HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-04 Planning & Economic Develoment Committee Meeting Agenda I MEETING NOTICE
E k
City of Ithaca
Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday,June 16, 2004
Common Council Chambers
City Hall -- 108 East Green Street
7:00 p.m.
Agenda
A. Agenda Review
B. Public Comment and Response
C. Special Topic for Discussion - Green Street Garage 1 hour
D. Announcements and Reports
1. Building Department-Report 30 minutes
D. Action Items
1. Support and Concurrence with the Tompkins County Legislature and
the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Resolutions for
Designation of Certain Areas within Tompkins County and the
City of Ithaca as an Empire Zone - Resolution (materials enclosed) 10 minutes
2. Neighborhood Housing Initiative Program Amendment- Resolution
(materials enclosed) 20 minutes
E. Other Items
1. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan -Presentation/Discussion
(materials enclosed) 20 minutes
2. Planned Unit Development- Discussion (materials enclosed) 10 minutes
3. U-1 Zone (Cornell University) Amendment - Discussion (materials enclosed) 15 minutes
F. Approval of Minutes -April 21,2004 and May 19,2004 (to be distributed) 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, June 15, 2004.
Approved on December 21,2006
at the
Planning,Neighorhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
Planning, Neighborhoods & and Economic Development Committee
June 16, 2004
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Michelle Berry; Dan Cogan; and Pam
Mackesey
Committee Members Excused: Gayraud Townsend
Other Elected City Officials Attending: Mayor Carolyn Peterson; Alderpersons Michael
Taylor, David Whitmore and Joel Zumoff
City Staff Attending: Sue Kittel, Deputy Director of Community Development; Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency; Tim Logue,Neighborhood&Economic Development Planner; Phyllis Radke,
Building Commissioner; and H. Matthys Van Coil, Director of Planning &Development
Others Attending: Tracy Farrell, member, Homeownership Investment Committee; Gary
Ferguson, Executive Director, Ithaca Downtown Partnership; Heather Filiberto, Senior Planner,
Tompkins County Planning Department; Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning
Meeting was called to order by Mary Tomlan at 7:10 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
B. Public Comment and Responses
Joel Harlan,Newfield, commented on anticipated future development of Inlet Island.
Judy Briggs, a resident of the South-of-the-[Six Mile] Creek neighborhood,noted the
concerns of residents and pedestrians about traffic volume on S. Plain Street, and the
desirability of having a painted crosswalk at the intersection of Hyers Street.
Dan Krall, also a South-of-the-Creek resident,provided copies of a letter addressed to the
mayor suggesting immediate measures that could be taken to mitigate the dangerous traffic
conditions.
Sue Perlgut, another South-of-the-Creek resident, thanked Alderpersons Mackesey and Coles
for their responsiveness, but noted that there had been no action since she had previously
spoken to the Board of Public Works. She was willing to get out and paint crosswalks
herself.
- 1 -
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Planning,Neighborhoods and Eco Dev Committee 2004\Minutes\0616.doc
Approved on December 21,2006
at the
Planning,Neighorhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
Sarah Adams, of N. Tioga Street, expressed concerns regarding the proposed Planned Unit
Development (PUD) ordinance. Though improved from a previous version with the
introduction of some criteria, its wording was still vague in protecting neighborhoods from
density and traffic.
Alayne MacArthur, a South-of-the-Creek resident,noted that the health of the neighborhood
was important for the community. She urged progress in traffic calming, and thanked
planning staff members Tim Logue and Leslie Chatterton for their efforts.
Peter Bloom, of Willard Way,who had filed an Article 78 proceeding regarding the project
for the Ithaca Gun site,noted that he and his wife have reached agreement with the developer
and dropped the lawsuit. He expressed concern about any potential application of a PUD
ordinance to the site.
Susan Hurwitz, of the South-of-the-Creek neighborhood, asked for signs that would welcome
persons to the neighborhood and state "no trucks" or"please slow down."
Pam Mackesey and Michelle Berry thanked the speakers for coming to present their
concerns. Mackesey noted that the current road construction projects caused problems for
drivers and residents alike. Berry urged drivers to be more alert for safety. Mayor Carolyn
Peterson stated that she would meet with one of the city engineers, and Mackesey said she
would follow through with the traffic engineer.
C. Green Garage—Discussion
Thys Van Cort, Director of Planning &Development, answered committee members'
questions on the condition of the Green Garage and its future repair or reconstruction.
D. Announcements and Reports
1. Building Department—Report
Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke discussed the report on Building Department
operations that she had prepared for committee members. This report included the
department's mission statement, an outline of basic services provided by the department, and
program analyses of output, staffing and revenues. Radke pointed out the revenues brought
in by the department's work and her concerns about staffing levels needed to meet the work
at hand. She and committee members discussed in particular the life safety importance of
housing inspections and the difficulties in the process of enforcing the exterior property
maintenance ordinance.
(Alderperson Berry was excused and left the meeting.)
- 2-
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Planning,Neighborhoods and Eco Dev Committee 2004\Minutes\0616.doc
Approved on December 21,2006
at the
Planning,Neighorhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
D. [sic] Action Items
1. Support and Concurrence with the Tompkins County Legislature and the
Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Resolutions for Designation of Certain
Areas within Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca as an Empire Zone-
Resolution
After some discussion, on a motion by Dan Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the following
resolution was unanimously approved(3-0-0):
WHEREAS,in spite of NYS General Municipal Law authorizing designation of parts of
Tompkins County,including within the City of Ithaca,as an Empire Zone,there is not yet an
Empire Zone in 11 of the 62 NYS counties,including Tompkins County,and
WHEREAS,such designation could greatly benefit Tompkins County and its constituent
municipalities in that new businesses would be encouraged to locate in the Empire Zone,and
existing businesses would be encouraged to expand in the Zone and such new and expanded
businesses would generate new employment opportunities for Tompkins County residents,and
WHEREAS,both the Tompkins County Legislature and the Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors have previously approved resolutions of support for the concept of
designation of at least one Empire Zone in each of the remaining NYS counties without a Zone,
and
WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is desirous of working with Tompkins County Area Development
through the Empire Zone Program to provide enhanced employment opportunities for residents of
Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca;now,therefore,be it
RESOLVED,that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby supports efforts by the
Tompkins County Legislature and the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce to urge the NYS
Legislature to authorize Empire Zone designation within the eleven NYS counties presently
without an Empire Zone.
2. Amendment of Neighborhood Housing Initiative Program Guidelines - Resolution
Sue Kittel,Deputy Director of Community Development, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency,
and Tracy Farrell, Chair of the Homeownership Investment Committee, were present to
discuss the program and the proposed amendment. After some discussion, on a motion
by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the following resolution was unanimously approved
(3-0-0):
WHEREAS,on December 5,2000,Common Council adopted the Neighborhood Housing
Initiative(NHI)program and amended the program guidelines on October 3,2001,and
WHEREAS,this program has the goal of acquiring rental residential properties that negatively
affect a neighborhood,renovating the property and selling it to owner occupants at market rate,
and
WHEREAS,the objectives of the program are to eliminate blighting conditions;increase the
number and percentage of homeowners in the City;convert rental properties to owner-occupancy
status;and stimulate private sector investment in neighborhoods,and
- 3 -
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Planning,Neighborhoods and Eco Dev Committee 2004\Minutes\0616.doc
Approved on December 21,2006
at the
Planning,Neighorhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
WHEREAS,the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA)administers the program on behalf of the
City,and
WHEREAS,the program has been running for approximately one and a half years,and
WHEREAS,program guidelines require that properties must be sold through the Multiple Listing
Service,requiring a commission of 7%,on average,and
WHEREAS,the Independent Contractor for the program,Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
(INHS),has been purchasing the properties,undertaking the renovation and facilitating the sale of
completed homes under the director of the Homeownership Investment Committee,and
WHEREAS,INHS has extensive experience marketing and selling homes under its own
programs,saving half of the commission,while paying a commission to realtors bringing a buyer
to the sale,and
WHEREAS,the Homeownership Investment Committee recommends that the option of selling
properties without using the Multiple Listing Service,in a manner similar to the process INHS
now uses be added to the program guidelines of the Neighborhood Housing Initiative,and
WHEREAS,the Neighborhood Housing Initiative program guidelines contemplated only
rehabilitation and are silent on the use of demolition and new construction as a redevelopment tool
for program properties,and
WHEREAS,in specific instances,former rental properties exerting a blighting influence on a
neighborhood have been rejected by the Homeownership Investment Committee for inclusion in
the program because rehabilitation of the house was not possible or fmancially feasible,and
WHEREAS,in other instances,properties have been purchased for inclusion in the program and it
was later discovered that foundation and other problems were so extensive as to make
rehabilitation of the structure extremely difficult and costly, and
WHEREAS,the inability of the Homeownership Investment Committee to authorize demolition
and rebuilding of housing has seriously hindered the ability of the Homeownership Investment
Committee to achieve the goals of the Neighborhood Housing Initiative,and
WHEREAS,bond counsel has been consulted on the proposed changes to the program and has
confirmed that these suggested modifications are appropriate for the funding source,and
WHEREAS,modifications to the Neighborhood Housing Initiative program guidelines are now
being sought to assist the program in moving forward to achieving the programmatic goals;now,
therefore,be it
RESOLVED,that the Common Council modifies the Neighborhood Housing Initiative program
guidelines to allow for demolition of housing in specific cases where other viable and financially
feasible options have been explored and rejected as reasonable possibilities,and be it further
RESOLVED,that the Neighborhood Housing Initiative program guidelines be further modified to
allow for properties to be sold through the marketing done by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services instead of the Multiple Listing Service where,in the judgment of the Homeownership
Investment Committee,the goals of the program would be adequately served.
-4-
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Planning,Neighborhoods and Eco Dev Committee 2004\Minutes\0616.doc
Approved on December 21,2006
at the
Planning,Neighorhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
E. Other Items:
1. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan—Presentation/Discussion
Heather Filiberto, Senior Planner in the Tompkins County Planning Department, and Ed
Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning,presented the Draft Tompkins
County Comprehensive Plan for review. The plan is organized around ten basic
principles, and lists policies and action items that can be applied to meet community
goals. It is intended that action items are to be undertaken or at least begun within five
years of the plan's adoption.
2. Planned Unit Development—Discussion
Tim Logue,Neighborhood&Economic Development Planner,presented a revised
Planned Unit Development(PUD) ordinance, two sets of comments from the Planning &
Development Board and comments from the Conservation Advisory Council. Committee
members discussed the possibility of specifying areas of the city where a PUD would or
would not be able to be used, and requested that staff prepare for subsequent
consideration of such modifications.
3. U-1 Zone (Cornell University) Amendment—Discussion
Committee members discussed the proposal made at the May committee meeting, that the
U-1 Zoning District be amended to require a special permit for any primary or accessory
use other than classrooms or living accommodations within 200 feet of a residential
district, a provision that had existed in the university's previous P-1 zoning designation.
Logue reviewed the reasons specified in the zoning ordinance for denying special
permits. The committee directed staff to prepare a zoning amendment for environmental
review and distribution, and suggested that the matter be considered at the July City-
Cornell Working Group meeting.
F. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the April 21, 2004, minutes were approved
as amended. Minutes for the May 19, 2004, meeting were not distributed.
G. Adjournment
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
- 5 -
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Planning,Neighborhoods and Eco Dev Committee 2004\Minutes\0616.doc
Rosemarie Tucker-June 16th agenda Page 1
From: Mary Tomlan
To: roset @cityofithaca.org
Date: 6/15/04 1:13:44 AM
Subject: June 16th agenda
Rose,
I evidently was asleep when I finalized the agenda, for item E.3. has an inaccurate and most unfortunate
title. I am concerned about the mistaken assumptions this will cause, and wonder if you could substitute a
revised agenda for any that go out henceforth (and the one on the city's website, if possible). You could
just identify it as a"Revised Agenda"and don't need to point out the revision. E.3. should read:
U-1 Zone(Cornell University)Amendment--Discussion (materials enclosed).
Even at this late date this may be helpful. Many thanks, as always,
Mary
MEETING NOTICE
City of Ithaca
Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday,June 16,2004
Common Council Chambers
City Hall-- 108 East Green Street
7:00 p.m. .40■.■
Agenda
A. Agenda Review
B. Public Comment and Response
C. Special Topic for Discussion - Green Street Garage 1 hour
D. Announcements and Reports
1. Building Department- Report 30 minutes
D. Action Items
1. Support and Concurrence with the Tompkins County Legislature and
the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Resolutions for
Designation of Certain Areas within Tompkins County and the
City of Ithaca as an Empire Zone - Resolution (materials enclosed) 10 minutes
2. Neighborhood Housing Initiative Program Amendment- Resolution
(materials enclosed) 20 minutes
E. Other Items
1. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan - Presentation/Discussion
(materials enclosed) 20 minutes
2. Planned Unit Development-Discussion (materials enclosed) 10 minutes
3. Rezoning of Cornell University U1 Zone -Discussion (materials enclosed) 15 minutes
F. Approval of Minutes -April 21,2004 and May 19, 2004 (to be distributed) 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, June 15, 2004.
TO: Members of the Planning, Neighborhood & Economic
Development Committee
FROM: Mary Tomlan, Chair
SUBJECT: Additional Items for June 16th Meeting
DATE: June 11, 2004
Please check your mailboxes next week for the following:
1. Agenda Item Dl: Information regarding the Building
Commissioner Report
2. Agenda Item Fl : Minutes of the Planning, Neighborhood &
Economic Development Committee for April 21, 2004 and
May 19, 2004
Rose Tucker will each mail you to let you know when these items are
in your mailboxes.
Thank you
D1
PLANNING,NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE --JUNE 16, 2004
A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT AND CONCURRENCE WITH THE TOMPKINS
COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE RESOLUTIONS FOR DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN AREAS
WITHIN TOMPKINS COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ITHACA AS AN EMPIRE
ZONE
WHEREAS, in spite of NYS General Municipal Law authorizing designation of parts of
Tompkins County, including within the City of Ithaca, as an Empire Zone, there is not yet
an Empire Zone in 11 of the 62 NYS counties, including Tompkins County; and
WHEREAS, such designation could greatly benefit Tompkins County and its constituent
municipalities in that new businesses would be encouraged to locate in the Empire Zone ,
and existing businesses would be encouraged to expand in the Zone and such new and
expanded businesses would generate new employment opportunities for Tompkins
County residents; and
WHEREAS, both the Tompkins County Legislature and the Tompkins County Chamber
of Commerce Board of Directors have previously approved resolutions of support for the
concept of designation of at least one Empire Zone in each of the remaining NYS
counties without a Zone, and
WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is desirous of working with Tompkins County Area
Development through the Empire Zone Program to provide enhanced employment
opportunities for residents of Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby supports efforts by
the Tompkins County Legislature and the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce to
urge the NYS Legislature to authorize Empire Zone designation within the eleven NYS
counties presently without an Empire Zone.
• �\////A��"�sp'� CITY OF ITHACA
� . .yti�-f x,11
108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
ImrafirEil 14,
F
"IV-- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
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: June 8, 2004
Re: Neighborhood Housing Initiative
I have enclosed a packet of materials regarding the Neighborhood Housing Initiative-- the City's
program to acquire deteriorated rental properties and rehabilitate and resell them to owner-
occupants. The objectives of the program are to eliminate blighting conditions, increase the
number and percentage of homeowners in the City, convert rental properties to owner-occupancy
status, physically upgrade substandard housing and stimulate private sector investment in
neighborhoods. While Council approved the program guidelines in December of 2000, the
committee appointed to implement the program has only been operating for about a year and a
half.
Now that we have some experience operating the program, we are prepared to give you an
update, as required in the authorizing resolution. In addition to providing background information,
we would like to propose two modifications to the program guidelines. First, when the
Neighborhood Housing Initiative was originally formulated, we were only focused on rehabilitation
of the existing homes. Our experience is showing that excluding the option of demolishing a
severely compromised house and rebuilding on the site in-kind has limited our ability to assist a
neighborhood in addressing a dilapidated house with little hope of attracting private investment for
rehabilitation. These houses are sitting empty and will likely sit empty for a long time to come. Even
in the current housing market, these houses are not attracting buyers because they are simply too
far gone. While there is no house that cannot be rehabilitated given enough time and resources, in
these cases, there is a question of exactly how much of the original structure would even remain.
Also, given the experience of our program partner(Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services) and
the current real estate market, the Homeownership Investment Committee is requesting a
modification to the current guidelines regarding marketing and sales of rehabilitated properties. We
are proposing to allow INHS to market the properties for sale themselves instead of using the
multiple listing service, as currently required. For their own programs, INHS does the marketing of
the completed home and pays a commission to brokers bringing the buyer to the deal. The
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
Zw•
T
Homeownership Investment Committee would like the option of using a similar system,etimat %
to cost of using the multiple listing service where no added benefit,in terms of completing the sale,
will be realized.
I will be available at the meeting to provide a short presentation on this program and to answer any
questions you may have. In the meantime I can be reached at 274-6553 or suek @cityofithaca.org.
Thank you.
q:lplanning\community development housing initiativelmemo to ping committee.doc
9
•
Neighborhood Housing Initiative
City of Ithaca, NY
(Conceptually Endorsed by IURA 12/4/00
With Amendments Adopted 9/20/01)
(Originally Adopted by Common Council 12/5/00 and Amended 10/3/01.)
October 3, 2001
Summary
Capitalize a$2 million fund to establish a program to (1) acquire rental residential properties that
negatively effect a neighborhood, (2) renovate acquired properties, and (3)sell renovated properties to
owner-occupants. Proceeds from resale of the renovated properties will be reinvested back into the
program to fund acquisition and renovation of additional properties. The program will focus on rental
properties that can be rehabilitated for resale as single-family or duplex residences. Based on an
estimated average subsidy of$33,000 per dwelling unit, it is anticipated that 50 to 70 dwelling units will be
renovated with 35 to 45 properties converted to owner-occupancy over five years as a result of the
program. The actual number of properties renovated is dependent on the location, size and condition of
buildings selected for acquisition.
Introduction
Low homeownership rates and a persistent amount of physically substandard housing in most of Ithaca's
neighborhoods pose significant obstacles to ongoing neighborhood revitalization efforts throughout the
City.
The City of Ithaca has an extraordinarily low, and declining, rate of homeownership. While nationwide, the
homeownership rate exceeds 66%, less than 29%of the housing units in Ithaca are owner-occupied,
according to the latest census. Between 1970 and 1990, the homeownership rate has slipped from 38%to
29%. Because a decision to purchase a home requires a significant and long-term financial and personal
commitment in a neighborhood, changes in the homeownership rate are often a strong indicator of
neighborhood stability.
A recent exterior housing condition survey conducted in 2000 by INHS revealed a troubling trend that City
housing conditions have slipped since 1990. For instance, the number of deteriorated or dilapidated
houses has increased from 18 residential structures in 1990 to 53 in 2000. The survey also confirmed that
owner-occupied dwellings, as a category, were maintained in better condition than rental properties.
Among the very worst properties identified in the survey, 10 of the 11 properties rated "dilapidated"were
rental properties.
The residential rental market in Ithaca is being influenced by a significant increase in new housing units
oriented to the college student market. This increase in housing supply in the Collegetown neighborhood
Page 2 of 7 Neighborhood Hhousing Initiative
Approved Policy City of Ithaca,NY
and on campus is exerting a downward pressure on less competitive rental units further away from Cornell
and especially in downtown neighborhoods where there is a reported increase in the rental housing
vacancy rate. The increased rental vacancy rate provides an opportunity to work with the market to convert
rental units to owner-occupied units without significantly impacting the affordability of housing for renters.
To remain a stable and healthy neighborhood requires on-going investments of time, energy and money.
Also important is the capacity of neighborhood groups to manage threats to quality-of-life. Several
neighborhoods in the City are at risk of disinvestment due to substandard rental housing that exerts a
blighting influence on the surrounding area. If the blighting influence goes unaddressed, it creates a
chilling influence on new investment in the immediate neighborhood. That, in turn, discourages investment
in the larger neighborhood.
Development of a program to renovate and convert blighting rental structures to owner-occupied homes
will significantly strengthen the health of City neighborhoods and encourage further investment. In
addition, the program adds an important tool to increase the capacity of resident groups to solve problems
that threaten the stability of their neighborhood. Following is a detailed framework for implementing such a
program.
Goal
Increase neighborhood stability and improve neighborhood quality-of-life.
Objectives (in rank order)
1. Eliminate blighting conditions.
2. Increase the number and percentage of homeowners in the City of Ithaca.
3. Convert rental properties to owner-occupancy status.
4. Physically upgrade substandard housing.
5. Stimulate private sector investment in neighborhoods.
Revitalization Strategy
Stabilize and strengthen neighborhoods by selectively acquiring and renovating investor-owned residential
properties that exert a blighting influence on the surrounding neighborhood or hinder private sector
reinvestment in the neighborhood. Selected investor-owned properties must be in substandard physical
condition and exerting a blighting influence on the surrounding neighborhood. Properties included in the
program may also be abandoned, condemned, in violation of City housing standards (e.g., health, safety,
fire safety, infestation, etc ...), unsightly, nonconforming with current zoning, contain perceived
environmental hazards or be substantially delinquent in property taxes.
Renovated homes will be sold at fair market value to individual homebuyers agreeing to a 25-year deed
restriction, or similar binding agreement, requiring owner-occupancy.
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INNS) experience from over 75 house recycling projects
completed has shown there is very limited market demand by owner-occupants for properties exceeding
two housing units (duplex). Accordingly, every effort will be made to convert multiple-unit properties to
single-family or duplex status appropriate for owner-occupancy.
Page 3 of 7 Neighborhood Hhousing Initiative
Approved Policy City of Ithaca,NY
Target Area
Eligible properties must be located within the Urban Renewal Area as defined in the Common Council
adopted Urban Renewal Plan (see attached Community Development/Urban Renewal Project Boundary
Map with proposed amendments).
Funding Source
The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA)will issue$2,000,000 in tax-exempt bonds to capitalize the
program. The IURA issued debt will be backed by the full faith and credit of the City of Ithaca. The City
will pay principal and interest payments to retire the bonds, similar to the manner in which capital projects
are funded. Net proceeds from sales of renovated properties will be reinvested in the program. No direct
federal funding is proposed to initially capitalize the fund.
Organizational Framework
• City of Ithaca Controller's Office -City Department with principal responsibility for structuring program
debt financing, managing the capital project funding debt service obligations, and financial oversight of
City's program funding.
• Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA)—Administration and oversight of program on behalf of City.
IURA will issue bonds to capitalize the program, develop an agreement with the selected Contractor to
acquire, renovate, market and sell properties to homebuyers, and monitor the agreement. In addition,
the IURA will staff the Homeownership Investment Committee.
• Independent Contractor(Contractor) --The selected Contractor will contract with the IURA to deliver
and implement the program, including developing property selection recommendations, property
inspection, preparation of cost estimates for rehabilitation and resale value, acquisition, design,
permitting, construction, property management, marketing, purchase negotiation and project
administration.
• Homeownership Investment Committee (HIC)—Mayoral-appointed five member committee, subject to
Common Council approval, to select candidate properties for inclusion in the program, approve
acquisition price and endorse proposed sales agreements with prospective homeowners of renovated
properties. The HIC shall also adjudicate administrative and technical issues arising during
implementation of the program and develop reporting procedures, including an annual report and
presentation to the planning committee of Common Council or its successor to keep the Common
Council updated on the program. Further, regular written reports will be made to the Planning
Committee or its successor to inform them of property acquisitions and dispositions. Composition of
the committee membership is:
Voting Members
— 1 Common Council member
— 1 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency member, or an IURA appointee
— 1 real estate professional knowledgeable of the residential real estate market in the City
— 1 Director of Community Development, IURA
— 1 City of Ithaca Mayor
5
Page 4 of 7 Neighborhood Hhousing Initiative
Approved Policy City of Ithaca,NY
•
Ex-officio Non-Voting Members
— 1 Independent Contractor's Executive Director, or equivalent
— 1 Construction manager, engineer or similarly skilled employee of the selected Contractor.
Ex-officio, non-voting members will attend and participate in all meeting and agenda items except for
issues involving the selection, oversight, remuneration, and management of Contractor.
The Homeownership Investment Committee, through its bylaws, will establish terms of not more than three
years and a staggered system of appointments to retain continuity and institutional memory. A member
shall continue to hold office until a successor is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Common
Council.
Project Budget
The City of Ithaca is expected to provide an average subsidy of approximately$33,000 per dwelling unit
($50,000 per property), the difference between total development costs and the final purchase price of
rehabilitated property. The$2,000,000 program is anticipated to result in conversion of 35 to 45 properties
to owner-occupancy and the renovation of 50 to 70 dwelling units.
The costs of this project are highly dependent on the site-specific characteristics for each building that is
acquired and rehabilitated. The amount of necessary subsidy per property will generally be higher for 2-
dwelling properties and 3-unit properties, than at one-family dwellings, but will result in more dwelling units
being renovated. It is expected that a typical scenario for a one-family dwelling in the program will require
a total project cost of$100,000 (acquisition, renovation, carrying costs, resale for owner-occupancy) and a
net sales price of$60,000, resulting in a subsidy of$40,000. For a typical 2-dwelling property, the project
costs are expected to average $133,000 and yield a net sales price of$80,000, resulting in a subsidy of
$53,000 per duplex property or$26,500 per dwelling unit.
Program funds will be used for the following purposes:
• Financing costs and fees to capitalize the$2 million program
• Property acquisition
• Design
• Interim costs ( insurance, utilities, taxes, property management)
• Construction costs
• Marketing
• Program delivery
• Oversight/Monitoring
IURA out-of-pocket and staff expenses will be reimbursed from program funds for staffing the
Homeownership Investment Committee, oversight of the independent contractor, and other costs
associated with administering and implementing the program.
The selected Contractor will develop a list of recommended properties for inclusion in the program, perform
property inspections, conduct initial appraisals, develop cost estimates, negotiate and acquire property,
Page 5 of 7 Neighborhood Hhousing Initiative
Approved Policy City of Ithaca,NY
provide property management services, pay interim costs (insurance, utilities, etc..), prepare renovation
designs, secure permits, complete rehabilitation, market properties for resale, offer loan structuring
assistance to prospective homebuyers, negotiate sales agreements, offer homebuyer technical assistance
and other program delivery services.
Implementation
IURA will act as the City's agent to administer and implement the program. The IURA will contract with the
selected Contractor to act in the capacity of the City's developer. In that role, the Contractor will facilitate
all phases of the successful completion of the project including, acquisition, design, construction oversight,
financing, marketing and sales negotiations. The Homeownership Investment Committee will identify
target properties to be acquired for inclusion in the program. Purchase agreements that exceed fair market
value based on an appraisal will require Homeownership Investment Committee approval. Net proceeds
from sale of renovated properties will be reinvested back into the fund to acquire additional properties for
renovation and resale.
The separate components of this process are described in more detail below.
Property Selection
The Independent Contractor will recommend candidate properties for inclusion in the program to
the Homeownership Investment Committee (HIC). The HIC will use the goal and rank-ordered
objectives of this Initiative as the criteria to select top priority properties to be acquired for inclusion
in the program. Each property must be physically in substandard condition and exerting a
blighting influence on the surrounding neighborhood.
Property Acquisition
The chief means of acquiring properties for the program is through a negotiated purchase
agreement. Upon identification of candidate properties by the Homeownership Investment
Committee, the Contractor will contact the property owners to negotiate an acceptable purchase
price. The purchase price will be based upon two factors: a current appraisal of the property's
value by a certified appraiser and a preliminary housing condition inspection of the property. The
preliminary inspection will form the basis for rehabilitation cost estimates and an estimate of the
project's market value after rehabilitation. Generally, the purchase price will not exceed the
appraised value of the property.
When appropriate, the HIC may incorporate provisions in the negotiated purchase agreement that
restrict the seller from any future purchase of new residential rental property within the City for a
period of time as a condition of the purchase.
A second means of acquiring property is through the property tax foreclosure process. Properties
targeted for inclusion in the program that are controlled by the City due to failure to pay property
taxes may be conveyed for inclusion in the program.
In some cases a bargain sale may be negotiated with the seller in which a portion of the value of
the property is donated as a charitable donation to the Contractor, presumably a 501(c)(3)
Rage 6 of 7 Neighborhood Hhousing Initiative
• Approved Policy City of Ithaca,NY
corporation. Similarly, City-owned properties may be transferred for inclusion in the program.
In other cases, an acceptable purchase price may not be successfully negotiated at the appraised
value. If the property is of high priority for attention due to its negative impact on the
neighborhood, then, upon advice of the Contractor and consideration of the estimated renovation
cost and projected sales price, a higher purchase price may be paid to acquire the property with
the approval the Homeownership Investment Committee or alternative means of acquiring the
property investigated.
Property Management
As part of the legal agreement with the IURA,the Contractor will manage and maintain properties
acquired through the program until resale. The Contractor will also be responsible for interim costs
such as taxes, utilities and insurance. Property acquisitions will be timed and designed to avoid
tenant dislocation and long-term property management responsibilities.
Design and Permits
The Contractor will conduct a thorough evaluation of the condition of the building and develop
construction plans and cost estimates for rehabilitation, with an eye towards conversion to owner-
occupancy use. Rehabilitation plans will then be prepared. These plans are then further developed
into construction documents, which are then used as the basis for bidding.
Rehabilitation
Each project will be bid separately to a general contractor for rehabilitation who will be responsible
for the selection of subcontractors and the supervision of construction. As part of this process, the
Contractor will be required to conduct outreach to minority-and women-owned businesses and
seek to employ local firms. All general contractors must be qualified with respect to construction
and business skills. Each general contractor must also carry a minimum of$100,000 in liability
insurance in order to qualify to bid.
Alternative procurement methods, such as long-term contracts with selected firms may be
appropriate based on the expected volume and pace of rehabilitation work.
Construction Management
The Contractor will assume the role of construction manager: conducting inspections of the work
being done, overseeing changes to the original plans, approving payments to general contractors,
coordinating inspections by the Building Department, and solving problems as they arise.
Marketing and Sale of Properties
As projects approach completion, the Contractor will market the rehabilitated houses and seek
qualified buyers through the multiple listing service, requiring a commission averaging 5-7% of
the purchase price. A special effort shall be made to market the homes to police officers, City
employees and teachers. Many homes available for purchase through the program will be
available without income restrictions.
Page 7 of 7 Neighborhood Hhousing Initiative
Approved Policy City of Ithaca,NY
Loan Packaging and Approval
The Contractor will work with prospective buyers to put together an affordable financing package
that is suited to the resources available to the buyers.
Technical Assistance to Homebuyers
The Contractor will provide homebuyer education classes to prospective buyers, as well as offer
technical assistance in home maintenance and construction issues. Technical assistance can be
obtained through either one-on-one sessions or in a home maintenance class. Home maintenance
classes are designed to supplement the information learned in homebuyer education classes by
offering hands-on experience in a variety of typical home maintenance issues.
In addition, a special landlord training program will be developed for owner-occupants of duplexes.
Alternative Owner-Builder Implementation
The Contractor will work with the Home Ownership Investment committee to develop policies to
allow owner-builders to purchase and rehabilitate high priority properties. This alternative model to
implement the program will allow owner-builders to conduct a substantial amount of the
rehabilitation themselves under program oversight at a savings to both the program and the
owner-builder homebuyer.
End
Attachment—Urban Renewal Boundary Map, with IURA-proposed amendments
Prepared by N. Bohn,latest revision 9.20.01
h:lhousing\approved policy 10.3.01.doc
Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee
Proposed Resolution -June 16, 2004
Modification to Neighborhood Housing Initiative
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2000, Common Council adopted the Neighborhood Housing
Initiative(NHI)program and amended the program guidelines on October 3, 2001, and
WHEREAS, this program has the goal of acquiring rental residential properties that negatively
affect a neighborhood, renovating the property and selling it to owner occupants at market rate,
and
WHEREAS, the objectives of the program are to eliminate blighting conditions; increase the
number and percentage of homeowners in the City; convert rental properties to owner-occupancy
status; and stimulate private sector investment in neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA) administers the program on behalf of the
City, and
WHEREAS, the program has been running for approximately one and a half years, and
WHEREAS,program guidelines require that properties must be sold through the multiple listing
service,requiring a commission of 7%, on average, and
WHEREAS, the Independent Contractor for the program, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services (INHS), has been purchasing the properties, undertaking the renovation and facilitating
the sale of completed homes under the direction of the Homeownership Investment Committee,
and
WHEREAS, INHS has extensive experience marketing and selling homes under its own
programs, saving half of the commission,while paying a commission to realtors bringing a buyer
to the sale, and
WHEREAS, the Homeownership Investment Committee recommends that the option of selling
properties without using the multiple listing service, in a manner similar to the process INHS
now uses be added to the program guidelines of the Neighborhood Housing Initiative, and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Housing Initiative program guidelines contemplated only
rehabilitation and are silent on the use of demolition and new construction as a redevelopment
tool for program properties, and
WHEREAS, in specific instances, former rental properties exerting a blighting influence on a
neighborhood have been rejected by the Homeownership Investment Committee for inclusion in
the program because rehabilitation of the house was not possible or financially feasible, and
\\cityhall\vol2\planning\community development\housing initiative\modify program guidelines.doc
r
WHEREAS, in other instances, properties have been purchased for inclusion in the program and
it was later discovered that foundation and other problems were so extensive as to make
rehabilitation of the structure extremely difficult and costly, and
WHEREAS, the inability of the Homeownership Investment Committee to authorize demolition
and rebuilding of housing has seriously hindered the ability of the Homeownership Investment
Committee to achieve the goals of the Neighborhood Housing Initiative, and
WHEREAS,bond counsel has been consulted on the proposed changes to the program and has
confirmed that these suggested modifications are appropriate for the funding source, and
WHEREAS,modifications to the Neighborhood Housing Initiative program guidelines are now
being sought to assist the program in moving forward to achieving the programmatic goals, now
therefore,be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council modifies the Neighborhood Housing Initiative program
guidelines to allow for demolition of housing in specific cases where other viable and financially
feasible options have been explored and rejected as reasonable possibilities, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Neighborhood Housing Initiative program guidelines be further modified
to allow for properties to be sold through the marketing done by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services instead of the Multiple Listing Service where, in the judgement of the Homeownership
Committee, the goals of the program would be adequately served.
\\cityhall\vol2\planning\community development\housing initiative\modify program guidelines.doc
Rosemarie Tucker- handout Princ Pol Act 4-16-04 FINAL copy.doc Page 1
E 1
• ,. B, Fl. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan
Planning for our future . . .
TOMPKINS COUNTY,,i
COMPREHENSIVE P L A N; ples, Policies, and Action Items
Draft Plan Review
The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan is organized around ten basic principles.These principles
incorporate elements of the Vital Communities Initiative,adhere to the values expressed in the County's
mission statement,and reflect the wisdom gathered from many community opinions. Corresponding to
the principles are various working policies of Tompkins County government that can be applied to meet
many of the community goals expressed in this plan. The accompanying action items represent those
activities that should be undertaken,or at least begun,during the first five years after adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.The adopted version of the Comprehensive Plan will identify those organizations
responsible for each action item.
♦ A principle is a comprehensive and fundamental doctrine,or assumption.
♦ A policy is a definite course or method of action to guide and determine present and future decisionmaking.A
policy reflects a high-level overall plan embracing general goals and acceptable procedures.
♦ An action item is a specific activity that an individual or organization is committed to undertake.
I. Regional Cooperation
PRINCIPLE—Tompkins County will work proactively with towns,villages,the City of Ithaca,and
State and Federal agencies,to cooperatively address regional issues,such as natural resources,public
infrastructure,and consumer and employment markets.
Housing,Transportation and jobs
II. Housing Choices
PRINCIPLE —Housing in Tompkins County should be affordable and appealing to all residents,
regardless of their income or whether they rent or own their homes.
POLICIES
• Provide for a variety of quality living experiences,including rural,suburban,hamlet, village,and
urban.
• Protect consumers' housing options throughout the County by providing a mix of choices of
location,accessibility,housing types,and neighborhood character.
• Provide and encourage more quality rental and owner-occupied affordable housing options for
very-low-,low-,and moderate-income residents.
• Promote increased owner-occupied housing in the County.
• Maintain an adequate supply of affordable housing options for people with special needs,
including seniors who wish to remain in their homes and persons requiring health care,custodial
care,or supportive services.
• Promote housing opportunities for locally-employed persons who would prefer to live in
Tompkins County.
Rosemarie Tucker-handout Princ Pol Act 4-16-04 FINAL copy.doc Page 2
County Comprehensive Plan
Draft Plan Review—Spring 2004
ACTION ITEMS
1. Produce a three-to five-year affordable-housing needs assessment to use as a basis to guide
development of appropriate subsidized rental and ownership housing to meet local needs.
2. Develop efforts to coordinate available services for seniors who are having difficulty identifying
or accessing those services needed to stay in their homes.
3. Conduct a survey of in-commuters to determine the reasons they live outside of Tompkins
County.
4. Develop or identify model regulations and guidelines that incorporate universal design elements
for new residential construction that meet the needs of many future residents, including families
with small children and mobility impaired persons,and provide related training for elected
officials,board members,staff,and the public.
5. Develop model provisions for land development regulations that encourage affordable housing.
6. Provide education and training programs for elected officials,board members,community
leaders,developers and builders,and the general public on the need for and benefits of
affordable-housing development.
7. Survey subsidized affordable housing units to determine when subsidies expire and if the units
are likely to remain affordable.Establish a program to monitor the status of those units to
anticipate impending deficiencies.
8. Build a new Community Residence—Single Room Occupancy mental health facility.
9. Inventory and track the availability of affordable senior housing options that provide custodial
care services.
III.Transportation Choices
PRINCIPLE—The functional capacity of the highway system should be maintained;the capacity and
participation rates for transportation alternatives—including public transit,pedestrian,and bicycling
facilities—should be enhanced.
POLICIES
• Preserve and maintain the design function and safety of the existing road network while making
investments in technology and design that increase its operating efficiency.
• Make selective additions or modifications to the highway network to address capacity limitations
that cannot otherwise be addressed.
• Coordinate land use and infrastructure planning to facilitate the use of multiple modes of
transportation and to ensure that development occurs in a manner that maintains the design
function of the road network.
• Enhance and promote the use of bicycles and walking as viable forms of transportation by
supporting the provision of safe public facilities,including multi-use trails,bicycle routes,
bicycle lanes,and sidewalks.
• Enhance transportation options and provide facilities that allow passengers to transfer easily and
safely from one mode of transportation to another(e.g.,biking to bus service).
• Provide affordable and accessible public transportation to important destinations among outlying
nodes,the Ithaca urban area,and points outside the County.
• Promote a transportation system that supports nodal,compact development patterns and reduces
negative environmental impacts.
ACTION ITEMS
10. Develop a bicycle suitability map for Tompkins County.'
11. Evaluate and implement transit stop improvements and a detailed transit passenger information
system.'
Page 2 of 7
Rosemarie Tucker-handout Princ Pol Act 4-16-04 FINAL copy.doc Page 3
Li
County Comprehensive Plan
Draft Plan Review—Spring 2004
12. Identify infill opportunities at nodes along transit lines.
13. Determine feasibility of implementing a car sharing program in Tompkins County.
14. Develop a Countywide State Route 13 Corridor Access Management Plan.*
15. Develop a traffic signal upgrade and intersection evaluation program.n
16. Develop a centralized,uniform accident reporting system.
17. Conduct transportation infrastructure needs assessments for roadways,transit,bicycles,and
pedestrians.'
18. Facilitate municipal review of local development regulations to address future performance of
the transportation system.n
19. Implement recommendations in the Freight Transportation Study to minimize negative aspects of
freight transportation,while increasing safety.
IV. Jobs and Business
PRINCIPLE—The local economy should be enhanced by building on important community assets,
such as a highly educated workforce,an entrepreneurial spirit,dynamic academic institutions,and a
high quality of life.
POLICIES
• Provide a setting where businesses,particularly locally owned ones,can flourish by enhancing
the County's natural resources,arts and culture,lively urban core,and vital neighborhoods.
• Support economic development that provides quality employment opportunities to local
residents,good wages and benefits,and affordable goods and services.
• Support tourism in the area by encouraging local institutions,businesses,and facilities to better
plan,coordinate,and expand tourism-related activities.
• Enhance transportation options, including freight and air service,to support business
development,while preserving the integrity of existing communities.
• Work closely with the local institutions of higher learning to enhance those institutions'
significant and integral contributions to the local economy and community life.
ACTION ITEMS
20. Complete the workforce development plan,ensuring that the needs of unemployed and
underemployed are met by job creation activities,and the needs of employers are met by
employment and training programs.*
21. Enhance the ability to analyze costs and benefits of projects as well as improve post-project job
data collection to ensure that the public purpose of projects is realized.*
22. Continue to lobby for State Empire Zone status and explore regional partnerships to share
underutilized economic development resources.*
23. Continue to explore ways to improve the cost and convenience of air service for County
employers,visitors and local residents.*
24. Work with Cornell University to improve technology transfer.*
25. Study feasibility of a business attraction initiative using specific Cornell University research and
development programs as the key element.*
26. Promote and develop the county's tourism attractions including the Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway.
V. Rural Economy
PRINCIPLE—The working rural landscapes of farms and forests,and the livelihoods of those who
depend upon them,should be preserved and enhanced.
POLICIES
Page 3 of 7
I Rosemarie Tucker- handout Princ Pol Act 4-16-04 FINAL copy.doc Page 4
County Comprehensive Plan
Draft Plan Review—Spring 2004
• Enhance the viability of existing farming operations and agricultural businesses,and encourage
• new ones to be formed.
• Support sustainable formal and informal resource-based economic development activities, such
as private timber harvesting,agri-tourism,and home businesses,which support a rural way of
life.
• Sustain and enhance the agricultural activities and working farms within the Agricultural
Resources Focus Areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Encourage development that is designed to preserve open space and valuable agricultural and
forest land.
ACTION ITEMS
27. Determine the feasibility of a rural micro-enterprise program,including adding a component to
the County's Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund.
28. Provide small-business skill development targeted to the needs of rural enterprises.
29. Update the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan with a particular focus on promoting the
viability and profitability of agriculture within the County.
30. Encourage procurement of goods from local farms for use in County facilities and programs that
purchase and/or distribute food products.
31. Establish an open-space program to protect or preserve agriculture and forest land in the focus
areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan using tools appropriate to the functions of those
resources.
32. Develop or identify model performance standards to preserve agriculture and forest land.
The Environment
VI. Our Finite Resources
PRINCIPLE—Finite resources that provide needed community goods,services,recreational
opportunities or environmental benefits should be protected and used appropriately.
POLICIES
• Promote appropriate development of waterfront lands for water-dependent or water-enhanced
uses,including enhancing public access to Cayuga Lake.
• Protect water quality and quantity in the County's streams,lakes,and groundwater.
• Protect drinking water supplies from contamination.
• Protect stream corridors,wetlands,and land areas that are seasonally inundated by water.
• Protect prime agricultural land for agricultural use.
ACTION ITEMS
33. Complete watershed assessments for the Fall Creek and Six Mile Creek drinking water sources.
34. Continue to conduct aquifer studies.
35. Initiate an inspection and maintenance program for individual on-site wastewater treatment
systems.
36. Update the county flood hazard mitigation program to incorporate watershed-based approaches
to reducing the risk of flood damages.
37. Update floodplain maps.
38. Review municipal ordinances and management practices related to water resources management
to ensure consistency within watersheds and among municipalities.
39. Develop or identify model stream buffer ordinances and stormwater ordinances.
Page 4 of 7
Rosemarie Tucker- handout Princ Pol Act 4-16-04 FINAL copy.doc Page 5
County Comprehensive Plan
Draft Plan Review—Spring 2004
40. Develop a system to ensure regular maintenance of existing drainage systems and use of
appropriate road ditching techniques on County maintained roads,and encourage the use of such
techniques on other roads in the County.
41. Provide education and training programs for public works professionals on techniques for
reduction of sedimentation and erosion,and for re-vegetating disturbed areas,when constructing
and maintaining bridges and culverts,performing roadside ditching,etc.
42. Develop boat docking,boat service areas,and waterfront commercial district on,and in the
vicinity of,Inlet Island in the City of Ithaca.
43. Redevelop the NYSDOT Maintenance Facility site with water-dependent and/or water-enhanced
projects to provide economic benefits to the City and the County and provide public access to the
water's edge.
44. Dredge Cayuga Inlet and fmd an appropriate method for disposal of dredge spoil material,for
example,using dredged material to create new,functioning wetlands at the south end of Cayuga
Lake.
VII. Natural Features
PRINCIPLE—Natural features that define the community should be preserved and enhanced.
POLICIES
• Preserve the natural features,ecosystems,and forest lands within the Natural Resources Focus
Areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Preserve and protect scenic views,areas of natural beauty,and the rural character of Tompkins
County.
• Protect the ecological,economic,and recreational functions and beauty of Cayuga Lake.
• Preserve and enhance existing parks,hiking trails,active and passive recreation facilities,and
historic resources,and foster the creation of new recreational amenities.
ACTION ITEMS
45. Establish an open-space program to protect or preserve natural resources and recreational
amenities in the focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan using tools appropriate to the
functions of those resources.
46. Define stream corridor buffers for the major tributaries to Cayuga Lake and encourage use of
appropriate measures to preserve the designated stream corridors.
47. Compare the results of the New York State Gap Analysis Program and the results of the New
York Natural Heritage Program's Significant Natural Communities with the natural features
focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
48. Develop and disseminate educational information tailored to each natural features focus area and
each agricultural resources focus area.
49. Conduct a Scenic Resources Inventory and prepare a Scenic Resources Preservation Plan.
50. Provide support to Tompkins County's municipalities that would like to identify and codify
appropriate portions of natural features focus areas as Critical Environmental Areas.
51. Develop or identify model performance standards to preserve natural resources.
52. Develop or obtain a system to track land use changes and preservation efforts.
53. Complete the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and the Black Diamond Trail.
Neighborhoods&Communities
VIII. Strong Communities
Page 5 of 7
Rosemarie Tucker- handout Princ Pol Act 4-16-04 FINAL copy.doc Page 6
County Comprehensive Plan
Draft Plan Review—Spring 2004
PRINCIPLE—Tompkins County residents should be safe,healthy,and comfortable with the
aesthetics of their communities,and have daily opportunities to interact with neighbors and
community members to build strong,cohesive communities.
POLICIES
• Facilitate the creation and maintenance of a safe,appealing,and efficient multi-purpose network
for walking and enhance the pedestrian environment through appropriate design.
• Locate county facilities and encourage other community facilities to be located within population
centers,particularly those facilities that provide opportunities for social interaction,group
activities,community events,and meeting spaces.
• Encourage the development of diverse communities that provide a mix of uses,a variety of
employment options,social and recreational opportunities,and an assortment of amenities within
walking distance of residential development.
• Enhance the quality of communities by improving the character of the built environment,
including visually appealing architectural elements and streetscapes that encourage pedestrian
travel,facilitate community interaction,and promote public safety.
• Preserve and enhance the distinct identities and historic character of existing neighborhoods and
structures,and encourage the development of new neighborhoods that possess their own special
sense of place,through attractive design of public places;proximity to schools,parks and other
services;and community festivals and events.
• Improve transportation options for people who need access to employment,shopping,and health
services.
ACTION ITEMS
54. Advance implementation of a County-wide multiuse trail network.'
55. Conduct pedestrian level-of-service and walkability studies in interested neighborhoods,villages,
and hamlets throughout the County.
56. Identify population centers and community facilities that are underserved by the existing transit
system.
57. Provide pedestrian connections between the waterfront and downtown residential neighborhoods
through urban creek corridors.
IX. Centers of Development
PRINCIPLE—The development patterns reflected in the existing villages,hamlets and the City of
Ithaca's downtown area and neighborhoods are key components of the built environment and greatly
contribute to the vitality of the local economy and community life.
POLICIES
• Strengthen and enhance the City of Ithaca's downtown area as the urban center of the County.
• Strengthen and enhance the villages and hamlets of the County as vital service and community
centers.
• Increase the amount and density of housing and business space in the central business districts
throughout the County.
• Promote greater density by encouraging development of existing"gaps"left by abandoned
buildings and vacant parcels.
• Concentrate appropriate commercial,industrial,and retail development onto relatively small
amounts of land,in close proximity to housing and consumers,in existing areas of concentrated
development.
Page 6 of 7
Rosemarie Tucker- handout Princ Pol Act 4-16-04 FINAL copy.doc Page 7
County Comprehensive Plan
Draft Plan Review—Spring 2004
ACTION ITEMS
58. Work with municipalities to identify and map areas appropriate for infill development.
59. Develop or identify model development design standards that address how to maintain a distinct
edge between the urban/village areas and the rural countryside.
60. Evaluate and modify the following programs for consistency with and furtherance of the nodal
development patterns:review of development proposals under GML 239,Economic
Development Revolving Loan Fund,Agricultural Districts,and advisory boards'work programs.
X. Efficient Use of Public Funds
PRINCIPLE—The effectiveness of taxpayer dollars should be maximized by investing government
funds in public infrastructure and facilities in the most efficient manner possible.
POLICIES
• Maintain County facilities to protect the public's investment,to effectively serve residents,and
to provide an efficient working environment for employees now and in the future.
• Optimize the value of community investments in water treatment and distribution facilities and in
sewer collection and treatment facilities by encouraging higher density in areas served by these
facilities.
• Save public costs by encouraging new development to locate in places contiguous to existing
development where sewer,water,roads,and other infrastructure already exist,or are planned as
part of a comprehensive plan to accommodate projected growth.
• Consider intermunicipal alternatives when addressing issues related to water supply and
wastewater disposal.
ACTION ITEMS
61. Develop or identify model land development regulations and design standards that support
denser development in areas with water and sewer services(including infill and mixed-use)and
limited development in areas without such services.
62. Review highway jurisdiction patterns in Tompkins County.
63. Facilitate intermunicipal cooperation in sharing equipment,purchasing materials,and storing
materials.
64. Evaluate a downtown office plan for future County facility needs.
65. Determine the location of future Health Department facility and the future use of Biggs B
building.
66. Implement the Public Safety Communications System project.
67. Renovate and expand the Public Safety building to meet projected needs.
For more information about this effort,please visit our website at
www.tompkins-co.org/planning/compplan
Page 7 of 7
Rosemarie Tucker- handout Princ Pol Act 4-16-04 FINAL copy.doc Page 8
County Comprehensive Plan
Draft Plan Review—Spring 2004
Tompkins County Planning Department
274-5560 + planning @tompkins-co.org
Action item is in the process of being reviewed as part of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council's 2025 Long
Range Transportation Plan Update.
* Action item is in the process of being reviewed as part of Tompkins County Area Development's update of the
Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy.
Page 8 of 7
• CITY OF ITHACA
14•14.t ' '• 108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5
rmnrm
*z�'�rm�T ni
�, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Ad0�= 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: Tura(a cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Carolyn Peterson, Mayor
Common Council
Martin A. Luster, City Attorney
H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning 86 Development
JoAnn Cornish, Deputy Director of Planning 86 Development
Planning 86 Development Board
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
William Gray, Superintendent of Public Works
Conservation Advisory Council
Ed Marx, Tompkins County Planning Commissioner
From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood 86 Economic Development Planner .
Date: June 9, 2004
Re: U-1 District Zoning Amendment Concept
At the May meeting of the Planning, Neighborhoods 86 Economic Development
committee, there was discussion of a possible amendment to the U-1 zoning
district to include language that currently exists for the P-1 district in regard to
special permits for certain uses. Section 325-8 of the Zoning Ordinance (the
district regulations chart) states that permitted primary uses in the P-1 zone
include: "1) public recreation; 2) public and semi-public institution[s] whose
purpose is education except that, within 200 feet of a residential district, any
use other than classrooms or living accommodations which conform to the
regulations of the adjacent residential district [are] permitted only by special
permit of the Board of Appeals (see §325-9); and 3) all municipal public
buildings, facilities and functions." Accessory uses and service buildings for
permitted uses are allowed upon issuance of a special permit as set forth in
§325-9.
Section 325-9(C)(1)(g) expands upon this special permit provision, stating "In P-
1 Districts, within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts, any use other than
public recreation, classrooms or living accommodations [requires a special
permit from the Board of Appeals]. In such P-1 Districts, living
accommodations within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts shall conform
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
• Y
•
to the use and area regulations applying to the strictest of such adjoining
residential districts."
The Board of Zoning Appeals may choose to grant or deny a request for a
special permit. Section 325-9 (D) states the reasons why the Board of Zoning
Appeals should deny requests for special permits.
The Board shall deny a special permit in all instances where it finds that
a proposed use would have a significant negative impact on traffic,
congestion, property values, municipal services, character of the
surrounding neighborhood, or the general plan for the development of
the community. The granting of a special permit may be conditioned on
the effect the use would have on traffic, congestion, property values,
municipal services or the general plan for the development of the
community. The applicant may be required by the Board to submit plans
for the site and for parking facilities and to disclose other features of the
applicant's proposed use so as to afford the Board an opportunity to
weigh the proposed use in relation to neighboring land uses and to
cushion any adverse effects by imposing conditions designed to mitigate
them. If the Board finds that the adverse effects cannot be sufficiently
mitigated, then the Board shall deny the special permit.
In June 1998, the U-1 District was created by Common Council Ordinance
Number 98-9. This "University" district replaced the previous P-1 district
regulations that applied to the area roughly bounded by the Fall Creek gorge
on the north, the City line on the east, the Cascadilla gorge on the south and
Stewart and University Avenues on the west (see Zoning Map for exact
boundaries). In this rezoning, the abovementioned special permit provision of
the P-1 district was not carried over into the new U-1 district. Former Common
Council members and City staff who were involved in the zoning amendment in
1998 have characterized the omission as an oversight, noting that there was no
reason to not carry it forward.
The proposal under consideration in this memo is to add this same special
permit language (for both primary and accessory uses) to the U-1 District. This
action requires a change to sections 325-8 (District Regulations) and 325-9 (C)
(Special Permits). This action also requires the normal steps associated with a
zoning amendment (environmental review, referral to the County under General
Municipal Law §239-1 and -m, and a public hearing). This matter will be on the
agenda for discussion at the June 16th meeting of the Planning, Neighborhoods
& Economic Development, at which time the public hearing may be scheduled.
A schedule of proposed steps for the amendment is attached.
Schedule for Amending the U-1 District
1 Draft concept memo 28-May-04 X
2 Planning Committee Mailing 10-Jun-04 Mail Concept Memo X
3 Planning Committee Meeting 16-Jun-04 Discussion on the concept
4 Draft Amendment&Env. Review 30-Jun-04
5 Circulate Amendment&Env. Review 2-Jul-04 Distribute EAF to CAC, Planning Board, County
6 CAC Meeting 12-Jul-04 Discussion and Comments
7 Planning Committee Mailing 15-Jul-04 Draft amendment, Resolutions for lead agency
and neg dec.,cover memo, and Env. Review
8 Codes Committee Mailing 15-Jul-04 Draft amendment and Env. Review
9 Codes Committee Meeting 20-Jul-04 Discussion
10 Planning Committe Meeting 21-Jul-04 Discussion and call for public hearing
11 Planning Board Mailing 21-Jul-04 Draft amendment,cover memo, and Env. Review
12 Notice of Public Hearing 22-Jul-04 Legal Notice printed in Ithaca Journal
13 Planning Board Meeting 27-Jul-04 Discussion and Comment
14 Public Hearing at CC Mtg 4-Aug-04 Hold Public Hearing
15 Planning Committee Mailing 12-Aug-04 CAC, Planning Bd, County, and public
16 Planning Committe Meeting 18-Aug-04 Action on Env. Review and Amendment
17 Common Council Mailing 25-Aug-04 Amendment, Env. Review and resolutions,and
comments
18 Common Council 1-Sep-04 Action on Env. Review and Amendment
Documents to be Completed
X Concept Memo
Draft Amendment Last changed on:
EAF 9-Jun-04
Resolution to declare lead agency By:
NegDec Resolution Tim Logue
CITY OF ITHACA E3
= TT=_T-11!1Ft1=1-1 . 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
;f I i751 — dr OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
P�,,4.......+ �
Martin A.Luster,City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Patricia Dunn,Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Robert A.Sarachan,Assistant City Attorney
Khandikile M.Sokoni,Associate Attorney
Dawn M.L.Tordel,Legal Assistant
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Tomlin, Chair Planning Committee
From: Martin A. Luster, City Attorney k
Date: May 24, 2004
Subject: Proposed revisions to zoning ordinance—U1 district
I understand that the planning committee has requested that a study go forward to determine
if the zoning provisions regarding the U1 district should be amended to include a 200 foot"buffer"
area between such district and adjoining residential areas.As I understand it,no construction could
occur within the buffer area in the absence of a special permit.
Before going too far on this project, I urge you to read Cornell University v. Bagnardi 68
NY2d 583 in which the Court of Appeals considered the very type of restriction you are
contemplating.
Although the Court of Appeals did not prohibit the imposition of a special permit
requirement upon educational institutions, it did lay down some fairly specific rules. The necessity
of obtaining a special permit will be upheld if that requirement is not tantamount to an exclusion of
the uses sought by the university. Thus, "a zoning ordinance may properly provide that the granting
of a special permit to churches or schools may be conditioned on the effect the use would have on
traffic congestion,property values, municipal services, the general plan for the development of the
community etc.... The requirement of a special permit application,which entails disclosure of site
1
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ;*4
plans, parking facilities, and other features of the institution's proposed use, is beneficial in that it
affords zoning boards an opportunity to weigh the proposed use in relation to neighboring land uses
and to cushion any adverse affects by the imposition of conditions that are designed to mitigate
them...."
On the other hand,special permits that are predicated upon the applicant making a showing
of"need" or, more specifically, a need to expand to the particular location chosen, has, says the
Court of Appeals, no bearing whatsoever upon the public's health, safety, welfare or morals.
Accordingly, the court held that the imposition of such requirements is beyond the municipality's
police power and is impermissible.
The main point here is that great care must be taken in crafting the criteria upon which a
special permit may be granted. Generally speaking,those criteria may not include elements that are
not generally required for the granting of special permits elsewhere in the City.
Copies of the Cornell University v. Bagnardi decision are available in my office.
I hope this is helpful.
CC: Carolyn Peterson, Mayor
Thys VanCort, Director of Planning&Development
Robert Boothroyd, Chair Planning &Development Board
2
June 14, 2004
These are the additional items for the Planning, Neighborhoods &
Economic Development Committee meeting (June 16, 2004).
1. Agenda Item Dl: Information regarding the Building
Commissioner Report
2. Agenda Item Fl: Minutes of the Planning, Neighborhood &
Economic Development Committee for April 21, 2004.
We will not have the minutes from the May 19th meeting.
Thank you
Mary Tomlan
Committee Chair
CITY OF ITHACA
ti's
fTTI(11FTl
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
IFM TTT]I
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PoA?�0= Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Committee Members
From: Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
Date: June 14, 2004
Re: Building Department Report June 16, 2004
I have enclosed materials for your review concerning the operations of the Building Department.
The packet includes a list that documents the Department's basic services and includes our
2003/2004 program analysis. This information should provide Planning Committee members with a
better understanding of the Building Department's mandated responsibilities, daily tasks and
provided services. An understanding of how much revenue the various Department programs
generate will also be gained. It is my hope that if Committee members are knowledgeable with
respect to services provided by the Department, my discussion on Wednesday night concerning the
Department's goals and needs will be more productive.
PRK:lf
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
:i°F ' , CITY OF ITHACA
11/IA'•W '' 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
f 11(1fAl*- BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PoRA?�0 Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521
Basic Services of the City of Ithaca Building Department
Building Code Enforcement,including but not limited to:
Building permit plan review and approval, demolition permit approval, construction
inspections, certificate of occupancy inspections,pre -construction meetings with architects,
construction meetings with builders, support for variance requests to the New York State
Regional Board of Review and the local Building Code Board of Appeals, staff support for
the Building Code Board of Appeals,post unsafe buildings, examine buildings damaged by
fire to determine extent of damage and estimate cost of repair. Condemn unsafe structures
and order demolition. Make determinations for Site Development Plan Approval, enforce
SDPR approvals, and enforce ILPC decisions.
Land Use Enforcement,including but not limited to:
Review fill, stock piling, and flood plain applications and issue permits, inspect for
compliance, collect elevation certificates, record work in flood plains as required by FEMA,
produce LEAF for type 1 SEQR projects.
Zoning Enforcement,including but not limited to:
Review projects for conformance with Zoning ordinance, investigate over occupancies,
illegal conversions and parking,issue zoning interpretations,prepare lot line adjustments,
review proposed development of residential and commercial parking areas,provide staff
support for the Board of Zoning Appeals,provide zoning compliance letters to banks and
NYS Liquor Board, enforce encroachment regulations.
Sign Ordinance
Review sign permit applications and issue permits for erection of signs and supporting
structures.
Rental Housing, Fire Prevention,Health, Safety and Maintenance Inspection, including but not
limited to:
Conduct housing inspections for compliance with the City's Housing Code, the Multiple
Residence Law, the Exterior Maintenance Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance, issue
citation letters,provide follow up for corrections, issue Certificates of Compliance,
coordinate with County and State agencies including the Health Department and the
Department of Social Services, provide staff for the Housing Board, investigate housing
complaints.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
Record Maintenance
Maintain records on all City buildings,provide public record access,provide resources for
realtors, attorneys and lenders, provide information to county assessment, complaint
tracking.
Fire Department Support
Conduct rental housing fire prevention inspections,review fire and smoke detection and
sprinkler plans and coordinate review with IFD, co-inspections of fraternities and sororities,
program planning and coordination. Make determination whether damaged buildings are
habitable or whether demolition is necessary.
Electrical Bureau
Issue work permits,provide inspections of on going work, issue completion letters, conduct
electrical surveys, write letters of violation,provide defects removed letters. Staff members
are part of the Examining Board of Electricians. Assist in preparing yearly electrical exam
to licensed electrician candidates. Updates fee assessment for electrical work.
6/04
CITY OF ITHACA
~1"'j^'`' '' 108 East Green Street Ithaca New York 14850-5690
�_14019 e ,
�i BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PoRA?EO=— Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521
•
BUILDING DEPARTMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS
2003/2004
Department Narrative
In 1997, the building department staff had been reduced by a Deputy Building
Commissioner and a Code Inspector. Even with its reduced staff level revenues generated
through the building permit and housing inspection fees were higher than most previous
years. 853 building permits for work valued at$19,319,000 brought in$115,914 in
permit fees.
In the past year, with staffing levels that have been reduced even further from 1997's
level through the reduction of one support staff to half-time, the building department has
issued 899 permits of work valued at $86,249,833 bringing in fees totaling $517,499.
Thus the number of permits has significantly increased and both the value of work and
the fees received are approximately four times those of 1997. Obviously the larger the
project the more staff time is required for plan review and inspections.
With respect to housing inspections, 1997 was a good year and generated $47,803 in
housing inspection fees. In 1997, it was estimated that there were 397 housing
inspections conducted. In 2002, the building department made 1,154 housing inspections
and generated $88,848, approximately the same amount as it did in 2001.
While it is wonderful that the building department has generated a substantial amount of
revenue for the City, the staff is having great difficulty maintaining the heavy demand
from the large increase in construction and the continued overwhelming need for housing
inspections. We are literally being required to handle more than twice the workload we
had in the past with less staff. It is inconceivable to me that Council would approve the
huge construction initiatives it has without considering the impact such construction has
and will have on its deficiently staffed building department.
I would also like to mention that two code inspectors that are members of the CSEA unit
are already in danger of losing vacation time. These inspectors received warnings from
the controller's office that they are nearing the vacation accrual limit of 320 hours. They
also are nearing their comp time limit of 240 hours. Every staff person worries that if
they take vacation or time off they will be even further behind with their work. This kind
of effort and commitment cannot be maintained year after year. We haven't even started
construction on the parking garage, the hotel, Cayuga Green, Wal-Mart and Lowes or
Cornell's Life Science project.
- Zod• art Fbos -totRU.ep 4614, t1 o-o0
4511,4erl 'R,ceeesepve o c.S ' o Y'
.101.3e, Zoo Z- 3 uN a Zoo 3
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0
Building Department Program Analysis 2003/2004 Page 2
Department Narrative
It won't be long until the complaints we hear from the public needing our services makes
its way to council members. People are already'upset because we cannot do anything
quickly. People are not only waiting for building permits but they are waiting to close on
properties and list their rental apartments with Cornell. We have been greatly impacted
by the cut made this year to a support staff position.The savings of approximately
$10,000 is not justified when the result means significant delays in completing housing
inspections and collecting fees for certificates of compliance. (See attached photos)
Finally, I would like to add that this Department is committed to work hard and to
perform to the best of its ability. However, I need to put Council on notice that the
department is over extended and cannot continue to function at its current staffing level
without risking dire consequences.
4 ,, CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca New York 14850-5690
'(-t--1
f,rf= BUILDING DEPARTMENT
‘!")RATEV= Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521
Building Department Mission Statement
The Building Department's objective is to consistently provide technical expertise and
professionalism in the enforcement of all building, housing, and land use regulations
mandated by Common Council and the State of New York within the parameters of the
increasing legislative demands placed on limited staff. Knowledge and understanding of
pertinent codes, and current construction methods and procedures, and most importantly
the protection of life and preventing fire through diligent code enforcement are the vital
standards the Building Department is striving to maintain. Despite budgetary constraints,
for the public, to whom our service is dedicated, our mission is a continued commitment
towards achieving code compliance economically, with innovation and without
diminishing life safety imperatives.
6/03
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
City of Ithaca Building Department June 2004
Organizational Chart Reporting Chain
City of Ithaca Building Department
Proposed Organization Chad
Building Commissioner
(1)
Deputy Building Commissioner Administrative Assistant
(1) ,(1)
' I
_ Senior Plan Examiner Permit Clerk Clerk
(1) (1) (
Senior Code Inspector Code Inspector Housing Inspector
(1) (5) (1)
Electrical Inspector Code Enforcement Officer
(1) (1)
Current Programs DI
Proposed Programs
Program/Function Inventory
Attach to Department Overview
See attached for instructions
Program Name: ADMINISTRATION Total Program Expenditures: $73,159
Program Description: Schedule housing and building Total Program Revenues: See Revenue Sources below
inspections, record keeping, help walk-in customers,
answer phones, filing, all paperwork for Certificates Revenue Sources: All revenues from other programs
of Compliance and Occupancy, review & supervision should put revenue towards this program because
of staff and programs. Order supplies and equipment. administration services are integral to all programs
Staffs Housing Board of Review, Building Code
Board of Appeals,Board of Zoning Appeals.
Administers electrical &heating licenses and
electrical exam.
Quantifiable Output: Staff Positions Involved with Program: 4
40 BZA cases/year 1 Administrative Secretary 67%
18 BCBA cases/year 1 Permit Clerk 100%
17 HBR cases/year Y2 time Clerk 100%
1 Building Commissioner 30%
Yearly electrical exam, new test each year.
13 tested, 6 passed in 2002
ILocal/State/Federal Mandate? Yes No
Current Programs El
Proposed Programs
Program/Function Inventory
Attach to Department Overview
See attached for instructions
Program Name: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Total Program Expenditures: $197,917
Program Description: Building permit plan review Total Program Revenues: $370,316
and inspections for alterations, repairs, additions,
demolitions, and new construction as required by Revenue Sources:
New York State and city ordinance 146. Respond to $340,317 Building permits
fires causing structural damage. $ 216 Demo permits
$ 3,254 Certificates of Occupancy
$ 681 Temporary Certificates of Occupancy
$ 25,848 Electrical fee permits
Quantifiable Output: Staff Positions Involved with Program: 9 (does not
include support staff)
$318,363 Jan 1-June 10, 2003
$199,136 June 10-Dec. 31, 2002 5 Code Inspectors 50%
$517,499 Permit fees/year 1 Plan Examiner 50%
1 Deputy Bldg. Comm. 75%
899 Building permits/year 1 Bldg Commissioner 6%
1 Electrical Inspector 50%
Local/State/Federal Mandate? Yes No
Current Programs El
Proposed Programs
Program/Function Inventory
Attach to Department Overview
See attached for instructions
Program Name: HOUSING MAINTENANCE, Total Program Expenditures: $251,828
INSPECTION& ENFORCEMENT
Total Program Revenues: $115,549
Program Description: *Inspect all rental dwelling
units every 5 years except dwellings with more than Revenue Sources:
10 unrelated persons which are inspected every 2 $ 88,848 Certificate of Compliance inspections
years, in accordance with city ordinance 210 and $ 25,848 Electrical survey fees
state property maintenance code. $ 853 Miscellaneous fees
Quantifiable Output: Staff Positions Involved with Program: 10 (does not
include support staff)
495 billed Certificates of Compliance
1,154 Housing Inspections 5 Code Inspectors 50%
1 Housing Inspector 100%
1 Plan Examiner 12.5%
1 Deputy Commissioner 25%
1 Commissioner 12.5%
1 Electrical Inspector 50%
Local/State/Federal Mandate? Yes No
* Changed June 2003 from all rentals every 3 years and single family dwellings every 5 years because Building
Department staffing could not meet this standard.
Current Programs D
Proposed Programs
Program/Function Inventory
Attach to Department Overview
See attached for instructions
Program Name: EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE Total Program Expenditures: $34,372
& SIGN APPROVAL AND INSPECTIONS
Total Program Revenues: $15,532
Program Description: Inspect properties for
compliance with city Exterior Maintenance Revenue Sources:
ordinance. Write violation tickets. Testify in court. $13,440 Exterior Maintenance tickets
Issue sign permits. Inspect foundations for pole signs. $ 5,400 Sign permits
Quantifiable Output: Staff Positions Involved with Program: 2
350 Tickets/year 1 Exterior Maintenance Inspector 100%
1716 Letters/year 1 Building Commissioner 6%
65 Sign permits issued
rLocal/StateJFederal Mandate? Yes No
Current Programs El
Proposed Programs
Program/Function Inventory
Attach to Department Overview
See attached for instructions
Program Name: Total Program Expenditures: $42,444
ZONING,MINOR ORDINANCES,
PRO-ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT Total Program Revenues: $ 2,835
Program Description: Enforcement of Zoning Revenue Sources:
Ordinance and minor ordinances such as flood plain, $ 2,385 Zoning fees
fill, noise, landmarks, site development, and $ 450 Lot line adjustments
residential parking. Provide lot line adjustment
service, staff Board of Zoning Appeals. Speak on
building and housing issues to neighborhood groups
and various associations.
Quantifiable Output: Staff Positions Involved with Program: 3
40 BZA cases 1 Senior Plan Examiner 25%
6 Flood Plain Development permits 1 Building Commissioner 25%
4 Residential parking appeals 1 Administrative Secretary 33%
4 Lot line adjustments
2 Presentations to landlords association
1 Presentation for downtown development
1 Presentation to Audrey Edelman realtors
ILocal/State/Federal Mandate? [Yes No
DRAFT
NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOOD & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMMITTEE
Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee
Wednesday,April 21,2004
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Dan Cogan, Vice Chair; Pam
Mackesey and Gayraud Townsend
Committee Member Excused: Michelle Berry
Other Elected City Officials Attending: Maria Coles, David Whitmore, Joel Zumoff and
Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson
City Staff Attending: H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development; Nels
Bohn, Director of Community Development; Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works; Sue
Kittel, Deputy Director of Community Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development
Planner; Tim Logue, Economic Development and Neighborhood Planner
Meeting was called to order by Tomlan at 7:35 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
Tomlan announced that an additional item, concerning the sale of city-owned surplus
property on University Avenue, would be considered as the first action item.
B. Public Comment and Response
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, spoke about the dangers of speeding traffic in the city,
especially to bicyclists.
Dan Hoffman, City of Ithaca, speaking for the Citizens' Planning Alliance, presented a memo
"The Future of the Original Southwest Park,"urging the City"to promote smart, new
urbanist development and new housing growth" on the city-owned land in the Southwest
Area, determining the use of this land before decisions are made about any new roads.
John Schroeder, City of Ithaca, also speaking for the Citizens' Planning Alliance, presented
drawings and text depicting that organization's "Proposed Alternative Conceptual Site Plan"
for the Southwest Area, and referred to David Fogel's model of the West End as illustrating
how an urban neighborhood could accommodate a mix of uses.
- 1 -
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
DRAFT
NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOOD & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMMITTEE
Joe Wetmore, Town of Ithaca, urged that the city take no further action toward realizing the
proposed Taughannock Boulevard Extension study and construction.
Neil Oolie suggested alternatives for the use of money that would be expended on the
proposed Taughannock Boulevard Extension study.
Joel Harlan,Newfield, gave personalized comments about development and politics in
Ithaca.
Guy Gerard, City of Ithaca, noted past state studies that showed increased traffic, and urged
the city to act with reference to its current assets.
Bob Boothroyd, a lifelong resident of the City of Ithaca, commented on the increasing West
Hill traffic and stated the city's need to take action.
In response, Alderwoman Mackesey decried Joel Harlan's personal remarks about a
community member; Alderwoman Coles concurred.
C. Announcements and Reports
Tomlan announced that Fernando de Aragon had offered to make a presentation on the
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council's (I-TCTC's) 2025 Long Range
Transportation Plan to local boards and committees.
D. Action Items
3. (Added, taken as first action item.) Sale of City-Owned Surplus Property on
University Avenue
Tomlan stated that since the Common Council vote in March to sell three city-owned
surplus parcels at the May City/County Auction, the recommendation of the Planning and
Development Board against the sale of the University Avenue parcel, #47.-7-15 had been
made available. If the committee and council wished to reconsider the sale of this parcel,
it could be removed from the auction with payment of a$100 fee. It was moved by
Cogan and seconded by Mackesey that Parcel#47.-4-15 be removed from the sale of
surplus properties at the May City/County Auction, the $100 fee for such removal to be
paid from the proceeds of the sale of the other two parcels--#116.-1-3 and approximately
.17 acres in the city-owned right-of-way on Giles Street, with the final resolution to be
reviewed by committee members prior to the May 5,2 004 Common Council meeting.
-2-
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
DRAFT
NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOOD & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMMITTEE
The committee vote was unanimous.
1. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)
Bohn and Kittel presented the following items and answered questions from the
committee.
A. Five-Year Consolidated Plan
On a motion by Mackesey and seconded by Townsend, the committee voted
unanimously for the 2004-2008 Consolidated Plan be adopted.
B. One-Year Action Plan
Staff members presented the IURA-recommended FY2004 Action Plan for the use of
allocations through the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)
Entitlement Program, and indicated activities that might be included in future (2005,
2006) Action Plans.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey,the committee voted unanimously to
forward the FY2004 Action Plan for review by the Common Council.
C. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Amendment to
Redirect Surplus Funds to Inlet Island Promenade Activity
On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Townsend, the committee voted unanimously
to support the proposed program revision.
2. Taughannock Boulevard Extension/Southwest Circulation Study
Logue summarized three options the committee had with regard to the Board of Public
Works-approved proposal of LaBella Associates to undertake the Taughannock
Boulevard Extension study. He referred to materials submitted to the committee on
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) and Access Management. It was noted that
funding for a Cornell student to research TDM strategies this summer was anticipated.
Gray noted that the subject of the proposed study had a long history in the city's plans,
most recently as part of the Six Point Plan.
After discussion, it was moved by Cogan and seconded by Mackesey that the
Superintendent and Board of Public Works not proceed with the approved contract, that
planning and public works staff develop proposals for an access management study to be
performed as soon as possible and for a broader transportation study to be submitted to
the Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) by the end of 2004, and that city staff
- 3 -
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
DRAFT
NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOOD & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMMITTEE
develop recommendations for studying the use of city-owned land in the southwest area
for subsequent Common Council review and action. The committee voted unanimously
in favor of this motion, with the final resolution to be reviewed by committee members
prior to the May 5, 2004 Common Council meeting.
E. Other Items
1. Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Logue presented a revised ordinance for discussion. He noted that this revision included
a public hearing for any proposed new planned unit development at the time of its initial
consideration by the Planning and Development Board. Committee members expressed
interest in adding limits in the application of the PUD zoning,whether by its location or
by regulation of density or size. Logue indicated that he would provide additional
information on possible limitations and would also seek feedback from committee
members on an individual basis.
2. Alternative Community School (ACS) Cliff Park Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and
Path
Community member Jonathan Panzer and planning consultant George R. Frantz
presented materials describing a proposed West Hill bicycle/pedestrian path that would
link the Chestnut Street and Elm Street intersection with Hector Street, passing through
property of the school district, Chestnut Hill Apartments and the Army National Guard,
and extending along Hector Street from Sunrise Road to the Elm Street-Floral Avenue
intersection. They were joined by ACS students Ben Regenspan and Dakota Serviente,
who had worked on the project. Questions by committee members concerned easements,
maintenance agreements, the location of the proposed bridge, and the accommodation of
the path at the lower portion of Hector Street.
F. Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the March 17, 2004, meeting of the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic
Development Committee were approved unanimously on a motion by Cogan, seconded by
G. Adjournment
On a motion by , seconded by , the committee voted
unanimously at p.m. to adjourn.
- 4-
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc