The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-PDB-2019-04-23 Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes April 23, 2019 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair; Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Mitch Glass, Matthew Johnston; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Signage – CFCU New Commons Branch Office Lisa Whitaker, president and CEO of CFCU Terry Sullivan, Adrenaline Design Agency Aaron Baker, of SignWorks Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan -- Review of Town PDZ, Presentation of Phase I James Gensel for David Lubin, Unchained Properties NCRE Cornell University – Presentation & Public Hearing Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Kimberley Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Arvind Tikku of iKon 5 Architects 130 Cherry Street, Arthaus – Public Hearing & Potential Determination of Environmental Significance Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design Fagan Molly Chiang, Vecino Group Rebecca Cudney, Vecino Group Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 2 224 Fair Street (Formerly 402 Wood Street) – Perdita Flats Matt Cooper, Stream Collaborative Umit Sirt, owner Student Housing 815 S. Aurora Street Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals Todd Fox, Visum Development Carpenter Circle Sketch Plan Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning and Design Andy Bodewes, Park Grove Reality Others Attending: Andrea Aguirre, Tompkins County Business Energy Advisors Program Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Deputy Director Nicholas said there were no changes to the agenda. 2. Special Order of Business: Andrea Aguirre appeared in front of the Board to make a presentation on the Tompkins County Business Energy Advisors Program, which she leads. It’s a program that assists business owners and facility managers in setting energy goals and understanding energy options during the earliest stages of project design and conceptualization, when it is the easiest and most cost- effective to incorporate energy efficiency improvements. Johnston asked how the Board could support the program. Aguirre said making sure business applicants are aware of the program would be helpful. Glass asked how the program aligns with the Green Building Policy. Aguirre said it doesn’t specifically, though some clients have asked about how they might make their projects conform to the policy when it is passed into law. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 3 3. Privilege of the Floor Chair Lewis opened Privilege of the Floor. Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson, spoke about 130 Cherry Street. She said she is concerned about the building’s massing as well as about noise and sound attenuation. She said that given the cliffs across the Inlet and the water itself, she is concerned that the current design will create an echo chamber. She said that she thinks it is a massive structure, and at this point, she regrets that they did not require a step back along the Inlet. She said that she is concerned about the lack of community space within the building itself and that though there is green space proposed along the Inlet, if a 10-foot-wide trail goes in there in the future, it would take up most of that space, so she doesn’t think that can be relied on for a social space for the residents. Brock also spoke about 815 S. Aurora Street. She said that she would like to take the long view in hopes that projects that increase density and locate students closer to campus should relieve some of the pressure on the South Hill neighborhood, but she noted that neighbors have expressed concerns. The project is quite massive and the site abuts R-1 and R-2 zones. She said she would also like to see some step backs here as well, so that the sides facing the R-1 and R-2 properties would not be 40 feet tall, but perhaps 30 feet, so as to be not quite so overwhelming, especially since the buildings are uphill from the houses next door. She said she is also concerned about sound attenuation from the rooftop social space they have proposed. She said she’d also like to see them incorporate smaller gathering spaces in the landscaping so as to deter large gatherings. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed Privilege of the Floor. 4. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina, the March 26, 2019 minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications. 5. Design Review A. Signage – CFCU New Commons Branch Office, 200-204 E State /MLK St – The Commons (Former First National Bank Building) by CFCU. The applicant is proposing new signage for the renovated building. Exterior building and site changes for the project received Limited Site Plan Approval in August 2018. They are now proposing signage, which is subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines and Design Review. Applicants Lisa Whitaker, Aaron Baker and Terry Sullivan appeared in front of the Board. Lisa Whitaker, president and CEO of CFCU presented an overview of the proposed sign package to the Board for design review. She said they are looking forward to opening their new downtown location on the Ithaca Commons, and that their leadership team and about 40 employees will be located there. She then briefly reviewed the proposed signage, which included several internally lit signs and a pair of blade signs on the Commons facing elevations (Tioga and State Streets), as well as a large box sign on the Seneca Street side of the building. There were also several signs for parking and the ATM. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 4 Jones said that they are excited to see the credit union at this location, but that this sign package contains more signs than what is typical for an individual building. She asked about the blade signs, if they will be illuminated and what the logo on them is supposed to signify. Whittaker said the blade signs would not be illuminated and that the imagery is of circuitry and is a continuation of the imagery that’s inside the transformation center. She said she understands that people might not be familiar with it at present, but once they are in the location for some time and host some events, she thinks it will become recognizable to people. Chair Lewis said that page 8 of the sign package materials indicates that the blade signs are illuminated. Jones said that the illumination is a separate issue for her but that the applicants had indicated that the blade signage on one side marks the handicapped accessible entrance, but there is a universal signage for that and this isn’t that. She said that she’s not sure that it will convey the welcome that they are intending. She said she would like to hear other Board members’ opinions on that, as well as the question of illumination. Chair Lewis invited other members to review the sign package using the sign guidelines outlined in the Downtown Design Guidelines. He said he thinks there are some areas where the proposed signage doesn’t align with the guidelines. Terry Sullivan from Adrenaline said that it is their opinion that the interior lit signs will result in less light pollution than an externally lit sign. Chair Lewis then said he would like to go around the room and ask the Board for their thoughts. Blalock had no comments. Johnston said he is happy with CFCUs decision to locate downtown, but he said he shares some of Jones’ concerns, as well as concerns about how the signs fit the Downtown Design Guidelines and possible impacts on neighbors in terms of lighting. He said that maybe once people learn that they are there, nighttime illumination won’t be necessary. He also suggested that they should consider some of the comments from the Historic Preservation Planner regarding placement of the signs. Jones had no additional comments. Chair Lewis said that to him, overall effect is “suburban” and is not in keeping with the character of the Commons. He said the illumination and the size of the signs are not in keeping with what is typically approved with a downtown sign package. Glass said he agrees and said that the Historic Preservation Planner had some good suggestions for the placement of the signs. He said they might not even need a sign on the west elevation. He said the box sign on the north façade is about 6 by 8 feet, and that seems too big. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 5 Aaron Baker of Sign Works said that with respect to the number of signs, the building includes two addresses (and as a result, two separate sign applications). As for the north façade, they are allowed 50 square feet, and the proposed sign is 45 SF (and that is one application). He said that for the other building, they are allowed two signs of 50 SF each, and that their current proposal includes two signs of 39 SF each. He said the blade signs are what necessitates they apply for a variance because they exceed the two signs allowed, but, he added, each is less than 4 SF. Chair Lewis thanked him and said he wants to hear what the rest of the Board has to say. Petrina said she thinks two sets of signs on the corner (Tioga and State) is redundant and that the applicant should choose one or the other – and it probably ought to be State Street, as that’s where the entrance is. She also said that she shares Jones’ concerns regarding the blade signs not indicating accessibility and said she might be supportive if they modify it to include a traditional ADA logo. She said she thinks the other blade sign is completely unnecessary because there’s not even an entrance there. Chair Lewis said that given the preponderance of the comments, he does not think the sign package as currently proposed will pass. He urged the applicant to take into consideration comments received from both the Board and the Historic Preservation Planner, and also to refer to the Downtown Design Guidelines, make changes to the proposed signage, and return next month. 6. Site Plan Review A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (FGEIS), 620 S. Aurora St. by Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. No Action – Presentation of Phase 1. 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/café, 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 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 Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 6 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. Applicant Jamie Gensel appeared in front of the Board to present Phase 1 of the project for Site Plan Review. He said that they are proposing to start with buildings 21 and 24. He said that they do not have tenants yet, so plans are preliminary at this point. He said Building 21 is a four-story building with about 43,000 SF designated for commercial and office space. He said that currently most of the window openings have been paneled over (due to security concerns, as the building had previously been used as a computing center). Their proposal is to remove the panels and replace the windows, restore and repaint the concrete façade, and add a new aluminum storefront to the front and rear of the building. Building 24 is 117,000 SF existing, with three stories above grade and a half story below grade. They are proposing to renovate the first and second stories as commercial/ office space and have residential space above. He said they are also proposing to add an additional level on the top, adding about 18,000 SF to the building total. He said that for Building 24 they would also replace all the windows, repair and repaint the concrete, and build out the top level with an aluminum composite panel system. He said that because they are seeking LEED ND status, they will be trying to repave and repurpose existing parking areas, not adding new ones. He said they would also create new landscaping plans for the area. He said that the area around Building 24 is all going to be changed at some point, but that there are parking lots all around it that they want to use temporarily for Phase 1 until they get to subsequent phases. He said that eventually the parking for that building would be uphill from the building. He said they need to create a new road to connect to it. He said that they want to use that area for construction staging for Phase 1. Jones asked how they would ensure that if there’s a hiccup in the project before the next phase, they don’t end up with a bunch of parking lots. Director Cornish said yes, if the project doesn’t move forward, this has got to stand on its own. Gensel said that he is aware that this is a problem and he has been discussing it with Deputy Director Nicholas. Nicholas asked if they are sure this is the layout for parking and roads that they want to use when they renovate buildings 21 and 24. She asked if they get a tenant tomorrow, if this is really what they want to do. Gensel said it would depend on what parking count they would require. He said that for the entire project they are going to have to rely on economy of scale to provide parking, and that for some of the buildings, they will have to put in structured parking on the first floor. Nicholas said the problem is that the Board can’t approve things on a temporary basis, especially not for a PUD. She said she doesn’t see why they are including things in Phase 1 that they aren’t changing but are going to be changed in the future. She asked Gensel if he could remove from Phase 1 anything on the site that they aren’t changing. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 7 Jones said they could include use of the parking lots in a staging plan for Phase 1 but asked what would happen to those parking lots if buildings 21 and 24 are the only portion of the site that is ever completed. She asked what would happen to the lots after being used for construction staging. She said it seems like the Board will have to be approving conditional plans, each with its own set of mitigations. She said as it is with just the two buildings and all that parking, the Board would normally require a lot more landscaping, a different orientation, etc. Gensel agreed that they wouldn’t normally have parking lots without islands and landscaping. He said they are also looking into developing the permanent parking on the upper lot first. He said that’s an ongoing discussion the development team is having. Nicholas reminded the Board that the applicant will have to get final approval for Phase 1 of the project before Common Council will approve the PUD. She then said that she doesn’t know how the Board can approve what is being proposed (with temporary parking lots) and then grant final approval (with the parking in a different location). Chair Lewis asked to clarify if the preliminary approval would be for the whole project and the final in this case is just for Phase 1. Nicholas said that is correct. Preliminary approval is for the whole site layout and final is for a more detailed look at one phase Chair Lewis asked if the final approval has to match what was granted preliminary approval. Nicholas said there are a lot of intersecting elements to the project and said the Board just went through this with the North Campus project. She said that for that they had discussed the elements considered under preliminary approval: building footprints, road layout, major elements of the site. From there, you can go on to consider the project in phases. She said that what’s being proposed for Chain Works doesn’t work like that. Director Cornish said that they want Phase 1 to align as closely as possible to the final project site plan, so if they have to put in the major elements, road and parking, and then narrow the focus for each phase, they should. She said they don’t want to have to reopen SEQR. Nicholas said that the Phase 1 as proposed would reopen SEQR because their approvals were based on the site plan as previously submitted. She suggested shrinking the Phase 1 lines to include just the building and the road. Director Cornish urged the applicant to narrow the phase line and go with what they know is going to happen. Jones suggested they inform the Board of construction staging plans but that they not include it in the Phase 1, as the Board can’t approve temporary parking lots. Director Cornish asked if they were just going to repave and stripe the existing lots, but not really change the number of spaces, etc. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 8 Gensel said yes, they would stay within the confines of the existing asphalt. Jones said it doesn’t seem like they would have to approve that. Director Cornish agreed. She asked if they would be putting in the roads shown in the drawings they would be basing the approved site plan on. Gensel said they intended to complete a portion of the planned roads as part of Phase 1. Staff urged him to do that and include that section in the Phase 1 application, but leave the rest of the site out. Gensel asked if they would be able to use the other sections for staging and overflow. Staff answered in the affirmative. Chair Lewis asked if there were any comments from the Board regarding the plans for the buildings proposed for Phase 1. Petrina asked how the applicant was going to achieve their energy goals with all the glazing shown. Gensel said that is a good question, and they are still working on the designs. Johnston asked how tied they are to the road names. Gensel said not at all. He said the names date back to when they were doing the initial charrettes and they just left them there. He said that in fact they would have to get approvals for names and numbering from 911, so they would most likely change from what was indicated. Director Cornish said that if Building 21 were to become all offices, some of the trip generation numbers would have to be adjusted. Gensel said that as the buildings come online and tenants are secured, they would start subtracting from the maximum allowable figure. Nicholas asked if the Board felt comfortable about considering preliminary approval at the next month’s meeting for the whole site layout within the City as presented thus far, with consideration of final approval of Phase 1 to come at the following month. Board members said yes. Director Cornish asked about the schedule for the project. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 9 Gensel said that he thinks the PEDC would be working on approving the PUD until August or September, so the earliest they would start would probably be September or October. B. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campus by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. No Action – Continuation of Site Plan Review. The applicant proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for sophomores and the other for freshmen) on two sites on North Campus. The sophomore site will have four residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 1,200-seat, 66,300 SF dining facility. The sophomore site is mainly in the City of Ithaca with a small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights; however, all buildings are in the City. The freshman site will have three new residential buildings (each spanning the City and Town line) with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space – 223,400 of which is in the City, and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The buildings will be between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The project is in three zoning districts: the U- I zoning district in the City in which the proposed five stories and 55 feet are allowed; the Low Density Residential District (LDR) in the Town which allows for the proposed two-story residence halls (with a special permit); and the Multiple Housing District within Cayuga Heights in which no buildings are proposed. This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii) for which the Lead Agency issued a Negative Declaration on December 18, 2018 and granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project on March 26, 2019. Kathryn Wolf and Kimberly Michaels of Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects appeared in front of the Board to present project updates and answer questions. They said that since the last meeting they received preliminary approvals from the Town and final approval from the Village of Cayuga Heights. Wolf walked through some changes to the paving materials and detailed planting selections. When Wolf mentioned using honey locusts to provide shade over the outside dining areas, Cornish mentioned that the City had had problems on the Commons with honey locusts attracting large numbers of birds, which led to a mess underneath them, and ultimately led the City to remove the trees. Applicants thanked her for the information and said they would reconsider. Wolf said that community dining tables would be located outside adjacent to the community kitchens. Johnston asked if they would be directing water off the roofs towards some of the plantings, noting that dawn redwoods especially like a lot of water. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 10 Wolf said yes, all of the roofs drain into bio-retention areas. Petrina asked if they would have images of the seat walls. Wolf said they are a simple concrete design and that images would be provided in the final site plan package. Petrina asked where they would be located, and Wolf indicated on the plans the two primary locations. Glass said that he hopes the size they select for the plantings will be large enough so that they will appear as they do in the renderings soon. He also expressed continued concern about the retaining wall near Akwe:kon. Applicants said it would be a concrete wall, and they are hoping to add some additional plantings so that in time it would be covered in vines. Blalock again expressed concern about appliance vents that recirculate exhaust instead of venting to the outside. Arvind Tikku of iKon 5 Architects responded saying that because the appliances are electric, they are not required to vent to the outside. Blalock reiterated a comment made in past meetings that the recirculating type exhausts has been a leading cause of false fire alarms on campus, and he urged them to look into the issue further. Petrina asked the applicants to respond to the comments from TCAT. Wolf said they are in talks and continuing to work with them to accommodate increased demand in the area. C. Arthaus, 130 Cherry Street by Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning & Design Public Hearing & Potential Determination of Environmental Significance. 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 120 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 Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 11 City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance § 176-4B(1)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4(b)(11). Kathryn Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design; Molly Chiang and Rebecca Cudney from the Vecino Group; Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineering; and Umit Sirt of Taitem Engineering appeared to provide project updates. Applicants provided project updates and shared some product samples. Public Hearing On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Glass, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. George McGonigal, First Ward Alderperson, said he represents Cherry Street on Common Council and is a member of the Waterfront Working Group. He expressed concerns about the project. He said Cherry Street is the last industrial zone in the City. He said when they had discussed incorporating housing into the 100 block of Cherry Street, they had decided that it is important to keep industrial as the primary use of the street, and had specifically decided that housing should be above workspaces. He said he thinks they did a lousy job of finalizing the zoning, particularly with respect to the 100-percent lot coverage. He said this is not work-live housing, but is instead a five-story apartment building that covers the entire lot, with the exception of 10-foot setbacks. He said that he thinks it would be dangerous for children to live there due to the lack of outdoor space on the property, and he said that if this goes forward as planned, it seems very likely that something similar will go in on the next lot to the north, and pretty soon you will see a row of five-story, 100-percent lot coverage apartment buildings along the 100-block. He said that in his opinion, that would destroy the industrial use of the block. He said light manufacturing is a source of skilled jobs and that he thinks this is the wrong place for something of this size. He said that he and Cynthia Brock had spoken with representatives from Vecino last week who spoke about making some concessions regarding outdoor space, but he sees none of that in the designs they’ve shared tonight. He asked the Board to think about the size of the project and the lack of space around it before they make a decision. Laura Miller, General Manager of The Cherry Arts, shared comments from Sam Buggeln, owner of The Cherry Arts, in favor of the project. Buggeln’s written comments are attached as an addendum to these minutes. Frédéric Bouché, owner of Ports of New York Winery, near to the proposed project site, spoke in favor of the ArtHaus. He said that he also has discussed the project with many of his local customers and they are overwhelmingly in favor of it and excited to see the changes it will bring to the neighborhood. He concluded by saying he thinks it will benefit all of us. David Romm of the Town of Ithaca spoke in favor of the proposed project. He said that he thinks it will bring new live to that part of the City. He said he’s looking forward to seeing the project move forward. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 12 Jones thanked the members of the public for taking the time to speak. She said that she was also a member of the Waterfront Committee and that she stands by the zoning recommendations they put forth to Common Council. She said that the Board struggles sometimes with determining where the right place is for a certain thing. She said she appreciates McGonigal’s commitment to businesses and industry on Cherry Street but she wants to point out that this project isn’t displacing anything else. There’s nothing there now, and the project is going to add vibrancy and vitality to the community. She asked if this isn’t the right place for these apartments, where is the right place? She said people in other neighborhoods don’t want these apartments, and it is a struggle for the City to find appropriate places for affordable housing that are beautiful, accessible, and fit into the urban structure. She said that she thinks a mixed-use building such as this, in an industrial zone, on a site where nothing currently exists is about as appropriate as it gets. In response to McGonigal, Chaing said that financing is capped for a project like this. There’s a subsidy rate and a tax credit rate, and in order to combat some site issues and provide this kind of product, shrinking the footprint and reducing the number of units would be problematic (though they did look into it). Petrina said she was initially uncomfortable with the scale, but she feels better seeing it put in context with a view from across the Inlet. She said she wouldn’t feel comfortable pushing back against a newly-enacted ordinance. Glass said he is fine with the building overall, but is still a little concerned with the flatness of the east elevation and with some of the materials choices, such as the concrete block. Chair Lewis suggested making the interior of the courtyards darker stucco to emphasize the articulation. Jones said she’s not too concerned with the scale but that they might do whatever they can to minimize it by tricking the eye. She asked about the Community Room and how it opens to the Inlet, and when applicant showed her the drawings of that she said she was happy with it. Johnston said the project seems to be developing, and he said he’s not sure that McGonigal’s comments about it being unsafe for children are accurate. He said there are a number of streets in the area with very high traffic counts (Cliff Street) that are probably not particularly safe for kids, but families still live there. He said he doesn’t think the viewshed from across the Inlet will be negatively impacted. Blalock said he agreed with the others and agreed with Petrina that they should honor the legislative branch and not push back against the zoning in this area. The Board next reviewed Part III. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 13 Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Glass, 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 vehicle s, 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 § 176-4B(1)(k), (h)[2], (n), and the State Environmental Quality Re view Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4(b)(11), both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS:, the Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, Tompkins County Department of Health, Tomkins County Industrial Development Agency, NYS Homes and Community Renewal, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, all involved agencies, have consented to the City Planning Board being 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 February 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 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 (C3)”, “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 & P11) ” 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, 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 Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 14 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: Glass Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None D. Wood Street – Perdita Flats, 402 Wood Street by Stream Collaborative, Noah Demarest. Determination of Environmental Significance & Recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant proposes to construct a three-story residential building on a vacant lot in the Southside Neighborhood of Ithaca. The building will include four rental units priced at market rate: (1) three-bedroom unit, (2) one-bedroom units, and (1) two-bedroom unit. The first-floor unit will meet ADA requirements for accessibility. The parcel is located in the R-3b Zoning District and has received a variance for off-street parking requirements. 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”), for which the Lead Agency issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on March 26, 2019. Matt Cooper from Stream Collaborative, and owner Umit Sirt appeared to present project updates to the Board. They made one small change, removing one window, due to the relocation of a utility room. Jones urged the applicants to look into finding funding to make at least one of the units affordable. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Jones: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for construction of a three-story residential building located at 224 Fair Street, by Noah Demarest, applicant for owner, and WHEREAS: The applicant proposes to construct a three-story residential building on a vacant lot in the Southside Neighborhood of Ithaca. The building will include four rental units priced at market rate: (1) three-bedroom unit, (2) one-bedroom units, and (1) two-bedroom unit. The first-floor unit will meet ADA Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 15 requirements for accessibility. The parcel is located in the R-3b Zoning District and has received the required variance for off-street parking requirements, and WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQR”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca 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 the Lead Agency for the 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: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on February 26, 2019, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did, on March 26, 2019 review and accept as adequate: A Short Environmental Assessment Form (“SEAF”), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 2, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board; and the following drawings: “Vicinity Ithaca City Zoning Map,” “Vicinity Map w/ TCAT Stops,” “Existing Multifamily Housing,” “Land Use Categories,” “Floodplains,” “Site Context,” “Demolition Plan,” “Construction Plan,” and “Utilities Plan,” all dated January 18, 2019, and “Boundary and Topographic Map,” dated October 19, 2018, and L101 “Site Layout and Planting,” A101 “First Floor Plan,” A102 “Second Floor Plan,” A103 “Third Floor Plan,” and “Conceptual Designs- Revisions” showing perspective views, all dated March 5, 2019 and A202 “Elevations,” dated 4/23/19 and other application materials all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on March 26, 2019, determine the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a that a Negative Declaration, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals did, on April 2, 2019, grant the required variance for on-site parking, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Noise producing construction shall take place only between the hours of 7:30 am to 7:30 pm Monday-Friday (or Saturday 9 am to 7:30 pm with advance notification to and approval by the Director of Planning and Development), and ii. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and iii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and iv. A MP&T plan must be approved by Engineering before issuance of a building permit. v. Any sidewalk damaged during construction and/or recommended for replacement by the City sidewalk Coordinator during Site Plan Review will be completed, and vi. 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. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 16 Moved by: Johnston Seconded by: Jones In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Elliott Vacancies: None E. Student Housing, 815 S. Aurora Street, Stream Collaborative, Noah Demarest for Project Sponsors Todd Fox & Charlie O’Connor. Project Presentation, Public Hearing & Review of Draft FEAF Parts 2 & 3. The project applicant proposes a new 49-unit student housing complex (16,700 SF footprint) comprised of three buildings constructed on a hillside on the east side of Route 96B, overlooking the proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings will contain (2) efficiency units, (3) one- bedroom units, (10) two-bedroom units, (20) three-bedroom units and (14) four- 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 site 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 the existing site entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be constructed in front of the ends of buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The project will include 6 8 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property located in the R-3b zoning district. A variance will likely be required for a rear yard setback deficiency. 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), (B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11). Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative and project sponsors Charlie O’Connor and Todd Fox appeared to present the project to the Board. Public Hearing On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. Danny Eastman of 126 Fieldstone Circle, owner of a rental property at 805 S. Aurora, next door to the project, said his concern is making sure that the water that comes off the site is mitigated properly. He said he knows that neighbors in the area have had basement water problems over the years. He said he is also concerned about the problems with traffic backups in the morning and afternoon related to opening and dismissal at South Hill School. He said this is a current concern, and something should be done about it (not necessarily the applicant, but somebody). He said another concern is light and noise pollution coming out of the new Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 17 apartments, and there needs to be some way of mitigating the light spilling down the hill. He also asked for additional plantings to mitigate impacts on the views for the houses below. Russ Maines (on Behalf of Brian Grout, owner of 815 S. Aurora) expressed concerns about the project. He submitted comments in writing, which are included as an addendum to these minutes. Joe Allen (representing the Dennis family with properties abutting the site to the east) said the Dennis family has concerns about the project. He said the EAF indicates the project will increase demands for water. He said the City has approached the Dennis’ to ask for an easement to cross one of their lots with a new water supply line. He said that the impact to their lot in order to supply this project with water is bad for them. He also said there would be traffic problems arising from or worsened by this project. He said that the placements of the buildings would negatively impact his clients’ viewshed, and there is potential for noise and light impacts on the neighborhood again. Diane Miller of 635 Hudson Street expressed concerns about the project. She said that she was at the meeting the developers had with the South Hill Neighborhood Association where they said this project would help alleviate pressure on housing from increasing enrollment at IC, but she said, enrollment at IC is actually decreasing. She also said that this project will dramatically change the way South Hill looks from other parts of the City. She said she has worked with students at Cornell for 30 years, and that in her experience, students are looking for a place to live with their 10 best friends so they can have a party house. She said she doesn’t think that this project is really going to entice students living down the hill on Aurora and Hudson to move up the hill, and that it is unlikely that families will ever move into those houses again due to the high cost of repairing them. John Graves spoke in favor of the project. He said the project has a long list of positives and few negatives. He said the vacant lot is largely unusable as is. He said he thinks the proximity of the site to the campus (and Rogan’s, TopShelf, and the Sunset Grill), along with the installation of the new sidewalk scheduled for 2020 will encourage students to walk and won’t increase vehicular traffic. He said he thinks the project will free up apartments down the hill for other renters. He said he is concerned about the environmental impacts of the project, but he thinks the project team has the skills and knowledge to mitigate those impacts. He also said he thinks Charlie O’Connor and MLR is a good landlord on South Hill and has been working hard to minimize the negative impacts students have on families living on South Hill. David Romm spoke against the proposed project. He submitted comments in writing as well, and those comments are included as an addendum to these minutes. John Snyder of John Snyder Architects said he has worked with the Dennis family for many years and they have many concerns with the project, particularly with the effects on their viewshed and on the impacts on the entire community of South Hill. Brian Grout spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He said he thinks it will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 18 There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston. Additional discussion followed. Director Cornish requested a shadow study and urged them to shield all mechanicals. Applicants agreed. Glass asked if Tom Parsons had vetoed the green roof. Applicants and Cornish said yes. The Board reviewed Parts II and III of the EAF. The Board and staff asked for new views of the view coming down the hill, and a street view from a human perspective. Cornish said that she appreciates the concerns about impacts on the viewshed, but the purview of the Board is only views from public ways. If a private owner wishes to preserve their view in perpetuity they should purchase the property themselves. She also said that with respect to the new water line being pursued by the City is to benefit more than just this project; it is to benefit the City as a whole. F. Carpenter Circle Project – Sketch Plan Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning and Design and Andy Bodewes of Park Grove Reality appeared and presented a sketch plan. 7. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals  # 3125, Area Variance, 310 W. State The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.  # 3126, Area Variance, 616 N. Aurora Street The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The Board finds that the proposed changes are minor in scope, improve the functionality of the home and are in character with the neighborhood. The Board supports owners investing in their properties. 8. Old/New Business  Special Meeting Agenda for 4-30-19  Board Retreat Topics Approved by the Planning and Development Board May 28, 2019 19  Sexual Harassment Training 9. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Chair Lewis thanked the Board. No formal report. B. Board of Public Works Liaison Blalock said snow removal fines were discussed at the last meeting. C. Director of Planning & Development Director Cornish had no report. 10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by unanimous consent. TOMPKINS COUNTY - WHAT is the intent of this program? The program assists business owners and facility managers in setting energy goals and understanding energy options during the earliest stages of project design and conceptualization, when it is the easiest and most cost-effective to incorporate energy efficiency improvements. WHY participate in this program? What's in it for me? • Receive advice from energy experts· o up to $1,500 in energy consulting for buildings:::; 10,000 sq. ft. o up to $3,000 in energy consulting for buildings > 10,000 sq. ft. • Understand options to save energy and operational costs • Obtain advice on incentives, financing, and application processes • Receive assistance with setting and reaching your energy goals ' • Gain recognition for your participation and commitment, if desired • Contribute to the environmental and energy goals of our community WHO can participate in this program? • Businesses considering new construction, major renovation, or expansion • Eligible sectors: commercial, retail, multifamily (5+ units), manufacturing, R&D, non-profit, government • Building must be located in Tompkins County HOW can I participate? What does this program require of me? • Participate in an energy charrette (brainstorming meeting) • Set practical and aspirational energy goals for the project • Identify a staff person as the energy point contact for the building • Participate in a program close-out meeting • Share building energy consumption data for a year after project completion Interested in participating? Contact: Andrea Aguirre Senior Planner-Energy Specialist Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability Email: gaguirre@tompkins-co.org Phone: {607) 274-5560 RE: Planning Board Projects for Review and Comment -- April 2019 Matthew Yarrow [myl@tcatmail.com] To: Anya Harris Cc: Scot Vanderpool [svl@tcatmail.corn]; Mike Smith [msl@tcatmail.com]; Megan Pulver [MPulver@tcatmail.com) Friday, April19, 2019 5:33 PM Chain Works-First of all, TCAT thanks the project team for reaching out to us early in the planning phase to discuss transit service to (and through) the site. What is unclear to me is whether the developers are planning on having transit service during Phase 1. The plan does not show bus stops and does not appear to support a path through the site that would not involve a tight turn around and what would amount to a deviation from any existing bus route. Another critical piece to the transportation puzzle is how the intersections with S Aurora St will be modified to handle larger vehicles, how they will be signalized, and how congestion will be managed in this corridor. It will be disappointing to future bus riders to try to catch a quick ride downtown, just to find the bus stuck in traffic on S Aurora St. We encourage a holistic approach by all stakeholders (City, Town, NYSDOT, UnChained Properties, TCAT, etc.) to collectively ensure the public transportation link between Cain Works and downtown is quick, safe, and convenient. North Campus Residential Expansion-Again, Cornell representatives have communicated with TCAT about this project, which is highly appreciated. Cornell is clearly taking changes to the transportation framework for North Campus seriously. TCA T' s main concern -and this goes for all large projects in our service area -is how we can support increase demand for transit with no additional funding identified for bus procurement, a facility expansion for TCAT, or operational funding to hire and pay more drivers. Because all of our service is subsidized to some extent, TCAT cannot be expected to cover large service increases with additional fare revenue coming from the increased demand. This is an issue that the Community (writ large) will have to address at some point. Arthaus on Cherry St -TCAT has not yet been approached by the developers of this project. Admittedly, our routes are beyond the quarter mile rule-of-thumb for walking distance to a bus stop. However, a project of this size will impact traffic on the West End. TCAT has already adjusted routes to deal with West End traffic and congestion degrades the service for our current riders. From our perspective, it would be good if the developers could incorporate TDM measures into the project and/or work with TCAT on either route adjustments or frrst-mile/last-mile options. 815 Aurora St-A representative of the developer has reached out to TCAT about this project (always appreciated). We understand there is a desire to establish stops on Aurora St in the vicinity of the project. While the developers are offering the use of a frre lane as a bus pull-off in the downhill direction, TCAT still hesitates to establish a set of paired stops (including a stop in the uphill direction) at this location primarily because the S Aurora St corridor continues to be steep, narrow, often congested, and prone accidents when it snows. In addition, TCAT route 65 only has a few trips per day past this location. Much better service is available within a Y4 mile on Hudson St on the TCAT route 11. We encouraged the developers to consider pedestrian access to the existing Hudson St bus stops. Carpenter Circle Project-A representative of the developer has reached out to TCAT about this project (we certainly appreciate it). TCAT has not seen the most recent site plan, but we hope it accommodates bus travel through the site and allows for our bus to cross over route 13 back to the Northside neighborhood (via 5th St and/or Cascadilla St). Our concern is that we be called upon to service this development and end up getting bogged down in traffic on route 13 at peak times. Not only is there no safe place to stop along this stretch of route 13, but the high level of travel time variation in this corridor makes route planning extremely difficult. We will look at adjusting the TCAT route 13 to accommodate service in this waterfront district, however, as mentioned above, accommodating this new location may involve additional resources in the form of buses and operating funds. Thanks for your consideration of these comments. -Matt Matt Yarrow TCAT Assistant General Manager Transit Development and Planning Phone: (607) 277-9388 x520 FW: Draft Waterfront Plan From: Gail Patrice Lockert Anthony [plockertanthony@greenstar.coop] Sent: Monday, April15, 2019 9:18PM To: George McGonigal Cc: Alexander Phillips; Bryan McCracken; Cheryl Barton; Cynthia Brock; Flash, Steve; Gaetano, John; Greene, Johnathan; Jennifer Kusznir; JoAnn Cornish; Jones-Rounds, McKenzie; Leslie Schill; Lisa Nicholas; Martell, Josephine; Megan Wilson; Michael Thorne; Sheryl Swink; Thomas Knipe; cfh@chadarch.com; jimgoodreau@epix.net; jturner@CAYUGAMED.org; mroof@twcny.rr.com; samuel.buggeln@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Draft Waterfront Plan I don't know how folks are defining being of "modest means".-I don't particularly care for Gigantor-styled buildings, but am tired of there not being sufficient affordable housing for people with challenging income limits. Too many are simply priced out of the market. And moving farther out isn't always the rational or workable option. I'd like the Vecino project to either remain as it is, or hear of viable solutions that don't include fewer opportunities for challenged incomes. Thoughts ... ? Patrice On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 14:38 George McGonigal <GMcGonigal@cityofithaca.org> wrote: Hello, Jen and JoAnn and committee members, I have submitted some comments already, but the Vecino proposal for 5 story 100,000 sq.ft. apartment building on Cherry Street exposes some major flaws in the zoning we came up with, in my opinion. We certainly want more housing along the water, and the Vecino project would allow people of modest means housing along the water. That's great. But, because the newly adapted zoning allows for 100% lot coverage and 60 ft in height, the apartment building Vecino has designed is huge. It's massiveness is far beyond anything else on this side of the City. It is so big that one worries about how it may compromise the heavy truck dependent commercial businesses next door and across the street. Vecino is even proposing to build patio space onto the 25 ft State right of way next to the Flood Control Channel! I would be supportive of Vecino's plans if they were smaller in scale, and actually had some live/work space as part of the project. This would be up to Common Council, but I think it would be very helpful if our committee recommended reducing Cherry Street lot coverage from up to 100% to something like 50% or 60%. And I think lOft side setbacks are far too slim for Cherry St. Remember, this is not Inlet Island, and open views and access to the water are both things we want to encourage. I would also recommend lowering the maximum building height from 60 ft. to 50 feet, maybe even 45 ft. Again, to better fit in with this light industrial zone. I'm thinking I might get some push-back on the height idea, but if their was more space between smaller buildings, height might not be as crucial. Thoughts? George McGonigal Common Council, First Ward tel: 272-0639 A R T April23, 2019 Dear Members of the Planning & Development Board, In a spirit of great respect for the voices on all aspects of this question, I am writing to support the Vecino Group's Ithaca Arthaus project on Cherry Street. I am the founder and Artistic Director of the Cherry Arts, a non-profit arts service and presenting company. We support a wide range of Ithaca artists and companies by hosting their work in the Cherry Arts pace at 102 Cherry Street. The Artspace is one of the proposed Arthaus project's nearest neighbors, and Vecino has been in contact with the Cherry Arts throughout the planning of the project. We have been very impressed throughout by V ecino' s level of communication, and to their commitment to a development that will create opportunities not only for Ithaca's arts community, but to all Ithaca households for whom Ithaca's market rents are out of reach. Not only are the Arthaus apartments proposed to be 100% lower-income housing, but the indoor ground floor area, which another developer might rent to commercial tenants, is planned for facilities to serve the needs of the area's arts community. The Cherry Arts helped to facilitate some of V ecino 's outreach to local artists (alongside the Community Arts Partnership), and in this process it became clear that area artists did not list studio space as their most pressing need. (This was partly because of the large and growing number of studios being built in the South Hill Business campus Artists' Alley.) Rather, a larger space for rehearsals and other gatherings, and a space for exhibition, were identified as "missing links" in Ithaca's arts landscape. The current plans reflect those expressed needs of the community. If it is built as planned, the Arthaus will offer trans formative opportunities to a wide range of Ithaca artists. As part of these conversations, Vecino put the Cherry in touch with the people who run the Troy Arthaus, an earlier project of Vecino' s with a similar mission. An unexpected, inspiring point came out of that contact: in practice, the Arthaus would be occupied by a mix of artists and the general population of lower-income families. The Arthaus therefore provides opportunities not only for artists to live affordably, and create and show their work, but also to connect the arts to lower-income people overall. Making the arts available to working-class families is one of the trickiest ongoing challenges of the arts sector, and to me, the Arthaus mix of working artists with lower-income families offers an exciting set of possibilities in working to correct this problem. In addition to my position with the Cherry Arts, I am a member of the Waterfront Working Group that is about to submit the Phase Two Waterfront Area Plan (we are fixing typos!). The most significant part of our work happened in April, when we submitted to the Common Council our recommendations for new waterfront zoning, including for the Cherry Street District, and the Common Council voted a version of these recommendations into law. I understand the Arthaus project to be in compliance 1 02 Cherry Street I Ithaca NY 14850 I www.thecherry.org with this new zoning. As a committee we carefully considered our recommendations, taking into account a large number of factors, and I stand by the Working Group's recommendations and the zoning that resulted. One of these factors, which we discuss in the report, is the difficulty of building on the sandy soil of the waterfront area. To build here requires an unusually expensive foundation, and the overall development must be of a size to pay for that. (I confronted the same balancing act on a smaller scale when building the Cherry Artspace.) Since the Arthaus project is 100% affordable housing and dedicates its ground floor to the arts rather than to business tenants, I imagine the project stands to make less money than a more commercial development would. If this requires that the scale be slightly bigger to make the math work, I am convinced that is a worthwhile trade-off. While there are challenges to building on the Flood Control Channel, there is a built-in advantage that makes housing development particularly suited there. A permanent federal DEC easement requires that no construction happen within 24 feet of the bank of the channel, though the easement land remains the property of the owner and can be robustly used. So even when building to 100% of the building area, the easement creates a 24- foot-deep grassy waterfront recreation space behind each building, a beautiful area that is currently underused, and a much bigger backyard than many happy Ithaca families enjoy. I don't believe the Arthaus would impede operation of the businesses that surround it. Cherry Street is already used by a mix of trucks servicing businesses, alongside private cars taking the "back way" to Wegman's, Found, and Nate's Estates. Some shift in traffic patterns is an inevitable part of more effective use of that part of town. The scale and shape of Ithaca is changing. Over the past few years, I have watched a large number of new constructions shift the scale of various neighborhoods. The Arthaus will also shift the scale of building in the Cherry Street district. But this is a shift the Waterfront Committee carefully considered, and approved, as a means to make better use of land close to downtown, to make housing more affordable, and to reduce the regional sprawl that is bad for the community and the environment. But most important, to a far greater extent than any other development I have seen in Ithaca in recent years, Vecino's potential Arthaus development is one-hundred-percent focused on community-improving uses in a very inspiring way. I urge the Board to grant the permissions that may be necessary for this project to thrive. My best regards, Sam Buggeln, Artistic Director The Cherry Arts, Inc. nn MAINES FIRM PLLC ithaca. legal russ@ithaca.legal APRIL 23, 2019 City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board 118 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: 815 South Aurora Street IC Overlook, LLC RUSSELL E. MAINES, ATTORNEY LICENSED IN NEW YORK & FLORIDA 1 09 EAST SENECA STREET #206 ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 PHONE: (607) 279-1775 FAX: (888) 876-6608 April 23, 2019 Board Agenda Item Number 5E I represent Brian H. Grout, the owner of a single-family home at 809 South Aurora Street (TPN 115.-1-16). Mr. Grout's property is adjacentto, andimmediatelynorth of, 815 South Aurora Street (TPN 115.-1-15), the lot on which the proposed 3-building, approximately 49-unit, 141- bedroom dormitory-style complex by IC Overlook, LLC is proposed to be located. Mr. Grout's continuing concerns regarding the development include the following: 1. Drainage/Runoff/Nuisance: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) last datedApril12, 2019 states that "the project currently and will continue to drain toward South Aurora Street (NYS Route 96B)." This does not appear to be accurate. The drainage runs north -downhill -toward the Grout property. The increased development of South Hill in recent years has contributed to an increased stormwater runoff problem. We have concerns that this massive development, consisting of a projected 1.96 acres on a 2.85-acre property, will drastically increase the runoff to the Grout property. The SWPPP does not adequately address these concerns. 2. Inconsistency With Neighborhood Character. Though the developer characterizes this project as an apartment complex, it is essentially a dormitory that will house Ithaca College undergraduate students. The project will bring with it all of the urban problems associated with student ghettos on East Hill and other similar college neighborhoods. The structures will be placed in what has been, for decades, a neighborhood of single and two-family homes. Mr. Grout's property will be dwarfed and literally overshadowed by the three massive structures. As proposed, there will be a five-story building built with just a ten foot set back from Mr. Grout's southern property line. If constructed, this structure will deprive Mr. Grout's house from most natural light and ventilation. 3. Tr~ffic Impact. We understand that within the next two years, the adjoining portion of Aurora Street/Route 96B will be narrowed from two northbound lanes to one. The increased concentration of students likely will overburden this stretch of road that is already choked during rush hour periods, and during the times when parents are picking up and dropping off their children at South Hill Elementary SchooL We also are concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the number of parking spaces will be required or permitted. The SRF Associates Trip Generation Letter of February 14, 2019 examines existing highway conditions while not adequately discussing the proposed changes that are to occur on the road. Emergency vehicles may have a niore difficult time reaching those properties once the road is narrowed. 4. Cell Tower. We are concerned that the existing cell tower fall zone is insufficient, given the fact that adjoining parking areas tend to be congregation areas for students. Section 325-29.9A states that no "habitable structure or area where people congregate shall be within a fall zone." Even if the City Officials modified the code from two times the cell tower fall zone of 340 feet to its current fall zone of 204 feet, ALL of the proposed parking is within this new 204 feet fall zone. The definition of "congregate" is as follows: to come together; assemble, especially in large numbers. It is our position that installations of construction equipment with its associated uses and operations, daily delivery of tenant needed goods and services, parents dropping off and visiting tenants, large outdoor assemblies of students and other gatherings are congregations, in clear violation of Section 325. As such and as provided in Section 325, we submit that no parking may be placed with the 204-foot fall zone. 5. Variances. We have concerns that the proposed setback variance has not been adequately analyzed. While we understand that this is an issue that also concerns Zoning Board of Appeals jurisdiction, we believe that the setback issue is more pronounced given that the property borders a separate zone with single and two-family residences. In addition to these concerns we incorporate by reference the arguments made bythe Roger Dennis family under the cover of their attorney Joseph W. Allen's correspondence to the Board and others dated April18, 2019. In sum, we believe that the project is completely out of character with the existing neighborhood. We request that the Board deny the project. We appreciate your consideration of these matters. cc: Brian H. Grout Joseph W. Allen, Esq. Mayor Svante Myrick Sincerely, Russell E. Digitally signed by Russell E. Maines Date: M . 2019.04.23 a 1 n e s 11 :33:2s -04'oo· Russell E. Maines JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning And Development RESIDENT OPPOSES 815 S Aurora St. PLAN I am here on behalf of Cathy Crane, owner and resident of 108 Grandview Place, a professor at Ithaca College. She would like first to petition the planning board to allow additional hearings for neighbors of 815 S Aurora before they conclude their review for the proposed Site Plan. AN OFF-CAMPUS DORM FOR ITHACA COLLEGE STUDENTS Stakeholders like Ithaca College, according to Ronald Trunzo, Director of Residential Life and Judicial Affairs have not even been made aware of this project. And more proximate neighbors have not been given enough time to respond to this proposal's long-term impact. Since this project design is predicated on targeting Ithaca College students as tenants, it is mandatory that Ithaca College be brought to the table. Publicly. The assumption that such a dormitory will syphon off students from houses on south hill does not take into account that off campus housing is attractive precisely because it is not a dorm. Trunzo confirmed students are "released" from their obligation to live on campus. IC is, after all, a residential college. For fall2019 they released a smaller number than the previous year and the incoming class is expected to be smaller still. In line with national demographic trends, emollment is down at Ithaca College. R-3bZONING R-3b zoning allows for developments of residential density. This particular design though reaches the absolute extreme for maximums allowed for such structures. This demonstrates a level of greed that does not take neighbors or prospective tenants into account. The 4 floor buildings, achieve its the maximum occupancy by prioritizing 3 and 4 room apartments of dormitory design (even proudly describing the use of murphy-beds whose history is notably used in crammed NYC housing). The need to start their buildings outside of the cell tower fall zone, has created a crushing proximity to neighbors to the north and green space to the East. As a result, they have not met existing standards for the rear yard setback required. Developers are currently not seeking a variance and instead looking for precedent averages for irregular lots in the kind of side-stepping of zoning code to which this review board would do well to pay very close attention. There are TWO important codes and legislation that though not applicable according to the letter of the law, certainly pertain to their spirit. 1) ZONING CODE 325-8 B General notes pertaining to regulations.(9) For special conditions on development of property in R-3 that directly abuts R-1, § 325-9B(l). Though ours are R-2 zoning it too pertain to single family dwellings. These regulations (of special interest in this case) are as follows: The development of any permitted use in the R-3a or R-3b Zoning District, except a one- family dwelling or a two-family dwelling, shall be subject to the following special conditions if the land on which the development occurs directly abuts land in either the R-1a or R -1 b Zoning District: .(hl_ Maximum building height: The maximum building height requirement shall be the same as the requirement on the abutting R -1 a or R -1 b District. if)_ Maximum percent of lot coverage by buildings: The maximum percent of lot coverage by buildings shall be 7 5% of the requirement shown on the District Regulations Chart for the R-3a or R-3b District. .@_ Yard dimensions, side or rear yards: The minimum required side or rear yard requirement shall be 150% of the requirement shown on the District Regulations Chart for the R-3a or R-3b District if the side or rear yard abuts land in the R-1a or R-1b District. 2) SOUTH HILL OVERLAY DISTRICT Passed with a 9-1 vote in Common Council session November 2017 and though intended to halt in-fill housing, this District uses as its primary objective to limit student housing on South Hill. At the very least, one should consider that the current proposed projeCt at 815 also includes an outdoor rooftop congregating space for its 150 anticipated tenants; a recipe for an amplification of noise beyond measure or control. and finally, KEEP IT GREEN Keep it green and donate the 815 parcel to the Ithaca Land Trust. Cathy Crane will offer to buy the parcel back from Charles O'Connor if he can't bring himself to make this commitment to preserving green space on South Hill. ITHACA 19 April2010 Planning & Developtnent Board Pl;mrring & Economic Development Division 108 E. GreenStreet Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Boa:tli Members, Rm H. PARK ScHOOL oF Co~'lruNJcATtoNs Cim·ma, Photography, and M<"diaAm Deparnm•nt RE:· Site Plan for 815 S. Aurora Street First let me thank you for your se:tvil:!e in making sure that the public has a say in the process by which teal estate development evolves in the City of Ithaca. As a town resident for 17 years and the property owner and resident of 108 Grandview Place for the last decade, I am partkularly grateful for having the opportunity to state my concerns regarding the plan for new constrUction at 815 S Aurora Street. I Will be out of town on April23rd when the Public Hearing is schedUled so I am submitting my comments here. I would ask that they be read aloud so that those in attendance have the opportunity to hear them. Though I have had only 10 days in which to consider the implicationS of this application to construct three residential buildings on the pa:tcel within 200' of my house, I have taken some time to read the entire application and initiate the first of many inquiries seeking clarification from your department, Tompkins County, and NY State officials for relevant procedures and protections especially as they pertain to preservD:tg green spaces. I also have reviewed applical:>le zoning cO" des vnder the guidance o£ Zoning Ad:ministrator7 Gino Leouardi: What follows is a summ.ary of my concernS at tl:-Q.s point all of which I intend to pursue further for clarification and action. The most pressing concern I have about this proposal is density. As your board is charged with considering the negative imp a~ due to 1'intensity O"f use" in order to "protect and consider compatibility with nearby fe;:~.tures"o£ importance to the co'Il:l.Il1unity, to preserv-e existing views, to deterrtiine appropriate relationship between the proposed development and the nearby streetscape, la.ndscape, ~d the build envrronment_, and review the "substantial aggr.egate effect on the surrounding properties, I am sure you will weight this concemas one of highest priority. Since this projeCt 'falls squarely in the South Hill Overl;:~.y DistrictJ the approval :for this proposal should be c;:~.tegorically impossible. The 815 S Aurora Street proposal disturbs the existing tominunity to a profound degree. The exponential increase of undergraduate student residents in our neighborhood would be unprecedented. Grandview Place is a hamlet; Our cul~de-sac is not even a city" street. There a:re young professionals who live here. I have made peace with some absentee owners cum lanqlords because thetr management teams (and at times the police) can mmage any complaints about:noise ap.d other intrusions to peaceful living. I:n other wordsJ disturbance has not reached a critical, unmanageable mass because these students are contained in single unit dwellings. The application under consideration proposes three buildings on 2~8 acres that rise to four floors, well over the tree line, with ''outdoor amenity space" and "roof terrace and loun~e" for 140 residents. This is a recipe for a level of noise pollution to whiCh no other neighborhood in the city of Ithaca has been subjected. Additionally, the proposal for construction assumes that the bulk of residents will be Ithaca Ithac-a Co!l .. g .. / Roy H. Purk Hall/953 Danby Roaol/ Itha<·a, NY H8SO (607) 274-3896/ Fax: !607j 2H-7073/ wmv.itruwa. .. tlu College stud~s. As a professor at Ithaca College I can attest to the fact that in addition to our status as a residential college where students are housed on-campus for the first two years, our projected enrollment numbers see sharp declines in the foreseeable future. Surrounding apartment complexes on Hudson used by Ithaca College students are one floor dwellings with no encouraged outside gathering place which is more in keeping with our neighborhood of single family homes. In addition to density, zoning and green space preservation is my second major concern. The application itself suggests that they would require a variance in order to meet the provision for calculating a sufficient distance for the rear yard. When one looks at the aerial view, it is clear that the design intends to run right up to the property lines of homes to the north which are situated much lower in elevation (given the nature of a hill) as well as the green space of 708 Hudson to the Ea,st. Building A in particular poses the greatest concern (especially with only 10' North distance on top of a fire hme alongside a four floor building. I would invite the owners of 815 S Aurora to consider making a donation of their glorious green hill to the Ithaca Land Trust. As it now stands, the proposed buildings A & B which would be situated in the northern part of the parcel will all but obliterate the natural light and produce a significant impediment to the free movement of the wildllfe who inhabit this precious natural enclave at 708Hudson. It is this disregard for the diverse and free flow of life on our hill that makes this proposal most troubling and from some accounts, perhaps even illegal. Forcing the largest structures to the north of the parcel seems to be designed itt order not to dismantle the cellphone tower and other structures to the south. And yet, to put new structures north of the cell phone tower puts enough of it in the tower's fall zone to be liable. The fact that the Common Council was asked to approve the reduction of this zone from 340 to 170 feet (itself perhaps illegq.l) is troubling to say the least. I and a group of concerned neighbors are investigating the legality of such a modification to existing sajety laws. I would request that the board not approve this application for new construction. To green light a development that has been designed with no input from or care for current and future residents or its natural envi:!j()nment is the kind of development the town of Ithaca would do best to discourage. This propo~al is precisely the sort of development that fu.e South Hill Overlay District was designed to prevent. I thahk you for your kind and conscientious Cathy Lee Cr · e Associate Pr fe Ithaca College 607272.3599 ccrane@ithaca.edu ~r~w~. ~g~_g~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 417 NORTH CAYIJGA STREET 607.273-6111 Fax 607.273-7920 Email jwa@hinesallen.com makaYJa@hinesallen.com Ithaca City Planning and Development Board Attn: JoAtm Cornish, Director of Planning and Development; 108 E. Green St., 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Project at 815 South Aurora Street I IC Overlook LLC Dear Ms. Cornish, April23,2019 As noted in my previous letters to you of March 15,2019 and April18, 2019, I represent the Dennis family, owners of real estate abutting the above referenced project. My clients have also provided correspondence in this matter under cover of my said letter of April18, 2019. In anticipation of tonight's board meeting, agenda item 6E, I write to expand upon certain of the concerns earlier described to the board. Among these concerns ate as follows: 1. Water Supply: the environmental assessment form, section D .2, paragraph c, confirms that the proposed action will create a new demand for water. To accommodate this demand, the City has approached the Dennis family about constructing water pipes through their premises adjacent easterly to the project site. The City has further threatened eminent domain proceedings if my clients to not wish to convey an interest in their property for water supply piping. The increase demand in water will likely have environmental ra:tn:ifications and the taking of a title interest in the real property of my clients exacerbates such impact by an inequitable forced taking of a real property interest to facilitate that demand. 2. Traffic: I have been unable to discern from the documents submitted by the developer whether any specific traffic impact study has been done for this project. The environmental assessment form, Section D.2, paragraphj specifically lists "substantial increase in traffic." Given the specific site concerns of the project relative JWA:mp CC: Deborah Grunder; Roger Dennis JWA:mp to Route 96, particularly the steepness of the highwa>f grade and the fact that the easterly most north{:rly lane is being shortened to a p~int above the project, as part of a County project, a specific traffic study is reasonably dictated for both traffic accommodation and substantial safety issues. Furthe~as a matter of clarification, I note that contrary to the materials subn::ritted there is 4o record easement from the subject premises aGross the premises of my clients to;ithe east, giving access to Hudson Place. A limited previous use has been te~ated. 3. As set out in the letter of Attorney Maines dated Ap~ 23, 2019, issues of zoning variances exist. Building as projected eliminates gre$ space, causes water drainage/runoff issues, and deprives my clients of a spbstantial view-shed. Additionally, the proximity of such a structure is a li~ely to result in substantial increased noise levels and exterior lighting, as noted fn. the environmental assessment form, Section D.2, paragraphs m and n. ~ I thank you for your consideration of these issues. ldt 1/ "; .~1 i : / .1;/ Yo~'.-.;. 1 ~h· I /-~'-.: ,1 ! , ,/ /; 1 ·: .• r.. Y ;'. I I !•' I I I I 'i f ')! ! )/ .. .Jose,p···~ ...... · y1 fA 1~ r· , , • .l"ll.len l ~ !J f ! ~ I CC: Deborah Grunder; Roger Dennis 4/21/19 To the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Department, I am a native of Ithaca and a long-time resident of South Hill. I live on Grandview Place located a stone's throw from the proposed site for a housing development at 815 S Aurora St. I have been a property manager in Ithaca and predominately on South Hill. I have also served 5 years on the Conservation Advisory Council and with the IC Community Work Group. My experience and understanding of neighborhood issues are in depth with competency in housing and zoning ordinances. I support the new housing project proposed by Visum and encourage the Planning Board to approve the project plans. I have reviewed the project plans and met with Charlie Oconnor of Visum to discuss it further. I see the due diligence in project planning has been applied. It has adapted to meet site needs and community deficiencies. I further understand the developers do listen to the neighborhood concerns and are interested to contribute to solutions. I see the following factual benefits in this project: Improved Infrastructure: -Reduced traffic lanes will help reduce vehicle speed at the point it enters the city; where it currently has consistent high speed (55 mph} drivers. -Sidewalk expansion for the new building residents will help pedestrian access. The city sidewalk ends at Grandview Ave and is deficient in the neighborhood. There is regular pedestrian activity that goes downtown or up to the IC campus which is forced into the street (and back yards}. -Contribution to the tax base. Meets the goals for City and Neighborhood Planning: -There is a housing crisis in Ithaca. This project meets a market demand for housing inventory and helps ease the market pressure on the existing stock. This housing project will contribute to a market adjustment by providing new inventory on the upper South Hill and therefore opening up existing housing in the lower South Hill area. Whereas lifestyle differences with renters has been a conflict for the neighborhood, this developed change can help alleviate those issues. -The Comprehensive Plan and, notably, projects presented by Cornell Planning Dept Students call for growth on South Hill, while carefully planned and monitored. More housing, increased density, and retail is considered ideal for the upper hill near and around the Coddington Road intersection. This a small hub location now and some development is appropriate. This project is a good precursor to the potential development on the Emerson site. Sincerely Jesse Hill