ITHACA, N.Y. It was a jam-packed meeting for the Ithaca Planning Board this warm May evening, though you could forgive board members for not being aware. As with everything in the age of COVID it was conducted remotely via Zoom. Go get yourself a cup of coffee or tea, because this meeting was a long one, and so is this report. Combined, almost a thousand housing units were discussed in some stage of review last night. For those who like to read along, the 258-page agenda is here.

Before we jump into the night's contents, a quick update on a note from last month - as retired Planning Board chair David Kay tells me, 2020 is not the first time the city of Ithaca's Planning Board is majority-female. In 1993-94, the six-member board had Sarah Adams, Anne Clavel, Denise Rusoff and then-Common Councilor Pam Mackesey. (Back then, a Common Councilor was appointed to Planning Board, but the practice was stopped over concerns regarding political influence and interference). Proof that even though I've been doing this in blog or news format for over a decade, there's always more to learn.

With Board Chair Robert Lewis absent for this meeting, the proceedings were led by the Vice-Chair, Mckenzie Jones-Rounds.

First up were lot subdivision reviews - these are when property lots in the city, technically known as parcels, seek legal reconfiguration, either to be split up, reshaped or consolidated. This month, there was only one on the agenda, for the Immaculate Conception School redevelopment planned by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services on West Buffalo Street.

Usually, these subdivision reviews are quick and dry affairs. INHS already had one subdivision approved for the site earlier this spring, creating a new lot for the former ICS gymnasium so that it can be legally acquired by the city for the Greater Ithaca Activities Center. The new lot subdivision splits the property one more time, to create a lot just for the Catholic Charities building. According to INHS's Lynn Truame, it was discovered the state won't allow Catholic Charities and INHS to both apply for grant funding because they're on the same tax parcel. That's problematic because Catholic Charities will manage their building while INHS manages the rest of the property. Splitting the lots will allow both organizations to pursue grants for their respective parcels, and has no impacts on the affordability or number of units.

As expected, the discussion was brief and passed unanimously.

Next on the agenda is the Site Plan Review, where the review of new building proposals happens.If you normally read these recaps, feel free to skip this section. If you're new to the process of planning board review, have a read through and we'll reconvene in the next section.

The way this typically goes is that, after an initial sketch plan discussion, the board agrees to declare itself Lead Agency, which means it's in charge of doing the environmental review. Environmental review, formally called State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), entails everything from traffic effects to drainage to historic and aesthetic resource impacts. The board goes through environmental assessment forms to make sure all potential impacts are accounted for, and that the developers have a plan to effectively mitigate any adverse impacts. For example, if you're paving a parking lot over what was previously vacant land, the board's going to expect to see some stormwater management features in the project, because neither they nor the city attorney wants to go through a legal battle because rainwater drained off the parking lot and flooded your neighbor's property.

Typically, once the board has done their months of Q&A and is satisfied with the mitigations proposed, it comes time for the "Determination of Environmental Significance". Usually, if the review has been thorough and the board is satisfied, they issue what's called a "negative declaration", meaning the adverse impacts are effectively addressed. Positive declarations result in Environmental Impact Statements for submittal and review, and make for a much lengthier and more complicated review process. They usually only come up where there's simply too much information to be reviewed at a meeting - huge projects like Chain Works and the Cornell North Campus Residential Expansion. With the negative declaration, the project can then be considered for preliminary and final site plan approval. Preliminary approval means there are a few minor changes or conditions that need to be met before final approval and building permits can be granted.

Once again first on the list was the Carpenter Circle project as proposed by Cayuga Medical Center and Park Grove Realty. CMC would occupy a new 64,000 square-foot medical office building with walk-in clinic in the first phase. Two buildings with ground-floor retail and 166 market-rate apartments would be built in the second phase, and a low-moderate income apartment building with 42 units would follow. You can read more about the plan here. The project's been going through review for over a year, in part because it sought and received approval for a Planned Unit Development, which are specialized zoning regulations reviewed and approved by the city.

Last month, the New York State Department of Transportation threw everyone a curveball by saying the project needed "additional potential mitigations" even though they had given no indication there were problems over the previous year.

What DOT essentially said was that they don't accept these traffic mitigations and may not permit them, even if the planning board does. This doesn't stop the project outright - the Planning Board can still make a negative declaration if it feels the mitigations are sufficient and that a resolution can be had with DOT. But it does inject uncertainty into the process. If DOT rejects the mitigations, then new ones have to be proposed, and SEQR reopened for re-review by the board. That's a bigger issue for Carpenter Park because it has proposed break-in (a new curb cut) into Route 13 as part of its plans. Both the city and the developers disputed the DOT claims last month, citing problematic models and skewed estimates. DOT's comments noted, a determination of environmental significance and potential preliminary approval for the expansive project was on the agenda.

Whitham Planning and Design's Yamila Fournier walked the board through the latest review of how the project fits environmental review project Design Guidelines. The board has had a couple of years to get to know the project, and so they only focused on a few of the latest changes regarding design features and traffic impacts. After a few minutes of brief questions and answers, the board unanimously voted to close SEQR with a negative declaration (all adverse impacts adequately mitigated) and moved into preliminary project approval. Before final approval, submissions of material samples and colors and perspective drawings are required to help determine overall appearance.

"I feel like the medical building has a sophisticated palette...I'd like to see the mixed-use buildings match the same level of sophistication, and I'd love to see the design team propose options. We've seen this red-white-blue palette from the beginning, and I'd like see more in the thinking about it," said board member Mitch Glass. His colleague Elisabete Godden agreed, feeling that the quality of design on the mixed-use buildings wasn't quite as high quality as Cayuga Medical Center's building. That said, preliminary project approval was granted, all that's left before they can go for building permits is the final approval following review of material samples. It's been a long time coming for the $63 million development.

"We really appreciate the effort that went into this review and look forward to working through the final pieces and look forward to a great project," said Park Grove Realty's Andrew Bodewes.

Second up was the City Harbor project, a couple blocks away at 101 Pier Road. As previously detailed, the two-phase project consists of a restaurant, waterfront promenade and marina, and 156 market-rate apartments. A 60,000 square-foot medical office building for Guthrie Clinic is part of the project. It too was up for a determination of environmental significance and preliminary project approval, as well as Planning Board recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which must grant an area variance before final approval can be given.

T. G. Miller's David Herrick walked the board through project updates, mainly regarding foundation construction and impacts. Working with Elwyn & Palmer, the project has mitigation features in place to make sure the foundation work doesn't pose and disruptions to the golf course clubhouse and wastewater treatment plant nearby. Those features include seismic monitoring to make sure vibrations from pile driving don't become too strong, and protections to the wastewater plant's piping. Herrick also shared some updated renders showing the removal of the fourth-floor stepbacks from the buildings, and updated renders of the three-story Guthrie Clinic building proposed on Willow Avenue.

Board member Emily Petrina asked about decoupling the parking from the housing so as to limit parking. Developer Costa Lambrou said it was about one parking space per unit in phase one, but there would be some decoupling in phase two. "There are a lot of moving pieces, and we don't have to have too few, but we also don't want to have too many. We can see if we have too many or too few parking spaces in phase two, we just don't want to have too few for the restaurant (in phase one)." Whitham Planning landscape architect Kate Chesebrough added that there would be pedestrian and bike amenities and bus stops coordinated with TCAT. Discussions with NYS DOT for further mitigations are ongoing.

The board was favorable to the plan, another that they've been looking at for over a year. The negative declaration for environmental review passed unanimously. As with Carpenter Park, preliminary approval can be granted at any time, but BZA variance approval, material swatches, color palettes and finalized drawings are required before final approval can be granted. A nice little feature introduced at this meeting was that the project team planned educational signage about Ithaca's waterfront along the promenade, and opportunities for public art installations.

"This is a fantastic project. Of all the waterfront projects, I'm most excited about this one....I hope and trust that it will be a place for all Ithacans to come and enjoy, not merely boaters or golfers, but open for everyone. I think that promenade is going to be wonderful, and the kayak launch will be a great new amenity for the city," said board member Glass.

"I think that is really going to improve the city's waterfront landscape," added Jones-Rounds. With that, she called a vote for preliminary approval. It passed unanimously.

"Thank you very, very much," said Lambrou. "It's been interesting."

"You still have your hair, Costa," replied Planning Director JoAnn Cornish.

"I know, but it's pulling back," Lambrou laughed.

Next up on the list for this month's review was the 11-story Asteri Ithaca Green Street Garage redevelopment at 120 East Green Street. Granted, if it seems like half a dozen board and committees have looked at this project, it's because that's true, or will be true by the time all is said and done. Unlike the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and Common Council, The Planning Board is less concerned about the finances and programmatic components, and more with the design of the new structures, namely the 218-unit low-moderate income apartment building with commercial space on the lower levels, and the design of the expanded garage next door, which will grow to seven floors with an additional 241 parking spaces (350 total).

As noted by city planners, the lower three floors of the U-shaped building will house amenities, a 49,000 square-foot conference center and a small amount of retail space. (If the fear of conference spaces grows too great in this age of COVID, the substitute plan is more apartments and a larger retail space.) The Cinemopolis Plaza will keep its current public pedestrian passage between the Commons and Green Street, with lighting, signage, art, and landscaping improvements (and to note, Cinemapolis will remain in their spot, though they'll have to temporarily relocate for several months during the garage expansion). The Vecino Group and their partners are also requesting consideration of a City Hall Plaza next door on the small parking lot between the project site and City Hall. That plaza would feature a large outdoor gathering spot with paving, lighting, landscaping, and furnishings while retaining a limited number of parking spaces.

The night's discussion had no decisions for Asteri planned; the Public Hearing was opened and will remain open (this is when public comments are typically allowed and considered for a project), and Design Review as part of SEQR continued.

Bruce Adib-Yazdi, lead architect for the project, walked the board through an updated project overview prior to the Public Hearing, to "inform the public" as they stated. As presentations go, Adib-Yazdi's was less of the dry technical and design details one typically sees at the board. It had the conversational tone and broader pitch one might expect for a presenter at a neighborhood association's ice cream social. The public hearing was opened unanimously.

Most of the comments were from the Harold's Square development team and were against the proposal, citing the density, parking needs and overall size of the project. The Asteri project is next door to Harold's Square and blocks the views from the majority of the premium-priced south-facing units. While unfortunate, it serves as a reminder that you can build as tall as zoning allows, but you don't own your views. The Harold's Square developers had submitted one of the four proposals (and the smallest proposal) to redevelop the garage in 2018, but it fell short in the scoring and was not selected by the IURA. The owner of the Yellow Deli expressed concern with the loading zone for delivery trucks, and with construction staging.

On the other hand, Brett Bossard, the Executive Director of Cinemapolis, spoke in favor of the Asteri project, saying that they had been open and transparent the whole way, and actively engaged on ideas and plans for improving their entrance plaza. "I'm very excited to be working with them, and I'm excited for what kind of real, inviting artery we're going to have...this is going to make the downtown experience really special." Frequent meeting attendee Theresa Alt lauded the proposal for its affordability and walkable location.

Quick aside, the board is lucky to have the Planning Department's Anya Harris managing the technical aspects, because a lot of folks are still trying to figure out how to make all this remote technology work well, and her advice and help is the proverbial grease that makes the gears turn.

The board decided 4-1 (Goddard opposed, Robert Lewis and C.J. Randall absent) to hold open the public hearing, mostly because it's a large project, Zoom is a bit hard to access for some folks, and the board wanted to give an opportunity for people to comment in the context of the Rimland project next door. Project team member Mark Tuttle then walked the board through a second presentation, a technical and architectural review Planning Board watchers have come to know and love. Tenants will have a fourth-floor terrace and a "Sky Terrace" on the top floor, SW corner units will have projecting bay window boxes, and on the ground level, bike rentals are planned in cooperation with a local bike shop.

Board members did express some reservations regarding the treatment of the alley between the tower and garage, parking treatments and construction logistics, which will likely be further explored in the coming few months. "I do realize there's a cutout on the fourth floor, but it might be good to get some visuals from the fourth floor and Harold's Square, so we're not creating problems with a dark space around the corner of the building," said board member Garrick Blalock. Expect further refinements in the project design as review continues next month.

Developer Jeff Rimland's 13-story proposal on the eastern end of the garage came back to the board with a brand new design for them to talk about. As previously reported, the mixed-use building proposed for 215 East State Street no longer builds into the Rothschild Building and displaces the shops and shop-owners along the Commons, but went back to the initial proposal which builds atop a rebuilt eastern third of the garage.

Rimland's proposal rebuilds the eastern third of the garage with two levels of public parking (about 130 spaces), one ground-level private parking area for the building's occupants (34 spaces) and 10 floors of residential with approximately 200 apartments. A residential lobby would front Green Street, as well as an access hallway between the shops lining the Commons. Along with design discussion was further consideration of the Full Environmental Assessment Forms (FEAFs) Part 2 and 3, which make up a large portion of the environmental review.

The only public comment received by the board at the start of the meeting was from Sunny Days co-owner Todd Kurzweil, who stressed the need for mitigation plans to protect his business in the Rothschild Building.

Project engineer James Trasher of CHA Inc.walked the board through the engineering drawings revised plan, noting that they can work with Vecino to coordinate their construction work so that they and the Asteri project don't create too great of a disruption at any one time. Project architect John Abisch led the presentation for the design portion, noting a two-story lobby/amenity space with mezzanine, and a rooftop terrace. The new design uses brick veneer, cementitious Nichiha panels and metal panels, with decorative lighting elements and a sizable number of balconies.

The board appreciated the more articulated design, but was concerned about geotechnical work and fitting the project into the public network of amenities and points of interest, like Six Mile Creek. Trasher said they were working to refine the design of the Green Street entrance and add some landscaping features, but that the real public amenity was the rebuilding of the eastern third of the garage. Environmental review will continue into the summer months and the public hearing is still on the to-do list, so we'll see what further design refinements come forth as the board goes through its design and environmental review.

The Voice broke news of this pair of projects from Visum Development a couple of weeks ago, but with the proposed Cherry Street downzoning by the Common Council, the proposals are already on the ropes; if the new zoning is approved by Common Council next week, it's the end for Visum's plan for 195 apartments and retail space in Ithaca's evolving waterfront. The project team came to the meeting hoping that they could get the Planning Board to issue some sort of advisory against the proposed downzoning, in the hopes it might have sway with more neutral council members. There's a few who strongly oppose the downzoning, a few strongly in favor of downzoning, and a number of persuadable members that could make or break the vote.

For Visum, it's a familiar but unenviable place to be in. After proposing an affordable housing development for the 500 Block of West State Street last year, the city downzoned the block.

Whitham Planning came back before the board to discuss the project alongside CJS Architects, describing how the zoning affects the proposals and what kinds of changes they're exploring in an effort to please the board. It was clear that the project programmatically meshed with the mixed-use, walkable vision the city's had for the waterfront. The primary issue is the 100-foot maximum building length, which as proposed would dice the buildings up. The project team argued this would massively drive up development costs (for instance, each building would need its own elevators due to building code) for little potential aesthetic benefit.

The board was receptive. "I know some people have felt the Arthaus project is too big for its space, but I don't agree with that," said board member Blalock. "There aren't a lot of spaces where we can put housing and retail without adding to sprawl, and I'm really enthusiastic for developing this part of (Ithaca)....I found the applicant's presentation to be compelling."

Planning Director Cornish did note that Common Council was set to vote on it at its June 3 meeting, and felt that council was split. "The input from the Planning Board is important. After seeing these images, they're beautiful and compelling. But are they too big, is the combination of those three buildings too much? Those are the things you should consider in coming up with a recommendation."

"I agree with Garrick," said board member Petrina. "They're appropriate for the scale and I like the industrial palette. I feel 132 is better at embracing the waterfront. With 110, I know the lot is narrow, but I'm going to think about how long the building should be. I'm sold on your argument for 132, if that makes sense."

"The materials are appealing...I agree 110 may be too dense for the waterfront," said board member Goddard. Goddard encouraged them to show 132 Cherry to Council, but "I'm not sure you're going to be able to sell them on the other one."

"This is a very nice site plan and I'm not sure what (the Council) are trying to achieve," said Glass. "I think we try to regulate these things to death and that's where you get into trouble. One thing I wouldn't do, I don't like parking facing the waterway, and we should stay away from that at all costs."

Visum CEO Todd Fox noted that INHS's Breckenridge Place is 160 feet long. At Cornish's query, the project team said 110 Cherry is 240-250 feet. "I think there are ways we can improve on the facade materials and make it feel like the building is broken up, visual pass-throughs...with designs and with working with the Planning Board, we can achieve the goals the city is looking for, but once you change the zoning it's not a feasible building. We got an email from (city Sustainability Coordinator) Nick Goldsmith, who noted that by cutting up these buildings, they use significantly more energy and go against the Green New Deal."

"If you have a (physical) pass-through with a minimum of 24 feet from the ground plane to the top, you can go beyond 100 feet. Is that possible here?" Asked Cornish.

"Not here, because you'd only have the top floor left, so you'd have to add additional stair towers and you start losing efficiency," said Fox.

"Is there going to be affordable housing?" asked Glass.

"It won't be affordable, but it'll be about 20% below City Centre. That's about what we could do to stay viable," said Fox.

"This is a contextual and appropriate project to me," said Jones-Rounds. "I was on the committee to determine the new waterfront zoning, we spent years developing that and we have not had it in effect as long as we spent developing that. Changing that before we've had a chance to work with it would be doing a disservice. We would be willing to go to bat for you. We'll keep our fingers crossed for you."

On the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) side, where the board makes recommendations to the BZA on projects seeking zoning variances from city code, the board reviewed two submissions, and was strongly prodded by the state of New York court system to sign off on a third.

Neither of the zoning area variances sought this month were controversial. Landlord Christopher Anagnost wants to enlarge a bedroom at 129 Blair Street. It wouldn't change occupancy, but because the century-old house doesn't conform to the city's parking rules or side yard rules, anything that results in an exterior change must be reviewed.

The other variance is for City Harbor. During review, the board realized the upper-level stepback for City Harbor's 4-5 story buildings wasn't changing the aesthetic effect because the mouth of the inlet is so wide, it doesn't really open up already-wide views in that area. With the project already set back from the water, after weighing design concepts, they told the developer they were welcome to pursue a variance from the stepback rule.

As for the last one, involving the courts...if you're a South Hill homeowner, you probably won't like this. Back in 2018, the BZA denied a side yard variance for a subdivision and new duplex at 209 Hudson Street, at left in the image above. The Planning Board was non-committal in its recommendation, because the underlying premise was legally questionable. You see, the side yard deficiency already existed. The existing century-old home on the double-lot created it. The subdivision was on its other side and legally conforming. The variance wouldn't be caused by the proposed new build, but was used against it because South Hill homeowners opposed the new rental duplex for being a rental. In other words, using non-zoning discussion (who would live there) in discussion of a zoning variance.

That can be a big no-no, because legally it can be seen as "arbitrary and capricious". The developer of the duplex, the Stavropoulos family on West Hill, sued under NYS law code Article 78. Article 78 means a local government acted unfairly and improperly in its deliberation, and its primary use is to prevent discrimination. The NYS Supreme Court decided in March 2019 that the city of Ithaca and the BZA had misused zoning law and discriminated against the Stavropoulos family. The city appealed the decision to the NYS Court of Appeals, and lost the appeal last month. Two years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs later, the state says the city of Ithaca and its BZA must grant the variance to allow the new lot and duplex.

129 Blair Street and City Harbor both received strong recommendations in favor. 209 Hudson Street was on the agenda but did not come up, because the Planning Board doesn't need to weigh in where the courts already have.

The board turned to its last item, its recommendation regarding the revised waterfront zoning. Petrina asked what the impetus was, to which Cornish said it was the Maguire proposal from a few years ago, and to some extent Arthaus. "(1st Ward Representative) George McGonigal is pretty adamant about not seeing these new buildings, he doesn't like density," said Cornish. "But Council is split, many members are in favor of this to kind of development. Other upstate cities would be chomping at the bit to have this and I get what you mean when you say we over-regulate."

"I'm in agreement with everyone else," said Blalock. "These are great projects. This zoning change will make them non-existent. I don't really understand the objections to these proposed buildings. There's not a lot of space left in Downtown, this and maybe Chain Works are maybe the only major pieces of developable real estate left....can't we look at these and find ways to choose designs that achieve the goals of the waterfront plan instead of relying on these measures of distance? I'm just bothered as a person who believes in property rights, that a developer goes out, develops a high-quality plan, and then right before they're about to cross the starting line, the city says they're throwing out all the old rules and putting new ones in. It's troubling to me."

"I think it's disingenuous to change the rules on them," said Glass. "Zoning has real impact. The conversation is theoretical, but the actions are site-specific. Sometimes you have to trust good consultants, and this is a good project." Goddard agreed.

"I'm concerned by the inconsistencies," Jones-Rounds said. "The stepback requirement is there for a reason. The break between buildings is there for a reason. It feels like we're doing tit-for-tat. I'm fine with adding the rowhouse definition...but I don't think you can change zoning if you haven't seen clear proof it's not working yet, and it was only just adopted after being discussed at length. Even with members like George McGonigal on the committee. He didn't agree with everything, but council wanting to change it after only a few years really doesn't show good planning, and with all due respect to council, this board has expertise in planning."

City Planner Lisa Nicholas offered to draft up a letter summarizing the board's concerns, to which they agreed to do with haste in order to have it ready in time for the June 3rd Common Council meeting. "We haven't seen enough development built in the new waterfront zoning yet to see if it is working," summarized Jones-Rounds.

Quick endnote, if you made it this far - according to Planning Director Cornish, the massive, long-awaited Collegetown project is set to submit development paperwork late next month.

Continue reading here:
Planning Board Recap: Board expresses frustration with waterfront rezoning plans - The Ithaca Voice

Related Posts
May 27, 2020 at 2:45 pm by Mr HomeBuilder
Category: Office Building Construction