HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 2025-12-18
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
215 N. Tioga St 14850
607.273.1747
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2025 at 3:00 P.M.
Meeting Location: Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga Street, Aurora Conference Room
(Enter from the rear entrance of Town Hall, adjacent employee parking lot.)
Members of the public may also join the meeting virtually via Zoom at
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/6750593272.
AGENDA
1. Persons to be heard.
2. Committee announcements and concerns.
3. Consider approval of November meeting minutes.
4. Review and discussion of 2024 Housing Snapshot prepared by Tompkins County
Department of Planning & Sustainability.
5. Continue discussion of Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs and Prioritized Bicycle
Corridor Needs maps.
6. Staff updates and reports.
7. Discuss next meeting date and upcoming agenda items.
A quorum of the Ithaca Town Board may be present, however,
no official Board business will be conducted.
1
Town of Ithaca Planning Committee
Thursday, November 20, 2025
(3:00 PM Aurora Conference Room and on Zoom)
Draft Minutes
Committee members present: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Rod Howe & Margaret Johnson
Board/Staff members: Director of Codes Marty Moseley; Director of Planning C.J. Randall & Justin
McNeal, Senior Civil Engineer
Guests: None
1. Persons to be heard: None.
2. Committee announcements and concerns: None
3. Approval of September minutes: Rod moved the minutes for approval as presented, Rich seconded,
minutes were approved.
4. Review and discussion: South Hill TND SEQRA professional services procurement responses
received. Five responses to the RFQ were received, reviewed by planning staff and put into a matrix
with evaluation criteria (as stated in the RFQ) to compare responses. Planning Committee members
received the qualification sections from all five firms to review prior to the meeting and the matrix was
shown onscreen. Two firms were recommended based on their qualifications. The firms of Fisher
Associates / Cambridge Systematics / Phillips Lytle was the team that seemed best suited to what the
town needs.
Rich asked about cost estimates for this SEQRA professional services contract portion of the project.
C.J. replied that cost estimates were not requested at this time, however the rates were and the two top
firms were within a close range of each other for technical assistance. She offered to send those numbers
to the committee. The overall project budget was noted again at just over $200,000 and has carried over
from the previous year(s). The RFQ that was sent out meets the town procurement policy for
professional services.
Once the contract is authorized by the town board upon recommendation of the Director of Planning, the
project scope of work (presuming there will be a positive declaration of environmental significance by
the town board as lead agency) will be used with the firm’s rates and a not-to-experienced amount will
be set. Justin asked if the intent is to provide the town board with the two top firm qualifications or the
recommended firm only. C.J. replied that the full package that was submitted by the top firm will be sent
to the town board along with any additional information that is requested. The major landowners in the
area received a letter from C.J. and Rod notifying them of the town’s intent to move forward with the
environmental review process step of the project in June 2025.
The committee was in favor of the Director of Planning’s anticipated recommendation to the town board
to approve and award the bid for professional service related to the South Hill TND SEQRA to Fisher
Associates et. al. This is anticipated to take place at the December 8th board meeting, pending
preparation of contract documents. Town engineer and codes departments review, and comments were
2
welcomed as well. The legal services portions would be used in circumstances when/if the attorneys for
the town were unable to provide the counsel or needed specific supplementary support.
5. Continued discussion of potential historic preservation program. Rod gave a brief history that the
town and city have worked on a draft joint ordinance and MOU for a historical preservation program
beginning in 2020. The draft ordinance had not been presented to the city’s Common Council for review
until recently when it was provided in an e-mail for their November meeting. C.J. and Rich attended the
meeting and there was not a sense that Common Council members were aware of the program’s draft
ordinance and MOU at the time of the meeting.
Rod asked the committee if town staff should explore having a town only program or present the joint
proposal again to the city in the upcoming year. Both the town and city comprehensive plans identify
this as a key policy area and it is important to move forward for the town. C.J. has a meeting request in
with the city director of planning to discuss this topic before the end of the year. The town’s goal is to
have a clear direction by May 2026, which coincides with Historic Preservation Month.
C.J. briefly explained an options for a town only program would include an ordinance, public outreach
and education, an outside consultant along with the establishment of a town design review board for
historic preservation and potentially other town projects. The town has done significant research and an
inventory of historic buildings which will aid the process and having the ordinance already drafted and
need minor changes, that will be a benefit to the town as well.
Consultant information is being gathered and prepared to be presented to the town board with a
recommendation to move forward with the budgeted expense of hiring a historic preservation consultant
in January 2026. Even if the town decides to present the joint MOU and ordinance collaboration to the
city again in the new year, the consultant was part of the process and is needed either way. The
consultant would work with the NYS Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the town to become a
Certified Local Government. Once certified, the designation process will begin and an 18-month total
timeframe to implementation is anticipated.
There are vulnerable historic properties in the town that do not have current state or local historic
preservation legislation. The planning board review of building demolition of any property is only
triggered when it exceeds a certain square footage. Rich asked if lowering the square foot threshold
would be beneficial while the historic preservation legislation is being worked on. While that change is
not difficult to propose, the planning department would like the overall impact of the change to carry out
the most momentum going forward.
A deconstruction ordinance is also being researched and presented by the planning department to the
town board in the new year as well.
6. Staff program or Updates.
C.J. reported that the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan Update RFQ was sent out to many firms and
planning related websites. Questions from the parties interested have a December 1st deadline.
Engineering, Planning, and Public Works will coordinate the responses to the technical questions as they
come in. The final date for the town to receive responses to the RFQ is January 9, 2026. There is an
3
upcoming meeting with the Forest Home Homeowners association representatives who have comments
on the RFQ to share with the town.
NYSEG is moving forward with the Finger Lakes Area Infrastructure Reliability (FLAIR), a multi-year
electric transmission line project, consisting of the reconstruction of approximately 21 miles of 115
kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, connecting the Coddington Road Substation and Montour Falls
Substation in Tompkins and Schuyler counties, respectively. Representatives from NYSEG will be at an
upcoming town board meeting for a brief presentation.
The City of Ithaca received a grant to undergo a city-wide zoning update. C.J. asked for the town to be a
participant in the process specifically related to institutional zoning.
The former Buttermilk Falls B&B is now on the market for sale. The property was previously noted as
potential consideration under the Limited Historic Commercial Overlay district.
The committee went into detailed discussion on what would be preferable for the town to consider
applying for potential funding under the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). Based on the 2022
Town Pedestrian Facilities map priority segments were listed. The segments were reviewed by the
Planning committee again in 2024. The highest priority segments with the most feasibility are the Maple
Ave to Pine Tree Road sidewalk segment and the Rt. 96/Trumansburg Road sidewalk from Harris B.
Dates Drive to the City Line. One application for each of the two top priorities could be submitted
although it would be a heavy lift and unlikely (although possible) for both to be awarded. Or the town
can prioritize one project application to submit for funding. The application deadline is March 2026 and
concurrence with NYS DOT is needed to apply for the TAP funding. The concurrence may provide
additional financial assistance from the NYS DOT if the project is approved for TAP funding. C.J. has
reached out to the regional DOT office to discuss the potential concurrence on the Rt. 96 segment as the
top priority. After the meeting with DOT, C.J. will come back with a firmer recommendation about how
to move forward.
The committee asked for the maps that highlighted the priority segments and summary of the 2020 study
for the next meeting, however C.J. was prepared to share on screen. The cost estimates for 2020
potential projects are likely to have doubled from then to now. Other transportation funding
opportunities could include Climate Smart Communities and MPO formula funding.
Maplewood II project building permits are anticipated in the spring. Compliance with the Ithaca Energy
Code Supplement (including ICC Net Zero Appendices) is required, and minor modifications may be
needed before the building permits are issued. The Road Use Agreement is still being reviewed as well.
Margaret asked if the town has considered an infrastructure notification system for residents to register
complaints like streetlights, potholes, etc. Find Click Fix is one used by the City of Ithaca. Marty and
Justin noted that there is a complaint form on the Codes OpenGov platform for property complaints and
the town website has an area to e-mail/contact/ comment to the town for department specific inquiries.
Justin noted that it has come up as a potential GIS mapping project in the future for certain issues.
4
7. Next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: December 18, 2025. Draft Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory for Government Operations. Deconstruction Policy is anticipated in January for
Planning Committee review.
The Town of Ithaca Planning Committee meeting concluded at 4:00 p.m.
To: Planning Committee Members
From: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning
Date: December 11, 2025
Subject: 2025 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) potential projects
In Brief
Applications are due March 12, 2026 for active transportation-related projects funded by the Transportation
Alternatives Program (TAP), which is made available through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
administered by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). This round, $97.4 million in new
funding is available for planning, design, and construction of non-vehicular transportation infrastructure (and
related) projects to improve non-driver safety and access to public transportation and enhanced mobility. NYSDOT
will provide up to 80 percent of the total eligible project costs with a minimum 20 percent match provided by the
project sponsor; local governments are eligible to act as project sponsors. Application pre-review(s) are due on
January 15, 2026. Complete program information is available at https://www.dot.ny.gov/TAP-CMAQ.
NYS-96 (Trumansburg Rd) pedestrian improvements
A robust feasibility study relative to pedestrian infrastructure needs on this state-owned Urban Minor Arterial road
was completed in 2020 by the Town of Ithaca (in cooperation with engineering consultants Barton & Loguidice,
D.P.C.) culminating in the NYS Route 96/Trumansburg Road Pedestrian Corridor Study Project Report. Preliminary
correspondence with NYSDOT region 3 representatives indicates support for an east side sidewalk proposal.
Additional enhancements for pedestrian crossings may be needed (e.g., pedestrian hybrid beacons, HAWKs, etc.)
and a Shared-Use path is likely the most feasible alternative. The cost estimates (Section 6.0 of the report) will need
to be updated in order to apply to this round of TAP. This segment of NYS-96 was identified in the Safe Streets
Tompkins Plan (July 2025) as one of the targeted rural areas that display higher Vulnerable Road User (VRU) crash
rates.
Maple Ave streetscape improvements / Pine Tree Rd (CR-174) streetscape improvements
The preliminary scope of this project is to install streetlights and six foot drainage swale/combined buffer area and
an eight foot asphalt walkway suitable for Town maintenance (Maple Ave is a Town road) on the north side of
Maple Ave beginning at the existing East Ithaca Recreation Way mid-block crossing heading east approximately
1,150 feet to the intersection with Pine Tree Rd (County Road 174). It is anticipated that additional land will be
required; Cornell University Planning and Real Estate, respectively, are working to coordinate this potential
conveyance. Estimated cost of this project totals $1.0M to $1.5M. Pine Tree Road is also an Urban Minor Arterial
road that is the principal access to Cornell University from the southeast; there is high demand for multi-modal
facilities and NYSDOT region 3 is currently conducting a field investigation and safety study of the intersection of
NYS-79 (Slaterville Rd) at Pine Tree Rd.
Further Information
Please contact me (cjrandall@townithacany.gov or 607-882-2474) with any questions or concerns.
# # #
Sidewalk Options
Sidewalk Options - East
Sidewalk Options - West
TCAT Bus Stops
Potential Additional Shelter
Proposed Bus Shelter
Existing Stop
Restrictive Areas - Guide Railing
Crosswalk Options
Trail Connection Options
Municipal Boundary
Existing Gutter
Project Segment Limits
Existing Guiderails
Existing Culverts
Existing Crosswalks
Existing Sidewalk
Roads
Streams
50 ft Contours
Cayuga_Lake
Parcels
ROW
Building Footprints
Legend
CAYUGA LAKE
TOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACA
Trumansburg Road/Route 96 Pedestrian Study
Figure 4. Alternatives
BD TRAIL CONNECTION
OPTION 1
NORTHWEST PEDIATRICS CENTER
BD TRAIL CONNECTION
OPTION 1
CAYUGA MEDICAL CENTER
OVERLOOK APARTMENTS
CAYUGA PROFESSIONAL CENTER
NYSEG SUBSTATION
BD TRAIL CONNECTION
OPTION 21
CORNELL PROPERTY
MUSEUM OF THE EARTH
APPROVED CONIFER RETIRMENT HOMES
SIDEWALK OPTIONS -
EAST (TYP.)
2
1
FIRE STATION
APPROVED HOLOCHUCK HOMES
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
Options Segment ID
CANDLEWYCK APARTMENTS
CROSSWALK OPTIONS
3
CAYUGA RIDGE EXTENDED CARE
SIDEWALK OPTIONS -
WEST (TYP.)
MEDICAL OFFICE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
BLACK DIAMOND TRAIL
ITHACA SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
STERLING HOUSE OF ITHACA
State Park Property
4
BLACK DIAMOND TRAIL
EXISTING CULVERT
BOOKDALE ITHACA
Vacant Residen al
Lot
Cayuga Medical
Property
5
-7 Y
_\k
(..!
•
\-•_
‘r •
About This Map
This map complements a map produced by the
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation
Council (ITCTC)as part of its bicycle suitibility
index project.
First,corridors in need of some
type of bicycle-focused improvements were
identified.Then,the corridors were ranked
based on relative degree of need (safety
issues,current level of bicycle traffic,etc).
Improvements to high priority corridors are
short-term goals,while improvements to
low-priority corridors are long-term goals.
This map does not recommend a specific type of
treatment.Based on the characteristics of most•
roads in the Town,it is likely that a majority of the
bicycle-focused infrastructure improvements will
be improved road shoulders.
Route 13 carries the highesttraffic
volumes in the Town and is unsuitable )
for all but the most advanced bicyclists.
The Black Diamond Trail must have a
sufficient number of bicycle access points
to serve this corridor./
1
C )
To VilIag&of Lansing-west’[
Map 12
Prioritized
Bicycle Corridor Needs
Future east-west bicycle/pedesifian
corridor may be located in this vicinity
connecting the Town of Ithaca to the ëity
of Ithaca..—.-s
Town of Ithaca
Tompkins County,New York
:‘::-•
.‘1
/
I ‘
t•.
.,.-.-,.-Z
I “
‘..I.,
___‘%I
\I
.
:s,.—.
_
/
;-..-
0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
MHes p
Legend
Needed Infrastructure
——I High Priority
—Medium Priority
.—I Low Priority
—‘—Recommended -not in Town
Priority Horizons:
——.Planned Multi-Use Corridors *
Existing Infrastructure
Existing Bike Lane
Background Conditions
—Roads
Other Corridors
—Existing Multi-Use Corridors *
High Priority:five years.
Medium priority:ten years.
Low priority:twenty years.
=Existing Shoulder is Sufficient
----Creeks
—Lakes
City Bike Plan
——.Planned Bike Corridors
Note:corridor priorities
shift based on changes in
need (development,demo-
graphic changes)or
opportunity (funding,
concurrance with
another project).
*Intended for multiple non-motorized modes,
including pedestrians &bicyclists.
+Exact locations unknown.
Factors that Affect
Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI)
Factors That Affect
Bike Infrastructure Priorities
This Plan uses a holistic assessment of the Bicycle
Compatibility Index (BCI)of a roadway to determine
if the roadway needs bicycle-focused improve-
ments.BCI is measured by evaluating various
factors (shown below)that describe the level of
comfort a bicyclist with average skills feels when
using the road.
The Route 96B corridor (sthof King
Road)is a very long term goal.lt’purpose
is to connect Danby to the City of Ithaca.
Geometric and roadside data:
-Number ofthrough-lanes in one direction;
-Curb lane width;
-Bicycle lane or paved shoulder width;
-Type of roadside development (residential?).
Existing bicycle patterns:
-How many bicyclists use the road now?
-How do they use the road?Recreation,
transportation,both?
Anticipated bicycle demand:
-New res.or commercial development;
-Demographic changes.
Topography;
Existing bottlenecks,or other constraints;
Safety concerns:
-Crash data;
-School zones;
-Other hazards.
Existing opportunities
-Plans to rebuild or repave the road?
-Availability offunding for bike lanes or
other bike programs?infrastructure.
Origin?route?destination information:
-Connect bike traffic generators or
existing bike infrastructure?
-How many destinations does it serve?
Residential areas,schools,parks,
employment centers,or transit stops?
-How direct are the routes?
Traffic operations data:
-Posted speed limit;
-85th percentile speed;
-ADT (average daily traffic);
-Percentage of vehicle stream that can be
defined as large vehicles (i.e.trucks,buses,etc);
-Percentage ofvehicle stream turning right
onto driveways or other road corridors.
Parking data (if applicable)
(describes potential for bicyclist?car door conflict):
-Presence or absence of a parking lane;
-Percentage of spaces usually occupied;
-Parking time limit.
Data Sources:
Tompkins county Information Technology Services,GIS
Division;Town uflthaca Public Works Department;
Town oflthaca Town code;Town of Ithaca Transportation
commatee.
NAD 1983,State Plane central.
March 15,2006
This corridor identified as part of the
Countys Trail Corridor Study of 1996,
is an important corridor into Lansing.
Location of infrastructure doesn’t have
to be along East Shore Drive.
Warren Road has a shoulder that is marked I
for shared use by bicycles and pedestrians.
If the opportunity arises,separate bike and
pedestrian facilities are warranted.
P rio ritized
Map 11
Pedestrian Corridor Needs
About This Map
This map was created by amalgamating
criteria from the Interim Sidewalk Policy with
factors dentified by the Town Transportation
Committee affecting affecting sidewalk needs.
These factors are listed in the columns on
the right hand side ofthis map.Planning staff used
their knowledge oftransportation conditions in
the Town to identify corridors that fit these factors.
The pedestrian corridors are broken into two
categories:high and low priority.Segments that
easily meet the criteria and are needed for safety
reasons are high priority segments;segments that
meet the criteria and will play important roles in
the transportation network,but are not needed
immediately are low priority.
Transportation Infrastructure
Planned Infrastructure
Essential corridors
—identified with restrictive interpretation
of criteria;immediate need
Recommended corridors
,identified with broader interpretation
of criteria;long-term need
———Approximate corridors;no time frame
i I I !!Planned Corridors (Recreation Plan)
,,..Black Diamond Trail
Town of Ithaca Interim Sidewalk Policy
selection Conditions:Paraphrased
For New Development>
..ff any ofthe items listed below apply..
hen Planning Board may also require sidewalks or
3xisting roads to connect into existing sidewalks:
-Children walk to school;
-Current or likely future presence of numerous
children in an environment where,in the
absence of a sidewalk,many children can
be expected to be present on the road shoulder;
-Bus stop within convenient walking distance;
-If development is Connected to other sidewalks;
-Provides access to trail system or public parks;
-Safety for Dedestrians
For Existing Development
...ff atleastthree ofthe following apply:
a recommendation from the Planning
Board and approval from the Town Board is also
required
-Convenient walkinri distance to place of regular
public use
-Jrjj existing or planned sidewalks/walkways
-Existing/planned shoulders inadequate
-Proximate access to public transit
-EQW sufficient,or easement reasonably obtained
-No dead-ends w/o forseeable connection
-Moderate peak hour traffic
(Shown as part of Ped.Circulation Plan)
Major residential developments on West Hill,
such as Overlook off Route 96 and Linderman
creek off Roule 79,increase the need for
pedestrian improvements to provide a safe,
pleasant environment to walk and to connect.
developmenls to shopping and job opportunities
in the city of Ithaca.
,Future east-west bicycle/pedestrian
corridor may be located in this vicinity,
connecting the Town to the cfty of
Ithaca.
The Hanshaw Road corridor will
lead to the future Monkey Run
Trail,as shown in the county’s
Trail Oorridor Study of 1996.
Town of Ithaca
Tompkins County,New York
The West Hill connections show
conceptual corridors;locations
have not been identified.
Legend
.
S
.
%_.
7
S.c\I
‘•\
Existing Conditions
Trails &Recreation Ways
Improvements (such as a crosswalk)are needed
at the connection between the East Ithaca
Recreation Way and City sidewalks.
_••\Existing Bike and Ped.
Facilities
\,fl_•f-Finger Lakes Trail
.—Roads
--“-.--Creeks
Existing Town Parks
______
Lakes
Factors Favoring Pedestrian
Infrastructure
-Higher density!intensity of land use
(Medium and high density residential,
neighborhood!office park commercial)
-Located along the route of a bus
-Within %mile of an elementary school,
assisted living facility,employment!
activity center for disabled.
-Within %mile of other pedestrian
generators
-High 85th percentile speed;limit >25 mph
-High volume!classification
(arterials,collectors,>4,000 vpd)
-Outside funding is available;
hence,cost to Town is low
-Links into existing or planned
pedestrian network
-Sufficiency of existing infrastructure
Factors Against Pedestrian
Infrastructure
-Detrimental to environmental resources
including natural,historic,scenic,
agricultural,etc.
-Negative neighborhood concensus
The most logical location for
a connection between
Eastern Heights and
South Hill is along Bums Road.
V/hile other South Hill developments
will be able to connect into the trail
system as planned,Southwoods will
need a connection.
Data Sources:
Tumpkios cuuoty Information Tochnology Services,GIS
Division;Town uflthaca PublicWorks Department;
Town of Ithaca Town code;Town ouithaca Transportation
comminee.
rtAD I 9t3,State Plane central.
ions 20,2056
r—L_J——LJ-—-———-—-—I_________r.-.--———-——,
Who Pays?
When the benefit of a sidewalk or walkway
primarily belongs to local property owners,the
responsibility for the cost of construction and!
or maintenance belongs to the property owner.
\Mten the benefit extends beyong the vicinity
to a broader public benefit,then the respon
sibitity for the cost of construction and main-
tenance belongs to the Town.
Short and Long Term:
Short term accomplishes goals in approximately
ten years.
Long term accomplishes goals over
twenty years.
Long term projects become priorities based
on changes in need or opportunity (funding,
with anotherproject,etc).
LEGEND
AT-GRADE CHANNELIZATION
WITH CROSSING ISLANDS
SHOULDER RECONSTRUCTION
(PED.&BICYCLE ACCOMODAT1ON)
CURB (PARKING RESTRICTION)
SHOULDER RUMBLE STRIP
ON INTERSECTION RADIUS
PINE TREE ROAD
BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN
SAFETY PROJECT
NOT TO SCALE
JUNE-11 -2014
I7TOZ-TI-INflf
IDE[fOk[AIE[JVS
MvnhIs:E[c[:E[cT[MVISI13A3IH
GvoJIJjI:LJMJ
aVNNOIIV3O’I :riv::s01ION
i::c:iJioiJ?J
eeqs..:ç•;
o%,..
°d%&%:
•/%%/s.c3!11,.,.;,,,/.-
%
qWYiNOIIVDO’l.-:.
‘sfl401IDEIfO’.TdIf;’
--
o1Ii’:.
9E
•‘3
I,,\
0
c:D
hj%
%-
;;z;/
\4y
\
IPh
ii—
/i:i:i‘%_____HLfljr
,-IIvaLMd—s’s•kisP00w
i‘-0,10,_II‘%?S”1‘1:ii:;-;F
4’L -;pi--)cnS4U))‘“%—
XTIdWOD/ILJ
““Ø4fP/
—cii)-)ci::9
N3ZLLID/..i’-.\\:
OINE[SYZYld•\•
rSE)
.‘
“
sswj_t4Id(ooj
T]IHISY3c..:..LD3!---:....EL-;•;
s___i_m_..7a:c/ji;:kt,:;‘.u:::JQ.:isOt!j3tWIsoIelln8IA....
-Jc:.)po‘IliflO)R
$;
-!4.’:is31!•:c %,AYiNOIiVEflJDE’J:“-/.:VDVI-LLT1SV1.;-..-•,?‘,f
..>..-FqtO>.\x(•‘
4/k’if’.,:—Z-•..JI,1‘.v—----.-_:c’‘/%‘LA1ISIIAINfl/
THNTODvJ,%
.--.--“....,.,...•:1/’‘W’d\.:;::-—9)j07c,,‘
jJh‘qx,
—J‘cN(H
JI
1S1[.Jc:::
——p%%jf-•-
ii.’IIjdwij Ja
J-r%•“-,‘1.’:-:.\\:
0?_-
,•.:.....-.111•‘.,
)c_r)-%...•::-•‘•:!‘,•,\
.1?cjof,...‘W’dv3\;•
•.:;uL.*iqO:..,..,vv;Hnc‘
W3tf?J;u:s
;,n?::“IL•r11--,.,:‘::•.--...?•::-‘.1‘1i.J,-:..]/;
.:•-::c
U•‘•
r-(•
%;:(ThI
‘f,,•
:‘/.:,,‘j2;M;.i:,J
—pIftUCH—D3#j
i:ii.‘ç,)\/1_J;*‘
‘s
Information and text from the 2007 Transportation Plan
Pedestrian Corridor Needs Map
Map: Pedestrian Corridors identified in 2007 Transportation Plan that have not been addressed
1) Categorized as Essential:
- Trumansburg Road (Dates Dr. to City Line)
- Coddington Road (short segment, City Line to Egbert Blvd/IC Entrance)
- Pine Tree Road (Slaterville Rd to Honness Ln)
- Forest Home Dr/Caldwell Rd
- Warren Road (Forest Home Dr. to just north of Fairway (connect w/ CU walkway towards Hasbrouck))
2) Categorized as Recommended:
- Mecklenburg Rd. (City Line to Westhaven Rd; ~500 ft. from City to Linderman Cr. walking path
completed in 2020)
- Elm St. Ext (City line to Valley View Rd. to West Haven Preserve)
- Danby Road (Alumni Circle/IC entrance to King Road)
- King Road East (from Danby Rd to Troy Rd; with gap in middle connected by planned recreation trail)
- Troy Road (King Rd E. to Coddington Road)
- Coddington Road (Troy Rd. to Egbert Blvd/IC Entrance)
- Slaterville Road (City line to Pine Tree Rd)
- Snyder Hill Road (Pine Tree Rd to Dove Dr.)
- Forest Home Dr (~1000 ft section along residents towards Flat Rocks)
- Warren Road (connect “Essential” segment to Hanshaw Rd)
- Murial St. (Hanshaw to Rose Hill Rd)
Additional corridors identified since 2007 (not on 2007 prioritization map)
- East Shore Drive (Boynton M.S. to Ithaca Youth Bureau) and Cayuga Waterfront Trail connection
- Gateway Trail Connection (Stone Quarry Rd to Chain Work to S.Hill Recway).
- South Hill RecWay Extension (Burns Road to points south)
Text from 2007 Pedestrian Priority Map
1) Factors Favoring Pedestrian Infrastructure
- Higher density/intensity of land use (Medium and high density residential, neighborhood/
office park commercial)
- Located along the route of a bus
- Within ½ mile of an elementary school, assisted living facility, employment/activity center for
disabled.
- Within ½ mile of other pedestrian generators
- High 85th percentile speed; limit > 25 mph
- High volume/ classification (arterials, collectors, > 4,000 vpd)
- Outside funding is available; hence, cost to Town is low
- Links into existing or planned pedestrian network
- Sufficiency of existing infrastructure
2) Factors Against Pedestrian Infrastructure
- Detrimental to environmental resources including natural, historic, scenic, agricultural, etc.
- Negative neighborhood consensus
3) Who Pays?
When the benefit of a sidewalk or walkway primarily belongs to local property owners, the
responsibility for the cost of construction and/or maintenance belongs to the property owner.
When the benefit extends beyond the vicinity to a broader public benefit, then the responsibility for the
cost of construction and maintenance belongs to the Town.
4) Short and Long Term:
Short term accomplishes goals in approximately ten years.
Long term accomplishes goals over twenty years.
Long term projects become priorities based on changes in need or opportunity (funding,
with another project, etc).
5) For New Development
...if any of the items listed below apply then Planning Board may also require sidewalks on existing roads
to connect into existing sidewalks:
- Children walk to school;
- Current or likely future presence of numerous children in an environment where, in the absence of a
sidewalk, many children can be expected to be present on the road shoulder;
- Bus stop within convenient walking distance;
- If development is Connected to other sidewalks;
- Provides access to trail system or public parks;
- Safety for pedestrians.
6) For Existing Development
...if at least three of the following apply:
a recommendation from the Planning Board and approval from the Town Board is also required
- Convenient walking distance to place of regular public use
-Link existing or planned sidewalks/walkways
- Existing/ planned shoulders inadequate
- Proximate access to public transit
- ROW sufficient, or easement reasonably obtained
- No dead-ends w/o forseeable connection
- Moderate peak hour traffic