HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PLED-2014-06-11Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, June 11, 2014 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham
Kerslick, Cynthia Brock, and Josephine Martell
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson McGonigal
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior
Economic Planner; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency (IURA); and Debbie
Grunder, Executive Assistant, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development
Others Attending:
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:05p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
There were no minutes to approve. They will be reviewed and voted on at the
July 2014 meeting.
2) Special Order of Business
There was no special order of business to report.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, President of the South Hill Civic Association,
spoke in favor of creating Planned Unit Development at the former Emerson site
on South Hill. The city and town must speak with one planning voice, he said.
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
Ken Deschere, 202 South Hill Terrace, spoke in favor of creating PUD zone for
Emerson site. For many years he has been involved with cleanup efforts at
Emerson, he said. The city should use its power to help turn this 94 acre site into
something more useful.
Tessa Rudan, 226 Bryant Avenue, said she wished to respond to comments that
had been made at an earlier meeting, where city residents had expressed
support for the kind of flexibility in zoning that comes with a PUD. She explained
that while some flexibility is good, people look to zoning for predictable
outcomes. Furthermore, when you talk about a PUD, you really need to refer to a
solid comprehensive plan. Work on the City’s comprehensive plan is still in
progress, so we should be wary of passing a PUD.
Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, was not present but asked Chair Murtagh read
her comments into the record. Those comments are included with these
minutes. “Development in the City of Ithaca is and will continue to take place,”
she stated in her comments. “We need deft tools to guide the process – not the
potentially destructive jackhammer a PUD could well morph into.”
Comments from the Committee:
Alderperson McCollister stated that the letter just read from Ann Sullivan included
comments that had been formed in response to an earlier version of the PUD. At
first, it was a citywide proposal but it has now been restricted to industrial areas
only.
Planning Director JoAnn Cornish responded to the statement made about
working with the Town of Ithaca. She explained that the City and the Town have
already been working together for several months in regards to the Emerson
Site.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
Chair Murtagh reported that a number of Council members, staff, and other
residents recently toured the Cornell Heights, and they found the tour to be very
useful.
Alderperson McCollister reported about an issue that had come up on her
neighborhood list-serve concerning a rooster in the City. We don’t have a City
ordinance that permits chickens, let alone roosters, she said. She further
commented that she has heard that there are a fair amount of rats in the City,
and she feels that we should look into this before it gets out of hand.
5) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) Disposition of 707 East Seneca Street – Reconsideration of
Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson McCollister.
Passed unanimously.
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
Chair Murtagh explained that we are revisiting the environmental review for
this property, which was passed unanimously at last month’s meeting.
However, per a request from Alderperson Brock, new information had come
to light that should be documented in the environmental review. Nels Bohn
informed the group about the intention of the minutes of the July 1982
Common Council and the BPW of June 1982, in which the desire was
expressed to set aside this property for recreational use. Unfortunately, there
was no follow through with this intent.
Attorney Lavine commented that although the intent of the use of this property
may have been to turn it into a park, it is not a park. We would be having a
much different conversation if it were a park.
Alderperson Kerslick explained that the property is in his ward, and he does
know the parcel in question very well. He believes it’s very appropriate to
move forward with this action.
Disposition of City‐Owned Property at 707 E. Seneca Street – Revised
Environmental Determination
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick moved; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering sale of vacant property located at 707 E.
Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY (tax parcel #68.‐2‐9.2) for the highest marketable price, and
WHEREAS, as proposed, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency will act as agent for the City of Ithaca to
market the property for sale through a real estate broker for the highest marketable price, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council declared itself Lead Agency for the environmental
review of this proposed action, and
WHEREAS, such proposed action for the transfer or sale of less than 2.5 contiguous acres of
land is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQR”)
and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQR”), both of which
require environmental review, and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2014, the Planning & Economic Development Committee (“PEDC”) reviewed a
Short Environmental Assessment Form (“SEAF”) for the proposed action and determined that the
project will result in no significant impact on the environmental, and approved disposition of City‐
owned property at 707 E. Seneca St., and
WHEREAS, after the May PEDC meeting, new information became available resulting in preparation
of a revised SEAF, and
WHEREAS, minutes of the Common Council and Board of Public Works from 1982 suggest that the
City intended to use the newly acquired 707 E. Seneca Street property for public open space,
therefore the revised SEAF identifies the proposed action as having an “effect on existing or future
recreational opportunities”, which triggers the requirement for a Full Environmental Assessment
Form (“FEAF”), and
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
WHEREAS, a FEAF and supporting information has been provided to the City of Ithaca Conservation
Advisory Council for review of the proposed action and no comments have been received to date,
and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 and
Part 2, and the Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 and Part 2, prepared by Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby determines that the proposed sale of
vacant City‐owned property located at 707 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY (tax parcel #68.‐2‐9.2) for the
highest marketable price will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance
with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning & Economic Development Committee reaffirms its May 14, 2014 action
to authorize disposition of property located at 707 E. Seneca Street (tax map # 68.‐2‐9.2).
b) Collegetown Area Forms Districts – Non-Substantive Revisions
The memo written by planner Megan Wilson was very thorough and detailed.
Planning Director JoAnn Cornish explained that these are small changes to
the Collegetown Area Form Districts, and they are non-substantive, which
means they can go straight to Council.
Alderperson McCollister briefly scanned the memo and reported that the goal
of these changes is to make the Collegetown Area Form Districts consistent
with our other City ordinances.
Moved by Alderperson McCollister; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick.
Passed unanimously.
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Make Non-Substantive Revisions to
§325-45, Collegetown Area Form Districts
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the Collegetown Area Form Districts
in March 2014, staff identified several non-substantive revisions that
should be made to the adopted zoning, and
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions would correct small inconsistencies
and clarify the intent of various regulations; now, therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be
amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2D(1) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
(1) Building heights in the CR and MU districts are regulated
using feet and stories. A table illustrating the range of
height appears below:
MAX. & MIN. HEIGHT IN STORIES & FEET
District
Max.
Stories
Min.
Stories
Max.
Feet
Min.
Feet
CR‐1 3* 2 35' 19' 20'
CR‐2 3* 2 35' 19' 20'
CR‐3 3* 2 35' 19' 20'
CR‐4 4 2 45' 19' 20'
MU‐1 5 3 70' 30'
MU‐2 6 4 80' 45'
*Top Story Limitation – A habitable 3rd story in CR-1,
CR-2, and CR-3 districts must be fully contained within a
pitched roof.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2E(1), Section 325-45.2E(2),
and Section 325-45.2E(3) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca
is hereby amended to read as follows:
MIN OFF‐STREET PARKING
1. Residence
a. Up to 3 bed or sleeping rooms per dwlg. unit 1 space
b. 4 and 5 bed or sleeping rooms per dwlg. unit 2 spaces
c. Each add'l bed or sleeping room per dwlg. unit 1 space
2. Home occupation 1 space
3. Other uses
See §325‐
20D(3)(b)
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2F(1) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
MIN OFF‐STREET PARKING
Buildings that fully comply with the New York State Building Code or
Residential Code for new construction:
None ‐ provided that a transportation demand management plan is
accepted by the Planning and Development Board during site plan
review.
All other structures:
1. Residence
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
a. Up to 3 bed or sleeping rooms per dwlg. unit 1 space
b. 4 and 5 bed or sleeping rooms per dwlg. unit 2 spaces
c. Each add'l bed or sleeping room per dwlg. unit 1 space
2. Home occupation 1 space
3. Other uses
See §325‐
20D(3)(b)
Section 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.3A of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
District Permitted Primary Use
CR‐3
By Special Permit of Board of Zoning
Appeals:
11. Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns
12. Cemetery and related buildings
13. Hospital or sanatorium
14. Inn
14. 15. Neighborhood Commercial
Facility (see §325‐3)
15. 16. Public utility structure except
office
16. 17. Schools (all) and related buildings
CR‐4
By Special Permit of Board of Zoning
Appeals:
11. Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns
12. Cemetery and related buildings
13. Hospital or sanatorium
14. Inn
14. 15. Neighborhood Commercial
Facility (see §325‐3)
15. 16. Public utility structure except
office
16. 17. Schools (all) and related buildings
Section 5. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.3B(1) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
(1) Within the MU-2 district, active uses are required on the
entire street-level of all buildings fronting on those
portions of College Avenue, Dryden Road, and Eddy Street
designated on the map below.
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
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.
c) Planned Unit Development Zoning District – Industrial Zones Only
Chair Murtagh stated that after last month’s committee meeting, this proposal was
reviewed again and then has been changed to industrial zones only which there are four
of these sites—Emerson, Gun Hill, Carpenter Business Park and Cherry Street.
Alderperson McCollister thanked all who worked on these changes since last month’s
meeting.
Alderperson Kerslick stated that we do have some challenges in the City with our
industrial zones and the use of a PUD will work in these areas and does not cancel out
our current zoning.
Alderperson Brock stated that she and Chair Murtagh have had several conversations
regarding the use of these industrial zones. The current industrial sites really are not
usable for any other than an industrial use. The way we currently change zoning does
not have the overall inclusion of the public from the very beginning like a PUD would.
There will be more transparency. She does have some suggested changes to what is
on the table, but will support it in principal.
Alderperson McCollister asked what happens if an area zoned PUD and the current
owner uses it according to the PUD regulations, but a new owner down the road years
from now, what is this new owner supposed to do? Can they change the use?
Attorney Lavine stated that if the new use complies with all the PUD regulations, nothing
would have to be done.
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning,” in order to establish the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
District– Declaration of Lead Agency
Moved by Alderperson McCollister; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passes
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 an “Unlisted” Action pursuant to
the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires
environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare
itself lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed amendments to
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” in order to create a floating Planned Unit
Development overlay district that may be established by the Common Council in
any industrially zoned parcel located within the City.
Draft Resolution
6/5/14
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning,” in order to establish the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
District – Declaration of Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passes
unanimously.
1. WHEREAS, The Common Council is considering a proposal to create a
floating Planned Unit Development overlay district that may be
established by the Common Council in any industrially zoned parcel
located within the City, and
2. WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been conducted,
including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form
(FEAF), dated June 3, 2014
3. WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “unlisted” Action under the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
4. 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
1. RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter,
hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set
forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated May 6, 2014, and
be it further
2. 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
3. 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.
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” to Establish the Planned Unit
Development Zoning District (PUD)
Moved by Alderperson Brock as amended; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passes
unanimously.
Kerslick requested when this ordinance goes to council that an
additional memo or statement be included reflecting all the
amendments.
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 UNIT 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 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 Unit
Development Zones” and to be re-numbered to read as follows:
Article IV. Cluster Subdivision Development, Floating Zones, and Planned Unit Development
Zones
§325-11. Cluster Subdivisions
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
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:
a. 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.
b. Lot area.
c. Lot width at street line.
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
d. 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:
District
Maximum Land Coverage
(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
August 13, 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 325-
11B. (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:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. A plan showing the boundaries of common areas to be reserved and the
proposed use, development and maintenance of those spaces.
e. Elevations of typical dwelling units to be constructed in the cluster
subdivision.
f. Environmental review of the project at a level deemed appropriate by the
Planning and Development Board.
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
g. Any other information that the Planning and Development Board may
reasonably require.
(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:
a. 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.
b. That the development will not place an unreasonable burden on the public
roads or utilities that will service the project.
c. That the development will promote the preservation of open space and
natural resources within the neighborhood to a greater degree than would
conventional development
d. That the development is consistent with the public welfare and that the
appropriate use of adjoining land is reasonably safeguarded.
e. That the development will not have an undue adverse impact on the critical
area listed in § 176-5(B)(1)(a) of the Code.
f. 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 Unit Developments:
Section §325-12 Planned Unit Developments (PUD)
A. Declaration of Legislative Authority. This Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Ordinance is being enacted pursuant to the authority established in the New York State
General City Law § 81-f.
B. Purpose and Intent. This legislation is intended to establish procedures and
requirements for the establishment and mapping of PUDs, as floating overlay zones,
which may be placed in any industrially zoned area within the City boundaries, wherever
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
authorized by the Common Council. The PUD 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 under standard zoning district regulations. A PUD
allows for flexibility in planning and design, while through the process of review and
discussion, ensures efficient investment in public improvements, a more suitable
environment, and protection of community interest. A PUD 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.
Sub-section 325-12 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 PUD 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.
The PUD is intended to be used in the areas within the City that are zoned industrial.
Residential uses are not permitted by existing zoning in industrial zones. However, these
areas are large tracts of land that have the potential for large scale redevelopment and
should a proposed project offer community wide benefits, the Common Council may
establish a PUD in order to permit uses not explicitly allowed by the underlying zoning.
Areas may be zoned as a PUD by the Common Council. 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. The intent of a PUD is to create self-contained,
architecturally consistent, and compatible buildings, many times with diverse but
related uses. The creation of a PUD must entail sufficient review to assure the uses
within the zone will have negligible or no adverse effects upon properties surrounding
the zone. This tool is expressly intended for use in industrial zones, where residential
uses are not permitted. In reaching its decision on whether to rezone to a PUD, 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.
No PUD shall be finally established pursuant to subparagraph G(13) of this section
unless, prior to such legislative enactment, all land within the proposed PUD is zoned
Industrial.
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
D. Permitted principal and accessory uses. In a PUD, 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 PUD 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
ensure 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 PUD, no building
permit shall be issued for a building or structure within a PUD, and no existing
building, structure, or use in a PUD shall be changed, unless the proposed building
and/or use 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 any PUD on the following
criteria, among others:
• Does the project further the health and welfare of the community; and
• Is the project in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan
• Does the project create at least one long term community benefit
G. Application Process. An applicant proposing a development that does not conform
with the existing zoning requirements may apply for a PUD to be placed on their
property, or on such other property as designated by the applicant and for which the
applicant has submitted sufficient authorization executed by the owner(s) of said
property in support of the application. The application process is as follows:
[1.] Staff/Applicant Pre-Application Meeting. An applicant seeking
alternate zoning for their property must first contact the Department
of Planning, Building, and Development for a pre-application
meeting. Staff will explain the requirements, the application
process, the timeline, and the fees associated with a PUD request.
[2.] Application Submission. Applicant must submit a completed PUD
application along with the required fee. The Application must
include a conceptual development plan, and an explanation of the
request for alternate zoning.
[3.] Planning Committee. The Planning Committee of the Common
Council will consider the application for completion and review
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
comments received at the public information session. The applicant
will be expected to be present at this meeting. The Planning
Committee may also request additional information from the
applicant at this time. The Planning Committee 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.
[4.] Circulation. City staff will circulate the proposed PUD materials
for review and comment and will forward comments and concerns to
the applicant and to the Common Council.
[5.] Public Information Session. Within 30 days of receiving a
completed application the City will hold a Public Information
Session, at which the applicant 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 applicant 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.
[6.] Committee Recommendation. Once the comments have been
received the Planning Committee will consider the proposal along
with the comments and will by resolution 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.
[7.] Approval in Concept. The Common Council will consider the
application and may pass a resolution granting approval in concept,
subject to further site plan review approval and final Council
approval via ordinance and instructing staff to take the project
through the environmental review process.
[8.] Notwithstanding any conflicting provisions of the City Code, an
applicant whose application has received from the Common Council
Approval in Concept shall be permitted, for the purpose of
commencing site plan review, to proceed with a building permit
application despite any zoning-based deficiencies in the application
so long as all such deficiencies may be cured by final Council
approval of the PUD.
[9.] Site Plan Review Application—Applicant submits a site plan
review application and begins the environmental review process
[10.] Declaration of Intent to Act as Lead Agency—Planning Board
declares its intent to be the lead agency for the environmental review
of the project and the PUD and notifies all other involved agencies,
including the Common Council.
Minutes Approved at
August 13, 2014 P&EDC Meeting
[11.] Common Council Involvement—As a part of the environmental
review process for the project and the PUD, the Planning Board will
update the Common Council after each Planning Board meeting
where the project is considered and will request ongoing written
comments from the Common Council.
[12.] Environmental Review/Site Plan Review—The Planning Board
will be the lead agency for the environmental review and site plan
review of the project. The project will undergo the normal site plan
review process
[13.] Common Council Consideration of the PUD—When and if the
project has received a negative declaration of environmental
significance and site plan approval, it will return to the Common
Council for final consideration of the adoption of the PUD. Final
Council approval, if any, shall be granted via ordinance.
H. Additional Requirements. In any rezoning to a PUD the Common Council may
impose such conditions or limitations that the Council, in its legislative discretion, may
determine to be necessary or desirable to ensure 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, 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 PUD approval will have 24 months to begin
construction of their project. If construction on the property has not been developed in
accordance with the approved plan after 24 months, the PUD will automatically be
revoked, unless otherwise stated by the Common Council, 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
PUD approval. If the site plan changes significantly, said significance 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
August 13, 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.
6) Discussion Items
a) Noise Ordinance Reform
Chair Murtagh gave an update about the noise ordinance. The consultant that
the city hired last year has prepared a first draft of the noise ordinance, but
there are suggested revisions by the City Attorney’s office. Chair Murtagh will
work with the noise consultant and the City Attorney’s office and bring a draft
of the ordinance back to the committee.
b) Burying Utility Lines in Collegetown
Alderperson Kerslick brought up some concerns about buried utility lines in
Collegetown, expressing his opinion that buried utility lines are a lot more
attractive and safer. The hope is that new developers that are planning
projects as a result of the city passing the Collegetown plan will be required to
bury their utility lines.
Alderperson McCollister further explained that this was stated in the
Collegetown Plan. The Fire chief has been asked if he had the authority to
implement this, and he does not. JoAnn Cornish has had conversations with
Tom West and NYSEG reps to see how the City could partner with NYSEG to
implement this, and she will continue to discuss ideas and bring them back to
the committee.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
No minutes ready for approval
8) Adjournment
Everyone motioned to adjourned. Passed unanimously. The meeting was
adjourned at 7:50 p.m.