Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PEDC-2020-01-22 Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, January 22, 2020 – 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: Alderperson McGonigal Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and Development Department; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Alex Phillips, Planner; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator; and Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: Jeanne Grace, City Forester Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review No changes to the agenda were made. 2) Public Comment Peggy Tully, 329 W. Buffalo Street, spoke in support of making ADUs accessible throughout the City. Encouraging ADUs will do so much to the City. Owner- operated will be a detriment. John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, spoke on ADUs stating that 26.4% of the housing stock is ADUs. The current owner-occupied parcels is at an overall low. Tom Shelley, 118 East Court Street, supports the community gardens ordinance. Is concerned about the green space requirement in the ADU proposed amendments. He is also in support of saving the trees. We need to maintain our tree stock. Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting Jed Scheckler, 142 Hawthorne Place, spoke against not requiring ADUs to be owner occupied. Sally Lockwood, 641 Hudson Street, would like to see the requirement of owner- occupied ADUs. If the owner is there, they may take more interest in the neighborhood. We need a better balance who is buying these homes. Too many developers come in and buy up homes well before anyone else is able to do so. Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, doesn’t agree with the home-owner requirement for ADUs. Landlords are often seen as the problem. We are trying to use zoning to fight against capitalism. Pam Mackesey, 323 Pleasant Street, has a two-family home purchased 43 years ago. She has been able to improve the property via a home equity loan. Her story is the typical story of the middle class. Buying a home became a major path to increase their wealth and pave their way in the best popular situation. The City does not need to decrease the owner-occupied requirement. Sandy Kelly, 141 Hawthorn Place, supports the owner-occupied requirement in ADUs. Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, spoke on ADUs. Many people have come forward on multiple times urging the City to keep the owner-occupied requirement. The public concerns haven’t been respected and is noted as such in tonight’s resolution. David Ritchie, 160 Crescent Place, spoke on ADUs. This area of the City is a nice mixture of owner-owner occupied and tenant dwellings. Sheryl Swink, 321 N. Albany Street, talked about the Norway maple in her lawn before commenting on the tree ordinance which states thirteen different cities were used in the research of the proposed resolution. Do these cities identify with Ithaca? This ordinance must be handled cautiously with all people are involved. Ellie Pfeffer, Adin Burnwell, etc., 1667 Dixson Hall. Spoke in favor of on the ADU ordinance. A suggestion was also made to change in the name of the PEDC to include sustainability within the title like the county does. Deborah Justice, 10 Second Street supports ADUs within the City. It will help the tax base. The owner-occupied clause complicates the process. Lives on the Northside. She was fortunate that her parents have helped her with her housing. Not all are as fortunate. Renting is expensive in Ithaca. We need options for smart, mobile people. Kenneth Young, 228 Columbia Street, spoke on ADUs. Living on South Hill, he is well aware of the ADU population. It requires management. Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting Dan Hoffman, Elm Street, stated he was reminded that years ago while on Council he did vote in support of ADUs. This isn’t a one-size fits all. The neighborhoods are different. He would also like to see the limit to one primary ADU per lot. Susie Cramer, lived in an ADU while in college. She know owns property of her own. Why isn’t there the research provided like the tree ordinance has been provided? Comparing Ithaca to Portland and Seattle isn’t a comparison. There’s an assumption that these ADUs are affordable. That’s not the case. Let’s look at the ADUs currently here in the City. Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting 3) Special Order of Business a) Public Hearing – Community Gardens Zoning Amendment Alderperson Lewis moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. Marty Hiller, 110 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of Project Growing Hope. She thanked the Planning staff working with them on the definitions of the neighborhood and community gardens. Dan Hoffman, Elm Street, spoke in favor of the proposed changes to the ordinance. Will a ‘community garden’ be allowed in other areas of the City? Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. Response from Committee: Alderperson Brock thanked all who spoke and asked that we all be patient while we work through this process. Alderperson Fleming stated that the City of Ithaca has a wonderful variety of neighborhoods which house all different types. She further thanked the owners of Hawthorne Place keeping such good care of it. She and her husband bought that home years ago. Chair Murtagh thanked all who came and shared their thoughts. This legislature is complicated. There are many ADUs in place within the city. We need to find a way to manage and control this. The City is committed to home ownership as well as renters. Alderperson Lewis also thanked all those that came and spoke. She started that we do see the public comments and take them to help make these difficult topic. This is not being treated lightly by staff, this committee, or council. 4) Announcements, Updates, Reports a) Call for Proposals: HUD Action Plan Chair Murtagh read the ‘call for proposals’ for the HUD Action Plan. Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting b) Green Building Policy Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator, provided what the group has been doing so far and provided the time line of the adoption of the final legislature. This time line was provided in the meeting agenda packet. Alderperson McGonigal stated that Nick has done an excellent job with this green building policy. He also asked how NYSEG was helping. Will any new electrical service be placed underground or using poles? Alderperson Brock asked how the change in the historic district restriction will be handled. Will it be re-circulated? The answer is yes, it will be re-circulated. Goldsmith stated comments will be addressed by way of a public hearing. c) Tree Ordinance To: Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Commission From: Shade Tree Advisory Group Date: 9/9/2019 Subject: Summary of residential tree removal ordinances Background: Urban Trees are very important to city life. The trees in the City of Ithaca provide millions of dollars of benefits per year and provide countless ecological services for urban communities; reducing erosion, reducing heating and cooling costs, aiding in storm water mitigation, cleaning the air of harmful particulate pollution, producing oxygen, acting as a carbon sink and providing habitat for wildlife. Trees increase property values, enhance economic vitality of business areas and beautify our communities. A community devoid of trees would barely be livable as connection with the natural environment is key for human health and wellbeing. For these reasons, residents of the City of Ithaca have raised concerns about removal of mature trees from private property for reasons of infill development or in preparation for largescale development of a site prior to submittal of site plan review application. While the City of Ithaca does have ordinances that protect the removal of trees on public property (street trees, park trees and trees in City natural areas), there is currently no ordinance restricting the removal of trees from private property outside of the Site Plan Review process. The 2nd Ward Common Council members, Nyugen and Murtagh, have requested information from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Committee on potential adoption of a new City ordinance regulating the removal of trees from private property with a summary report to be sent to Planning and Economic Development Committee. That request was then passed on to the Shade Tree Advisory Group (STAG), the former Shade Tree Advisory Committee. Summary: Municipalities around the country try to protect all trees in their City, not just the street and park trees. The STAG researched the tree preservation ordinances for 13 communities in the US and Canada with community populations ranging from 56,000 to 994,000. The attached spreadsheet contains our findings. A summary of common themes is as follows:  2 classes of trees, “Significant” and “Historic”. Significant trees begin ~6‐8” in DBH and Historic  trees are very large trees at least 24” in DBH   Trees growing near slopes, riparian, flood zones are taken into  special  consideration  and  cannot be removed if they provide a benefit to protecting critical zones.   Certain species are valued more than others. Large, unique, or certain species are taken into  consideration more than small weed trees or undesirable species (ie invasive trees).    Dead, dying, or diseased trees do not need a permit to remove if there is an imminent hazard  or if the problem cannot be mitigated by pruning.   Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting  Most  municipalities  require  an  arborist  report,  or  a  tree  protection/removal  plan  to  be  submitted before any work is done on the property, provided by the owner or developer to be  reviewed by City Forester. Location, size, health, species should all be included.   Site is then reviewed by City Forester 2‐4 weeks from receiving the tree plan   Appeals can be made to remove additional trees after Forester’s final decision   Significant or Historic trees that are approved for removal are required to be replaced either  with multiple trees that will take up the same crown area as a large tree at time of planting, or  with similar species that will take up the same space once they get old enough.    Payment in lieu of planting is possible and should take into account the cost of the trees, and  cost of maintenance for ~2 years   If a property owner significantly clears trees from a property prior to submittal of a site plan  review or prior to submittal of tree removal application, the developer will be forbidden from  submitting a site plan review for a number of years.     Goals: The idea of this ordinance is not to create a prohibition of removing trees from private property. The goal is not to require the retention of every tree that falls into the “regulated” category. This permit process will require a conversation about each tree removal request. Possibilities for retention of high quality trees can be explored before removal permission would be granted. If removal is granted requirements and guidance for tree re-planting would be provided to the applicant. In this way tree canopy across the city can be conserved. STAG sees the goals of this ordinance as being: 1) To preserve tree canopy for the benefit all of the Ithaca community 2) To address resident concerns with tree removal related to in-fill development 3) To close a loophole by which developers can currently clear-cut a property prior to submittal of a site plan review application and as a result, not have to deal with tree preservation for their development plans 4) To create an ordinance that is not overly burdensome to city staff or property owners Proposal: To achieve these goals the following points are recommended to be included in a residential tree preservation ordinance:  Regulation of tree removal will apply to “regulated trees”, being trees greater than 12” in DBH  (truck diameter) or greater than 6” DBH for trees located in an environmentally critical area (ie  on slopes, in riparian zones or flood zones)   Some  undesirable  species  would  not  be  regulated,  possibly  including  Tree  of  Heaven  (Ailanthus), boxelder (Acer negundo), and ash (Fraxinus).   Tree  removal  permit  approval  would  take  into  consideration;  health of tree, structural  condition of tree, future utility conflicts, current utility easements, public safety concerns,  potential significant burden to economic development of the site.   An approved certified Arborist could submit a short report to confirm  tree  species,  tree  health, and structural condition which would exclude a tree from the “regulated tree” status.  Alternatively, the City Forester or Forestry Technician could confirm with a brief site visit that  the tree is excluded from the “regulated tree” category.   There would be a small fee for permit applications to prevent frivolous requests and offset the  cost of staff time. The City Forester would respond to permit applications within 2 weeks.   Appeal of the Forester’s decision would be to the Board of Public Works.  Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting  Tree retention would be ideal in the majority of situations but if that was not deemed to be  possible, replacement of “regulated trees” by planting or payment in lieu of planting would be  expected; details to be determined.   Ordinance could be restricted to specific neighborhoods or zones of concern as a test before  being expanded to cover residential trees city‐wide.   It should not apply to the easements or rights‐of‐way of utility companies, to federal, state, or  local governments.    Property  owners  that  knowingly  remove  a  tree  or  trees  from  private  property  without  a  permit may be assessed a fine or be restricted from submitting a site plan application for a  number of years.  If this is a direction that the committee feels is appropriate, more time would be invested to develop additional details, draft application forms and devise public communication strategies. A few suggestions for next steps would be:  To contact some of the municipalities we evaluated to see how the ordinance is working for staff and planners there. This may enlighten us if we decide to proceed to drafting an ordinance.  To poll a few of the local tree companies to gauge how much work they do in the city. This could help get an idea of how many permit applications we would have to process. May only be able to use this ordinance in a few neighborhoods with current staffing levels.  To think about allocating city funds to help replant trees on residential property. A topic that was brought up was the recent NPR reporting on heat islands and how low income neighborhoods generally have lower percentages of tree canopy coverage and thus higher temperature. We could explore the idea of creating a grant type program to help lower income property owners in the city replant residential trees that are removed, or if the removal of a neighboring tree results in loss of shade for an adjacent neighbor. I think a big stumbling block for people to successfully plant trees on their own property is lack of knowledge and the cost of purchasing trees. Buying them wholesale as the City does makes tree planting much less expensive and advising people on proper species selection would be very effective in increasing successful tree planting. Jeanne Grace, City Forester, asked for direction. Should we continue this? Alderperson Brock asked how we got here. Isn’t there a process to follow? Alderperson Fleming stated she likes the concept, but it is private property. She is also concerned about the time burden and implementation. She further asked about the process of tree removal through the site-plan review. Director Cornish’s concern is with Jeanne’s time. This will be costly for homeowners. Alderperson Smith stated he needs more time to digest this and think it through. It’s a good idea to maintain our ‘tree city’ reputation. Alderperson Brock is concerned that this may cause problems within neighbors. She further commented her concern of these trees are on private property and the homeowners should have the rites to decide what to do with their trees. Chair Murtagh is also concerned about the amount of time for Jeanne Grace. Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Lewis would like more information to get more finite data. She shares the concerns of the others regarding staff time. Alderperson Brock would like to see those who work in the tree industry be used to identify which tree is which. It was agreed that this will be brought back to this committee with more information as to how this will all work out. 5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) a) Lead Agency Concurrence for Planning Board 2020 Annual Common Council Concurrence that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board be Lead Agency in Environmental Review for Site Plan Review Projects for which the Common Council is an Involved Agency Resolution Moved Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, 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, State Law also specifies that when an agency proposes to directly undertake, fund or approve a Type I or Unlisted Action undergoing coordinated review with other involved agencies, it must notify them that a lead agency must be agreed upon within 30 calendar days of the date that the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) or draft EIS was transmitted to them, and WHEREAS, Projects submitted to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and Approval, at times involve approvals or funding from Common Council, making Council an involved agency in environmental review, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Law and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, involved agencies are provided with project information and environmental forms for their review, as well as all environmental determinations, and WHEREAS, Common Council did consent to the Planning & Development Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review for site plan review projects for which Common Council has been identified as an Involved Agency since 2015, and WHEREAS, in order to avoid delays in establishing a Lead Agency and to make the environmental review process more efficient, it is desirous to continue the agreement in which the Planning Board will assume Lead Agency status for such projects; therefore be it RESOLVED, that Common Council does hereby consent to the Planning & Development Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review for site plan review projects for which Common Council has been identified as an Involved Agency through December 31, 2020; and, be it further Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting RESOLVED, that for any future project Common Council may withhold or withdraw its consent should it so desire. b) Community Gardens Zoning Amendment A Proposal to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens and to Add a Definition for Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens - - Declaration of Lead Agency Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried Unanimously. WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review 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 proposal to amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens and to Add a Definition for Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting A Proposal to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens and to Add a Definition for Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens – Declaration of Environmental Significance Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens and to Add a Definition for Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special Permit Requirements, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Parts 1 and 2, dated December 9, 2019, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by Planning Staff; now, therefore, be it 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 Short Environmental Assessment Form, dated December 9, 2019, and be it further 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 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 May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens and to Add a Definition for Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously. The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows: ORDINANCE NO.   AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING” TO DEFINE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY GARDENS BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-3, Definitions, be amended to add a new definition of Neighborhood Garden and to amend the existing definition of Community Gardens, to read as follows: § 325-3. Definitions and word usage. NEIGHBORHOOD GARDEN. An area used by several individuals or families, operating in association with each other and under sponsorship by a nonprofit or voluntary organization, primarily for seasonal production of vegetables and other garden produce for home consumption by the individuals or families directly engaged in such production or for food donations. [Added 7-10-1985 by Ord. No. 85-6] COMMUNITY GARDEN. A lot that is specifically intended to be gardened by a group of people, with membership open to the public, operating in association with each other and under sponsorship by a nonprofit or voluntary organization utilizing either individual or shared plots on private or public land. The land may produce fruit, vegetables, and other garden produce; culinary, medicinal, or beneficial plants; and/or ornamentals. It may also contain structures intended to support year round gardening, community events or education of the gardening process. Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-9, Special Permits, be amended to remove Community Gardens from this section, to read as follows: Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting § 325-9 Special Permits B. Applicability. (1.) The uses listed under the district regulations in §325-8, District Regulations, which require a special permit from the Planning and Development Board are as follows: (m) Neighborhood gardens in all districts. F. Expiration and Renewals. (1.) Special permits do not expire, with the following exceptions: (d) A neighborhood garden special permit shall expire automatically if the site is not used as a neighborhood garden, as defined in §325-3, for one complete garden season. (1) If a neighborhood garden special permit should expire, a new application must be submitted pursuant to §325-9C of this chapter. Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-10, Additional Conditions for Special Permits, be amended to remove Community Gardens from this section, to read as follows: § 325-10 Additional Conditions for Special Permits B. Applicability. All uses allowed by special permit shall be subject to the criteria set forth in §325-9, Special Permits. In addition, accessory apartments, bed-and-breakfast homes, bed- and-breakfast inns, neighborhood gardens, and schools and related uses shall be subject to additional conditions as set forth in §325-10C. C. Additional Conditions. (3) Neighborhood gardens. The following specific conditions shall be applicable to all special permits for neighborhood gardens: (n) Approved special permits for neighborhood gardens shall be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Development or designee at least annually for compliance with the above noted conditions and other conditions specific to each permit’s approval. If, following such review or investigation of any complaint, the Director of Planning and Development or designee determines that a substantial violation exists, notice of such violation shall be mailed to the designated contact person, requiring that such violation be corrected within 15 days. If satisfactory correction is not made, the special permit may be revoked by the Director of Planning and Development or designee. (o) In consideration of the fact that such gardens may be of an In consideration of the fact that such gardens may be of an interim nature, may occupy only a portion of a parcel and may be located on property unsuited for other uses permitted under this chapter, the district regulations specified for permitted uses under §325-8 of this Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting chapter shall be superseded, where applicable, by the following regulations for neighborhood gardens: 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 affect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. c) Accessory Dwelling Units 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 Moved my Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed 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. Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting 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 Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously. 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, CR-1, and CR-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 Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting 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. Chair Murtagh supports the special permit.  Alderperson Lewis supports the special permit in lieu of a moratorium. Alderperson Smith seconded. Carried 3-2. Alderperson McGonigal asked whether the special permits language needs to be reviewed. Cornish stated she would like to revisit the process of the special permit. Chair Murtagh stated he would like to move this forward tonight. There is a diverse opinion on this process. Alderperson Brock stated that nothing that has been circulated says anything of special permits. The definition of green space in the Collegetown plan. There is no definition of green space in this ordinance. Alderperson Smith moved as written; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried 3-2. Alderperson Brock moved to add an owner occupant requirement; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Failed 2-3. All in favor to forward to Council 3-2. 6) Discussion a) Housing Strategy – Next Steps It was agreed that the next steps will be discussed at the February meeting. b) 2019 Accomplishments – 2020 Goals and Work Plan Approved at the May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting Director Cornish will update these two items and bring them back to the February meeting. 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) November2019 Moved by Alderperson Brock as amended; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. 8) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.