Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PLED-2014-02-12Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, February 12, 2014 – 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick, Vice Chair; Ellen McCollister, Cynthia Brock, and Josephine Martell Committee Members Absent: None Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick, Alderpersons Donna Fleming, George McGonigal, and Stephen Smith Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning, Building, and Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Planner, Planning, Building, and Development; Megan Wilson, Planner, Department of Planning, Building, and Development; Mike Niechwiadowicz, Director of Code Enforcement; and Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant, Department of Planning and Development Others Attending: Michael Kuo, Commons Project Manager; Tom West, Director, Engineering Department Chair Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Chair Murtagh stated the Cornell Heights Rezoning would be discussed at the end of the meeting. 2. Special Order of Business Presentation: Tompkins County Housing Market Trends Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting 2. Public Hearing – Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) Alderperson Kerslick motioned to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Passed Unanimously. John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, and Sheila Squier, 110 Columbia Street spoke on the Collegetown Area Form Districts proposal. Mr. Graves read his comments to the group regarding affordable housing in the Collegetown Area Form Districts. He stated a Collegetown design review board is essential. Members would be chosen by the Mayor and would consist of those who live in the Collegetown area. Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, Go ahead and adopt the form-based zoning. It’s a step in the right direction. It removes the very ridiculous option of minimum parking requirements. The Collegetown area is pedestrian friendly. Minimum off-street parking should be lifted from other residential areas within the City especially in the historic districts. Wayles Brown, 206 Eddy Street, seconds Theresa Alt’s comments on minimum parking requirements. He would like to see more public transportation. He thinks the proposal should be voted on. Don’t modify it now – vote now and modify after. Nathan Lyman, 1322 E. State Street, spoke on behalf of Jason Fane who is in favor of the new Collegetown plan. New buildings will be code compliant, safer, and more comfortable. This will provide environmental pluses since it’s close to Cornell and will encourage walking. New buildings will create new jobs which will increase spending and the increase in sales tax is also a plus. It’s time for the City to adapt this ordinance. Jane Marcham, 414 East Buffalo Street, spoke on the parking situation in Collegetown. Her impression is the City has received numerous transportation plans. Rezoning will increase growth which will increase parking demands. Where will overnight parking go? The parking requirements need a further look. Max Weisbrod, 207 Fall Creek, He encouraged the eight (8) parcels on Linden Street be changed from CR4 to MU2. This would not derail the proposed rezoning on the table. Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, congratulated JoAnn Cornish for her recent award. She is not in love with the plan, but does think it should be voted on. She doesn’t agree with Weisbrod’s comments. The transition is crucial for this proposed zoning change. Don’t tinker with it. She further spoke that affordable housing should be a focus rather than focusing it on high-end development. That is only used eight (8) months out of the year by privileged students. Tessa Rudan, 226 Bryant Avenue, spoke on the Collegetown Rezoning proposal. Affordable housing should be kept separate from the proposed Collegetown Area Form Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting Districts (CAFD) plan. She would like this to be looked at holistically and to include all neighborhoods. John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Avenue, Apt. F., Ithaca, New York spoke on the history of the Collegetown Plan. No one will be completely happy. That’s not a reason to delay the vote on this tonight. The commercial development suggested on Linden Avenue as a MU zone is not a good idea. He encourages us to move this forward. Wendy Wallitt, 209 Valley Road, fully supports to the CAFD plan but the transportation issues have not been sufficiently looked at. If developers are not required to provide parking, whom does it benefit? Does it make the living arrangements better or does a developer benefit? Jan Rhodes Norman, 425 N. Aurora Street, spoke in favor of Collegetown Crossing development which would include Green Star Markets. Joanie Mackowski, 516 Dryden Road, has three concerns of the plan. (1) LEAD standards, architecturally sustainability, (2) affordable housing is needed, and (3) the form is great, but it lacks Gail Patrice Lockert Anthony, 104 N. Cayuga Street, spoke in favor of Josh Lower’s Collegetown project which includes the Green Star Market. Green Star will educate those who shop there. The money stays here in Ithaca. The transition will allow Lower’s project to move forward. Seph Murtagh, read three (3) letters into the record that are attached to these minutes from Alphonse Pieper, Mary Tomlan, and John Novarr. Alderperson McCollister moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Alderperson Brock. The public hearing was closed. 3. Public Comment. John Schroeder, spoke in favor of RU rezoning in the Cornell Heights Historic District. He urges the committee to do this. 4. Announcements, Updates, and Reports Transition Regulations and Extension of Waterfront Zoning will return next month. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting 5. Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council a) Collegetown Area Form Districts An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” to Establish the Collegetown Area Form Districts and Rezone Portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, B-2b, and U-1 Districts to Collegetown Residential (CR) and Mixed Use (MU) – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review Moved by Alderperson McCollister; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed Unanimously. WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local 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 amendment is a “Type I” Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance to amend the Municipal Zoning Code to establish the Collegetown Area Form Districts and to rezone portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, B-2b, and U-1 districts to Collegetown Residential (CR) and Mixed Use (MU). An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” to Establish the Collegetown Area Form Districts and Rezone Portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, B-2b, and U-1 Districts to Collegetown Residential (CR) and Mixed Use (MU) – Determination of Environmental Significance WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code in order to (1) establish the Collegetown Area Form Districts and (2) rezone portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, B-2b, and U-1 districts to Collegetown Residential (CR) and Mixed Use (MU), and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated January 8, 2014, and Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting WHEREAS, these zoning amendments have been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and have also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “Type I” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF 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 Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated January 8, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Establish the Collegetown Area Form Districts and Rezone Portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, B-2b, and U-1 Districts to Collegetown Residential (CR) and Mixed Use (MU) Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson McCollister. Passed Unanimously. WHEREAS, the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” was endorsed by the Common Council on August 5, 2009, and the adoption of a form-based code has been considered to be a critical implementation measure, and WHEREAS, based on the advice of a consultant, the City has decided to pursue a hybrid code rather than a true form-based code because (1) the hybrid code includes regulations of density and use that are not included in true form-based codes and density continues to be a critical issue in the Collegetown area and (2) this type of zoning is new to the City and the hybrid code would ease the transition from traditional zoning, and WHEREAS, a working group consisting of Common Council members, a Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting Planning Board member, and City staff has revised a previous zoning proposal for Collegetown to create a clarified proposal that reflects the goals of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines;” now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: ORDINANCE NO. ____ Section 1. Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” identifies several goals for future development in Collegetown. These goals include: • To encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction; • To regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between districts; • To concentrate development in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character of the established residential neighborhoods; • To preserve and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic component of the urban environment; and • To promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of alternate modes of transportation The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines” recommends the adoption of a form-based code to regulate elements of building form that are not addressed under traditional zoning. The Collegetown Area Form Districts is a hybrid code that combines regulations of physical form with regulations of use and density. The Common Council finds that the establishment of the Collegetown Area Form Districts will advance the City’s goals for future development in Collegetown as specified in the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.” Section 2. Chapter 325, Sections 325-4 and 325-5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca are hereby amended to establish and add the Collegetown Area Form Districts which include the following zoning districts: Collegetown Residential 1 (CR-1), Collegetown Residential 2 (CR-2), Collegetown Residential (CR-3), Collegetown Residential (CR-4), Mixed Use 1 (MU-1), and Mixed Use 2 (MU-2). Section 3. Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a new Article to be inserted as Article IX, entitled “Collegetown Zoning,” and all subsequent articles and sections shall be hereby renumbered accordingly. “§325-45 Collegetown Area Form Districts,” dated January 6, 2014, shall be inserted in its entirety into said Article IX as §325-45. Section 4. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-1b, and R-3a to CR-1 for the following tax parcels: 64.-6-1; 64.-6-2.2; 64.-6-3; 64.-7-1; 64.-7-2; 64.-7-3; 64.-7-4; 64.-7-5; 64.-7-6; 65.-2-1; 65.-2-2; Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting 65.-2-3; 65.-2-4; 65.-2-5; 67.-2-8; 67.-2-9; 67.-2-10; 67.-2-11; 67.-3-18; 67.-3-19; 67.- 3-20; 67.-3-21; 67.-3-22; 83.-6-2; and 84.-1-1. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Collegetown Area Form Districts - January 2014,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 5. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-2a, R-2b, and R-3a to CR-2 for the following tax parcels: 64.-1-1; 64.- 1-2; 64.-1-4; 64.-3-1; 64.-3-2; 64.-3-3; 64.-3-4; 64.-3-5; 64.-3-6; 64.-3-7; 64.-3-8; 64.-4-1; 64.-4-2; 64.-4-3; 64.-4-4; 64.-4-5; 64.-5-1; 64.-5-2; 64.-5-3; 64.-5-4; 64.-8-7; 64.-8-8; 64.-8- 9; 64.-8-10; 65.-1-1; 65.-1-2; 65.-1-3; 65.-1-4; 65.-1-5; 68.-6-12; 68.-6-13; 68.-6-14; 68.-6- 15; 68.-7-2; 68.-7-3; 68.-7-4; 68.-7-5; 68.-7-6; 68.-7-7; 68.-7-8; 68.-8-6; 68.-8-9; 83.-3-2; 83.-3-3; 83.-3-4; 83.-3-5; 83.-3-6.1; 83.-3-6.2; 83.-3-7; 83.-3-8; 83.-3-9; 83.-4-1; 83.-4-3; 83.-4-4; 83.-4-5; 83.-4-6; 83.-6-1; and 83.-6-3. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Collegetown Area Form Districts - January 2014,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 6. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, and R-3b to CR-3 for the following tax parcels: 64.-2-7; 64.-2-8; 64.-2-9; 64.-2-11; 64.-2-13; 64.-8-1; 64.-8-2; 64.-8-3; 64.-8-4; 64.-8-5; 64.-8-6; 64.-8-11; 64.-9-3; 64.-9-4; 64.-9-5; 64.-9-7; 64.-9-8; 64.-9-9; 67.-2-3; 67.-2-4; 67.-2-5; 67.-3-2; 67.-3-3; 67.-3-23; 67.-3-24; 67.-3-25; 67.-3-26; 68.-5-14; 68.-5-15; 68.-5-16; 68.-5-17; 68.-5-18; 68.-5-19; 68.-6-1; 68.-6-16; 68.-6-17; 68.-6-18; and 68.-6- 19. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Collegetown Area Form Districts - January 2014,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 7. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-1b, R-3a, and R-3b to CR-4 for the following tax parcels: 64.-2-2; 64.-2-4; 64.-2-5; 64.-2-6; 64.-2-14; 64.-2-15; 64.-2-17; 64.-2-18; 64.-2-19; 64.-2-20; 64.-2-22; 64.-9-1; 64.-9-2; 64.-9-6; 64.-9-10; 64.-10-7; 64.-10-8; 64.-10-9; 64.-10-10; 64.-10-11; 64.-10-13; 67.-1-4; 67.-1-5; 67.-1-6; 67.-1-7; 67.-1-8; 67.-2-1; 67.-2-2; 67.-2-12; 67.-2-13; 67.-2-14; 67.-2-15; 67.-2-16; 67.-2-17; 67.-2-18; 67.-3-1; 67.-3-29; 67.-3-30; 67.-3-31; 68.-4-3; 68.-4-9; 68.-4-10; 68.-4-11; 68.-4-12; 68.-4-13; 68.-4-14; 68.-4-15; 68.-5-2; 68.-5-3; 68.-5-4; 68.-5-5; 68.-5-6; 68.- 5-7; 68.-5-8; 68.-5-9; 68.-6-2; 68.-6-3; 68.-6-4; 68.-6-5; 68.-6-6; 68.-6-7; 68.-6-8; 68.-6- 9; 68.-6-10; 68.-6-11; 83.-4-2; and portions of 64.-10-15; 67.-1-1; and 67.-1-3. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Collegetown Area Form Districts - January 2014,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting Section 8. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-3b to MU-1 for the following tax parcels: 67.-1-9; 67.-1-10; 67.- 1-11; 67.-1-12; 68.-5-10; 68.-5-11; 68.-5-12; 68.-5-13; and a portion of 67.-1-3. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Collegetown Area Form Districts - January 2014,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 9. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the designation from R-3a, R-3b, U-1 and B-2b to MU-2 for the following tax parcels: 63.-5-2; 63.-5-3; 63.-5-5; 63.-5-7; 63.-5-8; 63.-5-9; 63.-6-1; 63.-6-2; 63.-6-3; 63.-6-4; 63.-6-5; 63.-6-8; 63.-6-14; 63.-6-17; 63.-6-19; 63.-6-20; 63.-6-21; 63.-6-23; 63.-6-24; 63.-6-25; 63.-6-26; 64.-2-1; 64.-2-23; 64.-2-24; 64.-2-26; 64.-2-27; 64.-2-28; 64.-2-29; 64.-2-30; 64.-2-31; 64.-2-32; 64.-10-1; 64.-10-2; 64.-10-3; 64.-10-4; 64.-10-5; 64.-10-6; 64.-10-17.2; 64.-10-18; 64.-10-19; 64.-10-20; 64.-10-21; 68.-4-6; 68.-4-7; 68.-4-8; and portions of 64.-10-15; and 67.-1-1. The boundaries of this amendment are shown on the map entitled “Collegetown Area Form Districts - January 2014,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office. Section 10. All applicable sections within the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca shall be updated in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 11. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 12. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting b) Amendment to Capital Project 724 – Ithaca Commons Repair and Upgrade Project Amendment to Capital Project 724- Ithaca Commons Repair and Upgrade Project - Resolution Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed Unanimously. 1. WHEREAS, in 2007, the Common Council authorized, as a part of the 2008 capital budget, $250,000 to begin preliminary design on repairs and upgrades to the Ithaca Commons, and Capital project 724, Ithaca Commons Design and Construction, was established, and 2. WHEREAS, in June of 2009, the City hired Sasaki Associates, a Boston based planning, design, and architectural firm, to design upgrades and repairs for the Commons, and 3. WHEREAS, after extensive analysis it was determined that due to the necessary repairs to the surfaces and the underground utilities the entire Commons would need to be reconstructed, and 4. WHEREAS, in October of 2010, the Common Council authorized, as part of the 2011 capital budget an amendment to capital project 724, to add an additional $800,000 to complete the full design and preparation of construction drawings for the full redesign of the Commons, and 5. WHEREAS, in March of 2012, the Common Council passed a resolution authorizing staff to apply for a federal grant to fund the reconstruction of the Commons and confirmed its intent to commit the City to matching funds of $3,500,000 towards this project, and 6. WHEREAS, in July of 2012, the City was notified that the US Federal Transit Administration(FTA) was awarding the City a $4,500,000 grant towards the reconstruction of the Ithaca Commons, and 7. WHEREAS, in November of 2012, Common Council authorized, as part of the 2013 capital budget, an amendment to capital project 724 to cover the upfront costs of the reconstruction, including the $3,500,000 that the Common Council had pledged to commit to this project and the $4,500,000 in funds to be reimbursed by the FTA at the completion of the project, and 8. WHEREAS, in July of 2012, the City submitted a Consolidated Funding Application to the New York State Southern Tier Regional Council for additional funding assistance for the reconstruction of the Commons, and in December was notified that the they would be receiving $1,800,000, in reimbursable funds to be used towards the reconstruction of the Commons, and 9. WHEREAS, on February 6, 2013, the City received one bid on the general construction contract for the Commons with a cost that was significantly higher than the budget estimates that were prepared by the City’ s design firm, and Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting 10. WHEREAS, if the City chooses to execute all of the contract deducts, which include, the removal of the fountain, the pavilion, the two gateway structures, a reduction in the amount of structural soil, a substitution of concrete pavers in place of granite pavers, the removal of movable planters, the substitution of the semi-movable chairs with movable chairs, and the removal of the play structure, the cost will still exceed the budget by nearly $2,000,000, and 11. WHEREAS, in order to award the general construction contract, the City must elect to execute all of the bid deducts and must also amend capital project 724, by adding an additional $3,800,000, to include the upfront cost of the CFA funds, and the $2,000,000, in additional expenses, and 12. WHEREAS, once the City awards a contract for the general construction there may be an opportunity to negotiate some additional savings for the project in order to recoup the additional expenses or to reincorporate some of the removed elements, and 13. WHEREAS, in order to complete construction in 2013, the contractor must be given notice to proceed by March 7, 2013, and therefore now be it 14. RESOLVED, that the Common Council approves an addition to Capital Project 724 in an amount not to exceed $3,800,000, for a total authorization of $13,850,000. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting 6. Action Items – Approval to Circulate a) Planned Development Zones Legislation Moved By Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed Unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING” IN ORDER TO CREATE A FLOATING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended in as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Article IV is hereby amended to change the title from “Cluster Subdivision Development” to “Cluster Sub-division, Floating Zones and Planned Development Zones” and to be re-numbered to read as follows: Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting Article IV. Cluster Subdivision Development, Floating Zones and Planned Development Zones § 325-11. Cluster Subdivisions A. Purpose and intent. This article authorizes the Planning and Development Board, during the process of subdivision plat approval pursuant to Chapter 290, Subdivision of Land, of the Code, to make reasonable changes in the existing zoning regulations for the property affected so as to enable the development of a cluster subdivision. This authorization permits deviations in the district regulations applicable to the affected property, subject to the limitations contained in this section. Cluster subdivisions may be approved in order to promote the following purposes: (1.) The preservation and enhancement of open spaces, watercourses, wetlands and areas designated as critical environmental areas. (2.) The development of active and passive recreation areas. (3.) The development of residential dwelling units in forms which are consistent with the public welfare and which provide reasonable safeguards to the appropriate use of adjoining land. (4.) Efficient and cost-effective development of roads, sidewalks, utilities, water-and sewer lines and other forms of public and private infrastructure. (5.) The development of housing that is more affordable than that normally developed under conventional zoning regulations. B. Authorization and Minimum Requirements. The Planning and Development Board is authorized, upon petition by an applicant for subdivision approval, to approve a cluster subdivision that includes reasonable deviations from the existing regulations of that zoning district in which the subdivision is located in accordance with the following limitations: (1.) Cluster subdivisions may only be permitted in the R-1a, R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a and R-3b Zoning Districts. (2.) Cluster subdivisions shall contain only those primary uses and accessory uses which are permitted in the zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is proposed, except as permitted by Subsection 325-11B.(3). (3.) The following types of deviations from the zoning regulations of the district in which the cluster subdivision is proposed are permitted: Building type for residential uses, provided that, in the R-1a and R-1b Districts, only one-family detached dwellings are permitted as primary uses, and in the R-2a and R- 2b Districts, no more than two dwelling units may be attached to form a single building, provided that each dwelling unit shall have a separate ground-level entrance. Lot area. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting Lot width at street line. Maximum percentage of land coverage by buildings on any individual lot within the cluster subdivision, provided that the total percentage of land coverage by all buildings in the cluster subdivision shall not exceed the following percentages for the zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is located: Maximum Land Coverage District (percent) R-1a 20 R-1b 25 R-2a 30 R-2b 35 R-3a 35 R-3b 40 e. Front, side and rear yard dimensions, provided that all buildings in a cluster subdivision shall have a front yard of at least 25 feet in the R-1a, R-1b, and R-2a Zones and 10 feet in the R-2b, R-3a and R-3b Zones, and further provided that all buildings in a cluster subdivision shall be at least the following number of feet from the boundary of a cluster subdivision where it abuts land, other than a public right-of- way, that is not part of the cluster subdivision: [1] In the R-1 Districts: 40 feet. [2] In the R-2 and R-3 Districts: 20 feet. (4.) The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster subdivision shall not exceed the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the site in a conventional subdivision under the conventional zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is proposed, subject to all applicable development regulations applying to the property in question plus any other restriction which the Planning and Development Board has the authority to impose pursuant to Chapter 290, Subdivision of Land, of the Code. (5.) Any reduction in the lot area for buildings in a cluster subdivision beyond the minimum allowed in the zoning district in which the subdivision is located shall require the reservation of an equivalent amount of land as open space, passive recreation area or active recreation area. Wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes or Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting other areas not normally appropriate for building construction shall not account for more than 50% of the land area reserved. (6.) All open space or recreation areas reserved in accordance with Subsection 32511B. (5) shall be dedicated as common land for the benefit of the members of the subdivision. The development, operation and maintenance of this property shall be in accordance with the approved site development plan and in a manner that is consistent with the public welfare C. Approval; information to be submitted. (1.) The Planning and Development Board may consider a developer's request for approval of a cluster subdivision or may require that a developer prepare and submit plans for a cluster subdivision that contain no greater number of dwelling units than that proposed by the developer. The Board shall adopt rules and regulations setting forth the criteria pursuant to which such an application may be required. The approval of a cluster subdivision shall follow the rules and procedures contained in Chapter 290, Subdivision of Land, of the City of Ithaca Code. (2.) Developers submitting a cluster subdivision plan shall submit two subdivision plans, one showing the land developed under the conventional zoning regulations and the other showing development under the cluster option. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 290, Subdivision of Land, of the Code, the developer shall submit the following information on or with the cluster subdivision plan: An area plan showing the proposed cluster subdivision and all existing land use and major natural features of the land within 500 feet of the project site. A site development plan showing the location, size, use and physical features of all proposed buildings and accessory uses, the location and design of vehicular and pedestrian access and the location of proposed parking areas. A landscaping plan showing the type and location of all existing trees, vegetation and natural features on the site; the identification of all existing vegetation to be preserved; the identification of all new vegetation to be added; and the location and type of fences, berms or buffer areas. A plan showing the boundaries of common areas to be reserved and the proposed use, development and maintenance of those spaces. Elevations of typical dwelling units to be constructed in the cluster subdivision. Environmental review of the project at a level deemed appropriate by the Planning and Development Board. Any other information that the Planning and Development Board may reasonably require. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting (3.) The approval of a cluster subdivision shall constitute the approval of a site development plan for the affected area. No development shall occur on the site that is not in strict conformance with the elements of the approved site development plan, nor shall the plan be modified without the approval of the Planning and Development Board. (4.) A cluster subdivision shall not be approved unless the Planning and Development Board makes the following affirmative findings and states, in writing, the facts that support those findings: That the development is found to be compatible in terms of appearance, character and overall density with both the existing and potential development in the surrounding area. That the development will not place an unreasonable burden on the public roads or utilities that will service the project. That the development will promote the preservation of open space and natural resources within the neighborhood to a greater degree than would conventional development That the development is consistent with the public welfare and that the appropriate use of adjoining land is reasonably safeguarded. That the development will not have an undue adverse impact on the critical area listed in § 176-5(B)(1)(a) of the Code. That the development complies with the approved Street Plan and Master Plan, if any, for the area. Section 2 Chapter 325.(“Zoning”), Section § 325-12, is hereby amended to replace all existing text with the following new language regarding Planned Development Zones: Section § 325-12 Planned Development Zones (PDZ) A. Declaration of Legislative Authority. This Planned Development Zone (PDZ) being established pursuant to the authority established in the New York State general City Law § 81-f. B. Purpose and Intent. A PDZ is a floating overlay zone, which may be placed within the City boundaries, anywhere deemed appropriate by the Common Council. The PDZ is a tool intended to be used to encourage mixed-use or unique single use projects that require more creative and imaginative design of land development than is possible Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting under standard zoning district regulations. A PDZ allows for flexibility in planning and design, while through the process of review and discussion, insures efficient investment in public improvements, a more suitable environment, and protection of community interest. A PDZ should be used only when long-term community benefits will be achieved through high quality development, including, but not limited to, reduced traffic demands, greater quality and quantity of public and/or private open space, community recreational amenities, needed housing types and/or mix, innovative designs; and for the protection and/or preservation of natural resources. This article is intended to relate to both residential and nonresidential development, as well as mixed forms of development. There may be uses, now or in the future, which are not expressly permitted by the other terms of this chapter but which uses would not contravene the long range Comprehensive Plan objectives if they adhere to certain predetermined performance and design conditions. The PDZ is intended to be used to enable these developments to occur even though they may not be specifically authorized by the City Zoning District Regulations. Areas may be zoned as a PDZ by the Common Council, all in accordance with the normal rezoning procedures. The enactment and establishment of such a zone shall be a legislative act. No owner of land or other person having an interest in land shall be entitled as a matter of right to the enactment or establishment of any such zone. C. Establishment and location. Because the intention is to create self-contained, architecturally consistent and compatible buildings, many times with diverse but related uses, and because the creation of a PDZ will entail sufficient review to assure the uses within the zone will have negligible or no adverse effects upon properties surrounding the zone, a PDZ may be created in any zone within the City. In reaching its decision on whether to rezone to a PDZ, the Common Council shall consider the general criteria set forth in this chapter, the most current Comprehensive Plan for the City, and this statement of purpose D. Permitted principal and accessory uses. In a PDZ buildings and land may be used for any lawful purpose permitted in the zone where it is located, plus any other uses which the Common Council may authorize. All development restrictions, including, but not limited to, yard size, height restriction, building coverage, and lot size, shall be as set forth in the legislation rezoning the area to a PDZ established by the Common Council. In addition, the Common Council may impose any conditions or limitations that are determined to be necessary or desirable to insure that the development conforms with the City Comprehensive Plan, including limiting the permitted uses, location and size of buildings and structures, providing for open space and recreational areas, requiring acoustical or visual screening, construction sequencing, and requiring bonds or other assurances of completion of any infrastructure to be built as part of the development. E. Site Plan Approval. No structure shall be erected or placed within a PDZ, no building permit shall be issued for a building or structure within a PDZ, and no existing building, structure or use in a PDZ be changed, unless the proposed building and/or use Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting is in accordance with a site plan approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 276 of the City of Ithaca Code. F. Criteria. Common Council will consider an application for PDZ on the following criteria: • Is the project accord ce with the City in an Compreh ensive Plan Does the project term communi ty benefit [1] Staff/Developer Pre-Application Meeting. A developer seeking alternate zoning for their property must first contact the City Planning Division for a pre-application meeting. Staff will explain the requirements, the application process, the timeline, and the fees associated with a PDZ request. create at least one long G. Application Process. An applicant proposing a development that does not conform with the existing zoning requirements may apply for a PDZ to be placed on their property. The application process is as follows: [2] Application Submission. Developer must submit a completed PDZ Application along with the required fee. The Application must include a conceptual development plan and an explanation of the request for alternate zoning. [3] Public Information Session. Within 30 days of receiving a completed application the City will schedule a public information session, at which the developer will be responsible for presenting information about the project and answering questions from the public. The City will advertise the public information session with a press release to the local media. The developer is responsible for posting the property at least 5 days prior to the public information session, with the date, time, and location of the meeting. [4] Planning Committee. The Planning Committee of the Common Council will consider the application for a planned development zone, will schedule a legal public hearing and authorize circulation of the proposal for review and comment from City Boards/Committees, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and any neighboring property owners located within 200 feet of the property requesting the PDZ. [5] Circulation. City staff will circulate the proposed PDZ materials for review and comment and will forward comments and concerns to the developer and to the Common Council. [6] Committee Recommendation. Once the comments have been received the Planning Committee will consider the proposal along with the comments and will make a recommendation to the Common Council. The recommendation may include additional requirements or limitations to either mitigate undesirable impacts or to ensure that the development conforms with the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting [7] Conditional Approval. The Common Council will consider the request and may grant a conditional approval subject to further site plan review approval. Unless otherwise stated in the resolution, the developer will not be required to return to the Common Council for further approval, if they meet all of the requirements of the Planning Board during the site plan review process. [8] Final Approval. Upon receiving final site plan approval, the Planning Board will also grant the project a final PDZ designation. The Planning Board will notify the Planning Division to update the Official City Zoning Map, by designating the proposed area as “Planned Development Zone District Number___” and the zoning requirements will stand as established by the Common Council ordinance, unless the PDZ designation is revoked for failure to comply with the requirements also established by the Common Council ordinance. H. Additional Requirements. In any rezoning to a PDZ the Common Council may impose such conditions or limitations that the Council, in its legislative discretion, may determine to be necessary or desirable to insure the development conforms with the City Comprehensive Plan, including limiting the permitted uses, location and size of buildings and structures, providing for open space and recreational areas, and requiring bonds or other assurances of completion of any infrastructure to be built as part of the development. I. Expiration. A developer who receives PDZ approval will have 18 months from the time that they receive final site plan approval to begin construction of their project. If construction on the property has not begun in accordance with the approved plan after 18 months, the Common Council may revoke the PDZ status and the property will return to the previously approved zoning restrictions. In the case of extenuating circumstances the developer may apply to the Common Council for an extension of PDZ approval. If the site plan changes significantly, as determined by the Director of Planning and Development, it may require re-consideration by the Common Council. The Director of Planning and Development may determine that the changes are minor and do not require re- approval. Section 3. Chapter 325.(“Zoning”), Section § 325-13, is hereby amended to delete all existing text, which has been relocated to § 325-11 C. Approval; Information to be submitted. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) December 2013 - Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Minutes were approved. 8) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson McCollister. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting 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. Minutes Approved at May 14, 2014 P&EDC Meeting Recommended Guidelines for Consideration of a PDZ Application 1. In considering an application for a Planned Unit Development district, particularly as regards the intensity of land use, Common Council shall consider the following questions: a) What are the proposed land uses in the proposed location? b) Is the PUD a desirable way to regulate the development of the proposed site? c) What are the heights of buildings? How do building masses and locations compare to each other and to other structures in the vicinity? d) Are there available and adequate transportation systems within the PUD for pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles, including transit? What is the impact on the external transportation network? e) What is the character of the neighborhood in which the PUD is being proposed? Are there safeguards provided to minimize possible detrimental effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general? f) How do the proposed open space and recreational systems function within the PUD and in relation to the City’s overall open space and recreational systems? g) What is the general ability of the land to support the development, including such factors as slope, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and soil type? h) What potential impacts are there on environmental, historical, and architectural resources? Does the proposed PUD serve to protect these resources? i) What potential impacts are there on local government services? j) Is there available and adequate water service? k) Is there available and adequate sewer service? l) Other questions as may be deemed appropriate by the Common Council.