HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-10 Planning & EDC Meeting Agenda
MEETING NOTICE
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
A. Agenda Review
B. Special Order of Business
1. Public Hearing on Rear Yard Setback Consistency Ordinance
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports
1. Department of Planning and Development Quarterly Report
(to be discussed later with F1)
2. Report on Disposition of Certain Abandoned Buildings
(proposal going to City Administration)
3. Update on Skate Park Improvement Project Progress
4. Dredging Report from Board of Public Works
E. Potential Action Items
1. Rear Yard Setback Consistency Ordinance
(memo, lead agency resolution, negative declaration of environmental significance
resolution, short environmental assessment form, ordinance enclosed)
2. Circulation of Proposal to Rezone Selected R-3 Areas to R-3aa, R-2c, and R-2b
(staff memo, three ordinances, four maps, environmental review documents, and
committee member memo enclosed)
3. Possible Extension of Fencing on Bridges past June 4
(materials to follow from Mayor’s office)
F. Discussion Items
1. Department of Planning and Development 2010 Priority Projects and Workplan
(document attached enclosed)
G. Approval of Minutes – September 17, 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 contact the
City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 18, 2010.
E1a
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: May 5, 2010
RE: Proposal to Amend Chapter 325 of the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of Ithaca
in Order To Correct Inconsistencies Pertaining to Rear Yard Requirements
At the April Planning Committee meeting the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance in o rder to correct
inconsistencies regarding rear yard requirements was discussed and staff was directed to circulate the environmental
review that was prepared for this amendment. At the committee’s request, the environmental review of this action
has been circulated to the Planning Board, the Conservation Advisory Council, various City staff and departments,
and the Tompkins County Planning Department. Comments have not yet been received regarding this proposal.
Enclosed for your consideration are draft resolutions for lead agency and environmental significance as well as the
draft ordinance. If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at
274-6410.
E1b
Draft Resolution
May 7, 2010
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To
Correct Inconsistencies Regarding Rear Yard Requirements — Declaration of Lead Agency for
Environmental Review
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be
that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an “Unlisted” Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality
Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the
environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance to amend the Municipal Zoning Code in or der to correct
inconsistencies pertaining to rear yard requirements.
E1c
Draft Resolution
May 5, 2010
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To
Correct Inconsistencies Regarding Rear Yard Requirements — Declaration of Lead Agency for
Environmental Review — Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal Zoning Code in order
to correct inconsistencies pertaining to the rear yard requirements., and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to
§239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county
or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also
been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by
planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and
conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action
at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary,
and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same
to any other parties as required by law.
E1d
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
Project Location: NA
4. Is Proposed Action:
New Expansion Modification/Alteration
5. Describe project briefly: The proposed action is the amendment of Chapter 325-8 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “District Regulations,” including the
deletion of Chapter 325-8B(7) entitled “General Notes Pertaining to Regulations” and the
deletion of 325-18C of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “Reductions in
Rear Yards.”
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: 5/14/10
PREPARER'S TITLE: Chair, Planning and Economic Development Committee of
Common Council
REPRESENTING: __City of Ithaca_________________________
E1d
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_____________________________
E1e
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 3. Chapter 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca entitled “District Regulations” be amended as follows:
In all properties located in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-U and C-SU
districts the rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet.
All properties in the B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5, M-1, I-1 and all WF,
SW, WEDZ, and CBD districts shall have a minimum rear yard
setback of 10 feet.
Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
E2
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: May 12, 2010
RE: Review of R-3 districts for Potential Rezoning
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the proposal to establish a new R-3aa
zoning district and to rezone portions of the R-3a and R-3b districts to R-2b, R-2c, and the resulting new
R-3aa district.
The existing R-3a and R-3b zoning districts contain many traditional residential neighborhoods that are
valuable to the character of the City. Several months ago the Mayor appointed a subcommittee charged
with evaluating the current R-3 multi-family residential zoning district in order to determine if the
existing zoning designation is appropriate and to develop a new zoning district that would provide
adequate protection for these traditional neighborhoods.
In order to determine which areas of the City would be appropriate for the R-3aa zoning district the
subcommittee evaluated properties located within the R-3a and R-3b zones to find areas that have a
pattern of houses of similar scale, orientation and setbacks on both sides of a street or along the block on
the same side of the street. They also considered whether a consolidation of parcels and larger scale
development would provide large scale residential development without compromising the desirable
character of a neighborhood. Enclosed please find the proposed R-3aa zoning ordinance for your review.
In addition to evaluating the properties for the R-3aa zoning district, the subcommittee found several
areas that were zoned R-3 that contained mostly 1-2 family residences. These areas are recommended to
be rezoned to R-2b or R-2c; those ordinances are also enclosed for your review. The subcommittee has
completed its evaluation and is recommending the zoning amendments shown on the attached map
entitled “Proposed R-3aa, R-2c, and R-2b Zoning Amendments - May 2010.” Three additional maps
showing the areas recommended for R-2b, R-2c, and R-3aa separately are also enclosed for clarity.
The subcommittee chose not to evaluate the Collegetown visioning area, since that area currently has
form-based zoning code under development. The Subcommittee also did not evaluate any properties that
were located in historic districts since those areas already contain additional protections. On the other
hand, the Subcommittee did generate an informal list of further actions that would be appropriate to
consider to address issues (primarily in the current R-3 districts) that rezoning to R-2b, R-2c, and R-3aa
would not accomplish, such as controls for development on steep slopes and near gorges and waterways,
additional implementation of form-based codes, etc., as reported to the Planning and Economic
Development Committee in recent months.
A draft environmental assessment form for this set of actions is also enclosed. If the committee is in
agreement, staff will circulate this information and return next month with any comments that are
received. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
E2e
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Establish the R-3aa Zoning
District and to Rezone Portions of the R-3a and R-3b Zoning
Districts to R-3aa
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 ESTABLISH THE R-3AA
ZONING DISTRICT.
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. Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose
The Common Council finds that the R-3aa zone is appropriate to
be located on parcels that contain the following criteria:
a. Areas of the City that are currently zoned for multi family
residential dwellings (R3 zoning districts), located
outside of the historic district boundaries, that have a
strong neighborhood character that is significant and
worthy of preservation. These are areas that have a
traditional urban residential pattern of individual lots
with individual houses arranged in a row along the street
that is repeated across the street or along a block front.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca entitled “District Regulations” is hereby
amended to establish the R-3aa Zoning District to read as
follows (changes will appear on the District Regulations Chart,
which is a part of Chapter 325):
Column 1: Use District – R-3aa.
Column 2: Permitted Primary Uses –
1. One-family detached, semi-detached or attached dwelling
or two family dwelling
2. Any use permitted in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts
3. Multiple dwellings (See § 325-3)
4. Rooming or boarding house
5. Cooperative household (See §325-3)
6. Fraternity, sorority or group house
7. Townhouse or garden apartment housing
8. Nursery school, child day care center, group Adult Day
Care
9. Nursing, convalescent or rest home
BY SPECIAL PERMIT OF BOARD OF APPEALS:
10. Any uses permitted by special permit in R-1 and R-2
11. Neighborhood commercial facility
12. Hospital or Sanatorium
13. Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns
Column 3: Permitted Accessory Uses –
1. Any accessory uses as permitted in R-2
2. Private garage for 4 or more cars
3. Neighborhood parking area subject to regulations of
§325-20 (B).
Column 4: Off-Street Parking Requirements –
1. Same as R-2
2. Rooming or boarding house: 1 space per 3 persons
housed
3. Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns: 1 space per bedroom
4. Fraternity, sorority, group house, cooperative
household: 1 space per 2 persons housed
5. Hospital, nursing home, similar uses: 1 space per 5
beds
See Also Requirements for Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone.
Column 5: Off-Street Loading Requirements –
1. Same as R-2
2. Multiple dwellings with 25 or more dwelling units: 1
space for up to 10,000 SF of floor space, plus 1 space
for each additional 15,000 SF or major fraction thereof.
3. Nursing home, hospital or sanatorium: 1 space.
Column 6: Minimum Lot Size –
1. One-family detached or semi-detached dwellings or 2-
family dwellings: 5,000 SF.
2. One-family attached dwelling, new construction: 6,000 SF
for the first 1-3 units, plus 750 SF for each additional
unit, plus 500 SF per room let for profit.
3. Multiple dwellings, new construction: 6,000 SF for the
first 1-3 units, plus 750 SF for each additional unit,
plus 500 SF per room let for profit.
4. One-family attached dwelling, conversion: 7,000 SF for
the first 1-3 units, plus 750 SF for each additional
unit, plus 500 SF per room let for profit.
5. Multiple dwellings, conversion: 7,000 SF for the first
1-3 units, plus 750 SF for each additional unit, plus
500 SF per room let for profit.
6. Fraternity, sorority or group house: 25,000.
7. Other Uses: 6,000. See Also General Note 11.
Column 7: Minimum Lot Size, Width in Feet at Street Line – 50.
Column 8: Maximum Building Height, Number of Stories – 3.
Column 9: Maximum Height of Building, Height in Feet – 35.
Column 10: Maximum Percent of Lot Coverage by Buildings – 30.
Column 11: Yard Dimensions, Front, Required Minimum – 20.
Column 12: Yard Dimensions, Side, One Side at Least – 10.
Column 13: Yard Dimensions, Side, Other at Least – 10.
Columns 14 and 15: Yard Dimensions, Rear –25% or 50 feet and not
less than 20 feet.
Column 16: Minimum Height of Building/Maximum Building
Footprint, Height in Feet – Two Stories. No new construction of
a primary structure in the R-3aa zone shall contain a footprint
that is larger than 120% of the average footprint of the
existing buildings along the entire block front in which the
building is located.
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the zoning
designation from R-3a and R-3b to the newly established R-3aa
designation for the following parcels: 49.-1-1, 49.-1-22, 49.-
1-23, 49.-1-24, 49.-1-25, 49.-1-26, 49.-1-27, 50.-4-12,
50.-4-13, 50.-4-14, 50.-4-15, 60.-3-1, 60.-3-14, 60.-3-2,
60.-3-3, 60.-3-4, 60.-3-5, 60.-3-6, 60.-3-7, 60.-3-8, 60.-3-9.1,
60.-4-1, 60.-4-10, 60.-4-2, 60.-4-3, 60.-4-4, 60.-4-5, 60.-4-8,
60.-4-9, 61.-1-1, 61.-1-13, 61.-1-14, 61.-1-15, 61.-1-18, 61.-1-
19, 70.-7-15, 70.-7-16, 70.-7-3, 71.-10-1, 71.-10-10, 71.-10-11,
71.-10-2, 71.-10-3, 71.-10-4, 71.-10-5, 71.-10-6, 71.-10-7, 71.-
10-8, 71.-10-9, 71.-7-1, 71.-7-10, 71.-7-11, 71.-7-12, 71.-7-13,
71.-7-14, 71.-7-15, 71.-7-16, 71.-7-17, 71.-7-18, 71.-7-2, 71.-
7-7, 71.-7-8, 71.-7-9, 71.-8-1, 71.-8-2, 71.-8-3, 71.-8-4, 71.-
8-5, 71.-8-6, 71.-8-9, 71.-9-1,71.-9-2, 71.-9-3, 71.-9-4, 71.-9-
5, 71.-9-6, 72.-8-10, 72.-8-11, 72.-8-12, 72.-8-13, 72.-8-14,
72.-8-15, 72.-8-16, 72.-8-9, 80.-10-4, 80.-10-5, 80.-10-6, 80.-
10-7, 80.-10-8, 80.-10-9, 80.-6-2, 80.-6-3, 80.-6-4, 80.-6-5,
80.-6-6, 80.-6-7, 80.-8-1, 80.-8-10, 80.-8-11, 80.-8-12, 80.-8-
13, 80.-8-14, 80.-8-2, 80.-9-1, 80.-9-10, 80.-9-11, 80.-9-2,
80.-9-3, 80.-9-4, 80.-9-5, 80.-9-6, 80.-9-7, 80.-9-8, 80.-9-9,
89.-3-1, 89.-3-14, 89.-3-15, 89.-3-2, 89.-3-3, 89.-3-4, 89.-3-
5.1, 92.-10-1, 92.-10-10, 92.-10-11, 92.-10-12, 92.-10-13, 92.-
10-14, 92.-10-15, 92.-10-9, 92.-3-11, 93.-1-10, 93.-1-11, 93.-1-
12, 93.-1-13, 93.-2-1, 93.-2-10, 93.-2-7, 93.-2-8, 93.-2-9, 93.-
3-3, 93.-3-4, 93.-3-5, 93.-3-6, and 93.-3-7. The boundaries of
this amendment are shown on the attached map, entitled “Proposed
R-3aa Zoning Amendment-April 2010.”
Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
E2f
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 3. Chapter 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca entitled “District Regulations” be amended as follows:
In all properties located in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-U and C-SU
districts the rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet.
All properties in the B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5, M-1, I-1 and all WF,
SW, WEDZ, and CBD districts shall have a minimum rear yard
setback of 10 feet.
Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
.
E2g
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Amend the Zoning District
Boundaries of the R-3a and the R-2c Zoning Districts
The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the City of Ithaca Common Council
as follows:
Section 1.
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended
to change the designation from R-3a to R-2c for the following
tax parcels: 57.-3-1, 57.-3-2.2, 57.-3-3, 57.-3-4, 74.-3-1, 74.-
3-2, 74.-3-3, 74.-3-4, 74.-3-5, 74.-3-6, 74.-3-7, 74.-3-8, 74.-
3-9, 74.-3-11, 74.-3-10, 74.-3-12, 74.-3-13,74.-3-14, 74.-3-15,
and 77.-2-3. The boundaries are shown on the attached map
entitled “Proposed R-2c Zoning Amendment-April 2010”.
Section 2.
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately
and in accordance with law after publication of notice as
provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
E2h
CITY OF ITHACA
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
Purpose: The Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is designed to help applicants and agencies determine,
in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be
significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently there are aspects of a proposed action that are subjective or
immeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine signifi cance may have little or no formal knowledge
of the environment or may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance.
The FEAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determinati on
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a
project or action.
FEAF Components:
Part 1: Provide objective data and information about a given action and its site. By identifying ba sic project
data, it assists in a review of the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focus on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a
potentially large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not
the impact is actually important.
THIS AREA IS FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—TYPE I AND UNLISTED ACTIONS
Identify the Portions of FEAF completed for this action: X Part 1 X Part 2 __Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this FEAF (Parts, 2, and 3, if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
Lead Agency that:
_X A. The Proposed Action will not result in any large and important impact(s) an is one that will not have a
significant impact on the environment; therefore, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
__B. Although the proposed action could have a significant impact on the environment, there wil l not be a
significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have
been required; therefore, A CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
*
__C. The proposed action may result in one or more large and im portant impacts that may have a significant
impact on the environment; therefore, A POSITIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
*A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action: Establishment of the R-3aa Zoning District and Rezoning of Portions of the R-3a and R-3b
Districts to R-3aa, R-2b, and R-2c
Name of Lead Agency: City of Ithaca
Name and Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Mayor Carolyn Peterson
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency:
Signature of Preparer:
Date:
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant
effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be
considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review.
Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) will be dependent on information
currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such
additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action: Establishment of the R-3aa Zoning District and Rezoning of Portions of the R-3a and R-3b
Districts to R-3aa, R-2b, and R-2c
Location of Action: City of Ithaca
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca
Address: 108 East Green Street
City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: NY ZIP: 14850
Business Phone:
Name of Owner(If Different):
Address:
City/Town/Village: State: ZIP:
Business Phone:
Description of Action: Establishment of the R-3aa zoning district.
Rezoning from R-3a and R-3b to R-3aa of the following parcels: 49.-1-1, 49.-1-22, 49.-1-23,
49.-1-24, 49.-1-25, 49.-1-26, 49.-1-27, 50.-4-12, 50.-4-13, 50.-4-14, 50.-4-15, 60.-3-1, 60.-3-14,
60.-3-2, 60.-3-3, 60.-3-4, 60.-3-5, 60.-3-6, 60.-3-7, 60.-3-8, 60.-3-9.1, 60.-4-1, 60.-4-10, 60.-
4-2, 60.-4-3, 60.-4-4, 60.-4-5, 60.-4-8, 60.-4-9, 61.-1-1, 61.-1-13, 61.-1-14, 61.-1-15, 61.-1-18,
61.-1-19, 70.-7-15, 70.-7-16, 70.-7-3, 71.-10-1, 71.-10-10, 71.-10-11, 71.-10-2, 71.-10-3, 71.-10-
4, 71.-10-5, 71.-10-6, 71.-10-7, 71.-10-8, 71.-10-9, 71.-7-1, 71.-7-10, 71.-7-11, 71.-7-12, 71.-7-
13,71.-7-14, 71.-7-15, 71.-7-16, 71.-7-17, 71.-7-18, 71.-7-2, 71.-7-7, 71.-7-8, 71.-7-9, 71.-8-1,
71.-8-2, 71.-8-3, 71.-8-4, 71.-8-5, 71.-8-6, 71.-8-9, 71.-9-1,71.-9-2, 71.-9-3, 71.-9-4, 71.-9-5,
71.-9-6, 72.-8-10, 72.-8-11, 72.-8-12, 72.-8-13, 72.-8-14, 72.-8-15, 72.-8-16, 72.-8-9, 80.-10-4,
80.-10-5, 80.-10-6, 80.-10-7, 80.-10-8, 80.-10-9, 80.-6-2, 80.-6-3, 80.-6-4, 80.-6-5, 80.-6-6,
80.-6-7, 80.-8-1, 80.-8-10, 80.-8-11, 80.-8-12, 80.-8-13, 80.-8-14, 80.-8-2, 80.-9-1, 80.-9-10,
80.-9-11, 80.-9-2, 80.-9-3, 80.-9-4, 80.-9-5, 80.-9-6, 80.-9-7, 80.-9-8, 80.-9-9, 89.-3-1, 89.-3-
14, 89.-3-15, 89.-3-2, 89.-3-3, 89.-3-4, 89.-3-5.1, 92.-10-1, 92.-10-10, 92.-10-11, 92.-10-12,
92.-10-13, 92.-10-14, 92.-10-15, 92.-10-9, 92.-3-11, 93.-1-10, 93.-1-11, 93.-1-12, 93.-1-13, 93.-
2-1, 93.-2-10, 93.-2-7, 93.-2-8, 93.-2-9, 93.-3-3, 93.-3-4, 93.-3-5, 93.-3-6, and 93.-3-7.
Rezoning from R-3a to R-2b for the following tax parcels: 50.-4-30, 50.-4-28, 50.-4-27, 50.-4-37, 50.-4-36, 50.-4-35, 50.-4-34, 50.-
4-33, 50.-4-32, 50.-4-31, 60.-3-11, 60.-3-10, 60.-3-16, 60.-3-15, 60.-3-13, 60.-3-12, 60.-3-17, 93.-2-6, 93.-2-3, 93.-2-4, 93.-2-5, 93.-
2-2, 80.-8-7, 80.-8-8, 80.-8-9, 80.-8-6, 80.-8-3, 80.-8-5, 50.-4-30, 50.-4-28, 50.-4-27, 50.-4-37, 50.-4-36, 50.-4-35, 50.-4-34, 50.-4-
33, 50.-4-32, 50.-4-31, 60.-3-11, 60.-3-10, 60.-3-16, 60.-3-15, 60.-3-13, 60.-3-12, 60.-3-17, 93.-2-6, 93.-2-3, 93.-2-4, 93.-2-5, 93.-2-
2, 80.-8-7, 80.-8-8, 80.-8-9, 80.-8-6, 80.-8-3, and 80.-8-5.
Rezoning from R-3a to R-2c for the following tax parcels: 57.-3-1, 57.-3-2.2, 57.-3-3, 57.-
3-4, 74.-3-1, 74.-3-2, 74.-3-3, 74.-3-4, 74.-3-5, 74.-3-6, 74.-3-7, 74.-3-8, 74.-3-9, 74.-3-11,
74.-3-10, 74.-3-12, 74.-3-13,74.-3-14, 74.-3-15, and 77.-2-3.
Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N/A if not applicable
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
(Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.)
1. Present Land Use: X Urban Industrial Commercial Public Forest
Agricultural Other:
2. Total area of project area: 30 Acres square feet (Chosen units apply to following section also)
Approximate Area (Units in question 2 apply to this section) Presently After Completion
2a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural)
2b. Forested
2c. Agricultural
2d. Wetland [as per Articles 24 of Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)]
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public
2g. Water Surface Area
2h. Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill)
2i. Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 30 30
2j. Other (indicate type)
3a. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g. HdB, silty loam, etc.):
3b. Soil Drainage: NA Well Drained ______% of Site
Moderately Well Drained ______% of Site
Poorly Drained ______% of Site
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes X No N/A
4b. What is depth of bedrock? NA (feet)
4c. What is depth to the water table? NA (feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with
slopes:
X 0-10% 100 % 10-15% %
15% or greater %
6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it contain a
building, site or district, listed on or eligible for the National
or State Register of Historic Places?
Yes X No N/A
6b. Or designated a local landmark or in a local landmark
district? Yes X No N/A
7. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the
project area? Yes X o N/A If yes, identify each species:
SITE DESCRIPTION (Concluded)
8. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life
that is identified as threatened or endangered? Yes X No N/A
According to:
Identify each Species:
9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on the project
site? (i.e., cliffs, other geological formations) Yes X No N/A
Describe:
10. Is the project site presently used by the community or
neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Yes X No N/A
If yes, explain:
11. Does the present site offer or include scenic views known to
be important to the community? Yes X No N/A
Describe:
12. Is project within or contiguous to a site designated a Unique
Natural Area (UNA) or critical environmental area by a
local or state agency?
Yes X No N/A
Describe:
13. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Names of stream or name of river to which it is a tributary:
NA
14. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project
area: NA
a. Name:
b. Size (in acres):
15. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid or
hazardous wastes? Yes X No N/A
Describe:
16. Is the site served by existing public utilities?
a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow
connection?
b. If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow
connection?
Yes No X N/A
Yes No X N/A
Yes No X N/A
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
1a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor in acres: 30 or square feet:
1b. Project acreage developed: 30 Acres initially 30 Acres ultimately
1c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: NA
1d. Length of project in miles: (if appropriate) __ NA _________ or feet: __ NA ___________
1e. If project is an expansion, indicate percent of change proposed: NA
1f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing: NA proposed: ___ NA ______________
1g.Maximum vehicular trips generated (upon completion of project) per day: __ NA ____ and per hour: _ NA
1h. Height of tallest proposed structure: feet. NA
1j. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy?________
2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site: ___ NA
_________________________ or added to the site: _____ NA __________________________
3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed fro m the site:
acres:___ NA _ type of vegetation:_______ NA ______________________________________________
4. Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? NA
5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? NA
6. If single phase project, anticipated period of construction NA months, (including demolition)
7. If multi-phased project, anticipated period of construction__NA_______ months, (including demolition)
7a. Total number of phases anticipated: ___________NA_________________
7b. Anticipated date of commencement for first phase NA month year, (including demolition)
7c. Approximate completion date of final phase NA month year.
7d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No X N/A
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes No X N/A; if yes, explain:
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction_____0_____ after project is completed__________
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project: 0 Explain:
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No N/A; if yes, explain:
12a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes X No N/A; if yes, explain:
12b. If #12a is yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc):NA
12c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? NA
13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal?
Yes X No N/A; if yes, explain:
14a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year flood plai n?
Yes No X N/A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Concluded)
14b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to: Cayuga Inlet Fall Creek, Cascadilla
Creek, Cayuga Lake, Six Mile Creek, Silver Creek? (Circle all that apply) NA
14c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as described in Article 24 Of
the ECL? Yes X No N/A;
14d. If #14a, b or c is yes, explain: NA
15a. Does project involve disposal or solid waste? Yes X No N/A;
15b. If #15a is yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No X N/A;
15c. If #15b is yes, give name of disposal facility: NA and its location:
15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill ? Yes No X N/A; if
yes, explain:
15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes No X N/A; if yes, explain:
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No X N/A; if yes, specify:
17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places or a local
landmark or in a landmark district? Yes X No N/A; if yes, explain:
18. Will project produce odors? Yes No X N/A; if yes, explain:
19. Will project product operating noise exceed the local ambient noise level during construction? Yes No X N/A;
After construction? Yes No X N/A
20. Will project result in an increase of energy use? Yes No X N/A; if yes, indicate type(s) NA
21. Total anticipated water usage per day: gals/day. NA Source of water
C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION
1. Does the proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? X Yes No N/A; if yes, indicate the decision
required:
X Zoning Amendment Zoning Variance New/revision of master plan Subdivision
Site Plan Special Use Permit Resource Management Plan Other:
2. What is the current zoning classification of site? R-3a and R-3b
3. If the site is developed as permitted by the present zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
Under the current zoning the maximum building size would be 40 feet in height.
4. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes X No N/A
5. If #4 is no, indicate desired zoning: R-3aa, R-2b, and R-2c
6. If the site is developed by the proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site?
The proposed rezonings to R-2b, and R-3aa would require all new construction in these zones to be no larger than 35 feet. The
R-2c zone allows for a maximum height of 35 feet for single family detached homes, 40 feet for single family semi detached
and two family homes, and 50 feet maximum height for one family attached buildings.
7. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land-use plans?
X Yes No N/A; If no, explain:
8. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a ¼ mile radius of the project?
(e.g. R-1a or R-1b) B-1a, B-1b, B-2a, B-2c, B-2d, B-4, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-60, CBD-85, C-SU, I-1, P-1, R-1a, R-1b, R-
2a, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, SW-2, WEDZ-1b, WF-1a, WF-1c, WF-1d
9. Is the proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? X Yes No N/A Explain:
10a. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? NA
10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? NA
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community-provided services? (recreation, education, police, fire
protection, etc.) ? Yes X No N/A Explain:
If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No X N/A
Explain: NA
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
Yes X No N/A If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic?
Yes X No N/A Explain:
D. APPROVALS
1. Approvals: Council Adoption
2a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes X No N/A; Specify:
2b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No N/A; If Yes, Specify:
2c. Local and Regional approvals:
Agency
Yes or No
Type of
Approval Required
Submittal
Date
Approval
Date
Common Council Yes Adoption
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) No
Planning & Development Board No
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC)
No
Board of Public Works (BPW) No
Fire Department No
Police Department No
Building Commissioner No
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA)
No
E. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any
adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you
propose to mitigate or avoid them.
F. VERIFICATION
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name:
Signature:
Title:
City of Ithaca Long Environmental Assessment Form
PART 2 – PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDES
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site?
Yes X No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length),
or where the general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes x No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. x Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of
existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one
phase or stage. Yes x No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural
material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in a designated floodway. Yes x No
Other impacts: existing development is in the 500 year flood plain Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the site? (i.e. cliffs,
gorges, geological formations, etc.)
Yes x No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Specific land forms: Yes No
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected? (Under article 15 or
24 of the Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)
Yes x No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Developable area of site contains a protected water body Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected
stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Yes No
Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
Yes X No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than
a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of a body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq.
ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake or the
Cayuga Inlet? Yes x No
Other impacts: Yes No
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality?
Yes x No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Project will require a discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve
proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply
system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not
exist or have inadequate capacity.
Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per
day or 500 gallons per minute.
Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of
water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural
conditions.
Yes No
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products
greater than 1,100 gallons.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns or surface water
runoff?
Yes X No
Small to Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes x No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality?
Yes x No
Small to Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8 -hour period per
day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse
per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs per hour or
a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species?
Yes x No
Small to Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Reduction of any species listed on the New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other
than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non -threatened or non-
endangered species?
x Yes No
Small to Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Proposed action would substantially interfere wit h any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires the removal or more than 1/2 acre of mature
woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts: Removal of 1.1 acres of vegetation including 5 mature
trees X Yes x No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE
10. Will the proposed action affect views, vistas or the visual
character of the neighborhood or community?
Yes X No
Small to Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Proposed land uses, or proposed action components obviously
different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use
patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land use, or proposed action components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in the elimination or major screening of
scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts: development of 52 car parking area on waterfront -
program does not allow for screening. Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic,
prehistoric or paleontological importance?
Yes x No
Small to Moderate
Impact Potential Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous
to any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State
Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous
to any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of
existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
Yes X No
Small to Moderate
Impact Potential Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational op portunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts: x Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a
critical environmental area (CEA)by a local or state agency? Yes x No
Proposed Action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource Yes No
Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
Yes x No
Small to
Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of
fuel or energy supply?
Yes x No
Small to
Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring the creation or extension of an
energy transmission or supply system to serve more than
50 single or two family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare,
vibration or electrical disturbance during construction of or
after completion of this proposed action?
Yes X No
Small to Moderate
Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Reduced by
Project Change?
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding
the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of
structure.
Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act
as a noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts: Construction Noise only Yes x No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety?
Yes x No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be Reduced by
Project Change?
Proposed action will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event
of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic low -level
discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in the burial of “hazardous wastes” in any
form (i.e. Toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in the handling or disposal or hazardous
wastes (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irrita ting,
infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi -solid, liquid or
contain gases.)
Yes No
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization or the control of
vegetation, insects or animal life on the premises of any residential, Yes No
commercial or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet.
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the
existing community?
x Yes No
Small to Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be Reduced by Project
Change?
The population of the City in which the proposed
action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of
resident human population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or
operating services will increase by more than 5% per
year as a result of this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted
plans or goals: Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of
land use. Yes No
The proposed action will replace or eliminate existing
facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to
the community.
Yes No
Development will create a demand for additional
community services (e.g. schools, police, and fire, etc. Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for
future actions. X x Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in
one or more businesses. Yes No
Other impacts: See Part 3 Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the
proposed action?
Yes No TBD
Small to
Moderate Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be Reduced by Project
Change?
Either government or citizens of adjacent communities
have expressed opposition or rejected the proposed
action or have not been contacted.
Yes No
Objections to the proposed action from within the
community. Yes No
If any action in part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine
the magnitude of impact, proceed to part 3.
City of Ithaca
Full Environmental Assessment Form —Part III
Proposed R-3aa Zoning Amendment
May 13, 2010
PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the creation of a new R-3aa zoning district and rezoning of portions of the R-3a
and R-3b zoning district to the new R-3aa zone and to the existing R-2b and R-2c zones. The attached map
shows the location of the proposed zoning changes.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impact on Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood —Small to Moderate Impact
There may be a small to moderate impact on the character of the community. The areas being considered for
rezoning are currently zoned R-3a and R-3b and are located in neighborhoods which display traditional urban form
with houses of similar scale and style on either side of the street or along the block front. The proposed R-3aa
zoning district is intended to preserve this type of neighborhood character by requiring that any new construction not
be larger than 120% of the average footprint of all of the buildings located on the entire bloc k front. Similar
neighborhood character preservation will be accomplished by the action of rezoning to R -2b and R-2c. The action as
a whole is expected to have a positive impact on the community.
E2i
May 12, 2010
TO: Members of P&ED committee
FROM: Ellen McCollister, Alderperson, Third Ward
RE: Proposal to rezone certain areas of the City to R-3aa, R-2c, and R-
2b.
Rationale for considering an additional parcel for R-3aa zoning
designation.
For some months now, an ad hoc subcommittee (Jennifer Dotson, Dan
Hoffman, Svante Myrick, Eric Rosario, John Schroeder [Note from chair: The
subcommittee also included Carolyn Peterson, and was additionally staffed by
JoAnn Cornish, Jennifer Kusnir]) has been studying a number of tax parcels in
the City, with an eye towards ensuring that proper transition zoning exists where
denser parcels abut less dense ones (i.e., traditional architecture, single-family
homes.) The subcommittee has followed up its conceptual work with site visits to
the areas being considered for rezoning. The subcommittee is due to present its
proposal at the May 19 regular Planning & Economic Development Committee
meeting.
While I fully support the subcommittee's work and preliminary findings on
these issues thus far, I believe a crucial area of the City in not currently included.
Specifically, I am advocating to re-zone the 900 block of MLK/E. State Street on the
south side from R-3a to to R-3aa. The north side of the street is currently zoned R-1b.
One of the most important R-1 zoning edges in the City occurs at the intersection
of E. State St/MLK and Mitchell Street. This is the historical eastern gateway into
Ithaca, consisting of traditional, single-family Victorian and Craftsman homes. Despite
heavy traffic along State Street and Mitchell Street at various times of day, the single-
family home character has prevailed over the last 100+ years because of the beautiful,
solidly-built homes, sidewalks on both sides of the Street, tree -lined streets that are
visually (though not always aurally) friendly to pedestrians, and walking proximity to
Cornell, downtown, and the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. The R -1 zoning edge at the
intersection of State/Mitchell is what holds the line and protects the neighborhoods
above it on upper MLK/State, Brandon Place, Dunmore Place, lower Mitchell, and lower
Valley Road.
This zoning edge is increasingly vulnerable. As Collegetown has migrated downhill
from the north, and as large scale development has encroached from the south, we face
another wave of single-family flight and degradation of our historical housing stock. The
pressures from the north will be addressed and mitigated by implementation of the new
Collegetown Plan. But our current zoning does not afford protection to these owner -
occupied neighborhoods from encroachment on the south.
At an earlier subcommittee meeting, we talked about rezoning the block of State
St. east of Valentine Place from R-3a to R-3aa. Everyone was amenable to this
because it easily met the criteria as set forth in the R-3aa concept memo. More
controversial was the idea of extending the R-3aa zone from Valentine Place to the
intersection of State and Mitchell, specifically houses # 901, 903, 911, and 915. Yet the
houses from 901 to Valentine Place are still in remarkably good condition, and provide
an essential architectural buffer for the R-1 zone on the other side of the street. They
also create an important contextual and historical gateway into Ithaca from the East
before you go down the hill.
As experience from the last 25 years has made clear, sharp discontinuities in
zoning are inevitably de-stabilizing. Without transition zoning-- in scale, proportion,
architectural character, and type of use-- our single family housing stock is vulnerable.
The City already has an alarmingly-low percentage of single family homes. I hope that
we will use these deliberations on re-zoning to ensure that we are taking a
comprehensive look at protecting owner-occupied homes in all our City neighborhoods.
F1
TO: Planning and Development Board
Planning Committee of Common Council
FROM: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: December 29, 2009 Revised May 10, 2010
RE: Department of Planning and Development 2010 Priority Projects and Work Plan
The Department of Planning & Development's 2010 Priority Projects, Projects of Interest, and Work Plan
are listed below for your review and consideration.
Priority Projects:
1. Implementation of the Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines:
(Projected Completion Date – December 31, 2010).
Complete Creation of The Form Based Code
Create Design Standards
Write Legislation for Binding Design Review
Complete a Parking Utilization Study
Design Streetscape Improvements for the 400 Block of College Ave.
2. Dredging (12 to 18 months to complete planning, design, and permitting so dredging
operation can begin – September 2011).
3. Southwest Area Development (Ongoing; may be dependent on dredging timeline –
Construction Start Date 2014).
4. Site Plan Review for the Rebuilding of the City’s Water Supply Plant and related
improvements (12 to 24 months- Construction Start Date 2013).
5. Implement NYSERTA Grant funding for a 12 month Energy Sustainability Project
Manager (who will oversee the City’s climate change and energy sustainability initiatives).
6. Work with grant funded American Institute of Architects Sustainable Development
Assessment Team (SDAT) to examine how to improve linkages (transit, visual, physical,
marketing) between downtown and the surrounding commercial districts (Collegetown, West
End, Inlet Island, IC).
7. City Comprehensive Plan – Complete Scope of Services and Draft Contract for Parsons
Brinkerhoff. Actual work to begin 1st quarter of 2011.
PROJECTS TO BE COMPLETED AS STAFF TIME ALLOWS
Projects of Interest:
1. Revise the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance to include climate change
considerations (greenhouse gas reduction, renewable energy, energy efficiency, solid waste
management practices, etc.).
2. Revise the Community Incentive Investment Program application.
3. Work towards approval and implementation of the Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan.
4. Create a Conservation Zone(s).
5. Create a Stream Corridor Protection Zone(s).
6. Investigate extending Cherry Street for additional development.
Projects identified by the Planning Committee to be done in cooperation with Engineering, Streets
and Facilities and the Board of Public Works:
7. Complete revisions to the City’s Sidewalk Ordinance.
8. Create a City wide approach to parking.
9. Assist in the development of a City Transportation Plan.
10. Coordinate with the City, Cornell University, and Delta Phi Fraternity to assess and correct
damage to both the street and sidewalk on Cornell Avenue, the limestone retaining wall on
Cornell Avenue, and the stone walls on the Baldwin Staircase.
11. Work on and distribute an RFP for improvements to the Wood Street Roller sports Facility,
choose a consultant and execute a contract.
12. Work with the City and Cornell University on the issue of fences/barriers on area fences to
discourage/prevent suicides.
Additional Projects identified by various sources:
13. Investigate gas drilling impacts on the City of Ithaca’s water quality and roads.
14. Consider creating a critical environmental area for the City-owned land in Six Mile Creek.
15. Improve system to better monitor the City’s Class 2 Pollution Sites (possibly including
dedicated city staff).
16. Address undesirable loss of urban and natural forms by rezoning certain areas of the City.
17. Work with property owners and business owners (and potential property and business
owners) to invest in and improve properties in the West End.
18. Assist in finding appropriate tenants/uses for the Hancock Street P&C, Emerson, Challenge
Industries, and the Ithaca Journal Building.
19. Implement Martin Luther King Freedom Walkway.
20. Investigate impacts on wood smoke emissions and mitigation measures to protect public
health and safety.
Anticipated Development Projects:
1. Inlet Island Development
Continue working with the selected preferred developer and Common Council toward
development of Inlet Island.
Continue efforts to acquire the parcel owned by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and once acquired, begin a Phase II
Environmental Investigation and cleanup if necessary.
2. Development of the Ithaca Gun Factory Site and the Adjacent Ithaca Falls Natural Area
Continue work with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Fall
Creek Redevelopment, LLC, to remediate the former Ithaca Gun Factory Site.
Administer Grant Funding for remediation.
Start planning process for a park that includes the area at the base of the falls, the rim trail,
and the overlook area.
3. Completion of Cayuga Green and Associated Projects
Work with Bloomfield + Schon Partners on the 20-30 unit luxury apartments and future
condominiums, known as Cayuga Green 3.
Continue to seek tenants for the remaining commercial space in Cayuga Garage and at
Cayuga Place.
Continue working with Jeffrey Rimland to complete plans for the Hotel Ithaca project
4. Oversee Implementation of the $4 Million GIAC Facility Rehabilitation Project
5. Collegetown Terrace Apartments Project
Projects Identified by the Planning Department to be managed or completed:
1. Ongoing issues related to the NYSEG Coal Tar Remediation Site and the future of the Markles
Flats building.
2. Develop Revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance.
4. Revise Design Review Ordinance and Develop Citywide Design Guidelines.
5. Revise Site Plan Review Ordinance to include new stormwater regulations, pedestrian and bicycle
standards, planting and landscaping standards, increased public notification times, sustainability and
green building standards.
6. Revise Subdivision Ordinance to be more in line with revisions to the Site Plan Review Ordinance
and the Environmental Review Ordinance.
7. Complete City’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
Office Projects/Tasks
1. Standardize Planning Department Filing System, for both paper and electronic files. Consider using
Laserfisch to create a paperless system that could archive files, interconnect, and manage department
information.
2. Consider implementing an address based filing system to coordinate with Building Department filing
system resulting in a “one click” database for all information relating to a particular property.
3. Standardize Public Notification Procedures for Site Plan Review, Subdivision Review, and Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission projects.
G1
City of Ithaca
MEETING NOTICE
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, September 17, 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;
and Jennifer Dotson
Committee Members Absent: Svante Myrick
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Carolyn Peterson (arrived at 8:13 p.m.);
Alderperson Joel Zumoff
City Staff Attending: Nels Bohn, Director of Community Development, Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency; Leslie Chatterton, Historic
Preservation and Neighborhood Planner; JoAnn Cornish,
Acting Director, Department of Planning & Development;
Megan Gilbert, Planner; Bill Gray, Superintendent of
Public Works; Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant; Dan
Hoffman, City Attorney
Chair Mary Tomlan called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
B. Agenda Review
Tomlan stated that the public hearing on the proposed moratorium extension, previously
intended for this date, had been rescheduled for the October Common Council meeting, and
that consideration of the Off-street Parking legislation would be postponed until the October
planning committee meeting in order to avoid having two public hearings at the next council
meeting.
B. Special Order of Business: None
C. Public Comment, and Response from Committee Members
Joanne Trutko, a member of the Bryant Park Civic Association, expressed her concern that
off-street parking from a more densely developed Collegetown would spill over into
neighboring communities. She also noted her attendance at the recent PodCar conference,
and commented on bicycle parking facilities in Toronto.
Anne Clavel, a Cornell Street resident and professional planner, said that the Collegetown
plan was a bad plan, as it was not based on studies. There had been no studies of parking, of
student demand for parking, of whether a student would park far from where they live, of the
plan’s potential impact on downtown, or of potential impacts of the plan on the whole of the
local housing market.
Joel Harlan, of Newfield, thought that if the moratorium was extended, it could be years
before any development proceeded. He commented that parking and traffic in Collegetown
were bad, with particular difficulties for pedestrians at the intersection of College Avenue
and Dryden Road.
Martha Frommelt, a 22-year resident of the Bryant Park neighborhood, commented on the
Collegetown plan’s potential effect on parking in the neighborhood. She doubted that
disincentives would be successful in getting students not to bring cars to school since they
are in Ithaca only for a relatively short time and can afford to pay for parking. On another
topic, she added her strong support for the public art initiative to be acted on later in the
meeting.
Dan Cogan spoke on behalf of the temporary relocation of the GIAC-based basketball court
at Conway Park, and asked that this be expedited.
Jennifer Dotson noted and praised the recent addition of bicycle racks in various locations
around the City.
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports:
1. Department of Public Works – Quarterly Report
Bill Gray distributed several charts showing employee data from 2005 and 2008
pertaining to the numbers of women and minorities in the Department of Public Works.
He identified where the females and minorities have been added, and noted that the
department had made significant improvements in increasing the number of minorities
employed.
Gray noted that in the last three years, 19 positions have been added back after 40
positions were removed in 1997; of persons in these 19 positions, a significant
number are minorities and women.
He stated that the department had lost a number of employees to the County and/or the
State Department of Transportation. A number of truck drivers have left. City salaries
don’t measure up with those of other municipalities.
E. Action Items:
1. Collegetown Urban Plan, Design Guidelines, and Zoning Amendments
a) Leslie Chatterton and Megan Gilbert reviewed the June 14 draft of the urban
plan and design guidelines for Collegetown prepared by the Goody Clancy
consultant team. They summarized material in the plan’s seven chapters, with
particular emphasis on components of the “Sustainable Transportation System”
set forth in Chapter 4, and on the “Character Areas” and allowable heights
presented in Chapter 5. It was noted that the Collegetown Vision
Implementation Committee had attempted to reach consensus regarding the
maximum allowable height in the mixed-use core, and that the final draft of the
plan would be expected in late September or early October.
b) Proposed Extension of Temporary Moratorium
Committee members received draft ordinances for four-month and six-month
extensions of the current 12-month temporary moratorium on certain new
construction in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, along with an updated
Collegetown meeting schedule and a copy of the Tompkins County Planning
Department’s General Municipal Law review of a proposed four-month
extension.
Megan Gilbert noted that a six-month extension would help address the
county’s observation that a four-month span was ambitious. Dan Hoffman,
referring to the county’s concern over the total length of the moratorium from a
legal perspective, assured the committee that the specific proposals for duration
and work had precedent in case law. Leslie Chatterton cited the importance of
having more time for public input.
Committee members generally supported a six-month extension as more
realistic than one of four months, given the work to be done in crafting and
enacting zoning legislation pertaining to components of the proposed urban
plan. Tomlan cited the importance of protecting the City’s investment of time
and money in the plan through the extension of the moratorium. Cogan asked
for more information on various measures needed to implement the plan, from
the improvement of conditions for pedestrians to the institution of an in-lieu fee.
Mayor Carolyn Peterson questioned whether the moratorium could be lifted
before the end of six months if the necessary work was completed sooner;
Gilbert said that it could. Zumoff noted that he did not support the current
moratorium and would not do so for an extension; he questioned extending the
cessation of opportunities for development when it was not known whether
Common Council would approve the plan or not.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Dotson, the committee voted unanimously
(4-0) to extend the current moratorium by six months:
An Ordinance to Amend §325-27 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code (Chapter 325 entitled “Zoning”) entitled
“Temporary Moratorium” to Provide for a Six -Month Extension – Adoption of Ordinance
WHEREAS, with the endorsement of the Collegetown Vision Statement on June 6, 2007, the Common Council
established the Collegetown Vision Implementation Committee (“CVIC”) and charged it with the prioritization of
the recommendations of the vision statement, and the CVIC determined that the preparation of an urban plan and
design guidelines was the highest priority recommendation, and
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of the original moratorium on certain new construction in Collegetown was
“to stabilize, temporarily, existing conditions of use, occupancy and form in the face of continued development
pressure, in order to adopt an urban plan and design guidelines for the Collegetown area, and to draft and enact
revised zoning and related regulations, as needed, in order to implement the plan,” and
WHEREAS, the City and Cornell University have made a significant financial and staff time investment in the
development of a proposed Collegetown urban plan and proposed zoning amend ments and design guidelines, over
the past year, and
WHEREAS, in the ten-and-a-half months since the moratorium was enacted (taking effect as of October 12,
2007), the Collegetown Vision Implementation Committee (“CVIC”) has worked diligently toward compl etion of a
proposed urban plan and design guidelines, including the selection of Goody Clancy of Boston, MA as the project
consultant and the review of the consultant’s plan drafts, and
WHEREAS, the City has also procured the services of Code Studio of Austin TX to draft a proposal for a
“hybrid” zoning approach (combining elements of form-based and traditional zoning), pursuant to the Common
Council directive, and
WHEREAS, the project has had an extensive public process including consultant meetings with the CVIC,
exploratory meetings in early February between the consultants and a variety of interest groups, a well attended
three day community design workshop in early March, public meetings with the Collegetown Neighborhood
Council, Bryant Park Civic Association and other stakeholder groups, such as Collegetown property owners, student
groups and persons representing Cornell University, and presentations to the City’s Board of Public Works and the
Planning and Economic Development Committee of the Commo n Council, and
WHEREAS, Goody Clancy has produced four drafts of the proposed urban plan and design guidelines, the latest
draft dated June 14, 2008, and
WHEREAS, the proposed urban plan and design guidelines present a wide range of ideas, all of which have required
time for review and consideration, and
WHEREAS, having the diverse constituencies of Collegetown represented on the CVIC has required additional
time to air and address competing interests, and, since the release of the mid -June draft, the CVIC has made a good
faith effort to reach broad agreement on the future direction of Collegetown, and
WHEREAS, it is expected that a final draft of the proposed urban plan and design guidelines will be accepted by
the CVIC and presented to the Commo n Council by mid-October, and
WHEREAS, an expiration of the moratorium without the adoption of the urban plan and design guidelines, and
the enactment of related legislation, could permanently eliminate opportunities to have a meaningful impact on the
architectural form of new development or the creation of a sustainable transportation system that could ultimately
reduce the number of cars in Collegetown, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council recognizes the need to preserve opportunities afforded by the urban plan and
design guidelines and the accompanying zoning regulations, and to protect existing investments in Collegetown, and
WHEREAS, a six-month extension of the moratorium will enable the full consideration of the proposed urban
plan and design guidelines and the enactment of legislation necessary to realize the vision for Collegetown; now,
therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. 08-_____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that the current temporary
moratorium on certain new construction within the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone be extended for an additional
six months (i.e., until April 12, 2009), as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-27 (“Temporary Moratorium”), Subsection A (“Purpose and Intent”), of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Purpose and Intent
A temporary moratorium on certain new construction within the Collegetown Parking Overlay
Zone, as described below, is hereby established, for an 18-month period beginning as of October
12, 2007. The purpose of this moratorium is….
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-27, Subsection C (“Moratorium Terms”), is hereby amended as follows:
C. Moratorium Terms
1. Effective Period
This moratorium shall be in effect, within the boundaries described in Subsection E, herein,
for a period of eighteen (18) months commencing as of October 12, 2007.
Section 3. Supersession.
This Section is intended to supersede any inconsistent provision of the City Charter or Code.
Section 4. Validity.
The invalidity of any provision of the Sections set forth above shall not affect the validity of any other provision
which can be given effect without such invalid provision.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with law upon publication of a notice, as provided for in
the Ithaca City Charter, and shall expire on April 12, 2009.
2. Public Art Proposal for the Green Street Parking Garage
Gilbert presented a proposal developed by the City’s Public Art Commission for a
public art display on the south façade of the Green Street Parking Garage. Funds for
acquiring and installing such commission-recommended, Common Council-approved
art would derive initially from Green Street garage project monies, pending their
availability. With this committee’s support for the concept and for the possibility of
future funding, the proposal would be presented to the City Administration
Committee.
Committee members discussed various aspects of the proposal, including the value
of public art, the visibility and impact of artwork at this particular location, and
financial concerns.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Dotson, the committee unanimously approved
the following resolution (4-0):
Support for the Public Art Commission’s p roposal for artwork for the Green Street Parking Garage
WHEREAS, the site plan approval for the Green Street Parking Garage recommended that public art
be displayed on the garage upon completion of the construction project, and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Public Art Commission to advise the Common Council on
decisions concerning the selection, acquisition, and display of public art, and
WHEREAS, the Public Art Commission has looked at potential sites for public art on the Green Street
Parking Garage and has meet on several occasions to develop a proposal for public art, and
WHEREAS, the Public Art Commission has developed a proposal that recommends the installation of
three artwork reproductions in the window bays on the south side of the pa rking garage, facing Green
Street, and
WHEREAS, submissions of proposed artwork will be reviewed by the Public Art Commission with a
final recommendation for Common Council approval prior to the installation of any specific work, and
WHEREAS, the 10’x10’ artwork reproductions will be printed on exterior grade Dibond panels and
installed in aluminum frames mounted directly on the garage, and
WHEREAS, the artwork will be displayed for a period of one year at which point new artwork may be
selected and displayed, and
WHEREAS, the proposal will be funded in year one from Green Street garage project funds pending
their availability, or from other funds as may be identified, and
WHEREAS, funding for artwork in subsequent years will be sought from other source s; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning & Economic Development Committee supports the Public Art
Commission’s proposal to install an artwork reproduction in each of the three window bays on the
south side of the Green Street Parking Garage.
3. Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
Chatterton presented an application from Britta Lee on behalf of the Utica and
Marshall neighborhood for funds from the City’s Neighborhood Improvement
Incentive Fund (NIF). Committee approval was sought for reimbursement of
expenditures in conjunction with the group’s annual block party.
On a motion by Rosario, seconded by Dotson, the committee unanimously approved
the following resolution (4-0):
Utica/Marshall Street Neighborhood Request for Neighborhood Impr ovement Incentive Funds,
September 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 Common 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 f und, and signatures
of residents in the immediate neighborhood, 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 Utica/Marshall Street Neighborhood has submitted a completed application for
reimbursement funds to offset expenses related to the annual block party, and
WHEREAS, the event is an eligible activity that contributes to the social quality of our neighborhoods
and is free and open to all city residents, and
WHEREAS, the event generates a high level of volunteer hours, and
WHEREAS, while this annual event is sponsored by the Utica/Marshall Street Neighborhood, notice is
circulated throughout the surrounding neighborhood and the event provides an opportunity for
socializing with a diverse mix of neighborhood residents; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning & Economic Development Committee approves the request from the
Utica/Marshall Street Neighborhood in an amount up to $300.00 for reimbursement upon presentation
of original invoices and/or receipts.
4. Consent by the City of Ithaca to Leasehold Mortgage granted by Drop-In Center, Inc. to
Alternatives Federal Credit Union
Nels Bohn reviewed the use of the City-owned property at 502-510 First Street, its lease by
the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and sublease to the Drop-In Center, Inc. He noted the
center’s expansion in 2005 and its more recent efforts to improve its financial condition. In
seeking to reduce its current loan repayments through a refinancing plan, it has turned to the
Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU), which seeks assignment of the leasehold
mortgage as security for a loan to the Drop-In Center. City consent of the Drop-In Center’s
granting of this leasehold mortgage is being sought.
Hoffman stated that it was important that the lease documents involving the City and AFCU
be consistent.
On a motion by Dotson, seconded by Rosario, the committee unanimously approved the
following resolution (4-0):
Consent by City of Ithaca to Leasehold Mortgage granted by Drop-In Center, Inc. to Alternatives Federal
Credit Union concerning 502-510 First Street, Ithaca, NY
WHEREAS, Alternatives Federal Credit Union (“AFCU”) is considering granting a loan to the Drop -In
Center, Inc., to refinance the Center’s existing debt in a manner that would reduce the debt service payment
by approximately $300 per month, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca conveyed to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (“IURA”) a Ground Lease
(“Master Lease”) dated April 13, 1995, of the premises described as 502 -510 First Street, Ithaca, NY (“the
Premises”), which Master Lease requires the Pre mises to be used for a day care center and permits the City to
terminate the Lease in the event of that the IURA or its sublessee (now the Drop -In Center) fails to use the
premises for a day care center, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency granted a sublease (“Sublease”) of said premises to the Drop -
In Center, Inc., dated April 13, 1995, which Sublease contains the same restrictions and permits termination
of the Sublease in the event of any default by the Drop -In Center, and
WHEREAS, said Master Lease and Sublease were amended on May 23, 2007, when the Drop-In Center
donated adjacent land to the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Drop-In Center seeks to grant a Leasehold Mortgage to AFCU to secure the refinance loan,
and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2008, the IURA consented to subordinate its leasehold mortgage liens held on the
502-510 First Street premises to induce AFCU’s restructuring of the Drop-In Center’s debt; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, that in order to induce AFCU to grant the afore-mentioned refinance loan, the Common
Council of the City of Ithaca hereby consents to the granting of a Leasehold Mortgage on the Sublease
premises located at 502-510 First Street, Ithaca, NY to AFCU for the purpose of securing a refinancing loan,
not to exceed $100,000 in principal, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca further consents to AFCU’s enforcement of the
terms of the mortgage so that its designee(s) may take possession of the premises for legal and allowable use
under the terms of the Sublease and that AFCU’s Leasehold Mortgage, quiet enjoyment of the premises in the
event of its nenforcement of the Leasehold Mortgage, and assignability of the Sublease, shall not be affected
by any default of IURA and/or the Drop -In Center at any time, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby approves and directs the modification of the afore -mentioned
Master Lease, such that, in the event of a default by the Drop -In Center regarding said loan from AFCU or
any loan from the IURA to Drop-In Center, then (a) the City’s right to terminate the lease with IURA is
waived, provided that AFCU or its designee satisfies the other provisions of the Sublease, and (b) AFCU is
permitted to sublet the premises to another day care center for such use, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby consents to a comparable modification of the afore -
mentioned Sublease (between IURA and the Drop-In Center), and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Mayor, subject to advice from the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute any
and all agreements and documents to implement this resolution.
F. Other: None
G. Minutes:
H. Adjournment
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Dotson, the committee voted unanimously to
adjourn.