Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2019-05-28 Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes May 28, 2019 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair; Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Jack Elliott; Mitch Glass; Matthew Johnston; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: None 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: Greenstar – Satisfaction of Conditions Brandon Kane, Greenstar general manager Linc Morse, project sponsor John Snyder, architect Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan – Preliminary Approval of Conceptual Site Plan James Gensel for David Lubin, Unchained Properties NCRE Cornell University – Presentation & Public Hearing Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects Arvind Tikku, iKon 5 Architects Arthaus – 130 Cherry Street Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning and Design Molly Chiang, Vecino Group Yossi Bronsnick, Taitem Engineering Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 2 Student Housing – 815 S. Aurora Street Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Adam Fishel, Marathon Engineering Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals Todd Fox, Visum Development Mixed-Use Development – 510 W. State Street Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals Todd Fox, Visum Development Sketch Plan – 312 E Seneca Street Jagat Sharma, architect Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Deputy Director Nicholas said there were no changes to the agenda. 2. Privilege of the Floor Chair Lewis opened Privilege of the Floor. David Kossack of 140 E Spencer Street spoke in opposition to two projects under consideration: the student apartments at 815 S. Aurora and the building at 510 W. State. He said that the S. Aurora Street apartments concern him because of the proximity to the property lines, the student focus, and the (perceived) changes to the zoning or safety regulations made to accommodate the project. He said that the five story building so close to the property lines is guaranteed to keep the neighbors in the dark for decades. He said that enrollment at IC has been on the decline recently, so he’s not sure what that would mean long-term for a development specifically geared to IC students. Of 510 W. State, he said that when he first saw the renderings showing huge, windowless concrete block walls he thought it was a joke. He said that it’s clearly intended to abut future developments, which means that this is not the entire proposal, and makes him curious about what the developer would like to do with the entire block. Darcy Rose of 172 Applegate Road spoke in support of the Arthaus project proposed for Cherry Street. She said that Ithaca is the most “un-lakey” lake town she knows. She would like to see an arts-forward project go forward and revitalize the area around the Inlet. She said she is Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 3 an actress with the Cherry Arts and she thinks that having an arts-forward space married to low- income housing would make a great addition to that area. Peter Wissoker of 705 N. Tioga Street expressed concerns about the air quality along Cherry Street in the vicinity of the Arthaus project. He said the site is across from Ben Weitsman’s scrap metal recycling, which is the cause of his concern. He said Part 1 of the environmental review indicated lead, ozone, particulates, and sulphur dioxide were all above recommended levels. He said he is concerned that there could be health issues for the people living at the Arthaus. He asked the Board to incorporate something into the study for the developers to demonstrate that the air quality will be safe and livable. He referred them to some materials he had sent the Board previously discussing health risks to residents living near scrap metal processors in Texas. He said he doesn’t know exactly what processes Weitsman is using at their site, but he asked the Board to make sure some testing is done to be sure that the air quality is safe for the families that will be living there before giving the project the go-ahead. He said that he likes the project and wants it to go forward, but he wants to be sure that the location they have chosen is a healthy place for families to live. Kathleen Mulligan of 33 Bald Hill Road, Spencer, professor of drama at IC, spoke in favor of the Arthaus project. She said Ithaca is an expensive place to live. She said when she moved to the area from California, she was shocked by the rents and decided to buy a house. She said most artists would find it difficult to live in Ithaca unless they are affiliated with (or have a partner who is affiliated with) IC or Cornell. She said she’s excited by this project because it has the potential to attract artists to the area. She said that Cherry Street is at present a ghost town, with warehouses and businesses, but no people on the street, but this project would vitalize the area. She said the location is within walking distance of Wegmans and downtown, and locating an apartment building there would benefit the surrounding businesses. Roger Dennis of 4 Hudson Place spoke about the 815 S. Aurora Street project. He said that many people regard Hudson Heights Apartments (which he owns) as student housing, but approximately 40 percent of the residents are non-students, 30 percent are students who want a quieter space than the dorms, and about 10 percent are grad students. He said he thinks the proposed student apartments will negatively impact his tenants, the residents of Hudson Heights. He said he thinks the project will make it so nobody wants to buy a house or to live in that area and he’s worried about the neighborhood. He expressed concerns about snow removal, insufficient parking, and the dangers posed by the cell tower. He also said stormwater runoff presents a huge problem, as does the increase in traffic, both from this project and from Chainworks. Sue Dennis of 135 Coddington Road said that area residents opposed the cell tower when it went in, but the Board allowed it and said at that time that if it fell, it would fall into the green area. She said that the rules have since changed. She expressed concerns about traffic and how a crane might be able to get in and out to work on the tower (which is needed occasionally for maintenance). Peter Fortunato of 172 Pearsall Place spoke in opposition to the Aurora Street project. He said he thinks it is ill conceived. He said he thinks it’s going to be a mess, and the traffic is going to Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 4 be terrible. He also expressed concern about stormwater runoff and the plume of contamination from the former Morse Chainworks operation. Susan Fritts of 106 Grandview Place spoke against the Aurora Street project. She said that she thinks the proposed rooftop terrace will be a nightmare for neighbors, as it’s a pretty quiet area right now. She said she lives nearby and is not too happy with having people partying high up above her house. She said that she hopes the Board considers the project very carefully. Lee Dillon, executive director of Tompkins Community Action, spoke in favor of the Arthaus project. She said they are hoping to be the supportive housing provider for the project for the 40 units of homeless housing proposed for the project. She said they currently have 70 youth on the coordinated assessment list for the continuum of care for Tompkins County. She said the 40 units at Arthaus will be targeted to young people (like Amici House). She said they could fill three Amici houses. Brian Grout of 809 S. Aurora Street spoke in opposition to the Aurora Street project. He said he is concerned about the loss of sunshine for his property if the proposed buildings are built. He said that with the elevation increases by about 15 feet from the edge of his property to the point of the 10 foot setback where the building would be built. With four stories above that, it would mean a structure that would stand 55 feet above his house, which he said is totally out of scale for the neighborhood. He said they already have a stormwater runoff problem, and he is concerned this project would make that worse. He also said that City code stipulates no congregation within the fall zone of the cell tower, and he said that the parking lot is located within that fall zone and expressed concerns about people congregating there. He concluded byu saying that he thinks the project as proposed is much too big for the site. 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 Petrina, seconded by Johnston, the April 23, 2019 minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications. 4. Site Plan Review A. Greenstar Project Changes, 770 Cascadilla Street by Brandon Kane of Greenstar. Approval of Project Changes. This project was approved by the Planning Board on June 26, 2018, with subsequent changes approved by the Board on March 26, 2019. The applicant is now returning to with requested items and to request additional changes. Project sponsor Linc Morse, Brandon Kane of Greenstar, and architect John Snyder presented the proposed project changes to the Board. They are proposing large sign along the elevation facing Route 13. The sign elements (letters and illustrations of vegetables) would be made of die- cut metal and bolted to the CMU block of the building. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 5 The applicants also proposed changing the bollards in the parking lot from wood to metal, and reported that they eliminated one curb cut and landscaping at one location because they determined that it was not their property, but rather belonged to Rick’s Rental next door. Elliott asked them about how they were going to delineate the western edge of the parking lot from the road. Board and staff suggested they consider adding curb stops and/or bollards to define that edge. Applicants agreed. B. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (FGEIS), 620 S. Aurora St. by Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Presentation of Revised Phase 1, Public Hearing, and Potential Preliminary Approval of Conceptual Site Plan. 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 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 the proposal for Phase 1 of the project. Public Hearing On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. Earlona Ashby of 601 Turner Place asked about traffic and parking impacts on her property. She said they have no parking there, except for on the street, and Turner Place is considered a Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 6 no-access road. She said that the City rarely plows between her house and the gate, and she has to call every time there’s a snowfall. She said she’s concerned about traffic impacts when they begin construction, and that even though the road is no-access, people are constantly turning down it by mistake and having to turn around. She said she grew up in the home she still lives in, and is very glad to see something happening to the site, as the buildings are deteriorating. However, she wants to make sure nothing will be done to impact their on-street parking. John Oakley of 510 Turner Place said he is also happy to see something being done to the buildings because their deterioration is a cause of concern for them as neighbors. He said he is a little concerned about noise in the short term but happy to see the factory have new life. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Petrina. . Gensel said that the main access will be through Drive 1 (connected to Aurora Street), which will ultimately be a signalized access. He said that limiting traffic on Turner Place has always been a consideration. He said that as for plowing, they will be responsible for maintaining all the interior roads on the site to ensure access throughout. He said that as for parking, they should have more than enough onsite. Johnston asked if it might be possible for area residents to park onsite (particularly on days with inclement weather). Gensel said they would be open to discussion. He said the TDMP they developed called for assigned parking spots and passes, but he thinks the on-street parking at Building 21 would probably be left open for visitors and would not be part of that program. Jones asked about restricting access to Turner Place. Gensel said that the reason for the connection to Turner is to serve as a relief valve and/or in the event of an emergency. He said that if problems arise and they need to reconsider restricting access, the GIS process will allow for that, as they will re-analyze conditions as they enter Phase 2, and if things aren’t working as anticipated, they will have to make revisions. Adopted Resolution for Preliminary Approval of Conceptual Site Plan On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street by Scott Whitham and Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties, and WHEREAS: the proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has appl ied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, manufacturing and a natural area, and which consists of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of four Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 7 existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. The project also requires a subdivision approval and approvals from the Town of Ithaca for a Planned Development Zone and site plan approval, and WHEREAS: The proposed project exceeds the thresholds defined for Type I projects in both the State and City Environmental Quality Review Law. Type I actions carry with them the presumption that it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Specifically, this project exceeds the Type I thresholds as defined in Chapter 176 of 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), and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, made a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 24, 2014, directing the Project Sponsor to prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project, and WHEREAS: on November 18, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board held both an Agency Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the GEIS, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on January 13, 2015, approve a Scoping Document, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency for the purpose of environmental review, did on March 8, 2016 review the DGEIS submitted by the Project Sponsor for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and with the assistance of City Staff and the City’s consultants, Adam Walters of Phillips Lytle LLP, find the DGEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, and WHEREAS: on March 29, 2016, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Development Board to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the DGEIS, and written comments for the same purpose were accepted until May 25, 2016, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board as Lead Agency, did on March 26, 2019 accept the Final GEIS for the CWD as complete for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA regulations) and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code (the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, CEQRO), and WHEREAS: on March 26, 2019, the Planning Board adopted the Findings Statement, which was a “positive” findings statement, meaning that the proposed Project was potentially “approvable” (a relevant term used in the State’s “SEQR Handbook”) by the Planning Board, as to its site plan, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has used the Findings Statement to assist in its review of the proposed site plan, and in considering conditions that should be applied to any approval thereof, and WHEREAS: In accordance with the City of Code regarding PUDs; “When and if the Planning and Development Board has completed its environmental review of the project to the extent required under SEQRA and CEQRO and has issued a contingent site plan approval or in the case of a multiphase project Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 8 has issued a preliminary contingent site plan approval of multiple phases along with a final contingent site plan approval of at least one phase, the project will return to the Common Council for final consideration of the adoption of the PUD, which at Council's discretion may be authorized for one or all phases of a multiphase project”, and WHEREAS: as this is a multiphase project, the applicant is now pursuing preliminary site plan approval for the entire project and will pursue final site plan approval for Phase 1 in the near future, 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 May 28, 2019, and WHEREAS: the 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 Planning Board has, on May 28, 2019 reviewed and accepted as adequate the drawing entitled “Overall Conceptual Site Layout Plan” also known as Figure 2.3-2 in the FGEIS, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the above referenced Conceptual Site Layout Plan for the proposed Chainworks Redevelopment Project, and be it further RESOLVED: that prior to final site plan approval of Phase 1, the applicant must submit a full site plan review application that includes all required materials and demonstrates compliance with the FGEIS, the approved conceptual site layout plan and the proposed Chainworks District PUD and Design Guidelines. Moved by: Petrina 2nd by: Elliott In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Chair Lewis had to leave the meeting unexpectedly for a brief time, so Vice-Chair Jones assumed the duties of chair in his absence. C. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campus by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Continuation of Site Plan Review (Jessup Road Elevations & Conditions of Approval). 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 Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 9 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 of Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects and Arvind Tikku of iKon 5 Architects appeared in front of the Board to present project updates and answer questions. Wolf said that the submission dated May 10 should answer all the conditions listed in the Preliminary Site Plan Approval. She said she thinks they have met all conditions, with the exception of the MOUs, but those are also in process, as Cornell has submitted them to the City Attorney’s office, so it seems like they will be ready to seek final approvals at the next meeting. Wolf said that in response to the Board’s comments, they have changed the proposal for the wall at the Akwe:kon driveway from poured concrete to dry laid natural stone. She said there are other stone walls along Triphammer, so they think it will be more contextual. Tikku next gave a brief presentation discussing how the elevations of the buildings relate to the programming inside and explaining some of their design choices. Glass asked if there were going to be solar panels on the roofs. Wolf said Cornell was exploring it, but has not made a determination yet. Glass asked if there were any mechanicals on the roofs. Tikku said no, there are only low profile exhaust fans. Jones asked if there are any buildings from which they would be visible. Tikku said they would be visible from the two high-rise buildings in this area of campus. Jones said she would like to see drawings showing those views. Elliott said there didn’t seem to be any substantial changes to the elevations they’d seen previously, and it doesn’t seem like the new drawings reflect any of his concerns raised at previous meetings. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 10 Blalock asked how the dining facility cooking exhaust would go. Tikku said the dining facility itself is two stories, but that the exhaust would continue all the way to the top of the five-story building, so it would not be able to infiltrate any of the residential floors above. Johnston asked how they will bring water away from the recessions at the base of the building (to avoid water infiltration). Tikku said that they will create a small curb where either the terra cotta panels or glazing will meet the ground. (Also, both float above ground level by a small gap of a few inches, which prevents wicking of the water by the terra cotta.) Johnston asked if there would be a long lead time on replacement glass for the building. Tikku said they have not yet selected a manufacturer for the glass, but the material they want is not particularly customized, so it shouldn’t have an especially long wait time. He said it will be tempered and is the kind of material you would have to have intent in order to break it (not with just a rock coming off a car or something). He said fairly long lead times are a function of the state of the glass industry as a whole right now. Jones asked if there would be windows in stairwells to incentivize their use. Tikku said no, but that there would be good interior lighting. He said that they placed stairs nearer to the entrances and also limited the overall height of the buildings to promote taking the stairs. Chair Lewis rejoined the meeting at the conclusion of the NCRE presentation. D. Arthaus, 130 Cherry Street by Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning & Design. 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 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 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). Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 11 Scott Whitham of Whitham Planning and Design; Molly Chiang of the Vecino Group; and Yossi Bronsnick of Taitem Engineering appeared before the Board to provide project updates. Elliott asked if they are specifying buying renewable energy. Bronsnick said no. Elliott said that just because all the systems will run on electrical doesn’t mean it will be green, as lots of the grid is powered by fossil fuels. Bronsnick said he knows, but the building will be prepared for the greening of the grid. Elliott suggested they get the project sponsor to go along with the specifying a percentage of the electricity come from renewables. Bronsnick said it would be challenging to do so, as the apartment units would be individually metered. He said there has been talk about, for example, buying into community solar, but nothing has been set in stone yet. Director Cornish asked for drawings showing the exterior and rooftop mechanicals. Bronsnick said the majority would be located on the roof, set back and shielded by the parapet. Director Cornish also asked if any mechanicals would be visible on the elevations. Bronsnick said no, there would be a few in the garage, but nothing would be visible from the street or the Inlet. Whitham said they would provide the Board with a rooftop plan. Chaing then reviewed final elevations and a materials board. Whitham said that they are aware of the concerns that have been raised about air quality in the area. He said that they have not heard anything from their environmental team, but that they will go back to them and follow up on the questions/concerns that have been raised. Glass expressed concern about the east elevation, saying it’s very flat, though he expressed support for the goals of the project as a whole. Elliott expressed similar concerns about the monolithic edge of the east elevation, and he said he didn’t think it was too late to do something to change it. Jones said that Cherry Street is in transition right now with a lot of open space, and that in an urban context a tall wall can feel more comfortable, but in this case, it can compromise the human scale of the building. She suggested applicants consider stepping back to give a more spacious feeling at the street. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 12 Glass suggested creating shadow lines, saying that it’s an architectural massing problem. Elliott said that if this is the first, it will set a precedent. Blalock said he agrees, but that at this stage, such changes might not be in the cards. Director Cornish said that the Board does have the right to ask for changes. Chair Lewis asked if the questions about air quality would require the Board to reopen SEQR. Many Board members agreed they ought to do so. Chair Lewis asked Deputy Director Nicholas for information on next steps. Nicholas said that by reopening SEQR the Board would then create (presumably) an amended Neg Dec (if the information provided supports that) and then incorporate the new information into the Neg Dec. She said the Board will need to tell the applicants what information they need in order to evaluate whether or not there is an impact. After additional discussion, the Board requested additional information from the applicants regarding air quality, possibly to include monitoring reports to indicate whether the levels of particulates, etc. fall within safety limits. Consideration of Preliminary Approval TABLED. 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 68 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property located in the R-3b zoning district. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 13 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, Adam Fishel of Marathon Engineering, and project sponsors Charlie O’Connor and Todd Fox appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. Demarest said that they made a minor change to the site plan to include a loading zone in the parking lot; they modified the planting plan to include a row of tall, narrow trees along the property line to provide screening, and added a number of shade trees; they provided a shadow study to indicate the project’s impacts on neighboring properties; and they provided updated views from several points alongside photos of existing conditions. He also shared material samples. Fishel reported that they are still working with the DOT and the Fire Department to make sure all Fire Department access issues are resolved satisfactorily (fire lane and curb cuts). Chair Lewis then asked the Board if they had any questions or comments. Elliott asked about their stormwater runoff plans. Fishel said that to control peak flow runoff, they are proposing a series of underground chambers below the upper parking lot, in addition to nine 2,000-gallon cistern tanks in the basement level of Building A. He said that those systems, along with a bio-retention area, meet the DEC peak flow runoff requirements. Elliott asked if these systems would capture the additional runoff from all new impervious surfaces. Demarest said that DEC requires that you make it better than current conditions, which he said is essentially unmitigated runoff coming down the hill. Elliott said it’s hard to do better water retention than with natural turf. Applicants agreed that it is hard and expensive to do retention, but said that the site has “D” soils, high bedrock and a steep slope, which minimizes retention capability in its current state. Currently, water runs off into a 15-inch stormwater pipe at the northwest corner of the site, which analysis shows is a bit undersized for the runoff. They said they are approaching DOT with a proposal to enlarge the pipe and place the connection deeper to further mitigate the stormwater problems, but if they are denied that, they will replace the existing 15-inch connection, and still slightly improve conditions at that corner. Elliott asked about green roofs. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 14 Applicants said the Fire Chief is against it. Director Cornish confirmed that the Chief is opposed because he thinks it is a possible fire hazard (confirmed cases of fires on green roofs). Several Board members expressed concerns that green roofs can’t be used here (as they are in many other cities). Director Cornish said the units are very tiny (and provided comparisons to another project with more generous unit sizes). She said they are making the units as small as possible while still meeting code, though they’re market rate. She also said it seems like the exterior materials are the cheapest they could go with, which is going to look terrible. Jones said she also is concerned about the materials selections, and it seems like profit maximization is a major goal of this project. She said she appreciates the stated goal of providing student housing to alleviate demand elsewhere and free up other homes for families, but it will be years before they will know if it is successful on that level. She said the massing seems large to the point of being out of character with the neighborhood, the materials are low quality, and many of the neighbors oppose it, which all together puts the Board in an uncomfortable position. She said she hopes that providing more units for students will lower rents elsewhere, but she’s not sure it will. Petrina said she wants to support this project because of the complaints from farther down South Hill and the desire to get students up closer to the college. She said that in Part III there’s a really clear explanation of how the zoning changes from R-2A to R-3B right at the northern edge of the property, which would seem to make sense in a plan, but when you see the project in cross section with hill factored in, the whole thing comes into question – even if it is allowed by zoning. O’Connor said that though the units might be small, they are providing quite a few amenities such as a gym, media lounges, outdoor terraces and rec spaces, and in-unit washers, dryers, and dishwashers, all of which offsets the size of the units and needs to be factored in to the design and the cost of the buildings. With respect to the façade, he said that he actually likes it, but understands that the Board has had some problem with, say, stucco finishes, in the past. He said that they intend to spend a lot of money to create a very tight envelope (which will save the tenants on utility costs), but when you spend a lot of money in one area, you spend less somewhere else. He said they have been working with Stream to try to enhance the streetscape side, as with the stair towers. Johnston said with respect to the roof deck, it can be a real benefit to all tenants to be able to go up and enjoy the view, but he asked how much value they would lose to get rid of it, cut down on noise, and improve the public perception of the project. Demarest said it’s a fairly small space and would have a maximum capacity of around 10 to 15 people. He said it overlooks the courtyard: It’s on the middle building, not the north building. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 15 O’Connor said it will have fobbed access and be closed and locked down before 9 p.m. Director Cornish asked if management would be done by someone who lives onsite. Applicants said no, but they would have a manager nearby, and have a security system with cameras. Director Cornish asked about deliveries and trash pickup. Demarest said that right now there is a dumpster enclosure in the parking lot (primary dumpster), and there’s a proposal for another one at a garage door on the front, but that one is in question due to DOT and Fire Department comments. He said they felt it was important to provide one for each building so residents don’t have to go all the way to the parking lot. They are looking at alternatives based on DOT comments, but the final position for the second dumpster hasn’t been settled upon yet. Director Cornish asked about mechanicals. Demarest said all mechanicals would be set back on the rooftop and completely surrounded with a physical screen. The Board next discussed areas of the FEAF Part III still needing responses. Board and staff asked the applicants to provide more information on what benefits the project would provide to the community and describe what plans are in place for management and security, exterior trash pickup, etc. (any issues raised by neighbors as possibly detrimental). F. Mixed Use Apartments (77 Units), 510 W MLK/ State Street by Stream Collaborative, Noah Demarest, for Project Sponsors Todd Fox & Charlie O’Connor . Declaration of Lead Agency, & Review - Draft FEAF Parts 2 & 3. The applicant proposes to construct a 4- to 6-story building with a footprint of 13,730 SF and a GSA of approximately 74,700 SF. The project will have 2,100 SF of retail space on the first floor facing W State/ MLK Street and 77 housing units, permanently affordable to households making 50-70% Area Median Income (AMI). Building amenities include a community room, bike and general storage, a laundry room and a fifth floor lounge with access to a rooftop terrace. The project site has frontage on three streets (W State/MLK, Corn and W Seneca) and is in two zoning districts: CBD 60 in which the maximum height is 60’ and B-2d in which the maximum height is 40’. Neither zone has a prescribed number of stories. The project is subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines and will likely require an area variance for rear yard setback. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B(1)(h)[4], (k) & (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11). Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 16 Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative was on hand to answer questions and comments from the Board. He said that they are waiting to update the plans for the site based on proposed zoning changes currently being considered by PEDC and possibly to be considered by Common Council. He said they are working on responses to comments from the PRNR as well. Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Johnston: 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 mixed-use development located at 510 W MKL/State St and 507 W Seneca St. by Visum Development, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 4- to 6-story building with a footprint of 13,730 SF and a GSA of approximately 74,700 SF. The project will have 2,100 SF of retail space on the first floor facing W State/ MLK Street and 77 housing units, permanently affordable to househ olds making 50-70% Area Median Income (AMI). Building amenities include a community room, bike and general storage, a laundry room and a fifth floor lounge with access to a rooftop terrace. The project site has frontage on three streets (W State/MLK, Corn and W Seneca) and is in two zoning districts: CBD 60 in which the maximum height is 60’ and B-2d in which the maximum height is 40’. Neither zone has a prescribed number of stories. The project is subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines and will likely require an area variance for rear yard setback, and WHEREAS: This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B(1)(h)[4], (k) & (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §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, have all been identified as potentially Involved Agencies in 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, have all consented to the City Planning Board being Lead Agency for this Project, 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. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 17 Moved by: Blalock Seconded by: Johnston In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None The Board next reviewed FEAF Parts II and III. Blalock urged the applicant to discuss the proposed project with TCAT. G. 312 E Seneca Street – Sketch Plan Architect Jagat Sharma appeared in front of the Board to present a proposal for redevelopment of 312 E. Seneca Street. 5. Old/New Business  Sexual Harassment Training All members are required to complete online training by end of September 2019. Deputy Director Nicholas said that if they wanted to do it as a group, she would set it up.  Board Retreat Deputy Director Nicholas requested members fill in the Doodle Poll that was sent out.  Planning Board Recommendation on Proposal to Amend Sections of Chapter 325, Zoning, the City Municipal Code Pertaining to Proposed Revisions to the CBD 60 Zoning District on the 300, 400, and 500 Block of West State Street in the City of Ithaca After discussion, Board members agreed to send the following Memorandum to Common Council: Memorandum To: Common Council From: Planning & Development Board Date: June 3, 2019 RE: Planning Board Comments on the Proposal to Amend Sections of Chapter 325, Zoning, of the City Municipal Code Pertaining to Proposed Revisions to the CBD 60 Zoning District on the 300, 400, and 500 Block of West State Street At their May 28th meeting, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the above referenced proposal and agreed to provide the following comments:  Board members support the change to a 12 foot floor to floor minimum for the ground floor. Approved by the Planning and Development Board June 25, 2019 18  Board members support the reduction in height to 5 stories and 52 feet.  Board members support implementation of a required step back on W State Street. Reducing building height along the street will encourage design that is of a human scale and respects the character of the neighborhood.  Board member did reach a consensus on the proposal to allow a 6th story if 20% of the total unit count is affordable to households making 50-80% AMI. Some members felt that additional height should not be the incentive for affordable housing and would like to see the City develop other options to incentivize developers to build affordable housing, such as the relaxation some requirements. 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair Chair Lewis had no formal report, but he thanked Vice-Chair Jones for filling out when he had to leave unexpectedly. B. Board of Public Works Liaison Blalock said there’s going to be a new foot bridge across the Flood Control Channel, near the Arthaus project site. He said that W. State Street is being repaved again because the contractor used the wrong grade of asphalt previously. It will be at the contractor’s (or their insurer’s) expense, not the City’s. Tim Logue caught the mistake. C. Director of Planning & Development Director Cornish said work on College Ave would start June 6, and that most of the street would be closed off and on for the next three years. This year will be water and sewer improvements. Next year will be electrical, and the third year will be streetscape improvements. She said there would be a ribbon cutting for the new Alex Haley Wading Pool on Friday, May 31. 7. Adjournment: On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Planning & Dev remarks 2019-05-28 Hello I am here today to speak to a few things, some more specific and some more broad. Chainworks: Rock and roll. I'm fully supportive of this. Rehabilitating and renovating this huge, pre-existing structure seems like a great thing. I'm glad it is moving forward. I am here today to speak in opposition to two projects: The massive beige bunkers of student housing proposed for S Aurora St The weird amoeba of oppression proposed for W State St And, as a note, I was very disappointed to learn that the same developer is responsible for both of these unseemly proposals. S Aurora St This proposal has much to speak against but my main points are the issues of changing zoning rules to accommodate, the proximity to property lines, and the student housing focus. Proximity to property lines: As far as I can tell, the design for this 5 story project brings it right up to the property lines and the neighboring residential properties. It is almost comical in its absurdity. 5 story development built right up on the property line next to existing residential homes. On the south side no less, all but guaranteeing to block the sun. But then, as I understand it, this is not the first time these developers have done this to a neighboring residence. This is not a positive pattern. Student housing focus: I'm not against students having a place to live, but this aspect deserves more scrutiny. This is clearly aimed at IC students and as I understand it, IC has seen a decline in enrollment recently. And what do the enrollment projections for IC look like long term? I have no idea. Have they changed? This seems like important info for this proposal. What is the purpose of building a massive and fairly offensive student housing project if there is a decline in the students it is being built for? And for the longer term, if IC is looking at declining enrollment, I expect they will look to keep more students living on campus. How does that impact this project? Changing zoning to accommodate: This is perhaps a bit more general but I am highly uncomfortable with seeing zoning and safety rules changed to accomodate the desires of a developer. I understand that perhaps the rules were excessive or unnecessary or whatever but the fact seems to be that this developer asked for changes to safety and zoning to suit their desires and they got it. I do not like that precedent. W State St This one actually made my jaw drop. I get the idea of development in that area. Its not the craziest thing in the world. BUT this proposal? This weird, oppressive amoeba? Seriously? Again, it is almost comical in its absurdity. Huge swaths of windowless concrete walls cutting thru a whole block, clearly signaling the impending destruction of everything else around it. Not a sexy look. Huge windowless walls: Ugly. Lame. The fracturing of the block for decades: The impact of this proposal will result in a massive scar, fracturing the block for decades, generations maybe. That seems unwise. The looming, impending doom for the surrounding area: This is probably the most important point here. These huge walls mean one thing: future development. Like, the whole block. So lets be real about that. What are we actually looking at? What is the actual plan here? What happens to the businesses that are there? To the people living there? And lets be clear, this is not about putting up a building. This is about shaping the entire city in substantial ways. So lets be clear about what that actually is. The general: I am not against development. I support good, thoughtful development but I feel like I am seeing less of that proposed in Ithaca. And we have not even really begun to see the impacts of the substantial developments still underway. City Centre, Harold Square. These are two massive projects which have not even begun to impact Ithaca beyond the hassles of their construction. And thats just the big things nearing completion. Chainworks is still moving forward, Green St garage redevelopment is on the horizon, the Old Library development is coming. I feel it may be time to tap the breaks a bit. If we can. Housing is of course needed and important. Answering the question of "What housing do we need here?" is important. But we must also ask "What kind of living do we want to happen here?" Housing is not living. Are we building just to build or because it supports and uplifts the living we want to happen here? 27May2019 TO: Planning & Development Board, City of Ithaca FROM: Cathy Lee Crane, owner/resident of 108 Grandview Place RE: IMP ACTS of proposed 815 S Aurora Development I want to publicly thank those who have graciously met with me in-person or by phone over the last two months: Planning Director Joann Cornish, Mayor Svante Myrick, 1st Ward representative Cynthia Brock, and staff at the Ithaca Planning and Zoning Divisions. I understand the City's obligation to provide adequate housing to its residents and the land use rights the owners of 815 S Aurora possess. These rights in fact have consistently been invoked as reason enough to allow this development to proceed. Yes, R3-b zoning permits this landowner to develop high density residential housing and there is an abiding hope that a development of this kind will, over time, siphon Ithaca College students currently housed in single family South Hill homes further South. Permission and hope however are not enough to allow. It is simply very likely this development is just too much project for a lot this size. The Planning Board has a particular duty to evaluate the impact of permitted land use and condition any site plan approval by proving such impacts have been mitigated. At this point, my most salient unanswered questions revolve around the impacts of the proposed development. After months of guided research, the impacts of this particular development are irrefutably significant. Planning Review can and should demand that the developers concretely mitigate the impacts enumerated below in concert with and in the context of building ordinances and the City's Comprehensive Plan. At this stage, the developer's published responses to previously voiced concerns are, for the most part, unsubstantiated conjecture. Their responses do not sufficiently address impact concerns and/or studies on environmental and neighborhood impact have not been conducted or findings not yet been made public. What follows are the most urgent impacts I expect the Planning Board to substantially and rigorously address and review. ZONING PROBLEMS: • Under zoning regulations for R3-b, coverage for all structures, including parking, cannot exceed 40% of the lot area. The developer reports total impervious site coverage, considering existing facilities and proposed improvements, as 68,280 SF, which equates to a lot coverage in excess of 55.47% So too, at 65 units currently situated on 2 of the almost 3 acres of this lot, the density is over 30 units per acre, and therefore inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan p. 37. • Given regulations for rear yard setback in R3-b zoning, the development's northernmost buildings are too close to both Northern and Eastern neighboring properties. The zoning division and the city attorney have allowed this development to circumvent those regulations due to the lot's "unique" shape in a process that depends upon an averaging that goes against the plain language of Ordinance 10-03, which makes clear that gerrymandering the math in order to determine rear yard setbacks is not an acceptable solution. DEMAND: The public has a right to review the zoning division's determination to waive the developers' own anticipated requirement to seek zoning variance on setback. The zoning division's gerrymandered determination modified both area and setback regulations set out for R3-b zoning. Given that the Planning Board must adequately address site impacts of density and that density's proximity to neighboring lots in the rear yard, it must demand that developers officially seek a variance. The public's right to review exceptions to zoning regulations must not be circumvented. The developers have made concessions but they insist that the stepping back of building A will not be one of them. Let us be clear, this setback is NOT a concession to be granted but a right neighboring property owners possess as outlined in zoning regulations. Cynthia Brock herself is concerned that developers have crammed their design into all the land left between the outer edge of the cell tower fall zone and the neighboring lots. We continue to demand that the developers back up buildings from their current proximity to northern and eastern parcels and reduce the height of the most proximate building A by a minimum of one floor. PARKING PROBLEM: According to the developers, the parking lot under the cell tower fall zone "complies with zoning". And yet, ordinance§ 325-29.9 follows the standard rule that areas where people congregate shall not be within a fall zone. I have placed a FOIL request to review the process by which this fall zone was modified for the purpose of approving this development. Given the then-existing setbacks and the steep slope, it is hard to imagine that there would not have been an imposed condition restricting further site development or prohibiting a second primary use of such a Lot. Certainly, that would have been the case following New York State prescriptions in such cases. Additionally, ordinance§ 325-20(D)(2) requires even-surfaced lots unobstructed by structures, walls, landscaping elements, and other obstructions. Here, parking is tucked around every edge of several buildings. Two-way traffic seems inevitable for which there is not yet sufficient planned internal traffic circulation in the site plan. DEMAND: Numerous items must be closely examined for zoning compliance as it pertains to parking. The actual distances and lot and lane sizing must comply with the standards of ordinance§ 325-20 and the terms for the fall zone modification and its strictures for development within that zone must be in accordance with more rigorous standards. Proceedings for these determinations must be made public in the site plan. TRAFFIC CONTROLS PROBLEM: There have been no traffic counts or estimates provided for the impact of increased traffic. This proposed dense development in conjunction with the DOT plan to install our much-needed sidewalk on 96B will undoubtedly increase traffic. As currently planned, the main run downhill into the City for all of South Hill will be channeled from two lanes into one at Coddington Road and ALL vehicle access to the 815 S Aurora development will be confined to the entrance on 96B. DEMAND: Though developers insist that there will be no traffic impact due to their development, no one has provided any data to confirm or refute that claim. We do not know whether this project, cumulatively with all other traffic in this area, including when Chain Works comes online, will create a traffic problem. Consequently, an examination or traffic study by a traffic engineer, or a TIS (Traffic Impact Study) by or for NYSDOT must be conducted and its findings made public. STORM WATER PROBLEM: Under the revised SEQRA regulations storm water cannot be or have a likelihood of becoming a moderate or significant impact and the developer acknowledges that at least two of the NYS mandates of the storm water design manual cannot be met due to the slope, shallow soil, and low soil permeability. 68,280 SF of non-permeable surfaces on a lot under 3 acres, on a steep slope, with no or low permeable soils, seems a recipe for disaster especially when complicated by the fact that this is a remediation site with a potential contamination history. DEMAND: A qualified engineer, landscape architect, or CPESC should be required to review this SWPPP, especially if and when it is updated. AIR&LIGHT PROBLEM: The location on a slope, and the orientation of that slope, will most likely create air and light deprivations to neighboring lots. The blocking of, and thus taking of rights to air and light that are guaranteed by each neighbor's title in land will be a significant impact for both residents to the north and fauna to the east. DEMAND: In order for the Site Plan to be approved, the Board must condition any approval with a significant mitigation of the impact on air and light (see how this dovetails with the Zoning section above regarding setback & building height reduction). So too, the shadow study conducted by the LEAD agency must be made public for review and a defined species protection plan must be included as part of the site plan clearly defining how developers will protect neighboring species, one of which is found in the Environmental Resources Management (ERM) database and another listed on the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) mapper. MORATORIUMS & GREEN SPACE PROBLEM: There is NOTHING visibly in this neighborhood that approaches anything like a monolithic, rectangular-shaped block standing 40' tall. That this proposed development will consume a green space that has historically served as a buffer between lower-impact residential and higher-impact commercial use is perhaps the most egregious impact for this neighborhood. There are SEQRA standards regarding conformity with community planning and it is the specific intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan to preserve and enhance existing residential areas. There must be compatibility with existing built environment and neighborhood. DEMAND: a) In accordance with the aspiration of the current Comprehensive Plan for Ithaca, the City insists that it MUST value green space, especially green space that functions as a buffer between lower-impact and the higher-impact use. In the absence of the City invoking eminent domain or an accepted private offer to preserve this green space at 815 S Aurora, the following guidelines should govern and condition the Board's rationale in approving this or any other site plan on the outskirts of the City. • CP, p. 33. Land Use Goal #5 says that "[g]reen space surrounding the city will be preserved to minimize sprawl and protect open space and agricultural lands." • CP, p. 111. Natural Resource Goal6 says that "[s]teep slopes will be preserved to protect ecologically sensitive areas and to enhance the character and aesthetics of the city." Natural Resource Goal10 says that "[e]xisting green space in the city will be preserved and opportunities for additional green space will be strategically considered." b) In light of community planning, the City must enforce the student housing development moratorium called the South Hill Overlay District in which 815 S Aurora is located, amending it to include high-density R3-b zoning. The South Hill Overlay District is appropriately designed not to be lifted until a South Hill Comprehensive Plan is concluded. This 815 S Aurora site plan should also be put on hold until such a time. It seems likely that South Hill might be next in line for a comprehensive plan of our own. A South Hill Comprehensive Plan will by necessity address the critical issue of land use at the edge of the City of Ithaca. Such a plan might involve re-zoning parcels whose zoning was established back in 1977 well before the city's current residential growth. In closing, sometimes a project is the right idea in the wrong place. I and hundreds of South Hill residents (as evidenced in the attached on-line petition signatures/ comments and those that Sue Dennis will submit from an ongoing in-person canvassing campaign) have now repeatedly expressed our concerns over this development. Given all of the unaddressed impacts listed above, this development must be denied approval. Most sincerely, (~ Cathy Lee Crane ccrane®ithaca.edu care STOP DEVELOPMENT of PRIVATE STUDENT HOUSING on South Hill https://www.thepetitionsite.com/895/937/176/stop-the-destruction-of-the-last-green-space-on- south-hill/ Author: Cathy Lee CRANE Recipient: Residents Petition: The developers of a high-density private student housing complex on 815 S Aurora have submitted their Site Plan to the Ithaca Planning Review Board. It is currently under review for Environmental impact. Your voice NEEDS to be heard before their next meeting on Tuesday May 28th. The plan for 815 S Aurora 1) destroys the only green hill left on South Hill used for sledding in the winter, picnics in the summer, and deer all year long; 2) will drill under a cellphone tower in order to build into the bedrock of the hill; 3) will double the impervious surface on the lot increasing water runoff; 4) increase street parking and traffic in South Hill residential neighborhood, and 5) with a 4th Floor outdoor roof, would produce a kind of noise nuisance we have never known. Your signature DEMANDS the Planning Review Board REJECT this Site Plan. Instead, encourage the City to deploy eminent domain on our behalf to save this precious GREEN space on South Hill. Page 1 Name From Comments 1. Cathy Lee CRANE ITHACA, NY 2. Erik Bjarnar Ithaca, NY 3. lida Sturgeon Alcester, gb 4. Daniel Masciari Freeville, NY 5. Jessica Stratton Ithaca, NY It is wasteful, not needed, and damaging to the environment. 6. Dominik Vienna, at Stockinger 7. Aaron Maclaughlin Ithaca, NY The promises that these two developers I've never come true. An unsupervised, unregulated, colossal animal house is so far beyond acceptable. This neighborhood is far surpassed it's saturation point with off-campus housing. Do whatever the city and developers promise they will do about curbing the amount of cars but in reality students want to have their cars and will do so. It increases traffic severely therefore the occurrence of speeding is more frequent, it's a matter of time before someone gets hurt. This is next to an elementary school and it's utter nonsense if this is even being considered. How many times Did projects get Passed through a Sesame Street version of the zoning board? We fight so hard for so long for an infill resolution and this is just a colossal slap in the face to all the hard work families did to try to stop this. I just want one night, for whoever is making these decisions, just to walk around our neighborhood. Walk by O'Connells compound on Aurora and Hillview And see the chaos. And then go to another location of Fox's and on and on and on. We're losing the community, we're losing our neighborhood, we're losing our safety to these two greedy slumlords. When will someone in the city get on our side? 8. Russell Friedel! Ithaca, NY 9. Shaianne Ithaca, NY In addition to the loss of the public space and the beer cans Osterreich in the SH playground problems, I am also worried about the drilling and the water run-off. The multiple neighbors on Grandview were not reasonably consulted despite their proximity and that together with the non-cooperation related to the side-walk on 968 just shows the developers are not in it for the betterment of our community. 10. Patricia Vazquez Mexico City, mx 11. Vincent Grenier Ithaca, NY 12. Barbara Anger Ithaca, NY We need to protect the few green spaces left on South hill. All water runs down hill and we need to protect our lake. We don't need a large impervious swath of land. I also question the need for a private dormitory. 13. mauricio carvajal santiago, cl Page2 -Signatures 1 -13 Name From Comments 14. Paulo Reeson Toronto, ca 15. Judy Miller-Lyons HIGHLAND MILLS, NY 16. Miguel de Jaureguiberry, uy Bethencourt 17. Mary Corsaro ITHACA, NY During the over 25 years that I have lived on South Hill, I have watched it change from primarily family housing with some student housing to primarily student housing. That student housing has been in the form of taking over beautiful old homes to building on property that was once green space. These buildings are not in the style of the homes that have been there for many years. The goal seems to be to turn South Hill into one big dormitory. I am a retired IC professor and I love students, but the current disregard for property, noise level, etc. does not seem to make them welcome neighbors. We need to curtail the building and find some new solutions to this problem. Please do not allow the building at 815 S. Aurora. 18. Virginia Wiener PRINCETON, NJ 19. Carolyn Boronkay Ithaca, NY Want South Hill to be a family oriented neighborhood. 20. Carl Schofield Ithaca, NY Preserve single family neighborhoods 21. Karen Rodriguez Ithaca, NY 22. BRIAN GROUT ithaca, NY The proposed project is much too large in scale for the the needs and the neighborhood. The proposed project will produce too much storm water run, auto traffic, noise and parties. This density of students in this new II dormitory II should be kept on campus. I feel very sorry for the entire South Hill area and all neighbors with 500 feet. LET'S STOP THIS ! Thank you. 23. Mary Fessenden Ithaca, NY Negative environmental & neighborhood impact 24. Virgil Pauls Winnipeg, ca 25. David Kossack Ithaca, NY 26. James Mulcare Clarkston, WA 27. Elke Schofield Ithaca, NY preserve single family housing 28. Felix Teitelbaum Ithaca, NY Let's pump the brakes on the bonanza of large scale development in Ithaca and consider the value of preserving green space and the unique character of neighborhoods comprising single family and owner occupied housing. 29. Jessica Kuzmier KAILUA KONA, HI 30. ken lang Toronto, ca 31. Fredrik Lundgren Ornskoldsvik, se Page 3 -Signatures 14-31 Name From Comments 32. alison maceli Ithaca, NY We're opposed to this construction for all the usual reasons but it seems particularly important this week for us because we just spent over $3,000 having our driveway redone to redirect runoff coming from uphill. Enough is enough! 33. Carrie Gleason Sedalia, CO 34. Daniela Martins Coimbra, pt 35. Sheila Squier Ithaca, NY 36. Richard Boronkay Ithaca, NY Not needed, students can be housed on campus. 37. janis keller OCALA, FL 38. phi Iippe trahin clamecy, fr 39. Nicholas N Spencer, NY 40. Christine Ithaca, NY This is important to me because over the course of 25 years McNamara I have invested time, energy, and money into making a home and community on South Hill. This sort of development and variance to zoning adds congestion, noise, and chaos to a small community that is desperately trying to hold on to quality of life. This project will eliminate green space, create a parking and traffic nightmare, and -with the addition of a rooftop gathering space -add more noise and disruption to our area. Furthermore, there is no basis for the need for additional student housing: as of last week, Ithaca College's enrollment for the incoming class was down 1 0%, a trend that is being seen all across the country but particularly in the NE. The creation of additional housing in the Chain Works project will create a further glut of housing. I cannot understand or fathom why the City of Ithaca continues to allow developers to sidestep zoning regulations and to support infill development in areas of our city that are full already! But most of all, I do not understand why the city of Ithaca continues to ignore the collective voices of its South Hill citizens by allowing projects of this kind to move forward. 41. Elle Cook Honolulu, HI 42. Daniel Boardman ITHACA, NY Pretty much in agreement with the other comments above. One of the developers of this proposed project also put up the two unit houses at the corner of Hudson Street and Hudson Place, a frequent location of drinking parties. They need to take their projects someplace else. 43. Russ Boardman Ithaca, NY The project is unsafe with a radio tower fall zone of 170 feet, and parking in that space. Intentionally overlooked for a sanctuary city, where the fall zone was reduced to half by Ithaca. This is a federal racket to raise tax funds with an unsafe plan. Encroachment on green space which didn't increase, with easily double the number of residents overlooking it. They can build outside the city and not pay city taxes, to still get all of their rough 150 resident units. Here they will get maybe (continues on next page) Page 4 -Signatures 32 -43 Name From Comments 43. Russ Boardman Ithaca, NY (continued from previous page) 2/3's of it. The party I went past today, with cops patrolling on consecutive streets, the roar of the crowd was like a medieval battle, two blocks away from the site to the east. What the hell is that, not coming from speakers? A live crowd instead. Cornell has Slope Day, this would be a residential version of that if completed. That is said by an IC grad, who can blast the guitar on Boardman: Unborn Nation louder than a crowd. This set up, it is said South Hill Civic Assoc didn't want to deal with, to dump the craziness on this area instead of further down the hill. The city can make a ranger station out of the site instead. Observation deck with pay binoculars, the old field stone look, very stoic and Patriotic. I feel like I am almost back at Fort Ticonderoga already. -Russ B. 44. Dai"chi Sailo ITHACA, NY 45. Henry Newman Ithaca, NY 46. Karl Pillemer Ithaca, NY This is unneeded and harmful to the neighborhood 47. Susan Currie Ithaca, NY 48. Eniko Farkas Ithaca, NY To stop encroachment on green space on a middle to low income, small, family friendly neighborhood. 49. Michael BRONX, NY Friedmann 50. Janet Fortess Ithaca, NY The police did a great job this weekend trying to contain end of semester parties. Thank you. But it shouldn't be their job to police college students who are not choosing to live on campus where there are unfilled dormitories and declining enrollment. In the past 2 weeks I've had: broken bottles in my driveway beer cups garbage and turned over bench in my private, land locked back yard surrounded by student housing. lnfill with owner occupied housing not dormitories to line the pockets of developers. 51. Gundula Lee Newfield, NY 52. Meghan Fouracre Ithaca, NY The person that posted about IC enrollment is correct as well as the downward trend of NE college enrolled students at residential campuses. IC has to allow student to move off campus, which they only do when dorms are full. This (continues on next page) PageS -Signatures 43 -52 Name From Comments 52. Meghan Fouracre Ithaca, NY (continued from previous page) project is definitely not needed. I also feel that the large scale buildings that have already taken over the city are enough. It's destroying the small town character that bring students here in the first place. 53. leeny sack ithaca, NY 54. Gretchen Ithaca, NY Herrmann 55. mary stein ithaca, NY Enough already! Disruption of a neighborhood, traffic nightmares, long range drainage problems on Aurora St and Grandview Ave. 56. Sandra Verity Brooktondale, NY 57. Mark Stewart Scotland, gb 58. Thomas Bohn Ithaca, NY 59. Joanie Groome Ithaca, NY Ithaca college does NOT need this! And the beauty of being home owners in this community is being eroded. It needs to Stop 121121 60. Lindsey Bryant Brooktondale, NY 61. Jana Taylor Ithaca, NY 62. Iori yelensky ithmara, NY 63. Janice Nigro Ithaca, NY I think saving this green space from development is important. 64. Lisa Bontempi Ithaca, NY 65. Isabel Rachlin Ithaca, NY 66. lana lshchuk FOSTER CITY, CA 67. Ann Bowlsby Ithaca, NY Way to many student houses I rent to students 68. Tony Bennett Lakewood Ranch, FL 69. Sherrie Schwartz Ithaca, NY Why ruin another neighborhood? Traffic reconfiguration insane on an already taxed road, just over crowding in too small of a space. 70. BOBBY SANTOS ithaca, NY The road traffic is already terrible on south hill. I feel this new housing project will certainly exacerbate this problem. These two developers always II push the limits II on any project they attempt. Protect what is left of the south hill green space. Thanx 71. Marjorie Olds ITHACA, NY 72. Nora Nichols Wilmington, OH 73. Sherri English NEWFIELD, NY 74. Ken Deschere Ithaca, NY We've already passed beyond the point of over-crowding and health-impairing conditions on South Hill. We don't have a lot of available options for the toxins slowly migrating (continues on next page) Page 6 -Signatures 52 -7 4 Name 74. Ken Deschere 75. Yvette Rubio 76. Louisa Sandvik 77. Andrew Diamond 78. Donald Welch 79. Marsha Emerson 80. Betsy Hutchings 81. Jacqueline Lando If 82. Eric Melear 83. Ana Ottoson 84. Susan Watkins 85. Joseph Martin 86. Stanley Scharf 87. Murielle Johanson 88. Peter Fortunato From Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Nesconset, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY Ithaca, NY, NY Comments (continued from previous page) downhill, we be DO have the option to say NO! to this overkill/overload of our home turf. Because we need more green space. People can commute, trees and flowers can't. Too many student housing in the residential area Moved to Ithaca 20 years ago thinking it is a nice place to live. Progressive and showing concern for our environment. If the student housing continues to sprout up around my neighborhood I will regretfully need to move out of Ithaca. The traffic on South Hill is out of control, including students speeding up and down the hills. The noise is out of control. Please do not allow this plan to go through. My house is directly below the parking lot for this. I already regularly have beer cans appear in my backyard, I can't imagine what a nuisance housing will be if this becomes a reality. We often use the site for sledding. We also have student housing a block away, and understand how the noise and Saturday night revelry and trash left as students shout their way past our house at 2 AM ruins what is otherwise a nice family neighborhood. I've lived on South Hill at my current address for most of my life. The development projects are now out of control here and throughout the city of Ithaca eating up green space and despoiling neighborhoods. Enough already! Everybody I know on South Hill is tired of the increased traffic and ugly housing being stuck in everywhere that a developer proposes to officials of our once fair mostly green city. Ordinary people are angry-you officials really ought to listen to us. Your decisions to allow development in the name of the housing crisis or the increasing the tax base are generally are fairly unpopular with ordinary citizens. Let the two college campuses provide housing on their own property if they insist, as they both seem to do, that admitting more students is the viable way to the future. Write me back if you'd like a walking tour of the area. Page 7 -Signatures 7 4 -88 Name From Comments 89. Ira Garrison ithaca, NY I have owned my home on south hill for only 3 years, and already it has become a much less desirable place to live than when I first moved here (from danby). If this development continues, I'm ditching downtown living and the high taxes that come with it. Shame. 90. nick robley manchester, gb 91. William Steele Ithaca, NY Too saturated with cars/Students/noise 92. Judy Steele Ithaca, NY Too saturated, too much traffic, Green space needed 93. Lucas Marsh Marathon, NY 94. Samantha Lushtak Ithaca, NY 95. John Fleischauer Ithaca, NY 96. Dinah Collins Ithaca, NY Because there is enough student housing up here, There will be too much traffic. The students also have very little respect for our property. After their parties we have to pick up there garbage and beer bottles and cans. The noise they make is outrageous especially after midnight. Some of them act like animals. 97. Matilda Aufheimer Ithaca, NY To protect the neighborhood from noice, trash and destroying of property 98. Joseph Outzen Ithaca, NY 99. Stacey Zeman Ithaca, NY 100. Tai basilius Ithaca, NY 101. michael mann Ithaca, NY plus declining enrollment at IC Page 8 -Signatures 89-101