Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-06-24Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, June 24, at 4:30 p.m. * Study Sessions are meetings of the Town Board which generally focus on committee reports and informational presentations. Time sensitive action items may be scheduled when needed. Please contact the Town Clerk's office at 273-1721 or Dterwilliser(ia)town.ithaca.nv.us with any questions. Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting 3. Consider Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract 4. Continue Review of Comprehensive Plan MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD Monday,June 24, at 4:30 p.m. Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe Absent: Eric Levine Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Dan Tasman, Planner Meeting was called to order at 4:32p.m Agenda Item 1 Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting Mr. DePaolo asked about the Village of Cayuga Heights Fire Contract and whether there was an out clause in case we go with a different option for fire protection and Mr. Engman responded that there was and that we have purposely made the contracts with the Village of Cayuga Heights and the City of Ithaca end at the same time. He added that Varna has decided they could not provide the service right now. Mr. DePaolo also asked about the amicus brief and if we know there will be an appeal. Mr. Engman responded that an appeal has been applied for but it would have to be moved forward by the court and there is skepticism that that will happen. Agenda Item 2 Consider Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract—Moved to end Agenda Item 3 Continue Review of Comprehensive Plan Established Neighborhood Discussed began with Mr. DePaolo questioning the second sentence: "No significant changes to the character of established neighborhoods will be initiates as a result of this plan." He asked if this was a prediction or a promise. Mr. Tasman responded that because "character"is a nebulous concept and what one person may think a certain in-fill or project changes the character another may think it does not. The overall character of the neighborhood is intended to stay the same with no radically incompatible uses. The word"initiated"was replaced with"anticipated." Mr. DePaolo asked about the statement "Commercial use should be restricted" and asked if that applied to larger scale commercial businesses rather than simple home-businesses and Mr. Tasman responded yes. Mr. DePaolo turned to the statement"Sidewalks should line all streets."And he did not feel that sidewalks are appropriate for all neighborhoods. He stated that he could not envision sidewalks on the road pictured below the statement and he felt there are a lot of neighborhoods in the Town that have lawns right up to the street and there is not a lot of competition in the road space 6-24-2013 Adopted 7-8-2013 1 between pedestrians and motorists in a lot of areas so the blanket statement is not applicable. He suggested something along the lines of"sidewalks should be considered for areas where there is significant pedestrian traffic in competition with other modes of transportation within the roadway footprint" so that if you have the situation where pedestrians are in conflict with other modes of traffic, in existing neighborhoods, you would take that into consideration. In new neighborhoods you could plan it and decide, but this is in existing neighborhoods. Some discussion followed and the sentence was replaced with Mr. DePaolo's suggestion. Mr. DePaolo turned to the last sentence: "Streets with limited or no interconnectivity are strongly discouraged."He felt that this statement was not applicable because how can we discourage something that is already there when we are talking about established neighborhoods. He asked if we were talking about the expansion of these neighborhoods and he suggested that the word "existing"be inserted before the word "streets." Discussion followed. The word"expansion" was agreed upon. Ms. Ritter will fix the end of the paragraph to flow with the change. Ms. Leary did not agree with the sentence: Commercial uses should be restricted, to ensure the viability of new mixed use neighborhood centers in other districts." She felt this was not a good policy and implied that we are encouraging people to get in their cars to get to commercial uses. She suggested the sentence "Commercial uses should be scaled to the neighborhood." so it wouldn't be a commercial development that attracted people from outside but rather neighborhood-oriented commercial uses should be fine in existing neighborhoods. Discussion followed on the suggestion. Mr. Tasman felt the word"restricted" allows the town to really look at a business and if you took the 2nd part of the sentence that might be better. The Board felt that "restricted"was much firmer than"limited"which gives some leeway. Board decided on "Commercial uses should be limited."with the remaining part of the sentence deleted. New Neighborhood Mr. DePaolo began with the paragraph under"Location:" and asked for a definition, geographically, what is meant by the "South Hill area in the vicinity of Ithaca College, ouside of the South Hill Center district" Ms. Ritter pointed it out on the map. Mr. DePaolo moved on. Mr. Goodman asked how the Committee arrived at the time for the phrase "within a 10 minute walk and Ms. Ritter and Mr. Tasman responded that it is the accepted standard for a neighborhood. Some discussion followed on changing it to 15 minutes, but the Board was okay with leaving it. Ms. Hunter had a question about pg 53 under Residential Density and the percentage of 10-20% and what the rationale was? Mr. Tasman responded that it is quality vs quantity noting that right now most open space in developments are buffers and they don't function as part of the public realm for anything but a buffer and we are looking at creating spaces that will not only have a maximum density,but a minimum density because if you have too much in one area it defeats the purpose also. Discussion followed and the Board agreed to up the higher end of the range to 25%. 6-24-2013 Adopted 7-8-2013 2 Enterprise Zone Mr. DePaolo asked about the picture next to the statement "attractive complex of related..." The Board suggested switching the two pictures which would imply a best/worst listing. Campus Mr. DePaolo asked if the colleges' comments regarding this language was reflected here and Ms. Ritter responded that they were discussed at the Committee level and changes were made to an extent, but we did not give them everything they wanted. Words such as Institution were discussed at the committee level and the word Campus now applies to other businesses such as hospitals and things like the South Hill Business Campus and that is the intent; not all places or areas owned by a college or business, but the core or campus-like area. Neighborhood Center Mr. Goodman started by saying that this section goes back to the 10 minute walk because you have it both to the neighborhood center and to the new neighborhood and it is confusing. Mr. Tasman said the Neighborhood Center does not necessarily refer to the center of a New Neighborhood. Ms. Ritter added that a Neighborhood Center could stand alone. Discussion followed and the idea is main street with residential and a core of commercial. The difference seems to be in the density. The idea for both are the same but the Neighborhood Center is more commercial. Mr. Howe thought the pictures and the locations are important and the ones shown are in Colorado and people may look and find we don't match. Mr. Tasman felt this is a really hard area to match because of our landscape and our demographics and this is what he has found. Mr. Howe responded that his reaction is that these places are near much more urbanized areas and this amplifies the confusion between what is meant by New Neighborhood and Neighborhood Center. Mr. Engman added that this is what Cornell is proposing for the East Hill area. Mr. Howe asked if the two had to be separate sections and Mr. Tasman said they do and you have to get away from thinking the New Neighborhood has a Main Street. More discussion followed. Mr. Goodman suggested that the word"center"in the description: ...within a ten minute walk to a mixed use center..."be thought about and Mr. Tasman responded that replacing "center"with "area"might help. New Neighborhood is like Gimme Coffee and Kinney Drugs on Aurora St whereas Neighborhood Center is more like East Hill Plaza area. The change was agreed to. Inlet Valley Corridor Mr. DePaolo noted that "sidewalks on all streets"is listed again and do we still want that. Discussion followed and Mr. Engman suggested eliminating the word"all"because absolutes are difficult to achieve and not always desirable. Ms. Hunter stated that she envisions sidewalks behind or set back and Mr. Tasman said that the word sidewalk does not necessarily mean right beside the street. Area of Special Concern—Emerson Mr. DePaolo was surprised there is no mention of the issue at the site and this is a best case scenario and he would be more comfortable if we mention that this is a Class 2 Super Fund and 6-24-2013 Adopted 7-8-2013 3 before we can entertain any of this potential development that will have to be dealt with. He also thought that this is our opportunity to draw the line to say what we think should happen in terms of high-density development here. Mr. Engman suggested putting"this development would be dependent on remediation of the site" and Mr. DePaolo stated that he had wording that he pulled from the DEC site and the proposed remedial action plan for the site: "the site is listed as a Class 2 Site in the State Registry of inactive hazardous waste sites (list of Super Fund sites). A Class 2 Site represents a significant threat to public health or the environment; action is required. The Board decided to put that under"Purpose." Country Club Mr. Engman noted that this was a long discussion with the Committee and Mr. DePaolo started the conversation with replacing the word"folds"with closes but the overall idea that this area which would otherwise be considered prime area for infill development would remain public space instead did not make sense and he wanted to know the Committee's reasoning. Ms. Ritter said there were many ideas but the two options of infill or open space that is already there were the main. She felt that there should be some development allowed and Mr. Engman stated that that was the compromise. The section near Cayuga Heights was identified as an area where you could have infill without influencing the major open space because the feeling was we will never get more open space in this highly developed area and the thought was to protect it. The other consideration was that the most likely buyer of the property would be Cornell and therefore we want to give an indication that we value that open space and prefer to think ahead and encourage our vision of where development should happen and preserving some open space. The Board looked at the Future Land Use Map and Mr. Tasman brought a conceptual plan he had drawn. There was some disagreement on the drawing brought in by Mr. Tasman as Mr. Engman felt the Committee was clear on which end they wanted to see developed and this concept map does not reflect the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Ritter stated that the Committee just made the area purple and did not do a development concept map. Ms. Hunter asked if we have the authority to say where development happens on a piece of property and Mr. Tasman said we do not have an Open Space category because that would imply we don't want open space except there. The Board looked at the language and the 3rd paragraph notes where the development should happen without getting into detail which leaves it open and the Land Use Map shows it as purple. Future Land Use Map Ms. Ritter explained the difference between a future land use map and a zoning map. A future land use map is more character based to show a vision and the zoning is based off of that vision and gets into more detail. Categories are tied into zoning maps and character is tied into land use maps. The key is to remember that land use does not have set boundaries or follow parcel lines whereas a zoning map when it's finished may follow parcel lines and have set boundaries. Mr. DePaolo thought the central tenant of the Plan is to prioritize infill opportunities where there is existing water and sewer right? Ms. Ritter responded that it is where water service is, where pressure is available and the tanks are such to provide the pressure. Mr. Engman clarified that there is some infill we are talking about where a slight extension may be necessary but he was 6-24-2013 Adopted 7-8-2013 4 right in that is a central discussion item. Mr. DePaolo said his other question has to do with the idea of all of these areas appearing in what is essentially a 15-year plan. He added that we went through this with the traffic study and all the conceptual plans of this area to generate hypothetical traffic figures and they were based on a 50-80 year build out and some of those suppositions may have made their way into this Plan which is a much shorter time spam. Ms. Ritter responded that we are setting the stage for the future. For example, say there is an area that you think is appropriate for development in 25 years; you wouldn't want to zone it Conservation because you could get large-lot development which would render it not appropriate for denser development and you have then lost the opportunity for denser development. We have to put it out there as how we want the Town to develop over the next century and then work from there because we are trying to protect the Ag lands and Conservation areas and want to keep the development closer to the City while not running out of it. Mr. Tasman added that right now we have a lot of medium density areas that were not developed to their potential so we have areas of inefficient patterns that can't be corrected now in certain areas. We do not know when individual property owners are going to decide to sell or develop so you have to think about how much you restrict. Mr. DePaolo agreed with that concept but he did not recall where that was spelt out in the Plan; that the Plan is depicting a longer time frame than the likelihood of them becoming a reality. This is a stage setting for growth projecting that extends far beyond the period of this Plan. It is a little bit disconcerting to see the pictures and think this is going to happen NOW. Ms. Hunter asked what happens if our needs change in 30 years and we want to down-zone? Ms. Ritter responded that this Plan will be reviewed and re- evaluated every 15-20 years just like now and changes can be made. You need a good reason for down-zoning but it can be done. Ms. Hunter was concerned that we are not sure what is going to happen but we are planning for it and if we densify now and then don't want it what happens. Mr. Tasman and Ms. Ritter responded that we would down zone it with reasons from those changes in needs and population etc. Mr. Howe asked how much of this transects with the next section about form-based codes and does that provide the foundation? Ms. Ritter thought that was mostly about the built environment and how we want the change; in the past we have had a lot of emphasis on the ag and conservation and protecting those areas and our focus now is more on how we are going to make these places better places to live. She didn't think we thought about that as much in 1993; a lot of focus on open space, conservation and agricultural initiatives and not how we can live in them and this section tells how we are going to go about doing that. Mr. Howe continued, saying he assumed there would be more public hearings and the Minority Report (Report) would come up and he wondered what the main tensions were with the Report versus the Plan? Ms. Ritter responded that one of the things the Report is saying is we are going to be developing in the next 15 years all of those areas and this notion that there will be this huge population growth that does not follow trends. There are inaccuracies and misinformation in the Report. Mr. Howe thought that would be important when this comes back to the public and have the tenets of the Plan in a more narrative form. The Planning department has a fact checking document prepared on the Report. 6-24-2013 Adopted 7-8-2013 5 Mr. Engman had a question about the section over near Pine Tree Road and he thought the preserves were missing. Ms. Ritter said there is a blip of green there but maybe it should be bigger. Mr. Engman then talked about the area between Troy and Coddington Roads because there is a big difference in ideas for that area depending on who you talk to. Discussion on specific areas Mr. DePaolo stayed with the Coddington/Troy Rd area(orange on the map) stating that he thought it looked like a patchwork of new neighborhoods and the new area is surrounded by rural residential and it doesn't seem to fit with any of the tenets of the Plan. It is essentially a residential outpost. There is nothing there that you could walk to. Discussion followed and Ms. Ritter said that it was more a planning thought and would there be an opportunity in the future that we don't want to lose. There are few contiguous large parcels in the Town so the option is there. Discussion followed on an idea that had been brought to the Town in its infancy stages for a 2-phased muth-unit rental development and Ms. Ritter and Mr. Tasman said that is exactly what the Plan does not endorse or support. Mr. DePaolo just didn't know how this particular area is the best spot for this category. Mr. Goodman talked about the balance between being a little more exact while leaving some flexibility. Some of the spots look daunting because there are already houses or telephone wire there so that will never get built but the coloring makes it look like it would. Mr. Engman noted that this is the same conversation the Committee had and this was the compromise they came up with, so unless there is some alternative suggested we should take the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. DePaolo asked where the 10-minute destination was for this New Neighborhood and Mr. Tasman responded that that destination would be in the development as proposed. The map is conceptual not actual in all cases. Mr. Engman brought the topic back to closing the section out and Mr. DePaolo stated that he would like to hear Mr. Levine's take on it since he lives there and the Board agreed. Mr. Goodman moved to another section of South Hill and the New Neighborhood around the Neighborhood Center and the semi-rural area and Ms. Ritter responded that that is the monastery so in some cases it looks like we are taking the "as it is on the ground" and there is another anomaly of yellow further out and Mr. Ritter responded that there is a Unique Natural Area and some very swampy land and she knew the owner of a lot of that land are interested in keeping it as it is for the foreseeable future. Mr. Howe asked about West Hill and why there is not a Neighborhood Center there and Mr. Engman responded that the original idea was for nodal development there but as they looked at it, all along one side were institutions or campus' and they struggled with where you could put a Center because it would have to be on the one side of the road and there is no room for commercial so instead they looked at placing a New Neighborhood that could be connected to the existing neighborhood and mitigate some of the traffic. Ms. Hunter noted that there is very little connectivity between the East side and the West side of West Hill. Ms. Ritter added that there are a lot of people that work up there between all those businesses. Nothing organically has made it up there. Unlike South Hill where people are coming or going from Danby and have nothing out there, small scale commercial has organically sprung up and made a go of it. 6-24-2013 Adopted 7-8-2013 6 Mr. DePaolo also noted the Conservation Areas noted in the Sapsucker Woods area and the sliver that connects the two areas seems suspiciously small. Mr. Tasman stated that the small connection is denoted as a bit larger in the next iteration. Mr. DePaolo asked how the presentation for the Biggs property development went and Mr. Engman responded that it was a superb presentation with the applicant and the County doing a great job defending the project. There were a number of people who said this is a good idea. Ms. Ritter added that there were a lot of questions and concerns expressed. Ms. Hunter asked about a bus stop and Ms. Ritter responded that there is a bus stop in front of the professional building and they are promising a walkway and that distance is closer than what some kids have to walk to catch a school bus. Agenda Item Town of Ithaca Abstract Mr. DePaolo asked about the voucher for an appraisal in the abstract and whether that was the anticipated and usual amount. Mr. Engman and Ms. Ritter responded that it was and it was a rather involved appraisal due to topography and special species and habitats TB Resolution No. 2013 - 095 ; Town of Ithaca Abstract Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 3849 - 3936 General Fund Town wide 31,530.52 General Fund Part Town 1,144.27 Highway Fund Part Town 22,827.44 Water Fund 459,292.27 Sewer Fund 4,387.21 Fire Protection Fund 264,792.00 TOTAL 783,973.71 Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes - Goodman, Howe, Engman, Leary, Hunter and DePaolo Meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second at 7:00 p.m. Subm erw 6-24-2013 Adopted 7-8-2013