HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-05-18TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 189 2004 FILE DATE The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 18, 20047 JnJown Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Engineering; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:08 p.m.); Dan Walker, Director of Engineering (7:25 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner (7:22 p.m.). EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member. OTHERS: Chris Van Horn, 1085, Warren Rd; Rick Courune, Ithaca College; John Young, 410 Triphammer Rd; Christiann Dean, 330 King Rd W; Larry, Larry Jr, and Regina Fabbroni, 127 rWarren Rd; Will Burbank, 132 Glenside Rd; Dave Auble, 111 King Rd W; Carl Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Rd (Ithaca College); Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College; Bruce & Doug Brittain, 135.Warren Rd; Cathy Cook, 209 Coy:Glen Rd; Tony Ingraham, 368 Stone Quarry Rd; Jennifer Terpening, 207 King Rd W; Bill Foster, 669 King Rd W; ML Carlucci, 123 King Rd W; Diana Vrabel, 209 King Rd W; Patricia A Fair, 133 King Rd W; Pam Williams, 9 Townline Rd; Peter. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf; Jagat Sharma, ? ?; Marcia ?, Trowbridge & Wolf; Joseph Wetmore, 128 Glenside Rd; John. ?, 327 King Rd W. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of : Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 10, 2004 and. May 12, 20041 together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 12, 2004. Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot Glenside Park subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive MAY 185 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 ZRYS "RBCl'te 13 A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R -15 (Medium Density Residential) and R -9 (High Density Residential). The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and 315 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off seven small parcels to- be- consolidated - with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. John Young, 410 Triphammer Road - I am here to answer any questions, if any come up. Pat did send his regrets. His wife had booked a trip to take the kids to Disney World and hadn't checked the flight plans with him so he doesn't get in until about 11 or 12 tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — My apologies. He was here the last time so I was kind of scanning the audience looking for him, expecting him to be here this evening. According to the materials in front of us, the conditions imposed as part of the preliminary approval have all been met, in your:opinion. Mr. Young — It looked all right to me. Chairperson Wilcox— I'm just going through this for:the public record just to make sure. We have it in writing, but I just want to make sure that you r are aware of it and members of the public who might be here regarding this issue are aware of it. The Town has accepted the parkland in principle. We have added a condition or imposed a condition in the draft resolution for final subdivision approval. to .insure thati they -seven. small lots are consolidated within six months so they aren't left hanging if you will-or as Mr. Barney likes to say only accessible by helicopter, one of his favorite expressions. Board Member Hoffmann - I was wondering a little bit abou# this language that was proposed. I didn't quite understand it. It was a little more detailed. The language proposed to be included. in the resolution instead of what was there. Chairperson Wilcox - I believe that is the proposed easement language. I believe that's what that is. Board Member Hoffmann - Oh, I see. Chairperson Wilcox - I think that's what that is. Board Member Hoffmann - So that is something to be added rather than to. be changed. Chairperson Wilcox - Not added. I believe the draft says, let me find it here, review and approval by the Attorney for the Town of access easement language. 2 MAY 189 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — So this is a separate resolution. Mr. Kanter — This is draft language, which has not been reviewed and approved by the attorney. Chairperson Wilcox - We will leave that to Mr. Barney or someone else to review and approve. Any other questions, Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Young, you may have a seat. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox asked if any member of the audience wished to address the board. With no persons present to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:10 . p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Comments? Other than to thank Mr. Young, I guess for this donation to the Town, which I think we expressed last time, but he is here this time. Board Member Thayer — I'll move the resolution. Board Member Conneman — I'll second PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -045: Final Subdivision Approval, Glenside .Park: Subdivision, Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 3044 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R -15 (MDR) and R -9 (HDR). The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and the remaining 32.5 +1- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off 7 small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on March 2, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental 3 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, after holding a public hearing on March 2, 2004, granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval with certain conditions stated in PB Resolution No. 2004 -014, and 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the necessary lot variances at their meeting of May 3, 2004, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 18, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled . "Glenside Park Subdivision, Located Off Glenside Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S., dated 1013012003, and other application materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Final_ Subdivision Approval, as shown on.the Final Subdivision.Checkiist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant -alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and R 2. , That the Planning Board hereby. grants Final. Subdivision Approval for the ..proposed Glenside Park Subdivision located at :Glenside Road and Five Mile. Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 =1 -1; as shown on a survey map entitled "Glenside Park :Subdivision, Located Off Glenside Road,. Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by Lee Dresser, L. S., dated 1013012003, subject to the following conditions: a. Review and approval by the Attorney for the Town of access easement language providing the owner of Lot 3 (to be, conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as parkland) a right-of-way for ingress and egress across Lot 2 to Glenside Road,. prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and b. Submission of the receipt of filing of the plat in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, prior to issuance of any building permits, and c. Consolidation of Parcels A. B, C, D, E, F and G with adjoining Tax Parcels, as indicated in Note 5 on the Subdivision Map, within six months after Final Subdivision Approval, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of a copy of the requests to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for said consolidations, and 4 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 d. Submission of the deed and abstract showing good and marketable title for the proposed park parcel (Lot 3) in a form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town and the Director of Planning for the Town of Ithaca, prior to acceptance of the park parcel by the Town Board, and e. Conveyance of Lot 3 to the Town of Ithaca for park and recreation purposes, prior to issuance of any building permits for any of the other lots in the subdivision. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board finds that proposed Lot 3 to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca as a recreational park meets the goals and objectives of the Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, which designates the need for a future neighborhood park in this general location in the Town, and that the 7 +/- acres of the proposed park dedication more than adequately meets the usual ten percent set -aside of the entire 44 +/- acre parcel, and therefore, no additional park set -aside will be required by the Planning Board in the future regarding any future subdivision of the remaining Lot 6. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried. unanimously,. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Sapa/Center .2 -Lot Subdivision, 621 Elm Street Extension Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Pam Williams, 9 Townline Road — Hired by Kirk Sapa and Sharon Cer house at their proposed site at Coy Glen Road. The Planning preliminary March 2nd and final subdivision approval for the Sapa /Center two lot ter to design a Board granted subdivision on and since then the owner nas aeciaea not to connect up to the sewage. It would be too expensive and he is definitely going with a septic system on that lot. And realizing the size of the septic, didn't want to infringe on the trees and a certain apple tree on the site so he is asking to extend, enlarge the site. As you can see, I think and have this to submit, a revised survey. Chairperson Wilcox — So the only change is this what looks like about a 50 foot by 87 foot little corner. Ms. Williams — Yup. 5 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Now the proposed lot is 1/10 of an acre,bigger if I'm not mistaken. Ms. Williams — That's right. Chairperson Wilcox — You still believe that the lot will be sufficient to install a septic system? Ms. Williams — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know how. It seems like a small lot for a septic system. Board Member Thayer — Strange shape, too. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely strange shape. Board Member Hoffmann — Is there also a question about locating the house differently and avoiding some other trees? Ms. Williams — It is mostly the trees along Coy Glen Road and the house is set further back now, actually in that area. So there will be more room for the septic in the front. Chairperson Wilcox - So the forest is a subdivision previously approved where the lot to be subdivided ° off is 1/10 of an acre larger. Any other questions with regard to environmental review? My feeling is that we did the environmental review. before,.. Board Member Thayer — This is nothing but a plus. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll move the SEQR motion.. Board Member Thayer — I'll second. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -046.. SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Sapa/Center Two -Lot Subdivision, Coy Glen Road /Elm Street Extension, Tax Parcel No. 29 -8 -5.1 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision. Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 29- 8 -5.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.67 +/- acre parcel,. having road frontage on Coy Glen Road, from the existing 5.2 +/- acre parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant, and 0 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on May 18, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part lI prepared by the Town Planning staff, and a survey drawing entitled "Kirk Sapa & Sharon Center, Coy Glen Road (Mil. Lot 65) (T) Ithaca, Tompkins Co., N.Y." survey date June 12, 2003, revised 4119104 survey stamped by G. Bruce Davison L. S., and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, Residence District R -15 (Medium Density Residential). The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.67 +/= acre parcel having frontage on Coy Glen Road from the existing 5.2 +/= acre parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant. (This is a modification of a lot that was recently approved by the Planning Board.) Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't' have a problem with it. 7 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — We went through this before and this is just a little bit different and a little bit bigger. I'm pressed to think why we could have a problem now if we didn't before. Do you think they will fit a septic system on this site? Ms. Ritter — It is up to the Health Department. ,1 Chairperson Wilcox — You are a planner not an engineer. I understand. I guess it is possible if the soils are real good and there is public water there. Board Member Thayer — They can do a sand filter. Chairperson Wilcox — And they have to get the appropriate approvals from the County Health Department. I moved the SEAR; I guess I'll move the preliminary and final subdivision approvals. Board Member Conneman — Second. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -047: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Sapa/Center Two -Lot Subdivision, Coy Glen Road /Elm Street Extension, Tax Parcel No. 29 =8 -5. t MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman: WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision: Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, Medium .Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.67 +/ acre parcel, having road frontage on Coy Glen Road, from the existing 5.2 +/- acre parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on May 18, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 31 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 18, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate drawings entitled a survey drawing entitled "Kirk Sapa & Sharon Center, Coy Glen Road (Mil. Lot 65) (T) Ithaca, Tompkins Co., N.Y." survey date June 12, 2003, revised 4119104, survey stamped by G. Bruce Davison L. S., and other application materials. 9 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, as shown on the survey drawings entitled "Kirk Sapa & Sharon Center, Coy Glen Road (Mil. Lot 65) (T) Ithaca, Tompkins Co., N. Y." survey date June 12, 2003, revised 4119104, survey stamped by G. Bruce Davison L. S., subject to the following conditions: a. approval from the Tompkins County Health Department for installation of a septic system, or submission to the Town of plans to connect to the municipal sewage system, prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and b, submission for original or myd prints; with the accurate, prior submission of Department. signing by the Chairman of. the Planning Board of an gr copy of a final subdivision . plat, and .three dark -lined signature of the land surveyor; certifying that the survey is to filing with the Tompkins.'. County Clerk's Office, and a receipt of filing to the. Town of Ithaca Planning The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination: Fabbroni 4 -Lot Subdivision, 127 Warren Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Rd — I intend to subdivide into four lots with your okay. Three of the lots, which currently have no residence on, will front on Fairway Drive and at the top a subdivision was done on the rear nine acres it was shown as a potential for three lots there. At the time utilities went in, utilities were extended out of the road right - of -way to accommodate that someday. So nothing really is proposed to be changed in terms of general terrain of the land. When the barn is removed, in that affect the hard E MAY 182 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 surfaces will be about what it is today with the barn there and unless you have questions, it is a pretty simple, straightforward proposal. Chairperson Wilcox — Environmental impacts, Larry? Mr. Fabbroni — Not that I'm aware of. Board Member Conneman — The barn will be, removed? Mr. Fabbroni*— The barn will be removed. Board Member Conneman — What are you going to do when you remove it? Are you going to trash it or try to restore parts of it? . Mr. Fabbroni — I'll salvage enough materials to build a garage eventually on the primary parcel, but the waste materials will be removed to a landfill and the concrete slaps will be dug up and basically. buried on site. So that'll become a lawn area in the barn pretty much. Board Member Conneman — The barn's kind of missing now. So I hope it goes. Period. Mr. Fabbroni — It needs to go. Chairperson Wilcox — The barn and your house is a secondary access to a gravel drive off of Fairway Drive. Mr. Fabbroni — Currently. That will be the case when this is finished and if you'd like to have that driveway removed as part of the final-plot, that's fine, too. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a recent gravel drive, right? The one off of Fairway? Mr. Fabbroni — No. That was there historically. Actually if you went up there now all you would see is a lawn over it. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm looking at the aerial, which I'm going to pass on and I don't see it and this is dated 2002. So I don't see it. Mr. Fabbroni — The lawn has grown over it. It's a hard surface there. Chairperson Wilcox — The proposed lot lines are exactly the same as the ones that we were looking at from this survey from 1985 labeled Forest Home Highlands. Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. At the time we did Forest Home Highlands I added a little piece onto the back of my property, which is represented on both that map and the map that you have before you. See the little dashed line in the number 3 lots that strip of land was added to my primary parcel at that time. 10 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions with regard to environmental review? Staff? Would someone like to move the SEQR Motion? Board Member Thayer — I will. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:24 p.m. UAW Road. Tax Parcel No. 66 -3 -3.12 iivision MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 27 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the southeast corner of Warren. Road and Fairway Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66 -3 -3.12, Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.04 +/- acreparcel into three lots for potential. future residences along Fairway Drive and one 0.77 +/- acre lot containing the existing residence at 127 Warren Road. Lawrence P. & Elizabeth H.. Fabbroni, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental :review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on May 18, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and a survey entitled "Subdivision Plat - Survey Map of 127 Warren Road" dated 4 -5 -04, by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. 11 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. A� . PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the southeast corner of Warren Road and Fairway Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66 -3 -3.12, Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.04 +/- acre parcel into three lots for potential future residences along Fairway Drive and one 0.77 +/- acre lot containing the existing residence at 127 Warren Road. Lawrence P. & Elizabeth H. Fabbroni, Owners /Applicants. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m., and.asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox:,- Mr. Brittain has given us numerous _copies of some documents, which I assume you will now go over. Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road — Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board; thank you. I thank you for having this public hearing and I apologize for.not getting my thoughts to you sooner. I especially apologize to Larry Fabbroni who is just seeing my thoughts right now. These are hot off the press and it would have been a much more neighborly thing to have done to have gotten these, my thoughts on paper a .little sooner and I only got to it this afternoon. ATTACHMENT #1 I would like to begin with a few words about myself. I am the Historian for the Hamlet of Forest Home. I'm a barn enthusiast and a member of the Timber frames Guild. I think we need to make the distinction about the difference between a barn and a barn complex. A barn is a discreet, individually framed structure. Whereas a barn complex is a conglomeration of a series of individual structures, each individual barn having been built at a different time for a. different purpose by a different builder to different standards. The barns in the Fabbroni barn complex date from the 1820s to the 1940s, possibly 1950s. They include threshing barns, hay barns; barns in parts of the complex have been used for chickens and for dairy cattle. Some barns in that complex have already been removed. Some have .been allowed to .deteriorate to the point where I think they should be removed. But one in particular I. believe can and should be protected and that is the 32 x 60 foot bank barn. It's a hay barn above, dairy below, which is shown ... I apologize for the quality of the photograph there. Ithaca Photo trashed my photos for me and I didn't have time to retake them. This particular barn dates from the early 1900s. I think it was one of the first barns built by George Warren after he bought the farm in 1907. George Warren being prominent local citizen for whom Warren Hall on campus and Warren Road in the Town of Ithaca are named. Barns are once common in this area are becoming increasingly scarce. I don't know 12 MAY 189 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 the condition of this particular barn. I have not been in it. It is obvious that it needs a new roof, but as you look at it is still square. It hasn't developed any noticeable sags or bulges. I do think that one barn can be preserved. My preference would be to preserve it insitue, retaining its placement relative to the land. A distance second would be to dismantle it, move it and re -erect it somewhere else. There are timber framers who do that for a living. Third to be as Larry suggested, reuse components of it. Fourth would just be crunch it up and haul it away. The rest of the Forest Home Highlands subdivision was developed in the mid- 1980s. They did preserve the old.farm windmill. They preserved the farm cistern house. So there is some precedent for preserving the old farm structures. What you have in this packet here is just, a question I asked and then tried to answer for myself. Is it possible to preserve that insitue? (See Attachment #) The first page is existing conditions, large lot and barn. Second page is Larry 's proposal, which I believe unnecessarily by drawing a property line through the barn sort of...it's a death mill for that structure. I've shown the 32x60 foot barn in dark. The rest of its gone. It's sad, but it's gone. So I just put that in the dotted line. Alternatives. Alternative 1 retains the barn with the farmhouse. It still gives you four lots with at least minimum lot size. That is my. favorite. Alternative 2 preserves a: drive to Fairway. It preserves the little spit of land to be able to retain access to that side of the .barn. Alternative 3, again, keeps the barn. but this time the assigns it to lot number 3. Alternative 4 just gives a little more room around the barn on the lower side of it there: Alternative 5 attaches it to lot number 2:.:. So there are a lot of different ways you can draw around the barn rather than having to draw through the barn. Six, Doug and I wondered about. Its not one of our favorites; but we are showing possibilities. It is possible to split off the narrow section, which I have shown five up at the top there. The lot in the upper right hand corner is a landlocked piece of property right now and that is about 115x180 foot. So it is a developable lot except for the fact that you can't get to it and it might make sense just to set aside a strip of land so that that would be accessible at some future date. I think that's all of those. So these are just possibilities presented. My hope was sort of a friendly amendment. It appears that Larry's proposal does meet zoning requirements. I understand and appreciate that landowner's can do what they want with their own land. If they don't value a structure, they are feeling to tear it down and split up their land the way they wish. But it also seems that it needlessly necessitates the removal of a barn that I see as an asset to the community and to a potential buyer of that property. I think there's an opportunity to preserve that structure through a more thoughtful subdivision layout. Board Member Conneman — Who would preserve it? Mr. Brittain — I see it as an asset. So I would think that if it goes with the farmhouse, whoever the new buyer is for the farmhouse would see that also as an asset, put a new roof on it. I honestly don't know what condition it is in, how much work it would take for 13 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 that structure to be preserved and find a new life. If it were split off with lot number 3 then it would be the new owner with lot number 3. Board Member Conneman — Is there money through New York State to do that, to preserve it? Mr. Brittain — There is a program. I have applied. I have helped people apply for that funding. The requirements ... there are thousands of people who apply and: what they go for is barns that can be seen from State highways. So that's, you know... Board Member Conneman — And you don't want a State highway through Forest Home. Mr. Brittain — As much as I enjoy this barn, I don't think it's worth making a State highway go by it in order to get some funding. There is funding, but I think it is nothing that can be counted on to help preserve it. It would have to be individually, whoever the homeowner is, just pony up and say I like barns, I want to preserve this. And there is no guarantee that they would. We can split it off and say here's lot 3 and the. barn goes with it and somebody buys and knocks the barn down. So there is no. guarantee that the barn would be preserved. I don't know the condition it is in, whether it economically makes sense to try, but it's just a shame to draw a property line through it and thereby necessitate so. Board Member Conneman — Your favorite is number 2? Mr. Brittain — One or two I would think. I like one and it sort .of makes sense to give . access to it, but primarily it's just to show that there are other opportunities, other.ways of cutting up the pie and still get four sellable lots. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll give you a chance, Larry. Thank you, Bruce. Sit tight, .Larry. Anybody else like to address the Planning Board? Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road — I don't know if I have to. Bruce. did a good job. Chairperson Wilcox — You actually own the. property across Fairway Drive, if you will, I believe. Mr. Brittain — Right. Well, it's more than that. As a kid, I remember hay going into the barn and I remember playing basketball in it. I remember doing chores with the Hurdles kids and stuff. So it has been there 100 years. That's longer than I've been around. To me, it's a part of the community. It's a part of the neighborhood. I know you already did the SEQR, but I would prefer that the SEQR form acknowledge that it is a significant historical, and I don't know about agricultural any more, but it is the scenic, rustic part of the community. In terms of Bruce's plans, my favorite one might be the one that keeps it behind lot 3 because they are the ones who are going to see it most of the time. Eli „ . MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 But I think ... the reason the State has a SEQR law and the reason we have an able planning staff and the reason we have a Planning Board and public hearing and approvals and stuff is to make sure that all these things get considered. And instead of the subdivision just happening, everything thinks about it and tries to do the best job they can. And I know, I've seen this board do it and I appreciate it. I guess I would like to encourage you and to thank you for putting time into this. I realize it is easiest just to approve things as they show up. But I do think without too much work this could be significantly improved and potentially save a structure for future generation that sort of at least tie them back to what went on and how this area grew up and... Board Member Conneman — I assume you and the Mayor would be willing to write a history? Mr. D. Brittain — Well, maybe I shouldn't be speaking for Bruce, but I imagine he would be willing to fill out the blue form or whatever it's called for historic designation, but he's never been asked. Mr. Kanter — I guess that.would be the question really for the board, if these are some existing description of. it that could or would help the board make a decision. Board Member Conneman. Most of the people who really knewthe Warren Family are deceased now. It seems tome if you are going to preserve a barn, you've gotta have a history... Mr. D. Brittain — I understand that, but I guess the reason here is just to present that as an option to you to -consider..: preserving the barn as a possibility.:- It's a door. that I don't want you to close without realizing you are doing it. That's all. I appreciate its Chairperson Wilcox — Thanks, Doug. Anybody else care to speak as part of the public hearing? Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, will you come back up? Do you want to make some comments? Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah. When I bought this property in 1978 that barn was probably one of the reasons I bought the property and I always share the memory of my father, who was a fine custom home builder, looking at that house with me and me talking about the barn and he telling me I bought a very beautiful house, but he'd put a match to that barn. It seemed like he broke my heart when he told me that. But I'll tell you 26 years later, he was absolutely right in terms of the condition it was in and what it would have taken to keep that barn up. The barn to the rear of the barn used to be a much larger "u" shaped barn. It had several fires in it. One fire occurred to the east of what Bruce is showing as the barn. Another fire occurred at the end of sort of a connecting barn between this barn and a chicken coop that still exists on the Merschrod's property. So nwi the Hurdles patched up the barn as well as the barn was used for chicken raising and it in. The floors were all urinated and rotten essentially sits on the ground today. The roof on all of it about a year after I was in wanted $15,000 to put a roof on a barn on Ce MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 they could for those events. A large part of had seen better days by the time we moved through and that's the part of the barn that larger part of the barn, I explored putting a and this is back in 1979 now, Rick. Lasarik i property,that I had bought for $67,000. Board Member Conneman — You bought it in 1977? Mr. Fabbroni That was 1979, so I'm going back quite a ways. The high five -story barn held up pretty well over the years, but wracked more and more. About two winters ago, I don't know, there was a big windstorm or a lot of snow or whatever and it's definitely in dangerous condition at this point in time. It'll take five minutes to put a cable on the southeast corner of that barn and pull it all down to the ground. It's in that bad of shape. Several of the floors are rotted through. As been mentioned, the roof shape...the shape roof that's a very steep roof has seen wind damage and it's just been a steady decline. I would tell you over the last ten year the insurance company has been after me for two years to get rid of the barn. And as far as how we split up the land, the. barn needs to go; I guess is what I want to say: It would be a financial hardship for me to.be,,,to ask me to do anything with that' barn �at this point in the shape it's in. And- then when it came to how you subdivide the land, we angled that last number three-lot.-so that we didn't end up with a tongue of land to any of the lots. You see, some of the alternatives presented to you, you end up with a,little tongue of land back there. °1 might also mention the Loehrs are. the closest neighbor to the east and the Mershrods are our closest neighbors.to. the south are happy to see the barn go. So I don't know:. .I respect the wishes. The barn meant a lot to rrie at one time, too. But unless 1-made a commercial operation out of it, basically the people before me had let plumbers and other people store things in the barn and they could keep it up to a certain extent, but unless I made a commercial storage space use of that barn, it was almost impossible to keep it up. And having said all that, I have a purchase offer for the subdivision as you view it. I have those three lots sold, not that that should matter to you, but it is a financial hardship to me at this point and that's why you see the subdivision the way you have. I think it leaves a very nice majestic lot for the house that I live in and I'm not really interested in those alternatives. I've considered all of them. I didn't like the one with the right -of -way to that back lot. As I've discussed it with the Mershrods because it imposed on the Loehrs.. You'll see that the lot that remains in 127 feet wide, if the Mershrods want to work out a right - of -way to that land with me or the future owner of some time, they still have that possibility. Its not foreclosed, but I have specifically discussed that 23 foot right -of -way Mershrods and rejected it myself because I felt it both diminished the value of lot three and imposed on the Loehr lot, which you see on my subdivision plan the Loehr house is 10 feet from the lot line. So it's with a lot of thought and reason that the land it laid out the way it is. lull MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 I would submit to you that the barn is a danger, never mind any other perspective on it at this point. As they said, they haven't been in it or seen it for several years, but there are support beams that are split on the first level as you go into it from my gravel drive area. The roof is shot. Several of the floors are...you wouldn't want to walk in there. Its dangerous enough you would fall right through two - stories. The roof beams are salvageable. That's about the only thing that is salvageable. The rafters and some of the main beams in the loft part of the barn are salvageable. What is my expertise to tell you this? I am a structural engineer, one of my many talents. I just appeal to you that I love that barn as much as anybody else when I moved into that house... Board Member Conneman — Can I ask Bruce a question? Chairperson Wilcox — I wanted Bruce to come back up, too, if I could. Board Member Conneman — Has there ever been a barn preserved in Forest Home? Mr. B. Brittain — Yes. Board Member Conneman — Where is it? I should know; but I don't. Mr. B. Brittain - Warren Road, as you come-up the hill on your left, there's a barn with a. lighten bolt, white lightening bolt. There's a barn behind Westmont's house at 206 Forest Home Drive near the downstream bridge.. There are two barns on:Judd Falls.. Road, 1880 barns I think, on the right hand side as you come down .from Cornell. They're tucked in pretty far. There's a barn... Board Member Conneman — They're all in good shape? I mean reasonable shape. Mr. B. Brittain — I haven't been in them. I've been in some of them. It depends. Each owner has their own level of maintenance that they do. This is not the only barn left, if that's the question. Chairperson Wilcox — Bruce, the reason I wanted you to come here. Um ... I don't always like what Larry says, but I've never known him to lie to this board. Okay? I mean when he is representing other applicants sometimes I disagree with what he is doing or what the applicant has asked him to do, who he is representing, but I don't think he has ever lied to this board. And without evidence to the contrary, if he says the barn is in bad shape, I agree its probably in bad shape. And I don't think that he would come here and say its in bad shape and ready to fall down if it wasn't. Okay? What wonder is, is there a way outside the legal part of this thing, outside the resolution, Larry would you let him in, let see it? Use his expertise? You talked about possibly salvaging some of the wood. 17 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Mr. Fabbroni — The roof rafters and the main timbers. Chairperson Wilcox — Bruce, is there something that you can do as a member of the neighborhood, as a member of the Forest Home Community to ensure that those timbers are in some way salvaged? Whether they are reused on the property or reused in the neighborhood or reused in another State? Larry did in this introduction say that he would try to salvage and reuse some of those timbers. Can you and your neighborhood and professional expertise? Mr. B. Brittain — Sure, but I would go along with what you said. If Larry says that he will preserve them, I would not have any reason to believe that he would not. Chairperson Wilcox — He is an engineer and you have a different expertise and could assist him. Mr. B. Brittain — I'm an engineer, too. Chairperson Wilcox Yeah, I apologize for that. But what I'm looking for is ... I'm not inclined to sit here and .make Larry keep the barn. But I am. inclined to see the closeness and the tightness of the Forest Home neighborhood to .work together to salvage something from this structure. That's what I'm trying to get and that's beyond what I can do as the chair of the Planning Board. I can only ask. Board Member Conneman — (inaudible) Mr:, Fabbroni.— I failed to mention my friend up the street runs the, horse operation and he has done a couple of things with barns. I asked him a couple of years ago if he would be interested in taking the barn apart and putting.it back again and he evaluated and decided it wasn't practical: Now if you know Gary? He's done a -lot of things, stonewalls and other things you may have noticed up there. So he would be the first to want to do that. His evaluation was that it wasn't practical to do. I'm not saying he's the last word. I mean I did make that attempt because I recognize the sensitivies that I run into. I'm not surprised Bruce is here. Board Member Conneman —. Well, where there are lots of places in the State where they have ... (inaudible) ... that's a fact. That's all I know and suggesting. Mr. Fabbroni — But I mean if anybody had a ... something they could make of the barn if they moved it, it was Gary because he does a lot in the little space that he has. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get a real quick sense of the board here since there are only four of us? Board Member Conneman — I don't know, but I just wanted to raise the question. Certainly, he can save the wood and certainly, you don't want to throw everything into a landfill someplace. But the question is, is there something you could do with that or is LE:3 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 there somebody else? I would say looking at it, I would agree with that, but I'm just raising the question. To arbitrarily to say to pull the barn down, that's easy, I realize that Larry. Chairperson Wilcox — Bruce, what could be done with those timbers? Board Member Hoffmann — Could I add an idea before we go on? I like the idea of preserving old houses, historic houses that includes barns as well. But I think in this case and some of you mentioned Rick Lazarus, he would be a good person to do that sort of work. He's well known locally and well respected for that work. But I think it sounds in this case as if maybe the barn it too.far gone. I haven't looked at it myself, I wish I had, but I haven't. So I have gone by the opinion of our staff, the planning person who has written up some comments about it. Chairperson Wilcox — Bruce, what could be done with those timbers, the ones that could be saved and reused, or salvaged? Mr. B. Brittain — Either repair of other barns. Building. a house. Cutting them down to ... its too big to convert to a house as it is, but either using it as another barn if it's complete enough just to be preserved as it is, use it as a barn. If not, use the timbers to make a smaller barn or repair another historic barn that's in need of timbers. Chairperson Wilcox. Would it be appropriate to uselhat wood `in another barn in the forest Home. area for example ?. Mr.. B. Brittain_— I would think so. Chairperson Wilcox — Historians or other people don't get upset that you've taken wood from one barn to... Mr. B. Brittain — Certain historians get very upset that you're creating history. For me, I would say preserve what you can, how you can. I would much rather see that then to just crunch it into a dumpster. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm hoping that you will agree to work with other members of the community to find a use for those timbers, assuming you don't have a use for them on your property. Mr. Fabbroni — As I said, I may use the timbers to build to what amounts to a three -car garage in that ... back in that space ... (inaudible) Chairperson Wilcox — If you don't then... Mr. Fabbroni — I have no problem. I mean I have searched out the Mennonites as an example. They have a long history of coming in and taking materials. I've been told that these particular timbers are not, and you would know better than I do, virgin. They 19 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 are a later era than ... they're more pieced together than what they describe as the old wood barn. Board Member Conneman — All the Mennonites will come in and they will take everything and clean up the site. Chairperson Wilcox — It would be nice if that timber, if you don't use it personally, if the timbers could be put to good use within the Forest Home neighborhood. In fact, someone has a mailing list, an email mailing list of all the members and we could find out if someone is in need of some timbers to repair a barn for example. I hope you will do that as a member of that neighborhood. Mr. B. Brittain — Can I also add, if that barn had a metal roof I think I would fight really hard for its preservation, but the fact that it's a wood shingle roof, they leak and the fact that you can see daylight through it, I really don't know what shape that barn is in, but if there is hay in it and the roof leaks then it could be a sad prospect and I have seen barns that Rick has taken down where the timber looks fine on the outside and you start working on it...so without having had a good look at it, I'm not ready to go to the mat for its preservation as a whole structure. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Thank you Bruce:: Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to add that I remember, Larry, when you bought that house and how excited you were about it.. l think you were the Town Engineer.at the time. Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Attorney Barney — I have just one question. In reference to this Mershrod lot, being landlocked, are these the same people that own the lot that runs along the south side of your property. Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. Attorney Barney — So they have access directly to Warren Road from their own property. It may be separately assessed, but never the less... (inaudible) Chairperson Wilcox — They could consolidate the two lots if they wanted to. Mr. Walker — Actually, I had a question from Mr. Mershrod earlier in the year regarding his tax bill and why he was getting two benefit assessments for water and sewer on that piece of land even though it was landlocked and I said that he was getting a reduced rate for only half a unit for that because it was landlocked. And he said how can I get rid of the charge and I said to consolidate with the other one and you'll only have one unit. 20 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — And now it involves us going down to the County. We're all set ladies and gentlemen. Okay. Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted? So moved by the Chair. Board Member Thayer. — Second. PB RESOLUTION NOv 2004 -049: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Fabbroni Four -Lot Subdivision (Forest Home Highland), 127 Warren Road, Tax Parcel No. 66 -3 -3.12 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry .Thayer WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the southeast corner of Warren Road and Fairway Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 66 -3 -3.12, Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.04 +/- acre parcel into three lots for potential future residences along Fairway Drive and one 0.77 +/- acre lot containing the existing residence at 127 Warren Road. Lawrence P. & Elizabeth H. Fabbroni; Owners /Applicants, and 21 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision. Approval, has on May 18, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short ._ Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 18, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey entitled "Subdivision Plat - Survey Map of 127 Warren Road" dated 4 -5 -04, by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed four -lot subdivision located at 127 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66 -3 -3.12, as shown on the survey entitled "Subdivision 21 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Plat - Survey Map of 127 Warren Road" dated 4 -5 -04, by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final revised subdivision plat, and three dark - lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b, removal of the existing barn labeled "Barn to be removed" from the encroachment area and from within the setback (or submission of easement language for the barn encroachment between lots "3" and "4" and granting of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals) prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman, and C, revision of the plat, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman, to include a note requiring any future driveway from Lot "1" to be located off of Fairway Drive. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The Planning :Board finds that there is no need for. any_: additional park land reservation created by this proposed subdivision, as the::original_' 1985 "Forest Home Highlands" subdivision: included these three proposed lots 'in: the,.'1:22 acre dedication, and hereby waives the requirement for any further park land:reservation at this time. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Ithaca College Temporary Modular Office Space, 953 Danby Road Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Carl Sgrecci, Ithaca College — We are here this evening on behalf of the college requesting permits for two temporary facilities. The first being an extension to the operating permit for a facility that was approved earlier and the current permit is to expire September 15 of 2006. We are requesting an extension of that until September 15, 2009. The second request pertains to a new facility that we wish to construct to address pressing space needs of the college and the site we have selected for that building is the same one approved by this body in the mid 1990s in an area between Smiddy Hall and Dillingham Center for the Performing Arts. The site has been selected 22 MAY 189 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 because all the utilities that were in place for the temporary structure in 1990 are still in place there and that the location would accommodate the size building that we need without any disruption of the parking lots, sidewalks, or any of the peripheral properties. There is a green lawn area that that will accommodate the space that we need. We also are requesting that that facility be approved until September 15 of 2009. It certainly wasn't in our plans when we had requested permission for the initial temporary facility to be back here this evening requesting an extension. It was our plan all along, as part of the college's Master Plan that once that facility was constructed to begin planning for a permanent solution to a whole variety of space needs that exists at the college. In fact, after that facility was constructed and in place we immediately engaged an architect to begin doing a whole number of program planning exercises with various administrative functions on the campus to begin to determine how big an administrative building we would need to be building in order to meet our needs. As that process was moving along, it became apparent to us that the large Axiom facility across Route 96B from the College was being put up for sale. It is literally a huge facility, about 280,000 square feet. The property was originally owned by Ithaca College back in the early 1950s and it was provided at that time to NCR to construct a factory; We've always thought it might be irr the =best interest of the College as well as the community if and when that property was .ever sold that it be considered to be acquired by Ithaca College. And so we began to. .,look at that as a possibility for addressing some of the College's space needs and to be: candid with you, we've been in discussion with the. Axiom people now for nearly, a year and a half concerning the acquisition of. that property. We are clearly not -in the, position where we can afford to do. both in terms of acquiring that facility, making the necessary renovations nor are we-- even certain. if we were able to acquire that, building:. that it Js: financially practical to. resolve our space issues using that facility, but we would certainly like the opportunity to evaluate that if we were able to negotiate the purchase.of the property. So we find ourselves in a position where at least up to this point we have been blessed with continued full enrollment at the College and growth and that we do have increasing space needs and so in order to I preserve options to resolve the Axiom situation we are requesting approval for the second facility as described with the full intentions and I would hope that the Axiom issue could be resolved relatively soon. But as I indicated in my cover letter the materials that you have I would have felt the same way a year ago that it would have been resolved by now, but unfortunately it isn't. And so what we are asking is for approval for the second temporary facility to allow us the option and to resolve this hopefully once and for all within a time period of the next five years, which should certainly allow us adequate time to resolve the issue. Either renovate the Axiom facility, if that's the option that we go with, or to plan and construct a new facility on the Ithaca College campus to meet our needs. I'm joined here this evening by Rick Courune our Director of Physical Plant and Fred Vanderburgh, who is in charge of our construction planning and design unit and we are prepared to try to answer any other questions that you may have in regard to our request. 23 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — The usual comments we always have. Board Member Thayer — Pretty straightforward request. Mr. Kanter — Only the difference is now, though ... the'Master Plan. Board Member Conneman — Is it the Master Plan or a report on the Mast Plan? „ . Mr. Kanter —Well, this is an executive summary of the Master Plan. I think some of us actually attended some of the meetings during the Master Plan preparation and it was obvious there was a huge amount of work that went into it.. We really appreciate getting copies of this and I would ask that Planning Board members to hold on to it for future reference. Mr. Sgrecci - And in regard to the Master Plan, in addition to what you read there, we asked the Master Plan architects that we used for recommendations in terms of priorities that the College should consider for acquisition of peripheral properties to the College as they might become available and of course the Axiom facility was one that they said we should consider when and if the opportunity became. So while the .Master Plan in many ways is a road map in terms of where we want to locate facilities on the Ithaca College campus or at least options for.how to locate facilities for literally the next .30, hopefully the next 30 years. With:.many road maps sometimes you run into some detours along the way and this option certainly appears to be one that we need to: stop and take a look at and examine. Chairperson Wilcox — Peter Trowbridge is sitting over there and he just reminded me of something. In one of the earlier modular. trailers that was put up and not in one of these locations, but closer to Danby Road, Peter actually represented Ithaca College and there was this tall fast growing grass that was put up around that one to help shield it from the view on Route 96B. I want to make sure these things are as well hidden as possible. I think Ithaca College wants to make sure they are hidden... Mr. Sgrecci — Well, actually and also the original facility that we had on the site that we are talking about is within several sidewalks and it does slope so that there was a lower part of the facility that was exposed in the shrubs and so forth that we used in that particular case I think were more appropriate because they were more decorative in nature, helped hide the foundation of the building and you are close enough to the building... you' re never going to be able to completely shield the building by virtue of the mass and size of it. I guess what I am trying to say is I think the grass that we used out along the road was more appropriate for where you are trying to shield an overall building from the highway. The more ornamental type shrubbery that we use around the original facility I would feel is more appropriate for close up examination, much like the plantings you have around your house or commercial building. 24 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Fred, you will. promise not to do something other than what the site plan allows? Is that a yes? Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm referring to a paved parking area that was put in next to one of the modular trailers at one point without... Mr. Sgrecci — There should be no disturbing of any sidewalks or parking spaces around this facility. Chairperson Wilcox — You know, I feel differently about this one only because ... one, they've come prepared and two, we have a Master Plan and three, we have a little bit more information about what is going on and as much as I hate these things ... I can't hate them as much as Ithaca College hates them. To be honest, it is a beautiful campus. Mr. Sgrecci — We'd rather invest the money in a permanent .facility or a permanent renovation. I mean if things were certain, we'd rather be investing Ahe money in the Axiom facility or investing the money in a permanent solution on--the-campus, but we just can't afford to do both and we don't have enough information at this point. Board Member Thayer — It seems to me a permanent building on your--side of Danby Road would be more desirable then using, Jt seems like it would be Mr. Sgrecci —.We have had discussions on:the campus and -it all depends on ... I think Ithaca College if it .were to go over across the road has to look at ways of as what I would refer to as fully integrating the other side of the road into the,-campus., It would be more than just putting administrative offices over there. You would have to do something to try to really make it feel as though the campus ... to do everything you could so that the campus was not practically speaking divided by the roadway. You would almost have to think about an overhead walkway and that's been done on other campuses. But you need more than just offices. There is acreage over there. We could look at playing fields. There is a whole number of things we could look at. One of the other reasons that it appeals to us as a possibility, I know you folks love parking lots just like all the rest of us, but we from time to time have need for parking and there are literally parking lots on that property for originally something like 1500 cars when NCR was much more of a growing concern. So whether or not it is financially practical or not, there are other side benefits to that property in terms of how it might be able to aid the College in some way. Board Member Hoffmann — There is, as part of the paperwork that you provided us, that we were going to get to see tonight the revised site plan sheet 9. Ms. Balestra — Actually, it was part of the original submittal and it's just the large segment and it's to your right on the wall. It is almost virtually identical to the one that Ki MAY 182 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 you have in your packet. It just has a few features on it that isn't in the. one in your packets. Board Member Hoffmann — There was a suggestion by you in what you wrote up that it should be revised further to include not just the correct title and local address, but scale and...(inaudible) ... to combine the two submittal site plans. Ms. Balestra — Just to have a nice cohesive site plan that includes all of the elements that we generally require on the checklist. The scale of the north arrow, the title for Ithaca College not Syracuse, which is what you have right now. Also, to include the landscaping that they are proposing. Board Member Hoffmann — But with the two submitted site plans, you mean the earlier one and this proposed one. Is that right? Ms. Balestra — Right. Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — There are no changes to the existing one other than we being asked. to extend the amount of time that that modular facility will be allowed to exist. Right? Ms. Balestra For. the existing one? Chairperson Wilcox — Right. Ms. Balestra —Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, are you all set? With regard to the environmental review only at this point. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but in general, all of these things that we are looking at should have been described much better for both of them. I mean there should have been titles and what we got here, this packet, which I am not quite sure what to call it. Male Voice — Not audible Board Member Hoffmann — A lot of these papers don't have the things that we customarily like to see on these kinds of plans. Male Voice — Not audible Board Member Hoffmann — But I know just when I looked at these papers and it was also pointed out to me in a memo from Ms. Balestra that there were things missing that we are used to seeing and especially from Ithaca College. We've always been spoiled in the past by getting very detailed drawings with all kinds of information that is useful to have so it was kind of disappointing this time to have it look very sketchy. 26 ., . MAY 189 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion with regard to environmental review? Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEQR. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -050: SEQR, Ithaca College - Temporary Modular Office Spaces, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Tax Parcel No. 41-1 -30.2, MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 2: This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed temporary office facilities at Ithaca College, .953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal. includes installation of a new 7,750 +1-.square:. foot temporary modular office space located between Dillingham and Smiddy Halls to accommodate 30 -35 employees. The proposal also includes a request. for a time extension until September 15, 2009, to maintain the existing 10,890 h t f th P S h I square foot temporary office facility located tot a eas o e ar k building. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent. This is an Unlisted Action for which the . Town legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency respect to Site Plan Approval, and of Ithaca Planning Board : is in environmental review with 3. The Planning Board, on May 18, 2004, has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part I! prepared by Town Planning staff, and drawings prepared by Jerry Brosius, L.P.E., entitled "13064 O/A Modular Office, GE Capital Modular Space, 145 Canada Drive, Syracuse, NY, 13057," including sheet 1 entitled "Specifications," dated 4111104, sheet 2 entitled "Elevations," dated 4112104, sheet 3 entitled "Floor Plan," dated 4112104, sheet 4 entitled "Electrical Plan," dated 4112104, sheet 5 entitled "HVAC Plan," dated 4112104, sheet 6 entitled "Cross Section," dated 4111104, sheet 7 entitled "Plumbing Schematics, " dated 4112104, sheet 8 entitled "Foundation Plan," dated 4111104, and sheet 9 entitled "Site Plan," dated 4111104, and supplemental information provided by the applicant, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: FA MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ., . PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed temporary office facilities at Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal includes installation of a new 7,750 +/= square foot temporary modular office building located between .Dillingham and Smiddy Halls to accommodate 30 =35 employees. The proposal also includes a request for a time extension until September 15, 2009 for the existing '1.0,890: square foot temporary office facility located to the east of the Park School building. Ithaca College, Owner; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at -8:15 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — .Questions with regard.to the site plan itself ?: Board Member Hoffmann — I am still having problems with what you said in your memo and what it says in the proposed resolution. In that I thought that you:: indicated the. resolution, or I read this a little while ago so I've forgotten some of it, but the resolution would include having the two submitted site plans combined, but maybe that was just a suggestion for us to add that. Is that right?. Ms. Balestra — Essentially the site plans are the same. They just have different information on them so to ask them to submit the revised set of drawings to include everything that the two currently have separately into one, that is essentially asking them to combine them. Does that make sense? Board Member Hoffmann — I guess so. Chairperson Wilcox — We're not changing anything differently. Ms. Balestra — That's correct. We are simply organizing it Chairperson Wilcox — It's a better organization of the materials. I have a question, Mr. Barney. Staff has proposed the following: the site plan approval and special permit for 28 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 both structures described above shall expire September 15, 2009 and no further extension shall be given. Can we as a Planning Board bind a future Planning Board? I mean is there any legal substance to that? Attorney Barney — Not a lot. Chairperson Wilcox — I didn't think so. Attorney Barney — It's basically stating this, but you can always amend any resolution adopted any time subject to ... (inaudible) ... unless the law changes on us. It might be more appropriate to just put something in there that says this is being done with the understanding from Ithaca College that there will be no further extension sought beyond September 15, 2009. At least that sets a historical perspective for whoever is sitting on this board in 2009. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, this certainly does, too. I mean this left in makes it pretty clear. Board Mernberc Thayer — It says it pretty strongly. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, it says it very strongly. Board Member Conneman — It gives them an incentive to make decisions, too. Chairperson Wilcox — We as a Planning Board.can' :t bind a future Planning Board. Board Member Conneman — I don't know how you 'state it, but again... Attorney Barney — You bind a future Planning Boards all the time by approval of subdivisions and approval of site plan and that sort of stuff. But I don't think you irrevocably in term of it are going to end September 2009: So that is why I would suggest that it be done within that context of Ithaca College agrees it won't seek extensions beyond that period. Board Member Hoffmann — But don't we sometimes say that a certain approval shall expire at a certain point? Attorney Barney— Yes. Its not... Board Member Hoffmann — But without saying that it can be extended? Attorney Barney — Oh, yeah. If you stop the sentence at the 2009, it would be consistent with what we have done a number of times. It is the no further extension shall be given. Board Member Hoffmann — That's the extra. Right. 29 MAY 189 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Attorney Barney — I think that is probably a little beyond... Chairperson Wilcox — Is it true that Ithaca College will not ask for any further extensions? Mr. Sgrecci — I think the I said, we didn't expect events happened in the hope that nothing occu permanently resolve this intent.., expression is never say never. It certainly is not our intent. As to be here requesting an extension on the original one, but last three years that we were not able to anticipate. I would rs that would prevent us in any way from not being able to by 2009, but I can't sit here and say never, never. We have no Chairperson Wilcox — I tried. I tried to get you to say never. Board Member Conneman — So, John, your suggestion is you put a period after 9 and. cross off the rest. Att orney Barney — Or put a comma after ,th.e.;9: and change the next phrase to read;,.: something like Ithaca College has represented it . has not present . intention: expanding ... (inaudible) ... and this board expresses .its desire that it has no intention of::: granting further extensions. Chairperson Wilcox invited members of the. public to address the board as part of the public hearing. With no persons present to,,speak, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public. hearing: at 8:21 p.m. and brought the matter back to the..board. Chairperson Wilcox Is everybody comfortable with the language that John.:. just provided. us? Board Member Thayer — Could he read it again? Attorney Barney — Something like, the sentence as it is as above shall expire September 15, 2009. Ithaca College has represented that it has no present intention of seeking extensions beyond that date and this board expressing its concern that no further extension... Chairperson Wilcox — That's fair. Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Board Member Thayer — I'll second it. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -051: Ithaca College - Temporary Modular Office Spaces, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, 30 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed temporary office facilities at Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes installation of a new 7,750 +/- square foot temporary modular office space located between Dillingham and Smiddy Halls to accommodate 30 -35 employees. The proposal also includes a request for a time extension until September 15, 2009, to maintain the existing 10,890 square foot temporary office facility located to the east of the Park School building. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review has accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II, prepared by the Town Planning. Department, and has on May 18, 2004, . made a negative determination of environmental significance, 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on May 18, 2004, has reviewed application materials presented by the applicant, including drawings prepared by Jerry Brosius, L.P.E:, entitled ".13064 O/A Modular Office, GE Capital Modular Space; 145 Canada Drive, Syracuse, NY, 13057," including sheet 1 entitled "Specifications," dated 4111104, sheet 2 entitled. "Elevations," dated 4112104, sheet 3 entitled "Floor Plan," dated 4112104, sheet 4 entitled "Electrical Plan," dated 4112104, sheet 5 entitled "HVAC. Plan," dated 4112104, sheet 6 entitled. "Cross Section," dated 4111104, sheet 7: entitled "Plumbing Schematics," dated 4112104, sheet 8 entitled "Foundation Plan," dated 4111104, and sheet 9 entitled "Site Plan," dated 4111104, and supplemental information provided by the applicant. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the installation of a temporary modular office building and the extension of the time approval for the existing modular facility as described above, finding that the standards of Section 2405, Subsections 1 -12, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, have been met. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waivers will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 31 MAY 189 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, for the proposed installation of a new 7,750 +/- square foot temporary modular office space located between Dillingham and Smiddy Halls to accommodate 30- 35 employees and a time extension until September 15, 2009, to maintain the existing 10, 890 square foot temporary office' facility located to the east of the Park School building, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of a revised set of drawings, sheets 1 through 9, to include the name of the project pertaining to Ithaca College, with the Town, County and State in which the project has been approved, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and b, submission of an original mylar copy of the final site plan (sheet 9), revised as above and also to include a scale in bar form and the approved landscaping, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and C, That Site Plan Approval and Special Permit-- for both structures, as described:�:above, shall expire on September. 15,: 2009, Ithaca College having, represented -that it has no present intentions ,.of. seeking any. further extensions beyond such date, and this Board stating it, .too, is of the belief that no further extensions be allowed. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffniann, .Conneman; Thayer: NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed Country Inn & Suites hotel located at the southwestern corner of West King Road and Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37A=17.1, Business District "C ". The proposal includes subdividing off a +/= 2.74 -acre parcel from the +/- 4.82 -acre parcel for the construction of a 67 -room hotel at the intersection. The proposal also includes approximately 72 parking spaces, sidewalks, signage, landscaping, and lighting. David Auble, Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, for Jay Bramhandkar, Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Agent, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — For those of you that are here for the proposed Country Ins Suites you are welcome to move to the other side of the room, if you want. You're welcome to stand behind us, if you want. I t may make it a little bit easier when they point to the charts, and maps, and graphs that they have up there. Again, make yourselves as comfortable as you can. 32 „, MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Peter, before you begin, members of the audience, for those of you who weren't here before, this is a revised sketch plan. We saw an earlier one, roughly 4 weeks ago, maybe 6 weeks ago. Based upon the comments provided by this Board, Peter Trowbridge and others are here with the revised sketch plan. Although this is not a public hearing, it is our intent to give members of the audience a chance to speak once to applicant has made their presentation and the Board has had an opportunity to question them. No decisions will be made this evening. This is simply an exchange of information between the applicant and the board, and we provide the public with a chance to provide their input as well. Chairperson Wilcox invited Peter Trowbridge to. address the Board. Peter Trowbridge, Landscape Architect, 1345 Mecklenburg Road. Jagat Sharma is also here this evening who is the architect. Marcia So ? ?? Who is manager from are office is here as is David Auble, the property owner. T.G. Miller swill also be assisting us in doing sedimentation erosion control, utilities, and. provide additional technical information as well as a review and potential modification to the hydrologic study as recommended by staff. As Fred said, we were here roughly a month ago. The Board did make comments and the comments, as we recorded them, were these: That there was an interest in moving the hotel further away from:. Danby Road than had been proposed the last time. Also there was concern about height and I will address all these in just a second. The staff also had a comment about the egress lane onto West King Road and there were a number of other minor comments.-that I will also address this evening. Before we get started,' I think as had -been..- the introduction,.. this is an allowable use within the zone. We did look at a number of other issues regarding the site, that the building lot coverage for this use and this zone is. 30 %. The building coverage on this site is 15 %, which is really half the allowable coverage within the zone. We have reduced the overall height of the building so that the building mass at 36 feet is allowable within the zone, with the exception of a parapet wall, which is really a signboard that is associated with the elevation of the building. I'd like to talk about the site plan for a little bit. I'd like to also review some issues that have come up in our field marketing study regarding the project. Last time, if you remember, there was circulation and parking on 4 sides of the building. The Board made the comment that they felt the building could be moved away from the road. We did move the building back all the way to the rear setback line, which is as far back as you can move it from Danby Road. A couple of benefits from that are that the approved and proposed Holly Creek Town homes, there will no longer be any traffic or parking between the hotel and the town homes so that there is a buffer space with all green space between the proposed housing. As I said in my introduction, the town homes as they are proposed are also 36 feet tall. So the height of the proposed building and all the town homes that you see just west of the hotel will be the same height when those are built. It is a little difficult to 33 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 be looking at this project without the Holly Creek project in place. I think the context for the building would be very different, looking at the height and the massing of the town homes relative to the hotel. And because we're also looking at in isolation from future retail, it also is seen somewhat out of context. Also staff was concerned about moving the egress drive as far west as possible. We did move it down the slope to the extent " practicable and as you remember last time there are 'no left turns. So I know that there are people in the neighborhood concerned about traffic that would be going down West King Road or Stone Quarry Road, that at the last board meeting it was agreed that egress from the site only and only right hand turns, so no traffic would be allowed to make a left and go west on West King Road. As you can see from your packet, the Fire Chief did review the project and is in agreement with the current layout, three -side access to the ihotel. There were other issues that were brought up for the first sketch plan that are on the plan. That includes a series of sidewalks. There are sidewalks, as you can see, all around the hotel, making connections to the primary entrance. There is a service entrance in back, which really only get catering service; it's not the traditional- service entrance. So we have a double duty.sidewalk and van entrance at the rear.:.:There:,are exit doors at either end of the hotel on.the north and south side. What we have done as a part of the site plan is shown a proposed::sidewalk the extent to which on. the pro. perty would get built as a part of this project going south over towards the future retail, area. -Also it was suggested there be sidewalks!out to West King Road so that there'd: be logical pedestrian crossing at the light. And also sidewalks connecting out .to.:the Holly -.Creek walkway, trail system.. We're showing connections as well Just a little context, I think everyone understands' the context. Directly across the street is same Peters and Big AI's. The site that's zoned commercial is being proposed to be subdivided with; I think the intent and: certainly the hope that neighborhood retail development would occur to the South. As you know, there's a Zebart's on the corner or West King Road and Danby Road, as well as residential homes further to the west. A few other elements I'd like to discuss are included in the. marketing study. As you know, there's two packets that you received: the primary packet and then there was a supplement to that has bee provided regarding the market study. Our client does have a franchise for the Country Inn Suites Hotel and if you look at that packet, especially on page 4, because there was a discussion with the Board last time as well. We did look at eight comparable hotels in the area because there was sense that there were a lot of rooms in this hotel. The eight hotels, including a number of smaller hotels in the area, what we found was that out of those eight the smallest hotel had 58 rooms. Ours currently is proposed at 67, and they went up to 177 rooms. But the vast majority of the franchise hotels in the area have 58 to 81 rooms. So that the hotel as is being proposed really are within the median number of the smallest franchise hotels of the eight comparables in the Ithaca area. One other thing that I think is important is that there was discussion last time too, about the possibility of not having a franchise hotel. It's been made very.clear to me 34 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 that local financial institutions are not very eager to provide financing when a hotel is what would be traditionally called a mom and pop hotel and not with a franchise. Clearly with a franchise you get national marketing, many other benefits that occur and subsequently bank financing becomes more available because of the kind of national promotion, advertising,. and support that franchise hotels get. Route 96B, as you can imagine, was found to be an excellent location for a Suites Hotel. And again; this hotel has distinguished itself from the other eight comparables in that it is a Suites Hotel so you should know from that, most of you that have stayed in them, there are like kitchenettes, a sleeping room as well as a living, and they're intended to be multiple night stays, up to three nights, which is a national average for this particular franchise. The survey also showed that we're looking at average occupancy in the Ithaca area, again for the eight comparable hotels, the average occupancy is 78 %, which jumps up to 90% in the summer. There clearly is an expressed need for hotels, not just on south hill, but in the Ithaca area at large. The Country Inn and Suites also is a high quality facility. It has received recognition for 98% guest return. It is a facility that is considered nationally to be a high quality facility. And there was a whole series of site selection criteria that were used in the marketing study. All the scores for those site selection .criteria-were. in the top 12 percentile of rankings that. are sued for comparable facilities. As you know, looking at:the technical drawings, a couple of things,:just before get there. There was a small sketch that was given to you. What we have done and think we've always tried :to be very forthright with the Board, we did provide a visual simulation. The reality. is, this is the worst possible view. It is a: full frontal view of the. hotel: We did provide a small sketch, that I think is separate from your report,-that was developed from a foot print on the site, so it is an accurate sketch, but this would be the worst possible view, which is a full frontal view. Clearly, obliquely, as you would drive by, you would see the thin ends are on either ends of the hotel. As I said before as well, we not only physically reduced the height so that the main body, other that this parapet, fall within allowable heights with in the zone: But we also topographically pushed the building down. Last time we came to the board we had graded it and lifted the hotel so that topographically the grade went up to the hotel. We felt, given the board's concerns, that we set the hotel 5 feet lower on the site as well as reduced physically five feet off the height of the building. Effectively reducing what was shown last time, which was ten feet higher than the elevation that you're seeing. And I think, as Jon pointed out last time we were here, and the EMC has pointed out as well, there was some photo shopping (chopping ?) that go perhaps, there were some wires. This pole clearly should be in place as there is a small piece of guardrail, but this is an if. In future presentations we'd be happy to sort of develop a, make sure that all of the elements of the existing photograph are in the simulation. think, I'm not sure we need to go through in great detail, but we have provided the board a planting plan that does need to accommodate buffering on two sides. Because this is a commercial zone, anytime that we have a change of zone, where there's residential 35 MAY 18,2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 either on the, in this case the proposed residential on Holly Creek, or residential on West Kind Road, the Town does have both a spatial depth of 50 feet and a planting requirement which we have accommodated on the site. Something else we did as well, there had been additional parking in this area. There is an. intermittent stream, un- named, that goes underneath the highway. We did move parking and other development in that area away from the southern part of the site to provide greater separation and distance between that drainage area and the facility. There is a single, and again I think some of this, I'm not sure all the board members were here last time, but there is a single curb cut off Danby Road that would serve both the future neighborhood retail as well as the hotel. And that's the only "in and.out" entry that would both serve the hotel and the adjoining use. So I think curb cut management and access management is being accommodated on this particular site. We've worked with the DOT enough to understand separation from intersection and what their expectations would be on curb cut management or access management. I think Kevin said that we certainly are here.and available for questions from the Board. Chairperson 'Wilcox — I'd like to start by wondering how you reduced the height of the building by five feet? Mr. Trowbridge I think if you looked at the previous: report::the roof had a very severe incline on it; which can be quite attractive, but it was .:almost ::a. story- and -a -half tall. So there were no dormers on it; but the pitch of the -roof :was_such that we. had in excess of ten feet of elevation that was just purely roof; with .no programming function under the roof. No rooms, no dormering. Chairperson Wilcox = An architectural feature, if you will? Mr. Trowbridge — That's right. Board Member Conneman - I want to ask you a question about the simulation picture. The difference between the previous one and this one, it seems like an awful lot of grass there. Have you eliminated the lane? I don't understand the simulation. Look at the corner of that picture, the corner of that picture looks like the other side of the road. Mr. Trowbridge - What we. have done, George, and I think the issue is that the two views are not, they're no longer from the same focal plain because what we did is physically measure the distance of the hotel back from the curb line. I think the dilemma is that these are no longer exactly comparable. So we didn't, as the EMC said as well, grass -over the westerly lane. What this demonstrates is the true distance. And I think the problem is we should have cropped this photograph differently so the curb line was further up. So the focal distance is different in the two images. The Board asked that the applicant go back again and do the simulation. MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Board Member Conneman - I'd like to see it because it certainly threw me off. I looked at this and said, my goodness what did they do? Mr. Trowbridge - It's just a focal distance and this one should have been cropped to match. It wasn't. Board Member Howe - If you look carefully at the pattern in the .pavement, it just looks like you have brought the grass out to the centerline of the road. Mr. Trowbridge - We understand, but it really is, the amount of landscape that you see in this picture, this is a representative view of the hotel. I apologize that we should have cropped this differently. Board Member Howe - Maybe it is of the hotel. But what about the grassy area in front of the hotel? Chairperson Wilcox - Peter, If I look at the left side of the picture, it almost looks as if the grass extends under the New York State signage. Mr. Trowbridge - There are some elements, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. That pole should actually have come down and. hit the grass part. So if that pole was further down, I understand what you're saying: Chairperson Wilcox - It's confusing and we ,don't know what if we're looking at is reasonable or is a true photo simulation. That's the issue. Mr. Trowbridge - That's a very valid point. All l can tell u =you is that the distance from the road, we did carefully construct the hotel so that what you are seeing as landscape in front, both topographically in terms of the depression of the building and the depth is accurate. There are some elements that probably should not have been eradicated and with a return to the Board, we'll make sure that those things are corrected. Board Member Conneman — Did you say that there was a kitchen in each of these units? Mr. Trowbridge — It's a microwave, small refrigeration unit, not a full kitchen but means to store and prepare food. Board Member Conneman — I thought last time you said there was kitchen, but okay, that's fine. Board Member Thayer — I'm a little concerned about the access drive and the walkway in the back. If it's a walkway, it really shouldn't be an access drive, I don't think. Because I assume there will be quite a lot of traffic delivering, you've got supplies. 37 MAY 18,2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Mr. Trowbridge — It's not the service area. The service area really is on this side. They don't have a restaurant in the facility, but when they would have a small conference there would be a catering van, like Hope's Way, that might be.delivering food at that location. Rather than make that an asphalt roadway all the. way up to the door for probably very infrequent, not even daily van that would come to the door, it didn't make sense for us to do that. So we made a double -duty sidewalk, and we don't think that's really an issue of safety. It probably will happen less than once a day. Board Member Conneman — How are you going to police the no left hand turn? Just a sign? Mr. Trowbridge — Well I think there are a couple of issues. We will engineer that intersection so that there will be preference given to 96B so that the angle when it comes out,. when we engineer the intersections, we'll make sure it's clear that it would be very acute making a left hand turn. Board Member Conneman — Have you talked to DOT about that? It seems to me it's awful close to the light (is it light ? ? ?)? I guess we said that the last time. . I Mr. Trowbridge —We need to get approvals from DOT. Attorney Barney — I don't. quite understand the rationale for the right turn only_.for that. If I'm in the hotel and I want-to go west, .you're now forcing me to make two more Aurns. Mr. Trowbridge — You go out on to Danby Road. Attorney Barney — Right, and I turn left on Danby Road. And then I've go -to turn left again. Mr. Walker — There's a light. Attorney Barney — Where's the light? Mr. Walker — The light is at Danby Road and West King Road. Mr. Trowbridge — So you come to a lit intersection. Mr. Walker — The problem being that driveway is awfully close to the intersection. Making a .left hand turn out of that onto King Road you're fighting traffic coming off of Danby Road also, in a very short distance, you can be surprised very easily by a car coming that corner. Mr. Smith — That concern actually came from Fred Noteboom at the last meeting. His concern being it too close and traffic coming down across King Road. Visibility isn't very good coming through the intersection. MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Mr. Trowbridge - We agree with that. The reason this is here at all is really a fire issue. There needs to be a second means of egress access onto the site. If it was there we wanted to make the sort of minimum amount of traffic that could safely use that intersection. Board Member Hoffmann I have some questions about the market study and I realize you're the expert on that. Chairperson Wilcox - I've got a lot of questions about the market study. Board Member Hoffmann - Maybe you should pick up on that instead of me asking questions. My concern is it doesn't say who made this market study. It says it was undertaken by the owner, but it doesn't say if the owner hired a marketing study firm to do this or not. It isn't dated. The inconsistencies, like it talks on page two about the two major employers in the affective (affected ? ? ? ?) market area being Emerson and Ithaca College. But then when it talks about other things, like the hotels, those hotels are not only in the market area, they are all over Ithaca, including Lansing. That doesn't make sense to me. It's- like comparing apples and oranges. It -talks about, on page 5, a neighborhood retail area is just a few minutes to the north. of.:the- subject site and brings in a tremendous number of commercial travels. What retail area is that and where is it? Chairperson Wilcox - -That would be the Commons. Board Member Hoffmann — It should say that. Why aren't they named, these places? Mr. Trowbridge - l think:they were referring to Rogan's Corner. Board Member Hoffmann — Well anyway, I think the market study has to be done over and these things have -to specify so that we know what you are talking about. I don't know if you did this or what. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you know who did the market study? Mr. Trowbridge — I know that J ? ?? Had asked to have this done and again we should get that information for you. Board Member Conneman — There's also inconsistencies about Cornell. Chairperson Wilcox — Frankly, this is awful. It's terrible. It talks about the break -even point of 65 keys, and by keys I assume that means rooms. But it doesn't justify A. It talks about the affective market area; it doesn't define it. It talks about, "we talked to people and we established that commercial support accounts were approximately 75% of the total support in subject's ITMA ". There are no figures, there's no justification for where that came from. It talks about tourists "provide approximately 65% of total summer traffic ". How do they come to that conclusion? I want to see the facts and figures and the assumptions they use to come to that conclusion. kkal MAY 18,2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Mr. Kanter — If there were surveys then what did that consist of? Chairperson Wilcox — It's a minor point, they talk about Ithaca College and Cornell located in the City and TCCC located in the City and near Dryden. I don't know about that. There are inconsistencies between the prices of rooms on the text on page three, and the price of rooms in the table on page 4. 1 goes non and on and on. It's poorly done. "Interstate accessibility to and from the subject site is excellent. Route 96 and 96B is a major route bringing traffic from interstate 81 from Syracuse in the north." No, you don't come from Syracuse to Ithaca on Route 96B. Now I'm starting to pick on this person, but (inaudible). "The EMA for the subject site includes the City of Ithaca and the Village of Danby, student community of Ithaca College and Cornell, and downtown Ithaca." What does that mean? What happened to the Town of Ithaca or the Town of Danby? It's sloppy. I'm surprised that it was part of the submittals, frankly Peter. Board Member Conneman — Also, Peter, to say that you have coffee in the room, hairdryers, irons and ironing boards, we pay more in newspapers and free local calls. Anyplace in the world today that doesn't have: that isn't in business. Everybody does that:.-. If you don't a hairdryer in the room, you. might just as well forget it. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not convinced by anything, in this .market study that there's a need or demand for it. Board 'Member Conneman — Thank you for raising it: because I was going to. Chairperson Wilcox-:='l don't know whether it's:just- sloppy or.what...: ; Mr. Kanter — To be fair, maybe this is the sketch plan version of the market study. Chairperson Wilcox _ Maybe that's why no one's name is on it. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we go on, can I ask you a question, Jon? We are proceeding under the new zoning ordinance with regard to this. Mr. Kanter — No. Chairperson Wilcox — We are proceeding under the old zoning ordinance? Mr. Kanter — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — As it was'submitted under the transition portion of the new zoning. Mr. Kanter — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions at this point? .I MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 . Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe I could just have a clarification about the height of the building and how that was accomplished. It's not the basic height of the space indoor that has been reduced. The whole building has been set 5 feet lower into the ground. Is that right? Mr. Trowbridge — That's right. Topographically the building is five feet lower than it was last time. The last time we were here the roof elevation was about this height. So it was a very high roof, with no program underneath it. And it stepped up. And so we're able to reduce the height of the roof by five feet and depress the building by five feet. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so it's a 10 -foot total reduction? Mr. Trowbridge -- In what you saw last time. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Mr. Sharma — I just wanted to say one thing as far as picture of the building is concerned ? ?? What you see in terms material and things is not the final plan, it is merely a sketch plan. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, as I said, it's not a public hearing this evening but we do want to hear what you have-to say. Christiann Dean, 330 West King Road ATTACHMENT #2 I. live at 330 West Kind Road and I am also chair for the Town of Ithaca Agriculture Committee. I agree,with several of you -from you comments of. the meeting, last - ,month that the Country Inn' Hotel proposed to is too massive for that location. Even though the ._proposal slipped in under the old zoning, I would ask you to consider. that the neighborhood commercial zoning which is: in place now and which fits the Town's very carefully designed Comprehensive Plan is in keeping with the Town's intention for that location. So a 67 room, 3 story hotel with bus parking is certainly not neighborhood commercial. Sam Peter's is a truly neighborhood commercial enterprise and it poses no threats to nearby agriculture. But the proposed Hotel complex's is traffic, night time lights, noise, an litter would have a profoundly negative implications for the 1,085 acres of farmland, more. than one -sixth of the Town's agricultural land on West King Road. My family owns one of two farms on this road. If you approve this huge hotel complex one mile away, I can predict with some experience that this will sound the death knell for farming on this road. You must choose, my Planning Board, you must choose between massively inappropriate development and a viable agricultural future. They cannot exist simultaneously. Because agriculture is so precarious within the whole Town, your approval of this proposal would also send a negative message to the eight remaining farmers throughout the Town who serve as the unpaid grounds keepers of one -third of the town's open space. I hope you're scratching your heads right now and asking, "What does this have to do with farming? This corner hasn't been farmed in years." Well no one expects that land to be farmed again because the price Mr. Auble paid makes it far too expensive for any farmer to buy. Development pressure is the 41 MAY 182 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 reason. A big development nearby. makes it less likely neighborhood farmers will keep farming. All farmers are pressured by high costs and fluctuating income, but those who farm in the shadow of a city have the added pressure of development. Higher taxes, noise, light pollution, traffic, and hundreds of new, non -farm neighbors who like to look at green fields but not smell manure, listen to tractors drone into the night or slow down behind a tractor. I can tell that when I'm driving my tractor up to the corner to get gas, I can tell you that sign that says only go this way, don't go that way, isn't going to help me .at all. I'm going to take my life in my hands, and I have to drive, my tractor up there to get gas. When a big commercial development like Country Inn and Suites is approved. nearby, farmers hold off investing in new barns or other improvements, waiting to see what will happen. Farmers wonder why developers. are making all the money. They start to think about selling out. Sometimes even falling for slick promises without realizing it's the developers, never the farmers, who end up with the money. Who made millions when East King Road farmland became a new suburb called Chase Farm? Not farmer Chase. The town's administration was won over by Mr. Auble selling the buffer strip to Buttermilk Falls State Park. Please don't let this sharp public relations move blind you to the major negative environmental impact on the Town's farmland. Before you approve a huge development up the road from one of the Town's three remaining stretches of farmland:,: please listen to this short excerpt.from the 3own's 1992 report, Planning for Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca. "Farmland :and the, farmers who farm it make a major contribution to the well being of all Town residents:..by keeping 3,440 acres in agricultural ;production and an additional 2,530 acres in farm wood lots in inactive agricultural. lands, a total of. 5,970 acres. Farmers maintain approximately 36% of the open. space. Within the town: The. rural character enjoyed by :the town residents and essential to the local tourist .industry is provided largely by local farmers and State Parks. ? ? ?? It is in your interests to promote farming. If you approve this development, if you approve this final piece of this mega development up the road on West King Road you are sounding the death knell of agriculture on that road, and I'm sure that is not your intention. Please vote no to the Country Inn and Suites proposal, and please do. not recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the necessary zoning change. Keep in mind because of the potential negative impact on agriculture, if you do allow this proposed hotel complex to proceed further the environmental impact application must, by law, be sent to the Tompkins County Farmland Protection Board, as well as the New York State Department of Agricultural Markets. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox - For the record, we do have a copy of your letter. Tony Ingram, 368 Stone Quarry Road. ATTACHMENT #3 1 own a house at 368 Stone Quarry Road. It's just around the corner from this development, within 2,000 feet. I want to quote from Mr. Sharma at the last meeting. He said, "the effort will be to fit in with the neighborhood ". I don't think that this project achieves that goal no matter what you do to setbacks or reductions or landscaping and so forth. You might make the elephant a little bit smaller, but it's still an elephant. It's 42 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 my understanding from reading the memo that you received from the Planning Department that under Business C Zoning that this snuck in under the wire for, they would still have to get a Board of Zoning Appeals Special Approval to increase the capacity of this hotel from the maximum allowed under Business C. That is 30 rooms to 67 rooms. Is that true, that's what I read? Attorney Barney — Business Zone C permits hotels and motels of larger than 30 rooms, but you are correct in that it does require a special approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals after a favorable recommendation from here. It's not authorizing something that's not permitted in the zone, it's just basically saying it's permitted, but only after you get these additional layers of review. Tony Ingram — Okay, so that's not technically a variance? Attorney Barney — No. Tony Ingram — Obviously, and as was noted in the last meeting, certainly the intent of the Town' with the rezoning to neighborhood commercial was to have a more conservative approach to development on this parcel, ,not- a full blow commercial kind of development.; And there's a number of reasons for that that Ms. Dean referred to . earlier. With the Town Comprehensive Plan and the Conservation Zoning and so forth that's gone on over the last ten years or so. That on. the west side of Route 96B, because of the single family residence nature of the neighborhood and also because of the prime parkland in Buttermilk Falls State Park and the attempts to protect it from nearby intense. development that there's neighborhood commercial zoning. I assume, that's the :reasonlhat -:was adopted. Seeing -as the..Business. C zoning :f.or. this site would require special approval; stepping outside the normal 30 =room hotel limit, it seems to me that goes;counter to`the intent of the new zoning neighborhood commercial. So it's like leaning totally the other direction of the intent of the Town for this .neighborhood and for this parcel. That doesn't seem justified to me. I just can't understand why the Town would do that, because this development will absolutely nothing for the neighborhood. Now I'm not opposed to development on this side at all. I'd like to see some stores up there that I could go to, and maybe some other folks in South Hill would go to rather than cutting down Stone Quarry Road to go to Wegman's and to go to Kmart. Maybe they could go up there and maybe cut down the traffic that I have to deal with every day. I put a little website about this site the last couple of days. On it I show a picture of an Ithaca college student that went off the road Saturday morning at 6:00 a.m. That's what I woke up to, fire trucks; there was ambulances and so forth. Traffic is a real problem. It's already overburdened. You know what Stone Quarry Road is like. There's no shoulders down at the bottom, it's steep, it's winding. There have been fatal accidents. I think this development, like Mr. Auble's already approved multiple residence development is going to add to the problem. We have a problem already with traffic in the neighborhood. It's going to add to it and this is going to add more. Nonetheless, I'm not opposed to development up there. I think there could be some very appropriate neighborhood commercial. So, I'd just like to say that I hope, I urge you, to be in the spirit of the new zoning, be conservative with this site. I urge that you do not 43 MAY 187 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that they give special approval to increase the size of this place. Although perhaps this half -baked marketing study does perhaps may be able to provide a case that this .kind of hotel is needed in the Town, it's not needed right there. There are lots of other locations. We don't need it in that neighborhood. We do not need this. We will not use it. It's only going to create impacts on our lives. And it's also going to create development pressure. You've got a gradient of conservative zoning from the parkland out. to the road, with buffer zones, .with the multiple - family / multiple- residence thing kind of violates it, but in general the intent is to have a slow. gradient of intensity of development as you go away from the park so that you're protecting the qualities of that park. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation rates that park as an aesthetic resource of statewide significance, and all you have to do is go there; you know how beautiful that place is. So let's keep this intense stuff just as far away from it as we reasonably can, which means not on the east side of 96B because that gradient goes to this hotel, it goes only doo, doo; doo, tam, to the sky with intensity of development. That may create more intense development in that area. Please don't lean the other way. Lean in the. direction the new zoning is going by being conservative on this site not this radical departure from the intention of the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — Thanks. For the record,i we do have your email. . Patricia Fey, 133 West King Road ° .. I'm just below the development. I was here. about a year ago to see everybody with the other plan that Mr. Auble had proposed. Most of my:comments have already been expressed by Tony. I'd like to. read two > . comments that my husband asked me to read. His one concern was last year the Board was concerned that the state DOT wouldn't permit °another road entering :96B so close to the intersection thus they approved :the road entering West King Road. He wanted to know why is it safer now or why is ft going to. be allowed now? I don't know. I'd like to ask too, where the entrance is now, how close that is to the intersection they're proposing for the hotel? My second question, how close the access road that they're planning is next to the road that they're planning to have the entrance to Holly Creek development that was approved last year? Mr. Trowbridge — It's in excess of 600 feet of the intersection. Ms. Fey — And the other two roads, how close is that going to be to the entrance to Holly Creek, the access road on West King, that and how close is that, is it the other side of the house, and how close is that? Mr. Trowbridge — I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. .. MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Ms. Fey — You have your - access supposedly here. Then you have your entrance into the housing development that was approved last year. How close are the two of those together. I'd like to know. Chairperson Wilcox — What's the separation between the curb cuts? Mr. Trowbridge — 340 feet roughly. Ms. Fey — Again I was worried like if cars are pulling in and out quickly, which they do have a tendency to do. My second thing that my husband, Doug, wanted to say is, he wanted to know who would want to buy a single family home in Holly Creek, a house with a front door view of the rear of a 65 room hotel? And also when Mr. Auble can't the sell the house lots will he approach the Board for a variance for the original plan allowing for more rental property. there. And as it_ was approved last for the development of Holly Creek were led to believe that it was going to mostly seniors that would want to rent, not going to be student housing, hopefully, and single family homes. I don't know myself and I can't judge for others, but for. myself, how that's going to impact his development there if you have a grand sized hotel there that is really out of proportion. My husband also worried about the drainage on the south side. of West Kind Road, because right now its terrible. We have a problem on our land..and..1 know our neighbors do too. We're wondering about the runoff of the water and. the situation with that larger development up there, with a parking lot that size and the hotel, on to our- land.:. How -would- it.affect Holly Creek ?. Those were things.that my husband: I have seen the.one proposed hotel over in Cortland and I:was wondering if the architect would know if this is the.same size,!humongous, as big as it is over there. I don't know who the architect is. If it's the same plan or not? Mr. Trowbridge — This is their smallest hotel and the one in Cortland is, Jagat, how much larger than this hotel? Mr. Sharma — 50 rooms larger. Ms. Fey — Is this going to be a three story? Mr. Trowbridge — It's three stories. Ms. Fey —Thank you. Board Member Conneman — What about the one in Big Flats? Mr. Trowbridge — I've driven by there, George, I don't really know the number of rooms, but this is their smallest hotel. 45 Board Member Conneman - I'll stop and see. MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox - That would actually be helpful. It. will help us visualize. Somebody could say come back and tell us how many rooms are in the one in Cortland because I think many of us know where that one is on 281. I don't know about the one down near Dow Corning, but if we could know how many rooms are in them, that would .help. Ms. Fey - Thank you for listening to me. Again, my concern is the same as it was last year, . for the homeowners there's a lot of home, there's all around Sesame where they're developing nice new homes too, plus the ones on our.road. This just seems like it's a gigantic proposal and out of proportion for our area. I'm not against, like last year they were proposing small, like a Mom and Pop stores or stores or Laundromats that I can see. I'm not opposed to commercial development up there.. I'm just opposed to the size of the development and the traffic. With 2,000 cars.a day going down by my house. I can see for the safety reason why they can only make a left hand turn, but anybody that wants to come down Stone Quarry is just ; :going to go out, go to the light and go down. And you have also the works there. Not just the people that are going to be staying for two or three days, but you have all the employees and like that that will increase the traffic to our area. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox -Thank you. Joseph Wetmore, 128 Glenside live, t28 Gienside.. Pd -like to thank you .for this �opportunity;to speak.; I'm: speaking. against the project that's proposed here. The developer submitted this project after the Board adopted its new, more restrictive rules, but before those rules actually took effect. They're proposing a plan. that's much larger than really either of -those sets of rules wanted. They're having to get extra permission in order to allow it. The Town Board went through an extensive process to.develop land use plans. As a result of the process, the Board determined that smaller, not larger projects are appropriate here. There's no compelling reason to reverse this decision. We shouldn't be looking at finding ways to just make the developer make more money and proceeding with a project that isn't in accordance with needs of our community. There's really no community need to approve this project. In fact, there's a community need to do the exact opposite course of action. The City of Ithaca has already allowed one side of our beloved Buttermilk Falls to be filled with massive commercial developments. It's now up to the Town of Ithaca to determine the development on the other side. Is it appropriate scale? There's also the question of traffic. Virtually everywhere that people who would be staying in this proposed hotel would want to go would require them to get in their car and join the traffic jam going into the City of Ithaca. Hotels of this size belong in the urban core where visitors to our community can have access to the places they need to visit without using their cars. Either because they are in within walking distance or an easy bus ride. In fact, when such a hotel is proposed for downtown mo MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Ithaca, the community changed its zoning laws via Common Council, not merely by an approval on some board, and provided tax breaks as well. The Community supported that project because it was good for the community. This one is going to be detrimental to our community. It's going to bring more traffic into a less trafficked area. It's going to impact the park. In conclusion, I urge you not to approve this project. It's out of scale for the area. It's in direct conflict with what the board's determined for the area and it shouldn't be approved. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Wetmore, do you own a business on the Commons, for the record? Mr. Wetmore — Yes. John Lewis, 327 West King I want to reiterate what has been said already and say that a project of this size will totally change the character of that area. And I don't think it will just change it for the Town of Ithaca, I think it will have a dramatic impact on Danby. I know.that Danby has done a lot of work in trying to preserve its green space and 96B is a different entry into Ithaca than other entries into Ithaca. It. has _.a unique rural character that this will destroy. And for those of us who do live on South Hill, the recent traffic problems, it should make obvious how accessing up and` down the South Hill is more difficult than other parts of the:. Town. So I guess I would. like. to urge you -to consider reducing the size.of this.project in any way that you can. Thanklyou.. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. Can we take a couple minutes to review the ,zoning in this area, both:before.and today? Can we do that just.to make sure. we're clear and that the public is clear. I'll start off by saying that the new zoning took effect on April 1st. The new zoning law contained transition provisions which said that applications submitted before April 1St and pursued in good faith, or whatever language, could be reviewed by this board or by whatever boards under the old zoning. The previous zoning of this piece of property and before subdivision includes hotels and other commercial development, retail development. That zoning has been in place for how many years, roughly? Attorney Barney — Probably 30 years. Chairperson Wilcox — So the zoning has been in place for 30 years which would allow a hotel or other commercial development, even a gas station corner for a while. Attorney Barney — I qualify that, because there was some rezoning that occurred, from multiple residences. There's been a business zone in that vicinity for many, many years. Chairperson Wilcox — Many, many years. In fact, there even was a small little Business D for a while that allowed a gas station, if I remember. 47 MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Mr. Kanter — We eliminated that when the Holly Creek proposal was approved. Actually, the commercial zoning there goes at least back to the 1960s when there was a, I don't know what the name of the proposal was, but there was a very large scale development proposal for 150,000 square foot shopping center, some huge number of apartments, 300 - something apartment units, as well as some single family. That zoning remained in place up until we just recently changed it. Chairperson Wilcox — So, under the' old zoning, hotels are allowed by right. Attorney Barney — Up to 30 rooms. Chairperson Wilcox — More than 30 rooms then the applicant would go to the Planning Board and then also to the Zoning Board. Under the new zoning, which we're not operating under,. hotels are still allowed, but you have a max building size of either 7,500 square feet or by special permit by up to 10,000 square feet. What I'm trying to make sure that I'm clear about is there are uses allowed by right, there are uses allowed by right that will generate traffic, for example. Whether it a bakery or dry cleaner or a hotel with up to 30 rooms, or whatever, and I'm trying in my own mind,-.as we work ' through these issues think about traffic that would be generated from Ahis site: by other uses that would be allowed versus traffic. More or less than might be generated from... the .site by a hotel, for example. Something that will come up when and if we get to a traffic study and possibly, . if we get that far, we get into drainage reports and how they are going to deal with drainage, and everything else. That helps me deal with the zoning and what was allowed and what zoning we're operating under. Board Member : Conneman Two. #pings.:.:' On :�page7 5: of :the: market: study::it. says, "a' hotel such as this will also attract and - support other future adjacent neighborhood development immediately south of the :site ": That seems to be a. statement: that doesn't back up what this hotel backs up what. Ms. Dean.indicated. That's what it says, page 5. Mr. Trowbridge — I understand, George. Typically, I.think our client has found when they've looked at other Country Suite Hotels because they don't have food service in the hotel that oftentimes and adjoining restaurant will opportunistically develop. Board Member Conneman — The second thing is, I'm an economist, I don't know much. about the hotel business, but Kevin and I, Kevin Talty whose a member of our board, talked one day about the chain of hotels called Microtel. They tend to be very small and very successful. It seems to me the economics that we are being told about is you've got to have 72 rooms, 62 rooms, whatever it is. That may not be true. That's all I wanted to say. You should address that when you address all these other hotels. They're nice places too. Chairperson Wilcox — It's an improvement, but I'm still not happy. You've got a ways to go to convince me that this development is in scale with the other commercial development in the area, Peter. I'm not going to be swayed by the arguments that we should use new zoning instead of old zoning. The Town set the laws; you come, in IN MAY 18, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 under the old zoning, that's fine. But same thing as before. You've lowered the height, you pushed it back. That's great. I still sit here and I think about the Italian Carry-Out, the Zebart's, and the approved landscape store, that's approved and not built and may never get built at this point. And Sam Peter and Big AI's and I just sit here and go, pardon my expression, "damn this is a big building ". Yes, it's two rooms smaller, four rooms smaller now that it was. The Building is 5 feet lower, and it's five feet lower in the ground, and it's pushed back off the road. My initial reaction is its sill huge. And I'm trying not to be swayed by that ugly building on Route 13 called_ a hotel that somebody thought they should put the parking in the back. And you know what it's like; you've got that mass right on the road. You've pushed it back from what we saw before. The simulations will certainly help one way or another, either to say, you know what, the .scale is fine. Or, Fred Wilcox you're right, that this just doesn't fit. Everybody complains about traffic. My feeling there is you've got to look at what kind of traffic a hotel generates of X number of rooms versus what kind of traffic is generated by other allowed uses there. Though a hotel may generate X amount of traffic, other allowed uses in that zone may generate more traffic, frankly. Whether it's a bakery or a fast food restaurant. Not a fast food restaurant, heaven forbid. A sit -down restaurant or laundry or dry cleaner or whatever, they could conceivable generate more traffic and still be allowed uses. I still think, I wish there was some other :way to deal with this natural barrier that . you: are dealing with and that is that creek: to_ the south which is forcing you or Mr. Auble or: somebody to squeeze this thing on what,seems to be a lot that is not sufficient:and:j maybe helps contribute to my uneasiness with:the scale. Yes, your. lot coverage might . only 15% where 30% is allowed,:. but again , it goes back to what's going around. and.around in that neighborhood. I'm just not,comfortable. . Board Member Hoffmann: I .would like to add.-to that. Vagre.e::with. what you are saying; but I would'also like to add that you don't have 'a market study to convince us that there is in fact a need for this. hotel here and that this is the. a right - spot- for. . it. As far as the massive. size of the building, would it be possible to use the whole site and do something entirely different like having a hotel spread out in several building with shops and other businesses integrated into it? Mr. Trowbridge — Just a reaction regarding the hotel, a couple of things. I know a little bit about Microtels and they do, even the smallest ones have 60 rooms, however, the rooms are quite small. I've stayed in Microtel quite a bit. And so, the overall mass of the building is smaller. Board Member Conneman — They have 60 rooms? Mr. Trowbridge — Roughly. Board Member Conneman — Not the ones I've seen, but anyway. Mr. Trowbridge — Well, we will look at some. In any case, getting back to Eva's point, what drives a lot of hotel design, unfortunately, whether we like it or not, because they're franchised they absolutely require that you use one of the architectural models. .. .r MAY 18,2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 In fact, when we came ' in with this new building, it's one of the other architectural models. . When we looked for a building that was a lower height, they are fairly prescriptive within franchise arrangements because they want to make sure that if at the national level, if they are going to advertise for you, that you're consistent with the market product that franchise is offering. So I think it is a really good idea. I think it would perhaps have to be some other kind of non - franchise model, or explore something else. Board Member Conneman — Peter, I don't think that is necessarily true. Burger King on East Hill got exceptions for two things that we didn't think they'd ever get exceptions for. One was the size of the sign, which is considerably smaller. And two was you didn't have any red light around the top. The developer at that point went to Burger King and said we can build this in a very good place, but we can't do those two things, and Burger King said okay. I think franchise have a lot more flexibility than you're led to believe. I don't know about this one, but I think that's true in lots of cases. Board Member Hoffmann — I also was wondering, I understand the comment about how it's hard to g et financing for something, which is not .big franchise chain type hotel, but is it impossible? Mr. Trowbridge — Certainly there are boutique hotels.. There's one right up the road, which apparently is profitable. I'm not sure; I don't knowahat that's.true. But I think that non = franchised boutique hotels, clearly people, :.build::thern, but I think it's certainly not the model or.type of facility that this developer was looking for. Chairperson Wilcox =Who are you referring-to? Board Member*Hoffmann — La Tourelle. Board Member Conneman — Also, in this community the Trust Company loans to a lot of people who are not, may be considered "mom and pop" by some people, and do quite well by them. It's a darn good bank. Mr. Trowbridge — I wanted to cast dispersions on anyone. I'm just saying that it's a different kind of hotel / motel. Board Member Thayer — It is a big building. It's hard for me to visualize. We've got the apartments or condos in the back that appear to be like maybe half the size. But they're the same height, right, 36 feet? Mr. Trowbridge — They're the exact same height. Board Member Thayer — Like you said originally, it's hard to visually this building there without those. It would be real nice to be able to see it there on the lot. I guess I feel a little differently. I think that there probably is a need for this because I haven't seen it around in this area at all. But it would be neat if it could be spread out a little bit more. 50 MAY 189 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 That's a big lot up there. The front of the lot is bigger. I still think we could do a little better in getting it designed differently and I agree with Fred that I think other commercial ventures up there could create just as much traffic as this would and other allowed commercial ventures. Board Member Thayer — Is it possible maybe to get an opinion from the board. You're absolutely right. What we're operating within is West King Road, Danby Road, and really an unnamed creek.. It is a drainage way. I've gone up to look at it. There's water running through there now, but I've seen it in the fall where it's dry. It is a drainage way and the issue would be whether staff or the board feel that culvertization of that portion, especially near Danby Road would be out of the question. Because certainly there would be more ability to move further south and I think that would be true for the whole commercial parcel. There would be much more flexibility, but we need to get some sort of opinion or direction about what, if we did come in with a proposal that allowed development to move further south, what concerns there might be, either from staff or from the board. Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, my feeling is, you have T.G Miller. If they could come up with something that staff and in this case probably Dan and Jonathan and the:: rest of them thought was appropriate, then. that would go a long way toward making us feel good about it, If it were to be channelized or piped under ground or something else was done. I respect the work that T.G. Miller does. Mr. Trowbridge — I understand what the Board's comments are. I appreciate those and I think that it's a project that I, it is very hard for us to understand'this. project in isolation and I'm not sure how far we can go with trying.to visualized the town -homes and this. project together. But) think what Tony said last time when he was up talking about the, three- dimensional architectural curve, the reality is the town homes are the same height as this building. They are identical in terms of their heights and I think if the town homes were in place, I don't know if we would be having this slightly different conversation. Chairperson Wilcox — If I may ... you know full well that though the height might be the same... Mr. Trowbridge — They are further down the slope. Chairperson Wilcox — The massing is different. Mr. Trowbridge — Oh, it is. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm looking at the town homes as approved, and they don't present a single, nearly flat front if you will. And those are elements, which go into how big does it look. 51 MAY 18,2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Mr. Trowbridge — I think it is an important point because last time we were talking about height. We did try to deal with height. If there is a way of dealing with massing because it sounds like it is as much a massing issue, as it is a height .issue. Its now...weIve brought it down so the height is allowable within the zone, accept for that section. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to just get clarified if those townhouses, the roof peaks of them come up to the same level as the roof of the hotel? Mr. Trowbridge — No, they don't. They are topographically lower. So they will have this relationship, but the point is that the height when you see an elevation of them, they will have the same approximate height. Mr. Walker — They're about 20 feet lower in grade. Chairperson Wilcox - So as the grade starts to fall... Mr. Kanter — I think a cross - section drawing at some point might help illustrate all of that. Chairperson Wilcox— Cross- sections are always wonderful.. Thank-you.:. -We should just mention, someone else. mentioned drainage. When and -if. they:.get:to,. I think Peter mentioned it at the beginning,.if and when they ever get beyond. :sketch. plan- and come to us with or formal approvals, -they will have to do the drainage studies. They put in the drainage that has or will go in. as part of the townhouses was designed, to accommodate much if not all of the drainage from this site as well; but they. will- °need- to come in with. the appropriate documentation and they:know. that.. `Is:don'fi blame them for. not wanting: to spend the money now if they keep changing things or they withdraw their application. Do you have enough for right now? Have you heard enough from us .tonight? Is there .anything else we need to add? Board Member Conneman — I just wanted a clarification of what other variances will they need? What will they have to go to BZA for? Chairperson Wilcox = Given this one, you would need a height variance for the little piece right there. It is the only variance at this point. Mr. Kanter — That is the only feature that makes it look a little bit... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I know. There is an architectural feature there that takes away some of the massiveness. Are you all set for now? Thank you, Peter. Thank you very much. Thank you members of the public. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meting at 9:43 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: 52 MAY 189 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED JUNE 15, 2004 Board Member Conneman requested that on page 32 of the April 20, 2004 minutes, the word "not ". be inserted in the following sentence: "...they made the determination that left hand turning lanes are necessary at this time. It should read: "...they made the determination that left hand turning lanes are not necessary at this time." The Town Clerk's office made the correction to the minutes. The board discussed reviewing the minutes. Mr. Kanter informed the board of the items on the agenda for the June 1St Planning Board meeting. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the May 18, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk 53 O W Z O to O z Z Q 1✓ h CD O a Q r CO W 7 Q H i Q r 3 r 4 LL Q0 Existing GO LV r F t WARR EN ROAO CORNELL UNIVERSITY Rf O Drawn By: Bruce Brittain May 1812004 Reference: Subdivision Plat: Survey Map of 127 Warren . F bdoTown , d April 5, 2004 of Tompkins, State of New York, drawn by Lawrence P. nmm4cHMENT #1 0 d W Z d D 0 m d Z 4 F E- CO d Z Q 4�- i- r CD H W to O W d 0 LL LL � O Q LL Fw CO IL M ai LOEHR R/O 202.1 FT e F ti Z 4 CO I60.OZ FT 0 160402 FT'. 287.07 FT WAR EN ROAD MEIZSCNRO© R1O 814.8 VT. ...................... 0 W 1,ft MN 0 147.05 FT cORNSLIL UNIVER51TY RIO FabbronI Proposal Requires Removal of Historic Barn • All four lots created are at least 100 ft wide and at least 150 ft deep 0 1 cc 1— 0 LL 0 tin u r� C*1 cc W Drawn By: Bruce Brittain May 18, 2004 Ithaca, Cou Reference: Subdivision Plat: Survey Map of 127 Warren Rabdon Town of April 5, 2004 ns_ State of New York, drawn by Lawrence P. Fab 0 W Z 7 O O a Z Co Q i- O C4 Z Q Ci Co H Um O 1 W d 0 !l � LL 4< o� 3 M o Q LL H LL r 0 LOEHR 2oz.r 150 FT NO 150 FT R/O FT Z cc 4 Co \ 287.07 FT Ct t- a. N MERSCMROD R/O 84goS FT 0 W1. NN 0 137.07 FT WAR P, EN ROAO CpRNELI� UNIVERSITY RI0 Alternative 1 Retains Barn with Farmhouse (Lot 4) • New property line is at least 20 fro o� wide and at least 150 ft deep • All four lots created are at least I 0 j- 0 LL Ce � U rN 04 Ci W Drawn By: Bruce Brittain May 18, 2004 rence: Subdivision Plat: Survey Map of 127 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca, County Refe Lawrence P. Fabbroni, dated April 5, 2004 of Tompkins, State of New York, drawn by L ........................ 0 W1. NN 0 137.07 FT WAR P, EN ROAO CpRNELI� UNIVERSITY RI0 Alternative 1 Retains Barn with Farmhouse (Lot 4) • New property line is at least 20 fro o� wide and at least 150 ft deep • All four lots created are at least I 0 j- 0 LL Ce � U rN 04 Ci W Drawn By: Bruce Brittain May 18, 2004 rence: Subdivision Plat: Survey Map of 127 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca, County Refe Lawrence P. Fabbroni, dated April 5, 2004 of Tompkins, State of New York, drawn by L O W Z Ce O O 'a Z LQ 1L� 1- u CO O 1 a Z Q H H a CO W O Q 3 Q Q0 1✓ LL O ti fn N 1• 1• enL UM N O � o 1- LL O O LOEHR 202.1 150 FT O 150 FT R/O FT Q CO H LL N MERSC14ROD 84.S FT Wti NN 0 s I 137.07 FT 267.07 FT WARM EN ROAD — — CORNEI.L UNI�/ERSITY RIO Alternative 2 and Retains 23.7 ft wide Retains Barn with Farmhouse (Lot 4) Access to. Barn from Fairway Drive • New property line is at least 20 ft00oft wide and at least 150 ft deep • All four lots created are at leas R/O 0 1 Jr 0 LL Na E Drawn By: Bruce Brittain May 18, 2004 Reference: Subdivision Plat: Survey Map of 127 Warren bb on Town of Ithacal d ted April % , 2004 of Tompkins, State of New York, drawn by Lawrence P. Fa O 1�/ W Z 0 CO O a Z Q i- H CO O a Z_ Q H F Ct CO 1- IL �i d Q 1- i LAW �. Q r 3 Cn Q r LL 01 tL O O UOEHR R/O 202.1 FT O 150 FT Z CO 267.07 FT WARREN 1- IL N r' T MERSCHROD R/O 84x8 FT ROAD 0 w� NN 0 T 137.07 FT ;L/O. Alternative 3 3 Barn is Retained and Assigned to La tand at least 150 ft deep • All four lots created are at least 100 ft wide 0 C V�0 LL .......................: i ROAD 0 w� NN 0 T 137.07 FT ;L/O. Alternative 3 3 Barn is Retained and Assigned to La tand at least 150 ft deep • All four lots created are at least 100 ft wide 0 C V�0 LL i in U r N Na W Drawn By: Bruce Brittain May 18, 2004 ference: Subdivision Plat: Survey Map of 127 Warren RobadO1Toa d Aprica, 2004 Re Lawrence P. Fab Of Tompkins, State of New York, drawn by I CORNELL UNIVERSITY O W Z of 0 O 1 ot Z Q i- H m O oc Z r LQ L CD F- N N U1 0 V- LL Q r � LL � � o LL LL O L.OEHP, R/O 202.1 FT O 150 FT O I H IL N r' T Z tY Co :... MERSC14ROD 8/i.8 FT I.................. I .................. O W1. NN 7- 0 15O FT I (37.0? FT 2f37.07 FT C� WARR EN ROAD CORNEI.L UNIVERSITY RIO Alternative 4 of 3 Barn is Retained and Assigned from Lot • NeW property lines are at least 20 t 150 ft deep ft from - • All four lots cre ated are at least 100 ft wide and at leas R/O 0 O U. 0 i NCi Drawn By: Bruce Brittain May 18, 2004 Town o f Ithaca, County Ma of 127 Warren Road, , 2004 Reference: Subdivision Plat: Survey p Lawrence P. Fabbroni, dated April of Tompkins, State of New York, drawn by O W Z d 7 to O R Z Q 1- O IMMWIVU nc Z F' fi Co F- LL AMID O W O VOW l- Q r � 3 � N In Cn - Q LL UA lown LL O LOEHR R/O 202.1 .FT ISO FT D (9) O 150 FT H N f` Q .. Co H LL O to ftumb 287.07 FT W ARREN ROAD MERSC14ROD R/O 8l1.8 FT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . O Wti c� N 0 S 137.07 FT CORNEL1. UIJIVERSITY R/O Alternative 5 Barn is Retained and Assigned to Lot 2 • New property lines are at least 20 ft from barn • All four lots created are at least 100 ft wide an d at least 150 ft deep 0 f— 0 U. 0 .� _ In U V% N N� Drawn By. Bruce Brittain May 18, 2004 Reference: Subdivision Plat: Survey Map of 127 Warren R bdoni d ted of Ithaca, 2004 „f T�mnkins_ State of New York, drawn by Lawrence P. F ILI O O Z O 0 0 a Z Q H 1- CU O 1 a Z a CD LOEHR 2oz.1 o 150 FT 1- LL 0 o W 0 R/O FT d Q Co F- N r MEIZSC14ROD 84vS FT ................... . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . I . . . . 3 in �. Cj 01 O O Q — LL W t�ft in W LU o— 0 150 FT 137.07 FT 287.07 FT Ct WARREN ROAO CORNELL UWIVERSITY R/0 Alternative 6 Retains Barn with Farmhouse (Lot 4) and Provides 23.7 ft wide Access to Neighboring Landlocked, Parcel (66- 3 -3.7) from Fairway Drive • Landlocked parcel (66- 3 -3.7) is approximately 115 x 180 ft • New property lines are at least 20 ft from barn • All four building lots created are at least 100 ft wide and at least 150 ft deep Drawn By: Bruce Brittain May 18, 2004 Reference: Subdivision Plat: Survey Map of 127 Warren Road, Town. of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, drawn by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, dated April 5, 2004 R/O O c� N0 LL �0 = tri u N pt W I Buttermilk Farm 330 West King Road Ithaca NY 14850 May 17, 2004 Dear Town Planning Board Members: MAY 1 7 2004 ' TC"'k.-ItINI OF ITHACA Pi_lliil,rif• :!�;, %(;r', I!i E(JGU'�C.LF;iivG I agree with several of you that the "Country Inn" hotel proposed for the Corner of 96B and West King Road is too massive for that location. Even with changes Mr. Auble's staff will present to you May 18, I question whether it is legal to- approve .a 67 -room, three -story hotel with bus parking, on land zoned "neighborhood commercial ". Truly "neighborhood commercial" enterprises like Sam Peters' Furniture pose no threats. to nearby agriculture, but the proposed hotel complex's traffic, nighttime lights, noise, and litter would have profoundly negative implications for the 1,085 acres of farmland —more than one -sixth of the Town's agricultural land, on West King Road. My family owns the smaller of two farms on this road. If you approve this huge hotel complex one mile away, I predict there will soon be no farms on West King Road. You must choose between massively inappropriate development, and a viable agricultural future; they cannot exist simultaneously. The proposed hotel complex would be the death knell for farming on this road. Because agriculture is so precarious within the whole Town, your approval of this would also send a negative message to the eight remaining farmers throughout the Town, who serve as the unpaid groundskeepers of one -third of the Town's open space. I hope asking,' What does this have to do with farming? The corner of 96B and West King Road hasn't been farmed in years." No one expects that land to be farmed again, because the price Mr. Auble paid makes it too expensive for any farmer to buy. Development Pressure is the reason a big development nearby makes it less likely neighboring farmers will keep farming. All farmers are pressured by high costs and fluctuating income, but those who farm in the shadow of a city have the added pressure of development: higher taxes, noise, light pollution, traffic, and hundreds of new non -farm neighbors who like to look at green fields but not smell manure, listen to tractors drone into the night, or slow down behind a tractor. When a big commercial development like Country Inn and Suites is approved nearby, farmers hold off on investing in new barns or other improvements, waiting to see what will happen. Farmers wonder why developers are making all the money. They start to think about selling out, ATTACHMENT #2 sometimes even falling for slick promises without realizing it's the developers —never the farmers =who end up with the money. Who made millions when East King Road farmland became a new suburb called "Chase Farm "? Not Farmer Chase! The Town's administration was won over by Mr. Auble selling a buffer strip to Buttermilk Falls State Park. Please don't let this sharp public relations move blind you to major negative environmental impact of the proposed development, including the probable loss of one -sixth of the Town's farmland. Before you approve a huge. development up the road from one of the Town's three remaining stretches of farmland, please re -read this excerpt from the Town's 1992 report Planning for Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca: "Farmland, and the farmers who farm it, make a major contribution to the well -being of all Town residents. In addition to direct contributions to the local economy in the form of producing milk, vegetables, fruit, hay, corn and other grains, nursery crops and honey, and employing workers, local farmers make significant indirect contributions to the local economy by buying equipment and supplies, and through their relatively low demands on costly local infrastructure. By keeping 3,440 acres in agricultural production, and an additional 2,530 acres in farm woodlots and inactive agricultural lands (total 5,970 acres), farmers maintain approximately 36% of the open space within the Town. The rural character enjoyed by Town residents and essential to the local tourist industry, is provided largely by local farmers and State Parks ...It is in the Town's interest to promote farming... a cost effective way of maintaining quality of life for everyone in the Town..." Please vote "no" on the Country Inn and Suites proposal. And keep in mind that because of the potential negative impact on agriculture, if you do allow this proposed hotel complex to proceed further, the environmental impact application must, by law, be sent to the Tompkins County Farmland Protection Board as well as the NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets. Sincerely yours, Christiann Dean, Chair Town of Ithaca Agriculture Committee cc: Debbie Teeter, Tompkins County Farmland Protection Board Email Correspondence From: Tony Ingraham {owigorge@earthlink.net) .Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:04 PM To: Susan Ritter Subject: comments for the Town Planning Board Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board: My name is Tony Ingraham and I own my home at 368 Stone Quarry Road, near the intersection with West King Road. I' would like to share with you some concerns I have about David Auble's Country Inn & Suites proposal that you will be reviewing this evening. • Traffic. I am concerned that a hotel of this size will create an additional traffic burden on Stone Quarry Road, as hotel clerks direct guests to stores and restaurants on Elmira Road. This will add to the anticipated increase in: traffic from his multiple residence development, as well as from other development in the South Hill area. As you know, Stone Quarry Road is a steep, winding, and dangerous route that is already overburdened with short -cut traffic of this type. I feel that we are fast approaching the point where increased traffic here will be untenable. • Zoning. I feel that this hotel is way out of line with the intention of the new zoning of "neighborhood commercial" for this land. I feel it will do nothing to serve the neighborhood and will increase the intensity.of development around this intersection. It is my understanding that it is the intention of both the town and the neighborhood that development between Buttermilk Falls State Park and Route 96B will increase gradually in density and intensity as: one moves toward the highway. This represents an unreasonable spike in that gradient. I understand that Mr. Auble got this proposal in under the former Business C zoning, but it certainly is contrary to the intention of the new zoning. In addition, I understand from your memo from the planning department that even Business C only permits 30 rooms in a hotel on this site, not more than twice as many as this project proposes. I strongly urge you not to recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that they give special approval to this project. • Development pressure. I fear that this huge hotel will create incentive for other large commercial projects in the King Rd. /966 intersection area and the West King Road area. This in turn will add more traffic, urbanization impacts, and development pressure. to the surrounding single family residence neighborhood, nearby parkland, and nearby agricultural land on West King Road. Park values. This huge hotel will add to the steadily increasing development impacts and pressures on Buttermilk Falls State Park, the upper entrance of which is only 1/2 mile from the hotel site. Increased traffic, noise, and people /pet pressure threaten to degrade the high quality aesthetic atmosphere of the upper park and the gorge. The NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. rates Buttermilk Falls State Park as an "aesthetic resource of statewide significance." The new zoning on this site and the conservation zoning around the park reflect this. The hotel proposal is distinctly at odds with it. Sincerely, Tony Ingraham 368 Stone Quarry Road Ithaca, NY 14850 275 -0344 owlgorgea7a earthlink net I have put together a community website about -concerns regarding the Auble hotel proposal. You may see it at: http://home;earthlink.net/~owlgoroe/hotelnearbuffermilk ATTACHMENT #3 n 0 ina 7:00 P.M TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, May 18, 2004 AGENDA Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot Glenside Park subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R -15 (Medium Density Residential) and R -9 (High Density Residential). The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off seven small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Sapa /Center 2 -Lot Subdivision, 621 Elm Street Extension. 7:I5 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, Residence District R -15 (Medium Density Residential). The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.67 +/- acre parcel having frontage on Coy Glen Road from the existing 5:2 +/- acre parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant. (This is a modification of a lot that was recently approved by the Planning Board.) 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Fabbroni 4 -Lot Subdivision, 127 Warren Road. 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at the southeast corner of Warren Road and Fairway Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66 -3 -3.12, Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.04 +/- acre parcel into three lots for potential future residences along Fairway Drive and one 0.77 +/- acre lot containing the existing residence at 127 Warren Road. Lawrence P. & Elizabeth H. Fabbroni, Owners /Applicants. 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca College Temporary Modular Office Space, 953 Danby Road. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed temporary office facilities at Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal includes installation of a new 7,750 +/- square foot temporary modular office building located between Dillingham and Smiddy Halls to accommodate 30 -35 employees. The proposal also includes a request for a time extension until September 15, 2009 for the existing 10,890 square foot temporary office facility located to the east of the Park School building. Ithaca College, Owner; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed Country Inn & Suites hotel located at the southwestern corner of West King Road and Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -17.1, Business District "C ". The proposal includes subdividing off a +/- 2.74 -acre parcel from the +/- 4.82 -acre parcel for the construction of a 67 -room hotel at the intersection. The proposal also includes approximately 72 parking spaces, sidewalks, signage, landscaping, and lighting. David Auble, Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, for Jay Bramhandkar, Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Agent. 10. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 11. Approval of Minutes: May 4, 2004, 12. Other Business: 13. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE. IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 4747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, May 18, 2004 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot Glenside Park subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive '(NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R -15 (Medium Density Residential) and R -9 (High Density Residential). The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing 'off seven small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John F. Young &.Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant.. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town 'of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, Residence District R -15 (Medium Density Residential). The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.67 +/- acre parcel having frontage on Coy Glen Road from the existing 5.2 +/- acre parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant. (This is a modification of a lot that was recently approved by the Planning Board.) 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located .at the southeast corner of Warren Road and Fairway Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66 -3 -3.12, Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.04 +/- acre parcel into three lots for potential future residences along Fairway Drive and one 0.77 +/- acre lot containing the existing residence at 127 Warren Road. Lawrence P. & Elizabeth H. Fabbroni, Owners /Applicants. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed temporary office facilities at Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal includes installation of a new 7,750 +/- square foot, temporary modular office building located between Dillingham and Smiddy Halls to accommodate 30 -35 employees. The proposal also includes a request for a time extension until September 15, 2009 for the existing 10,890 square foot temporary office facility located to the east of the Park School building. Ithaca College, Owner; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, May 10, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 ;:The` thaca= ourndt TV : ":Wednesday, im4y X12, 2004 TOWN-OF :ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE•OE,PUBUC „:: , , HEARINGS Tuesday, .r Ai6iy:118; 004, By direction =of_ the;`Choir Plr-nn nn 004 at 2f5 Norfli Tioga f7:25 PM - Consideration;: treet, ifhaca; N Y � atahe of Preliminary and ?:final- dlowmg times and on the � Subdivision Approval for the' dlowmg matters Proposed 44ot subdivision_ located�o the'southedst.car -' 05 P M Consideration Iner of Warren Road, and f - Final Subdivision Apppro IFaiiw Drive, Townf'of: oI' for the:;_ "proposedl.5 -lot Ithdcaiaz' Parcel No. 66:3% densicl Park subdivision 3 X12 Medium Density -.Resi-'I >cated ..along Glenside , +denhal` zone JThe. ro sal ' oad and: Five Milib Drrye ° i includes su6drviding �_ the' qYS Route= l3A) Town of 12'04, ±/ :acre parcel into hacci Tax Parcel No > 301 ' thiee lots for potential future. Residence;(Distr ich R 15 residences along Fairwb Medium Derisrty, lln ivn .�nrt_ nna .n %% / vensiry xesiaennuq , n,e m residence at 127'.Wdr- proposal mdudes subdIvi 9 Road lawience -P. & ingahe 44 ±: +/ acre parcel Eliiabeth N r Fabbroni . into three residential lots For Owners %Applicants Saki, one 7+/ acre lot to <: be'-dedicated to the Town of r7 :45 P.M. .,sConsideratioril Ithaca for.. a recreational; Iof Prelimioary and FinalSite, park and 32.5 +/ ocr4s to CPlan Approval' and, Special be :retained by the owner f p for possible future cli)Velo Permit= for the proposed Po �• Ltemporary office faolitievat+ menf ' proposal aYso m ! I lih$ca College, 953 Danby eludes subdrvidmgg off seven 11 oad Tovm.of Ithaca -?7ax small parcels: to be consols P07 small, 41 1 30 2 =-Me dated with' adjacent'resi&6- ` dium .•Density ,Residential: 1. tiaP lots to correct existing- Zone jTh` pro poSal ` vin encroachment ioblems . , m 'eludes stdlloion rot a new, John .F. Young 8 usan M '7 750 ± / -;s ware foot tem Barnett •Owners ` `P6trick f;porary modular dffrce'buil& Leahy Applicant ingg located between, 7:15 P M Consider`dtion Dillingham �6ndr { Smid •i ' dy of'' °Preliminary and;Final Halls to'bccommodate 30 SUbiAMsiaq A` rovaLfor the 35�employees The pro- PP posal also,;, includes a",re Proposed twolot subdivision uest for a lime extension`' acated on Coy Glen;;Road ,9. and Elm . Street Extension, 'until September 15, 2009 Town of lthaca.Tax;Parcel {for the sexistmg 10,890. No . 29- 8 -5:1, .Residence square fooCfemporaiy'office, District R- 15- IMedium Densr �faciliyy located to the east of ty Residential) The propos fthidco rk; School building:: al is•to: subdivide offa:0 67 Freida College,- Owner, Fred Vanderksurgh AgenE =. +/• acre parcel haymy L t',, frontage on ;Coy Glen =Road Said Planning Board will at from the existing, 5 =2 :t /• said times and 'said: place acre parcel'Ahavin a':resf hear 'all persons in support dence•at 621 Elm Street.Ex- of such matters or objections tension Kirk Saga_ -and. thereto .'Persons may -ap-` 'Sharon Center, i ear by agent or in person. .Owner /Applicant (this" is Pndiwduals. with visual im a modification of a _lot that irment, hearig ipipa r- was recently approved by ments or other special the Planning, Board:) l needs, will'_be;provided with •.assistance' ,as necessary, upon request: Persons'desir- succh•a request hotuless than 48 °hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273.1747 Dated:, Monday, May 101 2004 ,Publish: Wednesday, May 12, 2004. ,, , TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: May 18, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION VuiAOCfl1 IObS" (,J�•rl e� /F�.c�) 33o co R ®I /g7f Rei 1 r i cA FcAbb r'cn,- ) 2 7 L A3G0. r r-e r'-�x Zz' let e L cEx 1 '3 0 T -L� v R, c n, _ �-s sxr� Cod cam- po ;,D' 2a 0 c� lea v0�, $ �� CSw --�✓ j GU I� LEA "1 z d -/ f rl 14k -Gt TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION „ 1 I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as Ier attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk-Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: May 10, 2004 Date of Publication: May 12, 2004 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before one this 12th day of May 2004, Notary Public Dani L. Holford Notary Public, State Of New York No. 01H06052879 Seneca county My Commission Expires Dec. 260 01001_