Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-10 Planning & EDC Meeting Agenda MEETING NOTICE City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, April 21, 2010 – 7:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street A. Agenda Review B. Special Order of Business C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members D. Announcements, Updates and Reports 1. Building Department Quarterly Report (memo) 2. Dredging Report from Board of Public Works 3. Collegetown Zoning and Transportation Update 4. Skate Park Improvements E. Potential Action Items 1. Proposal to Rezone Selected R-3 Areas to R-3aa (materials to follow) F. Discussion Items 1. Rear Yard Setback Amendment for Consistency – Ordinance (memo, SEAF form and checklist, ordinance) 2. Regulation of Chickens and Other Urban Livestock (two memos) G. Approval of Minutes – August 20, 2008 H. Adjournment Questions about the agenda should be directed to Jennifer Dotson, Chairperson, (jdotson@cityofithaca.org or 351-5458) or to the appropriate staff person at the Department of Planning & Development (274-6550). Back-up material is available in the office of the Department of Planning & Development. Please note that the order of agenda items is tentative and subject to change. If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, April 20, 2009. Memorandum To: Planning Committee From: Phyllis Radke Date: April 9, 2010 Re: April 21 Quarterly Report Building Department’s Report to the Planning Committee April 21, 2010 As you know, the Mayor has devised a system so that every 3 or 4 months Department Heads have to report to either the Planning Committee or the City Administration Committee. This gives Department Heads the opportunity to discuss a number of concerns ranging from their day-to-day operations, to proposals for new programs, to discussing difficulties enforcing particular ordinances that fall within the scope of their Department’s work. This month I am scheduled to talk to the Planning Committee. During this meeting I want to talk to members about the requirements of posting abandoned buildings as “unsafe.” In the meantime, because my time will be limited on April 21st, I am hoping that everyone will read the following report. Then, during my report, I can show photographs of abandoned buildings in the City and discuss how these buildings are hazardous to people and pose a threat to neighboring properties. My discussion concerns Ordinance 146-9, Unsafe Buildings and the requirement of the Building Commissioner to post these buildings and then Order the property owner to repair or demolish the “unsafe” structure. If a property owner fails to respond to my Order or fails to appeal my Order, I am to give the information to Bill Gray, and he is supposed to arrange the demolition or repair of the “unsafe” building. Though we can put the fees for conducting hazardous material surveys, abating asbestos, and demolishing the building on the owner’s taxes, the City must have money set aside for the City to take on this work. This report on abandoned houses is about the need for Council to set aside money so that most dilapidated and dangerous buildings in our Community can be demolished if an owner refuses to take care of the building within a specified period of time. The Building Department’s Attempt to Enforce City Ordinance, Section 146-9, Unsafe Buildings For as long as I have been working for the Building Department, enforcing Section 146-9, Unsafe Buildings, has been very difficult. One reason is that it is often hard to find the owners of these buildings because frequently they reside out-of-town and my registered “Order Letter” goes unanswered. Furthermore, creating accusatory instruments are labor intensive and time consuming for the Building Department and our part-time Prosecuting Attorney and judgment against the owner frequently only allows us to lien the property. I only remember three occasions over a period of 19 years, where the City actually demolished or was prepared to hire a contractor to demolish an unsafe building. In these cases, I believe either the Building Commissioner or the Superintendent of Public Works had to ask Council for the estimated amount of money so that the City could demolish the “unsafe” building. When the Building Department sends an Order letter to the owner of an unsafe building, the letter states that if the owner does not repair or demolish the building, then the City can do the work for them at direct cost plus an additional 50% for administration. This threat used to have the amazing effect of bringing the owner into the Building Department to start negotiating on what had to be done. However, we now have a number of unsafe buildings that the City may ultimately have to remove, but the cost of the demolition of these buildings is not in the City’s budget. This compounds the likelihood that these owners will completely ignore my letters. If the City fails to use its legal ability to do the work for recalcitrant owners, there will be nothing in my limited arsenal to make these owners comply. This means that such unsafe buildings will become a greater hazard and blight to the neighborhood because through obsolesce; the elements will continue eroding the building’s fabric and destroying structural elements that will ultimately lead to an unplanned collapse of the building. D1 Abandoned Buildings Page 2 When an owner of an “unsafe” building does not comply with the requirements of my Order letter or when the property owner does not appeal my decision to the Building Code Board of Appeals (BCBA) within 5 days of the receipt of the Order, I am required to inform the Superintendent of Public Works to make repairs or remove the building and charge the owner for the work plus 50% for administrative costs. Posting a building as “unsafe” and then not carrying out the requirements of the City Code puts the City in a very precarious situation because the posting and letter are an acknowledgement that the building is dangerous. Posting a building as “unsafe” and then not carrying out what is required under the City Code seems to set the City up as a responsible party should anyone be injured or another property be damaged because of the City’s failure to remedy the unsafe conditions. Over the past few years, the Building Department has been bringing this situation, (that the City does not have money set aside to remove these unsafe buildings) to the attention of various Ad Hoc committees. Initial discussions about the Building Department’s enforcement troubles with the City Ordinance concerning “unsafe” abandoned houses were first held at policy meetings concerning the Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance. Last year, I again tried to stir interest in this matter by holding several meetings regarding abandoned buildings. The intent was that City staff would learn where their responsibility was in taking care of these unsafe buildings. I invited City staff, including the City Attorney and the Mayor and Council members with vested interest in these buildings. With the recommendation of the Attorney’s Office, I also submitted a Capital Project request asking for money so that the City could demolish “unsafe” buildings when necessary. Unfortunately my request was denied. Regardless, we continued to meet and continued to explore other mechanisms to pay for demolishing unsafe buildings, such as funding the demolition through grants obtained through the IURA. Though the “Abandoned Building Committee” was successful in bringing those departments together that have responsibilities once I post a building as “unsafe” and the owner does not comply with my Order letter, we did not resolve how to pay for abatement surveys, asbestos removal and building demolition if the City needs to carry out the removal of an unsafe building, or if the City chooses to bid this work out to a private contractor. At our last meeting at the end of 2009, I was left with the mission of having to prove to Council that funds must be set aside so that the Building Department can post “unsafe” buildings, and the City would have the money set aside to remove such buildings if necessary as required by City Ordinance. My intent, therefore, is to show members of the Planning Committee some photographs of some of the unsafe and/or abandoned building that can be found in neighborhoods throughout the City. I intend to expand my discussion with the City Administration Committee in May and bring up the amount of money that should be set aside. It is my hope that the City Administration will support my request in May so that the matter can be voted on in June by Common Council. Section 146-9 Unsafe Building Regulations It is important to understand what Section 146-9 of the City Code requires from various departments and what is the City’s obligation when a building has been posted by the Building Commissioner as “unsafe”. First of all, “unsafe” in terms of this ordinance means that a building or structure is structurally unsound, unsanitary, or that it constitutes a fire hazard, is dangerous to human life or is a hazard to health and safety, as a result of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, or abandonment. By our Ordinance then, “unsafe” has a rather broad meaning. An unsafe building is not just one that is structurally unsound, but like some of the buildings throughout the City, it includes those buildings that can no longer be secured so that openings provide adults, teenagers, and children a good place to play, hide, or sleep, and/or drink or use drugs; and independent of the conditions outdoors, is also a good place to start a fire and to burn combustible materials. Some of the buildings on our list have collapsed roofs, walls, or foundations. Some are only partially dilapidated. For the most part, if someone trespasses on these properties, there is a good possibility that they will be injured. These unsafe properties can also put neighboring properties in jeopardy if the unsafe building collapses onto neighboring buildings or properties, or if an unsafe building is set on fire and the fire spreads to nearby buildings. Abandoned Buildings Page 3 Section 146-9 states that as Building Commissioner, I am obligated to Order by registered mail, the owner of an unsafe, abandoned building, telling them that because of their property’s condition it must be repaired or demolished. I am also required to post the building as “unsafe.” If the building is occupied and the building or portion of the building is in danger of collapse or failure so as to endanger life, I am also required to Order the inhabitants to vacate the building. In cases where I find a building to be in eminent danger of collapse, I am required to promptly cause the building or structure to be removed. For this reason alone, the City should have funds available so that buildings in eminent danger of collapse can be immediately demolished. Provisions are made under Section 146-9 that the owner of a posted building can appeal the Order of the Commissioner to the Building Code Board of Appeals (BCBA). (This Board assists the building Department by hearing appeals from property owners receiving Order Letters to comply with the City’s Building Code, or requests for variances from the State Building Construction Code, in effect from 1958-1984, and the Multiple Residence Law.) In the event that no hearing is requested or that the BCBA finds in favor of the Building Commissioner, The Superintendent of Public Works is required to cause the repair or removal of the unsafe building. After the work has been completed, the Superintendent of Public Works must then file with the City Chamberlain’s office a verified statement of all direct costs, together with a charge of 50% in addition, as compensation for administration, supervising and handling of work. Upon the receipt of this statement, the Chamberlain must enter a lien against the premise and must add the same to the next assessment roll, plus 12% interest per year for the direct costs, together with 50% for administration, supervision and handling the work, and must enter a judgment against the owner for the removal of the building. The Building Department also has leverage in that City Codes allowing charges to be filed against the owner in City Court, with fines established for all housing and building violations, and for failing to obey the Order of the Commissioner, these fines being between $250 and $500 a day each and every day the violation(s) continue. While I cannot start fining the property owner until I send an Order Letter and the owner fails to comply within the time period established in the Order, a fine for 90 days could range from $22,500 to $45,000. If a judgment is reached against the owner, the only way the owner may be able to pay for such fines is to give the property to the City in lieu of cash. Then again, the Prosecutor may be asked to settle with the owner. Any settlement could be established to not be less than the cost of demolition and prosecution plus an additional 50% for administration and enforcement. During the Abandoned Houses Committee meetings we discussed implementing these proceeding with the City Prosecutor, with him immediately taking action against owners who fail to comply with my Order Letters by filing charges against them in City Court. I can also file a notice in the County Clerk’s Office which will impede the owner’s ability to transfer a good title to, or interest in, the posted property. This means that when litigation is pending, any potential buyer of the posted property will be given notice that action has been brought against the property owner, and that the City will seek a judgment affecting the title of the property. As a result of filing this notice, anyone who purchases the posted property will be bound by any judgment against the former owner, and by all proceedings taken in action by the Order Letter after such filing. Still, the fact remains that if the City does not use every measure available to it by Ordinance to bring the owners of these unsafe buildings into compliance, the City is open to being sued by anyone injured by these buildings as a result of entering the building or from being struck by falling shingles, boards, or glass. The City may also find itself responsible for damage sustained by neighboring properties as a result of an unplanned collapse or from a fire starting in one of these buildings. There is no question that abandoned and unsafe buildings are an attractive nuisance, providing adults and juveniles the opportunity to start fires, and dangerous places for children to play. In the meantime, these buildings are responsible for developing a blighting appearance in a neighborhood that tends to spread, and lowers the value of nearby homes. It is my hope that after seeing the pictures of these buildings in our community, Council members will be ready to vote to set aside money as a precaution, in case in case it must demolish or repair these unsafe buildings as is required under City Codes Section 146-9. Hopefully, if the City ends up actually having to do this work, it will be recouped by fining the owners or by acquiring the properties and selling them to recoup costs. Date: April 2, 2009 To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner Memorandum Please consider the following requests to eliminate two sections of the Zoning Ordinance and to amend the District Regulation Chart. The first proposal is to eliminate Section 325-18 C., Reduction in Rear Yards. This Section, as written, is in conflict with the District Regulations Chart and under certain cases renders an ambiguous requirement and becomes unenforceable. The second request is to delete Section 325-8 B (7), as well as deletion of note #8 in the District Regulations Chart. This section and note require all districts where a multiple dwelling is a primary use to have rear yards with a 20 foot depth. This requirement was put in the Zoning Ordinance at a time when the Building Code required multiple dwellings to have a minimum rear yard of 20 feet. Recent revisions to the Building Code have made this regulation unnecessary. Proposal 1 Rear yard regulations for each zoning district are found on the back of the District Regulation Chart including the required depth of any rear yard in any use district. Other regulations that apply are found in the Zoning Ordinance under Sections 325-8 A. (14), Rear Yard Dimensions and 325-18 C., Reduction in Rear Yards. There is also a note #8 found in the District Regulations Chart and in the Zoning Ordinance under 325-8 B.(7) that specifically pertains to rear yards when a multiple dwelling is the primary use. The current problem we are having enforcing these regulations is that Section 325-18 C.,Reduction in Rear Yards, was written before the CBD, U-1, and WEDZ zones were written. The CBD zone and WEDZ zone allow rear yards to be a minimum of 10 feet. The U-1 zone has no rear yard requirement. Section 325-18 C. requires the minimum rear yard for lots less than 100 feet deep to be 20 feet. While this Section exempts some zones that have minimum rear yard requirements that are less than 20 feet such as B1, B-2, the WF and P zone where the minimum rear yards are 15 or 10 feet, it does not exclude the CBD and WEDZ zones that also allow rear yards to be a minimum of 10 feet under the District Regulations Chart. Another problem with Section 325-18 C. is that what it says it allows is complicated to deduce. Clearly the intent of this section is to allow those lots that have less than 100 feet a smaller rear yard than otherwise required. For example, a 100 foot lot in a R2b zone must have a rear yard that is at least 50 feet or 25% of the length of the lot whichever is less. According to Section 325-18 C., when lots are less than 100 feet “… [the] rear yard requirement may be decreased ¼ of the distance that the lot is less than 100 feet” but then it states it cannot be less than 20 feet. So in order to apply this requirement to a 90 foot lot in a R2b zone, the applicant must first apply the District Regulation Chart’s requirements. In a R2b zone the rear yard must be 50 feet or 25% of the lot depth whichever is least; therefore 25% of 90 feet is 22.5 feet. Applying 325-19 C. allows this 90 foot parcel to take ¼ the distance it is less than 100 feet and subtract this from the otherwise 22.5 foot rear yard requirement. One fourth of 10 feet is 2.5 feet. This means that a 90 foot lot in a R2b zone can have a rear yard of 20 feet. Since Section 325-18 C. has a minimum of a 20 foot rear yard attached to the provision that allows small lots to reduce their size, the only lots that gain from this provision in the Code are lots that are less than 100 feet but at least 80 feet in zones that allow rear yards to be 25% of the depth of the lot. It also excludes zones such as the R3 and RU zone that allows rear yards to be 20% of the lot’s length because 20% of 100 feet is 20 feet and 20 feet is the smallest reduction. Generally the public is not aware of the exemption allowed under 325-18 C. because the Zoning Ordinance in general is not user friendly and similar requirements such as all regulations pertaining to rear yards cannot be found in one location. The problem that currently exists resulted when the new zones were created after 325- 18 C. was already part of the Zoning Ordinance. Apparently, writers of these later zoning districts were not aware of rear yard reduction allowances and the need to exempt any zone they created that allows rear yards to be less than 20 feet F1a deep from 325-18 C. Another issue is that even if a person can understand how to apply this regulation, there seems to be relatively few times this section is actually applicable to any property. I discussed this issue with Jennifer Dotson, Dan Hoffman and Jennifer Kusznir, and we agreed to suggest that this Section be deleted from the Zoning Ordinance and that zones that do not have a minimum rear yard size expressly written under our District Regulations Chart be changed so that all other residential districts have a minimum rear yard of 20 feet and all other commercial districts have a minimum of 10 feet. Since Section 325-18 C. now causes a contradiction as to how to regulate the CBD, U-1, and WEDZ zones where the minimum rear yard is 10 feet and the U-1 zone where there is no rear yard requirement, I am hopeful that the Committee will consider remedying this flaw in the Zoning Ordinance in this way. If the Committee does not find our proposal workable, it is our sincere hope that a solution will be created and adopted as expeditiously as possible that will amend this existing problem. Proposal 2 There is another item associated with requirements for rear yards that needs to be deleted from the District Regulations Chart and from the Zoning Ordinance. This is General Note number 8 which states “In All districts where multiple dwellings are permitted, each multiple dwelling shall be required to have a rear yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth.(this requirement has been imposed so that these structures comply with the New York State Uniform Fire and Building Code.”) Recently, the New York State Uniform Fire and Building Code was completely rewritten and the code requirement above is no longer a requirement under New York State’s new Building and Fire Codes. Regulations requiring sprinklers in buildings and restrictions in openings on exterior walls facing lot lines have taken the place of the 20 foot rear yard depth formerly required. Deleting General Note #8 means that notes #9, 10, 11, and 12 will be renumbered in order to maintain the number sequence. This note can also be found in the Zoning Ordinance under Section 325-8 B. (7). It must be removed from the Zoning Ordinance and Section 325-8 B. will also need to be renumbered so that the existing number 8 will become 7 and 9 will become 8. Enclosed please find a draft ordinance containing these proposed changes. An environmental assessment of this action has been completed and the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) is enclosed. If the committee is in agreement staff will circulate the draft ordinance and SEAF and return in May with any comments that have been received. CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. 1. Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca 2. Project Name: Proposal to Amend Chapter 325-18c and 325-8b rear yard requirements 3. Project Location: NA 4. Is Proposed Action: New Expansion Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: The proposed action is an amendment to 325-18C of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “Reductions in Rear Yards” is hereby deleted because it is in conflict with the City District Regulations Chart. As well as, to eliminate Chapter 325-8B(7)entitled “General Notes Pertaining to Regulations” is hereby deleted. 6. Precise Location (Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc. or provide map) NA 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially _____NA__ Acres Ultimately _NA__ Acres 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes No If No, describe briefly: Proposed Action is the modification of an R-3b zoning district 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: Residential Industrial Agricultural Parkland/Open Space Commercial Other _________________ Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency (Federal, State or Local): Yes No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Common Council Adoption 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? Yes No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? Yes No Proposal is the modification of an existing zoning district. I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: ______________________________ DATE: 10/26/2005 PREPARER'S TITLE: Economic Development Planner__________ REPRESENTING: __City of Ithaca_________________________ F1b SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information To Be Completed By Staff In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. Name of Project: Proposal to Amend Chapter 325-18c and 325-8b rear yard requirements Yes No 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than one acre of land? 2. Will there be a change to a unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by local/state agency? 3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? 5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? 6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? 8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community: 9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? 11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? 13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? 14. Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period OR have a negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? If any question has been answered YES, a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: _Jennifer Kusznir_______________________DATE: 4/13/2010_ PREPARER'S TITLE: __Economic Development Planner______________ REPRESENTING: _____City of Ithaca_____________________________ F1c 01/20/05 An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Correct Inconsistencies Within the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING” TO CORRECT INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-18C of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “Reductions in Rear Yards” is hereby deleted because it is in conflict with the City District Regulations Chart. Section 2. Chapter 325-8B(7) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “General Notes Pertaining to Regulations” is hereby deleted. Recent revisions to the Building Code have made this regulation unnecessary. Section 2. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. F1d CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Daniel L. Hoffman, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504 Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507 Khandikile M. Sokoni, Assistant City Attorney Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant TO: Jennifer Dotson, Chairperson of Planning & Economic Development Committee FROM: Daniel L. Hoffman, City Attorney DATE: April 8, 2010 RE: Regulation of Animals (Other Than “Pets”) in the City Last year, you asked the Attorney’s Office to conduct some research into the issue of the regulation of the keeping of animals (for food production) in cities, especially chickens. Currently, Chapter 164 of Ithaca’s Municipal Code (“Dogs and Other Animals”) provides as follows: §164-2. Keeping of animals restricted. A. Prohibition. No person shall keep, pasture, breed, raise, harbor, stable or maintain any bees, poultry, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese or any other fowl or reptiles or any swine, horses, cows, mules, sheep, goats or any other animals, except domesticated pets, within the City. B. Exception. This section shall not apply to any educational, scientific or research institution maintaining, with adequate safeguards as to public health, safety, comfort and convenience, any animals or other creatures for scientific, medical or other research purposes. The definition of “domesticated pets” (from Section 164-1) is: Any animals, birds, reptiles or fish customarily kept in the home or place of residence which are not vicious, dangerous or otherwise obnoxious, objectionable or offensive. I asked an intern in our office, last year, to research the topic, and he produced the attached memo, which seems quite thorough (although I should note that Clay Walthall was not a law student when he worked for us). I do not agree, however, with his statement that the exception in Ithaca’s current ordinance for “domesticated pets” could (reasonably) be interpreted to apply to “a well-kept, small backyard flock of hens.” There were about 25 pages of attachments to the intern’s memo, describing debates and regulations in many other cities. We will scan those and make copies available on request. In summary, it appears that there is a recent trend in a number of U.S. cities toward allowing chickens (and, in some cases, bees, and/or certain other animals more typically associated with farms or rural areas) to be raised and kept in urban areas, for the various reasons cited in the memo. Different communities have attached varying conditions and limitations to their permitting of this activity. It is my understanding that this issue will appear on the Committee agenda in some form (possibly just a report), on April 21st. If the committee is interested in pursuing it further, our office is prepared to offer legal advice and assistance as needed. Cc: Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning & Development Other P&ED Committee members F2 City of Ithaca MEETING NOTICE Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, August 20, 2008 – 7:30 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Eric Rosario, Vice Chair; Dan Cogan; Jennifer Dotson; and Svante Myrick Committee Members Absent: None Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Carolyn Peterson (arrived at 8:05 p.m.); Alderperson Maria Coles City Staff Attending: Leslie Chatterton, Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner; JoAnn Cornish, Acting Director, Department of Planning & Development; Megan Gilbert, Planner; Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant; Dan Hoffman, City Attorney; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner; Lisa Nicholas, Planner Chair Mary Tomlan called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. B. Agenda Review Tomlan noted that no department quarterly report was scheduled for this month, but that the Building Department report would be presented in October. C. Special Order of Business: None D. Public Comment, and Response from Committee Members Jean McPheeters, President of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, spoke against the extension of the moratorium, doubting that another four months would allow completion of the work, while continuing to stop economic development. She called for more opportunities for public input. Pierre Clavel, a city planner and resident of Cornell Street, stated that the process and the plan were not reasonably consistent with the best practices of city planning. He stressed the importance of looking beyond one focused area to all areas in the city, noting that the Collegetown plan would have consequences for City finances and for downtown. G Stu Stein, who taught city planning for 31 years and was a former chair of the Planning & Development Board, stressed the complexity of the Collegetown plan and of implementing it through zoning and parking changes. He urged those involved to take time to pay careful attention to details. Fran Helmstadter, a Cornell Street resident, said that she was shocked to read the newspaper headline [Ithaca Journal, August 20] about the approval of the Collegetown urban plan. She stated that there has been almost no discussion of the plan by the [Bryant Park/Belle Sherman] neighborhood, and that parking, density and noise needed to be discussed, not just building heights. Matoula Halkiopoulos, a landlord in Collegetown, said that the proposed 90’ height would favor four or five Collegetown landlords and Cornell University but not the smaller landlords. She noted the concentration of students living on Linden Avenue and the need there for parking. Greg Halkiopoulos identified himself as one of the smaller scale of landlords owning property in Collegetown. He expressed concern that 90% of the conversation about the plan had been focused on the 400 block of College Avenue and the 200 block of Dryden Road—only two blocks within Collegetown. There had been little attention given to the needs of Linden Avenue. Edward Weissman, a resident of Delaware Avenue, predicted that continued development of the plan would result in high-rise buildings and greater congestion, damaging existing neighborhoods. He said that increased City tax revenue would not help when residential neighborhoods were being diminished, and he urged that neighborhoods be looked at first. Fay Gougakis, a City of Ithaca resident, stated her opposition to the plan. In referring to its transportation component, she called for bicycle racks in new developments, for Cornell University to prohibit freshmen students from bringing cars to campus and for improved TCAT service. Joel Harlan of Newfield said that the City was stalling and wasting money with regard to the plan, and advocated lifting the moratorium. Ken Carrier, a resident of the Belle Sherman area, said that he became disillusioned with the planning project while attending meetings of the Collegetown Vision Task Force. He felt there was too much emphasis on supporting Collegetown businesses, noting that farmers and fishermen adapt to seasonal conditions and Collegetown businesspersons should as well. Randy Murphy, owner of the Tile House, said that the Collegetown moratorium had hurt his business, and should not be extended. He said that Collegetown was what it was, and should be allowed to continue to grow. In response to Gougakis’s comments, Jennifer Dotson stated that she and Dan Cogan were both on the TCAT board, and also noted that she was Executive Director of Ithaca Carshare. Svante Myrick stated he felt there was balanced representation on the Collegetown committees. Maria Coles expressed her concerns about the dichotomy between the residential and business communities, and about the cost of parking system management and equipment. Tomlan said that she thought the Collegetown meetings were well publicized in the community and well attended. There had been two presentations to the Bryant Park Civic Association. She said that the Collegetown Vision Implementation Committee meeting and vote reported on in the August 20 Ithaca Journal article would be discussed later in the committee meeting. D. Announcements, Updates and Reports: 1. Southwest Urban Neighborhood Lisa Nicholas reported that the contract for Phase II of the Environmental Site Assessment is currently under review by the attorney’s office. This phase was expected to have a 16-week timeframe. Concerns include the use of the site by the Department of Public Works. 2. Dredging Project Nicholas referred to the August 2008 chart that was distributed in the meeting agenda packet, noting various work items and their status. She said that the project’s advisory group was scheduled to meet in mid-September to review the proposed City website and determine its launch date. 3. Clinton West Plaza Eric Rosario reported that about 30-40 persons had attended a meeting the past Monday on the environmental investigation of Clinton West Plaza, where chemicals associated with dry cleaning had been found. The property owner and engineers reported on their recent tests of indoor air quality and noted, in response to questions from those present, that further testing of soil and ground water to determine the extent of contamination was ongoing. In response to a question from JoAnn Cornish, Rosario said that no timeline had been determined for the provision of further data, but did note the posting of information regarding the meeting and investigations on the City website under “News.” 4. Proposed Revision of City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 176, “Environmental Quality Review,” regarding greenhouse gas emissions Dotson reported that the State was tackling this topic as was the City, and anticipated that new State forms would be out in September. Cornish pointed out that the City form was modeled after the State form. 5. Ithaca Commons Redesign Jennifer Kusznir reported that the Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) had been sent out to about 25 firms and was also posted on the City website. The 8-member selection committee charged with reviewing the proposals was expected to make a recommendation to the Common Council in October or November. Coles inquired about the cost of this project, and Kusznir said that figures weren’t available. Rosario questioned whether there was a way to repair the utility pipes without a total redesign or construction. Cornish pointed out that the RFQ anticipates a consultant team with a strong engineering component in order to assess such approaches. 6. City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Megan Gilbert reported that the Planning & Development Board had appointed and charged the City’s Comprehensive Planning Committee at its July meeting. In proposing the committee’s 22 members, the pre-planning committee and planning department staff had made an effort to identify persons who were not currently involved with other City boards and committees but who have had an active role in the neighborhoods. E. Action Items: 1. Collegetown Urban Plan, Design Guidelines, and Zoning Amendments a) Update: Leslie Chatterton referred to her August 14 memo distributed with the agenda packets, which outlined the work done on the plan to date. She noted that the most recent draft of the Goody Clancy-proposed urban plan and design guidelines has been on the City website since June. In reviewing the work of the Collegetown Vision Implementation Committee (CVIC), Chatterton reported on votes taken at two of its recent meetings. When the committee voted solely on the consultant-proposed 90’ height for the center of Collegetown, it approved the 90’ by a 9-7 vote, with the 9 being primarily the business owners and the 7 being the residents. Concern was expressed by the Cornell University representative on the committee about the closeness of the vote, Cornell having been an active participant in the process and having provided half of the funding for the consultants. At a subsequent committee meeting, a vote on whether the Goody Clancy plan was reasonably consistent with the endorsed vision for Collegetown was 11-2. There was agreement among the group to discuss different options to the proposed height maximum. Another meeting would take place in a couple of weeks to discuss these options. The proposals laid out in the CVIC meeting of August 19 would be sent to Goody Clancy for feedback, as well as to Code Studio, the firm contracted to prepare the zoning code. Goody Clancy stated they could focus on other areas of the plan besides the height issue. Chatterton noted that the transportation component of the plan would have to be addressed as well. In response to a question from Cogan about the cost of implementing the parking measures, she said that the major cost would be for the pay stations, which would replace the existing meters and permit the addition of time from remote locations via the use of a cell phone. The goal was to have 80% or more of the on-street parking in use, and the pay stations would give a better analysis of how the parking was used and the revenue generated. b) Proposed Extension of the Temporary Collegetown Moratorium: Chatterton presented the proposal for a 4-month extension of the current 12-month temporary moratorium, set to expire in October. Such an extension would provide for the completion and enactment of zoning (including design review) and transportation system legislation pertaining to components of the proposed urban plan, assuring that future Collegetown development was consistent with the plan. The Committee then reviewed the Collegetown Meeting Schedule that was distributed. Dan Hoffman commented on the extension of the moratorium, noting that before a proposed urban plan, design guidelines and zoning amendments could be voted on, the action needed to be defined and an environmental review undertaken. The amount of time required in that process would prohibit its completion in time for the October Common Council meeting. Myrick, the Vice-Chair of the CVIC, briefly reviewed the plan and the different zones involved. The committee gave its approval for the circulation of the memo and draft ordinance. (Cogan left the meeting.) 2. Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund Chatterton presented two applications for reimbursement grants from the City’s Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund, explaining that the planning committee had authorization to approve grants for expenditures that fall within the fund’s guidelines. The applicants, the Titus Towers Tenant Council and the Ithaca Housing Authority (Northside) Family Sites Tenant Council, were requesting reimbursement for their expenditures in conjunction with their organizations’ events held on the August 5 National Night Out. On a motion by Rosario, seconded by Dotson, the committee unanimously approved the following resolution (4-0): Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds by the Titus Towers Tenant Council and the Ithaca Housing Authority (Northside) Family Sites Tenant Council, August 2008 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents’ interest in community improvement and to encourage, not replace, volunteerism, and WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few residents, and WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places, and organizing neighborhood events like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve applications to the Environmental and Neighborhood Quality Committee [or a successor committee], and WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities, and WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and WHEREAS, the Titus Towers Tenant Council and Ithaca Housing Authority (“IHA”) (Northside) Family Sites Tenant Council have submitted completed applications for reimbursement funds to offset expenses that in past years have generally ranged from $400--$650 for the annual National Night Out event, held this year on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, and WHEREAS, while these annual events are sponsored by the Titus Towers Tenant Council and the IHA (Northside) Family Sites Tenant Council, notice is circulated throughout the neighborhood and the events provide opportunities for socializing with diverse groups of Southside and Northside residents; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning & Economic Development Committee approves the two requests from the Titus Towers Tenant Council and the IHA (Northside) Family Sites Tenant Council, each in an amount up to $300.00 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts. 3. An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to amend Section 325-3 (“Definitions”) and Section 325-20 (“Off-street parking”) Kusznir reviewed the proposed amendments, dated 8/13/2008, noting that this draft was largely the same as that presented at the committee’s July meeting but that it tracked the changes from the existing ordinance. She highlighted some of those changes, such as those that made the screening of parking areas in residential districts applicable to areas “with the capacity for three or more parking spaces” compared to the existing and less restrictive language that referred to areas “that park a total of four or more cars.” In addition, Kusznir pointed out two changes from the draft presented in July—the stipulation that required dimensioned plans submitted for a building permit to be drawn to scale—325- 20.C.(1)(a)—and the deletion of a reference to the number of parking spaces required in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts—325-20.C.(3)(a). The committee gave its approval for the circulation of the proposed ordinance. F. Minutes: On a motion by Myrick, seconded by Rosario, the February 20, 2008 committee meeting minutes were unanimously approved. G. Adjournment On a motion by Dotson, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.