Planning Board Recap: Fall Creek Townhomes face uphill battle

ITHACA, N.Y.—It was a bittersweet Planning Board meeting Tuesday, as Chair Robert Lewis announced at the start of the session that it was his final meeting at the helm. Member Mitch Glass will be the new Planning Board Chair, contingent on Common Council approval at their December meeting.

The move matters for several reasons, but particularly highlights the struggle to attract people to Planning Board involvement. The board had a bare quorum (4 of 7 members) on Tuesday. That bare quorum, plus the fact that member Elisabete Godden has to recuse herself from Cornell projects as a Cornell project manager, meant that the McGraw Hall renovation could not be reviewed at the meeting.

It is not a good sign if a project cannot be reviewed because the city lacks people who are able and willing to do it. Application materials for city residents interested in becoming Planning Board members are available at the bottom of this article.

As for actual Board review material from Tuesday’s meeting, the Argos Inn’s expansion plans were approved, while proposed West End and DeWitt Park affordable housing plans moved forward. However, a project for townhouses in Fall Creek appears to have some issues to resolve if they want to earn that coveted Site Plan Approval.

Site Plan Review

Following the customary public comment period to start each meeting, and with no subdivisions or Special Permits on deck for this month, the Planning Board jumped into Site Plan Review (SPR). Site Plan Review is the meeting segment where review of new and updated building proposals occurs. Rather than give the same verbal song-and-dance 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.

To sum it up, during the SPR process the Planning Board looks at sketch plans, declares itself lead agency for state environmental quality review (SEQR), conducts a review and declares negative (adverse effects mitigated) or positive (potentially harmful impacts, and therefore needs an Environmental Impact Statement), while concurrently performing design review for projects in certain, more sensitive neighborhoods for aesthetic impacts. Once those are all concluded to the board’s satisfaction, they vote on preliminary site plan approval and, after reviewing a few final details and remaining paperwork, final site plan approval.

Argos Inn Expansion (408 East State Street)

The first agenda item up for Site Plan Review was the Argos Inn, as its owners plan a rear expansion of their boutique hotel on the east end of downtown Ithaca. The applicant proposes to demolish a 1,800 square-foot terrace north of the Argos Inn building and construct a 5,135 square-foot, three‐story addition. The addition will contain 11 guest rooms (making 24 rooms total), and a small office space for hotel staff.

Site improvements include reconfiguration of 2,385 square-feet of outdoor terraces for seating, relocation of the existing terrace to the north end of the parking lot, creation of a utility building to screen the outdoor seating from the street, the paving and striping of the parking lot, landscaping and lighting. The landscape architecture side of Whitham Planning and Design is handling the terraces.

The project requires a rear yard zoning variance. It also requires Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) approval, as well as approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and the Planning Board. The ILPC has already given its okay, as has the BZA, so all that’s left at this point is the Planning Board.

This month’s meeting was the home stretch of a year of off- and on-Site Plan Review, with a vote scheduled for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. STREAM Collaborative’s Craig Modisher was back to discuss the project, joined by Whitham Planning and Design’s Jacob von Mechow and hotelier Avi Smith.

The discussion was brief. The plantings were beefed up to the board’s satisfaction and Modisher said they were working on a few minor transportation tweaks with the city engineering staff. With little further debate, the project was granted unanimously preliminary and final site plan approval 4-0.

116 North Meadow Street

It’s been three months since this project was last before the board, but the project team is now ready to continue with Site Plan Review. CSD Housing proposes to reuse a vacant lot and demolish two adjacent apartment houses to allow for the construction of a new 70-unit affordable (50-60% area median income) and integrated supportive housing project on a consolidated lot.

The 5-story building, about 87,000 SF in size, will host units ranging from studios to one- and two-bedroom units on the top four floors, with garage parking and other amenities on the first story. Other features include a community room, bicycle parking, offices, second-floor playground terrace, fitness center, rooftop terrace, dog park, lounges and green walls on the upper floors. The project does not require variances.

Given that the project addresses a portion of the city’s affordable housing demands and does not need variances, review is a little easier than many similarly-sized proposals. Generally, feedback has been constructive and positive.

On the agenda for last night was review of Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), one of the later stages of the SEQR process. Potentially, if all goes well, a vote on Determination of Significance could take place in January, with approval late next winter. The oft-busy development shepherds from Whitham Planning and Design were present to talk about the proposal with the board, led by Senior Designer Yifei Yan and joined by CSD’s Robert Cain.

As Yan explained, the first floor will have parking, offices and an airy lobby. The dog park would be built at the back (south side) of the property. Apartments would fill out floors two through five, with a playground space on the second floor and a rooftop terrace space for residents.

Passero Associates Architect Peter Wehner noted revised lighting and exterior materials on the building, fiber cement in vertical “Black Fox” boards, off-white “Cobblestone” and green “Irish Lowlands”, as well as “Monico Blend” Echelon Masonry (concrete made to look like brick) with bronze metal finishes. The color choices are intended to suggest “nature and comfort”, per Wehner. Issues regarding fire apparatus access appear to have been resolved with the proposed burial of utility lines.

“This looks really great, I like the materials and the scale of the materials. The green siding does a really good job at bringing down the massing. I like the lighting strip around the edge,” said Emily Petrina.

“The entrance is more successful than I remember it being […] I’m not sure where the arch fits in with the architecture, but these are all good changes,” added Elisabete Godden.

Feedback was largely positive, with requests to examine renderings of the south facade. Things are looking auspicious for the project team as they continue with the environmental review process next month.

Lake Street Townhouses (261 Lake Street)

Up in Fall Creek, DMG Investments has proposed to build 16 three‐story townhouses (approximately 23,377 square feet in total) broken into two different strings, one of nine units and one of seven units, on a vacant, sloped stretch of Lake Street. The market‐rate townhouses will each have a back entrance and a front entrance onto Lake Street and will be a mix of three‐ and four‐bedroom units.

Site improvements include removing invasive plant species while introducing native plantings, a new sidewalk on Lake Street, street trees, and stormwater planters to manage runoff from roofs. The project team proposes to improve the city‐owned Lincoln Street Extension to provide access to the site, a fire turn‐around, and 16 public parking spots, while the project site itself will include another 16 surface parking spaces.

As planned, the project will require variances for the retaining walls to be built on the property, as well as multiple parking variances. Continuation of the Environmental Review was scheduled for last night, as well as opening discussions on a Recreational River Permit, which is necessary because it’s a development adjacent to a protected body of water (Fall Creek).

Yifei Yan from Whitham Planning and Design presented the project. Yan explained the different levels of the retaining wall heights, and changes to paved surface materials. Yan shared options for two 7- to 10-foot walls at the rear of the property next to the parking, or one roughly 20-foot tall retaining wall. Geotechnical engineer Jim Duba added that the project will have a subsurface vapor barrier due to its proximity to the Ithaca Gun site, though he added that soil tests did not find issues with the building sites.

The board had a mix of opinions. Petrina didn’t feel it helped much if at all, while Elisabete Godden preferred the two-tiered approach.

“I don’t think the difference between the options you’re giving us tonight make a really big difference […] you’re giving us with both, really big walls,” said Glass. “The effect is going to be really intensive. The architecture remains lovely, but I have deep concerns about what’s happening in the back.”

Chair Lewis felt similarly.

“I was hoping the move from one wall to two would create more of a relief than what I’m seeing. It doesn’t look like there is much interstitial (between walls) space,” he said. “I don’t know if it matches what anybody was hoping to see on this end of the table. I’m really worried about these walls in either design solution. This is a really fantastic townhouse proposal, saddled with a really impractical parking proposal. I’m worried this doesn’t end up where it ought to be due to the parking issues.”

Lewis strongly urged a shared parking setup with DMG’s Auden project uphill, and due to the parking arrangement, it did seem like an uphill battle regarding the retaining walls.

“There are a number of open issues that staff will take documentation on and the board will review,” Lewis said. “In terms of overall feedback from this session, there’s a fair bit of open concern around those retaining walls still, and how that relates to our decision with the Recreational River Permit. The applicant should take a look at that before the next meeting.”

The project will be back before the board next month.

113-119 Sears Street

As first reported last month, non-profit housing developer Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) is moving forward with plans to build four single-family homes on a slice of land subdivided from the 400 Block of North Tioga Street. Tompkins County initially bought that land with the intent to build a new Center of Government building before shifting their plans one block south.

The four for-sale homes will be permanently affordable housing as part of INHS’s Community Housing Trust, sold to residents making around 80% of area median income, and who would also receive assistance on the downpayment and closing costs. The housing is modular construction consisting of two 3-bedroom (1305 SF each) and two 2-bedroom (1190 SF each) homes, designed with front and back porches and sized to fit within neighborhood character. The existing site, approximately 0.239 acres, is almost entirely paved (the previous homes on-site were torn down several decades ago), with a small buffer of shrubs and grass between the parking lot and sidewalk along Sears Street. The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the site into four new parcels.

A number of variances will be required, including setback variances to allow the porches and area variances for the homes themselves. The area is zoned lower-density residential R-2b, but the zoning came after the existing homes on Sears Street — virtually none of them comply with zoning, so the choice ends up being either homes that comply with 1970s zoning, or homes that fit the block’s early 20th century character. It also means things like porch and deck renovations, home additions and driveway modifications can be a bureaucratic nightmare for the existing homes, but that’s a discussion for another day.

This is a fairly small project, and the city is generally supportive of both lower-moderate income housing and owner-occupied housing, but the need for several variances could make the review of the project rather tricky. On the agenda for last night was the Declaration of Lead Agency for the Planning Board to begin Environmental Review, and the opening of the Public Hearing on the project, allowing for comments from interested parties to be formally submitted between now and the December Planning Board meeting.

INHS official Leslie Ackerman represented the project before the board. Ackerman noted that the county wanted as many units as possible, but when INHS looked at the larger block, they decided single-family homes were more appropriate. It was also felt that modular construction would be less disruptive to the neighborhood. The modular units would come from Simplex Homes in Scranton, Pennsylvania, with overall design and finishes by local architect Claudia Brenner. Ackerman noted two-bedroom and three-bedroom units tend to be the most in-demand from INHS’s previous experiences with homebuyers. Ackerman explained that they would have to do duplexes if they were to aim for zoning compliance.

The board unanimously declared itself Lead Agency for review.

“My only comments are about the architectural approach,” said Glass. “There are some other projects they (Simplex) have […] that feel more architecturally robust.” He suggested adding feature to make the architecture more “distinctive” and less “generic.”

“Communicating context will be important,” Lewis added. “I know these projects are (financially) very tight. But to the extent that you can find a way to lend some life to this architecture, some little details can go a long way.”

Planning Director Lisa Nicholas expressed a desire for more stylistic variation between homes.

The public hearing opened, and with no speakers, it closed. The project applicants will be back before the board next month.

200 Highland Avenue

The Ithaca Voice first shared information about this project way back in June, but it had to go through the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission because it’s within the Cornell Heights Historic District. In addition, developer Charlie O’Connor of Modern Living Rentals, had to work with the ILPC to develop a design that would likely earn a Certificate of Appropriateness; when there was a settled design, then the Planning Board could conduct review of the environmental aspects.

O’Connor and his team have proposed constructing a 3,518 SF addition which will be connected to the existing historic structure 3,098 SF beneath grade via a contiguous basement, giving it the appearance of two separate apartment houses (not the first time this has been done in Ithaca). The existing house would be renovated, changing from an 11-bedroom cooperative household to two apartments, with one six-bedroom unit and one five-bedroom unit. Meanwhile, the new addition would provide one three-bedroom and two five-bedroom units. The proposed addition is a two-story structure with an occupied attic and will preserve the historic character of the area with similar design elements as the surrounding buildings.

No zoning variances will be required, thanks to the contiguous basement that treats the second house as an addition rather than an entirely new structure. As long as the ILPC is comfortable with the plan, review by the Planning Board is expected to be fairly straightforward — it’s not a large building, and the design aspects are primarily being handled by the ILPC.

Michael Barnoski of Trade Design Build spoke on behalf of the project team, stating that they had made substantial progress with the ILPC but wanted Planning Board feedback before seeking final approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Barnoski stressed that they sought to create an addition in scale and “relational” with the existing home. The new addition would have wood clapboard and shakes to create some variance between it and the existing structure, and both buildings would be ADA-accessible.

The board unanimously declared itself lead agency. “I think this is a great proposal in the architecture and the detailing…I think the accessibility is a plus. I’m struggling a little bit with this connection in the basement to get around the zoning. You said a variance for a second primary structure would be unlikely?” Asked Petrina.

Barnoski said Historic Preservation Planner Bryan McCracken had informed them a variance was unlikely for the site, but that the connected basement was acceptable to the city.

“So far, the buildings look like they fit the character of the area,” noted Godden.

Glass, in turn, expressed concern with the parking and whether the number of units could be reduced. Barnoski replied that would be a “challenge” given the need for high-quality materials and finishes per ILPC specifications.

“I think the kids are gonna love the party tunnel. What better place to have a party then when it’s insulated from the neighbors by earth? But these are big units, this is in a place where you can rent big units, but there are externalities to that,” said Chair Lewis.

To note, “party tunnel” was Lewis’ choice of words, and drew smirks and side-eyes from his colleagues. The project will return before the board next month.

Zoning Appeals

Turning to the subject of Zoning Appeals, where the Planning Board makes recommendations to the BZA that the BZA can either choose to consider or ignore at their own discretion, there were three projects in the queue for this month.

The first is a lot line adjustment in Southside, between 228 South Geneva Street and 233 South Albany Street. They have the same owner and no physical changes are planned, but as they’re both older buildings that predate zoning, even a rear yard lot line adjustment triggers a bevy of zoning issues.

“This strikes me as unconcerning,” said Lewis, and the rest of the board agreed,

The next item was in Belle Sherman, for a home on Woodcrest Avenue. The owners seek to rebuild the deck and build a gazebo. The gazebo encroaches on the sideyard setback. As a general rule, so long as neighbors aren’t annoyed by it, the board encourages homeowner investment in their properties. So, absent complaints, the board is fine with the proposal.

The last proposal was in Southside, where the owners of 308 Wood Street propose to dismantle a decrepit two-car garage and replace it with a one-car garage with a 656 SF one-bedroom apartment on top. The existing house would then be converted from a two-family home, to a single-family home.

Although the new structure will be on the old garage’s footprint, the old garage was deficient on rear yard and side yard setbacks, so the new building will need variances for those. The board was supportive of the gentle density increase and the homeowner investment. As long as neighbors had no issue with it, they were in favor of the plans.

Other Business

As mentioned above, this was chair Robert Lewis’ final meeting in the position. During his time on the board, Lewis treated project teams neither like servants nor like friends. He was straightforward and professional, and spoke in terms that summarized the board’s sentiment and communicated concerns clearly and concisely. His departure after several years is a blow to the Planning Board and the city overall.

Relatedly, if you live in the city of Ithaca and have an interest in urban planning, architecture, and appearing in these recaps, consider applying to join the Planning & Development Board.

You can find more information on the City of Ithaca’s website and complete the application form for membership online.