Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURA-2022-08-25108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-6565 MEETING MINUTES ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BOARD 8:30 A.M., Thursday, August 25, 2022 Members: Chris Proulx, Chair; Karl Graham, Vice-Chair; Laura Lewis (Acting Mayor); Donna Fleming; Tracy Farrell; Rob Gearhart (Common Council Liaison); Lisa Nicholas, Director of Planning & Development Excused: None. Staff: Nels Bohn; Anisa Mendizabal; Charles Pyott Vacancies: 0 Guests: Steve Flash, Finger Lakes Development, LLC I. Call to Order Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 8:31 A.M. II. Agenda Additions/Deletions None. III. Public Comment (3-min. max. per person) None. IV. Review of Meeting Minutes: July 28, 2022 Lewis moved, seconded by Graham, to approve the meeting minutes, with no modifications. Carried Unanimously: 4-0 V. Economic Development Committee (EDC) A. Inlet Island Urban Renewal Project 1. Review Sponsor’s 8/8/22 Development Program Submission Bohn walked through a brief overview of the ENA process: The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) identifies the negotiation steps potentially leading to a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for sale of IURA/City lands on Inlet Island to the project Sponsor: Finger Lakes Development, LLC. The ENA also includes: Approved: 10/27/22 IURA Minutes August 25, 2022 Page 2 of 9 • Performance milestones for Developer and IURA. • Anticipated development program subject to negotiation. • Developer and IURA responsibilities. • Major issues to be resolved. • Essential terms and conditions. To date, the Developer and IURA have met their performance milestones. The Developer submitted a revised proposal on August 8, 2022. The task before the IURA is to: (1) review the 8/8/22 submission for completeness; (2) determine if the proposed development program requires further clarifications or negotiation; and (3) determine if it sufficiently resolves 12 pre-identified issues in Section IV of the ENA. If the IURA determines the Developer submitted a complete proposal and the proposed development program is acceptable (or acceptable with specific conditions), the next step is for the IURA to propose terms and conditions for a DDA. Bohn then reviewed the following DDA schedule: Bohn explained the Committee reviewed/discussed the most recent project proposal at its August 23, 2022 meeting and concluded some issues remain to be resolved, thereby requiring the time extension. (Farrell arrived at 8:35 a.m.) Proulx noted, to successfully implement the project, City needs to acquire the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary property. Discussions with New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) have progressed relatively well, but several details need to be worked out, impacting the timeline. Proulx added he and Bohn will summarize the unresolved issues and concerns raised by the Committee in the form of a memorandum to the developer [WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY E-MAILED TO FLASH ON 8/31/22 AND INCORPORATED BELOW]. IURA Minutes August 25, 2022 Page 3 of 9 MEMORANDUM To: Steve Flash, Finger Lakes Development, LLC From: Chris Proulx, Chair, IURA Nels Bohn, Director of Community Development, IURA Re: Unresolved Issues for Inlet Island Urban Renewal Project Date: August 31, 2022 Thank you for team’s August 8 submission of the proposed development program for the Inlet Island Urban Renewal Project, and for your participation at both the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and IURA Board meetings last week. We remain enthusiastic about the core program components of your proposal: • 54 units of affordable housing will allow working families to affordably live on the Island in a growing part of City otherwise being developed with market-rate housing; • The development of City's only waterfront hotel. Tourism IS important to our economy and a waterfront hotel will be a draw while converting tax-exempt property into property and rooms tax revenue for the City, County and ICSD; and • General aesthetic improvements to the undeveloped/underdeveloped acreage on the development site. However, to move toward a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement, in keeping with the schedule outlined in our resolution last week, we wanted to clarify the issues that still need to be resolved to the IURA’s satisfaction. The list below is our summary of these issues. Please reach out if further clarification or discussion is needed. Program Component Objective Status Ground Level Activity ENA Sections II.A.7 and IV.F “Developer shall include strategies to enhance ground-level activity and attract residents to the Inlet Island waterfront without reducing the competitiveness of the affordable housing to secure funding.” “The development program shall include public amenities and programming to enhance ground- level activity and attract City residents to Inlet Island in a manner that does not result in a reduction of the proposed affordable housing units in the project.” ENA Section IV.F We don’t believe the current program meets the objective as set forth by Common Council and the IURA. We did not identify anything in the August 8 submission that enhanced the Program from your original submission. We encourage the developer to be creative in its next response. This is an attractive and central site at the heart of the waterfront and the programming should be reflective of such. Furthermore, the team’s responses to EDC questions seemed to further dilute the few proposed components of ground level activity in the current plan; specifically: • The inclusion of only a private-access playground is unacceptable. We understand the issues with INHS funding sources but suggest you consider construction of the playground with other sources that would allow this amenity to be available to all. • The waterfront promenade (see below.) • The lack of any amenities to support passive recreation on the site (benches, swings, tables, potable water, etc.) IURA Minutes August 25, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Program Component Objective Status Public Waterfront Access ENA Section II.A.3 Improvements to support and expand waterfront access. ENA Section IV.L The current program does not fully meet the objective of demonstrating how it is expanding waterfront access and ensuring that such users can approach and circulate through the site in a continuous and coherent manner. We strongly encourage that the Developer either commit to upgrading the promenade on the western waterfront or provide funds for the City to do the same, such that the materials and signage are consistent with Cayuga Waterfront Trail standards and not just enables but encourages the public to use it. With respect to the promenade, also clarify how the circulation will continue past Lookout Point and loop back through the site on the eastern side; ensuring a continuous loop constructed to the same standard as noted above. Any public access routes on private property should be clearly signed. Access to the kayak launch dock needs to be better connected to the proposed circulation, be of adequate width, be proximate to parking, and provide for at least short-term watercraft storage. Also, clarification is needed with respect to specific investments being made by the Developer vs. those being requested by the City for connecting other sidewalks and footpaths in the site to the City’s existing grid. Coast Guard Auxiliary ENA Section II.A.6, Retention of USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 2-2 ENA Section IV.I The current accommodations being offered by the Developer are unclear; how much space? What terms and conditions? Adequacy to meet USCG Aux needs? Indication of support from USCG Aux. In our view, the mere availability of a conference room in the Hometel, rented at par with other users, is not a sufficient accommodation. Marina Operations ENA Sections II.A.F and IV.E The IURA shares the developer’s commitment to maintaining a working waterfront. The August 8 submission provides accommodations in the site plan to ensure ongoing viability of the Finger Lakes Boating Center (FLBC), which are acceptable to us. However, the submission appears to walk back prior proposals to upgrade the aesthetics of the FLBC facility, provide on-site solar, and expand waterfront views to the east. If on-site solar is not financially feasible, we would still expect the developer to specifically address in their next submission how they will meet the other provisions of this section of the ENA. IURA Minutes August 25, 2022 Page 5 of 9 Program Component Objective Status Final Project Site ENA Section IV.B Upon review, it seems that the size of the INHS parcel (for which the Developer seeks a discounted purchase price) is larger than is needed for the housing component and is unprogrammed for any public use or amenities. We are willing to consider a discounted purchase price for the land required for affordable housing, but we suggest the Developer re-visit the allocation to ensure it is the minimum lot size required for the housing component, or indicate how they plan to provide other community benefits in exchange. Several verbal clarifications provided at the 8/23/22 EDC meeting should be incorporated in a revised submission: • Sponsor-proposed improvements within the Old Taughannock Blvd. R.O.W. are solely the responsibility of the Sponsor unless City expressly agrees to install and/or fund such improvements. • Boat-related outdoor storage west of Old Taughannock Blvd. will be limited to Spring and Fall seasonal storage within the “Flex Space” shown on the site plan. • Areas of public access on private property are identified on the site plan. Finally, there are three open issues that need further clarification from both parties: • The property boundary on the west side needs clarification; specifically, do the parcels to be conveyed include or exclude the 25-foot NYSDEC easement? • Language acceptable to both parties that outlines what types of expenses may be included in the definition of “ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION” for the purposes of deducting such costs from the agreed- upon purchase price to be paid to the IURA/City. • Language acceptable to both parties that outlines the contingency related to the required conveyance of lands from New York State to the City/IURA that are confirmed to be free of environmental hazards not requiring mitigation. We look forward to working with you to resolve these issues at the October 11, 2022 Economic Development Committee meeting. Nels or I can be available to further discuss these issues if it would be helpful. Proulx remarked many issues will need to be resolved as part of the Planning and Development Board’s (P&DB) Site Plan Review (SPR) process, as well as negotiations with the City’s Transportation Engineer. Fleming asked for clarification about the resolution’s next-to-last “Whereas” clause, which mentioned that several issues require additional information from the developer. She asked if those issues are limited to concerns with the playground and pool. Proulx responded that those issues fit more broadly under the whole category of community benefits made accessible to the public (e.g., open grassy areas, additional pedestrian connections, upgrading kayak dock), which the Committee does not believe are yet sufficient to satisfy Common Council’s request. IURA Minutes August 25, 2022 Page 6 of 9 Proulx remarked the following definition of “Ground-Level Activity” was provided by Common Council, but it requires more clarity: GROUND-LEVEL ACTIVITY: The development program shall include public amenities and programming to enhance ground-level activity and attract City residents to Inlet Island in a manner that does not result in a reduction of the proposed affordable housing units in the project. Fleming recalled voting against the additional Ground-Level Activity requirement, since she thought the City was already asking enough of the developer. She believed the ground-level public access requirement would make the whole project infeasible; and Common Council also did not provide specific enough guidance on what it was requesting. Proulx replied he was concerned the developer would spend too much time and resources on the project design, without any reasonable assurance Common Council would approve it. There is considerable ambiguity about what is expected of the developer, so it would be ideal if other community benefits could be clearly identified. Farrell agreed the playground should be more accessible to the public, although it seems perfectly reasonable for the pool to remain private. She suggested allowing food trucks access to the project site, which would make it feel more open to the public, while not being unduly onerous for the developer. Graham agreed the playground should be publicly accessible and the pool could remain private. In terms of the environmental clean-up issue, he asked if the map’s illustration of the remediation area is the true extent of all the necessary clean-up. Bohn responded that the initial environmental investigation and borings were done on the former Agway property, south of the Coast Guard Auxiliary site, which has been documented quite clearly at this point. What is not necessarily as clear, however, is if there is any contamination on the DEC site (although DEC has stated that no contamination exists). IURA Minutes August 25, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Fleming asked what kind of discussion has taken place about the “Flex Space (Reinforced Lawn”) area on the Schematic Plan. Proulx responded the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary building needs to be demolished, because it intrudes into the 25-foot easement. While it is conceivable only a portion of the building could be demolished, doing so would render the building functionally obsolete. The “Flex Space (Reinforced Lawn”) area is necessary for the seasonal boat operations. Flash explained the “Flex Space (Reinforced Lawn”) area would provide temporary room for equipment storage during the busiest times. In the summer season, when boats are in the water, the area would be available for other uses, when it should provide more of a sense of openness and greenness. Farrell asked which is the busiest season for hauling boats in and out of the water. Flash responded the busiest hauling season would be September-October, while the busiest launching season would be April- early June. Farrell observed since the playground is near water, it would presumably be fenced and feel private, even if it were made available to the public. Proulx explained that INHS is actually prohibited from making the playground open to the public, due to one of its funding partners’ requirements. Identifying another funding source for the playground would allow it to be situated in a more public and accessible location. 2. Amendment #1 to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement — Time-Extension Proulx moved, seconded by Farrell: Inlet Island Urban Renewal Project — Amendment #1 to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement WHEREAS, the IURA and the City of Ithaca collectively own approximately 2.5 acres of underutilized land on Inlet Island (Project Site), and WHEREAS, in April 2021, the IURA issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) for conceptual development proposals at the Project Site, and WHEREAS, the IURA sought an urban renewal project that will improve the physical, social, and economic characteristics of the project site and surrounding area, and advance goals and objectives of the 2015 City’s comprehensive plan, and its Waterfront Plan chapter adopted in 2019, and WHEREAS, The Waterfront Plan encourages the following land use objectives:  Mixed-use development  Housing opportunities at all income levels  Public access to the waterfront  Better multi-modal connections  Vibrant waterfront, and IURA Minutes August 25, 2022 Page 8 of 9 WHEREAS, on June 24, 2021, the IURA selected Finger Lakes Development, LLC (Sponsor), pursuant to section 507 of General Municipal Law, to sponsor a proposed Inlet Island Urban Renewal project based on their conceptual RFEI submission, subject to the following conditions: • Commitment from the developer to share environmental clean-up costs; • Clarification of Finger Lakes Boating Center’s commitment to make improvements, in terms of visual access and limited boat storage; • Commitment by the developer to address the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary’s need to maintain its water access and continued operations; and be it further WHEREAS, in consultation with Common Council, a project objective was clarified to read: GROUND-LEVEL ACTIVITY: The development program shall include public amenities and programming to enhance ground-level activity and attract City residents to Inlet Island in a manner that does not result in a reduction of the proposed affordable housing units in the project, and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the IURA entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with the Sponsor, establishing a framework for negotiations, including a list of development and feasibility “issues to be resolved”, and performance milestone schedules, and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2022, Sponsor submitted a detailed development program and other project information specified in section III of the ENA, and WHEREAS, per the ENA, upon receipt of a complete Sponsor submission the IURA shall submit a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement to the Sponsor within 30 days or seek a time extension via resolution of the IURA, and WHEREAS, should IURA submit a proposed DDA, Sponsor has a 15-day period to execute the agreement or submit a counteroffer, or the ENA terminates, and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the IURA Economic Development Committee reviewed the Sponsor’s submission against pre-identified development and feasibility issues to be resolved, and noted several issues require additional information from the Sponsor, and WHEREAS, the EDC further expresses concerns for the following terms proposed by the Sponsor: • Cost of environmental cleanup – open-end exposure of IURA/City for cleanup expenses incurred by Sponsor, and • Improvements in the public ROW – developer suggests City should be responsible to make changes in the ROW shown on their site plan, which conflicts with terms of the ENA; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the IURA finds that the 8/8/22 Sponsor submission does not satisfactorily address all issues necessary to structure a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement and requests Sponsor to agree to a time extension to address issues and concerns identified at the 8/23/22 EDC meeting, and resubmit development program materials at least seven days prior to the next IURA EDC meeting (currently scheduled for October 11, 2022), and be it further IURA Minutes August 25, 2022 Page 9 of 9 RESOLVED, that the IURA hereby approves an amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement to extend the date of developer submission of project materials as referenced above, and modifies the date for the IURA to submit a proposed DDA to November 1, 2022, and be it further RESOLVED, that should the Sponsor not agree to the IURA-requested time extension by August 29, 2022, staff is directed to develop and submit a proposed DDA that resolves issues and concerns solely to IURA preferences, as determined by the IURA Chair, to satisfy the September 7, 2022 deadline in the ENA for the IURA to submit a proposed DDA. Carried Unanimously: 5-0 B. Committee Chairperson Report None. VI. Other Business A. IURA Chairperson Report Proulx reported he has been recruiting new members for both the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and Neighborhood Investment Committee (NIC). Any suggestions for other good candidates would be welcome. B. Mayor’s Report Lewis reported that two special committees have been appointed, one as part of the Reimagining Public Safety Collaborative and the other to review the Proposed Policy Regarding Encampments on City Property. The City Administration Committee also recently viewed an informative presentation by Flock Safety, which proposes to use license plate readers to provide investigative leads to law enforcement to increase safety, reduce violence, and solve crimes. C. Common Council Liaison Report None. D. Staff Report Bohn reported that HUD reviewed and approved the City’s 2022HUD Entitlement Program Action Plan. The IURA’s 2022 contracts will start being executed over the next few months. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:22 A.M. — END — Minutes prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn.