Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PLED-2018-04-11 Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, April 11, 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; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; Tom Knipe, Deputy Director, Economic Development; and Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: Alderperson Nguyen Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review Added to the agenda as Item # 7 (d) – clarification of the PUD Overlay District from last month’s Council meeting pertaining to the CR4 zoned properties on Linden Avenue. 2) Public Comment Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, commented on affordable housing in the City which means inclusionary zoning. She would like to see 20%. As for the CIITAP, there should be a higher percentage. Fay Gougakis, 171 East State Street (Commons), she commented on the fact that she’s breathing dirty air and dust every day. Dirty air is everywhere. Seneca Street and the Commons smell like chemicals. We need to monitor the air quality. She would like to see a moratorium to halt the development. During a phone call Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting she placed to the State she found out that the City is a private entity. They don’t have to do the monitoring, but could be forced to do so. She also asked about the times contractors may work on the Commons. Stephanie Hesloj, Jacksonville, spoke on the CIITAP. She doesn’t think it is working. She doesn’t own a car so it’s very difficult to get around in Tompkins County. She cannot afford to live in the City. The new micro apartments being built in the City under CIITAP are still too expensive. Shari Korthus, 502 N. Albany Street, is against the CIITAP. She provided her calculation of this program. What the City is doing is allowing the high-end developers who are getting these tax abatements. The projections that are provided are not accurate. John Guttridge, 419 South Titus Avenue. CIITAP is a crucial program in the City. Many people are moving into the City. The housing development was not kept up until the CIITAP. If we don’t develop in the core, we will lose a lot of green space available in the perimeter areas. Development is a math problem. We just need to make sure we’re doing the math correct. Guillermo Metz, 103 Dwyer Hill Road, promotes the green building policy project. He commends Nick Goldsmith and Noah Demarest. They have worked hard to be able to include everyone. John Driscoll, 425 North Cayuga Street, a long-term resident of the City. He has away for a while and has seen many changes. He spoke on the Green Street proposal which only had one developer submit a proposal. He questions why the Green Street project doesn’t have any community value. We don’t need 13-story buildings. Elmer Ewing, 1520 Slaterville Road. He urges the City to approve the Green Building Policy project pronto. We need to pay major attention t o methane. It decays more rapidly that carbon monoxide. It’s a good document and hopes it passes. Tom Shelley, 118 East Court Street, long term City resident. He supports the Green Building Project. The City needs to focus on the contamination of the prior Emerson Site, Ithaca Gun, and Nates Floral Estates. These areas need to get cleaned out. They are not suitable for human occupancy Brian Eden, 147 N. Sunset Drive, spoke on the ChainWorks project. It has many positive things about it. The site needs to be cleaned up first. He also spoke on the Green Building Policy. There was an energy action plan for 2012 to 2016. There hasn’t been one since. Denise Katzman, 419 W. Buffalo Street. The City has an anti-idling law that is not enforced. This needs to be reviewed and enforced. Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting Joe Wilson, 75 Hurst Hill Road, Dryden, is in favor of the Green Building Policy. The County’s goals indicate we are falling behind in the amount of the emissions of greenhouse gases. This policy needs to be put in pla ce. He provided his comments to the committee members. The policy as it stands shows that there won’t be any change for another 20+ years. Bob Nape, Lansing, owner of Solar ________. He supports the Green Building Policy. We have this myth that the existing solar technology is not doing what we want it to. They are solid. Solar heat pumps are extremely efficient. Deborah Dawson, 51 Dart Drive, Village of Lansing. She is thankful for the new Green Building Policy. She suggested the recommendations of the Green Building Policy could be included in the CIITAP. Alderperson Brock thanked everyone for their comments and the concerns that were expressed about contamination. She stated she didn’t agree with John Guttridge suggesting that development is a math problem that needs to be done right. She commented JoAnn Cornish informed the group that at times there will be changes made to start/end times when the work needs to be done without a break. If it’s going to be particularly noisy, we try to extend the time of construction. 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. is the typical work hours. Alderperson Brock asked what the City is doing about the dust generated by the construction. JoAnn Cornish stated they are monitored and if need be will be talked to in order to enforce the dust be kept to a minimum. 3) Announcements, Updates, and Reports There were not announcements, updates and reports. 4) Discussion a) Chainworks Planned Unit Development – Permitted Uses Alderperson Brock voiced her concern of the CW3A. She would like a new zone created as CW3 to be strictly residential to serve as a buffer zone. It was decided that the transition zone will be looked at further to determine what should be allowed and not allowed. Chair Murtagh asked for clarification regarding the industrial uses. He asked what the buffer is for the noise that is generated. C.J. Randell stated that a number of permitting activity that is allowed has been added. Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting Jamie Fagan stated that the same owner is going to own both buildings— residential and industrial. Alderperson Lewis commented on the off -street parking regarding the use of the word of garage. Alderperson Brock is also concerned that parking, bathroom structures, etc. be at least 50 feet away for a residential unit. 5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council) a) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund – West Hill JoAnn Cornish stated that this particular request does not fall into the criteria of this program. The $300 comes from the Planning Division budget. She would not like to see this happen again and again if this is approved. Alderperson Lewis stated that in the Fall Creek neighborhood there are volunteers who take part in updating and maintaining a list serve. Alderperson Brock stated she appreciates the members’ comments, but also stated that the West Hill is quite huge. Alderperson Lewis commented she voted against this, but may vote for it if it was smaller amount. Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Fails 1-4. RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for IthacaWest, April 2018 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or eve nts that provide a general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few residents, and WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited to neighborhood clean -ups, plantings in public places, and neighborhood events like block parties or meetings, and Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Common Council has delegated authority to approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities, and WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and WHEREAS, on behalf of IthacaWest, Regi Teasley and Pat Dutt have submitted an application for up to $300 in reimbursement funds to off -set expenses related to the creation and distribution of postcards to promote the group’s website and list serve, and WHEREAS, the postcards will be distributed to 944 households in the City and Town of Ithaca; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request from Regi Teasley and Pat Dutt in the amount of $300 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts. b) Green Building Policy Report Nick Goldsmith and Noah Demarest were in attendance for this agenda item. Alderperson Fleming asked for their reactions to the comments made here tonight. Tatum Engineer stated he is an advocate for green policies and reducing carbon monoxide emissions. The project leaders stated that they feel the developers will get on board after the policy is set in place. There hasn’t been a great deal of comment from developers, but comments have been voiced by many. Alderperson Lewis commended the team with the amount of time and work they have put into this project. Chair Murtagh also commended the policy team for a job well done. Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting Resolution to Adopt Green Building Policy Report and to Direct Staff to Codify Policy Recommendations for Review and Consideration of Adoption Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously with a hyperlink added for the report. WHEREAS the City has adopted a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, and nearly three quarters of the Ithaca community GHG emissions come from residential and commercial buildings; and WHEREAS the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan suggests “Enact more stringent local energy codes based on standards for new and existing buildings and voluntary certification programs” and The City’s Energy Action Plan recommends “Encourage sustainable and energy efficient development (and re-development) through green building policies and implementation of advanced energy codes” and “Consider regulatory tools to encourage/require higher energy efficiency standards for rental housing;” and WHEREAS with the aid of a consultant team, as part of the Green Building Pol icy project, the City has conducted a comprehensive examination of our existing and future building stock, as well as green building standards for new construction and potential economic, social and environmental impacts of policies which incentivize or mandate those standards; and WHEREAS the Green Building Policy report provides policy recommendations for energy efficiency requirements and related incentives to substantially reduce carbon emissions in all new buildings, while emphasizing and supporting a ffordability; and WHEREAS additional work, such as research (possibly in conjunction with a technical consultant) and stakeholder outreach, is needed to provide a level of detail sufficient to develop code language for a green building policy; now t herefore be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca adopts the Green Building Policy report, dated April XX, 2018; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca directs staff to perform additional research and stakeholder outreach and codify the policy recommendations contained in the Green Building Policy report for review and consideration of adoption. c) CIITAP Boundary Expansion and Affordable Housing Requirements Chair Murtagh stated he put this item down for action, but understands that there may be more work to be done. Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Smith stated that with these kind of changes if there’s any perception that the committee will make changes to this proposal, but the full Council reverses the changes, developers will wait it out until it’s finalized. Alderperson Fleming asked about how ‘for sale’ properties will be handled. The answer was they are not included. Alderperson Brock stated she is uncomfortable expanding tax abatements based on the criteria of providing tax abatements anywhere with the boundary limits. There should be a higher standard based on a project’s benefit to the community. She doesn’t support CIITAP for luxury apartments. Developers see increased costs as CIITAP’s map-based boundaries that will only raise the value of the property. It Tax abatements should be based more on a project’s merits, not just being within the said boundary. Requiring affordable housing within the City is just as important as a Green Building project. She thinks we need to rethink what we’re doing. Alderperson Brock further commented that requiring affordable housing in the City is just as important as a Green Building Policy. We are not offering a tax abatement for a Green B uilding – we are requiring it. Alderperson Lewis stated the very same comments were said in previous meetings that the affordable housing would be marked as studios. Alderperson Smith agreed with the comments made regarding the affordable housing. Alderperson Brock is very apprehensive that anyone will develop affordable housing without a tax abatement. There were multiple questions left unanswered. After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that this will come back to this committee next month with more detail on the calculations. d) Amendment to PUDOD Overlay District. CR4-Zoned Properties on Linden Avenue. ** This is an ordinance to clarify the boundary of the PUDOD that was adopted at March’s Council meeting. At the meeting, the ordinance was amended on the floor and there was some confusion about which parcels were included. In order to make sure that what was adopted matched the intent we distributed again at the April Planning Committee meeting. ** The ordinance was not changed from the Council meeting. It only clarifies the boundary map at the corner of Dryden Road and Linden Avenue. An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting Clarify the Boundaries of the Recently Established Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) ORDINANCE NO. 2018-____ Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried Unanimously. WHEREAS, on April 4, 2018, the Common Council adopted legislation creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD), and WHEREAS, prior to voting on the establishment of the PUDOD, the Common Council amended the ordinance to include the parcels located along Linden Avenue that were zoned CR-4, and WHEREAS, along Linden Avenue there are two sections of properties that are zoned CR-4, however, it was the intent of the Common Council to include the contiguous stretch of CR-4 only properties that includes the following parcels: 64.-9-6, 67.-3-1, 67.-3-31, 67.-3-30, 67.-3-29, and now therefore: 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 in order to change the boundaries of the PUDOD to include the following tax parcels: 64.-9-6, 67.-3-1, 67.-3-31, 67.-3-30, 67.-3-29, and the full boundaries are as shown on the map entitled “Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)-April 2018”,” 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 Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting boundaries of which can be seen on the attached map, “Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) –April 2018”. 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 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 Approved at the May 9, 2018 PEDC Meeting 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 ), the boundaries of which can be seen on the attached map, “Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) –April 2018”. 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. 6) Action Items (Voting to Send to Circulate) a) Planning Board – Special Permits With the changes to the current ordinance, the Planning Board would be able to vote on special permits. This will free up BZA responsibilities. Alderperson Lewis moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously. 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) March 2018 Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously as amended. 8) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.