HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-13 Common Council Meeting Agenda OFFICIAL NOTICE OF MEETING
A Regular meeting of the Common Council will be held on Wednesday, August 7, 2013,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Common Council Chambers at City Hall, 108 East Green Street,
Ithaca, New York. Your attendance is requested.
AGENDA
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
2. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
3. PROCLAMATIONS/AWARDS:
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4.1 A Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law entitled the "City of Ithaca Local Law
Concerning Sidewalk Improvement Districts."
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
5.1 Special presentation from a group on participatory budgeting
6. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
7. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR — COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administration Committee:
8.1 Attorney's Office - Approval of NYSEG Easement through Parcel 55.-1-1 on
Slaterville Road - Resolution
9. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
9.1 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency - Restore NY3, Downtown Commons Upper Story
Housing, Assign Loan of Restore NY funds to ItalThai LLC from the City of Ithaca
to the IURA - Resolution
9.2 Authorization of Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) Application -
Resolution
9.3 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 146 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled "Building Code Enforcement" Article 4, entitled "Plumbing", Section 146-
30 entitled "Permits, C. Fees"
9.4 Gateway Pedestrian Bridge - Authorization for Allocation from Bridge Reserve
Fund - Resolution
9.5 City Controller's Report
10. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.1 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 276 entitled
"Site Plan Review"
Common Council Agenda
August 7, 2013
Page 2
11. GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE:
No items were submitted for the agenda
12. REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES:
13. NEW BUSINESS:
14. INDIVIDUAL MEMBER — FILED RESOLUTION:
14.1 Alderperson Mohlenhoff - Support for the Application of Grant Monies to
Continue Restoration of the Large Pavilion located in Stewart Park as outlined in
Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan — Resolution
15. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
15.1 Appointments to Various City Boards and Committees - Resolution
16. REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
17. REPORT OF CITY CLERK:
18. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY:
19. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
19.1 Approval of the July 3, 2013 Common Council Meeting Minutes — Resolution
19.2 Approval of the July 17, 2013 Special Common Council Meeting Minutes —
Resolution
20. 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.
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC
City Clerk
Date: August 1, 2013
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administration Committee:
8.1 Attorney's Office - Approval of NYSEG Easement through Parcel 55.-1-1 on
Slaterville Road - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns a parcel of land, 55.-1-1, bordering Route 79
(Slaterville Road), which houses a water intake plant integral to the City's plan to
increase the capacity of its water treatment facilities, and
WHEREAS, the water intake plant requires a connection to the electrical system
operated by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG), and
WHEREAS, NYSEG, in order to supply the plant with power, must expand its
infrastructure by installing a transformer on the City's property, and
WHEREAS, NYSEG has submitted to the City an agreement that would grant it a
permanent easement and right-of-way to install and maintain said transformer and its
fifteen (15') feet by fifteen (15') feet square concrete base on the City's land, to be
located approximately 1200 feet south of Route 79, and
WHEREAS, installation of the transformer will cost $1,880.00, which has been included
in the Council-approved budget for the water system expansion; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council grants the permanent easement requested by
NYSEG so that the City may continue with the expansion of its water system, and
authorizes and directs the Mayor to sign the necessary documents, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the funds necessary for said installation of transformer shall be
derived from Capital Project#510 Water Treatment Plant Reconstruction.
+FIT CITY OF ITHACA
„w 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 T (✓h g
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
t Aaron O. Lavine, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Krin Flaherty, Assistant City Attorney
Jared Pittman, Assistant City Attorney
Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant
MEMORANDUM
To: City Administration Committee
From: Krin Flaherty, Assistant City Attorney
Noah Black,Legal Intern
Date: July 15, 2013
Subject: NYSEG easement across City-owned land
Chapter 170-5(C) of the City Code states that Common Council must approve permanent
easements across City-owned land. Water and Sewer requested that the City Attorney's Office
review the attached proposed easement across City-owned land.
This easement is submitted as part of the water plant upgrades. The City requested that NYSEG
connect the water intake facility on Slaterville Road to NYSEG electric. The agreement grants
NYSEG a 15 by 15 foot square of land, approximately 1200 feet south of Slaterville Road, along
Six Mile Creek Vineyard Road. NYSEG expects the installation to cost$1,880. This cost has
been included in the budget for the water system. After installation, NYSEG continues to hold
the right to use the City's land to maintain the transformer and attached power lines.
Upon review and consultation with Water and Sewer, the City Attorney's Office submits the
proposed easement to Common Council to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached
easement agreement.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
June 5,2013
City of Ithaca
Attn: Chuck Baker,Building Dept.
108 East Green Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
RE: Electric Service
Off State Route 79
Town of Ithaca
Tompkins County
Tax Map# 14850
Dear Mr. Baker:
NYSEG has received a request for electric service from the City of Ithaca at the above
referenced parcel. Enclosed please find an easement and a sketch showing how NYSEG
wishes to extend its facilities across the City's property(padmount transformer).
If you are agreeable to these facilities as shown,please have a City Official who is
empowered to sign the Easement, do so with black ink,in the presence of a Notary
Public. The Notary Public should complete a"Personal or Corporate Acknowledgment"
on the back of the Easement.
Please return the Easement and a copy of the related City Resolution to me at your
earliest convenience in the enclosed return envelope. Please feel free to contact me at
607-347-2108 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kristine A. Franz
NYSEG Real Estate
t389k,),Sy9Xffoad,Ithaca,NY 14850-8810 a.
I ERDROLA
USA
An equal opportunity employer
Printed on recycled paper L�'i1
i
J�
A YSEG NEW STATE
ELECTRIC EC&GAS CORP.
JOB TITLE: NS, STATE ROUTE 79, ITHACA DATE: 05/31 /13
NEAR SIX MILE CREEK VINEYARD RD REVISION:
DRAWN BY: RAH COUNTY: TOMPKINS
NOTIFICATION #301094290 TOWN: ITHACA
WORK ORDER # 1000482427
SUB/CKT: EAST ITHACA 404 (02 ,05)
N L308
CUSTOMER CITY OF ITHACA - BLDG DPT
(607)274-6570
CONTRACTOR JOE ROSATI
(607)772-6799
REVISED .
p�Ne r
N1200'
ro
REE R�
srq rE ROUTS
'7s
25
TO
'2 4j kV pgRk CN
44 i�
ACSR
y
755 ACRE LOT
NO MEANINGFUL
MEASUREMENTS FROM
PL
U44- 1
25 ���
9. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
9.1 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency - Restore NY3, Downtown Commons Upper
Story Housina, Assign Loan of Restore NY funds to ItalThai LLC from the City of
Ithaca to the IURA- Resolution
WHEREAS, ItalThai LLC, the owner of the Mia restaurant building (AKA the Plantation
Building) requests that the City assign its $900,000 Restore NY loan to IthalThai LLC to
the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2013, the IURA recommended that the City assign its Restore
NY loan to ItalThai LLC to the IURA to administer, and
WHEREAS, in 2009, the City of Ithaca (City) received a grant award of $1.15 million
from the Empire State Development Corporation through the Restore NY program to
complete upper story redevelopment of the Plantation Building and the Petrune building
(located at 126-128 and 130-132 East Martin Luther King, Jr./East State Street), located
within the urban renewal project boundary area.
WHEREAS, $900,000 of assistance was earmarked to ItalThai, LLC (managing
member Sunit "Lex" Chutintaranond) in the form of a grant to fill a financial gap in a
proposed $2.5 million redevelopment of the Plantation building at 130-132 East Martin
Luther King, Jr./East State Street, and
WHEREAS, the City authorized the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer
and implement the Restore NY3 grant, and
WHEREAS, a City/ItalThai LLC Restore NY pass through grant agreement was
developed to provide for payment of a $900,000 grant to ItalThai LLC upon completion
of the project, which agreement was executed by the City on January 10, 2011, and
WHEREAS, in 2011 specialized tax credit legal counsel, Cannon, Heyman &Weiss,
informed ItalThai LLC that injecting Restore NY3 funding from the City into the project
as a grant would reduce the eligible tax basis of the project thereby decreasing the
amount of tax credits available to investors and resulting in a financial gap for the
project, and
WHEREAS, a critical component of the financing plan for the $2.5 million project was to
leverage federal and state historic tax credits generated by the project into investor
equity of over$550,000, and
WHEREAS, injecting Restore NY3 financial assistance into the project in the form of a
loan does not reduce the eligible tax basis, and
WHEREAS, as the project financing relied on attracting at least $550,000 in equity
through historic tax credits, ItalThai LLC did not execute the Restore NY pass through
grant agreement and requested that Restore NY funding from the City be provided in
the form of a $900,000 loan at 0% interest with no payments due until the end of a 30-
year loan term as a means to maximize equity attracted through historic tax credits, and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2011, the City and ItalThai LLC executed an agreement to loan
$900,000 in grant funds awarded to the City of Ithaca to ItalThai LLC, which loan is
secured by a mortgage on the project property, and
WHEREAS, at that time, ItalThai LLC indicated they intended to seek City approval in
the future to forgive this loan upon satisfactory completion of the project in recognition of
the project's public benefits and that the City had originally agreed to provide Restore
NY3 funds in the form of a grant to the developer, and
WHEREAS, the mixed-use project has been successfully completed with a new ground
floor restaurant, 16 FTE new living wage jobs created, 1,100 SF of office space, and 8
new housing units created of which two are occupied by low-and moderate-income
households at affordable rents, and
WHEREAS, both the Restore NY and federal and state historic tax credit programs
have minimum 5-year compliance periods and the Restore NY program includes a
11clawback" provision requiring repayment of grant funds to NYS in the event the project
property is sold in the first 5 years, and
WHEREAS, total project debt on the Plantation Building is approximately $1.7 million as
of 2013, which exceeds the appraised value of the finished project, thereby impeding
ItalThai's capacity to refinance and consolidate existing debt or take out new line-of-
credit or term debt, and
WHEREAS, the Restore NY loan, as currently structured, creates a significant obstacle
to the ItalThai LLC financing repairs and building improvements during the 30-year term
of the Restore NY3 loan, and
WHEREAS, the IURA developed the Restore NY3 funding application, administered the
Restore NY3 funds, loaned additional funds to the project to close financing gaps,
regularly monitors the project and manages a loan portfolio of over $4 million, and
WHEREAS, the IURA is better positioned than the City to administer the Restore NY3
loan and analyze future requests to subordinate the mortgage to new financing, modify
collateral requirements and possibly forgive the loan to financially stabilize the project
and facilitate future reinvestment in the property while ensuring that not more than a
reasonable financial return is earned on the owner's equity investment, and
WHEREAS, any assignment of the loan would transfer liability for compliance with
regulatory requirements, including the "clawback" provisions of the Restore NY3
program, to the IURA, and
WHEREAS, Section 503-a of GML authorizes assignment of the Restore NY3 loan from
the City to the IURA, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca assign to the IURA the $900,000 Restore NY3 loan
to ItalThai LLC, for the Plantation Building project located at 130-132 East Martin Luther
King, Jr./East State Street, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, subject to review by the City Attorney, is authorized to
execute any agreement to assign the loan to the IURA, and be it further
RESOLVED, That such assignment agreement with the IURA require the IURA to pay
over to the City any net proceeds received from the loan, and be it further
RESOLVED, That any out-of-pocket costs of the City to assign this loan shall be paid by
ItalThai LLC.
April 2, 2013
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter to explain the current financial situation of the Plantation
Building Project as I was asked to clarify the reasons why this project ran over
budget. It is my intention to explain the financial losses the project faced and I am
attaching a chart to help visualize the break down of the sources of uses of funds for
the Plantation Building.
I am going to detail five major points that will help explain the financial difficulties
that weighed down the project.
1. The Plantation Building applied for a$1,100,000 Restore NY Grant as it was
needed for the project,but it only received $900,000. Confident that the
project was a good long-term investment,we decided to go ahead and
increase our personally financial involvement by absorbing the$200,000
difference in needed funds.
2. $377,000 increase in construction cost, as it is indicated in the chart.This
increase in construction cost was due to the poor structural stability of the
building,which required further work than expected.Unfortunately some of
the structural problems became evident only during demolition and could
have not been foreseen in the planning phase. Furthermore the
Environmental Rehabilitation cost increased due to the fact that more
asbestos were found in the building and needed to be removed at an
additional expense. Lastly,the work required by SHIPO (State Historical
Preservation) was a lot more costly than anticipated.
3. $228,000 increase in Soft Costs.This increase was mostly due to the cost
involved with the State and Federal Historical Tax credit.One of the most
salient points pertaining to the tax credit is the fact that the law surrounding
the State tax credit was changed after the project had already started.
Originally,the State tax credit could have been sold nationally,but with the
new law the State credit could only be sold within the State.This decreased
the purchasing market by a great deal,making it for a much more difficult
and less competitive sale. Furthermore,this problem delayed the completion
of the project,with all the added financial strains that a delayed project
entails. Frankly, I underestimated the cost that this tax credit sale involved.
Although I availed myself of legal, consulting, and accounting advice
everyone involved still came short in the estimate of this part of the project.
4. $110,000 additional post-closing project expenses. $20,000 of which are
additional accounting fees for cost certification,$60,000 of which are to be
j
MIA APARTMENTS
ON THE COMMONS
ITHACA NY
February 19, 2013
Mayor Svante Myrick
Ithaca City Hall
108 East Clinton Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Mia Restaurant and Apartment Project
Dear Mayor Myrick:
Last fall you met with me, Nels Bohn, and Gary Ferguson to discuss
financial re-structuring for the Mia Restaurant and Apartment project.
As you may recall, the project utilized two funding sources that
significantly affected our future. . . a $900,000 Restore NY Grant and
Federal and State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits.
The City and the project successfully competed for and won a Restore NY
grant in 2009 for the restoration of the former Plantations Building at
130 The Commons into a restaurant and apartments. To satisfy conditions
of the historic tax credits that were needed to close the project's
funding gap, we were advised to convert the Restore NY grant to a City
loan that would be administered by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA) . The IURA subsequently agreed to this unusual change, creating a
City held, 0% interest, 30 year loan, with no payment due at the end of
the term. This conversion must remain in place for the five year
holding period required by the tax credits.
Since the enactment of this loan, the project has not proceeded as
anticipated.
- The project capital costs exceeded budget by $1,400,000. (see
attached financial statement) These overages were covered by
ItalThai, but drained our reserves and our available assets.
- The presence of the loan, even without any repayment
requirements, has stifled our capacity to borrow. We are unable
to borrow funds for operation or even for repairs to the
property.
j
O ' r1
y I
II
i
i
r 1 F
0
-- `-1 �- ; --'- O O h 7L--
E� O M N O O O O Omi
._... _._._._.
i4W M O
,ill I F G N •-1! O
O F i w , ❑❑
O
{L t N C O
! i
O1
V i
z 2 3) of
I p
bo
v
-" ---
�y Ca u
Fit s ° C A
tar U
y.I� v o�, � c V! 1 e!d v:rw � ❑ - � � °,A
M H N N ::G '� A �tl ❑ 7' i aS- y W V ._. Qa'
c
of
'AN!W;W!W 44 O is U ��rn: 0 of al zli
I want to emphasize that ItalThai was able to successfully complete the
130 The commons project. In the process we:
- Saved and restored a deteriorated historic property in the heart
of the Commons;
- Created a new two level upscale restaurant (Mia)that has
generated 25 jobs;
- Created eight. (8) new housing units on the Commons, that are all
fully occupied, including two(2) units that we committed to
retain as "affordable" ; and
- Attracted a new office user to occupy the second floor office
space in the renovated building.
Yet, despite this success, the project and ItalThai remains at risk due
to the financial burdens incurred, particularly the $900,000 City loan
and its ability to prevent additional borrowing.
To address this borrowing problem caused by the creation of this loan,
I am requesting the IURA enact the following items to help this project
stabilize and move forward:
(1) Transfer this loan from the City of Ithaca to the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) ;
(2) Remove existing collateral requirements imposed on this
original$900,000 loan.
(3) Express for the record the IURA's intent to convert this
loan back into a grant in the future, upon expiration of
any compulsory holding period required by the historic tax
credits.
The IURA already has a keen understanding of this project. The Agency
has lent additional money to the project and regularly monitors the
status of the project. For this reason it makes sense for the IURA to
also oversee this $900,000 loan and take steps to make the loan less of
an impediment to ongoing borrowing.
I deeply appreciate the past help and assistance provided by the City
of Ithaca and from the IURA and look forward to working with you on
these additional important items. We want to ItalThai and the Mia
Restaurant and Apartments to succeed well into the future. To ensure
this, I ask for your assistance and support.
ou s, \\
Sunit "Lex" Chutintaranond
Owner
Plantation Building, LLC
130 E. State Street
(607) 351-2525
Attached:
Financial Statement
Original Correspondence
I
I
i
I
Financing for Plantation Project
I
130 E.State St. mortgage loan $435,000 j
M&T bank construction loan 300,000
IURA loan 1 80,000
IURA loan 2 30,000
TCAD loan 50,000
895,000
i
IURA loan 3 $ 300,000
IURA loan 4 100,000
400,000
City Of Ithaca grant to loan $900,000
i
Total Development Costs $ 3,428,265
Developer fee 467,032
Restore NY Grant 900,000
Federal and State Tax Credits 650.000
i
Personal financing $ 1,411,233
Additional Costs
Accounting fee $ 20,000
TCAD Fee 30,000 j
Tax Credit Investor fee 80,000
130,000
Total personal financing $ 1,541,233
(not including$900,000 City loan)
i
Current building value according to M&T bank appraisal is$1,000,000.00.This puts
a loss in investment at about$500,000.With the$900,000 grant conversion loan,
the total loss in investment is $1,400,000.
I
i
i
�I
i�
MIA APAIUMENTS
nn cur.a..
"IIAC'w
I
Mayor Svante Myrick
Ithaca City Hall
108 East Clinton Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
RE: Mia Restaurant and Apartments Project
Dear Mayor Myrick:
My name is Sunit "Lex" Chutintaranond. I am the owner and developer of the Plantation
building, home of Mia Restaurant and Apartments, located at 130 MLK, JrJE. State St. I
would like to request a meeting with Your Honor, IURA Director of Community
Development, Nels Bohn and Gary Ferguson, Executive Director of Ithaca Downtown
Alliance in order to discuss the current status regarding my Restore NY Grant, which was
converted to a loan to the City of Ithaca, at the request of the tax credit purchasers.
As the Your Honor knows, The City of Ithaca received a grant award of$1.15 million
from the Empire State Development Corporation through the Restore NY program to
complete upper story redevelopment of the Plantation Building and the Petrune building
(located at 126-128 and 130-132 E. MLK Street). $900,000 of grant assistance was
earmarked to my project in the form of a grant to assist an initially budgeted$2.5 million
redevelopment project of the Mia Apartments. The project fully renovated the building,
brought all 4 floors back into service, complied with all current building codes, provides
for affordable housing, additional office space, and the new Mia restaurant, while adding
significantly to the tax base of the City.
A critical financial component of the plan for the project was to leverage federal and state
historic tax credits generated by the project into investor equity of over $600,000.00. Tax
credit legal counsel, Cannon, Heyman& Weiss, informed us that grant funding reduced
the tax basis of the project thereby reducing the amount of tax credits available. Injecting
Restore NY financial assistance in the form of a loan did not reduce the tax basis. As the
project required at least $600,000.00 of historic tax credits, I was required to request that
the Restore NY Grant funding from the City be converted temporarily to the structure of
a loan rather than a grant. The initial $900,000.00 grant agreement was therefore
amended to $900,000.00 loan agreement at 0% with no payments due to the end of the
30-year term.
The entire project ultimately cost $3,000,000.00, a$500,000.00 cost overrun, a cost that I,
as developer, was forced to personally absorb: O p of this int intended as a grantn, is now the
The project is �
addition of a $900,000.00 loan, which was originally
not and will never be financially viable if the developer would have to absorb not only the
$500,000.00 overrun, but also the $900,000.00 loan that has been converted from its
originally intended grant status. In short, the project is now in the red by approximately
1.4 million dollars.
The IURA and the City of Ithaca have been involved with this project for the past two
years. The IURA has assisted and supported this project with the Restore NY grant
application, various loans,tax abatements, and the funding from Historical Tax Credits.
The Plantation project has committed to the City and IURA two affordable income
housing units along with a specified number of living wage positions for the 10 year
duration of loans from the IURA. I understand that I am the only developer to have
successfully gone through the City/County two-tiered tax abatement process. The
Financial reality of this project makes the term, "successful," somewhat tentative. I also
have insight into how the process could be improved to actually encourage future
development to come to the City.
Due to the current and future involvements of this project and IURA, I would like to
request a meeting with Your Honor, Mr. Nels Bohn, and Mr. Gary Ferguson in order to
help come up with a strategy to make this project financially feasible. I look forward to
meeting with you soon to discuss this situation. Thank you.
Yours,
Sunit"Lex" Chutintaranond
Owner
Plantations, L,LC
130 E. State Street
(607) 351-2525
cc. Nels Bohn, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Director of Community Development
Gary Ferguson, Downtown Ithaca Alliance, Executive Director
Reznick
Group
ACCOUNTING•TAX•BUSINESS ADVISORY
I
1
SCHEDULE OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS,
QUALIFIED AND NONQUALIFIED
REHABILITATION EXPENDITURES AND
CALCULATION OF FEDERAL
REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT AND
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT
1TALTHAI LLC
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
I
Remick Group, P.C.
Remick 500 East Pratt Street
Group Suite 200
Baltimore, MD 21202-3100
ACCOUNTING•TAX•BUSINESS ADVISORY
Tel: (410) 783-4900
I
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT
To the Members j
Italthai LLC
We have examined the accompanying Schedule of Total Development Costs, Qualified
and Nonqualified Rehabilitation Expenditures and Calculation of Federal Rehabilitation Tax
Credit relating to the development of Italthai LLC as of September 30, 2011. Italthai LLC's
management is responsible for the Schedule of Total Development Costs, Qualified and
Nonqualified Rehabilitation Expenditures and Calculation of Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our examination.
We conducted our examination in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on
a test basis, evidence supporting the Schedule of Total Development Costs, Qualified and
Nonqualified Rehabilitation Expenditures and Calculation of Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We
believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the schedule referred to above presents fairly, in all material respects, the
project's total development costs, qualified and nonqualified rehabilitation expenditures, and
federal rehabilitation tax credit as of September 30, 2011 using the accrual method of accounting
and determined in accordance with Section 47 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management and the
members of Italthai LLC and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than
these specified parties.
Baltimore, Maryland
October 24, 2011
- 2 -
www.reznickgroup.com
Italthai LLC
SCHEDULE OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS,
QUALIFIED AND NONQUALIFIED REHABILITATION EXPENDITURES
AND CALCULATION OF FEDERAL REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT
September 30, 2011
(See independent accountants' report)
Total Qualified Nonqualified
Development Rehabilitation Rehabilitation
Uses Costs Expenditures Expenditures
Acquisition $ 435,000 $ - $ 435,000
Construction 2,045,582 2,017,295 28,287
Architect and engineering 191,477 188,755 2,722
Historic consultants 49,550 29,700 19,850
Environmental 9,661 9,661 -
Utilities 18,013 18,013 -
Financing 33,053 5,832 27,221
Interest 67,056 11,433 55,623
Legal and professional 56,408 27,400 29,008
Permits 11,457 11,457 -
Appraisal 3,700 3,700 -
Taxes 25,107 8,449 16,658
Insurance 15,169 3,463 11,706
Developer fee 467,032 467,032 -
Total $ 3,428,265 2,802,190 $ 626,075
Historic tax credit percentage 20%
Federal rehabilitation tax credit $ 560,438
- 3 -
paid to the tax credit investor,spanned into a five-year period.The
remainder is the fee that TCAD charged me for tax abatement.
5. The last point that I would like to explain is the difficulties that I am facing
because the original grant of$900.000 that I was awarded was converted to
loan and is now being administered by the City of Ithaca.The presence of this
loan, even without any repayment requirements,has stifled our capacity to
borrow.We are unable to borrow funds for operations or even for repairs to
the property.
Finally I would like to add a statement about the location of Mia restaurant,housed
in the Plantations Building. Originally we were confident that the location of Mia
restaurant would have been a plus for the Commons as it was bringing new life and
pedestrian traffic to an area that was not being as popular as other areas on the
Commons. I am afraid that I overestimated the location,pedestrian traffic has not
increased very much as a lot of people are still not making it to the middle of the
Commons looking for a restaurant,most diners seem to stay within Aurora Street,
commonly known as Restaurant Row. Parking is also another problem, as many
diners are still not taking full advantage of the Green Street garage.
As I mentioned,the location of the restaurant is not ideal. I am very confident that it
is only matter of time when the middle of the Commons will start picking up and
become as vibrant as other parts of it. However,the upcoming renovation of the
Commons is going to put a strain on my restaurant.Access to Mia will be diminished,
and this construction will undoubtedly keep diners away. I am very concerned
about the financial outcome that this endeavor will put on the survival of my
business.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Regards,
Sunit"Lex"Chutintaranond
Member, IthalThai LLC
9.2 Authorization of Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) Application -
Resolution
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation has noticed the
availability of the federal Transportation Enhancement Program, and
WHEREAS, on June 2013, the Board of Public Works considered various projects that
would be eligible for such funding and recommended a project for the West Martin
Luther King Jr./West State Street corridor between Floral Avenue and Taughannock
Boulevard, which is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended and
WHEREAS, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in this corridor would
help connect the West Hill and West End neighborhoods to the rest of the City's
commercial, recreational, natural, educational, and residential destinations, and
WHEREAS, corridor enhancements would also help connect the rest of the City to the
burgeoning non-motorized circulation system in and among the city's various waterfront
districts for residents and visitors alike, including the recent Floral Avenue trail, the
Cayuga Waterfront Trail, and the Black Diamond Trail, and
WHEREAS, Common Council is interested in applying for a Transportation
Enhancement Program grant in order to design and construct enhanced pedestrian and
bicycle facilities in this corridor; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, is hereby authorized and directed to
submit an application for funding to the New York State Department of Transportation in
accordance with the provisions of the Transportation Enhancement Program, in a
amount not to exceed $750,000, and upon approval of said request to enter into and
execute a project agreement with the State for such financial assistance to the City of
Ithaca for design, right-of-way acquisition, construction and construction inspection of a
project to enhance pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in the West Martin Luther
King Jr./West State Street corridor from Floral Avenue to Taughannock Boulevard, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That contingent upon award of the Transportation Enhancement Program
funds, the Common Council hereby authorizes the establishment of Capital Project
#790 to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of
all work for the Project; and be it further
RESOLVED, That contingent upon award of the TEP funds, the sum not to exceed
$750,000 is hereby appropriated from serial bonds and made available to cover the cost
of participation in the above Project in the first instance; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the total project cost shall not exceed $750,000 with the
understanding that the breakdown of funds to be approximately $600,000 in federal
Transportation Enhancement Program funds, and $150,000 in City of Ithaca serial bond
financing, to be administered by the Superintendent of Public Works, and be it further
RESOLVED, That in the event the full federal and non-federal share costs of the project
exceeds the amount appropriated above, the City of Ithaca Common Council shall
convene as soon as possible to appropriate said excess amount immediately upon the
notification by the NYSDOT thereof; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca be and is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary Agreements, and that the Superintendent of Public Works is
hereby authorized to execute all certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal
Aid and/or Multi-Modal Program Funding on behalf of the City of Ithaca with NYSDOT in
connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and providing for the
administration of the Project and the municipality's first instance funding of project costs
and permanent funding of the local share of federal-aid and all Project costs that are not
so eligible; and be it further
RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary Agreement in
connection with the Project; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
OP Try 9,
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 1.4850-5690
.................................... ...............................- ...................... ....................
Olt
OFTICT,OF THE CM ENGINEFR
Telephone: 607,11274-65,50 Fax: 607/274-6587
To: City Administration Committee
From: Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer --JjA,-
Date: July 11, 2013
Re: Transportation Enhancement Program application
Please find.attached a proposed resolution.for Common Council authorizing an
application for the Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP), and contingent
upon award, the establishment of a capital project and funding in the first
instance for a project not to exceed$750,000. The final cost to the City would be
20% of the total project cost, an amount not to exceed$150,000.
On June 24,2013, the Board of Public Works,after considering 4 or 5 projects,
recommended. that the City should pursue a project to enhance pedestrian and
bicycle conditions along West Martin Luther King Jr. Street(West State Street)
between Floral Avenue and Taughannock Boulevard. The scope of work for the
project focuses on three main components:
1. A mid-block pedestrian crossing just east of the bridge over the Flood
Control Channel. This could either be a pedestrian activated signal or it
could be an uncontrolled crossing with a pedestrian refuge island in the
middle of the street.
2. Reducing the number of traffic lanes from four to three (nicknamed a
"road diet"). Reducing the number of lanes will not only provide more
space for walking and biking, but it also should reduce the amount of lane
changing and weaving that often leads to sideswipe crashes. There would
either be room for a wider sidewalk on the south side of the bridge or
possibly room for bicycle lanes in each direction in the corridor.
3. Realigning the intersections at West Seneca Street and Brindley Street. The
project can look at how West Seneca Street intersects W NILK Jr. Street on
both sides, perhaps realigning both and reducing the westbound
approach to one lane. The Brindley Street intersection could also be
realigned to be more motorist and.pedestrian friendly.
A drawing is enclosed to give you a sense of what the enhancements might
include. For the purposes of the application,however,we do not need to make
decisions about which components should be included and which should.not or
about any detailed design issues. There will be plenty of time and public input in
the design phase. What we want to do is to make sure the budget is large enough
to both evaluate the design alternatives and to cover the construction costs of
whichever design we ultimately choose.To this end, we have budgeted for a
mid-block signal,a widened sidewalk with a railing on the bridge,and
realigning the intersections at West Seneca and Brindley Street.
Much of the rationale for this project has to do with recent public input for
related projects in the area. For example, during the design.of the intersection
improvements at Floral,Elm,Hector and State Street,many people were
interested in a signalized pedestrian crossing to get across busy West State Street,
but there was neither budget nor the proper location for a signal in that project.
Likewise,some people said that the intersection was not so important as the
whole corridor going down the street. Others complained that the real problems
were not at Floral Avenue,but rather at Brindley,State,Seneca&Pete's
driveway; they felt we were addressing the wrong location.
Also, with the Floral Avenue trail nearly completed and the building momentum
for the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and Black Diamond Trail,there is additional
interest in walking and biking enhancements in this corridor. This is not to
mention that there are already a fair number of people who walk through this
not-pedestrian friendly corridor,whether as a matter of choice or due to a lack of
other transportation alternatives.
......................_..............._._ ..
...............
Al
..._-.......TO G
-,�
CK _
t
t 'S
_1 ( �
__ _ Lu _
t b �
.....
(' a
a
_J
tn
:_:�...........� .._..._. i__.. — Ir 1
IL
T
IS A 3
1.
y i�ilin
yr I
te08e,,
lii
. .
--• x rr�
cn tn
wi
Uzi LL
�N
,�. M
^y
9.3 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 146 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled "Building Code Enforcement" Article 4, entitled "Plumbing", Section 146-
30 entitled "Permits, C. Fees"
WHEREAS, Plumbing Permit Fees are a necessary and reasonable cost to the public
for the local administration and enforcement of public health and sanitation laws
required by State regulations, and
WHEREAS, it is a necessary function of government to assess public service activities
from time to time to determine the actual cost to the community and to establish
reasonable fees for the proper discharge of said public services, and
WHEREAS, the current Plumbing Permit Fee structure for the City of Ithaca is
significantly lower than the surrounding area, owing mostly to the fact that these fees
have not been changed in over 40 years, and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to have a more actuate cost sharing of plumbing review and
inspection services in the form of Plumbing Permit Fees for end users who are the
primary recipient of those services than to rely on rate payer revenues, now therefore
ORDINANCE 2013-
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as
follows:
Section 1:
Chapter 146, Building Code Enforcement, Article 4, Plumbing, Section 146-30 Permits,
C. Fees shall be amended by adding enumeration (1) as follows:
(1) City of Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule
New construction
• Single Family Residences: $50 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences 2-10 units: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences 11-20 units: $250 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences 21 units or more: $500 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work under $25,000: $100 application fee plus $10
per fixture.
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $25,000 to $100,000: $250 application
fee plus $10 per fixture.
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $100,000 to $500,000: $500
application fee plus $10 per fixture.
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work over $500,000: $750 application fee plus $10
per fixture.
Renovations and Additions:
• Single Family Residences: $25 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work: $100 application fee plus $10 per fixture.
Partial Service Users
All permit fees for work conducted on premises not connected both to City water and
City sewer service or not anticipated to be connected both to City water and City sewer
service once connected to any water or sewer service shall be based on the City of
Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule for Commercial or Other Plumbing work plus 15
percent of the total therein specified.
Section 2. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of
this local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
local law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Legislative Intent
The revenues collected by the City through the regular issuances of water and sewer
bills establish the budget and spending allowances of the Water and Sewer Division.
The office of the Plumbing Inspector is an expenditure within that Division. Although
plumbing permit fees do contribute to the Water and Sewer revenues, 95% of the
expenditures required for plumbing services are now covered by rate payer revenues. It
is the intension of this legislation to shift more of that cost onto the primary user of the
service, specifically, the permit holder in the form of plumbing permit fees that more
accurately reflect the actual cost to the City to provide plumbing review, inspection and
enforcement.
This proposed Plumbing Permit Fee structure will bring our rates in line with the rates of
other jurisdictions in our area while providing a more equitable cost sharing solution
between the rate payers and permit holders. A planned "phase-in" of all rates seems
impractical and counterproductive due to the historically low existing rates.
Sliding Scale.
The fee schedule keeps the Single Family Residential permits at a reasonable cost at
somewhere in the $30440 range for most work while providing a "sliding scale"for all other
types of construction. The increases in the fees are proportional to the amount of review that is
associated with more complicated or compound plumbing construction (multiple types, high
rises, mixed uses). The issues that necessitate a higher degree of plan review such as: fire
flows, large meter sizing, valve placements, equipment locations, backflow requirements,
grease trap sizing, utility service sizing and entrance coordination, storm water regulations,
sanitary discharge requirements and others, qualify the higher fees.
Within the "sliding scale" fees there are two general categories of Multiple Residence
and Commercial. In the Multiple Residence fees, the application cost increase with the
number of units and reflects the increased administrative effort needed to approve plans
and specifications, coordinate with department personnel and resources, and to execute
the requirements for issuing the permit. The fixture fees are universal for multiple
residence applications and represent the costs associated with inspections and the
administration of the actual construction phase.
Commercial and Other
The Commercial or Other (Academic, Industrial, etc) application fees are similar to the
Multiple Residences fees accept that, instead of units, the fee is based on the dollar
value of the plumbing work (Actual Total of Labor and Material). Our Building
Department uses a similar method of total construction cost to determine the Building
Permit fee. The actual formulas may vary but the concept and premise are the same.
The dollar value is used to represent the amount of plumbing work or equipment being
installed. The greater the dollar value, the greater the administrative review. Fixture fees
are higher but universal within the category and represent the costs associated with
inspections and the administration of the actual construction phase. The higher fixture
costs associated with commercial plumbing equipment is justified in that there can be
found in these types of fixtures more specialized and unique installation requirements
than standard household plumbing. Here the gamut extends beyond bathrooms and
kitchens to plumbing items designed for other Industries. Examples are: cooling towers
and chillers, steam and hot water boilers, commercial dishwashers, chemical rinse
dispensers, sterilizers, surgery tables, dental aspirator, medical vacuum/water systems,
fume hoods, lab sinks, wok stoves, landscape irrigation systems, grease and sediment
interceptors, sewage ejectors, water filtration systems, make-up water for fan/coil
systems, etc... Commercial plumbing fixtures will therefore require more effort and
knowledge of code and manufacturers requirements than fixtures associated with
Multiple Residences.
Plumbinq Permit Fees for partial service users within the City of Ithaca
Water and Sewer revenues make up the largest funding source for plumbing inspection
services. This revenue stream is generated by quarterly billings for water usage
(metered water) and sewer charges based on water consumption. However, not all
properties within the City take both water and sewer from the City. These customers are
identified herein as "partial' service users since the City bills them for water only or for
sewer only and, as such, they contribute less to the Water and Sewer revenue budget
for similar service.
This proposal adds a "cost recovery" fee for properties identified as partial service users
of 15% added to the total cost of the Plumbing Permit. It is intended to help defray costs
that full rate payers subsidize now and create a more equitable end user fee that more
accurately reflects the true costs of providing plumbing review and inspection services
for each user type.
Cost Justification
The old black leather-bound ledger found in the Vault at the Water and Sewer Division
held the historical record of plumbing permits issued in the City of Ithaca. The first entry,
dated October 31, 1973 was issued to a plumbing contractor by the name of Albanese.
The permit was for a new house to be built at 253 Westwood Knoll and included the
installation of 14 plumbing fixtures at $1 per fixture and an application fee of$5 as a
single family residence...total $19. If Mr. Albanese were to apply today for the same
permit (40 years later) it would be issued at the cost of...$19! Let this be submitted as
cost justification #1.
A cost comparison of Plumbing permit Fees among other jurisdictions in our area was
done in 2012 and reported in an e-mail to the Superintendent of Public Works and to the
Assistant Superintendent, Water and Sewer Division attached. The proposed fee
structure is well within the ranges being charged in areas such as: Cortland, Elmira,
Auburn, and the Bolton Point Water Authority (Town of Ithaca, Lansing, Dryden....)
The actual cost vs. revenues for the City is represented in the bar chart below. The
proposed fees will not exceed the cost of supply plumbing inspection services. It is
evident that water and sewer rate payers will continue to be the major funding source
for plumbing services even after shifting more of the costs to the permit holders.
2012 Plumbing Permits:
Actual Plumbing Permit Fees
collected in 2012 $5,138.00
Proposed Plumbing Permit
Fees $36,135.00
$110,000
100,000
90,000
ME (Plumbing Inspection Expenditures)
Salary 80,000
Overhead (200-400 accounts)
Inspection Services Contract 70,000
Staff assistance
60,000
Plumbing Permit Fees Collected in
2012
50,000
Proposed Plumbing Permit
Fees
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
An analysis of 2012 Plumbing Permits for the City of Ithaca shows:
Number of permits...........................117
Total revenue from permits............$5,136
Expenditures:
Inspector's salary........................$64,493
Salary overhead (40%)............... $25,797
Contractual services.................. $12,000
Office overhead and staff support....$ 8,000
Total budgeted expenditures......($110,290)
Revenues from Proposed Fees..................$36,135
9.4 Gateway Pedestrian Bridge - Authorization for Allocation from Bridge
Reserve Fund - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City constructed the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over Elmira Road in
2001, and
WHEREAS, a portion of the pedestrian bridge occupies state-owned property, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation granted permit 33669 to
the City of Ithaca to build, occupy and maintain the pedestrian bridge on state-owned
property, and
WHEREAS, a provision of the permit from the New York State Department of
Transportation requires that the City provide and pay for periodic inspection of the
bridge, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation has requested that the
City conduct such an inspection, and
WHEREAS, engineering staff estimates that the cost of such an inspection will not
exceed $15,000, and
WHEREAS, the City has a bridge reserve Capital Reserve #4 Bridges, in place with a
current balance of$92,000; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby allocates an amount not to exceed $15,000
from the Bridge Reserve Fund for the purpose of engaging a licensed engineer to
conduct the required inspection of the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge.
CITY F - HAC
lik
108 E_apt Green strect. ltlaaca< � `Y'cark 14850Wta5<)0
William 1 tsar, RE, �u �r,riratt�rtrla rrt,'C'1tti t ra tarc:c>r
RA
l 0: Steven Thayer, City Controller
Chris Proulx_, Chair. City Administraation
FROM: Aclalisu Ciebr°c, Brit?- System fingineer ,
l ^,v.p.p': July% 19. 201
R : Ga€ways Pedestrian Bridge(over NIN'S Route. 1_>) Inspection Fr n(i RegLIs.S,t
l WOUld like to request Common Council to .authorize up to `�15,000 l'i-caara€parr. Bridge Reserve
Fund liar the p)urpxrse ofc n aging as licensed engineer to conduct required inspection of'the
i,.awway Pedestrian Bridge.
The "I own of it.fiaca is currently undertaking clesigra of"tire Gateway Trail which crosses Elmira
Road via the Ciaatevvaay" Pedestrian Bridge. The Town has requested intiarrtaa`tion pertaining tcs the
ht ta, ,4C includinwg inspection rep oris, ['lie City of Ithaca signed ;arr agreement with lk e 'y or°k
State De p>artment ol"I'raansp ortaation which requires that the City inspect the Gateway Pedestrian
Britfoe(over NYS Route 1 3) at least every two ycatrs Or 11101e li-eaptrc rrtly ii'ra*a Ueste(l.
Curreutl,,. �vz have received one estimate ii)r conducting the re-quired inspection For a cost not
C-,\C ;c d l 5,00Et.'HIC irrSp>CC6011 tvcruld iraeluctc° iraspacC60Ir ol`the structure a accompatriccl by a letter
r-c°lra?rtffrlrt�laill detail the findingys a°>f'tlr iat-claptli irtpacctrita, including rararr:rtit, plrcyttg>,
Orraditiccrn,: Aerarhes and tables as necessary to convey.the conditions ol`str ictur;;al elements
inspected and rneaasurecl. Public Works stall'Nvill end aa-vor to obtain additional estimates for the
ire>.p ec:ticrra and reef: (o rregoliat.e reduc,°t ions in costs prior to authorizing the inNp ection work,
,
Attached plex,; lind as copy ol'the NN`.°5DOT Permit liar the:pedcstrian bridge th,ait iv as si4gncd
v ith tiro City crt lthac%<a back to 2001,
11",Ou Ir<ar=°e 4tr1y-cluest ions, please call Redd isu Ciebre, Bridge Systems T:rtgineer,at 607-274-65 3€
t c,: TOM West. Director ctfEn;ins erin
.. -
f,.
s K
z< _ a s=_. '; €..... .ti a, g. z A� ? wry OR k:s
HP'2 Aur WS,a and
_ w�. this „w,,ia� �y or
s.' loan a B e q K z z>s r
_
vJ
17
e t,:
<,.
vs. .... ....s .t..x -._{> ...
-h- .'S 2 gn: to
r... ...«... ... ....w.,.
Of
.......... m®.,....q..............�._...__.�.
a__K. WO t_.. g_ 0111%u „_a. .9.< ,,., ,s„fi`lese,= '�.: s>1-> h y L£.` ..
,dab_s _,s,<Y.... 1XIAtIng in
n9ha) ,. on in ubc, a:f#aoun to 3.0 so .,.t..� rl
..�.. ,e .,. E'Ta tt=-,n a
s,.
s MHW' °air «« ,'a .rl.,, % <a .< ,.<:� as an
< xt< s
" Ian? M..- ..... > _._-.
.ran; ,r �? ar + m.
Ak <jw
be at or,
1i2 good .r<t.pa z and, b;sd L,>.a_ o-...2... ,.
o"a
hou.a.":
,.<.1 M c �there t c. i l.€' -. ,..uvv,, L .. any . r,se$munab
a
' > .. _�. _ the y} ems.. h , >-ssd.d«<�. ...EYE� d
the Wn! in dPsv?; of any
for , Pl0x s,_.. > !,_.00 nq used on _>
_a ._ two remAnO .aub,Jwlu1., kd.n.1l � .< x=z ..•ua. .. :;,�. Ufa _,,,.. 3. :,,.,..?i. e..:.,-."n
SIB? Iv r
,E'•_, '...
g ,
a MA. ouh . thin .,..e a«ar ansign —r .,Ck.>x....,, the
l ,,,3 101 w"$,sen', ;
n' and an ..a a .. .dia s21 �
� �,-
.�. Is't".7,'b t e..
,....., a and _;-«7W _-ita.fM 3,z„x°l DMandiate17 MAE ::?"'*.�, $a
Ouch
a .. 1w a , t."; .," CEO YanneS LOW IW xW...aaa, ,,,,."Se W.a. ...1 t
spun!, .. permi. ., ,, 'rh n .a "a°7fT=m'i .P74?n , .r:„�7,a rn or ,.T,W ed, 0 ii"P`x+'%., „o,e, s'1'.at,_
, y
?e rE-.7�A,„-a Ww
OW A _ 01x.er MUM.. .W �'�'�.: �;rx�. 'v. v1 Jba�..:t" �z>la.r .ib'pll>, <.c.. ..tea %.. '"�'.: T, s.Al n
> > , .x yw�vo
A"Th the Perm" ' ev 11=rInutowte in the us- of this pn"KmPs.
iNq `e
>
W._ ,
We
. .��A c X cR
lure
3 €... ...sfi''no
rovi
kv
We ylll�'
_.... .�...,.....,. P
L.
... _.M_
i
�s �
me on
<c�, a f s '�" "'E atria,;` they vs csa'P"t-d the
L =S act i.'<1,
pp-
� 3
Date
_........
10. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.1 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 276
entitled "Site Plan Review"
WHEREAS, Chapter 276 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Site Plan Review,
was first enacted in 1989 and was repealed and replaced in 1999 and 2012, and
WHEREAS, the repealed and replaced ordinance adopted on November 7, 2012
mistakenly omitted sections regarding required bike parking regulations and
landscaping in parking areas, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify the Site Plan Review
Ordinance by re-incorporating the bike parking and landscaping language that was
never intended to be deleted, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with § 325-45 of the City Code, this is considered a minor
amendment, consisting of "Minor and nonsubstantive changes or amendments (minor
word, number, placement or other similar changes, modifications or alterations that do
not modify existing zoning concepts)"now therefore
ORDINANCE 2013-
6E IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, that
Chapter 276 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled "Site Plan Review" be
amended as follows:
Section 1:
§ 276-1. Intent.
The intent of this chapter is to provide for the review of site plans for certain land uses in
the City of Ithaca for the purpose of:
A. Preserving and enhancing neighborhood character.
B. Achieving compatibility with adjacent development and uses.
C. Mitigating potentially negative impacts on traffic, parking, drainage, the landscape
and similar environmental concerns.
D. Improving the design, function, aesthetics and safety of development projects and
the overall visual and aesthetic quality of the city.
E. Promoting environmental sustainability in new development, redevelopment and
long term planning.
§ 276-2. Definitions.
A. Definitions of specific terms or words as used in this chapter shall conform to the
definitions of the same terms in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 325, § 325-3.
B. In addition to the definitions in Chapter 325, the following terms shall be used in this
chapter as they are defined in this section:
AFFECTED SITE AREA -- Any area (including new and modified gross floor space)
that is physically changed as a result of the proposed development. Such changes
do not have to be permanent or irreversible for the area to be considered affected.
For example, a construction staging area will be considered an affected area if tree
damage or significant soil compaction is likely to result.
BICYCLE PARKING FACILITY -- l+ncludes the bicycle parking spaces one or more
bicycle racks, and, when applicable the access aisle(s) between groups of bicycle
racks. Bike lockers and other secure, enclosed areas that can accommodate bicycle
storage may be considered bicycle parking facilities "Bicycle parking space" refers
to a location for which the parking of one bicycle is intended. A `bicycle rack' is an
element of the bicycle parking facility that supports one or more bicycles and to
which one or more bicycles may be locked.
BOARD -- The Planning and Development Board, unless otherwise specified.
COMMISSIONER -- The Building Commissioner for the City of Ithaca, New York.
DEVELOPMENT -- Any land use activity or project which requires a permit from the
Building Department and will result in changes to the physical condition, appearance
or type of use, or intensity of use, of property.
(1) Development projects include but are not limited to:
(a) New construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of existing
structures or site improvements.
(b) Landfilling, excavation, grading, parking lot construction or any other
disturbances to the natural or existing topography or vegetation of the site.
(c) Demolition of structures or site improvements.
(2) A project shall not be considered a development if it is one or a combination of
the following:
(a) Replacement in kind only; or
(b) Interior construction only; or
(c) Infrastructure maintenance only.
DIRECTOR -- The Director of Planning and Development for the City of Ithaca, New
York or his/her designee.
EXPANSION --An enlargement of, or addition to, an existing structure or a paved
area, including driveways, parking areas and sidewalks.
MODIFICATION -- Rearrangement of site layout or an exterior alteration to an
existing structure (including any changes to a building facade, except replacement in
kind).
PERFORMANCE GUARANTY -- Any security that may be accepted by the city as a
guarantee that the improvements required as part of site plan approval will be
satisfactorily completed.
RECONSTRUCTION -- Construction of buildings or site plan improvements
following total demolition of a previous development.
REPLACEMENT IN KIND -- Replacement of materials (for maintenance purposes)
which does not have an effect on the appearance of the existing building and site.
SITE IMPROVEMENT -- Features including but not limited to planting, paving,
retaining walls, drainage culverts and swales, fences and gates, lighting, site
furniture, fountains, pools, bridges, dams, decks, boardwalks, pergolas, signs and
any other accessory structures, devices or landscape materials on the site.
SITE PLAN -- The development plan showing the existing and proposed conditions,
including but not limited to topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, marshes
and waterways; open spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, utility
services, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting and screening devices;
submitted along with building plans, elevations and building materials; and any other
information that may be reasonably required to allow an informed decision to be
made by the Board or the Director.
STORM WATER POLL-LUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) A plan to identify
and mitigate stormwater impacts as defined in Chapter 282.
§ 276-3. Applicability; exceptions.
A. General applicability.
(1) Site plan review (SPR) applies to all new construction and reconstruction of both
residential and non residential development (except that excluded by §276-3C),
including parking areas of three or more spaces in residential zoning districts.
(2) Upon the concurrence of the Director and the Superintendent of Public Works or
upon the direction of Common Council, site plan review (SPR) applies to
construction of landscape and infrastructure improvements which do not normally
require a building permit, but nervertheless have an extensive public use,
prominent visibility, or a potentially large environmental impact, such as
construction of trails or trailheads, development of, or improvements to, existing
parks; construction or reconstruction of bridges; and rebuilding of public or
private streets that involve streetscape improvements.
B. Projects of limited scope.
(1) The Director shall have the authority to review and act on a development
proposal if the proposed project meets the description in § 276-3A but is below
the thresholds described below. For such projects of limited scope, reviewed by
the Director, a public hearing is not required. The Planning and Development
Department shall be the lead agency in the environmental review of such
projects, except for projects that meet the description in §-276-3A(2), which shall
follow environmental review laws or regulations for determination of lead
agency. There shall be no requisite review of the environmental assessment
forms (EAF) by the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) in these cases. See §
276-5C for situations when projects of limited scope will be referred to the Board
for a full review. The upper thresholds for projects of limited scope are:
(a) All new construction and reconstruction of single-lot residential development
of a single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a two-family
dwelling.
(b) Modification and expansion of residential development involving 4,000
square feet (sf) of total affected site area.
(c) New construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of nonresidential
development in residential zones involving 3,000 sf of total affected site area.
(d) Modification and expansion of nonresidential development in nonresidential
zones, involving 10,000 sf of total affected site area.
(e) Construction of landscape and infrastructure improvements as described in §
276-3A(2).
(2) When an application is received for site plan review under the provisions for
projects of limited scope as noted above, the Director shall, within 10 working
days of the date of the submission of the application, notify the Council
members in whose ward the project is to be located.
C. Exemption:
(1) Existing uses and developments which in their present configuration and use are
legally authorized as of the date of this legislation shall not be subject to SPR.
(2) Exterior modifications to an existing single-lot residential development of a
single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a two-family dwelling,
including additions, porches, fagade changes, landscaping and site
improvements, excluding the development of parking areas for 3 or more cars as
required under §325-20.
D. City and other government projects. For city and other government projects, the
threshold of applicability, the review procedure and the review criteria shall be the
same as for all SPR applicants unless the Common Council decides that any
particular government project shall be reviewed on an advisory basis only.
However, even if a project is subject to advisory review only, no construction shall
begin until the Board or the Director has completed the review, including the
issuance of any findings and recommendations that the Board or the Director
determines to be appropriate. Projects subject to advisory SPR only shall be
presented to the Board for review beginning as early as possible, and in any case
no later than when the environmental review is started. The Board may or may not
be the Lead Agency of the environmental review of projects subject to advisory SPR
only.
§ 276-4. Other permits and approvals.
An approved site plan shall be binding on all further permits and approvals needed for
the project. The Board or the Director's decision to approve a site plan does not excuse
an applicant from complying with all other permits and approvals that may be needed,
including but not limited to street and sidewalk permits, utility permits and tree permits.
A. Permits from Building Department. For projects subject to SPR, a permit from the
Building Department shall be issued only after SPR approval has been granted. In a
case where a conditional SPR approval has been given, no certificate of occupancy
or completion shall be issued until final SPR approval has been given and all
conditions of such final approval have been met. See also § 276-9.
B. Variances.
(1) Any required variance must be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals
before the Planning Board will issue preliminary or final site plan approval.
(2) For projects that require both a variance and site plan approval, the Planning
Board will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review for both actions.
The BZA cannot grant a variance until the the Planning Board has completed
the environmental review.
C. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). All Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans must be approved by the Stormwater Management Officer (SMO)
in accordance with §282 before final site plan approval is granted.
§ 276-5. Authorization to review site plans.
A. The Planning and Development Board is authorized to conduct SPR according to
the procedures described in § 276-6.
B. The Director is authorized to conduct SPR of projects of limited scope as defined in
§ 276-3B.
C. In projects of limited scope the Board shall conduct SPR according to the
procedures described below in § 276-6, when the following conditions arise:
(1) There is public controversy concerning the proposed development, as
determined by the Board or the Director.
(2) The application is referred to the Board by the Director.
(3) The applicant appeals to the Board after decision by the Director is made.
§ 276-6. Site plan review (SPR) procedures.
A. Process initiation.
(1) The Building Commissioner shall determine whether SPR is required when an
application for a building permit, a demolition permit, or a fill permit is filed.
Such determinations may be appealed to the Planning and Development Board
within 30 days of the written notification that SPR is required.
(2) For projects which do not require a building permit, as described in §-276-3A (2),
the Director may request of the Superintendent of Public Works that a project be
subject to SPR. If the Superintendent and Director concur, then the project shall
be subject to SPR. If they do not agree, the Director may request that Common
Council decide if SPR shall apply. The Director shall, in accordance with §-276-
5C, determine if the project requires review by the Board.
B. The following procedures are required for both full site plan review and projects of
limited scope:
(1) Sketch plan conference with planning staff, or when appropriate, with the Board
as a whole. This step may occur before the application for a building permit if it
can be reasonably assumed that SPR would be required, in order to inform the
applicant of the SPR process and to explain the standards for approval, before
substantial time and effort are invested in the preparation of plans. The Director
should determine at this stage whether the proposal is a project of limited scope
as defined in § 276-3B.
(2) Submission of application materials.
(a) Appicants must submit a complete site plan review application, including all
applicable materials as described in the Site Plan Review Checklist, which
may be obtained from the Department of Planning and Development.
(b) Additional application materials may be required by the Board. Depending
on the scope and complexity of the project, the Board has the discretion to
require applicants to engage the services of licensed design professionals
and other experts such as architects, landscape architects, engineers,
ecologists or surveyors.
(c) For all new construction and reconstruction of single-lot residential
development of a single-family detached or semidetached or a two-family
dwelling, applicants must complete the Residential Infill Neighborhood
Compatibility Review Application, which may be obtained from the
Department of Planning and Development
(3) Environmental review. An environmental review of the proposed development
shall be conducted prior to SPR approval in accordance with § 176 of the City
Code.
C. The following procedures are required for full Site Plan Review and not required for
projects of limited scope:
(1) Public notice
(a) By mail. At least 20 days before the first meeting at which the
Planning and Development Board considers either a determination
of environmental significance or preliminary site plan approval, the
applicant shall notify the record owners by mail of all properties
within 200 feet of the project site. Such notice shall be in the form
approved by the Board, briefly state essential facts about the
proposal, include the proposed site plan, and inform recipients of the
date, time and place of the meeting and the place where further
information about the proposal and the review process may be
obtained. Applicant shall provide the Board with certification of
compliance for notice procedures.
(b) By posting. At least 20 days before the first meeting at which the
Planning and Development Board considers either a determination
of environmental significance or preliminary site plan approval, the
applicant shall post a sign at the center of each property line of the
project site which fronts on a public or private roadway or public
right-of-way. Such signs shall be continuously maintained and
displayed facing the roadway until final action has been taken by the
Board to approve or deny the site plan. The required signs shall be
obtained from the Department of Planning and Development, and a
nonrefundable fee shall be paid for each sign or replacement
obtained. At the time such signs are obtained, the applicant or the
applicant's representative shall indicate, in writing, the date on which
the signs are to be erected.
(c) By newspaper. The hearing on the preliminary site plan shall be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least
five days before the hearing.
(2) Coordination and consultation. SPR projects requiring the review and
approval of the Board may also be reviewed by the Building Department,
the Engineering Office, the Fire Department, the City Forester and any
other city officials or non-city consultants deemed appropriate by the
Planning Board or the Director. Any comments from these reviewers
shall be summarized and forwarded to the Board to aid its decision on the
proposal.
(3) Planning and Development Board meeting. Following timely receipt of a
complete application for site plan approval, the Board shall schedule
consideration of the application at its earliest possible scheduled meeting.
The Board may establish its procedures and requirements, within the
framework provided by this chapter, for conducting site plan review.
(4) Public hearing. Prior to rendering any decision on a SPR application, the
Board shall first hold a public hearing on the proposed development.
This may begin concurrently with any required public hearing for the
purpose of environmental review of the same project and may continue
after any such environmental review public hearing is closed. Public
hearings are not required for projects of limited scope as defined in §
276-3B, unless the project is referred to the Board for SPR
(5) Action on application for site plan approval.
(a) Within 65 days after completion of environmental review on a
complete SPR application, the Board (or the Director if it is a project of
limited scope as defined in § 276-313) shall render one of the following
decisions:
[1] Preliminary approval only.
[2] Preliminary approval with conditions.
[3] Preliminary and final approval.
[4] Preliminary and final approval with conditions.
[5] Disapproval of the site plan.
(b) In the case where a Board's action is required and where preliminary
approval only is granted, final approval shall be considered at the
earliest scheduled Board meeting subsequent to the applicant's
submittal of an adequately revised site plan, whereupon the Board
shall render one of the following decisions:
[1] Final approval.
[2] Final approval with conditions.
[3] Disapproval of the site plan.
(6) Communication of decision. The Building Commissioner and the
applicant shall be notified, in writing, of a site plan review decision no
later than 10 working days after the date of decision. When a site plan is
approved, a stamped copy of the approved site plan, including any
conditions of approval, shall accompany the notification to the Building
Commissioner.
D. Changes to approved site plan. Proposed changes (whether before or after
construction) to approved site plans must be submitted to the Commissioner for
review to determine whether the effect of the proposed changes warrants
reconsideration of the project's approval status. The Commissioner in consultation
with the Director shall make one of the following determinations:
(1) That the proposed changes do not affect the approval status of the site plan.
(2) That the changes are significant and shall require a reopening of the review.
(3) That the proposed changes are likely to have such an extensive or significant
effect on the project that a new SPR application is required.
E. Extension of deadlines. All deadlines for decisions on an SPR application may be
extended upon mutual agreement by the Board and the applicant.
§ 276-7. Project review criteria.
A. General criteria:
(1) Avoidance or mitigation of any negative impacts. The following shall be
emphasized in particular:
(a) Erosion, sedimentation and siltation control in accordance with §282 of the
City Code.
(b) Protection of significant natural features and areas, including but not limited
to trees, views, watercourses or bodies of water and land forms, on or near
the site. The protection of existing mature vegetation, especially trees over
eight inches DBH (diameter-breast-height) may be required unless a
justification for their removal can be made by the applicant.
(c) Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of
importance to the community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks,
neighborhoods, commercial areas, and historic districts.
(2) Compliance with all other regulations applicable to the development. These
include, but are not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Ordinance,
Subdivision Regulations, Storm Water Regulations Ordinance, Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance and
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance of the City of Ithaca,'EN and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act."[Amended 6-13-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-8]
(3) Improvement of the visual quality of the site and its vicinity through:
(a) The presence of a perceivable form and order in the basic layout of the
major architectural and landscape elements.
(b) The proper and effective use of landscape architectural elements such as
plantings, land forms, water features, paving and lighting, including the
location and appearance of proposed signage. [Amended 3-5-2003 by Ord.
No. 2003-8]
(c) An appropriate arrangement, form, scale, proportion, color, pattern and
texture of buildings and other site improvements.
(d) An appropriate relationship between the proposed development and the
nearby streetscape, landscape, and the built environment.
(e) The integration of works of art on the site where appropriate and possible.
[Added 3-5-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-8]
(f) The appropriate arrangement of landscape and architectural elements to
preserve existing views both to, from and through the site.
(4) Adequate wastewater and sewage disposal facilities. Calculations of the
existing and estimated increased loads on the system may be required.
(5) Adequacy of fire lanes and fire and emergency access and the availability of
fire hydrants.
(6) Safe arrangement of vehicular access, circulation, intersections and traffic
controls. Analysis of the project's impact on parking and traffic may be
required, including sight lines at curb cuts.
(7) Handicap accessibility of buildings, pathways and parking in accordance with
ADA standards.
(8) Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including
provision for of bicycle parking facilities and sidewalks along public streets,
unless applicant demonstrates that a sidewalk is not feasible due to site
constraints. This criterion is subject to the authority of the Board of Public
Works as defined in the City Charter and City Code.
(9) Open space for play areas and informal recreation in the case of a residential
development.
(10) Provisions for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and green design as
determined by the Board
(11) Conformance to any endorsed or adopted urban design plan or
comprehensive plan relevant to the proposed site.
(12) For new construction of multiple dwellings, commercial buildings and office
buildings, adequate and appropriately located facilities for the storage and
collection of solid waste and recyclable materials shall be required.
Developers of new commercial and mixed-occupancy buildings must design a
waste management system that can support the needs of any allowable use
in the building, including those uses that could result in maximum garbage
generation. Screening of these facilities, as well as other actions relating to
the appearance of the facilities, may be required in accordance with the
Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance, W8 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code. [Amended 6-13-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-8; 3-5-2003 by Ord.
No. 2003-8]
(13) Shielding or reduction of noise from mechanical equipment and other sources
to the extent reasonably practicable.
(14) Screening or architectural integration of a building's or structure's exterior
mechanical equipment.
(15) The scope and definition of the proposed development shall include all
previous development on the property occurring within the past two years
within 200 feet of the proposed development which, when considered
together, may have a substantial aggregate effect on the surrounding
properties. (See definitions of"development" and "affected site area" in § 276-
2B.)
B. Criteria for plant materials and maintenance. All projects shall provide for adequate
types and arrangements of landscaping, both to enhance the site and to
complement the architectural components of the development and to screen or
buffer adjacent uses in public ways._ Use of invasive species should be avoided.
Where possible and reasonable, trees shall be planted in an 8' tree lawn adjacent to
the road. The City Forester shall, when appropriate, be consulted regarding
specifications governing tree species, size, spacing and method and location of
planting._ Appropriate guaranties for tree health may be required. _Where possible
and reasonable, any trees greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast height of
desirable species and in good health and sound structure, as determined by the City
Forester, should be retained on the site and protected during development per the
requirements of§ 306-713 Trees and Shrubs.
(1) Deciduous trees shall have a caliper of at least 2 1/2 inches at breast height
(DBH) at the time of planting. Size of evergreen trees and shrubs may vary
depending on location and species.
(2) All plant materials shall be installed to the following standards:
(a.) All planting beds to be excavated to a minimum depth of two feet.
(b.) Tree pits in lawn to be excavated to depth of root ball plus 6" and shall be
3X the width of the root ball.
(c.) All trees in lawn areas to receive 5' diameter mulch rings.
(d.) Only nursery-grown plant materials shall be acceptable. All trees, shrubs
and ground cover shall comply with applicable requirements of ANSI
Z60.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock".
(e.) No plants or trees shall be located beneath building overhangs.
(f.) Depending on site design and soil conditions, structural soil may be
required under sidewalks and in planting beds contiguous to paved areas.
The City Forester and/or the Director shall work with the applicant to
determine the need for structural soil and the extent of its use.
(3) Dead, dying and/or seriously damaged plant materials of the approved site plan
shall be replaced, by the owner, within a reasonable time period during the
current (or immediate next) planting season. Any other damaged or missing
elements, including but not limited to fences, bollards, signs, shrubs, street
furniture, etc., of the approved plan must be similarly replaced by the owner.
This will assure that landscaping remains in compliance with the final site plan as
approved by the Planning and Development Board.
(4) For projects on City property, the City Forester and the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee shall be consulted in plant species selection and planting soil
specification.
(5) Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter or any other City ordinance or
regulation to the contrary, an approved site plan may not be modified without
express written approval of the Planning and Development Board except as
approved by the Building Commissioner upon consultation with the Director as
specified herein above.
C. Criteria for automobile parking areas. All parking areas shall be designed in
conformance with §325.20 of the City Ordinance. The Board may make such
additional reasonable stipulations as it deems appropriate to carry out the intention
of this chapter. �
(1) Parking areas in Residential Zoning Districts. In order to protect the
character of residential areas, plans for parking areas with the capacity of
three or more cars within residential zoning districts must conform to either
the setback compliance method or, at the discretion of the Planning
Board, the landscaping compliance method described respectively in
§ 325-20E(5)(a) and (b). Such plans must also comply with all other
general and specific standards of § 325-20. Where turnarounds, or other
maneuvering spaces not required for access to parking spaces, are
provided that meet minimum size for a parking space, they shall be
counted as a parking space for the purposes of this subsection.
(2) There shall be screeninq with a minimum five-foot-wide planting area or
fences between a motor vehicle parking area and adjacent properties and
public ways except where there is motor vehicle parking that is shared by
more than one property or where commercial properties abut. In such
cases the Board may require landscaping as it deems appropriate.
(3) In motor vehicle parking areas a minimum of 12% of the interior ground
area (i.e., excluding any peripheral planting area) shall be planting areas
that include trees with a potential mature height of at least 50 feet and a
caliper of at least 2 1/2 inches at the time of planting.
(4) Interior planting areas shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no
dimensions being less than eight feet. The planter shall be curbed and
have a minimum three-foot- deep excavation.
22}(5) Applicants are encouraged to design parking areas with pervious
paving when feasible.
D-.D. Criteria for Bicycle parking facilities. Bicycle parking shall be required for all uses
requiring site plan review as per §_276-3(A)(1) except as may be determined by
the Board or the Transportation Engineer. Covered bicycle parking is strongly
recommended. The Planning and Development Board may make such
additional reasonable stipulations as it deems appropriate to carry out the
intention of this chapter. The Planning and Development Board shall use the
following standards in its consideration of the location and the type/design of
bicycle parking facilities.
(1).Standards for the number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided for various
uses. See chart below.
Use Bicycle Parking Space Standards ',2,3
Adult day-care home or 1 for client use, plus 1 per 20 employees4
group adult day-care facility
DorMLoU 1 per 5 persons housed 6 min.
Dwelling unit 1 per 5 bedrooms or sleeping rooms (single
famil and duplex encouraged but exce ted
Fraternity, sorority or group 1 per 5 persons housed (2 min.)
house
Rooming or boarding house 1 per 5 sleeping rooms 2 min.
Auditorium or theater 1 per 50 seats 4 min.
Bar, tavern or restaurant 1 per 500 square feet of net floor area of the
assembly space 2 min.
Bed-and-breakfast home or 1 per 10 sleeping rooms (2 min.)
bed-and-breakfast inn
BoALqjg!!gy 1 per 2 bowling lanes
Church, funeral home or 2 min. (spaces for 2% of expected
mortuary attendance recommended
Fitness center or health club 1 per 20 persons allowed as determined by
the maximum occupancy load 6 min.
Home occupation requiring None
s ecial ermit
Hospital or nursing or 1 per 20 employees4 (6 min.)
convalescent home
Hotel or motel 1 per 20 em to ees 6 min.
Medical or dental office 1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable
floor area 2 min.
Nursery school, child day-
care center or private 1 per 20 employees 4 plus 1 per 20 pupils
elementary or secondary enrolled (4 min.)
school
Office or bank 1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable
floor area (4 min.)
Retail store or neighborhood 1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable
commercial facilit floor area 2 min.
Wholesale or industN 1 per 30 employees (2 min.)
Boat launch 4 min.
Boat storage or repair 4 min.
Boatel 4 min.
Marina 4 min.
Yacht club 4 min.
Human service agencies
and centers (Added 6-5- 1 per 2500 square feet of floor area (4 min.)
1996 by Ord. No. 96-9
Whichever is greatest: 1 per 20 employees
Other uses not listed above OR 1 per 2500 square feet OR 1 per 10
motor vehicles aces 2 min.
NOTES (on chart):
1. In the case of mixed use of a building or property, the bicycle parking space
standards shall be computed for each use, and the total for all uses shall be
provided in accordance with this section.
2 The Planninq and Development Board may, upon consideration of relevant
factors including but not limited to the easy availability of adequate proximate
bicycle parking or the expectation that a lesser number of bicycle parking
spaces will meet the parking needs of the use determine that a lesser number
of bicycle parking spaces is appropriate.
3 Bicycle parking facilities may be located inside or outside of structures.
4 Calculation to be based on the number of employees during the maximum
work shift.
(2) Location of bicycle parking facilities.
(a) Bicycle parking facilities should be located close to building entrances, and
should be located at least as close and convenient to building entrances as the
nearest non-handicapped motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking facilities
to be in a public right of way shall require approval by the Office of the City
Engineer &the Board of Public Works.
(b) Bicycle parking facilities that are not located within a building shall be located in
highly visible and well-lighted areas to minimize theft and vandalism.
(c) Bicycle parking facilities shall not intrude into pedestrian or vehicular circulation
paths.
(d) At least 25% of a bicycle parking facility intended primarily for residential uses
shall be located within a garage and other secure indoor or covered areas.
(e) Bicycle parking facilities shall be covered or otherwise protected from the
elements whenever practical; especially where long-term (over 4 hours)
residential and/or employee parking is anticipated.
(f) A minimum clear distance of 24 inches shall be between bicycle racks and walls,
other obstructions, and/or any unpaved surface. Vertical clearance of seven feet
minimum is required for all bicycle parking facilities. There shall be a convenient,
paved access route between the roadway network and the bicycle parking area.
(For example, bicyclists shall not be required to cross lawns or carry bicycles up
stairways to reach bicycle parking facilities.)
(3). Type/design of bicycle parking facilities.
A. Bicycle parking facilities shall be designed in such a way so as to accommodate
a standard bicycle (six feet in length, minimum). An eight-foot-long parking space
is highly recommended to account for irregularly parked bicycles.
B. Bicycle racks shall be securely anchored to concrete. The entire footprint of the
bicycle parking facility shall be constructed of concrete. (Asphalt, brick, or other
durable surface may be acceptable at the discretion of the Planning and
Development Board.) The footprint shall be as level as practical.
C. Bicycle racks should be the standard "inverted-U" rack design, approximately 36
inches high and with vertical elements 20 to 30 inches apart. When multiple
"inverted-U" racks are grouped together, they shall be oriented parallel to one
another and should be spaced 30 inches on center (exceptions for spacing as
narrow as 24 inches on center and as wide as 36 inches on center shall be
allowable in some instances at the discretion of the Planning and Development
Board) Though the standard "inverted-U" rack design is highly recommended,
other innovative and/or creative rack designs may be allowed at the discretion of
the Planning and Development Board.
D. Bicycle racks shall support the frame of each bicycle in TWO or more places,
separated horizontally by 20 to 30 inches. (Designs that support bicycles by one
wheel only, or at only one point of the bicycle, are NOT acceptable.)
E. All rack designs shall permit the appropriate use of standard "U"-locks.
F. Enclosed bicycle parking facilities, such as bike lockers and indoor storage
rooms do not necessarily require the inclusion of a bicycle rack element,
depending on the design of the facility. Such enclosed facilities shall be lockable
and otherwise secure.
(4). Variations and exemptions to bicycle parking standards.
A. Any property owner required to provide bicycle parking may propose to establish
a shared bicycle parking facility with an adjacent property owner to meet the
combined standards. Such a proposal requires approval by the Planning and
Development Board.
B. Possible variation from above standards under site plan review. The Planning
and Development Board may, at its discretion, allow variations from the above
standards.
§ 276-8. Fees.
A. Application fees. The application fees shall be based on the total construction,
site work, and landscaping cost and shall be charged in accordance with the
following schedule.
Type of Approval Project Cost Application
Fee
Less and $75
$10,000
$10,000 to $150
$50,000
Full Site Plan Review
$50,000 to $300
$100,000
Over $100,000 $1.50 per
$1,000
Less than $150
*Modified Site Plan $50,000
Review
$50,000 or more $250
Limited Site Plan Any Amount $50
Review
*The Fee Schedule for Modified Site Plan Review applies only to modifications
to the approved site plan that do not trigger reconsideration of the
determination of environmental significance. Modifications that require
additional environmental review shall follow the fee schedule for Full Site Plan
Review .
B. Payment of Fees. For site plan review projects that require a use or area
variance from the BZA, 50% of the fee is due at the time of application and 50%
is due after the Planning Board completes environmental review. For all other
projects, the full fee is due at the time of application.
C. For all government projects and projects that fit the description in Section 276-
3A(2), the site plan review fee shall be waived.
§ 276-9. Performance guaranty.
No certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion shall be issued until all
improvements required by site plan approval are installed, and including any conditions
placed on such approval are fulfilled, or until a sufficient guaranty, in the form of a
performance bond, letter of credit or other security, is in place. The Building
Commissioner shall be responsible for the overall inspection of site improvements.
§ 276-10. Expiration of approval; extension of approval. [Amended 12-12-2001 by
Ord. No. 2001-12]
If the construction of a development has not commenced within two years of the date of
the site plan approval, such approval shall expire, unless an extension has been
granted by the Board following a written request by the applicant. An application for an
extension of SPR approval shall not be considered a new SPR application. This
regulation does not apply to government projects and projects that fit the description in
Section 276-3A(2).
§ 276-11. Enforcement; inspections; penalties for offenses.
Development projects may be periodically inspected for conformance to the approved
site plan, including the maintenance of the viability of the planting required as part of the
site plan approval. If there is nonconformance, or if any conditions of SPR approval are
not fulfilled, no certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion shall be issued.
Where a development reverts to nonconformance after the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or certificate of completion, current owners of the development shall be
notified, in writing, and given the opportunity to correct the situation. If the Director
determines that the corrective measures are inadequate, the city shall implement any
necessary changes to the site to bring it into conformance, the cost of which shall be
charged to the property owner. In addition, a fine of $50/day may be imposed for any
violations of the provisions of this chapter or of any conditions imposed by a permit
issued pursuant to site plan approval. Development projects shall be inspected at least
once two years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of
completion.
§ 276-12. Appeals.
A. The determination (by the Building Commissioner) of whether a development
proposal is subject to SPR may be appealed to the Board within 30 days of the
written notification that SPR is required.
B. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director may appeal to the Board.
C. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board, or any officer or agency of the
city, regarding SPR, may apply to the Supreme Court for review by a proceeding
under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
§ 276-13. Severability.
If any section, paragraph or provision of this chapter shall be determined to be invalid,
such invalidity shall apply only to the section, paragraph or provision adjudged invalid,
and the rest of this chapter shall remain valid and effective.
Section 6: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
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
Back-Up Item 10.1
'yc�9PORIITE�����
To: Common Council
From: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner
Date: July 19, 2013
Re: Revised Proposed Minor Non-Substantive Site Plan Review Ordinance
Amendment
On November 7, 2012, Common Council adopted a revised Site Plan Review
Ordinance. Mistakenly, the newly adopted ordinance omitted a section regarding
required bike parking regulations and landscaping in parking areas (that had been
added in 2010, and have been enforced since that time). Enclosed, please find a
revised draft ordinance that incorporates the mistakenly omitted language .
The City attorney has advised that the Site Plan Review Ordinance may be clarified to
re-incorporate the bike parking and landscaping language that was never intended to be
deleted. Given that the intention of the ordinance includes mandated provisions for bike
parking and parking lot landscaping, and that omitted regulations are currently being
enforced through the site plan review process, the City attorney has advised that this is
a non substantive change and can be put through an expedited process. The expedited
process requires action by the Common Council, but does not require an environmental
review or a public hearing.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6557.
14. INDIVIDUAL MEMBER— FILED RESOLUTION:
14.1 Alderperson Mohlenhoff- Support for the Application of Grant Monies to
Continue Restoration of the Large Pavilion located in Stewart Park as outlined in
Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan — Resolution
WHEREAS, Julie Conley Holcomb, duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Ithaca, New
York, does hereby certify that the following resolution was adopted by the regular
meeting of the Common Council held on August 7, 2013, and is on file and of record,
and that said resolution has not been altered, amended, or revoked and is in full force
and effect, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Stephen Nann, as Building Maintenance & Solid Waste Supervisor of
the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, is hereby authorized and directed to file
an application for funds from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation in accordance with the provision of Title 9 of the Environmental
Protection Act of 1993 or the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,
in an amount not to exceed $ , and upon approval of said request to enter into
and execute a project agreement with the State for such financial assistance to the City
of Ithaca for improvements to Large Pavilion in Stewart Park which will allow for
increased access, usage, and efficiency, as well as an addition to enhance accessibility
for the day camp and rentals as further detailed in the grant application.
15. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
15. Appointments to Various City Board and Committees
15.1 Board of Zoning Appeals — Resolution
RESOLVED, That Jesse Hill be appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further
15.2 Conservation Advisory Council — Resolution
RESOLVED, That Maureen J. Bolton be appointed to the Conservation Advisory
Council to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Augusta Christensen be appointed to the Conservation Advisory
Council to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Noah Demarest be appointed to the Conservation Advisory Council
to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Matthew Yarrow be appointed to the Conservation Advisory Council
to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further
15.3 Examining Board of Electricians — Resolution
RESOLVED, That Richard J. Srnka be appointed to the Examining Board of Electricians
to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
15.4 Housing Board of Review— Resolution
RESOLVED, That Joseph Steuer be appointed to the Housing Board of Review to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further
RESOLVED, That William Olney be appointed to the Housing Board of Review to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
15.5 Rental Housing Advisory Commission — Resolution
RESOLVED, That Julie L. Paige be appointed to the Rental Housing Advisory
Commission to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2015.
15.6 Youth Bureau Advisory Board — Resolution
RESOLVED, That Augusta Christensen be appointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory
Board to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Dipayan Ghosh be appointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory Board to
fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Caitlin Moss be appointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory Board to fill
a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014.