Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-18-04 Planning & Economic Develoment Committee Meeting Agenda
MEETING NOTICE City of Ithaca Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee Wednesday,August 18,2004 Common Council Chambers City Hall-- 108 East Green Street 7:30 p.m. Agenda A. Agenda Review B. Public Hearing: Amendment to 2004 Action Plan HUD Entitlement Program C. Public Comment and Response D. Announcements and Reports 1. Planned Unit Development Subcommittee 5 minutes 2. Access Management 5 minutes 3. Transportation Demand Management(TDM) (materials enclosed) 5 minutes E. Action Items 1. Main Street Grant, Request from Ithaca Downtown Partnership (IDP) for Resolution of Support- Resolution (materials enclosed) 15 minutes 2. Geographic Information System (GIS) Plan--Conceptual System Design - Resolution (materials enclosed) 20 minutes 3. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) A. Transfer of Surplus City-Owned Land to IURA for Future Development - 324-346 Floral Avenue -Resolutions (materials enclosed) 15 minutes B. Program Amendment to FY 2004 Action Plan -Resolution (materials enclosed) 10 minutes 4. Removal of Bump-Out in 300 Block of College Avenue (materials enclosed) 10 minutes F. Other Items 1. Ul District Zoning Amendment- Discussion (materials enclosed) 20 minutes F. Approval of Minutes -June 16,2004 10 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, August 17, 2004. Approved on September 22,2004 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee August 18, 2004 Minutes Committee Members Attending: Alderpersons Mary Tomlan, Chair; Dan Cogan and Pam Mackesey Other Elected City Officials Attending: Alderpersons Maria Coles and Joel Zumoff; Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson(arrived at 8:10 p.m.) City Staff Attending: Ruth Aslanis, Department of Planning &Development; Nels Bohn, Director of Community Development; Tim Logue, Department of Planning& Development; and H. Matthys Van Cort,Director of Planning &Development Meeting was called to order by Mary Tomlan at 7:40 p.m. A. Agenda Review Tomlan stated that Downtown Historic District—Support for National Register Listing would be added to the agenda to become Action Item#1. The other items listed would follow. B. Public Hearing: Amendment to 2004 Action Plan HUD Entitlement Program. On a motion by Pam Mackesey, seconded by Dan Cogan, the public hearing was opened for the proposed amendment to 2004 Action Plan HUD Entitlement Program. No one spoke. On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the public hearing was closed. C. Public Comment and Responses: City resident Danny Pearlstein spoke in favor of the proposed changes to the Ul district regulations in the City's zoning ordinance, as detailed in Tim Logue's Aug. 11, 2004 memorandum to the Conservation Advisory Council. D. Announcements and Reports Tomlan noted that she had received a letter from Jean McPheeters, President of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, requesting that a planning study of the Collegetown area be added to the Planning & Development Department's work plan for 2005. Discussion of this request will be deferred until the October committee meeting. 1. Planned Unit Development(PUD) Subcommittee Tim Logue reported on the work of the Subcommittee. - 1 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0818.doc Approved on September 22,2004 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting 2. Access Management Logue reported that further consideration of an access management consulting contract awaits a definition of the scope of the study. 3. Transportation Demand Management(TDM) Logue reported on the work done by Gloria Lau, a Cornell University City&Regional Planning student who interned under his supervision during this past June and July. He mentioned that there are limitations to the number of trips that could be eliminated by demand management. This limitation is a result of numerous factors such as the size of the City, its geography and topography, the transient population, etc. 4. Tomlan called attention to the July 28, 2004, letter to Nels Bohn from Barbara Halpin, Coordinator of the Schuyler County Empire Zone. E. Action Items 1. Downtown Historic District—Support for National Register Listing Tomlan introduced this item, which had been added to the agenda. Gary Ferguson explained the reasons for the proposal. Tomlan stated that she had consulted on the proposed district for the Ithaca Downtown Partnership but that, because of the limited fee ($300) charged for work completed, in her opinion there was no conflict of interest. On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of the proposed Resolution of Support and directed that it be referred to Common Council for Action as part of the Consent Agenda. (Vote was 3-0) At 8:10 Mayor Carolyn Peterson joined the meeting. 2. Main Street Grant, Request from Ithaca Downtown Partnership (IDP) for Resolution of Support Ferguson briefly described the grant application and the resolution of support. On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of the proposed Resolution of Support and directed that it be referred to Common Council for Action as part of the Consent Agenda. (Vote was 3-0) 3. Geographic Information System(GIS) Plan--Conceptual System Design Ruth Aslanis explained the proposed Conceptual System Design. Mackesey spoke in opposition to the use of capital funding for salaries,though she believed that this was a worthwhile project. - 2 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0818.doc Approved on September 22,2004 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Maria Coles noted that the letters of support for the project were impressive,but she concurred with Mackesey regarding salaries. Joel Zumoff spoke against passing a resolution that included reference to method of funding. While the committee agreed with the merits of the proposed Conceptual System Design, the request for funding was deemed premature. No action was taken. 4. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA) a. Transfer of Surplus City-Owned Land to IURA for Future Development- 324-346 Floral Avenue Nels Bohn explained the proposal for disposition of the above-described City-owned parcels. He said that part of the parcels are in a unique natural area, designated as the Octopus Cliffs. Coles said that she understands the need for more housing within city limits, especially given the high number of people who commute for work from out of the county into the city. However, she also said that she thinks the cliffs are beautiful. Mackesey suggested that it might be advantageous to leave the steepest hillsides undeveloped. She said she would prefer to leave this property undeveloped. Cogan asked whether the land could be used for a community garden or some similar use. Tomlan said that she was impressed with the natural beauty of the area. She also was concerned about the traffic passing through the area,but recognized that growth in the City reduces commuter traffic. She said if the area is developed there should be development controls and a plan for pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The Committee decided to postpone action on sale of the area so that all Common Council members could have a chance to visit the site and give consideration to conditions that could be attached to sale of the parcels. b. Program Amendment to FY 2004 Action Plan -Resolution Bohn explained the federal regulation that created the need for the amendment, which would add $148,331 in revenue to the HOME budget from the Housing Development Grant program source, using the money to make a construction loan to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INNS) for the Elm Street Rental Housing Construction project. After some discussion, on a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of the proposed amendment and directed that it be referred to Common Council for Action. (Vote 3-0) - 3 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0818.doc Approved on September 22,2004 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting 5. Removal of Bump-Out in 300 Block of College Avenue Tomlan presented a summary of the committee's July discussion on the removal of a bump-out on the 300 block of College Avenue. Committee members concurred. F. Other Items: 1. Ul District Zoning Amendment-Discussion Tomlan introduced the proposed zoning amendment and asked Logue to summarize the memorandum he had written to the Committee. Mayor Peterson said that Cornell had suggested at the City-Cornell Working Group that there be discussions over the next 6 months to see if a compromise could be reached regarding the proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance. Cornell said that they would refrain from applying for permits within the 200-foot buffer zone during the 6-month discussion period with the following exceptions: for work that had received Site Plan Approval in the West Campus area, or for emergencies or maintenance work. Zumoff asked whether there would be any value added by requiring the University to seek a special permit as proposed. Speaking at the invitation of the Committee, Pearlstein asked the Committee to approve the proposed amendment. Mackesey said she thought the City should have a better idea of what it wants before entering into discussions. The consensus was that discussions should go forward as proposed, conducted by a City- Cornell subgroup. It was decided that the Mayor and Tomlan would determine the constitution of the city's membership in that group. Tomlan also asked that the City Attorney advise the Council regarding the legal grounds for denying or granting a special permit. G. Approval of Minutes There were no minutes for approval. H. Adjournment Tomlan reminded committee members that next month's meeting would be September 22 (the fourth rather than the third Wednesday of the month). On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. - 4 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0818.doc D3 * .. ,.„ ..., , „, , .... _ , . , ,, .:.., , <, ,T' Fewer: Cars in Ithaca! . . ...... ... Recommendations for - a. Transportation Demand Management s Strategies for Ithaca, NY 1:4Srik1411: ,,x,41 g . . : CARPOOL ( , .. ' 2 OR MORE , . PERSONS 4 .. 1 Eft E CLE . >, . itten by Gloria Lau 46nder the direction of Department of Planning & Development, City of Ithaca PSIII ' - I 101it ..k , 7.141370 Ar?, Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 Transportation Demand Management 5 The Ithaca Context 7 Transportation Problems Objectives for an Ithaca TDM Program Recommendations 12 Recommended Strategies for the Present 1. Commuter Incentives 2. Ridesharing 3. Park&Ride 4. Parking Management and Evaluation 5. Transit Improvement 6. Education and Marketing Existing/Ongoing Strategies Appropriate Strategies for the Future Inappropriate Strategies for Ithaca Concerns and Feedback from Interview 25 Conclusion 27 Appendix A Other Cities' TDM Program 28 Appendix B Table and Maps 32 Annotated Bibliography 35 Acknowledgement Thanks to the Tompkins Trust Company and the Community and Rural Development Institute at Cornell University for awarding the Robert S. Smith grant to the City. This grant made this report possible. Also,thanks to all the people who we have interviewed, for taking their time and for providing us with information and comments. In addition, I want to thank my supervisor Tim Logue for all his guidance and help in editing the report. Executive Summary The purpose of this transportation demand management(TDM) study is to identify the transportation problems, objectives, and strategies for a possible Ithaca program. The study is divided into three phases: research, interviews, and the written report. TDM is a term for a set of various strategies that aim to prevent and solve different transportation problems by moving people and goods in an efficient and cost effective transportation system, while achieving social, economic and environmental goals. These strategies can be separated into the following categories: improve transportation options,incentives, land use management,policies and regulations,parking management, education and marketing. TDM implementation involves the public, employer/employees,municipalities, transit providers, and related organizations. It is important to first identify the transportation problems within the City of Ithaca, and then identify the appropriate objectives for an Ithaca TDM program. The biggest transportation problems in the City are related to congestion,parking,and the cost of transportation projects. During peak hours,there is considerable congestion along the Route 13 corridor,both in the Southwest area and in the West End; the number of shopping trips is also very high on Saturday afternoon. The City has spent a lot of time and money on downtown parking improvements, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Inadequate parking in Collegetown,West End, and Inlet Island also causes problems and inhibits further development. Lastly, several capital transportation projects that the City has adopted are very expensive. The objectives for an Ithaca TDM program should be to reduce congestion, to manage parking efficiently,to implement cost-effective transportation projects,to improve and encourage alternative modes of transportation, and to strengthen the connection between sustainable transportation and efficient land use. After a month of research and interviews, recommendations were formulated and separated into first and second phases. For the beginning phase,the City should target commuters, since they contribute to congestion at peak hour, have more predictable and homogenous travel pattern, and can easily be reached through their employers. The City also has the greatest opportunity to influence employers and employees in the downtown because businesses are connected through the Ithaca Downtown Partnership. The City can work with individual employers to custom-craft suitable incentives, like travel allowances or flextime,to persuade their employees to commute by alternative modes. A guaranteed ride home program should be set up to provide TDM participants the security to commute without their personal vehicle. An internal audit and set of policies would allow the City to serve as a role model for employers. A rideshare(carpool or vanpool)program can also be organized in the early phase of a TDM program, since there is a receptive market out there (12%of the Tompkins County commuters carpool). A ride matching system can help interested commuters find suitable partners,but other incentives may be needed to make ridesharing more appealing. It is important to weight the pros and cons of implementation as a City program or as part of an employers' program. There is considerable attention to establishing an urbanized area Park&Ride system through the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council, which has created a Park&Ride subcommittee. The City should continue to participate in this group. Park&ride lots should be positioned at critical places where congestion starts to get heavy, as an incentive for people to 1 exchange their car for a transit ride.For this reason,park&ride lots also need to be at nodes of bus service,where there is frequent and convenient transit. A guaranteed ride home program is essential for both a rideshare and a Park&Ride program. Excessive or inadequate parking supply leads to different problems in the City. It is very difficult to find the balance between supply and demand,but certainly an oversupply of inexpensive parking is an incentive to drive. From a TDM perspective,the City can look to two strategies to better manage public and private parking facilities. First,the City can encourage more shared parking between new developments or existing buildings. Second,parking pricing can be set at a rate that acts as an incentive to take transit,rideshare, walk or bicycle. However, some limitations will make ideal parking pricing difficult: the City is currently building a new 700 space parking garage,the City does not have a system of remote parking lots, and there is overflow parking available in nearby neighborhoods. More transit-oriented development and bicycle facilities can also encourage people to leave their car behind and ride the bus,bike, or walk to places nearby. Transit is an integral part of a TDM program and transit improvements can make the system more appealing. The NESTS transit study recommended various modifications to TCAT routes and proposed a transit hub at Pyramid Mall. TCAT has expressed interest in improving service along Route 13 and in the Southwest part of the City,perhaps including a transit hub in the further development of that area. However, since TCAT is under reorganization and capital and operating budgets are tight, these improvements may not take place soon. Besides transit improvements,there is always a need for a strong marketing and educational campaign in order to raise public awareness of TDM and to encourage participation. Other TDM strategies can be implemented in a later phase. These could include carsharing, evaluation and survey, financial analysis, campus transport management, school transport management, special event management,tourist transport management, telework, and car-free planning. In addition,the City has several existing strategies and programs that fulfill some TDM objectives;the Bike Plan,trails construction, and sidewalk mandates address biking and pedestrians concerns,but more attention and staff time are needed. It is also important to note that other TDM strategies, like High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and distance-base pricing,which can be successful in large metropolitan areas, are not appropriate for small city like Ithaca. A number of concerns were raised in the interviews, including the potential lack of interest from employers and the impact on downtown commerce(such as reducing the number of people downtown by allowing employees to work from home). Another concern is that targeting downtown employees may not produce a large enough impact to justify the staff or program costs. About 3,500 people work downtown; if 10%or about 350 people were to shift to an alternative mode,this would produce a significant impact, considering that there are about 2,600 vehicles circulating around the Commons on an average weekday morning. Ithaca has a strong potential for a TDM program;therefore, it is important to identify the suitable organizations and funding sources for implementation. 2 Proposed Resolution -August 18,2004 El Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee NEW YORK MAIN STREET GRANT PROGRAM—SUPPORT FOR GRANT APPLICATION WHEREAS, on July 21, 2004,the New York State Housing Trust Fund Corporation issued a Notice of Funding Availability for the New York Main Street(NYMS) grant program making $20 million of assistance available to undertake main street revitalization projects in downtowns and neighborhood commercial areas, and WHEREAS,the maximum award is limited to $200,000 and requires match funding, and WHEREAS, Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and community-based not-for-profit organizations, but not municipalities, are eligible to apply for NYMS funding, and WHEREAS, eligible grant activities include: • Façade Renovation Grants—50/50 cash match up to $10,000/building • Building Renovation Grants—50/50 cash match up to $50,000/building • Downtown Anchor Grants—up to $100,000, but less than 25% of activity cost • Streetscape Enhancement Grants—up to $25,000 WHEREAS, projects that incorporate residential units on upper floors will receive priority for funding, and WHEREAS, a resolution from the municipality in support of the proposed project is required to be submitted with the grant application, and WHEREAS,the grant application is due September 20, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Downtown Partnership (IDP), an eligible BID applicant, seeks to submit a NYMS application for a proposed project consistent with the "Updated and Amended Downtown Ithaca Development Strategy 2004-2010" as endorsed by the Common Council on March 3, 2004, and WHEREAS, the IDP seeks Common Council support, but no cash match, for a grant application of up to $200,000 for a proposed downtown revitalization project incorporating the following major activities: • Upper Story Commons Housing project • State Theater building renovations • Finger Lakes Wine Center project WHEREAS, subject to financial feasibility, matching fund commitments, and competitiveness,the application may substitute or augment one or more of the above activities with downtown facade renovations and/or streetscape enhancements, and WHEREAS, the IDP is in the process of working with several business and property owners to establish financial feasibility and gain matching fund commitments for the proposed project, now,therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby supports the Ithaca Downtown Partnership's 2004 proposed downtown project submitted for funding through the New York Main Street grant program. q:\planning\community development\cdbg-2004\reso pn&ed nyms 8-18-04.doc NYS DHCR-Notices of Funding Availability -NOFAs Page 1 of 4 4W41:4 itgave,v4 InReruembraaac "fig.: I Contact Us I FAQs - .. .- Key Words I S h I W at's __. � I � _ � ord Search h New o Community Development New York State Housing Trust Fund Corporation Notice of Funding Availability New York Main Street Program The Housing Trust Fund Corporation (HTFC) invites not-for-profit corporations, including Business Improvement Districts(BID) incorporated pursuant to the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL), and not-for-profit community-based organizations to respond to this Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)and submit a proposal for funding through the New York Main Street(NYMS) Program. A. Program Purpose: The purpose of the NYMS program is to provide financial/technical resources to help New York communities with their Main Street/Downtown efforts to preserve and revitalize mixed-use (commercial/civic and residential) business districts. The NYMS program will provide grants to stimulate reinvestment in properties located within mixed-use business districts located in urban, small town, and rural areas consistent with Articles 16A and 17B of the Private Housing Finance Law (PHFL). B. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include community based not-for-profit corporations, and Business Improvement Districts (BID) incorporated pursuant to the N-PCL that will serve as Local Program Administrators(LPAs). Such entities shall have been in existence for at least one (1) year prior to contract execution. NYMS funds will be awarded on a competitive basis to LPAs with a maximum per contract of$200,000. Applicants will be given a period of up to two (2) years to complete their contract. C. Eligible Areas NYMS activities must be conducted within a recognized or established mixed-use (commercial/civic and residential) district that is pedestrian-oriented and comprised of traditional mixed-use buildings. Buildings within the district or the district itself may be eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places or for local or state historic designation. Eligible Areas shall mean a Main Street, Downtown or neighborhood district as defined above for which there is documentation that the area has sustained physical deterioration, decay, neglect, or disinvestment, that the area contains a substantial proportion of residents earning less than 80% of the State or local Median Household Income, and the area contains a significant number of deteriorating or substandard buildings not being adequately repaired, upgraded, or rehabilitated under existing programs. This documentation may take the form of census data; federal, state or local designation; or, other statistically valid sources. Main Street activities must be administered by a Local Program Administrator within the defined service area. D. Eligible Activities The following activities can be funded in part through the NYMS Program: http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/ocd/nofas/nofa05.htm 8/12/2004 NYS DHCR-Notices of Funding Availability -NOFAs Page 2 of 4 Building Renovation Grants - Grants that are made available for the preservation and improvement of buildings in a mixed use setting can be used as follows: a. Facade Renovation Grants, 50/50 match of up to $10,000 per building; b. Building Renovation Grants(BRG), 50/50 match of up to $50,000 per building for commercial/civic space on first floor and residential units above. If the façade does not meet NYMS design approval, a façade renovation will be required in order to qualify for a BRG. Downtown Anchor Grants(DAG) grants of up to $100,000 per building, but not exceeding 25% of project cost, will be made available to help establish or expand cultural or business anchors that are identified in a local plan as key to the revitalization effort. Developments that incorporate residential units on the upper floors will receive priority for funding. A business plan for the proposed Downtown Anchor along with supporting market analysis will be required for all DAG applications. Streetscape Enhancement Grants -grants of up to $25,000 for programs to plant trees and other landscaping, install street furniture and trash cans, provide appropriate signs in accordance with a local signage plan, and other appurtenant activities. Applicants should demonstrate how improvements will impact housing in the target area. Street lighting may be eligible for funding where applicants can satisfy all feasibility issues. A Streetscape Enhancement Grant will only be awarded if it is ancillary to BRG or DAG program as defined above. E. Application Requirements-Application forms will be available from the Housing Trust Fund Corporation in late July 2004. The application will require: 1. A work plan of proposed activities to address the need. 2. Description and documentation of the need for the proposed activity. 3. Description, photos, and map of proposed service area. 4. Description of how program will preserve and improve residential units. 5. A proposed activity budget with proof of matching funds, if applicable. 6. Documentation of the applicant's capacity to perform the proposed activity. 7. Proof of not-for-profit corporation status pursuant to N-PCL. 8. Resolution in support from all municipalities within the service area. An original and three (3) copies of the application must be received by close of business (5:00 PM) at the Housing Trust Fund Corporation, Hampton Plaza, 1st Floor, 38-40 State Street, Albany, NY 12207, on Monday, September 20, 2004. F. Available Funds Total funds available: up to $20 million to be awarded in two (2) rounds of funding. Applications are selected for funding based upon an evaluation process which includes: eligibility, rating, soundness of approach, and recommendations as detailed in the RFP/application packet. Selections are also made in compliance with all pertinent statutory requirements and a policy to distribute funds to meet community renewal needs throughout the State. Individual applicants that submit multiple applications may be limited to a total award of$200,000. G. For Applications or Questions http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/ocd/nofas/nofa05.htm 8/12/2004 CITY OF ITHACA CO: v, "� '� ' 108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5 = rmnrm �7171f �►q.`,,�... .M `�, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PolI� Q_ H. MATTHYS VAN COAT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA - 607-274-6559 Email: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 TO: Members, Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee FROM: Ruth Aslanis, Planning Systems Manager DATE: August 11, 2004 SUBJECT: City-wide Geographic Information System (GIS) Plan Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on July 21, 2004 regarding the City-wide GIS plan. I am pleased to be returning to the committee this month. Since you previously (July) received a copy of the Conceptual System Design document, I am attaching additional materials: letters of support (more letters are expected) and a budget worksheet for the plan, which includes a phased approach the consultant and I developed at the request of the Capital Program Committee. Although the phased approach is far from ideal, if the budgetary reality is such and a phased approach is all that can be funded, I am prepared to implement the GIS plan in the following stages: Phase I–Web Deployment (Ithacamaps Plus) In Phase I we would create the much needed new version of Ithacamaps- a robust full function web GIS application to serve the many City departments and officials. The web application would use the simpler shapefile format without the SDE data storage and retrieval system, bypassing the immediate need for the Master Data Repository element of the plan for a year. When phase II is complete, then the data can be migrated into the Repository and the map service amended to use that source. Some minor programming may be needed in addition to in-house administration and maintenance of the map service at that time. Phasing will require that some data layers not be available immediately. This is particularly true of the B priority list, which cannot be developed without staffing or funding for out-of-house development. The City can, however, add data layers to this application over time as the Resource Center comes online and staff can produce them or as additional resources become available for developing data out- of-house (a more expensive but sometimes useful alternative). In this two-phase approach, the first year's activities could be funded with$54,000 in capital funding and $25,000 in the operating budget for data development and maintenance. This amount, $25,000 had been part of the capital budget during the past few years but could be part of the operating budget. It is critical to providing GIS data and services during any budget year, and $25,000 must be included in the capital budget if it is not made part of the operating budget for 2005 for this project to succeed. The phased approach delays the hiring for the Resource Center by one year, which is not ideal but defers $35,000 of the cost. Funding would cover purchases of goods and services as described above- see attached budget. Phase II–Resource Center and Master Data Repository Year two would see the implementation of the remainder of the plan. The GIS Resource Center staffing would take place in year two. Staff would then begin to create the much-needed data for City staff and q:\planning\projects\gis na\conceptualization\pc cover memo august.doc "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� officials. Also in year two, we would create the master data repository, that is, migrate all GIS data into a single managed and secure source, which could be accessed by any department of the City and the web application. In addition, a web application to serve the public in place of IthacaMaps would be created. This year's activities could be funded with$113,500 including the cost of the new position. The annual data development and maintenance expenses of$25,000 are assumed in the operating budget for 2006. Otherwise they must be part of the capital project (see attached budget). q:\planning\projects\gis na\conceptualization\pc cover memo august.doc Proposed Resolution for Referral to City Administration Committee Planning Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee August 18,2004 Conceptual System Design-City of Ithaca Geographic Information System (GIS) Plan 2004 WHEREAS, since 1991,the Department of Planning & Development has, with limited resources, developed a highly accurate and(at the time of its development) cutting edge Geographic Information System(GIS), and WHEREAS, GIS technology has matured and new capacities are available which would be of great value to the City and are not incorporated in the widely used IthacaMaps application, and WHEREAS,there has been an increasing awareness of and demand for GIS capacity by City staff and officials, and WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Development, in cooperation with other City departments, has completed a comprehensive study of all City staff's needs for geographic data and applications culminating in the Conceptual System Design document, entitled Conceptual System Design—City of Ithaca Geographic Information System (GIS) Plan, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Conceptual System design will provide a framework for developing GIS on a enterprise basis, and WHEREAS, there is a recognition of the value of city-wide GIS and consensus among the City department heads that the Conceptual System Design will serve their needs; now, therefore,be it RESOLVED, that the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee recommends approval of the GIS Plan and hereby refers the entitled Conceptual System Design —City of Ithaca Geographic Information System(GIS) Plan, 2004 to the City Administration Committee for funding. q:\planning\projects\gis na\conceptualization\pereferresolution.doc Proposed Citywide GIS Implementation - 2004 Planned Approch Phased approach Full Implementation Year 1 Year 2 Total Phased Purchases Capital Operating Capital Operating Capital Operating Capital Only 167,500 25,000 54,000 25,000 113,500 25,000 167,500 HARDWARE 2 new workstations with large screens, and tablets 6,000 6,000 Large format color plotter 8,000 8,000 Servers for data, web, and map application 16,500 11,000 5,500 Peripherals (large format scanner, digitizing table, backup and UPS) 4,000 1,000 3,000 34,500 12,000 22,500 SOFTWARE Arclnfo/ArcGIS 10,000 10,000 Arclnfo/ArcGIS Extensions 5,000 5,000 ArcSDE 12,000 12,000 ArcIMS Web Application 1 30,000 30,000 ArcIMS and Servlet Exec 10,000 10,000 Year 2 Implementation-ArcIMS Web Application 2 15,000 15,000 82,000 40,000 42,000 SERVICES ArcSDE/DB implementation 3,000 3,000 Training SDE Administration 5,000 5,000 ArcIMS Imp!and support 3,000 2,000 1,000 Data development 5,000 5,000 16,000 2,000 14,000 MAINTENANCE & DEVELOPMENT 1 YEAR 25,000 25,000 25,000 STAFFING - 1 new position 35,000 35,000 Estimate prepared by Ruth Aslanis and Applied GIS,July 2004 oy..1T1a'',, _-,- ...•• --••-�4�",, CITY OF ITHACA %Cr~�"'f "'• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - STREETS & FACILITIES DMSION I Ii(rTl(1( Ti i I s 245 Pier Road, Ithaca, New York 14850-3246 �i i i'i ''ire �•4!-- RICHARD FERREL, ASST. SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS rickfCci.ithaca.ny.us '`�Po O= Telephone: 607/272-1718 Fax: 607/272-437-i To: Mayor Peterson Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee ).9),Li From: Richard Ferrel - Asst. Supt. of Public Works Date: August 12, 2004 Re: Support for Citywide GIS Implementation Project I wish to express my strong support for implementing the Citywide GIS Plan. Many of the Streets and Facilities section supervisors and myself use the current Ithaca Maps web page on a daily basis for project planning and ease of answering citizen questions. The GIS Plan provides many layers of data that would further aid in our planning and construction efforts plus reduce the staff time required for collecting data in the field. Specifically, the ability to easily locate and identify water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer infrastructure when planning street work would instantly allow answers for many questions and concerns. The layers of data for traffic, signs, sidewalks and trees are also very important as the information would be used by many of our staff for daily and long range work planning. The use of shared data would be a great time saver for our staff and the staff of other departments. Easy accessibility to the data would reduce inquiry time by staff members needing the information and by the department that traditionally responds to the information request. The GIS Plan would also reduce duplication of data collected and held by the individual departments. Streets and Facilities staff participated in the Needs Assessment phase and the review meetings for the GIS Conceptual System Design being recommended by the consultant, AppliedGIS Inc., and Ruth Aslanis. During the Needs Assessment phase, our staff stated our current uses and needs plus several ideas for creating additional data layers in the future. Without a doubt, as GIS is used by the staff, additional data will be identified that should be incorporated into the program. An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ^ :J (GIS Support letter, page 2) Once GIS is implemented it will be important to staff the Resource Center in order to update infrastructure changes and apply new data layers. Changes to the infrastructure occur with every street reconstruction project, many private development projects and for residential construction or building improvements. The Water and Sewer Division has replaced and upgraded both water distribution lines and sewer collection pipes in many section of the city. At Streets and Facilities, the storm water collection system is extended or modified in some form every year. Each change requires updating in the database to keep records current and useful for the future. The Department of Public Works will be losing many long term employees over the next seven years as a result of retirements. These employees installed some of the existing infrastructure with limited plans during the length of their careers. In some instances, records are sketchy or non- existent and supervisors depend on an employee's memory when addressing a problem or planning a project. The GIS Program should be implemented in a short time period in order to capture missing links of data that are known by the retiring employees. Vii oc CITY OF ITHACA ~e, (3Tl(' 71 Tll ``' 510 First Street Ithaca, New York 14850-3506 vf DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS • WATER AND SEWER DIVISION PoRA7E0= Telephone: 607/272-1717 Fax: 607/277-5028 August 5, 2004 To the Capital Program Committee: I write a letter of support for the Department of Planning and Development regarding the City-wide GIS Implementation Plan and the establishment of a GIS Resource Center to develop and manage GIS data and applications and provide data collection, mapping, and analysis services as set forth in the conceptual system design document submitted by Applied GIS, Inc. I have reviewed the Conceptual System Design that lays the foundation for the City of Ithaca GIS plan. I believe that this plan will serve the City of Ithaca as a whole as well as my department and division. This plan calls for a system that will enable the Water& Sewer Division who is already an advanced developer of GIS data to continue to leverage its GIS staff, expertise, resources, and data as part of the City's overall GIS initiative. I also agree that the Water and Sewer Division and the Resource Center will engage in n cooperative relationship,which will enable the sharing of equipment, expertise and other resources on an as-needed and agreed-upon basis. The Water& Sewer Division is committed to GIS as a whole and has developed many layers of data over the years that could be easily shared on a citywide level if the technological structure was in place to do so. I believe that the web application and the shared data repository would meet this need. GIS technology has emerged as an essential tool in the 21St century. Many of us use GIS technology without knowing it everyday. Every time you get directions from Yahoo Maps or look at a weather map you are using GIS technology. For many municipalities GIS has become just another way of doing business. It is used to track crime, to provide information to the public in times of emergencies, to reduce stress to our staff by giving them the information that they need at their fingertips and to facilitate their work process, to save money by assisting our field crews by providing them the information that they need to avoid damages to life-line services such as (cable, gas, electric,water and sewer lines), and to save lives as in the case of September 1 lth 2001. I believe that the assessment that has already been conducted as part of this project has successfully identified and prioritized the various GIS needs both for individual departments and the City as a whole. I commend the many efforts of the numerous staff including my own that has spent countless hours making this initiative and resulting documents a reality. 1 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Finally, I believe that the implementation project should receive the 157,000 that it is asking for to implement this plan in addition to any other money required for annual maintenance and staff. This would provide a solid structure for a citywide GIS in which many will benefit. It will also allow the few departments that have already developed capacity to continue to leverage their capacities by serving the city through a relationship of cooperation. Yours ly, ?L) 041/1"C-d ,4` ence P. Fabbroni,P.E., L.S. Asst. Superintendent DPW Water and Sewer Division 2 „--4 q',, CITY OF ITHACA ~ "'^`” ¢'i',- 108 East Green Street Ithaca New York 14850-5690 ;Vlf1GFl, �; '•. I sTTfl �> ��! BUILDING DEPARTMENT s' ' **ATP Telephone: 607/274-6508 Fax: 607/274-6521 N. Memorandum: To: Capital Projects Committee From: Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner_ Re: Support for City Wide GIS Capital Project Date: August 12, 2004 The Building Department is an agency that greatly benefits from the City's GIS system. Not only do we use it on a daily bases for property information,but we often depend on information to determine zoning districts in transition zones,to determine how the property is assessed with respect to use, and for lot area information when a site survey is not available. The proposal described under Ruth Aslanis's Conceptual System Design would make the GIS a more valuable tool for the Building Department. Currently we do not have the capability to measure distance. This feature would enable use to approximate property setbacks and to provide Board of Zoning Appeal's applicants notification information about neighbors within 200 feet of their property. The enhanced GIS would also be extremely useful because it would incorporate other department data such as water and sewer mapping so that location of utilities can be planned. Access to the locations of storm sewer lines and invert elevations would be helpful in resolving drainage issues. The updated program would also allow us to easily view aerial photos to determine grandfather rights with respect to off-street parking. The GIS is already one tool that makes our work in the Building Department easier. Since we depend on accurate and reliable information, Ruth's proposed upgrade would benefit the Building Department even further. Furthermore, the money invested in this project will decrease the time it takes searching for information that is now only available from a variety of sources and sites. For these reasons I am hopeful that the Committee will support the GIS upgrade. Thank you for your consideration. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 i Ruth Aslanis GIS Capital Project ,�. „Fe„ ,. ,.. .. .... Page 1 From: "Brian Wilbur"<brianw@cityofithaca.org> To: "Ruth Aslanis" <rutha©cityofithaca.org> Date: 8/9/2004 8:34:59 AM Subject: GIS Capital Project Hi Ruth, With hopes this email will suffice until I am able to write an appropriate letter, please let me add my statement of support for the GIS Capital Project you have so thoroughly prepared for inclusion in the 2005 capital improvement budget. This is an important project that deserves consideration. GIS has demonstrated its utility as a tool for any number of government functions. The Ithaca Fire Department has called upon the services of the Ithaca GIS for a variety of tasks, including, but not limited to: emergency management, hydrant testing and location review, preplanning of target hazards, and plotting locations of all components of the City's Municipal Fire Alarm system. Even with that, we have barely scratched the surface of the potential that exists for GIS in our arena. The enhanced capacity that would be provided by your project will improve our operations, increase fire fighter and citizen safety, help us to better mitigate natural and other disasters, and increase efficiency overall. Despite the continuing budgetary constraints that exist, I would hope that this project will enjoy support. GIS is an important part of our infrastructure, and has demonstrated its potential. Brian Brian H. Wilbur, Fire Chief Ithaca Fire Department 310 W. Green Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 607-272-1234 607-272-2793 (fax) brianw@cityofithaca.org www.ithacafire.org ><a�• CITY OF ITHACA �� •• ^•` '�''s 108 East Green Street— 3`d Floor Ithaca New York 14850-5690 .� i _'1 .4)> •- �► DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 0�.,,-•....•r''� � '.„ Q H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND 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 August 11, 2004 Ruth Aslanis, Planning Systems Manager Department of Planning and Development City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Support for Capital Project-City-Wide GIS Plan Implementation Dear Ruth, I am writing to support the capital project request to implement the citywide GIS Plan. The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency participated in the GIS Needs Assessment study. In that assessment we concluded that we use the GIS data on a practically daily basis as we plan for and implement community development projects in the areas of housing, public facilities,economic development. I think the planned improvements will greatly enhance productivity and coordination within the City and help us better communicate with citizens. However, it is my view that if we do not make investments to improve the GIS at this point in time, it will slowly diminish in its usefulness. Currently,we are a heavy user of the interactive mapping function(Ithacamaps)whereby one can select a specific tax parcel and print out a map showing a building situated on the parcel in the context of the surrounding area,along with parcel characteristics and a photo of the building on the site. This is a function that the Tompkins County Assessment Office does not provide. As we have previously discussed, I would like to have the mapping/printing function enhanced to provide the capacity to add a title, arrows, and a brief narrative to improve the usefulness and readability of these self-created maps. I understand the proposed GIS upgrade will allow for this greater utility of the GIS mapping function. This improvement will increase our productivity and allow us to better communicate with the public and City boards& commissions. I also support increasing the GIS data available to users. It will be very useful to access new information such as traffic counts,on-street parking,water, sewer,storm,crime statistics, and building department data by specific location, in addition to the information currently available on zoning,street trees and census demographics. Ultimately, I envision the GIS helping us to measure performance of our collective investments in various areas of the City by helping us measure quality-of-life indicators by neighborhood. I have greatly benefited from easy access to the GIS system with reasonably up-to-date data, but the current GIS limitations are very apparent. In my opinion,the benefits far outweigh the cost of the investment to strengthen the GIS system. I strongly support the GIS capital project. Respe , i ►.- ,� Nels Bohn, i ector of Community Development Ithaca Urba Renewal Agency q:lplanning\community development\support letters\\gis capital project 8-11-04.doc "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 E 3 A Proposed Resolution Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee August 18, 2004 Transfer of 324-346 Floral Avenue to IURA—Designation of Lead Agency Status for Environmental Review WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposal to transfer city surplus parcels located at 324-346 Floral Avenue to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA) is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance and to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, which requires review under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and RESOLVED, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself as lead agency for the environmental review of the transfer of 324-346 Floral Avenue parcels to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency. q:\planning\staffinels\iura\property disposition\97-1-1-97-1-5\reso p,n&ed lead agency.doc q:\planning\stafflnels\iura\property disposition\97-1-1-97-1-5\backup of reso p,n&ed lead agency.wbk 08/12/04 Proposed Resolution Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee August 18,2004 Transfer of 324-346 Floral Avenue to IURA—Declaration of Environmental Significance WHEREAS, the proposed action is to transfer surplus City-owned property located at 324-346 Floral Avenue to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA), and WHEREAS, the IURA plans to solicit housing development proposals for the surplus parcels through a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP)process and bring a proposed sale back to the Common Council for approval as a subsequent action, and WHEREAS, a description of the proposed action was distributed to City Boards, Commissions, Department heads and the County Planning Department for comment, and WHEREAS, the County Planning Department recommends that the RFP include selection criteria to require that the developer minimize disturbance to the portions of the parcels located in the Unique Natural Area, Octopus Cliffs, designated by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, and WHEREAS, the action to transfer ownership of the surplus parcels to the IURA will have no impact on the unique natural area, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental assessment forms have been completed, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an"unlisted" action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is an unlisted action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby does determine that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED,this resolution shall constitute notice of this negative declaration, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with the attachment, in the City Clerk's office and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. q:\planning\stafflnels\iura\property disposition\97-1-1 - 97-1-5\reso p,n&ed neg dec 8-18-04.doc q:\planning\stafflnels\iura\property disposition\97-1-1-97-1-5\reso p,n&ed neg dec 8-18-04.doc 08/12/04 Proposed Resolution Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee August 18,2004 Transfer of 324-346 Floral Avenue to IURA WHEREAS, City staff has determined that five City-owned parcels located at 324-346 Floral Avenue are not needed for municipal purposes and recommends they be declared as surplus land, and WHEREAS, the approximately 2-acres of contiguous City-owned parcels are located in the R3a zoning district, where multi-family residential uses are permitted, and WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the parcels be transferred to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to solicit proposals for purchase and use of the surplus land, and develop a proposed sale to a housing developer for Common Council consideration and approval, and WHEREAS, a description of the proposed action was distributed to City Boards, Commissions, Department heads and the County Planning Department for comment, and WHEREAS,the County Planning Department recommends that the RFP include selection criteria to require that the developer minimize disturbance to the portions of the parcels located in the Unique Natural Area, Octopus Cliffs, designated by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, and WHEREAS, significant plan species inventoried in the 51-acre Octopus Cliffs Unique Natural Area are the Kentucky coffee-tree and the yellow giant hyssop, and WHEREAS, Common Council, as Lead Agency, has completed an environmental review of the project and has declared that the proposed action will not have a significant environmental impact; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that Common Council hereby determines that City-owned parcels located at 324-346 Floral Avenue are surplus property, and be it further RESOLVED,that the Common Council hereby approves the transfer of 324-346 Floral Avenue parcels to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor, upon review by the City Attorney and the Director of Planning & Development, is hereby authorized to execute any and all instruments necessary to accomplish transfer of tax parcels 97.-1-1, 97.-1-2, 97.-1-3, 97.-1-3, 97.-1-4, and 97.-1-5 to the IURA. q:\planning\staff\nels\iura\property disposition\97-1-1 -97-1-5\reso p,n&ed transfer 324-346 floral to iura 8-18- 04.doc CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. 1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA) Transfer of 324-346 Floral Avenue from City of Ithaca to IURA 3. Project Location: 324-346 Floral Avenue, Ithaca, NY 4. Is Proposed Action: X New o Expansion o Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: Transfer surplus City property to IURA for disposition to a sponsor of a housing development project. IURA will solicit housing development proposals through a Request For Proposal process, select a preferred sponsor and negotiate a proposed property sales agreement for review and approval by the Common Council. 6. Precise Location(Road Intersections,Prominent Landmarks, or provide map) 324-346 Floral Avenue, comprising the following five contiguous tax parcels: 97.-1-1, 97.- 1-2, 97.-1-3, 97.-1-4, and 97.-1-5(see map). 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially 2.0 Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately 2.0 Acres or Sq. Ft. 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? X Yes o No If No, describe briefly: 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: X Residential o Industrial o Agricultural o Parkland/Open Space o Commercial o Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency(Federal, State or Local): X Yes o No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Common Council approval of IURA-proposed disposition of property. 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? o Yes X No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing, permit/approval require modification? o Yes X No q: planning staff nets iura property disposition seaf 324-46 floral ave.doc I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. PREPARERS SIGNATURE: DATE: July 9, 2004 PREPARER'S TITLE: Nels Bohn, Director of Community Development REPRESENTING: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency q: planning,staff nets iura`property disposition seaf 324-46 floral ave.doc SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM • Project Information To Be Completed By Staff In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form(SEAF),the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. Name of Project: Transfer of 324-346 Floral Avenue from City to IURA - Yes No 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter ❑ X more than one acre of land? 2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any ❑ X site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state agency? 3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? ❑ X 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? ❑ X 5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ❑ X 6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ❑ X 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? ❑ X 8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views ❑ X or vistas known to be important to the community: 9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic,pre-historic, or ❑ X paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ❑ X 11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing ❑ X transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors,noise,glare, vibration, or electrical ❑ X disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? 13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? ❑ X 14. Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in ❑ X permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period OR have a negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? C X If any question has been answered YES. a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: iy74/Lt,1 (1 �i <.)/ DATE: July 12, 2004 PREPARER'S TITLE: JoAnn Cornish, D puty Di1ec9 of Planning & Development REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca y: planning staff nels iura property disposition seal part i 324-46 floral ave.doc *114s Co 9�( " DEP ' 7 ' P NING *1 1 :� + Str eat h , a•k 4 0 Edward C.Marx,AICP * x Telephone(607)274-5560 Commissioner of Planning * * * Fax(607)274-5578 August 4,2004 Nels Bohn,Director of Community Development Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Environmental Review Action: Transfer of City Surplus Land to Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Tax Parcel No.'s 19.-1-1, 97.-1-2,97.-1-3, 97.-1-4,and 97.-1-5 Dear Mr.Bohn: This letter autrnowlcuges your refer ai of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department.The Department has reviewed the proposal,as submitted,and has determined that it has no negative inter-community,or county-wide impacts. We recommend including selection criteria for the RFP to require that the developer minimize disturbance to the portion of the parcels located in the Unique Natural Area,Octopus Cliffs, designated by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. We also suggest that if feasible,access to the site be provided from Chestnut Street rather than Floral Avenue(NYS Route 13A). Thank you for the opportunity to comment.We look forward to reviewing a future development proposal on these parcels. Sincerely, e s - i Edward C. Marx,AICP Commissioner of Planning - _-_ Natural Resources Inventory Page 1 of 1 NRI - 07/30/2004 p ,Gis, a j., / Ai , 4.,,.z , ,•, .....,.., „„.„,,,,, _ *11' 1 Ex, Mr ,i, ,, . 3 •'ter. d 1 Rf'Ix Sk;µ � IN , '''':4 ' i 1 ��''s t 4 t 0 Y ' .�. �'3,� jts, 616._' '4";rlif % 00'' °41.0.'Ill, ' '07"."°`7°,00"" _400"40.06 1,,,Vr0o ir / i Allitf / „,,i,.,;'4,,!.-=,,—,, iv A t irl x rr a Generated by Tompkins County Natural Resource Inventory on-line application. w n Tompkins County Natural Resources Inventory -1-11111r The geographic data represented has been developed from various public records and data sources.While efforts have been made to use the most current and accurate data,Tompkins County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this internet-based Geographic Information System.Users assume all risks and responsibility for determining whether this map is sufficient for purposes intended and are hereby notified that the providers of represented data sources should be consulted for further verification of the information contained on this website. http://gisweb.tompkins-co.org/nri/PRINT_MAP.ASP 7/30/2004 , I ! I 1114 if �UNA-137 / :t 1 I 1 I 1 tililti\I 11 1 k ,,0,. _---1----......adi. 1 1.4\ s' 4 ,- • 1.----.... --.....-. / • . r ► % /r:* .i �A 4. . / ‘ ) -V. • V i :. i... tia ,- / I 1 '1 0 z''A.•:.C....**. ' r r 1 �, � 1 +iii rR - „rf �� �� �� I �� Pp. s� lull;+, ,1 i .� i I r I it .� • .t■,�1� t.ri roil 1 I ' .lrgr.' : jwary� t'%t" a I ,/ ,/ r , i4.1 , ... ■ vii: sal . •N,IV ty !PT, . , / /*�iilr.ur l.. r �•ar. t�Ffiri) i A /if A 4 rtfil...A//1//:/ milk:84: :10./1 >%%\ •litv:‘111111. i....772;a C11: / / •": 41.1 1 Ai ,"8.411:1 lit :A 11170 iglu *PI .7i: �I.ni.11� ��t�.Nr<r zoo ,=its �.: M� u'' 4�, A 6:s'll i /4 A .....\4,I I / / .sN -.....- ' � I r t. % .it\ +.10!, :IN4.1:". "" .1 a a 1 r ‘s \ i ,/,,, *t 2 5-)...F.. „. .,..., .. ... City of Ithaca UNA-137 Octopus Cliffs ®Unique Natural Area UNA-137 Tompkins County Environmental Management Council -Building Footprint Inventory of Unique Natural Areas in Tompkins County A/20 Foot Contour Last Updated:September 1999 A/Road � `UNA boundaries were delineated by field biologists based on a review of air � �'Cayuga Lake photographs,digital GIS base map data(roads,building footprints,20 foot contours and streams)and field visits. UNA boundaries are approximate and should be used for general planning purposes only. As a practical matter the A county does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information 1:12000 portrayed. The end user of this map agrees to accept the data"as is"with null knowledge that errors and ommissions may exist,and to hold harmless the 1000 0 1000 Feet County for any damages that may result from an inappropriate use of this map. N I I 1 1 Octopus Cliffs City of Ithaca. UNA-137 Still NAME. Octopus Cliffs SOT, ;CO14` _ *'UNA-1137'; DATA LAS' JPDA'EI): 1/3/00 ' . `!;,` OIL 1 IE;C)DIt °; IT 22 LOCATION Municipality: City of Ithaca Latitude: 42 27 46 N USGS Quad: Ithaca West Longitude: 76 31 58 W Tax Parcel Numbers Included in this Site: Tax parcel data is accurate as of July I,1999. For up-to-date information on tax parcel descriptions and ownership,contact the Tompkins County Assessment Department. When a UNA covered less than 0.025 ac.of a parcel,the parcel was excluded from this list. CI 18.-3-2 CI 21.-4-1.1 CI 21.-4-3 CI 21.-4-4.2 CI 21.-4-5 CI 22:1-1.3 CI 38.-2-11 CI 38.-2-12 CI 38.-2-13 CI 38:2-14 CI 38:2-15 CI 38.-2-16.2 CI 38.-2-17 CI 38.-2-9 CI 38.-3-1 CI 38.-3-2 CI 38.-3-3 CI 38.-3-4 CI 38.-3-5 CI 38.-3-6 CI 38.-3-7 CI 38.-3-8 CI 38.-3-9 CI 4.-2-5 CI 42:1-10 CI 42:1-I1 CI 42.-1-12.2 CI 42.-1-13 CI 42:1-14 CI 42.-1-15 CI 42.-1-16 CI 42.-1-17 CI 42.-1-18 CI 42:1-19 CI 42.-1-2 CI 42.-1-20 CI 42.-1-22 CI 42.-1-3 CI 42.-1-4 CI 42.-1-6 CI 42.-1-7 CI 42.-1-8 CI42.-1-9 CI42.-2-1 CI42.-2-11 CI 42.-2-12 CI 42.-2-13 CI42.-2-14 CI 42.-2-15 CI 42.-2-2.1 CI 42.-2-2.2 CI 42.-2-2.3 CI 42.-2-5 CI 42.-2-6 CI 42.-2-8 CI 42.-2-9 CI 53.-4-1 CI 53.-5-1 CI 53:5-10 CI 53.-5-I1 CI 53:5-12 CI 53:5-13 CI 53.-5-14 CI 53.-5-2 CI 53.-5-3 CI 53.-5-4 CI 53.-5-5 CI 53.-5-6 CI 53.-5-7 CI 53.-5-8 CI 53.-6-1 CI 53.6-10.1 CI 53:6-10.2 CI 53:6-I1 CI 53.-6-13 CI 53.-6-2 CI 53.-6-3 CI 53.-6-4 CI 53.-6-5 CI 53.-6-6 CI 53.-6-7 CI 53.-6-8 CI 53.-6-9 CI 57.-2-1 CI 57.-2-2 CI 57.-3-I CI 57:3-10 CI 57.-3-2.2 CI 57.-3-3 CI 57.-3-4 CI 57.-3-5 CI 57.-3-6 CI 57.-3-7 CI 57.-3-8 CI 57.-3-9 CI 57.-4-1 CI 74.-3-1 CI 74:3-10 CI 74.-3-11 CI 74.-3-12 CI 74.-3-13 CI 74.-3-14 CI 74:3-15 CI 74.-3-17 CI 74.-3-2 CI 74.-3-21 CI 74.-3-22 CI 74.-3-23 CI 74.-3-24 CI 74.-3-3 CI 74.-3-4 CI 74.-3-5 CI 74.-3-6 CI 74.-3-7 CI 74.-3-8 CI 74.-3-9 CI 77.-2-14 CI 77.-2-2 CI 77.-2-3 CI 77.-2-4 CI 77.-2-5 CI 77.-2-6 CI 77.-2-7 CI 77.-2-8 C197:1-1 CI 97.-1-2 CI 97.-1-3 CI 97.-1-4 SITE AND VEGETATION DESCRIPTION This UNA contains a steep forested slope with many small gorges with cliffs and streams(many intermittent). The soils are shallow with rock outcrops. The south end of the site has pretty much been developed,but Kentucky coffeetree(Gymnocladus dioica),a locally rare species,persists here. The forest includes mixed oak forest and also nice,fairly old,mesic forest dominated by sugar maple,red oak,and basswood. Farther up the slope,the oaks are more abundant. Herbs are abundant,with high species diversity. REASONS FOR SELECTION • Area of geologic importance • Rare or scarce plants SPECIAL LAND-USE INFORMATION Special Land-Use Designations and Features • The New York Natural Heritage Program has determined that this site may contain rare plants,animals,and/or significant ecological communities. • The Tompkins County Greenway Coalition has identified a biological corridor which includes this site. • This site has views which are considered locally important. There is a scenic road running through the site. • This site is considered culturally valuable by local residents. There is a concentration of cultural resources,such as schools,libraries,museums and churches,in this area. Water Resources • All or some of a lake or pond is found on this site. • A stream runs through this site. • A NYS protected stream runs through this site. CONSERVATION OF THE SITE Adjacent Land-Use: Public park and residential. Sensitivity of Site to Visitors: Due to the steep,fragile slopes,the site could be very vulnerable to disturbance by visitors. However,it does not appear to be visited very much. Evidence of Disturbance and Threats to Site: Long ago there was some logging on the site. The main threat is from development. Special Conservation/Management Needs: The site does not have an adequate protective buffer. Page 380 Octopus Cliffs City of Ithaca UNA-137 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE Slope% Topographic Position Size(acres): 51.263 Elevation(ft.): 389 to 518 Aspect: east ❑ Flat ❑ Crest Topographic Features LJ 3 to 15 ❑ Upper Slope Steep slope with small streams,cliffs,and rock outcrops. R/ 15 to 25 'd' Mid Slope Geological Features Over 25 tel Lower Slope Shales,shallow soils,rock outcrops,and cliffs. BBottom Soils Present on the Site Soil characteristics of the site were determined manually and are approximate. In the future,digital soil data will provide more accurate information. Soil Name Hvdric(Wet) Erodibility Drainage Unmapped Area BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE General Cover Types Upland forest Rock outcrops and gravel banks Open water Ecological Communities Detailed information regarding each community type's rareness may be found in Appendix F. For up-to-date information on ecological communities,contact the NY Natural Heritage Program(518-783-3932). Rarity:(Key: No checkmarks indicate that no communities fall within those categories.) k Global-At least one community designated as rare or scarce at the global level by The Nature Conservancy is found on this site. • State-At least one community designated as rare or scarce at the state level by The Nature Conservancy and the New York Natural Heritage Program is found on this site. • Local-At least one community designated as rare or scarce at the local level by the Tompkins County EMC and the Cornell Plantations is found on this site. Ecological Communities Inventoried on this Site: Community Name Description Global/State/Local Rarity Mixed oak forest A forest dominated by oaks found on steep south and west facing slopes. Soils may have G4G5 S4 L4 calcareous materials at depth. Dominants are red,black,and white oak,and white pine. Black oak is an indicator of this ecological community type. Pignut hickory and red maple are usually present. Flowering dogwood and choke cherry are often abundant in the understory. _ _ _ _ _ Intermittent stream The aquatic community of a small ephemeral streambed with a moderate to steep gradient G4 S4 L4 where the water flows only during the spring or after a heavy rain. The streambed may be covered with mosses such as Bryhnia novae-angliae. Shale cliff and talus A community with sparse vegetation that occurs on nearly vertical exposures of shale bedrock, G4 S3? L3 community ledges,and talus. The talus is unstable,there is little soil. Characteristic species include blunt- lobed woodsia,rusty woodsia,hairy penstemon,herb-Robert,panic grass,Carex pensylvanica, and eastern red cedar. Cliff and talus Open communities with less than 25%trees on a shale substrate. The Shale cliff and talus G5 S4 L3 communities on shale community and Shale talus slope woodland communities are often found together. The woodland community is structurally intermediate between forests and open canopy upland of the cliff and talus community. Shale talus slope An open to closed canopy woodland that occurs on talus slopes composed of shale. Slopes are G3G4 S3 L3 woodland unstable and very well drained. Soils are shallow and dry. Canopy cover is less than 50%. Characteristics trees include chestnut oak,pignut hickory,red oak,white oak,white pine, white ash,and eastern white cedar. Characteristic shrubs include smooth sumac,poison ivy, hairy penstemon,everlasting,and Pennsylvania sedge. Plant Species Although substantial effort was made to identify significant plant species on this site,it is possible that additional rare or scarce species exist that do not show up in this report. A field check is always recommended prior to modifying the landscape.Detailed information regarding each species' rareness and status may be found in Appendix D. For up-to-date information on species,contact the NY Natural Heritage Program(518-783- Rarity:(Key: No checkmarks indicate that no species fall within those categories.) V' Global-At least one plant species designated as rare or scarce at the global level by The Nature Conservancy is found on this site. ✓ State-At least one plant species designated as rare or scarce at the state level by The Nature Conservancy and the New York Natural Heritage Program is found on this site. v9 Local-At least one plant species designated as rare or scarce at the local level by the Tompkins County EMC and the Cornell Plantations is found on this site. Legal Status: Federal-At least one plant species desienated as threatened or endangered by the U.S.Department of the Interior is found on this site. V State-At least one plant species designated in New York State as endangered,threatened,rare or exploitably vulnerable is found on this site. Significant Plant Species Inventoried on this Site: Scientific Name Common Name Global/State/Local Rarity Local Comments State Legal Status Gymnocladus dioica Kentucky coffee-tree G5 S I L2 Rare Rare Agastache nepetoides yellow giant hyssop G3G5 S2S3 L2 Rare None Page 381 Octopus Cliffs City of Ithaca UNA-137 Animal Species The UNA Inventory currently does not contain much specific data regarding animal species(and very little regarding rare or scarce species)on UNA sites. Therefore,this data should be viewed as preliminary and incomplete. A field check is always recommended prior to modifying the landscape.Detailed information regarding each species'rareness and status may be found in Appendix E. For up-to-date information on species,contact the NY Natural Heritage Program(518-783-3932). Animal Description: Rarity:(Key: No checkmarks indicate that no species fall within those categories.) ❑ Global-At least one animal species designated as rare or scarce at the global level by The Nature Conservancy is found on this site. ❑ State-At least one animal species designated as rare or scarce at the state level by The Nature Conservancy and the New York Natural Heritage Program is found on this site. Legal Status: ❑ Federal-At least one animal species designated as threatened or endangered by the U.S.Department of the Interior is found on this site. ❑ State-At least one animal species designated by NYS as threatened or endangered is found on this site. Animal Species Inventoried on this Site: Federal/State Scientific Name Common Name Global/State Rarity Legal Status Comments No data Page 382 E3B Proposed Resolution - August 18, 2004 Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Amendment to FY 2004 Action Plan to Comply with HUD Requirements—HUD Entitlement Program WHEREAS, on February 17, 2004 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) formally notified the City of Ithaca that it was eligible to become an Entitlement community receiving annual formula allocations of funding, including the following amounts in FY 2004: $976,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $601,669 HOME Investment Partnerships Program(HOME) $1,577,669 Total, and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2003 the Common Council designated the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as the Lead Agency to develop and administer the Consolidated Plan to enable the City to be eligible to receive HUD Entitlement program funding on an annual basis, and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2004 the Common Council adopted and submitted to HUD a multi-year Consolidated Plan and an annual FY 2004 Action Plan, and WHEREAS, the Action Plan identifies the specific list of budgeted activities to be funded from FY 2004 HUD Entitlement funds, including the following activities from HOME funds: $21,000 Rental Housing Security Deposits, Catholic Charities $300,000 Elm St. Rental Housing Construction(6 units), INHS $40,000 MHATC West End Housing Initiative predevelopment loan, MHATC $162,569 First Time Homebuyer Assistance, INHS, $18,000 Transitional Housing Project, Red Cross $60,100 HOME Administration, and $601,669 HOME Total WHEREAS, in correspondence dated June 25, 2004 HUD informed the City that in order to approve the 2004 Action Plan, the City must submit a plan to bring the 2004 HOME program budget up to a minimum of$750,000 or forfeit HOME funding for FY 2004 and all future allocations, and WHEREAS,per 24 CFR 92.102, to be eligible to receive annual HOME funds through the Entitlement program a community must have a formula allocation of at least $750,000 or augment the HOME allocation with local or state funds to achieve the minimum $750,000 threshold in the initial year of the program, and WHEREAS, the City's 2004 allocation of HOME funds is $601,669 that creates a shortfall of$148,331 to reach the $750,000 minimum HOME threshold, and WHEREAS, such HOME shortfall must be made up from local or state funds, and 1 WHEREAS, by correspondence from the Mayor dated July 7, 2004, the City informed HUD that it plans to commit $148,331 from the Housing Development Grant(HODAG)program income source to fund the FY 2004 HOME shortfall, and WHEREAS, the correspondence further proposed that such local funds would be used to make a construction loan of$148,331 to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) in support of their Elm St. Rental Housing Construction project, which is already included in the Action Plan for HOME funding, and WHEREAS,the addition of$148,331 to the HOME budget in the Action plan constitutes a"substantial amendment"that must be adopted by Common Council following an advertised public hearing, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 18, 2004 before the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts the following amendment to the 2004 Action Plan to satisfy the minimum HOME threshold amount of$750,000: 1. Add $148,331 in revenue to the HOME budget from the Housing Development Grant(HODAG) program income source ("Eddygate Park Apartments," grant#NY009HG401"), and 2. Use the additional local funds to make a construction loan of$148,331 to INHS for the Elm Street Rental Housing Construction project, and be it further RESOLVED,that the Mayor, subject to advice from the City Attorney and Director of Planning & Development, is authorized to execute any and all documents necessary to implement this resolution. q:\planning\community development\cdbg-2004\action plan\reso p,n&ed amend 2004 action plan 8-18-04.doc 2 FY 2004 Action Plan HUD Entitlement Program City of Ithaca, New York Activities Funding 2004 Total Funding 2004 2004 Other Project # Title Sponsor Request _ CDBG HOME Funds Cost Output _ Housing 1 Domestic Violence Shelter Rehabilitation Advocacy Center $21,000 $21,000 $0 $28,100 $49,100 Repairs to 8-bed shelter serving victims of domestic violence 2 Rental Housing Security Deposits Catholic Charities $21,000 $0 $21,000 $127,000 $148,000 Assist 100 low-income households access rental housing 3 Elm St.Rental Housing Construction INHS* $400,000 $0 $300,000 $320,000 $620,000 Construct 6 affordable rental housing units 4 MHATC West End Housing Initiative MHATC* $550,000 $0 $40,000 $11,000 $51,000 Predevelopment loan for 50-unit affordable housing project 5 First Time Homebuyer Assistance INNS* $300,000 $0 $162,569 $480,000 $642,569 Assist 6 LMI households purchase homes($27K+/-loan/unit) 6 Residential Weatherization Initiative TCA $100,000 $100,000 $0 $200,000 $300,000 65 major weatherization projects assisting LMI households 7 Transitional Housing Project Red Cross $18,000 $0 $18,000 $5,000 $23,000 Assist 25 homeless households access rental housing Housing Subtotal $662,569 42% Economic Development 8 Drop-In Children Center Expansion Drop-In Center $188,000 $35,000 $0 $660,000 $695,000 Create 1.75 FTE jobs&2 childcare slots 9 Economic Development Project Loan Fund IURA operated $500,000 $270,700 $0 $550,000 $820,700 Create 12 FTE jobs/revitalize the greater downtown target area Economic Development Subtotal $306,700 19% Public Services 10 Coordination of Anti-Poverty Services Catholic Charities $4,450 $4,450 $0 $0 $4,450 Pilot program to increase utilization of existing programs 11 Senior Nutrition Foodnet $15,000 $15,000 $0 $242,000 $257,000 Serve daily meals to 300 elderly city residents 12 Community Policing City of Ithaca $126,950 $126,950 $0 $0 $126,950 3 community police officers in 3 LMI neighborhoods Public Service Subtotal $146,400 9% Public Facilities 13 City-owned Building Improvements - GIAC Steps&Entrances Repairs City/GIAC $17,000 $17,000 $0 $5,000 $22,000 Repair stairs and entrance doors - Southside Community Center Repairs City/Southside CC $28,000 $25,700 $0 $0 $25,700 Repair exterior doors&entrance steps;install voice/data wiring - City Hall Barrier Removal City of Ithaca $95,200 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 Remove architectural barriers to access council chambers 14 Cecil A.Malone Drive Pedestrian Bridge City of Ithaca $125,000 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 Install pedestrian bridge thereby remedying a safety hazard Public Facilities Subtotal $207,700 13% A_dministration 15 Administration IURA $255,300 $195,200 $60,100 $0 $255,300 Administer grant,monitor,public information,fair housing,planning,etc Administration Subtotal $255,300 16% TOTALS $976,000 $601,669 $2,628,100 $4,205,769 Total HUD Award $1,577,669 1000/0 * Sponsor is a Community Housing Development Organization(CHDO) Adopted by Common Coucil on May 5,2004 IURA = Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency INHS = Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services LMI = Low-and moderate-income HUD = U.S.Department of Housing&Urban Development MHATC = Mutual Housing Assoc.of Tompkins County HH = Household CDBG = Community Development Block Grant TCA = Tompkins Community Action FTE = Full time equivalent HOME = Home Investment Partnerships Program GIAC = Greater Ithaca Activities Center DPl1CD12004cdbglxtion plan 12004 Action Plan CC Adopted 5-5-04.xls CITY OF ITHACA -�'- 108 East Green Street Ithaca New York 14850 . k_�'' I IT_.151MEI Ithaca, ( ;. ,>T11 43,"t.` '' � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • CAROLYN K.PETERSON !°b1EVTfc = Telephone: 607/274-6501 Fax: 607/274-6526 July 7,2004 Nancy A. Peacock, Director Community Planning and Development Division,2CD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Buffalo Office 465 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14203-1780 • SUBJECT: FY 2004 HOME Participation Threshold Amount, City of Ithaca, NY Dear Ms. Peacock, • This letter is in response to your June 25, 2004 correspondence seeking submission of a plan to address the$148,331 shortfall between the City's formula HOME allocation of$601,669 for fiscal ( year 2004 and the$750,000 threshold amount required in the initial year of the program to be designated a Participating Jurisdiction eligible to receive annual HOME allocations. The City of Ithaca hereby plans to commit$148,331 from the Housing Development Grant(HODAG) program income source("Eddygate Park Apartments,"grant#NY009HG401) to fund the FY 2004 HOME shortfall to enable the City of Ithaca to become an eligible Participating Jurisdiction. These local funds will be used to make a construction loan of$148,331 to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. in support of their Elm St. Rental Housing Construction project, which is included in the FY 2004 Action Plan. This project will result in the creation of 6 new affordable rental housing units to be occupied by HOME-eligible tenants. It is the City's understanding that any repayment of these local funds pledged to make up the HOME shortfall will not be considered as HUD program income. It is my further understanding that to be eligible to become a Participating Jurisdiction, a community must substantiate its capacity to administer projects comparable to HOME activities. Please note that the City of Ithaca, through its Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, has successfully administered HODAG, CDBG, UDAG, Canal Corridor Initiative. Section 17, BEDI and ARC funds totaling over S28 million. In just the last 10 years the City has administered approximately$11,000,000 of CDBG funds and retains a skilled staff of four full-time professionals whose primary duties are to develop, administer and monitor federal grants addressing housing and other community development needs. The City has adequate staff capacity in place tc administer the HOME program. ".fin Equal Opportunity Employer with 2 commitment to workforce diversification.- t; I hope this response brings our Consolidated Action Plan in compliance with HOME regulations contained at 24 CFR 92.102. If you have any questions about this matter please contact me at(607) 274-6501or Nels Bohn, Director of Community Development for the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency at(607) 274-6547. Respectfully, /C, 104t5&rAWY Caroiyn K. Peterson, Mayor Cc: K.Kst,HUD-Buffalo H.M.Van Cort.1URA • N.Bohn,IURA S.Intel,IURA ' H.Sicherman - P.Mozzarella,INHS HUD correspondence _ Project file q 1plaminylconununity develapmsnllcdby-20041acton plead hurl home threshold 7-7-04.doc Jun'au'GVV-► i I1+ w III soy./ qccweN*a.y US. Department of Housing and Urban Development opt' Buffalo Office * Ell °j * r 465 Main Street Buffalo,New York 14203-1780 a II; I � (716)551-5755 o 4. JW25 Mr. Nels Bohn Director of Community Development Ithaca Urban Recewal Agency 108 East Green Street Baca,NY 148:50 Dear Mr.Bohn: SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004 HOME Investment Partnerships(HOME)Program Notification of Participation Threshold Amount;City of Ithaca,New York This correspondence serves to follow up a June 25,2004 telephone conversation between Karen Kist and the City. As you know,the Department has established the City's FY 2004 HOME formula allocation to be$601,669. During the course of reviewing the City's FY 2004 In • Consolidated Action Plan,our Office determined that the City did not include a plan to address Part 92.102 of th.HOME Regulations. This section of the regulation requires that a unit of general local government must have a formula allocation that is equal to or greater than$750,000 in order to be considered an eligible Participating Jurisdiction(PJ). Within 10 days of the date of this letter,the Mayor should submit a plan to address the $148,331 shortfall which exists between the City's HOME allocation and the required established threfiold. Specifically,her plan should provide evidence that the City has committed cash resources in order to cover the gap or evidence that New York State will authorize HUD to transfer to all or a portion of its NYS HOME allocation to cover the shortfall amount. If may b7: helpful to know that other?Js who have been in this position in the past have used general re•cnue funds, state funds, state HOME funds,housing trust funds and/or UDAG miscellaneous rl-venue funds, since they are in most cases considered local funds. You should also note that th,! City will only have to cover this shortfall gap for the first year of its participation in the HOME Program. Orcr the City is officially designated a HUD P1, it remains so for subseq,:e t fiscal years and the requirements of Sections 92.102 through 92.105 would no longer apply. www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov • • 2. We are enclosing the applicable sections of the HOME Regulations which provide details _ regarding this HOME allocation threshold requirement issue. Please feel free to contact Ms. Anna Sessum,Program Manager,at 716-551-5755, ext 5809 if you have any other questions regarding this re:west for information. Sincerely, Nancy A.Peacock Director Community Planning and Development Division,2CD Enclosures I.YIJ -Alloraable dousing -Laws and Regulations - 1-10MEE Regulations - subpart U - 92.102 Particiipatioz Page 1 of 1 r Hrime.s G Community Planning and Development En espanol Text only Search/index .Department of Housing an. Ir.an cue opmerrt Community 92. 102 Participation Threshold Amount [Code of Federal Regulations] Planning and [Title 24,Volume 1] Information by State Development [Revised as of April 1, 2001] a Print version •Affordable Housing From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access IN Laws and Regulations [CITE: 24CFR92.102] =(O Email this to a.friend • Laws • Regulations a. To be eligible to become a participating jurisdiction, a unit of general local government must have a formula HUD news allocation under 92.50 that is equal to or greater than $750,000; or Homes b. If a unit of general local government's formula allocation is less than Cptrununities $750,000, HUD must find: 1. The unit of general local government has a local PHA and has Working with HUD demonstrated a capacity to carry out the provisions of this part, as HUD- Resources evidenced by satisfactory performance under one or more HUD- administered programs that provide assistance for activities Tools comparable to the eligible activities under this part; and Let's talk 2. The State has authorized HUD to transfer to the unit of general local Webcasts government a portion of the State's allocation or the State, the unit of Mailing lists general local government, or both, has made available its own Contact us resources such that the sum of the amounts transferred or made available are equal to or greater than the difference between the unit of general local government's formula allocation and $750,000. : . c. In fiscal years in which Congress appropriates less than $1.5 billion for this "'gam"i'"" ""Q part, $500,000 is substituted for $750,000 each time it appears In this section. 14'(rite Mouse Content updated August 13, 2001 0 Back to top tic.`; d ,. .u - �""l ' U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development R I1I1lli o 451 7th Street S.W.,Washington, DC 20410 Privacy Policy 111//111 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 Home °►.���y�'� Find address of a HUD office near._.you l...�.ii., ..,, 1,0,I,hnucirodigli-cgndra∎Tci / rP�c/hnmP enhc%9?102 cfm 6/25/2004 • k..r'i.) -Atroruaoie dousing -Laws and Regulations -riUMt Regulations -Subpart C - 92.103 Notification Page 1 of P..6 m(7.1 t1 �r ril rii rl r I`:r Community Planning and Development En espanol Text only , Search/index S D=-partm.:nt of Hou:inz an Ili.an to e opment _ Community 92. 103 Notification of Intent to Planning and Participate Development [Code of Federal Regulations] (� •Affordable Housing [Title 24,Volume 1] In for mation_by_State •Laws and Regulations [Revised as of April 1, 2001] Print version From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access • Laws [CITE: 24CFR92.103] _O Email this to a friend • Regulations HUD news a. Not later than 30 days after receiving notice of its formula allocation amount, a jurisdiction must notify HUD in Homes writing of its intention to become a participating jurisdiction. Communities b. A unit of general local government that has a formula allocation of less than Working with HUD $750,000, or less than $500,000 in fiscal years in which Congress appropriates less than $1.5 billion for this part, must submit, with its notice, Resources one or more of the following, as appropriate, as evidence that it has met the threshold allocation requirements in 92.102(b): Tools 1. Authorization from the State to transfer a portion of Its allocation to Let's talk the unit of general local government; Webcasts 2. A letter from the governor or designee indicating that the required Mailing lists funds have been approved and budgeted for the unit of general local Contact us government; _ l ,,:eip 3. A letter from the chief executive officer of the unit of general local .. government indicating that the required funds have been approved Irinnale and budgeted. wm tradmicsrarsv .= Content updated August 13, 2001 0 Back to top r■■• ' a ** 'o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development L -x.41 i`'n:ttxc se +� 1111111 451 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20410 = Privacy Policv ' „ , * �,J Home % 11111111 s Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 '►,,y�ife Find the address of a HUD office.._near you httnl//www.hud.Rw/offices/cnd/affordahlehousing./Iawsandreas/reas/home/subc/9210 3.cfm 6/25/2004 oMENrop, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development �QP Buffalo Office Q z 465 Main Street * * Buffalo,New York 14203-1780 z I IIII ��_ (716)551-5755 A G9NN DEVS‘"-- irr is: f ' OFFICE AUG 03 2004 4 )1UG _ 5' 204 The Honorable Carolyn K. Peterson CITY I�- . Mayor, City of Ithaca ke 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850-5614 Dear Mayor Peterson: SUBJECT: 2004-2008 Five Year Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Action Plan Approval; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME)Programs; City of Ithaca,New York I am happy to announce that the City's first Five Year Consolidated Plan and related 2004 Action Plan has been determined to be in compliance with HUD requirements and is accordingly approved. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I am transmitting the City's grant agreements for its CDBG and HOME Programs in the following amounts for the program year beginning July 1, 2004: Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program Project Number B-04-MC-36-0018 $976,000 Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Project Number M-04-MC-36-0515 $601,669 Enclosed are three copies of the Funding Approval/Agreement for the Program. In order to establish the Line of Credit for your Fiscal Year 2004 grant, it will be necessary for you to sign, date, and return two copies of the Agreement to the Buffalo HUD Office. If there is a need to delete or add individuals authorized to access the Integrated Disbursement and Information System(IDIS), an updated IDIS Access Request form needs to be prepared, notarized, and returned to the Buffalo HUD Office with the Grant Agreement. Also, if there is a need to establish or change the depository account to which these grant funds are to be wired, a Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form (SF 1199A) must be completed by you and your financial institution and mailed to the Buffalo HUD Office. Environmental requirements of 24 CFR Part 58 apply to the grant we are hereby approving. As a consequence, the City is not authorized to obligate or otherwise incur costs for any grant activities for which a release of funds is required under 24 CFR Part 58, until such time as the City has completed the requisite environmental review, has followed the appropriate procedures for submitting a Request for Release of Funds (HUD Form 7015.15) and HUD has issued the Authority to Use Grant Funds (HUD Form 7015.16). www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov 2. Please note that for the City's Fiscal Year 2004 Program, a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report(CAPER) is due in the Buffalo HUD Office no later than September 29, 2005, and should be made available in draft form for citizen review no later than September 14, 2005. The purpose of the CAPER is to show what the City has accomplished with its HUD funding over the course of a program year and allow City officials, HUD and the public to draw conclusions concerning the City's overall performance. By providing detailed financial and beneficiary information, the CAPER will measure how the City carried out its housing and community development strategies,projects and activities. We would like to take this opportunity to formally congratulate the City on receiving CDBG and HOME Program Entitlement status. As a past HUD Administered Small Cities CDBG Program recipient,the Buffalo Office has observed first hand the numerous positive accomplishments which Ithaca has achieved. We are happy to continue our partnership at a new and enhanced level and we are certain that these annual funding programs will enable the City to continue to further its present and future community and economic development efforts. The Buffalo Office would also like to acknowledge the quality, content and professionalism of the City's Five-Year Consolidated Plan and associated 2004 Action Plan. The development of these strategies is a major undertaking, and the Ithaca Renewal Agency (IURA) staff is commended for the time and efforts dedicated to preparing the Plans. With the intent of maintaining the course of positive progress,we have included 2004 Advisory Recommendations as an enclosure to this approval package. We request that you take these observations under consideration and respond to the Buffalo Office within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Karen Kist, Senior Community Planning and Development Representative, on 716-551-5755, extension 5808. Sincerely, Step en T. Banko, III Field Office Director, 2CS Enclosure cc: Nels Bohn City of Ithaca, NY Annual Plan Fiscal Year 2004 HUD Advisory Comments The HUD Buffalo Office has reviewed the City's 2004 Action Plan and would like to acknowledge the City's efforts to develop a high quality Plan. Since HUD shares the City's vested interest in continuing to improve this strategy,we would like to offer the following recommendations with the intent of further improving future submissions. The City is asked to provide a response to each of the items within 30 days of the date of this letter RECOMMENDATION#1: HUD IDIS Matrix Codes and National Objective Citation The City is reminded that only one IDIS Matrix Code and CDBG National Objective citation can be input into the IDIS system for each activity. Prior to entering CDBG and HOME activities into IDIS, the City should reassess all Fiscal Year 2004 activities and advise the HUD Buffalo Office which codes will be selected for each activity. RECOMMENDATION#2: CDBG Public Facilities Activity 13 With respect to the three separate Public Facilities projects proposed under Activity 13, the City is reminded that each project must be input into the IDIS system individually. Please note that correct Matrix Codes and National Objective Citations must also be used. RECOMMENDATION#3: Needs of Public Housing The City's Action Plan does not clearly describe the manner or extent to which the City will address the needs of public housing during the 2004 Program Year. This required component is included in HUD's "Guidelines for Preparing a Consolidated Plan Submission for Local Jurisdictions". If Public Housing needs have been determined to be less than a priority need, then the Action Plan should clearly address this conclusion. RECOMMENDATION #4: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Based upon the City's request for specific technical assistance related to complying with HUD's Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity requirements, we recommend that the City contact Mr. Charles Martin, Buffalo Office FH&EO Director, at (716)551-5755 extension 5600. In the interim, please note that the City's future Action Plans should incorporate the following components that are specific to HUD's FH&EO requirements: • The City must conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and its Annual Action Plan should specify a timeframe to address any impediments; • Although the City has certified that it will comply with Section 3 Requirements, the City has not described the specific activities that will be undertaken during the covered period to address these requirements; • Table 1B indicates that the City has a high number of physically disabled persons. That being the case, the City should explain why it has not proposed activities to address the needs of these individuals. RECOMMENDATION#5: HOME Program Timeliness and Commitment Requirements Please note that HOME Program Regulations require that the City's FY 2004 $601,669 HOME Program allocation be committed to each of the City's proposed HOME projects within 24 months of the date of its HOME grant agreement, and expended within five years of the grant agreement date. Also,within 24 months of the date of the HOME grant agreement,the City must reserve and commit at least 15 percent of the grant(or$90,251)to qualified Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO's). , RECOMMENDATION#6: HOME Program Participation Threshold Amount Shortfall - As described in HUD's June 25, 2004 letter to the City, the Department has established the City's FY 2004 HOME formula allocation to be$601,669. During the course of reviewing the City's FY 2004 Consolidated Action Plan, our Office determined that the City did not / include a plan to address Part 92.102 of the HOME Regulations. This section of the regulation rrequires that a unit of general local government must have a formula allocation that is equal to or greater than$750,000 in order to be considered an eligible Participating Jurisdiction(PJ). This is to confirm that HUD has received and approved the City's plan to address the $148,331 shortfall between the City's HOME allocation and the required threshold amount. Specifically, the City's letter of July 7, 2004 provided acceptable evidence that the City has committed cash resources sufficient to cover this shortfall amount. . E4 12 August 2004 TO: Members, Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee Carolyn Peterson, Mayor H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development JoAnn Cornish, Deputy Director of Planning and Development Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works FROM: Mary Tomlan, Chair, Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee RE: Removal of bump-outs on College Avenue Given the scope of our July 21 committee discussion about the request to remove bump-outs on College Avenue, I thought it would be useful to prepare a statement reporting the consensus of the committee on the matter. At its July 21, 2004, meeting, the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee considered the proposal of Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit(TCAT)to move its northbound stop at the intersection of College Avenue and Dryden Road from the far(north) side to the near (south) side, with the intent of reducing congestion and accidents. This would necessitate the removal of the bump-out in front of 325 College Avenue and the elimination of one parking space, while freeing the present stop for use as a delivery or loading zone. It was the consensus of committee members that this change in infrastructure and use would not have a substantial negative impact on the neighborhood, and would likely contribute to convenience and safety. Committee members recommend that this proposal be discussed by the Board of Public Works with considerations of schedule and financial arrangements, and request that any proposals for further modifications to this area be brought to the committee for review and recommendation. CITY OF ITHACA ,v f • • 108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 (=_TT=1D1'fTTI A _�_T.A. -� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT coq ,. +, H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA - 607-274-6559 Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 To: Carolyn Peterson, Mayor Common Council Martin A. Luster, City Attorney H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning & 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 City-Cornell Working Group From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood & Economic Development Planne ` 7 Date: August 11, 2004 Re: Modifications to Proposed U-1 District Zoning Amendment Since the July meeting of the Planning, Neighborhoods 86 Economic Development committee, a few issues have been raised that should be clarified in the proposed U-1 zoning amendment. The two most pressing issues include conformance with residential area regulations and exemptions from the special permit requirement. The proposed amendment would require that living accommodations within 200 feet of a residential district conform to the use and area regulations of that residential district. However, it is unclear how some of the area regulations would apply to a project in this buffer zone. It is also unclear that this stipulation brings any benefit to the adjacent neighborhood. For the purposes of zoning, the entire Cornell campus is effectively treated like one parcel; this makes the concepts of side and rear yard setbacks and total lot coverage confusing. Front yard setbacks are currently required (§325-18(D)) for new buildings within 100 feet of a residential zone at a distance at least equal to the residential front yard setback. Extending this requirement to a 200-foot zone would not have an impact. Height regulations also currently exist in a 200-foot buffer zone that limit buildings to 15 feet taller than the abutting residential district maximum height, which is either 35 feet or 40 feet. Eliminating this 15- foot (one story) increase would not significantly better protect adjacent neighborhoods. `An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �a Applying the residential district's parking regulations in the proposed 200 foot buffer would not produce a desired effect. It would require more parking than currently required in the U-1 zone, and it would require that the parking be provided either on-site or nearby. The existing U-1 parking regulations allow parking to be provided on- or off-campus (actually, anywhere in the County, with some conditions) and the total number of required parking spaces can be reduced by participation in the University's Transportation Demand Management System. For these reasons, I would recommend removing the area regulation requirements from the proposed zoning amendment. It is more understandable to leave it "as is" and provides adequate protection of surrounding residential areas. It also eliminates the question of how to treat a new building that is only partially within the 200-foot buffer. I do not see a problem with leaving the requirement that living accommodations with 200 feet of a residential zone must conform to the use regulations of the adjacent residential district; however, this requirement has little effect because the U-1 primarily abuts R-3 and R-U districts, which allow nearly any residential use. There are a few places where the U-1 district abuts the R-2a district. In these areas, residential uses would be limited primarily to one or two family dwellings. The second question revolves around the exemptions to the special permit requirement. As the proposed amendment stands, all projects within 200 feet of a residential zone are required to get a special permit except living accommodations and classrooms. These two terms raise a few problems. First, neither term is defined in the zoning ordinance. Does "living accommodations" include dorms, apartments, community centers, and other uses related to living on campus? How do we treat a building that is a mix of classrooms, offices, research facilities, and a café? Definitions can be created, but first a larger question must be answered, namely, what uses should be allowed as-of- right in the 200 foot buffer area and which ones should require a special permit? This is a policy question for Common Council to decide. If the committee is interested in pursuing this, one relatively simple and easy to understand solution would be to allow residential development as-of-right in the buffer zone, but to require a special permit for all other uses. I think a persuasive case can be made that residential uses, of all potential uses in the U-1 district, are most like the adjacent neighborhoods in question, in that they are residential areas. New residential development would already be subject to the existing regulations on building height, street setback, and parking; this would provide sufficient protection. It would be, however, useful to replace the term "living accommodations" with a term that is currently defined in the Zoning Ordinance. I would suggest "one-family, two-family or multiple dwellings," to cover the full range of residential uses, including dormitories, fraternities and sororities. On the other hand, non-residential uses could be out of character and may bring adverse impacts to a residential area. For example, administrative, academic or retail buildings might bring excessive traffic; laboratory or research facilities might produce noise or fumes. The assumption of the special permit requirement is not that all non-residential uses will have an adverse impact on surrounding neighborhoods, but that development proposals should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to make such a determination. In order for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to deny a special permit request, they would have to make a determination based on the facts of the case, as found in the record of its proceedings. Though the burden of proof is largely on the applicant, the BZA can only deny a request based on a finding of significant negative impact. A denial would also need to be based on the standards spelled out in the ordinance. Section 325-9(C)(3) lists these general standards: No special permit shall be recommended by the Planning and Development Board or granted by the Board of Appeals unless the proposed use or activity meets the following requirements: (a) The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it and the location of the site with respect to the existing or future streets giving access to it shall be such that it will be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and buildings or impair the enjoyment or value thereof. (b) Operations in connection with any special use shall not be more objectionable to nearby property by reason of noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, vibration or flashing lights than would be the operations of any use permitted without a special permit. Moreover, Section 325-9(D) states reasons why the Board of Zoning Appeals shall deny a special permit request: 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. I would suggest that the Committee discuss this issue of special permit exemptions and make a determination before proceeding. I've enclosed an alternate zoning amendment for your consideration based on the recommendations of this memo. 8/11/2004 An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning" To Amend the U-1 Zoning District The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows : ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED "ZONING" TO AMEND THE U -1 ZONING DISTRICT. BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows : Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325 -8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled "District Regulations" is hereby amended to modify district regulations for the U -1 Zoning District to read as follows (changes will appear on the District Regulations Chart, which is a part of Chapter 325) : Column 1 : Use District - U-1 . Column 2 : Permitted Primary Uses (See General Notes) - 1 . Post secondary educational institution and its affiliated institutions, whose primary purpose is education, research, extension or living accommodation except that, within 200 feet of a residential district, any use other than clan^room^ adjacent rcoidcntial diotrictone-family, two family or multiple family dwellings, is permitted only by special permit of the Board of Zoning Appeals (see § 325-9) . Column 3 : Permitted Accessory Uses - Required off-street parking, parking garages, signs, except that, within 200 feet of a residential district, accessory uses are permitted only upon issuance of a special permit as set forth in § 325-9 . Column 4 : Off-Street Parking Requirements - See Section 325-20 . Column 5 :Off-Street Loading Requirements - None. Column 6 : Minimum Lot Size, Area in Square Feet - No minimum lot size. Column 7 : Minimum Lot Size, Width in Feet at Street Line - None . Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted (if any) is ctruckthrough I (2.PLANNING PROJECTS\Z(AING,11-1 Zone%Ordinance Version 2.0.peQ.P1.A\h N6',PRO JI.L'.FSVIONI-?(r1:-1....{oie'«()n tnance:doe Page 1 of 2 8/11/2004 Column 8 : Maximum Building Height, Number of Stories - None. Column 9 : Maximum Height of Building, Height in Feet - 175' ; except that within 200 feet of any adjacent City residential district, the maximum height of any building shall be limited to 15' more than the maximum height permitted in the adjacent City residential district . See also Section 325-16 (D) . Column 10 : Maximum Percent of Lot Coverage by Buildings - 35 . Column 11 : Yard Dimensions, Front, Required Minimum - None except as required by Section 325-18 (D) . Column 12 : Yard Dimensions, Side, One Side at Least - None. Column 13 : Yard Dimensions, Side, Other at Least - None . Columns 14 and 15 : Yard Dimensions, Rear - None. Column 16 : Minimum Height of Building, Height in Feet - None . See §325-16D. Section 2 . Chapter 325, Section 325-9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled "Special Permits, Standards" is hereby amended to add subsection (C) (1) (s) to read as follows : "In U-1 Districts, within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts, any use other than elaooroomo or living o- one-family, two-family or multiple family dwellings . In such U-1 Districts, notwithstanding the district regulations of Section 1 of this Ordinance, living accommodations within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts shall conform to the use and area regulations applying to the strictest of such adjoining residential districts . " Section 3 . Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted (if any)is struck-thr-eugh Q:\PLANNING PROJPCfSvZONINGU)-1 ZoneyOrdinance Version 2.docQ?::PLANNINGvPROJECFS`.ZONING4U 1 ZoneAOrd:nance.doc Page 2 of 2 i For Information Only SCHUYLER COU1NITY EMPIRE ZONE JO° 2 North Franklin Street Kelsey Jones,astir ° Kyle e'Town Ty cone GrinGrinnell Conwnttton Watkins Glen,NY 14891 Peggy Haozo Cad Hayden Scott Welliver Winner's Cade MC Woe:nailer, WeIver-McGuire,Inc. Phone:607-535-4341 Hayden a Monaco 13„ham Coo„ Joseph Roman Kameth Wilton Fax:607-535-7221 Watkins Glen School Dotrict Bo pin•State Development HSHC Email:Barbara@scoped.biz • Barbara).Halpin July 28,2004 U) r,, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 1 JUL 2 9 2004 �.�� Nels Bohn,Director of Community Development 108 E. Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY :. Dear Nels: This letter is in regard to your January 21,2004 application to the Schuyler County ; Empire Zone Administrative Board to be included in the Schuyler County Empire Zone. , : We have been informed by Empire State Development(ESD)that they are unable to t approve the 2003-04 preliminary boundary revision application. Therefore,we are unable to include your project in the Schuyler County Empire Zone at this time ESD is requesting that the Schuyler Zone Administrative Board,through a k strengthened local Empire Zone Development Policy,first formulate a strategic planning process to guide placement of Empire Zone acreage before submitting a boundary revision application. ESD felt that our current planning process did not offer sufficient support and economic development rational for inclusion of the properties we identified in our proposed revision. We have been asked to revise the development policy,and reevaluate the projects we would like to include in a future ` boundary revision proposal. 7 The Schuyler County Empire Zone Administrative Board will address these issues at its next meeting. It is anticipated that these efforts will eventually result in our submission to ESD of a new boundary revision application to include projects that are consistent with the development policy as revised by the Board and approved by ESD. We will keep you advised of developments in these matters as they relate to your application for inclusion in the Schuyler County Empire Zone. Sincerely, Barbara Halpin