Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 2023-05-18 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE THURSDAY, MAY 18, 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 April meeting minutes. 4. Update: Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Master Implementation Plan 5. Update: Limited Historic Commercial (LHC) Overlay District potential amendment to Limited Historic Commercial (LHC) Floating Zone 6. Discussion: proposed timeline for South Hill Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) SEQRA professional services procurement 7. Discussion: 2007 Transportation Plan and 2014 Comprehensive Plan Transportation (TR) implementation review, continued 8. Staff updates and reports. 9. 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, April 20, 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; Town Civil Engineer Justin McNeal; Director of Code Enforcement Marty Moseley. Guests: Noah Demarest (via Zoom), Architect, representing Vicky Wu (in person). 1. Persons to be heard: None 2. Committee announcements and concerns: None 3. Approval of March meeting minutes: Rich moved; Rod seconded. The March 16, 2023, minutes were approved with non-substantive changes to be sent to Abby to incorporate. 4. Limited Historic Commercial Overlay District request-130 Forest Home Dr. Vicky Wu was in person as the committee reviewed the revised request for Limited Historic Commercial zoning designation for 130 Forest Home Drive. Noah Demarest, Architect, joined the discussion later on via Zoom. Noah met with the Director of Codes after the last planning committee meeting, clarifications were made to the language and a new draft document was provided for consideration. The document listed that “no major deficiencies exist, and no significant or structural activities are necessary at this time aside from the need to verify the structural integrity of the fire escape”. A checklist was added for the Biennial inspections listing restoration/repair of known other deficiencies, whom it would be approved by, notes, and a pass/fail column. Three items were listed under restoration and six areas were listed for long term maintenance. There was a consent form authorizing Town access to the property for the inspections and it was discussed that there may be circumstances where more frequent inspections occur, and modifications may be made to the checklist/schedule as repairs are made. The committee discussed the possible need for timeframes to remedy any deficiencies in the preservation plan, but ultimately it was agreed that the language in the law itself identifies non- compliance provisions and the timeline of 60 days from the date of the letter from codes to initiate the corrective action and subsequent language thereafter. Rich asked the next steps for the preservation plan and Marty confirmed the town board is the next step to approve the preservation plan. Rich moved to recommend the 130 Forest Home Drive Limited Historic zoning designation request be forwarded to the town board for review with recommendation for approval. Margaret seconded the motion, all members voted in favor. May 8th was noted as the next full town board meeting. 5. Discussion: 2007 Transportation Plan and 2014 Comprehensive Plan Transportation implementation review. A document was prepared by Senior Planner Dan Tasman that listed 2 the goals and recommendations (action/priority) from both plans with the status marked as implemented, partial or little/no action taken. C.J. began by summarizing the document as a look back or audit of the 2007 Transportation Plan and the 2014 Comp plan. She noted the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) comprehensive safety action plan project will encompass all roads within the jurisdictions for a complete streets’ framework to elevate multi modal transportation. The good current working relationship with Town Public Works and County Highway was also noted as a recommendation in the Town Transportation Plan under the street network section. She explained the SS4A consultant selection process and 18-month contract timeframe for the project once it’s awarded (late summer/early fall, 2023). The City of Ithaca is taking the lead on this comprehensive multi-jurisdictional project. Under “street design”, the concern and need for town road design/profile specifications was brought up. The timing of the needed implementation of the Town Complete Streets policy (resolution passed in 2015) was noted as the potential place to begin developing these specifications with engineering and public works departments for implementation locally. Rich made note that the costs associated with the implementation of the town complete streets policy and new local road designs should be clear up front also (C.J. followed up that this would be add into the RFP, to provide the cost information associated). The City of Ithaca’s draft workplan was shared with the committee with a discussion on design projects as a point to focus on potential town applications being cooperative and competitive as well as keeping departments aware of upcoming city plans. Rod asked if the timing of the SS4A and staff involvement would take precedent over the initial plan to form an ad hoc committee to re-visit the 2007 Transportation plan. C.J. stated the/an ad hoc committee could be a beneficial participant in the SS4A project. Margaret, Joe and Dan were mentioned as possible staff and board members to be included. The intent is for it all to flow together for ideal continuity. The discussion concluded with the committee consensus to review the 2007 Transportation Plan goals as a committee. Brief review shows longevity to the original language and possibly not needing to form an ad hoc committee for reviewing the goals at this point. During initial review under street network, the no action status was questioned as there as road and zoning “official” maps that are updated as changes are made. It was noted that a thoroughfare road or maybe connector road is not shown on the official map. Marty noted that no potential or future roads are typically shown on official maps. Upon discussion, it appears the town has an “official map” that was done in 2020 that showed all existing roads at the time as well as an “official” Zoning map that was most recently updated in January 2022. C.J. explained the “SEQR” map concept under the general transportation system section. Rich noted in the context sensitive design section, reference should be made to NYS DOT or the County highway design manual. An error in the TCAT funding section was pointed out, the funding is determined by the town board not the budget committee. C.J. added that while reviewing the 2007 plan goals, discrete projects should be applied, funding opportunities should be considered and scopes for each while concurrently informing the SS4A project plan. She stated a table form for this information would be another piece of the project. 3 An informal visual was shown with the big picture of all of the moving transportation components as another way to help explain the broad vision. Staff time and support were discussed. Engineering would like to focus (when time and staff are available) on updating the road specs, water and sewer as well as stormwater regulations. Planning would like to devote time to this as well as consulting funds to hire a consultant with specialties in the areas to assist in the process. Other transportation/pedestrian priority projects were mentioned such as E. Shore Dr. sidewalk near the Hospital, Gateway trail connector and Judd Falls Rd. 6. Staff updates and reports: C.J. reported there has been no new information from RaNic on the proposed PDZ or the Strawberry Hill next phase development. The planning department is working through a GEIS process for the South Hill TND area. SouthWorks has expressed the intent to begin moving forward with the town portion of their property for new development on a vacant part of land. Information will be shared as it comes in. C.J. also noted that the owner of Hayt’s Chapel has been in contact with the Codes Director regarding their intent to pursue the Limited Historic Commercial Zoning. Marty followed up that the owner is also working with an historic preservation organization (Historic Ithaca) also for resources needed. 7. Next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: May 18th, 2023. Detailed review 2007 Transportation Goal, possibly the most greenhouse gas reducing, one to keep most in line with Safe Streets 4 All or one with the highest priority, possibly street design. All of the goals were in the document provided to the committee. Rod added that the implementation plan for the Community Choice Aggregation program (CCA) will be coming to the Planning Committee prior to the Town Board also in the future (May or June). The Town of Ithaca Planning Committee meeting concluded at 4:40 pm. To: Planning Committee members From: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner Date: May 12, 2023 Subject: South Hill Traditional Neighborhood Development: SEQRA services for Regulating Plan adoption Summary The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (2014) envisions compact, walkable mixed-use neighborhoods (new urban/traditional neighborhood development) in three emerging growth areas close to major employers and activity hubs. These areas have large undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels, and limited land ownership fragmentation, that are well-suited for coordinated master planning and development. The South Hill Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) area occupies a ±170 acre about two miles south of downtown Ithaca (city). The area is bordered by the Ithaca College campus and natural lands, Buttermilk Falls State Park, and Namgyal Monastery (North American seat of the Dalai Lama). Most of the land in the South Hill TND area is undeveloped. Developed portions include two small eateries, a furniture store, a hotel, a gas station with a convenience store, single family houses on large frontage lots, two small apartment complexes, several three - and four-unit income qualified housing units, and a Montessori school. Some of these existing buildings are on lots with potential for on-site infill or redevelopment. The Town has nearly completed drafting its Regulating Plan process and is moving towards the next step of adopting the Regulating Plan and undertaking the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. The Town will procure professional services to work with the Planning Board and Planning Department to conduct the SEQRA review and recommend a determination of significance. Proposed tasks 1. Review the completed draft South Hill TND Regulating Plan for potential environmental impacts pursuant New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 2. The entire plan is available for review and download at the Town’s website. 3. Complete Parts I & II of the Full Environmental Assessment Form and submit to Planning Department for review. 4. Complete a draft Part III and recommend a determination of significance, together with a full evaluation of the reasons supporting the recommended determination. 5. Review a draft of the entire EAF, including the Part III evaluation with the Town Board. 6. Revise or edit the evaluation, if necessary. 7. In the case of a (intended) positive declaration: a. Prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement b. Assist with conducting public hearings and Public Scoping c. Prepare the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement d. Prepare the Findings Statement. South Hill TND Regulating Plan SEQRA process 2 Proposed deliverables Full Environmental Assessment Form • Detailed Part III evaluation to support a recommendation for a determination of significance • DGEIS • FGEIS • Findings Statement Schedule for Completion Authorization to Issue RFP / RFQ – June 26, 2023 circulate to NYS Contract Reporter – June 27, 2023 Review proposals – July 2023 Selection of consultant – August 2023 Kick-off meeting September 2023 (or within 2 weeks of executed contract). Tasks 1, 2 completed October / November 2023 (or within 8 weeks of executed contract). Tasks 3, 4, 5, 6 completed February / March 2024 (or within 6 months of executed contract) Task 7 Completion date is June 30, 2024. Criteria for consideration • Level of experience with SEQRA reviews of traditional neighborhood development projects or regulating plans, LEED for Neighborhood Development master plans, or similar types of form-based, mixed-use developments • Level of experience in Tompkins County • Level of experience with municipal comprehensive plans • Ability to meet the schedule for completion • Location of services relative to Town of Ithaca • Cost proposal Procurement Process • Request for Information • Request for Qualifications • Request for Proposal # # # 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. Commented [MJ1]: Intended by what or whom? 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.) Commented [MJ2]: Which TP goals were/not incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan & why? Commented [MJ3]: How and to what extent does SEQR consider transportation impacts in land use decisions? 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. Commented [MJ4]: What is a “community/regional” pedestrian/bike facility? 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. Commented [MJ5]: Status of implementation? Commented [MJ6]: Status of implementation? 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. Commented [MJ7]: Status of implementation? Commented [MJ8]: Implementation status? Commented [MJ9]: Implementation status? 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. Commented [MJ10]: What does this mean? Commented [MJ11R10]: I’d like to review the information about how many Town residents use TCAT and in what parts of the town. Would also like, if possible, to survey Town residents about where they might like more better bus service. Commented [MJ12]: Implementation status? 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. Commented [MJ13]: Implementation status? 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) Commented [MJ14]: Say more? What does this mean? Whose scope of work would this fall in? Commented [MJ15]: Implementation status?