HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-12 Planning & EDC Meeting AgendaMEETING NOTICE
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 ― 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street
A. Agenda Review
B. Special Order of Business
C. Public Comment & Response from Committee Members (6:00 pm)
D. Announcements, Updates, & Reports (6:10 pm)
1. Comprehensive Plan
2. Intermunicipal Planning Coordination
3. Emerson
4. Collegetown
5. Commons
6. Energy Action Plan
E. Action Items
F. Discussion Items (direction for development of possible future action items)
1. Changes to the Community Investment Incentive Program (CIIP) (6:20 pm)
*** refer to materials in May 2012 committee packet ***
2. Response to Lease Renewal Request for Ithaca Community Gardens (6:50 pm)
a. Project Growing Hope memo requesting lease renewal
b. Project Growing Hope current lease
(bylaws and articles of incorporation available on request)
c. Option agreement with Building Links, Inc.
3. Amending Industrial Districts to Allow Housing (7:25 pm)
a. Concept Memo including relevant sections of City Code
b. Proposed Zoning Amendment
4. Agenda Planning ― potential upcoming items (7:45 pm)
a. In development or circulation, expected back in August
Energy Action Plan Approval, Site Plan Review Changes, & Exterior Property
Maintenance
b. In development or circulation, expected back later
Changes to Minimum Parking Requirements
G. Approval of Minutes (7:50 pm) ― Oct. 2010, Feb. 2012, & Mar. 2012
H. Adjournment (7:55 pm)
Direct questions about the agenda to Jennifer Dotson, Chairperson (jdotson@cityofithaca.org or 351-5458) or the
appropriate staff person at the Department of Planning & Development (274-6550). Back-up material is available in
the office of the Department of Planning & Development. The agenda order is tentative and subject to change.
If you have a disability and require any accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at
274-6570 by 12:00, Noon, on Tuesday, July 10, 2012.
Project Growing Hope Lease Renewal, April 2012
Who are we?
Project Growing Hope is the not-for profit corporation formed in 1982 to run the Ithaca Community Gardens. We
are governed by a seven-member, all volunteer, board and the gardens are maintained entirely through the
volunteer labor of members. We have a very small budget (about $5500 in 2012, approximately 30% of which is
spent on water) that is funded entirely by our members.
We are a growing organization, with about 140 members in 2012, up from 86 members in 2003. Most members
work their plots with family members and friends and we have 25–30% new members each year, as people leave
town or have changing needs—many hundreds of individuals have been a part of the Ithaca Community Gardens.
In any year, 70–75% of our members are residents of the City of Ithaca.
An income survey in 2004 showed that 78% of our gardeners were HUD low income (80% of median); of these
37%, were HUD very low income (50% of median; the 2004 survey was not designed to correspond well to HUD
income categories, the actual proportion of low-income gardeners may have been higher). A survey in 2012
showed that 57% are HUD low income (80% of median) and, of these, 42% are HUD very low income (50% of
median). In 2012, 16% of our members self-identify as Asian—Project Growing Hope has been particularly
successful in including members of the Burmese and Karen communities, who garden with us despite a language
and culture barrier. Our gardeners range in age from early 20s to late 70s, engage in a wide variety of occupations,
and represent a broad cross section of the population.
We also have organizational members, which have included the Youth Bureau, the Dispositional Alternatives
Program of Family & Children’s Services, GIAC, and Challenge Industries, who receive plots with no plot fees
for use in programs with their clients.
The gardens were founded in 1976 and were originally located behind the former P&C grocery on Ithaca’s
Northside, in what eventually became Mutual Housing. In the early 1980s, the City received a block grant to
purchase that site for the community gardens, but were outbid by a developer. The gardens leased our current site
in what is now Carpenter Park from NYSEG beginning in 1983. In the mid-1980s, the City bought the entire 10
acres (including our 2.25-acre site) using the funds that were granted for buying a community garden, plus other
funds. Our current lease began in 1993 and runs through 31 December 2013.
What do we do?
Our members have individual plots, which they garden using organic methods. We currently have about 150 plots
for which members pay $25, in addition to a $15 membership fee. We also have a few members who do not have
plots but wish to contribute to the gardens. Project Growing Hope supplies hand tools (shovels and spades,
digging forks, hoes, trowels, etc.), hoses, watering cans, and so on for use in gardening, and lawn mowers, a string
trimmer, and other tools for maintaining the grounds. We offer scholarships to people who cannot afford the plot
fee.
Members are required to work 4 hours per plot per year or to pay a $10/hour fee in lieu of work. Members can
take on coordinator jobs for areas such as compost, tools, mowing, website, education, and others; can help with
projects such as mailings, data entry, social events, leading a particular work day; or can work at once-monthly
two-hour work days in the gardens.
The gardens are open to the public; the gates are never locked. People are welcome to stroll around the gardens
and enjoy the site; we only ask that they not pick produce, take anything, or vandalize. Members organize and
P.O. Box 606, Ithaca NY 14851 ithacagardensboard@gmail.com 607-216-8770
present several educational programs each year and we host educational events by other organizations, such as
Cooperative Extension. Classes have included seed starting, spring gardening, fall gardening, mushroom
cultivation, and “bug walks”, among others. We publicize these programs through various listservs and the public
is welcome to attend, free of charge.
For many years, we served as the home of one of the Master Composters’ demonstration sites and as the place
where their once-monthly Compost With Confidence class series is taught. We have provided plots for gardeners
to grow food for Loaves and Fishes and our members organize the collection of produce for local food banks.
What is our goal?
Our lease with the City of Ithaca for the Ithaca Community Gardens in Carpenter Park expires 31 December 2013.
We would like to renew the lease and are seeking the Mayor’s advice in how to proceed.
What is our value to the City?
Community gardens are widely acknowledged to be a public good; a partial list of the benefits of community
gardens (from the American Association of Community Gardens) includes: improving the quality of life for
people who garden; stimulating social interaction; encouraging self-reliance; beautifying neighborhoods;
producing nutritious food; reducing food budgets; conserving resources; creating opportunity for recreation,
exercise, therapy, and education; preserving green space; reducing city heat from streets and parking lots; and
providing opportunities for intergenerational and cross-cultural connections.
As our City becomes more dense, providing land for gardening to those who live in apartments, have shaded lots,
or do not have their landlord’s permission to garden will continue to be important. Group ownership of basic tools
and access to water, education, mentorship, and modeling helps people to increase their self-sufficiency and
makes gardening accessible for those with low incomes. Our members tell us that their plot “provides 30% of my
veggie needs for a year”; “supplied 15 or more lunches, 20 or more dinner salads, 20 or more side-dishes at
dinner”; “provided 75 to 100% of vegetable needs for 2 people who love veggies, from June to the end of
October...”; and similar stories of abundance.
Many municipalities, including the Town of Ithaca, provide community gardens and use staff time to administer
the gardens, handle registration, collect fees, direct and perform maintenance, answer gardener questions, do site
planning, and many of the other tasks that our Board and members have been doing as volunteers. We estimate at
least one half-time staff member would be required if averaged over the year. A staff member making fte $25,000
with overhead of 40% would cost the city $17,500 each year, in addition to the costs of any power equipment
required.
We have been providing this service to the City for over 30 years. Our location near the Ithaca Farmers market
means that many City residents and visitors to Ithaca see our gardens and many of them stop in to enjoy the
gardens and talk to gardeners, thus making us ambassadors of Ithaca. We require very little to no City staff time.
We are a positive presence in our “neighborhood”; the presence of our gardeners in Carpenter Park provides “eyes
on the street.” As a result, there is little trouble with anti-social behavior in this otherwise large vacant lot. With
the eventual completion of Phase 2 of the Waterfront Trail and the increased number of visitors that will bring,
our location will be even more visible and important as an example of what is best about Ithaca.
Gail Blake, Chris Negronida, and Sheryl Swink
Board Members and members of Lease Renewal Committee, Project Growing Hope
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning & Development
Date: July 6, 2012
Re: Proposed Modifications to I-1 Zoning District
I have been asked to prepare a concept memo proposing a change to the City’s Industrial Zoning
District (I-1) to allow for residential uses. Historically, residential uses were not allowed in the
I-1 Zoning District for health and safety reasons, including negative impacts and prolonged
exposure to noise, fumes, odors, vibration, noxious or toxic chemical releases, traffic, and other
conditions that could injure or impact the health of residents. Ithaca, like many cities in the
northeastern United States, allowed industry to locate along its waterways, railroads, and major
roadways, which helped facilitate early economic growth. These patterns continued as land use
and zoning were codified in the City. However, in recent history, concerns over cleaner water
and environments, along with changing industrial patterns and regulations, marked a move
toward increased interest for other types of development in these areas.
Currently, there are five areas in the City zoned I-1: Cherry Street, Carpenter Business Park, the
former Emerson site, the former Ithaca Gun site, and a triangular piece of land wedged between
the north side of Willow Avenue and the west side of Route 13 North. We know from recent
inquires that there is demand in the city for industrially zoned land upon which a building with a
large footprint could be built for manufacturing and related industry. We also know that most
industry today is much cleaner and more tightly regulated than it has been historically,
diminishing the threat of injury to human health.
In almost all cases, these industrially zoned sites would make for great multi-family housing
developments, but, given the demand, should not preclude the allowance of clean industry and/or
mixed-use.
I have attached applicable parts of the City Code, so that you might also consider how allowing
housing in the I-1 zone would impact other parts of the Code and what adjustments may have to
be made. (We commonly refer to these as unintended consequences.)
Page 1 of 4
§ 325-8. District regulations. [Amended 9-7-1988 by Ord. No. 88-7]
A. The District Regulations Chart is hereby made a part of this chapter.EN Column heads on
the District Regulations Chart are defined as follows:
B. General notes pertaining to regulations.
(1) For minimum lot size requirements stated in Column 6, Area in Square Feet, for all residential
use districts, each square-footage requirement applies separately to the initial permitted primary use and
to each additional permitted primary use located in a separate building on the property in question (e.g., in
R-2b Districts, an area of 3,000 square feet is required for a one family house or a two-family house, and
an additional area of 3,000 square feet is required for each additional one-family house or two-family
house on the property).
(2) Landfilling and bulkheading plans and procedures shall be subject to approval of the Board of
Public Works.
(3) Regulations, standards and permitted uses are generally cumulative, except for the P-1 and MH-1
Districts and except where otherwise indicated by specific prohibition or omission. [Amended 12-6-2000
by Ord. No. 2000-12]
(4) Where a variance or special permit is required or where special conditions apply to allow in one
district a use which is permitted by right in another district, the regulations applying to such use shall be
those of whichever district has the stricter regulations, unless otherwise determined by the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
(5) All uses permitted or allowed in any district shall conform to the general performance standards
as set forth in § 325-23.
(6) ENIn R-1 and R-2 Districts, minor dependent children in the care of a parent or relative shall be
excluded in determining the number of unrelated occupants in a dwelling unit.
(7) In all districts where multiple dwellings are permitted, each multiple dwelling shall be required to
have a rear yard of at least 20 feet in depth. (This requirement has been imposed so that these structures
comply with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.)
(8) In all districts, the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code may impose
additional requirements pertaining to the location of a structure on a parcel of property, including, for
example, additional building setback requirements.
(9) All columns established by this section are subject to the supplementary regulations stated in
Article V of this chapter.
Page 2 of 4
§ 181-14. Storage of flammable liquids.
A. Aboveground tanks. The limits referred to in the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building
Code in which storage of flammable liquids in outside aboveground tanks is prohibited are hereby
established as follows: all portions of the City not described as the Industrial Zone in the Zoning
OrdinanceEN of the City.
B. New bulk plants. The limits referred to in the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code
in which new bulk plants for flammable liquids are prohibited are hereby established as follows: all that
portion of the City not described as the Industrial Zone in the Zoning OrdinanceEN of the City and lying
west of the east shore branch of the Lehigh Valley Railroad between Cascadilla Creek on the north and
West Clinton Street on the south.
§ 181-15. Storage of liquefied petroleum gases.
The limits referred to in the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code in which bulk storage of
liquefied petroleum gas is restricted are hereby established as follows: all that portion of the City not
described as the Industrial Zone in the Zoning OrdinanceEN of the City and lying west of the east shore
branch of the Lehigh Valley Railroad between Cascadilla Creek on the north and West Clinton Street on
the south.
ARTICLE III, Special Permits
§ 325-9. Standards.
A. Intent. The intent of this section is to set forth additional regulations and conditions which shall
apply to certain land uses and activities which are incongruous or sufficiently unique in terms of their
nature, location and effect on the surrounding environment and the quality of the community to warrant
special evaluation of each individual case…
C. Special permits.
(1) Applicability. The uses listed under the district regulations in § 325-8 which require a special
permit from the Board of Appeals are as follows:
(o) Any use not permitted as of right in the I-1 Zoning District. [Added 11-14-1989 by
Ord. No. 89-16]
(5) In the I-1 Zone, uses other than those permitted under § 325-8 may be permitted by special permit
upon a finding by the Board of Zoning Appeals and concurrence by the Common Council that
such use shall have no negative impact by reason of noise, fumes, odors, vibration, noxious or
toxic releases or other conditions injurious to the health or general welfare. [Added 11-14-1989
by Ord. No. 89-16]
Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4
§ 325-29.1. Adult uses. [Added 10-4-2000 by Ord. No. 2000-10]
D. Location.
(1) Adult uses may not be located in any zone except the following portions of the I-1 use districts as
more fully detailed on the official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca. The permitted adult use areas are
conveniently described herein solely for purposes of this legislation.
(a) The I-1 site bordered on the east by the railroad property known as parcel number 2.-
2-3, which borders on New York State Routes 13 and 34, on the north and west by
parcel 16.-1-3, which is the site of the TCAT and Ithaca DPW facilities, and on the
south by parcels 16.-1-8, 16.-1-5.2 and 16.-1-5.1;
(2) Adult uses may not be located, when initially opened as, or converted to, an adult use:
(a) Within 350 feet of the boundary of any residential zoning district.
(b) Within 350 feet of any property, including the exterior lot, used as a licensed day-
care facility.
(c) Within 350 feet of any structure, including the exterior lot, which has tax exempt
status as a religious or educational use.
(d) Within 350 feet of any waterfront, park or farmers' market.
(e) Within 350 feet of any gymnastic center, library or museum.
(f) Within 200 feet of the boundary of any Marine Commercial Districts.
DRAFT #1
For Review ― July 6, 2012
An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Zoning” to allow Dwelling Units in the I-1 Industrial Zoning District
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
as follows:
Section 1.
Chapter 325, Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled
“District Regulations” is hereby amended to allow Dwelling Units in the I-1
Industrial Zoning District to read as follows (changes will appear on the District
Regulations Chart, which is a part of Chapter 325):
Column 1: Use District – I-1
Column 2: Permitted Primary Uses
1. Any use permitted in B-5, except that dwlg. units are prohibited.
2. Industrial warehousing, wholesaling, storage and handling of bulk goods (not
including rubbish as defined in §196.1), lumber yards, and agriculture except
that no animals may be kept within 50 ft. of any property line.
3. Any use not permitted in any other zoning district, subject to the issuance of a
special permit of the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with §325-9 and
concurrence by the Common Council.
4. All uses must conform to special performance standards governing
establishment of industrial uses (see 325-24).
5. Transfer station for recyclable materials.
Column 3: Permitted Accessory Uses
Any accessory use permitted in B-5. except residential and home occupation.
Column 4: Off-Street Parking Requirements
1. Same as B-5.
2. Wholesale, industrial and similar uses: 1 space per 2 employees on maximum
work shift, plus 1 space per 500 SF or portion thereof devoted to office or
sales use.
Column 5: Off-Street Loading Requirements
1. Same as B-5.
2. Industrial use: 1 space for each use with 3,000 to 10,000 SF of floor space in
single occupancy, plus 1 space for each additional 15,000 SF or major
fraction thereof.
2 of 2
Column 6: Minimum Lot Size – 5,000 SF.
Column 7: Minimum Lot Size, Width in Feet at Street Line – 50
Column 8: Maximum Height of Building, Number of Stories – 4.
Column 9: Maximum Height of Building, Height in Feet – 40.
Column 11: Yard Dimensions, Front, Required Minimum – 20.
Column 12: Yard Dimensions, Side, One Side at Least – 12.
Column 13: Yard Dimensions, Side, Other at Least – 6.
Columns 14 and 15: Yard Dimensions, Rear – 15% or 20 feet.
Column 16: Minimum Height of Building, Height in Feet – None.
Section 2.
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New York, as referenced in Chapter
325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, is hereby
amended to allow dwelling units in the I-1 Industrial District.
Section 3.
Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of the Ordinance is held
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall in no way
affect the validity of any remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 4.
Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance
with law upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
- 1 -
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Jennifer Dotson, Chair; Eric Rosario, Vice
Chair; Dan Cogan, Svante Myrick, and Ellen
McCollister
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson Joel Zumoff; Mayor Carolyn
Peterson
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning and Development; Nels Bohn,
Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; Leslie
Chatterton, Historic Planner, Department of
Planning and Development; Megan Gilbert,
Planner, Department of Planning and
Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic
Senior Planner, Department of Planning and
Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Development;
Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant; Dan
Hoffman; City of Ithaca Attorney
Others Attending: Phyllisa DeSarno, Deputy Director for
Economic Development
Chair Jennifer Dotson called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
Item E3, Rezoning of E State/MLK St and Seneca Way to CBD-60 was moved to a
discussion item. No action is anticipated tonight. There will be more discussion and
a public hearing on that.
Item F1 was changed to reflect that Form District Zoning Ordinance – Approval to
Circulate has already been done. This should actually appear under height incentive zone.
- 2 -
B. Special Order of Business
C. Special Order of Business
1. Public Hearing — Cayuga Green Contract Modifications
Alderperson Myrick moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Cogan.
No one spoke on this topic.
Alderperson Myrick moved to close; seconded by Alderperson Cogan. Carried
unanimously.
2. Public Hearing — Rezoning of E State/MLK St and Seneca Way
Alderperson Rosario moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Cogan.
Unanimously approved.
Nancy Schuler, 110 Ferris Place, spoke against the rezoning. She encourages a
transition. It is very important for the quality of life in the neighborhoods. Creating a height
that is proposed will create a pattern effect similar to what we have that exists on Dryden
Road between College Avenue and Eddy Street. For the pro-change folks, I’ll use the
Wilcox Press site as an example. Yes, the neighborhoods on East and South hills were
very happy to be rid of the factory, the emissions, and the all the situations that went with
that. However, that location is in a deep valley with Six-Mile Creek as the border and not
smack up against a neighborhood that is also an historic district. This neighborhood has a
very exciting rebirth. It no longer is just absentee landlords and rental properties. There
are strollers on the front porches again, kids are walking to the bus stop, and the
homeowners are doing a remarkable job of restoring some of Ithaca’s early history. I think
to make this zoning change without a transition would be a real harm to that area. I hope
you strongly think about not doing that.
Susan Robertson, 403 East Seneca Street, owner of the Charles Dey House, which is an
historic property which was built in the 1860s. He was a prominent lawyer and City clerk,
justice of the peace, and also a candidate for Congress. He was known for his wit and
humor and also for his civic mindedness. He established a really popular Tompkins
County festival in the mid 1800s, perhaps the first in the county. The Dey House still has a
lot of its original features including on ground floor there are walls of local stone and there
is also a beautiful wrap around porch that has very dramatic arches and other details.
Each year, I have made substantial investments in the house and partly it’s because I’m
inspired by its historic character and also the character of our neighborhood. I’m proud we
have a growing number of owner occupied homes on our street. My house has two
apartments and they have been continually occupied by professional and pre-professional
long-term tenants. The tenants value the historical details in the apartments, the views,
the quiet, and the character of the neighborhood. It is essential for me to receive a good
amount of apartment income in order to continue to make the kind of investments in the
house that are required of an historic house. There are 33 windows in this property which
more than half of them face this parcel. It would be very unappealing to me and my
tenants to be looking directly at the back of a six-story structure. My house is tightly
surrounded by the parcel. It is the last one next to True Insurance. There is a very small
lot.. She spoke against rezoning. She does not want to look at a six story building. The
character of the street will suffer. Seneca Street has been a beloved section of Ithaca for
- 3 -
over a hundred years and as a Communications Director at Cornell, she has talked to
alumni from different decades who have reminisced about walking up and down that
street. It’s been part of a real pleasant connection for them with downtown Ithaca. I would
hate to see any harm come to this really beautiful, significant neighborhood.
Alyssa Apsel, 423 E. Seneca Street. A lot of time, money, and resources have been put
into this property while living there. She doesn’t agree with putting a lot of effort into this
property with a 60 ft rezoning change. Transition is needed. She feels the entire
neighborhood is not in favor.
Barbara Lantz, 411 E. Seneca Street. She explained the history of the property since the
early 19th century. She has since renovated the property and provided photographs of the
property. It’s a treasure. Asks that we reconsider rezoning and respect the property
owners.
Virginia Augusta, 419 East Seneca Street. She did a complete gut of the house. It was
unlivable for the first year. Significant amount of money has been invested in this
property. Definite borders need to be maintained.
Avi Smith, 408 East State Street, owner McCormack (formerly Unity House) right next to
Challenge. He likes the idea of someone purchasing it, but is concerned at the same time.
It would be nice to know the plans for the building. It will change the look of this area, and
will hinder views to downtown.
Warren Schlesinger, 407-09 E. Seneca Street, agrees with the others that have already
spoken. It will definitely change the character of the houses along East Seneca Street.
He also stated that there are also a lot of undeveloped properties on the Commons in
terms of the second or third floors he would like to see the second floor of the Commons
buildings be renovated.
Patrick McKee, 305 Brookfield, President of Challenge Industries. This property has
been everything from a gas station, to a car dealership, to a bowling alley, to a ladies
undergarment factory prior to Challenge picturing it. We are a non-profit and have tried
very hard to stay downtown. A feasibility study was done to renovate the building. $3.5 –
4 million would have to be raised. The long-term plan the agency committed to no longer
owning property but to leasing and no longer is contributing to the tax base. The sale of
this property will go back into an investment in Challenge services. Hopefully it will be sold
to a for profit entity so the property will go back onto the tax roles.
Frost Travis’, a local developer, letter was read into the record. He encourages this
rezoning.
Matthew Clarke’s letter was read into the record as follows:
Dear Eric,
I am one of your constituents and met you a few years ago at Betsy and Andrew Magre’s house.
Thank you for your good service representing our East Hill district.
My wife and I have lived on Seneca Street for more than a decade, and there has been a transition
to more owner-occupied houses and fewer rentals. As a result there are now many children school
age and younger, including our own three children and current foster child, whereas when we
purchased our house in 1997 there were not any children on our block.
I am writing to voice opposition to the redistricting proposal of the Challenge and True buildings.
Our historic east hill neighborhood borders these properties, and a high-density commercial
building will create too much stress on our neighborhood. The parking is already difficult despite a
- 4 -
residential parking permit system, and I urge you to visit our street at the 1pm cutover to view the
many downtown workers who walk up to relocate their cars across the street when the parking
time changes. Now imagine if there are another 100-200 workers at a new high-rise commercial
building.
We also see more cars use Seneca as a quick shortcut to State Street traffic. The worst offenders
are taxis and fast-food delivery vehicles, and it is scary to see my children cross our residential
street when cars go at or exceed the 30mph speed limit (perhaps we should consider traffic-
calming solutions, but that is another discussion). Imagine the parking and traffic situation with a
new high-density commercial building.
I am pro-business and want to see a vibrant downtown Ithaca, but a six-story high-density
commercial building is not acceptable to our residential neighborhood. Even a four-story
commercial building would encroach our neighborhood, but that is allowed within the existing
zoning laws so my opposition to a 4-story building is tempered. I also recommend requiring the
landlord to include parking for all tenants in their leases; one reason the gateway center is
relatively successful is that it has an adjoining parking lot (although it is often full).
My business partner and I started a business six years ago, and we have grown to a staff of 15.
We are actively creating jobs locally, and recently went through a process of finding downtown
office space. There were many empty offices to choose from, and there will be even more as I hear
that some more businesses are relocating to the airport area office parks (such as Thomas / Tetra
Tech). There are still underutilized downtown sites that are acceptable for high-density
commercial offices; I think sites near the new parking garage on Green Street would be best,
especially since parking fees may help the city repay the enormous debt load for that building.
Please review the above points, and do not allow the proposed zoning change to pass.
I or my wife will probably see you at the 10/20/2010 planning meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Matt
His wife, Virginia Augusta who commented at the meeting, requested her letter be read
into the record as follows:
I was unable to weigh in on Matt’s letter prior to his sending it to you so just to elaborate on a few
more items…. First, suffice it to say I am very upset about the rezoning effort underway.
It is amazing to me that we are stumbling on the fact that this re-zoning process is taking place
right under our noses. It has been so poorly communicated to all the relevant stakeholders and it
sickens me. How can we be finding out something so important to us in the paper? We have
invested so much time and money over the last 14 years in our property and conformed to all the
restriction set upon our neighborhood through the Landmarks Commission. I have no doubt that
the Unity House will face all the rules and regulations to renovate that place into a B&B, yet the
owner there only learned yesterday about the proposed plan to re-zone the property adjacent to
him. Will the city also allow the rezoning to include an exemption from Landmarks restriction
too?
- 5 -
Matt mentioned children on our block - just from Schuyler down to Parker there are 19 children
living on our block ranging in ages from 13 months to 21 years (5 are college students who still
return home for school breaks and summer vacation). This is not some rental neighborhood in
Collegetown! People made the investment to improve the properties on this street and raise their
families here. I do not want my 4 kids playing in the backyard and have a high rise staring them in
the face. Not to mention the construction noise and dust they will be facing for who knows how
long. Lead, Asbestos, and whatever else is flying around.
You cannot compare the property that Gateway is on to the property that is now Challenge and
True Insurance. The Gateway building has a substantial buffer around it including the gorge on the
south side. Our residential neighborhood will be directly impacted especially those of us who
border the property. Hey, what if the apartment building right next to Carolyn Peterson’s house
wanted to be rezoned, and go 6 stories high, do you think that one would be approved? It’s a
similar question. Does it matter that there are residential properties bordering these mixed use
properties? I say it should!
Parking, I really didn’t think it could get any worse, but I was wrong! If this rezoning is approved it
WILL get even worse.
Let’s talk property value: The city will have immediately reduced the value of my property once
this high rise goes up. No fence will block the view. Oh, and my assessment will surely not be
reduced to reflect this permanent negative change.
There is no way we need another commercial building downtown. Obviously the city planners
haven’t been trying to rent space downtown lately. WE HAVE! AND THERE IS A MEGA-SURPLUS
OF VACANT SPACE! Don’t take my word for it. Go have the planners take an inventory of all the
vacant office space downtown and they can see for themselves. The value isn’t there so people are
leaving the downtown for newer, more reasonable rates on South Hill and near the airport.
I would invite you to come have a look at our view from the backyard. A high rise would
completely ruin what little yard we have. Our deck would be completely exposed to the tenants
and privacy would be a thing of the past.
Eric, how can this be happening? Please help us stop this effort and preserve the neighborhood
that we have all come to enjoy.
Sincerely,
Virginia Augusta
Gary Ferguson’s letter was read into the record which stated the pros for rezoning this
property:
October 20, 2010
TO: City of Ithaca Common Council
FROM: Gary Ferguson
RE: The Challenge Building
- 6 -
Tonight, you will begin consideration of rezoning the area around the now vacant Challenge
building. As you know, this building and this location is a pivotal gateway site into downtown. It is
seen by people traveling through our community as well as people coming and going from Cornell.
The proposal is to rezone this area to CBD 60, essentially extending the current CBD 60 zone across
Seneca Way to pick up both sides of Route 79.
Consider some of the problems that this rezoning addresses:
- This prominent site now sits empty and vacant.
- The building is old and dated, and does not readily adapt to other uses.
- The cost of the property with the existing building is steep. Developers wanting to develop
the site will probably need to tear down the building and start over. This is true for the
current development team.
- This need results in an expensive building site that will out of necessity require enough
height to generate enough income to cover costs. This height is 60, not 40 feet.
- CBD 60 also fits the character of Seneca Way/ Route 79 through downtown.
The proposed project will not occupy the full footprint of the property, hence allowing for view
sheds for uphill neighbors on Seneca Street. In fact, the plans call for a project that will leave 50%
or more of the space un-built and used for on-site parking. While no one likes to lose any views,
this proposal seeks to ensure that all folks retain some views.
While this is definitely one of our trickier downtown locations due to changes in elevation and its
relative proximity to Seneca Street, it is also an incredibly visible and prominent location. Allowing
denser development will encourage housing as a use, rather than relegate the property to a low
density permitted use such as a gas station.
I encourage you to review the project and review the benefits of CBD 60 zoning. This site needs our
help if it is to be developed and if we are to deal with this prominent vacancy at the entrance to
our center city.
Alderperson Myrick moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Cogan.
Unanimously approved.
- 7 -
D. General Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Mac Travis, owner of 407 College Avenue and Eddy Gate, spoke in favor of the height
incentive zone in Collegetown.
Hermann Sieverding, 315 Columbia Street, spoke in favor of the height incentive zone. He
encourages a height increase to 84’ enabling 12 foot ceilings on each floor.
Kristin Gutenberger, on behalf of her client of 301 College Avenue, stated she would like to
respectfully request to include 301 College Avenue in the height incentive zone.
Eric Rosario thanked those in attendance and for their comments. He also reported that the
DEC will hold a public meeting on the Coal Tar Site, a.k.a Markles Flats on Thursday,
October 21, 2010, 7:00 p.m. at the Beverley J. Martin Elementary School to present plans
to extricate the last remaining portion of the wooden ducts along West Court Street. They
will also present the results of remedial investigation for North and West of the plant site.
He also thanked the Planning Department for their work in getting the letters out to property
owners on the rezoning of State Street/MLK Street. He fills it’s a wise decision to move that
discussion given that lack of communication on our end hasn’t been that great in letting folks
know about this. Many of us had learned about this proposal the night of our committee
meeting. We haven’t done a good job in having it appear on the online agendas, for
example, for the Planning Board. When I advised my constituents that they could go to the
Conservation Advisory Council where it will be discussed because that’s one of the agency
and commissions that were listed on the memo that was circulated. The chair of that
committee actually said it is not on our agenda then it turned on it was so the chair had to
say it was but that necessarily not on our end, but it just compounded the perception that
this is something we are trying to rush through. I think it’s very prudent and wise of us to
move it to discussion
Ellen McCollister questioned whether we were discussing the Challenge Industries site later
or is now the time to address a couple of things.
Dotson stated we are just moving this item from an action item to a discussion item on the
agenda.
McCollister did state it was interesting in terms of Gary Ferguson’s letter the idea that it
wouldn’t interfere with views assumes that the parking lot proposed would be there for a
long time and normally a parking lot is just a place holder if it is rezoned to 60’ then
presumably that goes up. She further stated that she did have an opportunity to walk
around several of the neighborhood yards with one of the neighbors. Several of the yards
are incredibly shallow, and if those buildings get that high, all the southern light is blocked.
She further commented on owner occupancy in the City as a whole, this is one of the few
areas in the City and certainly on East Hill where we have seen an reversion from run down
rentals to owner occupancy, and it is truly a prideful area for the City in terms of our housing
stock which being an historic area has helped us also.
Eric Rosario stated he agrees with most of what the residents had to say as well as
McCollister’s comments. In hearing the message from Gary Ferguson, he is discussing a
particular project and having this presented to us as a rezoning of a general parcel not
related to any particular project. We are encouraged to think about this in terms of the
merits of the rezoning itself, and we will definitely debate that when we get to it, but to him if
the zoning proposal is really about an individual project then what we are doing is taking a
sludge hammer to crack a walnut as opposed to dealing with the Challenge site through
some other process and not something that could create the kind of zoning envelope that is
- 8 -
there for a long time regardless of how good a project is now. There is always the possibility
that the entire envelope would be taken advantage of at some point. He echoes some of
McCollister’s concerns.
Discussion will continue on this topic when we reach Item E3.
E. Announcements, Updates and Reports
1. Collegetown Terrace Update
Lisa Nicholas explained the process the planning board has done for this
project. About a year ago in July, the Planning Board, as lead agency, made a
positive declaration for this project. After the project came to the board, the
applicant, Trowbridge and Wolf representing John Novarr, prepared an
environmental impact statement. The Planning Board, all the involved
agencies, and the public scoped the environmental impact statement which
means they decided what the environmental impact statement would cover.
The applicant developed the draft environmental impact statement (the DEIS)
and submitted that in May 2010. After that, there was public hearing and a
public comment period.
The City Planning Board hired a third-party consultant which under SEQR law,
the lead agency is allowed to do at the applicant’s expense, to help with the
preparation of documents, the review of the DEIS, and the finding statement.
We hired EDR, a company out of Syracuse which is a planning company which
does a lot of environmental impact statements. They have been very helpful to
the Planning Board and staff in reviewing an enormous amount of information.
The public comment period lasted roughly 30 days, and we received about 400
comments on the DEIS. The majority of the comments were on character of
community, cultural and historical resources, and transportation. After
receiving all these comments, the planning board along with EDR and the
applicant prepared the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) which
involved looking at all the comments and responding to them. That process
took about two months. Eight special meetings were held; we met every week
with the consultants. During the time the responses were being developed with
the applicant, the project underwent some changes. The applicant initiated
some changes to the project in response to some of the comments. These
changes include mainly the facades along State Street breaking up the
buildings. Where there were three buildings previously, now there are 12.
The Planning Board adopted the FEIS which is basically the DEIS along with
the responses to the comments on October 5, 2010. The Planning Board is
now in the final review process which is the findings statement. A work session
was held yesterday to look at the draft findings statement, and they expect to
adopt the final statement at its next week’s meeting. That will close the
environmental review, and the site plan review process will begin.
Cornish also stated that the Board will also report on their decision of the
Delano House.
- 9 -
2. Southwest Area Development Update
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, report that the City of Ithaca is interested in developing
this area for housing. This project has been funded by a capital project. An RFQ
(Request for Quote) was done, and a preferred company, McCormack Baron Salazar,
was chosen to conduct an environmental site assessment on this property. A
geotechnical assessment was done. The only thing lacking is the jurisdictional
determination of the11 miles of wetlands in this area. This is still in process. Once
received, a feasibility study will be done. If that is favorable, we will move onto the
master plan of the project.
Mayor Peterson stated she asked Lisa to do this presentation to inform Council of the
project since it was not included in the budget review and capital project determination.
3. Dredging Update
This project is still at a stand still because we (the City) are still waiting for the
jurisdictional determination of the 11 miles of wetlands since Council has agreed that
the SW area is the preferred site for the dredging spoils.
Cornish stated that she just heard from Ken Lynch for the DEC late this afternoon that
the DEC would be able to meet on November 19 to discuss this topic.
E. Action Items
1. Cayuga Green Contract Modifications
Cayuga Green Project, Approval of 2nd Extension of Purchase and Sale Contract
for Parcel ‘D’ – Resolution
Moved by Alderperson Myrick; seconded by Alderperson Rosario. Resolution
passed 5-0.
Whereas, Cayuga Green II, LLC, has requested an 18-month extension of the purchase and
sale contract for parcel ‘D’ (tax parcel #81.-2-4) - the site of its proposed rental housing project
to be located adjacent to the Cayuga Street Parking Garage - in order to provide time to secure
project financing through the HUD 221(d)4 Insured Mortgage Financing program, and
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and the City previously amended the
original, 2007 purchase and sale contract, in 2009, to allow construction of either rental housing
units or for-sale units and to extend the term by 12 months, to June 30, 2010, in response to
the developer’s difficulty in securing project financing for residential condominiums, and
Whereas, the commercial credit market for loans to construct new mid-rise housing has been
extremely tight for several years and remains extremely limited, and
Whereas, the principals of Cayuga Green II, LLC, have recently utilized the U.S. Department of
Housing & Urban Development’s (HUD’s) 221(d)4 mortgage insurance program to secure
financing from a HUD-approved private lender for a multi-family rental housing project in Ohio,
and
- 10 -
Whereas, through the HUD 221(d)4 program, the Federal Home Administration provides
mortgage insurance to HUD-approved lenders of funds to for-profit or not-for-profit borrowers
that are developing multi-family rental housing, and
Whereas, the HUD 221(d)4 program requires federal prevailing wages to be paid on all
construction work associated with such loans, and
Whereas, a HUD 221(d)4 review and approval process requires submission of detailed
construction plans and specifications, cost details, and a market study and marketing plan, and
takes 9 to12 months to complete, if all information is in order, and
Whereas, a HUD 221(d)4 mortgage insurance application process requires documentation of
fee simple ownership or control of the project site, and
Whereas, Cayuga Green II, LLC, has been pursuing HUD 221(d)4 approval for several months
and is awaiting an invitation to submit a “firm commitment” application, and
Whereas, initial plans to build the project adjoining the Cayuga Garage have been modified so
as to provide a 10-foot horizontal separation distance between the buildings, in order to avoid
the need for retrofits to the Cayuga Garage to meet New York State Building Code
requirements regarding wall openings and fire egress routes at the Garage, and
Whereas, Cayuga Green II, LLC, has submitted revised, preliminary plans for construction of a
7-story, 39-unit rental housing project at parcel ‘D’ that are consistent with the original design
goals for the Cayuga Green project, and
Whereas, Cayuga Green II, LLC, seeks no property tax abatements for this project, and
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) wishes to facilitate the construction of
additional housing units in downtown Ithaca that will expand the range of housing opportunities
and increase the property tax base; and
Whereas, on September 23, 2010, the IURA approved the following amendments to the
purchase and sale contract for parcel ‘D’ of the Cayuga Green project, subject to City of Ithaca
Common Council approval:
1. Extend the developer’s deadlines to secure project financing and issuance of a building
permit to December 31, 2011;
2. Reduce the size of the parcel to be conveyed by approximately 2,000 square feet, in
accordance with a lot adjustment plan shown on a “boundary map” for the premises,
prepared by T.G. Miller PC, as revised through January 22, 2010, for the purpose of
providing a 10’ fire separation distance between buildings, thereby avoiding the need for
retrofits to the Cayuga Garage to meet NYS Building Code requirements; and
Whereas, notwithstanding this reduction in the size of the property to be conveyed, the
proposed, amended purchase and sale agreement does not call for any proportionate reduction
in the purchase price, thus increasing the per-square-foot price, which could be deemed to be
consideration for the extension of time to complete the purchase, and
Whereas, under §507 of Article 15 of General Municipal Law, the IURA’s proposed disposition
of real property requires Common Council approval following a public hearing, and
Whereas, a public hearing on the proposed property disposition was held before the Planning &
Development Committee of the Common Council on October 20, 2010, and
Whereas, the purchase and sale contract for parcel ‘D’ and site plan review for the proposed
housing project at parcel ‘D’ were the subject of environmental reviews under the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) pursuant to which the lead agency issued a
negative declaration that the implementation of the action as proposed will not result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts, and
- 11 -
Whereas, the proposed, amended purchase and sale contract for parcel ‘D’ and the proposed
re-design of the building are no less protective of the environment than the previously-approved
contract and site plan, therefore requiring no additional environmental review; now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby approves the IURA-proposed
amendments to the purchase and sale contract with Cayuga Green II, LLC, for sale of parcel ‘D’
of the Cayuga Green project (tax parcel # 81.-2-4), which amendments extend the developer’s
remaining deadlines in said agreement until December 31, 2011, and reduce the size of the
parcel to be conveyed by approximately 2,000 square feet.
The change made on the floor by Attorney Dan Hoffman was moved by
Alderperson Cogan; seconded by Alderperson Rosario. Passed unanimously 5-0.
2. Neighborhood Incentive Fund Application — Utica Street
(memo, resolution, petition available on request and at meeting)
Moved by Alderperson Myrick; seconded by Alderperson Rosario. Passed 5-0.
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for the Utica
Street Block Party, August 2010
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 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 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, an application has been submitted for reimbursement funds to off-set $181.45
in expenses from the Utica Street neighborhood’s annual block party, and
- 12 -
WHEREAS, while the event is sponsored by the Utica Street residents, notice was
circulated throughout the neighborhood and the event provides opportunities for
socializing with diverse groups residents; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning, and Economic Development Committee approves the
funding request from Maria Costanzo, on behalf of the Utica Street neighborhood, for an
amount not to exceed $181.45 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices
and/or receipts.
3. Rezoning of E State/MLK St and Seneca Way to CBD-60
Chair Dotson reiterated that this item has moved from an action item to a discussion only
item. She then opened the floor up for discussion.
Alderperson Rosario stated even though no decision will be made at this meeting, a
review of the Environmental Assessment Form should be reviewed because it was filled
out without the benefit of the public hearing. He thinks that’s one of the dangers of doing
this kind of thing. There’s a question that asks whether there is public controversy, and it
is answered, “no”. He would like the public hearing information to be taken into
consideration for reviewing the environmental assessment form. There are some other
answers he also wondered about. It may make sense, without moving it; to share those
because he would rather we have something that makes sense.
Chair Dotson qualified that this environmental assessment is ours (the committee’s). It
might be supported by the work of staff, but if we have any changes to make, it’s really
ours to vote on. She further clarified to the audience, if any of the questions that are
answered with a “yes” response; it immediately puts you into a full environmental
assessment form which is a much more in depth discussion of the impacts of a project.
Right now there is a short environmental assessment form before the committee. She
further stated that if the committee is considering changing the action, then environmental
assessment form will be a new form.
Alderperson Rosario suggested changing the answer to Numbers 8, 9, and 15 of the short
environmental assessment form from “no” to “yes”. He further stated he doesn’t have the
comments from the Planning Board that were made. He has the comments from the
county, but not the Planning Board. He did talk to the Planning Board chair and was told
that the Planning Board doesn’t recommend the rezoning of this property.
JoAnn Cornish spoke on behalf of the Planning Board. Chair John Schroeder was going
to prepare the comments for this meeting tonight. With the knowledge that this was being
postponed, the Planning Board offers its apology. They have been very busy with other
projects and have been meeting regularly every week. You can expect those comments
formerly very soon.
Chair Dotson thanked both Rosario and Cornish, but she thought it would be better that
our discussion be centered on the question of ‘is this the action we would like to pursue’
rather than focused on the environmental review. She asked whether the committee is
interested in discussing that since we did hear quite a bit of opposition during the public
hearing.
Alderperson McCollister stated since she has already voiced her concerns, and her views
on it are clear, she doesn’t think this is an appropriate site for CBD-60 Zoning. She is also
uncomfortable with the idea that it seems to be, even though it’s a set of parcels, driven
more project specific. It is a very challenging site the way it gets into quite a thin envelope
there at the Seneca Way/Seneca Street location.
- 13 -
Alderperson Cogan does not think that this was an appropriate site for the rezoning to 60
feet. He understands the goals of trying to make this site economically developable. He
also understands the challenges that Challenge Industries is facing where they have large
carrying costs for a building they don’t use anymore and they would lighten that burden
and be able to use that money to further their mission. Tonight was the first time he heard
that there is really a particular project in mind. I don’t know what that project is. He
wonders whether there are there other ways to close the gap. The projects that have tried
to go through the IDA for tax abatements have not always faired well. This might be an
appropriate use of trying to use tax abatements to close the gap and make a smaller
project financially feasible. He thinks other ideas to that effect should be explored and
more concrete discussions needs to happen about a proposal if we are going to be able to
make that site work. He does support something happening at this state. It just needs to
be appropriately scaled for the neighborhood, and we need to value that transition. That is
really crucial.
Alderperson Myrick stated on the one hand he can see where Challenge is being put in an
impossible situation where they need to sell to a developer who isn’t sure they can
develop the site. As for zoning, ideally for us what we can do is encourage any potential
developer to go through the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance that way we can judge
a project on its merits. Even then, it has become clear that the neighbors in this area feel
passionately that this project is out of scale. Even then he wouldn’t close the door of
rezoning this parcel, but he thinks it could be done appropriately and he does think it
would fit in with what is at the bottom of Seneca and East State Street. But, if it’s not the
will of the Committee or Council, then that’s that.
Alderperson Rosario stated that the admission what we heard last night, the Planning
Board made their recommendation. That was before neighbors knew that the Planning
Board would be discussing this. He knew of one neighbor who was able to go. He
wouldn’t say that are the only comments we are hearing. There is an independent board
that made an independent recommendation that stated this not such a good idea for so
many reasons. If this is really about an individual project, this is not the right sized
solution. There is another process—the variance process—which gives standing to
everyone who lives within 200 feet. It really forces a developer to work with neighbors if
they want any chance of success. He thinks that is a good thing. Whether or not it is
appropriate for that site, he thinks that’s another ideal process. All he knows this is not the
right approach. He just wanted to make it was understood that the Planning Board
weighed in on this without feedback from other people concerned.
Chair Dotson stated she looks at this rezoning decision differently now knowing the project
on the forefront. She is uncomfortable with the rezoning because zoning opens up the
entire building envelope if the project falls through. What she did get before knowing
about the proposed project, that there is a real neighborhood interest in having some
direct say in what kind of project would be there. She is not convinced that any 60’ tall
project would be inappropriate, but she thinks that some would be certainly less
appropriate than others and some would probably be inappropriate. She is at the point
that if there is a particular project, then she feels a variance process is much more
appropriate because designed well that could mitigate the impact. She likes the CBD
concept, but is not ready to rezone it to CBD-60 at this time. She can appreciate that
there were two kinds of changes that came before us tonight; one being the switch from B
to CBD and the other is the height increase. They are really different. She stated she’s
not ready to rezone it to CBD-60 at this point. One thing she would like the committee to
be aware of is that not knowing where a project may go, it would be good for committee
members to speak clearly on their thoughts on it because the BZA (Board of Zoning
Appeals) sometimes wonders where Council is going. If there is concern about height, we
need to be specific as to our concerns.
- 14 -
Alderperson McCollister made a general comment that point. Yes, there are certainly six-
story projects or higher story projects that if incredibly sensitively done can work. When it
is a rezoning, it is important to remember that a rezoning goes with the property in
perpetuity as does a variance so there is no guarantee that you end up with something
that is great. She would say in this particular case, for a lot of reasons that Nancy Schuler
mentioned, some of the case has been made because what is across the street from this
site are the History Center and Gateway, that it is appropriate because those are nicely
scaled six-story buildings, but that is a different site. It used to be a factory. It’s on the
gorge. There is plenty of parking over there. It is very different site configuration.
The committee agreed that it would not go forward with this rezoning. A report
stating how committee came to its decision will be provided for the November
Council agenda.
Mayor Peterson left the meeting before Collegetown topic started.
Mayor Peterson returned before the discussion on the ordinance.
F. Discussion Items
1. Collegetown
A. Form District Zoning Ordinance – Approval to Circulate
- 15 -
B. Height Incentive Zone (memo, ordinance, map)
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Establish the Collegetown
Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI)
The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING” TO ESTABLISH THE COZ-HI
ZONING DISTRICT.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that
Chapter 325, Sections 325-4 and 325-5 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca be amended to create a new overlay zone to be known as the Collegetown
Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI)
Section 1. Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose
With the endorsement of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan &
Conceptual Design Guidelines,” the Common Council
identified several goals to create an “outstanding urban
environment” in Collegetown. Several aspects of the
envisioned environment already exist; others will be more
difficult to realize without incentive. The City’s goals
for Collegetown include:
• To further diversify the Collegetown population to include a
greater number of employees and residents whose presence is
not dependent on the academic calendar
• To sustain a thriving, year-round Collegetown business
district
• To encourage strong residential areas to the east and west of
the Mixed Use (MU) District with a mix of owner-occupants and
students
• To promote a convenient public transportation system, thus
reducing traffic congestion and parking demand
The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines”
recommends the adoption of an incentive zone to address these
desirable but difficult-to-achieve goals. Pursuant to § 81-d of
the New York State General City Law, the Common Council is
authorized to “provide for the granting of incentives, or
bonuses” for the purpose of advancing “the city’s specific
physical, cultural and social policies in accordance with the
city’s comprehensive plan and in coordination with other
community planning mechanisms or land use techniques.”
The Common Council finds that the establishment of the COZ-HI
Ordinance will advance the City’s physical, cultural and
- 16 -
social policies for Collegetown as specified in the “2009
Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.”
Section 2. Chapter 325, Sections 325-4 and 325-5 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to create
an overlay zone in areas located in the proposed MU district to
be entitled Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District,
the boundaries of which are shown on the map entitled “Proposed
Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District (COZ-HI).”
Section 3. Chapter 325, of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca is hereby amended to add a new Article entitled
Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District(COZ-HI), to
be inserted as Chapter 325, Article IV, and all subsequent
articles and sections shall be hereby renumbered accordingly.
Article IV Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive
District(COZ-HI), shall read as follows:
⁄⁄⁄⁄ 325-11. Purpose and Intent.
In accordance with § 81-d of the General City Law of
the State of New York, this article authorizes the
Planning and Development Board, during the process of
Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 276, Site Plan
Review, of the Code, to make allowances for buildings
to exceed the maximum allowable height of the MU
district in exchange for the provision of an approved
community benefit, subject to the limitations
contained in this section. COZ-HI height incentives
may be approved in order to promote the following
purposes:
A. To encourage development that would increase
year-round activity in the MU district.
B. To encourage the use of public transit through
the provision of enhanced transit facilities.
C. To encourage developers to rehabilitate existing
structures, bringing them up to current building
codes, thereby improving life/safety conditions.
D. To encourage developers to restore historic
structures.
E. To encourage developers to restore multi-family
structures in peripheral neighborhoods to
traditional single family, owner-occupied
dwellings.
⁄⁄⁄⁄ 325-12. Authorization and Minimum Requirements.
The Planning and Development Board is authorized, upon
petition by an applicant for site plan approval, to
approve construction of buildings that exceed the
maximum allowable height of the MU district up to a
maximum of 77' or 7 stories, for buildings located
- 17 -
within the boundaries of the COZ-HI, in accordance
with the following process:
A. An applicant must submit a proposal to the
Planning and Development Board, which
delineates the benefit(s) that the project will
provide to the community in exchange for the
additional height. In order to be considered
for approval of additional height, the
applicant must provide at least one of the
following community benefits:
1. Approved Community Benefits
a. The development provides a use that will
bring people into Collegetown throughout
the calendar year. Acceptable Uses
include:
• A Hotel
• At least one story of Class A office
space (Class A office space is
assumed to be high quality office
space with high quality finishes,
state of the art systems, and
exceptional accessibility).
• At least one story of non-academic
research and development space
• Other uses that will bring people
into Collegetown throughout the
calendar year as determined by the
Planning & Development Board
b. The development incorporates a high-
quality transit hub bus shelter within its
building footprint at a location
acceptable to the appropriate decision-
making body.
c. The developer makes improvements within
the Collegetown Study Area but off the
development site. These improvements must
be approved by the Planning and
Development Board and may include:
• Full rehabilitation of an existing
property, including life-safety
improvements to bring the building
up to current building code and
aesthetic improvements to make the
building a neighborhood asset.
• Historic restoration of an existing
property.
• Return of multi-family housing in
peripheral neighborhoods to single-
family, and/or owner-occupied use.
This option requires a deed
restriction stating that for a
period of twenty-five years the
- 18 -
property shall be occupied by at
least one of the owners.
⁄⁄⁄⁄ 325-13. Approval Process
In order to be granted approval for the additional
permitted height associated with properties located
within the boundaries of the COZ-HI, an applicant must
submit a written proposal to the Planning and
Development Board, as a part of the Site Plan Review
process. Approval of the COZ-HI height incentives
shall be conditioned on any necessary approvals
associated with the proposed benefit(s) of the
project. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted
prior to the completion of the proposed community
benefits. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be
granted if modifications to the proposed benefits are
completed without the approval of the Planning and
Development Board.
Section 4. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New
York of Chapter 325 entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
The zoning district designation for portions of certain tracts
of land shall now include the Collegetown Overlay Zone-Height
Incentive District (COZ-HI), which will include the following
tax parcels: 63.-6-14; 68.-4-6; 64.-10-17.2; 64.-10-18; 64.-10-
19; 64.-10-20; 64.-10-21; 64.-10-1; 64.-10-2; 64.-10-3; and
portions of parcels 63.-6-8, 68.-4-3, and 64.-10-15, as
indicated on the map entitled “Proposed Collegetown Overlay
Zone-Height Incentive District(COZ-HI)” dated October 2010.
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
- 19 -
C. Transportation (general update to be distributed separately)
(in-lieu fee memo anticipated for November)
Myrick outlined the goals looked at on this topic. Supporting material with an
easy-to-follow grid was distributed to the committee.
G. Approval of Minutes
There were no minutes to approve.
H. Adjournment
Alderperson Myrick motioned to adjourn; seconded by Alderperson Rosario. The meeting
adjourned at 10:20 p.m.