HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-01-25Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
January 25, 2011
Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Robert Boothroyd (arrived 6:23);
David Kay; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan
Board Members Absent: Govind Acharya, John Snyder (left at 7:45)
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Development;
Charles Pyott, Office Assistant
Applicants Attending: Recreational River Permit, University Avenue Reconstruction
& Slope Stabilization
Tammi Aiken, Project Manager, Cornell University;
Shirley Egan, Associate University Council,
Cornell University
Collegetown Terrace Apartments
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Ian Tyndell, Landscape Architect;
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5, Project Architect
Ithaca College Boathouse
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Ramnath Venkat, HOLT Architects;
Rick Couture, Director of Physical Plant,
Ithaca College
Mixed Use Development: 307 College Avenue
Trevor Desane, Project Consultant;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP;
Josh Lower, Owner
Seneca Way Apartments
Jeff Smetana, Developer;
Brian Warren, Developer;
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects;
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP
Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
1
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
There were no changes to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Warren Schlesinger, 407-409 East Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed
Seneca Way development, citing his concerns about building such a tall structure so close to
the residential property line.
Susan Robertson, 403 East Seneca Street, spoke against the proposed Seneca Way project.
Although she commended the developer for taking the time to meet with community
members and respond to some of their objections, she believes the positive aspects of the
project continue to be overshadowed by the height and footprint of the proposed building.
Virginia Augusta, 419 East Seneca Street, also opposed the Seneca Way development,
asking that any proposed development on this site be more reflective of Ithaca’s historic
nature.
Eric Rosario, 228 South Geneva Street and Second Ward Alderperson, spoke in opposition
to the Seneca Way project. Although he also commended the developer for taking the time to
meet with community members and respond to their objections, he does not believe the
meeting satisfactorily and substantively addressed the most common concerns being
expressed.
Barbara Lantz, 411 East Seneca Street, spoke against the same proposal. She said her
quality of life would be unduly and deleteriously affected by the construction of such a tall
structure in such close proximity to her house (one of the closest to the property).
Chair Schroeder then read aloud the following three letters from members of the public not
able to attend the meeting.
LETTER NUMBER 1:
JoAnn and John,
We apologize that we cannot make Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting in person but formally
request that our letter be submitted and read aloud during the public comment section. Thank
you.
We reside at 408 E. Seneca St., where we have lived for 8 years and where we are raising our 2
young children. We live in a house built in the 1830s and in a district that has been designated a
historic community by the ILPC. Because of this designation, most of the homeowners on this
block and in this neighborhood have gone to great expense to painstakingly adhere to strict
renovation guidelines to preserve our homes and neighborhood in compliance with the ILPC. We
live here and we do this because our historic neighborhoods give Ithaca its character. Our
treasured neighborhood adds to Ithaca's beauty and general appeal for all residents living
downtown as well as those visiting downtown.
2
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
This proposal to increase the zoning height restriction to 6 stories on an acre-plus parcel of land
will greatly impact this entire neighborhood and we strongly oppose it. Not only will it be a blight
visually, it will increase noise, air pollution, traffic and present a danger to our residents.
It has also come to my attention recently that it isn’t just a height variance that is being sought,
but also a variance to allow building to occur 16 feet closer to our neighborhood as well as one
that will allow additional parking. We oppose these variance requests as well.
First of all, the visual impact will be significant. There are many single family and owner-
occupied dwellings directly adjacent to the proposed site. Unlike the Gateway complex, which is
surrounded only by commercial properties or the creek, this proposed area is directly abutting a
landmark community occupied by families. The elevation change on this site from our homes is
not nearly enough to lessen the impact of a 6 story building.
Many Ithaca residents and visitors enjoy strolling up and down Seneca Street because it is
relatively quiet and lined with well-maintained historic homes. Having an imposing stuccoed
building in such close proximity will be unattractive and will remove open space that is essential
to our neighborhood’s physical and environmental beauty.
Secondly, the noise and air pollution that will occur during and after the construction of such a
large structure will be a huge disturbance to our neighborhood and the downtown community at
large.
Equally important, one has to consider the additional traffic that will go through this small area,
increasing road congestion and potential safety hazards. Anyone who has tried to cross or merge
in this area knows how dangerous it can be. There will be more foot traffic, more cars backing up
Seneca St. and State St., less visibility, and more potential for accidents to our neighborhood
children, pets and residents, as well as other pedestrians who use our street to get downtown.
It is also disturbing to think of the precedent this will be setting for future large structures to be
built to the left and right of this building.
Zoning laws are developed for a reason and one must ask; why is it necessary to have so many
significant variances for this project? Why must our neighborhood accept and endure so many
undesirable changes so that one developer with one particular vision can realize his fiscal
feasibility?
In conclusion, revitalizing downtown should not include alienating the downtown residents who
do their part to make it special. We urge you to leave the current zoning as it is and preserve our
special historic neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Erica and John Chong
LETTER NUMBER 2:
Dear Director Cornish,
3
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
I am writing to request that you deny the Seneca Way project a variance for building height,
encroachment to our residential properties, and parking for residential and commercial tenants in
the new building.
In 1997 my wife and I purchased a house on lower East Seneca Street. We understood the
requirements of owning a house within the historic district, and spent more than $100,000
repairing and renovating our dwelling. Since that time we have seen the street evolve from a
mostly rental block without any young children to a thriving neighborhood with a majority of
owner-occupied dwellings and 17 children spanning the ages of 1-20. My wife and I have three
young children and a foster baby, and although our yard is small, we enjoy our backyard deck and
children’s play structure.
I am opposing the Seneca Way project because it is too big and too close to our neighborhood.
Six stories is too tall to be directly next to our historic houses, even with the topological elevation
difference. The current Seneca Way sketches describe a “landscape buffer” between their
commercial building and our residential houses, but if you look at a property map, the landscape
buffer refers entirely to property owned by residential landowners.
I was informed as to the criteria used by the Board of Appeals for granting variances. I found the
requirements to be informative, and here are the specific legal reasons why the Seneca Way
variances should be rejected:
Section 325-40.C (4) (b) [1]: Seneca Way will be a detriment to nearby properties. I challenge the
developers to find a single adjoining or nearby Seneca Street property whose residential
homeowner says that Seneca Way will improve the character (and value) of their
property. According to the laws, the burden of proof resides with the developer.
Section 325-40.C (4) (b) [3]: The Seneca Way height variance is substantial. A variance request
of 50% from the existing zoning laws can only be described as substantial.
Section 325-40.C (4) (b) [4]: Seneca Way will have an adverse effect on the physical and
environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There will be more traffic, more noise, and more
pollution for our children to breathe while they play in the backyard, both during construction and
after the structure is built. In winter several residential properties will lose much of their southern
views and winter sunlight and the trees that exist, despite their being deemed “scrap” by the
developer, will be removed or killed in the construction process leaving us with an open view of
concrete and asphalt to enjoy. Perhaps there should also be a section on economic impact of a
variance, since I predict that the property values of the adjoining residential properties will be
reduced and not reflected in property assessments.
If the Seneca Way developers chose to follow the existing Ithaca zoning laws and building codes,
then no variance would be needed and I would welcome a project that improves our cityscape and
increases the tax base without dominating our residential neighborhood by size and
proximity. Just say no to the Seneca Way height, proximity, and parking variance requests, and
I’m sure the developers can find a way to lower the height, and relocate the building closer to the
sidewalk (where an urban building should be). And without the extra two stories of height, there
may not be a need for a parking variance.
4
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
I understand that the developers are willing to change the appearance of the northern façade of the
building. To me, the northern façade is not the issue — the real issue is the size and location of
the building. If the building was instead constructed along the street sidewalk and built according
to the zoning laws, then it would be more in character of a downtown Ithaca building, and the
space behind the building could be used as buffer between the building and the historic
neighborhood of lower Seneca Street.
I do not understand justifications by the developers that the existing current sketches represent a
take-it-or-leave-it plan; this claim cannot be substantiated without access to the estimated
construction costs and anticipated tenant revenue. If that is the case, so be it and reject the current
proposal. I predict that new sketches will eventually be presented that either abide by the zoning
laws or represent a plan that is not a detriment to our historic neighborhood.
In closing, my business partner and I have invested in downtown Ithaca by creating and growing
a local business to a staff of 15. Our office is currently on the Commons, and we had several
options for renting commercial office space when we moved last summer. I am pro-business and
pro-downtown development, but I cannot support the Seneca Way project in its current form
since it is the wrong size and the wrong location.
Please read my statement aloud at the 1/25/2011 Planning Board meeting, since I am unable to
attend in person.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
19 E. Seneca St., Ithaca, NY
LETTER NUMBER 3:
Dear Ms. Cornish,
Since we are unable to attend the meeting in person this week, we request that this letter is read
aloud and entered into the public record.
We have lived in Ithaca since 2002 and have invested millions of dollars in real estate in the
historic district and other areas of Ithaca, including our home at 423 East Seneca Street. Over the
years, we have always complied with the City’s zoning and Historic Preservation regulations at
considerable cost to us. For this reason, and the reasons below, we find the proposed development
at the former Challenge Industries site summarily unacceptable. We request that the four zoning
variances being requested not be approved for the following key reasons:
1. There is overwhelming neighborhood opposition to ALL of the variances. By informal survey
of the neighboring properties, over 90% of the surrounding homes and businesses oppose ALL of
the variances. Nearly 100% of the surrounding homes and business oppose SOME of the
variances. With such opposition, it would be unprecedented to have the variances approved and
for the project to proceed.
2. The proposed development does not comply with existing zoning or historic preservation
regulations imposed by the City of Ithaca. These regulations exist for a reason. All of us in the
East Hill historic district have been subject to these regulations and have been expected to
5
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
comply, at substantial cost to us. Adherence with these regulations has typically been imposed
without consideration of the cost to the homeowner, how these regulations affect our profits or
investment as homeowners, or any extenuating circumstance other than maintaining the character
of the neighborhood. The proposed development should be subject to the same rules and
regulations.
3. The proposed development will adversely affect the economics of East Hill and downtown
Ithaca. As real estate investors ourselves, we understand the difficulty of finding, researching, and
developing residential and commercial real estate in Ithaca and elsewhere. But, as the developer
has told the community in several open forum meetings, the proposed development lacks
economic viability without the extensive zoning variances requested. As such, the proposed
development seeks to put a “square peg in a round hole” and is doomed to fail. Even if it
proceeds, the development will have insufficient parking, further exacerbating the parking
problem on East Hill. Even if it proceeds, the development will increase the number of one-
bedroom units in downtown. Downtown already suffers from a high vacancy rate in one and two
bedroom apartments. In addition, the rents proposed by the developer are unmatched anywhere in
Ithaca except Collegetown. In addition, there will undeniably be an adverse impact on the
property values of adjacent lots. The abutting historic district has seen a significant turnaround
over the past decade, moving from a neighborhood of dilapidated college rentals to well-
maintained single family homes with an elevated tax basis. Addition of a large apartment building
will drive families from the neighborhood, and potentially reverse this trend of economic growth
and stability.
4. The proposed site demolition may require extensive lead, asbestos, and petroleum-based
solvent abatement. According to our own research on the Challenge Industries site, there are
likely numerous environmental abatements that will be required as part of the demolition of the
site. These are required by federal, state, and local laws. As is typical of such light-industrial and
manufacturing structures of its vintage, the site likely contains some combination of lead,
asbestos and petroleum-based solvents and solvent residues, requiring abatement before and after
demolition. This is a concern not just for the building itself, but for the soil on the site and the
associated water table. As a resident in the community and with the large number of families
living nearby, we must see proof that the structure and site have been appropriately inspected and
processed according to federal, state, and local standards associated with lead, asbestos, and
petroleum-based solvents as well as any other environmental abatements that are required before
a demolition permit is granted. We would expect the developer is also interested in this diagnostic
testing as this can substantially increase the capital cost of the proposed development.
For all of these reasons above, we strongly oppose the proposed development and all of the
variances being requested by the developer. In addition, we would appreciate the opportunity to
work with Challenge Industries, the neighborhood, and the City of Ithaca to find an appropriate
use for the site WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONING AND HISTORIC regulations and without
demolition.
Best Regards,
John Lofton Holt
Managing Partner
Holt Real Estate & Construction, LLC
Owner/Resident
6
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
423 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY
14850
Alyssa Apsel
Owner/Resident
423 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY
14850
3. Recreational River Permit
A. University Avenue Reconstruction & Bank Stabilization, Cornell University
Applicant/Owner. Public Hearing & Consideration of Permit Approval. The
applicant is proposing to install slope stabilization on approximately 200 linear feet of
slope adjacent to the road and sidewalk and consisting of in-situ deep soil mixing and
construction of a reinforced concrete retaining wall. The applicant proposes to landscape
all disturbed areas as well as some gorge buffer areas using soil mitigation methods and
native plantings. The project is on the U-1 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act for which the environmental review has been
completed.
Project Manager Tammi Aiken presented a general overview and recapitulation of the
project details and its impacts to the recreational river corridor.
Snyder left the meeting prior to the votes below.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair
Schroeder opened the Public Hearing.
No member of the public came forward to speak about the proposed permit.
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair
Schroeder closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for Approval of Recreational River Permit
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Kay:
WHEREAS: portions of Fall Creek within the City of Ithaca are designated by New York State
as a Recreational River, pursuant to Title 27 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), one
part of which designated area is immediately adjacent to the sidewalk on the north side of a
portion of University Avenue as that street passes through the campus of Cornell University, and
7
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
WHEREAS: section 15-2714.3.hh of the ECL stipulates that “responsibility for the
administration of the area designated herein shall be delegated to the City of Ithaca pursuant to
the appropriate regulations,” and
WHEREAS: on July 11, 1990, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca delegated to the City’s
Planning and Development Board the authority to administer the designated area, and to issue
permits for work therein, and
WHEREAS: the ECL also stipulates that the designation of Fall Creek “shall not, solely by
operation of this article, be construed so as to restrict utility or similar facilities … or support-
related activities of … Cornell University conducted in furtherance of its educational
purposes…,” and
WHEREAS: an application for a Fall Creek Recreational River permit has been submitted to the
Planning and Development Board by Cornell University, which permit is required due to a
proposed incursion into a portion of the designated Recreational River area, as part of Cornell’s
University Avenue Reconstruction and Slope Stabilization project, and
WHEREAS: in 2008, the City of Ithaca and Cornell University entered into a contractual
agreement pursuant to which it was recognized that University Avenue is an important
thoroughfare to the City and the University and that the portion of University Avenue which
directly borders the Recreational River corridor is in need of major reconstruction, due to its
severe deterioration and the unstable nature of the adjacent (downhill) slope, and it was agreed
that Cornell would plan, undertake, and complete such reconstruction by 2013, and
WHEREAS: in order to effect the stabilization and reconstruction of University Avenue, the
applicant proposes the following:
(1) In-situ deep-soil mixing (DSM) and construction of a concrete retaining wall in an area
that will be 1½- to 2-feet wide along the southern edge of the Recreational River corridor
(just north of the sidewalk), for approximately 200 linear feet. (In-situ soil mixing
involves in-place mixing of cement into the existing soil column to a depth of
approximately 25 feet.)
(2) Establishment of approximately 85 six-foot-diameter soil/cement columns which overlap
by ½-1 foot, directly under the sidewalk and a portion of the westbound lane of the street.
(This method allows a deep foundation to be constructed for the sidewalk and road such
that the bearing pressures act below the zone of unstable soil at the edge of the hill.)
(3) All disturbed areas of the project, as well as a buffer zone immediately downhill from and
north of the project area, will be landscaped and/or improved with soil stabilization
methods consisting of soil lifts with live branch layers or planted container material
and/or coir logs with planted container material. This buffer zone will be planted with
ecologically appropriate species to help mark the transition from the built environment to
the natural environment.
and
WHEREAS: the above-described approach to stabilization of the street and sidewalk area appears
to be significantly less disruptive to the natural resources within the Recreational River corridor
8
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
than would be a more conventional approach of attempting to regrade and reconstruct large
portions of the slope, and
WHEREAS: the portion of University Avenue in question is bordered on the south by several
Cornell buildings and parking facilities, such that the street cannot be relocated to the south (i.e.,
far enough to avoid any impact on the designated Recreational River corridor) without seriously
compromising Cornell’s existing and planned facilities, and
WHEREAS: the proposed reconstruction of University Avenue is a Type I Action under the City
of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency for
environmental review, did, on November 23, 2010, make a negative determination of
environmental significance for the project and granted site plan approval for it, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board deemed the Recreational River permit application complete on
December 21, 2010 in accordance with the requirements of Section 621.4(d) of the New York
Code of Rules and Regulations, and
WHEREAS: a Notice of Complete Application was published in the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation’s Environmental Notice Bulletin on December 29, 2010, and
WHEREAS: a public comment period, commencing on December 29, 2010 and ending on
January 25, 2011, was provided for public input, and
WHEREAS: a public hearing was held on January 25, 2011, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board has determined that:
1. The proposed activity is consistent with the purpose and policies of the Wild, Scenic, and
Recreational River Act, particularly as it applies to Fall Creek and Cornell University, as
well as the regulations applicable thereto;
2. The Fall Creek Recreational River resource will be protected and the proposed work
within the Recreational River corridor will not have an undue adverse environmental
impact; and
3. No reasonable alternative exists for modifying or locating the proposed work outside the
designated area;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, pursuant to the authority
granted to the Board by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca acting in accordance with
Section 15-2714.3.hh of the Environmental Conservation Law, does hereby grant to Cornell
University a Recreational River permit for its University Avenue Reconstruction and Slope
Stabilization project, as said project affects the Fall Creek Recreational River corridor and as it
was approved through the Board’s site plan review process.
9
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
In Favor: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Absent: Acharya, Snyder
4. Site Plan Review
A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments, East State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf LLP,
Applicant for Owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments LLP (c/o John Novarr).
Project Presentation, No Action. The applicant has proposed a new rental apartment
development targeted to graduate students. This project anticipates providing
approximately 589 net additional bedrooms for a maximum of 1,226 bedrooms in new
and existing apartment buildings. The project involves the demolition of 29 buildings, all
roads and some landscaping on site. Three existing apartment buildings to remain —
Quarry Arms, Casa Roma and Boiler Works — include 162 beds and are all located
within the East Hill Historic District. No work is proposed to these buildings. 901 East
State Street, known as the Williams House, is also to remain. The 16 proposed new
buildings (not including the retained and renovated George C. Williams House) will have
up to four stories of residential use and up to two stories of parking under the buildings.
Some of the parking will be below grade. The project site is bounded on the northeast by
NYS Route 79/East State Street, on the southeast by Valentine Place, on the southwest by
the Six Mile Creek gorge, and on the northwest by South Quarry Street. The total size of
the project site is 16.4 acres, 12.4 of which will be redeveloped. The environmental
review for this project was completed on October 26, 2010, when the Planning and
Development Board adopted the Findings of the Environmental Impact Statement. The
applicant has been granted a lot line adjustment and is seeking a height variance from the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Kathryn Wolf noted that Alan Chimacoff and Ian Tyndell would be presenting an
updated overview of the project design. She said the applicant would be seeking
preliminary site plan review approval at the Board’s February meeting.
Tyndell, the project’s landscape architect, presented a detailed, revised overview of the
project design, which has undergone numerous alterations since its initial presentation to
the Board. He said he believes the design now successfully achieves a more historic
neighborhood presence within the community, including the addition of four interpretive
displays associated with four houses to be recognized (three of which will be razed, and
one of which will be preserved). Other notable elements include courtyard and
congregation spaces, seating areas and pedestrian-friendly enhancements.
Chair Schroeder said he would also like to see one of the original triplet windows (with
decorative columns) of the Jane A. Delano Home incorporated into the interpretive
display for that structure.
Rudan voiced her concern that if the Delano Home interpretative display is located at
Building 7, it will be set back considerably from the public right-of-way on Valentine
Place, thereby limiting public access to that display. Mr. Schroeder similarly underscored
the importance of public access to each of the four interpretive displays.
10
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Tyndell noted that he had spoken to Deputy Fire Chief Tom Parsons about fire
department accessibility issues related to the proposed project. He said Parsons expressed
his approval of the basic project plan, but requested the addition of fire-access sidewalks
close to the side of two of the serpentine buildings. These sidewalks have been
incorporated into the revised site design.
Wolf noted that the revised site design has improved the area in the vicinity of the Boiler
Works building. In response to some initial concerns about this area, she said Tyndell had
redesigned the parking area in front of that building, providing more landscaping and a
better transition between Building 7 and Quarry Arms.
Chimacoff, the project architect, then presented new drawings, much more detailed and
developed than those previously shown to the Board, of proposed buildings on Valentine
Place, East State Street and South Quarry Street. The new drawings were in response to
comments made by Planning Board members at the December Board meeting. Included
in this presentation was a revised elevation of the Entry Pavilion, which has undergone
numerous changes since its first conception. The pavilion’s former double roof structure
has been replaced with a simpler single roof, thereby substantially reducing the pavilion’s
height.
Chair Schroeder asked the applicant to submit both an electronic and a hard copy version
of the evening’s presentation to Board members and staff.
A special Planning Board meeting dedicated exclusively to general discussion concerning
the Collegetown Terrace project will take place on Monday, February 7, 2011 at 6 p.m. in
City Hall.
B. Ithaca College Boathouse, 692 Third Street Extension, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP
Applicant for Owner, Ithaca College. Declaration of Lead Agency and Public
Hearing. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing boathouse and construct a
single new boathouse. The new structure will feature a Llenroc base, an upper story
balcony, and a varied roofline. Site improvements will include a paved multi-use plaza, a
parking area for approximately 41 vehicles, construction of 600 linear feet of the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail, shoreline stabilization, site lighting, landscaping and site furnishings.
Site development will require the removal of approximately 800 cubic yards of soil and
debris from the site and 0.9 acres of vegetation. Site access is proposed to continue from
Third Street through the Cornell boathouse complex. Permitting for bank stabilization
will be handled through the NYS DEC. The project is in the M-1 Zoning District. This is
a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-
4 B.(1)(h)[2] and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
and is subject to environmental review. In accordance with §282 of the City Code,
Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Controls, this project requires a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
11
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Peter Trowbridge indicated the applicant does not have any new information to present to
the Board since the last meeting. At this juncture, the applicant would simply ask the
Board to declare itself Lead Agency for the project so the applicant can continue with the
environmental review. Since the project needs to adhere to a strict schedule, the applicant
would prefer to obtain site plan review approval at the March meeting, if possible.
Chair Schroeder noted that the previously identified list of requirements and suggestions
for the project must be addressed. Otherwise, at this time, he sees no other impediments
to approval.
Trowbridge added that another concern was that the Department of Environmental
Conservation had asked for more time to review the project. Therefore, future Planning
Board action will likely be contingent on the outcome of the DEC’s own review.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham, and approved unanimously, Chair
Schroeder opened the Public Hearing.
No member of the public came forward to speak about the proposed permit.
On a motion by Kay, seconded by Boothroyd, and approved unanimously, Chair
Schroeder closed the Public Hearing.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency:
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Kay:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead
agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for construction of the Ithaca College Boathouse by
Trowbridge and Wolf LLP, applicant for owner, Ithaca College, and
WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing boathouse and construct a
single new boathouse. The new structure will feature a Llenroc base, an upper story
balcony and a varied roofline. Site improvements will include a paved multi-use plaza, a
parking area for approximately 41 vehicles, construction of 600 linear feet of the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail, shoreline stabilization, site lighting, landscaping and site furnishings.
Site development will require the removal of approximately 800 cubic yards of soil and
12
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
debris from the site and 0.9 acres of vegetation. Site access is proposed to continue from
Third Street through the Cornell boathouse complex. Permitting for bank stabilization
will be handled through the NYS DEC. The project is in the M-1 Zoning District. In
accordance with §282 of the City Code, Stormwater Management and Erosion and
Sediment Controls, this project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2] and an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, an involved agency, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has
consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for
this project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is, by way of this
resolution, declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed
renovations and construction of the Ithaca College Boathouse to be located at 692 Third
Street Extension in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Absent: Acharya, Snyder
C. Mixed Use Development, 307 College Avenue, J&W House (c/o Josh Lower)
Applicant/Owner. Intent to Declare Lead Agency. The applicant is proposing to
construct a 6 story mixed use building with commercial space on the ground floor and 60
residential units with a total of 110 beds on the 2nd through 6th floors. The building will
have a footprint of 7,220 SF and a total gross floor area of 46,210 SF, 38,990 SF of which
will be residential use. The development site, which is 60 feet wide and runs from
College Avenue to Linden Avenue, currently contains a two story concrete block
structure which will be removed, and a multi-family home which will be retained. The
applicant is proposing to create a paved pedestrian passageway through the property to
provide access to the commercial space and create a mid-block crossing from College
Avenue to Linden Avenue. The applicant proposes to provide one parking space. The
project is in the B-2b and R-3b Zoning Districts. This is a Type I Action §176-4 (k) under
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental
review. This project requires a variance for relief from the off-street parking requirements
in the district, which require 60 spaces and 4 on-site loading spaces for the proposed
project.
Trowbridge said it has become apparent to the applicant that he will need to allow for
additional parking for the project. As a result, the 110 beds initially planned will need to
be reduced to 90-95. Although the applicant understands the preference for on-site
13
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
parking, Trowbridge said the applicant’s current intent is to demolish two houses on
properties he owns on Linden Avenue and Bryant Avenue to construct parking spaces for
the additional 38-40 spots needed to meet the parking requirement. As a result of these
project revisions, Trowbridge said there would no longer be any need for the formerly
proposed pedestrian passageway through the property, since the project would no longer
include first-floor commercial spaces for which the passageway provided access. At this
time, the applicant is asking the Board to identify the Lead Agency, so the project can be
reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the remaining issues resolved.
Chair Schroeder asked if the current proposal does in fact do away entirely with the
commercial portion of the original plan, as appeared to be the case based on
Trowbridge’s comments.
Trowbridge replied affirmatively, and said that, in light of the parking requirements, the
applicant no longer believes it will be feasible for him to provide the proposed retail
space.
Schroeder expressed considerable surprise that plans for the commercial space were
being eliminated, since the applicant had previously emphasized the many advantages of
this commercial space and since this aspect of the project had gained such a positive
response from the Board.
Trowbridge said the applicant did not believe the Board had communicated enough
unqualified support to the Board of Zoning Appeals to eliminate all obstacles to the
project.
Schroeder replied that Board members had repeatedly expressed their support of the
overall project concept, but that the Board’s comments to the BZA specifically concerned
the parking and loading variance requests, about which the Board had serious concerns.
Cornish noted that parking as a primary use on Bryant Avenue might require a use
variance, which would present a considerable obstacle to the newly-revised project
proposal.
After some consultation among the members of the applicant’s own party, Trowbridge
told the Board that the applicant had agreed not to make the revisions described above,
thereby restoring the project proposal to the one listed on the meeting agenda (and hence
having no reduction in the number of proposed beds, no elimination of the commercial
space, no elimination of the pedestrian passageway, and no plan to demolish the two
aforementioned houses).
Adopted Resolution for Intent to Declare Lead Agency:
On a motion by Kay, seconded by Boothroyd:
14
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead
agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for a mixed use development, to be located at 307
College Avenue by J&W House (Josh Lower), and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a 6 story mixed use building with
commercial space on the ground floor and 60 residential units with a total of 110 beds on
the 2nd through 6th floors. The building will have a footprint of 7,220 SF and a total
gross floor area of 46,210 SF, 38990 SF of which will be residential use. The
development site, which is 60 feet wide and runs from College Avenue to Linden
Avenue, currently contains a two story concrete block structure, which will be removed,
and a multi-family home which will be retained. The applicant is proposing to create a
paved pedestrian passageway through the site to provide access to the commercial space
and create a mid-block crossing from College Avenue to Linden Avenues, and to provide
one parking space. The project is in the B-2b and R-3b Zoning Districts. This project
requires a variance for relief from the off-street parking requirements in the district,
which require 60 spaces and 4 on-site loading spaces for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action §176-4 (k) under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is, by way of this
resolution, declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the
proposed mixed use development, located at 307 College Avenue in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Absent: Acharya, Snyder
D. Seneca Way Apartments, 140 Seneca Way, Trowbridge & Wolf LLP Applicant for
Owner, Fall Creek Development of Ithaca LLC. Intent to Declare Lead Agency.
The applicant is proposing to construct a mixed use building with 63,400 total gross SF
with 5 stories and a 14 space basement level parking area on the 0.78 acres site. The
building proposal includes 9,311 SF of first floor commercial space and a mix of 32 one
bedroom and six two bedroom apartments on the 2nd-5th floors. Other proposed
amenities include a fitness center and a roof terrace. Proposed site development will
include two surface parking lots with a total of 41 spaces, landscaping and a paved entry
plaza. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the nearly continuous existing curbcut
into two curbcuts, one accessing the east surface parking lot, and the other accessing the
western surface lot and basement level parking, and to install a sidewalk and treelawn
along the length of the property. Site development will require the demolition and
15
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
removal of the existing building (former Challenge Industries). The project is in the B-4
Zoning District and is contiguous to the East Hill Historic District. This is a Type I
Action §176-4 (h) [4], (k), and (n) under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and
variances for height, setbacks, and parking.
Jeff Smetana, one the project developers, said the applicant would like to ask the Board
to determine the lead agency for the project, in advance of the upcoming Board of Zoning
Appeals meeting. He indicated the project had changed considerably since it was first
proposed in response to feedback from both Board members and community members.
Chair Schroeder said that the Board will probably not consider making a recommendation
to the Board of Zoning Appeals until at least the March meeting (depending on the results
of environmental review), since the earliest the Board could even declare itself Lead
Agency for this project would be at the regular February meeting.
Trowbridge noted that the onsite vegetation has been the subject of considerable
conversation with neighbors. He said another important piece of the dialogue has
revolved around possibly reducing the size of the retaining walls or incorporating some
additional vegetation adjacent to the retaining walls.
Hugo noted that there are many challenges associated with this project, in light of the
need to balance the high density and height of the proposed building with the needs and
concerns of the immediately adjacent East Seneca Street neighborhood. The developer
and its architectural team have done their best to break up the mass of the building in a
variety of ways, amounting to a total reduction in elevation of approximately 8”, for a
current elevation of 486’. They have also tried to introduce some traditional, residential
aesthetic elements, such as gabled roofing, bay windows, and the like.
Smetana said the applicant will be seeking four variances.
Kay asked why the developer does not consider moving the back of the building further
from the adjacent residences to address the major objections that have been raised.
Smetana replied that the site topography will not permit this.
Schroeder then said he would like to see this kind of dense urban development project
succeed, but that the current design has some negative repercussions on the surrounding
neighborhood that he thinks can and should be addressed.
Smetana indicated the applicant does not believe moving the back portion of the building
further away from the north property line (and hence further away from the East Seneca
Street neighborhood) will end up being economically feasible.
Adopted Resolution for Intent to Declare Lead Agency:
On a motion by Kay, seconded by Boothroyd:
16
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead
agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending
application for site plan approval for Seneca Way Apartments, to be located at 402 East
State Street, Trowbridge and Wolf LLP, applicant for owner, Fall Creek Development of
Ithaca LLC , and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a mixed use building with 63,400
total gross SF with 5 stories and a 14 space basement level parking area on the 0.78 acres
site. The building proposal includes 9,311 SF of first floor commercial space and a mix
of 32 one-bedroom and six two-bedroom apartments on the 2nd-5th floors. Other proposed
amenities include a fitness center and a roof terrace. Proposed site development will
include two surface parking lots with a total of 41 spaces, landscaping and a paved entry
plaza. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the nearly continuous existing curbcut
into two curbcuts, one accessing the east surface parking lot, and the other accessing the
western surface lot and basement level parking, and to install a sidewalk and treelawn
along the length of the property. Site development will require the demolition and
removal of the existing building (former Challenge Industries). The project is in the B-4
Zoning District and is contiguous to the East Hill Historic District. This project requires a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and variances for height, setbacks, and parking,
and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance §176-4 (h) [4], (k), and (n) and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is, by way of this
resolution, declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the
proposed Seneca Way Apartments, located at 402 East State Street, in the City of Ithaca.
In favor: Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder
Absent: Acharya, Snyder
5. Zoning Appeals
Appeal # 2840 — 407 Elmira Road: Area Variance
Appeal of Tim Donuts U.S. Limited, Inc. on behalf of the owner Buttermilk Falls, LLC for an
area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, front yard setback requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new building on the parcel located at 407
Elmira Road. The parcel is located between Buttermilk Falls Plaza and the Goodyear Tire
17
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
store. The front portion of the parcel has an existing right-of-way that is located within the
required front yard setback area for the SW-2 zone district. This right-of-way prevents the
applicant from meeting the front yard setback requirements of 15’-34’ from the street curb
line of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the applicant proposes to position the face of the
building at 88.4’ from the front curb line, leaving a small area between the right-of-way and
the building for green space, a patio, and parking access.
The property is located in an SW-2 use district in which the proposed use is permitted;
however, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit
may be issued.
Members of the Planning Board feel the variance is warranted given the location of the
existing access road and support the granting of this appeal.
6. Old Business
A. Planning Board Comments on Proposed Collegetown Zoning.
Due to lack of time, tabled until the next Planning Board meeting on February 22, 2011.
7. New Business
A. Planning Board Special Meeting on Collegetown Terrace
Scheduled for Monday, February 7, 2011 at 6 p.m. in City Hall.
8. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Chair Schroeder noted that the Landscape Architecture magazine article on bridge suicide
barriers that was recently distributed to Board members was lacking a number of pages,
and asked that the full article be distributed. The article questions the efficacy of such
barriers.
Schroeder also said that he would like to send a communication to the Board of Zoning
Appeals from the Planning Board asking that any height variance given to the
Collegetown Terrace project specifically cite the various unique circumstances pertaining
to that project. All Planning Board members present agreed to this.
B. Director of Planning & Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report.
18
Approved at the April 26, 2011
Planning and Development Board Meeting
9. Adjournment
On a motion by Marcham, seconded by Kay, and unanimously approved, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
19