Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-11 Special Common Council Meeting Agenda - AMENDED 05-11-11 OFFICIAL NOTICE OF MEETING *****AMENDED MAY 11, 2011***** A Special meeting of Common Council will be held on Thursday May 12, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca. Your attendance is requested AGENDA 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 2. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 2.1 Special Common Council Budget Session: A. Revenue streams B. Shared services (interdepartmental and intermunicipal) C. Mandated services 3. NEW BUSINESS: 3.1 Determination as to the Effect of a Protest of Collegetown Zoning Amendments, Received on May 4, 2011 – Suggested Resolution 3.2 Suspension of the Implementation of Zoning Ordinance and Design Review Amendments Adopted on May 4. 2011 – Suggested Resolution 4. ADJOURNMENT If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 at least 48 hours before the meeting. ______________________________ Sarah L. Myers Acting City Clerk Dated: May 5, 2011 Amended May 11, 2011 3.1 Determination as to the Effect of a Protest of Collegetown Zoning Amendments, Received on May 4, 2011 – Suggested Resolution WHEREAS, at the Common Council meeting of May 4, 2011, a written protest was presented to the Council, pursuant to Section 83 of General City Law, by or on behalf of certain, affected property owners, objecting to “enactment of an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, entitled ‘Zoning’ to establish certain district regulations and to change the zoning description of certain areas of the City of Ithaca (see attached);” and WHEREAS, the attachment referred to was a copy of the agenda materials for the May 4th Common Council meeting, which includes four proposed ordinances intended to repeal, modify or add to parts of Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code, pertaining to portions of the Collegetown area of the City and/or the City’s design review process; and WHEREAS, the proposed ordinances and the votes taken on them on May 4, 2011, can be summarized as follows: #1. Establishment of new “form-based zoning districts” (replacing current districts), primarily in the central area of Collegetown, affecting approximately 250 parcels and a total land area of 2,326,908 square feet. (Also repeals City’s existing design review process.) Vote: 7-3. #2. Establishment of height incentive overlay district, affecting one of the new form districts (“MU”) to be created by Ordinance #1. Vote: 8-2. #3. Revision of Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ), which repeals and replaces existing COPZ parking requirements (in an area affecting approximately 350 parcels and a total land area of 3,815,766 square feet, and implements a reduced parking requirement in 3 of the new form districts to be created by Ordinance #1. Vote: 7-3. #4. Establishment of new design review procedure and rules, including binding design review within all the new form districts to be created by Ordinance #1. Vote: 7-2 (with Council member Dotson out of the room); and WHEREAS, such a protest, if it includes owners of 20% or more of the land area to be affected by the proposed zoning change (or 20% or more of the land area of properties immediately adjacent to that proposed to be rezoned), requires an affirmative vote of 75% or more of the Common Council (i.e., at least 8 votes) for passage of the zoning amendment in question; and WHEREAS, a review of the protest documents by the City’s Planning Department and Attorney’s Office has revealed the following: 1. 46 protest documents were submitted, involving approximately 95 properties (as some owners own multiple parcels). 2. Protests regarding 6 of the parcels were deemed inadequate by staff involved in the review, either because property identification was lacking, not all of the property’s owners signed the protest, or the protests were duplicative. 3. For the remaining 89 parcels, ownership was confirmed to be as stated in the protest, and location of the parcels within one or more of the areas proposed to be re-zoned was confirmed. 4. The protest represents approximately 27% of the land area within the area proposed to be rezoned into form-based districts – i.e., by Ordinance #1, above – or that would be affected by binding design review as proposed in Ordinance #4. 5. The protest represents approximately 15% of the land area within the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone. now therefore be it RESOLVED, That, upon consultation with the City Attorney and the City’s Planning Department and consideration of their analysis of the protest, as summarized immediately above, the Common Council hereby makes the following determinations: 1. The zoning protest submitted on May 4, 2011, shall be treated as applying to the proposed zoning ordinances referenced above as #1, #2 and #3 [OR: #1, #2, #3 and #4]. 2. As for the protest of Ordinance #1 [and #4], the protest exceeded the legal threshold of 20% (of the land area within the proposed, new form-based districts), and therefore required there to be at least 8 votes in favor of said ordinance. As a result, Ordinance #1 [and #4] failed to pass. 3. As for the protest of Ordinance #2, it likewise exceeded the 20% threshold, but since the ordinance was supported by 8 votes, the protest was overridden and Ordinance #2 was passed. 4. As for the protest of Ordinance #3, it did not represent 20% or more of the property included in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, and it therefore is ineffective. Ordinance #3 was passed. 5. The protest shall be treated as not applicable to Ordinance #4, and/or ineffective, because Ordinance #4 does not establish “district regulations” as that term is used in Chapter 325 nor does it change any zoning descriptions; furthermore, its scope can be characterized as City-wide, in which case the protest did not represent 20% or more of the affected properties. [OR: if the protest is to be treated as applying to #4, leave this section out] 3.2 Suspension of the Implementation of Zoning Ordinance and Design Review Amendments Adopted on May 4. 2011 – Suggested Resolution WHEREAS, the four ordinances concerning Collegetown re-zoning and/or modification of the City’s design review process, which the Common Council considered and acted upon at its meeting on May 4, 2011, are inter-related and were intended to be enacted as a package; and WHEREAS, one [two] of said four proposed ordinances failed to pass (as a result of the greater majority required by the property-owner protest submitted on that date, and WHEREAS, the remaining ordinances, which were in fact approved by the Council, nevertheless cannot be properly implemented or enforced in the absence of certain provisions contained in the failed ordinance[s], or without modification so as to make them “stand-alone” statutes; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby directs that the zoning ordinances that were approved on May 4, 2011, not be published (by the City Clerk) without further authorization from the Council (in effect, temporarily “suspending” their enactment), in order to give the Council sufficient time to determine the appropriate course of action in this unusual situation. TO: All Media FROM: Daniel L. Hoffman, City Attorney DATE: May 11, 2011 RE: Collegetown Re-zoning & Property-Owner Protest State and local laws regarding zoning provide a mechanism for property owners within or immediately adjacent to an area proposed for rezoning to submit a written “protest” of the proposed change. If the protest includes owners of at least 20% of the land area that would be affected (or 20% of the adjacent land area), then adoption of the proposed change requires at least a 75% majority vote (i.e., in the case of Common Council, 8 votes). At the beginning of the Common Council meeting on May 4, 2011, where four amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (pertaining to the Collegetown area and the City’s design review procedure) were scheduled for consideration, such a protest was submitted. The protest consisted of 46 documents, each of which was signed by an owner (or joint owners) of one or more listed properties, stating that “I/We, the undersigned, protest the enactment of an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, entitled ‘Zoning’ to establish certain district regulations and to change the zoning description of certain areas of the City of Ithaca (see attached).” The “attachment” was a copy of the entire agenda packet for the May 4th Common Council meeting, which included the four proposed zoning amendments. Council proceeded to vote on the 4 ordinances, as follows: #1. Establishment of new Form Districts. Creates new districts and rezones approximately 250 parcels into said districts. (Ordinance also included the repeal of the City’s existing design review provisions, within Zoning Ordinance – Chapter 325.) Vote was 7-3. #2. Establishment of Height Incentive Overlay District. Creates “an overlay zone in areas located in the proposed MU district to be entitled Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District, the boundaries of which are shown on the map entitled ‘Proposed COZHID.’” Vote was 8-2. #3. Revision of Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone. Repeals existing CPOZ parking requirements. Reduces parking requirement (from 2 to 1 for every 3 residents in a dwelling unit) in 3 of the new form districts, within the CPOZ. Mandates that all required parking spaces in the CPOZ be on same parcel as building served. Establishes “payment in lieu of parking fee” option, within CPOZ. Vote was 7-3. #4. Design Review. Creates new Code Chapter (160) for design review. Requires binding design review for “any parcel (or portion) w/in Collegetown Area Form Districts.” Vote was 7-2 (with Jennifer Dotson out of room). In the days following the meeting, the protest was reviewed by staff in the Planning Department and Attorney’s Office. Ownership of the identified parcels was confirmed. One protest document was discounted because the address or tax parcel number was not provided; three were discounted because they were duplicates; and two were discounted because the properties in question are jointly owned but only one of the owners signed. Signers of the remaining protest documents were confirmed to be owners as claimed of the properties listed. Some signers own multiple properties. A total of 89 properties are represented by the confirmed signers. All these properties are within the area affected by ordinance #1 (form districts). All but 8 are also within the CPOZ. The wording of the protest has created some confusion as to which of the four ordinances it was intended to apply, especially with regard to #4 (design review). That decision will need to be made by Common Council. If the protest is deemed to apply to all four ordinances, then only the vote on #2 (height incentive overlay zone) represented the required 8-vote majority to overcome it. However, it appears that the 20% threshold was satisfied for only one or possibly two of the ordinances. Ordinance #1 (form districts) affects approximately 250 parcels mostly in central Collegetown, while #3 (CPOZ) affects a larger area (extending further west and south), consisting of approximately 350 parcels. #4 (design review) would impose binding design review only on the form districts (same area as #1). According to a review by City staff, the protest documents represent approximately 27% of the land area to be placed in the new form districts (#1) or to be subject to binding design review (#4), but only about 15% of the land area within the CPOZ. Therefore, the City’s review indicates that the protest caused Ordinance #1 (establishment of form districts) to fail. If the protest is deemed to apply to #4, then it also failed. #2 and #3 were successfully passed. Complicating the picture is the fact that all 4 ordinances were drafted as an interrelated package. The overlay zone created by #2 is defined as applying to one of the form districts to be established by #1. Likewise, #3 reduces the parking requirement in the form districts to be created by #1, and #4 imposes binding design review within the form districts. Also, #1 was intended to repeal the “old” design review provisions, which were to be replaced through #4. However, since #1 failed, the “old” provisions remain on the books. Common Council is scheduled to have a special meeting tomorrow (May 12th), at 5:30 pm, originally intended only for budgetary discussions. However, in light of the protest and its results, that issue will be added to the agenda. Council will be asked to make a final determination as to which ordinances passed, and which did not. Council will also consider whether to “suspend” temporarily the implementation of the ordinances that passed, in light of the failure to establish the form-based districts.