Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2013-All TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE FINAL SUMMARY OF JANUARY 23, 2013 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Rich started the meeting by welcoming Rod Howe to the Committee and by thanking Pat Leary for her many years of serving on the Committee. 1. Member comments/concerns: None. 2. Consider December meeting summary: Bill moved and Rich seconded with minor modification to the minutes, Rod was okay with the changes. Vote was unanimous. 3. Set meeting schedule for 2013: In light of scheduling conflicts with the second and third Thursday of the month, the Committee discussed and agreed to change their monthly meeting to the fourth Thursday of the month, starting with February 28, 2013. 4. Discuss and consider draft Scenic Resources Inventory & Analysis document: Rich reported that he had read through the report and had a number of suggestions. Sue also reported that several of the Conservation Board’s recommended changes for updated photos had not yet been done, this included page 33-Figure 18 (Ithaca College/Pine Tree Road), page 54-Figure 34 (Ithaca College/Mecklenburg Rd), page 86-Figure 70 (golf course/Warren Road). Sue also reported that the error in the Acknowledgement page has been fixed. Rich suggested the Committee work through the report, starting at the beginning. The following are the Committee’s recommended modifications: Page 5; Figure 1: Change ‘easterly’ to ‘east’ and add ‘partially’ after ‘landscape is’… Page 6; 1.2; Paragraph 4: Remove ‘well’ from ‘well-loved’. Page 7; 1.3; Paragraph 1; 2nd sentence: Delete ‘interrupted’ and replace with ‘altered’. Paragraph 5; last sentence: Change ‘amongst’ to ‘among’. Page 17 – 19: Remove all ‘Yes’s’ except after ‘Blooming Grove’ and ‘Bennington’. Page 32: Fix – provide an updated photo of Ithaca College, current photo was pre-Athletic and Events Center. Page 33: Fix – Mid-view and add ‘Athletic and Events encroaches on the wooded hillside’. Aesthetic Significance: Remove sentence that begin with: ‘The view is largely ….’ and correlate last sentence with the statement in the next section on Aesthetic Discord. Page 32 and 33; Figure 18: Provide an updated photo and delete ‘Towers’ in Figure 18. Page 36: Provide updated photo with Athletic and Events Center. Page 37: Aesthetic Significance: Change ‘nature’ to ‘area’ and remove ‘City’ and add ‘dense and less denser areas’. Page 42: Magnitude: Change ‘Fairly low’ to ‘Moderate’ and next sentence should read as: ‘This is a relatively quiet rural road and moderately used connection to Route 13 and Route 96’. *(Staff to check counts.) Page 42; Figure 25: Replace title to ‘A view of Sand Bank Road’. Page 47; Magnitude: Change to ‘Moderate, agricultural and rural residential road’. Page 50; 8.Trumansburg Road; Aesthetic Discord: Reword to ‘The sight of parked cars in this view is incongruent ….’ and delete ‘uplifting’. Page 50; Figure 31: May need new photo. Page 71 (15.Troy Road); Magnitude: Change ‘very’ to ‘relatively’. Page 85 (23.East Ithaca Recreation Way); Mid View and Aesthetic Discord: Add language about the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center. Page 85; Figure 68: Provide new photo to see Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center. Page 86; Mid View: Fix spacing. Page 86; Aesthetic Discord: (None) ? Page 86; Figure 70: Need new photo. Page 89 (27.West Haven Road); Magnitude: Reword to ‘West Haven Road is a residential road that runs through medium density residential areas’. Page 93;(Unique Natural Areas and Protected Lands): Include conservation easement at EcoVillage. Page 98; Paragraph 1: Remove last sentence and replace with ‘The areas seen from the most viewpoint’. Page 102; Paragraph 1: Sentence starting with ‘Residential units…..’ need to check language and correct (there would seem to be no room between railroad to fit housing). Page 104; Wind Turbines: Change ‘Many people agree’ to ‘Some people feel …’. Page 108; Bury utility equipment: Remove ‘aboveground’. Page 116; Paragraph 2: Replace ‘documenting the rationale’ with ‘researching the potential’ and remove ‘this’. Page 117; Paragraph 2; Reword 2nd sentence: ‘To maintain the appearance of the Town’s predominantly wooded hills, the Town should also consider adopting similar regulations throughout the Town’. Page 118: Remove Recommendation section pertaining to timber harvesting regulations. Page 119; Public Engagement and Education: Add some example (fencing selection, pruning, color select in…) to beef up this section; possibly ask Conservation Board for suggestions. Page 120 (5.3 Future Considerations); Opportunities: Remove ‘Ithaca’ and replace with ‘The Town’. Remove ‘these towns’ and replace with ‘adjacent municipalities’. Delete ‘adjacent to Ithaca’. Remove ‘Town residents’ and replace with ‘area residents and visitors’. The Committee discussed how the report could be used; its inclusion in the Appendix of the Comprehensive Plan; ideas for the using photos from the report on the Town website (rotating the photos). The Committee discussed the reports readiness for forwarding on to the Town Board and the need to do so before the Comprehensive Plan is completed. Sue said that new photos will need to be taken and she would prefer to get some of them when the trees leaf out. Decision to forward the Scenic Resources Inventory and Analysis report on to the full Town Board for discussion: Bill moved, Rich seconded; the vote was unanimous. The report is to be scheduled for discussion at the next available Board meeting subsequent to staff revising the report based on Committee recommendations. 5. Discuss Planning Committee goals and priorities for 2013: The Committee discussed possible work projects for 2013. Sue thought there might be aspects of the Comprehensive Plan review that the Planning Committee may be involved in. Sue identified potential implementation aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that the committee may be involved in, such as work on neighborhood plans. The Committee discussed other pending projects. Rich added that for scenic resource protection, the Town would need to look at an overlay zone, and that should happen while working on new zoning and not wait until after the zoning is updated. 6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting tentatively schedule for February 28, 2013: - still tentative-discussion/presentation of County proposal for the Biggs property; Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 28, 2013 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Tasman, Planning. GUESTS: Ed Marx, County Planning Commissioner; John Spence, Better Housing for Tompkins County; P. Christopher (Chris) Dirr, NRP Group LLC; Joe Mareane, County Administrator. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member comments/concerns: None. 2. Consider January meeting summary: Rich moved and Bill seconded, all in favor. Vote was unanimous. 3. Update on Tompkins County Biggs Property (Ed Marx): - Rich: Began the meeting with introductions and then turned it over to the guests. - Chris Dirr: Provided background on the NRP Group LLC. The firm started in Cleveland in 1995 with three initial partners; it has grown significantly and is now one of the largest (ninth) developers of affordable and multi-family housing in the country (21,000 residential units in thirteen states). The company works with local partners and has identified Better Housing of Tompkins County as a partner with this project. Chris is located in the Buffalo office and is responsible for the Mid-Atlantic area. - John Spence: Explained that Better Housing of Tomkins County tends to serve areas throughout the county. He differentiated their work from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service which tends to focus work in the City, though not exclusively so. Better Housing provided a partnership on the Linderman Creek Apartment and the Conifer Senior Housing projects. They have found Conifer very good to work with, though the company tends to be less flexible with their housing designs. In addition, with the NRP project, Better Housing would own a percentage of the project, something they couldn’t do with Conifer. - Ed Marx: Provided background/history of the County-owned Biggs property and on relevant planning-related initiatives including the County Comprehensive Plan (2004) which identified housing and transportation as important issues. In 2006 the Department produced the Housing Needs Study which projected a need for almost 4,000 new (non-student) housing units in the County by 2014; of which 38% needed to be affordable to households (HH) at 50% of the median HH income level or below. In 2008 the Route 96 Corridor Study recommended nodal development as a means for managing growth in West Hill area. Subsequently, the County Health Department moved to Brown Road and the County talked informally with the Town about the potential for a housing development. The Biggs property was subdivided (between the east/west sides of Harris B. Dates Drive) and the Cayuga Medical Center acquired the building parcel contiguous with their property. The undeveloped piece was retained by the County. 2 Subsequently the County submitted an application for the EPA Quality Communities – Showcase Communities grant; the County asked to partner with EcoVillage, and at the same time the Aurora Dwelling Circle was in the works, all of which were incorporated into the EPA grant application. The County approached the Town, and at that time, the Town supported the application. The grant was approved in 2011 and project period will end in February 2014. The Request for Proposals (RFP) outlining a concept for development of the Biggs property included market rate housing with some affordable components. The County received one application from NRP and Better Housing of Tompkins County. The County Legislature and County Planning Committee have asked to have Ed Marx and the development team talk with the Town about the current proposal. - Rich: Asked Ed about the February 2014 end date; - Ed: Due to economics, all three projects have been delayed. The grant is to evaluate the energy usage of the housing and transportation aspects of each project, provide educational materials and outreach to the public about the opportunities derived from this type of development, and to develop related model regulations that could be adopted by municipalities. The overall idea is to create interest and an understanding so more of these types of developments can be built. - Rich: Which project is further ahead? - Ed: The Aurora Dwelling Circle was, with an anticipated finish date of May 2013. Chris Dirr then provided a PowerPoint Presentation about the proposed development, including alternative scenarios: - NRP keeps records on the energy performance of its developments. - Proposal incorporates aspects of the Pedestrian Neighborhood Zone model regulations, creating a compact, pedestrian-oriented community; - 65% of the site to remain undeveloped and used for passive recreation, gardens, etc.; - utilizes green infrastructure; - 80% more efficiency in construction materials and appliances that standard. Alternative 3: - 60-unit townhomes: - Total cost - $13,500,000.00. Mixed Income: $16,000 - $75,000 HH depending on family size: AMI % Units # Units 30% 15% 9 units 50% 35% 21 units 60% 33.3% 20 units 90% 16.67% 10 units Rent: Bedroom: 1 $415-$906 $16,250-$32,500 Annual Income Bedroom: 2 $500-$1200 $18,600-$62,700 Bedroom: 3 $575-$1,525 $20,900-$69,600 Bedroom: 4 $640-$1,285 $25,080-$75,000 3 Home Ownership: Converts to affordable home ownership for residents at the end of the 15-year tax credit compliance period. Tax Credits used for purchasing: Qualifying income is the entrance income; but a tenant can’t be pushed out if their salary goes up; when being sold, however, it must sell at qualifying price. Version 1: 70 units, 3 neighborhoods, pocket neighborhoods with clubhouse, parking away behind/adjacent neighborhoods. Version 2: 80 units, homeownership and rental, wetland protection, for sale separate from rentals; parking on outside retained amenities of Version 1. Version 3: 60 rentals, no for-sale units, maximized amenities, garden, dog park, photovoltaic – best with orientation. Discussion on the Conceptual Designs: - Herb: Why not flip the proposal for 20% affordable and 80% market-rate? - Chris: Can’t finance the project with the reverse. The only way to get financing for the market - rate is to make the project much larger-a 200-unit project, for instance; the current scale and site is too small to make this economical to develop with a larger market-rate component. - Ed: Anyone making a living wage could live in the proposed development. This could be people working as teacher’s aides, nursing aides, etc. - Herb: Town has been supportive of affordable housing, but West Hill has had a concentration and it is politically unpalatable to continue to develop only affordable housing; need more of a mix. Chris provided additional information concerning the project: Square footage varies: 1-bedroom/750 sq. ft., 2-bedroom/900 sq. ft., 3-bedroom/1,250 sq. ft.; with separate metered utilities; central air – 95% efficient. - Rich: What about the possibility for district heating? - Ed: There is a study underway to determine if there would be a benefit of extending the district energy to this site; the T. County Planning Department is also going to look at the range of options. - Bill: Stated that he had similar concerns as expressed by Herb regarding the concentration of affordable housing (financed by NYS credit program), but that he does find the homeownership option available after 15 years the most interesting/appealing aspect. What would happen with the residents association? - Chris: The residents association would turn over to homeowner association. - Bill: Homeownership separates this from other developments; and having Better Housing of Tompkins County staying in the picture and managing the homeownership is a plus. - Bill: When the EPA Quality Communities grant proposal was being considered, the financial aspects of creating this type of housing did not come up; if the tax credit program is the only way to fund this type of development, we may need a new model. 4 - Chris: Energy efficiencies cannot be achieved without the tax credit; other features, as well, such as the architectural details, the use of non-vinyl siding, etc., require the tax credits. - Ed: The idea is to use this site to set the bar higher for affordable developments. - Bill: Asked about the transit availability? - Chris: The bus will not come directly to the site, but there will be connectivity (sidewalk, extended shoulder) to get residents to the nearby bus stop. - Sue asked John Spence to discuss management of the site. - John explained that Better Housing would be responsible for management of the property for the long-term; on-site managers; maintaining quality and upkeep; prompt maintenance. Other discussion items: Purchase price; not yet discussed. Discussions ongoing with Rick Manning for input on the landscaping aspects; looking to have larger front porches than what is shown in renderings. The Committee discussed and considered the proposed project. Many project aspects are positive: the “green” elements; 65% of the land to remain as open space; it would provide a model for future low-income housing; the rent to own provision (after 15 years); good low- income project overall. But there is still the question of its reception by the community and concentration of low-income-only housing developments on West Hill. The Committee will provide a verbal report to the Town Board at the next meeting. No recommendation from the Planning Committee at this time, air concept with the rest of the Board. 4. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Nothing pressing at this time. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MAY 23, 2013 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Dan Tasman, Planning. GUESTS: Sue Cosentini, New Earth Living. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. 1. Member comments/concerns: Rod Howe announced there would be a meeting about the proposal for housing on the county/Biggs property on June 12, 7:00 PM, at PRI. 2. Consider February meeting summary: The committee agreed to review the minutes at the next meeting. 3. New Earth Living (Sue Cosentini): - Rich: Project is still conceptual. Asked Sue Cosentini to fill in the details. - Sue C: The project replicates the Aurora Pocket Neighborhood on a larger scale. It’s a cohousing project; multigenerational which provides for aging in place, co-op legal/ownership model as opposed to conventional or condominium ownership. - Bill: Explained the EcoVillage ownership and governance model in comparison. - Rich: Asked about parcel size and number of units. - Sue C: 7 acres, 36 detached and semi-detached cottages arranged in small subclusters. Most social and decision making intended to be at the subcluster level. Parking would be at the perimeter. There would be a garden orchard. There would be the possibility of kayak storage, 5 units NYSERDA, and experimental human waste disposal and composting. - Rich: Asked about internal road configuration and paving. - Sue C: Hammerhead at the end, surfaced in stone dust. - Rich: Asked about zoning. - Dan: Low Density Residential. - Rich: Asked about trails and connectivity, and walkability to downtown. - Sue C: City applied for grant for a trail along the Cayuga Inlet. There would likely be a trail connecting the proposed project with the Cayuga Inlet trail. Now, one can walk from the site to downtown on the railroad trestle catwalks. TCAT doesn’t have bus service at the site. - Rich: Asked if provided parking is representative of need. - Sue C: 1 space per unit, with extra spaces. - Rod: Asked about number of bedrooms per unit. - Sue C: Likely to be a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom units. No finite numbers on how much of each. - Rich: Asked about if the project is market rate, and sales price. - Sue C: Units are market rate. Cost will be based on unit size. - Bill: Asked about prices at the Aurora Pocket Neighborhood. - Sue C: $250,000 to $360,000. The units in the proposal would be slab on grade. 2 - Rich: Asked about affordability. Said there’s a lot of income qualified housing proposed in the town, but nothing in the middle. - Sue C: Residents will experience cost savings through lower utility bills, need for one vehicle, and meals in a common house. - Rod: Asked about a co-op fee. - Sue C: Hasn’t been determined yet. - Bill: Said that the maintenance fee for an 860 sq.ft. unit at EcoVillage is $500. - Rod: Asked if the area in the dotted line on the site plan was the entire site. - Sue C: Yes. #9, the area to the east between the site and the Cayuga Inlet, could be a fantasy forest garden, a type of permaculture practice. People could walk through the garden and pick their meals. - (General discussion of uses on and ownership of adjacent parcels.) - Rich: Said to anticipate future questions about preserving rural character in the area. - Sue C: The proposal is designed to be sensitive to how it reads from the street. Building height will be 2 story. - Rich: Asked about what staff said about how to approach the project. - Sue C: Staff suggested rezoning to MDR, and applying cluster subdivision standards. - Dan: Talked about existing districts, permitted densities and buildout, and advantages and disadvantages of cluster subdivision and PDZ approaches. Given existing land use regulations, both approaches have flaws and issues. Staff prefers MDR with application of cluster provisions, because the rules are already spelled out, and staff and the developer will know what’s expected. Variances may be required for some uses common in cohousing that Town zoning is silent on; community kitchens, live/work, workshops, guest rooms, etc. PDZ allows flexibility and eliminates the need for variances, but lengthy negotiation may be involved, the outcome is less predictable, and any minor changes would require amending the PDZ itself. - (General discussion about zoning, permitted density, and regulatory approaches.) - Rich: Said that as good as the concept is, there are stumbling blocks; affordability, connectivity, and traffic. - Dan: Said that single family units normally generate about 10 vehicle trips per day. For this project, about 360 trips, spread throughout the day. - Sue C: Car sharing, bikes, trails, a live/work aspect, and food production on site would mitigate some traffic. - Rod: Said it’s better to have the trips generated in town than in Newfield. - (General discussion about affordability of housing in the proposed project, and throughout the town.) - Sue C: Investigating modular construction to lower construction costs. A co-op ownership model will also help. - Rich: Asked where to go from here. - Sue: Asked about what’s preferred, cluster subdivision or PDZ? - Rich: Asked if there’s no regulatory hurdles, how soon would Sue C want to start the process. - See C: Next spring. - Rich: Said PDZ works for him. - Bill: Said to consider EcoVillage PDZ as a model. - Rod: Said PDZ is more straightforward. - (General discussion about meetings with neighbors.) 3 - Dan: Talked about site planning concerns. The sketch plan is only conceptual, and some concerns were addressed since the first concept shown to staff. Best practice for pocket neighborhoods is 8 to 12 units in a cluster; the proposal shows 7 in most. Increasing the number of units in a cluster, and grouping them tighter, will also increase contiguous open space. The front of a cottage should not face the side of another; facades should all face the “outdoor room” at the heart of each subcluster. Units shouldn’t be staggered or arranged randomly just so they appear more organic; this is improved over the first concept. Large formal parking lots may give the impression of a complex rather than a true neighborhood. Some units are far from parking, which may be an issue for older and disabled residents. Provision for a road connection to the north should be added so the project becomes a part of any neighborhood that may develop around it. There should be a clear delineation of private, semi-private and common space; unprogrammed and no man’s land areas should be avoided. Open space should be as contiguous as possible, so it’s not just a decorative buffer. (General discussion/questions about site planning issues as they were raised.) - Bill: Asked about phasing. - Sue C: The project would be phased. - (General comments by Committee members: keep PDZ language simple, and anticipate all possibilities to avoid the need for later amendments.) 4. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Open. Bill moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Rich. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF AUGUST 22, 2013 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner. GUESTS: Ellie Stewart and Jon Meigs, Conservation Board. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. 1. Member comments/concerns: - Rich: Reported that Herb had asked him whether the Planning Committee would be an appropriate venue for the topic of management of large-scale rental properties; an offshoot topic that has emerged from concerns and meetings related to incidences of crime on West Hill (in the City and Town). This topic doesn’t fit neatly into the responsibilities of any Town committee, but it may be most relevant for the Planning Committee given its role in reviewing certain types of development projects. Rich further explained that he had spoken to Cynthia Brock who is working with the City on these issues. She has been conducting some fact finding and is willing to share what she has learned with the Planning Committee (next meeting). Bill and Rod agreed to have the Planning Committee discuss this at the next meeting. Bill added that Cynthia had also been talking with Tee Ann Hunter about this work. 2. Consider February and May meeting summaries: February 28, 2013 minutes: Bill moved and Rich seconded the motion to approve the minutes; there were no changes, all in favor. May 23, 2013 minutes: Bill moved and Rich seconded the motion to approve the minutes with one item to correct, all in favor of the change. 3. Consider revised conservation zone proposal for the Southwest Glens and Creeks Area: - Rich: asked Conservation Board members to explain the proposed modifications to the conservation zone boundary for the Southwest Glens and Creeks area, as shown on the map; how did the change come about? - Ellie Stewart: explained that the modifications were requested from the individual property owners. She and Jon, along with staff, had met with each of the owners (three different properties) to hear their concerns. The requested modifications were all relatively modest and tended to make sense given the shapes of the properties; none of the land proposed to be removed from the conservation zone proposal is with a Unique Natural Area. - Jon Meigs: the boundary was redrawn on the eastern Bostwick Road property to remove the house and lawn. The boundary was pushed back and now follows the creek. This creek is regulated by the Stream Setback Law which should provide suitable protection. For the Elm Street property, the owner of that property indicated that the stream rarely flows and the stream is barely present to the north. 2 - Bill: concurred with the assessment of the stream for the portion that is on the EcoVillage property. - Bill: asked about the western Bostwick Rd. property, what was the reason for that change? - Jon: explained that this owner requested that his property be treated the same as his next door neighbor, at least for a portion of his property, and that the boundary follows the back property line along the stream. The owner expressed an interest in providing a house lot for his daughter. - Mike: added that we would not want to see all of this property removed from conservation zoning as it is a long wooded parcel containing a lot road frontage and its location lines up with another future proposed conservation zone to the south. - Rich: why not consider this land south of Bostwick Rd. for conservation zoning now? - Mike: this land is not within a Unique Natural Area and there is less information available about it. The topography and extensive network of streams makes it a candidate for conservation zoning. - Ellie: added that the Coy Glen area has been a priority for conservation zoning for a very long time and we wouldn’t want to hold this up any longer. - Rich: asked if the proposal for conservation zoning had good outreach? - Mike: responded that letters were sent to each of the individual property owners within the proposed conservation zone, as well as those immediately adjacent. The letters informed residents about the proposal, invited them to the public meeting, and provided staff contact information if they had questions; staff handled a number of phone calls and questions about the proposal. - Ellie: added that the public meeting in May had been well attended. - Rich: asked committee members if they wanted to make a recommendation to the Town Board? - Bill and Rod: stated that they comfortable with the changes. Bill moved, Rod seconded, all approved the motion to forward the conservation zoning proposal for the Southwest Glens and Creeks Area to Town Board. -Sue: explained the next steps in the process, which is to forward the revised map to the Town Board for consideration; if the Town Board approves, then next step is to hold a public hearing and conduct the SEQR review. 4. Discussion on Town parks and trails: Update on CU Department of Landscape Architecture student class project: - Rich: asked about the Cornell Landscape Architecture class project concerning parks/trails on West Hill. - Rod: explained that he, Tee Ann, and Bill had been discussing parks and trails; they talked with Thomas Oles, professor in Landscape Architecture; he was looking for a project and thought West Hill would be a good place to concentrate efforts, especially given that the Comprehensive Plan was under revision and that it was recommending an update of the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Rod further explained that the project had moved more quickly than anticipated and will be undertaken this fall rather than during the spring semester. Thomas Oles prepared a project description to share with Town Board members and is encouraging comments on this draft. 3 This project will be intermunicipal in that it will involve looking at the City too. They are looking to invite people to a two-hour public meeting. While referred to as a charrette, it does not exactly fit that definition, as charrettes are usually multi-day involved events. Thomas Oles is asking for ideas on who to invite to this meeting. He had conducted a study last fall with the City, working with JoAnn Cornish on a West End/Inlet Island project. He hopes the project will be useful to the Town. The project ultimately seeks to determine: • How to engage neighbors • How to connect parks • How to connect City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca Parks/Trails--General discussion on priorities and draft Comprehensive Plan recommendations: - Rod: explained how he, Bill and TeeAnn started a discussion concerning parks and trails as a result of their ad hoc group that was responsible for ideas related to ‘adopt a park’ and ‘adopt a cemetery’. - Rich: explained that there once was a trails committee that was a subcommittee of the Public Works Committee. A parks and trails committee could instead live under the Planning Committee to look at priorities for planning and development of trails/parks. - Bill: mentioned that maintenance and development of parks and trails is a budget line aspect of the Public Works Department. - Rich: since both he and Rod are on the Public Works Committee and Planning Committee there is that connection. - Sue: described the importance of having a prioritization process/list for trails and park maintenance/development so that we are better prepared when grant funding opportunities arise. The Committee agreed to continue discussion of parks and trails. For the next meeting staff will dig out a concept plan developed by an intern several years ago for Saponi Park and the grant application for the Michigan Hill trail. - Bill: stated that he would also like to investigate alternatives to pocket parks; and wants to look into encouraging developers to contribute money in cases where that would be more useful rather than small isolated pocket parks; this would be a policy discussion. - Rod: asked about the status of the development proposal for the Biggs property. - Sue: responded that she had not heard from them (County or developer) recently, but in previous conversations they had expressed some interest in presenting a sketch plan to Planning Board and to consider the option of a cluster subdivision rather than rezoning to Planned Development Zone. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: September 26, 2013. • Parks and Trails information. • Management of large-scale rental properties. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF SEPTEMPBER 26, 2013 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement. GUESTS: Cynthia Brock, City of Ithaca Common Council; Jon Bosak, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member comments/concerns: - Rod: Reported that the date had changed for the public meeting being conducted by the Cornell University landscape architecture class for a visioning session of West Hill. Instead of Saturday morning at Town Hall, the meeting will take place Friday late afternoon at GIAC. 2. Consider August meeting summary: Bill moved and Rich seconded the motion to approve the August meeting summary, all in favor. 3. Discussion of potential strategies to manage issues related to large-scale rental properties and monoculture housing: - Rich: Introduced the agenda topic and described a recent West Hill meeting focusing on crime with Tompkins County Sheriff Ken Lansing and County Attorney Gwen Wilkinson as guest speakers. Rich described this as being part of the genesis for the town’s focus on West Hill rental properties; rental policies and its relationship to crime. Rich said that Cynthia Brock has been working with property managers from the larger rental complexes on West Hill to address these issues, and that he had invited her to speak to the committee about her recent efforts. - Cynthia Brock: Explained that in the short time she has served on the City Common Council, only a year and a half (elected 2012), West Hill (part of her election district) has experienced heightened crime, with the some of the more violent actions being associated with particular apartment complexes; including the shooting of Police Officer Augustine at West Village in October 2012 and a stabbing at West Village in August. In December 2011, there was a murder (shooting) and a few days later a stabbing at the Chestnut Hill Apartments. In addition to these high profile cases, there have been fights involving big groups, drug activity, prostitution, etc. Residents of these complexes are understandably anxious. In recent weeks there appears to be a dropping off of reported crime, which may be related to a greater police presence along with colder weather keeping people inside. Mayor Myrick established the “West Hill Research Group” which consisted of residents of Chestnut Hill Apartments, West Village, and Cedar Creek, and representatives from the Cornell Public Service Center and Cornell Cooperative Extension, along with involvement from the property managers of the complexes, Alderperson Brock, the Mayor, and Police Chief Barber. The idea was to build community and to create empowerment within these communities. Cynthia came to see the environment of these complexes as being overwhelmingly problematic. The police would arrive after a reported crime only to find that no one was willing to come forward with information. Residents felt intimidated by the perpetrators; so there would be no witnesses, no arrests, and the police would leave. This scenario is 2 repeated over and over. Residents expressed frustration because those causing the problems tended not to be residents; instead they were boyfriends/relatives/etc. of the residents. The apartment managers would say they did not have control over these non-residents. Only a very small number of individuals were creating the problems, but their affect was large and entrenched; causing fear amongst the vast majority of residents that just wanted a safe and comfortable place for their family to live. Even when the police did pick someone up, they would be released and return 48 hours later, since there was little evidence due to fear of reprisal from witnesses. In addition, there is lack of child care at some complexes; little oversight of kids who tend to go from apartment to apartment for food, companionship, etc. when parents are not home; resulting in associations with the bad elements and additional problems for families. Cynthia explained that she sat down with the police to determine the extent and location that crimes were occurring relative to apartment complexes. What she found was that Chestnut Hill (between Chestnut Street and Elm Street), West Village (dead end road off Elm Street) and Cedar Creek (off Floral Ave) all had high levels of crime. But the Ithaca Housing Authority (IHA), which manages various public housing properties in the City, including the Overlook Terrace (small complex on Hector Street) apartments were not problematic; they had low levels of crime. She found IHA runs a very tight ship in terms of management; with strict screening that involved due diligence for criminal history. Cynthia organized a “Best Practices” meeting with Ithaca Housing Authority; Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (Cedar Creek) and managers of Chestnut Hill to share their management practices. The process involved: 1st meeting with property manager; 2nd meeting with West Hill Research Group (Mayor’s group); 3rd meeting with residents. In the meantime, in August (2013), a $12,000.00 donation was given to the City from Omni New York, the owner of West Village Apartments, to increase police patrols in that area. Cynthia reported that there are just slightly under 1000 residents in these apartments in the City’s West Hill: West Village – 235 units; +/- 650 residents; Chestnut Hill – 30 units; +/- 160 residents; Cedar Creek – 39 units; +/-100 people Overlook Terrace – 10 units (IHA) She noted that adding to these the Town’s income qualified apartments (Linderman, Overlook), pushed the number even higher. The area’s single family homeowners are concerned; these complexes change the balance of income levels; residents feel that we have gone past the tipping point; some residents describe West Hill as a ghetto. Committee members asked various questions of Cynthia. She explained that Brenda Westfall is the property manager of IHA. Ms. Westfall monitors Section 8 housing and qualifies those for residency that are free of arrests within the last 7 years (Section 8 requires finger printing). There is a waiting list for IHA housing which gives her time to do a comprehensive review, including: 1. Credit check – background check; 2. Previous landlord information form – asks question concerning whether rent was paid on time; whether tenant left the property in good repair; each previous landlord must fill out the form; And education and orientation for new residents: 3 1. IHA conducts educational sessions for each new resident; expectations of behavior and of management responsibilities are explained; 2. IHA describes the process of eviction – what constitutes a violation; documentation process. Cynthia found that West Village and Cedar Hill did not have adequate on-site management and did not have a clear eviction process. West Village (Mo Vaughn (famous baseball player), with a business partner, is the owner; there is no 24-hour manager on-site; need to call the NYC office if there are problems. Residents feel that managers are afraid to follow-up on complaints. West Village has a high vacancy rate. Chestnut Hill (owned by a trust): the property managers are housed at their Collegetown apartment location, not at Chestnut Hill. Looking to create resources for managers: i.e.) a “how to” on conducting thorough background checks would help. - Rod: asked what the Mayor’s research group was doing; are they actually conducting research? - Cynthia: responded that the group determined that residents would be apprehensive of surveys and the “mining” of information, so they abandoned that approach; changed their goal from research to helping empower residents. Most recently they helped coordinate a West Hill neighborhood party and a community café involving mainly women and children. - Cynthia: explained how they tried to bring in the school district. Lehman Alternative Community School (LACS) is located right in the middle of this West Hill area. None of apartment residents go to LACS; they don’t see it as a neighborhood school; but now LACS has opened its doors offering the facility to residents for after-school events. There are now an after- school program that includes attendees from neighborhood; LACS is also looking for outdoor space to serve neighborhood. - Rich: thanked Cynthia for this helpful information and asked the committee members what they would like to do next. - Sue: responding to a member’s question, said that staff had not had any recent contact with the management of the Overlook apartments, but Monica Pritchard, manager for the Conifer apartment, stays involved and participates in many Town related meetings. - Bruce: said that his office has not had reports related to crime, but has had calls concerning neighbors not getting along at Overlook; smoking, loud music, non-resident occupants, etc. Bruce added that these Town apartments, being further out from the City and somewhat isolated, may shield it from the problems Cynthia described. Cynthia: added that Chestnut Hill and West Village are surrounded by woods, people can move quickly at these sites without being seen. West Village is on a dead end street surrounded by woods on two sides; the setting provides more potential from wrongdoing. - Rich: asked about the correlation with crime (police records) on West Hill? - Cynthia: collected police records; organized the information in a database to examine crime type/volume over a period of time. The data showed that crime increased in 2011 and 2012 but dropped off some in 2013. Sheriff does not use the same data collection system as Ithaca Police Department. The system design and software limitations do not yield crime patterns or readily usable crime statistics. Cynthia said that her collation of the data took a very long time and did not include ongoing investigations. - Bill: Suggested having Town property managers involved in this discussion. Monica Pritchard may have information she could share with others on what works. 4 - Rich: What next? - Cynthia: Working on bringing reluctant managers to the table to work on instituting “best practices”. Scheduling a time to hold the meetings has been difficult and there is nothing currently scheduled. Also plan to meet with local judges to have discussion about evictions and legal issue pertaining to this. - Rich: Asked if the Town could be informed about future meetings and any additional information (crime statistics) from the Sheriff. - Cynthia: Said she would welcome any future ideas that the committee wants to share. 4. Continue discussion on Town parks and trails: • Review Proposed Future Parks & Bicycle/Pedestrian Paths Map from 1997 Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. • Review development concepts for Saponi Park and Michigan Hill Trail (both currently undeveloped). - Rich: Asked about the history of Saponi Park; was this part of a subdivision? - Mike: Answered that it was part of a subdivision and pointed out that its location, further south and removed from the existing residential development (closer to the Town Public Works facility), because the subdivision was envisioned as being larger. - Bill: Pointed out that both sides of the undeveloped Saponi Park are now for sale and noted the Peachtree Lane connection. - Rich: Asked about the need for the discussing future parks/trails at this time. - Sue: Explained that we need to have some ideas on Town priorities so that when grants become available staff will know what applications to pursue. There are usually yearly grant funding opportunities from NYS Parks/Recreation. - Rod: Asked about updating the Town’s Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. - Sue: Explained how this would be an implementation task of the Comprehensive Plan and also give the Town an opportunity to discuss priorities. That entire process will take some time. The committee then discussed the status and background of various parks and trails shown on the map from the 1997 Park, Rec and Open Space Plan. The committee recommended developing a map that shows the proposed parks/trails from the 1997 Plan along with the existing and new parks owned/maintained by the Town to get a complete view. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: October 24, 2013. • Form-Based Code Demonstration Study report. • Debrief from West Hill meeting. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 24, 2013 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement. GUESTS: Cornell University City and Regional Planning undergraduate students (2). Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member comments/concerns: Rod asked if he could bring up an issue at the end of the meeting; all agreed. 2. Consider September meeting summary: September summary will be provided for the next meeting. 3. Report on landscape architecture class visioning session for West Hill: - Rich: Asked if committee members who attended the Cornell student (Landscape Architecture undergraduate class of Thomas Oles) sponsored meeting that focused on West Hill neighborhood issues, and held on October 4th, could report on the event. Both Bill and Rod attended, as did Sue and Dan. - Rod reported that the meeting announcement somehow got mixed up with Tompkins County’s housing development proposal for the Biggs property. Residents concerned about this proposal thought the student project, with its focus on West Hill, would provide a platform to discuss their concerns. In addition, a last minute change in the meeting date and venue added to resident’s confusion about the meeting. Emails to the West Hill listserve (from Thomas Oles and Cynthia Brock) sought to clarify the meeting purpose and the reason for the rescheduling. The event ended up being relatively lightly attended from what had been anticipated. - Bill described how the students were stationed at 5-6 tables with participants (residents from West Hill and Town and City officials) asked to visit each table and answer set questions and provide input to the students. Students had been assigned (in groups of 3-4) a specific West Hill geographical area to focus on; they conducted walking tours, engaged in conversation with residents they encountered, and generally studied the area. Each geographical area was represented by a table; students asked residents for their knowledge and perspectives about the area. One or two of the tables were for general input about West Hill on several topic areas. - Dan: Noted that while the meeting was advertised as a design charrette, it was not a true charrette which would normally involves several days of meetings, with designers who would capture in drawings the participant’s vision for the area. - Bill: Described the meeting as informational gathering, with typical questions from students being: what do you like about the area; what don’t you like; and what are your concerns. - Rich: Asked about follow-up, what is next for this student project? - Bill/Rod: Reported that the students would be continuing the project in their design studio class every Friday until the end of the semester. The class starts at 1:25 and continues to about 4pm. They invited and encouraged participants to visit the class and continue their involvement. 2 - Rod: Reported that the class project is not as sharply focused on parks and trail amenities/gaps as had been anticipated. The class project evolved from discussions that Rod, Bill and TeeAnn had started. Initially the project was expected to begin in the spring semester, but this changed to the fall semester, much sooner than expected, with little lead time for planning it out. - Rich: Asked about deliverables. - Rod: Responded that the class has a Facebook page where you can follow progress on the project. - Sue: Added that they are planning to hold a public presentation in December (likely the 14th) at Museum of the Earth 4. Review and discuss “Form-based Code Demonstration Study” report: - Rich: Opened the discussion of the draft report and asked staff for initial input. - Sue: Explained that the intent for the study is to provide education on form-base codes and demonstrate the possibility of bridging the City and Town under a single coordinate zoning code. The draft report concludes phase I of the study (funded by a modest County grant with a Town contribution) which involved SmartCode calibration for the selected focus areas, a regulating plan for the focus areas including vision plan with illustrations of buildout. Phase 2 is proposed to involve an education and outreach effort, a final report with additional mapping and illustrations, and a final presentation. Phase 2 is dependent on receiving additional grant funding. - Rich: Asked why the SmartCode could not be used throughout Town? - Dan: The Smart Code is intended for just the new neighborhood areas in the Town; per recommendations of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Most communities that adopt the SmartCode do not abandon traditional zoning—though a few have. The proposal is to move the Town into form-base code in selected areas; areas deemed appropriate for development and are largely undeveloped. Dan added that the model (SmartCode) is intended to be calibrated to local conditions; transects are different depending on location; the City of Rochester and NYC would have differently calibrated transects. Authors of the SmartCode developed six transects with the intent that these not be universal transects to be used everywhere the same; they need to be calibrated first. - Dan: Detailed some of his observations with the report, focusing mostly on the SmartCode calibrations in the appendix. Dan questioned some of the proposed densities in the different transects, suggesting that T3 seemed to be too low of a proposed density – 2 units maximum; while T4 and T5 seemed to be too dense for the Town. He felt that there may be inherent challenges to applying six transects across two municipalities with different land uses; the Town range is more of a gradual transition, while the transects described in the study are much less gradual. - Bill: Questioned whether you can have the same transects; why not decide that “T-5” is instead going to be “T-4”. - Dan: Need more granularity; by not having T-5 it means we would only have two transects remaining to reflect residential development. T-3, as proposed, is less dense than NE Ithaca, but T-4 is more dense than Belle Sherman; so there isn’t a transect to reflect the typical residential densities existing currently in the Town. - Bill: What about having a T-3”-A”? Having sub-transects? - Dan: The SmartCode is intended to have six transects and they are intended to reflect the range of human habitat in a community, but not every range, everywhere. The six transects are meant to keep things simple, and for undeveloped areas you generally want to stick with just six—keep it simple. For urban areas, you do find the use of sub-categories to better define areas that have already been developed. - Rich: Is there a disconnect; can SmartCode look regionally? 3 - Dan: SmartCode is a formula for building neighborhoods. How it looks at things regionally is through “growth sectors”. This is an optional part of the SmartCode that looks at the mix of transects in a neighborhood. - Bruce: Maybe you need to start with T-9 and work your way out; the biggest factor is topography; people may not want to walk. - Rich: What about the hills? - Dan: Responded that there are many hilly cities and in those places it is not a barrier to walkability. West Hill has 4-6% slopes, you see people walking. For a walkable neighborhood, 4-6% slopes are not necessarily a barrier. - Rich: The authors of the study recognize this is a model and an attempt to unify across boundaries. - Dan: You can have unified planning without needing to have unified codes. - Rich: The term “Proof of concept” is used in the report, but it is not clear what that means. After some additional discussion concerning the draft report/study, Committee members asked staff to invite Noah, or one of the other authors, to the next meeting to discuss the study/report (provide an informal presentation) and answer questions. Member comments/concerns—continued from earlier in the meeting: - Rod: Wanted to bring to the Planning Committee the idea of having an informational session with residents, businesses, etc. to generate interest in an adopt-a-park program; as a way to promote our incredible system of parks and trails. After some discussion Committee members expressed support for the idea. - Rich: One of the obstacles is the difficulty of reaching people who aren’t already participating; we need to engage with social media or something that is easy and mobile. - Rod: Added that Nick (Town Sustainability Planner) has had some difficulty in finding neighborhood groups/others to engage with. - Dan: Added that the Town was behind the times in using social media. - Bill: Reported that the Town was changing and is now implementing a Facebook policy. Committee continued to discuss ways to engage with resident and ideas for pushing information out to them. 5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: The next scheduled meeting will fall on Thanksgiving and in December it will fall on the day after Christmas. Committee members decided to schedule one meeting for November/December. The date that appears to work for everyone is December 5, 2013 [note: meeting date has subsequently been changed to Wednesday Dec. 4th at 4:30 p.m.] • Invite Noah Demarest to next meeting for further discussion of the “Form-based Code Demonstration Study”. • Invite Hollis Erb to next meeting for an update and discussion on the City of Ithaca Comp Plan process and status. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 4, 2013 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement. GUESTS: Hollis Erb, Planning Board member; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Member comments/concerns: Bill mentioned that on Saturday, December 14th at 2:00pm, there will be a presentation at the Museum of the Earth by students in the Cornell University Landscape Architecture class who have been studying West Hill. 2. Continue discussion on draft Form-base Code Demonstration Study (Noah Demarest): - Rich: Began by briefly recapping the committee’s review of the Form-Based Code Demonstration Study/report at the October meeting. At that meet the committee concluded that they could benefit from having a conversation with the authors of the study/document and had asked Noah Demarest if he could attend this meeting. Rich then asked Noah if he could begin by explaining what he had learned from undertaking the study, what was discovered, where is it going? - Noah: Responded that he learned a lot from doing the study. He came into the project as a designer, aware of the Smart Code, and with experience working urban infill and greenfield projects; but he had not had the experience of implementing the Smart Code or working with it at a regional scale. He gained a better understanding of where development was desired by the City and Town, more detailed understanding of the Smart Code, and was surprised that the calibration process was easier than anticipated. Noah acknowledged concerns that Dan Tasman had raised for proposed densities for some of the SmartCode transects described in the report’s appendix (i.e. T3 seemed too low; while T4 and T5 seemed to be too dense for the Town). Noah has asked study collaborators, David West and C.J. Randall, to review and respond. He also acknowledged a couple of errors in need of fixing in the draft report. - Rich: Asked if existing zoning was used as a guide? - Noah: Responded that they had definitely used existing zoning. They had also reviewed many other planning/policy/regulatory documents, including the Town’s draft Comprehensive Plan and City preliminary comprehensive planning documents. They also relied on contemporary trends and best practices for guidance. They did suggest any changes with the agricultural or conservation zoned lands; they sought to strengthened protection for those areas. - Rich: Pointed out what appeared to be inconsistency between the Growth Sector Map and the draft Regulating Plan; growth sectors G2 and G1 tended to follow the municipal boundary, but the transects are different. - Noah explained how transects can be nested within a growth sector and that a T-4 transect within a G1 growth sector can be appropriate. The T-4 zone along Five Mile Drive in the Town was in recognition of the proposed development in that area. The committee continued discussion of the Regulating Plan and Growth Section maps. 2 - Rich: Raised the issue, described in the study as the “fried egg” concept, and ask Noah for his opinion. - Noah: Described the “fried egg” concept as a development pattern having an obvious dense center (egg yolk) surrounded by less and less density as you move further out (egg whites). In reality these transitions are more fine-grained and they don’t necessarily need to be this smooth and continuous. Noah felt that East Hill Plaza had good potential for a viable mix use neighborhood. He cautioned that what matters is the mix of zones (transects/densities) within a walkable radius and with an identifiable core; if you can’t create this mix, then you shouldn’t try. - Rich: Then asked Noah to talk about the transfer of development right (TDR). - Noah: Responded that TDR is a way to direct growth away from lands that you want to preserve and shift it to locations where you want development to occur. In the underdeveloped rural T-1 and T-2 zones, you set up a transfer with a farmer who has 100 acres, for example, and shift the development rights to a T-3 or T-4 locations. It requires a joint urban core incentive to transfer the rights at least a T-3 or T-4. - Rich: Asked about compensation. - Dan: Responded that TDR programs usually designate a sending area, where development rights can be sold from, and a receiving area, where density can be transferred to. A developer may buy rights to develop a certain number of housing units from a landowner in the sending area, and use those rights to increase density on a site in the receiving area, or save or sell the rights for later use. Some communities have TDR banks, and it’s managed much like trading of pollution credits. The committee continued additional discussion of TDR. - Bill: Brought up the issue of the unknown timing in which development will occur. For instance, the East Hill Plaza area may be considered a good location for a mixed use neighborhood, but if the owner (in this case Cornell) is not ready to develop, then perhaps the Inlet Valley (a location that Noah had questioned in terms of viability for pedestrian friendly mixed use) may be preferable to developing in more rural locations. - Noah: Responded that it makes sense to have a 50-year plan. In using the SmartCode you would need to determine the acceptable ratio of transects in the neighborhood within the ¼ mile pedestrian shed; make sure you can have at least three transects (T-3, T-4, T-5) to provide a mix of services in the ¼ mile. Noah also referred to criteria in LEED-ND (LEED for neighborhood development). - Dan: Responding to a question/statement regarding the economic viability of mixed use areas and customer base; stated that there is a viable grocery store in Ovid, but that location does not have a population within a walking distance to support it. Its customer base extends to the surrounding town and rural areas. A neighborhood center won’t just serve the immediate pedestrian shed. East Hill Plaza is supported by the neighborhood, but is also patronized by residents from the Towns of Caroline and Dryden. This will also likely be the case for the Town’s other proposed new neighborhoods. The SmartCode allows some flexibility for the ratio of transect zones in a new neighborhood. The required size of a mixed use core and shop front area wouldn’t be fixed, and could be adjusted to reasonably meet market demand, and ensure it’s not of a size where it could undermine other commercial districts. Noah: There are people who study this and the Town might want to consider engaging a market analysis to see what density is needed. The committee went on to discuss whether having topographical variability affected the pedestrian-shed; examples included Collegetown, Ithaca College, and San Francisco. The Committee also discussed the merits and disadvantages of creating a mixed use walkable neighborhood in the Inlet Valley. The committee concluded the discussion and thanked Noah for attending. 3 3. Report on the City of Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan process (Hollis Erb): - Rich: Began by introducing Hollis Erb as the Town’s representative on the City’s Comp Plan Committee. Hollis also served on the Town’s Comp Plan Committee (and currently on the Planning Board). - Hollis: Began her report by showing a City committee map that included the Town’s proposed Future Land Use Map (12/5/12) alongside the City’s existing land use categories. Hollis explained that the City was very aware of the Town’s proposed Neighborhood Centers and proposal for West Hill. They have focused recent attention on the City’s West Hill area, particularly the large undeveloped lands. They have not come to any consensus on what the future plans for these areas should be, but generally felt that the current pattern of large-lot development was not desirable. Current zoning allows denser development, but this is not the trend and it raises concern. Hollis reported that one committee member called West Hill a “food desert” and recommended a small scale neighborhood commercial/retail site for the lower southeast portion within the City’s West Hill. This would complement the Town’s interest in providing for mixed use/retail to the north. The understanding is that these retail businesses would not serve resident’s major shopping needs, but would provide day-to-day casual necessities. Hollis went on to report that the City was stressing the three E’s in their plan: Environment, Social Equity and Economics. - Rich: in looking at a topo map, thought the undeveloped areas in the City’s West Hill appeared relatively steep. Committee members examined the topo map and the areas that Hollis was referring to. - Hollis: Reported that the City was not anywhere near finishing their future landuse map. Many areas have yet to be considered: Collegetown, Route 13, City core, Carpenter Business Park/Community Garden. The committee regrets the dead end streets, especially those that abut Route 13 coming out of Fall Creek, and the subsequently isolated areas along the Inlet (Johnson’s boat yard/marina/Aldi’s/Carpenter Business Park) and favors creating more connectivity between them and with the proposed dense mixed use residential area in the vicinity of the marina/golf course. - Rich: noted the proximity of the proposed new residential development to the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plan and felt that the odors would pose a problem and should be a consideration. The Committee then focused on the City’s proposed land use categories. - Noah: noted that the City had not yet finalized all their new categories; still missing was a category pertaining to conservation. There was also some question regarding the boundary for the low-density category and concerns that neighborhoods with a density less than 10 units/acre may be inadequate for public transit. The City committee eliminated a strictly commercial category, assuming they will always allow a mixed use/residential component. Hollis reported on the committee’s mapping exercise; in which members were to decide where they want to direct development and/or places with special consideration. There is concern with commercial development bleeding into and affecting the character of some neighborhoods - i.e. Southside with commercial creep from Route 13. Developers eye opportunities for tear downs. The City has borrowed the Town’s “campus” and “area of special concern” land use categories. Hollis reported on the City’s concern with population trends. In the recent past, 50% of County voters were in the City, now it is down to 30%. They feel that the City should take on greater density and are proposing that the City actively engage in taking on a larger proportion of population growth. This is both good planning, but would also increase political clout. 4 Hollis reported on the Neighborhood Pride store and its problems hanging on. The committee discussed this further. Staff noted how the store’s location, tucked in the neighborhood, differed from the mixed use areas in the Town’s Plan that would be in more prominent locations. Hollis continued and reported that minimum parking requirements are proposed to be eliminated; especially for Collegetown. The committee was given a presentation on parking. It discussed plans for higher density in Collegetown. A City parking study determined that there was ample unused parking provided in City garages. Many people, for instance, will walk to the Commons and park in the Fall Creek neighborhood rather than pay for parking. They are also discussing locations for new housing near Boynton Middle School and Ithaca High School. It included locations near Stewart Park and the Cornell field station (Fuertes). They are exploring ways to protect the character of neighborhoods on the edges of high density commercial; trying to help these embattled/transition areas control the bleed-over. The City is also encouraging the use of LEED-ND for neighborhood development—a strategy for integrating the principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building into a system for neighborhood design. The committee thanked Hollis for her time and detailed report. 4. Report on plans for economic development outreach efforts (Rod Howe): - Rod: Reported on the Town’s plan to host a brainstorming meeting this winter for the business community. In preparation, Rod is working on obtaining baseline information concerning what businesses are in the Town as well as a proposed list of participants/email addresses. The backdrop for this meeting is the Comprehensive Plan and determining what is the economic strategy for Town. This is less about zoning and more about collaboration and support of entrepreneurial relationships. Rod also reported on a meeting that he and Herb attended with Heather Filiberto (TCAD) regarding Start Up NY. It appears that Cornell University is preparing a plan to take advantage of this opportunity. Implementation locally includes new (greenfield) development. TCAD had been encouraging entities to consider the Emerson site. Rod suggested the formation of an economic ad-hoc committee rather than utilizing the Planning Committee for these economic-oriented topics. Members agreed that this was a good idea. 5. Consider September and October meeting summaries: Rich moved and Bill seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor. 6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting scheduled for January 23, 2014. Possible agenda items include: consideration of a revised rezoning request for the Amabel housing project off Five-Mile Drive; report from Bill Goodman on the County-wide trails strategy; continue parks and recreation--focusing on park/trail funding needs priorities; and report on the Cornell Landscape Architecture class presentation. Meeting adjourned at 6:00pm.