HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2007-10-03COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. October 3, 2007
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Alderpersons (10) Coles, Berry, Clairborne, Tomlan, Zumoff, Gelinas, Townsend,
Cogan, Korherr, Dotson
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney – Hoffman
City Controller – Thayer
Planning and Development Director – Van Cort
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Fire Chief – Wilbur
Information Management Specialist – Myers
Planner - Nicholas
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Planning & Economic Development Committee:
Alderperson Tomlan requested that Item 15.1 Common Council Findings in Support of
the Collegetown Temporary Moratorium – Resolution be moved to the first item under
the Planning & Economic Development Committee and become Item 12.1.
No Council Member objected.
PROCLAMATIONS/AWARDS:
3.1 Mayor Peterson proclaimed October 27, 2007 as “Into the Streets Day” in the
City of Ithaca. Lauren Wein, spokesperson for the event addressed Council to thank
them for their support of this initiative and to explain that they are still in need of
agencies to place volunteers.
Alderperson Berry arrived at the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
3.2 Mayor Peterson proclaimed the month of September 15 – October 15, 2007 as
Latino Heritage Month in the City of Ithaca. Eric Rosario and Fernando DeAragon
addressed Council to thank them for their support and to highlight various events that
will take place during the month.
3.3 Alderperson Coles spoke in support of the Mayor’s proclamantion on “No Place
for Hate” and for the City re-affirming its commitment to zero tolerance for hate crimes.
She described an incident that happened about 1 ½ years ago where a former
Alderperson and his partner were accosted in the Home Dairy Alley by a group of young
men because they were gay. The Alderperson shared this story because it was the
only time he had felt afraid in Ithaca. She stated that in lieu of the critical events taking
place in our society, now it is time for the City of Ithaca to re-affirm its commitment
against discrimination for any reason and promote compatibility.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4.1 Nomination for Appointment to fill the First Ward Vacancy
Alderperson Coles nominated Jennifer Dotson to fill the First Ward Vacancy. She
stated that the City was fortunate to find a candidate who is intelligent, hard working,
well informed, and could fill this position immediately.
Alderperson Townsend echoed Alderperson Coles comments and added his concern
about democratic processes. He stated that he’s known Ms. Dotson for a couple of
years and has encouraged her to run for a seat on Common Council because of her
hard work and dedication as a Board of Public Works Commissioner. He further
October 3, 2007
2
reflected on the work involved during his campaign for Common Council and wished
Ms. Dotson good luck.
Mayor Peterson explained that not having a full complement of ten Common Council
members takes away her ability to vote. She stated that she understands Alderperson
Townsend’s sentiments about the democratic and election processes, and how
important it is to have representation from different parties so voters have a choice.
Alderperson Coles explained that Ms. Dotson’s appointment to fill the vacancy in the
First Ward would expire on December 31, 2007. As of this date, Ms. Dotson is the only
candidate on the ballot to fill the vacancy in the first ward.
Alderperson Berry stated that Ms. Dotson has been interested in running for Common
Council for a long time. She further stated that Ms. Dotson has been very interested
and engaged in the community and is enthusiastic and committed to Common Council
and the work involved in upcoming budget review meetings.
Alderperson Tomlan stated that before a vote was taken to fill the First Ward vacancy,
she wanted to thank Ms. Dotson for her years of service to the Board of Public Works
and the Planning Board and noted how much those boards would miss her. She further
voiced her delight in having Ms. Dotson serve on Common Council.
Resolution to Appoint Jennifer Dotson to fill a First Ward Vacancy
By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Korherr
WHEREAS, the resignation of Shane Seger, effective September 3, 2007 left a First
Ward seat vacant on the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Ithaca provides that, “if a vacancy shall happen in
any elective office other than Mayor, the Common Council shall fill the same by
appointment”, and
WHEREAS, it appears that as of this date that Jennifer Dotson is the only candidate
running for the First Ward seat; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council, pursuant to Section C-100 of the Charter of the
City of Ithaca, hereby appoints Jennifer Dotson to serve as a Common Council
representative of the First Ward through December 31, 2007, effective immediately.
Carried Unanimously
Mayor Peterson administered the Oath of Office to Alderperson Dotson, and she joined
the other Common Council members to participate in the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Mayor
Peterson congratulated Alderperson Dotson and welcomed her to Common Council.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
5.1 Presentation by the Disability Advisory Council
Larry Roberts, Chair of the Disability Advisory Council (DAC) distributed an annual
report to Common Council members detailing the activities of the DAC in 2007. He
highlighted the following items:
“Summary of Major Work
Our most important work was to advocate for a change in the way the city approaches
snow and ice removal from sidewalks, an approach that now sees snow and ice
removal as a priority, and as a matter of the rights of people with disabilities to be able
to get around the city in the winter.
The Disability Advisory Council has a good relationship with the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency. We regularly met with Sue Kittel, Deputy Director, Community Development, to
discuss priorities for HUD entitlement funds, with many positive results:
City Hall now has power doors at internal doors
The Red Cross Shelter is able to make access improvements at the Friendship
Center that will allow access to shelter beds for people with mobility disabilities
October 3, 2007
3
The Ithaca Youth Bureau is funded to install power doors at its entrance and re-
stripe its parking lot for better handicapped parking.
The DAC works collaboratively with Lynne Yost, sidewalk program, to improve the
process of curb ramp installation and repair, beginning in 2005, when Vice-Chair Greg
Gizewski helped survey many locations needing repair or installation. Continuing the
process, former DAC member Caissa Wilmer developed a report identifying curb ramp
needs in the north of the city, mostly in Fall Creek. Caissa surveyed the area and also
sought input from neighbors and the Neighborhood Association. Lynne Yost has
recently convened a South of the Creek working group to identify curb ramp and other
access needs in that area. The working group includes three residents of Titus Towers
and Assistant Civil Engineer, Lynne, Engineering Aide Kent Johnson, and Traffic
Engineer Tim Logue; the executive director and maintenance coordinator at Titus
Towers attended the first meeting.
We have a good connection with JoAnn Cornish, Deputy Director of Planning and
Development, having really good conversations about the ways that the DAC can give
input and have a role with projects.
The DAC received a presentation by Brian Wilbur, Fire Chief, City of Ithaca. He
described the way that the fire department plans evacuation of people with disabilities
from larger city buildings such as City Hall, Titus Towers, and the Mental Health
Building. Chief Wilbur heard various concerns about Titus Towers and has agreed to
review the evacuation plan developed by Ithaca Housing Authority, and ask them to
implement drills. He will report back to the DAC.
Other Work
Met with the City of Ithaca Diversity Committee. The DAC Chair is still waiting to
appoint a liaison to that committee.
The mapping project moves forward, with the work of Charlie Dorsey. Samantha
Baker, a Girl Scout, will be assisting Charlie; she’s pursuing the Gold Award, and
assisting the DAC on the survey is part of her project. The award is the highest
award for Girl Scouts. The mapping project has consisted of accessibility surveys
of businesses in the downtown area. The collected data will be used to create a
GIS-based map that can be easily updated and available on the City’s website.”
DAC Chair Roberts gave special recognition to the following people for their support:
Leslie Chatterton, Historic and Neighborhood Planner, Robin Korherr, Common Council
member and liaison to the DAC, and Mayor Peterson.
Mayor Peterson thanked Mr. Roberts for his leadership, dedication, and many years of
service to the DAC. She explained that many other committees and boards should be
providing annual reports to the Mayor and Common Council pursuant to City Charter
and noted that she would be following up on this issue in the future.
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
JoAnn Trutko, City of Ithaca resident and business owner in Collegetown, spoke in
support of the proposed Temporary Building Moratorium for Collegetown.
Theresa Alt, City of Ithaca, addressed Common Council regarding the City’s franchise
agreement with Time Warner. She stated that she supports using the fees that Time
Warner collects for the intended purposes. She stressed the importance of having a
local access channel and described local programming needs.
Wayles Browne, City of Ithaca and member of the Cable Access Oversight Committee,
addressed Council in support of the proposed resolution regarding the City’s franchise
agreement with Time Warner Cable.
John Schroeder, City of Ithaca and Chair of the Planning Board, addressed Council to
report that the Planning Board voted unanimously to support the Temporary Building
Moratorium in Collegetown. He urged Common Council to support the proposed
moratorium with the currently proposed appeals process.
October 3, 2007
4
Joyce Muchan, Human Rights Commission, addressed Common Council to explain the
role of the Human Rights Commission, and to distribute information about the services
they provide. She further reported on the current dispute at Ithaca High School
regarding racial discrimination and urged Council to hold the Ithaca City School District
accountable.
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, addressed Council regarding potholes, the proposed
moratorium in Collegetown, the Markles Flat building, the need for a new Greater Ithaca
Activities Center, and the need for big box stores such as Kohl’s.
Susan Blumenthal, City of Ithaca, addressed Council in support of the proposed
Temporary Building Moratorium in Collegetown. She urged Council to support the
moratorium in order to identify the needs outlined in the Collegetown Vision Statement
and to reduce the risks of unplanned construction. She further requested that the
financial hardship clause not be removed and that the Planning Board remain the body
to which appeals could be made.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
Mayor Peterson welcomed the Ithaca High School Government class students in
attendance at the meeting.
Alderperson Zumoff noted a recent article in the Ithaca Journal that stated that the City
of Ithaca had won an award as part of the “America in Bloom Program”. He recognized
City Forester Andy Hillman for all his hard work and dedication that resulted in the
presentation of this award.
Alderperson Tomlan announced that nominations were being accepted for the 2007
Pride of Ownership Award which is jointly sponsored by the City of Ithaca and the
Rotary Club. The deadline to submit nominations is Friday, October 19, 2007. She
further responded to comments made about the proposed moratorium and noted for the
record that Ellen McCollister had submitted her support for the proposed moratorium in
writing to Common Council.
Mayor Peterson noted that Jean McPheeters, Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce, has submitted a Resolution that the Chamber Board passed in opposition to
the moratorium.
Alderperson Coles addressed the current events taking place in Burma. She reminded
everyone that the City has a significant Burmese population and noted that support
should be provided to them and their fellow countrymen.
Alderperson Korherr announced that the Environment and Neighborhood Quality
Committee would be discussing the off-leash dog area at their October 22, 2007
meeting as its status as an off-leash dog area will expire December 1, 2007 unless
Common Council takes further action.
Alderperson Berry thanked the speakers for their comments and the high school
students for coming to the meeting. She stated that the Environment and Neighborhood
Quality Committee would also be discussing the issue involving the Ithaca City School
District at its October meeting. She extended her support for the people in Burma
fighting for democracy. She announced that the Dalai Lama would be visiting Ithaca
next week and would be speaking at Ithaca College, Cornell University, and the State
Theatre. She further announced that she has discovered that there are two Michelle
Berry’s in Tompkins County and wanted people to know that the other one lives in
Brooktondale.
Alderperson Townsend noted that Alderperson Berry would be involved with the Dalai
Lama’s visit and would be performing at the State Theatre for his event there.
Alderperson Clairborne thanked the speakers for their comments and the students for
coming out to the meeting. He responded to comments made regarding potholes, the
October 3, 2007
5
Time Warner Cable franchise agreement, and the proposed temporary building
moratorium. He stated that the Ithaca City School District should address issues of
students being racially harassed and discriminated against. He further stated that he
feels Common Council should make a statement in support of the need for the school
district to make a commitment to addressing those issues. He also announced that the
Calvary Baptist Church would be celebrating its 150th anniversary this month and invited
everyone to the different events being held by the church in celebration of this special
accomplishment. He noted that Leslyn McBean-Clairborne presided as Chair of the last
Tompkins County Legislature meeting, which was the first time that a person of color
convened the meeting and held the position of Tompkins County’s top executive. He
further noted that Leslyn McBean-Clairborne is his wife.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
No items were submitted for the agenda
ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY COMMITTEE:
10.1 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 346
entitled “Vehicles & Traffic” to add Sections 346-1(B) and 346-3(M) regarding Car-
Share Parking Spaces
By Alderperson Korherr: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
ORDINANCE 07-____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as
follows:
Section 1: Section 346-1(B) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended by the addition of the following definitions:
§346-1. (“Definitions”)
(B).
CAR-SHARE VEHICLE – A vehicle used by members of a qualified car-sharing
entity, which vehicle has been so identified to the City and which bears an affixed
symbol issued by the City, indicating the same.
QUALIFIED CAR-SHARING ENTITY – A corporation, cooperative or association,
open to application (for membership and shared vehicle use) from the general public,
and formed and maintained for the purpose of sharing the use of motor vehicles, which
has submitted a proper application for qualification to the City Traffic Engineer (including
proof of sufficient insurance coverage specifically for such shared use, with the City
named as a co-insured, and an agreement to indemnify and hold the City harmless),
and which has been so qualified by the City Traffic Engineer.
Section 2: Section 346-3(M) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to read as follows:
§346-3. (“Delegation of Authority to Regulate Traffic”)
(M). Bus stops and , taxicab stands and car-sharing locations.
(1) The City Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and required to
establish bus stops, taxicab stands, parking locations exclusively for
use by car-share vehicles, and stands for other passenger common
carrier motor vehicles on such public streets, in such places and in
such number as he/she shall determine to be of the greatest benefit
and convenience to the public. The Board of Public Works shall be the
body for appeals of the City Traffic Engineer’s decisions regarding
such locations or the qualifications of any applicants therefor.
(2) Before the Traffic City Engineer may authorize or renew a parking
location for use by car-share vehicles, the car-sharing entity that seeks
October 3, 2007
6
such authorization must submit a proper written request for the same
(including proof of insurance coverage for the car-sharing
arrangement, naming the City as a co-insured, and indemnification of
the City), and must show that the entity qualifies under the definition of
a “car-sharing entity” which is contained herein.
[subsequent subsection to be renumbered as “(3)”]
Severability
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this law is held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall in no way affect the validity of any
remaining portions of this law.
Section 12: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with law upon publication of
a notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Alderperson Dotson recused herself from the discussion and vote on this item as she is
on the staff of Ithaca Car Share. She further explained that the City’s Traffic Engineer is
also on the board of Ithaca Car Share and the Superintendent of Public Works would
designate parking locations until the conflict no longer exists.
Alderperson Korherr explained that Ithaca is the first city in New York State to designate
special parking spaces for this type of an organization. She further explained that
applications from the general public would be accepted with proof of specific insurance
coverage. She stated that this legislation was passed unanimously at the committee
meeting.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that car sharing is intended to be open to the public.
However the City wants to avoid situations where two people who own a car could apply
for membership when there is no intent to share the car as an entity.
Alderperson Clairborne stated that he was happy to see this initiative move forward as it
will assist the public and reduce the amount of cars on the road.
Alderperson Townsend thanked everyone for their work on this issue and wished them
good luck in this endeavor.
Alderperson Korherr explained that this change would require a minimum of six parking
spaces, maximum of twelve spaces, to be designated for car share vehicles. She
further explained that more information on this program can be obtained from visiting
the website for Ithaca Car Share.
Alderperson Zumoff questioned how a “public space” could be reserved for this
program.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that there is no absolute answer to this question
because this type of organization is so new and there is no case law to refer to. He
further explained that New York State law specifies that the people and not a special
class/organization shall use public spaces. There may be an undermining of public trust
by making car-sharing spots available; although the City has set a precedent by
establishing specific locations for taxi stands. The City cannot create taxi stands for a
particular taxi company. Similarly, the car share spots have to be open to any car in a
car sharing entity. This use must be tested in the courts as car sharing is promoted
throughout the country.
A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) Coles, Berry, Clairborne, Zumoff, Tomlan, Gelinas, Townsend,
Cogan, Korherr
Nays (0)
Abstentions (1) Dotson
October 3, 2007
7
Carried (9-0-1)
10.2 Support for Tobacco-Free Zones and Other Voluntary Steps to Reduce
Smoking - Resolution
By Alderperson Korherr: Seconded by Alderperson Berry
WHEREAS, in New York State there are 25,500 deaths every year from causes
attributable to smoking. Nationwide, the toll is 450,000 deaths a year, and
WHEREAS, in New York State, medical costs to care for disease and disability
attributable to smoking total $8.17 Billion annually, or $12.62 for every pack sold in the
state. Direct Medicaid costs attributable to smoking total $5.47 Billion a year in New
York State, or $375 per capita, and
WHEREAS, tobacco dependence is a chronic condition that often requires repeated
intervention. Personal contact, including but not limited to providing social support, is
especially effective for individuals attempting tobacco cessation, and
WHEREAS, in Tompkins County 19 percent of adults are cigarette smokers. The
average consumption per smoker is about 16 cigarettes a day, for a total of
approximately 12,500 packs a day consumed by Tompkins County adults, and
WHEREAS, the June 27, 2006 Report of the Surgeon General cites “massive and
conclusive scientific evidence” that “there is no risk-free level of exposure to
secondhand smoke,” and that “exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate
adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and
lung cancer”, and
WHEREAS, an estimated 50,000 excess deaths a year result from exposure to
secondhand smoke in the United States, and
WHEREAS, a wide majority of Tompkins County adults support restrictions on smoking
at outdoor public places in the county, and
WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Health Department in July 2006 introduced the
Tobacco Free Zone program in part as a voluntary tool to protect the health and safety
of County employees, residents and visitors by improving air quality of building
entryways and outdoor areas frequented by the public, and
WHEREAS, codes and administrative orders that ban smoking in outdoor public spaces
have been implemented by jurisdictions in New York State to help protect youth from
secondhand smoke and to provide a more healthy model of adult behavior, and
WHEREAS, smoke free public spaces may be an important part of a comprehensive
tobacco use prevention program, and
WHEREAS, litter resulting from cigarette smoking in open public spaces is unsightly
and detracts from the visual landscape for both residents and visitors, presents a
potential hazard to young children, pets and wildlife, and is costly to clean up, and
WHEREAS, teens and adolescents are motivated to smoke by common tobacco
industry marketing practices, irrespective of whether or not they intentionally target
youth, and
WHEREAS, youth regularly shop at stores where exposure to tobacco ads and
promotions is likely, and
WHEREAS, funds as available to implement these initiatives through signage will be
provided by grants awarded to the Tompkins County Health Department; now, therefore
be it
RESOLVED, That special tobacco promotions be prohibited from taking place on city
owned or managed property, and, be it further
October 3, 2007
8
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca be prohibited from accepting any and all donations
from tobacco manufacturers, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council urges all businesses and workplaces within the
City to establish T-Free Zones at entrances, exits and outdoor common areas on their
property, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council urges all retail stores licensed to sell tobacco
products to take voluntary steps to reduce the size and number of tobacco advertising
and promotional displays that are visible from outside the store to the minimum which is
reasonable to convey to customers who currently use tobacco the message that the
store sells tobacco products, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council urges all retail stores licensed to sell tobacco
products to take voluntary steps to reduce the size and number of tobacco advertising
and promotional displays that are visible from inside the store to the minimum which is
reasonable to convey to customers who currently use tobacco information about brands
and products available for sale, and current pricing for those products.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Korherr: Seconded by Alderperson Townsend
RESOLVED, That the 14th Whereas clause be amended to read as follows:
‘WHEREAS, For the purpose of implementing these initiatives, T-Free Zone signage will
be provided through funding as available and approved from a New York State Tobacco
Control Program grant to the Tompkins County Department of Health.”
Alderperson Korherr explained that Ted Shiele, of the Tompkins County Health
Department worked closely with the committee on this resolution and a proposal to
change language in the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. She stated that the City Attorney
advised the committee to complete additional research into the proposed City Code
amendment. The committee unanimously approved this Resolution as it will improve
the quality of life issue and also be self-enforced. She explained that the committee
would address this issue further once the City Attorney’s office provides them with
additional information.
Alderperson Korherr explained that the proposed amendment on the floor is from Ted
Shiele as he feels that it is important to understand that there is collaboration with the
Tompkins County Health Department. The City of Ithaca would not have to pay for any
of the advertising related to this initiative as the grant money will be used as available
and approved for the costs. She stated that Mr. Shiele submitted this proposed
language because the resolution in its present form does not indicate that funding is
available for this initiative.
After further discussion the proposed amendment was withdrawn.
Main Motion
A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
11. COMMUNICATION & EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE:
11.1 Update on Start of School Year Activities at Local Campuses
Alderperson Clairborne reported that all activities to begin the start of the academic year
on area campuses went very well. The Fire and Police Departments made a full report
at the September Communications and Emergency Services meeting and provided
information on over-time hours, call volumes, and resulting arrests.
11.2 Update on New Emergency Communication System
Alderperson Clairborne provided the following update that Fire Chief Wilbur presented
to the Emergency Services and Communications Committee in September:
October 3, 2007
9
“The physical construction of facilities for the new system is nearing the finishing stages
now. With the exception of one tower in Newfield, all others are at or near operational
states.
The new microwave links between the towers are coming on line now, with the 800 MHz
radio systems close behind. Initial trials indicate performance may exceed
expectations.
Although the original cut-over date of October 7th will not be met, it is anticipated the
system will be up and running before the end of October. This does not mean it will be
operational because calibrating, testing, and other activities will take some time to
complete.
Equipment orders (i.e., vehicle radios, base stations, etc.) are on their way to the
vendor. Late news suggests the pricing may be more favorable to us than first
anticipated.
In the meantime, emergency services personnel, including representatives from the
Ithaca Fire and Police Departments, are working on policies and procedures necessary
to structure and manage the new system. Post 9-11, communications interoperability
between emergency service agencies was identified as a critical capability and
Tompkins County will soon be at the cutting edge. Insuring the structure and training
needed to take full advantage of this new resource is a critical task.
Wireless 911 service enhancements are in the works. The Phase II piece is underway
as negotiations proceed with cell phone companies servicing Tompkins County. The
result of this will be the ability to determine the location of a cell phone caller to the 911
Center, which will be a critical advance from current operations.
A meeting will be convened in October to initiate the annual review and discussions of
the Memorandum of Understanding between the County and City for dispatch and
communications services. This is an opportunity to review the performance of the
parties to the MOU and of the MOU itself in meeting the needs of each agency
involved.”
Alderperson Zumoff added that Tompkins County now has a 2-1-1 system in place that
the public can use to obtain information. He thanked Ed Swayze at the Human
Services Coalition for his many years of service providing information 24 hours a day
seven days a week to the community.
12. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
12.1 Common Council Findings in Support of the Collegetown Temporary
Moratorium – Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Gelinas
WHEREAS, the area of East Hill known as Collegetown has grown alongside Cornell
University, providing privately developed housing, goods and services to members of
the campus community—students, faculty and staff—for over 125 years, and
WHEREAS, there have been periods of greater and lesser growth and change in
Collegetown, but generally increased development, and
WHEREAS, in September 1985 the Common Council enacted a temporary, 12-month
moratorium on certain construction in Collegetown, which moratorium was extended by
6 months, in order to study and enact new legislation for the area, which had been
undergoing rapid change with the construction of several new apartment and mixed-use
buildings, and
WHEREAS, in September 1999 the Common Council enacted a temporary 12-month
moratorium on the construction of new dwellings in Collegetown in order to complete an
in-depth study of parking issues, which moratorium was followed by the establishment
of the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone and new parking regulations in October 2000,
and
October 3, 2007
10
WHEREAS, in the 14 years between the end of the first moratorium and the beginning
of the second, new multistory apartment and mixed-use buildings were constructed,
including but not limited to Egan Square, Student Agencies, Collegetown Plaza,
Collegetown Center, 312 College Avenue, 122 Catherine Street, and 407 College
Avenue, that took, according to the Collegetown Parking Study (July 2000), “the total
number of beds in large apartment buildings to almost 2,000,” and
WHEREAS, even as the Collegetown parking study and enactment of new regulations
proceeded, it was recognized that this most densely populated neighborhood in the City
would benefit from a broader analysis and plan, including consideration of density, use,
circulation, streetscapes, and interface with surrounding residential neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2005, the Common Council authorized the establishment of
a Collegetown Client Committee charged with formulating a vision for Collegetown
development reflective of the interests and concerns of that community and of the city
as a whole, and with recommending steps to achieve that vision, and
WHEREAS, in April 2006 the Collegetown Vision Task Force was appointed and
included representation from owners and employees of Collegetown businesses,
property owners, Cornell University students and administrators, real
estate/banking/construction interests, residents of adjoining neighborhoods, and
Common Council members, and
WHEREAS, this group met over the course of ten months and considered the
challenges and issues facing Collegetown, and ways of improving the economic,
aesthetic, social, and environmental quality of life of Collegetown in such a manner as
to have a beneficial impact on the surrounding community and the city at large, and
WHEREAS, the completed Collegetown Vision Statement was presented to Common
Council and was endorsed by the Common Council on June 6, 2007, and
WHEREAS, to implement the vision, the Common Council established the Collegetown
Vision Implementation Committee, which it charged with prioritizing the
recommendations of the vision statement and developing the process for their
implementation, including the preparation of a scheduled estimate of a budget,
identification of funding sources, and definition of project boundaries, and
WHEREAS, to further proceed toward this goal and, in particular, to undertake the
preparation of an urban plan and design guidelines for Collegetown, the Common
Council on September 5, 2007, established a capital project in an amount not to exceed
$75,000 which will be combined with a dollar-for-dollar match of up to $75,000 to be
made available by Cornell University, and
WHEREAS, a Request for Qualifications from firms interested in preparing an urban
plan and design guidelines for Collegetown has been issued, and
WHEREAS in the 7 years since the completion of the parking study and creation of the
Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, new apartment and mixed-use buildings have been,
are being or have permits to be constructed, including but not limited to 301 Eddy
Street, 227-231 Linden Avenue, 400-404 College Avenue, 319 College Avenue, 320
Dryden Road, and 121 Oak Avenue, and
WHEREAS, at least five further project proposals for apartment and mixed-use
buildings of substantial scale within the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone have been
discussed with and/or are known to staff of the Department of Planning and
Development; now, therefore, be it
October 3, 2007
11
RESOLVED, That in endorsing the vision statement the Common Council finds that:
Consensus has developed for taking a comprehensive look at the Collegetown
environment, including but not limited to urban design, architectural character,
public and private infrastructure, the impacts of high-density student housing, the
quality of life in surrounding residential neighborhoods, the pedestrian
experience, transit, vehicular access, parking, the business climate, and the
interface with downtown and with the campus.
Insufficient attention has been given to the design and quality of the urban
environment in Collegetown, including streetscapes and individual buildings.
The Collegetown business district does not fulfill its potential, with a limited retail
mix and a customer base tied to the academic calendar.
Spaces for public gathering are limited in Collegetown.
In spite of having an enormous amount of foot traffic, the Collegetown area is not
especially pedestrian friendly, while accommodations for bicycle and transit use
are deficient.
There continues to be, in both perception and reality, a parking shortage in
Collegetown, and many accommodations for parking detract from neighborhood
character; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds that the creation of an urban plan and
design guidelines for Collegetown, with concomitant legislation, is needed that will
foster the construction of buildings in the business area that accommodate
desirable mixed uses, including upper-story office use;
encourage first-floor retail use to promote street activity in the business area;
protect residential neighborhoods to the east, south and west of the Collegetown
core from adverse impacts of multistory commercial and student residential
development;
stabilize transition areas between high-density R-3 zones and the lower-density
R-1 or R-2 neighborhoods;
protect and preserve the residential fabric and quality of life that attracts long-
term owner-occupants to these neighborhoods;
encourage the provision of new housing for a greater mix of household types;
ensure that public and private redevelopment routinely includes pedestrian and
bicycle accommodations;
recognize and support the important role played by public transit;
encourage the creation of well-designed public spaces that provide needed
venues for social and cultural experience;
highlight valued historic and cultural features and the distinctive topographical
environment;
reduce zoning incentives for the demolition of buildings that contribute to the
character of Collegetown; and
ensure that new construction is compatible with the existing and planned urban
fabric in terms of terms of height, lot coverage and/or placement on the lot; and
be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds that, given its commitment to and
investment in the creation of an urban plan and design guidelines for Collegetown, it is
important that conditions of use, occupancy and form be stabilized in the face of
continued development pressure, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds that the proposed temporary moratorium
on certain construction within the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone will provide those
conditions and will enable the creation of an urban plan and design guidelines to so
proceed, while permitting certain specified exemptions and applications for relief.
Alderperson Tomlan explained why this resolution did not make it to the Planning &
Economic Development Committee for discussion.
Alderperson Gelinas stated that the building moratorium would provide time to
incorporate the vision and urban design guidelines recommended by the Collegetown
October 3, 2007
12
Vision Task Force. He further stated that the moratorium would not stop development
in Collegetown as the demand for property in that area will always be there. He
explained that the committee spent 10 months creating the Collegetown Vision
Statement and if development is allowed during the moratorium period the plan would
be undermined. He encouraged Council to support the proposed moratorium.
Alderperson Zumoff noted that items 12.1 and 12.2 are tied closely together. He stated
that he does not support the moratorium but would like to see Council issue a statement
of support for the Collegetown Urban Design concept. He further stated that he would
like to see the last two Resolved clauses removed from the resolution.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Zumoff: Seconded by
RESOLVED, That the last two Resolved clauses in the resolution be removed.
Motion Failed for lack of Seconder
Alderperson Tomlan stated that Common Council has already adopted the Collegetown
Vision Statement and a capital project has been established for the consultant and
implementation committee. She stated that it is important to support the moratorium to
facilitate the planning process and optimize the City’s investment. The Collegetown
Vision Statement is a major step forward and the plan will put the vision together. The
moratorium is essential to move forward with the urban design plan and to move
beyond the vision statement. She stated that she firmly supports the moratorium and
encouraged Council’s support for it.
Alderperson Korherr stated that everyone has been criticized for approval of spotty
development in the City and she feels that this proposal is a “no brainer”. She further
stated that there is a need to endorse the plan and respect the recommendations of the
Collegetown Vision Task Force.
Mayor Peterson explained the importance of a comprehensive plan for the City as well
as looking at zoning issues and stated that a lot of development in the City does not go
forward without variances being granted.
Alderperson Berry stated that she is torn about her decision on this resolution. She
explained that if she votes against it, the moratorium will still go forward and she
struggles with the issue of eminent domain. She further stated that Council needs to
keep in mind the comments that have been made against the moratorium. She
expressed concern about the process and the opportunity for students to voice their
opinions. She further expressed concern about the Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce opposition to the moratorium and hopes that future processes will involve
them to improve the process and provide earlier engagement of constituents.
Alderperson Gelinas stated that there were student representatives on the Collegetown
Vision Task Force Committee and there was also a Collegetown Neighborhood meeting
to involve area residents with the proposal. He further stated that the Cornell Daily Sun
covered the story and students had information on how to access information on the
proposal. He stated that he did his best to involve students in the process and the
Planning Committee heard extensively from the community on this issue. He feels that
both students and community members have been actively involved in this proposed
project.
Alderperson Townsend stated that a distinction should be made between graduate and
undergraduate students and that both of those groups should be included in the future.
Alderperson Clairborne stated that he supports the resolution and appreciates that the
plan includes the business community. He further stated that this process will help in
other parts of the City as development occurs to try to balance resident and student
needs.
October 3, 2007
13
Alderperson Dotson stated that the neighborhoods and buildings in the area need to be
preserved and she supports the findings of the task force to stabilize and balance
development in the area. She further stated that projects that do fit into the guidelines
will take time to develop and a year may seem like a long time, but is not.
Alderperson Townsend stated that he supports the moratorium but not the process by
which it was done.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Coles, Dotson, Clairborne, Tomlan, Gelinas, Townsend, Cogan,
Korherr
Nays (2) Berry, Zumoff
Abstentions (0)
Carried (8-2)
12.2 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 325
entitled “Zoning” to add Section 325-27 entitled “Temporary Moratorium”
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Coles
ORDINANCE NO. 07-
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that
the City does hereby establish a temporary moratorium on certain new construction within
the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended to add
the following section:
§ 325-27. TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
A. Purpose and Intent.
A temporary moratorium on certain new construction within the Collegetown
Parking Overlay Zone, as described below, is hereby established, for a 12-month
period beginning with the effective date, as set forth in Section 4, herein. The
purpose of this moratorium is to stabilize, temporarily, existing conditions of use,
occupancy and form in the face of continued development pressure, in order to
provide the Common Council with sufficient time and opportunity to prepare and
adopt an urban plan and design guidelines for the Collegetown area, and to draft
and enact revised zoning and related regulations, as needed, in order to
implement the plan. The Common Council intends the plan and the design
guidelines to address the threats, problems and goals set forth in the Vision
Statement it has endorsed for Collegetown (see Subsection B, below), as well as
the related concerns of the Planning and Development Board (also described
below).
B. Background.
1. Almost since the opening of Cornell University in the nineteenth century,
the area of East Hill in the vicinity of the campus has grown alongside the
university, providing privately developed housing and services for
members of the campus community—students, faculty, and staff. While
there have been periods of greater and lesser growth, the overall pattern
has been one of increased development, and this area, particularly the
Collegetown business district, is now the most densely populated and
built-up neighborhood in the City of Ithaca.
Over the years, various individual studies have been done, streetscape
improvements made and zoning regulations adjusted. The most recent
study, completed in 2000, was broadly defined in geographic terms, but its
investigations and the resultant legislative actions were limited to the
single topic of parking. Since that time, development has continued, and
October 3, 2007
14
consensus has developed for taking a comprehensive look at the
Collegetown environment, including but not limited to urban design, new
construction, public and private infrastructure, the impacts of high-density
student housing, the quality of life in surrounding residential
neighborhoods, the pedestrian experience, transit, vehicular access,
parking, the business climate, and the interface with downtown and with
the campus.
2. The Collegetown Vision Statement.
The need to attend to planning and land use issues in the Collegetown area
was a factor in Common Council’s decision, on December 7, 2005, to
authorize the establishment of a Collegetown Client Committee charged
with formulating a vision for Collegetown development reflective of the
interests and concerns of that community and of the city as a whole, and
with recommending steps to achieve that vision. As defined in February
2006 and appointed in April 2006, the resultant Collegetown Vision Task
Force included representation from owners and employees of Collegetown
businesses, property owners, Cornell University students and
administrators, real estate/banking/construction interests, residents of
adjoining neighborhoods, and Common Council members. This group
met over the course of ten months and considered the challenges and
issues facing Collegetown, and ways of improving the economic,
aesthetic, social, and environmental quality of life of Collegetown in such a
manner as to have a beneficial impact on the surrounding community and
the city at large. The completed vision statement was presented to
Common Council and endorsed on June 6, 2007.
(a) The Vision Statement identified various concerns that need to be
addressed, including the following:
(1) Insufficient attention has been given to the design and
quality of recently built components of the urban
environment.
(2) In spite of having an enormous amount of foot traffic, the
Collegetown area is not especially pedestrian friendly.
Accommodations for bicycle and transit use are deficient.
(3) Spaces for public gathering are limited.
(4) The business district does not fulfill its potential, with a
limited retail mix and a customer base tied to the academic
calendar.
(5) There continues to be, in both perception and reality, a
parking shortage, and many accommodations for parking
detract from neighborhood character.
(b) The Vision Statement recommends the creation of an urban plan
and binding design guidelines, as well as reconsideration of
existing zoning to ensure that it is or will be consistent with the plan.
According to the Vision, a plan is needed that will:
(1) Ensure that architectural form in the business area
accommodates desirable mixed uses, including upper-story
office use.
(2) Encourage first-floor retail use to promote street activity in
the business area.
October 3, 2007
15
(3) Protect residential neighborhoods to the east, south and
west of the Collegetown core from adverse impacts of
commercial and high-density student residential
development.
(4) Protect and preserve the residential fabric and quality of life
that attracts long-term owner-occupants to these
neighborhoods.
(5) Encourage the provision of new housing for a greater mix of
household types.
(6) Ensure that public and private redevelopment routinely
includes pedestrian accommodations.
(7) Encourage the creation of well-designed public spaces that
provide needed venues for social and cultural experience.
3. In addition to the visioning process, and in response to its own site plan
review activity, particularly in multiple residence zones, the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board has determined that the unique
character of the residential neighborhoods in the Collegetown area is
threatened by the likely prospect of increased development that may be
permitted by existing zoning but which does not respect existing
neighborhood form, fabric and character. Furthermore, continued
development in the denser, business area could exacerbate current,
identified problems, unless a more comprehensive plan and
accompanying zoning and design guidelines are enacted. The Board has
requested that the City consider revising the zoning in the Collegetown
area, in order to:
(a) ensure that new construction fits within the context of the existing
urban fabric in terms of height, lot coverage and/or placement on
the lot;
(b) reduce zoning incentives for demolition of buildings that contribute
to the character of Collegetown;
(c) stabilize transition areas between B (business) zones or high-
density R-3 zones and the lower-density R-1 or R-2 neighborhoods.
C. Moratorium Terms.
1. Effective Period.
This moratorium shall be in effect, within the boundaries described in
Subsection E, herein, for a period of twelve (12) months from the effective
date of this ordinance, as described in Section 4, herein.
2. Affected Activities.
During the effective period of this moratorium, and within the affected area
(the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone), there shall be a moratorium on the
following:
(a) Construction of any new structure, as defined in Subsection D,
herein; or
(b) Any alterations or additions to existing structures that would increase
the legal residential occupancy of such structures;
October 3, 2007
16
(c) Any modifications to the exterior of any existing structures, where
such modifications would require site plan review, except that the
following shall not be affected by this moratorium:
(1) equipment replacement,
(2) repairs using like materials,
(3) alterations necessary for code compliance as cited by the City
of Ithaca Building Department, or
(4) construction or alterations associated directly and solely with
retail activity, where such construction or alterations meet the
definition of “projects of limited scope” and are therefore
eligible for expedited site plan review (see Chapter 276, Site
Plan Review).
(d) Construction of any additional parking spaces, parking areas, or
parking structures.
(e) All demolition, except for demolition of a structure that is determined
to be unsafe in conformance with Chapter 146, Article III.
3. Implementation.
(a) During the effective period of this moratorium, the Building
Commissioner shall cease to issue permits for the following, within
the affected area:
(1) construction of any new structure;
(2) alterations or additions to existing structures that would
increase the legal residential occupancy thereof;
(3) exterior modification of any structures, where such
modification would require site plan review, except as allowed
pursuant to Subsection 2.c, above; or
(4) demolition of any structures, except as allowed pursuant to
Subsection 2.e, above.
(b) During the effective period of this moratorium, the Planning and
Development Board shall cease to issue site plan approval for the
following, within the affected area:
(1) construction of any new structure;
(2) alterations or additions to existing structures that would
increase the legal residential occupancy thereof;
(3) exterior modification of any structures, where such
modification would require site plan review, except as allowed
pursuant to Subsection 2.c, above; or
(4) demolition of any structures, except as allowed pursuant to
Subsection 2.e, above.
(c) This ordinance shall be binding on all City departments, boards and
commissions and any applicant or property owner in the City.
October 3, 2007
17
D. Definitions.
1. For purposes of this Section, the terms “structure” and “alteration” shall be
as defined in the Code of the City of Ithaca, Zoning, Section 325-3, as
follows:
(a) “STRUCTURE - Anything that is constructed or erected on the
ground or upon another structure or building. Structure includes
constructed parking spaces, parking areas, and buildings.”
(b) “ALTERATION – As applied to a building or structure, a change or
rearrangement in the structural parts or in the exit facilities or an
enlargement, whether by extending on the front, rear, or on a side or
by increasing in height, or the moving from one location or position to
another.”
E. Boundary of Affected Area.
This moratorium shall apply to all properties in the Collegetown Parking Overlay
Zone (CPOZ) as indicated on the attached map entitled “Collegetown Parking
Overlay Zone (CPOZ).” The tracts so affected are in an area bounded by a
continuous line beginning at the southwest end of the Stewart Avenue bridge
where it crosses Cascadilla Creek; thence proceeding in a westerly direction
along the northern boundary of tax parcel 63-1-1 to the northwest corner of said
parcel; thence continuing southerly along the westerly boundaries of tax parcels
63-1-1 through 63-1-4 to the southwesterly corner of said parcel; thence
continuing in an easterly direction along the southerly boundary of tax parcel 63-
1-4 to the northwesterly corner of tax parcel 63-1-5; thence continuing in a
southerly direction along the westerly boundary of tax parcels 63-1-5 and 63 -1-6,
then continuing in a southerly direction across Osmun Place to the northwest
corner of tax parcel 63-10-3 and continuing in a southerly direction along the
westerly boundaries of tax parcels 63-10-3 through 63-10-5, then continuing in a
southerly direction across East Buffalo Street to the northwest corner of tax
parcel 63-11-3 then continuing in a southerly direction along the westerly
boundaries of tax parcels 63-11-3 through 63-11-8, then continuing in a southerly
direction across East Seneca Street to the northwest corner of tax parcel 68-1-2
and continuing in a southerly direction along the westerly boundaries of tax
parcels 68-1-2 through 68-1-4, to the southwesterly corner of said parcel; thence
continuing in a westerly direction along the northerly boundary of tax parcel 68-1-
5 to the northwest corner of said parcel; thence continuing in a southerly
direction along the westerly boundary of tax parcels 68-1-5 and 68-1-6 to the
northwest corner of tax parcel 68-1-9; thence continuing in an southeasterly
direction along the northerly boundary of tax parcel 68-1-9 to the northwesterly
corner of tax parcel 68-1-7, such that tax parcel 68-1-6 is wholly included in the
CPOZ; thence continuing in a southerly direction along the westerly boundaries
of tax parcels 68-1-7 and 68-1-8 , which parcels front on Stewart Avenue, then
continuing southerly across East State Street to the northwesterly corner of tax
parcel 68-10-1, then continuing in a southerly direction along the westerly
boundary of said parcel to its southwest corner; thence continuing in a
southeasterly direction along the southerly boundaries of tax parcels 68-10-1 and
68-10-2 to the southeast corner of tax parcel 68-10-2, then continuing in an
easterly direction across Ferris Place to the southwesterly corner of tax parcel
68-9-1 and continuing along the southerly boundaries of tax parcels 68-9-1
through 68-9-3 to the southeast corner of said parcel, then continuing
northeasterly across South Quarry Street to the northwesterly corner of tax
parcel 83-2-1; thence continuing southerly along the westerly boundaries of tax
parcels 83-2-1 and 83-2-2; thence continuing in a southeasterly direction along
the southerly boundaries of tax parcels 83-2-2 through 83-2-14 to the point of
intersection with the southerly boundary of tax parcel 83-2-24.12, then continuing
in a southeasterly direction along the southerly boundaries of tax
October 3, 2007
18
October 3, 2007
parcels 83-2-24.12, 83-2-16.2, 83-2-17, 83-2-22 and 83-2-21 to the southeasterly
corner of tax parcel 83-2-21and its intersection with Valentine Place: thence
continuing northeasterly across Valentine Place to the southwesterly corner of
tax parcel 89-3-14, then continuing in a northeasterly direction along the
westerly boundaries of tax parcels 89-3-14 and 89-3-15 to the southwesterly
corner of tax parcel 89-3-1; thence continuing in a southeasterly direction along
the southerly boundary of tax parcel 89-3-1 to the southeasterly corner of said
parcel; thence continuing in a southerly direction along the westerly boundary of
tax parcel 89-3-2 to the southwesterly corner of said parcel; thence continuing in
a southeasterly direction along the southerly boundary of 89-3-2 to the
southeasterly corner of said parcel; thence continuing in a southerly direction
along the westerly boundary of tax parcel 89-3-3 to the southwesterly corner of
said parcel; thence continuing in a southeasterly direction along the southerly
boundary of tax parcel 89-3-3 to the southeasterly corner of said parcel; then
continuing in a southerly direction along the westerly boundary of tax parcel 89-3-
4 to the southwesterly corner of said parcel and continuing along the southerly
boundaries of tax parcels 89-3-4 and 89-3-5.1 to the southeasterly corner of said
parcel which parcels front on East State Street; thence in a northeasterly
direction along the easterly boundary of tax parcel 89-3-5.1 to its northeasterly
corner and its intersection with East State Street; thence westerly along the
northerly boundaries of tax parcels 89-3-5.1 through 89-3-1, then continuing
northwesterly across Valentine Place and continuing along the northerly
boundaries of tax parcels 83-2-19 through 83-2-24.12 to the northwest corner of
said parcel; thence northeasterly across East State Street to the southeasterly
corner of tax parcel 83-3-6.1; thence continuing easterly across Blair Street to
the southwesterly corner of tax parcel 83-4-5; thence continuing northeasterly on
Mitchell Street along the southerly (street side) boundaries of tax parcels 83-4-5
and 83-4-4 to the southwesterly corner of tax parcel 83-4-4 and its intersection
with College Avenue, then continuing northeasterly across College Avenue to the
southwest corner of tax parcel 83-6-3, and continuing easterly following the
southerly boundaries of tax parcel 83-6-3 and 83–6-2 to the southwest corner of
tax parcel 83-6-2, then continuing easterly across Linden Avenue and along the
southerly boundary of tax parcel 84-1-1 to the southeast corner of said parcel;
thence continuing northerly along the easterly boundaries of tax parcels 84-1-1
and 67-3-18 to the northwesterly corner of tax parcel 67-3-4; thence proceeding
easterly along the northerly boundary of tax parcel 67-3-4 to the northeasterly
corner of said parcel and its intersection with Delaware Avenue; thence
continuing northerly along Delaware Avenue following the easterly boundaries of
tax parcels 67-3-3 and 67-3-2 to the northeasterly corner of tax parcel 67-3-2 and
its intersection with Bryant Avenue, then continuing easterly across Bryant
Avenue to the southwest corner of tax parcel 64-8-11 and its intersection with
Harvard Place, then continuing easterly along Harvard Place following the
southerly boundaries of tax parcels 64-8-11 and 64-8-10 to the southeasterly
corner of tax parcel 64-8-9, which parcels front on Harvard Place; thence
northerly along the easterly boundaries of tax parcels 64-8-9 and 64-8-5 and its
intersection with Dryden Road, then continuing northerly across Dryden Road to
the southwesterly corner of tax parcel 64-2-13; thence continuing southeasterly
along Dryden Road following the southerly boundary of tax parcel 64-2-13 to its
southeasterly corner and its intersection with Elmwood Avenue; thence
continuing northerly along Elmwood Avenue following the easterly boundary of
tax parcel 64-2-13 to the northeasterly corner of said parcel; thence continuing
westerly along the northerly boundary of tax parcel 64-2-13 such that tax parcel
64-2-13 is wholly included in the CPOZ; thence continuing northerly along the
easterly boundaries of tax parcels 64-2-14, 64-2-15, and 64-2-8 to the
northwesterly corner of 64-2-9; thence continuing easterly along the northerly
boundary of tax parcel 64-2-9 to the intersection with Oak Avenue; thence
continuing northerly across Oak Avenue, and continuing northerly to its
intersection with the center line of Cascadilla Creek; thence continuing westerly
along the center line of Cascadilla Creek to the southwest end of the Stewart
Avenue bridge, the point and place of beginning.
October 3, 2007
19
F. Exemptions.
Construction, alterations or demolition authorized by building permits which were
issued on or before the effective date of this Section shall be exempt from the
provisions of this moratorium.
G. Applications for Relief.
Any person whose property lies within the boundaries of the Collegetown Parking
Overlay Zone as described in Subsection E, herein, may apply to the Board of
Zoning Appeals for relief from this moratorium. The Board of Zoning Appeals, upon
petition, may grant appropriate relief from the terms of this Section, subject to
whatever conditions are deemed necessary by that Board to protect the public and
the interests of the City. Applications for such relief shall be by verified petition to
the Board and shall be supported by an explanation of why the desired construction
is essential to avoid unnecessary financial hardship and will not interfere with the
realization of the goals set forth in the Collegetown Vision Statement, which goals
include creating a diverse, commercially viable, dense, mixed-use community
characterized by notable urban design, a predominantly student population, high
quality architecture, vibrant public spaces, and pedestrian amenities, while
protecting the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The Board shall
consider any recommendations from the Planning Board pertaining to such
applications for relief. The Board shall hold a hearing on any such petition within
sixty (60) days and decide such applications within fifteen (15) days after the
closing of such hearing.
H. Penalties.
1. Any person, firm or corporation that shall construct, alter, demolish, or make
additions to any structure in violation of the provisions of this Section or shall
otherwise violate any of the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a
violation. Each day that such violation continues shall be considered a
separate violation.
2. The City of Ithaca may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for
injunctive relief to cease any and all such actions which conflict with the
provisions of this Section.
Section 2. Supersession.
This Section (325-27) is intended to supersede any inconsistent provision of the City
Charter or Code.
Section 3. Validity.
The invalidity of any provision of this Section (325-27) shall not affect the validity of any
other provision which can be given effect without such invalid provision.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with law upon publication of a
notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter and shall expire 12 months after the effective
date.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Townsend: Seconded by Alderperson Gelinas
RESOLVED, That Section G – Applications for Relief, be amended to read as follows:
“G. Applications for Relief.
Any person whose property lies within the boundaries of the Collegetown Parking
Overlay Zone as described in Subsection E, herein, may apply to the Board of
Zoning Appeals for relief from this moratorium. The Board of Zoning Appeals, upon
petition, may grant appropriate relief from the terms of this Section, subject to
whatever conditions are deemed necessary by that Board to protect the public and
the interests of the City. Applications for such relief shall be by verified petition to
the Board and shall be supported by an explanation of why the desired construction
October 3, 2007
20
is essential to avoid unnecessary financial hardship and or will not interfere with the
realization of the goals set forth in the Collegetown Vision Statement, which goals
include creating a diverse, commercially viable, dense, mixed-use community
characterized by notable urban design, a predominantly student population, high
quality architecture, vibrant public spaces, and pedestrian amenities, while
protecting the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The Board shall
consider any recommendations from the Planning Board pertaining to such
applications for relief. The Board shall hold a hearing on any such petition within
sixty (60) days and decide such applications within fifteen (15) days after the
closing of such hearing.
Alderperson Townsend stated that he feels developers should be given the option to
appeal the moratorium based on financial hardship.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that he had discussed this issue with Alderperson
Townsend and it has been his experience that this option would be a policy decision and
Common Council would need to establish criteria for exemptions from the moratorium. He
stated that New York State case law establishes that if the governing board makes
substantial changes in the provisions of the moratorium after a public hearing has been
held and notice given, that it would need to be re-advertised and another public hearing
held. This would be a judgment call that Council would need to make as there is no
definition of what a substantial change could be and the proposal would reduce the criteria
to be met for an appeal from two to one. He explained that financial hardship usually has
fairly stringent criteria to meet. He stated that his opinion would be that this proposal is
substantial and the vote on the moratorium would have to wait a month so that another
notice and public hearing could be set up.
Alderperson Zumoff stated that he opposes the proposed moratorium because he is not
confident that the urban design guidelines will be completed within one year. He further
stated that planning for fifty years in the future does not make sense because we cannot
know what needs there might be at that time that would be affected by this decision.
Alderperson Korherr stated that economic difficulties do not apply to Ithaca right now and
that very little will change by having the moratorium. If the moratorium were for an
extended period of time it would be a problem but it’s only for one year and there will be
few changes during that year.
Alderperson Cogan stated that twelve months is a very short time considering how long it
takes for a developer to have their plans come to fruition. For example the ground
breaking for Cayuga Green took six years. He further stated that the moratorium would
not permanently damage the developers. He explained that Common Council would have
to vote to extend the twelve month time period. There is a commitment by Council and
staff to proceed with the moratorium on schedule. He further explained that because the
design guidelines will be coming, the City would have a better idea in six months on how to
implement the Collegetown Vision Statement. He voiced his support for the moratorium.
Alderperson Townsend stated that $5,000 was allotted for a consultant for the off-leash
dog area and the consultant came back with findings that the City did not want. He stated
that he could imagine the same thing happening with the consultant for the design
guidelines. He requested that Council not rush into this decision and allow further
conversations to take place with developers due to the unknown economic future and
increased construction costs which have a domino effect on development. He further
stated that he would not mind waiting another thirty days to make a decision on the
moratorium.
Alderperson Dotson stated that this change makes it possible for someone to apply for
relief regardless of whether they meet criteria for design guidelines or not.
Alderperson Coles stated that there have been many years of pedestrian and parking
problems in Collegetown and that the residential neighborhoods are being threatened by
development of the area. She further stated that if there is no vision for this area, then
these problems cannot be addressed. She explained that Common Council needs to
October 3, 2007
21
address these problems to meet the needs of area residents and that she does not feel
that a twelve month period is a long time to have the design guidelines developed.
Alderperson Tomlan explained that the previous two moratoriums had to have financial
hardships as a basis for appeal. She stated that she spoke with staff from the Building
Department and during the eighteen month moratorium in 1985, there were three appeals
for exemption from the moratorium due to financial hardship; one was able to prove
hardship and the other two were denied because they could provide no proof of financial
hardship. She further explained that in 1985 there were no other qualifiers in addition to
financial hardship but there was also no vision to measure against like the current
Collegetown Vision Statement. She stated that having the vision statement be part of the
application for relief is important. She further stated that it is important to provide a relief
valve for developers with proposals and plans for property and it is important for Common
Council to measure the rights of the property owners with the overall community.
Alderperson Gelinas stated that he supports the moratorium as originally planned but also
supports the proposed amendment.
Alderperson Townsend asked how long it would take to get the urban design guidelines.
Planning & Development Director VanCort stated that the design guidelines would be
developed early, probably within six months along with the implementation of the proposed
zoning requirements.
Mayor Peterson stated that Common Council and the committee need to commit to the
established twelve month schedule.
Alderperson Tomlan explained that the vision statement is non-form specific. It will be the
job of the urban designer to put form together with the vision statement. She further
explained that a project in and of itself may meet the vision statement guidelines, but the
design guidelines will show how the development will affect the other areas of Collegetown
such as entrances and exits, etc. The urban design coordinates all those aspects and
plans for the overall scheme; not individual projects.
Call the Question
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
RESOLVED, That the Question be Called on the Amending Resolution proposed by
Alderperson Townsend.
Ayes (7) Coles, Dotson, Berry, Clairborne, Tomlan, Cogan, Korherr
Nays (3) Zumoff, Gelinas, Townsend
Abstentions (0)
Carried (7-3)
A Vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (4) Berry, Zumoff, Townsend, Gelinas
Nays (6) Coles, Dotson, Clairborne, Tomlan, Cogan, Korherr
Abstentions (0)
Failed (4-6)
Alderperson Townsend questioned why the Board of Zoning Appeals would hear appeals
if Common Council created the moratorium.
Alderperson Tomlan explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals deals with use variances
on a regular basis and is used to looking at the various documents that would prove
hardship. The Planning Board was clear that they wanted a role in the process as well
and will provide recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals as they do now for any
zoning variance, so it is appropriate for the Planning Board to hear appeals for the vision
statement along with the Board of Zoning Appeals. She stated that Common Council
does not deal with financial hardship questions and she would be afraid that lobbying
might take place or the process becoming politicized. The Planning Board and Board of
October 3, 2007
22
Zoning Appeals do not accept lobbying by individuals. She further stated that a
professional has been hired to develop the plan and the Board of Zoning appeals is the
appropriate body to hear appeals with recommendations from the Planning Board.
Alderperson Dotson stated that she supports Alderperson Tomlan’s comments. She
stated that there is an existing system in place to hear appeals and it is appropriate for the
Planning Board to provide recommendations and a new system does not need to be set
up for the appeal process.
Alderperson Clairborne questioned what provisions were in place to prevent or make it
difficult to extend the moratorium beyond twelve months.
Mayor Peterson stated that there are very detailed timelines with goals and then twelve
months from now this body would have to decide whether to extend the moratorium or not.
A firm commitment by Council is needed to keep to the established timeline. She further
stated that at this point the City is on track with its goals and the timeline.
Planning and Development Director VanCort clarified that the City is actually four days
behind in the timeline at this point.
Alderperson Clairborne questioned whether a partner resolution should be put in place for
twelve months from now that would make it difficult to extend the moratorium.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that by its own language the ordinance expires in twelve
months and Common Council would have to vote again in twelve months to extend it. He
further stated that he would advise against establishing specific criteria for a vote to extend
the moratorium and to bind another Council in that way.
Call the Question
By Alderperson Korherr: Seconded by Alderperson Coles
RESOLVED, That the Question be called on the discussion on the proposed Ordinance
regarding a temporary building moratorium.
Ayes (6) Coles, Dotson, Clairborne, Tomlan, Cogan, Korherr
Nays (4) Berry, Zumoff, Townsend, Gelinas
Abstentions (0)
Failed 6-4 (required a 2/3rds vote)
Alderperson Zumoff stated that this proposal indicates approval of design guidelines in
twelve months and at that time there will be a new Council. He feels that Council is not
doing the right thing by passing this moratorium because the urban guidelines may be
rejected.
Motion to Table:
By Alderperson Townsend: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff
RESOLVED, That Common Council support Alderperson Clairborne’s proposal to prepare
a resolution to accompany the proposed moratorium that would make it difficult to extend
the moratorium beyond the twelve month period and to consider this proposal at the
November 7, 2007 Common Council meeting.
Alderperson Coles stated that she was frustrated by the interminable discussion taking
place on this proposal. She further stated that thirty days adds to the twelve months which
some consider problematic in itself. She asked her fellow Council members to please
consider this proposal very carefully.
Alderperson Tomlan stated that she is not clear about the thirty-day time period as it
pertains to the proposed change in the ordinance, which is substantial and would require
re-notice and publication at a cost of approximately $700 for the legal notice.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he had given his opinion on imposing this requirement
on a future Council.
October 3, 2007
23
A vote on the Motion to Table the proposed ordinance resulted as follows:
Ayes (2) Zumoff, Townsend
Nays (8) Coles, Dotson, Berry, Clairborne, Tomlan, Gelinas, Cogan, Korherr
Abstentions (0)
Failed (2-8)
Main Motion
A Vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) Coles, Dotson, Clairborne, Tomlan, Gelinas, Cogan, Korherr
Nays (3) Berry, Zumoff, Townsend
Abstentions (0)
Carried (7-3)
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER FILED RESOLUTION:
15.1 Proposed Resolution Regarding Reduction in Public Access TV Studio
Hours- Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Berry
WHEREAS, Public Access television offers members of the community from all walks of
life a way to lift their voices and present their viewpoints to wide audiences of cable
television viewers; and
WHEREAS, under the Franchise Agreement with the City of Ithaca dated January 2003,
Time Warner Cable (TWC) provides a studio and a channel for Public Access TV
programs for use by residents of the Franchise service area on a free, volunteer basis;
and
WHEREAS, TWC is responsible for providing studio staff, paid for by a withholding of
0.5% of the total Franchise Fees it pays to the City, Town of Ithaca and Village of
Cayuga Heights (Participating Municipalities), which percentage has, until now, sufficed
to pay for 25 hours per week and benefits of one staff person; while cable subscribers
pay 15 cents per month for studio equipment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Franchise section 15.4, the City and other participating
municipalities direct the opening hours of the studio at TWC, subject to funding
available; and the City has delegated to the Access Oversight Committee the setting of
studio hours (Ord. No. 2003-17, sec. 18-4); and
WHEREAS, TWC has generally set the studio’s opening hours to be slightly less than
the staff person’s time, allowing for administrative and other related duties; and
WHEREAS, the opening hours of the studio have been reduced from 30 hours through
December 2005 to 20 hours beginning in January 2006; and
WHEREAS, TWC has cut the opening hours for the Public Access Studio from 20 hours
per week on 5 days down to 16 hours per week on 4 days beginning September 10,
2007, without consultation and having not yet furnished any data to show that current
funding is insufficient for 25 or 20 hours; and
WHEREAS, the Access Oversight Committee (resolution of June 19, 2007) is
concerned that TWC's cuts in Access Studio hours will be harmful and detrimental to
the quality and quantity of programming available on the Public Access channel; and
WHEREAS, a reduction in the Public Access Studio hours may mean having to turn
away producers who currently depend on studio time to make their programming for
public access; and
WHEREAS, turning producers away will mean fewer independent voices and
independent programs that address local issues in an increasingly consolidated news
and media market; and
October 3, 2007
24
WHEREAS, the Access Oversight Committee believes that these cuts threaten the
operation of the Franchise Agreement as they would keep present producers from
creating programming; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca make a formal request of
Time Warner Cable to maintain, at least, 20 hours of operation, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council and the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, in partnership
with the Access Oversight Committee, work with Time Warner Cable to find a
permanent solution to the funding and staffing of the Public Access Studio.
Alderpersons Berry and Townsend left the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Alderperson Clairborne explained that the Communication and Emergency Services
Committee had a public discussion with Time Warner Cable representatives and the
City Attorney’s Office. There are a lot of issues to address with Time Warner Cable and
this item will be on the agenda for discussion at the October meeting of the committee.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
(Alderpersons Berry & Townsend absent from vote)
Alderperson Korherr left the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
RECESS:
On a motion the Common Council recessed the meeting at 10:50 p.m. in order to
convene the Committee of the Whole Meeting for Budget Review.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
FOR BUDGET REVIEW
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Alderpersons (7) Coles, Clairborne, Tomlan, Zumoff, Gelinas, Cogan, Dotson
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney – Hoffman
City Controller – Thayer
Planning and Development Director – Van Cort
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Information Management Specialist - Myers
ABSENT:
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr
BUDGET REVIEW:
2.1 Motion to Convene as Committee of the Whole for Budget Review -
Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Gelinas
RESOLVED, That Committee of the Whole meeting for Budget Review be convened
with Maria Coles as Chair.
Carried Unanimously (7-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr absent from vote
2.2 Review of Proposed 2008 Budget by Mayor and Controller:
Mayor Peterson and City Controller Thayer presented the proposed 2008 budget to
Common Council and explained the options given to department heads to use as they
prepared their 2008 budgets for submission. They further highlighted the following
items for Common Council’s information to help them as they review the budget during
upcoming budget meetings:
October 3, 2007
25
- 2008 proposed tax rate increase is 3.75%
- Total tax levy increase proposed for 2008 is 4.64%
- Taxable assessment value for 2008 is $1,193,016,926 (an increase of .86%)
- 1% property tax will generate $162,250 in revenue
- movement toward phasing items out of capital project line to general fund line
- Several positions have been added in the budget that include a bridge crew,
two additional fire fighters – the fire fighter positions won’t be filled
until July 2008.
- 2008 is a tight budget which has stabilized and does not include huge cost
increases or increases in revenue. Building permit fees will be less as well.
- Sales tax revenue projections are up 5% (new development has helped
and projected revenue collection for sales tax is $11,400,000)
- Assessments continue to rise slowly
- State aid for 2008 increased by 7%, but far behind what the City should be
collecting from the State
- Slow improvement in infrastructure, roads are slowly being improved but will
take time to balance the needs of the community, departments, and tax rate.
- There is high property tax exemption (67%) mainly because of Cornell
University. The City is exploring different avenues for improvement in this
area for the long term.
City Controller Thayer asked Common Council members to review the budget narrative
as it includes a lot of numeric details. He explained how different factors have affected
the budget since 1991, including deferred maintenance, borrowed funds, reduction in
staff by attrition and stated that this budget is a step forward by restoring some positions
lost in 1991. He further cautioned however that there are another ten years of recovery
needed if everything stays the same before the City is in a good financial standing. He
stated that 2008 would be a very challenging year. The City currently has a debt
service of 13% and he would like to see it be less than 10%. The City has been relying
heavily on sales tax revenues which are not guaranteed and are dependent upon the
economy. In addition, City infrastructure needs are high. The water rate is up 3% and
the sewer rate is up 10% for 2008 which reflects similar increases in 2006 and 2007.
The Solid Waste fund will be increased .25 per tag for garbage collection. This fee has
not been increased since 2003. He explained that Tompkins County increased tipping
fees to $75.00 per ton which will cause a $20,000 shortfall for the City. These costs will
be reviewed during the next month to see if further increases are needed to cover this
item in the budget. He stated that information would continue to come in during October
and suggestions for changes will be made to Common Council during the upcoming
budget meetings.
2.3 Motion to Approve Mayor’s Proposed 2008 Budget
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
RESOLVED, That Common Council approves the Mayor’s proposed 2008 budget for
the purposes of commencing committee meeting discussions and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Committee of the Whole Meeting be recessed until Thursday,
October 4, 2007, at 4:00 p.m.
Carried Unanimously (7-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr absent from vote
Alderperson Gelinas left the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
RECONVENING OF REGULAR COMMON COUNCIL MEETING:
The Regular Common Council meeting reconvened at 11:10 p.m.
12.3 Determination that Certain City Property on the 100 Block of South Aurora
Street is Surplus and Should Be Conveyed to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
for Possible Sale and Development – Resolutions
A. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to declare a parcel of City-
owned land on the 100 block of South Aurora Street (in the vicinity of the so-called
October 3, 2007
26
Rothschild Building) as surplus property that can be conveyed to the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (“IURA”), subject to certain conditions, for possible sale to an eligible
and qualified sponsor of an urban renewal project involving said land, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted for said proposed
action, including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (“SEAF”),
and
WHEREAS, the Common Council, acting as lead agency, previously determined that
the environmental review of any specific, proposed development involving said parcel
will be conducted separately from and subsequent to the review referred to herein, once
the details of any such proposed development are known, and in any case prior to the
required approval, by Common Council, of any conveyance of said parcel to a qualified
and eligible sponsor, by the IURA, and
WHEREAS, this proposed action has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning
Department pursuant to §239-l and m of the New York State General Municipal Law,
which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including
county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has
also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has
reviewed the SEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts
as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental
Assessment Form, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review of said action is unnecessary, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
B. Determination of Surplus Property and Authorization of Conveyance -
Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is the owner of a small parcel of land (Tax Map Parcel
#70-4-4.1) located between the sidewalk on the west side of the 100 block of South
Aurora Street and the privately owned property immediately to the west (which privately
owned property constitutes Tax Map Parcel #70-4-4.2), and
WHEREAS, said privately owned property adjacent to the aforementioned City land
includes (in addition to the so-called Rothschild Building) an area in its southeasterly
corner now used solely for surface parking and loading docks, and
WHEREAS, in a Downtown Design Plan prepared for the City in 1992, the privately
owned property currently used for surface parking was identified as one of the under-
utilized sites in the downtown core that is appropriate for multistory, in-fill development,
and
October 3, 2007
27
WHEREAS, in a resolution adopted on July 12, 2006, the City’s Board of Public Works
determined that a narrow, L-shaped portion of the aforementioned City parcel, bordering
the privately owned area used for parking, is not needed for public works purposes and
could therefore be sold, provided that any such sale were made subject to certain
conditions, and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2007, the Board of Public Works adopted another resolution
concerning this City-owned land, extending slightly the area designated as surplus, and
modifying the conditions recommended to be attached to any conveyance thereof, and
WHEREAS, the conditions upon conveyance recommended by the Board, as of June
13, 2007, are as follows:
(1) the relocation of any utility line(s) now existing upon or beneath such land
and associated easement therefore, to another accessible location
acceptable to the Superintendent of Public Works, or other formalized
arrangement acceptable to the Superintendent and City Attorney which
provides for a permanent, feasible means of maintaining and/or replacing
such line(s) without additional cost to the City as a result of the
conveyance or future development of the land;
(2) the elimination, per the design of any project for the subject parcel, of the
structural need for the retaining walls now existing along or in proximity to
the easterly and northerly boundaries of such land (e.g., by restoring to
grade level with the South Aurora Street sidewalk any areas lying between
the existing City sidewalk/plaza area and the exterior walls of any building
constructed on the site by the grantee), or, in the alternative, transfer to
any grantee of all responsibility (including cost) for maintaining or replacing
said retaining walls;
(3) a written agreement binding the grantee to assume responsibility (at the
grantee’s sole cost) for the demolition of the existing Tompkins County
Area Transit (“TCAT”) bus shelter which occupies a portion of such land,
and, if construction of a replacement shelter (outside the subject parcel)
has not by that time been effected by others, to provide for covered
seating for TCAT riders comparable to the available seating in the existing
shelter in a form and a location acceptable to the City; and
(4) the maintenance of public access to the stairway to the Green Street
parking facility, from the South Aurora Street sidewalk/plaza area; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works recommends that any intended or actual
conveyance of the land in question (to an intended developer) be:
(1) subject to a provision for reversion of title to the City (or the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency) if the land is not used in the manner approved by site
plan review, within 10 years of conveyance by the City or the Agency; or
(2) in the form of an option to purchase that can be exercised only upon the
approval of a site plan consistent with the above conditions, and that
expires if not exercised within 10 years; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works also recommends that in any case space be
reserved by the City for an urban scale sidewalk at least 13 feet wide, from curb to
building face, adjacent to (easterly of) the designated surplus parcel, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works also expressed its concern regarding the need
to maintain appropriate and safe lines of sight for those traveling northbound on South
Aurora Street, in the transition from smaller-scale residential buildings south of the
Aurora Street bridge to the downtown core, and requested that this concern be
addressed in any sales contract and/or site plan review process for development of the
site in question, and
October 3, 2007
28
WHEREAS, transfer of said City-owned land designated as surplus, to the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (“IURA”), would enable the IURA to solicit and designate (with the
consent of Common Council) a qualified and eligible sponsor of an urban renewal
project intended to utilize said surplus property in the development of an appropriate in-
fill use of the site, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review of the proposed conveyance to the IURA
has been conducted, including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment
Form (“SEAF”), and
WHEREAS, the Common Council, acting as lead agency, has determined that the
proposed transfer of the surplus land in question to the IURA will not have a significant
effect on the environment, and
WHEREAS, upon transfer of the land to the IURA and the IURA’s selection of a
qualified and eligible sponsor of an appropriate urban renewal project for the site, the
IURA intends to act as lead agency for a full environmental review of any proposed
development and proposed sale (to said sponsor) of the land in question; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby determine that the
aforementioned parcel (shown on the drawing – “PROPOSED ADDITIONAL
PURCHASE” – as “AREA OF APPROVED EXTENTION AREA [sic] 1777 SQ. FT.”
together with “AREA OF ADDITIONAL PROPOSED EXTENTION [sic] 273 SQ. FT.”) is
surplus and therefore available for transfer to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency,
subject to the conditions set forth below, for possible, later sale to a qualified and
eligible sponsor of an appropriate urban renewal/in-fill project for the site, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That any conveyance of title to the surplus land in question, to the IURA or
(subsequently) to such a qualified and eligible sponsor, shall be conditioned upon the
following:
(1) agreement by the grantee to relocate (at grantee’s sole cost) any utility
line(s) now existing upon or beneath such land, or permitted by easement
upon or beneath the adjacent portion of Tax Map Parcel #70-4-4.2
currently used as a parking lot, to another accessible and practical location
acceptable to the Superintendent of Public Works, or to enter into another
formalized arrangement acceptable to the Superintendent and City
Attorney which provides for a permanent, feasible means of maintaining
and/or replacing such line(s) without additional cost to the City (resulting
from such relocation or from future development of the land);
(2) the elimination (at grantee’s sole cost), per the design of any project that
will affect the subject parcel, of the structural need for the retaining walls
now existing along or in proximity to the easterly and northerly boundaries
of such land (e.g., by restoring to grade level with the South Aurora Street
sidewalk any areas lying between the existing City sidewalk/plaza area and
the exterior walls of any building constructed on the site by the grantee), or,
in the alternative, transfer to any grantee of all responsibility (including
cost) for maintaining or replacing said retaining walls;
(3) a written agreement binding the grantee to assume responsibility (at
grantee’s sole cost) for the demolition of the existing Tompkins County
Area Transit (“TCAT”) bus shelter which occupies a portion of the
designated surplus land, and, if construction of a replacement shelter
(outside the subject parcel) has not by that time been effected by others, to
provide (at grantee’s sole cost) for covered seating for TCAT riders
comparable or superior to the available seating in the existing shelter, in a
form and a location acceptable to the City, and which replacement shelter
shall be operational prior to the demolition of the existing shelter; and
October 3, 2007
29
(4) the maintenance of public access to the stairway to the Green Street
parking facility, from the South Aurora Street sidewalk/plaza area; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That any intended or actual conveyance of the land in question, by the
IURA, be either:
(1) in the form of an option to purchase that can be exercised (by the qualified
and eligible sponsor) only upon the approval of a site plan consistent with
the above conditions, and which option shall expire if not exercised within
10 years; or
(2) subject to a provision for reversion of title to the IURA if the land is not
used in the manner approved by site plan review, within 10 years of
conveyance by the IURA; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby recognizes and agrees with the
concerns raised by the Board of Public Works regarding the need to maintain
appropriate and safe lines of sight for those traveling northbound on South Aurora
Street, in the transition from smaller-scale residential buildings south of the Aurora
Street bridge to the downtown core, and intends that such concerns be addressed
during the site plan and/or design review process for development of the site, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized
and requested to execute a deed conveying said surplus property to the IURA, subject
to all of the conditions set forth above, together with any further documents as are
necessary to implement this resolution.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff
RESOLVED, That the 2nd Resolved clause be amended to add a fifth condition that
would read as follows:
(5) an agreement by the sponsor, given the highly visible and pivotal location
of the development site at the eastern entrance to the Commons, that prior
to the issuance of any final site plan approval for the property, any
proposed building will undergo design review in addition to the design
review stipulated by Chapter 325 of the City Code in order to address key
concerns regarding views and vistas, architectural context and exterior
materials, pursuant to a process (for such additional design review) agreed
to by the sponsor and the Mayor, and be it further
Alderperson Tomlan explained that she would like to see this additional condition
included in the resolution because this site is visible from so many directions. An
additional design review process to address key concerns for this site needs to be
included.
A Vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
Main Motion As Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
October 3, 2007
30
12.4 Declaration of Lead Agency for the Environmental Review of the Proposed
Conveyance of Property in the Southwest Area to the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency – Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council wishes to develop and/or use
approximately 60 acres of City-owned property (Tax Parcels #119.-1-2 and #100.-3-1)
in the Southwest Area in a manner that is responsive to both the public interest and the
private development market, and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the Southwest Area Land Use Committee issued a report,
Southwest Area Land Use Plan, based on a 1994 plan of the same name, with a 1998
addendum, and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 1998, the Common Council, acting as Lead Agency, determined
that adoption of the Southwest Area Land Use Plan may have a significant
environmental impact and that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement was
required, and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2000, the Common Council adopted a Statement of Findings
for the Southwest Area Land Use Plan after considering the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (“DGEIS”) and the Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (“FGEIS”), including comments made by City committees and boards,
interested agencies and the public, and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2001, the Common Council adopted the 1994 Southwest
Area Land Use Plan, including the 1998 Addendum as part of the City of Ithaca’s
Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City-owned property formerly known as Southwest Park was officially
alienated in 2001, thus removing its parkland status and making it available for sale,
lease and/or development, and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2004, the Common Council passed a resolution approving
a predevelopment process for said City-owned land, which included the creation of a
client committee to assist in the development of a vision statement for the area and in
the preparation of a Request for Qualifications for a developer, and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Client Committee developed a vision statement that calls for
the creation of a diverse, primarily residential, mixed-use development of urban scale
and density, the design and implementation of which would facilitate non-motorized and
mass transportation, integrate sustainable building practices and environmental
systems, and provide for permanently affordable housing as well as the preservation of
approximately 20 acres of the site as open space, green space or woods, and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2006, the Common Council adopted the “Southwest Vision
Statement”, dated January 4, 2006, as a guide for the development of a new
neighborhood in the Southwest Area, and directed the Department of Planning and
Development, in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, to prepare the documents
necessary to transfer the Southwest Area property from the City to the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (“IURA”), subject to Common Council approval of the same, and
WHEREAS, transfer of the land in question to the IURA will permit the agency to select
(subject to the concurrence of Common Council) the most appropriate qualified and
eligible sponsor for an urban renewal project intended to implement the Vision
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council therefore intends to transfer title of the land in
question to the IURA, for possible sale of all or a portion of said land, by that agency, to
such an qualified and eligible sponsor, and
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for the purpose of conducting environmental review of certain proposed
actions, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
October 3, 2007
31
WHEREAS, the lead agency shall be that agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed conveyance of City-owned property is an “Unlisted” action
pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQR”), which requires
environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed transfer of title to the
aforementioned City-owned parcels to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, for possible
conveyance of part or all of said land, by that agency, to an eligible and qualified
sponsor of an appropriate urban renewal project which would involve that site, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the environmental review of any specific, proposed development
involving the subject land, by a qualified and eligible sponsor selected by the IURA, shall be
conducted separately from and subsequent to this review, once the details of any such
proposed development are known but in any case prior to the required approval, by
Common Council, of any conveyance of the subject parcel to such a sponsor by the IURA,
it being the intention of the lead agency that such segmented review be no less protective
of the environment.
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
12.5 Establishment of a Capital Project in the amount of $100,000.00 for
Preliminary Site Investigations associated with the proposed Southwest Area
Urban Neighborhood – Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Coles
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council wishes to develop and/or use
approximately 60 acres of land in the Southwest Area, currently owned by the City (Tax
Map Parcels #119.-1-2 and #100.-3-1), in a manner that is responsive to both the public
interest and the private development market, and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the Southwest Area Land Use Committee issued a report,
Southwest Area Land Use Plan, based on a 1994 plan of the same name, with a 1998
addendum, and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 1998, the Common Council, acting as Lead Agency, determined
that adoption of the Southwest Area Land Use Plan may have a significant
environmental impact and that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement was
required, and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2000, the Common Council adopted a Statement of Findings
for the Southwest Area Land Use Plan after considering the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (“DGEIS”) and the Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (“FGEIS”), including comments made by City committees and boards,
interested agencies and the public, and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2001, the Common Council adopted the 1994 Southwest
Area Land Use Plan, including the 1998 Addendum, as part of the City of Ithaca’s
Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City-owned property formerly known as Southwest Park was officially
alienated in 2001, thus removing its parkland status and making it available for sale,
lease and/or development, and
WHEREAS, since then, the City has taken necessary steps to relocate or replace the
public works functions that the former Southwest Park has served, which steps include
the City’s purchase of land in the Town of Ithaca intended to be made available, when
needed, for such functions, and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2004, the Common Council passed a resolution approving
a predevelopment process for said City-owned land, which included the creation of a
October 3, 2007
32
client committee to assist in the development of a vision statement for the area and in
the preparation of a Request for Qualifications for a developer, and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Client Committee was subsequently created, and it
developed a vision statement that calls for the creation of a diverse, primarily
residential, mixed-use development of urban scale and density, the design and
implementation of which would facilitate non-motorized and mass transportation,
integrate sustainable building practices and environmental systems, and provide for
permanently affordable housing as well as the preservation of approximately 20 acres of
the site as open space, green space or woods, and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2006, the Common Council (a) adopted the “Southwest Vision
Statement,” dated January 4, 2006, as a guide for the development of a new
neighborhood in the Southwest Area; (b) directed the Department of Planning and
Development, in consultation with the Southwest Committee, to develop and issue a
Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) for a Preferred Developer; (c) authorized the Mayor
to appoint a selection committee to review the responses to the RFQ and to make a
recommendation to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (“IURA”) and to the Common
Council regarding the selection of a Preferred Developer for the Southwest Area, said
Preferred Developer to be a qualified and eligible sponsor authorized to acquire or lease
property from the IURA pursuant to Section 507 of Article 15 of General Municipal Law;
and (d) directed the Department of Planning and Development, in conjunction with the
City Attorney’s Office, to prepare the documents necessary to transfer the Southwest
Area property from the City to the IURA, subject to Common Council approval of the
same, and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2006, the Common Council approved the Southwest Area
Urban Neighborhood Request for Qualifications, December, 2006, and the selection
process set forth therein, subject to minor editorial modifications, and
WHEREAS, the RFQ was subsequently released and advertised in accordance with
General Municipal Law, and the City received four responses, and
WHEREAS, over a six-month period from early December 2006 to mid-June 2007, the
Southwest Selection Committee, appointed by the mayor and charged with developing
a recommendation for a preferred master developer, reviewed and evaluated all
responses to the RFQ, met four times independently, participated in a site visit, and
conducted four initial interviews and one follow-up interview, and
WHEREAS, in July 2007, the Southwest Selection Committee presented its
recommendation to Common Council and the IURA that (a) McCormack Baron Salazar
be designated as the Preferred Master Planner and Developer for the Southwest Area
Urban Neighborhood, and (b) the City undertake the necessary preliminary site
investigations prior to initiation of the planning process, and
WHEREAS, the following preliminary site investigations are required, prior to making the
land in question available for sale and development in accord with the aforementioned
Vision Statement:
1. Boundary and Topographic Mapping,
2. Subsurface Reconnaissance Explorations for Proposed Housing Development, and
3. Environmental Site Assessment, and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of such investigations (including a Phase 1 environmental
assessment, but not including any further environmental assessment, and not including the
cost of securing and managing these services) is $50,000.00; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council confirms that the City-owned land in question (i.e.,
Tax Map Parcels #119.-1-2 and #100.-3-1) is surplus in that it will not be required for future
public works operations, and be it further
October 3, 2007
33
RESOLVED, That the Common Council reiterates its intention to transfer title to the land in
question to the IURA, at the earliest practical time (subject to environmental review and the
approval of the actual terms of such transfer, by the Common Council), for the possible,
subsequent conveyance of part or all of such land (by the IURA, upon the concurrence of
the Common Council) to an eligible and qualified sponsor of an urban renewal project
consistent with the Vision Statement, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council indicates its concurrence with the Selection
Committee’s recommendation that McCormack Baron Salazar is the most qualified
respondent to the RFQ, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Capital Project #722 be established in the amount of $100,000.00, to
cover the cost of the aforementioned preliminary site investigations and the management
thereof, together with other costs associated with the Southwest Area Urban Neighborhood
project, which costs have, until this time, been derived from the Department of Planning
and Development budget, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Director of Planning and Development is hereby authorized to retain
a contractor that will provide and/or secure, and manage, the following preliminary site
investigations for the development of a new neighborhood at the site of the former
Southwest Park, for a total cost not to exceed $100,000.00:
1. Boundary and Topographic Mapping,
2. Subsurface Reconnaissance Explorations, and
3. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and, if necessary, a Phase II ESA.
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That said project funds shall be derived from a General Fund advance with
later replacement from the issuance of bonds.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
RESOLVED, That the first Resolved Clause be amended to read as follows:
“RESOLVED, That the Common Council confirms that the City-owned land in question
(i.e., Tax Map Parcels #119.-1-2 and #100.-3-1) is surplus in that steps have been taken to
relocate or replace the public works functions that said land has served, and be it further”
RESOLVED, That an additional Resolved clause be added after the last Resolved
clause that would read as follows:
“RESOLVED, That said project funds shall be derived from a General Fund advance
with later replacement from the issuance of bonds.”
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
Main Motion As Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion as amended resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
12.6 Acceptance of the Donation of “The Pony” – Resolution
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Downtown Partnership has raised funds to purchase a piece of
sculpture from artist Doug Makemson and donate it to the City, and
WHEREAS, the identified piece of art is entitled “The Pony,” and
WHEREAS, this sculpture is installed and identified with a permanent plaque at the
west end of the Commons, and
October 3, 2007
34
WHEREAS, the acquisition and installation of outdoor public art represents an important
downtown goal for the Ithaca Downtown Partnership and the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, outdoor public art enlivens public spaces, enhances the pedestrian
experience, and serves to beautify and uplift the downtown district, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission has formally recommended
acceptance of this donation of sculpture for display in downtown; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council, on behalf of the City of Ithaca, does hereby
accept the donation of “The Pony,” and be it further
RESOLVED, That this donation be formalized with a document between the City and
the Ithaca Downtown Partnership that summarizes the rights and obligations of the City,
the donor, and the artist pertaining to the acceptance of donated art. This document will
follow the language and terms utilized in prior sculpture donations approved by
Common Council.
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
Motion to Extend Meeting:
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
RESOLVED, That the meeting be extended to 11:48 p.m. to finish the remaining items
on the agenda.
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
16.1 Ithaca Housing Authority Board:
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
RESOLVED, That Donald Byrd be appointed to the Ithaca Housing Authority Board to
replace Rita Head with a term to expire October 17, 2012, and be it further
Disability Advisory Council:
RESOLVED, That Erin M. Sember be appointed to the Disability Advisory Council to fill
a vacancy with a term to expire June 30, 2010, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Otis Jackson be appointed to the Disability Advisory Council to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire June 30, 2010.
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
Alderpersons Berry, Townsend, Korherr, Gelinas absent from vote
REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY:
City Attorney Hoffman reported that the City has been sued by Martha VanEtten, who
tripped and fell by the small pavilion at Stewart Park. Ms. VanEtten was injured and is
seeking compensation. The City’s insurance agent will take care of this as it routinely
does with personal injury claims against the City.
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
There were no minutes to approve at this meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Sarah L. Myers, Carolyn K. Peterson,
Information Management Specialist Mayor