Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-13 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting Planning and Economic Development Committee Ithaca Common Council DATE: December 11, 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 – RU rezoning (Cornell Heights) 3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members 4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports a) Fair Market Rents in Ithaca 5) Action items – voting to send on to Council a) RU rezoning (Cornell Heights) 6) Action items – approval to circulate a) Extension of Waterfront Zoning 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) November 2013 8) Adjournment No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Chair, Seph Murtagh Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff 6:00 6:05 6:15 6:50 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:05 If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, December 10, 2013. Fa i r  Ma r k e t  Re n t s  (F M R ) It h a c a ,  NY  MS A  (i n c l u d e s  al l  of  To m p k i n s  Co u n t y ) Un i t 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 5‐Year Change Si z e $ an n u a l  % $ an n u a l  % $ an n u a l  % $ an n u a l  % $ an n u a l  %$% Ze r o ‐Be d r o o m 79 5 4% 78 9 ‐1% 80 2 2% 68 2 ‐15 % 76 9 13 % ‐26‐3% On e ‐Be d r o o m 81 8 4% 81 1 ‐1% 82 5 2% 83 6 1% 94 3 13 % 12515% Tw o ‐Be d r o o m 95 8 4% 95 0 ‐1% 96 6 2% 1, 0 0 1 4% 1, 1 3 0 13 % 17218% Th r e e ‐Be d r o o m 1, 1 5 9 4% 1, 1 5 0 ‐1% 1, 1 6 9 2% 1, 3 8 7 19 % 1, 5 6 5 13 % 40635% Fo u r ‐Be d r o o m 1, 2 0 2 4% 1, 1 9 2 ‐1% 1, 2 1 2 2% 1, 3 9 2 15 % 1, 5 7 1 13 % 36931% FM R s  in c l u d e  ut i l i t i e s FM R s  es t i m a t e  th e  40 t h  pe r c e n t i l e  re n t  le v e l s  of  th e  ma r k e t  fo r  ex i s t i n g  re n t a l  un i t s  (m o r e  th a n  2 ye a r s  ol d ) No t e s : 1.        FM R s  ar e  ef f e c t i v e  be g i n n i n g  Oc t o b e r  1s t  of  th e  pr e c e d i n g  ye a r .    Fo r  in s t a n c e  20 1 4  FM R s  ar e  ef f e c t i v e  10 / 1 / 1 3 . 2.        La r g e r  un i t  FM R s :  ad d  15 %  fo r  ea c h  ad d i t i o n a l  be d r o o m  be y o n d  fo u r ‐be d r o o m s 3.        Si n g l e  Ro o m  Oc c u p a n c y  un i t s  (S R O s ) :  FM R  =   75 %  of  Ze r o ‐Be d r o o m  un i t  (e f f i c i e n c y ) 4.        Si n g l e  Ro o m  Oc c u p a n c y  (S R O )  un i t :  a dw e l l i n g  un i t  in t e n d e d  fo r  oc c u p a n c y  by  a si n g l e  in d i v i d u a l  th a t  is  lo c a t e d  wi t h i n  a re s i d e n t i a l  pr o p e r t y                          th a t  in c l u d e s  mu l t i p l e  si n g l e  ro o m  dw e l l i n g  un i t s .  Th e  un i t  ne e d  no t ,  bu t  ma y ,  co n t a i n  fo o d  pr e p a r a t i o n  or  sa n i t a r y  fa c i t l i t i e s ,  or  bo t h . 5.        Ma n u f a c t u r e d  Ho m e  Sp a c e s :  FM R  = 40 %  of  tw o ‐be d r o o m  FM R   6.        Ma n u f a c t u r e d  Ho m e  Sp a c e s  FM R  is  fo r  pa d  re n t a l  in c l u d i n g  ut i l i t i e s  (e x c l u d e s  ma n u f a c t u r e d  ho m e ) 7.        5‐ye a r  Co n s u m e r  Pr i c e  In d e x  20 0 9 ‐20 1 3  = 9. 2 %    (a l l  ur b a n  co n s u m e r s ,  no r t h e a s t  re g i o n  6/ 3 1 / 0 9 ‐6/ 3 1 / 1 3 ) ,  U. S .  De p t .  of  La b o r  St a t i s t i c s 8.        MS A  = Me t r o p o l i t a n  St a t i s t i c a l  Ar e a So u r c e :   U. S .  De p a r t m e n t  of  Ho u s i n g  & Ur b a n  De v e l o p m e n t : ht t p : / / w w w . h u d u s e r . o r g / p o r t a l / d a t a s e t s / f m r . h t m l Pr e p a r e d  by :   N.  Bo h n ,  It h a c a  Ur b a n  Re n e w a l  Ag e n c y Summary Allowance for Tenant-Furnished Utilities and Other Services Locality: Ithaca Housing Authority NYSEG EffectiveDate: 10/01/2013 7182 AHDD Monthly Dollar Allowances Unit Type 0123456 Mobile/Manufactured Home a. Natural Gas 38 46 60 77 96 b. Electric 43 52 67 86 108 c. Bottle Gas 99 119 154 198 248 d. Oil 146 176 227 292 365 e. Air Conditioner 8 10 14 17 20 High-Rise w/ Elevator a. Natural Gas 39 45 53 64 73 91 105 b. Electric 39 48 58 72 89 104 120 e. Air Conditioner 5 6 8 11 13 14 Row/Town House/Garden a. Natural Gas 38 51 69 86 104 121 139 b. Electric 43 57 77 96 117 136 156 c. Bottle Gas 98 131 178 222 269 312 359 d. Oil 145 193 262 327 395 460 529 e. Air Conditioner 5 7 9 12 14 15 Two-Three Family/Duplex a. Natural Gas 46 60 79 98 115 130 150 b. Electric 52 67 88 110 129 146 168 c. Bottle Gas 119 154 203 252 296 336 387 d. Oil 175 226 299 371 435 495 569 e. Air Conditioner 6 7 9 12 14 15 Older Multi-Family (Low Rise) a. Natural Gas 41 54 72 89 107 123 142 b. Electric 46 61 81 100 120 138 159 c. Bottle Gas 107 140 186 230 277 318 366 d. Oil 157 206 274 339 408 468 539 e. Air Conditioner 5 6 8 11 13 14 Single Family Detached a. Natural Gas 50 68 82 103 116 135 156 b. Electric 56 76 92 115 131 152 175 c. Bottle Gas 130 176 211 266 300 349 402 d. Oil 191 259 310 391 442 514 591 e. Air Conditioner 9 12 16 20 24 26 All Unit Types - Cooking a. Natural Gas 6 7 10 12 15 16 19 b. Electric 6 8 11 13 16 18 20 c. Bottle Gas 15 19 26 32 39 42 49 All Unit Types - Water Heat a. Natural Gas 7 9 12 15 19 20 23 b. Electric 10 13 18 22 28 30 34 c. Bottle Gas 18 23 31 39 48 52 60 d. Oil 25 32 42 53 65 70 81 All Unit Types - Electricity 22 29 38 48 59 64 73 Water 19 19 19 19 25 36 45 Sewer 22 22 22 22 29 41 52 Trash 4 6 8 10 13 15 17 Range (Tenant Owned)4455666 Refrigerator (Tenant Owned)5555566 UNIT ADDRESS: To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner Date: December 4, 2013 RE: Proposal to Amend R-U, R-3a, & R-3aa Zoning Districts The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to rezone properties located in the R-u zoning district to R-3a and R-3aa, as shown on the attached map. This proposal was previously discussed at the October Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting. At the request of the committee an environmental review for this action has been drafted and was circulated to the Planning Board, the Conservation Advisory Council, various City staff and departments, and the Tompkins County Planning Department. At this time the City has not received any comments regarding this proposal. The draft environmental review and ordinance are enclosed. Also enclosed for your consideration is a resolution establishing lead agency for this action and a resolution for environmental significance. If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at 274-6410. Draft Resolution 12/3/13 An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” in order to rezone properties located in the R-U zoning district to R-3a and R-3aa – Declaration of Lead Agency WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is a “Type I” Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed amendments to the R-3a, R-3aa, and R-u zoning districts. j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\12 december\5 - 2013-r-3aaresolutionlead agency.12-09.doc Draft Resolution 12/3/13 An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” in order to rezone properties located in the R-U zoning district to R-3a and R-3aa – Declaration of Environmental Significance 1. WHEREAS, The Common Council is considering a proposal to amend the R-3a and R-3aa zoning district boundaries, in order to include properties currently located within the R-U zoning district, and 2. WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated November 22, 2013, and 3. WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and 4. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it 1. RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated November 22, 2013, and be it further 2. RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further 3. RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. j:\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2013 planning and economic development committee\12 december\6 - 2013-r-3aaresolutionnegdec.12-09.doc ORDINANCE NO. BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-8 District Regulations, is amended to add a new section 325-8E, entitled “Additional restrictions in the R-3aa district,” to read as follows: “No new construction of a primary structure in the R-3aa zone shall contain a footprint that is larger than 120% of the average footprint of the existing buildings along the entire block front in which the building is located. If one or more such surrounding buildings have been demolished, then the calculation for maximum building footprint shall use the footprint of the primary structure that most recently stood on any lot where a demolition had occurred. In locally designated historic districts, any non-contributing buildings will be excluded from this calculation.” Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-5, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the zoning designation from R-U to the R-3aa designation for the following tax parcels: 10.-1-5, 10.-2-1, 11.-1-1, 11.-1-2, 11.-2-1, 11.-2- 2, 11.-2-3, 7.-2-1, 7.-2-2, 7.-2-3, 7.-2-4.2, 7.-3-5, 7.-3-6, 7.-3-7, 7.-4-1, 7.-4-10, 7.-4-12, 7.-4-4, 7.-4-5, 7.-4-6, 7.-4- 7, 7.-4-9, 8.-6-5.1, 8.-6-5.2, 8.-1-1, 8.-1-10, 8.-1-11, 8.-1- 12, 8.-1-13, 8.-1-14, 8.-1-2, 8.-1-3, 8.-1-4, 8.-1-5, 8.-1-6, 8.-1-7, 8.-1-8, 8.-1-9, 8.-2-1, 8.-3-1, 8.-4-1, 8.-4-6, 8.-4-7, 8.-4-8, and 9.-1-1. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Amendment to R-3a & R-3aa Boundaries - October 21, 2013,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 3. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-U to R-3a for the following tax parcels: 11.-3-2.2, 11.-3-3.2, 11.-3-4, 11.-3- 5, 29.-3-1, 29.-3-10, 29.-3-11, 29.-3-12.1, 29.-3-12.2, 29.-3-2, 29.-3-3, 29.-3-4, 29.-3-5, 29.-3-6, 29.-3-7, 29.-3-8, 29.-3-9, 29.-4-1, 29.-4-2, 29.-4-3, 29.-4-4, 29.-4-5, and 29.-4-6. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed Amendment to R-3a & R-3aa Boundaries - October 21, 2013,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. 11/22/2013 Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. 11/22/2013 NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2012Data Source: City of Ithaca GIS Program, 2012Map Prepared by: Department of Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, October, 2013 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STEWA RT AVE UNIVERSITY AVE L A K E S T T H U R S T O N A V E E A S T AV E TOWER RD WAIT AVE FALL CREEK DR W Y C K O F F A V E K L I N E R D C E N T R A L A V E S I S S O N P L WEST AVE KELVIN PL FOREST HOME DR H I G H L A N D A V E D E A R B O R N P L W I L L A R D W A Y H E I G H T S C T THE KNOLL G A R D E N AV E R ES E RV O IR AV E NEEDHAM PL E D G E C L I F F P L BALCH DR 0 750 1,500375 Feet 1:7,215± Proposed Amendment to R-3a & R-3aa Boundaries - October 21, 2013 Legend Buildings Historic Districts Proposed R-3aa Proposed R-3a ! !! ! !! City Boundary Waterways Parks To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner Date: December 4, 2013 RE: Proposal to Amend Waterfront Zoning District The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to expand the waterfront zoning district. In 2011, the Common Council adopted two revised waterfront zoning districts, the WF-1 and WF-2 districts, and established their boundaries on the official City zoning map. Since that time staff has been re-evaluating the adopted boundaries of the district to determine whether they are effectively placed in order to encourage the desired development in this area of the City. When the boundaries were adopted, a decision was made to only focus on the properties nearest to the waterfront. However, a large portion of land that is currently zoned industrial is located adjacent to the waterfront zone. In order to encourage waterfront mixed use residential development it is necessary to also consider the adjacent development potential and make sure that the allowable uses would support waterfront development. The I-1 zoning district allows for heavy industrial uses, which are not appropriate to be located adjacent to mixed use residential uses. However, lighter manufacturing uses could locate in this district without negatively impacting potential residential uses. The City Comprehensive Plan Committee is currently evaluating future land uses along the waterfront and has discussed the potential rezoning of this area. In their meeting on November 18, 2013, the committee was supportive of extending the waterfront zoning district boundaries to include this area, however, they expressed concern over reducing the overall industrial space in the City. Staff recommends establishing a new zoning district that would have the same allowable uses, area and height restrictions of the WF-2 zoning district, but would retain some light manufacturing uses. This proposed WF-3 zoning district would have a minimum of 2 stories and a maximum of 5 stories in height and would allow mixed commercial and residential uses. The attached map shows the boundaries for the proposed WF-3 zoning district. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning & Economic Development JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC 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 If the committee is in agreement, staff will draft an ordinance for circulation and return next month with any comments that are received. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6410 CK BLVD.CK BLVD.CK BLVD.CK BLVD.CK BLVD.CK BLVD.CK BLVD.CK BLVD.CK BLVD. S H O R T S T R E E TSHORT S T R E E TSHORT S T R E E TSHORT S T R E E TSHORT S T R E E TSHORT S T R E E TSHORT S T R E E TSHORT S T R E E TSHORT S T R E E T W TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY STEASTEASTEASTEASTEASTEASTEASTEASTEASTAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREET W MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL ST NOR TH GENEVA ST REETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH GENEVA ST REETNORTH GENEVA ST REETNORTH GENEVA ST REETNORTH GENEVA ST REETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH GENEVA ST REETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY S TREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STEASEASEASEASEASEASEASEASEAS NYNYNYNYNYNYNYNYNY NORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREET F R A N K L I N S T R E E T F R A N K L I N S T R E E T F R A N K L I N S T R E E T F R A N K L I N S T R E E T F R A N K L I N S T R E E T F R A N K L I N S T R E E T F R A N K L I N S T R E E T F R A N K L I N S T R E E T F R A N K L I N S T R E E T EEEEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAWILLOW A V E N U EWILLOW A V E N U EWILLOW A V E N U EWILLOW A V E N U EWILLOW A V E N U EWILLOW A V E N U EWILLOW A V E N U EWILLOW A V E N U EWILLOW A V E N U EDEY S T R E E TDEY S T R E E TDEY S T R E E TDEY S T R E E TDEY S T R E E TDEY S T R E E TDEY S T R E E TDEY S T R E E TDEY S T R E E T L A K E A V E N U ELAKE A V E N U ELAKE A V E N U ELAKE A V E N U ELAKE A V E N U ELAKE A V E N U ELAKE A V E N U ELAKE A V E N U ELAKE A V E N U EEASEASEASEASEASEAEAEAEAS A D A M S S T R E E T A D A M S S T R E E T A D A M S S T R E E T A D A M S S T R E E T A D A M S S T R E E T A D A M S S T R E E T A D A M S S T R E E T A D A M S S T R E E T A D A M S S T R E E T W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET W E S T L I N C O L N S T REET ALICE MILLER WAY ALICE MILLER WAY ALICE MILLER WAY ALICE MILLER WAY ALICE MILLER WAY ALICE MILLER WAY ALICE MILLER WAY ALICE MILLER WAY ALICE MILLER WAY F R ANKLIN STREET F R ANKLIN STREET F R ANKLIN STREET F RANKLIN STREET F RANKLIN STREET F RANKLIN STREET F RANKLIN STREET F RANKLIN STREET F RANKLIN STREET M A D I S O N S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T H A N C O C K S T R E E T EST Y STREET EST Y STREET EST Y STREET ESTY S TR E E T ESTY S TR E E T EST Y STREET EST Y STREET EST Y STREET ESTY S TR E E TM O N ROE ST M O N ROE ST M O N ROE ST M ONROE ST M ONROE ST M ONROE ST M ONROE ST M ONROE ST M ONROE ST M O R R I S A V E N U E M O R R I S A V E N U E M O R R I S A V E N U E M O R R I S A V E N U E M O R R I S A V E N U E M O R R I S A V E N U E M O R R I S A V E N U E M O R R I S A V E N U E M O R R I S A V E N U E F I R S T S T R E E TFIRST S T R E E TFIRST S T R E E TFIRST S T R E E TFIRST S T R E E TFIRST S T R E E TFIRST S T R E E TFIRST S T R E E TFIRST S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T PARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACE WASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON ST REETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON ST REETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON ST REET CA S CADILLA STREET CA S CADILLA STREET CA S CADILLA STREET C ASCA DI LLA STR E E T C ASCA DI LLA STR E E T CA S CADILLA STREET CA S CADILLA STREET CA S CADILLA STREET C ASCA DI LLA STR E E T NORTH PLAIN STR EETNORTH PLA IN STREETNORTH PLAIN STR EETNORTH PLAIN STR EETNORTH PLAIN STR EETNORTH PLAIN STR EETNORTH PLA IN STREETNORTH PLAIN STR EETNORTH PLA IN STREET WEST CO URT STREET WEST CO URT STREET WEST CO URT STREE T WEST COURT ST REET WEST COURT ST REET WEST CO URT STREET WEST CO URT STREET WEST CO URT STREE T WEST COURT ST REET MEAD OW STR E E TMEADOW STREETMEADOW S TR E E TMEADOW S TR E E TMEADOW S TR E E TMEADOW S TR E E TMEADOW STREETMEADOW S TR E E TMEADOW STREET F O U R T H S T R E E T F O U R T H S T R E E T F O U R T H S T R E E T F O U R T H S T R E E T F O U R T H S T R E E T F O U R T H S T R E E T F O U R T H S T R E E T F O U R T H S T R E E T F O U R T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T F I F T H S T R E E T EU EU EEUEEUEUEUE NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 NYS ROUTE 13 & 34 T H I R D S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T (NYS RT(NYS RT(NYS RT(NYS RT(NYS RT(NYS RT(NYS RT(NYS RT(NYS RT NNNNNNNNN THIRD STREET EXTENSION THIRD STREET EXTENSION THIRD STREET EXTENSION THIRD STREET EXTENSIO N THIRD STREET EXTENSIO N THIRD STREET EXTENSION THIRD STREET EXTENSION THIRD STREET EXTENSION THIRD STREET EXTENSIO N N YS R T E 9 6 N YS R T E 9 6 N YS R T E 9 6 N YS R T E 9 6 N YS R T E 9 6 N YS R T E 9 6 N YS R T E 9 6 N YS R T E 9 6 N YS R T E 9 6 THIRD STREET EXT THIRD STREET EXT THIRD STREET EXT THIRD STREET EXT THIRD STREET EXT THIRD STREET EXT THIRD STREET EXT THIRD STREET EXT THIRD STREET EXT CARPENTER CIRCLE CARPENTER CIRCLE CARPENTER CIRCLE CARPENTER CIRCLE CARPENTER CIRCLE CARPENTER CIRCLE CARPENTER CIRCLE CARPENTER CIRCLE CARPENTER CIRCLE H E C T O R S T R E E T H E C T O R S T R E E T H E C T O R S T R E E T H E C T O R S T R E E T H E C T O R S T R E E T H E C T O R S T R E E T H E C T O R S T R E E T H E C T O R S T R E E T H E C T O R S T R E E T C L I F F S T .C L I F F S T .C L I F F S T .C L I F F S T .C L I F F S T .C L I F F S T .C L I F F S T .C L I F F S T .C L I F F S T . RK ROAD RK ROAD RK ROAD RK ROAD RK ROAD RK ROAD RK ROAD RK ROAD RK ROAD TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89) C E C E C EC E C EC E C E C E C E A D A D A DADADA D A D A D AD 0 5 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 fe e t Ar e a C u r r r e n t l y Zo n e d I - 1 Pr o p o s e d W F - 3 PR O P O S E D W F - 3 Z O N I N G D I S T R I C T NY S t a t e P l a n e , C e n t r a l G R S 8 0 D a t u m Ma p S o u r c e : T o m p k i n s C o u n t y D i g i t a l P l a n i m e t r i c M a p 1 9 9 1 - 2 0 1 2 Ci t y o f I t h a c a O f f i c i a l C i t y Z o n i n g M a p - 2 0 1 3 Ma p P r e p a r e d b y : G I S P l a n n i n g , C i t y o f I t h a c a , N Y , 5 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 3 . Legend WF - 2 Parcel Boundaries WF - 1 Ar e a C u r r e n t l y z o n e d I - 1 P r o p o s e d W F - 3 Water WF - 1 WF - 2 WE D Z - 1 a B- 4 B- 2 a City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, November 13, 2013 – 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Alderpersons Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Jennifer Dotson, Vice Chair; Graham Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, and Stephen Smith Committee Members Absent: None Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderpersons Cynthia Brock, Deb Mohlenhoff, and J.R. Clairborne Staff Attending: Megan Wilson, Planner; Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner; and Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Others Attending: None Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1) Agenda Review . 2) Special Order of Business a) Public Hearing – Amendment to 2013 City of Ithaca Action Plan to Award $52,7776 to the Learning Web’s Supported Employment Program Motion to open the public hearing, moved by Alderperson Smith, seconded by Alderperson Dotson. Carried unanimously. No one from the public present to speak. Motion to close public hearing moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Aldeperson Dotson. Carried unanimously. b) Public Hearing-- Revisions to Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance Motion to open public hearing: moved by Alderperson Smith, seconded by Alderperson Dotson. Carried unanimously. No one from the public present to speak. Motion to close public hearing: moved by Alderperson Smith, seconded by Alderperson Dotson. Carried unanimously. c) Presentation: Planned Development Zones Sue Ritter, Planning Director for the Town of Ithaca, described the Town’s use of Planned Development Zones (PDZs.) The Town’s first use of a PDZ was applied to the La Tourelle Inn project in 1984. Since then, they have used PDZs for Ecovillage, the expansion of the Ithaca Beer Company, the South Hill Business Campus, the Rt 366 Apple Orchard area, and the Belle Sherman cottages project at the Town/City line. PDZs are floating zones that supersede the zoning on the books. Parcels must be a minimum of two acres. When approved for a PDZ, a project does not have to seek variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The approval process calls for the Town Board to forward a PDZ proposal to the Town Planning Board. PDZs have worked well for the Town, but Ritter cautioned that occasionally the language has been too restrictive and they’ve had to change it. The Town is moving towards more mixed-use projects. The use of PDZs may not be as necessary in the future, although it is expected to be applied to the Emerson site. Alderperson Kerslick asked if the Town has experienced pushback from neighbors, i.e., when they expected the zoning to be “x” and now they’re being told it’s “y” under a PDZ. Ritter replied that when a PDZ comes before the Planning Board, there are sometimes controversies; but they still have to go through a thorough SEQR process before the Town Board will approve them. Alderperson Dotson noted that a PDZ is in response to a particular project that doesn’t fit the zoning on the books. She wondered if, after numerous project requests, at what point does the Town decide that it’s easier to rezone. Chair Murtagh opined that the City isn’t yet ready to circulate a proposal for PDZs in the City. He asked Planning Department staff member Jennifer Kusznir to get some additional information and then bring it back to committee next month. Alderperson Kerslick also asked Kusznir for background on the City’s previous attempt to implement a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and why it failed. By consensus, the committee agreed that the City should use the same terminology as the Town: PDZ rather than PUD. d) Presentation: Ithaca Motion Picture Project Diana Riesman, director and co-founder of the Ithaca Motion Picture Project (IMMP), described the history of the Wharton film Studio in the historic building in Stewart Park and the desire to adaptively reuse that building for a new Wharton Studio Museum. The IMMP is collaborating with the History Center to jointly occupy the building for exhibit space. The IMPP has received supportive resolutions from Common Council and from the Board of Public Works to proceed with their vision. It’s also part of the County’s 2020 plan and is expected to be a boost for local tourism and economic development. The waterfront areas have tremendous potential. The Sciencenter, Stewart Park, the Visitors Bureau, the Farmer’s Market, and IMPP are all connected by the Waterfront Trail. The building currently serves as a storage facility for the Department of Public Works and the Ithaca Youth Bureau. The DPW and IYB would have to find alternative storage space. IMMP needs a license from the City to the building in order to move forward with their capital campaign. New York State has granted them a provisional charter. IMMP will transition to the new name Wharton Studio Museum in January. City Attorney Lavine led the discussion on the legalities of how best to grant a license. It was agreed that the best course would be to have a smaller group of stakeholders convene to discuss the storage needs of IYB and the DPW and to figure out the best way to move forward in granting a license. 3) Public Comment and Response by Committee Members Cynthia Yahn, Building Links, spoke about her concern that Carpenter Business Park (CPB) was on the agenda but that she and her partners had not been informed, nor was there any back up material. Chairman Murtagh apologized for the lack of back-up material but noted that CPB was included on the agenda for only very general discussion, to get the committee thinking about future zoning possibilities. 4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports a) Collegetown Zoning Alderperson McCollister reported that a draft of the Collegetown Form-Based Districts was updated on November 4, reflecting Code Studio’s suggestions and with new diagrams and drawings. Work is on the home stretch. If the most recent revisions can be incorporated in time, then the document will be ready for an information session for Council and the public, tentatively scheduled for December. Alderperson McCollister also noted that in response to Alderperson Dotson’s concerns about the 20 ft or 20% setback proposed for the CR 4 zones, she had asked planning staff member Megan Wilson to double-check industry housing standards and to consult with Code Studio on this issue during a conference call. Because of best-practice standards regarding light, air, greenery, and fire walls and fire separation, the recommendation from the groups is to retain the original language. Alderperson Dotson expressed her extreme frustration and disappointment about the Collegetown rezoning, and the “appallingly slow” pace of the process, which has been going on since 2007. She urged the City to be more nimble in future efforts. Alderperson McCollister agreed, but reminded Committee members that a previous Collegetown Plan had been adopted. However, due to a legal challenge by a few property owners, the ordinance package had to be repealed and the process had to be started over. In this iteration, the Collegetown Working Group concluded that it was better to err on the side of caution, thoroughness, and consensus-building, even while scaling back the Plan. b) RU Zoning The possibility of rezoning the RU areas to R3aa in Cornell Heights is not ready to move forward, in part because of concerns raised by the Planning Board. It will come back to committee. c) Noise Consultant Visit Chairman Murtagh gave a quick update on noise consultant Eric Zwerling’s visit to Ithaca last month. Zwerling’s ideas will help guide revisions to Ithaca’s noise ordinance. 5. Action Items d) Mural Proposals, was moved up so that staff member Megan Wilson could leave early. Motion to approve both murals and send them on the Council: moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson McCollister, and carried 5-0. Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation within West Stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art, including the walls of the Seneca Street Parking Garage, by resolution on May 19, 2010, and WHEREAS, local artist Jim Garmhausen submitted his proposal for a mural depicting a vertical group of people as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and WHEREAS, the PAC discussed Mr. Garmhausen’s mural proposal at its meeting on September 25, 2013 and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of Public Works, agreed that the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage would be an appropriate location for the proposed mural, and WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended location at its meeting on October 23, 2013 to gather input on the proposed installation, and WHEREAS, PAC members have also sought input from adjacent property owners and City staff, and the responses to the proposal have been mostl y positive, and WHEREAS, the artist will provide funding for the mural, and the proposed installation will be budget-neutral to the City, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23, 2013, the Public Art Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council select the mural proposal submitted by Jim Garmhausen to be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Jim Garmhausen’s mural featuring a vertical group of people to be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of his mural upon the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney). Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mosaic Mural Installation at the Department of Public Works Facility on First Street WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art, including the Department of Public Works facilities across from the Sciencenter, by resolution on May 19, 2010, and WHEREAS, local artists Margaret Corbit, Wes Blauvelt, Annemarie Zwack, Carla Stetson, Leslie Carrere, and Caitlin Chan submitted their proposal for the 1st Street Mosaic Project, a community mosaic mural featuring a “plants as food” theme, as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and WHEREAS, the PAC discussed the 1st Street Mosaic Project at its meeting on October 10, 2012 and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of Public Works, recommended the Department of Public Works facility on First Street as an appropriate location for the proposed installation, and WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended location at its meeting on October 23, 2013 to gather input on the proposed installation, and WHEREAS, the PAC has also sought input from adjacent property owners and business owners as well as City staff, and the responses to the proposal have been overwhelmingly positive, and WHEREAS, the installation will be funded through donations and will be budget-neutral to the City, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23, 2013, the Public Art Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council select 1st Street Mosaic Project to be installed at the Department of Public Works facility on First Street; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the 1st Street Mosaic Project to be installed at the Department of Public Works facility on First Street and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further RESOLVED, that the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their mural upon the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney). a) Revisions to Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner, reminded that there was a major and much-needed revision to the Landmarks Ordinance that was adopted in 2012. The version before the committee tonight contains a few “clean-ups” from the 2012 version. The committee, Truame, and City Attorney Lavine spent most of the time discussing the proposed language for section 228-13, “Exceptions for Public Safety.” The ILPC and the State Historic Preservation Office favored one paragraph. The City Attorney advised using the language that included the phrase “when practicable.” After considerable discussion, the committee agreed that staff should internally come to some agreement about the language, since everyone agreed that moving the overall ordinance forward was desirable. An ordinance to Amend Chapter 73 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Chapter 228 “Landmarks Preservation” - Declaration of Lead Agency: Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Carried 5-0. Determination of Environmental Significance: Negative Declaration. Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Carried 5-0. Motion to move the ordinance on to Council with the Language Recommended by the City Attorney: Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried 3-2. Kerslick, McCollister opposed. Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca § 228-1. Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.” § 228-2. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and districts of historic and cultural significance. B. Safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as reflected in such buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and districts. C. Protect the value of historic properties and their owners’ investment in them, and stabilize historic neighborhoods. D. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past. E. Protect and enhance the city’s attractiveness to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to the economy thereby provided. F. Strengthen the economy of the city. G. Promote the use of buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and districts of historic and cultural significance as sites for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the city. H. Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the city. § 228-3. Designation of Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts. A. As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is responsible for recommending to Common Council the designation of identified structures or resources as individual landmarks and historic districts within the city. B. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend such designation of an individual property as an individual landmark if it: 1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or nation; or 2. Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or 3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or 4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age; or 5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics. C. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend such designation of a group of properties as an historic district if the group: 1. Contains primarily properties which meet one or more of the criteria for designation as an individual landmark; and 2. Constitutes a distinct section of the city by reason of possessing those qualities that would satisfy such criteria. D. Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent to the owner or owners of the property or properties proposed for designation, describing the property proposed, or if in a district, the proposed district boundary, and announcing a public hearing by the Commission to consider the designation. Where the proposed designation involves so many owners that the Commission deems individual notice to be infeasible, notice may instead be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing. E. Once the Commission has issued official notice of a proposed designation, no building permits or demolition permits shall be issued by the Director of Code Enforcement until said proposed designation has been acted upon by Common Council, but in any event no longer than 90 days after completion of the public hearing required by § 228- 3 F, unless: 1. The permit is for work that is of an emergency nature, as determined by the Director of Code Enforcement or the Fire Chief, or 2. The property owner voluntarily complies with the Certificate of Appropriateness review process. F. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to designation of any individual landmark or historic district. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The notice shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a brief description of the proposed designation, and the location where the proposal may be reviewed prior the hearing. The Commission, property owners, and any interested parties may present testimony or documentary evidence at the hearing which will become part of a record regarding the historic, architectural, or cultural importance of the proposed individual landmark or historic district. The record may also contain staff reports, public comments, expert testimony, or other evidence offered outside of the hearing. G. Within seven days after it has recommended designation of an individual landmark or historic district, the Commission shall file a copy of such recommended designation with the Planning and Development Board and with Common Council. H. Within 60 days of the Commission recommending designation, the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with Common council with respect to the relation of such proposed designation to the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved. The Council shall, within 90 days of said recommendation of designation, approve, disapprove, or refer the proposed designation back to the Commission for modification. I. Any designation approved by the Council shall be in effect on and after the date of approval by Council. The Commission shall forward notice of each property designated as an individual landmark and the boundaries of each designated historic district to the Director of Code Enforcement and the City Clerk for recordation. § 228-4. Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration, Demolition, or New Construction Affecting Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts. As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is responsible for the approval or disapproval of proposals for exterior changes to a designated historic property. No person shall carry out any exterior alteration, restoration, reconstruction, demolition, new construction, or moving of an individual landmark or property within an historic district, nor shall any person make any change in the exterior appearance of such property, its site, its light fixtures, signs, sidewalks, fences, steps, paving, or other exterior elements, without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness or Finding of Economic Hardship from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, or obtaining approval by the Commission’s Secretary pursuant to §228-7C, or upon order of the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief pursuant to §228-13. Any exterior alteration made in the absence of such required approvals must be reviewed retroactively by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, applying the criteria for approval set forth in §228-6 and §228-10 as though the work had not yet been completed. All changes to City-owned property affecting an individual landmark or within an historic district shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance. §228-5 Temporary Improvements. No Certificate of Appropriateness is required for temporary improvements. Temporary improvements are those that will be in place for no more than 180 consecutive days and result in no permanent physical alteration of the structure or site. §228-6. Criteria for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. A. The Commission shall approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness only if it determines that the proposed work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the individual landmark, or if the proposed work is within an historic district, of the neighboring properties in such district. B. In making this determination, the Commission will be guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and by the following principles: 1. The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character of the landmark. 2. The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. 3. New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. C. In applying the principle of compatibility set forth above, the Commission shall consider the following factors: 1. the general design and character of the proposed alteration or new construction relative to existing features of the property; 2. the scale and visual compatibility of the proposed alteration or new construction in relation to the property itself, surrounding properties, and the neighborhood; 3. texture, materials, and color, and their relation to similar features of the property and other properties in the neighborhood; 4. visual compatibility with surrounding properties, including the proportions of the property’s 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. E. In cases of a retroactive review of completed work, the Commission may approve any portion of the completed project that is found to meet the criteria for approval enumerated in this §228 while referring to the Office of the City Attorney for potential prosecution any portion of the project that does not meet such criteria for approval. §228-7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application Procedure. A. Prior to the commencement of any work requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness, the owner shall file an application for a building permit with the Building Division and an application for such Certificate with the Commission. The application, available on the City’s website and through the Department of Planning & Development, shall contain: 1. Building permit application number, as assigned by the Building Division 2. Name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant; 3. Location and photographs of the property; 4. Elevation drawings of proposed changes, if available; 5. Perspective drawings, including relationship to adjacent properties, if available; 6. Samples of building materials to be used, including their proposed color; 7. Where the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing showing the type of lettering to be used, all dimensions and colors, a description of materials to be used, method of illumination, and a plan showing the sign’s location on the property; and 8. Any other information that the Commission may deem necessary in order to visualize the proposed work. B. No building permit shall be issued for the proposed work until a Certificate of Appropriateness has first been issued by the Commission. The Certificate of Appropriateness required by this chapter shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any building or other permit that may be required by any other ordinance of the City of Ithaca. C. The Commission may delegate to the Commission’s Secretary the authority to: 1. Determine whether proposed work constitutes ordinary maintenance and repair for which a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required; 2. Approve work that is considered replacement-in-kind; 3. Approve work that is of any other type that has been previously determined by the Commission to be appropriate for delegation to staff, as reflected in the City of Ithaca Landmark and Historic District Design Guidelines. On at least a quarterly basis, the Commission shall review the Certificates of Appropriateness, if any, issued by the Commission’s Secretary, to determine whether or not the delegated review responsibilities should continue or their scope be modified. D. Upon application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, a public notice of the proposal shall be posted by the owner or owner’s representative on the property for a minimum of 10 days. This notice must remain in place until a decision to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness has been made. The notice shall specify the proposed work, the time and place of the public hearing, and to whom and by when any public comments are to be communicated. The notice must be placed at or near the property line in the front yard so that it will be plainly visible from the street, and, in cases where a property has frontage on more than one street, an additional sign must be placed at or near the property line on any additional street frontage so that the sign will be plainly visible from the street on which it has such additional frontage. E. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to rendering a decision on any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 5 days prior to the public hearing. The notice shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a brief description of the proposal, and the location where the proposal may be reviewed prior to the hearing. The property owner and any interested party may present testimony or documentary evidence regarding the proposal at the hearing, which will become a part of the record. The record may also contain staff reports, public comments, and other evidence offered outside of the hearing. F. The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions or modifications the Certificate of Appropriateness within 45 days from the completion of the public hearing, except as noted below. The failure of the Commission to act within 45 days from the completion of the public hearing, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon in writing by the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval. 1. In the event, however, that the Commission shall make a finding of fact that the circumstances of a particular application require further time for additional study and information than can be obtained within the aforesaid 45-day period, then the Commission shall have a period of up to 90 days within which to act upon such an application. 2. In the event, however, that environmental review of an application is required, the Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions or modifications the Certificate of Appropriateness within 65 days from the completion of environmental review. The failure of the Commission to act within 65 days from the completion of the environmental review, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon in writing by the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval. G. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail, and a copy filed with the Director of Code Enforcement and City Clerk for public inspection, within 10 days of the date of the decision. The Commission’s decisions shall state the reasons for denying or modifying any application. §228-8. Expiration of Approval; Extension of Approval If the construction of a project approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness has not commenced within twenty-four (24) months of the date of the approval, such approval shall expire, unless an extension has been granted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission following a written request by the applicant. An application for an extension of Certificate of Appropriateness approval shall not be considered a new Certificate of Appropriateness application. §228-9. Early Design Guidance. A. Large projects that could potentially have a significant impact on an individual landmark or historic district are required to participate in the Early Design Guidance process. The purpose of this process is to provide input from the Commission on the design of the project as it relates to criteria for the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness at a time when such input may readily be incorporated into the design without adversely affecting design costs or the project schedule. B. For the purposes of this chapter, large projects are defined as: 1. New construction in an historic district of any primary structure, or 2. New construction of any accessory structure with a gross square footage of 800 square feet or more in an historic district, or new construction of any accessory structure with a gross square footage of 800 square feet or more on the same tax parcel as an individual landmark when that tax parcel is less than five acres in size, or new construction of any accessory structure with a gross square footage of 800 square feet or more on the same tax parcel as an individual landmark when that tax parcel is more than five acres in size and when the proposed accessory structure will be located within 150 feet of the individual landmark, or 3. New additions that will increase the existing footprint of an individual landmark or a structure located within an historic district by 50% or more, or 4. Any renovation or reconstruction (excluding projects that involve only the replacement of roof coverings) that will affect 50% or more of the exterior envelope of an individual landmarks or a structure located within an historic district. C. Applicants subject to Early Design Guidance shall submit materials for review by the Commission as soon as the design has reached a stage of development that would allow the Commission to understand the basic proposal and its significant details. D. Based on the limited information provided, the Commission will provide general feedback and non-binding recommendations and comments that might help the applicant further refine the project prior to submitting an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. §228-10. Criteria for a Finding of Economic Hardship. A. An applicant whose Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed alteration has been denied may apply for relief on the ground of economic hardship. In order to prove the existence of economic hardship related to a proposed alteration, the applicant shall establish that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the owner from earning a reasonable return on investment, regardless of whether that return represents the most profitable return possible. In the case of non-profit ownership, the applicant shall establish that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will seriously interfere with, or prevent, the owner from carrying out its chartered purpose. In either case the applicant shall establish that the alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or inactions of any person having an ownership or management interest in the property after the effective date of local designation. B. Demolition of an individual landmark, or of a structure located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district, shall be allowed only in cases of economic hardship, except as provided for in §228-14. In order to prove the existence of economic hardship sufficient to justify demolition, the applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the Commission that: 1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the owner from earning a reasonable return on investment, regardless of whether that return represents the most profitable return possible; and 2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use, whether by the current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable return on investment; 3. Diligent efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring the property and preserving it have failed; and 4. The alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or inactions of any person having an ownership or management interest in the property after the effective date of local designation. Or, in the case of non-profit ownership that: 1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness will either physically or financially prevent, or seriously interfere with, the non-profit owner carrying out its chartered purpose; 2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use that would result in the non-profit owner being able to carry out its chartered purpose; and 3. The alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or inactions of any person having an ownership or management interest in the property after the effective date of local designation. §228-11. Finding of Economic Hardship Application Procedure. A. After the Landmarks Preservation Commission has denied a Certificate of Appropriateness, an applicant may commence the economic hardship process. Consideration of an application for a Finding of Economic Hardship may occur at the same meeting as consideration of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. No building permit or demolition permit shall be issued unless the Commission determines that an economic hardship exists and issues a Finding of Economic Hardship, except in cases where the Building Division, upon due deliberation, has made an express finding that the structure presents an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. B. The Commission may hold a public hearing on the hardship application at which an opportunity will be provided for proponents and opponents of the application to present their views. C. The applicant shall consult in good faith with the Commission, local preservation groups, and interested parties in a diligent effort to seek an alternative that will result in appropriate preservation of the property. D. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for granting or denying the requested Finding of Economic Hardship. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail and a copy filed with the Director of Code Enforcement and City Clerk for public inspection within 10 days of the date of the decision. E. If a Finding of Economic Hardship is issued, the Commission shall approve only such work as is necessary to alleviate the hardship. §228-12 City-owned Improvements A. All changes to City-owned property affecting an individual landmark or within an historic district shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance, with the exception of §228-10 and §228-11. B. If the cost of an action required by the Commission would exceed by 20% or more the cost of the action if not regulated by the Commission, the Common Council reserves the right to determine whether compliance with the Commission’s requirements for that action are prudent and feasible in light of potentially competing public interests. Should Common Council determine, upon due deliberation, that such compliance would not be prudent and feasible, the action may proceed as though it were not regulated by the Commission. §228-13 Exceptions for Reasons of Public Safety A. When in the judgment of the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief there exists an emergency condition that poses an imminent threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief may order the property owner to immediately undertake temporary work to correct the defect while a permanent solution is sought that will satisfy the requirements of Section 228-6. B. Such temporary work shall remain in place no longer than 180 days. Such 180 day period may only be extended by, and in the sole discretion of, the Director of Planning, Building, & Economic Development, or designee. During that time, the owner shall diligently work to identify and propose to the ILPC, Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, and Fire Chief a permanent solution to adequately address the public safety concern while satisfying the requirements of Section 228-6. Potential solutions identified during this period will be subject to the provisions of Section 228-10 and 228- 11. C. If, at the end of the 180 day period, or authorized extension of this period, the Director of Planning, Building, & Economic Development, or designee, has determined that no reasonable solution exists that will achieve the public safety goal and the ILPC has determined that no reasonable solution exists that will satisfy either the criteria of Section 228-6 or Section 228-11, the Director of Planning, Building, & Economic Development, or designee, may order permanent work to be undertaken by the owner that will protect the public health, safety, or welfare without the issuance of either a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Finding of Economic Hardship. D. When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works, there exists on City property, on City-possessed easements, or in the City Right of Way, a substantial hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare, the Superintendent of Public Works may take all reasonable action to mitigate or eliminate the hazard through pursuit of those remedies, improvements, or infrastructures that he or she deems appropriate. Consultation with the Director of Planning and Development, or his or her designee, is required before the Superintendent of Public Works implements permanent remedies not falling within the scope of the previous sentence. Any remedies, improvements, or infrastructures undertaken on order or authorization of the Superintendent of Public Works under this paragraph shall not be subject to §228-6, §228-7, or §228-10. §228-14. Maintenance and Repair Required. A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any exterior architectural feature of an individual landmark or property within a historic district that does not involve a change in design, building materials, color, or outward appearance; however, the Commission’s Secretary shall determine whether proposed work constitutes ordinary maintenance and repair or requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. B. No owner or person with an interest in real property designated as an individual landmark or included within an historic district shall permit the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair. Maintenance shall be required, consistent with the provisions of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State and all other applicable regulations. §228-15. Enforcement and Violations A. All work performed pursuant to a Certificate of Appropriateness issued under this chapter shall conform to the requirements included therein. It shall be the duty of the Director of Code Enforcement to inspect periodically any such work to assure compliance. In the event work is found that is not being performed in accordance with the Certificate of Appropriateness the Director of Code Enforcement shall issue a stop work order and all work shall immediately cease. No further work shall be undertaken on the project as long as a stop work order is in effect. B. Any owner or person in charge of a property who demolishes or alters a property in the absence of a Certificate of Appropriateness, a Finding of Economic Hardship, approval by the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to §228-7C of the City Municipal Code, or upon order of the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief pursuant to §228-13 may be required to restore the property and its site to its appearance prior to the violation. In the event distinctive historic features have been removed or otherwise irreversibly altered, such removal or alteration shall constitute a separate violation under this ordinance. C. If, in the judgment of the Commission, a violation of §228-14 exists that will result in a detrimental effect upon the life and character of a designated historic property or on the character of a historic district as a whole, the Commission shall notify the Director of Code Enforcement. If, upon investigation, the Director of Code Enforcement finds non-compliance with the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State, or any other applicable regulation, the Director of Code Enforcement shall order such remedies as are necessary and consistent with this Chapter and shall provide written notice thereof to the Secretary of the Commission. D. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed an offense and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code, General Provisions, Article I, Penalties. Each day’s continued breach shall constitute a separate additional violation. In addition, the City shall have such other remedies as are provided by law to enforce the provision of this chapter. §228-16. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any decision by the Commission may apply to the Supreme Court in the State of New York for review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules within 30 days of publication of the decision. b) Local Law Concerning Foreclosure of Unsafe Properties. This local law would prohibit the owners of unsafe properties from paying back taxes on an installment plan. Motion to forward to Council. Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson Smith, and carried 5-0. Local Law No. ____-2013 A local law entitled the “City of Ithaca Local Law Concerning Foreclosure of Unsafe Structures.” WHEREAS the City has established a goal of returning unsafe structures within the City of Ithaca back to productive use in a timely manner, and WHEREAS ineffective control of unsafe buildings runs counter to the City’s exercise of its power to maintain the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of its citizens granted by New York General City Law § 20(13), and WHEREAS the City has the ability, granted by Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184, to both agree to and refuse to enter into installment agreements for unpaid taxes owed on property, and WHEREAS in an effort to return unsafe structures to productive use in a timely manner, the City hereby establishes that a property owner of an unsafe structure in tax foreclosure proceedings may not enter into an installment agreement for payment of back taxes without first bringing the unsafe structure into compliance with the orders of the City of Ithaca Building Division. BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Legislative Findings, Intent, and Purpose. Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184, the City of Ithaca is authorized to adopt a local law authorizing the installment payment of delinquent taxes. Under the City’s current laws, owners of unsafe properties may enter into installment payment plans. Where the costs of repairs are greater than installment payments or there is otherwise little incentive for property owners to bring unsafe structures into compliance with Building Division orders, this policy allows properties to fall into greater disrepair. The Common Council desires to return these unsafe structures to safe and productive use, and finds that exempting unsafe structures from installment plans is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this goal. Section 2. Charter Amendments. Section C-44(B) of the Ithaca City Charter is hereby amended as follows: (1) The City of Ithaca hereby authorizes the City Chamberlain to enter into installment agreements with property owners of eligible properties providing for the payment of eligible delinquent taxes in installments according to the provisions of Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended. Within forty-five (45) days of the return of unpaid taxes, the City Chamberlain, by first-class mail, shall notify all owners of eligible properties with delinquent taxes that they are eligible to pay their delinquent taxes in installments according to the provisions of Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended. The City shall add one dollar ($1.00) to the amount of the tax lien to pay for such postage. The owner of such parcel must accept the installment offer after thirty (30) days of the mailing of such notice by signing an installment payment agreement with the City Chamberlain. The City Chamberlain shall not include parcels accepting the offer and making timely payments pursuant to the installment plan on the filing of the list of properties for foreclosure proceedings with the court. Any property within the City shall be an eligible property so long as: (a) that property is a property as to which Real Property Tax Law § 1184 authorizes and empowers the City to make available to the owner thereof an installment agreement, and (b) no primary building or structure located on the property is found to be unsafe pursuant to City Code § 146-9 unless abated by repair or demolition in satisfaction of Chapter 146 of the City Code or otherwise addressed in full compliance with said Chapter. Section 3. Severability Clause. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Local Law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Local Law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Local Law. Section 4. Effective and Operative Date. This Local Law shall become operative immediately and shall take effect upon its filing in the office of the Secretary of State. c) Amendment to the 2013 City of Ithaca Action Plan to Award $52,776 to the Learning Web’s Supported Employment Program. Motion to forward to Council. Moved by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson Smith, and carried unanimously. Project Funding for the Learning Web’s Supported Employment Program (new 2013 Project #22) Whereas, The Learning Web has requested funding for a supported employment program, and Whereas, if funded, the Program will use CDBG funds to employ a program coordinator who will support young people with limited employment experience in jobs at Cayuga Medical Center, and elsewhere, in order to increase their chances of successfully maintaining permanent, unsubsidized employment, and Whereas, the 2013 Action Plan identifies unallocated CDBG funds in the amount of $96,458.00, and Whereas, the Learning Web has requested $52,776, and Whereas, this project is classified as an eligible public service activity consistent with the goals of the City’s Consolidated Plan by providing job placement for under-employed and un-employed young people who have limited job skills or successful past work experience, and Whereas, this project can be fully funded at the level requested without exceeding the 15% public services spending cap, and Whereas, this proposed activity is listed as Exempt from environmental review by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and is not subject to the City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and Whereas, a funding allocation of more than $25,000 occurring during the program year constitutes a substantial program amendment to the adopted Action Plan requiring a public hearing and an action of the Common Council for approval, and Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency reviewed this proposal on October 24, 2013 and recommend the following contingent on Common Council approval, and Whereas, a public hearing regarding this proposed substantial amendment to the 2013 Action Plan was held at the November 13, 2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, now, therefore be it Resolved, that Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $52,776.00 be awarded to The Learning Web for the Supported Employment Program as 2013 Project #22, and be it further Resolved, that these funds be derived from the 2013 Entitlement Grant, and be it further Resolved, that the IURA Chairperson, upon advice of the IURA Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute all necessary and appropriate documents to implement this resolution. 6) Discussion. a) Carpenter Business Park Chairman Murtagh asked a general question about what are we hoping to do with our waterfront areas, and what kind of zoning would get us there. He handed out a zoning map from August 2011 of the WF-1 and WF-2 zones. Murtagh noted that there seems to be support for changing the zoning. Regarding our waterfront areas that are zoned light industrial, Alderperson Kerslick opined that we may not want to cut off all I-zone possibilities. The use of PDZs was also discussed. But the majority opinion of committee members, as well as non-committee members Alderpersons Brock and Clairborne, was that we should be coordinating and communicating with the Comprehensive Plan committee and Planning staff before making any further recommendations. 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) August 2013. Motion to approve by Alderperson Dotson, seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously. 8) Adjournment Motion to adjourn 9:05 p.m.