ITHACA, N.Y. — The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board meeting this month was lengthy, but the material of the meeting was more housekeeping than earth-shattering.
Proposals which had made changes without permission largely found out what they would have to fix for approval, showing the gamble of making changes without permission.
Some smaller, low-profile proposals moved along with little debate, and a major project said they would undergo substantial changes, but the board will not see those until next month. There was much to do, but little in the way of flashy renderings and splashy debate.
Read below for the meeting summary. Readers can also see the video of the meeting here, and take a look at the agenda here.
nn
- Site Plan Review
nn
Six of the seven members of the Planning Board were present Tuesday, with Bassel Khoury absent.
Site Plan Review
After Public Comment, the meeting jumped into Site Plan Review (SPR). This is the part of the meeting where review of new and updated building proposals occurs. Rather than give the same spiel about 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.
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.
The 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.
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.
Arnot’s Ian Hunter returned to the board, to provide the latest presentation and project updates to the board. The big change is that the project team has changed. Eric Colbert and Associates, who did Arnot’s Ironworks project on West State Street, has been retained to do the remaining architectural work, and Whitham Planning and Design has been retained for the landscape design work.
Now, the changeout from SWBR and Fisher Associates could portend significant changes, but the goal is to not return to square one in review.
“We’ve watched this site for longer than I want to say, and we’re really excited to help move it along,” said Scott Whitham. Whitham has been involved in many projects in the Ithaca area over the past several years, including the Farmer’s Market renovation underway next door.
“We’ve gone in a slightly different direction, and some of that is geared toward imposing a little more structure on some of the design elements,” said architect Eric Colbert. “But even though there will be some things that will be new, there will be some things that will hold over that you will have seen already.”
Tuesday’s meeting was just an informational update for the project. Any new work will have to wait until January to be shown — and from the sound it, the programmatic elements, the apartment counts and retail and amenities, will be similar to what’s been presented. The project’s appearance is likely to change.
Meanwhile, the traffic study results are being hashed out with the state’s Department of Transportation, and the full package will hopefully be ready as part of January’s discussion.
The Outlook Apartments (815 South Aurora Street)
As has been the case for the past few months, Visum Development continues to try to persuade board members to give approval for changes to their Outlook Apartments development that weren’t green-lit on the front end.
Some may say asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission, but given that the Planning Board ultimately controls whether a new building is allowed to be permanently occupied, that can be a risky gamble. That’s particularly true in Ithaca, which holds a reputation among the real estate industry as a “high barrier for entry” market for a reason.
At this point, there are two outstanding issues. The first is the entrance stairs to Building A, which were supposed to be concrete but were built with retaining wall block, creating both aesthetic and zoning issues for the board. The entrance stair zoning variance was denied, so Visum’s team is pursuing a land swap with their neighbor to the north, which they say is progressing — the neighbor’s driveway encroaches onto Visum’s land, so each has land the other wants in the swap (as seen in the picture above).
The board has been amenable to this swap and granting final approval of it once the signed, executed legal paperwork has been provided to the city.
The second issue deals with the stairs from the parking lot, which were approved as 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. Board members rejected the proposal, so now Visum is proposing to get rid of the staircase entirely, and offering a discount on parking since it will be less convenient for tenants.
The third issue from last month was to remove the synthetic brick from the base of all three buildings and replace it with real brick; but the board was firm last month in its declaration that the synthetic brick must be changed.
“I think it’s an interesting site, there are elevation changes…I think stairs are necessary,” said board member Daniel Correa. “To go from temporary stairs to no stairs seems like a pretty big stretch. That doesn’t seem feasible or functional in the winter to have your tenants go back out the parking lot the way they came in to enter the building.”
Colleague Andy Rollman expressed similar sentiment.
“It’s a rentability thing. When we’re trying to lease the units, they’re going to look at how far they’re going to have to park,” Visum CEO Todd Fox said. “It’s not a public access point, it’s not required by code, we did it as a convenience. I think as a business owner, we should have right to say this doesn’t function from a business standpoint.”
Most members were satisfied with issue one so long as the legal lot lines were solved, capstones were presented and the planters were pulled. In contrast, most members of the board were strongly opposed to removing the stairs involved due to a combination of aesthetic and practical safety reasons.
With those stipulations settled, the board voted to approve the changes concerning the first issue, and force Visum and its contractor to build the concrete stairs as planned.
Squeaky Clean Car Wash (501-07 South Meadow Street)
The Planning Board granted final approval of this project in December 2022 and the car wash opened the following year. Owner Gary Sloan is now seeking approval for two automated cashier kiosks within the footprint of the existing entrance drive along South Titus Avenue in the northeast side of the parcel. His project team also proposes to implement approximately 36 feet of a six foot tall, opaque fence between the kiosks and S. Titus Avenue.
This otherwise small stakes project comes at a contentious time. Residential neighbors, some pleading emotionally and others with vitriol, have been complaining about the sound of the vacuums at the car wash for months. A few objected originally with allowing a car wash on the site of the former Lama retail plaza, but the project complied with the zoning in place for the property when proposed.
When submitted for review, the retail-heavy zoning for that site had been there since the 1990s, and a car wash is an allowed use in that zoning. Plans for rezoning stemming from the 2018 Southside Plan had fallen to the wayside due to the glacial pace at which rezoning tends to move, and compounded by COVID. The plan itself, like all the others the city has undertaken, is only a guiding document, did not change the zoning when it was endorsed by Common Council. The zoning updates suggested in the 2018 plan are underway, but still incomplete.
The submission from Sloan’s team would remove one of the six vacuums to put in the kiosks for the sake of internal traffic flow, but perhaps more importantly, the submission opens the possibility for further negotiation on the vacuums. Sloan himself was joined before the board by Patrick King, a civil engineer with local firm T.G. Miller.
Sloan acknowledged the concerns about sound but said his business had made strides to address them.
“We close (down) the vacuums whenever we’re not open. We’re not required to do it, decibel levels are still below acceptable laws, but that’s what we wanted to do,” Sloan said. “We put on mufflers to reduce sound, that knocked the sound down significantly. We’ve just been trying to do whatever we can do.”
The board had practically no issue with the automated cashier kiosks. But the sound was the driver of discussion.
“I think the wood (fence) looks very residential,” Rollman said. “This would be a great opportunity to mask some of the sound. Is this a material that is known to block some of the sound? We see solutions along highways. It would be good to hear from a consultant and see some specifications on how it would block the sound.”
The board’s Elisabete Godden asked if Sloan would be willing to remove the vacuums, and Sloan said he would not.
“Will your fence be effective, with that height and with that type of sound? The issue is really not so much the decibels, but the frequency,” said board member Max Pfeffer. “It’s a high whine. I think you should bring a consultant in.”
Board Chair Emily Petrina strongly urged Sloan bring in a sound consultant to investigate the ambient sound level and the sound when all the vacuums are operating. She also stressed that the kiosks should make as little sound as possible, given the existing sound issues.
“I think there’s an opportunity for everyone to win here,” Petrina said. “We just need to see the numbers.”
There was no voting actions scheduled for last night, but it was clear that the sound issue would be driving further discussion with the Planning Board in the coming months.
“We’ve certainly got some homework to do, based on your feedback,” Sloan said.
The William (108-110 College Avenue)
Here’s another project coming 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. The retroactive changes sought include the installation of sunken patios with different dimensions and materials (larger and hemmed in with wood rather than concrete), 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 — 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 has previously explained that the project team felt the wood also provided a “less cold” look.
A number of standing issues remain, with perhaps the most expensive and serious outstanding issue being the changes to the sunken patios, which has been a hot debate between keeping the more spacious wood lagging wall patios as built, or the arguably more durable concrete ones that were originally approved. There are also more minor aspects still subject to debate, such as the design of the sidewalk railings and patio pavers.
Architect Jason Demarest restated the salient details and the board began their round robin of comments.
“My preferred is still what was approved for the sunken patios,” said Godden. “I think the existing railing and the change in the bracket are acceptable. But I would still be looking for concrete for the sunken patios.”
The board was quite clear as a group that they wanted concrete patios, and poured concrete patios in the rear. Debate was a little more split on the railings, with some favoring the original steel mesh for the sidewalk railings, and others fine with modified Trex aluminum railings. The Trex railings on the balconies were fine. Once again, these will be some expensive fixes, but that was the risk the project team had taken when they decided to build unapproved modifications.
“I was eager to wrap this up Jason, both for you and for us, but I feel like there’s a little more due diligence,” said Petrina. “But next time we could look at where does this land and give you some guidance on the size of those patios, and then I feel like that would wrap up our decisions.”
The project will be back next month, for what the project team hopes is its final meeting.
325 College Avenue
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 four-bedroom apartments.
The plans include a 1,500-square-foot commercial space, lobby, a small private fitness center, along with a small roof deck. While the building complies with maximum height, it is seeking variances for the floorplate height and the number of floors.
The plan this month was to dive into some of the nuance of State/City Environmental Quality Review – “Land/Water/Community Plans & Transportation
/Construction/Noise, Odor & Light”, as planning staff put it in the agenda. The project ran into some turbulence with the board last month over concerns about soils, the east façade, and whether the variances would be acceptable.
Robertson and O’Connor joined the board in person while architect Jack Boarman of BKV Group joined remotely. Boarman offered a couple of options for streetscape activation, with cafe seating and expansive wraparound storefront glass. He also discussed the treatment of the north facade and the spacing between them and Dryden South. A local restaurant with at least one existing location has been identified for the retail space.
“I think the railing gives the feeling of a defensible space. This is a bit uninviting, I’m wondering if there’s a way you could open it up,” Correa said. “A softer railing, maybe landscaping, could open up the property better. As for the setback, I think it’s great architecture, but I think it’s missing great landscaping architecture to complete it. Collegetown is so devoid of green, I think there are things that could make it pop.”
Meanwhile, his colleague Rollman suggested removing two ground-level units and creating a larger stepped retail space, and Jennie Sutcliffe wanted a closer look from College Avenue from the southeast corner of the building.
“In Collegetown, it’s really tricky to get retail to stay. I think it shouldn’t necessarily look quite so cramped in the basement,” Sutcliffe added.
Petrina said the steps down to the seating on the north side was concerning to her, particularly in the midst of Collegetown and the possibility it would have to contend with trash accumulation.
“If there’s a way to negotiate that change in elevation inside the retail, maybe six steps on the outside and the grade change on the inside, it’s such a big difference,” she said, also suggesting a solar study to ensure a sunken plaza experience isn’t a dark experience.
There were definitely some items on the to-do list for being addressed. Environmental Review will continue next month.
Taber Street Auto (229 Cherry Street)
Taber Street Auto business owner Steven Sinn proposes to replace a 169 square-foot asphalt parking area northwest of the auto repair shop and construct a 14,653 square-foot gravel parking area north and east of the existing building.
The proposal also includes erecting a six-foot chain-link privacy fence with a lock, gate and barbed wire around the gravel parking area perimeter to protect the vehicles parked there for maintenance. No zoning variances are required, but its location near the waterfront in the Cherry Street Zoning District necessitates a design review.
This project should pass through review barring any unexpected curveballs, and to that point, both Declaration of Lead Agency and Determination of Environmental Significance were scheduled for this month.
Civil engineer Andy Sciarabba was once again on hand to talk about the plan. Given feedback from the board and Planning Staff, a sidewalk was added and the landscaping out front was filled out. The barbed wire fence will have galvanized steel and a brown privacy mesh — it’s not concertina wire in the style of old war films.
The board had little in the way of additional comments. With that, a roll call vote granted a negative declaration, meaning there is negligible environmental impacts, to the Environmental Review 6-0 and the project will be up for final approval next month.
The post Planning Board Recap: Waterfront site sees major shakeup appeared first on The Ithaca Voice.
n