Planning and Development Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. This is the December 16th meeting of the city of Ithaca Planning and Development Board. The meeting is called to order at 6:01 p.m. right on time. Um, welcome to all of our board members and staff. We've got none of the public sadly with us, but let's go around the room and introduce ourselves to anyone watching online. Andy Roman, member of the board. X Feffer, member of the board. Elizabeth Goden, member of the board and vice chair. Peggy Tully, member of the board. Nikki Sarah, environmental and landscape planner and staff to the board.

Emily Patrina, chair of the board. Lisa Nicholas, director of planning and development and staff to the board. Sam Jacobs, planner and staff to the board.

Thank you everyone. Um, we have emergency exits at the back of the room where everyone entered and at the front of the room in case of an emergency evacuation were to take one of two exits and wait at the trees on the same side of the street. On South Kaunga and Green Street, we do not cross Green unless absolutely necessary. Those with restricted mobility in the event of emergencies, it's 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's not to your own detriment as you are your own best advocate. Uh women's restrooms are located on the first and third floors. Men's are located on the second and fourth floors. Um Nikki, are there any changes to the agenda tonight?

There is one change. It's just something that I forgot omitted. Um the sign review there should be a potential sign package approval resolution and then as well the sign waiver approval. Thank you. Uh we have no minutes to approve tonight. Um so now I will open public comment. Do we have anybody in the public wishing to speak?

Yeah I'll have one on Um, so I'll open public comment right now and um, if the gentleman wishes to speak on a project, you're welcome to come to the front at the table if you'd like to speak. Sure.

Um, we have three we'll give you three minutes. Um, we have no public hearings tonight, so you're free to speak on any project on the agenda or another item. Um, we'll give you a one minute warning when your time is up. And just to let you know, we accept written comments um to the board if you wish. And just to let you know, we may or may not respond, but we'll take your comments under adisement. So, okay. So, please turn on the microphone so it's green and then you'll have three minutes and give us your name and um where you live. Gwen Kelly. Okay, go ahead.

Um, so I have some questions about um current development projects in and around Ithaca if uh that's okay to ask about. Um I took a school trip for my government class here in September and oh sorry and um the biggest topic of discussion then was the Southworks project and uh what I remember um learning about it was that it has been in the works for over a decade and there has been um it's been a somewhat of a struggle at least to find funding for it. Um and I've driven past the site multiple times in the last few months. I'm just wondering if there's like a clear timeline um for when this project uh will break ground um and when the financing will come through.

Okay. Any other comments you wish to make before we talk about that? Uh that's it. Okay. Um well, first of all, thank you for bringing a question. We're happy to see you in person and sounds like you're very engaged and thanks for engaging with the site and driving by it. Um I don't know the timeline. You're right. It's been going for a long time. Is that something that you want to talk to or we can respond offline as well? Um I would say that you know the best the best resource for timeline would be the project sponsor themselves. So I guess from our perspective we hope just like you that they are coming back to develop soon. Yes.

They're definitely they're definitely accelerating. Yeah. Okay. They have applied for a very large state grant called the achieve grant which is a achieve the achieve grant. So they we should be hearing about that soon. That would certainly help. Okay. Hi there. So nice to see you. If you want to join the public comment um you're welcome to give your name. Okay, sure. I'm Noah. Hi. Yep. Are you also in the class? Yeah.

Okay. Um, any specific comment you'd like to make? Okay, great. Then, um, if you want to be finished, you can turn off your microphone and return. It's so silly because there's no one else in the audience, but we'd love for you to take a step back and you can we'll have the board respond to your comments and um, we'd also encourage you to send emails to staff if you have further questions. Thank you for being here. and the project manager as Lisa said, I think they'd be happy to speak with you at South Works. Yeah. Uh Sam, do we have anyone in the waiting room wishing to speak?

Okay. Um then I would say we can close public comment. Any members of the board wishing to respond? No. Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. Then we'll begin moving into reviewing projects. Our first project up is the Creek Side Plaza major subdivision and parcel reconfiguration at 614722 Meadow Street. Tonight we're looking at consideration of final subdivision approval.

Hi Phoebe, are you can you hear me? I can. Can you hear me? Hi there. Yes, I can hear you. Um, so you know, is there anything um, we have your materials, we've seen you for the past few months. Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us tonight before we review your project? Uh, no, but good evening everyone. Thanks again for having uh, me and uh, no, we've got no new no changes at this point. Um, no new information. Um, if you've got any questions, happy to answer them and talk through any issues. Okay, thank you. Short and sweet. I'll turn it over to members of the board if you have any further questions um for Phoebe. Andy.

Yeah, thank you. Hey, Phoebe. Um just a question about I guess it was a letter um maybe from a community u member about bike racks um amongst the retailers. And I just I guess my question to um maybe Lisa and Nikki is do we have any purview to bring that up now or is that unrelated to this? You certainly can bring it up.

Okay. Well then, um AB, I don't know if you saw the letter, but um it's talking about the the lack of bike racks um amongst you know the big re retailers. There is some discussion about um bike racks at Dicks that um seem to meet requirements, but the Barnes & Noble bike rack doesn't really work and there really aren't other bike racks um around the other retailers. So um I guess I would ask that you know as part of this we introduce you know required bike racks throughout. Uh, sure. That's definitely something that we can uh look into. Um, so the ones in front of Barnes & Noble. Um, and then I don't know. I I'd have to double check our our survey to see if there are bike racks um along the other side of the the secondary um, you know, big box retailer building. I don't think that there are. U, but I'm certainly happy to look into that.

That's great. Thank you so much, Freebie. Um, as you know, when when there's an a subdivision or development, it's an opportunity to make changes, and you've really worked with us so far. So, thank you for that. I think the question is how many? We don't really know. And so, Nikki and Lisa suggested perhaps a survey of what's existing. Um, do you want to explain that further?

Yeah, they could do a survey of what's existing, which sounds like Phoebe is going to do anyway. Um and then it could either be we discussed it could either be a condition on the subdivision but that means they would have to do that you know before they get the plat signed or um as Cheryl pointed out Cheryl Swink is a community member Dixs has a bike wreck and that's because they came for limited site plan review. So whenever they come through for site plan we also make sure that they add the appropriate bike rack. So there's two ways in which you could approach this. Um it's whenever there's a facade change that's when we would ask and then we could also work with Phoebe through that as well. So whether you wanted it as a condition or tackle it through site plan limited site plan review

alternatively if you know Phoebe says they will pursue that and we don't have any teeth for that but if you will evaluate the bike rack situation and make sure that it's in compliance that would also be okay. Elizabeth, did you have a comment?

I was going to say that it would I would think that it would be beneficial to um discuss it now as part of the subdivision because we don't know. I I think it would be better dispersed or planned within the property than waiting for changes to the facades. And it might work better within their layout. Um, so, so you'd like to tackle it now as a condition of subdivision approval? That is my feeling. Yep. Okay, let me circle back to Max because we skipped over you.

Uh, Andy, thanks for bringing that up and I the the interested resident, you know, the citizen that brought that up did a uh Phoebe was a very nice letter. It was a very um constructive feedback. And I have to say that um I've been down in that neighborhood quite a bit on my bicycle and so I can confirm there's a lack of bike racks in that area and good ones. And so I mean I think it really is an issue and I would uh second Elizabeth's uh uh suggestion and Phoebe you seem to be open to to exploring this. I think it would be good if we um kind of put that in effect now. Uh as it's kind of a good just um public utility, you know, that's and it's not a real big thing, I think. My my judgment. So, yes. Uh that's all I would say about it, Emily.

Great. Uh Peggy, bike racks or other comments? I I agree with the bike rack situation. I have also um ridden ridden my bike down there with my kid and there's no really nowhere to put bike to to lock a bike up. Um and if uh this is a great opportunity to look at this and um I'm I'm glad that the the local citizen wrote the letter to bring it to our attention and I have no other comments.

Great. Thank you. Um, I also agree. Let's um move the proposed resolution and then we can talk about adding um the condition. Uh, can I have a motion to a motion to review? I have Elizabeth moves and Andy seconds. Okay. So, we're looking at this final approval proposed resolution. I thought the rest of it was fine. So, just maybe at the end we add a condition. We'll wait to hear from Peggy. You can I'm sorry, Peggy. Phoebe. We'll wait to hear for your assessment of what's there and then you can work with staff to determine the correct number of additional bike racks. Okay, great. Um, anything else? Does that sound right?

Good. I would say that in this case, because of the way that Ithaca is, um, exceeding the requirement would be welcome. Mhm. And I'll just add to that, we're always trying to make Meadow Street and Route 13 more walkable, more bikable, more pedestrians. So, this will go a long way towards that. So, thank you. Great. Anything to add, Lisa or Nikki? Um, just we need the we need the condition on the resolution. You can vote. Yep. Yep. You can vote on it. Um, I started it. It might not be very I would just specify that they should they need to be installed before plat is signed.

Yes. Um so thus far and then please edit if you will. Um assessment of bike racks in plaza. Um and then by applicant by applicant submitted to planning staff for review. Once reviewed bike racks to be installed before subdivision issued approved I mean it says before certification of final flat. Yes. And to be ination installation of additional bike racks.

Yeah. City standard or be in compiance with or exceed city standard. Sometimes there's not enough room to exceed them, you know, like it's a fine line. Did you hear that Phoebe as well? No, I was hearing about every third word. Sorry. Have my mic on.

Okay. So, basically, it will say, and you'll get a copy of this resolution as well. It'll be uh condition two on the before certification signature of the final subdivision plat um assessment of bike racks of existing bike racks in plaza by applicant. Submittal of this assessment to planning staff and then installation after review installation of additional bike racks to be in compliance or exceed city standards. Excellent.

That sounds good to me. Okay. Any other changes or conditions? Seeing none. Okay. I think we can do a roll call vote for this proposed final approval. Andy, yes. Max. Elizabeth? Yes. Yes. And I am also a yes. So, thank you, Phoebe. Um, you have your approval conditionally, but um thank you for all the improvements you've been willing to make. We really appreciate that for the city. Our pleasure. Thank you so much for working with us. and um look forward to getting this wrapped up. Thank you so much. Okay. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you. You too. Bye. Bye.

Okay. Next, we'll be looking at the citizen at that right? Yes. Six citizen at 602 West Buffalo Street. And tonight we are looking at a potential amended negative declaration of environmental significance. Good evening everyone. Thank you. Hi Julia. Hi. Who else are we expecting? We have Bayer with Hope Architecture and we should have Todd as well if I'm not sure if he's in the waiting room or if he's logging in. He's not yet, but we'll let him in when he comes. Okay. Thank you so much. I'll let uh Bayer make the presentation, the introduction and presentation. Please go ahead, Bear. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Go ahead and share my screen. All righty. So, jumping in. Um, we're looking to address some of the comments uh from last time and try to improve upon uh uh some of the suggestions that were made. Um, starting with uh the uh solar shades, there was a question of how effective are they working um and to what level. Uh we did go back through and kind of do a recounting of uh when that choice was made. And so previously the building design didn't have any solar shades through the previous uh process. It was discussed about trying to um add an aesthetic element to the building. The solar shades were were that attempt and um were what were approved at that point in time. So when we went to study it um recently, there is effectiveness to the solar shades. It doesn't cover all the windows because it's not individually applied to each and every window. So we want to acknowledge that it's better than none, but it's not as as efficient as it could be because it's kind of bridging this gap between an aesthetic aspect and also a functional aspect. Um, continuing along, uh, the accessibility, uh, in particular going from Buffalo Street was, um, a large, uh, part of the conversation last time. So, what we've attempted to do to try to help embrace and make it not feel like you're going in under the building as much and making more of the um, front presence is we have pulled that entry point out as close to the street as uh, we can comfortably get it. um because we can't go all the way to the building phase because then we'd be over the property line when the door opens. So, we do need to have a little recess and have a little protection from the weather. But, we did pull it forward as

much as we could and added a little bit of a canopy both for an opportunity for potential signage and also address for the building. You can see that we have also done that over here. And we've provided another angle here where we're pulling it forward. We're adding some windows for that corridor portion and then a little bit of a recessed um entry element here. So, it's as close as we comfortably can get it without having it be smack dab right on the street. Another aspect that we did add um based off of the questions and concerns around screening the parking. We did note in the last application um that we were leaving the existing fence through the demolition process of the previous Joe's restaurant. that fence did get removed. So, what we are um offering is that we will replace that and put in a new fence with the uh it'll be the black vinyl coated fence with the uh privacy slats. And what we're suggesting is running it along the property line, turning it right here at this um second set of columns here, providing a little knee wall for some visual buffer into the parking area, and then providing an additional bike rack area separate from the uh enclosed bike rack area that's under the building for tenants. So this one could be used by tenant uh residents of the building or it could be used by uh anyone um visiting the commercial portion of the uh street facade. Looking at this in plan. So again, you'll note that previously we just kind of had it bumped out right here where the elevator and the re rear stair was. We're pulling that along so then that way we can get a little bit more uh windows in here and we'll light this up. Very nice. Um, we did leave in the alternative option discussing the ramp just in case we wanted to uh talk about that again this

evening. Um, but our intent is to try to proceed as much as we can with this process of pulling this forward having this tucked entry onto the side right off of Buffalo. Um, given that the address is Buffalo, this can serve as the primary entry for residents. This can also serve as the entry to kind of engage the corner. um with the idea that tenants could use either, but the idea is that this would be the primary one with the addressable buttons um and for visitors coming as well. And again, you can see the bike rack here tucked in underneath that corner just to be able to shield the uh parking a little bit and the return of the fence right here at this column line and adding some planting uh between the fence and the uh uh the property line along the front. And then I think that addresses most of the comments if not all from last time. And then we just uh revised uh um couple of the other elevations to show some of these uh adjustments showing that we have this entry element. One thing that we did do as we pulled this forward was this area was originally open air all the way to the top. And you'll note that we've to still bring emphasis, we uh left the edges of those lines to kind of draw your eye in towards the entry, but we did fill it with a little bit of uh this matching CMU. Just stepped back. So then that way it didn't feel super tall and cavernous and brought that down to a human scale. And I think that is all that we had really to cover from the aesthetics aspect tonight. Um, I know, um, uh, secret review is on the docket and we're happy to help answer any questions regarding that. Julia, is there anything else that we were looking to address?

Sorry, I was muted. No, I believe you covered it. Thank you so much, Beer. Yep. Okay. Thank you for those changes, updates. Um, I think what we should do is go around and give feedback on what's just been presented. Um and then we'll come around again and talk about um the amended NEG deck. Um Peggy, could I start with you this time, please?

Hi. Hi. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you for um considering all the uh feedback that we gave you uh last month. Um, I'm much happier with the entrance being on Buffalo Street having the prominence of it and being more legible. It is my it is still a little the the word I I have is illegible in a way. It's a little confusing, but I think it's really you're getting there. um hi, you know, making Buffalo Street the um prominent entrance for the residents um is meaningful to me. Um, and adding the the screening and more bike racks, um, definitely goes a long way to making the the street view, viewing into this large garage space much better from the street. Um, I'm still interested in seeing kind of where this building and the property line meet the next building because it's been it's a little confusing to me. if you have any. Yeah, that

y um Yeah. So, is that entering the other property's airspace with the uh No. So, what you're seeing is the building uh in plan. There is a jog in the building where it comes all the way back here and then steps over and then comes back following that property line. So, that what we're seeing in that elevation, the building's right around here. So that the it jogs back about what what did you say? How many feet? I'm sorry I couldn't

uh good question. I don't have a dimension on it. Um but let's see. So on that elevation there was the 126. So it's essentially like a 12oot setback between this that part of the building and that house. Uh yes. Okay. Approximately. It's going to be a little bit less because this dimension is from this face of the building to that face which it does overlap just a touch. It's probably somewhere in the ballpark of uh um about 11 feet. Okay. All right. Thank you,

Elizabeth. Thanks, Bear. Um, I agree with Peggy. I think moving that entrance and pulling the wall out closer to the sidewalk. Um, as well as adding the bike rack and the knee wall were a good move. Um, I'm wondering if you are going to need any protection of that CMU wall. um like if you want to jut out a knee wall. Uh I I'm not sure, but I think you're in the right direction and this looks good. I always like it when I hear human scale and in any design conversation. So, thank you.

Thank you, Max. Yeah, thanks. I I agree with Peggy and Elizabeth. That's I like the innovation there on the entrance on Buffalo Side Street. Now bear that uh when you enter that it goes all the way back. It's like a passageway that goes back to the elevator. Right. Right there. Yeah. And then uh the other thing I wanted to ask is kind of the back to the entrance from the parking lot. Max, I apologize. I'm struggling to hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm kind of talking. I'm talking to your picture and not to the microphone here. No worries.

The passageway goes all the way back toward to the elevator. I see that. And then the entrance from the parking lot is uh there by the residential lobby, right? And so there's a door there. And that would be a a secure opening. Correct. Yep. That that one would be access as well. Yep. Yeah. And so there and then there's a it kind of separated the wall separates the uh parking lot from that residential lobby. Right. Yes.

Yeah. And so that I think that's that's good. That kind of addresses my security concern. I'm kind just worried a little bit. You know, you said this will be um lit up well and I appreciate that. And so um those were my only questions. I think it's uh these are some real uh nice advancements. Thank you. Thank you. Andy.

Yeah. Thanks, Bear. Um, I think for me my my two big issues are still safety and the equity of the accessibility. So, I think, you know, this is better than it was, but I still see the accessible entrance and the stair entrance as separate, which means if you're approaching the building from the corner, you're going to have to have signage that says if you're not able to use the stair, keep going. you know, it's you're I'm not sure why um you're not looking at combining this now internal ramp and the stair, you know, access in that in that one point. I think separate them separating them isn't good. And I personally I'd like to see more development of the ramp scheme and actually see what that would look like um beyond just the the plan. You know, what does that mean to the building itself? What does that look like against the building and what how does that impact the public space? The other thing that I think is missing um bear as you're you know instead of kind of zooming in to these you know specific things at this point I think it's a little premature. I still don't see a landscape plan. Um, you know, I can read in your write up that you're replacing some trees and I see, you know, a a landscape plan that just addresses uh the the area inside the property line, but there's really not much that you're showing beyond the property line to the to the streets and you know, the trees that you're showing along Meadow Street, you know, what are they planted in? It's it's unclear. Are they in tree boxes? And to me this is a huge

opportunity in your you know revised um you know neg deck you're you know talking about fixed seating and you know what we'd love to see you know what does that mean where are the fixed seats and what is the design of those so I I just feel like you're you're you're zooming into some solutions before personally I understand the big picture of the building. Um, see if there's there's anything else. And then, yeah, so so that kind of talks about accessibility and and landscape, you know, how this building meets the street. The other thing to me, I still think this garage needs to be enclosed. I don't think the vinyl fence is going to is going to address the safety issue. I think we need to be more realistic about, you know, having this huge, you know, covered space that anybody could walk in, stay all night. You know, it it just doesn't feel safe. I, you know, no matter how much lighting you put in and cameras, it it to me, this building feels like it needs to have an enclosed garage. And there's so many opportunities to enclose it in ways that, you know, would not, you know, be budget issues. Personally, I could see losing the the sun, you know, the sun shades. You know, that was a prior board. Um, the other thing that you didn't talk about, but you've introduced, it looks like a vertical slot in both facades to break down, you know, the horizontal scale, which I think is a good move. But again, I I'd like to see more of a zoom out presentation. And I do think there's some big things that are missing. And in addition, I I really feel like the garage needs to be enclosed.

Thank you, Andy. Um, so I will just add a few things. I mean, I think the canopy to that entrance on Buffalo was a really good move. Um, as other people have said, but I agree it doesn't completely feel equitable. We lost the public mural quite a bit. I know that it's still sort of up at the top of the stairs, but I wonder if there's an opportunity now to bring the public mural back on the buffalo uh the lower brick at the buffalo and wrap it around the corner and use the mural to kind of celebrate that entrance. Um, you know, we're such a mural city, but I think it's, you know, if you choose the right artist and and the right size, it could really um it could scream entrance at your canopy and really add a lot. Um, I want to also ask next time that we consider other materiality changes. And I'll just pose this to the board. Um, a lot of these materials are a holdover from the previous building, but now we have one less story. It feels a lot more horizontal. Um, I don't honestly don't remember the split face brick being so dark, but I think it feels very heavy. It feels very horizontal. And while I understand the massing will remain mostly the same, I think there's a lot of material choices and color choices that could do the building a lot of good. Um, and that could be combined with mural combined with the idea of the ramp and the seating. Um, so those are that's what I have just based on these images. Um, I think we should take a step back, look at the um proposed amended NEG deck and and walk through that because I think some additional things about the parking lot will come up as we scroll through that.

So, we're looking at the the amended um thief part three. Um, thank you to Nikki and Sam who have done a great job of showing what it was crossed out and then underlined what is new. Um, so I'll just read through and pause at places that have new things. The project description has changed. You know, different stories, different square footage, different number of units and parking spaces. Um, the impact on the land was a small change. The material to be removed, cubic yards changed. Um, no change to geological features, no change to impact on surface water, no change to impact on groundwater. And then we do have a big impact on flooding. So this section changes quite a bit and reflects in the design um from the 500 to the 100-year flood plane. Um no impacts on air or no changes to impacts on air. No changes to impacts on plants and animals. No changes to impact on agricultural resources. Um and we do have changes to impact on a aesthetic resources. um changing to the fourstory from five. And then here's a list of what I was starting to get at where we're talking about um the candle lever floor system. The double story accent panels that Andy brought up um the two vertical glass accents along Meadow Street and one along Buffalo Street um was crossed out and so it seems like maybe there are still vertical panels in. We need a little clarity on that. Um I think they have changed. They're still in

uh so there was always this vertical element here. I think the only thing that changed was um I don't remember it. I think very early it was glass and then it switched to um a fiber cement. Um but I'm not 100% sure on that one, but we still have this. Are those units or is that a stairwell? Remind us there. Yep, that is a part of a unit. Um, so, um, I believe it would be part of this unit right here. So, we still have one on each side. Is that correct? One in Buffalo, one in Meadow,

correct? Yep. Yep. There's And it's right adjacent to the full height uh solar shades on either either face. Okay. So, we will uncross that off um in this thief because they still exist. I don't think, just my own opinion, I don't think they're quite doing the vertical lift that they used to be doing, but um we can talk more about that. Um okay, so then um we're adding applicants are proposing approximately six fixed tables and 12 chairs for the public area. That was um yellow. Is that something we need confirmation on? Okay.

Yes. By keep moving. There are no changes to impact on historic and archaeological resources. No changes to impact on open space and recreation. No changes to impact on critical environmental areas. Um but I'd say we do have a lot of changes to the impact on transportation. Um specifically the bike and pedestrian amenities and this accessible pedestrian circulation that we're working through. Um Nikki has put in pedestrian circulation and equitable access to the residential portion of the building need to be addressed. So this is something we can continue to work through in site plan, but it calls it out that the applicant will be addressing it and that there's a change. Um and then we have um some changes at comments from city engineering under transportation. Um, specifically I made my own highlights. That's what I'm pausing about. But specifically, the internal parking lot, how vehicles get out of the northernmost spaces. There is no turnaround space. Um, and we have here that the applicants have created turnaround space. But I think Bear, if you can explain that to us since we know there's no um no exit at Meadow Street. Yep. So, the northernmost spaces, uh, the way the turn around works is that there is this, uh, area right here that is going to be, uh, striped off for vehicles to be able to make the maneuver and turn around. Um, that has remained the same from from the previous um, application.

Okay, great. So, that's just nothing can be put there. No one can park there. That's just reserved for the turnaround. Okay. Correct. Thank you for regard Yep. And regarding tables and chairs, there is a section along the back with some tables and chairs and um some uh gameplay area for um for the residents here. And then we do also have uh the tables and chairs along the front that these remained um as is from the previous application. There was just a small small tweak back here for HCR requirements. Great. Okay. So the numbers the same or should we just do not know yet the exact number

current? Yeah, currently we have three in the back and we have one, two, three along the front and then we have these halfight ones. These ones I would assume would be uh loose um and movable. The the other three along the front and the three along the back would be fixed. Thank you, Lisa. I don't understand the resident air. Is it just what would bring a person to be there? Where's the entrance to the door or um you know where's the entrance that you would how would you access that? Would you have to walk through the parking lot to get there? And it would be nice to

Yep. There is the opportunity to come down this back stairwell along this walkway over to here or coming through the uh parking garage. So, those are ballards at the end. Um, not just to keep cars from driving and no fence or gate or anything you could just pass through. Uh, yeah, just ballards along here. There is a fence uh this way, but there's no fence along the uh east to west on either side of that. And then we do have the um uh heavy concrete section for the uh firetruck access.

Okay. Thank you. Um Nikki and Lisa, I wanted to ask and under impact on energy, um is there a 2023 Ithaca energy code supplement change? It says 2021. I wasn't sure if points had changed in 2020. That's when it went into effect. Okay. 2021 and then it continues to evolve. Okay, great. Thank you. there's kind of a history of it and then yeah great

okay and then no changes to impact on noise odor and light no changes to impact on human health and I don't think there are any changes with consistency with community plans um we do have changes to consistency with community character um again four five story down to four story gross uh floor area square foot of retail, parking spaces, and residential units. And that is it. So, I'd invite the board to maybe circle back. Um, are there any areas you feel are are not well defined in terms of change? Are there any questions that anyone has? Andy?

Yeah, it it doesn't feel coordinated. Um you know for instance the applicants are proposing approximately six fixed tables and 12 chairs and bear it doesn't seem like you've you know really completely thought it out. Um, so I'm just it just this doesn't feel like it's based on the current design and you know some of the discussions about design are based on comments that another board had um that that maybe could still be lift left in there. But I have a question. What does canvered um floor system and windows mean? I mean, I know what the the term can lever means, but how does that apply to the design floor canolver floor system and windows? It says under

I think that referred to the overhang and the entrance that was pulled back. There's maybe we can rephrase it, but I think that referred to how the first floor was set.

So, it's really meant to be a step back or set back. Okay. It's not can levered. Okay. Um, yeah. And then the the other thing I would say is, and you know, I think Peggy talked about it. Um, and I don't know if it needs to be in here, but that the idea of a black vinyl fence doesn't sound good. I really think we need a view looking from, you know, the west east to see what this building looks like, you know, coming east on Buffalo. But I don't know if that's something that would be in here. But to me, this doesn't feel

well. I think we should address the number of fixed tables and chairs. This does feel too pinned down for sort of a design that might be evolving a little bit, right? Um I think the fence could be addressed in site plan. Is that true? Um absolutely. And the table and chairs can be addressed. That's why I was asking it could just be more fluid in here. I mean, it's seeker, so there's not going to be an environmental impact if they have three or chairs, you know. So it could be that could be that we X out how many they have here and then when you work through site plan we could just add it like I can add a sentence as the board will work with the applicants on Got it. Okay. Where the location for chairs and tables right the number and the fence and yeah that can definitely be site plan.

Okay. So just because you're doing a mand negative doesn't mean next month is going to be preliminary site plan if you are not ready. So that's that's the other thing that it can be. Keep in mind that it's about the environmental impact. Yeah.

So I agree that it'll be a neck deck, right? But the impacts on transportation. Um I don't know how we can describe that in a better way. I agree with you Andy about the fence and how is it going to look from that other side on the east going east on and um yeah I think there's some work that can be done during site plan review but um we may have to edit the seeker further to be able to approve it today

I guess I the two years I've been on the board, um I guess what I I notice is that for the applicants, they're feeling like, "Oh, but we've been here four times, you know, why can't we have approval?" So sometimes I feel like we've rushed stuff before we know that we're comfortable with the design. And I guess that's my point on this. You know, I understand we want to keep it moving, but it's just as long as there's the understanding that at least for me, I still have some major issues with the project and it's we don't want to give the applicant or at least I don't the idea that, oh, you know, everything's moving along fine and we're, you know, three, you know, two meetings away from this being done.

Well, I thank you for saying that. I think I share the same concerns. Um, and I do think there's a lot of work to to bear and Julie, a lot of work to be done. um aesthetically on the building um before we would even get to preliminary site plan approval. I think um the amended NAGD deck is not locking us into necessarily building site plan. It's not locking us into anything. It's just taking sort of what has been proposed and the changes really to the building and are they a significant environmental impact or not. But I agree with you. I would not want to rush preliminary or final site plan approval until this current board feels that the building um fits in the context, is appropriate for access, you know, has a material pallet that fits with the neighborhood, all of these things. So, that's me assuring you that I agree, but I think we have to see some changes from the applicant that that you're hearing these concerns as well. So if we if we circle back to this um that being said, you know, the difference between site plan approval and NAGDE, do we want to talk through any of the language in here? Make it a little more vague or a little more um specific to what we're looking at, Elizabeth?

Yeah, I think we should make it a little bit more vague. I um like saying how many chairs and tables are fixed. I think that's not really seeker related. Um I just we can say tables and chairs in the north amenity space. Yeah. On Meadow Street along Meadow Street. Any other specific areas?

I'd have to take a closer look about the transportation and the garage cuz I don't want to be locked in to the way that it is now. Um good catch Andy on. There's nothing kind of levered here. It's set back. It's all supported. But yeah. And what about this the sun shades? Um you know because it talks about the prior board was commenting on the articulation and the applicant feels like well we've solved that because we've introduced these sun shades should that stay in

so where is that impact on aesthetic resources? Yeah, I remember the prior board liking the sun shades to add interest because we had so many gray buildings. Um, but I'm not sure that it does the verticality breakup because of that um band on the bottom on, you know, the first floor level that's not broken up. So, it still reads as one large element. Um,

so Andy, point us to a spot, Andy or Elizabeth, where the where you're reading the sun shades and we can try to address that in the thief. We could add it. We could add something about how um the forward will work with the applicant. um to increase verticality in some way, right? With materials to increase verticality and keep it vague like that. I I think you would want to get agreement from the applicant that they would do that because um you know the the applicant has agreed to work with the board to address the concerns.

Yeah, I I did find it um it's under impact on aesthetic resources. The applicant presented new design concepts and then it goes on and one of the bullet points is double story accent panels that add hue color and project out from the facade. Okay, thank you.

Okay, so um back to Julia and Bear. Um I I have been hearing in the past few months and tonight um some hesitation that the the sun shades are actually achieving the the right verticality and the right color. Um, can I ask you, are you willing to as we continue with site plan review sort of work on those and try to achieve um this notion of verticality either by emphasizing them or changing them in some way?

Yeah, from from our perspective, we're happy to continue the conversation and assist and genuinely take into consideration the comments and I hope we've shown this uh to this point thus far and we plan on continuing to do that. And so to me, those sound um like aesthetic elements that we definitely can address through the remainder of the site plan process. Um from a seeker standpoint, uh I'll just say that our goal throughout all of this when we made the initial adjustments and changes was to try not to try not to reinvent the wheel of the hard work that was achieved in the first process. We recognized the flood plane was really the the big item that we had to solve and I think we did a pretty good job with that. Um but all other items I think we either reduced or we uh left them at the same in terms of a seeker process.

Great. Okay, understood. Thank you. Um so then how can we reward this um to make it fit for tonight for the seeker? Double story accent panels that add hue color to project out from the facade. Um, be the right. Yeah. Can I ask a question? Maybe I'm confused. Are we not reviewing this as a new project or are we reviewing this purely in the light of the flood plane?

That's a great question, Andy. Um, you're reviewing the site plan as a new project. The seeker does not expire. So, that's why we're looking at the seeker like for the environmental impact now to see how much of it has changed. So that it's our so it's our record of like this is how it changed. Um whether and it's up to you all whether you want to get like very detailed into the design in seeker definitely can and we can you know work on it. Um or we could you know focus on like what's impacting the environment such as flooding the most. Yeah. Yeah. But

that's what I would think. Yeah. that we don't get involved in the design so much but more in the environmental issues.

I will say that I'm sorry that this this seeker did go deep into the aesthetics and I don't I I think you can you could if you wanted to still move this forward without saying that these things are resolved by adding in adding you know the you know at the in the 26 with the new design that you know the planning board feels that, you know, we have to revisit some of the aesthetic elements. Uh, and the applicant has, you know, agreed to continue to develop the facade to have more verticality or be more um, engage with the street more, however you would want to put it.

That's right. And I think it was very detailed because it wasn't something the board really wanted to keep talking about. Absolutely. So we could absolutely add that underlined that with this new design as long as applicants are on board too. Um, we can you can further dive into the the

I was going to say that what I heard from the applicant I I think the planning board is all in agreement that we're adjusting seeker because of the um flood plane change. But I'm not sure that the applicant understands that we're reopening site plan review because this is a new design. And although the building still is, you know, would be a negative a negative declaration, the site plan review and design of the building has expired. That approval has expired. So, uh, it feels like they're counting on us just approving the changes that were required for the FL flood plane and because that site plan expired and it's a new board that we're now looking at all the design elements again and I hope I hope you understand that. I if I may, that is well heard and we we understand that the site plan is a new process as opposed to the secret and we fully appreciate that. Well, we we do acknowledge that there is a bit of we we solved this in one way previously, but things have changed and because things have changed, we do have to acknowledge that there is an opportunity to tweak and and address these items. So we we acknowledge that the site plan review process is a separate is a new process. It's not um a modification of the previous

and c could could I just add bear you know we just had this great project with you um do you understand what I'm saying about kind of the the level of detail of presentation that I'm used to from you know really getting getting into detail about the streetscape. um and the building and and and fully understanding it um rather than you know focusing on minor issues when again we we really don't understand you know the the full design of the building at least I don't so is that clear to you it is clear um and we're we'll we'll make sure we address those items for you

okay thank you great I mean I think all of these comments are very productive I of um confidence in in us and in the applicant to to make that distinction now. Um so if I can turn us back to the FE. Um Nikki, what um were we going to add that was like a blanket statement to aesthetic resources? Just that the applicant has agreed and the board would like to continue discussing um working on the design. the design, how it meets the street. Yes, that would be as specific as possible and as clear as possible. You wouldn't just like to that's what your expectation is.

Okay. So, list list the things that we're looking we're going to review and site plan. Um the accessibility um um security of the parking lot area um materiality. Yeah. views from all sides of the building, including the one uh going east. You mentioned the ramp. I think that's covered in um accessibility solutions and entrance solutions. Uh landscape. Yeah. And I noticed also that the floor plans were updated but not the site plan. And so, um, when we start site plan review, that would be good for you to be, um, more coordinated with with all the elevations, site plans, landscape plan, everything. Those are in process. We apologize that they weren't in for the solution.

Okay. And then this is a site plan question, but what is going to impede people from parking on the um fire lane area, right? That's a that's a management issue really. Um if you can go ahead and address that, bear. Um there is uh signage on the rear portion as people would pull in and then there's also an additional sign along here that indicate no parking. It is a fire lane. Of course, as you pointed out, it is a management issue. Um beyond that. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. So, I think that statement that we're adding will cover um further design and work and aesthetic resources. I think transportation is another area where there were some changes. Um and we did add the pedestrian circulation and equitable access

at bike and pedestrian amenities. Yes. Something for Bear to think about too is where are you going to put um the garbage or the trash receptacles and all that? I mean there I think there's some issues that still need to be solved here for site plan review. They're not secret issues, but I want to make sure that you have a complete um submission next time.

Okay. We have information on the applicants from the turnaround. That was the outstanding sort of question in transportation. So I'll turn it back to everybody else. Are there is there any other area we want to talk about or still feel uncomfortable with in uh the FE? And so for page seven with that yellow highlight that I had because it's changing um we will just make it more general and say if if the applicant's fine with this too that you will work the board will work with the applicant on specific chairs pedestrian pedestrian and bike amenities because I don't know if you have how many bike racks you have yet either bear but that's something you could work. Yeah, I think we might have had it initially, but the fact that we added we will need to update that.

Okay. Um, I just want to make a suggestion for wording that might be helpful. If you look under aesthetic resources, it says the last sentence says the lead agency has determined that based on the information above and the continued development of the design during site plan review, no significant impact to aesthetic resources is anticipated. So we could do the same thing for transportation and say with continued development of um equitable accessibility. That sounds appropriate. I think with that wording change and removing numbers um I feel comfortable with this. I'm seeing kind of nons from everybody. Elizabeth.

Yeah, I think I'm comfortable with the seeker. I still have lots of questions for site plan review, but I think we'll just address them at the next meeting.

Right. So, I think let's move forward with um the amended NG deck and we'll circle back to talking about um presentation for next time. Okay. So, can I have a motion to look at this purple seeker amended in NAGDC? Um, Elizabeth moves. Andy seconds. I don't think there's anything on the resolution we have to change because we made all our changes in the FE part three, right? Okay. Any discussion of this resolution? Seeing none. Okay, let's do a roll call vote. Um, Andy. Yes. Max, yes. Elizabeth, yes. Peggy,

yes.

Okay, I am also a yes. So, we made it through one hurdle. Um, you have the amended NAGD deck for Seeker. Um, okay. So, I think we've given a lot of feedback on a broader, more coordinated site plan review and set of documents for next time. Does anybody have anything else they'd like to add before we um close on this project for tonight? Elizabeth? Um, Bear, have you met with the city building department and reviewed all the required setbacks for the code? I'm just a little nervous about how close the building is. I think I mentioned that before, how close the building is to the existing buildings and how that is going to work. Um,

yep. So, um, the footprint is the same as previous. Um I granted I'm trying to be thoughtful not to talk about that too much but uh we did take the project all the way through about 50% CDs at that point and we had had a number of conversations with the building department obviously when we rolled things back to address the flood plan we did at that point also have conversations with them regarding those elements. So from from fire separation and stuff it is tight. uh we have reviewed this thoroughly in particular because it's a requirement as our HTR application went in this year as well. So we are in compliance with those things but it is it is a tight uh infill I say.

Okay. There's also changes to the code so you'll have to um look at all that again I'm sure I that that was incorporated with this application as a requirement or with the HDR application this year. Okay, Andy.

Yeah, I would just um like to say and maybe this is more for Todd and Julia, but you know, thank you for, you know, another affordable housing project. You know, this is this is working toward the city's goals of more units um that that fit that. Um, but I really would love to hear, you know, your story about how, you know, you're thinking about this as something that's really going to benefit the community because we've seen projects recently that, you know, have real challenges and I think for me that's why I keep, you know, stressing the the security issue. Um, so it would really be good to hear from, you know, Todd and Julie about more about, you know, kind of your thinking about how how this is going to work. It's in such a prominent location, but it's in this great, you know, community of other affordable um, you know, units. And so, you could really have a strong story, but I do think there's something missing about the equity, the equity for people using the building and and the security. So, I'd really love to hear, you know, from the development team more about, you know, your thinking there.

Great. That's very well said. Oh, go ahead, Julia. Actually, Todd just joined. Todd, if you want to say something.

Yeah, I I apologize. I've been in the meeting the whole time and every time I try to talk, it's not going through, but I guess I was logged in as uh an attendee as opposed panelist. Um, so yeah, no, I I I appreciate the comments about afford, you know, being affordable housing project. And um you know, one thing that we've actually learned is it's not a good time to be an affordable housing developer um because it's it's become more difficult um because the tax credits are worth a lot less today than they were before. So um the projects have more constraints and these are designed to be not for profit. I mean you don't make any money um you know on the operations or anything. You don't have the ownership in the building. Um and they're designed to to be built for a certain price point when you factor in land and soft costs and hard costs. you have to follow them a certain number or number one it doesn't get approved from HCR and they just say go back to the drawing board because this does not pencil there's only so many tax credits that we will allocate. Um so it's a challenge like especially with some of this design stuff and I think um you know even even with the design that we have I mean I I think the majority of people would look at that and be like there's no way that's an affordable housing building you know I mean this is not your traditional affordable housing type of development in terms of aesthetics and materials and things like that. So, I think just even what we've proposed so far is a major accomplishment and um you know, in the same time like it's a challenge. It's not like we're doing these things because we're making more money whether we do sun shades or not. Like we don't make any money either way on those items. You know, we're not saving money and putting into our pocket. We don't that does that's how it works. But what happens is when we when we make these design changes, it's more about will this project get approved from HR because of the fact that it needs to stay within a certain price per square foot. Um, so that that's just kind of like giving you guys an understanding of of the constraints that that we're dealing with and um, you know, it's it's again the tax credits have become uh less valuable. So um, and they're having so it's just it it's it's a difficult it's difficult to build affordable housing to begin with and it's really difficult to build nice looking uh, you know, affordable housing. So you know I

I just want to I want you guys to recognize the challenges that you know we face as a as a developer and as a design team. Um, and as far as, you know, safety with the parking garage and stuff, um, you know, I I I agree and I think that those are concerns for us. Um, you know, I know that they have open air parking, um, at the affordable housing building that's on what is it? Where's the street right there by uh, the one the one right behind us that's in front of Etha Bakery. And I know they don't have any issues or they haven't had many issues. Um, and it's a management thing. Um, you know, I think the fact that you have cars coming and going at all hours of the day every single day, I mean, that in itself kind of deters people. You know, it's usually like when you have these enclosed areas where you don't have a lot of traffic that people feel comfortable and safe. And I mean, that's that's a conversation to be had, but um I think yeah, and again, I mean, so I those are things that we have considered. We don't feel like it would be a problem. I mean, we're we're relying on, you know, our consultants as well, like in terms of like what have you guys experienced in terms of affordable housing projects with parking garages that are open air and other markets. So, you know, all those things do get taken into consideration. You know, I think the chairs and the tables like those are those are really easy fixes um for us to take care of. Um so, yeah, I just I I I think all the things that um you know, the concerns have been brought up. I think that we can we can hopefully navigate them in a way that uh feels good for the board and then allows also for the development team to be able to present a project to HCR that we can get approved. So, um yeah, we appreciate the opportunity for you guys to take a look at it. It is super challenging that, you know, we we had a a project approved and um you know, the board has every right obviously to you know, you guys have a new board and people have different opinions and and that's great and we're going to do our best to try to to work with you guys to get the project over the finish line. So, we just we appreciate the opportunity.

Okay, thank you for that context and um I think we can leave it there for tonight. We'll pick it up on site plan review next month. Thanks to your team. I think we'll keep Julia and Todd for the hive. Yes, that's right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a great Thank you, Bear.

Next up, we'll look at the Hive 132 Cherry Street. Um this is a project that we have seen before. Tonight we're looking at a project update and a modified site plan review. This differs from the citizen however because um the site plan has not expired. The site plan approval has not expired. So we are looking at changes. Um but Julia and Todd you know it's it's going to be a similar um discussion where we have all new people. So you're going to have to give us a presentation sort of from square one. um less about what's different and more about sort of what the building is like now. So, I'll hand it over to you. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Emily. Um and and the board, we do appreciate that and we have taken into consideration the comments made uh on the citizen and we have prepared a presentation to provide the board with an overview of what the project is and where we are right now and the the challenges that we've encountered with the FEMA changes and what we propose. Um we should have um CJS team on hold to join as well. Um they were scheduled they're they're supposed to be making the presentation for Is it Craig and Miriam? Yes, correct. Craig and Miam. Thank you so much Nikki. Hey Miriam. Hello.

Thank you for being here. And we have Craig as well. Hi Craig. Thank you. Thank you for having us. Yeah. Thanks for uh thanks for uh inviting us.

Great. Well, if you have a presentation for us, feel free to share your screen and we are ready. Okay, thank you. So once again, uh my name is Craig Jensen with CJS Architects and then Miriam Yakub also with our firm. She's going to run the presentation. I'll probably do most of the talking. Miriam, you can go to the next slide. So this is 132 Cherry Street. As was mentioned uh you know we did get through site plan approval some years ago. Uh the project stalled out uh because of COVID and now with the similar to the last project the flood plane changes uh flood map changes impact this project and so now we've taken another look at it to try and understand what modifications would be required. We're trying to make as few modifications as possible because we thought it was a good project and it had approval. So, you know, we're trying to maintain everything we can, but also similar to the last project, it is moving from a market rate project to an HCR project. So, there are some modifications also directly related to that, although those are really relatively minor, and we'll go over those. So this this rendering shows the project as it was originally uh proposed and and approved. Um and this is from the corner of Cecil Malone and Cherry Street. Uh to the left of the image is the uh Black Diamond Trail which now has the pedestrian bridge which did not exist when we started this project. And to the right of the image you can see uh P we have two buildings on our site. So you can see the first building in the foreground, second building in the background, and then beyond that is the hive which is also on Cherry Street just

north of our project. You can go to the next slide there. Uh so the two buildings are configured uh as shown here. Um you know kind of uh nested L-shaped buildings with a courtyard uh woven in between them. Um this is our updated site plan and as we go through the presentation we'll explain how this has been modified to address uh the new flood maps but as you can see on if you can read this uh 148 units 39 parking spaces it's about 160,000 total square feet. Uh the footprints of these buildings are I think somewhere like uh I can't read those numbers but maybe 13 and 15 each something like that thousand square feet. Um again you know the the inlet is on the left cherry street on the right black diamond trail on the bottom of the page the hive uh to the top of the page. You can go to the next. So, here's just a more of a location plan to give you kind of overall context and then uh show at least, you know, the adjacent uh building to the north, you know, on the same screen so you get a sense of how these uh both mass up and and line up. Um I don't think there's any other comments there unless there's questions. We'll go to the next slide. So in order to address uh the new maps, you know, we have two issues. We have the issue that requires us to raise the first floor of the building, at least portions of the first floor. But in this case, because we're next to the inlet, we also have to move out of the

regulatory floodway because as the if there was a flood, uh it's no longer confined, the moving water is no longer confined to the inlet. it actually goes over the bank I guess to some degree and this forces us to move our buildings east away from that regulatory flood floodway. So you can see this is as proposed you know this is the revised uh locations for these buildings and as you can see with the red arrows we're are shifting the buildings uh east a little bit and uh the lower building also shifting it south towards the trail. Uh we also made some minor modifications reducing the length of the uh eastern leg of the north building and lengthening the southern leg of the north building. The uh south building is unchanged. It's just moving. It's not reconfigured in any way. But the other one needed to be reconfigured slightly in order to address the amount we had to move it. We had to move it quite a bit more than the south building because as you can see the the blue line on here uh the floodway actually impinges or is imposed on our site to a greater degree to the north than it is to the south. Uh here we go to the next. So uh this shows the previously approved with the red outlines on the left. The bold red outline is where the buildings were previously. And then on the right, our update, our proposal now to address how to get out of that regulatory floodway. Uh we're basically moving the buildings east about five feet and we're also moving the lower building south five feet in addition to the minor reconfigurations. You can even see that

we adjusted slightly the angle of that upper building because again to kind of stay out of the floodway was a little bit more econom well more judicious to to change the angle slightly to uh to not lose as much of the um upper leg. You can go to the next. So this is a a couple of sections again you know on the left the previously approved on the right the proposed and you know as we move the building forward towards Cherry Street you know we're cognizant of what the impacts might be by doing that. So one of the proposals here is to eliminate the on street parking. Um, we had previously had on street parking in addition to parking under the building. Um, but moving now to an affordable project, we don't feel the parking demand is going to be as high. And we think by eliminating that parking, we can maintain a similar setback from the curb line and maintain the tree lawns that were important to the project before. So, you know, whereas before we were 15 feet, let's see here. I got to review my numbers. No, previously we were 20 feet from the curb, right? Uh, and now we're 23 feet from the curb. So, we're actually, even though we're moving the building forward 5 feet, by moving the curb line forward 8 feet, we actually maintain a similar distance, even a little bit greater, uh, to the curb line by eliminating the on street parking. And then uh for the sidewalk, we're basically maintaining the same relationship because we can move the sidewalk forward. So in both cases, you know, the sidewalk will be 8 ft from the face of the building. And then there's a projection on the upper floor in certain portions of the building to create more relief in the facade and make the

facade, you know, a little more interesting. So that has been maintained and still exists as an additional five-foot projection uh from that front line of the building. Maybe we can go to the next. So this shows again, you know, previously approved on the left and proposed on the right uh the adjusted ground floors. We're not really making any substantive changes to the ground floors of these buildings. We do have uh entrances at grade, but then you go up immediately to the uh revised elevation that's above the flood plane. Uh but that only really exists in the two um yellow areas on these plans. So the yellow area is the lobby where we need to get above the flood plane and then the areas beyond the lobby which are not on the street are also elevated to match that lobby elevation for the spaces that are HCR related. But the other spaces that are on the street which are retail spaces or commercial spaces can be maintained at the lower elevation. So they're not impacted by the flood plane even though we'll do some flood uh resistive construction. We don't have to raise the ground floor in those locations. So the streetscape is actually maintained for the vast majority of both Cherry Street and the Black Diamond Trail uh facade. Um there's about just so you get a sense of it those retail spaces the brown and the kind of I don't know if that's lower left if that's pink or beige and then lower right uh it's kind of a tan color that's about 400 square f feet total of retail that stays down at that lower level. The kind of light green at the bottom is a bike storage space that also stays down at the lower level. Other

spaces are support spaces that are uh raised up. You can go to the next slide. This again, you know, it may not be much zoomed in, so it may not help you a little bit, but this is the updated or revised. Uh oh, sorry, Mary, you have both. I forgot that you have both. So, this is the revised one. You can toggle back for a second. That's the prior approved. and then toggle to the next one. That's that's the revise. The buildings have got a little closer together, but we can still maintain the required fire separation distance where we need to. Um, and as mentioned, the upper building is slightly reconfigured. And there's a few minor changes to the apartment layouts in order to do that. Uh, but nothing that impacts the overall, you know, uh, exterior appearance of the building. You can go to the next. So uh here you can see previously approved on the top and then as proposed on the bottom. Um we're not proposing any material changes here. The you know the materials as previously approved we are proposing again uh and would maintain you know the same aesthetics for the building. Um is there a slide mirror that's going to show us the couple of little changes here? Yeah. Okay. So the the couple of things that have been adjusted as a result of this are uh we had some pentazine units in the building that was kind of like had a loft inside of some of the uh apartments in that project the portion that projected up uh in the building on the roofcape there. Those have been uh reduced down to one-bedroom units because they didn't conform to HCR uh requirements. Um, and then at the uh the lower arrow is just pointing to the we're raising the second floor because we have to raise the first floor amenity

spaces up 3'4 in. So in order to do that, we really had to raise the second floor as well. And once we raise the second floor, we would have been over the height limitation on the building anyway. So it's in some ways it's probably good that the pentazine units didn't comply because by lowering those, we could stay within the height limitations. Other than those two moves, the only other thing that's happening is the areas that are circled in red there are the locations where we have raised the ground floor. Um, but like I said, that's really only at the entrance lobbies. So, the majority of the ground floor, you know, whether it was parking or whether it's retail, that all stays the same. We do have more ceiling height at the ground floor in those other areas because we're not raising the ground floor throughout. So, we'll end it with higher higher ceilings in the commercial space and higher ceilings in the parking, but not so much that we're out of compliance with the code. Uh there's a I think a 15 or 16 foot uh height limit on the first floor, and we're going to still comply with that. You can go to the next. And then this is the uh Black Diamond Trail elevation. And again, previously approved on the top and as proposed on the bottom. These renderings were done out of maybe different software programs where they've been through some different iterations. So I apologize for slight differences in the colorations here, but there's no intent to change that. And I think, you know, we can provide as we move forward a more accurate rendition of this so that you really have a better sense of exactly how it's going to look. I can't say that either one of these is perfect. The rendering on the opening page of our presentation is probably the closest thing. We can go back to that at some point if you want to get a better sense of the materiality and and how this would look overall. Again, here Miriam has kind of called out some of the changes. Again, here it's really just the same things where we've reduced

the pentazines. We've raised the the second floor. We've eliminated this uh rooftop amenity space that was previously on the building at the kind of trailinlet uh corner of building one. Um that's again an HCR uh related change and that is about it because the commercial spaces on this side both left and right are all at grade. bike storage is at grade and otherwise the blank wall where those kayaks are you know can't see the floor elevation there anyway that's a mechanical and service service base I think that is our last slide is that correct Miriam yeah that's correct

yeah so you know we want to keep the presentation brief just to reacquaint you with the project we're certainly happy to go into more detail on anything you would like to talk about at this point but we're just trying to you know at least get it kicked off and get you up to speed. Um, I guess we'll just open it to questions if that's the right thing to do.

Okay, thank you Craig and Miriam. Um, this is great to dip our feet back into the water here and understand the project. Um, and I think this image probably is the most helpful for for the new members on the board and also myself. I haven't seen this in a while. Um I would like to suggest next time that you could zoom out and give us the larger context sort of the idea behind amassing um now that it's a different um occupant, you know, what's the idea about circulation around the building? How does it work with the inlet? How does it work with that um trail path? So really giving us all the context from the outside. Um

yeah, we'd be happy to do that. Yeah. Great. Okay, thank you. Let me open it up to the board then um for comments on what you've shown us today, Andy.

Yeah. Uh thank you Craig and Miriam. Um so um like the prior project, you know, Craig, I think you understand this is a you know a new board except for a few people. So everything that you're comparing um we're seeing it for the first time. So um it's it's good information, but we're looking at this fresh. So maybe in your future presentations you know assume that we really don't know anything. Um but you know for me looking at the project um generally it it it really looks um like an interesting project. I you know I I think the um the footprints make sense. Um I I couldn't really tell from the scale of the drawings, but it looks like the way that you're resolving the the change in elevation in the lobbies is you're allowing people anyone to come in whether they're in a wheelchair, they can't, you know, you know, they have problems getting upstairs and you have immediately the choice of going up a stair or a lift. Is that correct?

That is correct. Yeah, that's correct.

Great solution. and that and you know Todd and Julia for for your prior project that's kind of I maybe it's not right to jump back but that's kind of what you know I was looking for there but um my my only question you know in looking at the the project is the proximity of the two wings and what you know design ideas you have about units that are so close you know what what is the concept how how are you thinking about um the units that are looking in to one another and what design, you know, ideas do you have for that? That that would be really interesting to me. And then again, back to Todd and Julia, um what what are you thinking about as you're, you know, now creating a neighborhood that's, you know, really diverse in terms of more affordable housing? And um what are you thinking about to really make this successful and make it work? So those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Max.

Yeah, really good thoughts. Uh Andy, thanks for the presentation. This is interesting. It's, you know, new to me. I uh go by there all the time, so I've been wondering about this when it was going to uh happen. I guess uh in future presentations I'd like to know a little bit more about the the landscaping and also what the proposed use of some of the space for example between the buildings u you know along the diamond black diamond trail and some of that um how uh residents of the building will interact with those spaces and then also uh the general public be something that I'd like to learn more about. Uh, other than that, I I don't have any more questions or comments right now. Thanks, Max. Elizabeth.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation. Um, I do appreciate the um previous versus new because I was here when um this was previously approved. I was always um in support and a big fan of the design. And I enjoy the articulation of the facade and the materiality. And I thought it was kind of a smart way to solve um the building of this size by separating the two L-shapes and creating a courtyard space in between. Um when there were market rate apartments, there was a lot of amenities in between that space. And so it would be interesting to know what is planned for um this current proposal, but other than that um I think uh things are looking good.

Thank you, Peggy.

Hi. Um so I have a couple questions. Um generally speaking, it is it's a it's a really interesting building. the the massing is really interesting and the way it engages the inlet is really interesting especially and not nothing um to uh degrade the building next door but it's it uh does something different than than the art house building um in the way it engages the inlet. It's very interesting. Um uh the other thing that I um I thought was interesting was how you know you had to move your your um move it back and you're gaining more tree lawn by losing parking in the front and the only and I'm very pro tree lawn of course it's great um but I am curious about deliveries here for, you know, Walmart delivery, Amazon, um, Uber Eats, med taxis, the kind of things that show up at buildings now. Um, regardless of who lives there. And, um, this is a really busy street now because there's a new bridge and it's the back way to to to Wegman's. Um, I'm concerned that removing all of the parking will cause, you know, just double parking and it'll cause a problem here. So, it's just something I'm I'm really very much pro tree, as many trees in the treeon and sidewalk as possible, but it's just something I'd like to see how that would be handled. If there's an internal delivery area or something like that, if that's how it's going to be handled. Um and um and um so that was just for the new the new design. Um and the other

question I have is what is the the um the um income area that you're talking about? You're talking 80% 30% is this what what are what kind of credits are you going for? Yeah. So it's the 4%. Um Oh, it's 4%. 4%. Yeah. So, it's it's geared more towards um the 80%. But again, so so part of the the constraints with that project, too, is you know, the goal is to try to get lower than that, but again, it's it's constrained by the cost of the project. Yeah.

Um so, you know, the the less expensive you can build a building, the more affordable you can make it. And then there's like a like a a drop dead where it's like you you know the project doesn't work if they don't have you know the right ratio um you know of unit of uh income uh diversity. So it's it's a moving target and our you know our goal is to try to make it as affordable as possible. So that's kind of like how we're approaching it. Um oh and and I don't know if I'm supposed to actually be answering this right now but I or if you want me to like answer some of the other questions or this is more of like you guys putting this out there and then we'll we'll come back to you guys next time we're here with with our answers. So, I apologize. I did kind of jump in. Okay.

Yeah, maybe both. If you have a few short answers, feel free. Um, but also um we can circle back to them next time as well. Okay. Okay. Um, yeah. No, I I I think maybe just some of the questions you guys had. Um, I mean, if there's any like pressing ones like that felt kind of like a really important one to, you know, create context for the project. Um, and I don't know if there are any other ones specifically you guys felt like, hey, it would good feel good for you to have an answer to this now, just so you can kind of go into it with, you know, the right perspective on how we're approaching things. Um, but like the parking, the court, all those things, I we can I think probably answer them next time unless

Yeah, Todd, I I agree. I think that makes sense. I mean, as far as the deliveries are concerned, I think it's a good point. And maybe we do carve out a little piece of that tree lawn for a drop off, you know, because you can always have part of it be tree lawn and part of it be a little pulloff space, but I think getting back to about landscaping and use of outdoor space and amenities on the outside and deliveries and things, I made some notes. So, we'll certainly make sure we cover all these and including, you know, a bigger view of the details of the project and the context, which I apologize for not providing, but I was trying to keep our presentation brief because I thought this was just like a like a little kickoff here. I didn't want to go on too long. No, no, that's that's perfect. Thank you. Um I I will Peggy, did you have anything else? Okay, one more.

Go ahead, Andy. Yeah. Um Todd, to your point about, you know, the the challenges of affordability, you know, both on this project and the and the prior project, you know, you've got talented, smart architects. Um you know, you don't need to be married to, you know, the choices you made, especially, you know, in the facade materials. you know, I'm sure your team can come up with alternatives that you could even, you know, show us, get our feedback on that might be, you know, less expensive. Um, you know, there's there's sort of this pallet that we're seeing again and again and again. And I bet there's other things out there that would be more affordable and just as interesting,

maybe. I mean, so part of the actually issue was that we were like, okay, we had these really beautiful buildings that got approval. I mean it's I can't remember if they were unanimous for both project but both projects but I mean it seemed like the boards back then really liked the design. We spent a lot of time working through the different issues that they had and our goal kind of going into it was like hey we don't want to scale we don't want to scale that back. We don't want to propose like less expensive materials and then go in the wrong direction and sacrifice design. So, I mean, because we we talked about that in the beginning of like, hey, do we just, you know, start over and, you know, kind of come up with something that we know is going to be uh more manageable from a budget standpoint, or do we kind of go with a better looking building that we know had unanimous approval? And obviously, we weren't thinking that um you know, opinions would change, which is which is great. Like, I mean, we're not um you know, it it's something that we'll work through, but you know, that I think that was kind of how we approached it was like we want to have a really good quality project. We want to have a building that everyone likes. And so that's kind of I I'm we're open. We're definitely open if if we can find less expensive materials. Trust me, like that's that's a win-win, especially if you guys like those. But I'm just I'm I'm hesitant and I I want to kind of manage expectations with that. I'm I don't know if if we'll be able to do that to find better materials at a low less less

and and one of the things I think that's you know great about this potentially if if Visom can make it work is that it's great to be able to say that hey this was designed as a market rate project. These materials were what we thought were appropriate for the market rate project and they're still appropriate for the affordable project. So it's kind of a nice thing to be able to say that we're not changing our approach. It still wants to be the same building. Yeah. And to and to that point, HCR is big on, you know, they want people to live in buildings that they can feel proud of. You know, they want people to to live in buildings that um you know, they're they're comfortable and they're excited to go home to. So, you know, being able that that that does get taken into consideration when HR is looking at these projects. Um

yeah. Yeah. To me, it's that this is the challenge to the architect. I'm I'm not saying yeah, you know, use materials that we all don't like. I'm saying, yeah, it's it looks amazing and it is affordable and I and I think that's the challenge to the architects. Yeah. No, no doubt. No doubt.

I'm glad to hear you all say that because I think for me this Cherry Street um proposition of changing from market rate to affordable has been worrisome. We already have affordable on the street. We already have um new county homeless shelters going in. And so there is the fear that adding additional um affordable housing will just create um you know an no mix of income types and I think we all know that in cities the more mix you have the better um success you have and drive more people to the site. Um and so to keep this looking you know like a more expensive building feels really important on Cherry Street. Um, my comments were going to include that I'm glad that you have the balcony still. That feels very important to this end of um, feeling like a high-end apartment building. Um, I'm glad you ditched the pool. Um, I don't think market rate or affordable that that really works in our climate. And I think you can find lots of more successful uses facing the inlet. So, um, that's my two cents. I I I would love to see the high-end look move forward. And um anything from Lisa or Nikki? No. Okay. Then I think thank you for your presentation. Um we'll end it there and look forward to uh your presentation next month.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. The last project tonight will be sign review for 445 East State Street, Martin Luther King Jr. Street. Um we are looking at potential sign package approval as well as the sign waiver approval. So this is the first time we're doing this. Um if you remember it used to be um part of the the zoning board and now we're doing sign package approval here tonight. We have been in the waiting room. We have Ben Brian. Okay. Ben,

good evening. Ben Harrell in place of Brian Bousard tonight. Brian unfortunately had another conflict and was not able to attend. Great. Okay. So, I wasn't just mistaken. So, thank you. Nice to see you, Ben, or hear you. Um, we have material from you. Is there a short presentation you'd like to share? Yes, there is.

Can you see my screen or not? Oh, not just um It's coming. Let's give it a minute. Okay, we can see it now.

All right, perfect. So, Brian filled me in and let me know that there were several comments about no illumination discussion regarding the font style to be more simplistic, that the blue font color did not match the facade materials. it felt like the 50 square ft sign was too large and um some comments about the sign height and placement on the building with respect to pedestrian scale. So we came or we went back to the drawing board. We scaled down the blade sign to 18 in and 12 square ft so it was conforming. and we changed the font on it with four different options in an attempt to match the building facade and the overall character of the architecture on the building. So, I'll scroll through the four different options that have been presented and the owner is fine with any of these four options. It's really what the board finds most appropriate in context with the building. This again shows where this blade sign is mounted. You'll see this blue line is the sidewalk elevation. So trying to take in that human scale. It's about 8 ft above the sidewalk, the bottom of the blade sign. So it's not pushed way up on the building. I know that was a question when you look at this rendering because you can see lower than the sidewalk and the wall below, but if you're on the street or walking along the sidewalk, it's only about 8 ft above your head. And that was

taking into consideration the street trees and the potential or future monument that'll be built by the fraternity from Cornell. And then the archway sign was scaled down from 50 square ft to 39.55 square ft. The color was also changed to be a tan with a blue outline. And both lights do show gooseeneck lamp lighting. I know that the board wasn't necessarily a big fan of lighting. The owner would love to see lighting, but if the board is in complete opposition to that still, we would be willing to remove the gooseeneck lighting from the proposal. It's just one of those things with the um daylight savings time and how quickly it gets dark. It can be dark at 4:00 when you're just trying to go home. So, we thought it was very important to try to illuminate those signs and if that lighting was acceptable to the board, we'd be willing to set timing limits to those, have them turn off at a certain time if that would be more amendable to the board. So, at this time, I'll open it up for any comments or questions.

Great. Thank you, Ben. Um, let's ask Andy to begin if you don't mind. Okay, thank you, Ben. Um, first I had a question on the the blade signs. I was just thinking about it. If a if a sign has two sides, is it still one sign? I believe that is how the code is written. If Nikki or Lisa wants to confirm, that's a great question. I think so. I mean, I think that's what a lot of blade signs do have. They are double since they're blades. It's a great way to get a bonus. Yeah. Yeah. This is a learning group, but I do believe

it would still be one sign.

Okay. Well, I like the blade sign. Um, in terms of the options, I like option C because I think the light font on the dark background is the most legible. So, um, in terms of that sign, I I like it. Um, I think to be consistent with no lighting, I would say no to the to the gooseeneck lighting. I think it's if it it's either lit or it's not lit. And I don't like the the theory sign. Um, you know, we've talked about and and I've thought about this initially. I did like it, but we've thought about, you know, in the city, do resident residential buildings need to be branded? And I I'm leaning toward no. So my vote would be another blade sign if you felt like you needed another sign, but I'm not in support of the the arch um theory sign.

Thank you, Max. Following up on the arched theory sign. Uh so um I was uh wasn't clear to me exactly where it sits uh and in terms of the face of the building. Is it set back a little bit or is it flush with the uh building?

It is approximately three feet back from the front facade as you'll see on this rendering from the initial site plan approvals. Yeah, that helps for me because I think that uh makes it less prominent on the street and then it really just kind of is a sign for the building and the gateway for it. I I I don't have as much problem with that. And also the um in terms of the size waiver since it's indented from the facade of the building, it makes me a little less uncomfortable with that. Um, I we talked about the lighting all along and the uh reaction I had to the proposal for the gooseseneck lighting was at least it's more consistent with the with the neighborhood and you know you've have porch lights on on the houses and it seems to me that it's more consistent with that. It was a concern we had previously about the lighting was that it was out of character with the neighborhood. That seems to be a little bit more um in character. Um, I'm not going to bat necessarily for the gooseseneck lighting, but I will say that I I'm more favorable towards that than than I was last time when we talked about lighting.

Thank you, Elizabeth. Um, I think I agree with both of you. Uh, I think, um, I have made my opinion clear on these signs. I agree that the gooseeneck looks just out of place. those um signs and I'd rather see the theory sign above the door and not on the gate on the um on that gateway. What do we call that? Arch.

The arch. Yes. And then as far as which option on the theory sign, I mean, I understand Andy's point of view with a darker being better, but I I'm not sure I agree with a red on the sides. I think it would be really awkward to try and match the red of the brick on a sign. I would just take that. I don't think it's adding anything to the sign. So, I would take the side by side um red off. But would you like to see the same color? Yeah, I think that works. Yeah.

Mhm. I think that works. And then I was wondering, is there a specific reason why you have like T H E O R Y separated by that band? I don't truthfully know. It might I don't know. I can get you an answer. Does that have to do something with the construction of the sign or That's my initial guess, but it might have been an aesthetic thing that they were going for. So, I can find that out. Yeah, that looks awkward to me. You like option E? Sorry to interrupt. Which one?

E. Yeah, I think that one works pretty well.

Okay, thank you, Elizabeth Peggy. Um, so I'll start with the blade sign. Yeah, I like option E. I like the light um text on the black or the dark background. Um, and this is the first time I'm seeing this. It does I know it was scaled down. It looks a little small to me. Um, but I I understand that there were lots of discussions about this and um it's just a it's a preference. Um, uh, I do not like the gateway sign. I don't understand it. It looks like going to a baseball stadium kind of. That's what it reminds me of. And it seems very much um sort of in congruent with other other buildings in this area on this street in in Ithaca. Um that's just but that's you know that's my feeling about that. I I think um if they're going to be signs um lighting seems important um but I also think that again it's kind of like not it's just not exactly the the um language of buildings here. Um, but the gooseeneck lighting is I guess better than an uplight or sort of I'm not sure. I'm sorry I haven't I didn't see the previous presentations, but um but uh having it on a timer I guess I don't know if that makes any sense either. So that's my opinion. That's where I stand on that.

Okay, thank you Peggy. Uh back to Elizabeth.

Um my mic is still on. Um, I think to me it'd make more sense a gooseeneck on a number of a building so you can see it. But like, you know, theory seems like more of a marketing thing than um wayinding, but that's my opinion. Okay. So, um I heard of four people um three were not really into the arch sign. Um, I really liked Elizabeth's idea of putting the actual theory word back on the canopy of the building. Um, I do think there's a precedent for a gateway arch. There was a gateway building here. This is the gateway to sort of downtown from uphill and other the other building. The history center I think was called the gateway building or next to it is gateway. So, so I think I'm not opposed to this gateway arch lattice. It's a huge building and to have something monumental sort of signifying the entrance works. I would like that theory sort of back on the canopy and then I think the gooseenecks building mounted right over that theory lettering make a ton more sense. Um the archway doesn't need to be lit. It's just the letters on your building. Um so I would pose that. Um I heard two votes for the E scheme. I'm also a vote for the E scheme. So I heard one for C and three for E. So maybe we're we have sort of a consensus on that. Um I do realize we have seen this signage project I think three times. So um I heard Ben when you were presenting you there's a lot of wiggle room in what you know the owner is willing to accept. So, I think I'd like to go around to everybody again now that we've all heard each other's opinions. Um, is there a

consensus we could reach tonight and ask if the if Ben is amendable to it? So, if we can just go around and keep it short, but see if there's anything you want to add. Yeah, I I would agree with your approach. Okay. So, the E scheme and theory back on the building, keep it lit with gooseenecks, both of them, but maybe on timers. Um, Max is shaking his head. Yes, Elizabeth. Um, I would be okay with a goose neck on the theory in the canopy behind back of the building, but not the blade sign. Um, I wouldn't want to see a goose neck above the blade sign.

They do. I thinking Yeah. same sort of building mounted, right? Isn't that what that is? Yeah. Am I right, Ben? There's um building mounted lighting above the blade sign proposed or um proposed. You're talking these lights, correct? The proposed goose neck, right? Yep. Okay. So, Elizabeth, you said you're good with gooseeneck lighting if the theory sign at the gateway is back at the canopy building mounted, but you prefer not to see it on the blade. Correct. Okay. Peggy, any further thoughts?

Okay. Um, I I like I like your the direction of sort of maintain the gateway without the theory on it is much better. It's much more um it's just better. It having the the theory on the building on a canopy on the building is the idea. um above the entrance, right? And then um lit is fine. And um I'd like the option E. Um and lit or not, it doesn't I don't I don't know the the lighting is like you I think you said it's more like an advertisement, right? And so it does feel like it's like an ad for the building in a way that maybe we don't need. Um, we had looked at um, internally lit signs before, which

even if they're on a timer, they kind of glare into apartments. Yeah. And so if there is a lighting component, I appreciate the suggestion of these gooseenecks because I think it really is focused on the sign. It's not going to be shining in windows.

So I'll just add that as um, I'm not sure if I'm pro light or pro. I I guess I would be fine with lights personally um in this configuration building mounted directed at the sign but on a timer. So, okay. I feel that we have we're getting close to a consensus. Ben, can I kick it back to you or is what we're coming towards something you feel that um you would be happy with if it was approved tonight or do you feel you need to take these back to the owner? I think that I have to bring that back to the owner just to verify that he's okay with it's really the blade sign is no issue. That's completely fine. It's more

making sure that he would be okay relocating it from the arch to the entryway that I would need to get his feedback in. Okay. Um so let me ask Nikki and Lisa, does it make sense then to be very clear? We'll write this out and then come back another month or is this something that um is there another way to do this? Do we want to have them come back in January?

So, let's see. Um if you approve something he and the owner doesn't doesn't approve it, then um they'll have to come back anyways for another approval. So, I'm going to ask Ben. I mean the only way I see to do it is to has have them come back. Okay. Okay. But it could be very short. It's pretty clear because we have given them different directions when they've come back. Yeah. So this is so this is very clear if you do this this and this y

it will be approved. I think it would be good to see it because, you know, mounting it on the canopy, it could be on the face of the canopy. It could be, you know, pinned off the canopy. And then how do you mount the light fixtures? Are they on the building? Are they on the canopy? It'd be good to see that detail. Yeah. So, a question for the board. I know that you've all said you want it on the canopy, and that's a great point that you're bringing up. Where exactly are you thinking it? So, that way I can relay to the owner. Are you thinking almost where this box is or on the front of the canopy? Is there any opinion consensus on that?

Uh that's what I was uh picturing. Do does anyone have feedback on that? It's it's a big sign. So I think if if you literally took that sign, it wouldn't fit on the you know the depth of the canopy. It would have to be above it. So then the question is how is it mounted? Is it kind of pin mounted vertically? that that's something that we'd have to see. I don't see how you put it on the face unless it's, you know, tiny. It's going to hang down. It's going to, you know, impede the glass or it's going to, you know, stick up both. It seems like it needs to be pinned. It seems like it needs to be above the canopy instead of on the face. Yeah. Mhm.

Um, so did that make sense? It seems like it would be above that band sort of in in front of the brick. sort of right above that canopy band but um mounted on top of it more I think the lower portion the lower band yeah uh my vision was on standoffs on the on the canopy edge then it would need to be smaller yeah but on standoffs off the canopy edge not on top I think it's going to be weird to see that mounted so this feels a little bit like we're doing the designing and I don't I don't think we should be doing that So, I guess Ben, I'm hearing I had to mention something that

we've seen this theory on the we've seen a sign on this arch several times and it keeps coming back. And I think we all agree today that there should be no sign on the arch. And so, um, I would suggest that when you do come back that that is not another discussion. Does that make sense? That it's not on the arch. Yeah.

Yeah. I think that that is clear. So, if I can kick it back to you, Ben, I I think you should take your best e effort at what does it mean to be on the canopy? And if like you did with the blade sign, you want to show four options um or two or one or you know, whatever you think is the right number. But but I'm hearing a really good consensus for some version back either on the the brick or right above the um the lower door canopy there. Um and I don't think we should tell you how to do it because that's sort of out of our purview and we trust you to do to do a good job with that. Um I did I do think we heard consensus on the blade sign. It was scheme E. But how about the lighting? It would be pro lights. Goose neck mounted. Yes. Lights. Yes. Lights. No lights. Peggies. No lights. So that would be three for the gooseeneck lights. Um and two against the gooseseneck lights. So I think we can keep lights on both sides is what I'm hearing. Okay. How does that Okay. Um Ben, do you feel like you have enough guidance? Because I would love to wrap this up for you next month. I'm sorry this is taking so long.

I fully understand and I appreciate the board's comments. I just I know the owner has been expecting something on the arch the entire time that was shown in the initial renderings of the approval. I know that the style of the theory wording has been a big draw. Would there be any appetite if it was to be an altered text style to keep it on the arch? And because I know the Ithaca Commons, it's very similar layout and style to that if they were able to revise the text. Would there be any appetite for that?

Could you go back to the 3D image that where the letters were gateway, but it it showed it? Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So, let's go around again just about that issue. Um, what do you think, Andy? I personally would be open to looking at that. Okay. Another font or another way to say theory. Okay, Max.

I u don't feel that that's very appealing. I I kind of like where we ended up and I'm I'm envisioning this as kind of being more effective. Um that none of us like the font, but that seems to be what the owner wants. Um I I think I think we're we'd be backtracking by giving extra options. Okay, Elizabeth, I agree with Max and Peggy.

I agree with Max and Elizabeth. Okay. So, um, doesn't matter what I think because we have three people who would not like it on the arch. Um, so, um, if I can give you a little bit of wording to take back, um, to the owner, you know, we as a board are trying to get away from branding of residential buildings and this feels with it on the arch, this feels an awful lot like branding. And so to bring it back to the canopy directly at the entrance um feels more like a residential building. Do you do you feel that's getting nods from the board? So I think that's our goal. We're not trying to keep making changes to this, but we're really trying to find signage appropriate for the building. I think we're almost there. Um Emily, I would also say that having the having the um the theory on the canopy, actually the arch frames it in a really nice way. And I actually think it's actually would accentuate the sign. You try that. How about that?

So So when I do feel that way when the theory sign is back on the building, the canopy of the building, it creates the archway stands by itself as a really beautiful feature and really frames the um the sign. So you articulated what I wanted to I I completely agree with you. Okay. Again, sorry we can't get you out this month, but I think um with those tweaks, we should be able to come to a consensus next month for you. Understood. Thank you. Okay. Project can go to PRC, so you'll get a little more guidance there before you come to planning board.

Great. Okay. Thank you, Ben. Um and we'll see this in January. Thank you. Okay. Um Yes. Sorry. Can I say one thing just for the board's sake when you look at u the waiver approval the resolution there are the five um factors that you'll be looking at when you do the waiver so just become familiar and then see the reasoning behind it that was our take giving the reasoning and if you have different yeah reasoning or great because this is a pilot project so we can tweak it as we go thank you for that um okay Lisa said, do you have a director's report?

Um, I just want to say thank you again to all of you for another incredible year of service. Everything you do makes Itha look better, function better, and it's really appreciated. You put in long hours, and you really do make such thoughtful decisions. So, on behalf of everybody in the city, thank you very much. Um, other news, we are starting to uh about to uh finish the RFP process for the zoning rewrite and we'll be awarding that contract shortly and um be inviting people to the uh advisory committee very shortly. And also in super exciting news in the next few weeks or we haven't actually picked a date yet, but very soon we're going to roll out um a housing development dashboard. And um so all the all of the house all of the we're just going to start with housing but all of these projects will be kind of at everybody's fingertips including yours and we're really excited about that. So

that is uh Sam and that's Sam very much leading the way for that. Yeah that's going to be kind of publicly available. Just log on. We'll be um it will be publicly available. We'll we want to have it on the front page of our website and we'll do a press release with all the information about it. But and and Sam can walk you through it at the next and so criticisms go to Sam. Absolutely. I just want to make that we're looking for feedback. Yeah. So do you need any input from us for the signage retreat?

We thank you. New business, Andy, we will send No, that's absolutely perfect. we will send out a an email. This is the date, the time, and then yes, we're we're going to most likely ask you for your three successful signs that you've seen and your three maybe not as successful. I think also where we'd like to get and maybe you could help us with feedback on this is like you know having um just making sure that everybody understands the criteria for evaluating signs and and because it's it is a little tricky as you know it'll definitely be

and um the criteria that you can use like some you know maybe have it a little bit clearer um as it as it is for regular site plan review. So it probably sorry I think it would be beneficial to differentiate between um housing commercial you know because those signage we would look at that differently. I think you're absolutely right. We I mean the design guidelines don't talk about that because when these were written we didn't have a lot of branded residential buildings. So there was no Yeah. So,

I think we also need to be clear about um what the precedent is because I think we I I sense that there's not necessarily agreement about that about whether there's buildings that have been branded or not. And I think they I actually think there are branded a lot lately and we're inconsistent on that and I think our our thinking about it is a little inconsistent. I I don't mean this as any um arrow at anybody. It's just something I think would be good to talk talk it through. Absolutely.

Yeah. And I agree with you. And you know, there's projects from the 70s that are branded, you know, with wooden signs out front. So there's there's definitely a history, but it's just what do we think about it now for the city and for the Yes. Yeah. the context that we're in. Yep. Yeah. So we're so the workshop will be looking at the design guidelines of course for science and then the policy a little bit. We don't want to get bored people too much. Um, and then yeah, the factors that you're the criteria that you're looking at for the waiverss and successful signs. I think that's a great Yeah. Yeah. And if you have input that you what you really want to learn besides this to email us and let us we'll work it into the retreat.

Okay. Um, do we have old new business? That was kind of that was this. Yeah. Yeah. So, perfect. Say one one word word successful science see what so this is also something we need to talk about because what what's the criteria for success on that and it might be a little different for all of us it will be probably for the for applicants as well right exactly right yeah so and you could hit upon the consist the consistency that you're talking about too like are there Yeah yeah and are you looking for you know us to send you JPEGs for a PowerPoint point or printouts or or what?

Digital. Yeah, I'll put that all in the email. Definitely digital though. Yep. Tomorrow. No. Yes, I'll put that. Definitely. I'll put the timeline. That's a Yes, definitely. We'll have a deadline. We can do this on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. It's in February, so we'll have the deadline sometime in January. Yeah, for sure. Um, well, I would just like to echo Lisa's comment that we've done hard work. We've had 12 meetings this year.

We have had every single month. I think other boards are not quite as don't have that record. So, um, thanks to everybody for showing up and I'm glad that we've been able to move some projects forward. Um, all in favor, can I have a motion to adjurnn? Well, first I want I wanted to thank you also. They're very wellrun and um all very well prepared and thank you for being so supportive of our work as well. Well said. Thank you. And now I move.