HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2013-08-07COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. August 7, 2013
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Alderpersons (10) Brock, Dotson, Murtagh, Clairborne, McCollister, Fleming, Smith,
Kerslick, Proulx, Mohlenhoff
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Lavine
Deputy City Controller – Andrew
Former Ithaca Youth Bureau Director– Allen Green
Director of Engineering - West
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Myrick led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Individual Member Filed Resolutions:
Alderperson Mohlenhoff requested that Item 14.1 Application of Grant Monies for
Stewart Park and Cass Park be moved forward on the agenda.
No Council member objected.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4.1 A Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law entitled the “City of Ithaca Local
Law Concerning Sidewalk Improvement Districts.”
Resolution to Open Public Hearing:
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Brock
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law entitled the “City of
Ithaca Local Law Concerning Sidewalk Improvement Districts be declared open.
Carried Unanimously
David Nutter, Member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council, voiced his support for
the new sidewalk proposal and agreed that it serves the greater good.
Resolution to Close Public Hearing:
By Alderperson Kerslick: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law entitled the “City of
Ithaca Local Law Concerning Sidewalk Improvement Districts be declared closed.
Carried Unanimously
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
Participatory Budgeting
Josh Lerner and Matt Green showed a video presentation on “Participatory Budgeting”
and engaged in a short question and answer period with Common Council members on
the following topics:
How to ensure that more diverse and representative groups participate in the
initiative
How to participate in this kind of effort when budgets are tight
How long the participatory budgeting process takes
How city staff members are engaged in the process
The completion rate of proposed projects
The funding sources that are used
The community voting rates
Mr. Lerner and Mr. Green will be conducting a more in-depth presentation of
participatory budgeting tomorrow, August 8, 2013 at 6:30 pm at GIAC and they
encouraged everyone to attend.
August 7, 2013
2
Board of Fire Commissioners Report
Commissioner Hoard reported on the following:
The Board held a special meeting to review the Ithaca Fire Department proposed
departmental budget. The Board is concerned about the impacts that the
Mayor’s budget guidelines will have on the Fire Department.
The new ladder truck has been delivered and the 1995 truck has been surplused.
The Fire Fighters will be hosting “Kids Day” on August 17, 2013 at Stewart Park
from 10 am – 2 pm. There will be kid’s activities, demonstrations, and rides.
The Fire Chief’s activity report has been distributed to Common Council
members.
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
The following people address Common Council:
Melissa Matthews, iInspire USA, explained the purpose of her movement is to ignite the
unique power of human media to affect positive change noting her desire to promote
positive media stories.
Dan Hoffman, City of Ithaca, spoke in support of the Community Gardens and thanked
the City Administration Committee for taking the time to ensure the continuity of the
gardens as a long-term site. He further noted that the City needs to establish goals and
policies on urban agriculture.
Judith Barker, Member of Project Growing Hope, & local gardener, thanked Common
Council for their time and effort on the Community Gardens issue.
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, addressed the Community Gardens issue and the recent
Police Chief appointment.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, voiced her disappointment in an 8:00 am Town Hall
meeting with Senator Reed, noting that the early start time is not acceptable. She
further spoke about the Community Gardens, and the return of the students and related
noise issues.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
Alderperson McCollister questioned what the timetable was for the Community Gardens
issue. Alderperson Proulx responded that the City Attorney’s Office has been working
with Project Growing Hope on a draft of a new lease. Several issues require further
clarification from Common Council, and the City Administration Committee has been
working on those in consultation with Planning Department and City Attorney staff. A
new lease needs to be in place by December, 2013 or Building Links will exercise its
option to purchase the property.
Alderperson Clairborne thanked the speakers for sharing their opinions, and announced
that there will be a Judges Forum on August 14, 2013, from 6pm – 8pm at GIAC. He
further announced that August 9, 2013 is Family/Children’s night at the Congo Square
Market.
Alderperson Clairborne also thanked Mayor Myrick for releasing the news that Lt.
Marlon Byrd and Officer Derrick Moore were exonerated through the completion of a
joint investigation performed by the Tompkins County District Attorney, the New York
State Attorney General and the FBI.
Mayor Myrick stated that he was pleased to report that after 18 months, dozens of
interviews, and thorough investigation, there were no credible allegations against Lt.
Byrd or Officer Moore. He stated that he regrets that as a result of the rumors that were
circulated, our officers and their families have suffered. He noted that today is a day to
celebrate the closing of a chapter and an opportunity to move our City forward with new
leadership, better protocols, and a new Community Police Board. “Those who would
hinder IPD's progress with rumors and lies are its past, not its future.”
August 7, 2013
3
Mayor Myrick announced that GIAC is currently hosting an exhibit on African American
History in New York State entitled “1817-1882 From Slavery to Citizenship”. The exhibit
is on loan for 2 months.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administration Committee:
8.1 Attorney’s Office - Approval of NYSEG Easement through Parcel 55.-1-1 on
Slaterville Road - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx : Seconded by Alderperson Smith
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns a parcel of land, 55.-1-1, bordering Route 79
(Slaterville Road), which houses a water intake plant integral to the City’s plan to
increase the capacity of its water treatment facilities, and
WHEREAS, the water intake plant requires a connection to the electrical system
operated by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG), and
WHEREAS, NYSEG, in order to supply the plant with power, must expand its
infrastructure by installing a transformer on the City’s property, and
WHEREAS, NYSEG has submitted to the City an agreement that would grant it a
permanent easement and right-of-way to install and maintain said transformer and its
fifteen (15’) feet by fifteen (15’) feet square concrete base on the City’s land, to be
located approximately 1200 feet south of Route 79, and
WHEREAS, installation of the transformer will cost $1,880.00, which has been included
in the Council-approved budget for the water system expansion; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council grants the permanent easement requested by
NYSEG so that the City may continue with the expansion of its water system, and
authorizes and directs the Mayor to sign the necessary documents, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the funds necessary for said installation of transformer shall be
derived from Capital Project #510 Water Treatment Plant Reconstruction.
Carried Unanimously
CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
9.1 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency - Restore NY3, Downtown Commons Upper
Story Housing, Assign Loan of Restore NY funds to ItalThai LLC from the City of
Ithaca to the IURA - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx : Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
WHEREAS, ItalThai LLC, the owner of the Mia restaurant building (AKA the Plantation
Building) requests that the City assign its $900,000 Restore NY loan to IthalThai LLC to
the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2013, the IURA recommended that the City assign its Restore
NY loan to ItalThai LLC to the IURA to administer, and
WHEREAS, in 2009, the City of Ithaca (City) received a grant award of $1.15 million
from the Empire State Development Corporation through the Restore NY program to
complete upper story redevelopment of the Plantation Building and the Petrune building
(located at 126-128 and 130-132 E. MLK/E. State Street), located within the urban
renewal project boundary area.
WHEREAS, $900,000 of assistance was earmarked to ItalThai, LLC (managing
member Sunit “Lex” Chutintaranond) in the form of a grant to fill a financial gap in a
proposed $2.5 million redevelopment of the Plantation building at 130-132 E. MLK
Street, and
WHEREAS, the City authorized the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer
and implement the Restore NY3 grant, and
August 7, 2013
4
WHEREAS, a City/ItalThai LLC Restore NY pass through grant agreement was
developed to provide for payment of a $900,000 grant to ItalThai LLC upon completion
of the project, which agreement was executed by the City on January 10, 2011, and
WHEREAS, in 2011 specialized tax credit legal counsel, Cannon, Heyman & Weiss,
informed ItalThai LLC that injecting Restore NY3 funding from the City into the project
as a grant would reduce the eligible tax basis of the project thereby decreasing the
amount of tax credits available to investors and resulting in a financial gap for the
project, and
WHEREAS, a critical component of the financing plan for the $2.5 million project was to
leverage federal and state historic tax credits generated by the project into investor
equity of over $550,000, and
WHEREAS, injecting Restore NY3 financial assistance into the project in the form of a
loan does not reduce the eligible tax basis, and
WHEREAS, as the project financing relied on attracting at least $550,000 in equity
through historic tax credits, ItalThai LLC did not execute the Restore NY pass through
grant agreement and requested that Restore NY funding from the City be provided in
the form of a $900,000 loan at 0% interest with no payments due until the end of a 30-
year loan term as a means to maximize equity attracted through historic tax credits, and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2011, the City and ItalThai LLC executed an agreement to loan
$900,000 in grant funds awarded to the City of Ithaca to ItalThai LLC, which loan is
secured by a mortgage on the project property, and
WHEREAS, at that time, ItalThai LLC indicated they intended to seek City approval in
the future to forgive this loan upon satisfactory completion of the project in recognition of
the project’s public benefits and that the City had originally agreed to provide Restore
NY3 funds in the form of a grant to the developer, and
WHEREAS, the mixed-use project has been successfully completed with a new ground
floor restaurant, 16 FTE new living wage jobs created, 1,100 SF of office space, and 8
new housing units created of which two are occupied by low-and moderate-income
households at affordable rents, and
WHEREAS, both the Restore NY and federal and state historic tax credit programs
have minimum 5-year compliance periods and the Restore NY program includes a
“clawback” provision requiring repayment of grant funds to NYS in the event the project
property is sold in the first 5 years, and
WHEREAS, total project debt on the Plantation Building is approximately $1.7 million as
of 2013, which exceeds the appraised value of the finished project, thereby impeding
ItalThai’s capacity to refinance and consolidate existing debt or take out new line-of-
credit or term debt, and
WHEREAS, the Restore NY loan, as currently structured, creates a significant obstacle
to the ItalThai LLC financing repairs and building improvements during the 30-year term
of the Restore NY3 loan, and
WHEREAS, the IURA developed the Restore NY3 funding application, administered the
Restore NY3 funds, loaned additional funds to the project to close financing gaps,
regularly monitors the project and manages a loan portfolio of over $4 million, and
WHEREAS, the IURA is better positioned than the City to administer the Restore NY3
loan and analyze future requests to subordinate the mortgage to new financing, modify
collateral requirements and possibly forgive the loan to financially stabilize the project
and facilitate future reinvestment in the property while ensuring that not more than a
reasonable financial return is earned on the owner’s equity investment, and
August 7, 2013
5
WHEREAS, any assignment of the loan would transfer liability for compliance with
regulatory requirements, including the “clawback” provisions of the Restore NY3
program, to the IURA, and
WHEREAS, Section 503-a of GML authorizes assignment of the Restore NY3 loan from
the City to the IURA, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca assign to the IURA the $900,000 Restore NY3 loan
to ItalThai LLC, for the Plantation Building project located at 130-132 E. MLK Jr./E.
State Street, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, subject to review by the City Attorney, is authorized to
execute any agreement to assign the loan to the IURA, and be it further
RESOLVED, That such assignment agreement with the IURA require the IURA to pay
over to the City any net proceeds received from the loan, and be it further
RESOLVED, That any out-of-pocket costs of the City to assign this loan shall be paid by
ItalThai LLC.
Carried Unanimously
Alderpersons Clairborne, Proulx, and Brock extended their thanks to Lex
Chutintaranond for his persistence and commitment to downtown. This was a
complicated project that resulted in 8 new low-and moderate income housing units,
office space, and a restaurant that pays living wage rates.
9.2 Authorization of Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) Application -
Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx : Seconded by Alderperson Brock
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation has noticed the
availability of the federal Transportation Enhancement Program, and
WHEREAS, on June 2013, the Board of Public Works considered various projects that
would be eligible for such funding and recommended a project for the West Martin
Luther King Jr./West State Street corridor between Floral Avenue and Taughannock
Boulevard, which is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended and
WHEREAS, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in this corridor would
help connect the West Hill and West End neighborhoods to the rest of the City’s
commercial, recreational, natural, educational, and residential destinations, and
WHEREAS, corridor enhancements would also help connect the rest of the City to the
burgeoning non-motorized circulation system in and among the city’s various waterfront
districts for residents and visitors alike, including the recent Floral Avenue trail, the
Cayuga Waterfront Trail, and the Black Diamond Trail, and
WHEREAS, Common Council is interested in applying for a Transportation
Enhancement Program grant in order to design and construct enhanced pedestrian and
bicycle facilities in this corridor; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, is hereby authorized and directed to
submit an application for funding to the New York State Department of Transportation in
accordance with the provisions of the Transportation Enhancement Program, in a
amount not to exceed $750,000, and upon approval of said request to enter into and
execute a project agreement with the State for such financial assistance to the City of
Ithaca for design, right-of-way acquisition, construction and construction inspection of a
project to enhance pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in the West Martin Luther
King Jr./West State Street corridor from Floral Avenue to Taughannock Boulevard, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That contingent upon award of the Transportation Enhancement Program
funds, the Common Council hereby authorizes the establishment of Capital Project
August 7, 2013
6
#790 to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of
all work for the Project; and be it further
RESOLVED, That contingent upon award of the TEP funds, the sum not to exceed
$750,000 is hereby appropriated from serial bonds and made available to cover the cost
of participation in the above Project in the first instance; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the total project cost shall not exceed $750,000 with the
understanding that the breakdown of funds to be approximately $600,000 in federal
Transportation Enhancement Program funds, and $150,000 in City of Ithaca serial bond
financing, to be administered by the Superintendent of Public Works, and be it further
RESOLVED, That in the event the full federal and non-federal share costs of the project
exceeds the amount appropriated above, the City of Ithaca Common Council shall
convene as soon as possible to appropriate said excess amount immediately upon the
notification by the NYSDOT thereof; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca be and is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary Agreements, and that the Superintendent of Public Works is
hereby authorized to execute all certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal
Aid and/or Multi-Modal Program Funding on behalf of the City of Ithaca with NYSDOT in
connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and providing for the
administration of the Project and the municipality's first instance funding of project costs
and permanent funding of the local share of federal-aid and all Project costs that are not
so eligible; and be it further
RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary Agreement in
connection with the Project; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Carried Unanimously
9.3 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 146 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Building Code Enforcement” Article 4, entitled “Plumbing”, Section 146-
30 entitled “Permits, C. Fees”
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Brock
WHEREAS, Plumbing Permit Fees are a necessary and reasonable cost to the public
for the local administration and enforcement of public health and sanitation laws
required by State regulations, and
WHEREAS, it is a necessary function of government to assess public service activities
from time to time to determine the actual cost to the community and to establish
reasonable fees for the proper discharge of said public services, and
WHEREAS, the current Plumbing Permit Fee structure for the City of Ithaca is
significantly lower than the surrounding area, owing mostly to the fact that these fees
have not been changed in over 40 years, and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to have a more actuate cost sharing of plumbing review and
inspection services in the form of Plumbing Permit Fees for end users who are the
primary recipient of those services than to rely on rate payer revenues, now therefore
ORDINANCE 2013-___
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as
follows:
Section 1:
Chapter 146, Building Code Enforcement, Article 4, Plumbing, Section 146-30 Permits,
C. Fees shall be amended by adding enumeration (1) as follows:
August 7, 2013
7
(1) City of Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule
New construction
Single Family Residences: $50 application fee plus $5 per fixture
Multiple Residences 2-10 units: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
Multiple Residences 11-20 units: $250 application fee plus $5 per fixture
Multiple Residences 21 units or more: $500 application fee plus $5 per fixture
Commercial or Other Plumbing work under $25,000: $100 application fee plus $10
per fixture.
Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $25,000 to $100,000: $250 application
fee plus $10 per fixture.
Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $100,000 to $500,000: $500
application fee plus $10 per fixture.
Commercial or Other Plumbing work over $500,000: $750 application fee plus $10
per fixture.
Renovations and Additions:
Single Family Residences: $25 application fee plus $5 per fixture
Multiple Residences: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
Commercial or Other Plumbing work: $100 application fee plus $10 per fixture.
Partial Service Users
All permit fees for work conducted on premises not connected both to City water and
City sewer service or not anticipated to be connected both to City water and City sewer
service once connected to any water or sewer service shall be based on the City of
Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule for Commercial or Other Plumbing work plus 15
percent of the total therein specified.
Section 2. 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 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the fee structure and people who do work
without permits. A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
9.4 Gateway Pedestrian Bridge - Authorization for Allocation from Bridge
Reserve Fund - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, the City constructed the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over Elmira Road in
2001, and
WHEREAS, a portion of the pedestrian bridge occupies state-owned property, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation granted permit 33669 to
the City of Ithaca to build, occupy and maintain the pedestrian bridge on state-owned
property, and
WHEREAS, a provision of the permit from the New York State Department of
Transportation requires that the City provide and pay for periodic inspection of the
bridge, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation has requested that the
City conduct such an inspection, and
WHEREAS, engineering staff estimates that the cost of such an inspection will not
exceed $15,000, and
August 7, 2013
8
WHEREAS, the City has a bridge reserve Capital Reserve #4 Bridges, in place with a
current balance of $92,000; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby allocates an amount not to exceed $15,000
from the Bridge Reserve Fund for the purpose of engaging a licensed engineer to
conduct the required inspection of the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge.
Carried Unanimously
9.5 City Controller’s Report
Deputy City Controller Andrew reported on the following:
The 2014 budget development is underway. Departmental budgets were
submitted on August 1st and meetings will commence shortly. Health insurance
and pension cost figures are not available yet.
Parking revenues are being carefully reviewed by Parking Director Nagy and he
is working hard to implement cost efficiencies, improved service and increased
revenues.
Insurance activity remains high including Works Compensation and Liability
claims. The Controller’s Office is monitoring this activity closely.
Auditors have started their work on the 2012 Financial Statements. The goal is
to have the audit complete by October.
Bonds and BANS were recently sold (Bond interest rate was 4.04% / BANS were
sold at .33%) Interest rates are starting rise.
2013 activity:
o Sales tax collections continue to fluctuate – we are currently 2.2% over
2012 collections
o Overtime: $505,000 has been expended to date from the $960,747 budget
o Building Permits: $325,000 has been collected towards the $819,000
budget
o Parking revenue: $1,043,000 has been collected towards the $2,059,000
budget
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.1 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 276
entitled “Site Plan Review”
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, Chapter 276 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Site Plan Review,
was first enacted in 1989 and was repealed and replaced in 1999 and 2012, and
WHEREAS, the repealed and replaced ordinance adopted on November 7, 2012
mistakenly omitted sections regarding required bike parking regulations and
landscaping in parking areas, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify the Site Plan Review
Ordinance by re-incorporating the bike parking and landscaping language that was
never intended to be deleted, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with § 325-45 of the City Code, this is considered a minor
amendment, consisting of “Minor and nonsubstantive changes or amendments (minor
word, number, placement or other similar changes, modifications or alterations that do
not modify existing zoning concepts)”now therefore
ORDINANCE 2013-
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, that
Chapter 276 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Site Plan Review” be
amended as follows:
August 7, 2013
9
Section 1:
§ 276-1. Intent.
The intent of this chapter is to provide for the review of site plans for certain land uses in
the City of Ithaca for the purpose of:
A. Preserving and enhancing neighborhood character.
B. Achieving compatibility with adjacent development and uses.
C. Mitigating potentially negative impacts on traffic, parking, drainage, the landscape
and similar environmental concerns.
D. Improving the design, function, aesthetics and safety of development projects and
the overall visual and aesthetic quality of the city.
E. Promoting environmental sustainability in new development, redevelopment and
long term planning.
§ 276-2. Definitions.
A. Definitions of specific terms or words as used in this chapter shall conform to the
definitions of the same terms in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 325, § 325-3.
B. In addition to the definitions in Chapter 325, the following terms shall be used in this
chapter as they are defined in this section:
AFFECTED SITE AREA -- Any area (including new and modified gross floor space)
that is physically changed as a result of the proposed development. Such changes
do not have to be permanent or irreversible for the area to be considered affected.
For example, a construction staging area will be considered an affected area if tree
damage or significant soil compaction is likely to result.
BICYCLE PARKING FACILITY -- Iincludes the bicycle parking spaces, one or more
bicycle racks, and, when applicable, the access aisle(s) between groups of bicycle
racks. Bike lockers and other secure, enclosed areas that can accommodate bicycle
storage may be considered bicycle parking facilities. “Bicycle parking space” refers
to a location for which the parking of one bicycle is intended. A ‘bicycle rack’ is an
element of the bicycle parking facility that supports one or more bicycles and to
which one or more bicycles may be locked.
BOARD -- The Planning and Development Board, unless otherwise specified.
COMMISSIONER -- The Building Commissioner for the City of Ithaca, New York.
DEVELOPMENT -- Any land use activity or project which requires a permit from the
Building Department and will result in changes to the physical condition, appearance
or type of use, or intensity of use, of property.
(1) Development projects include but are not limited to:
(a) New construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of existing
structures or site improvements.
(b) Landfilling, excavation, grading, parking lot construction or any other
disturbances to the natural or existing topography or vegetation of the site.
(c) Demolition of structures or site improvements.
(2) A project shall not be considered a development if it is one or a combination of
the following:
(a) Replacement in kind only; or
(b) Interior construction only; or
August 7, 2013
10
(c) Infrastructure maintenance only.
DIRECTOR -- The Director of Planning and Development for the City of Ithaca, New
York or his/her designee.
EXPANSION -- An enlargement of, or addition to, an existing structure or a paved
area, including driveways, parking areas and sidewalks.
MODIFICATION -- Rearrangement of site layout or an exterior alteration to an
existing structure (including any changes to a building facade, except replacement in
kind).
PERFORMANCE GUARANTY -- Any security that may be accepted by the city as a
guarantee that the improvements required as part of site plan approval will be
satisfactorily completed.
RECONSTRUCTION -- Construction of buildings or site plan improvements
following total demolition of a previous development.
REPLACEMENT IN KIND -- Replacement of materials (for maintenance purposes)
which does not have an effect on the appearance of the existing building and site.
SITE IMPROVEMENT -- Features including but not limited to planting, paving,
retaining walls, drainage culverts and swales, fences and gates, lighting, site
furniture, fountains, pools, bridges, dams, decks, boardwalks, pergolas, signs and
any other accessory structures, devices or landscape materials on the site.
SITE PLAN -- The development plan showing the existing and proposed conditions,
including but not limited to topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, marshes
and waterways; open spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, utility
services, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting and screening devices;
submitted along with building plans, elevations and building materials; and any other
information that may be reasonably required to allow an informed decision to be
made by the Board or the Director.
STORM WATER POLLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) –A plan to identify
and mitigate stormwater impacts as defined in Chapter 282.
§ 276-3. Applicability; exceptions.
A. General applicability.
(1) Site plan review (SPR) applies to all new construction and reconstruction of both
residential and non residential development (except that excluded by §276-3C),
including parking areas of three or more spaces in residential zoning districts.
(2) Upon the concurrence of the Director and the Superintendent of Public Works or
upon the direction of Common Council, site plan review (SPR) applies to
construction of landscape and infrastructure improvements which do not normally
require a building permit, but nervertheless have an extensive public use,
prominent visibility, or a potentially large environmental impact, such as
construction of trails or trailheads, development of, or improvements to, existing
parks; construction or reconstruction of bridges; and rebuilding of public or
private streets that involve streetscape improvements.
B. Projects of limited scope.
(1) The Director shall have the authority to review and act on a development
proposal if the proposed project meets the description in § 276-3A but is below
the thresholds described below. For such projects of limited scope, reviewed by
the Director, a public hearing is not required. The Planning and Development
Department shall be the lead agency in the environmental review of such
projects, except for projects that meet the description in § 276-3A(2), which shall
follow environmental review laws or regulations for determination of lead
August 7, 2013
11
agency. There shall be no requisite review of the environmental assessment
forms (EAF) by the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) in these cases. See §
276-5C for situations when projects of limited scope will be referred to the Board
for a full review. The upper thresholds for projects of limited scope are:
(a) All new construction and reconstruction of single-lot residential development
of a single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a two-family
dwelling.
(b) Modification and expansion of residential development involving 4,000
square feet (sf) of total affected site area.
(c) New construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of nonresidential
development in residential zones involving 3,000 sf of total affected site area.
(d) Modification and expansion of nonresidential development in nonresidential
zones, involving 10,000 sf of total affected site area.
(e) Construction of landscape and infrastructure improvements as described in §
276-3A(2).
(2) When an application is received for site plan review under the provisions for
projects of limited scope as noted above, the Director shall, within 10 working
days of the date of the submission of the application, notify the Council
members in whose ward the project is to be located.
C. Exemption:
(1) Existing uses and developments which in their present configuration and use are
legally authorized as of the date of this legislation shall not be subject to SPR.
(2) Exterior modifications to an existing single-lot residential development of a
single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a two-family dwelling,
including additions, porches, façade changes, landscaping and site
improvements, excluding the development of parking areas for 3 or more cars as
required under §325-20.
D. City and other government projects. For city and other government projects, the
threshold of applicability, the review procedure and the review criteria shall be the
same as for all SPR applicants unless the Common Council decides that any
particular government project shall be reviewed on an advisory basis only.
However, even if a project is subject to advisory review only, no construction shall
begin until the Board or the Director has completed the review, including the
issuance of any findings and recommendations that the Board or the Director
determines to be appropriate. Projects subject to advisory SPR only shall be
presented to the Board for review beginning as early as possible, and in any case
no later than when the environmental review is started. The Board may or may not
be the Lead Agency of the environmental review of projects subject to advisory SPR
only.
§ 276-4. Other permits and approvals.
An approved site plan shall be binding on all further permits and approvals needed for
the project. The Board or the Director's decision to approve a site plan does not excuse
an applicant from complying with all other permits and approvals that may be needed,
including but not limited to street and sidewalk permits, utility permits and tree permits.
A. Permits from Building Department. For projects subject to SPR, a permit from the
Building Department shall be issued only after SPR approval has been granted. In a
case where a conditional SPR approval has been given, no certificate of occupancy
or completion shall be issued until final SPR approval has been given and all
conditions of such final approval have been met. See also § 276-9.
B. Variances.
August 7, 2013
12
(1) Any required variance must be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals
before the Planning Board will issue preliminary or final site plan approval.
(2) For projects that require both a variance and site plan approval, the Planning
Board will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review for both actions.
The BZA cannot grant a variance until the the Planning Board has completed
the environmental review.
C. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). All Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans must be approved by the Stormwater Management Officer (SMO)
in accordance with §282 before final site plan approval is granted.
§ 276-5. Authorization to review site plans.
A. The Planning and Development Board is authorized to conduct SPR according to
the procedures described in § 276-6.
B. The Director is authorized to conduct SPR of projects of limited scope as defined in
§ 276-3B.
C. In projects of limited scope the Board shall conduct SPR according to the
procedures described below in § 276-6, when the following conditions arise:
(1) There is public controversy concerning the proposed development, as
determined by the Board or the Director.
(2) The application is referred to the Board by the Director.
(3) The applicant appeals to the Board after decision by the Director is made.
§ 276-6. Site plan review (SPR) procedures.
A. Process initiation.
(1) The Building Commissioner shall determine whether SPR is required when an
application for a building permit, a demolition permit, or a fill permit is filed.
Such determinations may be appealed to the Planning and Development Board
within 30 days of the written notification that SPR is required.
(2) For projects which do not require a building permit, as described in § 276-3A (2),
the Director may request of the Superintendent of Public Works that a project be
subject to SPR. If the Superintendent and Director concur, then the project shall
be subject to SPR. If they do not agree, the Director may request that Common
Council decide if SPR shall apply. The Director shall, in accordance with § 276-
5C, determine if the project requires review by the Board.
B. The following procedures are required for both full site plan review and projects of
limited scope:
(1) Sketch plan conference with planning staff, or when appropriate, with the Board
as a whole. This step may occur before the application for a building permit if it
can be reasonably assumed that SPR would be required, in order to inform the
applicant of the SPR process and to explain the standards for approval, before
substantial time and effort are invested in the preparation of plans. The Director
should determine at this stage whether the proposal is a project of limited scope
as defined in § 276-3B.
(2) Submission of application materials.
(a) Appicants must submit a complete site plan review application, including all
applicable materials as described in the Site Plan Review Checklist, which
may be obtained from the Department of Planning and Development.
(b) Additional application materials may be required by the Board. Depending
on the scope and complexity of the project, the Board has the discretion to
require applicants to engage the services of licensed design professionals
August 7, 2013
13
and other experts such as architects, landscape architects, engineers,
ecologists or surveyors.
(c) For all new construction and reconstruction of single-lot residential
development of a single-family detached or semidetached or a two-family
dwelling, applicants must complete the Residential Infill Neighborhood
Compatibility Review Application, which may be obtained from the
Department of Planning and Development
(3) Environmental review. An environmental review of the proposed development
shall be conducted prior to SPR approval in accordance with § 176 of the City
Code.
C. The following procedures are required for full Site Plan Review and not required for
projects of limited scope:
(1) Public notice
(a) By mail. At least 20 days before the first meeting at which the
Planning and Development Board considers either a determination
of environmental significance or preliminary site plan approval, the
applicant shall notify the record owners by mail of all properties
within 200 feet of the project site. Such notice shall be in the form
approved by the Board, briefly state essential facts about the
proposal, include the proposed site plan, and inform recipients of the
date, time and place of the meeting and the place where further
information about the proposal and the review process may be
obtained. Applicant shall provide the Board with certification of
compliance for notice procedures.
(b) By posting. At least 20 days before the first meeting at which the
Planning and Development Board considers either a determination
of environmental significance or preliminary site plan approval, the
applicant shall post a sign at the center of each property line of the
project site which fronts on a public or private roadway or public
right-of-way. Such signs shall be continuously maintained and
displayed facing the roadway until final action has been taken by the
Board to approve or deny the site plan. The required signs shall be
obtained from the Department of Planning and Development, and a
nonrefundable fee shall be paid for each sign or replacement
obtained. At the time such signs are obtained, the applicant or the
applicant's representative shall indicate, in writing, the date on which
the signs are to be erected.
(c) By newspaper. The hearing on the preliminary site plan shall be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least
five days before the hearing.
(2) Coordination and consultation. SPR projects requiring the review and
approval of the Board may also be reviewed by the Building Department,
the Engineering Office, the Fire Department, the City Forester and any
other city officials or non-city consultants deemed appropriate by the
Planning Board or the Director. Any comments from these reviewers
shall be summarized and forwarded to the Board to aid its decision on the
proposal.
(3) Planning and Development Board meeting. Following timely receipt of a
complete application for site plan approval, the Board shall schedule
consideration of the application at its earliest possible scheduled meeting.
The Board may establish its procedures and requirements, within the
framework provided by this chapter, for conducting site plan review.
August 7, 2013
14
(4) Public hearing. Prior to rendering any decision on a SPR application, the
Board shall first hold a public hearing on the proposed development.
This may begin concurrently with any required public hearing for the
purpose of environmental review of the same project and may continue
after any such environmental review public hearing is closed. Public
hearings are not required for projects of limited scope as defined in §
276-3B, unless the project is referred to the Board for SPR
(5) Action on application for site plan approval.
(a) Within 65 days after completion of environmental review on a
complete SPR application, the Board (or the Director if it is a project of
limited scope as defined in § 276-3B) shall render one of the following
decisions:
[1] Preliminary approval only.
[2] Preliminary approval with conditions.
[3] Preliminary and final approval.
[4] Preliminary and final approval with conditions.
[5] Disapproval of the site plan.
(b) In the case where a Board's action is required and where preliminary
approval only is granted, final approval shall be considered at the
earliest scheduled Board meeting subsequent to the applicant's
submittal of an adequately revised site plan, whereupon the Board
shall render one of the following decisions:
[1] Final approval.
[2] Final approval with conditions.
[3] Disapproval of the site plan.
(6) Communication of decision. The Building Commissioner and the
applicant shall be notified, in writing, of a site plan review decision no
later than 10 working days after the date of decision. When a site plan is
approved, a stamped copy of the approved site plan, including any
conditions of approval, shall accompany the notification to the Building
Commissioner.
D. Changes to approved site plan. Proposed changes (whether before or after
construction) to approved site plans must be submitted to the Commissioner for
review to determine whether the effect of the proposed changes warrants
reconsideration of the project's approval status. The Commissioner in consultation
with the Director shall make one of the following determinations:
(1) That the proposed changes do not affect the approval status of the site plan.
(2) That the changes are significant and shall require a reopening of the review.
(3) That the proposed changes are likely to have such an extensive or significant
effect on the project that a new SPR application is required.
E. Extension of deadlines. All deadlines for decisions on an SPR application may be
extended upon mutual agreement by the Board and the applicant.
§ 276-7. Project review criteria.
A. General criteria:
(1) Avoidance or mitigation of any negative impacts. The following shall be
emphasized in particular:
August 7, 2013
15
(a) Erosion, sedimentation and siltation control in accordance with §282 of the
City Code.
(b) Protection of significant natural features and areas, including but not limited
to trees, views, watercourses or bodies of water and land forms, on or near
the site. The protection of existing mature vegetation, especially trees over
eight inches DBH (diameter-breast-height) may be required unless a
justification for their removal can be made by the applicant.
(c) Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of
importance to the community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks,
neighborhoods, commercial areas, and historic districts.
(2) Compliance with all other regulations applicable to the development. These
include, but are not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Ordinance,
Subdivision Regulations, Storm Water Regulations Ordinance, Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance and
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance of the City of Ithaca,iEN and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.ii[Amended 6-13-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-8]
(3) Improvement of the visual quality of the site and its vicinity through:
(a) The presence of a perceivable form and order in the basic layout of the
major architectural and landscape elements.
(b) The proper and effective use of landscape architectural elements such as
plantings, land forms, water features, paving and lighting, including the
location and appearance of proposed signage. [Amended 3-5-2003 by Ord.
No. 2003-8]
(c) An appropriate arrangement, form, scale, proportion, color, pattern and
texture of buildings and other site improvements.
(d) An appropriate relationship between the proposed development and the
nearby streetscape, landscape, and the built environment.
(e) The integration of works of art on the site where appropriate and possible.
[Added 3-5-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-8]
(f) The appropriate arrangement of landscape and architectural elements to
preserve existing views both to, from and through the site.
(4) Adequate wastewater and sewage disposal facilities. Calculations of the
existing and estimated increased loads on the system may be required.
(5) Adequacy of fire lanes and fire and emergency access and the availability of
fire hydrants.
(6) Safe arrangement of vehicular access, circulation, intersections and traffic
controls. Analysis of the project's impact on parking and traffic may be
required, including sight lines at curb cuts.
(7) Handicap accessibility of buildings, pathways and parking in accordance with
ADA standards.
(8) Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including
provision for of bicycle parking facilities and sidewalks along public streets,
unless applicant demonstrates that a sidewalk is not feasible due to site
constraints. This criterion is subject to the authority of the Board of Public
Works as defined in the City Charter and City Code.
(9) Open space for play areas and informal recreation in the case of a residential
development.
August 7, 2013
16
(10) Provisions for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and green design as
determined by the Board
(11) Conformance to any endorsed or adopted urban design plan or
comprehensive plan relevant to the proposed site.
(12) For new construction of multiple dwellings, commercial buildings and office
buildings, adequate and appropriately located facilities for the storage and
collection of solid waste and recyclable materials shall be required.
Developers of new commercial and mixed-occupancy buildings must design a
waste management system that can support the needs of any allowable use
in the building, including those uses that could result in maximum garbage
generation. Screening of these facilities, as well as other actions relating to
the appearance of the facilities, may be required in accordance with the
Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance, §178 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code. [Amended 6-13-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-8; 3-5-2003 by Ord.
No. 2003-8]
(13) Shielding or reduction of noise from mechanical equipment and other sources
to the extent reasonably practicable.
(14) Screening or architectural integration of a building’s or structure’s exterior
mechanical equipment.
(15) The scope and definition of the proposed development shall include all
previous development on the property occurring within the past two years
within 200 feet of the proposed development which, when considered
together, may have a substantial aggregate effect on the surrounding
properties. (See definitions of "development" and "affected site area" in § 276-
2B.)
B. Criteria for plant materials and maintenance. All projects shall provide for adequate
types and arrangements of landscaping, both to enhance the site and to
complement the architectural components of the development and to screen or
buffer adjacent uses in public ways. Use of invasive species should be avoided.
Where possible and reasonable, trees shall be planted in an 8’ tree lawn adjacent to
the road. The City Forester shall, when appropriate, be consulted regarding
specifications governing tree species, size, spacing and method and location of
planting. Appropriate guaranties for tree health may be required. Where possible
and reasonable, any trees greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast height of
desirable species and in good health and sound structure, as determined by the City
Forester, should be retained on the site and protected during development per the
requirements of § 306-7B Trees and Shrubs.
(1) Deciduous trees shall have a caliper of at least 2 1/2 inches at breast height
(DBH) at the time of planting. Size of evergreen trees and shrubs may vary
depending on location and species.
(2) All plant materials shall be installed to the following standards:
(a.) All planting beds to be excavated to a minimum depth of two feet.
(b.) Tree pits in lawn to be excavated to depth of root ball plus 6” and shall be
3X the width of the root ball.
(c.) All trees in lawn areas to receive 5’ diameter mulch rings.
(d.) Only nursery-grown plant materials shall be acceptable. All trees, shrubs
and ground cover shall comply with applicable requirements of ANSI
Z60.1 “American Standard for Nursery Stock”.
(e.) No plants or trees shall be located beneath building overhangs.
August 7, 2013
17
(f.) Depending on site design and soil conditions, structural soil may be
required under sidewalks and in planting beds contiguous to paved areas.
The City Forester and/or the Director shall work with the applicant to
determine the need for structural soil and the extent of its use.
(3) Dead, dying and/or seriously damaged plant materials of the approved site plan
shall be replaced, by the owner, within a reasonable time period during the
current (or immediate next) planting season. Any other damaged or missing
elements, including but not limited to fences, bollards, signs, shrubs, street
furniture, etc., of the approved plan must be similarly replaced by the owner.
This will assure that landscaping remains in compliance with the final site plan as
approved by the Planning and Development Board.
(4) For projects on City property, the City Forester and the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee shall be consulted in plant species selection and planting soil
specification.
(5) Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter or any other City ordinance or
regulation to the contrary, an approved site plan may not be modified without
express written approval of the Planning and Development Board except as
approved by the Building Commissioner upon consultation with the Director as
specified herein above.
C. Criteria for automobile parking areas. All parking areas shall be designed in
conformance with §325.20 of the City Ordinance. The Board may make such
additional reasonable stipulations as it deems appropriate to carry out the intention
of this chapter. (
(1) Parking areas in Residential Zoning Districts. In order to protect the
character of residential areas, plans for parking areas with the capacity of
three or more cars within residential zoning districts must conform to either
the setback compliance method or, at the discretion of the Planning
Board, the landscaping compliance method described respectively in
§ 325-20E(5)(a) and (b). Such plans must also comply with all other
general and specific standards of § 325-20. Where turnarounds, or other
maneuvering spaces not required for access to parking spaces, are
provided that meet minimum size for a parking space, they shall be
counted as a parking space for the purposes of this subsection.
(2) There shall be screening with a minimum five-foot-wide planting area or
fences between a motor vehicle parking area and adjacent properties and
public ways, except where there is motor vehicle parking that is shared by
more than one property or where commercial properties abut. In such
cases, the Board may require landscaping as it deems appropriate.
(3) In motor vehicle parking areas, a minimum of 12% of the interior ground
area (i.e., excluding any peripheral planting area) shall be planting areas
that include trees with a potential mature height of at least 50 feet and a
caliper of at least 2 1/2 inches at the time of planting.
(4) Interior planting areas shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no
dimensions being less than eight feet. The planter shall be curbed and
have a minimum three-foot- deep excavation.
(2)(5) Applicants are encouraged to design parking areas with pervious
paving when feasible.
D.D. Criteria for Bicycle parking facilities. Bicycle parking shall be required for all uses
requiring site plan review as per § 276-3(A)(1) except as may be determined by
the Board or the Transportation Engineer. Covered bicycle parking is strongly
recommended. The Planning and Development Board may make such
additional reasonable stipulations as it deems appropriate to carry out the
intention of this chapter. The Planning and Development Board shall use the
August 7, 2013
18
following standards in its consideration of the location and the type/design of
bicycle parking facilities.
(1).Standards for the number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided for various
uses. See chart below.
Use
Bicycle Parking Space Standards 1,2,3
Adult day-care home or
group adult day-care facility 1 for client use, plus 1 per 20 employees4
Dormitory 1 per 5 persons housed (6 min.)
Dwelling unit 1 per 5 bedrooms or sleeping rooms (single
family and duplex encouraged but excepted)
Fraternity, sorority or group
house 1 per 5 persons housed (2 min.)
Rooming or boarding house 1 per 5 sleeping rooms (2 min.)
Auditorium or theater 1 per 50 seats (4 min.)
Bar, tavern or restaurant 1 per 500 square feet of net floor area of the
assembly space (2 min.)
Bed-and-breakfast home or
bed-and-breakfast inn 1 per 10 sleeping rooms (2 min.)
Bowling alley 1 per 2 bowling lanes
Church, funeral home or
mortuary
2 min. (spaces for 2% of expected
attendance recommended)
Fitness center or health club 1 per 20 persons allowed as determined by
the maximum occupancy load (6 min.)
Home occupation requiring
special permit None
Hospital or nursing or
convalescent home 1 per 20 employees4 (6 min.)
Hotel or motel 1 per 20 employees4 (6 min.)
Medical or dental office 1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable
floor area (2 min.)
Nursery school, child day-
care center or private
elementary or secondary
school
1 per 20 employees4 plus 1 per 20 pupils
enrolled (4 min.)
Office or bank 1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable
floor area (4 min.)
Retail store or neighborhood
commercial facility
1 per 2500 square feet of net assignable
floor area (2 min.)
Wholesale or industry 1 per 30 employees4 (2 min.)
Boat launch 4 min.
Boat storage or repair 4 min.
Boatel 4 min.
Marina 4 min.
Yacht club 4 min.
Human service agencies
and centers [Added 6-5-
1996 by Ord. No. 96-9]
1 per 2500 square feet of floor area (4 min.)
Other uses not listed above
Whichever is greatest: 1 per 20 employees4
OR 1 per 2500 square feet OR 1 per 10
motor vehicle spaces (2 min.)
NOTES (on chart):
1. In the case of mixed use of a building or property, the bicycle parking space
standards shall be computed for each use, and the total for all uses shall be
provided in accordance with this section.
August 7, 2013
19
2. The Planning and Development Board may, upon consideration of relevant
factors, including but not limited to, the easy availability of adequate proximate
bicycle parking or the expectation that a lesser number of bicycle parking
spaces will meet the parking needs of the use, determine that a lesser number
of bicycle parking spaces is appropriate.
3. Bicycle parking facilities may be located inside or outside of structures.
4. Calculation to be based on the number of employees during the maximum
work shift.
(2) Location of bicycle parking facilities.
(a) Bicycle parking facilities should be located close to building entrances, and
should be located at least as close and convenient to building entrances as the
nearest non-handicapped motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking facilities
to be in a public right of way shall require approval by the Office of the City
Engineer & the Board of Public Works.
(b) Bicycle parking facilities that are not located within a building shall be located in
highly visible and well-lighted areas to minimize theft and vandalism.
(c) Bicycle parking facilities shall not intrude into pedestrian or vehicular circulation
paths.
(d) At least 25% of a bicycle parking facility intended primarily for residential uses
shall be located within a garage and other secure indoor or covered areas.
(e) Bicycle parking facilities shall be covered or otherwise protected from the
elements whenever practical; especially where long-term (over 4 hours)
residential and/or employee parking is anticipated.
(f) A minimum clear distance of 24 inches shall be between bicycle racks and walls,
other obstructions, and/or any unpaved surface. Vertical clearance of seven feet
minimum is required for all bicycle parking facilities. There shall be a convenient,
paved access route between the roadway network and the bicycle parking area.
(For example, bicyclists shall not be required to cross lawns or carry bicycles up
stairways to reach bicycle parking facilities.)
(3). Type/design of bicycle parking facilities.
A. Bicycle parking facilities shall be designed in such a way so as to accommodate
a standard bicycle (six feet in length, minimum). An eight-foot-long parking space
is highly recommended to account for irregularly parked bicycles.
B. Bicycle racks shall be securely anchored to concrete. The entire footprint of the
bicycle parking facility shall be constructed of concrete. (Asphalt, brick, or other
durable surface may be acceptable at the discretion of the Planning and
Development Board.) The footprint shall be as level as practical.
C. Bicycle racks should be the standard “inverted-U” rack design, approximately 36
inches high and with vertical elements 20 to 30 inches apart. When multiple
“inverted-U” racks are grouped together, they shall be oriented parallel to one
another and should be spaced 30 inches on center (exceptions for spacing as
narrow as 24 inches on center and as wide as 36 inches on center shall be
allowable in some instances at the discretion of the Planning and Development
Board). Though the standard “inverted-U” rack design is highly recommended,
other innovative and/or creative rack designs may be allowed at the discretion of
the Planning and Development Board.
D. Bicycle racks shall support the frame of each bicycle in TWO or more places,
separated horizontally by 20 to 30 inches. (Designs that support bicycles by one
wheel only, or at only one point of the bicycle, are NOT acceptable.)
E. All rack designs shall permit the appropriate use of standard “U”-locks.
F. Enclosed bicycle parking facilities, such as bike lockers and indoor storage
rooms, do not necessarily require the inclusion of a bicycle rack element,
depending on the design of the facility. Such enclosed facilities shall be lockable
and otherwise secure.
August 7, 2013
20
(4). Variations and exemptions to bicycle parking standards.
A. Any property owner required to provide bicycle parking may propose to establish
a shared bicycle parking facility with an adjacent property owner to meet the
combined standards. Such a proposal requires approval by the Planning and
Development Board.
B. Possible variation from above standards under site plan review. The Planning
and Development Board may, at its discretion, allow variations from the above
standards.
§ 276-8. Fees.
A. Application fees. The application fees shall be based on the total construction,
site work, and landscaping cost and shall be charged in accordance with the
following schedule.
Type of Approval Project Cost Application
Fee
Less and
$10,000
$75
$10,000 to
$50,000
$150
$50,000 to
$100,000
$300
Full Site Plan Review
Over $100,000 $1.50 per
$1,000
Less than
$50,000
$150 *Modified Site Plan
Review
$50,000 or more $250
Limited Site Plan
Review
Any Amount $50
*The Fee Schedule for Modified Site Plan Review applies only to modifications
to the approved site plan that do not trigger reconsideration of the
determination of environmental significance. Modifications that require
additional environmental review shall follow the fee schedule for Full Site Plan
Review .
B. Payment of Fees. For site plan review projects that require a use or area
variance from the BZA, 50% of the fee is due at the time of application and 50%
is due after the Planning Board completes environmental review. For all other
projects, the full fee is due at the time of application.
C. For all government projects and projects that fit the description in Section 276-
3A(2), the site plan review fee shall be waived.
§ 276-9. Performance guaranty.
No certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion shall be issued until all
improvements required by site plan approval are installed, and including any conditions
placed on such approval are fulfilled, or until a sufficient guaranty, in the form of a
performance bond, letter of credit or other security, is in place. The Building
Commissioner shall be responsible for the overall inspection of site improvements.
August 7, 2013
21
§ 276-10. Expiration of approval; extension of approval. [Amended 12-12-2001 by
Ord. No. 2001-12]
If the construction of a development has not commenced within two years of the date of
the site plan approval, such approval shall expire, unless an extension has been
granted by the Board following a written request by the applicant. An application for an
extension of SPR approval shall not be considered a new SPR application. This
regulation does not apply to government projects and projects that fit the description in
Section 276-3A(2).
§ 276-11. Enforcement; inspections; penalties for offenses.
Development projects may be periodically inspected for conformance to the approved
site plan, including the maintenance of the viability of the planting required as part of the
site plan approval. If there is nonconformance, or if any conditions of SPR approval are
not fulfilled, no certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion shall be issued.
Where a development reverts to nonconformance after the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or certificate of completion, current owners of the development shall be
notified, in writing, and given the opportunity to correct the situation. If the Director
determines that the corrective measures are inadequate, the city shall implement any
necessary changes to the site to bring it into conformance, the cost of which shall be
charged to the property owner. In addition, a fine of $50/day may be imposed for any
violations of the provisions of this chapter or of any conditions imposed by a permit
issued pursuant to site plan approval. Development projects shall be inspected at least
once two years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of
completion.
§ 276-12. Appeals.
A. The determination (by the Building Commissioner) of whether a development
proposal is subject to SPR may be appealed to the Board within 30 days of the
written notification that SPR is required.
B. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director may appeal to the Board.
C. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board, or any officer or agency of the
city, regarding SPR, may apply to the Supreme Court for review by a proceeding
under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
§ 276-13. Severability.
If any section, paragraph or provision of this chapter shall be determined to be invalid,
such invalidity shall apply only to the section, paragraph or provision adjudged invalid,
and the rest of this chapter shall remain valid and effective.
Section 6: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE:
Alderperson Mohlenhoff reminded everyone that the GPA Committee meeting would be
held on Monday, August 12, 2013 and the Committee will be discussing the new
Sidewalk Improvement Proposal. Alderperson Proulx stated that the financial aspects
of the proposal will be discussed at the August 28, 2013 City Administration Committee
meeting.
City Attorney Lavine stated that the Sidewalk Task Force met today and addressed the
feedback received to date from the public. New maps of the proposed districts will be
included in the GPA Agenda. The Local Law will be “laid on the table” on August 23,
2013 and will be considered at the September 4, 2013 Common Council meeting. If
Common Council chooses to make amendments to the legislation, it will delay the
Council vote to the October 2, 2013 meeting.
August 7, 2013
22
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER – FILED RESOLUTIONS:
14.1 Alderperson Mohlenhoff - Support for the Application of Grant Monies to
Continue Restoration of the Large Pavilion located in Stewart Park as outlined in
Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan – Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, Julie Conley Holcomb, duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Ithaca, New
York, does hereby certify that the following resolution was adopted by the regular
meeting of the Common Council held on August 7, 2013, and is on file and of record,
and that said resolution has not been altered, amended, or revoked and is in full force
and effect, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Stephen Nann, as Building Maintenance & Solid Waste Supervisor of
the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, is hereby authorized and directed to file
an application for funds from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation in accordance with the provision of Title 9 of the Environmental
Protection Act of 1993 or the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,
in an amount not to exceed $270,000, and upon approval of said request to enter into
and execute a project agreement with the State for such financial assistance to the City
of Ithaca for improvements to Large Pavilion in Stewart Park which will allow for
increased access, usage, and efficiency, as well as an addition to enhance accessibility
for the day camp and rentals as further detailed in the grant application.
Carried Unanimously
14. 2 Cass Park Ice Rink Improvements - Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, Julie Conley Holcomb, duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Ithaca, New
York, does hereby certify that the following resolution was adopted by the regular
meeting of the Common Council held on August 7, 2013, and is on file and of record,
and that said resolution has not been altered, amended, or revoked and is in full force
and effect, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Liz Vance, City of Ithaca Acting Director for the Ithaca Youth Bureau
is hereby authorized and directed to file an application for funds from the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation in accordance with the
provision of Title 9 of the Environmental Protection Act of 1993 or the Federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, in an amount not to exceed $400,000 and upon
approval of said request to enter into and execute a project agreement with the State for
such financial assistance to the City of Ithaca for the replacement of the Cass Park
rink’s ceiling and lighting, which will promote the rink’s sustainability by increasing its
energy efficiency and reducing long-term maintenance and management costs.
Carried Unanimously
Discussion followed on the floor regarding any matching shares that might be required.
Allen Green and Rick Manning both responded that the 25% match requirement would
be met by using in-kind services and/or on-going fundraising efforts by Friends of the
Ithaca Youth Bureau and Friends of Stewart Park. Alderperson Brock noted her
discomfort with the vague language about the City’s financial obligation.
MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
15. Appointments to Various City Board and Committees
15.1 Board of Zoning Appeals – Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
RESOLVED, That Jesse Hill be appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor with Council members expressing their
concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest due to Mr. Hill’s employment
circumstances, the number of current BZA members that represent large property
owners, and the need to have a variety of residents serving on the BZA to ensure
different perspectives.
August 7, 2013
23
Mayor Myrick voiced his support of Mr. Hill who came highly recommended by the
Director of Zoning Administration.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (3) Smith, Mohlenhoff, Dotson
Nays (7) Dotson, Brock, Murtagh, Clairborne, McCollister, Fleming,
Kerslick, Proulx
Failed (3-7)
15.2 Conservation Advisory Council – Resolution
By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
RESOLVED, That Maureen J. Bolton be appointed to the Conservation Advisory
Council to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Augusta Christensen be appointed to the Conservation Advisory
Council to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Noah Demarest be appointed to the Conservation Advisory Council
to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Matthew Yarrow be appointed to the Conservation Advisory Council
to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further
Examining Board of Electricians
RESOLVED, That Richard J. Srnka be appointed to the Examining Board of Electricians
to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Housing Board of Review – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Joseph Steuer be appointed to the Housing Board of Review to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further
RESOLVED, That William Olney be appointed to the Housing Board of Review to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Rental Housing Advisory Commission – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Julie L. Paige be appointed to the Rental Housing Advisory
Commission to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2015.
Youth Bureau Advisory Board – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Augusta Christensen be appointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory
Board to fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Dipayan Ghosh be appointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory Board to
fill a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Caitlin Moss be appointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory Board to fill
a vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014.
Carried Unanimously
REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
Community Police Board
Alderperson Kerslick distributed a flyer from a group named “Civic Ensemble”. A
representative of Civic Ensemble made a presentation to the Community Police Board
about their desire to create a performance piece with local performers on
community/police relations. He noted that he invited the group to make a presentation
to Common Council.
Access Oversight Committee
Alderperson Clairborne reported on the recent transition of the analog public access
channels to digital channels (97.3, 97.4, 97.5). People who do not have a digital
television can get a free digital tuner for free by contacting Time Warner Cable.
August 7, 2013
24
Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG)
Alderperson Clairborne reported that an issue of concern to TCCOG is the disposition of
the Cayuga Power Plant and the economic impact if it closes as well as the
environmental impacts if it converts to natural gas which would require the construction
of a pipeline from Dryden to Lansing. The biggest concern is for the Town and Village
of Lansing; however, the closing of the plant could mean a 7.4% increase in County
taxes for City residents. The Public Service Commission is accepting comments until
August 16, 2013. Alderperson Brock discussed concerns about delivery infrastructure,
noting that there is generally a 60% loss of energy in delivery systems. A copy of a
draft resolution from TCCOG was shared with Common Council. The resolution calls
for the plant to continue to operate with renewable energy sources.
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
19.1 Approval of the July 3, 2013 Common Council Meeting Minutes –
Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Brock
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the July 3, 2013 Common Council meeting be
approved as corrected.
Ayes (9) Dotson, Brock, Murtagh, Clairborne, McCollister, Smith,
Kerslick, Mohlenhoff, Proulx
Nays (0)
Abstention (1) Fleming
Carried (9-0-1)
Approval of the minutes of the July 17, 2013 and July 31, 2013 Common Council
meetings was deferred to the September 4, 2013 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
______________________________ ________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Svante L. Myrick
City Clerk Mayor
August 7, 2013
25