Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PEDC-2019-04-10 Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, April 10, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock, Stephen Smith, Donna Fleming, and Laura Lewis Committee Members Absent: Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson McGonigal Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and Development Department; Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director, Planning and Development; Tom Knipe, Deputy Director, Economic Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Alex Phillips, Planner; and Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: Monika Roth, Chair, Community Life Commission; Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review There are no minutes to approve. 2) Public Comment Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, spoke on infill housing. Public accessibility for these projects should be made available. Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, if the chemicals can be removed from the Chain works project, she would like to see affordable housing. Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, spoke on infill housing. Agrees with Miller as to the accessibility of infill projects. Immaculate Conception would like to see the availability of gardens. Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting Fay Gougakis, 171 E. State Street, spoke regarding dogs on the Commons. She would like the City to listen to people who live on the Commons. The tenants should have a say. She referred to the comment JoAnn Cornish made regarding the only problem with the dogs on the Commons is the poop. There is more to it. Thirteen complaints were made of dogs. Dogs are a serious issue. Sheryl Swink, 321 N. Albany Street, she would like to see the West End remain as it is. She is encouraged by the change in height and set back. She supports the INHS PUD project. She likes their approach with the public. She agrees with Dan Hoffman’s comment on community gardens at the INHS site. Anne Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, from the Belle Sherman neighborhood. Encourages a public meeting to discuss the infill housing. Changes to the infill housing may not work. This is a big change. We need to know more. Tom Shelley, 118 East Court Street, supports the chicken ordinance 100% and thanks Monika Roth for her work on this ordinance. He also spoke on the reduction of fossil fuels. A constitutional amendment at the state level where all citizens have a right to clean air. The City needs to act on this as well. Joe Wilson, 75 Hunt Hill Road, spoke in favor of the reduction in fossil fuels and gas emissions and the new Green Building policy. Ann Kilgore, 216 Lake Avenue, spoke her displeasure of the City’s infill proposed changes. She spoke of the Barken Building which is not in compliance and not a legal structure. Ken Jaffe, 218 Lake Avenue, reiterated Kilgore’s comments as to the infill proposed changes. We need more information. Alderperson Lewis thanked all who spoke tonight. The Green Building policy working group is looking to have a draft to share with municipalities by the end of summer for Common Council’s consideration likely at the September meeting. JoAnn Cornish spoke regarding the comments made by Fay Gougakis regarding dogs on the Commons. She was simply at that mentioned meeting as a history source. Chair Murtagh stated to the group that no vote will be taken on infill housing. Tonight is discussion only. There are many diverse opinions on this topic. 3) Announcements, Updates, and Reports a) Harold Square Update – Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner This project suffered a delay due to a change of contractors. It took time for new building permits, but construction is back in operation. We meet weekly with the Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting project team. Spring 2020 is the projected completion date. The playground maybe open this summer. Alderperson Brock asked the maximum height of the building. The answer is twelve stories, 140 feet. Chair Murtagh stated there is a meeting set up for April 24 at the Library on infill development. b) Economic Development Update – Tom Knipe, Deputy Director of Economic Development Knipe provided a brief outline of what is happening now and what is coming in the near future. Alderperson Brock thanked Knipe for his overview. Ithaca is a difficult City to manage and find the things that people need. Alderperson Fleming asked what the City role is to find new tenants for vacant spaces. The answer was yes it definitely is part of the City’s work plan. There is a process for that. Alderperson Nguyen asked what the setbacks new businesses face starting up are. Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see the retention of the ma and pa businesses. She would like to see Ithaca have a focus on an ethnically diverse businesses. She would also like to see hi-speed internet. How can we bring fiber optics to the City? 4) Action Items (Voting to Circulate) a) INHS Immaculate Conception Planned Unit Development (PUD) Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Passed unanimously. It will be circulated, a public information session will be held, and broke back to this committee in May. TO: Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner DATE: April 4, 2019 RE: Planned Unit Development Application for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) located at 320-324 & 330 W. Buffalo St, and 309 N. Plain St. Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting On March 14, 2019, the City of Ithaca received the enclosed application from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project to be located at 320-324 & 330 W. Buffalo St, and 309 N. Plain Street. According to § 325-12 Planned unit developments (PUD), properties located within the City’s Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD), may apply to the Common Council for consideration to establish a PUD in order to permit uses not explicitly allowed by the underlying zoning if they offer communitywide benefits. The PUD legislation states that the Common Council will consider the application for any PUD on the following criteria, among others: 1. Does the project further the health and welfare of the community? 2. Is the project in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan? 3. Does the project create at least one long-term significant community benefit? The proposed INHS project involves the redevelopment of the former Immaculate Conception School into a vibrant mixed-use community, specifically designed to address high-priority local needs. The over-arching goal of this project is to provide both rental and for-sale housing that is affordable at a range of household incomes (from less than 30% AMI up to 90% AMI for the rental units and 80% AMI or below for the for-sale units) and that is suitable for a range of household sizes (from single people to large families). The project will also provide space for non-profit organizations and will transfer the existing gymnasium to GIAC. The proposal includes the following elements: • Retention of the 1948 wing of the existing school building • Demolition and replacement of the c. 1920s wing of the school with a new four-story wing • connecting to the 1948 wing to form an “L” • Retention and rehabilitation of the Catholic Charities Building for their continued use • Detachment of the gymnasium wing and sale to the City for GIAC’s use • Construction of an as-yet undetermined number of rental row houses facing W. Buffalo Street between Catholic Charities and N. Plain Street • Demolition of the existing building at 309 N. Plain Street and construction in that location of a group of rental row houses • Construction of a group of four for-sale row houses facing N. Plain Street at W. Court Street • The project will also include both the retention and conversion of the two houses at 330 West Buffalo Street into two rental units, or demolition to allow the construction of an additional group of row houses facing W. Buffalo. • Adaptive re-use of a portion of the existing school building for non-profit service organizations. The applicant notes that this project will result in the following potential community benefits resulting from this project: • The property is currently wholly exempt. Upon completion, we are projecting the project will pay approximately $45,000 annually in property taxes via a PILOT. • The project is expected to result in the creation of 1.5 FTE INHS jobs that will be paid living wages. It is also possible there could be new jobs created by the non-profit organizations that occupy the space, but at this time that is unknown. • The project will provide affordable housing. • The project will redevelop a vacant school building. • The project is required to award at least 30% of the value of our State Housing Trust Fund loan to Certified MWBE contractors, subs, or suppliers. • The project will adaptively re-use a largely vacant, centrally located site, supporting the City’s Comprehensive Plan goal of increasing residential density through appropriate infill Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting • The project will also provide space for a number of non-profit organizations that serve the local community at a reduced rent. • The project will transfer the existing gymnasium to GIAC. The application has been reviewed by staff for completeness and has been found to be satisfactorily complete for distribution and review. If the committee is in agreement, this application will be circulated for comments and a public information session will be held, in accordance with the PUD requirements. If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. 5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) a) Adoption of Findings for Chainworks and Reaffirm Planned Unit Development (PUD) Findings –Chainworks District Redevelopment Project City of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York Moved by Alderperson Brock; 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 (PUD) districts on any property in the City currently zoned for industrial uses, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Common Council has one pending application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project (CWD Project) to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street by Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors PC, for David Lubin, Project Sponsor, Unchained Properties (UP), and WHEREAS: the proposed CWD Project seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary (Site). The PUD is for a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, manufacturing and a natural area, and which consists of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the Site. The CWD Project also requires a subdivision approval and approvals from the Town of Ithaca for a Planned Development Zone and site plan approval, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the adopted City process for consideration of a PUD, the application was circulated in July 2014 to City boards and committees, as well as, to the Town of Ithaca, and to the County Planning Department, and WHEREAS, a required public information session, was held on August 5, 2014. In accordance with PUD regulations, the meeting was advertised in the Ithaca Journal, the property was posted with signs and property owners within 500 feet of the property were notified by mail of the meeting, and Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, a legal notice was posted to the Ithaca Journal, on July 29, 2014, in order to advertise a legal public hearing on August 13, 2014, and WHEREAS, the process for consideration of an application for the PUD requires that the applicant obtain a preliminary approval in concept from the Common Council prior to beginning the site plan review process, and WHEREAS, that the Common Council did, on September 3, 2014 grant a preliminary approval in concept to UP for their application for a PUD district to be established at the Site, and WHEREAS, that by granting a preliminary approval in concept, the Common Council acknowledged that UP could begin the site plan review process, despite any zoning-based deficiencies in the application, and, WHEREAS: UP did submit a site plan review application to the City of Ithaca Planning Board in September of 2014, and WHEREAS: the CWD Project exceeded the thresholds defined for Type I projects in both the State and City Environmental Quality Review Law. Type I actions carry with them the presumption that it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Specifically, this CWD Project exceeds the Type I thresholds as defined in Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code, Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §174- 6 (B)(1)(i),(j),(k),(n), (2), (6), (7),(8)(a)and (b) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (b)(2),(3), (5)(iii), (6)(i), and (iv), and WHEREAS: Common Council, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation all consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this CWD Project, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, made a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 2, 2014, directing the Project Sponsor to prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed CWD Project, and WHEREAS: on October 18, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board held both an Agency Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the GEIS, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on January 13, 2015, approve a Scoping Document, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency for the purpose of environmental review, did on March 8, 2016 review the DGEIS submitted by UP for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and with the assistance of City Staff and the City’s consultants, Adam Walters of Phillips Lytle LLP, find the DGEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, and WHEREAS: on March 29, 2016, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Development Board to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the DGEIS, and written comments for the same purpose were accepted until May 25, 2016, and WHEREAS: Concurrent with the Environmental Review and over the same four year period, Common Council, did, meet numerous times with the project team to review and provide feedback on the draft PUD and Design Guidelines, and Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS: Common Council did circulate the draft PUD and Design Guidelines for comments in December 2017 and again in December 2018 and all relevant comments have been incorporated, and WHEREAS: the final draft PUD is comprised of four districts: the CW1 Natural Sub Area, containing 8.01 acres of predominately undeveloped land/open space and CW3A, CW3B & CW3C, containing 21.31 acres of mixed use development in both new and existing buildings. The Design Guidelines are intended to supplement the zoning and provide clear but flexible guidance during the site plan review process, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board as Lead Agency, did on February 26, 2019 accept the Final GEIS for the CWD Project as complete for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA regulations) and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code (the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, CEQRO), and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board as Lead Agency, did on March 26, 2019, issue positive written findings (Findings Statement) determining, among other things: (a) That consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action to be carried out minimizes or avoids, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental impacts disclosed in the Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statements; and (b) The Findings Statement was prepared by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency relating to the Chainworks Redevelopment Project, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the regulations promulgated thereto at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (collectively referred to as “SEQRA”) and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code, City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”). This Findings Statement draws upon the matters set forth in the SEQRA/CEQRO record, including the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“GEIS”), consisting of the DGEIS and the FGEIS, as well as the public comments on the DGEIS received at a public hearing and during the public comment period; and (c) A DGEIS and FGEIS have been prepared on behalf of the Lead Agency. The purpose of the DGEIS and FGEIS was to identify and evaluate the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project and, where applicable, to identify reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce the effect of those impacts to the maximum extent practicable. (d) The Findings represents the conclusion of the environmental review of the proposed project by the Lead Agency. Under SEQRA and CEQRO, this Findings Statement must: 1. Consider the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the GEIS; 2. Weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations; 3. Provide a rationale for the Planning Board’s pending decision (regarding site plan review for the Project); 4. Certify that the requirements of SEQRA have been met; 5. Certify whether, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and whether any such adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to any site plan approval those mitigation measures that were identified, in the GEIS, as practicable. (e) This is a “positive” findings statement, which means that the proposed Project is potentially “approvable” (a relevant term used in the State’s “SEQR Handbook”) by the Planning Board, as to its site plan. The Planning Board will use this Findings Statement to assist in its review of the proposed site plan, and in considering conditions that could be applied to any approval thereof. Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting (f) All involved agencies, as listed in the FGEIS, should prepare their own SEQRA findings before making their own decisions, and WHEREAS: Common Council has carefully reviewed the Lead Agency’s findings and finds them thorough and comprehensive and consistent with SEQR, and therefore be it RESOLVED: that Common Council adopts the Lead Agency’s findings in their entirety including the following certifications: I. The requirements of Article 8 of the New York State Conservation Law and the implementing regulations of NYSDEC, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and local regulations, have been met; and II. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable. b) Public Murals Resolution to Select Artwork for City Mural Program Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Passed unanimously. WHEREAS, in 2010, the City created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city, while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art, throughout the City, by resolution on May 19, 2010 and the City-owned parking garages and municipal electrical boxes are pre-approved mural locations, and WHEREAS, Rusty Keller, Melody Often, and Annabelle Popa have submitted proposals to paint murals on an electrical box on S. Titus Ave, in the Dryden Road Parking Garage, and on the exterior of the Seneca Street Parking Garage, respectively, and WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission formed a mural subcommittee to assess mural proposals, hold public comment and recommend proposals for consideration, and WHEREAS, the Mural Subcommittee held a public comment period on the mural designs and locations at its meeting on March 12, 2019 to gather input on the proposed murals, and the responses to the proposals have been mixed, and WHEREAS, the installation of the murals will be funded by the artists and will be budget-neutral to the City, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 18, 2019, the Community Life Commission voted to recommend that the Common Council approve the three mural projects at their proposed locations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the proposals by Rusty Keller, Melody Often, and Annabelle Popa as recommended by the Community Life Commission, for installation on an electrical box on S. Titus Avenue, in the Dryden Road Parking Garage, and on the exterior of the Seneca Street Parking Garage, and be it further Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting RESOLVED, that the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their murals upon the execution of an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney. Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting c) SIC Amendment to the Joint Sewer Agreement RESOLUTION NO. __-- APPROVING JOINT SEWER AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE CHAIRPERSON TERM LIMIT Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (“IAWWTF”) is owned and operated by the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, and Town of Dryden (“Municipal Owners”), with oversight provided through this Special Joint Committee (“SJC”) composed of representatives from the three Municipal Owners, WHEREAS, the Municipal Owners entered into a December 31, 2003 Joint Sewer Agreement that governs IAWWTF administration and operations, WHEREAS, Section 13.3 of the Joint Sewer Agreement provides as follows: “13.3 The SJC will elect its own chairperson annually and shall establish scheduled monthly meeting dates to provide for timely referrals to the Parties’ respective boards or governing bodies. No chairperson shall serve for more than two consecutive one-year terms but may be re-elected after a minimum of a one-term period has elapsed since that person last served as chairperson.” WHEREAS, at its meeting on February 20, 2019, the SJC adopted a resolution recommending elimination of the limit on a chairperson serving more than two consecutive terms, because it often takes an SJC chairperson more than a year to develop enough understanding of the IAWWTF and the chairperson role to function efficiently and effectively with the other SJC members and staff, WHEREAS, Section 17.1 of the Joint Sewer Agreement provides that it may be amended as follows: “17.1 This Agreement may be modified or amended by an instrument in writing, duly executed and acknowledged by the duly authorized representatives of each Party, upon approval by majority vote of the voting strength of the respective governing bodies of said Party.” RESOLVED, the City of Ithaca/Town of Ithaca/Town of Dryden approves and authorizes the Mayor/Ithaca Town Supervisor/Dryden Town Board to execute an amendment to the Joint Sewer Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney/Attorney for the Town, that eliminates the chairperson term limit by deleting the second sentence in Section 13.3, so that Section 13.3 reads as follows: “13.3 The SJC will elect its own chairperson annually and shall establish scheduled monthly meeting dates to provide for timely referrals to the Parties’ respective boards or governing bodies.” Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting d) Backyard Chickens Article IV Backyard Chickens [Added 6-1-2016 by Ord. No. 2016-13] § 164-30Remedies not exclusive. Chapter 164Dogs and Other AnimalsArticle IVBackyard Chickens § 164-26Definitions. § 164-27Pilot program. § 164-28Requirements for keeping chickens. § 164-29Pilot registration process and parameters. § 164-30Remedies not exclusive. § 164-26Definitions. As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: LOT As defined in § C-73C(1) of the City Charter. LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE As defined in § C-73C(1) of the City Charter. PROPERTY CLASS CODE As defined in § C-73C(1) of the City Charter. REAR YARD As defined in § 325-3 of the City Code. Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. § 164-28Requirements for keeping chickens. A. Up to 6 female chickens may only be kept on those lots with a property class code of 210, 215, 220, 240, 250, or substantially identical successor designations. B. Chickens may only be kept on those lots possessing a lot square footage of more than 2,000 square feet. [or eliminate the lot square footage requirement as long as setback criteria are met and that the coop not cover more than 50% of the rear lot]. C. No chicken facility or any structure that houses chickens or any fenced pen area, either temporarily or permanently, shall be located within any of the following prohibited areas: (1) Within the setback requirements of the zone in which it is located; (2) Within twenty feet of any adjacent lot's residential principal structure or accessory structure that contains a residential unit [rationale for eliminating – it Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting makes sense to locate a chicken coop against a garage for example to provide wind protection and perhaps winter housing]; and (3) Within five feet from any abutting residential property line, unless the adjacent owner agrees, in writing, to a lesser setback. D. Chickens may only be kept by a domiciliary of a dwelling unit located on the lot on which the chickens are kept. E. Chickens must be kept in and confined in a properly designed and constructed coop or chicken house, or a fenced and covered enclosure that is at least four square feet per chicken in size, which additionally includes a run. Each covered coop and run combined shall be located in, and shall not cover more than 50% of, the rear yard of the lot. F. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow hens to run at large upon the streets, alleys or other public places of the City, or upon the property of any other person. G. During daylight hours, the adult chickens shall have access to the chicken coop and, weather permitting, shall have access to an outdoor enclosure on the subject property, adequately fenced to contain the chickens and to prevent access to the chickens by dogs and other predators. H. Chicken feed must be in rodent-resistant and weather-proof containers. I. A chicken coop, and the premises where the chicken coop is located, shall be maintained in a condition such that the facility or chickens do not produce noise or odor that creates a nuisance for adjoining lots and the responsible domiciliary and the owner shall remove any odorous or unsanitary condition. The lot owner shall be responsible for the repair on any adjoining lot of any damage caused by the chickens, including but not limited to damage to dwellings, structures and yards, and shall be responsible for repair of any unsafe condition. J. The person keeping the chickens shall abide by all solid waste storage and collection standards of the City's Exterior Property Maintenance Code, § 331-7. K. Roosters and guinea fowl are expressly prohibited, regardless of the age or maturity of the bird. L. Registration pursuant to § 164-29 is required for the keeping of chickens. M. Registrants must provide evidence of having completed a seminar regarding the care of chickens in an urban environment from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office, or similarly qualified organization acceptable to the Clerk's Office. § 164-29Registration process and parameters. B. Registration shall take place at the City of Ithaca Clerk's office upon submission of a registration fee of $35 and verification of a completed chicken- keeping seminar. Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting The City Clerk and Police and/or Cooperative Extension shall report to a committee of Common Council annually about the numbers of city households registered to keep chickens and any complaints arising as a result. C. As a courtesy, property owners shall notify the city clerk at such time when they are no longer keeping chickens. D. The City Clerk may revoke registration for a specific site via written notice to the property owner when the City Clerk or designee finds, at his or her sole discretion, that any requirements of this article are not met, a rebuttable presumption of which shall be created by a record of three or more complaints to the Ithaca Police Department about a specific site's chickens, on the recommendation of Cornell Cooperative Extension, or on the recommendation of the Ithaca Police Department. Upon revocation, the City Clerk shall notify the owner, in writing, of the same, in compliance with § 164-30, and if the revocation stands, the owner must remove the hens from the property in coordination with such assistance as may be available from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office, who may assist with rehoming them. § 164-30Remedies not exclusive. The remedies provided by this article are cumulative and not mutually exclusive and are in addition to any other rights, remedies, and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law. A. Any chickens that are not kept as required in this article shall be deemed a public nuisance, and the owner or custodian shall be given 30 days to rectify the conditions creating the public nuisance. In any case in which the City intends to correct a violation of this chapter, including removing and confiscating any chickens present, and then bill the property owner for the correction of the violation, the City Clerk or his/her designee shall notify the registrant and the owner of the property and, where relevant, the registered agent who has assumed responsibility as outlined in § 178-5 of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this chapter. B. Any notice required by this section shall be served in person or by mail to the address on the registration form and the address appearing on the City tax roll, requiring such person, within a time specified in such notice but in no event less than 30 days from the service or mailing thereof, to comply with this chapter and to abate the nuisance and, as appropriate, to remove the chickens. Such notice shall also state that the property owner may contest the finding of the City Clerk by making a written request to have a hearing on the matter held at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Public Works. C. Any request for such a hearing must be mailed and postmarked or personally delivered to the City Clerk within 14 days of the service or mailing of notice, and Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting any such written request for a hearing shall automatically stay further enforcement concerning the alleged violation pending such hearing. The decision of the Board of Public Works, by majority vote, shall be binding, subject to any further judicial review available to either the City or the property owner. D. Upon the failure of a registrant or property owner to comply with the notice of violation of this chapter (or, alternatively, to request a hearing as aforesaid within the time limit stated in such notice, or upon a Board of Public Works' determination, after such a hearing, that a violation exists), the City Clerk shall refer the matter, by memorandum, to the Superintendent of Public Works, who shall cause such premises to be put in such condition as will comply and shall charge the cost thereof to the owner of said premises, including a charge of 50% for supervision and administration. The minimum charge to the property owner for such work shall be $50. E. The City Chamberlain shall promptly present to the owner of any parcel so corrected a bill rendered for such services, as certified by the Superintendent of Public Works. If not paid within 30 days, the cost thereof shall be assessed against the property, added to its tax and become a lien thereon, collectible in the same manner as delinquent City taxes. Appeals from this section shall only be permitted if written notice of appeal is received by the Ithaca City Clerk within 45 days after the mailing of the bill from the Chamberlain, and such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Public Works. 6) Discussion a) West State/West MLK Street Zoning Alderperson Brock asked for clarification of the CBD-60 from Albany to Meadow Streets. Chair Murtagh stated it would be awful to lose some of these iconic buildings. Alderperson Brock stated that there are many in the community concerned with the increased heights in areas. Lowering the heights can bring positives. Alderperson McGonigal asked for more clarification – should we change it 50’ or 60’? Alderperson Brock stated that there wasn’t enough time to react before this meeting. She would like to bring it back next month to allow enough time to digest it before making any changes. Approved at the May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting b) Infill Guidelines Director Cornish stated that this topic was brought to this committee in February and received direct recommendation to review this and bring it back. She further stated that as of right, City code always two primary structures on one lot and accessory apartments are also allowed in zoning. Accessory apartments legislation is not changing. For rear yard, what we would like to propose is a secondary structure that is 60% of the primary structure. It also cannot be taller than the primary. For street front infill, the structures should be similar, same pitch roofs, same direction (the front doors facing the street). Foot print is defined as the foot print on the ground. In R2, the lot sizes are generally smaller so there wouldn’t be enough room to have a secondary structure because it wouldn’t follow the required 60% size of the primary structure. Alderperson Fleming does not support a change in the R1 zone. Chair Murtagh would like to see an analysis between the different zones of what it looks like now and what it could look like. It was decided that staff will do analysis and bring this back next month. 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) March 2019 – not available for circulation and a vote 8) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:18p.m.