Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-14 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting Agenda  PEDC Meeting  Planning and Economic Development Committee  Ithaca Common Council        DATE: March 12, 2014  TIME: 6pm  LOCATION:3rd floor  City Hall Council Chambers       AGENDA ITEMS  Item Voting  Item?  Presenter(s) Time  Start  1) Call to Order/Agenda Review    2) Special Order of Business   a) Public Hearing – Elimination of Transition  Regulations  b) Special Presentation – Unified Solar Ordinance    3) Public Comment and Response from Committee  Members    4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports    5) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council  a) Elimination of Transition Regulations     6) Action Items – Approval to Circulate   a) Establishment of New Waterfront District  b) Accessory Parking    7) Discussion  a) Proposed Elimination of Minimum Parking  Requirements, B zones  b) City Prohibition on Outdoor Wood‐burning  Furnaces    8) Review and Approval of Minutes  a) January 2014    9) Adjournment  No      Yes    No    No            Yes      Yes  Yes      No    No        Yes    Yes  Chair, Alderperson Seph Murtagh          C.J. Randall, Planning Board                Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning  Administration    Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff  Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning  Administration    Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff    Alderperson Cynthia Brock, Committee  Member  6:00    6:05          6:30      6:50      7:00      7:20  7:45      8:00    8:30        9:00    9:05    If you have a disability and require accommodations in order tofully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274‐ 6570 by12:00 noon on Tuesday, March 11, 2014.   To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Date: March 5, 2014 RE: Proposal to Remove §325-19A Transition Regulations, Lots in Two Districts from Chapter 325, Zoning, of the City Municipal Code A current trend in contemporary zoning is to rid ordinances of archaic standards such as transition regulations where a lot divided by two zoning districts, one more restrictive than the other, is allowed the opportunity to transition a specified number of feet into the more restrictive zone. In determining best zoning practices, Planners are moving away from some tools of conventional zoning because they often lack the design controls that produce a clearer development outcome. Because of the problems that transition zoning may cause, the Planning Department staff has been asked to write a Concept Memorandum that proposes the removal of transition zoning from our current Zoning Ordinance. Transition zoning for a lot divided by two zoning districts has been a tool used since the City Zoning Ordinance was first enacted in 1925. This Zoning Ordinance stated under Section 8 (i) Classification of Boundary Lots, the following: “Where a district boundary line divides a single ownership lot . . . , a permit may be authorized in either portion of such lot to extend to the entire lot except that such authorization shall not extend more than thirty (30) feet beyond the boundary line of the district in which the use is authorized.” This 1925 regulation, as found in our current Zoning Ordinance under Section 325-19A., “Transition regulation, Lots in two districts”, is slightly modified but still allows for the same ability to change the boundaries of a zoning district. Section 325-19A. states: “Where a district boundary line divides a lot . . . , the regulations for the less restrictive portion of such lot shall extend not more than 30 feet into the more restrictive portion, provided that the lot has frontage on a street in the less restrictive district.” In more recent history, The City Planning Department has been creating specific design standards for various neighborhoods. They also have been careful to create districts that follow a lot’s property line instead of dividing any property into two districts with different district regulations. The Planning Department also has made a number of efforts to juxtapose districts so that there is a natural transition from more restrictive zones to less restrictive zones. This provides the barrier needed to protect neighborhoods. When a lot, which is divided into two zones, is allowed to extend 30 feet into a more restrictive zone, it breaks this barrier of protection. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 Furthermore, it should be noted that the writers of the Collegetown Area Form Districts have opted not to use Section 325-19A. “Transition regulations, Lots in two districts” of the City Zoning Ordinance in their proposed new regulations for Collegetown. Though there are a couple of lots that have two zoning districts in their plan, this situation was purposely avoided. They believe that allowing a property owner to have a use allowed in one district to project into another district, where the use is not permitted, would destroy the continuity of the prescribed form districts. The use of a regulation that allows non-permitted uses to extend 30 feet into a more restrictive zone where such use would otherwise not be permitted is counter- productive to Planning’s current objective of defining neighborhoods through the careful use of district regulations and design standards. This transition tool, which allows a property owner to benefit by the accidental division of a lot into two districts, challenges the protection zoning affords those living in a more restrictive district. Therefore, it is recommended that Section 325-19A. “Transition regulations, Lots in two districts”, be removed from the Zoning Ordinance and this Section of the ordinance be renumbered. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached for your review. An environmental review for this action has been prepared, and a Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at radke@cityofithaca.org or 274-6516. Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee March 12, 2014 An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Remove §325-19A Transition Regulations, Lots in Two Districts – Determination of Environmental Significance WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code in order to remove §325-19A, Transition Regulations, Lots in Two Districts, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated February 24, 2014, and WHEREAS, the zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and 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 in the Short Environmental Assessment Form, dated February 24, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee March 12, 2014 An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Remove §325-19A Transition Regulations, Lots in Two Districts – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an “Unlisted” Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to remove §325-19A Transition Regulations, Lots in Two Districts. 2/20/14 Page 1 of 1 An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Remove §325-19A Transition Regulations, Lots in Two Districts WHEREAS, Chapter 325, Zoning, of the City Municipal Code includes transition regulations for lots in two zoning districts that allow the regulations of the less restrictive zone to extend into the more restrictive zone by up to 30 feet, and WHEREAS, the boundaries of the City’s zoning districts are established to create a natural transition from more restrictive to less restrictive zones, and WHEREAS, allowing the less restrictive regulations to extend into a more restrictive zone disrupts carefully planned transitions between zoning districts and undermines the protections provided by more restrictive zoning districts; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: ORDINANCE NO. ____ Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-19A is hereby deleted in its entirety, and all subsequent sections shall be renumbered accordingly. A. Lots in two districts where neither zoning district is a CBD district. Where a district boundary line divides a lot at the time such line is established, the regulations for the less-restricted portion of such lot shall extend not more than 30 feet into the more-restricted portion, provided that the lot has frontage on a street in the less-restricted district. This exception shall not apply to any properties or portions of a property located within any CBD district. Section 2. All applicable sections within the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca shall be updated in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner Date: December 4, 2013 RE: Proposal to Amend Waterfront Zoning District The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to expand the waterfront zoning district. In January, the Committee discussed the proposal to expand the waterfront zoning districts, and create a new WF-3 district. The purpose of this rezoning would be to encourage denser mixed use development along the waterfront and extending out to Rout 13 (See enclosed map). This land is currently zoned industrial. Given the limited areas in the City that allow industrial uses, it is important to retain areas where some industrial uses that do not heavily impact surrounding areas are possible. Enclosed for your consideration is a draft ordinance that would extend the waterfront zone by creating a new WF-3 zone. This zone would have all of the same area restrictions as the WF-2 zone. However, it would also allow for light industrial uses. Light industrial is not currently a defined use in our code. The draft ordinance contains a definition for light industrial listed that would require all of the processing, fabricating, or assembly to take place within an enclosed building, and would also restrict any external effects of the manufacturing process from impacting surrounding properties. Staff feels that this definition will allow for uses that would still be compatible with surrounding mixed use development. If the committee is in agreement, staff will circulate the draft ordinance and environmental review and return next month with any comments that are received. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6410 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning & Economic Development JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING” TO AMEND THE WATERFRONT ZONING DISTRICT. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, be amended as follows: Section 1. Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose The Common Council would like to establish a third waterfront district (WF-3) that will have all of the space requirements associated with the WF-2 district, however, will allow for a greater mix of primary uses. Specifically, the WF-3 is expected to do the following: 1. Expand the waterfront district and encourage dense mixed- use multi-story development along the waterfront area. 2. Encourage development that incorporates a variety of uses, including light industrial uses that do not have large environmental impacts on surrounding commercial or residential uses. Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-3, entitled Definitions and Word Usage”, is hereby amended to add the following definition of Light Industrial Use:: Light Industrial Use - Light industrial uses are defined as having all processing, fabricating, assembly, or disassembly of items taking place wholly within an enclosed building. Industries locating in this district are characterized as being lower in intensity, cleaner, and generally more compatible when located adjacent to commercial areas than are heavy manufacturing uses. Light industrial uses will comply with provisions set forth in section 325-23 of this code, General Standards Applying to all Land Uses, and will not generate unreasonable noise, as defined by section 240-4, Unreasonable Noise Prohibited, or excessive levels of particulate matter, vibration, smoke, dust, gas, fumes, odors, radiation and other nuisance characteristics and should be capable of operation in such a manner as to control the external effects of the manufacturing process. Typical items for processing, fabricating, assembly, or disassembly under this use include but are not limited to apparel, food, drapes, clothing accessories, bedspreads, decorations, artificial plants, jewelry, instruments, computers, and electronic devices. Page 1 3/7/2014 Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled Establishment of Districts, is hereby amended to add the WF-2 and the WF-3 districts. In addition corrections have been made in order to accurately list all of the existing zones in the City, in the order that they appear on the Official City District Regulations Chart, and should read as follows: For the purposes specified in Article I of this chapter, the City is hereby divided into the following districts: R-1a Residential R-1b Residential R-2a Residential R-2b Residential R-2c Residential R-3a Residential R-3aa Residential R-3b Residential R-U Residential B-1a Restricted Business B-1b Restricted Business B-2a General Business B-2b General Business B-2c General Business B-2d General Business B-4 Service Business B-5 Service Business CBD Central Business CBD-50 Central Business CBD-60 Central Business CBD-85 Central Business CBD-100 Central Business CBD-120 Central Business CBD-140 Central Business C-SU Courthouse Special Use I-1 Industrial M-1 Marine Commercial P-1 Public and Institutional Page 2 3/7/2014 U-1 University MH-1 Residential-Mobile Home WEDZ-1a West End Development WEDZ-1b West End Development SW-1 Southwest SW-2 Southwest SW-3 Southwest C-SU Courthouse Special Use U-1 WF-1 Waterfront WF-2 Waterfront WF-3 Waterfront WEDZ-1 West End Development GPOZ Gorge Protection Overlay Zone Historic Districts CPOZ Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone SW-1 Southwest Adult Uses Section 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled District Regulations, is amended to update the District Regulations Chart and establish the WF-3 district as follows: Permitted Primary Uses 1. Any use permitted in B-2 except establishments where food or beverages are intended to be served or consumed by persons in automobiles. 2. Recreational or cultural facility such as a park, playground, art museum, fishing pier or yacht club. 3. Public Recreation. 4. Boatel. 5. Sale, rental, repair or storage of marine related recreation equipment such as boats, marine engines, sails, cabin equipment. 6. Light manufacture of marine recreation related products involving substantial hand fabrication such as sails, boat hulls, cabin fittings. Page 3 3/7/2014 By Special Permit of the Board of Appeals 7. Parking Lot 8. Parking Garage 9. Light Industrial Uses Permitted Accessory Uses - Same as WF-2 Off-Street Parking Requirements – None Off-Street Loading Requirements – None Minimum Lot Size - Area in Square Feet – same as WF-2 Minimum lot width at street line – same as WF-2 Maximum Building Heights: Maximum Percent Lot Coverage Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setbacks Rear Yard Setbacks Minimum Building Height Section 5. Chapter 325, Section 325-9C.(4)(i) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, is hereby amended to read as follows: “Parking in the Waterfront Zone. Parking areas will be permitted as a primary use in the Waterfront Zone WF-1, WF-2, and the WF-3 districts by special permit and only if they are open to the public or if they are intended to serve the needs of multiple businesses.” Section 6. Chapter 325, Section 325-16E. of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, is hereby amended to add the WF-3 and to delete subsections 325-16E. (2),(3)and(4), which refer to zones that no longer exist and to renumber subsequent sections accordingly, and should read as follows: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the WF-1, WF-2, and the WF-3 Districts: (1) All buildings erected in the WF-1, WF-2, and WF-3 zoning districts shall have a maximum building height of 63 feet with a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum of 15 for the first story measured from finished grade, and a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 12 feet for each additional story measured from floor to floor, with an additional five feet for cornice. All new construction is subject to a mandatory design review process. (Refer to Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Zoning, § 325-3, Definitions and word usage, Subsection B, definition of "height of building.") Page 4 3/7/2014 [Amended 11-7-2012 by Ord. No. 2012-15] (2) No building shall be erected that is greater than one-story tall in any of the areas designated "WF-1b" on the Official City of Ithaca Zoning Map, a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's office. (3) No building shall be erected that is less than two stories or greater than three stories for at least 75% of the building area, in any of the areas designated "WF-1c" on the Official City of Ithaca Zoning Map, a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's office. (4) No building shall be erected that is less than three stories or greater than five stories for at least 75% of the building area in any of the areas designated "WF-1d" on the Official City of Ithaca Zoning Map, a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk's office. (52) The restrictions contained in this section shall not apply to buildings less than 15 feet (maximum) in height, which are intended, designed and maintained as amenities for adjacent trails, such as gazebos and restrooms. (63) The restrictions contained in this section shall not apply to existing buildings within the designated areas. Such existing buildings may be maintained and repaired, provided their height and footprint are not altered so as to make the buildings noncompliant with the restrictions of this subsection. Section 7. Chapter 325, Section 325-20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “Off-Street Parking” is hereby amended to add the WF-3 District to Section 325-20D.(3)(a) to read as follows: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WEDZ-1a, CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, B-1b, and B-2c, WF-1 ,WF-2, and WF-3.” Section 8. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the zoning map and the district regulations chart in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 9. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Page 5 3/7/2014 MEMORANDUM Date: February 18, 2014 To: Planning Committee From: Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Re: Accessory Parking The City’s Zoning Ordinance has been amended many times in hopes of improving parking standards for off-street parking. Off- street parking is an accessory use; under general zoning principles, an accessory use should be subordinate and customarily incidental to a primary use. Given this meaning, it is understandable that Planning Board members were concerned when they learned our Zoning Ordinance allows a property owner to develop a parcel of land solely for customer parking as an accessory use, when the primary use is on another lot and in a different zone. This concept memo briefly discusses the general purpose behind accessory uses, identifies areas of the City’s accessory parking standards that conflict with that purpose, and proposes amendments to eliminate those conflicts. ACCESSORY USE GUIDELINES Zoning ordinances typically create districts where the use of land is limited to appropriate activities designated as primary uses; ordinances also typically allow accessory uses that are subordinate to and related to the primary uses. Although municipalities in New York may make legislative judgments about how to define an accessory use, and how to specify what accessory uses are allowed, there are general definitions and guidelines that are often used. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 For example, an American Planning Association publication lists five criteria that are often used to define or limit accessory uses: 1. The use must be related to the principal use. 2. The accessory use must be subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal use. 3. The accessory use must be customarily incidental to the primary use. 4. The accessory use must be located on the same lot as the primary use. 5. The use must not alter or be detrimental to the character of the area where the accessory use is located.1 Under the City’s zoning ordinance, judgments regarding the application of these criteria to certain uses are generally made at the time of enactment, and embodied in a list of allowed accessory uses in each zoning district.2 Even under the City’s approach, however, some judgments must be made about whether a particular use is appropriately considered to be accessory. Potential accessory uses that would be conducted on too large a scale may change or greatly expand the primary use. At some point, the level of activity becomes too intense to be considered incidental and customary. When this is the case, the use is no longer accessory, and should not be permitted by the zoning ordinance. For example, in most districts a business may operate an accessory parking lot, but only large enough to serve that business’s customers and employees. ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WITH CURRENT ORDINANCE In the remainder of this memo, the discussion of “accessory use” is limited to the regulations and definitions imposed by our current Zoning Ordinance on accessory parking. 1. American Planning Association, “Treatment of Accessory Uses in Land Based Classification Standards,” (1997), available at http://www.planning.org/lbcs/background/pdf/accessoryuses.pdf. 2. Column 3 of the District Regulations Chart lists the current permitted accessory uses. The City’s Ordinance does not limit the location of accessory uses, including parking, to the same lot as the primary use. Section 325-20(D) of the Ordinance contains numerous regulations regarding off-street parking, and attempts to specifically regulates off-site parking in subsection (D)(4), which prohibits an owner from locating the off-street parking “required” by Section 325-20(D) on a different lot except where: (i) the off- site parking meets the specified distance and use district limitations; (ii) the parking area is not located in an R-1 or R-2 zoning district; and, (iii) the owner obtains a special permit pursuant from the BZA. There are several problems with the current language. First, by its terms this restriction only applies to “required” off-street parking, and thus does not apply to the numerous zoning districts without off-street parking requirements. Second, the only special permit for parking allowed by the Ordinance is for “neighborhood parking in any district where such parking is permitted.” Combined with the definition of neighborhood parking,3 this deprives the BZA of the flexibility to allow owners to provide commercial off-site parking through the special permit process in situations where such uses may be beneficial to the community. Finally, the off-site parking special permit provision does not include any standards to be applied by the BZA. Such standards could vary depending on whether the proposed use is in a residential or commercial district. CORRECTING EXISTING LANGUAGE PROBLEMS Section 325-20(D)(4) should be amended to apply to all off- street parking, regardless of whether the parking is required by the Zoning Ordinance, and require that off-site parking be located in the same use district as the primary use. The special 3. Neighborhood parking is defined as “all or part of a lot or structure devoted to the parking of motor vehicles for occupants of adjoining or nearby dwellings and their guests exclusively, which may be rented to such residents. Nearby dwellings shall constitute those dwellings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the parking lot.” § 325-3(B). Also see requirements for Special Permit which allows any district where neighborhood parking is permitted to obtain a special permit The, District Regulations Chart allows neighborhood parking in many commercial districts. This leads to the question of whether Council wants commercial areas to allow off-site parking by Special permit permit for off-site parking should be amended to provide for, in addition to neighborhood parking areas, off-site employee, customer, or public parking areas; the Committee can specify criteria to limit the granting of such permits (such as the districts in which such special permits may be granted; overall size of the parking area; and distance from the primary lot (required off-site parking currently must be no more than 250 or 500 feet from the related primary use for mercantile and other purposes, respectively, and so forth). The Committee may also wish to amend the Zoning Ordinance to: (i) insert a definition for primary use, which would help to delineate the relationship between primary and accessory uses; and (ii) require in general that any accessory use be located on the same lot as the primary use to which the accessory use is related. Note, however, that these changes would affect uses other than parking. Also Committee members will need to alter the current definitions for “parking area.” These definitions need to be amended so that they reflect the type of accessory parking the City wants including whether the City wants commercial uses to have the ability to obtain a variance for a Special Permit Memo: Proposed Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements, B-zones To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Seph Murtagh, Chair Date: 3/6/2014 As you know, minimum parking requirements have been a topic of great discussion in the City of Ithaca for the past year. Some have advocated for eliminating minimum parking requirements citywide, arguing that MPRs drive up the cost of housing and create an artificial subsidy in favor of driving, and as such, are at odds with the City’s goals of promoting alternate modes of transportation and creating affordable living solutions. Last fall, a working group was formed to explore the issue of minimum parking requirements. The working group represented a diversity of viewpoints and consisted of City staff, members of Common Council, neighborhood residents, and planning experts. The working group took a comprehensive look at minimum parking requirements throughout the City and felt comfortable making a recommendation to Council to move forward with eliminating MPRs in the City’s B zones, most of which are located downtown, adjacent to the Central Business District, in transit-rich areas close to parking garages. There was less of a consensus among the group about how to proceed in the City’s residential zones, where concerns persist about parking spillover and parking supply. Several ideas were explored for these areas, including eliminating MPRs entirely, eliminating MPRs in R3 zones, or eliminating MPRs for new construction only. However, others felt that changes in these areas should await the development of a transportation plan, as well as policies developed in consultation with our new parking director, such as expansion of the residential parking permit system. Given that there was consensus on the B-zones, the working group recommends moving forward with those changes now. At this point, guidance is sought from the committee about how to proceed on this matter. If the committee is willing, staff will develop a proposal to bring back to the committee for review. To: Seph Murtagh, Chair, Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson Date: 02 January 2014 RE: Ordinance to amend Chapter 178 of the City Code to impose a total ban on the installation and operation of outdoor wood boilers/hydronic heaters in all City zones The Nuisance Smoke working group (comprised of Fire Chief Tom Parsons, Building Commissioner Mike Niechwiadowicz, Intern Lee Ann Hill and me), recommends for passage a total ban on the installation and operation of outdoor wood boilers (OWBs), officially known as hydronic heaters. The City Administration Committee discussed and supported the creation of this legislation at their meeting on September 25, 2013, and expressed desire that this legislation be put in place prior to the installation of the first OWB within the City. OWBs are large stand-alone wood-burning units that are installed for the purpose of creating hot water radiant heat for buildings or homes. While considered an inexpensive heating method, OWB’s design promotes a cooler, slow burning fire which does not achieve peak combustion, resulting in high levels of smoke and creosote emissions, as well as nuisance smells.1 Owners of OWBs sometimes burn trash, plastic and other inappropriate materials in their units which increases smoke and pollutant levels. It is estimated that when used properly, OWBs produce 4x the particulate pollution as conventional woods stoves and 12x that of EPA-certified wood stoves.2 Outdoor wood boilers are becoming increasingly popular regionally and nationwide, and it is the position of the working group that the City should proactively prohibit the installation and operation of outdoor wood boilers in an effort to protect and enhance Ithaca’s air quality in our urban environment.3 While NYSDEC regulations for outdoor wood boilers require that residential OWBs not be less than 100 feet from the nearest property line4, there are several undeveloped properties within the City of an acre or more where OWBs could be installed under NYSDEC regulations, necessitating the proposed legislation to ensure protection against OWB installations. 1 http://www.woodheat.org/outdoor-boilers.html (accessed 26 Apr 2013) 2 “Smoke Gets in Your Lungs:Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State” NY State Office of Attorney General (Aug 2005) http://www.health.state.mn.us/asthma/documents/05nysmokeyourlungs.pdf (accessed 26 Apr 2013) 3 Dean Solomon, “Should local governments regulate outdoor wood boilers? – Part 1,” Michigan State Extension (28 Feb 2013), http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/should_local_governments_regulate_outdoor_wood_boilers_part_1 (accessed 26 Apr 2013) 4 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Part 247.5: Outdoor Wood Boilers http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/71720.html (accessed 02 Jan 2014) An Ordinance to Amend The City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 178 In Order to Impose a Total Ban of Outdoor Wood-Burning Furnaces Within the City WHEREAS, the Common Council finds that outdoor wood-burning furnaces can provide an alternative to conventional heating systems, generating hot water heat through the use of onsite wood fires rather than coal or gas, and WHEREAS, the Common Council also finds that smoke from these outdoor furnaces often contains unhealthy levels of particulate matter, dioxins, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, and other toxic pollutants, and WHEREAS, the Common Council finds that exposure to smoke from these furnaces can cause adverse effects to respiratory and cardiovascular systems and exacerbate existing asthmatic sensitivity and lung illness, especially among children and the elderly, and WHEREAS, the Common Council finds that outdoor furnaces are intended to burn only natural wood, but homeowners sometimes add other materials, which when burned can produce toxic air pollutants, and WHEREAS, the Common Council has determined that the most effective way to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City in this instance is to prevent the construction and operation of outdoor wood-burning furnaces, therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council as follows: Section 1. Chapter 178-2, entitled “Definitions,” of the City of Ithaca Code, is hereby amended to include an additional definition: “Outdoor Wood-Burning Furnace: an exterior device or structure, designed or intended, through the burning of wood, for the purpose of heating the principal structure, or any other structure on the premises.” Section 2. Chapter 178-4, entitled “Standards for exterior structures,” of the City Code is hereby amended through the addition of a new subsection E, to be read as follows: “E. No outdoor wood-burning burning furnace be installed, constructed, maintained or operated on the exterior property of premises within the City.” Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, January 15, 2014 – 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick, Cynthia Brock, and Josephine Martell Committee Members Absent: Alderperson Ellen McCollister Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick (arrived at 6:12 p.m.); Alderperson Smith, and Alderperson Fleming Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning, Building, and Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Planner, Planning, Building, and Development; Megan Wilson, Planner, Department of Planning, Building, and Development; Tom West, City Engineering Office, and Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant, Department of Planning and Development Others Attending: None Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. Call to Order/Agenda Review Tom West joined the group to discuss the mobile vending policy that is being considered. This has already gone to the BPW. Proposed areas for such mobile vending would be on streets in commercial sites and on streets near residential parks for two vehicles. Four vehicle sites will be at Cass and Stewart Parks through the week but not during special events. Fees are charged for any other parking. For residential areas, there is a 40% discount. Vendors must be 200 ft from any restaurant. . There is a $100 application fee required. Selection is done quarterly by lottery. Requirements include valid vehicle registrations, workers compensation insurance or waiver, health department requirements, and back ground checks for those near schools. Public comment was held at the last two Board of Public Works (BPW ) meetings. The policy is currently being reviewed and revised. Mayor Svante Myrick joined the meeting at 6:12 p.m. Alderperson Brock asked whether mobile vending could also include other vending types besides food vendors. West stated it is currently just food and food items. The next BPW is scheduled for January 27, 2014 for further discussion with a possible vote in early February. 2. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members Bill Demo, 121 Heights Court, (in the Cornell Heights area). He is in very much in support of having the zoning changed, but not linking it with elimination of off-street parking. The residents are concerned because there is already minimum parking in the area. Any future development will only burden this area even further. Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, is thankful that Common Council decided to bring this rezoning issue back from last month. She currently serves on the minimum parking requirement committee. Those appointed to the City boards and committees often times don’t do the work necessary to move things forward. She suggested to Mayor Myrick that more diversity is needed when picking committee members. Michael Decatur, 125 Heights Court, spoke in favor of rezoning in the Cornell Heights area from RU to R3AA. John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Avenue, spoke on the minimum parking requirement. Allow the planning board to approve such parking changes on a case-by-case basis. Multiple strategies could be used to eliminate cars on the street, but keep some parking on the street. Rezoning RU to R3AA is a bad mistake. It should remain RU. He has also done a thorough review of the Collegetown Plan, and has suggestions that he will prepare and pass it along to Council, department heads and their staff. Eric Pritz, 106 Brook Lane, spoke on the neighborhood he lives in. Changing the physical nature of the streets will not benefit the neighborhood. Leave these neighborhoods as they are. Josh Lower, 307 College Avenue, is a fan of mobile vending on the streets. It brings life to the streets. Chair Murtagh read into record a letter from Tom Hanna and John Brookes regarding Collegetown. 3. Announcements, Updates and Reports a) Public Hearing Announcement – 2014 CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Chair Murtagh read into record the announcement of a public hearing to be held March 20, 2014 with a registration date of February 28, 2014 to apply for 2014 CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funding. 4. Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council a) RU Rezoning (Cornell Heights) Jennifer Kusznir and Lynn Truame both spoke to the committee. This item was first introduced to Council at last month’s Planning and Economic Development Committee. Lynn Truame provided a memo of the recommendation of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) which met the previous night. Alderperson Brock’s concern if you change the RU zone to an R3aa zone will provide the City with a tool to allow large parcels be broken down into small properties such as homes. We will be taking areas of historical significance and changing the layout to have smaller home neighborhoods. Lynn stated that the ILPC is empowered to protect historic neighborhoods’ character. RU has three story high limits – R3aa has a four-story limit. Alderperson Brock clarified that we are looking at rezoning two zones – one in Cornell Heights and the other in the historic district. Alderperson Martell asked whether this area is appropriate for increased density. Alderperson Kerslick stated his concern with the closeness to the gorge. Kusznir stated that it could be re-circulated for further comment if changes are made to the existing zone. R3 allows the lot size to be much smaller than the RU Zone. Kerslick stated that in these zones, the City relies on the ILPC to approve any change in lot sizes. The RU zone allows a 120% of the lot size and a higher maximum height. The rezoning to R3aa will reduce the maximum height and decrease the lot size. Mayor Myrick supports the R3aa zone and leaving anything south of the gorge to the prevue of the ILPC. Chair Murtagh supports taking out the minimum parking requirements. Alderperson Kerslick moved to remove the minimum parking requirements; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously. Lynn Truame stated the ILPC is fine with keeping the zone as RU, if the 120% lot size is reduced as well as the height is reduced. Mayor Myrick stated that an R3aa change will benefit the historic district. Alderperson Kerslick moved to change the historic district only (north of the gorge) from RU to R3aa; seconded by Chair Murtagh. Carried 3-1. The area south of the gorge will stay as is. 5. Action Items – Approval to Circulate a) Collegetown Area Form Districts Alderperson Brock requested a brief explanation as to what has happened up to point. Planner Megan Wilson stated four different measures were on the floor for consideration. All passed but the Form Districts portion which then made all the other measures fail. Then a new design guidelines group was set up which helped rewrite the plan. Alderperson Brock further asked why there was a decision to abandon the payment in lieu of parking option. Alderperson Kerslick responded that the payment in lieu of parking was repelled because it couldn’t stand alone – it was part of the College Town Plan that was not approved. The payment in lieu of parking was then focused on in the parking requirements committees. Alderperson Kerslick stated we can’t change anything in Collegetown without changing the adjourning neighborhoods. The teeth will be in transportation issues. Alderperson Smith stated that the parking availability whether used or not, is added into the rents that are charged to tenants. Alderperson Brock stated that negotiations must be made with the new developers. An example, as part of your development, we must negotiate the parking requirement for said project. Alderperson Kerslick stated that in the past there haven’t been any negotiations, which the parking requirements are being met with paving over green space mostly for off-street parking. Mike Niechwiadowicz, Director of Code Enforcement, stated that the negotiations must start at the Planning Board during the project’s site plan review process. Alderperson Martell motioned to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Carried Unanimously 4-0. b) Elimination of Transition Regulations Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration explained to the group transition regulations. We are trying to get away from Section 325-19A. JoAnn Cornish further stated where we see this in our City is in the residential area on Elmira Road. Alderperson Brock moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Carried 4-0. 6. Discussion a) Extension of Waterfront Zoning This will follow up from last month’s meeting after it was circulated for comment. Economic Planner Jennifer Kusznir stated staff is recommending a new WF-3 zoning district. After comments were received, it was apparent that the definitions of Light Industrial Uses and Light Industrial District need to be clarified. At the end of the day, we want to allow light industrial use, but the City Code doesn’t currently include light industrial uses. Alderperson Martell stated that both definitions could be combined. Alderperson Brock asked whether we should be concerned about the smoke, fumes, etc. if the light industrial zone is allowed. Phyllis Radke stated a lot of those concerns fall under the prevue of the City Building Code. Other concerns as to truck traffic could be easily controlled by stating in the code any limitations as to such traffic. Chair Murtagh suggested we bring this back next month for further discussion 7. Review and Approval of Minutes a) October 2013– moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Murtagh. Carried unanimously 4-0. b) December 2013 – these minutes were not reviewed. 8. Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Chair Murtagh. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.