HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-06-17X? .
•
0
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
FILE
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 17, 2003,
in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, . Board Member; George
Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board
Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Creig Hebdon, Assistant
Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Michael Smith,
Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner
ALSO PRESENT: Vincent Nicotra, Ithaca College; Fred Vanderburg, QPK Design;
David Schlosser, Schlosser Architects; Karl Gesslein, 855 Five Mile Drive; Andrew
Davis, 123 Catherine Street; Anthony Michaud, 525 North Albany Street; Eric Gaylord,
244 Danby Road; David Romm, 1006 East Shore Drive; Tom Newton, 1016 East Shore
Drive; Edward Surrell, 249 Route 79, Slaterville Springs; Andrea Dutcher, 21 Besemer
Road; Christina Tonitto, 214 South Hill Terrace; Michelle Burlitch, 673 Ringwood Road;
Helen Shewchuk, Winston Drive; Emir Sirer, 214 South Hill Terrace; Rich DePaolo, 126
North View Road; Pete Kane, 119 Ferris Place; Jeff Inman, 21 Pacific Road,
Brooktondale; Andrei Garcia, Friends of Cornell Sailing; Sveu Asche, Cayuga
Windsurfing Club, Virginia Hughes, Cayuga Windsurfing Club; Fernando Schwartz,
Cornell- Cayuga Windsurfing Club; Tina Morrison, Cornell Windsurfing Club; Adrian
Bozdog, Cornell Windsurfing Club; Arthur Haas, Cayuga Windsurfing Club; Tuncay
Almen, affiliation /address not given; Amena Siddigi, affiliation /address not given;
Umberlo Pesduento, Cornell Windsurfing Club; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Geoff
King, affiliation /address not given; Beu Kepf, affiliation /address not given; Robert Nevin,
affiliation /address not given; Year Halcobyan, affiliation /address not given; Valeri
Smivielnscoki, affiliation /address not given; Faith Chase, affiliation /address not given
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepted for
the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public
Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 9, 2003 and June 11, 2003,
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, June 11, 2003.
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
1
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:07
p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — The first order of business is welcoming Mr. Chase. Good
Evening.
The first order of business is Persons to be Heard. If there is a member of the audience
who wishes to address the Board this evening on an issue, an item, a topic that is not
on this evening's agenda, we ask you to please come to the microphone, give us your
name and address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say this
evening.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Ithaca College Press Box Facility, 953
Danby Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, Syracuse — If I could request the easel, I have a
presentation.
Chairperson Wilcox — Sure.
Mr. Nicotra — What we're proposing is an approximately 250 square foot building area
foot print, a two -story press box that will be located at the soccer field at the western
most end of the campus, which is adjacent to College Circle. There is a small site plan,
shown here, which is also in the package that you have in front of you. There's existing,
currently there two sets of bleaches and what the campus is looking to do is provide and
enclosed facility for people to view the soccer games and lacrosse games that are on
the field and also provide a platform within the press box, obviously, for filming of the
games. The bleachers that are there now will be supplemented by an additional,
approximately, sixty seats, which are shown here in blue on the plan.
The facility is intended to be built out of metal framing and the roof is a metal framing
and the roof is a metal standing seam roof with metal siding in the school colors white
and blue, as you can see here. The bleachers will be blue as well, facing the field and
they'll be flanked on either side by the existing bleachers, that will be kept in use. We're
proposing the campuses logo facing towards the field. On the back side of the facility
will be a stair to access the second floor.
There are no environmental issues that we are aware of that will be created by the
addition of this press box. Again, it's a fairly small facility, approximately 250 square feet
in foot print and it's totally within the confines of campus.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions in regard to the Environmental Review?
Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to ask about the lights. I see two light fixtures
on the face of the building that's toward the field. Are those the only two?
K
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Mr. Nicotra — No, there is an additional light fixture that we're proposing for lighting the
stair in the back so that when you step out, your pathway will be lit. We enclosed the
type of fixture that we proposed in the package. Again, these are very localized lights.
There will just be one facing towards the back, where the stair is to light the pedestrian
path.
Board Member Hoffmann — I guess there is no drawing of the back, that's why it doesn't
show it.
Mr. Nicotra — No. The back is essentially a back wall, except for one door. If you look
here on the floor plan, you'll see the stairs and there is just one door with no glass or
openings in it, just a plain, hollow, metal door so people can exit and enter the facility.
Board Member Hoffmann — And all the light fixtures will be the same kind?
Mr. Nicotra — Yes. It's a wall- mounted light fixture.
Board Member Thayer — Those lights will be on only when there's a game or will the
back light be on all the time?
Mr. Nicotra — I guess I will have to defer to Fred on that. Fred Vanderburgh from Ithaca
College, I suspect there will only be power when this facility is being used, but I'll defer
to Fred.
Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College — the lights will be on all the time. Probably not the
front lights facing the field, but the light on the stairway, just as a matter of security
purposes. As you know, the connector road between the campus and College Circle will
be on the west side of this building and when patrol officers would drive by, they would
be able to see if anybody was on that stairway or trying to enter that building on the
stairs.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Eva all set?
Would someone like to move the SEQR Motion? So moved by George Conneman. Do I
have a second? Seconded by Kevin Talty.
note that the application, item three, project location doesn't say Town of Ithaca. So we
should add the words "Town of Ithaca" to that and with that addition, all those in favor,
please signal by saying "aye ". Anybody opposed? Any abstentions? There are none,
the Motion is passed.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 039:SEQR: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
Ithaca College Press Box Facility, Terrace Dorms Drive Extension (953 Danby Roadjown
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42 -1 -13.2
MOTION by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty.
3
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
WHEREAS:
This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed press box facility located at Ithaca College between the existing soccer
fields and Terrace Dorms Drive Extension, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 42 -1 -13.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal consists of a 250
+/- square foot 2 -story building to include a concession stand and athletic
equipment storage on the first floor with the press box on the second floor. The
project also includes adding new bleacher style seating for approximately 60
people to the existing bleachers. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant;
Michael P. O'Shea, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on June 17, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning Staff, plans titled 'Ithaca College — Press
Box Facility, " dated May 14, 2003, a site map, dated May 14, 2003, 'Ithaca
College Press Box, " sheets A -1, A -2, and A -3, Dated May 5, 2003, prepared by
QPK Design, and other application material, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
r_- ► cry r►� r r�•� ca ��•�y sir ►rr� rn
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed press box facility located at Ithaca College between the existing
soccer fields and Terrace Dorms Drive Extension, 953 Danby Road, Town of
El
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42 -1 -13.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal consists
of a 250 +/- square foot 2 -story building to include a concession stand and
athletic equipment storage on the first floor with the press box on the second
floor. The project also includes adding new bleacher style seating for
approximately 60 people to the existing bleachers. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK
Design, Applicant; Michael P. O'Shea, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m. With no persons present to
be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are there any other questions of the applicant, before I give the
public a chance to speak?
Board Member Hoffmann — I forgot one thing that I should have mentioned earlier and
that is, the first page of the plans that we've got indicates a different field than the one
you're talking about. It indicates the larger field, which is closer to central campus as the
place where the press box would go.
This is the field that you are talking about and those are the current, existing bleachers.
So the arrow points to this field, but this is the one we're talking about, right?
Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening Tracy.
Any other questions? This is a Public Hearing, if there is a member of the audience who
wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, we
ask you to please step to the microphone, we ask that you give us your name and
address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. There
being no one, we will close the Public Hearing at 7:13 and bring the matter back to the
Board.
Questions, comments?
It looks good, small. I don't see much impact. Would someone like to move the Motion
for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval? So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by
Larry Thayer. Eva has pointed out that one of the maps provided to us, which is labeled
"information only, not to scale, Ithaca College Press Box design ", actually shows the
proposed press box points to the wrong area. We should have that corrected to reflect
the actual location, approximately the essential location of the press box. So, I would
add a provision that that particular drawing on the map be revised to reflect the actual
location for the proposed press box.
Any comments from staff? Welcome John. There being no further discuss, all those in
favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anybody opposed? And there are no abstentions.
The Motion has passed. Thank you.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -040: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
Ithaca College Press Box Facility, Terrace Dorms Drive Extension (953 Danby
Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42 -1 -13.2
MOTION by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer.
I".
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed press box facility located at Ithaca College between the existing soccer
fields and Terrace Dorms Drive Extension, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 42 -1 -13.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal consists of a 250
+/- square foot 2 -story building to include a concession stand and athletic
equipment storage on the first floor with the press box on the second floor. The
project also includes adding new bleacher style seating for approximately 60
people to the existing bleachers. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant;
Michael P. O'Shea, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on
June 17, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 17, 2003, has reviewed
and accepted plans titled 'Ithaca College — Press Box Facility," dated May 14,
2003, a site map, dated May 14, 2003, 'Ithaca College Press Box," sheets A -1,
A -2, and A -3, Dated May 5, 2003, prepared by QPK Design, and other
application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the checklists, 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 Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed press box facility located at Ithaca College between
the existing soccer fields and Terrace Dorms Drive Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 42 -1 -13.2, as shown on plans titled 'Ithaca College — Press Box Facility,"
dated May 14, 2003, a site map, dated May 14, 2003, 'Ithaca College Press Box,"
sheets A -1, A -2, and A -3, Dated May 5, 2003, prepared by QPK Design, and other
application material, subject to the following condition:
a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be
retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
b. On the map labeled "info only- not to scale" change the location where the
press box is pointing to reflect the correct location of the press box.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM :SEAR Determination: Town Water Tank 2 -Lot Subdivision,
Bostwick Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:16 pm.
Chairperson Wilcox — At 7:16 the next item this evening is a State Environmental
Quality Review Determination for the proposed Town of Ithaca Water Tank 2 -Lot
Subdivision, located on Bostwick Road and, representing the Town is Creig Hebdon.
If you would give us an overview of what the Town is proposing.
Creig Hebdon, Town of Ithaca — As you know, Dan has been before the Board a couple
of times talking about our efforts to improve our water system, in particular on the west
side of the Town. I'm bringing a component of that to the Planning Board tonight and
that is for a water tank that will improve the pressures and fire flows in the Inlet Valley
area of the Town. As we know, for years we've had complaints about low pressure in
Inlet Valley and low fire flows. We chose the location for this tank based on where we
could put it and have the least amount of increase in the service area, but still improve
out pressures in that area. We also tried to pick a spot that would be fairly easy to put a
tank in without disturbing a whole lot of the trees and stuff in the area that is there right
now. What we came up with was a site on Bostwick Road that is owned by John Young,
who we've been in contact with and was all for the project. He did have us move it up
the hill away from Mr. Bell's new house that is going up out there, so it is up a little bit
higher than we originally factored for. It did help though, I think it is a better location in
that we have two sides of it that will be covered by hard woods that we are not going to
disturb. When we finish with the project, we are going to be putting some larger pine
trees around the outside on the field side that will be about ten feet high to start. Mr.
Young did approve giving us and asked us to take more land than we normally would
take for a water tank so that we could do some more extensive landscaping on that.
Chairperson Wilcox — This is not the original proposed location, right? Not where the
Town originally wanted to put it.
Mr. Hebdon — It's pretty much in the same field. We just pretty much moved it up into
the corner. We tried to stay away from the corner originally so that we wouldn't be up
7
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
into the trees and stuff and Mr. Young, when we talked to him about it, say "Yes, but
prefer you put it up in that corner and use the trees as a buffer zone." So, after looking
at it, we decided that that would be a much better way of doing it than we had originally
planned. Those are the same that we have for you that we put in there. This is actually -
this tank right here is actually a copy of the Troy Road tank, which we are pretty much
duplicating at this site. As you can see, I did put this little white rod here with one of our
college interns holding 25 foot rod to give you a perspective height of the tank and
these are the trees that are behind it so this is real to height of what would be out on the
site. We are going to be putting an access driveway here, that will be used by us and by
the farmer that Mr. Young has farming the land. They both requested that because the
lower driveway down in here is hard to get to and there is very little site distance, so we
slid it up into the middle of the site to get the best site distance that we could.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the Environmental Review.
Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to ask about the trees that you are suggesting to
plant. It says "double width" which sounds like two rows.
Mr. Hebdon — Yes. We talked to Mr. Young and we talked to Rich Schoch, who's in
charge of the parks and both agreed that you get more screening when you take the
pine trees and you put them in between the blank spots. So, when we got the extra
acreage that we needed to do that, we were able to actually outside the fence area and
stuff there will be a double row of pine trees.
Board Member Hoffmann — I guess what I would prefer to see is something that looks a
little more natural than two rows. I would like to see also something that includes
something similar to what's in the background. So, not only soft woods, but hard woods,
as well. I know that they wouldn't screen in the winter, but if you were careful about how
you placed them with respect to the evergreens, I think you could get some good
screening both seasons and something that looks a little more natural. Especially if they
were not planted in straight rows.
Mr. Hebdon — When we discussed the landscaping with Mr. Young, the one thing that
we are doing in this hedgerow in here has a couple blank spots that we will be filling in.
We have four new hard wood trees that we're going to put in there. Mr. Young was the
one that requested the pine trees because he felt that they would screen this lower end
off during the winter time and he thought that that would be the only area that you're
actually going to see the tank from the bottom. We could attempt to put some hard
woods in there.
Board Member Hoffmann — I wouldn't say that you shouldn't have any evergreens. I
would just like to see a scattering of hard woods in them and also to have them planted
in a somewhat more irregular way, but still mindful of the screening effect so that it
doesn't look so artificial by have two straight rows of trees of the same species.
Mr. Hebdon — Okay, I can take that to Rich and he can come up with something.
E:
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Board Member Hoffmann — I think it's a good idea to have some evergreens in that
group of trees that's along the road because you can see through that when you come
down the hill, you see through there. Those trees are fairly large and you see through
the trunks. So, if you had some evergreens there and you spaced them properly and
you make sure that they don't lose their lower branches, they'll do a good job of
screening . That's true also of the screening towards the field, that they have to be
planted with enough space between them in the beginning so that they don't get too
crowded and the lower branches die for lack of sunshine.
Mr. Hebdon — Right. That's why we had taken so much land because there was going to
be a larger space in between them and we're offsetting them so that they wouldn't , the
lower branches would stay together the whole time.
Mr. Barney — I do want to remind the Board that your role here is quite limited. This is
not a site plan approval or even a site plan discussion, it's really a subdivision and
subdivision only. So, in terms of what they have negotiated, meaning the Town, with the
owner of the property and the owner would like something, I'm a little bit uncomfortable
with this Board dictating that they've got to change something that they've already
worked out. I don't really think that that is the job of this Board.
Chairperson Wilcox — Because it's subdivision and not site plan.
Mr. Barney — That's right.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I'm offering this as an improvement to what is being
said.
Mr. Barney — A suggestion and that's fine. I don't think that we want to see it as a
condition.
Mr. Hebdon — I'll take the suggestion back to both Mr. Young and Rich Schoch and we'll
take a look at the site and see what we can come up with. I think some of it's good
points, though.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions or comments with regard to Environmental
Review.
Mr. Kanter — I thought, just on the Environmental, on the visual aspect of it, it was
interesting because it was pretty easy to tell where this site was from some of the
distant views because you could see the new house that's under construction from quite
a was away and this field is right above it. I drove around and I looked at areas from, for
instance, Sand Bank Road there is one spot where you can see the site and up from
Ithaca College there were a couple of points up on campus where you could see it. I
really looks like the tank will fit in very well on the edge of that field instead of being in
the middle of it.
X
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — We should just mention, let me follow through here in terms with
water service to people in this area, this will improve their pressure?
Mr. Hebdon — Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is this a part of the plan that will, eventually, give all residents of
the Town Bolton Point water, instead of City of Ithaca water?
Mr. Hebdon — It is part of it.
Chairperson Wilcox — One piece of it, if you will?
Mr. Hebdon — Right, it's one piece of the deal. At the same time that this is going to be
built, there will be a transmission line built from Danby Road, down to Buttermilk Falls
that will bring the Bolton Point water out to this tank.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Are we all set? Would someone like to move the
SEQR? So moved by Larry Thayer. Seconded by? Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. If
there's no further discussion, would all those in favor signal by saying "aye ". Is there
anybody opposed? There are none and there are no abstentions. The Motion has
passed.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 041:SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
Bostwick Road Water Tank Two -Lot Subdivision — Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No.
31 -5 -1.2
MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two -lot subdivision located on Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet
west of Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 5 -1.2, Residence
District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide off a 1.0 +/- acre parcel from the
13.49 +/- acre parcel to be used by the Town of Ithaca for a new water tank.
John, James and Julie Young & Susan Barnett, Owners; Town of Ithaca,
Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on June 17, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision
10
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Map — Parcel to be Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca, Located on Bostwick Road,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, L. S.,
dated 613103, photographs of the site with a simulation of the proposed water
tank, portions of the engineering drawings of the Bostwick Road Tank project,
including site layout, grading and profile of water tank, and other application
materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Bostwick Road approximately
1,000 feet west of Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 5 -1.2,
Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide off a 1.0 +/- acre parcel
from the 13.49 +/- acre parcel to be used by the Town of Ithaca for a new water
tank. John, James and Julie Young & Susan Barnett, Owners; Town of Ithaca,
Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Once again, this is a chance for the public to speak. If any
member of the audience wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this
particular agenda item, we would ask you to come to the microphone, give us your
name and address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say this
evening.
11
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at
7:28 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion? Water tanks are ugly, let's be honest. They're a
necessity around here.
Mr. Hebdon — Particularly for that area, I think we really need to do something.
Chairperson Wilcox — There was a gentleman here who, when we were discussing
cellular antennas on top of a water tank in the northeast, described them as a visual
blight. Actually, described the antennas as a visual blight. They are a visual blight, but
they are necessary and this site seems particularly well suited, given the trees on two
sides and the efforts to screen the other side. Especially given the height of the existing
trees, too. So that's good.
Board Member Hoffmann — I wish forest green melted in as well as it is supposed to, but
it doesn't really.
Mr. Hebdon — We will try.
Chairperson Wilcox — The colors change and fade. Any other comments? Would
someone like to move the motion for preliminary and final site plan subdivision? So
moved by George Conneman. Seconded by? Seconded by the Chair.
Mr. Kanter — Staff would recommend deleting condition "a" because the height variance
was received from the Zoning Board of Appeals last night.
Mr. Hebdon — Yes, it was.
Mr. Kanter — So, you if can delete condition "a" and re -label "b" and "c" to "a" and "b ",
think well be all set.
Chairperson Wilcox — The chance is acceptable to me. George, is the change
acceptable to you? Good. Any further discussion? No more comments? There being
none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye" . Is anybody opposed? And there
are no abstentions. The Motion is passed. Thank you Creig.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -042: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
Bostwick Road Water Tank Two -Lot Subdivision — Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No.
31 -5 -1.2
MOTION by George Conneman, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
12
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two -lot subdivision located on Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet
west of Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 5 -1.2, Residence
District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide off a 1.0 +/- acre parcel from the
13.49 +/- acre parcel to be used by the Town of Ithaca for a new water tank.
John, James and Julie Young & Susan Barnett, Owners; Town of Ithaca,
Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has
on June 17, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 17, 2003, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map — Parcel to be
Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca, Located on Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by Lee Dresser, L. S., dated 613103,
photographs of the site with a simulation of the proposed water tank, portions of
the engineering drawings of the Bostwick Road Tank project, including site
layout, grading and profile of water tank and other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision on Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 31- 5 -1.2, as shown on a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map —
Parcel to be Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca, Located on Bostwick Road, Town
of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by Lee Dresser, L. S., dated
613103, subject to the following conditions:
a. Submission of a landscaping plan showing adequate screening of the
proposed water tank for review and approval of the Director of Planning,
prior to issuance of any building permits for the water tank.
b. Submission of easement language for the access road and water line that will
cross the remainder of Tax Parcel No. 31 -5 -1.2 for review and approval of
13
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
the Director of Engineering and Attorney for the Town, prior to issuance of
any building permits relating to the water tank.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for The Remington located
at 1000 East Shore Drive between East Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Business "E" District. The proposal includes
demolishing the two existing buildings to construct a two -story lodge including a
250 -seat restaurant, 20 guest rooms, and a new boathouse. The proposal also
includes 110 parking spaces and the continued use of the existing marina (boat
launch and docking facilities). Cornell University, Owner; Paramount Realty
Group, Applicant; David A. Schlosser, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is Mr. Schlosser here this evening or somebody representing
him? Good.
While Mr. Schlosser is setting up, many of you arrived since we started at seven o'clock
so let me take the opportunity to point out that there are two fire exits in this building.
There's the door through which you entered, which is to my right and to your left and
there is a second fire exit, which is over here to my left. Procedurally, the applicant will
make a presentation to the Planning Board. We will likely have questions and
comments and then, at some point, what this Board usually does it is we will give the
public a chance to speak and we ask that you make your comments relatively brief and
to the point and address the Planning Board so that we can take your comments and
concerns into consideration.
Dave Schlosser, Schlosser Architects — Representing Paramount Realty Group. Also in
attendance is Rich deVito and Bob Doucette from the Paramount Realty Group. We are
here at sketch plan review to get your input and feedback on a concept that we are
putting forward with respect to 1000 East Shore Drive.
2.54 acre parcel, boarder on the north by Lake Shore Park and on the south by Cayuga
Lake and on the west by Cayuga Lake and of course, on the east by east shore drive,
as well as separated by the railroad easement. What have presented is a two -story
structure with upscale lodge. We are giving you a fagade from the lake side and what is
represented here is, again, the upscale lodge with a 250 seat restaurant at the north
end. The two - story, 20 guest rooms, stretching on down towards the south and on the
south end a 2,000 square foot boat house, which would replace the two structures that
are on the site at the moment. With respect to the marina, there is no proposed
14
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
modification to the marina, it would remain "as is ", as would the parking, which runs in
this particular area right here. There currently is a common curb cut with the park, which
basically traverses the railroad easement. That, at the moment, is shown without
modification. Obviously, as we pursue further meetings and we find the concepts, we
will be giving you input from transportation consultants who will analyze traffic flow in
and out stacking lanes. And, of course, any modifications that might have to be made
with respect to the railroad crossing itself.
The concept that has been put forward basically presents 110 parking spaces on the
site with code need for 90. It takes the parking and, basically, isolates it from the lake.
Currently, this site is essentially an open, flat area with parking for anywhere from 60 to
70, depending on how you analyze the pavement or gravel and, obviously with full view
of the lake. There is approximately a little over 1700 linear feet of shore line. The
building that is being proposed is approximately 360 linear feet, or less than 20 percent
of that shore line. Also, the way it's laid out, we are showing approximately 47 percent
open area as opposed to your requirement of 30 percent or a minimum of 30 percent.
With respect to the building area, we are showing approximately 16 percent of coverage
of building, again, with your maximum requirement of 30 percent. We believe we have
met all setback and zoning regulations with the layout that is shown here and we have
presented those to you in written form. We also, from a land use standpoint, it's a
Business Z District, basically permitting the proposed uses shown.
Architecturally, what's suggested is a very heavily articulated, both vertically and
horizontally fagade to try and emphasize a residential character, again of a Finger
Lakes Lodge. The materials are cedar wood shake and stone, again, making a more
natural character. The entrances to the lodge have been tilted to the southeast,
purposely so to isolate it from the park and, again, create distance between the parks
parking and the parking that's designated for the lodge. Again, to try and isolate the two
and to try and lessen any potential burden of common usage of the parking for the park
itself.
The boathouse is shown down in this area. It's a one -story structure. We've combined
several one -story structures on the roadside, again to basically help create the
articulation of building and take away the two -story look of the place. All the rooms
basically have lake views with balconies. The building has been pushed back from the
shore line approximately 30 feet and a linear park developed along the lakeside itself.
Again, this is sketch plan review, so, obviously we are fully aware that there are
environmental issues, both visual and otherwise that will have to be addressed. We're
trying to get your feedback, the community's feedback and hopefully have a project that,
as this progresses, can develop into something that is beneficial to the community, as
well as to the developer. We will have input at subsequent meetings from civil engineers
and, basically, we will address the storm water retention and we will show the that pre -
development and post - development will be matched. We will address storm water run-
off quality. With respect to the — I guess as far as other engineering issues, we will
address those too. We also will address the visual, the view shed, we will end up with
photographs and computer representations of the lodge, give you views from a variety
of different angles, both from the lake and from the road side.
I guess, with that I would ask, any questions you might have?
15
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Who wants to start? Usually, we give Eva that honor.
Can you explain- there's a calculation provided, in terms of the number of parking
spaces which comes to 90, but you've proposed 110. Can you explain why the
additional 20 parking spaces?
Mr. Schlosser - At the moment, I can't. that will be addressed with the traffic consultant
and, obviously, if, in calculations of actual need, it's less, we would obviously reduce at
that point. Why the 110 at the moment? It's basically that's exactly the way from the
layout with logic and that's the number of parking spaces we came up with. We wanted
to show the maximum quantity and, again, if traffic determines that's the need, we will
present it. If less is determined, we will present you with an alternative.
Board Member Conneman — On the Environmental Assessment Form, on c.12, if says
"will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above the present
levels ?" It seems to me that you have a number of guests and a 250 seat restaurant
that it would generate a lot of traffic.
Mr. Schlosser — Well, again, I am not the traffic consultant and I would defer all those
responses to them. I certainly understand that there will be issues related to that and
again, my understanding of the sketch plan is to try to bring the concept to you, address
some of the issues that will have to be addressed further as this progresses.
Board Member Conneman — You answered "no" that's why I was asking. Did your traffic
consultant look at this or you haven't done that?
Mr. Schlosser — The traffic consultant will be put on board at the next stage, prior to the
Planning Board submission.
Chairperson Wilcox — Interesting question though. I don't want to dwell on it tonight, but
it's an interesting question and that's the form and whether it refers to the particular site.
It will certainly increase traffic to the site, but will there be significant increase in traffic
on East Shore Drive, for example?
Board Member Hoffmann — As we heard in the memo from staff, there's a potential for
significant pile -ups of cars on East Shore Drive to try to turn into that one driveway
that's proposed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Clearly an important issue is the access and the railroad in terms
of traffic. I don't think I'm saying anything that you haven't heard.
Mr. Schlosser — We've driven in the site as well. We fully understand the issue and
understand that it has to be addressed, not only ingress, but egress.
Chairperson Wilcox — I wonder how long it takes the train, fully loaded with cars, either
going out to the salt miner or back from the power generation plant. I wonder how long it
takes one of those trains to actually pass by this particular point.
iI0
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Board Member Talty- It depends because I've been stuck waiting to get into the golf
course at Stewart Park and it depends really on how many cars go by and if they're fully
loaded. If they're empty, it's quicker, if they're loaded, it's slower. It could be anywhere
from ten to 20 minutes.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's a time when cars could potentially stack up on East Shore
Drive or on Route 34. As they do everywhere else in downtown Ithaca when the train
goes through.
Board Member Hoffmann — But, it isn't just the train, I was there this afternoon and
turning into the site wasn't too hard, but getting out of it was very hard because it was
hard to see the cars coming from both directions until they were quite close. There was
a lot of traffic on Route 34. 1 was surprised. I didn't realize how much traffic there was.
First I traveled to the north because I wanted to come around and look at it from the
other direction and it was very hard to find a place to pull over and to turn around.
Board Member Conneman — I was there the other day and that's what raised the
question. It is difficult to get out, particularly going north.
Mr. Schlosser — Traffic, as we will address, again, is not only to and from the site, but
it's obviously site line issues, elevation issues with respect to that site and, obviously,
the third component is the train. Obviously, we are fully aware of it as well as probably
every business that happens to be on the wrong side of the tracks in this particular
town. So, we will have to address it and bring you in the information. Working with our
traffic consultants, we will bring you solutions, we certainly hope and if we don't, then,
obviously we will present that information as well.
guess what I can tell you right now is that I don't have a solution right now, I don't have
all the answers, other than we are fully aware that it will be an issue at each and every
meeting between now and whenever.
Board Member Howe — Do you have any longer range plans for the marina and is the
intent to keep fully accessible to the public, the marina compound.
Mr. Schlosser — At the moment, there's no change. My understanding is that it's private
and, unless I'm misinformed, I would remain as is.
Board Member Thayer - So, that's why the boathouse is attached to the building itself,
rather than being an out building? It's because you don't own or don't want the land to
the south.
Mr. Schlosser — The developer is basically leasing the entire property and one of the
conditions is to provide and actually enhance the facilities that are there now and, again
from the standpoint of making it look like more like a lodge and a singular development,
rather than having a variety of different detached building with circulation around those
buildings, it is being made a component of it. Access to the boathouse will be from the
17
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
south, not from the north. So, basically, it would be provided with restroom facilities, a
little social room or relaxation area and then basically storage facilities.
Board Member Thayer — It seems to me that it presents a safety issue with the attached
boathouse.
Mr. Schlosser — I think that, obviously, from a codes standpoint, that's something that
we'll have to address, but the way it's shown right here, it would be fully addressed and
fully code compliant. Actually, I believe that the way we've laid this thing out and once
again, when we give you the visuals on it, it's virtually windowless from the inside, the
lodge side and it will be fronted almost entirely to the south. So it will be almost visually
divorced from the facility if that proved to be ultimately a problem, we certainly could
semi - detach it with a link, but our thought, architecturally, is not to make a variety of
different buildings on the particular site.
Board Member Conneman — We saw an suv and a boat, now there's a way to turn
around in there, when you get down to the end is the only way to turn around, as far as
can tell. If you're going to take up the spot with the inn and parking, I wasn't sure how
the boats would fit in there.
Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of being able to back in there with the boat, launch the
boat and get out.
Board Member Conneman — Yeah. I am not a boat expert, but it just seemed to me that
it was awful tight. Incidentally, to swing it across the railroad tracks, a boat, is an event.
Chairperson Wilcox — But that's an issue right now.
Board Member Conneman — I know it's an issue right now, but I'm saying it would be
even more of an issue because you'd have even more space to turn around.
Board Member Hoffmann —There certainly is not very much room to maneuver between
the boat house and the launching area.
I wanted to get back to the safety issue about the boathouse because that is something
I thought of too. You mentioned in your handout that the replacement boathouse would
be for marina operations, equipment storage and restaurant facilities. As far as I know,
boathouses typically have things that have to do with boats, including flammable fluids,
fuels, that sort of thing. It just seems totally incompatible to me to have guest bedrooms
above and next to such a facility, it would be much too dangerous, it seems to me. Also,
if people were to work on motors and start them in the boathouse in bad weather, the
problem of carbon monoxide and things like that getting into the hotel part is just too
great. I'm a little surprised that in the letter we got fro the fire chief that there wasn't any
mention of that. Maybe he didn't see all the plans.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else at this point? I'm looking at Chris' cover memo,
thank you very much.
M-0
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Ms. Balestra — You're welcome.
Board Member Conneman — In this plan there's a walkway along the lake, right, that's
public access.
Mr. Schlosser —Yes.
Board Member Conneman — But it doesn't connect to the park. It sort of ends. I hope
you will address that issue.
Mr. Schlosser — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think it would be nice if you looked at extending the sidewalk
towards the Town park.
You mentioned storm water run -off, water quality. You mentioned the view shed and
analysis have been done with regard to that. One issue that hasn't come up, which
came up in the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Review was the potential contamination of
the soil in that area, you're now aware of that, I believe.
Mr. Schlosser — Well, we're now aware of it.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's something that has to be addressed.
Mr. Schlosser — Until your letter, we were not.
Chairperson Wilcox — You're aware of the railroad. You're aware of your job to have
discussions with — who operates that?
Mr. Barney — Norfolk and Western. Have you been in contact with the railroad at all?
Mr. Schlosser — No. This really is our first presentation here and, based upon what we
find and the comments that appear, we will move off in a variety of directions.
Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed that the Town park is not drawn in your drawing
the way it looks in real life, today.
Mr. Schlosser — Well, we didn't have a full survey. We took it off the old survey. I
apologize, obviously there's not intent to change it.
Board Member Hoffmann — I also notice when I was there that there came a car full of
young people who proceeded to go towards the marina and get into a boat, I didn't see
if they took off in the boat, but I saw them getting into a boat and they parked in the
Town park parking lot. There was a comment from staff. One would have to come up
with a way of making sure that guests to the restaurant and the marina and the hotel, if
19
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
it should happen here, would park in the areas that belong to those facilities, rather than
in the Town park.
Board Member Conneman — Your computerized photograph, whatever you produce on
the computer, will that show what you see from across the lake? Because that's one of
the issues.
Mr. Schlosser — I don't know about from right across the lake or from out in the lake.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you think it's important to have something from the other side
of the lake?
Board Member Conneman — That is an issue. That was an issue when Bolton Point built
their pump house. It was going to be white, so we painted it green. This would be even
bigger than a pump house.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, so view from the west side.
Board Member Talty — On the coat tails of that, speaking on behalf of this board
member, make sure that the lighting is definitely outlined on both sides. The view from
the road as well as from the lake. Avoid any type of lighting pollution that could occur.
Mr. Schlosser — Would you like that addressed in the next presentation, or as we
develop it further.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure what your schedule is, but if your next presentation is
to come back for, let's say preliminary approval, and you're fully aware of what you will
need to bring with you in terms of analyses and documentation, lighting should be
addressed. As early on as you can address all of these issues, but certainly lighting is
one of those. This Board has consistently shown that trend towards wanting to keep
lighting subdued and minimal.
Board Member Talty — All also want to be consistent, that I also look for, during building,
hours that you are going to be constructing, if there's any type of dynamiting, or any of
that particular element that has to go on, it should be all outlined.
Board Member Conneman — I think another thing this Board usually asks for is idea of
what the materials will be in the building. It helps an awful lot if you bring some exact
examples of whatever the material is going to be. I know you say "Finger Lakes Inn ", but
that could be subject to interpretation. It would be helpful if whatever materials you are
building with, you bring us samples.
Board Member Mitrano — Could you please describe to us what you mean by the
historic genre of the Finger Lakes?
20
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Mr. Schlosser — I think what it is, is as opposed to- once again, the first thing is
basically, a singular construction, as singular building, basically operated from the same
reception area and the same lobby, so, basically you don't have an isolated restaurant
linked with a breezeway to an inn or a hotel, if you will. In this case, also the fact that
there's only 20 units, the both essentially depend on one another for operations and,
when one walks in, basically, again you have the same aura, basically going to a
singular vacation spot. Again, from the outside, I think architecturally, it's uniformity of
look and appearance in character then, again, the more commercial, urban look of a
hotel.
Board Member Mitrano — Is it meant to be sort of a contemporary style?
Mr. Schlosser — No, actually I think when we give you perspective sketches and color
renderings, you'll see that it actually picks up some of the color and continuity of some
of the more famous inns, Aurora Inn and Sherwood and some of the others and some of
that character. But again, it is hard to represent it in a single, preliminary sketch. The
idea, basically the porch and things of this nature, as opposed to take your room for the
weekend and move in and move out.
Board Member Mitrano — I noticed, and knowing nothing about design, I'm going to use
all the wrong words, I'm sure, but, as I look at this, it suggests that you're thinking of
using slightly different subset of architectural design.
Mr. Schlosser — Absolutely. Again, that's the idea of taking a building that is several
hundred feet long and using the articulation both, again, vertically and horizontally
pushing the fagade in and out. Getting shade and shadow and, obviously, taking those
down into components that are more typical residential size.
Board Member Mitrano — Residential sizing in the sense that some earlier late 19th early
20th century urban upstate construction put together without conscious design of
different styles. Is it meant to represent something like that.
Mr. Schlosser — It's taking historical context and putting it into a more up- dated.
Obviously, we're not going to duplicate or try to mimic 100 percent anything, but
basically, it's taking both eras and taking components from each of them.
Board Member Mitrano — It looks interesting and probably will be very attractive,
although there's a little piece that sort of just looks a little confused.
Mr. Schlosser — Well, we're looking for comments. You want to give me the piece?
Board Member Mitrano — These parts right here. What is the idea? That they would
have a look of, say, original 16th century Italian fagade, where now the bricks are not
entirely all there, but partially exposed, along with wood structures, which would be
more like upstate 19th century?
21
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Mr. Schlosser — I'm not sure whether we're looking into the Italian fagade here. You take
a two -story building and what's commonly done in a commercial is you basically stratify.
We've all seen it, you know exactly where the first story ends and the second story
begins. What you're basically trying to do is you're trying to take some of that water
table stone and take it vertically, so, basically, you end up with little shorter in areas.
You also take the stone vertically, so it's a two -story element. You make one -story
elements and two -story elements and basically try and throw off the visual of that floor
that's a second story floor, so basically you end up with a lot more uniqueness in
interest and design.
Board Member Mitrano — What kind of stone?
Mr. Schlosser — We'll bring in samples next time, but it will be more of a field stone.
Chairman Wilcox — All set Tracy? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — More house keeping things having to do with the
environmental form; it does ask under a. 15 if there are streams within or are contiguous
to the project and it says "none ", but there is a partial, buried stream that goes between
this parcel and the park, the Town Park.
Mr. Schlosser — We'll pursue it further, but I don't believe it's a designated stream that I
am aware of. We did look on a map and didn't find any designated notation. We will
research it.
Board Member Hoffmann — There is water going from the hillside beyond, under the
road and into the lake at that point. I noticed when I drove by there today that it's not
completely filled in, there are some areas that are like ditches where that stream used to
go. One of the things that I would like to know is when do the trains go by, not just how
long it takes them to go by, but when, what are the hours? To find out if they are likely to
interfere with the business that you are proposing.
Chairperson Wilcox — I, as a driver from the City would like to know that.
Board Member Hoffmann — And then there is the wet areas issue that I am concerned
about and that is that part of this land is in a flood plain. There was something in the text
about the Town requiring that either the building be water - proofed if it was below a
certain level or it be raised to be above that. Now, this is already a two -story building
with a pitched roof and when one drives by on Route 34, even the one -story buildings
that are there now, that are part of the marina, come up very high so that you just see a
strip of the hillside on the other side of the lake. So, I'm fairly sure that these buildings
would, as they are, even not being raise, would block out not only the lake, but the
entire hill side on the other side of the lake for view.
Mr. Schlosser — Well, we're aware of the flood plain and the flood plain is actually lake
level. Pretty much basically the ground level that is there. Naturally, what's anticipated
22
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
in a project like this, simply for design logic and also for storm water flow, we'd build
this, normally you build your floor a foot to two feet above grade so that you get slopes
away from it. By doing that, we would be above flood plain level and meeting the code
requirements. There is no basement proposed for this, so everything as far as raising it,
we would not be raising it any further for flood plain than we would anticipate for the
design logic and natural flows on the site.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would be very interested to see how high the building
would be above existing ground. I am also concerned about the capacity of the soils in
this area and what would happen to the soils if there was a flood. I would like to have a
good study showing what they can handled.
Mr. Schlosser — As part of our next phase, basically will be soil boring tests, with
permeability tests because that is all going to be required for our engineers for storm
water. That will give you details on the type of soil and the capacity of the soil to either
absorb or accept water and if not accept it, basically there will be underground drainage
systems to hold and disperse the water. So, yes, if you're asking do we have that
information, the answer is yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — I should say that, in general, I feel that the best thing that
could happen to this piece of land is if it was left without any structures on it. That a
marina could be there as it exists today, or maybe improved and any buildings like what
you are proposing would be much better on the other side of Route 34, for a number of
reasons, both for safety from flooding, from a traffic point of view, from access and
egress. Site distances, I'm sure, would be better from the other side of the road, too.
There wouldn't be a problem of blocking the views of the lake and the hillside on the
other side. So, that's what I would prefer to see. Maybe some attractive park could be
made in conjunction with a marina for the guests of this place to enjoy it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Without prejudging this application, we need to point out that this
is consistent with the zoning.
Board Member Hoffmann — Just because it's consistent with the zoning, it may not be
good planning.
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely, I'm not prejudging this in any way.
Board Member Mitrano —May I just insert one last questions?
Chairperson Wilcox — Only if you get closer to the microphone so that we can record
your voice.
Board Member Mitrano — I thought my voice carried from any perspective. Is this what
will also be on the road side?
23
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Mr. Schlosser —Yes, similar.
Board Member Mitrano — If in Eva's construction of things, it went on the other side of
the street, could you save money by having this fagade facing 34, but then a less
developed backage?
Mr. Schlosser — Right now, as far as I know, the developer has no options or control of
any property on the other side of the road. I certainly appreciate the comments and
that's why we're here.
Ms. Balestra — I believe Cornell owns the opposite side.
Mr. Kanter — Although, interestingly enough, we just received an application from
Cornell to subdivide off part of that remaining property, the multiple residence zoned
portion on the east side of East Shore Drive and apparently have a perspective
purchaser for that. So that will also be coming to this Board fairly soon. In other words,
right next to and north of the Lake Source Cooling plant. That's one whole separate
parcel, the plant and that MR Zone piece.
Board Member Mitrano — Any speculation as to who might be interested and why?
Mr. Kanter — A development company of some kind, but we haven't heard who it is or
what they have in mind for it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments before I give the public a chance? Chris, are
there any issues that we haven't covered that you are aware of? I think we've done
them all.
Ms. Balestra — You got almost all of them. I wanted to be as thorough as possible. The
only issue would be the potential future public use of the marina. But that's something
that you would have to negotiate through Cornell, who is the owner of the property. I
don't know if you'd be able to do it in conjunction with the application at hand.
Board Member Conneman — Cornell owners the marina?
Ms. Balestra — Cornell owns that entire parcel, yes.
Board Member Conneman — But they don't operate the marina?
Ms. Balestra — They own the marina and they have leased it out to various people over
the years.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I may call you David, is there any other point that you'd like to
make this evening, at least for right now?
24
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Mr. Schlosser — No, other than basically, I realize there are a lot of different opinions
and, obviously, any kind of lake front property is always environmentally sensitive and I
think at the next meeting, we'll be able to show you that we want to work with you. If
there are modifications that have to be made to this, that's why we're here.
Chairperson Wilcox — We'll you want to have a seat and we'll let the public speak.
Ms. Balestra — I need to say one more thing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, Chris.
Ms. Balestra — I forgot to tell you that there are two pieces of paper in front of you. The
Environmental Review Committee of the Conservation Board has submitted comments
about the proposal as has the City of Ithaca Fire Department. I can forward those
comments to the applicants.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentleman, we will now give the members of the
public, who have been waiting patiently, a chance to address the Board this evening. I
bet I know who wants to go first. I ask that you keep your points, your speeches and
your comments as brief as possible. I don't know how many people are going to speak
this evening and the Board does have some other business to accomplish this evening.
We want to hear what you have to say, both in favor and not in favor of the proposal. I
ask that you raise your hands. I will call on you and you can come to the podium. We do
ask that you provide a name and address. Then we'd be glad to hear what you have to
say.
This very tall gentleman, I'll let him go first
the door opening.
I noticed that he had to duck to get through
Karl Gesslein, 855 Five Mile Drive — I have total dezavu I have a couple of quick points
to make. First off, I've utilized this property for the last couple of years. It's being
managed by Johnson's Boatyard for the leasing and I have a fourteen foot sailboat, a
hobycat that I put on the shore there. Unfortunately, because of the layout of the lake,
it's very difficult to find places to pay someone to store that kind of boat. I appreciate
that Cornell has continued to provide that kind of service for people. Now that they own
the property, they're letting Johnson's do that kind of work. I use it probably, on
average, about twice a week during the eight months of the year that is sailable. I think
it's great that there's public access there and I would do anything that I could to help
encourage that there continue to be public access. I think, with a development of this
size, I would be skeptical that they would have a development of this size and still have
the level of public access that there currently is. I also recognize that the level of public
access that I have enjoyed, probably isn't realistic over the long term. Also, I just wanted
to make a couple of quick points. When the property was initially put on the market for
sale, the sale price of it was very high, but also the yearly tax price for the Town would
have been astronomical. I actually looked at buying that property and, because of how
high it was assessed and the taxes issue, I didn't feel like it was feasible. I don't feel like
that piece of property would have been feasible for many businesses to buy because of
25
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
the tax issue. With a development of this size, if Cornell still owns the property and they
are leasing it to someone else, again they are kind of side stepping the tax issue and I
have some energy about that, but that's not as issue for this particular Board.
Mr. Barney — Karl, I don't understand what you mean when you say they side stepped
the issue?
Mr. Gesslein — Well, they don't have to pay property taxes.
Mr. Barney — Yes they do, regardless of whether Cornell owns it.
Mr. Gessein — I'm sorry that was my mistake.
I definitely feel like the existence of this kind of development is going to affect the
atmosphere of the Town Park, which is right next door, which a lot of people are
currently enjoying. Also, there is no place to launch kayaks or other boats really easily
from the Town Park because of the size of the rocks that are there. It's not easy to get
down to the lake and back up, whereas the current marina area where people windsurf
and sail from, it's much more level and easier to get in and out and there's really not
any other place that has that kind of access on the lake that I'm aware of. That's it.
Thank you for your time.
Board Member Hoffmann — Do you two know each other?
Mr. Barney — Karl was at the ZBA meeting last night for a couple of hours so we got to
know each other quite well.
Chairperson Wilcox — Gentleman in the second row, with the hand up in the blue.
Andrew Davis, 123 Catherine Street — I'm now an alumni form Cornell University.
currently live in Boston. I represent Friends of Cornell Sailing, which is an alumni
organization that parents, family, and friends of the Cornell Sailing Team, who's multiple
members are behind me and our advisor Professor Chase. We're seriously concerned
about the impact proposed by the Paramount Group for this site and we would like to
bring to the attention of this committee the stakeholders that currently use this property
and the impact it would have on the larger of the community.
1000 East Shore Drive is currently home of Cornell's Physical Education Sailing
Program. It reaches 500 Cornell students a year and 400 members of the larger Ithaca
community. It is home to the Cornell Sailing Team, whose 15 members use this site
throughout the year from August through May on a daily basis. Both of these programs
will be severally impacted by the proposed site plan and are better served by the
current, dilapidated facilities.
One important point here is that no comparable lake access exists on Cayuga Lake and
this afternoon, we presented this proposal to the Department of Athletic and Physical
Education at Cornell, who had not received this proposal and they have determined that
this would severally impact their ability to offer those programs in the future and they are
currently going to oppose that within the University.
No
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Secondly, we are in the process of creating Cayuga Community Sailing Program which
will extend Cornell's sailing programs to the larger Ithaca Community. Both of those
programs would be completely eliminated. Back to the issue of this site being unique,
this site is unique to the Town of Ithaca and Christine's memo identifies this specific
point, it's the only site within the Town of Ithaca that could be made available in some
fashion of public access to encourage waterfront access. One key thing in Ithaca's
Revitalization Plan is the realization of waterfront access to it's community members. At
the same time, besides the Cornell Organizations that I just identified, there are two
other significant originations that you've heard mention of, both of which are
represented here tonight. There's an Ithaca Windsurfing Club, that makes extensive use
of this property and for windsurfing, it's one of the only sites that gives them such
access. Also, there's an active kayaking group that currently launches from Ithaca Town
Park, they also use this lake access on a daily basis. While those organization's
requirements are not as demanding as the sailing programs use of the building and
floating docks to set up, they've outreached to a larger portion of the community.
Friends of Cornell Sailing, with the support of the Department of Athletic Education,
intends to submit a counter - proposal to this Committee for the development of 1000
East Shore Drive. We plan to submit input from all of these identified stakeholders for
the property. This proposal will include a community sailing center, including a
classroom space, a meeting room, restrooms, tam locker rooms and a inter storage.
This building would be utilized by the Cornell Sailing Team, Cornell Physical Education,
Cayuga Community Sailing Program and made available to the larger Ithaca community
and specifically the other groups that access this property can meet at a meeting area.
On the north end of the property, we would propose a development of covered small
boat storage for kayaks, canoes, windsurfer's. It would allow these groups to have
better lake access, which is currently not available anywhere on the south end of
Cayuga Lake.
Attached there are two documents that you had receive from us, one is a list of all the
stakeholders, that have interest in this property, they all have expressed to our
organization that they would like access. This included expanding access to people of
the Ithaca High School, Ithaca College and many other organizations within Cornell and
the community that do not have the privilege to use this property at this time. Friends of
Cornell Sailing intends to present this site plan and proposal at the next Town
Committee Meeting. I would ask the Town of Ithaca to table discussion of the
Remington proposal unit alternatives could meet the interest of the large Ithaca
Community as members. At the same time, Friends of Cornell Sailing has identified
Cornell Alumni, who are prepared to support the development of a community sailing
center on this site and we are working with them. Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Barney — Have you approached Cornell University?
Mr. Davis — Yes, we are currently negotiating with Cornell at all levels.
Mr. Barney — This Board's roll is really to review plans that are brought to them by
authorized agents of the owner of the property, which I assume this developer is. I
assume that there is some kind of agreement between Cornell and the developer so it's
27
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
a little difficult for you to ask the Board to stop review of the proposal. It would require
separate litigation. You probably want to direct a lot of your discussion internally to
Cornell University.
Mr. Davis — I agree with you, the discussion has been on -going and it's on -going as we
speak in New York City at the trustee level. Hopefully that will be resolved and Cornell
will provide a uniform front to the Town of Ithaca to direct those issues.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm glad to hear someone else propose floating docks.
Mr. Davis — We just actually finished building new ones in a Spanish program.
Board Member Mitrano — Can I just ask a question? I understand that you are trying to
get through a lot of information quickly, how much of this would then be available to the
residents of the area, not just to Cornell associated people.
Mr. Davis — In our vision, we'd create a community sailing and boating program, which
exists in Baltimore, Maryland and a variety of other locations, where the sailing
grogram, anyone who wants to can come out and join, the cost would be contributing
work hours and small fee. Portions of the property, we would hope to designate as
public access and make them available to other groups and anyone who wanted to
could kept their kayak and have access there. We would like to see a very open site. If
you look at the drawing, we're talking about a much smaller land impact that the
Remington proposal, with a sailing center that would include restrooms, bathroom
facilities, a large open space for Frisbee and picnic and then some covered storage that
would meet the needs of Ithaca Windsurfing and those groups. Those are all members
from the community and how to structure that to meet public access with the liability
issues would have to be worked out, but we might suggest leasing portions of this
covered storage to different clubs who we've identified would like access to this
property. Then still the marina is a private marina, operated, perhaps by Johnson or
another contractor. We also believe the issue of developing the marina should be
addressed. Anyone here who's been down to the current marina knows the current
state is really not acceptable, it poses a liability. We believe the new proposal should
include that, but yet we do understand that's a huge capital cost.
Board Member Conneman — You made a suggestion that Cornell, in one way or
another, give this to the community?
Mr. Davis — I would suggest to Cornell, and this is what we've been lobbying for, is that
Cornell create a facility and program that is available to the larger of the community to
extend the love of sailing, canoeing, kayaking, basically lake access to everyone. That's
the purpose I think this property would be best suited for.
KE:
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Board Member Thayer — If you had complete access to the land south of the proposed
inn, with or without the docks there, would that be enough land?
Mr. Davis — Not for our current assessment. Not with the current setback requirements.
Chairperson Wilcox — But you will pursue this within Cornell University?
Mr. Davis — Yes we will. I just hope to make the point that this committee should
consider the larger access to the community and that this is the only site that you have
available to provide that access.
Anthony Michaud, 525 North Albany Street — I'm here representing the Cayuga
Windsurfer's Club, you probably know it as the Ithaca Windsurfer's Club. There's not a
whole lot more that I can add to what Andrew said. This all came as a surprise to us
today and we will pursue this at Cornell and try to get Cornell to oppose this program as
well and actually support the program that's being proposed by the Cornell Sailing
Team. I do want to add though, that one thing that's in this plan that was kind of
misstate is that your water access will not remain the same. What you see on the north
end here is currently a small shed that we use for our club for equipment storage. First
of all, that won't be there in this plan, obviously. We also have shoreline access
currently through here, which was granted to us by Johnson Boatyard as well as the
shed, but also we've been using that area for many year, when East Shore Sailing was
here as well, they were very happy to have people who were from outside their facility
accessing the water. The other issue is that we will not be able to windsurf safely
coming out of this area back here because this facility will be blocking any winds that
come from the north. We are going to come out through here, a lot of us on particularly
windy days, need to actually be exposed to winds as soon as we leave the shore, that's
not going to happen so we'd end up having to swim a lot. On a more community level,
know I don't really need to tell you this, but I'm going to tell you again anyway, it's very
nice that Ithaca actually had, at one point some sort of public water access, where
people could windsurf, they could learn to sail and that was provided as East Shore
Sailing, it's been a shame that it's been gone the last couple of years. There has been
some organization on our part to invite people from the general public to learn to
windsurf and that's part of our club. We have a lot of donated equipment and we're
hoping people get into windsurfing and enjoy the lake here. It would be a real shame if
this site is no longer here because, in fact, it is the only safe water access that we have
for windsurfing on the south end of Cayuga. There is no other place we can go and we
certainly can't launch from Stewart Park unless the City wants to clean it up a little bit
first.
Eric Gaylord, 244 Danby Road — I'm at boat owner. I have my boat down there at that
marina. I don't know if it's going to be a marina after this all gets done, or what's going
to happen. The boat's always been stored at that marina. I've been told this year that
the end of October we have to have our boat out of there. There are to be no boats left
down there. This boat has always been stored down there, year round, on a trailer. That
marina is one of the oldest marinas in Ithaca and the marina is also built on fill, it was
29
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
all fill when it was built. The train runs down through there three times a day.
Approximately around three o'clock in the morning, twelve noon and seven o'clock at
night. To go in and out of that marina, if they have a hotel is going to be a dangerous
spot. The railroad is not going to move it's tracks and you have to come up onto the
road and the traffic does fly down through there pretty good. I would really like to see it
improved more, if the marina were enlarged for public access for boaters. Ithaca doesn't
have enough spaces for boats. There's a lot of people whose boats sit on the trailers
because they can't get into the marina, there is no place to put them. The other place,
down at the park, it's a lottery to get it in. If it gets drawn, you get in, if it doesn't, you
don't.
This could be a lovely spot for a big marina. As I said, it's the only one that's on the
lake, it's the oldest marina I know of that's around. I remember when the put the fill in
there and I'm an old man, I've seen a lot of changes. I think it's the wrong place for a
hotel, we've got enough hotels already and the only time the hotels are full is three
times a year. When I worked in Ithaca hotels that's the only time we were full, three
times a year and the rest of the time it sits empty, except for a few conventions. I think
it's the wrong spot for a hotel and a restaurant. I think it ought to be just opened up
more for the public. That's all I can say.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. In the back first hand up.
David Romm, 1006 East Shore Drive — I'm a neighbor. I've shared many of the
concerns I know you have raised tonight and I also, I have many things to say, but what
most concerns me about this project that I haven't heard anybody mention yet and I'm
sure it will come up, but it's the one thing that I think can actually — we run the risk of
changing the character of the southern end of the lake forever. For me it's an issue of
pollution, but it's noise pollution. I don't know if any of you have ever been in the inlet,
on the water, approaching the Boatyard Resonant on a summer evening, when people
are outside, having fun, there might be music playing, a party or a wedding is going on.
Restaurants generate noise, and restaurants in the Finger Lakes, where it's beautiful
will have activities outside. The economic pressure will be irresistible. I can tell you this
because I've worked professionally in restaurants for most of my professional life. I
teach now at Cayuga College. I taught at the Hotel School at Cornell. I ran, at one point,
many years ago, virtually all the restaurants, except Window on the World at the World
Trade Center and so I will tell you, the economic pressure on this operation to have
dining outside with bar operations and music and special catered events will be, literally,
irresistible for the operators, 225 seat restaurant. Sound carries over water. All the
activates outside on the bar, the music at night. Right now, there's noise on the lake,
people drum at Stewart Park on a Saturday evening. I don't know if you've ever heard
that? But they stop some time around sunset. This operation will just be getting going
then. I am concerned with many issues, but the one issue that I really hope you take a
very long look at because it will change the character of this lake in the evening forever,
is the potential for noise pollution. Thank you.
Tom Newton, 1016 East Shore Drive — I'd like to clarify something that I saw on the
proposed map over here. Currently they are indicating that to the north of this project
[ill,
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
there are seasonal residences. I think it's imperative for these people to realize that
these are no longer seasonal residences, these are year round residences. The fact
that they are using an out -dated survey map needs to be recognized. For people living
on the lake, it's a very special place as you just heard from many speakers. While I think
it's a wonderful concept to have the board sailing boats there and all the other marina
uses and it might even be an interesting idea to have this in there, I think one of the
things that gets a lot of lip service, but no attention is what happens around the shore
line. When Cornell put in the hot and cold water system there was a lot of back and forth
that it would be monitored and monitored and monitored. The alga has grown on the
lake on that end out of control. The shore line at Stewart Park and coming up from
Stewart Park to this marina is filthy, it's shameful. What I would like to suggest is
whoever gets control of this site, that it become mandatory upon them to clean that area
so that the shore line from the park, the beautiful park that they just put in, all the way
down to Stewart Park, gets cleaned regularly and not left.
Thank you for hearing me.
Fernando Schwartz, 522 South Albany Street — I just wanted to mention the fact that
currently there is a lot of activity, a lot of people are profiting from the wonderful launch
site on a daily basis, should there be a better installation for boats, I'm thinking, just to
give you an idea, there's a place called Cal Sailing Club in Berkley. That is a club that
we are trying to shape our little club into that idea. That was a club that, even when
was spending a summer there, I could be a part of and use the marina. I think that there
is potential for a really beautiful community club. It would be a shame to lose that aspect
from the lake. Thanks
Edward Surrell, 249 Route 79, Slaterville Springs — I have an office in downtown Ithaca.
I've been using the lake at East Shore for over twelve years for small boats, I've been
using windsurfers, I'm a member of the Windsurfing Club and I speak to you as a
citizen. I'm greatly concerned about losing the site and the part of the site that is most
important for boat access is really the northern third. It's really the only good access for
windsurfing and one of the best access for kayaking and small sailing. It has always
amazed me how poorly developed the southern part of this lake is compared to Seneca.
If you go to Seneca Lake they have swimming and all kinds of public access developed.
I understand there was bathing at Stewart Park at one time, but now that is polluted and
it's really not useable an it's too shallow for access for boating. I'm not opposed to
development, many people may be. I would like to see a win /win situation. If something
were developed, I think a lot of the concerns raised here need to be considered,
including noise and fire safety. That left turn from Route 34 into the marina is quite a
challenge and if that train is going by for ten or fifteen minutes, the people making a left
hand turn are going to back up all the way back to Route 13. 1 think that really is a
challenge. I think there are a lot of reasons why placing this on the east side of Route
34 would be the more sensible. Of course, waterfront access is what everybody wants.
think it's a very important asset for the community and it's really the only good access to
the lake and having a lake is a wonderful thing for the community that many of us enjoy.
I wanted to have my input. Thank you for listening and I hope you consider all these
points.
31
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? There was a gentleman or somebody, or a
woman. Yes, right there. I just saw the hand pop up behind the podium.
Andrea Dutcher, 21 Beesmer Road — I'm not a gentleman, but that's okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — I apologize, I couldn't see you.
Ms. Dutcher — I am a slip renter at East Shore Marina and I am also a member of the
Department of Physical Education and Recreation at Cornell University. I have some
concerns over this particular project as a member of the Department of Physical
Education and Athletics, I know that the sailing operation at East Shore right now is a
tremendous teaching facility for Cornell University students and I know that in the past,
when East Shore Marina was there, they had sailing rental and lessons, kayaking,
canoeing and I know that Cornell Physical Education would very much like to have that
type of an operation back on the lake as part of the Cornell Educational mission, but
also as a community service. I have discussed that personally with Al Ganard in the
past and I know that they are trying to pursue that as Andrew mentioned from the sailing
operation. That particular area, as people have mentioned, is the only public access for
kayakers and for sailboarders and somebody who as rented there for many years, that
parking lot right now with the renters and with the kayakers and the canoers and the
sailboarders is full. On evenings and on weekends that parking lot right now is almost
full. I think it's unrealistic that 110 parking spaces is going to serve at 250 seat
restaurant and a hotel and a marina operation. If you take the Boatyard as an example,
the Boatyard is a very similar sized restaurant and they have, I think, 40 or 50 parking
spaces out front, but if you go the Boatyard Restaurant on a summer evening, I have
parked in the Station parking lot, I'm sure they wouldn't be happy to hear that, but I have
parked in the Station parking lot and walked to the Boatyard because that whole entire
operation is full. So, even if you do the simple math, a 250 seat restaurant, say there
are 4 seats to a table, that's 60 cars. That's assuming that nobody is in the bar and no
one is waiting to be seated. There are about 60 slips that are rented at that facility,
between the people who are actually at docks and people who have the buoys and
even if only half of those people are there with their guests, that's probably another 40
or 50 parking spaces. You have 20 guest rooms, two people in a room, that's ten
parking spaces. That's 110 parking spots in a very, very attractive facility. That's
assuming that none of you employees are parking there. That's assuming that there are
absolutely no kayakers there, no canoers there and nobody from the Cornell Sailing
operation. So, I think that 110 parking spaces is very, very unrealistic for that particular
site. So, I think you need to do some type of a parking survey throughout the summer to
see exactly what the parking is that goes on there with just the operation that's there.
Again, you need to eliminate the thought of a boat launch there because there is
absolutely no way with a restaurant parking lot that you could have boats coming in
there. Boats need a tremendous — I mean cars and trucks and boats need a
tremendous amount of space to pull around and back in. So, you will have eliminated —
you know, just the logistics of parking people going in and out for the restaurant and the
size and space that you need for boat launching. I'm fully in favor of developing that
0
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
particular project, I think that that little storage area that they use for East Shore Sailing
right now is a disgrace, although they run a great operation out of it. I would like to have
it developed, but I think you really need to thing about maintaining a public access on
the south side of the lake for the entire Ithaca community and I also think that you really
need to think about the parking issues. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you a question?
Ms. Dutcher —Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — At the beginning you were talking about your roll within Cornell
University. Is Cornell pursuing, as far as you know, alternative venues for the clubs who
use that site right now?
Ms. Dutcher — No. They are hoping to have the operation there. The sailing club has
spent an inordinate amount of time and money developing a fantastic docks system.
They have the team fleet there and they also have the physical education fleet there.
So, currently, the physical education program is operating out of there and the sailing
club is operating out of there.
Chairperson Wilcox — And as far as you know, those would be terminated at some
point?
Ms. Dutcher — I don't know where else on the lake they would go.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else? Over here in the front, sort of behind
the reporter. Yes, ma'am.
Christina Tonitto, 214 South Hill Terrace — I just want to go on the record as supporting
what a lot of people have already brought up this evening, which is that really is the only
place to launch small boats and winder surfers in the entire southern part of the lake. So
the next facility would be going to Meyers Park. There is no other place you can launch
between Ithaca and Meyers Park. All the rest of the land is private on the east shore
and on the west the few facilities north of Cass Park don't actually get wind. Unless you
want to swim out into the lake, it's not accessible for wind sports. Those facilities are
accessible for kayaks and things like that, so people who kayak will be impacted by this,
but they possible would have an alternative entry point. Having lived in two other cities
in the US that really value their water, Seattle and Berkeley, California, I can tell you
that the value of public access to water facilities. I was involved in the University of
Washington sailing program, as well as the University of California, Cal sailing club and
it was just tremendous to have facilities that would allow people of all income brackets
to appreciate sailing because, as many of us know, sailing is often a sport limited to
people who can afford to pay for slips and support these high -cost keel boats. These
smaller sailing programs give access to people who want to learn windsurfing, sailing
small boats, and our purpose with the windsurfing club is to actually duplicate, as I
mentioned before, what's going in the Cal sailing club, which is essentially to make
33
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
sailing available to anyone who is interested. Also, the other point is at Meyers Point,
you need a car to get to, but this facility is actually bikeable from downtown as so, since
we now have donated windsurfers at the site, it's open to anyone who is willing to bike
out there, essentially. That's not going to be the case if we have to go up to Meyers
Point and we don't have the ability to put our gear at Meyers Point for free. I hope you
take that into consideration because I think that the beauty of the Finger Lakes is to
appreciate the lake and the lake shouldn't be for the 20 people who are going to come
from out of town and use the hotel, it should be for the people who live here. Please
take that into consideration.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Is there someone else behind that I can't
see? In the back?
Michelle Burlitch, 673 Ringwood Road — I'm here to represent the Cayuga Windsurfing
Club as well as I assistant manage Eastern Mountain Sports, so I feel that I can speak
reasonably well for the kayaking community as well as the windsurfing community. In
addition to that, I'm a rare person in Ithaca because I was actually born and raised here,
so I have a great deal of love and appreciation for public access to our lake. I think that
it's important to realize that it is, in fact, our lake when looking at this plan. I am also
involved in business, so I am not opposed to business development, but I think that
development needs to take into account the quality of life that the lake offers to this area
and to the residents of the entire area. As the developer and the architecture was
speaking about, the inn would offer a vacation and laid back quality and that's exactly
what public access to that particular site offers all Ithaca residents and vacationers and
that needs to remain.
The other thing that is important and other people have spoken about, but I'm not quite
sure it's clear to non - sailors, and that is that the other marina's that serve our south end
of the lake are not able to serve wind sport boats that don't have power motors on them
because you can't simply sail out of Treman Marina. So, having that access, not in a
gentlemen's sport type of way, it needs to be, you need to be able to pull your trailer
around type of access is crucial. I think it would be important for the developers to
actually spend some time down watching, a week day, a weekend day, at the lake to
see what real use is there so that can be taken into account. I think the Planning Board
would also be served to notice how much of that use there really is happening.
Thank you for the time.
Board Member Mitrano — I'd like to ask a question that I would have asked the last
speaker, as well. Are you folks in connection with the gentleman who spoke with the
proposal that we received here?
Ms. Burlitch — Yes, in that we are all wind sailors.
Board Member Mitrano — Friends of Cornell Sailing?
Mr. Burlitch —Yes.
0_11
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Board Member Mitrano — The reason I ask is to underscore what Mr. Barney said, which
is that, again, it's the owner of the property. We are limited in what we can do. So, to
any degree that you can use your input with the community at large and on Cornell,
that's really — I appreciate enormously, having all of you speak, but again, to emphasize
that the focus of where a lot of your attention may very well need to go is to the owner of
the property.
Ms. Burlitch — Thank you Tracy, thank you.
Helen Shewchuk, Winston Drive — I'm very sick at heart to think that this property —
there is such limited space for boats on Cayuga Lake and I'm really sick at heart to think
that this property is going to be used for a restaurant, rather than allowing people who
have boats to rent space there. We have a 25 foot sloop and we have been so thankful
to be able to be at that place in the lake, it's much closer to our house than some of the
others and it's more affordable than belonging to the Yacht Club and renting there and
whatever. Slips are really at a premium now and we have been at Marine Harbor for at
least ten years, thirteen years. So, anyway, that's about all I'm going to say because
other people have articulated concerns that I would share, in terms of keeping it a
marina. The drumming down there is unnerving, but —
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you know who's generating the drumming, by the way?
Ms. Shewchuk — I have no idea. Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else on that side? Sir?
Emir Sirer, 214 South Hill Terrace — I would just like to raise three issues with the
proposed plan that I think would be a liability for whoever undertakes this. The first one,
relates to the safety issue. As has been pointed out before, the railroad tracks are
unlikely to come up or the road is unlikely to go down. I teach computer science at
Cornell where part of my specialty involves queuing theory. Queuing theory is actually
part of computer science that descended from traffic analysis. There are non - linear
effects in this systems that says if the demand for a particular junction or service, if you
will, goes above a certain threshold, you start having certain problems, especially if this
restaurant raises traffic to a level where there are more than three cars stuck trying to
merge onto the road and the train is coming. Then what would result, in effect is a death
trap. So that, I think is an issue should be considered.
The second issue, I'd like to point out has to do with the potential impact on the
waterfront and, judging from the architect's drawings, it seems like some of the
waterfront is going to be re- leveled or else raised to accommodate the building. If that
were to happen, some silt might actually go onto the lake. So the potential impact onto
the lake has to be looked at.
The third one, I would like to just echo the previous comment about parking spaces.
Marina's demand much more parking spaces than regular construction, it's not jus
people who are actually using the marina, but the trailers that are involved with the
boats that need to be accommodated. I was just there at the east shore last Sunday and
K
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
just looking at the fullness of the parking lot, which is entirely empty right now, I can
easily tell that if this building were to be built and 250 guests were at the restaurant, plus
more were waiting, plus people were using the hotel, plus there were users of this
marina, then I just cannot image that the parking spaces would be sufficient. I would like
to thank you for your time.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. I figured you'd want to go last.
Rich DePaolo, 126 North View Road — I don't want to be redundant. Just a couple of
things that I would like to address, some of which have already been stated, I'd just like
to reiterate a couple of things. I don't think it's an accident that the project is being
proposed now, under the current zoning regulations, given the fact that the proposed
Zoning Ordinance would essentially move the project across the street by default, given
the 100 foot setback requirement that comes with it. I would just like to re- iterate what
Ms. Hoffmann was saying in that it may conform with the current zoning regulations, but
that doesn't necessarily make it a better project now than it would be in six months
when the proposed Zoning Ordinance was presumably enacted. I used to live on East
Shore Drive until my backyard was turned into a quarry by a particular pipeline that went
through there a few years back. I can tell you that that train does take a long time to get
through, particularly in the winter when it's loaded with coal and salt and one of the
issues, in additions to the traffic issues, are also safety for residents of the inn and
patrons of the restaurant. What would happen in a medical or fire emergency? I'm sure
you've considered this, this is Planning 101. 1 don't really know much about this, but it
did occur to me that you could leave some people in a distressed situation for a
prolonged period of time, without any kind of medical attention or fire prevention.
The other issue, the real issue that I came down to address tonight, was raised
superficially, it has to do with the conditions of the soils on the site. As we've mentioned
in conjunction with the Lake Source Cooling Project, there was some limited site
investigation, some sediment borings and some soil borings that reviled contamination
that, presumably has to do with the site's former use as a salt mine, coal fired, steam
monitor facility, so there are contaminants in the soil. The sediment data already shows
lead in excess of the acute toxicity level for aquatic life. It remains to be seen, the extent
of the contamination because the site investigation was never really pursued and I think
that if there is any kind of fill or any kind of excavation on the site, certainly these
contaminants are going to be released into the environment. Let me see what else.
The other issue, of course that falls more in the realm of the Planning Board is that
there is an issue in terms of whether this project is going to be beneficial to the
community. I had no idea, not being gin the sailing community, I had no idea that there
was such an interest in the parcel. I lived down there and I saw people dragging their
small craft through there, but I never knew that realized that there was such a tight -knit
community around here. I think that, with respect to the tax money that is going to be
raised, sure that's a benefit to the community in an indirect fashion, but I think that the
Town might consider a mechanism by which it could either purchase the parcel or
acquire the parcel through eminent domain. I should think that it would clearly serve the
interest of the public to be kept as a park or a marina with public access. Let me see if
there's anything else.
KI
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
The other issue, obviously, that comes to mind. I lived in Lansing for a while, as well
and I used to zip up East Shore Drive after work and I think that, for most people, lake
access is so limited that I think that the manner in which this is being proposed is going
to put the lake, not only out of reach for the individuals who currently use it for small
craft, but in an economic and demographic sense, it's going to put the lake out of reach
for the average resident of Ithaca and Tompkins County. I can't imagine that these
rooms are going to be cheap. I think that the feeling that one gets when one is moving
up East Shore Drive after a day of work, you know, you can look out your window and
get a look at the sun going down. To have just those little things depleted by a
development that is essentially going to put the lake out of reach to the average person.
think those are quality of life issues that also need to be considered.
I won't take up any more of you time, I just want to thank you for allowing everyone to
speak tonight. I'm sure that we'll be back when the next proposal comes along.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good to see you again Rich.
Pete Kane , 119 Ferris Place — We just wanted to clarify certain things. I'm not sure that
you guys know about the legal agreement when Cornell acquired the land from the
Town of Ithaca.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. No, I won't interrupt, go on.
Mr. Barney — The Town of Ithaca has never owned the land.
Mr. Kane — Okay. Do you know anything about the legal agreement of right of first
refusal if Cornell doesn't maintain that lakeshore access?
Mr. Barney — Quite a bit, I drafted it.
Mr. Kane — Can you go into that a little bit?
Mr. Barney — Well, there is a right of first refusal if there's a sale, but I don't think there's
a sale here, it's a lease. It's not a right of first refusal, it's a right of first offer and that
doesn't apply here.
Mr. Kane — So, there's nothing in there about maintaining public access for the lake?
Mr. Barney — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anybody else? I'm going to stand up and look out. Is
there anybody else who wishes to speak this evening?
Jeff Inman, 21 Pacific Road, Brooktondale — I'm here also on behalf of the Cayuga
Windsurfer's, I'm just showing my support that we need more public access for small
crafts. This proposal would take away all of that. I guess my understanding, if I hear it
right, is that one of the clauses for this development project is to help out or enhance
37
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
what is already there. What's already there is the only public access spot we have for
sailing. If this goes in, it's going to wipe out everything that we have. We can't sail any
small crafts anywhere else on the south end. So, if somehow there was some type of
contingency that we could still have a public access for windsurfing, that would benefit
the community. I'm here to show much support for the continued use by the community.
Thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox — Once again, is there anyone else? Anybody else who would like
to address the Board this evening? Then, I won't say I'm going to close the Public
Hearing, it's not a Public Hearing. I want to thank you all for voicing your opinions. Any
questions for the applicant, while he's still here?
Board Member Mitrano — Organize, organize, organize in reasonable ways.
Chairperson Wilcox — David, you're all set?
Mr. Barney — You hear the sense from the community that probably the proposal would
be a lot easier to swallow if there was continued public access of the lake there. I'm just
throwing that out so that in your course of, if you choose to come back, you might see if
you could roll some of that into your proposal.
Chairperson Wilcox — If you speak, I have to ask you to come to the microphone. You
don't have to respond, but if you choose to-
Mr. Schlosser — Basically, as I noted before, this is a sketch plan. We are here to listen.
We appreciate the comments of the Board and the public. We will take those comments
and, hopefully return.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Are we all set then? David, thank you very
much and I thank the public. Wait a minute. We have one bit of business to do and I
want to do it in front of the public, just so nobody things anything. We do have a
resolution in front of us. One thing that this Board, I think, should do is declare the intent
to be the lead agency in Environmental Review. So, I'll just read it because you're all
here: " That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all
involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be
received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of
notification ..." So moved by the Chair. Do I have a second, seconded by Larry. All
those in favor "aye ". Anybody opposed? There are none. Now we're all set. Thank you
very much.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -043 : Lead Agency Concurrence, Remington Restaurant,
Inn, and Marina, Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, 1000 East Shore Drive
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
9.01
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the
proposed Remington Restaurant, Inn, and Marina Development, located on East
Shore Drive (NYS Route 34), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Business
"E" District. The proposal includes demolishing two existing buildings to
construct a two -story lodge including a 250 -seat restaurant, 20 guest rooms, a
110 -space parking lot, a new marina boathouse, and the continued use of the
existing marina (boat launch and docking facilities). Cornell University, Owner;
Paramount Realty Group, Applicant; David A. Schlosser, Agent, and
2. The proposed action, which includes site plan approval by the Planning Board, is
a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6
NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988
Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and
3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, has been submitted by the
applicant for the above - described action, along with other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead
agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed site plan approval for
the proposed Remington Restaurant, Inn, and Marina, as described above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved
agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by
the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification
of the involved agencies.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of the proposed draft Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, thank you. Are there any comments that you want to
make.
Ms. Ritter — Maybe I need to find out if anyone has read the memo. Because I would go
over the memo, but if you've all read it.
44;:
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Board Member Mitrano — Give us a little nutshell.
Ms. Ritter — In a nutshell, the Transportation Committee has put together a memo on
sidewalk policy. Not as exciting as the Remington, but nonetheless an important thing to
talk about how we are going to get people, pedestrians around in the subdivisions in the
Town, the schools, the parks, whatever. So, essentially, what we're hoping is to get
some comments from this Board on this proposal and sort of additions to this proposal
and some of the ideas that were put down. It's asking for new construction for instance,
it's asking for that the Planning Board, at it's discretion, may require developers to
include sidewalks with a development. On existing roads, if there's a connection to
existing sidewalks or if a sidewalk system has been planned by the Town of Ithaca, the
Planning Board may require sidewalks. We just wanted to put this in the lap of the
Planning Board. There has been no sidewalk policy, the only thing that we had that's in
this attachment is the street and sidewalk law, which basically said the resident will
construct and maintain a sidewalk. That's all really that we had as far as sidewalk
policy. So now, we're wanting to actually state something, have a policy, saying that the
Planning Board will have some discretion in this, these will be some of the rational, the
criteria for it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Has the Town, in fact, I'm going to look to Mr. Barney because
he's been around for a long time — has the Town, in fact, had an unstated policy not to
construct sidewalks or to avoid constructing sidewalks.
Mr. Barney — No. We have sidewalks, or walkways. The problem with them is
maintenance and the Town adopted, really what the City of Ithaca has, which is those
kinds of sidewalks, which basically are the walks in front of a property, the property
owner does have the responsibility of snow removal and maintenance. If it's a walkway,
such as the ones back by the schools in the Northeast there, then the Town, I think
maintains it. No, I don't think we have a policy against it particularly.
Chairperson Wilcox — On the other hand, I was thinking that there is a sidewalk along
Mitchell Street, in the Town of Ithaca. I'm hard pressed to think of another sidewalk.
Ms. Ritter — Essentially, the only sidewalk that is in the Town is- I forget which road it is,
Remington, it's just outside of Cayuga Heights. That is the only place that we know of
where there's been a sidewalk.
Mr. Barney — Isn't there one along Judd Falls Road?
Ms. Ritter — I think it's a walkway that the Town maintains versus a sidewalk that a
resident maintains.
Board Member Mitrano — So is this looking to future developments or would this be
retroactive?
U(
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Ms. Ritter — It's both, well, the retroactive part. There's new development, so there's
kind of a section for new development and that would have the Planning Board's input
on that. The second part is existing construction, where you're already in communities,
you have an awful lot of people there, you have children walking to school, but they're
walking in the street or wherever. Then one of the criteria's says: " On a super majority,
60% affirmative vote of affected property owners, maintenance will be the responsibility
of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks."
Mr. Kanter — I think we've heard from legal experts who say that we can't do it that way,
the supermajority part of it.
Mr. Barney — Well, I don't know about legal experts.
Mr. Kanter — Well, not you. We have a comment from Mary Russell.
Mr. Barney — Which she got from me, by the way.
Board Member Conneman — So, just basically, I can carry this because I was there. We
talked about Warren Road, "gee wouldn't it be nice to put sidewalks in there." A lot of
people walk on that road and that is dangerous. I think that's how it all started, "do we
have a policy ?" The answer was "no ". So the question was "Should we have a policy, or
at least recognize the problems ?" Is that fair, Jonathan? At least that's my recollection.
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, that's partly a good answer. It's not that the Town Board has had a
policy against sidewalks, but the lack of having a policy has led to situations like Warren
Road , where we had opportunities to have one, but it just never happened because the
only mechanism for doing it was to go to the adjacent residents and say "would you like
a sidewalk district" and, obviously, they said "no ". That was at the time when the County
was doing a pretty major reconstruction of Warren Road, so it could have been easily
designed into it.
Ms. Ritter — To some extent, I think people like the feel that there is a more rural to
suburban area and bringing sidewalks in detracts from that. But that's just some of the
people that feel that way and others wish there were sidewalks. You end up trying to —
Chairperson Wilcox — Please everybody.
Board Member Mitrano — What is the rule of the 60% supermajority?
Mr. Barney — There is a process under Town law for forming a sidewalk district and it's
spelled out pretty clearly. My recollection is that it's not a 60 % affirmative vote of the
affected property, I think it may be a majority vote of the assessed valuation of whatever
is subject to the district for it.
Board Member Conneman — When I lived in the Village of Cayuga Heights, up Winthrop
Road, there is a sidewalk the Village forced me to pay for because they wanted the
M
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
sidewalk. The Town just made a blacktop thing. I was told that that was not a sidewalk,
that was a path.
Ms. Ritter — Or a walkway.
Board Member Conneman — Or a walkway, I don't know what the difference is, but,
guess the Town just put that in, as far as I know.
Chairperson Wilcox — The sidewalk is maintained by the residents.
Ms. Ritter — And the walkway is maintained by the Town. Built, paid for, and often
plowed, too.
Board Member Conneman — I will admit that that is a nice sidewalk and a nice place to
walk, but the kids walk in the street anyway.
Board Member Mitrano — What does constitute a sidewalk?
Mr. Hebdon — I have a unique perspective on this and I'm trying to be as quiet as
possible.
Chairperson Wilcox — Don't be quiet.
Mr. Hebdon — I worked for the City of Ithaca for ten years.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's the problem.
Mr. Hebdon — For five of the years that I worked for the City of Ithaca I was, what people
used to call the sidewalk nazi. My job was to make sure that we had a sidewalk program
in place and people were repairing their sidewalks. So, I had to go through and basically
we forced people to repair their sidewalks and I always thought and we always wanted
to bring the sidewalks in as part of the infrastructure. I've always thought that if you're
going to have sidewalks in the Town, have the proper owners maintain them, but if
they're going to be re- built, you really need to have that as part of the infrastructure, like
the road. Otherwise, you end up with a program where you have one guy full time,
trying to make sure that you don't get lawsuits because your sidewalks are in bad
shape. The average cost of a sidewalk is probably about seven to eight dollars a square
foot for a four inch sidewalk.
Board Member Mitrano — Again, what are we talking about? Where concrete is laid in
blocks?
Mr. Hebdon — A concrete, five foot wide sidewalk.
Board Member Mitrano — So that's what constitutes and sidewalk?
W�
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Mr. Hebdon —Yes.
Board Member Mitrano — So say up in Chase Farm, we didn't want to put in the
concrete blocks, but would a sidewalk also be if we all spent money, each homeowner,
laying down a certain uniform grade of pebbles or something along the pathway or a
rail.
Mr. Barney — I don't think sidewalk is defined by a construction material. I think a
sidewalk is more defined , it's really custom, more than law. If a homeowner is going to
pay for it, it's a sidewalk. If the Town is going to pay for it, it's a walkway. I don't think
you can go to the Town law or go to our local laws and find that.
Board Member Mitrano — Because I know this was an issue. You all probably saw me
one night get a little fired up with that one gentleman who wants to do that other things
because we were evidently promised sidewalks and then it wasn't delivered. So, for
some time, there was an interest in having these sidewalks put in, but there wasn't
uniformity amount the homeowners, sot he result was nothing was put in. And so now,
people, I think, would prefer not to have something, but I think they're thinking of the
sidewalk you were just describing.
Mr. Hebdon — The concrete, five foot wide?
Board Member Mitrano — Yes and I think if someone came along and proposed a
certain kind of pebble to make it uniform along this one side of the road and did it up
right.
Mr. Barney — That's what the sidewalk policy is for. You come in with a proposal,
basically, and say this is the way we want to build a sidewalk.
Board Member Thayer — It does seem like it should be part of the road though. Like
going up Cliff Street, when they re -built Cliff Street, they put the sidewalk in all the way
up.
Mr. Hebdon — They charged the home owners.
Board Member Thayer — Oh sure, it's still the home owner's responsibility, but it's
uniform and it's made with the road and it looks a lot better that way.
Mr. Hebdon — Yes, it does.
Chairperson Wilcox — Until 20 years away when you start having different homeowners
replacing different sections at different times.
Mr. Kanter — Part of the issue in some areas is who the sidewalk will serve. There are
some, obviously, where is would most directly benefit the adjacent landowner in each
stretch of it, but there are other areas, and Warren Road may have been one of those,
M]
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
where it's actually a broader pedestrian commuter situation where you have a lot of
people who could be using it to get up to the schools, or now the medical office complex
up further. So, that's part of the problem of simply requiring adjacent land owners to pay
for something that may not be entirely just for their benefit. So, if you have it as a benefit
district, who actually should be in the district. There may be cases where the Town
Board may want the ability to be able to say well this is a bigger issue than just that
adjacent area, we want to build a sidewalk here and it's going to benefit a much larger
portion of the Town. So, that's part of the policy question that needs to be addressed.
Also, I think the transportation plan that the Transportation Committee is working on, it
will be trying to address that. Are there certain areas that we can identify now, that we
know could use that type of sidewalk sort of for a bigger transportation circulation
option.
Mr. Hebdon — The blacktop going up Honness Lane, that one side, that's a walkway?
Mr. Kanter — I think so. We didn't charge the landowners.
Mr. Hebdon — So, there is a consistency within the Town that there aren't really any
sidewalks, everything is a walkway right now.
Chairperson Wilcox — What is the one on Mitchell Street?
Ms. Ritter — By the horses.
Mr. Kanter — We call that the Judd Falls walkway.
Mr. Hebdon — We plow that right now.
Mr. Barney — We may do that, but I think when it was originally done, the concept was
that the adjoining land owner was going to pick up the cost.
Mr. Kanter — The adjacent land owner is Cornell and that is typically the case in some
other areas. I think the Mitchell Street one, I'm trying to remember.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which is for people living in those apartments to get up to East
Hill Plaza. That's it's primary purpose. It doesn't serve the cemetery very well or that
farm stand at the crest of the hill.
Mr. Kanter — So, those did have a lot of participation by Cornell, but I don't know exactly
how that was worked out.
Board Member Hoffmann — I thought that the Town and Cornell shared the cost of
building.
Mr. Barney — There was some looking at that. Was that when that intersection went in
up there?
11
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Board Member Hoffmann — No, it was when Maplewood Apartments were re -done.
Mr. Barney — There was something done with that too, you're right.
Board Member Hoffmann — That's right and it was felt that the student who live there,
the graduate students who live there, often didn't have cars so they wanted safe access
for them from where they lived to the shopping center. There are a lot of people who
walk there with their groceries.
Mr. Kanter — Now, recently, when we've re -done some of the roads, Honness Lane is
one of them, especially where we knew it fit into a larger system, Honness Lane actually
had the opportunity to connect the East Hill Recreation Way with the soon to be
constructed Pew Trail and also, ultimately with another leg of the Pine Tree Road
Walkway that will go up all the way to East Hill Plaza. When Fred and his crew re -did
Honness Lane, they constructed the walkway along with it and they actually put in
underground drainage at least on that side, if not both. So, it obviously has some design
and configuration aspects of it, too. You can't build a sidewalk in many of the cases
where we have these big, open ditches. Maple Avenue is another case where that was
sort of the missing link of the East Ithaca Recreation Way, when Fred got a grant to re-
construct that road, part of the whole design had to do with adding a bike lane, bike
shoulders and a walkway along that.
Chairperson Wilcox — It looks like a sidewalk, but you're saying it's a walkway? It looks
like a sidewalk because it's got the concrete.
Mr. Kanter — That's another of the walkways that we've built, basically. So, it sort of
doesn't really matter what you call it, it's more what it's purpose is and how it came
about happening.
Ms. Ritter — I guess there is some question about existing construction and what we'll
do about that, it sounds like. So maybe we, with the Planning Board should be looking
at the new construction. There was a point here of when you're looking at subdivision,
what criteria would you have for deciding that the developer should put in the sidewalk.
There were five of them here and one of the considerations were; children walking to
school, bus stop within convenient walking distance, connected to other sidewalks,
provide access to trail system and safety for pedestrians. There might be other criteria,
guess that's what we're asking. Are there other things that people might think of that
might be added there? When you're thinking about asking a developer to include a
sidewalk, what criteria would you require?
Board Member Mitrano — How about some aesthetic value?
Ms. Ritter — Because you think it looks attractive in the neighborhood?
Board Member Mitrano — Is that too vague.
mi
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think a sidewalk is particularly attractive, but that's my own
personal opinion.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, again, if you're thinking of those concrete blocks, I would
agree with you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Some interesting red pavers down or something like that. We like
sidewalks where we're concerned about safety and that's the bottom line. It's safety.
Very often they're multiple residence districts, higher density, have persons, children,
cars, traffic and we're concerned about places where people can commute within the
development or out to the road to catch the bus.
Board Member Conneman — Some people think grass up to the black to, that's rural as
opposed to curbs and sidewalks, that's urban.
Board Member Hoffmann — Often you don't have the grass up to the blacktop, you just
have a ditch.
Board Member Mitrano — Right, that's what I'm thinking of.
Board Member Hoffmann — That is very unsafe, you have to walk between the blacktop
and the ditch, essentially.
Board Member Conneman — When you try to walk between there, the Town throws the
snow up and they get salt on it too.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't see sidewalks as an amenity, that someone decides "I
want to buy in this subdivision or I don't." Sidewalks are both ways, they work both
ways. They're convenient if you are going to your neighbors or the small little
neighborhood store to pick up a loaf of bread, should there be one. On the other hand,
they're a pain in the but, you have to maintain them, you've got to repair them, you've
got to get out there early in the morning and salt them or whatever.
Mr. Barney — Frequently, the road has underground drainage. You have a limited right -
of -way and you put your sidewalk in there and most of our roads, the drainage is taken
care of by road side ditches, you now tack a sidewalk on there, as well, you've extended
your area out considerably where you need to put this drainage into a different format.
Most places you find sidewalks you find storm drains and we don't have too many of
those yet.
Board Member Hoffmann — But you know, I think that one can come up with ways to not
widen things. If the developer were told, if you put sidewalks in, just on one side of this
little road that goes into your subdivision, you don't have to have such a wide road, the
road can be narrower because it doesn't have to accommodate the bicyclists and the
U0
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
pedestrians, it's just for the cars. So you get a safer environment for everyone, but you
don't get excesses on paved areas.
Mr. Kanter — Well, it might have to accommodate bicyclists, it depends how you design
it.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, that's true. You may have to have a narrow strip. At
least one can modify things a little. One doesn't have to have a single width of road
everywhere.
Mr. Barney — The width that we have, we have Town Highway specifications which spell
out width and constructions standards and spell out, I think, also the ditching. I believe
the ditch is part of it. So, you're right, it could be changed, but that's going to take a
change, I think, at the Town Board level. Those specifications are adopted by the Town
Board. For engineering reasons, again, the reason you have ditches is not just for the
drainage, but also it drains the under part of the road so that, hopefully, you don't get
the heaving in the wintertime. If you don't have that kind of ditch there, you have to
provide for that some other way because the roads get torn up with potholes.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well yes. It might be more expensive initially, but you, of
course have to put in drainage, but then you can cover the drainage. It doesn't have to
be an open ditch and put the sidewalk on top.
Mr. Barney — There's a lot of tradeoffs here and it really depends on how urban, I think
you are, where it makes sense to expend that kind of money.
Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, would you like to make the final comment?
Ms. Ritter — I want to make a comment on drainage ditches, I would just add that if you
have a grass drainage ditch, they act as swales and clean up the water. When you put
the water into a pipe you are not getting any of that treatment. I like sidewalks because
I'm a big walker, I walk in the Town quite a bit, but I also see the benefit of drainage
ditches.
Chairperson Wilcox — That was the last comments.
Mr. Kanter — But we haven't gotten any feedback from the Board.
Board Member Hoffmann — Just to amplify what I said before, you don't have to have
sidewalks on both sides of the road, you can have a sidewalk on one side and a ditch
on the other.
Ms. Ritter — That's right, the City has that coming up on State Street. There were places
where they were not able to put sidewalk and they just have it on one side of the street.
Board Member Mitrano — I'd say something, but that was the last comment.
M
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Ms. Ritter — We are looking for more comments. If you think of things that you want to
add, please let us know.
Board Member Talty — I would like to say that, with regards to having homeowners
maintain their own sidewalks, it is a complete losing battle because what will happen is
you'll have nine out of ten shovel their walkway and the tenth won't and then what have
you got?
Ms. Ritter — In the City, they try to have people who will assist people who can not
shovel. And I don't know, Creig might tell us if that works at all.
Chairperson Wilcox — Moving right along.
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of proposed changes for the type of actions that are
subject to review under the Tompkins County Planning Department GML 239
referrals.
Chairperson Wilcox — Has this made the Planning Department's life easier because it
will in some way cut down the number of 239 reviews that the County does?
Mr. Kanter — My philosophy is not really. It is more to make the County Planning
Department's life easier. I think the main reason for this proposal is generated by their
budget constraints and their need to direct the staff time to other types of things so if
they can identify certain of these referrals as agreed by all parties to be insignificant
basically, why bother spending time reviewing them. Just like a lot of things that come to
this Board, we'd like to see pulled. So, as far as I'm concerned, we probably would
pretty much send the same things that we do now, which is just about everything. We
don't really look at the geographic criteria's at 500 feet within this, or is it near that, we
just send everything.
Chairperson Wilcox — If they decide that they are not going to review it, then they'll send
it back, right?
Mr. Kanter — If it's been pre- determined that there is no impact, they basically wouldn't
have the, not that they do have a responsibility to comment, they don't, if they don't
respond after 30 days, the community is free to act without their recommendation. I
think the County probably would prefer an approach where certain classes of actions
are pre- determined and agreed upon to not be ones that would have any inter -
community, inter - municipal impact and then they would not have to look at them. I think
it seems like a pretty good proposal to take some things that they've identified.
Mr. Barney — Would the Planning Department take this list of things that they're not
going to look at anymore and not send up?
U-0
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
Mr. Kanter — I think probably not because if, for some reason, we missed something, we
slipped up somehow and we looked at the list and one of them....
Mr. Barney — So, that doesn't accomplish what they want to have accomplished
because you're going to send your stuff and they'll have to still send you a letter saying
that they're not reviewing it.
Mr. Kanter — Or they may just not respond, if it's one of those listed items. I think it's
primarily for a lot of the other communities that either don't have planning staffs or
maybe don't pay too much attention to procedures anyway. I'm not saying that we
definitely would still send everything, but it just seems it may be easier to do that. There
are so many things that we process that come under the geographic and action
jurisdictions now, it almost would be more work for us to take a little more time to say
well is it or isn't it.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't, frankly, care.
Mr. Kanter — And Fred is on the Planning Coalition also.
Chairperson Wilcox — I noticed four of the seven criteria all have to do with variances,
that's not this Board.
Mr. Kanter — How about the small subdivisions?
Chairperson Wilcox — Fewer than five lots, which comply with local zoning standards
and Tompkins County Sanitary Code requirements and do not involve new local roads
and streets accessing. I don't have a problem, not at all. If the County doesn't want to
look at them. Does anybody else care? Jon, do you care? Susan cares.
Mr. Kanter — I don't' care. I think that would be a good message, if it helps you County
to do this, we don't have a problem with it, but it's not going to help us.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are there any persons to be heard out there?
Mr. Hebdon — Just the one behind the podium.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 044: Approval of Minutes —May 20,200
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the May 20, 2003
minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meetings as presented with corrections.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
%
June 17, 2003 PB Minutes
Approved July 1, 2003
• AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None
ABSENT., Mitrano
ABSTAINED: Conneman
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM : OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other business? Other than you have received plans for
Cornell Athletic Fields?
Ms. Ritter — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — So that should be coming before this Board. Lots of information.
Next meeting. We know they did an archeological dig and that made the news a couple
of weeks ago. That's the only thing I have on my plate. Anyone else?
Mr. Kanter — I have dates to put on your calendar for the New York Planning Federation
Conference. It's a little earlier this year, September 21St thru September 24th and it's
going to be on Lake Placid. So, we will be getting more information about it, but if
anyone's interested, put that down on your calendar.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else Jon. Mike, Creig, nice to see you here. Susan,
always a pleasure. Anyone else?
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the June 17, 2003 meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
PrI2o2rZ.
Lori Love
ce
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
is Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca College Press Box Facility, 953 Danby Road.
7 :10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed press
box facility located at Ithaca College between the existing soccer fields and Terrace Dorms Drive
Extension, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42 -1 -13.2, Residence District R -15. The
proposal consists of a 250 +/- square foot 2 -story building to include a concession stand and athletic
equipment storage on the first floor with the press box on the second floor. The project also includes
adding new bleacher style seating for approximately 60 people to the existing bleachers. Ithaca College,
Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; Michael P. O'Shea, Agent.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Town Water Tank 2 -Lot Subdivision, Bostwick Road.
7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
two -lot subdivision located on Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Seven Mile Drive, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 5 -1.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide off a 1.0 +/-
• acre parcel from the 13.49 +/- acre parcel to be used by the Town of Ithaca for a new water tank. John,
James and Julie Young & Susan Barnett, Owners; Town of Ithaca, Applicant.
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for The Remington located at 1000 East Shore Drive between East
Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Business "E" District. The
proposal includes demolishing the two existing buildings to construct a two -story lodge including a 250 -
seat restaurant, 20 guest rooms, and a new boathouse. The proposal also includes 110 parking spaces and
the continued use of the existing marina (boat launch and docking facilities). Cornell University, Owner;
Paramount Realty Group, Applicant; David A. Schlosser, Agent.
8:00 P.M. Discussion of the proposed draft Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy.
8:15 P.M. Discussion of proposed changes for the type of actions that are subject to review under the Tompkins
County Planning Department GML 239 referrals.
9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
10. Approval of Minutes: May 20, 2003.
11. Other Business.
12. Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
• Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD 1S UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
0 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
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, June 17, 2003, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed press box
facility located at Ithaca College between the existing soccer fields and Terrace Dorms
Drive Extension, 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42 -1 -13.2, Residence
District R -15. The proposal consists of a 250 +/-square foot 2 -story building to include a
concession stand and athletic equipment storage on the first floor with the press box on
the second floor. The project also includes adding new bleacher style seating for
approximately 60 people to the existing bleachers. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design,
Applicant; Michael P. O'Shea, Agent.
7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot
subdivision located on Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Seven Mile
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 5 -1.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal is
to subdivide off a 1.0 +/- acre parcel from the 13.49 +/- acre parcel to be used by the
Town of Ithaca for a new water tank. John, James and Julie Young & Susan Barnett,
Owners; Town of Ithaca, 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.
Dated: Monday, June 9, 2003
Publish: Wednesday, June 11, 2003
•
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
The Ithaca Journal
Wednesday, June'11, 2003
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday,
June 17, 2003
By direction of the Chair -
person of the Planning
Board, NOTICE 1S HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Planning
Board of the Town of Ithaca
on Tuesday, June 17, 2003,
at 215 North Tiogo Street,
Ithaca, N.Y., at the follow-
ing times and on the follow -
ing matters:
7:10 P.M. Consi ration
of Preliminary and nal Site
Plan Approval for the pro-
posed press box facility lo-
cated at Ithaca College be-
tween the existing soccer
fields and Terrace Dorms
Drive Extension, 953 Danby
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 42- 1.13.2, Resi-
dence District R -15. The
proposal consists of a 250
+/- square foot 2 -story
building to include a con-
cession stand and athletic
equipment storage on the
first floor with the press box
on the second floor. The
project also includes adding
new bleacher sttyyle seating
for approximately peo-
ple to the existing bleachers.
Ithaca College, Owner;
QPK Design, Applicant;
Michael P. O'Shea, Agent.
7:20 P.M. Consideration
of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the
Poroposed two-lot subdivision
cated on Bostwick Road
approximately 1,000 feet
west of Seven Mile Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 31- 5 -1.2, Residence
District R -30. The proposal
is to subdivide off a 1.0 +/.
acre parcel from the 13.49
+/- acre parcel to be used
by the Town of Ithaca for a
new water tank. John,'
James and Julie Young &
Susan Barnett, Owners;
Town of Ithaca, Applicant.
Said Planning Board will at
said times and said place
hear all persons in support
of such matters'or objections
thereto. Persons may ap-
Pear by agent or in person.
ndividuals with visual im-
pairments, hearing impoir-
ments or other special
needs, will be provided with
assistance as necessary,
upon request. Persons desir.
ing 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,
June 9, 2003
Publish: Wednesday,
June 11, 2003
0 TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN-IN SHEET
DATE: Tuesday, June 17, 2003
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
eW; sal, 1
PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
Gt.944 6,,� 4 -7^J�D
YhJ
b P.A d6 14
� 00 Lk 6
il
44;;�
v, t
k p�S 0� C rt
r_
L/
SG `ale_
fr (A%
1.1
y^
jj
haldlr
t,L
,4 t� ,,
6
°"i 1 G�S
C (l4el� kj
�
cC of t
l /
/Y12� tLl
UK bc�r
R&5;0G
4-1
V/D 6' �[ I
Cvot�5
vv
\�L
rrr�J
ca&o
r ,
ri
c
•
r�
u
•
• 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, June 17, 2003 commencing
at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street.
Date of Posting : June 9, 2003
Date of Publication: June 11, 2003
°� QQ&.A�
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11 th day of June 2003.
57
Notary Public
Danl L, Holbrd
N Nos 01H06052879
Seneca County
My Commission Expires Dec. 26g