Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 2023-04-20 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2023 at 3:00 P.M. Meeting Location: Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga Street, Aurora Conference Room (Enter from the rear entrance of Town Hall, adjacent employee parking lot.) Members of the public may also join the meeting virtually via Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/6750593272. AGENDA 1. Persons to be heard. 2. Committee announcements and concerns. 3. Consider approval of March meeting minutes. 4. Continue consideration of request for a Limited Historic Commercial Overlay District for 130 Forest Home Dr. 5. Discussion: 2007 Transportation Plan and 2014 Comprehensive Plan Transportation (TR) implementation review. 6. Staff updates and reports. 7. Discuss next meeting date and upcoming agenda items. A quorum of the Ithaca Town Board may be present, however, no official Board business will be conducted. 1 Town of Ithaca Planning Committee Thursday, March 16, 2023 (3:00 PM Aurora Conference Room and on Zoom) DRAFT Minutes Committee members: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Rod Howe; Margaret Johnson. Board/Staff members: Director of Planning C.J. Randall; Senior Planner Mike Smith; Town Civil Engineer Justin McNeal; Director of Code Enforcement Marty Moseley (4:00 p.m. arrival) Guests: via Zoom: Vicky Wu, Noah Demarest, Robert Mitchell, Bruce Brittain. 1. Committee announcements and concerns: None 2. Approval of February meeting minutes: Rod moved; Rich seconded. The February 16, 2023, minutes were approved with one minor correction. 3. Limited Historic Commercial Overlay District request-130 Forest Home Dr. Noah Demarest and property owner Vicky Wu presented a draft request for Limited Historic Commercial Zone designation. This document included a Narrative with a brief section on historic significance, description of proposed limited commercial use, compatibility with neighboring properties and uses section, and a description on how the proposed use will promote preservation. The next section was a Conditions Assessment with of the overall exterior existing conditions and a Preservation Plan for restoration/repair of deficiencies. Several photos were also included for reference. The committee went through each section as well as comments submitted by the Code Enforcement Director to the Planning Director and committee members. The comments were overall related to the need for a deficiency list timeline or summary table to prioritize and identify specifics (such as who, how often, replacement examples, etc.). The terms “may need to be” also was noted as being problematic. The Feasibility paragraph noted a parking space deficiency that was brought up as well as items not of contributing historic significance visible from the exterior or not, being replaced or repaired-should those be listed in the report as ongoing maintenance. There was no opposition from the committee for the general request. It was suggested the language be revised and resubmitted to the committee after meeting with the Director of Code Enforcement (who arrived after the conclusion of this agenda item). 4. Persons to be heard: Bruce Brittain commented informally that he did not see any problem with the continuation of the mixed residential/commercial existing use of 130 Forest Home Drive as requested by the property owner. A past neighborhood concern of number of students from the apartment rentals was noted. He also mentioned there may be historic photos of the building in the Cornell archives. 5. Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor needs and Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs maps. C.J. explained she reviewed the committees’ 2022 discussions on the 2007 Transportation Plan’s respective maps, Map 11: Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs and Map 12: Prioritized Bicycle 2 Corridor Needs. Some of the recommended projects therein are either no longer relevant or have been completed. C.J. passed out copies of the adopted Complete Streets Policy (adopted by the town on April 13, 2015) to committee members with questions on how it is being phased in and implemented into design and where it ties into the broader effort. She stated this could be a framework or initiative as well as for the town to inform the countywide Safe Streets 4 All Safety Action Plan process just getting underway (or update the Town Transportation Plan in the future). Combining the policy and all the current funding, initiatives, and previous prioritization efforts to develop an updated version of the aforementioned maps. In summary, C.J. mentioned putting together a chart with the project costs, prioritization, upcoming funding potential and coordination with other municipalities with what can be put into the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Action Plan. Margaret was in favor of comparing the plans to the updated policy and then updating the plan to align with the policy and mentioned there are sidewalk or walkway priorities also that done correspond with streets to keep in mind with the transportation plan updates. She also recalled the progress made with the priorities prior and the addition of a possible equity screen into the criteria list to give more points for areas leading to and from low-income areas. Road specifications/profiles were noted as an important factor as well as trails/parks and preserves considerations. Layering all the above topics and factors together including the Comprehensive Plan goals can inform further Transportation planning and implementation. C.J. mentioned review of implementation status for the next meeting (a lookback what has been done since the 2007 Transportation Plan as well as 2014 Comp Plan’s Transportation section.) A draft will be sent to the committee for comments. Rich briefly reviewed the information and text from the 2007 Transportation Plan Pedestrian Corridor needs map, noting the updates and revisions needed similar to the previous discussion. He referenced the minutes for details if needed but all agreed this was to be updated and revisited. The long- and short-term goal of 10 years was mentioned, is that still considered short. Margaret noted in regard to the updating of the transportation plan, involving people outside the Town Boards and committees would be beneficial. A vision for the committee structure is needed, she suggested adding this to the agenda for the next meeting to get this started. Rod noted fully starting the ad hoc committee in the fall. C.J. asked for a scope of work for the project and all agreed that would begin with the Town Planning Committee. 6. Potential Conservation Easements (282 Hayts Road and Hayts/Sheffield/Bundy Rds.) Mike Smith gave a summary of the information he provided to the committee regarding two new applications to the town for potential participation in the Town’s Agricultural Land Preservation Program. The three existing properties participating in the program were noted, maps and detailed information were provided by each applicant and staff. One initial appraisal cost estimate was also included. State grant funding will be investigated. 3 The Committee did not express any concerns or opposition about the applications moving forward to the Town Board for preparation of formal appraisals for both properties and proceed with the process. 7. Staff updates and reports: C.J. reported consultants are beginning to be sought and then reviewed for the Safe Streets 4 All (SS4A) countywide Safety Action Plan. The formal request process is being initiated by the City for the (mostly) countywide planning study. She alerted Public Works and Engineering of the need for their involvement and input needed as well. Nothing new on the RaNic PDZ has been submitted. C.J. will follow up. Rod noted some beginning discussions for another potential new conservation/preserve area in the South Hill area in the town. Communication with County Planning is taking place and County grant funding will be looked into. More information will follow as details finalize, a subdivision would be needed as well. 8. Next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: April 20th, 2023. Revised draft of Forest Home LHC Preservation Plan and application, Update on streets/transportation/sidewalk- pedestrian needs/comp plan/park/trail priority chart(s), Transportation Plan update committee structure and scope. The Town of Ithaca Planning Committee meeting concluded at 5:00 pm. 130 Forest Home Drive Request for Limited Historic Commercial Zone designation Town of Ithaca, New York Date: 2023.04.11 Section 270-142.3 C(1): Narrative Historic Significance: Per section 270-142.3A(3), the building qualifies for rezoning by being a contributing building to the Forest Home Historic District, which was identified in the Town of Ithaca Historic Resources Survey. As a contributing building to an historic dis trict, it is eligible to be listed in State and National historic registers, though it is not currently. The new owner intends to maintain the building in accordance with the historic standards of the district, and in compliance with the proposed zone designation, per the preservation plan that follows. The building is a 2-1/2 story wood framed structure with a stucco exterior on the first floor and painted wood shakes on the upper stories, similar to many buildings in the district dating from the late 19 th and early 20th centuries. The street-facing facades are symmetrically organized and well balanced, and the steeply pitched roof features two prominent dormers on the east and west roof faces. A later one-story addition (meeting room in plan) and a steel fire escape on the east side facing the parking lot, though not particularly attractive, are innocuous enough to allow the original building to be discerned and appreciated. Similarly, a 2-story addition off the back (north side) is minimally visible from Forest Home Drive and does not detract from the original building. The existing exterior appears to have been well maintained and is in good condition. Description of proposed limited commercial use: Proposed Use: The new owner (applicant) proposes to use the building as a professional office, which is allowed by special permit in the LHC zone, to run her real estate and property management business. Feasibility: The building easily accommodates the proposed use without significant alteration. The first floor of the building is already set up as an office space, having been the previous location of the offices of the Ramin Administration Center (Cornell University) in approximately 1760 net sf of space, which included 4 individual offices (three of which are large enough for 2-3 people), a front reception/office area, meeting room, break room, storage spaces and toilet rooms. The building is set up for mixed use, with the upper 2 floors containing four residential units. The property also has 9 existing parking spaces. Though this is 6 short of the 15 required by zoning, the building has operated in the past without any parking issues given i ts close proximity to Cornell. The applicant intends to convert one part of the space on the first floor into a laundry room for the residential tenants, eliminating any need to drive to a laundromat and reducing the square footage dedicated to the office use. The attached plan shows one possible laundry location; however, the f inal laundry room location is yet to be determined. The office suite will be arranged to allow for the care of the owner’s 2 young children, with one former individual office being converted to a playroom/break room. This arrangement would result in a lowe r intensity of commercial use than the previous office space, presumably also reducing parking demand. Compatibility with neighboring properties and uses: The building is similar in architectural style and building footprint to the surrounding single-family homes. Being constructed later than many of its 1-1/2 story or low 2-story neighbors, it has two full height stories with a taller 12/12 roof with large 130 Forest Home Drive - 2 of 10 gabled dormers. Though taller than its neighbors, its position at a n offset intersection of 3 streets, with an open parking area to the east, creates open street space on 3 sides which tends to mitigate its height. Being at the meeting of Forest Home Drive, Judd Falls Road, and The Byway, which could be considered the heart of Forest Home, places it in a prominent central position that supports a use that differs from its single -family neighbors, making it an appropriate location for some kind of commercial use. The past and proposed use of the building as a mixed-use office and apartment structure is a use that blends well with single- family homes, in that the office is a quiet daytime activity that will not generate excessive traffic or parking demand, nor affect the quiet nature of the neighborhood, unlike a bar or pub. The apartments complement the surrounding single-family homes by allowing a mix of incomes and demographics to live in the neighborhood, which prevents it from being an exclusionary enclave. Though constructed after the neighborhood’s heyday as a mill hamlet, this structure is the last remnant of Forest Home’s mixed-use past which included mills (light industrial uses) along The Byway and Forest Home Drive adjacent to Fall Creek, and housing for workers employed at those establishments . How the proposed use will promote preservation: Alteration of the existing building to convert the first-floor office use to a residential use would be an excessive financial burden to the applicant, both in terms of construction cost (+/- $350,000 based on a $200/sf) and the acquisition of a different property in which to locate her office. Furthermore, a conversion to a fully residential use would likely result in some modification of the exterior which may compromise the historic integrity of the building . The building would still require a use variance (or rezoning from MDR to MR) to allow a multiple-residence to exist in this location. The building is too large (just over 7000sf of floor area) to convert to a single-family residence at any reasonable cost. Rezoning to LHC would ensure that the exterior remains in its present condition and would preserve the applicant’s financial resources for ongoing maintenance of historic features. A use variance (either for a multiple -residence or office use), or rezoning to MR, would not offer the protections that rezoning to LHC would grant to the community with regard to protecting a building that contributes to the historic district at a significant street intersection. 130 Forest Home Drive - 3 of 10 Section 270-142.3 C(2): Conditions Assessment Overall exterior conditions: The building was built and modified in a number of stages. The original building was the main rectangular mass fronting on Forest Home Drive with symmetrical windows on the south, east and west elevations and a ground floor extension to the north. Given the street facing storefront glass, it was constructed as a commercial building with 2 shops on the first floor, and a side entry to either multiple apartments or one upper floor residen ce, possibly occupied by the business owner, as was common when structure was built. As was typical of business buildings evolving through the early to mid 20 th century, successive additions were constructed, likely to meet the needs of business(es) occupying the structure. The additions consist of 3rd floor dormers on the east and west sides, and a flat roofed one story addition off the east side. Given the consistency of window detailing in all the additions, it is likely they happened in quick succession. There is enclosed space 2nd and 3rd floor space on the north side of the original structure which appears to have been stacked open porche s, enclosed at some point to form the odd-shaped rear section of the building. View of building as of February 2023 View of original building from early 20th century 130 Forest Home Drive - 4 of 10 Overall, the building has been kept in good condition and there does not appear to be any deferred maintenance or deterioration, and no major repairs are necessary at this time. (a) Cladding Materials: • First floor (including 1-story flat-roofed additions on north and east sides): Cement stucco with medium-rough texture, topped with a painted wood trim band and crown molding, no banding at foundation, painted. (figures 1 & 2). Stucco is in good condition with only minor blemishes, and paint is in good condition. • Second floor: Wood shakes with +/-4” exposure, random width with aligned bottom edges, painted. Shakes are butted at trimless exterior corners. The bottom 3 courses are flared outward at 2nd floor line above a painted wood trim band and crown molding separating the shakes from stucco below. (figure 3) • Third floor north and south gable ends: Wood shakes with +/-4” exposure , random width with aligned bottom edges, painted. Shake courses terminate at gable ends with one shake approximately 3” wide set perpendicular to the underside of the rake soffit, so as to form a rake “frieze”. (figure 4) • Third floor dormers: Wood shakes with +/-4” exposure , random width with aligned bottom edges, painted. Shakes are butted at trimless exterior corners. Shake courses terminate horizontally at the underside of dormer gable end rake. (figure 5) • Rear addition enclosed porches: Wood shakes with +/-4” exposure , random width with aligned bottom edges, painted. Shakes are butted at trimless exterior corners. Shake courses terminate horizontally into a +/-4” rake frieze trim along the underside of the rake soffit. (figure 6). Some curling of shingles appears on the south and east facades, but all shake surfaces appear to be generally in good condition. (b) Windows, doors, and trim: • First floor, original building and rear addition: Windows are an assortment or double-hung, casement and fixed wood storefront with flat head and jamb casing, all set within the stucco field with 1-1/2” to 2” stucco returns & ogee corner fillet between stucco returns and flat casing. Traditional 1-1/2” – 2” thick slanted wood sills project about ½” from stucco surface and terminate at jambs without sill horns. Apartment doors are half-lite with 3 horizontal raised panels below and trimmed similar to windows. Commercial doors facing Forest Home Drive are 3/4 lite wood doors with single-lite transoms above and 1-1/2” flat brickmould trim. The left side door has a wood screen door. (figures 7 & 8) • First floor, side addition: Windows are wood French casements (each window is composed of 2 sashes forming a larger opening with an astragal instead of center post between them) in groups of 2 on th e south and east facades and a group of 3 on the north façade. Each pair has set of sashes swinging outward and one swinging inward. The triple on the north has the center sash set opening inward and the other two opening outward. The inward swinging sashes are covered with double-hung aluminum storm windows. All have flat head and jamb casings, set within the stucco field and projecting about 1/4” forward of the stucco surface. Traditional 1-1/2” – 2” thick slanted wood sills project about 1/2” from stucco surface and terminate at jambs without sill horns. Exterior door on south façade is a modern replacement flush steel door with a single sidelight in a metal frame, inconsistent with all other detailing. Door is rusting within 18” of ground level. (figures 9 & 10) • Second floor windows, and third floor gable end windows: Wood double-hung windows with 3-1/2” flat jamb and head casing and ogee crown trim under a wood drip cap. Traditional 1-1/2” – 2” thick slanted wood sills project about 1/2” from shake surface and terminate at outer edge of jamb trim. All windows are the same size and are covered with mill finish triple-track aluminum storm windows. (figure 11) • Third floor dormer windows: Wood double-hung window pairs have 4” trim between them and 3-1/2” flat jamb and head casing and simple 1/2” drip cap. Original wood sills, which sit directly on top of the roof/wall intersection, are covered with metal flashing which terminates at outer edge of jamb trim. All windows are the same size and ar e covered with mill finish triple-track aluminum storm windows. (figure 12) • Rear addition/enclosed porch windows: One window facing north is a single window trimmed similarly to the other second floor windows, but with the same drip cap as the 3rd floor dormer windows. A window on the northeast corner of the 2nd floor enclosed porch facing north is similar, but with no drip cap and asymmetrical trim, and the left side trim and wood sill wrapping the corner about 4”. The 3rd floor enclosed porch windows form a corner with one facing east and one facing north. These appear to be vinyl replacement windows within the original 130 Forest Home Drive - 5 of 10 asymmetrical trim and wraparound wood sill (figure 13). • Basement windows are not original and are in good condition. Because they are currently, and were historically, concealed from public view in covered window wells, they do not contribute to the historic character of the building. All window and door trim appears to be in good condition. (c) Roof, eaves, gutters: • Roof of original building: 10/12 to 12/12 pitch with open, un-sculpted 2x6 rafter tails with a vertical end cut (figure 14), and a +/-6” rake board with the eave flared outward at the overhang (figure 15). The undersides of T&G roof boards are exposed and painted. Roofing material is architectural asphalt shingle with white metal drip edges in good condition. White aluminum K-style gutters with standard rectangular downspouts exist along these eaves. • Dormer roofs: 10/12 to 12/12 pitch with open, un-sculpted 2x4 rafter tails with a vertical end cut, 1x4 fascia board and a 1x4 rake (figure 16). The undersides of T&G roof boards are exposed and painted. Roofing material is architectural asphalt shingle with white metal drip edges in good condition. • Rear enclosed porches and addition roof: Pitch of west side of rear addition matches main roof, with the shed roof over the enclosed porches being approximately a 3/12 pitch toward the back. These portions of the building ha ve simpler shorter eaves and rakes with a flat frieze board at the top of the shake siding up to the underside of the roof boards. The eaves have white K-style gutters with rectangular downspouts. (figure 17) • Side flat-roofed addition: Roof has a large overhang with sculpted rafter tails and exposed undersides of roof boards. Rafter tails protrude from a frieze board of equal depth which terminates the stucco surface (figure 1 8). Insulation and a membrane roof was likely installed over the original roof dec k and its +/-4” high perimeter is finished with a metal coping and drip edge, inconsistent with other detailing. The entire perimeter has a K-style gutter with rectangular downspouts (figure 19). Rear flat-roofed addition: Metal roof edge is similar to the side addition, though at a higher elevation and without a large overhang or rafter tails. A painted frieze board terminates the stucco under the eave , and a K-style gutter is mounted in front of it. The roof pitches to the north (figure 20). Along the west side there is a level parapet with a metal coping over a frieze board with crown trim (figure 21). All roofs, eaves and gutters appear to be in good condition. (d) Entrance canopies and fire escape: • Front canopy over commercial space entry doors: This canopy has a flat roof with a simple crown molding at the top of the fascia board and metal drip edge above the crown (no actual overhang). The crown and fascia are in line with the frieze and crown separating the first floor stucco and second floor shake siding. (figure 22) The canopy is supported by large 45 degree wood wall brackets with concave lambs tongue edges on the 45 degree member, and concave edges cut into the end of the projecting horizontal member and bottom of the vertical member against the wall. The brackets are quite smooth and the edges are crisp, in contrast to the fascia and crown trim, suggesting they are recent replicas of the original supports (figure 23). • Apartment entry canopy on west side: This is a much simpler gabled canopy supported by unadorned 2x4 painted braces terminating against the stucco surface, with a flat painted panel on the gable end. It is not original to the building and was likely added after all the more well-detailed additions. The asphalt roofing appears older than the main roof and needs replacement. Fascia and rake intersection needs to be painted (figure 24). • Fire escape: Black painted steel fire escape on the east side of the building provides a required second means of egress from the upper floors and cannot be removed. It appears to be in good condition (figure 25) but needs to be inspected by an engineer to secure a certificate of compliance. (e) Relevant site elements: There are no historically relevant site elements. Section 270-142.3 C(3)(a): Preservation Plan [1] Restoration/repair of deficiencies: No major deficiencies exist, and no significant repairs or structural stabilization activities are necessary at this time aside from the need to verify the structural integrity of the fire escape. 130 Forest Home Drive - 6 of 10 The side canopy, which is not an original element that contributes to the historic character of the building, is in need of roofing replacement. This is a small area and should not be a significant expense, but should be done within the next year to avoid possible damage to the canopy or adjacent stucco cladding. The historically inappropriate rusting steel door on the south elevation of the side addition should at a minimum be sanded and repainted to prevent further deterioration. There is a need for paint to be scraped, primed and touched up on some exterior wood surfaces, though the current conditions do not pose an immediate threat to those finishes. Any painting activity should follow lead-safe practices. Any deteriorating, though non-historic site elements, such as the fencing at the northwest corner, should be replaced, preferably with new material which complements the original craftsman/shingle style of the building. (See suggested replacements below) The K-Style gutters are not appropriate to the period of this structure and may remain in place as they are an important feature to help protect the building. However, should they ever need to be replaced the a half-round gutter made from copper, zinc, galvanized or painted steel would be more appropriate. [2] Long term maintenance plan: Paint should be checked for deterioration every 2 years by a professional exterior painter, so that original trim elements do not suffer water damage that might lead to their needing replacement. Sheet metal surfaces such as copings and gutters (currently stained and weathered) should be cleaned or painted as part of this work. During inspections, special attention should be paid to original window components that have been covered by the aluminum storm windows, as these tend to not get repainted unless the storm windows are removed. Glazing compound and exterior caulk should also be checked for deterioration and repaired as needed. Roofing should be inspected every 2 years by a professional roofer, and any leaks be fixed immediately to prevent damage to eaves and exterior finishes. Gutters should be cleaned every 2 years to prevent backups that could damage eaves. If the steel door on the south elevation is eventually replaced, a wood door in keeping with the other entrance doors on the building (half-lite doors with 3 horizontal recessed panels below) should be installed, likely with a coordinating sidelight in a new wood frame (Figure 26). (See suggested replacements below) If windows on the first, second or third floors are replaced (to save energy for example), painted wood, or aluminum-clad wood window units should be used to maintain the original lines and sash profiles of the originals. Flat looking fiberglass or vinyl window units, or windows of any material that have sash and trim profiles significantly different from the originals, should not be considered appropriate. (See suggested replacements below) Any new exterior-mounted lighting, or exterior hardware or accessories should be complementary to the original architectural style of the building, and sensitively placed. (See suggested replacements below). New vent covers, or other mechanical equipment should be sensitively located, preferably on the rear (north side) of the building away from the street view. Cabling, tubing or piping for new mechanical equipment (such as air -source heat pumps) should be routed inside the building and not run exposed over exterior finishes. Any new mechanical equipment should be located so as to not be visible from the streets. [3] Landowner consent to biennial inspections: I, Lirong Wu, grant consent to Town officials to access the property at 130 Forest Home Drive, for the purpose of conducting biennial inspections of the exterior conditions of the structure located at that address, related to its rezoning to a Limite d Historic Commercial Zone per Section 210-142.3 of the Town of Ithaca Code. Per Section 270-142.3 C(3)(a)[3] the Town shall provide written or verbal notification to the property owner of the inspection prior to entering the property. Signature: __________________________________________________ date:_________________________ 130 Forest Home Drive - 7 of 10 Suggestions for the owner Paint may need to be redone in 5-7 years. Some window and door casings and sills may need to be scraped and painted within the next 2-3 years, primarily on the south and west sides of the building. Rafter tails, rake boards, rake and soffit trim, and the underside of roof boards may need scraping and painting in 2 -3 years. See suggested replacements to be utilized as the need arises. Suggested replacements. Windows: Window type and operation to match existing. Marvin Signature Series (see detail attached) Andersen A-Series or E-Series Pella Architect Series Weathershield Signature Series Or equal Doors: Door styles to match images attached. Thermatrue Smoothstar Simpson Or equal Gutters: 5-6” half round gutters with circular downspouts. May be painted or galvanized steel, zinc or copper. No vinyl. See image attached. Screen Fencing: Vertical board wood fencing with straight top similar to images attached. No vinyl or chain link allowed. Roofing: 3-tab or architectural asphalt shingles. 130 Forest Home Drive - 8 of 10 Wood Clad Window Detail Wood Door for a Commercial Entry Wood Door for an Apartment Entry 130 Forest Home Drive - 9 of 10 Half Round Gutter Style – Copper, Zinc, Galvanized or Painted Steel Fence Styles 130 Forest Home Drive - 10 of 10 Checklist for Biennial Inspections – 130 Forest Home Drive Item Approved by Notes Pass/Fail Restoration/Repair of Known Deficiencies Side Canopy Architect If/when owner wishes to replace then the design should be reviewed by a historic preservation architect for compatibility with the overall building style. Several solutions exist including removing the canopy altogether considering it was not there originally. Steel door on south elevation of one- story addition Code official If replacement is warranted due to poor condition then the replacement door should be reviewed by the code official for compatibility with the recommendations noted above. Gutters Code official If/when owner wishes to replace then the style should be 5” or 6” half-round in copper, zinc, galvanized or painted steel. Long Term Maintenance Painting of exterior wood surfaces Professional painter Assume lead safe practices required. Ensuring a quality paint job to protect the building is more important than the actual colors chosen. Color selection by owner in consultation with design professional using a historic color palette. Exterior fencing Code official If replacement is desired then proposed fencing should be reviewed by code official for compatibility with the recommendations in the preservation plan. Windows Professional painter and/or historic preservation expert Storm windows may remain but if replacement of windows or storm windows is warranted then they shall be compatible with the recommendations noted above Doors Code Official If replacement is desired then proposed exterior doors should be reviewed by code official for compatibility with the recommendation noted above. Roofing Professional roof contractor If replacement is desired than proposed roofing should be reviewed by code official for compatibility with the recommendations noted above. Exterior Lighting Architect/Lighting Designer/Interior Designer If/when owner wishes to replace then the design should be reviewed by a design professional for compatibility with the overall building style. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST VIEW FROM NORTHEAST VIEW FROM NORTHWEST Figure 1. Stucco cladding, top at trim band and crown molding Figure 2. Stucco cladding, bo! om without wash Figure 3. Shake siding, second fl oor Figure 4. Shake siding, N & S gable ends Figure 5. Shake cladding at dormers Figure 6. Shake cladding at rear addi! on and enclosed porches Figure 7. 1st fl oor windows, south and east fi xed windows Figure 8. 1st fl oor windows, typical double-hung windows Figure 9. First fl oor French casement windows Figure 10. Steel door in metal frame Figure 11. Second fl oor, and third fl oor gable end windows Figure 12. Third fl oor dormer windows Figure 13. Rear addi on/enclosed porch windows Figure 14. Original building, roof eave Figure 15. Original building, rake detail Figure 16. Dormer eaves and rake Figure 17. Rear addi on/enclosed porch eave & rake Figure 18. Side addi on eave and frieze Figure 19. Side addi on, coping and gu er Figure 20. Rear fl at-roofed addi on eave Figure 21. Rear addi on parapet Figure 22. Front canopy, crown and fascia Figure 23. Front canopy, support bracket Figure 24. Side canopy Figure 25. Steel fi re escape Figure 26. Suggested style of replacement door 1 2007 Transportation Plan and 2015 Comprehensive Plan transportation recommendations: implementation status 2023-04-14 / DT (Planning) Comprehensive Plan (2014 CP) recommendations (blue text) Transportation related goals and recommendations of the 2014 Comprehensive Plan mirror the 2007 Transportation Plan to some extent. Recommended types of action and their priority is listed in parentheses after a goal/recommendation. Actions • Decision: recommendations and policy decisions. • Regulation: writing and adopting new laws or modifying or reforming existing laws. o (DC): Creation/adoption of a new unified development code to replace the existing zoning code, subdivision code, sign code, and other land use regulations found throughout the municipal code. o The Ithacode / Recoding Ithaca report has suggestions for implementing Comprehensive Plan recommendations in the Town’s land use regulations. • Plan: initiating, adopting, and implementing neighborhood, corridor or subject-specific plans. • Project: achieved by one or more temporary endeavors. A project may be a physical or analytical concern. • Program: formal long-term programs that carry out one or more goals and recommendations of the plan. • Cooperation: forming partnerships, intergovernmental agreements, and other joint efforts with other agencies or institutions. A single action—regulation, plan, project, program, or cooperative effort—may address several goals and recommendations. Conversely, some goals and recommendations may need several different actions to effectively implement them. Priority • Immediate: started before or immediately following Comprehensive Plan adoption. • High: intended to be started and realized shortly after plan adoption, through 2014-2016. • Medium: intended to be started and realized between 2016 and 2019 (according to the Comprehensive Plan), or after high- priority items are completed. • Open: intended to be started and realized any time, with action taken by 2019-2024. • Continuous: ongoing actions with no set start or end date; generally decisions and long-term projects and programs. • Completed: actions that are finished. 2007 Transportation Plan (TP) recommendations (brown text) The Transportation Plan has many fine level recommendations that the following tables don’t list They include recommendations for building site features (on-site parking, etc.), law enforcement strategies, design (example: quantitative recommendations for road profiles), or specific projects (examples: new roads, recommended improvements to specific existing roads). Recommended timeframes and priority is listed in parentheses after a goal/recommendation. Status Implemented or active action. ❌ Partial implementation, stalled, postponed (temporarily or indefinitely), or slow / erratic progress. ⭕ Little or no action taken, or outside the Planning Department scope of work. 2 1 Transportation in general Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status 2007 Transportation Plan implementation 2007 TP 1-A: Adopt and implement the 2007 Transportation Plan as a long-term vision and policy guide. ❌ Partial implementation. See the following rows and tables. 2007 Transportation Plan updates 2007 TP 1-C Review and update the Transportation Plan on a regular basis. (Intermediate- and long-term | high priority) 2014 CP TR-4-D: Update 2007 Transportation Plan (Plan | medium) ⭕ No action. 1993 Comprehensive Plan 2007 TP 1-B: Incorporate the Transportation Plan into the 1993 Comprehensive Plan. Revisit and potentially revise the Comprehensive Plan, based in part on the findings of the Transportation Plan. (Short- term | high priority) ❌ Some Transportation Plan goals adopted into the 2014 Comprehensive Plan. The 2007 Transportation Plan and the 2014 Comprehensive Plan have not been updated since their respective adoption(s). Transportation system 2014 CP TR-1-A: Develop transportation system that serves mobility interests of residents and businesses, considers through traffic. (Decision | continuous) ❌ Partial implementation. Consider development of a SEQR map to determine locations where development projects warrant further study based on thresholds established in cooperation with Engineering, Planning, and Public Works Departments. Consideration of transportation impacts 2014 CP TR-6-D: Consider transportation impacts in land use decisions, vice versa. (Decision | continuous) Part of SEQR (environmental review) process. Consideration of environmental impacts 2014 CP TR-7-A: Consider environmental consequences of transportation decisions. (Decision | continuous) Part of defending this Comprehensive Plan during the SEQR process. (Close-in development, even at a higher density, will result in fewer vehicle miles traveled than outlying large lot development.) Development review: part of SEQR process. Consideration of sensitive areas 2014 TP 2-C-4-2: Carefully assess any transportation project in an agricultural, scenic, or historic area to ensure potential impact isn’t greater than the expected benefits from the proposed project. (Ongoing) Part of SEQR process. Scenic corridors 2014 TP 2-C-4-6. Identify and designate road corridors of visual, cultural, or historic significance as official town scenic routes. (As feasible | low priority) Scenic resources inventory (2013-2015). ⭕ No action/codification to address development in scenic corridor areas. 2 Street network Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Official map 2007 TP 2-A: Revise, adopt, and regularly update the Town’s official highway map, showing current streets, future road corridors, street names. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-4-E: Update official highway map. (Project | continuous) 2014 CP TR-4-B: Preserve/reserve current and future rights-of-way. (Project | continuous) ⭕ No action. (We’ll have to add thoroughfares from an approved South Hill TND regulating plan to the official map. Also, the current “official” map in the Planning Department is missing some corridors, like the future Conifer Drive, that appeared on the last “official” map.) 3 2 Street network Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Street pattern 2007 TP 7-B-2: Through the subdivision (and site plan) approval process, promote greatest possible connectivity between local streets and between nonmotorized facilities. (Ongoing) 2007 TP 7-B-3: Discourage cul-de-sacs. If they’re allowed or needed, require bicycle/pedestrian connections to adjacent roadways where practical. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-2-G: Road networks in new developments should follow traditional neighborhood development/new urbanism principles. (Described in TP, CP, many urban design publications/books.) (Regulation (DC) | high) ❌ Town staff references Transportation Plan policies in project staff reports. NNC: street layout standards follow traditional neighborhood development /new urbanism best practice. (2020) ⭕ Conventional zoning: no action / not codified. Neighborhood design: general 2014 CP TR-6-B: Reduce automobile dependence through neighborhood design . (Regulation | high) NNC: integral to code. (2020) ⭕ Conventional zoning: no action/not codified. Through traffic 2007 TP 2-B-4-1: Implement design responses to excessive speeds and cut-through traffic in neighborhoods, like traffic calming. (High priority) 2007 TP 5-I Work with employers, etc. to address truck traffic patterns that route through residential areas. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-2-F: Minimize through truck traffic in residential neighborhoods. (Cooperation | continuous) 2014 CP TR-2-C: Consider effects of traffic volume in new/existing neighborhoods. (Decision | continuous) TP 2-B-4-1: NNC: standards for street design, traffic calming, narrow streets. (2020) CP TR-2-F: ⭕ No action. (This issue might be unavoidable on collector and arterial roads with residential frontage lots. Current best planning practice favors more porous and interconnected street networks over dendritic, maze-like, or disconnected pod/cluster patterns.) CP TR-2-C: Part of SEQR process. (For traffic calming, current best practice is to avoid vertical traffic calming measures (speed bumps/humps/etc.).) Environmentally sensitive areas 2007 TP 2-C-4-7: New roadways should avoid environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes. New roadways should follow the natural contours of the land, whenever possible. (Ongoing) ⭕ No action / not codified. (In some cases, this practice may conflict with traditional neighborhood development/new urbanism neighborhood design principles, goals for neighborhood connectivity, and the like. Impacts should be weighed against benefits.) Jurisdiction 2007 TP 2.C.5.2. Town Public Works Department and Town Board should work with the County Highway Department and the County Legislature to determine if there are County roads that should be Town roads (and vice versa) because of their function in the highway network. (Short-term | medium priority) ⭕ No action. Relief routes 2007 TP 2.C.5.3. The Town should support regional transportation planning and inter-municipal efforts toward the construction of new through-roads in other municipalities that would relieve traffic burdens in Town of Ithaca neighborhoods. (Ongoing) Town has active membership in Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) Policy and Planning Committee, respectively. 3 Street design Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Street design: general 2007 TP 2-B-1: Use design guidelines (in the Transportation Plan) as a general guide for construction and rebuilding Town transportation facilities. (High priority) ❌ Town staff references Transportation Plan policies in some project staff reports. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action / not codified. (The Town has no official street construction specifications. The current “suggested” roadway cross-section has a rural context profile (shoulder/ditch, no sidewalk).) 4 3 Street design Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Complete streets 2007 TP 2-D: Consider other livability-oriented design features, like street trees, sidewalks, or pedestrian-scale lighting as part of roadway construction or reconstruction. (High priority) 2014 CP TR-6-A: Design streets using Complete Streets principles. (Regulation (DC) | high) ❌ Town staff would reference Transportation Plan policies in some project staff reports. NNC: thoroughfare design standards follow Complete Street principles. (2020) ⭕ Conventional zoning: not codified. (The Town has no official street construction specifications.) Context sensitive design 2007 TP-5-F Work with City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, Cornell to ensure that transportation design is consistent and predictable throughout the area, with no abrupt change in design at municipal boundaries. Roadway design should reflect adjacent land uses. (Ongoing) 2007 TP 2-B (goal): Street design should reflect the intended use of the roadway and surrounding character. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-2-D: Adopt a context sensitive approach for road planning and design. (Regulation | high) (Decision | continuous) ❌ Town staff would reference Transportation Plan policies in some project staff reports. Regulation NNC: context sensitive street design standards. (2020) ❌ Intermittent work on street construction standards for traditional neighborhood development areas. (2021-2022) ⭕ Conventional zoning: not codified. No roadway / ROW sections or street construction standards. (Public Works has one “suggested” (but not required) profile with a rural form.) ⭕ Unofficial policy for private streets is only that they allow fire apparatus access. Continued outcome of poorly built private streets. Decision ⭕ Town approved residential development with MDR density, but gravel roads. (Amabel) Streetscape beautification 2014 CP TR-2-B: Streetscape beautification, human scale roadways, improve character of roads when rebuilding. (Decision | continuous) ❌ Town staff would reference Transportation Plan policies in project staff reports. Planning comments often disregarded due to resistance or opposition from other Town departments. NNC: requirements for tree lawns, medians, street trees, landscaping, buried utilities, etc. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. Access management 2007 TP 2-B-6: Limit the number of access driveways, roads, and curb cuts onto arterial and collector roads. Require shared driveways where appropriate. (Ongoing) 2007 TP 7-C-5: 7.C.5: Require shared access drives between businesses, to allow site circulation that keeps unnecessary vehicle trips off main roadways. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-3-D: Adopt access management requirements that are compatible with County and State standards. (Regulation (DC) | high) NNC: access management regulations. (2020) Inlet Valley overlay: access management standards. (2023) ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. (This practice should apply to all roads, not just arterial and collector roads.) Sight distance 2007 TP 2-B-2: Engineering should evaluate sight distances at intersections, identify those with sub-standard sight distances. Engineering should work with Public Works to create and implement a prioritization system for improvements. Explore ways to mitigate sight distance issues beyond vegetation clearing. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-3-A: Evaluate and improve intersections with poor sight distance. (Program | continuous) (Zoning code should also address this: fence regulations, landscaping standards, etc.) NNC: some provisions consider visibility at street intersections and driveways. (2020) ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. Stormwater management 2007 TP 2.C.4.5. Projects involving transportation should meet Town stormwater regulations, when possible. Stormwater management, including the treatment of run-off and flood control, should be considered as part of projects involving transportation, when possible. (Ongoing) NNC: context sensitive stormwater management. Recommends light imprint New Urbanism (LINU) design. Code updates will include more specific stormwater management provisions. Traditional neighborhood development stormwater management guide drafted 2020- 2022; awaiting review by Town Engineering. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. 5 3 Street design Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Pedestrian and bike facility design See the pedestrian and bike accommodation table. Design speed See the traffic concerns table. 4 Pedestrian/bike accommodation Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Pedestrian/bike facilities as part of the public realm 2007 TP 3-C-3: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities as normal, “default” aspects of a right-of-way. When designing or accepting designs for a right-of-way, put the burden of proof on why bicycle and pedestrians should not be included. (As feasible | high priority) ❌ Town staff would reference Transportation Plan policies in project staff reports. Planning comments often disregarded due to resistance or opposition from other Town departments. ❌ Town sidewalk policy: some loose criteria, but not mandatory. NNC: all streets must have sidewalks on both sides. Sidewalks and bike lanes are part of the NNC’s street design requirements. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. Pedestrian/bike facilities: community/regional 2014 CP TR-5-B: Support establishment of community/regional pedestrian/bicycle facilities. (Regulation (DC) | high) (Program | medium) (Cooperation | continuous) Regulation ❌ Town sidewalk policy: some loose criteria, but not mandatory. NNC: requires sidewalks on both sides of all new streets. Bike lane option in street profiles. (2020) ⭕ Conventional zoning: no action/not codified. Recommended street profile has a rural profile, with no sidewalks. No requirements or standards for sidewalks or trails in zoning or subdivision regulations. Pedestrian/bike facilities: planned corridors 2007 TP 3-B-1: Use the plan’s bicycle and pedestrian corridor maps to retrofit facilities into existing developments. (As feasible | high priority) 2014 CP TR-1-B: Base pedestrian/bike facilities on Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps of 2007. (Decision | continuous) ❌ Limited implementation: some new walkways. (Aurora Street / Danby Road, Hanshaw Road, Trumansburg Road in planning stage) Required pedestrian/bike facilities 2007 TP 3-B-1: The Planning Board should require bicycle and pedestrian facilities in new developments when appropriate. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be included in road reconstructions, again where appropriate. (As feasible | high priority) 2007 TP 7-C-2: Consider sidewalks or walkways, street trees, and pedestrian-scale lighting as part of every residential, commercial, or mixed-use development. (Ongoing) ❌ Town staff references Transportation Plan policies in project staff reports. Planning comments often disregarded due to resistance or opposition from other Town departments. ❌ Town sidewalk policy: some loose criteria, but not mandatory. (Undermined by “recommended” rural street profile?) NNC: all streets must have sidewalks on both sides. Sidewalks and bike lanes are part of the NNC’s street design requirements. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. Pedestrian and bike facility design 2007 TP 3 B 1: Use the plan’s best practices toolbox to determine which type of bicycle and/or pedestrian facility is appropriate for new developments or redevelopment. (As feasible; high priority) 2007 TP 3-C-1: Use the plan’s best practices toolbox as a starting point when designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Apply context sensitive design. (As feasible; high priority) ❌ Town staff would reference Transportation Plan policies in project staff reports. Planning comments often disregarded due to resistance or opposition from other Town departments. NNC: all streets must have sidewalks on both sides. Sidewalks and bike lanes are part of the NNC’s street design requirements. Requirements differ somewhat from the Transportation Plan toolbox. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. 6 4 Pedestrian/bike accommodation Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Americans with Disabilities Act compliance 2007 TP 3-C-2: All bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be ADA compliant, unless there are factors that can’t be mitigated at a reasonable effort. (Ongoing) Pedestrian facilities are uncommon in the town, but what’s there is generally ADA complaint. NNC: all sidewalks, walkways, and parking areas must comply with the ADA. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. Pedestrian circulation 2007 TP 7-C-3: Require commercial sites to have clearly delineated crosswalks and adequate sidewalks or walkways that take the shortest and most direct route to connect pedestrian destinations. (Ongoing) NNC: part of site planning requirements. Inlet Valley Overlay: some aspects in site planning requirements. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. (This should also apply to residential and industrial projects.) Pedestrian and bike connections 2014 CP TR-1-D: Work with other entities to improve ped/bike connections in priority locations. (Cooperation | medium) Town is participant in Safe Streets 4 All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan to run through Q2 2025 Trails 2007 TP 5-F: Work with the ITCTC, County Public Works Department and Planning Departments, NYSDOT, NYS Parks & Recreation Department, to implement a county-wide system of trails, including the Black Diamond Trail. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-1-E: Expand multiuse trails, work with ITCTC/county/others to expand countywide trail system. (Cooperation | open) (Project | open) Town is aggressive about expanding the trail network within its boundaries and connecting with regional trails. Trails as commuter routes 2007 TP 3-E-1: Consider multi-use trails as both transportation and recreation facilities by designing them to accommodate both types of users. (Ongoing) 2007 TP 3-E-2: Consider maintaining the South Hill Recreation Way for use as a commuter transportation route year-round. (Low priority) Bike and ride: 2007 TP 3-D-1: Promote bike-and-ride as part of a park-and-ride strategy. (Low priority) ⭕ No action. Bus shelters 2007 TP 3-D-3: Encourage TCAT to locate bike racks at major bus stops. (Ongoing) ⭕ No action. Connecting people to transit 2007 TP 3-D-4 In areas where it’s not feasible to create or extend transit service, encourage non-motorized links (trails, etc.) between that development and other areas served by transit. ⭕ No action. Encouraging walking and cycling 2007 TP 3-G: Devise a bicycling and walking encouragement strategy that highlights their benefits, and encourages residents to take advantage of the Town’s facilities. (As feasible | medium priority) Complete streets See the street design table. 7 5 Traffic concerns Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Traffic demand management 2007 TP 5-G: Work with other organizations/agencies to devise traffic demand management strategies to reduce peak hour demand on roadway capacity. (As feasible | medium priority) 2014 CP TR-1-J: Traffic demand strategies to reduce peak hour demand on roadway capacity. (Program | medium) ❌ Very limited action. Subdivision review: required Vehicle crash hazards 2007 TP 2-B-3: Use DMV crash data to identify crash clusters, dangerous intersections/road segment. Take measures to alleviate hazards if under Town jurisdiction. Otherwise, alert other responsible jurisdiction. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-3-B: Maintain vehicle crash database. (Program | continuous) Animal hazards 2007 TP 2-B-5: Explore ways to reduce frequency / severity of deer- related crashes, like roadside reflectors or deer whistles. (Low priority) 2014 CP TR-7-C: Assess need for wildlife crossings. (Regulation | open) (Decision | continuous) Regulation / decision NNC: Park siting provisions include consideration of wildlife travel corridors and crossings. ⭕ Conventional zones: no action/not codified. Target design speed 2007 TP 2-B: Design streets to elicit desirable driver behavior. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-2-A: Control traffic speed through road design standards, traffic calming, and street diets. Incorporate low-speed designs when reconstructing roads. (Regulation (DC) | high) (Program | open) Regulation NNC: standards for street design, traffic calming, narrow streets. (2020) ⭕ Conventional zoning: no action/not codified. Program ⭕ No action/not codified. Speed limits 2007 TP 2-B-4-2: Petition the County and State for speed limit reductions on certain roads in the Town. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-3-C: Petition state/county for speed limit reductions in certain areas. (Cooperation | continuous) Traffic mitigation 2007 TP 7-C-4: Development proposals that need a traffic impact evaluation should identify and mitigate impacts on residential areas and non-motorized aspects of the transportation system. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-2-H: Require traffic mitigation plans for large projects. (Regulation | high) ⭕ No action/not codified. (Example: criteria for traffic mitigation in land use codes) Part of SEQR process. Bus traffic 2014 CP TR-2-E: Work with TCAT to minimize bus disruption in residential neighborhoods while maintaining adequate service. (Cooperation | continuous) ❌ TCAT municipal workshop; Town Planning staff expressed preference for quicker, more direct bus routes, with fewer time-consuming diversions into apartment complexes. (2020) Carpooling 2007 TP 4-E: Encourage carpool and carshare initiatives from the public and private sector 2014 CP TR-1-I: Encourage carpooling/vanpooling/car sharing. (Program | open) Automobile dependence 2014 CP TR-7-B: Reduce vehicle dependence, trip distance/duration/number. (Decision | continuous) NNC: integral to code, compared to conventional development. (2020) ⭕ Conventional zoning: no action/not codified. Traffic calming See the street design table. 8 5 Traffic concerns Goal/recommendation (action/priority) Status Park and ride facilities See the public transportation table. 6 Public transportation Goal/recommendation (Action / priority) Status Transit access: general 2007 TP 7-C-1 The Planning Board should continue to consider transit access and adequacy during site plan / subdivision review. (Ongoing) Usually part of the SEQR process. Consideration of transit access is usually a secondary concern, based on project location and context. TCAT funding 2014 CP TR-1-G: Consider increasing funding to TCAT for adequate transit service levels. (Decision | continuous) 2014 CP TR-1-H: Continue funding Gadabout. (Decision | continuous) ⭕ Determined by Budget Committee. Park and ride facilities 2007 TP 5-E: Work with TCAT, ITCTC, major employers, to develop a park-and-ride system, using recent origin-destination study findings. (Ongoing) (Also recommendation TP-4-A) 2014 CP TR-1-F: Work with TCAT/major employers to develop a park- and-ride system. (Cooperation | open) (Program | open) Cooperation / program ⭕ No action. (Park and ride facilities were a special concern of the Town Supervisor at the time. Removing land from the tax base – especially in areas targeted for denser development -- and devoting it to commuter parking isn’t highest/best use of land.. It also won’t make a noticeable impact on traffic volume, although it will help reduce overall vehicle trip length for some.) Transit serving existing and new development 2007 TP 4-D: Work with TCAT to ensure that new development is served by transit, where feasible, in terms of the site plan and route extensions (or other enhancements). (Ongoing) 7 Maintenance Goal/recommendation (Action/priority) Status Scheduling road maintenance 2007 TP 2-C-1: The Public Works Department should have the flexibility to set its own schedule for roadway improvements within the context of the overall budget. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-4-F: Public Works flexibility to schedule road improvements / maintenance. (Decision | continuous) ⭕ Outside Planning Department scope of work. Preventative maintenance 2007 TP 2-C-2: Practice preventative maintenance wherever possible to save money over the long term. (Ongoing) ⭕ Outside Planning Department scope of work. Roadside vegetation 2007 TP 2-C-4-1: Limit trimming of roadside vegetation to that which fulfills safety and drainage objectives. (This recommendation may conflict with recommendations for Complete Streets and context sensitive design. It may also exacerbate tick infestations.) De-icing 2007 TP 2-C-4-3. Explore alternatives to traditional rock salt for deicing roads. ⭕ Outside Planning Department scope of work. Interjurisdictional cooperation 2007 TP 2.C.5.1. Town Public Works Department should continue to cooperate with the County Highway Department and NYSDOT on maintenance responsibilities for roads in the Town. (Ongoing) ⭕ Outside Planning Department scope of work. 9 8 Cooperation/collaboration Goal/recommendation (Action/priority) Status Shared services 2007 TP 5-H: Identify opportunities to share responsibility for services, facilities, equipment, labor, and expertise with the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State Department of Transportation, Cornell University, law enforcement agencies, and other entities responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the transportation network. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-5-A: Explore intermunicipal sharing of facilities, labor, knowledge, expertise. (Cooperation | continuous) ITCTC 2007 TP ITCTC; Continue to participate in the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-5-C: Participate in ITCTC. (Cooperation | continuous) Ongoing Town participation. Cornell t-GEIS 2007 TP 5-B: Support the goals and resulting TIMS of Cornell’s transportation-focused Environmental Impact Statement of 2006 upon its completion, where appropriate. The t-GEIS and TIMS may result in additional transportation projects or strategies that the Town Board can consider as a supplement to Transportation Plan recommendations. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-5-D: Support findings of t-GEIS, TIMS where appropriate. Cornell/Community Transportation Investment Initiative Program. (Decision | continuous) Support of t-GEIS among Planning staff. Used to justify several Comprehensive Plan goals and recommendations in the plan’s DGEIS and FGEIS. Environmental concerns 2007 CP 2-C-4-4: Encourage other jurisdictions with roads in the Town of Ithaca to adhere to similar standards of environmental consideration. (Ongoing) ⭕ No action. 9 Funding Goal/recommendation (Action/priority) Status Funding: general 2014 CP TR-4-A: Sufficient funding to maintain transportation system (Decision | continuous) ⭕ Outside Planning Department scope of work. Townwide bicycle and pedestrian facilities 2007 TP 3-B-2s: The Town should assume the cost of construction and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that serve a broader population beyond adjacent neighborhoods. Where the benefit is primarily for residents in the immediate vicinity, property owners should be responsible for sidewalk maintenance and repair of sidewalks and walkways. (Ongoing) 2014 CP TR-1-C: Assume costs of construction / maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities serving a population beyond adjacent neighborhoods. (Decision | continuous) ❌ Current policy: Town funds/maintains “walkways”, property owners fund/maintain sidewalks. Policy needs to be revisited with more specific criteria for determining responsibility. Capital budget 2007 TP 6-A: Budget for capital needs related to transportation projects. Consider capital planning for ten years in advance to consider the “bigger picture”. help make decisions in context of expected development. (Onging) ❌ Outside Planning Department scope of work. Cooperation with Planning staff for demographic trends, possible development capacity/buildout in service areas, etc. 10 9 Funding Goal/recommendation (Action/priority) Status Budget appropriations 2007 TP 6-B: The Town should consider annual appropriations for less costly transportation projects, such as segments of walkways, shoulder improvements, or crosswalks, as part of the yearly operating budget. (As feasible | medium priority ⭕ Outside Planning Department scope of work. Other funding sources 2007 TP 6-C: Apply for additional funds for transportation projects, using programs such as the Transportation Enhancement Program, TIP, funding sources through SAFETEA, etc. Explore funding sources that are not associated strictly with transportation. (As feasible | medium priority)