HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-16 Planning & Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council DATE:December 14,2016
TIME:6pm
LOCATION:3rd floor
City Hall Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s)Time
Start
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
2) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing:Revisions to Collegetown Area
Form Districts
b) Public Hearing:Zoning Amendment to Allow
Brewpubs,Urban Breweries,and Taverns
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee
Members
4) Updates,Announcements,Reports
a) Design Guidelines
b) Housing Summit Debrief
5) Action Items (Voting to send on to Council)
a) Revisions to Collegetown Area Form Districts
b) Zoning Amendment to Allow Brewpubs,Urban
Breweries,and Taverns
c) Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)Agreement
with INHS
6) Special Order of Business
a) 2017 Work Plan and Process
(sent under separate cover)
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) November 2016
(sent under separate cover)
8) Adjournment
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh,Chair
Megan Wilson,Senior Planner
JoAnn Cornish,Planning Director
Megan Wilson,Senior Planner
Jennifer Kusznir,Senior Planner
Nels Bohn,IURA Director
JoAnn,Cornish,Planning Director
6:00
6:05
6:15
6:30
6:40
6:50
7:15
7:30
8:00
8:25
8:30
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 13th,2016.
To: Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
Date: December 8, 2016
RE: Proposal to Amend §325-45, Collegetown Area Form Districts, to Revise Entry and
Building Length Requirements
At last month’s meeting, the Planning & Economic Development Committee discussed proposed revisions to
§325-45, Collegetown Area Form Districts. These proposed revisions will make the following changes:
1. Increase the required depth of a recessed entry from twelve inches to five feet.
2. Clarify that the one required entry on corner lots in a CR district must be located on the primary street-
facing façade of the building.
3. Change the maximum façade length requirement to a maximum building length requirement in the CR-3,
CR-4, and MU-1 districts.
4. Apply the maximum building length requirement to all street-facing sides of a building in the CR-3
district and to only the primary-street-facing side of a building in the CR-4 or MU-1 districts.
The proposed ordinance has been circulated for public comment and for review by the Tompkins County
Planning Department. The County has determined that the proposal will not have any intermunicipal impacts,
and no other comments have been submitted as of December 8th. Staff will attend the Planning & Economic
Development Committee meeting on December 14th to review the proposed amendments and answer any
questions. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 274-6560 or
mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
11/9/16
Page 1 of 2
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Revise Entry and Building Length
Requirements for the Collegetown Area Form Districts
WHEREAS, there has been confusion over the application of the façade
length requirement of the Collegetown Area Form Districts, as adopted
in 2014, and
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions would clarify the intent and
application of various regulations; now, therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be
amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2B(10) of the Municipal Code
of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
(10) Recessed Entry
(a) Definition: A functioning entry that is set back a
minimum of 12” 5’ from the front façade of the
building.
Section 2. The CR-1 Activation Table shown in Chapter 325, Section
325-45.2E(1) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to read as follows:
ACTIVATION
DOORS AND ENTRIES
B) Functioning entry on the street-facing façade, min 1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is required
on the primary street-facing façade
Section 3. The CR-2 Activation Table shown in Chapter 325, Section
325-45.2E(2) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to read as follows:
ACTIVATION
DOORS AND ENTRIES
B) Functioning entry on the street-facing façade, min 1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is required
on the primary street-facing façade
Section 4. The CR-3 Activation Table shown in Chapter 325, Section
325-45.2E(3) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to read as follows:
11/9/16
Page 2 of 2
ACTIVATION
STREET FAÇADE
A) Building façade length, all streets, max 45’
B) Length of blank wall, max 8’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
C) Functioning entry on the street-facing façade, min 1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is required
on the primary street-facing façade
Section 5. The CR-4 Activation Table shown in Chapter 325, Section
325-45.2F(1) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to read as follows:
ACTIVATION
STREET FAÇADE
A) Building façade length, primary street, max
1. Row house 100’
2. All other structures 45’
B) Length of blank wall, max 8’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
C) Functioning entry on the street-facing façade, min 1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is required
on the primary street-facing façade
Section 6. The MU-1 Activation Table shown in Chapter 325, Section
325-45.2G(1) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to read as follows:
ACTIVATION
STREET FAÇADE
D) Building façade length, primary street, max
3. Row house 150’
4. All other structures 75’
Section 7. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as
provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
December 14, 2016
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To Revise Entry and Building Length Requirements for the Collegetown
Area Form Districts – 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 the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead
agency for the environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance to amend §325-45.2,
“District Standards,” of the Collegetown Area Form Districts.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
December 14, 2016
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To Revise Entry and Building Length Requirements for the Collegetown
Area Form Districts – 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 the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead
agency for the environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance to amend §325-45.2,
“District Standards,” of the Collegetown Area Form Districts.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
December 14, 2016
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To Revise Entry and Building Length Requirements for the Collegetown
Area Form Districts – Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal
Code in order to revise the recessed entry and building length requirements for the Collegetown
Area Form Districts, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of
a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated November 15, 2016, and
WHEREAS, these zoning amendments have been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning
Department Pursuant to §239-l–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 have also been distributed for
review 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 in the Short Environmental Assessment Form,
dated November 15, 2016, 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.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
December 14, 2016
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To Revise Entry and Building Length Requirements for the Collegetown
Area Form Districts – Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to Chapter 325 of the Municipal
Code in order to revise the recessed entry and building length requirements for the Collegetown
Area Form Districts, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of
a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated November 15, 2016, and
WHEREAS, these zoning amendments have been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning
Department Pursuant to §239-l–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 have also been distributed for
review 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 in the Short Environmental Assessment Form,
dated November 15, 2016, 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.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA –
607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
-
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: December 9, 2016
Re: Proposal to Amend Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” to Include Definitions for Brew
Pub, Urban Brewery, & Tavern, and Amend Allowable Uses in B-2, B-5, & CBD
Districts
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to establish definitions for
Brew Pub, Urban Brewery, and Tavern, and to establish them as permitted uses in specific zones.
This proposal was previously discussed at the November Planning and Economic Development
Committee meeting. At that meeting staff was directed to circulate the ordinance for comments. At
the request of the Committee an environmental review of this action has been completed, and the
draft Full Environmental Assessment Form and ordinance are enclosed. The proposed ordinance and
environmental assessment have been circulated to the City Planning Board, the Conservation
Advisory Council, the Tompkins County Planning Department and various other City staff and
departments. No comments have been received regarding this proposal. Also enclosed for your
consideration is a resolution establishing lead agency for this action and a resolution for
environmental significance. If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information,
feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
Draft Resolution
12/8/16
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” to Include Definitions for Brew Pub,
Urban Brewery, & Tavern, and Amend Allowable Uses in B-2, B-5, & CBD
Districts– Declaration of Lead Agency
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 a “Type I" Action pursuant
to the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, (CEQR),
§176-4 which requires 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 for the
adoption of amendments to The Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” to Include Definitions for Brew Pub,
Urban Brewery, & Tavern, and Amend Allowable Uses in B-2, B-5, & CBD
Districts
Draft Resolution
12/8/16
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of
Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” to Include
Definitions for Brew Pub, Urban Brewery, & Tavern, and Amend
Allowable Uses in B-2, B-5, & CBD Districts– Declaration of
Environmental Significance
1. WHEREAS, The Common Council is considering a proposal to
amend the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning,” To include definitions for Brew
Pub, Urban Brewery, and Tavern, and also to amend the
allowable uses in the B-2, B-5, and CBD zones, and
2. WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been
conducted, including the preparation of a Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated October 26,
2015, and
3. WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “TYPE I” Action under
the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
4. 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
1. 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, dated November 2, 2016,
and be it further
2. 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
3. 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.
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Section 325-3B, entitled, “Definitions and Word Usage,” is
hereby amended to add the following definitions:
Brew Pub — An establishment that produces ales, beers, meads, hard ciders, and/or similar
beverages to serve on site. Sale of beverages for off site consumption is also permitted in keeping
with the regulations of the New York State Liquor Authority. Service of brewed beverages must be
in conjunction with the service of food. Brew pubs may not produce more than 5,000 barrels of
beverage annually. May also include the distribution of beverages for consumption at other sites.
A brew bub, may NOT contain external tanks for storage of raw materials or beverages.
Urban Brewery — A limited production brewery that may produce no more than 15,000 barrels
annually. Microbreweries may sell to licensees; however, they may NOT sell to the general public
without a NYS brewer's retail permit. An Urban Brewery may have a restaurant in or adjacent to it,
only if it has obtained a NYS an on-premises retail license.
Tavern — An establishment for the sale of beer and other drinks to be consumed on the
premises, sometimes also serving food.
Section 2. Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
entitled District Regulations, is hereby amended in order to add Brew
Pub as an allowable primary use in the B-2a district and Urban
Breweries as an allowable use in the B-5 district.
Section 3. Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
entitled District Regulations, is further amended to add the following
allowable accessory use in the B-2 zones:
Incidental parking for any uses allowed in any of the
B2 zones.
Section 4. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and
the Planning Department shall amend the District Regulations Chart in
accordance with the amendments made herewith.
Section 5. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and
within the provisions of this local law. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local law is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then
that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
Section 6. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as
provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
CITY OF ITHACA
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
Purpose: The Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) 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 FEAF 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.
FEAF Components:
Part 1: Provide objective data and information about a given action and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists in
a review of the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focus 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 FEAF completed for this action: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this FEAF (Parts, 2, and 3, if 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:
A. The Proposed Action will not result in any large and important impact(s) an is one that will not have a significant impact
on the environment; therefore, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
B. 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: Proposal to Amend Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Include Definitions for
Brew Pub, Urban Brewery, & Tavern, and Amend Allowable Uses in B-2, B-5, &
CBD Districts
Name of Lead Agency: City of Ithaca
Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Mayor Svante Myrick
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: ____________________
Name & Title of Preparer: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Signature of Preparer:
Date: November 21, 2016
2
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION
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 be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification
and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) 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: Proposal to Amend Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Include Definitions for
Brew Pub, Urban Brewery, & Tavern, and Amend Allowable Uses in B-2, B-5, &
CBD Districts
Location of Action: City of Ithaca
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca
Address: 108 E. Green St. (City Hall)
City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: NY ZIP: 14850
Business Phone: 607-274-6550
Name of Owner(if different): n/a
Address: n/a
City/Town/Village: n/a State: n/a ZIP: n/a
Business Phone: n/a
Description of Action: The action being considered is a proposal to amend Chapter 325, Entitled
“Zoning,” to include definitions for Brew Pub and Urban Brewery, to amend the allowable uses in the
B-2, B-5, and CBD districts, and to amend the allowable accessory uses in the B-2 zones to allow for any
incidental parking related to all uses in any of the B-2 zones.
3
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use: X Urban Industrial Commercial Public Forest
Agricultural Other:
2. Total area of project area: ~6.1 sq. mi. (Chosen units apply to following section also)
Approximate Area (Units in question 2 apply to this section) Currently After Completion
2a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural)
2b. Forested
2c. Agricultural
2d. Wetland [as per Articles 24 of Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)]
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public
2g. Water Surface Area
2h. Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill)
2i. Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces ~6.1 sq. mi. ~6.1 sq. mi.
2j. Other (indicate type)
3a. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g. HdB, silty loam, etc.): n/a
3b. Soil Drainage: n/a Well-Drained ______% of Site
Moderately Well Drained ______% of Site
Poorly Drained ______% of Site
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes No X N/A
4b. What is depth of bedrock? n/a (feet)
4c. What is depth to the water table? n/a (feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site
with slopes: n/a
0-10% % 10-15% %
15% or greater %
6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it
contain a building, site or district, listed on or
eligible for the National or State Register of
Historic Places?
Yes No X N/A
6b. Or designated a local landmark or in a local
landmark district?
Yes No X N/A
7. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently
exist in the project area? Yes No X N/A
If yes, identify each species:
4
SITE DESCRIPTION (concluded)
8. Does project site contain any species of plant or
animal life that is identified as threatened or
endangered?
Yes No X N/A
According to:
Identify each Species:
9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on the
project site? (i.e., cliffs, other geological
formations)
Yes No X N/A
Describe:
10. Is the project site presently used by the
community or neighborhood as an open space or
recreation area?
Yes No X N/A
If yes, explain:
11. Does the present site offer or include scenic views
known to be important to the community? Yes No X N/A
Describe:
12. Is project within or contiguous to a site
designated a Unique Natural Area (UNA) or
critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
Yes No X N/A
Describe:
13. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Names of stream or name of river to which it is a
tributary: N/A
14. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous
to project area: n/a
a. Name:
b. Size (in acres):
15. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid
or hazardous wastes? Yes No X N/A
Describe:
16. Is the site served by existing public utilities?
a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow
connection?
b. If Yes, will improvements be necessary to
allow connection?
Yes No X N/A
Yes No X N/A
Yes No X N/A
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
1a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor in acres: N/A
1b. Project acreage developed: NA initially NA ultimately
1c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: N/A
1d. Length of project in miles: (if appropriate) N/A or feet: N/A
1e. If project is an expansion, indicate percent of change proposed: N/A
5
1f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing: N/A proposed: N/A
1g.Maximum vehicular trips generated (upon completion of project) per day: N/A and per hour: N/A
1h. Height of tallest proposed structure: feet. N/A
1j. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy? N/A
2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site:
N/A or added to the site: N/A
3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from the site:
acres: N/A type of vegetation: 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 N/A months, (including demolition)
7. If multi-phased project, anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition)
7a. Total number of phases anticipated: N/A
7b. Anticipated date of commencement for first phase N/A month N/A year (including demolition)
7c. Approximate completion date of final phase N/A month N/A year.
7d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No X N/A
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes No X N/A; if yes, explain:
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 0 after project is completed 0
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project: 0 Explain:
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No N/A; if yes, explain:
12a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes X No N/A; if yes, explain:
12b. If #12a is yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc): N/A
12c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? N/A
13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased
by proposal? Yes X No N/A; if yes, explain:
14a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year flood
plain? X Yes No N/A
14b. 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.)
14c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as
described in Article 24 Of the ECL? Yes X No N/A;
14d. If #14a, b or c is yes, explain: N/A
15a. Does project involve disposal or solid waste? Yes X No N/A
15b. If #15a is yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No X N/A
15c. If #15b is yes, give name of disposal facility: N/A and its location:
6
15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
Yes No X N/A; if yes, explain:
15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes No X N/A; if yes, explain:
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No X N/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 a local landmark or in a landmark district? Yes No X N/A; if yes, explain:
18. Will project produce odors? Yes No X N/A; if yes, explain:
19. Will project product operating noise exceed the local ambient noise level during construction?
Yes No X N/A; After construction? Yes No X N/A
20. Will project result in an increase of energy use? Yes No X N/A; if yes, indicate type(s) N/A
21. Total anticipated water usage per day: gals/day. N/A Source of water N/A
C. ZONING & PLANNING INFORMATION
1. Does the proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? X Yes No N/A; if yes, indicate
the decision required:
X Zoning Amendment 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? B-2a, B-2b, B-2c, B-2d, B-4, B-5, CBD-50, CBD-60,
CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, , I-1, WEDZ-1a, WEDZ-1b, , SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, WF-1, WF-
2,
3. If the site is developed as permitted by the present zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
N/A
4. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes No X N/A
5. If #4 is no, indicate desired zoning: N/A
6. If the site is developed by the proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site?
N/A
7. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land-use plans?
X Yes No N/A; If no, explain:
8. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a ¼ mile radius of the project?
N/A
9. Is the proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? X Yes No N/A Explain:
7
10a. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community-provided services? (recreation, education,
police, fire protection, etc.) ? Yes X No N/A Explain:
If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No X N/A
Explain: N/A
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
Yes X No N/A If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic?
Yes X No N/A Explain:
D. APPROVALS
1. Approvals: Common Council Adoption
2a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes X No N/A; Specify:
2b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No N/A; If Yes, Specify:
2c. Local and Regional approvals:
Agency
Yes/No Type of
Approval Required
Submittal
Date
Approval
Date
COMMON COUNCIL YES ADOPTION
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) No
Planning & Development Board No
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC)
No
Board of Public Works (BPW) No
Fire Department No
Police Department No
Building Commissioner No
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency No
E. 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.
F. VERIFICATION
I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name: City of Ithaca (Jennifer Kusznir)
Signature:
Title: Economic Development Planner
8
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 — Project Impacts
Proposal to Amend Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Include Definitions for Brew Pub, Urban
Brewery, & Tavern, and Amend Allowable Uses in B-2, B-5, & CBD Districts
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per 100
feet of length) or where general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3
feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within
3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological
formations, etc.)? Yes No
Specific land forms (if any):
Yes No
9
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental
Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of
protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected water
body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of water or
more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga
Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
10
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have approval
to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public
water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which do
not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000
gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing
body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
11
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period
per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse
per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour
or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
12
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list, using
the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other
than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of mature
woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
13
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community?
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously
different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use
patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to users
of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce
their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening of
scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous
to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State
Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous
to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
14
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or recreational
opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique
natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes
No
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
15
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts:
Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of
energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- or two-
family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
16
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction
of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive
facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as noise
screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause 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 will be chronic low-
level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in any
form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or
hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or hazardous
wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or
contain gases).
Yes No
17
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control of
vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any residential,
commercial, or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is
likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this
proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional community services
(e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more
businesses. Yes No
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by Project
Change?
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
18
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
— 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 —
19
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 3 — Explanation of Impacts
Proposal to Amend Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Include Definitions for Brew Pub, Urban
Brewery, & Tavern, and Amend Allowable Uses in B-2, B-5, & CBD Districts
Project Impacts
The proposal being evaluated will add Brew Pubs as an allowable use in the B-2 districts and subsequent
districts that allow B-2 uses, and will allow urban breweries in the B-5 districts and subsequent districts
that allow B-5 uses. These uses are compatible with the uses that are already permitted in these zones.
Any projects that are proposed will need to undergo separate environmental review.
Authorize Exemption from Real Property Taxes and Provision for In-Lieu
Payments, with Regard to the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.
(“INHS”) Affordable Housing Scattered Site Preservation Project – Resolution
WHEREAS, there is a demonstrable and critical shortage of affordable housing within
the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 577 of the New York State Private Housing Finance
Law (PHFL), the Council hereby exempts from real property taxes, for a period of thirty
(30) years, the following properties, to be owned by a housing development fund
company formed under Article XI of PHFL and sponsored by the Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services, Inc. (“INHS”) and beneficially owned by a to-be-formed partnership
affiliate of INHS formed for the purpose of developing the Project (hereinafter the
“Owner”), and to be used for the provision of affordable rental housing to qualified
persons or families of low income as a part of the Scattered Site Rental Preservation
Project (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes renovation of 98 residential units in 44 buildings as
follows:
Address: Tax Parcel #:
105 Fourth Street 44.-6-15
107A Fourth Street 44.-6-16
107 Fourth Street 44.-6-16
108 N. Corn Street 72.-3-14
110 Esty Street 50.-1-21
112 Esty Street 50.-1-21
113 Fourth Street 44.-6-1
216 Cascadilla Street 45.-5-11
316-18 S. Corn Street 79.-5-15
356 Floral Ave. 97.-1-6.2
380-90 Floral Ave. 97.-1-7.2
402 Center Street 79.-6-10
402 W. Seneca Street 60.-6-12
417 Cascadilla Street 51.-3-2
418-20 Cascadilla Street 44.-6-14
602 W. Green Street 72.-4-12
Cascadilla Green I 25.-3-1.1
308 Adams Street
310 Adams Street
509 First Street
511 First Street
507 First Street
505 First Street
513 First Street
515 First Street
517 First Street
519 First Street
521 First Street
523 First Street
307 Franklin Street
309 Franklin Street
Cascadilla Green II 25.-3-1.21
301 Franklin Street
522 Alice Miller Way
303 Franklin Street
305 Franklin Street
512 Alice Miller Way
514 Alice Miller Way
516 Alice Miller Way
504 Alice Miller Way
506 Alice Miller Way
508 Alice Miller Way
510 Alice Miller Way
518 Alice Miller Way
304 Adams Street
306 Adams Street
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has determined that the continued provision of affordable
rental housing to qualified persons or families of low income by INHS is beneficial to
and in the long term best interests of the public, and in connection with the City of Ithaca
Common Council’s endorsement of the INHS Affordable Housing Scattered Site
Preservation project at its regular meeting held on the 2nd day of November, 2016,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca pursuant to §577 of the
Private Housing Finance Law of the State of New York hereby grants to the properties
listed herein a tax exemption from real property taxes levied by the City of Ithaca and
other local taxing authorities for a period of thirty (30) years, and Owner shall make
annual in-lieu-of-tax payments (hereinafter referred to as “PILOT”) to the City of Ithaca
equal to 12% of its annual "net operating income", but in no event to be less than
$58,837, plus additional negotiated annual amounts after fifteen (15) years when
Project payment obligations are projected to decline. "Net operating income" shall equal
gross rents received by the Owner less operating costs, as determined by an annual
audit, paid by the Owner for the duration of the exemption period. The PILOT shall be
shared by the City of Ithaca with Tompkins County and the Ithaca City School District in
the same ratio as total school, city and county taxes would have been paid with respect
to the Project without taking into account the exemption provided for herein; and it is
further
RESOLVED, that the PILOT agreement shall include provisions requiring the
construction contract for the Project to include specific provisions that require (1)
outreach to local subcontractors in construction trades requesting bids, to the greatest
extent feasible, and (2) outreach to local vendors requesting quotes for construction
materials to the greatest extent feasible, and
RESOLVED, that the Mayor upon the advice of the City Attorney and the City Controller
and on behalf of the City of Ithaca is hereby authorized and requested to execute and
deliver to any pertinent party an agreement between the City of Ithaca and Owner,
setting forth as necessary the details of the PILOT, and to take any and all action
necessary and/or required to effectuate or verify such payments or tax exemption, the
PILOT agreement shall contain such additional terms and conditions as the Mayor
deems to be appropriate; and it is further
RESOLVED, that this ordinance shall take effect immediately.
j:\community development\policy\housing\inhs refinancing 2016\reso pedc inhs pilot 12-14-16 revision #1.docx
1
December 2, 2016 Mayor Svante Myrick Mayor, City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Request for the City of Ithaca to enter into a Payment In Lieu of Tax
Agreement for the INHS Scattered Site Rental Preservation Project Dear Mr. Mayor: This letter is to request that the City of Ithaca enter into a Payment In Lieu of Tax Agreement (PILOT) for the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Scattered Site Rental Preservation Project (‘the Project’). The Project is eligible for a PILOT
Pursuant to Section 577 of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law (PHFL), which allows the municipality in which the project is located to grant an exemption of property taxes and PILOT if the Project is owned by a Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC) and the Project is providing low income housing. The Project meets both of the Section 577 tests; it will be owned by an HDFC and provide regulated affordable housing for 50 years. The INHS Scattered Site Rental Preservation project is a mixed-income, multi-family rental project, involving the refinancing and renovation of 98 residential units in 44 buildings on 17 tax parcels. These units make up the majority of the scattered site rental portfolio acquired by INHS over the past 30 years. The project is 100% residential; there is no commercial space. The buildings are located in Census Tracts 1, 8, and 10 in the City of Ithaca. There are 16 studio apartments, 23 one bedrooms, 28 two bedrooms, 28 three bedrooms, and 3 four bedroom apartments. The INHS Scattered Site Portfolio is affordable because INHS’s mission is to provide affordable housing. To accomplish this mission rents have been set below market rates. Only a small fraction of the units have any type of housing regulatory agreement requiring affordability even though the portfolio represents one of the largest affordable housing portfolios in the City and provides housing for more than 70 Housing Choice Voucher holders. Approximately 80% of the families living in these apartments earn less than 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). While this housing serves those most in need it also
2
is home to 17 more moderate income families. The scattered site makeup of the project contributes to a more diverse income mix in residential neighborhoods. INHS will retain this income mix and work to ensure that no tenants are permanently displaced as part of the project. A consequence of maintaining low rents and keeping the Portfolio affordable is that there is often not enough money to do the repairs that are needed. Over the years, as the Scattered Site portfolio has grown and the structures have aged, the buildings have become difficult to manage. In many cases only the most pressing maintenance needs are addressed while the more critical large capital expenditures like roofs, siding, and energy efficiency upgrades delayed. Renovating and refinancing the Portfolio provides a unique opportunity to:
improve the quality of life for 98 low and moderate income families,
restrict the units as affordable housing for 50 years,
improve the energy efficiency of the portfolio to reduce greenhouse gases and cost of utilities,
improve the curb appeal of the buildings and as a result the blocks and neighborhoods where they are located,
capitalize reserves to mitigate ongoing maintenance and operating risk, and
invest equity from the sale of the portfolio into the development of new affordable housing. The refinance would include renovating each building based on a recently completed Capital Needs Assessment that evaluated roofs, windows, insulation, siding, kitchens, baths, carpeting, flooring, heating systems, and cosmetics. Floor plans, elevations, and a detailed scope of work have been created for each building and unit. The total renovation budget is over $6,000,000 to bring these units up to “like new” condition. There are additional expenses involved in acquiring the buildings, legal work, insurance, architecture and other soft costs as well as setting aside reserve funds to ensure that the units continue to be maintained over the next 30 years. The total development budget for the project is over $19,000,000. The financing to cover the cost of this work includes 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit Equity, Tax Exempt Bonds issued by the NYS Housing Finance Agency, a subsidy loan from the NYS Housing Finance Agency’s Multi Family Preservation Program and Tompkins County’s Community Housing Development Funds. In addition to these sources INHS has the opportunity to take advantage of grant dollars from a settlement agreement between Morgan Stanley and the New York
3
State Attorney General. These funds must be accepted by the municipality in which the project is located and the Council approved this acceptance at its October Meeting. INHS will also contribute equity to the project in the form of a Seller’s note. As part of the Project INHS will sell the 98 units to the HDFC as record title holder of the project and to a newly formed limited liability company established to own the beneficial interest in the project. INHS has agreed to use the funds from the sale for three purposes: 1. Pay any outstanding debt obligations including loans to the IURA. 2. Invest the funds back into the Scattered Site Project in the form of a Seller’s Note. 3. Invest any remaining proceeds in the creation of new affordable housing. Attached is a MEMO drafted by the INHS Real Estate Development Committee for board approval. This MEMO details how the use of equity from the Project will go toward the three purposes outlined above and could significantly increase the organization’s ability to create new affordable housing in the future. Unlike many of the new construction affordable housing complexes INHS has developed over the past 10 years, the financing scenario outlined above requires significant hard debt service; as a result, if the project is to be financially feasible and rents are to be maintained at current affordable levels, INHS must reduce expenses. This letter is requesting that the City of Ithaca utilize the option of providing a real property tax exemption for the project, other than assessments for local improvements, and enter into a PILOT Agreement as outlined below. INHS is requesting that the properties be exempt from taxes and instead make an annual payment based on 12% of Net Operating Income (NOI) for a period of thirty (30) years. "Net operating income" is the amount of income equal to gross rents received less operating costs, as determined by an annual audit. The operating costs will not include depreciation or debt service payments. This is the formula that the County Industrial Development Agency (IDA) utilized for the PILOT agreement at 210 Hancock. While INHS could request this same PILOT agreement for the Scattered Site Project through the IDA, it would be less costly to the Project in both legal expenses and fees to have the City of Ithaca enter into the PILOT instead. Our attorneys inform us that the most common form of affordable housing real property tax exemption in Upstate New York municipalities (including Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse, among others) is through the provisions we are seeking to utilize here. Below is an analysis of the difference between the PILOT payment and the payment of taxes if the property were assessed by the County after the refinancing – labeled “581A Assessment.” 581A is a NYS Real Property Tax Law that directs the
4
assessment department to use the actual income and expenses of the project to calculate the value rather than using hypothetical income or expenses. These numbers are based on current projections of income and expenses and tax rates.
To ensure that INHS does not pay less than the proposed PILOT payment in year one the attached resolution includes an annual “floor” so that the PILOT Payment could never be less than $54,000. If the income of the Project were to increase then the annual payment to the City would also increase. The same is true if expenses go down; for example, by improving the energy efficiency of the portfolio and reducing annual utility expenses INHS is improving the chances of the Project paying a higher annual PILOT Payment. In addition to the annual 12% Payment INHS is willing to consider an increased payment at the end of the 15 year tax credit compliance period. INHS is also including language in the attached PILOT resolution that the Payment be shared by the City of Ithaca with Tompkins County and the Ithaca City School District in the same ratio as total school, city and county taxes would have been paid with respect to the Project. While the PILOT does result in lost tax revenue it does provide the City with an opportunity to implement the stated goal in Section 5.1 of the comprehensive plan; that “The existing stock of affordable housing will be preserved and well-maintained.” Without a PILOT Agreement the Project can not move forward as currently designed; INHS cannot apply for over $12,000,000 in private and State funding; and the $4,000,000 of Morgan Stanley funding that the Council has accepted on behalf of the project will be lost. Thank you and the Council for taking the time to consider this request. Attached you will find supporting documentation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Joseph L. Bowes Director of Real Estate Development
Property Tax Difference PILOT 581A - Assessment Difference PILOT V. 581 A
Property Tax & Fees Payments 54,862$ 165,407$ (110,545)$
% of Payment to each taxing jurisdiction
School 26,492.87$ 79,875.12$ (53,382)$
City 18,511.81$ 55,812.49$ (37,301)$
County 9,857.29$ 29,719.39$ (19,862)$
Total 54,862$ 165,407$ (110,545)$
Page 1
Revised: 12/08/2016 1
INHS Scattered Site Preservation - SUMMARY BUDGET - As of 12/08/16*
AFFORDABILITY UNIT TYPE
% AMI # of Units % of Total Bedroom Type # of Units % of total
< 30%AMI 0 0%0 16 16%
< 50%AMI 22 22%1 23 23%
< 60%AMI 59 60%2 28 29%
< 90%AMI 17 17%3 28 29%
MARKET 0 0%4 3 3%
Total 98 100%Total 98 100%
TOTAL ANNUAL CREDIT REQUEST RENT PLAN
Credit Type Total Per Unit Bdrms # of Units Rent (FMR)Utilities Gross Rent Affordability AMI % AMI
4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits 530,396$ 5,412$
NYS Low Income Housing Tax Credits -$ -$ Studio 4 574$ 46 620 $24,800 51,400$ 48%
Studio 6 704$ 46 750 $30,000 51,400$ 58%
Studio 3 717$ 33 750 $30,000 51,400$ 58%
DEVELOPMENT BUDGET Studio 3 804$ 46 850 $34,000 51,400$ 90%
Uses Total Per Unit
Land/Building 6,860,000$ 70,000$ One Bedroom 2 632$ 38 670 $26,800 55,100$ 49%
Soft Costs 2,993,493$ 30,546$ One Bedroom 16 762$ 38 800 $32,000 55,100$ 58%
Hard Costs 6,554,178$ 66,879$ One Bedroom 5 877$ 38 915 $36,600 55,100$ 66%
Contingency 702,778$ 7,171$
Development Fee 2,000,000$ 20,408$ Two Bedroom 2 770$ 40 810 $32,400 66,100$ 49%
Reserves 531,151$ 5,420$ Two Bedroom 23 920$ 40 960 $38,400 66,100$ 58%
Working Capital 104,930$ 1,071$ Two Bedroom 3 1,150$ 40 1190 $47,600 66,100$ 72%
Total 19,746,530$ 201,495$
Three Bedroom 5 880$ 50 930 $37,200 76,350$ 49%
DEVELOPMENT BUDGET Three Bedroom 17 1,060$ 50 1110 $44,400 76,350$ 58%
Sources Total Per Unit Three Bedroom 6 1,150$ 50 1200 $48,000 76,350$ 63%
Construction
Bond 10,696,530$ 109,148$ Four Bedroom 3 1,198$ 42 1240 $49,600 85,200$ 58%
4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit Equity 2,500,000$ 25,510$ Total 98
Deferred Dev Fee 1,500,000$ 15,306$
Seller's Note 3,000,000$ 30,612$
County Affordable Housing Funds 300,000$ 3,061$
LISC Morgan Stanley Funds 1,750,000$ 17,857$
Total 19,746,530$ 201,495$
Permanent Total Per Unit Rate Annual
Monthly
payment
Bond 4,152,709$ 42,375$ 5.50%282,944$ 23,579$
4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit Equity 5,303,959$ 54,122$
NYS HFA Mortgage (Homes for Working Families)2,200,000$ 22,449$ 1.00%22,000$ 1,833$
INHS Seller's Note 3,000,000$ 30,612$ 1.00%30,000$ 2,500$
County Affordable Housing Funds 300,000$ 3,061$
LISC Morgan Stanley 4,000,000$ 40,816$
INHS Developer Fee 789,861$ 8,060$ 52,657$ 4,388$
Total 19,746,530$ 201,495$ 387,601$ 32,300$
Page 2
Revised: 12/08/2016 2
OPERATING BUDGET ADDITIONAL TAX or FEE REVENUE
With PILOT With 581 A Tax or Fee Total
INCOME Year 1 Year 1 Mortgage Recording Tax -$
Residential Income 1,055,856$ 1,055,856$ Sales Tax -$
Vacancy Loss 52,793$ 52,793$ Transfer Tax 41,160$
Misc Income (laundry)11,769$ 11,769$ Building Permit 45,879$
Total Effective Income 1,014,832$ 1,014,832$ Total 87,039$
EXPENSES
Manager 57,876$ 57,876$
Management Fee 81,187$ 81,187$
Accounting & Audit 4,300$ 4,300$
Legal 3,000$ 3,000$
Advertising 671$ 671$
Office Supplies & Equipment 3,254$ 3,254$
LIHTC Monitoring Fee -$ -$
Other Admin. (specify)18,734$ 18,734$
Janitor & Cleaning Payroll 3,680$ 3,680$
Janitor & Cleaning Supplies 2,660$ 2,660$
Exterminating 967$ 967$
Garbage & Trash Removal 6,220$ 6,220$
Security 789$ 789$
Ground Expenses 8,076$ 8,076$
Maintenance & Repair Payroll 19,499$ 19,499$
Maintenance & Repair Materials 17,000$ 17,000$
Maintenance & Repair Contracts 7,670$ 7,670$
Elevator -$ -$
Snow Removal 19,966$ 19,966$
Painting & Decorating 52,960$ 52,960$
Other M & O - Fire Alarm Fees 2,625$ 2,625$
Fuel Oil -$ -$
Lighting & Electricity 7,115$ 7,115$
Water & Sewer 46,275$ 46,275$
Gas 58,965$ 58,965$
Other Utilities (specify)-$ -$
Real Estate Taxes 58,837$ 154,800$
Payroll Taxes 12,733$ 12,733$
Other Taxes (specify) Strm Water and Sidewalk $ 4,000 4,000$
Property & Liability Insurance 50,000$ 50,000$
Fidelity Bond Insurance -$ -$
Other Insurance (specify)-$ -$
Operating Reserve -$ -$
Replacement Reserve 34,300$ 34,300$
TOTAL EXPENSES 583,359$ 679,322$
NET OPERATING INCOME 431,473$ 335,511$
DEBT SERVICE
Bond 282,944$ 282,944$
HFA Mortgage 22,000$ 22,000$
Seller's Note 30,000$ 30,000$
Deferred Developer Fee 52,657$ 52,657$
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 387,601$ 387,601$
CASH FLOW 43,872$ (52,090)$
Property Tax Difference PILOT 581A - Assessment Difference PILOT V. 581 A % of Taxes to Jurisdiction
Property Tax & Fees Payments 58,837$ 154,800$ (95,963)$
% of Payment to each taxing jurisdiction
School 28,412.55$ 74,753.00$ (46,340)$ 48%
City 19,853.18$ 52,233.42$ (32,380)$ 34%
County 10,571.55$ 27,813.59$ (17,242)$ 18%
Total 58,837$ 154,800$ (95,963)$
MEMO
To: New York State Housing Finance Agency
RE: INHS Scattered Site Rental Preservation Plan for Use of Sale Proceeds
From: Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.
Date: 11/30/16
As part of the INHS Scattered Site Rental Preservation Project INHS will sell 98 units to the Limited
Liability Corporation established to own the project.
The State of New York has asked for some assurance from INHS that the equity freed up through this
refinance will be reinvested into the business for the purpose of generating additional affordable
housing. At its September 15th Board of Directors Meeting the INHS Board affirmed its intention to
reinvest the net equity from the acquisition and development of the Scattered Site Portfolio into its
real estate development mission by expanding its capacity to do additional housing development in
its service area of Tompkins County and the six surrounding counties. This memo explains further
how this equity will be used for the creation of new units of affordable housing.
Equity Estimate: INHS has estimated a purchase price of $70,000 per unit for the 98 units that would
be refinanced in this package, or $6,680,000. This price is based on a limited appraisal by Gar
Associates and will be revised based on an appraisal commissioned by the Letter of Credit provider.
Sale proceeds would be distributed as follows:
$6,680,000 Purchase price
($1,800,000) Repayment of Tompkins Trust Company Mortgage (including prepayment penalty)
($90,000) Repayment of Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Loans on Cascadilla Green I and II
($45,000) Repayment of NYS HTF Loan on Cascadilla Green II
($85,000) Repayment of INHS loan on Cascadilla Green I & II
$4,665,000 Balance after sale
($3,000,000) Seller’s note loaned into the project as subordinate debt. This loan also allows INHS
to repurpose approximately $300,000 in CDBG Program Income generated by CDBG
funds used to initially acquire or renovate these buildings.
$1,665,000 Net equity to INHS as Seller.
Governance: The equity would be placed into INHS’s Real Estate Development Fund. This fund’s sole
purpose is the development of new affordable housing units. The use of the RED fund is controlled
by INHS’s Real Estate Development Policy with primary oversight by the INHS Real Estate
Development Committee, a standing corporate committee comprised of INHS Board members and
local real estate development professionals. The RED Committee reports to the Board monthly.
Additionally, the INHS Board of Directors is required to approve any purchase of property.
Three major uses for the equity are anticipated: Acquisition, Predevelopment, and Loans. Based on
INHS’s RED anticipated business needs, initial target amounts for each use have been estimated.
With careful project selection, much of these funds used for each project could be repaid which will
allow the funds to be used as revolving loan funds.
Acquisition: $750,000
These funds would be used to purchase existing rental housing or property that can be developed
as affordable housing. Locating property to develop housing has become increasingly difficult in
the Ithaca market as land values rise and competition for appropriately zoned land increases.
Land or existing housing developments in Tompkins County and the surrounding counties could
also be pursued with these funds.
The funds could be utilized as the equity portion of a purchase or it could fund the entire
purchase price. There would not be a guarantee of repayment of the funds; however, it is likely
that a portion of the cost of purchase could be repaid through the development process.
In the past, INHS has had to purchase sites with existing buildings that are underutilized and need
to be demolished. These funds could also support the site preparation cost associated with these
types of acquisitions.
Predevelopment: $415,000
The due diligence required for a typical affordable housing development to apply for financing
can cost as much as $200,000 per project. Some of this cost is reimbursed if and when a project is
fully funded while some must be written off. If a potential project does not receive funding or is
found infeasible due to market conditions, soil or environmental factors, or other major
difficulties then all of the predevelopment funds expended are lost. These funds would ensure
that INHS has the resources to continue to identify and advance new affordable housing
developments without risking its core capital.
These funds would be used on a project by project basis to cover up-front predevelopment costs.
Typically, these funds would not convert to a loan when the project is funded but would be
mostly repaid at construction closing. Any funds that cannot be recovered would be written off.
Construction/Permanent Loans: $500,000
To date, INHS has invested over $1 million in acquisition and sponsor loans in the development of
183 units of 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects. This investment has leveraged over $50
million in investment from Tax Credit Equity, State, Local, and Federal funds. INHS plans to
continue to make this type of investment in affordable housing.
These funds could be used as construction financing that would be taken out with permanent
financing or as permanent financing to fill gaps in new construction or preservation deals.
Construction financing loans would be repaid at permanent closing.
Typically the permanent loans would be subordinate financing that is cash flow contingent. The
loan principal typically grows over the life of the loan even if some payments are made during the
project’s operation. However, there is no assurance that at the end of the loan that the initial or
additional capital would be able to be repaid. The funds might have to stay in the project in order
for it to continue to be successfully operated as an affordable housing project. For INHS to
continue making these permanent loans is expensive and risky; the equity generated from the
refinance is a key component in continuing this strategy.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
TO: Planning and Development Board
Planning Committee of Common Council
FROM: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: December 14, 2016
RE: Department of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Projects and Work Plan
2016 - 2017
A. 2016/2017 MAJOR PLANNING PROJECTS UNDERWAY
1. City Parks Master Plan
2. Design Standards for Collegetown and Downtown
3. Residential Energy Score Project
4. Southside Neighborhood Plan including MLK Walkway & Assistance with Digital Tour
5. Strategic Plan for City Facilities
6. Waterfront Master Plan and Revised Zoning
B. 2017 ANTICIPATED PLANNING PROJECTS
1. Cayuga Street Streetscape Improvements
2. College Avenue Streetscape Improvements
3. Strategic Housing Study
4. Green Building Policy
C. MULTI-YEAR PLANNING PROJECTS
1. Dredging
2. DEC Land Acquisition on Inlet Island
3. Relocation of DOT Facilities/URI Grant Application
4. CIITAP Inclusion of Energy Performance, Diversity,
and Community Development Fund Proposal
D. ONGOING TASKS
1. Integration of Planning Division Files into Property Management Database
2. Revisions to City Zoning Ordinance
3. Updates to City Zoning Ordinance
E. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 2016/2017
KEY: NAtd No Application to date
nSPA Needs Site Plan Approval (Not yet being reviewed)
rSPA Received Site Plan Approval
uSPR Undergoing Site Plan Review
UC Under Construction
uER Undergoing Environmental Review
2
1. Downtown
a. City Centre (nSPA)
b. Dumpster/Trash/Recycling for the Commons Relocation/Reconfiguration
c. Harold Square (Downtown Mixed-Use Project), The Commons (rSPA)
d. Hilton Canopy Hotel (rSPA)
d. Hotel Ithaca and Conference Center (UC)
e. Spencer Street 212 – 215, Apartments (UC)
f. Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building and Drive Thru (UC)
2. Collegetown
a. College Avenue 119, 121, 125, Townhouses (nSPA)
b. College Avenue 126, Apartments (nSPA)
c. College Avenue 201, Apartments (UC)
d. College Avenue 330, Redevelopment (Former Green Café)
e. Collegetown Terrace Apartments Building #7 (UC)
f. Dryden Road 209-215, Johnson School of Management (UC)
g. Linden Avenue 210, Apartments (nSPA)
h. Stewart Avenue 400 – 406 (Chapter House Rebuild) (rSPA)
1. Cornell
a. Gannett Health Services Facility (UC)
b. Hughes Hall Renovations (UC)
c. Rand Hall Renovations (nSPR)
d. Upson Hall Renovations (UC)
2. West End
a. Elmira Savings Bank (UC)
3. Other
a. 210 Hancock Street Mixed Use Development (UC)
b. Chain Works District (uER)
c. Redevelopment of Former Carpenter Business Park
d. Redevelopment of Former Ithaca Gun Factory Site
e. Redevelopment of Former Library Site (nSPA)
f. Water Treatment Plant (UC)
F. NEW ORDINANCES (by Request – Subject to Available Staff Time)
a. Create a Steep Slope Protection Ordinance (Request from CAC)
b. Create a Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Request from CAC)
c. Additions to the Site Plan Review Ordinance – Criteria for Tree Preservation, Plant Selection
and Planting Site Construction, Plant Materials and Maintenance (STAC)
G. ORDINANCE REVISIONS
a. Revise the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance to include climate change
considerations (greenhouse gas reduction, renewable energy, energy efficiency, solid waste
management practices, etc.).
b. Revise/Update Telecommunications Ordinance
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, November 9, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham
Kerslick, Ducson Nguyen, Josephine Martell,
and Cynthia Brock
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson George McGonigal
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner;
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Megan
Wilson, Senior Planner; Deborah Grunder,
Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Tom Knipe, Tourism Director; Mike
Niechwiadowicz; Form Ithaca
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
David Gallahan, 511 Spencer Road, spoke on the exterior property maintenance
ordinance. His tenant had snow tires on the property. Gallahan was away when
the ticket was issued and the rates escalated while he was away. Many of his
friends have had similar situations happen to them.
Tessa Rudan, thanked the committee for the changes that have been made to
the Collegetown plan. She further stated that the Collegetown plan should be
used in other areas of the City.
M. Blodgett, 549 Spencer Road, received fourteen tickets over 20 days. They
can give the same ticket every day, but the homeowner doesn’t receive the
tickets for two weeks or better.
Neil Golden, 208 College Avenue, spoke on the exterior property maintenance
ordinance. It needs to be reviewed and changes need to be made. The fees
grow quickly.
JoAnn Cornish clarified that the Collegetown Area Form District Code is a City
Code; the Character Code was done by an outside group that received a grant to
do so.
Alderperson Brock stated she has received numerous calls regarding the odd
and even parking rules. She would like the committee to look into implementing
more residential parking permits and the odd/even parking rules.
JoAnn Cornish stated she would look into who the appropriate person is to work
on this.
Alderperson Kerslick stated that neighborhoods can ban together and request
the permit process for their neighborhood. It was further stated by Chair Murtagh
and confirmed by JoAnn Cornish that there are only certain areas in the City with
neighborhood parking permits.
3) Special Order of Business
a) Presentation: Tompkins County Tourism Program
Tom Knipe, Tompkins Country Tourism Director, provide a thorough presentation
on how tourism dollars help local municipalities especially the City of Ithaca. He
offered to send the presentation to anyone who is interested.
4) Updates, Announcements, Reports
a) Dredging Update
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, came back with the answers to the questions
asked at October meeting. Ice jams was asked about as well as would dredging
six mile creek benefit the Titus Tower area? Nichols stated due to the dry year,
we don’t have the data to calculate. The projected time line is out to late 2017
and 2018.
Murtagh asked if there’s a lot of stuff in the creek; dredging the creek seems to
be the right thing to do.
Nichols stated there is more to it. There is lot more to look at such as velocity,
etc. and how the water levels are created from the lake.
b) Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance
Mike Niechwiadowicz and Robert Sarachan updated the group on this ordinance
as to how it is working and what still needs to be done to improve it.
A 24-hour waiting (warning) period is given without a ticket being issued. This is
not sent to the court but the homeowner is notified via an email notification.
Sarachan stated the original accusatories have gone down because people are
responding to their emails.
Alderperson Brock stated that not all people are set up for the email notifications.
How do we get this information out to people?
Mike Niechwiadowicz stated they tried the “tag” system twelve plus years ago.
There were many issues – the inspectors have been threatened, chased off their
properties, etc. Tags do not work. The property owner may not get the tag
because it is a tenant property, etc.
The only violation not offered a 24-hour warning is snow removal.
There are 5,500 properties in the City of Ithaca. Everyone who sees Robert
Sarachan are advised by him to sign up for the email notifications program. He
feels the system is working so much better. He recommends that a warning for
shrubs and grass in the sidewalks be granted the 24-hour warning.
Alderperson Kerslick asked how we satisfy those that get all these tickets.
Alderperson Brock asked if there is a process in place to make sure the
boundary lines are noted correctly. The answer to that is the City's GIS system.
5) Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a) Adding Brewpubs/Microbreweries to Zoning
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to
establish definitions for Brew Pub, Microbrewery and Tavern and to establish
them as permitted uses in specific zones.
The City recently received a proposal for a use that included on-site brewing and
serving of alcohol and food. Staff ultimately determined, that given the small
scale of the facility, it would be of no greater impact than that of a restaurant and
should be considered a tavern, which is an allowable use in the requested
district. However, in order to prevent confusion in the future, staff is proposing to
amend Chapter 325 of the City Code, entitled “zoning”, to include the following
definitions for microbrewery, brew pub, and tavern:
Brew Pub - An establishment that produces ales, beers, meads, hard
ciders, and/or similar beverages to serve on site. Sale of beverages
for off site consumption is also permitted in keeping with the
regulations of the New York State Liquor Authority. Service of brewed
beverages must be in conjunction with the service of food. Brew pubs
may not produce more than 5,000 barrels of beverage annually. May
also include the distribution of beverages for consumption at other sites.
A brew bub, may NOT contain external tanks for storage of raw
materials or beverages.
Microbrewery - A limited production brewery that may produce no
more than 15,000 barrels annually. Microbreweries may sell to
licensees, however, they may NOT sell to the general public without a
NYS brewer's retail permit. A Microbrewery may have a restaurant in or
adjacent to it, only if it has obtained a NYS an on-premises retail
license.
Tavern - an establishment for the sale of beer and other drinks to be
consumed on the premises, sometimes also serving food.
In addition, staff proposes to add brew pub as an allowable use in the B-2a district, and
microbrewery as an allowable use in the B-5 district. Enclosed for your consideration is
a draft ordinance containing the proposed amendments.
If the Committee is in agreement, staff will draft an environmental review of this action
and circulate it along with the draft ordinance and return next month with any comments
that are received. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
- The issue here is the scale of the establishment. If we make this an allowable use
in B2, it is also in the B-2a and B5 districts as well as the CDB districts.
- Chair Murtagh stated he visited a mini brewery in the middle of downtown Cortland.
He suggests reaching out to them for information on how they regulate it.
- It was suggested to identify this an urban brewery.
- Alderperson Kerslick moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Carried
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that
Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Section 325-3B, entitled, “Definitions and Word Usage”, is hereby amended
to add the following definitions:
Brew Pub -An establishment that produces ales, beers, meads, hard
ciders, and/or similar beverages to serve on site. Sale of beverages for
off site consumption is also permitted in keeping with the regulations of
the New York State Liquor Authority. Service of brewed beverages must
be in conjunction with the service of food. Brew pubs may not produce
more than 5,000 barrels of beverage annually. May also include the
distribution of beverages for consumption at other sites. A brew bub,
may NOT contain external tanks for storage of raw materials or
beverages.
Microbrewery - A limited production brewery that may produce no more
than 15,000 barrels annually. Microbreweries may sell to licensees,
however, they may NOT sell to the general public without a NYS
brewer's retail permit. A Microbrewery may have a restaurant in or
adjacent to it, only if it has obtained a NYS 3 on-premises retail license.
Tavern- an establishment for the sale of beer and other drinks to be
consumed on the premises, sometimes also serving food.
Section 2. Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled District
Regulations, is hereby amended in order to add Brew Pub as an allowable primary use
in the B2-a district and Microbreweries as an allowable use in the B-5 district.
Section 3. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning
Department shall amend the district regulations chart in accordance with the
amendments made herewith.
Section 4. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of
this local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
local law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
6) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council)
a) Minor Amendments to Collegetown Area Form Districts
An Ordinance to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To Make Minor Revisions to §325-45, Collegetown Area Form
Districts
WHEREAS, there has been confusion over the application of the façade length
requirement of the Collegetown Area Form Districts, as adopted in 2014, and
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions would clarify the intent and application of various
regulations; now, therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that
Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended as follows:
Section 1. The CR-3 Activation Table shown in Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2E(3) of
the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
ACTIVATION
STREET FAÇADE
A) Building façade length, primary street, max 45’
Section 2. The CR-4 Activation Table shown in Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2F(1) of
the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
ACTIVATION
STREET FAÇADE
A) Building façade length, primary street, max
1. Row house 100’
2. All other structures 45’
Section 3. The MU-1 Activation Table shown in Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2G(1) of
the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
ACTIVATION
STREET FAÇADE
B) Building façade length, primary street, max
3. Row house 150’
4. All other structures 75’
Section 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-45.2B(10) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
(10) Recessed Entry
(a) Definition: A functioning entry that is set back a minimum of 12” 5’
from the front façade of the building.
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
The action being considered is whether to approve the ordinance provided in the packet
for approval or the updated version of 11/9/16 provided at the meeting for circulation.
Alderperson Brock motioned to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick.
Carried Unanimously.
JoAnn Cornish stated that it is the goal that the Collegetown Form Based Code be used
throughout the City. The Character Code is a good body of work, but is different that
the direction that the City has been focused on.
She further stated this character code document came to the City as a surprise. The
City did work with this group on the State Street corridor, but the character code was not
under the City’s directive.
Chair Murtagh stated that there is a lot of overlap of the two plans.
Alderperson Brock stated that there seems to a bit of confusion within the community
that this was something requested by the City which is not the case.
b) Form Ithaca Character Code Resolution
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Carried
unanimously.
Alderperson Kerslick made a friendly amendment to replace Planning and Economic
Development Committee with Common Council.
He further stated that supporting this doesn’t mean we are supporting it in its entirety
but used as a reference.
WHEREAS, Mayor Svante Myrick co-signed a letter of support in August of 2013 with
then-Town Supervisor Herb Engman on behalf of the City and Town designating Better
Cities & Towns of the Form Ithaca project team as the lead applicant for a NYSERDA’s
Cleaner Greener Communities grant to jointly update our zoning ordinances, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council is committed to dense urban development in the core
of downtown, as is expressed in Plan Ithaca, Phase I of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
which was adopted by Common Council in September of 2015, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca’s successful adoption of a hybrid form-based code in
Collegetown has resulted in higher quality development that has had a positive impact
on the character of the neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, the Form Ithaca project is led by the nonprofit Better Cities & Towns,
dedicated to promoting sustainable, walkable communities; architects and landscape
architects STREAM Collaborative; and urban planners Randall+West; and the team
brought in leading urban design, development, transportation, and form-based code
consultants who offered their valuable expertise to the City, and
WHEREAS, the Form Ithaca project team has worked with City Staff, civic leaders,
developers, State and County Agencies, and other stakeholders, completed four
reports, and organized a four-day charrette in the City of Ithaca, June 3rd through 6th,
2015, and these documents and the public process informed the development of the
draft City of Ithaca Character Code and Regulating Plan, and
WHEREAS, the draft City of Ithaca Character Code was circulated to Planning and
IURA staff in August of 2016, and a new draft, dated October 11, 2016, was prepared
that incorporates many of the submitted comments, and
WHEREAS, City staff recognizes the importance of maintaining a human scale along
the street, especially in transitional areas where commercial zones are located near
residential districts, and supporting development of a substantial amount of
underutilized land, particularly in the W. State St. / MLK Jr. Corridor; now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee Common
Council accepts the City of Ithaca Character Code and Regulating Plan for review and
consideration of adoption.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) October 2016
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed
unanimously with suggested changes.
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martel. Passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8 :05p.m.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Strikethrough