HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2012-AllTOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
FINAL SUMMARY OF JANUARY 19, 2012 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); Nahmin Horwitz (Town Board);
Dialynn Dwyer (Media); Tom Mank (ITCTC); Bill King; Cynthia Brock; Pat Dutt, Hopper Place
Resident; Stephen Wagner; Katie Husband (Media).
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns: None.
2. Consideration of December 15th meeting summary: Bill moved and Pat seconded the
motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the changes.
3. Discuss transportation modeling results for the West Hill area: Rich asked Tom Mank to
explain the results from the initial modeling run. Tom explained that he had used the ITCTC’s
TransCad model with the data input provided by planning staff. Tom described the three
development scenarios that were included in the modeling; these included a conventional
development scenario and two traditional neighborhood development (TND) scenarios.
Dan Tasman explained that TND is a denser; more mixed use type of development that is
comprised of different types of residential units (apartments, condos, townhouses, single family)
and is based on street grid plan typical of cities and villages designs of the pre-WWII era. They
include some mixed use and generally do not result in as many car trips as conventional (single
use) developments. Tom added that the scenarios would likely take somewhere between 30-50
years to actually build out.
Tom went on to explain that this modeling exercise is somewhat unusual in that you are asking
to model three different build-out scenarios and to determine at what point the transportation
system becomes overburdened. More often the analysis looks at just one build-out scenario for a
1500-unit development, for instance, to evaluate impacts. This particular analysis did not
include future additional household units in the city or county; the population was kept at current
conditions everywhere except for the West Hill scenario area. The model results, in essence,
have no regard for time or future build-out anywhere else in county.
Tom drew attention to the spreadsheet he had prepared showing the modeling results (these were
provided in advance to committee members). The results were expressed as total traffic volume
and as a volume to capacity ratio. Tom reminded the committee that the results were for the PM
peak commuting period which is considered the worst condition for traffic. A 0.8 volume to
capacity ratio means that the road is approaching capacity and 1.0 would mean it is at capacity.
2
A question was raised regarding the volume to capacity and its relationship to Level of Service
(LOS). Tom replied that he could now rank LOS for specific intersections and could provide
this information to the committee.
The committee continued to discuss and ask a variety of questions concerning the traffic analysis
and results, as well as the scenarios that the analysis were based on.
Rich felt that a key piece of information missing was actual population figures. Dan explained
that the household population data projections were derived from Federal government data;
providing typical household sizes for different types of residential units. The traffic model used
this household size information along with projected numbers of vehicle per residential unit (also
provided from Federal government data).
A possible discrepancy was pointed out for the Hector Street results in which the volume of cars
had decreased between scenario 3 (higher density) without the bridge and scenario 1 (lower
density) with the bridge, but the capacity to volume ratio had increased (indicating a worse
situation). Tom did not think the volume output was unusual regarding bridge – but was not
clear why the capacity to volume ratio was higher. Tom said he would look into this.
Bill pointed out that under current conditions the traffic volume from Hillcrest Dr. to the hospital
was 1346 while traffic volume from Route 96 to Floral Ave was 1198. He thought that was an
unusual drop in volume.
Tom explained that this was likely due to employees from hospital turning on to Campbell
Avenue to get to Route 79/Hector Street.
Tee-Ann expressed surprise that the addition of 1200 units between current conditions and
scenario 2 would result in less than 200 additional car trips. Dan and Tom explained that not
everyone has an 8-5 job, not everyone is heading in the same direction, and the new scenarios
have included the Bundy Rd. to Mecklenburg Rd. connection.
Rich asked Dan to remind the committee of the scenarios and household figures. Dan responded
that scenario 1 = 1581 households; scenario 2 = 2120 households; and scenario 3 = 2851
households.
Rich asked Tom if he could obtain the data in an Excel format so he could determine percent
changes in traffic. Tom said he could provide this.
Rich said that anecdotal information from those living on West Hill indicated that AM peak is
the problem, but this model only determines PM peak traffic volume. What happens at the
bottom of the hill as a result of the development?
Tom said that he could move the view to see what was going on at the bottom of hill, but that it
would only be for PM peak traffic. The committee agreed that they would like to see the results
for roads in the city and Tom said he could provide this next time to the committee.
Tom answered a question concerning the Route 96 Corridor Study, in which he stated that the
projections used for that study did include the Holochuck Homes development.
Rich opened the meeting to questions and comments from the public.
3
A Hopper Place resident stated that she waits for the bus with her child and there are no
sidewalks. She asked whether pedestrians had been included in this plan? She felt that it was
unsafe for pedestrians on Hector Street to walk down the hill. She said that pedestrian traffic is
here, it exists, and it needs to be addressed. Are Town and City communicating on this topic?
Rich explained that the committee’s current effort was not a full plan and went on to describe the
purpose of the traffic analysis. Rich also described recent efforts towards communication
between the City and Town.
Pat Dutt asked if the committee members were going to have conversations with West Hill
residents about traffic and wondered whether it was possible to get a digital copy of the traffic
analysis results so they could be posted on the West Hill neighborhood website.
Rich stated that the data was too preliminary at this point to be shared, but anticipated that a
report would eventually be available.
Pat Dutt suggested that members sit down with residents from West Hill as they have ideas for
the traffic issues. Pat went on to provide information (date and location) on an upcoming West
Hill neighborhood meeting.
Nahmin suggested that a traffic analysis be done to estimate the amount of time it takes to get to
a certain destination.
Tom stated that he could add up links and could tell how long it takes to get to Cornell for
instance. If the committee were to pick out a couple of examples, Tom is willing to provide this,
but it does involve some detailed calculations.
After some discussion, the committee asked Tom if could please undertake additional analysis
and provide the following:
1) Scenario 1 – incorporating the population projections used by the County and factoring in
growth using trend analysis (current sprawl, no nodal) throughout county; and
2) Scenario 2 with population projections factored in using trend development (sprawl); and
3) Scenario 2 with population projections factored in using nodal development;
4) Show impact on city roads: move map/results to show areas within city for all 6 scenarios.
5) Calculate Level of Service for Scenario 2 – for trend and nodal development patterns for the
following selected intersections:
- Route 89/Buffalo Street/Route 96
- Route 70/Floral Avenue
- Elm Street/Route 79/Floral Avenue
- Fulton Street
4. Discuss a 2012 meeting schedule: Due to Bill Goodman’s appointment to the Bolton Point
Water Commission he will periodically have a conflict with the second Thursday of the month.
The committee agreed to change the meetings to the third Thursday of month. Sue will provide a
2012 meeting schedule for the February Planning Committee meeting.
5. Other Business: None.
6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Tentatively scheduled for February 16th.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
FINAL SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 16, 2012 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: Nahmin Horwitz (Town Board); West Hill resident.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns: None.
2. Consideration of January 19th meeting summary: No changes made to the minutes, all in
favor of the January 19th minutes.
3. Discuss and provide comments on the Request for Proposal pertaining to the possible
development of the County Biggs property:
Rich began the discussion by directing the committee’s attention to the meeting materials
including the draft Concept for Biggs Property Development RFP (2/10/12), the draft Pedestrian
Neighborhood Zone (PNZ) Regulations (2/8/12), PNZ graphics, and the EcoVillage Lessons
Learned document. Rich asked what the County was looking for in terms of the Town’s response
on these documents. Bill responded that he thought that Ed Marx (County Planning Dept.) was
hoping to get the Town’s feedback on the RFP and related materials by the end of February and
hoped to send them out for general public comments by the end of March.
Pat asked to request a term change in the RFP. In the RFP the term non-affordable” is used on
page 2 (5th bulleted item) which states “Develop at least half of the “non-affordable” units so
they would be affordable to middle income households...”. Pat asked that “non-affordable” be
changed to “remaining”. She had raised this issue at the Town Board Study Session when Ed
Marx had presented the RFP, but it did not get changed.
Rich wanted to preface further discussion of the RFP by stating that the Town has concerns with
the proposed location and how this proposal fits into the Town’s vision for West Hill. As
currently envisioned in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, the area around the hospital would be best
suited for senior housing, assisted living, and other institutional type uses. The type of
development proposed in the RFP; concentrated housing/neighborhood development is seen as
being more appropriately located further south and west of Route 96 (closer to the City). Yet the
viability of the RFP proposal seems to be predicated on the success of the County's vision for the
"hospital node," which seems to conflict with the Town's vision. To be successful, and have
pedestrian connectivity, the residents of this development will want to walk to more than the
hospital.
2
The committee went on to discuss where existing sidewalks were and where new connections
would be needed, such as from the Professional Building area to the proposed development site.
Rich pointed out that the number one failure with EcoVillage is that it is auto-centric; while there
are lots of good aspects about the development one still has to drive to it in order to live there.
Bill suggested adding language to the Request for Proposals (RFP) to include not only good
pedestrian connections to a bus stop, but to also include a bus shelter (at Harris B. Dates Drive
and Professional Building driveway). The RFP should also include a provision that the
developer not only create internal trails on the County-owned property, but also contribute to a
trail connection to the Black Diamond Trail. Bill thought that the housing proposal would also
be a good location for a car-share program; and have a dedicated spot for this built into the
community.
The committee and staff went on to discuss the PNZ regulations, particularly the requirement
concerning parking. The draft PNZ regulations state that the designated parking areas will not be
more than 1250 feet from the main entry of any building. The PNZ associated graphics also
indicate variable widths from homes to a parking area. Pat expressed concern for people who
are less mobile and suggested that more flexibility be granted in the regulations. She questioned
whether bikes would even be allowed to travel within the internal space as it appears that only
pedestrians may be allowed (not clear from the materials). The committee discussed other
problems posed by the parking regulations, including ageing in place issues or having visitors
who are mobility impaired.
Staff explained that the housing densities identified in the materials for the PNZ are similar to
those in a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND); the main difference being the
restriction on cars.
Dan thought the pedestrian-zone idea was fine on a small scale, but it has questionable viability
in a scaled-up version, such as a Village-type setting. The language seemed to be dismissive of
TND. New Urbanism is more vehicles-oriented, but one could argue that for centuries houses
have fronted on public streets (whether traveling in cars, on horses, etc).
Dan went on to describe Radburn, New Jersey, a planned community developed in 1930’s that
was explicitly designed to be pedestrian-oriented with separate areas for pedestrian and vehicle
traffic, large green spaces, and a pedestrian path system that does not cross any major roads. The
houses face a private park and the trail system rather than a street, and that was the area meant to
be the community social space. But oddly, instead of gathering in the green space, the alleys and
parking courts behind each house became the social spaces. Kids played in the lanes and people
hung out there.
Bill explained that the EPA Climate Showcase Communities grant money does not require the
development to be constructed. The creation of the RFP (and its distribution) essentially satisfies
the grant. However, the County is counting on the proceeds from the sale of the land to help
defray costs for the Brown Road offices.
3
Dan discussed some additional concerns with PNZ, such as the co-housing component; an aspect
that would not necessarily appeal to everyone. The open space terminology used in the
document is confusing.
Bruce said that he would be looking for more details in the PNZ language pertaining to building
code aspects i.e. residential fire sprinklers, regulation and maintenance. Also the law should
reference a particular year/version of the Energy Conservation Code that buildings would need to
conform to. Meeting the additional residential energy efficiency will need to be proven/
determined (and paid for) by a third party, not town staff.
Pat emphasized the need to provide more flexibility for motor vehicle accessibilities; aging in
place is in an important consideration.
EcoVillage has garages; this plan has little detail on whether garages would be provided. The
vehicle is often the second most expensive household item and residents may want more than an
open parking lot to store them in.
It was commented that the West Hill area of the Town is essentially a car-dependent area with
only the hospital and specialized medical offices to walk to. This type of development with its
restrictions on cars would work better in a more urban area. Those who chose to live without a
car would find this an attractive community, except for its location.
It was also discussed that tying the RFP to the PNZ regulations, as well as the other requirements
might make it difficult to find a willing developer; it’s such a high bar to meet. This is the only
residential development to come out of the EPA Climate Showcase Communities initiative, most
of grant money was provided to sewer/water projects and similar, so a developer would benefit
from the likely attention and publicity. The main point of the project (of the grant funding) is to
decrease greenhouse gas. It would be easier to get people out of their vehicles if the project were
located closer to more services.
Pat suggested that if this project is to be replicable elsewhere then it needs to be more flexible;
not banning the car; have an option for a car to be near the home.
Rich responded that the regulations are not prohibiting the car, just making it more inconvenient
to use one. Pat stated that what is a walkable distance for one person is not necessarily walkable
to another – age, health, etc are all factors. It may be quite difficult for an older person to lug
their groceries some distance from their home; all buildings should have shorter walks.
The committee discussed the “affordability” aspect of project described in the RFP. Rich noted
the few details and wondered how the 20% affordability provision would be
administered/enforced. Would there be subsidies, would it require smaller units? And how do
you maintain affordability in perpetuity?
Pat noted the Carrowmoor PDZ was written such that the affordability was not tied to particular
unit.
Staff discussed eventually modifying (or considering modifying) the Future Land Use Map if the
County is successful in finding a developer and the Town Board agrees to rezone the land.
Institutional use of this land, such as a nursing home would be a good use; so for the time being
best to keep the institutional designation.
4
Bill reported that he had done some research and found the appraised value of the County land to
be quite high which could impact the interest of developers in the project. According to
Tompkins County Assessment, the Harris B. Dates Drive property is listed as having an
appraised value of $500,000 for the 25.5 acres of undeveloped land. The appraisal classifies the
property as vacant commercial.
The committee asked Sue to draft a bulleted list of comments that were discussed during the
meeting and to share these with Town Board members at the upcoming Study Session meeting.
4. Approve Planning Committee 2012 meeting schedule: Committee approved the 2012
meeting schedule.
5. Other Business: None.
6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Tentatively scheduled for March 15th.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MARCH 15, 2012 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: Nahmin Horwitz (Town Board); Tee Ann Hunter (Town Board); Tom
Manks (ITCTC); Cynthia Brock (City of Ithaca Councilwoman); Anna Smith; Dialynn Dwyer
(Ithaca Times).
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns: Rich said that the City-Town Joint Planning Committees
met on March 14th for a presentation and discussion on the County’s Development Focus Areas
Strategy. While the meeting was relatively short, it was good to have initiated a meeting
between the City and Town committees and Rich hoped the committees would do it again.
2. Consideration of February 16th meeting summary: Minutes as corrected, with additional
minor grammatical edits to be provided by Rich. Rich moved and Bill seconded; unanimously
approved.
3. Continue discussion of transportation modeling results for the West Hill area : Rich
introduced Tom Mank and reviewed where the committee had left off from the February
meeting. Tom said that he had forgotten to bring some of the results of the analysis that he had
intended to share with the committee. These were the maps showing traffic volumes and
volume to capacity ratios (5-6 PM peak hour traffic) for road segments in the City for the various
West Hill development scenarios, including the bridge crossing from Route 89 to Court Street.
The maps that Tom provided to the committee in February showed mostly only modeling results
for Town roads.
For this meeting Tom provided Level of Service (LOS) figures calculated for various selected
intersections in the Town and City. Input for the analysis were the Town Planning Department’s
West Hill future development scenario #2 (2,100 units of housing) and the County’s 20-30 year
growth projection assuming current growth patterns; referred to as the “trend” projection
(continuing sprawl/non-compact development). These projections were used by the County in
their Comprehensive Plan analysis.
Tom reminded the committee that the results of the TransCad models are only for afternoon peak
hour traffic conditions, specifically 5-6pm. The model estimates automobile trips between
origins and destinations; essentially the trip from workplace to home, with the major
employment centers as the origins and residences as destinations.
2
Tom then directed attention to the maps he provided to the committee. The maps provided level
of service (LOS) figures for selected intersection in the West Hill area in the City and Town.
Tom explained that the different colors used in the LOS maps carry no meaning and that the
abbreviations used in the maps refer to the following: “PM” peak 5-6 pm; “T” through; “RL”
right lane; “EB” east bound; “WB” west bound; “SB” south bound.
Tom went through and described each of the LOS results; each page included two LOS
intersection schematics, one with LOS figures under existing conditions and the other for LOS
under future conditions. Input for the future conditions included the West Hill scenario #2, and
the 20-30-year growth projections for the entire County; additional households and employment
as predicted in the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, the Route 96 Corridor Study and the
Route 13 Corridor Study. The following intersections were modeled and analysis provided:
- Rt. 79 @Campbell Ave: - Rt. 96 @ Hayts Rd:
- Rt. 96 @ Hopkins Pl: - Rt. 96 @ Hospital:
- Floral Ave @ Coy Glen Rd: - Buffalo St @ Taughannock Blvd:
- Rt. 79 @ Floral Ave: - Seneca St @ Taughannock Blvd:
- Floral Ave @ Elm St: - Buffalo St @ Fulton St:
- Rt. 79 @ Warren Pl: - Seneca St @ Fulton St:
- Rt. 79 @ West Haven Rd: - State St @ Fulton St:
The results indicated some intersections functioning significantly less efficiently under future
conditions. The Campbell Avenue/Route 79 southbound/right lane went from an LOS B to an
LOS F, potentially due to drivers turning left onto Route 79; meaning a delay of more than 50
seconds. Route 96/Hopkins Place eastbound/left went from a LOS C to an LOS E meaning
delays from 35.1 to 50 seconds. A number of intersections were less impacted and some
indicated no impacts at all (LOS maps to be attached to the minutes for the record).
The committee asked questions as Tom went through each of the intersection results. He
explained that TransCad is a “gravity model”, meaning that it can predict how people behave and
knows that if a driver is aware of a shorter route they will take it. In terms of obtaining City
counts, Tom met with Tim Logue (City of Ithaca Transportation Engineer); Tim ran the model
using the City’s Synchro model and Tom obtained the values; it includes signal timing, using the
same signal time for both existing and future scenarios. The modeling results, therefore, do not
not reflect possible future upgrades of the DOT and City systems. Tom also explained that
TransCad modeling is for generalized movements and it is calibrated for existing traffic counts;
in the future, conditions may be different but these future conditions to calibrate to are unknown
– a shortcoming of trying to model future predictions of traffic patterns.
Tom said the TransCad model does not yet incorporate multi-modal possibilities, so for
developments that offer more opportunities for transit usage, or housing types having less
estimated vehicle trips per day, the vehicle trips have to be manually removed (subtracted) from
the model (via subtracting housing unit inputs from the model). Dan reported on studies showing
that Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TND), typified with having mixed use and greater
densities, have 25% less vehicle trips than with conventional suburban single family housing
developments. For typical single-family households the estimate is 10 trips per day (per Institute
3
of Transportation Engineers). TND estimates for single-family units are 7 trips per day because
there is more opportunity for transit and walking. If people are living further away from the
urban core you expect more car trips.
Rich asked Tom if using the County growth projections introduced redundancy by including the
Town build-out scenario. Tom responded that he had replaced the County projections with the
West Hill scenario #2.
Rich asked the committee if they thought there was additional analysis needed; do we have
enough information or are we missing something. The committee needs to determine what to do
with the information. Rich stated that he was hopeful that the information could be useful for the
Comprehensive Plan discussions.
Rich asked Cynthia Brock if she had any questions or comments. Cynthia responded that she
appreciates the Committee undertaking this analysis. Traffic is the albatross on the West Hill;
the limiting factor to development. She said she is committed to establishing a recreational trail
to overlay on the sewer and water easements in the City’s West Hill area; given that few property
owners would be involved this idea seems possible.
The committee then began a general discussion of the traffic results with various concerns and
comments expressed from members and staff, including: how does the traffic results relate to
future growth and Town plans for West Hill? What would happen to traffic volumes if you do
nothing; but can you accommodate 2100 units (in terms of added traffic) even in a denser
development pattern? If you scale down the size, would you then lose the additional benefits
(retail, transit availability, affordability, etc) needed to reduce the vehicle trips? There needs to
be a certain critical mass to make this area a viable node; and we can’t control growth and traffic
coming from development outside of the Town. We should not just throw up our hands and
decide not to do anything on West Hill. Take this information and start to consider solutions ;
work with the City and look at this together.
The committee asked Tom to produce the following two volume maps for the next meeting:
Map 1 – future additional volume (using County Trend projections) regardless of what happens
on West Hill (no Town scenario added). This map would only indicate the added volume
(future growth minus existing conditions).
Map 2 – future conditions with scenario 2. Take Map 1 above and insert West Hill scenario #2;
(replace the W. Hill County trend figures with scenario #2). Again this would show just the
volume differences.
4. Other Business: None.
5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Tentatively scheduled for April 19th.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF APRIL 19, 2012 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code
Enforcement; Mike Smith, Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: Diane Conneman, Conservation Board; Ellie Stewart, Conservation
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 March 15th meeting summary: Minutes approved with two note
clarifications. Bill moved and Pat seconded; unanimously approved.
3. Discuss proposed Coy Glen/Culver Creek Conservation Zone with members of
Conservation Board: Rich asked Ellie Stewart and Diane Conneman to provide some
background on the Coy Glen effort. Ellie began by stating that since the 1970’s there has been a
desire to protect Coy Glen. There were a couple of reports written in the 1970’s that document
the environmental importance of the area. The Town established Coy Glen as a Critical
Environmental Area in the mid-1970’s. More recent efforts have focused on a proposal to re-
zone a portion of the area to a conservation zone to help reduce the development pressure . A
number of years ago Planning staff had begun working on a report that would provide the
justification for the conservation zoning. Different staff members have worked on the report
over time. Most recently Darby Kiley was working with the Conservation Board on a revised
draft, but then the Board got sidetracked by hydro-fracking matters. The Conservation Board
established the Coy Glen Committee in 2012 with the idea of helping to move the project along.
Sue explained that the Codes and Ordinances Committee had been involved and working with
the Conservation Board on identifying a conservation zone boundary in years past. Now it
would make more sense to have the Planning Committee involved; at that time the Planning
Committee did not exist. Sue went on to explain that the conservation zoning proposal
encompasses the Coy Glen, Hackberry Woods, and Culver Creek Unique Natural Areas. The
report drafted by staff emphasized only Coy Glen and not the other UNAs. This is largely due to
abundance of information on Coy Glen relative to the other UNAs. Darby had begun integrating
information from the other UNA’s, but this is somewhat limited to the UNA information sheets.
Ellie and committee members reviewed the UNA information sheets to determine what features
warranted the UNA designation (steep ravines; waterfalls; Hackberry Butterfly Moth (Hackberry
Lane); geologic feature, rare and scarce plants, etc).
2
Rich asked about hiking trails. Ellie responded that hiking was allowed on the Cornell lands, but
that you need permission to access it through the private lands. The Town park in the Dress
Woods would be open to the public.
Ellie added that the conservation zone would not prohibit development. The zoning regulations
require a 7 acre minimum lot size, but would require the clustering of any multi-unit residential
development.
Rich then drew attention to the map and the proposed conservation boundary. Rich pointed out
the undisturbed/wooded area on the cemetery lands that had not been included within the
proposed boundary and asked why this particular lobe was not included, as it is within the
Unique Natural Area (UNA). Ellie and Diane said they would bring that back to the committee
(and Board) for consideration.
Sue provided background on the conservation zoning process for the South Hill Swamp and
Lake Slopes UNAs. The process involved a public informational meeting. All residents affected
by the proposal received a notice in the mail. Following the public meeting there were some
individual meetings with land owners (at their request). The South Hill Swamp proposal took up
to three years and involved negotiations with Ithaca College; with the Town and IC each
employing different biologists to examine the area. Eventually, public hearings were held by the
Town Board and the proposals ultimately adopted.
The committee continued to review and discuss the proposed boundary map. Bill suggested
including the west end of the Baker property where two stream branches of Coy Glen exist. Ellie
and Diane will also look into that area with the Coy Glen Committee.
Ellie and Diane will ask Todd Bittner (Cornell Natural Areas Director) if he can provide
assistance in terms of additional information on the Culver Creek UNA; information that could
be included in the report.
Rich wrapped up the discussion and encouraged the Conservation Board to return to the Planning
Committee when the draft report is ready.
4. Other Business: None.
5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Tentatively scheduled for May 17th.
Meeting ended at 5:20 p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
FINAL SUMMARY OF MAY 17, 2012 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.
GUESTS PRESENT: Tee Ann Hunter (Town Board); Tom Mank (ITCTC); Cynthia Brock
(City of Ithaca Councilwoman); Dialynn Dwyer (Ithaca Times).
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns: Bill mentioned that EcoVillage will be requesting
modification of their Planned Development Zone (PDZ) to allow limited commercial uses. The
commercial use is proposed to be “limited” and permitted in only a small area of EcoVillage
(TREE neighborhood area) and also limited in the types of commercial uses allowed. The
immediate plans are for a gourd workshop--a shop that will make and sell decorated gourds. The
shop would be open to the public. Bill said that he will be drafting the proposed PDZ
amendment for EcoVillage. He is mentioning it at this time because it is likely to be forwarded
to the Planning Committee for consideration. The proposal still needs the consensus approval of
EcoVillage residents.
2. Consideration of April 19th meeting summary: Bill moved and Rich seconded;
unanimously approved – no changes.
3. Continue Discussion of Transportation modeling results for the West Hill Area:
Tom Mank, from the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, described the West Hill
traffic analysis maps that were provided to committee members prior to the meeting. The three
maps, produced by Tom, were as follows:
1- Change in traffic volume between current 2012 conditions and the “Future Trend” without
“Scenario 2” projected conditions;
2- Change in traffic volume between current 2012 conditions and “Future Trend” with
“Scenario 2” projected conditions:
3- Change in traffic volume between “County Trend” and “County Trend” plus “Scenario 2”.
[Note: “Future Trend” refers to County projected figures for County-wide housing-units by the
year 2032; this projection assumes that land use development patterns will mirror present
development trends (low density, non-mixed use, auto-dependent). These estimates were
developed by Tompkins County Planning Department for the County’s Comprehensive Plan
(2004). “Scenario 2” refers to a development scenario developed by Town Planning
Department staff for the W. Hill area using the “new neighborhood” land use category as
described in the draft Town Comprehensive Plan (modeled on New Traditional Neighborhood
characteristics) as a basis.]
2
Tom explained that the maps reflect both outbound and inbound traffic directions; traffic
movements are based on a destination/origin input to the model; and the modeling is limited to
traffic conditions/volumes occurring during the PM peak hour traffic period (5-6PM).
The committee began the discussion by looking at the “Future Trend without Scenario 2” map.
The model output indicates that Route 79 and Floral Avenue will lose traffic volume, which
committee members thought was unusual. Tom thought this anomaly was due to the location of
the centroid for this particular “traffic analysis zone” (TAZ) which is a large area having its
centroid located just north of Mecklenburg Road--near Westhaven Road. Tom explained that the
centroid of the TAZ is where the data is loaded (the input for the model) and he cautioned that
using the TransCad model for this fine of detail can be problematic.
Committee members and other attendees asked Tom more questions about other potential
irregularities with the output, such as along Elm Street Extension where the model indicates no
changes (zero volume change) and on Taughannock Blvd where it shows a volume of 365 near
Inlet Island, then 256 as you cross the bridge, followed by a significant drop in volume as you
head north. Tom stated that this was not due to any employment destination/origin located in the
vicinity. Tom agreed that the increase around the park was unusual.
The Committee next reviewed the map “Future Trend with Scenario 2”. This analysis combined
Scenario 2 growth projections (Town staff projected) with the Future Trend growth projections
(County Planning staff projected). Tom did not feel that the combined projections for West Hill
was consequential because there was so little growth predicted on West Hill in the County
projections. Tom explained that County Planning staff estimated growth throughout the County
based on current existing growth patterns. Since little growth has occurred on West Hill, the
future projections were also kept low.
Rich noted that there was not much difference on Route 89--most of the volume is on State
Route 96 and Route 79.
Tom noted that there is less traffic on Elm Street (-7) and suggested that the model appears to be
pulling traffic off of Elm Street and sending it up Route 79. It is not clear why there is less
traffic on Elm Street.
Rich thought there was a negligible effect on West Haven Road.
Tee Ann asked if the paper road between Bundy Road and Mecklenburg Road is included in all
of the scenarios.
Tom explained that because the connector road does not currently exist, and because the analysis
subtracts 2012 existing conditions from future (2030) conditions, no comparisons can be made.
The committee then reviewed the “County Trend and County Trend plus Scenario 2” analysis
map.
Rich noted that the color coded scale on this map had different thresholds than shown in the first
two maps. For instance, on the other two other maps, the highest volume was represented as
greater than 250. On this map the scale goes to 580 or more vehicles.
Tom noted that increases occur on Route 79 no matter what you do; however, it is designed to
handle more traffic. There is not as much traffic on West Haven Road or Coy Glen Road as one
might have expected.
Cynthia Brock asked if the current conditions/trend included the City.
3
Tom replied that it does; the model was built using current volume data from roads throughout
the County, including the City.
Pat asked about Map 1, discussed earlier (without Scenario 2), and how/whether development
nodes applied.
Tom responded and provided a description of the County “Trend” projection; he added that the
population growth occurs more in the Towns and outer areas, rather than in the City; the Trend
projection does have some growth occurring in the hospital area, but it does not include data
from the Route 96 corridor study.
Rich asked how the County projections for West Hill were determined and suggested that staff
contact Joan Jurkowich to find out how the TAZ population projections were determined and
what presumptions were used.
Rich suggested that Tom help the committee better understand the data; perhaps he and Tom and
staff could sit down together to discuss the larger take away of all the information that Tom has
provided. Not all the results are of equal value, some information is befuddling and the
committee would not want to draw conclusions from all of it.
Rich suggested that he, with help from staff, could attempt to draft a summary for the committee
to look at for next time.
Bill reminded the committee that the moratorium will be ending in either June or July.
Pat requested that any summary include a discussion on the limitations of the data/modeling--
pointing out that uncertainties exist.
Rich agreed and added that what we do know is that traffic will increase with added
housing/population.
Rich reiterated that he and staff will sit down with Tom before the next meeting to discuss the
data/modeling results.
Rich then asked about the status of the Comprehensive Plan.
Sue responded that the draft Plan will likely be made available to the public sometime in June
with a public informational meeting being planned.
Tee Ann felt that the committee needs to put this information out there for the public; they need
to see this data.
Dan explained the expected benefits from a Traditional Neighborhood Design development on
West Hill.
Committee members discussed the build-out projections for Scenario 2 (2100 units).
Tee Ann mentioned the limiting factors on West Hill and the need to establish parameters.
Bill suggested that the committee draft a short report and pass it on to the Town Board. Bill
added that we need to make a decision regarding the moratorium. He also suggested that the
committee set aside time to talk about traffic mitigation and solutions.
The committee thanked Tom Mank for all of his efforts.
4. Other Business: None.
5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Tentatively scheduled for June 21st.
Meeting ended at 6:19 p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
FINAL SUMMARY OF JULY 5, 2012 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.
GUESTS PRESENT: Tom Mank (ITCTC); Dialynn Dwyer (Ithaca Times).
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns: None
2. Consideration of May 17th meeting summary: Bill moved and Rich seconded; unanimously
approved – no changes.
3. Review and consider West Hill revised traffic analysis provided by ITCTC:
Tom Mank, from the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, apologized for an error
that he recently became aware of in the previously provided traffic analysis results. That data
had used a comparison of Census employment figures with NYS Dept. of Labor figures which
led to the error. While the two data sets utilize the same number of employees and the same
employers, the employees are distributed (spatially) differently and that introduced an important
discrepancy into the model.
Tom described and summarized the revised modeling results; illustrated in maps that were
provided to the committee (prior to the meeting). The maps dated 6/25/12 show current and
projected traffic conditions during the afternoon rush hour (5pm-6pm). The maps show numbers
in blue, representing future/projected conditions, while the numbers in black represent current
conditions. These two maps show modeling scenario output in volume and in volume-to-capacity
(VOC) ratios. Additional maps were also provided at the meeting, these dated 6/27/12, showed
volumes and VOCs under current conditions, and another map showed changes (subtraction) in
traffic volume between current and projected conditions.
The committee began by discussing the 6/25/12 maps with modeling analysis for County trend
conditions (sprawl-type development is assumed) combined with Scenario 2 (Traditional
Neighborhood Development-type for West Hill) developed by Town staff (maps dated 6/25/12).
Tom drew attention to the variability in the volume and VOC figures. For instance, Coy Glen
goes from a volume increase of 47 (current) to 109 (projected), but VOC only goes from .02
(current) to .07 (projected).
Tom explained that VOC is the capacity of the road to handle traffic volumes based on the
functional classification of the road; using what the road is classified as and what it is built for.
2
For State Route 79, the VOC goes from 0.49 (current) to 0.98 (projected) while volume goes
from 626 (current) to 1293 (projected).
Dan noted that Route 96 was not greatly affected under the future build-out scenario; more so
Route 79 is affected. Tom added that for this modeling analysis he had added the road
connection (south of Route 79, as illustrated in the Scenario 2) and changed the data loading
location for Traffic Area Zone (TAZ) 201. The loading point is now at the mid point of new
road between Mecklenburg Road and Elm Street.
Tom felt that he owed the committee another map--the County trend analysis map without
Scenario 2, so the committee can see what is happening under future County trend
development/population projections alone.
Rich drew attention to the current conditions maps (dated 6/27/12) and pointed out that the only
road segment indicated as being over capacity appeared to be West Seneca Street, with a VOC of
1.07. Tom noted that people are still willing to wait even with the 1.07; though there is likely
some shifting to Buffalo Street. Tom didn’t think the VOC’s shown as .05 and .06 on Buffalo
Street were accurate. The volume is 1071 and 1464, so the low VOC’s may be due to a problem
with how the road capacity description was input into the model.
The committee then discussed the Change in Traffic Volume map (dated 6/27/12). Tom stated
that this was just another way to view the previous discussed maps (dated 6/25/12) for the future
County trend with Scenario 2. This map does the subtraction for you (blue numbers minus black
numbers).
The committee then went on to discuss the need for addressing the increase in traffic; the need to
get people out of their cars. Rich pointed out that Mecklenburg Road would be nearing capacity
with future Scenario 2--acknowledging that this assumes a full build-out of the area.
Rich stated his appreciation for the revised maps provided by Tom. He said he felt better about
the assumptions, especially on Elm Street. He asked what additional information the committee
felt was needed. We are ruling out the other development scenarios prepared by staff and only
looking at Scenario 2. The proposed roads have been included. The other modeling analysis did
not have the new road, so the level of service (LOS) analysis for selected intersections do not
include this information.
Tom offered to run new volumes; see if the numbers change, and if they do, then
determine/calculate new LOSs. Tom added that he had not done a comprehensive map of the
intersections. After some discussion, the committee agreed that revised LOS incorporating the
current and future new roads would be helpful.
Pat suggested that some clarification on the maps through labeling, identifying roads, etc would
be helpful.
The committee asked Tom to do the following:
1) Re-do some of the maps with better labeling;
2) New revised LOS map;
3) Trend without Scenario 2.
3
Tom also reported that he also has traffic accident data that he could share, if interested.
4. Consider and discuss modifications to the EcoVillage Planned Development Zone to
allow limited commercial uses:
Bill provided the map “EcoVillage Site Usage Area” to committee members to help explain the
proposal and EcoVillage ownership history. Bill explained the impetus for the proposed PDZ
modifications, which essentially came about as a result of the proposed Gourd Workshop.
Graham Ottoson, a currently EcoVillage resident, makes gourd craft/art work in her basement
and she wants to expand into a bigger space. EcoVillage is offering to lease land to her for a
separate building.
Graham expects to be on the Art Trail and attract visitors, but she is also hoping that business
will come from EcoVillage residents. If the workshop space were instead a professional office,
the expectation would be that clients would come from both inside and outside of the Village.
This is comparable to the businesses that current exist in each of the Common Houses.
Rich asked about the 7,000 square feet maximum. Bill responded that he had originally
proposed 10,000 square feet, but Dan Tasman had recommended something less, so he lowered
it to 7,000 square feet.
Rich then asked about the parking spaces. As proposed, fourteen space would be required if the
commercial area were to be built-out. Rich thought this seemed like a reasonable amount. Bill
provided information about the nearby parking strip for the TREE neighborhood.
Rich then asked about the commercial uses listed in the local law. Bill explained that he had
copied the list from the Town’s existing commercial zone, but that Dan had suggested
modernizing it. The draft law contains two lists as options for the committee to consider. Dan
explained how some of the terms, such as “milner” are outdated. Pat thought the categories in
new list captured broader descriptions. Bill added that Susan Brock had suggested that
definitions for “artisanal” and “picobrewery” be included. Committee discussed the meaning of
different uses listed and their appropriateness for the EcoVillage site, and recommended the
revised list.
Rich said he felt comfortable moving the proposed law forward to the Town Board.
Rich moved and Pat seconded; Bill abstained--voted to move on to Town Board.
Bill said he would make the recommended changes and send it to Paulette for Monday’s Town
Board meeting.
5. Discuss preliminary conclusions and suggested report content for the West Hill traffic
analysis work:
The committee briefly discussed expectations for the report content—methodology and summary
of findings would be the main elements.
4
Pat stated that we need to be clear about terms, with a clear explanation of what Scenario 2 is,
why it was developed and the same with the County’s future trend projections.
6. Other Business: None
7. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Tentatively scheduled for August 16th.
Meeting ended at 7:00 p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
FINAL SUMMARY OF AUGUST 23, 2012 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; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Board; Herb Engman, Town Supervisor
GUESTS PRESENT: 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 July 5th meeting summary: Change on page 3 (Section 4). Minutes
approved as amended, all in favor of the changes.
3. Consider draft West Hill Traffic Study. Discuss next steps: Rich reported that he had met
with Sue and Dan to discuss an earlier rough draft of the report. Rich then introduced the current
draft and then opened up the topic to discussion amongst the committee.
Bill stated that he was impressed with the product and appreciated the work that had been done ;
he did identify a couple of minor typos.
Pat also reported having found a few typos and had some small wording change suggestions.
She said that she was especially interested in the conclusions and findings; stating that she liked
the way the report ends. She liked the discussion on page 44 stating that traffic was just one of
many concerns of the Town and thought this discussion could be beefed up. She suggested
emphasizing other priorities discussed in the Comprehensive Plan, such as housing and housing
needs. She then read a paragraph from the recently released 2011 Annual Report of the
Tompkins County Planning Department stating that “total housing units between 2005 and 2010
was 1,771 or 295 units per year. Should that housing unit creation rate continue through 2014 a
total of 2,950 can be expected for the period of 2005-2014; or 76% of the “Tompkins County
Affordable Housing Needs Assessment” projected need of housing units. However, the number
of affordable units is falling far short of projected need.”
Rich drew attention to the description of housing at beginning of the report and asked if it
wouldn’t suffice to just add a few more sentences to that on page 44?
Pat also said that she wanted to include the fact that traffic is bad on all hills—pertaining to the
first bolded statement on page 41.
Sue added that Herb had a conflict with another meeting but asked her to relay his concerns
about that same bolded statement on page 41. He had suggested changing the statement so that it
2
does not imply that West Hill alone will be experiencing increased rush hour traffic as a result of
development. He suggested the following wording: “Increased rush hour traffic and congestion
are an unavoidable impact of development” – which removes the reference to West Hill.
Rich stated that West Hill has a unique traffic problem and that is why we focused on this area.
Bill thought this should be added to the introduction, provide a statement that there are traffic
problems throughout Town but explain why we are focusing specifically on West Hill.
Pat suggested including the traffic information that had been provided at an earlier
Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting and that maybe staff could look back at that
information to see if it is reasonable to include.
Rich referred back to the genesis of this study, and stated that it dates back to 2009 when money
was set aside. There were concerns about the feasibility of having higher density on West Hill.
He does not have a problem mentioning other traffic, but in the report point out the reason for the
West Hill study.
Bill noted the display currently up in the Town Hall lobby (prepared by the Planning Dept.
intern) which included a newspaper article describing traffic concerns on West Hill in 1959.
Pat agreed that there should be included some reason for the West Hill study—describing what
prompted the study. Also, she suggested including a statement about Ithaca being a growing
community and how that compares to other small cities. Ithaca is used to a certain level of delay,
but what about somewhere like Syracuse.
Rich questioned this, stating that Syracuse has a population upwards of 600,000.
Pat responded that perhaps a better comparison would be Corning/Elmira; the idea being that
perceptions are relative. It may take a shift in tolerance--how much traffic can be tolerated?
This is not 1959 and if we are going to successfully address other goals, there is going to be
some affects from increasing traffic.
Rich responded that the on the flip side the metrics used throughout the country are engineering
metrics not quality of life metrics.
Dan added that he had addressed this on page 13; the last sentence in Section 3.3 that states:
“Traffic statistics and forecasts show traffic volume, road capacity, and graded levels of road
performance. They cannot predict how that traffic is perceived by drivers and pedestrians, or its
importance or relevance in how one views their quality of life.
Pat suggested adding a statement on balancing housing needs; that priorities change.
After some back and forth on this issue Bill suggested that Pat come up with proposed language
for the Committee to consider.
Tee Ann suggested some wording changes. Remove “just” on page 44 in both places, and in 3rd
paragraph; make paragraph a “positive” initiative – to gather factual information.
Committee continued to discuss possible additional language to use in the last paragraph of page
44 and in the first paragraph on page 43. It was suggested that Pat come up with some proposed
language.
3
Rich concluded discussion on the report. The committee will come back to this at the next
meeting after revisions are prepared.
4. Consider and discuss the proposed open development area designation for 572 Warren
Road and certain properties along E. Shore Drive: Rich introduced the open development
area topic by referring to Susan Brock’s memo.
Bruce provided additional information, explaining that the term ‘open development area’ was a
misnomer. It is not opening an area up to development. Unfortunately some residents who saw
the Planning Board agenda became concerned. This is just the term used by New York State
Law.
Rich questioned the condition in the Planning Board’s draft resolution (“a. No future subdivision
of the parcel shall occur unless acceptable road access is obtained for the future parcels pursuant
to Town Law §§ 280-a(1) and (2)”), and the committee discussed this and also condition “d.) All
future deeds, easements, and rights-of-way for all or part of the parcel shall contain the following
provision: “This conveyance is made and accepted subject to the open development area
conditions approved by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on _________________.” [list
date]” Bruce explained.
Rich asked the Committee how they felt about forwarding the proposal; Bill moved:
Recommend it be forwarded. Rich seconded. All in favor.
5. Discuss recent West Hill development moratorium. Review goals and accomplishments:
Rich opened the discussion by questioning whether the Town is still exposed. What if an
application for a large subdivision/development comes in that does not comply with the vision of
the Comprehensive Plan (before the zoning is re-revised)? Rich asked for planning staff reaction
and Sue responded that additional outreach efforts with landowners need to be undertaken;
conversations with several of the landowners about the vision for the Comp Plan have taken
place, but not with all of the property owners who were affected by the recent moratorium.
Bill stated that we can always consider re-instating a moratorium if necessary, in the event that a
large development is proposed that is not in keeping with the current vision.
The Committee discussed the draft Comp Plan’s proposal for down-zoning in the nearby
agriculture zones and Bill reported that the Agricultural Committee is concerned about the 15
acre proposed minimum parcel size.
6. Other Business: None
7. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Due to a scheduling conflict with the regular
scheduled date of September 20th, the Planning Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for
September 13th.
Meeting ended at 5:55 p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
FINAL SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 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; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Board; Herb Engman, Town Supervisor.
GUESTS PRESENT: Reporter Peter (Ithaca Times).
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns: None
2. Consideration of August 23rd meeting summary: Deferred until next Planning Committee
meeting.
3. Consider revised draft of West Hill Traffic Study: The Committee devoted the meeting to
discussing and considering revisions to the West Hill Traffic Report draft version 1.2. Rich
began the meeting and noted that his name was mis-spelled on the credits page. Rich went on to
question the anecdotes, (quotes and statements from a 1988 New York Times article concerning
Ithaca Octopus) that Dan had added to the beginning of the report. Rich thought that while fun,
they diverged from the issues at hand in the report. Rich suggested they be removed from the
report and other members agreed.
The committee discussed and agreed to the following changes in the report (please note that
some of the page numbers on revised draft 1.3 will have changed from what is indicated below):
Page 1:
- Paragraph 3, last sentence: change “When” to “Where”
- Paragraph 4, first sentence: remove “along with hilly topography”. The committee felt that the
topographic challenges were equal amongst the hills.
Page 2:
- Paragraph 1: change tenses of the words to “contemplate” and “make” (from “contemplated
and made”).
- Paragraph 3: add “draft” before plan (reference to the Comprehensive Plan).
- Paragraph 3: last sentence: change the tense to “called” (in …”Plan calls for”..).
- Paragraph 5, first sentence: change “Town” to “Ithaca Area”.
Page 3:
- Paragraph 2, first sentence: add “a” before “…more cohesive…”
- Paragraph 3, first sentence: change 2012 to 2011.
- Paragraph 4, first sentence: change “will” to “would”
2
- Page 5,
Paragraph 2, third sentence: modify sentence, by replacing “easily” with “more”, and add after
feasible “than on smaller lots”.
Page 5:
-Table: change “Marry” to “Mary” Perry.
Page 7:
- Paragraph 1, second sentence: replace “current” with “recent” – capitalize Comprehensive Plan.
- Paragraph 1, third sentence: add “would” between rest and remain – remove the ‘s’ in
“remains”.
Page 9:
- Paragraph 1, third sentence: take out “s” in “includes”.
- Paragraph 1, last sentence: replace “other” with “existing”.
Page 13:
- Paragraph 3, last sentence: remove word “peak”.
- Paragraph 4: bold all the subheadings italicized in Section 3.2.
- Paragraph last, last sentence: change the last sentence to “The mixed use TND scenario would
have a student yield that makes a neighborhood elementary school viable, whereas build-out
following conventional development would not”.
Page 14:
Paragraph 3, first sentence: remove “where traffic congestion in the West Hill area is perceivably
at its worst” and replace with “at which traffic counts County-wide are at their highest”.
TeeAnn suggested including more discussion on the assumptions in Section 3.3-Limitations. For
instance, the assumption that new connector roads will be constructed or that people will use
transit.
Dan replied that the assumption people will use transit is included in Section 3.2-Input data.
Section 3.2 describes adjustments to the input data and references academic studies that
assumptions are based on.
TeeAnn suggested modifications to Section 3.3 which was agreed to by the committee, as
follows:
Page 14:
- Subheading: add “and Assumptions to the title of Section 3.3 to read “Limitations and
Assumptions”.
- Paragraph 5: add “and a new north-south road between Trumansburg Road and Elm Street
through the new neighborhood area” at the end of the first sentence. Then create a new
paragraph with the next sentence that begins with “Traffic generated…”
- Paragraphs 5 and 6 (original): switch the order so that the statement that begins with “The
time…” is moved ahead of the new paragraph/statement that begins with “Traffic generated…”.
- Paragraph/statement 6 (original): add “the effects of” before “…partial buildout.”
3
Page 15:
After some discussion the committee decided to leave off the last two statements that Pat had
provided at the end of page 15 and instead add the following sentence: “As population and
priorities change, so can thresholds of tolerance for different levels of service at intersections.”
Page 17:
- Paragraph last: add “This study cannot predict when in the build-out this would be
constructed”.
Page 18:
- Paragraph 2, last sentence: change “between 2050” to “beyond 2050” and remove “and 2080 or
later. Find and replace this wherever it occurs in the document.
Page 43 - Finding Section:
- First bolded sub-heading: change to “Increased rush hour traffic and congestion will be an
unavoidable impact of development on West Hill and throughout the Town”
- Paragraph 1: need to fill in the (X)’s – (still waiting to get maps from Tom Mank) and remove
the word “only” used twice in the first sentence before (X).
- Paragraph 2: add hypen to read “four-way”.
- Paragraph 3: spell out 41.
- Second bolded sub-heading: replace “will” with “is anticipated to” (to read that Traditional -
Neighborhood Development is anticipated to…” )
- Paragraph 4, second sentence: “replace will generate less” with “will typically generate fewer”.
- Third bolded sub-heading: remove “not Trumansburg Road / Cliff Street (NYS96)”
Page 44:
- Merge and modify paragraphs 4 and 5 to read as follows: Development of a TND could happen
at a faster rate then conventional suburban development because it would include a wider range
of housing types appealing to broad range of potential residents. The time at which the West Hill
target area develops depends on many factors, among them availability of property for
development, the local and national economy, continued demographic changes, and the rate of
development outside the Town.
- Last sentence on the page: remove “and the increased traffic that will accompany it”.
Page 45 Future Considerations:
- First bolded subheading: remove “Regardless of”
- Paragraph 1, first sentence: add “area” after West Hill; replace “much” with “some”.
- Paragraph 1, second sentence: add “rate” after “current”
- Paragraph 1: remove last two sentences.
- Second bolded sub-heading: change to “The Town should begin planning for traffic
mitigation”.
- Paragraph 3, second sentence: fix parenthesis.
Page 46:
- Paragraph 1, second sentence: add “area” after West Hill.
- Second bolded sub-heading: remove “just”.
4
- Paragraph 3, first sentence: add new (cut from first sentence in fifth paragraph) first sentence
“The Town has changed much in the last several decades.
- Paragraph 3, second original sentence: remove “just” in “just one of many attributes”.
- Paragraph 3, last sentence: add “housing” before goals; and “other” before recommendations.
- Paragraphs 4 and 5 (new in red): Remove- while committee agreed with the statements that Pat
had added, it was thought that they did not fit in.
- Paragraph 6: Cut first sentence and paste in Limitations and Assumptions section on page 14.
(“As population and priorities change, so can thresholds of tolerance for different levels of
served at intersections); delete the rest.
4. Other Business: None
5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items:
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
FINAL SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 18, 2012 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.
GUESTS PRESENT: Reporter Dialynn Dwyer (Ithaca Times).
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns:
Rich reported that he wanted to discuss the purpose and mandate of the Planning Committee,
essentially wanting to get clarity as to what the committee was intended to do. He would like to
get back to this topic at the end of the meeting.
2. Consideration of August 23rd and September 13th meeting summary:
August 23rd meeting minutes: Clarification language added to the second to last sentence on
page 1. Rich moved and Bill seconded, all in favor.
September 13th meeting minutes: No changes made. Rich moved and Pat seconded, all in favor.
3. Consider revised draft of West Hill Traffic Study (version 1.3). Discuss next steps:
The committee reviewed the revised draft of the West Hill Traffic Study (Draft 1.3, October
2012). A couple of minor errors requiring modifications were pointed out. On page 43 remove
the capitalization in “on”; on page 44 fix the word “develops”.
With the Planning Committee’s draft now completed, Rich asked members where they wanted to
go from here. The committee concluded that they were ready to send the report to the Town
Board for consideration.
Bill moved and Rich seconded to refer to Town Board; all agreed.
The committee discussed whether the report should be discussed at a regular Board meeting or
during a study session. Bill thought that West Hill residents may be interested in attending a
meeting where the report is discussed.
Rich noted that study session meetings are generally held earlier which might affect attendance
for working residents.
Pat thought it could be scheduled later in the agenda so people who work could more easily
attend.
Bill added that the only Town Board member who has not seen the report was Eric. All the other
Town Board members have been attending the Planning Committee meetings during
development of the report. So this will not necessarily be a new discussion item for most Board
members.
Rich thought the meeting may be more of an opportunity for the public.
2
Dan pointed out that the report was still lacking a map and information from Tom Mank. This
information is needed to fill in the blanks for the City road names where volume over capacity
ratios are high in the scenario 2 build out analysis. Dan thought this was important information
and he would feel more comfortable if this were included in the report before it gets sent out to
the Town Board.
The committee talked about the timing and when the report might be ready for the Town Board.
Given the situation, the committee decided that the report should be put on the next available
Town Board meeting after the report is finalized with the additional information.
Rich then moved to the added agenda item; the purpose and mandate of the Planning Committee.
Rich asked Pat what she remembered as being the impetus for creation of the committee. Pat said
it had to do with the broader and long-range planning issues and policies that required Town
Board input; things not necessarily going to the Planning Board. The initial committee consisted
of Will Burbank, Pat, and Peter Stein.
Sue recalled the Planning Committee beginning after Herb became Town Supervisor; she
believed this was one of the committees that he had initiated. The creation of the committee may
have also coincided around the time of the development moratorium for Town’s northeast area
(Briarwood). The Town had a Transportation Committee for several years prior that discussed
transportation and land use related issues, but that committee disbanded after the Transportation
Plan was completed in around 2007.
Rich stated that the committee has been effective at reviewing and working on zoning changes,
especially the recent requests for planned development zones. But the committee has not taken
on the broader picture of planning in the Town. Rich questioned the implementation of the
zoning effort and how the Planning Committee might get involved with that.
The committee discussed the comprehensive plan and associated SEQR review process and how
the committee may have a role.
4. Consider development concept and rezoning request for Five Mile Drive property
(Susan Cosentini, New Earth Living). (Tentative depending on Town Board referral):
This agenda item was postponed.
5. Other Business: None
6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items:
November 15th meeting:
- Conservation Board report on Coy Glen
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 15, 2012 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code
Enforcement; Mike Smith, Planner.
GUESTS PRESENT: Ellie Stewart, Conservation Board; Diane Conneman, Conservation
Board; Town of Ithaca resident.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns: None reported.
2. Consideration of October 11th meeting summary:
Rich moved and Bill seconded, approved as amended (page 2, paragraph 3, line 3--replace
“various” with “broader and long range”).
3. Consider the draft report Southwest Glens and Creeks Conservation Zone – Proposed
by the Conservation Board (11/5/12):
Rich asked the members of the Conservation Board who were in attendance at the meeting to
introduce their report, and the proposal as outlined within, the Southwest Glens and Creeks
Conservation Zone document.
Ellie Stewart began and reported that there have been documents written as early as 1872
mentioning the Coy Glen area and its significant features. There were several attempts,
beginning in the 1970’s, to create some form of protection for the area. She said the
Conservation Board decided to take over the lead in drafting the report in order to get the
initiative moving forward and provide justification for protecting the area. Ellie expressed
gratitude to planning staff, Mike Smith and Steve Albonesi (summer intern), as well as Cornell
Plantations staff, in providing assistance in development of the report. She added that the area
sought for conservation zoning is wild and beautiful, and some of the residents in that area are
known to be supportive of seeing it protected.
Rich asked about access to Coy Glen and Ellie stated that it is all private and anyone wanting
access would need to seek permission. She added that in the past there was a private landowner
who had expressed interest in making the area into a public park.
Rich asked about the Stream Setback Law and what developments would be precluded as a
result. Sue responded that the setback requirements for Coy Glen Creek are 100 feet each side,
plus some additional (but limited) width to account for the steep slopes within the gorge. Within
the setback the main prohibition would be on development of any structures—or anything that
would result in the addition of impervious surfaces. Other streams in the area would likely vary
and have 35 or 50 foot setbacks.
2
Pat asked if there is land in the area already developed that could be further subdivided and
developed.
Ellie expressed concern about further development and said it would impact such things as the
coyotes, rare plants, general ecology and the overall habitat for plants and animals that inhabit it.
Rich noted that the proposed boundary for the conservation zone does not necessarily follow the
lot lines and that some areas will result in parcels having two zones. This was acknowledged and
staff added that it was not necessarily uncommon for a lot to be within more than one zone.
Rich asked if the Conservation Board had any communication with residents in the area
regarding the proposal. Ellie responded that they had not reached out. The Board was waiting
for initial feedback on the proposal from the Town Board. She added that at this point they do
not have any knowledge of any landowners interested in developing their property.
Rich asked about a statement in the report on page 2 that refers to the “degradation to drinking
water”. Ellie responded that this statement referred to those residents that use well water. Mike
added that this concern was pulled from the Unique Natural Area description that also stated this.
Rich then asked about the northern portion of the proposed boundary near Mecklenburg Road.
Members gathered around the aerial map to discuss this part of the proposed boundary.
Bill pointed out the lands owned by EcoVillage, YMCA and Cornell University. Bill explained
that EcoVillage had intentionally set aside acreage in this area where it is more forested and near
Coy Glen Creek. Bill pointed out a wetland located between the Cornell and EcoVillage owned
lands. Rich asked if any of this northern portion of the proposal would be conducive to
development? Bill did not feel it was conducive and furthermore there is no road access.
The Committee discussed the large tract of land owned by the YMCA; a relative small area that
is included in the conservation zone proposal. The YMCA is using this land as part of their new
primitive pursuits-type program.
The Committee examined and discussed some of the areas just outside the conservation zone
proposal, such as along Culver Road where land appears to have been mined and otherwise
disturbed.
Pat asked if it was known how many residential units the overall proposal would eliminate.
Bruce calculated 724.74 acres as being within the proposed conservation zone.
Pat questioned where development might be allowed. Rich responded that the conservation zone
allows development; it is limited but not prohibited.
Pat added that the Comprehensive Plan, as drafted by the Committee (Comp Plan Committee), is
currently proposing a lower development density on conservation zoned lands; lowered from 7 to
a 15 acre minimum.
Pat said that she had gone on a tour of this area when it was offered and acknowledged that the
area is really beautiful.
Diane added that Cornell University (Plantations) is very supportive of having the conservation
zone established.
3
Bill asked about the process and Sue explained how previous conservation zoning proposals
were handled; for other proposals, a public information meeting was held before any public
hearing.
Bill asked if this should be sent to the Town Board for consideration.
Rich felt there was enough interest to pursue the proposal and Pat expressed feeling comfortable
with the idea.
Bill moved that the proposal/report be forwarded to the Town Board for consideration; whenever
it is appropriate (ideally at a Study Session meeting). All voted in favor of forwarding to the
Town Board.
4. Consider request for a conservation zone along a portion of East Shore Drive:
The Committee discussed the request by some residents along East Shore Drive to rezone a
portion of land on the east side of the road (hill-side) to conservation and the Conservation
Board’s concurrence, as described in their resolution to the Town Board. The Conservation
Board referred to the Anticipated Land Use Map in the 1993 Town Comprehensive Plan that
identifies the area in question as conservation/open space, as well as the current draft
Comprehensive Plan, and the Unique Natural Area designation. The reviewed and discussed the
maps (aerial, slopes, land use, current zoning, etc) that had been included in the Conservation
Board’s materials.
The Committee discussed the request for the rezoning, but ultimately concluded that they needed
more information to judge the merits of the request for conservation zoning. It was noted that
the slope map indicated that some of the land is steeply sloped, but not all of it is and similarly,
the UNA designation does not cover the entire area proposed for rezoning.
Staff suggested the Committee take a field trip to the area to get a better idea of the topography
and other characteristics. Staff will arrange this.
A person in the audience (the only attendee) asked to speak and said that a resident from E.
Shore Drive, one of the petition signers, had wanted to attend the meeting to provide additional
information but got called to jury duty. The Committee decided to continue discussion of this
topic at the December meeting.
5. Other Business: None
6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items:
December 20th meeting:
- Next meeting continue discussion of the East Shore CZ request.
Meeting adjourned at around 6 p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 20, 2012 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner;
Mike Smith, Planner.
GUESTS PRESENT: David Rom, Susan Perri, Conservation Board; Linda F., Town of Ithaca
resident.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
3. Continue discussion regarding a request for a conservation zone along a portion of East
Shore Drive:
Rich reviewed the request by residents of East Shore Drive to establish a conservation zone in an
area along a portion of East Shore Drive. He reported on a field trip that Committee members
recently took to the area; he also raised several questions concerning the merits of the proposal.
Rich then invited members of the audience to speak.
David Rom, a resident of East Shore Drive, began by stating that he had come to Ithaca in the
1950’s; he had been a caretaker of the Shannon Farm/Park estate that was located along Cayuga
Heights Road (just north of the Town of Ithaca and behind the mall). Robert Shannon planted all
sorts of plants on this 165 acres and it was a very beautiful site. But this land was eventually
subdivided and is now a housing development. He expressed dismay with Lansing’s late start in
enacting zoning. Mr. Rom said that he has lived on East Shore Drive since 1998. He became
aware of the zoning in this area when the Remington Inn/Hotel development was proposed (now
the site of East Shore Sailing). He described the beauty of the area and the need to preserve what
we have; protect that which makes this area special. We have not been good stewards of the
land; we have a patchwork of development and are not maintaining the scenic quality of Ithaca.
From across the Lake and from Stewart Park, what is the image that we want to project for
Ithaca? As a professor of marketing, Mr. Rom said that he sees community identity as a very
important aspect. And it would seem that Ithaca would want to be identified as a community that
respects the environment.
Rich raised the issue of access to the Lake. Mr. Rom replied that visual access is important. Not
everyone can have physical access, but having visual access can be just as important. Rich said
that as a Planning Committee/Town Board member it is his job to question the request and he
asked Mr. Rom to explain the merits of the proposal. Mr. Rom replied that if there was no
zoning for this area now, would you really consider zoning this to multiple residence (MR) today
given its location?
Rich said that perhaps there are two questions: 1) Is this area worthy of conservation zone? and
2) Is multiple residence Zone appropriate?
2
Mr. Rom replied, stating that it was important for this area to be maintained as green as possible
and that the MR zone is arbitrary.
Rich said he would like to discuss aspects that make this incongruous zoning.
Mr. Rom replied that the infrastructure was one—the road. Crossing the road just to get mail is
difficult and dangerous for residents. There are no sidewalks and there is no shoulder along the
road.
Pat said that she came to Ithaca in 1974 and described how things have changed; that there is a
real need now for more median income housing. The more land we take off the table for
development, the less there is for affordable housing. You can’t put a bubble around Ithaca.
Some residents may want to enjoy that view of the Lake. By allowing some houses to be built,
you give other residents the ability to enjoy the view.
Mr. Rom stated that from economic standpoint, the view from the Lake of a dense townhouse
development does not convey a positive image, its all about the green hills and the City at the
end of the Lake. It is that image we should reinforce; that character that we should care about
protecting.
Pat said that a tasteful development of townhouses that blends in would be appropriate; we aren’t
in the Adirondacks. Pat added that another reputation that Ithaca has is one of being an elitist
community. We need more opportunity for median-income housing; don’t take land off the table
as this takes away from the ability to increase the housing stock.
Rich stated that what constitutes an important scenic view is subjective; though he personally did
feel that is was a beautiful view. Still the Committee needs the justification. The Scenic
Resources Inventory & Analysis Report includes views of East Hill, which is a view of a bunch
of buildings that used to be forested. Rich said that he understood the value of protecting views,
but it is a balancing act and there needs to be a compelling reason to protect it.
Mr. Rom pointed out that East Hill views would include iconic views of Cornell University.
Bill asked how the resident’s petition had come about; whether there was a triggering event and a
need for urgency. Mr. Rom replied that he had been concerned about this property for some
time. He was aware that this land had been initially proposed for conservation zoning in the
1993 Comp Plan, but the Town failed to take any action when it revised its zoning from MR.
With the new water line going in along East Shore Drive--the new infrastructure work, he
thought maybe it was time to raise the issue before there was a development proposal. He had
procrastinated and with the neighbors in agreement, he decided it was time.
Bill stated that to consider the rezoning, the Town would need to determine if it rises to that
level. Bill mentioned several attributes that would warrant conservation zoning, and questioned
for instance, whether we would find any important flora-fauna in this area. Bill stated that the
Town Board would be looking at the draft Comprehensive Plan, along with the current zoning
and land uses throughout the Town. He suggested that this issue be taken up by the Board and
looked at comprehensively at that time, rather than decided on independently.
3
David Rom responded that twenty years ago the 1993 Comprehensive Plan designated this area
as conservation, but nothing happened.
Rich then asked for staff to comment.
Sue Ritter stated that we would not consider this area for MR zoning today given its poor
location for denser development; it lacks sidewalks and transit availability and East Shore Drive
is a very busy State road with very narrow shoulders; safe access in and out of the site from a
multiple residential development would be an issue. The determination to rezone this land to
conservation is, however, not clear cut. There are steep slopes in the area and drainage issues
and the hillside certainly contributes scenic value, but not all of the land is steeply sloped and
there are areas of existing disturbance.
Susan Perri reiterated the Conservation Board’s support for the conservation zoning. She stated
that the Board had conducted due diligence in reviewing the request for the rezoning. They found
the lands to have significant conservation values as described in the Board’s resolution to the
Town Board. She reminded the Committee that this area had been designated as conservation in
the 1993 Plan and continues to be designated in the current draft Plan and that the area is also
designated as a Unique Natural Area,
Andy Goodell stated that he had gone out on the site (as did James Hamilton). Andy challenged
the Committee saying that rather than they trying to compel the Town to change the zoning to
conservation, the Town should justify why it would not do so at this point since it's been
designated as such in the new and previous plans and has clear conservation values.
James Hamilton, responding to Pat’s earlier point about this site possibly being used for median-
income housing, stated that to his knowledge, waterfront and/or water view property purchased
for development is typically done with maximum profits in mind. James also added that he
would be willing to do addition work if the Committee needed more information.
Rich suggested that this issue could be folded into a larger discussion with the Town Board
during the Comprehensive Plan discussions, adding that it was not a slam dunk. He stated that he
expects significant resistance from at least one of the property owners were this land to be
rezoned to conservation, noting that one of the properties was bought within the last eight years,
undoubtedly with the expectation of the development potential of the MR zone.
Bill saw no sense of urgency with this issue and explained that if necessary a development
moratorium could be instituted.
The Committee agreed to continue and raise this discussion with the Town Board during
Comprehensive Plan discussions.
4. Consider and discuss the effect of the Eastwood Commons MR and Cluster
Development language on the proposed Greenways development:
Rich asked staff to lead.
Sue R. introduced and explained the issues concerning the Eastwood Commons MR zoning and
the specific language that had been crafted in the 1970’s for this zone. The accompanying local
4
law for the MR zoning incorporated a number of conditions that are not relevant for the proposed
Greenways project. Sue then turned it over to Dan who went through local law and discussed
each of the sections that contained language that would be problematic to a future development,
including:
Page #A-21: Section 3.- subject to conditions of the final site plan (for Eastwood Commons
Section 4A(1) – constructed in accordance to the Eastwood Commons site plan;
Page #A-22: Section 4B(1) – conveyance to the Town of loop road;
Section 4B(3a) –open space to be owned by Eastwood Commons;
Page#A-23: Section 4B(5) – “no CO until Sunnyslope is constructed (staff will need to double
check this—roads have been since renamed;
Page #E-24: Section 4E(1) – parking spaces not allowed in public street;
Section 6(c) – 2-story building is not allowed, thus prohibiting walkout basements;
Section 7(b) – subsequent phases must be planned in relation to sales;
Page #E-25 Section F(10) – owners of the land in 1970’s are identified as the applicant.
Sue reported that staff had some initial conversation with Susan Brock concerning the issue, but
nothing in-depth. We need to figure out how to change or alter the language to allow for the
Greenways project to move forward.
Rich asked if this local law would prohibit development and Sue responded that she did not think
it would necessarily prohibit any development from occurring, but does pose problems for some
aspects of the Greenways project as currently proposed. The question to the Committee is
whether it is appropriate for Susan Brock to be asked to look into this more closely and come up
with ideas on how to revise the language and/or create separate language for the undeveloped
parcels.
Rich invited the remaining members of the audience to provide comments. The resident said that
she had not seen the document and was therefore not prepared to comment.
Bill asked if this is was necessary for the Greenways project to move forward and Sue responded
that the developer is not pushing this, it was identified by staff as needing modification. It does
need to be addressed if Greenways is to move forward as proposed.
The Committee agreed to refer the document to Susan B to craft language as she sees fit.
Moved: Rich Seconded: Pat All in favor.
Member Comments/Concerns: None reported.
Consideration of November 15th meeting summary: Acceptable as drafted.
Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Rich asked Sue to invite Ed Marx to the January
meeting to discuss the County proposed housing development on Harris B. Dates Drive. Other
topics for January include the scenic resources report.
There was no date set for the January Planning Committee meeting—that will wait until after the
Town Board organizational meeting and committee makeup is known.
Meeting adjourned at around 6 p.m.