Loading...
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.