Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 2023-06-15 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 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 May meeting minutes. 4. Discussion: Reclassifying on-premise signs as Chapter 148: SEQRA Type II Action 5. Discussion: proposed scope for South Hill Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Regulating Plan SEQRA Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) process 6. Discussion: draft Capital Improvement Plan and 2007 Transportation Plan / 2014 Comprehensive Plan Transportation (TR) implementation review, continued 7. Update: Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Master Implementation Plan 8. Update: City of Ithaca Draft Encampment Policy 9. Update: East Shore Drive Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Corridor Project 10. Staff updates and reports. 11. 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, May 18, 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; Director of Engineering Daniel Thaete; Town Civil Engineer Justin McNeal; Director of Code Enforcement Marty Moseley. Guests: Laura Schneider 1. Persons to be heard: None at the beginning of the meeting. Laura Schnieder joined the meeting via Zoom later and introduced herself as an Environmental Health Consultant and observer interested in the South Hill development area near Stone Quarry Rd. 2. Committee announcements and concerns: None 3. Approval of April meeting minutes: Rich moved; Margaret seconded. The April 20, 2023, minutes were approved with non-substantive changes. 4. Update: Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Master Implementation Plan. Rod briefly updated that a final draft of what will be submitted to the NYS is anticipated to be received in June. This should come in time for the June Planning Committee meeting to review prior to it being considered by the town board. 5. Update: Limited Historic Commercial (LHC) Overlay District potential amendment to Limited Historic Commercial (LHC) Floating Zone. C.J. updated that the newly adopted LHZ law was written and adopted as an overlay zone which is enacted by a local law with each applicant and would touch down on just those properties on the Zoning Map. She and the attorney are working together to determine if this process was the intention when the revised law was adopted or if the language should be amended to be a floating zone which is enacted and dissolved by a resolution of the town board (compared to a local law action for each application for the zone). She will follow up with the committee. Rich was in favor of exploring a “nimbler” way of handling these unique applications for this zone. He noted they may qualify for a time period and then not qualify; therefore, the Zoning Map would need frequent amendments. Committee members concluded. 6. Discussion: proposed timeline for South Hill Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) SEQRA professional services procurement. A memo was circulated from the Planning Department with a summary of the environmental quality review services for the South Hill TND Regulating Plan adoption. The proposed tasks were listed with deliverables, a schedule for completion, criteria for consideration and the procurement process. C.J. explained the process and history, focusing on what type of procurement process the committee preferred, the Request for Information, Request for Qualifications or Request for proposals. There is a 2023 Budget line for the outside costs related to this needed professional service. The town board would be the 2 entity considering any agreement however the planning committee input is being sought in these beginning phases for the schedule, criteria and preferred procurement process. The committee and the director of engineering were supportive of the Request for Qualifications process for procurement. Engineering asked if the longer timeframe was due to an anticipated positive declaration for the environmental review? C.J. confirmed a positive declaration is anticipated and the town board would assume Lead Agency status with a list of involved parties as well. All agreed that work on the planning committee end will help the town board with the complicated process. The next step would be a more refined document with the in-housework needed for each department scoped out and any other outstanding items for the June meeting with the intent for authorization to issue the RFQ at the end of June. 7. Discussion: 2007 Transportation Plan and 2014 Comprehensive Plan Transportation (TR) implementation review, continued. C.J. mentioned having many discussions with the engineering staff recently in reference to the Capital Improvement Plan to help put all the town transportation pieces together with related costs. A potential annual priority review of the water, sewer, roads, and facility projects by the public works committee was mentioned with the planning committee doing a simultaneous potential annual priority review of the parks, recreation trails, bike, ped and open space. These annual priority reviews could come together to form the annual CIP. She is hopeful that the requested project list to be received by next month’s meeting. Margaret submitted a few comments on the document prepared for the last meeting which outlined the implementation status of the transportation goals and properties from the above referenced plans. A few additional clarifying questions were asked by Rich and the status of some of the goals and priorities need more research or revisions. The “official map” reference was questioned again (not every road is shown, only ones where a building permit can be issued), NYS DOT was noted as needing to be added as a stakeholder in the Street Design and Context sensitive design sections and the effectiveness, ability of lowering speed limits and TCAT funding were touched on. Trails and maintenance for year-round verses seasonal use were discussed and C.J. noted new traffic counters have been installed on the 3 trails in the town and data is being collected. The upcoming Gateway Trail extension by the city and the Stone Quarry Road crossing was pointed out as a project where joint or simultaneous grant funding should be sought. An updated implementation status list would be provided with the clarifications and updates made from committee discussions. The committee acknowledged having to re-prioritize the transportation needs and align them with the funding initiatives available or “sequence” them all in other words. 3 8. Staff updates and reports: C.J. reported recent receipt of a scope of work proposal for Financial Feasibility Analysis of Residential Development in the South Hill TND area. This was submitted by Camoin Associates with proposed timeline within 8 weeks of contract execution and receipt of needed information for a fixed fee of $19,500 with any additional work falling outside the scope to be billed hourly. Tompkins County Planning has a grant opportunity which would cover half of the cost, if the town were to apply and be awarded. Rich asked if the town procurement requirements were met and if this would be a market analysis study typically born by the developer. C.J. confirmed the Town procurement policy was met and she explained this as South Hill TND side project/PIF (Pilot increment financing) portion of the overall project that will be used as a helpful tool by the town and needed to mobilize the project. This document was passed around at the meeting and the electronic version would be sent by C.J. The committee agreed to forward this scope to the town board for consideration. C.J. stated she would put a resolution before the town board to authorize the professional services as well as authorizing the planning department to submit the grant funds portion. C.J. noted May 1st was the last communication with RaNic representatives on the proposed PDZ. There have been no changes or movement. The NYS guidelines and regulations for the sale, consumption and distribution of cannabis are beginning to be finalized and the town will need to explore time, place and manner restrictions within the town regulations. 9. Next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: June 15th, 2023. The Town of Ithaca Planning Committee meeting concluded at 4:45 pm. PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us To: Planning Committee Members Town Board Members From: Christine Balestra, Planner Date: June 8, 2023 RE: Local Law Amending Chapter 148 – Environmental Quality Review Related to On- Premises Signs The NY SEQR regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617 – State Environmental Quality Review) contain a list of municipal actions that require an environmental review prior to approval (Type I Actions). The regulations also contain a list of actions that do not require an environmental review prior to approval (Type II Actions). Any action that is not on the Type I or Type II list is considered “Unlisted” and requires an environmental review. The state regulations give local municipalities the authority to create their own Type I and Type II lists. In 2005, the Town Board adopted a local law to create Chapter 148 - Environmental Quality Review, which contains the Town of Ithaca’s Type I and Type II lists. Sign reviews are currently Unlisted Actions per the state regulations. The provisions in Town Code, Article XXIX Signs, contain an internal staff review, recommendation, and permitting process for signs. Certain signs undergo a design review by Planning staff (or the Planning Board if referred by the Director of Planning), who then make recommendations to the Director of Code Enforcement on the acceptability of proposed signs as to design, materials, illumination, placement, and size. The review takes into account a sign’s compatibility with its surroundings and appropriateness to the architectural character of the buildings near/on which it is placed . The review also looks at whether illumination is appropriate to the character of the surroundings and complies with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Law. Landscaping around a freestanding sign’s base may be required if landscaping would improve the sign’s overall appearance. The attachment includes a proposal to amend Town Code Chapter 148 to add on-premises signs to the Type II list. This would exempt on-premises signs from the state environmental review process, which means the Town Board has determined that on-premises signs do not have a significant impact on the environment. The proposal would not preclude any other required sign review procedures for on-premises signs. On-premises signs would still undergo the design review process by Town staff and (in some cases) Planning Board that was mentioned above. Signs would still require permits that are issued by the Director of Code Enforcement. Please feel free to call me at (607) 273-1721, extension 121, or email me at cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us if you have any questions. Chapter 148 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW [HISTORY: Adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca 4-11-2005 by L.L. No. 3-2005.1 Amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES Conservation Board —See Ch.23. Flood damage prevention —See Ch.157. Freshwater wetlands —See Ch.161. Subdivision of land —See Ch.234. Zoning —See Ch.270. §148-1.Purpose. §148-2.Definitions. A.The purpose of this chapter is to implement, for the Town of Ithaca, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)2 and the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617 as hereinafter defined. B.The intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and this chapter is to provide a procedural framework for the inclusion of environmental considerations into the local decision-making process at the earliest possible time and for the mitigation of negative environmental impacts. C.It is the purpose of this chapter that a suitable balance of social, economic, and environmental factors be incorporated into the planning, review and decision-making processes of the Town of Ithaca. It is not the intention of SEQRA and this chapter that environmental factors be the sole or, necessarily, controlling consideration in the decision-making process. A.The words used in this chapter shall have the same meaning as such words are defined in Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617.2 as the same may be amended from time to time, unless the context requires a different meaning. B.The following terms shall have the following meanings: D/EIS —Draft environmental impact statement. EAF —Full Environmental assessment form. EIS —Environmental impact statement. PART 617 —Volume 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Part 617 (6 NYCRR 617). 1.Editor's Note: This local law also repealed former Ch. 148, Environmental Quality Review, adopted 4-11-1988 by L.L. No. 5-1988. 2.Editor's Note: See Environmental Conservation Law §8-0101 et seq. Also, in addition to the text below, this local law also provided the following: This chapter shall apply to all actions proposed to be carried out by the Town that are pending before the Town Board as of the effective date of this chapter, to all applications for approvals, permits, or funding submitted on or after the effective date, and to incomplete applications submitted prior to the effective date. If a completed application is submitted prior to the effective date and if such application is diligently prosecuted to completion, the application shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 148 that were in effect immediately prior to the effective date. For the purposes of this section only, an application shall be deemed "completed" if it contains all required information, forms, materials and fees normally and reasonably required by the lead agency and involved agencies. An application shall be deemed "diligently prosecuted to conclusion" if the applicant promptly responds to any inquiries and promptly supplies any additional information reasonably required by the lead agency and/or involved agencies, appears at all required scheduled public hearings, and otherwise cooperates so as to permit and enable the lead agency and/or involved agencies to adequately and completely review the application and complete the SEQRA process on same within a reasonable period of time of its submission.148:1 §148-3.Classification of actions. All actions may be classified as set forth in Subsections A through C below, and as are defined in 6 NYCRR 617.2. §148-4.Administration. A person or department of the Town of Ithaca designated by the Town Board shall: S/EAF —Short environmental assessment form. SEQRA —The State Environmental Quality Review Act as set forth in Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law. TOWN —The Town of Ithaca. WETLAND —Any area designated as a freshwater wetland by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or Town of Ithaca, or included as being within the palustrine system (labeled as "P") on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, except those identified on the NWI as being diked, impounded, or excavated (i.e., labeled with special modifiers "h" or "x"). C.The following terms shall be defined and have the meaning as set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.2: "actions"; "Type I action"; "Type II action"; "unlisted action"; "lead agency"; "involved agency"; "critical environmental area." Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, any other term defined in Part 617 and used in this chapter shall have the same definition as is set forth in Part 617. A.Type II: actions which have been determined legislatively not to have a significant effect on the environment, consisting of actions listed in 6 NYCRR 617.5 or in §148-6 of this chapter; B.Type I: actions which are more likely to require preparation of an environmental impact statement, consisting of actions listed in 6 NYCRR 617.4, in §148-5 of this chapter, or in any similar listing adopted by an involved agency; C.Unlisted: actions not otherwise listed as Type I or Type II actions but which require environmental significance to be determined. A.Aid in determining whether the proposed action is Type II, using the strictest interpretation of Part 617 and this chapter. Where any doubt exists, such determination shall be referred to the lead agency as designated under the provisions of §148-8 of this chapter and to the Town Board in all other cases. B.Aid in designating the lead agency and make recommendations therefor. C.Perform preliminary review of all applications, EAFs, S/EAFs, D/EISs, EISs and supporting documents to determine probable sufficiency as to scope, form and content. D.Require that the applicant complete an EAF if: (1)Any question in Part II of the S/EAF has been answered "Yes" [except Part II(B)]; (2)The scope of proposal requires more detail; or (3)In the first instance, if the S/EAF would not provide the lead agency with sufficient information on which to base its determination of significance. E.Aid the applicant with any questions concerning forms or the environmental review process. F.Determine whether applications, including all pertinent environmental documents, appear to be sufficient; and forward such application materials to the appropriate Town lead agency with a recommendation 148:2 concerning environmental significance within a reasonable time to allow for review at the Town lead agency meeting at which the application is scheduled to be considered. G.Assist agencies and applicants to identify other agencies, including federal and state agencies, that may be involved in the approving, funding or carrying out of Type I and unlisted actions. The burden for determining other involved agencies shall nevertheless rest solely on the applicant. H.Assist in the scoping of the D/EIS (when a Town agency is either a lead agency or an involved agency.) § 148-5. Type I actions. In addition to those actions listed in 6 NYCRR 617.4, the following are hereby designated as Type I actions, except when listed as Type II actions in 6 NYCRR 617.5: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Any of the following changes in the uses allowed by local law, ordinance, rule, regulation, special permit, variance or otherwise, within any zoning district or districts which result in such change in use applying to a parcel or parcels of land of 10 or more acres in the district or districts: (1) Authorization of industrial or commercial uses within a residential or agricultural district; (2) Authorization of residential uses within an agricultural district. The construction of new residential units which meet or exceed the following thresholds: (1) Ten units not to be connected (at commencement of habitation) to community or publicly owned utilities; (2) Thirty units to be connected (at the commencement of habitation) to community or publicly owned utilities. The construction, alteration, or demolition of nonresidential facilities which meet or exceed any of the thresholds set forth in Subsection C(1) through (4) below, or the expansion of an existing nonresidential facility by more than 50% of any such thresholds: (1) An action which involves the physical alteration of ten (10) acres; (2) An action which would use ground- or surface water in excess of 100,000 gallons per day; (3) Parking for 100 vehicles; or (4) A facility with more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area. Any unlisted action which takes place in, or within 250 feet of, any critical environmental area designated by a governmental agency pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.14(g). Any facility, development or project which is to be located in, or immediately adjacent to, a designated wetland. Mining of more than 2,500 cubic yards of minerals removed from the earth within 12 successive calendar months. The definition of mining and minerals shall be the same as that in the New York State Mined Land Reclamation Law, found at § 23-2705, Subdivisions 7 and 8, of the Environmental Conservation Law. Any facility, development or project which would generate more than 2,000 vehicle trips per any twenty-four- hour period. Any facility, development or project which, when completed, would generate dual-wheel truck traffic of more than 10 vehicles per any eight-hour period per day. 148:3 A.After being duly designated, the lead agency shall make a determination of environmental significance pursuant to Part 617. All determinations by the lead agency shall be by resolution duly adopted by the lead agency. B.Such determination of environmental significance shall be one of the following: (1)Negative declaration of environmental significance. Upon a determination having been made and filed that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the action shall be processed without further regard to SEQRA, Part 617, or this chapter. (2)Conditioned negative declaration of environmental significance. In regard to unlisted actions only, upon a determination having been made, filed and published that the action, as initially proposed, may result in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts, but that mitigation measures, identified and required by the lead agency pursuant to the procedures in Part 617, will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result, the action will be processed as a negative declaration; provided, however, that no comments are received during the public comment period which would require the submission of a D/EIS pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7(d)(1) and (2). A conditioned negative declaration can only be given for an unlisted action and must follow the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.7(d). (3)Positive declaration of environmental significance. Upon a determination having been made and filed that the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the applicant, all other involved agencies, and other persons shall be notified in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.12 that a 148:4 All actions, as defined in 6 NYCRR 617.2(b), to be carried out, funded or approved by any agency, board, body, or officer of the Town shall require the preparation of: (1) An EAF if a Type I action or if an unlisted action where a S/EAF would not provide the lead agency with sufficient information on which to base its determination of significance. (2) A S/EAF for all other unlisted actions. If any question on Part II of a S/EAF is answered "Yes" [except Part II(B)], or if the lead agency or person designated pursuant to § 148-4 of this chapter deems that more detailed information is needed, an EAF is required. All application materials shall be submitted at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the meeting of the lead agency at which the application is scheduled to be heard. Said time period may be modified by the designated person or department referred to in § 148-4 of this chapter. A. B. § 148-8. Lead agency. The lead agency shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.6. § 148-9. Determination of environmental significance. I.Any facility, development or project which would exceed New York State or federal ambient air quality standards, whichever is more restrictive. J.Any facility, development or project which would exceed New York State or federal water quality standards, whichever is more restrictive. § 148-6. Type II actions. In addition to those actions listed in 6 NYCRR 617.5, the following is are hereby designated as a Type II actions: A. All tree planting, landscaping, and trimming by the Town of Ithaca Highway Department. B. All on-premise signs. § 148-7. Required forms; initial review. §148-10.Negative declaration of environmental significance. A negative declaration of environmental significance shall be prepared, filed and distributed as prescribed in 6 NYCRR 617.12(b) and, where applicable, published as prescribed in 6 NYCRR 617.12(c). §148-11.Conditioned negative declaration of environmental significance. A notice of conditioned negative declaration of environmental significance shall be prepared, filed and published in the environmental notice bulletin pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.12(b) and 617.12(c). The notice shall state that the conditioned negative declaration has been issued, what conditions have been imposed and the length of the comment period established by the lead agency. In no case shall the comment period be less than 30 days. Notwithstanding the above, the conditioned negative declaration must be rescinded, and a D/EIS shall be prepared if any of the conditions set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.7(d)(2) are met within the public comment period. Conditioned negative declarations may also be amended or rescinded pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f). §148-12.Positive declaration of environmental significance. §148-13.Time limits. D/EIS is required. A.If the lead agency makes a positive declaration of environmental significance, thus requiring that a D/EIS be prepared, the matter shall be processed as provided in Part 617. B.In the case of an application for approval or funding, the D/EIS shall be prepared by the applicant or by the agency, at the option of the applicant. The applicant shall notify the agency within 30 days of the filing of the notice of positive declaration as to whether the applicant or the agency shall prepare the D/EIS. If the applicant does not elect to prepare the D/EIS, the agency shall prepare it, cause it to be prepared, or terminate its review of the proposed action. Upon receipt of the D/EIS, the lead agency shall determine by resolution whether to accept the D/EIS as satisfactory as to scope and content. C.Upon the adoption by the lead agency of a resolution to accept the D/EIS, the lead agency shall file a notice of completion of the D/EIS in accordance with the requirements provided in 6 NYCRR 617.12. D.All time limits applicable to the processing of a D/EIS and EIS shall commence to run on the date of filing of the notice of completion of the D/EIS. A.An application shall be deemed received for the purposes of 6 NYCRR 617.6(a) when the lead agency has deemed the application, along with pertinent environmental forms, to be complete. B.The SEQRA process for an application for a permit or funding shall be deemed complete when, as is appropriate in each case, one of the following events occurs: (1)The action has been determined to be a Type II action. (2)A negative declaration of environmental significance has been issued and such declaration has been filed pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.12. (3)A conditioned negative declaration of environmental significance has been issued and such declaration has been duly filed and published pursuant to Part 617; provided that no comments have been received within the comment period that would require the submission of a D/EIS pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7(d). (4)A written findings statement on a final EIS has been approved and filed pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.11 and 617.12. 148:5 §148-14.Public hearings. Public hearings on the D/EIS are not required but, if held, shall be held concurrently with any hearings required to be held by the lead or other involved agencies to the fullest extent practicable. The decision as to whether to hold a public hearing on the D/EIS will be made pursuant to the guidelines in 6 NYCRR 617.9(a)(4). For purposes of coordinating public hearings on a D/EIS and other required public hearings, the lead agency may, in its sole discretion, determine that an application for funding or approval shall be deemed complete upon the acceptance by the lead agency of a D/EIS as satisfactory with respect to scope, content, and adequacy. §148-15.Fees. The fees for review or preparation of a D/EIS or EIS involving an applicant for approval or funding of an action shall be determined by the lead agency for each such application. The fees shall be based on the actual cost to the Town for reviewing or preparing the D/EIS or EIS, including the cost of hiring consultants, the salary time of Town employees and actual disbursements incurred as a result of the review or preparation of the EIS, but in no event shall the fees be greater than those established in 6 NYCRR 617.13. §148-16.Critical environmental areas. Critical environmental areas may be designated by the Town Board pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.14(g). §148-17.Actions involving federal agencies. Environmental review of actions involving a federal agency shall be processed in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.15. 148:6 1 Town of Ithaca, New York SEQR Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) scope South Hill Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Regulating Plan June 9, 2023 (Draft) Project location Town of Ithaca, New York: a ±170 acre (69 hectare) site, about 2 miles (3 kilometers) south of downtown Ithaca (city), immediately south of the Ithaca College campus. Project sponsor Town of Ithaca Planning Department c/o Daniel Tasman 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 607-273-1747 dtasman@town.ithaca.ny.us Lead agency Town of Ithaca Town Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 607-273-1747 https://www.town.ithaca.ny.us Positive declaration issued 2023-xx-xx Draft scoping document submitted: 2023-xx-xx Comments accepted through: 2023-xx-xx Please send any comments to the email or physical address above. 2 ❶ INTRODUCTION The Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) will assemble and analyze relevant and material facts, and evaluate reasonable alternatives. It will be analytical, but not encyclopedic. The DGEIS will group each issue into one existing setting, impact, and mitigation section, for ease of usability and readability. It will use footnotes to cite references. It will support all assertions with evidence. Excepting common knowledge or generally accepted facts, it will note opinions that aren’t supported by evidence. The DGEIS may incorporate by reference parts of other documents, including EISs with relevant information, following 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(7), It will reference other SEQR documentation only if it’s available at Town Hall for inspection, or freely downloadable on the Internet. While the DGEIS is a technical document, it will be as easy to read and understand as possible. Text will be in clear, concise plain English, in the third person. Text will also use active voice, inclusive language, and everyday words (instead of more formal Latinate terms) where possible. Writing shouldn’t have an overly bureaucratic tone. It will use tables, lists, and graphics to present and explain data and findings where possible. Any highly technical material will have plain English summaries. ❷ PROJECT DESCRIPTION South Hill TND overview The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (2014) recommends compact, walkable mixed use neighborhoods (new urban/traditional neighborhood development) in three emerging growth areas. These growth areas are close to major employers and activity hubs. They also tend to have large undeveloped or underdeveloped parc els, and limited land ownership fragmentation, that are well-suited for coordinated master planning and development. The 2014 Comprehensive Plan envisions the South Hill T raditional Neighborhood Development (TND) area as a unified and cohesive neighborhood, even though there are different land owners, and development may take place over many years (or decades). The South Hill TND area occupies a ±170 acre (69 hectare) site, about 2 miles (3 kilometers) 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). The bulk of land in the South Hill TND area is undeveloped. Developed portions include two small eateries, a furn iture 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 adopted the New Neighborhood Code (NNC) in November 2020. The NNC is a form-based code intended to enable and guide traditional neighborhood development (TND) in the emerging gro wth areas, including South Hill. The NNC has standards for transect zoning, neighborhood design, building types and design, lot development, uses, and long term “sprawl repair”. The NNC supplements the Town’s current land use and subdivision regulations. In 2021, an urban design consulting group conducted a charrette, and drafted a regulating plan (master plan) for the South Hill TND area. The Town is now preparing for formal regulating plan application, review, and approval. The New Neighborhood Code and the regulating plan process This planning action includes adoption of a regulating plan, a type of master plan specifically for traditional neighborhood development (TND). A regulating plan includes the following. • Proposed location, boundaries, and cumulative area of each zone. 3 • Proposed thoroughfare location and type. This includes the footprint (right-of-way area) and configuration (assembly: roadway, planting strip/tree lawn, and sidewalk) of existing and planned streets, alleys, pedestrian streets, and stubout street provisions. This also includes measurements of block lengths and perimeters, to show that they meet NNC requirements. • Proposed park sites and types. This includes measurements of individual park sizes, park perimeter lengths with street frontage, and total parkland area, to show that they meet NNC requirements. • Illustrative map of buildout conditions, showing possible lot lines, building types and envelopes, park layout and amenities, and/or other features. (An illustrative map serves as a proof of concept, and is not binding.) • A summary that describes the project, the process, and concept plans. The regulating plan process is the same as the rezoning process. Regulating plan approval will rezone underlying sites, designate binding future park locations, and amend the Town’s official map (for thoroughfare location). A regulating plan doesn’t substitute for a preliminary subdivision. However, platting must follow the regulating plan. Future subdivision plans will address more specific aspects of development, like lot location and size, the building type allowed on each lot, and design and construction details for thoroughfares, infrastructure, parks, and other amenities. The site planning process, not the regulating plan, authorizes future lot-specific development. ❸ REVIEW UNDER SEQRA General overview [more] Purpose of the scoping process [more] Lead, involved, and interested agencies Lead agency Town of Ithaca Involved agencies (authority to fund, approve, or directly undertake an action related to the project) • Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) • Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) • New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) • New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) • Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (Bolton Point) • Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) • Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability 4 Interested agencies (no approval or permitting jurisdiction for the action, but may want to participate because of concern or possible indirect impact) • Town of Ithaca: Code Enforcement, Engineering, Public Works departments • City of Ithaca: Planning and Economic Development Division • Town of Danby: Town Planner • Ithaca City School District (ICSD) • Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School • Tompkins County: Sheriff’s Office • New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (SHPO) • Ithaca College: Office of Facilities, Ithaca College Natural Lands (ICNL) • Cornell University: Cornell Botanic Gardens ❹ DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DGEIS) CONTENT § 0 Cover sheet and table of contents The DGEIS document may have a graphic or illustrated cover. A cover sheet will identify the DGEIS, and list the title and location of actions, preparers, the contact person, lead agency, and relevant dates (acceptance, public hearing, deadlines, etc.). A table of contents will list chapters, sections, appendixes, and page numbers. § 1 Executive summary This chapter of the DGEIS will summarize the proposed action, public need and benefits, possible impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and alternatives to the proposed action. § 2 Proposed action This chapter of the DGEIS will describe the proposed action, including background, need, location, the review and approval process, and implementation. § 2.1 Detailed project description This section will describe the South Hill TND project in more detail. This includes a background history of the site and previous planning efforts, rezoning and adoption of the regulating plan, and a description of the development outcome. (Subdivision platting, infrastructure and amenity improvements, building permits, and the like aren’t a part of the regulating plan process.) § 2.2 Site description and conditions This subsection will describe the Town’s location in the context of the Ithaca Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and the South Hill TND location in the context of the City and Town of Ithaca. It will also describe and show existing land uses and zoning in the South Hill TND area, and surrounding area. § 2.3 Purpose, need, and benefit This section will describe and discuss: • Public need, market demand, and potential benefits of compact traditional neighborhood development in the South Hill area, as the Town’s Comprehensive Plan recommends. 5 • Potential consequences of conventional suburban development following the Town’s legacy subdivision and zoning regulations in the South Hill TND area. • Effects of the New Neighborhood Code and the South Hill TND regulating plan, and its requirements for a variety of housing types and settings, on the housing market in the Ithaca area. § 2.4 Reviews, approvals, and compliance This section will describe the development review process for adoption of the South Hill TND regulating plan. This includes activities that happened before formal application including preliminary sketch plans, a design charrette, and refinement of the plan that resulted from the charrette. This also includes application, environmental review, and the regulating plan and rezoning process. § 2.5 Implementation This section will describe future actions that are a part of implementing the regulating plan. This includes amending the Town official map, platting, development agreements, surety, building infrastructure and civic amenities (roads and sidewalks, parks, landscaping, utilities, and so on), coordination among different property owners (if necessary), infrastructure that needs to be in place before any other improvements happen, homeowner associations (if necessary), building permits, and the like. § 3 Current conditions, possible impacts, and mitigation Each topic or specific issue in this DGEIS chapter will have three separate subsections; assessment of existing environmental conditions, a “no change” future without the proposed action, and possible general impacts of the proposed action. “No change” subsections will discuss how the Town (and surrounding region) will grow and change without the South Hill TND regulating plan. Impact subsections will look at impacts related to adopting and implementing the regulating plan. The DGEIS will discuss any proposed mitigation measures for each major issue in this scoping document. When discussing impacts and mitigation, the DGEIS will: • Consider the impact of compact traditional neighborhood development, compared to an equivalent level of development under current practices (conventional suburban development, incremental frontage subdivision, dispersed low density housing, etc.). In other words, what might happen on a regional scale – the Ithaca area, not just the site and its immediate surroundings – if the Town doesn’t adopt the South Hill TND regulating plan. • Consider that the New Neighborhood Code sets no limit on housing density. This doesn’t mean the NNC allows an infinite or infinitesimal housing density. Different transect zones allow a different range of predefined lot/building types, including different forms of housing. Lot size, building siting, and bulk requirements for each building type varies depending on the underlying transect zone. Later preliminary plats lay out lot locations, and set one specific lot/building type for each lot. Building types, bulk and lot size requirements for a building type in a specific transect zone, lot size and shape, and the inevitable need for some onsite parking (even though the NNC has no minimum parking requirements) ultimately limits po ssible housing density. The land use element in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan recommends m inimum and maximum housing density for TND areas. Town Planning staff have also modeled buildout scenarios. These topic areas may be rearranged, if it will make the DGEIS more readable. § 3.1 Land use, zoning, and public policy This section will describe and discuss the following. 6 • Current and potential land use and zoning in the Town. • Differences between current and proposed zoning for the South Hill TND area. • Buildout of the South Hill TND area, under the Town’s legacy zoning and subdivision regulations, and following the proposed South Hill TND regulating plan. Earlier buildout studies by Town staff may inform this part. • Compatibility of traditional neighborhood development with the current development pattern in the South Hill area, goals and recommendations in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and other relevant planning documents and policies. • Possible impact of the South Hill TND on future urban sprawl, farmland and open area conversion, traffic and vehicle dependency, and housing inventory in the Town and Ithaca area, and loss of farmland and open areas, traffic congestion. • How development following the South Hill TND regulating plan and New Neighborhood Code follows best contemporary planning practice, compared to conventional suburban development under the Town’s Connections. • Possible impacts and appropriate mitigation for development under the South Hill TND regulating plan. § 3.2 Geology / soils / topography This section includes descriptions and discussion of geology, soils, and topography as they may relate to future site preparation and development, along with any possible impacts from future development, and needed mitigation. § 3.3 Water resources 3.3.1 Surface water / stormwater management This section includes descriptions and discussion of the following. • Federal and state surface water regulations. • Surface drainage patterns. This includes perennial and intermittent streams, creeks, waterways, sheet flow, and other drainage courses, both natural and manmade. • Surface water resources that development would affect, focusing in the South Hill TND area and neighboring areas. • Current and conceptual (see below) stormwater conveyance, storage/holding, filtering, and infiltration features. • Potential impacts to surface water features resulting from increased stormwater from new development. • General post-development hydraulic and hydrologic conditions and drainage flow paths for the site, with quantitative data where possible. • Feasibility and effectiveness of treating the entire project area as a single site for stormwater management purposes (as the New Neighborhood Code allows), and an integrated system (train of treatment) of context sensitive stormwater management facilities. This also includes a comparison with the current site-by-site “ditches and detention” approach that is now more common in the Town. • Approaches for implementing light imprint (as opposed to low impact) stormwater management on a neighborhood scale, in an area where lots have different sizes, owners, and development timetables. 3.3.2 Groundwater This section identifies and describes groundwater resources in the area, possible impacts from development, and any mitigation that future development might need. 7 § 3.x Terrestrial and biological ecology 3.3.1 Vegetation This section describes the following. • Vegetation coverage in the South Hill TND area in general. • The possible presence of unique, rare and/or endangered, threatened , and special concern species, as informed by previous surveys and studies of the area. • Possible extent of removing mature trees. • Possible impact to the Ithaca College Natural Lands preserve where it borders the South Hill TND area. • Street trees, and any need for a Town urban forestry program. 3.3.2 Wildlife This section will identify the possible presence of unique, rare and/or endangered, threatened, and special concern species. It will also discuss potential conflicts between residents and their companion animals, and wildlife, along with any needed mitigation. 3.3.3 Wetlands This section will identify and discuss mapped locations of state and federal wetlands and near the site. It will also discuss state and federal compliance requirements for any future land use development in or near freshwater wetlands and nearby upland areas, along with any needed mitigation. § 3.4 Cultural and historic resources This section describes and discusses the following. • Visible remnants of previous uses, like foundations, or field or fence lines., and their possible historic value. • Known historic and archaeological sites in the South Hill TND area, based on the New York State Site Inventory. Descriptions of sites with relics of pre-European inhabitants should minimize any risk of disturbance before further study or mitigation. • Possible impacts and mitigation. § 3.5 Parks and preserves This section describes the possible effects of the South Hill TND on the following. • Buttermilk Falls State Park: adjacency, possible connections to trails • South Hill Swamp (Cornell Botanic Gardens): adjacency, etc. • Ithaca College Natural Lands: adjacency, possible connections to trails. • New parks / improvements that are part of the development. It will also discuss how developers, builders, property owners, and the Town should address: • Equity for costs and benefits of park improvements among property owners, disproportionate burdens on individual property owners, etc.. • Responsibility for detailed park design. • Responsibility for building park improvements. • Phasing of park improvements. • Possible legal mechanisms for owning, developing, managing, and maintaining parks, public and private open space, common amenities, and other common areas. 8 § 3.6 Community services / utilities 3.6.1 Water and wastewater This section describes and discusses the following. • Current and projected availability of water supply and wastewater treatment. • Maximum water use and sanitary sewage disposal requirements, based on buildout scenarios (TND, existing zoning and continued suburban context development throughout the region, TND, etc.). • Potential improvements to the sewer and wastewater system for serving future development. • Need for any line oversizing or phasing to ensure orderly development, considering development in an area where lots have different sizes, owners, and development timetables. 3.6.2 Utilities This section will describe and discuss the following. • Utilities available in the South Hill TND area, including electric service, cable TV, broadband Internet, wired telephone service, and wireless telephone/data services. • Changing needs for different utility services; electricity for vehicle charging, phaseout of natural gas service, any continuing demand or need for landline telephone service, increasing demand for wireless telephone and data services, and the like. • Possible need for expanding utility services. 3.6.3 Schools This section will describe and discuss the following. • Possible impact on elementary and high school enrollment, based on current and future demographic trends. • Possible impact on Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School (private), including their enrollment and facilities. • Current capacity of elementary and high schools serving the area, and any need for new school facilities. • Environmental impact of transportation (buses, walking, etc.) for students living in the South Hill TND area to school, compared to a continued pattern of conventional suburban development. 3.6.4 Public safety This section will describe and discuss existing public safety services (police, fire, emergency) available in the South Hill TND area, along with any possible impacts and mitigation. § 3.7 Traffic and transportation 3.7.1 Roadways This section will describe and discuss the following. • Existing traffic patterns and volumes in the South Hill TND area, based on the most current traffic studies and counts. Where information is available from such studies, describe physical and operating char acteristics. This should follow New York State Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) guidelines where applicable. (See https://www.dot.ny.gov/CommercialHWP/traffic-impact) • Maximum potential traffic generation rates resulting from existing zoning and proposed zo ning buildout scenarios. Traffic generation rates will be based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) standards, and adjusted for compact, walkable mixed use development or an urban setting for the proposed zoning buildout scenario. • Potential for reduced vehicle miles traveled, compared to a continued pattern of conventional suburban development in the Ithaca area. 9 • Traffic counts and analysis of intersections and turning movements during peak morning and afternoon hours for these intersections: o Danby Road (NY 96B) and King Road West o King Road West and Troy Road o Danby Road and Alumni Circle (main Ithaca College entrance) o East Aurora Street (NY 96B) and Prospect Street (City of Ithaca) o East Aurora Street (NY 96B) and West State Street (City of Ithaca) o Stone Quarry Road and Spencer Road (City of Ithaca). • Potential for future traffic improvements, including traffic calming measures. • Advantages and disadvantages of thoroughfares with a urban profile (curbs, tree lawns, sidewalks) and alleys, compared to rural profile streets (shoulders, ditches, no sidewalks or tree lawns) that are now prevalent throughout the Town. Consider that a certain length of thoroughfare in a TND will have more fronting lots and denser development than a typical rural profile street in the Town. • Possible impacts and mitigation. 3.7.2 Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure This section will describe and discuss the following. • Existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle system in the South Hill TND area. • The need to update existing thoroughfares with a rural profile (Danby Road, King Road) and no sidewalks in the South Hill TND to a more urban form. • Responsibility for building and maintaining sidewalks. • Possible impacts and mitigation. 3.7.3 Public transportation This section will describe and discuss the following. • Current and potential services of Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) in the South Hill TND area. • Consider housing density that sustains public transportation, potential ridership growth, and capacity and frequency improvements. • Possible impacts and mitigation. 3.7.4 Equity among developers and property owners This section discusses the possible need for equity for sharing the costs and benefits of transportation infrastructure among property owners, and ways to accomplish it. § 3.8 Development pattern and community character This section describes and discusses the following. • Existing and proposed character of the South Hill area if it was built out under existing zoning, and the proposed South Hill TND regulating plan. • Use of prescriptive design requirements for architecture, landscaping, parking, lighting, screening, fencing and signage. • Possible rate of development and time of buildout in the South Hill TND. • How the South Hill TND could lead to or detract from goals of reducing urban sprawl and frontage subdivision, and preserving farmland and contiguous open areas. • How the South Hill TND could help or hurt underlying market and regulatory conditions that hinder construction of new resident oriented housing in the Ithaca area. 10 • How the South Hill TND could affect the supply of affordable housing. Consider “affordable housing” as both market rate housing that is affordable for all income groups and household types, and income qualified and workforce housing. • How the South Hill TND could lead to or detract from goals of creating diverse, inclusive neighborhoods for all income groups and household types. • Possible impacts to neighboring residential areas, incl uding noise, light, and air quality. When considering development pattern and community character, there shouldn’t be an assumption that existing conditions are ideal or reflect “good” character that mitigation must address. § 3.9 Socioeconomics This section describes and discusses the following. • Local population, housing, and the economic base; the social and economic setting and any potential for change. • Current housing issues, needs, availability, affordability, quality, and other related market condit ions. • General feasibility for providing a range of housing types and price levels. • Demand and need for quality market rate and income qualified housing, and “missing middle” housing types, for current and future full time residents of all income groups. Consider Ithaca is a college town, where construction of purpose-built off-campus student housing is booming, while there is an endemic shortage of resident-oriented housing. § 3.10 Economic and fiscal considerations This section describes and discusses the following. • Current Town of Ithaca tax base. • Future revenues to the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, and Ithaca City School District from buildout under existing zoning and the South Hill TND regulating plan. • Costs of providing services, including schools, public safety, and maintaining public facilities and infrastructure. • Possible methods to fund common, shared, or early oversized services and facilities in the South Hill TND area (special improvement districts, tax increment financing, latecomer or development reimbursement fees, etc.). • Possible incentives for developers and builders, under New York State and Tompkins County tax policies/law, and other means. § 4 Project alternatives This chapter of the DGEIS compares the general impact of development under the New Neighborhood Code and South Hill TND regulating plan to different scenarios that are possible under conventional development practices (suburban context zoning, incremental frontage subdivision, etc.) on a regional scale. “Regional scale” means the Ithaca area as a whole; not just the South Hill TND site or its immediate surroundings. Analysis of alternatives will include a) how it meets (or doesn’t meet) relevant goals and recommendations of the 2014 Comprehensive Plan; b) feasibility for providing a range of housing types and neighborhood-oriented commercial uses in a walkable setting; and c) possible externalities and adverse environmental impacts. Analyses of alternatives will include quantitative data where possible. The analysis will consider the relative effects of development in a compact TND, versus more dispersed development throughout the Town. The analysis will use existing levels of community services, infrastructure, utilities, transportation, and revenue as a base. 11 § 4.1 No action; no development on site This section considers a scenario where the Town doesn’t adopt the proposed regulating plan, and no changes happen in the South Hill TND area. § 4.2 Existing zoning: conventional suburban development This section considers a scenario where development in the South Hill TND area takes the form of conventional suburban development, following the Town’s legacy zoning and subdivision regulations. § 4.3 Existing zoning: cluster development This section considers a scenario where development in the South Hill TND area takes the form of cluster development, following the Town’s legacy zoning and subdivision regulations. § 5 Unavoidable impacts This chapter of the DGEIS identifies impacts that are likely to happen even with mitigation measures. It will discuss the implications of those impacts, both good and bad, § 6 Non-renewable resource use This chapter of the DGEIS will identify and discuss aspects of development that could cause a permanent and irreversible use of resources. (Compare to alternative of conventional suburban development.) § 7 Induced growth This chapter of the DGEIS will discuss how the South Hill TND could accelerate growth above what would otherwise happen under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. It also discusses the potential positive and negative impacts of that growth. It will draw on accepted planning principles, previous housing preference studies from Cornell University and Tompkins County, and the induced growth section of the DGEIS for the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. § 8 Energy use and conservation This chapter of the DGEIS will identify and discuss potential energy types and sources that can serve future development. It will identify and discuss general energy-saving measures and other strategies, like promoting renewable energy sources. (Due to the general nature of the DGEIS, it can’t address specific levels of energy use, or ways to save energy for the proposed action, since the action doesn’t authorize lot-specific development activity.) § 9 Appendix The appendix will have background information related to the proposed actions like relevant SEQR documents, correspondence, references, and other supporting materials. Infrastructure/Buildings/Maintenance Infrastructure Year ACCOUNT #2023 Cost ACCOUNT #2024 Cost ACCOUNT #2025 Cost 2026 Cost 2027 Cost 2028 Cost Water Tanks Hungerford Hill Tank 1,500,000.00$ Water Tanks TOTAL:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,500,000.00$ Water Mains F8340-500 Troy/Coddington Backup Generators* (Gen equip:$89,900)250,000.00$ F8340-5XX F8340-5XX Backup Generator-Christopher Circle 130,000.00$ Winners Circle WM Replacement $ 170,000.00 Trumansburg Tank Main Replacement $ 800,000.00 Bostwick Tank to 7 Mile Drive $ 300,000.00 ARPA Funds Ridgecrest Watermain** (CO amount: $114,700)1,261,700.00$ Lead and Copper Rule-Services Identification 50,000.00$ F8340-5XX West Hill Hospital Redundancy $ 550,000.00 Wildflower/Strawberry Cir. Water Main $ 412,500.00 Northview Tank to Coddington $ 500,000.00 F8340-5XX Pine Tree PRV & Pine Tree Watermain Upgrade $ 1,200,000.00 West Hill Tank Main Replacement $ 950,000.00 Water Mains TOTAL: $ 1,511,700.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 1,880,000.00 $ 1,532,500.00 1,300,000.00$ 300,000.00$ Sanitary Sewers ARPA/Bonding FH Pump Station & Forcemain**1,089,445.00$ G8120-5XX Sewer Lining and Manhole Rehab 300,000.00$ G8120-5XX Sewer Lining and Manhole Rehab-NE 300,000.00$ Sewer Lining and Manhole Rehab 300,000.00$ Sewer Lining and Manhole Rehab 300,000.00$ Sewer Lining and Manhole Rehab 300,000.00$ NE I&I study 92,250.00$ G8120-5XX Inlet Valley PS Rehab/Rebuild/FM 1,200,000.00$ G8120-5XX Linderman Creek Lateral Crossing 50,000.00$ Danby Road Sewer Upgrades Danby 105 to Danby 75 $ 540,000.00 $ 540,000.00 G8120-5XX Floral Ave. Sewer Upgrades 1,000,000.00$ Mitchell Street Sewer Upgrades 1,025,000.00$ Jointly Owned Interceptors Stewart Park Pump Staion Phase A-Forcemain (Joint Budget: $43,582)18,230.00$ Stewart Park Pump Station Phase B-Misc. Pump Station Improvements (Joint Budget: $127,148)52,856.00$ Cherry St Sewer & Forcemain Upgrades Phase 3A (Joint Budget: $30,000)12,471.00$ Cherry St Sewer & Forcemain Pipe Bridge Phase A-Hire Consultant (Joint Budget: $13,000)5,404.10$ Cherry St Sewer & Forcemain Pipe Bridge Phase B-Construct (Joint Budget: $32,000)13,302.40$ Cherry Street Misc. Improvements Phase A-Study and misc. HVAC. Lighting, & Safety upgrades (Joint Budget: $50,000)20,785.00$ Cherry Street Misc. Improvements Phase A-Study and misc. HVAC. Lighting, & Safety upgrades (Joint Budget: $450,000)187,065.00$ Cass Park Misc. Improvements (Joint Budget: $50,000)20,785.00$ -$ $ - -$ -$ Sanitary Sewers TOTAL:1,194,166.00$ 2,565,204.10$ 1,628,223.40$ 300,000.00$ 840,000.00$ 840,000.00$ Storm Drainage Six Mile Creek-CWIO Project (Grant)30,000.00$ King Road West Box Culvert-slipline 200,000.00$ Lower Stone Quarry Road Sandra Place Culvert Replacement Storm DrainageTOTAL:30,000.00$ 200,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Roads DB5112.500 Harris B Dates Dr.-Entrance/Exit 46,402.46$ DB5112.500 Ridgecrest (Mill-2.5" Top) (Depends on WM Project)115,000.00$ DB5112.500 Maple Avenue (Design and Bid)600,000.00$ Forest Home Drive Reconstruction-Phase 1-Design Forest Home Drive-Phase 2-Construction -Funded utilizing CHIPS/Fund Balance/DB5112.500 Conifer-Rt 79 to Cypress Ct. Intersection 13,444.19$ DB5112.500 Elm St Rebuild Repave (3" Binder-2" top)553,000.00$ DB5112.500 King Road West-Phase 2 Buttermilk to 96B 211,200.00$ Seven Mile Drive DB5112.500 Conifer-Cypress Ct. Intersection to end 49,207.16$ DB5112.500 King Rd. West-Phase 1 Buttermilk to Sandbank (3" Binder-2" top)447,000.00$ DB5112.500 Property Tax DB5112.500 Judd Falls-366 to Tower (Top/Sidewalk/ADA Ramps):Paving-$27,345.92 DB5112.500 Holly Creek Lane (3" Binder-2" top)61,000.00$ DB5112.500 Judd Falls-Campus to Tower (Top/Sidewalk/ADA Ramps):Paving-$64,357.14 DB5112.500 Larisa Lane & Schickel Road (3" Binder-2" top)166,000.00$ DB5112.500 Burleigh Dr 133,986.48$ DB5112.500 Glenside Road (3" Binder-2" top)52,000.00$ DB5112.500 Lexington Dr.71,193.09$ DB5112.500 Coy Glen Road (3" Binder-2" top)242,000.00$ DB5112.500 Concord Pl.45,795.38$ Judd Falls Road Walkway and radius improvments/Drainage & Overlay DB5112.500 Birchwood Dr.-Salem to 105 Birchwood 9,079.19$ DB5112.500 Birchwood Dr.-105 Birchwood to end of Rd 69,083.94$ DB5112.500 Pinewood Dr.32,266.06$ DB5112.500 Briarwood Dr.70,659.54$ DB5112.500 Maplewood Dr.57,266.95$ DB5112.500 West Hill Drive-Reconstruction 64,171.75$ DB5112.500 Eldridge Circle 48,420.50$ DB5112.500 Christopher Lane 165,449.97$ DB5112.500 Christopher Circle 107,534.60$ Roads TOTAL:1,283,961.26$ 1,636,000.00$ 811,200.00$ -$ -$ -$ Town Facilities PWF-New Fueling Station (Award+CA+Contingency:$715,327.50)825,000.00$ A5132.5XX PWF MEP/Site Improvements 350,000.00$ A5132.5XX PWF MEP Improvements 350,000.00$ PWF MEP Improvements PWF MEP Improvements PWF MEP Improvements PWF MEP Study 17,540.00$ PWF Trench Drain Repair TH Electric Car Charing Station(s) PWF Security Fence Installation (Grant)150,000.00$ PWF Electric Car Charging Station(s) Town Facilities TOTAL:842,540.00$ 500,000.00$ 350,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ Green Energy Upgrades Town Hall Weatherization Study (CO amount: $5000)63,301.00$ A1620.XXX Town Hall Weatherization Upgrades-Design Services (Grant)225,000.00$ A1620.XXX Town Hall Weatherization Upgrades-Construction (Grant)1,275,000.00$ Misc. Green Upgardes-Town Hall HVAC Construction Misc. Green Upgrades-Town Hall 125,000.00$ Misc. Green Upgrades-Town Hall 125,000.00$ A5132.XXX Misc Green Upgrades-Public Works Facility LED Lighting Upgrades A5132.XXX Town Hall LED Upgrades Misc Green Upgrades-Public Works Facility HVAC Construction Misc Green Upgrades-Public Works Facility 125,000.00$ Misc Green Upgrades-Public Works Facility 125,000.00$ Misc Green Upgrades-Public Works Facility HVAC-Design Services Green Energy Upgrades TOTAL:63,301.00$ 225,000.00$ 1,275,000.00$ -$ 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$ Bridge(s)A7110.521 Townline Road Bridge-Phase 1 Design (Grant: $2,464,840)410,000.00$ Townline Road Bridge-Phase 2 Construction (Grant)2,054,840.00$ Bridges TOTAL:-$ 410,000.00$ 2,054,840.00$ -$ -$ -$ Infrastrucutre/Buildings/Maintenance Total Cost:4,925,668.26$ 5,586,204.10$ 7,999,263.40$ 1,832,500.00$ 2,390,000.00$ 2,890,000.00$ Grant(s) Total:30,000.00$ 785,000.00$ 3,329,840.00$ DB5110.400 Judd Falls Road Study-Phase 1 (Tower to Forest Home) RFP 50,000.00$ DB5110.400 Judd Falls Road CD's-Phase 2 (Tower to Forest Home)Assest Management Road Study RFP 200,000.00$ ` Sidewalks/Parks/Trails/Open space Sidewalks RT 34/East Shore Drive Sidewalk Connector-Design/Study (Grant: $50,500)50,500.00$ RT 34/East Shore Drive Sidewalk Connector/Drainage-Construction (TAP Grant: TBD)2,000,000.00$ Forest Home S-Curve Sidewalk TBD Trumansburg Rd / Rt 96 Sidewalk (City line to Cayuga Prof. Bldg)3,500,000.00$ Winthrop Drive Walkway TBD Sidewalks TOTAL:50,500.00$ 2,000,000.00$ -$ 3,500,000.00$ -$ -$ Parks - Trails - Open Space A7110.521 Game Farm Trail-Trail repair @ Pine Tree Rd. Bridge 60,000.00$ Iacovelli Playground Replacement 100,000.00$ Saponi Meadows Park TBD Trail Overlay 50,000.00$ Coddington Road - SHRW Parking & Access TBD Tutelo Park to Saponi Park Trail TBD King Road West/Buttermilk Crosswalk 60,000.00$ South Hill Rec Way Ext (Burns to Banks Rd) - Feasibility Study (Grant: $43,000) RFP 43,000.00$ South Hill Rec Way Ext (Burns to Banks Rd) - Feasibility Study (Grant: $43,000)80,000.00$ South Hill Rec Way Ext (Burns to Banks Rd) - Design/Construction TBD Culver Road Preserve - Babcock Ridge (design) *** (Grant: $281,700)281,700.00$ Culver Road Preserve - Babcock Ridge (construction) *** (Grant: $281,700)281,700.00$ Acquisition - +/- 135 acres on South Hill for future preserve Acquisition - +/- 18 acres on Elmira Rd for Black Diamond Trail Parks TOTAL:324,700.00$ 531,700.00$ 100,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ Future Parks - Trails West Hill Park TBD Compton Park TBD Poyer Trail to Woolf Park TBD Woolf Lane Park TBD Future Parks - Trails TOTAL:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Sidewalks/Parks/Trails/Open Space Total Cost:375,200.00$ 2,531,700.00$ 100,000.00$ 3,500,000.00$ -$ -$ Grant(s) Total:375,200.00$ 2,361,700.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Notes: * Project funding from fiscal year 2023 budget-funds carried over from 2023. ** Project funding from fiscal year 2023 budget-partial ARPA funding will be utilized. $386,071 carryover from fiscal year 2022 ***Grant Proposal-Total Value: $281,700; Local Share: $70,425 Potential Grant Opportunities Not Identified: -NE Bypass -Mitchell St. -Southworks Joint Interceptor RFP (Contractual Services) 300,000.00$ TOWN OF ITHACA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2024