HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-04 Planning & Economic Develoment Committee Meeting Agenda MEETING NOTICE
City of Ithaca
Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday,April 21,2004
Common Council Chambers
City Hall-- 108 East Green Street
7:30 p.m.
Agenda
A. Agenda Review
B. Public Comment and Response
C. Announcements and Reports
D. Action Items
1. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
A. Five-Year Consolidated Plan - Resolution (materials already distributed) 15 minutes
B. One-Year Action Plan - Resolution (materials to be distributed on Monday) 30 minutes
C. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program
Amendment to Redirect Surplus Funds to Inlet Island
Promenade Activity - Resolution 10 minutes
2. Taughannock Boulevard Extension/Southwest Circulation Study 30 minutes
(materials enclosed)
E. Other Items
1. Planned Unit Development(PUD) (materials enclosed) 20 minutes
2. Alternative Community School (ACS) Cliff Park
Bicycle/Pedestrian Path and Bridge(materials enclosed) 15 minutes
F. Approval of Minutes - March 17,2004 (materials enclosed) 5 minutes
G. Adjournment
Questions about the agenda should be directed to Mary Tomlan,Chairperson(272-9481)or to the appropriate staff
person at the Department of Planning&Development(274-6550). Back-up material is available in the office of the
Department of Planning&Development. Please note that the order of agenda items is tentative and subject to
change.
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact
the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, April 20, 2004.
Approved on June 16,2004
at the
Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
Planning, Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee
April 21,2004
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Dan Cogan, Vice Chair; Pam
Mackesey and Gayraud Townsend
Committee Member Excused: Michelle Berry
Other Elected City Officials Attending: Maria Coles, David Whitmore, Joel Zumoff and
Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson
City Staff Attending: H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development; Nels
Bohn, Director of Community Development; Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works;
Sue Kittel, Deputy Director of Community Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic
Development Planner; Tim Logue, Economic Development and Neighborhood Planner
Meeting was called to order by Tomlan at 7:35 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
Tomlan announced that an additional item, concerning the sale of city-owned surplus
property on University Avenue, would be considered as the first action item.
B. Public Comment and Response
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, spoke about the dangers of speeding traffic in the city,
especially to bicyclists.
Dan Hoffman, City of Ithaca, speaking for the Citizens' Planning Alliance,presented a memo
"The Future of the Original Southwest Park,"urging the City"to promote smart, new
urbanist development and new housing growth" on the city-owned land in the Southwest
Area, determining the use of this land before decisions are made about any new roads.
John Schroeder, City of Ithaca, also speaking for the Citizens' Planning Alliance,presented
drawings and text depicting that organization's "Proposed Alternative Conceptual Site Plan"
for the Southwest Area, and referred to David Fogel's model of the West End as illustrating
how an urban neighborhood could accommodate a mix of uses.
Joe Wetmore, Town of Ithaca, urged that the city take no further action toward realizing the
proposed Taughannock Boulevard Extension study and construction.
Neil Oolie suggested alternatives for the use of money that would be expended on the
proposed Taughannock Boulevard Extension study.
- 1 -
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
Approved on June 16,2004
at the
Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
Joel Harlan,Newfield, gave personalized comments about development and politics in
Ithaca.
Guy Gerard, City of Ithaca, noted past state studies that showed increased traffic, and urged
the city to act with reference to its current assets.
Bob Boothroyd, a lifelong resident of the City of Ithaca, commented on the increasing West
Hill traffic and stated the city's need to take action.
In response, Alderwoman Mackesey decried Joel Harlan's personal remarks about a
community member; Alderwoman Coles concurred.
C. Announcements and Reports
Tomlan announced that Fernando de Aragon had offered to make a presentation on the
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council's (I-TCTC's) 2025 Long Range
Transportation Plan to local boards and committees.
D. Action Items
3. (Added, taken as first action item.) Sale of City-Owned Surplus Property on
University Avenue
Tomlan stated that since the Common Council vote in March to sell three city-owned
surplus parcels at the May City/County Auction, the recommendation of the Planning and
Development Board against the sale of the University Avenue parcel, #47.-7-15 had been
made available. If the committee and council wished to reconsider the sale of this parcel,
it could be removed from the auction with payment of a$100 fee. It was moved by
Cogan and seconded by Mackesey that Parcel#47.-4-15 be removed from the sale of
surplus properties at the May City/County Auction, the $100 fee for such removal to be
paid from the proceeds of the sale of the other two parcels--#116.-1-3 and approximately
.17 acres in the city-owned right-of-way on Giles Street, with the final resolution to be
reviewed by committee members prior to the May 5,2 004 Common Council meeting.
The committee vote was unanimous.
1. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)
Bohn and Kittel presented the following items and answered questions from the
committee.
A. Five-Year Consolidated Plan
On a motion by Mackesey and seconded by Townsend, the committee voted unanimously for
the 2004-2008 Consolidated Plan be adopted.
-2-
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
Approved on June 16,2004
at the
Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
B. One-Year Action Plan
Staff members presented the IURA-recommended FY2004 Action Plan for the use of
allocations through the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Entitlement
Program, and indicated activities that might be included in future (2005, 2006) Action Plans.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the committee voted unanimously to forward
the FY2004 Action Plan for review by the Common Council.
C. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program Amendment to Redirect
Surplus Funds to Inlet Island Promenade Activity
On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Townsend, the committee voted unanimously to
support the proposed program revision.
2. Taughannock Boulevard Extension/Southwest Circulation Study
Logue summarized three options the committee had with regard to the Board of Public
Works-approved proposal of LaBella Associates to undertake the Taughannock
Boulevard Extension study. He referred to materials submitted to the committee on
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) and Access Management. It was noted that
funding for a Cornell student to research TDM strategies this summer was anticipated.
Gray noted that the subject of the proposed study had a long history in the city's plans,
most recently as part of the Six Point Plan.
After discussion, it was moved by Cogan and seconded by Mackesey that the
Superintendent and Board of Public Works not proceed with the approved contract, that
planning and public works staff develop proposals for an access management study to be
performed as soon as possible and for a broader transportation study to be submitted to
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)by the end of 2004, and that city staff
develop recommendations for studying the use of city-owned land in the southwest area
for subsequent Common Council review and action. The committee voted unanimously
in favor of this motion, with the final resolution to be reviewed by committee members
prior to the May 5, 2004 Common Council meeting.
-3-
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
Approved on June 16,2004
at the
Planning,Neighborhoods&Economic Development Committee Meeting
E. Other Items
1. Planned Unit Development(PUD)
Logue presented a revised ordinance for discussion. He noted that this revision included
a public hearing for any proposed new planned unit development at the time of its initial
consideration by the Planning and Development Board. Committee members expressed
interest in adding limits in the application of the PUD zoning, whether by its location or
by regulation of density or size. Logue indicated that he would provide additional
information on possible limitations and would also seek feedback from committee
members on an individual basis.
2. Alternative Community School (ACS) Cliff Park Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and
Path
Community member Jonathan Panzer and planning consultant George R. Frantz
presented materials describing a proposed West Hill bicycle/pedestrian path that would
link the Chestnut Street and Elm Street intersection with Hector Street, passing through
property of the school district, Chestnut Hill Apartments and the Army National Guard,
and extending along Hector Street from Sunrise Road to the Elm Street-Floral Avenue
intersection. They were joined by ACS students Ben Regenspan and Dakota Serviente,
who had worked on the project. Questions by committee members concerned easements,
maintenance agreements, the location of the proposed bridge, and the accommodation of
the path at the lower portion of Hector Street.
F. Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the March 17, 2004,meeting of the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic
Development Committee were approved unanimously on a motion by Cogan, seconded by
Mackesey.
G. Adjournment
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Townsend, the committee voted unanimously at
10:48 p.m. to adjourn.
-4-
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
Planning, Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, April 21,2004
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Dan Cogan, Vice Chair; Pam
Mackesey and Gayraud Townsend
Committee Member Excused: Michelle Berry
Other Elected City Officials Attending: Maria Coles, David Whitmore, Joel Zumoff and
Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson
City Staff Attending: H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development;Nels
Bohn, Director of Community Development; Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works;
Sue Kittel, Deputy Director of Community Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Economic
Development Planner; Tim Logue, Economic Development and Neighborhood Planner
Meeting was called to order by Tomlan at 7:35 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
Tomlan announced that an additional item, concerning the sale of city-owned surplus
property on University Avenue, would be considered as the first action item.
B. Public Comment and Response
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, spoke about the dangers of speeding traffic in the city,
especially to bicyclists.
Dan Hoffman, City of Ithaca, speaking for the Citizens' Planning Alliance, presented a memo
"The Future of the Original Southwest Park," urging the City"to promote smart, new
urbanist development and new housing growth" on the city-owned land in the Southwest
Area, determining the use of this land before decisions are made about any new roads.
John Schroeder, City of Ithaca, also speaking for the Citizens' Planning Alliance,presented
drawings and text depicting that organization's "Proposed Alternative Conceptual Site Plan"
for the Southwest Area, and referred to David Fogel's model of the West End as illustrating
how an urban neighborhood could accommodate a mix of uses.
Joe Wetmore, Town of Ithaca, urged that the city take no further action toward realizing the
proposed Taughannock Boulevard Extension study and construction.
Neil Oolie suggested alternatives for the use of money that would be expended on the
proposed Taughannock Boulevard Extension study.
Joel Harlan,Newfield, gave personalized comments about development and politics in Ithaca.
- 1 -
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
Guy Gerard, City of Ithaca, noted past state studies that showed increased traffic, and urged
the city to act with reference to its current assets.
Bob Boothroyd, a lifelong resident of the City of Ithaca, commented on the increasing West
Hill traffic and stated the city's need to take action.
In response, Alderwoman Mackesey decried Joel Harlan's personal remarks about a
community member; Alderwoman Coles concurred.
C. Announcements and Reports
Tomlan announced that Fernando de Aragon had offered to make a presentation on the
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council's (I-TCTC's) 2025 Long Range
Transportation Plan to local boards and committees.
D. Action Items
3. (Added,taken as first action item.) Sale of City-Owned Surplus Property on
University Avenue
Tomlan stated that since the Common Council vote in March to sell three city-owned
surplus parcels at the May City/County Auction, the recommendation of the Planning and
Development Board against the sale of the University Avenue parcel, #47.-7-15 had been
made available. If the committee and council wished to reconsider the sale of this parcel,
it could be removed from the auction with payment of a$100 fee. It was moved by
Cogan and seconded by Mackesey that Parcel #47.-4-15 be removed from the sale of
surplus properties at the May City/County Auction,the $100 fee for such removal to be
paid from the proceeds of the sale of the other two parcels--#116.-1-3 and approximately
.17 acres in the city-owned right-of-way on Giles Street, with the final resolution to be
reviewed by committee members prior to the May 5,2 004 Common Council meeting.
The committee vote was unanimous.
1. Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)
Bohn and Kittel presented the following items and answered questions from the
committee.
A. Five-Year Consolidated Plan
On a motion by Mackesey and seconded by Townsend, the committee voted
unanimously for the 2004-2008 Consolidated Plan be adopted.
B. One-Year Action Plan
Staff members presented the IURA-recommended FY2004 Action Plan for the use of
allocations through the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)
Entitlement Program, and indicated activities that might be included in future (2005,
2006)Action Plans.
-2-
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the committee voted unanimously to
forward the FY2004 Action Plan for review by the Common Council.
C. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program Amendment to
Redirect Surplus Funds to Inlet Island Promenade Activity
On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Townsend,the committee voted unanimously
to support the proposed program revision.
2. Taughannock Boulevard Extension/Southwest Circulation Study
Logue summarized three options the committee had with regard to the Board of Public
Works-approved proposal of LaBella Associates to undertake the Taughannock
Boulevard Extension study. He referred to materials submitted to the committee on
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) and Access Management. It was noted that
funding for a Cornell student to research TDM strategies this summer was anticipated.
Gray noted that the subject of the proposed study had a long history in the city's plans,
most recently as part of the Six Point Plan.
After discussion, it was moved by Cogan and seconded by Mackesey that the
Superintendent and Board of Public Works not proceed with the approved contract,that
planning and public works staff develop proposals for an access management study to be
performed as soon as possible and for a broader transportation study to be submitted to
the Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)by the end of 2004, and that city staff
develop recommendations for studying the use of city-owned land in the southwest area
for subsequent Common Council review and action. The committee voted unanimously
in favor of this motion, with the final resolution to be reviewed by committee members
prior to the May 5, 2004 Common Council meeting.
E. Other Items
1. Planned Unit Development(PUD)
Logue presented a revised ordinance for discussion. He noted that this revision included
a public hearing for any proposed new planned unit development at the time of its initial
consideration by the Planning and Development Board. Committee members expressed
interest in adding limits in the application of the PUD zoning, whether by its location or
by regulation of density or size. Logue indicated that he would provide additional
information on possible limitations and would also seek feedback from committee
members on an individual basis.
2. Alternative Community School(ACS) Cliff Park Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and
Path
Community member Jonathan Panzer and planning consultant George R. Frantz
presented materials describing a proposed West Hill bicycle/pedestrian path that would
link the Chestnut Street and Elm Street intersection with Hector Street, passing through
property of the school district, Chestnut Hill Apartments and the Army National Guard,
-3 -
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
and extending along Hector Street from Sunrise Road to the Elm Street-Floral Avenue
intersection. They were joined by ACS students Ben Regenspan and Dakota Serviente,
who had worked on the project. Questions by committee members concerned easements,
maintenance agreements,the location of the proposed bridge, and the accommodation of
the path at the lower portion of Hector Street.
F. Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the March 17, 2004,meeting of the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic
Development Committee were approved unanimously on a motion by Cogan, seconded by
Mackesey.
G. Adjournment
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Townsend, the committee voted unanimously at
10:48 p.m. to adjourn.
-4-
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0421.doc
D1A
Proposed Resolution
Planning, Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee
April 21, 2004
2004-2008 Consolidated Plan Adoption
WHEREAS, in the Fall of 2003, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
notified the City that it qualified as an `Entitlement Community' and that it would be receiving
an annual allocation of HUD funds through the Community Development Block Grant Program
(CDBG), and
WHEREAS, in order to access these funds, the City was required to undertake a public input
process and prepare a Consolidated Plan which identifies priority community development needs
for the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, at their December 3, 2003 meeting the Common Council designated the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as the Lead Agency to develop and administer the Consolidated
Plan on behalf of the City, and
WHEREAS, staff of the IURA has completed the process of gathering public input and
developing the 2004-2008 Consolidated Plan for the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Consolidated Plan must be adopted by the Common Council after it has
undergone a 30-day public comment period and been the subject of two public hearings, and
WHEREAS, the thirty-day public comment period ends on April 30, 2004 and the first public
hearing was held on March 25, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the second public hearing is scheduled for the May 5, 2004 Common Council
meeting, and
WHEREAS, the adopted Consolidated Plan must be received by HUD by May 16, 2004 or the
City will forfeit this year's allocation of funds, which total $1,577,669.00, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that upon review of the draft document and consideration of the public comment
received to date, the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee
recommends the Draft Consolidated Plan, as amended, be forwarded to the Common Council for
their review at the May 5, 2004 meeting.
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\consolidated plan for iura 2004.doc
D1B
Proposed Resolution
Planning,Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee
April 21, 2004
FY 2004 Action Plan—HUD Entitlement Program
WHEREAS, in September 2003 the City of Ithaca was advised by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)that as the principal city of a newly recognized
metropolitan statistical area the City would likely be eligible to receive an annual formula grant
award through the HUD Entitlement program beginning in FY 2004, and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2004 HUD formally notified the City of Ithaca that it was eligible
to receive the following FY 2004 allocations through the HUD Entitlement program:
$976,000 CDBG
$601,669 HOME Investment Partnerships
$1,577,669 Total, and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2003 the Common Council designated the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency(IURA) as the Lead Agency to develop and administer the Consolidated Plan to enable
the City to be eligible to receive HUD Entitlement program funding on an annual basis, and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2004 the Common Council adopted comprehensive revisions to the
Citizen Participation Plan to comply with HUD Entitlement program requirements, and
WHEREAS, receipt of FY 2004 funding is contingent upon Common Council adoption, and
submission to HUD, of a multi-year Consolidated Plan and an annual Action Plan by
May 16, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Action Plan identifies the specific list of budgeted activities to be funded from
FY 2004 HUD Entitlement funds, and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to support efforts to promote neighborhood
revitalization through provision of quality, affordable housing, creation of employment
opportunities, improvement of public and neighborhood facilities and public services that
principally benefit Ithaca's low- and moderate-income population or eliminate blighting
conditions, and
WHEREAS, the Action Plan must be submitted to HUD by May 16, 2004, 45 days prior to the
beginning of the program year beginning on July 1, 2004, to be eligible to receive HUD
Entitlement funding for FY 2004, and
1
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\iura action plan 2004.doc
WHEREAS, the IURA solicited funding proposals on January 26, 2004 from citizens, for-profit
and not-for-profit organizations and received 63 proposals, and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the Citizen Participation Plan, the IURA held an initial public
hearing to gain public input on formulation of the draft Action Plan on March 25, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the IURA has evaluated the funding proposals within the context of the draft goals
and objectives contained in the draft Consolidated Plan and the selection criteria contained in the
Citizen Participation Plan, and
WHEREAS, a second public hearing has been advertised for May 5, 2004 before the Common
Council to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the IURA-recommended
Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, the IURA has evaluated the funding proposals within the context of the goals and
objectives contained in the draft Consolidated Plan and the selection criteria contained in the
Citizen Participation Plan at meetings held in 2004 on March 25th, March 29th, April 1st and
April 16th, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED,that the Planning,Neighborhoods and Economic Development Committee forwards
the IURA-recommended Action Plan to the Common Council for review at the May 5, 2004
meeting, and be it further,
RESOLVED,that should the IURA determine that any of the above activities included in the
Action Plan encounter feasibility issues that would hinder their timely completion or adversely
affect their impact prior to May 16, 2004,the Common Council authorizes the IURA to make
adjustments in the application to resolve feasibility and eligibility concerns, and be it further,
RESOLVED,that the City of Ithaca Community Development Urban Renewal Plan shall be
amended to include activities funded in the adopted FY 2004 Action Plan, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council authorizes the Mayor, subject to review by the City
Attorney, to execute any documents necessary to submit the Action Plan to HUD.
2
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\iura action plan 2004.doc
Dic
Proposed Resolution
Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee
April 21, 2004
Minor Program Amendment to Direct Surplus CDBG Funds to the Inlet Island Promenade
Activity
WHEREAS, the third-year increment of the 1996 multi-year Community Development Block
Grant(CDBG) award to the City of Ithaca included $350,000 for the West End/West State Street
corridor rental housing loan program(RHLP) activity to rehabilitate 28 substandard rental units,
and
WHEREAS, 33 rental units have been completed to date, thereby exceeding the program goals,
and
WHEREAS, the West State/West End Rental Housing Loan Program (activity 1.3 1996 Year#3
CDBG)has a remaining surplus of$42,000, and
WHEREAS, a continued funding shortfall exists for completing Phase I of the Inlet Island
Promenade project in support of economic development, and
WHEREAS, surplus 1998 CDBG funds must be expended by September 2005, and
WHEREAS, the third-year increment of the 1996 multi-year CDBG grant award included other
programmed activities in support of economic development and HUD has determined that
surplus RHLP funds can be transferred to the Inlet Island promenade activity without further
HUD approval, and
WHEREAS, at their March 25, 2004 meeting the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)
approved a minor program amendment to redirect $42,000 of surplus funds from the West
State/West End Rental Housing Loan Program to the Inlet Island Promenade activity in support
of economic development, subject to Common Council endorsement, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby endorses the IURA's approval of a budget
revision to redirect $42,000 of surplus 1998 CDBG funds from the West State/West End Rental
Housing Loan Program activity to the Inlet Island Promenade activity in support of economic
development.
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\inlet island promenade from iura.doc
_of. CITY OF ITHACA
:7 ' 108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca New York 14850-5690
`c, 1� T-_T-_lfilf_r-r1 l
ITn I TTTI
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA - 607-274-6559
Email: planning@ cityofithaca.org Email: iuraCc cityotithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Planning, Economic Development & Neighborhoods Committee
From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood & Economic Development Planner
Date: April 16, 2004
Re: Taughannock Boulevard Extension/Southwest Circulation Study
Since the February meeting of your committee, Planning Department staff have
had a number of conversations with the committee chair, vice-chair and Mayor
about the Southwest Circulation Study, or as it was previously called, the
Taughannock Boulevard Extension study. No action has been taken since the
January Board of Public Works vote that directed the Superintendent of Public
Works to enter into contract with LaBella Associates for this study, and it is
desirable that the status of this unsigned contract be resolved. This memo is
meant to present different options for the committee to consider and to act
upon for recommendation to the full Common Council. The appropriate
resolutions can be prepared in time for the May Council meeting.
First, on the study itself, the committee has basically three options:
• Do nothing and allow the study to go forward as intended and approved
by the Board of Public Works. The City would pay for the entire cost of
the study and it would begin in the next month or two. Any future
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funding would not reimburse
the city for this expense.
• Make a recommendation that Common Council direct the
Superintendent of Public Works to not sign the contract and to take no
further action on the study. The study would not happen.
• Make a recommendation that Common Council direct the
Superintendent of Public Works to not sign the contract, but instead to
submit the study, or a variation thereof, to the TIP by the end of the year.
The study would begin 3 to 5 years from the TIP approval, which is
scheduled for May 2005. The City would pay up to 20% of the cost of the
study.
The conversations noted above led in the direction of the last option,
submitting a Southwest Area Circulation study to the TIP. This would be the
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Ca
staff recommendation to the committee. Also, because of the time delay
involved in TIP funding, there would be ample time for the city to determine the
fate of the approximately 60 acres of land that the city owns in the southwest
area.
Second, some of the discussions have touched on the option of conducting a
smaller, more refined study that would focus on access management in the
Route 13 corridor south of Six Mile Creek. Such a study would likely cost
approximately $50,000, depending on the scope of work. If the Council is
interested in this option, staff can conduct a consultant selection process and
produce a scope of work for approval. I have included two brochures on access
management: one from the Federal Highway Administration and one from the
New York State Department of Transportation. The
www.accessmangagement.gov website also has some valuable information.
Lastly, discussions have also touched on transportation demand management
(TDM) strategies. TDM strategies aim to make better or more efficient use of
existing transportation resources; they may include such things as car-
sharing, parking pricing, transit incentives, and flexible work schedules. For
more information, see the Victoria Transport Policy Institute's TDM
Encyclopedia at www.vtpi.org/tdm. I've included the first five pages of the
"About this Encyclopedia" section of this website for your information.
The Department of Planning 86 Development has submitted a small grant
application that would fund a Cornell student to research TDM strategies for
Ithaca this summer. We will find out if we receive the grant in mid-May. If
Common Council wants to further pursue TDM strategies, the student's report
and recommendations can form the basis of a more in-depth study or program
development. This more in-depth work would probably take place next year.
Cc: Thys Van Cort, Director of Planning 86 Development
Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works
Online 11J1V1 Encyclopedia-About this Encyclopedia Page I of 1
—--V-- .
a 4 1' .: ; . ‘
. Ictoria Transport Policy institute
4 01•■•= -
About This Encyclopedia
TDM Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
This chapter describes the Online TDM Encyclopedia and how to use it.
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."
M King Hubbert, Geophysicist
What is the Online TDM Encyclopedia?
The Online TDM Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive source of information available anywhere in
the world concerning innovative management solutions to transport problems. The Encyclopedia
provides detailed information on dozens of Transportation Demand Management(TDM) strategies, plus
chapters on their planning, evaluation and implementation. It can help you view transport problems from
a new perspective, and expand the range of possible solutions to apply. The Encyclopedia is created and
maintained by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, an independent research organization dedicated to
developing innovative and practical tools for solving transport problems.
What is Transportation Demand Management?
Transportation Demand Management or TDM(also called Mobility Management) refers to various
strategies that change travel behavior(how, when and where people travel) in order to increase transport
system efficiency and achieve specific objectives such as reduced traffic congestion, road and parking
cost savings, increased safety, improved mobility for non-drivers, energy conservation and pollution
emission reductions. There are many different TDM strategies with a variety of impacts. Some improve
the transportation options available to consumers, while others provide an incentive to change travel
mode, time or destination. Some reduce the need for physical travel through mobility substitutes or more
efficient land use.
Transportation Demand Management is an increasingly common response to transport problems.
Why Manage Transportation Demand?
There are many reasons to manage transportation demand, as summarized below. For more information see 117w
ALenage Transportation Demand?
A common mistake people make is to assume that there is only one solution to a particular problem. Put
another way, often the best solution to a problem is not the one that first comes to mind— finding the
http:/1www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm 12.htm 4/15/2004
Online I UM Encyclopedia - About this Encyclopedia Page 2 of 9
best solution may require looking at the problem in a new way, and research to find innovative
approaches.
In the past, transportation problems were usually evaluated in terms of supply: building more road,
parking and airport capacity. Increasingly, management solutions are being used that result in more
efficient use of existing capacity. There are many reasons to consider using these solutions. Some of
these reasons are described below.
Multiple Benefits
Transportation Demand Management can provide multiple benefits including congestion reduction, road
and parking facility cost savings, consumer savings, improved transportation choice, road safety,
environmental quality, community livability, efficient land use, and equity. As a result, total benefits are
often much greater than other solutions that only address one or two problems.
Cost Effective
When all benefits and costs are considered, Transportation Demand Management is often the most cost
effective solution to transportation problems. TDM can provide significant savings by reducing and
deferring the need to increase road and parking capacity, reducing vehicle operating costs, and reducing
crashes and pollution emissions.
Flexibility
TDM provides a flexible response to many types of transportation problems, including those that are
urgent, temporary, variable or unpredictable. TDM programs can often be implemented quickly, and can
be tailored to a particular situation and user group. Demand management avoids the risk that a major
capital investment will prove wasteful due to unforeseen changes in transportation needs.
Consumer Benefits
TDM can provide direct and indirect consumers benefits. Many TDM strategies use positive incentives.
They improve transportation options and provide new financial savings or other benefits to reduce
vehicle use. In addition, TDM can be a cost effective way to reduce traffic congestion, parking
problems, crash risk and pollution emissions, all of which benefits consumers.
Equity
TDM can help achieve equity objectives. It can result in a fairer allocation of resources between
different demographic and geographic groups. Many strategies directly benefit people who are
economically, physically or socially disadvantaged by improving transportation options available to
non-drivers.
Economic Justifications
Many Transportation Demand Management strategies reflect Market Principles. They correct existing
market distortions, which increases economic efficiency, equity and consumer benefits. TDM supports
economic development by increasing productivity and reducing. external costs.
Sustainable Transportation
Transportation Demand Management can help create more Sustainable Transportation. TDM reflects
sustainability principles of efficiency and integration, and can help achieve sustainability objectives
including resource conservation. equity, environmental protection, efficient land use, and public
involvement.
Critics of TDM sometimes cite high-value automobile trips, such as travel for medical services or
http:/,www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm 12.htm 4/15/2004
Online 1 DM t ncyclopeclia -About 1 his t.ncyclopeuta Page 3 of 9
visiting family, to argue that reduced driving harms society. But the existence of some high-value trips
does not negate the existence of many low-value automobile trips. Efficient demand management
strategies reduce low-value trips while allowing high value trips to continue, often with less congestion
and more accessible land use. Given suitable incentives, consumers can drive less and be better off
overall as a result.
TDM Strategies
This Encyclopedia includes chapters on more than three-dozen TDMstrategies. Each strategy is described,
categorized and evaluated as listed below.
Description
This includes a general description of each strategy.
How It Is Implemented
This section describes how a strategy is typically implemented.
Travel Impacts
This describes how a strategy affects vehicle travel. A table such as the one below summarizes these
travel impacts. Ratings range from 3 (very beneficial)to—3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or
mixed impacts. Additional technical information on factors that influence travel demand is provided in
chapters on Transportation Elasticities, Land Use Impacts on Transportation and Evaluating
Nonmotorized Transport.
Travel Impact Summary
Travel Impact Rating Comments
Reduces total traffic. Indicates whether a strategy reduces overall
vehicle travel.
Reduces peak period traffic. Indicates whether a strategy reduces vehicle travel
during peak periods.
Shifts peak to off-peak periods. Indicates whether a strategy encourages motorists
to shift from peak-to off-peak driving.
Shifts automobile travel to alternative Indicates whether a strategy encourages shifts to
modes. alternative modes in general.
Improves access,reduces the need for Indicates whether a strategy improves land use
travel. access,and therefore reduces the need to travel.
Increased ridesharing. Indicates whether a strategy encourages
ridesharing.
Increased public transit. Indicates whether a strategy encourages public
transit use.
Increased cycling. Indicates whether a strategy encourages cycling.
Increased walking. Indicates whether a strategy encourages walking.
Increased Telework. Indicates whether a strategy encourages use of
telecommunications to substitute for physical
travel.
Reduced freight traffic. Indicates whether a strategy reduces freight travel.
Ratings range from I (minimal impact)to 3 (significantly contributes to this impact).
Benefits and Costs
This section discusses the benefits and costs of each strategy (Evaluating 1.1)M1). A table such as the one
below summarizes each strategy's effectiveness at achieving various transportation improvement
objectives. For example, a strategy that shifts vehicle traffic from peak to off-peak time periods could
have a high congestion reduction rating but a low environmental protection rating, while a strategy that
http:i% vww.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm12.htm 4/15/2004
online i LJlv1 Encyclopedia-About 1 his Encyclopedia Page 4 of 9
mainly reduces rural or off-peak vehicle travel may have a low congestion reduction rating but a higher
environmental protection rating.
Benefit Summary
Objective Rating Comments
Congestion Reduction Indicates whether a strategy reduces traffic congestion.
Road&Parking Savings Indicates whether a strategy reduces roadway and parking facility
costs by reducing automobile travel and trips.
Consumer Savings Indicates whether a strategy provides consumer savings by reducing
vehicle costs,improving the availability of affordable travel modes,or
by providing direct financial benefits to consumers.
Transport Choice Indicates whether a strategy increases consumers'transport choices,
particularly for non-drivers.
Road Safety Indicates whether a strategy reduces the risk of traffic crashes,and
associated damages and injuries.
Environmental Protection Indicates whether a strategy reduces air,noise and water pollution,
resource consumption, impervious surface,habitat loss and other
environmental impacts.
Efficient Land Use Indicates whether a strategy encourages clustered, infill,multi-modal
development,as opposed to dispersed,urban periphery,automobile-
dependent development.
Community Livability Indicates whether a strategy helps create more aesthetically attractive
and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes,neighborhood interaction,and
preservation of unique cultural features.
Ratings range from 3 (very beneficial)to—3(very harmful).A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Equity Impacts
This discusses a strategy's equity impacts as described in Evaluating TDM_Equity. A summary table
such as the one below is used to evaluate a TDM strategy's impacts according to five equity criteria.
Equity Summary
Criteria Rating Comments
Treats everybody equally. Indicates whether a strategy treats each group or
individual equally.
Individuals bear the costs they impose. Indicates whether a strategy helps make the prices of
transportation services more accurately reflect the costs of
that service, reducing cross-subsidies.
Progressive with respect to income. Indicates whether a strategy increases Transportation
AtTordability and makes lower-income households better
off.
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. Indicates whether a strategy makes people who are
transportation disadvantaged better off.
Improves basic mobility. Indicates whether a strategy helps provide basic mobility.
Ratings range from 3 (very beneficial)to—3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Applications
This section describes the situations in which a strategy is most suitable. A table such as the following is
used to indicate how appropriate a strategy is for implementation in various geographic and
organizational conditions. Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Application Summary
Geographic Rating Organization Rating
Large urban region. Federal government.
http:' www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm12.htm 4/15/2004
uniine I Ulvi Lncyclopewa-About 1 his Lucy Page 5 of 9
High-density,urban. State/provincial government.
Medium-density,urban/suburban. Regional government.
Town. Municipal/local government.
Low-density,rural. Business Associations/TMA.
Commercial center. Individual business.
Residential neighborhood. Developer.
Resort/recreation area. Neighborhood association.
Other I Campus.
Ratings range from 0(not appropriate)to 3 (very appropriate).
Category
TDM strategies are assigned to one or more of these categories:
• Policy And Institutional Reforms. These are organizational changes that overcome barriers and provide
support for TDM implementation.
• TDM Programs and Program Support.A program implements a suitable combination of complementary
TDM strategies. Programs have specific goals and objectives, responsibilities and activities, staff and budgets.
• Improved Transport Choice. These strategies improve the range and quality of transportation services
available to target populations.
• Incentives To Use Alternative Modes and Reduce Driving. These strategies include various incentives that
encourage people to shift to more efficient transportation options.
• Land Use Management. These strategies result in more accessible land use patterns that reduce the need for
travel and make alternative modes more convenient.
Relationships With Other TDM Strategies
This section describes other TDM strategies it supports and is supported by. These are linked within the
Encyclopedia, so you can go directly to that chapter.
Stakeholders
This section describes which groups or organizations typically support or oppose a strategy.
Barriers To Implementation
This section describes major barriers to implementation of the strategy, and ways to overcome these
barriers.
Best Practices
This section describes the best wa., to implement the strategy.
Examples and Case Studies
This section provides examples and case studies illustrating implementation of the strategy.
References And Resources For More Information
This section provides information on publications and organizations related to this strategy. many
accessible through the Internet.
http: ‘kvvw.vtpi.or2/tdm/tdm12.htm 4/15/2004
Putsruac ur inc rstsutrnursr
This brochure serves as a guide to the major benefits of several
access management techniques in use across the United States. The
purpose of this brochure is to provide a comprehensive and succinct
examination of the benefits of access management and address major CITATIONS
concerns that are often raised about access management.
.. The benefits usually identified with access management include (11 Colorado Department of Highways, 1985, Final Report of the Colorado Access Control
improved movement of through traffic, reduced crashes, and fewer Demonstration Project, Colorado.
vehicle conflicts. Most major concerns about access management [2] Eisele, W. E., and W. E. Frawley, 1999, A Methodology for Determining Economic
relate to potential reductions in revenue to local businesses that Impacts of Raised Medians:Data Analysis on Additional Case Studies, Research Report
depend on pass by traffic. 3904-3,Texas Transportation Institute,College Station, Texas, October.
[3] Frawley,W.E.,and W.E.Eisele, 1998,A Methodology to Determine Economic Impacts • Benefits o
This brochure does not describe the precise strategies that trans- of Raised Medians on Adjacent Businesses, 1998 National Conference on Access
portation departments should follow to implement an access man- Management.
agement program, but rather provides an introduction to the key j [4] Gluck, J., H. S. Levinson, and V. Stover, 1999, Impacts of Access Management
concepts. The brochure may also be a useful tool to distribute at Techniques, NCHRP Report 420,Transportation Research Board.
public meetings for both general access management plans and (5] Iowa Department of Transportation, 1997, Access Management Research and e
specific applications of access management techniques. • Awareness Program: Phase II Report. Alma
This brochure describes the relevant benefits and issues with three [6] • Jacquemart, G., 1998, Synthesis of Highway Practice 264: Modern Roundabout
key sets of access management techniques: Practice in the United States, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
National Academy Press,Washington,O.C. a n e m e n t
1. Access spacing, including spacing between signalized intersections [7] Lalf, 8. K., D. Huntington,, and A. Eghtedari, 1996, Access Management and Traffic
and distance between driveways; Safety,Paper presented at the Second Annual Access Management Conference.
2. Turning lanes, including dedicated left- and right-turn lanes, as (8] Long,G,C.T.Gan, and B.S. Morrison. "Impacts of Selected Median and Access
• well as indirect left turns and U-turns, and roundabouts; and Design Features." Florida Department of Transportation Report,Transportation
3. Median treatments, including two-way left-turn lanes and raised Research Center,University of Florida,May 1993.
medians (9] Meyers, E. J., 1999, Accident Reduction with Roundabouts, Paper presented at the
69th Annual ITE Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
WHATNeuwirth, R. M., G. E. Weisbrod, and 3. O. Decker. 1993, Methodology for Evaluation
J4/HA T I S ACCESS Economic Impacts of Restricting Left Turns,Paper presented at the First Annual Access
Management Conference.
MAIUAGENIEIII T? ]11] Pant,R 0.,M.D.,S.Ula,and Y.Liu, 1998,Methodology for Assessing the Effectiveness L, MA NA G Ei ENT
of Access Management Techniques, Final Report, prepared for the Ohio Department of v
Access management is a set of techniques that state and local gov_ Transportation. `
ernments can use to control access to highways, major arterials, and (12] Parsonson, o S.,M.C.Waters III,and J.S. P incher,2000,Georgia Study Confirms the -
other roadways. Access management includes several techniques
Continuing Safety Advantage of Raised ivlecians Over Two-Way Left--Turn Lanes, present- �„! t ` "1
that are designed to increase the capacity of these roads, manage ed at the Fourth National Conference on Access Management, Portland, Oregon. 'S *'
congestion, and reduce crashes. P [13] S/K Transportation Consultants, Inc., CC National H g .vay Institute Course iNumber7 ", '~ `t 0•
133078' Access Management, Location, rc -sign,A..-•I ' �
• Increasing spacing between signals and interchanges; 14 Texas Transportation Irstt to In ';,:iii.,-;1,1.
g p g g g [ ] g o An Evaluation of Strategies ror Improving , a'� n
• Driveway location, spacing, and design; Transportation Mobility and Energy Efficiency n Lrdan .--gas Texas A_../1 University, •,, -,
Project 60011. C
• Use of exclusive turning lanes; �-
• Median treatments, including two-way left turn lanes (T VVLTL] that
allow turn movements in multiple directions from a center !are
and raised medians that prevent movements across a roadway; j
• Use of service and frontage roads; and
• Land use policies that limit right-of-way access to highways.
State, regional, and local governments across the United States
use access management policies to preserve the functionality of „ Q_ �,,„ q
their roadway systems. This is often done by designating an
appropriate level of access control for each of a variety C` facili- ! FOR MORE INFORMATION -
• ties. Local residential roads are allowed full access, while major I Please contact: 'Vince Pearce. ell/
highways and freeways allow very little. In between are a series vinca.pearce @fbwe.dot.gcv`
of road types that require standards to help ensure the free flow eV
http://,v',r.v.accessmanegement.gcv
of traffic and minimize crashes, while still allowing access to major U.S.Department of Transportation
FHVVA Document dumber,
businesses and other land uses along a road, /A-DP 7,F`
Federal Highway Administration
-. - - — -- _ .--•••, -- •••rr.is-s•de • I J I I IV/LIail I 167
Signal Spacing Left Turns Medians
Increasing the distance between traffic signals improves the Exclusive turning lanes for vehicles remove stopped vehicles from o Median treatments for roadways re
Signals I Increeee in flow of traffic on major arterials, reduces congestion, and through traffic. Left-turn lanes at intersections substantially reduce Left-turn lanes y P Crash.;Per Million VMT
Mae Trawl Time(%J improves air quality for heavily traveled corridors. The appro- rear-end crashes. A major synthesis of research on left-turn lanes ' reduce crashes resent one of the most effective s- _ub•.
2 - priate spacing between signals for a particular corridor demonstrated that exclusive turn lanes reduce crashes between 18 by So percent means to regulate access, but are qu,el
depends greatly upon the speed and flow of traffic, but any-
to on average. also the most controversial. The two e
3 9 thing greater than two signals per mile has a significant to 77 percent(50 percent average)and reduce rear-end collisions N 7'
q 16 between 60 and 88 percent. [4] 4 y major median treatments include
impact on congestion and safety. two-way left turn lanes (T WLTL) and a-
5 23 A major synthesis of research on access mono a ment found Left-turn lanes also substantially increase the capacity of many roadways. A shared left-
6 29 I g raised medians. g_
6 3. that each additional signal over two per mile (i.e., a one-half turn and through lane has about 40 to 60 percent the capacity of a standard through The safe benefits of median a-
mile signal spacing)increased travel time by over six percent. lane. [4). A synthesis of research on this topic found a 25 percent increase in capacity, safety
' a 39 [4] A study of an intersection in Cincinnati where a signal was on average,for roadways that added a left-turn lane. [13] improvements have been the subject 3-
added found a 20 percent increase in peak travel times. [11] of numerous studies and syntheses.
A demonstration project in Colorado revealed that half mile signal spacing and raised medi- Indirect Turns Studies of both particular corridors 2
ans on a five-mile roadway segment reduced total hours of vehicle travel by 42 percent and Some or the biggest issues with managing access come at intersections where vehicles and comparative research on differ ,.,
total hours of delay by 5S percent, compared to quarter mile signal spacing. [1] must cross traffic. Some states and cities have adopted indirect turns to reduce these ant types of median treatments indi- ° untlMde differ-
..17,=:3- .,,,,vn Ne„ar•vr•.131•
Improved speeds and travel times translate directly into envi- conflicts. In New Jersey, the jug-handle left turn requires a right turn onto a feeder gate the significant safety benefits Median Type
.5 ne/a Crashes Per street,followed by a left onto a cross sweet. Detroit has from access management tech-
ronmental benefits. An ongoing study in Texas found that a per Mile_ 1 Minion VMT y
ten mile four-lane arterial with one-half mile signal spacing Linder 3.53 extensively used an indirect U-turn that requires a U-turn I �-- niques. According to an analysis of crash data in seven states, raised medians reduce
reduced fuel consumption by 240.000 gallons from past an intersection,followed by a right turn instead of a crashes by over 40 percent in urban areas and over 60 percent in rural areas. [4]
increased speed and 335,000 gallons from reduced delay, 2 w 4 6.89 regular left turn.
6 7..x9 A study of corridors in several cities in Iowa found that two-way left-turn lanes reduced
a
compared to quarter mile signal spacing. [14] Like dedicated left-turn I
9.11 crashes by as much as 70 percent, improved level of service by one full grade in
Increasing the distance between signals also reduces the 6. lanes, indirect turns reduce • I--- i some areas, and increased lane capacity by as much as 36 percent.[5]
incidence of crashes. A review of crash data from seven crashes, improve conges- '—s 1 I
states demonstrated that the crash rate increased substantially with additional signals tion, and add capacity. �-- Raised medians also provide extra protection for pedestrians. A study of median treat-
per mile. (4) This is partly related to access spacing, which is presented next. Crashes decline by 20 per- ' I indirect u-Turn ments in Georgia found that raised medians reduced pedestrian-involved crashes by 45
cent on average, and 35 I percent and fatalides by 78 percent, compared to two-way left-turn lanes. [12]
Driveway Spacing percent if the indirect turn I
Appropriate driveway spacing presents another major access issue. Large numbers of intersection is signalized. I I I 1-15rr`l-
driveways increase the potential conflicts on the road. Fewer driveways spaced further Capacity typically shows a Jug Handle __
apart allow for more orderly merging of traffic and present fewer challenges to drivers. 15 to 20 percent gain. [4]
The congestion impacts of reduced driveways are fairly clear. It is impossible for a _ _
major arterial or highway to maintain free flow speeds with numerous access points Right Turns — ' I
that add slow moving vehicles. A Right-turn lane=_ typically have a less substantial impact on r_,--
Ic,,,,,h.,Per MIMon VMT Flight-Turning' Through
research synthesis found that roadway Vehicles vehicles crashes and roadway capacity than other types of turn °-
BJ ' Urban speeds were reduced an average of Per Hour I Impacted MI strategies, because there are fewer limitations on right - _ _ --= -
e• Ruri1 I 2.5 miles per hour for every 10 access TlijAIRT —
points per mile, up to a maximum of a Under 30 . 2,4
turns. Though there are fewer studies of these impacts,
10 miles per hour reduction (at 40 31 to 61 ' 7.5
there is a clear relationship between the number of vehicles Undivided Roadway
8 - access points per mile]. [4] With high- 61 to SO . 12.2 attempting a right turn in a through traffic lane and its delay — �
e Ier numbers of access points, congest So and up 21.8 to through traffic. This relationship is exponential - each — — _ —
don will increase significantly. additional car that must wait for a right turn will increase the
4? ! driveways delay more than the previous car. At intersections with substantial right-turn move- T'.ve--'vVav Left Turn _
3) An overabundance cf -r rash s also ments, a dedicated right-turn lane segregates these cars from through traffic and
increases the rate of car crashes. An 9 9
2, " examination of crash data in seven increases the capacity of the road.
-: I i t i states indicated found a su cng linear
_ relationship between the number or Roundabouts —'
° nt m
crashes and the number Cr crveways. Roundabouts represent a potential solution for ntar-
Untlre0 20 w40 40 SO Over eO.ti 1e 1e3O Over 30 a ,--I —
Rural areas had a similar, but less T
Driveways Per Mile sections with many conflict points. Though rot=corn- j
, strong relationship. C4,71
priate for ell situations, roundabouts reduce enicie Raised Median
movements across traffic. Only a few studies have /4. \ " im
examined the safety benefits of roundabouts. One
\
�
\ Business C 0 n c e r n s RELATED TECHNIQUES study of four intersections that were replace d with
roundabouts it Maryland 'curd a drop in crashes
/ :ra arc tai _dians era eises serous concerns by the business community
between 18 and 29 percent and a reduction injury 1 at c l bus ___-s that _.-- d upon r s--cy traffic ( specially gas statcps and
Access management includes more Many cities and states develop access 29 c^ 1
techniques than can be discussed in a management programs to deal with crashes between o3 and a percent. The cost; or w / f _ cd s ;10]J ,'fill oe edve se i affected 'DI medians. Though there are
single brochure. Some of these tech- existing issues of congestion and safety. crashes at these locations-one m easure or severity •--� few-t cis :he actual impacts of mecians on business sales, there are several
niques are newer and have been An active access management program, -was also reduced by 68 percent. Overall crashes lays of busiress c;ir.en opinions. Surveys conducted in mul-
C.vrers.yeper
=searched somewhat less. Frontage however, would need to include changes on roundabouts were more miter than those at left 7 77 Yield cipie corridors it Texas, ld4va, and Florida demonstrate that Nc acme in
roads have been the subject of some to local land use policies that encourage turn locations. [S] Another study of roundabouts in i the vast mejcrty c-business c,vrene believe there_ have been [,cation 2csineee
subject P g c:cssweik ('�1
debate in the literature, but there is no the rational development of major roads, several locations fcund a 51 percent reduction in Roundabout nc declines in sales, with some believing there are actually xaa(23
clear indication of their benefits. Other In newly developing areas, and use and crashes, including a 73 percent reduction in injury - • improvement= b._siness sale=_. (2,5,8]One study in Texas 7,ae12; , 7,-0_a
techniques, such as the relationship zoning controls that limit the number of crashes and a 32 percent reduction in property-damage-only crashes for single-lane round- indicated that cot-idors with access control !rcovements
between highway interchange spacing access points and leave space for media o'wa(5i =7 9
g 9 P 9 P shouts. Multi-lane one roundabouts phby experienced a 29 percent reduction in crashes: [6] experienced en 1 8 percent increase in property ielues after .
and local traffic, are new topics that an improvements can save money and - increase
construction. '
require more research. effort as these areas develop. .-.
Participants TOOL BAG OF TECHNIQUES A R T E R I A L IA C G E S
A more detailed description of the land- Co ''
Arterial/Access Management Partnerships use, access management, and finance z e °- �.z
may include: tools and techniques used in access ' _ ... IVI A N A G E M E N T
New York State Department of management. Q a
Transportation
, 0 Metropolitan Planning Organizations FHWA VIDEO TAPE P LA N N 1 N G...
Local Officials and Planners A short video intended to introduce all
types of audiences to the principles and
I Developers processes related to access management.
The video uses animation to illustrate the Y„ : *7 _ ..
Support Services tecniques and benefits of managing " )',� x� •
NYSDOT Can Provide: access. -,',--t F
Y .',".4
0 training '�' pl-�" _.�„,,
outreach
i - - ;�.as t r •;.,
0 EIS&Mitigation Review 4 ..
r �,
evaluation of Tools and Techniques - t - ►. ? r.c
^1 i - i i;� �Ilrx�i ,I yawl � - , . 34 '?,
links to State Department of Transportation .�,_ ``_ l I , *.N4
projects _ _ - i--+ _ -
I review of codes and ordinances J •< .� —”`_`w'
•
t . . y�j .
i
• Additional Resources ; � �� "�'"
Y
SLIDE PRESENTATION 1 :,� _ ».. ..._ o_` �,, ae
An introductory presentation defining o
access management, describing the
benefits, and providing an overview of the S. - r_
tools and techniques available for imple- o � r ,-_
mentation. _ ' " ' *� ''''
cv
Additional Information 0 M , rt
BEST PRACTICES MANUAL a ', > N
To order these resources, to request support service N au Q
A manual describing the basic tools of or for information inquires, contact the - - -
cu New York State o
access management which provides case CO cc c, > A Cooperative Approach to
Department of Transportation's cii m 0
studies of their application. Main Office in Albany at 2 ...2 N
� Improving Mobility
a
(518)457-3429 or the ° `_
Regional Office in your area. } 7 m o z —
2 c :° N -- NEW YORK STA I E
ZU (n � Q
- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOI`
What is ArteriallAccess Limiting & Separating Conflict Points A Collaborative Approach serve as frameworks for access decisions by
Management? Driveways should be properly spaced and various public agencies and the private sect(
g designed to minimize conflict between The Department of Transportation's Arterial/
Arterial/Access Management is an approach roadway intersections and other driveways. Access Management approach is a collabora- Corridor and Metropolitan Planning
that addresses roadway congestion, capacity five process partnering the state with localities. Organization (MPO) Studies
and accident prevention while simultaneously Reducing Through Traffic Conflicts By combining transportation planning and Arterial/Access Management techniques
providing reasonable access for land develop- Separation of turning vehicles from through local land use planning tools the integrity of can be incorporated into areawide and
the highway network is protected and safe,
ment. traffic movements is key to avoiding conflict. corridor planning studies where applicable.
efficient access and mobility are provided.
Benefits of Implementing Minimize Strip Development Local Land Use Regulations and Control:
ArteriallAccess Management Encourage subdivision of commercial develop- Arterial/Access Management techniques
ment with internal circulation and connection - \/' f such as driveway spacing standards, joint
) Reduces accidents and accident potential to local street network. . 11, • _ " J,'f „ and cross access requirements, and overlay
Increases capacity . '�-. k ` zones can be incorporated into existing or
Who Does ArteriallAccess ' ' A new land use regulations.
0 Decreases congestion and travel time _ `
Management Benefit? "-,.�'� • +LL �.,,
0 Preserves infrastructure '' r, A Highway Project
0 Provides for increased economic MOTORISTS _ _ __ F_:II !‘.41.:�a Design Applications
development
for accidents,safety by reducing the potential ;41_1
• ti MU,.-11,-,,,:-.._��, ° '�- Arterial/Access Management can be
, lessens congestion and traffic ��
0 Enhances bicycle and pedestrian '
delay, enhances access to development. =� ""� "�! r incorporated into:
transportation 4 `N _J._, _ -
LAND OWNERS .../.r._ Project. coping
Improves air quality Enhances property values thus increasing ' - ,, w _ 1 Project Design
I► Improves property access economic development potential. 0 Mitigation Plans ISEQR and/or NYSDOT
Basic Principles of Arterial DEVELOPERS ArteriallAccess Highway Work Permit Process)
Access Management Streamlines construction by establishing Management Applications Project Retrofit
design criteria, preventing the need for
Maintaining A Hierarchy of Roadways redesign and its associated delays. PLANNING APPLICATIONS _
Roads are designed to function in different THE GENERAL PUBLIC Comprehensive & Long Range Planning
ways. Freeways carry through traffic, Increases air quality by reducing congestion Establishes a foundation for Arterial/Access
local roads provide access to development, and delay. Design standards accommodate Management by including it in Comprehensive - : ,:.- ,.,k
and arterials often serve both functions. bicycle and pedestrian safety. and Long Range Plan goals and objectives. t.. ..�"'; - ' '` " ''*„
Access management can preserve the 3 _ : ;. , .,i
GOVERNMENT - .■
function of roadways. Local Arterial/Access Management Plans /"„- -
Preserves infrastructure and reduces the �'' r = w� t
Coordinates access between public roads and .e.
need for costlier solutions.
surrounding development. These plans often _ 7a.� k,.,
take the form of interagency agreements and -: _
CITY OF ITHACA El
e; .. "^'' 108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
(TT hi l':al s•111E:1 ! ;
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
APoO�= H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA - 607-274-6559
Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Planning, Economic Development 86 Neighborhoods Committee
From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood 86 Economic Development Planner -{L
Date: April 16, 2004
RE: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Please find attached a revised PUD ordinance. The Attorney's Office has
reformatted it to fit the current zoning ordinance and has made minor edits as
well. I have added a mandatory public hearing at the sketch plan review stage
for the Planning 86 Development Board (page 5, in bold), as per your direction
at the last meeting.
One of the other items that I was going to follow up on was a clarification of
"Section 3 (G), Regulation after initial construction and occupancy." As it is
written, a final approved PUD district takes the place of the usual zoning
regulations, (e.g. bulk, height, set backs). If a developer wants to makes
changes on the site after construction has begun, it would handled by the City
as a change to an approved site plan, which is outlined in Section 276-6 (C).
According to that section, "Proposed changes (whether before or after
construction) to approved site plans must be submitted to the [Building]
Commissioner for review to determine whether the effect of the proposed
changes warrants reconsideration of the project's approval status. The
Commissioner in consultation with the Director [of Planning 86 Development]
shall make one of the following determinations: (1) That the proposed changes
do not affect the approval status of the site plan; (2) That the changes are
significant and shall require a reopening of the review; (3) That the proposed
changes are likely to have such an extensive or significant effect on the project
that a new SPR [Site Plan Review] application is required." The language in the
proposed PUD ordinance gives the Building Commissioner and Director of
Planning & Development a fourth option, namely, to send a project back
through the entire PUD process from the beginning. This option is included to
allow a determination that the proposed changes are substantially different
from the purpose or provisions of the PUD that Common Council approved.
Without clear direction from the committee on the topics of flexibility/open
endedness and density, I made no other changes to the PUD. I will be at your
meeting to discuss options along these lines.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." te)
ORDINANCE NO. OF 2004
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED "ZONING" TO ESTABLISH PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
WHEREAS the Common Council of the City of Ithaca would like to promote the
public health, safety, and welfare of its residents, and
WHEREAS the Common Council wishes to promote the most desirable use of
land within the city limits in order to conserve the value of buildings, and to enhance the
value and appearance of land throughout the City, and
WHEREAS to achieve these objectives the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
is amending the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 325 to insert a new section 325-27 providing
for a new Zoning District known as the"Planned Unit Development" (PUD) District, and
WHEREAS this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority conferred on
municipalities pursuant to New York State General City Law, Section 81-f1, and
WHEREAS consequently, sections 325-3 and 325-4 entitled "Definitions and
word usage" and "Establishment of Districts" respectively need to be amended to reflect
the creation of this new zoning district,
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca as follows:-
Section 1. Definitions.
Chapter 325, Section 325-3(B) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to add the definition of Planned Unit Development as follows, "One or more
lots, tracts, or parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may
propose density or intensity transfers, density or intensity increase, mixing of land uses,
or any combination thereof, and which may not correspond in lot size, bulk, or type of
dwelling or building, use, density, intensity, lot coverage, parking, required common
open space, or other standards to zoning use district requirements that are otherwise
applicable to the area in which it is located."
Section 2.
Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled "Establishment of
Districts" is hereby amended to insert the new PUD zoning district as follows:-
"ARTICLE II, Zoning Districts
Passed on July 29,2003,effective July 1,2004.
Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted(if any)is struckthreugh
1
Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance.doc
§ 325-4. Establishment of districts. For the purposes specified in Article I of this chapter,
the city is hereby divided into the following districts:
R-la Residential
R-lb Residential
R-2a Residential
R-2b Residential
R-2c Residential
R-3a Residential
R-3b Residential
R-U Residential
B-la Restricted Business
B-lb Restricted Business
B-2a General Business
B-2b General Business
B-2c General Business
B-2d General Business
B-4 Service Business
B-5 Service Business
CBD Central Business
I-1 Industrial
M-1 Marine Commercial
PUD Planned Unit Development
P-1 Public and Institutional
MH-1 Residential-Mobile Home
C-SU Courthouse Special Use
U-1
WF-1 Waterfront
WEDZ-1 West End Development
CPOZ Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone
SW-1 Southwest".
Section 3. A new section 325-27 is inserted as follows:
"§325-27. Planned Unit Development.
"A. Declaration of Legislative Authority, Findings and Purpose. This ordinance is
enacted pursuant to the authority and provisions of the New York State General City Law
to promote public health, safety and welfare and the most desirable use of land, to
conserve the value of buildings, and to enhance the value and appearance of land
throughout the city. This ordinance is also enacted pursuant to the authority and
provisions of New York State General City Law §81-f, Planned Unit Development
Zoning Districts, which was enacted by the State Legislature on July 29, 2003. The
Common Council finds that this Ordinance:
Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted(if any)is struelethreugh
2
Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance.doc
1. Will permit flexibility in the application of land development regulations that
will encourage innovative development and redevelopment for residential and
nonresidential purposes so that a growing demand for other housing and other
development and land use may be met by variety in type, design, and layout of
dwellings and other buildings and structures, including traditional
neighborhood development.
2. Will provide flexibility in architectural design, placement, and clustering of
buildings, use of open areas, provision of circulation facilities, including
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and parking, and related site and design
considerations.
3. Will encourage the conservation of natural features, preservation of open
space and critical and sensitive areas, and protection from natural hazards.
4. Will provide for efficient use of public facilities.
5. Will encourage and preserve opportunities for energy-efficient development
and redevelopment.
6. Will promote attractive and functional environments for nonresidential areas
that are compatible with surrounding land use.
"B. The application of the Planned Unit Development ordinance to a proposed
development:
1. Shall be by the owner of the property or properties, or shall be made with the
approval of the owner or owners of the property or properties, as
demonstrated by submission to the City of Ithaca of a signed "Owner's
Authorization"by the applicant;
2. Shall be limited to development that is equal to or greater in land area than
60,000 square feet for undeveloped land or 20,000 square feet for redeveloped
land.
3. Shall be consistent with and work towards the implementation of the City of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time.
"C. Application procedure; zoning approval process.
Whenever any Planned Unit Development is proposed, before any permit for the erection
of a permanent building in such Planned Unit Development shall be granted, the
developer or the developer's authorized agent shall apply for and secure approval of such
Planned Unit Development in accordance with the following procedures:
1. Application for sketch plan approval.
Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any)is dough
3
Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance.doc
a) A pre-submission conference between the applicant and staff of the
Department of Planning and Development may be held to discuss the
proposal, outline the review procedure and required submissions and
inform the applicant of minimum standards and potential city concerns of
the conceptual project. This step may be beneficial because the applicant
will learn about his or her responsibilities before expending significant
resources regarding the project.
b) The developer shall submit a sketch plan of the proposal to the Planning
and Development Board. The sketch plan shall be approximately to scams
though it need not be to the precision of a finished engineering drawing,
and it shall clearly show the following information:
i) The boundaries and included tax parcels in the proposed Planned Unit
Development.
ii) The location of the various uses and their areas in square feet.
iii) The general outlines of the interior roadway system, including parking
and service/delivery areas, and all existing rights-of-way and
easements, whether public or private.
iv) Delineation of the various residential areas indicating for each such
area its general extent, size and composition in terms of total number
of dwelling units, approximate percentage allocation by dwelling unit
type (e.g., single-family detached, duplex, townhouse, garden
apartments, etc.); and general description of the intended market
structure (e.g. luxury, middle income, low and moderate income,
elderly, family, student, etc.) plus a calculation of the residential
density in dwelling units per gross acre (total area including roadways)
for each such area.
v) The interior open space system.
vi) The overall drainage system.
vii)If grades exceed 3% or portions of the site have a moderate to high
susceptibility to erosion, flooding and/or ponding, a topographic map
showing contour intervals of not more than five feet of elevation, or as
may be reasonably required by the Planning & Development Board,
along with an overlay outlining the above susceptible soil areas, if any.
viii) Principle ties to the community at large with respect to
transportation,water supply and sewage disposal.
ix) General description of the provision of fire protection services.
x) A location map showing general location within the City of Ithaca
(e.g., a City-wide map or a USGS quadrangle map highlighting the
proposed development site would be acceptable).
xi) A context map showing building footprints, uses and ownership of all
properties within 200 feet of the boundaries of the proposed PUD site.
2. In addition, the following documentation shall accompany the sketch plan
at the request of the Planning and Development Board:
Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any) is ctruckthrough
4
Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance.doc
a) Evidence that the proposal is compatible with the goals of the City
Comprehensive plan.
b) A general statement as to how common open space is to be owned
and maintained.
c) If the development is to be staged, a general indication of how the
staging is to proceed. Whether or not the development is to be staged,
the sketch plan shall show the intended total project.
d) Other plans, drawings or specifications as may be required for an
understanding of the proposed development.
3. The Planning and Development Board shall hold a public hearing on
the proposal within thirty (30) days of receipt of an application for sketch
plan approval. Notice of the hearing shall be served by the city to the public
at least ten (10) days before the date of such hearing,by means of a legal
notice in the official newspaper of the City of Ithaca, and by the applicant to
each owner of real estate within a distance of two hundred (200) feet from the
exterior boundaries of the proposed PUD district by means of a letter
addressed to the owner of record of such real estate delivered by first class
mail. The costs of notification, including but not limited to publishing,
posting and mailing costs, shall be paid by the applicant prior to the issuance
of any building permit.
4. The Planning and Development Board shall review the sketch plan and its
related documents and shall render either a favorable report to the Common
Council or an unfavorable report to the applicant.
a) A favorable report shall be based on the following findings which
shall be included as part of the report:
i. the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
ii. the proposal meets the intent and objectives of a Planned Unit
Development as expressed in Section 1 (above)
iii. the proposal is conceptually sound in that it conforms to
accepted design principles in the proposed functional roadway
and pedestrian system, land use configurations, open space
system, drainage system and scale of the elements both
absolutely and to one another
iv. there are adequate services and utilities available or proposed
to be made available for the development
b) An unfavorable report shall state clearly the reasons therefore and, if
appropriate, point out to the applicant what might be accomplished in
order to receive a favorable report. The applicant may, within 10 days
after receiving an unfavorable report, file an application (an appeal)
Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted(if any)is struck
5
Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance.doc
for PUD districting with the City Clerk, who shall notify the Mayor to
bring the matter to the next Common Council meeting,
5. The Planning and Development Board shall submit its report within sixty-
five (65) days of a submittal of a sketch plan application to the Department of
Planning and Development. If no report has been rendered after sixty-five (65)
days, the applicant may proceed as if a favorable report were given to Common
Council.
"D. Application for PUD districting
1. Common Council shall receive a PUD report from the Planning and
Development Board or an applicant's appeal at a duly convened Common
Council meeting. Upon receipt of a favorable report from the Planning and
Development Board, or upon an appeal from an unfavorable report, Common
Council shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of considering PUD district
for the applicant's plan, said public hearing to be held within 35 days of the
receipt of a favorable report or the decision on appeal from an unfavorable report.
Notice of this hearing shall be served by the city to the public at least fifteen (15)
days before the date of such hearing, by means of a legal notice in the official
newspaper of the City of Ithaca. The public hearing shall be held by the Common
Council in accordance with its own rules and General City Law §83.
2. Common Council shall refer the application to the Tompkins County
Planning Department for its analysis and recommendation pursuant to the
provisions of &239-1 and 239-m of the General Municipal Law, if applicable.
Common Council shall give the Tompkins County Planning Department 30 days
to render its report.
3. In considering an application for a Planned Unit Development district,
Common Council shall comply with the provisions of the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance.
4. Within 45 days of the public hearing, Common Council shall render its
decision on the application.
"E. Zoning for Planned Unit Development. If Common Council grants the PUD
districting, by an ordinance duly adopted, the Zoning Map shall designate the proposed
area as "Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Number ." Common Council shall
state at this time its findings with respect to the land use intensity and/or dwelling unit
density. Common Council may, if it feels it necessary in order to fully protect the public
health, safety and welfare of the community, attach to its zoning resolution any additional
conditions or requirements for the applicant to meet. Such requirements may include, but
are not limited to:
1. visual and acoustical screening
Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted(if any)is st} ktlifettgli
6
Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance.doc
2. land use mixes
3. sequence of construction and/or occupancy
4. circulation systems (vehicular,bicycle, and pedestrian), including parking and
service/delivery areas
5. protection of natural and/or historic sites
6. the amount, location, and proposed use of common open space;
7. the location and physical characteristics of the proposed Planned Unit
Development;
8. the location, design, type, height, and use of structures proposed;
9. traditional neighborhood development provisions intended to ensure:
a) The creation of compact neighborhoods oriented toward pedestrian
activity and including an identifiable neighborhood center, commons or
square;
b) a variety of housing types,jobs, shopping, services, and public facilities;
c) residences, shops, workplaces, and public buildings interwoven within
the neighborhood, all within close proximity;
d) a pattern of interconnecting streets and blocks, preferably in a rectilinear
or grid pattern, that encourages multiple routes from origins and
destinations;
e) a coordinated transportation system with appropriately designed facilities
for pedestrians,bicyclists,public transit, and automotive vehicles;
f) preservation, restoration, and maintenance of historic buildings that
physically express the history of the City of Ithaca unless it is shown that
the building's condition prohibits preservation, restoration, renovation, or
reuse;
g) natural features and undisturbed areas are incorporated into the open
space of the neighborhood;
h) well-configured squares, greens, landscaped streets, and parks are woven
into the pattern of the neighborhood;
i) public buildings, open spaces, and other visual features act as landmarks,
symbols, and focal points for community identity;
j) compatibility of buildings and other improvements as determined by their
arrangement, bulk, form, character, and landscaping to establish a livable,
harmonious,and diverse environment; and
k) public and private buildings that form a consistent, distinct edge, are
oriented towards streets, and define the border between the public street
space and the private block interior.
"F. Site Plan Review. Site plan approval for all Planned Unit Developments shall be
obtained in accordance with Chapter 276 of the City Code, Site Plan Review.
"G. Regulation after initial construction and occupancy. For the purposes of regulating
development and use of property after initial construction and occupancy, the approved
final site plan shall serve in lieu of other provisions of this chapter as the use, space and
bulk, yard, parking and other land use regulations applicable to the Planned Unit
Development district. Any changes other than use changes shall be processed as a change
Proposed new Language is underlined; language to be deleted(if any) is stfuelEt-hfeugir
7
Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance.doc
to an approved site plan, in accordance with §276-6 (C). In addition to the three possible
determinations listed in §276-6, the Building Commissioner, in consultation with the
Director of Planning and Development, may determine that the proposed changes are
substantially different from the Planned Unit Development district approved by Common
Council and that a new PUD application is required. Use changes shall also be in the
form of a change to an approved site plan except that the Planning and Development
Board shall have the opportunity to make a recommendation to Common Council and
that Common Council approval shall be required. It shall be noted, however, that
properties lying in Planned Unit Development districts are unique and shall be so
considered by the Planning and Development Board or Common Council when
evaluating these requests; maintenance of the intent and function of the planned unit shall
be of primary importance.
"H. Expiration of permit. All permits shall become null and void, and the Zoning Map
amendment revoked and restored to the zoning designation to which the district had been
prior to the PUD application, if construction has not started within three (3) years of the
date of final site plan approval. However, the applicant may petition the Planning and
Development Board before the expiration date for an extension of no more than two (2)
years. If the applicant can demonstrate substantial investment or reasonable progress
towards construction to the Planning and Development Board, the extension shall not be
unreasonably denied. Additional extensions may also be granted by the Planning &
Development Board."
Section 4. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of
the ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect in accordance with law upon
publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter, provided however, that the
same shall not become effective sooner than July 1, 2004.
Proposed new Language is underlined;language to be deleted(if any)is struelEtbr-eugh
8
Q:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\ZONING\PUD\PUD Zoning Ordinance.doc
E2
ACS Bike Path Project
111 Chestnut Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Planning,Neighborhood, and Economic Development Committee
108 East Green Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Dear Planning,Neighborhood, and Economic Development Committee,
Twelve years ago an Alternative Community School student was riding his bike home
down Elm Street,when he was struck by a bus and killed. The dangerous route the child
was forced to take is still the only route to the downtown area from much of West Hill.
We are Dakota Serviente and Ben Regenspan,members of the Alternative Community
School(ACS)Bike Path Project. Our project is a bicycle/pedestrian path that will give
the West Hill community a safe path to the State Street Bridge. Currently the only route
that bikers and pedestrians have to the bridge is the road, which in places has no sidewalk
or shoulder. This forces pedestrians and bikers into the road, which puts both themselves
and traffic in jeopardy. Our path will provide a safe alternative to the road, making the
roads safer for traffic and protecting pedestrians and bikers. Additionally,this path will
encourage West Hill residents to exercise.
The path will begin at the corner of Chestnut Street and Elm Street and roughly parallel
Elm Street downward. It will cut through a small forest area and then cross over the
gorge on the Chestnut Hill Apartments' land. Continuing toward Hector Street, it will
cross over Army National Guard land and finally parallel Hector Street down to the State
Street Bridge. At the State Street Bridge,the path will connect up to the Green Way of
Ithaca. We have included a map of the area with our path highlighted on it.
The estimated cost of the project, which includes a bridge spanning a 45-foot gorge, is
$251,000. This bridge, designed by Cornell Civil Engineering students, alone is estimated
to cost$40,000. The path will be 10 feet wide and roughly 3,000 feet long. It will be
asphalted and will include drainage ditches and lighting. The grading of the land is such
that we will need to level some places, which will involve the use of heavy machinery.
Additionally,Hector Street has become very busy, and as a consequence,the part of our
path that will parallel Hector Street, will need a sturdy metal railing,roughly 54 inches in
height,to protect bikers and pedestrians from traffic.
Phase I of the project is the installation of the bridge,this summer if all goes as planned.
Phase II is the construction of the path below, and above the bridge. Completion of phase
II is scheduled for spring 2005.
Jonathan Panzer has been working on this path since his son was killed in the accident on
Elm Street twelve years ago. George Frantz,very experienced in this type of design,
drafted the path's route and has been part of this project for over a decade. Over the past
two years, we have been working with landowners of West Hill and the Ithaca
community towards project completion. Through Congressman Hinchey's office, we
obtained right-of-way access from the National Guard. We contacted the Chestnut Hill
Apartments and obtained right-of-way access through their land as well; we are now
negotiating with the Ithaca City School District and the City of Ithaca regarding
ownership,responsibility of maintenance, and liability. The Ithaca Planning and
development Board,of march 23rd, gave final site approval for the plan of the bridge.
They also granted preliminary site approval for the path. This project is scheduled to be
considered for recommendation by the Planning,Neighborhood, and Economic
Development Committee on April 21st.
Due to all of these costs,we need to apply for a number of grants,but are not
incorporated as a non-profit. We are seeking sponsorship by an organization that already
has incorporated non-profit, 501c3 status.
We intend to apply for the following grants: $5,000 from the Social Service League,
$50,000 from the Community Foundation of Tompkins County, $25,000 from the
Howland Foundation, and$10,000 from the Tompkins County Foundation. Additionally,
we applied for the full $251,000 from CDBG funds, and are hopeful for$50,000. We are
also requesting of Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton some of her discretionary funds. An
ACS BikePath slush fund currently exists with around$5,000. Other community fund
raising activities are being planned. Resources we receive will go directly to construction
and bridge material costs. Any surplus of resources from phase one of construction will
carry over directly to phase two. Adoption of this project will offer the West Hill and
ACS community, safe egress to the State Street Bridge, and ultimately the downtown
area.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We are very interested in meeting
with you and discussing this and answering any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
The ACS Bike Path Project
Jonathan Panzer
Ben Regenspan
Dakota Serviente
E2
Wlr _ I.. .. , ,.
Army # * 4 _, ,, ,,,�° 4 f.'.
Reserve " IL -f
' A W_ t ill . ,-
Center unnse
4 4 ..11- : ..ik: „..- ,-• .11r. ..., .-, *--a:-..: 2".• : . •"7-:. 4.: -N014 , , .!:,,,,, . ; , .. ., . . g./1
* t 41 .. .,*,,,,, , . „
z r 4- ; s•„. ,, „.,..•, , .
.. orr I • ,, .
•
,.... • ,. , -, ,,;*:%,„v„.3:„..,... , it 7 ,g . ,..: iiiiiii‘,0,..-,:, .,,:: , ..•...0 i t-
Chestnut Hill 1 •
sr ,
t Apartments f '�' ° •
M 4 ` � , I'. L pit S f_ w
- . \
4002);
r .yam, -'�,. k_i a♦ . i ' _ '” m•. - ,.
F j _.-,k,,,..,_'-i4%4,,, '.' ,' '''',:rt, ',. , el 01 ill
i oiV' ---,L''' '--- ' ' '''` It '' ' '''''' ''W*r.' . -.44!.! -• . '','AV' ' , , ' .
"' A -- - Z. - ' -,:, - - ---,'-'-, -,i' -- :'- .iti,
Alternative mss. ,,: ± rf`
School . r
•!rt. ,.t.,„,i, .. ..... '.#,* ..1*, , e . — ' ' iii_a, '.* - ' • it•-.' 4. g
w
t • f• ki," *I , ' J
cc
{ .,-, -
`• `- Yt Ilik
N
200 0 200 400 Feet Proposed
' AACS Bikeway
iff park
cl
Bicycle &•
--ems" peaeStr2a�
o
• Path ,.
_ r ,
/=w. cMer
G 111�0 — -- _l So1ANuy-C
� � l 17,V, °ESE":£
': I
1• P R iME• ruC .i v
'v. \ ,. J.". f'., AA �W Gst.n'_M 4 � .g.�m:°fM F J"
y.pk .t%.•
•
�``.`" !filer -�`':Ie '`�.L. , its � �/
�.. �'4 p mil` ,, s. j� --
'a±� '`.. f p�SIGN
\�� ,�� I SCHEMA�G
F4000 e �*. PROPOSED PAM
Cp TRQt ANA _ " `N. / \\
NNE — \,
SCALE I G. ' - Frantr k A,,,o;ata
•
NOTE: iC isFcRwmcs FASTER PV`N. +
„GeaAiTMACA`„--Hfl_
. VISA
l
r1 ° t� 114 iH` ' ,I NP I�Cllr ■■ :,-;27100'P'141 b : i■ ■■ ,.,t^ 'i ■ .
-ave H H pp j hC = t- � F1 ^∎� _ L■ i 7K E �i K� 1 �ii■t�G,■-i-iiH7%i■ UE'9 I +
4 I qp dpi a� , � , �-= � _� � •Gay t-,. i. `'-- = ,,J HR-8 aaRREI•CR-G5 ARE; :
1 0,4 -4 � eeJ�'__"0- b„` d6 " _ 4 ;���✓ 1t+��c�trCHe-oedh
i 1 ll If iii 11 i ll 111111 L .1 _ I. it ,I I:j I �� I .i I i!
a� J
NOTES:
-TOWER AND CABLES TO BE STEEL
-ALL DECKING TO BE PLASTIC WITH
SLIP-PROOF COATING /f���1 ACS BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
-RAILING - VERITCAL GAP - 4" t
- HORIZONTAL GAP - 6" ELEVATION L❑❑KING WEST
• Alternative DESIGN AND DRAWINGS BY DWG NO.
Community School
111 Chestnut St. PAUL McCORD AND JEREMY BILLIG
Ithaca, NY 14850 --
. I +
1
20'-o•
1
1o•-o•
1
ii ' ; 1 '
U C '
a 4'-9'
l I
i =
1
_ I
NOTES: / \,, ,',, ACS BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
-TOWER AND CABLES TO BE �
STEEL ��� ELEVATI❑N L❑❑KING NORTH
-ALL DECKING TO BE PLASTIC Alternative DESIGN AND DRAWINGS BY DWG NO.
WITH SLIP-PROOF COATING Community Shoal
III Chestnut St. PAUL McCORD At:D JEREMY BILL'C
Ithaca,NY 14855
- 1
I 1
EtGE—GORGE \I
SCALE
PROPOSED FOOTING 1 10
0 5 15
—
S'-0' PROPOSED FOOTINGS
111,1l/R//„I //// /* / I rl r/
1
I V "
GORGE EDGE r
l '
r
,
I —
!
NOTES. ACS BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEI
—TOWER AND CABLES TO BE ����
/ PLAN W/ F❑❑TINGS
STEEL ► AND GORGE LINES
—ALL DECKING TO BE PLASTIC
WITH SLIP—PROOF COATING Community School DESIGN AND DRAWINGS BY DWG NO.
I in Chestnut St. PAUL McCORD AND JEREMY BILLIG
Ithaca, NY 14850
MAURICE D. HINCHEY
22ND FFICE:
2431 RAY HOUSE FICE BUILDING
22ND DISTRICT,NEW YORK WA T , 2 515-3222
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (/'/III P /(/�j.II y� P /yy yw
SUBCOMMITTEES: Congres'5 of t�je W,��,teb 7 tattli www.house.gov/hinchey
AGRICULTURE,RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, i0ou�+ Q]AK p rpQ y} �,
st of 1 ep{.LF.�'entatibes
AND RELATED AGENCIES y
INTERIOR aiibington, 31®C 205th-3222
November 12, 2003
Mr. Jonathan Panzer
766 Elm St. Ext.
Ithaca,NY 14850-8783
Dear Mr. Panzer:
I am pleased to inform you that my office received confirmation today from Sean Driskill,
Chief of Operations, 77th U.S. Army Reserve Regional Support Command, that the ACS Bike Path
Project may pass through the US Army Reserve's property on Ithaca's West Hill.
It is my sincere hope that this news will build additional momentum, support, and
cooperation for what I consider to be a very worthwhile project. I commend you for your
commitment to this bike path and wish you success in making it a reality.
If I may be of further service to you,please do not hesitate to call.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
* HD \
Maurice D. Hinchey
MDH:dll
BINGHAMTON OFFICE: ITHACA OFFICE: KINGSTON OFFICE: MIDDLETOWN OFFICE: MONTICELLO OFFICE:
100A FEDERAL BUILDING 123 SOUTH CAYUGA STREET 291 WALL STREET CITY HALL,THIRD FLOOR 18 ANAWANA LAKE ROAD
BINGHAMTON,NY 13901 SUITE 201 KINGSTON,NY 12401 16 JAMES STREET MONTICELLO,NY 12701
(607)773-2768 ITHACA,NY 14850 (845)331-4466 MIDDLETOWN,NY 10940 (845)791-7116
(6071 273-1388 (845)344-3211
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Nov- 19-03 10 :25A Rabco Apartments 607-266-8687 P .02
Rabeo Chestnut Hill Apts. i::1,C
312 Thurston Ave. Apt. Alt►
Ithaca, N.Y. 1.4850
(607)-266-8686
11(18/03
To Whom it May Concern:
After reviewing the plans for the ACS Bike Path Project I have decided that it would be a
great amenity to the Chestnut Hill Apts. and the West Hill Community. I am happy to grant
permission for the project to pass through Chestnut Hill's property.
Please provide me with the plans for the bridge crossing over the creek when the final
design decision is made and let me know when construction will begin. If there arc any question
for me or if can be of any assistance don't hesitate to call me ar the above umber.
Yours truly,
Greg Martin,
Manager
•
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
TI .
Co• �?. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA - 607-274-6559
Email: planning @cityofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
February 13, 2003
Jonathan Panzer
766 Elm Strect Extension
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Jonathan,
You and I have spoken a few times about the Alternative Community
School's Bike Path Project that would connect Chestnut Street to Hector
Street by crossing West Hill at a relatively flat grade. We've noted that
there are many elements to the project that warrant further discussion,
such as the bridge, maintenance responsibilities, and space along Hector
Street. Above all, however, we've agreed that right-of-way access is the
linchpin of the project. Schematic drawings show the path crossing both
the Chestnut Hill Apartment property and the Army Depot property.
Without these property owners permission, the Bike Path Project will
have to be drastically redesigned or rethought.
I have had the chance to talk with a few people in City Hall about the
trail project. Though some questions have come up that have yet to be
resolved, people, on the whole, seem to think that the project has merit
and could be a benefit to residents of West Hill-
I look forward to working with you and your class of students on this
project. I sincerely hope that we can work out some of the issues related
to the trail and that the private property owners will be amenable to
talking about the possibilities. Good luck and I look forward to talking
with you soon.
Tim Lol
Neighborhood and Economic Development Planner
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
--RECEIVED E2
LEAF
MAR - 2 26filING EN IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 1
DEPARTMENT OF Project Information
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT By Applicant
FILE burl
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant
effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Answers to these questions will be considered as part
of the application for approval and may be subject to further verifications and public review. Provide any
additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3.
NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER(if different)
ACS/Cliff Park Bicycle/Pedestrian Path& Bridge See attached
(Name)
Cor. Floral & Hector to cor. Elm St. &Chestnut St
(Street)
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
(P.O.) (State) (Zip)
ACS Bike Path Project
(Name) BUSINESS PHONE:
111 Chestnut St. TYPE OF PROJECT: Bicycle/pedestrian path
(Street)
Ithaca, NY 14850
P.O.) (State) (Zip)
(PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - indicate N.A. if not applicable)
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
(Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas)
1. Character of the land: Generally uniform slopes Generally uneven and rolling or irregular X .
2. Present land use: Urban X , Industrial_,Commercial , Public X , Forest X
Agriculture , Other
3. Total area of project: _2.7+,1- acres. or 117.940+/- square feet.
Approximate Area: Presently After Completion
Meadow or Brushland 1.25 acres 0.79 acres
Wooded 1.45 acres'sq. ft. 1.18 acres sq. ft.
Agricultural 0 acres,sq. ft. 0 acres:sq. ft.
Wetland (as per article 24 of E.C.L.) 0 acres sq. ft. 0 acres sq. ft.
Public Vg acres,sq. ft. ,1-.-55 acressq. ft.
•
Water Surface Area 0 acressq. ft. 0 acres,sq. ft.
Unvegetated 0 acres'sq. ft. 0 acresisq. ft.
Roads, buildings, and other it acres 0.73 acres , i : _
paved surfaces
Other Landscape (lawn, plantings) 0 acres 0 acres
-2-
4. (a) What is predominant soil type(s)on project site? e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc., No soil data is available
for the site, however the site appears to have been subject to substantial re-grading and development.
including fill.
(b) Percentage well drained 0°./0 , moderately well drained 100% , poorly drained 0%
5. (a) Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? X Yes . No.
(b) What is the depth of bedrock? 2 to 10 feet (in feet).
(c) What is the depth to the water table? 15±'- feet.
6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10% 53°,/0 ;
10-15% 32% ; 15% or greater 15% .
7. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? _Yes X No
8. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
Yes X No;
Identify each species N/A
9. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs,gorges, other geological
formations)? X Yes No. Describe Cliffs are located along Hector Street&lower portion of
Elm Street; small glen traverses site. .
10. Is project within or contiguous to a site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a
• local or state agency? X Yes No. Describe Site is partially located within Octopus Cliffs
UNA
11. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
X Yes No. (ACS playground utilized both during and after school days, summertime)
12. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community?
Yes X No.
13. Is project contiguous to, or does it contain a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State
Register of Historic Places? Yes X No; if Yes, explain
14. Streams within or contiguous to project site: Cliff Park Brook a.k.a. Silver Creek
a. Names of stream or name of river to which it is tributary Cavuga Inlet Flood Control Channel
15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project site;
a. Name None : b. Szo ! acres) N'A
16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project? (e.g. single
family residential, R-la or R-1b) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story)
Donrinuttt land use within 1/4-mi. radius i.; residential including vinglc,/ainilt'. two-/tmtilt'and multi-f m!1'.'
dwellings, educational (Alternatives COunun1lilltl'School). government (Army Reserve Center). recreational
(Cuss Park/Flood Control Channel shoreline areas). Dominant=oningi.cla.csi_fication.ss are R-2 and R-.3.
Scale of development is limited to three ;tortes ur less.
17. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes X No;
If Yes, describe N/A
-3-
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor: .45 acres.
b. Project acreage developed: 0.65 acreage initially; 0.65 acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 2.05 acres.
d. Length of project in miles 0.56 (if appropriate)or feet 2,970 .
e. If project is an expansion or demolition of existing building or use, indicate percentage of change
proposed: Building footprint square footage N/A ; developed acreage N/A .
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 0 .
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per day 0 and per hour 0 (upon completion of project).
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units(not structures):
One Family Two Family Apartments* Dormitory
Initial - N/A N/A N/A N/A -
Ultimate N/A N/A N/A N/A
Neighborhood City Regional Estimate Employment
If: Commercial N/A N/A ; N/A N/A
If: Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A
i. Total height of tallest proposed structure: +/-15 feet.
2. Specify what type of natural material(i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site
N/A added to the site N/A .
3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees. shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from site.
Existing vegetation on the site consists of 1.25 acres of lawns, brush and meadow-type ground covers.
and+,! 1.45 acre of woodland. The proposed path will require a clear area of between 18 feet cmd r.renn_
feet in width (10-12 ft. wide path plus 4 ft grass shoulder on each side)
5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction?
X Yes No. (Disturbed areas will he seeded to grass and some shrub plantings are plannecii
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months (including.demolition:!.
7. If multi-phased project:
a. Total number of phases anticipated 3
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase one Vlav month 2004 year
(including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date final phase ? month '' \ear.
d. Is phase I financially dependent un subsequent phases? r es \_ Nu.
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No; if yes. explain
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction <I0 : after project is completed 0 .
-4-
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 . Explain N/A
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No
If yes, explain N/A
12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes X No.
b. If yes, indicate type of waste(sewage, industrial, etc.) N/A
c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged?
N/A
13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams,or other surfaces waterways be increased or decreased
by proposal? Yes X No
14. a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year
flood plain? Yes X No
b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous
to: Cayuga inlet No ; Fall Creek No ; Cascadilla Creek No ; Cayuga Lake No : Six
Mile Creek No ; Silver Creek Yes -a.k.a. Cliff Park Brook.
c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as
described in Article 24 of the ECL? _Yes X No
d. If yes for a,b, or c, explain: proposed path will cross stream on+/-60 long suspension bridge.
15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes X No
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? N/A Yes No
c. If yes,give name: N/A .
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
Yes X No If yes, explain: NA .
e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes; X No If yes, explain N/A
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? X Yes No If yes, specify. Herbicides or pesticides
may be utilized within the proposed project area to the extent they are currently utilized within the City of
Ithaca streets and parks system.
17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic
Places? Or designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? Yes X No
If yes, explain: _ N/A .
18. Will project produce odors? X Yes No If yes, describe N/A
19. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise level during construction?
X Yes_No; After construction?. Yes X No
20. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Yes X No; If yes, indicate type(s):
N A
21. Total anticipated water usage per da■ 0 oats./day. Source of water: N/A .
22. Zoning
-5-
a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? U-1, with R2a, R3a and P-1 zoning across Stewart
Avenue, R-U north of University Avenue .
b. Current specific zoning classification of site? U-1
c. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes
d. If no, indicate desired zoning N/A
23. Approvals
a. Is any Federal permit required? X Yes No. Specify license/easement from U.S.
Army to cross Army Reserve Center property.
b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? X Yes No. Specify_ Project
being submitted for possible CDBG funding
c. Local and Regional approvals:
(Yes-No) Approval Submittal Approval
Required(type) (Date) (Date)
Council Yes Funding/capital project TBD TBD
BZA No
P &D Board • Yes Site Plan 3/2/04 TBD
Landmarks No
BPW Yes R/W:capital project TBD TBD
Fire Dept. Yes Emergency access TBD TBD
Police Dept. No
IURA No
Building Yes Building Permit TBD TBD
Commissioner
C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any
adverse impacts associated with the proposal,please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be
taken to mitigate or avoid them.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE:
TITLE:
REPRESENTING: h.
DATE:
• -6-
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS:
The proposed bicycle/pedestrian path will be located within the right of way of hector Street between Floral
Avenue and Sunrise Place. In addition the path will cross the following properties:
U.S. Army Reserve Center
101 Sunrise Road
Ithaca, New York, 14850
(see attached letter from Congressman Maurice D. Hinchey)
Rabco Chestnut Hill Apartments, LLC
Attn: Greg Martin
312 Thurston Avenue, Apt. A 16
Ithaca, New York 14850
266-8686
Alternative Community School
111 Chestnut Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
•
E2
"FL )
City of Ithaca Long Environmental Assessment Form
PART 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDES
IMPACT ON LAND
Small to Potential Can Impact be
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project
Moderate Large Reduced by
site 2fres 0 No
Impact Impact Project Change?
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slope in the project exceeds 1 [Yes No
10%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than
[Yes No
.3 feet. I
N°c
f
k
of i
Construction o parking alit / for 50 vhi
facility/area or or more ecles.
[Yes__________ — LI• • • • !L
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within
[Yes No
3 feet of existing ground surface. .
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
[Yes No
more than one phase or stage. •
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
[Yes No
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year.
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. [Yes No
. .
Construction in a designated floodway. [Yes No
Other impacts: [Yes No
"). Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the Small to Potential I Can Impact be
!site? (i.e. cliffs, gorges, geological formations. etc.) Moderate Large Reduced by
I 'es No Impact Impact !Projec: Change?
pecific land forms:aoFp3 ck3 1.4 Ecyr-Le_ p").--Ck_. —Yes' I No
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body desinatec! as protected? Small to Potential Can I:: act he
il_Tnder artic! 15 o: 24 of the Environmental Law. E.C.L.) Moderate Large
Red...zed by
[Yes No Impact Impact Projec: Change?
Developable area of site contains a protected '.va:er body [Yes — No
Drecl,Tinu more 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream..
Extension of utihty distribution facilities thrc.i_r_:.h a protected water - —
11\ es
body. _ -
..... _ .
(Other impacts: ( I [Yes [No
I
IMPACT ON AIR -
( { i Can Impact be
7. Will roAect affect air quality? Small to 'Potential Large
i Reduced by
_Yes No i Moderate Impact Impact project Change'?
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any S-
{ [ [ ,
hour period per day. i ( Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 [yes 0 No
tons of refuse per 24-hour day.
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5
lbs per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 [Yes [No
million BTUs per hour.
Other impacts [Yes [No
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered Small to Moderate Potential Can Impact be
s ecies� Reduced by
1Yes No Impact Large Impact Project Change? j
Reduction of any species listed on the New York or I [Yes ❑No
Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. J
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant
•
[Yes [No
wildlife habitat.
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a [Yes ❑No
year other than for agricultural purposes. I j
Other impacts: j [Yes [No
•
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non- Can Impact be
threatened o non-endangered species? Small to Potential Reduced by
[Yes o Moderate Impact Large Impact Project Change?
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any r,
resident or mivratory fish or wildlife species.
Di es -� °
Proposed action requires the removal or more than 1. 2
I acre of mature woods or other locally impo: ant [Yes No
( vegetation.
I Other impacts: [Yes No
•
Pa'ie ! I of20
A major reduction of an open space important to the I
community. �
I I :Yes ❑No
I
Other impacts: j I .
❑Yes ❑No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will the proposed action impact the
exceptional or unique characteristics of a site Small to Can Impact be
designated as a unique natural area (UN:A) or a Moderate Potential Large Impact Reduced by Project
critical environmental area(CEA)by a local or Impact Chance?
. state ag n
[Yes No
• Proposed Action to locate within a UNA or
CEA? _ Yes ❑No
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the
quality of the resource [Yes ❑No
Proposed Action will impact the use, function or
enjoyment of the resource ; [Yes ❑No
Other impacts: �' �' [Yes ❑No ;'
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION r
14. Will there be an effect to existing i Small to Can Impact be I
transports 'on systems? Moderate Potential Large Impact Reduced by
•
_Yes No Impact Project Change?
Alteration of present patterns of movement of
•
people and/or goods. [Yes ❑No
Proposed action will result in major traffic
problems. ; [Yes J No
Other impacts: 1 [Yes L No
IMPACT ON ENERGY 1
15. Will proposed action affect the community's Small to Can I:.oact be
sources o'fuel or energy supply? Moderate Potential Lor�_e Impact Reduced by
Yes No Impact Project C han,ze?
Proposed action causing greater than 5%
increase in any form of energy used in
municipality. [Yes _ No
Pa',� : . or 2('
Proposed action may result in the excavation I
or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a
•
site used for the disposal of solid or ❑Yes ❑No
hazardous wastes. 1 -
Proposed action will result in the handling or
disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e. toxic,
poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, —Yes ❑No
irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes i —
that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain
gases.)
. .. ......... ....
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons —
of any liquid fuel. i
_Yes L]No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil
.stabilization or the control of vegetation,
insects or animal life on the premises of any • i [Yes ❑No
residential, commercial or industrial property
in excess of 30,000 square feet.
Other impacts: ❑Yes ❑No
•
IMPACT GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character Small to Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced by
of the e, is •' g community? Moderate Impact Project Change?
[Yes No Impact
.
The population of the City in which the •
proposed action is located is likely to grow
by more than 5% of resident human [Yes ❑No
population. i •
The municipal budgets for capital
expenditures or operating services will
increase by more than 5% per year as a ❑Yes ❑ No
result of this proposed action.
Proposed action will conflict with officially
adopted plans or ?owls ❑�"es ❑ No
•
Proposed action will cause a change in the
I density of land use. �� eS ``�
The proposed action will replace or •
i
eliminate existing facilities. structures. or
I . ,
areas of historic importance to the
esI �o i
communit..
Development v: l create a demand for
` acs ❑ -
additional community services (e.g. schools.
Pl_• : zof_f)
r.
VISUAL EAF ADDENDUM
Visibility Distance Between Project and Resource(in
miles)
1. Would the project be visible from: 0-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-3 3-5 5+
A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the pi a El El El public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural
or man-made scenic qualities?
An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public El El �Lf3_ /
observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or ❑ ❑ /'
man-made scenic qualities? �
A site or structure listed on the National, State, or local El CI 0 El El Registers of Historic Places?
•
State Parks? 0 0 0 0 121/
•
The State Forest Preserve? El El El El Er
National Wildlife Refuges and State Game Refuges El El El El P''
National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
natural features
National Park Service Lands El 0 0 0 IS(
Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or ❑ ❑ ❑ El
Pr
Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
of the Interstate System or Amtrak?
A governmentally established or designated interstate or
inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for El 0 El El
establishment or designation?
A site, area, fake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ M/ ❑
scenic
Municipal park or designated open space? 0 I/ El 0 ❑
County Road 0 El El 'EC L!
State Road Elz. El 0 0
Local Road 0 ❑ 0 0 C
pa,,, : _ ,l
E2
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for
Bridge, Preliminary Site Plan Approval for Trail
ACS Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and Trail
Located Between Chestnut Street and Elm and
Hector Streets in the City of Ithaca
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
March 23,2004
WHEREAS: a site plan for a proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge and trail, located
between Located Between Chestnut Street and Elm and Hector Streets, (the bridge being
proposed over Silver Creek, also known as Cliff Park Brook), in the City of Ithaca, has
been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board, and
WHEREAS: the proposed project includes a 1.2 mile paved bicycle/pedestrian trail, 10
feet wide with a 4-foot grass shoulder on each side, a bridge proposed to include steel
towers and cables with plastic decking, approximately 70 feet in length, over Cliff Park
Brook, and
WHEREAS: this action is for consideration of preliminary and final site plan approval
for the proposed bridge and preliminary approval only for the proposed trail, and
WHEREAS: on March 23, 2004, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
declared itself lead agency for the purposes of environmental review for this project and
made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and
accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 prepared by the
applicant and Part 2, prepared by City Staff, and other information, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, held a Public Hearing on March 23,
2004 for the purpose of site plan review, and accepted as adequate plans entitled "Cliff
Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Path, Schematic Design" (2 Drawings), dated 12/21/95,
revised 4/6/03 and 2/28/04, prepared by George R. Frantz and Associates, and plans
entitled "ACS Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Elevation Looking West, ACS
Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Elevation Looking North, ACS Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Plan
with Footings and Gorge Lines", prepared by Paul McCord and Jeremy Billig, dated
March 17, 2004, and other application materials„ now therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board grants
preliminary and final site plan approval for the ACS Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and
preliminary site plan approval only for the associated bicycle/pedestrian path as shown on
the above listed drawings, and other application materials with the following conditions:
i. that, prior to construction, all easements, ownership, and maintenance issues
for the bridge and trail be resolved to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of
Public Works and to the City Attorney, and
ii. the applicant shall seek input and approval on the color scheme for the bridge
from residents of the surrounding neighborhood and shall submit, in writing,
documentation of the neighborhood recommendation, and
iii. plans for the bridge shall be stamped by a licensed professional engineer, and
be it further
RESOLVED: that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Common Council, the
Board of Public Works, and The City of Ithaca Board of Education.
Moved by McCollister
2nd by Zurenda
In Favor—Boothroyd, Burlington, Hoffman, Marcham, McCollister, Zurenda
Against—0
Abstain—0
Absent- 0
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ACS Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and Trail
E2
Lead Agency Located Between Elm Street and Chestnut Street
City of Ithaca
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
March 23,2004
WHEREAS: State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and
state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the proposed site plan is a Type 1 Action pursuant to the City of Ithaca
Environmental Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action pursuant to the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act, which requires review under the City's
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby
declare itself lead agency for the environmental review for the proposed ACS
Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and Trail located between Elm Street and Chestnut Street in
the City of Ithaca.
Moved by Zurenda
2°a by Burlington
In Favor—Boothroyd, Burlington, Hoffman, Marcham, McCollister, Zurenda
Against—0
Abstain - 0
Absent—0
E2
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ACS Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and Trail
CEQR Located Between Chestnut Street and Elm and
Hector Streets in the City of Ithaca
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
March 23,2004
WHEREAS: a site plan for a proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge and trail, located between
Chestnut Street and Elm and Hector Streets, (the bridge being proposed over Silver Creek, also
known as Cliff Park Brook), in the City of Ithaca,has been submitted for review and approval by
the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS: the proposed project includes a 1.2 mile paved bicycle/pedestrian trail, 10 feet wide
with a 4-foot grass shoulder on each side, a bridge proposed to include steel towers and cables
with plastic decking, approximately 70 feet in length, over Cliff Park Brook, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance
(proposed project being within 100 feet of Silver Creek, also known as Cliff Park Brook), and an
Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS: this project has been referred to the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works,the City
of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and to the Tompkins County Planning Department for
review and comment, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is legislatively determined to
act as Lead Agency in environmental review, and on March 23, 2004,has reviewed and accepted
as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant,and a Part
2, submitted by Planning Staff, and
WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has also reviewed and accepted
as adequate plans entitled"Cliff Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Path, Schematic Design"(2
Drawings), dated 12/21/95, revised 4/6/03 and 2/28/04, prepared by George R. Frantz and
Associates, and plans entitled"ACS Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Elevation Looking West,ACS
Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Elevation Looking North,ACS Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Plan with
Footings and Gorge Lines", prepared by Paul McCord and Jeremy Billig, dated March 17,2004,
and other application materials,now, therefore be it
RESOLVED:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in
accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by Hoffman
2"d by Burlington
In Favor—Boothroyd, Burlington,Hoffman,Marcham, McCollister, Zurenda
Against—0
Abstain—0
Absent- 0
E2
TO: Planning, Neighborhoods, and Economic Development Committee
FROM: City of Ithaca Parks Commission
DATE: April 16, 2004
RE: Proposed ACS Trail Project
At the April 13, 2004 meeting of the Parks Commission, Jonathan Panzer presented plans
for a proposed bicycle/pedestrian trail that would run from Elm Street to Sunrise Road in
the City of Ithaca. The proposed project includes an approximately 1.2 mile paved
bicycle/pedestrian trail, 10 feet wide with a 4-foot grass shoulder on each side and a bridge, over
Cliff Park Brook, approximately 70 feet in length, to be constructed with steel towers and cables
and plastic decking.
Mr., Panzer was seeking endorsement by the Parks Commission for the proposed trail,
including a recommendation that the City of Ithaca own and maintain the trail.
In general, members of the Parks Commission approved the concept but requested a
meeting on site to walk the route of the proposed trail. On April 15, 2004, Parks
Commission member and co-chair Margaret Hobbie, liaisons Andrew Hillman, City
Forester and Mary Tomlan, Common Council, and city staff to the Parks Commission,
JoAnn Cornish met Mr. Panzer and George Frantz, consultant for the project, at the site
and walked the trail.
Everyone was again in agreement that the trail was needed and would prove to be of great
benefit to the community, to West Hill residents, and to ACS students. However, the
following concerns were raised:
• City ownership, liability, maintenance, and related costs (there are three
separate tax parcels with three separate land owners, the Ithaca City School
District, Chestnut Hill Apartments, and the United States Army Reserve),
either through easement or acquisition,
• Trail lighting as it pertains to utility costs and ongoing maintenance for the
City,
• The need for the proposed bridge over Cliff Park Brook as one already exists
that serves as a secondary access for the Chestnut Hill Apartments. If the
existing bridge could be used for the trail, the money that is currently
budgeted for a new (and second) bridge could be better applied to repair the
existing bridge and to construction of the trail,
• The need for culvertization to accommodate the trail crossing a smaller stream
to the north. By moving the trail up hill a slight distance, the trail could cross
at grade, eliminating the need for culvertization which is expensive, requires
ongoing maintenance, and would have a greater environmental impact,
• The location of the path on Hector Street and the protection of a large Tulip
Tree near the proposed path, and
• The need to cut into the cliffs on Hector Street to accommodate the path that
are a part of the Tompkins County Unique Natural Area 137.
After relaying these concerns via e-mail to other Parks Commission members, it was
agreed that, prior to any recommendations and/or approvals, the above—noted concerns
should be addressed, recommendations should be considered, and more detailed
information should be submitted. In addition, the Parks Commission would like the issue
of ownership to be discussed and voted on by the Board of Public Works.
Februa 11, 2004
C. 1. Power to Act— Election of Vice Chair— Resolution:`
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works grant itself power to act at its meeting of
March 3, 2004 for the Election of Vice Chair.
22. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Alternative Community School (ACS) Bike Path Proposal — Presentation
George Frantz, Designer, Jonathan Panzer, Alternative Community School (ACS)
Representative, Ben Regenspan, ACS Senior, and Cornell engineering students Paul
McCord and Jeremy Billig gave a presentation to the Board on their proposal for a bike
path.
The proposal is for a 3,000 foot path which would run from Elm and Chestnut streets,
behind ACS and parallel to Elm Street as far north as Hector Street. It would also
include a bridge. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $150,000.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the design, location, maintenance,
ownership and various easements required for this project. Further discussion followed
on the cost of the project and how funding would be obtained.
Superintendent Gray requested that the Board be presented with a matrix that would
show the following information: liability issues, land ownership, maintenance, and
participants in each phase of the project and what requests might be made of the city.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Sarah Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specalist Mayor
DRAFT COPY
Not Yet Approved By
Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee
Planning, Neighborhoods & and Economic Development Committee
March 17,2004
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Mary Tomlan, Chair; Dan Cogan; and Pam Mackesey.
Other City Elected Officials Attending: Maria Coles, Joel Zumoff, and Mayor Carolyn
Peterson.
Staff Attending: H. Matthys Van Cort,Nels Bohn, Sue Kittel, Jennifer Kusznir, and Tim Logue
Others Attending: Denise Sanderson, TCAD; Susan Blumenthal; James Giovannoni; John
Barradas; members of the press and public.
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Mary Tomlan.
A. Public Comment and Responses:
There were no comments by members of the public.
B. Announcements and Reports
1. Southwest Area Circulation - Chair Tomlan announced that further discussion of any
action regarding plans for circulation in the Southwest Area would take place at the April
committee meeting.
2. IURA Consolidated Plan - Sue Kittel, IURA's Deputy Director of Community
Development, explained the draft of the Consolidated Plan and answered questions from
the Committee. Nels Bohn explained the One-Year Program.
C. Action Items:
1. IURA - Property Disposition to Advocacy Center of Tompkins County
Kittel explained the background of this proposed transaction.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the Committee unanimously voted
in favor of three resolutions pertinent to the proposed property disposition and
directed that these be referred to Common Council for Action: declaration of
Common Council as lead agency; declaration of no significant effect on the
environment; and approval of the disposition of the property (3-0-0)
2. Empire Zone
Van Cort gave a brief explanation of the action before the Committee. Denise Sanderson
and Nels Bohn answered questions.
- 1 -
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0317.doc
DRAFT COPY
Not Yet Approved By
Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the Committee unanimously voted
in favor of a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the Zone Boundary
Revision Agreement with Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development
(SCOPED) and directed that the resolution be referred to Common Council for
Action. (3-0-0)
3. Planned Unit Development(PUD)
Chair Tomlan said the ordinance would not be voted on this evening, but that the
Committee had an opportunity to discuss it. Tim Logue explained the proposed timing
for the enactment of the ordinance and several changes that the City Attorney
recommended for the proposed ordinance.
Cogan recommended that the ordinance give stronger guidance in matters such as
density. He also suggested that an additional public hearing be required. The Committee
directed that the draft be amended to require a public hearing by the Planning and
Development Board before it recommends approval of a proposed site as a PUD. Any
project would therefore be required to have three public hearings: One each by the
Planning& Development Board and Common Council before approval of the PUD, and
one by the Planning & Development Board before approval of the Site Plan for the
project.
4. Sale of Surplus Properties
Jennifer Kusznir described the three properties recommended for sale and answered
questions from the Committee. Susan Blumenthal, Jim Giovannoni and John Barradas
were invited to answer questions. After a brief discussion the three resolutions
authorizing sale of the properties were moved by Cogan and seconded by Mackesey.
The Committee unanimously voted in favor of all three resolutions and directed that
the resolutions be referred to Common Council for action. (3-0-0).
5. Work Program
Van Cort explained the proposed Priority Work Program. Committee members
recommended two changes. Under Economic Development, it was specified that
continued planning for additional parking in Collegetown be undertaken in cooperation
with area businesses and property owners. A project was added under Neighborhoods
and Quality of Life: Plan with the community for the redevelopment of the Markles Flats
site.
On a motion by Cogan, seconded by Mackesey, the Committee unanimously voted
in favor of a resolution approving the 2004 Priority Work Program for the
Department of Planning and Development and directed that the resolution be
referred to Common Council for Action. (3-0-0)
D. Other items—None
- 2 -
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0317.doc
y
DRAFT COPY
Not Yet Approved By
Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Committee
E. Approval of Minutes
Cogan requested that future minutes not only name each member of the public who spoke to
the committee but also give the topic addressed by each.
On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan, the Committee approved the minutes
for January 21,2004 and February 18,2004.
F. Adjournment
On a motion by Mackesey, seconded by Cogan,the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
- 3 -
q:\planning\groups\planning,neighborhood and eco dev committee 2004\minutes\0317.doc