HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1987-11-04387
Regular Meeting
PRESENT:
Mayor Gutenberger
Alderpersons (10)
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
7:30 P.M.
November 4, 1987
- Booth, Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman,
Killeen, Lytel, Peterson, Romanowski,
Schlather
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Nash
City Controller - Spano
Deputy City Controller - Cafferillo
City Clerk - Paolangeli
Planning & Development Director - Van Cort
Youth Bureau Acting Director - Wilson
Personnel Administrator - Baker
Building Commissioner - Hoard
Purchasing Agent - Clynes
Planning & Development Deputy Director - Mazzarella
Superintendent of Public Works - Dougherty
Board of Public Works Commissioner - Nichols
Nq
Lo PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
= Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance
m to the American flag.
Q MINUTES:
Approval of Minutes of October 7, 1987 Meeting
Alderperson Booth requested that the following paragraph
be added to the bottom of page 19:
"Alderperson Booth stated he opposed the resolution because
it would encourage not holding classes oil the Cornell campus
and would therefor be damaging to the fundamental educational
purpose of the University.
Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the October 7, 1987 Common
Council meeting be approved as amended.
Carried Unanimously
Approval of Minutes of October 20, 1987 Special Meeting
Alderperson Killeen requested that at the top of page 3,
the spelling of Mr. Allberg's name be corrected to Ullberg.
Alderperson Booth requested that on page 14, fifth paragraph
from the top, first line should read: "Thirdly, even absent
the gorge question, he would suggest..."
Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the Ocotber 20, 1987 special
Common Council meeting be approved as corrected.
Carried Unanimously
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
Budget and Administratirnz Committee
Alderperson Dennis requested a change in the resolution that
refers the Mayor's budget to the Budget and Administration Committee.
No Council member objected.
Alderperson Dennis requested the addition of a resolution
for an emergency action to purchase police cars.
No Council member objected.
388
-2-
November 4, 1987
New Business
Alderperson Schlather requested the addition of Item 20.1;
Designation of Lead Agency on Ministerial Acts in connection
with the issuance of building permits.
No Council member objected.
Unfinished and Miscellaneous Business
Alderperson Schlather requested a discussion regarding a
memo from Asst. Supt. Fabbroni concerning the recycling
program.
No Council member objected.
Report of Special Committees and Council Liaisons
Alderperson Killeen requested the addition of 18.5; report
on the New Fire Stations Committee.
No Council member objected.
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSO
Bikeway Project
Atty. F.J. Sc warzer, Syracuse,
a petition with 1450 signatures
located on the east side rather
Inlet. He thanked Alderpersons
for their assistance.
NS BEFORE COUNCIL:
New York, presented to Council
supporting the bikeway being
than the west side of the
Hoffman, Schlather and Romanowski
Police Report from Human Services Committee
John Petry, President of the PBA, read the following statement
to Council:
"Although the PBA agrees basically with about 900 of what
is written in the report there are three basic areas where
we have some serious disagreements with the committee and
some of the statements that were made in it.
First, we disagree with any group that would put itself in
the position of examining its own performance as this group
has done. Specifically, the PBA during the public hearing
on these issues, leveled some charges of bias toward some
members of Council and the treatment of the Ithaca Police
Department. In its report, (page 3, item #S) the committee
makes a reference to these charges and states that "the Committee
does not intend that this report attempt to rebut any of
those criticisms ". This is a wise statement since any person
should see the obvious conflict of interest in such self -
critiquing.
However, later in the same report the Committee engages in
just such a self serving exercise. We refer to page 2S,
item #21, in which the report rebuts that very charge, and
further, elaborates on the reasons why it (Council) acted
in the fashion that it did, essentially saying "maybe we
did, but we had a good reason for doing so ". We take a strong
exception to that committee essentially critiquing itself_.
Our second major disagreement concerns a so called "public
statement" blaming the PBA's action in part for the decline
in the morale of the Ithaca Police Department by its negotia-
tions for better wages and conditions of employment. First,
it is extremely doubtful that this was a statement from the
general public. Rather we feel that this was a comment from
a member of Council or City government. Second, it is ludicrous
to believe that a union, by its successful negotiations efforts,
attributed to the decline in the morale of its members. This
statement is so preposterous it does not deserve anyplace
in the report.
J
3819
-3- November 4, 1987
Thirdly, there is an errant reference to compensatory time
by the committee on page 1S, paragraph #S, which states that
some of the inability to put police officers on the street
is attributed to the PBA's negotiation of compensatory time
as a benefit for working a holiday. It further states that
when an officer works a holiday, that officer then "gets
three days off ". This is completely in error, and has never
been true. In addition, the clause has been in the collective
bargaining agreement for at least twenty years and was mutually
agreed to by the PBA and the City of Ithaca. To now throw
this up in the faces of the employees of the department is
(00", what we consider to be a 'cheap shot'. I think it is an
attempt to put some of the blame on the PBA for the City's
inability to put officers on the street where they are needed.
We also believe that this comment has done much to adversely
affect the relationship between Council and the PBA and
its members. I would ask you to take this into consideration
tonight when you are asked to vote and receive this report.
Thank you very much"
Northside Rezoning
Dennis Wille, 201 Third Street, spoke to Council regarding
LD the Northside rezoning issue. He has been impressed by the
= process that Mark Finkelstein has been going through in pursuing
co the possibility of developing the land behind the P&C. He
Q would like to encourage Common Council to support the four
month moratorium that Mr. Finkelstein and the Planning Department
have proposed which would prevent Mr. Finkelstein from applying
for a building permit for four months and prevent Common
Council from pursuing a zoning change on the particular parcel
for two months in order to let this cooperative dialogue
take place between the developer, the city and the neighborhood.
Environmental Review Process
Ashley Miller, 118 Cascadilla Avenue, representing the Conser-
vation Advisory Council of the City of Ithaca, read the following
statement to Council:
"In August of this year Common Council passed an amendment
to the City's Environmental Quality Review Act with the intent
of protecting Ithaca's scenic and environmental treasures
- our gorges. This ordinance declares that the issuance
of "a building permit or any other permit or approval that
allows any land alteration, new construction or significant
expansion of any existing structure or facility for any project
occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous
to any critical area, is not a ministerial act and is therefore
subject to environmental review." All the City's gorges,
including Six Mile Creek are defined as critical areas. Why
no environmental review was called for in the latest Valentine
Place development has been called into question. If there
is a problem of interpretation, the language can and should
be tightened. Ithaca's gorges must be protected. As the
City becomes more crowded they become more precious. Our
gorges are a powerful attraction and valuable legacy to future
generations. Let's not squander them. We call on you to
uphold and strengthen., if need be, this ordinance."
Youth Bureau
Sam Cohen, staff member of the Ithaca Youth Bureau and member
of the Youth Bureau Advisory Board, spoke to Council regarding
the resolution on tonight's agenda concerning services not
being provided for other towns and municipalities in Tompkins
County.
At the Board meeting it was very clear that the entire Board
fully supported the City's position that all the municipalities
should pay a fair share -for Youth Bureau services. They
390
-4-
November 4, 1937
receive a lot of very high quality services and the Board
joins the Council in feeling that they should contribute.
The Board and staff all feel that given some time and effort
on the part of the City, including the Youth Bureau staff,
we can get the towns and villages to see that way of doing
business and to come in with the City. The staff offered
to help in any way possible, either by going out to the towns
and villages to explain what kinds of services the City
provides, and the impact of those services on the young people
and their families, and also to communicate to the families
directly and to urge them to go back to their towns and villages
requesting contracts for services. The County Youth Bureau
has also offered, along with the Intergovernmental
Relations Committee, to help in any way possible to bring
about negotiations and because of these things we feel there
is some optimism even though the city has had some difficulty
in getting at least one or more towns that they have spoken
with to agree up to this point.
Aside from the optimism that people will join with us, we
are also hoping that in the interim the programs the Youth
Bureau has can continue with a minimum of difficulty and
upheaval. He especially wanted to draw attention to the
programs that are not fee programs. Programs run by Youth
Development and Recreational Mainstreaming services are programs
that almost exclusively serve young people and families who
are in grave distress. Whatever the Council decides to do
in order to try to get the towns and villages to buy in,
the Youth Bureau staff and Board hopes that it will not involve
the cutting off of services to those people who need it the
most.
Northside Watts Lot on Hancock Street
Il1ar Finkelstein, 109 College Avenue, stated that he would
like to encourage the Council and the neighborhood to see
if everyone can work together to keep the process going to
develop something positive on the Watt property on Hancock
Street. He introduced Peter Flynn from Buffalo. Mr. Flynn
is the immediate past Chairman of the New York State Council
of the Arts, Architecture Design and Planning Committee avid
he is the current Vice- President of the Niagara Frontier
Landmark Preservation Society.
Peter Flynn, designer from the Cannon firm in Buffalo, New York
spoke to Council about the planning and design process. His
architectural firm has done projects of this nature with
neighborhoods of this type both here in upstate New York
as well as in western Massachusetts. He feels that a flexible
process involving the community as well as the people from
Ithaca and the developer in not only something that is good
for the feeling of everyone in the process but that it will
add to the quality of the project. The process combines
such things as typical planning issues, utilities, zoning,
the existing building quality and design and any historic
buildings that might be in the neighborhood would also be
considered. It really uses this to create a design opportunity.
It is a very open process and they look forward to working
with everyone involved.
Marjorie Olds, President of the Northside /Cascadilla Creek
Association, stated to Council that Northside is an area
where Ithaca Neighborhood Housing and City Hall have attempted
to improve the housing stock and she thinks it has lead to
a rebirth of neighborhood feeling and spirit. However, North-
side has the lowest ratio of open green space to population.
City Planning studies have indicated that Northside needs
more green space, in particular, a buffer is needed to keep
commercial development from the neighborhood.
It
19�
I�R._
Iq
LD
m
a
-5- November 4, 1987
The Northside Association has asked City Hall to please help
them enter into the planning process to see that whatever
use is made of the Watts Lot area, that whatever plans are
made, that those issues raised by the neighborhood be reflected
and be considered.
Almost as an aside, the neighborhood learned there were plans
afoot for development, that cluster housing was being planned
for the Northside area. Again the neighborhood was not brought
into negotiations about how they want to see their neighborhood
land be used. They would like to work with City Hall, with
Planning, with any potential developer to see what mutual
interests there are and they are very gratified by Mr. Finkel -
stein's approach to bring in the neighborhood.
However, they feel that without some density control the
neighborhood has no protection in terms of what does develop
there. She also wished to point out that in terms of afford-
able housing everyone agrees there is a need in the city
for afforadable housing but it is extremely important that
whatever area the city chooses, the neighborhood be in agreement
and welcoming of that development.
If Common Council sees fit to pass this moratorium she would
ask that the neighborhood be formally recognized as a negotiating
party to the process for development, so that if there is
housing, that the density, the location of the project, whether
there be green space, all of that, as much as possible, reflect
the neighborhood's interest also.
391
Ms. Olds wished to point out that after the Farmers' Market
decision was made not to come into the Northside site, the
Northside /Cascadilla Creek Association approached Common
Council with a petition in which approximately 60 people
who live right in the area of the Watts Lot requested that
Common Council consider a park. She thinks that in terms
of planning it is not just housing, it is what will be there
in the future for children in the next generation to have
some green space to play on which is scarce in the North -
side area. The neighborhood really wants to have some park
space, some open green land in the Northside, and asks that it not
all be developed.
James Avery, 318 Lake Avenue, spoke to Council regarding
Northside's Watts Lot on Hancock Street. He is against a
large scale development project in that area. He feels it
will devalue his property.
Kevin Luddy, corner of First and Madison Streets, spoke to
Council regarding Northside's Watt Lot on Hancock Street.
He stated that he is concerned about the i qu antity of occupants
that a development in that area would attract. He is against
iincreasing the population of the neighborhood.
Sarah Adams, 112 West Marshall Street, stated to Council
that she thinks that regardless of the design and other things
that can be accommodated and may be of a more flexible type
of zoning than R -2b, that R -2b zoning in terms of density
is the maximum that should go on that site.
Handicapped Accessibility - Clinton Hall
Barbara Gegg, representing 'Shot in the Dark' spoke to Common
Council regarding handicapped accessibility. She stated
that accessibility to everything and for everybody is a prime
concern of everyone in the disabled community and not being
able to get into buildings or get to places threatens their
very precious independent lifestyle. 'Shot in the Dark'
is asking Common Council to be a mediator between those persons
in the disabled community, the tenants of Clinton Hall, and
Joseph Ciaschi, owner of Clinton Hall.
392 -6- November 4, 1987
Roger G. Keeney, representing Tompkins County Human Rights
Commission, stated to Common Council that the Human Rights
Commission will help in any way they possibly can to mediate
these accessibility problems. Accessibility in our community
is truly a human rights issue. Entering through the back
door or being directed to the back of a bus went out long
ago for most segments of our society. However, individuals
with disabilities, that minority, is the most unrecognized
of any. The Human Rights Commission pledge their help and
support in any way that they can to overcome these problems.
Rezoning of Northside
Vicki Romanoff, 112 West Marshall Street, spoke to Council
regarding the proposed development project in the Northside.
In her opinion, too much density, no matter who builds it,
remains the primary concern. Ideally, the Watts Lot should
be evaluated as part of a total land use package, including
the old sewer site because the parcels combined provide enough
land for some creative concepts, relieving density with open
green space. The Watts Lot zoned as R -2c seems like spot
zoning and could leave the sewer site open to intense commercial
growth in combination with residential. She hopes we are
not galloping into a 'build now, think later' scenario which
has been played in Ithaca too often.
Environmental Ordinance Amendment
Betsy Darlington, Fairmount Avenue, member of the Conservation
Advisory Council, spoke to Council regarding the environmental
ordinance amendment from the August Council meeting which
was to give greater protection to critical areas and in so
doing closed a major loophole in the local Environmental
Quality Review Act. She feels that this ordinance must not
be rescinded or watered down. Some refinement of it may
be called for, however. One problem with it seems to be
the definition of contiguous. The intent of the law is to
protect sensitive areas and this intent must be kept in mind
when interpreting the law. Therefore, she suggests that
contiguous simply be defined as close enough to cause harm
to a critical area and this will vary in distance depending
on the situation.
In 1983 Roger Transik prepared a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and recommended that this particular area that
Mr. Novarr proposes to develop be designated as a 'no build
area'. She feels that the building permit issued to Mr.
Novarr should be revoked pending a thorough environmental
review.
Another problem with interpretation of the law is what exactly
constitutes a project and it seems as though it is a rather
narrow definition to call it simply the buildings. She feels
that it should also include the pavement, the regrading,
and change from the natural state of the site.
Watts Lot - Hancock Street
Chad Hover, 411 Second Street, spoke to Council regarding
the proposed development project on Hancock Street. He favors
a moratorium. It seems to him to be the most constructive
approach for this particular situation. He thinks it is
important to keep in mind that the site as it stands is not
an easy one to develop because it is behind the P&C. He
stated that a residential use in the area is much better
than commercial use. To accommodate a residential area that
close to the P&C with unknown status of the other properties
around it requires something beyond strictly zoning. It
takes a really cooperative effort and that is basically what
he is supporting.
19
J
-7- November 4, 1987
Collegetown Parking Problem
Tom DeVenture, Linden Avenue, spoke to Council regarding
the demolition permit that was issued to Jason Fane for 125 -127
Dryden Road in order to provide parking for his new project.
He is concerned that there will be more houses and green
spaces disappearing to provide parking for new apartment
buildings rather than limiting development as was the
intent .
There is indeed a shortage of night parking in Collegetown.
The parking capacity could be practically doubled by repealing
the alternate side parking rule and not limiting the number
(Wori
of cars that can park in the garage at night.
Zoning
Jane Pederson, 206 Elmwood Avenue, spoke to Council regarding
zoning. She stated that we are hearing very common concerns
from a number of different areas of the city. She spoke
on behalf of the Bryant Park Civic Association in support
of the Northside situation, and also in support of the Valentine
Place residents.
Valentine Place
LO Rishi Raj, 919 East State Street, spoke to Common Council
=regarding the Valentine Place issue. He spoke of Mary Herron
m who has been a resident of Valentine Place for forty years.
He has watched her health deteriorate over the past couple
Q of years since the last Valentine Place issue. It is his
opinion that there is no political body that is protecting
the rights of Mrs. Herron. He is concerned because the residents
seem to have no voice in the planning process for their neigh-
borhood. He stated that he does not think the people are
against development, it is the process by which the development
has been imposed upon them. He stated that it is time and
it is the duty of the city Alderpersons to take hold of this
issue and address it; not just Valentine Place but for the
entire community.
Common Council
Paul Sayvetz, 201 Elm Street, stated to Council that he thinks
there has been a core group of Common Council that hasn't
been listening very much to the citizens who speak to Council.
He urged new Council members and continuing members to look
into matters a little more and to listen more carefully.
REPORT OF CITY BOARDS, COMMIT'T'EES AND COMMISSIONS:
Board of Public Wor
Commissioner Nichols reported on the following items:
393
Conrail - The City Engineer, at the instigation of the Board,
is trying to do something about the speed of the trains through
the city. A resolution will be forthcoming to the Council
from the Board regarding Conrail. It appears that the speed
of the trains through the city could be doubled with no problems.
Parking fines - The Board feels that the resolution that
is on the agenda tonight is precipitous and they see no urgency
for it. It appears to just raise the fines for vehicles
that overstay time limits. There are a lot of other issues
involved in parking enforcement and the Board was hoping
to get an overall view of that situation, plus a mechanism
for enforcement of other violations other than metered parking.
The Board would recommend that Council delay action on that
resolution until the Board can look at the whole parking
fine structure.
394
Farmers' Market - The Board did not understand the action
that was to en on this issue at the last Council meeting.
The statement was first made that no action
would be taken at that meeting since it was not on the
Agenda. Later in the meeting, however, the matter was referred
to committee. He was not under the impression that this
was being taken away from the Board of Public Works, and
that they could take no action. If this was the intention,
it seems like a substantive change rather than just a referring
to committee. Obviously, of course, if this is what the
Council wants the Board will have to live with it but he
does not think it is an appropriate way to do things.
City Land in Farmers' Market Area - The Board is looking
at the whole question of city land in the Farmers' Market
area and who uses it and who pays for it. It is true that
there are other commercial interests there who are using
city land with licenses. In particular, Mr. Ciaschi at the
Station Resturant, is using city land with a permit for
which he is paying nothing. The reason is that legally,
as the Board understands it, he is not required to pay anything
because that land is a park land. The only reason the Farmers'
Market pays anything is because they make a donation in
lieu of that payment.
Woodcock Street - Question of Opening - Alderperson Killeen
asked Commissioner Nichols if the Board has had any discussion
on Valentine Place, specifically the opening up of Woodcock
and the traffic increase impact on State and Mitchell Streets.
Commissioner Nichols stated that there
as to the traffic. The real problem is
Street - Mitchell Street intersection.
of Woodcock Street, the board has asked
to look into this and the board has not
from Mr. Nash.
has been discussion
clearly at the State
As to the opening
the City Attorney
yet received a report
City Land Use by Mr. Ciaschi - Alderperson Dennis asked
about Mr. Ciaschi being on a permit and not paying anything
for the use of the land at the Station Restaurant. He asked
if the Board. is going to change that.
Commissioner Nichols responded that legally the city can
not charge for park land. As he understands it, when Mr.
Ciaschi was given the permit, it was negotiated and he paved
and improved that area and was told he would be able to
use it. When the Board started to adopt the standard procedure
for the cost of the permit fee that is used for all city
property, he was billed as was the Farmers' Market but legally
he is not required to pay and he hasn't.
Recycling Memo of Understanding - Alderperson Schlather
as Ye--& w y t eBard endorsed the mechanism of eliminating
the accumulation of prize money for recycling when Council
clearly indicated that was the way they wanted it to go.
Commissioner Nichols explained that the Department of Public
Works staff had changed the procedure because they felt
there were problems with letting the prize money accumulate.
Discussion will continue on this subject.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR:
Mayor's Proposed 1988 Budget
Mayor Guten erger presente his proposed Executive 1988
budget to Council. He stated that if the city still had Federal
Revenue Sharing there would be no tax increase needed, based
on his recommendations. Because there is no Federal Revenue
Sharing there will be loo increase to make up for the loss.
MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS
Recycling Task Force
Mayor Guten erger requested approval of the appointment
of Catherine McCarthy, 107 N. quarry Street, to the Recycling
Task Force for an indefinite term.
D
,J
395
-9- November 4, 1987
Resolution
By Alderperson Killeen: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
RESOLVED, That this Common Council approves the appointment
of Catherine McCarthy to the Recycling Task Force for an
indefinite term.
Carried Unanimously
Television Cable Commission
Mayor Gutenberger requested approval for the reappointment
of Janice Fornwalt, 600 Warren Road, to the Television Cable
(4 Commission, for a five year term to expire July 30, 1992.
Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That this Common Council approves the reappointment
of Janice Fornwalt, to the Television Cable Commission with
a term to expire July 30, 1992.
Carried Unanimously
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Building Permits
d- Alderperson Dennis asked what the status of the building
LDpermit issue is in reference to other building permits outside
= of Valentine Place; specifically the Hangar Theatre project.
m City Attorney Nash responded that they may have to get a
C[ special development permit under the flood plain ordinance.
Mr. Nash will contact Tom Neiderkorn on Thursday to clarify
the procedure for their project.
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE:
Police Department Report
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the Common Council receives the October 30,
1987 report entitled POLICE DEPARTMENT ISSUES by the Human
Services Committee and incorporates by attachment the statement
of the PBA and that copies be distributed forthwith to the
Mayor, Chief of Police, PBA and the Community Police Board.
Alderperson Peterson stated that the 30 page report is 10 -11
months of work. It outlines the hearings, the public comments
and the comments from the police department that the committee
heard either in public meetings or when individually contacted.
This is a summary of the committee's assessments and their
recommendations.
On page 28, item #S the following needs to be added to the
last sentence of that paragraph: "housing units located
off campus ".
Alderperson Peterson, speaking for the committee, stated
that this is a working document. There are a lot of issues
presented. It is intended that there be discussion continuously
through this year and next with the Police Chief, the Mayor,
the Police Commissioners, and with the police officers themselves
to resolve the issues and support some of the recommendations
in the report.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Homeless People in Ithaca
Alderperson Peterson reported that representatives from agencies
and homeless persons themselves were at the Human Services
Committee meeting. The areas of concern are what to do with
the homeless people in our community, providing shelter perhaps,
396;
-10-
November 4, 1987
and the other is the situation of long range planning. The
committee appointed Alderperson Killeen to be the liaison
to the Homeless Task Force and to immediately start work
with the county because many of their funds through the Depart-
ment of Social Services go for these kinds of issues. They will
also be talking about space, particularly looking at the old jail.
Alderperson Killeen stated there have been two meetings in
the past couple of weeks on this matter. It is a potentially
alarming problem. Specifically, there are two aspects to
this because it is an enormously complicated problem in
terms of just definition and finding, in fact, the kinds
of services and the kinds of people who are in need. The
short term solution is to find some sort of emergency shelter
that will handle perhaps a dozen or fifteen individuals during
the course of this winter. A longer term situation tackles
the problem of a more long term basis for probably the greater
numbers of people needing permanent facilities. The emergency
facilities that the city and county have are anticipating
full capacity.
The old jail site has been looked at with the assistance
of county representatives but it does not look like a
viable solution for this winter.
Discussion followed on the floor and Alderperson Killeen
answered questions from Council members.
Recreational Facilities Study
The committee is looking at the first draft from the Human
Services Coalition on recreational facilities.
Handicapped Accessibility
Alderperson Peterson reported the committee had asked for
a very specific report from the Department of Public Works
as to how much work had been done thus far on the projects
that were to be done in 1987. There is a significant amount
of work that has not been done and the committee sent a letter
to the Mayor and to the Superintendent urging that this should
be a top priority.
On the Clinton Hall issue, the committee met again with the
tenants, Historic Ithaca, and Landmarks Preservation members.
They discussed the issue of accessibility and sent a memo
of support for the opportunity to work with the Landmarks
Preservation Committee, Joseph Ciaschi and the tenants and
perhaps looking for another way of accessing the building.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding Clinton Hall
accessibility for the handicapped. It was suggested that
Vicki Romanoff, who was hired by the city to oversee the
preservation of the building, be a part of this discussion.
Recess
Common Council recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened in Regular
Session at 10:00 p.m.
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
Bikeway Project
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca and the New York State Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation have entered
into an agreement to construct a public bikeway along the
Cayuga Inlet in the City and Town of Ithaca for the benefit
of the general public, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Budget and
Administration Committee of Common Council on August 27,
1987, to inform the public of the proposed bikeway project,
its proposed location and condemnation proceedings incident
thereto, and
397
-11-
November 4, 1987
WHEREAS, an alternative route to the original proposed route
westerly of the Cayuga Inlet was proposed at said Public
Hearing, and this route, lying generally easterly of the
Cayuga Inlet, having been reviewed by staff of the Planning
Department of the City of Ithaca and having been found to
have certain advantages over the originally proposed route
and other possible routes; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca does hereby recommend to
the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation adoption of Alternative C as the route for the
Cayuga Inlet Bikeway, as such Alternative is described in
the attached page 3 of a memo from City Planning Department
staff and map also attached hereto with the further modification
that said route include a spur on the east side of the Inlet
extending from the west end of West Clinton Street southerly
to its intersection with the Alternative C route on the east
side of the Inlet. (Memo and map attached to Minute Book)
Alderperson Hoffman gave background information on the Bikeway
project.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Lo
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
m Carried Unanimously
Q Youth Services
Mayor Gutenberger stated for clarification that the reason
he vetoed the Youth Bureau resolution at the September Common
Council meeting was because the Youth Bureau Advisory Board
had not been involved. We now have a recommendation from
the Youth Bureau Advisory Board.
Alderperson Schlather stated that from a procedural standpoia-
the Mayor's point was well made. The Mayor's objection was
not a substantive veto but in fact a veto premised on procedural
grounds. There is no question that the Youth Bureau has
now been heard and as a result of that the Council may wish
to modify what they have passed in some measure. But to
get to that point, he is recommending that the Council vote
on the veto over -ride issue first and then the Council can
look at the Youth Bureau resolution.
Resolution
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That in lieu of a Youth Services Contract with
outside municipalities, the policy of the Ithaca Youth Bureau
for participation by non -city residents shall be as follows:
1. Fees shall be based on total program costs and /or market
conditions for similar activities in other local or
regional entities.
2. Those programs wherein the collection of fees are either
not permissible, or not practicable, would no longer
be extended to non -city residents.
and be it further
RESOLVED, That all municipalities in which current Youth
Bureau participants reside be advised accordingly. Additionally,
all such municipalities are hereby invited to participate
by contract, at their proportionate share of the total Youth
Bureau budget based on their percentage of participation
in Youth Bureau programs, as determined by the city; the
residents of any such municipalities so participating by
contract shall be treated as city residents for purposes
of participation in Youth Bureau programs and payment of
fees.
398 -12- November 4, 1987
Discussion followed on the floor.
Alderperson Booth stated that the import of the resolution
is that the city would cut off immediately the youth development
and mainstreaming programs. Therefore, he can not support
this resolution.
Alderperson Hoffman asked City
a vetoed resolution the Council
that was originally adopted.
Attorney Nash if in over - riding
must vote on the same wording
Attorney Nash responded that if Council wants to over -ride
the veto on the original resolution, the Council will need
to have a two - thirds vote. If Council comes up with a different
resolution, or significantly amend the prior resolution,
then the Council is back to a simple majority, subject of
course to the veto power on that.
Mayor Gutenberger stated that there has been some contact
by other municipalities that they would like to sit down
and talk with the city about this matter. If the resolution
has done anything, it has accomplished its intended purpose
and got everybody's attention, which hadn't been done before.
Passing this resolution now is very short - sighted in the
long run. He thinks it is going to be very difficult to
go back and talk with those other people who have now
expressed the willingness to talk.
Further discussion followed on the floor.
Alderperson Killeen stated that he does not think the out- lyi:i,;
municipalities are going to be immediately responsive to
their children's needs and come running in with monies for
the youth programs. Enough time has to be provided and enough
time has not been provided. The greatest harm that this
rash sort of policy shift is going to level is to the Youth
Bureau staff and to the kids who are presently participants,
residents and non-residents jin the programs. This is a transition
period for the Youth Bureau (new building, new leadership,
etc.), and this is a massive sort of change. The implications
Of it are not very clearly understood. He is uncomfortable
with going further than what was done a month ago. We have
to negotiate with all these towns one way or another and
we have all the opportunities to negotiate as good a deal
as possible.
Alderperson Booth stated that it is important for Council
to understand that the second resolution differentiates between
recreation programs and the youth development and mainstreaming
programs. In 1988 it would propose that the mainstreaming and
youth development programs be offered to city children and
outside of city children as they have been prior to this
year. For recreation programs it essentially provides that
for out of city children the Town of Ithaca will have an
opportunity to participate at double fee rates if the town
comes forward and pays $88,000. If the town doesn't do that,
then the second resolution would also have the effect of
saying that all outside of city children would not participate
in recreation programs unless they paid fees based on program
costs.
Alderperson Dennis stated that he supported the first resolution
and he would vote to over -ride the veto but given the climate
that may have been changed in the Town of Ithaca yesterday,
(election of new Town Board members), the city has the opportunity
in the next six months, from January to the end of June,
to negotiate with the town specifically, and certainly the
Village of Lansing.
J
J
399
-13- November 4, 1987
Alderperson Schlather pointed out to Council what he considered
one very telling statistic. In the youth development programs,
for example in the one -to -one program, we currently serve
225 youth through the city Youth Bureau; 130.`of which are
from the city. We have a waiting list for the youth development
program and on that waiting list there are 170 city youth.
So we are serving basically an extra 95 children outside
of the city to the exclusion of city youth. He thinks that
is the kind of statistic that is extremely troublesome.
Alderperson Booth stated that the reason that there are city
youth on those waiting lists is that the Youth Bureau has
had a policy for a number of years of identifying the youth
that are most in need of those services, whether they are
in the city or outside the city.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) - Schlather, Lytel, Cummings, Haine, Dennis,
Killeen
Nays (4) - Booth, Romanowski, Peterson, Hoffman
ri Motion Defeated
Iq (seven votes needed to over -ride
(O Mayor's veto - veto not over - ridden)
Youth Services
m By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
Q WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau Board fully supports Common
Council's efforts to encourage other municipalities to share
in the cost of Youth Bureau programs, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau Board and Common Council
wants to continue the high quality of Ithaca Youth Bureau
programming at the present level, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau Board and Common Council
(moo", believes that, as much as possible, municipalities should
have time to decide to join in a united effort of Youth Bureau
programming, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau Board and Common Council
wants to avoid cutting programs to youngsters and families
already in distress, thereby creating great hardships for
them; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That for 1988 the Youth Bureau utilize the following
policies for providing youth services:
1) For recreation programs for which fees are charged:
Youth residing in the Town of Ithaca shall pay double
the City resident fees, provided that the Town pays
$88,050 to the City in 1988 for youth services and
provided that the Town enter into good faith negotiations
with the City during 1988 for City and /or joint City/
Town provision of youth services in 1989. If that
amount is not paid or those negotiations are not
begun by February 1, 1988 and completed by July 1,
1988, youth residing in the Town of Ithaca shall
pay fees based on program costs and market conditions
in 1988. Youth residing outside the City and Town
of Ithaca shall pay fees based on program total costs
and /or market conditions for similar activity.
2) For recreation programs for which collection of fees
is not permissible:
Youth residing outside the City of Ithaca shall not
be provided these-services, except that youth residing
in the Town of Ithaca shall receive those services
rw
-14- November 4, 1987
if the Town pays $88,OSO to the City for youth services
by February 1, 1988, and if the Town enters into
good faith negotiations by February 1, 1988 and completes
such negotiations by July 1, 1988, with the City for
City and /or joint City /Town provision of youth services
for 1989.
3) For recreation mainstreaming programs and youth develop-
ment programs:
Youth residing within or outside the City shall receive
services in 1988. These programs shall be terminated
in 1989 for youth residing outside the City unless
the municipality in which the youth resides contracts
with the City for such services,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That all municipalities in which current Youth
Bureau participants reside be advised accordingly. Additionally,
all such municipalities are hereby invited to participate
by contract, at their proportionate share of the total Youth
Bureau budget, based on their percentage of participation
in Youth Bureau programs, as determined by the City; the
residents of any such municipalities so participating by
contract shall be treated as City residents for purposes
of participation in Youth Bureau programs and payment of
fees.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That item #1 shall be changed to read: "For recreation
programs for which fees are charged,youth residing outside
of the city shall pay fees based on the total program costs
and /or market conditions for similar activity; and that item `
#2 read as follows: "For recreation programs for which collection
of fees is not permissible youth residing outside the city
shall not be provided these services ".
A vote on the amending resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (2) - Cummings, Schlather
Nays (8) - Booth, Killeen, Haine, Hoffman, Peterson,
Dennis, Romanowski, Lytel
Motion Defeated
Main Motion
A vote on the main motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) - Cummings, Booth, Romanowski, Lytel, Haine,
Hoffman, Peterson, Dennis
Nays (2) - Schlather, Killeen
Carried
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
Northsi e Rezoning - Alternate 1 (Includes Watts Lot)
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLUTION OF COMMON COUNCIL
INTRODUCING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING
RESOLVED, That Ordinance No. 87 - entitled "An Ordinance
Amending the Zoning Map of Chapter 30 entitled 'Zoning' of
the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and it hereby is intro-
duced before the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New
York, and be it further
-15- November 4, 1987 401
RESOLVED, That the Common Council shall hold a public hearing
in the matter of the adoption of the aforesaid ordinance
to be held at the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108
East Green Street in the City of Ithaca, New York on Wednesday,
December 2, 1987 at 7:30 P.M., and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk give notice of such public
hearing by the publication of a notice in the official news-
paper, specifying the time when and the place where such
public hearing will be held, and in general terms describing
the proposed ordinance. Such notice shall be published once
at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to
the Board of Planning and Development and the Tompkins County
Planning Board a true and exact copy of the proposed zoning
ordinance for their report thereon.
ORDINANCE NO. 87
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED
LO 'O "ZONING" OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE.
SECTION 1. AMENDING ZONING MAP
M
Q 1. That the "Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca,
New York" as last amended, is hereby amended and changed
so that all that tract or parcel of land within the following
described areas presently located in the R -3a, Residential
District are reclassified and changed to the R -2b, Residential
District:
A. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 50-4 -1, thence easterly a distance of approximately
400 feet alo,ig the south boundary of the right -of -way of
Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 50 -4 -9, thence southerly a distance of approximately
99 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way of North
Cayuga Street to a point on the southeast corner of tax parcel
number 50 -4 -11, thence westerly a distance of approximately
198 feet along the southern boundary of tax parcel numbers
50 -4 -11 to the southwest corner of tax parcel number 50-4 -11,
thence northerly a distance of approximately 19 feet to a
point on the northeast corner of tax parcel number SO -4 -37,
thence westerly a distance of approximately 199 feet along
the north boundary of tax parcel SO -4 -37 to the northwest
corner of tax parcel number 50 -4 -37, thence northerly a distance
of approximately 81 feet along the east boundary of the right -of-
way of North Geneva Street to the point of beginning. The
above described area shall include all of the following tax
parcels: 50-4 -1 through 50 -4 -11, inclusive and 50 -4 -38.
B. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number SO -3 -1, thence easterly a distance of approximately
198 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way of
Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number SO -3 -S, thence southerly a distance of approxi-
mately S90 feet to a point on the southeast corner of tax
parcel number SO -3 -14, thence westerly a distance of approxi-
mately 132 feet along the south boundary of tax parcel number
50 -3 -14 to a point on the southwest corner of tax parcel
number 50 -3 -14, thence northerly a distance of approximately
24 feet along the west boundary of tax parcel number SO -3 -14
to a point on the southeast corner of tax parcel number SO -3 -18,
thence westerly a distance of approximately 66 feet along
the south boundary of tax parcel number 50 -3 -18 to a point
at the southwest corner of tax parcel number SO -3 -18, thence
northerly a distance of approximately 565 feet along the
402
-16-
November 4, 1987
east boundary of the right -of -way of North Albany Street
to the point of beginning. The above described area shall
include all of the following tax parcels: 50 -3 -1 through
SO -3 -14, inclusive, and 50 -3 -18 through 50 -3 -31, inclusive.
C. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 45 -4 -16, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 142 along the north boundaries of tax parcel
numbers 45 -4 -16 and 45 -4 -15 to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -4 -15, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 90 feet along the east boundary line of
tax parcel number 45 -4 -15 to a point on the southwest corner
of tax parcel number 45 -4 -10, thence northeasterly a distance
of approximately 123 feet along the south boundary of tax
parcel 45 -4 -10 to a point at the southeast corner of tax
parcel 45 -4 -10, thence southeasterly a distance of approximately
116 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way of Lake
Avenue to a point on the southeast corner of tax parcel number
45 -4 -12, thence westerly a distance of approximately 298
feet along the north boundary of the right -of -way of Cascadilla
Street to a point on the southwest corner of tax parcel number
45 -4 -16, thence northwesterly a distance of approximately
64 feet along the east boundary of the right -of -way of First
Street to the point of beginning. The above description
includes all of the following tax parcel numbers: 45 -4 -11,
45 -4 -12, 45 -4 -14, 45 -4 -15, and 45 -4 -16.
2. That the "Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca,
New York as last amended, is hereby amended and changed
so that all that tract or parcels of land within the
following described areas presently located in the R -3b,
Residential District are reclassified and changed to
the R -2b, Residential District:
A. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 50 -1 -1, thence easterly a distance of approximately
528 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way of
Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 50 -1 -12, thence southerly a distance of approxi-
mately 163 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way
of North Albany Street to a point on the southeast corner
of tax parcel number 50 -1 -15, thence westerly a distance
of approximately 528 feet along the southern boundaries of
tax parcel numbers 50 -1 -15, 50 -1 -6, 50 -1 -5, SO -1 -4, 50 -1 -3
and 50 -1 -31 to a point on the southwest corner of tax parcel
number 50 -1 -31, thence northerly a distance of approximately
165 feet along the east boundary of the right -of -way of North
Plain Street to the point of beginning. The above described
area shall include all of the following tax parcel numbers:
50 -1 -1 through SO -1 -15 inclusive, 50 -1 -31 and 50 -1 -32.
B. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 51 -3 -1, thence easterly a distance of approximately
403 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way of
Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 51 -3 -8, thence southerly a distance of approxi-
mately 161 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way
of North Plain Street to a point on the east boundary of
tax parcel number 51 -3 -12, thence westerly in a straight
line a distance of approximately 201 feet until it reaches
the south boundaries of tax parcel numbers 51 -3- 26, 51 -3 -2
and 51 -3 -3, said line being the easterly extension of the
south boundaries of those parcels and continuing approximately
202 feet along said boundaries to a point on the southwest
corner of tax parcel number 51 -3 -26, thence northerly a distance
of approximately 162 feet along the east boundary of the
right -of -way of Park Place to the point of beginning. The
above described area shall include all of the following tax
parcels: 50 -3 -1 through 50 -3 -11, inclusive, 50 -3 -26, 50 -3 -27
and 50 -3 -28, and a portion of 51 -3 -12.
Irn
J
-17- November 4, 1987
C. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 51- 2 -1.2, thence easterly a distance of approxi-
mately 199 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way
of Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of
tax parcel number 51 -2 -S, thence southerly a distance of
approximately 163 feet along the west boundary of the right -
of -way of Park Place to a point on the southeast corner of
tax parcel number 51 -2 -8, thence westerly a distance of approxi-
mately 199 feet along the south boundaries of tax parcel
numbers S1 -2 -8, 51 -2 -4, S1 -2 -3 and 51 -2 -17 to a point on
the southwest corner of tax parcel S1 -2 -17, thence northerly
a distance of approximately 163 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Washington Street to the point of
beginning. The above described area shall include all of
the following tax parcels: 51 -2 -1.1 through 51 -2 -8 and
S1 -2 -17.
D. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number S1 -1 -3, thence easterly a distance of approxi-
mately 334 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way
of Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of
tax parcel number 51 -1 -8, thence southerly a distance of
approximately 167 feet along the west boundary of the right -
LO of -way of Washington Street to a point on the southeast corner
of tax parcel number 51 -1 -10, thence westerly a distance
CO of approximately 334 feet along the south boundaries of tax
parcel numbers 51 -1 -10, S1 -1 -5, S1 -1 -4, and S1 -1 -3 to a point
Q on the southwest corner of tax parcel number 51 -1 -3, thence
northerly a distance of approximately 167 feet along the
west boundary of tax parcel number 51 -1 -3 to the point of
beginning. The above described area includes all of the
following tax parcels: 51 -1 -3 through S1 -1 -10, inclusive.
E. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 4S -S -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 26S feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Monroe Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -S -3, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 323 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of First Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 4S -S -9, thence westerly a distance
of approximately 304 feet along the north boundary of the
right -of -way of Cascadilla Street to a point on the southwest
corner of tax parcel number 45 -S -11, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 180 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Second Street to the point of beginning.
The above decribed area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 45 -5 -1 through 45 -5 -15, inclusive.
F. Beginning at a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 45 -6 -1, thence southeasterly a distance of
approximately 142 feet along the west boundary of the right -
of -way of Second Street to a point on the southeast corner
of tax parcel number 4S -6 -2, thence westerly a distance of
approximately 300 feet along the north boundary of the right -
of way of Cascadilla Street to a point on the southwest corner
of tax parcel number 4S -6 -6, thence northeasterly a distance
of approximately 265 feet along the south boundary of the
right -of -way of Monroe Street to the point of beginning.
The above described areas shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 45 -6 -1 through 4S -6 -6, inclusive.
G. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 34 -9 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 132 feet along the south boundary of the right -of-
way of Madison Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 34 -9 -2, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 223 feet along the east boundaries of tax
parcels numbers 34 -9 -2, 34 -9 -16, 34 -9 -15, and 34 -9 -14 to
403
404
-18- November 4, 1987
a point on the north boundary of tax parcel number 34 -9 -11
that is approximately 19 feet from the northeast corner of
tax parcel number 34 -9 -11, thence easterly a distance of
approximately 19 feet along the north boundary of tax parcel
number 34 -9 -11 to a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 34 -9 -11, thence southeasterly a distance of
approximately 100 feet along the east boundary of tax parcel
number 34 -9 -11 to a point on the southeast corner of tax
parcel number 34 -9 -11, thence westerly a distance of approxi-
mately 152 feet along the north boundary of the right -of -way
of Monroe Street to a point on the southwest corner of tax
parcel number 34 -9 -13, thence northwesterly a distance of
approximately 330 feet along the east boundary of the right -
of -way of First Street to the point of beginning. The above
described area shall include all of the following tax parcels:
34 -9 -1, 34 -9 -2, and 34 -9 -11 through 34 -9 -17, inclusive.
H. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 45 -2 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 264 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of way of Madision Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -2 -4, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 325 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of First Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 4S -2 -11, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 267 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Monroe Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 45 -2 -15, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 325 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Second Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 45 -2 -1 through 4S -2 -19, inclusive.
I. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 45 -1 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 264 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Madison Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -1 -2, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 320 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Second Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 45 -1 -9, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 264 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Monroe Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 45 -1 -14, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 320 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Third Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 45 -1 -1 through 45 -1 -14, inclusive.
J. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 44 -6 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 268 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Madison Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 44 -6 -3, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 344 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Third Street to a point at the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 44 -6 -8, thence westerly a distance
of approximately 300 feet along the north boundary of the
right -of -way of Cascadilla Street to a point at the southwest
corner of tax parcel number 44 -6 -14, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 202 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Fourth Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 44 -6 -1 through 44 -6 -16, inclusive.
K. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 34 -1 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 13S feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Hancock Street- to a point on the northeast corner
it,
-19-
November 4, 1987 405
of tax parcel number 34 -1 -2, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 70 feet to the point of intersection of
the north boundary of tax parcel number 34 -1 -4, thence south-
westerly a distance of approximately 17 feet along the north
boundary line of tax parcel number 34 -1 -4 to a point on the
northeast corner of tax parcel number 34 -1 -17, thence south-
easterly a distance of approximately 2SS feet along the east
boundaries of tax parcel numbers 34 -1 -17, 34 -1 -16, 34 -1 -1S, 34 -1 -14,
34 -1 -13, and the southeasterly extension of that line to
the intersection of the north boundary of the right -of -way
of Madison Street, thence southwesterly a distance of approxi-
mately 120 feet along the north boundary of the right -of -way
of Madison Street to a point at the southwest corner of tax
parcel number 34 -1 -12, thence northwesterly a distance of
approximately 328 feet along the east boundary of the right -
of -way of First Street to the point of beginning. The above
described area shall include all of the following tax parcels:
34 -1 -1, 34 -1 -2, 34 -1 -11 through 34 -1 -18, inclusive, and a
portion of 34 -1 -10.
L. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -4 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
� approximately 266 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the northeast corner
= of tax parcel number 3S -4 -3, thence southeasterly a distance
CO of approximately 327 feet along the west boundary of the
Q right -of -way of First Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 3S -4 -8, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 270 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Madison Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 35 -4 -14, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 327 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Second Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 3S -4 -1 through 3S -4 -18, inclusive.
M. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -S -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 263 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 3S -S -6, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 32S feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Second Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 35 -S -11 thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 26S feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Madison Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 35 -5 -1S, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 32S feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Third Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 35 -S -1 through 35 -5 -20, inclusive.
N. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 44 -5 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 269 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Morris Avenue to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 44 -S -6, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 149 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Third Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 44 -5 -8, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 269 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Madison Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 44 -5 -13, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 150 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Fourth Street to the point of beginning.
The above decribed area shall include all of the following tax
parcels: 44 -S -1- through 44 -S -13, inclusive.
4061
-20- November 4, 1987
0. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 44 -9 -2, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 328 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 44 -9 -6, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 330 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Fifth Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 44 -9 -13, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 83 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Madison Street to its intersection
with the north boundary of the right -of -way of Cascadilla
Street, thence westerly a distance of approximately 275 feet
along the north boundary of the right -of -way of Cascadilla
Street to a point at the southwest corner of tax parcel number
44 -9 -20, thence northwesterly a distance of approximately
200 feet along the west boundaries of tax parcel numbers
44 -9 -20 and 44 -9 -2 to the point of beginning. The above
described area shall include all of the following tax parcels:
44 -9 -2 through 44 -9 -20, inclusive.
P. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -2 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 26S feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Adams Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 35 -2 -2, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 330 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of First Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 35 -2 -7, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 26S feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 35 -2 -12, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 328 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Second Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 35 -2 -1 through 35 -2 -16, inclusive.
Q. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -1 -3, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 100 feet to the northeast corner of tax parcel
number 35 -1 -2, thence southeasterly a distance of approximately
100 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way of Second
Street to a point on the southeast corner of tax parcel number
35 -1 -2, thence southwesterly a distance of approximately
100 feet along the north boundary of the right -of -way of
Hancock Street to a point on the southwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -1 -3, thence northwesterly a distance of
approximately 100 feet along the west boundary of tax parcel
number 35 -1 -3 to the point of beginning. The above described
area shall include all of the following tax parcels: 35 -1 -2
and 35 -1 -3.
R. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 44 -2 -9, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 265 feet along the north boundaries of tax
parcel numbers 44 -2 -9 and 44 -2 -2 to a point on the northeast
corner of tax parcel number 44 -2 -2, thence southeasterly
a distance of approximately 165 feet along the west boundary
of the right -of -way of Fourth Street to a point on the south-
east corner of tax parcel number 44 -2 -3, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 265 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 44 -2 -8, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 165 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Fifth Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 44 -2 -2 through 44 -2 -9, inclusive.
S. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 25 -4 -4, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 132 feet along the north boundary lines of
tax parcel numbers 25 -4 -4 and 25 -4 -3 to a point on the northeast
J
-21- November 4, 1987
corner of tax parcel number 25 -4 -3, thence southeasterly
a distance of approximately 50 feet to a point on the northwest
corner of tax parcel number 25 -4 -2, thence northeasterly
a distance of approximately 133 feet along the north boundary
line of tax parcel number 25 -4 -2 to a point on the northeast
corner of tax parcel number 25 -4 -2, thence southeasterly
along the west boundary of the right -of -way of First Street
a distance of approximately 40 feet to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 25 -4 -2, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 265 feet along the north boundary
- of the right -of -way of Adams Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 25 -4 -4, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 90 feet along the east boundary
of Second Street to the point of beginning. The above described
area shall include all of the following tax parcels: 25 -4 -2
through 25 -4 -4, inclusive.
T. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 45 -4 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 118 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Monroe Street to a point on the northeast corner
�. of tax parcel number 45 -4 -3, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 230 feet along the east boundaries of tax
LO parcel numbers 45 -4 -3, 45 -4 -20, 45 -4 -19 and 45 -4 -18 to a
= point on the southwest corner of tax parcel number 45 -4 -6,
m thence northeasterly a distance of approximately 18 feet
Q to a point on the northwest corner of tax parcel 45 -4 -8,
thence southeasterly a distance of approximately 66 feet
to a point on the north boundary of tax parcel 45 -4 -15 that
is approximately 10 feet southwest of the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -4 -15, thence southwesterly a distance
of approximately 133 feet along the south boundary of tax
parcel number 45 -4 -17, to a point on the southwest corner
of tax parcel 45 -4 -17, thence northwest a distance of approxi-
mately 295 feet along the east boundary of the right -of -way
f of First Street to the point of beginning. The above described
area includes all of the following tax parcels: 45 -4 -1 through
45 -4 -3, inclusive and 45 -4 -17 through 45 -4 -21, inclusive.
3. That the "Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca,
New York ", as last amended, is hereby amended and changed
so that all that tract or parcels of land within the
following described areas presently located in the B -2a,
Business District are reclassified and changed to the
R -2b, Residential District.
A. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 25 -3 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 264 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Franklin Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 25 -3 -1, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 325 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Lake Avenue to a point on the southeast corner
of tax parcel number 25 -3 -1, thence southwesterly a distance
of approximately 269 feet along the north boundary of the
right -of -way of Adams Street to a point on the southwest
corner of tax parcel number 25 -3 -1, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 330 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of First Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area includes all of tax parcel number
25 -3 -1.
4. That in accordance herewith the City Clerk is hereby
directed to make or cause to be made the necessary changes
on said zoning map.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take effect
with law upon publication of a notice
3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
407
immediately and in accordance
as provided in Section
Carried Unanimously
-22-
November 4, 1987
Alderperson Cummings stated that this resolution includes
the Watts site zoning designation to R -2b and gave background
information on rezoning of this area.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Deputy Planning and Development Director Mazzarella, responded
to questions from Council.
Alderperson Schlather thanked the Planning Department staff
as well as the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney
and the Building Commissioner for putting together the infor-
mation for this rezoning.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Northside Rezoning - Alternate 2 (Excludes Watts Lot)
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLUTION OF COMMON COUNCIL
INTRODUCING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING
RESOLVED, That Ordinance No. 87 - entitled "An Ordinance
Amending the Zoning Map of Chapter 30 entitled 'Zoning' of
the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and it hereby is intro-
duced before the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New
York, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council
shall hold a public hearing
in the matter of
the adoption of
the aforesaid ordinance
to be held at the
Common Council
Chambers, City Hall, 108
East Green Street
in the City of
Ithaca, New York on Wednesday,
December 2, 1987
at 7:30 P.M., and
be it further
Ij
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk give notice of such public
hearing by the publication of a notice in the official news-
paper, specifying the time when and the place where such
public hearing will be held, and in general terms describing
the proposed ordinance. Such notice shall be published once
at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to
the Board of Planning and Development and the Tompkins County
Planning Board a true and exact copy of the proposed zoning
ordinance for their report thereon.
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED
"ZONING" OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE.
SECTION 1. AMENDING ZONING MAP
1. That the "Official Zoning
New York" as last amended
so that all that tract or
described areas presently
District are reclassified
District:
Map of the City of Ithaca,
is hereby amended and changed
parcel of land within the following
located in the R -3a, Residential
and changed to the R -2b, Residential
A. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number SO -4 -1, thence easterly a distance of approximately
400 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way of
Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number SO -4 -9, thence southerly a distance of approximately
-23- November 4, 1987
99 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way of North
Cayuga Street to a point on the southeast corner of tax parcel
number 50 -4 -11, thence westerly a distance of approximately
198 feet along the southern boundary of tax parcel numbers
50 -4 -11 to the southwest corner of tax parcel number 50 -4 -11,
thence northerly a distance of approximately 19 feet to a
point oil the northeast corner of tax parcel number 50 -4 -37,
thence westerly a distance of approximately 199 feet along
the north boundary of tax parcel SO -4 -37 to the northwest
corner of tax parcel number SO -4 -37, thence northerly a distance
of approximately 81 feet along the east boundary of the right -of-
way of North Geneva Street to the point of beginning. The
above described area shall include all of the following tax
parcels: 50 -4 -1 through 50 -4 -11, inclusive and 50 -4 -38.
B. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 50 -3 -1, thence easterly a distance of approximately
198 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way of
Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 50 -3 -5, thence southerly a distance of approxi-
mately 590 feet to a point on the southeast corner of tax
parcel number 50 -3 -14, thence westerly a distance of approxi-
Iq mately 132 feet along the south boundary of tax parcel number
jD 50 -3 -14 to a point on the southwest corner of tax parcel
= number 50 -3 -14, thence northerly a distance of approximately
m24 feet along the west boundary of tax parcel number 50 -3 -14
Q to a point on the southeast corner of tax parcel number 50 -3 -18,
thence westerly a distance of approximately 66 feet along
the south boundary of tax parcel number SO -3 -18 to a point
at the southwest corner of tax parcel number 50 -3 -18, thence
northerly a distance of approximately 565 feet along the
east boundary of the right -of -way of North Albany Street to the
point of beginning. The above described area shall include
all of the following tax parcels: 50 -3 -1 through SO -3 -14,
inclusive, and 50 -3 -18 through SO -3 -31, inclusive.
C. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel ;lumber 45 -4 -16, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 142 along the north boundaries of tax parcel
numbers 45 -4 -16 and 45 -4 -15 to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -4 -15, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 90 feet along the east boundary line of
tax parcel number 45 -4 -15 to a point on the southwest corner
of tax parcel number 45 -4 -10, thence northeasterly a distance
of approximately 123 feet along the south boundary of tax
parcel 45 -4 -10 to a point at the southeast corner of tax
parcel 45 -4 -10, thence southeasterly a distance of approximately
116 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way of Lake
Avenue to a point on the southeast corner of tax parcel number
45 -4 -12, thence westerly a distance of approximately 298
feet along the north boundary of the right -of -way of Cascadilla
Street to a point on the southwest corner of tax parcel number
45 -4 -16, thence northwesterly a distance of approximately
64 feet along the east boundary of the right -of -way of First
Street to the point of beginning. The above description
includes all of the following tax parcel numbers: 45 -4 -11,
45 -4 -12, 45 -4 -14, 45 -4 -15, and 45 -4 -16.
2. That the "Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca,
New York as last amended, is hereby amended and changed
so that all that tract or parcels of land within the
following described areas presently located in the R -3b,
Residential District are reclassified and changed to
the R -2b, Residential District:
401.)
A. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 50 -1 -1, thence easterly a distance of approximately
528 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way of
Cascadilla Street to a poi-lit on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 50 -1 -12, thence southerly a distance of approxi-
mately 163 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way
410
-24- November 4, 1987
of North Albany Street to a point on the southeast corner
of tax parcel number 50 -1 -15, thence westerly a distance
of approximately 528 feet along the southern boundaries of
tax parcel numbers 50 -1 -15, 50 -1 -6, SO -1 -S, 50 -1 -4, 50 -1 -3
and 50 -1 -31 to a point on the southwest corner of tax parcel
number 50 -1 -31, thence northerly a distance of approximately
165 feet along the east boundary of the right -of -way of North
Plain Street to the point of beginning. The above described
area shall include all of the following tax parcel numbers:
50 -1 -1 through 50 -1 -15 inclusive, 50 -1 -31 and 50 -1 -32.
B. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 51 -3 -1, thence easterly a distance of approximately
403 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way of
Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 51 -3 -8, thence southerly a distance of approxi-
mately 161 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way
of North Plain Street to a point on the east boundary of
tax parcel number 51 -3 -12, thence westerly in a straight
line a distance of approximately 201 feet until it reaches
the south boundaries of tax parcel numbers 51 -3- 26, S1 -3 -2
and 51 -3 -3, said line being the easterly extension of the
south boundaries of those parcels and continuing approximately
202 feet along said boundaries to a point on the southwest
corner of tax parcel number 51 -3 -26, thence northerly a distance
of approximately 162 feet along the east boundary of the
right -of -way of Park Place to the point of beginning. The
above described area shall include all of the following tax
parcels: SO -3 -1 through SO -3 -11, inclusive, 50 -3 -26, 50 -3 -27
and 50 -3 -28, and a portion of S1 -3 -12.
C. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 51- 2 -1.2, thence easterly a distance of approxi-
mately 199 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way
of Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of
tax parcel number 51 -2 -5, thence southerly a distance of
approximately 163 feet along the west boundary of the right -
of -way of Park Place to a point on the southeast corner of
tax parcel number 51 -2 -8, thence westerly a distance of approxi-
mately 199 feet along the south boundaries of tax parcel
numbers 51 -2 -8, 51 -2 -4, 51 -2 -3 and 51 -2 -17 to a point on
the southwest corner of tax parcel 51 -2 -17, thence northerly
a distance of approximately 163 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Washington Street to the point of
beginning. The above described area shall include all of
the following tax parcels: S1 -2 -1.1 through 51 -2 -8 and
51 -2 -17.
D. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 51 -1 -3, thence easterly a distance of approxi-
mately 334 feet along the south boundary of the right -of -way
of Cascadilla Street to a point on the northeast corner of
tax parcel number 51 -1 -8, thence southerly a distance of
approximately 167 feet along the west boundary of the right -
of -way of Washington Street to a point on the southeast corner
of tax parcel number 51 -1 -10, thence westerly a distance
of approximately 334 feet along the south boundaries of tax
parcel numbers 51 -1 -10, 51 -1 -S, 51 -1 -4, and 51 -1 -3 to a point
on the southwest corner of tax parcel number 51 -1 -3, thence
northerly a distance of approximately 167 feet along the
west boundary of tax parcel number 51 -1 -3 to the point of
beginning. The above described area includes all of the
following tax parcels: 51 -1 -3 through 51 -1 -10, inclusive.
E. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 45 -S -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 26S feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Monroe Stree-t to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 4S -5 -3, thence southeasterly a distance
-2S- November 4, 1987
of approximately 323 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of First Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 4S -5 -9, thence westerly a distance
of approximately 304 feet along the north boundary of the
right -of -way of Cascadilla Street to a point on the southwest
corner of tax parcel number 45 -5 -11, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 180 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Second Street to the point of beginning.
The above decribed area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 45 -5 -1 through 45 -5 -1S, inclusive.
F. Beginning at a point on the northeast corner of tax
parcel number 4S -6 -1, thence southeasterly a distance of
approximately 142 feet along the west boundary of the right -
of -way of Second Street to a point on the southeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -6 -2, thence westerly a distance of
approximately 300 feet along the north boundary of the right -
of way of Cascadilla Street to a point on the southwest corner
of tax parcel number 4S -6 -6, thence northeasterly a distance
of approximately 265 feet along the south boundary of the
right -of -way of Monroe Street to the point of beginning.
The above described areas shall include all of the following
�- tax parcels: 4S -6 -1 through 45 -6 -6, inclusive.
LO G. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
= parcel number 34 -9 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
CO approximately 132 feet along the south boundary of the right -of-
Q way of Madison Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 34 -9 -2, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 223 feet along the east boundaries of tax
parcels numbers 34 -9 -2, 34 -9 -16, 34 -9 -1S, and 34 -9 -14 to
a point on the north boundary of tax parcel number 34 -9 -11
that is approximately 19 feet from the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 34 -9 -11, thence easterly a distance
of approximately 19 feet along the north boundary of tax
parcel number 34 -9 -11 to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 34 -9 -11, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 100 feet along the east boundary of tax
parcel number 34 -9 -11 to a point on the southeast corner
of tax parcel number 34 -9 -11, thence westerly a distance
of approximately 152 feet along the north boundary of the
right -of -way of Monroe Street to a point on the southwest
corner of tax parcel number 34 -9 -13, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 330 feet along the east boundary
of the rightof -way of First Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 34 -9 -1, 34 -9 -2, and 34 -9 -11 through 34 -9 -17,
inclusive.
H. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 45 -2 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 264 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of way of Madision Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -2 -4, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 325 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of First Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 45 -2 -11, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 267 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Monroe Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 4S -2 -1S, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 32S feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Second Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 4S -2 -1 through 45 -2 -19, inclusive.
I. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 45 -1 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 264 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Madison Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -1 -2, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 320 feet along the west boundary of the
411
412
-26- November 4, 1987
right -of -way of Second Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 45 -1 -9, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 264 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Monroe Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 45 -1 -14, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 320 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Third Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 45 -1 -1 through 45 -1 -14, inclusive.
J. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 44 -6 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 268 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Madison Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 44 -6 -3, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 344 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Third Street to a point at the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 44 -6 -8, thence westerly a distance
of approximately 300 feet along the north boundary of the
right -of -way of Cascadilla Street to a point at the southwest
corner of tax parcel number 44 -6 -14, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 202 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Fourth Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 44 -6 -1 through 44 -6 -16, inclusive.
K. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 34 -1 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 135 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 34 -1 -2, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 70 feet to the point of intersection of
the north boundary of tax parcel number 34 -1 -4, thence south-
westerly a distance of approximately 17 feet along the north
boundary line of tax parcel number 34 -1 -4 to a point on the
northeast corner of tax parcel number 34 -1 -17, thence south-
easterly a distance of approximately 255 feet along the east
boundaries of tax parcel numbers 34 -1 -17, 34 -1 -15, 34 -1 -14, 34 -1 -16.
34 -1 -13, and the southeasterly extension of that line to
the intersection of the north boundary of the right -of -way
of Madison Street, thence southwesterly a distance of approxi-
mately 120 feet along the north boundary of the right -of -way
of Madison Street to a point at the southwest corner of tax
parcel number 34 -1 -12, thence northwesterly a distance of
approximately 328 feet along the east boundary of the right -
of -way of First Street to the point of beginning. The above
described area shall include all of the following tax parcels:
34 -1 -1, 34 -1 -2, 34 -1 -11 through 34 -1 -18, inclusive, and a
portion of 34 -1 -10.
L. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -4 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 266 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 35 -4 -3, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 327 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of First Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 35 -4 -8, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 270 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Madison Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 35 -4 -14, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 327 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Second Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 35 -4 -1 through 35 -4 -18, inclusive.
J
-27- November 4, 1987
M. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -5 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 263 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 35 -5 -6, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 325 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Second Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 3S -S -11 thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 265 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Madison Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 35 -5 -15, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 32S feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Third Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 35 -5 -1 through 35 -5 -20, inclusive.
N. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 44 -5 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 269 feet along the south boundary of the right -
rd of -way of Morris Avenue to a point on the northeast corner
Iq of tax parcel number 44 -5 -6, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 149 feet along the west boundary of the
LO right -of -way of Third Street to a point on the southeast
= corner of tax parcel number 44 -5 -8, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 269 feet along the north boundary
Q of the right -of -way of Madison Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 44 -5 -13, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 1S0 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Fourth Street to the point of beginning.
The above decribed area shall include all of the following tax
parcels: 44 -S -1- through 44 -5 -13, inclusive.
0. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 44 -9 -2, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 328 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of way of Hancocx Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 44 -9 -6, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 330 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of Fifth street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 44 -9 -13, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 83 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Madison Street to its intersection
with the north boundary of the right -of -way of Cascadilla
Street, thence westerly a distance of approxmiately 27S feet
along the north boundary of the right -of -way of Cascadilla
Street to a point at the southwest corner of tax parcel number
44 -9 -20, thence northwesterly a distance of approximately
200 feet along the west boundaries of tax parcel numbers
44 -9 -20 and 44 -9 -2 to the point of beginning. The above
described area shall include all of the following tax parcels:
44 -9 -2 through 44 -9 -20, inclusive.
P. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -2 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 265 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Adams Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 35 -2 -2, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 330 feet along the west boundary of the
right -of -way of First Street to a point on the southeast
corner of tax parcel number 35 -2 -7, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 265 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 35 -2 -12, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 328 feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Second Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 35 -2 -1 through 35 -2 -16, inclusive.
413
414 -28- November 4, 1987
Q. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -1 -3, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 100 feet to the northeast corner of tax parcel
number 35 -1 -2, thence southeasterly a distance of approximately
100 feet along the west boundary of the right -of -way of Second
Street to a point on the southeast corner of tax parcel number
35 -1 -2, thence southwesterly a distance of approximately
100 feet along the north boundary of the right -of -way of
Hancock Street to a point on the southwest corner of tax
parcel number 35 -1 -3, thence northwesterly a distance of
approximately 100 feet along the west boundary of tax parcel
number 3S -1 -3 to the point of beginning. The above described
area shall include all of the following tax parcels: 3S -1 -2
and 35 -1 -3.
R. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 44 -2 -9, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 26S feet along the north boundaries of tax
parcel numbers 44 -2 -9 and 44 -2 -2 to a point on the northeast
corner of tax parcel number 44 -2 -2, thence southeasterly
a distance of approximately 16S feet along the west boundary
of the right -of -way of Fourth Street to a point on the south-
east corner of tax parcel number 44 -2 -3, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 265 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Hancock Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 44 -2 -8, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 16S feet along the east boundary
of the right -of -way of Fifth Street to the point of beginning.
The above described area shall include all of the following
tax parcels: 44 -2 -2 through 44 -2 -9, inclusive.
S. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 2S -4 -4, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 132 feet along the north boundary lines of
tax parcel numbers 25 -4 -4 and 2S -4 -3 to a point on the northeast
corner of tax parcel number 25 -4 -3, thence southeasterly
a distance of approximately 50 feet to a point on the northwest
corner of tax parcel number 25 -4 -2, thence northeasterly
a distance of approximately 133 feet along the north boundary
line of tax parcel number 25 -4 -2 to a point on the northeast
corner of tax parcel number 2S -4 -2, thence southeasterly
along the west boundary of the right -of -way of First Street
a distance of approximately 40 feet to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 25 -4 -2, thence southwesterly
a distance of approximately 265 feet along the north boundary
of the right -of -way of Adams Street to a point on the south-
west corner of tax parcel number 2S -4 -4, thence northwesterly
a distance of approximately 90 feet along the east boundary
of Second Street to the point of beginning. The above described
area shall include all of the following tax parcels: 25 -4 -2
through 2S -4 -4, inclusive.
T. Beginning at a point on the northwest corner of tax
parcel number 4S -4 -1, thence northeasterly a distance of
approximately 118 feet along the south boundary of the right -
of -way of Monroe Street to a point on the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 45 -4 -3, thence southeasterly a distance
of approximately 230 feet along the east boundaries of tax
parcel numbers 45 -4 -3, 45 -4 -20, 4S -4 -19 and 45 -4 -18 to a
point on the southwest corner of tax parcel number 45 -4 -6,
thence northeasterly a distance of approximately 18 feet
to a point on the northwest corner of tax parcel 45 -4 -8,
thence southeasterly a distance of approximately 66 feet
to a point on the north boundary of tax parcel 45 -4 -15 that
is approximately 10 feet southwest of the northeast corner
of tax parcel number 4S -4 -15, thence southwesterly a distance
of approximately 133 feet along the south boundary of tax
parcel number 45 -4 -17, to a point on the southwest corner
of tax parcel 45 -4 -17, thence northwest a distance of approxi-
mately 29S feet along the east boundary of the right -of -way
of First Street to the point of beginning. The above described
I W_ �
191,
-29- November 4, 1987
area includes all of the following tax parcels: 4S -4 -1 through
4S -4 -3, inclusive and 4S -4 -17 through 4S -4 -21, inclusive.
3. That in accordance herewith the City Clerk is hereby
directed to make or cause to be made the necessary changes
on said Zoning Map.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided
in Section 3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously
Proposal for New Zoning Category - Development of the R -2c
District
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Dennis
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has been working to promote the
development of affordable housing, improve the quality of
residential projects and ensure that new residential develop -
ment is compatible with the scale and character of the
surrounding neighborhoods, and
rLD WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development has recommended
the adoption of a series of zoning changes that would provide
= alternate methods and types of residential development in
the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Development has proposed
the development of a new zoning district entitled R -2c, which
is intended to provide for alternate types of development
in medium density residential areas in the City of Ithaca;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby
concurs with the Board of Planning and Development that zoning
proposals for alternate types and methods of residential
development are needed in the City of Ithaca which combine
compatible amounts of housing and green space in medium density
residential neighborhoods, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby directs the Department
of Planning and Development to pursue the development of
the R -2c zoning district and make recommendations to the
Common Council concerning where such district should be placed
on the zoning map.
Alderpersons Cummings and Schlather gave background information
on the resolution.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Killeen:
RESOLVED, That in the fi
following be added after
of the P -1 district into
example P -1, a, b, c, ..
Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
aal RESOLVED,in the third line the
the word district: "and the delineation
appropriate sub - categories, for
Discussion on the amendment followed on the floor.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (1) - Killeen
Nays (9) - Schlather, Romanowski, Lytel, Cummings, Dennis,
Haine, Booth, Hoffman, Peterson
Motion Defeated
Main Motion
A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
415
-30-
November 4, 1987
Demolition Ordinance - Report
Alderperson Cummings reported that the matter of the demolition
ordinance has been referred to the City Attorney for examination
and input on whether or not the City has the authority to
set up an ordinance which would prevent demolition of substan-
tially sound housing stock.
Sale of Fire Station #5 and City Hall Annex
Alderperson Cummings reported that a memorandum and the agenda
for the IURA meeting has been sent to all Council members.
If there are any concerns Council members should contact
Mr. Van Cort.
City -wide Moratorium on Large Scale ConstructionProjects
Alderperson Cummings reported that the Planning and Development
Board had taken Alderperson Booth's referral dealing with
city -wide moratorium under consideration and recommended
moving ahead with that moratorium. They passed it on to
the Planning and Development Committee to define large scale
development. The P&D Committee has asked staff to get back
to the Committee in December, drafting a moratorium ordinance
which would in some way define what we mean by large scale,
what area of the City would be covered and the length of
such a moratorium.
Site Plan Review
Alderperson Cummings reported that the Planning and Development
Board has asked staff to start work on this matter. There
will be a rough draft for the next meeting of the Planning
Board and the PFD Committee.
Solid Waste Disposal
Alderperson Cummings reported that the county has indicated
to the city their desire to move forward with examining the
concept of a central recycling transfer, bailing facility
located in the city. They have considered, for example,
a site such as Southwest Park and they would like now to
move into the area of real planning and setting up an ad -hoc
committee to work on this.
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
Personnel Associate
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That this Common Council does herewith create the
position of Personnel Associate in the Personnel Department,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That Valerie Walker be provisionally appointed
to the position of Personnel Associate, with an annual salary
of $22,387, that being Step 8 of the 1987 Compensation Plan
for employees not covered by a union, effective October 26,
1987 and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission be requested
to hold an examination for this position.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) - Booth, Dennis, Hoffman, Haine, Peterson, Lytel,
Cummings, Killeen
Nays (2) - Schlather, Romanowski Sj
Carried
Assistant Activities Center Coordinator
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That Linda Sterk be provisionally promoted to the
title of Assistant Activities Center Coordinator at G.I.A.C,
with an annual salary of $16,853, that being Step 3 of the
1987 C.S.E.A.- Administrative Unit Compensation Plan, effective
November 9, 1987, and be it further
m
a
14
-31- November 4, 1987
RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission be requested
to call for a promotional examination.
Carried Unanimously
D.P.W. Engineering Section Personnel Roster
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That the 1987 Authorized Personnel Roster of the
Department of Public Works - Engineering Section, be amended
as follows:
Add - 1 Engineering Technician Position
Delete - 1 Junior Engineer Position
Carried Unanimously
D.P.W. Engineering � Utilities Division Personnel Roster
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That the 1987 Authorized Personnel Roster of the
Department of Public Works - Engineering and Utilities Division,
be amended to include the addition of a Laboratory Manager/
Director position, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the salary range for this position be established
at $18,796 - $26,753.
Carried Unanimously
D.P.W. Authorized Equipment List
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the 1987 Authorized Equipment List of the
Department of Public Works be amended to include the purchase
of a welder, at a cost not to exceed $4,990, and be it further
RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $4,990 be transferred
within the Bridge Account from A5120 -483, Construction Materials
and Supplies, to A5120 -225, Other Equipment.
Carried Unanimously
Audit
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the bills presented, as listed on Audit Abstract
#20/1987, in the total amount of $23,505.33, be approved
for payment.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Mayor's Budget for 1988
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the Mayor's Budget for 1988, as presented,
be received by the Council and referred to the Budget and
Administration Committee for review.
Carried Unanimously
Public Hearing on Proposed 1988 Budget
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk be authorized and directed
to advertise for a Public Hearing on the proposed 1988 City
Budget, to be held by the Budget and Administration Committee,
on November 23, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., in the Common Council
Chambers, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York.
Carried Unanimously
Police Package - Automobiles
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, orders for police package automobiles have been
placed both under State contract and with a local vendor
and
41'7
-418 -32- November 4, 1987
WHEREAS, no delivery date is assured for the immediate future;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That an equipment emergency does exist, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the City Purchasing Agent is directed to negotiate
with one or more of the three bidders on police package cars
for sedans that are not equipped with the police package.
Discussion followed on the floor. Purchasing Agent Clynes
answered questions from Council members.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE:
An Ordinance Amending Section 60.59 of the Municipal Code
(Overtime Meter Violations Penalty)
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 60.59 OF CHAPTER 60 ENTITLED
"TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES" OF THE ITHACA CITY MUNICIPAL CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca, New York as follows:
Section 1. That Section 60.59 of Chapter 60 entitled
"Traffic and Vehicles" of the Ithaca City Municipal Code
be and it is hereby amended to read as follows:
Nothwithstanding the provisions of §60.100 and in full
acquittance of any violation for parking for a longer period
of time than is permitted, a civil penalty in the sum of
(Two Dollars ($2.00)] Three Dollars ($3.00) may be paid within
twenty -four (24) hours of such violation.
Section 2. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance
with law upon publication of a notice as provided in §3.11 (B)
of the Ithaca City Charter.
Alderperson Schlather gave background information on the
ordinance.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Alderperson Cummings asked if the Commons Advisory Board
and the Downtown Ithaca Business Association were present
at the meeting when this matter was discussed.
Alderperson Schlather responded that this issue has been
in the press for at least two months and no one has come
to the meetings to discuss this issue.
Further discussion followed on the floor.
Tabling Resolution
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
RESOLVED, That the matter of the ordinance amending Section
60.59 of Chapter 60 of the Municipal Code (Overtime Meter Ij
Violations Penalty) be tabled to allow for public input.
Ayes (6) - Lytel, Cummings, Dennis, Killeen, Hoffman,
Peterson
Nays (4) - Schlather, Romanowski, Booth, Haine
Carried
Iq
LD
m
Q
-33- November 4, 1987
Alderperson Schlather directed the City Clerk to notify the
DIBA of the Charter and Ordinance Committee meeting on November
18 and to place a display ad in the Journal informing the
public that parking fines would be discussed at this meeting.
Southwest Park and Related Lands (Proposed Acquisition by
Eminent Domain) - Call for Public Notice and Public Hearing
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, Chapter 757 of the Laws of New York State, 1985
authorized the City of Ithaca to alienate lands at Southwest
Park and Cayuga Inlet Island, and
WHEREAS, in exchange for the lands to be removed from recreation,
the City must acquire an equal amount of land for park use, and
WHEREAS, the lands identified and approved for substitution
are privately held, and
WHEREAS, efforts to negotiate acquisitions of said privately
held lands have proven unsuccessful, and it appears necessary
to condemn said interests pursuant to the Eminent Domain
Procedure Law of the State of New York in order to acquire
them for the land exchange project; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Budget and Administration Committee of
the Common Council of the City of Ithaca shall hold a public
hearing on November 23, 1987 at 7:30 P.M., in the Common
Council Chambers at City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca,
New York in order to inform the public and to review the
public use to be served by the proposed land exchange project,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk is directed to give notice
to the public of the purpose, time and location of said public
hearing setting forth the proposed location of the public
project, at least ten but no more than thirty days prior
to such public hearing by causing such notice to be published
in at least five successive issues of the Ithaca Journal.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) - Schlather, Romanowski, Lytel, Cummings, Killeen,
Dennis
Nays (4) - Booth, Peterson, Hoffman, Haine
Carried
Laid on Table -
Local Law Amending Ithaca City Charter_ Sections
of Article 6 (Board of Fire Commissioners)
Alderperson Schlather laid on the table a Local
Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of Article 6 of the Ithaca
increasing the number of Fire Commissioners.
LOCAL LAW NO. OF 1987
6.2 and 6.3
Law amending
City Charter
BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,
New York as follows:
Section 1. That Section 6.2 of Article 6 of the Ithaca
City Charter be and it is hereby amended to read as follows:
"There shall be a Board of Fire Commissioners, consisting
of [three] five Commissioners appointed by the Mayor and
confirmed by the Common Council. At least three of these
Commissioners shall be residents of the City of Ithaca. The
remaining Fire Commissioners may be residents of either the
City of Ithaca or the Town of Ithaca in Tompkins County,
New York. The term of office of a Fire Commissioner shall
419
420
-34- November 4, 1987
be three years commencing on the first day of July, [one
Commissioner shall be appointed each year] two Commissioners
to be appointed in each of two successive years, and one
Commissioner to be appointed in the third year. Such [appoint-
ment ] appointments shall be made at a meeting of the Common
Council held in June each year. A Commissioner shall hold
office until [his] the Commissioner's successor shall have
been chosen and qualified. A vacancy for an unexpired term
may be filled in the manner provided in this Chapter. Permanent
removal from [the City] the municipality of appointment, or
other cause to be determined by the Common Council, rendering
impossible the proper discharge of [his] the Commissioner's
duties as a Commissioner, shall create a vacancy. The
Commissioners now in office shall continue until the expiration
of the term for which they were respectively appointed. The
two new Commissioners shall be appointed after January 1,
1988 to modified terms as follows: one to a term to expire
June 30, 1989; the other to a term to expire June 30, 1990.
The Fire Commissioner Commissioners shall serve without
salary or compensation."
Section 2. That Section 6.3 of Article 6 of the Ithaca
City Charter be and it is hereby amended to read as follows:
"At their first meeting in July [said] the Fire Commissioners
shall organize as a Board by electing one of their number
as [Chairman] Chairperson, and another as Vice - Chairperson,
and the appointment of a clerk, and such other officers and
employees as authorized for the ensuing year. [Said] The
Board shall hold such stated and special meetings at such
time as [they] the Board may determine but at least once
in each month. Two Three members of [said] the Board shall
constitute a quorum."
Section 3. Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing
in the office of the Secretary of State.
REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND COUNCIL LIAISONS:
Conservation Advisory Council
Alderperson Peterson presented the following resolutions on
behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council:
I. WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca revised its Environmental
Quality Review ordinance in 1985 to protect critical
areas, of which Six Mile Creek Gorge is one, and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1987 Common Council amended the
City's EQR ordinance to read that the issuance of "a
building permit or any other permit or approval that
allows any land alteration, new construction or signifi-
cant expansion of any existing structure or facility
for any project occurring wholly or partially within
or substantially contiguous to any critical area" is
not a ministerial act, and is therefore subject to
environmental review; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the building permit issued for construction
of the recent Valentine Place project be revoked immediately.
II. WHEREAS, many environmentally sensitive areas in the
City of Ithaca have not been specifically identified
and mapped; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council direct the Planning Depart-
ment to undertake such identification and mapping with
the goal of incorporation in the City's EQRA.
lv�
J
-3S-
III. RESOLVED, That a weekly listing
of all applications for City of
permits be routinely sent to all
November 4,
and description
Ithaca building
alderpersons.
IV. RESOLVED, That during review of critical environmental
areas and ministerial actions, the Common Council
consider that all projects falling under Type I action
designation come under environmental review through
filling out the Environmental Assessment form.
Motion to Refer
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That resolutions II and III be referred to
the Planning and Development Committee and resolution
IV be referred to the Charter and Ordinance Committee
for review.
Discussion followed on the floor
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
NH Carried Unanimously
Iq
LO Lead Agency Resolution
= By Alderperson Sc lat er: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
m RESOLVED, That unless otherwise specified, the Ithaca
Q City Building Commissioner is herewith designated as
the lead agency for conducting any environmental review
in connection with the issuance of a building permit.
Carried 11nnnimniisly
Discussion followed regarding the Valentine Place project.
Attorney Nash responded to questions from Council members
regarding what constitutes a public hearing. In his
opinion, a legal public hearing was not held at the August
Council meeting prior to the adoption of the amendment
to the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
as no prior notice of the public hearing was given.
Alderperson Schlather stated that he did not believe
Council had the authority to tell the Building Commissioner
to revoke the building permit for this project.
Discussion continued on the use of the right -of -way of
Woodcock Street and whether this development represents
a sub - division.
Building Commissioner Hoard responded to questions from
Council and pointed out that the zoning on this project
had not been changed since the last Valentine Place battle
and as Building Commissioner he had no choice but to
issue a building permit for the Novarr project.
198421
Attorney Nash restated his opinion that the
Building
Commissioner can not legally revoke the Novarr permit.
New Fire Stations Committee
Alderperson Killeen stated that the committee is continuing
to meet. He referred to a document that recommends an
expenditure of approximately $3 million and
indicated
he will send copies to Council members. He
thinks the
City would be better served if the Planning
and Development
Committee and Human Services Committee were
better informed
on this development project.
198421
422
November 4, 1987
-36-
Recycling Incentive Program
Al erperson Schlather stated that the Department of Public
Works has taken upon itself to unilaterally change our
incentive program for recycling. The $25.00 a day prize
is given away every day so there is no accumulation.
He stated that one of the hallmarks of this program was
that there would be an accumulation of money and therefore
there there would be heightened interest in the recycling
program. He asked Council to reaffirm its commitment
to the program as was originally proposed and passed
and to send that message back to the Board of Public Works.
Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Dennis
RESOLVED, That this Common Council reaffirms its Recycling
Incentive Program and directs that the prize money for
recycling be accumulated as specified in the Common Council
resolution of October 7. 1987.
Ayes (6) — Dennis, Schlather, Hoffman, Haine, Cummings,
Killeen
Nays (4) - Romanowski, Booth, Peterson, Lytel
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 1:10 A.M.
Callista Paolangeli
City Clerk
Carried
n C. Guten erger
a y o r
J
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR
CITY OF ITHACA
10B EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650
MEMORANDUM
To: Budget and Administration Committee
From: Jon Meigs VeAlternatives Re: Bikeway
Date: October 28, 1987
CK- )
TELEPHONE. 272 -1713
CODE 607
Several suggestions have been made for alternatives
to the original route proposed to be built by the Finger Lakes
State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Commission.
The following information is provided for your use in
discussing the budgetary considerations of the City's
involvement in the project, particularly as regards the costs
of acquiring a right -of -way easement by condemnation of private
lands on the original route within the City.
The attached map shows the various alinements; more
detailed design, which is Finger Lakes' responsibility, is not
complete. As I understand their description of it, it's
basically the same as the path we have through Cass Park: hard -
surfaced, wide enough for two bikes, set 8 -10 feet from the
edge of the channel where it runs next to it, and then picking
up the bed of the abandoned railroad either near the fish
ladder (for West side alternatives) or near the place that it
used to cross the Inlet south of there (for East side
alternates), continuing around and crossing over Elmira Rd. on
a new light bridge to get to Buttermilk.
Recently the
Parks officials took a
field, as I describe be
segments: from the Tre
path, under the Octopus
Inlet at the southerly
described above.
Mayor, Andy Mazzella and other City and
look at the possible alinements in the
low. All routes have the same end
man Marina on the existing Cass Park
via the City's underpass; and from the
crossing of the abandoned rail line as
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative AChon Program
Memo to B &A Committee
Re: Bikeway Route Alternatives
-2-
The original alinement (A on map) runs beside the
channel's west bank from the Octopus to the point where it
intersects the abandoned rail line (dashed line next to
'Conrail' line); then follows the old rail line southwesterly
to and across the Inlet. From about where the letter 'D' in
'Flood' shows on the map, to where the south City line crosses
the Flood Channel, this route crosses private properties,
requiring the easement acquisition by the City which is the
purpose of the condemnation. The Town of Ithaca would be
responsible for acquiring similar easements between the City
line and railroad; all land crossed other than these stretches
is publicly- owned.
City expense for Alternate A is thus the cost of
acquiring the easement: between $20,000 for a 25 -ft. wide
easement only, and perhaps $35,000 for fee title to the land
itself (30 ft. wide, preferred by Parks), plus any legal
expense involved.
Alternate B would run from the Octopus to the end of
City -owned property at the 'D', then jog out to Floral Av.;
follow Floral within the road r.o.w. on what would be
effectively a wide sidewalk to a point close to the City line
at which the abutting private property owners have indicated
some willingness to identify an agreeable crossing of their
land, going back east to the channel to pick up the original
alinement A, and continue along the channel as above. This
alinement, along the road, is less desirable for safety
reasons.
Cost to City: acquisition of a shorter length of
easement (perhaps in fee), from Floral to the channel and then
south; probably no extra legal costs. Conceivably the land
between Floral and the channel, being developable, might be
valued higher than that next to the channel, and thus the
easement would be valued about the same total as Alt. A.
Perhaps the owners, in return for relief from being impacted by
A, would be willing to settle for less.
Another unknown cost, which the City might be asked
to bear in whole or part, is the necessary relocation of
utility poles along the east side of Floral. A NYSEG official
accompanying the tour was asked to provide this information,
but I am not aware whether it has been received by Finger
Lakes, the Mayor or Supt. Dougherty.
A subalternate, B -1, was identified on the tour. It
would follow A a bit further along the channel, crossing land
owned by Dr. Weiner, then jog to Floral and follow B as
described.
Costs would be similar to B, less the cost of moving
a couple of poles, plus the costs of easement across Dr.
Weiner's land and out to Floral (roughly $5- 10,000).
J
Memo to B &A Committee
Re: Bikeway Route Alternatives
-3-
Another subalternate, B -2, was mentioned but does not
seem to be in active consideration. It would follow B or B -1
along Floral, then continue along Floral /13A as shown on the
map.
Costs to the City would be reduced by any cost of
easement to return from Floral to the channel.
Alternate C would follow the channel from the Octopus
to some point between the 'C' in 'Channel' and the 'D' in
'Flood', then cross the channel on a separate new bike bridge
to the east side; then turn south along the channel bank, first
on the City's Cherry St. Industrial Park land and then on lands
of Dr. Weiner, primarily, to and across the City line; around
the bend in the Flood Channel; up onto and along the levee;
1 d now in the
Cost to City: Easements across private lands
abutting the channel between the old Inlet intersection and W.
Clinton St., plus appraisal and any extra legal costs if
brought to condemnation; plus any City participation in costs
of either bridge or dike at old Inlet; plus costs of easements
south of Cherry St. Industrial Park.
down off the levee south of the Inlet, cross "Al
of being acquired by the City as substitute for
process
'Southwest Park' and other lands to be alienated from park
o
designation; and rejoin the original alinement 'A' south of the
point it recrosses the Inlet, as described earlier. A
modification of this would have it rejoin alinement 'A' via a
bridge next to the railroad bridge at the Fish Ladder.
C�
Cost to the City: Cost (unknown) of easement across
Dr. Weiner's lands and others (a small portion has reportedly
`v
been offered as donation to the City by owner Bernard
YCarpenter)
in the stretch above the south City line, plus
appraisal and condemnation expense. Possible sharing in cost
of bridge: Parks has indicated it may be too expensive if
I
designed to their standards, which I think means no supports in
the channel, and strong enough to carry a maintenance vehicle.
A bike -only bridge, or piers spaced to accommodate crew races
(like the Octopus) might cost about $30,000 compared to the
$110,000 Parks' design could cost, according to the
manufacturer of prefab bridges Parks and I contacted.
Alternate D would cross the Octopus bridge,
preferably on a separate structure supported off its south
side, rather than on the south sidewalk; then follow the east
bank of the channel, crossing the old Inlet's intersection
either on a bike bridge or on a dike (suggested by Supt.
Dougherty as cheaper and desirable to force the flow of 6
Creek to scour the section of Inlet used by recreational boats,
above Buffalo St.), continuing along the channel to where it
merges with Alt. 'C'.
Cost to City: Easements across private lands
abutting the channel between the old Inlet intersection and W.
Clinton St., plus appraisal and any extra legal costs if
brought to condemnation; plus any City participation in costs
of either bridge or dike at old Inlet; plus costs of easements
south of Cherry St. Industrial Park.
Memo to B &A Committee -4-
Re: Bikeway Route Alternatives
Subalternate D -1: Cross Octopus as in 'D', continue
along W. State to Brindley to Taber to Flood Channel, then
south as in 'D'. Brindley crossing of old Inlet could be on
another separate bridge utilizing the abandoned railroad bridge
on the East side of Brindley, as suggested by Mr. Lower
(opponent of 'A' because that alinement crosses his lands), who
has offered to share the costs of such a bridge. This
alternate is least favored because it involves so many
potential safety hazards; in my view it is not viable.
Costs to City: Possible share of new Brindley St.
bridge over Inlet, in addition to easements and related costs
described for 'D'.
Concluding Comments: By the terms of the City -Town-
State agreement on the bikeway, the City's direct costs are
only those to acquire the necessary easements across private
lands in the City; the State agreed to foot the construction.
However, this agreement contemplated only Alt. 'A', which was
identified as conceptually the most direct and physically
uncomplicated alinement. In fact, there are a couple of points
(notably where the abandoned rail line crossed the Inlet where
some fairly hefty added construction is needed; and the bridge
over Elmira Rd. will be longer than Parks anticipated because
the old railroad abutments will be removed for traffic safety,
at DoT's initiative, supported by the Mayor. Obviously, any
further construction expense occasioned by any alternate will
constrain Parks' budget, and may jeopardize the bikeway; thus
it is logical that Parks would seek to have as much of those
costs borne by others as possible.
In cost of easements /r.o.w. only, of all alternates
'A' - 'D -1' subalternate 'B -2' would cost the City nothing,
since it would cross no private land.
Of the other alternative alinements, it is my opinion
that Alt. 'C' would be least expensive to the City. This is
based on the assumption that the private land east of the
channel would be valued substantially lower than that on the
west side, due to its current use, accessibility and potential
for further development; and on the implied or expressed intent
of Mr. Lower and Dr. Weiner, at least, to contest condemnation
of their lands west of the channel.
In roughly ascending order from there, I would
estimate the easement costs as 'B', 'B -11, 'D -1' and 'D -2'. An
unknown variable that might substantially reduce this cost for
'B' is the possibility that Mr. Lower would gift the necessary
easement, in acknowledgment of the abandonment of the original
route across his flood channel frontage.
Many variables apply to the possibility that the City
could be asked to share some of the other costs associated with
any of the alternates, in exchange for the State's agreeing to
J
Memo to B &A Committee
Re: Bikeway Route Alternatives
-5-
accept an alternate preferred by the City. These costs could
be justified, to an extent, by benefits to the City. For
example, Alternates B, B -1 and B -2 would avoid all or much of
the costs associated with condemnation. Alternates C, D -1 and
D -2 would afford easier, safer access to recreational
opportunities for a large proportion of the City population who
would not have to negotiate the Octopus to get to the bikeway.
Alt. D -1 could improve the old Inlet's navigability and
appearance.
Since Finger Lakes State Parks
seriously consider alternatives, and has
any of these out on cost, nor identified
of alternates in which the City would be
that these comments and information will
the cost considerations in context.
seems willing to
not absolutely ruled
any construction costs
asked to share, I hope
assist you in putting
Please let me know if you have further questions on
this.
JM /mc�A)
Enclosure
cc: Mayor John C. Gutenberger
H. Matthys Van Cort
(disk #6)
F-1�J
�� ❑` „ to
�r
G�
G
- / `- Q,tTNwE6T
cw
r �•
S�0
rr
W �° QI.1t4amf. �
Z � m Qo
nx
lblKeWAY
L/
OT^TE M.ILR
i�
��!.�
• .RJ :1HL•���ii
F-1�J
�� ❑` „ to
�r
G�
G
- / `- Q,tTNwE6T
cw
r �•
S�0
rr
W �° QI.1t4amf. �
Z � m Qo
nx
lblKeWAY
L/
OT^TE M.ILR