HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2014-All 1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JANUARY 23, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUESTS: Roy Andrews (Amabel), Susan Cosentini (Amabel), Felix Teitelbaum (WRFI) and John Young (WRFI). Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns: - Bill: Reminded the committee that on February 1st the Cornell Landscape Architecture class will be giving their presentation at the Museum of the Earth regarding their West Hill project. - Other reports were deferred until the end of the meeting.
2. Consider December meeting summary:
Rich moved and Bill seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended (minor edit), all in favor.
3. Discuss and consider rezoning request for Amabel housing project (Susan Cosentini): - Rich: Opened the discussion by questioning the changes in the Amabel project; from an EcoVillage-like development to a straight-up subdivision; he asked how the social/community aspects they had hoped for originally would factor into this new configuration; Rich also questioned the risk of approving the zoning change to medium density residential (MDR) without the guarantee that this specific project would be built. It is not like a planned development zone (PDZ) rezoning where the development proposal and zoning are linked. - Susan C: Described the proposal as still being a pocket neighborhood and the social aspects that go a long with that. - Roy: Stated that the proposal was a positive approach on its own merits (without the cooperative housing element) and that rezoning to a higher density was a good utilization of land; it fills a need for market rate homes and increases density near the City. - Bill: Acknowledged for the record that he had done legal work for the Aurora Pocket Neighborhood (located in the City), but that he is not working with the Amabel project. He followed up on Rich’s concern that the rezoning could be approved, but that this particular project could fall through, and replaced later with something else (possibly less desirable). - Roy: Responded that this property was a good location for higher density, regardless; the property immediately adjacent, to the north, is zoned MDR. Roy added that he would still like a common house to be a part of this neighborhood. The committee/staff discussed how clubhouses/community buildings were allowed in low and high density residential zones, but are not allowed in the medium density zone. Commonland (off Slaterville Road), is zoned both MDR and LDR, and has a community building on the LDR portion. It is not clear why they are not allowed in the MDR zones. - Rich: Stated that this was still an auto-centric development, as there is no bus service or sidewalks. - Roy: Responded that car-centric or not, it is still closer to City than many other sites; it is less than a 5-minute drive to Elmira Road or the City West End. - Rich: Acknowledged that the site also has the advantage of being within the “flats” and not having hills to deal with. - Roy: Agreed, and said it makes the location bikeable as well.
2
- Rich: Asked if they had reached out to neighbors? - Susan C: Responded that they had reached out to adjacent and nearby neighbors on Five-Mile Drive, but that they still needed to reach out to the Coy Glen and Glenside Roads neighborhoods. As their plans get a little further along Sue said she intends to reach out further. - Rod: Asked if there was any bus service within the area? - Susan C: Responded that there were no buses that passed by their property. The closest service stops at Cedar Creek Apartments, maybe ½ mile away. - Rich: Asked what the intention was with the City parcel; to leave undeveloped? - Susan C/Roy: Responded that at this point they plan to use it for stormwater management facilities and some parking. The location is close to the railroad and the noise would likely bother residents so it would not be well suited for additional units. They are also looking at a possible solar array for that area. - Sue R: Described the floodplain conditions on the City parcel (500-year floodplain, rather than 100-year) and what that meant for development. - Susan C: Responding to a question concerning price, Sue stated that they are currently in communication with a partnership group for co-housing which works with lenders. If this works out it would allow for more affordable units. But they need to move forward as if they are not getting the grants and at this point looking at sale prices of $320-$360,000. - Dan: Asked about serving the “missing middle” (middle income residents), any thoughts to “prefab” houses; smaller lots, smaller houses, anything to bring the costs down closer to $200,000? - Roy/Susan C.: Discussed costs, their desire to bring the costs down, the energy inefficiency and detraction of modularization; costs are upwards of $200 per sq. ft. and the proposed units are 1300-1700 sq. ft.; basic costs of $60-$65,000 just to develop the lots, expensive to get utilities in; and cost of labor. - Bruce: Mentioned the expense needed to pump up to the sewer line. - Rich: Acknowledged that the cemetery would serve as a natural termination of the MDR zone if the property were to be rezoned (from LDR to MDR); he is not opposed to the project, but concerned with consistency, in the event that the Amabel project does not get built . - Roy: Reiterated that rezoning to the higher density makes sense given its location. - Rich: Reviewed the positive elements of the project/rezoning request. He encouraged Sue and Roy to consider more affordability. The committee discussed the project; staff provided information on the rezoning/site plan review process and the number of allowable clustered units (per Town Code - cluster subdivision regulations) on the two properties under current zoning and proposed zoning (one or both parcels being rezoned). The committee decided to recommend rezoning both parcels and considered the staff prepared resolution:
Recommendation to the Town Board on the request to rezone 619 and 617 Five Mile Drive from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential. Bill moved, Rod seconded and all approve the resolution (resolution attached).
4. Discuss and consider zoning modification for EcoVillage PDZ to allow radio antenna: - Bill: Introduced WRFI, Ithaca Community Radio representatives, Felix Teitelbaum and John Young to the committee. - Rich: Asked a couple of questions, including whether this proposal would set a precedent in terms of requests for towers in other areas. - Bill: Responded that towers are licensed by the FCC (non-telecommunication) and are only allowed in the agricultural zone and require special permit from the Planning Board. - Sue R: Read the requirements from the ag zone language, including the 80’ height limit and the required criteria for the Planning Board to consider (proper construction, sufficient fall zone, buffering). - Rich: Ask about the fall zone for the proposed tower and whether any structures were within it? - Bill: Responded that there was an old wall from a structure that once held silage nearby, but nothing within the fall zone. - Felix: Responding to concerns about aesthetics and the possibility of co-locating other antenna, said that the antenna was old/used, it was not purchased new and is likely unable to handle additional equipment.
3
- Rich: Asked how it ended up at the location without a permit? - Felix: Responded that they had lost their lease at City Lights; and were worried because it had been an ideal location to transmit from. They began discussions with EcoVillage who needed to make sure the tower was outside of Finger Lakes Land Trust easement. They eventually got the go ahead from EcoVillage. - Rich: Asked if they were assuming that EcoVillage would handle permitting? - Felix: Responded that various people were involved in the project, including volunteers and a consulting engineer, and the permitting requirements were overlooked. - Bruce: Explained that the Building Department had gotten involved when the contractor requested an electrical permit and then staff discovered the tower and associated shed had been built. - Rich: Responding to the WRFI representatives descriptions about the importance of community radio, stated that he understood the public purpose/good of the station, but this question concerns the process pertaining to siting of the antenna and the proposal of granting an exemption. The committee/staff discussed a number of aspects concerning the antenna, including the requirement for a building permit, precedent, band width, and how to control additional co-located translators. - Sue: Mentioned that the Planning Board now uses criteria when considering approval of antennas in the Ag Zone. Antennas can be up to 80 feet tall; the proposal for the PDZ language is not more than 45 feet in height. The legislation allows one antenna at EcoVillage, and in the future it could be a different antenna, one strong enough to handle multiple co-located antenna/equipment; would you want to include Planning Board oversight? - John Young: Responded to a question about the height, stating that the antenna and associated lightning rod and mesh were well below 45 feet. The committee discussed the proposal and agreed to add language so that there would be no co-located antenna allowed on the tower. The committee agreed to language stating that that the one radio transmission facility would be operated “pursuant to a single broadcast license…” The committee felt that the added language should restrict any additional equipment and the limitation to 45 feet would be an adequate control for aesthetic concerns. Bill said he would make the requested modifications and provide it to the Town Board for their next meeting.
5. Report on draft Tompkins Priority Trails Strategy (Bill Goodman): - Bill: Reported on the County trails meeting he attended in November. The document from the meeting, Tompkins Priority Trail Strategy – A Vision for Networked Trails in Tompkins County, was provided to committee members. Bill described the effort as being spearheaded by a number of groups, with coordination of the document by County planner, Tom Knipe. The County is looking at the trails network as an economic development tool. Trails being highlighted included the Gateway Trail, Black Diamond Trail, South Hill Rec Way, etc. Bill said it was exciting to see the Town trails that we have been working on getting greater interest from the wider community and part of an overall grand vision for a trails network for the County and beyond.
Continued from Agenda 1 – Member comments/concerns: - Bill: Reported on the proposed subdivision of the Emerson property (approx. 1-acre parcel split from main parcel in the City) which has prompted negotiations for a trail easement to finally allow access for the Gateway Trail. - Rod: Explained the idea for a Town-sponsored adopt-a-park/trails program. He would like to hold a public meeting in early spring to kick things off. He will bring a proposed plan to the February meeting for committee consideration. - Rich: Described how actions at a recent Planning Board meeting prompted his concern; it involved several subdivision proposals before Planning Board and ZBA with substandard lot sizes, resulting in the shoehorning of more housing and cramming in of students. Rich stated that the Town has still not tackled the issue of where rental housing should be and where we want it to be. Rich reported on research he
4
conducted of other college Towns facing similar issues. He thought East Lansing, Michigan (home of Michigan State University) had regulations worth looking at. The regulations included an overlay zone where rental permits and other restrictions were imposed, including differential rental class permits. Establishment of an overlay zone requires two-thirds of the property owner’s approval (landowner signatures on a petition) within the designated boundary. The regulations have withstood court challenges in Michigan. Rich said Herb and Pat had expressed interest in the issue and wanted to know if the Planning Committee would be interested in taking it up? - Rod: Responded that he was interested in looking at the issue. - Bill: Stated that the COC had discussed a town-wide rental registry, but had decided not to pursue it. Bill expressed interest in the Michigan approach that had the residents involvement through a petition process. - Bruce: Added that the Committee might want to consider a moratorium of duplexes while figuring out what to do.
6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Meeting – February 27th; Rental housing, Adopt a park/trail meeting planning. The Committee meeting adjourned at 6:20pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 27, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUESTS: Scott Whitham, Whitham Associates; Bob Bates, Rural Housing Associates; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Cathy De Almeida, Whitham Associates; Chris Bartges, Leon Weiner & Associates, Inc.
OTHERS: Numerous South Hill residents, Eric Levine, Jim Semp. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns: Moved to the end of the meeting.
2. Consider January 2014 meeting summary: Moved to the end of the meeting.
3. Discuss and consider rezoning request for Troy Road housing development (RHPA
representatives): - Rich began the discussion, stating that the application before the Committee is for a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) on Troy Rd. He explained that the Committee has been asked by the Town Board to review the proposal and provide a recommendation; the Committee’s role is strictly advisory, no decisions/approvals will be made by the committee. Rich explained that the proposal is very preliminary at this point and there will be further opportunities for public comment throughout the review process. Rich also indicated that he would be opening the meeting to allow for those in attendance to provide comments/questions. Rich then turned the discussion over to the development team. - Scott Whitham described how the team is just beginning the process of looking at the site and determining how the proposed program might best fit the site. They had met with a few of the neighbors, those whom they had email contacts for. Scott distributed a sign-up sheet and asked for contact information for anyone interested in future meetings to discuss and provide input on the proposal. Scott then introduced the development team; Rural Housing Associations (the developers) Bob Bates and Chris Bartges; and consultants, Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative; Scott with Whitham Planning, Cathy De Almeida also of Whitham Planning. Scott said that they would also be working with Hunt Engineers. - Scott and Noah then provided a slide presentation (same as provided at the March 10th Town Board meeting). The presentation included an aerial photo history beginning in 1938 to present showing the land use changes from predominantly agricultural to successional forest on the site and steadily increasing residential development in the nearby vicinity. Through various site photos they provided a characterization of the site. Scott listed the various issues they would be looking at. They understand that traffic and transportation will be a big issue; they will look at traffic patterns, possible trail connections (the NYSEG easement could offer opportunities) and TCAT service options. Additional site analysis will extend to the site, looking at existing vegetation and slope. They will use this information to determine where development could best be sited.
2
- Bob Bates: Added that they are interested in keeping as much open space as possible; areas they feel are most visually important and sensitive—they will keep those areas intact. - Noah: Provided visual examples of various development precedents, both locally and nationally, similar in scale, not necessary in character, illustrating clustering and open space protection (ex. EcoVillage, Boiceville cottages, other examples); each showing various ratios of land development versus remaining open space. Noah then went on to show/describe a site proposal and explained that it was not a fully developed site plan, but a first attempt at taking the “program” (number of units/types building) and laying them out. He said the layout illustrates just one possible way to develop the site. It includes two curb cuts off Troy Road with a simple circulation through the site that takes advantage of the topography. - Rich: Asked about the power lines that run through the property. - Noah: Explained that initial conversations with NYSEG indicated that they were open to the idea of moving the northern power line that runs through the property. The southern-most power line would stay and the other line would be removed and consolidated with it. Presentation ended and turned back to the Committee. - Rich: Asked if they could report on the meeting that took place with the residents. - Scott: Explained that they did not have many e-mail addresses, so they were unable to contact many people for the meeting. But from those attending they did hear concerns about traffic, level of rental vs ownership, a preference of having more units owner-occupied; and that areas of the site were wet. - Noah: Added that residents expressed interest in having a trail connection to the South Hill Recreationway and offered potential suggestions, with questions as to what happens when the trail comes to Coddington Road. - Mike Smith: Reported that he has had conversations with City staff regarding trail connections on City-owned property that abuts Coddington Road on the east side and backs up to the trail. The City is open to a possible trail connection through their property. - Scott: Responding to concerns about student rentals, explained that the intention is to not look at the undergraduate market; instead the project is designed to attract graduate students, professionals, and empty nesters. - Rich: Asked to elaborate on how undergraduates would be discouraged from living in the development? - Bob Bates: Explained that his company is not involved with any student housing; it is not their business model. The intention is to have on-site management, and they can have restrictions on noise, for example. They would do credit checks. They may not be able to guarantee that no students would live there, but the 1-2 bedroom apartments do not lend themselves well to student housing. Bob explained that their company has a lot of experience with rental issues. - Rich: Said that from what he is hearing, it is the proposed number of units that is particularly troubling to residents; with a big number of people, traffic is a concern. TCAT does not currently serve the area and there is no guarantee of future service. Rich asked if they had begun any trip generation analysis. - Bob Bates: Stated, no, they have not started studying this; Hunt Engineers is on board to undertake the study. - Rich: Stated that he thought the traffic numbers would be helpful to refine the density figures. - Rich: Asked about the pattern book, described in the materials? - Noah: Answered that it refers to a set of guidelines that could define the desired character and would apply to single family homes. If they are not designing the houses and they end up being just for-sale lots, then there could be some control on their appearance, on the square footage, character requirements, etc. All of which could be written into the PDZ. - Bob Bates: Said he wanted to clarify that the space identified as a “clubhouse” was really a community center. It would function as community space and include a conference room, leasing space, services, etc. - Rich: Questioned the walkability of the neighborhood. Given that it is 1 ½ miles away from neighborhood center at King/Danby Roads, and with elevation issues; how synergistic is that with the plan?
3
- Noah: Responded that not every development is going to be walkable (to services); Coddington Road is not walkable, and there are upwards of 150 homes in immediate vicinity that are also not walkable. But relative to the alternative of what could be developed on the land by right; 30,000 square foot lots; this proposal offers a way of preserving open space, creating a neighborhood, with trails connecting to other trails. - Rod: Asked what is allowed by right, so we can compare the density of what is being requested. - Noah: Responded that as of right: 1) straight subdivision approximately 70 units throughout; 2) cluster subdivision approximately 150 units. Noah indicated that they intend to provide a layout showing the traditional subdivision and the clustered version. - Sue: Added that permitted by-right in the in the residential zone, for a traditional large lot subdivision would allow for one or two-family units. - Rich: Asked about the energy efficiency description in the materials and whether they would be willing to commit to this in the PDZ language. - Bob Bates: Responded that his partner is president of the National Home Builders (NHB); they don’t use LEED, but use NHB green standards; and it is their intention to build to NHB standards. He would agree to put that in the PDZ. - Bruce: Added that LEED/NHB standards are similar to, or just about the same as, the NYS Building Code requirements for energy efficiency, in fact NYS is somewhat ahead of LEED right now. The development would need to meet the NYS energy requirements. - Rod: Asked about affordability; the Board is really interested in the middle range, and he asked for information on how this would be affordable to incomes in that range. - Bob Bates: Described the average rents in the market: for a 1-bedroom in the market area, rents are somewhere around $950 to $1,400 and they are estimating their units will be around at $1000-1050 (depending on if it has a study or not). Their 2-bedroom $1200 – 1,300; half of the units would come with attached garages. The patio home would be approximately $1,400 to $1,500, they are bigger and have more amenities. These rents are at the lower end of existing rental market. In addition, most rentals in the area were built pre-2000 and are not energy efficient. - Bill: Stated that the Board is being asked to increase density, so what is the Town getting in exchange for the higher density? What would benefit the neighborhood? In regards to traffic, for instance, the Holochuck project required bus passes and van shuttle; would they be willing to run a bus shuttle to Ithaca College? Bill added that EcoVillage is looking into a shuttle service that would bring people to services. - Bob Bates: Answered that he would need to look into its cost and liability. There is a difference in doing this for a rental development versus for an owner-occupied development. - Bill: Asked if there had been any discussion with Ithaca College on extending a trail along the NYSEG easement. - Bob Bates: Answered that there had not been any contact with IC; but for their development they would be willing to open their land to the idea of a trail. - Bill: Asked how to get information about other development projects that the developer had undertaken, and reiterated the concern about student renters. - Bob: Answered that their website provides examples of projects they have worked on. Much of their work is in affordable housing. None of their projects were student housing. The market study conducted for this site indicated the need for up to 1000 units of rental housing in this market. Rich opened up meeting to public comments and questions: - Resident #1: Q. Explained that his biggest concern is traffic; sees only two traffic routes and doesn’t believe that Aurora Street, at the bottom of the hill, can handle the additional traffic, concerned that it would also go past a school zone; doesn’t believe the roads can handle the traffic. - Rich: Added that Burns Road would offer another option for drivers going to Cornell.
4
- Resident #2: Q) Questioned the statistics and population projections in Appendix E of the Comprehensive Plan, and wondered if the group quarters were taken out, and if the economy is taken into account, and if enrollment goes down, do we really need the housing? Are you basing your housing needs on the projections? Q) Troy Road – why has this property not already been built on? Does the community benefit from this project? Student rentals will have a negative impact. Questions the community benefits derived from re-zoning to high density and suggested the Town move more slowly. Resident #3: Q 1) Questioned whether the developer assumes he will be getting the rezoning since he has been willing to put so much money into the process thus far; what is the fallback plan if the recommendation is to leave it as LDR. - Bob Bates responded that they undertook a market study to determine the needs, but there are two options 1) lose money, walk away; 2) develop the full 68 acres under current zoning to get back the money; or 3) asking for 30-40% increase through the PDZ. - Resident #4: Q) Questioned whether people would be looking to build single family homes in the high density rental neighborhood; - Resident #5: Q) Concerned about sustainability, asked if they thought about rooftop solar. Questioned what would happen if only students were interested in renting. Raised concerns about stormwater runoff from the site. - Resident #6: Q) Questioned the need for the development, given the vacancy rate (per Census) for the Town. - Resident #6: Q) Concerned about people trespassing on their property. Concluded comments/questions from residents. - Bob Bates: In conclusion, stated that they were intending to hold at least one additional informal meeting with residents; they will also be looking at water service, drainage issues, traffic, etc. - Rich: Suggested that given that the land is unlikely to stay as is (undeveloped), that if residents have a vision for this area, that he would invite them to share this with the Town. - Scott: Added that the development team is also interested in hearing what the resident’s vision for the area is. - Rich: Responding to a question from Bob concerning the process, stated that the Committee is the primary forum for determining the parameters of a PDZ; these details will get worked out with this Committee.
4. Discuss plans for a Town adopt-a-park/trail meeting (Rod Howe): - Rod: Reviewed the ideas that he shared in an email to the committee concerning a public meeting to discuss an adopt-a-park /trail initiative. The meeting would include an overview highlighting the network of trails and parks in the Town; recognition of a group that has adopted a trail, discuss trail etiquette and signage, and have questions/comments with the participants. Committee members thought holding a meeting was a good idea. It was suggested that after Easter in April may be a good time to hold the meeting; an early evening meeting preferable to a Saturday. The last week in April (5th week) would tend not to conflict with any other scheduled meetings; possibly look at 29th or 30th (Rich’s birthday) – invite Thomas Knipe (County), Rich Schoch; and reserve the Board Room with a 6:30pm start time.
5. Discuss rental property management and neighborhood preservation (Rich DePaolo): - Rich: Described the rental property management problems in the Town; referring to the Code Enforcement challenges of having to deal with these issues, the applications before the ZBA and Planning Board for substandard sized parcels and the resulting rental duplexes that are built; and no mechanism for managing these rental properties. In collecting information on what other communities are doing, Rich described a conversation he had with a person from East Lansing, Michigan who had been involved in developing and implementing a law restricting rentals. Rich explained that East Lansing (a college town) had implemented a law that controls rentals. The person he spoke to said it was largely very
5
successful, with an exception for the period during the economic downturn in 2008/2009, where people were losing jobs, could not rent, and were forced to sell. But otherwise they felt that their approach was working very well at preserving single-family neighborhoods. Rich then went on to explain some of the details of law. There are three different tiers outlined in the law; 1) allows no rentals within a geographic area; 2) allows a license for owner-occupied with boarders; if there is a sale, the license does not transfer; 3) least restrictive for rentals. Implementation of the law has included the hiring of a detective to identify violations, instituting penalties for violations, deed restrictions prohibiting use for rentals—in some limited cases where problems have been excessive, and regular inspections by Code Enforcement. - Rich: Asked about the Codes and Ordinances Committee’s earlier discussion concerning rental registry. The committee and staff discussed what a rental registry would entail. The COC had decided not to pursue restricting rentals given a number of factors and the complications involved. - Rich: Asked the Committee if they thought it was worth looking into this issue. - Rod: Agreed that it is worth looking into. - Bill: Felt that there was a need in the South Hill area, was not sure about East Hill. - Rich: Explained that it would be up to the residents to decide on the geographical area of where the restrictions would apply (as in the East Lansing law). If there was enough interest, the residents would petition the Town Board. A Town-wide ordinance would be enacted, rentals would be grandfathered until they were sold, you would need 2/3’s vote of residents to implement restrictions and in areas with concentrated rentals you would not likely get the vote. - Mike: Mentioned that the City of Geneva had a rental registry, but stopped doing it recently. He was uncertain why, but it may be worth looking into. - Bill: Asked if we could instead just change the zoning in those areas of concern? That way would not need a referendum or require a town-wide registry. - Rich: The reason for the petition was so the residents would be involved in the process and not the legislative body determining the boundary of the restricted area. Rich acknowledged that maintaining a registry has costs, but he did not know what those were. - Bruce: Questioned NY State Law that restricts the penalty phase. He explained the restriction in NYS law and how it results in a penalty phase that can be stalled and delayed for a long period. Bruce went on to describe short-term rentals and his interest in pursuing these and wondered about the Committee’s interest. - Rich: Felt that this was a different situation and that we should wait until next time to discuss further. - Bill: Said that he would be willing to consider a moratorium on new units that are designed for non-owner occupied houses.
2. (Item moved from earlier in meeting); Consider January 2014 meeting summary: Rich moved and Bill seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended (two minor modifications), all in favor.
6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for March 27, 2014:
• Continue discussion on rental property;
• LaTourelle PDZ to allow seasonal camping;
• Continue discussion on Troy Road development proposal. The Committee meeting adjourned at 6:30pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MARCH 27, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUESTS: Scott Wiggins, Managing Director, LaTourelle; Bobby Frisch (glamping project); Scott Whitham, Whitham Associates; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Bob Bates, Rural Housing Preservation Associates (RHPA); Cathy De Almeida, Whitham Associates; Troy Road area residents: Eric Levine, Jim Semp, and several others. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns: None.
2. Consider February 2014 meeting summary: Rich questioned a statement on page 3 that was attributed to Bob Bates. The statement indicated that much of the work of RHPA was in affordable housing projects, but the minutes incorrectly added that it was “particularly in the 80-100% of income range”. That portion of the statement was deemed inaccurate and was removed. Bill moved and Rod seconded the motion to approve the February meeting summary as amended; all in favor.
3. Discuss and consider a recommendation to the Town Board on LaTourelle seasonal camping
(“glamping”) proposal: - Rich: Introduced the La Tourelle proposal for a “luxury camp ground”. He explained that the Town Board referred the proposal to the Committee for consideration. Many questions concerning the project were answered at the Board meeting. Since the Town Board also referred the proposal to the Planning Board, Rich felt comfortable that they would be reviewing the site specific issues. Rich asked if Committee members had questions or if the applicants had anything to add. - Committee: Members had no concerns; no potential impacts were raised. - Bill: Asked whether the Committee should consider including language in the local law to define a time frame for the seasonal camping use; i.e. a number of months or days. - Mike: Stated that the NYS Building Code already imposes a 180 day time limit on tents. - Bill: Questioned whether the applicants would be interested in going beyond the 180 days. - Scott Wiggins: Stated it was unlikely they would go beyond the 180 days given the weather and the time needed to remove and store away the equipment. Committee Action: - Bill: Moved the recommendation to the Town Board for adoption of the draft local law. - Rod: Seconded the motion. - Rich: Abstained – due to relationship with applicant.
4. Continue discussion and consideration of rezoning request for Troy Road housing development: - Rich: Provided a brief introduction of the proposed Troy Road housing development and explained that this is a continuation of the discussion from the February meeting. Rich then turned it over to the development team. - Scott Whitham: Explained that after the February meeting, given the questions/comments, they began looking into several issues which they would like to share, including: a conversation with TCAT; the initiation of a traffic study by Hunt Engineering; potential lease agreement to address concerns about
2
undergraduate students. In addition, they want to briefly discuss the marketing study and touch on character and architecture concepts from a neighborhood design stand point. Scott then turned it over to Bob Bates who had some statements to make. - Bob: Explained how RHPA initially came up with the proposal. He described aspects of the market study and how it had pointed them in the current direction. The market study was very specific and recommended up to 50,1-bedroom units, 80, 2–bedroom units, and 30 patio units. The study recommended against student housing, 3-bedroom units, and for sale lots. Their initial proposal that mixed rental and owner-occupied housing was based on what they thought the Town wanted. Bob explained their preference, and the bottom line, is to do only the 160 rental units. The owner occupied units could be added, but is not their business and would require a joint venture with another builder. Bob further stated that they requested Hunt Engineers to undertake a traffic study in acknowledgment of traffic concerns. He then compared the number of developable units, by-right under current zoning, with what was being proposed under the requested Planned Development Zone (PDZ). Bob described the by-right scenario, in which the parcel could be subdivided into around 50-60 parcels/lots. These lots could be developed as single-family residences with each having an accessory apartment, thus theoretically equating to around 100-110 units. Another option would be a clustered subdivision development, and based on the regulations (2.3 units x acres) the potential number of units is 155 units. For the PDZ, they are asking for 160 units. Bob then described the trip generation rates for the different housing types. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual, a multi-unit apartment generates 6 trips/day and a single-family residence 10 trip/day. So in essence, a development of 110 single-family house units generates approximately the same number of trips per day as 160 of single-family rental units. He also described the proposed traffic study they would be undertaking. He mentioned that issues pertaining to King and Coddington Roads would be included and looked into. They will also look into potential mitigation measures, such as turning lanes and how traffic is directed. Bob then touched on the issue of students. Bob explained that through research he has learned that students are not a protected class and technically can be discriminated against. In affordable housing projects students are not allowed, this is per IRS Code and other mechanisms. RHPA has several thousand units of affordable housing and they are required to prevent students from living in them (accept in some cases, i.e. still living with parents). Bob learned of a for-profit apartment complex in a Delaware college town (approx. 15,000 students) that had no student tenants. They did this by prohibiting a co-signer/guarantor (no parental co-signer) on the credit application and included strict financial requirement for moving in. Bob also described a security person that his company utilizes which could be considered for this project. - Scott: Presented a letter from Hunt Engineering outlining a proposed scope for a traffic study. The letter was provided to planning staff. Scott followed up on Bob’s discussion regarding students, stating that they would continue to do research on this issue, and how the lease terms and the PDZ language might be linked. Scott when on to describe a meeting he had with TCAT staff. He reported that they were undergoing a Service Study Plan, like a Comprehensive Study. The study will outline how routes are put together and Scott indicated TCAT’s interest in the Town’s South and West Hill areas. Potential solutions to serving the Troy Road development included extending/modifying bus Route 11 (to IC Towers), Route 41 (a call service), and/or the existing van service (12-16 seats vans used by private entities on a scheduled basis). - Noah: Described several slides illustrating a revised layout concept for the 160 unit development. Noah described the circulation, with two egresses off Troy Road. He showed the smaller building footprint; and indicated that they may also eliminate the patio homes. The overall goal is to reduce the development foot print to keep open space and lower costs for infrastructure. With the 160 units, the footprint could
3
be reduced to roughly 20% of the parcel. The next step would be to test the layout concept with the engineering of the roadway, stormwater, utilities to make sure it works. - Rich: Asked several questions about the market study, including clarification on the “capture rate”, phasing, viability of for sale owner-occupied units, and his observation that the study recommends “up to” 160 units, and does not necessarily recommend building all 160 units. - Bob: Explained that with infrastructure costs, reducing the number of units, from the maximum supported by the market study, results in increased development costs and effects the capture rate (percentage of qualified households in the market for the property must be affordable to achieve a stabilized level of occupancy). He also explained that phasing a development has risks, most notable risks associated with the interest rate; the biggest risk factor for developers. Interest rates for this type of development are based on the 10-year Treasury note. In the last 12 months the rate has doubled. The other major consideration is the long-term viability of the project. He also stated that the market study more strongly recommended rental over for-sale units, and that for them, there is more market risk in for-sale units. - Rich: Asked staff to explain the assumptions behind the trip generation models and whether they are based on location or some characteristics of the housing type. - Sue: Answered that trip generation rates are generally based on a suburban setting and assumes certain characteristics of typical residents occupying the housing type. Multi-unit complexes have lower trip generation rates than single-family housing because the apartments generally house less families, more singles/couples/smaller family configurations, compared to detached single-family homes. The lower vehicle trips/day for multi-units was not due to closer proximity of services. - Rich: Asked about the security person they employ. - Bob: Explained that the security person addresses and investigates various wrong doings at the apartments. It takes the issue out of the hands of the resident manager who is not trained to deal with such things. They have one person who handles all of RHPA apartments. - Rod: Asked whether the rent prices would be changing with the revised plan. - Bob: Stated that the prices are the same as initially proposed and as discussed previously. - Rod: Asked about the patio homes and who these units would be targeted to; and asked if they would be seeking a demographic mix and if they felt the patio homes would help to create a broader range. - Bob: Explained that the patio homes are geared to empty nesters or young couples, those wanting more room. He then went on to describe the expected income ranges of individuals/families that would rent the various unit types/#bedrooms. - Bob: Explained that they do not intend to include the detached single-family/owned houses unless the Town wants it. Their intent is for the 160-units (maximum) without the detached single-family lots. They could potentially deed the rest of the land, donate to trail/conservation group or they would be willing to donate the development rights. Bill: Expressed concern with the mono-cultural nature of the development. In the future, the Town looks to have more mixed-use neighborhoods; residential combined with other uses. This can decrease trip generation when people can walk to work. Bill asked if they have considered this for any of their other developments, such as a suite of offices where people could work. - Bob: Responded that while retail mixed-use would not be right for that location, the development could consider an expansion to include an office use. They could consider reserving an area for this type of potential use. They would need to look at the traffic and other impacts. They could commit to working with a developer who specialized in this type of building. - Bill: Further explained that the PDZ provides this opportunity and at Eco-Village they have this type of mixed use. - Noah/Bob: Added that the function of clubhouse could incorporate offices; it could be more of business center rather than a recreational center.
4
- Sue: Stated that she was puzzling over this idea of undertaking a full traffic study at this time. This is generally something that is done during the SEQR review by the Planning Board. She stated that she understands the Planning Committee’s need to have more information on the traffic situation, but that SEQR is the formal process for determining if significant impacts exist and whether mitigation measures are required. She asked what the Planning Committee was looking for in terms of traffic analysis. - Rich: Responded that he was not looking for the specificity of a full blown traffic analysis at this point, but to get more information to determine the scale of the project, with information to enable the Committee to determine if they should go forward. Rich stated that based on the number of units and demographics, they should be able to come up with trip generation figures and assumptions on the direction drivers would be traveling; and reconcile this with some existing traffic volume data. There needs to be some way to provide answers on fundamental questions pertaining to traffic. - Bob: Stated that they would go back to Hunt Engineers to see if they could come up with a simpler approach to get the information that the Committee is looking for. - Bob: Reported on negotiations with NYSEG over the power line easement. The main power line through the property will be consolidated with the line on the more southern portion of the property. - Rich: Said he would hold further questions he had on the full market study (sent earlier in the day) until other Committee members have an opportunity to review it; there would be opportunity at the next meeting. - Scott: Asked if it would be useful to begin putting ideas down for the PDZ language for the Committee consideration—to test some of the language and ideas. - Rich: Thought a draft PDZ may be premature, pending traffic consideration. But some of the language related to students, for instance, would be helpful. - Sue: Suggested that they begin to develop an outline of some sort that identifies the proposed development components; something fairly simple that gives the Committee something on paper to review and consider. Rich then invited comments/questions from the public: - Resident #1 (Eric Levine): Asked if removing the 29 rentals units would change the mix of small and big buildings on the site. - Bob: Responded that it would change a little. Bob explained that the patio home idea was still somewhat loose in concept, whether it is a 4-plex around a courtyard or duplex facing each other has yet to be determined. The 130 1 and 2-bedroom units would be garden style, and whether they would be 8 or 10 units/building is a function of design and is yet to be determined. They want some (approx. 50%) of these to have attached garages. They eliminated the 29, but they have not eliminated the overall use and it would just be a matter of how they would lay out on the site. - Noah: Noted that the mix, regardless of units, is all about the same square footage of building pad. - Resident#2: Asked if there would be vehicle access to Coddington Road. This would ease tension off of Troy Road. He indicated that he had proposed a development on the same site a number of years ago and the Town required that he have access on both Troy and Coddington Road. - Noah: Answered that the only access was from Troy Road. - Resident #3 (Jim Semp): Stated that the neighborhood is largely owner-occupied and this proposal would be a significant departure from what the neighborhood has been. It will change the neighborhood. - Resident #4: Asked if there would be a cap or limitation on phasing; how many years would construction go on for? And would you decide to eventually build more? - Bob: Responded that the PDZ would limit and define the total number of units that would be allowed. He anticipates construction of the whole project being 18 months or less. They would be working with their finance people to determine; or set certain criteria of leasing to allow the next phase to take place,
5
but if doing in 1 phase could be done in 18 months; a 400-500 unit development is different, but with 160 units it would typical be 18 months or less. - Rich – According to the market study it will take longer to rent the units than it would be to build them. According to the study, absorption will take 25-32 months. - Resident #5: Stated that she works in the rental business locally and does not believe that it would take that length of time to rent these units out. She expects in the Ithaca market that it will be much faster. - Bill: Asked the development team that in their discussion with NYSEG to find out if a trail would be allowed underneath the lines.
5. Discuss rental property management and neighborhood preservation: - Rich: Reported on further conversations he had with the Rental Licensing Director in East Lansing, Michigan. She provided more details about their rental management program and its administration. The have a full cost recovery policy which means their fees fully cover the cost of the program. They charge an initial rental licensing fee, and they have determined that it costs them $1,550 to administer each rental unit, for site plan, inspections (interior/exterior) including plumbing and electrical, public hearing notices, etc. This initial fee is to establish the property as a rental. Typically there are some violations discovered at the start-up and this fee covers these initial re-inspections. These non-owner occupied units are then re-inspected every 13 months; the scheduling at 13 month intervals catches the property at different times of the year, which can be useful. These annual re-inspections cost $82.00. The penalty structure includes civil penalties for over-occupancy, or renting without license, which can be $300-$500/per day; these are enforced by the courts. They are finding that landlords are largely complying because of the risk of penalties. There have been a small number of cases in which the large penalties caused people to sell the rental. There are also fines for tenants, which is $1,000/occupant and provides another strong incentive to comply. Overall, it is a costly program to administer, but their fees cover the cost. They have hired 1½ fulltime staff equivalent to administer the program. Rich said he also asked them how they handled the one time per year graduation weekend rental, and she suggested working on the definition of “guest”. Rich said that the Town of Ithaca, with somewhere near 50% rentals, needs to figure out how important it is to look at a system like this; we do have a problem. The East Lansing representative suggested that we look at Port Huron for another example. The program would need to be Town-wide and apply to all rentals for licensing in the Town. - Bill: Asked if we could do this for a geographic area? - Rich: Responded that the mechanization would have to be Town-wide, but the petition for the overlay zones (restricting rentals) would be geographically based. - Rich: In wrapping up, acknowledged that it is an expensive program, but it can be supported by fees and penalties; it would likely take some time to establish. We could also look at a moratorium of the most problematic areas while considering whether to go forward with a more permanent solution. - Rod: Suggested writing up the goals of a rental management program then bringing it to Board. - Rich: Offered to compile a summary of what he has learned about the East Lansing program, costs, effectiveness, and what the Town might get out of it. - Rod: Suggested including possible unintended consequences of the program too. Rich and Rod suggested bringing this up at a future Town Board Study Session.
6. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for April 24, 2014. Topics: Continue discussion of Troy Road development proposal. The Committee meeting adjourned at 6:30pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF APRIL 24, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUESTS: Scott Whitham, Whitham Associates; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Bob Bates, Rural Housing Preservation Associates (RHPA); Catherine De Almeida, Whitham Associates; Ben Gustafson, HUNT Engineers.
Others: Residents. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns: None.
2. Consider March 2014 meeting summary: Rich moved and Bill seconded the motion to approve the March meeting summary with one correction (page 5, last sentence in item #5, remove reference to the action being moved and voted on); all in favor.
3. Continue discussion and consideration of rezoning request for Troy Road housing development: - Rich acknowledged that the Committee had received additional project related information from the development team. However, the materials were submitted only recently (earlier in the day for one document and the previous day for another) and it was therefore not practical for the Committee to comment on them at this time. He suggested that the development team summarize the information at today’s meeting and the Committee would discuss the details at the May meeting. Rich then turned the discussion over to the development team. - Scott Whitham: Provided a project update and an overview of discussion items for the meeting. He described the documents that had been provided to the Committee (PDZ language, preliminary traffic analysis) and apologized for their late arrival. Scott introduced Ben Gustafson, from Hunt Engineers, who would be explaining and addressing questions concerning the initial analytical traffic findings. - Noah Demerest: Provided an update on the project layout and design. Through a slide presentation, Noah showed a still preliminary, but more refined, site layout (from the last meeting), with building footprints and areas depicted as being disturbed and preserved. According to preliminary analysis, approximately 35% of the parcel would be developed or disturbed in some way (i.e. portions of a meadow area may be temporarily disturbed, but would be turned back to meadow). The proposed buildings would be a mix of 6-unit buildings and 10-unit buildings with each apartment unit being a “flat”, meaning it would be on one-floor, with individual private entries from the outside; no interior hallways. The buildings would be two-story, having a townhouse type setup, with some units having garages (about 50%) and others utilizing surface parking. In all, there would be ten, 6-unit buildings, totaling 60 units and nine 10-unit buildings, totaling 90 units, for a total of 150 townhouse type apartment units. And, in addition, there would be sixteen 2-unit patio homes, for an overall project total of 166 units. Noah explained that the development’s goal is 160 units, so there is still some tweaking to be done. Noah also pointed out various other elements on the layout slide, including a bus shelter, clubhouse/rental office, the main entry drive at the north end, the extending the main entry drive as a paved loop road with pockets of parking, and a gravel emergency exit-only road at the south end. They are working with Hunt Engineering on the stormwater management element. A major feature of the
2
development is a central green space, with a walking path that loops around it. Most of the buildings will front on the green space, with the rear of the buildings being more of an alley and parking along it. - Rich: Asked about the buildings shown on the layout located on the other side of the road and not facing the green space. - Noah/Scott: Explained that these would be units with more privacy, they are facing out and fronting on a green of their own, a meadow/woods area. There is a topographic change in this vicinity, making these units slightly higher than the ones on the other side of the road. Orientation of the buildings is driven by topography and there is a strong grade parallel to the road. The longer shape of the buildings is intended to work with the contours in an attempt to minimize disturbance. Noah explained that the units themselves are still a work in progress. They are looking at defining the massing (overall shape and size) of the structures. They are exploring different styles and trying to figure out how to give them some character, looking at various elements from such styles as Bungalow, Craftsmen, and Greek Revival; the styles that are common in this region. - Rich: Asked if the façade styles on the larger buildings would be uniform across the development. - Noah: Responded that they would likely be uniform across one building, but from one building to the next would tend to vary. Noah then showed slides of building massing, building elevations, and unit plans for 1- and 2-bedroom units. - Rich: Asked Bob Bates if his company, RHPA (Rural Housing Preservation Associates), has ever built a project using a similar scale and layout style as this proposes and whether there are any examples that could viewed. - Bob: Responded that they have not used this type of layout before, they have built patio homes, 8-plexes and 4-5 story buildings. Bob stated that he would go back to their portfolio to see if he could find some examples of projects that might be of interest. - Scott: Added that his group could also look for some examples of similar developments in terms of layout and architecture. - Bruce: Asked about the single bedrooms in the10-unit buildings and whether they have checked on code compliancy of these, in terms of bedroom size; whether they are designed for one or two people. - Noah: Responded that they had done a code compliant check. The units are all handicap accessible; they are designed for two persons and meet the minimum size requirements. The units are not huge, but more modest in size to keep them affordable. - Rod: Noted that he was interested in the fact that residents would be enjoying the green space fronting on the houses, and that from the road, as you drive by, you will just see just the garages. - Noah: Described the walkway that fronts on the houses as meandering along the green space and that it was not designed as an urban sidewalk, more natural. - Rich: Asked about the handicap accessibility with second story units. - Noah: Responded that the second floor units could be converted with a lift. They are not making the units accessible, but providing the necessary room to make them easily adaptable for future modifications (i.e. grab bars in the bathroom, toe kick space under the sinks). - Scott: Suggested that they move on to the traffic findings and then the PDZ language. - Ben Gustafson: Began by explaining the difference between a preliminary traffic study, which they have undertaken, versus a full traffic study. A full study will involve much more research and investigation. Their main attempt was to understand the critical issues and where to focus attention, and with the limited information available, try to determine the size and severity of the impacts that could be anticipated from the development. Ben emphasized that their conclusions were based only on the preliminary analysis. The full study will take the preliminary findings and use it as a guide, to understand
3
where to focus attention, but they will essentially start over with a new study using the new additional traffic data they will collect. Ben then went on to describe the contents of the preliminary analysis and how the information was derived. He described how they determined peak hour traffic distribution by identifying primary employment centers (Cornell University, Ithaca College, Cayuga Medical Center) and secondary employment areas (airport, mall, and City retail areas). This provided traffic destination locations, from which they could then map likely traffic travel routes (Figure 1 – Troy Road Subdivision Destination Study) from the likely routes used to get to the employment destination. Ben added that a full traffic study would involve collecting intersection counts and turning movements. Ben then described the second part of the analysis which was to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the proposed development, essentially the number of car trips entering and exiting the development during morning and afternoon rush hour. The study used standard industry values (from Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)) for determining the number of trips generated by this type of site. These values are based on empirical data; the averages of actual counts taken for similar types of housing development. In this case, rental units of this type have been determined to generate 0.52 trips during morning and evening peak hour. - Rich: Asked about the assumptions behind the trip generation figures and whether these were averages of all rentals, because it would seem that if you were in an urban area would there be fewer trips generated. - Ben: Referred to the ITE report sheets located in the back of the study. He stated that most new housing is taking place in suburban or semi-urban areas, not in highly urbanized areas, and that is where the studies are being conducted that come up with these figures. These are places where people are still largely relying on the auto for transportation. Ben continued to describe the preliminary analysis report including the comparative trip generation figures for the various different housing types (page 2). The analysis compared trip generation figures for rental apartments, owner-occupied condominium/townhouses, and detached single family houses. He also described the analysis of other roads in the County, those with similar functional classifications as Coddington, East King, and Troy Roads. The analysis compared projected peak hour and AADT volumes with three other roads in the county of similar design capacity and traffic volumes (page 3). The three County roads used for comparison were described as adequately handling current traffic volume loads. Ben emphasized that the comparison was based on the current infrastructure design capacity not based on current conditions, acknowledging that Coddington Road was currently in poor condition. Ben said that in their full design study they would want to learn more about the County’s future reconstruction plans for Coddington Road. - Rich: Provided information on Coddington Road, including the proposed reconstruction. The County is proposing to widen each travel lane by 1 foot, from 10 to 11, and to pave the shoulders to 4 feet in width. The result will take the current paved road footprint of 20 feet and change it to 30 feet. Significant changes are proposed for both the horizontal and vertical aspects of the road with many residents being opposed to the plans. - Ben: Added that they would need to look at the timing of the proposed development with the timing of the County road project. The destination study helps them to understand the numbers of cars that would be using Coddington Road and the severity the road project would have. - Eric Levine: Questioned the accuracy of the route shown in orange on the destination map (Figure 1) in the study. This route to the Ithaca Commons takes King Road to Danby Road to Aurora Street. Eric and
4
others agreed that the more common route would be the route identified in yellow, Coddington Road directly down the hill to the Commons. - Ben: Explained that they looked at alternative routes and that drivers will defer to the less timely route not necessarily the shortest route. - Rich: Noted some omissions on the destination map (Figure 1). Hudson Street and Route 96B don’t appear to intersect on the map. In addition, the yellow and orange routes should intersect at the bottom of Hudson Street, and there should be a route continuing north on Aurora Street. The map does not indicate the significant amount of traffic that would be expected to continue on Aurora Street, through the Fall Creek neighborhood, for such destinations as the middle and high schools or access to shops off Route 13. - Ben: Appreciated the feedback. - Bill: Questioned the data reported on page 2, Section IV, first paragraph, stating that counts for Troy Road in 2011 were 778 AADT “down from 1,377 in 2007”. - Rich: Hypothesized that the reduction in counts may be due to the timing of the counts, rather than overall reduced traffic, with the lower counts at a time when the schools were out of session. The Committee continued to discuss the report, asking for clarifications on several items in the report. And it was again acknowledged that the Committee needed more time to digest the information. - Scott: Introduced the draft Planned Development Zone (PDZ) that was prepared for the Committee’s consideration. - Cathy De Almeida: Explained the need for the rezoning to PDZ. She then went on to discuss the PDZ components, including the statements of findings and how the development fits in with the Comprehensive Plan. The PDZ identifies maximum thresholds, such as maximum number of units, maximum unit sizes, and number of buildings. The language provides definitions for natural areas and of no build-out areas. Of particular importance, the PDZ language also addresses the issue of who can live in the development. In Section D. 2) c) 2. it states that the “Lease terms will not allow the use of a guarantor or co-signer…”, thus limiting tenants that do not have a credit history. Other language in the PDZ provides parameter on how the plan lays out. There are placeholders throughout the language that have yet to be defined. - Rich: Asked about the co-signer requirement. - Bob: Responded that the credit check makes sure the rent gets paid, but it also discourages the student population, since they often do not have a job or have not yet established a credit history. These are terms that have been used by other housing groups. They do not want to outright prohibit “students” because that would prohibit graduate students, part time students, and high school students that are typically part of a family. They are open to additional ideas on addressing this issue. - Eric: Questioned whether this policy was something that the Town can enforce. The Committee and staff discussed this. Committee members continued to ask questions to get clarification on some of the PDZ language details. Rich: Stated that the PDZ included a lot more specificity than he was anticipating, but it does give more granularity which is helpful. However, he did not want to give the impression that we were creating a PDZ at this time. - Bill: Suggested they consider language that would allow food grown on the site to be sold or shared; to go beyond just the small use of produce, since there is some potential for extensive sized fields as identified on the plans. He also pointed to the word “approximately” used in D. 2), which needs to be changed to a more definite number. And in Section L., Bill pointed out an error in the footprint size limitations (no more than “1,500” sq.ft.). Bill also suggested that they add language to allow wind turbines, as a compliment to the solar panel provision. - Rich: Stated that the Committee needs more time to consider the document and information provided and that the Committee will defer any decision at this time. He also wants to allow other interested
5
parties to see and consider the materials. The Committee will continue the discussion at the May meeting and at that time make a determination on whether to recommend a PDZ to the Town Board. Rich then opened up the floor to questions from the audience. - Resident#1: Stated that she would like copy of the traffic study (she was provided with a copy at end of
meeting). She asked if there had been any more conversations with TCAT, noting that on Easter Sunday she had seen a bus travel up Troy Road, which was unusual. She was hoping they were doing a trial route. She also asked Bob Bates about the security officer they used when there are problems. She asked how this person addresses problems. (Bob explained how problems are handled and coordination with local police, if necessary). - Resident #2: Encouraged the Committee to stay true to the Comprehensive Plan. She described concerns with the traffic congestion, road conditions, bus service and the issue with sewer infrastructure with the likelihood that it will need to be pumped up hill. The long-term issues of infrastructure issues need to be considered.
4. Discuss rental property oversight and review fact sheet for possible distribution to Town Board: Rich distributed a summary sheet outlining issues with student rental properties and potential new regulatory mechanisms for the Town to consider. The information is intended for a future Town Board meeting so as to introduce members to the ideas that have been discussed by the Planning Committee. - Rich: Stated that he had been reminded by the March meeting summary that Rod requested some insight into possible unintended consequences as a result of the Town pursuing a regulatory program like East Lansing, Michigan. Rich thought of a couple of potential consequences, one consequence being that if the Town were able to effectively enforce occupancy levels it might result in raised rents. It could be more expensive for individuals that are now packed into apartments, because the expected net profit by landlords would be divided by less individuals. Another potential consequence may be that enforcement of over-occupancy would require students to look further out for housing, potentially spreading students out and requiring more rental property to be constructed (and who would bear the burden of this, the private sector, Ithaca College?). Committee members and staff discussed the idea of having a rental program, including the full cost recovery aspect of the East Lansing program, the Port Huron program requiring landlords to provide the names of tenants, that having a program like East Lansing could result in the existing concentrations of rentals staying that way (property owners unlikely to vote to restrict rentals) and areas outside the concentrations voting to have restrictions. The Committee also briefly discussed the workload of taking on a new rental regulatory program and the cost (to the community) of not doing it, and discussed other types of rental issues that the Town was receiving complaints on (short-term (vacation) rental issues). - Rich: Indicated that he would revise the document, including add the unintended consequences. The idea is just to provide the introduction to the Board to see is there is interest in going down this road, and to what extent and expense. - Bill: Suggested also adding in the document the potential for an interim moratorium.
5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for May 22, 2014. Topics:
• Continue discussion of Troy Road development proposal:
o Review Market Study, PDZ, and Traffic Study The Committee meeting adjourned at 6:22pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MAY 27, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVES: Scott Whitham, Whitham Associates; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Bob Bates, Rural Housing Preservation Associates (RHPA); Catherine De Almeida, Whitham Associates; Ben Gustafson, HUNT Engineers.
OTHERS: Eric Levine, Jim Semp, Bill Goodhew, Alex Perialas. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns: - Rod: Reported that one of the students from Professor Thomas Oles Cornell Landscape Architecture class is willing to provide a presentation to the Town Board concerning the West Hill class project. Rod thought the Town Board would be interested and asked Committee members for their thoughts on that. Committee members responded affirmatively.
3. Continue discussion and consideration of rezoning request for Troy Road housing development: - Rich: Opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and asked the development team if they had anything to add before the Committee began discussions. - Scott Whitham: Referred to the letter he had prepared for the Committee ‘s consideration which provided a project summary/overview. The Committee took time to review the letter that had been inadvertently omitted from the Committee’s meeting packet and provided earlier in the day to members. - Rich: Began the discussion by sharing his thoughts on the traffic study. He said that he felt that studies in general tended to focus only on the experience from the drivers point of view, such as levels of service, delays, etc., and that they do no assess the impacts of traffic on neighborhoods and adjacent properties. He felt this was a limitation of studies generally. Rich went on to discuss observations/concerns he had with the submitted traffic study and began with the traffic counts themselves. The counts for Troy Road, for example, indicated a significant amount of variability between the reporting periods, suggesting questionable reliability. Rich expressed his concern for the study’s reported estimated increase in the average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts as a result of the project, stating that he felt it was a significant increase that would pose a significant impact on the current residents of the area. He felt this was a major stumbling block of the proposal. Rich asked for clarification on the study’s peak hour destination analysis and the reported percentage of traffic going to certain employment locations. The report shows 25% to Cornell University, 25% to Ithaca College, etc. He also asked if the assumption that an equal number of commuters would use Route 96/King Road over Coddington Road; and he expressed doubt in the reported number of drivers using King Road/Route 96 over Coddington Road. - Ben Gustafson: Responded that a true destination analysis would generally require the collection of new data that would include the vehicle turning movements of current residents in the area. That data would be used to extrapolate the traffic patterns of the proposed development. Without that information it is too premature to provide an accurate analysis. They can only hypothesize at this point, which is what was done for this preliminary report.
2
- Rich: Stated that he was more concerned about overall volume than with peak hour traffic flow as that was going to affect residents most; the additional number of cars going past their houses. Rich also reported on additional traffic counts he obtained and conversations he had with County staff. He reported that the County has five stationary counters locations, and that interestingly, they find traffic counts are often higher on these area roads during the summer months as compared to the school year. The assumption being that it is due to kids getting driven around much more to various activities, rather than being transported by bus to school. - Rod: Asked about an item in Scott Whitham’s letter; - Scott: Clarified that his letter provided information that had already been provided or reported to the Committee; it did not provide new information. - Rich: Asked for clarification about item #3 in Scott’s letter regarding potential mitigation. - Scott: Responded that the study indicated potential areas that would require mitigation. - Rich: Stated that he thought the project team had done a really good job, that they had created a type of development that the Town would want to see. He applauded the minimal usage of the land and the reaching out to TCAT. Rich explained that it is not about the design or questioning the need, but it is the location of the project that concerns him. He stated that he felt the Comprehensive Plan anticipates growth centers in too many locations and that the Town can’t have a New Neighborhood Center at the corner of King/Danby and then entertain having this new neighborhood a mile or two away. This was a fundamental problem for him. It is a good project, but in isolation. Rich urged them to look at another location, one that is closer to services. Rich said that he will not recommend to the Town Board that this project go forward at this location. - Rod: Asked if they had looked at any other locations for the project. - Bob: Explained that they had looked around, but that this parcel interested the team for several reasons, most importantly because the location lent itself to the type of development they prefer to do. He explained that what they could do with 68 acres, and make work with 160 units, is much different than what they could do with 10 acres elsewhere. The difference is in the impacts to the neighbors, the structural difference in the development, etc; they were not interested in developing a 5-6 story complex. Bob added that development at the corner of King and Danby is going to be dominated by growth in student housing. They wanted to be in a separate location from the students, a neighborhood residential type of setting. Bob further explained that their development versus development allowed by current zoning (single family homes) would generate less traffic because the units would be occupied by small families, retirees, professionals, rather than predominately larger families in a traditional development. - Rod: Stated that he supports moving the project forward. He added that while he does recognize that traffic is an issue and would like to have seen this proposal closer to one of the nodes, he would prefer to see it in this location rather than out in Lansing or Danby, where it is just more traffic coming in from outlying areas. Rod added that he likes the trail connections proposal, and that in terms of commuting, the location provides more options for people to get to Cornell, to downtown, etc. It is not badly positioned in terms of locations for where people would go to work. - Bill: Stated that he is willing to move the proposal on to the Town Board for further discussion. Bill explained that he didn’t want to make any final judgment until more details are figured out in the PDZ. What he would be looking for in the PDZ were possible benefits to the neighborhood and benefit for the community. He felt that mitigation could also be explored further. Bill explained that the Town’s current zoning doesn’t generally provide for multiple residential developments; there are only one or two locations in the Town that are undeveloped. The Town seems to have had a tradition of not creating MR zones, but instead waiting until someone comes along and proposes one. The result is that we have had to consider each of these proposals on a case by case basis. In terms of location, Bill thought this one made some sense given the particular type of development being proposed. Additionally, by making it a
3
PDZ it gives the Town more control over what will happen rather than rezoning to MR. So he is willing to explore PDZ language and see about including things important to the Town. - Rich: Suggested going back to the Town Board to insure that there is enough support for the project. - Rod: Added that in regards to item #7 listed in Scott’s letter, he would want to advocate for having the onsite staff management as described in the letter. After discussing process, amongst the members and staff, the Committee decided that they would report back to the Town Board on the status of the Planning Committee’s recommendation and to gauge the Town Board’s support on continuing the process and developing PDZ language. The plan is to bring this to the Town Board’s June 9th meeting. Rich then opened the floor to the audience members: - Jim Semp: Stated that he wanted to bring to everyone’s attention the dangerous condition of the King and Troy Roads intersection, given that this would be the primary route to Danby Road. Jim explained that the intersection is a 2-way stop, not a 4-way, and despite requests to change it, it continues to be a dangerous situation. With the increased traffic from the development, it will only make it more dangerous. Further, the lack of public transportation and lack of owner-occupied units are the major concerns of the neighbors. The neighbors feel that this is not in keeping with neighborhood. - Bill Goodhew: Expressed concern with trespasser on his property as a result of the development and more people in the area. He feels that this is an imposition on the neighborhood. - Alan Perales: Stated that he wanted to provide a forewarning that there will be a formal letter of protest submitted from adjacent neighbors, per NYS Law, which allows residents to protest a rezoning. Rich explained that such a petition would require a ¾ majority vote of the Town Board; meaning there would need to be six affirmation votes. After some brief discussion between the Committee members and development team, Rich concluded this agenda item.
2. Consider April meeting summary: Bill moved and Rod seconded the motion to approve the April meeting summary; all in favor.
4. Discuss potential changes to the Eastwood Commons multiple residence zone language, for
application to undeveloped portions of the site: Sue explained that the MR zone established for the Eastwood Commons development includes an undeveloped portion that was intended for a subsequent phase of Eastwood Commons. This undeveloped property is now being proposed for the Greenways development, however, the language in the MR zone contains very specific requirements that are pertinent solely to Eastwood Commons, and in order for Greenways, or really any proposal on this infill site to move forward, it must be modified. The idea is to largely leave alone the language that is applicable to parcels of Eastwood Commons, and to add a section applicable to the undeveloped parcel and include only the necessary previous language. Sue expected that the Committee will have a redline version of the law to review at the next meeting.
5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for June 26, 2014. Topics:
• Possible Chain Works District referral from Town Board;
• Possible continuation of Troy Road development PDZ;
• MR zone language The Committee meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JUNE 26, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Ashley Motta, Planning Intern.
PROJECT(s) REPRESENTATIVES: David Lubin, Unchained Properties; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Scott Whitham, Whitham Associates, Jamie Fagan, Fagan Engineers; Bob Bates, Rural Housing Preservation Associates (RHPA); David Curtis, Leon N. Weiner & Associates.
OTHERS: Several South Hill residents. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m.
1. Discuss and consider Chain Works District proposal and request for PDZ:
The Chain Works team introduced themselves and provided a slide presentation (same as one provided at recent Town Board meeting) to give an overview of the proposed project. Scott Whitham shared background on the interior/exterior of the property; the connectivity of the property by the future trail; and its adjacency to existing neighborhoods by foot. He pointed out that many undeveloped slopes on the property are on the Town side (with slopes greater than 15%). In the ‘80s the structures were joined; the developers would like to isolate them to reveal the structures and provide some open space. The project would be phased into a mixed-use site. The immediate goal is to repurpose existing structures. Early phase would be manufacturing at the southern end; then some office space and residential towards northern end. Rich stated that he believes residential use at the site is currently precluded due to contamination. David Lubin explained that the issue is still an active discussion with negotiations ongoing with NYS DEC and Emerson. The property will require additional mitigation to meet residential specifications. Emerson is agreeable to remediate contamination found on the site. There are still off-site issues associated with the sewer line from the old NCR facility, but Emerson will not be responsible for that clean up; it is not related to Emerson. DEC is amenable to the idea of residential use of the site, but additional environmental issues have been discovered and it is an ongoing discussion. The design team showed DIRT Studio (partner in project) projects that repurposed industrial buildings, including the Philadelphia Navy Yard, Mass MoCA (Museum of Contemporary Art in North Adams, MA), Providence, RI steel yards. Scott then turned to the issue of the PDZ and said they were interested in learning what the Committee is looking for, and would find useful, in terms of PDZ the language. Rich said that with this project it was wide open; the magnitude of this project being so much greater relative to the PDZ’s the Town typically deals with. Rich emphasized the importance of not just discussing zoning uses in themselves, but of scaling the uses as a percentage of the lot and the build-out of the project.
2
Noah described the idea of having different zones/subareas within the PDZ and that they may or may not be looking to pursue form-based code type regulations. He then described what they see as three distinct areas on the site, based on existing footprint, buildings, and adjacent uses. One is the steep sloped area, a natural zone (i.e. T1 transect), which would be for open space and trailhead purposes, with little to no new development anticipated. The other areas would relate to the T-4 and T-5 transect zones. Rich inquired about the likelihood of introducing new curb cuts. The developer stated it is unlikely, with the exception of a few places where new individual homes could be sited, but otherwise there are existing curb cuts to be utilized. [Bill Goodman arrived at this point in the meeting] A traffic consultant will be hired to conduct a two phased process; phase 1 will involve trip generation analysis and scoping; phase 2 will involve the actual study. The traffic study will need to evaluate a number of things including the interconnections with the City streets. The new Gateway Trail and the proximity to downtown will likely ease traffic generation. Rich questioned how they will unify the Town and City PDZ language. They explained that one idea is to have a core code that would stand on its own with references to the Town and City law. Noah explained that the idea is to create a supplemental form-district that both the City and Town reference, so we don’t have to recreate definitions and regulations that already exist elsewhere (i.e. outdoor lighting law, steep slopes, etc.). The idea is to go into this attempting to create a single supplemental document for both the City and the Town; this is the logical place to start, though there may be changes as we go along. Bill inquired about their process with the City. Scott responded that that there is a new draft of the PUD enacting language. It includes a requirement that only industrial zones can become PUDs, as well as some other modifications. The draft was unanimously approved by the City Planning Committee and there is hope that Common Council will pass the legislation. Next steps: development team intends to put together initial PDZ language for the Committee to consider at the July meeting.
2. Continue discussion and consideration of draft PDZ language for proposed Troy Road
housing development: Rich recapped the status of the project. Scott Whitham explained that they heard the concerns of the Town Board and the neighbors. The development team has begun to explore impacts from alternative development arrangements, including clustered development and single-family residential lots. They thought this would be a useful exercise. Bob Bates reiterated that they were looking at alternative designs. He introduced Dave Curtis, from the Delaware office, who emphasized that their team has had a longstanding success developing multi-family housing that is sensitive to context, but that they intend to develop the property and are exploring the single-family cluster design that does not need rezoning. Bob explained that if the primary issue is traffic, the impact from a single-family housing development, allowed by current zoning, would have potentially greater impacts than the proposed multi-unit development. If the real issue is home ownership versus renters, then that is a question of lifestyle; not everyone wants to be a home owner.
3
Rich asked if they envision taking title to the subdivided lots or would they would sell them off. Bob replied that the determination has not been made. The option remains for single-family units to become rental, as the market demands, which is common in the area. David Curtiss added that the area supports a large rental market and having a professionally managed development would be preferable to an uncontrolled development with a mish-mash of rental and owner-occupied units. Rich questioned the purpose of the meeting discussion. His expectation was that the Committee would focus on the language of the PDZ, rather than discuss optional development scenarios outside of a PDZ. His expectation, based on the developer’s comments at the last meeting, was that the PDZ language would be amended so as to become more appealing to people who are not onboard with the proposal. The development team presented their existing proposal and two additional scenarios. Their clustered development proposal (up to 2.3 units per acre) can range up to 153 units, but by design probably 145 units. The second scenario is an as-of-right single-family development, showing 52 lots that can be designed to introduce a secondary unit, thus housing up to 104 units. This design would have about 9 curb cuts on Troy Rd. The third scenario, a clustered development alternative, can be organized as a condo, co-op, or other fashion. All scenarios leave the southeast corner of the property undeveloped as a drainage area. The Committee asked questions of the development team and discussed the proposal and alternative scenarios. The issue of rentals in the vicinity of the development was discussed. Bruce confirmed that the alternative scenarios (single-family development) could become rentals and that the area already contains numerous rental units on Troy Road and elsewhere in the neighborhood. Sue replied to a question concerning the resident’s petition (per NYS 265 statute), and stated that because there is no formal Town Board action on the table (no actual local law being considered), the filing of the petition is not binding (per conversation with attorney for the Town), and she therefore did not scrutinize the addresses and signatures. A member of the public later added that the signatures were valid and that they had gotten more than the necessary number. Sue inquired whether it is worthwhile for the development team to meet with neighbors to figure out what their concerns are regarding the development. Scott stated that a neighborhood meeting may be a good option to figure out what would make the PDZ language more acceptable to the community. [Rich needed to leave the meeting at this time due to family emergency] The team of developers looked to the members of the public for their opinion on what type of development would be well-suited to their neighborhood, but those present emphasized that they did not come to the meeting as representatives of their neighborhood. A member of the public voiced concern that the development laid out in the existing proposal will not be legally permitted to reject student renters. Several members of the development team and the Planning Committee stated that it is in fact legal to refuse students as they are not a protected class. The developers discussed the risk of moving forward, given the petition and the potential lack of votes on the on the Town Board. They think they may be better off just moving forward on a new concept that does not require a PDZ.
4
Rod suggested incorporating innovative aspects into the original plan that would improve the appeal of the project to the Board, perhaps on the basis of architectural design, energy management, etc. The development team decided to make an additional attempt before changing course. The next step is to hold a neighborhood meeting to provide clarity on the proposal and gain a clearer understanding of the concerns.
5. Continue discussion of potential changes to the Eastwood Commons multiple residence
zone language, for application to undeveloped portions of the site: Sue explained that the goal was to minimize changes to the original law and to just exempt certain provisions, those specific to the Eastwood Commons development that would restrict development on the undeveloped MR portion of land. Susan Brock provided a redline version for the Committee to consider. There is still an item for Committee consideration. In section 4. (a), Eastwood Commons is allowed 170 units, and that figure should be changed. Currently the development has 86 units, and if they were to eliminate some surface parking, there may be room for one more multi-unit structure. The Committee suggested rounding up to 100 to allow for possible redevelopment of the Eastwood Commons parcel.. The Committee recommended that the proposed changes to the law be forwarded to the Town Board for consideration; Bill moved, Rod second.
5. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for July 24, 2014. Topics:
• Continue discussion of Chain Works District PDZ;
• Possible continuation of Troy Road development PDZ. The Committee meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JULY 24, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Ashley Motta, Planning Intern.
PROJECT(s) REPRESENTATIVES: David Lubin, Unchained Properties; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative; Cathy De Almeida, Whitham Planning & Design; Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C.
OTHERS: Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns: None reported.
2. Continue discussion and consider Chain Works District proposal and request for PDZ:
- Project representatives began by providing a brief overview/explanation of an initial draft proposed PDZ language. Noah explained how the proposed legislation would ideally work through the City/Town processes. The first section of the draft law includes “findings”, and it is envisioned that this section would be refined through the EIS process. The concept is that the City/Town PUD/PDZ will reference what is being called a “form district” regulation that would be in a single document. These would define regulations for the development subareas (Natural Zone, Neighborhood, etc.). Ideally the City and Town would come to consensus on the content of this document, as well as the findings. The hope is that the areas of overlap along the municipal border would become inconsequential, from a regulatory standpoint, because they would be regulated by one set of requirements. -Rich inquired whether the project representatives intend to attain LEED ND certification or to use LEED ND as a guideline, which is mentioned in section A.3. of the draft PDZ outline. Noah stated that “strive to attain” is key; there is no guarantee, although it is their intention to attain this. Structural guidelines from LEED are fundamental, such as proximity to services, density, etc., and they intend to use it as a guideline. Noah confirmed that Belle Sherman Cottages is a LEED ND certified development. - Rich asked whether section A.4.d., which limits intensive development, includes all infill development, and Noah confirmed this. - Rich suggested tightening language in A.4.e., which proposes connecting human-scale development through a trail network. Project representatives agreed that section A.4.e. should exclusively focus on human-scale development through the sidewalk network and general walkability, with a new, separate findings focused on the trail network. - Rich also suggested rewording A.4.f, which limits parking supply to actual need according to market demands. Noah stated that whereas zoning may require 2 spaces per residential unit, the
2
actual market demand for parking is usually much lower than the zoning requirements. The PDZ language presents the inverse of that concept, providing only as much as is needed to create a functional community. While the project representatives are uncertain of the exact parking ratios they will follow, at this stage they seek to avoid establishing parking minimums in PDZ language. LEED ND requires that a development provide less than the minimum parking as allowed by zoning, which usually necessitates a variance. Downtown and Collegetown have no parking minimums. Following the City’s logic for those areas, Chain Works should also establish no minimums, since it is geographically closer to downtown than Collegetown. Rich questioned whether existing parking areas will be built over. Noah confirmed that existing parking may be built over as the development progresses, so parking will become more of a concern over time, and that underestimating parking needs is the developer’s risk. - Bill inquired about the requirements established for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in A.4.k. Noah explained that FAR is a measure of the square footage of a building relative to the square footage of the site. LEED ND requires a FAR of 0.6 if the project is not within proximity to transit, and 0.8 if the project is within proximity to transit. The Chain Works PDZ proposes a FAR of 0.8 or greater. - There was discussion concerning section D.1., which references existing electrical substations, and the project representatives confirmed that there are 2 currently on the property. One is owned by Emerson, and another is owned jointly by Emerson and NYSEG. - Rich suggested that the project representatives clarify whether the project will generally provide rental or owner-occupied housing. Project representatives stated that with the proximity of the project to Ithaca College there has been discussion of creating an IC “Collegetown” in the southern portion of the project closest to Route 96B, although market rate rentals would likely preclude most undergraduates. The project is seen as a good opportunity to provide housing for people looking to return to Ithaca, such as alumni, or for people seeking a home in a college environment. - Bill questioned whether buildings and uses (described in section D.) should be grouped together in the same section. There may be more accessory uses than listed here currently, such as wind, solar facilities, etc. Although any use currently allowed in residential district is assumed to be acceptable, depending on the size of the system, the project may require additional permitting. Ground-mounted PV systems currently require site plan approval, and there is general consensus that the size limit for solar is approximately 1,000 sq. feet. According to Bill, EcoVillage exceeded this limit and had to seek additional approvals. - Noah explained that for each of the identified subareas (transect zones), there may be different uses, and a table will be included in Schedule B to delineate these. Schedule B will also include a list of definitions unique to this zone. - Bruce questioned whether the PDZ language referencing Town law will reference the most current version of the law, if the law is to be updated. He recommends the addition of clarifying language.
- Rich recommended that for section E, pertaining to parkland and open space, more language on park maintenance should be added. A trailhead might also be a good amenity for the trail network. Noah added that it is difficult to tell now where a trailhead makes sense. Those who are planning the trail should lead that decision-making process.
3
- It was recommended that, since the Town Board will not be approving a site plan, the text in the section G. be changed to “general plan” or “sketch plan” to avoid confusion with the site plan process. - According to the statement on common land in section F.1., common land may be owned by Unchained Properties. The draft language intends to leave it open for ownership by a homeowners association or the municipalities. Rich recommended changing the language to “may or may not,” to make it easier to understand. Bruce stated that roads must be built to Town standards, or the Town wouldn’t take them over.
- In section K of the draft zoning outline, which describes the terms of violations to the section, the current draft states that each week of continued violation constitutes a separate offense. Rich stated and Bruce confirmed that the usual practice is to count each day of continued violation as a separate offense, rather than each week. Bruce added that while this may be negotiable, the current practice is deeming each day that a continued violation occurs as a separate offense. - In Schedule B, the permitted uses and applicable definitions section outlines the Natural Zone/T1, which “consists of lands approximating or reverting to a wilderness condition.” Rich inquired about the mechanism of conservation in the T1 zone, such as the creation of a conservation zone, and added that certain restrictions are more permanent than others. Noah stated that the area is identified as a natural zone, and because it has very steep slopes, there is minimal risk of intensive development regardless of the mechanism of conservation. - Rich stated that the enforcement mechanism for conservation should be clarified, and that donating areas for parks or creating conservation easements could be a possible conservation mechanism. - Sue recommended explicitly limiting the allowable recreation in the Natural Zone/T1 to “passive recreation” by clarifying that in the language of the section. Several Committee members inquired about the development team’s intention for allowing an “administrative building” in the Natural Zone/T1. - Bruce recommended defining and limiting the uses of an administrative building in T1 to “buildings necessary for the maintenance of this natural area.” He also recommended limiting square footages. - In Neighborhood General/T4, Committee members inquired about what mix of uses is appropriate, and how that mix is determined. Noah responded that they do not have any preconception on the mix, but that LEED-ND characterizes T4 as a traditional walkable neighborhood with a small-scale corner store/laundromat/etc. type of mix. According to the development team, there would be a 100 foot setback between Neighborhood General/T4 and Neighborhood Center/T5, and along Route 96B there would be buildings with four habitable stories along the street. LEED-ND encourages parking below buildings, which may be worked into the design of the buildings, especially in downhill areas. In the downhill side of Neighborhood Center Zone/T5, up to eight stories is proposed in the draft zoning language. Height will not be added to existing buildings, except building “21.” The main factory is 4 very tall stories, with a few buildings having 5 stories (such as building “5” and “1”). - Sue added that having access to visuals that demonstrate the design of the building may ease concerns over building heights. Noah agreed that design will be important. One example of a
4
design solution may be adding dormer windows to the fourth story so that the building looks three stories. - In the T4 zone, row housing is suggested along the street. Rich inquired about how that will obstruct vantage points, and Noah responded that the district form regulations can limit the length of buildings to limit the obstruction of views. - The Committee and the development team agreed that, as the development progresses, a five year period may be a good interval for review and check-in. Next steps: Noah suggested having a City/Town liaison present at all meetings, and then when actions are taken (ex: approval of the plan), conducting joint City/Town meetings. He added that this will avoid the need to table actions because not everyone is present in the room. Rich stated that having all parties in the room will be ideal for discussing details, language, etc., but that decisions need to be made independently. A joint meeting will be planned for September.
3. Consider May and June meeting summaries:
Minor corrections were requested for the May and June meeting summaries. Rich moved and Bill seconded the motion to approve the May and June meeting summaries; all in favor.
4. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: A joint meeting date will be scheduled for September. Topics:
• Continue discussion of Chain Works District PDZ; The Committee meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 MEETING
(JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF ITHACA PLANNING
and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE)
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce
Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
PROJECT(s) REPRESENTATIVES: David Lubin, Unchained Properties; Noah Demarest, STREAM
Collaborative; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design; Cathy De Almeida, Whitham Planning &
Design; Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C.; Paul Sylvestri, Harter Secrest &
Emery.
CITY OF ITHACA STAFF: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner;
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner.
CITY OF ITHACA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Seph Murtagh, Cynthia Brock,
Graham Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, Josephine Martell.
OTHERS:
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
CITY AND TOWN JOINT PLANNING COMMITTEES
1. Member Introductions:
- Rich: Opened the meeting, beginning with introductions around the table. He then gave some open
statements about Chain Works project, a complex project involving the two municipalities, the
different processes of the City/Town, and the effort towards finding avenues for unifying the
PDZ/PUD process. Rich then asked the development team to provide a status update on the project
and information about the revised PDZ/PUD.
2. Draft PDZ/PUD language overview (Chain Works District team):
- Scott Whitham: Reported on a number of aspects related to the project, including that the City
Planning and Development Board has declared their intent to be lead agency for the SEQR process.
Announcements concerning this will be sent to the Town/Planning Boards and other agencies. At
the same time, the development team is working on the PDZ/PUD legislation and beginning to form
an outline of how that zone might be put together. In addition, the team is beginning to prepare an
initial scoping document for the EIS and getting a head start on some of the data collection (traffic
data, ecological survey). They recognize that this effort is in advance of having a formally adopted
scope, but they want to begin this work while the season/weather is conducive. He also reported
that they are working on a project schedule in cooperation with City/Town staff.
2
- Noah: Provided a brief overview of the PDZ/PUD draft. He explained that the proposed
legislation includes a “findings” section, which they hope will ultimately be the same for the City
and Town. The middle section of the legislation includes the processes of the PDZ/PUD, which they
envision as being individualized for the Town and City, and would reference relevant existing
legislation of the individual municipality. Following this would be the district regulations section
(allowable uses, setbacks, heights, design/landscaping considerations, etc) that would again be
shared and hopefully identical for the City and Town. The development team is eager to know if the
Town and City are comfortable with this approach before they move forward.
- Paul Sylvestri: Emphasized that the findings statement written in the draft PDZ/PUD is still
preliminary, it is a first cut just to get the process moving. The final language may draw from some
of the language that comes out of the findings statements that will be associated with the EIS.
- Noah: Presented slides containing graphics/photos to help explain the concept for the proposed
regulatory framework in the draft PDZ/PUD language. The regulations would be based on transects
with characterizations derived from the SmartCode. Noah presented photos to illustrate the typical
character in each transect (transects T1-T6) and how they differ. Transects identified for Chain
Works District property includes T1, T4, and T5 (map provided for meeting). The T1 transect is
more of a natural area. It would apply to those areas with steep slopes that are not intended for
development. Other than minor things, such as parking for a trail head, there is no intention of
developing these areas for commercial or residential development. The images for T4 showed a
neighborhood similar to Sears Street/Fall Creek neighborhood in the City. This would be a mixed
use neighborhood, predominantly residential, but allow for “corner store” type of commercial
development. Images included detached houses, attached row houses, and small commercial
development. The T5 is a higher density area and intended for a greater percentage of commercial
development along a streetscape; it could be considered more of a mixed use commercial zone,
where T4 is a mixed use residential zone.
The discussion also included building heights and how the number of stories could be influenced by
the slope. For instance, the land slopes quickly down off Aurora Street, a 4-story building along the
street could equate to a 6-story, just a few hundred feet away from the road. It was noted that
“story” and “height” is defined differently in the City and Town. These definitions should be
incorporated into the PUD/PDZ to insure a consistent definition. Otherwise, terms that are not
defined in the PDZ/PUD would default to the individual municipal code.
- Cynthia: Added that laws in the City and Town are apt to change over time and the definitions
could change as well, affecting those terms that would default to the municipal code.
- Rich: Raised the idea of incorporating into the PUD/PDZ those laws that may be unique to the
municipality, but which may be desirable to have in place for the project, such as the Town’s
Outdoor Lighting Law. He encouraged finding a way to have the some laws apply to the entire
project, but without the City/Town actually adopting the law in its own Code.
Getting back to description of the transects:
- Cynthia: Pointed out that the photos being shown were somewhat misleading because the
provided documentation indicated that T4 could have up to four stories, with T5 having up to six
stories.
- Noah: Responded that they would be allowing ground floor apartments to occur on the slope side;
one side 4-story, the other side 6-story. For instance for the T4 transect along Aurora Street, trying
to maintain that they do not intend to go higher than the sidewalk. If you go just 50 feet back you
immediately drop off and could go 6-stories. If you go by the Town’s definition, you might only
have a story and half along Route 96 and would need to have a variance for a 2-story building.
3
- Bill: Added that the Town doesn’t use “story” only building “height”
- Ellen McCollister: Responded that “story” is becoming more common and explained its use for the
Collegetown form-based code.
- David Lubin: Added that habitable and non-habitable stories are also referred to.
- Noah: Other aspects in the district regulations of the legislation would concern buffering from
neighbors and setbacks. They envision the form starting from the bottom of Aurora Street and up
the hill that would be consistent and maintained throughout.
- Rich: Asked about curb cuts for the new frontage development.
- Noah: Responded that they would likely try to minimize curb cuts. It still remains to be seen, but
they could envision a common entrance, with parking down below (behind). The new
development is so far out in the future that they can’t design it with any detail right now.
- Rich: Expressed concern for not having some understanding of the future development; without
some language we would essentially be giving permission for anything to be built.
- Noah: The idea is to have a collective vision for the site.
- Bill: Asked when the Committee’s could expect to see a version of the PDZ/PUD with more details
(setbacks, etc.). He made a suggestion for handling the legislation for those areas in the T4 that
would not be developed for decades, using the EcoVillage PDZ as an example. For that PDZ, they
established the framework from the start, but over the years as the development has expanded and
changed, they have needed to go back and revise the PDZ.
- Rod: Thought a phasing of the legislation was a possibility, where there would be a periodic
check-in.
- Jamie: - Responded that there should be some sort of place-holder so that we have some idea of
the vision from the Town and City as we move forward.
- Noah: - Added that the City’s Southwest area might be a good example; where a GEIS was
conducted based on the overall square footage of retail being built out, but with no concrete idea on
exactly what it was going to look like. That way they were able to conduct analyses, like traffic
studies, based on the potential build out.
- Rich/Sue: Provided a description of the Town’s PDZ process and asked for a description of the
City process.
- Joanne: Stated that this is the City’s first PUD. She explained that the City Council approved the
PUD in-concept, and will rely on GEIS to help form what that PUD will be. Traffic is a good example.
Traffic may be a limiting factor and help determine tipping points, this information would help
inform the language in the PUD. They are hoping to continue to talk with the Town, and that the
City and Town will be in synch on the legislation development.
- Rich: Asked for an update on the environmental contamination issue.
- Paul Sylvestri: Explained that they recently met with DEC to get a Record of Decision (ROD)
amendment. In order to get this process moving they had to take on some more investigative work
as part of the due diligence work (full phase II+). This included over 100 new borings, several
additional groundwater monitoring wells, etc. This is due diligence above what was already done
in the past. DEC wants more information with a full delineation of the impact on the property.
Once they have all of this information, they can move further along with the ROD amendment
process, and get the “restricted residential use” classification that sets forth the clean-up level to
allow for residential use. The process has been very lengthy.
- David Lubin: Explained that it is in his interest to locate all of the contamination on the site,
because anything not identified now, but at a future time, would become his responsibility to deal
with. He is more than willing to make the phase II information available to anyone interested.
4
- Paul Sylvestri: Stated that the contamination issue will be fully explained in the EIS. He further
stated that Emerson is committed to remediating the site to allow for the mixed use development.
While the law does not require Emerson to remediate to pre-disposal conditions, as the earlier law
did, it will get remediated to the degree that will allow for the safe reuse of the property for
residential/commercial development.
- Bill: Expressed concern that they were not proposing to set any thresholds/upper limits in the
PDZ/PUD until later, after the EIS is completed, and explained how that could pose complications
for the Planning Board’s review.
- Noah: Responded that the team does intend to propose upper limits in the PDZ and that those
thresholds would be tested during the EIS process.
4. Discuss and consider future joint meeting:
- The Committees expressed interest in continuing to work together.
- The 4th Thursday of the month doesn’t work for Seph and the 2nd Wednesday doesn’t work for the
Town. Need to find another date in that will work for everyone.
- Cynthia expressed interest in having a Dropbox or other location where members could look at all
of the information and be notified when new information was available.
- David Lubin: Chain Works District will have a website where the information will be available.
The development team stated that they will have a revised PDZ/PUD for the committee to review at
the next meeting.
TOWN PLANNING COMMITTEE
5. Member comments/concerns:
- Rich expressed concern about the lights at the South Hill Business Campus. These are the parking
lots lights which are extremely bright and standout on the hill side.
- Bruce said that they may comply with the Outdoor Lighting Law, but because they are so tall and a
whiter light and given the location on the hill side they stand out.
Committee members asked whether these lights need to stay on all of the time. They appear to be
in the parking lot used by Ithaca College.
Bruce said that staff would investigate further.
6. Consider July meeting summary:
- Minor correction was requested for the July meeting summary. Bill moved and Rich seconded the
motion to approve the July meeting summary; all in favor.
7. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items:
The Committee meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 30, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Phil Maguire; Tim Maguire; Tom Schickel, Schickel Architect.
OTHERS: Steve Eddy (Eddydale); Pratik Ahir (Rodeway Inn); Tom Mullen (Commercial Realtor); Kathy Hildreth (Grayhaven Hotel) Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns: Discussed later.
2. Consider September meeting summary (tentative): - Minutes not reviewed at this time.
3. Discuss and consider Maguire Automotive proposal for Elmira Road: - Rich: Explained that the meeting was intended to be a joint meeting of the Planning Committee and Economic Ad Hoc Committee. He then outlined questions he had concerning the proposal, particularly related to the economic/revenue side of things, and stated that he wanted to bring these up during the meeting. - Rod: Provided background on the recently formed Economic Ad Hoc Committee, whose members include Rod, Bill, and Herb. Its formation was in response to the Town’s desire to be more proactive on economic matters. He explained that the committee’s initial work focused on the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor, an area that has not received a great deal of attention by the Town, but now the Town’s new Comprehensive Plan highlights this area for specific attention and recognizes its importance as a gateway into the Town and City. He reported that the committee held a small informal meeting with a hand full of stakeholders (business and property owners in the corridor) to get some initial ideas on what should happen in the corridor. Rod went on to describe the initial thoughts about the corridor and the desire to build upon the assets that currently exist there; agriculture, tourism, and recreational opportunities. He explained that the committee is just starting the conversation and recognizes that there will be zoning implications involved in this effort. The committee intends to bring a larger group together, likely in January, to further the discussion and hopefully generate more ideas for the corridor. - Herb: Added that the committee recognized the agricultural connections existing in the corridor. Ithaca Beer, as one of the producers of agricultural products, and existing and potential linkages to other agricultural neighbors. Herb reported on his observation that there are very good agricultural soils in this area, but underutilized land. He felt that one of the negatives about the proposed project is that it would build on portions of the land currently in crop production, but stated that there may be way to compensate this loss. Herb expressed concern for the hospitality industry given the large growth of hotel development and competition in the City.
2
- Phil Maguire: Followed up on Herb’s comments by noting that in attendance were Steve Eddy, from Eddydale farms (representing agricultural interests), and the owners of the Rodeway Inn. - Rich: Expressed surprise that he had not heard anything about this proposal until it was presented at the October 20th Town Board meeting. He said his impression of car dealerships, as exemplified by those they currently have in the City, is that they have a high impact, visually and otherwise. Rich stated that car dealerships require prominent visibility with lots of lighting and impervious surfaces. He referred to the presentation given to the Town Board and questioned the applicant’s description of the project being an “artisanal car dealership”, stating that he could not put those two words together. - Phil Maguire: Responded that it may have been a poor choice of words. He went on to describe their concept for the project. He said they envision a combination of modern architecture infused with a nature-esque campus-like setting. It would include a car dealership with retail branding, but with flexibility in the architectural design and material finish. They imagine the development spread over a large area with green space mixed in, which would surpass the required 30% open space requirement in the zoning. They are not looking for the traditional car dealership with the line of cars at the road edge. They think the better way to do this in where they can blend the development into the landscape and thus create an entryway into Ithaca that is “park-like” with buildings utilizing modern architecture. The site plan, as presented, is just an initial concept, an idea starter. Phil Maguire went on to explain their need for the expansion. He said they had been actively searching for a place to expand and at this point the options are the Town location or up towards Lansing. They are hoping that the Town Board and Planning Board would like to work with them to bring an economic benefit to the Town; an economic anchor to the corridor. - Rich: Asked the number of acres involved in the project. - Phil Maguire: Responded that with the additional land for Saponi Park it is about 45 acres. But the site has some constraints, including a large pond, a couple of streams, and some wet areas. He is hoping that the Town would rezone all the property in the project to Neighborhood Commercial and then modify the permitted uses to allow franchise automobile dealerships. - Rich: Asked about the number of vehicles they would have on site under full build out. - Phil Maguire: Responded that they don’t have the exact figure yet and explained that it is dependent on what and how many stores get built. They do need parking areas for the cars, but these would not be empty lots, they would be full of product and the intent is to spread the parking throughout with a campus-like setting. - Tom Schickel: Explained that some of the dealerships in the City are at 90% coverage (lot coverage and pavement/ 10% open) of the site, and that it would be lower in the Town given the amount of land and opportunity for landscaping and breaking up the parking. - Tim Maguire: Further explained that the dealerships in the City were all built a long time ago, and that this project would be different, given that they would be starting from the ground up. He also explained that they would like to incorporate Saponi Park into their development project and trade it for the adjacent parcel (to the north) owned by the Eddy family; essentially relocating Saponi Park further north and closer to the residential development. In addition, in discussions they’ve had with Dan Mitchell, another idea is to include a trail from Saponi Park to Tutelo Park over the Ithaca Beer property. Dan had expressed interest in donating the trail to the Town in exchange for the Town taking over the ownership/responsibility of Ithaca Beer Lane and Brewery Lane. - Rich: Asked about lighting of the site. - Tim Maguire: Responded that lighting is expensive, and they don’t want to pay for operating lighting that is inefficient, overly bright, and on all night long. Their intent is to have adequate
3
amount for security and community purposes. He explained that the technology has changed dramatically and with LED lighting they can be dimmed at night with a timer. Also, the use of video surveillance and motion sensors has helped to reduce lighting needs for security purposes. - Rich: Inquired about the potential revenue aspect of the project, given its importance in determining the project’s overall benefit/worth to the Town. - Tim Maguire: Responded that last year they had generated over $200 million in sales revenue for the City of Ithaca locations. The proposed project would represent approximately 35% of this and they would expect larger incremental business with the project. He said that secondly, it is a roughly $20 million in investment to the property. Additionally, in terms of the sales tax side, there would be included some other side projects, such as a parts distribution, paint distribution, and built-in insurance companies. They also intend to utilize local construction companies to construct the project and they hope to infuse some partnering with a business like Gimme Coffee. - Rich: Asked about their time line. - Phil Maguire: Responded that they were trying to have this done about 2 years ago on a couple of other sites. The situation is that they are under contract with a couple of parcels of land in the proposed project site, and there are time triggers. He said the zoning is a contingency and they need to decide whether to move forward or not and are looking to the Town to see if there is interest. - Herb: Described the difficulty, given traffic, of getting out on Elmira Road from Seven Mile Drive and asked whether the main access could be off Seven Mile Drive instead, with an added light at the intersection. Herb thought this would allow for a more attractive frontage along Elmira Road. - Phil Maguire: Responded that the site near E&V Propane and International Climbing Machine would be difficult to access via only Seven Mile Drive, but for the main site they could be open to the possibility. Phil thought a light is warranted at that location with or without the project. And slowing the traffic down, with a reduced speed limit would also be helpful. - Rich: Asked if they had ascertained trip generation figures for this project; the number of trips that would be generated in and out during the course of the day. - Phil Maguire: Responded that it is hard to say at this point, given a number of variables. He explained that the current Hyundai/Subaru site has only 1.4 acres and it is very congested, but the access seems manageable despite the constraints. The new site would be an improvement. Also, they would need to consider tractor trailer deliveries, which may be better from Route 13. From a business standpoint they would probably want at least 2 access points off Route 13. - Rich: Asked how much of the business presence is being relocated from outside the City? - Phil Maguire: Explained that the Master Plan is for the Chevrolet/Cadillac dealership to move from Lansing to the Hyundai/Subaru site in the City. The smaller site would be suitable for this brand and they would redevelop the site for Chrysler/Chevrolet/Cadillac. The Ford/Nissan/Lincoln store in front of Wegmans is too small and the Nissan component, along with Hyundai and Subaru, would move to the Town site. Also planned for the Town site are new dealerships for Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and possibly Maserati. - Rod: Asked how many net new jobs this would result in. - Tim Maguire: Responded that there would be 40-50 new jobs - Rod: Explained that the corridor has a great deal of potential and that the project was not what he had imagined for the area. Rod explained that he was still wrapping his head around this idea and trying to determine if there would still be opportunities to build upon for the agricultural/tourism/recreational assets of the area. He felt that the trail connection between the two Town parks was positive, but he expressed reservations with the proposed “modern
4
architecture”, concerned that this style would be quite different from the character envisioned for the corridor. - Phil Maguire: Added that his vision for the site included expansive green space providing places for people to walk/hike while they were waiting for service. - Rod: Responded that he was trying to figure out how to develop the area such that it brings not only local residents in for recreational opportunities and other purposes, but also tourists. He said he was trying to determine how this project may either take away from, or enhance, other opportunities for the corridor; for someone taking a walk to Ithaca Beer or visiting the State Parks, would the project detract or enhance that experience? - Pratik Ahir, Rodeway owner (in audience): Described the difficult economics for a small motel in the Ithaca market, given competition and their Elmira Road location. - Rich: Responded to Phil Maguire’s description of how the project would enhance the corridor, stating that he was dubious that the car dealerships would benefit the hospitality industry. Rich then asked Sue about the proposed zoning for the area. - Sue: Explained that the corridor, while included as part of the sample area in the form-based code (FBC) demonstration study (by STREAM Collaborative), it was not envisioned for FBC, but the zoning needs to be addressed to accommodate the types of uses that were envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. She went on to describe the current zoning and what limitations the regulations present in terms of restricting businesses from locating in the corridor. The hope is that with appropriate zoning and design standards, the Town could attract the type of commercial enterprises that are envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and improve the appearance of the corridor. - Bill: Stated that the project offered some intriguing ideas. He also looks to find a way to encourage the type of businesses that the Ad Hoc Committee had discussed. This includes small artisanal and the value-added type retailers, like Ithaca Beer, who grow crops on site and then uses them in their operations. Bill said that he was trying to figure out a way to have the car dealerships along with these types of businesses. Bill suggested that a secondary road, an extension of Ithaca Beer Drive connecting to Seven Mile Drive, could provide a better location for these types of smaller businesses, than Elmira Road. Bill stated that he would like to have a better idea of what this project would look like and requested that they provide photos of others dealerships, with similar layouts, to help them better visualize the proposal and overall scope. He wanted to have a better sense of what the viewscape would be from Elmira Road and suggested visual aids for next time. Bill also said he would prefer to have those areas identified on the drawings as “open”, in the vicinity of the proposed corporate offices, be maintained for on-going agriculture rather than used as a field or lawn. - Bill: Asked about the phasing of the project. - Phil Maguire: Stated that it is only the corporate office that remains questionable/reserved for future phase, everything else would be built. - Rich: Expressed his concern for the project, the hurdles involved, and the fact that the Town has just adopted a new comprehensive plan and that this proposal was not in concert with the vision in the plan. - Steve Eddy (audience): Expressed his support and desire for having more regular customers at Eddydale and how this project could help.
5
- Thomas Mullen (audience): Spoke in favor of the project and its potential for attracting additional businesses to the corridor; for instance he was aware of a compressed natural gas business that is currently looking for a suitable site. [Mr. Mullen represents the Eddy family in the potential land transaction]. - Kathy (audience, Grayhaven owner): Stated that she would be looking to retire in the near future and to sell Grayhaven. She expressed concern that the dealership might deter tourist from staying at the motel, given its mom/pop character and location. She said it has been a family business for 60 years. She was concerned that the development may be a deterrent for a prospective buyer. - Rich: Expressed appreciation for the work and thought that had gone into the proposal, and the effort they had put into trying to make the dealership work on the site. Rich said that he was not ready to stipulate that the vision, as expressed in the Comp Plan, was not possible. He said that he felt it was too premature to move forward in this direction and expressed concern with the high impact nature of the project. Rich said he would recommend against it, and thought we owed it to community to see the planning vision through. - Rod: Expressed concern with the project not meshing with Comp Plan and the apparent hurdles that existed to get there. Rod stated that he would not reject the project out of hand, but if the dialogue continues, the applicant would need to make some serious compromises to make it work. - Bill: Expressed willingness to continue the discussion. If a PDZ is pursued there would be a lot of discussion and negotiating. Before he makes a decision he would like to more information and investigation, including photos/illustrations, economic figures, and a field trip to the site. He suggested the committees schedule a field trip sometime soon. - Phil Maguire: Asked about the Town’s process and what was the quickest they could get a preliminary vote or recommendation indicating the Town’s intent/interest in the project and whether they should move forward with this plan or not. - Rich: Explained that it would be the Town Board that would ultimately make the decision. - Bill: Explained that December 8th may be the soonest that the Planning Committee could report on a recommendation to the Town Board, and for the Board to make any decision on whether to continue down the road with the PDZ. Bill reiterated the types of information that the committee would be looking for and the desire along with needing to take a field trip to the site. - Rich: Added, following further discussion concerning the Town’s process, that given the magnitude of this project, and that it was only introduced to the Board on October 20th, and with the Planning Committee holding this special meeting, he felt the Town was moving uncharacteristically fast on this. The Committee agreed to schedule a special meeting in November (since the regular scheduled meeting would be on Thanksgiving) if they receive new materials for members to consider, including:
• Sales tax information
• Property tax information
• Images/Photos/Illustrations
To do – for Planning Committee:
• Walk property
4. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting to be determined. The Committee meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Phil Maguire, Maguire Automotive; Tom Schickel, Schickel Architect.
OTHERS: Pratik Ahir (Rodeway Inn); Kathy Hildreth (Greyhaven Motel) Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns: None reported.
2. Consider October meeting summary (tentative): - Minutes for September and October were not reviewed.
3. Continue discussion of Maguire Automotive proposal on Elmira Road/Seven Mile Drive: - Rich: Opened the meeting by recalling that at the October meeting members had alluded to questions and potential wish lists for the project. Rich suggested these be discussed. Also, from the last meeting, there were questions concerning tax implications, which Rich said he had done some investigating and would like to share. Rich stated that the initial concept drawings illustrated a lot of green space, but not a lot of cars. He asked the applicants if they had any materials that would show what the view would look like from Elmira Road and asked for the number of vehicles they intend to have on site. - Phil Maguire: Stated that the new project drawings/materials (provided at the Town Board meeting) were based on feedback they received, including interest in agriculture, the nice view from Route 13, as you enter the Town, and the car displays (on rocks). The materials and photos attempted to present examples and concepts in the spirit of what they could potentially do. - Rich: Responded that while the agricultural photos were appealing, they did not give him a sense of what placing 1000 cars on the site would look like. - Tom Schickel: Responded that the site is larger and more spread out than a typical dealership and therefore affords the opportunity to introduce a lot of landscaping. Referring to the drawings and photos, he explained how they related to the proposed concept plan, and described how certain areas would be masked from public view. He explained how the 1,025 parking spaces would be integrated into the site. He compared this site to the much smaller site (10 acres) in the City for their import store. He indicated that the City store had 20% open space, but much of it occurs in the back of the lot.
2
- Susan: Expressed concern with the project’s potential visual impact from Elmira Road given the very prominent location of the displayed cars as depicted in the concept plan. She provided large photos of the site, taken from Elmira Road, to help committee members visualize how the proposed plan would fit into the site. She particularly pointed out the 200-300 cars proposed in rows, some tiered on the existing gradual incline, and their apparent visibility from Elmira Road. She added that the grapevines proposed to be placed in the front of each of the rows of cars would not act as very good screens, especially in the winter when they would lose their leaves. She suggested that low walls or deciduous hedges would be act as better screens. She also asked about the size of the proposed buildings. - Tom Schickel: Responded that the total footprint of the buildings was roughly 105,000 sq. ft., with the largest building being around 43,000 sq. ft.; although these figures are still tentative. And in response to a Committee member question, he stated that the current import store in the City was 67,000 sq. ft. - Susan: Added that for comparison purposes the current Ithaca Beer facility is 17,000 sq. ft. - Herb: Stated that what was important to discuss at this point was whether an agreement in concept can be reached (by Committee/Board) for the proposal, and if there is an agreement, identify what might work, and then with the confidence to go forward with a PDZ process, work out the details. Herb said he would want to see a revised concept plan that reduced the dealership visibility from Elmira Road, something that was more subtle and provided an attractive approach to the dealership, rather than the “in your face” approach to the car dealership that currently exists in the City. The concept should have enough screening that someone driving by is aware of the dealership, but that it would not be visually jolting. It should be screened to such a degree that it is seen as a beautiful place as people drive by. He indicated less concern for screening upon entering the interior of the site. Herb also expressed concern with impacts to the nearby existing residences and suggested possibly moving the corporate headquarters and the “future” development site further away from Seven Mile Drive. He also indicated interest in leaving a large enough remainder of land so that it can still be viably farmed (rather than the proposed focus of fruit trees and other crops interspersed within the dealership site), especially given that this land was still being actively farmed. The other big issue needing to be addressed (through SEQR) is stormwater runoff; given the amount of impervious surfaces Herb thought this would be a big challenge for the project. - Rich: Shifted the discussion to economics and stated that he believed there were assumptions being touted about the economic benefits of the project to the Town that may not be true. He said he had done a considerable amount of research into the complexities of the county’s sales tax distribution formula and offered to share this information with the Committee. Rich explained that sales taxes generated in Tompkins County, outside the City, are handed over to the State, whereupon the State keeps half and half gets returned back to the County. Ultimately, a chunk of the money returned to the County is distributed to the towns, apportioned based on their populations. Rich further said that he had developed a spread sheet in order to ascertain the percentage of every revenue dollar in the County, outside the City, that goes to the Town. What he determined was that half a percent, or 0.579 cents of every dollar in sales goes to the Town. It does not matter where the sale occurs, as long as it is some place in the County (only the City retains the sales tax generated in the City). Similarly, it is not necessary for the proposed project to take place in the Town in order for the Town to benefit from the sales tax, as long as it is somewhere in the
3
County and outside the City. Rich did acknowledge that there is a property tax benefit, which the Committee can discuss further. - Phil Maguire: Responded that there is a sales tax benefit that would be realized from moving the existing operations from the City. He reported that their sales revenue is in excess of $240 million/year and that with the parts and service business having an 8% sales tax, 4% of that would come back to the County with a portion being distributed to the Town, rather than going entirely City, as it is now. - Rich: Asked how much of the business would be moved out of the City into the Town, versus how much already exists in the Town of Lansing that would be moved into the City. What is the additive benefit in the sales that would be generated for the Town as a result of this project? - Tom Schickel: Replied that in terms of dealerships, Fiat, Nissan, Hyundai, and Subaru would all be moved into the Town, with Chevrolet and Cadillac, whose sales tax are currently benefiting the Town, would be moving from Lansing into the City. - Phil Maguire: From the overall economic benefit standpoint, while the Town may not get a large percentage of the tax revenue, the overall switch of the 4% sales tax revenue going to the County from the City would be substantial. In addition, there is a hotel that will be replacing the Chevy Cadillac store, and the 150 employees needed for the new site, with an average wage that would equate to about $6 million in payroll, would have also have a beneficial economic affect. He also mentioned the benefit to the Town from the property tax component. - Rich: Stated that he wanted to be clear about what the benefits are because the Town is being asked to do something that was not contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan and will require considerable bending of the zoning. The project does not have to be built in the Town to generate the same amount of benefit. Theoretically, the development could be built anywhere else in the County, outside of the City, and the benefits derived to the Town would be the same. - Herb: Stated that it is likely safe to say that the Town would have several hundred thousand dollars more in revenue between sales and property tax revenue as a result of the project. - Rich: Disagreed with Herb supposition given the analysis that he had undertaken about the sales tax. In terms of property tax, Rich said he had talked with County Assessment staff to get an idea of what the property tax revenue might be. The current assessment of the import store in the City is $6.1 million and according to the Assessment Dept., while this dealership may be larger, the land itself is not going to be worth as much because it is not in the heart of the City. Assessment staff reported that the estimated costs of the development will not be reflected in the assessed value because, unlike residential property, business properties are assessed based on the value of what the business (dealership) would be worth to another similar business (dealership). For a rough calculation, Assessment staff advised Rich to use the same assessed value as the import store. Using $6.1 million, the townwide property tax would be approximately $12,000, highway tax $6,500, fire protection $21,000, for a rough total of $40,000 yearly property tax (using 2015 rates). Rich stated that this was considerably lower than what was reported in the materials. - Rod: Explained that he was trying to determine whether the project provided a good foundation—an anchor, so to speak-for what was envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Rod read the Inlet Valley Corridor character description from the new Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if the Town was to consider moving forward with the project he would want to make sure that we were laying out a foundation to further economic development in line with what was sketched out in the Plan.
4
Rod indicated that he liked the idea of the proposed trail between the two Town parks, but it raises some questions with the quid pro quo aspect of the deal in which the Town will be asked to take over ownership/maintenance of Ithaca Beer Drive. Rod summarized that his struggle was to determine whether other potential businesses (giving examples from the list provided by Planning staff of people who had inquired about locating in the corridor: i.e. potter, solar installation business, local chef farmer) would still be interested in moving to the area with the dealership located there. - Bill: Explained that he was thinking similarly as Rod. He further explained what he saw as limitations posed by Elmira Road for small business startups and that he envisioned a secondary road off Elmira Road that would be more attractive in terms of sidewalks for pedestrians and lower traffic speeds and volumes. He was trying to determine if the Town can “have its cake and eat it too”, and whether this proposal, that includes a proposed road linking to Ithaca Beer Drive, could provide some opportunities for smaller businesses to grow and thrive. He pointed out the difference in the amount of parking between the initial and revised proposal and asked whether all the parking shown was necessary. - Tom Schickel: Responded that it is hard for a business to survive without adequate parking. He also addressed the idea of locating businesses off Elmira Road and questioned the viability given that there are so many business options in the City further along on Elmira Road. - Bill: Responded that the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee was planning to talk with others, such as TCAD staff, about options for developing new businesses in this area to see what is realistic. He used the example of the Gourd Workshop at EcoVillage as a successful business off the beaten path and added that with apps on people’s phones nowadays, you can be easily found. With Ithaca Beer potentially generating foot traffic and visitors, the question is whether the auto mall would also serve to attract (or not) small businesses to this area. He also stated that he liked the idea of having a café as part of the project and supports the trail connection. He added that the future Black Diamond Trail will one day be located on the other side of Elmira Road, posing additional opportunities. - Rich: Stated that he would find it useful to know what the offset is between what is intended to be moved from the City into the Town, compared to what is being moved from the Town of Lansing into the City—to clarify potential tax benefits. He agrees with Rod and Bill that we need to answer the question as to whether this is going to generate the development envisioned by the multi-year planning process. He stated that the development idea had come up rather suddenly and the ink has not even dried on the Comprehensive Plan yet, so it is going to be difficult to turn on a dime and consider something so entirely different from what the Plan envisioned. - Phil Maguire: Suggested asking Michael Stamm of TCAD to undertake an economic impact analysis of the development. Phil said he will inquire about this. - Rich: Suggested that he ask Michael Stamm to do any analysis in consultation with planning staff because the Town is intending to look for a particular type of economic activity, not just the net dollars and cents. - Herb: Stated that in terms of process, he thought the most important thing was to determine if there is enough interest on the part of the committee to make a recommendation to the Town Board, since there is no way we can approve anything by December 8th.
5
- Phil Maguire: Asked about the Town’s time line for the project, to help them make some decisions. Committee members, staff, and the developer discussed the various aspects in the approval process, SEQR, zoning, PDZ approval process, and the time this could take. - Phil Maguire: Stated that it would be helpful to know if there is support for the car dealership. - Herb: Raised the idea of proposing a resolution to the Town Board. - Rich: Stated that he would defer to legal counsel on this as this is a potentially slippery slope to commit the Town to supporting the project. - Tom Schickel: Asked when such a commitment could be provided? - Herb: Responded that at the December 8th Town Board meeting the members could discuss and consider providing a recommendation on whether to go forward or not. The Planning Committee members expressed support for putting this on the December 8th Town Board agenda for further discussion. The Committee and staff continued to explain the approval process and timeline, along with potential issues involved in drafting a PDZ versus a straight-up rezoning.
4. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: None scheduled at this time. The Committee meeting adjourned at approximately 6:45 pm with no other business.