HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-13 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: October 9, 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) Public Comment and Response from Committee
Members
3) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
4) Action items
a) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
(NIIF) – Resolutions for Titus Towers Tenants
Council and Family Sites Tenants Council
5) Approval to Circulate
a) RU Rezoning
b) Landmarks Ordinance Revision
6) Discussion
a) Planned Unit Development Concept
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) August 2013 and September 2013
8) Adjournment
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Chair, Seph Murtagh
JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
Lynn Truame, Planning Staff
Lynn Truame, Planning Staff
JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director
6:00
6:05
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:30
8:00
8:30
8:45
Committee Charge: Review issues pertaining to planning, housing, land use, zoning, historic preservation, neighborhood
initiatives, building codes and processes, and economic development.
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, October 8, 2013.
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee Item # 3
FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner
DATE: October 3, 2013
RE: Collegetown Area Form Districts - Working Group’s Recommended Revisions since
May 2013
The Collegetown Working Group has continued to review comments submitted by members of the
public and make further revisions to the draft code. Below is a list of the comments that the
Working Group has addressed since the May 2013 Planning & Economic Development Committee
meeting as well as their response to each comment/question 1. Please note that any page numbers
reference the May 23, 2013 draft of the Collegetown Area Form Districts.
1. Should the “Infill Development” provisions apply to both the MU-1 and MU-2 districts?
o Redevelopment is encouraged in the MU districts, and the intent is to concentrate the
majority of additional development within these districts. The Working Group
recommends that the “Infill Development” provisions apply to both MU districts in
order to promote development and enable the construction of smaller buildings. This
recommendation is reflected in the May 23rd draft, and the “Infill Development
Provisions in MU Districts” can be found on page 3.
2. Reconsider the required front porch in the CR districts, particularly on multi-unit structures.
The front porch can become a place used only for storage and encourages noisy and disturbing
gatherings. As a design feature, the front porch provides three-dimensional relief. This could be
accomplished by alternate design approaches and should be left to the designers to explore other
options.
o Front porches are a key piece of a form-based code. The front porch requirement
applies only to properties in the CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 districts, and front porches are
characteristic of the built form in these areas. The proposed code does not require large
porches, and the requirement provides the property owner with flexibility to determine
the size most appropriate to the building’s architectural style and use. The Working
Group recommends maintaining the front porch requirement as currently proposed.
3. In the MU-2 district, a fixed height limit of six stories will again result in six-story high “boxes.”
A more creative urban design approach would be to limit the total built up area calculated for a
six-story building and then design buildings with multiple heights within that square footage.
Some portion of the building may be lower than six stories, compensated by other portions
higher than six stories.
1 Comments reviewed prior to the May P&ED meeting as well as the Working Group’s responses to those
comments are detailed in a memo from staff that was previously distributed, dated May 8, 2013.
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
1
o The proposed maximum building height provides additional height in feet to allow for
creative urban design. In addition, new construction will be subject to both design
review and site plan review. Any new construction must meet the maximum building
height in both feet and stories. Buildings over six stories in height would not be in
keeping with the intent of The 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.
The Working Group recommends maintaining the currently proposed maximum
building height of 6 stories and 80 feet in the MU-2 district.
4. The design and foot print of the proposed building at 307 College Avenues was based on the
current zoning which allows an extension of the less-restrictive zone into the more-restrictive
zone by 30 feet. The proposed building would extend into the more-restrictive zone by 12 feet.
As proposed, the Collegetown Area Form Districts are eliminating the transition zone
provisions, which will have quite an impact on the designed building. The property owner
requests that the zoning boundary for this parcel be changed by moving the proposed MU-2
district line into the proposed CR-4 district by 15 ft.
o In its preparation and review of the proposed zoning, the Working Group considered
the goals and intent of each district as whole, not individual properties. The decision to
establish a CR-4 district on the west side of Linden Avenue was given careful
consideration. This area is critical to the transition from MU-2 to the residential areas of
CR-4 and then to the CR-3 districts to the east. The transition zone is proposed for
elimination within the Collegetown Area Form District because the district boundaries as
proposed create the desired transition between higher-density and lower-density districts.
The extension of the MU-2 district into the CR-4 would have a negative impact on this
important transition. The Working Group recommends maintaining the existing,
proposed boundary between the MU-2 and CR-4 districts, located between College
Avenue and Linden Avenue.
5. Reconsider the proposed zoning of 210 and 214 Dryden Road. Both properties are currently
zoned R-3b. Under the proposed zoning, 210 Dryden Rd. would be included in the MU-2
district and 214 Dryden Rd. would be included in the CR-4 district. The property owner of
these two parcels would like them to be zoned alike.
o In its preparation and review of the proposed zoning, the Working Group considered
the goals and intent of each district as whole, not individual properties. When
considering district boundaries, the Working Group included facing block frontages in
the same district wherever possible in order to create a similar architectural form on
either side of a street. 210 Dryden Road was included in the proposed MU-2 district for
this reason. In addition, the Working Group thought it was important and logical to
hold the zoning line at the intersection of Dryden Road and Linden Avenue. The grade
begins to increase at this intersection as one travels east on Dryden Road, and the
topography amplifies the impact of taller building heights on surrounding structures and
neighborhood character. 214 Dryden Road is east of this line and was included in the
proposed CR-4 district for this reason. The Working Group believes that the transition
from MU-2 to CR-4 on Dryden Road is at a good location and recommends maintaining
the zoning boundary as currently proposed.
6. Reconsider the rear yard setback requirements to include both feet and a percentage of the lot
depth.
o The proposed zoning requires a 20’ rear yard setback for all CR districts and the MU-1
district. After analyzing the relationship between the proposed minimum setbacks and
maximum lot coverage, the Working Group found that the rear yard setback could result
in a very small buildable area, particularly on shallow lots. To address this concern, the
2
Working Group recommends that the rear yard setback in all CR districts and the MU-1
district be revised to be a minimum of 20’ or 20% of parcel depth, whichever is less.
7. Multiple comments were submitted regarding the proposed reduction in minimum lot size in the
CR-1 and CR-2 districts. They can be summarized as follows:
- In all CR districts, the minimum lot size and lot width requirements should be reduced to fit
with the basic urban nature of Collegetown. Follow the LEED ND recommendation of lot
sizes less than 3,600 square feet. Maximum lot sizes should be created.
- A reduction of the minimum lot size is not appropriate for all of the proposed CR-1 and
CR-2 districts. If fragile residential areas are opened to greater density, the density that will
occur will be similar, if not identical to, the undesirable and unhealthy conditions that exist in
other areas of Collegetown. It is essential to protect the stable residential neighborhoods
while repairing and revitalizing the already dense areas closer to the Collegetown core.
o The district regulations for the CR-1 and CR-2 districts are not intended to encourage
redevelopment; they are intended to ensure that any new development that does occur
will be of similar form and scale. The CR-1 and CR-2 districts are located outside of the
urban core of Collegetown, and it is appropriate that these districts have different
requirements than those proposed for the MU districts. The Working Group believes
the proposed minimum lot sizes for these districts are in keeping with LEED ND,
which recommends approximately 3,600 square feet. While it is possible that additional
structures could be built on some lots in the CR-1 and CR-2 districts, any additional
structures must meet the proposed code’s requirements, including regulations of height,
lot coverage, setbacks, and use. Even with a reduction in minimum lot size, the intended
use of the CR-1 and CR-2 districts will remain single-family and two-family homes. The
Working Group believes that the proposed minimum lot size requirements should
remain as currently proposed.
8. The district regulations for the CR-4 and MU-1 district should be modified to allow and
encourage townhouses.
o Townhouses are a desirable architectural form for new development in both the CR-4
and MU-1 districts. The minimum side setbacks of 5’ proposed in the May 23rd draft for
these districts could impede the development of townhouses. The Working Group
recommends reducing the minimum side setbacks in the CR-4 and MU-1 districts to 0’
for townhouses and including a separate maximum façade length of 75’ for townhouses
in the CR-4 district. For all other buildings in the CR-4 district, the side setback would
remain 5’ and the maximum façade length would remain 40’, as currently proposed. In
addition, a definition of “townhouse” would be added to “Definitions and Related
Standards” (pg. 3-5).
9. What is the rationale for maximum building heights of 70’ in the MU-1 district and 80’ in the
MU-2 district?
o While the maximum heights in feet are higher than heights previously allowed for five-
and six-story buildings under the City’s zoning, they are provided to allow flexibility in
development. The attached tables show overall building height and story heights for a
five-story building. The overall building height takes into account the space needed for
the foundation, mechanicals, and the roof. Depending on the amount of space occupied
by mechanicals, the 70’ maximum building height allows a first story with a floor-to-
floor height of 14’3”-15’3” and upper story floor-to-floor heights of 11’9”-12’9”. A
property owner is not required to build a structure to the maximum height in feet, but
the proposed heights give property owners the ability to construct stories that are slightly
taller than the minimum required by the code.
3
o While it may be feasible to design a building with a greater number of stories within the
maximum allowed height in feet, it is the intent of the district regulations that both
requirements be met (i.e. buildings cannot be taller than 5 stories in MU-1 even if the
property owner could build a 6-story building within 70’).
10. The proposed code requirements for minimum setbacks and maximum lot coverage are in
conflict and make it difficult or impossible to build.
o Staff has completed a GIS analysis to identify possible conflicts between the
requirements for minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and minimum green space
in each of the proposed districts. The analysis shows that there are no conflicts between
the minimum setback, maximum lot coverage, and minimum green space requirements.
Once all setbacks are considered, the remaining buildable area would allow the property
owner to build to the maximum lot coverage in almost all cases. In addition, if the entire
buildable area is covered by buildings and parking, there would still be sufficient area to
provide the required green space on most parcels. However, the analysis indicates that
the provision of required off-street parking would not allow many property owners in
the proposed CR-4 district to build to the maximum lot coverage allowed. In addition,
several properties in the CR-4 district would need to further reduce building size and/or
off-street parking to meet the minimum green space requirement. The Working Group
considers high-quality development and the provision of green space to be priorities in
the proposed code. In order to achieve both, the Working Group recommends that the
off-street parking requirement for new construction be eliminated in the CR-4 district,
provided that a transportation demand management plan is accepted by the Planning
and Development Board during site plan review. Existing buildings in the proposed CR-
4 district would remain subject to the current off-street parking requirements.
11. The south side of Catherine Street should be part of the proposed CR-3 district.
o The south side of Catherine Street is currently zoned R-3b with a maximum height of 4
stories and 40’ and a maximum lot coverage of 40%. The inclusion of these properties
in the proposed CR-3 district would result in a down-zoning, and the Working Group
does not recommend down-zoning any properties within the Collegetown Area Form
Districts. The proposed CR-4 district allows a maximum height of 4 stories and 45’ and
a maximum lot coverage of 50%. The Working Group believes that the CR-4
designation is consistent with the intent of The 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Design
Guidelines for this area.
12. The Collegetown Area Form Districts should be extended to include Eddy Street and most of
the street should be removed from the East Hill Historic District.
o The portion of Eddy Street that is included in the East Hill Historic District was
intentionally excluded from the Collegetown Area Form Districts. Properties within a
historic district are subject to the City’s Historic District and Landmarks Design
Guidelines, and any new construction and exterior alterations are subject to review and
approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). The application of
a form-based code within historic districts would necessitate further study to avoid
setting two different sets of standards that conflict. While this may be something to
consider in the future, the Working Group recommends that the overall boundary of the
Collegetown Area Form Districts remain as currently proposed.
o Additionally, the Working Group believes that the fact that a portion of the Collegetown
area is part of the East Hill Historic District is a significant contributing factor to the
economic and redevelopment potential of lower Collegetown. This is consistent with
both the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” and with the
4
renovation and rehabilitation of properties already underway along Seneca and Buffalo
Streets.
o There is no provision in the City’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance or New York
State’s Model Ordinance for de-designating a historic property. At the time a property is
nominated for local landmark status, information is presented by qualified experts
demonstrating that the building (or collection of buildings, in the case of a historic
district) satisfies the required criteria for designation. The Common Council then
designates (or declines to designate) the property based on the ILPC's recommendation,
taking into consideration comments provided by the Planning and Development Board.
Having once satisfied the criteria for designation, only a complete loss of those
characteristics that qualified the property for designation could result in its removal from
the list of local landmarks. Even in the case of demolition, if the property itself is
located within a historic district any new construction on the site would be required to
be visually compatible with the remaining structures in the district, and future alterations
to that new building would still be reviewed by the ILPC (though as a "non-
contributing" property).
13. There are a large number of properties in Collegetown that are currently non-conforming, and
while the proposed zoning reduces the number, there are still many properties that will be non-
conforming.
o The intent of zoning is to provide a set of regulatory standards that will result in new
development that reflects the city’s vision for a particular area. While it is preferable that
existing properties conform to the proposed zoning, the priority is to provide zoning
regulations that result in new construction that is in keeping with The 2009 Collegetown
Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.
14. The required minimum spacing between primary structures on the same parcel of 5’ is not
sufficient and the requirement should be a minimum of 10’.
o The Working Group recommends a minimum of 20’ between primary structures on the
same parcel in the CR-1 and CR-2 districts and a minimum of 10’ in the CR-3 district. A
minimum spacing of 5’ is appropriate in CR-4 and MU-1 where greater density is
encouraged, and will provide the desired visual break between structures.
15. The proposed maximum length of blank wall (12’ in CR-1, CR-2, & CR-3; 15’ in CR-4, MU-1, &
MU-2) is too long.
o The requirements for maximum length of blank wall proposed in the May 23rd draft
would allow a length of blank wall that could be longer than desired in some districts.
After reconsidering the desired architectural form for each district, the Working Group
recommends that the requirements for maximum length of blank wall be 8’ in all CR
districts and 12’ in both MU districts.
16. In the CR-3 and CR-4 districts, the garage door setback and parking area setback should be the
same (pgs. 14 & 18). In these districts, it is unlikely that a property owner will have a small
garage with a vehicle parked in front.
o While a small garage with a vehicle parked in front is more likely in the CR-1 and CR-2
districts, the Working Group does not want to prevent parking in front of an accessory
structure or require all parking areas to be located behind the front façade in the CR-3
and CR-4 districts. The Working Group recommends maintaining the proposed parking
area setback at the front façade and the proposed garage door setback of 20’ from the
front façade.
5
17. In the MU-1 district, should the parking area setback be 30’ from the front façade as it is in MU-
2 to require parking areas to be located behind the front façade in the mixed-use districts?
o The proposed MU districts experience the greatest volume of pedestrian traffic and
allow a row of multiple buildings located on or near the front property line. For both
safety and urban design reasons, it is not desirable to have a parking area located adjacent
to the building’s front façade in a mixed-use area. The Working Group recommends
that the parking area setback be a minimum of 30’ from the front façade in both MU
districts.
18. The Working Group also received the following comments and determined that they are not
appropriate to address through the proposed zoning:
- Identify the Cascadilla Gorge as a green preserve.
- Create an urban conservation district in Bryant Park to protect the use and architectural
character of the residential neighborhood.
- Developing pocket parks and fostering home ownership in the CR districts should be a top
priority. The Working Group would like to note that there is a designated City park within
Collegetown (Dryden Road Park; located near the Eddy Gate at the intersection of Dryden
Road and Eddy Street).
Staff will attend the October 9th Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting to review
the recommended changes to the May 23, 2013 draft and answer questions from the Committee. If
you have any comments or questions, please contact me at 274-6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
6
Minimum Height of a 5-Story Building
Mechanical space divided per floor – 4’ first floor, 3’ other floors
Story Height per
Story
Thickness of Component Space for
Mechanicals
Cumulative
Height
Foundation 4’0” 6”-8” stone
5”-6” slab on grade
4’ change in elevation
0” 4’0”
First Floor 15’3” 2” topping
1” finish floor
10’ ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
10” concrete plank
48” 19’3”
Second Floor 12’9” 2” topping
1” finish floor
8’6” ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
10” concrete plank
36” 32’
Third Floor 12’9” 2” topping
1” finish floor
8’6” ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
10” concrete plank
36” 44’9”
Fourth Floor 12’9” 2” topping
1” finish floor
8’6” ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
10” concrete plank
36” 57’6”
Fifth Floor 12’9” 2” topping
1” finish floor
8’6” ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
8” concrete plank
36” 70’3”
Roof 0’9” 8” insulation
1” membrane
Total Building Height 71’
Minimum Height of a 5-Story Building
Mechanical space divided per floor – 3’ first floor, 2’ other floors
Story Height per
Story
Thickness of Component Space for
Mechanicals
Cumulative
Height
Foundation 4’0” 6”-8” stone
5”-6” slab on grade
4’ change in elevation
0” 4’0”
First Floor 14’3” 2” topping
1” finish floor
10’ ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
10” concrete plank
36” 18’3”
Second Floor 11’9” 2” topping
1” finish floor
8’6” ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
10” concrete plank
24” 30’
Third Floor 11’9” 2” topping
1” finish floor
8’6” ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
10” concrete plank
24” 41’9”
Fourth Floor 11’9” 2” topping
1” finish floor
8’6” ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
10” concrete plank
24” 53’6”
Fifth Floor 11’9” 2” topping
1” finish floor
8’6” ceiling height
2” finish ceiling and grid to hang ceiling
8” concrete plank
24” 65’3”
Roof 0’9” 8” insulation
1” membrane
Total Building Height 66’
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee Item # 4
From: Megan Wilson, Planner
RE: Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
DATE: September 23, 2013
Attached are two applications for the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (NIIF)
and other materials pertaining to this year’s National Night Out (NNO) events, held on
Tuesday, August 6, 2013. The applicants, the Titus Towers Tenant Council and the
Family Sites Tenant Council, represent low-moderate income residents living in the
South of the Creek and North side neighborhoods who spend considerable hours of
volunteer time organizing and conducting the NNO events. Both groups have sponsored
the annual NNO event in their respective neighborhoods for over 10 years.
In past years, the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund has supported celebrations
in many city neighborhoods for this national occasion that focuses attention on
neighborhood safety and solidarity. Expenditures related to the event include food,
beverages, sound equipment, DJs, t-shirts, and give-aways for kids, all of which meet
criteria for reimbursement. Both of these groups have had success procuring donations
from local business in past years. Through this endeavor they are furthering aims of the
fund to support resident initiatives to strengthen city neighborhoods.
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: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
Item # 4a
Item # 4a
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
October 9, 2013
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds from the Titus Towers
Tenant Council for National Night Out, August 2013
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement
Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to
improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to
encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general
neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few
residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited
to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places, and organizing
neighborhood events like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other
project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund
and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve applications to
the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement
award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities,
and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, the Titus Towers Tenant Council has submitted a completed application for
reimbursement funds to off-set expenses that in past years have generally ranged from
$400 – $800 for the annual National Night Out event, held this year on Tuesday, August
6, 2013, and
WHEREAS, while this annual event is sponsored by the Titus Towers Tenants Council, notice is
circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the event provides an opportunity for
socializing with diverse groups of South of the Creek residents, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the request from the
Titus Towers Tenant Council in an amount up to $300.00 for reimbursement upon
presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
Item # 4b
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
October 9, 2013
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds from the Family Sites
Tenant Council for National Night Out, August 2013
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement
Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to
improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to
encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general
neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few
residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited
to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places, and organizing
neighborhood events like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other
project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund
and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve applications to
the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement
award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities,
and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, the Family Sites Tenant Council has submitted a completed application for
reimbursement funds to off-set expenses that in past years have generally ranged from
$400 – $800 for the annual National Night Out event, held this year on Tuesday, August
6, 2013, and
WHEREAS, while this annual event is sponsored by the Family Sites Tenant Council at Conway Park,
notice is circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the event provides an opportunity
for socializing with diverse groups of Northside residents; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the request from the
Family Sites Tenant Council in an amount up to $300.00 for reimbursement upon
presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
To: Planning and Development Committee
From: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Building & Economic Development
Date: October 3, 2013
RE: Proposal to Amend Zoning Districts in and around the Cornell Heights Historic District
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to rezone portions of the Cornell
Heights Historic District from RU to R3aa. Because this change would leave only a very small remnant RU
district, we are also proposing elimination of the RU designation outside the historic district, converting the
small RU areas south of the gorge to R3a. Enclosed for your consideration is a map showing the proposed
revisions to the zoning boundaries.
The purpose of the R3aa zone is to allow dense residential development while still protecting the existing
character of neighborhoods. The R3aa retains the uses allowed in the districts it replaces but implements
setback, height, and building footprint restrictions that are more appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood.
Over the past several months the inherent conflict between the RU designation and the historic designation of
the Cornell Heights district has become apparent as two separate proposals have come before the ILPC for
the development of relatively large vacant parcels within the district’s boundaries. The type of development
that is allowed, and in fact, encouraged, in the RU zone is not in keeping with the massing, size, and scale of
the existing properties in the historic district. Nor is the infilling of available green space consistent with the
historic character of this particular district: unlike Ithaca’s other historic districts, Cornell Heights was
developed as a planned “residence park” with significant amounts of informal landscaping and green space in
the Romantic tradition intentionally included around its substantial homes to create a unique neighborhood
identity.
The RU zoning was established in the late 1970s and understandably did not take into account the historic
character of the area since the historic district was not yet contemplated. Most of the parcels that were zoned
RU contained the area’s larger residences, some of which had been built as fraternities, but several of which,
though converted to fraternities, had originally been the mansions of Cornell Heights’ most prominent
residents. These larger residences were surrounded by the expanses of open green space that characterize
the historic district, and that, under the RU zoning, offered the opportunity for dense new infill development.
When the historic district was designated in 1989, a review of the underlying zoning within its boundaries
should have been conducted to ensure compatibility between the zoning and landmarks ordinances;
unfortunately, this did not occur. It is likely the issue did not rise to prominence until recently because intense
development for student housing has, historically, been focused primarily on Collegetown. We are now seeing
that intense development move out both to the north and south of campus and it is likely to continue to do so.
Therefore, the time is now to address the conflict between the zoning ordinance and the landmarks ordinance
in the Cornell Heights district, as it is unfair to the residents of the district and potential developers alike.
If the Committee is in agreement with this proposed rezoning, staff will circulate the draft ordinance and map
and return next month with any comments that are received. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me
at 274-6566.
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
Item # 5 a
NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2012Data Source: City of Ithaca GIS Program, 2012Map Prepared by: Department of Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, September, 2013
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STEWA
RT AVE
UNIVERSITY AVE
L
A
K
E
S
T
T H U R S T O N A V E
E
A
S
T
AV
E
TOWER RD
WAIT AVE
FALL CREEK DR
W
Y
C
K
O
F
F
A
V
E
K L I N E R D
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
S I S S O N P L
WEST AVE
KELVIN PL
FOREST HOME DR
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
W
I
L
L
A
R
D
W
A
Y
H E I G H T S C T
THE KNOLL
G
A
R
D
E
N
AV
E
ROBERTS PL
R ES E RV O IR AV E
NEEDHAM PL
E D G E C L I F F P L
BALCH DR
J E S S U P R D
0 750 1,500375 Feet
1:7,019±
City of Ithaca R-U Zone
Legend
Buildings
Cornell University Parcels
Historic Districts
!
!!
!
!!
City Boundary
Waterways
R-U District
Parks
NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2012Data Source: City of Ithaca GIS Program, 2012Map Prepared by: Department of Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, October, 2013
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STEWA
RT AVE
UNIVERSITY AVE
L
A
K
E
S
T
T H U R S T O N A V E
E
A
S
T
AV
E
TOWER RD
WAIT AVE
FALL CREEK DR
W
Y
C
K
O
F
F
A
V
E
K L I N E R D
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
S I S S O N P L
WEST AVE
KELVIN PL
FOREST HOME DR
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
D E A R B O R N P L
W
I
L
L
A
R
D
W
A
Y
H E I G H T S C T
THE KNOLL
G
A
R
D
E
N
AV
E
R ES E RV O IR AV E
NEEDHAM PL
E D G E C L I F F P L
BALCH DR
0 750 1,500375 Feet
1:7,215±
Proposed R ezoning of R-U District
Legend
Buildings
Historic Districts
R-3aa
R-3a
!
!!
!
!!
City Boundary
Waterways
Parks
LEGEND
Historic District
Zoning District
Impervious
Paved Walk
Paved
Unpaved
Curb Line
Parcel
Border
Waterway
Park
City of Ithaca, NY 2013
Feet9/30/2013Printed:
Data contained on this map was provided or derived from data developed or
compiled by the City of Ithaca, and is the best available to date. The
originators do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information
portrayed by the data.
917.171:http://geo.tompkins-co.org/SL/Viewer.html?
Viewer=cityproperties
8,004
MEMO
Date: October 3, 2013
To: Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: Lynn C. Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Re.: Landmarks Ordinance Revisions
When the Landmarks Ordinance was revised in July 2012 the ILPC and staff were aware of some
outstanding issues that would need to be revisited in the near future. We have now prepared proposed
amendments to the ordinance to address those issues and are requesting permission to circulate the draft
revisions for comment. The proposed revisions will: replace references to the Building Department with
Building Division; replace references to the Building Commissioner with Director of Code Enforcement;
address comments from the State Historic Preservation Office that were received too late to be included
in the July 2012 revision of ordinance; change and clarify certain administrative processes; and add a
new section describing exceptions to the requirements of the ordinance for alterations related to public
safety. These revisions will be described in greater detail in a circulation memo, if permission to
circulate is given.
In addition to requesting permission to circulate, we are requesting direction from this committee on the
specific language to be included in one subparagraph of the new public safety section. Two versions of
this subparagraph have been proposed and there is some disagreement among staff, the ILPC, and the
State Historic Preservation Office as to which version should be moved forward.
The new section in question (§228-13D, see attachment) describes exceptions to the normal ILPC review
process when a material change or alteration to a designated historic property is required to ensure the
public safety. This section addresses alterations to privately owned property (§228-13A-C) as well as to
City-owned property, property located within City easements, or within the public Right of Way (§228-
13D), and it is with regard to §228-13D that disagreement exists.
All parties agree that it is entirely appropriate that the Superintendent of Public Works be free to correct
deficiencies that require immediate attention to preserve the public safety without the need for review of
the proposed work by the ILPC. All parties also agree that when correction of a deficiency is not urgent
and there is sufficient time for review of the proposed work by the ILPC, such review should occur so
that the goals of preserving public safety and preserving the historic built environment may both be
achieved. There is a difference of opinion about how best to distinguish between a situation that requires
immediate action, for which ILPC input is not required, and a situation in which sufficient time exists for
the ILPC to provide input prior to a solution being implemented.
The following language is favored by the City Attorney’s Office, the Fire Chief, and the Director of Code
Enforcement:
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
Item # 5 b
2
When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works, there exists on City property, on
City-possessed easements, or in the City ROW, a substantial hazard to the public health, safety,
or welfare, the Superintendent of Public Works may pursue those remedies, improvements, and
infrastructures that he or she deems appropriate, after consultation, if practicable, with the
Director of Planning and Development, or his or her designee. Any remedies, improvements, or
infrastructures undertaken on order or authorization of the Superintendent of Public Works under
this paragraph shall not be subject to §228-5 or §228-10 [the Certificate of Appropriateness and
Economic Hardship review processes].
The following alternate language is favored by the ILPC and the State Historic Preservation Office:
When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works, there exists on City property, on
City-possessed easements, or in the City ROW, a substantial hazard to the public health, safety,
or welfare, the Superintendent of Public Works may take all reasonable action to mitigate or
eliminate the hazard through pursuit of those remedies, improvements, or infrastructures that he
or she deems appropriate. Consultation with the Director of Planning and Development, or his or
her designee, is required before the Superintendent of Public Works implements permanent
remedies not falling within the scope of the previous sentence. Any remedies, improvements, or
infrastructures undertaken on order or authorization of the Superintendent of Public Works under
this paragraph shall not be subject to §228-5 or §228-10.
The Superintendent of Public Works initially indicated a preference for this alternate language, but has
also indicated that he could work with the first version as long as his concerns about the interpretation of
the term “if practicable” could be addressed.
The City Attorney has indicated that “if practicable” is a common legal term which centers on
consideration of whether a particular action would be considered reasonable. The ILPC and SHPO have
observed, however, that what one person would consider reasonable another might not, particularly when
the question of public safety has been raised. The Superintendent of Public Works, the ILPC, and the
SHPO all have questions about how this term would be interpreted in practice and whether its use would
be likely to leave decisions made by the Superintendent open to second-guessing, despite their being
legally defensible.
The City Attorney has indicated that “if practicable” actually has a more specific legal meaning than
“permanent”. The weakness in the proposed alternate language, then, is the potential for disagreement
over what constitutes a permanent installation, particularly in light of the fact that “temporary” work
undertaken by the DPW may, in fact, remain in place for a period of years. The ILPC has,
however, observed that there can be agreement about the temporary status of some long-term fixes (for
example, the recent asphalt paving on Stewart Avenue). While the City Attorney agrees, he notes that
there also may be situations in which no such agreement will be reached, because "permanency" is often
best judged in the eye of the beholder--and in retrospect, at that.
We would appreciate receiving direction from this committee on which version of §228-13D should be
included in the full package of revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance that would be circulated for
comment before being proposed for adoption by Common Council later this year.
DRAFT NEW §228-13 IN ITS ENTIRETY
§228-13 Exceptions for Reasons of Public Safety
A. When in the judgment of the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public
Works, or Fire Chief there exists an emergency condition that poses an imminent threat
to the public health, safety, or welfare, the Director of Code Enforcement,
Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief may order the property owner to
immediately undertake temporary work to correct the defect while a permanent
solution is sought that will satisfy the requirements of Section 228-6.
B. Such temporary work shall remain in place no longer than 180 days. Such 180 day
period may only be extended by, and in the sole discretion of, the Director of Planning,
Building, & Economic Development, or designee. During that time, the owner shall
diligently work to identify and propose to the ILPC, Director of Code Enforcement,
Superintendent of Public Works, and Fire Chief a permanent solution to adequately
address the public safety concern while satisfying the requirements of Section 228-6.
Potential solutions identified during this period will be subject to the provisions of Section
228-10 and 228-11.
C. If, at the end of the 180 day period, or authorized extension of this period, the Director of
Planning, Building, & Economic Development, or designee, has determined that no
reasonable solution exists that will achieve the public safety goal and the ILPC has
determined that no reasonable solution exists that will satisfy either the criteria of
Section 228-6 or Section 228-11, the Director of Planning, Building, & Economic
Development, or designee, may order permanent work to be undertaken by the owner
that will protect the public health, safety, or welfare without the issuance of either
a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Finding of Economic Hardship.
[D. When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works, there exists on City
property, on City-possessed easements, or in the City ROW, a substantial hazard to the
public health, safety, or welfare, the Superintendent of Public Works may pursue those
remedies, improvements, and infrastructures that he or she deems appropriate, after
consultation, if practicable, with the Director of Planning, Building, and Economic
Development, or his or her designee. Any remedies, improvements, or infrastructures
undertaken on order or authorization of the Superintendent of Public Works under this
paragraph shall not be subject to §228-6 or §228-10.]
[D. When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works, there exists on City
property, on City-possessed easements, or in the City ROW, a substantial hazard to the
public health, safety, or welfare, the Superintendent of Public Works may take all
reasonable action to mitigate or eliminate the hazard through pursuit of those remedies,
improvements, or infrastructures that he or she deems appropriate. Consultation with
the Director of Planning and Development, or his or her designee, is required before the
Superintendent of Public Works implements permanent remedies not falling within the
scope of the previous sentence. Any remedies, improvements, or infrastructures
undertaken on order or authorization of the Superintendent of Public Works under this
paragraph shall not be subject to §228-5 or §228-10.]
Item # 6 a
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
DATE: October 4, 2013
RE: Proposed Planned Unit Development Floating Zoning District
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to establish a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) floating zoning district in the City.
A PUD is a special zoning district that is initially created by Common Council as a floating zone,
which is a district that is established in the code, but is not placed on the official zoning map.
The PUD is intended to provide the City and a developer with flexibility in site and building
design, economies of scale in site development, and greater protection of valued open spaces or
environmentally sensitive areas. Often used by suburban or rural communities to create planned
unit neighborhood, PUDs can be effective in urban settings by allowing the flexibility needed to
redevelop difficult or complex sites or by allowing a mix of uses that will make the
redevelopment economically feasible.
The advantage of having an established PUD district is that it eliminates the desire for property
owners to seek variance requests and allows the City to retain a measure of control for the type
of development that is desired for any given site, since the use of the PUD would require Council
approval.
This legislation was previously considered several years ago, but was not adopted. Recent
development interest in various locations throughout the City brought up interest in once again
exploring this type of flexible zoning.
Enclosed is a copy of a similar type of floating zoning district that exists in the Town of Ithaca,
known as the Planned Development Zone (PDZ). This is an example of the type of ordinance
that is being proposed.
If the committee is in agreement, staff will circulate a draft ordinance and return next month with
any comments that are received. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & 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
10/4/13 Town of Ithaca, NY
ecode360.com/print/IT1944?guid=8662382&children=true 1/2
Town of Ithaca, NY
Friday, October 4, 2013
Chapter 270. ZONING
Article XXI. Planned Development Zones
§270-172. Purpose.
The purpose of the Planned Development Zone is to permit, where appropriate, a degree of
flexibility in conventional land use and design regulations which will encourage development in an
imaginative and innovative way while through the process of review, discussion and law change,
insuring efficient investment in public improvements, a more suitable environment, and
protection of community interest. This article is intended to relate to both residential and
nonresidential development, as well as mixed forms of development. There may be uses, now or
in the future, which are not expressly permitted by the other terms of this chapter but which
uses would not contravene the long range Comprehensive Plan objectives if they adhere to
certain predetermined performance and design conditions. The Planned Development Zone is
intended to be used to enable these developments to occur even though they may not be
specifically authorized by this chapter. Areas may be zoned as a Planned Development Zone by
the Town Board or upon application for a specific proposal, all in accordance with the normal
rezoning procedures. Because the intention is to create self-contained, architecturally consistent
and compatible buildings, many times with diverse but related uses, and because the creation of a
Planned Development Zone will entail sufficient review to assure the uses within the zone will
have negligible or no adverse effects upon properties surrounding the zone, a Planned
Development Zone may be created in any zone within the Town. In reaching its decision on
whether to rezone to a Planned Development Zone, the Town Board shall consider the general
criteria set forth in this chapter, the most current Comprehensive or Master Plan for the Town,
and this statement of purpose.
§270-173. Establishment and location.
With the approval of the Town Board, a Planned Development Zone may be established in any
zone in the Town. The establishment of any such zone shall lie in the sole discretion of the Town
Board, as a legislative body. It shall be established by amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit
such establishment. The enactment and establishment of such a zone shall be a legislative act. No
owner of land or other person having an interest in land shall be entitled as a matter of right to
the enactment or establishment of any such zone.
§270-174. Permitted principal and accessory uses.
In a Planned Development Zone buildings and land may be used for any lawful purpose permitted
in the zone where it is located, plus any other uses which the Town Board may authorize upon
findings that such additional uses:
Item # 6 a
10/4/13 Town of Ithaca, NY
ecode360.com/print/IT1944?g uid=8662382&childr en=tr ue 2/2
A. Furthe r the he alth and w elfare of the community; and
B. Are in accordance with the Comprehe nsive or Ge neral Plan for the Town.
§ 2 70 -17 5. Additional requirements.
In any rezoning to a Planne d De ve lopment Zone the Town Board may impose such conditions or
limitations that the Town Board, in its le gislative discre tion, may de te rmine to be ne ce ssary or
de sirable to insure the de velopment conforms with the Compre he nsive Plan of the Town,
including limiting the permitte d use s, location and size of buildings and structure s, providing for
ope n space and re cre ational areas, and re quiring bonds or othe r assurances of comple tion of any
infrastructure to be built as part of the de ve lopme nt.
§ 2 70 -17 6. Minimum are a for Planned Develop me nt Zone.
A minimum tract of two acre s is required for the de velopment of a Planne d De ve lopme nt Zone.
§ 2 70 -17 7. Yard and other reg ulations.
Yard, he ight, building coverage , lot size , and any performance standards shall be as se t forth in
the le gislation re zoning the are a to a Planned Development Zone . Unless otherwise state d in such
legislation, if no such re gulations are se t for th, the regulations applicable to the zone in which the
Planne d De ve lopme nt Zone is locate d shall gove rn.
§ 2 70 -17 8. Site p lan ap proval.
No structure shall be e re cted or place d within a Planne d De ve lopment Zone , no building pe rmit
shall be issued for a building or structure within a Planned De ve lopme nt Zone, and no existing
building, structure or use in a Planne d Development Zone be changed, unless the propose d
building and/or use is in accordance w ith a site plan approve d pursuant to the provisions of
Article XXIII.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, September 11, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Alderpersons Joseph (Seph) Murtagh,
Chair; Jennifer Dotson, Vice Chair; Graham
Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, and Stephen
Smith
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick, Alderpersons Cynthia
Brock and Donna Fleming
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, and Development; Nels
Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency; Phyllis Radke, Director, Zoning
Administration; and Debbie Grunder,
Executive Assistant, Department of
Planning and Development
Others Attending: None
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
1) Agenda Review
. Item # 6 a will go ahead of Item # 2 c
2) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – IURA Disposition of Parcel “D” of the Cayuga Green Project
Alderperson Smith motioned to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick.
Passed unanimously.
No one was present to speak on this topic.
Alderperson McCollister motioned to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Kerslick . Passed unanimously.
b) Special Presentation – Downtown Smoking Survey
Ted Schiele, Tobacco Free Tompkins addressed the group by stating that this group was
formed in 2012 based on concerns of smoking around the library and the bus shelters.
Nothing was moved during that time. In early 2013, the library held a meeting to bring this
topic back up. From that meeting, the survey has been created. Gary Ferguson, Deb
Mohlenhoff, Jennifer Dotson, Seph Murtagh, and Vicki Thomas were also involved with
Tompkins Free Tompkins on this project. Some of the findings show that there the smoke-
free boundaries have been quite effective on the Commons other than those that are just
passing through not those that are hanging out. There is still a problem in the downtown
area. The highest concern was the lack of police enforcement. The State and Cayuga Street
Corner is still a problem as well as the TCAT Green Street bus shelter and the Tompkins
County Library area. There are new sandwich signs in the library area and close to the bus
shelter. More signs will be delivered to the Downtown Alliance and TCAT for the Green
Street bus shelter. Tompkins Free Tompkins is now working with younger groups.
Alderperson McCollister wasn’t at all surprised what areas still have problems.
Chair Murtagh stated the there are three pieces to this — community education,
enforcement, and the change to the ordinance.
Alderperson McCollister stated she would like to get through the Commons rebuild project
and then discuss the smoke-free boundaries.
Alderperson Kerslick asked whether the Downtown ambassadors could help with the
enforcement of the law since the police department is already stretched thin.
JoAnn Cornish informed the group of a program that is used in Burlington, Vermont which the
Ithaca Planning Department witnessed firsthand when they visited their city. There is a group
that works out on the street to help keep things manageable and compliant. In fact, local
stores call this group before they call the police.
Chair Murtagh stated the group will continue to work on this topic. JoAnn Cornish stated she
will gather the Burlington, Vermont information and circulate to the group.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Jon Reis, 102 West State Street, owner of Reis Photography, stated the smoking ordinance is
a real concern for him. It affects his business. His business is located in one of the problem
areas – he has to walk through smoke every day, and he has an employee who is allergic to
smoke, creates headaches, and she cannot work. He then he has to pay sick leave. He has
confronted people in the past and has been threatened. He stated he didn’t feel it was his job
to do such enforcement.
Holly Hollingsworth, an avid DeWitt Park “ambassador”, is also concerned with the smoking
issue. Many people smoke there. He’s approached them when he’s there. He asked that the
City not forget about DeWitt Park when passing any changes to this ordinance.
Caleb Thomas, 501 South Cayuga Street, asked whether the City could pass or create a “no
smoking advertisement” in the City. He also voiced his support of the mural project and the
current artist’s (2) two mural proposed murals.
Alderperson Dotson thanked the three that spoke on this topic. The volunteer work they do is
very much appreciated.
Chair Murtagh stated the fact that 50 times the police were called by Jon Reis is a huge price
on the tax payers.
4) Announcements, Updates and Reports
JoAnn Cornish stated that three projects were passed by the Planning Board this month –
they are 130 Clinton Street Apartments, Harold Square, and Cayuga Green II Apartments.
5) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) IURA disposition of Parcel “D” of the Cayuga Green Project
Nels Bohn reported that the Cayuga Green Project has completed most of their proposed
projects. The last one to be completed is to fill up the space on the back side of the Cayuga
Garage facing the creek. He further stated that this project is completely taxable which will
bring $90,000 to the City. The previous condominium project fell through during the
mortgage crunch in the last few years.
Alderperson McCollister asked about the sound resistance in this project since the first
housing project had its faults.
Nels Bohn stated that this current project’s materials are of better quality, and the use of the
triangular-shaped building limits the walls being shared thus limiting the noise.
a) Endorsement of IURA-Proposed Disposition of parcel ‘D’ of the Cayuga Green
Project to Cayuga Green II LLC
Moved by Alderperson Dotson; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, Cayuga Green II, LLC requests to re-establish a purchase and sale contract
(Contract) for the purchase of parcel ‘D’ (tax map parcel #81.-2-4), located at 217 S. Cayuga
Street, for the purpose of constructing a 49,000 square foot, seven-story housing project
containing 45 housing units to be known as Cayuga Place Two, and
WHEREAS, Parcel ‘D’ is an approximately ½-acre, triangular-shaped parcel owned by the
IURA located between the Cayuga Garage and the Six Mile Creek Walk, and
WHEREAS, Cayuga Green II, LLC is controlled by Bloomfield/Schon + Partners, LLC who is
designated by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as a qualified and eligible sponsor
pursuant to §507 of General Municipal Law to acquire property to undertake the Cayuga
Green project, and
WHEREAS, Cayuga Green II, LLC has successfully completed earlier phases of the public-
private Cayuga Green project, including construction of the 93,000 square foot mixed-use
Cayuga Place project at 131 E. Green Street and a 5-screen movie theater at 120 E. Green
Street, and
WHEREAS, the final phase of the public-private Cayuga Green project is construction of a
building containing at least 30 housing units adjacent to the Cayuga Garage, and
WHEREAS, prior purchase and sale contracts between the IURA and Cayuga Green II, LLC
have expired due to the buyer’s inability to satisfy seller contingencies designed to ensure the
project is ready to commence construction prior to conveyance of the property, and
WHEREAS, Cayuga Green II, LLC indicates that they have now achieved financial feasibility
for the project, secured a commitment of lender financing and received modified site plan
approval for the project by the Planning and Development Board on August 27, 2013, and
WHEREAS, utilization of an auger-grouted steel core displacement pile foundation system in
lieu of a spread-footing foundation allows the project to shrink the building footprint and
increase building height, thereby enhancing financial feasibility, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Contract agrees to a sales price of $270,000 and obligates the
purchaser to undertake a project “anticipated to consist of construction of no fewer than 30
rental and/or for-sale housing units located adjacent to the Cayuga Garage or such other
uses approved by Seller and the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,” and
WHEREAS, to enforce the future land use obligation, the proposed Contract requires the
purchaser to satisfy the following seller contingencies prior to December 31, 2013 as a
condition of conveyance of the property:
1. Submit proof of final site development plan approval for a project containing at least 30
housing units;
2. Submit proof of issuance of a building permit for the project;
3. Submit proof that all project financing has been secured to complete the project, and
WHEREAS, in recognition that project delay imposes an opportunity cost on the IURA and
City of Ithaca in terms of forgone property taxes, parking revenues and resident spending
downtown, therefore the proposed Contract includes a provision requiring payment of a
$20,000 non-refundable deposit toward the purchase price upon signing the Contract, which
shall be retained by the seller in the event seller contingencies are not satisfied by December
31, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the purchaser seeks no property tax abatements for this market-rate project and
the proposed Contract effectively prohibits any tax abatements on the project, and
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Plan for this urban project is
to improve the social, physical, and economic characteristics of the project neighborhood;
and
WHEREAS, the IURA wishes to facilitate the construction of additional housing units in
downtown Ithaca that will expand the range of housing opportunities, increase the property
tax base, and visually conceal the concrete block wall portions of the east wall of the adjacent
Cayuga garage, and
WHEREAS, under §507 of Article 15 of General Municipal Law, the IURA is authorized to
sell real property to a qualified and eligible sponsor subject to Common Council approval
following a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the prior purchase and sale contract for parcel ‘D’ and site plan review for a
proposed 7-story housing project at parcel ‘D’ were the subject of environmental reviews
under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) pursuant to which the
lead agency issued a negative declaration that the implementation of the action as proposed
will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, and
WHEREAS, the revised project and the action of approving the proposed 2013 purchase
and sale contract for parcel ‘D’ are no less protective of the environment than the previously-
approved Contract and site plan, therefore requiring no additional environmental review, and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013 the IURA approved disposition of parcel ‘D’ to Cayuga
Green II, LLC; and
WHEREAS, the IURA further directed staff to market the property to other developers
should seller contingencies not be timely satisfied; now, therefore be
Resolved, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby approves the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency proposed 2013 Purchase and Sale Contract with Cayuga Green II,
LLC for Parcel ‘D’ (tax map parcel #81.-2-4), dated August 27, 2013.
b) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund Application – Fall Creek Block Party
Moved by Alderperson Dotson; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood
Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents
seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community
improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a
general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select
few residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are
not limited to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places, and
organizing neighborhood events like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application
specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be
covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve
applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a
reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for
approved activities, and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, on behalf of neighborhood residents, Maria Costanzo and Sara Schaffzin have
submitted an application for reimbursement funds to offset $185.90 in expenses from the
Fall Creek neighborhood’s annual block party, and
WHEREAS, notice of the block party was circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the
event provided an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of residents; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the
funding request from Maria Costanzo and Sara Schaffzin in the amount of $185.90 for
reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
c) Mural Proposals
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation on the North
Wall of the Seneca Street Parking Garage
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to,
among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the
exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautif y blank
walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an
opportunity to showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and
street art, including walls in the City garages on Green Street and Seneca Street, by
resolution on May 19, 2010, and
WHEREAS, local artist Kellie Cox-Brady submitted her proposal for a mural titled
“Bloodroot (Sanguinaria Canadensis)” as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program,
and
WHEREAS, the PAC discussed Ms. Cox-Brady’s mural proposal at its meeting on
August 28, 2013 and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board
of Public Works, agreed that the north wall of the Seneca Street Parking Garage would be
an appropriate location for the proposed mural, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposed mural design and
recommended location at its meeting on September 4, 2013 to gather input on the
proposed installation, and
WHEREAS, PAC members have also sought input from adjacent property owners and City
staff, and the responses to the mural proposal have been mostly positive, and
WHEREAS, the artist will raise private funding to finance the mural, and the proposed
installation would be budget-neutral to the City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 4, 2013, the Public Art Commission
unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council select the “Bloodroot
(Sanguinaria Canadensis)” mural proposal submitted by Kellie Cox-Brady to be installed
on the north wall of the Seneca Street Parking Garage; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the mural “Bloodroot
(Sanguinaria Canadensis)” by Kellie Cox-Brady to be installed on the north wall of the
Seneca Street Parking Garage and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art
collection; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of her mural
upon the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney).
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation on the South Albany
Street Bridge
Moved my Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to,
among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the
exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank
walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an
opportunit y to showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, local artist Kellie Cox-Brady submitted her proposal for a mural titled
“Asparagus” as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS, the PAC discussed Ms. Cox-Brady’s mural proposal at its meeting on
August 28, 2013, and agreed that the South Albany Street Bridge would be an
appropriate location for the proposed mural, pending approval of the location by the Board
of Public W orks, and
WHEREAS, the South Albany Street Bridge was not included among the sites pre-
approved for future murals by the Board of Public Works in 2010, but the Board
approved the bridge as the location for this mural by resolution on September 9, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposed mural design and
recommended location at its meeting on September 4, 2013 to gather input on the
proposed installation, and
WHEREAS, PAC members have also sought input from adjacent property owners as
well as City staff, and the responses to the mural proposal were mixed, and
WHEREAS, the artist has raised private funding to finance the mural, and the proposed
installation would be budget-neutral to the City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 4, 2013, the Public Art Commission
unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council select the “Asparagus” mural
proposal submitted by Kellie Cox-Brady to be installed on South Albany Street; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the mural “Asparagus” by
Kellie Cox-Brady to be installed on the South Albany Street Bridge and to be added to
the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of her mural
upon the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney).
6) Discussion Items
a) Zoning Working Group
Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration, has been chosen as the person to lead the
City in rewriting the zoning ordinance. Our current zoning ordinance has been
cumbersome for years. She stated the biggest challenge is keeping up with the printing of
the zoning map since we cannot keep up with the changes. Special permits must be
requested from the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals). There are a number of challenges with
this current process.
The Zoning Ordinance must follow the Comprehensive Plan. W hile the Comprehensive
Plan is currently being updated, the Zoning Ordinance needs to be updated parallel with the
plan. The process that will be followed will be that one section will be reviewed and
updated, brought to the planning committee for approval, and then the entire ordinance will
be approved by Council at one time, altogether.
Alderperson Kerslick asked for clarification as to the two groups that are referred to in her
summary letter. There is the internal group which includes City staff and Council that have
actually worked with this, and then there will be an outside group perhaps from other outside
companies or other planning departments such as the County or Town of Ithaca.
Rob Morache, Tom Nix, and Mary Tomlan are only a few people that Phyllis suggested she
would like to be involved. Alderperson Dotson also suggested the Department of City and
Regional Planning at Cornell. Another individual that Chair Murtagh suggests is Noah
Demarest.
Alderperson Dotson also pointed out that we need to consider our borders with the Town
and/or the County. JoAnn Cornish did state…….
7) Approval of Minutes
The August 14, 2013 Meeting Minutes were not ready for circulation in time for this
meeting. They will be distributed along with the September 11, 2013 Meeting Minutes to
be voted on at the October 9, 2013 Meeting.
8) Adjournment
Alderperson McCollister motioned to adjourn, seconded by Alderperson Smith. Meeting
adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, August 14, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Alderpersons Joseph (Seph) Murtagh,
Chair; Jennifer Dotson, Vice Chair;
Graham Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, and
Stephen Smith
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick, Alderperson
Cynthia Brock and Donna Fleming
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, and Development;
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation
Planner, Philly DeSarno, Economic
Development Director; Jennifer Kusznir,
Economic Development Planner; Nels
Bohn, 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 6:05 p.m.
1) Agenda Review
Item # 5d was pulled for action at this time. There are many projects in the works that do
not meet the proposed changes.
February and March 2013 draft minutes will also be voted on.
2) Special Order of Business
a) Presentation on Design Guidelines for Historic Districts
Lynn Truame planned to present these guidelines via the City website or the use of
power point; however the equipment did not work. She distributed the department’s
hard copy of the guidelines to the committee members for their review.
Alderperson McCollister praised Lynn’s work on this document. She has worked very
hard, and it is a beautiful document. It is very well written, and any applicant picking
up information for ILPC review and landmarks districts will have a very clear sense of
what is allowed. The organization is great and the diagrams and photographs are
just great. She thanked staff and ILPC.
JoAnn Cornish added that Lynn did an amazing job and one of the things we would
like to move toward are design guidelines City wide. It would be amazing if we could
have the level of professionalism shown in this document and documents throughout
the City that would be great. She also stated that Lynn has produced a letter for the
Building Division to use in order to make communication easier.
Lynn Truame explained that every year a postcard is mailed to owners of all 700+
historic properties reminding them that they own a designated property and refer
them to the website to find the information they need. Even though that is done,
there are occasionally projects that are done without a building permit or certificate of
appropriateness. The template letter was created to notify the owner that they need
to come in for retroactive review of the project. The code inspector within the
affected area signs and sends it out so the property owner comes in and takes care
of things.
b) Public Hearing – Revisions to Minimum Floor-to-Floor Height Requirements in
all CBD Zoning Districts
Alderperson McCollister motioned to open the public hearing; Alderperson Dotson
seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
No one was present to speak on this topic.
Alderperson Dotson motioned to close the public hearing; Alderperson McCollister
seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
c) Public Hearing – Disposition of Property, 402 South Cayuga Street
Alderperson McCollister motioned to open the public hearing; Alderperson Kerslick
seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
No one was present to speak on this topic.
Alderperson Dotson motioned to close the public hearing; Alderperson Kerslick
seconded the motion. Passed Unanimously
d) Public Hearing – Disposition of Property, 203 Third Street
Alderperson Dotson motioned to open the public hearing; Alderperson Kerslick
seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
James Rogers, 205 Third Street, spoke on behalf of many property owners and
presented a petition opposing the disposition of this property to Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services (INHS). The lot is very small and does not seem appropriate to add
a house to the lot. It doesn’t meet the minimum zoning standards. Parking is only
allowed on one side of this street. Adding a home there would congest this area.
INHS tried to do this before and were denied based on zoning rules.
Alderperson McCollister motioned to close the public hearing; Alderperson Kerslick
seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Chair Murtagh stated that public comment is a three minute time period. However, if
people chose to speak as a group of seven or more, they may speak for seven
minutes; a group of three people, for five minutes.
Pete Myers, 142 Giles Street, spoke on the CIITAP item. He pointed out the living
wage $12.62/hour, or $13.94/hour without health insurance. These new big business
projects clearly will make an incredible profit and benefit tremendously from the
CIITAP program should have no problem paying the living wage to the perspective
employees.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, is on the leadership team of the Workers Center and is
in favor of restoring the CIITAP criterion for living wage and adding use of local
employment and diversity. Last year when a bunch of criteria was removed, living
wages were not in site-plan review or any of the other processes. Those should be
restored. Ithaca is a low unemployment area but also a low wage area. It’s also an
area of under employment. Those in low wage jobs are highly qualified often with
college degrees. It is not economic development if it doesn’t produce living wages. It
is not local economic development if it doesn’t produce jobs for local residents and for
all kinds of local residents.
Jeff Furman, 124 Westfield Drive, has served on the IDA for many years, spoke on the
CIITAP item. Diversity programs should be asked of prospective developers. They
need to be asked what they have done in the past. He stated that the Holiday Inn
Company is currently paying a livable wage in many other areas – they should also do
that here in Ithaca. There also use to be criteria about need. They needed the
abatements.
Charles Wynn, 10 Shaffer Road, Newfield, works in Ithaca but cannot afford to live in
Ithaca. Bringing a new business into town is a good thing. However, there is no
review process as to how these new businesses are doing. Any business coming in
needs to pay a living wage. They should use local labor both in the building of it and
working. They need to be a diverse employee. How does it affect the tax base?
Judith Barker, 309 Washington Street. She pointed out that she read in a recent
Ithaca Journal article that the students help with the unemployment status, and stated
that without the students, the unemployment rate would reflect that a quarter of
residents are unemployed. What the downtown needs is jobs that pay a living wage,
not the minimum wage. The Marriott and Holiday Inn will not improve the lives of low
income people.
Laura Aller, 316 Cascadilla Street, spoke against the CIITAP. Developers need to pay
their share.
James Douglas, 316 Cascadilla Street spoke against the CIITAP.
Margaret Sutherland, 410 Spencer Road, spoke against the proposed INHS Stone
Quarry Apartment funding request. The size of the project is too large for the site.
James Elrod, 111 Stone Quarry Road, spoke on the Stone Quarry 35-apartment
complex request. We already have no sidewalks. The neighborhood already has a
number of issues. Thousands of cars travel through this area a day. It is not
pedestrian friendly or bicycle friendly.
Claudia Georgia, 411 Spencer Road, spoke against the Stone Quarry Road apartment
complex. This is a dangerous area already. More people will make the problem
worse. Traffic is an issue. Another 100 new people in a very small space is
detrimental to this area.
Mary Yetsko, 409 Spencer Road, spoke against the INHS Stone Quarry Road project.
They have been left in the dark about the project. They were never consulted. They
were never asked for their impact. They just don’t know how it was approved by the
Planning board. Only one member, Jane Marcham, voted against this project.
Benjamin Kirk, 3515 Spencer Road, spoke against the Stone Quarry apartment
project. It is grossly oversized for the area. The environmental impact statement
states that the neighborhood is fragile. The amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic
is of concern.
George McGonigal, 518 Hector Street. He is running for council of the second ward.
He heard about this project through the “back door.” Many of the businesses located
on Old Elmira Road are not in favor of this project. Their opinions haven’t been taken
seriously. Look at this project very carefully and think of the residents and business
owners in the area.
The Committee members chose to wait with their comments until later in the
meeting.
4) Announcements, Updates and Reports
JoAnn Cornish asked Philly DeSarno, Economic Development Director, to inform the
committee on the economic development projects that are currently underway in the
downtown area.
Philly DeSarno, Economic Development Director, provided the names of businesses that have
recently been opened as well as some businesses in the City that have moved to another site
within the City. These businesses include Jen and Andy’s, Mystic Water Kava Bar, Cellar
d’ore Wine Shop, WSKG Radio, Bloom (children’s clothing and play), Art and Found (women’s
clothing and accessories), Life-So-Sweet (chocolates/candies), Sarah’s Patisserie, Decorum
II, Crow’s Nest Café, Alphabet Soup, Ithacards, and Deeply Devoted Massage. Two more
ribbon cuttings, Emmie’s Organics, Potter’s Room, are coming soon. Looking for the right
tenants for the Morgan’s space are currently underway, but the gallery use has worked well.
She is currently working with three Corning businesses who are interested in opening
satellites here in Ithaca. There is a new program that she is working on with the DIA to help
Commons’ business window displays. She has been most involved with the Marriot and Hart
hotel projects
Alderperson McCollister updated the group on the Collegetown Plan.
Chair Murtagh stated that the minimum parking requirements working group is still meeting.
5) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) Environmental Review for the Allocation of Funds for the 2013 IURA Action Plan
Alderperson McCollister stated she does have a few concerns of some of the action plan.
One is the Stone Quarry apartment project. The Third Street parcel is also of concern to
her. The vacant lot is extremely small particularly compared to other properties in the area.
Nels Bohn stated that the Third Street is not part of the IURA Action Plan.
The IURA relied heavily on the Planning Board’s recommendation for the Stone Quarry
Apartment Project.
JoAnn Cornish stated the environmental review could be challenged if there is new
information to be considered.
Alderperson Brock distributed map of this area. She pointed out the huge impact on the
neighborhood if this project would to go forward. This will completely change this
neighborhood. She encourages this project to be taken out of this action plan.
Nels Bohn said that one project can be taken out so that it can be reviewed further.
Listen to the tape for Mayor Myrick’s comments.
Dotson stated that there are huge issues with this project. One issue is the heavy traffic
flow. There are pedestrian travel problems. We should also hold INHS to higher
standards.
Brock stated that the City needs to be careful when approving these projects such as this.
Smith stated he grew up in a low income area of Rochester. He had a lot of friends that
lived in the low income area of the City. When he hears things like “out of character”, etc.
he hears that Ithaca isn’t the place for poor people to live. If we are as progressive as we
are, how do we improve the
JoAnn Cornish commended the planning board for the work they do, and she takes offense
to comments made that this project will bring more crime, more people just “hanging out”.
Chair Murtagh stated we need to do something tonight. He’ll take a few more comments
and then work on approving the resolutions.
Kerslick stated that this is a big impact for the 105 residents. He doesn’t want to question
the Board’s decision. We do need to provide affordable housing, but he doesn’t want to see
the current residents against the new comers to the neighborhoods. He would like to see
ways of public improvements, i.e., sidewalks, traffic controls, etc.
Nels Bohn stated that these funds cannot be used for future improvements.
5) Action Items – Voting to send to Council
a) City of Ithaca 2013 Entitlement Grant Action Plan – Designation of Lead
Agency Status for Environmental Review
Moved by Alderperson Dotson; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed
Unanimously.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and
state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,
the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving
and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of the 2013 City of Ithaca Entitlement Grant Action
Plan includes both Type II and Unlisted Actions pursuant to CEQR which requires review
under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council does hereby declare itself lead
agency for the environmental review of the City of Ithaca Entitlement Grant 2013 Action
Plan.
Environmental Review for the 2013 Action Plan
Moved by Alderperson Dotson; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Passed
unanimously
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and the City of Ithaca have
adopted an Action Plan allocating funds to various activities to be implemented with
federal Entitlement Funds for the 2013 Program Year, and
Whereas, the use of such funds requires environmental review under both the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the State and City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (SEQR/CEQRO), and
Whereas, NEPA regulations require the designation of a Certifying Officer,
responsible to conduct the NEP A environmental review, and
Whereas, each activity has been categorized as required under both laws, in the
attached table titled "20 13 Entitlement Activities - Classification for Environmental
Review", and
Whereas, NEPA classification of the activities reveals that all of the activities
contained in the FY 2013 Action Plan, except for Stone Quarry Apartments, qualify as
exempt or categorically excluded actions and are therefore not subject to further
environmental review, and
Whereas, an Environmental Assessment for Activity # 1 Stone Quarry Apartments for
NEP A review has been prepared, and
Whereas, classification according to SEQR/CEQRO of the activities reveals that all of
the activities contained in the 2013 Action Plan, except Activity #1 Stone Quarry
Apartments and Activity #5 Ithaca Skate park Renovations, qualify as Type II actions
and are therefore not subject to further environmental review, and
Whereas, the environmental impact of Activity # 1 Stone Quarry Apartments was
reviewed by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board on October 23,
2012, and the project was determined to result in no significant impact on the
environment pursuant to CEQRO and SEQRA, and
Whereas, the final design for the Activity #5 Ithaca Skatepark Renovation is not
yet developed and the size and location of the expansion must be known in order
to undertake proper environmental review under SEQR/CRQRO, and
Whereas, this review will be undertaken as part of the site plan review for the
skateboard park renovation and is required to be complete before any federal funds
are expended for the project, and
Whereas, the Common Council, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has
on September 4, 2013 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a table labeled "2013
Entitlement Activities-Classification for Environmental Review" dated July 12,
2013;the Environmental Assessment for Stone Quarry Apartments, dated July 2013; a
copy of the City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form Part III for Stone
Quarry Apartments, dated October 23, 2012; and Environmental Assessment and
Compliance Findings for the Related Laws forms for each activity; and
Whereas, the Planning and Economic Development Committee considered this matter
at its August 14, 2013 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council determines that, under
SEQR/CEQRO, the 2013 Entitlement Grant Action Plan activities will result in no
significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of
Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act for all activities
except Activity #5 Ithaca Skatepark Renovation, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council, acting as the Responsible
Entity (R.E.) has determined that the projects funded through the 2013 Entitlement
Grant will have no significant impact on the human environment; therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) is not required for the proposed activities, and be it further
RESOLVED, that no federal funds will be released for renovation of the skateboard
park until such time as the environmental review under SEQR/CEQRO for this
project is complete, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby designates the IURA
Director of Community Development as the Certifying Officer for the purposes of
the NEPA environmental review of the 2013 Action Plan.
.Alderperson McCollister stated that this vote is not the only thing to think of. She would
like to see a commitment of later improvements.
Chair Murtagh would like to move this forward and requested that IURA provide a
resolution for the next Council meeting that infrastructure improvements will be made once
these projects are approved when these improvements are needed.
b) Approval of Property Disposition, 402 South Cayuga Street and 203 Third Street
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Carried
Unanimously.
Property Disposition, 402 South Cayuga and 203 Third Street – Authorize sale to Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.
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
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 proposed 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 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Committee considered this matter at their July 25,
2013 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca 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 the “qualified and eligible sponsor” eligible to acquire tax
parcels # 93.-6-7 (402 S. Cayuga St.) and # 35.-5-16 (203 Third St.), and be it further
RESOLVED, the Council approves the sale of the two properties to 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
•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, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Mayor, subject to advice of legal counsel, is authorized to execute agreements to implement
this resolution.
Alderperson Brock would like to see a map of the entire INHS program so
homeowners have this information.
c)Approval to Change Previously Approved Terms of Disposition for 213-215 West
Spencer Street and 701 Cliff Street
Moved by Chair Murtagh; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed Unanimously 4-1.
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 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency considered this matter at their July 25, 2013
meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council remove the development stipulations for the properties at
213-215 West Spencer Street and 701 Cliff Street and allow the IURA to sell these two properties through a realtor
with no stipulations as to final use, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized, subject to advice of legal counsel, to execute agreements to implement
this resolution.
Mayor Myrick left the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
6)Discussion
a)Community Incentive Investment Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP)
Alderperson Kerslick stated he that would like to see this program targeted more closely to
larger projects or larger developers. We need to also consider the possibility that developers
may go elsewhere like Lansing or the Town of Ithaca.
Alderperson McCollister stated she voted for this program because the previous program was
way too involved.
Alderperson Dotson stated
Chair Murtagh stated when Council passed this initially, it was intended to be looked at again.
The projects that have benefited from this program did not up and leave. They are still here.
Alderperson Dotson asked whether we should start talking about this now with the change being
made six months down the road.
Chair Murtagh stated he would be comfortable to start talking about this program and changing
it if need be in six months. He is not ready to do that now.
Dotson asked whether abatement is really needed in downtown. What about the Southwest
area or other areas in the City.
In retrospect, Alderperson Brock would not have voted for this program when it first went to
Council in 2012.
JoAnn Cornish pointed out that with the Marriott, they will pay the City a total of $4,000/per year
which over a ten year period equals $3.6M (?)
Alderperson Brock asked Chair Murtagh the read the letter Jennifer Kusznir provided on this
topic. That letter is attached to these minutes.
Alderperson Fleming asked whether holding public hearings, informing the residents, and
asking for input is even needed. If the project meets the criteria, it can be approved based on
that rather than public input.
Alderperson Kerslick thought we should come up with our own checklist in addition to the
checklist that the CIITAP requires. We need a predictable process.
JoAnn Cornish to bring Council, developers, the IDA, and others all together to review this
program and its requirements. A real balanced approach is needed.
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 Incentive Tax Abatement Program) policy and the process described 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 experience with the CIITAP process prior to the Holiday Inn CIITAP application which, as I understand, is coming forward shortly. For myself, I feel there are several shortcomings with the existing CIITAP process – namely: 1)the lack of opportunity to receive feedback from thedevelopers to questions and concerns brought forward in the public hearing, 2)the lack of information made available to Council on theproject application 3)without developer feedback, and without access toinformation 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
b)Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning & Economic Development Committee Megan
Wilson, Planner
August 7, 2013
Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund Discussion
Staff recently received an application for the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund ( for an
event that is considered a special event under the City's special events criteria. This part event has
received NIIF funds in the past but has grown since it was first held and now requ Special Event
Permit. The NIIF is intended for neighborhood-scale events such as clea plantings in public
spaces, block parties and neighborhood meetings. It seems that event require a Special Event
Permit would not meet the criteria of the fund. In the case of the application, staff explained this
to the applicant and helped identify another source of fundin the event. However, it will be
helpful for the Planning & Economic Development Commit discuss the eligibility of specials
events for the NIIF so that staff has clear guidance from Committee if similar applications are
submitted. Staff will attend the August 14th meeting to d this issue. If you have any
questions or comments, please feel free to contact m mwilson@cityofithaca.org or
274-6560.
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 DEVELOPMEN
City Development/IURA – 6
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/IURA - 607-274-65
Staff informed the Committee that a decision was made to turn down a request for
this funding based on the type of the event didn’t benefit an entire neighborhood
rather than just a small group.
8)8) Approval of Minutes – The following minutes were approved by committee.
January, February, March, April, May, and July 2013.
9)Adjournment
Kerslick motioned to adjourn, seconded by Smith. Meeting adjourned at 9:08.