HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-10-19FILE
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2004
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, October 19,
2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George
Conneman, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member,
John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:10 p.m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning;
Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning;
Mike Smith, Environmental Planner,
EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Christine
Balestra, Planner.
OTHERS: Keith McNeill, 139 Oakwood Ln, Colleen Shuler & Evan Eisenberg, 1319
Mecklenburg Rd; Andrew Dixon, 310 W State St; Jay Bramhandkar, 2303 N
Triphammer Rd; Jennifer Terpening, 207 W King Rd; Ben Farr, 5 Hackberry Ln;
Barbara Warland, 108 West Haven Rd; Bill Goodman, 231 Rachel Carson Way; Dave
Auble, 111 W King Rd; Robert Mitchell, 153 West Haven Rd; Ira Goldstein, 155
Compton Rd; Fred Bonn, Tompkins County Visitors Bureau; Jagat Sharma, Architect;
John Benthowski, Appraiser — Ithaca; Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Rd; 'ML Carlucci, 123
W King Rd; Tony Ingraham, 368 Stone Quarry Rd; Diana Vrabel, 209 W King Rd; David
Harding; Syracuse; Renata Ballard, 615 Warren Rd; Fran Spadatona Manzella, 370
Stone Quarry Rd; Dave Mountin, 274 Gray Rd; Jeff Cowie, 624 Elm St Ext.
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 October 8, 2004 and October 13,
2004, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of
the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on October 13, 20048
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m., and invited
members of the public to address the board on an item that was not on the agenda.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Keith McNeill has asked to make a statement with regard to
the Linderman Creek proposal. And pardon me, but given your health I will allow him to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
speak now so he doesn't have to sit around here until what is scheduled for 8:30 p.m.,
but may not happen until 10.
Keith McNeill, 139 Oakwood Ln
Mr. McNeill read from a prepared statement. Attachment #1.
Your chairman knows, since he took a course that I taught at the hotel school in general
insurance that I was always criticized a bit for talking too fast. So I read a little too fast
here, too. I might add one other thing. I hope someday ... I think the Town would be
able to get the speed. limit reduced from West Haven Road down to Conifer Road,
which is now 55 miles per hour because someday there is going to be a horrible
accident down there with those cars...down from Mecklenburg at 55 and keep right on
going into the City at an increased speed. I think that Barbara Blanchard and Pauline
Manos were going to try to get that reduced at one time, but I've never heard anything
more about it. Thank you very much. Sorry for taking your time.
Chairperson Wilcox - Keith, just one thing. You are aware that no decision will be
made tonight with regard to Linderman Creek.
Mr. McNeill - I realize that, yes. I realize that it was also a sketch plan review and I
thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk earlier.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination: The Inn at City Lights, 1319 Mecklenburg
Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:11 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you aware of any environmental impacts with regard to this
project?
Colleen Schuler, 1319 Mecklenburg Rd
I am not.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you have enough off street parking for the two additional
rooms?
Ms. Schuler - I do.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any further discussion with regard to environmental review?
Board Member Thayer - I'll move the SEAR.
Board Member Howe Second.
KA
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -101: SEOR, Special Permit, The Inn @ City Lights,
1319 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel 28 =1 -26.6
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the consideration of Special Permit from the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board for The Inn at City Lights, located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road,
Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcel 28 -1 -26.6, Low Density Residential Zone. The
proposal includes expanding within the existing bed and breakfast structure from
the current three guest units to five guest units. No new construction or
renovation is proposed to utilize these additional two rooms. Colleen Shuler,
Owner / 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 Special Permit Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on October 19, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and a Part ll, prepared by Town Planning Staff, and other application
materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Special Permit 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.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for The Inn at City Lights
located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 =1 -26.6, Low
Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes 'expanding within the existing
bed and breakfast structure from the current 3 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms. No
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
construction or renovation is proposed to use these additional 2 rooms. Colleen
Shuler, Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything you would like to say.
Ms. Schuler — Not really. I think I put everything in the paperwork that I submitted. We
have appeared before the Codes Division of New York State and received a variance
from them to go ahead and operate and we have done all the renovations and upgrades
that are necessary to make it a safe environment.
Chairperson Wilcox invited members of the public to address the board. With no
persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
and brought the matter back to the board.
Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion?
Board Member Hoffmann I have some concern about this because I'm worried that if
we allow an increase in this one case, we are likely to have to allow it in other cases,
too. And one of the arguments that was made here was that the building previously had
been used as a five -unit apartment building and I don't know if that was legal. It doesn't
sound like something... maybe it was legal and maybe nobody knew about it, but that
wouldn't be a good reason to allow... its just that wouldn't be a very good reason I think.
Could you say something about that, John Barney?
Attorney Barney - Don't know anything about it. When was it used as a five -unit
apartment house?
Ms. Schuler — It was only I believe a four -unit and that was prior to me buying the
property. Then when I bought it there were still two tenants who lived there and then
subsequently they were given notice and that's when I converted the house into a B &B
so that there is no apartments in the entire building any longer.
Attorney Barney — So when you bought it, it was a four -unit apartment house?
Ms. Schuler — It was actually three - units. There was another small area that could have
been used, but was not being.
Attorney Barney But it had been used as a four -unit apartment house as far as you
know?
Ms. Schuler — I think Michael, the former owner, had it a three -unit house.
Attorney Barney — When did you acquire it?
An
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Ms. Schuler - May 2004. Oh sorry, May 2002. Time flies when you are working hard.
Attorney Barney - I don't know anything at all and it is probably we would have to go
look in the Code Enforcement records as to what the building permits and. so forth were
and what was permitted and what was not permitted.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, on the papers...
Chairperson Wilcox - What's the relevance?
Board Member Hoffmann - If that is used as a reason to allow it, but if it wasn't a legal
use that's not a good reason.
Mr. Kanter - I noticed something in their paperwork, but that doesn't mean that the
Planning Board has to use that as a reason for approving it. So I would disregard that
comment if I were.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, it is also in Nicole's...
Mr. Kanter - Well, she was simply repeating what was in the applicant's material. That
is definitely not a staff reason for supporting it.
Board Member Hoffmann Any way the other reason as I said first is I'm concerned
about setting a precedent.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you have a specific issue with this proposal?
Board Member Hoffmann - No. I don't other than...) mean, if they have the room and
see otherwise the location would be fine for having an increase to five rooms over three,
though its also a little unclear to me. The Town seems to allow four rooms now. It used
to be three.
Mr. Smith - The definition of the bed and breakfast now says up to four rooms and in
this district you need the special permit for the bed and breakfast. So they would be
getting four units from you and then they would need a variance to go up to the fifth
room from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think earlier there was a limit of three rooms, but we
increased it in the new ordinance, is that right?
Mr. Smith They went to the Zoning Board in 2002 for the bed and breakfast. That
wasn't an allowed use at that point. They got a use variance at that point and the
Zoning Board limited at that point to the three rooms. Since then, they are doing this
new application for more.
R
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — So I think the building appears to be large enough, the
location appears to be okay, there's enough parking, but I am concerned about setting a
precedent and that other B &Bs in other places and say well if you allowed it for them
you have to allow it for us and they might not be in places where it is as suitable a use.
Board Member Howe — And wouldn't we take that context into consideration then for
the...? I'm not worried about setting a precedent.
Board Member Hoffmann — It's a little harder to do, I think, if you allowed it in one case.
Board Member Howe — I see it as supporting a small business.
Board Member Conneman — I do, too. If it was a proposal to rent to students, I have
nothing against students, but that might be a different thing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted?
Board Member Conneman — I'll move it.
Board Member Howe— Second,
PB RESOLUTION
NO.
2004 =102:
Special Permit, The Inn @ City Lights, 1319
Mecklenburg Road,
Tax
Parcel 28 =1
-26.6
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the consideration of Special Permit from the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board for The Inn at City Lights, located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 284-26.6, Low Density Residential Zone. The
proposal includes expanding within the existing bed and breakfast structure from
the current three guest units to five guest units. No new construction or
renovation is proposed to utilize these additional two rooms. Colleen Shuler,
Owner / Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Special Permit Approval,
has, on October 19, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental
significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11
prepared by Town Planning staff, and
30 The Planning Board, at a public hearing on October 19, 2004, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate .various other application, materials.
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
i. That the Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit to allow the use of the
structure known as "The Inn at City Lights," located at 1319 Mecklenburg Rd,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 284-26.6, Low Density Residential Zone, as a bed
and breakfast of up to five guest units as provided for in the Town of Ithaca
General Code §270 -55 (Principal uses authorized by special permit only, Low
Density Residential Zone) and §270 -5 (Definition, Bed and Breakfast), finding
that the standards of §270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code,
have been met, subject to the following conditions:
a) Compliance with all applicable building codes, including the specifications
of the Syracuse Board of Review, in their review of the petition ( #2004-
0114) by the applicant for a variance to the New York State Uniform Fire
Prevention and Building .Code, including the prohibition of cooking in the
bed and breakfast units, of the installation of kitchenettes or cooking
equipment in these units, and of smoking within the building, and
b) Granting of the necessary variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals to
increase the number of guest units to no more than five.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Mountin 6 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street
Extension and West Haven Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:21 p.m.
Dave Mountin, 274 Gray Rd
Last month we were here for a sketch application. The only changes to this survey plat
from the original sketch application are that we have combined originally lots f, g, and h
now to one lot f. So that's been the one change from our sketch application. So I'm just
going to take a few minutes and do an overview of the whole subdivision and. then
specifically talk about the four lots or the five -lot division here and then the donated
parcel to the Town.
This 33 -acre parcel is owned by Helen DeGraff on West Haven Road. She is
selling the parcel as one entire lot, 33- acres. It is bordered on the east by West Haven,
the south by Elm Street Extension. The other boundaries are EcoVillage here to the
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
north. Somewhat to the west are Longhouse Cooperative and various homes along
West Haven, Valley View and the rest of Elm Street Extension. This property has
access from West Haven by a 49 foot wide strip here, another 49 foot wide strip here
and there's an old ... actually this strip here is part of an original thought of a
development 40 -50 years ago and a road was put in at that time there and a road was
also put in here as a loop and there are signs of that in the photographs that you have
of this property, one time being thought of being developed. The Town of Ithaca sewer
and water runs south of the property. The water comes up through this part. The sewer
does up through here by DeGraff's and then runs up to EcoVillage.
The land is pretty much woods. It is all developed... woods. There's a little
elevation here. There are various hiking paths, winter ski trails throughout the entire
property. This property here has specifically ... none of this has ... hasn't had any
agriculture for at least 50 years.
Our proposal up in this lot is to divide the approximately 20 acres into four single -
family homes, approximately 4 -5 acres. We are proposing individual single - family
homes with attached and detached garages. We are going to share.. we are going to
improve, first of all, the old roadbed. It is not going to make a loop. We are going to cut
off the road at a right fork here; about 400 feet down and then cut off the road here at
about 300 feet. So it is actually a fork and then the driveway off the high. end of this fork
to lot a and to lot b and then off of this right fork would be a driveway, short driveways to
house sites on c and d. Lot,. oh, the other thing is we are proposing private septic and
wells. We've been told that the sewer and water are beyond our potential reach and for
the practicality of pumping upward; we are prepared for septic and wells.
Lot a is being purchased by EcoVillage to act as a buffer and for privacy and to
continue existing trails that they have throughout their property. So we go down here to
f. Our proposal is to donate this entire 12.6 -acre parcel to the Town to be used as a
parkland. We would like to see it have the existing trails and paths remain as is if not
minor improvements to picnic benches and park benches. There is a network of trails
throughout here. They also connect to a maze of trails at EcoVillage already. So quite
a few people from the community on the West Hill already use this trail, not just the
people who border this property here, but people from the community do park at either
end of these Elm St and West Haven entrances. This is a gravel road that is
maintained by egress fire access by EcoVillage. So this is kept open all winter as well.
Down at this end is maintained and snowplowed by Jeff Cowie who is with me and
another Mr. Terwilliger, who is here, and maintained for purposes of getting to their
driveways, but it is also a walking trail throughout here to this land strip, but also through
parts of here that the community has been using for a number of years.
A number of these yellow, red numbered stickers correspond to photographs of
different vistas and views and it gives you an idea of some of the topography and some
of the landscape of this acreage.
NJ
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
As you can see in the report by the hydrologic investigation and the erosion and
sediment control plan that this proposal has no negative impact. The Planning office
has recommended as no negative impact to the development or to our said proposal of
land donation.
The last thing, originally the five of us, EcoVillage and the four buyers here on
these five parcels have a buyer's agreement that always stipulates right -of-
ways /easements for shared driveway and also restrictions on types of lighting on our
houses. We are putting a restriction in our deeds that we will have minimal lights that
will have reflections on them so that they will shine down rather than into the night sky.
So we are kind of detailed in some of our deeds, but we are also looking at and we've
already started our own agreements on shared right -of -way and maintenance and
continuing maintenance and improvement costs to this private road, private driveway
here.
William Goodman, 231 Rachel Carson Way
live up in the second neighborhood at EcoVillage and I'm representing EcoVillage in
this transaction. I just wanted to point out one typo in the proposed resolution. I believe
it was in the second paragraph where it listed this lot here, which EcoVillage, is going to
purchase as a buffer is actually a 2.7 acre parcel and I think it said 1.7 acres in the
proposed resolution that you have before you. And I'm just available here to answer
any questions that they board might have. EcoVillage is excited about working with the
neighbors from around this parcel and purchasing it and donating it to the Town for a
public park.
Chairperson Wilcox - I will look to staff to make the determination whether the survey
map we've been given is correct in that it says 1.7 acres and that what has been agreed
to by EcoVillage and the proposed purchasers is indeed 2.7 acres. Because I'm not so
sure it's a typo. It maybe in fact because the survey map says 1.7, but EcoVillage is
interested in purchasing 2.7. 1 will also point out that the width as shown on that map is
somewhat similar to the width of the four residential lots at the road where as on the
map provided to us, the width of lot a as proposed is narrower than the width of the four
proposed residential lots at the road, but we can get to that. Questions with regard to
the environmental review ladies and gentlemen?
I have a question, I guess. I guess that is the best way to put it. Whoever
answers it as long as you have one of the microphones in front of you. Talk to me
about the proposed roughly 12 -acre dedication to what is referred to as the West Hill
Area Land Trust. How does the donation benefit the Town? I guess that's my
straightforward question.
Mr. Goodman — The West Hill Area Land Trust is basically a committee of neighbors
and the actual entity that would be purchasing the property would be EcoVillage and the
foreseen benefit to the Town would be to provide recreational space for passive
recreation. Basically hiking, walking, cross country skiing in this part of West Hill. As
you realize by data later on the agenda, West Hill is becoming a very popular area to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
live with a lot of development up there. Those of us on West Hill want to try to create
some preserved open space for all the neighbors to enjoy. There is currently a trail on
the property running north to south. There is a large parcel of woods here. There are
some nice views to East Hill from this location because this is the high point on the
property. Currently, a lot of the neighbors not just bordering the property, but from
around West Hill, from down Coy Glen, further down Elm Street Extension, and further
up West Haven use that trail for recreational purposes, both for hiking and cross country
skiing. It does connect to trails that EcoVillage has. We have a trail along the southern
boundary and in other parts of our property and people from the neighborhood use this
trail to get into EcoVillage trails as well.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. My concern was is that I can see where the potential
donation of this parcel to the Town makes sense for you as the purchasers of the land.
Its land that would be difficult to develop at best. If you could in some way donate it to
the Town that clearly helps your case, but I think now I feel a little bit better that it also
provides the Town residents on West Hill as a benefit at well.
Jeff Cowie, 624 Elm St Ext
A couple of things. It also has a potential to be an anchor for the development of the
West Hill Trail, which is proposed to go across, if the trail were... right now it seems to
be a line in the sand out there. It could actually be a key portion of that and fit into the
Town's future planning for recreational use. I actually think it is developable. There has
been a great deal of interest. In fact some earlier deals we tried to put together with
previous developers in an attempt to try to balance it out with recreational space
actually emphasized the desire for that part over the part that Mountin and his friends
have selected. So I think it actually does have some value as developable properties.
Mr. Mountin - My belief is that it not only personally benefits what I'm doing and my
friends that are buying this land, but also from the standpoint of what it does for the
Town of Ithaca and West Hill. This piece of land is benefits the community because it is
and could be used as a parkland and its being...it serves the entire neighborhood, not
just those on West Hill and Elm St, but it serves the entire community. So of a piece of
land being donated for specifically this use and this land is suitable for parkland and
trails. It is already in that existing state. We are preserving, as a community, we are
preserving natural state land. I think in terms of recreation and terms of health and welk
being for people to have a site to be off roads to walk, I know there are a lot of people
walking on Elm St and West Haven and it is getting more and more populated and more
dangerous to be on those roads because of increased traffic. So I think the net benefits
to the Town and the community is health, recreation and I think it preserves a sense of
neighborhoodness to a huge area of the West Hill versus it getting developed. So it
does change the make up of the West Hill.
Board Member Conneman - Would you show me where the trail is likely to go?
Mr. Mountin - Welf the trail is already...
10
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Conneman - I know its there, but could you show me.
Mr. Mountin - There are also trails up through here and an in through here. EcoVillage
has got trails that go down through here and go up through there and I've walked on
trails that they have.
Board Member Conneman - Thank you. That's what I thought, just wanted to be sure.
Mr. Cowie - One other thing I'd like to add is the sort of� implication that maybe we are
trying to get rid of something. This is the product of months and months of organizing
and fundraising. I think 55 neighbors have donated their own money to raise over
$60,000 to make this happen. So this is really an example of civic participation at its
best.
Chairperson Wilcox - I assume passive uses of this parkland would be what is best
suited, walking trails. Any other questions? I think we have come to the point where we
have to figure out what is going on with...
Board Member Hoffmann -While they are writing...
Chairperson Wilcox - I think they are still trying to figure it out.
Attorney Barney - We are looking at a slightly different map and that's the problem.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes.
Attorney Barney - That map there shows along the east end and west end of lot e a 100
foot dimension. We are looking at a map here depending on whether your eyesight
young or old, the old eyesight sees it at 62 feet and the young eyesight sees it at 52
feet.
Mr. Mountin - Its 62 feet.
Ms. Ritter - Do we have the most current?
Mr. Mountin - The 62 foot one was submitted with the preliminary final application, but
since then I've ... we've made an agreement and had the plat that you are looking at.
Ms. Ritter - So that keeps lot f the same, but lot a is slightly less. Lot b. .,all of them are
slightly less.
Chairperson Wilcox - A, b and c would have to be slightly less.
Mr. Mountin - Right. A, b and c are less .3 acres.
Ms. Ritter - It looks like all of the house lots are slightly less.
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Except for d right? D would be the same size?
Ms.. Ritter I think all a, b, c are slightly less. It sounds like the one acre is distributed
among, or subtracted distributedly amongst a, b and c.
Mr. Kanter - Right. The point is, though, this is a new proposal basically that the board
hasn't seen.
Chairperson Wilcox - The unfortunate thing is what has been presented and what you
are asking for is different from the materials we have in front of us.
Mr. Mountin - Its 1.7 to 2.7.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not just saying it is a big deal, but I'm just saying that
everything that has been done up to this point, all the paperwork, the proposed drafted
resolutions, everything references a different set of acreages and sizes.
Mr. Kanter - Also the hearing notice that was published was based on the previous
map, which is what we submitted to the Town. So this is a new proposal that we
haven't seen before.
Attorney Barney - There are technicalities, unfortunately, that we have to comply with.
When we advertise it, we are advertising a specific subdivision based upon the
materials that we had and this is changing. I don't see a major problem other than we
have to go through the mechanics again unfortunately to be legal.
Chairperson Wilcox - Say that again. Your advice is?
Attorney Barney - I think you might go ahead and do all your consideration and
everything, but I certainly don't think you want to be giving final subdivision approval in
view of the fact that ... I assume that you want to go with the 2.7 acres. If you want to go
1.7 then we can go ahead, but you want the 2.7. Then I think probably what we might
want to do is renotice this for a later meeting, but go through the process tonight. They
have to go to the BZA anyway for the variances, I think, and it has to go to the Town
Board I think again for the acceptance of the parkland. We have a little agreement,
which may not be so little, to work out in terms of how we are going to handle these
access ways if the Town takes title to this. So we have a few things that are going to
take some time anyway before.. so I don't think you are going to suffer much of a delay
in being able to get to the end of the process, but it will necessitate another formal
hearing.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would you suggest that we proceed with the proposed
subdivision map that was provided to us and then when they come back with final they
come back with a slight alteration of what has been given preliminary?
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Attorney Barney - if you can ... I cannot read the acreage on a, b, and c. What is the
acreage on the new map?
Mr. Mountin - 3.758 on lot a, lot b 3.700, lot c 5.805.
Chairperson Wilcox - 5.8? That's more than the original.
Mr. Walker - Because they moved the lower lot line down.
Board Member Thayer - Oh.
Mr. Mountin, - We had a discussion about with the surveyor that the best way to divide
up this land by his opinion and this was in the last month was to use the roadway. So
the road is now the property division between c and d and a and b. Originally we had
the line; I just drew a pencil line on the map. The surveyor said that was not the best
way to do it.
Attorney Barney - What is d acreage now?
Mr. Mountin - 4.699. So the reference mostly came down to making the road being the
divisible property line for all four properties. Lot e 27. Lot f is the same, 12.604.
Mr. Kanter - Can I ask a quick question on the Zoning Board application? Has that
been already submitted to the Town? Was.that the earlier map or the new map?
Mr. Mountin - The earlier map I believe.
Mr. Kanter - Well, because that also presents a problem for the Zoning Board
publication of the hearing notice.
Mr. Mountin - The zoning pertains to the front.
Mr. Kanter - It changes the lot areas and shapes.
Chairperson Wilcox - It changes the legal notice.
Mr. Kanter - But the fact is the map submitted for that application is also no longer
correct. So the Zoning Board basically would be going through the same thing.
Attorney Barney - When is the Zoning Board scheduled to me on?
Ms. Ritter - October.
Attorney Barney - Is it on their agenda?
Ms. Ritter -Yes,
13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Attorney Barney - Has the publication gone out?
Mr. Smith - Yes.
Attorney Barney - Subject to what the legal notice says, we might be able to salvage
that meeting if you got us the requisite number of copies of the revised map tomorrow
morning. The other thing that would be helpful because it is confusing here,. if there are
revisions if we could have a revision note right on the survey to say revised whatever
the date: The problem is you've got a map up there that reads the same as the map we
have here, unless we had sat there.and calculated the 2.7 difference we may have not
even caught that we were looking at two different maps.
Mr. Mountin - I apologize for that. I didn't realize that. This was dated August 17th
Attorney Barney - They both have the same date.
Chairperson Wilcox - So, John, your advice is that we can proceed.
Attorney Barney - Well, you are going to have essentially the same considerations the
next time depending on what you have in the public input. I want people to have an
opportunity on the new map, but assuming that the concerns are going to be expressed,
if any, its up to you if you want to go ahead with it tonight.
Chairperson Wilcox - The question is, lets do SEAR first. If we make the SEQR
determination with regard to what is in front of us, that's not consistent with what the
applicant wants. The differences could be considered minor, but nonetheless, we are
being asked to make an environmental determination. I personally don't have a
problem. I'm not sure anybody here does. We are talking about donating an additional
acre to EcoVillage, which is probably a good thing, but nonetheless it is the legalities of
what is in front of us.
Board Member Hoffmann - Again, as before, I feel very unhappy when we get
incomplete materials to vote on and the other issue I have with the survey is that it is not
dated and signed. If it is not complete enough to be dated and signed by the surveyor,
it's not complete enough for me. Generally, that is what I would like to see.
Mr. Mountin - My understanding from the surveyor is that he won't sign it until there is
final subdivision approval.
Ms. Ritter - It is a condition to have the signing of the survey.
Board Member Hoffmann - We often do that, but I think if the applicant's know what
they want and they have it all ready then we might as well have a survey that is
completely finished and we often get that.
14
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Advice, Mr. Barney.
Attorney Barney - I think it's your call. I think you could proceed. You know now what
the size of these lots is. I'm not sure of the lot line variations you are talking about here.
As long as I think we would need to modify the SEQR resolution, but I think I would be
hesitant to see you awarding any subdivision approval, preliminary or final, until you
have the correct map in front of you.
Mr. Kanter - I guess the question would be why would you necessarily need to or want
to proceed with the SEAR determination if in fact they are going to have to come back
for a public hearing.
Board Member Hoffmann - That's what I thought, too.
Mr. Kanter - But on the other hand, there is no reason we can't discuss a lot of things
that John mentioned that need to be worked out without making any determinations.
Chairperson Wilcox - What is the board's pleasure?
Board Member Thayer -Wait.
Board Member Howe - I'm willing to proceed with subdivision.
Board Member Hoffmann - If they are going to have to come back one more time
anyway, they might as come back and have it all complete and then we can do it all
then next time. The other thing that...) guess this is.a pet peeve of mine. You had this
hydrologic investigation and the drainage study, too, I think. The erosion and sediment
control plan and its done by somebody who in the text talks about I have broken down
the figures and so on, but there's no name of this person. It has not been signed by that
person. That feels to me incomplete, too, even though we have the company name
there. I think it would be appropriate to have the name of the person who did its
Otherwise, I like this proposal very much. I think it is a great idea and I like the fact that
neighbors have gotten together in a cooperative effort to try to make something really
nice for the whole neighborhood as well as for the individual people who live there.
Board Member Conneman - It doesn't present a problem to you if we do it all at once?
I also want to commend you. We get lots of proposals that maybe fly in the face of
some people and you neighbors got together. That's super in my opinion.
Mr. Mountin - We were kind of expecting to be here in November anyway just from
working with Sue and how things work in the process that we would probably be back in
early November for a final. So it's kind of expected.
Mr. Cowie - Any other obstacles that would prevent a November...?
Chairperson Wilcox - Are there any other issues that we need to bring up now?
15
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Conneman - I don't think...
Chairperson Wilcox - I don't have any.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think there was a comment from the County, wasn't there,
about making sure that there was a provision to make sure that no individual driveways
or curb cuts came about onto Elm St Ext from the individual parcels.
Ms. Ritter - Do you want me to answer that?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, go ahead.
Ms. Ritter - They are only having one curb cut. I think that...
Chairperson Wilcox- Right, but what's to prevent them in the future? What's to prevent
when ownership changes to prevent somebody to want their own curb cut? Mr. Barney,
the county in their 239 review has stated...point being that as ownership changes over
the years, the, County wouldn't want and I think its reasonable that we wouldn't want
additional curb cuts in such a short linear distance. Can that be shown on a plat? Is
that something...
Attorney Barney - You can do it two ways. I think one is to make it a condition of your
approval and then make a note that the condition is to be shown on the plat. You can
also as part of the overall agreement try and remember to incorporate that into the
provision, which would hopefully go into a recorded agreement.
Chairperson Wilcox - You are aware of the county's comments?
Mr. Mountin - Yes. I'm not sure what you are talking about right now, though. I'm not
clear about additional curb cuts.
Chairperson Wilcox - The potential for additional curb cuts should be eliminated and we
can either show that, we can make that part of our approval that there will be no
additional curb cuts, and that can also be stated on the plat.
Mr. Mountin - What's a curb cut?
Attorney Barney - Driveway.
Chairperson Wilcox - A driveway. I'm sorry
Access from the road to the property.
Mr. Mountin - So they would issue us four driveways?
Chairperson Wilcox - No.
M
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19; 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Mountin - They just want one driveway.
Chairperson Wilcox - Their concern is that as
many years that somebody could want their owi
one. That would be a potential hazard given the
such a short distance.
ownership changes over the next so
private driveway rather than a shared
number of driveways there would be in
Mr. Mountin - That would also be something that we would put in our own deed
easements and restrictions to.
Attorney Barney - Did they only talk.about a and d?
Chairperson Wilcox - Only a and d. We agree that there should be one. Anything else?
We need to formally vote on canceling the public hearing, which is scheduled for
tonight.
Attorney Barney - Well the motion would be to adjourn this matter to a public hearing
when ... to be scheduled upon receipt of a revised final map signed ... it would really be
good to have it signed by the surveyor.
Board Member Conneman - I'll move that, whatever John said.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved that the public hearing scheduled for this evening on
this matter is hereby adjourned until such time as the applicant provides revised survey
map...
Attorney Barney -Provides a corrected...
Chairperson Wilcox - Provides a corrected survey map...
Attorney Barney - Signed.
Chairperson Wilcox - A signed, corrected survey map.
Board Member Hoffmann -And dated.
Chairperson Wilcox - At which point the public hearing will once again be set.
Attorney Barney - Now you asked whether there were any other problems. I think the
issue of ownership and I don't know whether the Planning Board wants to get into that
tonight or another time, the question is how to handle, assuming the Town is wiling to
take the park and I think the Town Board last night indicated pretty affirmatively that
they are willing to do so, but they left up in the air for discussion how to deal with the
access. There are a couple of problems. One is if the Town takes over the entire
parcel as shown there outlined in green, the Town also takes over the liability as a result
of people moving in and out of the parkland on those, particularly the drives. The
17
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
problem is, of course, that these are shared drives. EcoVillage has the one across the
north and I guess one or two houses also share that one. Then two or three people
share the southerly ones. So the Town was a little ambivalent about wanting to take on
the maintenance responsibilities, but if they take on ownership and the maintenance is
not done in a way that keeps them usable and appropriate and people start to get
injured on them, the Town is going to be the one with the deepest pockets and the one
that is going to have to first respond to any lawsuits. So it was left up in the air last night
whether to go with an easement kind of an arrangement where the Town doesn't own it
or with Town owning it leaving it up to us the opportunity or the burden, I'm not quite
sure how we want to put ,it of trying to negotiate with the folks here with what that
agreement ought to say. Maybe it would be worthwhile for us to try to sit down in my
office in the next week or so and then come back when you have a proposal that this
board can react to and then make a recommendation.
Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is for those two legs if you will we have a potential
conflicting use. We have potential Town parkland and access and egress to certain
occupied parcels.
Ms. Ritter - That is one issue, but also the issue of if the Town takes ownership of that,
they can either continue to have the applicant's maintain it or the Town could actually
take over maintaining it and some of the liability issues go away, but that becomes a
cost to the Town and the Town residents. So there are a number of different scenarios
on how it could work.
Chairperson Wilcox — I defer to my elected officials.
Mr. Kanter — They were sort of deferring to you as well. We are sort of in a catch -22
here. The other issue the Town Board talked about was the possible need to separate
the driveway use with automobiles accessing the houses and the trail. There was some
concern if it was all on the existing roadbed, so to speak, there could be pedestrian
vehicle conflicts and so the Town Board was suggesting it would be appropriate to think
about building sort of a new path next to the driveway. There is sufficient room in both
strips to do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — So that there is a clear walking path and a separate driving area.
Mr. Kanter — One aspect of that for ownership is if the Town owns the strips, it has
perhaps a lot more flexibility to be able to do the things like that within the strip. So that
maybe complicates the whole...
Mr. Walker — There's public service issues. There's cost issues. There's liability issues.
From my recommendation as an engineer to this Planning Board would be to follow the
laws of the Towns as close as possible and create two new public rights -of -way to serve
the three landlocked parcels or two landlocked parcel on the north side and three
landlocked or two landlocked parcels on the south side or basically three landlocked
parcels if you consider the park as a new parcel. If the Town doesn't own those or the
in
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
ownership of those don't go all the way to one of the roads, then you've created a brand
new landlocked parcel, which is something the Town Attorney has told us we should
never do.
Attorney Barney - Sometimes he's right.
Chairperson Wilcox - Then you need a helicopter to get there.
Mr. Walker - So that's why my recommendation has been ... I think that's why we've got
the Town's showing all the way out there because when I talked with Mr. Mountin and
the other people, I was feeling from the responsibility portion of the Town, this give
everyone public access to the individual lots. There are two lots existing that one has a
building, on it and one has a pending building permit on it and then on the other end
there are two lots that one has a building on it and the left lot is a legally nonconforming
lot is suppose at this point, it exists.
Attorney Barney - I don't know what the history of it is.
Mr. Walker - Well, it used to be two lots and now its one and they are the ones who
built the sewer in the first place to start the whole thing off, but there is an issue that the
Town Board has to wrestle with as far as if we take it over the logical thing would be
some time in the future the Town is probably going to maintain access and that really
assures the best access for all the property owners on the property, but it is a cost and
there is a liability there. So that is what the Town Board is wrestling with and that is
what they were asking the Planning Board, I think, for a recommendation of does the
Town need to provide that access or not. They didn't actually say that last night.
Attorney Barney - No.
Mr. Walker:- That's what I was thinking needs to be talked about.
Attorney Barney - And there is a...in terms of if the Town takes them over, we don't at
the moment have any provision for less than the normal standard road. We have road
specifications, if we take it over as a Town road, it is theoretically supposed to be built to
the specs.
Mr. Walker - The Town can waive certain things if we do it ourselves. We do have less
than ... before we even maintain it there are certain issues for access and fire safety and
things like that.
Attorney Barney - And we are back to the liability issues because if we maintain them to
the Ashtow standards that actually buy us a little bit of immunity from a claim because
we are now doing it to the standard for which roads is generally maintained. We have
looked at other Towns; we've done a limited use road where we say if the traffic is
below certain number of vehicles per day we will maintain it to a lower standard. That
has not yet been litigated, at least that I've seen, to find out whether that still buys the
19
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
same level of protection that the Ashtow number whatever it is standard is. So those
are issues, too that are...need to be dealt with. If the Town takes it over, my
recommendation, as Town Attorney is that we really need to be prepared to probably
put in a road. Maybe we don't need both accesses and maybe we want to basically say
we will take one end to get our access and not the other end and that remain a private
drive and let someone else have the joy of owning and maintaining it. So there's a
whole bunch a possibilities here.
Mr. Walker:,— And if that were to happen, I would probably recommend that the Town
take the Elm Street side and then go back to one of the original plans were EcoVillage
was going to be getting the access point in which they currently use as their emergency
access and have a maintenance responsibility on now, which really ties their access to
West Haven Road" It's not a simple five -lot subdivision.
Chairperson Wilcox — Frankly, I personally am not prepared to make any sort of
recommendation on how to proceed with this.
Teri Henry, 138 West Haven Rd or 25 Helen's Way
We've been notified that effective immediately, what two weeks ago; that the Town has
already taken the right -of -way on the north side and our address has been changed.
Mr. Walker — The Town has not taken the right -of -way. What has happened is the
Town is required to have a name on the road that is unique because it is a private road
with two lots on it and then a third access to EcoVillage. So for addressing for
emergency purposes, the Fire Department and Fire Control has asked that private
roads that serve more than one house actually have a name so there can be two
addresses on that so 911 can find them. That happened across the street, too.
Chairperson Wilcox — It didn't change the legal status of that.
Mr. Walker — It is still a privately owned driveway or right -of -way.
Ms. Henry — So it's still Helen DeGraff Is?
Mr. Walker'— Its still private, but they have changed the name of it so that it would be a
unique name for the 911 purposes.
Ms. Henry Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — Does anybody else want to offer some sort of opinion on this?
Nobody here is prepared to offer an opinion given that we are first hearing about all of
the potential issues and impacts at this point.
Attorney Barney — I am going to suggest that what might be the most effective way to
move forward on this is for you folks either Sue or Jon, Dan, myself get together around
a table with this and bat it around a little bit and see what we can come up with and see
20
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
if we can come up with a recommendation that we have a comfort level among
ourselves to make to the bodies that we represent and that you are comfortable with I
think instead of trying to do it in a meeting like this is really not realistic.
Mr. Walker — I would suggest that ... this would discussed at the Town's Public Works
Committee last month, this subdivision and I thought this configuration of the Town
owning the roadways was sort of discussed there, but it didn't come out that way at the
Town Board meeting last night. What I would suggest is that we put this on the agenda
for the Public Works Committee to make a recommendation to the Town Board and that
meets next Tuesday. We have to have Town Board members involved in this, too.
Attorney Barney — Yeah, but I think and I don't want to get into a debate tonight, but
think the Town Board from last night was pretty vacillating and they really didn't know
what to do either. I think they are really looking to us to come up with a
recommendation, which they can follow or not follow...
Mr. Walker — Okay because the last .recommendation they had was from the Public
Works Committee to make these two roads public access.
Attorney Barney — And that may very well be where we come out, Dan. I'm not sure...)
wasn't involved in that and I don't know if the liability issues were addressed or not al
the Public Works Committee.
Ms. Ritter — No. It wasn't until we recently met with John.
Attorney Barney — And the nature of having to deal with the road that basically is if its
publicly owned but not maintained to our standards, I don't know if they talked about
that or not. I mean that is the issue.
Mr. Walker — That is an issue.
Attorney Barney — Maybe we need to have an internal meeting before we even meet
with these folks. We will undertake to have our own discussion and then get with you.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion to adjourn the public hearing. Can I have a
second?
Board Member Thayer — Second.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 =103: Adiournment of Mountin 6 -Lot Subdivision, Elm
Street Ext and West Haven Rd, Tax Parcel No. 28.448.22
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer.
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Be it Resolved that this board adjourns the matter of the Mountin 6 -Lot Subdivision and
the public hearing to be re- scheduled upon receipt of a revised final corrected, signed
and dated survey map.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Mountin — Will we be hearing from the Town Attorney to arrange something?
Chairperson Wilcox — You will be hearing from someone in the Town, probably from
Sue. For those members of the community, I thank you for coming and the
neighborhood and normally we would give you a chance to - -speak, but we are already
running late.
Board Member Hoffmann — And I want to apologize for using jargon like curb cut. I will
try not to do that.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Country Inn & Suites Hotel, Danby Road
and West King Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and Wolf, 1345 Mecklenburg Rd
With me is Marcia Sowe, who's project manager from our office. Jagat Sharma who's
the architect on the project, is also here this evening. TG Miller's, as you know, has
been responsible for reevaluating the hydrologic study that was performed for the Holly
Creek project and providing additional information. Andrew Dixon is here this evening
who did the demand study for us and would be here to answer questions if you have
any questions regarding the demand study. SRF Associates, as you know, has been
doing traffic analysis for us.
Other people in the audience. Jay Bramhandkar, who is the developer for this
project who hasn't been at the previous three meetings is here this evening and I would
like in a minute for him just to give a little insight into the project. And as you know,
David Auble, the property owner, is here this evening as well. So before we get into the
environmental review presentation, I would like Jay to just take a few minutes to
describe the project from his perspective, his interest, because I don't think the board
has heard or the public has heard from him previously.
Jay Bramhandkar, 2303 N Triphammer Rd
22
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Evening members. I am and have been part of the Ithaca community for the last 25
years. I've been in the hotel business for 30 years, 21 of those years have been
running hotels in Ithaca. At the present, I own and operate the Econolodge in the
Cayuga Mall. In the past several of these years interacting with these guests, the
visitors that come to this area have been constantly asking us for something more than
just a room, especially those who are coming here on special short assignments, which
may be for three days up to a few weeks. As we speak, there is no facility in this area
of in the 50 -mile radius unless one goes to Binghamton or Syracuse to cater to this
specific need of the visiting guests in this area.
Towards that, I started working on this concept of providing the traveling
community of people who are coming into this area for short... recent scholars who
come on assignments for a couple of weeks who are unable to find a little more than a
bedroom to spread their wings and make more comfortable. Towards that what we
came up with an idea was to get something more in addition to seeing a bed, a little
living area where they can spread, stretch out, read paper or if they are traveling with
kids and in many cases they do, offer a pullout couch than have the kids jump in
between the parents at night.
My wife has also been part of the Ithaca community. She is a tenured professor
at Ithaca College and has been teaching business finance for the last 20 years. So we
are in this not only from a commercial point of view, but something to offer to the
community which is missing and I hope members will take due notice of that and
consider the credit that they give me.
Mr. Trowbridge — Thanks, Jay. Just for public information, I know that the board knows
that this is the fourth time that we have been in .front of the board starting last March. I
think on each occasion we have appreciated the board's comments. We have listened
carefully. I think in each case we have responded. We started with a three -story high
hotel with 69 rooms and the board responded saying that they felt the mass was too
large, it was too many rooms. We did reduce the hotel to two stories. We've reduced
the rooms to 58.. The last time we were in to the board there was a concern that
perhaps more acreage should be set aside for other retail in the area. We have
reduced the overall lot size since the last time we were in front of the board. Because
we reduced the number of rooms, we also reduced parking and other sort of issues like
site runoff attributed to parking. So this is the fourth time we have been in front of the
board and I believe this particular site plan is as responsive as we can possibly be to
comments that had been made in the past and again I hope we've heard your
responses.
I would like to walk over to the panels in a second, but before we do that, I know
this is the SEQR review; there are some issues that have been brought up from the
public. One is traffic and as you've known, SRF Associates did a traffic analysis for us
and found that there would be no significant impact on the streets including 96B. We
did receive a letter from NYSDOT that we did pass on to Mike Monday. We received it
on Friday. We've put a cover letter on it in response to DOT. One of the issues that
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
were of concern to them was whether the traffic analysis included the yet unknown retail
development south of the project. We subsequently asked SRF on Friday to reconsider
their traffic analysis for the maximum retail development that would be allowable site
coverage on the retail.. on the remaining piece of property that is zoned retail. They've
done their traffic analysis and as you've seen if you've seen Steve Faranti's letter that is
dated today, we received it at 5:00, sorry it came to you so late that they see that there
will be no change in service on 96B given additional retail that could be yet unknown
retail development that could happen south of the project.
Chairperson Wilcox — When you say no change in service, are you referring to the letter
designations?
Mr. Trowbridge — Yes. That is right. So there would be no change in the level of
service on 96B, that's right. DOT's designations for level of service. I think all the other
questions we were able to answer for DOT and before final we will get DOT's final
response regarding our response to their letter.
We did have TG Millers, as you know, evaluate the stormwater assessment that
had previously been done for Holly Creek. They had found that there really were no
issues that they would like to attend to regarding those analysis, however, that the water
quality water detention basin on Holly Creek would have to be developed in
concurrently or prior to this project being developed so that basin was in place at such
time that the hotel was under construction.
I think other environmental issues that came up. The County had asked for an
on -site assessment of fill that had been placed on the site and I believe the board was
provided with that information and I think the County really had no other concerns that
were brought to our attention regarding the site and because it is substantial fill, we
have gone out and looked at the vegetation. As you know, and I've said this before, it
really is a lot of invasive species that are growing out of primarily construction fill that
was placed on the site a number of years ago.
Maybe just some updates on the site plans that I could bring to your attention. I
think also it is worthwhile because there has been a discussion in the community
regarding the context of the crossroads of East and West King and Danby Road /96B so
did bring a little photo essay and I don't think it is necessary a surprise to anybody.
There is Sam Peters across the way and I think everyone knows that Sam Peters
serves a rather large area of the community. It is not a specific neighborhood retail
establishment. There is Big AI's across the way as well, which is a convenience and
gas store. South of the site, there is a piece of land that David Auble owns that has
been set aside for neighborhood retail. Directly north of the site is Ziebart undercoating
and the Italian Carry Out. Katy- corner to the site on East King is a parcel that I know for
a number of years has been talked about as a landscape nursery operation. I know it
has come in front of the board on more than one occasion, but I don't know what the
current status of that project is.
24
}
Y 5 q
2
1 1
L
f• I
i
i
I
l
y e
y
IT
Im
TI
IT
i 1 �
TL
�T�l
IT
IT
IF
aw
TI
i
t
I
1k
�a
q4
t � �
{ r
tt
S
1 1
F ,
t -
,1
aITf
}
' t
j l,.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
In the past as well, I think the board has asked for a site nearby. Jay didn't
mention the hotel in Cortland. This is a shot of the Country Inn in Cortland and this is
our sort of visual modification of that hotel so that it's directly in keeping with the
proposal that we are making on Danby Road and West King Rd. I know that also just
one other thing about the architecture. I was talking with Jay and Jagat yesterday. I
think there is some misunderstanding about how much large a suites hotel is than a
conventional hotel. It is roughly 20% larger and it's not longer. The dimension really
comes in the depth because there is a sitting room and as you can imagine, this is all
double loaded corridors, most hotels are, and so the rooms are actually deeper, not
wider. They are a standard 12 -foot wide bay that you would get in any hotel. The
difference in the dimension in a County Suites hotel or any suites hotel really is that the
dimensional thickness of the building and not the length. If we had a 58 -room hotel that
was a conventional hotel and not a suites hotel, it would have the same length as this
hotel, the same height. The difference is the dimensional depth.
So looking briefly at the site plans and I think again everyone knows this is the
proposed Holly Creek development with town homes, single - family homes. We do have
a ... we have put an area on the retail parcel just south of the parcel we are looking at to
show you what the maximum amount of site coverage could be given current zoning for
that neighborhood retail development. As you know as well if you've looked at the data,
we are well under the site coverage allowable within the zone for the hotel so the hotel
isn't occupying more land than is allowable in the zone, in fact, we are about 19%
coverage where zoning allows up to 30% building coverage. So despite the fact that
the hotel is thicker than a normal hotel, it is still considerably under total building
coverage allowable in the zone in terms of building coverage on the site.
We have, as I said last time, we had larger parcel. We've pulled that back and
because of the reduction in the number of rooms we have really been able to curtail the
number of parking spaces that you. would expect to go along with the reduction in the
number of rooms. I think you've all seen the landscape plan and understand because it
is between two different zones, a residential and a retail zone, we have buffer on two
edges of the property, so there is a 50 foot setback in landscape buffer that occurs both
on the west and the east as well as along West King Rd. As long as we on are West
King Rd, I know DOT has asked to the extent possible to move the driveway a little
more west to get some more stacking and we were able to do that 20 more feet before
we run into the buffer. So when we come back for final, we will move this driveway to
the extent possible that we can give the parcel.
Let me think if there is anything else we should be covering. I think you have all
the engineering and I know...) asked TG Millers if they would be in tough with Dan to
see if there were any other issues regarding erosion and sedimentation control, water
quality, attenuation issues, I think those are all included in the packet. I don't know if
anybody else on the team has any comments at this point. I think that's it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Peter. Who wants to go first?
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Conneman — I will if you want me to. Peter, I have a couple of
questions. The picture that is on page whatever it is, the picture of the three=
story...yeah that one. Is that just the hotel in Cortland or is that something you scanned
in to represent what the actual plans are?
Mr. Trowbridge — This is the hotel in Cortland and we wanted to do is show you
because I know two meeting ago people asked is there a County Inns nearby we could
go see and there is one in Big Flats, one in Cortland. So we went to the one in Cortland
and took photographs and what we wanted to show you is that that is an 81 -room or 89-
room hotel and we wanted to show you what the difference would be from a 58 -room
hotel. So we are not saying this is our hotel. We are just saying that if you had visited
the one in Cortland, this is exactly the .size the proposed hotel would be relative to the
hotel in Cortland.
Board Member Conneman — Would you ordinarily scan something in a picture? I know
there are computer programs that allow you to set up your architectural scheme into a...
Mr. Trowbridge — Well, it is almost identical to this. I don't think there are any
differences. I think what you are seeing really is if we were standing at the intersection
of West Danby Road and West King Road that is the view of the hotel that you would
see. We didn't put it back into the landscape context and we could have done that, but I
think that the discussion was primarily about the building and not...l hadn't heard
discussions about the site in the last two or three visits we've been here. I think it
mostly about building height and mass.
Board Member Conneman — I did raise the question, but that's okay. On parking,
understand that you have less parking spots, but it seems to me that each time you
brought a proposal for it you narrowed the amount of parking space. When you had 69
you 80, but now you have 58 and you got 61. 1 haven't calculated the ratios of those,
but that seems to me a change. I wonder why.
Mr. Trowbridge — I think early on there was,, the parking ratio clearly falls within the
zone and we felt that we didn't need more parking than there were rooms and I think
early on we were maximizing the number of parking spaces given the site development
plan.
Board Member Conneman — Is there provision in this for a bus at some point in time?
Mr. Trowbridge — There is. Staff asked for that to occur and bus parking would occur in
the small lot on the south side, but would that preclude parking because if we had a bus
with athletes, we wouldn't need as many parking spaces. So that would fundamentally
take out four or five parking spaces, but clearly it wouldn't be needed if we had a bus full
of people in the hotel.
Board Member Conneman — I have another question, again I'm not an architect. I'm
curious, you said that the hotel was 20% bigger because it had suites. Rather than do
26
_ FTS
4?r Ni f`
s 3Hi
Y'1
4. 4. .
Y
n �
dA
R• .q 9� ".{w rt
3
tl rf. tN au.
Lc
r a
1
�X
Y
F ,F
o G} 3
h �
. ` L
S'.
4. f
Y
lF
1
a
p i4 F
k
I f
e
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
that tell me in a given room compared to they typical room that I might rent at the
Hampton or someplace else, how much bigger is a Country Inn and Suites.
Mr. Trowbridge — I'm going to turn that over to Jagat Sharma since we have the
architect right here in the audience. I'll let Jagat respond to that.
Town of Ithaca Planning Board minutes October 19, 2004 — Tape 2
Chairperson Wilcox - Floor is yours. Name and address please.
Jagat Sharma — Jagat Sharma architect, with office at 320 Seneca St. A typical room in
the hotel is 4 feet wide and 18 feet deep from the bathroom wall to the window wall. In
the suite configuration, the bathroom will move into the middle of the room and the
depth of the room changes from 18 feet to 36 feet.
Board Member Conneman - So the room is 12 by 26 instead of 12 by 188
Mr. Sharma - Yes, but the... bathroom in the middle.
Board Member Conneman - Peter, you sit there and you let him off the hook, but you
tell me what the square footage is in a typical one as opposed to the other one, alright?
You have a calculator. Engineers and landscape architects always have calculators.
Chairperson Wilcox - I got it.
Board Member Conneman - What is it?
Chairperson Wilcox - It's 216 vs. 312.
Board Member Conneman - To me that is not 20 %.
Chairperson Wilcox - Don't blame the messenger.
Board Member Conneman -. I'm not blaming the messenger that was my point. I have
another set of questions. I have a number of concerns with the demand study. So that
lets the architect off the hook.
Mr. Trowbridge - So we'll ask Andrew to come up and talk about that.
Board Member Conneman - OK, that's fine, because? I have some ...Andrew, one of
the justifications for the hotel put out in the demand study is that we absolutely need it in
this community, because there is no other place where people can go to have a
comfortable place to be. Umm, I understand that a lot of people that work at the Cornell
University research park that come in for a week or two and stay at the Courtyard at
Marriott. Well, why isn't the Courtyard at Marriott, and I assume there's no one here
27
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
from Courtyard that would object to this, why isn't Courtyard at Marriott good enough?
That type of hotel?
Mr. Dixon - Well, what it really comes down to... Andrew Dixon, 310 W. State Street,
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you.
Mr. Dixon - What it comes down to is if you build it, people are going to want it. There is
no extended stay hotel in the market today. People will choose this hotel over
Courtyard at Marriott just given the size, comfort and amenities.
Board Member Conneman - Is there something called location in the Real Estate
business? I think its location, location, location...
Mr. Dixon - Also, one of the things that's very key to this, and I made note of it in my
report, is that the hotel will have a shuttle bus that will be able to take people to the
outer reaches, like research park, and I'm not sure how else to answer that.
Board Member Conneman - OK, I'll let you off the hook on that one. There is another
statement on page 6 that says there are 32 special weekend events related to
education that is held in the Cornell community. I've been in Ithaca not as long as
Larry, but... and I don't go back to general Sullivan who came through here either,
talked to Fred Bonn from the chamber of commerce today, and he said he might be
here which I guess he isn't.
Chairperson Wilcox - He's here.
Board Member Conneman - OK. And he indicated that there were that many. I tried to
count up the kinds of events I know of that go on at Cornell and I doubled there for
Ithaca College, but I darn sure couldn't get 32, unless I included a lot of things that
aren't necessarily called educational events, or events related to educational institutes.
Mr. Dixon - Well, if you include the sporting events at Cornell, you certainly see that
number by several times.
Board Member Conneman - I can't honestly day this, because I would hurt Cornell
Football, but there aren't that many people who come these days.
Mr. Dixon - Well, give them a nice hotel to stay in and maybe they will.
Board Member Conneman - I hope the press will not quote me on that and get me in
trouble. But I counted up and if I got to 20 it would be high. Now, maybe Fred came
prepared to tell us what those events are, because I don't see how you can get 32
special weekend educational events out of that demand study. I don't know where you
got that number. If you invented it, tell me where you got it from, if he invented it, tell
me where he got it from.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Dixon - I think it actually came out of the Randall study.
Board Member Conneman - The what?
Mr. Dixon - The Randall study, which was appropriated in my report. It's a study
commissioned by the convention business bureau in 19.1.
Chairperson Wilcox - George, you can go on and I'll look for it.
Board Member Conneman - No, that's fine. I'll stop there. I think I made my point that,
first of all, one of the problems that is stated in the demand report that makes
supposedly argues for this, indicates for this that it is difficult of course to get through
route 13 or route 79 to get to Ithaca. It's always difficult to get through Ithaca, and this
hotel is not going to change one iota how difficult it is to get through town. And I have
real doubts about the need for this in that location. If it was elsewhere, I could see it,
but I can't see it in this location. I have some other things, but let someone else go.
Chairperson Wilcox - OK, Larry?
Board Member Thayer - George, I have to disagree with you a little bit about that one,
the location up by the college is certainly an excellent location for that. And I think as
far as the 20% or the 50% or whatever. If it isn't the depth, what difference does it
make, as far as the overall look of the building. It doesn't make any difference as far as
how it sits on the lot, in my mind anyway. I think they've listened to us, they've come
back three times, four times, and they've reduced it, the profile is better, it's down five
feet from what it was originally, and I think they've done the job that we've asked them
to do.
Board Member Howe - Just, Peter, a clarification, I think you said that the acreage
shifted a bit, that you gave more to the retail space. I didn't go back and look at my
previous notes, can you tell me how much shifted back to the retain in terms of acreage.
Mr. Trowbridge - Just have to look at.
the plan. Last time we were here,
direction and I can't remember exactly,
to 3/4 of an acre reduction.
exactly how much that was. I can show you on
the property boundary was actually out in that
was it close to 3/4 of an acre? I think it was close
Board Member Howe - I agree with Larry, I think that people, that there's been a
response, I'm glad there's been a little bit of a shift to give more acreage over to retail. I
think the only question I have is still the number of rooms, is it still too many? But
overall I think there's been a responsiveness, this is an allowable use, I think it's more
this is a big structure; a two story structure is a big structure.
Board Member Hoffmann - Can I clarify, Larry said it's been set down five feet, but isn't
it, hasn't it been lowered more than that from the original.
29
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Trowbridge - I think that, again, I'm not taking words out of Larry's mouth, but what
we did topographically, is we push it down in the landscape, so we did two things, we
reduced the height of the building, so it was under the allowable height in the zone, so
we're not looking for a height variance for the building. So the building can be this tall
within the existing zoning, so despite the fact people might think a two story building is
tall here, that's allowable. In order to, and I guess to answer your question Eva, in order
to reduce that impact even more, we pushed it down in the landscape topographically.
Our first plan, we came in, we had set the building high, so when you stood on 96-B the
topo actually rose to the hotel. And now, what we've done with excavation and also to
reduce the impact of parking, we pushed the parking and the hotel down
topographically, so not only is it two stories, but technically it's a story and a half by
reducing the overall elevation of the building on the site, where it sits on the site
topographically.
Board Member Hoffmann - Alright, so do you remember the original height from the...
Mr. Trowbridge - We have all four iterations of the plans here tonight if you'd like to see
them, just incase we want to.
Board Member Hoffmann - That actually would be very useful, just to see.
Mr. Trowbridge - OK, let's go back to the very first plan.
Mr. Trowbridge - I thought I brought the roll of drawings with me, but we did print them
all off. But at that point, the parking went all the way around the building.
Board Member Hoffmann - I'm specifically wondering about the height.
Mr. Trowbridge - The height of the building...
Board Member Hoffmann - And how much it has been lowered in height.
Mr. Trowbridge - I'm sorry, we had printed all the drawings off just in case w had this
conversation. But if we're looking topographically at.., so right here at King's Way
between Sam Peter's and big AI's, the elevation is 72 plus feet, and out FIFE is at
roughly 68, so it's about 4.5 feet right now there, and it actually falls off further. So at
the center of the building, it's 4.5 feet lower than Danby Road at the central canopy,
right here, based on the current topographic survey and the FIFE that we're showing.
So the elevations here are, this is, it actually rises in this direction so this is 68, 70, 72,
74, so at the southern end of the building it's six feet lower than Danby road, so it
averages about five feet lower at the center of the building.
30
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - OK, I guess I'm still not getting the answer I'm looking for.
How much has the total height been lowered?
Mr. Trowbridge - The total height has been lowered one complete floor. Our original
data, we were the, the building height was 41 foot, and we reduced that under 36 feet
which is allowable in the zone. We took a story out of the building, however.
Board Member Hoffmann - So it was.reduced the 36 feet, and that's just by lowering it
five feet into the ground?
Mr. Trowbridge - No, no, no, that was taking a story off the building, because we
reduced it from, but we also reduced the angle of the roof as well, because we brought
a flatter roof hotel in, but the board thought they liked the original steeped roof hotel,
sop despite the fact we took a floor off, we then made the roof steeper again because
the second time we came In, that flatter roof hotel wasn't all that appealing, we liked the
original steeped roof with the dormers. So we put the steeped roof back on, so it's now
36 feet tall, but it's topographically 5 feet lower than Danby road at the center of the
building roughly.
Attorney Barney - It's a greater reduction, isn't it? The original building...
Board Member Hoffmann.- That's what I thought, too...
Mr. Trowbridge - Yeah, the original building was at the level of Danby Road or higher,
so we in a way to reduce the visual impact not only took a story off, but pushed it.down
five feet into the landscape, excavated out five more feet of soil on the site, so the
building sat lower than Danby road.
Attorney Barney - So it's a net reduction of 10 feet, or gross reduction I should say.
Board Member Hoffmann - That's what I thought, but now it sounded as if you were
saying, although at one state, you had reduced it by ten feet, five feet on top and five
feet by digging it into the ground, then you increased the peak of the roof.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I do it? I'm going to do it, all right? The original proposal was
3 stories, 41 feet tall, the revised proposal took it down to 2 stories but changed the
pitch of the roof, which gave us a 36 -foot tall building. What Peter is then saying is that
they've now lowered that 36 foot tall building by five feet on the site so that it's still a 36
foot tall building, but it's visual impact has been reduced possibly to something
equivalent to maybe 31, depending on how you look at it.
Board Member Hoffmann - this drawing that we got, which is called number 3, does not
indicate that, because it shows the fagade and it shows the total height of 36 feet.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is a 36 -foot tall building, but it has been sunk...
31
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - It doesn't show that here
Mr. Trowbridge - Well, you actually need to look at the grading plan, because the
elevation could be anywhere in space, so what we need to do is look at the building in
the topographic plan to understand that, and if we look at the existing topo on Danby,
road and the finished floor elevation of the building, we'll see that it varies from about
3.5 to about 6 feet lower than Danby road, and it averages about 5 feet lower.
Board Member Hoffmann - OK, so what you're saying is there is a gradual slope from
the edge of the route 96 to the point where the building joins the ground at the wall.
Mr. Trowbridge - That's right. So we tried to effectively reduce the height of the
building, as well as actually reduce the height of the building. We tried to do both of
those things.
Board Member Hoffmann - OK, let me look at this photograph again.
Chairperson Wilcox - Lowering it 5 feet on the site does not reduce the height of the
building, but it has the potential to reduce the visual impact.
Board Member Thayer — Could I ask Peter where the employee parking is in this?
Mr. Trowbridge — Well, the assumption is that the total number of parking spaces.. .there
isn't necessarily designated employee parking.
Board Member Thayer — I assume the employees will enter from the rear...
Mr. Trowbridge — Well there is parking on the south side and as you know, there is a
wide sidewalk that would serve as on sidewalk servicing.
Board Member Thayer — But you only have six or seven spots over there.
Mr. Trowbridge — That's right and I think we did talk to Jay about what he expects the
number of employees with that he would need with a hotel like that.
Mr. Bramhandkar — On any given day, we have two people managing the front desk and
during the day we may have a floating carpool of four to six cars servicing the rooms,
which is the housekeeping part of it, which is usually between the hours of 10 and 2.
The entrance that we will propose for employees would be through the back where
there are six cars that would be essentially reserved for employee parking.
Board Member Thayer — So six spots is enough for the employees?
Mr. Bramhandkar —Yes.
32
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Would you say that...so the housekeeping staff is generally
employed from 10 to 2?
Mr. Bramhandkar - That's the time between which the rooms are serviced.
Chairperson Wilcox - Might that also be the time when less parking spots are required
for residents.
Mr. Bramhandkar - Right. The nature of extended stay, there will be a provided a
parking space per suite. Many of these people who come on short assignments fly in
so they necessarily don't have a car.. That's why we provide a minivan shuttle service,
which would bring them from the airport to the hotel, and on a daily basis if they need to
be dropped off at Cornell, at Ithaca College or any of the surrounding facilities they
would be dropped off and brought back at.. (inaudible)
Mr. Trowbridge - And I think everyone understands that there is more parking than is
required by the zone.
Chairperson Wilcox Peter, if it turned out that additional parking was needed, five
spaces. Where could they be placed?
Mr. Trowbridge - Well, quite easily right here. What
happens in other places of the community like down on
shared driveways that probably as retail development oc
be contiguous and so there would be the ability to have
and egress, but perhaps shared parking within the zone.
here to add more parking if we needed to.
we assume would' happen as
Route 13 now where we have
curs that this parking lot would
some not only shared access
So there is plenty of area right
Chairperson Wilcox - Making it double loaded instead of single loaded.
Mr.
Trowbridge - Yeah,
for the first several
bays we can
make that double loaded on
that
side. It wouldn't be
a problem, but there
was no need
for it we didn't think.
Chairperson Wilcox - The thing that I'm struggling with, pardon me, is that I too would
like the number of parking spaces to be minimized, but in our efforts to minimize and
your efforts to minimize them we may wind up going too far and it would be reasonable
that additional parking spaces could be constructed on the site and maybe we are
talking five more spaces or seven or something like that, not a significant number, but
enough to prevent people from parking on the lawn and heaven forbid parking on the
road. Rod, you all set?
Board Member Howe - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva?
33
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm trying to find the place in the environmental assessment
where it talked about the number of employees and I thought it was 20 permanent
employees after the. project is finished.
Mr. Smith — Its on page 3 of the environmental assessment.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Twenty full time and 10 part time. So I understand
that people work in shifts. They are not all there at the same time necessarily.
Mr. Bramhandkar — That's right. At any given time
building at different times because the rooms and th
cleaned is at different times. So we have like two shifts.
the morning, who would be doing maintenance work
getting the laundry going. Then the second
)ur laundry people are in the
linen that comes out to be
People come in for laundry in
and cleaning around and the
group coming in when the first one leaves.
So we have linen service up to 9 o'clock. So six of those people will be coming at
different times and not all at the same time. Also the rest of the staff we have two
people coming in on an eight -hour shift so they are not coming all at the same time.
Our total staff would be about 20 people, but at any given time there will be six on the
premises.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. That's the 20 full time, but it also says 10 part time.
Mr. Bramhandkar - Part time people include services for serving the continental
breakfast in the morning, cleaning and...(not audible). We have the shuttle
crew... essentially coming in and moving people around. People who will be servicing
special needs for ... (not audible),, bus boys to do certain aspects of cleaning, like clean
the lobby, make sure the elevators are clean...(not audible)... after a guest leaves the
exercise room is cleaned up and all the towels are taken to laundry and stuff like that.
Given the time on an 8 -hour shift, there will be no more than six people in the hotel.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm confused still. If I may, let me state plainly. The
environmental review form in front of us says that this project when complete will have
created 20 full time jobs and 10 part time jobs and I'm not with what you just said to Eva
that I get to 20 full time jobs.
Mr. Bramhandkar — Six at a given time with a floating... in the hotel. There will be other
people who will be coming in and out at different shifts, no more than three at a time.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So we have six during the day and three on the other
shifts?
Mr. Bramhandkar — About nine people, six stationary and three floating for shift. So that
makes it 27. We have ... (not audible) ... in case we need extra help during special
events when the workload is pretty high we need extra help to cater to setting up
breakfast, cleaning up after that and things of that nature.
34
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - So lets see. How many parking spaces were there on the
side of the building? I think its seven, right? So would that take care of...
Board Member Thayer - They carpool. He said they carpooled.
Board Member Hoffmann - Does that take care of it, do you think?
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not worried about parking spaces. I think they've reduced it.
I'm comfortable with it. They may have gone too far, but the interesting issue is, is that
when employees show up, their guests tend to not be there. They tend to have left and
done their business for the day whether it is professional business or sightseeing. So
that frees up spots during the day when daytime employees are there.
Board Member Hoffmann - I had a couple of other questions on the environmental
form. On page 2, the last question, number 20, talks about has the site been used for
land disposal, if so, was it solid or hazardous waste and its marked yes. Then it says
clean earth fill was placed on the site approximately 20 years ago, but there was some
report about it, but I don't think of it as clean fill exactly. All those things that were found
on the site, I don't exactly...are that called clean fill, all that building debris and such,
asphalt from roads. That's not usually what you think of when you think about clean fill.
Ms. Ritter - I think it is different from chemicals or some more toxic materials that may
have been stored there in some way. If you think of rock or gravel and things like that
as being not toxic in anyway.
Chairperson Wilcox - Its not the sort of stuff you throw on your flower bed, but...
Ms. Ritter - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - But on the other hand, there's nothing at least in report that we
got, there's nothing to indicate anything on site that would need to be removed.
Ms. Ritter - It's not hazardous. It's not harmful. It's not like another site that may have
to be cleaned up and the soil removed from the site. So I think it is termed clean in that
respect.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think if you drive down a country road and you see someone
with a sign out that says clean fill wanted, generally you see tree stumps and things like
that.
Ms. Ritter - That may actually be a different - term than what this is referring to.
Chairperson Wilcox - Well, no to me it is the same thing that nothing hazardous.
Board Member Hoffmann - The other thing on page 4, this is something that the
Environmental Review Committee commented on also, point 16 asks when the project
35
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
generates solid waste and. it says yes and what is the amount per month and the
answer is approximately 260 pounds per room per month,. which they commented was
an exceptionally large amount.
Mr. Trowbridge — There's a typo. It should be 26.
Board Member Hoffmann — All right. That makes more sense. It is the same in point 17
also that 260 pound figure appears. Okay. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set for now?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Christiann, can I ask you a question? Can you take a seat? You
have been here, a couple of times ascetically espousing what I would call a domino
effect, which is the creation of this hotel unit here and its impact on farmland in the
vicinity. Can you explain that to me again, at least your opinion, your thoughts on that?
Christiann Dean, 330 King Rd W
I live at 330 West King Road, which is less than one mile from the proposed hotel site.
My family and I own a 55 -acre farm there. I have owned it for nearly a quarter of a
century. It is multi - generational farm. My oldest son is eager to continue the farm. My
husband and I are of an age where we expect to be there for many, many years, but
just to let you know that there is the likelihood if it continues to be a place that's worth
farming, there's a likelihood of it carrying on. However, this is the fourth time I've come
to speak to you and last time I promised you some reading material which I had sent to
you from the Town in the from of the Town of Ithaca document Planning for Agriculture
in the Town of Ithaca and I asked that you be pointed a especially to the section on
development pressure.
Development pressure is the way that the development pressure affects farms
and farmers is that when a development goes in up the road, farmers tend to stop
building new barns, fixing their fences, investing in the farm because they wait and see
what is going to happen and that has actually happened to my family here now.
We.. although I think its fair to characterize me as among the most stalwart voices for
agriculture in the community, specifically pointing out I was Chair of the Town
Agriculture Committee for 12 years. I recently resigned and Debbie Teeter has very
capably taken on that role. She asked me to convey to you the message, a request,
that you officially send this to the Agriculture Committee for their review. I would add
that because of its proximity to a State Agriculture District, it would be irresponsible of
the Planning Board and the Planning Department not to consider in the SEAR review
the agricultural affects and I know that you wish to be responsible.
Now let me address your question specifically.
36
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Right. I didn't give you the opportunity to make a general
statement. I'm asking a specific question.
Ms. Dean - Yes. I will answer your question about the domino affect, which is another
phrase for development pressure. So when a development is proposed, even when it is
proposed, but particularly when its approved close to an agricultural area, farmers start
thinking oh, well, it's a lot of work to farm. We don't make m.uch money farming. Look
at that guy up the road making all this money and any way how am I ... I'll tell you what
my husband and I are thinking. We are thinking is who is going to want to come and
pick red raspberries less than a mile from all that noise, all those bright lights up the
road. Now, we have come several times to the Town to back when you were
considering the new agricultural ... what would be included in the Town's new agricultural
zone. We came and spoke with the Town Planning Department and the Town
Supervisor regarding an idea we had for a farm retreat and this would be. kind of a
combination of a bed and breakfast and farm where city slickers could come and where
people seeking stress reduction, we can them politely, would come and have a farm
experience and help on the farm. So this was a plan of ours. We can't do that if there
is a big noisy hotel with big nighttime lights less than a mile up the road. So that
squashes our agricultural future. We want to continue to farm, but if you approve this
hotel, the next time you see me here won't be here to talk about development pressure,
which I think you now understand, the next time you see me here will be to request site
plan approval for a housing development on my farm.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I ask a follow up? Statement first than question. I hear what
you say. I understand to some extent what you say and I thank you and members of
the staff and Rod for suggesting reading material. In this particular case, we have a
gorge and a State Park, which to mean seems to provide a rather substantial buffer
between the development on 96B and the farmland that you own and others own. I
hear you, but I don't know that it applies in this case because you've got a gorge and
you've got State land which will protect...to some extent protect the land from this
commercial sprawl if you will.
Ms. Dean - You are right that the gorge provides some measure of protection, but in no
way adequate protection and I invite you to come sit in our farm kitchen, let alone out in
the raspberry patch and listen to the noise of construction trucks going by. Fred
Noteboom and I have had three conversations by phone in the last week just regarding
that issue that where there is construction going on, there is noise that makes it
impossible to farm, the kind of farming we do. We don't do big noisy, commercial
farming, I mean its commercial farming, but we're not inside a milking parlor with
machines going all the time. This is handpicking. This is...and the livelihood of that
kind of farming is based on people wanting to come to a pleasant place. So it's not in
any way an adequate buffer. So I'll give you another example...a very particular
example of development pressure. I believe this is the fourth of the meetings on this.
At the first meeting Mr. and Mrs. Fain were here speaking against this proposed
development. Yesterday I noticed up on their land that's between their house and the
proposed development, a for sale sign and I stopped and read the fine print on the for
37
sale sign, they have one acre a
pressure. Now mine, multiply
zoning, we could like that put in
of the farmers in the Town of
zoning, it would be far more that
nd they are
that times
eight single
Ithaca and
we could al:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
asking $40,000 for it. That's development
what we could get even with the current
family homes. If I cast my lot with the rest
take legal action against the Town's new
)ply for. That is development pressure.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Does anybody else have a question?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I don't know where your farm is actually. Is it on King
Rd?
Ms. Dean — Its on King Road. There are two farms on West King Road. Ours is the
smaller of the two and is less than one mile from the proposed hotel site. The larger
farm ... Vaz's farm, is almost 1000 acres most of it in the Town of Ithaca, some of it in the
Town of Danby and that is one mile further out than ours.
Board Member Thayer - I understand exactly what she is saying, but I agree with you,
Fred. In this particular case with Big AI's up there, much noisier I would think than
a...well the noise issue. Big AI's creates more noise I think than a hotel would
seemingly. More bright lights perhaps, maybe not. That is a very busy corner anyway
and the buffer from the gorge and down the hill and the State land is substantial in this
particular case.
Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, kitty corner from Evan Monkemeyer's land is also zoned
commercial where we approved the garden store, right? Did that zoning change
substantially under the new zoning?
Mr. Kanter — No. It changed from the old designation of the neighborhood commercial..
Board Member Conneman — This is zoned
than 30 rooms, right? Is that the current?
neighborhood commercial, no hotel bigger
Mr. Kanter — No. That's not actually what it says.
Board _Member Conneman — That's what it says on the SEAR, Jon,
Mr. Kanter — Well, I didn't write the SEQR, George
truth is and that is...
Board Member Conneman — That's what I like.
Mr. Kanter - ...if you let me talk...
Board Member Conneman - ...I will...
What I'm telling you is what the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter - The former zoning, the business c zone, allowed hotels by right under 30
rooms and by special approval over 30 rooms. The new neighborhood commercial
zone does not talk about number of rooms. It talks about the size of the building and
the new neighborhood commercial zone allows commercial buildings up to 7500 square
feet or up to 10,000 square feet by special permit by the Planning Board and in the
neighborhood commercial zones the hotels have to be on a State highway, but this is
going under the former business c zone because of the transition provision in the new
Zoning Ordinance.
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. I would like to remind members of the Planning Board
that over the past couple of meetings we've have occasionally gotten ourselves into
some conundrums where we have made a negative determination of significant
environmental impact then we get to site plan review and we start to have some issues
with what could be considered environmental issues. Therefore, I just want to make
sure that if we have any issues with regard to the site plan that could possibly be
considered environmental that we raise them now so we can make a determination
whether they are significant or not and the impact that it might have on our vote and the
proposal itself. It's an awkward situation when we make a negative declaration and
then we get into a discussion and then we start talking about the environmental issues.
Board Member Conneman - Character of the neighborhood. Is that included under the
SEQR?
Chairperson Wilcox - I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider character of the
neighborhood under the environmental review. Absolutely. Comments with regard to
that? George, are you just...
Board Member Conneman - I still think it is too big for the character of the
neighborhood. I know Sam Peter is there and I know that Big AI's there and their
maybe a garden store there sometime if Mr. Monkemeyer gets around. There is a pizza
place but they are all small and this is big. It seems to me that that is an issue. That
does not mean that I would vote negatively on the SEQR, but I would raise it here, but
I'll raise it when we talk about site plan if that is more appropriate. Then you will come
back and say why didn't you raise it ...
Chairperson Wilcox - If it's a problem, lets raise it now.
Board Member Conneman - I think it is a problem.
Chairperson Wilcox,- I think that John Barney would support me. I think it is an issue if
someone says that we've made the determination that there is no significant
environmental impact, then we get to the site plan and someone says I'm not going to
vote for it because of 'Y', which is an environmental issue. That's not where we want to
9o•
Board Member Conneman - So, what does that mean?
39
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - What it means is that if you believe that the project as proposed
has the potential for a significant environmental impact that hasn't in some way been
mitigated or dealt with to your satisfaction, then you should vote appropriately.
Board Member Conneman — Which is?
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not going to tell you how to vote, but which is to not to make
the designation if there is no ' significant environmental significant, for example. I'm
specifically reminded of our two -lot subdivision where no impact and then we were
talking about drainage for a while.
Attorney Barney — Let me remind you that it is my interpretation, which is not totally
agreed to by all the authorities, but if you are at a point where, you are not going to
approve a project, I'm not sure that you even have to deal with SEQR because the way
that I read the SEQR statue it is before an agency funds, approves, I forget what the
other verb is, but basically takes an affirmative action. You must first consider the
environmental consequences of this action, but if you ultimate decision is going to be
not to approve, not to fund, then it is my position that SEQR doesn't necessarily come
into play. Sometimes if we are at that point ... the problem with doing... finding a positive
environmental impact is you then set up a scenario where the developer needs to
go ... first of all you need to tell them what they need to look at in their environmental
impact study and they need to go and spend the money and spend the time producing
that. If the ultimate decision is going to be pretty much I don't care what you bring back
with the environmental impact study, its not going to change my mind that there's going
to be an impact lets say on the character of the community and that is going to be a
cause for me to vote against this project. I'm not sure that you're not doing a disservice
to the developer by not simply saying right up front and avoid the developer having to
spend the money on the environmental impact statement and come back and have you
vote it down. If there were a consensus of the board that that's where you are headed,
would probably suggest voting it down and not giving a SEQR vote.
Mr. Kanter — Can I add that in this case besides being a SEQR issue, I think the
community character issue in general is the one that you have to make a finding
regarding special approval as well for the hotel exceeding 30 rooms impact on the
character of the neighborhood.
Chairperson Wilcox — The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood
would not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project. Yes, that would be
part of our approval process and recommendation to the Zoning Board,
Board Member Thayer — Right from the get go size has been a problem here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Size has been an issue.
.e
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Thayer — And we've asked them to reduce it, which they did. We've
asked...like I mentioned before they've reduced the silhouette and they've reduced the
room sized somewhat and you've got a pretty substantial building across the street and
we've already approved the condos in back, which are pretty substantial in size. I don't
think it's the way they have reduced it and brought it back to us three or four size that's
out of character at all.
Chairperson Wilcox = Rod?
Board Member Howe — I still have some question about the 50 -some rooms. I'm
leaning toward where Larry is, but I'm worried about the community character and wish
that it had come back closer to that 30 -40 range, but I think I could...l'm leaning
toward...
Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is does it have an environmental impact or does it have
a significant negative environmental impact. That's the issue always and we have to
make that determination. Who wants to go next? George? I'm trying to get a read here
of the board.
Board Member Conneman — I think it does have an environmental impact and it does
affect the character of the neighborhood. I asked this because I wanted to be sure that
we don't get ourselves in the kind of problems that John mentioned.
Chairperson Wilcox — As proposed, would you not be in favor of the project as a result?
Board Member Conneman — You mean when we get to the public hearing and
the. ..probably not.
Chairperson Wilcox — Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — I think I feel some way in between what Rod has expressed
and what George expressed. I still have a great deal of hesitancy about maybe not so
much the physical size of it any more, though it still feels rather large, but I feel just
because there are other businesses and buildings there that are not what I would have
liked to see there doesn't mean that we have to add more and I think the idea of having
a hotel there is a good one together with additional commercial development on a small
scale to serve the neighborhood, but I still don't feel this is the right one yet and I hate to
say this because this has been going on for such a long time, but I also feel that I am
not likely to approve it, but I would like to hear what the public says again.
Chairperson Wilcox —I can't get to the public hearing until.. well, lets be careful. Let me
state my opinion and then I'll answer that. I think Rod said it best. It would be a lot
easier if they came in at 40 or maybe 45 rooms. Who knows? Its subjective, maybe 48
rooms, but they came down from 68 to roughly 58 or 57. If push came to shove, I would
vote in favor of it. Its border line and I'm torn by the fact that as a Planning Board
member I do not have discretionary power to just ignore the constraints under which we
41
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
work and the zoning laws under which we work. I can't say I don't like it, therefore you
can't build it. I as a Planning Board member don't have that power. I have to work
under the laws that have been created which govern how we act and what we do.
That gives you three at this point out of five, the way I read the board. We are
also missing two members tonight. Do we to take a formal ... if we take a formal vote,
don't have four.
Attorney Barney - Well, the question is.. .1 think it is up to the applicant. If the applicant
wants to force you to a vote then you vote tonight. I think under the recent court
decision dealing with Boards of Zoning Appeals, a failure to pass a defined affirmative
vote would act as a disapproval of the project.
Chairperson Wilcox - Alternatively, the applicant could defer until we have a full board
and more additional members here and make the attempt again. I'll let you think about
that in a second. In the interest of time, you will note that I have not given the public a
chance to speak as part of the environmental review. If members wish to allow them
then that's fine. The reason I haven't offered that tonight is that the applicant has been
here three times before and if I'm not mistaken all three times we offered the public a
chance to speak and we heard the environmental issues. I made the determination,
one based on time constraints this evening because we still have to get to Linderman
Creek. Two, we have heard from the public. We've given them opportunities to speak
with regard to the environmental concerns. I can't give them the legal right to speak
until we get through SEOR and get to site plan review and only then can we legally
open the public hearing. I'm sure they are itching to speak, but I think we've heard from
them and I thank you for letting Christiann Dean. I needed her to clear up something for
me.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, one point was we don't necessarily have the same
people here every time.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's true.
Board Member Hoffmann - So we may not have heard all the viewpoints that there are.
Chairperson Wilcox - You still huddling, Peter?
Mr. Trowbridge - Yes.
Board Member Conneman - I would say that I don't agree with Christiann entirely
because I know something about farming and farmland, but she is right about the issue
of how things get developed and how sprawl gets created and its really the sprawl issue
that. I say if you have a facility there, a smaller facility and more commercial
development, its more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as it is
developed and is likely to develop and that's the issue. Remember that site is exactly
9/10 of a mile from Danby and if we...l'm just afraid that we are going to have lots of
42
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
development in Danby and we'll push sprawl over into another Town and I think that's
unfair, too. But I think what she is really talking about is the sprawl issue and it is true
that farmers once they think they can sell land for $100,000 an acre, by God they do
back off and say I'll just wait like everybody else. Whether it happened here, Fred,
don't know, but it is potential because there are some great views off of West King
Road. I drove that on Sunday just to look at it and say yeah, there are some great
views.
Mr. Walker - Can I make a technical comment regarding sprawl and development? The
site on Danby Road as far over as Stone Quarry Road has water and sewer utilities.
There are no water and sewer utilities on the other side of the gorge from the park. The
site on that large farm, the King Vaz farm, there are some limitations on development
for septic systems because of...there are some shallow soils up there. We have hit a
lot of bedrock when we've dug ditches along the road and so on.. One of the main
advantages to development along Danby Road and that's why La Tourelle has been
built there, why there are two subdivisions further up Danby Road, Ithaca College is
there, Ithacare is there. The water and sewer utilities are there and the Town has not
made any plans to extend water and sewer utilities to that other portion of South Hill that
is currently in the agricultural area because we recognize that that is an agricultural
zone and we don't want to put pressure on that by extending utilities. Plus, it would be
very expensive to do that because of the topography and everything else and there is
no need in that area to extend the utilities thereby we are not putting that type of
development pressure on that area. Unless the Town wants to spend another $5 million
because I'd be glad to build the utilities, but I don't think that is the desire of the Town
Board. That's the physical constraint that is there.
Board Member Conneman - I understand that. I remember the original lines that were
put in and how much problem they were. I always said if we had done the right kinds of
drilling and sampling of soils.we could have known that, but the issue still is that sprawl
occurs despite there is sewage more than one way or the other. We built out a long
ways already.
Chairperson Wilcox - Peter?
Mr. Trowbridge - I was just conferring with the developer and we would like to adjourn
until there is a full component of Planning Board members so we could get a fair vote.
Board Member Conneman - Fair?
Mr. Trowbridge - I meant a full component.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's fine. Before you leave, Peter, anything else, comments
that we would like to provide back to Peter or other members of the applicant party?
Who are you working with on staff? Mike or Susan to see when you can get on the
schedule and we'll do our best to get six or seven members there so that we can give it
a full hearing. We once again need a motion.
43
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Attorney Barney — Yeah. I think your motion should be upon the request of the
developer this matter be adjourned until there is a likelihood that there will be a full
conference of the board members here.
Chairperson Wilcox — At which time we will continue with the environmental review and
schedule the public hearing. Okay. So moved by the chair. Seconded by?
Board Member Thayer — Me.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 =104: Adjournment of SEOR, Preliminary Site Plan
Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval, and a Recommendation to the
Zonin_g Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Country Inn & Suites
Hotel. Danbv Road & West Kina Road Intersection. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
37 =1 -17.1
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer
Be it Resolved that upon request of the developer, the SEOR, Preliminary Site Plan and
Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals be
adjourned until the likelihood of a full conference of the Planning Board is present and at
such time the board will continue with the environmental review and schedule the public
hearing.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9 :32 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed Linderman
Creek Subdivision and Senior Apartments located north of the existing
Linderman Creek Apartments off of Conifer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s
27 =1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
includes four phases of residential subdivision for 98 single - family residences
and patio homes and a 72 unit, three -story senior apartment building. The
proposal also includes several new roads, stormwater facilities, and walking
trails. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicants John H. Fennessey, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
John Fennessey, Conifer Realty
,.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
John Fennessey, Conifer Realty, to set forth this plan, which has been many, many
months in evolution. David Harding with Carl Jahn Associates is going to go through
the details of exactly what we are setting forth here tonight.
David Harding, Carl Jahn Associates
As John mentioned, the conceptual sketch plan that we have before you tonight has
evolved over several years in the making, partly in response that he received at a
previous presentation to the Planning Board. We've got Mecklenburg Road along the
bottom. Conifer Drive coming in Phase I and Phase II of the apartments. These are all
existing conditions. The Phase III apartments, the three units on the end are just
wrapping up construction and I believe they've been rented out already. It has been a
very successful project. This plan covers the balance of what was the Seracci property,
about 57 acres in total. A combination of a senior apartment building, which is shown
here in the delta wing footprint on the north side of Linderman Creek and the balance of
the site consisting of a mix of patio homes on smaller lots that are clustered together to
respond to some of the natural features that occur on the site and try to get some open
space and preserve some wetlands and develop some buffer area between the site and
the adjoining residences and the City of Ithaca.
As you move northerly into the site, we move from the higher density apartments
and patio homes into single - family lots, which are ranging in size from about 1/3 of an
acre to as much of 3/4 of an acre. The existing town home lands slated to become a
park are up in the northeast corner of the site. And our open space is a network where
we are proposing trails that would interconnect and wrap around and provide a
connection to the park. As John and I were waiting for the meeting to start, he shared
with a plan that I believe City planning developed for a townwide bicycle path network, .
which showed a bike path coming up along what would be the extension of Conifer
Drive connecting to the park and heading to points north. That is an element that isn't
reflected in this plan, but we will make it a point to show it on subsequent plans and that
works well in concert with the network of trails that we are showing that provide little
side routes off of it.
The (senior apartment building is proposed to be a three -story, 72 -unit building.
These would contain one bedroom or two bedroom units or self- contained units, each
with their own kitchen and living area. Then there would be some common areas that
would incorporate lounge and lobby I see in some of the previous projects that Conifer
has been involved in. There are other amenities such as salons. So there's a little bit of
a mixture of services available to the seniors.
As part of this development, the apartments would be the next proposed phase.
We're thinking that depending on the comments that receive here and how much more
work we need to do that we will probably take about a year to get through the design
and approval processes so we would be looking at early spring of 2006 construction
start. Once that is underway, they would be looking to move into the development of
the patio homes area, which in previous presentations to the board was what they
thought they were going to proceed with next, but because of market conditions and
45,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
funding programs that have become available, Conifer has decided to proceed with the
Senior apartments next.
I've illustrated here in the yellow is the senior apartments area. The orange
represents what would be the subsequent phase of patio homes. Blue would probably
be the following phase of single family residences and then moving up into the
northwest.. .then there are a few additional patio homes proposed long the westerly
border right in here in an odd shaped little space.
As I mentioned there are some wetlands on the site and they are illustrated on
the plans that we submitted to you and highlighted in the yellow primarily associated
with the creek corridor a small little area right along the eastern property and then a
couple of bands up in the northwest corner. In the immediate project for the senior
apartments we are anticipating only disturbing .08 acres of wetlands associated with the
crossing of Conifer Drive across the creek. In the subsequent phases, disturbance is
going to be primarily related to the wetlands up in the northwest corner and we are
anticipating that there might be a loss of another 1/2 acre up at that location.. We
anticipate mitigating wetland loss in the development of the detention basins that you
see oriented at several locations on the site conforming with the New York State DEC
regulations for extended detention micro pool systems or such similar facilities such as
opportunities to develop new wetland area.
Jonathan's narrative on this project did mention the need to look at stormwater
management comprehensively as these projects go through, which we will be doing. In
a brief summary, we would be developing detention basins on the senior apartment site
to address the increased runoff from that development as well as water quality
management and then in the future develop these two additional detention basin areas
along the westerly border to address the, runoff and water quality management for the
entire rest of the parcel. This happens to be the low spot of our site and in order to
actually capture water from some of these lower lying lots and feed something, a basin
needs to be located in that area.
The application indicates that the senior apartments are going to be a three -story
building and we were anticipating that it would be on the order of 46 feet tall. John
Fennessey corrected me as we were waiting for our turn here that the architectural
plans that they utilized in some of their previous projects the building height is only 42
feet tall. It still exceeds the zoning regulation for the 36 to 38 foot maximum. However,
do to the location that we are proposing to put this structure on the site in a manner in
which we are planning to site it; we feel that the potential visual impacts from that are
negligible. I did bring along an enlarged illustration of the cross section through the site
that you see occurs in the bottom right hand corner. This is an exaggerated scale
cross - section to aid in your legibility. What we have done is we got a horizontal scale
across the bottom of 1 -inch equals 100 and a vertical scale 1 -inch equals 20. So it's
exaggerated five times in the horizontal component just so you could see what was
going on otherwise it would look so flat. What this is showing is the property line
located here on the western border and with the building situated some 500 feet in from
46
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
that property line and another.. its looks like it would be about 30 fee lower in elevation.
It puts the roofline of that three -story building down right in proximity to that elevation of
the land in that property line. So if you were standing a short distance and what we
have illustrated here is about 200 feet in from the property line on the adjoining
property, but as you see over the top of this building out to the distance views to the
valley beyond the site will be vegetated with tree plantings to also help mitigate the
appearance of that building so that doesn't appear quite as large.
I'd like to also point out that the reason for the footprint of this building as you see
oriented here with the delta wing fanning out in two directions is to maximize the views
that would be available from the units on the east side of that building. Now part of the
application,;, package that was submitted did include some color illustrations of the
building, which are from the previous projects. Right now we are just using that as an
example of what it could look like. The design of this building has not been advanced
what so ever at this point and we're interested in any feedback that the Planning Board
might have on the appearance so that those ideas could be incorporated into
subsequent presentations.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before we start, there was a gentleman who spoke a little after
seven as aapart of persons to be heard. He made comments about Linderman Creek so
would like, to give you a copy of his statement just so you have it. My initial comments
are it looks good on paper. I mean you've got a lot of.work to do. We know you have a
lot of work to do, but when I hear increased building height I kind of wonder...you are
going to have to go a long way to convince me of the need for a building that is higher
than the zoning allows. We just went through that with the hotel and they started out at
41 and got them down to 36 and then they pushed it down five feet and that helped to
mitigate the issue. I'm not inclined to be comfortable with more height than is allowed.
If you want'to convince me, then there'll be a time for that.
Mr. Harding — I can probably convince you right now. We can comply with that. It's
very simple. We'll put a flat roof on the building. Now is that appearance...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm but one member of seven.
Mr. Harding — Okay. The idea on this building is to create an architectural character
compatible with the other buildings that are out on site and compatible with the
architecture in the region. So we would like to have a building with a sloped roof on it.
You know, lif there is opportunity to do that and get down within the zoning tolerances,
by all means we will.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm but one member.
Mr. Fennessey — I would just like to add two things. One is, this building is inside the
site quite a distance away from Route 79 and with a heavy tree line around Linderman
Creek. We explored doing a two -story building and what ends up we end up moving
and awful lot of dirt, which we don't want to do. It is a nice site. The site has a lot of
47
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
topography to it. We thought this is difficult to put a three =story building in there for the
reasons that you have mentioned, but we think that the other factors,. the fact that it is
inside. It's not going to be visible from 79. Its not going to have a visual impact on
surrounding properties and the fact that we don't have to move as much earth and
change the landscape as much that would be a fair trade off with the height.
Chairperson Wilcox - Two issues. One is if I'm on Hector Street looking west will I see
it. That's one issue. And the other thing I guess is if I'm on East Hill looking across the
city to West',Hill how miserable will it be. And that again is a unique issue with the Town
being the donut around the City. Yes, you may very well be right that if you are on
Mecklenburg Road looking to the north the visual impact may be negligible, but in other
cases it might be quite visible from across the Town on the other side on East Hill for
example.
Board Member Hoffmann - Certainly if there are views from these apartments they will
be visible from the other side.
Mr. Harding - There will be views whether it is two stories or three stories. You will be
able to see this building from across the way.
Board Member Hoffmann - But the bulk of the building will be larger and it's also quite a
wide building.
Chairperson Wilcox - The same thing we dealt with before, the mass of the building and
what that impact is on the surrounding neighborhood and potentially on the other side of
the Town.
Mr. Harding - And in fact I asked John what building I see as I come down Route 13
and he thinks it's the hospital that's up the road.
Chairperson Wilcox - Before you make the bend to come down the side of Cayuga
Lake.
Mr. Harding - So its understandable that you have a concern for that and I don't know
the particulars on the hospital building whether it is three or four or 10 stories, but it is
visible. Part of it is its color and can tell somebody tell me how high it is? From there,
think we may be dealing with a very different situation on whether you are talking about
a relatively smaller building of appropriate color.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not sure it is appropriate to debate the issue. I think its
appropriate to realize that it's a concern I would like you to address. You can either
modify it because you don't feel you can properly address it or you can leave it at the
heiaht and have staff review it and see what their recommendation is and then come to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Conneman — With a two -story building, you would have to move more
dirt around?
Mr. Harding — Yes and basically what happens is you have more footprint area
expanding out over a site that slopes quite a bit so it does require and that's exactly the
reason for going with the three -story, which was a suggestion of mine to Conifer
Development because of the earthwork issue. I quickly scanned the letter you gave
me...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure you have to respond to:it...
Mr. Harding — It did remind me that I did forget one important issue and that was the
emergency access points. And I did want to point out that as part of the senior
apartments project we are proposing to make a connection, which is now just a service
road for the water line that would allow emergency vehicles a second means of access
to the senior apartments site either coming in via Conifer Drive and in this driveway or if
they needed to come through the Phase II and in this direction. We are still showing on
the sketch plan a potential future connection to the proposed development to the west
and showing other potential connections to potential future development to the north
and we are still showing the potential emergency access connection to the Oakwood
Lane route into the City. We do understand that there is concern about that being open
to the public. It doesn't need to be and it is a good idea to have that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Refresh my memory. You also tried to get a second curb cut on
Mecklenburg Road as part of either Phase II or Phase III.
Mr. Harding — We did get a second curb cut as a temporary construction access.
Chairperson Wilcox — I assume it is right there. For whatever reason, the State would
not allow a permanent curb cut there.
Mr. Harding — Right. Their concern relates to several issues which include site
distances given the speed limits on the property, also the grade of the roadway
connecting to it are quite steep and the State would prefer not to have a permanent curb
cut there. In fact, John Fennessey reapproached them about that recently and they
expressed the opinion they prefer not to have that. And we really don't think it is
necessary. John Fennessey did review this plan with a representative from the Fire
Department, who indicated a comfort level in having the access via Conifer Drive and
two means of access as I've just described.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I have several questions. Could you describe to us
what you mean by patio housing? I've never heard that expression.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Harding — I'm going to let John share with you a couple of...did you bring the...l
didn't bring those patio homes footprints. Patio homes are small...how many square
feet, . a 1300 square feet homes. They are referred to as patio homes in that they don't
have a formal yard associated with them or much of a yard associated with them as you
might find in a conventional single - family dwelling. It therefore creates less of a burden
on the homeowner for yard maintenance. For a lot of particularly older people who
don't have the energy or the desire to stay up with the maintenance requirements of the
yard and then there's also younger people who don't like to deal with the hassle. Patio
homes have become an attractive approach to housing. Some of the patio homes that
we are proposing would be single units on their own little lot and some of them would be
double. units with a shared wall condominium type style of a configuration.
Board Member Hoffmann — But the word patio implies that it is not just an earth yard
with plants growing in it, but maybe its concrete or stone or something.
Mr. Harding — Not unlike what you would see in most people's yards associated with the
immediate living environments. It could be wood decks. It could be stone patios, a
variety of things. Not the massive yard that takes you an hour and a half to cut.
Board Member Hoffmann — The other question I have is I seem to remember from the
beginning that this was going to be part affordable housing and part market rate
housing, but the senior housing that you are proposing sounds like it is intended to be
affordable housing being lower rents than market rents. What about the rest of the
units?
Mr. Fennessey — To go back to your first question, the typical patio homes that we are
thinking about on the ones that would be double units where they would common wall
where the driveway comes in and...(inaudible)...those will be...lots and the house
would range in size from 1300 square feet to 1500 square feet. The larger lots in the
patio environments that would be single homes, the lots would be in the range of 5,000
to 6,000 square foot and the houses would range from 1500 square feet to 2100 square
feet.
In terms of the issue of elderly
that shows we will be serving elderly
serve people in the 51 -60% median
would serve people at the 61 -90% of
income people that we are going to bE
we are serving higher income persons
housing, I think you have a sheet in your packet
people 55 and over, 25% of the 72 units would
income of the area. While 75% of those units
the median income. So those are much higher
serving than is the case anywhere in Ithaca. So
in this elderly component.
Board Member Hoffmann — What about the rest of the single - family homes for the rest
of the land north of the elderly housing that will be future phase?
Mr. Fennessey — Planned here now would be the more traditional, single family
detached homes that we see on every typical subdivision and they would be priced
according to what the market would be at the time that we got to build them. We are
50
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
looking. to go from where we are right now to this elderly development, then move into
the patio homes and then lastly go out to the single family detached homes. And
maybe...weIre talking five years down the line; maybe the thought process of what is
marketable out there might be better to stay at patio homes. It depends on what the
market is, but our plan is right now is that these patio homes comprise a significant
portion of the site and we don't want to get into the single family detached homes until
our last phase. By single family detached, I mean the traditional single family home.
Board Member Hoffmann — The reason I'm asking about this now is that I have a certain
concern that instead of integrating families with low incomes into the community, they
are being segregated out into this one space in the Town and I wouldn't like to see that.
Mr. Harding — I think, John, Eva is asking are the patio homes going to be subsidized or
low income home or a market driven.
Mr: Fennessey — Market driven.
Mr. Harding — And the single family traditional lots are also going to be market driven
and three quarters of the units in the elderly housing are going to be higher income level
driven. I think you are not getting the segregation that you are suggesting. In fact, we
are creating an opportunity for people to move from subsidized housing into non -
subsidized residents as their situations might allow. There is also the ability to...
Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to be assured that that is what you are thinking
instead of thinking maybe building more of the smaller patio homes and so in the future.
I would like to get a feeling for what you are planning for the future before I even start
thinking about approving this next phase that we are talking about now.
Chairperson Wilcox —This in many ways is more than what we ask for in terms of what
they are thinking about in the future. It is more than what we asked of Evan
Monkemeyer.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but this is a special case because this is a place
where we have been putting some extra thought into accommodating people who want
to build affordable housing. I just don't want it to go so far that it becomes a
concentration of people who have lower incomes because I don't think that is a good
idea. I wanted to make a comment about that place where there was a possibility of a
second curb cut onto Mecklenburg Road. I don't think that would be a good idea
because then you are likely to get through traffic right through that development and you
wouldn't want that I would think.
Chairperson Wilcox— And we are not going to get it. The last time they were here...one
of the last times they were here, it occurred to me and I think it occurred to the
developer is that it would be a wonderful place for an emergency access point, but the
State wouldn't even give you that as I remember.
51
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — That I can see.
Chairperson Wilcox — They had a temporary curb cut for construction, but not
per for some sort of an emergency access point. If the State says. no then...
Mr. Fennessey — The State does not want us to do it and I think that David mentioned
and we did talk with the Fire Department here that having access here and having
access here I think satisfies their needs for having two ways to get to this facility. And
we also, if you recall, when we laid out this first phase, we had planned for the potential
penetration across here to here for another means to get over there. The plan does not
show that here, but it does show the trail and the green space in here which could serve
as a temporary emergency access. If I could just make one other comment if I could
please.
The patio homes. It has been our experience is a lot of people that buy these are
people that are not ready to move in this environment, but want to get away from a
house where they have to maintain things and this is a much simpler lifestyle and still
reflects the lifestyle they had years before. So we view this as a transition for some
people who want to come here and maybe move to there.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah and I understand that. I also wanted to mention that I
don't have anything against making exceptions for. taller buildings in certain cases.
There's a place for having taller buildings. I don't know if this necessarily is it, but I can
certainly see the economy in building a three -story building over a two -story building if
you are trying to keep the costs down. You don't have to put in as many elevators,
which you will certainly need in a building like this and you don't have to prepare as
much foundation for a three -story as for a couple of two -story buildings for the same
number of units, but I think I would like to see more...) have to look more at how this
would have an impact on the environment, not just right close by, but as Fred said,
across the lake for instance. Maybe there could be something done to put plantings in.
This is a very early plan. I don't see any planting plans as yet. I also think the way the
building is shown in this drawing, it's so wide. It just looks very massive and...
Mr. Harding (not audible)
Board Member Hoffmann — There is an economy in making it one building rather than
two also, but maybe you could put some more thought into ... and effort into its
appearance and maybe a three -story building could look more inviting, both for the
people who are going to live there and to us.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Comments?
Board Member Thayer — What about the needs study? You got a lot of units. Is there
really a need for that many units?
62
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Mr. Harding - Again, if I might point out, I believe in your packet.. that show again we
are serving a higher income person, higher income elderly person. Those people are
being squeezed out of the market because of the housing demand in this area. So this
program allows an elderly household with a $63,000 income, which is pretty
substantional and what our analysis shows is that 4% of the people in this age group
satisfy the demand for this.
Chairperson Wilcox - Four percent?
Mr. Harding - I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kanter - I think we were making the point, which Larry was supporting, in our memo
that although there was some conceptual market study or need information, I think the
board will want to see your full documentation of that because again if size of the
building is going to be an issue and a rezoning will be requested from the Town Board
so the Town Board will also be very interested in the size of the development and the
need for it to justify that in a needs study. I think they will want to see full details in that.
It could be similar to the Country Inn. You know that it is possible that a smaller building
maybe more appropriate. So if that's the case, we want to have some better idea of
why that number of units was chosen or if there was some other number that perhaps
would work there.
Board Member Conneman - Obviously you are going to do a traffic study and there are
a lot of people that think Mecklenburg or Route 79 is ... there are a lot of cars on that
road and there is a lot of trouble getting on that road and so forth. So whatever you do,
please do a study that doesn't come at us some book with some engineering data.
Have a real study of what is there. I mean that seriously because they always come up
and they always have some site that is supposedly the same as in Columbus, Ohio and
who cares. Okay? That is one of the things that I would like to see.
Board Member Howe - Jon mentions in his memo that one approach might be a
planned development zone and I don't know if that has been considered because I do
like the idea of thinking about commercial retail. You are really creating by the time this
is built up a pretty sizeable neighborhood and whether that is a possibly to explore or
not.
Mr. Kanter, - That is something that I was interested in hearing the Planning Board
viewpoint on because it would really be something that we would almost initiate the
developer to think about because I don't think they were thinking about it. I talked to
David a little bit about this and we all thought it was interesting ideas, but it would have
to be something that would work from the developer point of view, not only to fit in with
the neighborhood, but the Town Board would have to do some kind of a rezoning
whether that be through a Planned Development Zone or a small neighborhood
commercial zone.
Chairperson Wilcox — My initial reaction? Rod's got the floor. I'm sorry.
53
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Howe — I'm...
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. My initial reaction is I still think tl
should have some small scale commercial development, but
was along Mecklenburg Road some place, maybe that's
internal on the site is going to generate...it has the potential
traffic from the State highways onto the internal roads in the
and I'm not sure that's appropriate,
iat some area on West Hill
my initial reaction was if it
reasonable, but to put it
to generate traffic or bring
residential neighborhoods
Mr. Kanter — One way to rethink that is that Conifer Drive is going to become a through
road between Bundy and Mecklenburg Road and if designed properly it will not have
many curb cuts on it. It will have a pedestrian /bicycle path along it. It could certainly be
done in a way as you see a lot of these planned communities now being done with an
internal very small, and I'm talking about a very immediate oriented retail uses that
would not tend to draw traffic from outside the area, not from Mecklenburg Rd into the
area, but from the area, of course you can't prevent others from coming and if you had a
great little cafe people from miles around might come but it wouldn't be that many. It's a
challenge to think about from the board's perspective is this right kind of place to do it.
Do we want to start thinking about integrating immediate neighborhood oriented uses
with residential communities, which is what our Comprehensive Plan basically tells us
we should be doing because the comp plan is silent in terms of where future
neighborhood commercial area should be. It very clearly states that as new residential
neighborhoods develop, particularly in an area like West Hill, which is now
undeveloped, that new neighborhood commercial areas should be thought about.
Board Member Howe — I think that helps cut down on trip generation, too. If there is
something you need in the evening and there is a small store nearby, walkable.
Mr. Kanter — So again I think if you focus on the fact that Conifer Drive could become
actually a new connector road or service road in a sense of connecting other
neighborhoods as they are going to develop that internally off of Mecklenburg Road
could certainly work. It's really a matter of how it would be laid out and where it would
be. It depends a lot on what is going to happen on the north property of the Perry
property.
Chairperson Wilcox — Its like the old neighborhood convenience... they weren't called
convenience stores back then. I'm thinking of Bud's Red and White up on East Hill,
which had groceries and candy and a butcher shop.
No disrespect, but I'm told Red Sox are leading 4 -0 with the bottom of the fifth
(groan).
Attorney Barney — That's not what I was talking about.
54
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
Board Member Howe - We were talking about the fact that we didn't agree to go
passed 10 'o'clock.
Chairperson Wilcox - I know we didn't.
Attorney Barney - Don't you have to vote to go beyond 10? 1 thought that was the rule.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can we go for another 12 minutes? I would like to give these
people a quick minute to voice their comments and concerns if they want to. The
microphone is there.
Ralph Jones, 607 Warren PI
I'll be brief. I don't have a whole host of questions because I haven't really seen the
application', I will stop in and perhaps Mr. Kanter's office can give me a copy of the
application'. I come from the City of Ithaca.. I live on Warren Place, 607 Warren Place.
My name is Ralph Jones. I have been very active over the years at the West Hill Civic
Association and we feel a very significant connection to all of these developments of
Linderman', Creek because they are all right in our backyard and they certainly affect the
future of the area and the property values and so forth. I've noticed since the opening
of the Linderman Creek Apartments a significant increase in the traffic that is coming
out of there. Some of it comes from Linderman and some comes from other
development farther out Mecklenburg Road, but I want you all to realize and I think
already the question has been raised of what kind of increase in traffic. Just assuming
two cars per house, you end up with 90 some houses and then one car per apartment.
I don't know how many cars in a patio and I really don't grasp the concept of a patio
house in Ithaca. It sounds more like California. You are talking 200 or 300 more cars
emerging either out on Mecklenburg Road or Hector or out on Bundy. Bundy would go
down Cliff Street, which Cliff Street is the Achilles heal of this area. Cliff Street is just
begging for a terrible tragedy there. It certainly is not wide enough to accommodate the
load and Mecklenburg is already crowded and is going to get more crowded. We are
going to have to have a couple of traffic lights sooner or later. Either right there at
Warren Place in Hector or again down on Sunrise and Hector.
The other thing I wanted to mention is I would like to know what your timetable is.
What your procedures are from tonight? What can I look forward to? Are there going to
be more public hearings and will we be notified?
Chairperson Wilcox - Let me interrupt. This
anything other than the applicant showing us
our feedback. At some point in time to be
when they have more definite plans, includii
analysis, etc, etc, when they'll submit them.
sufficient, it will come to this board and yes
yes there will be public hearings.
is not a public hearing. This is not actually
what they have at this point and asking for
determined by the applicant and by staff
ig engineering drawings, narratives, traffic
They'll be reviewed by staff and if deemed
there will be an environmental review and
55
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
I
Mr. Jones I live in the City so therefore I don't have a lot of standing to come before
you of the Town, but I would hope at some point you and the City officials, the
appropriate counterparts to Mr. Kanter sit down and talk about what the traffic impact
would be on that part of Hector and Cliff Streets that affects the City that goes down in
the City.
Mr, Kanter''— We actually have a meeting setup to do exactly that, not just on this
development, but on this whole West Hill...
Mr. Jones ,'` 1 hope you take a regional approach and not just the Town and then comes
this magic invisible line and that's the City's problem and let them deal with it. Because
I hope you work it out mutually satisfactorily.
Mr. Kanter 'I, We actually are having regular meetings now between the City Planning
and Town Planning and County Planning and talking about these very issues.
Mr. Jones =i' Traffic does cut across all boundaries. Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox. You made the statement that you may not have standing because
you live in the City, but certainly you have the right to come here and listen when that's
appropriate; and speak when that's appropriate. Can I give you this? Keith McNeill,
whom I'm sure you know, gave a statement at the. beginning of the meeting. We
allowed him to do that. We gave a copy to the applicant and I'll give you a copy as well
just so everybody has the same information. Anybody else?
Mr. Kanteri,'— Procedurally, there is one additional step. It is a little unusual in that this
has come to the Planning Board before going to the Town Board, but there is a rezoning
and so thisMould next go to the Town Board for another similar discussion to see if the
Town Board would be willing to consider the initial rezoning to multiple residence for
senior apartments and that could be fairly soon, but we would definitely notify the
neighborh6od about it.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set?
Ranada Ballard, 615 Warren PI
I'm on the Town list for sending things for West Hill. Anyway, I just wanted to repeat
really, I'm not going to restate what Ralph said, but people on West Hill are very
concerned iLabout the traffic, the drainage. I'll just also add another part to that and that's
animals. The deer and the wild turkey and I don't know whether Conifer would think
about putting a game farm on their site, but that would be very helpful to some of us in
the neighborhoods who can't really keep our shrubs, flowers or anything else. I guess
I'll just leave it at that because it is already 25 after 10 and you all want to go home. I'll
be back.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. You all set for now? You got what you need? Very
good. Thank you very much. We'll see you at some future point in time.
56
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2004
APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2, 2004 - APPROVED
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes of September 23, 2004
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -105: Approval of Minutes — September 23, 2004
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the September
23, 2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the
said meetings as presented.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None,
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann.
The motion was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: Other Business,
None,
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the October 19, 2004 meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carrie Coa es 1Nhitm o r
e
Deputy Town Clerk
51
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Town Planning Board:
This is the second time I have had a reason and an opportunity to a-
dress you regarding a matter of development..The last time (about a
year ago) was to protest the Town's attempt tci "steamroll" through an
access road from my,street (Oakwood Lane in the City) into the Linder-
man Creek development, alongside of the water tower. Fortunately we won
and you don't have the road! a suit was filed
Prior to that time (several years ago)/by South Hill residents attermp-
ting to block the Longview development which held it up for an extgnded
period. Approval for it had been given by the Town Board and Planning
Board. I believe the passage for it was made in an order that gave them
90 days to sue. r;ken a group of us on nest Hill sued to prevent the or'
ginal Linderman Creek development, I believe that the order of approval
was reversed allowing us only 30 days to sue which resulted in our de-
feat in two or three courts.
The Town issued information at the time which was provided by the deve-
loper stating that (1) traffic on Hector Street would not increase sub-
stantially which was the developer's study and (2) the water table was
15 feet below the surface so drainage would not be a problem. Our en-
gineer estimated that it was 3 feet below. Now Hector Street traffic is
much heavier and I believe some area residents have had water problems!
At the time George Frantz was the Town planner for both developments. He
was also very active in the West Hill Civic Association and sent a letter
to us all "blasting" us for opposing the Linderman Creek development.
His conflict of interest (as the Town planner) was unbelievable and I
went to an Association meeting to tell him so',
Now I receive a letter over Jonathan Kanter's name (the present Town
planner) mailed on October 14th and received the 16th regarding a meeting
on the 19th to' discuss increased development leaving little time for
study and preparation for opposition! It seems that Mr. Kanter learned
some lessons from 1vlr. Frantz, 1qr. Frantz once advised us that we should
read the notices of. meetings in the fine print in the Ithaca Journal! As
a former Alderman, Chairman of Urban Renewal and losing Ill candi-
date for Mayor, I prefer the headlines and the sport Section!
Since there isnow a fairly steady stream of traffic on hector Street,
holding me up from exiting from Oakwood almost all day, I not only re-
quest but would prefer to demand that a new traffic stud be done by the
Town, rather than the developers (who do have a conflict to determine
what the substantial increase in traffic is now and an honest estivate
of what it will be with the increase in development if approved!
Just as a temporary diversion in my statement, I think you all might
be interested in the, fact that traffic prevented me from backing Into
Hector Street ors January 27th, 2004 when a city sno• ;;plow stopped in
front of me on eakwood bane, backed into me doing $2,200 of damage and
admitted full responsibility. The City's insurer denied my claim cn the
basis of a 2000 Court of Appeals decision that the municipal vehicle
must have been operated with "intentiona.l reckless disregard "!
Rather than taking the time and expense of a lawsuit, since I had $250..
deductible Collision, my company paid the claim and submitted it to
binding arbitration, which is not subject to the courtbs stupid deei.
sions. They won the vvihole case and sent me my $250. deductible two days
In case I read this 'a little too fast to stay under the five minutes,
I am giving copy to your secretary if anyone is interested'
Thank you!
ago 1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:04 P.M. SEQR Determination: The Inn at City Lights, 1319 Mecklenburg Road.
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for The Inn at City Lights located at 1319 Mecklenburg
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1 -26.6, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes
expanding within the existing bed and breakfast structure from the current 3 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms. No
construction or renovation is proposed to use these additional 2 rooms. Colleen Shuler, Owner /Applicant.
7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Mountin 6 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road..
7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 6 -lot
subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.22,
Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the +/- 333-acre parcel into four
residential building lots (between +/- 4.0 acre and +/- 5.6 acre lots) along Elm Street Extension and one +/- 1.7-
acre narrow strip parcel to be consolidated with the adjacent EcoVillage at Ithaca property. The proposal also
includes a +/- 12.6 -acre parcel to be donated to the Town of Ithaca for a park and trail site with access from
West Haven Road and Elm Street Extension. Helen DeGraff, Owner; David Mountin, Applicant.
7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Country Inn & Suites Hotel, Danby Road and West King Road.
7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval; and
a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed Country Inn &
Suites Hotel located at the southwest corner of West King Road and Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -17.1, Business District "C ". The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 2.74 -acre
parcel from the +/- 4.82 -acre parcel for the construction of a 58 -room hotel at the intersection. The proposal
also includes 61 parking spaces, sidewalks, signage, landscaping, and lighting. David Auble, Owner;
Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP for Jay Bramhandkar, Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Agent.
8:30 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed Linderman Creek Subdivision and Senior Apartments
located north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments off of Conifer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27- 1- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes four phases of
residential subdivision for 98 single - family residences and patio homes and a 72 unit, three -story senior
apartment building. The proposal also includes several new roads, stormwater facilities, and walking trails.
Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey, Agent,
9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
10. Approval of Minutes: September 23, 2004 and October 5, 2004
11, Other Business:
12, Adjournment,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -17470
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, October 19, 2004, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Special Permit for The Inn at City Lights located at 1319 Mecklenburg
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1 -26.6, Low Density Residential Zone. The
proposal includes expanding within the existing bed and breakfast structure from the
current 3 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms. No construction or renovation is proposed to use
these additional 2.rooms. Colleen Shuler, Owner /Applicant,
7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 6 -lot
subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes
subdividing the +/- 33.3 -acre parcel into four residential building lots (between +/- 4.0
acre and +/- 5.6 acre lots) along Elm Street Extension and one +/- 1.7 -acre narrow. strip
parcel to be consolidated with the adjacent EcoVillage at Ithaca property. The proposal
also includes a +/- 12.6 -acre parcel to be donated to the Town of Ithaca for a park and
trail site with access from West Haven Road and Elm Street Extension. Helen DeGraff,
Owner; David Mountin, Applicant,
7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and
a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the
proposed Country Inn & Suites Hotel located at the southwest corner of West King Road
and Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -17.1, Business
District "C ". The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 2.74 -acre parcel from the +/-
4.82 -acre parcel for the construction of a 58 -room hotel at the intersection. The proposal
also includes 61 parking spaces, sidewalks, signage, landscaping, and lighting. David
Auble, Owner; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP for Jay Bramhandkar, Applicant; Peter J.
Trowbridge, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections.
thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing
impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons
desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Friday, October 8, 2004
Publish: Wednesday, October 13, 2004
�i-�x - :.a+- rrt''+Fa's .,.y a3'�= `,''2°�, 'i- b•t ��x^" t
�t she "ithacaJo�rrt'al z ; y�
�� � �� A�
=Wed esday; October 1�3;�2004
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: October 19, 2004
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
o l �Qi S 6Y2 Afir°
C" aAA- 'lCo^A
r= ��►f�r+ �� 1 f� �r��i �n j�
v b .e. ✓t-- mil.
14
PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
t. -c, AWit% � ` — INA/(qC< 467
La '% dal . /�!�irt, g KJ1, : '��f'it�_� �; %1 • f.',
r(OW5 Ca. C A()eA 4.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiil
MAMMA A M 1 ji
i cu) 0, nc. bo fl �96 91,x) l
4 pftlto
T�-lxtc��rUC�
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SI&WIN SHEET
DATE: October 19, 2004
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
A
PLEASE PRINT A DDRESS/A FFILIA TION
IC
rL
-,�
UU✓� LA, tft OHt`z
IC
rL
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 lthaca 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, October 19, 2004
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:
Date of Publication:
October 8, 2004
October 13, 2004
`.b4� okt'�
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of October 2004,
Notary Public
C,ONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 CL6052878
Oualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 O�,