Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PLED-2016-05-11Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, May 11, 2016 – 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick, Ducson Nguyen, Cynthia Brock, and Josephine Martell Committee Members Absent: None Other Elected Officials Attending: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner; Megan Wilson, Senior Planner; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA); Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator, City of Ithaca; Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: Ed Marx, Tompkins County Planning Commissioner Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review There were no changes made to the agenda. 2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, spoke on the CIITAP energy standards proposal. She is very much in favor. Why not 20% above the state code for any abatement? Both large and small hotels are very large energy users. They pay low wages. She doesn’t think they deserve any tax abatements. William Skipper, 117 Pearsall Place, spoke in favor of the backyard chicken ordinance. He is anxiously awaiting to participate in the program. Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting Steve Fontana, 327 Eddy Street, encourages Council to consider allowing more flexibility in the Collegetown Street-Level Active Use as to what is considered an active use. There are just fewer retailers, restaurants, and bars as it stands now in the Collegetown area. Don’t limit those who want to continue in the retail world. Nathan Lyman, 1322 East State Street, spoke on the energy portion of the propose d CIITAP program. He further agreed with Steve Fontana’s comments. There should be no limitation on tenant use as long as they are willing to pay for that space. Monika Roth, 111 Worth Street, spoke in favor of the chicken ordinance and stated that Cooperative Extension is very willing to help the City and those that want to participate in the program. With most chickens serving as laying birds, they have ways to take over to ‘put out to pasture’ those that are no longer in egg production. Sara Hess, 124 Westfield Drive, spoke in favor of the energy suggestions in the CIITAP program. She further spoke on methane gas from shale extractions across the country as the major reasons for climate change. 30 to 40% above code is a great first step. Her suggestion is no new gas. Joanie Groome, 435 N. Tioga Street, spoke in opposition of the language in the chicken ordinance referring to the slaughtering of chickens as very disturbing. The slaughter of chickens is a gruesome act. If there are those who want to slaughter their chickens, they should be taken off the property and handled elsewhere. Brian Eden, 147 North Sunset Drive, from the Town of Ithaca legislature spoke on CIITAP Sustainability building practices. Climate change must be taken into consideration on what we do. People need to be educated. Sharon Swink, 321 North Albany Street, thanked the City for their work on bringing this updated chicken ordinance forward as well as thanked Cooperative Extension for their offer to help with the program. Chair Murtagh thanked Mr. Fontana to offer staying after to discuss his concerns, but meeting practices don’t allow that. JoAnn Cornish stated the Planning Department will reach out to him. 3) Special Order of Business a) Public Hearing: 2016 HUD Entitlement Action Plan Alderperson Brock moved to open the public hearing; Alderperson Nguyen seconded it. Passed unanimously. No one from the public spoke on this topic Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; Alderperson Nguyen seconded it. Passed unanimously. 4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports a) Dredging Update – Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, provided a dredging update starting with the very beginning. The flood control channel was built by the Army Corp of Engineers. The dredging is to collect the sediment in the flood control channel. The next phase will be to remove the sediment from the channel. Within this channel also lies the navigation channel. The sediments will be moved to a 67-acre parcel in the southwest area of the City. The total project is funded for $13M. We are in Phase I of this project with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) taking the lead. DEC hired Obrien & Gere Engineering. There is a draft of the sediment facility – a 9.5 acre area. Nicholas stated we know where the dredging will take place, and we know how the sediment will be taken out – on a large barge with a suction type machine. Obrien & Gere have provided a very conservative estimate to build this facility of $4M. A memorandum of understanding will be agreed upon between DEC and the City as to how the project will go forward and be handled. The uncertainties are: When will this happen? How much will it cost? Where will it be removed from, i.e., what parts of the inlet? And how do we get the dry sediments off the site? Alderperson Brock stated she knows that this has been going on for a very long time. What does need to be also considered are the areas near the Haunt and Cascadilla Creek, etc. As a City, should we focus on retaining more money? Nicholas stated that there is $2M to use, however the City will need to obtain more money to finish this. Chair Murtagh asked if the City can do anything to step up this process. With the threat of additional flooding within the City, it’s crucial that this move quicker than it’s been. 5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council) a) 2016 HUD Entitlement Action Plan 2016 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed unanimously. WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (City) is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds to address community development needs through the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting Development (HUD) Entitlement program from the Community Development Block G rant (CDBG) program and the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program funding sources, and WHERAS, the City has contracted with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer, implement and monitor the City’s HUD Entitlement program in compliance with all applicable regulations, and WHEREAS, on an annual basis an Action Plan must be submitted to HUD to access HUD Entitlement program funding allocated to the City, and WHEREAS, the 2016 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community development activities to be funded from the 2016 HUD Entitlement program allocation and associated funds administered by the IURA, and WHEREAS, funding available to be allocated through the 2016 Action Plan funding process is anticipated to include the following: $661,371.00 CDBG 2016 allocation $21,749.57 CDBG 2014 de-obligated funds $130,000.00 CDBG 2016 projected program income $328,050.00 HOME 2016 allocation $41,115.40 HOME 2015 carryover and de-obligated funds $273,869.00 HOME 2014 de-obligated funds $215,875.00 Neighborhood Housing Initiative bond funds $1,671672,829029.97 Total, and WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for development of the 2015 Action Plan in accordance with the City of Ithaca Citizen Participation Plan, and WHEREAS, at their April 14, 2016 meeting, the IURA adopted a recommended 2016 Action Plan; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the IURA - recommended 2016 Action Plan, dated April 14, 2016 for allocation of the City’s 2016 HUD Entitlement Program award along with additional funds listed above totaling $1,671672,829029.97, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities funded in the adopted 2016 Action Plan. Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Brock moved a friendly amendment to the resolution correcting the total of funding to $1,672,029.77 from $1,671,829.77; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed unanimously. b) Amendment to Collegetown Area Form Districts Street-Level Active Use Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Carried Unanimously. An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Amend the Street-Level Active Use Requirement in the Collegetown Area Form Districts ORDINANCE NO. ____ BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-45.3 (“Street- Level Active Uses Required”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows: 325-45.3B Street-Level Active Uses Required (1) Within the MU-2 district, street-level active uses are required on the entire street-level of for the street-facing portions of all buildings fronting on those portions sections of College Avenue, Dryden Road, and Eddy Street designated on the map below. (2) Active street-level uses are one of the keys to vitality of the Collegetown core area and are defined as uses that encourage high levels of pedestrian activity, enliven the streetscape, and create well-lit space with ample visibility into the storefront area. Active uses are defined as include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Retail store or service commercial facility (b) Restaurant, fast food establishment, or tavern (c) Theater, bowling alley, auditorium, or other similar places of public assembly (d) Hotel (e) Library or fire station (e) (f) Public park or playground (f) (g) Bank or monetary institution Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting (g) Confectionary, millinery, dressmaking, and other activities involving light hand fabrication as well as sales. (3) Additional uses may be permitted if the Planning and Development Board determines them to be an active use and grants special approval for the use. The Planning Board may also grant a special approval of a non-active use if a property owner is able to show that the physical structure is not easily adaptable to be used as one of the above listed active uses. Section 2. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. Section 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. Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting b) Backyard Chickens ORDINANCE __-2015 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed 4 – 1. WHEREAS, Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code prohibits the keeping of chickens in the City, and; WHEREAS, the City has received requests from citizens to allow chickens in backyard coops and there is an active backyard chicken movement within the City, and; WHEREAS, chicken keeping is part of a larger sustainability trend to allow citizens to grow their own foods – including fruits, vegetables and honey production – by reducing barriers, which restrict local food production. These sustainability trends are congruent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals, such as support for our community gardens and active living initiatives, and; WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to enable the keeping of backyard chickens in the City; now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that backyard chickens, if properly maintained, can prove a positive initiative for the City, promoting food sustainability, increasing animal welfare and providing fresh eggs free from pesticides and chemicals, without presenting a nuisance to neighboring residents or properties. Section 2. Amendments to Section 164-2(B). Section 164-2(B) shall be amended to read as follows: Exception. This section shall not apply to the keeping of chickens to the extent authorized by Article III of this Chapter, nor to any educational, scientific or research institution maintaining, with adequate safeguards as to public health, safety, comfort and convenience, any animals or other creatures for scientific, medical or other research purposes. Section 3. Amendments to Section 164-4 Section 164-4 shall be amended to read as follows: Except as provided in the Agriculture and Markets Law, a violation of this article constitutes a civil offense punishable in accordance with § 1-1 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code except that the unlawful keeping of chickens in the City shall be punishable as follows: (a) $250 for the first violation: (b) $500 for the second violation: and Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting (c) $750 for the third or subsequent violation. These penalties shall be in addition to any other penalties provided by law. Section 4. Creation of Article III to Chapter 164 An Article III of Chapter 164 is hereby created as follows: Article III: Backyard Chickens 164-21: Definitions Lot: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter. Lot Square Footage: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter. Property Class Code: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter. Rear Yard: As defined in section 325-3 of the City Code. 164-22 Backyard Chickens The prohibition against keeping chickens in this Chapter shall, during a two-year pilot program that shall expire on May 1, 2018, not apply to up to twenty pilot applicants approved for the keeping of up to four female chickens (hens) per 3,000 Square Foot Lot while the animals are kept in such a manner that all requirements of this Article are satisfied. 164-23: Requirements for Keeping Chickens A. Chickens may only be kept on those Lots with a Property Class Code of 210, 215, 220, 240, 250, or substantially identical successor designations. B. Chickens may only be kept on those Lots possessing a Lot Square Footage of not less than 3,000 square feet. C. No chicken facility or any structure that houses chickens or any fenced pen area, either temporarily or permanently, shall be located within any of the following prohibited areas: 1. Within the setback requirements of the zone in which it is located; 2. Within twenty feet of any adjacent Lot’s residential principal structure or accessory structure that contains a residential unit, or within five feet of any principal structure on the Lot housing the chickens; and 3. Within five feet from any abutting residential property line, unless the adjacent owner agrees in writing to a lesser setback. D. Chickens may only be kept by a domiciliary of a dwelling unit located on the Lot on which the chickens are kept. E. Chickens must be kept in and confined in a properly designed and constructed coop or chicken house, or a fenced and covered enclosure that is at least 4 square feet per chicken in size, which additionally includes a run. Each covered coop and run combined shall be located in, and shall not cover more than 50% of, the Rear Yard of the Lot. F. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow hens to run at large upon the streets, alleys or other public places of the City, or upon the property of any other person. Commented [AL1]: Using PCC's here will be very exact--which is good--but recognize that various PCC-classified single- and two- family homes do house 3+ families (and perfectly legally so). Commented [AL2]: Using PCC's here will be very exact--which is good--but recognize that note that various PCC-classified single- and two-family homes do house 3+multiple families (and perfectly legally so). Commented [AL3]: For definitions, see http://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/assess/manuals/prclas.htm# residential. Commented [AL4]: This means it must be their primary residence… Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting G. During daylight hours the adult chickens shall have access to the chicken coop and, weather permitting, shall have access to an outdoor enclosure on the subject property, adequately fenced to contain the chickens and to prevent access to the chickens by dogs and other predators. H. Chicken feed must be in rodent resistant and weather proof containers. I. A chicken coop, and the premises where the chicken coop is located, shall be maintained in a condition such that the facility or chickens do not produce noise or odor that creates a nuisance for adjoining Lots and the responsible domiciliary and the owner shall remove any odorous or unsanitary condition. The Lot owner shall be responsible for the repair on any adjoining Lot of any damage caused by the chickens, including but not limited to damage to dwellings, structures and yards, and shall be responsible for any unsafe condition. J. The person keeping the chickens shall abide by all Solid Waste Storage and Collection standards of the City's Exterior Property Maintenance Code, §331-7. K. Roosters and Guinea Fowl are expressly prohibited, regardless of the age or maturity of the bird. L. Pilot registration pursuant to Section 164-24 is required for the keeping of chickens. M. Approved pilot registrants must complete a seminar regarding the care of chickens in an urban environment from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office, or similarly qualified organization acceptable to the Clerk’s Office. 164-24: Pilot Registration Process and Parameters. A. No more than twenty pilot registrations for the keeping of chickens shall be approved under this Article III. B. Registration shall take place at the City of Ithaca Clerk’s Office upon submission of a $35 registration fee, and verification of a completed chicken-keeping seminar. C. The City Clerk and Police Department shall, at least three months prior to the expiration of the pilot program, report to a Committee of the Common Council on the status of the pilot program. D. Should the pilot program not be extended after the two-year period, Cornell Cooperative Extension Office may help re-home the hens in the program. E. The City Clerk may revoke registration for a specific site via written notice to the property owner when the City Clerk or designee finds, at his or her sole discretion, that any requirements of this Article are not met, a rebuttable presumption of which shall be created by (a) a record of three or more complaints to the Ithaca Police Department about a specific site’s chickens, (b) on the recommendation of Cornell Cooperative Extension, or (c) on the recommendation of the Ithaca Police Department. Upon revocation, the City Clerk shall notify the owner in writing of the same, in compliance with sub-section 164- 25, and if the revocation stands, the owner must remove the hens from the property in coordination with such assistance as may be available from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office, who may assist with rehoming them. 164-25: Remedies Not Exclusive. The remedies provided by this Article are cumulative and not mutually exclusive and are in addition to any other rights, remedies, and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law. Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting A. Any chickens that are not kept as required in this Article shall be deemed a public nuisance and the owner or custodian shall be given thirty days to rectify the conditions creating the public nuisance. In any case in which the City intends to correct a violation of this chapter, including removing and confiscating any chickens present, and then bill the property owner for the correction of the violation, the City Clerk or his/her designee shall notify the registrant and the owner of the property and, where relevant, the registered agent who has assumed responsibility as outlined in § 178-5 of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this chapter. B. Any notice required by this section shall be served in person or by mail to the address on the registration form and the address appearing on the City tax roll, requiring such person, within a time specified in such notice but in no event less than thirty days from the service or mailing thereof, to comply with this chapter and to abate the nuisance and, as appropriate, to remove the chickens. Such notice shall also state that the property owner may contest the finding of the City Clerk by making a written request to have a hearing on the matter held at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Public Works. C. Any request for such a hearing must be mailed and postmarked or personally delivered to the City Clerk within fourteen days of the service or mailing of notice, and any such written request for a hearing shall automatically stay further enforcement concerning the alleged violation pending such hearing. The decision of the Board of Public Works, by majority vote, shall be binding, subject to any further judicial review available to either the City or the property owner. D. Upon the failure of a registrant or property owner to comply with the notice of violation of this chapter (or, alternatively, to request a hearing as aforesaid within the time limit stated in such notice, or upon a Board of Public Works’ determination, after such a hearing, that a violation exists), the City Clerk shall refer the matter, by memorandum, to the Superintendent of Public Works, who shall cause such premises to be put in such condition as will comply and shall charge the cost thereof to the owner of said premises, including a charge of 50% for supervision and administration. The minimum charge to the property owner for such work shall be $50. E. The City Chamberlain shall promptly present to the owner of any parcel so corrected a bill rendered for such services, as certified by the Superintendent of Public Works. If not paid within 30 days, the cost thereof shall be assessed against the property, added to its tax and become a lien thereon, collectible in the same manner as delinquent City taxes. Appeals from this section shall only be permitted if written notice of appeal is received by the Ithaca City Clerk within 45 days after the mailing of the bill from the Chamberlain, and such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Public Works. Section 5. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. 6) Discussion a) Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP) Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator, was joined by Nels Bohn, Director, IURA, and Ed Marx, Tompkins County Planning Commissioner for this discussion. Nick Goldsmith reviewed the recommendations outlined below and took questions from the committee. The County and IDA hired Tatum Engineering to help with suggested changes. RE: Energy standards for CIITAP program Below are recommendations for the energy standards to be included in the CIITAP program. These recommendations are informed by the work done by the CIITAP working group, public comments received during and after the working group was active, and research performed since the working group finished. The recommendations below are consistent with my comments to Jennifer Kusznir submitted January 6, 2016, but are more stringent than those developed in the CIITAP working group, for a number of reasons:  Additional evidence of the financial feasibility of building more efficiently  Increased interest in 2030 District standards at the local, County, and national level  Additional evidence of other states and local governments adopting goals and policies supporting net-zero construction by the year 2030 or earlier  Recognition that the City’s goal of 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 will not be attainable without dramatic changes to the commercial building sector, which is responsible for 50% of City emissions RECOMMENDATION Basic Eligibility Criteria In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for tax abatement under CIITAP, a project/developer must: Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting  Conduct annual benchmarking of energy usage during the term of the abatement o Benchmarking would be conducted using the free online software, EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager. This tracking would show whether the building is using energy at the level designed. o Benchmarking report would be provided to the City and to the IDA. o The information would also be made available to the public.  Be designed and constructed to use at least 10% less energy than required by the New York State Energy Code o The New York State code used in this program will be the code that is planned to go into effect October 2016, which is based on the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2015). o Buildings would be required to be designed and constructed to meet a certain site Energy Use Index specific to the building type, as indicated in the table below. o The Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of annual energy use per square foot. o The designed EUI would be verified through the process of receiving a NYSERDA rebate for energy efficient new construction, or by an alternate compliance path. Enhanced Eligibility Criteria In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for an enhanced tax abatement under CIITAP, a project/developer must build to 30% better than code. Specifically, the project/developer must:  Conduct annual benchmarking of energy usage during the term of the abatement o Benchmarking would be conducted using the free online software, EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager. This tracking would show whether the building is using energy at the level designed. o Benchmarking report would be provided to the City and to the IDA. o The information would also be made available to the public.  Be designed and constructed to use at least 30% less energy than required by the New York State Energy Code Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting o The New York State code used in this program will be the code that is planned to go into effect October 2016, which is based on the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2015). o Buildings would be required to be designed and constructed to meet a certain site Energy Use Index specific to the building type, as indicated in the table below. o The Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of annual energy use per square foot. o The designed EUI would be verified through the process of receiving a NYSERDA rebate for energy efficient new construction, or by an alternate compliance path. TO CONSIDER – OPTION B FOR ENHANCED ABATEMENT In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for an enhanced tax abatement under CIITAP, a project/developer must build to 40% better than code. This is in line with the 2030 District Standards, which has the goal of decreasing energy use in new construction, with the ultimate goal of net zero energy construction by the year 2030. Approved at the July 13, 2016 PEDC Meeting NYS CODE as of October 2016 (IECC 2015) BASIC ELIGIBILITY 10% better than code ENHANCED ELIGIBILITY 30% better than code TO CONSIDER 40% better than code Office Small Office 30 27 21 18 Large Office 72 65 50 43 Lodging Small Hotel 60 54 42 36 Large Hotel 88 79 62 53 Retail Standalone Retail 47 42 33 28 Apartment Mid-Rise Apartment 44 40 31 26 High-Rise Apartment 48 43 34 29 DRAFT Energy Use Standard for CIITAP tax abatement 05-05-16 Energy Use Index (annual site energy use per square foot, measured in kBtu) Source: Energy and Energy Cost Savings Analysis of the 2015 IECC for Commercial Buildings, U.S. DOE, August 2015 Building Type Please feel free to contact me with any questions at ngoldsmith@cityofithaca.org or on my cell at 917-270-1683. 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) April 2016 – Moved by Alderperson Brock with recommended changes; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed unanimously. 8) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Nguyen; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.