Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2011-03-22Approved by ILPC – 6/14/11 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – March 22, 2011 (Special Meeting) Present: Nancy Brcak Ed Finegan David Kramer Susan Stein, Chair Leslie Chatterton, Staff Megan Gilbert, Staff Chair S. Stein called the meeting to order at 5:33 pm. The purpose of the special meeting is to allow opportunity for the ILPC to discuss and possibly adopt a resolution summarizing any concerns about the 140 Seneca Way project and its possible impact on the East Hill Historic District. S. Stein noted that the ILPC would make an effort to conclude its meeting by 6:30 p.m. to allow interested parties to attend the Planning and Development Board hearing on the proposed project at 140 Seneca Way. In order to do so, each speaker will be subject to a three-minute time limit. The Chair and ILPC staff will then convey the Commission’s resolution and comments to the Planning and Development Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals following the meeting. The ILPC has no official role in the project. The Planning and Development Board agenda has been rearranged to allow East Hill residents to attend both meetings, with the Planning Board’s public comment section beginning at 6:30 p.m. Although some changes were made to the project design, the ILPC has seen no documentation of these changes and will therefore base its comments on the project developer’s December 27, 2011 application to the Planning Board. Staff noted that the ILPC has not seen full site plan application. The ILPC will limit its comments to the subject of variance requests, because they are most pertinent to the ILPC’s concerns about any potential impacts to the East Hill Historic District. I. PUBLIC HEARING (none) II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters (no discussion) B. Communications (no discussion) C. Public Comment on Matters of Interest 1. 140 Seneca Way – Proposed Development Project/Impacts on East Hill Historic District 1 ILPC Minutes March 22, 2011 Matthew Clark, 419 East Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to the project. His primary concerns were parking and traffic; and the residential parking permit system will not adequately address the problems. Gary Ferguson, Executive Director of the Downtown Ithaca Alliance, spoke in support of the project. He encouraged the Commission to take the time to understand the project. A strong downtown is important for strong neighborhoods. This parcel sits downtown and has always been an interesting use juxtaposed with the neighborhood. Barbara Lantz, 411 East Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to the project, noting concerns that the proposed development is not in character with the neighborhood and will have a negative impact on surrounding properties. Susan Robertson, 403 East Seneca Street, spoke in opposition to the project, noting the likely impact of construction on the geological features of the site. D. Kramer read an e-mail in opposition to the project on behalf of Warren Schlesinger, 407-309 East Seneca Street, into the record. Chair S. Stein read a letter in opposition to the project from Virginia Augusta, 419 E. Seneca Street, into the record. Chair S. Stein also indicated that the Commission received a memorandum in support of the project from Gary Ferguson (who spoke earlier in the meeting). She then submitted the memorandum into the record. N. Brcak read an e-mail in opposition to the project from John Holt and Alyssa Apsel, 423 East Seneca Street, into the record. Mack Travis, owner and developer of Gateway, 411 East State Street, spoke in support of the project, noting the importance of the downtown area to the surrounding neighborhood and that the proposed project would strengthen the downtown area. Neil Schill, 108 Schuyler Place, spoke in opposition to the project, expressing his concern with its impact on the lighting and viewshed on his property, as well as parking concerns. Ravindra Walsh, 418 East Seneca Street, spoke in support of the project, noting the importance of neighborhoods and downtowns. D. Kramer read an e-mail in opposition to the project from Erica and John Chong, 408 East Seneca Street, into the record. Avi Smith, 408 East State Street, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Alphonse Pieper, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, noted that infill development is vital for maintaining a vibrant and livable downtown community. He also noted the proposed height of -2- ILPC Minutes March 22, 2011 the project creates an awkward boundary between the downtown commercial area and the neighboring historic district. E. Finegan read a letter in opposition to the project from the property owners of 327 East Seneca Street into the record. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (no minutes were reviewed for approval) IV. NEW BUSINESS (no new business was reviewed) V. OLD BUSINESS A. ILPC Consideration of a Possible Resolution Re: Impacts of the Proposed Project at 140 Seneca Way on the East Hill Historic District N. Brcak asked why the project had changed so much from what was originally presented to the neighbors, referring to the letter from Avi Smith, dated March 21, 2011. The response to this question was unclear. E. Finegan asked if the City had encouraged the developer to propose a higher building. The City’s Deputy Economic Development Director Philly DeSarno responded that City staff provides guidance on the process and what steps would need to be taken if the developer proposes something outside of the zoning envelope. City staff does not make recommendations on the design of the proposal. Staff reminded the Commission of the focus on the variance requests and indicated that it agreed with Historic Ithaca’s position that the height of building is the single most relevant potential impact to the historic district. N. Brcak disagreed, noting that historic preservation is also about quality of life, while parking and traffic concerns may also be considered relevant. D. Kramer asked if A. Smith and N. Schill would be content with a 40’ building. Both A. Smith and N. Schill agreed that a 40’ building, as permitted by zoning, would not have any negative impacts on their properties. E. Finegan asked whether the mechanicals would be located on top of the building. P. DeSarno responded that the mechanicals for the individual apartments would be within each unit; while the mechanicals for the common areas would be on top of the building. The Commission discussed whether they should postpone a vote on a resolution to allow members to hear the presentation regarding changes to the proposal. The Commission decided -3- ILPC Minutes March 22, 2011 to address the variances as requested in the original site plan application in order to provide some guidance to the Planning and Development Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals prior to their anticipated actions on the proposed project. RESOLUTION: SENECA WAY APARTMENTS, 140 SENECA WAY Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by D. Kramer WHEREAS, the former Challenge Industries site is the location of a proposed, mixed-use development, referenced as the Seneca Way Apartments, by Bryan Warren and Newman Development Group under a new entity called Fall Creek Development, being represented in applications to the Planning & Development Board by Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, and WHEREAS, the proposed Seneca Way development project is contiguous to portions of the East Hill Historic District, listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and designated a local historic district in 1988 under provisions of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the construction of a mixed-use building with 63,400 total gross SF, with five 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 six two-bedroom apartments on the second through fifth floors, and WHEREAS, the proposed site development will include two surface parking lots with a total of 41 spaces, landscaping, and a paved entry plaza, and WHEREAS, the proposed project will require 4 zoning variances including: 1) a height variance to build to 57.5 feet, 17.5 feet over the 40 feet permitted in the B-4 zone; 2) a variance to build five stories, one story more than the four stories permitted in the B-4 zone; 3) a variance to reduce the B-4 requirement of 75 on-site parking spaces to 53; 4) a variance reducing the number of loading docks required in the B-4 zone from four to one, and WHEREAS, the project shares property lines with eight properties in the East Hill Historic District, the McCormick/Cowdry House, immediately east on East State/MLK Street and residential structures on East Seneca Street, numbered 403, 407-409, 411, 413, 415, 417, and 419, and WHEREAS, the McCormick/Cowdry House, the earliest portions of which were constructed c. 1831 by Jacob McCormick, is architecturally significant as a large-scale residence showing the influence of the early Greek Revival style, with sympathetic Colonial Revival style alterations made between 1893 and 1898, and -4- ILPC Minutes March 22, 2011 WHEREAS, the McCormick/Cowdry House is historically significant through its association with Jacob McCormick, a person influential in community affairs and the development of the early village, and WHEREAS, the McCormick/Cowdry House is historically significant through it association with Adam Cowdry, who served as village trustee for 14 years before his election to village president in 1873, and WHEREAS, the residential structures on the south side of East Seneca Street and sharing a property line with the proposed project, 411, 417, 419, along with properties 404 and 408 on the north side of East Seneca Street, were built before 1850 in the vernacular Greek Revival style, and WHEREAS, structures 407-409, 413, and 415 East Seneca Street date from the first decade of the 20th Century, and WHEREAS, this area of East Hill is significant as the location of a concentration of buildings constructed during the early development of the village as growth was beginning to spread from the flatter location of initial settlement. The architecture of the East Hill Historic District reflects the spread up East Hill with a progression of architectural styles popular over the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and WHEREAS, the existing zoning classification of B-4 provides a reasonable transition from the taller and higher-density buildings of the present commercial core (CDB-60 in the vicinity of the proposed project site) and the smaller scale of the predominantly residential neighborhood of lower East Hill and is made all the more important in light of the protected status of the East Hill Historic District, and WHEREAS, a proposal last year to rezone certain parcels, including the project site, to CDB-60 failed in part because of concern about the impact of greater-scale buildings on the historic residential character of the East Hill Historic District, and WHEREAS, in recent years, this portion of the East Hill Historic District has attracted homeowners who have added stability to the district through the acquisition and conversion of properties from multiple residences to owner-occupied homes, and WHEREAS, recent entrepreneurial interest in the rehabilitation of the McCormick/Cowdry House for a new use as an historic inn further strengthens the city’s historic character, contributing to the city’s appeal to visitors, potential residents, and businesses, and WHEREAS, the Site Plan Review Application Report contains no evidence of hardship being incurred by new development that complies with regulations of the existing B-4 zone; now therefore be it -5- ILPC Minutes March 22, 2011 RESOLVED, that permitting new construction (as shown in the Site Plan Review Application Report, dated December 22, 2010), that is substantially taller and virtually contiguous with the historic district, by supporting and approving zoning variances will have adverse impacts on the historic and architectural character of the East Hill Historic District, similar to the impacts of the proposed and subsequently rejected CDB-60, and be it further RESOLVED, that, as depicted in the Site Plan Review Application Report, the height of the proposed building and the proximity of its north elevation to properties noted above threaten to erode the edge of this designated and protected historic neighborhood. RECORD OF VOTE: 4-0-0 Yes No Abstain N. Brcak 0 0 E. Finegan D. Kramer S. Stein VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m. by Chair S. Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission -6-