Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-12 Planning & EDC Meeting Agenda MEETING NOTICE City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, July 11, 2012 — 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street A. Agenda Review B. Special Order of Business C. Public Comment & Response from Committee Members (6:00 pm) D. Announcements, Updates, & Reports (6:10 pm) 1. Comprehensive Plan 4. Collegetown 2. Intermunicipal Planning Coordination 5. Commons 3. Emerson 6. Energy Action Plan E. Action Items F. Discussion Items (direction for development of possible future action items) 1. Changes to the Community Investment Incentive Program (CIIP) (6:20 pm) *** refer to materials in May 2012 committee packet *** 2. Response to Lease Renewal Request for Ithaca Community Gardens (6:50 pm) a. Project Growing Hope memo requesting lease renewal b. Project Growing Hope current lease (bylaws and articles of incorporation available on request) c. Option agreement with Building Links, Inc. 3. Amending Industrial Districts to Allow Housing (7:25 pm) a. Concept Memo including relevant sections of City Code b. Proposed Zoning Amendment 4. Agenda Planning — potential upcoming items (7:45 pm) a. In development or circulation, expected back in August Energy Action Plan Approval, Site Plan Review Changes, & Exterior Property Maintenance b. In development or circulation, expected back later Changes to Minimum Parking Requirements G. Approval of Minutes (7:50 pm) — Oct. 2010, Feb. 2012, & Mar. 2012 H. Adjournment (7:55 pm) Direct questions about the agenda to Jennifer Dotson, Chairperson 0dotson(@_cityofithaca.org or 351-5458) or 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. The agenda order is tentative and subject to change. If you have a disability and require any accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00, Noon, on Tuesday, July 10, 2012. Project Growing Hope Lease Renewal, April 2012 Who are we? Project Growing Hope is the not-for profit corporation formed in 1982 to run the Ithaca Community Gardens. We are governed by a seven-member, all volunteer,board and the gardens are maintained entirely through the volunteer labor of members. We have a very small budget(about$5500 in 2012,approximately 30%of which is spent on water)that is funded entirely by our members. We are a growing organization,with about 140 members in 2012,up from 86 members in 2003. Most members work their plots with family members and friends and we have 25-30%new members each year, as people leave town or have changing needs—many hundreds of individuals have been a part of the Ithaca Community Gardens. In any year, 70-75%of our members are residents of the City of Ithaca. An income survey in 2004 showed that 78% of our gardeners were HUD low income(80%of median); of these 37%,were HUD very low income (50% of median; the 2004 survey was not designed to correspond well to HUD income categories,the actual proportion of low-income gardeners may have been higher).A survey in 2012 showed that 57% are HUD low income(80%of median) and, of these,42%are HUD very low income(50%of median). In 2012, 16%of our members self-identify as Asian—Project Growing Hope has been particularly successful in including members of the Burmese and Karen communities,who garden with us despite a language and culture barrier. Our gardeners range in age from early 20s to late 70s,engage in a wide variety of occupations, and represent a broad cross section of the population. We also have organizational members,which have included the Youth Bureau,the Dispositional Alternatives Program of Family&Children's Services, GIAC, and Challenge Industries,who receive plots with no plot fees for use in programs with their clients. The gardens were founded in 1976 and were originally located behind the former P&C grocery on Ithaca's Northside, in what eventually became Mutual Housing. In the early 1980s,the City received a block grant to purchase that site for the community gardens,but were outbid by a developer. The gardens leased our current site in what is now Carpenter Park from NYSEG beginning in 1983. In the mid-1980s,the City bought the entire 10 acres (including our 2.25-acre site)using the funds that were granted for buying a community garden,plus other funds. Our current lease began in 1993 and runs through 31 December 2013. What do we do? Our members have individual plots,which they garden using organic methods. We currently have about 150 plots for which members pay$25,in addition to a$15 membership fee. We also have a few members who do not have plots but wish to contribute to the gardens. Project Growing Hope supplies hand tools (shovels and spades, digging forks,hoes,trowels, etc.),hoses,watering cans, and so on for use in gardening, and lawn mowers, a string trimmer, and other tools for maintaining the grounds.We offer scholarships to people who cannot afford the plot fee. Members are required to work 4 hours per plot per year or to pay a$10/hour fee in lieu of work. Members can take on coordinator jobs for areas such as compost,tools,mowing,website, education, and others; can help with projects such as mailings, data entry, social events,leading a particular work day; or can work at once-monthly two-hour work days in the gardens. The gardens are open to the public;the gates are never locked. People are welcome to stroll around the gardens and enjoy the site;we only ask that they not pick produce,take anything, or vandalize. Members organize and present several educational programs each year and we host educational events by other organizations, such as Cooperative Extension. Classes have included seed starting, spring gardening, fall gardening,mushroom cultivation, and"bug walks", among others. We publicize these programs through various listservs and the public is welcome to attend, free of charge. For many years,we served as the home of one of the Master Composters' demonstration sites and as the place where their once-monthly Compost With Confidence class series is taught.We have provided plots for gardeners to grow food for Loaves and Fishes and our members organize the collection of produce for local food banks. What is our goal? Our lease with the City of Ithaca for the Ithaca Community Gardens in Carpenter Park expires 31 December 2013. We would like to renew the lease and are seeking the Mayor's advice in how to proceed. What is our value to the City? Community gardens are widely acknowledged to be a public good; a partial list of the benefits of community gardens (from the American Association of Community Gardens)includes: improving the quality of life for people who garden; stimulating social interaction; encouraging self-reliance;beautifying neighborhoods; producing nutritious food; reducing food budgets; conserving resources; creating opportunity for recreation, exercise,therapy, and education; preserving green space;reducing city heat from streets and parking lots; and providing opportunities for intergenerational and cross-cultural connections. As our City becomes more dense,providing land for gardening to those who live in apartments,have shaded lots, or do not have their landlord's permission to garden will continue to be important. Group ownership of basic tools and access to water, education,mentorship, and modeling helps people to increase their self-sufficiency and makes gardening accessible for those with low incomes. Our members tell us that their plot"provides 30%of my veggie needs for a year"; "supplied 15 or more lunches, 20 or more dinner salads,20 or more side-dishes at dinner"; "provided 75 to 100%of vegetable needs for 2 people who love veggies,from June to the end of October..."; and similar stories of abundance. Many municipalities,including the Town of Ithaca,provide community gardens and use staff time to administer the gardens,handle registration, collect fees, direct and perform maintenance, answer gardener questions, do site planning, and many of the other tasks that our Board and members have been doing as volunteers. We estimate at least one half-time staff member would be required if averaged over the year. A staff member making fte $25,000 with overhead of 40%would cost the city$17,500 each year, in addition to the costs of any power equipment required. We have been providing this service to the City for over 30 years. Our location near the Ithaca Farmers market means that many City residents and visitors to Ithaca see our gardens and many of them stop in to enjoy the gardens and talk to gardeners,thus making us ambassadors of Ithaca. We require very little to no City staff time. We are a positive presence in our"neighborhood"; the presence of our gardeners in Carpenter Park provides"eyes on the street."As a result,there is little trouble with anti-social behavior in this otherwise large vacant lot.With the eventual completion of Phase 2 of the Waterfront Trail and the increased number of visitors that will bring, our location will be even more visible and important as an example of what is best about Ithaca. Gail Blake, Chris Negronida, and Sheryl Swink Board Members and members of Lease Renewal Committee,Project Growing Hope P.O. Box 606, Ithaca NY 14851 ithacagardensboard@gmail.com 607-216-8770 d ta$$g3 ";eZ ®° OCT 8 t ..... CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW Y RK -14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: (607)274-6504 CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM FAX: (607)272-7348 TO: Cookie Paolangeli, City Clerk FROM: Chuck Guttman, City Attorney 1 DATE: October 15, 1993 RE: City of Ithaca Community Gardens Lease Enclosed please find the signed original lease regarding the above matter for filing. "'An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Recycled Paper OCT CITY OF ITHACA COMMUNITY GARDENS LE F This lease, made this day of , 1993 , by and between the CITY OF ITHACA, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, hereinafter referred to as the "lessor" ; and PROJECT GROWING HOPE, INC. , a not-for-profit cooperative corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with address at P.O. Box 606, Ithaca, State of New York, hereinafter referred to as the "lessee" . WITNESSETH: ARTICLE FIRST: PREMISES AND TERM. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises more particularly described in Schedule "A" with the rights, privileges, easements and appurtenances thereunto belonging or attaching, unto the lessee for and during the period from January 1, 1993 to December 31, 2013 the lessee holding possession and paying rent therefor and performing and complying with the covenants, agreements, provisions and conditions as hereinafter provided. PROVIDED, NEVERTHELESS. (a) If the lessee shall, at any time during the demised term, fail in the performance of or permit the violation of any of the covenants, conditions, terms or provisions of this lease contained, which, on the part of the lessee, are or ought to be observed, performed and fulfilled and except where a specific time is herein c:\wp51\agreements\comgarden. lse 06/23/93 1 provided for the performance of any covenant or condition, when such default shall not be made good within thirty (30) days after notice and demand given pursuant to the provisions of ARTICLE SIXTH hereof; or (b) If, during the demised term, the lessee shall be adjudicated a bankrupt or make a general assignment for the benefit of creditors or take the benefit of any insolvency act, or a permanent receiver or trustee in bankruptcy be appointed for the lessee's property and such appointment for a temporary receiver be not vacated and set aside within ninety (90) days from the date for such appointment, or in the event of any attempted transfer or other devolution of the interest of any part thereof of the lessee to any other person or corporation by reasons of the several acts and things hereinabove last enumerated; THEN, in any of the events enumerated above, the lessor may, at its option, and thirty (30) days notice in writing, served as provided in ARTICLE SIXTH hereof, terminate this lease; and this lease and the term thereof shall automatically cease and terminate at the expiration of said thirty (30) day period; and it shall be lawful for the lessor, at its option, to enter the demised premises or any part thereof and to have, hold, repossess and enjoy the said premises, and the lessor shall have the right to recover the said premises and to remove all persons therefrom by summary proceedings or by any action or proceedings, or by force or otherwise. c: \wp51\agreements\comgarden. lse 06/23/93 2 ARTICLE SECOND: RENTAL. For and in consideration of the leasing aforesaid, the lessee hereby covenants and agrees to and with the lessor to pay to the lessor as and for rent the sum of One Dollar ($1. 00) per year. ARTICLE THIRD: USE OF PREMISES. (a) The City of Ithaca affirms the public benefit provided residents of the City of Ithaca by the Ithaca Community Gardens. The Lessee covenants and agrees that it will, during the period of this lease, reasonably use the demised premises and any building and improvement situated thereon for public community gardens in a manner similar to the past use on the premises, as a benefit for the City of Ithaca and open to the general public, as defined by the current certificate of incorporation and bylaws of lessee which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" including giving priority to low income gardeners. In addition, the premises will be available for other uses as deemed appropriate by lessor, provided such uses do not conflict with the Community Garden uses of lessee, including but not limited to use by the general public for passive recreation, park or other purposes as deemed appropriate by lessor. Lessee shall be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on potential joint uses of the leased premises but lessor shall retain the sole authority to determine such uses and whether they conflict with the Community Gardens use by lessee. (b) The lessee further covenants and agrees that at all times during the demised term, the premises including the buildings and c:\wp51\agreements\comgarden. lse 06/23/93 3 improvements situated thereon or connected therewith and all appurtenances thereto and equipment thereof shall be kept by the lessee at its own expense in good repair and in a clean, safe, wholesome and tenantable condition and in conformity with the requirements of all municipal, county, state and federal laws, rules and regulations; that all health, police, zoning, fire, building, subdivision, and other regulations shall, in all respects and at all times, be fully complied with by the lessee and in particular that at the end of the growing season the site will be appropriately cleaned and winterized; that the lessee will not at any time remove or permit to be removed any existing building or improvement from the demised land except as in this lease provided; that the lessee will keep the premises and improvements thereon insured against liability and fire or other hazards and shall save the lessor harmless and indemnify it at all times against any loss, damage, penalties, costs and expenses, judgments and decrees, by reason of a failure so to do in any respect or by reason of any violation of any of the laws, rules or regulations above referred to, or by reason of any accident, loss, wrong, injury, or damage to person, life or property in or about said demised premises, or by reason of any use which may be made of the demised premises or the buildings and improvements thereon, or by reason of any act or thing done or omitted to be done or by reason of anything happening in connection with or upon the demised premises or in any building situated thereon or improvement connected therewith, or by reason ce \wp51\agreements\comgarden.lse 06/23/93 4 of the failure of the lessee in any respect fully to carry out and perform any of the covenants, agreements, provisions or undertakings in this lease on its part to be performed. ARTICLE FOURTH: IMPROVEMENTS. It is understood and agreed that in the event the lessee shall construct buildings and structures or landscaping upon the demised premises during the term of this lease agreement, or any extension thereof, such buildings shall be used solely for the purposes set forth in article THIRD hereof. Any such improvements shall be subject to City of Ithaca Site Plan Review procedures. ARTICLE FIFTH: INSURANCE. Lessee shall keep the premises insured as provided in Article 3 (b) and the amount of insurance shall be as reasonably approved by the lessor and proof of insurance and the inclusion of the lessor as an additional insured in all such policies of insurance shall be provided in writing to the lessor. It is mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the proceeds of any and all policies of fire insurance covering any building or buildings at any time situated upon the demised premises shall be used as a trust fund towards the repair, reconstruction, building or rebuilding of such building or buildings, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. c: \wp5l\agreements\comgarden. lse 06/23/93 5 ARTICLE SIXTH: NOTICES. Any notice which may be required under the terms of this lease shall be given in writing, personally to: For LESSOR: Mayor 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 and Attorney for the City 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 For LESSEE: Project Growing Hope, Inc. P.O. Box 606 Ithaca, New York 14851 ARTICLE SEVENTH: WAIVERS OF LIEN. The lessee further covenants and agrees that the lessee will not make any contract or agreement, either verbal or written, for labor, services, materials or supplies in connection with any improvements at any time situated upon the demised land without securing in such contract or agreement a waiver or waivers of lien against the lessor's interest in the demised premises; and it is expressly understood and agreed, and notice is hereby given, that no persons, firms, or corporations furnishing labor, materials or services for the construction, reconstruction, alteration or addition to any building at any time during the term hereof situated upon the demised land shall have any lien upon the lessor's interest in the demised premises and that any and all liens upon the lessee's estate and interest in the demised land and the buildings and improvements situated therein shall be subject to the prior rights of the lessor under the terms and provisions of c: \wp51\agreements\comgarden.lse 06/23/93 6 this lease agreement, and no authority is given by this lease to the lessee, expressly or impliedly, to bind the lessor for the payment of any money in connection with the construction, repairing, alterations, additions or reconstruction work on the demised premises, nor is there any authority given the lessee by this lease, directly or indirectly, to permit any mechanics, material-men's, contractors' liens to arise against the lessor s interest in the demised land or the buildings or improvements thereon, and the lessee expressly agrees that it will keep and save the demised premises and the lessor harmless from all costs and damages arising from any such liens or lien of any character created through any act or anything done by the lessee. ARTICLE EIGHTH: SURRENDER Upon the termination of this lease by forfeit or upon its expiration, the lessee covenants and agrees at once to surrender peaceably and deliver up to the lessor, the demised premises together with all buildings and permanently fixed improvements thereon including those constructed after the execution of this agreement, in good condition, and that all building and permanently fixed improvements thereon shall thereafter belong to the lessor without the necessity of any deed of conveyance or other assignment or transfer by the lessee and that no compensation shall be allowed or paid therefor to the lessee or to anyone claiming by, through, or under the lessee. The lessor recognizes that structures may be designed to be removable. The lessee may have the right to negotiate with the lessor for removal of any such structures. c: \wp51\agreements\comgarden. lse 06/23/93 7 ARTICLE NINTH: ASSIGNMENT. It is hereby covenanted and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the lessee may not sell, convey or assign its interest in the demised premises and in the buildings thereon without the written consent of the lessor. Further provided that approval of one assignment by the lessor shall not constitute approval for any subsequent assignment. ARTICLE TENTH: LESSEE TERMINATION. The lessee may terminate this lease at any time by giving 30 days written notice to the lessor. It is further understood and agreed that in the event of the assignment of the interest of the lessee in the demised premises and any improvements thereon by operation of law, this lease agreement shall cease and terminate, and the lessee's interest in the demised premises and/or in the building or appurtenances constructed or reconstructed thereon shall revert to the lessor as provided for in article EIGHTH, and the lessor shall be deemed to be the sole owner thereof, free of all liens and encumbrances. It is further understood and agreed that in such event, any and all obligations of the lessee hereunder shall cease and terminate. ARTICLE ELEVENTH: CONDEMNATION. If any person or corporation, municipal, public, private or otherwise, shall, at any time during the term of this lease, lawfully condemn and acquire title to the demised premises or any portion thereof or to any building or the appurtenances now or c:\wp51\agreements\comgarden.lse 06/23/93 8 hereafter erected thereon, or to any easement therein, in or by condemnation proceedings pursuant to any law, general, special or otherwise, the lessor shall be entitled to and shall receive the entire award or payment therefor; and the lessee shall assign and does hereby assign and transfer to the lessor such award or payment as may be made therefor. The lessor, in any event, shall be entitled to receive any and all awards or payments made for any buildings and the appurtenances which shall be so taken or for any damages thereto, free, clear and discharged of every claim of every kind whatsoever by or on the part of the lessee, except as hereinafter specifically provided, and such award or payment is hereby transferred and assigned to the lessor by the lessee; and the lessee hereby further agrees that for the purpose of obtaining such award or payment, and for all other purposes, all the buildings and improvements now standing upon the demised premises are the sole and absolute property of the lessor and that in no event and under no circumstances shall the lessee be entitled to receive or retain any award or payment or any part thereof except as hereinafter specifically provided. Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary, if the lessee shall have commenced or completed the erection of a new building or buildings or other improvements and such condemnation takes place after the commencement or completion of the said new building or buildings, then the lessor agrees to pay the lessee out of the condemnation award or payment when paid, c: \wp5l\agreements\comgarden. lse 06/23/93 9 a sum equal to the amount awarded or paid in condemnation as the value of such building or improvements. If, in the condemnation proceeding, the value of the land and of the buildings and other improvements are not separately determined, then the value of the building or other improvements shall be determined by arbitration. The lessor agrees to give the lessee notice of any condemnation proceedings immediately upon knowledge of such proceedings. ARTICLE TWELFTH: WATER, SEWERAGE, AND PARKING. Lessee shall be responsible to construct and interconnect and maintain the necessary water and sewer lines to the existing City systems in accordance with the lessor's engineering criteria. In particular, the lessee shall be responsible for the installation, maintenance and testing of the backflow protection device; the winterization of all water and sewer lines and appurtenances and the scheduling of seasonal turn on and shut off of water. The lessor shall have no responsibility for developing additional parking areas for use by lessee. Lessee shall be responsible for the payment for all utilities used on the premises provided however that it is understood that the lessee has requested and received financial assistance from lessor in paying such utility bills and it is expected that lessee may, in the future, again request such financial assistance from lessor. ARTICLE THIRTEENTH: PUBLIC USE. In the event the lessee shall fail to use said premises for c:\wp51\agreements\comgarden.lse 06/23/93 10 any of the purposes hereinbef ore described in ARTICLE THIRD for one full year during the term of this lease, as provided in ARTICLE SECOND, the lessor may, at its option, notify the lessee of its election to terminate this lease pursuant to ARTICLE FIRST (b) of this agreement. ARTICLE FOURTEENTH: NONDISCRIMINATION. It is mutually understood and agreed that the lessee, in the employment if its agents, contractors and/or employees, shall not discriminate against any person by reason of his or her race, color, creed, sex, age disability, marital status, affectional preference or national origins and any construction contract entered into by the lessee shall contain such a nondiscriminatory clause. ARTICLE FIFTEENTH: NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. In the event that, at any time during the term of this lease, the lessee or assignee shall cease to be a not-for-profit corporation, this lease shall cease and terminate at the option of the lessor, pursuant to ARTICLE FIRST (b) of this lease agreement. ARTICLE SIXTEENTH: TITLE. Lessor represents and warrants that it is the owner in fee of the demised premises, free of all liens and encumbrances. ARTICLE SEVENTEENTH: This lease shall be void should the tax assessor of Tompkins County determine that the subject parcel is not tax exempt. IN such event, the parties will attempt to re-negotiate this lease. c:\wp51\agreements\comgarden.lse 06/23/93 11 ARTICLE NINETEENTH: SEVERABILITY. In the event that any term, condition, clause or provision of this agreement shall be deemed null and void, the remaining terms, conditions, clauses and provisions of this lease agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unless the rights of either party are materially affected by the deletion of such term, condition, clause or provision, in which case either party may elect within 90 days after the date of the notification to declare said lease null and void in its entirety. This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the parties and their successors in title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have placed their hands and seals the /j day of �� , ', r �� , 1993 . CITY OF ITHACA By: ' BENJAMIN NICHOLS, Chairperson PROD CT GROWI G PE, INC. By: / � _ ` ''rrc-v si u C 11 L c: \wp51\agreements\comgarden. lse 06/23/93 12 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On this day of 1993 before me personally came Benjamin Nichols, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at Llenroc Place, Ithaca, New York and that he is the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, the municipal corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; and that he signed his name thereto by direction of the members of such corporation. r Notary Public Notary ?ubliC,State Of . No.4951392 Quilifiied in Tom i Commission Expires May,22L,I STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On this ' ,gay of , 1993 before me personally came ?y Lkib , to me pers_= lly known, who being by me duly sworn, did '� epose and say that e� she resides at Ithaca, New York and that e she is the , of Project Growing Hope, Inc. , the corporat' n described n end which executed the above instrument; and that he she signed is her name thereto by direction of the members of such corporation. Notary Public " KATHYLEEN A. HARCiE-Y Notary Puailc, State cl Nevw York No. 4930532 Qualified in Cortland County Term expires May c: \wp51\agreements\comgarden.lse 06/23/93 13 Schedule A-City of Ithaca/Community Gardens Lease ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, situate in the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York more particularly bounded and described as follows: Commencing at a point in the northerly line of premises conveyed by the City of Ithaca to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency by deed dated June 17, 1991, which deed was recorded on July 17, i99i _Ln tiie Tt3iiipkin5 C viiiity Cierk'S Office in Liber 663 of deeds at page 144, said point of beginning being located from the northerly corner of the said premises conveyed by the City of Ithaca to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency south 45 degrees 51 minutes 35. 5 seconds west 217.8 feet and south 46 degrees 16 minutes west 474 . 1 feet; running thence north 46 degrees 16 minutes east 419. 1 feet to a point; running thence on a curve to the left, an arc distance of 65.8 feet, a chord distance of south 15 degrees 39 minutes 21. 6 seconds west 65. 6 feet; running thence south 7 degrees 27 minutes 17 seconds west 85.8 feet; running thence on a curve to the right, an arc distance of 97 . 9 feet, a chord distance of south 27 degrees 29 minutes 4. 7 seconds west 95.9 feet; running thence south 47 degrees 30 minutes 52 . 4 seconds west 203 .2 feet to a point; running thence north 44 degrees 38 minutes west 113 .7 feet to the point or place of beginning. ALSO ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, situate in the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York more particularly bounded and described as follows: Commencing at a southeasterly corner of the said premises conveyed by the City of Ithaca to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, said point of beginning being located the following three courses from the point of beginning of the aforesaid deed from the City of Ithaca to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency: south 70 degrees 34 minutes west 257 . 1 feet; south 7 degrees 27 minutes 17 seconds west 21. 9 feet; south 19 degrees 20 minutes east 264. 8 feet, said point of beginning being marked by an iron pipe; running thence south 45 degrees 22 minutes west 228. 3 feet to a point; running thence north 44 degrees 38 minutes west 196.9 feet to a point; running thence north 47 degrees 30 minutes 52 .4 seconds east 201. 0 feet to a point; running thence on a curve to the left, an arc distance of 139.8 feet, a chord distance of north 27 degrees 29 minutes 04 . 7 seconds east 137. 0 feet to a point; running thence north 7 degrees 27 minutes 17 seconds east 13 . 0 feet to a point; running thence south 19 degrees 20 minutes west 264 . 8 feet to the point or place of beginning. c:wp51\chuck\comgarden.lse-6/16/93 1 Being a portion of the premises conveyed to the City of Ithaca by deed from the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation dated February 21, 1986, which deed was recorded in the Tompkins Clerk's Office on March 13, 1986 in Liber 615 of Deeds at page 797. Subject to rights retained by the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation in the aforesaid deed for permanent easement and rights of way upon, over, across and under the above described premises as more particularly set forth in the aforementioned deed from the New York State Electric & Gas Corporation to the City of Ithaca. cewp5l\chuck\comgarden. lse-6/16/93 2 �'�r _ `•y�� CITE' OF ITHACA v4;a 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ti. �4 ..... � H. IL-=HYS NAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development- 607-274-6550 Community Development,IURA - 607-274-6559 Email: planningCcin.ofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-2-t-6558 Fax: 607-271-6558 March 4, 2002 Project Growing Hope, Inc. PO Box 606 Ithaca, NY 14851 Subject: Sale of Carpenter Business Park Dear Project Growing Hope, Inc.: I am writing to inform you that the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and City of Ithaca completed the sale of Carpenter Business Park to Building Links, Inc. on February 19, 2002. Included in the sale is a purchase option of the City- owned parcels leased by Project Growing Hope, Inc. (enclosed). It is my understanding that the purchase option will not affect your current lease of the City-owned property utilized for the Community Gardens,which extends through December 31, 2013,without your consent. During the term of your lease the purchase option may only be exercised with the approval of Project Growing Hope, Inc. Upon expiration of the lease,the option may be exercised if the Common Council decides not to extend or renew the lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc. Please note that property sold to Building Links, Inc. included the Carpenter Circle road right-of-way(including road, curbs and sidewalk). However,the City reserved an easement through Carpenter Circle for access to the Community Gardens. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 274-6559 or by e-mail at nelsb @cityofithaca.org. Respectfully, Nels Bo Director of Community Development, IURA Encl. Purchase option agreement c: P. Dunn,Assistant City Attorney H.M.Van Cort, Executive Director, IURA C.Yahn, Building Links, Inc. project file chrono q:lplanninglstafflnelstiuralproperty dispositionlcarpenteNet project growing hope 3.4.02.doc "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 4 0 OPTIOti TO PU CHASE REAL PROPERTY This agreement is made and entered into this day of February, 2002, by and between the City of Ithaca„ with offices at 108 East Green Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York, herein called "Optionor", and Building Links, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation with principal address at P.O. Box 6803, Ithaca, New York, herein called "Optionee". In consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) paid by Optionee to Optionor, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and other good and valuable consideration, Optionor hereby grants to Optionee, Optionee's heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, the exclusive right and option to buy certain property located in the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, commonly known as the Community Gardens, bounded and described as follows: 1. Description of property. ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, beginning at a point in the northerly line of the premises of the grantor which point is located the following courses and distances from a pin set in the northerly line of the premises of the grantor and the westerly line of Third Street: S 34° 17' 32" W along the northerly boundary of the lands of the grantor a distance of 217.82 feet to a pin set in the northwesterly comer of the street known as Carpenter Circle; thence S 34° 41' 32" W a distance of 55.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. running thence,along a curve to the left an arc distance of 65.82 feet, said course having a radius of 230.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of south. 04' 04' 54" west, a distance of 65.60 feet to a point, running thence S 04' 07' 11" E a distance of 85.80 feet to a point, A:\CarpenterParkoption to purchase revised.doc 1 running thence along a curve to the right an arc distance of 97.88 feet, said course having a radius of 140.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of south 150 54' 37" west, a distance of 95.90 feet to a point in the northerly boundary of a street commonly known as Carpenter Circle, W a distance of 203,20 feet to a point in the northerly running thence S 56' 24" boundary of Carpenter Circle, running thence N 56° 11" 08" W a distance of 113.65 feet; running thence 'v' 34 41 32 ' E a distance of 419.10 feet to the point or place of beginning. ALSO, ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the City, of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, beginning at a point in the southerly line of the street commonly known as Carpenter Circle, said point of beginning being located the following five courses and distances from the point of beginning of premises of the grantor being conveyed to Building Links, Inc. concurrently with this Option to Purchase: 1. S 31' 27' 28" E a distance of 100.69 feet to a pin at the easterly line of the premises of the grantor and the westerly line of third Street; 2. thence S 58' 32' 49" W a distance of 82.90 along the southerly boundary of a street commonly known as Carpenter Circle; 3. thence continuing along the southerly boundary of Carpenter Circle running along a curve to-the left an are distance of 185.81 feet, said course having a radius of 170.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of south 27' 11' 19" west, a distance of 176.70 feet, 4. continuing thence along the southerly boundary of Carpenter Circle S 04' 07' 11" E a distance of 50.91 feet to a point located 0.9= feet easterly of a pin found, 5. continuing thence S 04' 07' 11" E a distance of 22.08 feet along the southerly boundary of Carpenter Circle and the boundary of lands reputedly of Hoyt Beni amin to a pin set which is the point of beginning. Thence South 30 degrees 54 minutes 28 seconds East, 264.72 feet to a point located 0.2+ feet westerly from a fence post in a chain link fence; AACarpenterParkoption to purchase revised.doc 2 running thence South 33 degrees 47 minutes 32 seconds west, 228.3 feet to a point marked by an iron pin; running thence North 56 degrees 11 minutes 5 seconds West, 196.92 feet to a point marked by an iron pin; running thence North35 degrees 56 minutes 24 seconds east, 201.0 feet to a point; +h distance � , a 3 facet a chord distance runnincr thence on a curve to �i e left an are uis�ance 04 1!Q.8' , .�, ho d ?lce of North 15 degrees 54 minutes 37 seconds east, 137.0 feet to a point; running thence North 4 degrees 7 minutes 11 seconds east, 12.81 feet to the point or place of beginning. The above parcels are shown as Parcels "A" and "B" on a survey map entitled "Survey Map Carpenter Business Park, Third Street and New York State Route 13, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," dated 6/l/2001, amended 9/17/2001 and 2/15/2002. prepared by T.G. Miller P C. Engineers and Surveyors, which map is intended to be filed in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office concurrently herewith. 2. Purchase Price Purchase price is seventy thousand ($70,000) Dollars adjusted on the date of Optionee's exercise of this option to the "Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Northeast Urban Region" as prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A nonrefundable good faith deposit of five thousand ($5,000) Dollars is payable upon exercise of the option and shall be included with Optionee's written notice of its intent to exercise the option with the remaining balance payable at closing. 3. Terms 1. Subject to lease. Purchase of the Community Gardens is subject to the lease on the property. A:1CarpenterParkoption to purchase revised.doc 3 2. Written Notice. Notice of Optionee's intent to exercise the option shall be provided to the Optionor in writing, by certified mail, return receipt requested, made to the Director of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency. Failure to provide such writing within the option period, even if notice has been provided orally or by some other method, shall be construed as having allowed the option to expire. Written notice of intent to exercise this option shall be deemed Notice of Acceptance of the option. 3. Closing. Closing is to take place no later than twelve (12) months after Optionor has received written notice of intent to exercise the option. 4. Title. Title to the property shall be conveyed by warranty deed free and clear of all encumbrances. Optionor shall provide ten (10) year tax searches, an Abstract of Title and a title search covering at least forty (40) years to time of transfer, showing good and marketable title, free of liens and encumbrances. 5. Duration of option. This option to purchase is for twenty (20) years commencing on the day, month.. and year indicated above. Under no circumstances shall this option extend beyond the twenty (20) year period indicated herein. 6. Manner of Exercising. 1. This option may be exercised at any time within the twenty (20) year period indicated above under the following terms and conditions: (i) During the term of current lease. Optionee may exercise this option during the current lease period by providing written notice to the Optionor, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of its intent to exercise said option along with presentation to Optionor of satisfactory proof from the Board of Project Growing Hope; Inc., or its successor in interest, of the approval by said Board of the conveyance to Optionee. (ii) After the current lease has expired or been terminated. Optionee may exercise this option after the lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc., or its successor in interest, has expired or been terminated by A:\CarpenterParkoption to purchase revised.doc 4 - providing notice to Optionor of Optionee's intent to exercise the option upon expiration of the lease. Such notice shall be provided at least six months prior to exercise of this option but not more than six months prior to the date that the lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc. expires or terminates. Said notification by Optionee shall be in writing, by certified mail return receipt requested, stating that the Optionee elects to exercise its option unless the Optionor extends its lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc. The City shall then have six months to sign a lease extension or a new lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc. -In the event the City chooses to either renew or extend its lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc., then and in that event, Optionee shall be entitled to exercise its option under the same terms as described in (i) above so long as said option is exercised within the twenty (20) year time period of this agreement. -In the event the City chooses not to renew or extend its lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc., then and in that event, Optionee shall be entitled to exercise its option and proceed to closing. (iii) No notice of intent to exercise option. If the City chooses not to renew or extend its lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc. and the Optionee has not provided notice of its intent to exercise its option as described in (ii) above, then Optionee shall have one (1) year from expiration of the lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc. in which to provide Notice to the City of its intent to exercise its option. -If the Optionee provides such Notice, then closing shall take place within twelve (12) months of said Notice. -If the Optionee chooses not to exercise its option, then this Option to Purchase shall automatically expire and shall have no further force or effect twelve (12) months after expiration or termination of the lease between the City and Project Growing Hope, Inc. 2. Closing. Once Optionee has provided Notice of intent to exercise the Option, then closing shall take place within twelve (12) months of provision of said Notice of Intent. 3. Time is of the essence in this Option to Purchase. All time limitations as provided above, both for the provision of Notice to exercise the option and for closing, are of the essence. A:1CarpenterParkoption to purchase revised.doc 5 Failure to perform shall render this Option to Purchase null and void and of no further force and effect. 7. Real Property Taxation. In the event that the property subject to this Option to Purchase, or any portion of the property, be determined to be tax exempt, Optionee and Optionee's successors and assigns of this Option to Purchase agree to make a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes to the city of Ithaca equivalent to the taxes which would be paid if the property, or any portion of the property, were (ally taxable. The schedule of payment and penalties for late payment for such payment-in-lieu-of- taxes shall be in accordance with the schedule and laws governing real property taxes. 8. Real Estate Brokerage. It is understood and agreed that no real Estate broker or salesperson was, or is, involved with any aspect of this Option to Purchase, including but not limited to, exercise of said option or closing. This contract will be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their respective heirs, successors, or assigns. In witness whereof, the parties have duly executed this agreement on the day and year indicated above. CITY OF ITHACA Dated: February 2002 Alan J. Cohen,Mayor BULL _ILjG LINKS, INC. Dated: Cynthia Yahn,-Rresident, Building Links, Inc. KARea(Estate\Carpenter Park\CarpenterParkoption to purchase.doc 6 STATE OF NEW YORK } )ss.. COUNTY OF TONIPKINS } On this <` day of February, 2002, before me, the subscriber, personally came Alan J. Cohen, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and that he resides in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York, that he is the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, that he has been duly authorized to execute this instrument on behalf of the City of Ithaca, that he signed this instrument pursuant to such authorization and is known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Ithaca. PATRICIA DUNN ---'Notary Public, State of New York j No. 4948393 rGcc J Qualified in Tompkins County � Public Commission Expires March 20, 20®� Notary STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On this 1`1i, day off 6-^ , 2002, before me, the subscriber, personally came Cynthia Yahn, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and that she resides in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, that she is the President of Building Links, Inc., that she has been duly authorized by the Board of Building Links, Inc. to execute this instrument on behalf of Building Links, Inc., that she signed this instrument pursuant to such authorization and is known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and duly acknowledged to me that she executed the same on behalf�of Building Links, Inc. PETER GROSSMAN 9 Notary Public,State of New York If', No.02GR4643226 Notary'Pub is Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires August 31, Q y KAReal Estate\Carpenter Park\CarpenterParkoption to purchase.doc 7 CENTER OF RAILROAD SIDING (PRESENTLY INACTIVE) PIN T,y SET / s ! 9 372 3S r RFS ST 9 Opp 10.42' /,1VrNC PIN SET 8j�+ I cv It \ ok \\ f t1 CO W / 20 WIDE WATER MONK FOUND 7Rf� MAIN EASEMENT CONVEYED 1.2t SLY OF COR. TO THE CITY OF ITHACA t0 SEE CO 2500, PG 5046 •� \ I b 1 ,47 20'WIDE SANITARY SEWER MAIN EASEMENT PARCEL D j CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ITHACA SEE CD 2500, PG 5046 CH— s 2711'19" W h' v 176.70' PIN R=170.00' IV SEi ` ARC=185.81' CHAINLINK -33'8 FENCE POST 20'WIDE SANITARY i STORY III 2.0'1 SLY OF COR. SEWER MAIN EASEMENT BUILDING CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ITHACA i o ' SEE CD 2500, PG 50461,STORY 1 h. BUILDING BENJA IN (R.0.)662146 I PIN FOUND 1.1'3 NWLY OF CORNER i � p N PIN FOUND— ORS 6F CORNER G��L / PIPE / FOUN PIPE PIN N 34' FOUND S6T——;' 1 D.12 3 12.87 - �� W £ !!' FENCE COR a..1' CLEAR M O U }� ✓� `y of le .4) 3� , S to e 3pS4?8"� PINPARCEL H SE - O N CH= 1 ?s4) sg 590 ,I DA ; 15'5437" W 1 0•00' 37.00' CHAINLINK 'O C 7. R-200.00' p \ FENCE POST x y ARC-139.83' h 0.2't ELY OF CORNER J f U IN w � '1i 3 47 sh OMMUNITY GARDENS" RCEL 8 �Pr o / o , "COMMUNITY GARDENS PAkCE. A o g ! \ yo N N ! 20'WIDE WATER MAIN EASEMENT CONVEYED i J 0 THE CITY OF 504ITHACA \ SEE CD 2500, PC 5046 Ili VV n Wv M 2as 561 4' , 2.1.1 3.0.t WOOD FENCE SE 1 3.6 PIN Q PIN S 5611 5" E 196.92' FPIN ouNG SET V FOUND N OF ITHACA ( N CITY OF ITHACA Q , ......9� 108 East Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 Fan e Z DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO,DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �PORA � Telephone: Planning&Development-607-274-6550 Community Development/lURA-607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning& Development Date: July 6, 2012 Re: Proposed Modifications to I-1 Zoning District I have been asked to prepare a concept memo proposing a change to the City's Industrial Zoning District (I-1) to allow for residential uses. Historically, residential uses were not allowed in the I-1 Zoning District for health and safety reasons, including negative impacts and prolonged exposure to noise, fumes, odors, vibration, noxious or toxic chemical releases, traffic, and other conditions that could injure or impact the health of residents. Ithaca, like many cities in the northeastern United States, allowed industry to locate along its waterways, railroads, and major roadways, which helped facilitate early economic growth. These patterns continued as land use and zoning were codified in the City. However, in recent history, concerns over cleaner water and environments, along with changing industrial patterns and regulations, marked a move toward increased interest for other types of development in these areas. Currently, there are five areas in the City zoned I-1: Cherry Street, Carpenter Business Park, the former Emerson site, the former Ithaca Gun site, and a triangular piece of land wedged between the north side of Willow Avenue and the west side of Route 13 North. We know from recent inquires that there is demand in the city for industrially zoned land upon which a building with a large footprint could be built for manufacturing and related industry. We also know that most industry today is much cleaner and more tightly regulated than it has been historically, diminishing the threat of injury to human health. In almost all cases, these industrially zoned sites would make for great multi-family housing developments, but, given the demand, should not preclude the allowance of clean industry and/or mixed-use. I have attached applicable parts of the City Code, so that you might also consider how allowing housing in the I-1 zone would impact other parts of the Code and what adjustments may have to be made. (We commonly refer to these as unintended consequences.) Page 1 of 4 §325-8.District regulations. [Amended 9-7-1988 by Ord.No.88-71 A. The District Regulations Chart is hereby made a part of this chapter.EN Column heads on the District Regulations Chart are defined as follows: B. General notes pertaining to regulations. (1) For minimum lot size requirements stated in Column 6,Area in Square Feet, for all residential use districts, each square-footage requirement applies separately to the initial permitted primary use and to each additional permitted primary use located in a separate building on the property in question(e.g., in R-2b Districts, an area of 3,000 square feet is required for a one family house or a two-family house, and an additional area of 3,000 square feet is required for each additional one-family house or two-family house on the property). (2) Landfilling and bulkheading plans and procedures shall be subject to approval of the Board of Public Works. (3) Regulations, standards and permitted uses are generally cumulative, except for the P-I and MH-I Districts and except where otherwise indicated by specific prohibition or omission. [Amended 12-6-2000 by Ord.No. 2000-12] (4) Where a variance or special permit is required or where special conditions apply to allow in one district a use which is permitted by right in another district,the regulations applying to such use shall be those of whichever district has the stricter regulations,unless otherwise determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. (5) All uses permitted or allowed in any district shall conform to the general performance standards as set forth in § 325-23. (6) ENIn R-1 and R-2 Districts, minor dependent children in the care of a parent or relative shall be excluded in determining the number of unrelated occupants in a dwelling unit. (7) In all districts where multiple dwellings are permitted, each multiple dwelling shall be required to have a rear yard of at least 20 feet in depth. (This requirement has been imposed so that these structures comply with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.) (8) In all districts,the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code may impose additional requirements pertaining to the location of a structure on a parcel of property,including, for example, additional building setback requirements. (9) All columns established by this section are subject to the supplementary regulations stated in Article V of this chapter. Page 2 of 4 § 181-14.Storage of flammable liquids. A. Aboveground tanks. The limits referred to in the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code in which storage of flammable liquids in outside aboveground tanks is prohibited are hereby established as follows: all portions of the City not described as the Industrial Zone in the Zoning OrdinanceEN of the City. B. New bulk plants. The limits referred to in the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code in which new bulk plants for flammable liquids are prohibited are hereby established as follows: all that portion of the City not described as the Industrial Zone in the Zoning OrdinanceEN of the City and lying west of the east shore branch of the Lehigh Valley Railroad between Cascadilla Creek on the north and West Clinton Street on the south. § 181-15. Storage of liquefied petroleum gases. The limits referred to in the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code in which bulk storage of liquefied petroleum gas is restricted are hereby established as follows: all that portion of the City not described as the Industrial Zone in the Zoning OrdinanceEN of the City and lying west of the east shore branch of the Lehigh Valley Railroad between Cascadilla Creek on the north and West Clinton Street on the south. ARTICLE III,Special Permits § 325-9. Standards. A. Intent. The intent of this section is to set forth additional regulations and conditions which shall apply to certain land uses and activities which are incongruous or sufficiently unique in terms of their nature, location and effect on the surrounding environment and the quality of the community to warrant special evaluation of each individual case... C. Special permits. (1) Applicability. The uses listed under the district regulations in§ 325-8 which require a special permit from the Board of Appeals are as follows: (o) Any use not permitted as of right in the I-1 Zoning District. [Added 11-14-1989 by Ord.No. 89-16] (5) In the I-1 Zone,uses other than those permitted under§ 325-8 may be permitted by special permit upon a finding by the Board of Zoning Appeals and concurrence by the Common Council that such use shall have no negative impact by reason of noise, fumes, odors,vibration,noxious or toxic releases or other conditions injurious to the health or general welfare. [Added 11-14-1989 by Ord.No. 89-16] Page 3 of 4 §325-29.1. Adult uses. [Added 10-4-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-10] D. Location. (1) Adult uses may not be located in any zone except the following portions of the I-1 use districts as more fully detailed on the official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca. The permitted adult use areas are conveniently described herein solely for purposes of this legislation. (a) The I-1 site bordered on the east by the railroad property known as parcel number 2.- 2-3,which borders on New York State Routes 13 and 34, on the north and west by parcel 16.-1-3,which is the site of the TCAT and Ithaca DPW facilities, and on the south by parcels 16.-1-8, 16.-1-5.2 and 16.-1-5.1; (2) Adult uses may not be located,when initially opened as, or converted to, an adult use: (a) Within 350 feet of the boundary of any residential zoning district. (b) Within 350 feet of any property, including the exterior lot,used as a licensed day- care facility. (c) Within 350 feet of any structure,including the exterior lot,which has tax exempt status as a religious or educational use. (d) Within 350 feet of any waterfront,park or farmers'market. (e) Within 350 feet of any gymnastic center, library or museum. (f) Within 200 feet of the boundary of any Marine Commercial Districts. Page 4 of 4 DRAFT #1 For Review — July 6, 2012 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled "Zoning" to allow Dwelling Units in the 1-1 Industrial Zoning District BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled "District Regulations" is hereby amended to allow Dwelling Units in the 1-1 Industrial 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 — 1-1 Column 2: Permitted Primary Uses 1. Any use permitted in B-5, eXGe t that rwig units are prehihited 2. Industrial warehousing, wholesaling, storage and handling of bulk goods (not including rubbish as defined in §196.1), lumber yards, and agriculture except that no animals may be kept within 50 ft. of any property line. 3. Any use not permitted in any other zoning district, subject to the issuance of a special permit of the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with §325-9 and concurrence by the Common Council. 4. All uses must conform to special performance standards governing establishment of industrial uses (see 325-24). 5. Transfer station for recyclable materials. Column 3: Permitted Accessory Uses Any accessory use permitted in B-5. eXGe t residential girl home eGG patier, Column 4: Off-Street Parking Requirements 1. Same as B-5. 2. Wholesale, industrial and similar uses: 1 space per 2 employees on maximum work shift, plus 1 space per 500 SF or portion thereof devoted to office or sales use. Column 5: Off-Street Loading Requirements 1. Same as B-5. 2. Industrial use: 1 space for each use with 3,000 to 10,000 SF of floor space in single occupancy, plus 1 space for each additional 15,000 SF or major fraction thereof. Column 6: Minimum Lot Size — 5,000 SF. Column 7: Minimum Lot Size, Width in Feet at Street Line — 50 Column 8: Maximum Height of Building, Number of Stories — 4. Column 9: Maximum Height of Building, Height in Feet — 40. Column 11: Yard Dimensions, Front, Required Minimum — 20. Column 12: Yard Dimensions, Side, One Side at Least — 12. Column 13: Yard Dimensions, Side, Other at Least— 6. Columns 14 and 15: Yard Dimensions, Rear— 15% or 20 feet. Column 16: Minimum Height of Building, Height in Feet — None. Section 2. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New York, as referenced in Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, is hereby amended to allow dwelling units in the 1-1 Industrial District. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall in no way affect the validity of any remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. 2 of 2 City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Jennifer Dotson, Chair; Eric Rosario, Vice Chair, Dan Cogan, Svante Myrick, and Ellen McCollister Committee Members Absent: None Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson Joel Zumoff; Mayor Carolyn Peterson Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning and Development; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; Leslie Chatterton, Historic Planner, Department of Planning and Development; Megan Gilbert, Planner, Department of Planning and Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development; Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant; Dan Hoffman; City of Ithaca Attorney Others Attending Phyllisa DeSarno, Deputy Director for Economic Development Chair Jennifer Dotson called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. A. Agenda Review Item E3, Rezoning of E State/MLK St and Seneca Way to CBD-60 was moved to a discussion item. No action is anticipated tonight. There will be more discussion and a public hearing on that. Item F1 was changed to reflect that Form District Zoning Ordinance —Approval to Circulate has already been done. This should actually appear under height incentive zone. - 1 - B. Special Order of Business C. Special Order of Business 1. Public Hearing — Cayuga Green Contract Modifications Alderperson Myrick moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Cogan. No one spoke on this topic. Alderperson Myrick moved to close; seconded by Alderperson Cogan. Carried unanimously. e%_� 2. Public Hearing — Rezoning of E State/MLK St and Seneca Way Alderperson Rosario moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Cogan. Unanimously approved. Nancy Schuler, 110 Ferris Place, spoke against the rezoning. She encourages a transition. It is very important for the quality of life in the neighborhoods. Creating a height that is proposed will create a pattern effect similar to what we have that exists on Dryden Road between College Avenue and Eddy Street. For the pro-change folks, I'll use the Wilcox Press site as an example. Yes, the neighborhoods on East and South hills were very happy to be rid of the factory, the emissions, and the all the situations that went with that. However, that location is in a deep valley with Six-Mile Creek as the border and not smack up against a neighborhood that is also an historic district. This neighborhood has a very exciting rebirth. It no longer is just absentee landlords and rental properties. There are strollers on the front porches again, kids are walking to the bus stop, and the homeowners are doing a remarkable job of restoring some of Ithaca's early history. I think to make this zoning change without a transition would be a real harm to that area. I hope you strongly think about not doing that. Susan Robertson, 403 East Seneca Street, owner of the Charles Dey House, which is an historic property which was built in the 1860s. He was a prominent lawyer and City clerk, justice of the peace, and also a candidate for Congress. He was known for his wit and humor and also for his civic mindedness. He established a really popular Tompkins County festival in the mid 1800s, perhaps the first in the county. The Dey House still has a lot of its original features including on ground floor there are walls of local stone and there is also a beautiful wrap around porch that has very dramatic arches and other details. Each year, I have made substantial investments in the house and partly it's because I'm inspired by its historic character and also the character of our neighborhood. I'm proud we have a growing number of owner occupied homes on our street. My house has two apartments and they have been continually occupied by professional and pre-professional long-term tenants. The tenants value the historical details in the apartments, the views, the quiet, and the character of the neighborhood. It is essential for me to receive a good amount of apartment income in order to continue to make the kind of investments in the house that are required of an historic house. There are 33 windows in this property which more than half of them face this parcel. It would be very unappealing to me and my tenants to be looking directly at the back of a six-story structure. My house is tightly surrounded by the parcel. It is the last one next to True Insurance. There is a very small lot.. She spoke against rezoning. She does not want to look at a six story building. The character of the street will suffer. Seneca Street has been a beloved section of Ithaca for -2- over a hundred years and as a Communications Director at Cornell, she has talked to alumni from different decades who have reminisced about walking up and down that street. It's been part of a real pleasant connection for them with downtown Ithaca. I would hate to see any harm come to this really beautiful, significant neighborhood. Alyssa Apsel, 423 E. Seneca Street. A lot of time, money, and resources have been put into this property while living there. She doesn't agree with putting a lot of effort into this property with a 60 ft rezoning change. Transition is needed. She feels the entire neighborhood is not in favor. Barbara Lantz, 411 E. Seneca Street. She explained the history of the property since the early 191h century. She has since renovated the property and provided photographs of the property. It's a treasure. Asks that we reconsider rezoning and respect the property owners. Virginia Augusta, 419 East Seneca Street. She did a complete gut of the house. It was unlivable for the first year. Significant amount of money has been invested in this property. Definite borders need to be maintained. Avi Smith, 408 East State Street, owner McCormack (formerly Unity House) right next to Challenge. He likes the idea of someone purchasing it, but is concerned at the same time. It would be nice to know the plans for the building. It will change the look of this area, and will hinder views to downtown. Warren Schlesinger, 407-09 E. Seneca Street, agrees with the others that have already spoken. It will definitely change the character of the houses along East Seneca Street. He also stated that there are also a lot of undeveloped properties on the Commons in terms of the second or third floors he would like to see the second floor of the Commons buildings be renovated. Patrick McKee, 305 Brookfield, President of Challenge Industries. This property has been everything from a gas station, to a car dealership, to a bowling alley, to a ladies undergarment factory prior to Challenge picturing it. We are a non-profit and have tried very hard to stay downtown. A feasibility study was done to renovate the building. $3.5— 4 million would have to be raised. The long-term plan the agency committed to no longer owning property but to leasing and no longer is contributing to the tax base. The sale of this property will go back into an investment in Challenge services. Hopefully it will be sold to a for profit entity so the property will go back onto the tax roles. Frost Travis', a local developer, letter was read into the record. He encourages this rezoning. Matthew Clarke's letter was read into the record as follows: Dear Eric, I am one of your constituents and met you a few years ago at Betsy and Andrew Magre's house. Thank you for your good service representing our East Hill district. My wife and I have lived on Seneca Street for more than a decade, and there has been a transition to more owner-occupied houses and fewer rentals. As a result there are now many children school age and younger, including our own three children and current foster child, whereas when we purchased our house in 1997 there were not any children on our block. I am writing to voice opposition to the redistricting proposal of the Challenge and True buildings. Our historic east hill neighborhood borders these properties, and a high-density commercial building will create too much stress on our neighborhood. The parking is already difficult despite a -3 - residential parking permit system, and I urge you to visit our street at the 1pm cutover to view the many downtown workers who walk up to relocate their cars across the street when the parking time changes. Now imagine if there are another 100-200 workers at a new high-rise commercial building. We also see more cars use Seneca as a quick shortcut to State Street traffic. The worst offenders are taxis and fast food delivery vehicles, and it is scary to see my children cross our residential street when cars go at or exceed the 30mph speed limit(perhaps we should consider traffic- calming solutions, but that is another discussion). Imagine the parking and traffic situation with a new high-density commercial building. I am pro-business and want to see a vibrant downtown Ithaca, but a six-story high-density commercial building is not acceptable to our residential neighborhood. Even a four-story commercial building would encroach our neighborhood, but that is allowed within the existing zoning laws so my opposition to a 4-story building is tempered. 1 also recommend requiring the landlord to include parking for all tenants in their leases;one reason the gateway center is relatively successful is that it has an adjoining parking lot(although it is often full). My business partner and I started a business six years ago, and we have grown to a staff of 15. We are actively creating jobs locally, and recently went through a process of finding downtown office space. There were many empty offices to choose from, and there will be even more as 1 hear that some more businesses are relocating to the airport area office parks(such as Thomas/Tetra Tech). There are still underutilized downtown sites that are acceptable for high-density commercial offices;1 think sites near the new parking garage on Green Street would be best, especially since parking fees may help the city repay the enormous debt load for that building. Please review the above points, and do not allow the proposed zoning change to pass. I or my wife will probably see you at the 1012012010 planning meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Matt His wife, Virginia Augusta who commented at the meeting, requested her letter be read into the record as follows: 1 was unable to weigh in on Matt's letter prior to his sending it to you so just to elaborate on a few more items.... First,suffice it to say I am very upset about the rezoning effort underway. It is amazing to me that we are stumbling on the fact that this re-zoning process is taking place right under our noses. It has been so poorly communicated to all the relevant stakeholders and it sickens me. How can we be finding out something so important to us in the paper? We have invested so much time and money over the last 14 years in our property and conformed to all the restriction set upon our neighborhood through the Landmarks Commission. I have no doubt that the Unity House will face all the rules and regulations to renovate that place into a B&B, yet the owner there only learned yesterday about the proposed plan to re-zone the property adjacent to him. Will the city also allow the rezoning to include an exemption from Landmarks restriction too? -4- Matt mentioned children on our block-just from Schuyler down to Parker there are 19 children living on our block ranging in ages from 13 months to 21 years(S are college students who still return home for school breaks and summer vacation). This is not some rental neighborhood in Collegetown! People made the investment to improve the properties on this street and raise their families here. 1 do not want my 4 kids playing in the backyard and have a high rise staring them in the face. Not to mention the construction noise and dust they will be facing for who knows how long. Lead,Asbestos, and whatever else is flying around. You cannot compare the property that Gateway is on to the property that is now Challenge and True Insurance. The Gateway building has a substantial buffer around it including the gorge on the south side. Our residential neighborhood will be directly impacted especially those of us who border the property. Hey, what if the apartment building right next to Carolyn Peterson's house wanted to be rezoned, and go 6 stories high, do you think that one would be approved? It's a similar question. Does it matter that there are residential properties bordering these mixed use properties? 1 say it should! Parking, I really didn't think it could get any worse, but I was wrong! If this Nrezonis approved it WILL get even worse. Let's talk property value: The city will have immediately reduced the value of my property once this high rise goes up. No fence will block the view. Oh, and my assessment will surely not be reduced to reflect this permanent negative change. IV There is no way we need another commercial building downtown. Obviously the city planners haven't been trying to rent space downtown lately. WE HAVE! AND THERE IS A MEGA-SURPLUS OF VACANT SPACE! Don't take my word for it. Go have the planners take an inventory of all the vacant office space downtown and they can see for themselves. The value isn't there so people are leaving the downtown for newer, more reasonable rates on South Hill and near the airport. 1 would invite you to come have a look at our view from the backyard. A high rise would completely ruin what little yard we have. Our deck would be completely exposed to the tenants and privacy would be a thing of the past. Eric, how can this be happening? Please help us stop this effort and preserve the neighborhood that we have all come to enjoy. Sincerely, Virginia Augusta Gary Ferguson's letter was read into the record which stated the pros for rezoning this property: October 20, 2010 TO: City of Ithaca Common Council FROM: Gary Ferguson RE: The Challenge Building -5 - Tonight, you will begin consideration of rezoning the area around the now vacant Challenge building.As you know, this building and this location is a pivotal gateway site into downtown. It is seen by people traveling through our community as well as people coming and going from Cornell. The proposal is to rezone this area to CBD 60, essentially extending the current CBD 60 zone across Seneca Way to pick up both sides of Route 79. Consider some of the problems that this rezoning addresses: - This prominent site now sits empty and vacant. - The building is old and dated, and does not readily adapt to other uses. - The cost of the property with the existing building is steep. Developers wanting to develop the site will probably need to tear down the building and start over. This is true for the current development team. - This need results in an expensive building site that will out of necessity require enough height to generate enough income to cover costs. This height is 60, not 40 feet. - CBD 60 also fits the character of Seneca Way/Route 79 through downtown. The proposed project will not occupy the full footprint of the property, hence allowing for view sheds for uphill neighbors on Seneca Street. In fact, the plans call for a project that will leave 50% or more of the space un-built and used for on-site parking. While no one likes to lose any views, this proposal seeks to ensure that all folks retain some views. While this is definitely one of our trickier downtown locations due to changes in elevation and its relative proximity to Seneca Street, it is also an incredibly visible and prominent location. Allowing denser development will encourage housing as a use, rather than relegate the property to a low density permitted use such as a gas station. 1 encourage you to review the project and review the benefits of CBD 60 zoning. This site needs our help if it is to be developed and if we are to deal with this prominent vacancy at the entrance to our center city. Alderperson Myrick moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Cogan. Unanimously approved. -6- D. General Public Comment and Response from Committee Members Mac Travis, owner of 407 College Avenue and Eddy Gate, spoke in favor of the height incentive zone in Collegetown. Hermann Sieverding, 315 Columbia Street, spoke in favor of the height incentive zone. He encourages a height increase to 84' enabling 12 foot ceilings on each floor. Kristin Gutenberger, on behalf of her client of 301 College Avenue, stated she would like to respectfully request to include 301 College Avenue in the height incentive zone. Eric Rosario thanked those in attendance and for their comments. He also reported that the DEC will hold a public meeting on the Coal Tar Site, a.k.a Markles Flats on Thursday, October 21, 2010, 7:00 p.m. at the Beverley J. Martin Elementary School to present plans to extricate the last remaining portion of the wooden ducts along West Court Street. They will also present the results of remedial investigation for North and West of the plant site. He also thanked the Planning Department for their work in getting the letters out to property owners on the rezoning of State Street/MLK Street. He fills it's a wise decision to move that discussion given that lack of communication on our end hasn't been that great in letting folks know about this. Many of us had learned about this proposal the night of our committee meeting. We haven't done a good job in having it appear on the online agendas, for example, for the Planning Board. When I advised my constituents that they could go to the Conservation Advisory Council where it will be discussed because that's one of the agency and commissions that were listed on the memo that was circulated. The chair of that committee actually said it is not on our agenda then it turned on it was so the chair had to say it was but that necessarily not on our end, but it just compounded the perception that this is something we are trying to rush through. I think it's very prudent and wise of us to move it to discussion Ellen McCollister questioned whether we were discussing the Challenge Industries site later or is now the time to address a couple of things. Dotson stated we are just moving this item from an action item to a discussion item on the agenda. McCollister did state it was interesting in terms of Gary Ferguson's letter the idea that it wouldn't interfere with views assumes that the parking lot proposed would be there for a long time and normally a parking lot is just a place holder if it is rezoned to 60' then presumably that goes up. She further stated that she did have an opportunity to walk around several of the neighborhood yards with one of the neighbors. Several of the yards are incredibly shallow, and if those buildings get that high, all the southern light is blocked. She further commented on owner occupancy in the City as a whole, this is one of the few areas in the City and certainly on East Hill where we have seen an reversion from run down rentals to owner occupancy, and it is truly a prideful area for the City in terms of our housing stock which being an historic area has helped us also. Eric Rosario stated he agrees with most of what the residents had to say as well as McCollister's comments. In hearing the message from Gary Ferguson, he is discussing a particular project and having this presented to us as a rezoning of a general parcel not related to any particular project. We are encouraged to think about this in terms of the merits of the rezoning itself, and we will definitely debate that when we get to it, but to him if the zoning proposal is really about an individual project then what we are doing is taking a sludge hammer to crack a walnut as opposed to dealing with the Challenge site through some other process and not something that could create the kind of zoning envelope that is -7- there for a long time regardless of how good a project is now. There is always the possibility that the entire envelope would be taken advantage of at some point. He echoes some of McCollister's concerns. Discussion will continue on this topic when we reach Item E3. E. Announcements, Updates and Reports 1. Collegetown Terrace Update Lisa Nicholas explained the process the planning board has done for this project. About a year ago in July, the Planning Board, as lead agency, made a positive declaration for this project. After the project came to the board, the applicant, Trowbridge and Wolf representing John Novarr, prepared an environmental impact statement. The Planning Board, all the involved agencies, and the public scoped the environmental impact statement which means they decided what the environmental impact statement would cover. The applicant developed the draft environmental impact statement (the DEIS) and submitted that in May 2010. After that, there was public hearing and a public comment period. qmL The City Planning Board hired a third-party consultant which under SEOR law, the lead agency is allowed to do at the applicant's expense, to help with the preparation of documents, the review of the DEIS, and the finding statement. We hired EDR, a company out of Syracuse which is a planning company which does a lot of environmental impact statements. They have been very helpful to the Planning Board and staff in reviewing an enormous amount of information. The public comment period lasted roughly 30 days, and we received about 400 comments on the DEIS. The majority of the comments were on character of community, cultural and historical resources, and transportation. After receiving all these comments, the planning board along with EDR and the applicant prepared the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) which involved looking at all the comments and responding to them. That process took about two months. Eight special meetings were held; we met every week with the consultants. During the time the responses were being developed with the applicant, the project underwent some changes. The applicant initiated some changes to the project in response to some of the comments. These changes include mainly the facades along State Street breaking up the buildings. Where there were three buildings previously, now there are 12. The Planning Board adopted the FEIS which is basically the DEIS along with the responses to the comments on October 5, 2010. The Planning Board is now in the final review process which is the findings statement. A work session was held yesterday to look at the draft findings statement, and they expect to adopt the final statement at its next week's meeting. That will close the environmental review, and the site plan review process will begin. Cornish also stated that the Board will also report on their decision of the Delano House. - 8 - 2. Southwest Area Development Update Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, report that the City of Ithaca is interested in developing this area for housing. This project has been funded by a capital project. An RFQ (Request for Quote) was done, and a preferred company, McCormack Baron Salazar, was chosen to conduct an environmental site assessment on this property. A geotechnical assessment was done. The only thing lacking is the jurisdictional determination of the11 miles of wetlands in this area. This is still in process. Once received, a feasibility study will be done. If that is favorable, we will move onto the master plan of the project. Mayor Peterson stated she asked Lisa to do this presentation to inform Council of the project since it was not included in the budget review and capital project determination. 3. Dredging Update This project is still at a stand still because we (the City) are still waiting for the jurisdictional determination of the 11 miles of wetlands since Council has agreed that the SW area is the preferred site for the dredging spoils. Cornish stated that she just heard from Ken Lynch for the DEC late this afternoon that the DEC would be able to meet on November 19 to discuss this topic. E. Action Items 1. Cayuga Green Contract Modifications Cayuga Green Project, Approval of 2nd Extension of Purchase and Sale Contract for Parcel `D' — Resolution Moved by Alderperson Myrick; seconded by Alderperson Rosario. Resolution passed 5-0. Whereas, Cayuga Green II, LLC, has requested an 18-month extension of the purchase and sale contract for parcel `D' (tax parcel #81.-2-4) - the site of its proposed rental housing project to be located adjacent to the Cayuga Street Parking Garage - in order to provide time to secure project financing through the HUD 221(d)4 Insured Mortgage Financing program, and Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and the City previously amended the original, 2007 purchase and sale contract, in 2009, to allow construction of either rental housing units or for-sale units and to extend the term by 12 months, to June 30, 2010, in response to the developer's difficulty in securing project financing for residential condominiums, and Whereas, the commercial credit market for loans to construct new mid-rise housing has been extremely tight for several years and remains extremely limited, and Whereas, the principals of Cayuga Green II, LLC, have recently utilized the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD's) 221(d)4 mortgage insurance program to secure financing from a HUD-approved private lender for a multi-family rental housing project in Ohio, and -9- Whereas, through the HUD 221(d)4 program, the Federal Home Administration provides mortgage insurance to HUD-approved lenders of funds to for-profit or not-for-profit borrowers that are developing multi-family rental housing, and Whereas, the HUD 221(d)4 program requires federal prevailing wages to be paid on all construction work associated with such loans, and Whereas, a HUD 221(d)4 review and approval process requires submission of detailed construction plans and specifications, cost details, and a market study and marketing plan, and takes 9 toll months to complete, if all information is in order, and Whereas, a HUD 221(d)4 mortgage insurance application process requires documentation of fee simple ownership or control of the project site, and Whereas, Cayuga Green Il, LLC, has been pursuing HUD 221(d)4 approval for several months and is awaiting an invitation to submit a"firm commitment"application, and Whereas, initial plans to build the project adjoining the Cayuga Garage have been modified so as to provide a 10-foot horizontal separation distance between the buildings, in order to avoid the need for retrofits to the Cayuga Garage to meet New York State Building Code requirements regarding wall openings and fire egress routes at the Garage, and Whereas, Cayuga Green ll, LLC, has submitted revised, preliminary plans for construction of a 7-story, 39-unit rental housing project at parcel `D'that are consistent with the original design goals for the Cayuga Green project, and Whereas, Cayuga Green ll, LLC, seeks no property tax abatements for this project, and Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) wishes to facilitate the construction of additional housing units in downtown Ithaca that will expand the range of housing opportunities and increase the property tax base; and Whereas, on September 23, 2010, the IURA approved the following amendments to the purchase and sale contract for parcel `D' of the Cayuga Green project, subject to City of Ithaca Common Council approval: 1. Extend the developer's deadlines to secure project financing and issuance of a building permit to December 31, 2011; 2. Reduce the size of the parcel to be conveyed by approximately 2,000 square feet, in accordance with a lot adjustment plan shown on a"boundary map"for the premises, prepared by T.G. Miller PC, as revised through January 22, 2010, for the purpose of providing a 10'fire separation distance between buildings, thereby avoiding the need for retrofits to the Cayuga Garage to meet NYS Building Code requirements; and Whereas, notwithstanding this reduction in the size of the property to be conveyed, the proposed, amended purchase and sale agreement does not call for any proportionate reduction in the purchase price, thus increasing the per-square-foot price, which could be deemed to be consideration for the extension of time to complete the purchase, and Whereas, under§507 of Article 15 of General Municipal Law, the IURA's proposed disposition of real property requires Common Council approval following a public hearing, and Whereas, a public hearing on the proposed property disposition was held before the Planning & Development Committee of the Common Council on October 20, 2010, and Whereas, the purchase and sale contract for parcel `D' and site plan review for the proposed housing project at parcel `D' were the subject of environmental reviews under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) pursuant to which the lead agency issued a negative declaration that the implementation of the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, and - 10- Whereas, the proposed, amended purchase and sale contract for parcel `D' and the proposed re-design of the building are no less protective of the environment than the previously-approved contract and site plan, therefore requiring no additional environmental review; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby approves the IURA-proposed amendments to the purchase and sale contract with Cayuga Green II, LLC, for sale of parcel `D' of the Cayuga Green project (tax parcel #81.-2-4), which amendments extend the developer's remaining deadlines in said agreement until December 31, 2011, and reduce the size of the parcel to be conveyed by approximately 2,000 square feet. The change made on the floor by Attorney Dan Hoffman was moved by Alderperson Cogan, seconded by Alderperson Rosario. Passed unanimously 5-0. 2. Neighborhood Incentive Fund Application — Utica Street (memo, resolution, petition available on request and at meeting) N6 Moved by Alderperson Myrick; seconded by Alderperson Rosario. Passed 5-0. RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for the Utica Street Block Party, August 2010 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few residents, and WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places, and organizing neighborhood events like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities, and WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for reimbursement funds to off-set $181.45 in expenses from the Utica Street neighborhood's annual block party, and WHEREAS, while the event is sponsored by the Utica Street residents, notice was circulated throughout the neighborhood and the event provides opportunities for socializing with diverse groups residents; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning, and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request from Maria Costanzo, on behalf of the Utica Street neighborhood, for an amount not to exceed $181.45 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts. 3. Rezoning of E State/MLK St and Seneca Way to CBD-60 Chair Dotson reiterated that this item has moved from an action item to a discussion only item. She then opened the floor up for discussion. Alderperson Rosario stated even though no decision will be made at this meeting, a review of the Environmental Assessment Form should be reviewed because it was filled out without the benefit of the public hearing. He thinks that's one of the dangers of doing this kind of thing. There's a question that asks whether there is public controversy, and it is answered, "no". He would like the public hearing information to be taken into consideration for reviewing the environmental assessment form. There are some other answers he also wondered about. It may make sense, without moving it; to share those because he would rather we have something that makes sense. Chair Dotson qualified that this environmental assessment is ours (the committee's). It might be supported by the work of staff, but if we have any changes to make, it's really ours to vote on. She further clarified to the audience, if any of the questions that are answered with a "yes" response; it immediately puts you into a full environmental assessment form which is a much more in depth discussion of the impacts of a project. Right now there is a short environmental assessment form before the committee. She further stated that if the committee is considering changing the action, then environmental assessment form will be a new form. Alderperson Rosario suggested changing the answer to Numbers 8, 9, and 15 of the short environmental assessment form from "no" to "yes". He further stated he doesn't have the comments from the Planning Board that were made. He has the comments from the county, but not the Planning Board. He did talk to the Planning Board chair and was told that the Planning Board doesn't recommend the rezoning of this property. JoAnn Cornish spoke on behalf of the Planning Board. Chair John Schroeder was going to prepare the comments for this meeting tonight. With the knowledge that this was being postponed, the Planning Board offers its apology. They have been very busy with other projects and have been meeting regularly every week. You can expect those comments formerly very soon. Chair Dotson thanked both Rosario and Cornish, but she thought it would be better that our discussion be centered on the question of `is this the action we would like to pursue' rather than focused on the environmental review. She asked whether the committee is interested in discussing that since we did hear quite a bit of opposition during the public hearing. Alderperson McCollister stated since she has already voiced her concerns, and her views on it are clear, she doesn't think this is an appropriate site for CBD-60 Zoning. She is also uncomfortable with the idea that it seems to be, even though it's a set of parcels, driven more project specific. It is a very challenging site the way it gets into quite a thin envelope there at the Seneca Way/Seneca Street location. - 12- Alderperson Cogan does not think that this was an appropriate site for the rezoning to 60 feet. He understands the goals of trying to make this site economically developable. He also understands the challenges that Challenge Industries is facing where they have large carrying costs for a building they don't use anymore and they would lighten that burden and be able to use that money to further their mission. Tonight was the first time he heard that there is really a particular project in mind. I don't know what that project is. He wonders whether there are there other ways to close the gap. The projects that have tried to go through the IDA for tax abatements have not always faired well. This might be an appropriate use of trying to use tax abatements to close the gap and make a smaller project financially feasible. He thinks other ideas to that effect should be explored and more concrete discussions needs to happen about a proposal if we are going to be able to make that site work. He does support something happening at this state. It just needs to be appropriately scaled for the neighborhood, and we need to value that transition. That is really crucial. Alderperson Myrick stated on the one hand he can see where Challenge is being put in an impossible situation where they need to sell to a developer who isn't sure they can develop the site. As for zoning, ideally for us what we can do is encourage any potential developer to go through the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance that way we can judge a project on its merits. Even then, it has become clear that the neighbors in this area feel passionately that this project is out of scale. Even then he wouldn't close the door of rezoning this parcel, but he thinks it could be done appropriately and he does think it would fit in with what is at the bottom of Seneca and East State Street. But, if it's not the will of the Committee or Council, then that's that. Alderperson Rosario stated that the admission what we heard last night, the Planning Board made their recommendation. That was before neighbors knew that the Planning Board would be discussing this. He knew of one neighbor who was able to go. He wouldn't say that are the only comments we are hearing. There is an independent board that made an independent recommendation that stated this not such a good idea for so many reasons. If this is really about an individual project, this is not the right sized solution. There is another process—the variance process—which gives standing to everyone who lives within 200 feet. It really forces a developer to work with neighbors if they want any chance of success. He thinks that is a good thing. Whether or not it is appropriate for that site, he thinks that's another ideal process. All he knows this is not the right approach. He just wanted to make it was understood that the Planning Board weighed in on this without feedback from other people concerned. Chair Dotson stated she looks at this rezoning decision differently now knowing the project on the forefront. She is uncomfortable with the rezoning because zoning opens up the entire building envelope if the project falls through. What she did get before knowing about the proposed project, that there is a real neighborhood interest in having some direct say in what kind of project would be there. She is not convinced that any 60' tall project would be inappropriate, but she thinks that some would be certainly less appropriate than others and some would probably be inappropriate. She is at the point that if there is a particular project, then she feels a variance process is much more appropriate because designed well that could mitigate the impact. She likes the CBD concept, but is not ready to rezone it to CBD-60 at this time. She can appreciate that there were two kinds of changes that came before us tonight; one being the switch from B to CBD and the other is the height increase. They are really different. She stated she's not ready to rezone it to CBD-60 at this point. One thing she would like the committee to be aware of is that not knowing where a project may go, it would be good for committee members to speak clearly on their thoughts on it because the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) sometimes wonders where Council is going. If there is concern about height, we need to be specific as to our concerns. - 13 - Alderperson McCollister made a general comment that point. Yes, there are certainly six- story projects or higher story projects that if incredibly sensitively done can work. When it is a rezoning, it is important to remember that a rezoning goes with the property in perpetuity as does a variance so there is no guarantee that you end up with something that is great. She would say in this particular case, for a lot of reasons that Nancy Schuler mentioned, some of the case has been made because what is across the street from this site are the History Center and Gateway, that it is appropriate because those are nicely scaled six-story buildings, but that is a different site. It used to be a factory. It's on the gorge. There is plenty of parking over there. It is very different site configuration. The committee agreed that it would not go forward with this rezoning. A report stating how committee came to its decision will be provided for the November Council agenda. Mayor Peterson left the meeting before Collegetown topic started. Mayor Peterson returned before the discussion on the ordinance. F. Discussion Items 1. Collegetown ._ A. Form District Zoning Ordinance —Approval to Circulate -14- B. Height Incentive Zone (memo, ordinance, map) An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning" To Establish the Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) 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 COZ-HI ZONING DISTRICT. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Sections 325-4 and 325-5 of the Munic' al Code of the City of Ithaca be amended to create a new overlay zone to b known as the Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-,. i, Section 1 . Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose With the endorsement of the "2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, " the'%.eCommon Council identified several goals to create an "outstanding urban environment" in Collegetown. Several aspects of the envisioned environment already exist; others will be more difficult to realize without incentive . The City's goals for Collegetown include : • To further--diversify the Collegetown population to include a greater number of employees and residents whose presence is not dependent on the academic calendar • To sustain a thriving, year-round Collegetown business district • To encourage strong residential areas to the east and west of the Mixed Use (MU) ,,District with a mix of owner-occupants and students • To promote a convenient public transportation system, thus reducing traffic congestion and parking demand The "2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines" recommends the adoption of an incentive zone to address these desirable but difficult-to-achieve goals . Pursuant to § 81-d of the New York State General City Law, the Common Council is authorized to "provide for the granting of incentives, or bonuses" for the purpose of advancing "the city's specific physical, cultural and social policies in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan and in coordination with other community planning mechanisms or land use techniques . " The Common Council finds that the establishment of the COZ-HI Ordinance will advance the City's physical, cultural and - 15 - social policies for Collegetown as specified in the "2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines . " Section 2 . Chapter 325, Sections 325-4 and 325-5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to create an overlay zone in areas located in the proposed MU district to be entitled Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District, the boundaries of which are shown on the map entitled "Proposed Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) . " Section 3 . Chapter 325, of the Municipal Code of ,�he City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a new Article entitled Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) , to be inserted as Chapter 325, Article IV, and all subsequent articles and sections shall be hereby renumbered accordingly. Article IV Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) , shall read as follows : / 325-11. Purpose and Intent. In accordance with § 81-d of the General City Law of the State of New York, this article authorizes the Planning and Development Board, during the process of Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 276, Site Plan Review, of the Code, to make allowances for buildings to exceed the maximum allowable height of the MU district in exchange for the provision of an approved community benefit, subject to the limitations contained in this section. COZ-HI height incentives may be approved in order to promote the following purposes: A. To encourage develop t that would increase year-round activity in the MU district. NTo encourage the use of public transit through the provision of enhanced transit facilities. To encourage developers to rehabilitate existing B. structures, bringing them up to current building codes, thereby improving life/safety conditions . D. To encourage developers to restore historic structures. E. To encourage developers to restore multi-family structures in peripheral neighborhoods to traditional single family, owner-occupied dwellings . / 325-12 . Authorization and Minimum Requirements. The Planning and Development Board is authorized, upon petition by an applicant for site plan approval, to approve construction of buildings that exceed the maximum allowable height of the MU district up to a maximum of 77 ' or 7 stories, for buildings located - 16- within the boundaries of the COZ-HI, in accordance with the following process: A. An applicant must submit a proposal to the Planning and Development Board, which delineates the benefit (s) that the project will provide to the community in exchange for the additional height. In order to be considered for approval of additional height, the applicant must provide at least one of the following community benefits : 1 . Approved Community Benefits a. The development provides a use that will bring people into Collegetown throughout the calendar year. Acceptable Uses include: • A Hotel • At least one story of Class A office space (Class A office space is assumed to be high quality office r space with high quality finishes, state of the art systems, and exceptional accessibility) . • At least one story of non-academic research and development space • Other uses that will bring people into Collegetown throughout the AA calendar year as determined by the Planning & Development Board b. The development incorporates a high- quality transit hub bus shelter within its building footprint at a location acceptable to the appropriate decision- making body. c. The developer makes improvements within the Collegetown Study Area but off the development site. These improvements must be approved by the Planning and Development Board and may include: • Full rehabilitation of an existing property, including life-safety improvements to bring the building up to current building code and aesthetic improvements to make the building a neighborhood asset. • Historic restoration of an existing property. • Return of multi-family housing in peripheral neighborhoods to single- family, and/or owner-occupied use. This option requires a deed restriction stating that for a period of twenty-five years the - 17- property shall be occupied by at least one of the owners. / 325-13. Approval Process In order to be granted approval for the additional permitted height associated with properties located within the boundaries of the COZ-HI, an applicant must submit a written proposal to the Planning and Development Board, as a part of the Site Plan Review process . Approval of the COZ-HI height incentives shall be conditioned on any necessary approvals associated with the proposed benefit (s) of the project. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted prior to the completion of the proposed community benefits. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted if modifications to the proposed benefits are completed without the approval of the Planning and Development Board. Section 4 . The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New York of Chapter 325 entitled "Zoning" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows The zoning district designation for portions of certain tracts of land shall now include the Collegetown Overlay Zone-Height Incentive District (COZ-HI) , which will include the following tax parcels : 63 . -6-14; ,68 . -4-6 ; 64 . -10-17 . 2; 64 . -10-18; 64 .-10- 19; 64 .-10-20; 64 . -10-21; 64 . -10-1; 64 . -10-2; 64 . -10-3; and portions of parcels 63 . -6-8, 68 . -4-3, and 64 .-10-15, as indicated on the map entitled "Proposed Collegetown Overlay Zone-Height Incentive istrict (COZ-HI) " dated October 2010 . Se i Effective date . This ordinance shall take affect immedia and in accordance with law upon publication of notices a ovided ' the Ithaca City Charter . - 18- C. Transportation (general update to be distributed separately) (in-lieu fee memo anticipated for November) Myrick outlined the goals looked at on this topic. Supporting material with an easy-to-follow grid was distributed to the committee. G. Approval of Minutes There were no minutes to approve. H. Adjournment Alderperson Myrick motioned to adjourn; seconded by Alderperson Rosario. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. - 19-