HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PLED-2018-03-14
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock,
Donna Fleming, Stephen Smith, and Laura
Lewis
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending:
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and
Development Department; Lisa Nicholas,
Deputy Director, Planning and Development;
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner; Bryan
McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner;
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; and Deborah
Grunder, Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Alderpersons McGonigal and Nguyen
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
The Parks Masters Plan was moved up on the agenda in front of the Historic
Designation of the Nines.
2) Special Order of Business
Jennifer Kusznir provided an explanation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
A PUD allows for flexibility in the zoning and design. There are certain criteria.
The applicant must work with the Common Council before going to the Planning
Board. A PUD requires a public information session if they receive preliminary
approval to go through the site-plan review process.
Lisa Nicholas provided the site map and pointed out the City portion as well as the
Town portion. The new buildings will be mostly housing units. 430 new housing
units. The PUD for the Chain W orks also includes design guidelines. It will be
more defined as the site-plan process unfolds.
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
a) Public Hearing – Chainworks Planned Unit Development
Alderperson Brock moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Smith. Carried unanimously.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, gave his thoughts on the proposed PUD.
As a 30-year resident of South Hill, he supports this project. Energy is the
number one criteria to be looked at. He would like to see this project follow the
proposed Green Building Policy.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, stated she read this proposal. Nothing is said
about affordable housing. She recommends that part of the zoning should be
inclusionary zoning. One could live at Chainworks and not have the need for a
car.
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; seconded by
Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously.
Chair Murtagh stated this project will come back to this committee next month.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Ken Hullett, 104 N. Titus, #4. He stated he is good friends of the owners. He
owned and ran the ABC Café. Designating this property will not provide any
economic viability. If you landmark it, it will sit empty. No one will make it with
a restaurant.
Susan Holland, president of Historic Ithaca. She asks this committee to
support the local landmark designation. By adding properties to the landmarks
registry, they are eligible for incentives to improve and maintain such
properties. Restoring and maintaining the current buildings is the greenest way
possible to maintain them.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, commends the City’s current Waterfront CIITAP
proposal for including affordable housing.
Peter Saye, 301 South Geneva Street, does not think the Nines property is
suitable for designation.
Gibrian Hagood, Cornell Cooperative Extension, 615 Willow Avenue, spoke on
the proposed Green Building Policy. It truly is achievable. A significant effort
has been made to make sure that cost associated with this policy remain
affordable.
Kenneth Young, 228 Columbia Street, stated that although the City will miss the
nostalgia of the Nines property, it is time to allow the owners retire. It does not
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
warrant designation. We should not be in the business of designating buildings
just to do so.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, continued with his wish list. Storm water
management is also key to the Chain Works PUD. Will this PUD include TCAT
bus transportation? He hopes that student housing will be a part of this PUD as
well. Ithaca College is right across the road.
Joe Wilson, Planning Board for Dryden. He urges the City to release the
proposed Green Building Policy. The City is “behind” in this area. We need to
reduce fossil fuels.
Brody Smith, One Lincoln Gate, Syracuse. He provided a packe t with pictures
of the current condition and use of the Nines. Other pictures provided included
those dated back to 1910. The Nines is no longer what it was in 1910 and
doesn’t warrant designation. What’s being proposed currently is very much in
line with what is there now. He referenced how Plan Ithaca promotes mixed
uses and provides development for all income levels. This is the property that
will benefit the City with the amount of taxes it will receive.
Eric Lee, 502 ½ Utica Street. Back in the 90s, he worked at the Nines as a
delivery person and bartender. With the economics of a restaurant today and
the building conditions, people are not lining up to open up a restaurant. If this
is landmarked, it will ruin the future of the owners.
Pat Smith, 1429 Elmira Road, Newfield, has worked for the Nines for years. It’s
been on the market for years now. No one wants to buy it. There is a lot of
things that no one can do with this building. As for Collegetown, it’s gone.
Everything is overshadowed by new development. It’s time to let it go.
JR Ramirez, 17 Elm Street. He is a longtime friend of the Nines owner. He’s a
firm believer that an owner of a property should be able to do what they would
like to.
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Avenue. In his 18+ years serving on the
Planning Board he never voted against new development, but did strive to
improve projects. In Plan Ithaca, all historical structures will remain that.
Existing buildings will be renovated, not demolished.
Sally Lockwood, 641 Hudson Street, worked at the Nines. The business has a
lot of memories, but the building is falling apart. If we were going to designate
it, it should have been done already. This block is nothing like it was. It’s time
to let it go and keep it like the other existing buildings.
Josh Lower, 205 College Avenue, stated that if this property is designated,
there should be some sort of compensation to help the owners.
Mark and Shirley Kielmann, 311 College Avenue, owner of the Nines. They
thanked all for their support. They don’t feel they are being treated fairly. If the
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
property was designated years ago, it would be a different situation. They are
way beyond retirement years. The size of the building.
Shirley Kielmann thanked all of the people who have supported them. They
have provided a lot to this community, and would like to go out on a good note.
Mark Kielmann further stated that they have been accused of not taking care of
the building on purpose. This isn’t the case. He current ly owns the Clinton
House with Harold Schultz. They have done a number of improvements.
Chair Murtagh publically thanked John Schroder for all his work on the Planning
Board for 18+ years.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Public Hearings Announcement – 2018 HUD Entitlement Program Action
Plan
Chair Murtagh notified the group about the 2018 HUD Entitlement Public
Hearings.
JoAnn Cornish announced that on Monday, March 19th, 2018 a 300 lb. crane
will be coming down the Commons for the Harold Square project. The
merchants will remain open, and she encourages people to support them
during this time
5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council)
a) Proposed Historic Designation of the Nines Building
Chair Murtagh stated his appreciation to be able to look at this building. There
have been many buildings in the City that were also in bad shape but were
saved. A designation of this particular property is different. Murtagh asked
whether part of this building be designated and the other part be demolished.
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner, stated that the entire property
has to be designated but each portion could be identified differently. The
building that faces College Avenue could be designated and the rear part could
be identified as not meeting landmark designation.
After a lengthy discussion, the committee voted on the resolution provided in
the meeting packet.
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Lewis to refer
back to ILPC (the last Resolved which is bolded below). Carried 3-2.
(Brock and Smith)
RE: LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE FORMER No. 9 FIRE
STATION AT 311 COLLEGE AVENUE.
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) is responsible for recommending to Common Council
the designation of identified structures or resources as individual landmarks and historic
districts within the city, and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the ILPC conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of considering a proposal to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue as a local landmark, and
WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS
Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and as such requires no further environmental review, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criteria 1 and 4 defining a “Local
Landmark,” under Section 228-3B of the Municipal Code and on February 13, 2018,
voted to recommend the designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board
shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the
comprehensive plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any plans for
the renewal of the site or area involved, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of
the designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on February 27, 2018, has
been reviewed by the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall within
ninety days of said recommendation of designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to
the ILPC for modification of same; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee finds that the
proposed designation [is/is not] compatible with and [will/will not] conflict with the
comprehensive plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for
renewal of the site and area involved, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, [meets/does
not meet] criteria for local designation, as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows:
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
1. it possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as
part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality,
region, state, or nation; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced and
age, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Committee recommends to Common
Council approval of the designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 as a local
landmark.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee disapproves the
designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue and the adjacent
areas identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee forwards the
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue and
the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 to Common Council with a
recommendation to disapprove the designation.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee refers the
proposed designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue and
the adjacent areas identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 back to the ILPC for
modification, with the Committee recommendation to evaluate the architectural
integrity of the 1894-95 wood-frame fire station and its ability to reflect its historic
significance.
b) Planned Unit Development Overlay District
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to
Expand the Area Permitted for Planned Unit Developments By
Creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)
The rationale for not including the three suggested properties
be included in the overlay zone was due to the fact that these
properties serve as a transition to the next zone.
Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see the three CR4
parcels included since the other end of CR4 zone is.
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
Alderperson Brock moved to include the CR4 parcels; seconded by
Alderperson Smith.
By including them, it allows Council to make the decision
whether a proposed proposal will or will not work prior to going
through site-plan review.
Alderperson Fleming stated what she stated last month. She is
not in favor of this and will not vote for this.
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-____
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis.
Carried 4-1.
Alderperson Brock motioned to include the CR4 parcels. Failed 3-
2.
Alderperson Brock motioned to also include the Emerson site in
this PUD Overlay District; seconded by Alderperson Smith.
Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2014, the Common Council adopted legislation
allowing for the City to establish Planned Unit Development
districts on any property in the City currently zoned for
industrial uses, and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2017, the Common Council adopted new
zoning for the waterfront districts, which included a statement
recognizing that the adopted zoning may not allow for projects
that could be beneficial to the community and recommended that
the City consider adopting legislation to allow for PUDs
throughout the City, including in the waterfront districts, and
WHEREAS, A PUD is a tool that allows the Common Council to have
flexibility to approve projects that may not fit into the
underlying zoning, but may have benefits for the community that
outweigh any impacts resulting from not complying with the pre-
established regulations for that district, and
WHEREAS, in order to allow for potential development that could
bring significant benefits to the community, staff has
recommended the establishment of the Planned Unit Development
Overlay District, which would allow for PUDs in areas of the
City where additional development is anticipated, but would
protect areas that have established 1 and 2 family residential
neighborhoods; now therefore
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Article IV, Section 325-12. of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-5, Zoning Map of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to create
a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) to include
properties located Within the boundaries displayed on the map
entitled “Proposed Boundary for the Planned Unit Development
Overlay District (PUDOD)-December 2017”,” a copy of which shall
be on file in the City Clerk’s office.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-12.B, entitled “Purpose and
Intent”, is hereby amended in order to change the allowable
location for a potential PUD, and should read as follows:
§325-12.
B. Purpose and intent.
(1) This legislation is intended to institute procedures and requirements for
the establishment and mapping of PUDs, which may be placed in any
location approved by the Common Council, as long as it is located
within the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD), the
boundaries of which can be seen on the attached map, “Proposed
Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) -
December 2017”. The PUD is a tool intended to encourage mixed-use or
unique single use projects that require more creative and imaginative
design of land development than is possible under standard zoning
district regulations. A PUD allows for flexibility in planning and
design, while ensuring efficient investment in public improvements,
environmental sensitivity, and protection of community character. A
PUD should be used only when long-term community benefits will be
achieved through high quality development, including, but not limited
to, reduced traffic demands, greater quality and quantity of public
and/or private open space, community recreational amenities, needed
housing types and/or mix, innovative designs, and protection and/or
preservation of natural resources.
(2) Section 325-12 is intended to relate to both residential and
nonresidential development, as well as mixed forms of development.
There may be uses, now or in the future, which are not expressly
permitted by the other terms of this chapter but which uses would not
contravene the long-range Comprehensive Plan objectives if they
adhere to certain predetermined performance and design conditions.
The PUD is intended to be used to enable these developments to occur
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
even though they may not be specifically authorized by the City zoning
district regulations.
(3) The PUD is intended to be used in any area located within the PUDOD.
Should a proposed project offer community-wide benefits, the Common
Council may establish a PUD in order to permit uses not explicitly
allowed by the underlying zoning.
(4) Areas may be zoned as a PUD by the Common Council. The enactment
and establishment of such a zone shall be a legislative act. No owner of
land or other person having an interest in land shall be entitled as a
matter of right to the enactment or establishment of any such zone.
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-12.C, entitled
“Establishment and Location”, is hereby amended in order to
remove the sentence that states that the PUD is intended to be
used in industrial zones, and should read as follows:
C.
Establishment and location.
(1) The intent of a PUD is to create self-contained, architecturally
consistent, and compatible buildings, many times with diverse but
related uses. The creation of a PUD must entail sufficient review to
assure the uses within the zone will have negligible or no significant
adverse effects upon properties surrounding the zone. In reaching its
decision on whether to rezone to a PUD, the Common Council shall
consider the general criteria set forth in this chapter, the most current
Comprehensive Plan for the City, and this statement of purpose.
(2) No PUD shall be established pursuant to Subsection G (13) of this section unless
it is located within the boundaries of the PUDOD. .
Section 4. Severability. 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
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
c) Parks Master Plan
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental
Review
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried
Unanimously.
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 adoption of an am endment to the comprehensive plan is a
“Type I” Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review;
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 the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan as part of Phase II of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental
Review
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously.
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
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of an amendment to the compreh ensive plan is a
“Type I” Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review;
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 the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan as part of Phase II of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City
of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Resolution
Alderperson Brock expressed her concerns that the changes that were made to the plan
were not clearly outlined in a memo.
Alderperson Brock moved to table this resolution. There was no second.
Chair Murtagh stated his concern of de-parking the smaller neighborhood parks. He
would like to see stronger wording in the plan that outlines the purpose .
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried 4-1
(Brock)
WHEREAS, the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan,
where Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals
and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes
the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of its Comprehensive Plan in
2015, and Plan Ithaca recommends the preparation of a plan for the City’s park system
as part of Phase II, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council funded a parks and recreation master plan as part of
the City’s 2016 budget, and the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County funded various
aspects of the proposed plan, and
WHEREAS, PROS Consulting was selected as the project consultant and began work
on the draft plan in the fall of 2016, and
WHEREAS, the public was involved throughout the planning process through
stakeholder interviews, focus groups, surveys, and community events, and
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
WHEREAS, the consultant team gathered information through data collection, site
assessments, community input, staff observations and local and national trends and
used this information to prepare the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, a draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was presented in early
November and was then circulated for further public comment, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State
General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for
recommending a comprehensive plan to the Common Council for adoption, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the draft plan at its
December 19, 2017 and January 30, 2018 meetings and recommended adoption of the
plan with several modifications, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the adoption of the proposed plan was held at the
January 10, 2018 Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting, and many
written comments have been submitted by community members and City staff, and
WHEREAS, in response to these comments, a revised plan, dated February 2018, was
prepared, and the revised draft provides additional information and clarifications of the
key ideas and recommendations presented in the initial document, and
WHEREAS, the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was submitted for review by
the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability 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 was also been distributed for review by the City
of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, dated February 2018, as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that this Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a guide for future decisions
made by Common Council, City boards and commissions, and City staff, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that Common Council shall establish regular reviews and updates of the
Comprehensive Plan every five years.
6) Action Items (Voting to Send to Circulate)
a) Green Building Policy
Chair Murtagh stated that he appreciates the amount of work gone into this. He asked
whether they thought move developers would use the easy pace.
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
Tatum Engineering stated that Cornell would go for the whole process.
Chair Murtagh stated that the City is really catching up with Green Building Energy
policies.
A meeting will be held on March 28, 2018 at Green Star.
Alderperson Brock stated that there is legislation that goes along with this. JoAnn
Cornish stated that would be the next step.
Alderperson Nguyen stated this report is very thorough.
Moved to circulate by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously.
b) CIITAP Boundary Expansion and Affordable Housing Requirement
The Citywide policy does not mandate 10% of housing to be affordable. This expansion
mandates the affordable housing.
Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see this affordable housing requirement b e
Citywide. CIITAP has been very successful particularly in the downtown area.
Chair Murtagh stated that the majority of the housing being built is not considered
affordable housing. If this affordable housing requirement is not included in the
Waterfront area, that area won’t develop.
CIITAP is a powerful tool to reach the workforce housing.
Moved to Circulate by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried
unanimously.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) January 2018 and February 2018
Both sets of minutes were moved by Alderperson Smith seconded by Alderperson
Brock. Carried unanimously.
8) Adjournment
Approved at the
April 11, 2018 PEDC Meeting
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.