HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-14 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: April 9th, 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
b) Ordinance Regarding the Termination of
Covenants Applicable to 222 South Cayuga
Street
6) Action items – Approval to Circulate
a) Establishment of New Waterfront District
b) Accessory parking
c) City Prohibition on Outdoor Wood-Burning
Furnaces
d) Disposition of City Property at 707 East
Seneca Street (will be sent separately)
7) Discussion
a) Cornell Heights Rezoning
8) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) January 2014
9) Adjournment
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Chair, Seph Murtagh
C.J. Randall, Planning Board Member; Nick
Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner
Phyllis Radke, Zoning Director
Ari Lavine, City Attorney
Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff
Phyllis Radke, Zoning Director
Cynthia Brock, Committee Member
Nels Bohn, IURA
Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff
6:00
6:05
6:30
6:50
7:00
7:15
7:30
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:05
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order tofully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00
noon on Tuesday, April 8th, 2014.
Requirements for Application Submittal – STEP 1
New York State Unified Solar Permit
Expedited Solar Permit Process for Small-Scale Photovoltaic Systems
For use in all New York State counties with the exception of Nassau County and Suffolk County.
The expedited solar permitting process uses a unied permit acr oss
municipalities in New York State.
A combined building and electrical permit for a gridtied photovoltaic (PV)
system will be issued pending proper completion of forms, submission
of approved plans and approval by municipality. All applicants must submit:
1. Unified Solar Permit for Small-Scale
Photovoltaic Systems Eligibility Checklist – STEP 2
2. One (1) set of plans (number may vary by municipality)
that include:
• Site Plan showing location of major components of solar system and other
equipment on roof or legal accessory structure. This plan should represent
relative location of components at site, including, but not limited to, location
of array, existing electrical service location, utility meter, inverter location,
system orientation and tilt angle. This plan should show access and
pathways that are compliant with New York State Fire Code, if applicable.
• OneLine or 3Line Electrical Diagram. The electrical diagram r equired by
NYSERDA for an incentive application and/or utility for an interconnection
agreement can be used here.
• Specication Sheets for all manufactur ed components. If these sheets are available electronically, a web address will
be accepted in place of an attachment, at the discretion of the municipality.
• All diagrams and plans must include the following: (a) Project address, section, block and lot number of the property;
(b) Owner’s name, address and phone number; (c) Name, address and phone number of the person preparing the
plans; and (d) System capacity in kWDC.
3. Unified Solar Permit for Small-Scale Photovoltaic Systems Application – STEP 3
4. Permit Fee Amount
Permit Review and Inspection Timeline
Permit determinations will be issued within 14 days upon reciept of complete and accurate applications. The municipality
will provide feedback within 7 days of receiving incomplete or inaccurate applications. If an inspection is required,
a single inspection should be sufcient and will be pr ovided within 7 days of inspection request.
The NY-Sun Initiative, a dynamic public-private partnership, will drive growth of
the solar industry and make solar technology more affordable for all New Yorkers.
Visit ny-sun.ny. gov for more information on the NY-Sun Initiative.
ny-sun.ny.gov
Energyfor
To determine if you are eligible for the expedited permitting process, answer the questions below.
Yes No 1. Solar installation has a rated capacity of 12 kW or less.
Yes No 2. Solar installation is not subject to review by an Architectural or Historical Review Board.
Yes No 3. Solar installation does not need a zoning variance.
Yes No 4. Solar installation is to be mounted on a permitted r oof structure of a building, or on a legal accessory
structure. If on a legal accessory structure, a diagram showing existing electrical connection to
structure is attached.
es No Y 5. Solar installation is compliant with all applicable electrical and building codes.
Yes No 6. Solar installation is compliant with New York State Fire Code.
Yes equir
es
No 7. The Solar Installation Contractor complies with all licensing and other r ements of the jurisdiction
and the state. [can be customized for jurisdictions]
Y No 8. The pr oposed equipment is permitted by code and equipment meets all relevant certication standar ds.
Yes No 9. The PV system and all components will be installed per the manufacturer’s specications.
Yes No 10. The project will comply with adopted National Electrical Code® requirements.
es Y No 11. The roof has no more than a single layer of roof covering (in addition to the solar equipment).
Yes No 12. The system is to be mounted parallel to the roof surface, or tilted with no more than
an 18 inch gap between the module frame and the roof surface.
Yes No 13. The system will have a distributed weight of less than 5 pounds per square foot and
less than 45 pounds per attachment point to roof.
If you answered “No” to any of Questions 110, you ar e not eligible to participate in the expedited permitting process
and must go through the standard permitting process dictated by the municipality. If you answered “No” to any of
Questions 1113, you must pr ovide a letter from a Professional Engineer or Registered Architect certifying that the
existing structure can support the additional weight and wind loads of the solar energy system. If you answered “Yes”
to all of the above questions, please sign below to afrm that all answers ar e correct, and you have met all the conditions
and requirements to participate in this expedited process.
Property Owner’s Signature Date
Solar Installation Contractor Signature Date
The NY-Sun Initiative, a dynamic public-private partnership, will drive growth of
the solar industry and make solar technology more affordable for all New Yorkers.
Visit ny-sun.ny. gov for more information on the NY-Sun Initiative.
Energyfor
Eligibility Checklist – STEP 2
ny-sun.ny.gov
Application – STEP 3
ny-sun.ny.gov
1. Property Owner:
Property Owner’s Name
Property Address
Section Block Lot Number
2. Existing Use:
Single Family 24 Family Commercial Other
3. Provide the total system capacity rating (sum of all panels)
PV System: ______ kWDC
4. Solar Installation Contractor:
Business Name
Business Address
Contact Name Phone Number
License Number(s)
5. What is the existing roofing material?
6. Provide method and type of weatherproofing for roof penetrations (i.e., flashing, caulk).
7. Is the mounting structure an engineered product designed to mount PV modules? Yes No
If no, provide details of structural attachment in a letter certied by a design pr ofessional.
continued >
The NY-Sun Initiative, a dynamic public-private partnership, will drive growth of
the solar industry and make solar technology more affordable for all New Yorkers.
Visit ny-sun.ny. gov for more information on the NY-Sun Initiative.
Energyfor
Application – STEP 3 (continued)
ny-sun.ny.gov
8. For manufactured mounting systems, provide the following information about the mounting system:
a. Mounting System Manufacturer
oduct Name and Model Number
c. Total Weight of PV Modules and Rails _
b. Pr
___________________lbs.
d. Total Number of Attachment Points ____________________
e. Weight per Attachment Point (c ÷ d) ____________________lbs.
f. Maximum Spacing Between Attachment Points on a Rail ____________________inches
(see product manual for maximum spacing allowed based on maximum design wind speed)
g. Total Surface Area of PV Modules (square feet) ____________________ft2
h. Distributed Weight of PV Module on Roof (c ÷ g) ____________________lbs./ft2
9. Indicate quantity, brand, make and model of the:
Inverter(s):
Quantity Make Model
Modules:
Quantity Make Model
Please sign below to afrm that all answers ar e correct and that you have met all the conditions and requirements
to participate in this expedited process.
Property Owner’s Signature Date
Solar Installation Contractor Signature Date
The NY-Sun Initiative, a dynamic public-private partnership, will drive growth of
the solar industry and make solar technology more affordable for all New Yorkers.
Visit ny-sun.ny. gov for more information on the NY-Sun Initiative.
Energyfor
GEN-NYSUN-uspi-form-1-v1 6/13
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.
ORDINANCE __-2014
An Ordinance Regarding the Termination of Covenants Applicable to 222 S. Cayuga St
WHEREAS, on June 1, 1983, Common Council passed an Ordinance modifying the
zoning district applicable to the property commonly known as 222 South Cayuga St.
(the “Property”), on which a Holiday Inn Hotel is presently located; and
WHEREAS, the re-zoning of the Property was contingent on the then-owners entering
into a Declaration of Covenants (the “Declaration”) that restricted development on terms
agreeable to the City, and such Declaration was recorded in the Tompkins County
Clerk’s Office in Liber 595 of Deeds at Page 348;
WHEREAS, a potential lender to the present owner of the Property, Lenroc, L.P.
(“Lenroc”), requested that Lenroc review the restrictions and covenants as contained in
the Declaration to determine whether the same are applicable in light of the passage of
time and changed circumstances, in an effort to streamline and simplify the title to the
Property; and
WHEREAS, City staff and Lenroc agree that the restrictions and covenants contained in
the Declaration are no longer applicable or the requirements imposed therein are
imposed by other codes and ordinances to which the Property is subject; in particular,
the requirements dealing with the size and dimensions for any construction and
procedures to follow for obtaining requisite municipal consent for any construction which
may have been initially satisfied are now outdated and imposed by other applicable city
codes and ordinances; and provisions for the rental of parking spaces in an adjacent
municipal parking lot are no longer applicable in that the surface lot has been replaced
by a parking ramp to which patrons of the hotel have had access; and
WHEREAS, the City will not incur any costs in terminating the restrictions contained in
the Declaration; now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as
follows:
Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the restrictions contained
in the Declaration are either no longer applicable or are imposed on the Property by
other codes and/or ordinances, and the City’s interests thus no longer require the
application of the restrictions in the Declaration to the Property.
Section 2. Authorization for Mayor to Sign. The Common Council hereby authorizes
the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, to execute all documents necessary to
terminate the restrictions contained in the Declaration.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.
TERMINATION OF
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the ___ day of April, 2014 by LENROC, L.P., a
limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York, having an office
at 222 Cayuga Street South, Ithaca, NY 14850 (“Lenroc”) and the CITY OF ITHACA,
NEW YORK, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York, having its offices at 108 East Green St., Ithaca, NY, ("City").
WHEREAS, Lenroc is the present owner of land more fully described in a deed recorded
in the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office in Liber 691 of Deeds at Page 154, commonly
known as 222 South Cayuga St., Ithaca, NY (“Property”) on which presently is located a
Holiday Inn Hotel; and
WHEREAS, the Property has been subject to various restrictions and covenants which
run with the land as described in the Declaration of Covenants recorded in the Tompkins
County Clerk’s Office in Liber 595 of Deeds at Page 348 (“Declaration”) which
covenants and restrictions were imposed in 1983 as part of the initial development of the
Property for hotel purposes; and
WHEREAS, a hotel was constructed and has been operated at the site by Lenroc for over
twenty (20) years; and
WHEREAS, a request has been made by a potential lender in an effort to streamline and
simplify the title to the Property that the restrictions and covenants as contained in the
Declaration be reviewed to determine whether the same are applicable in light of the
passage of time and changed circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto agree that the Declaration should be terminated, cancelled
and rendered of no further force or effect in that the said restrictions and covenants
contained therein are no longer applicable or the requirements imposed therein are
imposed by other codes and ordinances to which the Property is subject; in particular, the
requirements dealing with the size and dimensions for any construction and procedures to
follow for obtaining requisite municipal consent for any construction which may have
been initially satisfied are now outdated and imposed by other applicable city codes and
ordinances; provisions for the rental of parking spaces in an adjacent municipal parking
lot are no longer applicable in that the surface lot has been replaced by a parking ramp to
which patrons of the hotel have had access.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable
consideration, each to the other in hand paid, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties, being legally bound hereby, agree as follows:
1708898v3 10182.0486
THE DECLARATION and the restrictions and covenants contained therein are hereby
terminated, cancelled and rendered of no further force or effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed by the parties hereto as of the
above date.
CITY OF ITHACA
BY: ______________________
Svante Myrick,
Mayor of Ithaca
LENROC, L.P.
BY: ______________________
David P. Hart, President
1708898v3 10182.0486
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
On the day of April in the year 2014 before me, the undersigned, a notary
public in and for said state, personally appeared SVANTE MYRICK, personally known
to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose
name(s) is(are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s) or the person upon behalf of which the
individual(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Signature and Office of Individual
Taking Acknowledgement
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF _____________ )
On the day of April in the year 2014 before me, the undersigned, a notary
public in and for said state, personally appeared DAVID P. HART, personally known to me or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is(are)
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his
capacity(ies), and that by his signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s) or the person upon
behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Signature and Office of Individual
Taking Acknowledgement
1708898v3 10182.0486
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 4/4/2014
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 4/4/2014
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 4/4/2014
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 4/4/2014
[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 4/4/2014
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
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.