Planning and Development Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. This is the August 26th meeting of the planning and development board of the city of Ithaca. We call this meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Can I start with asking everyone to introduce themselves, please? Andy Andy Roman, member of the board. Fifer, member of the board. Elizabeth Goden, member of the board and vice chair. Uh, Lisa Nicholas, director of planning and development and staff to the board. Emily Patrina, chair of the board. Sam Quinn Jacobs, planner and staff to the board.

Thank you.

Okay. Um, I'll point out emergency exits at the back of the room and I guess that's the front and the back where you entered. In the case of an emergency evacuation, we are to take one of the two exits and wait at the trees on the same side of the street on South Kauga and Green Street. We do not cross Green Street unless absolutely necessary. Those with restricted mobility in the event of emergencies, it is best to move to one of the stairwells and first responders will arrive to aid you. In the event of other emergencies, you'll be notified at that time. We want everyone to be aware of their surroundings and offer help when it is not to your own detriment, as you are your own best advocate. Women's restrooms are located on the first and third floors. Men's restrooms are on the second and fourth floors. Um, okay. We have, let's see, do we have any changes to the agenda tonight? I don't believe so.

Okay. And we have no minutes to approve tonight. So, let's move straight into public comment. This is a time for the public to speak about any item for which there is not a public hearing tonight. And we do not have any scheduled public hearings. Um, do we have anybody in the waiting room online? We don't. Okay. And anyone in the audience wishing to speak? Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Then let's move into reviewing projects. Our first project tonight is 116 North Meadow Street. Do we have the applicant with us? Yeah. So, we have Graham joining the waiting room now.

So, we are looking at consideration of project changes tonight. Robert Kane as well. Andre is Yeah, he's should be getting into the meeting right now. Hi, Graeme. I see you now. I think you're still muted. Yes, I did join to the panelists. Shall I go ahead and share my screen? Okay. Yes, please.

Okay, we can see your screen. Go ahead if you have a presentation for us. Absolutely. So, uh my colleague Jacob on Mechco will will start us off. Great. Hi, Jacob. Hi, everyone. Yeah. Um, do we also have uh Dustin Welch uh with pass room in the waiting room by any chance? Sure do. I'll let him in. Yeah, thanks. Uh, so one uh quick point of uh clarification. I think on the agenda um this is listed as 116 North Meadow. Um I believe the new address is 110. Uh so just for clarity sake. Got it. Thank you.

Um yep. Uh so as we've been working towards getting a um a permit set in for the building permit, we've um run into a couple uh issues that have resulted in us needing to make some adjustments to the site plan. Um the first is the FEMA flood maps uh of which we're all aware um are causing some issues throughout the city. Um in our case uh it's resulted in about a 10 in increase in the finished floor elevation uh for the first floor of the building. Um so the modifications you'll see are primarily uh in response to that. Um the other uh adjustment that we we found is necessary is we've had to shift the uh entire building footprint just 12 in uh to the east. Um and so that is for a uh critical egress route on the west side of the building and ensuring that there is the necessary clearance between the face of the building and the property line for there to be an egress path on that side. So I'll let uh Graham and Dustin uh walk us through some of these changes. There is one other item um which is uh sort of a I'm not quite sure on the procedure for this. We're looking at a potential change um that we're not necessarily proposing here tonight. Um but we were looking for planning board feedback on whether that change might be acceptable. Um and if you were comfortable granting uh sort of a preemptive approval of that or whether um we would need to come back once we've determined that we we certainly want to make that change. And that's relating to uh the window um frame colors. Uh so we'll we'll look at that uh towards the end of this presentation. Graham, do you want to walk us through what we're looking at here?

Yeah. So now that Jacob's kind of given us an overview of the reason for the changes, um I'll just walk us through the actual changes themselves. So here we're seeing the uh previously approved uh previously approved plan. Um showing areas for which we've had to make changes. In blue here we have the revised plan um showing the specific changes themselves which are as follows. So first at the intersection of West Senica and North Meadow we've had to lengthen both the ramp and stairs. You're going to be hearing a lot of that uh combination of words lengthening of ramp and stairs. Um here at uh the entrance on West Senica, we've um also lengthened the ramp stairs to accommodate the uh increased elevation. Here on the um west side of the building, we've just shifted the building footprint slightly to allow for the the minimum regress of 44 in. And finally over here on um North Meadow, we've had to also lengthen the stairs and ramp to accommodate the um increased elevation. So here you can see enlargements of the specific sections of the approved plan that had to be adjusted with the following changes walked through in a little bit more detail. So here for the intersection of West Sica and Meadow, we've added six bike racks. Um we have had to remove the proposed sculptural element just because of space constraints resulting from the increased length of the ramp and stairs. Um and of course we we have lengthened those ramp and stairs. Um at the entrance on West Senica um there were previously two separate entrances for the ramp and stairs. We've had to consolidate those to accommodate the extra length and ramp

and stair. um at the um let's see here. Yes, egress on the west side of the building. What was previously just a little bit of a slimmer egress has expanded to meet the uh required 44 in. And again, the rampant stairs on West Meadow, I'm sorry, North Meadow were both len lengthened to accommodate the uh increased elevation. So here we have the previously approved planting plan. Um not too many substantive changes to the planting plan but several areas did have to be addressed uh relative to the increased elevation which are called out in blue. So walking through those um we have you know we we've had to consolidate the planting beds here um following the consolidation of the entrances. Um we've additionally had to slightly decrease planting here to make up for the additional space needed by the uh elongated ramp. The um the space on North Meadow actually benefited slightly from this from this change in that we picked up some pedestrian space on a corner here. Um but we did have to consolidate these these plant beds um taking away that that additional pedestrian access to the street there. So this is the previously approved um slam. This is the render that was previously approved. Um this is showing white window frames as approved. And um just thought it was helpful to point out that this can lever shown was removed and that removal was approved at the uh September 3rd, 2024 planning board meeting. So this is the updated render. Um, as

you can see, we've just had to elongate the ramp, elongate the stairs, which shifted the shifted the orientation slightly. Um, and here the position of the approved versus the revised. Here we have the um black windows shown, which we're just hoping for a reaction from the planning board on. um may hope to switch um later on. And then finally, just showing the elevations of the building um north and south elevations, just pointing out these changes in a different vantage. And again, west and east elevations, just showing those changes. So we can go ahead and field some questions.

Great. Thank you. Um okay, let's go around. It looks like we are talking about changes and also weighing in on that window color. Andy, can I start with you? Sure. Yeah, thanks for the presentation. Um the the bikes that have been introduced, are they your required number of bikes? I'm just curious why they weren't at the front door before and now they are.

Yeah, I think um the required quantity of bike storage is fully inside the building garage. Um so these would be additional beyond that. And uh Dustin, maybe you can correct me if I'm I'm wrong on that, but um I believe we had the ample bike storage in the um the parking level.

Yeah, you're absolutely absolutely correct. Then I guess my comment would be um I'm wondering why you took the seating away. I think you know that giant porch there just seems a great like a great place to create some community um you know undercover with seating. So I'm wondering why the bikes and not seating. Yeah, I I think um if it's not something that is absolutely necessary. We saw the bike um the bike parking is potentially more desirable. Um but if to your point um the planning board would like to see uh seating in that location instead, I think the the project team would be amendable to that.

Okay. Thanks. That that would definitely be my preference. And in terms of the black windows, is the the trim um above the the porch, you know, that that sort of wide band, is that bronze? And are you suggesting that you're kind of mixing black and bronze, or would you change all of the trim to black to match the windows?

I think that trim is a black color. I think it's the sunlight saturation in this rendering makes it look a little bit bronze. I don't think the intention at this time was to change all of the trim to black um to match the windows, but uh to keep most of the trim the way it was presented originally and black. So that that wide band is actually black. Yes. Yeah. It's just I think it's getting a little too much sun in this rendering. I see. Okay. Yeah. Then then I um I support the the change to the black windows. I think it looks handsome. Thank you. Thanks, Andy. Max.

Yeah, thanks for the presentation and thanks for uh showing the the uh approved plans versus the revised plans so clearly. That was really good. And also for articulating clearly uh the reasoning behind uh proposing these changes. Um I'll start with the the black trim. I I think I I like it, too. I think it's an enhancement. I don't I wouldn't have an objection to it. Um if you decide to go that way, um I think that I have a little different feeling about the bike racks. I kind of like those there. Um one thing I want to remind everybody about is that that is a very very busy intersection there with lots of traffic. It's not the most pleasant place to hang out on seats. Um, so it would be uh if there's more seating there, it would be more kind of just um temporary thing. It's not exactly like a porch type of thing. I don't think at least I wouldn't be very comfortable out there. Um, I did like the addition of the bike rack, so that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Max. Elizabeth, good evening. Um, can you hear me well? Yes. Um, I was wondering if you could show me the black trim versus the white trim again. Absolutely. So, let's do it this way. So, the these are both white. So, we have the white and black.

Can't really see the black. So, I don't think I have an opinion either way on that. Um, thank you for showing me again. But I do agree with Andy that it just seems like a lot of railings in that porch. And I know you can't do much about the ones that are required because of the building height, but adding the bike racks there doesn't feel right. Um, and I see your point, Max, about it not being a good place to um, sit and hang out, but maybe it's a good place to sit and wait for your ride or um, you know, set your things down. I I don't know. It just seems like way too many railings under that um, cover. I think that was all the comments I had. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I think I agree also with Elizabeth and Andy. Um the the bike racks would be great, but since we gained some space in the east planting bed, maybe they're better suited to that spot. Um you know, I think this entry all along, we have talked about it being welcoming. Um, I remember wood paneling inside to make it feel warmer. And I think with unfortunately, I know it's not your fault, but with all the ramps and stairs added in this one concentrated corner of circulation, it I think it loses that warmth. Um, and I think, you know, especially in this rendering, you can see that ramp coming all the way out to the public rideway and it bicts your entry into two smaller areas. So, I wonder if you can turn that last leg and head it back the way the the bike racks are right now to the west. And then it sort of maybe it would unify it again and um reintroduce those benches back. Um some way to make this feel like a welcoming entrance. When I saw it, I did think, yes, bike racks out front, but but maybe we can have both if the bike racks are slightly moved. Um I also prefer the black window trim. I think it suits the size of the building more. Um, anything Lisa or Sam you want to add?

Yeah, I just I wanted to add that thank you for the presentation. Um, so you know, you're the second I think building. Well, no, we've had more, but you know, responding to the new flood maps and we're really looking for, you know, these are going to set precedents for how we deal with the flood plane and still integrate a building into um, you know, the street and the the pedestrian environment. And although I mean your design looks like you met all the requirements, but it doesn't look architecturally integrated, you know, all the different ramps, all the different stairs. Um and we are trying to find creative um creative um architecturally pleasing and pedestrian friendly ways to solve this problem of having to build buildings taller the first floor taller to meet the flood plane. So I'm just wondering if there's some other creative way you could integrate these all together um if that is any way possible.

Yeah, well said. Thank you for um commenting on that. Um I don't think this is ready for us to vote on it tonight. I feel like it's close, but maybe if we can see you again next month to look at some of these possibilities. Um it would be nice to look at a zoom in whether it's an elevation or something of the other stair and ramp as well. I see it. I understand it in plan and I'm not really asking for a a super expensive fancy rendering, but probably zooming in on the elevations to understand that better would be helpful as well.

Yeah. So, um we we did um we struggled, I'll be honest, with with this front ramp and stair um for exactly the reasons you pointed out. It's a lot of railings. You've got a lot of different entrance paths all sort of converging at that one location. Um we we played around with a number of different ways to approach this. Ultimately, this is what we settled on as what we felt was the best approach. Um I think your critique is is perfectly valid and we certainly had a lot of that internal critique uh amongst ourselves. Um the challenge being that we we want to limit the amount of changes um certainly that we're bringing to you after having gotten site plan approval. Um and the more creative solutions that might be explorable would would certainly introduce greater levels of modification. um whether it's a reduction in the amount of planting that's adjacent to the building um or or otherwise. And so I think we were looking for the simplest most direct way to um check the box here without completely redesigning this from scratch. Um, but I I think your your critique is certainly um it's not something we disagree with. Um, there are some schedule concerns. I know um uh Rob who's here from uh the ownership side um and Dustin uh for the architecture side have some um deadlines we're trying to meet. Uh so we were hoping that we could um work out an approval for this change tonight. Um it's it will be unfortunate for us if if

this is another month in debate, but but certainly we we understand your concerns. Um I'm wondering if there's any way we can resolve this uh in a way that could be a staff approval um as opposed to a full return to the board. Well, let's talk about it um amongst ourselves for a moment with the board. Um I heard most concerns about the front entryway, not the secondary ramp on the north side or the plantings. Is that right? Was sort of the main thrust of it. So Lisa, what do you think? I I might be okay with uh maybe circulating it if the change is kept minimal, circulating it to the board and staff midmon. Um, I think if um

if you're going to do something like that, I think I mean I wouldn't I wouldn't feel comfortable with a staff level approval of any changes, but I mean if you're going to if you you would have to give them pretty clear guidance about what outcome you're looking for, you know, so whatever that is, you mentioned different things. You know, I think that this could use a lot more discussion like questions like could you move the door, you know, in half of the stair, you know, could you I don't know if that's possible. I don't you know that I I understand your I understand your um schedule issues and certainly, you know, we can issue a site development permit before we can issue um the full building permit if that would be helpful. But I do feel like this needs more development. I think you'd have to be very clear about what you were looking for, you know, because then you get into the redesign and you're making decisions over email and yeah, I don't I don't really

I don't think we are clear exactly what we're asking for. We're sort of asking for an iteration to react to. Um, okay. So then let's talk about this possibility of the site development permit before the building permit to give us another month but allow their schedule to progress. Is that have you have you if I may? Yeah, please. Um would you do you want is it okay if I talk or are you guys Yes, please go ahead, Robert.

So, what I'm hearing from this it's it's really down to the entrance way. Um folks want to see benches, uh less railing and ways to conceal the railing. Um I'm not an architect or civil, but I think it's just looking at basic geometry. Dustin, correct me if I'm wrong or or correct me if I'm speaking out of term here, but I think it's very possible uh to just wind that last 10 feet 6 in of ramp that goes out to the sidewalk and just wind it back to the west and then introduce uh some benches uh some pavers and maybe a decorative uh one bicycle rack that's more artistic to kind of meet your needs uh and ours at the same time. The issue is that as we're we're looking to close, investors, lenders, everyone on the financing team will want to make sure that everything is is squared away uh without proposing future delays to the project. Um but I I I can kind of visualize it on my end. I see it's a very simple revision and change to to meet your needs of concealing all the the um the railings uh but also being in compliance with code here. Um, but I think the the best path to do that is introduce benches, maybe some some some um uh plantings inside and pay on on planter boxes and then introducing a single bike rack that's more artistic in nature that that can be approved by staff.

Yeah. Uh, Graham, do you want to flip back to the the plan for what's currently proposed? And maybe I'll I'll just annotate on this real quick. What I what I think we could uh turn around very quickly since we already did look at the feasibility of this. Um right. So so basically what we're talking about is extending the landing um where this ramp turns and extending it out in this direction. Right? So that then the path of travel exits this way. Mhm.

Um, we would just connect that back to the street. And then this space in between here, we could fit a bench, maybe two, right? Apologies for how rough this is, but that would basically be the modification. And then this area in front, right, the ramp would go away. That would be the change. And if it's not a bench, it's planter boxes with plantings to kind of cover up and conceal the railings. Well, we're we're under an overhang, so I I don't know that any plants will will do well there. Um, just given the the condition, but yes, good point.

So, that's what I was picturing. Um, let me just take it back to the board. Thank you for that quick sketch. Um, and it sound I heard benches and that's what we saw before. So, it's not really departing from the original design as much if we have some benches there. Um, can you give me your thoughts on this um, kind of impromptu redesign, Andy? Yeah, I think that's an obvious solution and I would be comfortable with that, Max. It sounds reasonable. I I'm not sure how it reduces the amount of visible railing. Can we talk about that a little bit? Because that was one of the things people were complaining about was too busy under there. It's

not sure that any of that goes away. Is there a way to do that? Okay. And oh, sorry. Let's just I'll come back to you for a comment in just a sec. Go ahead, Elizabeth. Oh, my my mic's still on. Um, yeah. I just don't see other than a lift. I don't see how you're going to meet that uh change in elevation without all those railings. Okay. So, Jacob, back to you. Sorry to cut you off. regarding railings.

Yeah. So, I think you still need railings along the whole ramp, but um this section of railing uh that sticks straight out, right? Would get folded back and run along parallel with the the railing above. So, by consolidating those two railing runs visually, you would have less clutter. um you would still have another railing on the outside that would uh extend. So you have these series of railings um both sides of each of these ramp sections um climbing up the ramp on this side. Uh but I think we could make this sort of um continuous or or integrated in some way with the handrailing so that everything feels a little more consolidated and tight. Um overall the quantity of handrailing doesn't change but it's at least uh sort of stacked in this way

and pulled back from the facade of the building too. Yeah. Yes. Um okay. Well then how does everybody on the board feel about this being a midmon email review understanding their their financing and sort of deadlines they're up against. Um, we can come back next month if we think this is too big of a change and look at an iteration or we can if everyone feels comfortable with this, we could ask for a midmon email staff level and board review right together. We would just circulate it. What do you think, Andy?

I'm comfortable with that with a midmon email review. Okay, Max. Yeah, I'm comfortable with it especially under the conditions that you know these changes are kind of being uh brought about and needed uh because of the flood plane uh changes and so forth. I think um the all the stuff that's been proposed has been pretty reasonable and so I think if we can look at this in midmon um I'd be comfortable with it under these uh with those with that background in mind. Okay, Elizabeth.

Um, to be honest, I was leaning towards wanting to see it again, but I feel like if you don't just give us the plan, but we also get an elevation or like a modified viewpoint from there that we can um make a decision via email. It's just it's difficult to vote on something like that. Mhm. And we still have to we have a resolution on this, right? So that's a good point. That's kind of like photo. No. Um, so

you could add a condition. Yeah, we're we're happy to provide you know elevations or rendering with the midmon submission. What were you going to say, Lisa? I was going to say, you know, if you were very clear about it, you could do a condition on if you and you wanted to do this, you could do a condition on the approval saying exactly how it has to change and then we vote for it now. Yeah. as long as it complies with exactly how it's supposed to change.

conditioned upon, you know, the following changes.

Um, I think that's reasonable. We could write a condition. Um, why don't we draft the language and then decide if we're going to use it, if it's reasonable. So, I have to let's move to open this proposed resolution to discuss it. Can I Can someone move it? Elizabeth moves it. Andy seconds it. Okay. So, we're looking at this project changes proposed resolution for 110 North Meadow Street. Um, we would have a condition saying that um the northeast corner entry would be redesigned to have the ramp switch back to the west. um with added benches in front. Anything else we want to add to that?

What about the bikes? Um I think it was Robert that suggested an artistic looking single bike rack or Emily you had mentioned possibly relocating to them to the east. Okay. Where does everybody want the bike racks? Because we have to be specific. I I don't think that they should be in this entry. I think that's more of a parking, you know, not friendly entrance item, but I do like the idea of adding bike racks. Go ahead.

Yeah, I agree. I could see them on Meadow Street. You know, we've gained some landscape there. Let's, you know, um, give it back and make room for the bikes along Meadow Street. Okay. Would be my vote. Me. The I guess this. Yeah. Jacob, can your team, if we put in, you know, a minimum of three, can you suggest the right number of how many you feel would go in that burm over there when you resubmit your materials? Number of bike racks that you feel appropriate. If we put minimum of three in this resolution.

Yeah, I think I think a minimum of three is is doable. Um it's just trading out landscaping for bike racks and um I think we're we're open to that. Okay. or even consolidating the landscaping and you know and and having the bike racks on a concrete. Okay. Um and then we would put as part of the condition that these design changes would be circulated to the board for approval. Elizabeth, do we all agree that the bike racks are required? I I don't think they're necessary.

Okay. It's already really busy there with a lot of stuff. I feel exactly the same way. I I think it's too busy over there. You know, the advantage of the earlier proposal was that they were in a covered area and so forth. It's going to be out in the open. It reduces greenery. I think I think I'd rather go without the bike racks in this case. Uh you know, it's Meadow Street. It's heavy concrete. Anything we can do to have any any, you know, type of landscaping out there would be an improvement.

I think you're right considering the context. They have the number of bike racks they need inside and we're trying to green up Meadow Street. So, I would agree. Okay. So, we're swapping out the bike racks for the benches under the covered portion and we're not replacing them in the green space to the east. Okay. So, if this comes back and there's, you know, we we see it circulated in email and there's something still wrong, it we can ask for them to come back next month. Um, we hope that this turns out as beautiful as we pictured in our minds. Um, okay. Can Yes. ask just uh to uh clarify what you just said because if we're vote we're going to vote on the resolution it's going to have this condition in it

but if the condition isn't satisfied but approval doesn't stand until the condition is satisfied or they building permit. So if we look at the if we look at the revised drawings and we're like this doesn't they still would have to come back to Does that make sense? Does that sound right to you? Uh, it sounds sounds okay. I I I don't feel like I I think it's okay. I'm all right with that. I I feel like it doesn't really address their concerns about timing and all that, you know, and so which is what the reason we're putting this condition.

Yeah. No, I think it's a compromise. We're trying to meet the schedule, but it still gives us a way to ensure the quality of that change. Um, okay. So, does everyone feel comfortable with that language and then voting on this? Okay, then. Yes. Go ahead. Sorry. Uh, Lisa, can you can you read it back to us? I have one too if you need, Lisa. Sorry. I have one too if you need. Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, sure. I was going to say just the the northeast entry ramp uh to be changed to a switch back towards the west with the removal of the bike racks and the addition of benches. Would you? And it's specifically two benches, right? Was that specified? I don't think we specified the benches. I think I'm fine with having the applicant design those benches. However, maybe it's a long continuous. Yeah, there were two originally. So, I guess that's where we came up with two. And then the second condition is that it'll be circulated to the board with uh rendering an elevation.

So, I don't think we have to put that in the resolution. That's what we'll do to to determine if it's met the um condition and we will give you our when we circulate. Okay. Further discussion or does that sound good? That sounds good. Okay. Let's do a roll call vote. Andy, yes. Max, yes. Elizabeth, yes. And I am also a yes. Um, okay. So, that gets you a little bit closer. Thanks for your patience. I feel like it's a good compromise and we'll look forward to seeing those changes in a few weeks. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thanks everybody.

Okay, next we have 2011 Oak Avenue and we are looking at potential final site plan approval. We have the whole team in person. Hi Okay. So, it looked like we have just a few changes to talk about tonight, right?

Yeah. Coming out of the last, uh, meeting felt like the coming out of the last meeting, um, seemed like the board was pretty happy with the project. Um, so we just heard a a minor request for clarity around the walk along the building. keep that walk. Um so what we did was we came up with uh two different studies. Um looking at the grades, we need to introduce a couple steps into it, a few steps. Um so one study um has a railing uh and one study does not have a railing. Um since uh since submitting this, we have gotten a little bit of clarity from the building department um because it's on private property, not on public property. under jurisdiction building code. Um so the steps do require handrails. Um even though it's not a means of egress um but they're required. Um we are not required to have a guard rail along the rest of the wall. Um but we will show it both ways and you can kind of mix and match and see what you think. Um so this is the the first one is with uh guard rails and handrails. Um, so one view kind of working our way down Summit A and sort of see what it looks like um with the handrails along the steps and then down at the corner. And then just to jump quickly to the version without handrails. Um going down Summit A. Uh we did stretch the steps out a bit trying to get away from the need for handrails. Um but in conversation with the building department um they said we still need them.

Um so this is not an option as it is. So this is not an option. The the um I guess compromise would be the handrails at the steps and then not having guard rails along the rest of the wall. Um yes. So it'd be Um, but not so basically the steps start here and so we we wouldn't need the the guard rails along the walk here, but we definitely need the handrails at the steps on both sides. On both sides? Yes. What's the change in elevation?

Um, it doesn't matter. I was trying to stretch the steps um because I was under the impression that if you have three risers or less, you don't need handrails. But under the IBC, um interior and exterior stairs don't have that exception. Um you still have to have handrails on both sides.

Now, it's worth noting too that we have a lot of um stairs on the Oakav facade as well. So, you know, stairs with handrails in this project, you know, it's going to be fairly, I think, contextual. It's not like it's a oneoff thing. Um, I think they'll feel in place, you know, the length that's around the building. So, what's your preference if you need the handrails on both sides to have the stairs stretched out or have them consolidated? I would I would say consolidate so we can shrink the hands.

And that's the only design change that we're looking at, right? Yeah. Yeah. That was the only Yeah. The only request and I was looking through the conditions satisfy some of those already. Okay. So, um let's hear your feedback, Andy. Um, I like the the handrails. I'm just thinking about safety. What um what what is the drop there? What's the worst case? The the steepest part right between of of the drop between the walk and the loading zone is about um 16 to 18 in right before that first step.

Right. Yeah. So, for me, it's it's purely a safety issue. I know we just looked at a project and talked about not wanting to see railings, but I think absolutely, you know, walking along there and, you know, the the potential of of falling off of that or tripping seems like there would absolutely need, you know, to to have a rail there. So, I'd be in support of the railing. Thanks, Max. The building department doesn't require that that railing along along the long just on the stairs. No, it's less than 30 in. You don't need a guard rail. So, and it's not a means of egress. If it was a means of egress, it' be a different story.

So, it's not required. But you think because of safety, Andy? I mean, I I I see Andy's point. I I I prefer it without them just for the looks of things for myself. So, I don't know. Elizabeth, thanks for explaining that to us. Um, can I see the view with just the railing again? Just the railing. Do you have that? Just the uh stair rail. Yeah, the handrail. No, you don't have that. No, because we got that since we submitted.

Okay. Um, I have a feeling I agree with Andy that it might look just like it's floating out there and with the guardrail continuous. I mean, it's not the best look for the front facade of a building, but it it feels like you can probably do something to make it work there and it kind of ties it in. So, it's just not out there. Um, that's my opinion. I also think that with people who usually walk looking at their phones and not at where they're walking that there's quite a potential for risk um of tripping there. So that's my opinion. I'm not going to give you my opinion. I'm just going to go with with the majority here. I think we should have railings. What I'm hearing is that two out of three of you want uh the railing the whole way for safety. So, I think that's the right thing to do. Um, anything you want to add to that?

Not about that.

Okay. Anything you'd like to add about other things? I was just wondering if um you could change the trees from a columnar that doesn't really achieve what we were thinking of for the entrance to something that has more of a canopy. So then the final selection, species selection will be a condition of final. Okay. All right. Any other comments on this? We are looking to vote for final approval tonight. Seeing none, I think this is a really wonderful building. It's going in a great spot. I think it's adding to the neighborhood feel of Summit. So I think it'll be a great a great change. Um, okay. Let's move this and talk about any changes to proposed resolution. Who so moves? Elizabeth moves. Who seconds? Andy seconds. Any changes or discussion to this resolution? I noticed that there is a condition to have the vibration monitoring plan approved by city engineering. That was my only outstanding item. But otherwise, I don't Oh, staging plan. Staging logistics plan.

Is it on here? We add it. Okay. Staging and logistics plan. So we can add that. Y. Okay. Anything else you guys see? So to be clear, that the two conditions that we have are documentation of the staging plan to be approved by city engineering and fire departments and then the change of the tree species up front from a away from a columnar species. That's to be before building permit. Great. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, um, let's do a roll call vote. Andy, yes. Max, yes.

Elizabeth, yes. Okay, I'm also a yes. Congrats on your final site plan approval. Thank you everyone. Great job guiding this project for helping us move it along here. So, we're full speed ahead. Look forward to building it. Thank you.

Okay, next up we're looking at 215 College of Redevelopments and tonight we're looking at a potential seeker determination. Hi Do you want us to dive into the FEIF or do you want to do a presentation? Okay, great.

You want to pull the slides? This is a couple outstanding items um from the last meeting. Okay. So, couple of the the last items. one, we were still finalizing the lynen approach, which I think everybody had kind of settled on an option. Um, and there was an outstanding question about the railings. And so, we just wanted to highlight that we were asked to consult with the uh city code department. We did get a response from Rob that he agrees with us that the railing is not needed. So, we wanted to be able to report that back to this group.

Annie, can you flip the slide? And so that is what the final design would look like as what we provided to Rob and he's comfortable with this from a code perspective. So that is kind of the final design as it relates to that streetscape. We think based on that everybody should be happy with where that landed. And then the only other thing that we just were going to highlight is part of the seekers we did and I think you guys have them over there. We provided all the final samples for the building finishes and and Annie had submitted a slide to um illustrate the different finish choices. So other than that, we have a bunch of slides if you have other questions, but yeah, I think the main objective here is to get through seeker. So I guess we'll stop talking and let you guys do your

Thank you for checking any railings. I just wanted Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Annie. No, sorry. I just want to highlight the also uh based on the last feedback we received that we also moved the bike rack from like the public right away into our property and that's included in the um latest submission.

Oh, great. Thank you. I had forgotten about that. Um I was going to say thank you for following up on the railings because that Lynen Avenue side really only works without them. um and it becomes more visually and actually accessible by the public. So um that's a huge win. Thank you for that. Um okay, so let's look at our seeker here. We have nothing left highlighted. Um I think all outstanding items have been submitted and fulfilled. I'm just going to read the titles of each section and if anyone has comments, changes, typos, anything like that, just call them out. So we have impact on land, impact on geological features, impact on surface water, impact on groundwater, impact on flooding, impact on air, impact on plants and animals, impact on agricultural resources, impact on aesthetic resources, impact on open space and recreation, impact on environmental areas, impact on transportation, impact on energy.

I had a question if I can ask. I think maybe this is uh for Lisa or Sam. So the um the uh uh energy cold supplement um with with this building will this be the 2026 uh requirements because when the building comes into operation or you know how how does that work between when they when they break ground and versus when they actually That's right. Good question. It's when they pull their building permit. So whatever the code of the day is when that Okay. And when does the IECS jump to the next phase? Is that the end of this year? Uh I think we're still waiting, right? Uh that's what it's it's the end of the calendar year.

Well, we haven't gotten the the the final hasn't been released, right? Yeah. Oh, has it? No. Oh, no. All right, good. Thanks. I just I was reading this. I was I didn't Yeah. When I talked to Rob last week, he said they're still waiting for the final version. Seen it yet. Okay. So, okay. Okay, next section is impact on noise, odor and light. Um, and I just wanted to point out, we talked about this Sam. Um, the applicant did provide documentation from the license engineer as to whether vibration monitoring plan is necessity. So, you have that covered, right?

Yes. So, the the plan states that um or the the document states that it's recommended um but the memo there's not a memo per se saying that they will do it. So um that'll be a condition um once it comes to final approval if it's not submitted by then but um it's just cap uh captured in the FE to be that way. So because there's no conditions on seeker um it's just captured in the feed that they will submit that. Great. Thank you. Okay. Our next section is impact on human health consistency with community plans. Go ahead about that. Um there's these lot coverage variances. Have those been approved? No, we have to finish seeker before it can go

because it go there. Okay, good. Thank Thank you. Yeah, I like the way it's written. I agree with everything in here about rationale for it. Good job, Sam. Um, consistency with community character. And that's the last of it. So, I think um I have no outstanding questions. I'm seeing none from three of you. Anything you want to add, Sam?

Nope. Uh, just the major changes that I incorporated from last time were, uh, an updated staging plan, which will need to be reviewed by the fire department and engineering. And then, um, Emily already touched on the vibration monitoring, and then the last change I made was to the last two paragraphs to include the design review application that they submitted as well. Great. Okay, let's move this green resolution. Oh, Elizabeth. Um, and I might just have forgotten. Um what is the drainage plan for these depressed areas where it slopes towards the building? Do you have an actual um

the in the in the London side? You meant both areas that have um sloping towards the building. Do you have an outlet? Yes, they they're encoded in the civil drawings that we submitted. Great. Okay. Okay. No further questions. Then let's move this green resolution. Who moves? Andy moves. Max seconds. Um, any discussion on this resolution? Seeing none. Okay. Roll call vote. Andy, yes. Max, yes. Elizabeth,

yes. I am also a yes on a negative declaration. Great. Anything we have to wrap up? No. Okay. um for site plan review. We'll see you next month. I wanted to just ask about some information on the rooftop deck. We haven't really touched on it and it started to show in the Lynen Avenue side um renderings that you had. If you can just tell us what's going on up there, what it's like seems to be a really large area. Um and also if management would consider time restrictions on use for that. In the past, neighbors just don't want parties on the rooftop deck for light and sound past a certain time. So, no necessary or not necessary to give us an answer now, but if we can touch on that next week, next month. Okay. Thank you both. Um I think we are we

the schedule we have you set for preliminary and final but that's up to the the planning board. Yep. Okay. Yeah. We'll we'll make sure we submit what you need to review that well in advance. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we are looking at 20527 West State Street. This is INHS, right? Yeah. And tonight, we're looking at potential preliminary and final site plan approval.

Yep. We got Matt Leech and Victoria Nean. Hi, Kimberly. Hi, Bear. Um, okay. Do you have a presentation for us? That's like Matt's pulling up right now for us.

Great. Yeah. So, I'm Kim Van Lewin from Fisher Associates and Steve has taken an other position uh that we're excited for him and that gave me the opportunity to be involved in this project. So, thanks for having us tonight. We also have all the people you've met multiple times before. I'm going to keep this very short because my understanding is that you've seen all this, you've evaluated all this. Um we have the pictures up here in case you want to point to something or look at something, but okay. Project location um you know where it is. It's on in between Albany and Geneva along West State Street. The next image is our illustrated plan which you've seen multiple times before. There aren't changes to this since you last saw it. Uh the next image we have are the building elevations that you've seen multiple times. And we've got the right people here to answer questions if you have them. Um another sheet. Go to the next slide. The remainder of the building elevations. On the next slide, Matt, which is building materials. And my understanding is that the outstanding items you were looking for is some details on what that railing might look like along the facade of the building, which we provided on the 20th to you. And you can see right there, Matt's pointing to it with his cursor. and the planting plan you wanted a key on it. So in the plant had the quantity. So we sent an updated set of drawings planting key. And then there's also some product information. I went out of order. Matt, you're doing

awesome like keeping up with all um this is some product information on the site fencing. which will be black. And I think that answers all the questions that you had on standing. And because you're so familiar with it, I'm just going to stand down and we're here to answer questions as you work through the um your discussion on it. Great. Thank you.

Okay. I will ask maybe Bear. We talked about um color options. I want to acknowledge the ILPC's memo that came as a finalized memo to us since we saw you a few weeks ago. Um I think in the room last time we all preferred kind of what we had been seeing, but you were going to give that thought. So you update us on that.

Yes. So we did go back um and attend the last ILPC meeting um come up about the color of the building. Um the they did clarify that the concern was that Traditionally historic buildings have uh one main field color and if we were trying to uh meet that aspect of like a historic building that's what they would be uh hoping to see. Um, we did offer the comment of given the scale of the other historic buildings in uh in neighborhood that we felt the color blocking was more true to the scale and size of those historic buildings, not so much necessarily the color um aspect to it. But like of course our color palette was to try to be inclusive and uh good neighbors to all the other colors that are in the uh the area. Um, so based off of that discussion internally, we decided that what we've currently shown is feels like the right direction to us and the one that we would like to stay with.

Okay, thank you for that. Then I'm going to just go around the room and see if there's any outstanding questions or issues from all of you. Andy, sure. Yeah, great. Thanks. Um, just a a couple, you know, technical questions. um the the columns that you're kind of driving through, have you guys thought about how those would be protected? So, the the columns will be a brick wrap column. There is going to be a curve along the edge of it. Um because drive lane is not touching up right against it, there will be at least a little bit of a curve there. Um so, that's kind of the

Okay. So, you're not worried about cars, you know, actually hitting the columns? Not not currently. Um, they'd have to jump the granite curve, which might pop a tire.

Great. The the other question I had was the mechanical system and and what you perceive to be on the roof and how you'll be screening that. Good question. Um so we will be having heat pump units up on the roof. Uh we do intend to have a uh there's a parapit that's already included into the facade of the building to kind of act as that first buffer of visual. Um and as necessary we're trying to cons consolidate as much towards the center and if we need to have an additional screen we can accommodate that.

Yeah because we are seeing on projects now you know providing a screen even with those you know small condensers. So so not just relying on the fact that they're set back but actually having something because from you know other buildings you know that might be high you know there there's different vantage points that you might see that. So it would be good to you know understand what material you might use for that screen.

Um it would be very similar to the proposed for the site screening options for roof almost very similar with style. Um and again as I mentioned so for the most part they would be kind of set down in as is. Um we would only looking to do additional screening as the equipment was getting much taller. So, let's add that as a condition um that any mechanical equipment is reviewed by staff for screening requirements.

Yeah, good idea. Then the last um question I had was about the um if you if we could go to the the other elevation um the main elevation. Yeah. the the mural at the stair. How do you perceive actually seeing that? The way you've rendered it um behind the glass would really require you know lighting or you know something to really see it through the glass. So I guess the question is are you thinking that that is something that really is prominent? Um and what is the spandrel glass there? because you know the the stair will be hitting the the glass not at the the elevation that you're showing this band to it'll sort of be coming down to that. Um but are you thinking that's opaque and then again what is really your thought on the mural there because it is so far set back and it's behind you know glass that has reflectivity and looks dark.

Yeah absolutely. So the uh as as mentioned the mirror will be on the back wall and given the lighting requirements for the stair especially with the senior house have good lighting levels but not obnoxious lighting levels. And then tra traditionally with that when you have glass in those stairwells clear glass um in most of the locations you'll be able to see like moments as the stairs are zigzagging up through. Um so you'll get those nice little moments going up the stairs.

The darker bands that you're seeing across there will be tinted glass. Um we're not intending for that to be fully opaque. just something to more hint at that horizontal banding that's going across the side to help that language continue across but not not detract from the opportunity. Right. Right. Okay. Great. Well, thank you. That class is intended to be prop the warmth of the of the other materials. Great. Okay. Thanks, Bear.

Thanks. Yeah, I I think this is just a a wonderful project and I like I I I agree with you as we talked last time about your u selection of colors and so forth. I agree it works really well and I don't have anything else to offer right now but except encouragement. Thank you Elizabeth.

I'm with you Max. Um really good job on this bear. I think you've come a long way and you did an excellent job in addressing the flood plane issues on this building. We don't see railings everywhere and ramps. Um, and I really like the way that you've se, you know, treated the facade and I love the mural idea and I think you're doing a good job. So, congratulations. Agreed. I'm very excited about this building. I live across the street so I'm a biased but um think you've done a wonderful job and really responded to our comments. It's going to be a great addition to that corner. Um I want to maybe propose one additional condition since you mentioned the brown tint to the glass that there's a review a sample submitted of that glass. I don't think we saw the stair glass um in samples.

Yeah, I understand. Okay. Yeah, just to get eyes on that in person. Um, and I think that's it. Any other Actually, I think we have to move this before we can add comments. Okay, Elizabeth moves. Um, Max seconds. Now we can start to talk conditions. So, first one was staff review of rooftop mechanical screening and then go ahead. So, I I had that written down as planning board. You wanted that to be a staff review of mechanicals. Let's do planning board. Planning board. Okay. And then um the second condition was um physical samples submitted for that stair glass physical samples. And then do you want that to be staff approved or

Yes. What do you guys do you want to see the glass or do we is it okay at a staff level? Do you have a preference? Well, since they're coming back with I want to see the glass. Okay. Coming back with we'll do both for the board. screening, you know, they can show the gloves at that time. These be before building permit or it's somewhere in between there like you know I mean wouldn't hold up your building permit for not having the glass sample but not wait all the way to CO because then it's hard to change things. So as soon as you can within six months of the building permit

when you get your submitted Yeah, I was going to say I think that's Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion or additional proposed conditions? Seeing none. Okay, let's do a roll call vote. Andy, yes. Max, yes. Elizabeth, yes. I am also a yes. You have your preliminary and final. Thank you so much. Good luck with the project. Thank you very much. Sorry. Did was that moved? was moved by Elizabeth and sorry Max seconded. Thank you. Hi.

Okay. Next, we're looking at Grinspoon Hell at Cornell 722 University Avenue. We are going to continue design review and look at Seeker Transportation, Construction, Noise, Odor, and Light. I see Crystal. Hi there. Good evening everyone. Are we expecting anyone else from your team? Sarah Hayes should be in the waiting room as well. Okay.

There she is. Hi Sarah. Uh, okay. Do you have a presentation for us tonight? We have a very short one. Um, tonight we're really just going to be hitting on the last few items for the seeker uh review so that we can have a vote next month on that. So, let me just bring up my screen. Everybody see that? Yes, we can.

Perfect. All right. So, the last few uh topics that we're reviewing tonight and what we submitted in our submission to the planning board are uh transportation, construction, and nose order, sorry, odor and light impacts. Um, so we've got the plan that we provided last month, and I was just going to show you this for preference and then flip to the current plan. We had just a couple of modifications and that was really once meeting with uh the trash management company and making sure they had the correct access that they needed for the trash enclosure. Um beyond that, it's just been minor tweaks as we've kind of worked through the design process. Uh in regards to transportation, we still are proposing the six parking spaces, off- streetet parking spaces along the north side of the building. and that is one accessible space and we're also including two EV charging spaces as well. In terms of bike parking, um we do have six exterior parking spaces for bike amenities. And I just wanted to clarify, I saw in the FE uh it highlighted there are no bike parking spaces interior to the building. It's just the six on the outside. Um for pedestrian access, we had kind of shown um last month, but there is an accessible path that moves along the eastern property line uh as well. All of the paths that lead to the front door here and the back door and the rear are accessible as well. In terms of construction, uh as listed in the FIF, it'll be approximately 16 months in duration. Included in our submission was our construction logistics plan and also a truck routing plan. Both of these have been um coordinated with Cornell University and we'll continue to as we kind of move through the process and you know I'm

sure there'll be some minor tweaks, but we've worked with them so far to date. You can see the construction logistics plan on the page. Um I just wanted to make a really quick note that contractor parking will be offsite. We're working with Cornell on those locations um to make sure that we do not impact any of the street metered parking nearby to the site. There will be obviously some construction noise um happening during this time, but we are going to be restricting that to certain hours and certain days throughout the week to try to mitigate that. There also will be vibration monitoring occurring during the project and that will be provided by Vibrate. The exterior light fixtures will all be dark sky compliant. And I think that's really it. I just wanted to hit on the last few outstanding items. Looking at their FEF, there wasn't really much left. So Sarah and I are both here to happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Great. Thank you both. Okay, I'm going to switch up the order. Elizabeth, do you mind giving any comments or questions you have? Sure. Um, I'm a big fan of this project and I don't really have any other questions. I think you've addressed everything. Thank you, Crystal. Thank you, Max. Um, just to go back, you said in terms of the um blockage, road blockage and so forth, you were coordinating with Cornell over time. Did I hear that right? Yes. There. Yep. Sarah, go ahead. Sorry. Yes. Yes. We've been working with Leslie Schill um and Reed and Bo in University Transportation. Great. Thank you. I don't have anything else.

Thank you, Andy. Yeah, no comment. Um I wasn't at the last meeting, but I did watch um the recording and I was really excited to see the presentation, the materials. It looks great. Oh, you missed it. It was wonderful to to actually hold the terracotta. Yeah. Yeah, they're really fantastic. Thank you. Okay. I don't have any questions either. Thank you for explaining um those site elements. Um we should be on track for a seeker vote in September, but I will ask Lisa or Sam if there's anything additional. As far as I'm concerned, they've pretty much answered all the questions. The only question I had highlighted Crystal answered tonight. So, well, that was short and sweet. Um I think we're good and we'll look forward to seeing you next month.

Perfect. Thank you everyone so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, next we are looking at a sign review for 445 East State Street, MLK Junior Street. Um, we are looking at potential sign package approval tonight. Hi there. I'm not seeing anybody on Zoom right now, but um told them it was like years ago we beautiful schedule and look, we're an hour ahead. Now we're an hour and a half. Doesn't happen often, but you got to be prepared for it. Yeah, you have the PDFs to pull.

Yeah. Would that be helpful if I put them on the screen for you? Not a problem. Give me prepared if I needed to. So, thank you. Uh Brian Bousard with CHA Consulting. So, we're the project engineer that's been probably over the better part of a year. We've never seen you in person, have we? It's No, it was during It was like 2020ish, so it was like the COVID transition. Yeah. So, I actually called um the office today and I was like, is it okay if I come in person? So, well, thank you making the trip. We

Yeah, happy to be here. So, um I'm just getting caught up to speed on this because the developer obviously the project's underway, right? Um so, kind of starting the foundation work. There was a lot of ground improvements to be made. So, the building's coming out of the ground and the owner uh had hired their signage consultant to put together the signage package for your review. I believe that she interacted a little bit with Megan um and the planning office to kind of get these drawings submitted. Um and then obviously um having to go through the design review, I started taking a look at comparison of code and what they're proposing so I can walk you through this. Um there's obviously some deviations compared to I believe what the zoning code allows. So our goal here is really to get your feedback on the appropriateness of the size and scale of the building and the signage and then if needed um obviously carry that forward to a formal um zoning board of appeals application um if that is the case. So um this is in the CBD60 zoning district. So it's 445 East State Street. This is called the it's going to be called the theory um Ithaca building. So this is a multifamily apartment project. Um the allowable signage per code um you know maybe one clarification. I know that commercial signage in the district tops out at 50 square feet is the maximum which is what the signage consultant had designed from. I do know from experience on the Ithac that perhaps there is some provisions for a residential building in the commercial district to have a little bit further restriction of like 12 square feet. Um so I'm not sure how that's applied. I know city center which I didn't work on has a similar blade sign and it's a little bit bigger and maybe that was because the mass and the scale of the building too. Um but looking for your opinion on which kind of size maximum we carried forward and then also obviously the number of signs that's allowed for this property is a

maximum of two signs um you know allowable for fronting on the public street and then there's also a provision for fronting on a waterway to which we have the six mile creek trail uh that's directly adjacent to us on the rear away from State Street. So uh what you can see here is the proposed signs. So there's three proposed signs and we do have some renderings but let's look at these um graphics first so I can explain them one by one. Um this particular sign which is the first page here is the uh I believe the 50 square feet sign. Yep. I can't read it because my eyes are bad.

50 square feet. So this is actually the north facade. So this is a blade sign that would be facing um the public way on stage three. Uh it is designed for 50 square feet. However, there is a provision for projecting signs to not be greater than 18 in projected off the face. This sign is 3 feet wide. Um so it does project beyond that. And we can take a look at how this actually renders compared to the size of the building when we get down to the elevations. The second sign is a very similar blade sign. This would be on the creekwalk side. So, we do have the residential entry on the creekwalk side. This is slightly smaller. Um, and it's 26.3 square ft. Similar. Both of these blade signs um would be an aluminum fabricated cabinet and it has an acrylic face. It is internally lit. The only thing that you will see lit are the lettering. So the theory lettering and the Ithaca lettering are the only things that will um project that internal illumination. Um so other than that it is it is a blade sign and this one also does project um about three and a half feet versus the 18 in that um is prescribed for a projecting sign which again I think is is a very appropriate code especially when you look at places like the the commons and other things where that projection might be more encumbering than um a building of our size and scale. So perhaps um we believe it's appropriate and still visible. Um, so those are the two blade signs. The third sign is actually um something if you want to just scroll down. It's obviously impossible to see those. Let's go to the image right here. This is perfect. So, we did spend some time off of um State Street. Um we have a pedestrian bridge because of the

elevation of our site is significantly lower um than the street and we do have a pedestrian bridge. So, this is really kind of like the gateway into the building from the pedestrian realm. Um, so having designed um kind of this courtyard um trellis for the signage to be hung from. And again, this would be an internally uh illuminated channel letter kind of as a decorative piece as you enter um that pedestrian space and the nook between the building. Um this sign is 75 square feet. Um, so it is obviously larger than the the capped maximum of the of the 50 square feet. Um, and then if you could scroll back up to the renderings are going to show. So that's the blade sign on the street side, the lower image. So that's State Street off to your left. Our building obviously kind of vanishes into the hillside there where we're submerged. So the blade sign would be kind of on um the westerly facing end of the building which you can see there. Again, the projection is greater than the maximum of 18. I feel like with our setback that something smaller, um, you know, would would kind of just diminish the usefulness of of having the signage there. Um, and that the projection of the blade sign that's intended here probably helps us um, a little bit with the uh, with the identity of the building here, too. And then the image above, again, this is behind the building. You can see the improvements to the creek walk and six mile creek that we have. And that's that smaller version of the blade sign um for the pedestrian entrance off of the creek side there. Again, you know, the building's very large and and uh kind of elongated and having, you know, just that extra sign because we are allowed two signs and we're proposing three. Um feel that we place them appropriately and not necessarily in sort of an egregious way here. Um, so that's really

the feedback. I know our intent is really to get a positive recommendation if this is I don't think it's something that you can approve tonight if especially if it needs variances, but um, obviously carrying your positive recommendation in terms of why we're doing it and what I need to do in terms of the standards of proof with the zoning board is all stuff that I can certainly justify. But having your um kind of consensus and agreement that the the extra sign in the size and placement and projections are appropriate to the mass and scale of this building which is slightly um obviously unique compared to some of the other smaller uses that may be categorized in the CBD60 district as well.

Okay. Thank you. Brian, just want to make sure you understand that the board has full authority to approve signage, the design and type of signage in addition to or you know they that's part of site plan. So it's not just to go to the BCA but they have that. Okay. But we still would need the variance. It's not solely by the planning board. Yeah. Okay. But the board Yeah. Okay. And can you remind us of the sequence um in terms of this? Whenever we approve a resolution, it has to be approved before it goes to BCA or no?

Well, um, and you know how you usually think about this is with Seeker. So Seeker's over. So this wouldn't trigger Seeker again. But there's no point in them going to the board if or they can't even go to the board because this is part of site plan. So the board So So we should work through this before we did it to the BC. Right. I think that's helpful to Yeah, exactly. A resolution was provided but just because because we have the Yes. but it isn't it isn't intended to be used tonight. Well, thank you for the presentation. Let's get some reactions from the board. Andy, can I start with you?

Yeah, thank you, Brian. That was a great presentation. Really clear. Um, I think I agree with everything you said. Um, this project predates me, so it's really exciting for me to see it now. And I just think, you know, filling that gap with this sort of industrial feeling building that relates really nicely to the dean next door. Um, coming into town, it just feels like a gateway project and it's a huge project. Um, so for me, I think the signs are appropriately scaled. I really like the design. Um, I love the the gateway bridge element. I think that's really industrial and cool looking. And you know, we've looked at projects and talked about lighting. I do think this is an opportunity for lighting because I I think coming into town um and and using the the city center as a precedent. You know, this is kind of similar. And I think it'd be cool to see this play sign and then see city center. Both of them are illuminated. And I think it really adds something. It adds some vibrance and excitement to the city that's that's missing here. So, I really like

Which ones are illuminated that you um city center. It's not illuminated. Oh, it's not illuminated. Okay. Well, I I feel this could be illuminated. I think again I think there's coming into town there's this is really kind of a dead area and I think this little bit of illumination would add some vibrancy. Thanks, Andy. Max, so the this um this bridge sign now, where's that facing? I'm just trying to I'm a little unclear about Yeah, if you go back to the rendering, it it's it's in the background. So, there's a notch in the building on the lower. Um Oh, it's on the back on the

No, no, no. It's on the street side. So, okay, that's my question. Yeah. Yeah. If you scroll right down right there, it's off to the left hand side. I don't know how much you can zoom in. It's kind of superimposed there, but it is the main pedestrian bridge from uh State Street. So, it's in the nook of the building that is cursor is kind of centered there. The revis would be flush with the facade of the building as you enter into that courtyard space off of State Street. So, it's on stage.

Okay, good. Yeah, that's good. Yeah. Yeah, that's my street. um the uh you know and that's going to be back off of the street, right? So that one won't be as imposing as some of the other ones. I I mean I I I feel a little differently than Andy about this. I mean this is a tra it is a transition zone to uh between the kind kind of urban downtown and kind of a really residential part of the u town of the city. Um, and you know, it is a traditionally residential one. The illumination would would bother or concern me. Uh, uh, not not necessarily in the recessed sign, the third one, but on the on the blade sign, and on not necessarily on the other side for me because it's kind of hidden, although people across the creek might object to it. Uh, so maybe that is the same issue. Uh, here the the illumination. Um, I mean, if it's very very uh noticeable at all. I think it really detracts from where the what we're going into going up State Street, right? Um uh the so illumination would be a concern for me very much on that. Uh the size, it's a little hard for me to get a a sense of this. We've talked about this with other buildings as well. And you know and one of the things that I took away from those earlier discussions and if we try to be consistent is that you know there's some um some sentiment towards modesty in terms of size. I think if I characterize what we talked about on this in this board before uh would be another consideration. I wouldn't want it any bigger than this. I might I might want it a little smaller than that, but the illumination and the size are a concern for me given where this is. Yeah, I think that's enough said.

Thank you, Max. Elizabeth, thanks for the presentation. Um, Max, I agree with you. I think that the illumination is a no-go in any of the signs. I also think that what's important in residential buildings is to be able to locate the address and the street. And so the branding or name of the building should only be at the main entrance. And I think it should comply with the um zoning requirements that are now set for it. Uh no matter what the size of the building is.

Thank you. Yeah, I think we have this conversation anytime signage for buildings comes up and there's a trend towards branding right now for residential buildings, multif family residential, which is not something the city is typically in favor of. Um, like Elizabeth said, it's much more about wayfinding um at a human scale. And so, you know, I think I would also point out across the street we have Argos in which is a historic building. So, and the creek on the back is a protected natural sort of viewshed and um recreational way. And so, I agree 100%. I think the the lighting is a no-go for me on these signs on all of them. Um you do have a beautiful building. Like this is the materials are high quality. um you know the it just speaks to like this factory aesthetic and um I don't know we worked with you and we're really excited about the materials and I think the the signage misses the mark on matching that matching like the high quality of those materials and sort of the classiness. Um, I would like to see a rendering of the sign Max brought up that's recessed because we see that, you know, in this elevation, but it's really hard to understand like from a street view or from a person scale. So, that would be maybe some material that we could look at next time. Um, but yeah, I don't from my point of view, I would encourage pulling them down to like the first floor level, making them much more focused on wayfinding and I think removing completely all um illuminated components. I have a question.

Yes. Was that arch that very large archway approved as part of site plan or is this is this part of signage? Is that tall or that I don't have to go back giant? Yeah. So, it might be helpful to also look at a plan sort of like, you know, what was approved, where the entries are. There's been

site plan. Yeah. And this one is clear to me where the entrance is, but like those corners, how I forget how everybody's entering at those two other corners. Um, and yeah, Lisa, it would be good to understand what was approved for that arch. Any other thoughts from Sam or Lisa? Um, you know, I think many of the things you've heard are reflected in the design guidelines. So, might have a look at those for you, which are not different than zoning, but we have um standards for signage. Two, I appreciate what you said about the massing of this. I don't know that any of these signs would ever match the massing of this building. It's huge, right? So, maybe an approach is is more, you know, smaller targeted to pedestrians that are coming and going. You look like you have a

Yeah. So, I mean, uh, so that's a good point. Human scale. Human scale. Good point. And I think the human scale is important. You know, one of the things, one of the advantages of this building is that it's sunk down below street level and so, you know, the building isn't as imposing as it could be. And so, you know, that also speaks to your point about the signing could be could be a little more modest perhaps on that and would be consistent with the the look of the street and all that. I I feel Yeah. Does that give you enough to iterate and come back with? It does, but I'm interested what Lisa has to say. hand up.

Oh, I just say I've heard it said um that folks are interested also in like the address signage. I'm sure there's an intention for that whether it's just numbers or bringing that all together as a package might be helpful.

Yeah. Um to address address the pedestrian entrances. Obviously, this is a prominent one. So, that's why this is more of a focal point. This is no vehicular traffic. This is purely a pedestrian way. Um down on the corner, the other blade sign that faces the street is going to be the stair that comes down um to the bottom of the site. So that's really another way to get sort of to the creek walk, if you will. We designated a public way there. And then obviously the the creek side if you're coming from downtown to the residential apartment building is the that's the third point to kind of access the site as pedestrian. So that's why three was chosen. Um loud and clear illumination is not favored by three out of the four. So, I'll definitely take that back to ownership. In terms of the size of the signs, um I guess I could talk to staff with this offline, but there's sort of the discrepancy of whether we're categorized as a 12 square foot maximum, which is obviously too small to probably even be seen on the building versus whether we're interpreting the 50 square feet maximum per sign to which we're compliant with at least two out of the three. um and that perhaps this being more of like a kind of decorative artistic sign is obviously greater than that um 50 square feet, but we'd be willing to um prove our case with the with the ZBA if the sign scale is appropriate at least in terms of the planning.

You have to prove your case to us before you go to ZBA.

Correct. There are standards of proof that are mandated for the legal application to the zoning board. Um, and I can write some of that up for you if you'd like it. But I guess the opinion from the board is really whether the the scale of that theory sign at 75 square feet is more generally appropriate and not necessarily checking all the boxes of the legal standards of proof that the ZPA would require is what I meant there. So, not to belabor this, but we are ahead of time, ahead of the schedule here. So, I just want to throw out another idea. Um, you know, I might be more interested in this theory sign that is at the middle as the main entrance that's recessed from the, you know, the the street. Um, and forego the other two blade signs because I feel like those are 100% branding, whereas this one is a bit of branding and a bit of wayfinding. So, just curious about your thoughts there. I I was going to say something um similar. I mean, to me, this is the most desirable of the signs. I I actually like this. I think it it'll really be cool in the way way you have it. And I I think uh functionally because it's kind of an announcement to the u the tenants and people that are going by about the be uh the uh building. Um it's also unobtrusive, right, for the neighborhood, you know? So, it kind of belongs to the building but doesn't take over the neighborhood. So, I think that's that's true. And I mean I I um I don't know if I'd be so extremist to say no blade signs at all, but I mean it did the thought did occur to me too. Yeah. So, it's something to talk about.

Well, I think it speaks to what you were talking about, Andy, a bit, which is kind of celebrating this place and the transition to downtown. And I feel like this one maybe does it the best out of the three that were presented. Yeah. Um, Brian, were you though explaining that the the corner blade sign um along State Street is is kind of indicating the stair that takes you down to the waterfront walk and the entrance to the building.

That's exactly correct. Yeah, we designated a public way there. So, it's publicly accessible to the creek, but it also would get you down to, for instance, the parking garage level if you park, right? So, it is a residential building, but it is a shared parking area as well. Um, so it's those are the three points of access for pedestrians and whether you're getting to your car or not. So that is that is correct. It's also the closest one to the driveway which is um, you know, shared with the adjacent office building there. That's the only way to get into the site as well if you're looking for wayfinding to find the garage at least. So So you know, so I'll be like argumentative. Okay. So don't get mad at me. But you know, I'm not sure that that blade sign serves that function. I think you could. So I take your point that you know you need some indication that that path is there which by the way is a wonderful thing and it's a community resource I think uh and it's a great addition to that site. Uh but I think smaller signs that you know would indicate to pedestrians that this is the way down uh would

pull down on the building. Right. Yeah. And it would it it would do that more effectively than the blade sign because the blade sign is is is more of an advertisement than than necessarily you know functional in that way. I mean that's me being argumentative. Yeah.

I was going to comment that that middle sign is just giant. It's if you look at it it's the second floor. So, I would encourage modesty, human scale design, and um a thought for placemaking that is more appropriate with the sidewalk and pedestrian. Um the blade signs are just enormous. And I think if you want to lead people to the stairs, it should be at more at eye level. Like you're going to actually see it and not have to look up at the sky to figure out where you are. So I would encourage functionality and um modesty.

I think my largest hill to climb here is the pictures of the city cent's blade sign that's literally one block down the road that kind of the owner had used as an example of sort of and that's much bigger, too. I think it's got to be all of the same size, right? It's three feet maybe out from the building and all of maybe 12 feet tall, which is kind of what we mimicked our sign after. So, um I'm curious when that came to you, how that discussion went. Obviously, if it's not internally illuminated, that's an easy pitch for me back to ownership to say, "Hey, you know, the the type of sign and where it is on State Street for that building is appropriate, but it wasn't lit." And that was something the planning board was um adamant about. But

well, I will say I think they have one. Is that correct? It's just one on the whole building. Um it was definitely more than seven years ago because that was approved before my time. Conversation. Yeah. Was before my time. A very long conversation and we're talking about much of the same thing, you know, transition from residential to more urban, the scale of the building. So, um I think your point is taken. But anything that we decide or previous boards have decided do not necessarily set a precedent and then we have years of other context to take into account. So um I wrote it I understand

I understand why you're referencing it but but I think you're even dealing with a bigger scale here and I don't know that even if we said yes to these blade signs I don't know that they're the right scale. Um, so what I'm hearing, if I can just sum it up, there's some appetite for having um signs that sort of celebrate the transition and are appropriate to the scale of the building. I hear a lot of us that are saying no to illumination. Think about the scale, reducing scale, bringing it down to pedestrian height. And also, um, if you do have other signs in mind to bring those two, um, wayfinding signs, numbering signs, So, our approach would be I'll take this back. We'll redo some of the graphics, a similar package, and probably send it back through the planning office, and hopefully maybe revisit this at your next meeting. Um, so

have you had any conversations with Megan at the zoning board, Megan Wilson? Haven't personally. I think she was out of the office. Yeah. So, Megan Megan's been out of the office. So, a zoning analysis would have normally been done for this meeting, but was not prepared for tonight. So, um, with the reubmission, we'd have that ready for next meeting. That will be hugely helpful. it'll answer this question of 7550. Yeah. And actually just um from a conversation I had briefly with Megan before she went out of the office is that it's the 12 foot requirement and not the 50 foot. Um so and and then you're right about the the the two signs. So each each sign would have to be be conforming with the the the signage ordinance would have to be the the 12 square feet. I read it as too. Um there was an email that stated otherwise and I kind of tried to peel that back a little bit because we went through the same conversation as again. Okay, good.

Take this feedback. Can I add just one more thing? Sure. Go ahead, Max. I wanted to have the last word, but I'll make sure to say something after you, so don't worry.

Okay, good. Yeah. Um, to to your point about the city center sign and so forth, you know, that um when you talk uh with the others about that, I mean, I I think I would point out that that's, you know, just way where that's located is a different it's a different feeling. It's kind of the gateway to the commons. There's the big common sign there. There's a hotel across the street. You know what I mean? It's like a well to, you know, kind of urbanish kind of feeling. And whereas your building, what's beautiful about it is it's kind of the transition point to kind of more residential kind of thing and kind of old Ithaca kind of type of thing, which makes a difference in city center for me. Right. Oh,

I totally agree with you. And then you maybe look have a different look, you know. Yeah. That's blends a little bit more with that. Understood. Well said. I think we should leave it there. Thank you for the presentation. We'll see you next time. Thank you. Okay. Director's report, Lisa.

Oh, I just wanted to um follow up on I sent you all an email about the center of government and there's a survey and launch. Um it'd be great if you participate in that feedback. And um also got a survey for the climate action plan. Did y'all get that? Resend it. If you didn't, it would be you have the opportunity to come. Um can you send it again? I'm sorry. I don't think I saw it.

Also a reminder that there's a training on September 18th. um called make your own affordable housing decisions for planning and zoning boards. There's not you know you are limited in what you can do but there are um tools for the planning and zoning board to urge us if you're interested in that. It does it's you know consider training I'm gonna go.

You're going I'll be there. I think it's gonna be cool. Um, also we've been um making some proposed revisions to the site plan review ordinance. There were many things that just needed to be updated and um that will be coming to you in September for your comments. Great. Send it out to um and I wanted to add a board retreat. We keep bringing it up. So um September feels too soon. So maybe we can talk offline about dates in October or November to do it before the end of the year.

Great. You know, based on the two of the conversations we had today, one topic that could be interesting could be how do you build buildings in a flood plane and make them still integrate into the urban fabric? Yeah, Lisa, a question about the um center of government. Is that a project that will be before us? Um, we certainly have encouraged the county to go through the city process, but they have not committed to it yet. They don't have to because they're a higher order government.

We are definitely encouraging them especially, you know, it can really add value. It can create public um participation and all are very um astute designers. So whatever suggestions could make the project better. So we have we are encouraging that but they don't have to. So maybe think about it and we can talk about it again at the next meeting, but we may consider issuing a recommendation that they, you know, from the board specifically as opposed to from staff um and make a couple bullet points why we encourage them to come through site plan review. So, if you think about that and um think of a few points, let's organize it next time.

Yeah, that's a that's a good point. Going to that meeting they invited to us to will be good good because it'll inform us about that. Great. Okay. Lastly, um September quorum just checking in about that. We as we are at five members right now. It's important question. Yeah, I will not be here in you will not be. No. Yes. 23rd. So anybody else? I will be here. And Jenny, I'll confirm with Jenny.

Okay. Thank you. You're good. You're good. You're good. Yes. Okay. Anything else? Sam or Lisa? Good. just that the W's edge is going to is tabled for the month as they're going to do some project changes. Um my understanding is to the smaller building on the site, but um more than that we don't know. So So they they will be coming back to um so and there's a memo from the applicant at the end of the planning board packet for you to read. They don't those changes don't affect Seeker because we already approved Seeker

the scope because we don't know the scope of the the project the project changes yet as of yet. It's it's hard to say. Okay. Can I have a motion to adjurnn? Whoa. Tied. Elizabeth moves. Andy seconds. Max third. I fourth. All in favor of adjourning. That's unanimous. Thanks everyone. Yeah, that was record. Yeah, you can actually