Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2010-AllTOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 11, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha (Susan R.), Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board; Pat Leary, Town Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Fred Wilcox, Planning Board Chair; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Susan Brock (Susan B.), Attorney for the Town. GUESTS PRESENT: Krisy Gashler, Tom LiVigne, Waltraud Lucente, Larry Fabbroni, Betty Fabbroni, Peter Stein, Arno Selco, Bill Sonnenstuhl, Stephen Wagner, Trish Page, Adrian Williams. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None. Approval of 2010 Meeting Schedule: The committee approved the Proposed 2010 Meeting Schedule that had been distributed, keeping meetings on the second Thursday of each month at 4:30 p.m. unless otherwise scheduled. Discussion Regarding Northeast Development/Briarwood: Susan R. started off the discussion by summarizing some of the options for the Northeast area that have been discussed by the Town Board and Planning Committee, including (1) no action and let the developer go back to the Planning Board to pursue the subdivision, (2) rezone the entire Briarwood parcel to Conservation Zone, based on the most restrictive option in the LeCain Report, (3) rezone areas identified in LeCain Option 3 as Conservation Zone leaving the other areas as Medium Density Residential (MDR), (4) some rezoning based on selecting parts of options in the LeCain Report, and (5) negotiate a plan with the Briarwood developer and Cornell that would address concerns in the LeCain and Milone and MacBroom studies without having to rezone any of the property. Susan R. indicated that the Town Board needs to move ahead with a decision on what to do because this issue has been under discussion for quite a while. Bill Goodman (Bill G.) indicated that his first idea had been to retain the MDR Zone in LeCain Section 1 and rezone the remainder of the Briarwood site to Conservation Zone. This would result in about 17 lots (including 6 lots in the Conservation Zone area). Bill said that he then considered leaving LeCain Sections 1 and 13 in MDR, and rezoning the remainder to Conservation Zone. This might result in about 25 to 26 total lots. Bill added that if any of these rezoning options is pursued by the Town Board, they deal with density, not a specific lot layout, which would be up to the Planning Board to determine when it goes back to that Board for approval. Bill also wants to have at least a 300 foot wide buffer on the Cornell parcel adjoining 2 the Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary. Bill’s preference now is to reach a negotiated agreement with the developer through a conservation easement that could be established on the agreed upon open, natural areas that warrant protection. Rich asked whether a conservation easement approach would be associated with the current 30 lot proposal by the developer, and whether 30 lots is too many? Herb indicated that in a conservation easement, the Town and developer could agree on uses that would be permitted and things that would be restricted or prohibited, and that an easement would be permanent. Herb added that Conservation zoning would only address density and would leave the rest of the details up to the Planning Board. Rich asked about the status of the Cornell parcel. Tom LiVigne stated that Cornell still stands by its previous offer to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Town to permanently set aside a 200 foot buffer next to Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary. Shirley Egan is working on drafting an agreement for the Town to review. Tee-Ann asked what lands would be proposed to be in a conservation easement on the Briarwood site? Susan R. suggested that the Board could start with looking at the modified Briarwood proposal for 30 lots and work with staff and the developer to fine-tune lot configurations, sizes, and buffers. Larry Fabbroni mentioned that the LeCain Study classification of Area 8 as “moderate to high” ecological quality was based on 2002 aerial photos, and does not reflect the extension of the road stub and other disturbance that has occurred in this area since then. Susan R. then asked Larry to talk briefly about the current modified 30 lot Briarwood proposal. Larry referred to his plan of the modified proposal and indicated that although it does not follow all of the LeCain recommendations, it tries to accommodate as much as possible. The plan utilizes the south area of the site, LeCain section 13 and the central, disturbed portion of the site; it retains a continuous wildlife corridor; it provides walkway/bicycle connections which also serve as emergency access; it reduces the number of storm water ponds from four in the 47 lot version of the plan down to three and moves the ponds away from adjacent residential lots; it provides additional storm water retention above that required by the Town and DEC; and it provides an area over the sewer easement for a bicycle/pedestrian path connecting to Salem Drive to the west. Larry stated that Mr. Lucente would be willing to accept the modified 30 lot Briarwood proposal, and would also be willing to place the open space areas into a conservation easement. Mr. Lucente would like to move this ahead in a peaceful, cooperative way. He would also be willing to place conservation easements or deed restrictions on backs of lots adjoining the natural area and wetland buffers.. He would also be willing to do some re-forestation and re- vegetation of some areas to enhance the wetlands and buffer areas. Susan R. said that she would like to get Cornell, Larry, and Town officials together to try to come up with some solutions to drainage issues in the Northeast area. Susan then asked if any residents attending the meeting had some brief comments. 3 Trish Page: The modified Briarwood plan has no detailed topography, grading, or other engineering details needed to assess the impacts of the proposal on the site. Trish handed out her own map that she prepared showing wetlands and 100 foot buffers around wetlands. The map also shows 150 foot and 300 foot wetland buffers for comparison. Wooded wetlands have high resource value. Some of the proposed lots in the 30 lot Briarwood proposal intrude into the 150 foot wetland buffer and some lots extend beyond LeCain Section 1. Bill Sonnenstuhl: Hopes that the discussion expands beyond conventional lot and development options, whether the proposal ends up being 15, 25 or 30 lots. Could any development go in LeCain Section 14? The proposed storm water ponds could damage hydrologic cycles of wetlands. A development option could be to put a higher density of housing in Section 1 and eliminate impacts on other areas of the site that are more sensitive. Bill referred to the Vine Street Cottages proposal that was discussed at a recent Town Board meeting that illustrates how higher density, single-family houses can fit on a small site with small lots. Bill asked the Committee to think creatively. Don’t look at a specific development proposal, but look at the ecological impacts of development and focus on what areas of the site would be appropriate for building. Stephen Wagner: Agrees with Bill’s last statement and also pointed out that LeCain Section 3 would be built on in the modified Briarwood proposal, while the LeCain Study identifies Section 3 as “moderate to high” ecological value. Bill G. would like to end up with a negotiated agreement that would result in a conservation easement protecting a large natural area, which might require some give -and-take on agreeing to the areas of the site that should be preserved. If it is necessary to rezone lands to Conservation Zone, Bill could see using LeCain option 3 – leave Sections 1 and 13 as Medium Density Residential (MDR). Bill would like to see a protected wildlife corridor between and around the wetlands. Jonathan discussed the importance of preserving buffers around the wetlands and indicated that 100 foot wetland buffers are used by many organizations as a standard. DEC is proposing that smaller wetlands in New York be regulated by the State (current minimum size is 12.4 acres) and are recommending 100 foot buffers around those wetlands. Larry indicated that he had talked with Mr. Lucente about the possibility of further clustering some of the lots or buildings, but Mr. Lucente wants to have large enough lots to accommodate the type of house that he has built in the past. Larry reiterated that some lots could include protected areas as additional buffers and that the current open, natural area on the modified Briarwood plan is 33 acres (out of a total 48 acres) that could go into a conservation easement. Larry added that most of the wetlands on the Briarwood site are man-made that developed as roads were laid out and earth mover around as the site developed. Larry mentioned that the Town put in a culvert under the sewer right-of-way that made the area to the north wetter than it was. Larry added that the natural area could be owned by a home owners association. Rich asked whether Mr. Lucente might consider a higher density of housing in the south part of the site in order to preserve some additional land in other parts of the site. 4 Susan R. asked how a conservation easement approach might work – would there be agreement that would set the basis of a conservation easement? Susan B. responded that there could be a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Town and the Lucentes. Such an MOU could identify an easement area that the Town would be willing to hold similar to what is shown on the modified Briarwood plan or whatever area is agreed upon by the parties, and an MOU could include points that would be addressed in detail in the conservation easement language. Susan B. added that such an agreement would not be binding on lot layout until the Planning Board would later go through the subdivision and SEQR review process, but that an MOU could provide the direction for how to proceed to get the plan back to the Planning Board. The Planning Board could then condition the subdivision approval on a conservation easement being signed and filed. Rich moved that the Committee go into closed session to seek the advice of the Attorney for the Town. Bill seconded, and the Committee unanimously approved the motion. At the end of the closed session, Bill moved that the Committee go back into open session. Rich seconded the motion, and the Committee unanimously approved the motion. Susan R. said that she would like the Committee to reach some conclusion and recommendation on the matter of the Briarwood proposal. Should it be discussed further with the Town Board at the next Study Session? Bill indicated that he would like to pursue a conservation easement and MOU as the Committee has discussed and that he would like to hear from the other Town Board members attending the meeting. Tee-Ann and Herb both said that they agree with Bill. Pat said that the 30 lot modified Briarwood proposal is not far off from what she thinks would be appropriate. Rich said it looks like there is not a lot of room for changing the proposal further , but that he would like to see if some of the lots can be further reduced or modified to better protect some of the sensitive areas of the site. Rich prefers a re-zoning approach as he has indicated in the past. Susan R. suggested that Planning staff and the Attorney for the Town could sit down with the developer and draft an MOU for consideration by the Town Board. Susan B. responded that she would need to hear parameters from Board members regarding what should go into a draft MOU. Jonathan suggested that the Town Board discuss the MOU approach at the Study Session and that Town Board members should provide staff with their ideas on parameters and details of what they would like to see in an MOU. Susan R. added that the Town’s expectation under the MOU approach is that the developer would not take a plan back to the Planning Board until there is a signed MOU regarding a proposed conservation easement. Herb also asked Bill to provide staff with his suggestions for a conservation easement that could then be discussed further with the Town Board. Jonathan asked any Town Board members who have ideas or suggestions for the MOU/conservation easement approach to send to staff, and staff will consolidate those for the Board to discuss. Susan B. indicated that a survey would ultimately include a legal description of the boundaries of a conservation easement. Susan B. reminded the Committee that if a Conservation Zone ends up being pursued, the Town Board would have no involvement in where development would occur on the site, only on the overall density. Pat added that it would be the Planning Board that would get into the details of layout of lots and development on the site, which is why an MOU and conservation easement approach between the developer and Town Board would be preferable. 5 Rich asked what the process would be to pursue a Planned Development Zone (PDZ)? Jonathan responded that PDZ’s usually apply to mixed developments and higher density proposals. Larry mentioned that any discussions on an MOU/conservation easement that include Susan Brock would also have to involve Scott Chatfield (Mr. Lucente’s attorney). Susan R. summed up by saying that the next steps are for Board members to get comments on a draft MOU and conservation easement to Jonathan, and that staff would compile comments received and send to the Town Board for further discussion at the next Study Session. Discussion Regarding 2010 Work Plan Priorities: The Committee reviewed the “Summary of Work Plan Accomplishments in 2009 and Preliminary List of Work Plan Priorities for 2010” (February 5, 2010) prepared by Planning staff. The following is a summary of comments by the Committee: Bill – Would like to continue discussions regarding West Hill development issues, perhaps at the March meeting. Rich – Codes & Ordinances (COC) is working on the amendments to the Conservation Zone requirements that were recommended by the Planning Committee. Bill indicated that Susan Brock is completing revisions based on discussions at COC and is incorporating staff comments. Rich – Would like to see work begin on tree cutting regulations. This is also on COC’s list. Tee-Ann – Would like to discuss how a West Hill Study would be done and when. Rich feels that this should be done sooner rather than later so that work on the Comp Plan update can be informed by the results of a study. Rich believes that a West Hill study scope should be prepared to outline what the study should include and determine if the Town Board needs to allocate more money for a study. Bill agrees. Jonathan would like the Committee to discuss the issue and provide more specific direction before staff attempts to draft a study scope. Herb thinks that the entire Town should be included in a growth and development analysis. Rich says the clock is ticking and suggests that the Town Board discuss this at the next Study Session if there is time. Bill – Another priority area is how to get more out of developers to pay for the costs of infrastructure improvements. Susan Brock says that impact fees are not allowed in New York State, but that rezonings by the Town Board (such as Carrowmoor) can include negotiated items. Pat – There is a need to develop regulations to require the inclusion of median income/work force housing in development proposals. COC has this on its list and may start working on it soon. Other Business: None. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: 6 The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, March 11, 2010. Possible agenda items would be a discussion of the Vine Street Cottages rezoning proposal (referred from the Town Board) and a continuation of discussion regarding West Hill development. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MARCH 11, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Pat Leary, Town Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Fred Wilcox, Planning Board Chair. GUESTS PRESENT: Toby Millman, Agora Development; Mary Russell, Attorney (representing Agora Development); Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf; Noah Demarest, Trowbridge & Wolf; Bill Sonnenstuhl, Stephen Wagner, David Orr, Kathy Orr, Chris Tessaglia- Hymes, Brendon Horrigan, John O’Connor, Fred Pohl, Ellen McCollister (City of Ithaca Common Council), Richard Kirby, Garrick Blalock. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None. Discussion Regarding Vine Street Cottages Proposal, 808 Mitchell Street: Susan asked representatives of Agora Development to outline their proposal for the Vine Street Cottages development. Toby Millman began by indicating that he has met with Town staff about a number of aspects of the project. Toby stated that Town staff confirmed that the project will not be able to use DEC’s (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation) redevelopment standards, which are more flexible in terms of stormwater detention and water quality standards, but instead will have to use conventional stormwater management practices. He has evaluated that and is comfortable that the development can proceed on that basis, but would still like to work with the Town to pursue alternative stormwater practices like rain gardens, porous pavement, etc. Toby reiterated that if the site were determined to fall under the redevelopment guidelines, then it is not required to treat 100% of the runoff, and there is more flexibility in the options that can be used. Peter Trowbridge added that DEC is coming out with amended stormwater regulations that would probably be in place when the development moves into the formal review process, which include alternative stormwater management practices that might not be as invasive on a site like this. Susan asked whether there would be more impervious surface than under existing conditions with the development in place. Toby responded that it would be about the same, but the current DEC guidelines require treating 100% of the runoff. No ponds are currently shown on the site plan, but Agora’s engineers are working on the plan. Susan asked about the Town Board’s discussion about whether affordable housing units can be included in the development. Toby indicated that he would love to see the whole development affordable for workforce housing, but it is not possible because of the development costs involved with the project. He would like to work with the Town to collaborate on ways to (1) reduce the costs of development, (2) reduce risks to the development, and (3) address density of development. Toby added that perhaps there could be a portion of the development devoted to 2 attached units to enhance affordability. Rich asked what is driving the high costs of the development – land costs, environmental remediation? Toby responded that it is all of these. It is very expensive to develop a site like this. The stormwater management solutions could be very expensive if they have to follow the standard practices, but some costs could be reduced if they can use the alternative practices allowed for a re-development site. Most of the other infrastructure costs are fixed. Mary Russell added that the land costs are a factor. Toby added that the costs of improving Vine Street are also a factor. Pat mentioned that greater density may be one way to increase affordability of units. Toby indicated that it is not just a matter of reducing the size of units, but he would like to work with the Town on figuring out how to include some affordable units, but there are trade-offs. Pat asked about the possibility of duplexes or other configurations. Toby responded that simply increasing density may not satisfy his project objectives. Herb asked if Agora has had any conversations with Cornell or the County about possible funding through the County Housing Fund. Toby responded that he had spoken with Cornell Real Estate which was not interested in specific involvement in the project. Toby did check into the County Housing Fund, but funding is intended primarily for pre-development costs, and does not involve large amounts of money that would make a difference in project costs. Bill indicated that he would like to see the development cost figures, what development alternatives have been looked at, what are the land costs. Toby mentioned that the property had been listed at $1.5 million, but could not disclose what the contract purchase amount is. Rich asked about contamination on the site, and whether former owners can be held responsible for some of the costs of clean-up. Toby responded that this is part of the negotiated purchase agreement. Tests were conducted indicating that contamination was found under one building. Test pits showed some spill of petroleum, and that was reported to DEC. Herb said that when the Town Board looks at a development proposal involving a rezoning, it should look for elements that would benefit the public. In the case of Vine Street Cottages, some of the public benefits might include some workforce housing if that can be incorporated and clean-up of the site. Herb added that there is plenty of higher cost housing in the Town, and that alone would not necessarily be a public benefit. Toby indicated that he has a degree in city planning and does try to incorporate things that would benefit the public into his projects. He added that the plan does show a tot lot, connection for the Belle Sherman neighborhood to the Recreation Way, redevelopment of a site with a noxious use, providing housing in an existing neighborhood, close to Cornell and very walkable. Pat mentioned that there has been a softening in the market for higher end homes in Tompkins County and that the market for more moderately priced homes seems to be doing well. Susan said that the Town could look at ways to include some affordable housing in the Vine Street Cottages proposal. Toby reiterated that designating the project as a redevelopment site for stormwater management purposes might allow for some cost reductions in the project. Peter Trowbridge mentioned that the Green Street site in the City was designated as a redevelopment site, which allowed the developer to incorporate lower cost stormwater solutions. Jonathan indicated that the Town engineers said that they would need to see soil test data to determine whether alternative stormwater techniques could accommodate the required storage and 3 treatment of runoff. Toby indicated that the original concept plans for Vine Street Cottages approached stormwater solutions as a redevelopment site, and they were able to handle 100% of the runoff using pervious pavement, swales and other treatments. They also looked at the possibility of placing stone beds below pervious paved surfaces to provide added storage area. Rich asked whether there is any asbestos tile on the property. Toby responded that DEC has a record on this in which a report was filed, and the case was closed on the same day. There is no further record regarding asbestos tile. Herb suggested that the site will eventually be developed with housing. The question is what kind of housing. Herb added that the site is transitional between single-family homes in the City and Cornell apartment housing to the east. Herb mentioned that the density of the Vine Street Cottages proposal does not bother him, and that if the Vine Street Cottages proposal does not get built, then it is likely that the site might end up with multiple story housing. Herb said that he would like to see a component of affordable units added to the proposal. Mary Russell asked if the Town has a written policy regarding affordable housing. Toby asked whether affordable units could be added as additional units to the number he has proposed? Jonathan indicated that the proposed rezoning of the site would give the developer increased density over what is permitted under the current High Density Residential Zone and would in effect subsidize the development with more units and smaller lots than would otherwise be permitted. Pat mentioned that the Town is looking at adopting regulations for the inclusion of affordable housing units, but has not adopted them yet. Pat added that increasing the supply of housing in the Town would help other parts of the housing market. Rich asked what kinds of comments about the proposal has the developer heard from residents in the area. Toby responded that he met mainly with the Vine Street residents who do not have a formal easement to use the road. While it is possible that they have a presecriptive easement because of years of use of the road, the residents like the idea of improving Vine Street and getting permanent legal access as proposed in the development. Toby added that some of the residents are concerned about existing site drainage conditions and existing water pressure problems that could both be improved if the Vine Street Cottages proposal proceeds. Bill agrees with Herb’s comments regarding the proposal and asked what was Carrowmoor’s approach to including affordable housing. Herb indicated that the Carrowmoor developers would initially pay for the subsidy to build the affordable units and establish a fund to ensure that units would remain affordable over time. Bill suggested thinking outside of the box to find a way to include some affordable units. Toby indicated that the approach taken in Carrowmoor might work in larger projects, but that he would prefer keeping the approach simple in this smaller project. Susan said that the Town Board and Planning Committee appear to agree that the Vine Street Cottages proposal should be pursued, but that several affordable units should be included in the proposal. Rich indicated that to him, the inclusion of affordable units is not as important as preserving the character of the existing neighborhood. Rich added the project should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood, and that stormwater management is an 4 important issue. Jonathan added that the existing crosswalk at Vine Street and Mitchell Street is currently not very safe, and that he has discussed the need for improving this crosswalk with the developer. Pat agrees that the approach to affordable units should be kept simple but that it is important. Pat wondered if the Town designates the site as a redevelopment site for stormwater purposes, would that help get some affordable units in the project? Toby indicated that would be a good step toward being able to include some affordable units. Toby asked if the goal of the Town is to have a number of the units in the project be at a lower price point? Pat responded that her goal would be to include several units at prices affordable to median income households, and that one way to do this might be to design the affordable units as smaller size units. Bill asked Toby to send an email to the Committee summarizing the three options for reducing development costs mentioned earlier in the meeting. Susan asked Toby to also provide more specific information on development cost savings if the site is designated as a redevelopment site. Susan asked what the next steps should be. Jonathan suggested that the development team could start drafting a Planned Development Zone (PDZ), and that Mary has the Carrowmoor draft PDZ that could be used as a sample and that we could provide others. It was agreed that Mary and Toby will prepare an initial draft PDZ and then get together with a couple of Committee members and staff to review and revise before bringing it back to the Committee for review and discussion. Discussion Regarding West Hill Development: Susan asked the Committee for further input regarding West Hill development issues, which have been discussed by the Committee over the past year. Rich referred to the vacant parcel at the County Biggs property and wondered what will happen with it. Fred Wilcox mentioned that the Planning Board will be seeing the final subdivision proposal for the Biggs property at its next meeting. Herb indicated that the County will not tell us what will happen with the land except that the Biggs building could be purchased by Cayuga Medical Center. Susan asked about the possible transportation study that has been discussed by the Town Board. Rich said that the Route 96 Corridor management Study did not look extensively at all of West Hill transportation system, but focuses on the Route 96 Corridor itself. Rich wants to know what the cumulative impacts of full build-out of West Hill with the development of the suggested node would be on the transportation system and other infrastructure. Rich added that there has been discussion about the possible preparation of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update to look at growth impacts and wondered whether the $30,000 set aside by the Town would be enough to cover a larger GEIS study. Susan suggested using impact mitigation fees to cover costs of a transportation study. Jonathan indicated that there are currently several developers before the Town seeking approvals and that Carrowmoor and Holochuck are already in the process of preparing EIS’s for their site specific development proposals, so it would be difficult to charge them additional fees for a broader study. Herb mentioned that the Route 96 Corridor Study and the County Water and Sewer Study have looked at some of these issues, and point in the direction that West Hill can accommodate further development. Herb suggested that nodal development would be appropriate in three areas of the Town, including West Hill near the hospital, South Hill at the Danby/King Road intersection, and East Hill at the East Hill Plaza area. Herb added that by focusing development 5 in these three areas, there would be less of an impact on any one area. Rich stated that the Route 96 Study did not answer questions regarding what the impacts would be if nodal development happens regarding issues such as sewer and other infrastructure and services. Rich added that the Public Works Department has been monitoring the sewer lines on West Hill going into the City, and it appears that there is adequate capacity, but that there may be some problems with the system that need to be fixed. Herb added that if infiltration is occurring in the West Hill sewers, then the Town is not getting its fair share of the capacity. Herb mentioned that he will be meeting soon with City Fire Department officials and West Hill residents to discuss what the fire protection situation is on West Hill and to have the Fire Chief explain how the Fire Department approaches service on West Hill and that West Hill is receiving the same level of service that other areas of the Town are getting. Bill said that he is fine with doing a study of West Hill but does not want a study to tell us what we already know. Bill’s additional points: What would the scope of a study be? How would it fit in with what the Comprehensive Plan update is looking at? Would it look at the whole Town? Bill indicated that he does not want to do a study of West Hill without looking at the overall picture in the Town. Bill said that in regard to a West Hill node, it is not just a matter of whether more employees will work at the hospital, but also what jobs will other uses around the hospital create. The hospital is a general attractor of additional uses to the area, and West Hill is the next logical place to assume that new development will occur. Rich suggested soliciting input from the public to come up with a possible scope for a study. Susan reminded the Committee that the Cornell t-GEIS is available with a lot of information regarding transportation issues. Herb indicated that at a meeting with officials from Cayuga Medical Center, President MacKenzie supported the concept of nodal development around the hospital and that improvements like sidewalks would be good additions to the area. Herb added that a new road is planned between Mecklenburg Road and Bundy Road that could help relieve some of the traffic on Route 96, and asked whether the Town should build this road up front or wait for developers to build it. Herb added that a new bridge across the inlet would help to relieve congestion at the Route 96 entrance into the City, but that the City refuses to accept the idea of a new bridge. Jonathan indicated that if the Carrowmoor proposal is approved, NYS DOT (Department of Transportation) may require that Carrowmoor build the upper portion of the new Bundy/Mecklenburg connector road. This is being evaluated in the EIS that is being prepared by Carrowmoor. Susan said that it makes more sense to develop in the north and east parts of the Town, but that Cornell is not making land that they own readily available for development. Susan added that West Hill makes sense for development because of the land that is available. Herb mentioned that the Cornell Campus Master Plan does propose a new East Ithaca Village around the East Hill Plaza area, and Cornell is making land available on West Hill behind the fire station. Herb added that South Hill grew rapidly in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and West Hill has the largest amount of vacant land available in the Town. Herb indicated that the 1993 Comprehensive Plan did account for accommodating growth on West Hill. Herb mentioned that a proposed park-and- ride lot as part of the Conifer/Cornell proposal that just came before the Town Board is a mitigating measure to help reduce the traffic impacts on West Hill. Susan indicated that she is concerned about the impacts of growth on the quality of life for West Hill residents. Jonathan 6 stated that is why he suggested looking at the Conifer/Cornell site as an overall Planned Development Zone (PDZ) so that the entire site development can be planned as a whole while looking at its cumulative impacts on West Hill. Jonathan added that if the Town does not require that this site be planned as a walkable, well-designed neighborhood, then it will not happen. Herb pointed to what has happened on South Hill: uses such as a hotel, small food store, furniture store, convenience store and restaurant have gradually located there and are attracting other uses to the area. Bill mentioned that EcoVillage residents would like to see a small node form along Route 79 within walking distance that could include a farm stand and other small business uses. Bill added that businesses need a threshold of population in order to locate in an area. Herb indicated that Carrowmoor would be controlled by one developer who could make it attractive for small businesses to locate in the neighborhood center. Rich thought that it would be helpful to see a parcel map of West Hill with a possible node shown on the map and showing large parcels and owners in the area, where sidewalks and walkway connections might go, etc. Jonathan suggested that a possible approach to adding sidewalks to the Trumansburg Road area could be through the establishment of a sidewalk improvement district, which might have a better legal basis than using impact mitigation fees. Rich indicated that the Committee should get Tee-Ann’s and other Board members input on all of this discussion. Jonathan suggested that the Comp Plan Committee should be looking at what a node could look like, what it would involve, etc. Further Committee discussion on nodes included: Development of an East Hill node depends on how soon Cornell proceeds with the East Ithaca Village concept; the South Hill situation is more similar to West Hill than East Hill; and that in regard to development on West Hill, perhaps Cornell could play a larger role in an area wide study since they are coming in with the proposal on the Cornell site on Route 96. Susan asked Committee members to think about a possible scope for a study of West Hill for follow-up discussion, and in particular, thoughts on how the Town can help to create more livable neighborhoods there. Other Business: Herb mentioned a couple of items on the Committee’s work plan list, including the Grippi property rezoning and the gas drilling issue. Herb indicated that it would be good to get the zoning for the Grippi parcel completed soon. Herb suggested that the Town Board could consider setting up a special committee to pursue implementing measures to address gas drilling because the Town should move ahead quickly on this. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: Susan mentioned that the regular meeting date of April 8th is also a Bolton Point meeting, but that she could miss the Bolton Point meeting. The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 8, 2010. Possible agenda items would be discussions regarding the Ithaca Beer Co. proposal off Route 13 and the Conifer/Cornell proposal on Route 96. 7 Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF APRIL 8, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Pat Leary, Town Board; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement. GUESTS PRESENT: Andy Bodewes, Conifer, LLC; John Caruso and Jess Sudol, Passero Associates; Paul Mazzarella, INHS; Peter Stein, Adrian Williams, Stephen Wagner, Tanya Husick, Cornell Transportation. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None. 2. Discussion Regarding Conifer/Cornell Proposal, Route 96: Andy Bodewes introduced team. Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service will partner on senior living; work with Vitale’s on Assisted Living. John Caruso did a presentation to update Committee. Overview of site: - Connectivity: Overlook future stub road; sidewalk system; and, added passive recreation area. - Reconfiguring Park and Ride area to allow Saturday/Sunday Farmers Market. Paul M. had discussion with Cathy Koken, Director of Farmers Market. Cathy K. was enthusiastic about the idea of Farmers Market on say Wednesdays, to work with weekend Farmers Market. - Parking: can reserve spaces and reduce number of parking. Senior housing usually has 60% ratio. Only need approximately ½ of required by Zoning (land bank parking). - Passive Recreation Area: benches, flower garden, and gazebo. - SEQR/Zoning (Type I Action): Thought about alternate process that might satisfy Town. Tried to scope out what issues would be concerns: traffic, drainage, etc. Possible Full EAF Supplements: traffic, pedestrian access, stormwater lights, viewsheds, land use (similar to Overlook Apartments). - Traffic: Route 96 Corridor, study looked at high density build out on Cornell site. 240 units MF high density in Conifer Study: Overlook Corridor Study Proposed AM Peak: 36 67 17 PM Peak: 51 96 25 - What to do with future development on Cornell site: look at spectrum of what could be built as in: Townhomes, College Facilities, and Community Site. Susan added “Factor in Holochuck EIS, Route 96 study and T-GEIS”. John C. agreed, by comparing proposal with Route 96 2 Corridor density, can determine impact and whether significant, can look at benefit of Park and Ride Lot on reducing traffic on Route 96. - Connections: To Overlook, between housing, and south future access road. - Stormwater: Will use DEC’s new standards. Introduce “Better Site Design” practices. - Viewsheds: Address concern with affecting views. Don’t crest hill, can only see housing from road. Will put dollars into eastside to screen/blend views. - Land Use: population estimates: 72 senior units = 1 person/unit = 72 plus 3 staff = 75. 65 assisted living units = 1 person/unit = 65 plus 5 staff = 70. Total would equal 145 people. Overlook = 128 unites of 2.5/unit = 320 and Conifer = 240 units of 2.5/unit = 600 people. Jon K.: explained the EAF process and the Pos Dec/Neg Dec made after the EAF is reviewed. Rich: mentioned how to determine what scope of future phases would be? John: can do it at meetings with Planning Committee. Discussion on how to scope future part of development, what types and signs of development would be studied. Town wants to see build out possibilities. Andy: Conifer is proposing very low impacting use. Why study bigger development that we don’t know about? Tee-Ann: People always refer to Route 96 Study recommendation of a node. Need to look at all parcels that could be impacted. Where are community components that will make this work as a neighborhood. Susan: Cornell has development ideas. How can Town develop entire site as overall community. John: We are starting to develop plans to fit in as a whole neighborhood. We can agree to look at extremes/worst case on Cornell site to see what impacts would be. However, we don’t want to have to do schematic plans on their site. Jon K: alternately could look at moving neighborhood commercial development to another part of site. - Park and Ride Lot: Is a positive aspect of plan. - Road Completion: Rich: Townhomes – are they proposed? John: not specifically. Jon K: the Town of Ithaca and Cornell have had many discussions about workforce housing for Cornell employees. Discussion: - build full road up front - Zoning: MR okay for apartments and assisted living, but not park & ride. - PDZ: could do PDZ for 3 parcels and not Cornell site - Benefit of PDZ would be for Town to say what we want, how it’s done. Tee-Ann: Would there be PILOT (payment-in-lieu-of-taxes) agreements? Andy: Probably like Conifer Village, do have PILOT agreement. Under Town Law: Assessor assessed land using affordable housing criteria (may not have been in effect when Conifer Village was developed). Susan: Options: 1. Rezone whole site PDZ; approve what’s proposed and set parameters for future site. 2. Rezone just proposed site for Conifer development. Rich: What is ownership proposal? - Conifer and INHS will own Senior Apartments parcel. - Vitale’s will own and operate their parcel. 3 - Conifer will buy and develop park & ride lot, then sell back to Cornell to maintain and operate. Susan: If PDZ for whole site, how would SEQR be done for whole site? John: Risk would be determination of significance based on unknowns on Cornell site. Rich: Could be segmentation issue if don’t look at cumulative impacts of entire parcel development. Paul M.: City did GEIS on southwest development site. Andy: Would like to submit funding application to NYS in February 2011. Then want to move ahead with construction after approval. Jon K.: Why not start GEIS now and have it ready to go. Bill: Not sure GEIS necessary. What would we get out of it? Would rather not spend a lot of time on looking at things not known, like idea of looking at what might happen on Cornell land. Town will look at cumulative impacts in West Hill traffic study. Pat: I agree with Bill. We know we want Senior Apartments, Assisted Living and Park & Ride. Why hold up development by regulating development to do more. Any resident would enhance community aspect. Tee-Ann: Seniors are high needs population. See families walking along Route 96. While Conifer development is good idea, how can we move forward, in rational way? Pat: Residents will mostly be attended to inside beds. Plan accomplishes connectivity. Don’t want to hold development up to hurt affordability. Rich: Agrees we can’t plan in detail every parcel, but do need to at least look at how Node would come together. Will we continue to review projects on an individual basis, or do we look at bigger picture and plan for development the way the Town wants it. Maybe isn’t as big a rush as Conifer might lead us to believe. Ithaca market is growing and is a place where people want to build. Bill: Nodal idea should be discussed by Comprehensive Plan Committee but don’t want to hold up project on that basis. Rich: Would be more comfortable talking about specifics if Cornell would get more involved in process. Pat: We’re not looking at this area in a vacuum. How much more detail do we need to see? John: Not at risk by going through PDZ process. Jon K.: Not much difference in time between EAF and GEIS. Discussion: Why Cornell not agreeing to do GEIS? They would benefit for future development. John: Offering alternative analysis of Cornell site while they do specific analysis of Conifer proposal. Rich: Okay with PDZ approach while Cornell agrees on what goes into it. Susan: PDZ - Conifers part looks good; meanwhile, address Cornell’s part. John: PDZ can require, some workforce housing. Can show all workforce housing, same workforce housing, Cornell education facilities, etc. Jon K.: Wouldn’t be good to plan PDZ without Cornell’s involvement. Andy: Sure that Cornell would be willing. John: If PDZ done and SEQR looks at ranges of options; would be easier for Cornell to get approval later. Conifer goes to Cornell to fill this in, ask them to agree to a PDZ. Jon K.: Need to draft PDZ. 4 John: Come back to May’s Planning Committee meeting to discuss PDZ. Discussion: Will be benefits of PDZ for Cornell. Can always amend PDZ if necessary in future, Andy thinks Cornell will be okay. John: Things that need to be defined: Residential, including workforce housing. Neighborhood Commercial component Cornell education/inst. Facilities Passero can do concept plan showing elements. Identify what SEQR issues to study. Rich: Would like Cornell (Tom LiVigne) to be present. Planning Board would normally be Lead Agency for SEQR. - Schedule for May meeting with Cornell. - Get material to Jon Kanter before May. Passero send material to Jon Kanter. 3. Discussion Regarding Possible Joint Meeting of Planning and Public Works Committees to Address Stormwater Management Issues: - Revisions to Stormwater Law - Approach to retention ponds - Piped vs. ditched areas - Town wide stormwater plan - Ownership and maintenance of facilities Rich: Shoot for May’s Public Works meeting. Jon Kanter and Sue to attend. 4. Preliminary Discussion Regarding Impact Mitigation Fees: Susan: Heard presentation at Association of Towns. Tee-Ann: Planner said he would come to talk about this with Town. Invite other municipalities to attend a meeting. 5. Other Business: Vine Street Cottages meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 13th at 3:00 p.m. Add Planning Board to list for agendas for Planning Committee. 6. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Planning Committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 13, 2010. Possible agenda items: - Discussions regarding the Ithaca Beer Co. proposal off Route 13. - Continuation of discussion regarding the Conifer/Cornell proposal on Route 96. - (Vine Street Cottages not able to come May 13th) - Scenic Resources Report or Grippi Re-Zoning. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MAY 13, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Pat Leary, Town Board; Fred Wilcox, Planning Board Chair; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning. GUESTS PRESENT: Andy Bodewes, Conifer, LLC; John Caruso and Jess Sudol, Passero Associates; Tom LiVigne and Mina Amundsen, Cornell University; Krisy Gashler, Ithaca Journal; Josh Carey, WHCU 870 AM. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None. Discussion Regarding Conifer/Cornell Proposal, Route 96: Discussion Regarding Draft Limited Historic Commercial Zone: Susan read a note from the Grippi’s saying that they would not be able to attend the Planning Committee meeting to discuss the Limited Historic Commercial Zone. Jonathan reviewed the draft of the proposed Zone with the Committee. Other Business: Rich asked what is happening with a West Hill traffic study. Susan indicated that the Committee has discussed it conceptually. Herb has set up a meeting on Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. inviting a consultant to talk about impact mitigation fees. Rich suggested seeing what comes out of that discussion. Bill wondered what information regarding traffic might come out of the Conifer/Cornell traffic study that would be relevant to the overall West Hill. Jonathan indicated that the Committee had decided that the discussion about a West Hill study should go to a Town Board Study Session for further consideration. Bill agreed. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, June 10, 2010. Possible agenda items would be discussions regarding the Ithaca Beer Co. proposal off Route 13 , continuation of discussion regarding the Conifer/Cornell proposal on Route 96, and the Vine Street Cottages proposal. 2 Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF JUNE 10, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Planner. GUESTS PRESENT: Andy Bodewes, Conifer, LLC; John Caruso, Passero Associates; Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer; Joseph Murtagh, Ithaca Times; Josh Carey, WHCU 870 AM; Tom LiVigne, Cornell; Virginia Winkler. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. 1. Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None. 2. Discussion Regarding Ithaca Beer Co. Proposal & Possible Planned Development Zone (PDZ), Elmira Road: Planning Board met on March 16th to review Ithaca Beer Co. sketch plan and liked Dan Mitchell’s idea. - Archaeological: Christopher Hazel, RPA of HAZEx did the preliminary study, for the 10 acre parcel to be developed, and found nothing of significance. - Road: Public Works memo stated; does not need to be public roads as long as the owner and adjacent property owners agree to the continued maintenance of the roadway. Susan Riha: Nothing to prevent moving ahead? Mike Smith agrees. Susan Riha: Not all needs to be Planned Development Zone; just central part of brewery and restaurant, approximately 10 acres. Rich: Should delineate Low Density Residential (LDR) and Light Industrial (LI) on map. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are Light Industrial (LI). Mike Smith: Lots 1, 2, and 3 were approved, but either were consolidated or never filed. Dan Mitchell: 10 acre piece could be subdivided. Roads: Dan Mitchell could own and continue maintenance of roads. This would need to be addressed by the Town. Dan Mitchell: Would like initial facility (brewery) built by Spring 2011. Then add retail front and office space. Lease on existing facility goes through September 2013. Susan Riha: Planned Development Zone (PDZ): include uses, phasing, expansion potential, upper limit and site plan. - Applicant to start working on drafting Planned Development Zone (PDZ). - Planning Committee recommendation at next Town Board meeting to proceed with PDZ. - Dan Mitchell did Environmental Assessment (asphalt present, etc.). Okay to move? 2 - Motion to recommend that Town Board pursue PDZ: Moved – Bill, Second – Rich, Vote: All in favor. - Recommendation to the Town Board at July 12th meeting. Dan Mitchell to draft PDZ and Town will give him samples. 3. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Conifer Proposal, Route 96 (tentative – pending June 7th Town Board discussion): Discussion regarding Conifer Planned Development Zone: Jon K.: Housing component includes senior and workforce. Susan Riha: The owner of the adjacent house lot said he would be interested in being included in PDZ. Jon K.: The PDZ needs to address road phasing and completion. Tom LiVigne: Commercial component may come sooner rather than later. Jon K.: The Committee may want to encourage some commercial development near the park & ride lot. - could extend pedestrian path to commercial, if not the full road. - park, open space facilities need to be addressed in PDZ.. Bill: Likes the idea of design standards. - Parking: Can we minimize number of parking spaces? Bill likes the idea of some parking behind the building. Bill: referring to page 4 of draft PDZ. One family dwelling - would have to define. Susan Riha: likes the maximum 2,000 square feet size of houses to promote affordable housing. Rich: B - SLUD should be Planned Development Zone. John Caruso: Will work on definition of Senior Housing and Assisted Living. Rich: Area 3: Should we include dormitory facility; it may not be compatible. - Outdoor athletic facility? Probably remove, and limit to indoor athletic facility. - Remove outdoor athletic facility. ** Look at list of permitted ‘Retail and Service Uses’** Service station – no repairs. Rich: G 1; Density Limits: Land Use Area 1: 170 dwelling units, what about reducing it to 140 dwelling units proposed (could change parking, stormwater impacts). Farmers Market: 4,000 square feet = building footprint next to park & ride lot. Rich: Land Use Area 3: How many total square feet? John Caruso: Looked at maximum ID’ed in concept plan. Maximum square feet = 125,000 in Area 3. Discussion on whether affordable housing should be required or just encouraged: - 100,000 square feet maximum institutional. - 125,000 is total baseline institutional and commercial. Jon K.: Could we use density bonus approach to say, get more 80 – 100% median income units and less 100 – 120% median income; but also to have some range of housing prices and types. - Building height: May want to define heights by building types. - Building coverage: Why different for 3 areas; should they be consistent? 3 4. Other Business: Susan Riha won’t be at the July 8th meeting. 5. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Planning Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, July 14, 2010; at 10:00 a.m. Possible agenda items: - Discussion regarding Vine Street Cottages Planned Development Zone. - Continuation of discussions regarding the Ithaca Beer Co. Planned Development Zone. - Continuation of discussion regarding the Conifer/Cornell Planned Development Zone. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF JULY 14, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Planning; GUESTS PRESENT: Toby Millman, Agora Development; Mary Russell, Attorney (representing Agora Development); Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf; Noah Demarest, Trowbridge & Wolf; Andy Bodewes, Conifer, LLC; John Caruso and Jess Sudol, Passero Associates; Paul Mazzarella, INHS; Tanya Husick, Cornell Transportation; Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer Co.; Sara Jane Hymes, Anne Posel. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. 1. Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None 2. Susan Riha – Introduction of Planned Development Zones (PDZ): Susan Riha described where we are with the three PDZ’s under review. Committee reviewed, then to Susan Brock, to Town Board and small sub-committee to review details. Susan described what Planned Development Zones (PDZ) are, each is different and defines what can and cannot be done in the PDZ zone. Vine Street: Infill housing, walkability, etc. Conifer: Senior Living/Assisted Living, below median income, Park & Ride. Ithaca Beer: Economic Development, restaurant, production all at the same location. 3. Discussion Regarding Vine Street Cottages Proposal and Draft Planned Development Zone (PDZ), Mitchell Street: Toby Millman updated Committee on project. Met with the neighborhood, and 20 to 30 people attended. Susan Riha was there and there seemed to be support. Had working meeting with Herb, Susan R., and Jon K. Public Works staff discussed road and infrastructure issues. Ownership of common elements; stormwater impact issues. Changes to the plan (see handout), 10 townhouses. Reconfiguring lots on Mitchell Street; not facing Mitchell Street, eliminating the alley. Allows landscape buffer along Mitchell Street and helps with stormwater plan. PDZ addresses issues discussed. Susan Riha: Vine Street possible to be owned by Town. Toby discussed with Public Works. Serves as public street now; would be improved to Town standard. Rich: How is median income townhouses defined? Toby: Would be market rate, low $200’s for townhouses; low $300’s for single-family. Would look at ways to make townhouses more affordable if subsidized. 2 Jon K: Asked whether affordable housing for median income families should be required in PDZ. Toby: Eliminated 4 single-family homes total; adding 10 townhouses. Add 10 townhouses, is a wash from market view point. Bruce: Where’s parking for units 28-32? Toby: Garage is off of front of home. Susan Riha: Park and Open Space; ownership (who would own and maintain). Would this include drainage facilities? Toby: Will differentiate better stormwater pond and park/open space. Public Works expects private Home Owner Association (see N2 in PDZ). Rich: (PDZ: 4e) – Improve access to the Recreation Way? Toby pointed out a new connection from Worth Street through site to the Recreation Way. Would have public easements. Rich: Height – 40 feet. Currently height limit is 36/38 feet. Why need 40 feet? Mary Russell took from Carrowmoor law. Toby: Want to allow what is proposed. Challenging grade on site. Concerned that houses along Mitchell Street might not fit in 36/38 feet, need to look at elevations and details. Townhouses don’t necessarily need additional height – three stories. Rich asked Bruce to comment on height limits. Bruce: Measure from lowest exterior grade to highest peak of roof. Jon K: suggests flagging this issue and let Planning Board look at grading and elevations details and then recommend. Rich: Size limits – minimum and maximum? Many just used models of other PDZ’s. Toby: Wouldn’t have a problem adding maximum. Rich: LEED certification (front page). Would developer pursue LEED certification? Should Committee require it? Toby: Hard to require LEED certification. Rich: Shouldn’t market it if can’t deliver. Bill: Are townhouses 20 feet x 30 feet? Toby: 16 feet x 38 feet. Bill: Keeping of household (3) pets. Mary: Usually, zoning deals with outside keeping of pets. Bill: Will there be a Park and Recreation set aside? Jon K: There will be a small play area and trail connections, Planning Board needs to look at need for park and recreation. Bill: Is Vine Street within the Town? Toby: Yes, just spur to Worth Street would be offered to the Town. Rich: Section L – has another reference to “affordable housing”, need to rectify. Rich: Neighborhood meetings, how did they go? Toby: Reiterated meeting with residents, especially along Vine Street. Rich: Any issues neighbors want to address? Toby: Help solve Vine Street road issue, also drainage; currently no stormwater management at all. Jon K: Also need to talk about crosswalk on Mitchell Street. Susan Riha: Public comments? 1) Storm drains need to be added to Worth Street. Toby: Would like to get PDZ back to Town Board by September and start detail plan. Bill moves recommendation; refer to Planning Board for sketch plan. Rich seconded. 3 Vote: all in favor. 4. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Conifer Proposal and Draft Planned Development Zone (PDZ), Route 96: John Caruso: Introduced where PDZ stands. Revised Multi-family housing and change in Area 1 to Senior Housing and Assisted Living; can’t confirm that Assisted Living will be done. Andy Bodewes: Have been discussing Assisted Living with Vitale’s as part of site. As of last night, Vitale’s have chosen another site in Lansing, so will not develop on Cornell site. We want to move forward with Senior Housing. Could look for another Assisted Living; or could have other Senior Housing. Jon K: Suggests re-looking at PDZ Area 1 to provide for some other uses (e.g. workforce housing) if Assisted Living doesn’t work out. John C: No dorms, no outdoor recreation; added pedestrian connection, community garden, lowered number of units to 150 units in Area 1, updated parking provisions, lowered maximum size of workforce housing units to 1800 square feet; Phasing – added provision for road. Rich: Understand that retail component in Area 3 would be built simultaneously with development of Area 1 (was not in previous PDZ); was discussed – but not in PDZ. Jon K: Trying to look at larger neighborhood and need for neighborhood commercial element. Andy B: Out of Conifer’s control of community element and what happens on Cornell site, but sees larger need for commercial component. Jon Bosack: Raised at Planning Board. Park & Ride lot: he is optimistic of long term success of Park & Ride. But, TCAT doesn’t currently have resources necessary to make Park & Ride work. Cornell would have to be involved in funding. Could add farmers market use space in early phase. Tanya Husick with Cornell: Yes, Park & Ride lot is part of Community Initiatives Program. Met with TCAT last year, TCAT is interest and has financial issues. Cornell intends to turn lot over to TCAT. Joe Turcotte has indicated interest in TCAT taking over, does stem from T-GEIS and Community Initiatives Program. Rich: Can’t assume it will happen immediately. John C: Park & Ride could have other uses. Jon K: Cornell and TCAT need to be brought into the process. Rich: Afraid that Park & Ride being used as inducement for Town to approve the PDZ. Susan Riha: Assisted Living gone; questions on Park & Ride. Could go back to Multiple Residential Zone; just for Senior Apartments. Rich: Could take PDZ off table, but lose opportunity to prevent just conventional single-family lots. Bill: Willing to continue PDZ as long as not drawn out process. Susan Riha: We do want the neighborhood commercial to move ahead. Rich: Would like commercial pegged to Phase I development. We could define how much would be necessary to start off with. Bill: Not as concerned with development of Area 1. Would like to see commercial pegged to develop of Area 3. Rich: Questions: Remove dorms and outdoors athletic fields – in Area 3. PDZ: D(3): Residential facility for faculty, staff and students. 4 Bruce: Explained that dorms are different. John C: Could be college-owned townhouses. Rich: Height – Area 3 – 60 feet: May be excessive for all uses. Could it be less for workforce housing, but okay for institutes. John C: Could peg height to type of development. Susan Riha: Need to get Cornell, TCAT and Town of Ithaca at table to discuss Park & Ride lot. Also, need to discuss: - design standards - housekeeping issues - Phasing Bill and Rich: Have minor comments. They will pass on to staff. Bill: Phasing – Future dedication of road stub. John C: Conifer/Cornell would build walkway to property boundary on south. 5. Discussion Regarding Ithaca Beer Co. Proposal and Draft Planned Development Zone (PDZ), Elmira Road: Rich: PDZ within line on Concept Plan – 10 acres. Where would parking for 700 cars for special events go; would it be in PDZ; would it be paved? Dan Mitchell: No, hasn’t been planned yet. Rich: Parking should be temporary facility. Susan Riha: Event for 5,000 people; need plan for events, off-site parking, and shuttles, etc. Bruce: Town doesn’t have special permit or approval for large events. Jon K: Parking requirements in Section 227 of Zoning Code do not address needs of Ithaca Beer proposed, probably want to put in PDZ, peg to square feet or number of employees. Susan Riha: Daycare Center? Permitted use? Workers at brewery have discussed need. Could be a future element for employees. Rich: Height: Dan should determine what he needs and we can work around that – e.g. silo, brewery. Brewery = ______; Silo = ______; etc. - Large events – need to address. Mike S: Ithaca College had to submit traffic management plan before holding an e vent. Planning Board could review and grant approvals for special events as part of site plan approval process. Dan: Could take event portion out for now. Bill: Or could keep reference and have process for Planning Board review. Bruce: Outdoor noise is regulated by Noise Law. Outdoor tents are regulated by Building Code. Dan: Is there a cap on number of people? Susan Riha: Take event element out of PDZ for now? Bruce: Don’t take out, but don’t put size in. For tent permit, have to provide information on how many people, how fire department gets in, etc. Also, sanitary facilities. Dan: Just refer to large events. At what point do we address further? Rich: Permitted Use: Add temporary/stage, amphitheater. Susan Riha: Next steps. Dan, revise PDZ and bring back to Committee. 6. Other Business: None 5 7. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Planning Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, August 12, 2010. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Diane Conneman, Conservation Board. GUESTS PRESENT: Josh Carey, WHCU 870 AM. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements: Status of nodal development, fees study? What is happening – less need for traffic study, staff to do list of questions on nodes: are they going to work, how, what impacts will they have. Was also tied to mitigation fee study – GEIS: Rich wants Board to discuss so there can be direction to staff. Reschedule October meeting for Thursday, October 21, 2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. 2. Update On Critical Environmental Area’s: Brief update from Sue Ritter. Sue R, Herb and Susan Riha met to discuss: Consider UNA’s that currently have Conservation Zones; boundaries have been ID’ed. Town Environment Law says activities within 250 feet of the Critical Environmental Area is Type I. This may cover too large an area, propose to change that provision. Coy Glen will soon be a Conservation Zone. Susan Riha: thought all UNA’s should be designated CEA’s. Jon K: suggested possibility of two phases: designate UNA’s that are Conservation Zones first; then look at other UNA’s – longer to look at boundaries issues. 3. Discussion Regarding Draft Scenic Resources Report for the Town of Ithaca: Sue R and Jon K went through presentation. Question: Distinguish better “framed” and “enclosed” views. (Rich) Question: Could Comprehensive Plan Committee look at recommending Design R eview Board/Design Standards: Rich: Are scenic regulations defensible – legally? Wind farms – are they bad for aesthetic reasons? Susan Riha: Build support for views – provide scenic pull-offs; educational kiosks; etc. Sue R: Cornell - Pine Tree Road. Get Cornell to protect their field; develop sitting area, pull - off. Susan Riha: Other threat – cell towers. Jon K: Asked Committee for feed back on report. Committee should review, edit and comment. Can we send to Conservation Board as report is? Committee said yes. Rich: Page 105 – edit. Rich: Planning Board can require cluster. 2 Committee to review report; get staff comments. How much does 3D GIS analyst cost? Sue R: approximately $2,000.00. (Sue R should put proposal together for 3D/simulation software)? 4. Other Business: West Hill study: nodes, traffic, etc. Town Board talked about possibility of GEIS in conjunction with mitigation fees. In conjunction with Comprehensive Plan – Mixed Use. Study could evaluate when nodes work and when they don’t. What will they look like? How to connect new development with existing? Bill: Suggests having Town Board come to Comprehensive Plan Committee to discuss “nodes”. Tee-Ann: Comprehensive Plan Committee doesn’t have enough information to decide how to do nodal development. Main interest is West Hill (not so much South Hill and East Hill). Scenarios for growth; what characteristics would be; what impacts would be; be able to choose best way for growth to occur. 5. Next Regular Meeting Date & Agenda: The next Planning Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, October 21, 2010, starting at 3:00 p.m. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 21, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; GUESTS PRESENT: Toby Millman, Agora Development; Mary Russell, Attorney (representing Agora Development); Noah Demarest, Trowbridge & Wolf; John Caruso, Passero Associates; Andy Bodewes, Conifer, LLC; Tom LiVigne, Cornell. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. 1. Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None. 2. Review and Discussion Regarding Draft Vine Street Cottages Planned Development Zone (PDZ): Toby Millman updated Committee on plans and Planned Development Zone. Three sketch plan meetings were held with Planning Board. Major feedback was on circulation, improvement of Vine Street, one way configuration of Worth Street. Clover Lane becomes two-way street; Vine Street remains as private, unimproved road. Would “convey” portions of Vine Street to adjacent owners with cross easements. Vine Street neighbors are pleased. Stormwater management plan now allows centralized area for collection and treatment. With less expense of improvement, Vine Street proposal has reduced number of houses. TOT lot moved north next to connection to the East Hill Recreation Way. (Pedestrians paths and TOT lot should be open to the public – make sure that’s addressed). Rich: Have units increased in size? Toby: No, original plans were more generic. Homes are still 1,900 square feet. Plan more accurately, reflects footprint. Typical lot size is a little larger, 95 feet compared to 90 feet. Bruce: Why called Clover Lane? Toby: Opposite Clover Lane. Bruce: Need to name north section of road with townhouses. Rich: PDZ: Page 7: Median income reference taken out. Committee agreed. Page 4; #8: Keeping of pets. Deleted wording. Home Owners Associate could regulate. Page 5, K: Size limit for lower, not upper. What’s planned? Toby: Typical unit approximately 1,900 square feet, limit by lot coverage. Bill: PDZ: Page 5: Open Space: Home Owners Association will own TOT lot and access. Use controlled by HOA – need provision in PDZ. Jon K: Could add language in PDZ for intent for TOT lot and paths to be open to public use. 2 Page 6: Building permits; Paragraph 2: Could we exempt solar panels from needing site plan review? Could we add same language in PDZ that EcoVillage used? Page 6: P; 1(a): Can be deleted. Page 9: Q: Crosswalk – okay. Motion: Send back to Town Board with recommendation to pursue PDZ and refer to Planning Board for recommendation. Moved: Rich Seconded: Bill Approved: unanimously. 3. Review and Discussion Regarding Draft Conifer West Hill Planned Development Zone (PDZ): Andy Bodewes described meeting a couple of weeks ago about park & ride lot. Main issue was ownership and maintenance issues, regarding park & ride lot. TCAT can’t afford to own it. Jon B: TCAT would have approximately $30,000 – $40,000 more in costs. Could start with limited service and see how it works (2-3 trips in a.m. and 3 at night). Jon K: Route 96 Study and Park & Ride lot studies showed this as a key location for park & ride. Sue R: Could commercial portion be part of initial phase of development? Andy B: Cornell doesn’t know what will happen yet, but has agreed to pursue zoning to allow certain things to be done. Commercial can happen - some interest expressed, especially on Route 96; could be potential drug store, gas station with convenience store. Tom LiVigne: Has been approached by local developer with interest, but nothing definite at this point. Susan Riha: Likes the Senior Housing because not much traffic generated. Also, PDZ could get neighborhood started. Feels should go ahead with it, but concerned with unplanned development on West Hill. Tom L: If allow things to begin, could generate impetus for additional components. John Caruso: Senior apartments at upper corner, so not impacting other parts of site. Rich: Started with 3 concrete pieces to start, now left with one senior apartment. If Board approves this, should require phasing of additional elements in Area 3. Subject to whim of Cornell. Not comfortable with leaving it open. Assisted Living now not included. Having just Senior Apartments across from hospital isn’t a neighborhood. Commercial component up in air, park & ride up in air. Bill: Agrees with Rich. Currently have park & ride and senior apartments as first phase. Are we now talking about park & ride and commercial in second phase? Tee-Ann: Concerned that we’re looking at this proposal as an isolated proposal. Is this best location for a senior apartment? Is it best place for retail component? Looking at this site without wholistic look at West Hill. Seniors wouldn’t use park & ride. Bus already goes in Overlook. Are people going to use park & ride? Tom L: Just spoke with developer (on phone) and interested in gas station, convenience store. Sue R: A store should have vegetables, locally grown food, place for residents to congregate. Seniors don’t drive as much. Ellis Hollow Apartments are a better model; next to stores and 3 places to go. Conifer Village more isolated; need to consider aging in place; need place for seniors and residents to go. Andy B: Seniors like being out where they are at Conifer Village. Do have community garden. Thinks senior apartment being near hospital and doctors is a benefit. Susan R: Thinks having other parts of neighborhood should be developed first. Jon K: Concerned with park & ride – need to figure this out with Town Board. Also, agree with Sue; need small market; design as neighborhood. Tom L: Developer he talked with may not be interested in local a market. Andy B: Can’t tie Federal/State financing with other aspects of development. But PDZ is fostering development the way Town wants it, starting with low traffic generated. Park & Ride lot would further mitigate overall traffic. Infrastructure also will be planned and committed. Bill: Option: Give up on PDZ and just do Multiple Residence Zone. But likes PDZ because of controls it gives Town. Wants design guidelines so we don’t end up with ugly convenience store. Convenience store (and gas); probably good start to community there. Our zoning is MDR which could end up with conventional housing. Have three elements in PDZ that might be there – Senior Housing, Park & Ride and Convenience Store. Andy B: Conifer would still buy land where assisted living was proposed. Jon K: Could that area be for townhouses? Andy B: Yes. John C: How would you control on-going affordability? Size would control cost. Jon K: Could we start with simple language regarding affordable housing without getting too complicated? Tom L: Cornell would agree to a percentage of housing being affordable, but not all. Jon K: Suggests meeting with a few people (Conifer, Cornell) to agree on affordable housing terms for PDZ and come up with draft language. Tee-Ann: Comprehensive Plan Committee: Striving to create mixed-use neighborhoods. Susan Riha: PDZ would provide for that. Rich: But it would be in future, not now. Susan Riha: Feels we should move ahead with PDZ. Is Committee willing to move ahead on PDZ? Jon K: Suggested Committee go through emailed items: Page 3; #1: Drive thru’s – Recommend not allowing. Uses in retail list = Pharmacies, banks, restaurants. John C: These typically need drive thru’s. Jon K: Want neighborhood oriented, pedestrian oriented, not car oriented. Committee agrees to not allow drive thru’s. #2: 3,000 square feet retail. Keep as in PDZ. #3: Affordable housing: We’ll meet on that. #4: Parking behind buildings: Conifer doesn’t have problem with parking in other areas; but, would be problem in rear of senior apartment building with hillside. Jon K: Is there way to put some parking in rear and some on side of building? John C: Not all parking shall be in front of building – suggests 40% in front; 60% in back (or sides). Break up parking with landscaping, already in PDZ. Jon K: Also make sure we’re not requiring too much parking. Work with Conifer on wording. #5: Site amenities: Okay, add as guideline. Rich: Page 2: “Other Commercial Purposes”: Just okay to have small commercial component. 4 Section A, Paragraph 5: Community character. Is this wording necessary? Jon K: This is a general consideration that Town Board, Planning Board consider in rezonings. Page 5: Number of Units: 80 dwellings in CU Area 1. 80 dwellings were in Area 3. Came down from 175 dwellings or 180 dwellings. 4. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Planning Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for Monday, November 15, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. Possible agenda items: Continue discussion of Conifer/PDZ. Continuation of review and discussion regarding Draft Scenic Resources Report. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 15, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning. GUESTS PRESENT: None. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: Rich: Asked status of Cornell Energy Recovery Linac (ERL). Jon K: Explained status of project regarding these issues: truck traffic, energy use, cleanup of Judd Falls Road. EIS is being prepared by Cornell. Jon K: Mentioned Pine Tree Road pedestrian/bike project; also mentioned stream setback law and how it might impact ERL. 2. Continuation of Review and Discussion Regarding Draft Scenic Resources Report: (Note: Susan = Susan Riha - Sue = Sue Ritter) Susan: Next steps? Sue: Conservation Board is reviewing reort. Hope to get comments by December. Susan: How will report fit in with Comprehensive Plan? Sue: Would like as Appendix to Comprehensive Plan. First, need Town Board okay to move along to Comprehensive Plan Committee. Susan: What are potential pitfalls: - listed 28 scenic views. What if there are other views? Or, what if someone wants to develop something in a view? Herb: There were public comments with the Conservation Board version (saving Ithaca’s views). Herb thinks report is really good work. Rich: Certain amount of subjectivity with report. Jon K: Design of development is important. Where located, colors, and height. Herb: Could be used like UNA inventory. Draws attention to key views. Rich: Legal precedent for scenic overlay zones? Jon K: Yes, Comprehensive Plan could recommend priorities for where overlays appropriate. Sue: Planting trees can be an impact on views. Herb: Longview – Interrupts view of lake. Compromise was reached to preserve view. Specific Comments: Rich: Page 13: Add court cases. Add a few sentences in text. Then add court references in in appendix. 2 Rich: Page 33: Development can be a view. Is it more injurious to have development in foreground than farther away? Rich: Page 41: Sand Bank Road – take out reference “exemplar of sustainable building”. Jon K: Add list of figures/tables. Rich: Page 49: Trumansburg Road – View at Oddfellows building. What about Holochuck development? Rich: Page 56: East Shore Park – Is Lansing power plant discordant? It is far away. Plume coming out is visible. Also gazebo at park is partial obstructive. Figure 27: View of Holochuck will diminish view on West Hill. Rich: Page 70: Figure 38 – Revise wording: replace ‘skyline’ with ‘campus’. Rich: Page 85: Golf Courses – Should we make commentary? No – golf courses do promote visual relief. Leave as is. Rich: Page 88: West Haven Road – Figure 61: Change wording to ‘a view of Cornell University’. Figure 62: Change ‘skyline’ to ‘campus’. Rich: Page 102: Setbacks Rich: Page 105: Delete ‘residential’ at top. Rich: Page 106: Clustering – Shall we require Planning Board to consider cluster? May be one way to preserve views. Sue: Page 99: Keep map of Zoning. Sue: Page 102: Add description of SEQR process. Sue: Page 113: Check on legislation for Community Preservation Act. Sue: Page 114: Acres in PDR. Susan: Next steps: Ask Town Board refer to Planning Board for comments and recommendation. Bill: What is in report is background. Important to see what goes into Comprehensive Plan. Motion: Town Board consider referring to Planning Board for comments and recommendation. Moved: Rich Seconded: Bill Vote: Approved unanimously. Planning Board will usually hold Public Hearing. Clean up revisions before sending to Town Board. Conservation Board is also commenting. If not too much comment, incorporate revisions and send back to Town Board. Town Board can decide if want another public hearing. 3. Other Business: None. 4. Next Regular Meeting Date & Agenda: The next Planning Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, December 9, 2010, starting at 4:30 p.m. Possible agenda items: - Conifer (if PDZ in) 3 - Discuss plans for possible meeting with City of Ithaca official regarding West Hill development and related issues. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 9, 2010 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Riha, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Nahmin Horwitz, Town Board Elect. GUESTS PRESENT: Josh Carey, WHCU 870 AM. Chair Susan Riha called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: No comments; no additional agenda items. 2. Discussion Regarding Possible Meeting With City of Ithaca and Tompkins County Officials Regarding West Hill Issues: Rich: Indicated County will also be involved. Rich asked Martha Robertson who should be involved from County. Martha offered Peter Stein. Bill: Talked with Jennifer Dotson. She thought talks could involve Emerson and their issues. Rich: Talked with Jennifer (Chair of Planning and Economic Development Committee with the City of Ithaca). Meeting should focus on West Hill. Susan Riha: How to structure discussion? 1) Limit to West Hill. Rich: Define area of study, come up with a ‘Plan of Study’. Won’t be a joint study, but we’re seeking input. What areas of common ground are there? Bill: Discuss an additional bridge across inlet. Susan Riha: Train: Miliken Point Coal Plant (AES) may have to close down, very expensive to retrofit scrubbers for EPA standards. Getting rid of train would eliminate some traffic problems. Bill: Trail connections; Rob Morache’s idea of a trolley. Susan Riha: More TCAT service. Tee-Ann: Future road modifications to Route 96 (State DOT’s role). Susan Riha: Lane reconfiguration at bridge near Pete’s. Rich: What does Town want to know/get from Study? Bruce: What problems does City see? Sue Ritter: Lack of emergency access and use of neighborhood streets (e.g. Campbell St.) when Route 96 is closed. How thru road from Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road could help? Susan Riha: Bottleneck at bottom in City. Do we just accept that. - Do we want more new roads? - Warren (Allmon) concerned about new entrance on Route 96 without a traffic light (e.g. Holochuck subdivision). Bruce: Proposes Town using eminent domain to take land at hospital for new road entrance. 2 - Discussion about Holochuck: Jon K. DOT has not weighed in on traffic light yet. Cayuga Medical Center said no thru road through hospital land. Susan Riha: Warren Allmon sent email to Susan, mentioned meeting he attended by “CHPE” (Katie Stoner, Rob Morache, Tom LiVigne, CMC, etc.). Warren thinks a plan should be in place to coordinate development as a node. Tee-Ann: Request that Committee recommend a moratorium to Town Board. Many development proposals in; no overall plan. Jon K: Four major landowners (Cornell, PRI, County and CMC) all have development interests in area. Tee-Ann: If big players all agree, could get together to plan overall plan for area. Susan Riha: Engage major players (including Holochuck and Goldenrod) in a planning study? - General discussion: West Hill Development – Carrowmoor – Conifer remaining lands, Perry Farm. Jon K: Town could build connector road between Mecklenburg and Bundy Roads and charge back to adjacent developers. Susan Riha: What will Comprehensive Plan show? Sue Ritter: Generally desired development. Rich: Original purpose of study, is build out under existing zoning feasible? Sue Ritter: Alternative scenarios, what is possible? Rich: Compare traffic impacts of build-out vs. node. Sue Ritter: Build out analysis was just done. Rich: What number of population needed to make node work? Jon K: Rob Morache said 3,000 to 5,000 (4,000 probably good number). Rich: Never get good answer to whether a node would really work. Jon K: Study scope could define: Is a node feasible, what would make it work; what are impacts. Jon B: We need a plan. Wants specific plan as to how West Hill should develop. Susan Riha: At some point; Comprehensive Plan will determine how growth should be; and zoning changes to get there. Rich: If Town does decide on moratorium, need to provide good rationale: Comprehensive Plan, West Hill Study, traffic impacts, etc. Tee-Ann: Proceeding under old Comprehensive Plan, Zoning; projects going to Planning Board. Falls to Town Board to decide what want to do. Susan Riha: Agree that there are major issues to address. When will Comprehensive Plan get done? How long zoning take? Rich: Need to define geographic area of a moratorium. 3. Review and Discussion Regarding Conifer West Hill Proposal and Where to Go From Here: Susan Riha asked Jon Kanter to update on Conifer Sue Ritter & Jon K: Just received revised PDZ draft. It did not include many revisions regarding design standards. Bill: If just down to Conifer senior apartment building; does it make sense to get through PDZ? Or should we rezone to Multiple Residence like Overlook. Rich: This is still part of overall question. Do we want a senior housing project there? 3 Jon K: Park & Ride: Cornell willing to build and make land available. TCAT not able to own and maintain. County not willing, is Town willing to own and maintain? Sue R: Are there better places for senior apartments; is West Hill best place? Rich: If Town wants to take a break, have a moratorium; then doesn’t make sense to look at details of PDZ. Jon K: Cornell still interested in park & ride lot. Funding deferred, but could be in a future year. Rich: Options outlined by Committee: - Pursue PDZ now - Moratorium – Put hold on PDZ review, pursue West Hill Study - Abandon PDZ; pursue Multiple Residence for senior housing Bill: What issues were brought up with Conifer Village senior apartments? Sue R: No real discussion. Is it a good location? Not controversial. Rich: Prefers using PDZ approach to senior apartments with pursuing park & ride lot. Bill: With Goldenrod Subdivision, not sure if a node would work with that density. May feel better about a moratorium now. Would rather not spend time on PDZ now on Cornell site, until Comprehensive Plan is done. Jon K: Would need to define moratorium – e.g. don’t limit Cayuga Medical Center from public health improvements (e.g. lab addition just approved). Rich: Mainly concerned with large residential development without necessary community services. Susan Riha: Agrees that this area not best for senior housing. Jon K: Cornell owns land in northeast. Bill: East Hill may be better place for senior housing. Susan Riha: Original task was to review PDZ. Where is Committee now? Suggest recommendation to Town Board – 1) premature to pursue PDZ at this point, with pending Comprehensive Plan and West Hill Study. Motion: Recommendation to Town Board to pursue limited development moratorium on West Hill to be defined, and to allow for supplemental information to inform the Comprehensive Plan and planning process. Moved by Rich; seconded by Bill. Vote: 3 yes - Unanimously approved. In addition, Committee agreed to report sense to Board that Conifer PDZ be put on hold while decisions are made on moratorium. Entire Committee concurs. Back to City/Town/County meeting: Rich: Maybe one Committee member could talk with planning staff about what should be on agenda. Would be good to have set agenda. Jon K: Agreed to consolidate notes on City/County meeting. Send to Rich. Jon K: Format of meeting? 4 Rich: Keep small for first meeting: - One or two reps from Town Board - City – similar - County – Peter Stein and Ed Marx. - Staff present Bill or Rich: Report recommendation on moratorium to Town Board on Monday, December 13, 2010. (Note: Susan Riha may not be there) 4. Other Business: None. 5. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: The next Planning Committee meeting to be determined, pending Committee appointments for 2011. Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning