Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #105 Monday, September 26, 2022 Marcham Hall – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, E. Quaroni, M. McMurry, R. Segelken Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, Deputy Clerk A. Jacot, Alternate Member M. Johnston, Mayor L. Woodard N. Demarest, architect, STREAM Collaborative Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:02 pm. • Chair F. Cowett stated that Board Member J. Leijonhufvud is absent and appointed Alternate M. Johnston a full voting member of the Board for this meeting. Item 2 – June 27, 2022 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the June 27, 2022 meeting. Motion: R. Segelken Second: M. Johnston RESOLUTION No. 359 APPROVING MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2022 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the June 27, 2022 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Abstained – M. McMurry Opposed – None Item 3 – Public Comment No members of the public wished to speak. 2 Item 4 – RaNic Golf Club PDZ -- Discussion • Chair F. Cowett stated that a formal application for a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) pursuant to the redevelopment of the RaNic golf club has been submitted by the RaNic project team to the Village; if the Village’s Board of Trustees approve a PDZ, the project will then be submitted to the Village’s Planning Board for site plan review; given that many project details to be considered in site plan review will also be considered by the Trustees in the PDZ review, the Village and the RaNic team decided it might be beneficial to the PDZ review process for the RaNic team to discuss the plans for the project with the Planning Board at this time rather than to wait for site plan review to do so; the Chair therefore invited N. Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, to this meeting to discuss the project with the Planning Board. • N. Demarest stated that he would like feedback from the Planning Board about the project’s current plan which more closely approximates a sketch plan than a site plan; the Town of Ithaca’s PDZ for the project includes the entire portion of the golf club property located within the Town, whereas the Village’s PDZ for the project includes 7.19 acres of the golf club’s 15.31 acres located within Cayuga Heights; the proposed hotel will have 56 rooms between its two main buildings and four cabanas; the eight townhomes located in the Village PDZ will each have lower level parking; the driveway will be privately maintained and has been designed to be less like a parking lot and more pedestrian friendly; the previously proposed townhomes adjacent to Pleasant Grove Road are no longer part of the project because this is the lowest lying land on the site and is needed to manage stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surfaces from the proposed improvements; a pedestrian connection to the Community Corners area will be made via a new sidewalk on Pleasant Grove linking to the bus stop and crosswalk already there; the Village’s PDZ law states that buildings shall be located not less than 75 feet from any public road right-of-way; the nearest townhome is 196 feet, the hotel is 111 feet, and the nearest cabana is 57 feet from the Pleasant Grove Road right-of-way. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the 75 foot setback for buildings can be amended by the Board of Trustees if an exception to the setback is deemed justified by the Trustees. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that the townhomes also do not conform to the PDZ law’s requirement that buildings shall be located not less than 100 feet from any other existing property line bordering the PDZ; this 100 foot setback can similarly be amended by the Board of Trustees per § 305-47 of Village code. • Attorney R. Marcus further stated that Planning Board comments and feedback about the project will be relayed to the Board of Trustees, but the Trustees may or may not accept Planning Board recommendations; there is nothing in the Village’s PDZ local law that prescribes what role the Planning Board should play regarding the establishment of a PDZ by the Trustees. 3 • Chair F. Cowett asked about the red circles in parking areas shown on the current plan provided by N. Demarest. • N. Demarest replied that the red circles are a reminder to himself that there should be tree islands where there are rows of parking spaces greater than ten spaces. • M. McMurry stated concern about parking needs in the PDZ. • N. Demarest replied that the each townhome has a lower level parking space plus at least one additional exterior space for visitors; the hotel has 14 spaces in an exterior lot and 22 covered spaces on the first floor of one of the hotel buildings; there are 103 spaces serving the golf course and clubhouse which is roughly the same number of spaces serving them now and which includes spaces along the entrance driveway. • M. Johnston asked about the two driveways shown exiting onto Hanshaw Road and whether there are plans to demolish the house shown adjacent to the easternmost of these driveways on a lot owned by RaNic. • N. Demarest replied that no decision has been made yet to demolish the house, but the lawn associated with that lot could be used for overflow parking if needed. • M. Johnston asked whether SRF Associates, who will be conducting a traffic study, have offered any feedback concerning the need for the easternmost driveway. • N. Demarest replied that SRF Associates has not yet provided any feedback about the need for that driveway. • E. Quaroni asked what will prevent drivers on Pleasant Grove Road from cutting through the club via its driveway to avoid rush hour backups at the Pleasant Grove- Hanshaw intersection. • N. Demarest replied that there is nothing to physically prevent drivers from cutting through the club to Hanshaw, but raised pedestrian crosswalks, the curving driveway, reduced speed limit signs, and a sign stating that the driveway is for private use only should discourage cut-throughs. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the traffic study to be conducted by SRF Associates will collect new traffic data for the Community Corners area intersections; traffic data has not been collected since 2019. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that Bergmann, which conducted a study for the Village in 2019 of reconfiguring the Community Corners area intersections, will likely be engaged by the Village to comment on the SRF Associates report. • E. Quaroni stated that events at the country club sometimes result in vehicles being parked along Pleasant Grove Road. • N. Demarest stated that he hasn’t heard about such overflow parking, but parking along Pleasant Grove Road is an enforcement issue. • M. McMurry stated that such enforcement will place a burden on Village police; if the project increases the intensity of use at the club that results in overflow parking, then additional parking should be provided at the club. • Chair F. Cowett asked about the parking adequacy of the 56 rooms associated with the hotel and the 36 dedicated hotel parking spaces shown on the plan. 4 • N. Demarest replied that there is a row of 20 parking spaces along the driveway near the hotel that could be used by hotel guests. • R. Segelken asked about parking provided for hotel and clubhouse staff. • N. Demarest replied that he does not know the number of parking spaces that will be needed for staff; staff parking needs will be included in the SRF Associates report. • M. McMurry asked if parking for clubhouse restaurant patrons has been accounted for. • N. Demarest replied that the parking needs for clubhouse restaurant patrons should be the same as the parking needed now and would be included in the 103 spaces; the project team does not want to oversize the number of parking spaces provided. • Chair F. Cowett agreed with not oversizing the number of parking spaces on site, but stated that the Planning Board in site plan review will need to determine whether the site plan provides sufficient parking; he asked about the schedule for opening and closing the golf course in the spring and fall. • N. Demarest replied that the golf course generally opens on April 1st and closes on October 31st, but this schedule depends on the weather; he stated that the truck symbol shown on the current plan indicates that a tractor trailer sized delivery truck would not need to turn around on the property, but could instead enter via Pleasant Grove Road and exit via Hanshaw Road; the project team has also begun to analyze fire-fighting needs. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the Cayuga Heights Fire Department covers both the Village and the Town of Ithaca. • M. McMurry stated that an alternative to needing additional parking is reducing the intensity of site use. • N. Demarest replied that the project team is mindful of the need to right-size project components. • Chair F. Cowett asked if there is a plan to sell hotel spa memberships to the public. • N. Demarest replied that he is not aware of any such plans. • Chair F. Cowett asked about the reason for building the hotel cabanas; eliminating the cabanas would reduce site use intensity. • N. Demarest replied that the site lends itself to building the cabanas; they would provide a unique visitor experience and a variety of accommodations. • E. Quaroni asked if there are still plans for two restaurants, one in the clubhouse and one in the hotel. • N. Demarest replied that there would be two dining facilities, but the one in the hotel would be smaller than the one in the clubhouse and more of a café than a restaurant. • M. McMurry asked if banquet events will still take place at the clubhouse. • N. Demarest replied that banquet events would not continue as in the past; what was once the banquet space is now occupied by golf simulators. • Chair F. Cowett asked if the proposed event space on Warren Road could handle banquet events. 5 • N. Demarest replied that the space on Warren Road is not as large as the space in the clubhouse; it could handle smaller, more intimate events limited to 50 people. • R. Segelken stated that the Board of Trustees should if possible have a look at the project’s business plan as presented to its bankers; he asked if the Trustees can request from the applicant a look at such a plan. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that the Trustees cannot request to see the project’s financial data, but the Board can request the program components of the business plan in order to confirm that these conform to the applicant’s proposed plan. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that, in the course of approving the site plan for the Corners Community Shopping Center medical office building project, the Planning Board required the applicant to develop an overflow parking plan; to satisfy this condition of site plan approval, T. Ciaschi obtained a letter of commitment from the Ithaca Country Club to provide overflow parking as needed; this commitment was not part of the deed when RaNic acquired the club and he will contact T. Ciaschi to update the overflow parking plan with or without RaNic. • Attorney R. Marcus confirmed that Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross should discuss this issue with T. Ciaschi to avoid the shopping center falling out of compliance with the site plan condition of approval. • E. Quaroni asked Attorney R. Marcus if, regarding the townhomes, a land lease or condominium arrangement would be less complicated than individual lot ownership associated with a homeowners association as is currently being contemplated. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that a land lease arrangement would be more complicated than the current individual ownership plan, and that condominiums would be more complicated still; individual lot ownership with homeowner association regulations governing such things as aesthetics would be best. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that short term rentals of the townhomes could also be governed as part of the homeowner association regulations. • N. Demarest stated that homeowner association regulations governing townhome short term rentals could be managed by the hotel which would provide greater protection for short term rental use; short term rental use would follow the same rules as elsewhere in the Village such as the 28 day limit per calendar year. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the 28 day calendar year limit pertains to when the owner is present on site; the annual limit is 14 days when the owner is not present on site, and presumably the townhome owner would most likely not be present if a townhome was rented on a short term basis. • N. Demarest stated that he had not fully understood the Village’s short term rental regulations and would discuss them with the project team. • M. Johnston asked about LEED-ND and what requirements for certification the project intends to fulfill. • N. Demarest replied that he has not reviewed LEED-ND certification requirements in a while, but that the project would fulfill requirements for density and mixed use. 6 • E. Quaroni asked if the project will benefit the Village or will it duplicate services and uses already available in the Community Corners area. • N. Demarest replied that the project will benefit the Village by preserving the green open space of the golf course and will benefit Community Corners by providing more demand for the services and uses available there; for example, it is unlikely that a hotel visitor staying multiple days would want to dine at the golf club only, but would likely be interested in dining at the Community Corners restaurants as well. • M. Johnston asked about the practicality of the project getting built out. • N. Demarest replied that the current plan shows the project’s maximum build out, which is unlikely to happen in one season, but more likely in two or three seasons; the townhomes are the most critical component from a financial perspective, followed by the clubhouse and the hotel; the thirty-room hotel building and cabanas will be built first, after which the hotel operation will be assessed; the results of that assessment will determine if the second hotel building is built. • M. McMurry stated that she is most comfortable with the project’s townhome component and its intensity of use, which in her view is most consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan; the hotel has a greater intensity of use and could have some negative impacts. • N. Demarest stated that the current plan intentionally pushes the limits of what is feasible at the site, and the project team recognizes the need to right size the plan for the site. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the Town of Ithaca will likely be lead agency for the project’s SEQRA review, and the Village will submit comments to the Town regarding the project’s environmental impact; he asked whether the Village’s Board of Trustees and Planning Board would submit separate or combined comments regarding SEQRA to the Town. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that there should be one set of comments from the Village communicated to the Town; the Planning Board will act in an advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees regarding SEQRA. • E. Quaroni asked whether it would be feasible for the project to be configured as a golf course community without the hotel. • N. Demarest replied that the hotel is needed to make the golf club a destination, unless the number of townhomes was substantially increased. • M. McMurry asked if the size of the hotel could be reduced. • N. Demarest replied that the hotel could be reduced to 30 rooms, but that would be its minimum viable size based on the advice of the project’s hotel consultants. • M. Johnston stated that he recalls hearing the project team initially present 55 rooms as the minimum viable hotel size. • N. Demarest stated 55 rooms was the initial minimum hotel size, but the project team has since become more comfortable with a 30 room minimum. 7 • M. Johnston asked if there was space available on the golf club property to develop more housing if there was no hotel; could single family residences be built on the golf club property adjacent to the course. • N. Demarest replied that the project team explored the possibility of building some single family residences adjacent to the course, but most of the sites for the residences would be located in the Town of Ithaca portion of the property and the Town is opposed to this. • M. McMurry asked about the accessory buildings mentioned in the proposed PDZ local law and what type of buildings these might be. • N. Demarest replied that the accessory buildings could be a maintenance shed, bicycle parking, or a recycling enclosure. • M. McMurry asked whether these accessory buildings would be located in rear yards and therefore not visible from the street. • N. Demarest replied that the accessory buildings would be located in the rear yard. • E. Quaroni asked about hotel phasing if the two hotel buildings were not built concurrently and implications for the site plan review process. • Chair F. Cowett stated that Kendal underwent an initial site plan review in 1993, but the Planning Board conducted another site plan review when it expanded in 2013. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the site plan approved for Kendal in 1993 allowed Kendal to increase its number of assisted living units, which it did, but the 2013 expansion also involved a hospital wing plus units with more intensive levels of assistance, both of which represented a substantial change in the original site plan and therefore required the 2013 site plan review; if a secondary phase of the RaNic project does not entail a substantial change to an original approved site plan, there is no need for a second site plan review. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that, along those lines, it is in the Board of Trustees’ interest to approve a PDZ which precisely defines the maximum extent of the project so as to avoid a future request by RaNic to amend the PDZ. • M. McMurry stated that it is also in the Board of Trustees’ interest to approve a project which is of maximum benefit to the Village, which could entail reducing the hotel’s size to 30 rooms. Item 5 – New Business • The Board’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2022 at 7:00 pm. Item 6 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 9:01 pm.