the guidelines. The Committee meets on
the third Wednesday of each month. Applications should be submitted ten days in advance of the
meeting to Megan Wilson, Planner, Department of Planning & Development, City Hall, 108 East Green
Street, Ithaca, NY 14850. Please submit printed materials (flyers, newsletters, etc.) related to the
application when they are available, either with the application or upon later completion. For additional
information contact Megan Wilson, 274-6550.
The Neighborhood Incentive Fund award is a reimbursement grant. At the completion of an
event or project, applicants must submit a City voucher with original receipts attached, to the
Department of Planning & Development. Regretfully, the City cannot reimburse the expense of
sales tax. If you need assistance with the reimbursement process, you may contact Megan Wilson
or Debbie Grunder at 274-6550 in the Department of Planning & Development.
Requirements:
1. The application requires a brief description of the proposed project, a project budget, including a
verifiable estimate of the cost of items for which the request is being made, and signatures of
neighborhood residents. For requests under $100, five signatures are required; for requests over
$100, twenty signatures are required.
2. The project must benefit the general neighborhood, not a select few residents. One competitive
basis for evaluating requests will be the number of residents who benefit from the project.
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\08 august\niif application.doc
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\08 august\niif application.doc
Date: _______________ App. #__________
(Office Use)
APPLICATION
Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
Applicant Information
Neighborhood Group/Ward #: ____________________________________________________
Applicant Contact: ______________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________Telephone:______________
......................................................................................................................................................
Project Description
Describe the entire project and indicate those elements for which you are seeking incentive funds. Who
will benefit from the project/ and how? Does the project involve any donated materials or labor? What
is the project schedule?
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________
Project Budget
List any additional sources of cash, approximate value of any donations and approximate hours of
donated labor. For projects under $100, it is required that you obtain signatures of five neighborhood
residents; for projects over $100, twenty signatures are required.
Total Cash
$___________
Amount Requested
$___________
Donated Labor
_________________hrs
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
Donated Materials
list items_____________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\08 august\niif application.doc
Signatures: As a member of the immediate neighborhood, I am aware of and approve of the
improvement project described on other side of this page.
NAME ADDRESS
1.____________________________________ _____________________________________
2.____________________________________ _____________________________________
3.____________________________________ _____________________________________
4.____________________________________ _____________________________________
5.____________________________________ _____________________________________
6.____________________________________ _____________________________________
7.____________________________________ _____________________________________
8.____________________________________ _____________________________________
9.____________________________________ _____________________________________
10.___________________________________ _____________________________________
11.___________________________________ _____________________________________
12.___________________________________ _____________________________________
13.___________________________________ _____________________________________
14.___________________________________ _____________________________________
15.___________________________________ _____________________________________
16.___________________________________ _____________________________________
17.___________________________________ _____________________________________
18.___________________________________ _____________________________________
19.___________________________________ _____________________________________
20.___________________________________ _____________________________________
Submit completed applications to: Megan Wilson, Planner
Department of Planning & Development
City Hall – 3rd Floor
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
274-6550 FAX 274-6558
Email: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, January 9, 2013 – 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 Stephen Smith
Committee Members Absent:
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick; Alderperson Cynthia
Brock
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, and Development; Lynn
Truame, Historic Preservation Planner,
Department of Planning and Development;
Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant,
Department of Planning and Development
Others Attending:
Chair Jennifer Dotson called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
B. Special Order of Business – Public Hearing Announcement – 2013 Community
Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnership Program
The following announcement was read into the meeting’s record:
On behalf of the City of Ithaca, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency is announcing the beginning of the 2013
Entitlement Grant round. Projects to be funded through the 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program will be selected through this process. Approximately
$515,000 in CDBG and $567,000 in HOME funds are expected to be available. All funded projects must meet
HUD National Objectives and primarily benefit the City’s low-income residents.
Application materials and more information can be found on the City web site at www.cityofithaca.org, (click on
‘City Departments’ and ‘Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency’). Applications are due at noon on March 1, 2013.
The first of two public hearings for the grant is now scheduled for March 21, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. in Common
Council Chambers. The entire schedule of public meetings can be found on the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
web page.
For more information, please contact: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
108 East Green Street, 3rd floor
Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
Phone (607) 274-6553
E-mail: suek@cityofithaca.org
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members (6:05 pm)
Teresa Halpert, 209 S. Geneva Street, spoke in favor of the Henry St. John Historic
District.
Carol Mallison, 137 Bank Street, Newfield, spoke on behalf of McGraw House, and
asked that it not include 116 and 120 West Clinton Street in the Henry St. John
Neighborhood district.
Richard Guttridge, 216 S. Geneva Street, asks that the City keep the Henry St. John
Historic District in tact and maintain the City’s say in what happens in the neighborhood.
Susan Monagan, 216 S. Geneva Street, she understands the significance of historic
designation and would like to the see the Henry St. John Historic District remain in tact.
Dave Halpert, 209 S. Geneva Street, spoke in favor of the Henry St. John Historic
District and asks that the committee to do the right thing.
Eric Rosario, 228 S. Geneva Street, spoke in favor of the Henry St. John Historic
District. Eliminating the properties on Clinton Street does not guarantee that nothing will
be done on these properties.
Neha Khanna, 228 S. Geneva Street, spoke in favor of keeping the current Henry St.
John Historic District boundaries in place. 116 Clinton Street has already been on the
market for sale. There’s no guarantee what the owner will do.
Susan Cummings, 214 Fayette Street, spoke in favor of keeping the boundaries in tact
in the Henry St. John Historic District. Preservation and affordability go hand and hand
not separately.
Alphonse Pieper, 139 Ithaca Road, on behalf of Historic Ithaca spoke on the downtown
zoning proposed changes. Historic Ithaca agrees with the City committees on this topic.
Anne Clavel, 109 Cornell Street, is concerned about the proposed minimum parking
requirements. Large populations of students live in Ithaca all of which must come by
car since there really isn’t any other way to get here. She asked where are these cars
going to go?
Faye Gougakis, Downtown Commons, although she hasn’t read the proposed Henry St.
John Historic District, after listening to the others she agrees with the proposed
changes. She also spoke regarding the Masonic Temple. It should be torn down since
it’s idle and the sidewalks are not shoveled during the winter.
Joel Harland, 309 Ward Heights Road, spoke in favor of the Henry St. John Historic
District. This town needs growth – we need to focus on the old library and the Masonic
Temple. He urged the City to prepare for war when it comes to development.
Deleted: Neighborhood
Deleted: d
Responses from Committee Members:
Mayor Myrick commented that what he sees is not a war, but an attempt to grow the
City economically, respectfully, and logically. Growth by common sense. He doesn’t
smell a war brewing. He’s encouraged on tonight’s agenda and the comments he’s
heard.
Alderperson McCollister is in support of the Henry St. John Historic District with its
current boundaries. We have taken for granted the older, historic neighborhoods since
we’ve been focused on affordable housing. We need to take a look at owner-occupied
properties.
Alderpersons Kerslick and Murtagh stated they would hold their comments to the
discussion on Item # E3 comes up during the meeting.
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports (6:25 pm)
1. Intermunicipal Planning Coordination
There may be a meeting if there is an agenda. JoAnn Cornish will follow up.
2. Collegetown Zoning
The committee met today and will meet in two weeks and again in two weeks. Zones 2,
3, and 4 have been looked at. Zone 5 and MU still need to be reviewed. The plan is to
circulate the draft internally first before it’s finalized. Improved graphics are needed.
3. CIITAP application filed – Marriott on South Aurora
A Public Information Session was held at 5:00 p.m. today prior to this meeting. It has
been decided that the CIITAP application will be handled by the IDA (Ithaca Downtown
Alliance).
4. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 2012 Annual Report
There is now a full commission of members, and an 85+ % approval rate
E. Action Items
1. MLK Sculpture Installation at Southside Community Center
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF SCULPTURE ART
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed 5-0.
WHEREAS the MLK Freedom Walkway is a City project undertaken for the purpose of
illuminating the history of the local African American community, and
WHEREAS the development of the MLK Freedom Walkway is identified as a “Critical Action” in
the 2020 Tompkins County Strategic Tourism Plan, and
WHEREAS the Walkway is planned to consist of two loops, one on the Northside and one on
the Southside, each of which is to include works of public art, and
WHEREAS a Request for Proposals for a sculpture and interpretive materials kiosk was
released by the MLK Freedom Walkway Committee for the purpose of soliciting designs for the
sculpture that will anchor the Southside loop of the Walkway, and
WHEREAS four proposals were received in response to that RFP, each of which was
considered by the review committee of the MLK Freedom Walkway, with the participation of two
members of the Public Arts Commission, and
WHEREAS the review committee has selected the proposal submitted by the team of Rob Licht
and Anne Marie Zwack as best satisfying the selection criteria set forth in the RFP, and
WHEREAS the MLK Freedom Walkway Committee will seek funding for the production and
installation of this new piece of outdoor sculpture and interpretive materials kiosk at the BPW-
approved site in front of the Southside Community Center, including, but not limited to funding
from the Tompkins County Strategic Tourism Initiative, and
WHEREAS the acquisition and installation of outdoor public art to anchor the two planned loops
of the MLK Freedom Walkway represents an important goal for the MLK Freedom Walkway
Committee and the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS outdoor sculpture art enlivens public spaces, enhances the pedestrian experience,
serves to beautify and uplift the City, and in this case will help tell the story of the African
American community in Ithaca as part of the MLK Freedom Walkway, and
WHEREAS The MLK Freedom Walkway Committee, in conjunction with representatives of the
Ithaca Public Arts Commission, has formally recommended acceptance of the Rob Licht-Anne
Marie Zwack proposal for this new outdoor sculpture at their December 21, 2012 meeting, now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
1. That the City of Ithaca does hereby approve the proposal submitted by Rob Licht and
Anne Marie Zwack for the sculpture and interpretive materials kiosk that will anchor the
Southside loop of the MLK Freedom Walkway, and
2. The City will support the MLK Freedom Walkway Committee in seeking funding for the
production and installation of the sculpture and interpretive materials kiosk, including, but
not limited to, the submission of grant applications for funding from the Tompkins County
Strategic Tourism Initiative, and
3. The acceptance of this proposal will be formalized with a document between the City
and the artists that summarizes the City and artist’s rights and obligations pertaining to
the acceptance of the art. This document will make use of existing language and terms
utilized in prior public art acquisitions approved by Common Council.
2. Corrections to June 2012 R-1 and R-2 parking ordinance changes (6:45 pm)
(Proposed nonsubstantive ordinance changes)
This will need more work and will be brought back in February.
Deleted: on this
3. Local Designation of the Henry St. John Historic District (6:50 pm)
Moved by Alderperson Murtagh; seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Passes 5-0.
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission may recommend designation of individual landmarks and
districts of historic and cultural significance, and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2012, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission conducted
a public hearing for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate the Henry St
John survey area as a local historic district, and
WHEREAS, the proposal is a Type II Action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act
and an Unlisted Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and
after conducting appropriate environmental review the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission, acting as Lead Agency, has determined that the
proposal will not have a significant environmental impact, and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the proposal meets criteria under the Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance and has voted to designate the Henry St John survey area
as a local historic district, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall within ninety days
of said recommendation to designate, approve, disapprove or refer back to the
Commission for modification, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file a
report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the
comprehensive plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements, and any plans
for the renewal of the site or area involved, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of the
designation has been reviewed by the Common Council, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Common Council finds that the designation will not conflict with the
comprehensive plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements, or any plans
for renewal of the site and area involved, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Henry St John Historic District meets the definition of a local historic district
as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows:
An area which contains primarily properties which meet one or more of the criteria
for designation as an individual landmark, namely:
1. Possessing special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as
part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality,
region, state, or nation; or
2. Being identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodying the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
4. Being the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an
age; or
5. Representing an established and familiar visual feature of the
community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics.
and is an area which constitutes a distinct section of the city by reason of
possessing those qualities that would satisfy such criteria.
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Common Council approves the designation of the Henry St John
Historic District as a Local Historic District under Section 228-3 of the Municipal
Code.
F. Discussion Items
1. Downtown Density – Zoning Change (7:15 pm)
(comments from Planning Board, CAC, and ILPC)
Next Steps:
• Creation of a committee.
• Look a height density
• Look at pedestrian density
Mary Tomlan is currently working a survey. Once done, the committee will meet.
2. Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements (7:30 pm)
(concept memo, draft ordinance revision)
3. Agenda Planning – potential upcoming items (7:55 pm)
Development of department and committee workplans for 2013
G. Approval of Minutes
There were no minutes to approve.
H. Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Murtagh; seconded by Alderperson McCollister, the meeting
adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, April 10, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Jennifer
Dotson, Vice Chair; Graham Kerslick, Ellen
McCollister, and Stephen Smith
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, and Development; Jennifer
Kusznir, Economic Planner, Planning, Building,
and Development; Megan Wilson, Planner,
Department of Planning, Building, and
Development; Phyllisa DeSarno, Phyllis
Radke,
Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant,
Department of Planning and Development
Others Attending:
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
No changes to the agenda were made.
B. Special Order of Business
C. Public Hearing – Downtown Zoning
Jennifer Dotson moved to open the public hearing, Kerslick seconded it.
Gary Ferguson, Ithaca Downtown Alliance, spoke in favor of the proposed downtown
zoning changes. He suggests rather than include solar panels in the downtown
zones, it should be looked at in the comprehensive plan.
Michael McGrady, 209 Bryant Avenue, an ILPC member, spoke on the proposed
zoning topic. He stated he thinks the height maximum is too much.
Michael Kannen spoke in favor of the proposed downtown zoning. If you can’t have
a dense community from here to Syracuse, where else can you have it?
Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, asked for clarification on the transition portion within
the downtown zoning since it isn’t mentioned in the SEAF forms.
Alderperson McCollister moved to close the public hearing; seconded by
Alderperson Dotson. Passed 5 – 0.
D. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Mitch Paine, 409 N. Geneva Street, spoke on the Rental housing topic. Most of
graduate students live off campus into the neighborhoods.
Eric Silverberg, 205 Linden Avenue, the Cornell student council president, spoke on
the changes in rental housing agreements. He thinks it is important amend the
current housing ordinance.
Alex Bores, 125 Catherine Street, Apt. 1, spoke on rental housing. Students often
sign leases too soon, with people who they really don’t want to live with, etc.
Students and landlords will both benefit from a “cooling” off period so that all have a
chance to see if it’s working.
Anne Clavel, 109 Cornell Street, asked that the elimination of minimum parking
requirement. Eliminating the minimum parking would have a serious environmental
impact on the entire city.
Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, she is asking for Council to slow down with the
elimination of the minimum parking requirement. It favors to young individuals who
can walk to get to their cars. The elimination of the minimum parking is anti-family.
Garrison Lovely, Townhouse E58, Cornell freshman gave the “freshman”
perspective that they strongly support the changes to the rental housing changes.
Tom Hanna, Eddy Street, spoke in favor of the elimination of the minimum parking
requirement. He uses car share, the bus, walks, or has a friend who can provide the
emergency transportation if needed. He further thanked the Collegetown zoning
committee for their work they’ve done. Green space is needed. Are we trying to
increase population or not?
David West, minimum parking requirements
Rob Steutiville, (read into the record by Seph Murtagh), eliminating minimum parking
requirements.
Jessie Hill (read into the record by Seph Murtagh), doesn’t agree with the
Collegetown Area Form Districts.
Comments from Committee Members:
Ellen McCollister responded to
She spoke directly to David West. She stated that his comments were totally out of line.
The City staff having many combined years of experience and he as a recent Masters
Degree graduate doesn’t have the experience to make the comments which blasted the
City’s plans for the proposed elimination of the minimum parking requirement.
Svante thanked the students who spoke in favor of the rental housing agreements. He
also spoke directly to Ann Sullivan stated that the elimination of minimum parking
requirements is not anti-family. The elimination of the minimum parking is for new
development and not existing parking.
Stephen Smith also thanked the students who spoke on the rental housing. This issue
doesn’t affect just students, but also young professionals just starting out.
Cynthia Brock, asked for clarification of the two month cooling off period. The two
month period is for signing an additional lease after just signing a current yearly lease.
She also spoke on the on-street parking. In some areas of the city currently have no on
street parking especially in West Hill where on-street parking has been removed making
it very difficult for homeowners when it comes to
Jennifer Dotson stated eliminating the minimum parking requirements would greatly
help some neighborhoods more than some. She also asked that we all be mindful of
each other’s opinions and comments made at these meeting.
E. Announcements, Updates and Reports
Commons – Jennifer Kusznir gave the group an update on the Commons project.
Mayor Myrick stated that just taking off the pavilion roofs brightened the Commons area and
now allows the buildings to be in better view which really are the most beautiful items on the
Commons.
Comprehensive Plan – Megan Wilson gave the group an update on the Plan.
The plan has been divided into several different focus groups.
Dredging – Lisa Nicholas gave the group an update on the Dredging process.
O’Brien and Gere are the engineering firm working on behalf of the DEC.
The City has been working with the DEC regarding the cost ($13M) of the dredging and
encouraged DEC to further look for further funding.
Chris Proulx asked when the flood control channel was built and who else was asked for the
cost of the dredging. The 1969 was the year that it was built and no other firms have been
asked for an estimate.
Noise Ordinance – Chair Murtagh will bring more information at a later date.
2013 Project Overview – Chair Murtagh stated that this will come back at a later date also.
Downtown Zoning - Clarification of the transition zoning is where the zoning line overlaps or
goes through the property lines.
F. Action Items
1. R1 and R2 Parking Ordinance Changes
Phyllis Radke explained the changes to parking in these areas. There would be
no minimum parking requirements. She recommends that these proposed
changes be added to the district chart.
Radke stated that the current chart wasn’t enforceable because the chart and the
code were not the same.
McCollister stated that the purpose of this change was more to eliminate the
maximum parking requirement.
Kerslick asked for clarification on the changes be recommended.
In order to move this forward for circulation, an ordinance will be drafted and will
be circulated together and will come back to committee
If the changes are considered non-substantive changes.
Murtagh stated he would like to see the minimum parking requirements City-wide
should go forward then look at the smaller zoning areas. He recommended we
might want at this by zone.
Dotson suggested we repel the section 325-20 D – those that are not
enforceable.
Jennifer Kusznir will check the repel process. This item will be returned next
month.
Alderperson Smith moved to circulate; Chair Murtagh seconded. Passed 5-0.
2. Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements
3. Collegetown Area Form Districts
It was discussed whether to circulate this without the graphics. Megan Wilson
would like to circulate it when most of the draft is complete. Another
presentation will be done to the Planning Board. It will come back to
committee next month for approval to circulate.
The working group for this stated that they were glad that had the chance to
look at this again to make the necessary edits. It is a much better document.
4. Downtown Zoning Changes
Jennifer Kusznir explained the changes to the ordinance and pointed out
changes on the map marked with stars that was included in the agenda
packet.
Chair Murtagh motioned to circulate; the motion was seconded by
Alderperson Smith. Passed 5-0.
G. Discussion Items – None
H. Approval of Minutes – May 2012, June 2012 and August 2012
Chair Murtagh motioned to approve the May, June, and August 2012 minutes;
seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed 5-0.
I. Adjournment
Alderperson Smith motioned to adjourn; Alderperson Kerslick seconded that
motion. Passed 5-0.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, May 8, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Jennifer
Dotson, Vice Chair; Graham Kerslick, Ellen
McCollister, and Stephen Smith
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick, (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)
and Alderperson Chris Proulz
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, and Development; Jennifer
Kusznir, Economic Planner, Planning, Building,
and Development; Megan Wilson, Planner,
Department of Planning, Building, and
Development; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency; Sue Kittel, Assistant
Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; and
Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant,
Department of Planning and Development
Others Attending: None
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
IURA Item # 4e was moved to Item #4a.
B. Special Order of Business
There was no special order of business.
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
John Schroeder strongly advocates the revision of the height in the City code
especially since the City of Ithaca is a sloped city.
________ disagrees with the Collegetown Area Form Districts. Linden and Oak
Avenue shouldn’t be considered Collegetown. On Linden Avenue, there is one
residence who cannot sell their home because of the college students on either
side of the property.
Tom Hanna, spoke on the Collegetown Area Form Districts. He distributed the
current zones and the form based zones to the group. He will file his comments
electronically for the record. Maintaining housing stock and neighborhoods –
spoke of the two addresses that are not included in the Collegetown Area Form
Districts which are out of compliance, aging, etc.
Josh Lauer, spoke on the Collegetown Area Form Districts. He stated it has much
more clear zoning requirements. Many of the existing properties don’t meet these
requirements. He asked that we take a look at the setback requirements before
implementing these changes.
Rental Housing:
Alex Bores, 125 Catherine Street, stressed the passage of the two-month waiting
requirement of signing new leases. Both sides will benefit. Currently the housing
ordinance forces both the students and landlords to make too quick of decisions on
their leases. More time is needed for tenants to get a feel for their living situation
as well as the landlords getting to know their tenants to decide whether they want
to continue with a lease with the tenants.
Mitch Paine, 409 North Geneva Street, is here on behalf of the graduate student
professional group. They too face the same issue as undergraduate students do
when it comes to renting.
Adam Gitlin, 120 Catherine Street, has spent two years living in Collegetown. He
voiced his support on this proposed change to the housing ordinance. For many
students this is the first time an 18- or 19-year old student has signed a legal lease.
This can be overwhelming and hard to understand. Taking out the provision of
waiving the two-month waiting period will benefit all.
Rob Flaherty, 139 Coddington Road, stated this is not just a Collegetown problem;
it’s a South Hill issue too. The pressure to rent is very real. The effects on the City
are also real. The City will see students who will venture out to other areas of the
City, for example, Fall Creek area. He supports removing the waiver. As a whole,
it will be a huge relief for everyone.
___________, as a landlord, she doesn’t want to the City involved with her leases.
She hasn’t had any issues with any tenants who she has rented to. Parents and
others have looked at these leases which help the students. Good landlords will
survive; bad landlords will die.
Larry Beck, 130 Linn Street, Vice President of the Landlord Association stated
there is a minuscule of rental properties that will be affected by this. It’s not the
landlords that are creating this – the students often knock on tenants’ doors
wanting the current rented apartments. It should be the students who get fined the
$500 for the pushing. They do so in order to rent the apartments that they want to
rent.
Russ Maines, 221 Prospect Street, a member of the LAPC. He’s startled to hear
from the students at this meeting. He agrees with Larry Beck that it’s not the
landlords creating this problem. It’s the students pushing this.
Phil Colby, 6330 Canoga Road, Aurelius, New York stated any landlord that
engages a tenant to sign a new lease isn’t a good landlord. The same problem will
exist at day one or at day 61. He agrees with Mr. Beck that the fines should be
charged against anyone – tenant or landlord – that doesn’t obey this ordinance,
John Schroeder agrees with the students’ comments. Leaving this clause in the
rental lease agreements is like an open gate to a barn door. It’s useless.
Carl Ferrer, 310 First Street, spoke on the dilapidated housing on a First Street
property. The lawn isn’t mowed, etc. It’s an eye sore. It’s a detriment to the
neighborhood.
Carol Cedarholm, 203 Hook Place, spoke regarding the derelict property on First
Street. It is in very bad shape – it’s abandoned and neglected. It’s unsafe for the
neighborhood’s children. Garbage is being left in the garage. She encourages the
City to really pay attention to this problem.
Joseph Miller, 413 North Geneva Street, spoke on the property at 421 North
Albany Street. He is EPA lead tester. This property is shedding lead paper on the
sidewalk.
John Schroeder, spoke on downtown rezoning. He pointed out errors on the SEAF
that was done for the downtown rezoning. It is the May 21st map, not the March
21st map.
Tom Hanna applauds the reasoning for adding the green space definition into the
code, but the real green space issue is not what is being talked about. It’s not
stating that all properties must have green space.
Josh Lauer, spoke on green space. He sees the definition of more public space is
crucial than green space.
Comments from Committee Members:
Alderperson Smith stated that he was surprised to hear that some people didn’t
know the pressure of the 60-day waiting period because when he was running for
Council it was largely talked about from residents.
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports
JoAnn Cornish reported that the City has received a $200,000 Broadfield grant for
the Ithaca Falls. The City is moving ahead now on work at the Ithaca Falls.
The clock tower on the West end of the commons came down today. She
encourages people to get out and enjoy the great building facades.
Alderpersons Kerslick and McCollister will be away for the June meeting.
E. Action Items
Sue Kittel gave an overview of the projects that will be funded by the 2013 HUD
Entitlement Program which was included in the agenda packet.
Proposed Resolution
2013 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program
Moved by Alderperson Dotson; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Approved 5-0.
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 2013 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community
development activities to be funded from the 2013 HUD Entitlement allocation, and
WHEREAS, the allocation level of the 2013 Entitlement Program is anticipated to
be as follows:
$644,062 CDBG
$446,009 HOME
$1,090,071 Total, and
WHEREAS, $142,000 in program income is projected to be received from loan
repayments in program year 2013, which funding is also allocated as part of the
2013 Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, additional funds of $165,514 remain from the 2012 HOME program
and will be allocated to eligible projects via this 2013 Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, additional CDBG funds are available and are being allocated via the
2013 Entitlement Grant as follows:
Recaptured funds from 2011 $ 10,000
Program Income from sale of $ 30,000
Court St. Shelter (a 1984
CDBG project)
Reallocation of prior-year $100,000
Program Income
Total $140,000, and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process
for development of the 2013 Action Plan in accordance with the Citizen
Participation Plan, and
WHEREAS, the IURA adopted a Proposed Action Plan at their March 29, 2013
meeting by consensus and at their May 1, 2013 meeting by resolution, now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts the attached table titled the
‘IURA Proposed Action Plan’ – dated May 1, 2013 for allocating a projected 2013
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 2013 Action Plan.
F. Approval of Minutes – February 2012 and December 2013
The February 2012 minutes were motioned to approve by Chair Murtagh;
seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed 5-0.
G. Adjournment
Alderperson Smith motioned to adjourn; Alderperson Dotson seconded.
Passed 5-0.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, July 10, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Jennifer
Dotson, Vice Chair; Graham Kerslick,
Ellen McCollister, and Stephen Smith
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, and Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Planner, Department of
Planning, Building, and Development;
Phyllis Radke, Department of Planning,
Building and Development; and Debbie
Grunder, Executive Assistant,
Department of Planning and
Development
Others Attending: None
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Agenda Review
The Presentation on Design Guidelines for Historic Districts will be presented next
month.
2) Special Order of Business
There was no special order of business of report.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Jesse Hill, 107 Grandview Place, Vice-Chair, CAC, spoke on the site-plan review
ordinance changes. The CAC endorses the proposed changes in Chapter 276 and
suggested items on the planting of tree guidelines be looked at reviewed further.
Nina Bassuk, 1345 Mecklenburg Road, spoke on the topic of trees in parking lots. She
distributed a fact sheet from the site-plan ordinance outlining soil volume dimensions for
trees planted in pavement, e.g. plazas, parking lots, and continuous paved sidewalks.
Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, spoke regarding the lack of meeting minutes both draft
and approved posted to the City website as well as the difficulty finding information on
the website. She encourages we work on this better.
Alderperson Ellen McCollister spoke to Ann Sullivan comments. She too has trouble
maneuvering around the website to find the information she needs to send on to others.
4) Announcements, Updates and Reports
Comprehensive Plan – JoAnn reported to the group that there have been many focus group
meetings, and we are making very good progress. Those will finish up in July. Minutes will be
reviewed, goals will be set, and an outline will be setup in order to start the chapters of the plan.
Collegetown Plan – the group continues to meet and discuss the comments we’ve received.
Code Studio has been contracted to work on this project. Any actions that will be taken will be
brought to this committee and then on to Council. It was suggested that the group would
continue later in the summer or possibly early September.
The Minimum Parking Requirements Group has met one time and will meet again soon when
all the members of this group are back in Ithaca.
Changes to the Noise Ordinance are in the works; a contract has been negotiated and is in the
approval process.
CIITAP (Community investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program) - Alderperson Brock
approached Chair Murtagh to request that a discussion about this program take place at
committee. CIITAP takes the place of CIIP (Community Investment incentive Program). This
request was made too late for the July meeting, but will be discussed at the August meeting.
Vacant Buildings – Sue Kittel is chair of this committee. They will meet within the next two
weeks to discuss what to do with these properties. How do demo these properties, how should
we structure our fines, and how do we prosecute if need be? The committee will come up with
a broad strategy or policy goals and bring it back to Council.
5) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
Minor Amendment to the Site Plan Review Ordinances – Bike Regulations
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, stated that the minor amendment requested tonight will add back
in the section regarding required bike parking regulations and landscaping in parking areas that
had been added in 2010 and have been enforced since that time but was mistakenly omitted on
November 7, 2012 when Common Council adopted a revised Site Plan Review Ordinance.
She further pointed out a change that was made from the previous tracked changes of this
ordinance. That change can be found on Page 4 of the ordinance under Item B, Projects of
Limited Scope. The correct wording for 1(b) should read ‘modification and expansion of
residential development involving 4,000 squared feet (sq) of total affected site area.’ The
tracked version was written ‘4,000 square feet (sq) or less of the total affected site area.’
This will be forwarded onto Council for their August 7, 2013 meeting.
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca to Chapter 276,
Entitled “Site Plan Review”
Moved by Alderperson Dotson; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried Unanimously 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 2012, and
WHEREAS, the repealed and replaced ordinance adopted on November 7, 2012
mistakenly omitted sections regarding required bike parking regulations and landscaping
in parking areas, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify the Site Plan Review
Ordinance by re-incorporating the bike parking and landscaping language that was never
intended to be deleted, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with § 325-45 of the City Code, this is considered a minor
amendment, consisting of “Minor and nonsubstantive changes or amendments (minor word,
number, placement or other similar changes, modifications or alterations that do not modify
existing zoning concepts)”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.
BICYCLE PARKING FACILITY -- includes the bicycle parking spaces, one or more
bicycle racks, and, when applicable, the access aisle(s) between groups of bicycle
racks. Bike lockers and other secure, enclosed areas that can accommodate bicycle
storage may be considered bicycle parking facilities. “Bicycle parking space” refers
to a location for which the parking of one bicycle is intended. A ‘bicycle rack’ is an
element of the bicycle parking facility that supports one or more bicycles and to
which one or more bicycles may be locked.
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) Upon the concurrence of the Director and the Superintendent of Public Works or
upon the direction of Common Council, 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, except for projects that meet the description in § 276-3A(2), which shall
follow environmental review laws or regulations for determination of lead
agency. 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) 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) For projects which do not require a building permit, as described in § 276-3A
(2), the Director may request of the Superintendent of Public Works that a
project be subject to SPR. If the Superintendent and Director concur, then the
project shall be subject to SPR. If they do not agree, the Director may request
that Common Council decide if SPR shall apply. The Director shall, in
accordance with § 276-5C, 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) Applicants 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 Planning 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,iEN 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 for bicycle parking facilities and sidewalks along public streets,
unless applicant demonstrates that a sidewalk is not feasible due to site
constraints. This criterion is subject to the authority of the Board of Public
Works as defined in the City Charter and City Code.
(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, §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 Trees and Shrubs.
(1) Deciduous trees shall have a caliper of at least 2 1/2 inches at breast height (DBH)
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) There shall be screening with a minimum five-foot-wide planting area or
fences between a motor vehicle parking area and adjacent properties and
public ways, except where there is motor vehicle parking that is shared by
more than one property or where commercial properties abut. In such
cases the Board may require landscaping as it deems appropriate.
(3) In motor vehicle parking areas a minimum of 12% of the interior ground
area (i.e., excluding any peripheral planting area) shall be planting areas
that include trees with a potential mature height of at least 50 feet and a
caliper of at least 2 1/2 inches at the time of planting.
(4) Interior planting areas shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no
dimensions being less than eight feet. The planter shall be curbed and have
a minimum three-foot-deep excavation.
(5) 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 § 276-3(A)(1) except as may be determined by the
Board or the Transportation Engineer. Covered bicycle parking is strongly
recommended. The Planning and Development Board may make such additional
reasonable stipulations as it deems appropriate to carry out the intention of this
chapter. The Planning and Development Board shall use the following standards in
its consideration of the location and the type/design of bicycle parking facilities.
(1).Standards for the number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided for various
uses. See chart below.
Use
Bicycle Parking Space Standards 1,2,3
Adult day-care home or group
adult day-care facility 1 for client use, plus 1 per 20 employees4
Dormitory 1 per 5 persons housed (6 min.)
Dwelling unit 1 per 5 bedrooms or sleeping rooms (single
family and duplex encouraged but excepted)
Fraternity, sorority or group
house 1 per 5 persons housed (2 min.)
Rooming or boarding house 1 per 5 sleeping rooms (2 min.)
Auditorium or theater 1 per 50 seats (4 min.)
Bar, tavern or restaurant 1 per 500 square feet of net floor area of the
assembly space (2 min.)
Bed-and-breakfast home or
bed-and-breakfast inn 1 per 10 sleeping rooms (2 min.)
Bowling alley 1 per 2 bowling lanes
Church, funeral home or
mortuary
2 min. (spaces for 2% of expected attendance
recommended)
Fitness center or health club 1 per 20 persons allowed as determined by the
maximum occupancy load (6 min.)
Home occupation requiring
special permit none
Hospital or nursing or
convalescent home 1 per 20 employees4 (6 min.)
Hotel or motel 1 per 20 employees4 (6 min.)
Medical or dental office 1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable floor area
(2 min.)
Nursery school, child day-care
center or private elementary or
secondary school
1 per 20 employees4 plus 1 per 20 pupils enrolled
(4 min.)
Office or bank 1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable floor area
(4 min.)
Retail store or neighborhood
commercial facility
1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable floor area
(2 min.)
Wholesale or industry 1 per 30 employees4 (2 min.)
Boat launch 4 min.
Boat storage or repair 4 min.
Boatel 4 min.
Marina 4 min.
Yacht club 4 min.
Human service agencies and
centers [Added 6-5-1996 by
Ord. No. 96-9]
1 per 2500 square feet of floor area (4 min.)
Other uses not listed above
Whichever is greatest: 1 per 20 employees4 OR 1
per 2500 square feet OR 1 per 10 motor vehicle
spaces (2 min.)
NOTES (on chart):
1. In the case of mixed use of a building or property, the bicycle parking space standards shall be
computed for each use, and the total for all uses shall be provided in accordance with this
section.
2. The Planning and Development Board may, upon consideration of relevant factors, including
but not limited to, the easy availability of adequate proximate bicycle parking or the
expectation that a lesser number of bicycle parking spaces will meet the parking needs of the
use, determine that a lesser number of bicycle parking spaces is appropriate.
3. Bicycle parking facilities may be located inside or outside of structures.
4. Calculation to be based on the number of employees during the maximum work shift.
(2) Location of bicycle parking facilities.
(a) Bicycle parking facilities should be located close to building entrances, and
should be located at least as close and convenient to building entrances as the
nearest non-handicapped motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking facilities
to be in a public right of way shall require approval by the Office of the City
Engineer & the Board of Public Works.
(b) Bicycle parking facilities that are not located within a building shall be located in
highly visible and well-lighted areas to minimize theft and vandalism.
(c) Bicycle parking facilities shall not intrude into pedestrian or vehicular circulation
paths.
(d) At least 25% of a bicycle parking facility intended primarily for residential uses
shall be located within a garage and other secure indoor or covered areas.
(e) Bicycle parking facilities shall be covered or otherwise protected from the
elements whenever practical; especially where long-term (over 4 hours)
residential and/or employee parking is anticipated.
(f) A minimum clear distance of 24 inches shall be between bicycle racks and walls,
other obstructions, and/or any unpaved surface. Vertical clearance of seven feet
minimum is required for all bicycle parking facilities. There shall be a
convenient, paved access route between the roadway network and the bicycle
parking area. (For example, bicyclists shall not be required to cross lawns or
carry bicycles up stairways to reach bicycle parking facilities.)
(3). Type/design of bicycle parking facilities.
(a) Bicycle parking facilities shall be designed in such a way so as to accommodate a
standard bicycle (six feet in length, minimum). An eight-foot-long parking space
is highly recommended to account for irregularly parked bicycles.
(b) Bicycle racks shall be securely anchored to concrete. The entire footprint of the
bicycle parking facility shall be constructed of concrete. (Asphalt, brick, or other
durable surface may be acceptable at the discretion of the Planning and
Development Board.) The footprint shall be as level as practical.
(c) Bicycle racks should be the standard “inverted-U” rack design, approximately 36
inches high and with vertical elements 20 to 30 inches apart. When multiple
“inverted-U” racks are grouped together, they shall be oriented parallel to one
another and should be spaced 30 inches on center (exceptions for spacing as
narrow as 24 inches on center and as wide as 36 inches on center shall be
allowable in some instances at the discretion of the Planning and Development
Board). Though the standard “inverted-U” rack design is highly recommended,
other innovative and/or creative rack designs may be allowed at the discretion of
the Planning and Development Board.
(d) Bicycle racks shall support the frame of each bicycle in TWO or more places,
separated horizontally by 20 to 30 inches. (Designs that support bicycles by one
wheel only, or at only one point of the bicycle, are NOT acceptable.)
(e) All rack designs shall permit the appropriate use of standard “U”-locks.
(f) Enclosed bicycle parking facilities, such as bike lockers and indoor storage
rooms, do not necessarily require the inclusion of a bicycle rack element,
depending on the design of the facility. Such enclosed facilities shall be lockable
and otherwise secure.
(4). Variations and exemptions to bicycle parking standards.
(a) Any property owner required to provide bicycle parking may propose to establish
a shared bicycle parking facility with an adjacent property owner to meet the
combined standards. Such a proposal requires approval by the Planning and
Development Board.
(b) Possible variation from above standards under site plan review. The Planning and
Development Board may, at its discretion, allow variations from the above
standards.
§ 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
*Modified Site Plan Less than $50,000 $150
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.
C. For all government projects and projects that fit the description in Section 276-
3A(2), the site plan review fee shall be waived.
§ 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. This regulation does not
apply to government projects and projects that fit the description in Section 276-3A(2).
§ 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.
6) Action Items – Approval to Circulate
a) Minimum Floor Heights
Last month Common Council adopted revisions to the downtown zoning districts. These
revisions were to be applied to all CBD zoning districts. The adopted revision only included
this language for the CBD-50 District. If all are in agreement, staff will draft an ordinance,
which will establish a minimum 10-foot story height to all CBD districts. An environmental
review of this action will be drafted and circulated and will return next month with comments
that are received.
Alderperson Dotson made a motion to approve the circulation of this ordinance change;
Alderperson Kerslick seconded that motion. The vote carried unanimously 5-0. Staff will
circulate it and bring it back to the August meeting.
b) Combined Heat and Power – All CBD Zoning Districts
Herb Dwyer, David Parks, and Ed Wilson from Energize Ithaca were in attendance to
address the committee on this project.
Team described concepts of District Energy and Combined Heat & Power (also know as
Cogeneration). Phyllis Radke joined the discussion to clarify zoning issues related to the
project. Initially electricity will be focused strictly in Center Ithaca. Later stages will include
five nodes throughout the City (Commons-Center Ithaca; McGraw House; State Theatre
area; Gateway Building area; DeWitt Mall area). Energy sharing schemes in other
communities were discussed, as was the flexibility of the system for using a range of fuels:
gas, biomass etc. Permits to allow infrastructure were thought more appropriate than
changes in zoning. Oversight is required by NYSEG. Center Ithaca node can serve as a point
of refuge in emergencies and this use has already been approved. Agreements necessary for
the initial stage of the project will be drafted by Energize Ithaca for review by the City.
7) Discussion
a) Planning Department Budget Priorities
JoAnn Cornish summarized the importance of updating storage of information and the
efficiencies to be gained by sharing information. Right now Building Dept information is not
readily shareable with Planning. $35,000 capital project for Filemaker. Data entry will be
important. Staff computer hardware is often incompatible and many machines are impeding
work. Staff are working above paid hours. Alderperson McCollister acknowledged that the
high priority given to Development in the City means a significant increase in department
workload. Any additional alignment of expenses and potential revenues would be helpful.
Alderperson Dotson suggested that the actual, public impact of any budget cuts be included
in any budget narrative. Alderperson Smith sought more details regarding software options
and how developed could be tailored for actual staff tasks. Alderperson Kerslick cautioned
against over customizing software and suggested options for data entry outsourcing. Lack of
coordination with other municipalities regarding software packages was noted.
8) Approval of Minutes – There were no minutes to approve.
Importance of providing Committee minutes in a timely manner was again discussed and it
was agreed that the priority was to catch up with 2013. Members volunteered to review one
month each. Kerslick-Jan; McCollister-March; Murtagh-April; Smith-May; Dotson-Feb. No
Meeting in June.
9) Adjournment
Alderperson Smith motioned to adjourn; Alderperson Dotson seconded. This passed
unanimously 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.