Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-05-20Approved by ILPC: 6/10/14   Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)  Minutes – May 20, 2014 (Special Meeting) Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice-Chair Christine O’Malley Sue Stein Katelin Olson Stephen Gibian Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Lynn Truame, Staff JoAnn Cornish, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Ari Lavine, City Attorney Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 7 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Height Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Three Apartment Buildings Applicants Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP, Nathaniel Finley, Shepley Bulfinch, Stephen Bus, CA Ventures, and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, appeared before the Commission. A. Walters remarked that he understands the Commission will review the application similarly to how it reviewed the Thurston Avenue Apartments application in 2013 (i.e., an initial preliminary approval of overall form followed by a separate approval of the final project details). Since the considerable discussion about the project that took place at the December 2013 ILPC meeting, the project team has spent a lot of time evaluating how best to address all the Commission’s comments and concerns. The current proposal takes advantage of natural terrain features, minimizes building footprints, situates the parking under the buildings, and minimizes the off-site visual impact of the project. N. Finley walked through an overhead presentation, noting the following points: • No project changes have been made since the Commission received the project application materials. • Project will no longer be using the smaller parcel adjacent to Highland Avenue. • Buildings are designed to be more compatible with historic character of neighboring buildings. • Project continues to include 3 buildings, which have been moved closer to Ridgewood Road to retain as many of the existing natural features of the site and preserve as many trees as possible. • Building 1 is 21,500 SF, Building 2 is 24,360 SF, and Building 3 is 25,440 SF, with a total of 45 units (114 bedrooms). • Building footprints have been reduced from the earlier proposal. They are now 5,375 SF, 6,090 SF, and 6,360 SF (97%, 110%, and 115% of average footprint). • There will be a new walkway on the north side, connecting to the existing path. P. Trowbridge added the following points: • Project will include no lawns. • The north side will feature a gabion wall, filled with stone, soil, and plantings, to re-vegetate the slope. 1 of 7 ILPC Minutes May 20, 2014 (Special Meeting) • Virtually all parking will be under-building (except 15 spaces), with plenty of bike parking (exceeding requirements). N. Finley noted the following points: • Project plan was reviewed and approved by both the City’s Building Division and Fire Department (regarding grades and fire truck turn-around access). • In response to past ILPC comments about increasing amount of green roof space, the owner has added roof decks for tenants use with artificial turf grass used to mitigate some of the views onto the roofs. The Planning and Development Board expressed initial trepidation with the artificial turf grass; however, N. Finley stressed that contemporary artificial turf grass is vastly superior to older examples (e.g., AstroTurf®). • Rooftop condensers have been eliminated and replaced with in-unit PTAC systems. • Since the site is so steep and full of trees, buildings will be buried into the lowest part of the site. • A protective covenant will be instituted to preserve portions of the site from all future development. A. Walters noted the protective covenant would be a permanent deed restriction, subject to City review. Invasive species would also be removed from the protected area. N. Finley noted the elevations are similar to what the Commission saw in December 2013: the buildings are designed in a Prairie-like style with natural materials that are reflective of the site. Fiber cement would be used for the clapboard and shingles. All three buildings would be consistent with each other in appearance, but with a few variations. The buildings will also feature balconies. S. Bus observed the section drawings clearly illustrate how the buildings would be nestled under the existing tree line. P. Trowbridge noted the project team spent a lot of time examining the grading and identifying the best storm water pollution management practices. The area of site disturbance would be minimal. A. Walters emphasized the storm water pollution management system would be underground, to preserve the trees. N. Finley noted the applicant generated various perspective views for both Winter and Summer, which illustrate that the buildings would not be very visible, if at all. A. Walters remarked the applicant believes the proposal is respectful of the Commission’s requirements (which have at times been challenging to address). He believes the project meets all the requirements ― the principal consideration being its visual compatibility with surrounding properties. C. O’Malley remarked the Commission did not receive drawing A107 (“Site Sections”). A. Walters replied that the Planning Board only recently asked for that, so it was just submitted the day before. He will ensure the Commission receives it as well. C. O’Malley replied it would have been helpful to have had before today’s meeting. 2 of 7 ILPC Minutes May 20, 2014 (Special Meeting) D. Kramer noted there was a slide in the presentation the Commission did not receive, showing quite clearly how the total project fits on the site. A. Walters noted he would provide the Commission with the entire slide presentation. D. Kramer noted that, once they had walked around the site, the Commission formed a better sense of the site topography and the various views onto the site. K. Olson asked where the viewer in drawing A105 (“Rendering”) would be standing. N. Finley replied, the southwest portion of the site, just out onto the street. A. Walters added that the rendering’s angle was designed to emphasize the complete view of the buildings, to fully illustrate what they would look like. In reality, there would be more trees in the foreground. S. Bus added some of the trees in the rendering were also removed to give the Commission an unobstructed view of the project. K. Olson asked if all the trees depicted on the rendering would be newly planted trees. P. Trowbridge replied, only the ones in the foreground would be new. C. O’Malley observed that, from the viewer’s perspective, the buildings in the rendering “read” as being four stories. A. Walters replied that the Building Division considers it to be three stories in height. D. Kramer saluted the applicants for the enormous amount of work that went into the project. Judging from the perspective rendering, he believes Building 1 would be attractive. He has walked extensively through the site and believes both Buildings 2 and 3, on the other hand, are not acceptable. Their impact on the viewshed is inappropriate, in terms of their size, massing, and scale. He does not see how he could approve all three buildings. A. Walters responded the buildings’ layout was specifically designed to use Building 1 to screen Buildings 2 and 3 from Ridgewood Road. D. Kramer replied Building 3 would be highly visible. S. Stein remarked the project remains too dense for her, despite being scaled down. She does not think it would be small enough for the parcel. It also does not fit in with the individual fraternities and other buildings around it. Each of the project’s buildings is larger than the surrounding buildings. Moreover, it would increase the number of people, noise, traffic, etc., and potentially represent a safety concern. A. Lavine remarked the Commission should limit its consideration of the project to issues relating to its appropriateness in the Historic District. What is not within the Commission’s purview is consideration of the use of the project (e.g., occupancy, safety, etc.). Zoning considerations are likewise accounted for elsewhere in the City’s regulatory structure. A. Walters noted he appreciates the concerns about safety. The applicant is conducting a traffic study, which he believes should address those concerns and demonstrate the project would work very well. E. Finegan noted the current design is improved from the original; and the proposed easement is a very positive gesture to the community. He still has serious problems with the massing and scale of the buildings. He thinks two buildings could probably be situated on the site, but trying to squeeze in a third exceeds the site’s capacity. 3 of 7 ILPC Minutes May 20, 2014 (Special Meeting) A. Walters noted it is helpful to understand the Commission’s concerns regarding visibility from Highland Avenue and the number of buildings. The visual screening of the site will be a crucial factor in considering the proposal; and he believes he has heard that there needs to be more. S. Bus stressed the applicant went through an exhaustive process for evaluating the project footprint. It was not selected arbitrarily. E. Finegan asked how many residents would be in the largest building on the site, compared to one of the fraternities, for example. S. Bus replied there would be 40-45 people in one building. A. Walters added that the fraternities house 25-30 people. S. Gibian noted that in attempting to visualize the buildings’ impact on the site, his first basis for comparison was the recently completed Thurston Avenue Apartments project. That particular project is quite large for its location; and Ridgewood Road Apartments would be considerably larger, in terms of footprint, units, bedrooms, etc. By his own estimate, it would be roughly 200-225% the size of Thurston Avenue Apartments; and about 2½ times the size of Gateway Center. A. Walters responded the project team spent a lot of time studying Thurston Avenue Apartments and how it compares to this one. He stressed the Thurston Avenue Apartments site is smaller than this site and that project covers a larger percentage of its lot. Thurston Avenue Apartments also lies on a prominent hill; it is very open and visible to the surrounding community. S. Bus added that, unlike Thurston Avenue Apartments, the parking for Ridgewood Road Apartments would be almost entirely underground and concealed. N. Finley observed that better comparisons would be some of the buildings adjacent to the site, which vary from 6,460 SF (a little larger than Building 3), to 5,809 SF (comparable to Building 2), and 5,500 SF (a little larger than Building 1). He stressed there are many large buildings in Cornell Heights. Furthermore, given the unusual nature of the site and its being at the bottom of a ravine, it is markedly less visible than any other building in the area. K. Olson noted the buildings the applicant just cited are non-contributing properties within the district. Assessing relative massing and scale is not only about the square footage of the footprints, but the entire visual size of the buildings. The larger existing buildings to the east of the project site are 15,124 SF, 18,352 SF, and 14, 373 SF total square footage. Highland House Apartments is 45,000 SF, but that was constructed before the historic district was designated. The three buildings across the street to the west of the project site are 11,722 SF, 10,423 SF, and 13,345 SF. Using those comparisons, she does not see that the scale and massing of the project as proposed is at all appropriate. She agreed the project design is far more attractive than earlier designs; however, it reads as a single, very long building. She asked the applicant how old the screening trees on the rendering would be to have achieved that size. Trowbridge replied only a couple of trees are shown at-scale. The trees on the right and left are the ones to be preserved. The other trees could be 15-20 years old. C. O’Malley noted the issue of non-contributing vs. contributing is a key one. One of the unique features of the Historic District, for which it was designated, is its natural features. She observed that the proposed project is too close to Ridgewood Road, unlike the contributing buildings in the area, which sit further back within large landscaped areas. C. O’Malley agreed with D. Kramer that the number of buildings needs to be reduced. 4 of 7 ILPC Minutes May 20, 2014 (Special Meeting) A. Walters responded that the very nature of the site precludes constructing something similar to the other large buildings in the area (i.e., a large manor on top of a grassy knoll), away from the road. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. Walter Hang, 218 Wait Ave., spoke in opposition to the project, noting it clearly violates the ILPC’s requirements and design guidelines. Each of the three footprints is larger than the surrounding buildings’ footprints. While zoning may allow a larger footprint, it would not be visually appropriate in the context of its historic environment. The range of existing footprints in the immediate vicinity of the site should inform the new design. Hang noted the Commission should require all new construction to be neither larger, nor smaller than adjoining footprints. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights, Newfield, spoke in support of the project, noting it is a nice-looking project. Furthermore, if it is not ultimately approved by the Commission, it would no doubt just go to the Town of Ithaca; and Ithaca would have lost a valuable opportunity for increasing its tax base. He added there is too much of a ‘not-in-my-back-yard’ mentality in Ithaca. Bill Demo, 121 Heights Ct., spoke in opposition to the project, noting he and his neighbors go to great lengths to apply for and obtain Certificates of Appropriateness. Projects like this do not help stabilize a neighborhood. Kim Weeden, 202 Fall Creek Dr., spoke in opposition to the project, noting its scale and massing are inappropriate. She asked the Commission to consider exactly whose interests would be served, in this case, and noted it is the Commission’s obligation to preserve home values in the neighborhood. Michael Decatur, 125 Heights Ct., spoke in opposition to the project, noting he agrees with the previous speakers: the project is too large for the Historic District and not compatible with its character. Although the current design proposal is better than prior ones, it is still very far from what it should be. Erika Fowler Decatur, 125 Heights Ct., spoke in opposition to the project, noting the neighborhood was built as a residential park. The site is emblematic of the kind of natural feature that should be preserved. While the developer has made the buildings as aesthetically pleasing as possible, they really have no relationship to the rest of the neighborhood. Catherine Penner, 121 Kelvin Pl., spoke in opposition to the project, noting that another similar project, Thurston Avenue Apartments, has been devastating to witness being constructed. These kinds of projects should not be the ‘new normal’ for the neighborhood. The proposed Ridgewood Road Apartments site is currently a beautiful green space that should be preserved. Michael Koch, 55 Ridgewood Rd., spoke in opposition to the project, noting it would affect the value of his property and those nearby. He added that, even now, the neighborhood suffers from insufficient parking and excessive traffic congestion. 5 of 7 ILPC Minutes May 20, 2014 (Special Meeting) Barbara Ley, 110 Highland Ave., spoke in opposition to the project, noting it is a beautiful site that should not be built on. While the houses to the west of the site are fraternities, to the east of the site they are much smaller houses. She noted she has already seen value of her property suffer as a result of the Thurston Avenue Apartments project. She is also concerned with the overall environmental impact of the project (e.g., slope stability, preservation of trees, etc.). Alex Susskind, 102 Triphammer Rd., spoke in opposition to the project, noting for many years he has appeared before the Commission and complied with its requirements with the utmost care. The developer, on the other hand, has taken shortcuts. The rules should apply to all applicants equally. The neighborhood was not intended to house large apartment complexes. Isaac Kramnick, 125 Kelvin Pl., spoke in opposition to the project, noting it is seriously out-of-scale and incompatible with the Historic District. Sarah Demo, 121 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project, noting the developers indicated that passers-by would look right over and through the project; however, the land drops off immediately next to the sidewalk, so in reality passers-by would be looking down into the ravine. There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson. At this juncture, A. Lavine remarked that the Commission’s Historic District & Landmark Design Guidelines are just that ― guidelines, not requirements ― and the Commission is not bound by them. It is the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance that governs the Commission’s consideration of the application. A. Lavine reiterated the Commission cannot consider zoning-related issues or comments. A. Lavine also observed some of the public comments have asked for the preservation of a natural area to the complete exclusion of development, which is not appropriate. It is entirely within the Commission’s purview to consider the visual appropriateness of the proposed development of the site but the Commission does not have the statutory authority to prohibit development. A. Walters thanked the Commission and the members of the public for their comments. He noted the various comments have made it clear the applicant has not done a good enough job of demonstrating why and how the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant will take the comments that have been made today and attempt to demonstrate that what it is proposing is appropriate for the site. The applicants will also take another look at the massing, scale, size, and appearance of the project in relation to the surrounding contributing buildings. L. Truame explained that procedurally-speaking the applicant has the option of withdrawing the application, or the Commission and applicant could agree to table the application. A. Walters indicated the project cannot move forward until the environmental review process is complete; so the applicants would suggest simply tabling it for the time being. There were no objections. 6 of 7 ILPC Minutes May 20, 2014 (Special Meeting) A. Lavine noted the Commission would have up to 65 days after the environmental review has been completed to act on the application. II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST • None. III. OLD BUSINESS • None IV. NEW BUSINESS • None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • None VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • None VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:28 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 7 of 7