HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2011-03-29DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1 of 16
Planning and Development Board Minutes
March 29, 2011 – Special Meeting
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Bob Boothroyd, David Kay, Jane Marcham,
Tessa Rudan, John Schroeder, John Snyder
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner
Applicants Attending: Seneca Way Apartments
Jeff Smetana, Developer
Steve Ferranti, Principal, SRF Associates
Bryan Warren, Developer
Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects
Kim Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP
Mr. Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
2. Seneca Way Apartments Project
A. Determination of Environmental Significance
Hugo gave a brief presentation on the design changes. These included relocating two apartments
from the north end of the fifth floor to the south end, relocation of the stair tower to the new north
façade of the fifth floor, and introduction of mansard roof elements. It was stated that although the
new drawings were sufficient for environmental review, the designs would be further developed
during site plan review.
Ferranti presented line-of-sight drawings and discussed the correspondence with the City
Transportation Engineer and NYS DOT.
Michaels went over the site plan, particularly the new loading area.
The Board asked for clarification regarding the new proposed height of the north façade, compared
to the highest point of the existing Challenge building as well as the length of the step back
resulting from relocation of the two apartments. The project team stated that the step back is
approximately 30 feet and the height of the north portion of the fourth floor is approximately 5 feet
higher than the existing highest point of the Challenge building.
There was discussion on the floor regarded Schroeder’s proposed changes to Part 2 of the Long
Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) and general discussion regarding the contents of the
LEAF.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2 of 16
Part 2 of the LEAF
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham.
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? X Yes
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise
per 100 foot of length), or where the general slope in the
project exceeds 10%.
X Yes X No
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more
vehicles. X X Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or
generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. X Yes X No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in a designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts: Existing development is in the 500 year
floodplain. Extensive site clearing/grading is proposed to
remove old spoils deposits and weak. Unhealthy trees.
X Yes X No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the site? (i.e. cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.) X Yes
Specific land forms: Site has exposed rock and steep cliff
near the northern property line. Geotechnical studies of the
soil structure will need to be completed before the start of
construction to insure that the stability of the cliff will not
be undermined by construction. The new structure will not
extend beyond the current footprint of the building.
X
Yes X No
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3 of 16
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
Will project affect any water body designated as protected? (Under article 15 or 24 of the
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) X No
Developable area of site contains a protected water body Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of
a protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? X No
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of
water or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of a body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake or the Cayuga Inlet?
Yes No
Other impacts: Project requires a SWPPP Yes No
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? X No
Project will require a discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of a source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public
water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
4 of 16
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious
visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or
chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns or surface water runoff? X No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? X Yes
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period
per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs per
hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per
hour.
Yes No
Other impacts: Demolition is being proposed for the
existing building which may cause particles to become
airborne. Standard dust control methods will be enforced
during the demolition and construction process. Asbestos
and lead paint abatement, if necessary must be done by
certified professionals and is required under a City of Ithaca
Demolition Permit.
X
Yes X No
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? X No
Reduction of any species listed on the New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5 of 16
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts:
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
X Yes
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires the removal or more than 1/2 acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts: Concerns have been raised about removal of
vegetation on the steep slope separating the project site
from the residential neighborhood to the north. The
existing vegetation enhances the vegetation that exists in
most backyards of the residential properties. There is also
concern that construction activities may negatively impact
existing vegetation along the northern property line that
currently provides screening between the residential
neighborhood and the commercial properties.
X X Yes No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will the proposed action affect views, vistas or the visual character of the neighborhood or
community? X Yes
Proposed land uses, or proposed action components obviously
different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land
use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land use, or proposed action components visible to
users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly
reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in the elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6 of 16
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Other impacts: Concerns have been raised from the
residents living on adjacent properties to the north that
their views of Gateway Commons and the southern slope of
Six Mile Creek will be impacted by the proposed building.
X
X Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological
importance? X Yes
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or
contiguous to any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
X
X Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within
the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or
contiguous to any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
X
X Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or
recreational opportunities? X No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site
designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or
state agency? Yes X No
Proposed Action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
7 of 16
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the
resource Yes No
Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of
the resource Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? X Yes See Part 3
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. X Yes X No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. X Yes X No
Other impacts: Various issues identified by the NYS
Department of Transportation, Tompkins County Planning
Commissioner, Ed Marx, City Transportation Engineer Tim
Logue, and Junior Transportation Engineer Kent Johnson.
X
X Yes No
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder
Part 3 of the LEAF
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Acharya.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION:
The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as lead agency, has one pending application for site plan approval
for a development to be located at 140 Seneca Way in the City of Ithaca. 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 a 0.78-acre site. The
building proposal includes 9,311 SF of first-floor commercial space and a mix of 32 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom
apartments on the second through the fifth floors. Other proposed amenities include a fitness center and a roof terrace. In
order to mitigate concerns raised by the Planning Board and neighbors in the adjacent residential district, two one-
bedroom apartments have been removed from the top floor of the building’s north end, lowering building height at that
end by one story. The north stair tower has also been moved further south. The fitness center, formerly planned for the
southwest top floor, will now be in the basement level, and the outdoor terrace, formerly planned at the southeast corner of
the top floor, has been moved to the west. The latter two moves have allowed two one-bedroom apartments to be added to
the south end of the top floor. The relocated north stair tower will now have a first-floor external entry on the west, which
will allow vegetation to replace a walkway formerly planned at the building’s north and northeast. 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 eastern
surface parking lot, and the other accessing the western surface parking lot and the basement-level parking. This will also
allow for a continuous sidewalk and tree lawn along the length of the property, which are currently lacking. Site
development will require the demolition and removal of the existing building (the former Challenge Industries). The
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
8 of 16
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.
The total site disturbance for the project is estimated to be 0.74 acres. A site disturbance of less than 1 acre is required to
prepare a “Basic” Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Storm
Water Management Officer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
The project will require multiple variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A variance will be required for parking deficiencies. The total parking requirement is for 75 spaces. Proposed are 53
spaces: 8 in the west parking lot, 14 in the basement parking garage, and 31 in the east parking lot. A variance is
requested for the 22 parking spaces that cannot be accommodated on the property.
One off-street loading space is proposed for this project. Three loading spaces are required for the residential uses and one
is required for the commercial uses. In addition, the area in front of the service entry is designed to accommodate large
moving vans during apartment tenant moves. A variance is requested to permit the reduction of loading spaces to one,
plus the moving van location.
The proposed building is five stories in height above average finished grade. The permitted number of stories is four
above average finished grade. A variance is requested to permit the additional story.
A large portion of the roof of the building is 56 feet, four inches above the average finished grade, with a 3-foot high
parapet in some areas. A portion of the roof nearest the northern property line has been reduced (from what was originally
proposed) by approximately 1 story in height (approximately 10 feet) and 1 apartment in depth (approximately 30 feet) to
lessen the impact on the neighbors to the north. Zoning allows a maximum height of 40 feet. The proposed building
exceeds the permitted height by 16 feet, four inches (the parapet is permitted above that height) and approximately 46.5
feet at the northern end.
IMPACT ON LAND
The project site is a 0.78-acre site which is almost 100% developed with either building or asphalt paving. The site slopes
from north to south and from east to west. The north-south change in elevation is approximately 30 feet from Seneca Way
to Seneca Street and approximately 18 feet from the eastern property line to the western property line.
There are rock outcroppings on the northern edge of the property and a steep cliff. Geotechnical studies of the soil
structure will need to be completed before the start of construction to insure the stability of the cliff will not be undermined
by construction. The new structure will not extend beyond the current footprint of the building.
No significant impact on land is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON WATER
A Basic SWPPP will be prepared, consistent with NYSDEC GP-0-10-001 and the City of Ithaca Storm Water Regulations,
and include erosion and sediment controls. No permanent controls such as detention ponds or water quality basins are
required.
No significant impact on water is anticipated as a result of this project.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
9 of 16
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
The current site plan will reduce the amount of impervious cover by approximately 9%. This reduction will inherently
lead to a reduction in the rate of runoff (quantity control), as well as a reduction in pollutant loads (quality control) from
the site. Measures to further improve water quality will be considered for the project, including deep sumps and hoods in
storm structures.
No significant impact on drainage is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON AIR
Demolition is being proposed for the existing building which may cause particles to become airborne. Standard dust
control methods will be enforced during the demolition and construction process. Asbestos and lead paint abatement, if
necessary, must be done by certified professionals and is required under a City of Ithaca Demolition Permit.
No significant impact on air is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Concerns have been raised about removal of vegetation on the steep slope separating the project site from the residential
neighborhood to the north. The existing vegetation enhances the vegetation that exists in most backyards of the residential
properties. There is also concern that construction activities may negatively impact existing vegetation along the northern
property line that currently provides screening between the residential neighborhood and the commercial properties.
Mitigation for loss of vegetation would require replanting on the slope between the residential properties to the north and
the project site. If vegetation is damaged or killed during the construction process, it will need to be replaced as close to
“in-kind” as possible. This may require the planting of coniferous trees or larger caliper trees and shrubs. Submission of
an existing plant inventory, which from casual observation contains mostly weed trees and brush, and a proposed planting
schedule, will need to be completed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
No significant impact on plants and animals is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Residents of the East Hill Historic District, directly to the north of the project site, and Planning Board members have
expressed serious concerns with both the proposed height of the building at the north end and the closeness of the building
to the northern property line. The original proposal was for a building that had a flat roof and was 56 feet, four inches
above the average finished grade, with a 3-foot high parapet in some areas. Currently, the roof of the existing Challenge
Industries building is at the same elevation as the back yards of residents to the north on Seneca Street, allowing for views
over the roof and for sunlight to reach the back yards of the residential properties. The concern expressed by residents was
that a taller building would block views and light. Residents also felt the privacy they now enjoy in their rear yards would
be diminished.
The existing buildings on the site will be demolished to make way for the new building and associated site improvements.
While the existing structures are lower than that which is proposed, they currently cover most of the site. A new building,
constructed in accordance with zoning, could be 40 feet in height, cover up to 50% of the site, and house approximately 80
apartments. According to the developer, an as-of-right building with a lower height and a bigger footprint could result in
the same amount of floor area as a taller narrower building, but would result in an inefficient plan that would be
undesirable for commercial and residential space.
Recognizing the need to minimize the impacts on the residential properties to the north and east, the developers sited the
proposed building further to the west, where the elevation is lower, and designed it so the length of the building runs north
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
10 of 16
to south in an attempt to minimize the impact as much as possible. This places the building significantly further away
from the eastern property line, allowing for more light and better views both to and from the Argos Inn, adjacent to the
Seneca Way project site.
In order to mitigate concerns raised by Planning Board members and by neighbors in the adjacent residential district to the
north, two one-bedroom apartments have been removed from the top floor of the building’s north end, lowering building
height at that end by one story. The north stair tower has also been moved further south. The fitness center, formerly
planned for the southwest top floor, will now be in the basement level, and the outdoor terrace, formerly planned at the
southeast corner of the top floor, has been moved to the west. The latter two moves have allowed two one-bedroom
apartments to be added to the south end of the top floor. The relocated north stair tower will now have a first-floor
external entry on the west, which will allow vegetation to replace a walkway formerly planned at the building’s north and
northeast.
Additionally, the north façade of the building will be redesigned to improve its compatibility with the adjacent
neighborhood. The lower north portion of the redesigned building will not be accessible to tenants and will not be used as
a terrace.
A sun and shadow study, dated 2/15/11, for the spring and fall equinox and the summer and winter solstice has been
submitted by the applicant using the building originally proposed. According to the study, the biggest impact on the
residences to the north is during the winter solstice when the sun is at its lowest point. The biggest impact to the east is in
June when the sun is at its highest. In both these cases, some shadow is cast on adjacent properties.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
The project site is adjacent to the East Hill Historic District, located to the north and east of the project site. Concerns
have been raised by residents in the district that a taller building has the potential to block southern views and light (see
information above under “IMPACTS ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES”). Residents have also stated that they have
complied with the City’s regulations regarding improvements to structures located in historic districts and that
development in an adjacent zone should be sympathetic to the historic structures. The revised project design described
above will mitigate impacts on historic resources.
IMPACTS ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
No significant impact on open space and recreation is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
At present, there are 35 parking spaces located on the project site. There is now one continuous curbcut along the length
of the property and no real delineation between vehicular access and pedestrian travel through the site, causing a
dangerous situation for both. The applicant is proposing two surface parking lots that will include access to the site via
two existing driveways on Seneca Way. The west driveway will provide access to a small high-turnover parking lot
containing 10 spaces and access to the underground garage containing 14 spaces. An east driveway will allow access to a
parking lot containing 31 spaces. This east parking area is not connected to either the garage or the small west parking lot.
The applicant is proposing right-in, right-out on for the westernmost curbcut on Seneca Way (a one-way street) and an in-
lane and out-lane on East State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street.
The applicant is proposing to add a curb lawn, sidewalk, and low plantings along the property frontage which will greatly
enhance the pedestrian experience along Seneca Way. However, trees will not be planted in the curb lawn, so that sight
lines needed by drivers and bicyclists are not blocked.
Concerns have been raised by the Tompkins County Planning Department that access to the west parking lot should be
analyzed further. In the traffic impact study submitted as part of the site plan review application, 35% of the cars entering
the parking lot to the west will be doing so by coming from the north-south connector to Seneca Way. This would force
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
11 of 16
cars to cut over two lanes of traffic, which the County stated is not only dangerous but apparently in violation of traffic
laws. Egress from this lot is also problematic in terms of the uphill sight distance. The proposed building will be closer to
the road and may diminish the sight distance, causing problems for cars traveling down East State Street/Martin Luther
King, Jr. Street, as well as for cars exiting the site.
Additionally, the County states that cars exiting the easternmost lot may have problems, as the traffic patterns in this area
are complicated and there is the potential for conflict with cars entering and exiting from the Gateway Commons property
across the street.
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) also submitted a letter, dated February 4, 2011, with
comments and concerns. They requested a plan that relates the proposed development and drives with the highway
features, including pavement markings, drainage structures, and lighting of East State Street/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street
and Seneca Way, as well as sight distance calculations from the proposed drives. They also expressed concerns about the
proposed street trees conflicting with safety operations of the highway, presumably by obstructing the line of sight for
drivers and pedestrians.
City Traffic Engineer Tim Logue had similar concerns, but felt overall that the traffic study showed that the development
will not have a significant negative impact on traffic capacity in the central business district. His only real concern was the
location of the westernmost driveway/curbcut and the lack of information about sight lines or visibility for motorists trying
to make a right-turn exit onto Seneca Way, looking back up toward East State Street/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street.
Adequate stopping sight distance for motorists coming down the hill and motorists coming around the wrap-around part of
the Tuning Fork (coming from Green Street) are not encouraged to turn into the lower driveway. A driver would have to
cross over a solid white lane line, which delineates the two lanes that come together on Seneca Way. While this
movement is not illegal, it is certainly not encouraged and would be very difficult and potentially unsafe during high-
traffic times of day.
Mr. Logue suggested two ideas. One would be to have the applicant extend the curbed island in the Turning Fork to make
it impossible for vehicles to cross over; this would force access to be truly a right-in only from East State Street/Seneca
Way. A much more radical change suggested by Mr. Logue would be to have only the eastern-most driveway and to
provide access to the lower lot internal to the site, perhaps under the building at the north end.
In response to the City, County and DOT issues as described above, the applicant’s traffic consultant, SFR Associates,
prepared additional information regarding drainage, analysis of line of sight issues, and additional comments, which they
submitted to the City, the County and NYS DOT, in correspondences dated March 8, 2011, March 17, 2011 and March 28,
2011. As stated above, the project was also revised to remove the street trees in response to line of sight issues. The
analysis concluded that that there is sufficient line of sight, passing sight and stopping site distances and that decision sight
considerations are not applicable in an urban environment.
In an email dated 3-29-11 from the City Transportation Engineer, Tim Logue to Senior Planner, Lisa Nicholas, Logue
stated that, he had spoken with NYSDOT on March 28th, 2011 and reported that “Though both of us were originally
concerned about the lower driveway, the additional analysis from TG Miller and SRF & Associates has addressed those
concerns. We are comfortable with this project moving forward into final site plan review. If the wrap around-to-lower
driveway movement proves to be more problematic than we anticipate, the City & NYSDOT will consider painting the
delineating line as a double white line, which would make that movement illegal, and if problems continue, we will look at
extending the curbed island so as to make the movement impossible. ……. We will work with the applicant to find a
location to which they (the project) can relocate the storm sewer inlets.”
In a letter dated March 28, 2011 from Joseph A. Flint, Acting Director of Planning and Program Management for the NYS
DOT to John Schroeder, Planning Board Chair, NYSDOT found new materials sufficient for SEQR review. They
concurred with Logue’s recommendation to retain existing lane delineation and striping and stated that, “noting the urban
environment, we acknowledge the conclusions and recommendations found within the TG Miller correspondence of
March 28, 2011.”
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
12 of 16
It was also confirmed that the wrap around-to-lower driveway turn across the existing hatching and over one lane of traffic
is not an illegal movement.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No significant impact on energy is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACT ON QUALITY OF DAILY LIFE
Due to the height and location of the proposed building, the project may have some negative impacts on the residents
living directly uphill on East Seneca Street, but these impacts will be substantially reduced by the redesign of the building
described above.
The Challenge Industries building historically had various industrial and manufacturing uses. The new apartment/office
use will be a more appropriate and complementary use.
Redevelopment of this site will eliminate a vacant, antiquated factory building. The developers for the Seneca Way
project propose to create a new mixed-use residential and office building that will provide much needed market-rate
housing and commercial office space for the community. The project will help densify the core, resulting in housing that
is close to public transportation, downtown goods and services, and employment centers, while also redeveloping a site
that occupies a key and strategic gateway location in downtown Ithaca.
Concern that this project could serve as a precedent for other similarly tall buildings directly adjacent to the rear lot lines
of the East Seneca Street neighborhood are mitigated by the developer’s offer to place a permanent deed restriction on the
property, so that no building within 70 feet of the northern property line (except for the footprint of the currently proposed
building) can exceed 40 feet in height, as defined by the City of Ithaca zoning ordinance in effect on March 29, 2011.
IMPACTS ON HEALTH AND HAZARDS
No significant impact on health and hazards is anticipated as a result of this project.
IMPACTS ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
See comments under “IMPACT ON QUALITY OF DAILY LIFE” heading above.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
Significant concerns from Planning Board members and neighbors have been raised. A taller building has the potential to
block views and light; and residents feel the privacy they now enjoy in their rear yards may be diminished. Residents have
also stated that they have complied with City regulations regarding improvements to structures located in historic districts
and that development in an adjacent zone should be sympathetic to the historic structures.
Conversely, the project has received strong support from the downtown community. The project site is recognized for its
value as a prominent building site downtown; this project would replace a vacant, hard-to-reuse factory building with a
mixed-use building that will have 38 market-rate apartments and first-floor commercial space. The proposed Seneca Way
project will convert an industrial use to a residential use, considered a benefit to the downtown area. Additionally, this
project will return an important parcel to active use, on a taxable basis, with an increased value over what would be
realized if the former Challenge Industries building were reused.
Prepared by: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development for the City of Ithaca, February 10, 2011
Revised: March 17, 2011
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
13 of 16
Revised by: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Snyder
Resolution for Determination of Environmental Significance
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham.
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan approval for
the Seneca Way Apartments, to be located at 140 Seneca Way, by Trowbridge and Wolf, LLP, applicant for owner, Fall
Creek Development of Ithaca, LLC, and
WHEREAS: the applicant’s original proposal was to construct a 5 story mixed-use building with 63,400 total gross square
feet and a 14-space basement level parking area on the 0.78-acre site. The building proposal included 9,311 SF of first
floor commercial space and a mix of 32 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom apartments on the 2nd - 5th floors. Other
proposed amenities included a fitness center and a roof terrace, and
WHEREAS: proposed site development includes two surface parking lots with a total of 41 spaces, landscaping, and a
paved entry plaza. The applicant proposes 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 curb lawn along the length of the property. Site development requires 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. The project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and variances for height, parking, and
loading, 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, 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 New York State Department of Transportation, (NYS DOT) the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works
(BPW), and the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), all involved agencies, consented to the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the applicant’s original Site Plan Review Application consisted of a Full Environmental Assessment Form
(FEAF) Part 1, and the following drawings, contained within the Site Plan Review Application Report, dated 12-22-2010,
prepared by Holt Architects and Trowbridge and Wolf LLP: “Figure 9: Basement Floor Plan”, “Figure 10: First Floor
Plan-Commercial”, “Figure 11: 2nd - 4th Floor Plan”, “Figure 12: 5th Floor Plan”, “Figure 13: Roof Plan”, “Figure 14:
Northwest View”, “Figure 15: Seneca Way View”, “Figure 16: Residential District”, “Figure 17: South Elevation”,
“Figure 18: West Elevation”, “Figure 19: East Elevation, Back Yard Viewshed”, “Figure 21: Site Plan”, “Figure 27:
Northeast View”, “Figure 29: Proposed Seneca Way Section”, “Figure 30: Proposed Seneca Way Elevation”, “Figure 34:
View from East State Street - Proposed”, and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), the Tompkins County Planning Department, the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) and other interested parties have been given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: in a letter dated March 22, 2011, from Ed Marx, Commissioner of Planning and Community Sustainability to
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, the County determined that the project might have inter-community or county-wide impacts
in regard to ingress and egress from the proposed parking lots, and
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14 of 16
WHEREAS: in a letter dated February 4, 2011 from Joseph A. Flint, Acting Director of Planning and Program
Management for the NYS DOT to John Schroeder, Planning Board Chair, the NYS DOT requested additional information
about the project and identified concerns regarding line of sight and sidewalk issues, and
WHEREAS: neighbors in the East Hill Historic District, located to the north and east of the project site, have expressed
concerns regarding traffic, views, and access to light and air due to the proposed building height, and
WHEREAS: Parts 2 and 3 of the FEAF, based on the original proposed project and prepared by planning staff on 2-9-11
and revised on 3-16-11 (for Part 2) and prepared by planning staff on 2-10-11 (for Part 3), both identified potentially
significant impacts on aesthetic resources, historic resources, quality of life, and neighborhood growth and character, and
WHEREAS: in response to the potentially significant impacts as identified above, the applicant has proposed the
following revisions to the project: 1) relocation of the two northernmost one-bedroom apartments on the 5th floor to the
southernmost part of the 5th floor, originally proposed to be the fitness center and terrace, thereby lowering the building
height of the north end by one story, and 2) addition of mansard roof elements on the north end of the 4th floor and stair
tower which face the historic neighborhood, with continued design work on the north end of the building to occur during
site plan review to improve its contextuality with the adjacent neighborhood, and 3) the new lower roof on the north end of
the building is to be inaccessible to building tenants, and 4) relocation of the northern stair tower from the northernmost
end of the building to the newly proposed north façade of the 5th floor, and 5) removal of the originally proposed walkway
along the north façade and at the northeast corner of the building and replacement with landscaping, and 6) removal of
proposed street trees in response to line-of-sight comments, and 7) applicant’s agreement to place a permanent deed
restriction on the property so that no building within 70 feet of the northern property line (except for the footprint of the
currently proposed building) can exceed 40 feet in height, as defined by the City of Ithaca zoning ordinance in effect on
March 29, 2011, and
WHEREAS: on March 29, 2011, the Planning Board reviewed and accepted as adequate the following revised drawings
illustrating the above revisions:
a set of 29 drawings handed out at the March 22, 2011 Planning Board meeting and dated 3-22-11 and prepared by
Holt Architects P.C.,
and
“Schematic Site Plan (L100)” prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf LLP, and “Truck Turning Diagram (L000)”, “Entry
Floor Plan (AP-2)”, “First Floor Plan (AP-3)” “2nd - 4th Floor Plan (AP-4)” “5th Floor Plan (AP-5)”, “Roof Plan (AP-
9)”, and “North Elevation (AP-18)” all prepared by Holt Architects P.C. and all dated 3-24-11 and other application
materials,
and the following revised environmental review documents:
Part 2 of the FEAF as further revised by the Planning Board on 3-29-11 (based on the original project design) and Part
3 of the FEAF as further revised by planning staff on 3-17-11 and by the Planning Board on 3-29-11 (reflecting the
revised project design),
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the proposed project will result in
no significant impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Schroeder, Snyder
Against: Marcham, Rudan
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
15 of 16
B. Planning Board Recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals Regarding Appeal #2843
There was considerable discussion on the floor regarding Common Council’s intention and reasoning in
its decision to reject the proposal to rezone the property in 2010. Board members agreed to issue a
statement (resolution) to Common Council requesting direction regarding where additional height is
appropriate downtown and where transition zones should be located. Board members also discussed
the magnitude of the variance request and the recent number of variance requests.
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham.
Appeal 2843 140 Seneca Way
Area Variance(s)
The Planning and Development Board has considered the planning issues related to this zoning appeal, and
makes the following comments:
(1) All Board members agreed that, from a planning perspective, the project has the following positive
attributes:
• More downtown housing and retail space in a mixed-use building with access to other retail and
entertainment.
• An improved urban environment through a design that sites the building at the street edge,
thereby engaging the building with the street, and activation of the street level through location of
a fitness area at the front of the building.
• A safer and more pedestrian-friendly environment through replacement of the existing continuous
curb cut along the property with a minimal number of well-defined curb cuts and a continuous
sidewalk with curb lawn.
• Productive, tax-paying use of a currently vacant downtown site.
• Location on a site that is walkable, bikable and convenient to public transit, thereby promoting
viable alternatives to car ownership and use.
(2) All but one Board member expressed concern about the number of recent zoning variance requests, and
the extent of the variations recently requested from existing zoning. These members believe many of the
issues concerning such large appeals are better addressed through the comprehensive planning process
(scheduled to commence this year) and appropriate associated rezoning.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
DRAFT COPY – NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
16 of 16
(3) Some Board members expressed the following concerns about the project:
• That the project as designed is not proportionate to its site.
• That there is a risk of loss of livability in the East Seneca Street neighborhood, which has the
right to expect protection under existing zoning.
• That possible parking spillover from the proposed project might add to pre-existing parking
pressures on East Seneca Street residents, and that the project might add to traffic volume or alter
existing traffic patterns on Seneca Way and its vicinity.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Kay, Schroeder, Snyder
Against: Marcham, Rudan
3. Adjournment
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Snyder, and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at
9:00 p.m.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”