HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2024-09-16 Town of Ithaca Planning Committee
Monday September 16,2024
(3:00 PM Aurora Conference Room and on Zoom)
Minutes
Committee members present: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Rod Howe, Margaret Johnson
Board/Staff members: Director of Planning C.J. Randall; Director of Codes Marty Moseley; Town
Planner Nick Quilty-Koval; Senior Town Planner Chris Balestra; Director of Engineering Dave O'Shea.
Guests. Maplewood 11 project team on Zoom and in person including Jacob von Mechow, Scott
Whitham, Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture; Henry Weinberg& Dan Gellarmini, CBT
Architects, Drew Beckham; Cornell University, David Herrick, TG Miller.
Conifer-West Hill TND Team including Scott Whitham, Mary Martin & Mugdha Mallareddy, Whitham
Planning Design Landscape Architecture; Kevin Day, Conifer; Bear Smith, Holt Architects; David
Herrick, TG Miller.
1. Persons to be heard: None.
2. Committee announcements and concerns: None
3.Approval of August meeting minutes: Rod moved, Margaret seconded. The August 15, 2024,
minutes were approved as presented. 3 Ayes.
4. Continue review of Maplewood II development Planned Development Zone (PDZ) rezoning
proposal. A revised redlined rendition of the PDZ language showing the changes based on the last
meeting feedback was discussed. Scott Whittam introduced the design team and Jacob gave a brief
overview of the changes which were clarification in language, specifically related to building height and
other items. Rich noted additions such as community gardens and dog park to the allowed uses in the
Open Space areas after the site visit and discussions. The definition and purpose of Neighborhood local
street was further clarified per planning request and the previously presented travel area width from the
center line was 13ft to accommodate emergency access vehicles . Maintenance of the Multi use trail
was said to be available to be used year-round by the onsite property manager although was not written
in the section specifically. The parts in the Town ROW would remain the Towns responsibility.
In the Performance Standards section 271-18.5 A (2-a) , Marty suggested removing "as defined by
Building Code of NYS" for clarity, due to the average grade plane definition already being defined
previously. One additional change item noted by Marry that the dog park definition and intent must
match, adding "and play"into the into the intent bullet"A dog park intended for exercise of dogs"
would achieve the goal.
The height of the buildings was the last site component discussed. Additional renderings showing the
proposed buildings with the existing Maplewood development buildings shown were shared on screen
along with slides of each building and how the maximum height will be calculated with average grade
planes lines shown. Rich expressed his concern with the tallness of the tallest building on Maple Ave
being intrusive and cavernous and could open up the possibility for a similar building on the vacant land
1
across the street. The one-story difference, minimal setback with the slope and grade increased the
concern from Rich, however Rod and Margaret did not express height concerns with the proposed
buildings in the area proposed, her setback concern was reduced after the onsite visit and the sidewalk
width seemed appropriate with the fast street traffic that happens. CJ did not express concerns with the
height relative to the adjacent property and surrounding area and design of the proposed project. She
noted the Planning Department has had meaningful discussions on aesthetics, material and massing,
neighborhood pattern along with design elements and a building similar to proposed building A in the
future on the opposite side of the street would not be bad from the density and overall planning
standpoint of the project. Chris added that she has prepared draft language as part of the Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) that has some potential architectural amendments in hopes to give the
perception of a shorter building height as well as a few other amendments on visual impacts of the
buildings that the public will see on from the road. The visual impact of the interior of the project are not
considered in the EAF. The Planning board has members with architectural backgrounds that may help
add to the proposed design element changes.
It was proposed that further discussion and changes could be deferred until further review by the
Planning Board or input could be sought from the Board on the PDZ language specifically for additional
feedback. Staff noted they will begin the environmental review process on 9/17/24 assuming they
declare Lead Agency status at the beginning, which is anticipated. The committee agreed to await any
feedback or changes as the Planning Board moves through the Environmental Review process,
specifically referring the PDZ language as it is drafted currently, and pick back up with the PDZ again
on the committee level at the next meeting prior to final recommendation to the Town Board.
5.West Hill (Conifer) Traditional Neighborhood Development staff impressions and Public
Outreach Meeting Summary for the West Hill TND Design Charrette #1. Mary shared a summary
of the main concerns from their Design Team gathered from the charrette along with a detailed report.
Town Staff also shared a document containing comments on the strengths and weakness of the first
charrette approach and recommendations for future charrette(s). A list of the specific concerns heard
from charrette attendees was attached to the staff memo as well. C.J. went over this document in detail
after the summary from the design team.
Summary as presented by the design team:
Main concerns were related to environmental preservation of the wooded area and existing natural
elements, existing stormwater issues and street access.
Updates are that the second Charrette is delayed. A meeting was held with the City's Project
Coordination Committee (PCC) on 9/10/24. More time is needed based on the staff and charrette
attendee feedback in between the two charrettes for additional research to be done on traffic and street
access options and within that time, transportation stakeholder meetings will take place along with
meetings on infrastructure and financing. An open house/office hours' idea has been proposed for
specific questions prior to the next Charrette as well. Two site design concepts will be shown at the
second Charrette.
A general timeframe to move forward was proposed for the additional team meetings over the months of
September and October with the second Charrette (format to be determined-two day, office hours, etc)
possibly in November and a late concept review to wrap up the year in December 2024.
2
Committee feedback was to show examples of existing mixed-use neighborhoods to help the potential
residents envision not leaving their neighborhood for services,reach out to Linderman Creek for
community feedback, explore the alternate street access options. Staff feedback was detailed in the
memo and discussed as well, housing market research, transportation and stakeholder meetings,
infrastructure ITCTC, Town/City Engineering, Town DPW,NYS DOT meetings prior to presenting
again to the public in the Charrette form.
Kevin noted future Attorney review of documents needed related to a Town owned 60ft. wide
easement/ROW (noted on maps as Riley Drive) as depicted on Official Town Map to be taken into
consideration.
6. Staff updates and reports.
C.J. updated on the following:
A question was raised whether the committee would like to explore adding exemptions to the existing
Town Code relative to Short-term rental uses?A brief discussion was possibly exemptions would be
appropriate in pre-existing homes, in Conservation Zones on large lots with adequate setbacks. The
committee was not opposed to this being explored further by staff researching issues that have come
before the Zoning Board, meet with Codes Staff and map parcel sizes for representations were some
recommendations. Not every circumstance was envisioned when this law was written, and it was also
noted that the language won't be reinvented for every unique circumstance that comes up.
A list/spreadsheet or queue with potential re-zoning requests listed will be developed for the Planning
Committee to update on potential projects,preference and also related to the town's overall goals. Pre
PEZ list for list to be kept current as these projects come in and out.
The large number of public comments related to the Conifer Charrette were shared with the committee
and noted. C.J. stated she is meeting the City Planning Director to determine whether a joint town/city
follow-up statement should be released.A link to the project website is shared on the town website for
further public information as well.
Safe Streets For All project updates were a link on the CLEAR findings map was shared with the
committee. Complete Streets Policy, Vison Zero, Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and a possibly
needing a new Board resolution were items mentioned. Margaret asked for further information on the
upcoming multi jurisdictional meetings and C.J. will share the schedule.
No movement on T-GEN/PSC.
7.Next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: Thursday October 17, 2024, 3:00 p.m. Margaret
will confirm if she can attend.
The Town of Ithaca Planning Committee meeting concluded at 4:24 p.m.
3