ITHACA, N.Y. — Tuesday’s City of Ithaca Planning Board meeting was not the typical fare for the board that controls development within the city.Several projects returned to the board Tuesday to seek re-approval for site plans from two or more years ago. Even more rare, several projects came forward to ask for retroactive approval for mid-construction changes they made to plans that had been approved already, something the board has objected to in the recent past. Meanwhile, plans for a new engineering building up on Cornell’s campus got the green light.If you’re interested in a specific project discussion, you can use this table of contents to navigate the article below. For those who want to take a gander at the agenda, that can be found here, while the video of the meeting can be watched here.State Street Apartments (445 E. State St.)City Harbor (101 Pier Rd.)The Outlook Apartments (815 S. Aurora St.)Cornell Chabad House (102 Willard Way)The William (108-110 College Ave.)Waters Edge (683 Third St.) Cornell Duffield Hall Expansion (116 Hoy Rd.) 325 College Ave. Programming note, a new member has joined the seven-person Ithaca Planning Board this month – Max Pfeffer, a resident of Ithaca for 31 years and retired Cornell professor and dean whose research focused on sociology with a focus on rural and urban community development.Site Plan ReviewSite Plan Review is the meeting segment where the review of new and updated building proposals occurs. Rather than rehash the procedural details every month, if you want an in-depth description of the steps involved in the project approval process, the “Site Plan Review Primer” can be found here.State Street Apartments (445 East State Street)Readers might be more familiar with this project as 401 East State or “The Gateway Apartments.” PeakMade Real Estate received approval in October 2022 to build a 390,000 square-foot apartment building on the east end of Downtown Ithaca.The development calls for about 375 units, ranging from studios to one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments. The actual number of units is not exact, which is not unusual for a project of this size, but during meeting discussions it has generally ranged from 373-376 units. The facilities include raised outdoor courtyards, common areas, a fitness center, and an enclosed parking deck with 238 parking spaces located under the west wing of the project.To make a long story short, like many projects, the project was held up by high interest rates and the resulting poor financial lending environment of the past few years. Now, the development is slated to move forward with construction by the end of the year. However, site plan approval from the city is only valid for two years, and it runs out on Oct. 25, meaning the project team revisited the board seeking approval.“We have been actively trying to get off the ground for some time now. […] We will not be underway with construction before the end of this week. We may by the end of this year,” said PeakMade President Jeff Githens. He noted that a land disturbance permit would be used for site prep this winter followed by a construction permit by March.The board’s discussion was brief. Board Chair Emily Petrina was optimistic and supportive. Board member and Vice Chair Elisabete Godden has long been opposed to this project, but was absent and couldn’t weigh in on Tuesday. The rest of the board passed the renewed approval unanimously.City Harbor (101 Pier Road)This project slated for the north end of the city’s waterfront is in a similar situation as the State Street Apartments. Guthrie’s Medical Office Building has already been built at the site, as have some site improvements like boat slips, but the remaining two phases have yet to move forward.When they do, they will comprise about 250,000 square feet in three buildings with 156 apartments, covered parking and a 4,500 square-foot waterfront food service space, as well as a 5,500 square-foot community building that will serve as the new clubhouse for the city’s Newman Golf Course.The request for re-approval didn’t come with a firm construction start date. It is a sign of confidence the project team thinks the Ithaca market will support the project when interest rates come down and lending terms are more favorable. It still remains fairly uncertain as to when steel will rise from the ground for the remaining structures, however.Commentary was once again brief, as the project has not changed from its October 2022 approval. Board member Andy Rollman, who was not on the board at the time, said he would have a hard time saying yes without knowing where the project was “in the process” and how likely it was to move forward.City of Ithaca Planning Director Lisa Nicholas said the project team is working on getting their financing together, and aren’t just sitting on the property.Some board members were not supportive of extending approval without anyone representing the applicant present, but Petrina said she was supportive of the move for a first renewal, but noted that if the project team returned in for another reapproval in two years it would be a “red flag.” With that, the board voted and granted re-approval unanimously.The Outlook Apartments (815 South Aurora Street)It’s been said that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission, though that ma not apply to the City of Ithaca Planning Board. This project, by local firm Visum Development, made changes to the approved site plan last year that the Planning Board was not keen to retroactively approve.There are three outstanding issues. The first is the entrance stairs to Building A, which were supposed to be concrete but were built with retaining wall block, which creates both aesthetic and zoning issues. The second deals with the stairs from the parking lot, which were approved to be concrete but were built as wood — the proposal is to keep the wood but apply composite deck treads and replace wood railings with steel and cable.The last issue was to remove the synthetic brick from the base of all three buildings and replace it with real brick; while underway at Buildings A and B, Visum wants to keep the synthetic brick on the less visible base of Building C. The board’s other demanded changes or reversions to the approved plan are underway or complete.Local lawyer Russell Maines, representing the owners of 809 South Aurora, spoke in favor of the yard setback variance for the entrance stairs, pending an encroachment agreement between owners. It should be noted that 809’s existing driveway encroaches on Visum’s property with no existing agreement, so they’re hoping for an encroachment agreement quid pro quo.Visum’s Julia Bucher was present to speak about the plans and to seek the board’s approval on the three proposed changes from the original approvals. Bucher explained that tight deadlines and cost overruns, in part due to repeated but unsuccessful efforts by a neighbor to sue them, were why Visum deviated from the plans in the first place.The board had mixed feelings about the requests.“I still have questions why you would want to have [synthetic] brick on the remaining one [building]…to me it seemed to be very out of place,” said board member Bassel Khoury. “Same thing applies to the stairs. It was a temporary solution. This proposal still feels very temporary with some small changes.”Fellow member Daniel Correa argued that the parking lot stairs are in “terrible condition” and “already compromised,” leading him to want more from the changes proposed.Meanwhile, Nicholas and City Planner Nikki Cerra expressed concerns with the Corten weathered steel planters proposed to hide the north stairway. The board was doubtful they would hold up well in Ithaca’s cold, snowy, and often salt-crusted climate.The board wanted to hold off on voting on the first item with the north staircase. As for the south parking lot stairs and the synthetic versus real brick for Building C, the board was still mixed enough in their opinions that it appeared unlikely to give approvals on any of the requests Tuesday.On behalf of the board, Petrina asked the applicant to come back next month after they formulate responses to some of the concerns raised, and after they visit the Board of Zoning Appeals.Cornell Chabad House (102 Willard Way)The Planning Board granted preliminary and final approval of this 5,000 square-foot project in March 2022, with revisions approved in June 2023. Now under construction, the Chabad House expansion project team is proposing some minor but substantive revisions, including changes to the façade design (north side windows, a new eave above the front entrance), and revised screening for mechanicals on the roof.A visit to the property shows the proposed changes have already been built, a risky plan since the board could force a builder to go with the original plan by withholding the certificate of occupancy, and those changes can end up being rendered moot and money down the drain.Architect Jason Demarest represented the project before the board. He explained that the new west side entry eave was to provide weather protection to service attendees standing in the doorway, and only projected out two feet, so it was not a zoning violation. The window changes were driven by an effort to balance traditional design themes with natural light access and security.Luckily for the project team, the board was favorable to the changes, which were approved unanimously with little discussion.The William (108-110 College Avenue)A third project came before the board seeking retroactive approval of changes — to reiterate, a rare circumstance that the board has not taken to very kindly in the past.The William is a newly-built 4-story, 29-unit apartment building in outer Collegetown. Among the retroactive changes sought include the installation of sunken patios with different dimensions and materials, back patios created with pressure-treated wood and displacement of mechanicals in the backyard, continuous pressure-treated lumber railings along the sidewalk, pressure-treated railing used throughout project in lieu of black metal, no pewter concrete curb for landscaping, and balconies with different materials including pressure treated wood and synthetic wood as base and gray supports instead of black curved supports.The reasoning is simple, though not great optics — a rush to be completed in time for the fall academic semester and cost overruns elsewhere led to on-the-fly cost-cutting measures. Architect Jason Demarest also explained that the project team felt the wood provided a “less cold” look.The board appreciated the thorough presentation, though some lingering concerns remained.“I think in general there are a lot of things that could be acceptable, except one or two things. The overall direction is good,” said board member Andy Rollman.“This is much clearer than the way it was presented the previous time,” added Khoury.The revised railings were approved by the board so long as they used black composite posts and rails, and the sunken patio changes were acceptable, as were the planting bed changes and curbing. The board agreed the natural wood of the balconies should be hidden by color-appropriate cladding, as most of the exposed pressure-treated wood in recent projects has aged poorly. The lighting, trash enclosure, concrete utility driveway and west basement level facade changes were also acceptable, as was the wood rear mechanical screen so long as it had a dark staining.On the other hand, Rollman had some concerns with the paving and the wood finish around the sunken patios, and wanted it to at least be stained and assured by city engineers that it was structurally sound.“With climate change, if there’s a really hard rainstorm, this worries me,” Rollman said. The board also wanted the trim band above the ground floor returned as shown in the original design.In sum, the sunken patios are still an outstanding concern, both in size and material, and there’s some concern over the back patio pavers. The board can vote on what it supports next month, and the applicant can attempt to address the board’s outstanding issues with further information and an alternative proposal if necessary. Without a vote Tuesday, the project will be back next month.Waters Edge (683 Third Street)Arnot Realty’s expansive waterfront project was returned to the Planning Board on Tuesday. The project team proposes demolishing three existing Department of Transportation maintenance buildings to redevelop the eight-plus acre site into a mixed-use development.The proposal includes two five-story buildings along Cayuga Inlet and two four-story buildings inland, with approximately 452 residential units total and about 10,000 square feet of commercial space. Twenty percent of the housing would be set aside for people making 80% of area median income or less, and 18 of those units would be set aside for the “frail elderly” population.Details released for immense “Water’s Edge” development proposal in IthacaThe project will be constructed in two phases over 34 months, with approximately 200 units built in the first phase and about 252 units in the second phase. Each phase includes a waterfront building and an inland building.A second-floor roof terrace will connect the two waterfront buildings, and the buildings will include a mix of parking, commercial, residential and amenity/service space on the first floor, with apartments and additional amenities above. The two inland buildings will include a mix of residential units and amenity service space, with various site improvements also planned.This project is large and complex. The project team has been hoping to avoid a positive declaration on their environmental review, which would force the team to put together a lengthy and expensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before reaching the approval stage.As reported over the past several months, the Planning Board has mixed opinions on the idea, and the final determination of environmental significance remains uncertain. This month’s meeting focused on the Waterfront Trail, open space/recreational elements and transportation impacts of the proposed development.Arnot’s Ian Hunter returned to the board, along with Passero Associates’ traffic engineer Amy Dake and the city’s consulting lawyer for the project, Adam Walters of Buffalo-based law firm Phillips Lytle.Dake presented the revised traffic study. The revised study and trip generation figures were approved for execution by the DOT in July, and counts were conducted in September 2024. About 85 vehicle trips are expected in the morning hours, and up to 119 vehicle trips in the afternoon and evening hours.Most intersections would see no change to the time it takes to travel through or turn at an intersection, and phase one doesn’t produce significant traffic degradation. The Meadow Street and Third Street intersection would see adverse impacts at full buildout of the project with “Level ‘E’ unstable flow” possible when the Farmer’s Market is at its busiest on Saturdays during the summer.Dake noted traffic service could be mitigated by signal timing changes, and potentially a new turn lane on the north side of Third Street, which would impact mature trees and pedestrian/bike aesthetics. The project team also offered to do an additional traffic study after phase one was built to determine actual impacts to guide what mitigations would be deployed before phase two was built.The board was generally supportive of the approach and second study between phases, though they did not support the idea of a new turn lane on Third Street. Planning Director Lisa Nicholas thought the trip generation figure sounded low in her experience, and said the numbers didn’t “seem logical” even when Passero’s engineers explained the methodology.“We get that a lot. It seems counterintuitive if you’re going to have that many units,” Dake said. “But when we have more urban-style development, that have access to transit and access to bike paths, we’ve found that developments don’t generate trips to the same level as other areas. People may work from home or work outside of typical hours.”Walters, the city’s consulting lawyer, wanted copies of the exchanges between the developer and the state Department of Transportation and details on the proposed timing of phases. He also asked that the Planning Board and staff do a deeper dive on the 433-page traffic study submittal, to be reviewed over the next month and returned as a discussion topic at the next board meeting.The project will be back before the board for further discussions on its environmental impacts next month.Cornell Duffield Hall Expansion (116 Hoy Road)A busy night for Cornell University continued with the school’s proposal for a four-story, 46,340 square-foot building addition to the existing four-story Phillips Hall on the campus’ Engineering Quad. The addition, with new research labs and instructional spaces, would connect the existing Duffield and Phillips Halls, and upon completion would be referred to as Duffield Hall.The proposal is a modestly-sized infill addition to existing structures on Cornell’s central campus, far away from the school’s neighbors. Tuesday marked the potential end of Site Plan Review, with a vote scheduled for preliminary and final site plan approvals.Cornell Campus Planning Director Leslie Schill led the presentation on behalf of the project team, while architect David Martin of NBBJ explained the architectural details, and landscape architect Mark Klopfer spoke about the grade connections and accessible pathways.The tree lawn is widened and the sidewalks are set back to reduce the slope of the walkways. The pedestrian plazas will have a variety of ornamental greens, structural seating and a few varieties of pavers, and the building material finishes include a stone base, metal skin, and a subtle contrast in neutral tones from building top to bottom. Schill added construction is expected to run from Spring 2025 to Summer 2028, a rather long stretch due to the inclusion of renovations to Phillips Hall.The board was pleased with the plans. The review of the project has generally been smooth and steady, and Tuesday was no different.Rollman called the design “elegant” and Petrina said she believes it will be a “fantastic gateway” to campus.With that, the board commenced its vote on site plan approval. With a unanimous outcome, Site Plan Approval was granted, and if things go according to plan, Cornell will have some new digs for engineering students and staff come 2028.325 College AvenueFirst introduced in the Voice earlier this month, developers Nick Robertson and Charlie O’Connor are proposing to combine two parcels, demolish the existing one-story structure located at 321 College Ave, and construct an 8-story, mixed-use building, approximately 37,551 square-feet. Fifty-three residential units are proposed with 98 beds and a unit mix ranging from studio to 4-bedroom apartments. Also planned is a 1,500 square-foot commercial space, lobby, small private fitness center, and a small roof deck.The project is located in the MU-2 zoning district, in which the maximum building height is 6 stories or 80 feet, and will require two area variances including maximum building floors and floor-to-floor height. It is also subject to Collegetown Design Guidelines.The project involves two tax parcels, and so the planning board will also have to sign off on land parcel consolidation.On Tuesday, the project was only set to give an informational presentation, with no votes scheduled — the plan was to garner some initial feedback and read the board’s reactions.Noah Demarest of STREAM Collaborative noted that the project team had met for an initial discussion with the Board of Zoning Appeals and said they “had some really good feedback,” they felt the rationale for the zoning variances was solid and they weren’t opposed outright.Architect Jack Boarman explained the ground floor of the project pulls back from the street four feet to create additional active space at street level, and the two-story window treatments and porcelain panel system to emphasize a modern, vertical look with darker panels at the top to “nestle the building into the scale of the surrounding context”.The board had nothing but kind words for the proposal. Member Jennie Sutcliffe wanted to hear more about the proposal for a subsidized business space at the ground level. Member Max Pfeffer lauded the sidewalk expansion and the need to make businesses economically sustainable in Collegetown.In general, the board was optimistic, liked the design overall, and was looking forward to reviewing the project. After an auspicious start for Robertson and O’Connor, the project team will be back before the board at a later date.The post Planning Board: Slew of developers return for re-approvals, forgiveness appeared first on The Ithaca Voice.First published by The Ithaca Voice.
