HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2003 Planning & Economic Dev. Committee Meeting Agenda MEETING NOTICE
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Common Council Chambers
City Hall -- 108 East Green Street
7:30 p.m.
Agenda
A. Agenda Review
B. Public Comment and Response
C. Reports - Committee Members, Chair, Mayor, Planning Director
D. Issues
1. Cornell Treman Historic District Designation (materials enclosed) 20 minutes
2. Bicycle Plan - Report (materials enclosed) 10 minutes
3. Cayuga Waterfront Trail - Report (materials enclosed) 10 minutes
4. Downtown Circulation Study - Report (materials enclosed) 10 minutes
5. Sign Ordinance - Resolution 30 minutes
Please bring the following materials (sent on March 26, 2003):
• Memorandum from Kate Mance, dated March 26, 2003
• Draft-Chapter 325, Article IX SIGNS revised 3/25/03 without tracking changes
• Draft-Chapter 325, Article IX SIGNS revised 3/25/03 with tracking changes
F. Possible Motion to Enter into Executive Session - To discuss possible property acquisition
G. Adjournment
Questions about the agenda should be directed to Paulette Manos, Chairperson(273-4170)or to 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. Please note that the order of agenda items is tentative and subject to change.
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City
Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, April 22. 2003.
r CITY OF ITHACA INIMINI
%1��...n.■. ':��'4 rd
108 East Green Street 3 Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
% I r
Cb• 0 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
R �AEQ-� H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
"'" DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development -607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA- 607-274-6559
Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @citvofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
TO: Members of the Planning & Development Committee
FROM: Leslie Chatterton, Neighborhood Sc. Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Local Designation of the Cornell-Treman Families Historic District
DATE: April 17, 2003 /lit.
At a special meeting to be held on Tuesday May 6,2003 at 7:00 p.m. the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) will hold a public hearing to consider local
historic district designation of the Cornell-Treman Families Historic District, (see
attached map). All interested parties are invited to speak for or against the designation
at the hearing, in person,by representative, or by written statement submitted to the ILPC
secretary.
Included in this packet are the SEAF, a map showing the district boundaries, a summary
of the building's historic and architectural significance, and a brief explanation of the
designation criteria and protections/restrictions conferred by the designation. Full
documentation of the historic and architectural significance of the district and its
individual properties is available for public review at the City of Ithaca Department of
Planning & Development, 3rd floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street during regular
business days between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Immediately following the hearing , or at a later, property noticed meeting, the ILPC will
decide by resolution whether or not to designate this property. Should the ILPC vote to
designate, the Board of Planning and Development will be asked to file a report to the
Common Council with respect to relation of the designation with the master plan, the
zoning laws, projected public improvements and any plans for renewal of the site or area
involved. The Common Council will then act to approve, veto or refer the designation
back to the ILPC for modification.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer .cith a commitment to workforce diversification." �,
CORNELL-TREMAN HISTORIC DISTRICT SURVEY AREA
City of Ithaca NY 2003 LI 11 cr-
, ti , i C>NIVERSITY-
AVENUE I 4
BUM IMI
4 \
III= \ » a
&TAM 1111
' v, SCALE: 1 in = 300 ft NMI Else
i lerr
C.? ii.:
LI: 1111
rain ?I' ' _Li-
' 73 a-.... pa
Ni -
JJ��
�I
ill o �r"C ' o
iii Q FM 1
.1,,,,mis -.Milow/ ,,,H-1 0 9: -
III Tie.. DIA 0
o b crl
am ��
s \NM ,\ t
11❑ p 10 a i> CORN EL-L=AVENUE
r
I-- ill j [I\ `
:fJJ
\- G \
L..-,J i 1::::- si
-
.. i i,
C--_,-1 WI/ -'
-- ..
---'r � ` � - AYL___ ____,I____ 1
DG EMO 0
Rvii..24
, L:11 i. ;. /� B , �, � RO l ��``'® r" SCADILLA Riirl i�- Cjj j
n
--, f I INI I iiiiihk 'u/ _/ V Cj- _/- ___,\ ,
Map Prepared by Dept of Planning&Development,City of Ithaca NY April 2003
Cornell-Treman Historic District'
Period of Significance 1867-1927
Possessing a sweeping view of the City of Ithaca, the Cayuga Inlet and Cayuga Lake valley, the
proposed Cornell-Treman Historic District is in northern portion of an area locally referred to as
University Hill. . The district encompasses 41 individual properties,most in residential use. Two
are authored landscapes, one is the site of a previously demolished residence and one is a
previously excavated archeological site which has been determined eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. The district is significant for its relationship with two
important Ithaca families, the Cornells and Tremans. Both came to this area in the first third of
the nineteenth century with no significant financial resources,but through hard work accumulated
substantial wealth and property. Both families later offered their resources to the community,
serving as benefactors or directors of the Ithaca's major financial, civic and educational
institutions, thus garnering considerable public esteem. The district was the location of their
family homes and center of their civic largesse.
The district includes property associated with Ezra Cornell, founder of Cornell University, which
was located on a substantial portion of his 300 acre East Hill farm,Forest Park. Perhaps desiring
to protect his views, Ezra purchased the land south and west of his home. During his lifetime just
one property was sold from this parcel. With additional purchases by Cornell's wife and relations
the Cornell family came to own all the land located between University Avenue and Stewart
Avenue north of the City Cemetery. The district includes Llenroc,the Ezra Cornell family's last
estate, completed after his death in 1874.
By the first decade of the twentieth century,the Treman family had become the dominant
landowners on University Hill,having purchased substantial additional portions of the Cornell
family holdings. Between 1900 and 1902, Treman siblings Robert, Charles and Elizabeth
constructed their homes on a nine-acre parcel between University and Stewart Avenues, engaging
Boston-based landscape architect Warren Manning to landscape the grounds. The Tremans were
one of Ithaca and Tompkins County's most prominent families of the 19th and early 20`h centuries.
Among Robert's enduring legacies is the establishment of the Finger Lakes Park System. Sister
Elizabeth was married to Mynderse Van Cleef, who established a prestigious law firm in Ithaca
and whose clients included Cornell University. Charles Treman was active in local regional and
New York State affairs, serving as Superintendent of Public Works for the State of New York and
Cornell University trustee. Robert's son Allan also participated in the civic and academic life of
the city the 1975 dedication of the Allan H. Treman State Marine Park following his death in
1975.
All of the buildings in the historic district were constructed as detached residential structures,
with one notable exception, the Baldwin Memorial Stairs, designed by Bryant Fleming and built
in 1925. District buildings display the range of American domestic revival and vernacular
architectural styles popular during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Ezra
Cornell's own home, Llenroc is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as Ithaca's
finest and best-preserved masonry Gothic Revival Style residence. William H. Miller, Ithaca's
most prominent late nineteenth—early 20`h century architect, designed the Elizabeth Van Cleef
and Robert Treman estates. Other residential structures in the district consist primarily of two-
and-one-half-story frame dwellings designed in the Italianate, Second Empire, Stick, Folk
Victorian, Queen Anne and Colonial Revival styles and the bungalow mode. The contiguous
siting of the three exemplary carriage houses on University Avenue is a feature unique to this
historic district.
•This narrative draws on the Cornell Treman Historic District Description prepared for the City of Ithaca
by Janet Shure, Director of Preservation Services, Historic Ithaca, Inc.
Criteria for Local historic district designation is set forth in the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Ordinance as follows:
A. Have special character or special historical or aesthetical interest or value;
B. Represent one or more periods or styles of architecture typical of one or more eras in the
history of the city; and
C. Cause such area,by reason of such factors, to constitute a visibly perceptible section of
the city
Local landmark designation will physically preserve this historic resource and its exterior
identifying visual characteristics. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance provides that
any proposed exterior alteration be reviewed and approved by the City's Landmarks Preservation
•
Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. Demolition is prohibited unless the
Commission finds that"
(a) In the case of commercial property,that prohibition of the demolition prevent the owner
of the property from earning a reasonable return; or
(b) In the case of non-commercial property, all of the following"
[1} That the preservation of the structure will seriously interfere with the use of the
property
[2} That the structure is noOt capable of conversion to a useful purpose without excessive
costs
[3} That the cost of maintaining the structure without use would entail serious
expenditure, all in the laugh of the purposes and resources of the owner.
Owners of property designated under the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance are also eligible for
tax abatement on any increase to property assessment resulting from investment in rehabilitation.
Requirements and restrictions are enumerated in Section 300-20 of the Municipal Code, City
Ordinance 97-13 entitled "Real Property Tax Exemptions for Historic Properties".
i ) State Environmental Qua.ity Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME ,(06.4.6 /S ter/ . a IS t"v1Cfi
/i' ac& dessf1/14170 it Of Coriit - Yeki141c—#1:5t66.4 1)/5 tnat
3. PROJECT LOCATION: fez tQG hed yytGcp
Municipality 1 iGtCA., County /0114p Kt
4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map)
Sec a 6tack'd soap
5. IS PROPOSED ACTION:
gNew ❑Expansion ❑Modification/alteration
6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: X°dot,(� %/S foe c.. dis ht c f •S/9 tia /70 Pt O r dov r('
Tel a u carve y a.✓em.
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: •
Initially 24'. 2-2.. acres Ultimately 26. Z.Z. acres
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
rgYes ❑No If No, describe briefly •
9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
AResidential ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Agriculture ❑Park/Forest/Open space gOther
Describe: / 6tLR d2iYti
•
Go%t.l a.. ami✓evs( facot/0ct s
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY(FEDERAL
'STATE OR LOCAL)?
L�Yes Ei No If yes, list agency(s)and permit/approvals
11. �7iDOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
X= Yes ❑No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval pp
/ffj44& 4ndi 444ks P✓ese✓va•h'on COKoNlssiort " C t'l/ v dsly K4/1& 1
Gi>tyOf /ffac k c.okff14on CC51414ci C. — a.pprove. cksi9144.haet_.
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
WA ❑Yes ❑No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,�J d
Applicant/sponsor name: L/�,-, �,L f A 4 64. Date: A` /�C/ 057
Signature: LcSU,€ /T• at A- -i/V/i , /115/Z ' Pre,5er✓af7okt ci1KQK
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
•
•
•
SEAF
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Project Information
To Be Completed By Applicant
In order to answer the questions in this SEAF, the preparer is to use currently available
information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action.
Yes No
I. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter
more than one acre of land?
2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any
site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? Er
4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? 0
5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? 0
6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? 0 '
7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? 0 I
8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views 0 '
or vistas known to be important to the community:
9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic, or
paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark 0
district?
10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? 0 Sgi
11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing 0
transportation systems?
12. Will the project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical
disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after 0 gf
completion?
13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? 0
I =.
Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in
permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period OR have a
negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood?
IS. Is there public controversy concerning the project? 0
It an■ question has been answered YES. a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF)
is necessary.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: rni'fovr DATE: � 5 ZGGZ
PREPARER'S TITLE: i l i S i v%'C P/2 S e r v e c fic i A/ei5 Abe; _hoc d alimer l
REPRESENTING: /74440,--a— kAlidwta✓6C5 P/,eseviahck--(omeniSSiOn--
o 1THa CITY OF ITHACA
*:7e , 108 East Green Street 3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690
{ IIfGTT1,._�1fTl1l
0• 00 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
.......•.O H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development -607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA- 607-274-6559
Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Planning 86 Economic Development Committee
From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic Dev. Planner --r z_
Date: April 17, 2003
Re: Bicycle Plan Implementation Update
I am currently working out a scope of services and cost estimate with the
Rochester based engineering firm of Dewberry-Goodkind for the first
phase of implementation of the 1998 Ithaca Bicycle Plan. I expect to send
a contract around for signatures in the next week. The design and
construction work will be funded from an existing Transportation
Enhancement grant that the City was awarded in the amount of
$100,000 ($20,000 of this is a previously committed local share). The
route that we are looking at has been developed over time with the
assistance of the former Bicycle Plan Implementation Committee and the
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council. We are looking at connecting the
Commons with Cass Park in two different ways to meet the needs of two
different sets of users. First, for the more experienced or automobile
tolerant rider, we are proposing a direct route along Seneca and Green
Streets and connecting with Taughannock Boulevard. Second, for the
less experienced or more recreational rider, we are proposing an indirect
route that will head south towards South Plain Street, then out Cecil A.
Malone Drive past Wegmans, around Cherry, Brindley and Taber streets
to connect with the Cass Park Loop of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. These
routes were proposed for a number of reasons, most notably because
they are in the Ithaca Bicycle Plan and because they have the least
impact on parking, which was a concern when implementation of the
plan was first discussed. Specific treatments of striping or signing will be
determined in the design phase of the project. A subcommittee of BPAC
has spent time putting together a conceptual proposal, but a full design
will be developed by Dewberry-Goodkind, in consultation with BPAC,
City staff, and the NYS Department of Transportation. Our schedule has
us finishing design by the end of the summer and we are hoping to see
construction by the end of this year.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
iTHa , CITY OF ITHACA 473
v~ t "14 4'; 108 East Green Street 3rd Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690
i I�(TT1�1GFT11I
,�►040 `00 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
!�QR�1f�O H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development -607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA- 607-274-6559
Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Common Council
From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic Dev. Planner -
Date: April 17, 2003
Re: Cayuga Waterfront Trail Update
The first phase of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail in Cass Park is nearly
complete. If you haven't been out on it yet, I would highly recommend it.
The second phase of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, from Cass Park to
Willow Avenue (north of Route 13, east of the Farmer's Market), has just
begun, with a little help from a federal Transportation Enhancement
grant of$489,000. A staff committee has chosen the Rochester-based
firm of Bergmann Associates, in association with Northeast Greenways
(Rick Manning), Fisher Associates, and R.K. Hite, Inc., to develop and
complete the trail's design and to assist the City with environmental
review and right-of-way acquisition. We had eight firms express interest
in the project and we think the Bergmann team will be a great partner in
this project.
The partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, the Cayuga Waterfront
Trail Initiative, will continue in the second phase, mostly through
fundraising efforts and an oversight client committee. The Chamber will
be raising money for the trail again through the Stepping Stones program
and with individual and corporate donations; they are hoping to raise
between $80,000 and $100,000, which can be used as part of our local
match ($189,000). The client committee has already met twice to discuss
organizing for the design phase of the project. Our next steps and a
rough schedule follow:
Develop scope of services and fee April 2003
Project scoping and familiarization May 2003
Public information and design meeting June 2003
Preliminary design July and August 2003
Final design Sept. and October 2003
Right-of-way acquisition Winter 2003-2004
Construction Summer 2004
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
irHq:9 CITY OF ITHACA
ilrf ,iti�. ''•'�'S 3rd v, l 4 ;�, 108 East Green Street 3 Floor Ithaca,New York 14850-5690
y,(f�1 T%7171.1'.43
'a P��, :`00 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Rp�t�0_-= H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development -607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA- 607-274-6559
Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Common Council
From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic Dev. Planner '-
Date: April 17, 2003
Re: Downtown Circulation Study
As I wrote to you in my memo of November 19, 2002, the City is in
receipt of the Downtown Circulation study performed by SRF 8v
Associates. It is available for public reading in the Department of
Planning & Development. For your convenience, please find attached to
this memo the Executive Summary of the report.
Currently, there is only one element of the study that is expected to be
pursued in the near future: converting Aurora Street between Court and
Buffalo Streets and Cayuga Street between Court and Seneca Streets
from one-way to two-way operations. This proposal is mentioned in
conclusion number 8 of the summary. This proposal has not been
developed beyond the SRF study and internal discussions have been
mostly of a conceptual nature. The Traffic Engineer is aware of the
concept, but, to my knowledge, has not had an opportunity to analyze
the proposal in much depth. The project involves modifications to traffic
signals, signage, and striping and the loss of a few parking spaces. It will
need to be approved by the Board of Public Works and may require
coordination with the NYS Department of Transportation. The report
included some order of magnitude cost estimates for some of the
analyzed changes, but does not include a detailed budget for this
alternative.
There is some interest in moving this project forward both for general
improvements to circulation in the downtown, but also in relation to the
Ciminelli project on Tioga and Seneca Streets. To my knowledge, no real
timetables have been assembled yet.
Cc: Dan Cole, City Traffic Engineer
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The City of Ithaca is actively working to enhance the downtown Central Business District
(CBD) through improving access for residents and visitors alike. All modes of travel
(passenger vehicle, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians) are considered vital to a healthy
downtown.
The purpose of this project is to develop a workable circulation system which supports all
modes of travel in the Ithaca CBD. The primary objective is to make it easier for motorists
to circulate in the CBD and to access the Commons, if feasible. Evaluation of reinstating
two-way traffic flow along the one-way couple of Cayuga and Aurora Streets is one priority
task of this project. Other objectives of the project include evaluation of narrowing Green
and Seneca Streets by approximately 6 feet between Cayuga and Aurora Streets, relocating
or installing an additional traffic signal on Green Street between Cayuga and Tioga Streets
to provide a midblock pedestrian crossing, realigning East State Street at Aurora Street to
create a pedestrian plaza, and installing angle parking on Green and Seneca Streets. The
following study determines and assesses the impacts associated with these potential
changes.
A comprehensive inventory of the existing roadway network operations was developed.
Issues concerning traffic operations, transit accommodations, fire and emergency response
service, pedestrian activity, bicycle travel, on-street parking and loading, and safety issues
were investigated.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions are based on analysis contained in this Report:
1. Two-way conversion of Cayuga and Aurora Streets and construction of an attached
park is feasible with the significant impacts and required mitigation outlined in this
Report.
2. Aurora Street cannot be converted to two-way in its entirety without also converting
Cayuga Street.
3. Installation of angle parking is not feasible on Green or Seneca Street.
4. Green Street can be narrowed by 6 ft via installation of landscaped median or widening
of sidewalks.
5. Seneca Street can be made more pedestrian friendly by installing curb bump outs in
various locations described in this Report.
6. Relocation or addition of a traffic signal on Green Street may hinder vehicular
operations while not significantly improving pedestrian crossing.
V
- 1
7. Realignment of East State Street at Aurora Street and construction of an attached park
is feasible with consideration given to locating a pedestrian crossing on the north
approach to the intersection at the Commons.
8. Two feasible alternatives for two-way conversion were identified: convert Aurora Street
between Court and Buffalo Streets and either Cayuga Street between State and Green
Streets or Cayuga Street between Court and Seneca Streets.
The decision to implement any of these projects must be based on the ability of the project
to meet the goals and objectives of the City of Ithaca. The City must determine what
criteria to use in measuring the success of the downtown CBD. Many of the potential
projects studied in this Report can enhance the success, attractiveness, and accessibility of
downtown Ithaca. The findings of this study in conjunction with engineering judgement
result in the following recommendations:
1. Conversion of Cayuga and Aurora Streets in their entirety is not recommended due to
the significant impacts associated with the required mitigation.
2. Install a median treatment along Green Street to provide a gateway effect, a traffic
calming effect, and a refuge/enhancement for pedestrian crossings.
3. Re-align East State Street at Aurora Street to provide an attached park. Alignment
design should accommodate a pedestrian crossing as near to the intersection as possible
to prohibit northbound vehicles from stopping north of, or within, the intersection.
4. Sectional conversion of Aurora Street and Cayuga Street, as analyzed above, should be
considered for implementation. Alternative 2 is preferred for improved circulation and
minimization of impacts.
vi
Po..- Common Council 's Planning Committee, meeting 4/23/03
D -S
Re: Sign ordinance revisions, for sale/rental signs
From: Jane Marcham
Granted, the clause on sale and rental signs requiring no
permit is only one small section of the city' s sign ordinance,
but the proliferation of these signs has had a significant
blighting effect on city neighborhoods and business districts.
Many rental signs are displayed virtually year-round, to the
extent that some residential streets look like business zones.
The effects can be seen in all five wards of the city.
The March 26 revision of the ordinance does little to reduce
excessive signage, and the 30-day limit for removing rental signs
is widely recognized as unenforcable. Here's what was proposed:
# 272-6. Signs permitted in all districts.
A. Permit not required. The following signs are permitted in any
use district without a permit, as noted:
1. Signs temporarily advertising the sale, lease or
rental of the premises upon which the sign is located, which
signs shall not exceed 15 square feet in area, except in
residential districts, where said signs shall not exceed 5 square
feet. In all zones, such signs must be removed within 30 days of
sale or lease of the premises.
After a photo survey and close study of the signs currently
in use, to assure that all types of signs are taken into account,
here ' s how I 'd suggest revising this clause:
(1. Signs advertising the sale, lease or rental of the premises
upon which the sign is located. Each property shall be limited to
one such sign, except with regard to parking, as follows:
(a) Signs temporarily advertising the premises for sale
shall not exceed 10 square feet in area except in residential
districts, where said signs shall not exceed 5 square feet. In
all zones, such signs shall be unlimited in duration except that
they must be removed within 30 days of sale of the premises.
(b) Signs temporarily advertising the premises for rent
shall not exceed 5 square feet in size except in residential
districts, where said signs shall not exceed 3 square feet.
In residential zones a rental sign can be displayed for 30 days,
then must be removed, meaning no sign at all, for 30 days.
Nameplate signs denoting a rental firm' s name and phone number
are rental signs and can't be displayed permanently.
(c) Signs advertising rental of the premises for parking of
vehicles shall not exceed 2 square feet in size in all districts
and are unlimited in duration. Each property may display one such
parking rental sign visible from a public way, which can be in
addition to a structural sale or rental sign on the same
premises.
NOTE: Enforcement of the time limit on rental signs may look
difficult, but chronic violations will soon become apparent, and
residents can help point them out to the Building Department. If
this method doesn ' t win approval, the only alternative of which
I 'm aware is the March proposal -- which is unenforcable.
cc: JoAnn Cornish, Kate Mance, Phyllis Radke, Norma Schwab
I -Os
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Susan Blumenthal
Re: Sign Ordinance and Informational Signs
Date: April 16, 2003
In addition to the issues about signs temporarily advertising the sale, lease or
rental of premises and parking that I've previously brought up with the Planning and
Economic Development Committee, I would like to call attention to the proliferation of
informational signs on East Hill. These signs often provide warnings about private
parking and are frequently posted in front yards on freestanding signs or are applied to
building facades and porches. Some have become a blight on residential streets because
of their size and placement on a property. However, there are also many other instances
where these signs are appropriately sized and placed discreetly so that their message is
delivered. Therefore, I believe that the sign ordinance should have provisions to regulate
both size and placement on a property. Suggested language to improve the situation is
below for your consideration.
Suggested additions and changes to March 26, 2003 Sign Ordinance draft:
Note: Brackets=delete; underlining=proposed new text.
1. Amend 325 - 47. Definitions.
Informational sign-A [ground mounted] sign, either on the wall of a building or ground-
mounted, whose purpose is to inform the public of safety hazards, of property use
regulations or of the location of specific activities on the premises. Any information
signs that are affixed to an exterior wall of the building will be considered building signs
and will be calculated as part of the total allowable building signage.
2. Add a new item to Section 325-50. Signs Permitted in All Districts.
A. Permit not required.
Informational signs in residential zones shall be subject to the following regulations:
Each property shall be limited to one (1) such sign, except for corner properties where
two (2) shall be allowed, one (1) facing each street. Informational signs shall not exceed
two (2) square feet in area and shall not have letters exceeding two (2) inches in height.
Free-standing informational signs are not permitted in front yards. If placed on any
portion of the face of a building or front porch, the top edge of informational signs shall
not exceed three feet (3) from ground level.
04/23/03
Draft Resolution:
Declaration of Lead Agency for the Adoption of the Revised Sign ordinance
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the
lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of the revisions to the City Sign Ordinance is a "Type I"
Action pursuant to CEQR which requires review under the City's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance; now, therefore,be it
RESOLVED, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency
for the environmental review of the proposed adoption of the revised City Sign Ordinance.
q:lplanninglstafflkatelresolution-lead agency sign ord..doc 04/17/03
04/23/03
Draft Resolution:
Revisions to the City Sign Ordinance-Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is proposing to adopt a revised City Sign Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the
preparation of the Long Environmental Assessment Forms (LEAF), and
WHEREAS, the revised City Sign Ordinance has been reviewed by the Tompkins
County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-1—m of the New York State General
Municipal Law, which requires all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility,
including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department,
and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Act (CEQR Sec.176-12B), and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency,
reviewed the LEAF prepared by planning staff and has determined that adoption of the
revised City Sign Ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as
its own, the finding and conclusions more fully set forth on the Long Environmental
Assessment Form, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk's Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
Q:I PLANNINGISTAFFIKatelResolution-Negdec sign ord.doc
04/23/03
Draft Resolution:
Adoption of the Revised City of Ithaca Sign Ordinance
WHEREAS, the intent of the City of Ithaca Sign Ordinance is to establish the guidelines
for size, content, and setback requirements for which signs may be placed on private
property within the City limits,
WHEREAS, the guidelines of the ordinance are intended to address the needs of the
growing community,while maintaining the desirable look and feel of the area, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council recognizes that the ordinance has not
been revised in some time and many of the newer zones are not included in the language,
and
WHEREAS, staff from both the Planning and Building Departments reviewed the
existing City Sign Ordinance over the course of several months and drafted the proposed
ordinance, which includes all of the new City zones, as well as addressing concerns that
were raised from the county Planning Department and the Planning and Economic
Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, staff also proposed minor text changes to the City Site Plan Review
Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the draft ordinances were reviewed by the County Planning Department,
and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the required public hearing has been held for the adoption of the Plan on
May 7, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, has on
May 7, 2003, determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and, now be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the revised City of
Ithaca Sign Ordinance dated March 25, 2003 and accepts the minor text changes to the
City Site Plan Review Ordinance.
Q:I PLANNINGISTAFFIKatelResolution-Adoption sign ord.doc