Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2011-01-01 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF JANUARY 25, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Board; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Assistant Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra, Planning; Mike Smith, Planning; Sandy Polce, Administrative Staff. GUESTS PRESENT: Pat Dutt, Ithaca West Hill Community; John Caruso, Passero Associates; Andy Bodewes, Conifer, LLC; Stephen Wagner; Joseph Wetmore; Peter Stein; Monty Berman; Don R. Crittenden; Bill Sonnenstuhl. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: Rich welcomed Pat Leary to the Planning Committee. 2. Consider letter from Timothy Fournier, President & CEO of Conifer Realty, LLC: The Planning Committee discussed the Planned Development Zone (PDZ) proposal for the Cornell owned parcel that Conifer Realty is seeking approval to build low income senior apartments for. Rich felt that the proposal was originally more comprehensive in nature and included a mixed use proposal. The proposal then changed to only include senior housing without the assisted living element, no park & ride, no other commercial or mixed use elements for remainder of the property. Rich: There are many proposals for the Route 96 corridor, none that seem to be comprehensive or connected. How do we look at West Hill, comprehensively or one proposal at a time? How does the Conifer proposal fit in with the overall area? Not sure if what the Town is being asked to do (zoning change for Conifer) fits in with the greater picture. Bill: Comments about Vitale (assisted living) proposal – latest Conifer project is a stand alone senior building. It may not be appropriate to go further with the PDZ if the park & ride or other elements of proposal are at a stand still. Discussion followed regarding the park & ride as to who would build it and who would maintain it once it was built. Cost of maintenance could range from $2,500 to $50,000 a year. Pat: Thinks the Town should maintain the park & ride lot. The park & ride would go a long way to mitigating traffic and that the maintenance was a fairly minor issue. PDZ should go through. Herb: TCAT estimated that the cost of maintenance would be around $3,000 to $4,000 annually, while Jim Weber estimated $25,000 annually. Sue R: There are issues of cost and service of the park & ride. TCAT estimated the cost for bus service to the park & ride could range from $30,000 to $50,000. Jon Bosak: Affirmed the estimated cost for TCAT but also thought TCAT would need to increase service to the area to make it work. Pat: TCAT should be thinking of providing more service on West Hill , could it be just a matter of changing their existing routes? Planning Committee Meeting Summary 1/25/11 2 Bill: It doesn’t make much sense to put restrictions on a 33-acre parcel with Conifer and go forth if the Board will be thinking about a West Hill node concept. Suggest working on the whole West Hill node concept before doing PDZ. Perhaps Conifer should consider a Multiple Residential (MR) zoning. Pat: PDZ is good blue print to work from. Better to have an outline for the area; PDZ has all elements the Town is looking for; too much effort to abandon the PDZ now. Rich: Effort is good but doesn’t mean it’s for a best outcome. Intent of PDZ was for overall Conifer/Cornell area in conjunction with overall West Hill node development. Now only looking at senior housing project with nothing else; Cornell has not been forthcoming with their intention for the remaining property. Pat: Senior housing without walkable amenities is not ideal; PDZ would push it further towards having those amenities. Would like to see the senior housing go forward. Bill: PDZ is better than typical suburban sprawl that is currently allowed in existing Multiple Density Residential (MDR) zone. But without knowing what’s happening around the 33 -acre parcel, shouldn’t go ahead and adopt the PDZ. Pat: Wants to adopt premise, “if we build it, it will come” and “hope we don’t allow TCAT to be the stumbling block”. Rich: Asked for input from Conifer regarding in any changes to the proposal. Conifer: Park & Ride still on the table and proposed for Phase I. Still wants senior housing and Vitale piece could be part of Phase II. Town of Ithaca has been a leader on affordable housing and we appreciate the relationship with the Town. We want to continue developing affordable housing. Also, stated the need to apply to the State for money to do the construction. Rich: Reiterated that the Town needs to take a more holistic look at the overall area. “What is to preclude Conifer from coming to Town in the future once a holistic look has been taken”? “Is the bigger picture a deal breaker with Conifer”? Conifer: Replied “yes, could be”. Bill: Affordable senior housing good idea but not the PDZ right now. “Possibility to add more senior housing on East Hill, and leave West Hill alone for now”? Conifer: “Yes, but it’s taken a lot of time to talk about the project and to get a contract from Cornell. Could eventually do both. To do or not to do PDZ – want to find the right solution. Would like to sit down and talk on how to move forward”. Rich: Vote to recommend the PDZ to Town Board: - Pat moved to recommend to Town Board. - Bill voted against recommending to Town Board. Recommendation to Town Board failed for lack of second vote. 3. Continue discussion of a possible development moratorium in the West Hill area: Rich: Disparate development on West Hill is not indicative of a larger plan. The Comprehensive Plan Committee has yet to adopt a future land use plan. The idea was proposed to develop temporary moratorium to arrive at a recommendation. At last Planning Committee meeting, the idea for the moratorium was approved, but not forwarded to the Town Board because of the lack of specificity. Questions that need answers: - Geographic areas to consider, including what types of activities to include or exclude in the moratorium. - Duration of the moratorium. - What we hope to accomplish during a moratorium period. Planning Committee Meeting Summary 1/25/11 3 What constitutes a successful node, for instance if we put 4,000 people within a half mile of Cayuga Medical Center, what impact will that have on the sewer and water system, traffic and quality of life? - Proposes moratorium on large scale residential subdivisions on West Hill. Bill: Should consider moratorium because getting closer to the end of the Comprehensive Plan process. Hopes Comprehensive Plan Committee will recommend nodal details and moratorium may help the Comprehensive Plan Committee with their analysis of West Hill node and any zoning changes. Pat: What if Comprehensive Plan Committee decides there should be no development on West Hill? Rich: Then Town Board could out vote the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Bill: Want to look at ideas from the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Rich: Question: Can node be successful in area bisected by a major highway? Rich: Discussion of framework, what should be included: - Large scale residential subdivisions (put largest demand on area) - Investigation on High Density Residential (HDR) along State highway node served between Route 96 and Route 79, not just Route 96. Pat: Area has potential to be a self-contained walkable area. - Doesn’t preclude node-like area of PDZ (Conifer). - Okay to consider Route 96 and Route 79. - Okay for moratorium timing in areas where there hasn’t been much work on. - Moratorium for a year? Rich: Thinking of a year long moratorium. Pat: Okay with a year. Doesn’t put much hope in Comprehensive Plan for housing in the Town and doesn’t think the moratorium should be a vehicle for no development on West Hill. Also wants to hear better reasons why some developments can’t go forward. Herb: We have a 1993 Comprehensive Plan that is valid and capable. Agrees that development should be carefully placed, but no different with West Hill development than on South Hill. Up until now the Town has given developers the green light. Moratorium talk at the last meeting seems to be premature. Anything that has spent time and money on and has gone through approval process should be allowed to continue. I hesitate to have a moratorium on any current projects. Comprehensive Plan should be completed this year. The 4,000 person figure is highly debatable. Comment on node split by highway: that there have been plenty of successful nodes. Tee-Ann Hunter (member of Comprehensive Plan Committee and Town Board): Development projects happening now are not in line with the Comprehensive Plan Committee discussions, Rob Morache’s presentation, working with the City on West Hill planning, and resident concerns. The Route 96 traffic study in the 2010 budget never happened and the money is still available. Owe it to Comprehensive Plan Committee process and vision in the Town to bring conversations together to address these issues. Moratorium will do that. Pat: Have moratorium on projects that are not too far along, not ones that are ‘vested’ (i.e. Carrowmoor). Concerned that moratorium will send message to developers that we are not a friendly town. Tee-Ann: Obvious that the existing Zoning is not meeting the needs of the Town (Pat agrees). Need to take a look at all land areas, not just PDZ area to see what makes sense for the Town. If we want to do a node, we owe it to ourselves to do it right. Bill: High density node near Cayuga Medical Center is a good idea and Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning will not get us that node. Question to Susan Brock about moratorium Planning Committee Meeting Summary 1/25/11 4 language for Northeast Area: “Is language generally the norm? Can Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals even process site plan applications/variance applications”? Susan B: (In terms of the NE moratorium) “No, Planning Board and ZBA could not accept new applications and existing applications could go through SEQR but not preliminary/final site plan/subdivision”. Bill: Ideas for consideration of a moratorium on MDR zone between Route 96 and Route 79 for one year. Prohibit subdivision into more than 2-lots. Rich: We want to think in terms of practicality, and do not want to prohibit existing single- family homes from adding an addition, for instance. That wouldn’t be included in the moratorium. Commented on Rob Morache’s viability of a node (viability requiring 3,500 people); also commented on Herb’s comment that South Hill, East Hill, West Hill all have the same issues. Rich: Northeast moratorium gives the Town Board wide latitude to entertain appeals/waivers if developers could persuade the Board that they could meet the criteria for waivers from the moratorium. Rich: Asked to hear from staff if moratorium would help with staff projects on Comprehensive Plan and regarding geographic location. Sue R: Suggested a possible boundary to include the areas west of the Conservation Zone, all LDR/MDR, areas near the city that have development potential, east of Hopkins Road then directly south to Mecklenburg Road, to West Haven Road and south to Elm St. Ext. Pat: Concerned with including Carrowmoor and Conifer PDZ areas. Rich: If there’s a consultant involved, what could Town staff accomplish with a year moratorium? Sue R: Within a year it is feasible that we could complete the Comprehensive Plan, a West Hill study and possibly begin changes to the Zoning. Dan Tasman: Explained two issues to deal with. What capacity is there? Want to provide a node that ‘won’t hurt the octopus too much’; what form should that node take? What can the sewer, water and roads take? Traffic? Rich: Question: “Can you have a smaller number of residents and still maintain walkability/connectivity elements of a node”? We should look at the potential employment situation on West Hill before we consider Cayuga Medical Center the center of the node. Pat: South Hill and East Hill are full, West Hill only area for additional housing stock. Need to look at adding housing to Town that minimizes impacts but don’t assume Cayuga Medical Center is main employer and that people will not leave West Hill. Recommendation from staff regarding geographic areas to include moratorium: No official vote. - Ayes: Rich (except area south of Mecklenburg Road); Bill (with less restrictions than Northeast moratorium, don’t include Lakeside, Cayuga Medical Center expansions); Pat (wants to exclude any projects that have been started, particularly Carrowmoor, Conifer and Holochuck). - Nays: None. Rich: Don’t limit to projects that have started, don’t even list specific ones. Herb: Should identify specific projects; especially the ones that the Town Board encouraged in the past (Carrowmoor, Holochuck). Rich: Doesn’t think area south of Mecklenburg Road was critical to include in the moratorium. Planning Committee Meeting Summary 1/25/11 5 - Planning Committee decided to think about geographic location for moratorium and come back and decide at next Planning Committee meeting. 4. Discuss preliminary scope for West Hill nodal development feasibility study: What would the Planning Committee like to learn from a feasibility study: - Is there a minimum population to support mixed use - Public transit options: trolley, TCAT - Off road pedestrian and bicycle routes - Alternate road ideas - Ideal population; maximum population for a node - Examine adding population with existing conditions; then look at with transit with alternate road connection - How many people could live up there - Is park & ride a good idea; yes/no - Node – what needed to function as a node - Commuters and existing commuters contribute to node; how does that population together contribute to the viability with node - Where is the optimal site for a node to serve existing and future needs - Are we talking about a node or nodes? - Node as an employment center – how many employers are expect to come to the node - How many nodes can the Town support; look at West Hill – can Town support three nodes - Survey of employers - Survey of employees at Cayuga Medical Center – would they move to live closer to Cayuga Medical Center, interested in moving - What would add to assessment - What does current zoning allow - Phasing in of node, ideal node size, length of time to get to the ideal size - Multi-family rental units needs - Affordable housing study by County; is it still relevant; what has been built so far - What is employment at bottom of hill – near node within two miles - Conservation and Ag on two sides, how will that impact layout of node development, - Will node encourage development between City and node – infill, shuttle service - What to hire out for the study, versus what can be done by staff 5. Other Business: Planning Committee approved the 2011 meeting schedule. 6. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: Next meeting scheduled for February 10, 2011. Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandy Polce and Planning Staff TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 10, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Board; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board; Nahmin Horwitz, Town Board; Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Bill King, Zoning Board of Appeals; GUESTS PRESENT: Toby Millman, Agora Development; Mary Russell, Attorney (representing Agora Development); Noah Demarest, Trowbridge & Wolf; Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer Co.; Adam Klausner, Attorney (representing Ithaca Beer Co.); Monica Pritchard (representative of Conifer Realty – TOI) Stephen Wagner; Margot Brinn, Karim Beers, Anna Smith, Yvonne Fogerty, Stephen Bowman, Brendan Callahan, WHCU. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: None. 2. Consider Ithaca Beer Proposal and Draft Planned Development Zone (PDZ) language: The committee reviewed the draft Planned Development Zone local law for Ithaca Beer with comments on the following sections: Page 2; Section 2: D (5): “the operation of special events”. The committee generally agreed that this should be in the PDZ. Discussion on what would be needed for a large event. Subject to Tompkins County Environmental Health requirements, noise/tent permits from the Town. The City of Ithaca has a well established process/procedure for handling special events. - Pat: Keep law simple. - Bill: Permissible, but need to follow existing permits – noise/tent, anything in future. Page 3: E (2): Amphitheater (as permitted accessory building): Discussion: How big will the amphitheater be? Dan thought it would be similar in size to those used by Brew Fest at Stewart Park. The committee suggested he determine the approximate size of the Stewart Park one and to include a not to exceed number of square feet in the PDZ. - Dan: Responding to committee member question - not sure about the necessary wiring for amphitheater. Back to page 2; Section 2: D (1): Permitted principal uses - “Any use permitted in Low Density Residential Zone”. Discussion on using the LDR zone as basis for permitted uses. - Bruce: Pointed out that D (6), (7), (8) were already allowed in LDR. Planning Committee Meeting Summary 2/10/11 2 D (9): “Roadside stand…incidental sales of local garden, farm and nursery products” Growing vegetables okay, is off road anyway. The PDZ does not come up to Elmira Road. Bruce wants clarification on the ‘incidental’ sales of local gardens. - Rich: As long as it is locally grown. Need to have a roadside stand limit; a not to exceed size of road stand. - Bill: ‘Incidental’ is used in EcoVillage, may want definition in the Code since used elsewhere. Page 3, E (3): “3 additional out buildings not to exceed 3,000 sq. ft”. - Rich: Clarify, three additional buildings not to exceed 3,000 sq ft, each? - Bill: If used for grain might be exempted for agricultural use. - Bruce: Could do a percentage of the lot, not exceed 10% of the parcel size. Out buildings – 3,000 sq ft each; aggregate – 10,000 sq ft with 3 buildings. E (4): Signs: - Dan: Will have need for directional signs, off-premises signs - would need variance for off- premises signs. E (5): Parking (permitted accessory bldgs. and uses): “…parking areas for staff and customers of 70 cars…”, Phasing of paved parking subject to site plan approval. - Susan B: Provide the number of parking spaces. Page 4: I; Parking: (1): revise (1), the number of parking spaces Phase I. - Rich: No problem with Planning Board approval provision. Parking does not imply paved parking? Phase I – 70 paved; Phase II – not to exceed; Phase III – not to exceed. - Rich: Not comfortable with 700 spaces being paved. - Dan: The intermitted parking will not be paved. (H): Height regulations: - Dan: Will need a second silo and will need to have it about the height of current silo. - Bruce: Concerned with how many silos will be allowed. - Susan B: If we know how many and how tall. Also, look at the Town Building Code for Chapter 270 – look at any height regulation. - Rich: Would silos be considered auxiliary buildings? Don’t want unlimited number of silos. - Rich: Regarding E (3): What is the number of silos needed? Provide not to exceed number. Applicant will revise law, and then have Susan Brock look at it before returning to the Planning Committee. 3. Consider Belle Sherman Cottages (formerly Vine Street Cottages) Proposal and Draft Planned Development Zone (PDZ) language and consider referral of PDZ to Town Board: The Committee reviewed Toby Millman handwritten modifications of the draft PDZ and comments/discussion followed. Comments: Under Section 2 – A. Findings: A (5): Change T.G. Miller to O’Brien & Gere. Planning Committee Meeting Summary 2/10/11 3 Page 3: D (2): Add “or stormwater management purposes” after utility and “or stormwater management” after services. D (3): Delete ‘Gardens’ section completely. Page 4; E (bottom comment): - Toby: Fall zones for towers, too dense in Belle Sherman for the amateur radio facilities. - Susan B: Will provide wording identical to other residential zones. Page 4 & 5 - F (2): - Toby: add “Inc.” after Belle Sherman Cottages Homeowners Association. F (3): - Toby: add “water and sewer mains”. F (4): - Toby: add “gas, electric, cable television, telephone and data”. Page 5: G: Clean up item. Delete “lowest interior” and change to “average” to read: “average exterior grade”. - Toby explained these houses have porches similar to Belle Sherman that raises their height. Forty feet (40’) from average exterior – multi points along perimeter of exterior – could do every 5’ and take average…… - Toby: Crawlspaces are expected; but would not want to prohibit basement. - Bruce: Measure from font grade elevation – road. - Toby: Good with that change. H: Delete entire sentence: “The following structures exempted from building permits may be located less than 10’ from any other structures; detached tool sheds and storage sheds, play structures, play houses and similar structures, fences and gates not over 6’ high above the natural grade, freestanding pergolas, arbors or similar decorative structures”. The project is on the March agenda for NYS Codes Department pertaining to setbacks. Applied for variances, that will be dealt with before Town Board approves PDZ. Page 6: M: Removed language. N (1): Replace ‘lines’ with ‘Town mains’ and delete items not conveyed to the Town. New Section W was added, old language ‘W’ was deleted – feel that the PDZ zone override the original zone. Because some things are not listed, was a concern. - Susan B: Exceptions should be listed, because there are other laws, such as lighting law that the PDZ needs to follow. Mary R: Concerned with lot sizes and setbacks, block sizes - conflict with minimum side yard. - Susan B: The PDZ refers to approve site plan? - Mary R: No, but that would solve problems. - Susan B: Will look at that. - Toby: Site plan reference will solve this. Page 7: O (3): Building to architecture and design, this section is very rigid, the site plan approval is more flexible, if there is a way to refer to the site plan. Page 8: P: Add word ‘building permit’. P (1)(a): - Toby: Constructed does not mean completed. Added language: ‘Such determination does not require that the road be final paved’. Planning Committee Meeting Summary 2/10/11 4 - Susan B: May not need wording above, not needed for building permit. Wait on final decision on bonding issue at next weeks Public Work Committee meeting. Page 9: P (2)(b): What constitutes completion of the road? Page 10: P (2)(e) & (f): Delete those sections as advised by Public Works. R: In terms of crosswalk, subject to approvals from the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County; doesn’t want this to hold up the project. This may not belong; take this out of PDZ, make this a site plan condition. Back to Page 4: E (7): ‘other recreational facilities’ – typical of zoning, tennis courts, hot tubs, etc. F (2): change to ‘shall be owned’. Next steps: Revise with Susan Brock. Change (discussed at today’s meeting) and anything that comes out of the Public Works Committee to be forwarded to Town Board for consideration with setting the public hearing. Draft to March Town Board – (GML County before) – set Public Hearing To April Town Board Public Hearing - Bill moved; Pat seconded the motion. All in favor to send on to Town Board with changes. 4. Continue discussion of a possible development moratorium in the West Hill area: • Consider proposed moratorium boundary map: • Consider draft local law: • Consider referral of draft law to Town Board: Discussion on agenda items 4 and 5: Scope for the West Hill nodal study (Section G in proposed Local Law): - Pat: List seems more than what is needed, particularly bothered by “Affordable housing study by County, is it still relevant”? How many units have been built, what is still needed, how does current economy affect results of study? - Rich: Given economic climate, determine if the total units reported as needed are still needed. Certain assumption; economic criteria that was used; valid question to find out how many have been built. Validate parts of the study. - Pat: Are we planning to re-study this? - Tom LiVigne (Cornell University): Not many built since the study. - Pat: Need for lower priced houses; more than ever because of the economics. - Rich: Assumptions based on a growing economy; asking to look at the assumptions of the study. Assumptions need validating - Pat: Don’t need to revise the study, accept that. - Rich: Useful to determine number of units built; can be determined pretty easily for the county. - Rich asked Tom LiVigne: “has underpinning of study changed”? Planning Committee Meeting Summary 2/10/11 5 - Tom L: Real Estate Dept. looking at building permits for County, Cornell University Administration interested in looking at the numbers. - Rich: Tom, could you make this information available? - Tom L: Yes, will provide to Sue Ritter; the assumption is that there is a need. - Pat: Transportation: “other alternatives”, more should be listed. Add small vans to be looked at in public transit; also private transit. - Rich: Narrow down the list. - Pat: Shuttle service, with public/private transit. - Susan B: Van pool service, Ithaca car share – these are other services also available - Nahmin: Route 96 corridor study – node study with no node study. Has Committee determined node is feasible? Have they come up with the most desirable way to move forward? 1,500 in Trumansburg, is that viable? - Rich: Yes. Not a lot of work in Trumansburg; still making a lot of trips into Ithaca. - Pat: Setting it up to fail; is a node the only thing we want to consider? - Rich: 96 Corridor, Cayuga Medical Center described as magnet for node; how many would choose to live in the node and how much hiring is CMC doing. - Pat: Do they have to work at Cayuga Medical Center? Can we not also assume they work at Cornell University? - Rich: Yes, assume Cornell University ……. - may decide no way to build perfect node; - things are going to be built the way they are currently being built. - Bill: Get away from “node” language. Interested in what is the best way to see development happen; not interested in a road centered on the node. How best shape development on West Hill – develop pressure on West Hill. - Pat: Get away from idea of a ‘node’? - Rich: Not all or nothing – depending on the study, still need to find a way for some development to happen. - Rich: Study can include resources we already have; gather from existing employers; do some in-house. - Rich: Feasibility – culmination on how to scope the study. - Nahmin: Question is how to do this; don’t see Town Board member best to come up with best plan without guide from professionals. - Who is going to tell the professionals what the criteria is. - Before pass moratorium – need criteria before move forward. - Nahmin: How to judge “best” criteria? - TeeAnn: Process of doing Comprehensive Plan – reports and studies; used to inform us. Pose question to the studies to make sure current and applicable. Would be hiring a consultant to do a traffic study on Route 96; put out a request for proposal (RFP) scoping and establish criteria. - Herb: Nothing wrong with 1993 Plan. Original allocation was a Town-wide plan. Town Board member decided to apply to West Hill. Takes time away from Comprehensive Plan. - Rich: West Hill is different, it is more isolated. - Herb: Route 96 addressed the issues – revisiting issues. - Rich: Park & Ride study – indicated that people like living where they are; how many people would actually use park & ride? - Herb: Cayuga Medical Center used as a park & ride. - Tom L: As parking rates get higher and higher on campus; people will choose to use park & ride. Presidents initiative - bring people close to campus, lands available close to campus. Forty percent (40%) would like to move if closer to campus. Planning Committee Meeting Summary 2/10/11 6 - TeeAnn: Going back to what Bill said – desire of looking at best scenario for West Hill. Disagreements on Board – not of one mind among ourselves. Route 96 Study – traffic issues at bottom of the hill evades us. Synchronization of traffic lights. Professionals to help us decide how to deal with traffic on West Hill. Take a look at it collectively, owe it to ourselves, residents and others. Development pressure on West Hill and then we will not have a say, lost opportunity to create a plan. - Pat: Traffic: Park & Ride will be used if other amenities are there; what is Cornell University update for West Hill parcel? - Tom L: Park & Ride dollars has disappeared because project not coming forth; education component is still just an idea – no fundraising, no internal approval; hotel school contracts land and wants to hang on to land, possibility for some workforce housing. - Discuss moratorium at Town Board Study Session if time. 5. Other Business: None. 6. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: Next meeting March 10th. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn meeting: Bill motion and Pat seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, S.Ritter/S.Polce TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MARCH 10, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Jon Bosak, Planning Board; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Herb Engman, Town Board; Nahmin Horwitz, Town Board. GUESTS PRESENT: Deborah Homsher, Anna Smith, Marie Harkins, Pat Dutt, Ithaca West Hill Community; Rachel Stern, Ithaca Journal. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: None. 2. Continue discussion of a possible development moratorium in the West Hill area: Rich invited audience members address the committee with comments. - Dubois Rd. resident: expressed support for the moratorium; Town needs to get away from piecemeal development; the moratorium makes sense while in the midst of Comprehensive Plan. Concerned with previous comment by Town official stating that they felt it was unfair not to allow the developer to proceed. - Warren Rd. resident: learned of issues from the list-serve; nodal development - not sure definition works here; development not mitigated, West Hill is distinctive with lack of suitable alternative roads to move traffic in and out of the City; supports moratorium, appreciates the effort by Town. - West Haven Rd. resident (Pat Dutt, Ithaca West Hill Community): Expressed support for the moratorium; no organized development on West Hill; no time to plan – give Town planners and Board time to create a vision; plan needs to be based on solid data – how dense, what housing is needed, what kind of mass transit; what are the characteristics of a walkable community; give planning time so people can be pleased with the outcome. Give West Hill residents an opportunity to be included in the process; expressed appreciation for the efforts. Discussion of moratorium local law: - Rich: introduced the moratorium local law; described attorney recommendation concerning language in the law; suggestion was to articulate what is different about W. Hill in the findings/purpose. Rich asked the committee to weigh in on the draft: - Bill: Should we keep all of details in Section 1. (G)? - Rich: Transportation is primary concern; major employers [on other Hills] are situated such that employees don’t have to drive in to the City. From West Hill, employees have to drive through the City. Planning Committee Meeting Summary 3/10/11 2 - Pat: Uncomfortable with specificity in the law – more comfortable with it being in the Study. Could keep this in the law, but more as a consideration. Insert the word, “may” to read that “the scope of the study “may” also include…” We are not going to be able to make everyone happy with the study. - Rich: As far as making everyone happy – inclusive process bringing stakeholders in to the process, instead of individual site reviews. - Nahmin: Will we also provide same comments to Comprehensive Plan, when set up, where and how development should take place? Thinks there should be specificity in the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. The 96 Corridor made some specific recommendations. Sees conflict between the 96 Corridor and survey of residents. Comprehensive Plan Committee members are not professionals; why not arrange for professionals to study area and come up with plan. Two years ago should have done this; Comprehensive Plan Committee should request staff to come up with a plan. - Herb: Projected traffic with no growth on West Hill will still see growth from Trumansburg and the Town of Ulysses. No desire to promote development – but, for developers that played by rules – allow those projects to take place – a couple of years wait would be unconscionable. Nodal development does not have to be perfect. - Rich: Questions this owing something to developers. Even if development is in the works, there is hope that it could be better. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan has not been followed and subsequent zoning did not follow the recommendations. Discussion on keeping “Quantify the applicability of Tompkins County 2006 Affordable” Housing Needs Assessment” in Section G. - Figure out what has been satisfied thus far and if the need is still there. County hired consultant to do study and is unlikely to re-do anytime soon. - Committee: Leave as is. - Herb: Reported that at recent Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) meeting there was discussion with NYS Department of Transportation regarding a comparable study to determine how various roads compare with one another; if there are significantly more problems/issues on certain major roads than others. This could include a level of service study; they also appear amenable to look at traffic lights at bottom of West Hill. - Rich: Question regarding exemptions in the local law. As written, single family residential would be allowed 25% building increase. - Bruce B: Described types of residential expansions. Explained that requests are often for adding an apartment unit. - Rich: Should we change this to 50%? -Herb: See no difference between 10 apartments and a development with 10 units. - Pat: Does not want to be onerous to homeowner. - Bruce B: West Hill is different than South Hill and East Hill. Little students on West Hill if looking for recommendation – limit to repair and maintenance - no increase by sq. ft. - Bill: 50% single-family unit and 25% two-family. - Sue R: Will double check that the 10% expansion for an institutional facility is adequate for CMC’s planned surgery room expansion. - Bill: Will not result in “significant increase”, should better explain? - Rich: Maybe take out: “will not result in a significant increase in vehicular traffic”. - Bill: Agree, take out reference to vehicular. Planning Committee Meeting Summary 3/10/11 3 - Rich: Commercial / Institutional ask if okay – definition. Discussion on proposed moratorium boundary map: - Rich: Introduced the map. - Sue: Provided further information of map, issues with proposed developments, Conifer/Holochuck. - Pat: Asked why Holochuck cluster townhouses are considered bad? - Sue: Explained how the layout and location impeded the idea of a walkable/connected neighborhood. Poor connections for transit accessibility and to other neighborhoods. The internal road proposed on the Cornell/Conifer property was envisioned to provide a walkable PDZ, with better transit connections; now with just the senior apartments proposed, the road will just cut off; no circulation, big question as to how TCAT will serve the apartment. There should not be a sea of parking between the internal road and apartment frontage – the idea was for a neighborhood street. - Rich: 70 units, low income senior housing, Holochuck additional 106; County vision 533 units. Initiate a moratorium but let 40% be built? It does not make sense to exclude Holochuck and Conifer. - Pat: If exclude Conifer – should we exclude whole original. - Discussion back and forth amongst committee on whether Conifer should be excluded or not. - Pat: Exempt Conifer; move to PDZ for Conifer – take entire property out. - Rich: Legally not wise, cherry pick parcels and exempt from proposed area. - Sue: Spoke with Susan B. and she would have concerns with how specific exemptions are worded or shown on the map, need to insure this is not arbitrary. - Bruce B: Need to justify; what are the reasons for removing from boundary – can’t be arbitrary. - Pat: Significant – Holochuck, Carrowmoor and Conifer. - Rich: That would be exempting +500 units. - Bill: Wants to take out Conifer. - Bill: Recommendation from Susan Brock; carve exemptions out the map or have each pursue a waiver – raise at Study Session. - Rich: Law refers to map; can revise map based on Susan Brock’s advice. - Rich: Would like to get this out of Committee. Consider recommendation to Town Board: Rich, Bill and Pat: Unanimous decision to forward to Town Board for consideration. 3. Continue discussion of the scope for West Hill nodal development feasibility study: Discuss at next meeting. 4. Other Business: None. 5. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting: Next meeting April 14, 2011. Respectfully submitted, S.Ritter/S.Polce TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE FINAL SUMMARY OF APRIL 21, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Herb Engman, Town Board; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Board. GUESTS PRESENT: Dan Mitchell, Ithaca Beer Co.; Adam Klausner, Attorney (representing Ithaca Beer Co.); West Hill resident. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: None. 2. Consider Ithaca Beer Company proposal and draft Planned Development Zone (PDZ) language: The committee began the review of the PDZ language with several questions that Rich had. - E(2): “Amphitheater not to exceed 2,500 sq. ft.”; does this refer to just the stage, the entire building. - Bruce suggested modification for E(2): add “of building area” after 2,500 sq. ft. - E(5): allowing a temporary building; is this necessary? This section was cut and pasted from another PDZ and is not necessary for the Ithaca Beer project. Remove. - E(3): “Three additional out building not to exceed an aggregate of 15,000 sq.ft”.; why was this changed from 10,000 sq.ft.? After some discussion, decision made to change to 10,000 sq. ft. (remove 15,000 sq. ft.). - Bill: Silo height is listed under section H., but silos are not listed under E. as a permitted accessory structure In E. add 5 silos as an allowed. Keep silos in H. to address height. - the higher go with silo – more pressure - Bruce: not to exceed x diameter. - Discussion on the proportionality of silos of height and diameter. - For E(5) grain silos – not to exceed 5 in number and 12’ in diameter. - For H: Silos not to exceed 40’ in height and 12’ in diameter – add this to the end of the sentence where it is already referred to. Moved on to Susan Brock’s highlighted comments: 2 - D(3): “Limit sale of items in retail stores to products related to brewery”? Common sense should prevail – don’t limit sales of items. Committee: no change; no limit. - Comment concerning D(2-4) maximum square footage: - Dan Mitchell - square footage of the building is phased – the first building phase is 15,000 sq. ft. - As currently written, if add up the individual building components described in D(2), D(3), D(4), the sum is 65,000 sq.ft.. Is this the footprint or entire interior floor area? Footprint would be easiest to work with. Building is 100x150, but office is upstairs. - Bruce: Building code will limit some aspects of project size, so figures for interior sq. ft. would not be doubled. Restaurant may not be able to go upstairs. - Bruce: Area = footprint; footprint would be equated to that seen if shine light down from above roof. - Pat: Leave flexibility for interior use; just use footprint. -Herb: The total footprint does not have to add up to the 3 uses (50,000 – 5,000 – 10,000). - Bill: Should say 65,000 sq. ft. - Bruce: Take out sq. ft. for each of the uses. - Adam K: Change to operation with brewery, welcome center and retail store not to exceed 65,000 sq. ft. of building area? - Rich: 65,000 is a very large building; need to get a handle on the need for this size; the smaller the building, the less impervious surfaces is better. - Dan M: Explained need for brewery approximately 8 x current size. - Rich: Accommodate brewery at 30,000 sq.ft. with just production space; question of need for 35,000 sq. ft. for the remaining uses. - Bruce: If put at 40,000 sq. ft. – can come back to Board. Have idea on growth and need of area. - Rich: A check-in point; supportive of business but need reasonable milestone. - Dan M: Ithaca Beer 25% increase/year. 40,000 barrels possibly next year. - Rich: What does committee want to do here? -Bill: Supports 65,000 sq. ft. Committee: Okay with new D(2) = 65,000 sq. ft. Combine the uses in one statement. (5) Special Events: Committee okay with subject to permit. (7): Committee ok as is. E(4): Okay to leave signs in the hands of the Planning Board; let them propose language for the revised PDZ. Question related to private roads. Will these be private road or driveway? - Committee reviewed access on drawings. - Dan M: No private roads, just driveway. PDZ silent on private road issue. 3 Refer to Public Works Dept; they will need to review sewer and water to determine need for easements. Maximum lot coverage: committee determined not necessary. Parking: Currently 70 total plus 8 additional (employees) in first phase. Need for parking in future phases would be identified during site plan review by the Planning Board. - Bill: First 15,000 sq. ft. requires 70 parking spaces. Would expansion equate to a number of spaces per increase sq. footage? - Rich: Phase I not to exceed 78 spaces; - 10 spots for brewery - X for restaurant - 1 space for every ……… - no more parking than necessary - Bruce: PDZ needs specific language to address parking. - Retail and Restaurant – use code requirements. - Brewery space – number of employees anticipated - Dan M: Currently: - 7 employees in brewery - 1 retail - 3 sales - 1 up front - restaurant staff generally replaces brewery in the late afternoon. Bruce: Set standard to what is need, then allow Planning Board to set criteria – what you have to have; “can amend per Planning Board site”. Committee: no more than 100; not to exceed. - Bruce: [270-27] – figure out language (work with Bruce on this). - Section J.: Setback: Okay – fix; merge with G. - Section M.: Change to ‘2’. • Consider referral of PDZ to Town Board Committee: Refer to Town Board as amended; Silo diagram still to be determined. Bill moved to Town Board (May 9th meeting) with changes. Pat seconded. All approved. • Adam to send revision to Sue Ritter • Sue Ritter to check with notes; work with Susan Brock • Need to wait to put on May 9th Town Board meeting – not Study Session. Remove for Study Session because need to have Town Board see draft. 3. Discuss potential meetings with City officials regarding West Hill planning issues: - Rich: - Conversation with Jennifer Dotson regarding holding an informal City-Town meeting. - City is proposing attendance by staff (JoAnn Cornish), two Council members (Jennifer and Ellen) and Mayor. 4 - Rich: Maybe too many from City? If Mayor involved then does Supervisor get involved? Is this to be a summit or working group? Is this a discussion or negotiations? Council changes at Ithaca City Hall at end of year; how long will these discussions go on? - Rich: If can tactfully be arranged without the Mayor/Supervisor, then will do. - Rich: Who from Town of Ithaca; Rich sees himself given role in Planning Committee; Herb may be in or out depending on whether Mayor will be present. - Rich: Proposed Tee-Ann as other Town Board member; given her knowledge of West Hill and involvement in the discussion all along. - Bill: Okay with Tee-Ann at meeting. - Rich: After first meeting, revisit the participation. - Pat: Maybe open to more participates after first meeting. - Herb: Project of the Planning Committee? - Rich: Could talk about participation at the Study Session. - Rich: Idea is to solicit City input on a West Hill study before a scope is devised. Will review email and ask Paulette to review Town Board minutes to see if this is Board or Committee initiation. 4. Other Business: None. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Talk parameters at Study Session. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF JULY 14, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Board; Dan Tasman, Assist. Director of Planning. GUESTS PRESENT: Mark Macera, Executive Director - Longview; Noel Desch, Andy Bodewes, Conifer, LLC; John Caruso, Passero Associates; and Dan Winch. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: None. 2. Consider April 21st meeting summary: One correction; spelling correction on the name of Adam Klausner. Bill moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes, all in favor. 3. Discuss Longview PDZ amendment proposal - affordability component and trail or easement possibilities: Mark Macera described the Longview facility. It is a not-for-profit senior housing and services facility with 24/7 care. Longview does not have “skilled services” yet. Located originally on Quarry Road in the City; moved to the new site (Danby Road) which allowed them to expand and add services; to meet needs of single and couples. The philosophy of Longview is housing without regards to means. When apply to live at Longview applicant provides standard information including financial. Regardless of income they can apply and Longview will accept individuals who are of modest means or even indigent. Longview takes a hit for those who can not pay at all - $2,500 - $3,000. Longview receives no public funds; financed by fee for services at market rate. Those who pay the full market price are subsidizing those who cannot pay. Approximately 20-30% of residents are subsidized. Some residents start at market rate then spend down their resources and become subsidized. Equates to approximately 30-40 individuals; not just providing a roof, but providing full services. - Rich: Is there a cap on number of individuals who can be subsidized? - Mark: Can’t really go over 30%; have turned down some individuals because of service, not so much because of costs; Longview can’t admit some because their needs are too high, not so much because of means. Nursing home costs are $70-80,000/year. - Pat: Turned away who cannot pay? - Mark: Don’t think so. - Pat: Ideal ratio, turn away full pay for charity. - Mark: It is an art as much as financial; the population is always in flux/turnover; future admissions need to be managed to stay in business. 2 - Pat: What stops Longview from only taking in residents at market rate? - Mark: The Longview Board of Directors and its Mission Statement keeps them taking in charity cases. Always have more charity than can handle – many applicants. - Pat: Would this scenario apply to the patio homes? - Mark: Probably not at admission; but if the resident has spent down their resources they would not be asked to leave. Longview has accepted individuals from other facilities who have been asked to leave because they have no more resources – at other facilities it is written into their in lease that will be asked to leave if they money runs out. Mark explained how residents are relocated within facility as their needs change. Independent apartments are different than patio homes. Living quarters in the current facility are licensed care, requires 3 meal/day, and need to have to pay whether they eat in the dinner room or not. Offer a continuum of care. For the proposed patio homes the cost is ~$3,000/month, with some of the same services: emergency call, maintenance service, social/cultural services; all facilities can be used that is available; including Ithaca College services and facilities. Trails - Mark: Willing to expand the trail system; 15 years ago created the public use of trails on the facility grounds, written in a declaration of public use agreement. Agreeable to expanded trails as long as it does not interfere with facility safety - 24/7 operation; only want to insure that this doesn’t interfere – Longview has been cooperative on this issue in the past. - Herb: Developments take place and individuals have to walk on dangerous public roads to get to destinations; shopping at King Road in future, for instance; leave potential for connection in future; in construction of building to get trail through to connect. - Mark: Agreeable; work with planning staff. - Rich: Provision in PDZ? - Element during site plan. - TeeAnn: Access to Ithaca College? - Sue/Mark: Grade to Route 96 is steep; walking at grade at Longview. - Herb: DOT sidewalk on Route 96? - Mark: Slopes off the edge from the road, need fill to have safe sidewalk – would be a significant project. - Mark: Planning staff look at Declaration of Use as idea – to use as model for Declaration of Use for any other walkway. 4. Consider draft local law language for Conifer MR re-zoning proposal: Andy Bodewes began the discussion and stated that he hoped Conifer could get back on track with this project to apply for NYS tax credits; rezoning is the critical piece to get the NYS tax credits. - John Caruso: February 1st is the deadline for applying for the tax credits. [Conifer reps provided map which indicated 4.87 acres proposed for the rezoning; 29.77 acres remain]. - Pat: Page 8, 3. c. (ii), Grading: Doesn’t understand language. 3 - Dan Tasman: One large pad is often created on hilly terrain, this creates lots of disruption with drainage; disrupting the land contours. The idea is to create small pads or possible to provide more terracing. - Rich: Let’s go back to beginning of the document; also, requiring one building with 72 units would need lots of grading. Page 1 – requirement of no more than one building… should allow multiple buildings? - Dan T.: Yes, breaking up the mass would be a goal; creating as residential a feel as possible. Large buildings tend to be institutional in nature, a monolith, Conifer had proposal for one building. - Andy: Several reasons for the one building – residents like the one community room where they can gather; create a support network; community feel. In terms of the cost aspect – need separate elevators, more monitoring systems. The current building model works and residents like it; and economically we are trying to use NYS money efficiently. - Pat/Rich: Don’t really agree with community aspect. - Rich: Have just one building model? - Andy: Yes, but can be flexible. Have other models, but use this one often. - Pat: Elevators, this is an issue heard over and over. Only one elevator is not liked – have back up if goes down and closer to other units. - Dan T.: Consider playing around with it; security is an issue, controlled access is important. Cluster looks like separate buildings but is actually just one large building. - Pat: Suggests re-wording 2(a) to ‘one or more multiple resident building’. - Andy: Name ‘Conifer West Hill development’ change in highlight. - Committee: take out reference to southwest and rest of this paragraph. Page 2 b. – take out reference to ‘one building’. - Andy: “the 54 one bedroom, 18 two bedroom” – this is still unknown, suggest taking this out. - Rich/Committee: Not to exceed “54 one bedroom …” that allows parking spaces to be estimated knowing this. - Bruce: Delete after “approved by Planning Board”. - Pat/TeeAnn: “such construction consisting of a mix of one and two bedroom apartments”. - Bill: Conifer gave this detailed information in the past. How much detail do we want in this law? How much need? Will we have this much information from site plan? - Andy: Things have changed dramatically since 2006. Tax credits are not worth what they had been. Banks had been buying; there was a big demand, propped up with credits. Today it is very different. Now it is .60 cents/credit versus $1/credit previously; and can’t ask State to makeup difference. Conifer needs to be flexible in the application. Feds can change federal credit law thresholds, so we need to adaptable. By putting these thresholds and requirement into the law, this pigeon holds us. - Committee: Combo of one and two bedroom apartment’s okay. Page 2, C. (i): Income Restrictions and Duration: - Half for low income – will they apply equally to one and two bedroom apartments? - Andy: Problem with this section: if new legislation occurs and the Town law has certain thresholds that does not meet federal requirement, again this creates constraints; we would have to come back to the Town to modify law before we can change the application; in order to make the application conform or be desirable. - Andy: In 2006 Tompkins County was considered ‘difficult development area’, this is no longer so and therefore can’t get the 30% boost in the application point factor. 4 - Andy: “90% or less” shall be “72 units earning 90% or less of the median income”. - Bill: Susan Brock took the old law; Conifer should re-draft the law to address concerns. Send Committee a draft to consider. - Rich: Thinks the affordability factor is just as important. - Pat: 90% as an upper limit is still good. - Rich: Inflated median – increase does not lower the income that would be allowed. - TeeAnn: At only 90% it dilutes the affordability. - Pat: Hoping to get a figure higher than 60%; 90% is a good number. - John: Summarized proposed changes - One or more buildings; 90% or less of median income; not sure which funding program will fall into; the funding must conform to IRS standards, on page 2 and 3 there is the certification to the Town provision to insure that Conifer is conforming, this could be reported annually; but uses the IRS guidelines. - Andy: Federal tax credit may be a State home loan, may be something else, we don’t know, but we do know that we will be following State and Federal guidelines for Low Income Housing Tax Credit, determined by HUD. Runs with land and cannot be broken and that is what will be followed. Have to comply with IRS. State and Federal will guide what is required. - Rich: Recommend that John and Andy take the current version of the law and redline it with your comments; - John and Andy: Agree. - Rich: How feel about site and architecture standard …. - John: Page 8 – Why have these specific site requirement in the local law? - Sue and Dan: explained reason with Comprehensive Plan moving in a more Traditional Neighborhood design and the planning objectives that the Town is trying to achieve. - Bill: Town’s first attempt at some form-based code; this development is the carbon-copy of the other Conifer senior housing apartment building; why not just flip the parking and building; if leveling anyway, not understanding why could flip switch on same level pad. - Dan T.: What about terraced parking? - John: Had looked at smaller parking in front with some in back, haven’t looked at this particular arrangement. - Rich: Send away with law and red line the changes you are proposing. Provide it a week in advance of next Planning Committee meeting. What are real problem areas in the law? - John/Andy: materials; brick/stone. - Pat: Items that affects residents; these are most important to me. Pat also commented that she does not have a problem with vinyl siding, some composite materials can be natural looking - Bill: if have examples of other projects; i.e. Clifton Park. - TeeAnn: if used other materials on buildings, show us. 5. Other Business: None. 6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting August 11, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE FINAL SUMMARY OF AUGUST 11, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Board; Dan Tasman, Assist. Director of Planning. GUESTS PRESENT: Andy Bodewes, Conifer, LLC; John Caruso, Passero Associates; media. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: Rich contacted Jennifer Dotson; hasn’t gotten back to Rich, she is out of town. 2. Consider July 14th meeting summary: Pat requested that the following be added on page 4, towards the end: “Pat commented that she does not have a problem with vinyl siding, some composite materials can be natural looking.” Bill moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes, all in favor. 3. Continue discussion of the draft local law language for Conifer MR re-zoning proposal: - Rich: Invited Andy Bodewes and John Caruso to begin the discussion. - John C: Explained the approach in modifying the language in the law, idea to simplify the first section. The language on income ranges had many specifics, that could be problematic. Sent revised draft to Susan Brock to review the first section; but haven’t heard from her. - Rich: Previously 60% of income when initially proposed. - Andy B: Federal program capped at 60%; State passed low income tax credit; hits up to 90% - since they [Conifer] are not sure which program they will be applying for, wanted to keep the language flexible – provide with more option. - Rich: How does 60% or 90% affect project, does this affect the amenities? Does Conifer make more money. - Andy B: IRS puts restriction on amount of money that a developer can make in this program. - Sue: Section C.2. states that the units shall be restricted to servicing household at or below 90% of the Area Median Income, but it does not define what this is. Andy: this is the term used by HUD, Area Median “Gross” Income. Add language, “as defined by HUD”. C. Building disposition: (i) Building setbacks: After some discussion, committee agreed to change this to between 10-30 feet. - Sue: Responded to a concern about the language having been watered down. The main goal was to address site and architectural aspects of this project. It may not be necessary to dictate specific standards for each element listed; we do not currently have any such standards, and this is our first try. The Conifer site is anticipated as part of a future planned neighborhood and we 2 want it to fit into a neighborhood setting. The language gives the Planning Board criteria they do not currently have, something they can work with, and it communicates the Town Board’s intent in having these aspects of the project addressed. - Rich: Who will be modifying the language in the law? - John C: Sue and John will - Tee Ann: Explained that we are in the middle of the Comprehensive Plan and why we want this type of language – gives the Planning Board the information they need – the goals that are being set through the Comprehensive Plan process. - John C: Thankful that the land was not included in the moratorium. Does not have real rub with the language, just want some flexibility, have not yet worked out the engineering aspects yet, building siting, grading, etc, so there are still unknowns. Wants to maintain this as an affordable housing project. - Bill: leave it to Susan Brock to determine if there is problem with no definition regarding moderate income tenants. Do we eliminate those terms. - Rich: (ii) “Certification to Town”: had required rent roll every three years. - John C: May have been a privacy issue “substance reasonable satisfactory to Town”; can provide whatever the Town is looking for as long as privacy is protected. - Committee decision to leave language concerning rent roll.; add language from (iii) “(subject to maintenance of confidentiality of personal information in compliance with relevant laws)” - Rich: (iii) Audit: grants Town costs if there is a breach, feels that this should be retained; who pays if audit turns up material breach. - Andy B: Not very concerned; if Conifer failing to do what was agreed to and it costs a reasonable amount. - John C: Issue is the “cost” [what is reasonable]; if decide that full blown audit at $50,000 is necessary, for instance. - Andy B: Obligated for credits; if allow non-compliance resident, and loses credits; credits have to be paid back. - Rich: Put in cost cap? - Bill: “Reasonable” – Susan Brock not likely wants this to be tied down. - Rich: Wants to retain language regarding audit. - Pat: Add “subject to maintenance ….” in the compliance section above also …… - Committee decision to leave language in at end of iii. “If the audit discloses…..” - Rich: Stormwater, contradictory (e) and (g). - Committee decision to remove language at end of (e.) “no building permit shall be issued until stormwater management facilities are constructed and operational.” (h): Revisions to Site Plan: leave as Planning Board; (j): Building Permits: put back in the following that was crossed out “shall have been shown on the final site plan”. - Rich: (m) Occupancy Restriction: Add back in the following “or older”. Committee decided to hold a special meeting of the Planning Committee to continue discussion of the local law to be held Thursday, August 25th at 4:30pm. 4. Other Business: None. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: August 25, 2011 at 4:30 p.m.; Conifer MR rezoning request. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Assist. Director of Planning. GUESTS PRESENT: John Caruso, Passero Associates. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: None. 2. Consider August 11th meeting summary: Rich moved and Bill seconded the motion to approve the minutes, with modifications (added “vinyl siding” in section 2) all in favor. 3. Continue discussion of the draft local law language for Conifer MR re-zoning proposal: Changes to the draft August 12, 2011 Local Law: The following changes in Subsection 2. Additional Conditions: h.- Revisions to Site Plan: remove “Town” in both places in paragraph. i.- Modification to Final Site Plan: keep “Town Planning Board” (first reference) and remove “Planning” in rest of paragraph. The following pertains to Subsection 3. Site Planning and Design Elements: Rich: Question with (a): Ensure this development is “sited”, explain? Dan: Referring to the location on the lot. Bill: How will this work with Planning Board process? Rich: Requirements versus recommendations; Bill: Town Board won’t pass the rezoning until it has looked at the Preliminary Site Plans. Rich: Opportunity to mandate items before the law is passed. Change: Page 6; d. Vehicle parking; (i): add “Fewer spaces may be built initially. Areas may be reserved for future expanse of parking to allow a maximum of 72 spaces”. Rich: Page 8; (iv) Roofs; (C): Low-profile builder-grade asphalt shingles are prohibited? Dan: To provide visual interest; not a high cost. Change wording to: Shingles must be “architectural grade” John C: (E): Continuous roofline? What does this mean? Dan: Idea is to break up roofline with break or dormer; so not a monotonous roof line. John C: Showed pictures – Conifer building meets this with dormers. Rich: Public frontage, what “h. Public frontage” refer to? Dan: Means public right-of-way 2 f. Landscaping and hardscaping: Committee discussed having a landscape goal; pros and cons of having a specific goal. Pat: Need more trees in the parking lot; because residents will be looking at this. John C: Landscape islands are in the law; there are requirements. Add language to f. (i): “Landscaping must promote aesthetic views around building for residents, screening, shading, and the reduction of urban heat island.” The Committee refered the law to the Town Board for consideration with a referral to the Planning Board. 4. Other Business: None. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: September 15, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Assist. Director of Planning. GUESTS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; media. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: None 2. Discuss West Hill planning issues to incorporate into a planning study: Members discussed whether or not a new traffic study is needed for the West Hill area. Herb pointed out that much traffic data has been gathered by the Town, County, and State over the years, as well as from specific development projects. Rich voiced concern with the sources of all this data, as well as the timing and methods of data collection, being so varied. Pat said the Town should not spend time and money refining traffic counts, but rather focus on concrete options to alleviate traffic. After general discussion of the challenges and variability in traffic counts, it was decided that current traffic data deemed reliable by the planning staff might be sufficient to meet the Committee’s needs, in concert with potential limited traffic counting by the Public Works department as needed (notably on Hayts Road, Bundy Road, Trumansburg Road, and Elm Street Extention). Staff indicated that predicting future traffic impacts of new development or future mitigation techniques is beyond their capabilities, and outside help would be required. Rather than spending the money to have a consultant put this together, Sue said it could probably be done for a drastically lower cost by Tom Mank (data analyst for ITCTC), who would be instrumental in modeling and projecting traffic data for the Committee. While she would have to talk to Tom about what data he would need for such an analysis, Sue suggested that the committee come up with several development scenarios for the West Hill area for Tom to extrapolate build-out and traffic models from. Pat thought at least one scenario should assume the smaller household size predicted in the next few years, higher percentages of senior citizens, and other relevant demographic trends. It was decided that the planning staff would generate three general development scenarios for the area and bring them to the next Planning Committee meeting for the members to tweak and refine. Bill suggested that during the next meeting, the committee hold its own “mini-charette” and draw on maps of the area to finalize satisfactory development scenarios. It was also decided that the Committee and staff will visit West Hill and walk around to gain a better understanding of the area. This visit is scheduled for Wednesday, September 28th from 1:30-3:30. Members and staff will meet at Town Hall at 1:15 to carpool. 2 4. Other Business: None. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: October 13, 2011 at 4:30 p.m; discussion of three development scenarios for the West Hill area. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE FINAL SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 13, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Assistant Director of Planning; Nina Coveney, Planning Intern. GUESTS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Jon Bosak, Planning Board member; media. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:36 p.m. 1. Public Comments: John Bosak asked for an opportunity to speak. Jon described a SEQR presentation he attended in which a legal expert suggested that it is the full development build- out under a Town’s established zoning that is essentially the municipality’s goal; what the municipality is seeking to achieve. Rich disagreed with this interpretation; there are limitations and various factors involved in development considerations. John suggested that the Town look closely at traffic impacts of building out scenarios and based on acceptable levels zone Town accordingly. A discussion on the complexity of the traffic problems and what is considered “acceptable” followed. 2. Consideration of September 1st and Sept 15th meeting summaries: Unanimously approved. No comments. 3. Work on Possible Development Scenarios for West Hill for County Transportation Model: Dan presented six possible development scenarios he created for West Hill. The first scenario estimates the buildout potential of the area with current (mostly MDR) zoning – approximately 1,000 units. The second scenario estimates buildout potential when current zoning of the area is mostly the same, with 15% being rezoned to MR from MDR – approximately 1295 units. The third assumes a hypothetical Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) pattern for the area, with a low density – approximately 1295 units. The fourth assumes hypothetical TND with a moderate level of density – approximately 1745 units. The fifth assumes hypothetical TND also with a moderate level of density, but with more mixed-use and multi- family residential units than single-family homes – approximately 1845 units. The sixth assumes hypothetical TND with the highest possible density allowed – approximately 2500 units. Dan fielded questions from the committee about the scenarios, and emphasized that, considering Ithaca’s low growth rate, any scenario presented here would be a long-range plan, taking many decades to reach the full buildout potential. Staff provided the committee with a large blank map of the West Hill area so they could draw on it and illustrate their ideas about what development on West Hill might look like. Bill began by drawing existing and imagined parks, open space, and trail networks on the map, but the discussion largely focused on the placement of an additional, hypothetical connector road meant to alleviate commuter traffic on Route 96 and Route 79. 2 Running short on time, the committee members put their design exercise on hold for Dan to present a conceptual physical development scenario he had created. His map was meant to represent a pattern of development falling somewhere between scenarios 4 and 5 (explained above). While they agreed they would need to study it more closely, the committee’s immediate reaction to Dan’s development scenario was positive. Pat thought it looked good overall, and Bill liked the open space and the development’s smooth connections to the City. A discussion ensued about zoning implications, specifically regarding what zoning changes are currently being considered for the Town and the City, as well as the impacts of density changes on housing types and traffic patterns in the area. Sue pointed out that these development scenarios will have to be refined and supplemented with more information and assumptions before they can be handed over to Tom Mank for analysis with his traffic modeling program. She explained that the program uses inputted information to create a “worst case scenario” model of traffic during PM rush hour (5:00-6:00 PM on a weekday), and the model is not capable of taking public transit use into account. Rich asked how the committee might be able to figure out this missing public transit piece, since it is an important component of a compact TND development. Sue responded that an analyst from TCAT would most likely be able to help with this. To conclude, the committee agreed that they would study all the development scenarios (provided in handouts) more closely and come back to their next meeting with further suggestions for refinement. 4. Other Business: None. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: November 10, 2011 at 4:30 p.m; continued discussion of possible development scenarios for the West Hill area. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE DRAFT SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 10, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Assistant Director of Planning; Nina Coveney, Planning Intern. GUESTS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Dialynn Dwyer, Ithaca Times. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: None. 2. Consideration of October 13 meeting summary: Unanimously approved. No comments. 3. Discussion of West Hill planning issues to incorporate into a planning study: Dan compiled two handouts enumerating the variables necessary to input into the traffic demand modeling program, which he distributed and explained to Committee members. The factors to consider are 1) number of housing units, 2) types of housing units, 3) number of residents and vehicles in a household 4) non-residential uses and floor area, and 5) number of employees in non-residential uses. Dan’s packets contain all the calculations and estimates of these numbers for the West Hill area that would be included in the study. Rich pointed out that there are several large developments, existing and proposed, just outside the area of the study. He asked how the effects of these surrounding areas on traffic demand might be quantified. Sue suggested that Tom Mank simply include these Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ’s) in the study. The Committee decided they would indeed like to see more of the surrounding areas TAZ’s included in the model. Sue will try to invite Tom Mank (who will be running the traffic model for the study) to the next meeting to discuss the model further. The discussion then turned back to the map of hypothetical physical development that Dan created for the last meeting. Members pointed out concerns and thoughts they had on the map, mostly regarding the placement of hypothetical roads and their connections to the surrounding area. Dan pointed out that this map is a depiction of the area 50 to 100 years down the road – things will evolve and conditions may change, so the Town must plan for the future and keep the plan flexible. 4. Other Business: None. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Tentatively December 8, 2011 at 4:30 p.m; Continued discussion of traffic model inputs and outputs, and possible conversation with Tom Mank about the modeling program. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE FINAL SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 15, 2011 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Assistant Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement GUESTS PRESENT: Tee Ann Hunter (Town Board); Dialynn Dwyer (Ithaca Times). Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member Comments/Concerns: None. 2. Consideration of November 10th meeting summary: Bill moved; and Pat seconded. Minutes unanimously approved. No comments. 3. Continue discussion of West Hill planning issues to incorporate into a planning study: Tom Mank from the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) attended the meeting and provided information on the Trans Cad model used by the ITCTC. Tom explained that Trans Cad is a “growth model”, it measures PM peak traffic only; and it is “gravity run”, meaning that as more cars are added to the system, roads will fill up and if any road reaches capacity it will ultimately overflow. At the overflow point the model predicts that drivers will try to seek other roads to get them to their destination. The model predicts PM peak flow, the traffic going home from work. For Tompkins County this means that the main traffic is leaving Cornell University (the County’s largest employer) to go home. Tom went on to describe the data input for the model. There are eighteen land use (LU) categories in total, with twelve land uses categories for residential and six for commercial development. In terms of residential, the LU contains the number of persons in the household (HH), and the number of cars they have. For instance: LU1 = 1 person HH, no car; LU2 = 1 person HH, 1 car; LU3 = 1 person HH, 2 cars, and so on. The modeling results are based on the inputs; if a residential development (more households) is added somewhere in the Town, the model will show more volume. The model is not sophisticated enough on its own to predict that a more compact development will have less traffic. - Rich: Where do the baseline numbers come from? - Tom: The model is built from Census data and traffic counts. The 2010 Census data is used for number of households. Additionally, the County is broken up into 354 Traffic Analysis Zone’s (TAZ’s) which have geographic boundaries. There are 55 TAZ’s in the Town of Ithaca with eight on West Hill. The Census data tells you how many households there are in any one TAZ. Then the traffic counts, provided by NYS DOT, as well as County/Town are added inputs to the model. - Pat: Do the households include children, or is a 2 person HH only 2 adults (adult drivers)? 2 - Tom: The households include the number of children. - Pat: A landuse (LU) category can contain 1 person and several cars, but physically only one car can be driven at a time. - Tom: TransCad only takes into account that someone is driving. European models tell much more, they include driver licenses, household numbers, etc. - Dan: Aren’t there diminishing returns with more information? - Tom: The model goal is to figure out the shortest path to the destination. - Rich: How is employer information included in the model? - Tom: Information from the Division of Labor is included in the model; for instance the number of Cornell employees. Trans Cad is not multi-modal, so it only uses the number that drive from work (not including walking or bus). - Bruce: How does the model account for influx of employees into the County for work? - Tom: The model uses existing traffic counts, this helps to account for traffic volumes and existing sprawl; the drive-only households versus the more compact (urbanized areas). - Dan: Traffic count predictions come from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. For single family households they only use studies from the suburbs; they do have separate figures for new urbanist/mixed use developments. Several studies have shown 25% less vehicle driving trips than traditional sprawl developments. While there is the same point A to point B trip, still 9.5 trip/day, but not all of it is done by a car, instead trips are shifted to different modes, more walking, biking, transit. - Tom: According to Census data for the Forest Home neighborhood, only 29% drive alone to work (a poster child for transportation given its proximity to a major employer). The TAZ’s in the City show that the more compact the neighborhood the less motor vehicle use. West Hill will depend on the frequency of the bus service. - Rich: What about the accuracy/reliability of the existing traffic data used in model? - Tom: The NYS DOT counts are very reliable, and are seasonally adjusted; and are generally collected for a week-long period in October/September. The County and Town conduct counts that are for shorter durations (24-48hrs) and are not seasonally adjusted, so these counts are not as comprehensive. Dan recapped the three modeling scenarios that the committee had discussed at the November meeting, they include: 1) Existing zoning with some incremental changes from Medium Density to Multiple Residence, given recent trends; 2)&3) Traditional neighborhood and 4) Traditional neighborhood with the most density. Discussion followed about the build-out analysis; the time frame for the build-out (full build out which will take many decades or should it be based on a 10-20 year growth projection instead), including connector road; the Bundy to Mecklenburg connector, a bridge from Route 89 to Court Street, and possibly other road connectors (bridge across Cherry Street, and new road in Elm Street area). The decision: Go ahead and do full build-out of scenarios and see what happens. Scenarios to include: 1) Existing conditions – full build out, no change in roads; 2) TND with medium density – full build-out with Bundy to Mecklenburg Rd. connector; 3) TND with higher density – full build-out with Bundy to Mecklenburg Rd. connector; Then repeat with the addition of bridge at Route 89/Court Street. 3 4. Other Business: None. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Tentatively scheduled for January 12th, but may change depending on availability of traffic modeling results.