Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2023-09-19 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Tuesday, September 19,2023 7:00 P.M. Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/i/83643764382. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only,it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVlibihCy7NO/live). AGENDA 1. SEQR Determination: Comfort Inn Hotel—635 Elmira Road. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Comfort Inn Hotel located at 635 Elmira Road,Neighborhood Commercial Zone and Inlet Valley Overlay District. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structures to allow the construction of a 3-story, 37,000+/-square foot hotel. The facility will include 67 hotel rooms, 67 parking spaces, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. The Planning Board granted final site plan approval for this project on March 7, 2017,but the approval expired because construction did not materially commence within 36 months of the approval. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Pratik Ahir,Ramji Hospitality, LLC, Owner/Applicant;Adam M. Fishel,PE,Marathon Engineering,Agent. 3. Persons to be heard. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 NOTE:IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND,PLEASE NOTIFY CHRIS BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRAna,TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four(4)members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website at https://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/meeting-calendar-agendas/under the calendar meeting date. TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N.Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING & PUBLICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) 1, Abby Homer, Administrative Assistant for the Town of Ithaca being duly sworn, depose and say, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca,New York. That on the 12th day of September 2023, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners within 500 ft. of the properties and projects identified below for: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Comfort Inn Hotel located at 635 Elmira Road,Neighborhood Commercial Zone and Inlet Valley Overlay District. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structures to allow the construction of a 3-story, 37,000 4 -square foot hotel.The facility will include 67 hotel rooms, 67 parking spaces, stormwater facilities,outdoor lighting, and landscaping. The Planning Board granted final site plan approval for this project on March 7, 2017, but the approval expired because construction did not materially commence within 36 months of the approval.This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Pratik Ahir, Ramji Hospitality, LLC,Owner/Applicant; Adam M. Fishel,PE, Marathon Engineering,Agent. By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York, and that the attached notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca on September 12, 2023, and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,Ithaca Journal on September 13, 2023. Abby Homer d ntstrative Assistant Sworn to before me on SacQ{t+n� 2023. lei I I ; Notary Public ASHLEY COLSERT Notary Public, state of New York No.01C06419580 Qualified in Tompkins County '�nmission Expires July 12,2025 TOWN OF ITHACA „r NEW YORK Notice of Planning Board Action Near You You are receiving this notice because you own or live on a property within 500'feet of the proposed action. This is an effort to inform you and give you an opportunity to learn more and comment if you would like. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 19,2023,at 7:00 P.M.on the following matter: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Comfort Inn Hotel located at 635 Elmira Road, Neighborhood Commercial Zone and Inlet Valley Overlay District. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structures to allow the construction of a 3-story, 3 7,000 +l square foot hotel_ The facility will include 67 hotel rooms, 67 parking spaces, storm waterfacilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. The Planning Board granted final site plan approval for this project on March 7, 2017, but the approval expired because construction did not materially commence within 36 months of the approval. This is a Type 1 Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Pratik Ahir, Ramji Hospitality, LLC, OwnerlApplicant; Adam M. Fishel, PE, Marathon Engineering, Agent. Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom at htTLs.lLt!s_Q6web.zoc!rn.us/i/83643764382. Any person wishing to address the board will be heard. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube(ht#ps:l/www.youtube.com/.channeVUCC2yycXkJ6klVIibjhC 7NQ/1ive). In addition, comments can be sent via email to townclerkCi�,town.ithaca.ny.us up to the end of business the day of the meeting and all comments will be forwarded to the board. Additional information is available at www_town.Ithaca.ny.us. C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website at htti3s:/Zwww.town.ithaca.ny.uslmgeting-calendar-agendasI under the calendar meeting date. Full meeting agenda is on reverse side 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC BEARING NOTICE The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Tues day, September 19, 2023, starting at 7:00 P.M. on the fol- lowing matter- Consideration of PreliminarySite Plan Approval and Spe- cial Permit for the proposed ComfortInn Hotel located at 635 Elmira Road, Neighborhood Commercial Zone and In- let Valley Overlay District. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structures to allow the construc- tion of a 3-story, 37,000 +/- square foot hotel.The facility will include 67 hotel rooms, 67 parking spaces, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. The Planning Board granted final site plan approval for this project on March 7, 2017, but the approval expired because construction did not materially commence within 36 months of the approval. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review Pratik Ahir Ramji Hospitality, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Adam M. Fishel, PE, Marathon En gineering,Agent. Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The publ c will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and pro- vide comments in person or through Zoom at https://usO6 web.zoom.u s/j/8 3643 764382 If the public would like to attend the meeting for view. ing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube (https)/wwvv.youtube.com/ channel/VCC9vycXkJGkl VlibjhCy7NQ/live). Any person wishing to address the board will be heard. In addition, comments can be sent via email to townclerk ®town.ithaca.ny.us up to the end of business the day of the meeting and all comments will be forwarded to the board. Additional information is available at www.town .ithaca.ny.us. C.J.Randall, Director of Planning 9/1 3/2023 6;E15s TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD September 19, 2023 Minutes Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair: Members Ariel Casper, Caitlin Cameron, Kelda McGurk, Bill Arms, Liz Bageant and Cindy Kaufman(Virtual) CJ Randall, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; David O'Shea, Engineering and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 7:00p.m. 1. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Comfort Inn Hotel located at 635 Elmira Road,Neighborhood Commercial Zone and Inlet Valley Overlay District. The proposal involves demolishing the existing structures to allow the construction of a 3-story,37,000+/- square foot hotel. The facility will include 67 hotel rooms, 67 parking spaces, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. The Planning Board granted final site plan approval for this project on March 7,2017,but the approval expired because construction did not materially commence within 36 months of the approval. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Pratik Ahir,Ramji Hospitality,LLC, Owner/Applicant;Adam M. Fishel,PE,Marathon Engineering,Agent. Overview Ryan Jordan, Marathon Engineering, introduced his associates and went through a presentation showing changes since the last meeting based upon feedback from the Board. Primarily, the changes are architectural and dealing with the amenities in the back of the building. The gazebo has been moved and the dumpster enclosure is set further away from it. The architectural changes are now based upon the enactment of the Inlet Valley Overlay District (IVOD) and we worked with planning staff to incorporate the comments and recommendations from this Board. Some of the heavy timber has been removed and we have adjusted the front fagade and materials and we used neutral colors and adjusted the building's footprint to reduce the "squareness" of the building and incorporated composite shakes within the dormers and some other materials to comply with the IVOD. We removed three rooms to bring the number down to 67 and we were able to provide the balconies which provide views of the wetlands in the back and the patio area. PB 2023-09-19 (Filed 12/18) Pg. 1 The materials for the fagade in the back have been changed to address your concerns about too much stone and added more color to the siding. We moved the pool four feet to allow for more glazing of the windows and enlarged the patio area with room for outdoor seating. We tried very hard to follow the intent and idea of the IVOD and this is not a typical Comfort Inn Hotel. The height has been reduced as much as possible and maintained the pitch to reduce the variance needed, but the IVOD requires no more than 100' feet of roof line so we had to jog that out a bit to meet the regulations. He provided samples of the materials discussed for color and texture. Mr. Jordan stated that a document should have been included in the materials that outlined all the ways in which we addressed the concerns and comments and the regulations of the IVOD in changing this design. To our knowledge the only things that we weren't able to address is the building height and the guest room count. He added that the change from a Sleep Inn to a Comfort Inn was that Ithaca lacks a Comfort Inn, which is the flagship brand and we were encouraged by the franchise, Choice Hotels, which holds both Comfort and Sleep Inn, as well as many others, to switch to the Comfort Inn, which is the upper-middle scale category, rather than the Sleep Inn. Mr. Jordan stated that the franchise has not seen the design changes, and this is not the standard Comfort Inn layout and style, but although there is a"standard" design, there is always room for options to meet the needs of the community. SEQR Determination Mr. Arms asked about Section 2, 17c,where it asks whether the variances needed are minor;they were approved for 70 rooms pre-IVOD, and they are asking for 67 rooms where 60 is now permitted. That is not a large variance,but the height in one spot is 50 feet in just one area and 44' feet in the remaining roofline, where 40' feet is the maximum. All this to say that I am concerned about this being the very first project that comes before the Board and it exceeds the zoning. He asked why the project is in front of this Board prior to going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the necessary variances. Mr. Wilcox responded that the Planning Board is Lead Agency for the environmental review so we have to do that prior to and for the Zoning Board of Appeals. They cannot grant a variance without SEQR, and that is why this comes to us for preliminary approval and SEQR and one of the conditions of preliminary approval will be granting of the required variances. PB 2023-09-19 (Filed 12/18) Pg. 2 The two boards are independent of each other and use different criteria in decision making. What the ZBA does should not influence our decision and vice-versa. We need to do our best not to consider the variances needed in our determinations. Ms. Balestra added that there is no official policy on process; applicants work with the Planning and Codes Departments to determine the most efficient and effective schedule for the approvals needed. Generally, in a project of this size, they go to the Planning Board to get a feel for the project, take any feedback to make changes, then come back to the Planning Board for preliminary approvals; then to the Zoning Board for any variances, then back to Planning Board for final approvals. There is the option of just taking action on SEQR tonight and have the applicant come back after appearing at the ZBA for preliminary/final approval. Mr. Wilcox noted that he was on the Board when this project received initial approval and now, I think it would be great if this could be a 2-story rather than a 3-story,which is what this Board did with the Country Inn& Suites on South Hill. They came in with a 3-story and we said it was not within scale of the neighborhood, it was out of scale. We couldn't say it is taller than allowed within Code, but we could say it was out of scale. This project is similar in that this feels a little bit out of scale and variances aside, it just seems too tall for the area. Ms. Kaufman said she felt that visual impact is part of SEQR and she thanked the applicants for taking the Boards comments and making changes. She said she was still concerned about the materials; the IVOD says the concept is for the primary material to be 60-100%prominence in cladding with the secondary at 0-40% and those accent materials should be used sparingly. Ms. Kaufman reacted to the amount of exterior facade materials; there are many different materials here, and although she appreciates the fiber cement panels like the lap siding, the shingle style, and the board and batten style, she felt like they are competing and very haphazard in her opinion. She said she would like to hear from the architect because maybe she was missing something. She added that she appreciated the work they had put in to vary the facade and break down the scale, but it would be better if these renderings could be on the site in question, not just abstract, because it doesn't give a true sense of what the building is going to look like on the site. Mr. Arms said that he would repeat what he said before; he is not comfortable with the community character and consistency with the IVOD, although there is no "community character"now as there is nothing there to compare it to, but, the parking close to the road, the height of the building, seem out of character. Mr. Wilcox responded that we are doing an environmental review and the question before us is does the project have the potential for a significant environmental impact. PB 2023-09-19 (Filed 12/18) Pg. 3 Ms. Brock added that because this Board is the lead agency, you're looking at the environmental impacts of everything, not just those things that are within your jurisdiction. When you're voting on site plan and special permit, you look only at the things in your jurisdiction, but for the environmental review, you do look at the impacts of the entire project. She added that she wanted to note that Part 3 mentions that this will be visible from the future Black Diamond Trail from the natural area along the back. Multiple technical and grammatical changes were made to the SEQR form. Mr. Wilcox called for the vote, noting that the question before us is whether the project will cause a significant environmental impact. ***Due to confusion on the voting members and actual votes, this resolution was represented and voted upon at the October 3, 2023 meeting. Public Hearing—Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Mr. Wilcox turned to questions with regard to the actual site plan that we might not have covered during environmental review. Ms. Kaufman again brought up the materials to be used and the percentages as stated in the IVOD. The applicant's architect responded that a lot of the changes she has mentioned were made after reviewing the IVOD requirements and materials were added to comply with that; you aren't allowed to have over a certain length of the building without changing the material. Our previous rendition was much simpler, we basically had a stone base with a tower and then lap siding above. In the new rendition we've added more materials to it because of what we discovered in the IVOD requirements and the entry vestibule is required to be identified with different material types to separate it from the rest of the building. We have made a lot of changes based upon your comments and the IVOD, but if your interpretation of the IVOD is different and you would prefer less variations of materials, we would be happy to do that. Discussion followed on variations of the materials and fagade and ideas to make it less chaotic. Mr. Wilcox stated that Ms. Kaufman is describing what she would have done because her expertise is in architecture, but that is what she would have done versus what is acceptable under Code, and he did not have any issue with what is being presented. Ms. Cameron asked for some further clarifications on materials which were given. She questioned the interpretation of Section 270-171.6, 8a regarding the percentages of materials, PB 2023-09-19 (Filed 12/18) Pg.4 and who makes that interpretation because she agrees that there are too many materials, and it should be less busy. She felt the language was not clear in the IVOD. Discussion followed with Mr. Moseley stating that he doesn't disagree that the language can be confusing and the consensus from the Board was a wish for fewer differences in the material. The applicant responded that they would be happy to reduce the variations of materials and showed showing the depiction of the previous rendition and the current rendition and options. Ms. Cameron noted that there are depictions showing what the intent of the "design standards" and Ms. Randall added that it seems the intent is that one or two materials need to set a dominant theme. Mr. Wilcox asked the applicant if they had a good sense of what the Planning Board was asking under"Building Design" of the IVOD and they said they understood. The applicant's architect added that any building over 100' feet had to meet other base, middle and top distances and offsets and more in the IVOD, and that is something the Board might want to think about as this and other applications move through under the IVOD. Mr. Wilcox asked if there was anyone wishing to speak. A lady spoke, saying she is a local resident and works at Cornell. She questioned the number of hotels that are in the area that are so focused on seasonal use associated with the colleges and she did not think the scope or the aesthetics of a chain hotel fit the area. A gentleman spoke, saying this is a commercial strip on South Meadow Street where there is nothing pretty about it, there's nothing beautiful about it, there's nothing coordinated about it so what differences does it make what this building looks like. He said nitpicking seems to be a crazy use of time. There are so many different things along that strip right now, why make such a big deal about the materials. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing. Determination A member of the ownership team spoke, saying that franchises would not approve a 2-story hotel in these days, and we can't go private because no lender will do that. We would rather do that, but we cannot. We own and run the Rodeway Inn and just remodeled it. People do not like 2-story hotels. They don't feel as "nice"to them. Even though we are in the top 10 performing hotels but people tell us all the time that they didn't think we were a hotel when they saw us. It is a perception even obvious in movies where the depiction of a one or two-story motel is seedy and not pleasant. PB 2023-09-19 (Filed 12/18) Pg. 5 And yes, in Upstate New York, hotels are very seasonal, and in this area, we are actually a bit lucky in that the season is extended a bit due to the wineries and hunting season. The draft resolution was moved and seconded with multiple minor changes made and the reference to the design standards as discussed above. ***Due to confusion on the voting members and actual votes, this resolution was represented and voted upon at the October 3, 2023 meeting. 2. Persons to be Heard Mr. Wilcox noted that three or four weeks ago there was an article in the Ithaca Voice about a possible development in the Northeast and some members of the neighborhood are here to let us know how they feel. Norman Adelowitz, Muriel St resident spoke, saying that his neighborhood got talking about the rumor of a 215 unit apartment building being built on Tareyton Dr in the Ithaca Voice. Emails started flying and Ms. Rosa gave a lengthy explanation on the process and a lot of good information from the Town's point of view and the process. He said he is the spokesperson for today to express our concerns over any planned 215-unit affordable housing development or multi-family development. He said there is no connection to Tareyton Dr., so the way it is being depicted in the media is misleading, but this will affect Sapsucker Woods sanctuary area and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Mr. Adelowitz submitted a handout with the groups' concerns and priorities for the Town to look at and enforce. (Attachment 1) Mr. Wilcox said he was confused as this seems to be addressing a plan that does not exist. Mr. Adelowitz responded that this could be considered forewarning as the property is listed for sale with that type of description. Ms. Randall added that one of the parties interested in the property did ask the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department about water and sewer availability and that also raised concerns with the neighborhood. The process when and if this property is sold, would be lengthy with the applicants starting with the Town's Planning Department, then the Planning Committee for months of review and if it makes it past that, it would most likely go to the Town Board for a rezoning or Planned Development Zone determination before finally coming to the Planning Board and Zoning Board for their processes. PB 2023-09-19 (Filed 12/18) Pg. 6 Mr. Adelowitz stated that they understood that as Ms. Rosa and now Ms. Randall just explained, but we think it is never too soon to stick our noses into something so big that is being discussed for our area. He went through the bulleted list of concerns, many of which were associated with drainage and the natural area and traffic. Mr. Wilcox stated that Mr. Adelowitz and others probably saw from the previous topic tonight that when and if a project comes to this Board, it will get a thorough review. Jane Marie Law spoke, saying that she appreciated the comments she has heard but she wanted to stress that Cornell has a signed contract with the developers and Dakota Developers do not build small projects or good projects. The problem is that this may seem not a thing yet, but she has a relative that works for an engineering firm associated with Dakota that says this is already a major project in their working process now. She stated that we are not NIMBY'ing this, and we can't fight Cornell and the only people we can come to are the Town Board's to stop what will be a disastrous mistake. Mr. Wilcox stated that this Board often does not have the discretion that many people think we have. Your elected officials on the Town Board do. That is who to start with and to go with. What we do and can guarantee you is that we will thoroughly review it. We cannot prejudge an application, in fact, if we do, we would have to recuse ourselves. Jess spoke, saying that she is speaking for the younger generation and renters in the neighborhood. She said she and her partner chose to live here because of the natural area and the special access to the Sapsucker Woods wildlife that means so much to us all. We appreciate you listening to us as Board members but also as fellow community members. Mr. Wilcox thanked the public for speaking and read the email from Mr. Adelowitz about the proposed project, which mentions a"comfort letter." Ms. Law spoke again, saying that a"comfort letter" is pretty solid and they will try and railroad this through. Ms. Bageant asked what a comfort letter is, and Ms. Rosa explained that it was a term used by engineering stating that there is water or sewer available at this moment, a snapshot in time, but they cannot reserve that availability and it is in no way a commitment of availability. It explicitly states that. Allocation does not happen until a project goes through numerous levels of review and approval(s). Mr. O'Shea added that this is nothing different than the many calls we get from realtors every day and something of this scale, we routinely bring it to the Public Works Committee. PB 2023-09-19 (Filed 12/18) Pg. 7 A letter was issued that stated that we do not have water in that tank zone and if they wish to pursue a location, they will have to go through the Boards to pursue that allocation. The letter simply stated what is and is not available at this moment in time. Mr. Arms said that there seems to be a communication problem where we get information and requests from the public asking us to do things that are not within our power, and we need to get the word out about who does what and where to take concerns. Ms. Brock said that almost everything in the last paragraph in the handout about the past proposed housing development by developer Rocco Lucente in the Sapsucker Woods area is incorrect; that project was proposed in 2007 or 2008, not 2005. It was not 250 housing units; it was more about 80 units. Ms. Brock said she was very involved, as she was the Attorney for the Town and worked with the Planning Board when it went through. Years later, when the Town was sued she defended the Town, and the Town won at the Supreme Court level and at the Appellate Division. There was no positive declaration under SEQR, and the Planning Board did not reject the subdivision in an environmental impact study as unsustainable. The Planning Board made a negative declaration under SEQR, and the Planning Board gave preliminary subdivision approval with some conditions. Lucente proposed to take the stormwater, which was an enormous issue because of the fragipan layer—which is an impermeable layer of soil that prevents water percolation and is the reason why the area is so wet—and they were going to put the stormwater into some existing wetlands. One of the preliminary approval conditions was that DEC [NYS Department of Environmental Conservation] had to approve that,but DEC said no. Lucente had to redesign the subdivision, and they proposed to cut a substantial number of trees and create an area for a detention basin. They just sort of stopped and went away. Years later, they came to the Town Clerk(the lawsuit is in her name) and said they had a default approval because the Planning Board did not act on the revised plan within the statutory timeline. The Town won the lawsuit; there was no default approval as developer Lucente was not entitled to it. Ms. Brock wants the Planning Board to know the history because all these things are being said, and that is not what happened then. The proposed subdivision was on different parcels, too. There are pieces like stormwater issues that may have common elements. Mr. Casper asked to get an email with the information regarding the DEC ruling, the court case and any other relevant information re: the Lucente subdivision to prepare the Planning Board for any future discussions. 3. Other Business Ms. Balestra reviewed the next agenda. The meeting was adjourned upon motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Mr. Casper, unanimous. Yute Rosa,Town Clerk PB 2023-09-19(Filed 12/18) Pg. 8