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