HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-14 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: September 10, 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 – Lot Coverage Amendment,
decks
b) Special Presentation – Assessments
c) Special Presentation – Conservation
Easements in City Watershed
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee
Members
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
5) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive (NIIF)
Application
b) Non‐substantive Changes to Planned Unit
Development Ordinance
c) Lot Coverage Amendment, decks
d) Amendment to Community Investment
Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP)
6) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) August 2014
7) Adjournment
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
(to CA)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Chair, Seph Murtagh
Jay Franklin, Department of Assessment
Ari Lavine, City Attorney
JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff
Phyllis Radke, Planning Staff
Nels Bohn, IURA
6:00
6:05
6:10
6:30
6:50
7:00
7:10
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:10
8:15
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274‐6570 by 12:00
noon on Tuesday, September 9, 2014.
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: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: Megan Wilson, Planner
RE: Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
DATE: September 2, 2014
Attached is an application for the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (NIIF)
from residents of Fall Creek pertaining to the neighborhood’s annual block party held on
August 24, 2014. The application has been submitted by Maria Costanzo and Sara
Schaffzin, neighborhood residents and organizers of the event. This event has been held
annually for several years and is intended to promote a sense of community within the
neighborhood.
In past years, the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund has supported celebrations
in many city neighborhoods that focus attention on neighborhood empowerment and
solidarity. Expenditures related to this event include food, compostable tableware, and
flyers to publicize the block party, all of which meet criteria for reimbursement.
Residents of the Fall Creek neighborhood donated their time for promotion of the event,
set up, food preparation, and clean up. By putting together this event on behalf of the
neighborhood, the residents are furthering the aims of the fund to support initiatives that
strengthen city neighborhoods.
Planning & Economic Development Committee
September 10, 2014
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for the Fall Creek
Neighborhood Block Party, August 2014
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement
Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to
improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to
encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general
neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few
residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding include but are not
limited to neighborhood clean-ups, plantings in public places, and neighborhood events
like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other
project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund
and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Common Council has delegated authority to approve
applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement
award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities,
and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, on behalf of neighborhood residents, Maria Costanzo and Sara Schaffzin have submitted
an application for reimbursement funds to off-set $189.73 in expenses from the Fall
Creek neighborhood’s annual block party, and
WHEREAS, notice of the block party was circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the event
provided an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of residents; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request
from Maria Costanzo and Sara Schaffzin in the amount of $189.73 for reimbursement
upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Tel: Planning & Econ. Develop. Division – 607-274-6550 | Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org E-Mail: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Common Council
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: September 5, 2014
RE: City of Ithaca Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment - Minor Non-substantive
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to amend Chapter 325-12 of the
Municipal code in order to make a minor non-substantive change regarding the Common Council approval
process for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).
On July 2, 2014, the Common Council adopted legislation allowing for the City to establish Planned Unit
Development districts on any property in the City currently zoned for industrial uses. In that ordinance the
language stated that the Common Council approval could not happen until after a project receives a negative
declaration for environmental significance. The intent when drafting this legislation was to allow for projects to
move forward once they have fully undergone environmental review and have received site plan approval.
Projects may receive a positive declaration of environmental significance and still be eligible for site plan
approval as long as the environmental impacts are addressed and adequate mitigation measures are put into
place.
Enclosed for your consideration is a draft ordinance to revise Chapter 325-12 in order to correct this language.
This change is considered to be a minor non-substantive change and can be adopted without further
environmental review. If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at
jenniferk@cityofithaca.org.
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to
Make Minor Non Substantive Changes Regarding the Common Council
Approval Process for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-____
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2014, the Common Council adopted legislation
allowing for the City to establish Planned Unit Development
districts on any property in the City currently zoned for
industrial uses, and
WHEREAS, the adopted Planned Unit Development Ordinance
contained language that would require a project to receive a
negative declaration of environmental significance in order to
be considered eligible for a Planned Unit development, and
WHEREAS, a proposed project may complete its environmental
review even if it receives a positive declaration of
environmental significance as long as it is able to mitigate the
impacts of the environmental impacts, and
WHEREAS, in order to allow for these projects to be eligible for
planned unit developments, the language of the ordinance must be
amended to allow for projects that have adequately completed
environmental review, so that the project can progress through
construction, to be considered by the Common Council for PUD
approval; now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Article IV, Section 325-12 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended as follows:
Section 1 Chapter §325-12.G.[13] Planned Unit Developments (PUD)
–Application Process-Common Council Consideration of the PUD,
be amended as follows:
[13.] Common Council Consideration of the PUD—
When and if the environmental review of the
project has been completed in such a manner as
to permit the owner to proceed with their
project and contingent site plan approval, it
will return to the Common Council for final
consideration of the adoption of the PUD.
Page 1 9/5/2014
Page 2 9/5/2014
Final Council approval, if any, shall be
granted via ordinance.
Section 2. 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 3. 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: Common Council
Svante Myrick, Mayor
Julie Holcomb, City Clerk
Aaron Lavine, City Attorney
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Planning & Development Board
Conservation Advisory Council (CAC)
Rental Housing Advisory Commission (RHAC)
Michael Thorne, Superintendent of Public Works
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Director of Code Enforcement
Edward Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning
From: Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration
Date: August 27, 2014
RE: Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance: Percentage of Lot Coverage
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to amend the City
Zoning Ordinance so that the area of deck(s), balconies projecting more than two feet from the
face of a building, ramps, and landings, in addition to buildings and accessory structures, is
included in determining the maximum percentage of lot coverage, a District Regulation
requirement.
In connection with a proposed project, a design professional raised the issue of whether outdoor,
uncovered decks, balconies projecting more than two feet from the face of a building, ramps, and
landings, in addition to buildings and accessory structures, are included in determining the
maximum percentage of lot coverage.
“Maximum percentage of lot coverage” is one of 15 different district regulations that must be
reviewed for compliance before a Building Permit can be issued ― however, the regulations in
our current Zoning Ordinance are vague, if not silent, about what should be included in the
maximum percentage of lot coverage calculation. For example, our Ordinance does not have a
definition for a “deck” or “porch;” however, Section 325-18 A. was specifically added to the
Ordinance to specify that “open or enclosed porch(es)” must be included in the determination for
maximum percentage of lot coverage. Because decks, like porches, are structural platforms
connected to a building, the addition of a deck has been considered part of the maximum
percentage of allowable lot coverage since at least the 1980s by City zoning officials.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. 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
2
From time to time, inconsistent language or archaic definitions or regulations can raise
uncertainty about the enforcement of a zoning regulation until the language is corrected or
updated. Our Ordinance was rewritten in 1974 and 1977, and has been frequently amended since
1977, but many definitions and regulations were retained from previous City Ordinances,
including the 1950 and 1961 Zoning Ordinances. As a result, the meaning of current regulations
may rely on a definition originally created for an earlier Ordinance within a different context.
This can lead to conflicting interpretations regarding the meaning and intent of our current
regulations. The Zoning Ordinance’s need for updated regulations that address facets of
contemporary land use is also a contributing factor to this enforcement issue.
Since the current Zoning Ordinance does not adequately address these structures, an amendment
is needed to ensure the continuation of our previous interpretations. If not included in the
maximum percentage of lot coverage calculation, the construction of deck additions, balconies
projecting more than two feet from the face of a building, ramps, and landings will lead to both
diminished green space and pervious ground. Furthermore, if we do not control the extent these
structures can cover a lot through the maximum percentage of lot coverage requirement, we risk
losing the intended balance, established by the Zoning Ordinance, between required lot size and
total building area.
Therefore, in collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office, I have attached proposed changes to
the Zoning Ordinance that, if adopted by Common Council, will require the area of a deck,
balconies projecting more than two feet from the face of a building, ramps, and landings to be
part of the maximum percentage of lot coverage calculation.
An environmental review of this action has been completed and the draft short environmental
review form is enclosed, along with the draft ordinance. A Public Hearing for this action will be
held on September 10, 2014. Your comments are respectfully requested prior to that meeting. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 274-6550. Thanks so much.
Draft Resolution
September 10, 2014
Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review— Declaration of Lead Agency for:
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To correct inconsistencies so that the area of deck(s), balconies
projecting more than two feet from the face of a building, ramps, and landings, in addition
to buildings and accessory structures, is included in determining the maximum percentage
of lot coverage, a District Regulation requirement.
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 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 Zoning
Code in order to correct inconsistencies pertaining to maximum percentage of lot coverage.
Draft Resolution
September 10, 2014
Determination of Environmental Significance for;
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To correct inconsistencies so that the area of deck(s), balconies
projecting more than two feet from the face of a building, ramps, and landings, in addition
to buildings and accessory structures, is included in determining the maximum percentage
of lot coverage, a District Regulation requirement.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal
Zoning Code in order to correct inconsistencies pertaining to maximum percentage of lot
coverage, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of
a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, this 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 on the Short Environmental Assessment
Form, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that
the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further
environmental review 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.
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca, entitled Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-3, entitled,
“Definitions and word usage” is hereby amended to add additional
clarifying language to the definitions of “Building”, “Building
area”, and “Structure” to read as follows:
“Building” - Any structure wholly or partially enclosed within
exterior walls or within exterior and/or party walls and a roof,
affording shelter to persons, animals, or property, including
porches. (See “structure”.)
“Building Area” – The total area (taken on a horizontal plane at
the main grade level) of the principal building and all
accessory buildings, exclusive of uncovered porches, terraces,
steps, and parking areas. including porches, attached or free
standing decks, balconies projecting more than two feet from a
building or structure, ramps, and/or landings. The total
building area shall be used for determining required yards and
maximum percentage of allowed lot coverage but shall not include
parking areas and parking spaces. Pergolas, and terraces and
patios shall be exempt from total lot coverage requirements.
However, neither pergolas or terraces and patios above grade
shall be located in a required yard.
“Structure” – Anything constructed or erected on the ground or
upon another structure or building. is attached to another
structure or building. Structures shall not include patios or
terraces.
Section 2. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-3, entitled,
“Definitions and word usage” is hereby amended to add the
following new definitions for “Deck”, “Pergola”, “Porch”, and
“Terrace or Patio”:
“Deck”- a “structure” freestanding or attached to a building or
an above ground swimming pool, consisting of one or more planes
2
constructed of wood, metal, and/or other materials including a
support system of footings and foundation walls and/or, piers,
pilasters, columns, and posts, joists, beams, stringers, floor
boards, and/or similar structural members, and including, any
open enclosure, ramps, and/or landings and other devices
connecting one level with another, with the ground and/or an
adjoining structure and, if required by building code, balusters
and railings.
“Pergola”- an arbor or passageway for climbing plants with an
overhead frame supporting open lattice work.
“Porch”- A structure projecting from the wall or walls of a
building, with a roof, that may be open to weather or wholly or
partially enclosed with walls. A porch shall be deemed part of
the building.
“Terrace or patio”-. A level plane or surfaced patio that is
less than 18 inches above grade, without a roof, and not
supported by any permanent structure. Terraces and patios above
grade shall not encroach into required yards.
Section 3. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-8A.(10) “Column
(10): Maximum Percentage of Lot Coverage by Buildings”, be
amended to read as follows:
On a lot hereafter used, no greater percentage of total lot area
may be covered by principal and accessory buildings above
ground. than is specified in this column. In applying lot
coverage percentages to an addition to an existing building
when part of such addition is not on land not originally part of
the of the subject premises, such total addition shall be
considered as a separate building on added land, and the lot
coverage shall apply to the addition and not the total
structure. For this purpose, the area covered by principal and
accessory buildings shall include all porches, attached or
freestanding decks, balconies projecting more than two feet from
a building or structure, ramps, and/or landings. This sum,
divided by the total lot area, shall not exceed the maximum
allowed percentage of lot coverage specified in this column.
3
Section 4. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-18, entitled
“Yard regulations” is hereby amended to add clarifying language
to section 325-18A., entitled “Porches”, to read as follows:
Section 325-18A. Porches and structures.
Any open or enclosed All porches, attached or freestanding
decks, balconies projecting more than two feet from a building
or structure, ramps, and/or landings shall be considered a part
of the building in both the determination of the size of yards
required yards or and lot coverage.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
September 10, 2014
CIITAP ‐ Municipal Compliance Amendment
Whereas, the Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP) provides
financial incentives through the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (IDA) to
encourage appropriate real estate and business investment in the core areas of the City and
redevelopment of environmentally contaminated sites, and
Whereas, the CIITAP program requires a two‐step application process whereby applications
must first satisfy minimum City of Ithaca eligibility requirements to advance for consideration
by the IDA, and
Whereas, there are currently three eligibility criteria for a CIITAP application to be approved by
the City for IDA consideration:
1. Project size – project will increase the assessed value of property by at least $500,000;
2. Project density – project will contain a minimum of 3 stories or constitute a major restoration of
an existing building; and
3. Project location – project is located within the Density District or includes a DEC‐listed inactive
hazardous waste site, and
Whereas, a CIITAP applicant who is delinquent on taxes, fees or penalties due to the City or own
properties with violations of local laws should not be eligible for special assistance through the CIITAP
program until the applicant and properties owned by the applicant come into compliance, and
Whereas, requiring a CIITAP applicant to remedy existing violations or delinquencies as a condition of
eligibility may bring violations into voluntary compliance without expending enforcement resources;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby amends its Community Investment Incentive
Tax Abatement Program policy to include the following fourth eligibility criteria:
4. Municipal compliance – all property in the City of Ithaca owned by the applicant must be in full
compliance with all applicable local laws and regulations, consent agreements, orders of the
Director of Code Enforcement and current on all local taxes, fees and penalties due, and be it
further
RESOLVED, for the purposes of the CIITAP municipal compliance requirement, an Applicant shall include
the following:
• For a sole proprietorship, the sole proprietor;
• For a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), all members owning 20% or more of the company
• For a partnership, all general partners and all limited partners owning 20% or more of the
equity of the firm
• For a corporation, all owners of 20% or more of the corporation and each officer and
director, and be it further
RESOLVED, for the purposes of the CIITAP municipal compliance requirement, properties owned by the
Applicant in the City of Ithaca shall include any property for which an Applicant has an ownership
interest of 20% or more.
j:\projects\ciitap (community investment incentive tax abatement program)\reso p&ed 2014 amend ciitap 9‐10‐14.doc
9
I. Objective
In conjunction with the goals of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, the
objective of the CIIP is to encourage development in the City that would increase
jobs, increase the tax base, promote density in the City core, to encourage
rehabilitation and redevelopment of underutilized sites and to help create a vibrant
downtown center. Specifically the goals, as stated in the Tompkins County
Comprehensive Plan, are as follows:
■ Strengthen and enhance the City of Ithaca’s downtown area as the
urban center of the county.
■ Increase the amount and density of housing and business space in the
central business districts throughout the county.
■ Promote greater density by encouraging development of existing
“gaps” left by abandoned buildings and vacant parcels.
II. Eligibility Criteria
Project sponsors applying for tax abatement(s) under the City of Ithaca Community
Investment Incentive Program must meet the following size, density, and location
requirements:
1.) Project Size Requirement - In order to meet the minimum project size
requirement to be eligible for tax abatements under the CIIP program, a project
must provide a letter from the Tompkins County Assessment Office that states
that the project will result in an estimated increase in the assessed value of the
property by at least $500,000.
2.) Project Density Requirement - In order to meet the minimum density
requirement to be eligible for tax abatement under the CIIP program, a project
must either:
Contain a minimum of 3 occupiable stories in
height.
or
Must be a major restoration of an existing
structure.
The Community Investment Incentive Program (CIIP) is a property tax abatement program that allows
property owners to apply for abatement for a portion of their property taxes for a period of up to 7
3.) Project Location Requirement - In order to meet the location requirement to
be eligible for tax abatement under the CIIP program, a project must either:
Be located in the City of Ithaca Density District
or
Be a redevelopment of a Brownfield site that is
registered as a DEC inactive hazardous waste
site.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/derexternal/in
dex.cfm?pageid=3
Eligibility is determined by the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, based on the above-
stated criteria. Once eligibility has been determined, the Mayor will provide a letter
of endorsement to the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (IDA).
(See Section IV for complete application process.)
II. Density District Boundary
III. Incentive Package
Property Tax Abatement – The standard CIIP property tax abatement will begin at 90%
in year one and decrease in equal increments over seven (7) years. Applicants may
request a enhanced property tax abatement that begins at 100% in year one and
decreases in equal increments over ten (10) years if the applicant can demonstrate
financial need as determined by a review by IDA administrative staff of the project pro
forma and demonstration of a return on investment less than 20% in the first five years.
The abatement will only impact taxes on improvements to the property and not taxes on
the existing value.
The IDA retains the ability to offer more than the standard abatement package based on
an analysis of the impact on the economy, the needs of the business, and input from the
City of Ithaca. The IDA may negotiate additional abatements based on financial need.
• Sales Tax Abatement – The applicant will be exempt from both the
local and State portion of sales tax on construction materials,
equipment, and furnishings associated with the project.
• Mortgage Recording Tax – The applicant will be exempt from the State
portion of the Mortgage Recording Tax ($2.50 per $1,000)
IV. Application Process
Tompkins County Area Development, Inc. (TCAD) provides administrative and
marketing services to the IDA. Potential applicants should contact the City Planning
Department to schedule a meeting with Planning Staff and TCAD staff to determine
project eligibility.
If the project appears to be eligible, TCAD will assist with completing the application for
assistance. It is strongly advised that potential applicants schedule the initial eligibility
determination meeting as early in the process as possible in order to determine if the
dollar value of the proposed incentives exceeds the associated fees.
Based on the nature of the project and the incentives requested, the following will occur:
1. Eligibility Determination Meeting - A developer seeking a tax abatement
under this program must first have a joint meeting with staff from TCAD
and the City Planning Department.
2. CIIP Application - A developer must submit a completed CIIP application
to the City of Ithaca Planning Department. The application will be
reviewed for completeness and will be submitted to the Mayor for
consideration.
3. Public Information Session – The City will schedule a public information
session, at which the developer will be responsible for presenting
information about the project and answering questions from the public.
The City will advertise the public information session with a press
release to the local media. The developer is responsible for posting the
property at least 5 days prior to the public information session, with the
date, time and location of the meeting.
4. City Approval– A City CIIP Review Committee, consisting of the Mayor,
the Director of Planning and Development, and the Director of the
community development for the IURA, will consider project approval,
based on the stated criteria density, size, and location. If criteria are
satisfied, the CIIP review committee will forward the completed
application, along with a letter of approval to the IDA.
5. IDA Application –A developer will submit a standard IDA application to
the IDA for consideration in addition to the CIIP application and Mayor’s
approval letter. The IDA will make an independent determination of the
project.
6. Public Hearing – Following an initial review, the IDA will, if favorably
disposed toward a project, schedule a public hearing on the proposed
incentive package. Standard IDA policies apply with regards to public
hearing notification and other requirements.
7. IDA Determination – Following a public hearing, the IDA will make a
conditioned determination on the project. No final decision may be
reached by the IDA until SEQR requirements have been met by the
developer.
8. Notification and Reporting – The IDA will notify the City of Ithaca and
appropriate taxing jurisdictions once a project is approved. The IDA may
diminish or rescind incentives should the project materially change. IDA
agreements generally have claw back requirements.
9. Applications under this policy may not be accepted after December 31,
2017 unless the IDA and City of Ithaca vote to extend the policy beyond
that date.
Refer to the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency Mission, Policies and
Procedures for additional information.
V. Application Fees
The applicant is responsible for payment of the following fees associated with the CIIP
process.
1. Administrative Fees -The applicant is responsible for paying the IDA
Administrative Fee at the time of closing. This fee will be equal to 1% of the
total value of expenses that are positively impacted by IDA incentives. This
includes the value of construction of improvements to property that is
impacted by property and sales tax abatement and the value of furniture,
fixtures and equipment that are impacted by sales tax abatement. It will not
include any purchases, such as manufacturing equipment, where the IDA
does not deliver an incentive. Soft Costs (legal, consulting, financial,
architectural and engineering fees) will be included in the amount considered
as total value of expenses. In an attempt to make its incentive program cost
effective for smaller projects, the IDA will reimburse the applicant for 100% of
the Administrative Fee, IDA Counsel Fee, and IDA Bond Counsel Fee
associated with the IDA involvement in the project if the total project cost is
less than $1 Million. For total project cost greater than $1 Million but less than
$2 Million, the reimbursement of fees will be reimbursed on a sliding scale
that declines from 100% to 0% gradually based on project size. There will be
no reimbursement of fees for projects with costs over $2 Million. The
reimbursement will take the form of additional property tax abatement
credited to the business in the initial years of the Payment In Lieu of Tax
agreement (PILOT). The IDA retains the right to determine the credit the
applicant will receive. For projects where there is no property tax abatement,
there will not be any form of fee reimbursement.
2. IDA Counsel Fees – The applicant is also responsible for paying the IDA for
all legal costs it incurs including IDA Counsel and Bond Counsel fees.
3. Applicant Attorney Fees – The applicant is responsible for its own attorney
fees associated with closing IDA incentives.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, August 13, 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, Josephine Martell, and
Ellen McCollister
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: J.R. Clairborne
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Megan Wilson, Planner,
Department of Planning, Building, Zoning and
Economic Development; Phyllis Radke,
Director of Zoning Administration, Department
of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Debbie Grunder, Executive
Assistant, Department of Planning, Building,
Zoning, and Economic Development, and Nels
Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA);
Others Attending: Chain Works Group – Scott Whitham, Noah
Demarest, and Jamie Gensel from Fagan
Engineers.
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:01p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
The resolution for Item #5e was not included in the packet. It was distributed to
the members at the meeting.
Item #6b will go after announcements.
2) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – Substantive Revisions to Collegetown Area Form
Districts, Building Height and Recessed Entry
Alderperson McCollister moved to open the public hearing; seconded by
Alderperson Kerslick. Passed Unanimously.
There was no one from the public to speak on this subject.
Alderperson McCollister moved to close the public hearing; seconded by
Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
b) Public Hearing – Chain Works District, Planning Unit Development
(PUD)
Alderperson Kerslick moved to open the public hearing; seconded by
Alderperson McCollister. Passed unanimously.
There was no one present to speak on this subject.
Alderperson McCollister moved to close the public hearing; seconded by
Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
John Efroymson, 408 Columbia Street, requested the order of the agenda be
changed.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
Chair Murtagh informed the group that Jay Franklin from the Tompkins County
Assessment Office will be attending our September meeting.
JoAnn Cornish stated that there will be a meeting set up on Cornell Heights for later this
month.
JoAnn Cornish also stated she had a meeting with Susan Ritter from the Town and Scott
Whitham regarding the Chain Works PUD project. It was decided that the Town’s
Planning Committee will do the review for the Town, and the City’s Planning Board will
do the review for the City.
5) Action Items – Voting to Send onto Council
a) Substantive Revision to Collegetown Area Form Districts, Building
Height and Recessed Entry
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Amend §325-45.2B, “Definitions and
Related Standards,” of the Collegetown Area Form Districts
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the Collegetown Area Form
Districts in March 2014, staff has identified several revisions that
are necessary to strengthen the intent of the code, and
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to the standards for building height
will help reduce construction costs and further promote high-quality
design on sloped sites while reducing the impacts of taller
buildings on adjacent smaller structures, and
WHEREAS, the addition of a definition of “recessed entry” will
clarify the intent of this form requirement; now, therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca
be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2B(2) of the Municipal Code
of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Building Height
(a) The existing definition of building height shall apply
(refer to §325-3 – “Height of Building”).
(b) Building heights in the CR and MU districts are
regulated using feet and stories. No portion of any building
shall exceed the maximum number of stories or the maximum
height in feet.
(C) A building may be stepped back, provided that each
stepback is a minimum of 12’ of building depth. Each
stepback defines a portion of the building. The height is
measured from the average grade plane adjoining that portion
of the building.
(C) (D) The only parts of the building which may exceed the
maximum building height are bulkheads, housing for mechanical
equipment, towers, and similar constructions not intended for
human occupancy, provided that the requirements of §325-
45.2B(10) §325-45.2B(14) are met.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2B of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a definition of
“Recessed Entry” as Section 325-45.2B(10), and all subsequent
sections shall be renumbered accordingly. Section 325-45.2B(10)
shall read as follows:
(10) Recessed Entry
(a) Definition: A functioning entry that is set back a
minimum of 12” from the front façade of the building.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices
as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning”
To Amend §325-45.2B, “Definitions and Related Standards,” of the Collegetown Area Form
Districts – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed Unanimously.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for
conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead
agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying
out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an “Unlisted” Action pursuant to the City Environmental
Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore,
be it
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 §325-45.2B, “Definitions and Related
Standards,” of the Collegetown Area Form Districts.
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning”
To Amend §325-45.2B, “Definitions and Related Standards,” of the Collegetown Area Form
Districts – Determination of Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code in
order to (1) amend the standards for Building Height and (2) provide a definition for “Recessed Entry”,
and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated July 2, 2014, and
WHEREAS, these zoning amendments have 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 have 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 July 2,
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.
b) Public Art Mural
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation on the Entry Ramp to the Upper Levels of the
Green Street Parking Garage
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among other
duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in
the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the
city, while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their
work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art,
including walls in the City garages on Green Street and Seneca Street, by resolution on May 19, 2010,
and
WHEREAS, local artist Jennifer Ospina has submitted her proposal for a mural depicting the culture of
the indigenous Kogi tribe of Columbia as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS, Ms. Ospina was selected as a finalist by ¡Cultura! Ithaca and several other community
organizations to paint a mural that celebrates the community’s Latina culture, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting June 25, 2014, the PAC identified the entry ramp to the upper levels of the
Green Street Parking Garage as an appropriate location for this proposal, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the mural design and location at its meeting on
July 23, 2014 to gather input on the proposed installation, and the majority of the responses to the
proposal have been positive, and
WHEREAS, the artist will receive some paint from the City as well as funding from ¡Cultura! Ithaca and
several other community organizations to install the mural, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on July 23, 2014, the Public Art Commission unanimously voted to
recommend that the Common Council select Jennifer Ospina’s mural to be installed on the entry ramp of
the Green Street Parking Garage; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Jennifer Ospina’s mural depicting the
culture of the Kogi tribe, as recommended by the Public Art Commission, to be installed on the entry
ramp of the Green Street Parking Garage and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of her mural upon the execution of
an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney.
Latina Mural Project Submission
Name/Contact
Jennifer Ospina
Bio Statement
I am a self taught artist that has been inspired by color. My expressions in my
paintings represent connections to the earth and the universe. I began painting 2
years ago, and I moved to Ithaca because it inspired me by its art community.
Description of Mural
For the mural project I will be expressing the indigenous culture of Colombia.
This indigenous tribe is called the “Kogi”, and they live in the mountains of Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta. The Sierra Nevada is a nurturer, protector, and Mother
to the Kogi. Because of the support and resources the mountain provides for the
Kogi, there is no need for them to adapt to a progressing world. In fact, the Sierra
Nevada has been described as a miniature planet. Their desire to live in harmony
with nature underlies their basic belief in "Aluna", a "generative spiritual force in
which all things exist and from which all things take their being". The importance
of this culture reflects the respect that we should also have for mother earth. In
my sketch you could see the mother of this tribe holding the universe in her hand,
also she is surrounded by the very mountains that give life to this tribe. This is a rough
sketch of what I am planning to do but there will more detail in
the mural.
Also, the head of the mother will have a willow tree with animals infused with
each other
Materials:
Brushes, Acrylic, mediums for blending colors, and coating after finished.
c) Neighborhood Improvement Application
Megan Wilson explained the criteria needed to meet in order to be eligible for these
funds. This fund has supported celebrations in many City neighborhoods including
this national occasion we are voting on tonight that focuses attention on
neighborhood safety and solidarity. Expenditures related to the event include food,
beverages, sound equipment, DJs, t-shirts, and give-aways for kids all of which meet
criteria for reimbursement.
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds from the
Titus Towers Tenant Council for National Night Out, August 2014
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood
Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents
seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community
improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a
general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select
few residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but
are not limited to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places,
and organizing neighborhood events like block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application
specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be
covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to
approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a
reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for
approved activities, and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, the Titus Towers Tenant Council has submitted a completed application
for reimbursement funds to off-set expenses that in past years have generally ranged
from $400 – $800 for the annual National Night Out event, held this year on
Tuesday, August 5, 2014, and
WHEREAS, while this annual event is sponsored by the Titus Towers Tenants
Council, notice is circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the event provides an
opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of South of the Creek residents, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the
request from the Titus Towers Tenant Council in an amount up to $300.00 for
reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds from the
Family Sites Tenant Council for National Night Out, August 2014
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood
Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents
seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community
improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a
general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select
few residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but
are not limited to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places,
and organizing neighborhood events like block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application
specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be
covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to
approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a
reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for
approved activities, and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, the Family Sites Tenant Council has submitted a completed application
for reimbursement funds to off-set expenses that in past years have generally ranged
from $400 – $800 for the annual National Night Out event, held this year on
Tuesday, August 5, 2014, and
WHEREAS, this annual event is sponsored by the Family Sites Tenant Council at
Conway Park, and the event provides an opportunity for socializing with diverse
groups of Northside residents; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the
request from the Family Sites Tenant Council in an amount up to $300.00 for
reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
d) PUD for Chain Works District, Approval in Concept
There was a public information session held which was very well received.
Alderperson Brock commented she was very impressed at the number of people
who attended the information session and who are involved. Brock further stated
that the portion of the area T5 abuts a single-family housing neighborhood. She
recommends more of a transition zone in this area.
Cornish stated that due to the fact that this is a new procedure, she stated that
comments and concerns should be brought to the forefront.
Noah Demarest commented that as JoAnn stated, this is a concept that is being
asked approval of and any zones being identified may not stay at that zone.
Alderperson Brock’s concerns are more focused at the Southeast Terrace area.
The project team stated that as we go through the process certain areas will
need further attention than others. Many changes will take place throughout the
site-plan review process.
Alderperson Brock would like to see more of the zoning concepts be identified
prior to voting on a concept.
The action tonight is approving the concept in order to give “permission” for the
applicant to start the site-plan review process.
Alderperson Clairborne’s concern is approving the concept, but also approving
the first application.
It was suggested by JoAnn Cornish to include the process steps in the approval
of the concept resolution.
Alderperson Kerslick stated that the fact there isn’t anyone here during the public
hearing clearing shows that the public is on board since the previous public
information session.
JoAnn Cornish recommended that portions of the project overview and zoning,
density, parking if applicable brought forth by the developers should be included
in the resolution moving the concept forward. Steps that the Council will go
through will be stated. Graphics will be included.
Common Council Conditional Approval-UnChained Properties LLC,
application for Planned Unit Development – Resolution
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed
Unanimously.
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2014, the Common Council adopted legislation allowing for the
City to establish Planned Unit Development districts on any property in the City currently
zoned for industrial uses, and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, UnChained properties submitted a completed application
for consideration to establish a Planned Unit Development district at the site of the former
Morse Chain/Emerson Power facility, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and
rehabilitate the +/-800,000 SF former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission
facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca
municipal boundary, and
WHEREAS, approval of this application would allow the site to be developed into
a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and
manufacturing, and
WHERAS, the site’s redevelopment would bridge South Hill and Downtown
Ithaca, the Town and the City of Ithaca, by providing multiple intermodal access
routes, including a highly desired trail connection, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the adopted City process for consideration of a
planned unit development, the application was circulated to City boards and
committees, as well as, to the Town of Ithaca, and to the County Planning
Department, and
WHEREAS, a public information session, hosted by the applicant, was held on
August 5, 2014 and the meeting was advertised in the Ithaca Journal, the
property was posted with signs and property owners within 500 feet of the
property were notified by mail of the meeting, and
WHEREAS, a legal notice was posted to the Ithaca Journal, on July 29, 2014, in
order to advertize a legal public hearing on August 13, 2014, and
WHEREAS, the process for consideration of an application for Planned Unit
Development requires that the applicant obtain an approval in concept from the
Common Council prior to beginning the site plan review process; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council does hereby grant an approval in
concept to UnChained Properties for their application for a Planned Unit
Development district to be established at the former site of the Morse
Chain/Emerson Power facility, and be it further
RESOLVED, that by granting an approval in concept, the Common Council
acknowledges that the applicant is able to begin the site plan review process,
despite any zoning-based deficiencies in the application, and, be it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council does hereby request that the City
Planning Board update the Common Council after each Planning Board meeting
where this project is considered and to request ongoing written comments from
the Common Council, and be it further
RESOLVED, that if this project has receives a negative declaration of
environmental significance and contingent site plan approval, the applicant will
return to the Common Council for final consideration of the adoption of the
Planned Unit Development district.
e) Programmatic Changes in NHI Program
Nels Bohn explained to the group the programmatic changes to the Housing
Initiatives Bond Program. There are three changes:
1) Supplement the Program to Provide for a Pilot Competitive Grant Program
2) Expand Categories of Eligible Project Sites
3) Affordability Requirement
Programmatic Changes to the IURA Neighborhood Housing Initiative Bond
Program
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, The Neighborhood Housing Initiative was created to convert
substandard, rental, residential properties negatively affecting their surrounding
neighborhood into quality, owner‐occupied housing that would benefit the nearby
neighborhood, increase homeownership and expand the tax base of the City, and
WHEREAS, to implement the program, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)
used bond proceeds to acquire eligible properties; renovated them, or demolished
and constructed new homes; and sold them for the highest marketable price to
homebuyers with a deed restriction requiring the property to remain owner‐occupied
for at least 25 years, and
WHEREAS, IURA bonds financing the Neighborhood Housing Initiative are
guaranteed by the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, $1,050,000 in bonds were issued to capitalize the program, of which, as
of 2014, approximately $590,000 remains available to implement the program going
forward, and
WHEREAS, certain changes to the structure of the program are now proposed to
enhance effectiveness of the program, and
WHEREAS, the changes were approved by bond counsel Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP on July 18, 2014, subject to adoption by the IURA and approval by the
Common Council, and
WHEREAS, the program assists renovation or construction of single-family, two-
family or three-family residences, which qualifies as a Type II action not subject to
environmental review under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the proposed programmatic changes were adopted by the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency on July 24, 2014; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby approves the following
programmatic changes to the IURA Neighborhood Housing Investment program:
1. Supplement the Program to Provide for a Pilot Competitive Grant Program ‐
Convert the program delivery model to a competitive grant program to assist
not‐for‐profit housing developers carry out homeownership projects for a fixed
subsidy amount rather than have IURA undertake site selection, acquisition,
rehabilitation/construction and resale. Payments of grants will be made upon
project completion.
2. Expand Categories of Eligible Project Sites – Expand the categories of
properties eligible for assistance under the program from solely substandard,
rental residential properties to include, substandard vacant structures, properties
acquired through property tax delinquency, primary structure cited as unsafe for
occupancy, and vacant parcels.
3. Affordability Requirement – Impose a new requirement that each new
owner‐occupied residential unit assisted must be sold to homeowners earning
80% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI), and further require any resale of
the home to low/mod income homebuyers during the 25‐regulatory period.
6) Action Items – Approval to Circulate
a) Revisions to City Noise Ordinance
Chair Murtagh pointed out the main changes made to the City ordinance are
Sections 240-8, 240-9, and 240-10.
Alderperson McCollister asked about air conditioning units that are extremely
noisy. How do we control that?
Alderperson Brock asked what does a person do if they have a neighbor
complaint. Chair Murtagh stated the complaint will be filed with the mayor’s
office or a designated person.
Alderperson McCollister moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson
Kerslick. Passed unanimously.
b) Lot Coverage Amendment, decks
Phyllis Radke explained to the group that the City has been allowing decks to
be included in the calculation of lot coverage. It has been allowed, but not
adequately stated in the Code. Many definitions are lacking in the zoning
ordinance. This section of the Code does not currently include definitions of
such structures as porches, decks, patios, etc.
The suggested changes are not changing how we have done things to date.
These changes will only include a clear definition of these structures in order
to correctly calculate the total lot coverage. Better definitions are needed in
order to better enforce the ordinance.
Alderperson McCollister asked for clarification to what we are being asked for
tonight. It is to clarify the definitions of the structures that will make up the
calculation of overall lot coverage.
Alderperson Martell asked whether there are any concerns when calculating
such lot coverage when it comes to handicap ramps.
Radke stated we have set dimensions for these ramps. If anything further is
requested, it would be approved on a case-by-case basis.
Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see a notification of a ramp that is
needed and added to the property; not so much an approval process, but just
a notification to the City and to adjacent neighbors.
Radke stated that this is a policy issue, and has been asked for clarification
from some developers.
Balconies are not currently covered in the calculation of the overall lot
coverage. This may be something we would want to add to the Code.
Alderperson Martell spoke in response to Alderperson Brock’s comment
regarding the suggested notification to neighbors when a handicap ramp is
built. Martell thinks that if these ramps are needed, they should be allowed
without much mandate from the City.
Chair Murtagh asked if the group is comfortable circulating this for comment.
Radke further stated that the percentage of lot coverage should remain the
decks, porches, etc. The handicap ramps can be looked at a later date.
A motion to circulate for comment was moved by Alderperson McCollister;
seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed unanimously.
7) Discussion
a) Proposed Change to Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement
Program (CIITAP)
Alderperson McCollister stated she thinks this is good. She asked how it
would be find out that the applicant is not eligible.
Nels Bohn stated the process will start in the attorney’s office. Compliance
can also be found in the City database of existing businesses, home owners,
and business partnerships.
8) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) April, May, June, July 2014
Alderperson McCollister moved all four months; seconded by Alderperson
Brock. Passed Unanimously.
9) Adjournment
Alderperson Kerslick motioned to adjourn; seconded by Alderperson Murtagh.
Passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.