HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2022-08-18 Town of Ithaca Planning Committee
Thursday, August 18, 2022
(3:03 PM via Zoom)
Minutes
Committee members: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Rod Howe & Margaret Johnson
Board/Staff members: Director of Planning, Susan Ritter; Planners Chris Balestra& Dan Tasman;
Director of Code Enforcement, Marty Mosely; Director of Engineering, Dan Thaete.
Zoom Guests: RaNic Golf Club-Noah Demarest-STREAM Collaborative, Adam Fishel-Marathon
Engineering, Sean Whittaker-property owner; Residents - Bruce Brittain, Carl Franck, Clover
Drinkwater & Gary Turton.
1. Approval of July meeting minutes: Rod moved; Margaret seconded. July 21, 2022, minutes were
approved with one minor correction.
2. Persons to be heard summarized below:
Bruce Brittain commented on the proposed RaNic PDZ stating that he supported keeping the southern
portion of the proposed PDZ as golf course/open space, but the language may be too specific. If the only
permitted use (golf course) were to cease, the land could be less viable for other potential buyers. His
recommendation was to permit additional uses, such as green/open space for parks, gardens,pastures,
tree farms etc. He also commented that the single-family home parcels should be included in the PDZ
rather than carved out.
Carl Franck commented that the different project elements looked disconnected and he echoed Bruce's
comments above. He supported good affordable housing for long term development and thanked the
staff and committee for looking out for the whole communities' best interest, lastly recommending a
community pool or other community wide opportunities for utilization.
Gary Turton explained that he is a club member and adjacent property owner and while generally
supporting the overall plan he stated that he did not support the recently added townhomes along the cul-
de-sac that immediately borders his open back yard. Noting these townhomes were not part of the initial
proposal, he expressed his objection to them. Other than concern for this part of the plan, he was
otherwise supportive.
Clover Drinkwater submitted a written statement, and also spoke, asking the committee to consider the
visual impacts of the proposed changes from the perspective of the neighboring properties and walk the
boundaries, noting how the character of the surrounding neighborhood would change with the proposed
project. She also asked what percent of the proposed new dwellings would be owner occupied or owned
by the proposed hotel?
3. Committee announcements and concerns: None.
4. Consider RaNic Golf Club revised (7/28/22) Planned Development Zone: A draft redlined PDZ
was circulated to the committee which showed the changes made from the first draft. The first draft was
1
a template from the Maplewood PDZ and had some irrelevant sections to the proposed RaNic project.
Staff and the committee made some suggestions at the previous meeting, and the second draft addressed
them. Sue noted the definition for clubhouse was amended to be clearer about where certain uses would
be allowed, such as office and restaurant in the clubhouse only.
Dan Tasman further explained that the definition consolidated all the clubhouse uses. He also noted the
recommendation to adjust the number of dividing walls in the townhouse language to match the number
of units proposed per row. He touched on building form and architecture which will be explored further
and recommended overall good architecture to blend with various forms of architecture existing in the
neighborhood. The parking requirements suggestion was to the side and rear of the buildings, with the
exception of the clubhouse. The need for landscape buffering between the proposed townhouses and
existing Hanshaw Road homes was also noted.
Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative thanked staff for their comments and stated their intent to
meet the items noted. The intent of the golf/open space language is to reflect the current use and
amendments could be made in the future if the use were to change. The intent for the location of the cul-
de-sac section was to place them no closer than the existing homes are from each other currently and to
maximize the golf practice area. The yards and existing landscape would buffer the proposed
townhomes and exploring secondary onsite buffering/screening was noted as being an option. Lighting
will meet the Town standards and internal pedestrian scale light poles lining the parking area are
proposed. The townhomes would all be for outside/private ownership. Short-term renting, if applicable,
could be managed by the hotel. The stay and play area ownership would be retained by the golf course.
Noah noted the PDZ and Sketch Plan has not been before the full Cayuga Heights Planning Board or
Board of Trustees yet, however initial informal comments have indicated preference for the hotel
building to be in the Town rather than in the Village. Annexation of the land or moving the proposed
hotel building over into the Town side were options that were mentioned. All agreed that the proposed
hotel location is ideal as presented on the sketch plan and that relocation or annexation would be more
complicated, though the boundary bisecting the existing clubhouse causes complications on its own.
Options are being explored by the developer for solutions. The townhomes would be the first focus in
the sequential project, prompting (financially) the clubhouse renovations and the hotel construction.
Property owner Sean Whittaker noted the intent is to utilize the land appropriately and that the three
standalone dwelling parcels, proposed to be subdivided off, are not the driving force of the project and
do not need to be included if there are concerns.
Rich asked about the size of the space and the intent for the existing home and barn on Warren Road for
an event center. Noah explained the vision is for a"Stay and Play area" for small bridal parties, groups
or gatherings with an internal network/open pathway to the golf course in the rear. The existing
driveway would remain for access as well. Holding a future site visit for board/committee/staff
members was mentioned. Detailed site plan review would take place once the application is submitted
and many of the public concerns or questions raised above would be addressed by the Planning Board
review process. The short-term rental (STR)use, allowed under a hospitality method or through the
existing town STR regulations, would be a future detailed discussion and Noah offered to draft some
proposed language to consider. In reference to lighting, Rich asked for a comparison of the color
2
temperature number relative to the new town streetlights. The intent of an internal street that connects
from Pleasant Grove Road to Hanshaw Road was also briefly discussed.
Rod commented that not including the single-family home lots in the PDZ seemed appropriate and that
the short-term rental intent will need further discussion, but overall, he was supportive of the project. He
offered to reach out to the Village to open the door for intermunicipal communication on the project.
Margaret asked about the impact from car traffic. Rich replied that traffic impacts will be formally
addressed in the environmental review but asked the developer if they had an early response. Sean
responded that when fully built out, under the current proposal, the impact would be no greater than
when the club was at peak membership. Noah added there would be no net change or possibly a slight
increase from the original site plan full build out approval but would be further explored in a traffic
study.
The discussion concluded with the plan for staff/Noah to make the necessary changes and then send the
amended proposed PDZ language to the Attorney for review. If Attorney changes are not substantive,
then the document can go to the Planning Board for a recommendation, then back to the committee for
final review prior to Town Board for action.
Sue encouraged holding a site visit and recommended Planning and Town Board members be included
as well. Dates and times will be circulated for availability.
5. Consider Limited Historic Commercial Zone revised draft amendments: Further revised
language was drafted and circulated by Planning staff after committee input and conversations with the
Attorney, the Codes Director and other town staff. The new concept is to ensure maintenance and
upkeep of historical properties that benefit from a rezoning to Limited Historic Commercial overlay.
The Codes Director and Attorney will need to review the proposed language in detail for compliance
elements. The steps were briefly explained by Sue, including that an applicant applying for the overlay
zone would need to hire a professional inspector/architect/etc. for a conditions assessment report that
would form the basis of a preservation plan for current and long term needs of the property. If it were
approved by the Town Board, inspections by the Building Department would occur to ensure adherence
to repair timelines and needs identified in the preservation plan. A compliance certification letter would
be issued following a favorable inspections and regular periodic inspections would assess any remaining
deficiencies and long-term maintenance. Non-compliance with the preservation plan has a process
written in as well.
Brief changes or comments include: § 270-142.3. Overlay district creation and dissolution C. (2) a-
delete engaged in " hired/engaged by the property owner". D (2) a. delete "in correcting deficiencies"
and replace with "towards its implementation".
Use table: need to refine or define the terms professional service, professional office and retail use un
within the Live-work dwelling section.
3
Lodging principal use, the Inn section overall will need to be looked at closer though it was agreed it
seemed limiting that use be allowed only on a lot that fronts a collector or major road so that could be
deleted and not excluding existing properties was to be considered as well as looking up the number of
guest rooms per square foot of habitable space number or using the 800 proposed which was the
maximum allowed size of a ADU(min. is 300 sq. ft.).
The short-term rental use section was explained to include and reference certain sections of the existing
short-term rental law, but not all. Provisions in 270-219.7 E(1), E(2)(a) and E(2)(c) were proposed to
apply in the LHC overlay district. Committee agreed to add in E(2) & E(2)(d). The limiting of operating
permits to no more than two was discussed. This would only apply to pre-existing non-conforming uses
with more than one principal building which would be rare. No more than two did not raise any
objections although accessory uses for more than one principal use on a lot could be problematic. Dan
noted the underlying zoning definitions would still apply as well.
The committee was in general support of moving forward for detailed review by the Codes Director and
Attorney and review again once that has happened.
6. Consider Solar Law draft amendments: The existing town law limits solar facilities to 10 acres
maximum. There has been interest for larger projects in the town and staff has reviewed other solar laws
for ideas on additional provisions to include for addressing impacts from larger installations. Proposed
amendments to the law were circulated and included a new "full-scale" category that would allow
projects up to +/- 30 acres in size with precautions for agriculture and wildlife. Sue asked for comments
on any agriculture concerns other than what is already identified, such as tree removal and the wildlife
part. With the amendments, the law would have four size categories, with"large" and "full-scale"
requiring Planning Board review. Allowing solar as a principal use in a PDZ was discussed, allowing
this overall in any PDZ will need closer review as a change in a PDZ would currently require a revised
approval. If a solar project larger than 10 acres were to come before the Planning Board now the
approval would be conditional on the solar law amendments being adopted. Keeping the setbacks
consistent among the different zones was agreeable. The 20% not to exceed amount for removal of
mature trees was agreeable.
The committee was comfortable with the concept and general language and agreed to review again with
any highlights still needing to be clarified at the next meeting.
7. Staff updates and reports:
8. Next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: next meeting Sept 15, 2022. Topics: Solar Law
amendments, RaNic PDZ if necessary and LHC draft amendments if back and reviewed by other
necessary staff.
The Planning Committee meeting concluded at 5:00 pm.
4