HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-13 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: November 13, 2013
TIME: 6pm
LOCATION: 3rd floor
City Hall Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s) Time
Start
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
2) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – Amendment to 2013 City of Ithaca
Action Plan to Award $52,776 to the Learning
Web’s Supported Employment Program
b) Public Hearing – Revisions to Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance
c) Presentation: Planned Development Zones
d) Presentation: Ithaca Motion Picture Project
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee
Members
4) Announcements, Updates and Reports
a) Collegetown Zoning: Timeline
b) RU Rezoning
c) Noise Consultant Visit
5) Action items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) Revisions to Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Ordinance
b) Local Law Concerning Foreclosure of Unsafe
Properties
c) Amendment to 2013 City of Ithaca Action Plan to
Award $52,776 to the Learning Web’s Supported
Employment Program
d) Mural Proposals
6) Action items – Approval to Circulate
a) Planned Development Zones legislation
7) Discussion
a) Carpenter Business Park
8) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) August 2013
9) Adjournment
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Chair, Seph Murtagh
Sue Ritter, Town of Ithaca
Diana Riesman, IMMP
Lynn Truame, Planning Staff
Ari Lavine, City Attorney
Nels Bohn, IURA
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
6:00
6:05
6:15
6:30
7:00
7:30
7:45
8:10
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:35
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 to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00
noon on Tuesday, November 12, 2013.
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca
§ 228-1. Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “City of
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.”
§ 228-2. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Promote the educational, cultural, economic and general
welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement
and perpetuation of buildings, structures, landscape
features, archeological sites, and districts of historic
and cultural significance.
B. Safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and cultural
heritage as reflected in such buildings, structures,
landscape features, archeological sites, and districts.
C. Protect the value of historic properties and their owners’
investment in them, and stabilize historic neighborhoods.
D. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and
achievements of the past.
E. Protect and enhance the city’s attractiveness to tourists
and visitors and the support and stimulus to the economy
thereby provided.
F. Strengthen the economy of the city.
G. Promote the use of buildings, structures, landscape
features, archeological sites, and districts of historic
and cultural significance as sites for the education,
pleasure and welfare of the people of the city.
H. Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and
development of the city.
§ 228-3. Designation of Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts.
A. As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission is responsible for recommending to Common
Council the designation of identified structures or
resources as individual landmarks and historic districts
within the city.
B. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend
such designation of an individual property as an
individual landmark if it:
1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic
interest or value as part of the cultural,
political, economic, or social history of the
locality, region, state, or nation; or
2. Is identified with historically significant
person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an
architectural style; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has
significantly influenced an age; or
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
5. Represents an established and familiar visual
feature of the community by virtue of its unique
location or singular physical characteristics.
C. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend
such designation of a group of properties as an historic
district if the group:
1. Contains primarily properties which meet one or more
of the criteria for designation as an individual
landmark; and
2. Constitutes a distinct section of the city by reason
of possessing those qualities that would satisfy
such criteria.
D. Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent to the
owner or owners of the property or properties proposed for
designation, describing the property proposed, or if in a
district, the proposed district boundary, and announcing a
public hearing by the Commission to consider the
designation. Where the proposed designation involves so
many owners that the Commission deems individual notice to
be infeasible, notice may instead be published at least
once in the City’s official newspaper at least 15 days
prior to the date of the public hearing.
E. Once the Commission has issued official notice of a
proposed designation, no building permits or demolition
permits shall be issued by the Building
CommissionerDirector of Code Enforcement as long as the
proposed designation is under active consideration by the
Commission and until the Commission has made its decision,
but in any event no longer than 60 days after completion
of the public hearinguntil said proposed designation has
been acted upon by Common Council, but in any event no
longer than 90 days after completion of the public hearing
required by § 228-3 F, unless:
1. The permit is for work that is of an emergency
nature, as determined by the Director of Code Enforcement
or the Fire Chief, or
2. The property owner voluntarily complies with the
Certificate of Appropriateness review process.
FE. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to
designation of any individual landmark or historic
district. Notice of the public hearing shall be published
at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 15
days prior to the date of the public hearing. The notice
shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a
brief description of the proposed designation, and the
location where the proposal may be reviewed prior the
hearing. The Commission, property owners, and any
interested parties may present testimony or documentary
evidence at the hearing which will become part of a record
regarding the historic, architectural, or cultural
importance of the proposed individual landmark or historic
district. The record may also contain staff reports,
public comments, expert testimony, or other evidence
offered outside of the hearing.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Item # 5a
Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
GF. Within seven days after it has recommended designation of
an individual landmark or historic district, the
Commission shall file a copy of such recommended
designation with the Planning and Development Board and
with Common Council.
HG. Within 60 days of the Commission recommending
designation, the Planning and Development Board shall file
a report with Common council with respect to the relation
of such proposed designation to the Comprehensive Plan,
the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and any
plans for the renewal of the site or area involved. The
Council shall, within 90 days of said recommendation of
designation, approve, disapprove, or refer the proposed
designation back to the Commission for modification.
IH. Any designation approved by the Council shall be in
effect on and after the date of approval by Council. The
Commission shall forward notice of each property
designated as an individual landmark and the boundaries of
each designated historic district to the Building
CommissionerDirector of Code Enforcement and the City
Clerk for recordation.
§ 228-4. Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration, Demolition, or New Construction Affecting Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts.
As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission is responsible for the approval or disapproval
of proposals for exterior changes to a designated historic
property. No person shall carry out any exterior
alteration, restoration, reconstruction, demolition, new
construction, or moving of an individual landmark or
property within an historic district, nor shall any person
make any change in the exterior appearance of such
property, its site, its light fixtures, signs, sidewalks,
fences, steps, paving, or other exterior elements, without
first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness or
Finding of Economic Hardship from the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission, or obtaining approval by the
Commission’s Secretary pursuant to §228-6 7C, or upon
order of the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent
of Public Works, or Fire Chief pursuant to §228-13. Any
exterior alteration made in the absence of such required
approvals must be reviewed retroactively by the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission, applying the criteria
for approval set forth in §228-6 and §228-10 as though the
work had not yet been completed. All changes to City-
owned property affecting an individual landmark or within
an historic district shall be subject to the provisions of
this ordinance.
§228-5 Temporary Improvements.
No Certificate of Appropriateness is required for
temporary improvements. Temporary improvements are those
that will be in place for no more than 180 consecutive
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.61"
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.01"
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
days and result in no permanent physical alteration of the
structure or site.
§228-56. Criteria for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
A. The Commission shall approve the issuance of a Certificate
of Appropriateness only if it determines that the proposed
work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and
value of either the individual landmark, or if the
proposed work is within an historic district, of the
neighboring properties in such district.
B. In making this determination, the Commission will be
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and by the following principles:
1. The historic features of an individual landmark
shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with the
historic character of the landmark.
2. The historic features of a property located within,
and contributing to the significance of, an historic
district shall be altered as little as possible and
any alterations made shall be compatible with both
the historic character of the individual property
and the character of the district as a whole.
3. New construction located within an historic district
shall be compatible with the historic character of
the district within which it is located.
C. In applying the principle of compatibility set forth
above, the Commission shall consider the following
factors:
1. the general design and character of the proposed
alteration or new construction relative to existing
features of the property;
2. the scale and visual compatibility of the proposed
alteration or new construction in relation to the
property itself, surrounding properties, and the
neighborhood;
3. texture, materials, and color, and their relation to
similar features of the property and other
properties in the neighborhood;
4. visual compatibility with surrounding properties,
including the proportions of the property’s façade;
proportions and arrangement of windows, doors, and
other openings; roof shape; and rhythm of spacing of
properties along the street, including set-backs;
and
5. the importance of historic, physical, and visual
features to the significance of the property.
D. In passing upon an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, the Landmarks Preservation Commission
shall not consider changes to interior spaces or to
exterior paint colors.
Item # 5a
Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
E. In cases of a retroactive review of completed work, the
Commission may approve any portion of the completed
project that is found to meet the criteria for approval
enumerated in this §228 while referring to the Office of
the City Attorney for potential prosecution any portion of
the project that does not meet such criteria for approval.
§228-67. Certificate of Appropriateness Application Procedure.
A. Prior to the commencement of any work requiring a
Certificate of Appropriateness, the owner shall file an
application for a building permit with the Building
Department Division and an application for such
Certificate with the Commission. The application,
available on the City’s website and through the Department
of Planning & Development, shall contain:
1. Building permit application number, as assigned by
the Building Department Division
2. Name, mailing address, email address, and telephone
number of the applicant;
3. Location and photographs of the property;
4. Elevation drawings of proposed changes, if
available;
5. Perspective drawings, including relationship to
adjacent properties, if available;
6. Samples of building materials to be used, including
their proposed color;
7. Where the proposal includes signs or lettering, a
scale drawing showing the type of lettering to be
used, all dimensions and colors, a description of
materials to be used, method of illumination, and a
plan showing the sign’s location on the property;
and
8. Any other information that the Commission may deem
necessary in order to visualize the proposed work.
B. No building permit shall be issued for the proposed work
until a Certificate of Appropriateness has first been
issued by the Commission. The Certificate of
Appropriateness required by this chapter shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of any building or other
permit that may be required by any other ordinance of the
City of Ithaca.
C. The Commission may delegate to the Commission’s Secretary
the authority to:
1. Determine whether proposed work constitutes
ordinary maintenance and repair for which a
Certificate of Appropriateness is not required;
2. Approve work that is considered replacement-in-
kind;
3. Approve work that is of any other type that has
been previously determined by the Commission to be
appropriate for delegation to staff, as reflected
in the City of Ithaca Landmark and Historic
District Design Guidelines.
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
On at least a quarterly basis, the Commission shall review
the Certificates of Appropriateness, if any, issued by the
Commission’s Secretary, to determine whether or not the
delegated review responsibilities should continue or their
scope be modified.
D. Upon application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, a
public notice of the proposal shall be posted by the owner
or owner’s representative on the property for a minimum of
10 days. This notice must remain in place until a decision
to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness has
been made. The notice shall specify the proposed work, the
time and place of the public hearing, and to whom and by
when any public comments are to be communicated. The
notice must be placed at or near the property line in the
front yard so that it will be plainly visible from the
street, and, in cases where a property has frontage on
more than one street, an additional sign must be placed at
or near the property line on any additional street
frontage so that the sign will be plainly visible from the
street on which it has such additional frontage.
E. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to
rendering a decision on any application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness. Notice of the public hearing shall be
published at least once in the City’s official newspaper
at least 5 days prior to the public hearing. The notice
shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a
brief description of the proposal, and the location where
the proposal may be reviewed prior to the hearing. The
property owner and any interested party may present
testimony or documentary evidence regarding the proposal
at the hearing, which will become a part of the record.
The record may also contain staff reports, public
comments, and other evidence offered outside of the
hearing.
F. The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with
conditions or modifications the Certificate of
Appropriateness within 45 days from the completion of the
public hearing, except as noted below. The failure of the
Commission to act within 45 days from the completion of
the public hearing, unless an extension is mutually agreed
upon in writing by the applicant and the Commission, shall
be deemed to constitute approval.
1. In the event, however, that the Commission shall
make a finding of fact that the circumstances of a
particular application require further time for
additional study and information than can be
obtained within the aforesaid 45-day period, then
the Commission shall have a period of up to 90 days
within which to act upon such an application.
2. In the event, however, that environmental review of
an application is required, the Commission shall
approve, deny, or approve with conditions or
modifications the Certificate of Appropriateness
within 65 days from the completion of environmental
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.13", First line: 0"
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
review. The failure of the Commission to act within
65 days from the completion of the environmental
review, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon
in writing by the applicant and the Commission,
shall be deemed to constitute approval.
G. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing. A
copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail, and a copy
filed with the Building CommissionerDirector of Code
Enforcement and City Clerk for public inspection, within
10 days of the date of the decision. The Commission’s
decisions shall state the reasons for denying or modifying
any application.
§228-78. Expiration of Approval; Extension of Approval
If the construction of a project approved for a Certificate
of Appropriateness has not commenced within twenty-four (24)
months of the date of the approval, such approval shall
expire, unless an extension has been granted by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission following a written request by the
applicant. An application for an extension of Certificate of
Appropriateness approval shall not be considered a new
Certificate of Appropriateness application.
§228-89. Early Design Guidance.
A. Large projects that could potentially have a significant
impact on an individual landmark or historic district are
required to participate in the Early Design Guidance
process. The purpose of this process is to provide input
from the Commission on the design of the project as it
relates to criteria for the approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness at a time when such input may readily be
incorporated into the design without adversely affecting
design costs or the project schedule.
B. For the purposes of this chapter, large projects are
defined as:
1. New construction in an historic district of any
primary structure, or
2. New construction of any accessory structure with a
gross square footage of 800 square feet or more in
an historic district, or new construction of any
accessory structure with a gross square footage of
800 square feet or more on the same tax parcel as
an individual landmark when that tax parcel is
less than five acres in size, or new construction
of any accessory structure with a gross square
footage of 800 square feet or more on the same tax
parcel as an individual landmark when that tax
parcel is more than five acres in size and when
the proposed accessory structure will be located
within 150 feet of the individual landmark, or
3. New additions that will increase the existing
footprint of an individual landmark or a structure
located within an historic district by 50% or
more, or
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
4. Any renovation or reconstruction (excluding
projects that involve only the replacement of roof
coverings) that will affect 50% or more of the
exterior envelope of an individual landmarks or a
structure located within an historic district.
C. Applicants subject to Early Design Guidance shall submit
materials for review by the Commission as soon as the
design has reached a stage of development that would
allow the Commission to understand the basic proposal and
its significant details.
D. Based on the limited information provided, the Commission
will provide general feedback and non-binding
recommendations and comments that might help the
applicant further refine the project prior to submitting
an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
§228-910. Criteria for a Finding of Economic Hardship.
A. An applicant whose Certificate of Appropriateness for a
proposed alteration has been denied may apply for relief
on the ground of economic hardship. In order to prove the
existence of economic hardship related to a proposed
alteration, the applicant shall establish that the denial
of a Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the
owner from earning a reasonable return on investment,
regardless of whether that return represents the most
profitable return possible. In the case of non-profit
ownership, the applicant shall establish that the denial
of a Certificate of Appropriateness will seriously
interfere with, or prevent, the owner from carrying out
its chartered purpose. In either case the applicant
shall establish that the alleged hardship has not been
created by the previous actions or inactions of any
person having an ownership or management interest in the
property after the effective date of local designation.
B. Demolition of an individual landmark, or of a structure
located within, and contributing to the significance of,
an historic district, shall be allowed only in cases of
economic hardship, unless the Building Department, upon
due deliberation, has made an express finding that the
structure presents an imminent threat to the public
health, safety, and welfareexcept as provided for in §228-14. In order to prove the existence of economic
hardship sufficient to justify demolition, the applicant
shall establish to the satisfaction of the Commission
that:
1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness
will prevent the owner from earning a reasonable
return on investment, regardless of whether that
return represents the most profitable return
possible; and
2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use,
whether by the current owner or by a purchaser,
which would result in a reasonable return on
investment; and
Formatted: Not Highlight
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
3. Diligent efforts to find a purchaser interested in
acquiring the property and preserving it have
failed; and
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by the
previous actions or inactions of any person having
an ownership or management interest in the
property after the effective date of local
designation.
Or, in the case of non-profit ownership that:
1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness
will either physically or financially prevent, or
seriously interfere with, the non-profit owner
carrying out its chartered purpose; and
2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use
that would result in the non-profit owner being
able to carry out its chartered purpose; and.
3. The alleged hardship has not been created by the
previous actions or inactions of any person having
an ownership or management interest in the
property after the effective date of local
designation.
§228-1011. Finding of Economic Hardship Application Procedure.
A. After the Landmarks Preservation Commission has denied a
Certificate of Appropriateness, an applicant may
commence the economic hardship process. Consideration of
an application for a Finding of Economic Hardship may
occur at the same meeting as consideration of an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. No
building permit or demolition permit shall be issued
unless the Commission determines that an economic
hardship exists and issues a Finding of Economic
Hardship, except in cases where the Building
DepartmentDivision, upon due deliberation, has made an
express finding that the structure presents an imminent
threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
B. The Commission may hold a public hearing on the hardship
application at which an opportunity will be provided for
proponents and opponents of the application to present
their views.
C. The applicant shall consult in good faith with the
Commission, local preservation groups, and interested
parties in a diligent effort to seek an alternative that
will result in appropriate preservation of the property.
D. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing and
shall state the reasons for granting or denying the
requested Finding of Economic Hardship. A copy shall be
sent to the applicant by mail and a copy filed with the
Building CommissionerDirector of Code Enforcement and
City Clerk for public inspection within 10 days of the
date of the decision.
E. If a Finding of Economic Hardship is issued, the
Commission shall approve only such work as is necessary
to alleviate the hardship.
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
§228-12 City-owned Improvements
A. All changes to City-owned property affecting an
individual landmark or within an historic district
shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance,
with the exception of §228-10 and §228-11.
B. If the cost of an action required by the Commission
would exceed by 20% or more the cost of the action if
not regulated by the Commission, the Common Council
reserves the right to determine whether compliance with
the Commission’s requirements for that action are
prudent and feasible in light of potentially competing
public interests. Should Common Council determine,
upon due deliberation, that such compliance would not
be prudent and feasible, the action may proceed as
though it were not regulated by the Commission.
§228-13 Exceptions for Reasons of Public Safety
A. When in the judgment of the Director of Code
Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire
Chief there exists an emergency condition that poses an
imminent threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare, the Director of Code Enforcement,
Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief may order
the property owner to immediately undertake temporary
work to correct the defect while a permanent
solution is sought that will satisfy the requirements
of Section 228-6.
B. Such temporary work shall remain in place no longer
than 180 days. Such 180 day period may only be
extended by, and in the sole discretion of, the
Director of Planning, Building, & Economic Development,
or designee. During that time, the owner shall
diligently work to identify and propose to the ILPC,
Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public
Works, and Fire Chief a permanent solution to
adequately address the public safety concern while
satisfying the requirements of Section 228-6.
Potential solutions identified during this period will
be subject to the provisions of Section 228-10 and 228-
11.
C. If, at the end of the 180 day period, or authorized
extension of this period, the Director of Planning,
Building, & Economic Development, or designee, has
determined that no reasonable solution exists that will
achieve the public safety goal and the ILPC has
determined that no reasonable solution exists that will
satisfy either the criteria of Section 228-6 or Section
228-11, the Director of Planning, Building, & Economic
Development, or designee, may order permanent work to be
undertaken by the owner that will protect the public
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.61"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.38"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging:
0.56"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.38"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.38"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.38"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11
pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Item # 5a
Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
health, safety, or welfare without the issuance of
either a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Finding of
Economic Hardship.
D. When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public
Works, there exists on City property, on City-possessed
easements, or in the City Right of Way, a substantial
hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare, the
Superintendent of Public Works may take all reasonable
action to mitigate or eliminate the hazard through
pursuit of those remedies, improvements, or
infrastructures that he or she deems appropriate.
Consultation with the Director of Planning and
Development, or his or her designee, is required before
the Superintendent of Public Works implements permanent
remedies not falling within the scope of the previous
sentence. Any remedies, improvements, or
infrastructures undertaken on order or authorization of
the Superintendent of Public Works under this paragraph
shall not be subject to §228-6, §228-7, or §228-10. §228-1114. Maintenance and Repair Required.
A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent
the ordinary maintenance and repair of any exterior
architectural feature of an individual landmark or
property within a historic district that does not
involve a change in design, building materials, color,
or outward appearance; however, the Commission’s
Secretary shall determine whether proposed work
constitutes ordinary maintenance and repair or requires
a Certificate of Appropriateness.
B. No owner or person with an interest in real property
designated as an individual landmark or included within
an historic district shall permit the property to fall
into a serious state of disrepair. Maintenance shall be
required, consistent with the provisions of the Property
Maintenance Code of New York State and all other
applicable regulations.
§228-1215. Enforcement and Violations
A. All work performed pursuant to a Certificate of
Appropriateness issued under this chapter shall conform
to the requirements included therein. It shall be the
duty of the Building CommissionerDirector of Code
Enforcement to inspect periodically any such work to
assure compliance. In the event work is found that is
not being performed in accordance with the Certificate
of Appropriateness the Building CommissionerDirector of
Code Enforcement shall issue a stop work order and all
work shall immediately cease. No further work shall be
undertaken on the project as long as a stop work order
is in effect.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging:
0.56"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.38"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, Not
Italic
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, Not
Italic
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, Not
Italic
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, Not
Italic
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, Not
Italic
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 11 pt
Item # 5a Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Bold
B. Any owner or person in charge of a property who
demolishes or alters a property in the absence of a
Certificate of Appropriateness, a Finding of Economic
Hardship, or approval by the Secretary of the Commission
pursuant to §228-6C 7C of the City Municipal Code, or
upon order of the Director of Code Enforcement,
Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief pursuant
to §228-13 may be required to restore the property and
its site to its appearance prior to the violation. In
the event distinctive historic features have been
removed or otherwise irreversibly altered, such removal
or alteration shall constitute a separate violation
under this ordinance.
C. If, in the judgment of the Commission, a violation of
§228-11 14 exists that will result in a detrimental
effect upon the life and character of a designated
historic property or on the character of a historic
district as a whole, the Commission shall notify the
building CommissionerDirector of Code Enforcement. If,
upon investigation, the Building CommissionerDirector of
Code Enforcement finds non-compliance with the
requirements of the Property Maintenance Code of New
York State, or any other applicable regulation, the
Building CommissionerDirector of Code Enforcement shall
order such remedies as are necessary and consistent with
this Chapter and shall provide written notice thereof to
the Secretary of the Commission.
D. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be
deemed an offense and shall be punishable as provided in
Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code, General Provisions,
Article I, Penalties. Each day’s continued breach shall
constitute a separate additional violation. In addition,
the City shall have such other remedies as are provided
by law to enforce the provision of this chapter.
§228-1316. Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by any decision by the Commission may
apply to the Supreme Court in the State of New York for
review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
within 30 days of publication of the decision.
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.54"
Item # 5b
Local Law No. ____-2013
A local law entitled the “City of Ithaca Local Law Concerning Foreclosure of Unsafe
Structures.”
WHEREAS the City has established a goal of returning unsafe structures within the City
of Ithaca back to productive use in a timely manner, and
WHEREAS ineffective control of unsafe buildings runs counter to the City’s exercise of
its power to maintain the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of its citizens
granted by New York General City Law § 20(13), and
WHEREAS the City has the ability, granted by Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184,
to both agree to and refuse to enter into installment agreements for unpaid taxes owed
on property, and
WHEREAS in an effort to return unsafe structures to productive use in a timely manner,
the City hereby establishes that a property owner of an unsafe structure in tax
foreclosure proceedings may not enter into an installment agreement for payment of
back taxes without first bringing the unsafe structure into compliance with the orders of
the City of Ithaca Building Division.
BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Findings, Intent, and Purpose.
Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184, the City of Ithaca is authorized to
adopt a local law authorizing the installment payment of delinquent taxes. Under the
City’s current laws, owners of unsafe properties may enter into installment payment
plans. Where the costs of repairs are greater than installment payments or there is
otherwise little incentive for property owners to bring unsafe structures into compliance
1
Item # 5b
with Building Division orders, this policy allows properties to fall into greater disrepair.
The Common Council desires to return these unsafe structures to safe and productive
use, and finds that exempting unsafe structures from installment plans is the most
efficient and effective way to achieve this goal.
Section 2. Charter Amendments.
Section C-44(B) of the Ithaca City Charter is hereby amended as follows:
(1) The City of Ithaca hereby authorizes the City Chamberlain to enter into
installment agreements with property owners of eligible properties
providing for the payment of eligible delinquent taxes in installments
according to the provisions of Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law of
the State of New York, as amended. Within forty-five (45) days of the
return of unpaid taxes, the City Chamberlain, by first-class mail, shall
notify all owners of eligible properties with delinquent taxes that they are
eligible to pay their delinquent taxes in installments according to the
provisions of Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New
York, as amended. The City shall add one dollar ($1.00) to the amount of
the tax lien to pay for such postage. The owner of such parcel must accept
the installment offer after thirty (30) days of the mailing of such notice by
signing an installment payment agreement with the City Chamberlain. The
City Chamberlain shall not include parcels accepting the offer and making
timely payments pursuant to the installment plan on the filing of the list of
properties for foreclosure proceedings with the court. Any property
within the City shall be an eligible property so long as: (a) that
property is a property as to which Real Property Tax Law §
2
Item # 5b
1184 authorizes and empowers the City to make available to the
owner thereof an installment agreement, and (b) no primary building
or structure located on the property is found to be unsafe pursuant
to City Code § 146-9 unless abated by repair or demolition in
satisfaction of Chapter 146 of the City Code or otherwise addressed
in full compliance with said Chapter.
Section 3. Severability Clause.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Local Law. If any
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Local Law is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Local Law.
Section 4. Effective and Operative Date.
This Local Law shall become operative immediately and shall take effect upon its filing
in the office of the Secretary of State.
3
Item # 5c
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-6559
To: Common Council Members
From: Sue Kittel, Deputy Director of Community Development
Re: Program Amendment to the 2013 Action Plan
Date: October 17, 2013
I am writing to give you some background on the Action Plan program amendment we are
proposing. For many months I have been working with community agencies trying to develop
job-training projects which lead to unsubsidized job placements. As you can imagine, it is
difficult to put such a program together, much less get it ready on a time line that coincides with
the normal deadlines for the annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
round.
A project sponsored by The Learning Web is just now ready for funding. This activity proposes
to assist at least 7 local young adults in succeeding with entry-level permanent employment
opportunities at Cayuga Medical Center. The hospital has agreed to partner with us on this
program, offering to hire these trainees and work with program staff from the Learning Web to
ensure their success. The Job Coach from the Learning Web will be instrumental in this program,
helping the trainees learn the job skills and master the dynamics of the workplace. The Job
Coach will also assist with trouble shooting issues such as transportation, childcare, educational
needs and other concerns which could arise and become an impediment to long-term
employment.
To fund a project for more that $25,000 off-cycle like this, a public hearing and a vote of the
Common Council is required by the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan. Our request is
that the public hearing be held at the November Planning and Economic Development
Committee meeting, with the vote at the December Council meeting.
If you have any questions about this proposal or about the process, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Thank you
Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
Item # 5c
Draft Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
November 13, 2013
Project Funding for the Learning Web’s Supported Employment Program
(new 2013 Project #22)
Whereas, The Learning Web has requested funding for a supported employment
program, and
Whereas, if funded, the Program will use CDBG funds to employ a program
coordinator who will support young people with limited employment experience in
jobs at Cayuga Medical Center, and elsewhere, in order to increase their
chances of successfully maintaining permanent, unsubsidized employment, and
Whereas, the 2013 Action Plan identifies unallocated CDBG funds in the amount
of $96,458.00, and
Whereas, the Learning Web has requested $52,776, and
Whereas, this project is classified as an eligible public service activity consistent
with the goals of the City’s Consolidated Plan by providing job placement for
under-employed and un-employed young people who have limited job skills or
successful past work experience, and
Whereas, this project can be fully funded at the level requested without exceeding
the 15% public services spending cap, and
Whereas, this proposed activity is listed as Exempt from environmental review by
the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and is not subject to the City
Environmental Quality Review regulations, and
Whereas, a funding allocation of more than $25,000 occurring during the
program year constitutes a substantial program amendment to the adopted
Action Plan requiring a public hearing and an action of the Common Council for
approval, and
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency reviewed this proposal on October
24, 2013 and recommend the following contingent on Common Council approval,
and
Whereas, a public hearing regarding this proposed substantial amendment to the
2013 Action Plan was held at the November 13, 2013 Planning and Economic
Development Committee meeting, now, therefore be it
Item # 5c
Resolved, that Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of
$52,776.00 be awarded to The Learning Web for the Supported Employment
Program as 2013 Project #22, and be it further
Resolved, that these funds be derived from the 2013 Entitlement Grant, and be it
further
Resolved, that the IURA Chairperson, upon advice of the IURA Attorney, is
hereby authorized to execute all necessary and appropriate documents to
implement this resolution.
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner Item # 5d
DATE: October 30, 2013
RE: Public Art Commission Recommendations on Mural Proposals
In 2010, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) created a mural and street art program to beautify
blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to
showcase their work. As part of this program, two mural proposals have been submitted for installation on
City-owned property.
The first mural by Jim Garmhausen depicts a vertical group of people that is intended to represent the
interconnectedness of humanity. The mural is proposed for installation within the west stairwell of the
Seneca Street Parking Garage, and this location is among the potential sites that the Board of Public Works
approved for future murals in May 2010. The PAC reviewed this proposal at its meeting on September 25,
2013 and voted unanimously to recommend it for selection by the Common Council at its meeting on
October 23, 2013.
The second mural, the 1st Street Mosaic Project, is a mosaic tile installation on the wall at the Department of
Public Works facility across from the Sciencenter. Local artists Margaret Corbit, Wes Blauvelt, Annemarie
Zwack, Carla Stetson, Leslie Carrere, and Caitlin Chan would work with the community to create the project
that will feature a “plants as food” theme. The proposed location is among the potential sites that the Board
of Public Works approved for future murals in May 2010. The PAC reviewed this proposal at its meeting on
October 10, 2012 and voted unanimously to recommend it for selection by the Common Council at its
meeting on October 23, 2013.
The PAC has sought public comment on both proposals through notification of adjacent property owners
and City staff. A public comment period was also held at the October 23rd PAC meeting to gather public
input on the proposed design and location.
Descriptions and sketches of the proposed installations as well as photos of the proposed locations are
attached for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 274-6560 or
mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
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
Jim Garmhausen Mural Proposal
Jim Garmhausen
www.jimgarmhausenart.com
www.flickr.com/photos/jimdgarmhausen/
I am proposing a mural for the Seneca Street garage, to be completed this Fall 2013. The
location I am interested in is within the stairwell on the Tioga Street side, to the right of
the main vehicle entrance. There are landings in this stairwell between each floor, and
each landing has a wall, opposite the elevator side. My idea is to create a simple mural
within one of these spaces.
My idea explores the interconnectedness of humanity, symbolized by a vertical group of
people being carried “piggyback” by the person at the base. This is a theme I used in the
Westy gate mural of this past spring, and that I use in my own work and sketchbooks
often. The image is two colors, black and white, with a coat of black being laid down first
and details worked in with white, which is a technique I have been using this summer, for
the Westy gates, the downtown Commons Adopt A Panel mural, and many small
paintings and works on book covers.
Funding will be provided by the artist.
Jim Garmhausen Exhibits
*If You Have To Ask, Then You’ll Never Know. August 3 to 9, 2012. 409 Willoughby Ave,
Brooklyn NY. Rented warehouse space. Mixed media, drawings and paintings.
*Untitled show, July 1 to 31, 2011. The Shop, 312 East Seneca Street, Ithaca. Mixed
media, drawings and paintings.
*How To Enjoy The End Of Time On Ten Dollars A Day. July 15 to August 12, 2010.
Tompkins County Public Library, solo show. Mixed media and sculpture.
*Follow Me If You Want To Live. January 1 to March 1, 2010. Korova, 214 East State
Street, Ithaca Commons. Cartoons in pen and ink.
*Bottles and Empties. November 18, 2008 to March 20, 2009. Korova, 214 East State
Street, Ithaca Commons. Paintings, mixed media, work on bottles and found objects.
*Streetscapes. Group Show. April 8 to June 1, 2008. Tompkins County Public Library.
Paintings, mixed media.
Upcoming:
*The Happiest Show On Earth, A Color Ink Book Group Show, September 7 to October 5, 2013. WWA
Gallery, Culver City CA. Two pieces.
*Untitled Solo Show, October 2014, The Loft Parlor, 180 Pleasant Street, Third Floor, Easthampton MA
01027
Public Art
*They’re My Friends, I Made Them. April 2 to September 2, 2010. 135 East State Street,
former Night and Day building, Ithaca Commons. Sculpture utilizing painted bottles.
*Gates for The Westy, 516 West State Street, Ithaca NY. Spring/Summer 2013. (see pictures)
*Adopt A Panel Mural Project, Ithaca Commons. Summer 2013, ongoing. Panel for Crow’s Nest Café. (see
pictures)
Jim Garmhausen Mural Proposal
Work Samples
Adopt A Panel Mural Project above; Westy gates below
Jim Garmhausen Mural Proposal
Proposed mural sketch for Seneca Street garage stairwell. Vertically placed, to one side
of wall, from floor to ceiling. Background of wall (negative space) will remain “as is.”
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Proposed Resolution
November 13, 2013
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation within
West Stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among
other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display
of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls
within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to
showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street
art, including the walls of the Seneca Street Parking Garage, by resolution on May 19, 2010, and
WHEREAS, local artist Jim Garmhausen submitted his proposal for a mural depicting a vertical
group of people as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS, the PAC discussed Mr. Garmhausen’s mural proposal at its meeting on September
25, 2013 and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of Public
Works, agreed that the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage would be an
appropriate location for the proposed mural, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended location
at its meeting on October 23, 2013 to gather input on the proposed installation, and
WHEREAS, PAC members have also sought input from adjacent property owners and City staff,
and the responses to the proposal have been mostly positive, and
WHEREAS, the artist will provide funding for the mural, and the proposed installation will be
budget-neutral to the City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23, 2013, the Public Art Commission unanimously voted
to recommend that the Common Council select the mural proposal submitted by Jim
Garmhausen to be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Jim Garmhausen’s mural
featuring a vertical group of people to be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca Street
Parking Garage and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of his mural upon the
execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney).
Community Collaboration on a Public Mosaic Mural
Margaret Corbit (www.ardenarts.net), Carla Stetson (http://faculty.ithaca.edu/cstetson/),
Annemarie Zwack (www.zwackart.com)
Our team includes local artists, Margaret Corbit, Wes Blauvelt, Annemarie Zwack, Carla
Stetson, Leslie Carrere, and Caitlin Chan, with advisors Kevin Reilly (mason) and Joyce
Putnam, retired Boynton middle school science teacher. We would like to bring the
process of mural design and installation that was developed by Isaiah Zagar at
Philadelphia’s Magic Garden (http://www.philadelphiasmagicgardens.org/) to the Ithaca
Community and adapt it to a collaborative community mural project. This project will
take more than one year to coordinate and implement. We describe a plan for the first
section (2014) here.
The overall theme of the project (the entire wall) is “Plants as Food”. While we have
been working on the plans for more than a year, the project truly begins with students
and teachers at Boynton Middle School. For the first stage in 2014, students in science
class will look at the role of plants in the food web as part of their spring ecology studies
and create line art in their art classroom that will serve as the inspiration for a design
charrette (brainstorming session) for the artist team. In July, the team will take the
student art and use it as the inspiration for the line art design of the mosaic. As the
finale for the charrette, each artist will create a large feature piece to be integrated into
the design.
Over the winter and spring, Zwack will run community tile-making events in the
Northside Neighborhood. These will take place at the Sciencenter and likely at other
local organizations, such as the sustainable gardening project at Cayuga Greens
housing. Families at the events will learn about the historic presence of native food
plants in the neighborhood and their use by Native Americans. These tiles will all be
added to the wall and their creators encouraged/invited to find them and view the
finished project. We have talked with Reverend Ronald Benson of the Baptized Church
of Christ, the family running the Neighborhood Market, the Ithaca Housing Authority,
CCETC administrators and educators, the Youth Bureau, the Mayor’s office,
Sciencenter staff, and the Dept. of Public Works to line up neighborhood support and
set up a network for communicating with the neighborhood.
The Site
The process starts by finding the right wall. Working with the Public Art Commission
and the Department of Public Works, we identified the retaining wall along the 600 block
of 1st Street, across from the Sciencenter.
With support from the Dept of Public Works, our headquarters and storage for the
installation is in a City shed building on the site, indicated by the red arrow below.
Ithaca’s Sciencenter
The Installation
We would like to engage different parts of the local community in appropriate parts of
the process. The actual installation is almost a “happening”.
1) The mosaic apprentices from YES and artist team scale up, transfer and paint the
line art design on the wall.
2) This group teams with volunteers to outline the line art in small pieces of mirror,
quickly and efficiently with no preciousness. The rules are simple and focused on
making sure that the tiles have enough glue and good spacing (1/4 inch) for grouting.
3) Once the mirror outlines are up, the volunteers place the small handmade tiles
throughout the design.
4) Now it is time to fill out the space. Volunteers break up piles of donated tiles into
random sizes and then each person finds a spot that needs filling and goes to work.
There is a real release in this spontaneous process. The project team oversees the
technique and ensures enough mixing of individual work to ensure a balance. Suddenly,
the wall is almost full and the fine tuning begins with small pieces, ensuring that the
spaces are filled.
Below you see mirror pieces outlining the line art. The mirrors provide a guide for
repainting the lines at the end after they have been covered in grout. Large concrete
features and small custom tiles have been placed. The installation team is beginning to
fill in the large area. In this case they broke up large spaces with lines of square, mid-
sized white tiles. This approach emerged spontaneously from the group.
At right and below, you see a crew of
nine adults working with Zagar on a
prepped wall. Tile work is completed
in four to six hours. Grouting occurs
on the second day.
5) The mural is “grouted” with stained Portland cement on the second day. The
volunteers learn to mix the grout in barrow-sized quantities. Each person works with a
small bucket and they spread out across the wall, applying the grout with gloved hands
and sponges. At the end of one batch of cement, the droppings, which have collected
on drop cloths at the base of the wall, are mixed into the next batch of grout and a new
color dye is added. This approach makes end-of-day cleanup simpler, conserves
materials, and blends colors. Thus the patches of colors on the wall emerge from the
way people work. The project team will oversee and guide this.
6) Once the grouting is complete and has had a short time to set, workers begin
polishing the tiles so that they stand out. The cleaning process is key and very
satisfying.
7) Finally the original line art is repainted between the mirror outlines. The mural is
ready for a public celebration.
Project Management
Corbit, Chan and Zwack are artists with experience in ceramics. Corbit has 25 years
experience in outreach education. Zwack has worked as an artist in the schools in
Ithaca for eight years. Chan teaches art at Boynton Middle School. Stetson teaches
both Fine Arts and Arts Education at Ithaca College. Corbit, Blauvelt, and Zwack have
participated in workshops with Zagar (Corbit and Blauvelt have been on two mural
installation teams in Philadelphia). Blauvelt is a seasoned organizer with 30+ years of
project management experience for the Arnot Health System. All have members of the
team have worked on public art installations.
Funding
To date all work has been volunteer and expenses covered through donation.
With the sponsorship of the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County, we
have applied for a grant from the Community Arts Partnership’s GAP program. Any
funds from this grant would go to support the artist team for the design work and training
of the apprentices.
Zwack has applied to the Tourism Bureau for a grant to support the tile-making events.
If funded, the funds will support her effort and the development of educational materials
by a local ecologist.
Corbit will submit an Arts in Education proposal to CAP in November and is working
with the school administration to identify support through school programs and BOCES.
These funds would support her work with Chan and science teacher Michelle Kornreich
at Boynton.
As soon as we have access to the building at the site, we will be ready to accept
donations of tile and materials from local contractors and individuals that can be stored
at the shed building attached to the Department of Public Works garage on 1st St. Paul
Levesque of HOLT Architects is working with us to recruit donations. A local
construction supply firm has also offered donation of tiles and materials.
We have arranged with the Youth Employment Services to hire apprentice muralists to
work with the team on the installation in late August, 2014.
Stetson will be recruiting incoming or returning Ithaca College Students to volunteer for
the actual two-day mosaic installation.
We have begun to solicit pledges for cash donations from local businesses and
individuals.
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Proposed Resolution
November 13, 2013
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mosaic Mural Installation at the
Department of Public Works Facility on First Street
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among
other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display
of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls
within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to
showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street
art, including the Department of Public Works facilities across from the Sciencenter, by
resolution on May 19, 2010, and
WHEREAS, local artists Margaret Corbit, Wes Blauvelt, Annemarie Zwack, Carla Stetson,
Leslie Carrere, and Caitlin Chan submitted their proposal for the 1st Street Mosaic Project, a
community mosaic mural featuring a “plants as food” theme, as part of the PAC’s Mural and
Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS, the PAC discussed the 1st Street Mosaic Project at its meeting on October 10, 2012
and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of Public Works,
recommended the Department of Public Works facility on First Street as an appropriate location
for the proposed installation, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended location
at its meeting on October 23, 2013 to gather input on the proposed installation, and
WHEREAS, the PAC has also sought input from adjacent property owners and business owners
as well as City staff, and the responses to the proposal have been overwhelmingly positive, and
WHEREAS, the installation will be funded through donations and will be budget-neutral to the
City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23, 2013, the Public Art Commission unanimously voted
to recommend that the Common Council select 1st Street Mosaic Project to be installed at the
Department of Public Works facility on First Street; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the 1st Street Mosaic Project to be
installed at the Department of Public Works facility on First Street and to be added to the City of
Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their mural upon the
execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney).
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:
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, 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 first 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.
Mayor Myrick spoke about the high cost of housing in Ithaca, particularly for working people
and poor people who cannot afford to live in the City. Mayor Myrick said that if we are going
to make the City a more affordable place to live, we have to build affordable housing. He
said that no neighbors will ever be thrilled to find that low income housing is moving next
store to them, but we have to decide where the best place is in the City to put these
projects. IURA members were excited about this project. It’s an opportunity to put people in
close access to transportation and employment.
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 NEP A 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 stated that she would like to see a map of all the properties that are part of
the INHS landbanking program, so that we can protect homeowners’ investment in their
homes.
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 that it might not make sense for the City to have a tax abatement
program at all, but make more sense for the City to express its goals to the County IDA.
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 $3.4 million that we’ll be ahead if that project had never
happened. Even with a tax abatement program, it’s going to create a hundred jobs for the
Holiday Inn, which is a significant benefit.
Alderperson Brock asked Chair Murtagh the read the letter Jennifer Kusznir provided on this
topic.
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 the developers to questions and concerns brought forward in the public hearing, 2) the lack of information made available to Council on the project application 3) without developer feedback, and without access to information contained in the developer’s CIITAP application prior to the public hearing or approval by the City, there is a lack of opportunity to provide productive input of community interests and expectations at the initial stages of the negotiation process between TCAD and the developer. In the case of URGO/Marriott, I feel this resulted in community outcry, and feeling of frustration with the loss of transparency, accountability and oversight into public processes. While the CIITAP program is designed to incentivize development in the urban core, residents, community members and elected officials have questioned the CIITAP and how it does little to ensure that every day residents and workers of the city and county will see any benefit from the over $4.6 million in tax abatements received by URGO/Marriott
b) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner
DATE: August 7, 2013
RE: Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund Discussion
Staff recently received an application for the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (
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
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA –
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cit
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 6
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) 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.