The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-15-04 Planning & Economic Develoment Committee Meeting Agenda MEETING NOTICE City of Ithaca Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee Wednesday,December 15,2004 Common Council Chambers City Hall-- 108 East Green Street TIME: Estimated 8:45 p.m. (Following Special Meeting of the Common Council) There will be a special meeting of the Common Council at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the Green Garage, followed by the regular meeting of the Planning,Neighborhoods &Economic Development Committee. Agenda A. Agenda Review B. Public Comment and Response C. Announcements, Reports and Presentations: 1. U-1 Subgroup - Report 5 minutes D. Action Items: 1. Planned Unit Development(PUD) -Resolution (materials enclosed) 20 minutes 2. Downtown Zoning Amendment-Resolutions (materials enclosed) 30 minutes E. Other Items: 1. Cayuga Green Phase II, student input 5 minutes F. Approval of Minutes: 5 minutes 1. November 17,2004 (materials enclosed) 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, December 14, 2004. Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee December 15, 2004 Minutes Committee Members Attending: Alderpersons Mary Tomlan, Chair; Michelle Berry; Dan Cogan; Pam Mackesey; and Gayraud Townsend Other Elected City Officials Attending: Mayor Carolyn Peterson and Alderpersons Maria Coles and Joel Zumoff City Staff Attending: H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning &Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner; and Tim Logue, Economic Development& Neighborhood Planner The meeting, which was preceded by a special meeting of Common Council,was called to order by Mary Tomlan at 8:51 p.m. Dan Cogan asked for privilege of the floor. He stated that he had polled committee members and had gotten support for holding a public forum on the proposed Planned Unit Development(PUD) Ordinance. A. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. B. Public Comment and Response: Kris Bennett, President of the West Hill Civic Association, expressed support for a public forum on Planned Unit Development (PUD). They get the committee agendas, but would like these to include a synopsis of agenda items. Ralph Jones, member of the executive committee of the West Hill Civic Association, asked that we put information in The Ithaca Journal or on Casey Stevens's radio program. Sarah Adams asked for more contact with elected officials and asked for a listsery with City business. Margherita Fabrizio, co-chair of the Fall Creek Civic Association, noted that they get agendas only about one day before the meeting. When dealing with something radical and controversial, there should be a greater effort to get out information. Chad Hoover supported the idea of a forum, and suggested that it include case studies of PUD successes and failures. - 1 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Jim Miller, who had spoken against a proposed ordinance a year ago, still opposes it. As drawn up, lot sizes are too small and criteria are too subjective. Susan Blumenthal concurred with Miller. She was against it when she was on Common Council and is still against it. She questioned whether any PUD ordinance is appropriate for Ithaca. She suggested that instead of PUD, zoning approval could be achieved through variances or through cluster zoning or small areas planning. Richard Glick asked that the PUD ordinance be scrapped as it does away with protections. The proposed ordinance makes no reference to existing zoning, a larger area should be notified and the notice given should be longer than 10 days. Jutta Dotterweich and Neil Schwartzbach, co-chairs of the Washington Park Civic Association, said there should be more notification of neighborhoods when something important is coming up. Schwartzbach suggested that we post such a proposed ordinance on the City web site so that people could pose questions,which the staff could answer. Neil Oolie thought that the PUD ordinance would give developers too much opportunity to do what they want, and asked for greater publicity about such measures. Fay Gougakis expressed concern about the TCAT reorganization, about City parking rates and about the previous firing of a meter reader. Joel Harlan, from Newfield, said there should be more action in downtown. There should be strip clubs. Responses by Council Members: Michelle Berry said that there should be better media coverage. There should be a public information officer. Committee members should do an op ed. In response to Harlan's comment, she said that breastfeeding in public is protected by New York State Law and is not erotic. Gayraud Townsend talked about the need for a public information officer. He suggested that the members of the public lobby their alderpersons about the need for this position. Maria Coles said that she would reserve her comments about the PUD for another meeting. She noted the importance of civic associations, especially those with listservs, in disseminating information. Cogan spoke about how hard it is to get information out to the public. He said he thought a public information officer might be the most economical way of dealing with this need. He supported the idea of a listsery for City announcements. -2 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Mayor Carolyn Peterson stated that coordinated neighborhood association meetings would resume in the following year, and that she would hold a citywide meeting on the PUD. She also said that the Mayor's budget for 2005 increased one position in the City Clerk's office to become a full time position so that the Clerk could spend more time on public information. Pam Mackesey expressed appreciation to the speakers for coming to present their concerns to the Committee. Tomlan recited the many times that the PUD was on the agenda and discussed by the Planning Neighborhoods & Economic Development(PNED) Committee. She also noted that the contact person for the neighborhood groups receives the meeting agenda at about the same time as Committee members receive the agendas and backup materials. She said that the special PUD subcommittee had discussed many of the issues that were raised by the public. C. Announcements, Reports and Presentations: Tomlan announced that there are many vacancies on a number of City of Ithaca boards and commissions. 1. U-1 Subgroup -Report Tomlan reported that the U-1 Subgroup had been appointed by the Mayor, consisting of Tomlan; Tim Logue, Economic Development and Neighborhood Planner; Marty Luster, City Attorney; Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner; and Dan Hoffman, Planning and Development Board member. D. Action Items: 1. Planned Unit Development(PUD) -Resolution Cogan moved and Townsend seconded a motion to hold a public forum on the PUD. Tomlan suggested that the Mayor could organize the meeting. Townsend suggested that a meeting be held at the Woman's Community Building. The Mayor said that she was thinking that a public forum could possibly be held in February. Tomlan suggested that a report on plans for the forum could be brought back to the January PNED Committee meeting. The motion on the floor carried unanimously(5-0-0). (Berry left the meeting at 9:45 p.m.) - 3 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting 2. Downtown Zoning Amendment-Resolutions Tomlan briefly described the proposed zoning changes. Jennifer Kusznir noted that comments had been received from the Tompkins County Department of Planning, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and the Ithaca Downtown Partnership (IDP). The Committee first discussed the chart changes that would require a two-story minimum height. Mackesey said she thought the minimum height provisions were a good idea, but she had reservations about allowing a 100-foot building next to Green Street and near the Commons. Zumoff said he also had concerns about the 100-foot change. Jennifer Kusznir said that shadow studies had been done and that a new building of that height would not shade the Commons. Mackesey moved that the map changes to 85- and 100-foot maximum allowable heights be tabled, pending further visual information. Seconded by Cogan. Cogan asked whether Tomlan had ideas about who could provide input on the height change and whether there were renderings of the proposed changes. Tomlan noted that the IDP had commented favorably,provided that the change be sensitive to the building's historic surroundings. She further noted that parts of the Commons were under consideration for designation as an historic district. Tomlan asked whether the recent Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) for downtown included drawings of the garage with a higher zoning limit. Mackesey said that she was in favor of greater density in downtown, but she was concerned about the height of the proposed change. She said she thought that a 100-foot building on that site would be too high. Mayor Peterson pointed out that the 140-foot zoning in the vicinity of the Seneca Place on The Commons building is closer to the Commons than this site. Cogan asked how height is measured. Van Cort explained that it was the average height of the finished grade around the finished building. Tomlan explained her opposition to the earlier zoning proposal to make the Seneca Street Garage site 140 feet. She spoke in favor of the 85-foot height for the Green Garage. She is not in favor of the change to a 100-foot height for the Rothschild site, but might consider an 85-foot height on that site. - 4 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting It was suggested that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC) and Sustainable Tompkins be asked to comment. Mackesey said she would try to find someone who could provide images illustrating the proposals. The motion to table the following height change resolutions passed unanimously(4-0-0). Regarding the change from CBD-60 to CBD-85, Declaration of Lead Agency for the Environmental Review WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law,and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,and WHEREAS,the proposed zoning amendment is an"Unlisted"Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review(CEQR)Ordinance,which requires environmental review under CEQR;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the zoning amendment to change Tax Parcels #70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85. And also, Determination of Environmental Significance WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to amend the zoning of Tax Parcels #70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85 ,and WHEREAS,appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF),and WHEREAS,the visual impacts and the impacts from shadows created by increased height were evaluated as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for the Downtown Development Mixed-Use Project,which found that the proposed height would be compatible with the heights of the surrounding buildings with only small impacts from shadows from the increased height,and WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to§239-1—m of the New York State General Municipal Law,which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility,including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department,and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council,and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,and WHEREAS,the proposed action is an"Unlisted"Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS,the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,acting as Lead Agency,has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff;now,therefore,be it - 5 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting RESOLVED,that this Common Council,as lead agency in this matter,hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form,and be it further RESOLVED,that this Common Council,as lead agency in this matter,hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary,and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same,together with any attachments,in the City Clerk's Office,and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. And also, Adoption of the Proposed Zoning Amendment to Change Tax Parcels#70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85 WHEREAS,it is the City's intention to encourage mixed-use development in downtown in order to build a strong downtown core,thereby strengthening the City as whole,and WHEREAS,modest changes in building height regulations,and therefore density,can improve project feasibility in selected downtown locations,and WHEREAS,staff has recommended zoning changes that have been strategically designed so as not to negatively impact older downtown buildings, sun exposure,or significant views,and WHEREAS,appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF)and has been reviewed by the County Planning Department,the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council,and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,and WHEREAS,the visual impacts and the impacts from shadows created by increased height were evaluated as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for the Downtown Development Mixed-Use Project,which found that the proposed height would be compatible with the heights of the surrounding buildings with only small impacts from shadows from the increased height,and WHEREAS,the required public hearing for this action was held on January 5,2005,and WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca Common Council,as lead agency in this matter,has on January 5,005,determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment,and that further environmental review is unnecessary;now therefore be it RESOLVED,that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the proposed zoning amendment to change Tax Parcels#70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85. Regarding the change from CBD-60 to CBD-100, - 6 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Declaration of Lead Agency for the Environmental Review WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law,and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,and WHEREAS,the proposed zoning amendment is an"Unlisted"Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review(CEQR)Ordinance,which requires environmental review under CEQR;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the zoning amendment to change a portion of Tax Parcel#70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100. And also, Determination of Environmental Significance WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to amend the zoning of a portion of Tax Parcel#70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100,and WHEREAS,appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF),and WHEREAS,a shadow analysis was conducted for the increased building height in order to determine the impacts on surrounding buildings,and WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-1—m of the New York State General Municipal Law,which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility,including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department,and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council,and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,and WHEREAS,the proposed action is an"Unlisted"Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,and WHEREAS,the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,acting as Lead Agency,has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,that this Common Council,as lead agency in this matter,hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form,and be it further RESOLVED,that this Common Council,as lead agency in this matter,hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment,and that further environmental review is unnecessary,and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same,together with any attachments,in the City Clerk's Office,and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. And also, - 7 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Adoption of Zoning Amendment to Change a Portion of Tax Parcel#70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100 WHEREAS,it is the City's intention to encourage mixed-use development in downtown in order to build a strong downtown core,thereby strengthening the City as whole,and WHEREAS,modest changes in building height regulations,and therefore density,can improve project feasibility in selected downtown locations,and WHEREAS, staff has recommended zoning changes that have been strategically designed so as not to negatively impact older downtown buildings,sun exposure,or significant views,and WHEREAS,appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF)and has been reviewed by the County Planning Department,the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council,and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,and WHEREAS,a shadow analysis of the increased height has been completed in order to determine the impacts on surrounding buildings,and WHEREAS,the required public hearing for this action was held on January 5,2005,and WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca Common Council,as lead agency in this matter,has on January 5,2005,determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment,and that further environmental review is unnecessary;now therefore be it RESOLVED,that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the proposed zoning amendment to change a portion of Tax Parcel#70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100. Cogan moved and Mackesey seconded the motion to pass the following resolutions on the two-story required minimum height. The motion passed unanimously(4-0-0). Declaration of Lead Agency for the Environmental Review WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law,and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,and WHEREAS,the proposed zoning amendment is an"Unlisted"Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review(CEQR)Ordinance,which requires review under the CEQR;now, therefore,be it - 8 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting RESOLVED,that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the zoning amendment to add a requirement of a minimum of two occupiable stories for CBD-60,CBD-85,CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-la, B-lb,B-2c,and B-2d zones. Determination of Environmental Significance WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to amend the zoning for the CBD-60, CBD-85,CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-la,B-lb,B-2c,and B-2d zones in order to add a minimum building height requirement of two occupiable stories,and WHEREAS,appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form(SEAF),and WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239-1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law,which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility,including county and state highways,be reviewed by the County Planning Department,and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council,and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,and WHEREAS,the proposed action is an"Unlisted"Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,and WHEREAS,the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,acting as Lead Agency,has reviewed the SEAF prepared by planning staff;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,that this Common Council,as lead agency in this matter,hereby adopts as its own, the fmdings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and be it further RESOLVED,that this Common Council,as lead agency in this matter,hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary,and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same,together with any attachments,in the City Clerk's Office,and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Adoption of Ordinance LEGAL NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,New York,at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 5,2005,passed the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325,ENTITLED"ZONING"to Amend Zoning Districts CBD-60,CBD-85, CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-la,B-lb,B-2c,and B-2d Zones to Add a Requirement of a Minimum of Two Occupiable Stories BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325,Article V,Supplementary Regulations, §325-16.Height regulations,be amended as follows: - 9 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc Approved on February 16,2005 at the Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting Chapter 325,Zoning Article V,Supplementary Regulations 325-16.Height regulations. G. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein,in the CBD-60,CBD-85, CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-la,B-lb,B-2c,and B-2d zones (1) No building shall be erected that is less than two occupiable stories for any new primary buildings in any of these zones and any existing buildings that are expanded more than fifty percent in size. Commenting on the increased density of use that could result from passage of this zoning amendment, Tomlan noted that employees expressed concern about parking meter rates on West State Street (toward Meadow), since there is no garage alternative convenient to that area. Van Cort said that the Board of Public Works (BPW) usually favors uniformity of regulations and fees,but that he thinks parking should tailored to each location. E. Other Items: 1. Cayuga Green Phase II, student input The Committee commented on the potential benefit of discussions between the developers of Cayuga Green Phase II and student residents (through Alderperson Townsend). F. Approval of Minutes: 1. November 17, 2004 On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the November 17, 2004, minutes of the Planning, Neighborhoods &Economic Development Committee were approved. (4-0-0). G. Adjournment On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. - 10 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1215.doc CITY OF IT$ACA 108 East Green Street (3rd Floor) Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 01[T ', DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT T , = H. MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT }:• JOANN CORNISH,DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/NRA—607-274-6559 Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 To: Planning, Neighborhoods 86 Economic Development Committee From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood 86 Economic Development Planner_ Date: December 6, 2004 RE: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Since last month's committee meeting, Common Council held a public hearing on the PUD (December 1st), declared itself lead agency, and declared that the adoption of the PUD ordinance would not have a significant impact on the environment. One person spoke at the public hearing and submitted written comments. Also since the last committee meeting, the Planning and Development Board passed a resolution of support for the PUD and we received a revised, positive GML review from the County Planning Department. Please find these three items attached. Please also find attached a clean copy (changes not tracked) of the proposed PUD ordinance. Maria Coles has requested some rewording or additional wording of the second intent statement on page 3, Section 3 (A)(2). I will work with her on some language to bring to your committee meeting. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 12/01/2004 Comments made by Sarah Adams When I learned that the PUD was back,I took out my file, compared the proposed ordinance with the one proposed in 2003 and reread the comments I made at that time. Interestingly my concerns that I raised a year ago are still the concerns I have tonight. The new ordinance does have some improved language, such as Part 4.iii,p. 6 where it states that the Proposed PUD project must"conform to accepted design principles in the neighborhood context scale of the elements both absolutely and in relation to one another", although this still sounds too vague. There are still many fundamental problems with the proposed ordinance-some of these have been raised by the Planning Board and the Tompkins County Planning Staff. These include issues such as how the thresholds of 20,00 and 60,000 square feet were determined and whether the notification of properties within 200 feet of a proposed project is sufficient? The Planning Board noted in its memo of June 10,2004 that phrases such as "conceptually sound"are too vague; that topics such as preservation of historic sites,natural areas can be raised by Common Council after the applicant has already gone through the Planning Board—too late in the process. The Planning Board also asked the planning staff to provide some examples of PUD projects in communities similar to Ithaca. As far as I know this still has not been done. The proposed ordinance still does not require that the proposed density is compatible with the underlying zoning district or surrounding uses as has been recommended by the Tompkins County Planning Commissioner in 2 different memos. This proposal could have a major impact on the city-why hasn't there been any c tm unity-wide discussion of the proposal? Citizens of Ithaca have made substantial investments in their properties and neighborhoods because they like them the way they are. Don't we deserve the opportunity to examine this proposal in detail, in a forum more conducive to comments and responses that the Common Council Chambers? Lastly, as I suggested last year, shouldn't this proposal be looked at in the context of the existing zoning? If this is being viewed as a tool for developing housing in Southwest Park why not look at the"Small Areas Planning"tool that can be used to encourage mixed use and compact development for defined geographic areas? I strongly urge that Common Council initiate the process of re-evaluating our existing zoning code and require that the above issues be addressed before voting on this proposal. CITY OF ITHACA D 1 '4., 108 East Green Street (3rd Floor) Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 E 1 f '( DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT 1' {:• ; JOANN CORNISH,DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT • Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 ` a,1Lr• ' Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 ADOPTED RESOLUTION Proposed Planned Unit Development City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board November 23,2004 WHEREAS, at the April 27, 2004 and the May 25, 2004 meeting of the Planning and Development Board, the Proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance (PUD)was discussed and comments were forwarded to the Planning,Neighborhoods, and Economic Development Committee for consideration, and WHEREAS, at the November 23, 2004 meeting of the Planning and Development Board, a revised PUD ordinance, a Full Environmental Assessment Form, and additional information was reviewed and discussed, and WHEREAS, members of the Planning Board agreed that the revised ordinance addresses concerns raised during previous discussions, including minimum lot sizes specified in the proposed ordinance, and WHEREAS, members of the Planning Board also agreed that the PUD is intended to promote and encourage creativity and flexibility that may not be allowed under current zoning,now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board supports the adoption of the revised proposed ordinance to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, entitled"Zoning"to establish Planned Unit Development PUD District Regulations. Moved by Hoffman Seconded by Boothroyd Voted in Favor: Boothroyd, Dotson,Hoffman, McCollister Voted Against: Marcham Abstained 0 Absent 0 Vacancies 2 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." -,,,,,,r , ,!:.,.1.,0 ,,,_;_,..,„, ,/, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,_, , t,„: , , skx-na- D1 DEP '4":4:)P�� P' NING 121 Fast:C= Street ` thaca,New Yorks 148.50 Edward C.Marx,AICP �' �.« Telephone(607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax(607)274-5578 a E November 30,2004 DEC "l 3 20 Mr.Tim Logue,Neighborhood and Economic Development Planner :.€ ,Z-� City of Ithaca 4- lr, r'.2' !-7. 108 East Green Stree `t Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239-1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Zoning Amendment to add a Planned Unit Development Ordinance Dear Mr.Logue: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law.The Department has reviewed the proposal,as submitted,and has determined that it has no negative inter-community,or county-wide impacts. The Department supports the City's efforts to encourage housing and mixed use projects and at the same time preserve important environmental,architectural,and historic features. The Department offers the following comments on this proposed amendment: • We suggest that section C.1.b. specifically require that proposed heights, setbacks,and massing of buildings be included as part of the PUD sketch plan.Without this information it would be very difficult for the Planning and Development Board to make the findings required in its report. • We also suggest that certain items listed in section D.5.be mandatory requirements of the PUD approval,including d. circulation systems, and g. location, design,type,height and use of structures proposed. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, _,..:6,......ri_ji C_)_ 2,.._,... Edward C. Marx,AICP Commissioner of Planning 12/8/2004 ORDINANCE NO. OF 2004 D1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED "ZONING" TO ESTABLISH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT REGULATIONS. WHEREAS the Common Council of the City of Ithaca would like to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of its residents, and WHEREAS the Common Council wishes to promote the most desirable use of land within the city limits in order to conserve the value of buildings, and to enhance the value and appearance of land throughout the City, and WHEREAS to achieve these objectives the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is amending the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 325 to insert a new section 325-27 providing for a new Zoning District known as the"Planned Unit Development" (PUD)District, and WHEREAS this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority conferred on municipalities pursuant to New York State General City Law, Section 81-f1, and WHEREAS consequently, sections 325-3 and 325-4 entitled "Definitions and word usage" and "Establishment of Districts" respectively need to be amended to reflect the creation of this new zoning district, BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:- Section 1. Definitions. Chapter 325, Section 325-3(B) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add the definition of Planned Unit Development as follows, "One or more lots, tracts, or parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose density or intensity transfers, density or intensity increase, mixing of land uses, or any combination thereof, and which may not correspond in lot size, bulk, or type of dwelling or building, use, density, intensity, lot coverage, parking, required common open space, or other standards to zoning use district requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located." Section 2. Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled "Establishment of Districts" is hereby amended to insert the new PUD zoning district as follows: "ARTICLE II, Zoning Districts 'Passed on July 29,2003,effective July 1,2004. Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any)is sic eugh 1 Q:A PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc 12/8/2004 § 325-4. Establishment of districts. For the purposes specified in Article I of this chapter, the city is hereby divided into the following districts: R-la Residential R-lb Residential R-2a Residential R-2b Residential R-2c Residential R-3a Residential R-3b Residential R-U Residential B-la Restricted Business B-lb Restricted Business B-2a General Business B-2b General Business B-2c General Business B-2d General Business B-4 Service Business B-5 Service Business CBD Central Business I-1 Industrial M-1 Marine Commercial PUD Planned Unit Development P-1 Public and Institutional MH-1 Residential-Mobile Home C-SU Courthouse Special Use U-1 WF-1 Waterfront WEDZ-1 West End Development CPOZ Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone 1 SW-1 Southwest." Section 3. A new section 325-27 is inserted as follows: "§325-27. Planned Unit Development. A. Declaration of Legislative Authority and Purpose. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority and provisions of the New York State General City Law to promote public health, safety and welfare and the most desirable use of land, to conserve the value of buildings, and to enhance the value and appearance of land throughout the city. This ordinance is also enacted pursuant to the authority and provisions of New York State General City Law §81-f, Planned Unit Development Zoning Districts, which was enacted by the State Legislature on July 29, 2003. The Common Council intends that this Ordinance: Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any)is struck eugh 2 Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc 12/8/2004 1. Will permit flexibility in the application of land development regulations that will encourage innovative development and redevelopment for residential and nonresidential purposes so that a growing demand for housing and other development and land use may be met by variety in type, design, and layout of dwellings and other buildings and structures, including traditional neighborhood development and appropriate mixed-use. 2. Will permit flexibility in architectural design, placement, and clustering of buildings, provision of open space and circulation facilities, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and parking, and related site and design considerations. 3. Will encourage the conservation of natural features, preservation of open space and critical and sensitive areas, and protection from natural hazards. 4. Will provide for efficient use of public facilities. 5. Will encourage and preserve opportunities for energy-efficient development and redevelopment. 6. Will promote attractive and functional environments for residential and nonresidential areas that are compatible with surrounding land use. B. The application of the Planned Unit Development ordinance to a proposed development: 1. Shall be sought by the owner of the property or properties, or shall be sought with the approval of the owner or owners of the property or properties, as demonstrated by submission to the City of Ithaca of a signed "Owner's Authorization"by the applicant; 2. Shall be limited to sites that are: a) Equal to or greater in land area than 60,000 square feet for sites without structures or b) Equal to or greater in land area than 20,000 square feet for sites with existing structures or for vacant sites that were previously developed. 3. Shall be consistent with and work towards the implementation of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time. C. Application procedure; review by City staff and the Planning and Development Board. Whenever any Planned Unit Development is proposed, before any permit for the erection of a permanent building in such Planned Unit Development shall be granted, the Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any) is stfuekthfeugli 3 Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc 12/8/2004 developer or the developer's authorized agent shall apply for and secure approval of such Planned Unit Development in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Application for sketch plan approval. a) A pre-submission conference between the applicant and staff of the Department of Planning and Development may be held to discuss the proposal, outline the review procedure and required submissions and inform the applicant of minimum standards and potential city concerns of the conceptual project. b) The developer shall submit a sketch plan of the proposal to the Planning and Development Board. The sketch plan shall be approximately to scale, though it need not be to the precision of a finished engineering drawing, and it shall clearly show the following information: i) The boundaries and included tax parcels in the proposed Planned Unit Development. ii) The location of the various uses and their areas in square feet. iii) The general outlines of the interior roadway system, including parking and service/delivery areas, and all existing rights-of-way and easements, whether public or private. iv) Delineation of the various residential areas indicating for each such area its general extent, size and composition in terms of total number of dwelling units, approximate percentage allocation by dwelling unit type (e.g., single-family detached, duplex, townhouse, garden apartments, etc.); and general description of the intended market structure (e.g. luxury, middle income, low and moderate income, elderly, family, student, etc.) plus a calculation of the residential density in dwelling units per gross acre (total area including roadways) for each such area. v) The interior open space system. vi) The overall drainage system. vii)If grades exceed 3% or portions of the site have a moderate to high susceptibility to erosion, flooding and/or ponding, a topographic map showing contour intervals of not more than five feet of elevation, or as may be reasonably required by the Planning & Development Board, along with an overlay outlining the above susceptible soil areas, if any. viii) Principal ties to the community at large with respect to transportation, water supply and sewage disposal. ix) General description of the provision of fire protection services. x) A map showing general location within the City of Ithaca(e.g., a City- wide map or a USGS quadrangle map highlighting the proposed development site would be acceptable). xi) A context map showing building footprints, uses and ownership of all properties within 200 feet of the boundaries of the proposed PUD site. Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any)is stRielc-thfeugh 4 Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc 12/8/2004 2. In addition, the following documentation shall accompany the sketch plan at the request of the Planning and Development Board: a) Evidence that the proposal is compatible with the goals of the City Comprehensive plan, as amended from time to time. b) A general statement as to how common open space is to be owned and maintained. c) If the development is to be staged, a general indication of how the staging is to proceed. Whether or not the development is to be staged, the sketch plan shall show the intended total project. d) Other plans, drawings or specifications as may be required for an understanding of the proposed development. 3. The Planning and Development Board shall hold a public hearing on the proposal within thirty-five (35) days of receipt of an application for sketch plan approval. Notice of the hearing shall be served by the city to the public at least ten (10) days before the date of such hearing, by means of a legal notice in the official newspaper of the City of Ithaca, and by the applicant to each owner of real estate within a distance of two hundred (200) feet from the exterior boundaries of the proposed PUD district by means of a letter addressed to the owner of record of such real estate delivered by first class mail. The applicant shall also post a public notice of the PUD proposal at the project site for a minimum of 10 days before the public hearing. This notice must remain in place at least until the Planning and Development Board has rendered its report on the application or until the 65 day period of review has expired (see #5 below). The notice shall specify the type and size of the development project; the time and place of the public hearing; and to whom and by when any public comments are to be communicated. The notice must be placed at or near the property line in the front yard so that it will be plainly visible from the street, and, in cases where a property has frontage on more than one street, an additional sign must be placed at or near the property line on any additional street frontage so that the sign will be plainly visible from the street on which it has such additional frontage. The costs of notification, including but not limited to publishing, posting and mailing costs, shall be paid by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit. 4. The Planning and Development Board shall review the sketch plan and its related documents and shall render either a favorable report to the Common Council or an unfavorable report to the applicant. a) A favorable report shall be based on the following findings which shall be included as part of the report: i) the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time, and Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted(if any)is stfuelEthreugh 5 Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc 12/8/2004 ii) the proposal meets the intent and objectives of a Planned Unit Development as expressed in Section 3(A) above and is a desirable way to regulate the development of the site, and iii) the proposal is conceptually sound in that it conforms to accepted design principles in the proposed functional roadway and pedestrian system, land use configurations,neighborhood context, open space system, drainage system and scale of the elements both absolutely and in relation to one another, and iv) there are adequate services and utilities available or proposed to be made available for the development. b) An unfavorable report shall state clearly the reasons therefore and, if appropriate,point out to the applicant what might be accomplished in order to receive a favorable report. The applicant may,within 10 days after receiving an unfavorable report, file an application for PUD districting(an appeal)with the City Clerk, who shall notify the Mayor to bring the matter to the next Common Council meeting. 5. The Planning and Development Board shall submit its report within sixty-five (65) days of a submittal of a sketch plan application to the Department of Planning and Development. If no report has been rendered after sixty-five (65) days, the applicant may proceed as if a favorable report were given to Common Council. D. Application procedure; PUD zoning approval 1. Common Council shall receive a PUD report from the Planning and Development Board or an applicant's appeal at a duly convened Common Council meeting. Upon receipt of a favorable report from the Planning and Development Board, or upon an appeal from an unfavorable report, Common Council shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of considering PUD districting for the applicant's plan, said public hearing to be held within 35 days of the receipt of a favorable report or an appeal from an unfavorable report. Notice of this hearing shall be served by the city to the public at least fifteen (15) days before the date of such hearing, by means of a legal notice in the official newspaper of the City of Ithaca. The public hearing shall be held by the Common Council in accordance with its own rules and General City Law §83. 2. Common Council shall refer the application to the Tompkins County Planning Department for its analysis and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of §239-I and §239-m of the General Municipal Law, if applicable. Common Council shall give the Tompkins County Planning Department 30 days to render its report. Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted(if any)is stmektlifettgli 6 Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc 12/8/2004 3. In considering an application for a Planned Unit Development district, Common Council shall comply with the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. 4. In considering an application for a Planned Unit Development district, particularly as regards the intensity of land use, Common Council shall consider the following questions: a) What are the proposed land uses in the proposed location? b) Is the PUD a desirable way to regulate the development of the proposed site? c) What are the heights of buildings? How do building masses and locations compare to each other and to other structures in the vicinity? d) Are there available and adequate transportation systems within the PUD for pedestrians,bicycles, and motor vehicles, including transit? What is the impact on the external transportation network? e) What is the character of the neighborhood in which the PUD is being proposed? Are there safeguards provided to minimize possible detrimental effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general? f) How do the proposed open space and recreational systems function within the PUD and in relation to the City's overall open space and recreational systems? g) What is the general ability of the land to support the development, including such factors as slope, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and soil type? h) What potential impacts are there on environmental,historical, and architectural resources? Does the proposed PUD serve to protect these resources? i) What potential impacts are there on local government services? j) Is there available and adequate water service? k) Is there available and adequate sewer service? 1) Other questions as may be deemed appropriate by the Common Council. 5. Within 45 days of the public hearing, Common Council shall render its decision on the application. Common Council shall state at this time its findings with respect to the questions listed in Section D (4) above and the land use intensity and/or dwelling unit density. Common Council may, if it feels it necessary in order to fully protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community, attach to its zoning resolution any additional conditions or requirements for the applicant to meet. Such requirements may include, but are not limited to: a) visual and acoustical screening b) land use combinations Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any)is struck 7 Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc 12/8/2004 c) sequence of construction and/or occupancy d) circulation systems (vehicular,bicycle, and pedestrian), including parking and service/delivery areas e) the amount, location, and proposed use of common open space; f) the location and physical characteristics of the proposed Planned Unit Development; g) the location, design,type, height, and use of structures proposed; h) traditional neighborhood development provisions intended to ensure: i) The creation of compact neighborhoods oriented toward pedestrian activity and including an identifiable neighborhood center, commons or square; ii) a variety of housing types,jobs, shopping, services, and public facilities; iii) residences, shops,workplaces, and public buildings interwoven within the neighborhood, all within close proximity; iv) a pattern of interconnecting streets and blocks that encourages multiple routes from origins and destinations; v) a coordinated transportation system with appropriately designed facilities for pedestrians,bicyclists,public transit, and automotive vehicles; vi) preservation,restoration, and maintenance of historic buildings that physically express the history of the City of Ithaca unless it is shown that the building's condition prohibits preservation, restoration, renovation, or reuse; vii)natural features and undisturbed areas are incorporated into the open space of the neighborhood; viii) well-configured squares, greens, landscaped streets, and parks are woven into the pattern of the neighborhood; ix) public buildings, open spaces, and other visual features act as landmarks, symbols, and focal points for community identity; x) compatibility of buildings and other improvements as determined by their arrangement,bulk, form, character, and landscaping to establish a livable, harmonious, and diverse environment; and xi) public and private buildings that form a consistent, distinct edge, are oriented towards streets, and define the border between the public street space and the private block interior. E. Zoning for Planned Unit Development. If Common Council grants the PUD districting, by an ordinance duly adopted, the Zoning Map shall designate the proposed area as "Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Number ." The Common Council ordinance shall stand as the zoning requirements for the PUD district. F. Site Plan Review. Site plan approval for all Planned Unit Developments shall be obtained in accordance with Chapter 276 of the City Code, Site Plan Review. Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any)is strucktlifeaglh 8 Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc 12/8/2004 G. Regulation after PUD or Site Plan Approval. For the purposes of regulating development and use of property after PUD or Site Plan Approval, the approved final site plan shall serve in lieu of other provisions of this chapter as the use, space and bulk, yard, parking and other land use regulations applicable to the Planned Unit Development district. Any changes, other than use changes (see below), shall be processed as a change to an approved site plan, in accordance with ,&276-6 (C). In addition to the three possible determinations listed in §276-6, the Building Commissioner, in consultation with the Director of Planning and Development, may determine that the proposed changes are substantially different from the Planned Unit Development district approved by Common Council and that a new PUD application is required. Use changes shall also be in the form of a change to an approved site plan except that the Planning and Development Board shall have the opportunity to make a recommendation to Common Council and that Common Council approval shall be required. It shall be noted, however, that properties lying in Planned Unit Development districts are unique and shall be so considered by the Planning and Development Board or Common Council when evaluating these requests; maintenance of the intent and function of the planned unit shall be of primary importance. H. Expiration of permit. All permits shall become null and void, and the Zoning Map amendment revoked and restored to the zoning designation to which the district had been prior to the PUD application, if construction has not started within three (3) years of the date of final site plan approval. However, the applicant may petition the Planning and Development Board before the expiration date for an extension of no more than two (2) years. If the applicant can demonstrate substantial investment or reasonable progress towards construction to the Planning and Development Board, the extension shall not be unreasonably denied. Additional extensions may also be granted by the Planning& Development Board." Section 4. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of the ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 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 st uektlhrough 9 Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance clean copy.doc `o �'' CITY OF ITHACA V'�./ -�'.:`t¢sl 108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-56• ..I�FT E 1_TTTII! '_ - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT � H. MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ,, RA'igli 0 s _ -- JOANN JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA - 607-274-6559 Email: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 To: Planning,Neighborhood, and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Plann Date: December 9, 2004 Subject: Downtown Zoning Amendment The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the proposal to change the zoning height regulations for some portions of downtown. The following zoning amendments are proposed: • Chart change for CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, B-la, B-lb, B- 2c, B-2d to add a minimum requirement of two occupiable stories for all buildings in any of these zones. (See Attached map for locations) • Map change from CBD-60 to CBD-85 for all of parcels 70.-4-6 and 70.-4-5.2 • Map change from CBD-60 to CBD-100 for a portion of parcel 70.-4-4 This proposal was discussed by the Planning, Neighborhood, and Economic Development Committee at its October meeting. As directed by the committee, staff prepared the environmental reviews of these actions and circulated them for comments. Enclosed please find the environmental review forms for each of these changes. Also enclosed are comments that have been received from the County,the Planning Board, and the Ithaca Downtown Partnership. If you have any questions on any of the enclosed materials, feel free to contact me at 274-6410. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 --- | rT..p\c,c,(,(.44_cy'l _ 1).1. . _ q)1 t t-D covii_u /AA ,1 ,. '_ ct ,?r..4- ,L„_ - VT_ , 1 L ,.. . ..„ „ , ....,.. ,.... ,c----....J fl--- 1 . --- 4:- n _ w,il ,..,■-- ___-- , tw „,. .1 ,__ i ...,,,, , ri:,, ,.... .. ,,,,___ ..,....,,,,, , __,, 4. , __,,,,____ , k .... _____I _ .,.,,,,-1_,, '1 41.:\--1 1,*„ftc,„-__L 1 '''''.. ti " 1 11,?A 1 1 -,,s---4 *.s.*14, 1 I 1'''47.---Z I / I , . • , ,.., 4..,,,,,,,, ...- 1 ,i , .... ,1--101 Ai.. 1. ,,,,,,,,,,,„ , , ,5„.„.. ...,4...,,,,,,,,t 1 „btif...,-.. ,9.,,,,,$j ,, ____ _ T,:-------./e1- -------- iv ,,,,,„ - ,N''' - 1 1,a,, 1 -.71 1 s'''-` , ..V.''': , „:;1;',i m"glIr'! t'' A''''' ) L''' '.--I-- ' - i*,'-'" , 1 - 1 B. i . -- i I . ,.. „:4::::: . I -04V:ix:IV. _- 4;,:„.:".",;', Po 1--,., .. le:‘'''''`z 9 tr' B-1a 4 ' ,,..,„. i IL.. „...„ ... , ,. , ... , „. . .._ .... . ,,,,,, ------„F„.:: „:„,„„„:::: ,.. 3,,,,.,... :,...., ,N7'. E Mk ,, ,.. 1 I rh,t,3 flit „,,,,,i, il,.,,B-:1':',.:' 74,41,M41:1,;.,17,1, .:,,'.."., g I r';',,''1 1::::::. ' itil 1.f. _,_:_Ht!,il '''' ' prn in -41."' .i:hlttiC;:iraii,..: 1110 ,.‘,..- 411-,,g-.71_-_,:f;_i_ I 4.:, ,,, 1E9[33. z =::, i ii,,,,, VDT - --, ' -,f-;,..:::- ..E.,,,,•::4 ,Igi :[7'17:,',. 'It', : .11F wo ____L' RI _.% 51 , . .„ ...„ WEST BUFFALO STREET -- - - - - -'7.'''''''*il i::::'•'2i.:::: '*' I ,„ 9 ---:::::;.'s:--•B 1:-..''C.-'1;D ‘ ILE if ". •••• 14. -:., e. -1: .*:s.J.:;,,.z.;•,,i. '11'r11** RA.1":Ii.ir/1.°1:'Li.2,ii",......... '- ,..'•2,-. f7YL.,,' g ',....ti,,,,,,,1 "ng,60 -,..;,),......... 1! c.::-..,....f...... D-60 Q:1111. : ".6° al , * '''' fl. 141.1 ''' tin ir . ,::-:.1"„El 1.if. _ , iiiiim , , , .., :„:„,. ‘,.., ,,„.,,..,.. , '' ' 121' ' -.. " 1- . ''' ' I ' .164 1-!, Ell' n - - -,!--.,;,,., itsc.,,,, .DLI. CBDi140- `-''',1,..:2:24.1'.. BD-8-'41 ';';, i ':., _4 1;: 4 g ` i'a j . ' ' .. Are ".ii,!1:,. # :,-:„.. 7'-'.,'f EILL ..., 1.; ;::: .11) '''''!i-Eitsi, rilt, 6.,,,,Y, ti: - ,. _.... .. c 1 -,„7,----ir,-w7.,;-, icilg. IT----- ,,, ,,,! _ 1 lil'`.444 ' l'I WEST SENECA STREET STA.DTE 79 Irt , p:Irr, .';`..213-2d -- -•:' - I '% ,? .7-7. ..'P-1-, BD.60,--,z'''-: a. ,.- • 1-7:1 ir11:11111:.11111_ 77,L, iii.Aa,,_ .. t,-„,1 1 wt.i•:,e; •,,.. IL: '''' ',, *1711 r.--..1* lieL5nr.,Fi': CBD-60\ , A-#;:i..4,44 „illirloy., ,,,,,;,:,,..,..„,,,i,,g,„. : „„ E.171. .,, -,13.2d ..-12_,- g sm -.. ...„---.„ T 1,1.- .. • ..., , ,,,,... ,,,, ' ' ,;%. ,) „its.... , „...1„,,,;,,...e,rf• ^■-•'-' , , ..,,t. 4111L7 "z:''' ';;;:''',','i,117.1,„.; ' ;..•,e,e,04216,.,,::••' 1,t•::1 * Rot c \ -- 4:1313. BD-60 ‘/ zi;,:;'.3:1'; .4.:411.4111- LAST STATLS 97.9.7 9.7 99A7E STREET CBD-60`::: 7illill:;::::t '<:',.N. „;.13 2 '''''''8C-:•„: :.:--17. :,, 1117 .,. _,:_.:-. Ditc:-: wit ',4- _.„- ,,,,:. :?,,:::',[,'' ProtPc.?!,g Ply,.- ::::-.„.-, :10'.4.4s, _7' -1_,-,;::::,::,v -,77..--, ; Leillairt'''...-Iiiiiiit,.u.' 4,,9.1%iiiistillowrir';',,•::2„..,d; :auili--c-2, 5:-[1:12, „ . . 0 4.6 _70,4.5.2 :: ... .....,,.. \ 4 ___ , _ _.„ ,..,.......... :„.,,,,,„:„. .,. . rTimiry -7r g, cmil7kilumnac, t,-1,wii.i., ffr ,,_ ,,.B.2d : „,,,,, ,..,....„, „,.. , WEST GREEN MEET ,,D7,99e9DvaNDB.,geo N, ' 1 ":L 77 / ,,, ''Sr:''"'''''"""'"',71 ''' .. , , -.'S tri C.:`li,M ,:.J. IB S ,„^C'>0,,tl:'`il„ty-v 1.l'b',,,ly.:'''', n;,e3:::? '--- , 41,,,,,,‘ s..-------___ ..41•, 61'qr-;1:i:,,4 .. .-:.' ;::,.. ';,.''-'I 't-11.2'...-,:El -.,-,-,, .,* .0 --ri - ,.,,,,- -9 7.,,,, 1 .7.,'''''''-'''''7'''''',....,.::;,:..-..---'' 1112 r'''''''''''. - \ 77.- ' :, oPlit;.,44p4&, „.. I .., .. , .1F] -ill 1 „,,,,,::::: .>.iiiv.. ,4„.. r:,, -.„....., "- ii IL, L. U 1 , i .,. , ,, , r.,,, :),',...,,, ' r,,,,,,--7, i 4.,,,F7-::',..ig,:i:,.;: : aff,,,r::',L.:7;*; .,,-..C73;,4 , ''''''''' '''' :?'''''' .1*":2.:.L1 -- --,,,, -1,,, , , „r__..,„ 7:4: , ,,,.....,.. „.,:„. „,,,,, , ,,,,,,,„.„..,...„:„..„.....„...... ,... ,,,,...m...:.,,,Lot„, :::::::„: IP.7„;11,,z„ ik, * .:„,,, El:. „„. ,...: „:„. Films] ..z.I.L,, ,„. liafra, 7.1r2,01. , ",-,' I - -z;:-..., /CBD.120 Ilia , - iiiiN -,..:.' '*"`\WI \ ''''' CLEVEUND AVENUE 1 ' ' iirdr" ill MiL21 1 -..s, -:.:*4 ,s-e4„, [it2'.\'‘' , AWL,' ‘ ::--: CBD-1113°.;g: / ....• 41-XF- ' ' , Ii3''M gii....,,,, _. 44•M '1 ,."..,,,,, o„,tz. ,,,_.... . , 2____L ,z.1 rx ktp 0 ...,, 1 _ ti :ix:. Fm 0--\,,...,,,,,, . Fr I: : i Pr posed F 1 : ,, r.a... ,..,,, , 4 ..-.' ..1 Proposed Area to be Rezoned 14 I ,\--- -- , -- - ST C.D.S :.. 73.1,..;,:, re 4.; iTiiite.47., T 74.1.7'''") --' -7109 1111 ' ,,,,4..,,, ''''*. iiit.-2•1411 17.7.0*".30", ' 4 ....„. :III ,.....i. 1111 ..w.-14,:v1.,:1, .4- r '- ....„, i „ il ., „.„.... rLi_ --, ....;$ op iiit.,:g i,,:::::-•-• ..... ;., 42:,:°, v " AI 4171 lk,,,,„-- '''` - 1 ;if- i w Ng ;, iiet2 :::,.,;;,;: ..„..4., I 4'1" '''''xii'..,.<,.... _ ° e- t43; '. --;,1 , c i 1 si,,, _ ,„.. fi. 44 ..„, .7 ' ..,...r. ,.4 - e -41/ I 1 2-Story \ ill „Nris cofr, DEPAREMENFF PLANNING D2 *121 o > Street Fhaca, r o k?14: 0 Edward C.Marx,AICP Telephone(607)274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax(607) 274-5578 October 19,2004 Ms.Jennifer Kuzner,Community Development Planner City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239-1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Zoning Amendments: map change from CBD-60 to CBD-100 for a portion of tax parcel no. 70.-4-4,map change from CBD-60 to CBD-85 for tax parcel no.'s 70.-4-6 and 70.-4-5.2, chart change for CBD-60,CBD-85,CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-la,B-lb,B-2c,and B-2d zones to add a minimum two-story height requirement for new or existing buildings that are expanded more than fifty percent in size. Dear Ms.Kuzner: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239-1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law.The Department has reviewed the proposal,as submitted, and has determined that it may have negative inter-community,or county-wide impacts as described below.We recommend modification of the proposal. If the Board does not incorporate these recommendations into its approval, such approval will require a vote of a supermajority(meaning a majority plus one)of all members of the decision- making body. Recommended Modification The DEIS for the Downtown Cayuga/Green Development analyzed traffic impacts using the allowed density of the parcels involved in the project. Increasing density on select Cayuga/Green parcels as well as additional parcels could increase traffic impacts.We recommend that the City analyze the impacts of higher density development on traffic circulation and the potential for increased congestion in downtown Ithaca before approving any further increases in density. This is particularly important since a number of State highways that provide critical links in the regional transportation network run through this area of downtown. In our previous review of the proposed rezoning of parcels 70.-4-5.2 and 70.-4-6 to CBG-85 on January 22, 2003,we also recommended that such analysis be conducted. Other Comments As we previously stated in our comments on the proposed rezoning for parcels 70.-4-5.2 and 70.-4-6 on January 22, 2003, increasing the height allowed could create a conflict between these parcels and the buildings adjacent to the north on the Commons. During the Downtown Cayuga/Green Development 239 Review Page 2 of 2 design process,the proposed height of the Green Street Parking Garage created problems for the buildings on the Commons that back up onto these parcels.We suggest the City analyze how rezoning these parcels to allow an even taller structure might impact the adjacent buildings. We also have some concern that increasing building heights on Green Street to allow structures that are significantly taller than the surrounding buildings could create a street corridor that is unappealing to pedestrians. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, fi–■—■f2- Edward C.Marx,MCP Commissioner of Planning cc: Carl Ford,Regional Director,NYS Department of Transportation ins co DEPA►]� A ,,..*..VIEN1` P. NING . ,�11 w ~1 St,ct' Ithaca, ea.,' o k/148 0 .4 M Edward C.Marx,AICP ....r''" Telephone(607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning * k * Fax(607)274-5578 November 16,2004 Ms.Jennifer Kuzner, Community Development Planner City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239-1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Zoning Amendments: map change from CBD-60 to CBD-100 for a portion of tax parcel no. 70.-4-4,map change from CBD-60 to CBD-85 for tax parcel no.'s 70.-4-6 and 70.-4-5.2,chart change for CBD-60,CBD-85,CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-1a,B-lb,B-2c,and B-2d zones to add a minimum two-story height requirement for new or existing buildings that are expanded more than fifty percent in size. Dear Ms.Kuzner: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law.The Department has reviewed the proposal,as submitted,and has determined that it has no negative inter-community or county-wide impacts. The Department offers the following comments on this proposal: 1. Based on the November 10, 2004 information you submitted,we are no longer recommending the City analyze the potential impacts on the transportation network as a result of the above referenced zoning amendments. If development is proposed that would exceed the amount of growth assumed in the 2002 traffic study for the Cayuga Green Downtown Development Project,we would expect further traffic and transportation analysis to be conducted at that time.For reference,the study assumed an additional 40,000 square feet of retail space,between 110 and 200 units of housing,an intermodal transportation center, and 1,780 parking spaces in 3 garages. 2. As we previously stated in our comments on the proposed rezoning for parcels 70.-4-5.2 and 70.-4-6 on January 22, 2003,increasing the height allowed could create a conflict between these parcels and the buildings adjacent to the north on the Commons. During the Downtown Cayuga/Green Development design process,the proposed height of the Green Street Parking Garage created problems for the buildings on the Commons that back up onto these parcels. We understand that design of proposed buildings on the sites with the increased height limits will include an analysis of how rezoning these parcels to allow an even taller structure might impact the adjacent buildings. 239 Review Page 2 of 2 3. We suggest that as projects are developed on Green Street with structures that are significantly taller than the surrounding buildings, extra care be taken to create a street corridor that is appealing to pedestrians. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C.Marx,AICP Commissioner of Planning cc: Carl Ford,Regional Director,NYS Department of Transportation ; _r CITY OF ITHACA �� _ 108 East Green Street (3rd Floor) Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT D2 G t �T I JOANN CORNISH,DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT ;� { Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 *r=-,- Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 TO: Planning,Neighborhoods, and Economic Development Committee FROM: Planning and Development Board DATE: December 9, 2004 RE: Proposed Downtown Rezoning At the October 28, 2004 and the November 23, 2004 meetings of the Planning and Development Board,the proposed downtown rezoning was discussed including: a Map change from CBD-60 to CBD-100 for a portion of parcel 70.-4-4, a Map change from CBD-60 to CBD-85 for all of parcels 70.-4-6 and 70.-4-5.2, and a Chart change for CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, B-la, and B-lb to add a minimum two-story requirement for all buildings in any of these zones. Planning Board members have the following comments for Planning Committee consideration: Planning Board members are in agreement that the zoning chart should be amended so that zones CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, B-la, B-lb have a requirement for a minimum of two occupiable stories for all buildings in any of these zones. Planning Board members are in agreement that, generally, increased density and housing are a benefit to downtown. However, when discussing the proposed zoning change from CBD-60 to CBD-100 for a portion of parcel 70.-4-4,members believe that this particular site is too small and not appropriate for a 100-foot tall structure. Members have concerns that the site is on the outer edge of the CBD and could result in a very tall building being located in close proximity (e.g., across the street and across the creek) to one and two-story buildings (both residential and commercial), without any real buffer or transition. It is noted that the site also borders the Ithaca Commons and will be very visible from one of the Commons entrances, where a 100-foot building in such close proximity would contrast sharply with the 2, 3 and 4-story historical structures along the Commons. Also of concern is that the cumulative impact of structures of this height may alter the traditional character and "feel" of the downtown in a negative way. For these reasons, the Board does not endorse the change in maximum allowed height as currently proposed. Additionally, Planning Board members are concerned that a parking shortage may result if the proposed zoning change from CBD-60 to CBD 100 is approved but the Green Street Parking Garage expansion is not. Planning Board members would like to see design guidelines in place for tall buildings and would like to have a process in place for the architectural review of all buildings proposed for construction in the downtown core. Members also request that the possibility of a CBD 70 zone be considered as it would create a transition zone between CBD 60 areas such as the Commons and the taller CBD zones which surround the Commons on three sides. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 2 THE ITHACA DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS November 15, 2004 DOWNTOWN REZONING 1. Whereas the Ithaca Downtown Partnership "Ten-Year"Downtown Development Strategy advocates greater density in downtown to allow for needed new residential and commercial development; and 2. Whereas there are in-fill locations for possible new development in downtown which could further these objectives with a rezoning which includes increased height restrictions (such as the parcel located at the corner of Aurora and Green Streets); and 3. Whereas any rezoning which increases height restrictions should be sensitive to the historic character of the downtown. Therefore be it resolved: That the Board of Directors of the Ithaca Downtown Partnership does hereby endorse and support a rezoning of downtown parcels to increase height restrictions provided that any such rezoning is sensitive to the historic character of downtown Ithaca. D2 CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. 1.Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca Project Name: Proposed Zoning amendment to add a Minimum 2-Story requirement for CBD-60,CBD- 85,CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-la,B-lb,B-2c, and B-2d zones 3. Project Location: CBD-60,CBD-85,CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-la,B-lb,B-2c, and B-2d zones 4. Is Proposed Action: • New • • Modification/Alteration Expansion 5. Describe project briefly: Add a minimum 2-story requirement to the CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100,CBD-120, CBD-140,B-la,B-lb,B-2c, and B-2d zones 6. Precise Location(Road Intersections,Prominent Landmarks, etc., or provide map) CBD- 60,CBD-85, CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140,B-la,B-lb,B-2c,and B-2d zones 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially Ultimately 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? • Yes • If No, describe briefly: Action is an amendment to the existing zoning. 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: • Residential • Industrial • Agricultural • Parkland/Open Space • Commercial • Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding,now or ultimately, from governmental agency(Federal, State or ILocal]: • IYes • No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: Common Council Adoption of revised zoning. 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? • Yes • INo If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? • Yes • No I certify that the informatio •rovet ed above is - • the best of my knowledge PREPARER'S SIGNATUR'. ;j` . ,1111&, /4.1 DATE: 9/28/04 PREPARER'S TITLE: Econo /Develo sus nt Planner REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca q:\planning\proj ects\zoning\downtown rezoning\seaf partii--min2 story.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:Minimum 2-Story requirement for CBD-60,CBD-85,CBD-100,CBD-120,CBD-140, B-la,B-lb, B-2c, nd B-2d zones Yes No 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter 0 T 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? ❑ 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? ❑ 5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ❑ ISI 6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ❑ 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? ❑ 8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views ❑ or vistas known to be important to the community: 9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic,pre-historic,or ❑ ISI paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ❑ X 11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing ❑ transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors,noise, glare,vibration, or electrical ❑ disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? 13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? ❑ 14. Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in ❑ permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period OR have a negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? ❑ X If any question has been answered YE . completed Lon Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: - i CJ DATE: 9/28/04 PREPARER'S TITLE: Jennifer Ku it REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca q:\planning\projects\zoning\downtown rezoning\seaf part i--min2story.doc D2 Draft Resolution-December 8, 2004 Adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Add a Requirement of a Minimum of Two Occupiable Stories for CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100,CBD-120, CBD-140,B-la, B-lb,B-2c1 and B-2d Zones--Declaration of Lead Agency for the Environmental Review WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an "Unlisted" Action pursuant to City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance,which requires review under the CEQR; now, therefore,be it RESOLVED, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the zoning amendment to add a requirement of a minimum of two occupiable stories for CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, B-la, B-lb, B-2c, and B-2d zones q:\planning\projects\zoning\downtown rezoning\resolutionlead agencymin2story.doc D2 Draft Resolution-December 8,2004 Adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Add a Requirement of a Minimum of Two Occupiable Stories for CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140,B-1 a, B-lbz B-2c, and B-2d zones --Determination of Environmental Significance WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to amend the zoning for the CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, B-la, B-lb, B-2c, and B-2d zones in order to add a minimum building height requirement of two occupiable stories, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-1—m of the New York State General Municipal Law,which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS,the proposed action is an"Unlisted" Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS,the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore,be it RESOLVED,that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter,hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and be it further RESOLVED,that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk's Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Q:I PLANNINGIPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\Resolution-Negdecmin2story.doc 12/8/2004 D2 LEGAL NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 5, 2005, passed the following Ordinance : ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED "ZONING" to Amend Zoning Districts CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, B-la, B-lb, B-2c, and B-2d Zones to Add a Requirement of a Minimum of Two Occupiable Stories BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Article V, Supplementary Regulations § 325-16 . Height regulations be amended as follows : Chapter 325, Zoning Article V, Supplementary Regulations § 325-16 . Height regulations. G. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, B-la, B-lb, B-2c, and B-2d zones (1) No building shall be erected that is less than two - occupiable stories for any new primary buildings in any of these zones and any existing buildings that are expanded more than fifty percent in size. Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\2 Story min-Ordinance.doc . , D2 CITY OF ITHACA FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently there are aspects of a proposed action that are subjective or immeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given action and its site. By identifying basic project data,it assists a reviewed in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA IS FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—TYPE I AND UNLISTED ACTIONS Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this action: Li 'art 1 MI'art 2 MI'art 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts, 2, and 3if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: JA. The Proposed Action will not result in any large and important impact(s)and,therefore,is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment,therefore A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. OB. Although the proposed action could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore A CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.* C. The proposed action may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment;therefore A POSITIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action: Amended zoning height restrictions for parcels 70.-4-6 and 70.-4-5.2 and a portion of parcel 70.-4-4 Name of Lead Agency: City of Ithaca Name and Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Mayor Carolyn Peterson Signature of Respon O •°r in Lead Agenc : Signature of Preparers �' C "---"--- Date: September 28,21:4 Q:I PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 1 of 21 PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action: Downtown Zoning Amendments Location of Action: East Green Street Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca Address: 108 East Green Street City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: New York ZIP: 14850 I Business Phone: 274-6550 Name of Owner(If Different) Address: City/Town/Village: State: ZIP: Business Phone:ff Description of Action: The action being proposed is a change to the zoning height regulations for a portion of parcel 70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100, and to change parcels 70.-4-6 and 70.-4-5.2 from CBD-60 to CBD 85. Q:I PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project,both developed and undeveloped areas.) 1. Present Land Use: C Urban ❑Industrial ®Commercial ® Public ❑ Forest 1 F ❑Agricultural ❑Other: 3. Total area of project area: Acres 96140 square feet(Chosen units apply to following section also) Approximate Area (Units in question 3 apply to this section)mmmmrr Presently After Completion a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural) 'b. Forested c. Agricultural cult .. E gr ur d. Wetland(as per Articles 24 of ECL) e. Water Surface Area f. Public lg. Water Surface Area h. Unvegetated(rock, earth or fill) i. Roads,buildings and other paved surfaces 96,140 SF 96,140 SF j. Other(indicate type) 4a. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site(e.g. HdB, silty loam, etc.): Hudson, Rhinebeck- Glacial Till, Urban Fill f 4b. Soil Drainage: ❑ Well Drained % of Site ❑ Moderately Well Drained %of Site ® Poorly Drained 100 % of Site E 5a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? 10 Yes ® No ❑ N/A 5b. What is depth of bedrock? +/-80' to 100' (feet) i 115c What is depth to the water table? +1-5' (feet) 0-10% 100 : % ❑ 10-15% : % 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ❑ 15%or greater : % i 17. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it contain a building, site or district, listed on or eligible ❑ Yes No ❑ N/A for the National or State Register of Historic Places? .................. or designated a local landmark or in a local ❑ Yes X No ® N/A landmark district? Q:I PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 3 of 21 8. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist ❑ Yes ® No ® N/A in the project area? Identify each species 9. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or ❑ Yes X No ❑ N/A endangered? According to: ;Identify each Species: 110. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, other geological I❑ Yes X No ❑ N/A formations)? i Describe: 111. Is the project site presently used by the 1 I community or neighborhood as an open space or ❑ Yes X No ® N/A recreation area? E If yes, explain: 112. Does the present site offer or include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑ Yes No ® N/A Describe: 13. Is project within or contiguous to a site designated a unique natural area or critical ❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A environmental area by a local or state agency? Describe: 114. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Names of stream or name of river to which it is E None tributary: N/A 15. Lakes,ponds,wetland areas within or contiguous a.Name: N/A to project area: None b. Size(in acres): N/A 16. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid ❑ Yes 7� No ❑ N/A or hazardous wastes? 'Describe: 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? I® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A b. If Yes,will improvements be necessary to ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A allow connection? Q:I PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 4 of 21 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate) 96140 square feet 1. a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor in acres: N/A or square feet 1 b. Project acreage developed: 2.25 Acres initially 2.25 Acres ultimately = 1. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0 11. d. Length of project in miles: (if appropriate) or feet: N/A 1. e. If project is an expansion, indicate percent of change proposed: N/A 1. f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing: 443 proposed: —800 spaces f 1. g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per day: and per hour: (upon completion of project). TBD 1 1. h. If residential: Number and type of housing units(not structures): See Part III One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium I Initial Ik N/A N/Ai N/A IE N/A 1 I [ Ultimate N/A ii N/A N/A ir N/A I If non-residential: Orientation(check one) See Part III I Neighborhood City Regional Estimated Employment Commercial N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial I: N/A ' N/A N/A } N/A 1 i. Height of tallest proposed structure: 100 feet is the tallest allowable structure lj. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy? —900' 2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site: or added to the site . N/A 3. Specify what type or vegetation(trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from the site: acres, what type? N/A 4. Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? N/A 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? N/A 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased project: 7 a. Total number of phases anticipated 7. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase one N/A month N/A year, (including demolition) 7. c. Approximate completion date of final phase N/A month N/A year. 7. d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? [Yes [ No®N/A Q:IPLANNING\PROJECTSIZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 5 of 21 i 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑Yes ❑ No 1.3..I /A; if yes, explain N/A 9 Number of jobs generated. during construction after project is completed " N/A 110. Number of jobs eliminated by this project: N/A Explain: N/A 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?[Yes ❑ No MI /A; if yes, explain 12. a. Is surface or sub-surface liquid waste disposal involved?❑Yes ❑ No TI /A; if yes, explain 112. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) N/A 12. c. If surface disposal,where specifically will effluent be discharged? N/A I 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal?[Yes ® No ON if yes, explain 14. a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year flood plain? ❑Yes ® No❑N/A 14. b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to Cayuga Inlet Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Cayuga Lake, Six Mile Creek, Silver Creek? (Circle all that apply) 14. c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as described in Article 24 or the ECL?[Yes ®No ON/A; 14. d. If yes for a,b, or c, explain: N/A 15. a. Does project involve disposal or solid waste?[Yes ® No ON/A; 15.b. If yes,will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? ❑Yes ❑ No 1�I /A; 115. c. If yes, give name: N/A ; location: N/A 15. d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?❑Yes ❑ No MI /A; if yes, explain N/A 15. e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site?[Yes ❑ No 1.11 /A; if yes, explain 116. Will project use herbicides or pesticides?❑Yes ❑ No ►I /A; if yes, specify 17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic . Places? Or designated a local landmark or in a landmark district?❑Yes ®No ON/A; if yes, explain 18. Will project produce odors?[Yes ❑ No MI /A; if yes, explain 119. Will project product operating noise exceed the local ambient noise level during construction? I Yes ❑No ON/A; After construction?[Yes ❑No MI /A; 20. Will project result in an increase of energy use?[Yes ❑No MI /A; if yes, indicate type(s) 21. Total anticipated water usage per day gals/day. N/A Source of water N/A Q:I PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 6 of21 C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION 1. Does the proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? EYes ❑ No 0N/A; if yes, indicate the decision required: ®Zoning Amendment 0 Zoning Variance ❑New/revision of master plan ❑Subdivision ❑Site Plan ❑Special Use Permit ❑Resource Management Plan ❑Other 2. What is the current zoning classification of site? CBD-60 1 3. What is the maximum potential development if the site is developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning?❑Yes ®No❑N/A 5. If no, indicate desired zoning .CBD-85 and CBD-100 6. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed I zoning? 7. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Yes ❑No ON/A; If no, explain: 8. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4-mile radius of the project? (e.g.R-la or R-1b) B-la,B-lb, B-2c,B-2d, B-4, CBD-100, CBD-120,CBD-140,CBD-60, CBD-85, P-1,R-lb,R-2a, R-2b,R-3a,R-3b 9. Is the proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? ®Yes ❑No❑N/A Explain: See Part III 10. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land,how many lots are proposed? N/A 1 a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 111. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services? (recreation, education, police, fire protection, etc.) ? EYYes ❑No❑N/A Explain: Rezoning will lead to a higher density and therefore a greater demand for services. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ®Yes ❑No❑N/A Explain: 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Yes ❑No❑N/A See Part III If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ®Yes ❑No❑N/A Explain: See Part III and Attached Traffic Study Q:I PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 7 of21 C APPROVALS 123. Approvals: 23. a. Is any Federal permit required? [Yes EX No ON/A; . Specify l i 23 b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing`�Yes �X No[N/A; If Yes, Specify 23. c. Local and Re:ional a. .royals: 3 (Yes- Approval Submittal Approval Date ; No) Required (type) Date Council Yes Adoption BZA No i P&D Board £ No ��.� _. _____ 1 Landmarks No ; BPW I No _. .. .__._ 1 Fire Department I No 1 Police I L.__j , Department No IURA I No 1 ,' 1 Building No Commissioner D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal,please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. VERIFICATION I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name City of Ithaca Signature Title Economic Development Planner Q:\PLANNINGIPROJECTSIZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 8 of21 City of Ithaca Long Environmental Assessment Form PART 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDES IMPACT ON LAND --See Part III 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project Small to Potential Can Impact be site?ElYes ❑No Moderate Large Reduced by Impact ; Impact ,j Project Change? Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slope in the project exceeds ❑Yes Li No 10%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet. Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. X L ❑Yes ❑No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within [Yes ❑No 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve i [Yes ❑No more than one phase or stage. Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than ❑No 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil)per year. :''''F---7 Construction of any new sanitary landfill. ❑Yes ❑No Construction in a designated floodway. ❑Yes ❑No Other impacts: ['Yes ❑No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the ? Small to Potential Can Impact be site? (i.e. cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.) Moderate Large Reduced by ❑Yes No Impact Impact Project Change? Specific land forms I ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected? Small to Potential Can Impact be (Under article 15 or 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law,E.C.L.) Moderate Large Reduced by I [Yes No Impact Impact Project Change? Developable area of site contains a protected water body ❑Yes ❑No !Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑yes ❑No (protected stream. °Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water [yes ❑No body. Q:IPLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 9 of 21 Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. 1 ❑Yes ❑No Other impacts: ❑Yes ❑No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of € Small to Potential Can Impact be water? Moderate Large Reduced by [Yes ®No --See Part III Impact Impact Project Change? A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of ❑yes ❑No water or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. I Construction, alteration, or conversion of a body of water that r-------7 . exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. ? [Yes ❑No Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, ' ❑Yes ❑No Cayuga Lake or the Cayuga Inlet? Other impacts: I❑Yes ❑No 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Small to Potential Large Can Impact be Moderate Reduced by ❑Yes No Impact Impact Project Change? Project will require a discharge permit. ❑Yes ❑No Project requires use of a source of water that does not have ❑Yes ❑No approval to serve proposed project. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a 7---- ❑yes ❑No public water supply system. Project will adversely affect groundwater. j ❑Yes ❑No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which I ' presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. [Yes ❑No Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of ❑Yes ❑No 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. 1 Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an l existing body of water to the extent that there will be an [Yes ❑No obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or [Yes ❑No chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Other impacts: [Yes ❑No L6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns or Small to Can Impact be surface water runoff? Moderate Potential Reduced by Large Impact ' ❑Yes No Impact f Project Change? Project would impede floodwater flows. I [Yes ❑No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. ❑Yes ❑No Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 10 of21 Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. [Yes ❑No Other impacts: I [Yes ❑No fE IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will project affect air quality?—See Part III Small to Potential Large Can Impact be '. [Yes ®No Moderate Impact ; Impact Reduced by Project Change? Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8- [Yes ❑No '. hour period per day. Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 ❑Yes ❑No ,' tons of refuse per 24-hour day. ' Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 i [Yes ❑No million BTUs per hour. 3II Other impacts: !! it [Yes ❑No IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered Small to Moderate Potential Can Impact be species? Impact Large Impact Reduced by ❑Yes ®No I Project Change? Reduction of any species listed on the New York or j { ❑Yes ❑No Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑Yes ❑No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a j year other than for agricultural purposes. [Yes ❑No Other impacts: I 1i"❑Yes ❑No 1 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non- Can Impact be threatened or non-endangered species? Small to Potential Reduced b [Yes ®No ' Moderate Impact Large Impact ? Project ect Change? Proposed action would substantially interfere with any ❑Yes ❑No resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Proposed action requires the removal or more than 1/2 acre of mature woods or other locally important [Yes ❑No vegetation. Other impacts: I: [Yes ❑No I Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 11 of 21 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE 10. Will the proposed action affect views,vistas or the Small to Potential Large Can Impact be visual character of the neighborhood or community? 3 Moderate Impact Reduced by Yes ❑No Impact Project Change? Proposed land uses, or proposed action components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current : ❑Yes ❑No surrounding land use patterns,whether man-made or natural Proposed land use,or proposed action components _ __ visible to users of aesthetic resources which will ❑Yes ❑No :eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Proposed action will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the , 1 ❑Yes ❑No area. Other impacts: Skyline and view of hills will be X ❑Yes ❑No altered IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure ( Small to Impact be of historic,prehistoric or paleontological importance? Moderate Potential Large Reduced by ❑Yes ®No Impact Impact Project Change? Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on or eligible ? ❑Yes ❑No for the National or State Register of Historic Places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed ['Yes ❑No located within the project site. ".____________i Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any site designated as a local landmark ❑Yes ❑No or in a landmark district. Other impacts: [Yes ❑No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or Small to Can Impact be quality of existing or future open spaces or Potential Large Moderate Reduced b recreational opportunities? Impact by ❑Yes No Impact Project Change? The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational - [Yes ❑No 0:\PLANNINGIPROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 12 of 21 pp y 0 ortumt A major reduction of an open space important to the Dyes ❑No community. , Other impacts: � ��,�~ _� � �� ._._ µ Dyes ❑No IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site Small to Can Impact be designated as a unique natural area(UNA) or a Moderate Potential Large Impact I Reduced by Project critical environmental area(CEA)by a local or Impact ' Change? state agency. ['Yes ®No Proposed Action to locate within a UNA or ❑Yes ❑No I CEA? I Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource ❑Yes ❑No Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource ❑Yes ❑No 'Other impacts: 1 I I [Yes ❑No IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION—See Part III 14. Will there be an effect to existing I Small to Can Impact be transportation systems? Moderate Potential Large Impact Reduced by [Yes ®No Impact Project Change? L_________j Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. E ['Yes ❑No Proposed action will result in major traffic _________j problems. Dyes ❑No Other impacts: f I Dyes ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's Small to Can Impact be sources of fuel or energy supply? Moderate Potential Large Impact Reduced by Dyes ®No Impact Project Change? Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in [Yes ❑No municipality. Q:I PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 13 of 21 Proposed action requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply [Yes ❑No system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. Other impacts. . []Yes ❑No IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors,noise, glare,vibration or electrical disturbance during Small to construction of or after completion of this Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced proposed action? Impact Impact by Project Change? [Yes ®No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? [Yes ❑No 3 { Odors will occur routinely(more than one hour [Yes ❑No per day) Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for [ ❑Yes ❑No noise outside of structure. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. ❑Yes ❑No Other impacts: J [Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health Small to Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced and safety? Moderate g p ,Yes ®No Impact Impact by Project Change? Proposed action will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there ❑Yes ❑No will be a chronic low-level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form(i.e. Toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, [Yes ❑No irritating, infectious, etc.) Q:IPLANNING\PROJECTSIZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 14 of 21 Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a ❑Yes ❑No site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Proposed action will result in the handling or disposal or hazardous wastes(i.e. toxic, poisonous,highly reactive,radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes [Yes ❑No that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. ❑Yes ❑No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization or the control of vegetation, insects or animal life on the premises of any [Yes ❑No residential, commercial or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Other impacts: [Yes ❑No IMPACT GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character ' Small to ; potential Large Can Impact be Reduced by of the existing community? Moderate NYes ❑No --See Part III Impact Impact Project Change? The population of the City in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human ❑Yes ❑No population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5%per year as a ❑Yes ❑No result of this proposed action. Proposed action will conflict with officially oyes ❑No adopted plans or goals Proposed action will cause a change in the ❑Yes ❑No density of land use. The proposed action will replace or I eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the I ❑Yes ❑No community. Q:I PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 15 of21 Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, ' [Yes ❑No police, and fire, etc. Proposed action will set an important X E ❑Yes ❑No precedent for future actions. Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. [Yes ❑No Other impacts: [Yes ❑No 19. Is there public controversy concerning Small to the proposed action? Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced by [Yes © No 1 impact Impact Project Change? Either government or citizens of adjacent 1 communities have expressed opposition or 1 1 ❑Yes ❑No rejected the proposed action or have not j been contacted. ? Objections to the proposed action from i 1 ❑Yes ❑No within the community. If any action in part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact,proceed to part 3. Q:\PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 16 of 21 VISUAL EAF ADDENDUM Visibility Distance Between Project and Resource(in miles) 1. Would the project be visible from: 0-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-3 3-5 5+ A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the ❑ El ❑ El for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or © ❑ 0 0 ❑ man-made scenic qualities? A site or structure listed on the National, State, or local ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ The State Forest Preserve? ❑ ❑ ❑ El El National Wildlife Refuges and State Game Refuges 0 El ❑ 0 El National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features National Park Service Lands ❑ ❑ 0 0 El Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Recreational Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part ® ❑ CI ❑ ❑ of the Interstate System or Amtrak? A governmentally established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for © El El El El establishment or designation? A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as El El El CI CI Municipal park or designated open space? © El ❑ El ❑ County Road ❑ El El CI State Road © El ❑ El El Local Road © El El ❑ El Q:I PLANNING IPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 17 of 21 ' T 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (I.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) Yes No 3. Are any of the resources check in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? Yes No 4. From each item checked in question 1,check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. 1/4 mile 1 mile Essentially undeveloped ❑ p Forested El Agricultural ❑ p Suburban Residential ❑ p Industrial © ❑ Commercial p ❑ Urban © ❑ River, Lake, Pond © ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks © El designated Open Space © ❑ Flat © ❑ Hilly © ❑ Mountainous ❑ Other 5. Are there visually similar projects within: 1/2 Mile Yes No 1 Mile Yes No 2 Miles Yes No 3 Miles Yes No 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is 1,000,000 +1- ? 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: Homy s/ Season Activity Daily Weekly Weeken ally Travel to and from work © 0 ❑ ❑ Involved in recreational activities © El El El Routine travel by residents © ❑ ❑ ❑ At a residence © ❑ ❑ ❑ At worksite © El ❑ ❑ Other El Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 18 of2l City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form—Part III Proposed Adoption-Downtown Zoning Amendment October 28, 2004 PROPOSED ACTION The action is a proposal to change the zoning designation of parcels 70.-4-5.2 and 70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85 and a portion of parcel 70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100. These proposed zoning changes will have no effect on the allowable uses for this site, only on the allowable structure height. Currently these parcels consist of a surface parking lot with a two-story city owned parking structure above it and a privately owned 2 story commercial building. The City anticipates that at some point in the future it may wish to vertically expand the parking garage in order to accommodate more vehicles. The proposal to expand this garage underwent an extensive environmental review as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Downtown Development Project. The adjacent building, located on parcel 70.-4-4, is privately owned. The new owner has expressed an interest in developing the site for housing at some point in the future. However, at this time the City has received no formal proposal and therefore cannot review this potential project. This environmental review will review the largest possible impacts that can be expected in accordance with the proposed zoning. As with all zoning changes, any projects proposed in the future for this site must undergo a separate environmental review. The land adjacent to the site on the south is zoned CBD 100, and the land adjacent to the north is zoned CBD 60, therefore these proposed zoning changes would create a transitional zone and will not be out of character with surrounding zones. The attached map shows the location of the proposed zoning change. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact on Land—Small to Moderate Impact This project may have a small to moderate impact on land, in that the zoning change will allow for larger structures to be built at this location. The impact is not expected to be significant because the allowable uses for this site will not be changed. In addition, a portion of this site is being considered for an expanded parking facility which could include approximately 400 additional spaces. This proposed structure has undergone a separate environmental review, as part of the Downtown Development Mixed Use Project. This site currently contains a 443-space garage and the existing, as well as the proposed zoning, allows this use. The change in zoning will not change the allowed uses, but will only increase the allowable. This height increase may allow for a larger garage to be built that can accommodate more cars that would not have fit within the existing zoning restriction. This would satisfy the projected parking demand for downtown that was determined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Downtown Development Mixed Use Project (DEIS). However, should the current plans change for this site, any other allowable CBD use could be built at this location and the zoning change would allow for a taller structure. Q:IPLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 19 of21 Impact on Water—No Anticipated Impacts The site in question is approximately 80 feet from Six Mile Creek at its closest point and the zoning change is not expected to have any direct impacts on the creek. Impact on Air—No Anticipated Impacts The action of rezoning this site is not expected to have an impact on air in the area. As was reported in the DEIS, the full development conditions with mitigations throughout the network will be similar to future background conditions. The DEIS also notes that for AM conditions, the amount of fuel consumed, which is in direct relationship to air quality, will be less in the full development with mitigation scenarios than in the background conditions. This is to say that when compared with expected future growth, the proposed project is expected to make the system more efficient in the AM hour, thus decreasing air pollution generation. The PM hour only has a small increase in fuel consumed with the proposed project and mitigation as compared to the background conditions. The total stops and travel times within the system during the PM peak hour are projected to increase approximately 11% and the average speed will remain unchanged. Impact on Transportation—No Anticipated Impacts The DEIS for the Downtown Development Mixed Use Project fully investigated the possible impacts of increased traffic as a result of this project including a new garage and up to 200 units of new housing. Specific mitigation measures that would alleviate some of the adverse impacts to the area are outlined in the attached excerpt from the Traffic Addendum to the DEIS, dated October 2002. Impact on Visual Resources—Small to Moderate Impact Although the zoning change should have little effect on important views, there may be an impact from having a taller building at this location. Currently, there is a garage and a commercial building located on this site that are not built to the maximum allowable height of the existing zoning. At present the adjacent housing has greenhouses on the southside of the residential units. If the existing garage were to be built to the maximum allowable height, these greenhouses would be shielded. Therefore, the proposed zoning is no more impacting than that allowed by existing zoning. In addition, the visual impacts, as well as the impacts from shadows of this zoning change were evaluated as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Downtown Development Mixed Use Project (The DEIS). The DEIS found that the proposed height would be compatible with the heights of the surrounding buildings. The results of the shadow study found only small impacts from the increased height. The table below summarizes the findings of the shadow analysis completed as part of the DEIS. Summary of Shadow Study North of East Green Street Time Commons Center Ithaca Skylight Streets and Surrounding Buildings Winter 10 Shaded by Shaded by existing buildings. No Current condition unclear. Proposed AM Existing new shading from proposed garage. garage shades small portion Buildings. northeast corner City Hall. Winter 12 No new No shading currently or proposed. Noon shading Winter 3 PM from Small area of southwest corner of City Hall shades garage. proposed skylight may be shaded. Q:I PLANNINGIPROJECTSIZONINGIDowntown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 20 of 21 Summer 9 garage. No change from existing conditions. May shade more of City Hall eastern AM windows. Summer 12 No change from existing conditions. Noon Summer 5 City Hall shades garage. PM Equinox 9 No change from existing conditions. Current condition unclear. Proposed AM _ garage shades portion of City Hall. Equinox 12 No change from existing conditions. Noon Equinox 5 City Hall shades garage. PM Also enclosed for your information is a shadow analysis of a 100-foot building in the proposed CBD- 100 zone. This information was prepared by Thomas Associates at the request of the new owner of the Rothchild's building. Impact on Quality of Daily Life—No Anticipated Impacts The action of rezoning this site is not expected to have an impact on quality of daily life in the area. However, the current proposals for the Downtown Development Mixed Use Project, at full buildout, may have a small to moderate impact on the quality of daily life. If approved, the construction of the new buildings will produce operating noise that exceeds the local ambient noise. However, these impacts are only expected to be small to moderate and should subside once construction on the project in complete. Impact on Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood—Small to Moderate Impact There may be a small to moderate impact on the Community. As with most zoning changes, this could set an important precedent for future projects as increased height allows for greater density. The impact is expected to be small to moderate because there is no proposed change in the allowed use of the site. The City's current plans for this site could include the construction of an 80-foot tall parking structure at some point in the future. The owner of the adjacent building has also expressed interest in building a 100 foot tall housing structure. Should these proposed uses change, any structures that are permitted under the current zoning could be built. The zoning change would only permit taller structures of the same use to locate on this site. Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTSIZONING\Downtown Rezoning\FEAF FORM.doc Page 21 of 21 D2 Draft Resolution- December 8, 2004 Adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Change Tax Parcels#70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85 --Declaration of Lead Agency for the Environmental Review WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an "Unlisted" Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review(CEQR) Ordinance,which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore,be it RESOLVED,that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the zoning amendment to change Tax Parcels #70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85. q:\planning\projects\zoning\downtown rezoning\resolutionlead agencycbd85.doc D2 Draft Resolution-December 8, 2004 Adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Change Tax Parcels #70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85 --Determination of Environmental Significance WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to amend the zoning of Tax Parcels#70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85 , and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF), and WHEREAS, the visual impacts and the impacts from shadows created by increased height were evaluated as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for the Downtown Development Mixed-Use Project,which found that the proposed height would be compatible with the heights of the surrounding buildings with only small impacts from shadows from the increased height, and WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-1—m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways,be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS,the proposed action is an"Unlisted" Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore,be it RESOLVED,that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter,hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, and be it further RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk's Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\Resolution-NegdecCBD85.doc D2 Draft Resolution - December 8, 2004 Zoning Amendment to Change Tax Parcels#70.-4-5.2 and #70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85--Adoption WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to encourage mixed-use development in downtown in order to build a strong downtown core, thereby strengthening the City as whole, and WHEREAS,modest changes in building height regulations, and therefore density, can improve project feasibility in selected downtown locations, and WHEREAS, staff has recommended zoning changes that have been strategically designed so as not to negatively impact older downtown buildings, sun exposure, or significant views, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and has been reviewed by the County Planning Department,the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the visual impacts and the impacts from shadows created by increased height were evaluated as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for the Downtown Development Mixed-Use Project,which found that the proposed height would be compatible with the heights of the surrounding buildings with only small impacts from shadows from the increased height, and WHEREAS,the required public hearing for this action was held on January 5, 2005, and WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca Common Council, as lead agency in this matter,has on January 5, 2005, determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary;now therefore be it RESOLVED,that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the proposed zoning amendment to change Tax Parcels#70.-4-5.2 and#70.-4-6 from CBD-60 to CBD-85. Q:\PLANNINGIPROJECTSIZONING\Downtown Rezoning\ResolutionAdoptionCBD85.doc D2 Draft Resolution-December 8, 2004 Adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Change a Portion of Tax Parcel#70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100—Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an"Unlisted"Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance,which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore,be it RESOLVED,that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the zoning amendment to change a portion of Tax Parcel#70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100. q:\planning\projects\zoning\downtown rezoning\resolutionlead agencycbd 100..doc D2 Draft Resolution-December 8, 2004 Adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Change a Portion of Tax Parcel#70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100--Determination of Environmental Significance WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to amend the zoning of a portion of Tax Parcel #70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), and WHEREAS, a shadow analysis was conducted for the increased building height in order to determine the impacts on surrounding buildings, and WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-1—m of the New York State General Municipal Law,which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways,be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS,the proposed action is an"Unlisted"Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own,the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, and be it further RESOLVED,that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter,hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk's Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. q:\planning\projects\zoning\downtown rezoning\resolution-negdeccbd100.doc D2 Draft Resolution - December 8, 2004 Zoning Amendment to Change a Portion of Tax Parcel#70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100--Adoption WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to encourage mixed-use development in downtown in order to build a strong downtown core, thereby strengthening the City as whole, and WHEREAS,modest changes in building height regulations, and therefore density, can improve project feasibility in selected downtown locations, and WHEREAS, staff has recommended zoning changes that have been strategically designed so as not to negatively impact older downtown buildings, sun exposure, or significant views, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and has been reviewed by the County Planning Department, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, a shadow analysis of the increased height has been completed in order to determine the impacts on surrounding buildings, and WHEREAS, the required public hearing for this action was held on January 5, 2005, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, has on January 5, 2005, determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary; now therefore be it RESOLVED,that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the proposed zoning amendment to change a portion of Tax Parcel #70.-4-4 from CBD-60 to CBD-100. 0:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\Downtown Rezoning\Resolution-AdoptionCBD100.doc DRAFT COPY -- NOT YET APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Planning, Neighborhoods & and Economic Development Committee Fl Minutes November 17, 2004 Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Michelle Berry; Dan Cogan; Pam Mackesey; Gayraud Townsend Other Elected City Officials Attending: Mayor Carolyn Peterson; Alderperson Joel Zumoff City Staff Attending: Tim Logue, Department of Planning & Development; H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning &Development; Steve Thayer, Controller Others Attending: Katie Borgella, Principal Planner, Tompkins County Planning Dept. Meeting was called to order by Mary Tomlan at 7:30 p.m. A. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. B. Public Comment and Response Guy Gerard questioned the potential for economic success of the multiplex theater that has been proposed as a part of the Cayuga Green project. Joel Harlan decried the fact that no decision had yet been made regarding the proposed repair or replacement of the Green Garage. C. Announcements, Reports and Presentations 1. Deputy Director of Economic Development—Status Report H. Matthys Van Cort reported that the advertisement for the job has been posted. Staff members from the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Planning& Development will begin to review applications in January 2005. The expectation is that the position will be filled by March 2005. 2. Access Management—Report Tim Logue reported that a proposal has been made for an access management study, to cost$100,000. Consensus of the Committee was that the proposed cost was too great and that staff should discuss reducing the cost with the consultant or talk to a new consultant. - 1 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1117.doc DRAFT COPY -- NOT YET APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE D. Action Items 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD)—Resolutions Tomlan reported on the work of the PUD subcommittee. Logue explained the changes that were made to the proposed ordinance by the Committee. Pam Mackesey said she felt the changes made the ordinance much better, and that she could now strongly support the ordinance. Tomlan spoke in favor of the ordinance. She noted that the ordinance would allow mixed use and would allow the Common Council greater control over proposed new projects. Mayor Carolyn Peterson mentioned that comments were received from Planning and Development Board as well as from others. Peterson asked whether those comments were taken into consideration by the Committee. Tomlan responded that the subcommittee did review and consider the comments. Dan Cogan also spoke in favor of the PUD. On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Gayraud Townsend, the following resolutions were unanimously approved (5-0-0): WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law,and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,and WHEREAS,the proposed amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to establish Planned Unit Development(PUD)district regulations is a Type I action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance(CEQR)and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR)which requires review under CEQR and SEQR;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to establish Planned Unit Development(PUD)district regulations. And also, WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca is proposing a zoning amendment which would create a new zone to be known as the Planned Unit Development district(PUD),and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment Form(LEAF),including Parts I and II,and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act,and - 2 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1117.doc DRAFT COPY -- NOT YET APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,acting as Lead Agency,has reviewed the LEAF prepared by City of Ithaca Planning&Development Department staff,and it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council,as lead agency,hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment,and that further environmental review for the adoption of this plan is unnecessary,and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same,together with any attachments,in the City Clerk's Office,and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. 2. City Trails Master Plan—Resolution Logue explained why the Department of Planning & Development staff were proposing to develop a trails master plan for the City, one that could be adopted as an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan. There is a good deal of work being done on trails by the City, and a trails master plan would assist in this work. One of the reasons was to make the trails "grant ready." Peterson spoke strongly in favor of preparing a trails master plan. Michelle Berry suggested including the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce in discussions and preparations for a trails master plan, and in marketing such a plan. She also mentioned that the Southside African-American Heritage Walking Tour should be combined with some of the historic sites in Northside. Mackesey thanked Logue for his work on this project. On a motion by Townsend, seconded by Berry,the following resolution was unanimously approved(5-0-0): WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca has the potential to develop a network of trails that would support recreation,alternate modes of transportation,economic development,tourism,and healthy lifestyles,and WHEREAS,the Department of Planning&Development has outlined a planning process that would formulate a master plan for such a trail system,and WHEREAS,such a master plan would assist in the development of grant applications,capital project budgeting,and in securing other funding sources;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,that the Planning,Neighborhoods,and Economic Development Committee directs the Department of Planning and Development to commence action on the City Trails Master Plan as generally outlined by the department,and be it further RESOLVED,that Common Council authorizes the Mayor to appoint a Client Committee to assist in the development of the City Trails Master Plan. - 3 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1117.doc DRAFT COPY -- NOT YET APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 3. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan—Resolution Tomlan introduced Katie Borgella, Principal Planner in the Tompkins County Planning Department. Tomlan noted that the full plan was not part of the Committee's packet, but it is available on line. Borgella stated that the final draft of the plan was at the printer's. Cogan and Mackesey thanked the County for their good work on the comprehensive plan. Mackesey expressed concern about the development of farmland and sprawl, an inefficient way to develop housing that is destructive of open space. Joel Zumoff asked how the priority items had been identified. Peterson asked whether the issue of sustainability was a major consideration in preparation of the plan and selection of the action items. Borgella said that the plan and sustainability had many interlocking actions. She said that calling for clustered development in transit-accessible nodes promoted the goal of sustainability. On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Townsend,the following resolution was unanimously approved (5-0-0): WHEREAS,the Tompkins County Planning Department,with guidance,advice,and recommendation from the Tompkins County Planning Advisory Board,has developed a Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan that addresses regional and inter-municipal issues that affect the daily lives of Tompkins County residents,such as housing,transportation,jobs,the environment, and neighborhoods and communities,and WHEREAS,the Draft Comprehensive Plan was presented at 17 community groups and advisory board meetings,and 14 open houses and public meetings in all municipalities in the county,for feedback and comments,and WHEREAS,an over-arching principle of the Draft County Comprehensive Plan is that Tompkins County will work proactively with towns,villages,the City of Ithaca,and State and Federal agencies to cooperatively address regional issues,and WHEREAS,the County recognizes that while New York State clearly places land use authority in the hands of its towns,villages,and cities,it also specifically recognizes that inter-municipal planning is needed to cooperatively address regional issues and encourages the development of county comprehensive plans to address development and preservation issues that transcend local political boundaries,and WHEREAS,the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan provides a strategic framework for addressing issues of mutual concern to municipalities throughout the County;now,therefore be it RESOLVED,that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca supports the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature. - 4 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1117.doc DRAFT COPY -- NOT YET APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE E. Other Items: 1. Transportation Demand Management(TDM)—Presentation and Discussion Logue summarized a report that was completed by Cornell University graduate school intern, Gloria Lau. Lau was hired as a summer 2004 intern through funds received from the Robert S. Smith Grant. Lau spent much time researching transportation demand management that is offered by other cities. She then prepared a typed report that will be duplicated and given to members of Common Council. Townsend mentioned that there are "slugging"programs in Virginia for commuters to the DC metro area, under which people in cars pick up riders at designated locations in the commuter-shed area. Cogan said that such programs are called"casual car pooling" in the San Francisco area. It was noted that these programs may work better in areas where there are High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes or tolls. It was also noted that such programs might involve crime or liability problems. Tomlan said that the Committee could make suggestions for action once it had received and had the opportunity to review the report. 2. Green Garage—Discussion Tomlan told the Committee members that Controller Steve Thayer had integrated the Green Garage repair/replacement alternatives into his five-year budget projections. Thayer explained his work, noting that the projections are based on staffs best estimates of costs and revenues, but that they are only estimates. He also said that the further into the future the projections are made,the lower their reliability would be. In explaining the spreadsheets, Thayer noted that the interest rates used by him and city planning staff member, Jennifer Kusznir, were worst case assumptions at 5.75 and 6%. He said the rates of interest would probably be lower. In response to a question from Peterson, Thayer said that the revenues from the project were taken into consideration in his projections. Thayer said that it would be preferable to make the decision on the garage later rather than sooner because of the uncertainty about the City's revenues from business in the southwest area and other sources. Thayer said he recognized that the City could not delay so long that we lose the Cayuga Green project. Cogan suggested that the Committee should move ahead with Option 2 at an upcoming meeting. Cogan said that a decision should be made before the end of the year. Mackesey said that she was not ready to make a decision. Cogan said that waiting could cost us more money. - 5 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1117.doc DRAFT COPY -- NOT YET APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, NEIGHBORHOODS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Berry asked about Cinemapolis and the possibility of competition from the Cayuga Green project's multiplex movie theater. Peterson pointed out the proposed theater would show first run movies. She hoped there could be some collaboration between the various entertainment providers in downtown. Mackesey asked how long the existing repairs would hold before a substantial additional investment would have to be made in the garage. Berry said she did not want to do repeated repairs on the garage if the repairs would have no value in a short amount of time. Tomlan asked whether the next consideration of this issue should be at a Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development(PNED) Committee or at a Committee of the Whole (COW). Townsend suggested that it since it started at a COW, it might best be decided at a COW. Peterson suggested that a special meeting be called to make this decision. Van Cort suggested that the Cayuga Garage capital project be increased so that design of the garage alternatives could be started. Cogan suggested that there should be a special voting meeting of Common Council and staff should prepare the necessary resolutions for funding and process for reconstruction of the garage. It was suggested that the December 6th Committee Chairs meeting with the Mayor would be a good time to decide the date for a COW. 3. West End Parking—Discussion and Possible Motion to Enter into Executive Session Tomlan referred committee members to the memo that explained the work that has been done on parking in the West End. The committee unanimously voted to enter into Executive Session to discuss the possible acquisition of real property. The committee returned to open session, and Tomlan reported that no action had been taken. F. Approval of Minutes (Per committee request, this item was acted on immediately prior to E.3.) On a motion by Townsend, seconded by Cogan, the minutes of the October 20, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved(5-0-0). G. Adjournment On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. - 6 - q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhoods and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\1117.doc