Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2019-07-23 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 Planning and Development Board Minutes July 23, 2019 Board Members Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair; Attending: Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Jack Elliott; Mitch Glass; Matthew Johnston; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Si2na2e— 106-112 N Tio2a Street Jennifer Tavares, President&CEO, Tompkins County COC Subdivision and Construction of a Single-Family Home— 243 Cliff Street Laurie Hart,property owner David Nutter,property owner Apartments—203-211 Elm Street Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Inc. Chain Works District Redevelopment Jamie Gensel, Fagan Engineers Arthaus (Affordable Housing)— 130 Cherry Street Kate Chesebrough, Whitham Planning &Design Molly Chiang, Vecino Group Student Housing—815 S. Aurora Street Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Charlie O'Connor, Modern Living Rentals Todd Fox, Visum Development Adam Fishel, Marathon Engineering 1 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 Visions Federal Credit Union—410 Elmira Road Mitch Leech, PW Campbell Contracting Joe Liguori, Visions Federal Credit Union Gary Winterkorn, Costich Engineering Immaculate Conception Redevelopment(Mixed-Use Housing)— 320 W. Buffalo Street Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Lynn Truame, INNS Carpenter Circle Proiect Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning and Design Andrew Boewes, Park Grove Realty Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Deputy Director Nicholas noted the addition to the agenda of consideration of Site Plan Approval extension for apartments at 203-211 Elm Street. 2. Privilege of the Floor Chair Lewis opened Privilege of the Floor. Roger Dennis of 4 Hudson Place, spoke in opposition to the student apartment project at 815 S. Aurora Street. He expressed concerns about the proposed landscaping being inadequate to separate the property from the neighbors. He was also concerned about the way the backyard was calculated to come to the zoning determination. He said the parking seems insufficient, and that emergency access will be a problem, especially for Building C. He asked about how the owners would limit access to the parking to residents only and expressed concerns about managing snow removal on site. He also expressed concerns about the safety of the cell tower, and said that the vibrations from excavation could also cause problems. Cathy Crane of 1.08 Grandview Avenue said that the proposed project at 815 S. Aurora Street is out of character with the neighborhood and incongruous with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. She characterized the proximity of the parking lot to the cell phone tower as "illegal." She expressed concerns about adverse environmental impacts from the project, including stormwater runoff. She also said that the parking study seems insufficient. She also submitted written comments, which are included as an addendum to these minutes Jon Greene of 213 Mitchell Street, spoke in opposition to the BZA Appeal#3131. He said that he and his wife first received notice of the project on Sunday of the previous week and 2 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 questioned whether that constitutes sufficient notice, and he referenced written comments he had submitted to the Planning Board in advance of the meeting, which are included as an addendum to these minutes. Drew Engelhart of 215 Mitchell Street, spoke about his proposal to relocate the driveway which would require a variance from the BZA (Appeal#3131). He said they want to move the driveway to the other side of the house, take down the garage in back, and create a fenced-in back yard for their dogs. He said that the current driveway is steep and has poor visibility, and it is hard to turn in and out of it. He also submitted comments in writing, which are included as an addendum to these minutes. Joel Harlan of 318 S Albany Street, asked a question about what constitutes "out of character" with a neighborhood in Ithaca. He said both colleges seem"out of character"with the neighborhoods surrounding them. He said that we should have what they have in Collegetown, downtown because it looks more like a downtown. He also said we shouldn't worry about traffic impacts from the Morse Chainworks redevelopment because they used to have 5,000 employees there. Jill Greene of 313 Mitchell Street, spoke in opposition to the BZA appeal#3131. She said they have put a lot of work into the interior and exterior of their home and are concerned about damages to their plantings and to the historic retaining wall, as well as safety. She said they also don't want to see their views changed. She said the current driveway is a normal sized driveway for the Belle Sherman neighborhood, but this proposal would mean half the front yard would be paved. She also expressed concerns that it would not be two cars parking there, as they currently see up to five cars in the driveway at any time. Brian Grout of 809 S. Aurora Street, asked if any of the Board members have visited his property to look at the view. He expressed concerns about the project at 815 S. Aurora Street resulting in a loss of sunlight to his property. He also expressed environmental and safety concerns. He also submitted comments in writing, which are included as an addendum to these minutes. John Maceli of 104 Crescent Place said he's surprised at how few comments he's heard regarding traffic impacts from the proposed apartments at 815 S. Aurora Street. He said that as a former Gadabout driver he was always on red alert when coming down 96B into the City. He said the Coddington Road intersection where the road narrows from four lanes to two is problematic, as is the Chain Works intersection. He said parking also presents problems for the site. Nick Lambrou of 405 Eddy Street spoke about the 232-238 Dryden Road project. He said that he owns 320 Summit Avenue nearby and that there's currently a lawsuit regarding the proposed project site. He urged the Planning Board not to make any decisions until the lawsuit is resolved. John Snyder spoke on behalf of the Dennis family in opposition to the 815 S. Aurora Street project. He expressed concerns about the environmental impacts of removing 3,000 square yards of stone from the project site. He said the hoe rams they will use can be incredibly loud and 3 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 cause vibrations. He urge the Board to require seismic monitoring to ensure that neighboring buildings are not impacted, and he asked where the material will be removed to. He also submitted comments in writing, which are included as an addendum to these minutes. James McCollum of 804 S. Aurora Street expressed concerns about the project proposed for 815 S. Aurora Street. He said there will be noise impacts for the neighbors. He also said that the City drains will need to be adjusted to accommodate the water runoff. He also expressed concerns about the poor visibility of traffic coming down the hill. Susan Fritts of 106 Grandview Place said the 815 S. Aurora Street project has her concerned about effects on the stability of her house. She also said that 67 parking spaces for 158 beds seems inadequate and that the project seems out of character with the neighborhood. Kim Engelhart of 215 Mitchell Street said that they have addressed their neighbors' concerns numerous times. She said that the alternatives proposed by one neighbor will not work. She also spoke to the comment about the number of cars in the driveway, saying that they have adult children and their partners living with them at present, but that is temporary while they are saving for a down payment on a house. Danny Eastman of 805 S. Aurora Street spoke in opposition to the 815 S. Aurora Street project. He said that traffic is a concern, as most IC students drive. He also said that without proper control over pedestrian walkways, residents there will cut through neighbors' properties and likely cause damage. He said that the buildings will be too close to the Grouts' property to be adequately screened by the proposed vegetation, and he expressed concerns about how they will accomplish snow removal. Garth Dennis of 202 Park Lane spoke about the 815 S. Aurora Street project. He said he thought there was a 25%planting requirement for the parking lot, and he doesn't see any plantings in the lot. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed Privilege of the Floor. 3. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina, the June 25, 2019 minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications. 4 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 4. Design Review A. Signage- Tompkins County History Center, 106-112 N Tioga Street(Bank Alley)by Jennifer Tavares for the Tompkins Center for History & Culture. Design Review for Proposed Signage. Jennifer Tavares appeared in front of the Board to present the proposed sign package. She said that 14 organizations are co-located on-site at the new Tompkins Center for History and Culture,which justifies in large part their need for some additional signage. Deputy Director Nicholas reminded the Board that Design Review is a non-binding process whereby the Board can make recommendations to make sign packages better conform to the City's design guidelines. Overall, the Board expressed support for the proposed signage. Johnston observed that this signage is similar in square footage to the CFCU signage across the street, which did not receive strong support from the Board. Glass asked the applicant if any of the signs would be lit. Tavares said no. Jones expressed support for the applicant using the universal symbol for information (which she said sets this proposal apart from the previous one). The Board did not recommend any changes to the proposed sign package. 5. Subdivision A. Minor Subdivision and Construction of a Single Family Home, 243 Cliff Street, Laurel Hart & Dave Nutter. Adoption of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval. The applicant proposes to subdivide the .36 acre site into two parcels and build one single-family home. The subdivision will result in Parcel A measuring .152 acres (6,638 SF)with 66 feet of frontage on Cliff Street and containing an existing single family home and garage, and Parcel B measuring .21.8 acres (9,484 SF) with 97 feet of frontage on Park Road. The property is in the R-3a Zoning District, which has the following minimum requirements: 5,000 SF lot size and 40 feet of street frontage for single-family homes, 10-foot front yard, and 10- and five foot side yards and a rear yard of 20% or 50 feet, but not less than 20 feet. Access to the proposed home on Parcel B will be via a new access drive connecting to Park Road. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(13)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(11). Applicants Laurie Hart and David Nutter appeared in front of the Board to present updates to their proposal. They explained that due to an existing deficiency(side yard setback) they were 5 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 informed by the Zoning Administrator that in order to complete their request for a subdivision, they could A.) demolish a portion of their existing home to make the lot comply with zoning, B.) make an appeal to the BZA to grant a variance for the existing deficiency, or C.) attempt to purchase a strip of land from their neighbors to make the existing lot compliant with the side yard requirements. They opted to attempt to purchase a strip of land, and are in the process of executing a purchase agreement with Incodema, their next door neighbor. Deputy Director Nicholas then explained that the Board could grant approvals conditioned on the applicants completing the purchase and submitting a revised subdivision plat showing the lot line adjustment resulting in a lot that complies with the zoning setback requirements. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval On a motion by Glass, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS:an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a subdivision, the construction of one single family home and associated site improvements to be located at 243 Cliff Street, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the .36 acre site into two parcels and build one single family home. The originally proposed subdivision was to create Parcel A measuring.152 acres(6,638 SF) with 66 feet of frontage on Cliff Street and containing an existing single family home and garage,and Parcel B measuring .218 acres (9,484 SF) with 97 feet of frontage on Park Road. Access to the proposed home on Parcel B will be via a new access drive connecting to Park Road, and WHEREAS:the property is in the R-3a Zoning District,which has the following minimum requirements: 5,000 SF lot size and 40 ft of street frontage for single family homes, 1.0 foot front yard, and 1.0 and five foot side yards and a rear yard of 20% or 50 feet,but not less than 20 feet, and WHEREAS: due to a side yard deficiency caused by the placement of the existing home relative to the north property line,the applicant has arranged purchase of a portion of the property to the north, and WHEREAS: the new proposal is to consolidate a newly created Parcel C measuring .0333 acres with the previously proposed Parcel A and the newly created Parcel D measuring .031 acres with the previously proposed Parcel B. The resulting two parcels would be a combined Parcel A & C measuring .185 acres (8,059 SF)with 80 feet of frontage on Cliff Street and containing an existing single family home and garage, and the combined Parcel B &D measuring .249 acres (1.0,846 SF)with 97 feet of frontage on Park Road. Access to the proposed home on Parcel B will be via a new access drive connecting to Park, and WHEREAS: the creation and conveyance of Parcels C & D are considered a lot line adjustment in accordance with the City Code Article 1, §290-1, Definitions -Any conveyance of real property between adjacent landowners which does not result in additional buildable lots(s) nor create a zoning deficiency in either lot. A lot line adjustment is not considered a subdivision for purposes of this chapter. A lot Line adjustment is a ministerial action, and 6 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 WHEREAS: this is considered a minor subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290,Article 1, §290-1,Minor Subdivision—Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS:due to the site's adjacency to parkland,this has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(I 1) s, and WHEREAS: that the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on June 25, 2019 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6(B)(4)and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: a Public Hearing for the proposed action was held on June 25, 2019, and WHEREAS: this Board, has, on July 23, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF),Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff and drawings titled `Boundary and Topographic Map No. 237-239 & 243 Cliff Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated 1/10/19 and"Subdivision Map No. 243 Cliff Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated 4/18/19 and prepared by TG Miller PC, and other application materials, and WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, WHEREAS:the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency,did determine, as more clearly elaborated in the FEAF,that the Applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on June 25, 2019. determine the proposed project would will result in no significant impact on the environment and did make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS:this Board, has, on July 23, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a revised survey titled "Subdivision Map No. 243 Cliff Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York"with a revision date of 7/16/19, and WHEREAS:the Planning Board has determined that the revised subdivision is consistent with the June 25, 2019 Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and that no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates that, provided the aforementioned portion of the adjacent property is purchased and consolidated with the proposed Parcels A&B,the resultant parcels will conform to area requirements in the R-3a Zoning District,now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does herby grant preliminary& final subdivision approval to the project subject to the following conditions: 7 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 i. Submission of three(3)paper copies of the final approved plat showing new boundary line resulting from purchased land, all having a raised seal and signature of a registered licensed surveyor, and ii. Documentation of consolidation of purchased land. Moved by: Glass Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock,Elliott, Glass,Johnston, Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 6. Site Plan Review A. Construction of a Single Family Home, 243 Cliff Street, Laurel Hart & Dave Nutter. Adoption of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes to construct a single family home on a newly subdivide parcels (see above). Access to the proposed home on Parcel B will be via a new access drive connecting to Park Road. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(11 for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a negative determination of Environmental Significance on June 25, 2019 Adopted Resolution for Final Site Plan Approval On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS:an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a subdivision, the construction of one single family home and associated site improvements to be located at 243 Cliff Street, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the .36 acre site into two parcels and build one single family home and install associated site improvements. Access to the proposed home on Parcel B will be via a new access drive connecting to Park Road. The property is in the R-3a Zoning District, and WHEREAS:due to the site's adjacency to parkland,this has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176+13)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(1.1) s, and WHEREAS: that the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on June 25, 2019. declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6(B)(4)and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: a Public Hearing for the proposed action was held on June 25, 2019, and 8 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did, on June 25, 2019 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form(FEAF),Part 1,submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff and drawings titled"Boundary and Topographic Map No.237- 239&243 Cliff Street,City of Ithaca,Tompkins County,New York"dated 1/10/19 and"Subdivision Map No. 243 Cliff Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated 7/16/19 and prepared by TG Miller PC, and "Foundation Plan Cl" dated 3/22/19, an annotated C-1 drawing showing stormwater management practices and dated 6/12/19, and all prepared by SPEC Consulting, and three drawings showing building elevations labeled EV1, EV2,EV3 &EV4 dated 5/24/19 and prepared by ICON Legacy and other application materials, and WHEREAS:the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency,did determine, as more clearly elaborated in the FEAF,that the Applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on June 25, 2019 determine the proposed project would will result in no significant impact on the environment and did make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does herby grant preliminary& final subdivision approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of building materials, and ii. Any future changes should be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, and iii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits,tree permits, street permits, etc., and Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock,Elliott,Glass,Johnston,Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None B. Elm St Apartments, 203-211 Elm Street, by Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Inc. (INNS). Extension of Site Plan Approval. The proposed project consists of the demolition of one single family home and two apartment buildings and the construction of a single 1.2,585 SF apartment building with 13 dwelling units, parking for six vehicles, and other associated site improvements. The Planning Board Approved this project on October 24, 2017. The applicant is now requesting an extension. Lynn Truame of INHS appeared in front of the Board and explained that they had recently secured funding for the project, but she was not certain she could obtain the building permit before their Site Plan Approval lapsed, so she is applying for the extension. 9 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 Deputy Director Nicholas explained that per the ordinance, applicants have two years from the date of their Site Plan approvals to begin work on the project, but the ordinance allows the Board to grant an extension. Adopted Resolution for an Extension of Site Plan Approval On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Jones: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Granted Final Site Plan Approval for construction of an apartment building at 203-209 Elm St. by Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INNS)on October 24,2017,and WHEREAS:the proposed project consists of the demolition of one single family homes and two apartment buildings and the construction of a single 12,585 SF apartment building with 13 dwelling units,parking for six vehicles, and other associated site improvements. Due to the slope of the site,the building will have 2 stories facing Elm Street and three stories in the rear. The project requires the consolidation of three tax parcels. The project is in the R-3a Zoning district and has received two area variances for relief from rear yard setback and parking requirements, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 (1)(h)[3], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11) for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, did, September 26, 2017, issues a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting an extension of the site plan approval for 12 months, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does herby grant the requested extension until October 2020. Moved by: Blalock Seconded by: Jones In favor: Blalock,Elliott,Glass,Johnston,Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None C. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan, 620 S.Aurora Street by Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Design Review & Discussion of Outstanding Items for Final Approval Agency. The proposed Chain Works District is located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca's municipal boundary. It is a proposed mixed-use development consisting of residential, office, commercial,retail,restaurant/cafe,warehousing/distribution, manufacturing, and open space. Completion of the Project is estimated to be over a seven-to-ten year period and will involve renovation of existing structures as well as new structures to complete a full buildout of 1,706,150 SF. The applicant applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, and site plan review for Phase 1 of the 10 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 development in 2014. The project also involves a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) in the Town and subdivision. This project is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Code, Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §174- 6 (B)(1)(i),(j),(k),(n), (2), (6), (7),(8)(a)and (b) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4 (b)(2),(3), (5)(iii), (6)(i), and (iv), for which the Lead Agency issued a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 28, 2014. The Lead Agency held subsequently Public Scoping on November 18, 2014. The Lead Agency deemed the Draft GEIS adequate for public review on March 8, 2016, held the public hearing on March 29, 2016 and accepted comments until May 10, 2016. The Lead Agency filed a Notice of Completion for the FGEIS on March 5, 2019. The FGEIS includes the original DGEIS, all comments and responses on the DGEIS, revised information resulting from those comments, and updated information since the publication of the DEIS. The Board adopted findings on March 26, 2019. The applicant is now proposing Phase 1 of the project which entails the rehabilitation of buildings 21 and 24. Jamie Gensel appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. The Board and applicant reviewed the proposed Chainworks design guidelines and the resolution for final approval of Phase 1, likely to be considered at the August meeting. D. Arthaus, 130 Cherry Street by Whitham Planning & Design. Consideration of Amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance & Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. The applicant proposes an as-of-right five-story building approximately 63 feet of height with gallery, office and affordable residential space at 130 Cherry Street, on the east side of the Cayuga Inlet. The site is currently the location of AJ Foreign Auto. The program includes ground floor covered parking for approximately 52 vehicles, plus 7,000 SF of potential retail/office and amenity space geared towards artists' needs. Building levels two through five will house approximately 1.20 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom residential units. The total building square footage is 97,500 SF. All residential rental units will be restricted to renters earning 50 to 80 percent of the Area Median Income. The north edge of the property will include a publicly-accessible path leading to an inlet overlook. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance § 176-413(1)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4(b)(11). Applicants Kate Chesebrough of Whitham Planning and Design, and Molly Chiang of the Vecino Group appeared in front of the Board to report that the air quality tests they had done indicated no "reportable" levels of metals (Cr, Cu, Fe, or Pb) in or near the proposed project site. The tests performed had limits of detection (LODs) several orders of magnitude below OSHA's workplace exposure levels. All samples were reported as being below the LOD. 11 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 The Board then reviewed and adopted a Negative Declaration resolution, amended to include the new information before considering Final Site Plan Approval. Adopted Resolution for an Amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS: on April 23, 2019, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that the proposed Arthaus Project at 130 Cherry St would result in no significant impact 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, and WHEREAS:the applicant proposes an as-of-right five-story building approximately 63 feet in height with gallery, office and affordable residential space at 130 Cherry Street, on the east side of the Cayuga Inlet. The program includes ground floor covered parking for approximately 36 vehicles, plus 7,600 SF of potential retail/office and amenity space geared towards artists' needs. Building levels two through five will house approximately 120 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom residential units. The total building square footage is 97,500 SF. The north edge of the property will include a publicly accessible path to the Inlet, and WHEREAS:this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance § 176-413(1)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4(b)(11), both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS:in accordance with§176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e)of SEQRA,the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency has determined that (1) new information has been discovered, and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant adverse impact will occur, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on June 25, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate the new information consisting of.a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF),Parts 2 and 3,prepared by Planning staff and a letter and from Peter Wissoker dated May 28,2019, and supporting material,a response letter from J Kevin Cassil,Principal Scientist for Environmental Works, INC. dated June 10, 2019, and a report titled Metals in Air Testing Area III Ambient Air Sampling Delta Project No. 2019.316.001, and other supporting materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby amend the Negative Declaration issued on April 23, 2019. to include the above-mentioned information in the environmental record, and be it further RESOLVED:that based on all supporting documentation related to air quality,the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,acting as Lead Agency,does hereby determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact 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. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass,Johnston,Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: None Abstain: None 12 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 Absent: None Vacancies: None Adopted Resolution for an Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a mixed-use development located at 130 Cherry Street, by Whitham Planning & Design, applicant for owner, and WHEREAS:the applicant proposes an as-of-right five-story building approximately 63 feet in height with gallery, office and affordable residential space at 130 Cherry Street, on the east side of the Cayuga Inlet. The program includes ground floor covered parking for approximately 36 vehicles, plus 7,600 SF of potential retail/office and amenity space geared towards artists' needs. Building levels two through five will house approximately 120 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom residential units. The total building square footage is 97,500 SF. The north edge of the property will include a publicly accessible path to the Inlet, and WHEREAS:this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance § 176-413(I)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4(b)(11), both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the Action, did, on February 26, 2019 declare itself Lead Agency for environmental review of the Project, and WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6(B)(4)and 176-12 (A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: a Public Hearing for the proposed action was held on April 23, 2019, and WHEREAS:the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review,has on April 23,2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form("FEAF"),Part 1,submitted by the applicant,and Parts 2&3,prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board,the following drawings, "Existing Conditions (C2)", "Demolition Plan (0)", "Site Plan (C4)", "Grading Plan (C5)", "Utility Plan(C6)", "Civil Details (C7 &C8)", "E&S Plan(C9)"and"E&S Details (C10)", dated 3/20/19 and prepared by Fagan Engineers; "1st Floor Plan (P1)" dated 04-02-19, and "2nd Floor Plan (P2)", 3rd Floor Plan(P3)",4th Floor Plan(P4)"and 5th Floor Plan(P5)"dated 01-17-19 and"1st Floor Accessibility", "Exterior Elevations (2 sheets)", "Southeast Approach Perspective", "Northeast Human Scale Perspective (P6, P8 P9 & PI1) " and "Southeast Human. Scale Perspective (P7)" all dated 4/15/19 and "Exterior Elevations (P10)" dated 4/02/19 and all prepared by BW Architects and Engineers; "Site Plan (L-1.0)" dated 3-11-19, and "Landscape Site Plan" — showing Construction Phases Timeline dated 3-06-19, and other application materials,and WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, 13 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 WHEREAS:the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency,did determine, as more clearly elaborated in the FEAF,that the Applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on April 23, 2019 determine the proposed project would will result in no significant impact on the environment and did make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS:in accordance with§176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e)of SEQRA,the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency determined that(1)new information had been discovered, and the Lead Agency determined that no significant adverse impact will occur, and WHEREAS:the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on June 25, 2019 review and accept as adequate the new information consisting of. a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3,prepared by Planning staff and a letter and from Peter Wissoker dated May 28, 2019 and supporting material and a response letter from J Kevin Cassil,Principal Scientist for Environmental Works, INC. dated June 10, 2019 and a report titled Metals in Air Testing Area IH Ambient Air Sampling Delta Project No. 2019.316.001, and other supporting materials, and WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did,on June 25,2019 amend the Negative Declaration issued on April 23, 2019 to include the above-mentioned information in the environmental record, and WHEREAS: this Board,did on July 23,2019 review and accept as adequate the following new and revised drawings: "1st Floor Plan (PR1)", "Tower Floor Plan (PR2)", Exterior Elevations (PR3 & PR4)', Perspectives(PR5-9)and"Proposed Signage(PR 10)"all dated 5/16/19 an prepared by BW Architects and Engineers and other application materials, now, therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does herby grant preliminary& final approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to the Planning Board of project details,including but not limited to lighting, signage, exterior furnishings,bike racks, etc., and ii. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that the driveway preserves lines-of-site and that the sidewalk connects to City ROW on adjacent properties, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised site plan showing any changes since 3/6/19, and iv. Submission of building materials, and V. Submission of a revised first floor plan showing a stripped accessible pathway through the parking garage to the activity room, and vi. Any future changes should be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, and vii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and viii. Execution of a easement agreement between the City and the property owner for portions of the sidewalk on private property, and ix. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits,tree permits, street permits, etc., and Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock,Elliott,Glass,Johnston, Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: None Abstain: None 14 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 Absent: None Vacancies: None E. Student Housing, 815 S.Aurora Street,by Stream Collaborative,Noah Demarest for Project Sponsors Todd Fox & Charlie O'Connor. Determination of Environmental Significance & Potential Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval. The project applicant proposes a new 66 unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings constructed on hillside on the east side of Route 96B, overlooking the proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings will contain (2) one-bedroom units, (41) two-bedroom units, and (23) three-bedroom units. Amenities will include a gym and media room,with access to an outdoor amenity space on the first floor of building B, and a roof terrace and lounge on the fourth floor of building B. The project shares the 2.85 acre site with an existing cell tower facility, garages, an office and a one-bedroom apartment. Site improvements will include walkways and curb cuts to be tied into a public sidewalk proposed by the Town of Ithaca. Fire truck access is proposed at existing site entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be constructed in front of the buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The project will include 67 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property is located in the R-3b Zoning District. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (13)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(I1). Applicants Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative, Adam Fishel of Marathon Engineering, and project sponsor Charlie O'Connell appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. Applicants submitted revised drawings showing changes to the "garage door" for accessing the cisterns under building 1. They also provided cut sheets for the proposed materials. Jones asked what percentage of the lot is greenspace. Demarest did the calculations and said approximately 40 percent. Jones asked if the parking lot is considered a congregation space. Deputy Director Nicholas said no, not according to the zoning. Board and staff then reviewed Part III of the FEAF. Blalock asked about rock removal and if any noise or vibrations were anticipated. Nicholas asked if they would be doing any monitoring. 15 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 Fishel said that he thinks they will be able to manually break up and remove the shale and would not be doing any blasting, so monitoring should not be necessary. Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones: WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a new 66-unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings, located at 815 South Aurora Street by Stream Collaborative on behalf of the owner, and WHEREAS: the project applicant proposes to construct a new 66 unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings constructed on hillside on the east side of Route 96B, overlooking the proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings will contain(2) one-bedroom units, (41) two-bedroom units, and (23)three-bedroom units.Amenities will include a gym and media room,with access to an outdoor amenity space on the first floor of building B, and a roof terrace and lounge on the fourth floor of building B. The project shares the 2.85 acre site with an existing cell tower facility, garages, an office and a one-bedroom apartment. Site improvements will include walkways and curb cuts to be tied into a public sidewalk proposed by the Town of Ithaca. Fire truck access is proposed at existing site entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be constructed in front of the buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The project will include 67 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property is located in the R-3b Zoning District, and WHEREAS:this is Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (13)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(11), and WHEREAS: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health, and the New York State Department of Transportation, all potentially involved agencies in this action have all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the Action, did, on March 26, 2019 declare itself Lead Agency for environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on July 23, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form("FEAT"),Part 1,submitted by the applicant,and Parts 2&3,prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board,the following drawings: "Topographic Map,No. 815 South Aurora Street, City of Ithaca,Tompkins County,New York" dated 9-26-16 and prepared by T.G. Miller P.C; "Demolition Plan (C1.0)", "Site Plan(C2.0)", "Site Plan Future Access(C2.1)(showing bike parking)","Grading,Drainage and Erosion Control Plan(C3.0&3.1)", "Lighting Plan(C5.0)","Rock Plan(C6.0)","Detail Sheet(C9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 &9.5)"and "Driveway Plan (C10.0, 10.1, 10.2 & 10.3) with a latest revision date of 5-21-19; "Truck Plan (C8.0 & 8.1)' with a latest revision date of 5-23-19 and"Utility Plan(C4.0)"with a latest revision date of 6-14-19 all prepared by Marathon Engineering, and`Building A Unit Area Plans(A.00)",`Building B Unit Area Plans(A.01)", "Building A Exterior Elevations(A2.00)","Building B Exterior Elevations(A2.01)","Building A Sections (A3.01)"and `Building B Sections(A3.03)"dated 6-03-19"Building C Unit Area Plans(A.00)","Building C Exterior Elevations (A2.00)", "Building B Exterior Elevations (A2.01)" and `Building C Sections (A3.00)" dated 6-07-19, all prepared by Stream Collaborative et al; and" Planting Plan (L103)' dated 6- 16 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 21-19; "site Sections(L301)' dated 5-22-19,"Solar Study(A9.1,9.2&9.3)",Context Images(A9.4&9.5) dated 5-09-19; " 815 Aurora Updated Drawings from the Public Way Submitted June 19, 2019", and unattributed renderings showing the rooftop mechanicals layout and screening, hand dated 6-25-19, and other application materials, and WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, WHEREAS:the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly elaborated in the FEAF, that the applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact 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. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Jones In favor: Blalock,Elliott,Glass,Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: Johnston Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Jones requested approval from the City stormwater engineer as a condition of approval. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Site Plan Approval On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a new 66-unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings, located at 815 South Aurora Street by Stream Collaborative on behalf of the owner, and WHEREAS: The project applicant proposes a new 66 unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings constructed on hillside on the east side of Route 96B, overlooking the proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings will contain (2) one-bedroom units, (41) two-bedroom units, and (23) three-bedroom units. Amenities will include a gym and media room, with access to an outdoor amenity space on the first floor of building B, and a roof terrace and lounge on the fourth floor of building B. The project shares the 2.85 acre site with an existing cell tower facility, garages, an office and a one-bedroom apartment. Site improvements will include walkways and curb cuts to be tied into a public sidewalk proposed by the Town of Ithaca. Fire truck access is proposed at existing site entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be constructed in front of the buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The project will include 67 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property is located in the R-3b Zoning District, and 17 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 WHEREAS:this is Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (13)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(11), and WHEREAS: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health, and the New York State Department of Transportation, all potentially involved agencies in this action, all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, and, WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the Action, did, on March 26, 2019 declare itself Lead Agency for environmental review of the Project, and WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), &(3)of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board held a required Public Hearing on April 23, 2019, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on July 23, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form("FEAF"),Part 1,submitted by the applicant,and Parts 2&3,prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board,the following drawings: "Topographic Map,No. 815 South Aurora Street, City of Ithaca,Tompkins County,New York" dated 9-26-16 and prepared by T.G. Miller P.C; "Demolition Plan(C1.0)", "Site Plan(C2.0)", "Site Plan Future Access(C2.1)(showing bike parking)","Grading,Drainage and Erosion Control Plan(C3.0&3.1)", "Lighting Plan(C5.0)","Rock Plan(C6.0)","Detail Sheet(C9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 & 9.5)"and "Driveway Plan (C10.0, 10.1, 10.2 & 10.3) with a latest revision date of 5-21-19; "Truck Plan (C8.0 & 8.1)' with a latest revision date of 5-23-19 and"Utility Plan (C4.0)"with a latest revision date of 6-14-19 all prepared by Marathon Engineering, and`Building A Unit Area Plans(A.00)","Building B Unit Area Plans(A.01)", "Building A Exterior Elevations(A2.00)",`Building B Exterior Elevations(A2.01)","Building A Sections (A3.01)"and `Building B Sections(A3.03)"dated 6-03-19`Building C Unit Area Plans(A.00)",`Building C Exterior Elevations (A2.00)", `Building B Exterior Elevations (A2.01)" and `Building C Sections (A3.00)" dated 6-07-19, all prepared by Stream Collaborative et al; and" Planting Plan (L103)' dated 6- 21-19;"site Sections(L301)' dated 5-22-19,"Solar Study(A9.1,9.2&9.3)",Context Images(A9.4&9.5) dated 5-09-19; " 815 Aurora Updated Drawings from the Public Way Submitted June 19, 2019", and unattributed renderings showing the rooftop mechanicals layout and screening, hand dated 6-25-19, and other application materials,and WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, WHEREAS:the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly elaborated in the FEAF,that the proposed Project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment and did issue a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and RESOLVED: the Planning Board does herby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project. Such approval applies to the major elements of the site layout including building placement and footprints, location and design of major routes of site circulation pertaining to emergency access,personal,commercial and service vehicles, and pedestrians and bikes,grading and demolition, and placement of major hardscape features such as walls, patios, stairways, etc. Preliminary approval does not apply to the placement and arrangement of building fagade features, building and hardscape materials and colors, planting plans, lighting, signage, site furnishings and other site details, and be it further 18 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 RESOLVED: Preliminary Approval for this project is subject to the following conditions: Before Final Site Plan Approval: i. Submission to the Planning Board of colored and keyed building elevations for all facades, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of documentation of the hours of operation of the exterior amenity spaces, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of all site details including building materials and colors, signage,lighting, exterior furnishings,paving, wall and railing materials and details, and iv. Applicant to consider additional exterior bike racks, and V. Submission to the Board of the layout of covered bike parking, and vi. Acceptance of the SWPPP by the City Stormwater Management Officer, and Before issuance of a Building Permit i. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that all concerns have been addressed, and ii. Documentation of a binding commitment for winter sidewalk snow removal, and iii. Documentation from Ithaca Fire Department and DOT that all transportation and emergency access issues have been satisfied, and Before Certificate of Occupancy iv. Any future changes should be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, and V. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and vi. Execution of a easement agreement between the City and the property owner for portions of the sidewalk on private property, and vii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits,tree permits, street permits, etc., and Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock,Elliott,Glass,Johnston,Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Jones requested staff draft a memo to Common Council informing them that the cell tower regulations they have enacted are allowing for parking lots to be in use within the fall zone of the tower. F. Commercial Building —3,450 SF, 410 Elmira Road by PW Campbell for Visions Credit Union. Public Hearing & Determination of Environmental Significance. The applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 SF commercial building with a drive- through, parking area for 20 cars, a 940 SF amphitheater, and associated site improvements on the 1.56 acre project site. The site is currently vacant. The project site is in the SW-3 Zoning district and will likely require an area variance. The project is subject to the Southwest Area Design Guidelines. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance 19 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 §176-4(B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(11). Mitch Leech of PW Campbell, Joe Ligouri of Visions Credit Union, and Garth Winterkorn of Costich Engineering appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. Public Hearing On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Blalock, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina. Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS:an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for the construction of a 3,450 SF commercial building and associated site improvements located at 410 Elmira Road by PW Campbell for Visions Credit Union, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 SF commercial building with a drive-through, parking area for 20 cars, a 940 SF amphitheater, and associated site improvements on the 1.56 acre project site.The site is currently vacant.The project site is in the SW-3 Zoning district and requires area variances. The project is subject to the Southwest Area Design Guidelines, and WHEREAS:this has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(13)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(11), WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the Action,did,on June 25,2019 declare itself Lead Agency for environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on July 23, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form("FEAF"),Part 1,submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3,prepared by Planning staff and the following drawings: `Existing Features /Demolition Plan (CA100)", "Site and Pavements Marking Plan (CA110)", "Utility Plan (CA120)", "Grading and Erosion Control Plan(CA130)", "Lighting Plan(EA100)"and all dated 7/10/19 and"Detail Sheet (CA500 & 501)" dated 5/17/19 and "Landscape Plan (LA100)" dated 7/18/19 and "Exhibit A (CE100)" dated 7/17/19 and all prepared by Costich Engineering, and "Proposed Building Elevations (A201 202&203),and"Proposed Site Plan(A101)"dated 7/12/19 and"Proposed Amphitheater Floor Plan (A102)"and"Proposed Amphitheater Elevations(A204)"dated 5/17/19 and all prepared by PW Campbell, and other application materials, and 20 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, WHEREAS:the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly elaborated in the FEAF, that the applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact 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. Moved by: Johnston Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock,Elliott,Glass,Johnston,Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None G. Immaculate Conception Redevelopment Project (Mixed Use Housing), 320 W Buffalo Street by Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. Project Presentation & Public Hearing. The project involves the renovation/conversion of the existing two-story former school building into a mixed- use building, a new four-story apartment building, (2) three unit townhome buildings, (1) four-unit townhome building, the renovation/conversion of a single family home into a two-family home, and the renovation of the "Catholic Charities" Building. The overall project will contain 79 dwelling units with 1.30 bedrooms. Total increase in square footage on the site will be 49,389 SF, from 62,358 to 111,747. 9,274 sf of new and existing space in the former school will be commercial use. Site development will require demolition of one wing of the existing school building and one single-family home. The project also includes greenspace areas,48 surface parking spaces and other site amenities. The property is located in the R-2b zoning district, however the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(13)(1)(k), (n), (13)(6), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(11). Lynn Truame of INHS and Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. Public Hearing On a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Jones, seconded by Elliott. 21 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 H. Carpenter Circle Project, Carpenter Park Road by Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC. Project Presentation & Declaration of Lead Agency. The project seeks to develop the existing 8.7-acre vacant parcel located adjacent to Route 13 and off of Third Street. The proposal includes a 64,000 SF medical office; two mixed-use buildings,which will include ground-level retail/restaurant/commercial uses of 23,810 SF, interior parking, 166 market-rate apartment units, and 4,652 SF of amenity space; and a residential building offering +/-42 residential units for residents earning 50-60% AMI. Site amenities will include public spaces for residents and visitors, bike parking, transit access for TCAT, open green space, a playground, and access to the Ithaca Community Gardens. The project includes 400 surface parking spaces and an internal road network with sidewalks and street trees. The project sponsor is seeking a Break in Access from NYS DOT to install an access road off of Rte 13. The property is located in the Market District; however, the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project will require subdivision to separate each program element. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176- 4(B)(1)(d), (i), (k), and(B)(6) and(8)(a) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") §617.4(b)(I 1). Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning and Design and Andrew Bodewes of Park Grove Realty appeared with other members of the project team to present to the Board. After the presentation, the Board reviewed Part II of the FEAF. I. Student Apartments, 232 Dryden Road by Todd Fox for Visum Development. Project Presentation & Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story building with eight apartments and associated site improvements. The .884-acre project site contains two recently completed apartment buildings. Site development requires the removal of existing landscaped areas and the removal, relocation, or upgrading of water and sewer lines within Summit Avenue. Site improvements will include retaining walls, landscaping, walkways, and exterior bike racks. Parking for bikes will be provided inside the buildings. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. As no parking is proposed for the project,the applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations. The project is likely to require area variances. This has been determined to be an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and requires environmental review. 22 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 Noah Demarest appeared in front of the Board. Due to the lateness of the hour, he suggested foregoing any presentation that night, and the Board agreed. Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones: 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 Review for a new 8-unit apartment building located at 232 Dryden Road(City of Ithaca Tax Parcel#64.- 2-18)by Todd Fox for Visum Development, and WHEREAS. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story building with eight apartments and associated site improvements. The .884-acre project site contains two recently completed apartment buildings. Site development requires the removal of existing landscaped areas and the removal,relocation, or upgrading of water and sewer lines within Summit Avenue. Site improvements will include retaining walls, landscaping, walkways, and exterior bike racks. Parking for bikes will be provided inside the buildings. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. As no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan(TDMP)for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations. The project is likely to require area variances, and WHEREAS: This has been determined to be an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and requires environmental review, now, therefore be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,does,by way of this resolution, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Jones In favor: Blalock,Elliott,Glass,Johnston,Jones,Lewis,Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None 7. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals • # 3129—Area Variance, 825 Taber Street 23 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The Board does not object to the side yard variance because the right of way remains large enough for a future sidewalk and tree lawn. Although two trees will be removed, the appellant has agreed to replace them. The Board also welcomes the expansion of existing businesses and investment in this area of the city. • # 3130—Area Variance, 205 Fairmount Avenue The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The Board does not object to the side yard variance because the right of way remains large enough for a future sidewalk and tree lawn.Although two trees will be removed, the appellant has agreed to replace them. The Board also welcomes the expansion of existing businesses and investment in this area of the City. • # 3131—Area Variance, 215 Mitchell Street In general the Board does not support establishment or expansion of front yard parking in residential areas. The Board also recognizes that sensitive design could make it acceptable in unique situations. This is a relatively low density residential area that should maintain a residential character including adequate greenspace,provisions for pedestrian and bike safety and design that reflects a human scale. The appellant has provided drawings that show a very large parking area consuming about half of the front yard. The Board sees neither a unique situation nor sensitive design in this plan and does not support it as proposed. • # 3132—Area Variance, 315 Elmira Road The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. • # 3133 —Sign Variance, 900 W. State Street The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. This is a unique site with three street facing sides and seems to require additional signage. 8. Old/New Business • PRC Meeting After some discussion, the Board agreed to move the time of the PRC to 8:30 a.m. on Thursday two weeks before Planning Board. 0 Inclusionary Zoning/Zoning to Promote Affordable Housing The Board discussed options for holding a special meeting to discuss the issue. The fifth Tuesday in October was identified as a possible time. 9. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Chair Lewis suggested that the Board draft a letter to the IURA supporting the larger of the two "Plan B" options of the Green Street Garage replacement(the option with a larger number of affordable housing units.) The resulting letter is attached as an addendum to these minutes. 24 Approved by the Planning & Development Board on August 27, 2019 B. Board of Public Works Liaison Blalock said that there is a great opportunity at this time (especially due to the proposed Carpenter Park project) to address problems along Route 13 and identify improvements. C. Director of Planning & Development Deputy Director Nicholas had no report. 10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. by unanimous consent. 25 rQ-,#c6(S5Avom,* (aa2 ,5511 Why are we still here? Why is this massive development project still on the table when it is out of character with our South Hill neighborhood; at odds with goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan; and promises us adverse environmental impacts?Any one of these reasons are reason enough to deny site approval.But then the glaring illegal element embedded in the site plan should have already given us pause. Clearly stated in a resolution approved by Common Council on April 13, 2016: "No outdoor area where people congregate shall be allowed in a cellphone tower fall zone," That resolution gave these developers the industry standard fall zone they sought, But we will not accept illegally plach-ig a parking lot in the fall zone for safety and liability reasons alone. And yet,here we are. Aft-kcordhig to tonight's,agenda, we will focus on determining the environmental significance of this development as outlined in the Code section 176, sub-section 7. The Code defines significance as "an adverse change in existing conditions" in any of a number of categories. We have two. Tlie increase in traffic levels is one of them. Traffic studies which developers submitted to this board do not come close to addressing what promises to be a traffic -level nightmare.Buried in this DOT traffic study one finds a comparison with studies from 2010 in cities around the country (like,my hometown Phoenix, AZ) which are geographically FLAT. The increase in traffic levels promised by this development will be shaped by the hill of South Hill. The proposed development has only one entrance off 96B which means that cars coming uphill take a left into the lot holding up traffic already struggling for momentum at that point. To that we will add downhill traffic that will be reduced to one lane after the new turnoff to Coddington. All this in addition to unclarified. traffic flows in the lot and the inadequate number of space*eR . For those of-us,who enjoyed the "natural" flow of water eeking through the shale bedrock to our basements yesterday, this development also threatens to increase the quantity of storm water runoff;another impact outlined in the Code's criteria for determining significance. Though some might be impressed, even enamored with the proposed drainage system of retention ponds, berns, and Baracudas, the developers' drainage plan offers NO adequate address to overland-runoff on a site whose plan more than doubles the parcel's impervious surface.It's just that the cause for this site's 1�ck t "144 -fL-( I e egregious impacts cannot be mitigated/%Wproblem is, the hi X which t1-ds site is sited. A very steep hill which,in addition to these envirormiental impacts, magnifies the project's density, its mass,its aggressive 40' wall, proximity to its downhill neighbors, You have all the reason in the world to reject this site Tel tonight.IfAyoU cannot agree that these adverse impacts are significant, then we request that the Boaxd make a Negative Declaration tonight demanding that developers prepare and file a detailed EIS. This process would bring the light of public scrutiny to the egregious details of this development. We are not a small group of disgruntled neighbors,, we represent at least 500 South residents who have recorded their rejection of ffiis development. I trust that you will ultimately vote to deny approval to the site plan at 815 S Aurora Street, Jonathan & Jill Greene 213 Mitchell Street Ithaca NY 14850 July 19, 2019 Gino Leonardi, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals City of Ithaca 108 Green Street Ithaca NY 14850 RE: Appeal #3131 for 215 Mitchell Street Dear Mr. Leonardi, Thank you again for your time last week to review the materials regarding the requested variance for 215 Mitchell Street (Case #3131). We are the owners and residents of 213 Mitchell Street. As we discussed during our meeting, we DO NOT support the proposed variance #3131 that applicants, Kim and Andrew Englehart are seeking. While we were previously aware of the applicants' general interest in pursuing a driveway expansion, the letter received on Monday, July 15, 2019, was the first time we and other neighbors were notified of the actual plan. And it wasn't until Sunday, July 21, 2019, only days before the Planning Board hearing, when the applicants shared with us a detailed plan that included engineering drawings. Thus, the applicants did not adequately discuss the nature and potential impacts of the proposal prior to filing. Common sense dictates the courtesy of a discussion and thorough review of the plans with neighbors impacted by a project of this nature. We understand the applicants may desire to have additional green space in their backyard. While municipal code allows for consideration of variances for parking areas greater than 25% of front lot area, applicants and the City are legally required to meet specific evidentiary requirements before a variance may be granted [IMC Section 325- 40 C(4)(b)]. Among other factors, this determination must consider any "...detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant." As shown below, it is clear that the applicants HAVE NOT, AND CANNOT, meet the evidentiary burden for the City to grant the requested variance. • An undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood AND a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. o There is significant potential damage to mature landscaping and walkway on the east side of our property during construction (Figure 1), which are directly adjacent to the proposed location of the driveway. The applicant's engineering plan does not address these potential impacts, nor did our discussion with them Page 1 of 7 leave us with any confidence that they would steward the construction in a manner as to consider and mitigate potential damage to our property. o Our discussion on Sunday July 21, 2019, indicated several inconsistencies between the engineering plan and their interpretations of this plan. For example, the engineering plan calls for removal of the existing retaining wall between our properties. However, the applicant stated numerous times that this wall will remain in-tact and a new wall will be constructed uphill. o There is significant potential for post construction property damage from changes in surface water drainage to our property which is downhill. Surprisingly, the applicant was not aware that the engineering plan calls for the driveway's main drainage pipe to terminate in a location that could damage mature landscaping on our property, as well as flood our basement (Figure 2). o The proposed plan suggests an increase in overall green space on the applicant's lot. However, it does so at the expense of 5X reduction in front lot green space, from 91% to 52%. This unnecessary increase in hardscape is aesthetically negative for the neighborhood and runs contrary to the stated goals of the City's comprehensive plan (Plan Ithaca P.17 & Figure 3). Further, the proposed site plan appears to be more of a parking area, as opposed to a standard driveway. In fact, during our discussion on Sunday, July 21, 2019, the applicant stated that the intent of the proposed design was to enable them to turn their cars around to avoid backing out onto Mitchell Street. However, the applicant's current driveway enables them to do just that. Thus, the variance is NOT required to improve safety conditions. o By granting this type of request the City, may create an unwanted precedent that results in similar requests by other residents living on busy streets. o Proposed location of the applicant's driveway actually reduces their sight lines to Mitchell Street due to the presence of a Cherry Tree on our property and the cars in our driveway (Figure 4). • Applicant has NOT demonstrated that their stated objectives and benefits cannot be met through feasible alternative means, other than an area variance. o Applicant have NOT explored alternative site plans that include using part of their backyard for a driveway and/or a minor expansion of their existing driveway in the front in order to achieve their goals of increased green space. o With a minor front yard expansion of the current driveway, the existing driveway along the East side of the applicant's house could be terminated at a reasonable distance to the south to enable plenty of parking for the applicant AND the ability to turn most of their backyard into greenspace. This feasible alternative could include: ■ A Less costly resolution of the elevation difference between the Englehart's and Moore's driveway and Mitchell Street. ■ Less obstructed sightlines between drivers on Mitchell Street and those existing the driveway on 215 Mitchell Street ■ Maintain the character of Belle Sherman neighborhood with only a 16% increase in parking area in the front of the applicant's lot (Figure 3) Page 2 of 7 o The owners of 217 Mitchell Street, Justin and Stephanie Moore, have expressed a willingness to discuss a property conveyance that addresses the current encroachment of the Englehart's driveway onto their property. A walk of the site indicates that there are in fact potential benefits to both property owners to complete site work on the area that separates their properties. ■ The requested area variance is substantial and is NOT a "relatively minor" deviation from the area requirements in question. o A 5x increase in driveway area over the existing conditions and is nearly double the percentage allowed by code is indeed substantial. ■ The proposed variance WOULD have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; o A significant reduction in front lot green space is not consistent with the City of Ithaca's comprehensive plan (P.17) and will negatively impact the character of the Belle Sherman neighborhood (Figure 3). o Reduced sight lines from the proposed location of the parking area have the potential for MORE vehicular accidents, as well as other negative interactions with bicycles and pedestrians. ■ The alleged difficulty was self-created by the applicants o Applicant purchased 215 Mitchell Street about 5 years ago with full knowledge of the driveway and yard conditions. o Applicant acknowledges that Mitchell Street is a busy street, but they have provided no evidence how the proposed driveway plan will improve overall pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety. In fact, the plan will have the opposite impact as previously indicated. o Dog ownership is not a reasonable basis for a variance. Moreover, applicant has not provided any evidence that the proposed project is necessary to adequately fence their backyard to contain their dogs safely. The applicant has clearly not met the evidentiary requirements required under the law. The negative impacts to the neighbors and the overall neighborhood of this proposed project are clear. There are no net positive impacts to the character of neighborhood, accessibility for handicap persons, historic preservation, and affordable housing. And the applicant has not shown that there are no feasible alternate options that achieve the desired result without seeking a variance. Because the applicant has clearly not met the evidentiary requirements mandated by IMC Section 325-40 C(4)(d) and IMC Section 325-40 C(4)(d), the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot by law grant this variance request. In closing, we want to state that since moving in to their house at 215 Mitchell Street, the Englehart family have been kind and friendly neighbors and, therefore, a welcome addition to the neighborhood. The Englehart's overall goals can be achieved with a minor expansion of the existing driveway that may not require a variance. This option would meet their needs while balancing safety, maximizing green space, and maintaining neighborhood aesthetics. If after a thorough engineering review of this or Page 3 of 7 other alternate options a variance may be warranted, we would be more than willing to revisit the discussion with the applicant and our neighbors. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, Jill and Jonathan Greene 213 Mitchell Street Cc: Planning Board —City of Ithaca Beard of Zoning Appeals-City of Ithaca Page 4 of 7 . . w .� n $ 1s 4, 1 V{e I , h n t I S, n o s i View of Proposed Parking View of Proposed Parking View of Street Entry of Area (right) from Walkway on Area of 215 Mitchell from Proposed Parking Area from 213 Mitchell, Facing North front Yard of 213 Mitchell, front Yard of 213 Mitchell, Facing South Facing North Figure 1: Mature Landscaping and Existing Retaining Wall Separating 213 & 215 Mitchell Street. , u „ ,e 1' ryry Y i r, 14� 1 .mm Figure 2: Approximate Location of Drainage Pipe Termination for Proposed Project Above Mature Landscaping and Existing Retaining Wall, East (Uphill) Side of Property Between 213 & 215 Mitchell Street. Page 5 of 7 d s � is sYt`� s rfli� v �.o n n Figure 3: Typical Driveways in Belle Sherman Neighborhood on Mitchell Street and Brandon Place Page 6 of 7 r y ,y4. ` S !db 1LlYr< l�`l`SyZy `11,,�ryaStky� ,?S x:, T} t y Figure 4: Sight Lines of Oncoming Downhill Traffic on Mitchell Street from Existing Driveway of 215 Mitchell Street (left) and Proposed Driveway of 215 Mitchell Street (right) Page 7 of 7 Good Evening. Thank you to the members of the Planning Board for considering our case, y name is Andrew En elhart and my wife and i live at 215 Mitchell Street in a home we purchased in 2014. We are asking the board to consider our case for a variance to Section 55- E( )that requires Parking Areas in the front yard to be %or less. our current driveway is located on the East side of the house(next to 237)and goes to the rear of the property where there is a lame parking area and 3 car open bay garage. We currently have no back yard and our only lawn is in the front of the house next to-a rather busy street, Our proposal is to'create a permeable gravel driveway on the West side of the house (next to )that would permit one vehicle to be parked next to our house and another vehicle offsetting it. We would reclaim the existing driveway and half of the garage area to lawn with the net effect increasing,green space by—70 SF1 For us, it's all about safety. First,we would like to fence our new backyard so that our dogs do not have access to Mitchell Street. One of our dogs whose older has already wondered across Mitchell Street but luckily it was at 5 in the morning when there was no traffic. Another benefit for the new driveway would be to eliminate the steep ramp to enter the driveway. Currently we almost must come to a complete stop so that the car doesn't bottom-out. Even with a turn signal on and brake lights,cars following too closely have nearly hit us. This is even more challenging exiting the driveway to get the angle just right while watching for vehicles bath ways. Most importantly,we are requesting the variance specifically to allow for enough room for the vehicles to make a 3 Paint Turn so that we are forward facing out the driveway. This will:allow for a safer exit as we will have better visibility around the curve;: e have had numerous contractors review the situation,and this was honestly the best proposal of all of them However,we did meet with our neighbors(the Greeves and Justin-`Moore)on Sunday night to discuss a proposal that they came up with, Both neighbors would prefer the driveway remain where it is,allow stacked parking next to the house and the driveway be expanded to allow the cars to back up into the front yard. This proposal would not be feasible as both the water and gas lines are on that side of the house. I also demonstrated to them that the car doors barely open making access to the vehicles challenging. Jon Greene suggested that the hill closest to 217 could be cut back and a retaining wall erected on Justin Moore's property. It is my opinion that this was not an acceptable solution to Justin. Keeping the entrance on this side would also require us to purchase a slither of land from Justin Moore and his wife as we would still be intruding on their property line. We have been discussing moving the driveway to the other side of the house with the Greeves since we purchased the property. The previous owner had already obtained a Street Permit but it had expired prior to our purchase. The Greenes told us their initial concern was the retaining wall located on our property so we made sure we discussed keeping it with every contractor. They also stated early on that we would have an issue with the ice on our driveway during the winter, We stated that our goal was to have a permeable surface. Their third concern was for our safety in exiting the driveway. We have mentioned to them in the past that we would be creating an area large enough for a vehicle to turn around. As recently as two months ago,we walked the boundary line with the Greeves showing them where the new retaining wall would be located. During our'discussions with the Greenes on Sunday night,it became apparent that the main reason they are against our driveway is that our cars would be visible out their side kitchen window. They also stated that the noise of opening/closing car doors would disturb their children sleeping. The 200 block of Mitchell Street borders Collegetown with heavily populated student housing resulting in social gatherings with loud music into the early morning hours. This generates far more noise than the two vehicles we plan on having parked in the new driveway. We have invested a significant amount of money to remove 3 trees as well as have an engineer draw up the plans all of which the Greenes knew about. We addressed each concern that the Greenes had brought to us over the years of planning this driveway and at no point was it ever mentioned that they did not want our cars parked there until we pressed the issue on Sunday. Without the variance, a 16 foot wide driveway could still be located on the west side, it would just create a safety hazard to backout onto a busy street,around a corner with a tree vehicles potentially obstructing our view. I respectfully ask you to recommend our variance in the interest of not only our safety but also the other drivers coming up the hill. Exeisteing Forward Fac *ing t " x Goo Poor a. r� b}. lwr tit r, 4 1, .o � f 9v e �,: Proposed Forward W5 23 �µ ,. Visibility/Safety q Good Y .E''.l. ..:• � ham` t.�;: ��+'§' '. .;..,. tli+L \C`tkY"S"KYfi'ddtt�`U. 1 Yt t e„ 4�l�it� tat , ... v h} d rt t£X ... 0 u w r u Poor t � f ��� ` • .., a�`� � , s �... ;, x v � �.w t eN d, N \ . W..,w YS YK�'1�Y � • zsa��1 a� u�. Z j ti t No Var 'iance Back f in Out Good Poop '41 Neighbor 's a \ .� . , :z �\ . �� »° .Easy Way to . . .Access Vehicles /\§ d\y further Pro . . \ Lind Intrusion into 2,17. x � 1 � p, fiSk`ex 1 srA u ys. 4; x to o. F.S � x e � 2 r• i. m n v v w , s { � l fi � � s a n � e. t `9 N .0 r r' Iv I Y S 4u ry tit # W Gas & Water Lines, P' 7. 1 m t � i `� t.'t�,tN ..,..� � ,�.. •�ti agt~r,.t r h }'P t �t, n v 4 � lh �a s , w n 4 a M e u� .n, w n � o w a a, ZZ Architectural l Rendering with permission from L. "Bear" Smith y Architectural Associate John Snyder Architects, LI Three815 AURORA IMPACT ON SOUTH HILL NEIGHBORHOOD • providing 68 parking spaces • Safety Concern: Limited Emergency Vehicle Access • Safety Concern: Project is in the shadow of a cell tower fall zone • Environmental developers• Many more unanswered issues by developer Over 500 neighbors and friends have signed petitions The are doing everything they can to push this project 7/31/2019 815 South Aurora Street 815 South Aurora Street John Snyder [John@js-architects.com] Sent:Tuesday,July 23, 2019 6:40 PM To: Anya Harris; Lisa Nicholas Anya, Please see attached letter in regards to the 815 South Aurora Street project. My name is John Snyder from John Snyder Architects. I am an architect who has been before this board many times over the years. I am here on behalf of the Dennis Family,property owners who own property immediately adjacent to the proposed development of 815 South Aurora. The Dennis family has been a client of my office for many years and we have been before this board for some of our projects, most notably the townhouse units we designed on Hudson Place. The projects we have completed for the Dennis family are projects responding to the family rental needs of the community. Not dormitory style small units. Recently we completed a nice fence project in front of the apartment units on Coddington working with Dan Segal at the Plantsman Nursery. It is the plan to extend this design to other areas of the site and undertake renovations to the facades on the existing buildings giving them a fresh more contemporary look replacing the aged cedar and other dated parts of the buildings. I have been asked to come before you to comment on the environmental aspects of this project and to call to your attention the incredible effort that will be needed to remove over 3000 yards of stone from this site. The engineering report(in my opinion)does not adequately address how this material will be removed only to state that this will be removed using standard construction processes. There is nothing standard with removing this quantity of material. This will require large equipment such as a hoe ram(s)which will be extremely noisy and bothersome to the residents nearby. The hour of construction are noted in the report as 7:30-7:30 pm. I would love to have coffee with any of you on a jobsite close to a hoe- ram at waking or end of the day hours. When the geo-technical work was performed by the applicant elderly neighbors raised concerns about vibrations. Additionally it is not clear where all this material will be removed to. A trucking route was called out or crushing material on site however please understand this is a significant construction effort that will require careful attention and coordination with the community. I would urge you all to pay particular attention to the documentation prepared by the applicant relative to this particular environmental concern. Sincerely, John Snyder,AIA 0 ARC H IT ECT John Snyder,AIA,NCIDQ,LEED AP President+Design Principal John Snyder Architects,PLLC 700 Cascadilla Street.Suite 2031 Ithaca,NY 14850 1 607.273.3565 www.johnsnyderarchitects.com Please consider our environment before prin ng e-mails or a achments. https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAARIsSZOEVsS4n2MKDkun3eBwDjpccsYj4cR7Vd9alRbaQ2AABDbVgtAADjpccsY... 1/2 7/31/2019 815 South Aurora Street CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this transmission,as well as any accompanying documents,constitutes copyrighted,confidential and/or legally privileged information which is the property of JSA:John Snyder Architect,PL.-C.This information is covered by the Copyright Law of the United States of America in particular"architectural work"under section 102 of the Copyright Act (Title 17 of the United States Code).The information is intended solely for the individual entity named on this transmittal sheet.If you are not the designated recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or taking any action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited.Use of this copyrighted material for any purpose(social media,company websites,and etc,)without written authorization from John Snyder Architect,PLLC is strictly prohibited and will be enforced.Opinions,conclusions and the information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Jahn Snyder Architects shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by JSA.If you received this email in error,please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. https://maii.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=ltem&t=I PM.Note&id=RgAAAAARIsSZOEVsS4n2MKDkun3eBwDjpccsYj4cR7Vd9alRbaQ2AABDbVgtAADjpccsY... 2/2 City of Ithaca Planning Board Lr - - - - - __ _. To: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency From: Ithaca Planning & Development Board Date: July 24, 2019 RE: Maximizing Affordable Housing at the Green St Garage Mixed Use Redevelopment Project The Planning and Development Board supports the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency's work on the Green Street Garage project. Affordable housing and conference space are both valuable additions to Ithaca's downtown, and this project promises to deliver both. However, conference centers are famously difficult to develop, and there is an open question as to what the project looks like in the absence of a conference center. In the event that the conference center component of the project does not move forward, the Planning and Development Board unanimously encourages the IURA to maximize the amount of affordable housing developed. While there are trade-offs concerning height and construction impacts, this project presents a unique opportunity to supply affordable housing within walking distance to jobs and services. This opportunity should be maximized. Maximizing the amount of affordable housing is not only good planning: It is in keeping with the mission of the IURA, which is charged with "...expanding access to quality affordable housing, strengthening neighborhoods and the local economy..." The Planning and Development Board supports this mission and this project, and looks forward to seeing both progress.