Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-04 Planning & Economic Develoment Committee Meeting Agenda MEETING NOTICE City of Ithaca Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, March 17, 2004 Common Council Chambers City Hall -- 108 East Green Street 7:30 p.m. Agenda A. Agenda Review B. Public Comment and Response C. Announcements and Reports 1. IURA- Consolidated Plan (material enclosed) 15 minutes D. Action Items 1. IURA- Property Disposition to Advocacy Center of Tompkins County - Resolutions (material enclosed) 10 minutes 2. Empire Zone- Resolutions (material enclosed) 30 minutes 3. Planned Unit Development- Resolution (material enclosed) 20 minutes 4. Sale of Surplus Properties - Resolutions (material enclosed) 10 minutes 5. Work Program - Resolution (material enclosed) 15 minutes E. Other Items -None F. Approval of Minutes -January 21,2004 and February 18, 2004 (material enclosed) 5 minutes G. Adjournment Questions about the agenda should be directed to Mary Tomlan,Chairperson(272-9481)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, March 16, 2004. Approved on April 21,2004 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Planning, Neighborhoods & and Economic Development Committee March 17, 2004 Minutes Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Dan Cogan; and Pam Mackesey. Other City Elected Officials Attending: Maria Coles, Joel Zumoff, and Mayor Carolyn Peterson. Staff Attending: H. Matthys Van Cort,Nels Bohn, Sue Kittel, Jennifer Kusznir, and Tim Logue Others Attending: Denise Sanderson, TCAD; Susan Blumenthal; James Giovannoni; John Barradas; members of the press and public. Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Mary Tomlan. A. Public Comment and Responses: There were no comments by members of the public. B. Announcements and Reports 1. Southwest Area Circulation - Chair Tomlan announced that further discussion of any action regarding plans for circulation in the Southwest Area would take place at the April committee meeting. 2. IURA Consolidated Plan - Sue Kittel, IURA's Deputy Director of Community Development, explained the draft of the Consolidated Plan and answered questions from the Committee. Nels Bohn explained the One-Year Program. C. Action Items: 1. IURA - Property Disposition to Advocacy Center of Tompkins County Kittel explained the background of this proposed transaction. On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of three resolutions pertinent to the proposed property disposition and directed that these be referred to Common Council for Action: declaration of Common Council as lead agency; declaration of no significant effect on the environment; and approval of the disposition of the property(3-0-0) 2. Empire Zone Van Cort gave a brief explanation of the action before the Committee. Denise Sanderson and Nels Bohn answered questions. - 1 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0317.doc Approved on April 21,2004 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the Zone Boundary Revision Agreement with Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development (SCOPED) and directed that the resolution be referred to Common Council for Action. (3-0-0) 3. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Chair Tomlan said the ordinance would not be voted on this evening, but that the Committee had an opportunity to discuss it. Tim Logue explained the proposed timing for the enactment of the ordinance and several changes that the City Attorney recommended for the proposed ordinance. Cogan recommended that the ordinance give stronger guidance in matters such as density. He also suggested that an additional public hearing be required. The Committee directed that the draft be amended to require a public hearing by the Planning and Development Board before it recommends approval of a proposed site as a PUD. Any project would therefore be required to have three public hearings: One each by the Planning&Development Board and Common Council before approval of the PUD, and one by the Planning &Development Board before approval of the Site Plan for the project. 4. Sale of Surplus Properties Jennifer Kusznir described the three properties recommended for sale and answered questions from the Committee. Susan Blumenthal, Jim Giovannoni and John Barradas were invited to answer questions. After a brief discussion the three resolutions authorizing sale of the properties were moved by Cogan and seconded by Mackesey. The Committee unanimously voted in favor of all three resolutions and directed that the resolutions be referred to Common Council for action. (3-0-0). 5. Work Program Van Cort explained the proposed Priority Work Program. Committee members recommended two changes. Under Economic Development, it was specified that continued planning for additional parking in Collegetown be undertaken in cooperation with area businesses and property owners. A project was added under Neighborhoods and Quality of Life: Plan with the community for the redevelopment of the Markles Flats site. On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of a resolution approving the 2004 Priority Work Program for the Department of Planning and Development and directed that the resolution be referred to Common Council for Action. (3-0-0) D. Other items—None - 2 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0317.doc { Approved on April 21,2004 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting E. Approval of Minutes Cogan requested that future minutes not only name each member of the public who spoke to the committee but also give the topic addressed by each. On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the Committee approved the minutes for January 21, 2004 and February 18, 2004. F. Adjournment On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. - 3 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0317.doc 11 March 2004 TO: Members of the Planning, Neiborhoods and Economic Development Committee FROM: Mary Tomlan, Chair i,C RE: Southwest Area Circulation Last month's discussion of the Southwest Area was planned to be the first of a pair, with the second to occur at this month's committee meeting,resulting in a resolution or resolutions for the April Common Council meeting. Because applications for TIP funding are not due until January(instead of September as originally thought),because we now know that any city expenditures for a study made in advance of a TIP application and award would not be eligible for reimbursement, and because the location and character of a new north-south road through the Southwest would be affected by the use of the city-owned property in the area, we will be delaying our further discussion and action until the April committee meeting. In the meantime,I will be working with the mayor and planning staff so that the committee will be able to consider intermediate measures such as access management and discuss options for exploring the development of the city-owned land. 1\a,v•.�Tow��..1 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)-274-6559 Contact Person: Nels Bohn March 11, 2004 Legal Advertising Department The Ithaca Journal Sent via e-mail:legals @pressconnects.com LEGAL NOTICE For publication once on Monday, March 15,2004 in the Ithaca Journal: Public Hearing Notice City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan and Action Plan Development Community Development Block Grant Program The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)will hold a Public Hearing at 8:30 a.m.,Thursday, March 25, 2004 in Common Council Chambers at City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY. This Public Hearing is the first of two public hearings scheduled to review the City of Ithaca's 2004 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan.This first hearing is intended to obtain the views of citizens on the highest housing and non-housing community needs and the activities to address these needs.Activities eligible for funding may include projects for housing, public facilities, public service and economic development which will benefit the City of Ithaca's low and moderate income population. Written comments may be submitted to the IURA, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca 14850 by 8:30 a.m. March 25, 2004. For information contact the IURA at (607)-274-6547. If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate at the meeting please contact the IURA at 274-6559 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Send bill to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Customer#0040001300 cc: City Clerk q:lplanninglcommunity developmenticlbg-20041public outreachllegal ad for public hearing#1.doc CITY OF ITHACA 1 • '`"`:� ,, 108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New Yc A f 1r_ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APoO�= 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 MEMO To: Planning, Neighborhoods, and Economic Development Committee Members From: Sue Kittel, Deputy Director of Community Development Date: March 11, 2004 Re: VERY FIRST draft portion of the Consolidated Plan Dear Committee Members- This is it, the very, very first look at the consolidated plan. What follows is the precursor to the executive summary for the City's five year program to apply Community Development Block Grant funds to address the top needs of the City's low-and moderate- income (LMI) residents. PLEASE do not even think about grammar, spelling, layout or value as fine literature. This is absolutely the first whack at trying to understand the program regulations, the information we got in the neighborhood meetings, and a sensible plan for weaving these two things together.Also, remember that the whole thing must be ready for public review by April 1, which means content first, beauty second. What we were really hoping for was to have you take a peek at what appears to us to be the top priority needs of our community. The whole plan is based on the development of these initial ideas into goals and strategies for implementation, so I am trying to gauge if there is some sense of consensus on these before we plow ahead. I will be at the meeting next week to talk about the content presented here and to get your feedback on this foundational work. Please feel free to call or email me at any time if you want to discuss this plan or the program. Thank you. Sue Kittel 274-6553 suek @cityofithaca.org "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 1 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program (No rank order) 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 1 Housing Weatherization& Tompkins Community $100,000 $325,000 Citywide— • Provide major weatherization Neighborhood Energy Action(TCA) focus on improvements to reduce energy costs to Workshop Initiative low/mod 50 low-income households, including income renters neighborhoods • Conduct neighborhood do-it-yourself low-cost weatherization workshops with 750 residents, including 550 home energy surveys 2 Housing Single Room Occupancy Lakeview Mental $360,000 $3,000,000 West State St. Construct 25-bed assisted SRO facility for (SRO)Tompkins County Health Services, Inc. corridor mental health clients(staffed 24/7)as part of plan to reconfigure housing for mental health clients,that includes closing 2 Community Residences 3 Housing MHATC West End Mutual Housing $550,000 $6,617,000 438 Floral Ave • Construct 50 units of affordable Initiative Association of 407-9 Elm St. housing serving 125 persons Tompkins County • 2-year funding request—additional (MHATC) $550,000 requested for FY 2005 4 Housing MHATC Operating MHATC $30,000 $407,000 Northside Operating assistance to manage 30 units of Expense Grant existing affordable MHATC housing 5 Housing Housing Plan for MHATC $27,000 $27,000 Former Prepare a housing plan for a City-owned, Southwest Development Southwest vacant 55-acre parcel to determine Area Park preliminary project feasibility for a mixed- income, mixed-ownership, mixed-use housing development. 6 Housing Project Hope To be determined $140,000 $245,000 Lower Acquisition and renovation of 4-unit Northside substandard rental property by low-income tenant. 7 Housing Rebuild Affordable Ithaca Housing TBD TBD 313 Fourth St Replace 3 vacant,dilapidated homes on Housing Units Authority(IHA)/ 315 Fourth St. property owned by IHA,with 10-20 Cayuga Housing 310-18 Third St. affordable rental units to be leased to Development Corp. Section 8 voucher holders. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 1 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 8 Housing Affordable Rental Housing Catholic Charities of $20,000 $147,000 Citywide Provide security deposit subsidies to 100 Security Deposit Loan Tompkins County low-income households to increase access Fund to affordable rental housing and prevent homelessness. 9 Housing Domestic Violence Advocacy Center for $21,000 $49,100 Confidential Make repairs to retain state licensing for Emergency Shelter Tompkins County the 8-bed shelter, including repainting and Rehabilitation and Repair window replacement. 10 Housing Three-Pillar Foundation Ithaca Housing $59,400 $59,400 Citywide-IHA Provide matching funds for Individual IDA Authority(IHA) clients Development Accounts to assist 24 very low-income families build assets for home purchase or business start-up over 3 years. Maximum 3:1 match is$7,500. 11 Housing Elm St. Rental Housing Ithaca Neighborhood $400,000 $806,900 Elm St. & Construct 8 units of affordable rental New Construction Housing Services Floral Ave. housing on site owned by INHS benefiting (INHS) intersection 10-14 low/mod persons 12 Housing First Time Homebuyer INHS $300,000 $1,797,000 City-wide Assist 15 low/mod families become Assistance homeowners through 0%deferred loans due upon sale or transfer. Average loan size=$20,000. 13 Housing Integrated Homeless American Red Cross, 450,000 $1,009,000 618 W. State Acquisition and rehabilitation of buildings Services Facility Tompkins County St. &611 W. currently leased by the Red Cross for a Chapter Seneca St. variety of homeless housing programming: 618 W. State St. • 12-bed emergency homeless shelter • Renovate Friendship Center • Case management offices • Homeless MIS and training room 611 W. Seneca St. • 6-bed homeless transitional house serving 2 homeless households Project will provide 4,000 bed nights of homeless shelter and create 4.35 FTE jobs Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 2 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 14 Housing Transitional Housing American Red Cross, $18,000 $58,000 City-wide Master lease 15 units of transitional Project Tompkins Co. homeless housing to be subleased to Chapter homeless clients exiting the emergency shelter. Subsidy will pay security deposits, utilities in arrears and vacancies expenses to compensate landlords participating in the program. 30 homeless households will benefit. 15 Economic Ithaca Economic Ithaca Downtown $500,000 $1,250,000 Downtown, Create revolving loan fund to provide gap Devel. Development Project Partnership(IDP) W. State. St, funding loan assistance to projects creating Fund (EDF) West End& low/mod jobs or eliminating blight. Inlet Island Repayments from loans will re-circulate into EDF for re-lending. 16 Economic Downtown Commons Ithaca Downtown $150,000 $150,000 126-144 E. Conduct feasibility study,develop business Devel. Upper Story Partnership State St. (The plan, acquire elevator equipment, and Demonstration Commons) recruit developer to redevelopment vacant upper stories of contiguous buildings on the Commons. 17 Economic EMF Manufacturing Evaporated Metal $150,000 $375,000 239 Cherry St. Upgrade existing equipment resulting in Devel. Capabilities Expansion Films(EMF) creation of 5 FTE jobs earning at least $25,000/year with benefits. At least 3 FTE jobs will be filled by low/mod persons. 18 Economic State Theatre Concession Historic Ithaca, Inc. $205,000 $447,000 105 W. State Expand concessions for State Theatre into Devel. &Office Expansion (HI) St. 105 W. State St.storefront with retail café open daily and renovate upper floors for HI office space. 2-3 FTE jobs will be created. Funding includes refinancing of existing building loan. Requested loan will be repaid from capital campaign. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 3 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 19 Economic Historic Ithaca's State Historic Ithaca, Inc. $100,000 $407,000 105-119 W. Provide 25%operating subsidy for the Devel. Theatre Operations (HI) State St. theatre to assist HI in implementing their plan to achieve financial self-sufficiency by 2008. In 2003 the theater hosted 89 events attracting 78,000 patrons. 20 Public City of Ithaca Traffic City of Ithaca $200,000 $488,000 Lower Cover shortfall in bid price for: Facility Calming Northside& • 3 raised intersection South of Creek • 2 raised crosswalks neighborhoods • 3 mini traffic circles • 3 center island narrowings 21 Public Monroe Street Pedestrian Monroe Street Bridge $107,000 $107,000 Reconnect Construction of bridge over Cascadilla Facility Bridge&Bicycle Bridge Club Monroe St. & Creek implementing initiative contained in over Cascadilla Creek Marshall St. the adopted Northside Neighborhood Plan. 22 Public Cecil A. Malone Drive City of Ithaca DPW $125,000 $125,000 Cecil A. Construction of 100-foot bridge parallel to Facility Pedestrian Bridge Malone Dr. narrow 20-foot wide vehicular bridge span over the Flood that currently lacks any safe pedestrian Relief Channel crossing,thereby providing safe pedestrian and bicycle access from Nate's Floral Estates to Rt. 13 businesses. 23 Public Traffic Signal Upgrade City of Ithaca DPW $170,000 1,018,000 Downtown Install pedestrian safety enhancements as Facility Project part of traffic signal upgrade project at the following 7 intersections: • Buffalo St @Aurora, N. Tioga, N. Cayuga&N. Geneva St • Seneca St. @ N.Aurora&N. Cayuga • Albany/W. Clinton St. Safety improvements include countdown timers,crosswalks,sidewalk ramps, new pavement and markings. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 4 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 24 Public Washington Park Washington Park $60,000 $60,000 Washington Implement Washington Park upgrade plan Facility Improvement Project Neighborhood Park developed with neighborhood input, Association including new lighting, park benches, redesigned central center piece, new plantings, replacement of diseased trees and bulletin board. Project is a priority need identified by the Parks Commission. 25 Public Cliff Street-ACS West Hill Civic $246,600 $251,600 Lower West Construct 12-foot wide bicycle/pedestrian Facility Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Association Hill path from base of West Hill to corner of Chestnut and Elm Street adjacent to the Alternative Community School improving safety for ACS students, residents of Chestnut Hill Apartments and other residents of Lower West Hill. 26 Public South of the Creek Park South of the Creek $13,500 $13,500 Fair St, Baker& Install 6 park benches,shrubs&trees at Facility Improvements Neighborhood group Wood St.parks parks. 27 Public The People's Garden The People's Garden $60,000 $60,000 various Create series of community gardens and Facility Project Project low/mod green spaces to serve as centers of income education and neighborhood building that neighborhoods will beautify under-utilized lots and produce organic vegetables. Pilot garden will be located at 412 First St. 28 Public Memorial Park/Parking Calvary Baptist $19,300 $24,100 500 block of N. Develop memorial park open to the public Facility Lot Project Church Albany St. and a 24-space parking lot to serve the church and address the public parking shortage at GIAC and BJM during weekdays. Prior CDBG funding demolished a condemned structure on the site. Public easement to City required. 29 Public Conway Park Parks Commission $16,000 $16,000 Northside Install sidewalk and tree lawn along Facility Improvements neighborhood Madison Street and complete fencing behind basketball court. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 5 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary _ Request Cost 30 Public Drop-In Children's Center Drop-In Children's up to $695,000 506 First St. Fill remaining funding gap for expansion Facility Expansion Center $188,000 project resulting in 28-30 slots for low/mod income infants and toddlers and creation of 6.75 FTE jobs. 31 Public Northside Neighborhood Tompkins Community $50,000 $110,000 423 First St.— Renovate the former"Hair it Is"salon into a Facility Early Childhood Center Action Northside Headstart facility creating 16-20 new,full- Neighborhood time,full-year child care slots for low/mod income families,creating 5.5 FTE jobs. 32 Public Phone/Computer Network Southside $10,000 $13,000 Southside Replace dysfunctional 12-year old Facility Replacement-Southside Community Center, Neighborhood refurbished phone system and install new Community Center Inc. computer network. 33 Public City Hall Barrier Removal City of Ithaca DPW $95,200 $95,200 108 E. Green Replace fire doors adjacent to elevator Facility —Replace Interior Doors St. shaft on each floor to provide accessible access throughout City Hall, including the Council Chambers. 34 Public Cascadilla Creek Bank City of Ithaca DPW $90,000 $450,000 Northside Reconstruct failed creek bank wall between Facility Wall Restoration Neighborhood Monroe and Hancock Streets for flood control and protection of streets and underground utilities as part of a 5-year $450,000 CDBG funding request to replace 1,640 linear feet of creek wall. 35 Public GIAC Kitchen Renovation Greater Ithaca $34,500 $35,000 GIAC, 318 N. Renovate outmoded kitchen that serves Facility Activities Center Albany St. 100 meals per day to low/mod income (GIAC) youth. Renovation will allow new programming, including establishment of a Kid's Café in collaboration with the Food Bank of the Southern Tier. 36 Public GIAC Boxing Ring Greater Ithaca $7,000 $7,000 GIAC, 318 N. Purchase of a"USA Boxing Approved" Facility Activities Center Albany St. boxing ring for the GIAC competitive boxing (GIAC) program serving low/mod income persons age 8 to adulthood. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 6 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 37 Public GIAC Albany Street Greater Ithaca $7,000 $12,000 GIAC, 318 N. Replace steps that have deteriorated and Facility Entrance Steps Activities Center Albany St. shifted away from the building. Albany St. (GIAC) steps are the main entrance to the building providing a wide variety of programming to 300 low/mod income youth daily. 38 Public GIAC Court Street Greater Ithaca $10,000 $!0,000 GIAC, 318 N. Repair damaged doorframe and install Facility Entrance Repair Activities Center Albany St. accessible button-activitated door opener at (GIAC) exterior entrance near elevator. 39 Public Rashad Richardson Greater Ithaca $20,000 $20,000 GIAC/BJM Install basketball court in GIAC courtyard Facility Basketball Court Activities Center on BJM school property in honor of Rashad (GIAC) Richardson. Replace substandard basketball standards, repave,and stripe. 40 Public City Hall Exterior Fire City of Ithaca DPW $7,700 $7,700 City Hall, 108 Repair two rear exterior fire doors. Facility Door Project E. Green St. 41 Public Southside Community City of Ithaca DPW $18,000 $18,000 Southside Replace north double doors, replace Facility Center Repairs Neighborhood entrance steps, refinish gym floor, repair water damage at north wall and replace gym exit door. 42 Public Dryden Road Parking City of Ithaca DPW $13,500 $13,500 Collegetown Replace fired doors to stairwells and Facility Garage Door double doors for electric supply room. Replacement 43 Public Parkside Gardens Cornell Cooperative $135,000 280,000 Park Side Plan,construct and operate a 1,500 sq.ft. Facility Neighborhood Family Extension of Gardens Family Resource Center serving the 55 Resource Center Tompkins County Apartments PSG low/mod households and the (PSG), South surrounding neighborhood. The expanded of the Creek facility will allow an expansion of education Neighborhood and job training programming to teens and adults and also a bathroom for Wood Street Park users. Facility will include a community room, kitchen,snack bar, computer room and bathroom and be operated as a joint venture between the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 7 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost (continued from previous residents, CCE, and PSG open to the page) _ public. Public easement will be required. 44 Public Immigrant and Refugee Ithaca Asian $269,000 $600,000 TBD Establish a community development center Facility Community Development American Center& focusing on expanding economic Center Latino Civic opportunities for the Asian American, Association, Inc. Latino and immigrant community, including: • economic development programming (business incubator, Kid's Café, on-the- job training,and minority-focused job resource program) • immigrant worker's resource center • legal services clinic • "Language Service"program, including translation, ESL and GED • cultural events planning • clearinghouse for jobs and services for immigrant communities 45 Public Traffic Calming—SMART Ithaca Police $12,750 $12,750 Citywide Purchase one Speed Monitoring Service Trailer Department Awareness Radar Trailer(SMART)and one pole-mounted Speed Sentry with display to monitor and visibly display speeds of vehicles at two movable (continued from previous locations wherever speeding traffic is a page) concern. Displayed speeds will promote voluntary compliance with the speed limit and create data log to efficiently deploy enforcement resources. 46 Public Sciencenter Youth Sciencenter $2,000 $84,000 Sciencenter, • Year 1: 15 low/mod income teens Service Employment Program over two 601 First receive 175 hours of job training& years Street experience • Year 2:25 low/mod income teens receive 175 hours of training/experience • 2005 CDBG funding request=$20,000 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 8 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 47 Public Outreach Training City of Ithaca Human $55,000 $55,000 Citywide Pilot program to expand the number of Service Program Resources Dept. qualified candidates in the employment pool from underrepresented/non-traditional groups for City/TCAT jobs requiring a Commercial Drivers License(CDL)or to serve as firefighters. Program will assist 3 to 5 participants gain requisite skills and job. 48 Public GIAC Accessible Greater Ithaca $30,000 $30,000 Citywide Purchase wheel chair-accessible vehicle to Service Transportation as Activities Center provide transportation for disabled youth Community Support (GIAC) and adults to participate in GIAC and SSCC activities. 49 Public Youth Horticulture Ithaca Children's $15,000 $73,000 Cass Park and Paid, youth development and workforce Service Apprentice Program Garden various park preparation program assisting 10 "at-risk" spaces teens learn horticultural job skills. Program throughout the will also improve public park spaces City throughout the community. 50 Public Increased Coordination, Catholic Charities of $30,000 $167,200 City-wide Provide central coordinating service to low- Service Outreach and Tompkins County income persons seeking anti-poverty Accessibility for Anti- services and train public employees to Poverty Services make effective service referrals. 51 Public Intensive Community Human Services $11,340 $18,000 City-wide Enhance access to the existing fragmented Service Outreach or Information Coalition of Tompkins human service programs/resources and Referral Help Line County, Inc. available by enhancing the one-stop HSC Information and Referral Program: • upgrade database of service provider information to meet 2-1-1 standards (similar to 911 emergency model) • media marketing campaign for the I & R Help Line—"one-stop"referral services Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 9 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 52 Public Police Satellite Office& Ithaca Housing $30,000 $30,000 800 S. Plain Enhance safety and security at Titus Service Enhanced Patrols at Titus Authority Street, South Towers by increasing police patrols and Towers of the Creek presence in public housing. Furnish office to be made available for use by community police officer and pay for increased evening patrols to deter criminal activity. 53 Public Community Policing City of Ithaca $126,950 $126,950 Northside, Fund three community police officers Service Program Southside,W. serving the Northside Triangle State St. neighborhood,the Southside corridor neighborhood, &the W. State St.corridor. 54 Public Portable/Temporary/ Finger Lakes $10,000 $10,000 Tompkins& Increase inventory of temporary Service Modular Aluminum Ramp Independence Center Schuyler accessibility ramps to loan out to persons Loan Program Counties with disabilities or terminal illness to residents provide accessibility to their homes. Program will benefit 9 additional low/mod households,with preference given to City of Ithaca residents. 55 Public Senior Nutrition Program Nutrition for the $15,000 $257,000 Tompkins Assist program serving meals to 300 low- Service Elderly in Tompkins County income elderly City residents(52,000 County, Inc. (dba meals per year). 178 persons receive home Foodnet) delivered meals and 120 persons are served at congregate meal locations. 56 Public Community School of Community School of $15,000 $30,000 CSMA, 330 E. Assist 200 low/mod-income persons Service Music and Arts Music and Arts State St. and participate in music and arts classes, Scholarship Program (CSMA) various other workshops, and private instruction through locations a means tested scholarship program. 57 Public Mural Project Dan Burgevin/lthaca $5,000 $5,000 various • Complete mural on former graffiti wall Service Police Department& in Northside neighborhood at P&C Southside • Repair and complete mural at Community Center Southside Community Center • Develop anti-drug mural on graffiti wall at top of Green Street Parking Garage. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 10 of 11 March 10, 2004 Summary of 2004 Funding Proposals City of Ithaca Entitlement Program 2004 Total Location/ # Category Title Sponsor Funding Project Service Area Summary Request Cost 58 Housing Tompkins Homeless American Red Cross, $42,000 $111,000 County-wide Acquire and install equipment and software Management Information Tompkins Co. to develop a centralized,web-based data System(HMIS) Project Chapter input, archive and retrieval system to document an unduplicated homeless counts and characteristics to be used to inform policy making and improve service effectiveness. 59 Public "Show Me the Ropes"On City of Ithaca Youth $41,800 $47,800 various job Stipened OTJ training placement program Service the Job Training Bureau Youth sites for 15-20 low-income teens(16-20 years Employment Service old)with non-public sector employers. 60% are projected to gain permanent job placement after initial training period. Program will target teens with poor job prospects due to poor skills or barriers to employment. Total FY 2004 Funding Requested: $5,994,540 Total FY 2004 City of Ithaca Entitlement Funding available: CDBG: $976,000 Minus 20%-admin., planning, monitoring &fair housing, $195,200 Total CDBG amount available for activities*: $780,800 HOME: $601,669 Minus 10%-admin., planning, monitoring &fair housing $60,100 Total HOME amount available for activities (affordable housing only): $541,569 Total FY 2004 Funding available for new activities: $1,322,369 * CDBG funds may be used for affordable housing, economic development, public facilities and public service activities that benefit low/moderate income persons or eliminate blighting conditions. Total public service activities funded may not exceed $146,400(15%of the CDBG award). q:lplanninglcommunity developmenticdbg-20041action plan12004 funding proposals 3-10-04.doc Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Development of FY 2004 Action Plan Page 11 of 11 1 Draft City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan 2004-2008 • • • • • Consolidated Plan: A document written by a local government, with the input from citizens and community groups, required to receive HUD Entitlement Community funding. The Consolidated Plan serves four functions: 1) it is a planning document for each community, that describes the housing and community development needs of low- and moderate-income residents; 2) it is the application for funds under the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD's) formula grant programs, such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); 3) it establishes local priorities; and 4) it lays out a 5-year strategy the community will follow in implementing HUD programs. • • • • • Prepared for: City of Ithaca Common Council Prepared by: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan Introduction Since 1975, the City of Ithaca has received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through an annual competitive process. These funds have been used to support a variety of programs benefiting low- and moderate- income (LMI)persons ranging from housing programs to job creation. The City has been highly successful in these competitive grant rounds, securing over$22.6 million since 1975. These projects have multiplied the benefit of the CDBG funds in the community many times. Recently, an administrative rule change vaulted the City into a new level of HUD programming. Qualifying as an `Entitlement Community', the City became eligible for annual funding through a formula grant for the first time in the Fall of 2003. The City now expects an annual grant from HUD through the Community Development Block Grant Program and the HOME program. In 2004 this funding is expected to total nearly$1.5 million dollars. This funding comes with a full spectrum of new opportunities as well as new responsibilities. The City can now set local goals and priorities instead of responding to the priorities established through the competitive process. Another distinct and extremely valuable implication of these `entitlement' funds is that it provides both the City and agencies seeking funding the chance to do some long term planning instead of quickly reacting to a periodic notice of funding availability. A requirement for accessing this entitlement money is the preparation and adoption of a `Consolidated Plan' to assess the community development needs and priorities of the City and develop a strategy for addressing those needs. This Consolidated Plan will guide the funding decisions and action strategies of the Community, as it relates to the CDBG Program, for the next five years. The Role of the The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA)has been delegated Ithaca Urban primary responsibility for administering Community Development Renewal Agency Block Grant Entitlement Programs. The IURA Executive Director is the City's Director of Planning and Development. The IURA is operated through a five-member board appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Common Council. It currently has a staff of five people directly responsible for program development, monitoring and implementation. Page 1 City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan Technical assistance is provided by IURA staff to help individuals and organizations to develop activities for potential entitlement funding. Assistance is also available for writing project proposals and preparing related materials necessary for a thorough evaluation as programs are selected for inclusion in the annual Action Plan. Statutory Program There are three basic program goals for the Community Goals of the CDBG Development Block Grant Program. These are: Program DECENT HOUSING - - which includes: • assisting homeless persons obtain affordable housing; • assisting persons at risk of becoming homeless; • retention of affordable housing stock; • increasing the availability of affordable permanent housing in standard condition to low-income and moderate-income families,particularly to members of disadvantaged minorities without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability; • increasing the supply of supportive housing which includes structural features and services to enable persons with special needs (including persons with HIV/AIDS)to live in dignity and independence; and • providing affordable housing that is accessible to job opportunities. A SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT - -which includes: • improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods; • increasing access to quality public and private facilities and services; • reducing the isolation of income groups within areas through spatial de-concentration of housing opportunities for lower income persons and the revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods; • restoring and preserving properties of special historic, architectural, or aesthetic value; and • conserving energy resources. EXPANDED ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES - - which includes: • job creation and retention; • establishment, stabilization and expansion of small businesses(including micro-businesses); Page 2 City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan • the provision of public services concerned with employment; • the provision of jobs to low-income persons living in areas affected by those programs and activities, or jobs resulting from carrying out activities under programs covered by the plan; • availability of mortgage financing for low-income persons at reasonable rates using non-discriminatory lending practices; • access to capital and credit for development activities that promote the long-term economic and social viability of the community; and empowerment and self- sufficiency for low-income persons to reduce generational poverty in federally assisted housing and public housing.' It is within the framework of the statutory program goals that this Consolidated Plan is developed. The Citizen The first step in preparing a Consolidated Plan is consideration of Participation community's involvement in the process, making a clear statement Plan encouraging public participation, and developing a road map of the planning process which identifies the points in time where the public has an opportunity to get involved. The document describing this roadmap is the Citizen Participation Plan (CP Plan). In addition to identifying how the IURA will seek out public input, advertise meetings and public hearings, and reach out to neighborhood residents and professionals involved in community development, the CP Plan also describes how the annual Action Plan is developed, how a Consolidated Plan or Action Plan amendment is undertaken, and how the IURA will address complaints made by the public. Although the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency had a CP Plan in place, it was reviewed and revised in January of 2004. This revised plan was adopted by the Common Council on February 4, 2004 and by the IURA on February 25, 2004 and. A copy of the CP Plan is available to members of the public on request. Summary of The CP Plan calls for a two-phased public input strategy during the Public Input for development of a Consolidated Plan. First, the IURA staff held the 2004 meetings with neighborhood residents to get their input on the top Consolidated priority needs in the City. Second, staff sought out the thoughts of Plan professionals and practitioners in fields related to community Statutory Program Goals from Guidelines for Preparing a Consolidated Plan Submission for Local Jurisdictions,US Department of Housing and Urban Development Page 3 City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan development though a series of consultations. All of these meetings and consultations took place in January and February of 2004. Neighborhood public input meetings were held as follows: • Feb.18, 2004, 7 PM to 8:30 PM, at the Greater Ithaca Activities Center(GIAC), 320 North Albany Street. • Feb.19, 2004, 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM in Council Chambers, Third Floor of City Hall, 108 E. Green St. • February 24, 2004 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at the Southside Community Center, 305 South Plain Street • February 25, 2004, 7 PM to 9 PM at Cornell Cooperative Extension, 615 Willow Avenue • February 26, 2004, 7 PM to 9 PM at GIAC. Meeting places were chosen to be convenient and accessible to the neighborhoods served by the IURA. Advertising for meetings was done using many outlets, including: • display ads in the Ithaca Journal and the Ithaca Times; • postering in public places in the downtown neighborhoods; • over 45 hours of direct contact and outreach by VISTA volunteers; • posting on the City's web site; • direct mail to over 200 individuals and groups, including neighborhood associations; • announcements at public meetings; • announcement of outreach program and meeting schedule in the Greater Southside News Letter which was distributed to approximately 600 residents; • production of an eight-minute broadcast describing the process and the meeting schedule which aired on local radio, and; Page 4 City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan • phone calls to community leaders and organizations which serve LMI people. In addition, staff attended the February 26 City Neighborhood Council meeting at which representatives from neighborhood groups discussed the most pressing needs in each area. Eleven groups were represented and about 30 people attended. Announcements were made by CD staff regarding the action plan and consolidated plan as well as the meeting schedule In each of these meetings, staff led discussions on neighborhood needs and priorities. After these discussions, residents worked through an exercise meant to distinguish the top priorities of all needs discussed. Comments and priorities varied by location but the clear consensus is that: • Affordable rentals and homes for first time homebuyers are a primary need in all neighborhoods. There was frequent discussion about the need for programs and funding to help fill the gap between existing homeownership programs and the ability of LMI residents to qualify for these programs. The high cost of utilities and the poor quality of existing affordable rentals was also consistently prioritized as a top area of concern. • The infrastructure and public facilities in LMI neighborhoods are generally good but specific attention needs to be placed on parks, community centers and traffic calming. Three of the five neighborhood meetings were held in community centers, both of which have significant capital improvement needs and need for support of new and expanded programming. There is a strong need in some neighborhoods to fill in the gaps in the sidewalk network. • Job training programs directly linked to jobs and support/development of micro-businesses is a priority. The need for job training programs for teens and young adults cannot be over emphasized. A significant part of the conversation regarding small businesses was the need to expand and create programs which better support minority owned and women owned businesses and start ups. • Public services and programs for teens and children are urgently needed. In every meeting the lack of meaningful programs for teens and the need for expanded programming for younger children, from affordable daycare and daycare during non-traditional hours to expanded after school and community center programming was expressed. Page 5 City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan • Other programs like health services and clinics downtown, including a dental clinic, food pantries and related programs and crime prevention/neighborhood policing were all categorized as high priority needs in the LMI neighborhoods. • In every meeting the idea of better coordination and marketing of existing public services was spontaneously generated by participants. In many cases there was a sentiment that, with the exception of the programs listed above,perhaps no more new programs are needed. There is a sense that too many programs are under utilized or difficult for participants to learn about and benefit from. Programs and services need to be better coordinated and marketed so that those in need can more efficiently and effectively connect with existing programs addressing the need. • There was clear sentiment that cultural barriers limiting access by LMI people of color and immigrants to programs and projects need to be addressed. Consultations with public and private agencies were scheduled as follows: January 20 Continuum of Care meeting where housing providers in the area were provided with a brief presentation about the Consolidated Plan and asked for feedback on the plans for a larger presentation at the 2/4/04 Homeless Housing Task Force meeting. February 4 Presentation at Department of Public Works senior staff meeting. Initial input on public facility and infrastructure needs was gathered. February 4 Presentation at the Homeless Housing Task Force. Significant input from housing providers was received at this meeting on the topic of affordable housing and the needs of the homeless and near- homeless. February 4 Presentation at the Disability Advisory Council. February 10 Parks Commission presentation to discuss needs at public parks and recreation facilities. February 10 Memo presented at Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission describing the program and seeking input. February 11 Staff attended the Human Services Coalition Meeting to discuss the three-year consolidated Page 6 City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan services plan being developed by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services. An announcement was made at this meeting regarding Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. February 11 Consultation with Irene Stein- Director for the Tompkins County Office for the Aging to discuss priority needs for seniors. February 12 Staff attended the Community Foundation Critical Issues Roundtable on Housing in Tompkins County to take part in the conversation and use the input to guide the development of the consolidated plan. February 17 Economic Development Focus Group. A roundtable discussion with practitioners,business people and business development professionals was held to discuss the economic development needs and priorities of the community. February 23 Focus Group Meeting for Public Services- A meeting was held with community leaders significantly involved with public service programs in the community but not advocating for one program over another. The focus was on identifying broad categories of need without getting mired down in the specific needs of individual agencies. February 26 Input meeting for Consolidated Plan with GIAC Staff. These program leaders are directly involved with many LMI children and families and have a broad knowledge of needs and programs already in place to address to address the needs. February 26 Consultation with Ithaca Housing Authority Executive Director Brenda Westfall and Board President Sam Leonardo were consulted to assure cooperation and coordination between the City and the Housing Authority in meeting the needs of LMI people as it related to housing. In total, over 200 people attended one of the input meetings or consultations coordinated by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency. Special effort was made to ensure that outreach to traditionally underrepresented communities was intentional and effective. A memo was prepared following each meeting, describing the conversation and the results of each meeting. All meeting notes can be found at Exhibit 1 of this document. Page 7 City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan With careful consideration of the input received, the community development goals for the City's first Consolidated plan were developed. The goals are: Summary of Neighborhoods Ithaca's • Preserve neighborhood character and support efforts Community which strengthen mixed-income neighborhoods of Development economic and cultural diversity. Goals • Take appropriate actions to remove or address factors 2004-2008 which detract from a neighborhood or act as a blighting influence in the area. • Support efforts which result in LMI neighborhoods becoming more attractive, more accessible, safer and more desirable places to live. Housing • Improve the quality of existing housing stock. • Increase opportunities for renters to become homeowners within the City • Ensure that more quality affordable rental units are available • Increase the range of housing options and related services for special needs (non-homeless) residents • Provide emergency, transitional, and permanent housing to address unmet needs of homeless persons Public Facilities • Ensure that infrastructure in LMI neighborhoods is made safer,brought into compliance with applicable codes or quality standards • Ensure that LMI neighborhoods have adequate public facilities and that all neighborhood facilities in LMI neighborhoods are operated, sustained, and developed as neighborhood focal points. Economic Development • Create employment opportunities for LMI persons • Physically revitalize the downtown and other commercial areas • Implement economic development components of plans adopted by the City • Expand opportunities for job training and placement for LMI persons, especially people of color and disadvantaged teens Page 8 City of Ithaca Community Development Block Grant Program DRAFT#1 2004 Consolidated Plan Public Services • Ensure that all residents have access to food, shelter, heat, clothing and other essential services. • Increase programs and services geared toward meeting the needs of focus populations.(children, teens, young adults and people of color) • Support existing public services for LMI persons by assisting with capital improvements to stabilize the operations, ensuring the coordination and marketing of existing programs and focusing on removing cultural barriers to people of color and immigrants accessing public services. Page 9 CITY OF ITHACA ,V� "'f''•> ; 108 East Green Street— 3' Floor Ithaca, New _ IliMEMIEll Lc=fTJ[L UJ1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 0__- H. MATTHYS VAN COAT, 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: iuraiicityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 MEMO To: Planning, Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee Members From: Sue Kittel, Deputy Director of Community Development4- Date: March 10, 2004 Re: Property disposition resolution I wanted to take a minute to explain the property disposition resolution that will be coming before you at the March Planning Committee meeting. About five years ago, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency purchased a house to be used as the domestic violence shelter using grant funding from HUD. At the time, it seemed that the best arrangement was to have the IURA own the property and the Advocacy Center(AC), as it is known now, operate the shelter under a licensing agreement. Over time, and with experience, this configuration has proven awkward and inefficient. The license agreement is set to expire May 20 of this year. IURA agency members and staff have been meeting with Advocacy Center staff and board members for more than a year to discuss the situation and make a plan for the future. In the end it was decided that the best outcome for both agencies is to have the shelter completely under the control of the Advocacy Center. In order to transfer property, the IURA needs the authorization of the Common Council. The appropriate and parallel process has been completed by the IURA. You will notice that the property address never appears in the resolution or in any other written communications about the shelter. It is extremely important that the address of the shelter not be discussed in public session for fear that disclosing the location would jeopardize the safety of the clients and staff of the Advocacy Center. IURA staff have consulted with the City Attorney's office to be sure that this resolution without an address is sufficient to effect the property transfer. It is my hope that this memo will fill in the necessary gaps to make the resolution more clear and also steer us away from improper or uncomfortable discussion at the meeting. If specifics about the building or the like need to be discussed, please consider going into executive session. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." t� Di CITY OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. 1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: IURA disposition of property to the Advocacy Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Center of Tompkins County. 3. Project Location: Confidential location within City Of Ithaca 4. Is Proposed Action: X New o Expansion o Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: Sale of existing domestic violence shelter to tenant. 6. Precise Location(Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc. or provide map) Confidential location within City Of Ithaca. Public disclosure would put the safety of clients at risk, constituting an invasion of privacy. Location is available upon request. 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially: less than 1/4 acre Ultimately: less than 1/i acre 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? X Yes o No If No, describe briefly: 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: X Residential o Industrial o Agricultural o Parkland/Open Space o Commercial o Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency(Federal, State or Local): X Yes o No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Approval by Common Council and the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? XYes o No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Certificate of occupancy 12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? o Yes X No I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: 3/10/04 rI�Y PREPARER'S TITLE: Director of Community Development REPRESENTING: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information To Be Completed By Staff In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form(SEAF),the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. Name of Project: IURA Disposition of Domestic Violence Shelter to the Advocacy Center of Tompkins County Yes 1. 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? ❑ 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? ❑ X 5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ❑ 6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ❑ J7� 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? ❑ f 8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views ❑ 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 district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ❑ X 11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors,noise, glare,vibration, or electrical ❑ X disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? 13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? ❑ 14. 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? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? ❑ If any question has been answered YES,a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: r DATE: PREPARER'S TITLE: Dr{e_c,(p- � CoMChftiA �b�41b tiv1 REPRESENTING: i(r net4 Di Declaration of Lead Agency—IURA Disposition of Property to the Advocacy Center of Tompkins County WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of actions 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 action involves the transfer of the domestic violence shelter property from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA)to the Advocacy Center of Tompkins County subject to approval by the Common Council, and WHEREAS, the proposed land acquisition and disposition action is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council does hereby declare itself lead agency for the proposed IURA disposition of property to Advocacy Center of Tompkins County. q:l planninglstaff lnelsliuralproperty disposition\domestic violence shelterlreso pn&ed lead agency-disposition to advocacy center.doc • Di Determination of Environmental Significance—IURA Disposition of Property to the Advocacy Center of Tompkins County WHEREAS, the proposed action is classified as an Unlisted action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act [CEQR Sec. 176-12], and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), now, therefore be it RESOLVED,that the Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Environmental Assessment Form dated March 10, 2004, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Common Council, as lead agency, 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 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 §176-10 of CEQR. q:\planning\stafflnels\iura\property disposition\domestic violence shelter\reso pn&ed neg dec disposition to advocacy center.doc Di Approval of IURA Disposition of Property to the Advocacy Center of Tompkins County WHEREAS, the IURA used CDBG funds to acquire real property that is used by the Advocacy Center of Tompkins County (Advocacy Center) as a domestic violence shelter through a 5-year license agreement that expires in 2005, and WHEREAS, the IURA seeks to transfer ownership of the property to the Advocacy Center, and WHEREAS, the Advocacy Center seeks to acquire ownership of the IURA property, and WHEREAS, the fair market value of the property has been determined through an appraisal to be $129,000, and, WHEREAS, per the IURA disposition policy, and in accordance with General Municipal Law, the proposed sale or lease of real property by the IURA is subject to approval by the Common Council following a public hearing held not less than ten days after publication of a public notice for the hearing containing the following information: • identity of the proposed sponsor; • price to be paid by the sponsor and all other essential terms and conditions of the sales; and, • proposed use of the parcel, and be it further, WHEREAS, public disclosure of the location of the domestic violence shelter would compromise the safety of clients of the Advocacy Center, and WHEREAS, at the February 25, 2004 meeting of the IURA, it was determined the Advocacy Center is an eligible and qualified sponsor to acquire the domestic violence shelter property from the IURA, and WHEREAS, the IURA further authorized disposition of the domestic violence shelter property to the Advocacy Center subject to the following terms, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby approves the IURA-proposed disposition of the domestic violence shelter property as follows: • Buyer: Advocacy Center of Tompkins County • Use: domestic violence shelter • Price: $129,000 • Terms: Buyer shall execute a 5-year, 0% interest, promissory note with the seller in the amount of$129,000, secured by a mortgage on the property, in which the outstanding principal balance declines 20% for each year that the buyer continues to operate a domestic violence shelter serving City of Ithaca residents. q:\planning\stafflnels\iura\property disposition\domestic violence shelter\reso pn&ed disposition to advocacy center 3-17-04.doc D2 New York State Empire Zone Benefits • Zone Incentives Qualified Empire Zone Enterprises (QEZEs) are eligible for sales tax exemption, real property and business tax credits for businesses locating and expanding in such zones. The purpose of the Empire Zones Program is to give companies increasing their employment the opportunity to operate on an almost "tax-free" basis for up to 10 years in designated areas of the State, with additional savings available on a declining basis in years 11 through 15. • QEZE Sales Tax Exemptions Qualified Empire Zone Enterprises (QEZEs) are granted a 10-year exemption from State sales tax on purchases of goods and services (including utility services and owned vehicles) used predominantly in such Zone (effective March 1, 2001). • QEZE Credit for Real Property Taxes Qualified Empire Zone Enterprises are allowed a refundable credit against their business tax equal to a percentage of real property taxes paid based upon increased employment in the zone (effective for. taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2001) • QEZE Tax Reduction Credit Qualified Empire Zone Enterprises are allowed a credit against their tax equal to a percentage of taxes attributable to the zone enterprise(effective taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2001). Additional Zone Incentives • Wage Tax Credit (WTC) This credit is available for up to five consecutive years for companies hiring full-time employees in newly created jobs. For employees in special targeted groups, this credit equals $3,000 per year, with a credit of$1,500 per year effective 1/1/2001, for all other new hires. • Investment Tax Credit(ITC) A credit of 10% is available each year for a manufacturing business that makes eligible production related investments. Eligible expenses include the construction, acquisition, and/or renovation of production facilities and equipment. This benefit is available each year through the life of the zone. • Employment Incentive Credit (EIC) Available to corporations that qualify for an investment tax credit and increase their employment by at least 1%. Employees have to work for at least six months. The credit equals 30% of the investment tax credit for each of the next three consecutive years following the year in which the investment tax credit is claimed. NYS Empire Zone Benefits, p. 2 • New Business Refund Businesses new to New York State are entitled to a 50% cash refund of unused EZ-WTC and ITC amounts. Other businesses may carry forward unused credits indefinitely. • Utility Rate Savings Special reduced electric and gas rates may be available through investor-owned utilities in New York State. Businesses that locate or expand their operations in an EZ may receive significantly reduced rates. • Zone Capital Credit A 25% tax credit against personal or corporate income taxes is available for contributing or purchasing shares in a zone capital corporation; or for a direct equity investment in a certified zone business; or for contributions to approved community development projects within an EZ. • Technical Assistance The SCOPED office is staffed with a professional zone coordinator qualified to assist businesses locating or expanding in an Empire Zone. D2 SUPPORT AND CONCURRENCE WITH THE SCHUYLER COUNTY EMPIRE ZONE REVISION APPLICATION WHEREAS, New York State has created the Empire Zone program to encourage economic development in selected municipalities across the State, and WHEREAS, Schuyler County, as an eligible municipality, received designation as an Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, Schuyler County intends to revise the County Empire Zone boundaries to encourage economic development, and WHEREAS, such revisions include projects undertaken within the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, Common Council of the City of Ithaca is committed to the development of new business within the Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca wishes to support and concur with the Schuyler County Local Law NO. 2 of the year 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that Common Council of the City of Ithaca, in its capacity as governing body of the City of Ithaca, does hereby support and concur with the Schuyler County Empire Zone revision application. D2 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EECUT*E AN EMPIRE ZONE BOUNDARY REVISION AGREEMENT WITH SCHUYLER COUNTY PARTNERSHIP FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS,New York State has created the Empire Zone program to encourage economic development in selected municipalities across the State, and WHEREAS, Schuyler County, as an eligible municipality, received designation as an Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, Schuyler County intends to revise the County Empire Zone boundaries to encourage economic development, and WHEREAS, such revisions include projects undertaken within the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is committed to the development of new business within the Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, an Empire Zone Boundary Revision Agreement between the Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development(SCOPED) and the City of Ithaca must be executed if projects in the City of Ithaca are to included in the Schuyler County Empire Zone, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached Empire Zone Boundary Revision Agreement with Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development. q:\planning\staffldoug mcd\empire zone\resolution to authorize mayor to sign.doc D2 EMPIRE ZONE BOUNDARY REVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2004 by and between the SCHUYLER COUNTY PARTNERSHIP FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT('SCOPED'), a public-private partnership duly formed and validly existing under the laws of the State of New York having an office for the transaction of business at 2 North Franklin Street, Watkins Glen, New York 14891 ("SCOPED"), and City of Ithaca, a municipal corporation of the State of New York having an office for the transaction of business at 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850; WITNESSETH WHEREAS, 'SCOPED' has received and considered applications for projects [A, B, C, etc.] (the "Projects" or individually the "Project"), which are proposed to be undertaken within the City of Ithaca, requesting that the Projects be included within the Schuyler County Empire Zone (the "Zone"); and WHEREAS, the Projects have significant potential for business development and job creation, which would enhance the economic revitalization of Schuyler County and the regional corridor running between it and the populations of the City of Ithaca and surrounding municipalities, and provide job opportunities for its residents; and WHEREAS, 'SCOPED' desires to include the sites of the Projects in the Zone as part of its current boundary revision process; and WHEREAS,'SCOPED' desires to submit to the Commissioner of Economic Development a request to revise the boundaries of the Zone to include the sites of the Projects therein; and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to concur with 'SCOPED's submission to the Commissioner of Economic Development of a request to revise the boundaries of the Zone to include the sites of the Projects within the City of Ithaca in the Zone; and WHEREAS, in the event that any Project fails to be materially completed on or before the second anniversary of the execution of this Agreement(the "Agreed Completion Date"), 'SCOPED' desires to remove the site of such Project from the Zone; and WHEREAS, in the event that 'SCOPED' submits to the Commissioner of Economic Development a request to revise the boundaries of the Zone to remove the site of any Project that fails to be materially completed on or before the Agreed Completion Date,the City of Ithaca desires to concur with such action. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration to each of the parties hereto, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be bound hereby, it is hereby mutually covenanted and agreed as follows: Section 1 (a) In reliance on the descriptions of the Projects contained in the applications submitted to it, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A, 'SCOPED' shall submit to the Commissioner of Economic Development a request to revise the boundaries of the Zone to include the sites of the Projects therein. (b) In the event that any Project fails to be materially completed on or before the Agreed Completion Date, 'SCOPED' may, at its discretion exercised in good faith,take such action as may be necessary to remove the site of any such Project from the Zone. Section 2 (a) The City of Ithaca shall concur with SCOPED's request to the Commissioner of Economic Development to revise the boundaries of the Zone to include the sites of the Projects therein. (b) In the event that any Project fails to be materially completed on or before the Agreed Completion Date, the City of Ithaca shall concur with any action taken by SCOPED pursuant to Section 1(b) of this Agreement to remove the site of any such Project from the Zone. Section 3 This Agreement shall be a contract made under the laws of the State of New York and for all purposes shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York (except to the extent the same are superseded by federal law). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year set forth above. SCHUYLER COUNTY PARTNERSHIP FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: By: Name: Title: CITY OF ITHACA: By: Name: Title: 2 EXHIBIT A PROJECT APPLICATIONS Area Acreage Area 1 Dollar'sWorth Site 0.526 Area 2 Magee Lakefront 1.04 Area 3 Magee Manor 3.4 Area 4 Byrne Dairy Store 0.29 Area 5 Watkins Glen Hotel 0.22 Area 6 Red Newt Winery 0.501 Area 7 Michael Cook Property 0.1 Area8414 & SW 5.4 Area 9 Raymond Street 0.093 Area 10 Padua 1.096 Area 11 Schuyler Hospital 15. Area 12 Wild Wolfe Hollow .1 Area 13 Wagner Lumber 6.0689 Area 14 Franzese 14.2 Area 15 Shepard Niles Site 24.65 Area 16 National Healthcare 1.228 Area 17 Business Park 32.948 Area 18 Krog Site 2.25 Area 19 Franklin Street 10.05 Area 20 Cargill 13.93 Area 21 Lembeck 2.94 Area 22 Scuteri 0.5 Area 23 Simiele 0.58 Area 24 Auble 4.58 Area 25 Robinson 1.43 Area 26 Parmenter Odessa Site 4.95 Area 27 McLaughlin Site 11.35 Area 28 U.S. Salt 15.4 Area 29 Montour House 0.153 Area 30 Seneca Springs Resort 1.4 Area 31 Logan Ridge Estates 2.68 Area 32 Watkins Glen International 3.57 Area 33 Lakewood Vineyards 2.0 Area 34 Hazlitt Vineyards 4.0 Area 35 Villager Motel & Glen Manor 1.621 Area 36 Glen Harbor Marina 2.19 Area 37 Eagle Envelope Company 0.068 Area 38 Winner's Circle Ice Cream 0.13 Area 39 Arcadian Estate Vineyard 0.208 Area 40 Ervay's Inc. 0.81 3 Area Acreage Area 41 South Seneca Marina 0.62 Area 42 Skyland Farms 0.045 Area 43 Sunset View Creamery 0.02 Area 44 Run Rite Construction and Pavement Maintenance 0.101 Area 45 Timothy Wells 0.1 Area 46 Montour Pharmacy 0.28 Area 47 The Falls Home 0.59 Area 48 Colonial Inn & Motel 0.39 Area 49 Kurtz Enterprises 0.2 Area 50 Agriculver Seeds 1.21 Area 51 Biancos Daughter's Restaurant 0.19 Area 52 Chicone Builders 0.434 Area 53 Waterfalls of the Finger Lakes 0.13 Area 54 Doug's Wildflower Café 0.18 Area 55 Pampered and Polished 0.06 Area 56 Parmenter Automotive M.F. 0.22 Area 57 Larry & Charlotte Jaynes Site 1.1 Area 58 Goldon Knight Inn 0.368 Area 59 HL Stephens Furniture 0.33 Area 60 Montour Moose Lodge 0.265 Area 61 Lakegrove Park 1.52 Area 62 Finger Lakes Farmstead Cheese 0.115 Area 63 Seneca Clipper Inn 0.214 Area 64 Magnolia Place B&B 0.093 Area 65 Silver Springs Winery 0.152 Area 66 Madison Avenue property 0.071 Area 67 Vitiv, Inc 0.05 Area 68 Ithaca Harley Davidson 0.38 Area 69 Stone Cat Café 0.12 Area 70 Advantage Medical Billimg 0.02 Area 71 Anchor Inn and Marina 0.49 Area 72 Professor's Place 0.07 Area 73 Jeff s Septic Service 0.65 Area 74 Barry Wixson Contracting 0.218 Area 75 Main Street Montour Falls 2.5 Area 76 Poteat 0.06 Area 77 Seneca Marine Bait & Tackle 0.4 Area 78 Bloomer Creek Vineyard 0.044 Area 79 David Day Site 35.18 Area 80 Area 96 Bill's Machine Shop 5 Area 81 Route 226 Corridor 246 Area 82 Reading Rail Site 247.88 Area 83 RA Ice Cream 0.81 Area 84 Highland Cellars 15.58 4 Area Acreage Area 85 Tyrone Garage 1.89 Area 86 Tri-Lake Video 1.04 Area 87 Diane Yeoman 1.2 Area 88 Montery Jacks 0.47 Area 89 Post Office Property 0.83 Area 90 Mercury Aircraft Building 1.2 Area 91 Millers Fire Equipment & Collectables 31.6 Area 92 Tyrone Industrial Area 90. Area 93 Terry's Small Engine 2.8 Area 94 Lakeside Automotive 2.95 Area 95 Ciminelli/Hilton 0.550 Area 96 Cayuga Green II 1.41 Area 97 Cayuga Green III 1.01 Area 98Gateway I 0.22 Area 99 Gateway II 0.17 Area 100 Inlet Island-Ciaschi 0.83 Area 101 State Theatre 0.27 Area 102 Ithaca Gun 0.34 Area 103 Rothschild B 0.25 Area 104 55 Brown Road 0.42 Area 105 95 Brown Road 0.965 Area 106 35 Thornwood Drive 0.81 Area 107 33 Thornwood Drive 0.46 Area 108 37 Thornwood Drive 0.69 Area 109 9 Brown Road 0.57 Area 110 53 Brown Road 0.528 Area 111 10 Brown Road 0.459 Area 112 22 Thornwood Drive Expansion 0.48 Area 113 22 Thornwood Drive 0.41 Area 114 36 Thornwood Drive 0.688 Area 115 15 Thornwood Drive 0.41 Area 116 30 Brown Road 0.528 Area 117 2353 North Triphammer 0.29 Area 118 Woods Edge Drive 0.89 TOTAL 906.7289 5 D2 1as1 Resolution No. I11f�� SCHUYLER COUNTY LEGISLATURE °V Regular Meeting March 8, 2004 Intro. No. Motion by Approved by Committee Seconded by Approved by Co. Atty. Vote: Ayes Noes Name of Noes RE: LOCAL LAW INTRO. NO. 1/LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2004 AMENDING LOCAL LAW NO. 1 OF 2003 TO REVISE AN EMPIRE ZONE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE) BE IT RESOLVED, that Local Law Intro. No. 1.Local Law No. of the year 2004, in the form hereto annexed be, and hereby is, introduced pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a public hearing shall be held upon said proposed Local Law on April 12, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Legislative Chambers, County Office Building, 105 Ninth Street, Watkins Glen,NY. LOCAL LAW INTRO. NO. 1/LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2004 BE IT ENACTED, by the Schuyler County Legislature, as follows: Section 1. By Local Law No. 1-2003, this Legislature authorized an application for the designation of an Empire Zone relative to certain land within Schuyler County Empire Zone. Section 2. That the County of Schuyler has received Empire Zone approval from New York State. Section 3. By Local Law No. 12-2000, adopted on November 15, 2000, the Empire Zone was established. Section 4. By Local Law No. 1-2001, adopted on January 30, 2001, the Empire Zone was amended. Section 5. By Local Law No. 1-2003, adopted on February 27, 2003, the Empire Zone was amended. Section 6. It is the 893.0789 acres located in Schuyler County and 13.65 acres located in Tompkins County. Section 7. The County of Schuyler is hereby authorized to submit an application to revise the Empire Zone to include the property described in Section 8 of this Local Law. Section 8. The boundary of the Empire Zone, as described in Local Law No. 12-2000, Local Law No. 1-2001, and Local Law No. 1-2003, shall be amended to include the properties generally described in Appendix A attached. Section 9. The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Economic Development is hereby requested to revise the boundaries of the Empire Zone in accordance with this Local Law. Section 10. In all other respects, Local Law No. 12-2000, Local Law No. 1-2001, and Local Law No. 1-2003, shall remain in full force and effect. Section 11. This Local Law shall take effect immediately subject to filing in the Office of the Secretary of State. .. �. CITY OF ITHACA D3 108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New r!m_r-_m. �Q` •,,��- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ~•°'••~Q� 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(a)cityofithaca.org Email: Tura(ct cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 To: Planning, Neighborhood, and Economic Development Committee From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic Development Planner 12 Date: March 11, 2004 Re: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Please find attached the following materials: 1) a Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance with a minor change; 2) a Full Environmental Assessment Form; 3) a resolution for lead agency; 4) a resolution for a negative declaration of significant environmental impact; 5) the County Planning Department's comments on the PUD (plus a letter requesting clarification and a response); 6) three written public comments received by the Department of Planning and Development; and 7) a schedule of previous events and next steps. The minor change to the PUD is in Section 4 (B), "Application for PUD districting" in part 1. The first sentence has been added to clarify when Council would actually receive a report from the Planning Board. Though Council will actually get the report in their mailing before the meeting, the official receipt will actually be at the Council meeting itself. The Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) has already been circulated to City department heads, the County Planning Department, the Conservation Advisory Council, and the Planning 86 Development Board. You will notice that most entries state "N/A" or non-applicable. The first creation of the PUD as a floating zone does not effect any change in the physical world, so most environmental review categories do not apply. A second action of"landing" a PUD on a specific parcel will also have an environmental review component, but it will be much more relevant because it will be for an actual project. Comments from the Conservation Advisory Council were, "PUD Ordinance: NICE WORK. Thresholds OK @ > 60K sq ft undeveloped, > 20K redevelopment. Strengths: Project specific with control and oversight of legislature. More flexibility and give 86 take in development review process." The County Planning Department reviews changes to the Zoning Ordinance under Sections 239-1 and 239-m of the NYS General Municipal Law. Their comments recommended a modification of the PUD (see attachments). At the `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 Committee's discretion, density requirements or maximums could be incorporated into the PUD ordinance, anywhere from the same density allowed in the underlying zoning to some percentage above that density, e.g. 125%, 150%, or 200% of the previously allowed density. Density of development should not be confused with height as it can also mean greater lot coverage. Though the City's Zoning ordinance does not define density, a simple measure could be the number of dwelling units or square feet per acre. If the Committee is interested in some sort of density requirement, planning staff would recommend a density cap at 150% of the allowable density. For example, if a site could previously be developed with 20 dwelling units per acre, the maximum density allowed in a PUD would be 30 dwelling units per acre. This density bonus would certainly be an incentive for a developer to propose a PUD, but it could also be a benefit for the City. Greater density could be achieved in the core of the urbanized area with the oversight and review of both the Planning and Development Board and the Common Council itself. If the Committee chooses to address the County's comments, it takes only a majority of Common Council to pass the ordinance change. If the Committee does not incorporate their comments, it takes a supermajority (majority plus one) of Common Council to approve the PUD. As shown in the schedule, the PUD has been discussed at various meetings. A public hearing has not been noticed or held. If approved by the committee, it could be held at the April Common Council meeting. Lastly, I have asked the Attorney's Office to look into reformatting the PUD to be a separate article in the Zoning Ordinance, instead of amending the ordinance to create a new zoning district. The PUD is different enough from other zoning districts that it deserves a separate section, much like the cluster subdivision. If the Committee approves the PUD, formatting changes will happen before the Council meeting. I will be at your meeting to answer any questions; if you want to talk before then, you can reach me at 274-6557 or timlo(ccityofithaca.org. El 3 3/11/2004 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED "ZONING" TO ESTABLISH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended to create a new zoning district to be known as the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district . Section 1 . Declaration of Legislative Authority, Findings and Purpose . This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority and provisions of the New York State General City Law to promote public health, safety and welfare and the most desirable use of land, to conserve the value of buildings, and to enhance the value and appearance of land throughout the city. As of July 1, 2004, this ordinance will also be enacted pursuant to the authority and provisions of New York State General City Law §81-f, Planned Unit Development Zoning Districts, which was made law on July 29, 2003 . The Common Council finds that this Ordinance : 1 . Will permit flexibility in the application of land development regulations that will encourage innovative development and redevelopment for residential and nonresidential purposes so that a growing demand for other housing and other development and land use may be met by variety in type, design, and layout of dwellings and other buildings and structures, including traditional neighborhood development . 2 . Will provide flexibility in architectural design, placement, and clustering of buildings, use of open areas, provision of circulation facilities, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and parking, and related site and design considerations . 3 . Will encourage the conservation of natural features, preservation of open space and critical and sensitive areas, and protection from natural hazards . 4 . Will provide for efficient use of public facilities . 5 . Will encourage and preserve opportunities for energy- efficient development and redevelopment . \\cityhall\vol2\planning\projects\zoning\pud\pud zoning ordinance.doc 1 3/11/2004 6 . Will promote attractive and functional environments for nonresidential areas that are compatible with surrounding land use . Section 2 . Chapter 325, Section 325-3 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add the definition of Planned Unit Development as follows, "One or more lots, tracts, or parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose density or intensity transfers, density or intensity increase, mixing of land uses, or any combination thereof, and which may not correspond in lot size, bulk, or type of dwelling or building, use, density, intensity, lot coverage, parking, required common open space, or other standards to zoning use district requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located. " Section 3 . The application of the Planned Unit Development ordinance to a proposed development : 1 . Shall be by the owner of the property or properties, or shall be made with the approval of the owner or owners of the property or properties, as demonstrated by submission to the City of Ithaca of a signed "Owner' s Authorization" by the applicant; 2 . Shall be limited to development that is equal to or greater in land area than 60, 000 square feet for undeveloped land or 20, 000 square feet for redeveloped land. 3 . Shall be consistent with and work towards the implementation of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time . Section 4 . Application procedure; zoning approval process . Whenever any Planned Unit Development is proposed, before any permit for the erection of a permanent building in such Planned Unit Development shall be granted, the developer or the developer' s authorized agent shall apply for and secure approval of such Planned Unit Development in accordance with the following procedures . A. Application for sketch plan approval . 1 . A pre-submission conference between the applicant and staff of the Department of Planning and Development may be held to discuss the proposal , outline the \\cityhall\vol2\planning\projects\zoning\pud\pud zoning ordinance.doc 2 3/11/2004 review procedure and required submissions and inform the applicant of minimum standards and potential city concerns of the conceptual project . This step may be beneficial because the applicant will learn about his or her responsibilities before expending significant resources regarding the project . 2 . In order to allow the Planning and Development Board and the developer to reach an understanding on basic design requirements prior to detailed design investment, the developer shall submit a sketch plan of the proposal to the Planning and Development Board. The sketch plan shall be approximately to scale, though it need not be to the precision of a finished engineering drawing, and it shall clearly show the following information: a) The boundaries and included tax parcels in the proposed Planned Unit Development . b) The location of the various uses and their areas in square feet . c) The general outlines of the interior roadway system, including parking and service/delivery areas, and all existing rights-of-way and easements, whether public or private . d) Delineation of the various residential areas indicating for each such area its general extent, size and composition in terms of total number of dwelling units, approximate percentage allocation by dwelling unit type (e .g. , single-family detached, duplex, townhouse, garden apartments, etc. ) ; and general description of the intended market structure (e.g. luxury, middle income, low and moderate income, elderly, family, student, etc . ) plus a calculation of the residential density in dwelling units per gross acre (total area including roadways) for each such area. e) The interior open space system. f) The overall drainage system. g) If grades exceed 3% or portions of the site have a moderate to high susceptibility to erosion, flooding and/or ponding, a topographic map showing contour intervals of not more than five feet of elevation, or as may be reasonably required by the Planning & Development Board, along with an overlay outlining the above susceptible soil areas, if any. \\cityhall\vol2\planning\projects\zoning\pud\pud zoning ordinance.doc 3 3/11/20(M h) Principle ties to the community at large with respect to transportation, water supply and sewage disposal . i) General description of the provision of fire protection services . j ) A location map showing general location within the City of Ithaca (e .g. , a City-wide map or a USGS quadrangle map highlighting the proposed development site would be acceptable) . k) A context map showing building footprints, uses and ownership of all properties within 200 feet of the boundaries of the proposed PUD site. 3 . In addition, the following documentation shall accompany the sketch plan at the request of the Planning and Development Board: a) Evidence that the proposal is compatible with the goals of the City Comprehensive plan. b) A general statement as to how common open space is to be owned and maintained. c) If the development is to be staged, a general indication of how the staging is to proceed. Whether or not the development is to be staged, the sketch plan shall show the intended total project . d) Other plans, drawings or specifications as may be required for an understanding of the proposed development . 4 . The Planning and Development Board shall review the sketch plan and its related documents and shall render either a favorable report to the Common Council or an unfavorable report to the applicant . a) A favorable report shall be based on the following findings which shall be included as part of the report : i . the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan ii . the proposal meets the intent and objectives of a Planned Unit Development as expressed in Section 1 (above) iii . the proposal is conceptually sound in that it conforms to accepted design principles in the proposed functional roadway and pedestrian system, land use configurations, open space \\cityhall\vol2\planning\projects\zoning\pud\pud zoning ordinance.doc 4 3/11/2004 system, drainage system and scale of the elements both absolutely and to one another iv. there are adequate services and utilities available or proposed to be made available for the development b) An unfavorable report shall state clearly the reasons therefore and, if appropriate, point out to the applicant what might be accomplished in order to receive a favorable report . The applicant may, within 10 days after receiving an unfavorable report, file an application (an appeal) for PUD districting with the City Clerk, who shall notify the Mayor to bring the matter to the next Common Council meeting. 5 . The Planning and Development Board shall submit its report within sixty-five (65) days of a submittal of a sketch plan application to the Department of Planning and Development . If no report has been rendered after sixty-five (65) days, the applicant may proceed as if a favorable report were given to Common Council . B. Application for PUD districting 1 . Common Council shall receive a PUD report from the Planning and Development Board or an appl icant' s appeal at a duly convened Common Council meeting. Upon receipt of a favorable report from the Planning and Development Board, or upon an appeal from an unfavorable report, Common Council shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of considering PUD district for the applicant' s plan, said public hearing to be held within 35 days of the receipt of a favorable report or the decision on appeal from an unfavorable report . Notice of this hearing shall be served by the city to the public at least fifteen (15) days before the date of such hearing, by means of a legal notice in the official newspaper of the City of Ithaca. The public hearing shall be held by the Common Council in accordance with its own rules and General City Law §83 . 2 . Common Council shall refer the application to the Tompkins County Planning Department for its analysis and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of §239-1 and §239-m of the General Municipal Law, if \\cityhall\volt\planning\projects\zoning\pud\pud zoning ordinance.doc 5 3/11/2004 applicable . Common Council shall give the Tompkins County Planning Department 30 days to render its report . 3 . In considering an application for a Planned Unit Development district, Common Council shall comply with the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance . 4 . Within 45 days of the public hearing, Common Council shall render its decision on the application. C. Zoning for Planned Unit Development . If Common Council grants the PUD districting, by an ordinance duly adopted, the Zoning Map shall designate the proposed area as "Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Number . " Common Council shall state at this time its findings with respect to the land use intensity and/or dwelling unit density. Common Council may, if it feels it necessary in order to fully protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community, attach to its zoning resolution any additional conditions or requirements for the applicant to meet . Such requirements may include, but are not limited to: 1 . visual and acoustical screening 2 . land use mixes 3 . sequence of construction and/or occupancy 4 . circulation systems (vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian) , including parking and service/delivery areas 5 . protection of natural and/or historic sites 6 . the amount, location, and proposed use of common open space; 7 . the location and physical characteristics of the proposed Planned Unit Development; 8 . the location, design, type, height, and use of structures proposed; 9 . traditional neighborhood development provisions intended to ensure : a) The creation of compact neighborhoods oriented toward pedestrian activity and including an identifiable neighborhood center, commons or square; b) a variety of housing types, jobs, shopping, services, and public facilities; \\cityhall\vol2\planning\projects\zoning\pud\pud zoning ordinance.doc 6 3/11/2004 c) residences, shops, workplaces, and public buildings interwoven within the neighborhood, all within close proximity; d) a pattern of interconnecting streets and blocks, preferably in a rectilinear or grid pattern, that encourages multiple routes from origins and destinations; e) a coordinated transportation system with appropriately designed facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and automotive vehicles; f) preservation, restoration, and maintenance of historic buildings that physically express the history of the City of Ithaca unless it is shown that the building' s condition prohibits preservation, restoration, renovation, or reuse; g) natural features and undisturbed areas are incorporated into the open space of the neighborhood; h) well-configured squares, greens, landscaped streets, and parks are woven into the pattern of the neighborhood; i) public buildings, open spaces, and other visual features act as landmarks, symbols, and focal points for community identity; j ) compatibility of buildings and other improvements as determined by their arrangement, bulk, form, character, and landscaping to establish a livable, harmonious, and diverse environment; and k) public and private buildings that form a consistent, distinct edge, are oriented towards streets, and define the border between the public street space and the private block interior. Section 5 . Site Plan Review. Site plan approval for all Planned Unit Developments shall be obtained in accordance with Chapter 276 of the City Code, Site Plan Review. Section 6 . Regulation after initial construction and occupancy. For the purposes of regulating development and use of property after initial construction and occupancy, the approved final site plan shall serve in lieu of other provisions of this chapter as the use, space and bulk, yard, parking and other land use regulations applicable to the Planned Unit Development district . Any changes other than use changes shall be processed as a change to an approved site plan, in accordance with §276-6 (C) . In addition to the three possible determinations listed in §276-6, the Building Commissioner, in consultation with the Director of Planning and Development, may determine that the \\cityhall\vol2\planning\projects\zoning\pud\pud zoning ordinance.doc 7 3/11/2004 proposed changes are substantially different from the Planned Unit Development district approved by Common Council and that a new PUD application is required. Use changes shall also be in the form of a change to an approved site plan except that the Planning and Development Board shall have the opportunity to make a recommendation to Common Council and that Common Council approval shall be required. It shall be noted, however, that properties lying in Planned Unit Development districts are unique and shall be so considered by the Planning and Development Board or Common Council when evaluating these requests; maintenance of the intent and function of the planned unit shall be of primary importance . Section 7 . Expiration of permit . All permits shall become null and void, and the Zoning Map amendment revoked and restored to the zoning designation to which the district had been prior to the PUD application, if construction has not started within three (3) years of the date of final site plan approval . However, the applicant may petition the Planning and Development Board before the expiration date for an extension of no more than two (2) years . If the applicant can demonstrate substantial investment or reasonable progress towards construction to the Planning and Development Board, the extension shall not be unreasonably denied. Additional extensions may also be granted by the Planning & Development Board. \\cityhall\vol2\planning\projects\zoning\pud\pud zoning ordinance.doc 8 • D3 City of Ithaca Long Environmental Assessment Form Project Information by Applicant Notice: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete parts 2 and 3. Name and Location of Project: ;Planned Unit Development Ordinance ;Name and Address of Applicant: City of Ithaca !Street: 108 East Green Street !City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: N.Y. ZIP: 14850 ;Business Phone: 607-274-6550 Name and Address of Owner (If Name: (Different): Street: City/Town/Village: State: ZIP: ;Business Phone: Type of Project: :Proposal to create a planned unit development !ordinance Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.) _ 1. Character of the land: Generally uniform slope N/A Generally uneven and rolling or irregular 2. Present Land Use: .Urban Industrial Commercial Public Forest Agricultural Other: N/A 3. Total area of project ' Acres X square feet (Chosen units apply to following section also) Minimum of 60,000 SF for undeveloped land or area: minimum of 20.000 SF for redeveloped land Approximate Area (Units in question 3 apply to this Presently!After Completion section) N/A a. Meadov: or Bntshland N/A 1). Wooded N/A A c. Agricultural N/A N,", ci. Wetland (as per Articles 24 of ECL) N;A N;-A e. \Water Surface Area N/A N/A fa,; f Ot i ff. Public N/A N/A g. Water Surface Area N/A N/A !h. Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) i N/A N/A i. Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces j N/A j N/A j. Other (indicate type) 4a. 'What is predominant soil type(s) on N/A !project site? e.g. HdB, silty loam, etc. 14b. Percentage well drained: Moderately: well drained: Poorly drained: N/A 15a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? EN/A Sb. What is depth of bedrock? (feet) jN/A !Sc. What is depth to the water table? (feet) N/A 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site 0-10%: N/A 10-15%: N/A 15% or with slopes: greater: N/A 7. Do hunting~or fishing opportunities presently exist N/A in the project area? 8. Does project site contain any species of plant or N/A animal life that is identified as threatened or Identify each species: N/A Iendangered? 9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on the EN/A ;project site? (i.e., cliffs, other geological formations? !Describe: N/A 10. Is project within or contiguous to a site N/A !designated a unique natural area or critical Describe: N/A ;environmental area by a local or state agency? 11. Is the project site presently used by the N/A community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? 12. Does the present site offer or include scenic 'N/A iews known to be important to the community? 13. Is project contiguous to, or does it contain a N/A building or site listed on or eligible for the National if Yes, Explain: N/A or State Register of Historic Places? _ — —_ or designated a local landmark or in a local N A landmark district? 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Names of stream or name or river N/A to which it is tributary,- V A 15. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiatous a. Name: N/A to project area: N/A b. Size (in aces): N/A '' f j 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning ;N/A classification within a 1/4-mile radius of the project? (e.g. single family residential, R-la or R-1b) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story) 117. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid I N/A or hazardous wastes? cif Yes, Describe: N/A B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) 1. a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor in acres: N/A or square feet: N/A 1. b. Project acreage developed: Acres initially: N/A Acres ultimately: N/A 1. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0 1:d. Length of project in miles: (if appropriate) or feet: N/A 1. e. If project is an expansion or demolition of existing building or use, indicate percent of change proposed: N/A building square footage: developed acreage: . • 1. f Number of off-street parking spaces existing: proposed: N/A 1. g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per day: and per hour: (upon completion of project). N/A 1. h. If residential: Number and type of housing units (not strictures): N/A One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial • Ultimate If non-residential, Orientation: Commercial Industrial Neighborhood City Regional -- Estimated Employment N/A i. Total height of tallest proposed structure: feet. N/A 2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site: or added to the site . N/A 3. Specify what type or vegetation (trees, shrubs, ;round coven and how m ach will be removed from the site: acres, what type? N/A 4. Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? N/A 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to repic_ce that r moved Ql,-..1_ co:._trn'c:iori N/A 6. If single-phase project: N/A Pa..Le = or 12 i y ;Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition) N/A 17. If multi-phased project 7. a. Total number of phases anticipated: N/A 7. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase one month year, (including demolition N/A 7. c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. N/A 17. d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? N/A :'8. Will blasting occur during construction? N/A if Yes, explain N/A 9. Number of jobs generated: during constniction after project is completed ". N/A 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project: N/A Explain: N/A 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? No; if Yes, explain N/A 12. a. Is surface or sub-surface liquid waste disposal involved? N/A 12. b. If Yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) N/A 112. c: If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? N/A 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? N/A 14. a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year flood plain? No 14. b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to: Cayuga Inlet, Fail Creek , Cascadilla Creek, Cayuga Lake, Six Mile Creek, Silver Creek? N/A — i 14. c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as described in Article 24 or the ECL? Yes No N/A 14. d. If Yes for a, b, or c, explain: N/A 1 15. a. Does project involve disposal or solid waste? N/A 15.b. If Yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? N/A 15. c. If Yes, give name: ; location: N/A 15. d. Will any wastes Not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? N/A: if Yes, explain N/A 15. e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes No N/A ; if Yes, explain N/A 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No N/A ; if Yes. specify N/A 17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places? Or designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? Yes No; if Yes, explain N/A I S. Will project produce odors? N/A if Yes, describe N/A 19. Will project produce operating Noise exceed the local ambient Noise level during Pi mot- 1 'construction? N/A ;After construction? N/A 120. Will project result in an increase of energy use? N/A if Yes, indicate type(s) 121. Total anticipated water usage per day gals/day N/A Source of water . 122. Zoning: 122. a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? N/A 22 b. Current specific zoning classification of site? N/A 22. c. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? N/A 22. d. If No, indicate desired zoning: N/A 23.Approvals: Council Adoption 123. a. Is any Federal permit required? 2. Specify No 23. b.Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? yes X No If Yes, Specify 123. c. Local and Regional approvals: (Yes- Approval Submittal Approval Date No) Required (type) Date Council Yes Adoption BZA No P&D Board No Landmarks No BPW No Fire Department No Police No Department IL' A No Building No Commissioner City of Ithaca Long Environmental Assessment Form f,,, 5 H. I 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART 2 IIMPACT ON LAND Can Impact 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical I Small to Potential be Reduced Moderate Large .change to project site? N/A by Project Impact Impact Change? ;Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot !rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slope in the project exceeds 10%. :Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. 1Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more 1vehicles. 1Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or lgenerally within 3 feet of existing ground surface 1Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or I involve i more than one phase or stage. Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil)per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Clearcutting or removal of vegetation other than agricultural crops from more than one-half acre. Construction in a designated floodway. Permanent removal of topsoil from more than one-half acre. Other impacts: 2. Will there be an effect on any unique iandfonns Can Impact , Small to Potential found on the site? (i.e. cliffs, gorges, be Reduced Moderate LarGe formations, etc.) by Project N/A Impact Impact Change? Specific land forms: 3. Will there be an effect on any site designated as a unique natural area or a critical environmental area by a local or state agency? N/A of IMPACT ON WATER 4. Will project affect any water body designated as Can Impact be Small to Potential ,protected? (Under article 15 or 24 of the Environmental Moderate Large Reduced by Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Project l N/A Impact Impact Change? Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. iConstruction in a dosignated freshwater wetland. Other impacts: Can Impact be 5. Will project affect any non-protected existing or Small to Potential Reduced by new body of-water? Moderate Large Project N/A Impact Impact Change? A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Construction, alteration, or conversion of a body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake or the Cayuga Inlet? Other impacts: Small to Potential Can pact be 6. Will project affect surface or groundwater Reduced by ;quality?—N/A Moderate Large project Impact Impact Change? Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Constriction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. h�:?'= of 12 Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. !Other impacts: DRAINAGE 7. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage f Small to Potential f Can Impact be patterns or surface water runoff? Moderate Large ) Reduced by 1N/A i Impact ` Impact ! Project Change? (Project would impede floodwater flows. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Other impacts: �. l IMPACT ON AIR Can Impact P J q y Small to " Potential ,_ be Reduced 8. Will project affect air quality? Large N/A Impact Impact l by Project p p Change? Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period per day. Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24-hour day. Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs per hour or a heat source 'producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. — Other impacts: – — -- -- — – IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 9. Will project affect any threatened or Small to Potential Can Impact endangered species'? Moderate Large be Reduced N/A Impact Impact by Project --- ------- Change? i Reduction of any species listed on the New 'f-ork or Federal list. using the site. found Page S or 12 I over, on, or near site. 1 1 Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more i than twice a year other than for agricultural I purposes. I Other impacts: I Project occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on j or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. IAny impact to an archaeological site or fossil; 1 bed located within the project site. Project occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Other impacts. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will the project affect the quantity or Can Impact Small to Potential quality of existing or future open spaces or be Reduced Moderate Large recreational reational opportunities? Im p act Impact Chaange? t The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. I , Other impacts: I IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing Small to Potential Can Impact be transportation systems? Moderate Large Reduced by Project N/A Impact ' Impact Change? Alteration of present patterns of movement , of people and/or goods. Project will result in traffic problems. Project vill result in [dual wheel; truck traffic (three axle or morel of more than h., , 0 ,112 10 vehicles per eight-hour period per day. 1 Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will project affect the community's Small to Potential Can Impact be sources of fuel or energy supply? Moderate Reduced by Project N/A Impact Large Impact Change? Project causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Project requiring the creation or Iextension ofan energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two residences. Other impacts: , IMPACT ON QUALITY OF DAILY LIFE 16 Will there be objectionable odors, - noise, glare, vibration or.electrical Small to ..:Can Impact be Potential Lar e disturbance during construction of or Moderate act s. Reduced by Project P after completion of this project? Impact Change? N/A Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? j Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) I j Project will produce operating noise exceeding. the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: --_ IMPACT ON HEALTH AND HAZARDS 17. Will project affect public health Small to Potential Can Impact be and safety? ' Moderate Reduced by Project Large Impact N/A Impact ct g Change- Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. I I Pave 1 0 of 12 oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic low-level discharge or emission. Project will result in the handling or I disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e. toxic, poisonous,highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi- ' solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil s _ stabilization or the control of s. . vegetation, insects or animal life on the , • . •. premises of any residential, ; commercial or mdustnal property m exceSs.of 30,000 square feet.,-,- -,;:a ,• Other impacts: IMPACT GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will project affect the character of Small to I Potential Can Impact be Reduced the existing community? Moderate Large . by Project Change? Impact Impact The population of the City in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. , ----- The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5%per year as a result of this project. The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. • Proiect will set an important precedent X _ • Pa,2,2 II of 12 for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Other impacts: 19. Is there public controversy Small to Can Impact be Potential concerning the project? Moderate Reduced by Project Large Impact No Impact Change? Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the i project or have not been contacted. Objections to the project from within 1 the community: If any action in part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to part 3. Determination Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2, and 3) and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonable determined that: A. The project will result in no major impacts and, 'therefore, is one which may not cause significant Y PREPARE A NEGATIVE 'damage to the environment. DECLARATION 'B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant PREPARE A NEGATIVE 'effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been included as part of the DECLARATIO\ proposed project. IC. The project will result in one or more major impacts PREPARE A POSITIVE that cannot be reduced and may cause significant DECLARATION. damage to the environment. PROCEED WITH EIS Date: August 22, 2003 ;Signature of Responsible Official in Lead Agency j i j, ; - / ,t:� % Print or Type name of 1 Responsible Official in lead Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible Agency: officer) Title/Position: Economic Development Planner Lead Agency's Name: Pave I2 of 12 Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING D3 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Edward C. Marx, MCP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5573 September 12, 2003 Ms. Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14350 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add a Planned Unit Development Ordinance Dear Ms. Kusznir: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it may have negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts as described below. We recommend modification of the proposal. If the Board does not incorporate these recommendations into its approval, such approval will require a vote of a supermajoriry (meaning a majority plus one) of all members of the decision- making. body. The Department offers the foilowinf. recommendation on this proposal: You should include a requirement that the proposed density is compatible with either the underlying zoning district or the surro:!ndinC_> uses. This could be added to the criteria for ,v ach a favorable repot could be issued by the Plan :;-'z and Development Board (Section 5). The PL D :s intended :o provide flexibility in redevelop!n_ abandoned prorerties. However, we :believe that sori e densit .cement ens:.-e that ... 71r0.20,-,a eat is Compatible P.'i*.'1 the scale Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it part of the record. C. _ . IT• c,�,,, CITY OF ITHACA 3 IttA 108 East Green Street — 3`d Floor Ithaca, New l (D; • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OgPo Q�" H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - DOUGLAS B. McDONALD. DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IOANN CORNISH. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development - 60--27-i-6550 Communiry Development,IURA - 60--2-4-6559 Email: planning@ cityofithaca.org Email: iuradr cityotithact.org Fax: 60-.2-4-6558 Fax: 60-.2-+65513 November 7, 2003 Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning Tompkins County Department of Planning 121 E. Court Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Request for clarification on GML §239 -1 and -m review Action: Zoning Amendment to add Planned Unit Development Ordinance Dear Mr. Marx: Thank you for your letter dated September 12th in regard to this action. The City of Ithaca requests a clarification on your recommendation for the proposal. You wrote, "[The City] should include a requirement that the proposed density is compatible with either the underlying zoning district or the surrounding uses. This could be added to the criteria for which a favorable report could be issued by the Planning and Development Board (Section 5)...We believe that some density requirement will ensure that the proposed development is compatible with the scale of the surrounding properties." The City of Ithaca is considering adding a density requirement to the proposed PUD ordinance, but would like a clarification on the tei-m "compatible." Does compatible mean equivalent? Would some percentage above the existing allowed density be compatible, e.g. 125% or 150% of the allowed density? Can the City avoid the need for a supermajority vote if the PUD ordinance states that density must be compatible with either the underlying zoning district or the surrounding uses, but leaves the interpretation of "compatible" to the Planning and Development Board? Lastly, to be clear, do you mean that the density requirement could he a part of the Planning and Development Board's favorable report, which is a recommendation to Common Council, or do you mean that it should be a binding requirement of any PUD district in the City- el An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to wor:;h,rce diyervticatir,n." The Planning & Economic Development Committee will review this matter at their November 19th meeting. If you can respond in that short time, it would be most appreciated. If the PUD ordinance is approved at the committee level, it would move on to the full Common Council at their December 3rd meeting, by which time we would definitely need your response. Sincerely, Tim Logue, Neighborhood & Economic Development Planner CC: H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning & Development Norma Schwab, City Attorney rr• Awomer-- ■ « Tompkins County D3 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIh.. 121 East Court Street Ithaca,New York:'14850 Edward C.Marx,AICP Telephone(607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 November 18, 2003 Mr. Tim Logue,Neighborhood and Economic Development Planner City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Clarification of September 12, 2003 comments on Planned Unit Development Ordinance Dear Mr. Logue: In response to your request for clarification,the department offers the following comments: • We intended the term `compatible' in this context to mean that the PUD density be `the same as' the underlying zoning or that allowed on surrounding properties (if the zoning is different). If a higher density is desired, a zone change should be sought in addition to the PUD. • The density requirement should be a binding requirement of the PUD ordinance. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning D3 Good evening. I am here to speak to the issues of the amendment to the comprehensive plan and to the introduction of a PUD into the city zoning. I am very concerned that both the timeline and the content of these two proposals are being driven by the Planning Department on behalf of the proposed redevelopment of the Gun Hill site. The building has sat abandoned for over a decade,why is it so important that all of this be resolved now? In less than 4 months, the area has been proposed for business rezoning,a spot zoning variance,a change to the comprehensive plan,and is by most accounts a target for and motivator of the proposed introduction of PUD zoning. Do you really believe this is not being driven by a project on the table that can't fit into current zoning and for which the developer has a stated deadline of the end of this year? A change to the city plan for Gun Hill is quite possibly appropriate. Yes,the site has been vacant for over a decade,but is residential/commercial the best use of the area,or is it just the last thing they came up with - even the Planning Department's documents have been mixed up,with the same one reused and some of the old information remaining. Introducing PUDs to the city zoning is an enormous change that should not be taken lightly. Due to its inherent flexibility,care and caution are imperative. Very few people I have run across are aware of this proposal,and those who are seem to be very confused about what it means. I don't claim to understand its implications fully,.1-14*rei ad-t mo-to-review.the-LEAF,and I would implore you all to be sure you do before you even consider moving forward with it. If you do move forward,I would urge you to comply with the County Planning Board's recommendations for explicit limits on density and scale reflective of neighboring properties and zoning. I can understand that the Planning Department wants this redevelopment,and although I believe it to be at best deliberately misleading to state that the project does not have a causal relationship with the two proposals before you this evening,we can let that slide. It is your responsibility to make the decision;it is not up to the Planning Department. With that in mind,I would ask you the following:Have you fully digested all the material you have been given? Do you fully understand the implications of these changes? What is the worst-case scenario? We don't need a poorly considered decision here. If these two proposals are not causally related to the presence of the proposed project on Gun Hill,as the Planning Department tells us,then there is no rush. We have all the time in the world. Let's do it right;let's make sure this is what the city needs;let's make sure our current zoning does not already meet our needs;let's make sure the public understands what this will mean. Let's take the time to make a careful and intelligent plan. • L.3( C) R PLAECEIVED OCT 1 5 2003 • �L DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FIL E COPY D3 RECEIVED To: Common Council 's Planning & Economic Develop ent caraitiam From: Jane Marcham Re: The Planned Unit Development Ordinance DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT Planned Unit Development would represent a new and radical departure for city zoning, and that, I believe, is where the problem lies. A PUD district is described as a "floating zone" that could be applied anywhere on the city map and that would be exempt from the usual standards in zoning law regarding building height, lot coverage, offstreet parking, etc. But this concept contains a number of serious drawbacks: Too much flexibility: A PUD ordinance would encourage developers to think the city will entertain plans to construct nearly anything nearly anywhere, as long as projects are large in scale (small projects aren't eligible) . With the lack of specific standards set in law, city decision-makers would have to reinvent them for each separate PUD project. Neighborhoods could no longer count on consistent standards, and developers could no longer be assured of even-handed treatment by the city. Too time-consuming: The Planning Board would have to spend considerable time reviewing an applicant' s preliminary plans before recommending for or against setup of a PUD district. Then if Common Council decides in favor, Council could attach any number of conditions and requirements (the ordinance lists a full page of such topics) , meaning that Council would become deeply involved in the project's design. After this, the Planning Board would conduct its usual Site Plan Review. There's a lot of duplication of effort in this process. Spot zoning: Traditionally this was considered a serious flaw on any zoning map, but "spot zoning" appears to be the very essence of PUD districts. Lost consistency in land use could pose problems for business districts and residential neighborhoods. It also means that property owners can no longer be assured that development they regard as undesirable won't crop up next door. Lack of public input: According to the proposed ordinance, the Planning Board may (optionally) hold a public hearing during the application phase; Common Council will conduct a hearing when it decides whether to designate a PUD district, while plans are still in sketch form. This sounds like inadequate public involvement in what could amount to several months of planning. Finally, it' s not needed: Although the PUD ordinance says it aims to promote flexibility, variety, innovation, efficiency, etc. , for the betterment of the city, it's hard to recall any desirable project in the past that traditional zoning has impeded. Certainly zoning has not prevented the city itself from tackling any number of ambitious projects in recent years. The City of Ithaca does have a highly developed zoning code, and at times we could wish for simpler ways of doing things. What we don't need are the PUD ordinance' s more complex processes with fewer safeguards for the general public. `0 15. 03 . iMax el.PAA& 41 '4o Cr D3 09/17/2003 Some Comments Regarding the Proposed PUD Zoning Ordinance Amendment Good Evening. I am making these comments on behalf of a sub-committee of Fall Creek Neighborhood Association residents who have some concerns, recognizing that the Ithaca Gun site might well be the test case for a PUD zone. I should also mention that I served for 6 years on the Planning and Development Board under the Nichols administration. I should state that we had a copy of the proposed legislation but did not have a copy of the LEAF. . These are some of the concerns regarding the proposed PUD. Both the intended "advantages" to the "public" and the criteria for determining whether a project is eligble for this type of zoning is too vague. A PUD zone has no maximum density or height limit. Terms like "innovative development", "flexibility in architectural design" and "attractive and functional environments" puts most the determination of appropriateness and work- load on an already stretched Planning staff and Planning Board. The PUD zoning district can be placed anywhere in the City, and as the langnmge currently reads, without even a public hearing until the proposal has already' gone through the Planning Board "approval" process. The assurance that the PUD must be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan offers little security as we know the Plan can be changed. Zoning districts can be changed. Its hard to imagine how a PUD could be changed Typically PU'D districts are used in suburban or undeveloped areas. We would like to urge that the Planning staff provide Council with some specific examples of successful us PUDs in communities such as the City of Ithaca and to identify specific sites within the City that might be eligible. We also would like to know how the threshold lot sizes were determined. Lastly we would like to know why a Mayor and Common Council that has on months left in office. is apparently" fast-tracking a piece ut iegi la.tlon that t takc - urdi July of-2004. This proposal has too many far-reaching implications for the entire city to be voted on ahead of the enabling legislation taking effect and without answers to these questions. j D3 Schedule for Creating a Planned Unit Development Ordinance 1 Planning Committee Mailing 8/14/2003 Mail Concept Memo and Draft PUD X Discussion on the proposal to create a planned 2 Planning Committee Meeting 8/20/2003 unit development X Circulate EAF for Comments and GML Distribute EAF to CAC, Planning Board, County 3 Review 8/26/2003 Planning Commissioner,GML Review, etc. X 4 CAC Meeting 9/8/2003 Discussion and Comments X Draft PUD Ordinance, Resolutions for lead 5 Planning Committee Mailing 9/12/2003 agency and neg dec.,cover memo, and Long X Environmental Assessment Form, any 6 Planning&ED Comm.Mtg 9/17/2003 Discussion X 7 Planning&Dev. Board Mtg 9/23/2003 Discussion X 8 Planning&ED Comm.Mtg 10/15/2003 Discussion X 9 Planning&Dev.Board Mtg 10/28/2003 Discussion and Comments X 10 Planning&ED Comm.Mtg 11/19/2003 Discussion X 11 Planning,Neigh&ED Comm.Mtg 2/18/2004 Presentation X 12 Planning, Neigh&ED Comm.Mtg 3/17/2004 Discussion 13 Notice of Public Hearing ? Legal Notice printed in Ithaca Journal Draft PUD Ordinance, Resolutions for lead 14 Common Council Mailing ? agency and neg dec.,cover memo,and Long Environmental Assessment Form, any 15 Common Council Meeting ? Public hearing/adoption of legislation Documents to be Completed X Draft PUD X Concept Memo X EAF X Resolution to declare lead agency X NegDec Resolution 11-Mar-04 D3 PLANNING,NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 17,2004 AGENDA ITEM FOR COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Planned Unit Development (PUD) District- Declaration of Lead Agency Status for Environmental Review 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 amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to establish Planned Unit Development (PUD) district regulations is a "Type I" Action pursuant to City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR) and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) which requires review under CEQR and SEQR; 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 amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to establish Planned Unit Development (PUD) district regulations. \\Cityhall\vo12\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\Lead Agency PUD March 2004.doc 03/11/04 D3 PLANNING,NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 17, 2004 AGENDA ITEM FOR COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Planned Unit Development (PUD) District- Declaration of No Significant Environmental Impact WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is proposing a zoning amendment which would create a new zone to be known as the Planned Unit Development district (PUD), and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF),including Parts I and II, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an Type I action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the LEAF, prepared by City of Ithaca Planning&Development Department staff, and it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment;now, therefore,be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review for the adoption of this plan 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. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street— 3`d Floor Ithaca, New 4 PETEIMETfl s �:�7,114 ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 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: Planning, Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee FROM: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner DATE: March 3, 2004 SUBJECT: Environmental Review for the Sale of City Surplus Land The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the sale of City surplus lands at the spring City/County auction. Enclosed please find a spreadsheet and maps containing properties owned by the City of Ithaca, which have been recommended by city staff for sale at public auction. For all properties to be sold at auction, a letter describing the process of the sale will be sent by the auctioneer to all property owners living within 200 ft. of the property to be sold. Sale of these properties will be advertised. The listing will include the location, dimensions, zoning classification, the type of title, and any encumbrances upon the title (such as easements). All properties auctioned off are to be sold with a quitclaim deed. An environmental review for this action has been prepared and short environmental review forms have been completed for each of these properties and has been circulated to the City Conservation Advisory Committee, the Planning Board, the County Planning Department, and various City staff No significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this action, therefore a negative declaration of environmental impact is recommended. Also enclosed for your consideration are draft resolutions for lead agency, determination of environmental significance, and approval. If you have any questions or comments regarding any of the enclosed information, please feel free to contact me at 274-6410. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 4 3/4/2004 City Owned Surplus Properties 116.-1-3 Elmira Road Giles Street right of This property will have to be sold subject to an easement to cross the way Giles Street property. There is a sewer line through the middle of this parcel serving the two properties above it.Any sale must include an easement to enter and maintain same. This property needs a survey for the property 47.-4-15 Univeristy Avenue boundaries and for the location of the easement. q:\planning\staff\jennifer\city owned properties\2004\04-02-13surplusprop D4 CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM_ Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. 1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: City of Ithaca Sale of City Owned Surplus Property 3. Project Location: Elmira Road,Ithaca 4. Is Proposed Action: Newl Expansion Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: Sale of City Owned surplus land—Parcel#116.-1-3 (See Map) 6. Precise Location(Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or provide map) Elmira Road 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially: _7,455 square feet Ultimately: 7,455 square feet 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?Yes 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: Residential Industrial Agricultural Parkland/Open Space 'Commercial Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency(Federal, State or Local): 'Yes No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Common Council Approval of sale 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? Yes No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? Yes No IN/AI I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge PREPARER'S SIGNAT ' .• _�LJk DATE: March 4, 2004 PREPARER'S TITLE: Econo is De hop' 'Tanner REPRESENTING: City o thaca q:\planning\staffljennifer\city owned properties\2004\seafelmira.doc SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information To Be Completed By Applicant In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form(SEAF), the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. IIName of Project: Sale of City Surplus Property 1 Elmira Road Parcel#116.-1-3 (See Map Yes No 1.Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than one acre of land? X 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? X 3.Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? X 4.Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? X 5.Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? X 6.Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? X 7.Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? X 8.Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or X 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 X district? 10.Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? X 11.Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation X 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 completion? X 13.Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? X 14.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 X the character of the community or neighborhood? 15.Is there public controversy concerning the project? X If any question has been answered YES,a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: `EWA &11111,„,...._ DATE: March 4, 2004 PREPARER'S TITLE: Gnomic IIZ) e opment er REPRESENTING: y of Ithaca 1 SEAFElmiraPartll airy OWNED UR P TI aJ Z,Z' /►► .� I (A i i 0 C I / , i it - Z -i , , - , t. r je. 116 j , , • Z, A / /, Property Boundarie ' Buildings Surplus City Owned Property Scale: 1 in. = 100 ft. 2113/2004 D4 CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. 1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: City of Ithaca Sale of City Owned Surplus Property 3. Project Location: Giles Street, Ithaca 4. Is Proposed Action: !New Expansion Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: Sale of City Owned surplus land—Giles Street (See Map) 6. Precise Location(Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or provide map) Giles Street 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially: _7,421 square feet Ultimately: 7,421 square feet 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?Yes 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: [Residential Industrial Agricultural Parkland/Open Space Commercial Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency(Federal, State or Local): 'Yes No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Common Council Approval of sale 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? Yes 'No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? Yes No [N/AI I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge PREPARER'S SIGNATURE` Inv& TE: March 4,2004 PREPARER'S TITLE: Ec i l omi elo '�'lanner REPRESENTING: City' "ha q:\planning\staff\j ennifer\city owned properties\2004\seafgiles.doc SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information To Be Completed By Applicant In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. flame of Project: Sale of City Surplus Property I Giles Street Right of Way (See Map) Yes No 1.Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than one acre of land? X 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? X 3.Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? X 4.Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? X 5.Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? X 6.Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? X 7.Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? X 8.Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or X 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 X district? 10.Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? X 11.Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation X 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 completion? X 13.Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? X 14.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 X the character of the community or neighborhood? 15.Is there public controversy concerning the project? X If any question has been answered YES,a comple -d Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNAT �� t �■111 _ DATE: March 4, 2004 PREPARER'S TITLE: Ec o nom'& Develo.m Planner REPRESENTING: y of Ithaca 1 SEAFGilesPartII CITY OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTIES r,(</ GI.LES STREET PROPERTIES 7w .., ,,. . . . ..._-- . , . . , . , . . . . , . . . .. . . . . , . . . . . . . , , . ,,,,..„,,,,, /. ,,‘„, ,„., •_ . . , . , .•,<„.. , . AP*S■400y:::::,::',,;',..,,,,,,, ., ..,‘, maitio:::::::::' ,;,,,..: :i,, ,, % ..... .. . . . , . . . . . • . , . . . , . , . , . . , , . . „ . . . . . , . • . . • , .. . .. . . . . .,.. N _. _... _ __.... ......._..... . . N , s Property Boundarie : ':. •: Buildings Surplus City 01111111111111 Owned Property Scale: fin. = 100 ft. 2/13/2004 D4 CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. 1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: City of Ithaca Sale of City Owned Surplus Property 3. Project Location: University Avenue, Ithaca 4. Is Proposed Action: 1Newl Expansion Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: Sale of City Owned surplus land—Parcel#47.-4-15 6. Precise Location(Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or provide map) University Avenue 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially: 4,293 square feet Ultimately: 4,293 square feet 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: !Residential Industrial Agricultural Parkland/Open Space Commercial Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency(Federal, State or Local): IYes No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Common Council Approval of sale 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? Yes INo If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? Yes No 1N/A I certify that the information��ovided above is true to the best of my knowledge PREPARER'S SIGNATURE:I!M A 1 DATE: March 4, 2004 PREPARER'S TITLE: Econom' Deve o' ' t Planner REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca q:\planning\staff\jennifer\city owned properties\2004\seafuniversity.doc SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information To Be Completed By Applicant In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. 'Name of Project: Sale of City Surplus Property I University Avenue Parcel#47.-4-15 (See Map) Yes No 1.Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than one acre of land? X 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? X 3.Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? X 4.Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? X 5.Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? X 6.Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? X 7.Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? X 8.Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or X 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 X district? 10.Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? X 11.Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation X 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 completion? X 13.Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? X 14.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 X the character of the community or neighborhood? 15.Is there public controversy concerning the project? X If any question has been answered YES, a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE\ _ DATE: March 4, 2004 PREPARER'S TITLE: Econ. is De elo - t Planner REPRESENTING: Cit : Ithaca 1 SEAFUniversityPart II I j Ili , I 1 • --- / I 1 . ..i.,., ,. -..: ., , .' / i `47 1 . 7/ - - I . II� I � a I/// w ! I� �CC J/t I Property boundaries • I Property boundaries — , /,..._,„ Owned Property . ; , Scale: 1 in. = 100 ft. 2/13/2004 — ologvi 1°#'0. - 4uo°� s'"dWO� o .10 &WA �ati'Io5 R. aa�Dls A30)% saN9 P10 �° UO, N • ly/� .t10',' {uMV 4aa t ua a)q 11 `�.i1:11,Y 11 �voo ha,V u°11 11aw`l a41 syl de°1 �'G)'S tenn'4V, :hits V"'M4}edaidSI .1aPI}1°o 2.11a41 �( dp.' 1d ss°3°v j'°ss d 3°°as u1 P ,a ua sal auaall e 3� 3� Q., s ,lµvoN °sd}°u°.l 1Ma°uvP1aN°s)gn1 us it P J se 1�.��x�%'al tvu°ls, uoit% aR1 0,t a41 uo• a plans �.1a1(1 Sad(-� f ti v1 n N 2D/A2 \ ,Y �r ;slays 3o}a�}jeuu}o a1u°lgapeu P1 a1eiS KyOf °1 )!1'a 0 AvarsuYa JJ L4,''°p 1 03y�''', Pu 1 tu1 1aP vo'°u1 S O/6V\ ?��`, ;;0•'+'1;�' 15 s`�Pplp Pun,5`p6 ` Z•1`\\ •�'`y�L'+p'i f' Y�(1°191Y 11x^`ti tYyV t,I 1013°15\n4Y '1 1�. \ ''.�V `N +�Yt' ,'•` � '��11�0\li\M L'4.1Y1°�13, •� �J� © p ,s ,,y1„ . Qty 3ti �(QM` " i� 11111 03401iJ C � .7.,Qtr J �Ni�NN�� Yo9t ql�s,_��) 1 OL)�111111 OHO, , `� 1 41° S x j i &g. �/'' \\\"s , a IN v . -/_ z NL 4_ . • 47.3" , •1d� a�,(D0,, i„0 4' 1 ° z! f3c0 w a �. rc � - W . • o t h t ti 1 p �,rp A N' �p D% 4 lyiN n t� l c,4° tt� oy O� � �ea ?-Os � A i D )� },g aH• Y o / air . 0►1Hhda i�` oN � QNV1 \. .."'-' ...''' Q i s ' v 3�•' - q�! Gi ' ; y. t t ..y4Qtcit' JC iZ1Q1 1 to,A otJ4. alt �� O N ' r d A ye ' O,; ,��4 �g > X( 0 j� in X� 3o100,.: H 1. r t � �;��� dw� � � � y ° ..',1.\1.-1 / * s` t7 \ e - o .o ( y \ ff h /..,"..{c or • v ,. � d / 7 Y w \, % y l.,/.'-1 ' p � 0 4')77�• �' Y D4 SALE OF CITY OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTIES—Designation of Lead Agency Status for Environmental Review March 10, 2004 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 proposal to sell city surplus properties at public auction is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance and to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, which requires review under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and RESOLVED, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself as lead agency for the environmental review of the sale of City owned surplus properties. q:\planning\staff\jennifer\city owned properties\2004\resolution-lead agency.doc 03/10/04 D4 SALE OF CITY OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTIES—Declaration of No Significant Environmental Effect March 10,2004 WHEREAS, a listing of City owned properties considered appropriate for sale has been generated and circulated to the Common Council, City Boards and Staff, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental assessment forms have been completed, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an "unlisted" action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is an unlisted action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore,be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby does determine that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary under the circumstances, and be it further RESOLVED, this resolution shall constitute notice of this negative declaration, and the City Clerk be, and hereby is, directed to file a copy of the same, together with the attachment, in the City Clerk's office and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. q:\planning\staft\jennifer\city owned properties\2004\resolution-negdec.doc 03/10/04 D4 SALE OF CITY OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTIES—Resolution I-win uvai March 10,2004 WHEREAS, a listing of City owned properties considered appropriate for sale was generated and was circulated along with maps of the properties to the Common Council, the Mayor, the Board of Public Works, the Planning and Development Board, the Conservation Advisory Council, the County Planning Department and various City staff, and WHEREAS, these properties have been determined to be of no immediate or future use to the City, and WHEREAS, the Planning, Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee recommended that the surplus properties be auctioned off at the 2004 spring City/County auction, and WHEREAS,property owners within 200 feet of each of the properties on the list will be notified of the auction, and WHEREAS, Common Council, as Lead Agency, has completed an environmental review of the project and has declared that the Sale of the City Owned Surplus Properties will not have a significant environmental impact; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that Common Council directs that the listed surplus properties be sold at the May City/County Auction, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute any and all instruments necessary to carryout these sales by quit-claim deed. D5 Department of Planning and Development 2004 Priority Projects WHEREAS, the Department of Planning & Development's proposed 2004 High Priorities Work Program has been reviewed by the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee of Council, now therefore it be resolved RESOLVED, that the Planning,Neighborhood and Economic Development Committee recommends the Priority Projects 2004 on to Common Council for approval as the Department's priority projects for 2004: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: • Provide assistance to major downtown development projects, including Cayuga Green II, Gateway Project, and State Theatre, and work with preferred developer on lease up of retail space under Cayuga and Green Street Garages. • Continue downtown business retention and recruitment program. • Complete planning for repair or replacement of part or all of the Green Street Garage. • Continue planning for additional parking in Collegetown. • Complete acquisition of Inlet Island development parcel. Begin process of developing City- owned parcel on Inlet Island, beginning with selection of preferred developer. • Continue planning for additional waterfront development in cooperation with Tompkins County and others. • Continue planning for potential land uses of city-owned property in the southwest area. Continue work on Southwest Circulation Plan. Continue Elmira Road/Meadow Street pedestrian and roadway improvements. • Continue planning and design for construction of Cherry Street extension. NEIGHBORHOODS AND QUALITY OF LIFE: • Continue implementation of$2 million Neighborhood Housing Initiative to acquire and rehabilitate substandard rental housing for sale to owner-occupants.. • Complete Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan and continue neighborhood planning initiative. • Continue construction of first phase traffic calming projects. Continue planning and design for citywide program upon authorization of Common Council. • Write a comprehensive plan for a citwide trail system connecting residential neighborhoods and commercial areas to open space, natural areas and regional trail system. • Begin redevelopment of West Spencer Street city-owned properties. • Continue planning and development of individual trail projects. Continue search for outside funding for completion of the Inlet Island Promenade. Complete desigh and begin right-of- way acquisition for Phase II of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. Continue to seek funding for Phase III of Cayuga Water Trail (Farmer's Market to Visitor's Center). Begin planning for South Hill trail (Buttermilk Falls to South Hill Recreation Way). • Complete work with County on Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). Begin work on developing implementation strategies. • Continue work on acquisition as they become available of critical parcels in Six Mile Creek gorge, using existing reserve fund allocation and proceeds from State grant, if awarded. • Complete Historic Preservation Guidelines. • Continue planning for pedestrian linkages across Route 13 at various locations, including Dey Street, Third Streets and south of Six Mile Creek. Continue to seek funding for implementation. • Begin implementation of Bicycle Plan. • Continue planning for dredging of city waterways. Find acceptable dredge spoil deposition site. INFORMATION ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT: • Complete citywide GIS implementation plan. • Implementation of GIS program, including web deployment and data development according to implementation plan. • Complete periodically required improvements to "ithacamaps" web based GIS application, particularly data updates and additions. REGULATIONS AND MAJOR PERMITS: • Continue review of major Cornell projects. • Complete revisions to Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. • Seek funding to complete documentation for historic district designations. GRANTS: • Complete implementation of the FY2003 Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award—expansion of the Drop-In Children's daycare center and construction of six affordable housing units on scattered sites in the Northside Triangle neighborhood. • Development of 5-year Consolidated Plan to identify high-priority community development needs and guide the use of approximately $1.5 million to be received annually through the CDBG Entitlement Program from the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). Entitlement funds are available to address needs in the areas of homelessness, housing, economic development, neighborhood and public facilities infrastructure, and public services. • Development of the FY2004 Action Plan identifying specific activities to be funded in the first year of the CDBG Entitlement program. Begin implementation. DRAFT COPY Not Yet Approved By Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee Planning, Neighborhoods & and Economic Development Committee January 21, 2004 Minutes Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Michelle Berry; Dan Cogan; Pam Mackesey; Gayraud Townsend and Mayor Carolyn Peterson. Other City Elected Officials Attending: Maria Coles David Whitmore and Joel Zumoff (Whitmore left at approximately 8:20 p.m. after the vote on the Community Development Block Grant- Citizen Participation Plan.) Staff Attending: H. Matthys Van Cort,Nels Bohn, JoAnn Cornish, Bill Gray, Sue Kittel, Jennifer Kusznir, Tim Logue, Doug McDonald. Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Mary Tomlan. A. Public Comment and Responses John Schroeder, Guy Gerard and Joel Harlan spoke in that order. B. Action Items 1. Community Development Block Grant- Citizen Participation Plan Nels Bohn and Sue Kittel presented the proposed amendments to the City's Citizen Participation Plan. After some discussion, on a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of the proposed plan and directed that the it be referred to Common Council for Action. (5-0) 2. Waterfront Zone—Revision to Existing Ordinance JoAnn Cornish and Jennifer Kusznir explained the proposed revisions to the zoning for the Inlet Island. After thorough discussion, Cogan moved all three resolutions: Lead Agency, Negative Declaration for Environmental Significance and Approval, seconded by Berry. Approved unanimously. - 1 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0121.doc DRAFT COPY Not Yet Approved By Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee C. Other Items 1. Taughannock Boulevard Extension—Report and Discussion Bill Gray, JoAnn Cornish and Tim Logue presented the history of the South West area and the circulation problems in and surrounding the area. A lengthy discussion followed. Committee decided to discuss the issues again at a later time. Bill Gray said that he would not act on the Board of Public Works resolution regarding the study. 2. Seneca Place on the Commons—Report Doug McDonald reported on the status of Seneca Place on The Commons. D. Executive Session On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the Committee unanimously approved a motion to enter into Executive Session at 10:30 p.m. to discuss possible property acquisition. Committee returned to open session. Tomlan reported that no action was taken. E. On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. - 2 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0121.doc DRAFT COPY Not Yet Approved By Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee Planning, Neighborhoods & and Economic Development Committee February 18,2004 Minutes Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Michelle Berry; Dan Cogan; Pam Mackesey, Gayraud Townsend Other City Elected Officials Attending: Maria Coles, Joel Zumoff and Mayor Carolyn Peterson. Staff Attending: Matthys Van Cort, Bill Gray, Jennifer Kusznir, Tim Logue, Doug McDonald. Others Attending: Gary Ferguson Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Mary Tomlan. A. Public Comment and Responses Alex Periales, Joel Harlan and Guy Gerard addressed the Committee B. Announcements and Reports 1. Cayuga Green Matthys Van Cort reported that there would be a meeting next Wednesday on the Cayuga Green Project including Steve Bloomfield and Ken Schon of Bloomfield Interests, the preferred developer for the project. 2. Empire Zone Doug McDonald explained the proposed local Empire Zone, for which Tompkins County Area Development Corporation (TCAD)recently submitted an application to Schuyler County Zone Board and the State of New York. C. Other Items 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning—Presentation Tim Logue explained the concept of the PUD and an ordinance for the City of Ithaca that was drafted in 2003 for Common Council's consideration. Logue told the Committee where the PUD might be used in the City of Ithaca and how the ordinance could work if it were made law in the City. - 1 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0218 draft.doc DRAFT COPY Not Yet Approved By Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee 2. Southwest Area Circulation Study—Discussion Chair Tomlan gave a brief history of the development of the Southwest and of the proposed study. Bill Gray and Tim Logue explained the proposed study and answered questions from the Committee. Van Cort also responded to questions about areas in the Southwest, approved development projects and possible future uses of the city owned land in the area. D. Action Items 1. Waterfront Zone, amendments to ordinance—Resolutions Jennifer Kusznir explained the proposed changes to the zoning for Inlet Island. On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Berry, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of the proposed amendments and directed that they be referred to Common Council for Action. (5-0-0) 2. Ithaca Downtown Partnership Trolley Study, Proposed Funding Request Gary Ferguson and Ray Schlather presented a proposal to study the feasibility of a trolley connecting Downtown to Cornell and possibly to the West End. They are requesting $10,000 from the City of Ithaca with a total study cost of$25,000. The sense of the Committee was that the issue should be referred to the City Administration Committee for consideration of the City contribution to the study. 3. Disposal of city-owned surplus property—presentation Jennifer Kusznir described the properties that were proposed for disposition at the May 2004 auction. Former alderperson Susan Blumenthal and Jim Giovannoni were present to answer questions about the sale of the property fronting on Giles Street. The sense of the Committee was that the property information should be circulated to the appropriate bodies for review and comment and returned to the Committee and Council for action. 4. City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, minor revisions Jennifer Kusznir explained the minor changes to the Ordinance that were recommended by the City Attorney's office. On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Townsend, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of the proposed amendments and directed that they be referred to Common Council for Action. (4-0-0) (Berry had left the meeting by the time of this vote.) - 2 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0218 draft.doc DRAFT COPY Not Yet Approved By Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee 5. Downtown Ithaca Development Strategy: 2000-2010, Updated and Amended Gary Ferguson and Doug McDonald presented the Downtown Ithaca Development Strategy to the Committee. The Committee was supportive of the Downtown Ithaca Partnership and. On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Townsend, the Committee unanimously recommended that the Common Council accept and strongly endorse the Strategy. (4-0-0) E. Adjournment On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Townsend, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. - 3 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0218 draft.doc