Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-10 Planning & EDC Meeting Agenda MEETING NOTICE City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, July 21, 2010 – 7:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street A. Agenda Review B. Special Order of Business C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members D. Announcements, Updates and Reports 1. TIGER II Grant Proposal update (action anticipated to appear on City Administration agenda) E. Action Items 1. Rear-Yard Setback Zoning Amendment (memo from chair, revised proposed ordinance) 2. Rezoning of Certain R-3 Areas to R-2b, R-2c, and R-3aa (materials and maps distributed earlier; ordinances as passed at June 16, 2010 meeting attached) 3. Second Extension of Authorization for Bridge Fencing (resolution, report distributed under separate cover) F. Discussion Items 1. Inlet Island Preferred Developer Status and Zoning Review (materials distributed earlier and under separate cover) 2. Possible Executive Session to Discuss Acquisition of Real Property Rights (materials sent under separate cover) G. Approval of Minutes 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, July 20, 2010. E1a FROM: Jennifer Dotson, Chair, Planning and Economic Development Committee TO: Planning and Economic Development Committee Members DATE: July 14, 2010 MEMO: Rear-Yard Setback Zoning Amendment At our last committee meeting, we nearly took action on a proposed amendment to clarify the way that our zoning code describes rear-yard setback requirements, but at the last moment, City Attorney Dan Hoffman indicated that he had identified a few locations where changes would be advisable. Those suggested changes have been reviewed by the other staff working on this topic (Jennifer Kusznir in the Planning Department and Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke) and are included in the version of this proposal dated 7/9/10, which is included in your agenda packet. Dan Hoffman has indicated to me that both Jen and Phyllis have reviewed all of his proposed changes and they are acceptable. Here is Dan’s overview of his changes: 1. The addition of a couple of explanatory WHEREAS clauses. 2. I inserted a new "Section 3," which would delete Note 8 on the District Regulations Chart (on the back of the Zoning Map). Note 8 is essentially the same as Subsection 325-8.B(7) of the ordinance, which subsection would be deleted by "Section 2" of the amendment. 3. In my "Section 4" (previously "Section 3"), I have specified the wording changes that need to be made to "Column 14/15." 4. You will see that in "Section 4," I do not mention districts WF, WEDZ or CBD. It is not necessary to list them because, in the existing Chart, none of them includes a percentage of lot depth as one of the ways to calculate the minimum rear-yard setback; they each rely solely on a "10-foot minimum," which is exactly what the amendment intends. The deletions accomplished by "Section 1" and "Section 3" of the amendment remove any inconsistency as to these districts. 5. Also in "Section 4," I added the MH-1 (Mobile Home) district to the list. Jen had not included it, and I think it's possible we did not discuss it earlier. However, if the logic behind the amendment is to have a consistent 20-foot minimum setback for all residential districts, then it would seem that MH-1 should be included. If it is not, then it seems conceivable that a very shallow lot in the MH-1 district could qualify for a rear yard that is less than 20 feet. E1b An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Correct Inconsistencies Within the Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to Rear-Yard Setbacks. WHEREAS, Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca (“Zoning”) contains certain internal inconsistencies regarding the required rear-yard setback in certain districts (e.g., as to whether such minimum setback is 20 feet or 10 feet); and WHEREAS, a reference in Chapter 325 (and in the “District Regulations Chart”) to a requirement of the New York State Uniform Fire and Prevention Code (regarding the minimum rear- yard setback for multiple dwellings) is no longer accurate; now therefore ORDINANCE NO. ____ BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca (entitled “Zoning”) be and hereby is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325, Subsection 325-18.C, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca (entitled “Reductions in Rear Yards”) is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the subsequent subsection is hereby re-lettered accordingly. Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-8 (entitled “General Notes Pertaining to Regulations”), Subsection B(7), of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the subsequent subsections are hereby re-numbered accordingly. Section 3. In the “District Regulations Chart” referred to and incorporated into Chapter 325, Subsection 325-8.A, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, in the “General Notes” thereon, item numbered “8” (pertaining to possible, additional setback or other requirements imposed by the New York State Uniform Fire and Prevention Code) is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the subsequent notes are re-numbered accordingly. Section 4. The “District Regulations Chart” is hereby further amended as follows: (a) In Column “14/15” of the Chart (re: rear yard dimensions), the existing column entries for the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-U, C-SU and MH-1 districts shall be supplemented with the words: “(but not less than 20 feet)”. (b) In Column “14/15” of the Chart, the existing column entries for the B-1, B-2a, B-2c, B-2d, B-4, B-5, I-1, M-1 and SW districts shall be supplemented with the words: “(but not less than 10 feet)”. 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. . 7/9/10 (DLH) E2a 6/16/10 – as approved by P&ED Committee An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Rezone Portions of the R-3a and R-3b Zoning District to R-2b, R-2c, and R-3aa WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca consists of multiple zoning designations, including single-family residential, two-family residential, multi-family residential, and various types of commercial designations, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is fortunate to have a substantial housing and building stock dating from the 19th century and later, that is still in use and in good condition today, and WHEREAS, many of the City’s one- and two-family zoning districts directly abut more dense residential and/or commercial districts, and WHEREAS, where significantly different zoning districts abut one another, it is typically appropriate for there to be a transition zone between them that mitigates the potential conflict between the contrasting architectural character and building types in those districts, and WHEREAS, in 2007, the City Planning and Development Board raised concerns to Common Council that the R-3 zoning district allows development and new structures that are not appropriate, particularly in areas where the preponderance of structures are traditional one- and two-family homes, and where the proximity of more dense zones creates development pressure that has the potential to negatively affect the existing neighborhood character, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board proposed that the City address this problem by the creation of a new transition zone, called R-2c, that would allow R-3a uses but would restrict area regulations, would encourage construction of structures appropriate to neighborhood character, and would remove some incentives to tear down older houses, thereby preserving neighborhood character, and WHEREAS, such a proposal was made, in 2007, with regard to an area in the upper Collegetown neighborhood, which won the support of a majority of Council, but which was not successful because it did not garner a “super-majority” (three-fourths), which margin was required as a result of a protest by more than 20% of the affected property owners; and WHEREAS, in 2009, Mayor Carolyn Peterson created a subcommittee of the Common Council, the Planning & Development Board, and Planning Staff to evaluate all R-3 areas of the City as to whether the R-3 zone best supported appropriate development or preservation in the various neighborhoods and areas; and WHEREAS, that subcommittee made site visits to all potentially- affected zones and has now made recommendations to Common Council to rezone certain parts of the existing R-3a and R-3b district to R-2b, R-2c, and to a proposed, new, “R-3aa” zoning designation; and WHEREAS, the current R-3 zoning does not address the possibility of consolidation of multiple parcels, which can significantly change the effectiveness of current area, yard and setback requirements, which, for parcels that are of conventional size, act to control building massing, open space and separation of structures, and which, in turn, affect the rhythm of the streetscape and therefore the health and viability of the residential experience in R-3 districts, and WHEREAS, in determining where to apply the proposed new R-3aa zoning district, or whether to rezone from an R-3 to an R-2 designation, the Council has considered criteria such as whether the area has a traditional residential pattern of individual lots and individual houses of similar scale, orientation, and setbacks on both sides of a street, or along the block on the same side of the street, whether the existing neighborhood character is worthy of preservation, whether the area is already protected by historic district designation, and whether the type of large-scale residential development that could occur in the area under current, R-3 zoning would compromise the desirable character of the neighborhood, now therefore ORDINANCE NO. ____ BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 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 tax 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, 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 map entitled “Proposed R-3aa, R-2c, R-2b Zoning Amendment-May 2010,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 2. 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 and 80.-8-5. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed R-3aa, R-2c, R-2b Zoning Amendment-May 2010,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 3. 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 of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Proposed R-3aa, R-2c, R-2b Zoning Amendment-May 2010,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 4. Severability. 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 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. E2b 6/16/10 – as approved by P&ED Committee, per DH’s notes An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Establish the R-3aa Zoning District WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca consists of multiple zoning designations, including single-family residential, two-family residential, multi-family residential, and various types of commercial designations, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is fortunate to have a substantial housing and building stock dating from the 19th century and later, that is still in use and in good condition today, and WHEREAS, many of the City’s one- and two-family zoning districts directly abut more dense residential and/or commercial districts, and WHEREAS, where significantly different zoning districts abut one another, it is typically appropriate for there to be a transition zone between them that mitigates the potential conflict between the contrasting architectural character and building types in those districts, and WHEREAS, in 2007, the City Planning and Development Board raised concerns to Common Council that the R-3 zoning district allows development and new structures that are not appropriate, particularly in areas where the preponderance of structures are traditional one- and two-family homes, and where the proximity of more dense zones creates development pressure that has the potential to negatively affect the existing neighborhood character, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board proposed that the City address this problem by the creation of a new transition zone, called R-2c, that would allow R-3a uses but would restrict area regulations, would encourage construction of structures appropriate to neighborhood character, and would remove some incentives to tear down older houses, thereby preserving neighborhood character, and WHEREAS, such a proposal was made, in 2007, with regard to an area in the upper Collegetown neighborhood, which won the support of a majority of Council, but which was not successful because it did not garner a “super-majority” (three-fourths), which margin was required as a result of a protest by more than 20% of the affected property owners; and WHEREAS, in 2009, Mayor Carolyn Peterson created a subcommittee of the Common Council, the Planning & Development Board, and Planning Staff to evaluate all R-3 areas of the City as to whether the R-3 zone best supported appropriate development or preservation in the various neighborhoods and areas; and WHEREAS, that subcommittee made site visits to all potentially- affected zones and has now made recommendations to Common Council to rezone certain parts of the existing R-3a and R-3b district to R-2b, R-2c, and to a proposed, new, “R-3aa” zoning designation; and WHEREAS, the current R-3 zoning does not address the possibility of consolidation of multiple parcels, which can significantly change the effectiveness of current area, yard and setback requirements, which, for parcels that are of conventional size, act to control building massing, open space and separation of structures, and which, in turn, affect the rhythm of the streetscape and therefore the health and viability of the residential experience in R-3 districts, and WHEREAS, in determining where to apply the proposed new R-3aa zoning district, or whether to rezone from an R-3 to an R-2 designation, the Council has considered criteria such as whether the area has a traditional residential pattern of individual lots and individual houses of similar scale, orientation, and setbacks on both sides of a street, or along the block on the same side of the street, whether the existing neighborhood character is worthy of preservation, whether the area is already protected by historic district designation, and whether the type of large-scale residential development that could occur in the area under current, R-3 zoning would compromise the desirable character of the neighborhood, now therefore BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: ORDINANCE NO. ____ Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-4 (“Zoning Districts”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to establish and add the “R-3aa” residential zoning district thereto, and the District Regulations Chart, which is made a part of Chapter 325 by Section 325-8, is hereby amended by adding the following: Column 1: Use District – add “R-3aa”. Column 2: Permitted Primary Uses (for R-3aa)– 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 (for R-3aa) – 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 (for R-3aa) – 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 (for R-3aa) – 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 (for R-3aa) – 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 (for R-3aa)– 50. Column 8: Maximum Building Height, Number of Stories (for R-3aa) 3. Column 9: Maximum Height of Building, Height in Feet (for R- 3aa)– 35. Column 10: Maximum Percent of Lot Coverage by Buildings (for R- 3aa)– 35. Column 11: Yard Dimensions, Front, Required Minimum (for R-3aa)– 10. Column 12: Yard Dimensions, Side, One Side at Least (for R-3aa)– 10. Column 13: Yard Dimensions, Side, Other at Least (for R-3aa)– 5. Columns 14 and 15: Yard Dimensions, Rear (for R3-aa) – 25% or 50 feet and not less than 20 feet. Column 16: Minimum Height of Building/Maximum Building Footprint, Height in Feet (for R-3aa) – Minimum height: Two Stories. Maximum building footprint: 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 such surrounding buildings have been demolished, then the calculation for maximum building footprint shall use the footprint of the primary structure that most recently stood on any lot where a demolition had occurred. Section 2. Severability. 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 remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. E3a Planning and Economic Development Committee – for July 21, 2010 Agenda Draft Resolution Declaration of Continued Emergency and Authorization of New and Improved Temporary Fences on Gorge Bridges WHEREAS, the high bridges across Ithaca’s gorges have provided spectacular and inspiring views of the City and its environs, and a unique and important window for residents and visitors into the natural beauty of the gorges and the area’s geologic history; and WHEREAS, these same bridges (across Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek) are located adjacent to, within or between areas of the Cornell University campus, providing the most heavily used means of accessing the central campus, by vehicles and/or pedestrians; and WHEREAS, three of the bridges in question are owned and maintained by the City of Ithaca, and five are owned and maintained by Cornell University; and WHEREAS, these same, eight bridges have also been the sites, over the years, of deaths and injuries, both as a result of accidental falls and intentional leaps, with approximately one-half of the suicidal jumps involving college students; and WHEREAS, in the past 20 years, there have been 29 jumps or falls from these bridges, with 27 being fatal and the other two resulting in serious injury; more than half of these were from City-owned bridges, and the vast majority of these incidents were deemed to be suicidal; and WHEREAS, in early 2010, within a one-month period, three known or probable suicides occurred from two of these high bridges, the last two within two days of each other in March; and WHEREAS, Cornell officials, in emergency consultation – immediately after these three incidents - with professionals who study suicide and/or work on its prevention, concluded that the incidents likely represented a “suicide cluster” and were both the result of and the continuing cause of a “suicide contagion,” and further that Ithaca’s and Cornell’s high bridges likely represented “iconic” suicide sites known to attract vulnerable people, especially vulnerable young people, potentially resulting in further impulsive suicide attempts, in succession, after publicity about previous suicides from the same iconic site, and, further, that swift emergency action should be taken to place physical deterrents to impulsive suicide attempts, in the form of barriers on the high bridges; and WHEREAS, in March 2010, Cornell closed or erected temporary, emergency, chain-link fences on its own bridges across the Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek gorges, without going through the City’s normal environmental review and site plan permitting procedure (as such steps would have resulted in a delay Cornell officials believed would have created an unacceptable risk of still more loss of life); and WHEREAS, in March 2010, Cornell officials met with City of Ithaca Mayor Carolyn Peterson, as the result of which Cornell Vice President Kyu-Jung Whang sent a letter to City of Ithaca Mayor Carolyn Peterson on March 26, 2010 explaining the need for the University’s actions and requesting that the City allow Cornell to place similar emergency fences on the three City-owned bridges in question; and WHEREAS, the placement of a fence or other barrier on a bridge is an action normally subject to the City’s site plan review and other permitting procedures, as well as environmental review (per City and State law), and is exempt from such review only if it is temporary (of short duration and reversible) and of an emergency nature; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2010, the Mayor exercised her authority under Section 4-1 of the City’s Municipal Code, and declared that the string of recent, apparent suicides and the accompanying risk of a suicide contagion that could lead to further harm constituted an emergency “affecting the life, health or safety of inhabitants of the City,” and that for that reason she was granting permission to Cornell to install temporary fences on the three City bridges (at Cornell’s sole cost), without the normal review and permitting process, but only until June 4, 2010; and WHEREAS, during April 2010, Cornell contacted three experts in the field of studying suicide and its prevention: Annette L. Beautrais, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine; Madelyn S. Gould, Ph.D., M.P.H. Professor, Psychiatry and Public Health (Epidemiology), Columbia University; and Eric D. Caine, M.D. Professor and Chair, Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, and further Cornell asked them to study and visit the Cornell campus and City of Ithaca, to consult with leaders at the university and in the City, to provide information and opinion about current research and best practices, to assess the risks and challenges faced in the City of Ithaca both on and off campus, and to make recommendations on how the university and the City of Ithaca could address these challenges; and WHEREAS, during early May 2010, these three experts spent several days in Ithaca, during which time, among other activities, they met with the Mayor and other leaders in City government at City Hall, and held a public forum to which a large number of City and Cornell officials and leaders were invited, for the purpose of sharing their perspectives about suicide and suicide prevention, as well as receiving and answering questions from the audience; and WHEREAS, in mid-May 2010, Cornell officials advised the Mayor and other City officials of the experts’ oral conclusions and recommendations, which included the strong recommendation that temporary fences on the City- owned and Cornell-owned bridges should remain in place while permanent, more suitable and aesthetically- acceptable means restrictions that could be placed on or under the bridges were explored, designed, and reviewed through the normal process of site plan, environmental, and other review and approval procedures; and WHEREAS, Cornell has acknowledged that the temporary chain link barriers on the bridges (which Cornell believes needed to be installed within a matter of days, using readily-available materials, to address the risk of further suicides) and their associated top armature sections are not attractive and do not take into account the aesthetic value of the bridges or the desirability of preserving important views from the bridges; and WHEREAS, Cornell proposed, in a letter dated May 27, 2010 from Vice-President Susan Murphy to the Mayor, that the chain-link fences on the City bridges should be permitted to remain for 10 more weeks after they had previously been scheduled to be removed (on June 4, 2010), during which period Cornell and City representatives could work closely together in order to (briefly summarized): a. gain more knowledge about means restriction on bridges as a way of addressing suicides or the suicide contagion phenomenon in a community like Ithaca, b. consider how the important viewing and other aesthetic amenities of the high bridges could be preserved in conjunction with a means restriction approach, c. review designs for more visually acceptable temporary, emergency fence materials, d. consider a mutually agreeable timetable for the more visually acceptable, temporary, emergency fence material to remain on the bridges, while permanent means restriction approaches and potential solutions were discussed, designed, and reviewed through the normal process of site plan, environmental, and other review and approval procedures; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2010, the Common Council adopted a resolution entitled “Common Council Declaration of Emergency and Authorization of 10-week Extension for Existing, Temporary Fences on Gorge Bridges”; and WHEREAS, since June 2, 2010, representatives of the City, including elected and appointed officials and senior- level staff have met frequently with representatives of Cornell, have exchanged information including: (a) the three consultants’ “Basic Report” when it became available in mid-June, (b) the three consultants’ “Extended Report” when it became available in early July, (c) data on suicidal jumps and accidental deaths from the gorge bridges, (d) bridge by bridge analyses of the views and other amenities from bridges and how they might be preserved in conjunction with both temporary and permanent means restriction approaches, features of their railings and whether they contribute to or deter potential jumps or accidental falls, (e) descriptions of Cornell’s on-going mental health and safety counseling and other programming for students, (f) samples of temporary fence material that could be installed in place of chain link material, including installation features and modifications to it that would preserve some viewing opportunities and other aesthetic qualities of the bridges while temporarily on bridges; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2010, the Common Council and the City’s Board of Public Works conducted a special, joint meeting to which members of other City boards and committees as well as the public were invited, and at which representatives of the City and Cornell explained the work they had been doing, summarized the information they had exchanged, explained Cornell’s rationale for and request that temporary emergency fencing remain on the bridges - but in a more aesthetic form, and at which questions and comments from other City officials and from the general public were entertained by representatives of the City and Cornell; and WHEREAS, the temporary fence material proposed by Cornell to be installed (at Cornell’s sole cost) in place of the existing chain link fence material is less reflective, does not have armature at the top, has viewing “portholes” at various heights and intervals to allow viewing and picture taking without wire, is lower in height than the chain link fence it would replace, and overall has a lighter weight appearance and a more architectural look than the industrial, heavy look of the chain link fence, and such characteristics mitigate to the extent practicable (given the temporary nature and purpose) the effects of fencing on the important views previously available from the gorge bridges, and makes the proposed fencing less apparent when the bridges are viewed from the gorges and from other areas near the bridges, and further the temporary fence material can be installed and subsequently removed without alteration or damage to the existing bridges; and WHEREAS, there appears to be sufficient expert evidence and opinion about the possibility of an ongoing “suicide contagion” in the City of Ithaca, and about the lingering effect of recent media attention and resultant notoriety of the high bridges in Ithaca making them potentially “iconic” suicide sites, which could increase the risk of suicide attempts from them, to constitute a continuing emergency affecting the life, health or safety of the inhabitants of the City of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, Cornell indicates that it remains committed to exploring (and, ultimately, proposing, for full review and public comment), during the extended emergency period provided for herein and in close collaboration with City representatives, creative, long-term means restrictions (including at least one sub-structure pre-schematic design per bridge) for each of the bridges in question intended to deter impulsive jumps (and/or their injurious results) while also preserving to the greatest extent practicable the aesthetic attributes of the bridges and the important views available from and of them; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby declares that a threat to the safety or life of certain City residents and visitors appears to continue to exist in the form of a possible suicide contagion focused on the use of the high bridges across Ithaca’s gorges to end one’s life in a public manner from an iconic site, which risk justifies temporary continuation of the afore-mentioned emergency actions (not contingent upon the normal review and permitting procedures) to deter impulsive jumps from such bridges; and be it further RESOLVED, that, subject to the conditions set forth below and execution of the Memorandum of Understanding referenced below, the Common Council hereby authorizes Cornell University to continue to maintain temporary fences on the two City-owned bridges on Stewart Avenue (across Cascadilla Creek and Fall Creek) and the City- owned bridge on Thurston Avenue, and on the afore-mentioned Cornell-owned bridges, provided that by no later than August 20, 2010, Cornell, at its sole cost, shall replace the existing chain link material of each of the fences with the Designmaster 6-gauge wire, vinyl-coated black rectangular panel fence material described at the July 14, 2010 public meeting (or with a substantial equivalent to that manufactured by Designmaster, from a different manufacturer), which new material shall provide for a variety of viewing portals on each bridge, as described and presented at the July 14th meeting; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby requires as a condition of this authorization that Cornell University agree in writing to remove the improved, temporary, emergency fences from the various bridges in question - or any one or some of them, as the case may be - (at Cornell’s sole expense) upon the earliest occurrence of the following: (1) upon the timely replacement of the fences (or any of them) by a permanent means restriction project, as duly reviewed, permitted, and approved by the City, including all requisite environmental review and site plan approval and any other required consent (with the City and its boards to act in a timely, good faith manner with respect to such reviews, approval consent or disapproval); or (2) by May 31, 2011, if, for any particular bridge, no bona fide, good faith application for site plan review and Full Environmental Assessment Form (Part 1) for a proposed permanent means restriction project have been submitted by Cornell University by that date; or (3) within thirty (30) days of notice to do so from the City, if, following the timely submission (i.e., by May 31, 2011) of a bona fide, good faith application for site plan review and Full Environmental Assessment Form (Part 1) for the permanent means restriction project, Cornell has abandoned or failed to pursue in good faith and a reasonable, timely manner the process for the review and consideration of said site plan and any other, required approvals, for any particular bridge (or some or all of them); or (4) within thirty (30) days after any disapproval of a site plan review application for the permanent means restriction project (or for any individual bridge therein), or after written notice from the Mayor to Cornell of a decision by the City not to consent to the installation of such project on some or all of the City-owned bridges; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Cornell containing such terms and conditions as she shall deem reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City and to ensure that the intent of this resolution is carried out.