HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-03-07FILE
DATE 22 2
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK
PRESENT
Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member, George Conneman, Board
Members Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Members Rod Howe,
Board Members Kevin Talty, Board Members Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planners Christine
Balestra, Planners Nicole Tedesco, Planners Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town
Clerk.
EXCUSED
Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
OTHERS
Fred Vanderburgh,q Ithaca College; Carl Sgrecci, Ithaca College; Susan Engelkemeyer,
Ithaca. College; David Herrick, TG Miller; Jennifer Stone, Robert A.M. Stern Architects;
Kevin Smith, Robert A.M. Stern Architects; Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive;
Shelley Mulvaney, 1040 East Shore Drive.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and accepts for the
record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in
Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 27, 2006 and March 1, 2006, 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 March 1, 20068
Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board
on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to
address the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca College
School of Business building located north of Job and Friends Halls on the
Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1-
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the
construction of a new +/- 38,000 gross square foot building which will
include new classrooms, faculty offices, conference rooms, and an atrium for
the School of Business. The project will also include new lighting, walkways,
stormwater facilities, landscaping, and a +/= 3,780 square foot green roof.
Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — Fred, you are up first, I guess.
Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College
Okay. Thank you. First I would like to do some introduction of the folks that are here.
tonight either representing or from Ithaca College. . To my far left is Susan
Engelkemeyer, the Dean of the Business School. She is going to be the person to head
this thing up once it is open. To my far right is Jennifer Stone from Robert A. M. Stern.
They do exist. There is another architect on his way. He left New York City around 3
o'clock and he is trying to get here as fast as he can. When Kevin gets here, Kevin
Smith, he will be joining us if he makes it. Again to my left, is Carl Sgrecci. Carl is
head of Finance and Administration, Vice President at Ithaca College. Then again to my
right is Dave Herrick, who you all know, who represents TG Miller. David is the site
engineer for this project. So with that, I am going to turn it over to the folks who are
going to explain this project to you and enjoy.
David Herrick, TG'Miller
Good evening. David Herrick. TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors, Ithaca. I would just
like to do a very quick overview of the progress that we made since we last appeared
here on December 20th when we received our preliminary approval. When we get
through your questions and answers I sensed from the Board at the 20th meeting that
you did have a keen interest in the sustainable aspects of this buildings and since we
will have the architects here tonight if you would like to take time to ask questions
about what goes into a project such as this that makes it sustainable, not just from the
initial construction, but from its operation and maintenance feel free. So maybe this
will be an educational opportunity in addition to just looking for your approval.
So where have we been and what have we done? We have made some
modifications in our design since the preliminary approval. They are summarized in the
introduction of the application package. I will just go to them quickly. There was a
very small increase in the size of the building; 1500 square feet came about as a result
of more detailed design and an understanding of mechanical systems that caused the
footprint to grow to accommodate them. There has been an alteration in the exterior
color of the phenolic wood veneer panels. We have some rendered elevations, which
we will share with you, and also some samples to show you how that color did change.
We have added extensive native ground cover areas beyond what we showed in the
landscape plan previously. That is a result of, again, looking to gain additional
acknowledgment and points for the lead certification. We have also added some shade
2
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
trees along the east /west sidewalk. I'll point those out to you. They are on the site
plan here. We have also added some bothered lighting at the pedestrian entrances at
both the. east and west end of the building. Importantly, last week we received the
height variance for the Board of Zoning Appeals for this structure. You can see, given
the nice model in front of me, what the relationship is between our proposed building
and the surrounding Job and Friends Halls.
The last thing I would like to comment on would be the memo that came from
the Ithaca Fire Department, Assistant Chief Tom Parsons. He and I met. Discussed
their approach to accessing this building and also accessing Friends Hall given that we
will have, in essence, a bridge or impairment in their way for being able to drive
through what used to be E -Lot. So in going over access and water hydrant location
issues, we came up with methods of resolving his questions. He put them in the form
of a memo and we are now in the process with our construction documents of fulfilling
those obligations and requests from the Fire Department. So we won't have any
problem with taking care of their needs. With that, I would like to open to questions
from you if you have any.
Chairperson Wilcox - I know you have a colored rendering of what this building is going
to look like.
Mr. Herrick — Do you have your remote microphone?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, we do.
Jennifer Stone, Robert A.M. Stern Architects
Major change for the building elevations since the preliminary plan has been the color
of the phenolic panel. Originally we had shown and lighter blond color wood as a rain
screen panel system and after further discussion with the Executive Committee, we
have actually selected a darker cherry wood, if you will, for the base. Which we
actually think looks very nice with the stone, the Llenroc blue stone base, which we do
have samples here. It is the local land rock, which you are probably very familiar with.
It is all over Cornell's campus and Ithaca's campus as well. So we think those two
together would be very handsome on Ithaca's campus. Also, we have selected some
glazing types. These have not changed, but these are actually the glazing that we
selected for the curtain wall. This is actually for the vertical curtain wall, which will be
in the atrium space. We're trying to keep it as clear as possible, but be as high
performance as possible for energy savings. The faceted wall, will be a slight variation,
which is the first one I showed you. It will have a little bit more reflectivity, but will
have as clear as we can get and still have the high performance quality so that the
value and high performance will give the energy savings that we need. So this is the
curved wall here and the vertical curtain wall for the atrium there.
3
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Otherwise ... we have an aluminum rain screen panel, which you have. all seen
before. That is forthese edge panels here. You will see it predominately on the east
and west elevations. So together we think that it is a handsome pallet and we think it
will actually go very nicely on Ithaca's campus. Otherwise as far as change in the
building, like David mentioned, the site ... the native vegetation has changed mostly
because we need to have a certain amount of native vegetation on campus to achieve
lead credit. So we think that the way we have tackled that on the site is actually not
only better for sustainable, but also for the campus. We are working with Hargraves
Associates, as a landscape architect who ... I think this is included in your packet, but has
selected some native vegetation ground covers and wild grasses so there will be a
mixture of things on the site surrounding the building and will allow us to keep meeting
our platinum goal for lead.
As far as the size changes, answering your question, what has changed in the
building, there has been a slight increase of the building footprint, but that is mostly
because of coordination issues. Coordination issues with mechanical ducts getting a
little larger for our system, but nothing has programmatically increased the building
footprint. So just the nature of developing the design further and moving walls here
and there to make the building structure work.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — I was very impressed with the model and the fact that you
have glass showing where there will be windows, but I realized when I look at the plans
now that the curved glass wall is not indicated on the model. Is that right?
Ms. Stone — Oh, yes. We should turn it around.
Board Member Thayer — It's on the back.
Board Member Hoffmann — But I thought that when I looked on the back that that
wasn't there. It also shows on the side, doesn't it?
Ms. Stone — This is the curvature of what you will see on the east elevation and the
west elevation, but this actually is a faceted wall. That actually was designed that way
so that it actually for future solar panels and so as an alternate we are studying to use.
So it is oriented, actually. This is south facing so the sun is actually ... the angle was
intentionally designed for sustainable features. Actually, the entire building design...the
massing of the building, the low portions of the building versus the high portions of the
building were intentionally designed not only to preserve views to the lake, but also to
get as much natural circulation and daylight into every single room in the building.
2
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I guess it wasn't just the side facing south, but I guess
maybe I'm a little confused. Are there supposed to be glass panels on the western
fagade, too? -
Ms. Stone — Yes. This is the western fagade so the fountain is here.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right.
Ms. Stone — This is metal panel. There is no glazing on this fagade here. The faceted
glazing is on the south fagade. What you do have on the west fagade is a glazed
atrium, which will actually have views out to the lake towards the north. So...
Board Member Hoffmann — Thanks.
Ms. Stone — You are welcome.
Board Member Mitrano — Who gets to keep the model?
Ms. Stone — We knew that would come up.
Board Member Thayer — Who created the model?
Ms. Stone — Oh, we have our sources. We have an excellent model maker and we are
very happy with the way it came out.
Board Member Thayer — It is really nice.
Ms. Stone — And we have wonderful photographs to share.
Chairperson Wilcox — We need to thank you for bringing it in, too. I saw the big case it
came in.
Ms. Stone — Oh, you're welcome.
Chairperson Wilcox — Its one thing to create thing and it's another to lug it in.
Ms. Stone — I'm glad I didn't hit any big potholes on the way up. It was a good case.
Chairperson Wilcox — This gentleman didn't fly you up?
Ms. Stone — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's another discussion.
A
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Ms. Stone — Flying is not the best way to get here.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions? If we have questions about the uniqueness
of the building with regard to the energy saving or the conservation measures, are you
prepared to address those?
Ms. Stone — We can: do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — What makes this building unique?
Kevin Smith, Robert A.M. Stern Architects
Well, I missed the beginning and I'm sure Jennifer did explain...
Chairperson Wilcox Yeah, Well, Fred gave us back in December his explanation of the
elements that made this building...
Mr. K. Smith — What we did in looking at this is trying to do effectively with as few bells
and whistles as possible just look at really good design and look at total energy usage
of the building and Jennifer has hit on some of the ... daylighting because that reduces
the demand for artificial lighting. Very high performance of the total envelope and also
using heat recovery to get the heat back that you get in when you have to have a lot of
fresh air. One of things about sustainable buildings is they want a lot of fresh air
because that is one of the things that keeps them healthy, but that is possibly a way of
losing energy. So we have total heat recovery. We have entropy wheels to get back
the latent heat and as part of the heat recovery thing and also to give you a little bit of
humidification because there is water that is given off by people water in the building
and you get all that back in the winter time. This building is currently calculated at a
little bit better than 51% savings over a conventional building, which is designed to
relatively strict energy standards. So it is really all of those factors put together. The
highest quality boilers, the best air handlers or so on, but there is no one thing that you
can point to. You can't say it is solar panels or whatever. We have actually tried to
maximize every feature. Another thing I should add, one of the things that make it
very efficient in terms of the mechanical system is using displacement ventilation. So
all the air is delivered low. So that way we are able to condition in the high spaces only
the part up to about 6 feet where you are standing. And that allows us to have a much
higher aired temperature delivery in the cooling cycle and just keep everything more
comfortable. It has the added benefit of maintaining a much higher air quality. So one
of the things we were able to do and this one is ... usually when you have that you have
to have a raised floor system. There are a lot of examples out there and we were able
to do in this building, things in the walls and so on to get displacement ventilation
throughout the entire building without the expense of raised flooring. We are very
proud of this building. It is not an inexpensive building, but it is really proving that a
platinum level of sustainability can be done just by using a lot of common sense
features, thinking of the building as a whole from the very beginning and getting just a
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
really exceptional level of performance out of relatively ordinary items. For example,
the ceilings of the building are in much of the building exposed concrete plank and that
is purposefully done to get thermal mass so that when it is cool at night you are
bringing in outside air and on hot days that cool stays in the building and you don't
have to use as much mechanical air conditioning so it is whole series of features. Hope
that is helpful on the energy savings side. I think Fred probably explained recovering
rainwater, reusing that. It is doing exceptionally well in terms of its water use.. Any
other questions?
Chairperson Wilcox - Will this building pay for itself?
Mr. K. Smith — No building will actually pay for itself.
Chairperson Wilcox Okay. Will the increase cost of building the structure be paid back
with reduced utility bills over its projected life?
Mr. K. Smith — Yes. I think the increased cost of specifically the mechanical system; the
upgrades on those will be paid back relatively quickly. It depends on how you describe
costs. But other buildings that we have done we have actually had energy audits and
both in the way it is actually performed and against its computer modeling...
Board Member Conneman — Could you put a number on it relatively quickly?
Mr. K. Smith — 21/2 to 3 years payback on the specific energy features of the building.
Chairperson Wilcox — So this is something that could be applied and used by other
builders?
Mr. K. Smith — Absolutely.
Chairperson Wilcox It is not because Ithaca College was willing to pay more money
for a building that meant certain requirements. Anybody else? We are all set. Thank
you for driving quickly to get here. David, you are all set?
Mr. Herrick —Yes.
Ms. Stone — We have photographs of the model.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think we are all set, unless Carl, you want to make a statement
or...I think we're...
Board Member Thayer — I'd like to see the photographs.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
7
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Ms. Stone presented photographs of the model to the board.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm trying to imagine it with a darker panel and I think the
model shows much lighter than it will be. I think it will be very nice with a darker
panel, actually.
Chairperson Wilcox - Michael, comments? All set?
Mr. Smith — All set.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. and invites members of the
public to address the board. With no one interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox
closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.
Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Talty seconds the motion.
Chairperson Wilcox - Susan, we're all set on your side?
Ms. Brock — Yes, we are.
Chairperson Wilcox David, did you ... or Fred, since you are the lead agent here. Did
you seethe resolution as drafted and the provision about submission of the Ithaca Fire
Department approval related to access and water supply prior to the issuance of a
building permit?
Mr. Vanderburgh — Yes, I did.
Chairperson Wilcox — And you are comfortable with that?
Mr. Vanderburgh — Yup.
Chairperson Wilcox — David, you will work out the details?
Mr. Herrick —We will.
Board votes on motion.
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 's 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30, 4
MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Talty.
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
WHEREAS;
1. This action, involves consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Ithaca College School of Business building located north of Job and Friends Halls
on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. s 41 -1 -30.2 and
41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the
construction of a new +1- 38,000 gross square foot building which will include
new classrooms, faculty offices, conference rooms, and an atrium for the School
of Business. The project will also include new lighting, walkways, stormwater
facilities, landscaping, and a +/- 3,780 square foot green roof. Ithaca College,
Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent, and
2. The proposed actions, which include site plan approval and special permit by the
Planning Board and a height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, are Type
I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part
617, and Town of Ithaca. Code, Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, for
which the Planning Board at its December 20, 2005 meeting issued a negative
determination of environmental significance, and
3. The Planning Board, at a meeting on December 20, 2005, granted Preliminary
Site Plan Approval and Special Permit with conditions for the proposal, and
4. The Zoning Board of Appeals, at their meeting on February 27, 2006, granted a
height variance for the proposed Ithaca College School of Business, and
5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 7, 20061 has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Site Section Looking East" (A -1.0),
"North Elevation / South Elevation" (A -1.1), "East Elevation / West Elevation" (A-
1.2), "North Elevation / South Elevation (rendering)" (A -1.3), "East Elevation /
West Elevation (rendering)" (A -1.4), "First Floor Plan" (A -1.5), "Second Floor
Plan" (A -1.6), "Third Floor Plan" (A -1.7), "Fourth Floor Plan" (A -1.8), "Penthouse
Floor Plan" (A -1.9), "Roof Plan" (A- 1.10), "Materials & Layout" a o), 'Grading
Plan" (L1.1), "Planting Plan" (L1.2), "Planting Plan - Floor 2" (L1.3), "Site
Photometric Diagram" (L1.4), "Demolition Plan" (C1.1), "Utility Plan" (C1.2),
"Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (C1.3), "Details" (C1.4), dated 217106,
prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and Robert A.M. Stern Architects, and other
application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED;
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval
for the construction of the proposed Ithaca College School of Business located
north of Job and Friends Hall, as shown on the plans titled "Site Section Looking
East" (A -1.0), "North Elevation /South Elevation" (A -1.1), "East Elevation/ West
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Elevation" (A -1.2), "North Elevation / South Elevation (rendering)" (A-1.3), "East
Elevation / West Elevation (rendering)" (A -1.4), "First Floor . Plan" (A -1.5),
"Second Floor Plan" (A -1.6), "Third Floor Plan" (A -1.7), "Fourth Floor Plan" (A-
I v 8), "Penthouse Floor Plan" (A -1.9), . "Roof Plan" (A- 1.10), "Materials & Layout"
ai, o); . "Grading Plan" (L1.1), "Planting Plan" (L1.2), "Planting Plan - Floor 2"
(L1.3), "Site Photometric Diagram" (L1.4), "Demolition Plan" (C1.1), "Utility Plan"
(C1.2), "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (C1.3), "Details" (0.4), dated
217106, prepared by T. G. Miller, P C., and Robert A. M. Stern Architects, subject
to the following conditions: .
a, submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings on mylar,
vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor,
engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan
material, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and
bm submission of record of application for and approval of all necessary
permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, Including but not
limited to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the Notice of
Intent for NYSDEC, and water and /or sewage system approval from
Tompkins County Health Department, and
C submission of Ithaca Fire Department approval relating to access and
water supply, prior to the issuance of any building permits
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -029: Approval of Minutes: February 21, 2006
MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer.
RESOL VED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the February 21,
2006 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meeting as presented with corrections
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES .• Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Ta/ty.
ius
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Now, we have seen a couple ... I just want to make sure here. We
had the initial proposal. We had what this board revised it to when we reduced the
length and the size of the extension.
Ms. Balestra — Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — Then ... and we asked the applicant to go to the ZBA and we asked
them to move the location and we asked them to go to the ZBA. Then Mr. Knewstub
came back with a proposal to extend the length and this board essentially frowned
upon that
Ms. Balestra — The length and also a larger dock at the end.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right. That got dropped. The original one went to the ZBA. We
have their resolution. We saw what they approved and now that original as modified
by this board is now back to this board.
Ms. Balestra — Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. We are all set. You may have a seat. We
do have someone who wishes to speak. We may have some more questions for you
later.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and invites the public to
address the board.
Shelley Mulvaney, 1040 East Shore Drive
Shelley Mulvaney. I live at 1040 East Shore Drive. I am very close by. My concerns
about the length of the dock are a couple of different things. Just a safety issue for ... at
the southern end of the lake I have lived there for the last 11 years. There is a fair
amount of boat traffic. So if one dock is sticking out further than all the other docks
that are already lined up, then it is a safety hazard as well as boaters driving along at
night who...its really difficult if you have ever been on a boat on the lake at night to see
docks and to see things. So if you see where all the docks come out to in the evening
and there is one protruding out further it is a huge safety factor as well as for water -
skiers who might not ... the driver might not notice that there is one dock that goes out a
lot further. So I have major safety concerns about this dock. As well as if it doesn't
look like it goes with the rest of everything that is out there ... I mean I live there. I
think people should be able to do what they want to do, but mainly I am concerned
mostly about safety issues.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Question?
12
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
NAYS None.
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann..
The vote on the motion was carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox gave the board a copy of a proposed subdivision he found in the
Ithaca Journal Real Estate Supplement. He noted the odd layout of the lots so that
they would meet zoning requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the construction of a dock
located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2,
Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile
dock, 8' wide by 60' long with a 12' by 12 ` "L" end extension for a total of
528 +/= square feet of surface area. Jason Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B.
Knewstub, Applicant.
Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive
Jason Sokoloff. Address is 1126 East Shore Drive.
Chairperson Wilcox — Since you are representing yourself tonight and not Mr. Knewstub,
who we have become very familiar with, I would like for you to briefly describe what
happened at the Zoning Board of Appeals when you were there.
Mr. Sokoloff — It looks like the latest plan was approved, which was the...
Chairperson Wilcox'— Did that include moving the dock or shifting the location of the
dock as this board requested? That is a yes.
Mr. Sokoloff — I believe so, yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — The answer is yes?
Ms. Balestra — The answer is yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from the board? Did you decide to get a smaller boat?
Mr. Sokoloff — Thinking about that, yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox - Comments from staff?
Ms. Balestra — No comments. We do have a Zoning Board resolution from that
meeting.
11
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Mitrano — I have a question for Mrs. Mulvaney. One of the
considerations that we have had is we have had tried to wrestle with the dock
questions that have come forward is allowing the applicants sufficient docks so that
they can dock their boats and do you have. any comments on that about how it works
with some of the other docks in your area?
Ms. Mulvaney — Well, they do and they all go out to approximately the same length and
I could give you a list of probably people that you all know who have driven their boat
right up to the end of my dock. The lake is very low right now, but normally in the
summer time you can get a very large boat in pretty close. It is deep lake. I am not
sure what kind of a large vessel he wants to bring in, but it hasn't been a problem in
the past. I know that sailboats have a keel, but it hasn't ever been a problem. I have a
friend who brings his sailboat right up to my dock and it's a pretty big sailboat. I can't
tell you the exact number of feet that his keel goes beneath the water, but I know it's
quite a few. I know that it is normally 10 feet deep at the end of my dock if not
deeper. So it hasn't been an issue.
Board Member Mitrano = And might I ask about how long is your dock?
Ms. Mulvaney — You know, I didn't measure it. I would have measured it for you. I
have a broken back otherwise I would have run out there and measured it. I don't
know. I would say 30 feet, 25 feet, 30 feet. It's the same length as everyone else's.
Some people's are 8 feet wide. Some are 6 feet wide.
Ms. Balestra — Tracy, for the COC Nicole and I completed a dock inventory and an
analysis of all docks on both sides of the lake. We weren't able to go, actually, and
measure a lot of them because of the weather conditions because the weather is too
cold. From our arcview measurements, your dock, actually is approximately 40 feet
long and many of the docks on East Shore Drive are, in fact, between 30 to 50 feet
existing.
Board Member Mitrano — This property is also the one that protrudes out? Is that
correct? So not only is the dock longer, but it will protrude out more because the
property is on a little bit of a protrudement?
Ms. Balestra — Yes.. It does have a little bit of a protrudement.
Board Member Mitrano — So are you suggesting, Chris that it might by comparison to
the other docks in that relative area be out 10 to 20 more feet?
Ms. Balestra — I am suggesting in the immediate surrounding ones it will extent
somewhat farther. I don't see it as a significant impact of navigation.
Board Member Conneman — There is a difference between 40 feet and 60 feet.
13
Planning Board Minutes
.March 7, 2006
Approved
Ms. Balestra — Its 20 feet.
Board Member Conneman — So then is extends out 10 more, which means it is double
the size of her dock.
Ms. Balestra — It is not double the size of her dock. If her dock is 40 feet long and his
dock is...
Ms. Mulvaney — Did you actually measure my dock?
Ms. Balestra — We measured some of them and then we used aerial photos and
arcview. We will be doing a more thorough analysis.
Chairperson Wilcox — I am sitting here going through the file hoping to find...because
had an aerial photograph that shows all the docks in that neighborhood and I don't see
it here.
Board Member Mitrano — It was very helpful.
Board Member Hoffmann — But I think, Tracy, what you are asking or saying is that
because this proposed dock we are looking at tonight starts out further from the others,
the shoreline is further out, then you add 60 feet. That means the end of that dock is
quite a bit further out than the end of the other docks. It is more than 20 feet I
suspect.
Board Member Mitrano — That's my point. If it is 20 or 30 feet more than the other
docks, plus it's starting at 20 or 30 feet then you are up to about 50 extra feet.
Board Member Thayer — I don't really think it's a safety issue, however. I mean when
you are boating; particularly at night when you are boating you are way out 2000, 1000
feet. You never coming that tight of the shore. Plus this is toward the end of the lake
so your tendency is to go slow and it is very weedy there so you can't get in too close
any way. So I don't see a big safety issue here with the length of it any way.
Chairperson Wilcox - I have the aerial here that we had for the previous discussion. I
can pass it around, but it has in the vicinity it points out 50 -foot dock, 42, 42, 42 and
then there is one in Lansing just to the north that is 55. I will pass that down.
Board Member Mitrano — When was the water level taken that is in this sketch that we
have here? It says ordinarily high water level. Is it reflective of that period from 4/15
to 11/15?
iG!
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. We can bring the applicant back up or ... do we have any
questions for Ms. Mulvaney?
Board Member Mitrano — No. Thank you.
Ms. Mulvaney — I guess I would just like to respond to what Mr. Thayer said in regard
to boats are going very slowly and there is not much traffic there in the evening and it
is the southern end of the lake where a lot of college students and a lot of wind surfers
and others go off from East Shore sailing. I refer to them as teenagers or yahoos who
are reckless and they drive around on their jet skies and there is a lot of activity of
people driving not quite as cautiously as I would like them to be driving some of the
time. So I do think it is a place where there is a fair amount of activity on the lake
because a lot of people put in at East Shore Sailing and a lot of people who may not be
the best the boaters in the world. I'm just saying my opinion since I do live there that
there is a lot activity certain parts of the summer of people who don't know the lake
that well.
Board Member Hoffmann — I was just going to add something similar, Larry, because I
think that we have a fair proportion of people coming into to Town every year who are
new to the area and who are not so familiar with what the lake is like and how far the
docks stick out and soon, For them, I would see that there would be a safety. issue.
Board Member Thayer — The majority of the boat traffic, the large boat traffic is on the
other side because it is going in and out of the canal and they tend to stay away from
the weeds and so on. But its true there are a lot of jet skiers and so on.
Ms. Mulvaney — In the last couple of years it hasn't been that weedy up from where I
am. It is not that weedy until very late in the summer and it just depends on the
particular summer actually.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion?
Board Member Hoffmann - I have a question for Chris, if I may?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely..
Board Member Hoffmann — Do you have any information about the depth of the water
at the end of most of these docks or is that something you haven't gotten to?
15
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Ms. Balestra — That is something that we have been unable to measure. In order to
measure an exact calculation, we would have to go to the end of every one of these
residents' docks and measure the depth and we haven't had an opportunity to do that.
Board Member Hoffmann — Because that is one of the crucial things, it seems to me.
Ms. Balestra — I know.
Board Member Hoffmann — I mean that is one of the arguments that we keep hearing
as a reason for why the docks have to go so far out is that the water depth has to be
sufficient..
Ms. Balestra — It will be sufficient for different types of boats. The depth will need to
be different.
Mr. Kanter — Also, the water depth is so variable at different seasons. Like right now,
they basically drain Seneca and Cayuga Lakes so that they do not flood too much. So
this would not be a good time to measure because it would not reflect what...
Chairperson Wilcox — It was part of the draw down.
Ms. Balestra — It will tell you the low water.
Mr. Kanter — On the other hand, you can heavy rainstorms where the depth gets much
larger than usual so you would kind of have to look at average depths over some period
of time.
Board Member Mitrano — That is why I was curious about sheet 3 of 4.
Board Member Thayer- I'm surprised that there is a foot drop for every 10. I didn't
think it went that quickly.
Ms. Balestra — It changes. The shoreline is so irregular it is hard to tell from property to
property really.
Board Member Mitrano — So these depths here, madam, are the ones reflected through
April to November or this is what it looks like now?
Board Member Thayer — No. That is ordinary. April through November.
Chairperson Wilcox — A reasonable average for lake level.
Ms. Balestra — For this property.
16
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Mitrano — When Mrs. Mulvaney was speaking, she said that at the end of
her dock it is 10 feet if she is at 40 feet or something in that ballpark. Am I reading this
correctly that it is only 6 feet at the end of this dock?
Chairperson Wilcox — We have been provided information that at 60 feet we have 6 foot
of depth.
Board Member Conneman — Chris, how was that determined? Where did the 6 feet
come from?
Ms. Balestra — I believe Mr. Knewstub went out and measured.
Board Member Conneman — When?
Ms. Balestra — I do not know when. I know that he had this information previously
because the Army Corps of Engineers requires this information when you apply for their
permits. So I don't know when.
Mr. Sokoloff — It was late in the summer because he went out in waders with a ruler.
Board Member Mitrano — Because if that is the case, then I can appreciate why 60 feet
might be needed.
Chairperson Wilcox — I will be a little informal. I will give you a chance in a second.
Board Member Hoffmann — But that is only if you have a boat that requires that much
depth.
.Board Member Thayer — For diving or whatever too, you need that.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, what I am thinking of
some of these docks as Mrs. Mulvaney said, °I have
she has 10 feet at the end of her dock and there is o
dock, which is an amount of water and I suppose that
is not an enormous amount of water.
is that it is just the difference of
very big boats coming in." Well
my 6 feet here at the end of this
one could get by with less, but it
Board Member Hoffmann — But if you have a boat, which is not a sailboat, you probably
don't even need 6 feet. And if you have a sailboat, you can do what our last applicant
suggested that he was going to do and that is to put in a place to moor the boat further
out.
Board Member Mitrano — Right. I see that frequently, too.
`VA
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Thayer — My dock, which is much further north of this, is exactly the
same dimension, 60 feet.
Board Member Talty — What side, Larry? West or east?
Board Member Thayer — East.
Ms. Balestra — We will have to confirm when we measure them, but it does appear that
the west shore has longer docks than the east shore from our initial analysis.
Mr. Kanter — And a lot more.
Ms. Balestra — And there are many more. There are more properties on the west side
than the east side.
Chairperson Wilcox — Susan?
Ms. Brock — One point that was brought up during the Zoning Board meeting, too, as
you dock your boat and the boat comes in and you have a 20 foot boat now you are in
4 feet of water at the front of the boat. You just don't look at the depth at the end of
the dock. Maybe you were all well aware of that, but that was something that was
explained to the ZBA.
Board Member Mitrano — No, that is exactly right. I was thinking that, too.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mrs. Mulvaney has another comment and I would like to give her
an opportunity.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, let's hear it.
Ms. Mulvaney — More than so much a comment, I just had a suggestion. I mean I can't
tell you the exact number of feet at the end of my dock. I can make you list of boats
that have come in there, which I know have big keels and I swum there so I know it is
approximately 10 feet, but I know that there are experts who know things like this and
I was just going to suggest ... like Tony Ingraham from the Parks Department. He is
very familiar with everything under the lake and how deep things are and so I don't
know if there are other resources that can be tapped to get this data rather than just
someone sticking a stick in and thinking they feel the bottom of the lake. I mean I
know Tony Ingraham personally at the Parks Department. He has always supplied me
with wonderful amounts of great information about different shelves in the lake and
where can and cannot drive a boat in the middle of that lake. So where he wants to
put a dock it might be a very different situation under there than it is right in front of
my house. I am not an expert. I guess my suggestion was to maybe go to an expert
and find out what the bottom of the lake is like right around that area.
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Is this the same gentleman who just retired or retired recently.
from State Parks? Yeah. I think we know him pretty well.
Mr. Kanter — Several years ago, actually.
Ms. Mulvaney — I just know him personally. He is very tall.
Chairperson Wilcox - He has been here before. For the record, we do have a document
from Mr. Sokoloff's agent who is also the dock builder, Mr. Knewstub, and this
document tells us that at 60 feet he has 6 feet of water at this location.
Board Member Conneman — But no documentation on where it came from. I mean did
he draw it up? Did he measure? Or did it come from a study?
Chairperson Wilcox — The previous applicant here this evening presented their drawings
and we assume, unless we know otherwise, that the drawings are accurate and correct.
Board Member Conneman — You mean Ithaca College?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely? And though this is hand drawn and not computer
drawn, I have to give it the same weight personally unless I hear someone to tell me
that it is wrong.
Board Member Mitrano — Absolutely.
Board Member Talty — I would just like to say something to back up what Larry saying
earlier. Way out here is this little speedboat. Now I have no idea if it is a 12400ter,
18 footer or whatever it is, but whatever it is from this distance down, I want everyone
to take a look at that boat versus all these docks all the way along there and the
different of 10 feet. He is not looking for a 150 400t dock.
Chairperson Wilcox — He started at 70.
Board Member Talty — But it is a scale of that motorboat versus the shoreline and I
think that gives Larry's statements much ... I think we often lose it in the photographs.
Chairperson Wilcox — If someone has reason to believe or knowledge that the
information that we have been provided is incorrect then lets hear it.
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know if it is correct or incorrect, but its not drawn to
scale. It says that 1/8 inch is.1 foot, but then if you measure out where it is supposed
to be 10.foot differences between the poles except for one place here where it is 8 and
then 12. It's different in every instance. 10 feet is at different distances in every
19
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
instance. It's drawn very roughly by hand. I mean the drop here, too, I mean it is
almost a straight line .whereas there would be a deeper drop right there if it were drawn
to scale.
Ms. Balestra — These documents, if I may, are almost no different than the ones that
this board granted preliminary site plan approval for with just additional detail.
Board Member Hoffmann — I know. They have all been drawn this way, but I don't
think one could say that they are drawn to scale when they are drawn this way. It is an
approximation of a to scale drawing and it does say that 1/8 inch equals 1 foot. You
can't measure it out and actually read it that way, the way it is drawn.
Mr. Kanter — I think the point is that the 6 -foot depth is not a scaled depth. It is a
measured depth and that is what is reflected on the drawing.
Board Member Mitrano — I will move the motion.
Board Member Mitrano moves the motion and Board Member Talty seconds the motion.
Chairperson Wilcox — Comment?
Ms. Brock — In the second whereas, it references Planning Board action on February 7th,
but I believe that was the date of the revised application that was withdrawn and in
fact that February 7th date should be January 3rd because that is when you made your
negative declaration. Then my other question is in the third whereas and in the second
now, therefore, you have this date of February 7th again and I don't know what date
the plans ... what is the appropriate date for the plans that are before this board. I am
assuming February 7th, again would be the plans that had been withdrawn.
Ms. Balestra — It says revised. They are the revised ones.
Chairperson Wilcox — These say revised 2/7/06.
Ms. Brock — So then those dates are okay, but in that second whereas you do want that
to say January 3rd
Ms. Balestra — I think you are right.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments?
Board Member Hoffmann — I have the same objections that I have had before.
20
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Conneman — I am going to abstain. I have no reason to believe this
data or not believe it. That leaves me up in the air. I could have produced a drawing
like this.
Board Member Mitrano — I will comment that that should have been made known at the
preliminary that it was a concern.
Board Member Conneman — Well, there was not this diagram.
Board Member Thayer — Yeah, we had this same diagram.
Board Member Mitrano - Yeah, we did and we get diagrams not infrequently like this
for other applications.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you all set?
Ms. Balestra — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin?
Board Member Talty — I appreciate the owner coming in tonight given the history of this
particular application. I just wanted to say thanks.
Board votes on motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO 2006 -030; Final Site Plan Approval, Proposed Dock,
1126 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No, 19 -2 -5.2
MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty.
WHEREAS;
1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Appro
located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca
Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes
dock, 8 feet wide by 60 feet long with a 12 -foot by
and a total of 528 + 1- square feet of surface area.
Ronald B Knewstub, Agent, and
val for the proposed dock
Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2,
constructing an open pile
12 -foot "L "f end extension
Jason Sokoloff, Owner;
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan
Approval and Special Permit, on January 3, 2006, made a negative determination
of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
21
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part II prepared by Town P /anfifrig staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 7, 20061 has reviewed
and accepted plans entitled 'Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," revised 217106, and other application
materials, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED:
i. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Final Site Plan Checklist, having
determined from the materials presented that such waiver 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
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval
for the construction of a new dock located at 1126 East Shore Drive, as shown
on the submitted plans, dated 217106, subject to the following condition:
a. The applicant shall maintain the NYS water quality standards listed in the
letter from the NYSDEC dated November 7, 2005, and any specific permit
conditions outlined in the Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Ta/ty.
NA YS: Hoffmann.
ABSTAIN: Conneman.
The motion was declared to be carried.
Presentation and discussion regarding
Report and 2006 Work Plan Priorities
the 2005 Planning Department Annual
Chairperson Wilcox - Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, the floor is yours, sir.
Please take this opportunity to tell us about how great the planning staff is because
boy, do they make us look. good.
Board Member Mitrano - Well, that's true.
Board Member Thayer - That's for sure.
Round of applause for planning staff.
22
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Mr. Kanter — I never like to do anything too formal, but it is always an interesting
opportunity to look back at the past. year and see all the work that not only that this
board did, but all the committees and then to try to look ahead a little bit because one
thing that I wanted to do with you tonight is to talk a little bit about priorities for 2006
and upcoming years. One of the things that I am interested in is getting some early
feedback from you guys on is the idea of updating the Comprehensive Plan because
that is something that we have talked about a little bit with the Town Board as well as
this board from time to time. We can come back to that in a couple of minutes.
I guess one of the things that we always find interesting. with all the
development reviews that this board does is to actually look back and see what we
approved over the past year and that is what the first page of the annual report does.
This was a busy year. This was a real busy year actually. So the report always has
that long detailed summary of each and every item and approval and action that the
board took. At the end is an appendix so we won't go into the details. Instead, kind of
just look at the summary of the examples of what we approved. 46 new building lots,
largely coming from the Westview Subdivision down on Danby Road and some of those
are under construction now. The Country Inn and Suites Hotel took quite a while to get
through the review..
Chairperson Wilcox — That was one of our more fun projects.
Mr. Kanter — That was a lot of work.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I interrupt you?
Mr. Kanter — Surely.
Chairperson Wilcox — Christine said that you want to ask a question. If you are going
to do it, I want to do it now, especially while Mrs. Mulvaney is still here.
Mr. Sokoloff — I feel bad that I wasn't here for every meeting and...
Chairperson Wilcox — We would have abused you.
Mr. Sokoloff — Okay. So I guess I didn't get all the reasons... wondering if the dock was
based on square footage if that was a total that you were all considering for the square
footage...
Chairperson Wilcox — Question is why did we take your original proposal and make it
smaller? Is that what you are asking?
Mr. Sokoloff — Right. Well, I guess there was a second proposal. There was an 8...
23
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Ah, here is goes. He's going to get us going, isn't he? Okay.
Briefly, I don't have all the numbers in front of me, but you came in with a longer dock,
with a larger 15 by 15 L at the end. The opinion of this board as a whole was that the
length was too long. It was out of character with the other ones and that a 15 by 15 L
extension at the end was a deck not a dock. That this was an extension of your living
space out there and we collectively didn't see why a 15 by 15 foot L extension was
necessary out there. It was a very large structure in terms of its length and the size of
that L. So after an extremely long discussion, maybe and hour, maybe more and
maybe some language that we shouldn't have spoken publicly, myself included, we sort
of compromised at the 60 foot length and a 12 by 12, which got the size down. We
seemed to think that a 12 by 12 would serve some purpose where 15 by 15, that is a
livingroom out there on the water. We just didn't see collectively..Iindividuals had
different opinions, but collectively the board didn't see the need for a 15 by 15
extension out there. There was also some location about the location of the dock on
the property relative to the neighboring properties and where their docks were located,
if I remember right going back. That is why we wanted the dock placement moved.
You countered...
Mr. Sokoloff — It moved closer to the neighbors.
Ms. Balestra — 10 feet to the south.
Board Member Hoffmann — But the 10 feet south was not our suggestion, I don't think.
That was the counter proposal.
Chairperson Wilcox — No. That was us.
Board Member Thayer — We wanted to move it down the shoreline.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I don't think we said 10 feet. I think we said we
wanted it to move south in order that it not be at the point of the land that jutted out
the most, but bring it in close to shore before it started out.
Chairperson Wilcox — You came back or your agent came back with a proposal where
you wanted more length because you wanted to buy a longer boat. I will tell you that
that did not sit well with board. Mr. Conneman whether publicly he said it or privately
to me, said to me, 'you know, what if I went out and bought one of these new extra
long SUVs and I needed to make my garage bigger and I had to push it over the
property line." I mean we just ... I was one of the people who said I wanted you here. I
was...I'll muffle my words. I was not happy to see that counter proposal and especially
because you wanted to buy a bigger boat, therefore you needed a longer dock. If you
want to buy a bigger boat, moor it out there. Find a place to put it. Personally, I didn't
see that as a reasonable request given that the zoning calls for 30 feet, we were at 60
and you wanted more. So that is why we sent Mr. Knewstub away. You eventually
24
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
decided to go back to what you originally received preliminary approval for and went to
the ZBA and then came back tonight. So that is how we got to this point and you get a
little bit of the background, too.
Mr. Sokoloff — I guess I was thinking that the last proposal that Ron gave to you was
not going out any further, was just the 60 feet and it had to do with the L.
Chairperson Wilcox — Nope. It was longer because the boat you wanted to get was
suddenly bigger.
Mr. Sokoloff — It might have been a mistake on his part.
Board Member Talty — You were going to narrow the dock going out to 6 feet, but it
was going to be longer.
Ms. Balestra — It was going to be 64 feet with a 14 by 14 deck.
Mr. Sokoloff — So that is where I was wondering if it was a square footage thing and if I
got rid of 100 square feet of this structure...
Chairperson Wilcox — Speaking for myself, I won't speak for the members of the board.
I will speak only for myself and others can chime in. Whether we should have
negotiated with Mr...Knewstub he was here or not is something we did negotiate and I
kind of regretted. You wanted 70, we pared it to 60. You wanted 15 by 15, we had 12
by 12. In hindsight, I personally should have said here is what you proposed. No this
is too big. I vote against it or take it back and come back with something else. I'm not
sure it was my job to negotiate with you and or your agent. We as a board did and
then I felt that after struggling with that for the extraordinary amount of time we spent
on it, for you through Mr. Knewstub to come back and say, "okay, I really want this
instead ", which was longer and a bigger L. It was 64 feet and 14 by 148 I just didn't
want to hear it. I thought we had been generous in what we had ... I thought I had
been generous in the 60 foot and the 12 by 12 and the counter offer just ... I wasn't
willing to accept it. Anybody else?
Board Member Thayer — Nobody was wiling to accept it.
Chairperson Wilcox.— Yeah and I think next time somebody comes in with a proposal
that I personally don't like, I think the answer is no, in my opinion, come back with
something that I like.
Board. Member Hoffmann — That is how we normally do things.
Chairperson Wilcox — Not a negotiation. We negotiated with Mr. Knewstub, but we
negotiated amongst ourselves.
25
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Thayer — We did that on a couple of docks before that also.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, we have. We all realize that '05 was the first year we saw
any dock proposals and we are learning.
Board Member Thayer — It was new to us and we had skimpy plans for work with. That
is the problem.
Board Member Talty — The .problem is that these docks are coming in front of us and
we don't ... weIre kind of going out in areas that we have never been before. Okay?
And we were looking for guidance from the Town Board. They have not given it, but
they will give. They promised us that. So hopefully. applicants like yourself don't go
through the same issues that we have had before.
Chairperson Wilcox Does that help you out?
Mr. Sokoloff — Yeah''. I was trying to figure out if it was a square footage thing or not.
Chairperson Wilcox — Personally, I never looked at the total square footage. I looked at
the length and the size of that extension. Those were the two things that I
concentrated on.
Mr. Sokoloff- So if the was even something like 4 feet to get out to this L shape...
Board Member Talty — It wouldn't matter.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think the length was an issue and we got it back to 60 and I
don't think at that point after we the work we did I don't think anybody was going to go
another foot at that point. Especially because of the reason. The reason you wanted
more length was because you wanted to buy a bigger boat. I don't think anybody on
this board was sympathetic to that. You want a bigger boat; find a place to moor it.
That is your issue not ours. We thought we were generous giving 60 feet.
Mr. Sokoloff — Okay. And the 12 by 12 was based on the...
Chairperson Wilcox It was a reasonably hard - fought compromise. You wanted 15 by
15. Some people wanted less than 12 by 12, if I remember the discussion and we as a
board were able to compromise at 12 by 12. Again, next time this happens, I don't
think I would do that.
Board Member Talty — Well, hopefully we will have guidelines.
Chairperson Wilcox Yeah, but even if we get some guidelines, if an applicant comes in
with something that exceeds those guidelines we can agree that exceeding the
0
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
guidelines might be reasonable subject to the Zoning Board, but I am not going to
compromise. I'm going to say give us something you think we will approve. We will
either approve it or we won't and if we don't approve it and we will come back with
something else.
Ms. Balestra — Mr. Sokoloff, this is regardless of other docks that are much larger on the
lake that are existing.
Mr. Sokoloff — Okay.
Ms. Balestra — Because the regulations that we have in place were not in place a couple
of years ago. So...
Mr. Sokoloff — I see. Because I noticed when you were passing around the aerial
photograph that it mentioned some docks that were 15 by 200
Ms. Balestra — There are several docks on both sides of the lake that exceeds in fact,
almost all of them exceed the existing regulations that the Town has.
Chairperson Wilcox — As does the one that we have approved for you.
Mr. Sokoloff — Okay. Last and final question would be in the future once the City has
some guidelines, would it be possible if I was really interested in having a bigger deck
at the end to load and unload people, equipment, lawn chairs...
Chairperson Wilcox — See? There you go. There's the problem. Lawn chairs. This is a
deck. This is a place to moor your boat. Excuse me, a dock. This is not living space
out there. When you come in and say that you want lawn chairs out there and you
need 15 by 15 or want 15 by 15, I'm just ... yes, Eva is being very polite.
Board Member Talty — The conversation that we had is, should there be decks allowed
on the lake and there are already decks there as you pointed out and so did Chris.
What we are trying to grapple with here is how big is big because if we grant you 15 by
15 and you get the variance, the next person might want 25 by 256
Mr. Sokoloff — Sure.
Board Member Talty — Or
the post. I mean I am beii
with that so we can get a
people like yourself come
parameters, we either can
we go on from there.
50 by 50 or maybe you want to build a house out there on
ig funny, but it is uncharted waters. I think we are grappling
handle on this, we have some parameters that when other
along or you want to add on that we have some certain
say less or no, we don't have to play Lets Make a Deal and
27
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Mr. Sokoloff — I guess that is what I was getting to as my final question. In the future
if the City has guidelines that say...
Board Member Conneman — The Town. This is the Town.
Mr. Sokoloff — The Town, Sorry. That the Town that the maximum you can have the
deck at the end would be 14 by 14 I would possibly be able to come back and get a
variance.
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Eva has been waiting very quietly. If you wait another,
second, go.
Mr. Kanter — We have a guideline and that is an 8 400t width.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have a guideline that is .a 30 400t length.
Mr. Kanter — And we have a guideline of a total surface area of no more than 300
square feet.
Chairperson Wilcox — That is what the Zoning Ordinance says.
Mr. Kanter — What we have heard said is we have a committee called the Codes and
Ordinances Committee, which acts on behalf of the Town Board and it includes 2
Planning Board members which is going to be doing an analysis, that is what Chris
Balestra is doing, doing an inventory of structures on the lake within the Town. We are
going to bring that as factual evidence to the committee. and the committee can
consider whether to change the current regulations and guidelines, but right now we
have guidelines. The question is, are those current guidelines reflective of what is out
there and if not, does that matter. We can amortize the current situation if that is what
we decide we want to do. What I mean by that is we can make every old and new
dock conform to our new .regulations if that is what the policy makers in the Town want
to do. It is plain and simple as that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Eva, you have been waiting patiently.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, thank you. ]on already said part of what I was going
say. That there are already rules on the books. We don't need to wait for guidelines.
We have rules on the book right now that say what we have to use as a guide when we
get an application coming in here and your application and a number of other
applications have not conformed to those guidelines. I am sure when you wrote your
application and you spoke to staff and they told you that our law says the surface area
of a dock cannot be more than 300 square feet, it cannot stick out more than so and so
many feet, it cannot be wider than so and so many feet. If you choose to bring in an
application for something that is beyond that, you can do that. But then our job is, we
aeol
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
are not the Zoning Board of Appeals. We do not make variances and things like that.
We look at what .the rules say and what is appropriate for the site and I forgot to
mention that the reason that these guidelines were put in place or the regulations were
put into place rather, is that the Town saw it as very important to protect the nature
along Cayuga Lake and in the Town as a whole. So lakeshore properties got certain
regulations attached to them in the latest updating of the Zoning Ordinance to help
protect the natural environment and protect the lake and the water in the lake, which is
where we get our drinking.water. So that is the background..of the new regulations.
Whether they are right or not, is something that we ,have to talk about, but our job on
the Planning Board is simply to decide whether an application is appropriate or not
based, on the regulations. If it is not, we are not to negotiate with an applicant like we
did. I hope I didn't do it personally. I don't think I did, but it is to say yes or no. If the
applicant gets a no, then it is up to the applicant whether to go back and try to come in
with another application and see if we say yes or no to that. That is how it goes.
Chairperson Wilcox — And we have spend another 15 minutes on a dock tonight. I.was
hoping we weren't. Are you all set?
Mr. Sokoloff — I think so.
Chairperson Wilcox — Say yes.
Mr. Sokoloff — I guess the one last thing. These are maximum lengths and widths of
the dock?
Board Member Conneman — For your dock.
Mr. Sokoloff — For my dock. What if for some strange reason because of the 12 by 12
and not being 15 by 15, we decided to go. to a 6 foot so it would be a square of 12,
could we go smaller?
Board Member Hoffmann — It says right in the resolution that you can do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — The ZBA says that they can. Can you make it smaller?
Mr. Sokoloff — Can we make it narrower?
Chairperson Wilcox — The only thing you
address it this way. You have an approved
Knewstub. That is what you are approved
to build anything else different, then you ni
get this board to approve a revised plan.
Zoning Ordinance, which would allow small
want to do is make it narrower. Let me
plan that is based upon the drawings of Mr.
to build. My speculation is that if you want
:ed to come back to this board to revise and
Now, there might be some clauses in the
changes where you would not need to come
29
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
back to this board. But right now you have approval to build the drawings. that Mr.
Knewstub provided dated February 7, 20060
Mr. Sokoloff — I got a difference response from the Zoning Board.
Chairperson Wilcox — The Zoning Board said you could go narrow.
Mr. Sokoloff — That this was a maximum guideline.
Chairperson Wilcox - Right. In granting a variance, they.set a maximum.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have the resolution in front of me and I'll try to interpret
what I think this means, what I think it says here. The dock is not to exceed 530
square feet. That means in no event should it be bigger than that. Then it says the
width of the dock should not exceed 12 feet. That means at the end where you are
allowed to build 12 feet, it cannot be wider than that and it can only 8 feet in that
region indicated on the applicant's plans, which is the last 12 feet of the dock. So it is
only the last 12 by 12 where it can be up to 12 feet, wider than 8 feet. Then it says
with the allowance that if the applicant wants to reduce the width of the dock anywhere
along its length that is permitted. So you can reduce the width, but you cannot expand
it anywhere.
Mr. Sokoloff — Okay. That was my question.
Board Member Hoffmann — Otherwise, the dock must be constructed as indicated on
the applicant's plans. If you are asking if you can reduce the width in one part and
make it bigger in another part that is not what it says.
Mr. Sokoloff — Nope. Simply reducing the walkout to the dock.
Chairperson Wilcox The attorney and the assistant attorney are over there. What do
you got, Susan?
Ms. Brock — I'm looking at the section in the Zoning Ordinance that talks about
modifications of site plans and there are certain changes that an applicant can make to
what is being built that don't require a modified site plan, but as we are looking at the
list I think that you would need to come back to this board for a modified site plan
approval if you wanted to reduce the width of the deck, of the dock, I'm sorry. I think
all these exceptions; I don't think they apply to this particular situation. If this were a
building, he wouldn't need to come back if he is decreasing the square footage by less
than 15 percent, but this isn't a building. It doesn't use the word building or structure.
It just says building. So I think you. probably would need to get modified site plan
approval.
30
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — We all agree.
Mr. Kanter — At first glance.
Ms. Brock — That is our quick read. If you are very serious about it, then why don't you
contact Christine and let her know what your plans are and then we can look and give
you a more definite read.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Thank you for sticking around and you got a little
history. All right. We are going to move on now.
Board Member Conneman — I'm
to vote the way I think I should
wanted to vote against this the
Deal, which I think is wrong.
making a New Year's resolution, which says I'm going
and not be scolded by Tracy for voting the way I am. I
first time because I think he was playing Lets Make a
Mr. Kanter — Just for the record, I think there are some things that I would give staff
discretion to bring it in such as aesthetics and if he brought in a proposal to change it, I
would bring it to you because I am not going to approve something different than what
this board approved after going through this much time and effort. I think our advice
to him is build it as approved or don't build it because...
Board Member Conneman — Who checks on what he builds?
Mr. Walker — Through the building permit process.
Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan, I think you were telling us about the Planning Board.
You were telling us how wonderful the staff is and all the great things they do.
Mr. Kanter — You were telling us that.
Chairperson Wilcox — How they make the Planning Board look good.
Mr. Kanter — I usually wait until the end for this, but since you were getting us into that
area, I really do appreciate all the hard work that all the staff does.
Chairperson Wilcox - At least the staff that are here tonight.
Board Member Conneman — Christine, we are not critical of you at all.
Ms. Balestra - Oh, I understand that. I don't take it personally.
Mr. Kanter — But by reading through the report you just get a flavor of how varied the
activities are that staff does work on. Ranging from these crazy development reviews.
31
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Now we are dealing with the Zoning Board as well to the Transportation Plan, the
Cornell GEIS. Sue and Mike's work with the Conservation Board and the Scenic
Resources Committee. That is the one that we really hope starts really moving along.
I think the Conservation Board has called that a high priority to try to finish that works
up. So it's just amazing when you look at all the activities that we all are involved in.
Its not just staff. Its this board, the other boards, its all the committees. I mean Codes
and Ordinances did a huge amount of work this past year. There were three major
amendments that actually got through the Town Board, the environmental quality
review code, the telecommunications provisions and the agricultural use provisions.
Then that is not even mentioning the huge amount of work that they did on the stream
setback law and the lighting ordinance, which are still pending out there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which could be coming to this board soon.
Mr. Kanter — The Indian Creek Gorge Lake Slopes Conservation Zone, now that this
board passed its recommendation the Town Board will be setting a public hearing on
that for the April meeting so that hopefully will be going through very soon. The Coy
Glen Conservation Zone. So we can go on and on and on. There are sort of all the
behind the scenes time and efforts that we coordinate with the Engineering Department
and the Code Enforcement staff on all the follow up work and go out and. now that we
have approved this dock, like you were asking, we have to go out and make sure as its
constructed it is done its done according to the standards which this board approved as
well as building code. I don't know what the building code for docks is exactly, but I
guess we'll find out.
Board Member Conneman —.I want to say, Jonathan, I don't think that we could have
gotten though this, the board, without the staff doing a super job of presenting the
materials to us. We might disagree with you sometimes or it appears that we disagree,
but we really don't. We are just trying to make the proposal better. So thank you all,
for what you do.
Mr. Kanter — So certainly any questions you all have this would be a good time to find
out more details about some of these things. In particular, I did want to get...or if you
want to we could jump to the Comp Plan update I was mentioning before because that
could be a major effort over coming years. As I mentioned in my write -up, in my
memo, it is not something that could or should be taken lightly should we do it. It
really becomes a major effort. The Town Board would have the authority to set up a
special board or committee if they so chose to review and update the comprehensive
plan. They could ask the Planning Board specifically to do it. That would probably be
pretty difficult given the amount of other items that we have on every agenda so I
certainly think it would be some kind of a special advisory board that is set up to do it.
Certainly the first part of the task would be to just review the Comprehensive Plan to
see how much of it has been implemented and in what way, and what hasn't been
implemented and why not. What are the current thoughts of the policymakers, the
32
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
boards, and the public on the directions that the 1993 Comp Plan said we should go in?
Are those directions still appropriate given the way things are today? That I would
think would probably be about a year's worth of work to do that, to review it and
produce some kind of a report and recommendation to the Town Board on whether
actually the Comp Plan should be updated. I suspect that you could probably just say it
should be updated, but that is kind of not the whole answer because there are a lot of
ways of updating plan ranging from a simple general visioning document to a full blown
relooking at all the data and population projections of where the Town is going. It
would be any number of things updated in that plan. 1993, that's 12 years ago so it
has been a while. When you look at a lot of the plan recommendations, though, I think
a lot of seems to be pretty on- target still. That is my own personal way of looking at it,
though. Anyway, I thought it would be a good opportunity to see if you guys had any
thoughts at this point on it. I am sure we will be talking more with the Town Board
about that whole process. 1.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think I would certainly have to go back and have a look at
it again before I can even say if I think it needs working on or not. But is suspect that
it does because it has been so long and things have changed.
Board Member Howe — I think your idea of taking a year and doing an analysis makes
sense. I like that approach.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry.
Board Member Howe — I was basically agreeing with Jonathan.
Chairperson Wilcox — .Redoing the Comp Plan or thinking about redoing it opens up all
sorts of things like potential zoning changes that might have to...
Mr. Kanter —Again?
Chairperson Wilcox — I know, but the Comp Plan could indicate that areas where maybe
the type of residential or the density allowed may be inappropriate. And notice that
much of what of we do, many of the decisions we make have to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the Town.
Mr. Kanter — Here is one example that I have seen a few times that the Comprehensive
Plan, I don't think, adequately addresses is the idea of new small scale commercial
areas. We have talked about it a little bit here with the Conifer proposal and the
Overlook proposal where, especially on West Hill where we. are creating new residential
densities and in a sense almost a new transportation network, too, which we are going
to talk about in a few minutes as the last agenda item. But it not only presents
opportunities but almost a need for producing some kind of neighborhood commercial
oriented areas on West Hill and the Comprehensive Plan really doesn't tell us anything
33
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
about how we should do that. It kind of just says as residential develop you should
think about new neighborhood commercial zones and we have never had targeted
commercial zones in areas that are not currently having commercial development.
Similarly I think the same could probably . be said maybe to a lesser degree about
multiple residence zones. We have very few vacant, developable multiple residence
zones and they usually come up when a Conifer or an Overlook comes in and says that
they want to do something here and its not zoned for that purpose. So another thing is
density, residential density. Are there areas where it may be appropriate to think about
zoning areas in a higher density than they are now? Those are probably two areas
where zoning changes and an update of a Comprehensive Plan might be the kinds of
things that we look at, but those are going to be very controversial.
Chairperson Wilcox — Does anyone remember when the proposal came to the Town for
commercial development on West Hill?
Board Member Hoffmann — On the Kyong property?
Chairperson Wilcox — On the Kyong property. Was that in the 1980s?
Mr. Kanter — 88 -90?
Mr. Walker — It was just dying when I came to work here in 1990. So it was 1989.
Chairperson Wilcox — And it didn't die quietly.
Mr. Walker — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — It was quite a controversial proposal.
Ms. Balestra — What was it? What was it about?
Chairperson Wilcox — It was before my time on this board, but it was land owned by
Doctor Kyong, which some of it has now become Overlook, he had proposed some
commercial development on West Hill,
Mr. Kanter — And he also had an affordable housing component in it which I think was
equally controversial to the commercial part.
Board Member Hoffmann Yeah. It was a very interesting mixed development and it
was very well located by the hospital, but the neighbors just came out of every house
and it was ... they were totally against it.
Mr. Kanter — I think it was many of the same people who came out against the
overlook, in fact. So those are a few of the things that we might want to look at.
34
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Some of us think there is a need for small -scale commercial
development on West Hill so people don't have to drive downtown to get a loaf of
bread or a gallon of milk.' Whereas on East Hill or South Hill you have a convenience
store, gas station or something where you can go and get those groceries.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would be interested to find out how those stores on South
Hill make it because I used to believe very much in neighborhood commercial areas and
I just think these days it is much harder for the small businesses to survive than it used
to be.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think they'll fess up how well they are doing as a private
business. As a private business, I don't think they'll be too forth coming.
Board Member Talty — That is my neck of the woods. They are the most profitable
businesses that you could possibly own.
Ms. Balestra — On South Hill?
Board Member Talty — Convenience stores. They only make a nickel to 8 cents every
gallon of gas, the ones that do have gas stations, but the ones that are selling candy
bars ... to give you an idea a box of candy is about $10. You can't buy a candy bar for
under 75 cents.
Chairperson Wilcox — We know that convenience stores are higher priced than grocery
stores.
Board Member Talty — The coffee cup costs more than the coffee and it's about 3 cents
and you pay $1.25.
Board Member Thayer — You pay for the convenience.
Mr. Kanter — So part of it is really trying to almost preplan what a mixed neighborhood
might be like, how you could set it up so that small -scale businesses might actually be
able to succeed in the context of a residential area surrounding it.
Board Member Hoffmann — But if you have only a convenience store available then it
serves only, especially at gas stations, it serves only those people who travel back and
forth in cars. It doesn't serve people who are too young to drive and have to walk. It
doesn't serve older people who are too old to drive and have to walk. They need to
shop, too, where prices are reasonable and where there is a reasonable assortment of
things and that is the kind of store, which I think has too much trouble to survive with
the Wegmans and the Tops around and the other big box stores.
35
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Mr. Kanter — Well, yeah. Certainly with all the development down on Route 13 and all
that it is fairly close for people to drive to and you can now get pretty much just about
anything you need down there between that and going up to the Triphammer Mall.
Now we have become sort of a regional shopping area ourselves, which is what people
wanted and now they are getting what they wanted. Traffic and all of that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, how long have you lived in this Town?
Board Member Thayer — All my life and I'm 72.
Chairperson Wilcox — As have I at 51. So we remember the neighborhood grocery
stores.
Board Member Hoffmann — I remember them.
Chairperson Wilcox — Whether it was Mickey's market downtown.
Board Member Thayer — Over on West Seneca Street there were 4 stores within a block
and a half.
Chairperson Wilcox — They are gone. I don't know if they will ever come back, but right
now they are gone. What happened to the doughnut stores in downtown Ithaca? They
are gone.
Board Member Thayer — I couldn't believe the Dunkin Donuts couldn't make it.
Board Member Conneman — Starbucks is going to build 5 places.
Chairperson Wilcox - They're building one over there.
Board Member Thayer — And 4 more to come.
5 locations.
That is what the paper said, potentially
Chairperson Wilcox — The days of having that neighborhood grocery stores...
Board Member Conneman — This is nostalgia.
Chairperson Wilcox — But that is what we want. The kids can. go and get their penny
candy ... but Eva is right, for the kids, the seniors, people who cannot not drive or won't
drive or can't afford a car, those times are gone, but nonetheless we need something
on West Hill, I say.
Board Member Hoffmann — I agree and we need something more on South Hill, too.
36
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
. Approved
Ms. Balestra — In order to get all of that back, you have to have a large amount of
people who actually want to live close to each other. You have to have the population
density.
Board Member Thayer — That is the key.
Mr. Kanter — In a developing neighborhood like we have on West Hill, the question of
density does come up. It is a question of ... well, Conifer has a proposal for some
additional single - family development, but is that going to create enough people to have
a small neighborhood commercial center serving it. Well, probably yes, but maybe if
we increase density in certain parts of it that might even be better. It might actually
even help the transportation situation because then maybe the buses could go there
more often.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let alone what Mr. Rancich may or may not ever come back with
in terms of 200 condos and 40, 50, 60 single family lots.
Mr. Kanter - So maybe if you sort of not only plan but in a sense predesign what an
area like that might be like then you might be able to do it in a way that would make it
realistic for some small businesses to be successful in that area. If on the other hand,
wouldn't it be nice if we could have some small commercial area there and see if it
happens. It won't happen by itself. In fact, I think when you talked to Conifer about it
you could even tell that they were serious about thinking about it with us, but they kind
of weren't enthusiastic. It is not the kind of thing unless you had 3 or 4 businessmen
right there in place and you could just say well we could build this and they will come.
You really have to do a lot of planning and that would be the kind of thing that maybe a
neighborhood planned element of the .Comprehensive Plan for West Hill or something.
So I didn't want to talk too much about transportation because Nicole and I will talk a
little bit more about that in the next item, if there is time: So if anyone has any
questions we would be glad to answer them.
Chairperson Wilcox — You were around for the Comp Plan work.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox.— I think you are the only one on this board who was around at that
time.
Mr. Kanter — To get just a sense, if the Town Board wanted to set up a Comprehensive
Plan Review Committee, which would probably take some serious time and effort and
they said we'll appoint 1 or 2 Planning Board members, without precommitting, would
some of you be interested in doing that. It would also be a staff commitment. I think
we will have to talk to the Town Board about that as well. I saw a couple of heads
nodding sort of nodding a little bit.
37
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I would always be interested, but my problem is whether I
would have enough time. I am interested in the topic.
Chairperson Wilcox Moving right along...
Board Member Howe — I did have a question. We had talked about viewsheds at one
point. Is there still a committee who is looking at viewshed?
Mr. Kanter — Yes. Eva, you could answer that.
Board Member Hoffmann — It is now called the Scenic Resources Committee because
some of us got very°fed up with the word viewshed. It is really beautiful scenic views
that we are trying to inventory. The work is proceeding. It is slow, but it is
proceeding.
Mr. Kanter — Is there any projected timeframe for completing it?
Board Member Hoffmann — I think Diane, who is now heading up the effort is aiming
for the end of this year.
Board Member Conneman — That is what she says.
Board Member Howe — Thanks. And another question. Is there still any discussion
happening about another entryway into Cornell off from Pleasant Grove? That had
been one of the topics when we approved the moving of the Moore House. Is there
still any discussion about a new entry gateway?
Board Member Conneman — There is one already. If you want to avoid going through
Forest Home, which I regularly do now, just to prove to myself: You go down Cradit
Farm Road. If they would move the Eddy gate to the Cradit Farm Road you would have
an entrance to Cornell. I'm just kidding about moving the Eddy gate.
Mr. Kanter — I think that road has worked pretty well.
Board Member Conneman — It has worked pretty well and it is really the place to have
an entrance to Cornell because as you come in you get a beautiful view of the campus
including the Sibley dome. I mean you couldn't do any better if you planned it. But
that is where it ought to be because that prevents. people, not prevents people, but
discourages people from going through Forest Home.
Mr. Kanter — The other part of that study, which wasn't as widely talked about, wasn't
like a new road going around the A lot or whichever parking lot it is. Additional
pedestrian and bicycle enhancements that once the Thurston Avenue Bridge is redone,
ME
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
which is going to be over the next couple of years so it is going to create quite a traffic
headache while the. bridgework is being done. Cornell has basically, conceptually
committed to do additional enhancements on the approaches to that bridge because
there are hug numbers of pedestrians who walk from North Campus across that bridge.
That to me is probably the more important part of that whole process.
Board Member Conneman — Have they considered building a pedestrian walkway across
there?
Mr. Kanter — I think they considered
Thurston Avenue bridge work ...the
going to become almost $ 8,000,000
involved and basically indicating that
historic standards, but also because
portions of the bridge. But yeah, I tr
it, but it is very, very expense. 0 think part of the
reason it is ending up so expensive, I think it is
project. Part of that was because of SHPO getting
it is a historic bridge that has to be done to certain
of the need to widen the pedestrian and bicycle
pink it has been talked about, a separate bridge.
Board Member Conneman — To separate them makes a lot of sense to me.
Ms. Tedesco — George, just for the record, there are two pedestrian suspension bridges,
one on either side of Thurston Ave.
Board Member Conneman — Yes, I understand that, students as you can testify, having
been the most recent person around here who has been a student, tend to go the most
convenient way.
Board Member Talty — Path of least resistance.
Chairperson Wilcox I lived on north campus. I walked across that bridge twice
everyday at Least.
Board Member Conneman — I know that there are two, but they go to very different
places.. That is the problem.
Ms. Tedesco — I did see the designs for Thurston. Bridge and pedestrian -wise it is very
nice. The walkways are very wide. They are talking about having textured crosswalks
to really delineate where the pedestrians will be safe and lots of other nifty stuff. So
they will be improving that so pedestrians can take the path of least resistance.
Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just add that the last time I did say thank you to
Susan for. her having written up the Plan, but we were all talking so it got lost. So I will
take this opportunity to say thank you to all of you for all that behind the scenes stuff
that you do for us for every single topic that we talk about. It is incredibly helpful. I
don't know what I would do if I didn't have that for every application that we look at
C
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
and I'm sure that it is the same for all the rest of you. So this seems like a perfect
opportunity to say thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Think of those planning boards that operate without professional
staff.
Mr. Kanter — How is it possible?
Chairperson Wilcox — I expressed my appreciation before.
Discussion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Town of Ithaca
Mr. Kanter — This is mainly a follow up to the discussion that we had with the Conifer
Senior Apartment and how bicycle and pedestrian facilities would fit into that new road
system and whether perhaps an off road shared bicycle pedestrian path in that area
would be appropriate. So it just so happens that Nicole and the Transportation
Committee have been looking at those kinds of. issues in the Transportation Plan and
Nicole has been working on it anyway so we thought it would be good to give you a
kind of real quick...
Chairperson Wilcox - I think she's got too much time on her hands. You are an Arcview
expert, aren't you?
Ms. Tedesco — I don't like getting that reputation. That means people ask me
questions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you an Arcview geek?
Ms. Tedesco — I'm pleading the 5th. I'm not answering that.
Mr. Kanter — She is very good.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes, she is. We have complimented on some of her stuff before
and much more. Are you going to make a presentation or are we just going to open
this up?
Ms. Tedesco — I can go through a couple of things very quickly, mostly for context. The
Transportation Committee has been working at two levels of design, one being the
design of the network itself, which would be this and when we talk about network we
are talking about how different pathways intersect and how different roads relate to
each other. Then the second level would be the. actual design of the facility itself. The
Transportation Committee working on the Transportation Plan started off working on
the design of the network and that fit into the Hanshaw Road project, understanding
how the Hanshaw Road Walkway would fit into the larger pedestrian and bicycle
40
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
. Approved
network. Then as part of the recommendations of the plan, the Committee thinks there
needs to be some guidance on what type of facilities are best for what type of
situations, as we have experienced with the Conifer Development. This is some
information that I have put together, which will be included as part of design
guidelines. The Committee is going to focus on writing guidelines and not standards
because it is very, very difficult to pinpoint exactly what would be best in all these
situations and you can legislate yourself into a corner if you sort of design all these
things before...so these are general guidelines to give you an idea of what types of
facilities are available; when they are best used, what type of bicyclists or pedestrians.
Was that coherent? I'm sorry. I'm a little tired. So that is the intro. Jon, anything?
Mr. Kanter — I guess one aspect of this is in terms of the real world how some of this
kind of stuff will actually be applied to a situation like Conifer. I mean there is not right
answer. As we discussed when Conifer was here, the pedestrian and bicycle facilities
could be built into a new road situation like Conifer Drive in a number of ways. All of
them probably could be safe and usable, but the question is how do we decide what
the best solution is. I guess ultimately it was probably ... it was very interesting how the
conversation with Conifer went because they kind of indicated that they had been
planning on putting in some kind of a bicycle path and of course at the same time our
park and open space plan had indicated conceptually that there should be an entirely
new bicycle - pedestrian corridor there, which just happens to coincide exactly where
Conifer Drive is going. So, you know, on one end of the spectrum we have got the
possibility of putting in, say 5 400t bicycle shoulders actually on the roadway and one or
two sidewalks depending on how we want to do that. Or the end of the spectrum is
having the entirely separate bicycle pedestrian path within a Town right -of -way, but
separate from the road, separate from the cars entirely or a combination of both of
those. It sounds like where Conifer ended up pretty much agreeing to was providing us
with the ability and the potential to do almost any of those that we want to do. It
sounded like they were willing to ... they not only actually added on the additional right -
of -way on the lower part of Conifer Drive, but they indicated as reflected in our
condition that they would work with us on providing whatever right -of -ways needed
along Conifer Drive to accommodate the appropriate pedestrian and bicycle facilities on
the upper part as it develops further. So I think we have a real good opportunity here
to kind of create a model for what we want to see happen, not like there were going to
be a lot other parts,of Town that we are going to be developing like this in a totally new
situation, but this is sort of really the part of Town where this really can apply in the
real world. So I think we. have got a lot of good things we can think about as we get
into this. Then of course there are the maintenance, operation, and upkeep issues, too,
which I know Dan and Fred Noteboom are interested in and certainly concerned about
because these things certainly do have cost factors associated with them. Something
we need to think about, too.
41
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Just running a snowplow down there, if we widen the pavement
sufficiently, a snowplow can follow the main road, but can't clear the side of the roads
sufficiently.
Mr. Walker — Oh, yes it can.
Chairperson Wilcox — Does the Town still have the ones with the big wings?
Mr. Walker — We can push 15 feet of width easily, 1548.
Mr. Smith They do a lot of the trails with a pickup truck.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, we're not going to go down a Town road with a pickup truck
that has 11 foot wide pavement and then 5 or 6 foot wide bicycle path over there.
Mr. Walker — We try to make the walkways that we plow 8 feet wide because then we
can use a pickup truck on them. We also have a couple of. smaller tractors or snow
blowers that we use in different areas depending upon the amount of snow. Then
there is the South Hill Trail, which we don't plow. So it depends upon if it . is
recreational or transportation. There are a lot of factors there.
Mr. Kanter — I use the East Ithaca
plow and it's usually kept very clew
condition. That is a fairly long
Mecklenburg Road would probably
like 1.5 miles. I think that stretch
to a mile.
Recreation Way a lot and that is the one that they
r of snow and ice. I mean it is usually in very good
stretch. The Conifer stretch between Bundy and
be comparable, maybe even longer. It is probably
of the East Ithaca Recreation Way is probably close
Chairperson Wilcox — Before we really get into this, what are we supposed to do
tonight?. Discuss it? Make a recommendation? Okay.
Mr. Kanter Probably more than anything we wanted to give some of you a peak
preview of what is going to be in the Transportation Plan coming up fairly soon,
hopefully. We will probably be having another public information meeting on that in a
couple of months as we are putting the recommendation section together. It just
seemed like a real. interesting follow up to the discussion that we did have on Conifer
because there are so many of these things that we are starting to think about with the
Transportation Plan. So again, what I think the plan will probably do is give you a
pallet of options rather than, as Nicole said, if you say this is what you have to do in
this location, that is probably not going to work, but if you give a range of options and
if you like option a, well here are some ways to do it. If you like option b here are
some ways you can do that. At the same time there are certainly engineering
standards and aspects that we have to incorporate into whatever we do to make sure
that they are safe and if for some reason we are able to get maybe a federal grant to
42
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
help build a separate pedestrian bicycle path on West Hill, it is going to have to meet
state and federal guidelines to do that as well.
Chairperson Wilcox — The other thing we learned is that we can't necessarily put the
facilities that we would want in a standard 60 -foot right -of -way. And if you grant an
applicant a 60 foot right -of -way, you may preclude yourself from putting in the bicycle
or pedestrian facilities you want at some future point because you just don't have
enough width for drainage and or sidewalks and or whatever. You seem to run out of
room with 60 feet pretty quickly.
Mr. Kanter — They found on. Hanshaw Road that is the same thing happening, but that
is an even narrower right -of -way, 50 feet. And...in an existing neighborhood how that
impacts the surrounding lots is the big issue there. Fortunately with new subdivisions
we kind of can hopefully start putting all this stuff together and can plan that system
freshly with each subdivision.
Chairperson Wilcox k — So it becomes another cost, a potential added cost for the
developer, though to put in those ... it is one thing to put in a road and now you are
talking about possibly more pavement, a wider, in terms of the base of the road, it
would have to be potentially wider to accommodate the bike paths so it would increase
the cost to the developer, which would increase the cost of the housing, in some sense.
On the other hand, it might be a wonderful amenity for the neighborhood besides being
something that provides safety.
Mr. Walker — There is another aspect that the Town has got to address, especially up in
the Conifer Drive area. You now have 3 property owners or actually 5 property owners
we have mapped an important thoroughfare out of to improve transportation circulation
on West Hill starting from Mecklenburg Road going all the way to Overlook, across
Bundy Road. It is a very important planning action because we are going to be getting
more and more people on West Hill. I think we are going to see more growth in the
Medical Center. Cayuga Medical Center is on a growth spurt. I think we are going to
see, this is just my impression, now that we are going to have a Cornell President that
is a cardiologist and very interested in a real medical college, I think we are going to
see more activity between Cornell and the Cayuga Medical Center, which is going to
grow the need. One of the things that we are going to have difficulty on is we are not
going to get the roads we need when we need them if we depend on developers to
build them all. That road doesn't want to be a residential road. It wants to be more of
a parkway or a connector road, which we don't want to have residential development
on. Picture Triphammer Road from the Cayuga Mall back to the Corners. On one side
there are no houses for most of it. On the other side you have got a lot of driveways.
As an engineer and from looking at it from the planning aspect, this wants to be a
through road as a collector road. It doesn't want to be a residential road. So I think
the Town is going to have to start looking at contributing to building it and maybe in
fact taking the lead on building it in some form of assessment to the developers. I see
43
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
a major problem if Conifer goes ahead and develops the residential area and the
through road is needed to really encourage that and good planning. We have a park in
there that we want to develop. We are going to have to finish that road through the
Perry property and through the Rancich property probably before...unless Mr. Rancich
wakes up and really has a plan and some money. If we really want to make it happen
the right way, we are going to have to step in and do something about that as a capital
project.
Mr. Kanter — But at 'least...I don't know if I agree with that 100 %, but that is certainly
the way it has been laid out and planned on the plats, assuming that we can get
sufficient right -of -way for whatever pedestrian and bicycle facilities we want to do
there. It is laid out at least on the Conifer and to be basically as Dan described it as a
through road that doesn't have driveways coming out of it. It basically would have
several intersections with residential streets looping around on it. In fact, we happened
to hang up the Conifer sketch plan up on that wall that shows their future .development
and again, while there are lots along the road, there are going to be side roads where
they actually will have driveways and access off of, but on a road .like that again, you
don't necessarily want to have too many intersections coming onto the connecting road
one after another, which that does seem to have. So it might need some more work.
Again, whether the Town gets into road building that is entirely a Town Board decision.
I don't see that happening, but that's why Dan's an engineer and I'm the planner, I
guess.
Mr. Walker — It depends. Now if the Town becomes a more driving force . in
encouraging growth depending upon what the Comprehensive Plan says, there are a lot
of different options that the Town could take:
Board Member Hoffmann — Could you say that again?
Mr. Walker — There are a lot of different directions the Town ... if we know that we need
a commercial center on the West Hill and we go through the Comprehensive Planning
review and decide we need that and rezone a piece of property for commercial, to have
that commercial property there, you are going to need the access to get the people
there that will benefit from that. By that, that is all the people on West Hill from
Mecklenburg Road over because the idea is to work with the City to. keep the people off
the City streets as much as possible. A commercial center behind the fire station could
serve everyone from Westhaven Road all the way out to Bundy Road and beyond to the
Town line and even some people in Ulysses, but you have to have the infrastructure
there. If they have to drive down the City streets and then come back again, it is not
going to work. It is going to raise some issues, like you cross the Perry property.
Board Member Thayer — You got that right.
Mr. Walker — I mean it is planned...
44
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Thayer — When should I sell my house?
Mr. Walker — Well, you have that right -of -way right next -door, right, for the sidewalk? I
mean and partially... the preliminary plan that the Perry Farm .had isn't really what we
want to see there because they showed a typical residential road parallel to Perry Lane,
which would be this through road. If we really bring this concept of a pedestrian way,
bikeway, we are going to want it separate and that may change the configuration a
little bit of how lots are laid out and that is still open. I mean, because they haven't
done anything more with that. Those are all things we have to think about.
Mr. Kanter - ...the thing about that area though is that it is the one remaining area of
the Town that does have existing sewer and water infrastructure and the beginnings of
transit routes that are already beginning to be there. So it is really the one part of
Town that we can build on those things. It really is an opportunity.
Chairperson Wilcox — We done discussing? Eva? Go ahead.
Board Member Hoffmann — I had a question about the parks. indicated. I see the Pew
Trail along Snyder Hill Road, this is on the pedestrian corridor map, and then there is
that whole green area between Snyder Hill Road and Pine Tree Road. Is that actually
an existing Town Park?
Mr. Smith — Yes. That land was donated to the Town as part of the trail project. It is
about 30 -some acres donated to the Town.
Board Member Hoffmann — Was that the Baldwin's land? All of that?
Mr. Smith — Baldwin and Colle were the two owners.
Board Member Hoffmann — So that is officially Town owned land now.
Mr. Smith — Yeah. Originally the trail was just going to go across a portion of it, but
they decided to donate the whole property.
Board Member Hoffmann — I didn't realize that.
Mr. Kanter — It's a beautiful...
Board Member Conneman — I think what Nicole has done is useful because it means
that we have some guidelines when some question comes up. We don't start off half-
cocked about what we might do. I think that is what the value of this is.
Ms. Tedesco — Are there any specific questions about the content?
45
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
Board Member Conneman — Some of it would be beautiful if we could do it.
Ms. Tedesco — Yes. I know. Little bit at a time. Every time a new project comes in.
Every time a reconstruction comes in. A little bit here, a little bit there.
Board Member Conneman — Exactly.
Mr. Kanter — We already had a lot to build on with the Park and Open Space Plan. It
had the recreation trails and how to connect parks, but it never really talked much
about the other connections, the walkways and the transportation aspects. There is
also ... I know I have heard some people try to distinguish well is this facility a
recreational facility or is it really a transportation one. I think the two are becoming
more and more blended together because you could look at a walkway in a residential
neighborhood as a means of getting somewhere, but it is also if you have enough
interconnections ways of just getting your exercise and walking to the store. Is that
transportation or is that recreation? Yes. It is both. Some of those distinctions are
much less clear now than they used to be in the old days.
Mr. Walker — As long as we have a liquor store on West Hill then it is recreation.
Mr. Kanter — Actually, that would probably be a successful business. A liquor store, a
restaurant, an ice cream parlor.
Mr. Walker — Think about it. You have a concentration of doctors on West Hill, but is
there a pharmacy on the West Hill?
Board Member Hoffmann — There used to be.
Board Member Thayer — Not any more.
Mr. Walker — You have all these doctors...
Board Member Thayer — There should be one there ... a logical spot.
Chairperson Wilcox.— All set? Thank you very much.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox read an editorial about the Planning Board in the Ithaca. Times. The
Ithaca Times also gave the Planning Board a thumbs down for not starting the public
hearing for the Indian Creek Slopes Conservation zone as scheduled on the agenda.
Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview of the March 21, 2006 agenda.
ENO
Planning Board Minutes
March 7, 2006
Approved
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the March 7, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 9:21. p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
JU
arrie Coates i more
Deputy Town Clerk
47
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7 :05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca
College School of Business building located north of Job and Friends Halls on the Ithaca
College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density
Residential. Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a new +/- 38;000 gross square foot
building which will include new classrooms, faculty offices, conference rooms, and an.atrium
for the School of Business. The project will also include new lighting, walkways, stormwater
facilities, landscaping, and a +/- 3,780 square foot green roof. Ithaca College,
Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent,
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the construction of a dock
located at 1126 East Shore Drive,.Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront
Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile dock, 8' wide by 60' long
with a 12' by 12 ` "L" end extension for a total of 528 +/- square feet of surface area. Jason
Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B. Knewstub, Applicant,
7:45 P.M. Presentation and discussion regarding the 2005 Planning Department Annual Report and 2006
Work Plan Priorities.
8:15 P.M
6.
7.
Jb
Discussion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Town of Ithaca.
Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
Approval of Minutes: February 21, 2006,
Other Business:
9. 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 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
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, March 7, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y.,
at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca College School of Business
building located north of Job and Friends Halls on the Ithaca.College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes
the construction of a new +/- 38,000 gross square foot building which will include new classrooms,
faculty offices, conference rooms, and an atrium for the School of Business. The project will also
include new lighting, walkways, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and a +/- 3,780 square foot
green roof. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent.
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the construction of a dock located at 1126. East Shore
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal. includes
constructing an open pile dock, 8' wide by 60' long with a 12' by 12 ` "L" end extension for a total
of 528 +/- square feet of surface area. Jason Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B. Knewstub, Applicant.
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, February 27, 2006
Publish: Wednesday, March 1, 2006
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: March 7, 2006
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
PLEASE PRINT AD ORES S /AFFILIATION
LCC
/ r
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
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, March 7, 2006 commencing
at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting:
February 27, 2006
i . .
Date of Publication:
March 1, 2006
� r_ a-4. a
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1St day of March 2006,
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 N