ITHACA N.Y. — The City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board met a pair of housing proposals with apprehension and concern on Tuesday, and a signage proposal once again failed to appeal to the stern eyes of board members.
All that and more in this month’s meeting summary below. For those who wish to glance at the agenda as they read through, that may be found here.
Site Plan Review
During Planning Board meetings, Site Plan Review makes up the bulk of the discussion, as it’s where the reviews of new and updated building proposals occur — more info on that here.
The Citizen (602 West Buffalo Street)
During Planning Board meetings, Site Plan Review makes up the bulk of the discussion, as it’s where the reviews of new and updated building proposals occur — more info on that here.
The Citizen, a project from Visum Development, was originally approved as a five-story, 80,000 square-foot, 80-unit middle-income “workforce housing” proposal back in February 2023, but has since struggled to obtain financing. Now, the project team is changing the scale and apartment plan.
Visum proposes to construct a new four-story apartment building with an approximately 75,250 square-foot gross floor area. The proposal is for 59 lower-to-moderate income residential units, including three studio, 32 one-bedroom, 24 two-bedroom apartments. The building will also contain a community room, support spaces, bike storage, 2,307 square feet of ground-floor retail, and a ground-floor parking area with 27 parking spaces.
On tap for this month was the “Potential Amended Negative SEQR Declaration”, a fancy way of saying that the modified project’s environmental impacts are effectively mitigated, just as its previous iteration had to prove back in 2022-23. A “neg dec” would allow for a potential vote on Site Plan Approval next month, and given that the project is seeking affordable housing credits from the state, and that those application periods only open up twice a year, timeliness is very important to Visum and its project crew.
Visum CEO Todd Fox, Senior Development Manager Julia Buchel and HOLT Architects’ L. Bear Smith were present to speak about the revised project. Smith said the project team had added a privacy fence of black vinyl slats for the parking area, and a revised West Buffalo Street facade with larger windows and a more prominent entry on the southwest side of the building.
Board member reactions were mixed.
“I’m much happier with the entrance on Buffalo Street[…]making Buffalo Street the prominent entrance for residents is meaningful to me. Adding the screening and more bike racks definitely goes a long way,” said board member Peggy Tully.
“Moving the entrance and pulling the wall out closer to the sidewalk was a good move,” said planning board Vice Chair Elisabete Godden.
“I think this is better than it was, but I still see the accessible entrance and the stair entrance as separate, which means if you’re approaching the building from the corner, you’re going to have to have signage that says, ‘if you’re not able to use the stair, keep going.” I’m not sure why you’re not combining the now-internal ramp and the stair access at one point,” said Rollman.
Chair Petrina, fell somewhere in the middle of her colleagues. She thought the Buffalo Street entrance was improved, but she wanted a larger mural space, and asked if the project team was willing to explore material and material color changes to make the building feel less “heavy” and dark.
The board seemed torn on approval of the SEQR. On the one hand, the board didn’t want to halt a project it already approved in a similar form just because board member composition has changed. However, the board still felt there was a lot of aesthetic work that still needed to be done with the project before preliminary Site Plan Approval could be considered.
Board members agreed the environmental impacts generally weren’t that different from previously approved. However, they also wanted significant design updates. For instance, the board felt the green sunshades were no longer working for breaking up the massing of the building.
“I think the Planning Board is all in agreement that we’re adjusting SEQR because of the flood plain change. But I’m not sure that the applicant understands that we’re reopening Site Plan Review because this is a new design.[…] It feels like they’re counting on us just approving the changes for the flood plain, but because the Site Plan Review expired, we’re looking at all the elements again,”Godden said.
“That is well heard…we understand and fully appreciate that,” responded Smith. “We solved this one way previously, but things have changed, and we do have to acknowledge that things have changed and we do have an opportunity to address these items.”
While the SEQR unanimously, meaning that the environmental impacts are considered mitigated, the design of the project is still very much up for debate, and the project itself is nowhere close to actual Site Plan Approval at this point.
The Hive (132 Cherry Street)
Visum is reviving another blast from the past. The planning board granted preliminary and final approval to the Hive project in September 2022. That approval was only good for two years. Visum was granted an extension for site plan approval in September 2024, but the project team is now proposing changes to the site plan due to flood maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that were adopted in June.
The new maps greatly expand the floodzones in the city of Ithaca, which in many cases will require developers to purchase or pay more for flood insurance. The maps also expand the no-build area adjacent to the Ithaca inlet, which required Visum to move the site of the Hive proposal.
The changes include moving the location of both buildings, changing outdoor amenities, and changing the apartment count (from 143 to 148) and square footage of the project. The project is located in the Cherry Street District Zoning District and will require variances.
This project has struggled to obtain financing for construction. Visum had sought tax breaks for the Hive from the Tompkins County IDA in late 2022, but the project fell outside the city’s density-based tax abatement area, and the IDA board was not willing to expand it for the sake of this proposal.
Per the latest filing, the project is aiming for moderate-income housing through the use of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs).
Not to go far into the weeds, but 9% LIHTCs are more sought after for lower-income proposals and harder to obtain, while 4% LIHTC are for more workforce housing mid-market projects, typically at 80-100% of area median income. 4% LIHTCs usually have some amount of private financing, whereas the 9% LIHTCs are more dependent on leveraging government grants, because the projects offer lower return on investment. In short, the 4% LIHTCs are easier to obtain, and Visum hopes to tap into them to help get “The Hive” built.
This month’s presentation was meant to be informational; a majority of the planning board has turnover since this was first approved three years ago.
Visum representatives explained some of the changes to the project, namely shifting the buildings east and south to accommodate the revised inlet floodway setback driven by the new FEMA Maps. Unlike “The Citizen”, the Site Plan Approval has not expired here, so what the board can force changes to aesthetically is more limited.
Visum’s Fox and Buchel remained present for this project, joined by architect Scott Jensen and project manager Mariam Yaqub of Rochester-based CJS Architects. Jensen stressed that they’re trying to make as few changes as possible within the context of the flood plain changes, and the project change from market-rate premium housing to mid-market “workforce” housing.
As explained by Jensen, the north “L”-shaped building had its eastern leg shortened and its southern leg extended to accommodate the revised footprint necessitated by the flood plain changes. The south building is largely unchanged. Curbside parking was eliminated to keep the tree lawn while also making room for the buildings; covered parking remains on the ground level of the buildings. The project’s ground-floor retail space, about 4,500 square feet in three spaces, remains nearly unchanged.
The ground floor is taller given the flood plain, a rooftop amenity space was removed, and the top floor mezzanine-style units (“pentazzine units”) are replaced with standard units to meet state affordable housing requirements. Overall materials, design and aesthetic remain as before.
As the board went around, comments were largely positive. Rollman was glad the project had the ramp and staircase adjacent, unlike “The Citizen”, but cautioned against being wedded to the previous design and materials, and suggested cheaper alternatives may be something to explore. Godden had some concerns about what amenities were kept and removed, but wasn’t opposed to the buildings themselves. Tully, who prefaced by saying she was “pro-tree lawn”, had concerns about deliveries and taxis without the curbside parking.
“We want to have a really good project, we want to have a building everyone likes. We’re definitely open if we can find less expensive materials. But I’m hesitant and I want to manage expectations on that,” replied Fox. Architect Jensen added that it would be significant if a more affordable project is finished in the same materials as a higher-end market-rate proposal, and that residents don’t have to be relegated to cheaper materials.
Chair Petrina said the proposition of changing the project from a market-rate to affordable project was “worrisome.” Cherry Street is the site of an affordable housing development and soon to be the site of Tompkins County’s homeless shelter.
Petrina said she feared that another affordable housing project would prevent “mixing of income types.”
The more mix you have, the better success you have,” Petrina said. “To keep this looking like a more expensive building feels really important on Cherry Street.”
The project will be back before the board for further discussion next month.
Subdivision Review
There was one subdivision under review at this month’s meeting, a continuation of a rather complex reconfiguration of the retail lots located at 614-722 South Meadow Street in Ithaca, also known as Creekside Plaza.
Subdivision review is when property lots in the city, technically known as parcels, seek legal reconfiguration, meaning anything from splitting them into two or more plots, reshaping or consolidating from multiple lots back into one parcel.
The existing shopping center comprises four parcels of land totaling 20.5 acres, with 900 feet of frontage along South Meadow Street. The owner, Chase Properties, has proposed reconfiguring the existing parcels to create six new parcels:
Chase Properties representative Phebe Parkin explained last month that the reconfiguration would make tax payments easier. In the future, Chase wants to redevelop the former Tops gas station along South Meadow Street, and making that its own outparcel — also called a “pad” parcel in real estate parlance — would help simplify that process .
The review itself has been fairly trouble-free and straightforward so far, but this is considered a major subdivision under city code. As a result the subdivision process is required to go through two meetings. While preliminary subdivision approval could be given last month, final subdivision approval had to wait until this month’s meeting.
Parkin had no new information to present this month. Board member Andy Rollman asked about the lack of bike racks on the property as noted in a public comment letter from local resident Sheryl Swink to the board, and Parkin said they could add those. Dick’s Sporting Goods has bike racks because it underwent a Site Plan Review in 2022, but most projects are just facade changes and did not, grandfathered in under approvals from 20-30 years ago.
The board formally added a stipulation of approval for an existing “bike rack assessment” to be reviewed by city planning staff, and for any potential new bike racks to be installed and in compliance with city code prior to legal approval of the subdivision.
“We’re always trying to make Meadow Street and Route 13 more walkable, more bikeable, more pedestrian, and this will go a long way towards that, so thank you,” said Planning Board Chair Emily Petrina.
With that, the subdivision was unanimously, conditionally approved pending the bike assessment and installation of additional bike racks as determined to.
Sign Review
Signage proposals, while seemingly minor, are always liable to animate the planning board. The board’s composition has changed over the years but their strong dislike of building signage, on residential buildings especially, has stayed much the same.
There was one submission at Tuesday’s meeting, a revised sign package planned for “Theory Ithaca,” the 376-unit apartment building under construction on what used to be a large surface parking lot on the east end of Downtown Ithaca.
After a couple of rounds of whittling down the initial signage package proposal, the board appeared ready to sign off, now that they’re in charge of signage approval. The initial archway entrance sign had been reduced from 75 feet of surface area, to 50 feet, then to just under 40 feet in the latest submission.
A second blade sign on the side of the building,12 square feet in area, was now lit with a downward gooseneck light and no longer projecting as much from the building face. A second blade sign along the creek had been eliminated after the first round of review and rejection.
Ben Harrell of CHA Consulting gave the project updates before the board.
Even now, the board felt the proposal was too much. Rollman said he could accept a second blade sign, but not the arch sign. Some were okay with the gooseneck lighting so long as it had timers to turn off late at night. The arch sign seemed to be a no-go, though some were open to a front canopy sign.
“We’ve seen this sign on this arch several times and it keeps coming back. I think we all agree today that there should be no sign on the arch. I would suggest that when you do come back, that that’s not another discussion,” said Godden.
“I know the owner has been expecting something on the arch the entire time since the initial renderings were approved,” said Harrell, who seemed rather stilted and taken aback. “I know the style of the ‘Theory’ has been a big draw. Would there be any appetite if there was an altered style to keep text on the arch?” The answer from the board was an emphatic no.
“Sorry we can’t get you out this month. But with these tweaks, I think we should be able to come to a consensus next month,” said Chair Petrina.
The post Planning Board advances West End workforce housing, obstacles remain appeared first on The Ithaca Voice.