Loading...
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: ƒ Contain a minimum of 3 occupiable stories in height. or ƒ 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: ƒ Be located in the City of Ithaca Density District or ƒ 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.