HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PEDC-2020-04-08Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock,
Stephen Smith, Donna Fleming, and Laura
Lewis
Committee Members Absent: Alderpersons McGonigal and Nguyen
Other Elected Officials Attending: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and
Development Department; Tom Knipe, Deputy
Director for Economic Development; Lisa
Nicholas, Deputy Director for Planning; Jennifer
Kusznir, Senior Planner; and Deborah Grunder,
Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Tim Logue and Eric Hathaway
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
2) Public Comment
No one from the public joined the meeting for comment.
3) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – Special Permits
Alderperson Lewis moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Brock. Carried unanimously.
Joe McMahon, provided written comment which was read into the record by Chair
Murtagh and attached to these minutes.
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
John Graves, urges the City to require special permits.
Alderperson Lewis moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Brock. Carried unanimously.
Response: There was no response for the committee.
4) Announcements, Updates, Reports
a) COVID-19 Economic Recovery
Tom Knipe, Deputy Director, Economic Development, reported to the committee
that the City has been engaged with many committees (groups) often meeting
weekly—TCA, IDA, Planning Division, etc. which initiated a survey process. Two
surveys have been done. It’s very interesting to see how businesses are
responding. 122 responded; 57% stated that they are temporally closed.
Banks and landlords were thought to be on board to help. We haven’t seen much
of that yet. Many websites have been created to offer help for businesses, etc.
Ten days worked fairly rapidly to provide funding. A micro loan which is
forgivable if the business reopens. Will partner with AFCU to provide the funds.
Planning for reopening and recovery. A number of businesses are being creative
in bringing money in during this crisis. 1300 people applied for unemployment in
Tompkins County. We are thinking about how to re-employ some of these
people.
Alderperson Brock asked for confirmation on the number of those who responded
to the surveys. She would like to see a good cross section of businesses
including the Route 13 corridor and the West End be included in the survey. Is
there any type of newsletter or list serve to further reach out to people? Some of
the Route 13 corridor is not part of the initial survey group. She offered to provide
help identifying those businesses.
Alderperson Lewis stated that it is just incredible the number of people who have
stepped up to help out the community as a whole. She further stated that these
programs have been laid out quickly. Federal money at some point will also help.
She thanked all who has helped with this initiative.
Tom Knipe responded while we are doing everything we can, we anticipate a
huge number of businesses taking advantage of these programs.
Chair Murtagh thanked Tom for his report.
b) Green New Deal
JoAnn Cornish gave a brief update stating that the committee hasn’t been able to
meet recently, but do plan on setting these meetings back up again in the very
near future.
c) Sustainability Director Search
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
A transition team was formed. Four candidates were interviewed out a total of 22
qualified individuals. Interviews were held during the beginning of the COVID-19
crisis. We had a very good candidate, but it was decided by the Mayor and senior
staff to put this on the back burner for now.
Alderperson Lewis thanked JoAnn for her report. Out of the four candidates, how
many do you think will hang in there and still be interested?
JoAnn stated she had reached out today letting them know we are on pause and
asked all of them to keep their interest intact.
Alderperson Smith asked if anything has been done with regard to the consultant
component for the Green New Deal.
Mayor Myrick stated that due to the current state of affairs, he remains positive
throughout this. Even though we are on pause now, we still are committed to the
Green New Deal.
5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) Special Permits
Proposed Amendments to Special Permit Requirements in or to Establish Criteria for Granting Special
Permits for Multiple Primary Structures – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for co nducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be
that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments are related and are considered one action for the purposes of
environmental review, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments are a “Unlisted” Ac tion under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the
environmental review for the Proposed Amendments to Special Permit Requirements in or to Establish Criteria for
Granting Special Permits for Multiple Primary Structures.
Proposed Amendments to Special Permit Requirements in or to Establish Criteria for Granting Special
Permits for Multiple Primary Structures – Code – Determination of Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering amendments to the special permit requirements in or to establish
criteria for granting special permits for multiple primary structures, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated March 12, 2020, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and
Sustainability pursuant to §239-l-m of New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all ac tions within
500 feet of a County or State facility, including County and State highways, be reviewed by the County Planning
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
Department, and has also been distributed for review by the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by
planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and
conclusions more fully set forth in the Short Environmental Assessment Form, dated March 12, 2020, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action
at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and th at further environmental review is unnecessary,
and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the Ci ty Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to
any other parties as required by law.
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning” To Article III, Special Conditions and Special
Permits
Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Smith.
Discussion:
Alderperson Fleming asked what zones this affects.
Jennifer Kusznir responded the zones are R1 R1-2, CR-1, and CR-2.
Alderperson Fleming asked if this is passed before the ADUs are formalized, how will
this work?
Chair Murtagh asked whether accessory apartments are allowed as of right.
Alderperson Fleming asked how the ADUs will work then.
ADUs will not be listed in the special permit ordinance .
Alderperson McGonigal asked whether this will make it easier to have an accessory
apartments. JoAnn Cornish answered, yes it will.
Alderperson Brock asked if we’re removing the ADUs from the special permit ordinance,
then ADUs don’t have any size requirement.
Chair Murtagh’s concern is that the community does have an understanding of this going
forward.
Alderperson Fleming stated she had no idea that it would replace the ADU rules on the
books now. This wasn’t the general understanding of this.
Alderperson Brock stated that we all need to bring our minds back to where we were.
She suggests bringing all of it back together in order to make a decision. She is hesitant
to go forward with this without having the ADUs regulations settled.
Alderperson Lewis asked if there is anything detrimental if this is paused. JoAnn
Cornish stated she didn’t think there would be any issue.
Alderperson Brock would like to see it all come together at the same time.
JoAnn Cornish stated that a month’s time would not be enough to pause and bring it
back.
Alderperson Fleming stated we are agreeing on process, but would like to know that we
all agree on substance.
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
Alderperson Smith stated he doesn’t think adding the ADU legislation together will make
the conversation any better. We haven’t agreed yet.
Chair Murtagh stated that it sounds that it is best if we take a step back and pause on
this.
JoAnn Cornish agreed.
Alderperson Smith commented that if we want more public feedback, we need to think of
a better way to do that. He would like to see more public comment.
Chair Murtagh stated that with every topic on tonight’s agenda it will be difficult moving
forward due to the current crisis. People are not thinking of anything else. It will be
hard to push things forward.
Alderperson Brock thanked all for their comments. She anticipates the new normal will
be with us for longer than we might think. It is difficult for all of us to accept.
Alderperson Smith stated he has talked to many people who have stated that streaming
the City meetings via YouTube is a huge improvement and would not want to go back to
how we’ve been doing it.
Alderperson Lewis stated it is a learning curve for all. She agrees with pausing this
topic.
Alderperson Nguyen stated with this particular topic, a pause is a good thing. Not
everything needs to be paused.
Alderperson Lewis stated that not all people have access to email or computers and rely
on our meetings and the public library to get their information.
The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the City of Ithaca Common Council as
follows:
Section 1. Section 325-9B.(1)(a) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca, entitled “Special Permits- Applicability”, is hereby amended in
order to replace (a) “Accessory Apartments” with “Multiple Primaries”.
Section 2. Section 325-9D(1)(b)of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca, entitled “Special Permits-Permit Review Criteria”, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
(b) The Planning and Development Board shall deny a special permit
where it finds that a proposed use would have a significant
negative impact on traffic, parking, congestion, environment,
property values, municipal services, character of the surrounding
neighborhood, stormwater runoff, or if the use is not in line with
the City Comprehensive Plan, including considerations of occupant
load, night operation, and the use of chemical, biological, or
radioactive agents expected in connection with the proposed
activity, as well as failure to meet any additional conditions in
Section 325-10.
Section 3. Section 325-10C.(1.) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca, entitled “Additional Conditions for Special Permits-Accessory
Apartments” is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:
(1) Multiple Primary Structures. The following specific
conditions shall be applicable to all special permits for
multiple primary structures:
(a) Additional primary structures should not result in a
significant loss of green space.
(b) Additional primary structures should not result in the
removal of significant trees.
(c) Property Owners applying for a special permit should have
separate utilities for multiple primary structures.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, paragraph or provision of
this ordinance shall be determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall
apply only to the section, paragraph or provision adjudged invalid, and
the rest of the section shall remain valid and effective.
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in
the Ithaca City Charter.
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
b) Route 13 Break in Access
Planning Committee Resolution to authorize staff to pursue a Break -In-Access on Rte 13 at Fifth Street.
Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Brock.
WHEREAS: Break-in-Access (BIA) refers to a modification to a State road that provides vehicular, pedestrian
and/or bike access where there is currently no access, and
WHEREAS: A local government must apply to NYSDOT for a BIA. Such application must analyze transportation
impacts and demonstrate that the proposed BIA has community -wide benefits, and
WHEREAS: Upon NYSDOT approval of a BIA, the local government and affected property owners must enter into
agreements that define terms for, among other things, any transfer or purchase of real estate and construction of the
BIA, and
WHEREAS: The City has long envisioned the transformation of Rte 13 into and urban boulevard – including
sidewalks, landscaping and an intersection at Rte 13 and Fifth St as described in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, the
2019 Waterfront Plan and a Federal Build Grant submitted by the City in 2018 to fund the design and study needed
to implement this idea, and
WHEREAS: The Project Sponsor of the Carpenter Circle Redevelopment Project has proposed a new intersection at
NYS Route 13 and Fifth Street, to provide enhanced vehicular access and required emerg ency access to the project,
and
WHEREAS: Community-wide benefits of the proposed BIA include:
• Implementing the concept of Route 13 as an Urban Boulevard by re-establishing a street grid
connecting the growing west side and urbanized east side of Rte 13 by, among other things,
slowing traffic, providing pedestrian and bike amenities and improved crossings, adding an
intersection at fifth street, installing landscaping and sidewalks and encouraging new
developments to face the street
• Developing a project that will provide up to 150 jobs, a medical facility, retail and 210 housing
units on the same site in close proximity to two grocery stores, the Famers Market, services, the
Cayuga Waterfront Trail and other recreational amenities and will preserve the 2.5 acre
community gardens
• Building 45 permanently affordable housing units
• Constructing a restricted (transit and emergency vehicle only) road connecting Third Street to
Cascadilla St
• Realizing the development of a long-vacant parcel in a highly visible and accessible location that
will provide an estimated yearly $2 million in total local taxes, including an estimated $714,000
in new City taxes ( not considering 7-10 year tax abatements)
• Providing a full service medical facility, with services for Medicare eligible clients, within the City
limits, accessible by transit walking and biking
WHEREAS: Transportation Impact Analyses provided by the Project Sponsor and reviewed by City and NYSDOT
staff indicate that the project and the intersection will have a negative impact on vehicular traffic within the Rte 13
Corridor as described in detail in the Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form FEAF Part 3 dated 4-2-20. This
means that it will take more time for vehicles to travel through the corridor at the peak morning and evening hours,
and
WHEREAS: The Project Sponsor has proposed physical/infrastructure and programmatic mitigations for
impacts to vehicular traffic, also described in the FEAF Part 3 dated 4-2-20. These include reduced and
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
shared parking, implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan, and improved
pedestrian and bike access across Rte 13, and
WHEREAS: The applicant, in coordination with Engineering and Planning Staff, has developed two schematic
designs for the intersection:
1) A signalized 3-way intersection with vehicular access on the west side only and pedestrian and
bike crossings of Rte 13 with a protected median refuge and
2) A signalized 4-way intersection with vehicular access on both the east (Fifth street ) and west
sides of Rte 13 and pedestrian and bike crossings of Rte 13 with a protected median refuge and
WHEREAS: Engineering and Planning staff have coordinated with NYSDOT Region 3 to reach a mutually
acceptable balance between vehicular impacts and community benefits including those to multimodal transportation,
and
WHEREAS: Common Council has received and considered recommendations from Planning and Engineering staff
and has reviewed the draft FEAF Part 3 dated 4-2-20, and
WHEREAS: Staff has conducted outreach by email to Northside residents and business and Common Council has
considered all comments received, and
WHEREAS: Common Council understands that the BIA will require conceptual approval from NYSDOT Region 3,
Final Approval from the NYSDOT Commissioner, and future legal agreements between the City, NYSDOT and the
Project Sponsor, now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That Common Council does herby direct staff to take any and all actions to work with NYSDOT and
the Project Sponsor to pursue a BIA at Rte 13 and Fifth St for STATE PREFERED OPTION, and be it further
The following was sent to the Northside United listserve, Ithaca Housing Authority, ICSD and
Fingerlakes Independence Center (FLIC) on March 31, 2020
The City is seeking feedback on a proposal for a new intersection on Route 13 at Fifth St.
This proposal is part of a future housing, retail and medical office building project at Carpenter Circle
(near the Community Gardens). Below you will see two options for the intersections on Route 13 at Fifth
St. Both options include pedestrian crossings from east to west across. There are three questions at the
bottom of this email to answer. It would be very helpful if you could take a few minutes to give us your
input. Thanks for your feedback!
Option One: A 3-way intersection with vehicular access on the west side only will not increase the
vehicles on Fifth Street and will provide pedestrian and bike access to the project site and waterfront.
Approved at the
January 19, 2022 PEDC Meeting
Option Two: A 4-way intersection with vehicular access on both sides will extend Fifth Street across
Route 13. It will provide another connection between the downtown neighborhoods, the project site
and the waterfront area and will reduce the feeling of a major highway by changing Route 13 into more
of an urban boulevard.
Questions:
• What concerns do you have about a three way intersection with a signalized pedestrian crossing
at Fifth St and Rte 13?
• What concerns do you have about a four way intersection at Fifth St and Rte 13?
• What is your preference?
Lisa Nicholas stated that this was brought to committee last month. We were asked
for circulation and more feedback from the community which has been done.
Alderperson Brock referred her question to Tim Logue, Engineering Director, as to the
amount of traffic in that area.
Tim Logue responded that it is fair to say there we don’t have any accurate count as to
the amount of traffic.
Alderperson Fleming is in favor of the 4-way option. She has come to trust the
judgment of the traffic engineers. Not using single -autos will help a great deal.
Lisa Nicholas stated that we need is a more detailed program that we can monitor and
make that a condition of their certificate of occupancy with DOT.
Alderperson Brock agreed with Alderperson Fleming regarding trusting the traffic
engineers. When she looks at the total map of that area, she definitely hears the
concerns of the residents. If we chose the 3 -way option, can we change to the 4-way
option?
Lisa Nicholas stated any change in the intersection would have to go back to DOT.
Tim Logue concurred.
Chair Murtagh asked if there is any other disadvantages to the 3-way than what is
already provided.
Tim Logue stated TCAT and/or emergency vehicles may be affected.
Chair Murtagh stated he is sympathetic with concerns from the neighborhood of the
traffic calming. He, as well as other council members, receive many complaints for
our constituents regarding the number of vehicles in that area. He prefers the 3-way.
Alderperson Nguyen stated he also is sympathetic to the neighborhood’s concerns.
This should be done City-wide, not by neighborhood. He prefers the 4-way option.
Alderperson Lewis stated after hearing the concerns from the Northside
neighborhood, she favors the 3-way option. She appreciates the amount of work staff
has spent on this. Whatever we can do to calm traffic in the neighborhood the better.
Chair Murtagh stated that one thing pointed out in Logue’s memo was the concern of
cross traffic in the area.
Alderperson Smith agreed with Alderperson Nguyen. He agrees that traffic calming
should be City-wide not by neighborhood.
Alderperson Nguyen stated creating more breaks into Route 13 may be harmful.
Erik Hathaway stated that the impact to the neighborhood definitely is caused by the
traffic calming or lack thereof. It definitely goes back to the TDM.
Chair Murtagh stated that it sounds like the committee majority is leaning to the 4-way
intersection, however since this information was just given to us just yesterday, he
thinks it should be paused.
Lisa Nicholas stated that a month delay would not impact the Planning Board’s
recommendation or delay the project that much. She thinks the Planning Board could
continue with a negative declaration.
Chair Murtagh stated that he would like to circulate it out to the neighborhoods for
impact. This is a lot to absorb. Provide transparency as to how the committee is
leaning.
Alderperson Brock stated she is willing to wait on this if it doesn’t delay the current
project. She further stated that the resolution in the meeting packet is not complete.
Will there be a negative impact to traffic going in or out of the City north or south
between the 3-way and 4-way?
Erik Hathaway stated the analysis itself does show the difference between the two.
Route 13 is often at its capacity. He doesn’t think there is much difference.
Alderperson Fleming stated she is willing to vote on this today. Has there not been
enough community notification?
Chair Murtagh stated it is a lot of information to absorb, and Logue’s memo was
provided late. It’s more of a timing issue.
Alderperson Brock moved to table this resolution to allow more time for the community
to absorb it; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried 4-1. (Smith)
6) Approval to Circulate
a) Waterfront Zoning Changes
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To Establish New Zoning for the Waterfront Area
We last discussed this in February 2020. There were suggestions made at that time.
We took those suggestions to come up with the current ordinance changes. The
changes were to provide a 20 ft. break between buildings and maximum 60% lot
coverage.
Alderperson McGonigal asked whether there was a discussion regarding the
maximum 100 ft. building length. Senior Planner Jennifer Kusznir responded with a
yes.
Alderperson Brock asked whether these changes could be made for the side facing
the water. Is it beneficial to have these changes only to the waterfront side? Is it
possible to set this as sub zones?
Kusznir responded that these suggestions were taken into consideration.
Alderperson Smith showed a picture of the current area. There isn’t any view of the
water or pathway either. He doesn’t understand the needed 100 ft. break in this area.
Alderperson Brock stated that in the future the Waterfront Trail will extend down there
as well as an INHS recreational project that will face the water.
Jennifer Kusznir stated the break between the buildings and public access would be at
the lower level.
Alderperson Fleming stated that we would have a Novarr State Street development i f
there isn’t this 100 ft. recommendation.
Chair Murtagh had a question regarding how the 60% came about.
Alderperson McGonigal urged the committee to read the Waterfront Plan particularly
in the Cherry Street area of the plan. A big part is access to the water. If we look at
areas in the City, Collegetown is 60% or less. With the 100% lot coverage, w e
discovered that the Art House was not having any space around the building where
children play.
Alderperson Smith stated that to have a neighborhood, you have to have people. If
we aren’t at 100% lot coverage. What we give up switching it to 60% is room for
people.
Chair Murtagh hears a lot about increasing green space, room for playgrounds, etc. If
the maximum lot coverage is changed to 60%, it is n ot guaranteed to be green space.
It could be a parking lot. I don’t think that is the vision we’re looking for.
Alderperson Brock stated while looking at the zoning chart, we do have a mixed-use
zone. Could it be done here?
JoAnn Cornish stated that there are design guidelines for the Waterfront area. It does
provide guidelines for that area. She encourages people to review that.
Alderperson Brock asked how the design guidelines helped with the Art House project.
JoAnn Cornish responded that the Art House project was done before the design
guidelines were in place. We wanted to put the brakes on an y project of that size
going forward.
Alderperson McGonigal stated that Kusznir and Cornish were part of the Waterfront
Plan from the beginning and suggests we take their recommendation.
Alderperson Smith amended the ordinance to 75% total lot coverage with 10% for
green space; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried 3-2.
JoAnn Cornish stated now that we have the design guidelines in place we should take
a further look at this.
Alderperson Fleming suggested that any percentage left should be mandatory green
space.
ORDINANCE NO. ____
Moved to circulate by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming.
Carried unanimously.
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325 of the City Code be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325-3B of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
entitled “Definitions and Word Usage”, is hereby amended to add the
following new definition:
ROW HOUSE
A residential structure composed of three or more attached modules
with shared sidewalls, the facade of each module measuring no more
than 25 feet in length. Modules within a row house may consist of a
single dwelling unit or may contain multiple vertically stacked
dwelling units. Each module must have one street-facing entry.
Section 2. Chapter 325-45.2B, Definitions for Collegetown Districts, is
hereby amended to remove the definition of “Row House”.
Section 3. Section 325-8, District Regulations, is hereby amended to change
the permitted primary uses in the Cherry, West End/Waterfront, the Market,
and the Newman Districts in order to replace townhouse with row houses in
each of these districts.
Section 4. Section 325-8, District Regulations, is hereby amended to change
the minimum front yard setback in the Cherry Street, West End/Waterfront,
the Market, and the Newman Districts to only read 5’ minimum required front
yard setback measured from the inside edge of the sidewalk.
Section 5. Section 325-8, District Regulations, is hereby amended to change
the maximum lot coverage in the Cherry Street District to 60%.
Section 6. Section 325-8C. Additional Restrictions in the West End/
Waterfront, the Cherry Street District, the Market District, and the Newman
Districts, is hereby amended to add new subsections (5) and (6), to read as
follows:
(5)Sidewalk and Tree Lawn Requirements. All new construction located
in the Cherry Street, the West End/Waterfront, the Market, or the
Newman Districts must provide a 8’ tree lawn and 5’ sidewalk along
the street frontage of the property. The Planning Board may amend
this requirement based on site conditions.
(6) Maximum Building Length. All new structures located within the
Cherry Street District and the West End/Waterfront District shall be
constructed to be no more than 100’ in length. In addition, there
needs to be a minimum of 20’ break between buildings. Exceptions
may be made to allow for a physical break in the building with a
minimum of 24’ in height measured from floor to ceiling, allowing
for public access to the waterfront. Exceptions to maximum building
length may be granted by the Planning Board.
Section 7. Section 325-8C.(3), “Stepback Requirements” is hereby amended to
remove the stepback requirements in the Newman and Market Districts.
Section 8. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the
Planning Department shall amend the district regulations chart in accordance
with the amendments made herewith.
Section 9. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the
provisions of this local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this local law is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
Section 10. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the
Ithaca City Charter.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) December 2019
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried
unanimously.
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.