PEDC Meeting Planning and Economic Development Committee Ithaca Common Council

Transcription

1 PEDC Meeting Planning and Economic Development Committee Ithaca Common Council DATE: July 11, 2018 TIME: 6:00 pm LOCATION: 3 rd floor City Hall Council Chambers Item AGENDA ITEMS Voting Item? Presenter (s) Time Start 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review No Seph Murtagh, Chair 6:00 2) Special Order of Business a) Property Sale of 402 S. Cayuga Street to INHS b) Amendments to the Waterfront Zoning Districts Yes Yes 6:05 6:15 3) Public Comment No 6:30 4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports No 6:45 5) Discussion a) Chicken Ordinance 6) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council) Yes Julie Holcomb, City Clerk. 6:40 a) Property Sale of 402 S. Cayuga Street to INHS b) Amendments to the Waterfront Zoning Districts Yes Yes Anisa Mendizabal, IURA Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner 7:10 7:20 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) June 2018 Yes 7:50 8) Adjournment Yes 8:00 ** Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please try to refrain from using perfume/cologne and other scented personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. ** If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, July 10, 2018.

2

3 IT'S LIKE ROADSIDE FOR CAR B The Ithaca Journal - 06/26/2018 Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC City of Ithaca Clerk Publish Date: June 25, 26, and 27, /25, 6/26, 6/27/18 LEGAL NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, will hold a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the City's waterfront zoning districts. In August of 2017, the Common Council established four new zoning districts for the Waterfront Study Area, the Cherry Street District, the West End/Waterfront District, the Market District, and the Newman District. Since then several items have been identified as minor changes to the ordinance that could improve the implementation of the zoning and allow for the type of development that was anticipated when the zoning was adopted. In addition, several minor corrections to the existing code that reference zones that no longer exist have also been identified. A list of all of the proposed changes is available upon request. The hearing will be held in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, in the City of Ithaca, New York, on Wednesday, July 11, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. A copy of the proposed zoning amendment and map can be viewed in-house at the Department of Planning & Development, 3rd Floor City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. JoAnn Cornish Director of Planning & Development 6/21/18 6/26/ SILVER & FELDMAN Sammy Feldman, Esq. of Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiff 3445 Winton Place, Suite 228 Rochester, New York Telephone: (585) Jane Yue Zhang, Esq., Referee Page : B07 SCHEDULE"A" Legal Description ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and S York, more particularly bounded and descr lows: BEGINNING at a point in the southerly Buffalo Street, said point of beginning b feet, plus or minus, from the inters easterly line of Fulton Street and the sou West Buffalo Street; running thence north east along the southerly line of West Buffalo feet to a point; running thence south feet to a fence post at corner; ru south 89 53' 30" west feet to a p thence north 00 05' 09" west feet to place of beginning. REFERENCE is hereby made to a survey "Survey Map No. 623 West Buffalo Street, C Tompkins County, New York", prepared by P.C., dated April 5, Tax Account No Property Address 623 West Buffalo Street, Ithaca /26, 7/3, 7/1 0, 7/1 7/ At Cars.com it's our mission to help you get the best Start with our Price Badges, they easily allow you and with our Price Comparison Tool, you can ins & value on all listings in your area. Visit Cars.com or dow FAIR DEAL GOOD DEAL GR Copyright 2018 The Ithaca Journal. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights, updated March /26/2018 July 6, :11 am (GMT +4:00) Powered by TECNAVIA

4 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, at a Regular Meeting on June 1, 2016 adopted the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that backyard chickens, if properly maintained, can prove a positive initiative for the City, promoting food sustainability, increasing animal welfare and providing fresh eggs free from pesticides and chemicals, without presenting a nuisance to neighboring residents or properties. Section 2. Amendments to Section 164-2(B). Section 164-2(B) shall be amended to read as follows: Exception. This section shall not apply to the keeping of chickens to the extent authorized by Article III of this Chapter, nor to any educational, scientific or research institution maintaining, with adequate safeguards as to public health, safety, comfort and convenience, any animals or other creatures for scientific, medical or other research purposes. Section 3. Amendments to Section Section shall be amended to read as follows: Except as provided in the Agriculture and Markets Law, a violation of this article constitutes a civil offense punishable in accordance with 1-1 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code except that the unlawful keeping of chickens in the City shall be punishable as follows: (a) $250 for the first violation: (b) $500 for the second violation: and (c) $750 for the third or subsequent violation. These penalties shall be in addition to any other penalties provided by law. Section 4. Creation of Article IV to Chapter 164 An Article IV of Chapter 164 is hereby created as follows: Article IV: Backyard Chickens : Definitions Lot: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter. Lot Square Footage: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter. Property Class Code: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter. Rear Yard: As defined in section of the City Code.

5 Backyard Chickens The prohibition against keeping chickens in this Chapter shall, during a two-year pilot program that shall expire on May 1, 2018, not apply to up to twenty pilot applicants approved for the keeping of up to four female chickens (hens) per 3,000 Square Foot Lot while the animals are kept in such a manner that all requirements of this Article are satisfied : Requirements for Keeping Chickens A. Chickens may only be kept on those Lots with a Property Class Code of 210, 215, 220, 240, 250, or substantially identical successor designations. B. Chickens may only be kept on those Lots possessing a Lot Square Footage of not less than 3,000 square feet. C. No chicken facility or any structure that houses chickens or any fenced pen area, either temporarily or permanently, shall be located within any of the following prohibited areas: 1. Within the setback requirements of the zone in which it is located; 2. Within twenty feet of any adjacent Lot s residential principal structure or accessory structure that contains a residential unit, or within five feet of any principal structure on the Lot housing the chickens; and 3. Within five feet from any abutting residential property line, unless the adjacent owner agrees in writing to a lesser setback. D. Chickens may only be kept by a domiciliary of a dwelling unit located on the Lot on which the chickens are kept. E. Chickens must be kept in and confined in a properly designed and constructed coop or chicken house, or a fenced and covered enclosure that is at least 4 square feet per chicken in size, which additionally includes a run. Each covered coop and run combined shall be located in, and shall not cover more than 50% of, the Rear Yard of the Lot. F. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow hens to run at large upon the streets, alleys or other public places of the City, or upon the property of any other person. G. During daylight hours the adult chickens shall have access to the chicken coop and, weather permitting, shall have access to an outdoor enclosure on the subject property, adequately fenced to contain the chickens and to prevent access to the chickens by dogs and other predators. H. Chicken feed must be in rodent resistant and weather proof containers. I. A chicken coop, and the premises where the chicken coop is located, shall be maintained in a condition such that the facility or chickens do not produce noise or odor that creates a nuisance for adjoining Lots and the responsible domiciliary and the owner shall remove any odorous or unsanitary condition. The Lot owner shall be responsible for the repair on any adjoining Lot of any damage caused by the chickens, including but not limited to damage to dwellings, structures and yards, and shall be responsible for any unsafe condition. J. The person keeping the chickens shall abide by all Solid Waste Storage and Collection standards of the City's Exterior Property Maintenance Code, K. Roosters and Guinea Fowl are expressly prohibited, regardless of the age or maturity of the bird.

6 L. Pilot registration pursuant to Section is required for the keeping of chickens. M. Approved pilot registrants must complete a seminar regarding the care of chickens in an urban environment from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office, or similarly qualified organization acceptable to the Clerk s Office : Pilot Registration Process and Parameters. A. No more than twenty pilot registrations for the keeping of chickens shall be approved under this Article IV. B. Registration shall take place at the City of Ithaca Clerk s Office upon submission of a $35 registration fee, and verification of a completed chicken-keeping seminar. C. The City Clerk and Police Department shall, at least three months prior to the expiration of the pilot program, report to a Committee of the Common Council on the status of the pilot program. D. Should the pilot program not be extended after the two-year period, Cornell Cooperative Extension Office may help rehome the hens in the program. E. The City Clerk may revoke registration for a specific site via written notice to the property owner when the City Clerk or designee finds, at his or her sole discretion, that any requirements of this Article are not met, a rebuttable presumption of which shall be created by (a) a record of three or more complaints to the Ithaca Police Department about a specific site s chickens, (b) on the recommendation of Cornell Cooperative Extension, or (c) on the recommendation of the Ithaca Police Department. Upon revocation, the City Clerk shall notify the owner in writing of the same, in compliance with sub-section , and if the revocation stands, the owner must remove the hens from the property in coordination with such assistance as may be available from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office, who may assist with rehoming them : Remedies Not Exclusive. The remedies provided by this Article are cumulative and not mutually exclusive and are in addition to any other rights, remedies, and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law. A. Any chickens that are not kept as required in this Article shall be deemed a public nuisance and the owner or custodian shall be given thirty days to rectify the conditions creating the public nuisance. In any case in which the City intends to correct a violation of this chapter, including removing and confiscating any chickens present, and then bill the property owner for the correction of the violation, the City Clerk or his/her designee shall notify the registrant and the owner of the property and, where relevant, the registered agent who has assumed responsibility as outlined in of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this chapter.

7 B. Any notice required by this section shall be served in person or by mail to the address on the registration form and the address appearing on the City tax roll, requiring such person, within a time specified in such notice but in no event less than thirty days from the service or mailing thereof, to comply with this chapter and to abate the nuisance and, as appropriate, to remove the chickens. Such notice shall also state that the property owner may contest the finding of the City Clerk by making a written request to have a hearing on the matter held at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Public Works. C. Any request for such a hearing must be mailed and postmarked or personally delivered to the City Clerk within fourteen days of the service or mailing of notice, and any such written request for a hearing shall automatically stay further enforcement concerning the alleged violation pending such hearing. The decision of the Board of Public Works, by majority vote, shall be binding, subject to any further judicial review available to either the City or the property owner. D. Upon the failure of a registrant or property owner to comply with the notice of violation of this chapter (or, alternatively, to request a hearing as aforesaid within the time limit stated in such notice, or upon a Board of Public Works determination, after such a hearing, that a violation exists), the City Clerk shall refer the matter, by memorandum, to the Superintendent of Public Works, who shall cause such premises to be put in such condition as will comply and shall charge the cost thereof to the owner of said premises, including a charge of 50% for supervision and administration. The minimum charge to the property owner for such work shall be $50. E. The City Chamberlain shall promptly present to the owner of any parcel so corrected a bill rendered for such services, as certified by the Superintendent of Public Works. If not paid within 30 days, the cost thereof shall be assessed against the property, added to its tax and become a lien thereon, collectible in the same manner as delinquent City taxes. Appeals from this section shall only be permitted if written notice of appeal is received by the Ithaca City Clerk within 45 days after the mailing of the bill from the Chamberlain, and such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Public Works. Section 5. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. Publish Date June 8, 2016

8 Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee July 11, 2018 Approval of Sale of Property at 402 S. Cayuga Street to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) is the owner of vacant real property located at 402 S. Cayuga Street (tax parcel # ), and WHEREAS, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) seeks to acquire 402 S. Cayuga Street to develop new owner occupied town homes, at least two of which will be affordable to low income homebuyers, and WHEREAS, the IURA is authorized to dispose of property to a specific buyer at a negotiated price if such buyer is designated as an eligible and qualified sponsor (Sponsor) to carry out an urban renewal project pursuant to section 508 of General Municipal Law and the sale is approved by Common Council following a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2018, the IURA designated INHS as a qualified and eligible sponsor eligible to acquire 402 S. Cayuga Street for the purpose of undertaking an urban renewal project to develop affordable for sale housing, and WHEREAS, the IURA approved entering into a sales agreement for 402 S. Cayuga Street property subject Common Council approval and the following terms and conditions: Seller: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Purchaser: INHS, Inc. Sales price: $30, Outcome: Development of at least 2 new owner occupied residences to be sold to households earning no more than 80% of area median income Conditions for Conveyance: 1. Site Plan Submit proof of site plan approval; and 2. Building Permit Submit proof of issuance of a building permit authorizing at least two dwelling units, and WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the June 30, 2018 edition of the Ithaca Journal disclosing the essential terms of the proposed sale and a public hearing was held on July 11, 2018, and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposed action to convey the property at 402 S. Cayuga Street for home ownership housing was completed on April 5, 2017, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby approves the IURA proposed sales agreement of property located at 402 S. Cayuga Street to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for the purpose of developing at least two affordable for sale housing units.

9 CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. Third Floor Ithaca, NY JoAnn Cornish, Director DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning & Economic Development Planning & Development Community Development/IURA To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner Date: July 6, 2018 Re: Amendments to the Waterfront Zoning Districts The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding several proposed amendments to the waterfront zoning districts. As was previously discussed at the May Planning Committee meeting, four new zoning districts for the Waterfront Study Area were established in August of Since then several items have been identified as minor changes to the ordinance that could improve the implementation of the zoning and allow for the type of development that was anticipated when the zoning was adopted. In addition, several minor corrections to the existing code that reference zones that no longer exist have also been identified. At the request of the Committee an environmental review of this action has been completed, and the draft Short Environmental Assessment Form and ordinance are enclosed. The proposed ordinance and environmental assessment have been circulated to the City Planning Board, the Tompkins County Planning Department and various other City staff and departments. Enclosed are the comments that were received, along with a resolution establishing lead agency and a resolution for environmental significance. If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at

10 7/10/2018 PLANNING COMMITTEE: An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled Zoning To Make Minor Corrections to the Waterfront Zoning Districts ORDINANCE NO. 1. WHEREAS, on August 2, 2017, the Common Council established four new zoning districts for the Waterfront Study Area, the Newman, the Market, The West End/Waterfront, and the Cherry Street Districts, and 2. WHEREAS, several items have been identified as minor changes to the waterfront districts that could improve the implementation of the zoning and allow for the type of development that was anticipated when the zoning was adopted, and several minor corrections to the existing code that reference zones that no longer exist have also been identified, and now therefore BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325 of the City Code 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: BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE - Offices where services are provided that require specialized training or professional certification including but not limited to accountant, appraiser, attorney, architect, engineer, surveyor, stockbroker, physician, dentist, chiropractor, massage therapist, psychologist, and optometrist. Section 2. The following sections of the City Code are no longer relevant and hereby deleted in entirety: Section E Section , Section D(3)(a) Section 3. Section of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled New structures along streams or inlets, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1 Page

11 7/10/2018 No new structure shall be located nearer than 20 feet to an inlet wall or to the bank of an inlet channel or stream, measured at an average water level, except for those structures directly connected with marine or public or commercial recreation activities. (See illustration below.) Properties located within the Waterfront Study Area are exempt from this requirement. Deleted: waterfront zoning district Section 4. Section D of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, should be replaced with the following language: D. Location. (1) Adult uses may only be located within the Adult Use Overlay Zone, as shown on the Official City Zoning Map. Section 5. Section of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled District Regulations, is hereby amended in order to change the minimum building height in the Newman, Market, Cherry Street, and West End/Waterfront Districts to read as follows: MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT For Water Dependent Uses there is no minimum building height. For any nonwater dependent uses, buildings must be a minimum of 2 stories in height. The first story of any new structure must be feet in height, measured floor to floor. Each additional story must be feet in height, measured from floor to floor. In buildings with a pitched roof, a top story contained within the pitched roof shall be exempt from this requirement. Accessory structures of less than 250 SF may be 1 story. As an exception, any increase in first floor elevation, as required to comply with flood plain regulations, can be included in the first story minimum height requirement, however the first floor should not be less than 10 feet in height measured floor to floor. Section 7. Section of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled District Regulations, is hereby amended in order to add Garage, Public Repair as an allowable primary use in the Cherry Street Zoning District. 2 Page

12 7/10/2018 Section 8. 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 9. 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 10. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. 3 Page

13

14 CITY OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF) Project Information (to be completed by applicant or project sponsor) 1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: Minor Corrections to the City of Ithaca Waterfront Zoning Districts 3. Project Location: The Cherry Street, the West End/Waterfront, The Newman, and the Market Districts 4. Is Proposed Action: New Expansion Modification/Alteration 5.Describe project briefly: In August of 2017, the Common Council established four new zoning districts for the Waterfront Study Area. Since then several items have been identified as minor changes to the ordinance that could improve the implementation of the zoning and allow for the type of development that was anticipated when the zoning was adopted. In addition, several minor corrections to the existing code that reference zones that no longer exist have also been identified. 6. Precise Location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map): The proposed zoning amendments pertains to the four waterfront zoning districts( Newman, Market, Cherry Street, West End/Waterfront). The boundaries of which can be seen on the official City of Ithaca Zoning Map. 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially: 225 Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately: Acres or Sq. Ft. 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes No If no, describe briefly: The proposed changes are minor amendments and corrections. 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: Residential Industrial Agricultural Parkland/Open Space Commercial Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency (federal/state/local): Yes No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type: Adoption of the Common Council 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? Yes No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type: the waterfront zoning was adopted by the Common Council in As a result of proposed action, will existing permit/approval require modification? Yes No Yes, the adopted zoning is being modified I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: _5/21/18 PREPARER'S TITLE: Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca

15 SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information To Be Completed By Staff In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. Name of Project: Minor Corrections to the Waterfront Zoning Districts 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than one acre of land? 2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state agency? Yes No 3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? 5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? 6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? 8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community: 9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? 11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? 13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? 14. Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period OR have a negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? If any question has been answered YES, a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: 5/21/2018 PREPARER'S TITLE: Senior Planner j:\planning\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2018 planning and economic development committee\july\ wf corrections -seafii docx

16 REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca j:\planning\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2018 planning and economic development committee\july\ wf corrections -seafii docx

17 City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, June 13, :00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Committee Members Absent: Other Elected Officials Attending: Staff Attending: Others Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock, Donna Fleming, Stephen Smith, and Laura Lewis None Mayor Svante Myrick (6:25 p.m.) JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and Development Department; Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; and Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Ari Lavine, City Attorney; Tom Parsons, Ithaca Fire Chief, Michael Thorne, Superintendent of Public Works; and Mike Niechwiadowicz, Director of Code Enforcement. Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review No changes were made to the agenda. 2) Special Order of Business There was no special order of business to report. 3) Public Comment Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, spoke on affordable housing in the CIITAP program. 10 percent is not enough. Use inclusionary zoning and 20 percent everywhere. 50 percent if the City owns the land.

18 William Reed, representing David Lubin and the Harold Square project, is now part of the closing on the playground. He questioned the fee charged to the project of $5,000 to purchase the playground so that the building can be built and risks are managed. No Council members had comments to the public comments made. 4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports No announcements, updates, or reports were provided. 5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council) a) Commons Playground Chair Murtagh explained why this topic has come to this committee. It was discussed at the June Common Council meeting then referred to the Planning Committee to discuss further. Alderperson Nguyen explained. The developers have stated that the project will be complete and the playground open in March People wonder why the playground has to be closed. A construction site is dangerous. If people can walk near the construction site, why is that any different to children playing on the playground? The children stay longer and are smaller than those passing through the area. Mayor Myrick joined the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Mike Niechwiadowicz stated that if it were up to him to make the decision, he would not reopen it. There are times that it is more risky than others. The answer to why is it okay for people to walk by and not allowing the children to play on the playground is the fact that a child is more apt to be injured than an adult. Niechwiadowicz continued stating that a building that isn t completely closed is a risk. Can a box be built around the playground? To do that there would be a number of codes that need to be met. Anything done would have to be engineered and would be costly and time consuming. Alderperson Brock stated that there are definitely areas that she is completely in agreement with. We recognize we want to keep anyone safe. There s no question that safety is the upmost goal. We shut down roads, etc. when necessary. This shouldn t be handled any different. She agrees that the impact on a small person is much greater than an adult.

19 Alderperson Fleming stated she s very shocked or surprised that Ithaca isn t as resilient as she thought. It s really hard for her to believe that many people are not visiting the commons because their children cannot play on the playground. Alderperson Lewis agrees with Alderperson Fleming. She does think that there is an economic impact due to the closure. She has heard that the mobile playground is geared more to toddler children. She thinks that the developer should be paying a fee for the use of Commons space that is not available to the public. She suggests opening in the fall months. Mike Niechwiadowicz stated that the work being done right now is the risky part. Alderperson Lewis asked whether the timetable for the project could be altered some. Alderperson Fleming asked whether a permit fee is being charged. Michael Thorne stated that will be happening. It was the consensus of the group that the developer pay the fee. Alderpersons Brock and Fleming both agree that they would never vote against senior staff as they are the experts. Alderperson Nguyen stated that after hearing that the playground will only be closed for one summer he feels better about the closure. Alderperson Lewis would prefer using spring 2019 rather than March This resolution provided in the packet was not moved. Authorization for the Re-Opening of the Commons Playground Resolution WHEREAS, the Commons playground has been closed for a number of months due to the ongoing construction of the Harold Square development site; and WHEREAS, the Commons playground is a valued public asset, creating a social meeting place for parents of young children in the core of our community; and WHEREAS, the playground also creates tremendous economic value throughout downtown, drawing families downtown to dine and shop, including at child-themed businesses in close proximity to the playground; and WHEREAS, building regulations require that an overhead protection zone be established in the area that is most likely to be impacted in the unlikely event that an object is dropped during active construction from activities overhead; and WHEREAS, that overhead protection zone includes none of the main playground structure, and only a small portion of the west edge of the playground, approximately ending at the silver sphere; and

20 WHEREAS, Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines in the Public Playground Safety Handbook recommend, but do not require, an access zone around playground equipment, which zone (as applied to the main playground structure) may overlap with the overhead protection zone by a small amount, and may therefore, in the discretion of staff, be kept open to the public, which decision would require the installation of a single piece of staging to provide overhead protection in this small area; and WHEREAS, the majority of the construction process of the Harold Square development should pose no risk of harm to children playing on the adjacent playground, outside the code-specified overhead-protection zone, examples of such portions of the process including working in the ground, working on the rear tower section and not on the front, or working within the interior of the building while the façade is mostly enclosed; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works, the Director of Planning, the Director of Engineering, and the Director of Code Enforcement, are hereby directed to take all necessary actions including revocation or amendment of permits necessary to the same to effectuate no later than June 15, 2018 the reopening of, at a minimum, that portion of the playground not encompassed by the required overhead protection zone, subject to the remainder of this Resolution and not inconsistent with legal or regulatory requirements; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the entire playground may be or remain closed by the developer or its contractors or agents, pursuant to appropriate permitting, only on such day(s) as one of or more of the following types of work is being actively performed on each such day: 1. Erection of the structural frame on the Commons façade. 2. Substantial exterior work to close in the Commons façade. 3. Substantial exterior work to install finishes on the Commons façade; and, be it further RESOLVED, That for purposes of this resolution, substantial exterior work shall be defined as work performed from the exterior of the building involving personnel or material lifts with a minimum duration of four hours during any one work day; and, be it further RESOLVED, That such days of closure shall not include any weekends or holidays unless the scheduling of said work on a weekend or holiday is, in addition to satisfying the above criteria, approved by the Director of Code Enforcement as reasonably necessary to progressing the development of the Harold Square project site.

21 b) CIITAP Boundary Expansion and Affordable Housing Requirement Chair Murtagh read into the record the memo provided by Teresa Halpert Deschanes which is attached to these minutes. Alderperson Fleming asked for an answer to this memo. Nels Bohn provided the answer. Alderperson Nguyen stated that he is incredibly weary of provided incentives for affordable housing. Mayor Myrick provided information on a similar program in CIITAP in Portland, Oregon. Alderperson Fleming stated that she feels that this 10% should be paid by all across the board not just the developers. Mayor Svante Myrick left the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Draft Resolution Expansion of the CIITAP Boundaries and Mandatory Inclusion of Affordable Housing Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried 4-1 (Brock) Alderperson Brock moved to add the required language she sent via earlier today. Her edits will be included in the resolution that will be discussed at the July 5, 2018 meeting. 1. WHEREAS, On July 5, 2000, the Common Council unanimously requested that the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency ( IDA ) undertake a program to provide financial incentives for development of multi-story buildings within a density target area encompassing the downtown Central Business District, the West State Street corridor, the West End, and Inlet Island, the program was in effect for 5 years and delivered incentives to 6 projects, and 2. WHEREAS, in 2006, the City endorsed the continuation of an IDA program of local tax abatements as a tool for encouraging appropriate real estate and business investment in the urban core of the city; and further requested the IDA establish the Community Investment Incentive Program (CIIP) through which, projects would be reviewed by the community and evaluated by Common Council, and (if endorsed by Common Council) proposed for recommendation by the Mayor to the IDA as eligible for tax abatements, and

22 3. WHEREAS, the CIIP program was in effect from and delivered incentives to one project, and 4. WHEREAS, in 2012, the City voted to simplify the CIIP program, remove the checklist of requirements and created the Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP) which provides financial incentives based on a size, a location, and a density requirement, and 5. WHEREAS, the CIITAP delivered incentives to 5 projects between , and 6. WHEREAS, in 2015 the City amended the CIITAP program to add living wage, local labor, and diversity requirements, and the amended CIITAP delivered incentives to two additional projects between , and 7. WHEREAS, in November of 2015, the Planning and Economic Development Committee of the Common Council directed Planning Staff to begin working on a waterfront development plan as a part of phase two of the Comprehensive Plan, and 8. WHEREAS, in order to develop recommendations for the plan and for the zoning, the City established a waterfront working group made up of 17 members of the public and City Planning Staff, and 9. WHEREAS, the Waterfront Working Group drafted new zoning for the waterfront area that encouraged mixed commercial and residential development, and 10. WHEREAS, the Waterfront Working Group also recommended that the City consider expanding the boundaries of the CIITAP to include the waterfront area as an incentive to encourage new development in this area, and further recommended that the City consider adding an affordable housing requirement for any new residential projects, and 11. WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the recommendation to expand the boundaries of the CIITAP and prepared map of a proposed expanded City of Ithaca Density District to include appropriate locations in the waterfront area, and

23 12. WHEREAS, in order to partially offset the loss in potential revenues to a developer from providing affordable housing, staff further recommends that the CIITAP provide additional tax incentives for projects that include affordable housing, therefore, be it now 1. RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council understands that the City s Community Incentive Investment Tax Abatement Program continues to be a vital tool to encourage density in targeted development areas of the City, and be it further 2. RESOLVED, that the City hereby expands the Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program to have a requirement that in order to receive City endorsement any project including 10 or more rental residential dwelling units must meet the following requirements: Must have a minimum of 10% of their housing units be affordable to households earning up to 75% of the Area Median Income (AMI) The percentage of affordable units of various sizes should be the same percentage of units of each size for the entire project Developer must agree that affordable units will only be rented to households earning no more than 80% of AMI for at least a 30-year period, and be it further 3. RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca does hereby request the continuation of the IDA s density incentive program and requests that the boundaries of the Density District be expanded to include the waterfront areas, as shown on the map entitled Expanded City of Ithaca Density District April 2018, and be it further 4. RESOLVED, that the City requests that in order to partially offset the loss in revenue to a developer for providing affordable housing, the IDA provide additional abatements to residential projects containing affordable units, in the amount of an additional 15% abatement for a 30 year period, unless it would reduce the existing tax base, and be it further 5. RESOLVED, that the CIITAP Review Committee, which consists of the Mayor, the Director of Planning and

24 Development, and the Director of Community Development for the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, be given authority to consider endorsing projects for the CIITAP program that may have a higher percentage of units (40% or more)that are affordable to 90% of AMI. c) Grant Authorization for City Harbor Promenade Project Request for Authorization to Apply for New York State Consolidated Funding Application Grants for the City Harbor Promenade Project Resolution In attendance for the City Harbor Promenade Project this project were Jason Crane, Lincoln Morse, and Stacey Murphy. Per Stacey s request, in the second to the last resolved the resolution the amount was changed from $693,059 to $900,000. Alderperson Fleming stated her concern of all the pavement. Lincoln stated that many of the parking will be used for Guthrie, but they will also allow use of the parking for the Farmers Market and other areas nearby when Guthrie is not open. Moved Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Division in partnership with City Harbor LLC would like to apply for two grants through the 2018 New York State Consolidated Funding Application (CFA) the Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), and the New York State Canal Corporation (Canal Corp) Grant Program for the City Harbor Promenade Project on behalf of the City of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, City Harbor LLC has been developing plans to redevelop the former Johnson Boatyard site at 101 Pier Road into a waterfront neighborhood to include apartments, restaurant space, a medical office building for Guthrie Clinic, enhanced boating and marina functions, and a public promenade along Cascadilla Creek, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca waterfront is widely recognized as a valuable public asset, but currently there is insufficient public access to Cayuga Lake and the Inlet, and WHEREAS, this project will increase public access to the waterfront by creating a public promenade along Cascadilla Creek which will connect to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, along with nine boating slips dedicated for public use and a public paddle craft launch, and

25 WHEREAS, City Harbor LLC is pledging an easement to the City of Ithaca which will guarantee public access to the waterfront along the promenade, and WHEREAS, City Harbor LLC is pledging 100% of the required local matching funds towards the public amenities to be supported through these grants, requiring no investment of City funds to create these new public facilities, and WHEREAS, the grant funds would enable the City to partner with City Harbor LLC to increase access to the waterfront for all members of the public, which is a goal of the City s Comprehensive Plan, Plan Ithaca, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Director of the Planning, Building, Zoning and Economic Development Department is hereby authorized to file an application for funds in an amount not to exceed $693,059 $900,000 through the LWRP Program and $150,000 through the Canal Corp for the City Harbor Promenade Project from the New York State CFA, and upon approval of said request the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to enter into and execute a project agreement with the State for such financial assistance to the City of Ithaca for the City Harbor Promenade Project; and be it further RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca is authorized and directed to agree to the terms and conditions of Master Contracts with the appropriate State agencies for such City Harbor Promenade Project. d) Grant Authorization for 2018 NY Main Street Program Grant Gary Ferguson stated this is their 5 th program grant application. Support for the Downtown Ithaca Alliance s application for a 2018 New York Main Street Program Grant Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried Unanimously. Chair Murtagh asked that the State Street address include Martin Luther King Jr. Street. WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA) has requested the City s formal support for its proposed 2018 application to the New York Main Street (NYMS) Program, and WHEREAS, the DIA has a strong record of success in applying for, securing, and administering four other NYMS grants in past years in partnership with the City, and WHEREAS, the DIA will be proposing a multi-building application that include both housing and commercial units; will be designating a target area that

26 6) Discussion includes the traditional downtown (the BID) plus the West State Street corridor; and has identified four projects in the proposed grant target area a 12-unit housing project by Visum Development in the West State Street corridor, a commercial and housing project at 108 West State, and two commercial projects at the historic Clinton House and Boardman House, and WHEREAS, this collection of projects would be eligible for a grant totaling $322,500, and WHEREAS, these projects collectively represent a valuable opportunity to contribute to downtown revitalization in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, if successful in receiving the grant, all matching requirements will be met by the private sector projects included in the application, administration of the grant will be the responsibility of the DIA, and therefore there is no further City obligation pertaining to this grant, and WHEREAS, The NYMS application process requires that the elected body of the local municipality adopt a resolution of support for the application prior to its submission on or before July 27, 2018, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby wholeheartedly supports the Downtown Ithaca Alliance s 2018 grant application to the New York Main Street Program. Chain Works District Planned Unit Development (PUD) Area Requirements Review At its June 13th meeting, the Planning Committee will be reviewing the proposed area requirements for the Chainworks District PUD. Please find attached a revised Draft PUD in its entirety with tracked changes to reflect current edits. Area requirements are in Section G, H & I on pages Please also refer to the revised Section D: Sub Area and Character Intent on pages 8 & 9. This section includes a new subarea, CW3C, serving as a buffer between the project and the adjacent established neighborhood. The project team is also preparing a digital 3- D model for the meeting to illustrate how the proposed buildings in the CW3C relate to the adjacent neighborhood. A diagram of the environmental review process showing our current status is also provided with the agenda materials. The development team provided another diagram to review with the group. The group went through the documents and asked questions and made comments. They will be back to this committee at a later date to review other items as the project progresses.

27 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) May 2018 Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously 8) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Brock. unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Carried

28 Teresa Halpert Deschanes 209 S. Geneva St. Ithaca, NY I wanted to comment briefly on the proposal to add a requirement for affordable housing to CIITAP in exchange for further tax abatements. I think it's great that you are looking for ways to increase the supply of affordable housing. However, I suspect this effort would be vastly more successful (and perhaps ONLY successful) if done through inclusionary zoning. To take an example, suppose you flat-out require 10% of all the units of each size to be affordable to 75% AMI. I imagine that 10% of the one-bedroom units might then be built with minimal bedroom sizes, intra-level appliances, might be facing the dumpsters, and so on. I would applaud this, since you are mandating that the developer build a certain number of safe, comfortable, but relatively modest units for people of more modest income. If the building has HVAC, then these units will have it too, and the building code will dictate that they are livable and up to code, even if more modest. They will be in the same desirable, walkable location that the well-heeled renters are seeking. I imagine that there are already different price points for one-bedroom units depending on whether they are top-floor corner units with balconies and wrap-around windows versus interior units near the street. That's as it should be. Whatever the umarket rate" is for the premium units, it will be lower for the less fancy ones. Now imagine instead that you give a tax abatement for the developer to ugive up" his potential market-rate rent of $1602 a month and instead charge only $1263 for a onebedroom unit. I imagine that these units will also have minimal bedroom sizes, cheaper appliances, smaller windows with noisy unpleasant views, etc. But now the developer is getting a subsidy for a unit that would not have rented for $1600 anyway. Why do I think they won't all rent for $1600? There really is a limit to the number of these uclass A" units that our market can absorb. If you do the math on the Estimated Market Rate New Construction in your example, you need a $64,000-a-year income to afford a one-bedroom, and a $90,000-a-year income to afford a two bedroom. Look at the Household Income Distribution data in the American Community Survey and compare Ithaca, Tompkins County, and New York State. We don't have the bell curve around median income that New York State has. We have a sort of bimodal distribution. Tompkins County is slightly more regular, but you would have to assume that all the high-income people who live outside the City are waiting to move downtown, and we know that is not the case. What we really need is to figure out how to get rents that match the income distribution we actually have. I don't think this proposal would touch that. I can't guarantee that inclusionary zoning will succeed, but the numbers we have suggest that it has a better chance than inclusion tied to tax abatements.