HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-10 Planning & EDC Meeting Agenda
MEETING NOTICE
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, June 16, 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 Rezoning of Certain R-3 Areas to R-2b, R-2c, and R-3aa
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports
E. Action Items
1. Rezoning of Certain R-3 Areas to R-2b, R-2c, and R-3aa
(materials and maps distributed earlier, lead agency resolution, SEQR documents and
negative declaration resolution, zoning ordinances)
2. Sediment Management Site Selection
(report and DPAC member statements distributed earlier, resolution)
F. Discussion Items
1. Bridge Barriers Working Group
2. TIGER II Grant Proposal
3. Inlet Island Preferred Developer Status
(memo, September 2006 IURA resolution, excerpt from October 2006 Council
minutes, excerpt from August 2007 Council minutes)
G. Approval of Minutes – October 15, 2008, March 21, 2007
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, June 15, 2010.
E1
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 Establish the R-3aa Zoning District and to Rezone Portions of the R-3a
and R-3b Zoning Districts to R-2b, R-2c, and the Newly Established R-3aa Zoning
District
At the May Planning Committee meeting the proposed ordinances to establish the R-3aa zoning district, and to
rezone portions of the R-3a and R-3b zoning districts to R-2b, R-2c, and R-3aa, was discussed. At the committee’s
request, the environmental review for these actions was circulated to the Planning Boa rd, the Conservation Advisory
Council, various City staff and departments, and the Tompkins County Planning Department. Enclosed are
comments that have been received from the Planning Board regarding this proposal.
Enclosed for your consideration are draft resolutions for lead agency and environmental significance as well as draft
ordinances for the R-2b, R-2c, and R-3aa rezonings. If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this
information, feel free to contact me at 274 -6410.
E1a
Draft Resolution
June 9, 2010
An Ordinance to Amend 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-2b, R-
2c, and the newly established R-3aa zoning districts - 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 a nd 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 “Type I” 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 order to establish R-
3aa zoning district and to rezone portions of the R-3a and R-3b zoning districts to R-2b, R-2c, and to the newly
established R-3aa zoning districts.
E1b
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 significance 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 dete rmination
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 identif ying basic 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 whe ther 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: XPart 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, th ere will 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 important 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
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 s ubject 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 XNo 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 Xo 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 XNo 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 XNo 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 ho w much will be removed from 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 plain?
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 loc al
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 constructio n? 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?
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?
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 Yes x No
Lake or the Cayuga Inlet?
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 chem ical
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 with 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 enjoyme nt 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
opportunity. 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
Small to
Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Reduced
by Project Change?
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 b e 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, irritating,
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,
commercial or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of Small to Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced by
the existing community?
x Yes No
Moderate Impact Impact 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 controver sy 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 to rezone portions of the R-3a and
R-3b zoning district to the new R-3aa zone, to the R-2b, and the R-2c zone. 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-b and are located in neighborhoods which display traditional urban form
with houses of similar scale and style on e ither 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 buildin gs located on the entire block front. The impact is
expected to be a positive impact on the community.
E1c
Draft Resolution
June 9, 2010
An Ordinance to Amend 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-2b, R-
2c, and the newly established R-3aa zoning districts – Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment t o Chapter 325 of the Municipal Zoning Code in order
to establish the R-3aa zoning district and to rezone portions of the R -3a and R-3b zoning districts to R-2b, R-2c and
the newly established R-3aa district, 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 “Type I” 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 prep ared 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 Full 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
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-2b 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-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. The boundaries are
shown on the attached map entitled “Proposed R-2b 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.
Publish: April 2, 2010
E1e
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.
E1f
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 – 305.
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. If one or more surrounding buildings have been demolished,
then the calculation for maximum building footprint would use the footprint of the primary
structure that most recently stood on any lot where a demolition had occurred.
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,
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
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, 83.-2-19, and a
portion of parcels 83.-2-15.1 and 83.-2-16.2. 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.
E2a
Site Selection Statements
Dredging Project Advisory Committee
Compiled on 6/10/2010
Based on the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report, please provide a brief statement stating your preferred
site for a sediment management facility. Please include a statement of your rationale regarding the
preferred site.
State & Federal Agencies
Ken Lynch, Director of Region 7, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
DRAFT
The Draft Site Reconnaissance Report does a good job of assessing numerous options for
dredge spoil disposal.
The in-water disposal is least desired by DEC. Upland disposal sites located nearest to the
dredged area are most desired to minimize environmental impacts and costs.
The DEC recognizes that most of the upland sites located nearest to the dredged area are
designated Parklands which creates additional challenges in using these sites as dewatering
and disposal areas.
The former Southwest Park site is perhaps the most feasible, but also has some identified
challenges, including:
o Additional costs associated with further pumping of the dredge material.
o Army Corps of Engineers identified potential regulatory issues.
o Potential conflict with planned City development of the area.
o Potential contamination identified in the area.
If the former Southwest Park site is identified as the preferred option, DEC recommends that the
involved agencies, with cooperation from the City, work to address the above concerns. In the
event these concerns cannot be addressed, reevaluating the other upland sites will be necessary.
Please also note that the extent of flood protection related dredging has yet to be defined. DEC will
be working with the Army Corps of Engineers over the next year to review data and information to
define the extent of dredging necessary for flood protection purposes.
Carmella Mantello, Director, NYS Canal Corporation
The Canal Corporation has reviewed the Draft Consensus statement and recommendation, and
requests the removal of the statement "The Canal Corporation owns and operates dredging
equipment for use in the entire 524 miles of Canal System under their jurisdiction" from the
document.
Canal Corporation Comments Regarding Ithaca Disposal Site Alternatives
Given the limited resources the Canal Corporation can commit to this project, the following is the
list of the potential dewatering sites with issues relating to the Canal Corporation’s use for
disposal of material dredged for navigation within the Corporation’s jurisdiction.
Cass Park: Assuming a site large enough can be constructed on the property, all navigational
dredging can be accomplished with existing Canal Corporation equipment. Hydraulic dredging
can be accomplished from the lake to the point (Boatyard Grill) utilizing a combination of shore
pipe and floating pipe. Mechanical dredging can be accomplished from the point (Boatyard Grill)
to Buffalo Street utilizing hydraulic barge off-loading into this dewatering site.
Newman Golf Course: All navigational dredging can be accomplished with existing Canal
Corporation equipment. Hydraulic dredging can be accomplished from the lake to the point
(Boatyard Grill) utilizing a combination of shore pipe and floating pipe. Mechanical dredging
can be accomplished from the point (Boatyard Grill) to Buffalo Street utilizing hydraulic barge
off-loading into this dewatering site.
Festival Lands/Allan H. Treman Marine Park : Assuming a site large enough can be constructed
on the property, all navigational dredging can be accomplished with existing Canal Corporation
equipment. Hydraulic dredging can be accomplished from the lake to the point (Boatyard Grill)
utilizing a combination of shore pipe and floating pipe. Mechanical dredging can be
accomplished from the point (Boatyard Grill) to Buffalo Street utilizing hydraulic b arge off-
loading into this dewatering site.
NYSDOT Facility: While this site may be too small for the dewatering of all dredge material
associated with the project, its location is ideal for barge off-loading of mechanically dredged
material. Mechanically dredged material produces far less water within a disposal site than
hydraulic dredging does, so the large area necessary for settling out hydraulically dredged
material is not required for mechanically dredged material.
Southwest Area: This site is of adequate size; however, the distance from the dredge site will
require additional equipment to supplement the Canal Corporation’s equipment available for the
project. Additional equipment will include 15” I.D. pipe to reach from the Corporation’s pipe line
to this dewatering site and any booster pumps required. The Corporation’s available pipe can
reach from the breakwater on the lake to approximately the ball fields at Cass Park
If this is the sole dewatering site for the project, the Canal Corporation will not have the capacity
to mechanically dredge from the Boatyard Grill to Buffalo Street. For the Canal Corporation to
off-load the barges containing dredge material, the barge must be in close proximity to the
disposal site. Since the waterways south of Buffalo Street are not navigable for Canal
Corporation vessels, the barges cannot be brought close enough to this site for off -loading.
Robert Remmers, P.E., PMP, Levee Safety Program Manager, Chief, Operations and Technical Support Section
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District
THE FOLLOWING IS BUFFALO DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF ITHACA'S
REQUEST TO THE CORPS FOR CONSENSUS STATEMENT INPUT:
Thank you for the information you have provided with respect to your ongoing efforts to develop
a dredging management plan for the Cayuga Inlet Flood Risk Management project as well as for
the navigable portions of the inlet.
I would to clarify the role of the Buffalo District Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in regards to
our involvement on the DPAC for the subject project. As I mentioned at one of the first
meetings, the Corps' interest lies in ensuring the Federal flood risk management project is
properly maintained for the safety of the public. It is also our goal to communicate the risks
posed by non-maintenance of the project to all stakeholders. It is beyond the scope of our
authority to provide engineering analysis related to means, methods, and cost-benefit analysis of
operations and maintenance responsibilities of the project Sponsor. As such, the Buffalo District
cannot provide input or indicate preference with respect to site selection of a sediment
management facility. Regarding the Consensus Statement, the Corps role is more accurately
described in Comment # 2 below:
Under "Jurisdictional and Regulatory Responsibilities", pg. E -2: The first bulleted item is
inaccurately stated as follows:
"The ACOE is responsible for inspecting and evaluating the project for certification on an annual
basis. As long as the project is certified (maintained to ACOE standards), the agency is
responsible for providing emergency maintenance and flood relief assistance in the event of a
major flood event."
A more accurate description of the ACOE role in this project is as follows:
"The ACOE periodically (usually annually) participates in joint inspections of the Federal risk
management project with the sponsor (NYSDEC) to evaluate overall project conditions and the
adequacy of their operation and maintenance efforts. An inspection rating of "Minimally
Acceptable" or better is necessary for the project to remain active in the ACOE Rehabilitation and
Inspection Program (RIP). Projects that remain active in the RIP may be eligible for Federal
assistance if they are damaged by a major storm or flood event. Projects that are inactive are
ineligible for such assistance. Risks associated with project deficiencies are communicated by
ACOE to project stakeholders. ACOE may provide emergency operations assistance prior to or
during a flood event, whether project is active or inactive."
Terra M Strun, Coastal Resources Specialist, NYS Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources
Optimal alternative: Southwest area site:
Rationale - This is the only parcel under consideration which is of suitable size, is entirely
within City ownership, and which does not present additional obstacles or conflicts (such as
parkland alienation). The fact that the preferred use of the site is for development, may not by
itself be reason enough to eliminate this site as the most viable for the dredging dewatering site.
Plans have not yet been drawn for the development of this site, making it easier to design a site
plan which would accommodate the dredging facility as well as some residential development.
A portion of the site could conceivably be used, as was discussed yesterday, until a permanent
solution is attained or the permanent site could be located here. This site also seems to offer the
greatest opportunity for immediate action and initiation of the environmental review process.
For instance, the DOT lands and parklands may involve lengthy processes to acquire property
or rights to alienate parkland.
Tim Joseph, Regional Director, and Sue Poelvoorde Finger Lakes State Parks Region
Based on the information presented at the March 1, 2010 meeting, we recommend moving
forward with the plan to utilize the Southwest area as the dredge spoil repository both in the
long and short term. Once the investment is made to prepare the site, secure the easement from
Norfolk-Southern, and purchase the equipment needed to pump the slurry to the site, it just
makes economic sense to designate the area the site for both flood control and navigation
maintenance for the future.
Craig Schutt, District Manager, Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District
After reviewing the DRAFT Site Reconnaissance Report and listening to the discussion at the
meeting I don’t see a lot of options for the dewatering site. The volume of dredge material for
the initial work dictates a large site along with other regulatory restrictions are the largest
limiting factors of site selection. My recommendation is to move forward on efforts with the
Southwest Park site at the least for the initial dredging. If possible try and site the infrastructure
necessary in a way that once the initial dredging is complete, do a down sizing of the site for
routine maintenance, in a manner that will have as little impact on the larger areas of the site as
possible. This would enable the City to utilize some of the other areas for future development
or whatever is decided as a good long-term use. I say maintain a smaller foot print site for
future dredging due to the considerable investment of infrastructure necessary to utilize this site
(piping, booster pumping station, piping under the railroad, etc.). To abandon this amount of
investment for an alternative permanent site and the development of any subsequent site seems
like an undue expense of public funds. To spend more time and resources on studying other
alternatives at this point may be counter productive and wasteful. I believe the same
conclusion, the use of Southwest Park as the only acceptable site would ultimately be the
decision as the best alternative. The project needs to move forward.
Another suggestion for the future from the SWCD perspective is we all need to be looking for
opportunities to slow/decrease the transport of sediment to the inlet from further up in the
watershed. That may be sediment retention basins, implementation of stormwater programs
and projects, better ditching practices, re-establishment of wetlands, and many more. A more
comprehensive approach to the problem is needed for the long-term.
City Officials & Staff
Maria Coles, City of Ithaca Alderperson
After having read the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report, I have agreed with others that the best
site for the various de-watering steps needed to be undertaken is the City's South West Park
area. I also do not want to loose track of the fact that this is the prime loc ation left in the City
where significant residential development can happen eventually.
The considerable, City owned acreage in this part of the City would provide the needed space
for the immediate use and future use for dredging. The Southwest part of the City is also
within the 21/2 miles from the dredged site and therefore would not require the City to have to
fund parts of the operation. Using the Southwest lands would also mean much less work in
terms of regulatory agencies having to be involved, nor would we have to be concerned with
parkland alienation.
If it does become clear, however, that for reasons that are presently unknown, the plans for
development of a neighborhood in the Southwest would be in jeopardy because of the
continued dredging needs, then I would urge that another site be found for the future, i.e. 10
years, dredging needs. In this regard, I am intrigued by the possibility that the de-watering
ponds' design might enhance future residential neighborhoods by providing the needed barrier
to train noise etc.
David Kay (City of Ithaca Planning Board Representative)
Based on the information in the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report, there appears to be no viable
alternative in the next several years to locating the “sediment management facility” in the
Southwest Park area. This conclusion arises mostly from taking three propositions in the report
at face value: first, that alienation of land designated as parkland is difficult at best and unlikely
to be accomplished in a matter of a few years, second, that the site needs to be a minimum of 20
acres to accommodate the quantity of sediments that have accumulated over years of deferred
maintenance and are proposed to be removed to restore the Channel’s flood control functions,
and third, that there are no suitable identified upland sites in the Cayuga Inlet Valley.
I would note that while the rationales for these apparently binding constraints seem reasonable
and no doubt reflect experienced and professional judgment, they are not particularly well
supported in the Report itself. What I mean is: a) It is not clearly described why the acreage
needs to be a minimum of 20 acres; which is not to say that I have any particular basis to
challenge this determination; b) I have somewhat more information about the difficulty of
parkland alienation, having witnessed part of the long effort to, ironically, alienate the parkland
that now constitutes one of the proposed dewatering sites, Southwest Park. I do not challenge
the conclusion that alienation is a difficult and probably time consuming process, but there is
insufficient information in the report to make any conclusions as to how difficult this process
would be in this situation, or what time frame might even optimistically be involved; c)
Similarly, an informal glance at online GIS and property maps reveals that there are no 20 acre
plus low lying undeveloped parcels in close proximity to the Inlet and in single, much less city,
ownership that might be potentially suitable; however, an explicit review of this type is not
included in the report.
My bottom line is a reluctant willingness to conclude based on information currently available
that Southwest Park area is the only practical alternative in the short term for the site.
However, I emphatically do not accept (nor do I reject), on the basis of the information
provided, that the Southwest Park site is the best site for a permanent dewatering site. My
recommendation favoring the Southwest is therefore contingent on the assumption that a more
information rich evaluation of the pros and cons of the Southwest and other sites as a
permanent dewatering facility is still needed and will be pursued forthwith (ie. without delays
that would again make other alternatives infeasible in practice). As I understand it, a
permanent site could be smaller and would not need to be developed for perhaps a decade
(including the time taken to develop the temporary site plus the several years after completion
of initial dredging until the next round of dredging would be needed). While it is quite
conceivable that a permanent dewatering facility could be shown to be optimally located in the
Southwest Area, and even compatible with the long term neighborhood development plans for
that area which haven't really been given due consideration in the existing report, there is no
evidence currently presented that leads to this conclusion. Moreover, I believe both the smaller
size required and the longer timeline available make several of the other options viable in a way
that they are evidently not now in relation to the immediate need for a site.
Wade Wykstra, Commissioner, Board of Public Works
I prefer the Southwest Area for the following reasons:
1. There is room on the site for both processing and housing development.
2. The spoils may be used for contouring and as building materials at that site.
3. 600,000+ cubic yards translates to tens of thousands of dump truck loads; the further out
from the center of the city we engage in trucking, the better.
4. Equipment that may be used to pipe the spoils further to the south could become owned by
the city for long-term management use including dredging of the reservoirs.
Roxy Johnson, Environmental Analyst, City of Ithaca Water & Sewer Division
The best use of this sediment would be to construct wetlands in the southern basin of Cayuga
Lake. There is agreement among scientists, regulators and the public that the sediment loading
to the lake is high. Researchers and citizen monitoring groups alike confirm that the source of
the sediment is predominantly coming from the tributaries. Furthermore, this sediment carries
large amounts of phosphorus into the lake. The DEC has listed this area of the lake as impaired
due to the sediment and phosphorus inputs. The DEC has been under pressure from some in
the community to impose Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations to address these
impairments. It is generally accepted that historical filling of the wetlands, along with past
agricultural practices and the glacial history of the area, created the current situation. It is also
generally accepted that over time the naturally deposited sediments will recreate wetlands (see
accompanying articles).
TMDL regulations target inputs. Abating glacial inputs at their source is simply not feasible.
This sediment source is natural and will continue for decades, if not longer, until a stable stream
configuration is reached. Modern agricultural practices are much improved and no longer
contribute to large scale erosion. Development is light in most of the upper watersheds, and
newer stormwater regulation will lessen erosion caused by such activities. Traditional sources
of phosphorus are wastewater treatment facilities and industries. This area has no large scale
industry now or historically. The wastewater treatment facilities have both undergone recent
upgrades to dramatically reduce phosphorus inputs. This leaves the phosphorus delivered by
the streams on sediment particles. TMDL’s have not traditionally been designed to fit this type
of input. The very best thing that could be done to shorten the time required for the lake to
better absorb sediment and phosphorus inputs from the tributaries as well as sediment
resuspension in the lake from wind and wave action, would be to hasten the natural process of
wetland construction in the southern basin of the lake.
Without cost estimates for additional piping and pumping required for the Southwest Park
option, the cost of dredges (rental or purchase), relative costs of use of 1 or 2 dredges, and a
weighing of those costs versus potential time requirements for Parkland alienation, it is not
possible to be certain of the best financial choice.
Based on this report, the easiest place to dispose of the initial sediment is Southwest Park.
Lisa Nicholas, City of Ithaca Senior Planner & Project Manager
Based on current information, the southwest site appears to be the most logical and feasible
choice for a preferred site to move this project forward. Construction and operation of a
sediment management facility does not conflict with present land use on the site, permitting
appears to be feasible, and because it is in City ownership but is not parkland, permitting and
design of the site could begin immediately and would not be forestalled by the lengthy process
of municipal parkland alienation or state parkland conversion as would be the case with the
other sites that met the size criteria of 20 acres. Additionally, the NYS Department of State and
the NYS DEC have both strongly advised the City that the regulatory barriers to in-water
disposal are likely to be insurmountable. Finally, the location of a facility on a waterfront site,
although more practical in terms of the ideal distance for hydraulic dredging, is likely to pose a
permanent and negative impact on the recreational and aesthetic value of waterfront lands.
Additionally and also based on current information, the barriers to the use of the southwest site
appear to be technical in nature –based mainly (but not exclusively) on the distance from the
dredging. The technical problems appear to have clearer solutions than the regulatory and land
use issues. We do not have a firm cost estimate at this time of dealing with technical issues –
such as the need for a booster pump(s) and additional piping and securing an area to offload
mechanically dredged sediments. However, costs would only partially, if at all, be assumed by
the City and must be weighed against the potential impacts to the community of using a
waterfront site. The possible presence of regulated wetlands on the southwest site could pose
some delays, however a wetlands jurisdictional determination is currently in process on the site.
At the present time, it appears possible to design a facility on the site that would not impact
regulated wetlands.
A major land use issue in using the southwest site as a sediment management facility is the
possible impacts to the city’s plans to develop the site for housing. These impacts could
include a potential delay in the project and the possibility that long term use of a smaller
portion of the site for a permanent sediment management facility would be incompatible with
housing. Although not included in the Site Reconnaissance Report, use of the site may offer
potential opportunities to coordinate future housing development in the following areas:
o Potential for capping – or otherwise mitigating potential environmental issues on
the northern portion of site (which the City does not intend to use for housing in
the future).
o Potential to use sediments, once dewatered, for preloading and contouring the
site
o Potential to deal with existing fill piles currently on the site to form berms for the
dewatering basins.
Ray Benjamin, Assistant Superintendent,, City of Ithaca Streets and Facilities
The Southwest Park area would be my preference
1) The City would impact the least amount of people, the area closest to the inlet is currently
lying fallow. There is no residential or recreational areas bounding the site(out of sight
out of mind)
2) Twenty acres is the minimum size for immediate use and the ideal size for routine
dredging in the future, an additional twenty acres could be used for initial dredging and
reclaimed later leaving a permanent site for dewatering dredged material
3) There is a railroad siding next to the site that would make removing dried material much
greener and economical if a permanent spoils site can be located near a siding.
4) Combining the spoils with composted materials would make a valuable product that
could be marketed. The County is exploring the composting of yard & food waste in an
effort to reduce solid waste, They are applying a grant for a pilot program. The County is
currently diverting 60% of its waste and looking to reach 75% by 2015 according to the
article in the 3/16/10 issue of the Journal. Tompkins County solid waste is located next to
this site.
5) Although additional piping and pumps are needed for this site it is easier than alienating
parkland and impacting the Community in a negative way.
6) That would leave 30 acres for Consolidated DPW opening up valuable property for
development on a Golf course and next to a marina.
Tompkins County/Town of Ithaca
Elizabeth Cameron, Director of Environmental Health, Tompkins County Health Department
Based on your report, the Southwest Site appears to be the site that can be most easily and
quickly developed as the initial site for management for dredging spoils; however, it is difficult
to make a decision without additional cost information related to the distance of this site from
the areas to be dredged.
The selection of one of the options that appears to be more difficult or require more time for
regulatory approvals may be the best site for a sediment management facility for long-term use.
Dan Karig, Water Resources Council
My individual opinion is that the golf course is by far the best location for spoils during this first
round of dredging. Not only is it optimally located but it would also fit very well with the
proposals made in the future plans for the golf course. I'm not convinced that the alienation
process is as onerous as claimed. What does need to happen is to convince the friends of Newman
that it is in their interest, not a death sentence for the golf course. BTW, it would also save the
City the money they lose annually while the golf course is out of commission.
It is obvious that the consultants and the City are pushing for SW Park and I suppose it's the best
alternative. I have one comment here however. It was stated in the meeting that, following the
initial spoils disposal, a permanent disposal site would be found and material then transported
elsewhere. I think it's more than a bit optimistic to think that this material can be considered an
asset that someone would want. You're just pushing the problem down the road. I was also
disturbed at the scare tactics concerning flooding and channel "occlusion" (the correct term is
avulsion). I intend to address those issues as I get the necessary data.
Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning and Public Works
I believe that the Southwest site offers the most immediate opportunity to conduct dredging in
the next year or two and makes sense when the need to dredge the Flood Control Channel is
considered. However, in the absence of the final US Army Corps of Engineers analysis and
any clear assessment of future dredging needs for the Flood Control Channel it is not clear to
me that the Southwest is best long-term site. The Festival Lands seem more appropriate as a
long-term location for handling ongoing navigational dredging needs. I also believe that a
more complete financial analysis is needed to support this decision and that this analysis should
include the difference in operational costs between the sites, the cost of alienation of parkland
with respect to the Festival Lands site and the cost in terms of impact on the City’s plans for
development of the Southwest site.
Community Organizations/ Representatives
John C. Gutenberger, VP Government & Community Relations, Cornell University
The Southwest Area is the best site as in-lake-disposal is not an option.
Louise Raimondo, Friends of Newman Golf Course
Based on the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report, you asked The Friends of Newman Golf
Course to provide you with a brief statement stating our preferred site for a sediment
management facility. You also requested that we include a statement of our rationale regarding
the preferred site. As I conveyed to you via email in advance of the public hearing, the
consensus of the Friends of Newman Golf Course is to endorse the Southwest Park site as the
dewatering location for the dredged spoils.
The Friends of Newman Golf Course hereby endorse the Southwest Park site as our preferred
dredged spoils dewatering location. Many in our group were interested in the idea of using the
spoils to create nearshore islands in Cayuga Lake or as a possible extension of Stewart Park,
with an attempt to re-establish some of the lost wetland ecosystem know as Renwick Marsh,
which occupied most of the Ithaca lowlands before settlement. However, we recognize that
Lake disposal is not currently an option because it is strongly opposed by New York State &
federal officials. Some of us were interested in the possibility of enhancing the golf course
with the spoils, but that option is not an option under NYS law regarding parklands. Therefore,
the best location appears to be Southwest Park. Based upon the information presented to the
Dredging Project Advisory Committee (DPAC), it appears that the transportation costs to
Southwest Park would not be unacceptable and are within the project budget. The 65 acre site
should be large enough to serve as a permanent dredged spoils dewatering facility, and the
dewatered spoils which have been tested and are considered non-toxic, could be used to
enhance the rest of Southwest Park in preparation for the City of Ithaca's intent to use that
location for public housing. Therefore, the Friends of Newman Golf Course hereby endorse the
Southwest Park site as the best location for the spoils that would be generated from the
proposed Inlet dredging project.
Rick Manning, Coordinator, Cayuga Waterfront Trail Initiative
I concur with SW park as the main site. I also believe that an open water site that extends the
west peninsula of Stewart Park to the north to create a wetland and nature trail complex would
be provide many positive benefits for public access, habitat and water quality.
John Mawdsley, Chair of Cayuga Lake Watershed Network
As Chair of the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network I was invited onto the Dredging Project Advisory
Committee. I submit my comments based on the presentation to this committee and some limited
discussions with our Board.
We would prefer some positive benefit to the watershed ecology, over and a bove the benefits to the
channel from the dredging, to result from the disposal of the sediment from the dredging if at all
possible. One of your suggested sites was to make a new wetland or islands at the southern end of the
lake. There were few details of this and it was dismissed as too expensive and not likely to get
approval from the authorities. This would have been our preferred site but we accept the reasons for
dismissing it. Of the remaining sites it seemed clear that only the South West site was feasible for
dewatering of the large volumes of sediment that have to be removed at this time. We think that the
ultimate disposal of this material should have been included in the decision making at this stage as
this is an important part of the project entailing possibly large volumes of material being trucked. We
would like to see this material being used for landscape improvements within the Ithaca area.
We are very firmly of the opinion that a permanent solution to the sediment movement into the lak e
should be found. There is more sediment than necessary entering the creeks at this time and reducing
these volumes should be an important project in the future. We would be pleased to work with the
city and other local communities to this end in the future. However, there will always be new
sediment being carried to the lake and a permanent solution to this problem should be identified at
this time. This aspect has not been well addressed in the study.
We are concerned that the permanent solution, which may involve regular dredging of the inlet or the
building of sediment traps upstream of the inlet, will be overlooked in this process and will not be
adequately addressed. At present it appears that the study team is intending to make the South West
site a permanent location for de-watering. This may be the best solution but the criteria used to assess
the sites did not address the needs of the permanent site. For example, it does not need to be 20 acres
in size; indeed the size requirement for this site has not been presented. We would like recognition
that the current selection of a de-watering site is simply for the first phase of the dredging and the
permanent solution requires much more work.
E2b
Selection of a Preferred Site for the Location of a Sediment Management Facility –
Resolution
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2006, Common Council authorized the filing of an application for
funds from the New York State Department of State Environmental Protection Fund’s
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program in accordance with the provisions of Title 11 of
the Environmental Protection Act of 1993 in an amount not to exceed $133,178.00, or
50% of the original estimated project costs for the Planning and Design phases of the
project to dredge the lower reaches of Cayuga Inlet, the Flood Control Channel, Fall
Creek, Cascadilla Creek, and Six Mile Creek, and
WHEREAS, in fall 2006 the City was awarded the grant funds, and
WHEREAS, in January 2007 the City, issued a Request for Proposals for project
planning and design and selected Ecologic L.L.C. (lead) with ERM (subcontractor), and,
WHEREAS, the main objective of the planning phase was the identification of a
preferred alternative for the location of a sediment management facility, which required
conducting a site reconnaissance of the project area and potential dewatering sites, and
WHEREAS, work on the site reconnaissance was guided by the Dredging Project
Advisory Committee (DPAC), which met four times between April 2007 and March
2010, and by the agencies involv ed in the project; NYSDEC, US Army Corps of
Engineers, and NYS Canal Corporation, and
WHEREAS, the consultant, working in coordination with city staff completed a Draft Site
Reconnaissance Report which compiled existing conditions of the project area and
potential sites, including, land use, zoning, ownership and natural and cultural resources
in the project area, sediment testing and analysis results, current channel profiles
derived from 2008 bathymetry, user surveys, an economic analysis of the waterway, a
legal analysis of site constraints and a matrix of all potential dewatering sites, and
WHEREAS, the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report was reviewed by the agencies
involved in the project and amended based on their comments and recommendations,
and
WHEREAS, in March of 2010 the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report was distributed to
the members of DPAC, Common Council and the Board of Public Works of Public
Works and made available to the public, and the report was presented by the consultant
and city staff to the three groups and at a public meeting, and
WHEREAS, Members of the DPAC have submitted individual statements regarding
their preference and rational for a preferred alternative for the location of a sediment
management facility site based on the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report, and those
statements have been compiled and distributed to the Board of Public Works of Public
Works and Common Council, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works and Common Council understand the
responsibilities of the agencies in the dredging project to be as follows:
United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE): The ACOE constructed the
Flood Control Channel (designated as the stream segment extending from the
outlet at Cayuga Lake south to the end of the channel) and associated levee
system. The ACOE periodically (usually annually) participates in joint inspections
of the Federal risk management project with the sponsor (NYSDEC) to evaluate
overall project conditions and the adequacy of their operation and maintena nce
efforts. An inspection rating of “Minimally Acceptable” or better is necessary for
the project to remain active in the ACOE Rehabilitation and Inspection Program
(RIP). Projects that remain active in the RIP may be eligible for Federal
assistance if they are damaged by a major storm or flood event. Projects that are
inactive are ineligible for such assistance. Risks associated with project
deficiencies are communicated by ACOE to project stakeholders. ACOE may
provide emergency operations assistance prior to or during a flood event,
whether a project is active or inactive.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
Responsibility for maintenance of the flood control portion of the waterways was
conveyed to New York State upon completion, through the NYSDEC. NYSDEC
is responsible on behalf of the State of New York for all dredging necessary for
flood control.
New York State Canal Corporation The Canal Corporation is responsible for
maintaining a navigation channel in Cayuga Inlet from the Buffalo St. Bridge to
the lighthouse.
City of Ithaca The City has responsibility for “ordinary maintenance” of the Flood
Control Channel, which has included mowing, brush removal and other work
along the banks of the channel, and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2010, at a joint meeting of Common Council and the Board of
Public Works of Public Works, it was decided by mutual agreement that the Board of
Public Works of Public Works would undertake the task of selecting a preferred site,
and that at the completion of this process, would submit their preferred site to Common
Council for final approval, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has completed an analysis of the potential sites
which has included review of the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report, undertaken site
visits to the former southwest park and to the sediment management facility in Montour
Falls, and participated in discussions with city staff and consultants, and
WHEREAS, Common Council understands that selection of the preferred alternative
allows the next phase of the project to commence. This phase will include
environmental review (likely an Environmental Impact Statement) of the preferred
alternative as well as design, permitting and construction of the facility. Clarification
regarding legal, financial, schedule, management, and other arrangements between the
City and NYSDEC (and, to a lesser extent NYS Canal Corporation) will also be part of
the next phase, and
WHEREAS, Common Council and the members of the Board of Public Works have
taken into consideration the following criteria when deciding on a preferred alternative
for the City’s Sediment Management Facility: adequate acreage to service the initial
dredging event, as well as future long term maintenance dredging needs; accessibility
and proximity of the site to the Cayuga Inlet, Flood Control Channel and creeks;
ownership of land; technical feasibility and feasibility in regards to acquiring permits and
approvals, and acceptability to the public, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has selected the Southwest area (see seven (7)
sites listed in Table 14 of the Decision Matrix) as their recommended preferred
alternative for the location of a Sediment Management Facility and has requested that
Common Council confirm this selection by vote prior to the City undertaking
environmental review, project design, and coordination with state agencies, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council concurs with the recommendation of the Board of
Public Works and selects the Southwest area as the preferred alternative for the
location of a Sediment Management Facility, and be it further
RESOLVED, That if the involved agencies, with cooperation from the City, cannot
resolve any potential issues on the site, or if any issues arise during the course of the
next phase of the project that cannot be resolved, a reevaluation of the other upland
sites for a sediment management facility will be necessary.
F3a
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: June 8, 2010
RE: Inlet Island Preferred Developer Agreement
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the preferred developer agreement between
the City of Ithaca and Steve Flash to develop the City owned land on Inlet Island.
In 2006, the City released a Request for Proposals to develop an approximately 2.5 acre tract of land
owned by the City and the IURA located on Inlet Island and an additional .4 acre parcel that the City is in
negotiations to acquire from New York State. A selection committee that was appointed by the Mayor
reviewed the responses and recommended that the City enter into a preferred developer agreement with
Stephen B. Flash. On September 28, 2006, the IURA designated Stephen B. Flash as a qualified and
eligible sponsor and the preferred developer for the Inlet Island waterfront development project. The
Common Council passed a similar resolution on October 6, 2006, which also designated Stephen B. Flash
as the preferred developer for this project and authorized the Mayor to negotiate and sign a preferred
developer agreement with Common Council’s approval of the terms of the agreement. The Mayor and
the IURA negotiated an agreement and brought it before the Common Council to approve the terms in
August of 2007. At that meeting the Common Council failed to adopt a resolution approving the terms of
the preferred developer agreement. Enclosed please find copies of the IURA preferred developer and
qualified sponsor resolution, the Common Council preferred developer resolution, and the approved
minutes from the August 1, 2007, meeting of the Common Council. The preferred developer is still
expressing interest in working with the City to clean up the contaminated land and to develop an
acceptable project.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at 274 -
6410.
F3c
October 4, 2006
City of Ithaca Common Council minutes
PLANNING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE:
Designation of a Preferred Developer for the Inlet Island Waterfront Development
- Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff
WHEREAS, The Inlet Island Urban Design Plan, which was adopted by the Common
Council in November of 1998, recommends the revitalization of Inlet Island by
developing an attractive, pedestrian-scale, urban waterfront mixed-use neighborhood,
featuring waterfront-enhanced private sector uses linked by the public wate rfront
promenade, and
WHEREAS, the development site on Inlet Island is composed of approximately 2.5
acres, composed of tax parcels #52.-1-1.1, #52.-1-1.2, #52.-1-1.3, and #43.-1-4, owned
by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (“IURA”) and the City of Ithaca (“City”), and an
additional approximately 0.4 acre adjoining parcel of land (tax parcel #43.-1-5) for which
the City is in negotiations with the State of New York to acquire, and
WHEREAS, subsurface conditions of the development site appear to require remed iation
of approximately 4,500 to 7,500 cubic feet of contaminated soils from bulk fuel storage
uses existing prior to City/IURA ownership, and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2005, the Common Council passed a resolution authorizing
the distribution of the Inlet Is land Waterfront Development Request for Proposals (“RFP”)
and authorizing the Mayor to appoint a Selection Committee to review the responses to
the RFP, and to make a recommendation for a preferred developer to the Common
Council and the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, and
WHEREAS, the City issued the RFP, and received three proposals; one was an
incomplete proposal, and one was withdrawn, leaving one complete proposal, submitted
October 4, 2006
40
by Stephen B. Flash on behalf of a prospective Limited Liabili ty Company, Finger Lakes
Development, LLC, to be formed if selected as the preferred developer, and
WHEREAS, Finger Lakes Development, LLC (“Developer”) is an entity to be formed with
Stephen B. Flash as managing member, and to include the three original m embers of the
Marina Realty of Ithaca, LLC, the company that completed environmental remediation
and development of the Boatyard Grill restaurant and that owns and manages the Ithaca
Boating Center marina, and
WHEREAS, the Stephen B. Flash/Finger Lakes Dev elopment, LLC proposal proposed
environmental remediation of the site; development of an approximately 105 -room hotel
with 15 condominium units by Cayuga Visions, LLC, which will be the ultimate owner and
operator of this portion of the project; development of a five-story, 60,000 sq. ft. multi-use
building including, retail, office, and museum uses by Social Ventures, Inc.; renovation of
the existing covered boat house and enhanced public access to the waterfront; and
surface parking sufficient for this proposed project, and
WHEREAS, the proposal was reviewed by the Selection Committee, which included the
City’s consultant from the National Development Council, a representative of the Ithaca
Downtown Partnership, a Common Council member, an IURA member, a r epresentative
from the Chamber of Commerce, a member of the City’s Conservation Advisory Council,
and a member of the Tompkins County Cayuga Lake Watershed Network, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Department of Planning & Development undertook an
analysis of parking supply and demand on Inlet Island that concluded there is a need for
additional parking, and
WHEREAS, following discussions with the Selection Committee and reviewing the
Department of Planning & Development’s study of parking supply and demand on Inlet
Island, the Developer revised its proposal to the following proposed $17 - $23 million
mixed-use project:
environmental remediation of the site
approximately 100-room hotel
15 condominium units
renovation of the existing covered marina str ucture and enhanced public
access to the waterfront
potential development of some retail use consistent with the waterfront
environment,
potential construction of approximately 12 apartments over the existing
marina structure, and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the proposal and having interviewed the
development team in four separate meetings, the Selection Committee
concluded that while the submitted proposal does not exactly address the City’s
ideal vision for the Inlet Island development site, the Develope r has indicated its
commitment to being flexible with its development plans, and is qualified and
willing to work with the City and IURA to modify the project to address the
following issues raised by the Selection Committee:
Urban design
Employment, including work force diversity and living wages
Project scale
Public access and public spaces, especially by alternative transportation means,
including by foot, bicycle, boat and bus
Public spaces
Environmental concerns
Project accessory uses, and
WHEREAS, City Planning & Development Department staff and the Selection
Committee recommend retention of a portion of the development site for construction of
surface pubic parking to accommodate existing off -site parking needs, thereby effectively
reducing the private sector development site by approximately 0.5 acres, and
October 4, 2006
41
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency recommended the designation of
Stephen B. Flash as the Preferred Developer for the Inlet Islan d Waterfront
Development at its September 28, 2006, meeting; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby concur with the designation by the
IURA to name Stephen B. Flash, as the Preferred Developer for the Inlet Island
Waterfront Development, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Stephen B. Flash is hereby authorized to assign the Preferred
Developer designation to Finger Lakes Development, LLC upon its creation and
disclosure to the IURA of all principals and/or members, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council recognizes that the revised development proposal
submitted is not in complete alignment with the City’s original vision for development on
Inlet Island, but the Developer and the City/IURA will work towards an agreement on the
following issues raised by the Selection Committee, and any additional issues that may
arise:
Urban design
Employment
Project scale
Project accessory uses
Public access and public spaces
Environmental concerns
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, with the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized
and directed to negotiate and sign a Preferred Developer Agreement exclusively with
Stephen B. Flash, or his City-authorized assignee, for the Inlet Island Waterfront
Development project and that this agreement shall cover topics such as:
1. Project Site – define the boundaries of the project site available for
private-sector development;
2. Site Control - provide the Developer with access and site control to seek
approvals and financing, and guarantee that the City/IURA will not sell the
project site to another developer during the term of the agreement;
3. Future Property Conveyance - identify conditions for future conveyance of
the project site to the Developer, including a schedule of pr oject
milestones and defining the process for public input as the project
continues to be refined;
4. Developer Responsibilities - list the responsibilities and contingencies of
the Developer;
5. City/IURA Responsibilities - list the responsibilities and contingencies of
the City/IURA; and
6. Term – state the term of the agreement.
Alderperson Tomlan requested permission to make the changes to the original
proposal that she identified in the memo to Common Council dated September
29, 2006. She noted that these clarifications were recommended by the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency.
The specific wording changes included moving Whereas Clause #12 to follow
Whereas Clause #9 and adding the language:
“precluding inclusion of the proposed five-story, 60,000 sq. ft. multi-use
Building to include retail, office and museum uses by Social Ventures, Inc.,
on the site, and”.
The requested changes also include adding language to the third Resolved
Clause so it would read as follows:
“RESOLVED, That Common Council recognizes that the revised development proposal
submitted is not in complete alignment with the City’s original vision for development on
Inlet Island, but the Developer and the City/IURA will work towards an agreement on the
October 4, 2006
42
following issues raised by the Selection Committee, and any additional issues that may
arise:
Urban design
Employment, including work force diversity and living wages
Project scale
Project accessory uses
Public access, especially by alternative transportation means, i ncluding by
foot, bicycle, boat and bus
Public Spaces
Environmental concerns,
and be it further”
This proposed new language would also be reflected in Whereas Clause
#11.
No Council member objected to the incorporation of the requested changes into
the Resolution.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
RESOLVED, That the last Resolved Clause be amended to read as follows:
“RESOLVED, That the Mayor, with the advice of the City Attorney and approval by
Common Council of the terms thereof, is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate
and sign a Preferred Developer Agreement exclusively with Stephen B. Flash, or his
City-authorized assignee, for the Inlet Island Waterfront Development project and that
this agreement shall cover topics including but not limited to:
1. Project Site – define the boundaries of the project site available for
private-sector development;
2. Site Control - provide the Developer with access and site control to seek
approvals and financing, and guarantee that the City/IURA will not sell the
project site to another developer during the term of the agreement;
3. Future Property Conveyance - identify conditions for future conveyance of
the project site to the Developer, including a schedule of project
milestones and defining the process for public input as the project
continues to be refined;
4. Developer Responsibilities - list the responsibilities and contingencies of
the Developer;
5. City/IURA Responsibilities - list the responsibilities and contingencies of
the City/IURA; and
6. Term – state the term of the agreement.”
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the concerns that have been raised
about a major project being proposed for the site, and public access t o the waterway.
Alderperson Clairborne thanked Alderperson Tomlan for bringing forth the changes
made by the IURA.
Alderperson Gelinas stated that he is not comfortable voting on this until the issue with
the land swap is settled.
Mayor Peterson stated that the developer has been very cooperative. There are
components of the plan that may be contentious, and the City would retain the ability to
disengage from the preferred developer and the plan. She further stated that the
developer is interested in working on this project with or without land swap and would
like to work cooperatively with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
and the Coast Guard. She also stated that there is no economic incentive for
developers to continue work on this site. She further noted that it would be up to the
City to determine the process for community input and involvement in the process.
Alderperson Berry stated that she appreciates the work that the developer has done,
but there is concern regarding the perception surrounding economic development. She
October 4, 2006
43
requested more information about what the workforce diversity piece looks like and
would like to wait because she doesn’t feel that a hotel is the appropriate development
for the area.
Alderperson Zumoff stated that a lot of areas on the Island are in a deteriorated
condition and this is the start of the process, not the end. The local developer is willing
to be flexible and he strongly recommends approval of the Resolution.
Alderperson Cogan stated that he had concerns regarding the project not being in
tandem with the Inlet Island Design plan, but space is very limited. He thinks it is worth
agreeing to this status as long as elements are kept that recognize the public
promenade and pedestrian amenities.
Alderperson Seger stated that he could not support the Resolution as he would prefer a
project that would benefit a larger portion of the community. He further voiced concerns
regarding the parking issue in the area and stated that he felt this actio n is premature as
the City does not have full site control yet.
Motion to Call the Question:
By Alderperson Gelinas: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
RESOLVED, That the question be called on the Designation of a Preferred Developer
for the Inlet Island Waterfront Development.
Ayes (6) Zumoff, Tomlan, Gelinas, Townsend, Cogan, Clairborne
Nays (2) Berry, Seger
Abstentions (0)
Carried (6-2)
Main Motion as Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion as amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) Zumoff, Tomlan, Gelinas, Townsend, Cogan, Clairborne
Nays (2) Berry, Seger
Abstentions (0)
Carried (6-2)
F3d
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. August 1, 2007
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Alderpersons (10) Coles, Seger, Berry, Clairborne, Tomlan, Zumoff, Gelinas,
Townsend, Cogan, Korherr
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Hoffman
City Controller – Thayer
Community Development Director – Bohn
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Deputy Director for Economic Dev elopment – DeSarno
City Planner - Nicholas
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
6. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
Frances Weissman, City of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding the Exterior
Maintenance Ordinance and suggested changes to the legislation regarding a skirting requirement
around buildings and porches.
Doria Higgins, Town of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding the proposed Stewart Park docking facilities.
She stated that she is opposed to the additional parking lots that such facilities would require. She further
stated that the coastline of the park is in deteriorated condition an d should be cleaned-up.
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, addressed Council regarding the Inlet Island and
Southwest Park Development and the need for a community center in each of the city neighborhoods.
Ray Schlather, City of Ithaca, addressed Council in op position to the proposed Inlet Island resolution and
stated that he hopes that Common Council will listen to the concerns voiced by Alderperson Seger. He
further stated that the project is not a public project and noted that the public parking in the Boaty ard Grill
area has become private in use. He further stated that the use of this site for a hotel, condominiums, and
apartments would only be for the elite.
Scott Noren, Town of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding the proposed Inlet Island project and stat ed
that it will not be of benefit to the lower income people of Ithaca. He further stated that a community
based project should be developed to reduce the amount of violence that youth in the area are involved
in.
Peter Meyers, Coordinator of the Workers Center, addressed Council to explain that the Center feels
strongly that preferred development tax abatements should not be awarded
unless the developer agrees that the proposed hotel would pay a living wage to its employees.
Frost Travis read a statement from Mack Travis, who was not able to attend the
meeting. The statement explained the description of the Trowbridge/Transik vision of
Inlet Island and that public/private partnerships are difficult. The statement indicated
Mr. Travis’ support for Finger Lakes Development and noted that site control, which the
preferred developer status would provide, is needed in order to proceed.
John Graves, City of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding the proposed Inlet Island
Development. He stated that there was only one qualified developer to consider and
only one public hearing on this project. He feels that this should be an open competition
and that the process should be started over.
Ronniesha Butler, addressed Council speaking on behalf of hotel workers and stated
that paying a living wage to the employees of the proposed hotel is the responsible
August 1, 2007
4
thing to do. She noted that the work is hard and many workers have to hold multiple
jobs to pay their bills as most are paid the minimum wage of $5.75 per h our.
Guy Gerard, City of Ithaca, addressed Council in opposition to the Inlet Island
development proposal and submitted a written address to Common Council members
detailing his thoughts.
George McGonigal, City of Ithaca, addressed Council to request that they refuse to
approve the developer agreement. He stated that Inlet Island is the western gateway to
the City and the area should be developed for the people who live here. He offered
suggested uses such as miniature golf, batting cages, ice cream shop, a nd crab shack
as examples.
Steve Flash, Town of Ithaca – Preferred Developer for Inlet Island - addressed Council
to state that he is a native Ithacan and understands the community. The proposed
agreement gives him the opportunity to pull all of the plans, discussions, and ideas that
have been made throughout the years into something that will work in that area. He
stated that he is committed to paying a living wage to any employees working in the
developed area. He encouraged Council to support his proposa l.
Joe Lavin, Potomac, MD, addressed Council in support of the development agreement.
He stated that Finger Lakes Development is interested in building a hotel in Ithaca and
that he is intrigued by the uniqueness of the site and the success of the Boatyard Grill.
The process allows for a tremendous amount of public input and encouraged Council’s
commitment to help complete the project.
Pam Mackesey, City of Ithaca, addressed Council to request that preferred developer
status not be offered to Finger Lakes Development. She stated that the site should be
treasured and should not include a five story hotel.
Jeff Furman, City of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding the Inlet Island Development
project. He stated that Council should make paying a livable wage a bi nding element of
the written agreement and commit to it as well as to follow established procedures for
diversity recruitment in hiring employees. He stressed that justice must be provided for
all hotel workers.
Claudia Brenner, Town of Ithaca, addressed C ouncil regarding the Inlet Island project
and offered the following creative suggestions to address the space and parking
challenges of the site: utilization of Cass Park parking, mimicking the Route 89 Bridge
for pedestrian access to Inlet Island, and ren tal of electric vehicles.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, addressed Council to voice the following concerns
regarding Inlet Island: the City would not be paid for the land and the developer has the
potential to make a lot of money. She further stated that th e “seize the opportunity”
mentality must not control decisions, and voiced her opposition to the height of the
hotel.
Cathy Schlather, City of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding her opposition to the hotel
being built on Inlet Island. She stated that hotels are not destinations. People stay in
hotels to see something else. She further stated that this area is the last piece of
developable land on the waterfront and as such should be developed for local residents
and so that it becomes a tourist destination .
10. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.3 Authorization of Preferred Developer Agreement, Inlet Island Waterfront
Development Site – Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff
WHEREAS, the Inlet Island Urban Design Plan, which was adopted by the Common
Council on November 4, 1998, calls for the revitalization of Inlet Island by development
of an attractive, pedestrian-scale, urban waterfront mixed-use neighborhood, featuring
waterfront-enhanced private sector uses linked by a public waterfront promenade, and
WHEREAS, a site exists on Inlet Island for potential development or redevelopment,
which site encompasses approximately 2.5 acres, and consists of part or all of Tax Map
Parcels #52.-1-1.2 and 43.-1-4, owned by the City of Ithaca (“City”), and Tax Map
Parcels #52.-1-1.1 and 52.-1-1.3, owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (“IURA”),
and which site could be supplemented by an additional, adjoining parcel (Tax Map
Parcel #43.-1-5), currently owned by the State of New York , and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2005, the Common Council authorized the issuance of the
Inlet Island Commercial Waterfront Development Request for Proposals (“RFP”),
regarding development of this site, and authorized the Mayor to appoint a Selection
Committee to review the responses to the RFP, and to make a recommendation for a
preferred developer to the Common Council and the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency,
and
WHEREAS, the City issued the RFP, and received three proposals; one was an
incomplete proposal, and one was withdrawn, leaving one complete proposal, submitted
by Stephen Flash, in the name of Finger Lakes Development, a prospective limited
liability company, and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of Stephen Flash to form Finger Lakes Development
(“FLD”) as a limited liability company with Stephen Flash as managing member, one of
the three original members of Marina Realty of Ithaca, LLC, the company that
completed environmental remediation for and development of the Boatyard Grill
Restaurant and that owns and manages the Ithaca Boating Center marina, and
WHEREAS, the FLD proposal (dated 2/28/06) was reviewed by the Selection
Committee, which included the City’s consultant from the National Development
Council, a representative of the Ithaca Downtown Partnership , a Common Council
member, an IURA member, a representative from the Chamber of Commerce, a
member of the City’s Conservation Advisory Council, and a member of the Tompkins
County Cayuga Lake Watershed Network, and
WHEREAS, the initial FLD proposal included environmental remediation of the site;
development of a 5-story building including an approximately 105 -room nationallyfranchised
hotel and 15 condominium units, by Cayuga Visions, LLC, which entity will
be the ultimate owner and operator of this portion of the project; development of a
5-story, 60,000-square-foot, multi-use building including, retail, office, and museum
uses, by Social Ventures, Inc.; enhanced public access to the waterfront; and surface
parking sufficient for this proposed project; and, on an adjacent site owned by a
separate entity also managed by Stephen Flash, renovation and upgrading of the area
now occupied by the Ithaca Boating Center’s covered marina structure, and
WHEREAS, following discussions with the Selection Committee and re view of the
Planning and Development Department’s study of parking supply and demand on Inlet
August 1, 2007
11
Island (and its recommendation that the City retain a portion of the development site for
provision of public parking), FLD revised and scaled d own its proposal such that it
includes the following:
environmental remediation of the development site,
development of 100-room hotel,
development of 15 condominium units,
potential development of some retail use consistent with the waterfront
environment,
provision of sufficient parking associated with the above development,
enhanced public access to the waterfront,
and, on the adjacent Ithaca Boating Center site:
renovation and upgrading of the existing covered marina structure, and
potential construction of approximately 12 apartments over the existing marina
structure, and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2006, the Common Council approved the designation of
Stephen Flash (and FLD, as his assignee) as the Preferred Developer for the Inlet
Island Waterfront Development, with the recognition that the revised FLD proposal “is
not in complete alignment with the City’s original vision for development on Inlet Island”
and that FLD and the City and IURA would need to work toward an agreement on
certain concerns raised by the Selection Committee, including:
Urban design,
Employment, including workforce diversity and living wages,
Project scale,
Public access, especially by alternative transportation means, including by foot,
bicycle, boat and bus,
Public spaces,
Environmental concerns, and
Project accessory uses, and
WHEREAS, in its October 4, 2006, resolution, Common Council authorized and directed
the Mayor, with the advice of the City Attorney, to negotiate an exclusive Preferred
Developer Agreement with Stephen Flash (or his City-authorized designee), the terms
of which would require Common Council approval prior to execution, and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney, IURA staff and Stephen Flash have negotiated the
essential terms of a proposed Preferred Developer Agreement, intended to address the
concerns previously identified by the Selection Committee and Common Council, and
which terms are summarized in the attached “Inlet Island Preferred Developer
Agreement – Summary of Proposed Terms,” dated July 18, 2007; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, with the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized
to execute an exclusive Preferred Developer Agreement, for the Inlet Island
development site, with Finger Lakes Development, LLC (as successor to Stephen B.
Flash), provided that the terms thereof are in substantial conformance with the terms
described in the document known as “Inlet Island Preferred Developer Agreement –
Summary of Proposed Terms,” dated July 18, 2007, which is incorporated herein by
reference.
Alderperson Tomlan explained that this item comes to Common Council from the
Planning and Economic Development Committee without a recommendation. She
reviewed the summary of proposed terms of the Inlet Island Preferred Developer
Agreement.
Alderperson Coles stated that the language on page 10 of the agreement should be
clarified to read, “surface parking lot” instead of “public parking facility.” Community
Development Director Bohn responded that this was an oversight and has been
changed.
August 1, 2007
12
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Seger
RESOLVED, That two additional Whereas Clauses be added to the resolution after the
9th Whereas Clause that would read as follows:
“WHEREAS, the Preferred Developer shall, at a minimum, as the Preferred Developer
promised at the Common Council meeting on August 1, 2007, to pay a living wage to all
its employees at this site, and
WHEREAS, the Preferred Developer shall, across all pay grades, strive to employ a
workforce which will be representative of the City of Ithaca’s diverse demographics,
and”
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the second bulleted item underneath the 9th Whereas Clause be
deleted.
Alderperson Zumoff stated that he agrees with the concept of the amendment
wholeheartedly however the City Attorney has determined that it may not be legal to
include the diversity requirements for employment opportunities in the agreement and
further noted that it would be difficult for the City to enforce.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that the highest courts have determined that it is
discriminatory to impose a quota of people based on race and ethnicity. He further
stated that he has conducted research regarding the requirement for the developer to
pay a livable wage to the employees but he is not sure how the City could enforce the
agreement to pay a livable wage except by going to Court for breach of agreement. He
further stated that adding these requirements to the resolution as Whereas Clauses
would not be effective as action related items should be con tained in the Resolved
Clauses.
Alderperson Seger stated that he agrees with adding the language to the Resolution for
symbolic purposes but also thinks that it should be placed in the developer agreement
as well. He stated that penalties should be explore d if the terms of agreement are not
met.
Alderperson Gelinas stated that this language should be included in the resolution to
show the developer’s intention to pay a living wage.
Alderperson Clairborne stated that he is supportive of the amendment and tha t page
three of the agreement already addresses these issues and suggested that language be
modified as appropriate.
Alderperson Tomlan explained the endorsement procedure might be the appropriate
place to indicate the City’s directive as that is the time when Common Council has an opportunity to vote
on the project.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that language could be added regarding the developer’s commitment to
paying a living wage and the use of hiring practices intended to foster diversity in the workfo rce in the
resolution as they are goals crucial to Common Council members. If a living wage requirement were to be
made, it should be included in a contractual agreement with penalties for violations.
Alderperson Cogan stated that the language should be ke pt in the Whereas clause to
make it part of the record, and the language should also be included in the preferred
developer agreement.
Alderperson Korherr stated that she believes in the concept of the project but
questioned what the City could do to enforce requirements in the agreement if the
developer fails to comply.
August 1, 2007
13
Alderperson Berry requested that the hotel issue be clarified and asked if other
developments were still possible.
Community Developer Director Bohn explained that the pro posed project includes: An 80-100 room
anchor hotel, 15 condos, accessibility to the waterfront, improvements to accessory buildings to include
apartments and retail space.
Call the Question:
By Alderperson Seger: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
RESOLVED, That the Question be called on the Amending Resolution.
Carried Unanimously
A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Seger: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
RESOLVED, That the Resolved Clause be amended to read as follows:
“RESOLVED, That the Mayor, with the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized
to execute an exclusive Preferred Developer Agreement, for the Inlet Island
development site, with Finger Lakes Development, LLC (as successor to Stephen B.
Flash), provided that the terms thereof are in substantial conformance with the terms described in the
document known as “Inlet Island Preferred Developer Agreement – Summary of Proposed Terms,” dated
July 18, 2007, which is incorporated herein by reference, and as further modified to include provisions for
a livable wage for all individuals who work in any aspect of the project both in construction and in post
construction operation.”
Mr. Flash explained that the proposal for endors ement would include a contract
regarding the payment of a living wage. He further stated that enforceability comes
from abatements and that a deed restriction is not needed. The language regarding
diversity recruitment and hiring practices would be include d at the endorsement stage of
the project.
Call the Question:
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Coles
RESOLVED, That the Question be called on the Amending Resolution.
Carried Unanimously
A Vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) Seger, Coles, Berry, Clairborne, Korherr
Nays (5) Cogan, Tomlan, Gelinas, Townsend, Zumoff
Abstentions (0)
Mayor Peterson voted Nay to break the tie vote
Motion Failed
Motion to Extend Meeting to Midnight:
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Coles
RESOLVED, That the meeting be extend to midnight.
Ayes (7) Cogan, Coles, Seger, Clairborne, Zumoff, Tomlan, Gelinas
Nays (3) Berry, Townsend, Korherr
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Alderperson Coles explained that the project would consist of a 100 -105 room hotel with
parking underneath, 15 condos on top of hotel, a city-owned parking lot, 12 apartments
on top of Marina Realty buildings and the developer will be cleaning up a Brownfield
area. She stated that in her opinion the City would be cleaning up the Brownfiel d area
via the transfer of property to the developer at no cost and the developer is mandating
the size of the building due to the expected clean -up costs. She further explained that
August 1, 2007
14
the developer would receive a 10% discount of the total cost of the project in
abatements. The City would receive a 25 foot wide trail (promenade) in return. She
stated that the developer should go back to the drawing table.
Alderperson Korherr stated that what is being proposed does not meet the General Descr iption of the
Project (Item #4 in the Preferred Developer Agreement). She further stated that she prefers the
community design process so that the public gets to decide what the use should be.
Alderperson Berry had questions regarding the parking issue tha t the Boatyard Grill and Dragon Festival
experienced. She stated that in reading through the documentation and the project goals, a hotel is badly
needed within the community but she is not sure it would work on this footprint. She wondered whether
Common Council should be more involved in the preparation of the request for proposal so that goals of
mixed-use development are met. She stressed the need for affordable housing and that the
benefits of larger corporations versus the needs of smaller businesses should be
carefully considered. She further stated that she admires the work that the Preferred Developer, Steve
Flash has done.
Alderperson Seger stated that the Preferred Developer Agreement is what is being considered and the
terms that are being set cannot be re-visited. He expressed his concern about the following items: an
innovative parking solution has not been met, the promenade appears to be a fancy sidewalk on side of
property, the city giving the land away when the developer will receive Brownfi eld grants and incentives
as well, project administration fees that will be paid for by the city and the precedent this sets for future
agreements. He further stated that the parking and traffic demand is problematic and that the preferred
developer agreement has been written in favor of the developer.
Alderperson Cogan clarified inaccuracies by stating that the developer wouldn’t be seeking IDA
abatements if the Brownfield funding comes through. He agrees that
residents have not talked positively about this project and voiced his disappointment that the proposed
project wasn’t closer to the original vision for the area. There is only approximately 1.5 acres of
developable land. He stated that he would like to give the developer a chance but there is a momen tum
that starts to grow as projects progress and he feels that there are serious economic issues that still need
to be addressed therefore, he cannot support the proposed project.
Alderperson Tomlan stated that she has had various thoughts on this project in the past ten months since
Council started this process. She noted that the City already has trouble maintaining waterfront property
and other parks in the City. She stated that she is not afraid to put the brakes on if the project does not
meet the City’s standards. She stated that the current project description is not to her liking, but she
would like to see what could be developed.
Alderperson Gelinas stated that the developer seems to be willing to work on a suitable project for the
area, but a hotel is not what Council wanted to see in the space and the community does not want it
either, therefore he cannot support the proposal.
Alderperson Zumoff stated that it would be a mistake if the City doesn’t let a local, committed and
concerned developer submit a project design for Common Council consideration. He explained that that
current site is not utilized currently to its full potential and that he predicts that the site will remain that way
for a long time if this project does not move forward.
Call the Question:
By Alderperson Townsend: Seconded by Alderperson Gelinas
RESOLVED, That the Question be called on the Main Motion as Amended.
Ayes (8) Coles, Seger, Berry, Zumoff, Tomlan, Gelinas, Townsend, Korherr
Nays (2) Cogan, Clairborne
Abstentions (0)
Carried
August 1, 2007
15
Main Motion as Amended
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (4) Clairborne, Zumoff, Townsend, Tomlan
Nays (6) Cogan, Korherr, Coles, Seger, Berry, Gelinas
Abstentions (0)
Failed
Mayor Peterson stated that she was looking forward to this project being a model for area hotels to pay a
living wage to their employees, but will support the campaign for living wage in hotels in other ways.
Alderperson Gelinas left the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
G
City of Ithaca
MEETING NOTICE
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, October 15, 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 7:45 p.m.);
Alderperson Joel Zumoff
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Acting Director, Department of Planning &
Development; Nels Bohn, Director of Community
Development, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; Leslie
Chatterton, Historic Preservation and Neighborhood
Planner; Phyllisa DeSarno, Deputy Director for Economic
Development; Megan Gilbert, Planner; Debbie Grunder,
Executive Assistant; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic
Development Planner; Gino Leonardi, Housing & Land
Use Supervisor; Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
Others Attending: Ed Strong, member, Collegetown Vision Implementation
Committee (CVIC); Robert Sweet, Director, National
Development Council (NDC)
Chair Mary Tomlan called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.
B. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
C. Special Order of Business:
Public Hearing on a Proposal to Amend the Off-street Parking Ordinance
On a motion by Dan Cogan, seconded by Eric Rosario, the committee voted unanimously
to open the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak, on a motion
by Svante Myrick, seconded by Cogan, the committee voted unanimously to close the
public hearing.
D. Public Comment, and Response from Committee Members
Bryant Park resident Anne Clavel asked the committee to consider alternatives to the
proposed Collegetown plan. She expressed particular concern about the plan’s
anticipated environmental impacts on the adjoining residential neighborhood.
In response, Myrick said that the plan did not propose to shift parking to Bryant Park but
rather permitted developers to make financial contributions that would promote
alternatives to automobile use.
E. Announcements, Updates and Reports:
1. Economic Development Initiatives
Phyllisa DeSarno and Robert Sweet reported on efforts by the City, in cooperation
with the National Development Council, to encourage economic development,
including visiting existing businesses, seeking to recruit satellite operations of
regional retailers and restaurateurs, working with local institutions of higher learning,
and assisting with projects currently under way. They highlighted the recent
formation of the Waterfront District Association, a group seeking to revitalize
Ithaca’s waterfront district, centered on Inlet Island.
2. Ithaca Commons Redesign Project
Jennifer Kusznir updated the committee on the interview process for the selection of
a preferred consultant for the Commons upgrade project. Four consultants have
been selected for interviews from the thirteen responses that were received.
3. City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
Megan Gilbert reported that the steering committee had had its first meeting, and
that planning staff would be drafting—for that committee’s review—a Request for
Qualifications for a consultant to work with the City on the preparation of the new
comprehensive plan.
4. Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan
Tomlan provided an update on the work of the Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action
Plan Steering Committee. She reported that coordinator Rick Manning is compiling
descriptions of possible projects for the park and suggesting priorities for review by
the Steering and Stakeholder Committees; a public meeting will be held thereafter.
5. Building Department Quarterly Report
Phyllis Radke introduced Gino Leonardi, who demonstrated the Building
Department’s new computer program, developed to increase efficiency in the
housing inspection process, and presented the department’s computerization plans
for the scheduling of inspections, the processing of building permits, document
storage and retrieval, and website management.
F. Action Items:
1. Off-street Parking Ordinance
Radke and Kusznir were present to answer questions regarding the proposed
amendments to the off-street parking ordinance. Joel Zumoff questioned the regulations
regarding front-yard setbacks. Radke noted the negative effect on a residential district
of numerous vehicles parked in front of houses. Myrick asked whether the regulations
were only intended for aesthetic reasons. JoAnn Cornish noted the safety benefit of
having vehicles set back from the sidewalk. Radke pointed out that even with a required
setback, it could still be possible to develop parking, and that a variance could be applied
for based on hardship.
Kusznir reviewed the primary changes that were being proposed—those being the
reorganization of the ordinance to increase the clarity of the existing provisions; the
requirement of better separation of parking areas and sidewalks; and the tightening of
thresholds for certain requirements by more objectively specifying lot sizes (referring to
their “capacity for” a certain number of spaces) and by reducing the number of threshold
spaces from four to three.
Mayor Carolyn Peterson asked what would be done to bring existing lots into
compliance. Noting that lots approved under the current ordinance would have
grandfather rights, Radke said that aerial photographs could be used to track unapproved
changes.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Jennifer Dotson, the following resolution was
unanimously approved (5-0-0):
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”)
A. Declaration of Lead Agency for the 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 state and local 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 ca rrying 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 the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the
environmental review of the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Off -street Parking Ordinance.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Dotson, the following resolution was unanimously
approved (5-0-0):
B. Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Sections 325 -3 and 325-20 of the Municipal Code
regarding the City’s Off-street Parking Ordinance, 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 Advis ory 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 Agenc y, 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.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Rosario, the following resolution was approved (4-1-0, with
Myrick opposed):
C. 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”)
WHEREAS, the provision of off-street parking areas may be a benefit to individual properties and neighborhoods to
accommodate vehicles for long-term and short-term storage, but may also be detrimental to property values,
neighborhood character and the natural environment, particularly in residential zones, and
WHEREAS, in the interest of obtaining the benefits and curtailing the detrimental effects of off street parking areas,
the City of Ithaca has regulated such parking in Section 325 -20 of Chapter 325, Zoning in the City of Ithaca Code,
and
WHEREAS, it is important that the presentation of such regulations be as clear and consistent as possible; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that Sections 325-3 and 325-20 be amended as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
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”).
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1:
Section 325-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Definitions” is hereby amended to add the following
definitions:
§ 325-3. DEFINITIONS.
Driveway. A means of vehicular access from a street to the interior of a lot.
Driveway Aisle. The portion of a driveway which gives immediate vehicular access to 2 or more parking spaces.
Section 2:
Section 325-20 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Off Street P arking” is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced as follows:
§ 325-20. OFF STREET PARKING. [Amended 2-4-1987 by Ord. No. 87-6; 8-13-1987 by Ord. No. 87-13; 4-6-1988
by Ord. No. 88-4; 7-11-1990 by Ord. No. 90-5; 9-5-1990 by Ord. No. 90-10; 1-2-1991 by Ord. No. 91-4; 8-5-1992
by L.L. No. 3-1992; 9-6-1995 by Ord. No. 95-10; 3-6-1996 by Ord. No. 96-3]
Purpose and intent. The intent of this section is to regulate uniformly the development and maintenance of off -street
parking for both public and private uses. The following regulations are designed to provide adequate parking and
safe vehicle movements while minimizing any detrimental effects to adjacent properties, to surrounding
neighborhoods and to the environment.
Applicability. Except as specified in § 325-8, the District Regulations Chart, which is available in the City Clerk’s
office, § 325-20 shall, after the effective date, govern the creation, alteration or expansion of all off -street parking
areas. Section 325-20 shall also govern the maintenance of all off-street parking areas.
General requirements.
Required submissions and approvals
Site plans and building permit. In all zoning districts, no parking area or driveway may be constructed, added to,
altered, or resurfaced (except for routine rep airs in kind or other minor alterations of an existing parking area, other
than resurfacing, that do not change the parking area or driveway's size, capacity, configuration, or drainage
characteristics) until a building permit therefor has been issued by t he Building Commissioner. All such building
permits shall be in accordance with this chapter's requirements. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant
must submit two dimensioned plans, drawn to scale, one indicating the existing conditions, and one that indicates
the proposed conditions, including the locations of all of the green areas, parking areas, associated maneuvering
areas and driveways, any required screening, direction of ground slope, and drainage provisions, and includes a
calculation in square feet of the area of paving and the area of the yard in which paving already exists or is proposed
to be constructed.
Certificate of appropriateness. Any proposed parking development in areas under the jurisdiction of the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Commission before a
building permit can be issued.
Site plan review. The creation or expansion of certain larger off -street parking areas is also subject to site plan
review. (See Chapter 276 for the applicability of site plan review which, if required, must be completed before a
building permit can be issued.)
Street permits. No curb cut, driveway entrance and/or drainpipe in the street right -of-way shall be built or installed
unless a street permit has first been obtained from the City Engineer.
City tree removal. There shall be no removal of any tree located on city property unless approval has first been
granted by the City Forester.
General standards for all off-street parking areas, driveways and curb cuts.
Parking. All off-street parking must occur in approved parking spaces, parking areas or parking lots meeting the
general standards for all off-street parking areas in § 325-20C(2). Parking is specifically not permitted on lawns,
sidewalks, or other spaces not developed as a parking space. [Added 2 -4-1998 by Ord. No. 98-5]
Clear boundaries. All parking areas, including associated driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas, shall have
clearly defined boundaries. A "clearly defined boundary" shall mean, at a minimum, the existence of a distinct edge
to the material used to pave the parking area, such that the yard area where parking is permitted is clearly
Commented [MSOffice1]: C(1) Was General Standards,
and has been divided into (1) Submissions and Approvals,
and (2) General Standards
Commented [MSOffice2]: C(1)(a) Site Plans and Building
Permits, was formerly C(1)(i)Building Permits Required.
Commented [MSOffice3]: This section has also added the
requirement that dimensioned plans, drawn to scale, be
submitted prior to obtaining a building permit.
Commented [MSOffice4]: C(1)(b) Certificate of
Appropriateness, was formerly C(1)(h)
Commented [MSOffice5]: C(1)(c) Site Plan Review, was
formerly part of Subsection B
Commented [MSOffice6]: C(1)(d) Street Permits, was
formerly C(1)(e)
Commented [MSOffice7]: C(1)(e) City Tree Removal was
formerly C(1)(g)
Commented [MSOffice8]: C(1)(f) Combined curb cuts has
been removed and is now addressed under C(2)(e)[1][b]
Commented [MSOffice9]: The items under subsection C(2)
were formerly under C(1) all grouped together. They have
been separated only for clarity not for any substantive change
in policy.
Commented [MSOffice10]: Subsection C(2)(a) Parking,
was formerly found in C(1)(j)
Commented [MSOffice11]: C(2)(b)Clear boundaries was
formerly C(1)(c)
distinguished from the yard area where parking is not permitte d. Where approved parking areas are contiguous with
sidewalks or other paved areas, there shall be a minimum 4” high curb or other equivalent continuous permanent
barrier separating the parking area from other paving, except as required to allow for access ibility.
Physical character of parking spaces. Each parking space shall be even-surfaced and internally unobstructed by
structures, walls, landscape elements or other obstructing features, except that low curbs or wheel stops may be
located within or adjoining a space if they do not impede vehicular access to or egress from the parking space. The
surface of the parking area and that portion of the access driveway which is not included in Subsection C(2)(e)[1]
below shall conform to standards and speci fications available at the office of the City Engineer and shall at a
minimum be a maintainable surface which will support the sustained loads. Acceptable surface materials include
crushed stone, brick, concrete, asphalt, permeable pavement, or similar mat erials.
Drainage. All newly constructed or enlarged parking areas, including associated driveways and vehicle maneuvering
areas, shall have adequate provisions to prevent surface or runoff water from draining to or across adjoining
properties, sidewalks or streets during, at a minimum, a two -year storm event, and shall comply with the provisions
of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control. In the event of inconsistency, the
provisions of Chapter 282 shall prevail. Stormwa ter runoff shall not be designed to flow across any public sidewalk
as a primary method of delivering the runoff to a stormwater facility. All drainage systems in existing parking areas
shall be maintained in good working order. For more detailed requireme nts for parking areas with the capacity for
three or more parking spaces on lots within residential zoning districts see also Section E(3) and for parking areas
on lots in nonresidential zoning districts see also Section F(2).
Access requirements. All parking spaces shall have access to the street by way of a driveway.
The portion of access driveways extending from the street to the sidewalk, or to the property line if no sidewalk
exists, must be hard-surfaced with concrete, brick, asphalt or other appro ved material, as required by the City
Engineer.
Driveways must be at least eight feet in residential zoning districts and at least 10 feet wide in non -residential zoning
districts, and must have clear visibility to the street. Any required screening must be so designed that it shall not
interfere with sight lines necessary for pedestrian and driver safety.
Maximum driveway grades. Driveways to areas containing parking spaces for four or more vehicles shall be graded
to form a street entry with a maximum grade of 8% for a distance of 25 feet from the curbline.
Adjacent driveways and combined curb cuts. Driveways on adjacent lots may be side by side or may be combined.
Driveway aisles. In residential zoning districts, one -way driveway aisles shall have a minimum width of 10 feet. In
nonresidential zoning districts, one -way driveway aisles shall have a minimum width of 12 feet. In all zoning
districts, two-way driveway aisles shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and a maximum width of 24 feet.
Required maintenance. So long as they remain in use as such, all parking areas and associated driveways and vehicle
maneuvering areas as well as any required screening, plantings and drainage systems must be maintained to preserve
their intended function and to prevent nuisances or hazards to people, surrounding properties and public ways. Any
planting required by the provisions of this section (such as planting for the purpose of screening or shading) that dies
or, in the opinion of the City Forester, becomes too unh ealthy to serve its intended function shall be replaced at the
earliest occurring suitable planting season by healthy planting that satisfies the provisions of this section.
No refuse or litter. All parking areas, including associated driveways, vehicle m aneuvering areas and interior or
peripheral planting areas, must be kept free of refuse or litter.
Number of off-street parking spaces required.
Not withstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as to the minimum number of
off-street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WF -1 [Added 3-26-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-3], WEDZ-1a
[Added 3-1-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-2], CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, B-1b, and B-2c.
Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in accordance
with § 325-20C(2) by the property owner for each use or building which is newly established, erected or enlarged
after the effective date of this section (March 6, 1996), as specified in th e following chart:
Commented [MSOffice12]: This language is new language
that has been added.
Commented [MSOffice13]: C(2)(c) Physical characteristics
of parking spaces, was formerly C(5)(b)
Commented [MSOffice14]: This portion of C(2)(c) was
formerly E(1)(e)Surface, it has been combined to this section,
but no substantive changes were made.
Commented [MSOffice15]: C(2)(d) was formerly C(1)(d)
Commented [MSOffice16]: This reference to new
legislation is newly added text.
Commented [MSOffice17]: C(2)(e), Access Requirements,
was formerly C(3)(a) and previously only referred to parking
areas of 4 or more cars.
Commented [MSOffice18]: C(2)(e)[1]and [2], was formerly
E(1)(c) and previously only referred to parking areas of 4 or
more cars.
Commented [MSOffice19]: SecionC(2)(e)[2][a] was
formerly a part of C(3)(a) access requirements.
Commented [MSOffice20]: C(2)(f) Required Maintenance,
was formerly C(1)(a)
Commented [MSOffice21]: C(2)(g) No refuse or Litter,
was formerly C(1)(b)
Commented [MSOffice22]: C(3)
Commented [MSOffice23]: No requirement in WF-1 was
previously referenced in C.(1)(k)
Commented [MSOffice24]: No requirement in WEDZ-1a
was previously referenced in H.(1)
Commented [MSOffice25]: The no off street parking
requirement is also referenced in 325-8, District Regulations
Chart.
Commented [MSOffice26]: C(3)c) was formerly C(5)(a)
Use1 Spaces Required2
Adult day-care home or group adult day-
care Facility
1 for client use, plus 1 per 2 supervisory staff or
employees not residing on the premises
Dormitory 1 per 4 persons housed
Dwelling unit
1 per 3 bedrooms or sleeping rooms, plus 1 per 2
additional bedrooms or sleeping in excess of 5 such
rooms
Fraternity, sorority or group house 1 per 2 persons housed
Rooming or boarding house 1 per 3 sleeping rooms
Auditorium or theater 1 per 5 seats
Bar, tavern or restaurant
1 per 50 square feet of net floor area of the
assembly space
Bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-
breakfast inn 1 per guest room1,3
40
Bowling alley 2 per bowling lane
Church, funeral home or mortuary 1 per 10 seating spaces
Fitness center or health club
1 per 5 persons allowed as determined by the
maximum occupancy load
Home occupation requiring special permit 1 space3
Hospital or nursing or convalescent home 1 per 5 patient beds
Hotel or motel 1 per guest room
Medical or dental office 1 per 250 square feet of net assignable floor area
Nursery school, child day-care center or
private elementary or secondary school 1 per 2 employees plus 1 per 15 pupils enrolled
Office or bank 1 per 250 square feet of net assignable floor area
Retail store or neighborhood commercial
facility 1 per 500 square feet of net assignable floor area
Wholesale or industry 1 per 2 employees on maximum work shift
Boat launch 8 per ramp4
Boat storage or repair 1 per 2 employees on maximum shift
Boatel 1 per 2 sleeping rooms
Marina 1 per 4 berths
Yacht club 1 per 4 member families
Human service agencies and centers
[Added 6-5-1996 by Ord. No. 96-9] 1 per 250 square feet of floor area\
NOTES:
In the case of mixed use of a building or property, the space requirements shall be computed for each use, and the
total requirements for all uses shall be provided in accordance with this section.
See also the District Regulations Chart for districts in which off -street parking is not required.
Unless the Zoning Board of Appeals, upon consideration of all relevant factors, including but not limited to the easy
availability of on-street parking or the expectation that a lesser parking requirement will meet the parking needs of
the use, determines during consideration of the special permit that a lesser off-street parking requirement is
appropriate and will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Boat-launching ramps shall maintain 75% of their parking spaces at a size of ten feet by forty feet to accommodate
boat trailers. Consult the New York State Parks and Recreation Department on space requirements for maneuvering.
Parking in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone [Added 10-4-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-9]
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the CPOZ, required off -street parking for residential
uses in the R-3a and R-3b zoning districts (Residential) and the B -2a and B-2b Zoning districts (Business) shall be
one space for every two resident occupants in the areas des ignated CPOZ on the map entitled "Collegetown Parking
Overlay Zone," dated June 2000, a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's Office. [Added 8 -2-2000 by
Ord. No. 2000-7]
The requirements contained in sub-section 325-20C(3)(c) shall not apply to buildings existing within the designated
areas, as of October 4, 2000. Parking requirements for such buildings within these areas shall remain as specified in
the chart 325-20 C(3)(c), provided that there is no increase in the number of resident occupan ts. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Code, in cases where the number of resident occupants is increased, the
parking requirements of the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone shall be applied only to the additional resident
occupants.
Enclosed parking spaces that meet the minimum parking space size requirements shall be counted toward meeting
the required number of parking spaces.
Counting of end-to-end parking spaces. When determining the number of off-street parking spaces provided to
fulfill the number of off-street parking spaces required for a use, no more than one pair of end -to-end parking spaces
shall be counted, unless all spaces have adequate maneuvering space or direct street access. This is not to prevent the
use of a parking area for more than a single pair of end -to-end parking spaces if conditions warrant.
Shared parking. In a case where two or more establishments on the same lot, or on lots meeting the distance
requirements found in § 325-20C(4)(d) of this section, have substantially different operating times, the Building
Commissioner (or, in the case of a project subject to site development plan review, the Planning and Development
Board) may approve the joint use of parking spaces, provided that the Building Commissi oner or the Board finds
that the intent of the requirements of § 325-20 is fulfilled by reason of variation in the probable time of maximum
use by patrons and employees among such establishments.
Location requirements. [Amended 5-5-1999 by Ord. No. 99-5] All required parking spaces provided pursuant to
this section shall be on the same lot as the building, use or activity that they serve or may be located off site on
another lot or parcel other than the lot or parcel on which the use is located or conduct ed provided that such offsite
parking meets the distance and use district limitations as established below.
The lot or parcel containing the off-site parking area must be connected to and accessible by vehicular traffic from a
public street. Off-site parking cannot also be counted toward compliance with the parking requirement for any other
use except for those uses for which the Building Commissioner has determined that shared parking is appropriate, as
provided for in § 325-20C(3)(f).
Use district. An off-site parking area must be located on a lot or parcel located in the zoning district in which the use
which requires the off-street parking is also a permitted use as a matter of right. Any off -site parking which is
required for compliance with the parking requirement for a use which is permitted by use variance from the district
regulations must also obtain a use variance for the off -site parking area; in these instances the notice requirements of
this chapter shall apply to all lots involved. The notice requirements of this chapter shall apply to all lots if a use
variance is required.
Pedestrian way required. A pedestrian way, which in this case may be private or public, must connect the lots or
parcels of both the use and the off-site parking area. The pedestrian way must meet the standards of a public
sidewalk or as otherwise approved by the Board of Public Works.
Distance from use. The distance from the lot or parcel containing the off -site parking area and the lot or parcel
containing the use which requires the off-site parking shall be measured from parcel to parcel following and along
the pedestrian way that connects the off -site parking area to the use. Except where no public sidewalk exists or
where no crosswalks or corner-curb aprons exist within 125 feet of the lot or parcel which requires the off-site
Commented [MSOffice27]: Subsection C(3)(c), Parking in
the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, Was formerly section
I. The language has been changed to eliminate ambiguities
regarding existing conditions.
Commented [MSOffice28]: C(3)(d) is new text that has
been added.
Commented [MSOffice29]: C(3)(e) Counting of end to end
parking spaces was formerly C(5)(c)
Commented [MSOffice30]: C(3)(f) Shared Parking, was
formerly C(5)(d)
Commented [MSOffice31]: This text was taken from C
(4)(a) to indicate general applications.
parking, pedestrianways that cross a public street shall be measured in a way that only crosses such streets at
crosswalks or corner-curb aprons.The maximum distances of the pedestrian way shall vary by use and shall be no
longer than as follows:
[1] For mercantile uses, off-site parking lots or parcels must be within 250 feet of the lot or parcel on which the
use is conducted.
[2] For all other uses, off-site parking lots or parcels must be within 500 feet of the lot or parcel on which the
use is conducted.
All land which is used to provide off -site parking must be restricted to that use only, for as long as the building is
occupied by the use which requires off -street parking or until substitute parking, approved by the Building
Commissioner, is provided. Evidence of such off -site parking shall be provided in the form of a recorded covenant,
long-term lease or comparable document that is approved by the Building Commissioner.
Parking space, driveway, and driveway aisle size requirements.
Parking space size requirements for parking areas with 10 or fewer parking spaces. For such parking areas, a
parking space shall have a minimum dimension of eight feet by eighteen feet, exclusive of pedestrian way s,
maneuvering space and driveways appurtenant thereto and giving access thereto. The edge of the parking space
pavement may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the parking space where unobstructed vehicle overhang
is available. All parking spaces shall have adequate access.
Parking space size requirements for parking areas with 11 or more parking spaces.
Perpendicular parking. For parking perpendicular to the driveway aisle, parking spaces shall be eight feet six inches
by 18 feet. The edge of the parking space pavement may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the parking
space where unobstructed vehicle overhang is available
Parallel parking. For parking parallel to the driveway aisle, parking spaces shall be eight feet six inches by 20 feet.
Angle parking. For angle parking, a standard parking space shall have a minimum area of 255 square feet, the length
of which shall be measured, at the same angle of parking, from the center of the outermost edge of the parking space
to the center line of the driveway aisle giving access to the parking space. The edge of the parking space pavement
may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the parking space where unobstructed vehicle overhang is
available.
Possible variation from above standards under site plan review. The Planning and Development Board may, at its
discretion, allow parking space sizes that vary from the above standards in those instances where Chapter 276, Site
Plan Review, applies.
Parking for people with disabilities . For parking for people with disabilities, the combined width of parking and
access aisle shall be in compliance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Signage as
required by the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code s hall be provided for all accessible parking spaces
and associated access aisles.
Parking in front yards.
(1) In all residential districts, all front yard parking within 15 feet of the front property line is restricted to a motor
vehicle orientation that is within 10° of perpendicular to the street.
(2) In all residential districts, parking in the front yard of lots which have a width at the street line of 50 feet or
less shall be restricted to parking within a driveway that is perpendicular to the stree t or that is within 10° of
perpendicular to the street. Such driveway shall not be more than 12 feet wide for the portion that passes through the
front yard.
(3) In all residential districts, parking in the front yard of lots which have a width at the st reet line of more than
50 feet shall be restricted to an area not greater than 25% of the total area of the front yard, including turnaround and
other vehicle maneuvering areas and driveways leading to garages and parking areas. The setback for any such
parking area must meet the minimum front yard setback dimensions specified in 325 -8, District Regulations Chart,
for the zoning district in which the parking area is to be constructed.
(4) In all residential districts, on corner lots with more than one front yard as defined in this Code, front yard
parking according to the above provisions shall only be permitted on one of the front yards.
(5) In all residential districts, where a parking area will use a front yard, the use of the front yard for parking
and associated maneuvering space shall not exceed the amounts permitted by this section. Any permitted front yard
Commented [MSOffice32]: This is newly added language.
Commented [MSOffice33]: C(5)(a) was formerly C(2)(a)
Commented [MSOffice34]: C(5)(b) was formerly C(2)(b)
Commented [MSOffice35]: C(5)(c) was formerly C(2)(c)
Commented [MSOffice36]: C(5)(d) was formerly C(2)(d)
Commented [MSOffice37]: This language was added to
support the residential character of the district.
Commented [MSOffice38]: This was modified in order to
refer only to residential districts.
Commented [MSOffice39]: This was modified in order to
refer only to residential districts.
parking area shall have a clearly defined boundary as required by § 325 -20C(1)(c), and the remainder of the front
yard shall be landscaped as a green area in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
(6) In all districts, when a parking area is established on a lot that does not contain a building, an area
equivalent to the front yard that would be required if a building did stand on the sit e shall be kept free of parking
(except for an access drive to the parking area). The area equivalent to the front yard that would be required if a
building did stand on the site shall be landscaped in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and shall be
separated and protected from the parking area by a suitable fence or safe barrier. (See the more detailed screening
requirements described below for parking areas within residential zoning districts.)
Requirements for new or enlarged parking areas with the capacity for three or more parking spaces on lots within
residential zoning districts.
Required permits. Plans submitted must include a site plan drawn to scale with all existing and proposed green
areas, parking areas, associated maneuvering areas an d driveways clearly indicated and dimensioned, must indicate
required screening, ground slope and drainage provisions and must include a calculation in square feet of the area of
paving and the area of the yards in which paving already exists or is propose d to be constructed. No building permit
shall be issued unless the requirements of §352 -20C(1)are met.
Screening. The entire parking area, except entrances and exits, shall be screened from public ways and adjacent
properties. Screening devices shall be at least four feet high, except where they are within 10 feet of the entrance or
exit, or within 20 feet of a property lot corner at a street intersection. Screening may consist of hedge planting, walls,
fences, trellises or a compatible combination of the se elements. Screening is not required where the parking area is
screened from the view of adjoining properties by buildings or other accessory structures, or sufficiently dense
vegetation located on the same parcel as the parking area. Similarly, screenin g is not required where buildings or
accessory structures without windows or other openings facing the parking area or other such screening devices
exist on neighboring parcels and effectively screen the parking area. However, upon removal of said building ,
accessory structure or other such screening device by the adjoining property owner, the required screening shall be
installed within one year.
Planting for the purpose of screening. Planting for the purpose of screening shall form a year -round dense screen at
least four feet high within two years of the initial planting. Planting areas shall be curbed or otherwise protected
from vehicle damage on the parking area sides, be at least five feet wide and have a minimum three -foot-deep
excavation prior to planting.
Fences and walls for the purpose of screening. Fences for the purpose of screening must be sufficiently opaque,
whether alone or in combination with planting or other design elements, to function as an effective visual barrier.
Walls for the purpose of screening must be compatible in scale, texture and color with surrounding structures.
Drainage. Surface or runoff water must be collected and transmitted or piped to the nearest storm sewer or, if a
storm sewer is not available, then through underground piping to the street gutter, or provisions shall be made for
stormwater retention or recharge. Stormwater drainage systems, including their connections to public stormwater
facilities, shall be in accordance with this Code and with the provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management
and Erosion and Sediment Control, and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.] The applicant must
provide runoff calculations for the parking area for a two -year storm event and must calculate the appropriate pipe
sizes and additional collection devices necessary to carry the water to the public stormwater system. When
conditions warrant, the City Engineer may require installation of a sump in the last structure in a parking area runoff
collection system prior to the delivery of stormwater to a public stormwater facility. Installation, maintenance and
repair of any pipe delivering stormwater to a public stormwater facility shall be the responsibility of the property
owner. Such installation, maintenance and repair within a public right-of-way shall only be performed with the
written permission of the City Engineer.
Maintenance. The landscaping or other elements used to comply with § 325 -20E shall be maintained, replaced or
pruned as required to fulfill this section's standards, including provision of the required screening and compatibility
with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Compliance methods. In order to protect the character of residential areas, plans for parking areas with the capacity
for three or more cars within residential zoning districts must conform to either the setback compliance method or
the landscaping compliance method described respectively in Subsections §325 -20E(4)(a) and (b) below. Such plans
must also comply with all other general and specific standards of § 325 -20. Where turnarounds, or other
maneuvering spaces not required for access to parking spaces, are provided that meet minimum size for a parking
space, they shall be counted as a parking space for the purposes of this subs ection.
Setback compliance method. Parking areas using the setback compliance method shall conform to the following
standards:
Commented [MSOffice40]: This is newly added text.
Commented [MSOffice42]: This has been changed from 4
cars to 3 cars.
Commented [MSOffice43]: This was formerly 10 feet
Commented [MSOffice44]: This text was added in order to
reference the Stormwater Management Regulations.
Commented [MSOffice45]: The following sentence was
eliminated: The minimum size of any pipe installed to deliver
runoff to a storm sewer shall be 12 inches in diameter.
Commented [MSOffice46]: Added text to require
applicants to calculate the appropriate size pipes for
stormwater drainage.
Commented [MSOffice47]: E(4) Compliance method was
formerly E(2)
Commented [MSOffice48]: This is newly added text.
Commented [MSOffice49]: This language was added to
more clearly indicate the capacity of a parking area.
Commented [MSOffice50]: This has been changed from 4
cars to 3 cars
[1] Setbacks. The parking area shall be located a minimum distance of five feet from any side or rear interior
lot line. These setbacks shall not apply to any driveway up to 12 feet in width that provides access for vehicles.
[2] Maximum yard coverage. The parking area, excluding any driveway up to 12 feet in width that provides
vehicle access to a street, but including all other tu rnaround and vehicle maneuvering areas associated with parking,
shall not cover more than 50% of any side or rear yard. For the purposes of this calculation the area of a side or rear
yard shall not include the building area of any accessory structure loca ted in the yard.
Landscaping compliance method. A plan for a parking area using the landscaping compliance method shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Board for review, unless the proposed site is under the jurisdiction of
the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, in which case the plan shall be submitted instead to the
Commission for review. The Board may designate a member of the Department of Planning and Development to
approve such a parking area on its behalf. The required building pe rmit shall not be issued until a plan approved by
either the Board, the Board's designee or the Commission, as appropriate in each case, is on file in the Building
Department. The reviewing body may, at its discretion, approve a parking area that covers mo re than 50% of any
side or rear yard or that lacks the required 5’ setback from the property lines, if the reviewing body finds that
mitigating factors such as, but not limited to, the following exist:
[1] Natural land forms or tall vegetation provide significant shielding of views toward the parking area from
the street and/or adjacent properties.
[2] The configuration of the parking area protects and preserves existing healthy and mature vegetation,
especially trees over eight-inch DBH (diameter at breast height).
[3] One or more curbed and landscaped planting areas are provided within the parking area. Any such interior
planting area shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no dimension being less than eight feet.
[4] The parking area will be substantial ly shaded by existing woodland or canopy trees, or the parking area
plans call for the planting of trees of a species that, at maturity, will provide canopy shading. Trees currently or
prospectively providing such shade may be located around the periphery of the parking area or in interior planting
areas. Any such interior planting area accommodating such canopy trees shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with
no dimension being less than eight feet. Such interior planting areas shall be curbed and have a mi nimum three-foot-
deep excavation prior to planting.
[5] All property owners using the landscaping compliance method must notify surrounding property owners by
placing a notice at the project site in the form prescribed by the Planning and Development Board or the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission as appropriate.
Parking areas on lots in nonresidential zoning districts. Plans complying with the requirements of this section shall
be submitted for any employee, customer and/or public parking area on a l ot in a nonresidential zoning district, or
for a residential parking area with the capacity for three or more cars on a lot in a nonresidential zoning district, for
the required building permit. Plans submitted must include a site plan drawn to scale wi th all existing and proposed
parking areas, associated maneuvering areas and driveways clearly indicated and dimensioned , must indicate
required screening, ground slope and drainage provisions. The plans shall conform to the following regulations and
standards, in addition to all other applicable portions of § 325 -20:
Access. The portion of access drives extending from the street to the sidewalk, or to the property line, if no sidewalk
exists, must be hard-surfaced with concrete, brick, asphalt or other a pproved material as required by the City
Engineer. Drives must be at least 10 feet wide and have clear visibility to the street. Edges of access drives shall be
readily visible, and divisions between lanes on multilane access drives shall be marked.
Drainage. Surface or runoff water must be collected and transmitted or piped to the nearest storm sewer or, if a
storm sewer is not available, then through underground piping to the street gutter, or provisions shall be made for
stormwater retention or recharge. Stormwater drainage systems, including their connections to public stormwater
facilities, shall be in accordance with this Code and with the provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management
and Erosion and Sediment Control, and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.] The applicant must
provide runoff calculations for the parking area for a two -year storm event and must calculate the appropriate pipe
sizes and additional collection devices necessary to carry the water to the public stormwater system. When
conditions warrant, the City Engineer may require installation of a sump in the last structure in a parking area runoff
collection system prior to the delivery of stormwater to a public stormwater facility. Installation, maintenance and
repair of any pipe delivering stormwater to a public stormwater facility shall be the responsibility of the property
owner. Such installation, maintenance and repair within a public right -of-way shall only be performed with the
written permission of the City Engineer.
Parking areas on nonresidential zoning district lots when such lots are contiguous to residential zoning district lots.
A parking area on a nonresidential zoning district lot when such lot is contiguous to a residential zoning district lot
Commented [MSOffice51]: This language was changed to
more clearly indicate the capacity of a parking area.
Commented [MSOffice52]: This was changed from 4 cars
to 3 cars.
Commented [MSOffice53]: This is new language that was
added to require dimensioned plans be submitted in order to
obtain a building permit.
Commented [MSOffice54]: This text was added in order to
reference the Stormwater Management Regulations.
Commented [MSOffice55]: The following sentence was
eliminated: The minimum size of any pipe installed to deliver
runoff to a storm sewer shall be 12 inches in diameter.
Commented [MSOffice56]: Added text to require
applicants to calculate the appropriate size pipes for
stormwater drainage.
shall be screened from the residential zoning district lot by a solid fence or wall at least six feet high, except within
10 feet of the parking area's entrance or exit. Such fence or wall shall be protected by wheel stops that prevent cars
from damaging the fence or wall. Such screening is not required where the parking area is screened from the view of
the adjoining residential property by a building or other accessory structure located on the same parcel as the
parking area. Similarly, such screening is not r equired where a building or accessory structure without windows or
other openings facing the parking area or other such screening device exist on adjoining residential parcels and
effectively screen the parking area. However, upon removal of said building, accessory structure or other such
screening device by the adjoining property owner, the required screening shall be installed within one year.
Parking in WEDZ-1 District. [Added 3-1-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-2] The Board of Planning and Development may
approve notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, where off -street parking abuts the sidewalk in
the WEDZ-1a or WEDZ-1b District, the two areas must be separated by a low wall, with or without plantings, or a
planted hedge. The setback of the wall or hedge must meet the fifteen-foot minimum, twenty-foot maximum setback
requirement for new buildings. The area of the setback shall include a minimum eight -foot-wide tree lawn, a
minimum five-foot-wide sidewalk and an additional two-foot distance between the sidewalk and the wall or hedge.
Where a fifteen-foot setback is not feasible, the Board of Planning and Development may approve a minimum
eleven-foot-wide sidewalk between the curb and the building facade. If parking and sidewalk are separated b y a low
wall, the wall must be no less that three feet and no greater than four feet high. A hedge planting may be substituted
if the planting area is at least four feet wide. The hedge shall be no less than three feet and no greater than four feet
high.
Parking in the Southwest Area. Parking areas are not permitted in the first 100 feet measured from the nearest curb
of a public street, unless the minimum setback requirements for the Southwest Area Zoning District have been met
in accordance with § 325-29.2B(1) through (3). [Added 12-3-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-21]
Parking for the U-1 Zoning District.[Amended 1-10-2007 by Ord.No. 2007-2]
(1) For the purpose of this section, "main campus" shall be defined as the area outlined on the map entitled "Main
Campus Parking Inventory, Cornell University Planning Office, March 2006," or on any updated map as
provided for in § 325-20G(7) below, a copy of which map is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's office.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrar y, the overall required parking spaces for the U-1
Zoning District shall be the difference between the basic required number of parking spaces and the number of
credited spaces for participation in the Cornell University Transportation Demand Management (T DM)
Program.
(a) The basic required number of parking spaces shall be calculated using the following ratios derived from
the Travers Associates' Ithaca/Cornell Parking Study of February 1998:
[1] One parking space for each seven undergraduate students; a nd
[2] One parking space for each two graduate students; and
[3] Three parking spaces for each four employees; and
[4] One additional parking space for each 25 undergraduate students, graduate students and employees
combined.
(b) The number of credited parking spaces for participation in the TDM Program shall be calculated using
the same ratios derived from the Travers Associates' Study of February 1998, to wit:
[1] One credited parking space for each seven participating undergraduate students; a nd
[2] One credited parking space for each two participating graduate students; and
[3] Three credited parking spaces for each four participating employees; and
[4] One additional credited parking space for each 25 participating undergraduate student s, graduate
students and employees combined.
(3) Only full-time undergraduate and graduate students, full -time employees and the full-time equivalents of each
Commented [MSOffice57]: Section G Parking in WEDZ-1
District was formerly Section H(2). The former H(1) has been
removed and incorporated into C(3)(a).
Commented [MSOffice58]: The former section H(1) has
been removed to C(3)(a)
Commented [MSOffice59]: Section H Parking in the
Southwest Area was formerly Section J
Commented [MSOffice60]: Section I was formerly Section
G
who are assigned to or have their primary place of study or work on the main campus shall b e included in the
above calculations. For the purpose of this section, "full -time undergraduate and graduate students" are defined
as students enrolled in 12 credits or more per semester; "full -time employees" are defined as employees who
are employed at least 35 hours per week; and "full-time equivalents" are defined as the number of part -time
students or employees whose combined credit enrollment equals 12 credits per semester or whose combined
hours of employment totals 35 hours per week.
(4) It is the purpose of the requirement in Subsection G(2)(a)[4] and (b)[4] above to account for parking required
for visitors, vehicles with handicapped permits, service vehicles, off -street loading, occasional parkers, and
other miscellaneous parking demands.
(5) Parking spaces need not be specifically designated or used as set forth in Subsection G(2) above so long as the
total number of spaces is available.
(6) Parking spaces required above may be provided at any place or places located on the main campus or an y other
locations within Tompkins County which are owned, rented or otherwise utilized for parking purposes by the
institution or its affiliated institutions, without regard to municipal boundary. To be so counted, any parking
spaces located outside the main campus must be utilized for parking by persons who are going to the main
campus and must be connected by bus service to, or be within a reasonable walking distance of, the main
campus. Any spaces located outside the main campus shall not be considered t o satisfy the parking
requirements established herein if they are being counted to satisfy the parking requirements of any other
section of this chapter, or the parking requirements of any zoning ordinance of any other municipality, for uses
other than those located on the main campus.
(7) Parking spaces on the main campus shall be identified on the map, "Main Campus Parking Inventory, Cornell
University Planning Office, March 2006." The map shall provide the names of prominent buildings and roads
for the sake of geographical reference, and shall provide inventory control numbers for parking areas along
with the number of parking spaces in each of the control areas. The Main Campus Parking Inventory map shall
be updated every five years following its origi nal date in 2006 and shall be submitted to the Building
Commissioner by April 15 of the year that an update is required.
(8) The parking areas identified on the Main Campus Parking Inventory map shall also be listed on a parking
inventory spreadsheet, which shall give the inventory control number and the number of spaces in each control
area and shall also provide the total number of parking spaces on the main campus. The spreadsheet shall be
updated every year and shall be submitted to the Building Commi ssioner by April 15 of each year.
Accompanying the spreadsheet shall be a summary of the parking changes that occurred in the preceding year.
(9) If the parking spaces in any given control area are not delineated by striping, then the total number of spa ces
shall be determined by using the parking space requirements outlined under § 325-20C(2) of the City of Ithaca
Parking Ordinance for parking areas with 11 or more parking spaces.
(10) Every year, by no later than April 15, Cornell University shall sub mit to the Building Commissioner a parking
report that shall include:
(a) The annual parking inventory spreadsheet and summary;
(b) A count of full-time undergraduate and graduate students, full -time employees and the full-time
equivalents of each who are enrolled or working at Cornell; and
(c) A count of full-time undergraduate and graduate students, full -time employees and the full-time
equivalents of each who are enrolled or working at Cornell and who are enrolled in the TDM Program.
(11) Whenever 25 or more parking spaces on the main campus have been permanently deleted after the last report
to the Building Commissioner, Cornell shall provide the Building Commissioner with a report stating where
the spaces were removed as well as provide a state ment indicating the total number of parking spaces
remaining on the main campus.
(12) Upon receipt of this parking report, the Building Commissioner shall make a determination of compliance with
regard to the requirements of this Subsection G, and shall submit the University's report and her/his
determination to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for discussion and comment. Copies of
the report and the Building Commissioner's determination shall also be provided to the Director of Planning,
Town of Ithaca, and the Zoning Officer, Village of Cayuga Heights, for their information.
Section 3. Supersession.
The aforementioned Sections as amended by this Ordinance (to wit, 325 -3 and 325-20) are intended to supersede
any inconsistent provision of the City Charter or Code.
Section 4. Severability.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of the ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitu tional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in
the Ithaca City Charter.
F. Other Items:
1. Collegetown Urban Plan & Design Guidelines
Gilbert and Leslie Chatterton reviewed the consultants’ assessment of existing
conditions and the public process leading to the development of the plan; they
distributed a map showing existing zoning of the Collegetown area. Nels Bohn and
Ed Strong joined the discussion, much of which centered on the relationships between
density, height, parking requirements, and developers’ likely expectations of
investment returns.
2. Inlet Island
Cornish and Kusznir reviewed the summary notes of the Common Council’s discussion of
Inlet Island, based on points made at the August 19, 2008 meeting of the Community &
Organizational Issues Committee. Cornish presented an aerial photograph of the area
showing property lines and current waterfront district zoning designations. The consensus
of committee members was that aesthetics were important, that any development should
be viable, and that mixed, water-related uses would be ideal. Planning staff will discuss
the council’s considerations with the preferred developer.
G. Approval of Minutes: No minutes were submitted for approval.
H. Adjournment
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Dotson, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at
10:47 p.m.
G
B. 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”)
WHEREAS, the provision of off-street parking areas may be a benefit to individual properties and
neighborhoods to accommodate vehicles for long-term and short-term storage, but may also be
detrimental to property values, neighborhood character and the natural environment, particularly in
residential zones, and
WHEREAS, in the interest of obtaining the benefits and curtailing the detrimental effects of off street
parking areas, the City of Ithaca has regulated such parking in Section 325 -20 of Chapter 325, Zoning in
the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS, it is important that the presentation of such regulations be as clear and consistent as
possible; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that Sections 325-3 and 325-20 be amended as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
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”).
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as
follows:
Section 1:
Section 325-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Definitions” is hereby amended to add the
following definitions:
§ 325-3. DEFINITIONS.
Driveway. A means of vehicular access from a street to the interior of a lot.
Driveway Aisle. The portion of a driveway which gives immediate vehicular access to 2 or more parking
spaces.
Section 2:
Section 325-20 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Off Street Parking” is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced as follows:
§ 325-20. OFF STREET PARKING. [Amended 2-4-1987 by Ord. No. 87-6; 8-13-1987 by Ord. No. 87-13;
4-6-1988 by Ord. No. 88-4; 7-11-1990 by Ord. No. 90-5; 9-5-1990 by Ord. No. 90-10; 1-2-1991 by Ord.
No. 91-4; 8-5-1992 by L.L. No. 3-1992; 9-6-1995 by Ord. No. 95-10; 3-6-1996 by Ord. No. 96-3]
A. Purpose and intent. The intent of this section is to regulate uniformly the development and
maintenance of off-street parking for both public and private uses. The following regulations are
designed to provide adequate parking and safe vehicle movements wh ile minimizing any
detrimental effects to adjacent properties, to surrounding neighborhoods and to the environment.
B. Applicability. Except as specified in § 325-8, the District Regulations Chart, which is available in the
City Clerk’s office, § 325-20 shall, after the effective date, govern the creation, alteration or
expansion of all off-street parking areas. Section 325-20 shall also govern the maintenance of all
off-street parking areas.
C. General requirements.
(1) Required submissions and approvals
(a) Site plans and building permit. In all zoning districts, no parking area or driveway may be
constructed, added to, altered, or resurfaced (except for routine repairs in kind or other
minor alterations of an existing parking area, other than resurfacing, that do n ot change
the parking area or driveway's size, capacity, configuration, or drainage characteristics)
until a building permit therefor has been issued by the Building Commissioner. All such
building permits shall be in accordance with this chapter's require ments. Prior to obtaining
a building permit, the applicant must submit two dimensioned plans, drawn to scale, one
indicating the existing conditions, and one that indicates the proposed conditions,
including the locations of all of the green areas, parkin g areas, associated maneuvering
areas and driveways, any required screening, direction of ground slope, and drainage
provisions, and includes a calculation in square feet of the area of paving and the area of
the yard in which paving already exists or is p roposed to be constructed.
(b) Certificate of appropriateness. Any proposed parking development in areas under the
jurisdiction of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission must obtain a certificate of
appropriateness from the Commission before a building permit can be issued.
(c) Site plan review. The creation or expansion of certain larger off -street parking areas is
also subject to site plan review. (See Chapter 276 for the applicability of site plan review
which, if required, must be completed before a b uilding permit can be issued.)
(d) Street permits. No curb cut, driveway entrance and/or drainpipe in the street right -of-way
shall be built or installed unless a street permit has first been obtained from the City
Engineer.
(e) City tree removal. There shall be no removal of any tree located on city property unless
approval has first been granted by the City Forester.
(2) General standards for all off-street parking areas, driveways and curb cuts.
(a) Parking. All off-street parking must occur in approved parking spaces, parking areas or
parking lots meeting the general standards for all off -street parking areas in § 325-
20C(2). Parking is specifically not permitted on lawns, sidewalks, or other spaces not
developed as a parking space. [Added 2-4-1998 by Ord. No. 98-5]
(b) Clear boundaries. All parking areas, including associated driveways and vehicle
maneuvering areas, shall have clearly defined boundaries. A "clearly defined boundary"
shall mean, at a minimum, the existence of a distinct edge to the material u sed to pave
the parking area, such that the yard area where parking is permitted is clearly
distinguished from the yard area where parking is not permitted. Where approved parking
areas are contiguous with sidewalks or other paved areas, there shall be a m inimum 4”
high curb or other equivalent continuous permanent barrier separating the parking area
from other paving, except as required to allow for accessibility.
(c) Physical character of parking spaces. Each parking space shall be even-surfaced and
internally unobstructed by structures, walls, landscape elements or other obstructing
features, except that low curbs or wheel stops may be located within or adjoining a space
if they do not impede vehicular access to or egress from the parking space. The sur face
of the parking area and that portion of the access driveway which is not included in
Subsection C(2)(e)[1] below shall conform to standards and specifications available at
the office of the City Engineer and shall at a minimum be a maintainable surfac e which
will support the sustained loads. Acceptable surface materials include crushed stone,
brick, concrete, asphalt, permeable pavement, or similar materials.
Commented [MSOffice61]: C(1) Was General Standards,
and has been divided into (1) Submissions and Approvals,
and (2) General Standards
Commented [MSOffice62]: C(1)(a) Site Plans and Building
Permits, was formerly C(1)(i)Building Permits Required.
Commented [MSOffice63]: This section has also added
the requirement that dimensioned plans, drawn to scale, be
submitted prior to obtaining a building permit.
Commented [MSOffice64]: C(1)(b) Certificate of
Appropriateness, was formerly C(1)(h)
Commented [MSOffice65]: C(1)(c) Site Plan Review, was
formerly part of Subsection B
Commented [MSOffice66]: C(1)(d) Street Permits, was
formerly C(1)(e)
Commented [MSOffice67]: C(1)(e) City Tree Removal was
formerly C(1)(g)
Commented [MSOffice68]: C(1)(f) Combined curb cuts has
been removed and is now addressed under C(2)(e)[1][b]
Commented [MSOffice69]: The items under subsection
C(2) were formerly under C(1) all grouped together. They
have been separated only for clarity not for any substantive
change in policy.
Commented [MSOffice70]: Subsection C(2)(a) Parking,
was formerly found in C(1)(j)
Commented [MSOffice71]: C(2)(b)Clear boundaries was
formerly C(1)(c)
Commented [MSOffice72]: This language is new language
that has been added.
Commented [MSOffice73]: C(2)(c) Physical characteristics
of parking spaces, was formerly C(5)(b)
Commented [MSOffice74]: This portion of C(2)(c) was
formerly E(1)(e)Surface, it has been combined to this section,
but no substantive changes were made.
(d) Drainage. All newly constructed or enlarged parking areas, including associated
driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas, shall have adequate provisions to prevent
surface or runoff water from draining to or across adjoining properties, sidewalks or
streets during, at a minimum, a two-year storm event, and shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control.
In the event of inconsistency, the provisions of Chapter 282 shall prevail. Stormwater
runoff shall not be designed to flow across any public sidewalk as a primary method of
delivering the runoff to a stormwater facility. All drainage systems in existing parking
areas shall be maintained in good working order. For more detailed requirements for
parking areas with the capacity for three or more parking spaces on lots within
residential zoning districts see also Section E(3) and for parking areas on lots in
nonresidential zoning districts see also Section F(2).
(e) Access requirements. All parking spaces shall have access to the street by way of a
driveway.
[1] The portion of access driveways extending from the street to the sidewalk, or to the
property line if no sidewalk exists, must be hard-surfaced with concrete, brick,
asphalt or other approved material, as required by the City Engineer .
[2] Driveways must be at least eight feet in residential zoning districts and at least 10
feet wide in non-residential zoning districts, and must have clear visibility to the
street. Any required screening must be so designed that it shall not interfere with
sight lines necessary for pedestrian and driver safet y.
[a] Maximum driveway grades. Driveways to areas containing parking spaces
for four or more vehicles shall be graded to form a street entry with a
maximum grade of 8% for a distance of 25 feet from the curbline.
[b] Adjacent driveways and combined curb cuts. Driveways on adjacent lots may
be side by side or may be combined.
[3] Driveway aisles. In residential zoning districts, one -way driveway aisles shall have
a minimum width of 10 feet. In nonresidential zoning districts, one -way driveway
aisles shall have a minimum width of 12 feet. In all zoning districts, two -way
driveway aisles shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and a maximum width of 24
feet.
(f) Required maintenance. So long as they remain in use as such, all parking areas and
associated driveways and vehic le maneuvering areas as well as any required screening,
plantings and drainage systems must be maintained to preserve their intended function
and to prevent nuisances or hazards to people, surrounding properties and public ways.
Any planting required by the provisions of this section (such as planting for the purpose of
screening or shading) that dies or, in the opinion of the City Forester, becomes too
unhealthy to serve its intended function shall be replaced at the earliest occurring suitable
planting season by healthy planting that satisfies the provisions of this section.
(g) No refuse or litter. All parking areas, including associated driveways, vehicle maneuvering
areas and interior or peripheral planting areas, must be kept free of refuse or litter.
(3) Number of off-street parking spaces required.
(a) Not withstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as
to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WF -1
[Added 3-26-2004 by Ord. No. 2004-3], WEDZ-1a [Added 3-1-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-2],
CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, B-1b, and B-2c.
(b) Parking spaces required for specific uses. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with § 325-20C(2) by the property owner for each use or
building which is newly established, erected or enlarged after the effective date of this
section (March 6, 1996), as specified in the following chart:
Use1 Spaces Required2
Adult day-care home or group adult
day-care Facility
1 for client use, plus 1 per 2 supervisory staff or
employees not residing on the premises
Dormitory 1 per 4 persons housed
Commented [MSOffice75]: C(2)(d) was formerly C(1)(d)
Commented [MSOffice76]: This reference to new
legislation is newly added text.
Commented [MSOffice77]: C(2)(e), Access Requirements,
was formerly C(3)(a) and previously only referred to parking
areas of 4 or more cars.
Commented [MSOffice78]: C(2)(e)[1]and [2], was formerly
E(1)(c) and previously only referred to parking areas of 4 or
more cars.
Commented [MSOffice79]: SecionC(2)(e)[2][a] was
formerly a part of C(3)(a) access requirements.
Commented [MSOffice80]: C(2)(f) Required Maintenance,
was formerly C(1)(a)
Commented [MSOffice81]: C(2)(g) No refuse or Litter,
was formerly C(1)(b)
Commented [MSOffice82]: C(3)
Commented [MSOffice83]: No requirement in WF-1 was
previously referenced in C.(1)(k)
Commented [MSOffice84]: No requirement in WEDZ-1a
was previously referenced in H.(1)
Commented [MSOffice85]: The no off street parking
requirement is also referenced in 325-8, District Regulations
Chart.
Commented [MSOffice86]: C(3)c) was formerly C(5)(a)
Dwelling unit
1 per 3 bedrooms or sleeping rooms, plus 1 per
2 additional bedrooms or sleeping in excess of
5 such rooms
Fraternity, sorority or group house 1 per 2 persons housed
Rooming or boarding house 1 per 3 sleeping rooms
Auditorium or theater 1 per 5 seats
Bar, tavern or restaurant
1 per 50 square feet of net floor area of the
assembly space
Bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-
breakfast inn 1 per guest room1,3
40
Bowling alley 2 per bowling lane
Church, funeral home or mortuary 1 per 10 seating spaces
Fitness center or health club
1 per 5 persons allowed as determined by the
maximum occupancy load
Home occupation requiring special
permit 1 space3
Hospital or nursing or convalescent
home 1 per 5 patient beds
Hotel or motel 1 per guest room
Medical or dental office
1 per 250 square feet of net assignable floor
area
Nursery school, child day-care center
or private elementary or secondary
school 1 per 2 employees plus 1 per 15 pupils enrolled
Office or bank
1 per 250 square feet of net assignable floor
area
Retail store or neighborhood
commercial facility
1 per 500 square feet of net assignable floor
area
Wholesale or industry 1 per 2 employees on maximum work shift
Boat launch 8 per ramp4
Boat storage or repair 1 per 2 employees on maximum shift
Boatel 1 per 2 sleeping rooms
Marina 1 per 4 berths
Yacht club 1 per 4 member families
Human service agencies and centers
[Added 6-5-1996 by Ord. No. 96-9] 1 per 250 square feet of floor area\
NOTES:
1. In the case of mixed use of a building or property, the space requirements shall
be computed for each use, and the total requirements for all uses shall b e
provided in accordance with this section.
2. See also the District Regulations Chart for districts in which off -street parking is
not required.
3. Unless the Zoning Board of Appeals, upon consideration of all relevant factors,
including but not limited to the easy availability of on-street parking or the
expectation that a lesser parking requirement will meet the parking needs of
the use, determines during consideration of the special permit that a lesser off -
street parking requirement is appropriate and will not have a negative impact
on the surrounding neighborhood.
4. Boat-launching ramps shall maintain 75% of their parking spaces at a size of
ten feet by forty feet to accommodate boat trailers. Consult the New York State
Parks and Recreation Department on space requirements for maneuvering.
(c) Parking in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone [Added 10-4-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-9] Commented [MSOffice87]: Subsection C(3)(c), Parking in
the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, Was formerly section
I. The language has been changed to eliminate ambiguities
regarding existing conditions.
[1] Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the CPOZ, required
off-street parking for residential uses in the R -3a and R-3b zoning districts
(Residential) and the B-2a and B-2b Zoning districts (Business) shall be one
space for every two resident occupants in the areas designated CPOZ on the map
entitled "Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone," dated June 2000, a copy of which is
on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's Office. [Added 8-2-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-7]
[2] The requirements contained in sub-section 325-20C(3)(c) shall not apply to
buildings existing within the designated areas, as of October 4, 2000. Parking
requirements for such buildings within these areas shall remain as specified in the
chart 325-20 C(3)(c), provided that there is no increase in the number of resident
occupants. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code, in
cases where the number of resident occupants is increased, the parking
requirements of the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone shall be applied only to the
additional resident occupants.
(d) Enclosed parking spaces that meet the minimum parking space size requirements shall be
counted toward meeting the required number of parking spaces.
(e) Counting of end-to-end parking spaces. When determining the number of off-street
parking spaces provided to fulfill the number of off -street parking spaces required for a
use, no more than one pair of end-to-end parking spaces shall be counted, unless all
spaces have adequate maneuvering space or direct street access. This is not to prevent
the use of a parking area for more than a single pair of end -to-end parking spaces if
conditions warrant.
(f) Shared parking. In a case where two or more establishments on the same lot, or on lots
meeting the distance requirements found in § 325-20C(4)(d) of this section, have
substantially different operating times, the Building Commissioner (or, in the case of a
project subject to site development plan review, the Planning and Development Board)
may approve the joint use of parking spaces, provided that the Building Commissioner or
the Board finds that the intent of the requirements of § 325 -20 is fulfilled by reason of
variation in the probable time of maximum use by patrons and employees among such
establishments.
(4) Location requirements. [Amended 5-5-1999 by Ord. No. 99-5] All required parking spaces
provided pursuant to this section shall be on the same lot as the buildin g, use or activity that
they serve or may be located off site on another lot or parcel other than the lot or parcel on
which the use is located or conducted provided that such offsite parking meets the distance
and use district limitations as established below.
(a) The lot or parcel containing the off -site parking area must be connected to and accessible
by vehicular traffic from a public street. Off-site parking cannot also be counted toward
compliance with the parking requirement for any other use except fo r those uses for which
the Building Commissioner has determined that shared parking is appropriate, as provided
for in § 325-20C(3)(f).
(b) Use district. An off-site parking area must be located on a lot or parcel located in the
zoning district in which the us e which requires the off-street parking is also a permitted use
as a matter of right. Any off-site parking which is required for compliance with the parking
requirement for a use which is permitted by use variance from the district regulations must
also obtain a use variance for the off -site parking area; in these instances the notice
requirements of this chapter shall apply to all lots involved. The notice requirements of this
chapter shall apply to all lots if a use variance is required.
(c) Pedestrian way required. A pedestrian way, which in this case may be private or public,
must connect the lots or parcels of both the use and the off -site parking area. The
pedestrian way must meet the standards of a public sidewalk or as otherwise approved by
the Board of Public Works.
(d) Distance from use. The distance from the lot or parcel containing the off -site parking area
and the lot or parcel containing the use which requires the off -site parking shall be
measured from parcel to parcel following and along the pedestria n way that connects the
off-site parking area to the use. Except where no public sidewalk exists or where no
crosswalks or corner-curb aprons exist within 125 feet of the lot or parcel which requires
the off-site parking, pedestrianways that cross a public street shall be measured in a way
that only crosses such streets at crosswalks or corner -curb aprons.The maximum
distances of the pedestrian way shall vary by use and shall be no longer than as follows:
Commented [MSOffice88]: C(3)(d) is new text that has
been added.
Commented [MSOffice89]: C(3)(e) Counting of end to end
parking spaces was formerly C(5)(c)
Commented [MSOffice90]: C(3)(f) Shared Parking, was
formerly C(5)(d)
Commented [MSOffice91]: This text was taken from C
(4)(a) to indicate general applications.
Commented [MSOffice92]: This is newly added language.
[1] For mercantile uses, off-site parking lots or parcels must be within 250 feet of the
lot or parcel on which the use is conducted.
[2] For all other uses, off-site parking lots or parcels must be within 500 feet of the lot
or parcel on which the use is conducted.
(e) All land which is used to provide off -site parking must be restricted to that use only, for as
long as the building is occupied by the use which requires off -street parking or until
substitute parking, approved by the Building Commissioner, is provided. Evidence of such
off-site parking shall be provided in the form of a recorded covenant, long-term lease or
comparable document that is approved by the Building Commissioner.
(5) Parking space, driveway, and driveway aisle size requirements.
(a) Parking space size requirements for parking areas with 10 or fewer parking spaces. For
such parking areas, a parking space shall have a minimum dimension of eight feet by
eighteen feet, exclusive of pedestrian ways, maneuvering space and driveways
appurtenant thereto and giving access thereto. The edge of the park ing space pavement
may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the parking space where unobstructed
vehicle overhang is available. All parking spaces shall have adequate access.
(b) Parking space size requirements for parking areas with 11 or more park ing spaces.
[1] Perpendicular parking. For parking perpendicular to the driveway aisle, parking
spaces shall be eight feet six inches by 18 feet. The edge of the parking space
pavement may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the parking space
where unobstructed vehicle overhang is available
[2] Parallel parking. For parking parallel to the driveway aisle, parking spaces shall be
eight feet six inches by 20 feet.
[3] Angle parking. For angle parking, a standard parking space shall have a minimum
area of 255 square feet, the length of which shall be measured, at the same angle
of parking, from the center of the outermost edge of the parking space to the center
line of the driveway aisle giving access to the parking space. The edge of the
parking space pavement may be up to two feet inside the outermost line of the
parking space where unobstructed vehicle overhang is available.
(c) Possible variation from above standards under site plan review. The Planning and
Development Board may, at its discretion, allow par king space sizes that vary from the
above standards in those instances where Chapter 276, Site Plan Review, applies.
(d) Parking for people with disabilities. For parking for people with disabilities, the combined
width of parking and access aisle shall be i n compliance with the New York State Uniform
Fire Prevention and Building Code. Signage as required by the NYS Uniform Fire
Prevention and Building Code shall be provided for all accessible parking spaces and
associated access aisles.
D. Parking in front yards.
(1) In all residential districts, all front yard parking within 15 feet of the front property line is
restricted to a motor vehicle orientation that is within 10° of perpendicular to the street.
(2) In all residential districts, parking in the front yard of lots which have a width at the street line
of 50 feet or less shall be restricted to parking within a driveway that is perpendicular to the
street or that is within 10° of perpendicular to the street. Such driveway shall not be more than
12 feet wide for the portion that passes through the front yard.
(3) In all residential districts, parking in the front yard of lots which have a width at the street line
of more than 50 feet shall be restricted to an area not greater than 25% of the total area o f the
front yard, including turnaround and other vehicle maneuvering areas and driveways leading
to garages and parking areas. The setback for any such parking area must meet the minimum
front yard setback dimensions specified in 325 -8, District Regulations Chart, for the zoning
district in which the parking area is to be constructed.
(4) In all residential districts, on corner lots with more than one front yard as defined in this Code,
front yard parking according to the above provisions shall only be permitted on one of the front
yards.
(5) In all residential districts, where a parking area will use a front yard, the use of the front yard for
parking and associated maneuvering space shall not exceed the amounts permitted by this
section. Any permitted front yard parking area shall have a clearly defined boundary as
required by § 325-20C(1)(c), and the remainder of the front yard shall be landscaped as a
green area in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
(6) In all districts, when a parking area is established on a lot that does not contain a building, an
area equivalent to the front yard that would be required if a building did stand on the site shall
Commented [MSOffice93]: C(5)(a) was formerly C(2)(a)
Commented [MSOffice94]: C(5)(b) was formerly C(2)(b)
Commented [MSOffice95]: C(5)(c) was formerly C(2)(c)
Commented [MSOffice96]: C(5)(d) was formerly C(2)(d)
Commented [MSOffice97]: This language was added to
support the residential character of the district.
Commented [MSOffice98]: This was modified in order to
refer only to residential districts.
Commented [MSOffice99]: This was modified in order to
refer only to residential districts.
Commented [MSOffice100]: This is newly added text.
be kept free of parking (except for an access drive to the parking area). The area equivalent to
the front yard that would be required if a building did stand on the site shall be landscaped in
keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and shall be separated and protected from the
parking area by a suitable fence or safe barrier. (See the more deta iled screening
requirements described below for parking areas within residential zoning districts.)
E. Requirements for new or enlarged parking areas with the capacity for three or more parking spaces
on lots within residential zoning districts.
(1) Required permits. Plans submitted must include a site plan drawn to scale with all existing and
proposed green areas, parking areas, associated maneuvering areas and driveways clearly
indicated and dimensioned, must indicate required screening, ground slope and drai nage
provisions and must include a calculation in square feet of the area of paving and the area of
the yards in which paving already exists or is proposed to be constructed. No building permit
shall be issued unless the requirements of §352 -20C(1)are met.
(2) Screening. The entire parking area, except entrances and exits, shall be screened from public
ways and adjacent properties. Screening devices shall be at least four feet high, except where
they are within 10 feet of the entrance or exit, or within 20 fee t of a property lot corner at a
street intersection. Screening may consist of hedge planting, walls, fences, trellises or a
compatible combination of these elements. Screening is not required where the parking area
is screened from the view of adjoining properties by buildings or other accessory structures, or
sufficiently dense vegetation located on the same parcel as the parking area. Similarly,
screening is not required where buildings or accessory structures without windows or other
openings facing the parking area or other such screening devices exist on neighboring parcels
and effectively screen the parking area. However, upon removal of said building, accessory
structure or other such screening device by the adjoining property owner, the required
screening shall be installed within one year.
(a) Planting for the purpose of screening. Planting for the purpose of screening shall form a
year-round dense screen at least four feet high within two years of the initial planting.
Planting areas shall be curbed or otherwise protected from vehicle damage on the parking
area sides, be at least five feet wide and have a minimum three -foot-deep excavation prior
to planting.
(b) Fences and walls for the purpose of screening. Fences for the purpose of screening must
be sufficiently opaque, whether alone or in combination with planting or other design
elements, to function as an effective visual barrier. Walls for the purpose of screening
must be compatible in scale, texture and color with surrounding structures.
(3) Drainage. Surface or runoff water must be collected and transmitted or piped to the nearest
storm sewer or, if a storm sewer is not available, then through underground piping to the street
gutter, or provisions shall be made for stormwater retention or recharge. Stormw ater drainage
systems, including their connections to public stormwater facilities, shall be in accordance with
this Code and with the provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management and Erosion and
Sediment Control, and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.] The applicant must
provide runoff calculations for the parking area for a two -year storm event and must calculate
the appropriate pipe sizes and additional collection devices necessary to carry the water to the
public stormwater system. When conditions warrant, the City Engineer may require
installation of a sump in the last structure in a parking area runoff collection system prior to the
delivery of stormwater to a public stormwater facility. Installation, maintenance and repair of
any pipe delivering stormwater to a public stormwater facility shall be the responsibility of the
property owner. Such installation, maintenance and repair within a public right -of-way shall
only be performed with the written permission of the City Engineer .
(4) Maintenance. The landscaping or other elements used to comply with § 325 -20E shall be
maintained, replaced or pruned as required to fulfill this section's standards, including
provision of the required screening and compatibility with the surrounding res idential
neighborhood.
(5) Compliance methods. In order to protect the character of residential areas, plans for parking
areas with the capacity for three or more cars within residential zoning districts must conform
to either the setback compliance method or the landscaping compliance method described
respectively in Subsections §325-20E(4)(a) and (b) below. Such plans must also comply with
all other general and specific standards of § 325-20. Where turnarounds, or other
maneuvering spaces not required for access to parking spaces, are provided that meet
minimum size for a parking space, they shall be counted as a parking space for the purposes
of this subsection.
Commented [MSOffice102]: This has been changed from
4 cars to 3 cars.
Commented [MSOffice103]: This was formerly 10 feet
Commented [MSOffice104]: This text was added in order
to reference the Stormwater Management Regulations.
Commented [MSOffice105]: The following sentence was
eliminated: The minimum size of any pipe installed to deliver
runoff to a storm sewer shall be 12 inches in diameter.
Commented [MSOffice106]: Added text to require
applicants to calculate the appropriate size pipes for
stormwater drainage.
Commented [MSOffice107]: E(4) Compliance method was
formerly E(2)
Commented [MSOffice108]: This is newly added text.
Commented [MSOffice109]: This language was added to
more clearly indicate the capacity of a parking area.
Commented [MSOffice110]: This has been changed from
4 cars to 3 cars
(a) Setback compliance method. Parking areas using the setback compliance method shall
conform to the following standards:
[1] Setbacks. The parking area shall be located a minimum distance of five feet from
any side or rear interior lot line. These setbacks shall not apply to any driveway up
to 12 feet in width that provides access for vehicles.
[2] Maximum yard coverage. The parking area, excluding any driveway up to 12 feet in
width that provides vehicle access to a street, but including all other turnaround
and vehicle maneuvering areas associated with parking, shall not cover more than
50% of any side or rear yard. For the purposes of this calculation the area of a side
or rear yard shall not include the building area of any accessory structure located in
the yard.
(b) Landscaping compliance method. A plan for a parking area using the landscaping
compliance method shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Board for review,
unless the proposed site is under the jurisdiction of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission, in which case the plan shall be submitted instead to the Commission for
review. The Board may designate a member of the Department of Planning and
Development to approve such a parking area on its behalf. The required building permit
shall not be issued until a plan approved by either the Board, the Board's designee or the
Commission, as appropriate in each case, is on file in the Building Department. The
reviewing body may, at its discretion, approve a parking area that covers more than 50%
of any side or rear yard or that lacks the required 5’ setback from the property lines, if the
reviewing body finds that mitigating factors such as, but not limited to, the following exist:
[1] Natural land forms or tall vegetation provide significant shielding of views toward
the parking area from the street and/or adjacent properties.
[2] The configuration of the parking area protects and preserves existing healthy and
mature vegetation, especially trees over eight -inch DBH (diameter at breast
height).
[3] One or more curbed and landscaped planting areas are provided within the parking
area. Any such interior planting area shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no
dimension being less than eight feet.
[4] The parking area will be substantially shaded by existing woodland or canopy
trees, or the parking area plans call for the planting of tre es of a species that, at
maturity, will provide canopy shading. Trees currently or prospectively providing
such shade may be located around the periphery of the parking area or in interior
planting areas. Any such interior planting area accommodating such canopy trees
shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no dimension being less than eight feet.
Such interior planting areas shall be curbed and have a minimum three -foot-deep
excavation prior to planting.
[5] All property owners using the landscaping comp liance method must notify
surrounding property owners by placing a notice at the project site in the form
prescribed by the Planning and Development Board or the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission as appropriate.
F. Parking areas on lots in nonresidential zoning districts. Plans complying with the requirements of
this section shall be submitted for any employee, customer and/or public parking area on a lot in a
nonresidential zoning district, or for a residential parking area with the capacity for three or more
cars on a lot in a nonresidential zoning district, for the required building permit. Plans submitted
must include a site plan drawn to scale with all existing and proposed parking areas, associated
maneuvering areas and driveways clearly indicat ed and dimensioned, must indicate required
screening, ground slope and drainage provisions. The plans shall conform to the following
regulations and standards, in addition to all other applicable portions of § 325 -20:
(1) Access. The portion of access drives extending from the street to the sidewalk, or to the
property line, if no sidewalk exists, must be hard -surfaced with concrete, brick, asphalt or other
approved material as required by the City Engineer. Drives must be at least 10 feet wide and
have clear visibility to the street. Edges of access drives shall be readily visible, and divisions
between lanes on multilane access drives shall be marked.
(2) Drainage. Surface or runoff water must be collected and transmitted or piped to the nearest
storm sewer or, if a storm sewer is not available, then through underground piping to the street
gutter, or provisions shall be made for stormwater retention or recharge. Stormwater drainage
systems, including their connections to public stormwater facilities, shall be in accordance with
this Code and with the provisions of Chapter 282, Stormwater Management and Erosion and
Sediment Control, and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.] The applicant must
Commented [MSOffice111]: This language was changed
to more clearly indicate the capacity of a parking area.
Commented [MSOffice112]: This was changed from 4 cars
to 3 cars.
Commented [MSOffice113]: This is new language that
was added to require dimensioned plans be submitted in order
to obtain a building permit.
Commented [MSOffice114]: This text was added in order
to reference the Stormwater Management Regulations.
Commented [MSOffice115]: The following sentence was
eliminated: The minimum size of any pipe installed to deliver
runoff to a storm sewer shall be 12 inches in diameter.
provide runoff calculations for the parking area for a t wo-year storm event and must calculate
the appropriate pipe sizes and additional collection devices necessary to carry the water to the
public stormwater system. When conditions warrant, the City Engineer may require
installation of a sump in the last structure in a parking area runoff collection system prior to the
delivery of stormwater to a public stormwater facility. Installation, maintenance and repair of
any pipe delivering stormwater to a public stormwater facility shall be the responsibility of th e
property owner. Such installation, maintenance and repair within a public right -of-way shall
only be performed with the written permission of the City Engineer.
(3) Parking areas on nonresidential zoning district lots when such lots are contiguous to
residential zoning district lots. A parking area on a nonresidential zoning district lot when such
lot is contiguous to a residential zoning district lot shall be screened from the residential zoning
district lot by a solid fence or wall at least six feet high, except within 10 feet of the parking
area's entrance or exit. Such fence or wall shall be protected by wheel stops that prevent cars
from damaging the fence or wall. Such screening is not required where the parking area is
screened from the view of the adjoining residential property by a building or other accessory
structure located on the same parcel as the parking area. Similarly, such screening is not
required where a building or accessory structure without windows or other openings facing the
parking area or other such screening device exist on adjoining residential parcels and
effectively screen the parking area. However, upon removal of said building, accessory
structure or other such screening device by the adjoining property owner, the required
screening shall be installed within one year.
G. Parking in WEDZ-1 District. [Added 3-1-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-2] The Board of Planning and
Development may approve notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, where off -
street parking abuts the side walk in the WEDZ-1a or WEDZ-1b District, the two areas must be
separated by a low wall, with or without plantings, or a planted hedge. The setback of the wall or
hedge must meet the fifteen-foot minimum, twenty-foot maximum setback requirement for new
buildings. The area of the setback shall include a minimum eight -foot-wide tree lawn, a minimum
five-foot-wide sidewalk and an additional two-foot distance between the sidewalk and the wall or
hedge. Where a fifteen-foot setback is not feasible, the Board of Planning and Development may
approve a minimum eleven-foot-wide sidewalk between the curb and the building facade. If parking
and sidewalk are separated by a low wall, the wall must be no less that three feet and no greater
than four feet high. A hedge planting may be substituted if the planting area is at least four feet
wide. The hedge shall be no less than three feet and no greater than four feet high.
H. Parking in the Southwest Area. Parking areas are not permitted in the first 100 feet measured from
the nearest curb of a public street, unless the minimum setback requirements for the Southwest
Area Zoning District have been met in accordance with § 325 -29.2B(1) through (3). [Added 12-3-
2003 by Ord. No. 2003-21]
I. Parking for the U-1 Zoning District.[Amended 1-10-2007 by Ord.No. 2007-2]
(1) For the purpose of this section, "main campus" shall be defined as the area outlined on the
map entitled "Main Campus Parking Inventory, Cornell University Planning Office, March
2006," or on any updated map as provided f or in § 325-20G(7) below, a copy of which map
is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's office.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the overall required parking
spaces for the U-1 Zoning District shall be the difference between the basic required
number of parking spaces and the number of credited spaces for participation in the Cornell
University Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
(a) The basic required number of parking spaces shall be calculated using the following
ratios derived from the Travers Associates' Ithaca/Cornell Parking Study of February
1998:
[1] One parking space for each seven undergraduate students; and
[2] One parking space for each two graduate students; and
[3] Three parking spaces for each four employees; and
[4] One additional parking space for each 25 undergraduate students, graduate
students and employees combined.
(b) The number of credited parking spaces for participation in the TDM Program shall be
calculated using the same ratios d erived from the Travers Associates' Study of
Commented [MSOffice116]: Added text to require
applicants to calculate the appropriate size pipes for
stormwater drainage.
Commented [MSOffice117]: Section G Parking in WEDZ-1
District was formerly Section H(2). The former H(1) has been
removed and incorporated into C(3)(a).
Commented [MSOffice118]: The former section H(1) has
been removed to C(3)(a)
Commented [MSOffice119]: Section H Parking in the
Southwest Area was formerly Section J
Commented [MSOffice120]: Section I was formerly
Section G
February 1998, to wit:
[1] One credited parking space for each seven participating undergraduate students;
and
[2] One credited parking space for each two participating graduate students; and
[3] Three credited parking spaces for each four participating employees; and
[4] One additional credited parking space for each 25 participating undergraduate
students, graduate students and employees combined.
(3) Only full-time undergraduate and graduate stude nts, full-time employees and the full-time
equivalents of each who are assigned to or have their primary place of study or work on the
main campus shall be included in the above calculations. For the purpose of this section,
"full-time undergraduate and graduate students" are defined as students enrolled in 12
credits or more per semester; "full-time employees" are defined as employees who are
employed at least 35 hours per week; and "full-time equivalents" are defined as the number
of part-time students or employees whose combined credit enrollment equals 12 credits per
semester or whose combined hours of employment totals 35 hours per week.
(4) It is the purpose of the requirement in Subsection G(2)(a)[4] and (b)[4] above to account for
parking required for visitors, vehicles with handicapped permits, service vehicles, off -street
loading, occasional parkers, and other miscellaneous parking demands.
(5) Parking spaces need not be specifically designated or used as set forth in Subsection G(2)
above so long as the total number of spaces is available.
(6) Parking spaces required above may be provided at any place or places located on the main
campus or any other locations within Tompkins County which are owned, rented or
otherwise utilized for parking purposes by the institution or its affiliated institutions, without
regard to municipal boundary. To be so counted, any parking spaces located outside the
main campus must be utilized for parking by persons who are going to the main campus
and must be connected by bus service to, or be within a reasonable walking distance of, the
main campus. Any spaces located outside the main campus shall not be considered to
satisfy the parking requirements established herein if they are being counted to satisfy the
parking requirements of any other section of this chapter, or the parking requirements of any
zoning ordinance of any other municipality, for uses other than those located on the main
campus.
(7) Parking spaces on the main campus shall be identified on the map, "Main Campus Parking
Inventory, Cornell University Planning Office, March 2006." The map shall provide the
names of prominent buildings and roads for the sake of geographical reference, and shall
provide inventory control numbers for parking areas along w ith the number of parking
spaces in each of the control areas. The Main Campus Parking Inventory map shall be
updated every five years following its original date in 2006 and shall be submitted to the
Building Commissioner by April 15 of the year that an update is required.
(8) The parking areas identified on the Main Campus Parking Inventory map shall also be listed
on a parking inventory spreadsheet, which shall give the inventory control number and the
number of spaces in each control area and shall al so provide the total number of parking
spaces on the main campus. The spreadsheet shall be updated every year and shall be
submitted to the Building Commissioner by April 15 of each year. Accompanying the
spreadsheet shall be a summary of the parking changes that occurred in the preceding
year.
(9) If the parking spaces in any given control area are not delineated by striping, then the total
number of spaces shall be determined by using the parking space requirements outlined
under § 325-20C(2) of the City of Ithaca Parking Ordinance for parking areas with 11 or
more parking spaces.
(10) Every year, by no later than April 15, Cornell University shall submit to the Building
Commissioner a parking report that shall include:
(a) The annual parking inventory spreadsheet and summary;
(b) A count of full-time undergraduate and graduate students, full -time employees and the
full-time equivalents of each who are enrolled or working at Cornell; and
(c) A count of full-time undergraduate and graduate students, full-time employees and the
full-time equivalents of each who are enrolled or working at Cornell and who are
enrolled in the TDM Program.
(11) Whenever 25 or more parking spaces on the main campus have been permanently deleted
after the last report to the Building Commissioner, Cornell shall provide the Building
Commissioner with a report stating where the spaces were removed as well as provide a
statement indicating the total number of parking spaces remaining on the main campus.
(12) Upon receipt of this parking report, the Building Commissioner shall make a determination
of compliance with regard to the requirements of this Subsection G, and shall submit the
University's report and her/his determination to the City of Ithaca Planning and Developmen t
Board for discussion and comment. Copies of the report and the Building Commissioner's
determination shall also be provided to the Director of Planning, Town of Ithaca, and the
Zoning Officer, Village of Cayuga Heights, for their information.
Section 3. Supersession.
The aforementioned Sections as amended by this Ordinance (to wit, 325 -3 and 325-20) are intended to
supersede any inconsistent provision of the City Charter or Code.
Section 4. Severability.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of the ordinance. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the r emaining portions of this
ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as
provided in the Ithaca City Charter.