Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 2024-09-16 TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.townJthaca.nV.us TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16,2024 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 August meeting minutes. 4. Continue review of Maplewood II development rezoning proposal. 5. West Hill (Conifer)Traditional Neighborhood Development staff impressions and Public Outreach Meeting Summary for the West Hill TND Design Charrette 91. 6. Staff updates and reports. 7. Discuss next meeting date and upcoming agenda items. A quorum of the Ithaca Town Board may be present, however, no official Board business will be conducted. Town of Ithaca Planning Committee Thursday,August 15,2024 (3:00 PM Aurora Conference Room and on Zoom) Draft Minutes Committee members present: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Rod Howe. Absent: Margaret Johnson Board/Staff members: Director of Planning C.J. Randall; Director of Codes Marty Moseley; Nick Quilty-Koval, Town Planner; Dave O'Shea, Senior Civil Engineer; Justin McNeal, Civil Engineer. Guests. Maplewood II project team on Zoom and in person including but not limited to: Michele Palmer, Jacob von Mechow and intern Niel, Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture; Henry Weinberg, CBT Architects. Conifer-West Hill TND Team Including but not 14k to: Scott Whitham & Mary Martin, Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture; Kevin Day, Conifer; Bear Smith, Holt Architects; David Herrick, TG Miller. Laura Schneider, environmental gu 1. Persons to be heard: None. 2. Committee announcements and concerns: None 3. Approval of July meeting minutes: Rich moved; Rod seconded. The July 18, 2024, minutes were approved with one minor correction. 2 Ayes. 4. Proposed amendments to add Town-owned sewer infrastructure exemption to the Town Zoning Code. Dave O'Shea submitted a memo noting the existing (2017)provision for Town- owned water infrastructure to be exempted from certain requirements of the Town's Zoning Code. The proposal is to amend 270-230.2 to include Town-owned sewer infrastructure as well as to allow Zoning Code provisions to not be applicable to Town-owned water and sewer infrastructure. Rich proposed to recommend this change, Rod agreed. C.J. stated she will prepare the local law draft and send it to the Attorney for the Town for review and refer it to County Planning for proposed Town Board action. 5. Continue review of Maplewood II development Planned Development Zone(PDZ) rezoning proposal.Michele Palmer of Whitham Planning Design presented a memo with another revised redlined draft PDZ language proposal to show the changes from the previous committee meeting along with an explanatory memo regarding the Level of Service measurement of driver experience relative to traffic analysis. Level D was confirmed by a traffic engineer as an acceptable level of service and most of the intersections were at an A-B level. Discussion with TCAT is ongoing and no formal commitments have been made. Bike Share and Car Share are also interested in a possible commitment. The existing carpooling program available at Cornell was noted and Greystar will notify residents of the program. The NACTO bike safety and urban bikeway design, and it had led to the exploration of a bicycle boulevard 1 with set standards for the connection between Maplewood 1 and Maple Ave. Michele will forward that document electronically. 271-18.3 B. 1 Clarify this language. The half-acre area removed was an imaginary lot line or site envelope calculation around each building. Proposed to now have square footage assigned within the civic building for community center use. The "community open space calculation does not include the following list'' on page 4 should be clear that the building footprint is excluded from the calculations. The language related to"site envelope"that was carried over from the first phase was removed and more conventional descriptions for setbacks, coverage and separation between buildings is suggested. A column was added to the building"type"table for the bicycle storage sheds/accessory buildings which are currently under design. 271-185.A Performance standards. The site envelope elimination and addition of Performance standards was explained in detail. How the height is measured was discussed in detail. The tallest proposed building was shown on a slide. Marty asked if slab on grade was the proposal? (yes). He noted height is from the lowest point of measurement and up, not an average. The mechanicals on the top will need to be addressed, measuring to the top of the elevator shaft was also mentioned. Marty suggested not to exceed height from the lowest point to the highest point including the elevator shaft. Each building could have height not to exceed number spelled out independently, due to the different stories/height proposed. Parapets are proposed to obscure the view of the mechanicals (not included in the height calculation); however, will need to be visualized from different vantage points. The right of way was explained (in this case the property line is the centerline of Maple Avenue) and the front, rear, and side yards. Ground coverage will need to be defined or changed to Building Area which already has a definition. Change NYS Fire Code Reference to NYS Uniform Code. The facade will n up, an indent will articulate the 2' offset on the street facing wall and a more dimensional illustration was shown for clarity that was not rendered as clearly at the past presentation. Further articulation and how it would affect the floor plan and budget was briefly noted. The length of the street-facing wall without the required offset can be reduced from <175' to <100'. 271-18.5 E. Parking. Rich wants assurance that there are enough EV charging stations available to all onsite residents and not based on the residents who have paid extra (via a paid permit unbundled from rental charges) for priced parking at a particular space with a charger. The language indicates> 5% of off-street parking spaces will be provided with EV charging stations at project opening with another 20%having the provisions to have future stations added as needed. On-street parking and off-street parking differences were discussed, designated trail access parking was mentioned as being requested by the town. Interior spaces being for rent/assigned or available to all residents was discussed as something further for Greystar to weigh in on. The intent was initially that they are for rent and assigned/not for anyone to use, other than a couple visitor spaces and the Town requested spaces designated for trail access parking. 2 During the Sketch presentation, the Planning Board asked for the new buildings proposed in Phase 2 to be put into context with the existing Phase 1 for visualization, that rendering will be provided to the Planning Committee as well. Staff was comfortable with the progress so far with the proposed PDZ language and C.J. noted the site visit scheduled for Wednesday, August 215t from 1:30-3:00. 6.West Hill (Conifer) Traditional Neighborhood Development Early concept review proposal presentation and introduction of New Neighborhood Code rezoning request. Kevin Day of Conifer began with an introduction to the Conifer company and their existing developments in the town and goals to provide a mixed-use village/full traditional neighborhood development of up to 400 housing units on an approximately 50 acres site on West Hill off Mecklenburg Road. The project proposed a compact mixed-us neighborhood that is pedestrian friendly, and human-scale designed while offering mixed income housing options with transportation connection networks, green space and access to adjacent town parkland. Mary Martin of Whitham Planning, lead project designer,presented an overview and memo regarding the proposed Conifer West Hill TND early concept review. The submission included a project narrative, charrette structure, public outreach letter, Charette Boards including concept plans, draft municipal approvals schedule, and public outreach mailing list. The proposal includes twenty-five (25) one-to two-story single-family homes; thirty-five (35) two-to three-story townhomes, fifteen (15) three-story small apartment buildings, and two (2) large (four-story)buildings would make up the neighborhood and the small-scale commercial space(s) would be the street level of the two large apartment buildings. Essential services like cafe, deli, hair salon, etc. for the commercial space. The first design charrette is scheduled for Wednesday, August 28th from 5-7 pm with the stakeholders to inform and get feedback on the concepts. The second design charrette is tentatively scheduled for September 26th to confirm the feedback previously received and get additional feedback to inform design development for the formal Regulating plan application. The project timeline is conceptual review this month,Nov 2024 for the Regulating plan, January 2025 for re-zoning, June 2025 for subdivision and Spring 2026 construction kick off. Project completion is anticipated in the Fall of 2028. The team indicated that the funding is anticipated through tax credits and the single-family homes would likely be the first phase with the variable funding sources. Town Engineering initial comments were that the water system can support the additional development, the sewer is the initial concern. The road network and dedication of the infrastructure will need to be looked at closely. Road access was discussed, secondary ingress/egress via Oakwood Lane in addition to Mecklenburg Rd. is a possibility of using an 3 existing fire access road. Rich asked for the building heights to be accurately projected and noted the timeline for rezoning seems to be ambitious. The charette materials did not need formal approval or acceptance by the Planning Committee, staff will review for compliance with the New Neighborhood Code. The information for the first design charrette will be on the Town website for information and town staff and board members who attend will not be there for formal active involvement, participation or presentations, only viewing as guests. Follow-up with the Planning Committee after each respective rette is anticipated. 7. Staff updates and reports. C.J. updated on the following: The Town is working closely with Tompkins County Planning & Sustainability to better understand NYSDEC's work with Cornell Institute for Resource Information Sciences in the transition from the current regulatory maps to the new informational maps relative to the major NYSDEC Wetlands updates mentioned at the previous meeting which will reduce the threshold size from 12.4 to 7.4 and being in new wetlands under State jurisdiction. Wetlands of Local Importance is a new classification. Dave noted that it won't have to be mapped, the current DEC regulations indicate it is only a State jurisdictional wetland if it is mapped. It will create more work for town staff to determine when they are referred to DEC under the new regulations. January 2025 will begin the implementation of the new regulations. Conifer West Hill TND Design Charrette date noted, shared townwide in newsletter, and also Ithaca Voice article which will get the information out to the public. Possibly there is a local listsery that could be used for the West Hill neighborhood also. South Hill TNDYcontinues to be in conveyo': ges or progress has been made. 8. Next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: Monday September 16, 2024, 3:00 p.m. The Town of Ithaca Planning Committee meeting concluded at 4:20 p.m. 4 Introduction The Maplewood II Planned Development(PD)Zone enables and guides the redevelopment of the Maplewood Phase II housing complex,and its underlying site,into a compact,walkable community. This§271-18 uses a form-based zoning approach with objective yet flexible standards,to provide clarity and certainty about site planning and the resulting built environment. The project envisions a high-density housing type with a community center and potential future neighborhood commercial use.Planned Development Zone No.15(Maplewood Phase I,§271-15)consists of both medium and high-density zones.Phase II will function as an additional high-density zone within the overall Maplewood community.Maplewood Phase II will connect to Phase I's grid of streets with a continuation of Lena Street. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan recommends focusing on new residential development in areas near major employment centers,walkable to nearby destinations,and near the City of Ithaca boundary. Maplewood 11 is located on an approximately 9-acre infill site entirely within the Town of Ithaca,and approximately 400 feet from the City of Ithaca boundary.The project is near the Cornell University campus,about 1.2 miles east of downtown Ithaca,and within a 10 to 20-minute walk of both East Hill Plaza and the center of Collegetown. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends denser mixed-use traditional neighborhood development between Mitchell Street and Maple Avenue,including the Maplewood site. 271-18.1 TransectSubzone . A transect subzone defines parts of the larger site that will have certain physical and functional characteristics.Maplewood Phase I and Maplewood Phase 11 constitute subzones of the larger Maplewood community.There are two transect subzones in PDZ 15 of Maplewood Phase I and one subzone in the PDZ 179 Maplewood Phase 11 site area. Figure 1 is an illustrative example of the transect subzone locations and allocation for Maplewood I P15(approved)and Maplewood 11 P178.Figure 1:Example of transect subzone location and allocation. 1 NM a W W i i PD-t S-H 271-18.2 Permitted principal and accessory uses The following table shows permitted uses in PD I T9,with specific location limitations where applicable. P=permitted use. • =not allowed. (cs)=commercial space in apartment building (cc)=community center Use(definitions in§271-18.6) Dwelling unit P Health/wellness practice P(cc)(CS) 2 Professional office P Day_cCare center P(cc)(CS) Restaurant P(CS) Retail and service:general P(CS) Artisan P(cc)(CS) Place of assembly P Garden market P Community Garden P Dog Park P Homeoccupation(accessoryto dwelling unit),subiectto Town Code270-219.2or P successor code 271-18.3 Neighborhood design 271-18.3A.Dwelling units The number of allowable dwelling units for PD 179 is:less than or equal to 650 units. The following table shows the breakdown of unit types in PD 173. Program Total Units Total Beds Studios 240 240 One Bedroom 190 190 Two Bedroom 185 370 Totals 615 800 271-18.3 B.Civic and open space 1. Required civic building The PD 177 I R site must have a 4,000 sf space within a civic building assigned for community center use. It should be located at or close to the center of a built-up area;next to a civic/open space or at the axial termination of a prominent thoroughfare. 2. Required open space area The PD 17 49 site must have>_25%of the total site must be assigned for community open space. Open space 3 types,settings,and requirements include the following. Open space type(definitions in§271-18.6) Park. • A park may be a non-linear area,or linear space following connecting ways or natural corridors • A park can include wooded areas with connecting trails throughout _-- Formatted:Not Expanded by/Condensed by • A dog park intended for exercise of dogs • A park may be independent of surrounding building frontages. • Park boundary/edge along a neighborhood interior street or perimeter street ROW:>!10% must abut a street Green • Green boundary/edge along a neighborhood interior street or perimeter street ROW:>!50%must abut a street Plaza • Plaza boundary/edge along a neighborhood interior street or perimeter street ROW:>!50%must abut a street Community open space calculation does not include the following. • A yard,balcony,patio,or other outdoor space for use or access only by a specific dwelling unit or a limited number of dwelling units. • Public or private thoroughfare/street right-of-way,or integral features(such as sidewalks and tree lawn areas). • Parking area or driveway. • Stormwater detention/retention facility or drainage swale area,unless design allows practical use as an accessible year-round amenity for residents of the development(picnic area,passive recreation area,playground,and the like),or it is a bioswale that visually integrates into the larger open space site. • Entry feature,median,or traffic island. 3. Access An open space area must function as part of the broader public realm and allow community-wide access and passage. 271-18.3 C.Thoroughfares and Trails 4 1. Thoroughfare and trail types and design There is one thoroughfare type:neighborhood local street:there is one trail type:multi-use trail Thoroughfare type lo- Neighborhood local street V Characteristics Purpose Primary street through the entire PD site with two vehicle lanes on the two-way thoroughfare,one lane wide enough to accommodate fire apparatus on the one-way thoroughfare and parking on both sides. Rig ht-of-way width 56'-64' Sidewalkwidth S-8'(one side-on the building side of the street and where parallel parking is located) Tree lawn width* 6'-10'(one side) Parking lane width 8'(parallel side) 18'(perpendicular side) Travel area width 26'(for two-way traffic,two 13'lanes,no lane dividing marking. for one-way traffic one 26'travel Ian el where fire access is required,shared lanes marked with sharrows 24'(Wo 12'lanos no lone rli Adinn marking)whore fire across is Rot Fe Fed1 shared Innes marked ihdh ;haFGws Curb type barrier V Characteristics Purpose Informal linear paved or stabilized path forRpedestrian and bicycle circulation and connectivity to the East Hill Recreation Way and adjacent Planned Development Zone No.15.Must accommodate all intended users and minimize conflicts..- Trail width 10'with minimum 2'either side mown grass strip to act as a shoulder Curbtype none Formatted:Indent:Left: 0" 5 Thoroughfare and Trail sections(illustrative examples) �e k' •G � y5. 9'-6" 5-0" ®'-0" 12 6" 12'-6' Landscape Walk Parallel Shared Car Perpendicular Landscape Parking Lane Lane Parking Neighborhood Local Street Section J-1 Multi-use Trail Section Existing thoroughfares along the perimeter of the PDZ 197 site(Maple Avenue)must have improvements (sidewalks,tree lawns,tree planting,and curbs),so they follow neighborhood local street standards as much as possible. A sidewalk must follow the south side of Maple Avenue along the full PD site frontage. A thoroughfare or trail must have hard surface paving(porous or solid asphalt,concrete,or segmental pavers)for sidewalks,parking lanes,and travel lanes. 6 2. Thoroughfare and trail layout A thoroughfare or trail must be permanently open to the public and provide community-wide access as part of an overall connected street network. A thoroughfare or trail must not have gated access. A thoroughfare must begin and end at other thoroughfares. An intersection must approximate a right angle as much as possible. 271-18.4 D.Utilities Permanent utilities(water,sewer,natural gas[if any],district heating/cooling,electricity,communications,and the like)must be underground. Short-term utility service for construction activities may be above ground. A utility easement must be in a location where maintenance or repair work will cause the least disruption. Utility easement location must not prevent or undermine street tree planting. 271-18.5 Site and building design 271-18.5A.Performance Standards 1. Notwithstanding the foregoing,any use permitted in this PD c���shall be in conformity with the following additional standards: 2. Height.The maximum height of buildings and structures shall be as follows: a. No building shall be erected,altered,or extended to exceed 559-65 feet in height as determined by an average grade plane measure as defined by the Building Code of New York State'•he lawest iRterieF grade ner GO feet On height fFem the lowest exteFiar grade rneas-ired frern the !Gwest PGORt ef grade;at the P)4erinr WildiRg wall te the highest PGORt Gf the reef of the 1961ildiRg, but excluding rooftop appurtenances such as mechanical equipment,exhaust pipes,radio antenna,elevator override provided such appurtenances do not themselves exceed an additional 12 feet in height._ a. A—Aleg^^^Abutting the Maple Avenue frontage between the water tower at 227 Maple Ave.and PD 15-H,no building shall be erected,altered,or extended to exceed##58 feet in height as determined by an average grade plane measure,but excluding rooftop appurtenances such as mechanical equipment,exhaust pipes,radio antenna,elevator override provided such appurtenances do not themselves exceed an additional 12 feet in height. b. No structure,other than a building,shall be erected,altered,or extended to exceed 20 feet in height. 3. Ground coverage.Total coverage of ground by-buildings.st Gt u•^^ thoroughfares and trails.rea4- pavement,parking lots and sidewalks lDedestriaR area pavements shall not exceed 35558%of the-PD SpeGiai i and Use nistri^. Total maximum ground coverage by buildings alone shall not exceed 250%of the-PD SpeGal i r i ice^� 4. Yards. a. Unless a deviation is authorized by the Planning Board,for good cause shown,the yard requirements shall be as follows: i. Front yard:from Maple Avenue Right-of-way shall be not less than 12 feet. 7 ii. Side yards:from property line shall be not less than 30 feet. iii. Rear yard:from property line shall be not less than 10 feet. 5. Building Separation.Building separation will be as dictated by the NYS Fire Code for building type and construction method. 271-18.5 B.Building types and disposition Principal building types include the following. BuildingFormatted Table Disposition jilastrative example Formatted:Underline 1WTabIP iom Auilding Facade 44a _------ --- Formatted:Font Bold,Underline Frontage buildout on a street >!50%primary frontage n/a n/a � _----- Formatted:Font 11 pt >!50%corner side frontage Formatted:Font 11 pt Formatted:Normal,Space Before: Opt After: Opt Frontfagade and main entrance May face street or public green space May face street or public green space May face street or public Line spacing: single orientation green space Formatted:Normal,Space Before: Opt After: Line spacing: single 8 &ulk/Massing -- Formatted:Underline Height 5stories 1-3 stories1 story Gross floor area(GFA,square feet) n/a 5,000 ft2-12,000 ft2 444 1500 ft'- Street-facing wall length without !—10079 ground story n/a n/a >_2'offset: !-275' n/a n/a Building length:primary facade Facadetransparency:primary >_30%ground story >!30%ground and upper stories >!50%ground story frontage. >!30%upper story Facadetransparency:corner side >!30%ground story >!30%ground and upper stories ?50%ground sto y frontage >!30%upper story Facadetransparency:side/rear ° ° >_50%ground sto y facade(if not a parry wall): —30/°ground and upper stories —30/°ground and upper stories Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.1",Space Before: 0.4 pt,Tab stops: 0.1",Left Occupancy Formatted:Underline Dwelling Units 90 to 110 per building n/a n/a Commercial !—5,000 sq ft.on the ground floor, n/a n/a cumulative for the site Zoning code(or successor code)provisions allowing certain building features to encroach beyond setback or height limits also apply. 271-18.5 C.Building form and design 1. Four-sided design A building must have consistent material treatment,architectural details,proportions,and colors on all exterior walls. 2. Accessory structures A permanent accessory building must have material treatment,architectural details,proportions,and colors that are consistent with the principal building. 3. Exterior materials Vinyl siding,and prefabricated and pre-engineered metal buildings,are not allowed. This does not apply to temporary buildings for construction field offices and similar short-term uses. 9 4. Utility and service areas Rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment,utility areas,and trash enclosure or storage areas,require concealment or screening to hide them from view from adjacent pedestrian walkways and thoroughfares.— The form of concealment or screening must be architecturally consistent or integral to the host structure. This does not apply to roof-top mounted photovoltaic solar panel systems,though any panels must have antireflective coatings. 271-18.5 D.Parking 1. Required parking spaces The cumulative total of parking for the PD 17 site is as follows. Motor vehicle parking(range) Bicycle parking Residential:studio unit 0.0 to 0.25 spaces/unit >>-1 secure or short-term space/�6 units Residential:1 bedroom unit 0.0 to 0.25 spaces/unit Residential:2 bedroom unit 0.0 to 0.5 spaces/unit Non-residential(all uses) 0.0 to 0.5 spaces/500'2 GFA >-1 short-term space/25000 ft2 GFA Publictransit stop n/a >!444 short-term spaces/stop Parking space count may include dedicated spaces for car/bicycle sharing and charging. Motor vehicle space size:8.5'x 18'clear rectangle area for on-street perpendicular,7-8'x 22'for on-street parallel. Secure bicycle space:bicycle locker,dedicated space in a garage,anchored rack space with overhead protection from the elements, and other fully enclosed or secure areas. Short-term bicycle space:anchored rack space. On-street parking spaces may count towards required parking. Two motorcycle parking spaces(each space>_4.25'x 7')may count as one motor vehicle parking space. 2. Off-street parking lot location Off-street surface parking may be along streets. 3. Off-street parking lot design Building siting,landscaping,or architectural treatment must screen a parking area(not including an individual driveway)from thoroughfares and residential areas outside of the PD site. A parking area must have a sidewalk or paved walkway,to provide pedestrian access from nearby thoroughfares. 4. Parking surfaces 10 Parking areas must have a fixed impervious or porous surface. Pavement edge must have a clear definition,using curbs or a different durable material. Curbing allowing water runoff(rollover curb,or barrier curb with gaps)is preferable to curbing that traps stormwater. 5. Landscape area A parking lot must have>_1 landscaped interior island(>_8.5'wide,>_160 ft'area)for every 10 parking spaces. A row of parking spaces must have a landscape island(or equivalent landscape area)at each end. A row of parking that is not interrupted by a landscape island must be:510 spaces long. A landscape island should function as part of the larger stormwater management system of the PD site. On-street parallel parking does not require landscape islands. On-street perpendicular parking fully adjacent to a landscaped tree lawn or other landscaped area does not require landscape islands. 6. Renewable energy Any parking space(on-street and off-street,for any type of vehicle)may have an electric vehicle charging station. >_5%of off-street parking spaces will be provided with electric vehicle charging stations at project opening.__>_20%of off-street parking spaces must have utility provisions for future electric vehicle charging stations.A solar carport may cover any off-street parking space. 271-18.5 E.Landscaping 1. Tree classes Street tree refers to trees in a tree lawn or tree well alongside a street or traffic island. Canopy trees and short trees refer to trees in yards,courts,landscaping areas,open space areas,and similar areas. 2. Thoroughfare tree lawns A tree lawn area on a primary or secondary street must have>_1 street tree every 20'to 40'along its length,with an average spacing of<_30'along the block length. A maximum of 25%of the trees on the entire site as a whele4nayaay be from a single tree species. A parking lot landscape island must have>_1 canopy tree for every 160 ft2 of landscape island area. 3. Other landscape areas A green,court,or garden(§271-18.4 B 2)must have>_1 canopy tree for every:52000 ft2 of contiguous open space area.For:550%of all required canopy trees in other landscape areas,2 short trees may substitute for 1 canopy tree. 4. Tree species for the required planting Tree species for required plantings must have these traits. Native or adapted to upstate New York(USDA hardiness zone 5a,5b,6a). 11 • Not invasive(according to the most recent Tompkins County Regional Invasive Species and Worst Invasive Species lists),or species with known parasites or pathogens including ash and hemlock. Follow requirements for allowed or prohibited tree species in Town zoning regulations,if applicable.Street tree species must also have these traits: • Mature height of>_30'except where restricted by fire access requirements. • A crown that can grow to shade a sidewalk and street. • Downward-oriented root system. • Salt tolerant. • Not brittle,or prone to dropping heavy fruit. Canopy tree species must have a mature height of>_40'except where restricted by fire access requirements. Short tree species must have a mature height of>_20'. A street tree or canopy tree planting must have a diameter at breast height(DBH)of>_2". A short tree planting must have a DBH of>_1.5". 5. Other landscaping requirements Exposed ground surfaces must have groundcover planting or mulch to cover otherwise exposed soil. 271-18.5 F.Fences and walls Maximum fence or wall height is 5'in a front setback area and 8'elsewhere. Acceptable materials for walls include brick,stone,split-faced blocks,decorative blocks,cast stone,and glass blocks. Acceptable materials for fences include wood,composite fencing,wrought iron,PVC/vinyl,PVC coated/color coated chain link,or welded wire panels.This does not apply to deer fencing,snow fencing,and temporary fencing for construction and short-term activities. Barbed wire,concertina wire,and un-coated(galvanized)chain link are not acceptable. This does not apply to temporary fencing for construction activities. 271-18.5 G.Signs Signs must conform to then-current Town of Ithaca sign code(or successor code)standards for the following: • Attached signs on storefronts:standards for the NC-Neighborhood Commercial(or successor)zone • Residential and other uses:standards for the MR-Multiple Residence(or successor)zone. 271-18.5 I.Outdoor Lighting 1. Light output Photometric performance must conform to the then-current Town of Ithaca outdoor lighting law(or successor code) standards. 12 2. Freestanding fixtures/poles Height: • Neighborhood streets::516' • Elsewhere::512' Design and location: • Pole design should have a distinct base,middle,and top. • Maximum form base/Sono tube top is<_4"above grade. • Poles must not block sidewalks or walkways. 3. Attached fixtures • Fixture design should be consistent with the architectural style and detailing of the host structure. • Sconces,gooseneck fixtures,and recessed fixtures are allowed. Wall-pack lighting is not acceptable. 271-18.6 Definitions These words or terms have a special meaning in§271-18 for this PD. Apartment building(building type in§271-18.5):Building with>3 dwelling units,vertically and horizontally integrated,connected with one or more shared entries. Artisan(use in§271-18.3): Establishment or studio where people make art or products by hand,using handheld tools or small-scale table-mounted equipment. This includes related sales onsite. Average Grade Plane:Is a reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls.Where the finished ground level slopes along the exterior walls,the reference plane shall be established by averaging the two lowest grade points and the two highest grade points on the exterior to establish the overall building height. Block(context of roads or thoroughfares):area bounded by thoroughfares,or a combination of thoroughfares and barriers to continued development(examples:public land,waterway). Civic building(building type in§271-18.5):A building that accommodates a place of assembly,civic,or community use. Court(open space type in§271-18.4):Open space for civic purposes,passive or active recreation,or connectivity within or through the site. Building frontages spatially defines a court. Day care center(use in§271-18.3):Establishment providing any of the following services,as defined by the NYS Department of Social Services or its successor agency in the following or successor regulations,for all or part of a day:child day care(18 NYCRR§418.1),small daycare(18 NYCRR§418.2),school-age childcare(18 NYCRR §414). pog Park:A--aa*A park for dogs to exercise and play off-leash in a controlled environment under the supervision of their _ - Formatted:Font:Bold owners. 13 Dwelling unit(use in§271-18.3):An apartment,or a room or group of connected rooms,occupied or set up as separate living quarters for living,sleeping,cooking,eating,bathing,and sanitation purposes. Frontage:Area between a building facade and a neighboring thoroughfare or court,including built and vegetated components. Frontage bull.lout:Length of b ii Id na along frontage within setbacks of a black Garden(open space type in§271-18.4):Open space for a playground or community garden. r.nrdPn mnrket(use iR§271 19.3)�Sale 9f preduge ervalue added farm and f99d PF9d6IGtG(as that term]I— (GSA)share or farm to home pickup. Green(open space type in§271-18.4):Open space for community gathering,or passive or active recreation,with prominent(>_50%)softscape or vegetative cover(such as lawn,trees,shrubs,plant beds). Landscaping and/or street frontages define its space more so than building frontages. Health/wellness practice(use in§271-18.3):Establishment providing outpatient medical,medical allied health care,or alternative medical services. Park(open space type in§271-18.4):Open space for recreation, including dog recreation.or aesthetic enjoyment. Prominent(>_50%)landscape includes paths and trails,fields and meadows,water bodies,woodland, lawns,gardens,and open shelters. Pavement,fixed: Durable,fixed surface formed from asphalt,concrete,tightly spaced segmental pavers,and/or similar durable materials,both pervious and impervious. Pavement,porous: Durable surface allowing easy passage of water through pores. This includes segmental pavers,open cell pavers,and similar products;and ribbon/double track driveways with wheel strips of a durable pavement material. This does not include crushed stone,wood chips,dirt,grass,or other loose or unimproved surfaces. Place of assembly(use in§271-18.3):Facility used mainly for public/resident assembly for worship,meeting, or community purposes. (Examples:religious congregation,secular assembly,community center,common house,amenity center.) Plaza(open space type in§271-18.4):Open space for community gathering,or passive or active recreation, with prominent(>_50%)hardscape cover. Building and street frontages define its space more so than landscaping. Professional office(use in§271-18.3):Establishment providing professional,administrative,clerical,or information processing services. Restaurant(use in§271-18.3):Establishment preparing and selling food,drinks,and/or alcoholic beverages in a ready-to-consume state,to customers onsite or delivery offsite. Retail and service-general(use in§271-18.3):Establishment selling or renting a tangible good or product to the public,and/or providing a service to customers onsite. Stubout thoroughfare:improved dead-end thoroughfare ending at the boundary of a development site,serving as a provision for later extension and connection to thoroughfares and development beyond the site. Thoroughfare:paved travel way with travel lanes for vehicles and bicycles,parking lanes,and/or sidewalks or 14 paths;and related infrastructure and/or amenities_;iR a dedi Gatedright of way,let gr ea « Transparency: building wall length occupied by functioning doors and/or windows>_5'tall. 271-18.7 Administration 271-18.7 A.Site plan A final site plan approved by the Town Planning Board pursuant to Chapter 270,Zoning,is required for development in this PD zone. 271-18.7 B.Miscellaneous 1. Violations and enforcement Any violations of the terms of this section shall constitute a violation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and shall be punishable as set forth in said ordinance and§268 of the Town Law of the State of New York.Each week's continued violation shall constitute a separate offense.Notwithstanding the foregoing,the Town reserves for itself,its agencies and all other persons having an interest,all remedies and rights to enforce the provisions of this section,including,without limitation,actions for any injunction or other equitable remedy,or action and damages,in the event the owners or lessees of the parcels covered by this section fail to comply with any of the provisions hereof. If any building or land development activity is installed or conducted in violation of this section,the Code Enforcement Officer may withhold any building permit,certificate of occupancy,or certificate of compliance,and/or prevent the occupancy of said building or land. 2. Town Code applicability Except as otherwise specified in this section,all provisions of the Town of Ithaca Code shall apply to all development,structures,and uses in Planned Development Zone No.18. 271-18.8 PD area Area rezoned.The area encompassed and rezoned in accordance with this section to be Planned Development Zone No.18 is described below.The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby amended by adding such district at the location described. Description of Area Rezoned to Planned Development Zone No.18 All that tract or parcels of land situated in the Town of Ithaca,County of Tompkins,State of New York,bounded and described as follows: ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situated in the Town of Ithaca,County of Tompkins,State of New York, being bounded and described as follows: Legal Description to follow Section 3. In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity. Section 4.This local law shall take effect immediately upon its filing with the New York Secretary of 15 tr is Type Area (SF) Percentage Plaza 11 ,149 3% Green 20,259 5% Park 1497737 38% Building footprints 93,659 24% Thoroughfares+Parking 81 ,595 21 % Trails+Sidewalk 24,971 6% Tree lawn 14,447 4% Area Total 3977797 100% Feedback on Proposed West Hill Neighborhood Development by Conifer Angela Lucia Mennitto <am10@cornell.edu> Mon 9/2/2024 6:47 PM To:kday@coniferllc.com <kday@coniferllc.com>;CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>;Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>;Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>;rcantelmo@cityofithaca.org <rcantelmo@cityofithaca.org>;MThorne@cityofithaca.org <MThorne@cityofithaca.org>;Inicholas <lnicholas@cityofithaca.org>; dmohlenhoff@cityofithaca.org <dmohlenhoff@cityofithaca.org>;kmatos@cityofithaca.org <kmatos@cityofithaca.org> **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Al I, I am not opposed to higher density housing being built on the hill. However, as a resident of the neighborhood below the planned development (Oakwood, Brookfield, Campbell), I have concerns about water management, traffic and the preservation of wildlife habitat. Water Management: How will the additional water run off created by the loss of trees and increased paving/building be addressed to minimize flooding issues in the neighborhood below? I see there are 5 holding ponds noted on the various plans. Will there be a contingency plan, should that solution prove to be insufficient? Traffic: The development needs two entrances/exits and one of the proposals is to turn the path that exits onto Oakwood Lane by the water tower into the required second access road. This will greatly increase the traffic on Oakwood, Brookfield and Campbell, a neighborhood without sidewalks, that is not suited to the amount of traffic that 400 units (plus potentially current residents of Linderman Creek) would bring. An Ithaca Voice article (Aug. 22 by Brian Crandall) about the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee meeting with Conifer mentions that a second connection could be built out to Route 79 in lieu of the proposed exit to Oakwood Lane. That solution has my hearty support. Preservation of Wildlife Habitat: I will leave it to other neighborhood residents, more knowledgeable about the local ecosystem, to talk in greater detail about supporting the birds, pollinators, and other wildlife in the woods and fields on the hill. Recognizing that some development will be happening, considering a plan that leaves as much of the woodlands as possible would be preferable. For example, the Site Design Prompt 1 presented at the charrette appears to preserve a larger section of mature woodland on the east side of the property. Thank you for your consideration. Angela Mennitto 210 Campbell Avenue Feedback: Development at Conifer Carolyn Fornoff <carolyn.fornoff@gmail.com> Wed 9/4/2024 4:31 PM TuChris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>;CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Chris and CJ, Thank you so much for taking the time to talk extensively with me and my husband Jon at the Charette about the development plans at Conifer. I am supportive of expanding housing options for residents of Ithaca at a variety of price points, and I appreciate the fact that Conifer and the Town are actively seeking out the input from the surrounding community. Thank you! My main concerns are as follows: Traffic on Oakwood Lane is my top concern. We live at 145 Oakwood Ln,just two houses down from the proposed entrance to the Conifer development at the water tower. The proposed development would add 400 housing units. While I understand that the Town aims to have residents use bikes and buses, it is an unavoidable fact that most residents will combine those alternative forms of transportation with car use, since there is little within walking distance from Conifer, and there are no bike lanes on 96. • If the entrance to Oakwood is opened, that means hundreds of car trips on our road every day, as Conifer residents, guests, and deliveries seek to connect to 96. This is particularly true because the development is being advertised as convenient for folks who work at the hospital. Oakwood and Brookfield are simply not built to be this sort of artery. When a single car is parked on the street, there is just enough room for two way traffic. My neighbors at 151 Oakwood frequently park two cars on the street, one on each side of the road, which only allows for a single car to pass through at a time. (This is already annoying, but potentially dangerous with increased traffic). Moreover, the turn onto Brookfield from 96 will become perilous (as it has no traffic light and there is a blind curve of 96 directly ahead), and back up 96, as hundreds of cars seek to turn left from the City into our small neighborhood in order to cut up to Conifer. • Increased traffic with hundreds of cars also means that we will no longer be able to safely walk in our neighborhood. I was delighted to hear that Conifer values walkability in the planned development; yet I was also sad, because reaching that goal means taking away the walkability of our neighborhood. Our family currently takes walks on Oakwood and Brookfield, and never on Campbell, because Campbell is currently the artery road between 96 and 79. Campbell is not safe to walk on at all, because cars zip through at all times of the day, disregarding the speed limit. Opening the water tower path as an entrance will make Oakwood and Brookfield equally unsafe to walk on. I have a disability that causes muscular atrophy and wear leg braces at all times. I would be unable to agilely jump out of the way of an oncoming car. Therefore, I would be unable to continue to take walks out of my own home if our streets were to become the main throughway from Conifer to 96. • In sum, I strongly discourage the Town from opening up the water tower path as an entrance to Conifer. For the safety of residents, pedestrians, and drivers, I encourage the Town to ask Conifer to build an alternative through route to 96 via Bundy, a street that already has a streetlight at the 96/Bundy intersection, and will provide better traffic flow and safety for all. My second concern has to do with water management. It is my understanding that the previous Conifer development caused serious flooding issues for my neighbors, as we are downhill from Conifer. I lived for many years in Houston, where unregulated development caused serious flooding issues throughout the city, because runoff had no where to go. I am worried that the new Conifer development will disrupt the ecosystem, potentially diverting water down the hill in new and unexpected ways that will necessitate costly repairs and infrastructural investments. I look forward to hearing more specifics about how the Town aims to regulate Conifer in terms of runoff management. Finally., in tandem with this, I am concerned about the disruption to the ecosystem and to wildlife. I look forward to reading the future environmental impact report. I understand that there is no way to avoid the destruction of wildlife with a new development, and that light and noise pollution are also unavoidable. I am glad that the Town will preserve some areas as a park, but I hope the Town can push Conifer to retain some of the woods between our neighborhood and the development, as the oak trees are a keystone species that are crucial to the flourishing of the surrounding wildlife. I think that oak trees might also help absorb some of the runoff from the new development; although there defer to the experts. Again, I thank you for taking the time to hear us out, both in person and in writing. Many thanks for your kind consideration. Warmly, Carolyn Fornoff (145 Oakwood) Carolyn Fornoff http s://carolynfornoff.wordpress.com/ Assistant Professor of Latin American Studies Cornell University Town ( Conifer) housing development impact on city neighborhood Nina Cummings <ncummings430@gmai1.com> Thu 9/5/2024 11:29 AM To:Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>;kday@coniferllc.com <kday@coniferllc.com> Cc:dmohlenhoff@cityofithaca.org <dmohlenhoff@cityofithaca.org>;kmatos@cityofithaca.org <kmatos@cityofithaca.org>; rcantelmo@cityofithaca.org <rcantelmo@cityofithaca.org>;mthorne@cityofithaca.org <mthorne@cityofithaca.org>;CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Chris and others, I am a resident of West Hill and attended the recent charrette about the Conifer proposed housing plan in the Town of Ithaca. I believe in affordable housing and support efforts to increase those options within the city and town. I also share some of the questions raised by my neighbors regarding the current development density plan, water management, disruption of specific ecosystems, etc. But I would like to start by focusing on the potential access road to Oakwood Lane that is under consideration. A. At the charrette, there was the suggestion that connecting a town housing neighborhood to a city one is a worthy goal. What that really means and how that is done is critical. The proposal that a car access road from the Conifer housing units to Oakwood Lane would connect town neighborhoods to city ones is misguided, particularly if the desired outcome, as I heard it, is to " make neighbors". It is fairly obvious. Putting people in cars will not "connect" town and city neighbors in any way; in fact it will have the opposite effect. If you replace a well used foot path that currently exists on Oakwood where neighbors meet, with a car road, it will simply be cars streaming by each other, not neighbors connecting. B. More importantly, as you know, Oakwood Lane ( and Campbell, Brookfield, etc.) does not have sidewalks. Every day there are many walkers,joggers, dog walkers who are on and use the streets (including neighbors from Warren PLand 79 ) with relative safety. School buses stop to pick up and drop off children. An increase in car traffic because of an added road to Oakwood would create the obvious safety hazards for walkers children,joggers, bicyclists, etc. It most certainly would inhibit the current foot traffic in the neighborhood and decrease instances for community interaction. Exactly the opposite of what I heard Conifer say they want to enhance. C. Obviously, adding a road that empties to Oakwood will bring increased emissions, noise, unnecessary traffic, and light pollution (headlights) to the city's west hill residential streets. While Conifer has considered the number of cars that would be added to the area per housing unit, what are the number of trucks that would be added as a result (trucks that might use an Oakwood access road) e.g. Amazon, Fed Ex, UP, construction, repair, tradesman? What are the estimates for that increase? D. Obviously, Rtes 79 and 96 are major thoroughfares connecting the city and town meant to be used as such and it is only logical that cars should be directed to those roads. With the scale of this development, a second access road should empty to an existing thoroughfare, not a quiet residential street. The city recently put in sidewalks on rte. 79 to increase pedestrian safety on west hill. Has the town considered extending those sidewalks up to the Linderman Creek area to create a safer pedestrian option for Town residents? E.. We already have the occasional "cut through" by cars, buses, trucks using Oakwood and other roads when there is an accident or road work on the major routes, 96 or 79. An added road would increase the possibility of additional cars speeding through the residential west hill streets, particularly Oakwood, Campbell, Brookfield. How would this be mitigated? Further, these vehicles seeking a " cut through" may use an Oakwood road that would take them through the Conifer and Linderman communities, increasing noise and traffic there. How does this match Conifers intention of creating a "pedestrian friendly" development? Adding "access" roads to quiet neighborhood streets can have unexpected and potentially dangerous consequences. It requires thoughtful and respectful consideration of those most affected. Thank you for the opportunity to share this feedback on one particular matter of concern to the west hill neighborhood. Nina Sent from my iPad (No subject) Patricia Forton <patricia4ton@gmai1.com> Thu 9/5/2024 1:41 PM To:Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>;CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>;Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>;Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>;Margaret Johnson <MJohnson@townithacany.gov> **WARNING** This email comes from a , source. Please verify the from aadress, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Town Officials, We write to you regarding the proposed Conifer development on West Hill. We are not opposed to the development of mid-density (or, if necessary, high density) affordable housing, and we applaud the Town for addressing this need. Of course, the impact of such development on existing neighborhoods must be taken into consideration. As home and property owners on Campbell Avenue, we have two major concerns and questions: TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Just as the Comprehensive Town Plan envisions greater housing density, so must it envision a comprehensive traffic plan. What is the plan for the increased traffic resulting from the development? We are all opposed to building a road on the path that goes past the water tower, which would turn a wooded path and a quiet residential street into two busy streets. However, we are equally opposed to turning Campbell Avenue, which already experiences a fairly high volume of traffic, into a major thoroughfare. This is what will happen if Conifer's only accesses are both on Rt. 79. All Conifer traffic, including emergency vehicles to and from the hospital and fire station, will use Campbell Avenue, which is a residential street. Presumably, the goal is to build a new development without destroying an existing neighborhood. How does the Town propose to do that? The best solution would be to build a new connecting artery from Rt. 79 to Rt. 96 or to Bundy Road, west of Conifer's development. This would relieve the traffic stress on our existing neighborhood, reduce the amount of new traffic on Rt. 79 coming from the development, and provide Conifer residents with easy access to the hospital and Trumansburg. We understand that there is an existing right-of-way for such a road. We strongly encourage the Town to make this new road part of the development plan. LAND MANAGEMENT There is a stand of maturing oak woods on town land (with perhaps a sliver on Conifer land) which most of the proposed plans designate as "town park.' In terms of environmental impact, it is imperative that these woods be preserved as oak woods. Oak woods are literally irreplaceable. A friend who is a Professor Emeritus of Forest Ecology offers this assessment of these woods: These oak woods are an early maturing hardwood stand, probably 60 to 80 years old, with plenty of open space between the canopy for people to enjoy if short trails were put through. Because there aren't many vines or invasives, it doesn't look like there was much disturbance or cutting as the stand transitioned from early successional, with red maples, aspens and black cherries, to the oaks that came up underneath. It is really rare around here to see so many oaks successfully make it to mature stage, now that we have over-abundant deer who eat all the seedlings, so this stand is a tribute to low deer populations of the 1950's and 60's. Oak trees are a keystone species, meaning they are trees that entire ecosystems depend on for survival and habitat.According to CRTI, oak acorns provide food for more than 100 vertebrate species of wildlife, and an oak tree's massive trunk and branches provide shelter for many birds and mammal species. Over 500 species of Lepidoptera caterpillars (butterflies and moths) are supported by native oaks— more than any other tree species. Insects play a crucial role in the food web, acting as a food source for birds and their young, as well as many other species of animals. A 25-inch diameter oak tree can intercept 3,500 gallons of stormwater per year, reducing storm runoff. One tree can absorb up to 10 lbs. of air pollution in a single year. In the Finger Lakes Region, although 20% of the forest is oak species, this quantity is fast declining as the older oaks die. Few oak seedlings and saplings can be found in the forest understory to replace the dying adults because our overabundant deer populations eat them before they can get large. This is occurring at a time when oaks are the trees best adapted to our increasing temperatures, and those temperatures are causing declines in sugar maple and other hardwoods. As a consequence, it is imperative to protect stands of oaks that can be found on our landscape. If we can ever control the deer, these stands will provide the acorns that are necessary to produce the next generation of oaks, both under their canopies and in neighboring fields. With few native oaks around to provide these acorns as seed source, the forest of the future may fill the void with species of trees that do a much poorer job in giving humans good building material, long-lived forests (many of our oaks can live over 400 years), animal and plant diversity, and, of course, rich beauty. We trust that you will take our ideas under consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Patricia Forton David Warden 115 Campbell Ave. FW: Contact from website Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Fri 9/6/2024 12:19 PM To:CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>;Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Placed in PC folder Abby Homer Administrative Assistant Planning Department 607-273-1747 TOWN OF ITHACA "• � NEW YORK From:Town of Ithaca Contact Form <noreply@townithacany.gov> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 12:16 PM To:Town Of Ithaca Planning<planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Contact from website **WAKNn G** nis email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Lawrence Endo Left a comment for your department. If you reply to this message it will be sent to: larryendo@gmail.com Message follows: I am writing about the project proposed for the Conifer West Hill Neighborhood Development. have read the NYS Fair Housing Notice published by Conifer, attended their charette and talked with multiple members of this neighborhood. So this minimally knowledgeable missive reflects both my personal concerns as well as, at least to some degree, those of some of my neighbors. I recognize that the city and town assert a need for housing suitable for a diverse population with different lifestyles. The opinion they proffer seems to be based on the data from a realtors organization that may be biased. But given the price of houses in Ithaca I am persuaded this is true. How this need should be accomplished is less certain, whether by housing regulation of short-term housing and rental units, supporting the South Hill Morse Chain project more intensively or other means. I am not opposed to any development. I just think it should be done right, taking into account both the physical consequences of the development like water runoff, increased traffic and habitat change as well as the aesthetics. Since Conifer insists that what they present is preliminary, that nothing cannot be reversed, I am communicating my initial thoughts and concerns regarding the proposed project which involves a 50 acre tract of land in the town of Ithaca which abuts the city of Ithaca, prospectively building up to 400 units which may be an addition of 700 to 900 people. I am a 40 year resident of the neighborhood downhill from the proposed development. My major concerns after looking over the documents provided, the Conifer presentation, and my own experiences after the construction of Linderman Creek and Conifer center on: Traffic Water runoff Habitat alteration All of us are concerned that there will be a major impact on the traffic in the area. Not only will there be a significant increase in traffic on Hector and Cliff but more importantly there will be an increase in the small neighbor roads feeding into these larger roads. The street adjacent to the development, Oakwood Lane is used by exercise walkers, dog walkers and neighborhood chitchatters. I am a greater than 75 year old who uses Oakwood Lane as part of my walking jogging circuit. I cannot make rapid avoidance maneuvers to avoid cars. Any increase in traffic on Oakwood Lane, Brookfield Rd and Campbell will put increased risk on most residents in the area. All of us are adamantly opposed to the creation of a vehicle road that would feed into Oakwood Lane. The area around the water tower on Oakwood Lane is an area we particularly feel sensitive about. That woodland/field lane should be open to vehicles only for an emergency. I do see the need for a larger development to have two egresses. I believe that the possibility of a road from the project to Bundy should be pursued. I recognize that eminent domain over private land might have to be exercised, and this is more of a problem. But some of the farmland seems to be not in active use. And hence would be less of a problem than loading a walking neighborhood with traffic. All of us are concerned about the potential problems of increased water runoff from impervious surfaces, buildings, roads, parking lots, sidewalks. Some of us have experienced increased flooding since the construction of Conifer and Linderman. While some of this may be due to climate change and other factors, it does bespeak that the drainage and catchments constructed at Conifer and Linderman were inadequate for increased water runoff. There was some interest in the town regarding this issue but the impact is primarily on the city residents and their houses and backyards. While there cannot be a final engineering plan to abate this problem, it would be of interest if there exists an augmentation of the drainage plans of the previous development Many of us are worried about the impact on the local habitat. The bigger things are more obvious. For example, the stand of white oaks along the edge is unique and provide protection to a diversity of flora and fauna. But it has been pointed out that the wetter areas, which I am not sure I can legally call protected wetlands, provide habitat to a wider variety of species. We have all experienced the diminished wildlife encounters. For me at this time a lesser issue regards the estimation by the project that it can support significant retail establishments. It is hard to believe that the location would support more than a convenience store and even that may not survive. Is this idea founded on any real study of it? Have there been inquiries of the near neighborhood as to whether they would really patronize such establishments. The busier area in the vicinity of the Cayuga Medical Center on Cliff/Route 96 might more easily support a small shopping area as well as increased traffic. I hope I have been honest and open, transparent in this communication. I expect the same of you. I thick it deceptive to show us alluring pictures of Richardson's Romanesque architecture as if were a real possibility. I am not sure, but continually answering that this project is in such an early stage that no substantive answers can be given, seems to be a device to avoid answering anything we could really object to. Sincerely against the opening of Oakwood Lane trail to Conifer Development Cynthia Brock <cynthia-ny8@gmai1.com> Sun 9/8/2024 4:36 PM To:mayor@cityofithaca.arg <mayor@cityofithaca.org>;pbrown@cityofithaca.org <pbrown@cityofithaca.org>; kmatos@cityofithaca.org <kmatos@cityofithaca.org>;Inicholas <lnicholas@cityofithaca.org>;Michael Thorne <mthorne@cityofithaca.org>;Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>;Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>;Margaret Johnson <MJohnson@townithacany.gov> Cc:martin@whithamdesign.com <martin@whithamdesign.com>;Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>;CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>;Deb Mohlenhoff <dmohlenhoff@cityofithaca.org>;scott whitham <whitham@whithamdesign.com>;kday@coniferllc.com <kday@coniferllc.com> **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from ado._., URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Mayor Cantelmo, Councilmembers Brown and Matos, Director Nicholas, and Superintendent Thorne, Supervisor Howe, and Town of Ithaca Planning Committee, On August 28th, the Town of Ithaca and Conifer Realty hosted a West Hill design charrette for its proposed 400 unit development adjacent to the existing Linderman Creek and Conifer Village Apartments, which currently contain approximately 200 units. I applaud and support many of Conifer's stated principles and goals for this new development-creating a mix of single-family homes, multi-family units, senior housing, and limited commercial space, with pedestrian paths, open spaces, and playgrounds. I have been impressed with the existing Conifer Apartments, their management, community spaces, and open areas, and I am encouraged to see them as a party to this development. I oppose two aspects of their proposal however- First, their proposal to add 400 units is far too large and will have significant negative impacts on surrounding areas in terms of density, traffic, stormwater, and natural areas. It places a high density of residents in an area far removed from grocery stores, services, schools, and jobs. Second, Conifer's proposal to create a road connection over a City-owned easement to Oakwood Lane will create a traffic conduit on too-small streets which do not have the capacity to handle the additional cars, trucks, speeds, volume or pedestrians that will result. The neighborhood between Hector and Cliff does not have sidewalks or shoulders, and pedestrians are vulnerable to limited visibility and high speeds of the traffic and buses on the roads now. WEST HILL NEIGHBUH0013 SITE DESIGN PROMPT 3 GC7 ' f e r a new neigt iyfi oddevelopment r},yl.}.,i.,■rleu■�ea�raa�lr, ,yr a,�wsearra _.. j� 2..•,Ls4' t . ry Imo'" �'r• —w 0. {II Ili1111}I I111}}171f}l 11 �. }�j 1 ems. n r!� i1YPEMR#Y{q[EN' S. drIAE+IA6w CR[fK dot �� S .,rawrrExrs - � .... NMwY}.++s.w-.q 3�. r4 }, �,'t i!„t�d+7"pf+"„R'i,.`R1,. '�' �Lx1�N'uL'RC R➢ful�} A new connector will create an unsuitable traffic corridor that will likely be used as a connection by residents as well as commuters. Commuters and drivers seeking to go north/south between Hector and Cliff, will zig-zag quickly through Oakwood, Hopkins, Campbell, and Brookfield. Hopkins and Brookfield are steep and narrow where they connect to Cliff, making for treacherous conditions in the winter. In all seasons the traffic is dangerous for pedestrians due to reduced visibility and narrow roads. Restricting use of the Oakwood Lane connection as a pedestrian-and emergency-only route would provide needed safety support and pedestrian amenities without transferring traffic burdens onto narrow roads that do not have the capacity to handle increased volume. I urge you to retain the Oakwood Lane easement as a pedestrian-and emergency-only easement. With kind regards, Cynthia Brock cynthia.ny8-@gmaii.com Electronic Disclaimer: The information contained in or accompanying this email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,you have received this email in error and any use, dissemination, or forwarding of this email is unauthorized. Proposed Conifer development Mary Slade <ddslade@verizon.net> Mon 9/9/2024 11:34 AM To:Robert Cantelmo <rcantelmo@cityofithaca.org>;Phoebe Brown <pbrown@cityofithaca.org>;Michael Thorne <mthorne@cityofithaca.org>;Inicholas <Inicholas@cityofithaca.org>;Deb Mohlenhoff <dmohlenhoff@cityofithaca.org>;Rod Howe <RHowe@town ithacany.gov>;Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>;CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>;West Hill Neighbors <west-hill-neighbors@goog leg roups.com> Dear City and Town officials, On August 28th I attended the charrette organized by Conifer Realty and the Town of Ithaca introducing us to their proposed 400 unit development adjacent to their Linderman development. While I applaud efforts to find solutions that address the need for additional housing, those efforts need to be made with due consideration and respect for the potential impacts on the currently existing nearby neighborhoods. My husband and I would like to echo the concerns voiced by our neighbors on Oakwood, Hector, Campbell and Brookfield regarding Conifer's proposal to gain approval from the City of Ithaca to transform the city owned easement by the Oakwood Lane water tank into the second required egress for the proposed development. Transforming the easement into a street would send significant amounts of traffic onto and through small streets never designed to handle the increased traffic flow that will result from the proposed development. There are no sidewalks, corners are sharp and the junctions with Rt 96 are steep and hazardous in winter. A sensible solution for the second egress would be the creation of a through street to Bundy Rd. This would provide the necessary access for emergency vehicles as well as traffic headed towards the hospital and points north and reduce the introduction of new traffic onto Rt 79 Hector St. We strongly support this option. A second charrette is planned for later this September and it would be beneficial for all if you could attend. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dee-dee and Paul Slade 176 Oakwood Lane Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS Re: [WHIN] against the opening of Oakwood Lane trail to Conifer Development Krista Saleet <ksaleet@gmail.com> Mon 9/9/2024 10:22 AM To:mayor@cityofithaca.org <mayor@cityofithaca.org>;pbrown@cityofithaca.org <pbrown@cityofithaca.org>; kmatos@cityofithaca.org <kmatos@cityofithaca.org>;Inicholas <lnicholas@cityofithaca.org>;Michael Thorne <mthorne@cityofithaca.org>;Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>;Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>;Margaret Johnson <MJohnson@townithacany.gov> Cc:martin@whithamdesign.com <martin@whithamdesign.com>;Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>;CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>;Deb Mohlenhoff <dmohlenhoff@cityofithaca.org>;scott whitham <whitham@whithamdesign.com>;kday@coniferllc.com <kday@coniferllc.com> Dear Mayor Cantelmo, Councilmembers Brown and Matos, Director Nicholas, and Superintendent Thorne, Supervisor Howe, and Town of Ithaca Planning Committee, On August 28th, the Town of Ithaca and Conifer Realty hosted a West Hill design charrette for its proposed 400 unit development adjacent to the existing Linderman Creek and Conifer Village Apartments, which currently contain approximately 200 units. I applaud and support many of Conifer's stated principles and goals for this new development - creating a mix of single-family homes, multi-family units, senior housing, and limited commercial space, with pedestrian paths, open spaces, and playgrounds. I have been impressed with the existing Conifer Apartments, their management, community spaces, and open areas, and I am encouraged to see them as a party to this development. I oppose two aspects of their proposal however - First, their proposal to add 400 units is far too large and will have significant negative impacts on surrounding areas in terms of density, traffic, stormwater, and natural areas. It places a high density of residents in an area far removed from grocery stores, services, schools, and jobs. Second, Conifer's proposal to create a road connection over a City-owned easement to Oakwood Lane will create a traffic conduit on too- small streets which do not have the capacity to handle the additional cars, trucks, speeds, volume or pedestrians that will result. The neighborhood between Hector and Cliff does not have sidewalks or shoulders, and pedestrians are vulnerable to limited visibility and high speeds of the traffic and buses on the roads now. WEST HILL NEIGHBOrivel SITE DESIGN PROMPT3 conifer . a new neighbarlraad develapraerrr 11J 111!!a'141•rlbr ii C-0 •YIIITti VMS El r ' .,vy��,ir, ;,ry � 14+Ii1111.1iY�yy r �t 'r• ■' a..whrir.. .� _. - J_a um6tlaare9flx i�,r • uucrtrwrls i .*' a r. Lw#F4MM FRFE � � 1 - •�r yy .VMRIVENiS ¢ S' ,IECRLFk♦f•I1CG RL p}yi A new connector will create an unsuitable traffic corridor that will likely be used as a connection by residents as well as commuters. Commuters and drivers seeking to go north/south between Hector and Cliff, will zig-zag quickly through Oakwood, Hopkins, Campbell, and Brookfield. Hopkins and Brookfield are steep and narrow where they connect to Cliff, making for treacherous conditions in the winter. In all seasons the traffic is dangerous for pedestrians due to reduced visibility and narrow roads. Restricting use of the Oakwood Lane connection as a pedestrian- and emergency-only route would provide needed safety support and pedestrian amenities without transferring traffic burdens onto narrow roads that do not have the capacity to handle increased volume. I urge you to retain the Oakwood Lane easement as a pedestrian- and emergency-only easement. With kind regards, Krista and Fouad Saleet 157 Oakwood Lane Concerns about Conifer development on West Hill Bruce Fabens <bfabens1 @twcny.rr.com> Tue 9/10/2024 9:19 AM To:Rod Howe <RH owe @townithacany.gov>;Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>;CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>;Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>;Margaret Johnson <MJohnson@townithacany.gov>;tbrooks@tompkins-co.org <tbrooks@tompkins-co.org> **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Rod, Howe, Rich DePaolo, CJ Randall, Christine Balestra, Margaret Johnson, Travis Brooks, We are writing to express our support for the development of additional housing in the Ithaca and to present our concerns for how those neighborhoods are planned and implemented. Design efforts and zoning reviews must minimize the potential negative aspects that an increase in the number of buildings and pavement will have on West Hill neighbors and the surrounding natural features. Additional traffic from the 200-400 planned units in the Conifer development area Thoughtful traffic planning for the development is essential. Our neighborhood has significant concern about an increase in traffic from the proposed development. One response, at the charette, to these concerns was that bicycles would be encouraged. However Route 79, the main route into town, is quite busy and steep for the average bike rider, both up and downhill. It seems unlikely that bikes could be used for daily errand running or commutes to work. The existing access to the Linderman Creek/Conifer development is via Route 79. Creating an additional access road further west off of Route 79 at the west side of the Conifer property would provide good traffic flow. Possibly extending Perry Lane from the north, off of Bundy Rd, to the northwest corner of the site would provide access for those who would be coming in via Route 96. Additional traffic through the ajoining neighborhood should be minimized Planning drawings have shown a new road extending east down what is now a dirt road, past the water tower, connecting to Oakwood Lane. Routing traffic through that existing neighborhood would be dangerous. There are not sidewalks on Oakwood, Brookfield or Campbell roads in this neighborhood and there is regular pedestrian traffic all day. Moreover, creating a major access to the development, for hundreds of new residents, as a "T" intersection on a secondary street, in the middle of a residential neighborhood seems like poor traffic planning. Increased ground water runoff into the ajoining neighborhood Most of the 50 acres of the Conifer plot is sloping downhill to the east towards the existing neighborhood. When the Linderman Creek and Conifer Village projects were completed, a number of years ago, the houses on Oakwood Lane experienced a damaging increase in water runoff. Many owners had to spend significant amounts of money to mitigate the problem. It seems highly likely that the addition of more roads and parking areas and the reduction of bushes and trees, that draw up moisture, will again result in increased water flow down the slope. Although some "holding ponds" have been shown in the prospective plans it will be important to evaluate their actual potential effectiveness to mitigate increase runoff or flooding. Maintain existing Oak Woods There is a significant stand of oak trees just east of the West Hill Community Garden, bordering the dirt road which comes up past the water tower. The northeast line of the Conifer plot extends into about 20% of this wooded area from its south side. The remainder of the forested area is Town of Ithaca land, noted as "parkland". Every effort should be made to avoid cutting down any of this 20% area as it would change the ecology of the entire stand of trees, potentially causing a significant negative cascading effect northwards into the rest of the plot. Meeting residents needs A significant effort should be made to survey the current residents of Linderman Creek/Conifer to determine what has been positive or negative about their experience living in that neighborhood. They can provide first hand experience about current transportation options, access to shopping,jobs, schools and other services. This information would better inform planning for the new neighborhood. Thank you for your time. We will look forward to hearing more about the planning for the new Conifer development as the project moves forward. Bruce Fabens, Diana Levy 309 Brookfield Rd Ithaca, NY Proposed Conifer Development Issues 1. Preservation of woodlands a. Woodlands provide habitat for wildlife b. Woodlands help mitigate surface water runoff by sequestering water and providing the means for evaporation through transpiration c. In this area development should be possible without the destruction of woodlands d. Trees are good for the environment 2. Minimization of impact of additional Surface Water runoff downhill caused by development a. Property downhill has experienced surface water runoff issues caused by prior development 3. Utilization of second egress to development on land already owned by Conifer rather than through Oakwood Lane a. Opening Conifer Dr to Oakwood does not provide direct access to main roads but through a neighborhood and on streets that are not designed for heavy traffic and do not have sidewalks to protect walkers. 4. Focus on providing affordable housing for first time home owners a. Frees up existing apartments which reduces need for apartment construction. b. Adds to the tax base rather than adding population that will impact the tax base but live in apartments whose developers may have received tax incentives to build. c. Provides a more diversified neighborhood in that there are already a significant number of apartments available in this development d. First time buyers are priced out of ownership in Ithaca's current market. e. Apartment construction is already ongoing in and around the City f. May be attractive to developers due to potential tax incentives being talked about as an election issue. 5. Development broken into stages to provide time for evaluation of any impact such as inadequate control of surface water runoff downhill and traffic. Dianna Southward 116 Oakwood Ln. Dianna Southward 116 Oakwood Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 315 345 9710 SEP 0 5 2024 diannamay@aol.comAV TOWN OF 114 6ill September 4, 2024 C.J. Randall Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Conifer Realty Proposed Development Dear Ms. Randall, I attended the charrette on August 28th regarding the proposed development by Conifer Realty on approximately 50 acres in the Town of Ithaca. The proposed area of development abuts the property in which my home is situated. The area directly behind my house is a wooded wetland that is on a fairly steep slope. There is a stream that flows down from that area along the path by the water tower that emanates in the woods directly behind my property. I am deeply concerned that the proposed development could alter the natural flow of water and cause extensive surface water runoff onto my property and into my basement. The soil on much of the land under consideration for development is clay and can contribute to surface water runoff. In addition, construction of buildings, roads, sidewalks and parking lots will decrease the available area that surface water has to permeate into. It is critical that any development that is undertaken on this steeply sloped land be done in such a manner as to not cause an increase in surface water runoff onto my property and that solutions to this issue also consider any future impact due to Climate Change. Sincerely, Dianna Southward conifer PARTNERS IN BUILDING COMMUNITY Conifer West Hill TND Charrette 1 Public Outreach Meeting Summary Meeting Date: August 28t", 2024 Location: Conifer Village Community Room Project Team Attendees: Steve Hugo (HOLT) Mugdha Mallareddy (WPD) L. "Bear" Smith (HOLT) Scott Whitham (WPD) Jahvon Diaz (HOLT) Michele Palmer(WPD) Kevin Day (Conifer) Yi Zhang (WPD) Dave Lanzillo (Conifer) David Herrick (TGM) Mary Martin (WPD) Meeting Format: Open House The Conifer team (Conifer, HOLT, WPD, and TGM) hosted a public information open house on August 28t"1 2024, with 2 sessions, from 4:00 to 5:00pm and 5:00 to 7:00pm. Session one was added to ensure that interested Conifer Village residents could attend, and the room capacity was not exceeded. 23 24" x 36" posters were provided for information on the project along with precedents and design prompts for attendees to comment on. Members of the public were asked to sign in. The estimated attendance number was approximately 80 people. Sign-in sheet attached. Post-it notes were provided for attendees to write comments on and attach to relevant boards. Conifer team members also took notes and recorded comments they heard after the charrette. A list of comments is provided below. General Comments 1. Generally, there was a 50/50 split between people that seemed out of the box against any development here and those who were positive or at least listening to the proposals. 2. Some strong objections for a zoning change and related increase in density. o Concerns regarding density were voiced as neighbors do not want to see this become massive. 3. One individual was excited about the density and in support of a project of this scale on site. 4. Someone from the community garden was not positive, accused the project team of not listening and said Conifer was a bad neighbor. 5. An individual expressed concern regarding landscape management and ensuring the survival of trees. 6. Existing and potential prevention of drug usage in the neighborhood. WHITHAM T . G . MILLER , P . C . PLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE,PLLC ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 404 N Cayuga Street,Itbaca NY 14850 607.272.9290 infogwbitbamdesign.com conifer PARTNERS IN BUILDING COMMUNITY 7. There is concern about the maintenance of the new units and it was noted that trash has been observed in Linderman Creek Apartments. Affordability/Ownership 1. Suggestion to have 75% private ownership and 25% rental (fewer rental units). 2. An individual had suggested having Section 8 housing. o One individual was firmly in support of the project, especially if it had affordable components. This individual shared stories of a friend who benefited greatly in quality of life once they got Section 8 housing. 3. Suggestion for affordable housing for first-time homeowners to potentially reduce the need for more apartments. 4. Many people supported the idea of having affordable, accessible, and senior housing. 5. A few people were inclined toward having 1/5 acre lots for medium-income residents. Site Design 1. Many voiced concerns about clearing the woods, and possible destruction for birds, mammals, and pollinators. o Neighbors walk the site to bird watch and enjoy the outdoors. There was a strong desire to preserve some spaces so that these activities would be able to continue post construction. 2. Support for protecting some to all of the forested area and wetlands was expressed. 3. Concern for the preservation of the environmental integrity of Linderman Creek. 4. The preservation of the oak woods on the Town parkland and the adjacent stand on the site was advocated for. 5. Some indicated a desire to have natural buffers included in the design. 6. Some suggested using native plants in the planting design. 7. Many residents expressed concern about walkability, and one person expressed interest in a neighborhood that is more walkable and less hilly. 8. Preference for senior housing with closest access to the community garden, amenities and parking for convenience was expressed. 9. An individual had requested to see how the design team envisions the paved surfaces to be laid out within and at the project boundary. 10. Some participants indicated interest in seeing NYS Complete Street Design implemented. o Suggestion to include multi-modal transportation. 11. An emphasis of pedestrian access and accessible areas throughout the neighborhood. 12. Some individuals suggested highlighting the business/commercial district on the concept plans for better understanding of the design concept. WHITHAM T . G . MILLER , P . C . PLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE,PLLC ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 404 N Cayuga Street,Itbaca NY 14850 607.272.9290 infogwbitbamdesign.com conifer PARTNERS IN BUILDING COMMUNITY Site Access/Traffic 1. There was strong opposition to the idea of having a secondary access go through Oakwood Lane. o Residents walk on this currently quiet block and are concerned that adding a large volume of traffic would make it unsafe. It was noted that there are no sidewalks and was asked if they would be put in. Campbell is currently the connection between Rte. 79 and Rte. 96, and it was noted that there is a high volume of car traffic that the neighborhood already struggles to accommodate, making it unsafe to walk on. o An individual suggested having a dirt road connecting to Oakwood Lane. o Many appeared open to the idea of that being emergency vehicle / pedestrian only if possible. 2. Many indicated being open to/preferring a connection to Bundy Rd. instead of Oakwood Lane, if possible. o Several voices suggesting an additional route from 79 to 96 apart from Campbell Ave. 3. Need for traffic calming measures on Rte. 79, driving toward the City, was noted. o It was noted that traffic on 79 is already problematic at certain times of the day and concern was expressed about adding more traffic. o Request for pedestrian safety measures and lighting on Rte. 79. 4. Suggestion to have a traffic density study. 5. A neighboring couple were optimistic about the project and wanted to discuss whether an access road through their property made sense. Stormwater Management: 1. Flooding issues in the neighborhood to the east of the project site were reported, and there is concern about potential future flooding. o Request for alternate solutions in case the proposed stormwater designs do not suffice. o It was noted that the stream flows through many residences. 2. A few people expressed concerns over stormwater and the water table, noting that basement flooding is an issue. o Requests for remediation of existing issues, plus solutions to ameliorate any new development. 3. It was noted that the ditch along the access drive overflows, or the upland area is not being captured by the ditch. o It was noted that at least one waterway was diverted underground, and a request was made to more of that. WHITHAM T . G . MILLER , P . C . PLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE,PLLC ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 404 N Cayuga Street,Itbaca NY 14850 607.272.9290 infogwbitbamdesign.com conifer PARTNERS IN BUILDING COMMUNITY Amenities 1. Preferences were expressed about the types of businesses people would like to see in the commercial spaces. o A strong interest was expressed in having a grocery store, pharmacy, bank, farmers market, cafe, and barber/salon in the commercial spaces. o An individual opposed the idea of a nail salon, convenience store, dollar store, or any place of worship. 2. Request for a parking facility at the community garden. 3. Suggestion for having inclusive activities for seniors like bocce ball and shuffleboard. 4. A number of individuals indicated that they would utilize walking trails and commercial amenities if available. Architecture 1. Building Types I Single Family Homes a. Separation of houses (side yards), privacy, and owner-occupied houses were the focus of comments. b. Aging in place design choices were shared such as roll-in showers and accessible kitchen workspaces being incorporated in designs. 2. Building Types I Townhouses a. Concerns raised regarding easily maintained properties. b. Strong desire for pedestrian connections shared green spaces. 3. Building Types I Small Apartments a. Some did not favor this option as they preferred more spacious living. Many of those same voices indicated concerns regarding some recent"modern" buildings in Ithaca. b. Some indicated liking the idea of these buildings using concepts and materials similar to masonry buildings of similar size from the 50's-60's. 4. Building Types I Large Apartments a. Most concerns were regarding blocking views and being overbearing. b. One comment indicated a preference for underbuilding parking to limit additional parking. c. When discussing potential ways to address the concern of height and overbearing, there appeared to be strong support of stepping a fagade back after 2-3 stories. 5. Transect Zones I NT-3 Edge a. Many indicated liking the idea of this zoning being used as a transition buffer to Oakwood Lane. b. Some voiced concerns about the images showing greater density than they would like. 6. Transect Zones I NT-4 General a. Many indicated liking the idea of small apartment buildings to match form and styles like those found in small communities regionally from the 50's-60's. When the term "brown stone" was mentioned, many reacted positively. 7. Transect Zones I NT-5 Central WHITHAM T . G . MILLER , P . C . PLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE,PLLC ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 404 N Cayuga Street,Itbaca NY 14850 607.272.9290 infogwbitbamdesign.com conifer PARTNERS IN BUILDING COMMUNITY a. For this board many indicated liking what they saw, however, they did not trust that would be what the project would become for the center of the neighborhood. b. Many liked the pocket park indicated in the Corning image along with the material banding on the building. 8. Overview a. 2 individuals were interested in the single-family homes and wanted to know more regarding the intention of those lots. 9. Design Style a. There were multiple voices that indicated wanted a blend between traditional and modern styles of architecture. b. There was a strong emphasis that sustainable materials should be used. c. Variety was one of the main points when talking about aesthetics, in particular, when it comes to a single fagade or multiples in a line. d. Some concerns regarding the buildings look like a modular truck and that they required a good and efficient design. e. Some showed interest in having architecture with some historic touch and not having boxy/modular houses. 10. Biophilic Design a. When discussing the concepts of biophilic design there was an overwhelming amount of positive feedback. 11. Building Design a. A community raised a concern about preventing smells and smoke transferring between units. 12. Pollution a. Many voices were concerned with noise, light and dust pollution during and after construction. WHITHAM T . G . MILLER , P . C . PLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE,PLLC ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 404 N Cayuga Street,Itbaca NY 14850 607.272.9290 infogwbitbamdesign.com conifer f PARTNERS IN BUILDING COMMUNITY Con s Sign-in Sheet Name Signature L � o Q-5 1lkz d K oc;,'7 A 3 12 .n :L- e, � � gar ' LG 0 V a.: t� fl'i I WHITHAlVI T . G . MILLER , P . C . ,t. PLAN,mNGDE51cwI.nNoscnrE:�nniiTECTURE.euc ENC31NEERS AND SURVEYORS conifer PARTNERS IN BUILDING COMMUNITY Sign-in Sheet Name Si nature r c ►M t av1 e W E 0 ©c L Lin C_T n�_' +f ctGe;k y 41� ��55 ��' �CtQr V`I` e cl/ � ti 4 L r er i ls�- llrz b�Y1 c e l etc io 2(q V_,� 'r S�' o c . L t i� 'f l.� WHITHAM T . G . MILLER , P . C . r,ayzlxGnESIGwF ,DSC"EnEcFIFTEC Lwk.PCLC ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS conifer PARTNERS IN BUILDING COMMUNITY Sign-in Sheet Name Signature {a t's N S 1 T. r n i Vic_ 1 Oo(I t x �5v i '�7 /� G C a.l, 12 �t, 1 aw& - O rct 17 c a F ell 4 Lao r�L U nC vJ i .oS � 12 av­ WHITHAM ` r � T . G . MILLER , F . C . n..�� i S'i ANNINk;DE5IGti LTNO}CAREARCIIITECTLRE.RLLC I ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS TOWN OF ITHACA r „ n NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N.Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithacamy.us TO: Planning Committee FROM: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Nick Quilty-Koval, Planner DATE: September 10, 2024 RE: Planning Department Comments—Conifer West Hill TND Design Charrette#1 The Planning Department attended the Conifer West Hill Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Design Charrette that was held on August 28, 2024, in the senior living center of the Conifer Senior Living building at 200 Conifer Drive in the Town of Ithaca. The Town of Ithaca's New Neighborhood Code (Town Code § 272-802.3 (13)(3), as adopted 11/9/2020) requires a design charrette, which is a multi-day open planning process wherein stakeholders take part in a series of collaborative design exercises; those exercises, along with stakeholder comments and the zoning requirements, may ultimately result in a workable concept plan. Based on our observations at the charrette, along with the subsequent comments and phone calls from residents, and a thorough review of the New Neighborhood Code provisions, the department offers the Planning Committee the following comments: Location Strengths Weaknesses • Easy for seniors, residents, those with • Uncomfortably warm indoor temperature mobility issues to access and created a constricted environment participate • Room was too packed with things, not • Several areas where people could talk enough room for crowd Staff recommendations for future charette(s): ✓ Use same building location for all Conifer West Hill TND charettes ✓ Consider utilizing covered entrance, lobby, main room, patio ✓ Open exterior doors and windows for ventilation ✓ Have greeter at front door to direct people ✓ Follow model strategies from the National Charrette Institute (NCI) ✓ Provide refreshments! 1 CharetteApproachStrengths•Consultantteamengagedwithresidentsinacollaborativemanner•Developer,Conifer,waspresentandveryresponsivetocommunitymemberscomments,allowingforperceptionoftransparentpartnerships•Anopendialoguewascreated•Townstaff/officialspresencemadeapositive,importantimpact•Avarietyofbuildingdesignsandsitelayoutswereshown(thoughwithlimitedexplanationpriortotheexercises)Staffrecommendationsforfuturecharette(s):Weaknesses•IneffectiveintroductiontoTND-NNCconcept.Portionsofcharettefeltdisorganized.•ProcessdidnotfollowArticle8,Section272-802.3(3)“designteamdraftsaplanbasedontheoutcomeofthose[collaborativedesignexercises]”Charetteteampresentedboardswithpre-proposedscenarios,notbasedonoutcomeofcharette.•Create-your-ownsitelayouttableunderutilizedduringcharette.Drawingisdifficultanduncomfortableingroupsettings;fewpeopleusedmarkers.•Peopleseemedunawareofthedifferentconceptlayouts.•Informationontheposterboardswaspremature.•Manypeoplehadpreconceptionsaboutproject,site,planningprocess,andintentionsofdevelopmentteam.VUtilizeprovidedDraftDetailedAgendaforCharrette,intendedformulti-daydesigncharrettesVStartoffwithafullintroductionofdesignteamandtownstaffVProvidehighlevelreviewofNNCprocess,sitehistory,proposedgeneralideastomitigatepreconceptions.Startcharettebyframingunderlyingzoning,highlightinghousingshortageissues,detailingsiteconstraints,andprovidingoverviewoffuturezoningVFrameproposalsopeoplecanunderstandthedifferencebetweenaprojectallowedwithcurrentzoningversusaprojectproposedwithNewNeighborhoodCode.[Duringthecharette,oneneighboraskedhowmanybuildings(single-familyhomes)areallowedunderthecurrentzoning(15O).While150issmallerthanthe400unitsproposedunderNNC,itframedproposedNNCdevelopmentasoccupyingthetotalityofthesiteratherthancompactdevelopment.]VProvidetangiblewaytocreatesitelayouts—suchasLEGOsoverlayedonaerialimage—provideseasyvisualizationandsimplewaytocreateasitelayoutVReduceinformationonboards2 Specific concerns heard at charette (correspondence appended): 1. Management and Building Maintenance. Voluminous concerns expressed about quality of building maintenance and refuse pickup. 2. Oakwood Lane Connections/Traffic Impacts. Most commenters do not want a connection to Oakwood because of increased vehicular traffic and noise concerns. Most residents who live in Oakwood/Campbell/Brookfield already seem to have a lot of cut through speeding traffic due to few road connections on West Hill. Lots of fear that traffic will significantly increase with more development and more connections. Some seemed open to a compromise where Oakwood is used as an emergency only access and otherwise a multi-modal trail connection. 3. Bird/Pollinator/Habitat Loss. Commenters expressed concern about loss of habitat, impacts to migratory birds and pollinators. 4. Stormwater Management/Flooding. Concerns abound on Oakwood/Campbell/Brookfield relative to increased erosion, drainage, flooding, and property damage impacts associated with anticipated increase of impervious surfaces. 5. Preservation of Woodlands. Most people who live along Oakwood Lane in the City of Ithaca want to see preservation of the woodlands behind their homes. 6. "No Development."One resident who lives adjacent to the water tower was very upset at the idea of developing more land. 7. Neighborhood Listserv. There are at least 80 people on an email listsery for the West Hill neighborhood. This is good! Planning staff have been attempting to obtain permission to post information to this Google Group. Please contact Senior Planner Chris Balestra or Director of Planning C.J. Randall with any questions before the meeting at 273-1721 or by email at planning@townofithacany.gov. 3