Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PEDC-2019-12-11Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, December 11, 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: None Other Elected Officials Attending: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and Development Department; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Alex Phillips, Planner; and Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: None Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review The Wastewater Treatment Plant Disclosure Ordinance was moved to ‘Approval to Circulate’ 2) Public Comment Todd Breuer, 134 Cecil A. Malone Drive, encouraged the City to always look at local labor with new development. Ellie Pfeffer, 1667 Clara Dickson Hall, recommends the title of the Planning and Economic Development Committee to be changed to Planning and Sustainability Committee. 3) Special Order of Business a) Public Hearing – Carpenter Business Park PUD Alderperson Fleming moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously. Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, spoke on the lack of attempts to include affordable housing in this project. It is not sufficient for the developer to say, “We tried to get funding several times, but failed.” Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Lewis moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. b) Public Hearing – Accessory Dwelling Units Alderperson Lewis moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously. Peter Wissoker, 705 N. Tioga Street, spoke in favor of the accessory dwelling units. The City has worked on this. He would like to see that the design guidelines are followed. Zvonimir Stojanovski, 703 Veterans Place, spoke in support of increasing the housing through the ADUs. He’s a graduate student on a very strict budget. If the City could increase the housing through ADUs, it would be very beneficial. Daniel Bernstein stated ADUs are an excellent way to increase the much needed housing. The owner occupancy is not a good idea to require betrays the City’s green new deal. A more walkable city will help with decreasing carbon emissions. Renters should not be excluded from the ADU legislation. ADUs allowing students will benefit the neighborhood as they will get to know their neighbors and respect the hours they are loud. They also don’t agree with the contiguous green space. Aaron Rakon, 205 Fairmont Avenue, spoke in favor the owner-occupied ADU legislation. The student population is here about nine months of the year. There are many months of the year students are not here. If owner-occupied, the neighborhoods will remain stable. Yamila Fournier, 1035 Cayuga Heights Road, spoke against the contiguous green space requirement. Shirley Swink, 321 N. Albany, she supports the use of primary structures used as ADU. David West, 225 Cleveland Avenue, thanked the committee and staff for all the work that has been put forth to this topic. Requiring 35% contiguous green space is not doable. We should be creating positive green spaces and parks around and in our neighborhoods. Multiple dwelling structures are currently doing very well in the City. Our current zoning doesn’t allow for this kind of density. Allow multiple dwelling structures and remove the 35% contiguous green space requirement. Martha Robertson, 1655 Ellis Hollow Road, the City needs this type of housing. We are building and doing fine, but we still need to do more. Don’t require owner-occupancy and the 35% contiguous green space. She thanked all for their work on this. Catherine Chaimoky, 222 E. Falls Street, spoke in favor on ADUs but would like to see the owner-occupancy and contiguous green space not be a requirement. Herb Dwyer, 213 Cornell Street, stated they are literally prisoners in our home. He provided his experience in buying their first home and then trying to relocate due to a growing family. Three people wanted to buy their home but couldn’t because of the restriction of owner occupancy. Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting Sarah Johnson Dwyer, 213 Cornell Street, read into record a letter from someone who could not be here. Allowing rental ADUs will help the neighborhoods. Consider removing the owner-occupancy requirement. Rupert Spies, 209 Valley Road, if there is a change in owner-occupancy rules, developers will come in and buy everything up. He urges the City to require at least one of the units be owner-occupied. Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, stated her neighborhood is a mix of owners and renters. There are some very good home owners and some very good renters. At the November meeting, seven people spoke in favor of the owner-occupancy requirement. John Guttridge, 417 S. Titus Avenue, the fact that developers will buy up all open properties and then rent it doesn’t always work as people think it does. JoAnn Trutko, 310 Elmwood Avenue, is currently a homeowner. If owner-occupancy is required, many things will happen. If enacted, it would have a negative impact on available affordable homes. Wendy Wallitt, 209 Valley Road, spoke in favor of the ADUs particularly owner-occupied dwellings. Developers and investors often raise the rents after buying up these properties. She asks that to consider this very seriously. Don’t play Russian roulette. Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, spoke on ADUs. The proposed one-size fits all throughout the City is not doable. New ADUs rentals will have to be higher than they are currently. The contiguous green space requirement will not work. Jeanne Kisacky, 111 Brandon Place, our neighborhood is a mix of owners, renters, and students that blend well together. Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, spoke against the owner-occupancy requirement. The homeowners make a good point. Landlords jack up rents. Tom Schelley, 118 E. Court Street, shared his concerns of eliminating the contiguous green space. He is also concerned that trees will be dug up and removed in order to put up an ADU. John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, stated the committee has a huge task on their hands. South Hill has a large petition signed by over 100 people to keep the dwellings owner- occupied which is attached to the minutes. South Hill doesn’t want to be a huge student dorm. Jun Greene, 213 Mitchell Street, is a member of the Board of Public Works. He thanked all who have been working on this. There are too many flaws in the proposed legislation. He asks to simple pause. Jay Lambrix, 118 Prospect Street, he doesn’t have an opinion either way on this topic. Whether a homeowner or renter, we are all people. We all want safe neighborhoods. Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting Anne Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, thanked the committee for all the work being done. She urges the City to slow down. She sees the ADUs being rented out as Airbnbs. If owner occupancy is eliminated, large scale investors will buy up all the housing stock. Karen Friedeborn, 877 Bostwick Road, Northside United, spoke in favor of ADUs. Her research indicates that many ADUs are constructed by homeowners. The fewer the restrictions, the more projects were finished. Lisa Swayze, 420 Linn Street, attended the meeting in August about this subject. She has seen the amount of effort the City has put into this. Megan Vidler, 132 Fayette Street, she was fortunate to inherit a home, and she the owner of Home Green Home. We need more housing without daunting restrictions. Rob Lewis, 132 Fayette Street, Planning Board Chair, these regulations need to be looked at closely. He urges the City to allow the Planning Board to help regulate this process. Alderperson Fleming moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously. Chair Murtagh thanked all who attended and spoke. He provided his experience in renting, saving money for a down payment on a house, and being outbid by other buyers. It is a very common thing that happens to many. Alderperson Lewis thanked Murtagh for his comments. This is a very complex issue. She sees this an educational experience. No one will disagree with the main goal of affordable housing. Alderperson Brock also thanked all who came and spoke. There are many things that are under disagreement, but what we all do agree on is the need for more housing, especially affordable. The suggestion made to look at this legislation by neighborhoods not as the City as a whole. Alderperson Lewis further stated she does not agree with the comment made that South Hill will or is becoming one big dorm room. Alderperson Smith stated it is hard to comment back and forth with the community in addition to colleagues. We all want the same thing. He does feel that renters in Ithaca often don’t feel they have a voice or viewed in a different way than homeowners. Chair Murtagh also stated he doesn’t agree with the comment made on South Hill becoming one big dorm room. He also commented on 4) Announcements, Updates, Reports 5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting a) Carpenter Business Park PUD Re: Carpenter Park PUD Revision to Language Dear Lisa: After discussions of the draft PUD with the City Planning Staff, we’ve addressed the language in Item B.2. We hope the revised language below lays out a clear direction for the City, as well as obligations for the Carpenter Park development team in regard to affordable housing. This language defines the process for obtaining alternative uses for sub area B, should the applicant not be successful in receiving funding from the HCR for affordable housing. Attached please find the page from the PUD containing this text revision. 2. In the event that the applicant is not able to secure financing for the New York State Office of Homes and Community Renewal (“HCR”) to construct the affordable housing outlined in B.1.c. above, the applicant shall be entitled to seek an amendment to the PUD to use PUD sub area B for another use other than affordable housing but only with approval of an amendment of the PUD. As part of a consideration of an amendment to the PUD the applicant must demonstrate the diligent pursuit of financing from HCR that shall include several unsuccessful efforts to receive funding through the HCR Multifamily Finance Program. Thank you, and we look forward to continuing the public review process. Sincerely, Yamila Fournier Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com 142 East State Street, Rear Ithaca, NY 14850 Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting B.C. SUB Areas. The Carpenter Circle Planned Unit Development District shall consist of 3 PUD-Sub Areas 1. CCPUD-A-This sub area is intended to be predominantly used for community gardens and may contain small structures and parking areas that support the gardens. 2. CCPUD-B-This is a residential sub area. (This section is for Discussion) B. Community Benefits 1. Benefits. The project is intended to provide the following benefits to the community: a. Providing a permanent and improved space for the Community Gardens b Generation of approximately 150 jobs c. Construction of approximately 40 units of housing that would be priced to be affordable to those earning 50-60%of AMI. d. High-quality public amenities,including improved pedestrian,transit,and bicycle access throughout the site,and public spaces including Open green space, plazas for events and/or outdoor dining,a playground,and storm water management gardens featuring native plantings; e. An improved gateway into the City of Ithaca on Route 13; f. Alignment with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and ongoing planning related to the Route 13 corridor and the Waterfront Zone;and 2. In the event that the applicant is not able to provide any of the listed community benefits, the applicant will be required to return tothe Common lieu of stated benefits. Proposed Language: 2. In the event that the applicant is not able to secure financing from the New York State Office of Homes and Community Renewal ("HCR") to construct the affordable housing outlined in B.1.c. above, the applicant shall be entitled to seek an amendment to the PUD to use PUD sub area B for another use other than affordable housing but only with approval of an amendment to the PUD. As part of a consideration of an amendment to the PUD the applicant must demonstrate the diligent pursuit of financing from HCR that shall include several unsuccessful efforts to receive funding through the HCR Multifamily Finance Program. 5 | Page Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting c) Accessory Dwelling Units Jennifer Kusznir provided information as to the County’s recommendations that we received after the committee agenda was distributed. Alderperson Brock asked if these of substantive changes won’t it have to be recirculated. Planner Kusznir stated they are not substantive changes. Due to comments and recommendations from the County came in very last minute, there is a lot of information to review and absorb. Alderperson Smith moved to table this until the January meeting; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously. 12/5/19 An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Establish Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)- Declaration of Lead Agency WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is a “Unlisted” Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires 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 establishment of regulations regarding accessory dwelling units. Draft Resolution 12/5/19 An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Establish Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)― Declaration of Environmental Significance Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting 1. WHEREAS, demand for additional housing development has resulted in an increase in residential infill development within neighborhoods in the City, and 2. WHEREAS, the City would like to allow for appropriate levels of residential development of accessory dwelling units, while also protecting neighborhoods from development that is out of scale and character with the surrounding neighborhoods, and 3. WHEREAS, in August 2019, staff held a community conversation on accessory dwelling units and solicited comments from the public, and 4. WHEREAS, staff evaluated all of the public feedback and spent several months evaluating options to regulate accessory dwelling units, while taking into consideration public concerns, and 5. WHEREAS, staff has drafted an ordinance that will establish guidelines for developing accessory dwelling units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, and 6. WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated November 22, 2019, and 7. WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and 8. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it 1. RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated November 22, 2019, and be it further 2. RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further 3. RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting PLANNING COMMITTEE: An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” In Order to Establish Regulations for the Development of Accessory Dwelling Units ORDINANCE NO. ____  1. WHEREAS, in 2017, the City established the South Hill Overlay District (SHOD) in response to concerns that were raised by the South Hill neighborhood rapid in-fill (ADU’s) of development in the neighborhood and the impacts on both the aesthetic qualities and the character of the neighborhood, and 2. WHEREAS, the SHOD was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent further development until the City could establish regulations for this type of infill (ADU’s), and 3. WHEREAS, in the interim, similar concerns about development pressure were raised throughout the City, and 4. WHEREAS, City staff were directed to research how infill(ADU’S)development is regulated in other municipalities, and 5. WHEREAS, Planning Staff spent several months researching other communities and developing proposals to encourage the development of accessory dwelling units (ADU’S) that would protect neighborhoods while allowing for housing options that could provide property owners with additional income, and 6. WHEREAS, on August 29, 2019, a community meeting was held, with approximately 70 people in attendance, who offered opinions on options to allow the development of appropriate ADU’s, and 7. WHEREAS, and staff has considered feedback from the public, the Common Council, and other communities and has developed a set of regulations allowing property owners to develop ADU’s, where appropriate, and the means to protect neighborhoods from the negative impacts of over development, now therefore be it ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325-3B of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Definitions and Word Usage”, is hereby amended to add the following new definitions: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)— A second dwelling unit located in the rear or side yard on a lot with any one-family dwelling in R-1 and CR-1 zoning districts, or in any one-family dwelling or two-family dwelling in R-2 Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting and CR-2 zoning districts(see Section 2.-F.3d). The second unit is created secondary to, and is always smaller than the primary one-family dwelling. The unit includes its own independent habitable space including provision for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation, and is designed to be occupied by an individual or a family, plus not more than one unrelated occupant, independent of the primary dwelling units. 1. Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (AADU) – A room or set of rooms, basement, or any other space that is located within a primary structure, but is established as a separate dwelling unit. AADU’s may be occupied by an individual or a family, plus not more than one unrelated occupant. 2. Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) – A separate dwelling unit that is constructed on a single family lot that is not connected to the primary structure. DADU’s may be occupied by an individual or a family, plus not more than one unrelated occupant. 3. Out Building Conversion - A separate dwelling unit that is converted from an existing garage, carriage house, or other accessory structure. Out Building Conversion’s may be occupied by an individual or a family, plus not more than one unrelated occupant. Contiguous Green Space - Green Space on a lot that is uninterrupted by structures or paved surfaces. Section 2. Chapter 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “District Regulations”, is hereby amended to add a new section F, entitled “Additional Restrictions in the R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 Zoning Districts”, to read as follows: F. Additional Restrictions in the R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 Zoning Districts. (1) Intent. This section authorizes the installation of accessory dwelling units in the R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 districts. The purpose and intent of permitting accessory dwelling units is: (a) To provide homeowners, especially those of low and moderate income, with a means of obtaining through rental income, companionship, security and services and thereby to enable them to stay more comfortably in homes and neighborhoods they might be forced to leave. (b) To add inexpensive rental units to the housing stock to meet the needs of smaller households, both young and old. (c) To make housing units available to low- and moderate- income households who might otherwise have difficulty finding homes within the City. (d) To develop housing units in family neighborhoods that are appropriate for households at a variety of stages in the lifecycle, thereby lessening fluctuations in neighborhood demand for services. Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting (e) To preserve and allow more efficient use of the City’s existing stock of dwelling while ensuring healthy and safe living environments. (f) To allow for the creation of additional housing, while minimizing impacts to surrounding properties. (2) General Restrictions. (a) In the R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 Zoning Districts, only one primary structure is permitted as of right. (3) Additional Requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units (a) All Accessory Dwelling Units that have any exterior changes to existing structures or any new ADUS that are new construction are subject to site plan review. (b) Number of Accessory Dwelling Units. Only one accessory dwelling unit, attached or detached, is permitted on a lot. (c) Parking. No additional parking is required for the accessory dwelling unit. Existing required parking for the primary structure must be maintained or replaced on site. (d) Location. Accessory Dwelling Units may be located on any lot in the CR-1 or R-1 zoning district that contains a one- family dwelling and on any lot in the CR-2 and R-2 zoning district that contains a one- or two-family dwelling. ADUs are permitted in any side or rear yard but not in the required front yard. Corner Lots shall be considered to have two front yards. (e) Additional Requirements for Detached ADUs. [a] Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, a minimum 10’setback from any property line shall be required [b] A DADU may not be placed less than 5 feet from the primary structure. . [c] ADUs are not subject to the maximum lot coverage requirement, however, properties with ADUs are required to maintain 35% contiguous green space. nm Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting (f) Number of Residents. Accessory Dwelling Units may be occupied by an individual or a family, plus not more than one unrelated occupant. Maximum Number of occupants Owner Occupancy Zoning District Primary Structure Accessory Dwelling Unit Max number of unrelated on lot One-Family Dwelling Owner Occupied R-1(a,b) Family + 2 unrelated Family + 1 unrelatedFami ly + 1 unrelated 5 unrelated R-2(a,b,c) 5 unrelated Not Owner Occupied R-1(a,b) Family + 1 unrelated Family + 1 unrelatedmily + 1 unrelated 4 unrelated R-2(a,b,c) Family+2 unrelated Family + 1 unrelated 5 unrelated Two-Family Dwelling n/a R-2(a,b,c) Unit 1: 1 Family + 2 unrelated Family + 1 unrelated One unit: 5 unrelated Two Units: 8 unrelated Unit 2: 1 Family + 2 unrelated Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting (g) Appearance of Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory Dwelling Units should not disrupt the overall architectural character of the neighborhood. A similar architectural style and roof pitch should connect the primary structure to the accessory dwelling unit. [1] Location of Entrances. New or additional front entrances are discouraged, but in any event must be compatible with the architectural style of the existing structure. Detached accessory dwelling units are exempt from this standard. (h) Size Allowances. [1] Detached Accessory Dwelling Units- The maximum size of a DADU may be no more than 75% of the habitable area of the primary structure or 800 square feet, whichever is less. [2] Attached Accessory Dwelling Units- The maximum size of an AADU may be no more than 33.3% of the habitable area of the primary structure. [3] Out Building Conversion- Outbuilding conversions are exempt from all area requirements, including maximum lot coverage requirements, minimum green space requirements, and any setback requirements. Section 3. Chapter 325-10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Accessory Apartments”, is hereby deleted in its entirety. A. Section 5. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the district regulations chart in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 6. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. Section 7. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting To:        Planning & Economic Development Committee  From:   Planning & Development Board  Date:    December 3, 2019   RE:        Planning Board comments on the Establishment of Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units  (ADUs)     At their November 26 meeting, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the proposal to establish  regulations for developing ADUs in the R‐1 and R‐2 zoning districts.    The Board discussed the proposal  and agreed to submit the following comments for your consideration:      The Board strongly supports the goal of the proposed ADU regulation: “to remove or reduce  regulatory barriers that limit the number and variety of housing options in single family zoning  districts”.   The Board believes many concerns about the impact of ADUs will be effectively addressed when  the Board reviews their size, design, and placement for neighborhood compatibility during site  plan review.   DADUs in existing buildings should not be limited to a percentage of the primary structure (or its  interior) as there is no significant exterior change to the structures and therefore limited impact  to the neighborhood.    DADUs should not be limited to 800 SF, provided that size is limited to 75% of the primary  dwelling and that some greenspace is maintained.  800 SF is too small for families.    The Board did not reach consensus on contiguous greenspace.  Some feel a 35% requirement  will prove too burdensome for Ithaca’s more urban neighborhoods.     The Board leans towards not requiring owner occupancy.    o First, it places a regulatory burden on the City that will be impossible to enforce with  current staffing levels.     o Second, this restriction could encourage gray market renting.    In addition, the Board encourages Council to direct staff to create legislation that allows pocket  neighborhoods, especially in the zoning districts impacted by this legislation.     Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting 12/6/2019 Proposed ADU Legislation -- Public Comments ____________________________________________________________________________________ I am writing to this committee of the Common Council to express my opinions regarding the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. I believe that an owner occupancy requirement should be included in the proposed ordinance. We should start with the first two provisions of the draft ordinance, which explains why this ADU issue is under consideration by the City of Ithaca: “WHEREAS, in 2017, the City established the South Hill Overlay District (SHOD) in response to concerns that were raised by the South Hill neighborhood rapid in-fill (ADU’s) of development in the neighborhood and the impacts on both the aesthetic qualities and the character of the neighborhood (emphasis added), and 2. WHEREAS, the SHOD was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent further development until the City could establish regulations for this type of infill (ADU’s), and” I understood that the South Hill residents had a few concerns regarding the ADU’s in their neighborhood. The first and most significant concern was that a developer was buying houses that were single family residences that were being converted in rental units by adding a second primary residence in the backyard behind the primary residence. This was not someone adding a granny flat to their house, but rather a developer converting a single family residence to a larger rental property. With two colleges within city limits, there is a clear demand for rental housing close to campus. As the South Hill residents told this committee before in connection with the Overlay District that the balance between rental and non- rental housing was out of sorts. This changeover in the neighborhood affects many areas including the number of students attending South Hill Elementary School. Moreover, there is the notion that allowing more ADU’s would help in providing additional affordable housing. From a study that was completed in connection with regulating ADU’s in Lawrence, Kansas: The ADU strategy has often been implemented for the purpose of creating more affordable housing options, but an accessory dwelling unit program may not guarantee fulfillment of that purpose alone. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording other necessities of life (HUD 2015). One study of the San Francisco Bay area shows secondary units almost completely absent from what HUD would qualify as “affordable housing,” with half of the identified ADUs being classified as financially manageable to people who are in the low-income category, having a household income of 50% to 80% of the average median income (Chapple and Wegmann 2011, 12). Hulse, Travis M., "Use of Accessory Dwelling Units as a Housing Strategy: A Case Study of Lawrence, Kansas" (2015). Community and Regional Planning Program: Student Projects and Theses. 35. On South Hill, the last two ADU’s were developed to house Ithaca College students at market rate. The concern is future ADU’s will be developed in the same manner, so that there will be little affordable housing being built in the form of an ADU. Unfortunately, this ordinance does not address the scenario of changing the nature of a neighborhood like South Hill. Clearly an occupancy requirement would address this situation. Now it is true that such a requirement would decrease the potential number of ADU’s being built and restrict a property owner’s ability with his or her land. The intent of this ordinance is to regulate this type of infill development, not to maximize its growth in the City. An owner occupant would be limited in being able to move out of his or her residence but still be able to rent out the ADU and the primary residence. I believe that this would be a small section of the market, while the market for commercial developers converting residences into rental properties would occur more often. The aesthetics issues were addressed in the ordinance in terms of the size and location of the ADU units. What was not addressed is the storm water runoff issue that raised during this process. For years South Hill residents have expressed their concerns about the impact of storm water flowing downhill on their property. The building of ADU’s on either South Hill or East Hill will exacerbate the problem of storm water runoff. The ordinance is completely silent on this issue. It seems foolhardy to even consider passing an ADU ordinance without simultaneously addressing the issue of water runoff. Please consider my comments as you consider the ADU ordinance. Henry Granison Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting I posted this petition on the South Hill listserv the day before Thanksgiving and by Thanksgiving day there  were 66 names with addresses. I have never seen a subject bubble up to the surface as fast as  owner occupancy for ADUs. The names below are just the tip of the iceberg and if I go door to door I’m sure  the numbers will double.  The Planning & Economic Development Committee (PEDC) is currently circulating draft regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and asking for comments. Here is our collective comment in the form of a petition from South Hill residents: PETITION As resident homeowners and renters on South Hill, we would like to see ADU regulations tailored more to the neighborhoods where they are going to be built. The current draft regulations treat ADUs as a one-size-fits-all for the entire City with no distinction for neighborhood needs. On South Hill, owner occupied parcels are in the descending minority and absentee landlord parcels are in the ascending majority. In the R-2 zoning district this differential is troubling and ADUs could make it even worse. As residents of South Hill we would like to see an owner occupancy requirement for ADUs on South Hill in general but for the R-2 zoning district in particular. This zoning district is already well over the tipping point and without intervention will soon become an exclusive dormitory district for IC students. In 1989 in the R-2 zoning district, owner occupied parcels outnumbered student rental parcels owned by absentee landlords by two-to-one. A total flip-flop from where we are today. We have nothing against absentee landlords or students, however, we are nostalgic for the days when we lived in a demographically diverse and affordable neighborhood where families with children, retired people, working people, young couples and students all lived in our neighborhood. Back yards were not parking lots and stormwater run-off was not an over riding concern. The South Hill Overlay District legislation was an attempt to hold the line against more student housing projects on South Hill. ADUs as a right however will provide absentee landlords with an open door once again to expand student density on South Hill by 2 students per ADU and this time with no parking requirement. Resident homeowners are an endangered species on South Hill and should be protected because they play a critical role in stabilizing our neighborhood. These yard signs (put up every Fall) suggest that South Hill homeowners are not anti-students but simply want to preserve what is left of our neighborhood. The best way for the members of the PEDC to help us - is by including an owner occupancy requirement for all ADUs built on South Hill. 1 - John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street 2 - Rita Graves, 319 Pleasant Street 3 - Carolyn Boronkey, 150 Pearsall Place 4 - Eniko Farkas, 156 Crescent Place 5 - Karl Pillemer, 135 Hudson Street 6 - Clare McMillan, 135 Hudson Street 7 - Janet Fortess, 225 Columbia Street 8 - Karen A. Gellman, 207 Columbia Street 9 - Michael A. Simmons, 210 Columbia Street 10- Alexander R. Simmons, 210 Columbia Street 11- Carl Schofield, 14 Hawthorne Circle 12- Elke Schofield, 14 Hawthorne Circle 13- David Brumsted, 105 Cottage Place 14- Julie Brumsted, 105 Cottage Place 15- Sally Lockwood, 641 Hudson Street 16- Marjorie Olds, 100 Renzetti Place 17- Bryan Isacks, 100 Renzetti Place 18- Munna Rubaii, 133 Crescent Place 19- Scott Freyburger, 134 Pearsall Place 20- Zach Shulman, 417 Hudson Street 21- Angela Rubert, 417 Hudson Street 22- Gabriel Borden, 144 Giles Street 23- Marin Clarkberg, 150 Giles Street 24- Steve Cariddi, 409 Columbia Street 25- Fred Schwartz, 303 Columbia Street 26- Anne Mazer, 303 Columbia Street 27- John Efroymson, 408 Columbia Street 28- Carole Dennis, 408 Columbia Street 29- Miri Yampolsky, 407 Columbia Street 31- Aaron Maclaughlin, 409 Hudson Street 32- Jen Maclaughlin, 409 Hudson Street 33- Christine McNamara, 122 Pearsall Place 34- Susan Currie, 122 Pearsall Place 35- Shaianne Osterreich, 101 Crescent Place 36- Alex Livingston, 315 Pleasant Street 37- Merike Andre-Barrett, 315 Pleasant Street 38- Tracy McNulty, 310 Hudson Street 39- Brad Zukovic, 310 Hudson Street 40- Kenneth Young, 228 Columbia Street 41- Madeline Young, 228 Columbia Street Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting 42- Caroline Borden, 144 Giles Street 43- Tamara Loomis, 409 Columbia Street 44- Marian Rogers, 152 Coddington Road 45- Steve Rogers, 152 Coddington Road 46- Joe McMahon, 318 Columbia Street 47- Yvette Rubio, 119 Columbia Street 48- Richard Boronkay, 150 Pearsall Place 49- Jessica Stratton, 601 Hudson Street 50- Scott Stratton, 601 Hudson Street 51- Ken Deschere, 202 South Hill Terrace 52- Regina Deschere, 202 South Hill Terrace 53- Steve Beer, 211 Hudson Street 54- Beverly Beer, 211 Hudson Street 55- Mary Corsaro, 138 Pearsall Place 56- Lynn Parment, 132 South Hill Terrace 57- William Parment, 132 South Hill Terrace 58- Elizabeth Reiter, 410 Columbia Street 59- Olivia Wahl, 107 Giles Street 60- David Wahl, 107 Giles Street 61- Casey Porter, 304 Hudson Street 62- Heather Lambert, 304 Hudson Street 63- Sherry Golden, 517 Hudson Street 64- Ian Golden, 517 Hudson Street 65- Donald Miller, 635 Hudson Street 66- Diane Miller, 635 Hudson Street Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting John Graves  I am writing to express my thoughts and ask questions re: the proposed draft ordinance on ADUs. I support maintaining owner occupancy. Owner occupancy in Ithaca’s core has been reduced by half in the last two decades. This is a problem that we are beginning to see. Affordable home ownership is at risk. In past hearings or written comments, I regret if this proposed change has been cast as us vs. them/renters vs. homeowners. This is not the intent or argument. I am concerned that removal of the owner occupancy requirement will not serve the stated intent of the ordinance. In addition, I am concerned that the City does not have the resources to monitor these changes. Currently, regulations require neighbors as partners to alert the City to problems. I believe the City has achieved density at the core in downtown and Collegetown. Now the challenge is to maintain and even increase the mix of single family, owner-occupied homes alongside dense rental plots. So here are my questions: Proposed Ordinance Overall – how is “family” defined? I have seen very creative definitions of this throughout Collegetown. Section 2: F1. Intent is to “provide homeowners”… why is this intent only from some zones and not all? Section 2: F1b. “Inexpensive rental units” … how does the City monitor this or incentivize this? Section 2 F1c. “Available to low and moderate income”… how is this monitored or enacted? Section 2 F1f. How is “minimize impact to surrounding properties” managed and defined? 3.a What does the site plan review accomplish? And are the current environmental regulations enough? For example, is 3 feet water table enough? I am thinking of the example across the street from me where removal of vegetation resulted in the underground streams common in Belle Sherman continually flooding a sidewalk. People would fall on the slime or ice and the city had to put in drains. Section 2: Appearance - How is this monitored? Finally, given the intent that is listed in the ordinance, is there a process to see if the ordinance has achieved the intent? Will there be a review of whatever is enacted after one year, five years, ten years? Outside question: How does this ADU ordinance tie into Airbnb notions? Is this part of the ordinance incentive as well? I imagine this might be some owner’s incentive for an ADU. Because I do not see how the City can easily achieve the stated ordinance intent, I consider the retention of owner occupancy as the most basic step to help home owners achieve the stated intent... a way to increase their investment, adapt to their changing family needs and be more likely to offer affordable rental housing. Martha Frommelt I sent the comment below to City Council. Donna Flemming suggested copying you. I have attached a PDF as well: To the members of Ithaca City Council: I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed elimination of owner-occupancy requirements in the rules for Accessory Dwelling Units. My concern is that eliminating these requirements will make it more difficult and expensive for Ithaca residents to buy a home in Ithaca, due to competition from investors. Housing costs are already staggeringly high, and the stock of single-family homes limited. This rule change will further exacerbate this already grim situation. The elimination of the owner-occupancy requirement will make houses (especially near Cornell and Ithaca College) far more profitable for investors who are looking to obtain rental units. This will result in many would-be homebuyers being outbid by investors on homes they would otherwise be able to afford. While this will be seen most acutely in neighborhoods around Cornell and Ithaca College, the effects on home prices will be felt throughout the city as people who have been priced out of these neighborhoods join the bidding wars on the further reduced housing stock in other neighborhoods, thus driving prices higher. This is going to mean increased housing prices throughout the entire city. I am cognizant of the demand for more rental units, and that there is a desire to increase urban density in Ithaca. These are both valid goals. However, there is also a shortage of single-family homes for sale, and there are other impactful ways to increase density. Although the conversion of single-family homes into multiple rental units will create more rentals and increase urban density, it does so by decreasing the housing stock available to would-be homeowners. The net result is going to be a decrease in the number of homeowners, and an increase in the number of multi-unit rentals. Why should we care about a decrease in homeownership? Consider the following: First, the decrease is permanent. There are a limited number of single-family homes in the City of Ithaca and that number can no longer be increased in any meaningful way. The best that can be done is to keep it from further decreasing. Once a single-family home is broken up into a multi-unit rental it is unlikely to ever be returned to the Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting market as a single-family home. On the other hand, rental capacity in the city can be greatly increased without removing single-family homes from the market. I believe it makes more sense to encourage multi-unit development such as the new buildings downtown and Maplewood. Second, we should consider where we want the wealth generated from Ithaca real estate to go. Do we want it to remain in the community with local residents, or do we want it to go to investors, many of whom are not local, or even from NY State? Home ownership is one of the primary ways people with modest incomes seek financial security and build generational wealth. Do we really want to put these goals even farther out of reach for the residents of Ithaca? To encourage more ADUs, the council could consider approaches that would make it easier for local residents to navigate the codes and permitting processes involved with creating an ADU. Also consider incentives and promotions to encourage more local homeowners to create ADUs. Jeff Busche I am writing to comment on the proposal to establish regulations for developing ADUs in R1 and R2 zoning districts. In general, I support the proposed changes and laud both members of Council and Planning staff for the substantial amount of time and thought devoted to this effort. I’m disappointed, however, that a requirement for owner-occupancy, in either the ADU or the primary structure, did not make it into this round of the legislation. The blanket proposal before you ignores the unique land-use economics and development pressures of neighborhoods— East Hill, Belle Sherman/Bryant Park, South Hill, and Cornell Heights— that are closest to the campuses. Moreover, without an owner-occupancy requirement, the legislation is at odds with the County’s, the City’s, and Cornell’s master plans and broader interests regarding housing diversity and mix. In recent years, thousands of new apartment units— e.g., Collegetown Terrace, multiple Collegetown projects, the Maplewood Apartment complex, the North Campus infill housing initiative, and several downtown projects — are online or in the pipeline. Those projects are addressing a serious market failure to remediate the deplorable housing conditions that students (mostly undergraduates) had to endure for decades. But no matter how many new units come online, there will alway be investor demand for property near the Cornell campus. Any rational investor/speculator will note that single family housing is relatively cheap compared to other property. If there’s no owner-occupancy requirement in either the primary or secondary structure, what rational speculator wouldn’t swoop in to outbid a family with a cash offer and maximize the number of unrelated occupants? Even better, they can maximize profit by turning one of the units into a full-time AirBnB. Under those circumstances, families can’t even compete to rent because the monthly revenue stream generated by a group of unrelated occupants will exceed what a single or dual earner family can pay. Properties become merely investments, not homes. That’s not being alarmist, it’s a fact. It’s already happened on South Hill and is rapidly happening in Belle Sherman, where wealthy parents and out-of-town investors, masked behind a veil of LLCs, are buying up single family homes with cash offers that outbid families. That dynamic is contrary both to the stated goals of the CAFD and the neighborhood plans, which tout the value of a dense urban core and solid neighborhoods. Cornell’s and the City’s interests do not always converge (an understatement!) but an owner-occupancy requirement actually benefits both entities. County and City legislators frequently bemoan the fact that thousands of Cornell employees pass through Ithaca and take advantage of our infrastructure but don’t live here. What better way to capture some of that market than for the City and Cornell to commit to what we already have, i.e., a supply of free- standing houses within walking distance of the Cornell campus and quality elementary schools. Such housing is a vital part of the mix and is an important recruiting tool to able to attract top-notch researchers, faculty, and staff. Why “outsource” that supply to the Town, Lansing, and Cayuga Heights? I am NOT suggesting that undergraduate student rentals shouldn’t be part of the mix! I wouldn’t want to live in a neighborhood that was a boring bedroom community. But Belle Sherman already IS a diverse community of young families, empty nesters, graduate students, and undergraduates. We just need the City’s help to keep it that way. There are undoubtedly cases where an owner-occupancy requirement would be a hindrance. I can think of two nearby examples. For instance, there’s a stretch of derelict houses on the 400 block of Dryden Road that have been trashed from years of team/fraternity annex abuse and neglectful landlords. They are probably beyond rehabilitation. But a visionary developer has other zoning tools at his/her disposal, such as a PUD, that could jump-start redevelopment there. Second, I understand that some duplex owners feel an owner-occupancy requirement is a comparative disadvantage. It’s worth noting that years ago my husband and I owned a duplex on Delaware Avenue, where we could walk to work and the kids could walk to school. We lived in one side and rented out the other. The equity we accrued enabled us to sell that property and buy a single family home a block away as our family grew. But in any case, the underlying point is that if someone truly has a legitimate financial hardship, that’s why we have a Board of Zoning Appeals. In other words, you don’t zone to accommodate the exception, you zone for the broader vision and goals. Finally, since Ithaca has been looking to other cities for inspiration on ADUs and affordable housing strategies, I’ll leave you with a great example from Los Angeles, which has a far more serious affordable housing crisis than we do. Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting A public/private partnership has created an exciting ADU model that fosters owner-occupancy AND adds to the supply of affordable housing. It’s a really cool idea. I hope you’ll take a look. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/realestate/adu-empty-garages-california-housing-shortage.html "His idea is simple: United Dwelling enters a partnership with a homeowner, pays for the garage conversion, manages the rental of the apartment to a qualified applicant and splits the rent with the homeowner. Since most of the detached garages in Los Angeles aren’t used for cars — 91 percent of the 2,100 homeowners surveyed by Mr. Dietz’s students use their garages for something else, mostly storage — this can provide rental income and affordable housing in many neighborhoods. And it does it by using existing structures.” Ellen McCollister Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting c) Waterfront Design Guidelines    To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Alexander Phillips, Senior Planner Date: November 21, 2019 Re: Approval of Waterfront Design Guidelines The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the draft Waterfront Design Guidelines. Staff has developed these guidelines using the same format and goals as the adopted Collegetown and Downtown Design Guidelines. This includes additional design objectives specific to the waterfront study area. The Waterfront Design Guidelines include specific changes from prior design guidelines, notably how design objectives interface with the waterways and waterfront. Primarily, these design objectives address topics related to access, use, and lighting impacts. The Waterfront Design Guidelines also build upon existing Waterfront area zoning to outline goals for building design, siting, materials, and landscaping specific to the Waterfront and its four- character areas. Unlike zoning, the design guidelines provide the flexibility for a property owner to meet a design objective in a variety of ways. The document identifies ways that a project can meet each guideline, but additional design treatments or techniques can be proposed by a property owner. Each design guideline is categorized as either a priority guideline (shown in purple) or a secondary guideline (shown in black text). All projects must satisfy each priority guideline, unless it is demonstrated that the guideline is clearly inapplicable to the project. Secondary guidelines should also be met by proposed projects, but the Planning and Development Board may find that some secondary guidelines are not relevant. If adopted, these design guidelines will be administered through the City’s existing design review process. Design review is conducted by a subcommittee of the Planning and Development Board and is non-binding unless a design review recommendation is made a condition of site plan approval. The current draft of the Waterfront Design Guidelines is available on the City’s website at https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/10767/PEDC_WFDG_Nov. An environmental review for this action has been prepared, and a Short Environmental Assessment Form for each action is attached. The Planning and Economic Development Committee will discuss the proposal at its regularly scheduled meeting December 11th, 2019. Your comments are respectfully requested prior to this meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 274-6556 or at aphilllips@cityofihaca.org. Approval of the Waterfront Design Guidelines – Resolution Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith Carried 4-1. WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, calls for the implementation of design guidelines as a tool to help achieve the plan’s goals of encouraging additional housing and employment opportunities while preserving the character of established neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Plan Ithaca Phase II - Waterfront Area Plan includes goals that were established in Plan Ithaca, the waterfront plan provided more defined recommendations and action steps specifically for the waterfront area; and Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, the Waterfront Area is home to a wide variety of uses including a state of the art health care facility, restaurants, bars, industrial uses, community gardens, and the Ithaca Farmers Market, and much of the Waterfront Area was rezoned in 2017 to further promote a mixed use district, including commercial and housing, with an emphasis on uses that create an active waterfront environment; and WHEREAS, zoning for the waterfront determining use and density requirements was adopted in August of 2017, in advance of the recently adopted Waterfront Area Plan; and WHEREAS, the zoning minimally addresses built form, and design guidelines are needed to build upon the zoning to promote high-quality design and construction as well as sensitivity to the context of the Waterfront Area and the four distinct character areas; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted and implemented design guidelines for the Downtown and Collegetown area that: (1) Build upon existing zoning to promote high-quality construction and urban design; (2) Formally establish design expectations for new construction; (3) Help implement the goals of Plan Ithaca; and (4) Add clarity and predictability to the development approval process for property owners and the Planning and Development Board; and WHEREAS, the Waterfront Design Guidelines follows the structure and goals of the above guidelines and includes design objectives specific to the Waterfront Area; and WHEREAS, once approved, the design guidelines will serve as the basis for design review in the Waterfront Area and will be implemented through the City’s existing design review process, as outlined in Chapter 160, Design Review, of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code ; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Economic Development Committee reviewed the Waterfront Design Guidelines, at its meeting on November 13, 2019 and recommended approval of the document; and WHEREAS, the Waterfront Design Guidelines have been reviewed by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability, pursuant to §239-l-m of New York State General Municipal Law; and WHEREAS, the Common Council has reviewed the Waterfront Design Guidelines, dated November 2019; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby approves the Waterfront Design Guidelines; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Waterfront Design Guidelines shall serve as a guide for the mandatory design review of any projects within the Waterfront Study Area, as required by Chapter 160, Design Review, of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting d) Public Art Sculptures Resolution to Approve Artwork for the Anthropocene sculpture In Baker Park Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried 3-2. WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca, the City’s comprehensive plan, identifies public art as an important cultural resource that contributes to quality of life and economic vitality and calls for the City’s continued support of public art (see Cultural Resources), and WHEREAS, Monica Franciscus and Tom Hirschl have submitted a proposal to install a freestanding sculpture at Baker Park, and WHEREAS, the creation of the sculpture has been privately funded by the artist and project organizers have not requested city funding, and WHEREAS, the City Code §8-13 Duties, tasks the Community Life Commission, to advise on issues related to art and public art in Ithaca, including public art displays, programs, and exhibitions, Community Life Commission accepted staff’s request to circulate the Anthropocene proposal at its meeting on September 16, 2019, and WHEREAS, City staff including City Forester, Jeanne Grace, and Planner, Alex Phillips, visited Baker Park on September 17, 2019 and identified a specific site in the park that would not impact any surrounding natural features, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works heard the public art proposal at its meeting on September 17, 2019 and approved Baker Park as a potential site for sculpture at its meeting on October 15, 2019, and, WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission extended the public comment period for the sculpture proposal at its meeting October 21, 2019 to consider the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources input given the proposal’s placement in a city park, and WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, considered the proposals and raised concerns to the Community Life Commission regarding safety (climbing), appropriateness of site, and maintenance, and WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission and staff addressed the concerns identified by Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission along with the mixed responses from public comment at its meeting on November 18. The Community Life Commission determined the proposal worthy of consideration for the Planning and Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council address the concerns identified by Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council accept the proposal by Monica Franciscus to create a sculpture for the city in Baker Park, and be it further RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of the sculpture upon the execution of an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney. Resolution to Approve Artwork for the Tompkins Giant No.1 proposal in Cass Park Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried 3-2. WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca, the City’s comprehensive plan, identifies public art as an important cultural resource that contributes to quality of life and economic vitality and calls for the City’s continued support of public art (see Cultural Resources), and Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, Community Arts Partnership has submitted a proposal to install a freestanding sculpture in Cass Park, and WHEREAS, the creation of the sculpture has been privately funded by the project organizer, and WHEREAS, City staff including City Forester, Jeanne Grace, Recreation Supervisor, Jim D’Alterio, and Planner, Alex Phillips, visited Cass Park on September 06, 2019 and identified a specific site in the park that would not impact any surrounding natural or recreational features, and WHEREAS, the City Code §8-13 Duties, tasks the Community Life Commission, to advise on issues related to art and public art in Ithaca, including public art displays, programs, and exhibitions, Community Life Commission accepted staff’s request to circulate the Tompkins Giant No.1 proposal at its meeting on September 16, 2019, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works heard the public art proposal at its meeting on September 17, 2019 and approved Cass Park as a potential site for sculpture at its meeting on October 15, 2019, and, WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission extended the public comment period for the sculpture proposal at its meeting October 21, 2019 to consider the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission input given the proposal’s placement in a city park, and WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, considered the proposals and raised concerns to the Community Life Commission regarding safety (climbing), appropriateness of site, and maintenance, and WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission and staff addressed the concerns identified by Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission along with the mixed responses from public comment at its meeting on November 18. The Community Life Commission determined the proposal worthy of consideration for the Planning and Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council address the concerns identified by Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council accept the proposal by Community Arts Partnership to create a sculpture for the city in Cass Park, and be it further RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of the sculpture upon the execution of an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney. e) Wastewater Treatment Plan Disclosure Ordinance ORDINANCE 2019- Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried 4-1. PRESERVATION OF ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Legislative Intent and Purpose. Common Council makes the following findings of fact: C. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF), located at 525 Third Street, Ithaca, and built in 1987, is a 13.1 million gallons per day wastewater treatment and energy recovery facility providing secondary treatment, phosphorus removal, and cogeneration of electricity, jointly owned by three municipalities: the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden. D. On December 31, 2003, the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Town of Dryden, Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Lansing and Village of Lansing entered into an Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement (IWA) as a condition of receiving New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act funding to install and implement capital improvements and phosphorus removal systems. E. The IWA and New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act funding stipulate that the IAWWTF and Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant (CHWWTP) jointly agree to provide wastewater services to the six municipalities by allocating excess treatment capacity at the IAWWTF to the CHWWTP, allowing for future growth within the six sponsoring communities. F. In addition to the over $60 million invested by the municipal partners to provide wastewater treatment services to over 50,000 residents, commercial, agricultural, and industrial users in the region, the IAWWTF receives and treats trucked septage, light industrial, and agricultural waste, and anticipates receiving and processing food scraps in coming years, providing the highest achievable levels of phosphorus and contaminant removal, while capturing methane and heat to produce electricity and combat climate change. E. It is the declared policy of the City of Ithaca to work with its municipal partners to preserve, enhance and encourage adequate municipal wastewater treatment operations in the City, while minimizing the carbon Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting footprint of facility operations, and to harmonize essential and beneficial IAWWTF operations with non- industrial land uses within the vicinity of the IAWWTF. F. The IAWWTF, in partnership with Cornell University and Ithaca College, regularly engages in scientific research and innovative technology research programs to better protect and preserve water resources and foster the development of innovative industry advancements that allows for future advancements. G. Non-industrial land uses, including residential development, extend into and are contemplated to increase in the vicinity of the IAWWTF, and facility operations might occasionally be noticeable above the background urban environment, potentially prompting concerns. H. Constraints on operations and on possible expansion of the IAWWTF would be detrimental to the health, safety, and economic viability of Cayuga Lake, the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Town of Dryden and surrounding areas. I. Requiring disclosure to residents, businesses and users of real property in the vicinity of IAWWTF of the facility’s existence, essential purpose, characteristics and beneficial nature will: lead to a better understanding of processes and potential conditions in and around the facility; preserve the indispensable resources and services provided by the IAWWTF to the larger community; and foster community acknowledgment of normal facility operations which may occasionally produce noise, dust, light and odors. J. Therefore, the Common Council intends for this Ordinance to implement the above-described education and disclosure requirement to all property users within the IAWWTF Setback Zone. Section 2. Creation of Section 262-137, Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Disclosure Requirement. The Ithaca Municipal Code shall be amended so as to create a new Section 262-137 as follows: §262-137 Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Disclosure Requirement A. Definitions. For the purposes of this section: (1) “IAWWTF” shall be the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility located at 525 Third Street, Ithaca. (2) "IAWWTF Setback Zone" shall mean those land areas of the City of Ithaca within 375 feet of the property boundary of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility. Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting (3) "Municipal Wastewater Treatment Operations" shall mean the operations of the IAWWTF, and include activity normally associated with wastewater treatment plant operations and energy recovery/generation. Operations typically include truck traffic and treatment of sanitary waste, and activities incident to or in conjunction with the aforementioned. B. ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DISCLOSURE NOTICE REQUIREMENT. (1) "City of Ithaca, ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DISCLOSURE NOTICE". It is the declared policy of the City of Ithaca to preserve, enhance and encourage Municipal Wastewater Treatment Operations within the City of Ithaca. Residents, operators, and owners of property within the IAWWTF Setback Zone land should be prepared to acknowledge the manifestations of normal facility operations which potentially include noise, dust, light and odors. (2) Upon any transfer by sale, exchange, rental agreement, installment land sale contract, lease, lease with an option to purchase, any other option to purchase, or ground lease coupled with improvements, of real property, or residential stock cooperative, the transferor shall deliver to the prospective transferee the written statement required by subsection B(6) of this section. (3) All discretionary approvals by the City of Ithaca for parcel maps, subdivision maps or use permits relating to real property located within the IAWWTF Setback Zone, shall include a condition that the owners of such real property record a " ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DISCLOSURE NOTICE " in substantially the form provided in subsection B(6) of this section. (4) All applicants for building permits for new residential or commercial construction to be issued by the City of Ithaca located within the IAWWTF Setback Zone shall be provided with a " ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DISCLOSURE NOTICE" in substantially the form provided in subsection B(6) of this section. (5) The Clerk/Recorder/Assessor of the County shall include a "ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DISCLOSURE NOTICE" in substantially the form provided in subsection B(6) of this section with any grant deed, quitclaim deed or land sale contract located within the IAWWTF Setback Zone returned to the grantee by the Clerk/Recorder/ Assessor after recording. Approved at the April 8, 2020 PEDC Meeting (6) The disclosure statement shall contain the following: Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Disclosure Notice THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONCERNS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN TOMPKINS COUNTY, CITY OF ITHACA. DESCRIBED AS . THIS STATEMENT IS A DISCLOSURE OF THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 262-137 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA AS OF . THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE SELLER(S)/PROPERTY OWNER(S) AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF ITHACA. It is the declared policy of the City of Ithaca to work with its municipal partners to preserve, enhance and encourage adequate municipal wastewater treatment operations in the City while minimizing the carbon footprint of facility operations, and to harmonize essential and beneficial operations of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) with non-industrial land uses in the vicinity of the facility. Because the property in which you are taking an interest is located within the IAWWTF Setback Zone, you might occasionally experience issues related to facility operations, including but not limited to noise, dust, light and odors. You have a right to know that you live and/or operate near an essential, environmentally beneficial wastewater processing and energy recovery/generation facility. Its operation helps keep the water of Cayuga Lake drinkable for tens of thousands of area residents, and its cutting-edge energy harnessing/production significantly reduces the carbon emissions typically associated with facilities of this type. The City of Ithaca and its municipal partners at IAWWTF encourage you to learn about your neighbors and to understand the integral and vital nature of your wastewater treatment facility. Owner/Seller: Date: Owner/Seller: Date: Buyer/Renter: Date: Buyer/Renter: Date: C. NOTICE TO CORRECT. After receiving a complaint from an occupant within the IAWWTF Setback Zone, the City of Ithaca Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer shall immediately notify the Chief Operator of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility of the complaint. If the City of Ithaca Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer determines that such operations at the IAWWTF do not conform to current accepted professional practices, and do not comply with current regulatory standards, he or she shall endeavor to specify any measures required to correct the situation, and the time within which the measures must be taken. 6) Action Items (Approval to Circulate) a) Community Gardens – Zoning Amendment Project Growing Hope had a few minor changes as it pertains to the Community Gardens. The definition in the current zoning only states the definition of community gardens. This amendment is to clarify the difference between a community garden and a neighborhood garden. Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. 8) Review and Approval of Minutes a) October 2019 – Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. 9) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.