Loading...
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.