Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-02-19 1, f TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 19 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , February 19 , 1985 in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Vice - Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza , Bernard Stanton , Virginia Langhans , Barbara Schultz , Peter Lovi ( Town Planner ) . ALSO PRESENT : Robert R . Flumerfelt , Dell L . Grover , Tim Buhl , Bill Grover , Bill Reed , Robert H . Drake , Charles Drake , Forrest S . Sanders , John T . Lemley , Dana S . Peterson , Roger M . Battistella , James Iacovelli , Raymond Delli -Carpini , Jack Dougherty , Jonathan C . Meigs . Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 45 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings ( 4 ) in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 11 and February 14 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties in question , as appropriate , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants and / or agent , if any , on February 14 , 1985 . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 32 - UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION COMPRISED OF 8 STRUCTURES CONTAINING 4 UNITS EACH , AT 1018 - 1020 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 39 - 1 - 5 and 6 - 39 - 1 - 6 ( PORTION ) , DELL GROVER ET AL , OWNER / DEVELOPER . Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 48 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Edward Mazza presented the plan to the Board . He informed the Board that he was a principal in this development and would abstain from any voting on the project . Mr . Mazza stated that the property to be developed is on Danby Road just past the NCR property . Referring to the preliminary subdivision plan , he indicated the location of the development in relation to Route 96B , Buttermilk Falls State Park , Ithaca College , NCR , downtown Ithaca , and Cayuga Lake , He stated the property is 8 . 6 acres net to the Highway right - of -way line . Mr . Mazza illustrated that if the property were developed as a conventional subdivision in this R9 district , 20 lots could be subdivided upon which could be constructed a single - family Planning Board 2 February 19 , 1985 dwelling and an apartment . This would allow the developers a maximum of 40 clustered dwelling units , allowing for open space . Mr . Lovi asked whether this conventional subdivision plan allowed for a full 10 per cent open space . Mr . Mazza stated that it did . Mr . Mazza stated that the developers are asking for 32 units and that one of the reasons that they are doing a clustered subdivi - sion is to allow for more open space , rather than more driveways and roadways . He indicated that the developers have mapped a 30 - foot buffer along the property ' s perimeter . Referring to the map , he indicated the location of the water and sewer lines going through the property . He also indicated that there is a fire hydrant somewhere near the road , though it is not shown on the map . He indicated where the developers propose to put a second fire hydrant to serve the property . Referring to the second map in the preliminary plan , Mr . Mazza described the slope of the dead - end street to serve the develop - ment . He stated that according to his calculations , there would be roughly a twelve - foot drop over the distance of the road . This resulted in a two per cent grade at the beginning of the road , a six per cent grade in the middle , and a 1 . 65 per cent grade toward the bottom . He said that this is not very steep at all and that this is a rather shallow incline . The developers have brought the road in along the contours in order to avoid a steep incline . He • stated that Mr . Flumerfelt has spoken with the New York State Department of Transportation about the road ' s intersection with Route 96B and that this configuration complies with their stan - dards . Gesturing to the southern end of the development , Mr . Mazza stated that the developers would prefer to serve the four units labeled " 7 " on the plan with a short private driveway from Route 96B , rather than a long driveway from the project ' s dead - end street . This preference was due to the cost of the longer driveway and the resulting loss of green space . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked Mr . Mazza what the distance was between the dead - end street and the private driveway . Mr . Mazza answered by referring to the map and describing the other drive - ways which are presently between the proposed street and the proposed private drive . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if there is a good line of sight along that stretch of road . Mr . Mazza in - dicated that it is pretty good and Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the distance between the street and the driveway is 400 feet . Mr . Mazza referred to the engineering details and indicated the location of an existing manhole on the map . He stated that addi - tional manholes will be installed as required . In response to Vice - Chairman Grigorov ' s question , he described the location of • several driveways and garages in some detail , making specific references to the subdivision plan . He indicated that the plan is for a garage at one level and for two levels of living space above a Planning Board 3 February 19 , 1985 them . However , several of the units would have two levels of living space with a garage " out back " . Pointing to the map , Mr . Mazza indicated which units would have ground level and which would have lower level garages . Again referring to the map , Mr . Mazza indicated the reservation of sufficient space for a future road right - of -way , if necessary , for the provision of road access to adjacent lands to the west . He showed where future utility lines would go and then asked Mr . Flumerfelt if he wished to add any additional information . Mr . Flumerfelt said that all he wished to add was that all units in the development would be able to be served by gravity sewers and that no pumping stations would be needed . As far as water service was concerned , the main line was shown on the map , how- ever , a description of the individual service lines would wait until the number of fixtures in each unit was known . In response to Mr . Stanton ' s question , Mr . Flumerfelt and Mr . Mazza explained how the fourplex labeled number " 6 " would be capable of a gravity sewer flow , though it has the shallowest slope . Mr . Lovi asked Mr . Mazza whether they were intending to develop more than 32 units , since their conventional subdivision plan showed that they could create 20 lots or 40 units . Mr . Mazza confirmed that 32 units was the maximum for which approval would • be requested . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked about the character of the adjacent land which they do not own . Mr . Mazza replied that this land is mostly open field and he described the locations of a house , a barn , a road stand , and the related driveways . He characterized the land as mostly wooded . Mr . Mazza went on to add that the units to be built will be sold as separate dwelling units . There will be some property around the houses sold in fee simple and other lands will be held in common by the homeowner ' s association . He commented that the architects are planning attached courtyards which they expect to be quite attractive . The major portion of the lands will be owned by the homeowner ' s association . The road will be built to Town Highway specifications and dedicated to the Town . In response to Vice - Chairman Grigorov ' s question concerning phas - ing , Mr . Mazza indicated that the construction schedule depends on the specifics of financing . He stated that it is likely that clusters # 1 and # 2 would be built first . Mr . Mazza introduced the project architect , Tim Buhl , who described the floor plan layout of the basic units . In response to Mrs . Langhans ' question , he indicated that the units will have an option for three bedrooms but the basic model will be two • bedrooms . There are four units in the cluster , each a mirror image of the adjacent one so that plumbing fixtures in the walls could be combined . A person walks in on the main level and there Y- Planning Board 4 February 19 , 1985 • is a half bath / lavatory , and a kitchen / dining / living room area with a view out toward the lake . Walking upstairs , there is the full bathroom and the bedrooms . What the project is trying to do is give the owner the maximum flexibility . He then described several other options , including the garage . Referring to preliminary elevations , the architect said the pro - ject will use natural materials , such as cedar siding , stone courtyards . The roofline can be staggered up or down the hillside contours , and a split - level could even be incorporated within a unit . Mr . Mazza stated that the purpose of breaking up the roof - line is to allow the project to blend into the topography as much as possible . The architect then stated that these units will be roughly 1200 square feet , excluding garage area . These units will be quite spacious and a little more expensive than usual . The buildings will be less than 30 feet tall . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any public comments . Mr . Forrest Sanders of 1021 Danby asked Mr . Mazza to clarify where the project was located . Mr . Mazza identified the adjacent prop - erties and named their owners . The existing houses were given as reference points . Other reference points and the extent of the buffer zone were described . Mr . Mazza stated that no large trees to block the view were intended to be planted except along Route 96B . It is their intent to plant small shrubs and trees . • In answer to M r . Sanders , Mr . Mazza stated that these units were for private sale as individual units and would not be rental apartments . Though the overall exterior would be consistent , the interior floor plan would allow for individual flexibility . The distinction between the dead -end road and the private driveway was explained to Mr . Sanders . Mr . Sanders said that he had no more questions . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked him if he wished to make any comments . He said that as a property owner in the neighborhood , he was not parti - cularly enthused about the project because this is a high - traffic area to begin with and this project will add to the traffic . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other questions . There being none , she closed the public hearing . Mr . Stanton commented , as a point of information , that the provision of sufficient land for the provision of an access road for the adjacent property was suggested at the earlier , informal meeting concerning this project . Mr . Mazza concurred and stated that the developers had no intention of building this road . Mrs . Langhans observed that , given the conceivable maximum traffic impact possible with a conventional subdivision , the present . clustered plan is somewhat of an improvement . Planning Board 5 February 19 , 1985 Mr . Lovi made some suggestions for additional information to be provided for a final subdivision hearing , provided that the Plan - ning Board granted preliminary approval . A homeowners agreement should be reviewed , especially occupancy restrictions . Also the phasing , landscaping and topography should be reviewed . He indi - cated that he had reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form and that his concern was that the view northward from Route 96B not be significantly impacted . He asked for clarification concerning the planting of trees close to the road . Mr . Mazza and the developers stated that they were referring to the planting of a screen of trees to shield the houses closest to Route 96B from road noise . He represented that no tall trees would be planted . Mr . Lovi said that he now understood what was intended and that he suggested that any new trees planted be species which would not grow significantly above the roof lines of the proposed buildings . Mr . Lovi indicated that he had no other difficulties with the project at this stage of the review . He stated that he is very much in favor of cluster housing and this is a layout well - suited to the site . This development will result in fewer curb cuts than if the frontage were developed conventionally . Traffic will increase , but that is the case with any development . The traffic exiting through one Town road rather than several private drive - ways is an improvement . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked what the developers intended to do with the buffer zone and Mrs . Langhans asked what the plans were for the open space . They asked whether it would be left grassed or if there were plans for a park . Mr . Mazza indicated where there are trees on the site which will be preserved . Mr . Grover commented that their intention is for as natural a development as possible . Mr . Mazza concurred , adding that their specific plans are still being developed . In response to Mrs . Langhans ' question , Mr . Mazza indicated that no play or park structures were being considered . Mr . Lovi asked whether the homeowners agreement and covenants would insure that all the land made part of this subdivision would forever and always be dedicated to this subdivision and could not be further subdivided . Mr . Mazza agreed that this would be the case , however the land described as available for a future road right - of -way would be so indicated . Vice - Chairman Grigorov again asked whether the buffer area would be planted with hedgerows or anything . Mr . Mazza responded that nothing much beyond the existing hedgerows was considered and that the developers specifically discussed not planting trees which would act as a nice buffer from their perspective but could also block their neighbors ' view of the lake . Planning Board 6 February 19 , 1985 Mr . Grover added that all the land was going to remain grass , just green grass and in the back all the trees that are there which came up from the farm will remain as they are . He stated that he believes in green grass . Mr . Mazza stated that he was excited about what could happen in the patio areas . He thought that some nice landscaping could take place . Flagstone walks , some nice fences , shrubbery and trees could be put in . Mrs . Langhans observed that there would be a lot of green grass . Mr . Stanton commented that it would be important , if this preli - minary plan were approved , for us to know where the boundary for each unit would be and how much land each potential owner is to have . He would also be interested to know what each owner would be free to do or not to do on their land . Could you have gardens or not , could you have dog kennels or not ? Summarizing a round of comments at the table , Mr . Stanton said that it is important to know what is planned and what future owners will not be permitted to do . Mr . Lovi said that the Board should take a lot of time , even if no approval is sought at the next meeting , to review the homeowners agreement , although the Town Board will have to approve any covenants . The Planning Board should go into these matters in considerable detail , because there may be matters referred to in the covenants or agreements which have to be further described or clarified on the final subdivision plan . For example , if garden plots will be centralized , this is something the engineers should know before they prepare a final plan . Mr . Stanton stated that it is important to mention these matters now so that the developers and the public are aware that all these matters are still to be considered . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone would make a motion on the environmental assessment form . Mr . Stanton offered the following motions RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board acting as lead agency in the environmental review of a 32 - unit clus - tered subdivision at 1018 - 1020 Danby Road make and hereby does make a determination that the project will not create any significant adverse environmental impacts and no further environmental review will be necessary . The motion was seconded by Mrs . Langhans and passed unanimously . Mr . Mazza abstained from the vote . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone would make a motion on the preliminary subdivision approval . Mrs . Langhans offered the following motions Planning Board 7 February 19 , 1985 • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary subdivision approval for a 32 - unit clustered subdivision at 1018 - 1020 Danby Road , Dell Grover et al owner / developer . The motion was seconded by Mrs . Schultz and passed unanimously . Mr . Mazza abstained from the vote . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A THREE - PARCEL SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF ROBERT DRAKE OFF WOOD - GATE LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 72 ( 126 + ACRES ) . Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Lovi stated that this matter had been informally discussed at the last meeting and the information presented by Mr . Drake at that time was considered to be sufficient . Mr . Drake was present to answer any questions for the Board . He indicated the proper - ties to be subdivided and the extension of Woodgate Lane , as referenced on the plat . Mr . John Lemley of 301 Woodgate Lane approached the Board and questioned Mr . Drake about the parcel adjacent to Mr . Lemley ' s • property which is to be subdivided . Mr . Drake said that this parcel will be transferred to Mr . Lemley and was as they had previously discussed . Mr . Mazza asked where Woodgate Lane ends at present and what provision was being made for a road culvert . Mr . Drake indicated the present extent of the road and stated that he will install another 30 feet of culvert and a stone headwall in order to handle the drainage to his satisfaction . Mr . Drake described the topo - graphy of the site as gentle . Mr . Mazza asked whether there will be any drainage problems resulting from the road extension . Mr . Lovi indicated that given the topography and proposed drainage plans , he did not anticipate any problem . Mr . Lemley indicated that he was interested in acquiring one of the subdivided parcels to add to his property and could not imagine anyone building on that site , since the slopes were rather steep . Mr . Drake again stated that this property was going to be transferred to Mr . Lemley and no building would occur on the parcel . Mr . Lemley asked several general questions pertaining to zoning , planning and permitted uses which were answered by the Planning Board and Mr . Lovi . As there were no more questions concerning this matter , Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked for a motion on the environmental assessment form . Mr . Stanton offered the following motion : r . Planning Board 8 February 19 , 1985 • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board acting as lead agency in the environmental review of a 3 - lot subdivision off Woodgate Lane , Town of Ithaca tax parcel 6 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 72 , make and hereby does make a determination that the project will not create any significant adverse environmental impacts and no further environmental review will be necessary . The motion was seconded by Mrs . Langhans and passed unanimously . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone would make a motion on the preliminary subdivision approval . Mr . Mazza offered the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary subdivision approval for a 3 - lot subdivision off Woodgate Lane , Town of Ithaca tax parcel 6 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 72 , as shown on a map to be filed in the office of the Town Engineer , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive final approval for such subdivision . The motion was seconded by Mrs . Schultz and passed unanimously . In response to his question , Mr . Lemley was assured by the Plan - . ning Board that any further subdivision of these lands would have to be approved by the Board at another subdivision review . PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOM- MENDATION TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 1 , ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP , RAYMOND DELLI -CARPINI , AS AGENT , Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 25 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Delli - Carpini presented the Board with a final site plan as requested at the informal meeting of February 5 , 1985 . Vice � Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone wished to speak to this matter . Mr . Lovi informed her that all members of the audience were here on other matters . Mr . Lovi recounted the specific information requested by the Planning Board at its informal discussion . This information was presented by Mr . Delli -Carpini in the present plan including the sign detail and location , the location and specifications of the . parking area , all required dimensions and a schematic description of landscaping and the garbage shed . Planning Board 9 February 19 , 1985 • Mrs . Langhans asked if a second driveway was to be constructed or whether it already existed . Mr . Lovi stated that it already exists . Mr . Stanton asked if the cross - hatched area was the proposed parking lot . Mr . Delli -Carpini said that it was and added that an area was cross - hatched in front of the garage because they can park cars there as well . Mr . Stanton asked whether this parking lot would be stone , Mr . Delli - Carpini said it would be graveled and defined by railroad ties . Mr . Stanton asked whether the driveway was presently blacktopped . Mr . Delli -Carpini said that it was and there would be no change to the driveway other than normal maintenance . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked whether there was an environmental review on this site plan . Mr . Lovi indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be the Lead Agency for this action . He then stated that there are two separate matters before the Board , first , a site plan review on the place of worship , second , a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on whether a Special Approval should be granted for this use . As staff to the Board , Mr . Lovi stated that he could not give an opinion as to whether the site plan review conducted by the Planning Board would be sufficient according to our recently passed Local Laws . However , the Board has been asked to give a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether this use should be permitted . It is free to make a resolution on the sufficiency of the site plan if it wishes . Mrs . Langhans made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the site plan for the Ithaca Christian Fellowship as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr . Stanton and passed unanimously . Vice - Chairman Grigorov then asked if anyone would make a motion on the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Mazza commented that , when he read the Zoning Ordinance , he wasn ' t sure that this wasn ' t already a permitted use . With that in mind , Mr . Mazza offered the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that the Zoning Board Appeals grant Special Appro - val for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons . This motion was seconded by Mrs . Langhans and passed unanimously . . PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMEN - DATION TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FARM WINERY AT 1551 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN Planning Board 10 February 19 , 1985 OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 56 - 2 - 1 . 14W ROGER BATTISTELLA , OWNER / DEVELOPER , Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Battistella present-ed the parking detail which the Planning Board had requested at its informal meeting . He said that the scale worked out to provide parking space for 12 cars . Mr . Mazza asked what the slope of the driveway was . Mr . Battis - tella stated that the slope would be one quarter inch per foot ( approximately 20 ) at the entrance to Route 79 , Mr . Stanton stated that when he drove past the property last week he noticed that it is a relatively steep drop off . Mrs . Langhans concurred . Mr . Battistella explained that the driveway required two permits from New York State Department of Transportation . This has been reviewed by the regional office of the DOT . The Board and Mr . Battistella agreed that all parties have an interest in seeing that this is done right . A general discussion of the driveway dimensions followed . Mr . Lovi suggested that as long as no shrubbery were planted so that visibility for cars entering or leaving the site was impaired , the proposed driveway scheme was acceptable for a facility operating on the proposed scale . The Board and Mr . Battistella agreed with these comments . Mrs . Langhans commented that the proposed driveway plan provided for an " in " and an " out " driveway and Mr . Mazza asked whether these driveways would be labeled as such . Mr . Battistella an - swered that they would and it was for that reason that he asked the State for a permit to create a second driveway . Mr . Lovi stated that it was reasonable to expect that most of the traffic would be coming from the Ithaca area and the arrangement of the driveways was reasonable . In response to Vice - Chairman Grigorov ' s question , Mr . Lovi stated that a procedure similar to that followed in Mr . Delli -Carpini ' s case would be appropriate , specifically , that the Board make a resolution on the site plan and make a separate resolution on its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Mazza asked what materials would be used on the driveways . Mr . Battistella answered that he was planning to use gravel as it was his experience that it provided better traction . A general discussion followed on the merits of gravel for improved traction versus the difficulties in plowing and maintenance . The Board 0 agreed with Mr . Battistella that gravel was preferable to asphalt . Planning Board 11 February 19 , 1985 Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone wished to make a motion . Mr . Stanton offered the following motion : is RESOLVED , that the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the site plan for the farm winery proposed for 1551 Slaterville Road . The motion was seconded by Mrs . Langhans and approved unanimously . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Battistella what the recent history of the barn was . Mr . Battistella said that they have moved the barn back from the road and rebuilt it on a new foundation . He said that he knew he wanted to grow grapes and that he is storing equipment in the basement . In response to Mr . Mazza ' s questions , he added that he has owned the barn for five or six years and that previously it was part of the Hart estate and was used as a horse barn . After the Harts broke up the estate the barn and house were rented to veterinary students who found the arrangement very attractive because they could board their horses in the barn . The Board agreed that the refurbished barn is a considerable improvement . In response to the Mrs . Schultz ' s question of exactly what was being recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals , Mr . Lovi stated that the recommendation was for a use variance . That being the case , Mrs . Schultz offered the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Mr . Battistella be granted a use variance for a farm winery proposed for 1551 Slaterville Road . The motion was seconded by Mr . Stanton . Mr . Mazza sought to clarify the motion and asked whether any such resolution specifically pertained to the structure as it exists at present . In the general discussion that followed , it was agreed that this recommendation did not extend to any proposal to add to the building or increase the proposed magnitude of the facility in any way . Mr . Lovi restated the resolution for the Board as follows : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Mr . Battistella be granted a use variance for a farm winery proposed for 1551 Slaterville Road provided that ( 1 ) no increase in the size , scale , or magnitude of the operation , ( 2 ) or any change in the types of products and services offered , other than that presently permitted by New York State , be allowed . The amended motion was seconded again by Mr . Stanton . "1 Planning Board 12 February 19 , 1985 Mr . Lovi asked Mr . Battistella whether he would be able to sell wine coolers . Mr . Battistella said that that was not his intention and the grapes which he was proposing to raise would be of high quality . Wine coolers , it was explained are used as an outlet for less - desirable grapes , such as Concords and Niagaras , which are unsuitable for fine wines . Mr . Lovi thanked Mr . Battistella for his answers and stated that this information might be useful for the Zoning Board of Appeals , should the question arise . Mr . Mazza said these questions are useful in the event that your property was acquired by another vintner . There being no more discussion , the amended motion was approved unanimously . INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION IN RE PROPOSED YOUTH BUREAU FACILITY SITE PLAN LAYOUT AND ROAD RELOCATION AT THE PRESENT YOUTH BUREAU SITE , STEWART PARK , JONATHAN Co MEIGS , PLANNER , CITY OF ITHACA . Mr . Meigs introduced the City of Ithaca ' s Superintendent of Public Works , Jack Dougherty , Mr . Meigs stated that in the course of working on the Stewart Park Master Plan , the issue of what to do with the Youth Bureau was raised . The idea is to coordinate the development of the park with the construction of the new youth bureau . In referring to the site plan , the location of the existing " tin 0 can " was indicated by a shaded area . Mr . Meigs indicated the principal structures and streets on the site plan and the way in which this facility relates to Stewart Park . He explained that the City is here tonight to present this project in a preliminary fashion prior to appearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals next week for a Special Approval , Mr . Meigs stated that the City is making this presentation because they are proposing a full redevelopment of the site and the inclu - sion of some new facilities and functions . Specifically , there will be a park watchman ' s apartment on the second floor of the Youth Bureau and a second building for some park maintenance functions which will be moved from the bathhouse . The project architect , William Downing and his designer , George Hascup have prepared as many as 50 preliminary plans , of which 5 were ultimately presented to , and discussed by the City . Mr . Meigs commented that the plan you see best met the design require - ments for the facility and has a measure of architectural dis - tinction . Here is a chance to build something which will speak positively to the community . Mr . Meigs mentioned that the City had hoped to include all three elements , the maintenance building , the watchman ' s apartment , and the youth bureau itself , into one building . That would have . reduced the clutter on the site . However , after the early de - signs , the architects stated that the maintenance facility did not lend itself to being conjoined with the youth facility . The ti Planning Board 13 February 19 , 1985 • apartment , which will be the subject of a use variance , would be compatible with the youth facility . Mr . Meigs stated that in the planning process , the designers spoke of having a " back door " entrance to Stewart Park . This would not be a public way , the public would still enter through the present Stewart Park gate . In addition , the designers would like to keep as many of the trees as possible in the site . Gesturing to a row of trees presently located in a drainage swale , Mr . Meigs stated that the location of these trees is one of the principal reasons that there is such a distance between the youth facility and the maintenance building . Referring to the building plans itself , Mr . Meigs explained how the proposed roof design was intended to incorporate themes from other buildings on the park site . This was one of the objectives of the design program . He added that at this point a laminated wood framing system is being considered . He then described the interior and exterior characteristics of the building in some detail . He said that the building has good solar incidence and should be comfortable and well lit . There will be a second story promenade around the central activity space . The location of the caretaker ' s apartment was shown . Mr . Meigs restated that the purpose of this meeting is to familiarize the Planning Board with the project and that he expected to return . from the Zoning Board of Appeals and present the proposal to the Planning Board in considerably more detail . Mr . Meigs then discussed the Chamber of Commerce local information kiosk . He stated that the designers rightly believed that such a function was appropriate for the facility and location . This was the reason for the " jug handle " traffic loop and the freestanding information booth . The booth would not be constructed immediate - ly , but would be completed as funds became available . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked whether the entire jug handle was for the information booth ' s parking requirements . Mr . Meigs answered that people with general business to conduct at the Youth Bureau would not be prevented from parking there . He then went on to describe the proposed public parking for the facility , stating that some additional design work would be done in order to better indicate where the entrance is . He indicated that there will be City bus service . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked where the rose garden is . Mr . Meigs showed where the formal garden is located and stated that the plans for Stewart Park call for its relocation into the park as a formal garden axially related to the two pavilions . At the moment discussions are continuing with the sponsor of the garden to decide whether this is an acceptable thing to do . . In response to Mr . Mazza ' s question , Mr . Meigs described an out - door amphitheatre which will be located on the north face of the Planning Board 14 February 19 , 1985 Youth Bureau building . This would be a gently sloping , grassed amphitheatre which would provide an attractive , outdoor performance space which would supplement performance areas available in the park . It would primarily be used for facility program uses . In response to Mr . Lovi ' s question , Mr . Meigs then described the parking arrangements around the jug handle . He also stated that the information kiosk would be signed on Route 13 . There would be little additional elevation on the site , which is out of the flood hazard zone . There might be a couple of feet of elevation added to get a little height over the railroad tracks but other than that , it would not be substantially different from what exists now . Mr . Lovi explained for the Board that this project is proceeding along two review paths because the City and Town are discussing whether this land on which the project is to be built will be annexed into the City and an equivalent piece of property will be transferred into the Town . Since annexations are subject to permissive referenda , there is some chance that , even if the City and Town governments wished the land swap to occur , some City residents who did not approve of being exported to the Town could veto the plan . That being the case , it is important that this project proceed along a parallel review path so that , even if the land remains in the Town , construction could proceed in this . season . Mr . Lovi continued , stating that Mr . Meigs would be asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Approval at their next meeting as well as a use variance for the watchman ' s apartment . However , the existing North Cayuga Street should be abandoned by the Town so that in the event that the annexation were not possible , the Town would not be responsible for maintaining as a public street a road which essentially is an extended driveway for Stewart Park and the Youth Bureau . The replacement for North Cayuga Street would not be a Town road . In light of the annexation , Mr . Lovi stated his belief that the Town Board would be the Lead Agency for the environmental review , though this should not prevent the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board from making their recommendations or approvals . Mr . Stanton stated that he was in favor of the road relocation and considered the entire plan to be an improvement for the community . The Board expressed general agreement with the approach and plan . In response to Mr . Lovi ' s question , Mr . Meigs stated that the present plans call for a wood framed structure with a block infill and either a block or perhaps a stucco finish . The maintenance building will be similarly constructed . . Mrs . Langhans asked why the visitor parking was located so far from the entrance . Mr . Meigs responded that the designers are aware that this is a problem . This layout is necessary to get the Planning Board 15 February 19 , 1985 • best orientation with respect to the lake and the rest of the park , The present arrangement of interior functions is necessary in order to give the watchman ' s apartment the most efficient view from a security standpoint and to put the light and heat -using functions on the southern - facing side of the building . In res - ponse to Mr . Langhans ' question , Mr . Meigs explained how a pros - pective user of the building would be led from the parking lot , along a canopied walkway , and into the main entrance on the west side of the building . Mr . Lovi commented that this was a fine example of appropriate public architecture . General discussion on several topics pro - ceeded simultaneously with the Board members and Mr . Meigs . In response to Mrs . Langhans ' question , Mr . Meigs clarified the engine repair program , stating that it was similar to Learning Web and not equivalent to , or a substitute for , the BOCES program . Mr . Meigs thanked the Board for its time and attention and Vice - Chairman Grigorov thanked him for his presentation . Mr . Lovi stated that this project will return and there was no need for a motion at this time . Before the Board ' s adjournment , Mr Lovi asked if they would com - ment on the sufficiency of a resubdivision plan proposed by Mr . James Iacovelli for three lots on Kendall Avenue . Mr . Iacovelli ' s plan is to resubdivide three 50 - foot - wide lots into two 75 - foot . lots . The Board examined Mr . Iacovelli ' s plan and Mr . Lovi stated that he planned to schedule a Public Hearing for the March 5th meeting . The Board indicated that a resubdivision was appropriate . ADJOURNMENT There being no other business , Mr . Mazza moved that the Board adjourn at 9 : 45 p . m . The motion was seconded by Mr . Stanton and approved unanimously . Respectfully submitted , Peter M . Lovi Town Planner