HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-IURAED-2018-03-13Approved: 3/27/18
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 274-6565
MEETING MINUTES
ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
Economic Development Committee (EDC)
3:00 PM, Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, NY
Present: Chris Proulx, Chair; Doug Dylla, Vice‐Chair; Leslie Ackerman; Heather Harrick;
Charles Hamilton
Excused: None
Vacancies: 1
Staff: Nels Bohn; Charles Pyott
Guests: Tim Kalnin, Ithaca‐Peak Development, LLC (developer)
Robert Kochansky, Ithaca‐Peak Development, LLC (developer)
Timothy Fish, Cooper Carry (architect)
James Trasher, CHA (consulting engineer)
Andy Breuer, Hueber‐Breuer (general contractor)
Ken Czarnecki, Hueber‐Breuer (general contractor)
Jeff Rimland (developer)
I. Call to Order
Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 3:03 P.M.
II. Agenda Additions/Deletions
None.
III. Special Topic ― Green Street Parking Garage Redevelopment: Request for Proposals (RFP)
Bohn explained that urban renewal law authorizes the IURA to negotiate the price of a property,
on behalf of the City of Ithaca. It can also establish the required public benefits and terms of any
development proposals it receives, and then designate a sponsor or preferred developer. If the
IURA agrees to designate Ithaca‐Peak Development, LLC as a sponsor, it would initiate an exclusive
90‐day negotiation period. A disposition and development agreement would then be created and
submitted to Common Council for a Public Hearing. Common Council could then approve the
proposal/agreement, request revisions, or reject it.
Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
IURA EDC Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 2 of 8
IV. Proposal Presentation by Developer
Fish presented the project’s conceptual plan and design concept:
“The new mixed‐use project is driven by 3 guiding principles: Connection, Context, and
Activity.
The new building will be home to 404 apartments, residents’ amenities space, a Meeting
Center, 450 parking spaces, and crowned with a resident’s Club Room. The building form is
divided into a pair of “bookend” towers with a low‐rise center portion featuring an active
roof area. The first floor houses residential lobbies, amenities spaces, meeting center and
retail, in addition to the existing movie theater. The second and third levels are dedicated to
parking. The east and west towers have 10 floors of residential units each while the center
has 3 floors of residential units.
Each tower is different in plan and façade treatment to create a variety of scale as you find
in the Commons and surrounding area. The architecture of the buildings is consistent with
the scale, form and fenestration of the urban context.
One of the project goals is to replace the aging east and west sections of the City parking
deck. These will be rebuilt with the same number of levels while the center section will
remain. The new parking structures will maintain the footprint of the existing garage except
the round stair on the west side will be removed to create additional on grade parking and
urban landscaping area. The new project will reinforce the existing connections by
extending Dairy Alley to Green Street and announcing the meeting center to North Aurora
Street on the East. The first floor residential lobbies, amenities spaces, meeting center and
retail will bring activity and life to Green Street. By utilizing and renovating the ground floor
of the Rothschild building, the meeting center and east residential tower will have a direct
pedestrian connection to the Commons. The new parking will continue to have direct access
into the hotel from levels P2 and P3 as it does today.
In order to improve the streetscape of Green Street, additional on‐street parallel spaces will
be added and appropriate street furniture will be provided. On the 3rd floor, long‐term and
valet parking will be utilize a vehicle lift system. This allows one car to be stacked above
another in 12 feet vertical space. As ride share services continue to gain popularity and
autonomous cars come online, the number of utilized parking spaces will decline. This
configuration of lifts in a taller parking level helps the building adapt to changing needs by
facilitating conversion to other uses such as retail, office or amenities, as parking is no
longer needed.
The meeting center would serve as an amenity not only to the building residents and
adjacent hotel, but to the City at large. Inspired by the City’s study to provide ballroom
spaces, we envision a large ballroom and smaller meeting room that could be rented for a
variety of uses including weddings, conventions, lectures and trade shows.”
IURA EDC Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 3 of 8
Trasher explained that other project details and specifications can be found in the proposal, which
includes 38 workforce housing units and a total investment of $122M. The applicants would also
pursue other funding sources as part of the project (e.g., New York State Consolidated Funding
Application, PILOT agreements). If approved, construction would begin in early 2019, with the
first phase of the project (East Tower) completed by August 2020.
V. Committee & Public Questions About Proposal
Harrick asked if the parking spaces would be managed by the City of Ithaca. Trasher replied the
applicants do not intend to manage the parking, so they would seek to formalize that, either with
the City or a third party.
Harrick asked if the applicants’ other projects have conference center spaces. Trasher replied the
applicants proposed the conference center in response to the RFP’s requirements. It seemed a
good amenity to connect to the Ithaca Marriott.
Harrick asked if the applicants believe they can make the conference center work. Trasher replied,
yes, but the conference space would be operated by an independent party.
Proulx explained he will be periodically reading the written questions from the public to the
applicants, as they are received. He asked if the applicants determined precisely how many
parking spaces would be designated for the public, residents, and Ithaca Marriott guests, and to
what extent the applicants believe those parking spaces would satisfy demand. Trasher replied
the Marriott already has an agreement in place with the City for 90 parking spaces, which would
not change. In terms of meeting demand, the applicants based their calculations on discussions
with City officials and data on the underutilization of nearby garages. Some of the project’s
parking spaces would simply replace the currently unused Green Street Garage parking spaces.
Proulx asked if college students would be precluded from living in the rental units. Trasher
replied, no. It is not the applicants’ intent to exclude anyone.
Proulx asked if current ground‐floor parking would be retained. Trasher responded, some spaces
in the eastern corner would be preserved, but it would not be as many spaces.
Ackerman noted the project is supposed to create 8 full‐time jobs. She wondered if parking
attendants and conference center‐related jobs are included in that figure. Trasher replied, yes.
Ackerman asked if the parking attendants and conference center‐related jobs would be operated
by the applicants themselves. Trasher replied, no.
Dylla observed the project includes new on‐street parking configurations. He wondered how that
would be feasible, given that the State has authority over Green Street. Bohn responded the
City/IURA will not be counting on‐street parking as part of the project.
IURA EDC Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 4 of 8
Proulx asked what lease terms the applicants would propose to the City for the conference center.
Kalnin replied that needs to be negotiated.
Harrick asked if the applicants employed similar calculations in determining the proportion of
community/public space and retail space for their other projects, or if this particular project is
distinct from those. Kalnin replied it is distinct from the other projects.
Dylla wondered if the applicants considered providing more retail space, instead of some private
amenities space. Trasher replied, yes, but they wanted to avoid competing with surrounding retail
businesses. They certainly sought to energize the block as much as possible and improve the
alignment from Green Street to the Commons.
Ackerman asked if the applicants would be open to including more retail space. Trasher replied,
yes.
Dylla asked if the rooftop space would only be accessible to residents, or if it would be semi‐
public. Trasher replied the applicants’ initial conversations envisioned it being semi‐public (but
primarily used by people living in the immediate vicinity). It would also include some green,
landscaped components.
Proulx read a question from a member of the public regarding how the City can justify approving a
project with less than 50‐60% low‐income/affordable housing. A separate housing‐related
question asks how the applicants arrived at the figure of 38 affordable units and the number of
other unit types. Kalnin replied the applicants targeted 10% of the total number of units as
affordable housing to arrive at the 38‐unit figure. But they would certainly be open to revisiting
that figure, if need be. To determine the rental rates, they employed the IURA housing profile.
The affordable units are intended for people making 90% or more of Area Median Income (AMI).
Trasher stressed the applicants have implemented other projects in municipalities with similar
requirements and they succeeded in making them financially feasible. They have recorded the
questions and comments from today’s meeting and will identify potential revisions to the project.
He cautioned that 50‐60% affordable housing would not be financially feasible.
Hamilton observed the applicants list 6.98% as the “Return on Cost” in the proposal, but he
wondered if that includes parking. Kalnin replied, yes, although he does not know what the
Return on Cost for parking alone is. Hamilton asked how flexible the investors would be on the
6.5% return on investment. Kalnin replied that figure is a starting point. Hamilton indicated he
would very much like to see the overall return on investment figure for the project, so the
City/IURA can make an informed decision. He would prefer to see significantly more than 10% of
the units designated as affordable housing, before considering the project.
IURA EDC Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 5 of 8
Proulx noted the applicants refer to the Danter Study in their proposal as a reference for their
housing calculations, but they suggest Ithaca’s housing demand is softer than some of the figures
in the Danter Study. He asked what the proposed number of units was based on. Trasher replied
there is always some degree of risk in evaluating current rental demand vs. projecting future
demand, but the investment group ultimately felt comfortable designating 10% of the units as
affordable. The applicants would, however, be willing to provide more detailed Return on Cost
figures and further develop the proposal, in terms of the number of affordable units and the
percentage of AMI.
Ackerman noted the project targets graduate students and young professionals; however, most
graduate students and young professionals in Ithaca earn significantly less than 100% AMI, so they
would not be able to afford the market‐rate units. She stressed that what Ithaca lacks the most is
affordable housing. Trasher replied the applicants will review their proposal in light of all the
comments and take another look at their calculations.
Hamilton asked if the applicants could provide a general sense of the financial returns they have
made on other projects. Kalnin replied he could provide that.
Hamilton asked if full‐time staff employed on‐site would be able to afford living there, as well.
Trasher replied, yes. That has also been the case with their other projects. Hamilton asked if food
service or maintenance staff, specifically, would be able to afford the units. Trasher replied, he
does have enough information to respond, so he could not speak to that point.
Proulx asked how much the applicants would personally profit from the project. Trasher replied,
as previously noted, the applicants would be willing to provide more information on their
investment returns. Kalnin added he would definitely need a little time to provide those figures.
Hamilton suggested if the project could benefit from the City/IURA leveraging additional funding in
order to include more affordable housing, then the applicants should identify what that funding
level should be. Trasher replied they would certainly be willing to do that.
Ackerman noted the proposal mentions receiving $7M in grant funding from New York State. She
asked if that funding has been secured. Trasher replied the grant application process is highly
competitive, so it is definitely not a certainty by any means. Ackerman asked what the impact
would be on the project if that $7M is not received. Trasher replied there would be less return on
investment, so it would certainly present a challenge. Kochansky added the applicants would
need to figure out how to off‐set the loss.
Proulx asked if the applicants would guarantee employing local labor for the construction phase.
Trasher replied the applicants use a regional general contractor and they prefer to use as much
local labor as possible.
IURA EDC Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 6 of 8
Breuer added Hueber‐Breuer is a regional company, accustomed to complying with municipal
local labor expectations and requirements; so that would be a very reasonable expectation (with
the exception of some specialized labor skillsets that would be harder to find locally). It would be
reasonable to expect they could employ at least 75% local labor.
VI. Public Comments (3‐minute max. per person)
JOHN DRISCOLL asked if there were any green/sustainable components to the project. Fish replied,
not at this point. Driscoll noted the applicants mentioned the importance of connecting the
project to the Commons and other areas; however, he believes more could be done along those
lines. He would like to see as much connectivity as possible (e.g., along the eastern portion of the
site). The project should provide as much public space as possible. Fish replied the applicants
have certainly sought to make the project as connected and open as possible, particularly on the
Green Street side.
DAVE CARSWELL (Harold’s Square Project Development Team) expressed concerns about the
project’s density and wondered if the Commons could support it. He has serious concerns about
the amount of parking being provided, given that parking appears to be at full capacity already.
He would also be curious to see if the City/IURA would be open to other potential development
concepts (e.g., enhancing/augmenting existing parking capacity and creating more community
spaces).
DAVID LUBIN (Harold’s Square Project Developer) expressed similar concerns with the parking
situation. He believes, by the time the three projects currently under construction are completed,
maximum parking capacity will have been achieved. The Commons is highly dependent on
parking. The project would also be removing loading zones, which are vital to the Commons.
ROGER FREEMAN noted he attended a recent meeting regarding a feasibility study for a conference
center in Ithaca, which appeared to suggest the city needs another hotel for it to be feasible. He
also does not believe the proposed mix and configuration of living units is needed downtown.
Relocating City Hall to the project site would make more sense. The project needs to be revisited.
CYNTHIA BROCK (Common Council Member) suggested the project include two ADA‐accessible
elevators for the parking areas. She would also like to see the affordable units targeted to
residents at no more than 80% of AMI, with the units incorporated uniformly into the rest of the
project. She suggested the project include services that support families (e.g., gym, daycare). In
terms of the project’s full‐time jobs, she would like to know if they would be Living Wage jobs.
Finally, the project needs a Deed Restriction to guarantee that no gun sales or other gun‐related
activities are permitted in the conference center.
IURA EDC Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 7 of 8
DEBORAH DAWSON (Tompkins County Legislator) agreed with the other commenters that the project
needs to be reconsidered. She is concerned with the parking situation. The project should also
have more affordable housing units.
AMANDA KIRCHGESSNER emphasized that only the most economically inclusive projects are genuinely
sustainable in the long‐term. The proposed project would do little to help make Ithaca more
affordable. She suggested the project be made less lavish for residents. She does not like the
project as currently conceived.
Proulx noted he received two final questions/comments from members of the public: (1) The
City/IURA originally indicated it would be open to proposals only seeking to use a portion of the
site, but that was not reflected in the RFP; and (2) Even with the additional parking, there would
not be enough to meet the needs of project residents, hotel guests, commuters, and visitors.
VII. Review of Urban Renewal Process for Sale & Development of Project Site
IURA Designation of “Sponsor”
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ― Term Sheet
Draft Disposition & Development Agreement
Public Hearing & Common Council Approval
At this time, Bohn explained, the Committee can either: (1) recommend that the IURA approve the
project and enter into an exclusive negotiation agreement; (2) table the project and ask for more
information from the applicants; or (3) deny the proposal. He cautioned that issuing a new RFP
would most likely not result in anything dramatically different from the current proposal.
Hamilton asked, if the IURA requested more information, would it be able to solicit other ideas at
the same time. Bohn replied he does not believe so, unless the applicants choose to invite
partners to join them.
Bohn stressed there is some time‐sensitivity associated with the process, since the garage has
structural deficiencies that need to be resolved soon. Issuing a new RFP and receiving responses
would take three months.
Dylla expressed concern only one proposal was received. He would like to see more work done on
the current proposal to address the housing and parking concerns that have been expressed. He
would also like to see more connections to the Commons, more retail space, and more public
amenities, all of which seem resolvable through further negotiation.
Harrick remarked the public parking and housing concerns definitely need to be addressed. She
liked the recommendation to make the project less lavish for residents. She suggested the
developer re‐examine how the conference center and parking would be managed, since that may
provide the applicants with additional revenue.
IURA EDC Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 8 of 8
Hamilton indicated he would like considerably more information from the applicants, including a
proposal for more affordable housing. He would also like to know what the cut‐off points are in
terms of what would be financially feasible for the applicants, based on a variety of different
project designs/scales and returns on investment.
Ackerman agreed with all Hamilton’s points. She is especially interested in creating as many
affordable housing units as possible for long‐term community residents and their families. She
would also like the project scaled down to some extent, given the existing density on/around the
Commons.
Proulx indicated the City has very few available sites suitable for large projects of this kind, so he
personally believes it makes sense for it to be as dense as possible, in this case. He agrees there is
an unfortunate tension between parking demand and parking capacity. It would be helpful to
have more information from people who have performed parking analyses.
Hamilton suggested asking the applicants to return with more information, as soon as feasible. No
objections were raised.
It was tentatively agreed the applicants would return to further discuss the project at the next
Committee meeting: 3:00‐6:00 p.m., March 27th, 2018.
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 4:43 P.M.
— END —
Minutes prepared by C. Pyott, edited by N. Bohn.