ITHACA, N.Y. — Sometimes, city of Ithaca Planning and Economic Development Committee votes are so humdrum, they could practically be written before the meeting and updated with one or two quotes and the final vote. This was not one of those meetings.
Concerns over the mere potential for the affordable housing component to not be built as part of the Carpenter Park redevelopment sent the expected PUD vote into a tailspin, as city councilors balked at approving any proposal without the affordable housing or a sufficient Plan “B” built in in the event that it couldn’t move forward. That led to an anxious project team trying to craft ideas on the fly as they argued any significant delay could send the proposed $63 million project up in smoke.
As always, here’s the agenda for those who like background information to their stories. Play-by-play below.
Things go awry with Carpenter Park’s PUD
First up on the PEDC agenda were a pair of reports included in the agenda but not really discussed in much detail in the meeting itself. One of those was the Planning Board report on the Carpenter Park Planned Unit Development, the mixed-use project that would create medical office/clinic space with 150 new jobs (85% living wage or greater), retail, 42 affordable and 166 market-rate apartments, and permanent community garden space. With the proposed PUD approved by the Common Council in June, the Planning Board is going through the rounds of environmental review as they would any other substantial project within city boundaries. According to the report, the Planning Board wants more thoughtful building design with the medical offices and warm colors in at least one the residential buildings, and better pedestrian facility integration (plazas, sidewalks). But they were pleased with the efforts to reduce parking on-site (from 460, to 349 surface parking spaces in the latest iteration; there are another 170 or so interior parking spaces).
The report also comes with a separate item, a vote to circulate the zoning for the Carpenter Park PUD. The reason for this bureaucratic double-teaming is that the PUD approval by Common Council consists of two parts – the project concept (approved by Common Council in June), and then the zoning itself.
PUDs aren’t true blank slates; it’s “Do-It-Yourself Zoning.” The developer still needs to write a zoning code for the site. With that in mind, the city expects each approved PUD to tailor their proposed zoning code to only allow the proposed design slated for that site. But if the Planning Board requests design changes during review, then the project would likely need to revise the PUD zoning. The result is that the two reviews go in tandem, so that whatever the Planning Board finally settles on is the design allowed by the PUD’s zoning code, which is then approved by Common Council as a routine procedural matter. Is this a lot of bureaucratic red tape? Yes. But it also keeps PUD surprises to a minimum. Most of the time, anyway.
Public comment was minimal; Ithaca Community Gardens board member Sheryl Swink wanted some clarifications in the PUD language but was otherwise supportive of the project. Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning and Design presented the latest project design to PEDC members. The latest changes were a small land exchange with a couple of Ithaca Community Garden plots and a little more vegetation and pedestrian features along Route 13 to make it feel more street-like.
The PEDC requested mock-ups of nighttime views, particular for the glass-walled Cayuga Medical Center Building, and Councilor Cynthia Brock (D-1st) requested perspective images to see how the site would look from more ground-level angles. The B&W Building Supply will not share parking with the project, and Project Growing Hope (the Community Gardens) had some minor concerns about PUD wording, but Board Member Sheryl Swink expressed support for the project in concept at the public hearing.
Brock also sought codification of garden access in the PUD, which led to some confusion as to whether the city will own the Community Gardens parcel as they do now, or if the gardens will own the parcel once reshaped by the Carpenter project team. For the moment, that’s not clear (apart from CMC won’t own it – it is either the city or ICG).
Traffic was also brought up, and Planning Director JoAnn Cornish stated that the City Harbor and Carpenter developers are coordinating on their traffic studies, given that both are large projects to be built around the same time and within a few blocks of each other. The revised Carpenter Circle would connect to GreenStar’s access road for a complete block, but only pedestrians, bicycles and TCAT will be able to cross between the GreenStar and Carpenter Park sites. (How that would be enforced is a good question.)
It was the last part of the discussion that suddenly threw things off-track. The PEDC wanted assurance that the affordable housing would be built since it didn’t appear to be locked down in the zoning, but for the development team, the issue there is that the affordable housing is dependent on a different source of funds than the rest of the project. Conventional bank financing will cover the market-rate apartments and medical office space. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs, explained previously here) will cover the affordable component. Those can be difficult to obtain because it’s such a competitive process, and it may take a couple tries to get funding, or it may never get funding at all if the competition gets really fierce. Since the PUD creates a new parcel for the affordable apartment building, the council quickly began to worry that the affordable housing might never happen, and the lot would then be sold off by the project team.
“I think part of the issue is that there could be different timelines … with the tax credits, you could see a different construction schedule for the buildings. I don’t think we’d approve a PUD where you’d be able to get rid of the affordable housing,” said Committee Chair Seph Murtagh (D-2nd).
“Is there potential to move it forward while we look at some language to make sure?” Project team representative Scott Whitham asked.
The intent is to do the affordable housing, but the revision would take time to write up, and force the zoning to be recirculated. Whitham stated that the approvals are on a tight schedule and they were, in that formal manner and speech of city meetings, pleaded to continue forward somehow; if the PUD zoning is denied or thrown off course for any significant period (even by just a month, from the sound of it), the project would likely be canceled. Murtagh asked why, but city planner Jennifer Kusznir turned to Whitham and interjected before a response was given.
“You can’t get approval before Planning Board for some time yet, I think you’re OK if you come back next month.” The project review in front of the Planning Board is roughly two months (two meetings) away from possible preliminary approval. The environmental impacts review has to have a negative declaration indicating effective mitigation of adverse impacts, with the approval meeting the month after. So, if the PEDC approved revised language in November, the PUD zoning could go to the council for approval in early December, shortly after the Planning Board gives potential approval in late November. Not ideal, but it seemed that modestly delayed timeline could work.
“Then we’re fine with that. We don’t want to jeopardize the timeline, but we want the affordability to be a part of the language,” replied Whitham.
“What would be your stipulation, your next steps that would continue in obligation of the affordable housing piece? It would be absolutely essential to have a Plan ‘B’ in place so your team can move forward,” asked councilor Brock.
“We can create a Plan ‘B’,” said Whitham.
Immaculate Conception School PUD and Green Street Bus Applications
The PEDC also reviewed a pair of less controversial action items tonight for consideration of sending to the full Common Council. The first is Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service’s PUD for the Immaculate Conception School site in the Washington Park neighborhood, which is a case like Carpenter’s – the concept PUD has been approved, and the PUD zoning is moving in tandem with Planning Board review. However, the ICS project is a little further along. The zoning is fairly solid and ready for Common Council approval.
“It’s going to be absolutely wonderful to see some housing, and some owner-occupied townhomes and rental properties. I am thrilled by this,” said Laura Lewis (D-5th).
During the discussion, it was noted the subdivision of the gym for sale to the city for the Greater Ithaca Activities Center will wait until the gym is detached from the school.
A playground initially proposed has been removed from the project, and in response councilor Brock encouraged INHS to explore the possibility of a fence opening to BJM’s playground next door (though INHS’s Lynn Truame noted that might not be possible due to security issues for the school). The PEDC passed the proposed zoning unanimously, and it will be reviewed and potentially accepted/legalized by Common Council next month.
The other action item to the council had to deal with buses. Geneva-based bus company called “Field Trips 101” applied to use the Intercity Bus Station on East Green Street. The proposal is for a twice-daily fixed schedule charter line between Ithaca and New York, with a stop in Binghamton.
Planner Kusznir noted that two more buses could be accommodated since OurBus will be relocating at the city’s legally enforced insistence. Field Trips 101 used to utilize OurBus, but after that mess, they decided to drop OurBus, adopt a fixed schedule and apply to the city directly.
Councilors Lewis and Donna Fleming (D-3rd) noted concern that OurBus hasn’t relocated already, and hesitation of allowing a new company coming in before OurBus had relocated. Planning Director JoAnn Cornish noted that finding them an alternative location (while the exact location was undisclosed, the planned location requires a fire hydrant to be moved at OurBus’s cost) is being negotiated.
“I don’t want to hold this up because of the behavior of OurBus. This company (Field Trips 101) is doing what we want them to do, with a fixed schedule. On its merits, it deserves to move forward,” said Brock. The vote to send Field Trips’ application to council passed 4-1, with Lewis opposed.
Accessory Dwelling Units…again
Last on the list of voting items was a frequent and often-confusing visitor to the PEDC – zoning for Accessory Dwelling Units. You can read up on that here and here. Finally, we have an attempt to codify some of the debate, focusing on the accessory housing forms of infill – garage conversions, basement conversions, elder cottages and the like.
Language was added to the proposed zoning so that an accessory dwelling cannot be larger than 800 square feet (modified from 1000 square feet in the agenda), or 75% of the footprint of the primary structure, whichever is less – so if the existing primary house on the lot is 800 square feet, the max allowed for an accessory unit is 900 square feet. It was also clarified that garage/shed to residential conversions aren’t subject to lot footprint requirements (the garage has to already exist, so it’s not like someone can keep building garages and converting them).
Councilor George McGonigal (D-1st) expressed concern with the size and creating the possibility of owner-occupied to rental conversions. “You still have to abide by R-1 and R-2 zoning for occupation by unrelated persons,” said Cornish. “Three unrelated, or a family plus one unrelated.”
The issue of multiple primary houses remains unresolved. The council doesn’t like multiple primary structures. They do like pocket neighborhoods like the one on North Aurora, however. This means more rigorous review for multiple primary structure proposals, but not an outright ban. For now, that more rigorous review would come via Special Permits, which ensures notification to neighbors and a more stringent review process. But that would still allow multiple primaries as of right. In the longer term, language around multiple primaries and pocket neighborhoods needs to be formalized, and in the meanwhile, the South Hill Zoning Overlay curtailing multiple primary structures will remain in place.
“We’ve talked about putting a moratorium on this, and I’m reluctant to stop it completely because I do think there are some nice projects. What we did on South Hill was to address particularly egregious case of it. Are we seeing enough in the rest of the city to justify it?” Asked Committee Chair Seph Murtagh (D-2nd)
Depending on the councilor, the answer to that question varied. Brock and Fleming were not fans of allowing any cases of Multiple Primaries to move forward, Special Permit or not. Murtagh wanted the Special Permit, but not an outright moratorium. Further issues were also raised to keep ADUs from being used for short-term rentals like Airbnb, but the conclusion seemed to be that it should be addressed as an explicit section in the city’s short-term rental legislation, rather than embedding it within another part of the code.
Another debate was over contiguous vs. non-contiguous green space, and this one highlighted the difference between city wards. Councilor Steve Smith (D-4th), who represents Collegetown, was skeptical of contiguous green space because in his neighborhood, it often equates to bigger parties and nuisances. Brock, who represents the most suburban and least dense city ward, was in strong favor of contiguous green space and welcomed as much as reasonable for stormwater purposes and quiet space.
“With contiguous green space, is this something we can look at overall for the city at larger, and say, not R-1 or CR-1, or not Fall Creek? I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and put regulations into place where it seems inappropriate,” said Brock.
“We can look at it neighborhood by neighborhood,” replied Cornish. “We can look at it by areas and see what is a reasonable request.”
The long story short is that there was a lot of verbal walking in circles, as has been the case in many of the meetings about ADUs. The code, in its essence, seeks to regulate ADUs and provide some flexibility in the units themselves while preserving green space and general quality of life. But depending on their neighborhoods, whether dense or not or more rentals vs. owner-occupied, different councilors have different ideas on the balance flexibility and regulation. The zoning was not circulated and additional revisions will be incorporated and brought before the PEDC next month.